Chapter II: Part 2

That certain negroes applied to Rev. Mr. Cummings, the Pastor of Christ’s Church, for religious instruction, and were allowed to meet for that purpose in the lecture room of the church. He (Sharp) occasionally visited the school and lectured to them. _He found that some of them could read very well_, but that when they came to the hard words, _he allowed them to skip over them_!

This was sufficient for my purposes. This witness, having at first denied that the members of that school were taught to read, when the question was pressed home, endeavored to escape the perils of his position by saying that _the ladies had all to do with that_! Oh, brave Mr. Sharp! You will henceforth be remembered in Norfolk as having crept under the ladies’ aprons in order to shelter yourself from the eye of the insulted law.

But, even after this, he admitted that the scholars were in possession of books, for he, himself, examined them, and found that some of them could read very well. He could not be mistaken about this, because he allowed them to skip over the hard words. This was his own language, and I here leave him where he left himself.

These books were, in many instances, the identical copies used in my school, and my only object in introducing this testimony was to show the jury that I had been doing only what was habitually done in this school, and that if I was guilty of a violation of the law, I had abundant precedents among the aristocracy of the city. This having been shown conclusively by the unwilling witness, Sharp, my case is ended.

The Prosecuting Attorney, who treated me with the utmost respect and deference throughout the whole proceedings, gallantly waived his right to address the jury first, and I proceeded with my closing speech as follows:--

“GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:

“I now deem it right and proper that you should know something of Mrs. Douglass, who stands before you charged with violating your laws. I do not plead guilty to this charge, for, in my opinion, to be a violator of any law or laws, the individual must know that they are such, which I did not, and had abundant precedents among those who should have known it, if they were such, for what I did. I am a Southern woman by birth, education, and feeling. I have been a slaveholder myself, and I would be again, if I felt so disposed. I am a native of and have always resided in a Southern slave State. The house of my childhood is as dear to me as my life, and I am as deeply interested in the welfare of Virginia, and of the whole united Southern slave States, as I am in the State of South Carolina; yes, and a great deal more so than very many who call themselves men. I am no abolitionist, neither am I a fanatic, and I am by education as strongly opposed as you are to the interference of Northern anti-slavery men with our institutions, although I believe that their principles are based on a religious foundation. I deem it the duty of every Southerner, morally and religiously, to instruct his slaves, that they may know their duties to their masters, and to their common God. Let the masters first do their duty to them, for they are still our slaves and servants, whether bond or free, and can be nothing else in our community. Let us not quarrel with our neighbors, but rather look around us and see what we have ourselves to do that we have left undone so long. I am a strong advocate for the religious and moral instruction of the whole human family. I have always instructed my own slaves, and will continue to do so as long as I remain in a slave State. Still, I am not disposed to violate the laws of any people or place where I may chance to reside. I cannot believe for a moment that this prosecution is a mere matter of dollars and cents, or that there is not one truly good and noble hearted man among you. Oh no; this I cannot and will not believe. Then let it be the welfare of your people and your country that you seek, and I am with you, heart and soul. This is a matter that calls for the consideration of every true and noble heart--the common welfare of our people. So far as my knowledge of human nature extends, the man who is born a coward, nursed in the lap of ignorance, and brought up a coward, naturally dies a coward. The application of this I leave to yourselves.

“The children whom I had for instruction were members of Christ’s Church Sunday-school. My own little servant was handed a primer by one of the teachers of that school, with the instruction that he must study his book, and attend the Sunday-school. He was made ready by myself or daughter, and sent every afternoon with his book, to that school. This was done for two years before I interested myself in these children in the form of a regular day-school. I believe it is not expected that ladies will come to the Court House to learn the laws, rules, and regulations of a city in which they may happen to reside. In my opinion, whatever the religious portion of the community is engaged in doing, whether in city, town, or country, is generally considered as lawful and proper. We took care of those children, visited them when sick, and ministered to their wants, and it was a pleasure for us to do so. Was there any thing wrong in this?

“Let us look into the situation of our colored population in city of Norfolk, for they are not dumb brutes. If they were, they would be more carefully considered, and their welfare better provided for. For instance, two or three of these people are not allowed to assemble together by themselves, whether in sickness or in health. There is no provision made for them, whatever the circumstances may be, and such meetings are pronounced unlawful and treasonable. Think you, gentlemen, that there is not misery and distress among these people? Yes, indeed, misery enough, and frequently starvation. Even those that are called free are heavily taxed, and their privileges greatly limited; and when they are sick, or in want, on whom does the duty devolve to seek them out and administer to their necessities? Does it fall upon you, gentlemen? Oh no, it is not expected that gentlemen will take the trouble to seek out a negro hut for the purpose of alleviating the wretchedness he may find within it. Why then persecute your benevolent ladies for doing that which you yourselves have so long neglected? Shall we treat our slaves with less compassion than we do the cattle in our fields?

“In my opinion, we have nothing to fear from the true blooded negro. It is the half-breed, or those with more or less white blood in their veins, whom I have always found presumptuous, treacherous and revengeful. And do you blame them for this? How can you? Ask yourselves the cause. Ask how that white blood got beneath those tawny skins, and let nature herself account for the exhibition of these instincts. Blame the authors of this devilish mischief, but not the innocent victims of it.

“As for myself, I shall keep on with my good work; not, however, by continuing to violate what I now know to be your laws, but by endeavoring to teach the colored race humility and a prayerful spirit, how to bear their sufferings as our Saviour bore his for us all. I will teach them their duty to their superiors, how to live, and how to die. And now, if ignorance of your peculiar laws is not a sufficient excuse for my violation of the letter of them, surely my good intentions, and the abundant examples set before me by your most worthy and pious citizens, ought to convince you that I was actuated by no improper motives, and had no ulterior designs against the peace and dignity of your Commonwealth. But, if otherwise, there are your laws: enforce them to the letter. You may send me, if you so decide, to that cold and gloomy prison. I can be as happy there as I am in my quiet little home; and, in the pursuit of knowledge, and with the resources of a well-stored mind, I shall be, gentlemen, a sufficient companion for myself. Of one consolation you cannot deprive me: I go not as a convicted felon, for I have violated no tittle of any one of the laws that are embodied in the Divine Decalogue; I shall be only a single sufferer under the operation of one of the most inhuman and unjust laws that ever disgraced the statute book of a civilized community.”

I here closed my remarks, after saying that if any counsellor present was disposed to speak in my behalf, he should receive my grateful thanks; but, no one responding, I passed into the jury-room, to await the result. I was informed that the Prosecuting Attorney made but a few remarks, not urging a conviction very strongly, but, of course, as in duty bound, correctly stating the law, in the case, to the jury. A number of gentlemen present came to me and tendered their congratulations on my address to the jury. I had spoken in a loud and distinct voice, duly emphasizing my words that they might have their full effect. I had spoken for nearly three-quarters of an hour, and felt somewhat exhausted, but by no means unnerved.

It was not long before I was informed that the jury were not likely to agree immediately upon a verdict, and I therefore returned home. They had some difficulty in coming to a unanimous verdict, and it was not until the morning of the third day that they rendered one of Guilty, but fixing the fine at one dollar, instead of one hundred. This verdict was to have been expected. There was no denial that the law, as it stood, had been disobeyed by me, and a verdict of guilty on the charge, as preferred, was therefore inevitable. The jury had it in their power to reduce the fine to a mere nominal sum, which they did, also fully believing that the judge would exercise the same discretion, and entirely remit the imprisonment attached to the offence. This was also the universal belief as well as general desire on the part of the community. I was not sent for on the rendition of the verdict; and, the court, having to adjourn, my sentence in form was deferred until the 10th day of January, 1854.

In order that the fidelity of my narrative may be attested by the evidence of the Virginians themselves, I will here insert an article that appeared in the Petersburg _Daily Express_, dated November 30th, 1853, and which was made up chiefly from the Norfolk _Daily News_. It was headed “Her Own Lawyer,” and I give it _verbatim_:--

“Quite a novel and highly interesting case has recently been tried before Judge Baker at Norfolk City. A Mrs. Margaret Douglass, formerly of Charleston, S. C., was arraigned one day last week, on a charge of teaching negro children to read and write, contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.

“By some means or other, as we learn from the ‘Daily News,’ a report had been previously circulated that the lady had determined not to employ the services of counsel, but to rely solely upon her own legal abilities in conducting her defence. This, as a matter of course, filled the court-room with persons anxious to witness the novel spectacle, and when she entered the court-room and took her seat among the lawyers, a most profound sensation was created.

“The jury had no sooner been empanneled, than the lady, without waiting for the examination of witnesses, or the opening remarks of the Attorney for the Commonwealth, proceeded in a clear and melodious voice, to the consideration of the charges set forth in the indictment.

“The surprise of the whole legal fraternity was so great, at this sudden revolution in the time honored practice of the Courts, that she had progressed considerably into the merits of the case, before his Honor recovered himself sufficiently to inform her, that it would be more regular to suspend her remarks until after the examination of witnesses was concluded. The lady readily assented to the proposition of his Honor, and the witnesses for the Commonwealth were called to the stand. By their testimony, it appeared that, some months ago, information reached his Honor, the Mayor, Simon S. Stubbs, Esq., of a school for the education of blacks, being in successful operation in the city of Norfolk, under the superintendence of Mrs. Douglass. A warrant was immediately issued, with directions to the officers to bring all parties concerned before him, in order that the matter might be investigated. Upon repairing to the residence of Mrs. Douglass, the officers found some eighteen or twenty youthful descendents of Ham engaged in literary pursuits, all of whom, with their teachers, Mrs. Douglass and her daughter, were taken into custody, and carried to the Mayor’s office. After a full investigation of the matter, his Honor decided to dismiss the complaint in order that a Grand Jury might have an opportunity of giving it consideration. At the meeting of the Grand Jury a true bill was found against Mrs. Douglass and her daughter, but the latter having previously gone to New York, process could not be served upon her. On the part of the defence, the lady examined several prominent and respectable gentlemen, members of the Church, for the purpose of showing that the practice of teaching blacks had been sanctified by the customs of the members of the different churches in the city in having Sunday-schools exclusively for that purpose. It did not appear from the evidence of any of the gentlemen called upon by Mrs. Douglass, that they had actually seen negroes taught _from books_ in any of the Sunday-schools of the City, but the fact, as stated by them, that nearly all of the negroes attending the Sunday-schools _could read_, gave rise to a violent suspicion that many of the ladies and gentlemen of our city, moving in the higher circles of society, had been guilty of as flagrant a violation of the law, as could be imputed to Mrs. Douglass and her daughter.

“At the conclusion of the evidence, the attorney for the Commonwealth kindly gave way for Mrs. Douglass to continue her appeal to the Jury, which was done on the part of that lady, in a manner that would have reflected credit on Miss Lucy Stone, or any other member of the ‘strong minded’ sisterhood. She disdained to deny the charge preferred against her, or to shirk the responsibility in any way whatever, but gloried in the philanthropic duties in which she had been engaged. She denied, however, any knowledge of the existing laws upon the subject, and confidently expected that the jury would not pronounce her guilty, for having committed no other offence than that of being betrayed into error--if such it was--by what she had deemed distinguished precedents. Having concluded her address she retired from the court, and the case was briefly concluded by the Attorney for the Commonwealth.

“The jury, being unable to agree upon a verdict the first day of the trial, were adjourned over until next morning, when they found the defendant guilty, and fined her one dollar.

“The _Beacon_ says, the Judge in passing sentence, according to the statute, will condemn her to imprisonment for not less than six months.”

During the interval that occurred between my conviction and the sentence of the Court, I obtained permission from the Court and Sheriff to visit New York, where I remained two weeks, and then returned with my daughter. This being so contrary to the expectations and wishes of the authorities and other public men of Norfolk, who were extremely anxious that I should never return, in order that, by branding me as a fugitive from justice, they might escape the disgrace and odium already attached to their proceedings, and thus get cleverly out of the difficulty; they were exceedingly incensed, and commenced a series of persecutions in the shape of personal attacks in some of the Norfolk papers, particularly the _Courier_ and the _Argus_. The editor of the _Courier_, W. Wallace Davis, was the ringleader in this movement, and was frequently in the habit of disgracing himself and his paper, and insulting the better class of the community, by indulging in such diatribes as no gentleman would ever suffer himself to be guilty of. It would seem as though the justice of Heaven had speedily overtaken him with its retributions, for it is but a few weeks ago that he died suddenly, as it is said from the effects of some great mental suffering, and it is not ungenerous to suppose that the stings of conscience, when he reflected upon his inhuman course towards me, became severer than he could endure. I leave him with his God.

To show that such were the wishes of the authorities and others, I quote the following passage from the Norfolk _Argus_, under date of February 9th, 1854. I quote the whole of the article here, though portions of it have reference to what occurred subsequently, as I may have, occasion to refer to the other passages. It is headed “Commonwealth _vs._ Mrs. Douglass,” and reads as follows:

“We publish to-day the judgment of Hon. Judge Baker in the case of Mrs. Douglass, which has much excited our citizens. The first time within the passage of the act forbidding the teaching of slaves or free colored persons to read or write, has a case of this description come under the jurisdiction of our Court, and it was singular that this case should be a woman. The jury found a verdict of guilty, and the law had to be sustained. Sympathy was aroused for Mrs. Douglass. It was revolting to the citizens to have a woman imprisoned in our jail, and every inducement was offered Mrs. Douglass to escape the punishment. The Court was obliged to adjourn its judgment over, and although a _capias_ was awarded, yet it was the hope and wish of every one that she would leave the city. But no; ‘a martyr’ she ‘would be to the cause of benevolence;’ and to cap the climax, she brought her daughter, a maiden of some seventeen summers, who had obeyed the injunctions of her mother, as a child should, to try the stern realities of the laws, and, to use her own language in defending her cause, ‘to glory in works of benevolence and charity to a race down-trodden.’ Then sympathy departed, and in the breast of every one rose a righteous indignation towards a person who would throw contempt in the face of our laws, and brave the imprisonment for ‘the cause of humanity.’

“The decision of Judge Baker is cogent and pungent, and will be read with interest. The laws must be upheld. It is not for the Judge to set upon the constitutionality or justice of the law; it is for him a sacred duty to impose the punishment meted out in the code. Virginia must keep in restraint the wire-workings of abolition sentiments. We have in this town suffered much from the aggression of Northern foes, and a strong cordon must encircle our domestic institutions. We must preserve from discord and angry passions our firesides and homesteads. We must preserve inviolate the majesty of laws necessary for the protection of our rights; and there is no one of intelligence and foresight who will pronounce the judgment unrighteous.

“Mrs. Douglass’s time will run out this week, and we have heard it stated from good authority, that her imprisonment will be a pecuniary reward to her. We hope that our citizens will prevent by all possible means any attempt to aid this woman, but let her depart hence with only one wish, that her presence will never be intruded upon us again. Let her seek her associates at the North, and with them commingle, but let us put a check to such mischievous views as fell from her lips last November, sentiments unworthy a resident of the State, and in direct rebellion against our Constitution.”

My readers will perceive two important concessions in this article; first, that mine was the first case that had ever been tried under that peculiar act since its passage, and that public sympathy was strongly excited in my favor: and secondly, that it was the hope and wish of every one that I should leave the city, and thus enable them to escape from the dilemma in which they were placed. Now, I submit to my readers whether it was not asking a little too much of me, that I should voluntarily allow myself to be branded as an escaped fugitive, and subject myself to be advertised as such in every newspaper in the country, have a price set upon my head, and be hourly liable to arrest by any officer, who thought it worth the trouble, wherever I might be. No, I was no coward; and, rather than place myself in such a position as that, I would have suffered my right hand to be cut off.

It must be said, however, that neither I, nor any one else, ever supposed for a moment, that I should receive any further punishment for my offence than the infliction of the nominal fine already fixed by the verdict of the jury. Justice did not require it, nor the cause of morality. My character was such that there was no cause to fear that I should break my pledge, and attempt to renew my school; and common gallantry alone should have led any gentleman, much more a dignified Judge, in whose sole discretion the matter rested, to have dealt with a woman as leniently as the strict letter of the law would allow. I rested in perfect security until the 10th day of January, 1854, when I was called before the Court, and received from Judge Baker, not only an unnecessarily long and discourteous reprimand, but a sentence to an imprisonment of one month in the city jail!

So astounded were the whole community at the shameless impudence of such a sentence, from a Judge whose own family had been engaged in the very same acts for which I was punished, that a number of the most respectable members of the Norfolk bar requested a copy of Judge Baker’s decision for publication, which correspondence, with the decision as then published, I here give entire:--

COMMONWEALTH vs. MARGARET DOUGLASS.

HON. RICHARD H. BAKER:

Dear Sir--The undersigned, members of the Norfolk Bar, earnestly ask at your hands a copy of the judgment this day pronounced in the case of Commonwealth _vs._ Douglass, for publication.

TAZEWELL TAYLOR,
M. COOKE,
H. WOODIS,
WM. G. DUNBAR,
SIMON S. STUBBS,
WM. T. HENDREN,
JNO. S. LOVETT,
P. P. MAYO.

_Jan. 10th, 1854._

“DECISION.

Upon an indictment previously found against you, for assembling with negroes to instruct them to read or write, and for associating with them in an unlawful assembly, you were found guilty, and a mere nominal fine imposed, on the last day of this Court held in the month of November. At the time the jury came in and rendered their verdict you were not in Court, and the Court being about to adjourn for the purpose of attending to other official duties in a distant part of the State, it was necessary and proper, under the law, to award a _capias_ against you, returnable to the present adjourned term, so that the judgment and sentence of the law may be fulfilled. The Court is not called on to vindicate the policy of the law in question, for so long as it remains upon the statute book, and unrepealed, public and private justice and morality require that it should be respected and sustained. There are persons, I believe, in our community, opposed to the policy of the law in question. They profess to believe that universal intellectual culture is necessary to religious instruction and education, and that such culture is suitable to a state of slavery; and there can be no misapprehension as to your opinions on this subject, judging from the indiscreet freedom with which you spoke of your regard for the colored race in general. Such opinions in the present state of our society I regard as manifestly mischievous. It is not true that our slaves cannot be taught religious and moral duty, without being able to read the Bible and use the pen. Intellectual and religious instruction often go hand in hand, but the latter may well exist without the former; and the truth of this is abundantly vindicated by the well-known fact that in many parts of our own Commonwealth, as in other parts of the country in which among the whites one-fourth or more are entirely without a knowledge of letters, respect for the law, and for moral and religious conduct and behaviour, are justly and properly appreciated and practised.

“A valuable report or document recently published in the city of New York, by the Southern Aid Society, sets forth many valuable and important truths upon the condition of the Southern slaves, and the utility of moral and religious instruction, apart from a knowledge of books. I recommend the careful perusal of it to all whose opinions concur with your own. It shows that a system of catechetical instruction, with a clear and simple exposition of Scripture, has been employed with gratifying success; that the slave population of the South are peculiarly susceptible of good religious influences. Their mere residence among a Christian people has wrought a great and happy change in their condition: they have been raised from the night of heathenism to the light of Christianity, and thousands of them have been brought to a saving knowledge of the Gospel.

“Of the one hundred millions of the negro race, there cannot be found another so large a body as the three millions of slaves in the United States, at once so intelligent, so inclined to the Gospel, and so blessed by the elevating influence of civilization and Christianity. Occasional instances of cruelty and oppression, it is true, may sometimes occur, and probably will ever continue to take place under any system of laws: but this is not confined to wrongs committed upon the negro; wrongs are committed and cruelly practised in a like degree by the lawless white man upon his own color; and while the negroes of our town and State are known to be surrounded by most of the substantial comforts of life, and invited both by precept and example to participate in proper, moral and religious duties, it argues, it seems to me, a sickly sensibility towards them to say their persons, and feelings, and interests are not sufficiently respected by our laws, which, in effect, tend to nullify the act of our Legislature passed for the security and protection of their masters.

“The law under which you have been tried and found guilty is not to be found among the original enactments of our Legislature. The first legislative provision upon this subject was introduced in the year 1831, immediately succeeding the bloody scenes of the memorable Southampton insurrection; and that law being found not sufficiently penal to check the wrongs complained of, was re-enacted with additional penalties in the year 1848, which last mentioned act, after several years trial and experience, has been re-affirmed by adoption, and incorporated into our present code. After these several and repeated recognitions of the wisdom and propriety of the said act, it may well be said that bold and open opposition to it is a matter not to be slightly regarded, especially as we have reason to believe that every Southern slave State in our country, as a measure of self-preservation and protection, has deemed it wise and just to adopt laws with similar provisions.

“There might have been no occasion for such enactments in Virginia, or elsewhere, on the subject of negro education, but as a matter of self-defence against the schemes of Northern incendiaries, and the outcry against holding our slaves in bondage. Many now living well remember how, and when, and why the anti-slavery fury began, and by what means its manifestations were made public. Our mails were clogged with abolition pamphlets and inflammatory documents, to be distributed among our Southern negroes to induce them to cut our throats. Sometimes, it may be, these libelous documents were distributed by Northern citizens professing Southern feelings, and at other times by Southern people professing Northern feelings. These, however, were not the only means resorted to by the Northern fanatics to stir up insubordination among our slaves. They scattered far and near pocket handkerchiefs, and other similar articles, with frightful engravings, and printed over with anti-slavery nonsense, with the view to work upon the feeling and ignorance of our negroes, who otherwise would have remained comfortable and happy. Under such circumstances there was but one measure of protection for the South, and that was adopted.

“Teaching the negroes to read and write is made penal by the laws of our State. The act imposes a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, to be ascertained by the jury, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, to be fixed and ascertained by the Court. And now, since the jury in your case has in my opinion properly settled the question of guilt, it devolves on me, under the law, to ascertain and decide upon the quantum of imprisonment under the circumstances of your trial and I exceedingly regret, that in being called on _for the first time_ to act under the law in question, it becomes my duty to impose the required punishment upon a female, apparently of fair and respectable standing in the community. The only mitigating circumstance in your case, if in truth there be any, according to my best reason and understanding of it, is that to which I have just refered, namely, you being a female. Under the circumstances of this case, if you were of a different sex, I should regard the full punishment of six months imprisonment as eminently just and proper. Had you taken the advice of your friends and of the Court, and had employed council to defend you, your case no doubt, would have been presented in a far more favorable light both to the Court and to the jury. The opinions you advanced, and the pertinacity and zeal you manifested in behalf of the negroes, while they indicated perfect candor and sincerity on your part, satisfied the Court, and must have satisfied all who heard you, that the act complained of was the settled and deliberate purpose of your mind, regardless of consequences, however dangerous to our peace.

“In conformity with these views, I am impelled by a feeling of common honesty, to say that this is not a case in which a mere formal judgment should be announced as the opinion of the Court. Something more substantial under the circumstances of this case, I think, is demanded and required. The discretionary power to imprison for the term of six months or less, in good sense and sound morality, does not authorise a mere minimum punishment, such as imprisonment for a day or week, in a case in which the question of guilt is free from doubt, and there are many facts and circumstances of aggravation. A judgment of that sort, therefore, in this case, would doubtless be regarded by all true advocates of justice and law as mere mockery. It would be no terror to those who acknowledge no rule of action but their own evil will and pleasure, but would rather invite to still bolder incendiary movements. For these reasons, as an example to all others in like cases disposed to offend, and in vindication of the policy and justness of our laws, which every individual should be taught to respect, the judgment of the Court is, in addition to the proper fine and costs, that you be imprisoned for the period of one month in the jail of this city.”

It is hardly necessary for me to dwell upon my feelings when I received this unexpected sentence. They were of course more interesting to me than to my readers. My narrative of the history of the case here properly terminates, it being only necessary for me to state that I was immediately incarcerated, and spent the month within the walls of a prison, one week of which was passed in sickness. I received every allowable attention from the jailor and his amiable wife, and even remained with them a day or two after my sentence expired.

All social ties that bound me to the people of Virginia were sundered by this act; I was free from any obligation due to their laws, and felt that I could be of no farther service to any one, whether white or colored. I therefore gathered together my little household goods, and, in the month of February last, removed with my daughter to the City of Philadelphia, where we are now quietly residing, happy in the consciousness that it is here no crime to teach a poor little child, of any color, to read the Word of God.

My readers will naturally expect from me sundry reflections in connection with my personal narrative. The subject itself naturally induces them, and I should be untrue to myself if I, a Southern woman, did not address the Southern people in terms which the occasion and circumstances justify. My remarks will be desultory and disconnected, as I am merely to record such thoughts as have occurred to me not only during the time that has passed since my conviction, but which had been previously forced upon me by carefully examining the condition of the Southern people in all their relations.

Many laws in Virginia, as elsewhere, have become _dead-letters_. Even in Norfolk itself, as well as generally throughout the State, the particular law infringed unknowingly by me, had long been held as such, and was violated daily and hourly by those who were regarded as leaders in society, in morals and in religion. But the opportunity was so good a one to make _me_ a victim, a sacrifice in expiation of all past offences and offenders, that it could not be overlooked. Caught and bound, I was laid upon the altar of the law, but did not experience the good fortune of Isaac. There was the fire and the wood--heartless judge and quibbling lawyers, and I was immolated. Was not such justice chivalrous? Were not such lawyers magnanimous?

Here is presented a somewhat singular state of things to exist in a State professing to be the most gallant and dignified of the whole Confederacy. A large number of negroes, amounting in value to between fifty and one hundred thousand dollars, have, within a short time, made their escape from Norfolk to a Northern port. This is a grievously sore evil, and decidedly practical loss. But what is the plan pursued? Why, after failing to secure a portion of them, all further efforts to obtain them are given up, and pure listlessness and indifference take the place of an active interest in favor of recovering or protecting their property. A meeting, advertised to call together slave-owners to suggest some plan of redress, meets with but a meagre and partial response, and the matter ends by permitting the whole outrage and grievance to die away among the idlest trifles of the day.

On the other hand, a _lady_ is caught, detected, entrapped, following in the wake of others, teaching a few free negroes to spell and read their Sunday lessons, and upon proof thereof, is put into a felon’s prison, and the ignominy, disgrace, and infamy even of a base criminal are said to be hers, by the bench and the press. If Northern vessels bear away the slaves of Norfolk, the height of revenge and recrimination seem to be found in venting upon a _Southern lady’s_ head the vindictiveness of individuals and the violence of the law. If Northern marshals refuse to perform their duties as slave-catchers under the Fugitive law, the whole matter, after a little feeling, is allowed to be forgotten; but, let a Southern lady presume to obey some of the gentlest and purest instincts of her nature and the teachings of charity, by instructing a few free black urchins of both sexes to read their Bibles, and the penalties of the law are visited upon her head, without any compunctions of conscience, any attention to the monitions of gallantry, or any regard to the restraints of a refined delicacy. Alas! for the boasted honor and honesty of the old Virginia nobility!

Here is a view of the case that may not be unworthy of attention: It is the energy of the white man that has made this country what it is, and his _alone_ that will make it what it is to be. To the sinew, the nerve, the strong arm, the moral and physical courage, and the genius of the Anglo-Saxon race, is the world indebted for the grand spectacle we now present as a great, happy and prosperous people; and to the same ennobling elements and excellencies in the composition of the white man will the vast republican empire, now spreading its arms over the whole earth, be indebted for its existence and perpetuation. Holding this view, it cannot be then said that I was educating negroes as rivals or competitors of my brothers and sisters of a superior race. Holding to this opinion, with a tenacity that is as inseparable from my judgment as is color from the Ethiopian,--knowing, as I do, from all history as well as all cotemporary observation and record, that the Caucasian race are the “most godlike,” and the authors of all in the arts and sciences that contributes most to man’s more refined tastes, pleasures, and ambition. I am sure that I could not, South nor North, attempt to change the “Ethiopian’s skin” in the vain endeavor to make him an equal--socially, politically, or even morally--with my own race. No such thing, however, was charged upon me. My offence consisted in teaching a few poor colored children, free by the laws of their own State, to read the Bible, the very book on which the institutions of our land are based. Common charity, then, would have attributed to me only a feeling of sympathy for a lower order of society; common charity, as had been the case before, in Virginia, would have looked with a lenient eye upon what _the want of all charity_ construed into a crime!

I feel impelled here to review briefly the decision of Judge Baker, in my case, and to make such remarks upon it as may seem pertinent. It will be seen that the letter requesting a copy of the decision for publication is signed by a number of the most respectable citizens of Norfolk, and an attempt has been made to identify them as entertaining the same opinions, and possessing the same want of sympathy, as the Judge himself. I am happy, however, to inform my readers that such is not the case. They, in common with the rest of the sensible portion of the community, were astounded by the decision, and merely desired to have on record the exact language and sentiments of this strange dispenser of justice, in order that they might know henceforth in what light to regard him. That he insulted the good sense and generous nature of the community in which he lived by so cowardly and unmanly a decision, and especially by his needless and uncalled for tirade addressed to me on passing sentence, he now well knows. The community have already placed the proper estimate upon him, and he is writhing under the double infliction of their contempt, and the stings of his own conscience. I have already stated the sudden and mysterious death of Mr. Davis, one of my bitterest persecutors, and am also informed that Judge Baker, since the rendering of his decision in my case, “has never been of exactly as equable and pleasant a frame of mind, but much more morose, snarlish, and nervous.” Poor man! He certainly has sufficient cause to be so.

The Judge admits in his decision, that there are persons in that community opposed to the policy of the law in question, and who believe that universal intellectual culture is necessary to religious instruction and education, and that such culture is suitable to a state of slavery. He, however, embraces the opportunity to state that he regards such opinions as “manifestly mischievous.” Hear, oh Earth! A Judge, in the most enlightened country in the world, and in the nineteenth century, believes that the intellectual culture of human beings is a crime! He professes to hold the Bible to be the word of God, and the very bulwark of our institutions--from it he derives the right to hold a portion of human beings in bondage--in it he sees the Divine command to every human soul to “search the Scriptures,” and yet says that a certain portion of the world must not obey this command, and that it is a crime to teach them to do so! Admirable logic! Oh, most righteous Judge! His real character may be better seen revealed in a subsequent sentence, wherein he argues that there is more respect for the law and for moral and religious conduct and behavior in those sections of Virginia, where even among the whites one-fourth or more are entirely without a knowledge of letters. Why, this man’s avowed principles would do away with education of any kind for any class of people! He would see his own State, proud and haughty Virginia, return to a state of barbarism, and completely shrouded in a pall of mental darkness! This is the inevitable conclusion from his own words. Is Norfolk, that little corner of the great Commonwealth, so far behind the age as to desire a state of things so earnestly deprecated in other sections of the State? Or is this sapient Judge alone the entertainer of such sentiments? Does he not know that the people throughout the old Commonwealth have become alarmed at their rapid degradation, and are petitioning their Legislature to devise measures to stop the downward tendency to utter ignorance? Has he never seen this short but momentous sentence, originally published in the Richmond _Whig_ of April 3d, 1854, viz:

“Every decade exhibits a rapid and fearful increase of this mass of ignorance. In 1840, the number of the unlettered in Virginia amounted to sixty thousand. In 1850, it exceeded eighty thousand. At this rate, it will not require many centuries to extinguish all knowledge of letters in the State.”

Here is a fact that every Virginian should ponder well. There is no doubt as to the data, and less as to the result, unless something is done at once to stay this doward current. Let them study the _real cause_ of this state of things, and not attribute it to any but the right one. Is the way to remove the evil properly commenced by imprisoning a woman for teaching a few little children to read? Again I say, oh, most righteous Judge!

But the hardihood of Judge Baker was evinced in his using the language quoted, when he knew that his most intimate friends, and even members of his own family had been and were engaged in doing with impunity what in me was a crime. How he can reconcile his treatment of me with his conscience, when he remembers this fact, is best known to himself. Probably his usual admirable logic will help him out of the dilemma. I am sure I cannot.

The learned Judge grows remarkably religious as he proceeds. He admits that “the slave population of the South are peculiarly susceptible of good religious influences.” He even dares to say that “their mere residence among a Christian people has wrought a great and happy change in their condition: they have been raised from the night of Heathenism to the light of Christianity, and thousands of them have been brought to a saving knowledge of the Gospel. Of the one hundred millions of the negro race, there cannot be found another so large a body as the three millions of slaves in the United States, at once so intelligent, so inclined to the Gospel, and so blest by the elevating influences of civilization and Christianity.” Allow me, oh wonderful judge! to ask you one simple question, which I much fear even your logic will be puzzled to answer. If such be the character and condition of the slave population, and the more, (as by your own showing,) they become acquainted with the principles of the Gospel, the more they conform to them, how is it that you regard as a crime, the giving them the instruction necessary to accomplish this purpose? Which horn of this dilemma will your Honor choose to be impaled upon? Sorry am I to be compelled to contradict a professed gentleman, but your Honor knew that you were telling an untruth when you uttered that sentence, and you knew also the _cause_ of the misery and degradation among Southern slaves, producing as it does a state of things which may well lead you to fear to have them instructed in any thing. I know that cause, also, and I am going to tell it boldly to my Southern brothers and sisters before I close my present labor.

You are pleased to term the exercise of the commonest dictates of humanity in me a “sickly sensibility” towards the colored race. Be it so. But I require the aid of no physician to heal me, and rather, would to God that my disease were contagious, and that I could therewith infect the entire South. A little portion of the _virus_ might perhaps not be unavailable even in your veins. If it be a “sickly sensibility” to yearn to impart to immortal souls, that instruction necessary to guide them through life and upwards towards heaven, I confess that I am guilty. This is the head and front of my offending--no less--no more.

The decision admits that the enactment under which I suffered was not to be found in the original code of Virginia, but the result of the experience and wisdom of the later inhabitants of that State. Certainly, the framers of the original laws of the old Commonwealth were men of too much sense and foresight, too Christian, too civilized, too human, to incorporate such a disgraceful law into their rules of government. That task was left to their degenerate sons of the present decade, and even then it could not be accomplished until eighty thousand of them had returned into that mental obscurity that characterized the dark ages. The law, on its very face, indicates that it was not the offspring of men of intelligence or common prudence. Any law declaring that any portion of human beings shall be denied the benefits of education, must spring from ignorance and error, and must inevitably lead to the same results universally. The defender of such a law voluntarily classes himself with those who made it, and those against whom it especially operates. Such a man is the Honorable Richard H. Baker.

The next paragraph of this venerable decision is so strangely constructed that I hardly know what to say of it. The Judge literally foams at the mouth and presents sad symptoms of hydrophobia. The expressions “Northern incendiaries,” “anti-slavery fury,” “inflammatory documents,” “cut-throats,” “Northern fanatics,” “anti-slavery nonsense,” &c., make up the entire paragraph. His Honor grows pale over a poor little inoffensive piece of muslin, with a picture upon it which he denominates “frightful.” He succeeds in working himself into a perfect fury, and about what? With nothing that I can see with which I, or the question before him, had anything to do. _I_ was not a Northern incendiary or fanatic, nor did I distribute any inflammatory documents or anti-slavery nonsense. I was a Southern woman, in every sense of the word, and he knew it. I used no books, except the Bible, or those which illustrated it, and he knew this also. The only escape for his honor is that he denounces the Bible as an inflammatory or incendiary document, and as such must not be taught to the slaves.

The Judge next regrets that I am a woman, for the modicum of gentlemanly honor and dignity which he has left, prevents him from exercising the full bent of his inclinations, and inflicting upon me the full penalty of the violated law. It is a pity he remembered that I was of the weaker sex, and I feel that I have no thanks to offer him for his proposed lenity, for, under the circumstances of the case, an imprisonment for six months would have been no severer than the one for thirty days. He admits that the jury had the power to regulate the amount of the fine, but claims that it was his prerogative to name the term of my imprisonment. The jury, it will be seen, made the fine merely nominal, thus attesting in the most emphatic manner their appreciation of the merits of the case. There was not a man on that jury who was not fully as capable of judging of right and wrong, as was he who occupied the bench. And yet he, this one man, had the hardihood to set his judgment over theirs, and virtually insult the whole twelve, by inflicting a punishment so severe that it was no charity to me not to have exercised his power to the fullest extent. He admits that I was of fair and respectable standing in the community, and knew from the evidence, as well as from his own knowledge, that I had abundant precedents for what I had done, and that, knowing the law, I had no intention of again violating it; also, that the feeling of the entire community was in my favor, and yet he wantonly, needlessly, and inhumanly exercised the authority with which he was clothed, in order to make an example of me, when I, by my forbearance, had refused to place scores of respectable ladies and gentlemen of Norfolk, and some of them members of his own family, in the unpleasant position which I then occupied. He even twitted me because I had not deemed it proper to employ counsel to defend me, intimating that my case would have been presented in a more favorable light to the Court and jury thereby. This shows the very blackness of his malice, for the jury did all they could, and I do not entertain the least feeling of anger towards one of them. They could not do otherwise than find me guilty of a violation of the law, as it stood, but they did all in their power to render its penalty nominal, by imposing upon me the lowest fine it recognized. It was the Judge himself who insulted the jury by virtually telling them their judgment was erroneous, and then he turns to me and says my case might have been more favorably presented if I had employed counsel!

The conclusion is obvious, that he was actuated, not by a desire to uphold the law and administer justice, but by some motive alike discreditable to him as a Judge and a man. With this conclusion, I leave him to settle with his own conscience. I have no disposition to call him hard names. He has done me all the injury he could, and though I may forgive him, I am satisfied that he never can forgive himself, or escape from the doom to which he has already been sentenced by every sensible and right thinking person in the community. Honorable Richard H. Baker, Judge of the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, I bid you an affectionate farewell.

I will here give to my readers a verbatim copy of the law under which I was prosecuted and convicted. It is copied from the code of Virginia, passed by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in the month of August, 1849, and will be found on page 747, chapter 198. It reads as follows:--

“Section 31. Every assemblage of negroes for the purpose of religious worship, when such worship is conducted by a negro, and every assemblage of negroes for the purpose of instruction in reading or writing, or in the night-time for any purpose, shall be an unlawful assembly: any Justice may issue his warrant to any officer, or other person, requiring him to enter any place where such assemblage may be, and seize any negro therein; and he, or any other Justice, may order such negro to be punished with stripes.