CHAPTER XIX.MARRIAGE.
Nothing, perhaps, is so repugnant to the northern mind as the notion that marriage does not exist among the “slaves” of the South, and the Abolition lecturers have given this subject the most prominent place in their terrible bill of indictment against their southern brethren. The spectacle, or the seeming spectacle, of four millions of human beings living without marriage, without family, without children, with nothing but offspring, shut out, like the brutes that perish, from all the household charities, and doomed to live in universal concubinage, as it has been termed, was, to the northern and European mind, such a stupendous outrage on “humanity,” that we need not wonder at their fierce indignation, or at the wild and unsparing denunciation heaped upon the authors of such boundless and unparalleled iniquity. Especially were northern women shocked and indignant, and above all others, the women of New England were excited at times to a “Divine fury” when contemplating this mighty “wickedness.” Our fair countrywomen are believed to be equally virtuous and lovely, but thedomesticeducation of those of New England, in some respects, is more admirable than that of others or any other country. They are taught to labor, to be their own housekeepers, to regard life, and the duties of life, as a solemn mission to be faithfully and conscientiously fulfilled, and though it imparts a certain materialism bordering on hardness, perhaps, to the New England woman, it is associated with such simple and transparentlove of truth, and such an earnest and abiding sense of duty, that the harsher features of the character are lost in these gentler and more exalted qualities. Hence they are taught to regard a violation of the family relation as the one most heinous and unpardonable sin. To women thus educated, with the utmost abhorrence of any violation of marital obligations, the seeming universal disregard of this relation, and the duties embraced in it, among the “slaves” of the South, was probably the most transcendent wrong that the mind could conceive of, and the “anti-slavery” delusion of the North has doubtless been increased to a considerable extent by this strictness or severity of female education. And if the facts were what they suppose, then indeed would their indignation and abhorrence be just enough, but strange that they should never have doubted or mistrusted these facts. Many of the most intelligent have known their sisters of the South, known them to be as virtuous, refined and womanly as themselves, and yet living every day of their lives in the shadow of this mighty wrong, and in the midst of this supposititious iniquity. Could that be possible? Could woman retain her purity, her womanly delicacy, or expand into the full stature of a true womanhood with such surroundings, in an atmosphere thus corrupt and corrupting, in a social condition where four millions of people were living without marriage, in open and utter disregard of the fundamental principle of morality as well as of social order? No, indeed, it could not be possible, and, as remarked, it is strange that the women of the North have not had misgivings of this kind, or have not mistrusted the assumedfactsof “negro slavery” in this respect. But before the actual facts involved are presented to the reader, it is necessary to clearly understand what marriage itself is. It may be defined as the pledge of two persons of different sex to live together for life—pledged to each other and tosociety, for the presence of witnesses to a marriage contract or a marriage ceremony has simply this meaning, and none other. With us marriage is a mere civil or legal contract. It is the same in France, and, to a certain extent, in England, but in other countries it is combined with religious considerations, and the Catholic church makes it a sacrament. This is marriage, as ordinarily understood, as the necessities of the social order compel us to accept and regard it. Nevertheless, every one’s instincts will assure him that marriage consists in reality of vastly more than this description of it. A man and woman may pledge themselves to each other and to society—all the legal and customary forms may be complete, and yet we know, or may know that there is no true marriage, for these parties may be entirely indifferent, or even objects of actual dislike to each other. The obligations or duty to society may be fulfilled, the interests of families provided for, the legal rights of the parties themselves properly protected, even the welfare of offspring appropriately guarded, nevertheless, if the parties are not united by affection, by those mysterious affinities with which God Himself has endowed them, and for this precise purpose, then there is no true marriage, and, abstractly considered, they are as entirely separate as if they stood on different sides of the Atlantic instead of at the altar where the ceremony is being performed. It is clear, therefore, that marriage, truly considered, involves vastly more than the mere external ceremony or legal formularies, which the universal interest demands, however, as an essential accompaniment. “Increase and multiply” is an ordinance of nature as well as the command of holy writ. All the innumerable tribes of inferior beings obey this command with a regularity, order and completeness that admit of no exception or interruption. They are all governed by instinct, by a wise necessity which impels them to fulfill this Divine decree and in modes adapted to theirspecific nature. Birds choose their mates, are faithful to them, share together, in some instances, the care and nurture of the common offspring, and all other animals of the higher order exhibit a tendency to form these temporary unions. But in addition to the natural instinct impelling us, in common with all other creatures, to fulfill the universal command to “multiply and replenish the earth,” the Almighty Creator has given us reason and endowed us with capacities of affection which are designed to guide us in these respects. A youth and maiden are thrown into each other’s society, an acquaintance, an intimacy, a mutual affection and reciprocal love follow. They feel themselves united, not merely harmonized, but morally consolidated, as it were, into a single being, and they mutually pledge each other to be thus as long as they both shall live. They are united, not by their pledges to each other, their mutual declarations of affection, but by those beautiful and mysterious affinities that God has planted in the soul itself, and the pledges and promises are the mere outward expression of their actual existence.
It is thus sometimes said that marriages are made in Heaven, for there is an eternal fitness, a complete unity or oneness in these impalpable agencies which, whatever may be the seeming incongruities of character in some instances, thus link together for ever these human souls as well as persons. Alas! that it should so often be mistaken—that pride and vanity, or a groveling and sinful lust, should be imposed on the simple and loving heart of woman as the counterpart of her own glowing and beautiful affection; and the man guilty of this frightful sin, this “gallantry,” as the corrupt and rotten society of Europe designates the desecration of a woman’s soul, commits a crime infinitely more atrocious than murder or the mere destruction of the body of his victim. Unfortunately, too, accident, imperfect education, circumstances, a thousand thingsmay and do lead both parties to mistake each other or themselves, and to rush into marriage only to discover a few months later, that they were deluded and deceived, and instead of that perfect unity of feeling, of affection, of soul, which they had believed in, there were contradictions and repugnances that no gentleness of temper or strength of reason or length of time could ever change, and therefore in sullen despair they settle down into hopeless apathy, or still worse, shock and scandalize society by a reckless violation of its laws as well as of the personal vows so sacredly pledged at the altar. But when the instincts of natural affection have been guided by reason and a true perception of the wants and nature of each other, and that perfect unity of feeling and of purpose exists which flows from this reciprocal adaptation of the parties, then there is marriage in its true sense, for then two relatively imperfect beings are united into one complete whole. And if we could suppose this husband and wife living for themselves alone, and isolated from all association with others, then nothing more would be needed. They were united by affection, by adaptation, by true perceptions of each other’s wants, by those mysterious affinities which we call love, in short, by an organic and eternal fitness, and their mutual pledges would be abundantly sufficient for themselves. But we are not permitted to suppose such a thing as isolation or separation from others, or from society. Our existence is necessarily complex, and our duties relative as well as personal, and therefore, marriage must be witnessed, and pledges given to society as well as made to each other, for the due fulfilment of the duties involved. A modern doctrine, if it may be called thus, has been set up that people who have mistaken their “affinities,” and only discovered their true ones after marriage, have a right to correct their mistakes and form a new marital union which they may suppose essential to their happiness. But they woulddisregard utterly their relations to others, their duties to society, their reciprocal obligations to their fellows, and trample on the fundamental principle of social order, indeed, society would itself be rendered utterly impossible could such individual caprice and selfishness prevail to any considerable extent. All their so-called arguments against the “institution” of marriage are, therefore, simply absurd, for while their conception of an essential portion of it may be correct enough as far as it goes, the assumption that the parties are alone responsible to each other, and are not called on to give pledges to society in the form of a civil contract or legal and indissoluble marriage, is founded on a total misconception or total disregard of their relations to others and of the duties necessarily involved. But enough on this point. Marriage is a natural relation that springs spontaneously from the necessities of human existence, and though a civil contract, it has a deeper and holier significance than the mere external ceremony or pledge which is thus given to the world as well as to each other.
Marriage, is of course, a natural relation among negroes as well as ourselves, and were it true that these four millions of people were living without it, then the denunciations heaped upon the people of the South would doubtless be merited. But a moment’s reflection should be sufficient to convince any one, at all events any American, that with a different nature, with different faculties, different wants, and different duties of these people, there must follow a different form or modification of this relation. The negro is substantially a child or undeveloped and undevelopable man, with affections, moral wants and faculties approximating, of course, to our own, but yet so different that his happiness as well as that of the white man demands a corresponding development. The affection of the sexes strongly resembles that of our school-children. It issudden, capricious, superficial, and temporary, and sometimes violent, but rarely permanent, or would be rarely permanent were it not for the example of the whites, whose habitudes in these respects the imitative instincts of the negro impel him to copy after. In their native Africa, and without the influence and example of the superior race, polygamy is universal, the affection of the husband being a mere caprice in most cases, they sell their wives and children without compunction, but the mother, with that universal maternal instinct common to all human creatures, and to animals of the higher classes, clings tenaciously to her offspring, while perfectly willing to change husbands or owners, as they really are in fact. Many of the “rich men” of Africa are only so in the number of their wives and children, and they trade and traffic in this property as coolly and regularly as if they were legitimate subjects of commerce. Nevertheless, the natural law and the natural tendency of this people is to a single union, and probably a large majority of the native Africans have only one wife. There is no natural tendency to polygamy in any race, for the numbers of the sexes being equal, the natural impulse is to a single union. But their feeble and capricious affections lead to polygamy, and their incapacity to purchase or support wives is the only limit to the negro practice in these respects. Under the teachings and restraints of the superior race at the South, the negroes, male and female, are vastly elevated in this regard, as well as others above their African habitudes. They form sexual unions or marry essentially like the whites. The parties become intimate, an affection springs up, they ask and receive the consent of their masters, and they are married by a white clergyman or by a minister of their own people. Thus far, marriage among “slaves” is, on the surface at least, an exact copy of the marriage of whites. They ask the consent of their masters, as white persons ask the consent of their parents orguardians, and they are married with the same ceremonies either by a minister of their own, or, as very often occurs, by a white clergyman. But here they diverge. The negro does not and can not constitute a part or portion of that mighty fabric we term society. He has no social interests, no property to guard or to devise, for though he receives and enjoys a larger portion of the proceeds of his labor than any mere laborer in Europe, every thing legally belongs to the master. There are no family interests for which to provide, no reputation or character to protect, no social duties to perform, or rights to defend in his case; in short, he has no connection whatever with that vast and complicated machinery which we call society. Marriage, therefore, from our stand-point—that legal formula and social pledge so vital to the very existence of social order—is obviously absurd and impossible in the case of negroes. The natural affinity, the union of affection, the perfect adaptation so essential to a true marriage in our race, is substantially imitated and substantially similar in the case of negroes at the South, but to seek to force the negro beyond this—to force upon him the social responsibilities that attach to white people; or, in other words, to make marriage a legal contract in the case of negroes, would be as absurd as to force him to vote at an election, or to perform any other high social duties, and which are evidently impossible. In regard to his own wants, the well-being of his offspring, every thing connected with the best welfare and highest happiness that his race is capable of, he now enjoys, and any attempt to force him to marry as white people marry—that is, to make marriage a civil or legal contract—is not merely impossible, but it would be a crime and a monstrous outrage upon the nature God has given him. The Almighty has endowed the negro with wonderful imitative powers: of course, it is impossible for him toimitate all our higher qualities—he can only approximate to them—but when the master has presented him with a proper example, in this respect as well as in other respects, as parents and guardians are expected to do in the case of children, they have fulfilled their duties to these “slaves,” and generally the negro is restrained and governed by these examples. But the feeble and capricious affections of the negro give their masters much annoyance, and perhaps the greatest trouble they experience with these people is their faithlessness to their marital obligations. The ignorant “anti-slavery” lecturer at the North has distressing tales to tell of cruel masters who separate wives and husbands, and break up families; but while such things have doubtless happened, it is quite certain that masters have interfered a hundred times to keep them together to one instance to the contrary, or to sell them apart. Such things happen occasionally, when estates are to be settled and property divided; but the instincts of the whites and the happiness of the whites are more disturbed by them than the negroes themselves. The limited intellectual power—the feeble moral nature, and superficial and capricious affections of the negro lead him to regard these separations of wives and husbands—of parents and children, with indifference, or rather we should say he has none of our perceptions or our instincts in respect to these family relations, and therefore when they do happen he is relatively or comparatively unconscious of suffering. In his native Africa he sells his wife and children without hesitation, and all the suffering he now feels is borrowed or imitated from the whites—a feeling scarcely perceptible in his native state, but in his better and higher life at the South, it is doubtless exalted into something like a sentiment of family. Nevertheless, he readily adapts himself to whatever changes the chances of life may bring him, and where the white husband, and certainly the white wife, might despair and die, the negroand the negress, with new partners and another marriage, are quite as happy as if they had never been separated from their former ones.
But these things are exceptional, and husbands and wives are doubtless far less frequently forced apart by these accidents of society than are the wives and husbands of the “lower orders” in England by the pressure of want and that necessity of self-preservation which so often rends them asunder. The real trouble, however, as has been said, is in the negro himself—his feeble and capricious affections—substantially similar to those of white childhood, and which it requires the constant supervision and influence of the master to restrain so as to keep them faithful to each other. The limited mental endowment and the feeble moral perceptions of the negro render him incapable, in these respects, of little beyond the fulfilment of the universal command to “increase and multiply.” White husbands and wives, when one dies in early life, often remain unmarried, faithful to a memory forever; and still more frequently, perhaps, the affections that bound them together in their youth remain bright and untarnished in age and to the borders of the grave. Such a thing never happened with a negro. Not one of the countless millions that have lived upon the earth was ever kept from marrying a second time by a sentiment or a memory. With their limited moral endowment such a thing is an absolute moral impossibility. They live with each other to extreme old age, because they imitate the superior race, and because it has become a habit, perhaps, but the grand purposes of nature accomplished, there is little or nothing more, or of those blessed memories of joy and suffering—of early hope and chastened sorrows, which so bind and blend together the white husband and wife, and often render them quite as necessary to each other’s happiness as in the flush and vigor of youth. Affection for his master is, in fact,the strongest, and it may be said to be the only enduring affection of the negro nature, for it remains an ever-present feeling long after the feeble and capricious “family sentiment,” or love of wife and offspring, is entirely obliterated from his memory. Marriage of “Southern slaves” thus briefly presented, will be seen to be as real, decent, orderly, and natural, as the nature of the negro admits of, or relatively speaking, as the Almighty Creator himself has designed or decreed.Hehas endowed the negro with different and vastly subordinate moral wants and affections, but at the same time given him an imitative capacity that enables him to copy the higher nature and more exalted habitudes of the superior race. They therefore marry as white people marry, with the same forms and the same ceremonies, and such a thing as polygamy, or what the “Abolitionist” calls concubinage, is utterly unknown among these people. They are no portion or part of society, have no place in the social compact, they are unable to fulfil its duties, and therefore have none of its rights, hence legal marriage is obviously absurd and impossible. To the ignorant Abolition writer it may seem quite plain that marriage should be a civil contract with negroes as well as white people, for his theory that the negro is ablackCaucasian, neutralizes all difficulties in this as in other things. But even they must see that to force them on the same social level in this vital respect must necessarily involve social equality in all other respects—a result, unless their theory be sound, obviously unnatural, monstrous, and wicked. The negro, isolated in his native Africa, is at this moment exactly what he was four thousand years ago, selling his wives and offspring with as utter disregard of marital relations, and unconsciousness of a family sentiment, as in the time of the Pharaohs; and when we contrast these things—the universal polygamy, the trade in wives, the caprice and savagism of the lawless husband or master with the decent andChristian marriage of “Southern slaves,” imitated from the superior race, and generally restrained by its example, may we not say with entire reverence and truth, that marriage, as it now actually exists among these people at the South, being all that their natures are capable of, and all that their wants and their highest happiness demand, is also, and of necessity, all that God Himself has decreed or designed in respect to this race?
There is no other comparison to make, or contrast to present, but that of African savagism; for that modern product of a world-wide delusion, “freedom,” or free negroism, as shown elsewhere, is a social abnormalism, a diseased condition, that necessarily ends in extinction; and unless it can be proven that disease is preferable to health, and death itself a greater good than life, no argument or proof drawn from it is legitimate or allowable.