Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1845-01-23
The Question Of Slavery.

hammond, IN answer TO memorial
from the Free Church of Glasgow
Scotland, for the pardon of John l..
Brown, Of Fairfield, S. c., who was
convicted Of aiding in the escape of a
slave, and sentenced to be hung:
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
South Carolina, 21st June, 1874.
Sin The last post brought me
- n communication, accompanying the
memorial Of the Presbytery of the
Church Of Glasgow, in behalf of. John
L. Brown, convicted in this State OF
aiding slave in escaping from her
masier,and sentenced to be hung in A
pril last. twill be gratifying to you,
seeing the interest you have taken in
the matter, 10 learn that | have par
doned Brown. Tn consequence of
representations made to me by Judge
O'Neall, speaking for himself and the
Judges of the Court Of Appeals, !
commuted his punishment TO thirty
nine lashes. Facts, not knownto the
Judges, or the Jury, were afterward
brought to my knowledge, which salts
fed me that Brown had no criminal
design in what he did; and in the
month of March transmitted to him
full pardon. ] Twas not at all aware at
that time of the great interests taken
abroad in behalf ofo whose case /
had never heard mentioned here, ex
cept on the occasion referred to; and
/ was astonished to find myself over
whelmed soon after with yoluininous
petitions for his pardon from the non
slave holding States of this Union; and
to perceive that his sentence was com
mented on, not only by the English
newspapers, blu! In the En- glishi House
of Lords. The latest, and | trust last
communication to me on the SUBJECTS
YOUR memorial naas 81 t3faisas
The interference o.. foreigners, or any
persons beyond our boundaries, in the
execution of municipal laws of a Sow
ereign State even if in respectful terms,
is certainly violation of all pfopriety
ard courtesy; and if carried to an ex-
tent, must become wholly intolerable.
Ipass that by, however. Ihe law I'M
der which Brown was convicted, was
enacted during our Colonial existence,
and is emphatically British law.nalt
also good law. Iipardoned him, not
because Idisapproved the law, but be-
cause did not think he violated tt
Itwould be the most. absurd thing in
the world to recognise by lava system
of domestic slavery, and yet allow ev-
ery one to free, not merely his own
slaves, but those of his neighbor, when
ever instigated to do so by his own no
tons of propriety, his interest orbisca-
nrice. What sort of security would
we havefor propertyheld on such terms
as these? You cannot but perceive
that 10 permit othersto take our slaves
from us at pleasurse with impunity,
would amountto total abolition OF
slavery There would be no real diff
ferenc. between this and allowing the
lave, to go free themselves. Your
I. yyfeoytery and all the petitioners fol-
RroTn and agitators of his case, must
haze seen the matter inthis light; and
IT'S attr:buting to US but small share
otcommon sense TO suppose that we
rould not take the same view Oft our.
selves.
Whether death should be inflicted
for such an offence is another question
We have modified in a great degree
the sanguinary code Of law left us by
our British ancestors; but We have no
zone the length to which some philos
ophers, both here and in your country
would have all Governments TO GOO
abolishing the punishment of death.
Nor do believe the success ofyou
Government has met with in endeav
oripg to diminish crime by abolishins
this punishment in so many eases, vii
encourage them, to press the matte
much farther at this time. Considering
the value Of the slave; the facility of Sc
ducing him from his owner; the evi
influence which frequent seductlon'
might exercise on an institution, TIL
Destruction. Of which must speedily ant
liSesitabIy strike from the roll If civil!
;;xed states nearly the whole slave-hol
dinc section ofthis country, as it ha'
slreadx done St. Domingo and Jamai
E.s1s1 s .fhre;;octic and reckless en-