question of a slave's theft which was agitated in a
Court, "Courts of Justice have no more to do with a slave's stealing,
than with his lying--that is a matter for the domestic forum." It was
truly said--the theft of a slave is no offense against society. Compare
all the evils resulting from this, with the enormous amount of vice,
crime, and depravity, which in an European, or one of our Northern
cities, disgusts the moral feelings, and render life and property
insecure. So with respect to his falsehood. I have never heard or
observed, that slaves have any peculiar proclivity to falsehood, unless
it be in denying or concealing their own offenses, or those of their
fellows. I have never heard of falsehood told by a slave for a
malicious purpose. Lies of vanity are sometimes told, as among the weak
and ignorant of other conditions. Falsehood is not attributed to an
individual charged with an offense before a Court of Justice, who pleads
_not guilty_--and certainly the strong temptation to escape punishment,
in the highest degree extenuates, if it does not excuse, falsehood told
by a _slave_. If the object be to screen a a fellow slave, the act bears
some semblance of fidelity, and perhaps truth could not be told without
breach of confidence. I know not how to characterize the falsehood of a
slave.

It has often been said by the denouncers of slavery, that marriage does
not exist among slaves. It is difficult to understand this, unless
willful falsehood were intended. We know that marriages are contracted;
may be, and often are, solemnized with the forms usual among other
classes of society, and often faithfully adhered to during life. The law
has not provided for making those marriages indissoluble, nor could it
do so. If a man abandons his wife, being without property, and being
both property themselves, he cannot be required to maintain her. If he
abandons his wife, and lives in a state of concubinage with another, the
law cannot punish him for bigamy. It may perhaps be meant that the
chastity of wives is not protected by law from the outrages of violence.
I answer, as with respect to their lives, that they are protected by
manners, and their position. Who ever heard of such outrages being
offered? At least as seldom, I will venture to say, as in other
communities of different forms of polity. One reason doubtless may be,
that often there is no disposition to resist. Another reason also may
be, that there is little temp