Chapter IX: Part III: THE (3)

"We learn from scripture, that Ham had four sons, _Chus, Mizraim, Phut_, and _Canaan_, Gen. x. 5, 6. _Canaan_ occupied _Palestine_, and the country called by his name: _Mizraim, Egypt_: but _Phut_ passed deep into _Africa_, and, I believe, most of the nations in that part of the world are descended from him; at least more than from any other person." _Josephus_ says, "_that Phut was the founder of the nations in Libya, and the people were from him called (phoutoi) Phuti_." Antiq. L. 1. c. 7. "By _Lybia_ he understands, as the _Greeks_ did, _Africa_ in general: for the particular country called _Lybia Proper_, was peopled by the _Lubim_, or _Lehabim_, one of the branches from _Mizraim_, (Labieim ex ou Libnes) Chron. Paschale, p. 29.

"The sons of _Phut_ settled in _Mauritania_, where was a country called _Phutia_, and a river of the like denomination. Mauritaniæ Fluvius usque ad præsens Tempus _Phut_ dicitur, omnisq; circa eum Regio _Phutensis_. Hieron. Tradit. Hebroeæ.--Amnem, quem vocant _Fut_." Pliny, L. 5. c. 1. Some of this family settled above Ægypt, near Æthiopia, and were styled Troglodytæ. (phoud ex ou troglodotai). Syncellus, p. 47. Many of them passed inland, and peopled the Mediterranean country."

"In process of time the sons of _Chus_ also, (after their expulsion from Egypt) made settlements upon the sea coast of _Africa_, and came into _Mauritania_. Hence we find traces of them also in the names of places, such as _Churis, Chusares_, upon the coast: and a river _Chusa_, and a city _Cotta_, together with a promontory, _Cotis_, in _Mauritania_, all denominated from _Chus_; who at different times, and by different people, was called _Chus, Cuth, Cosh_, and _Cotis_. The river _Cusa_ is mentioned by _Pliny_, Lib. 5. c. 1. and by _Ptolomy_."

"Many ages after these settlements, there was another eruption of the _Cushites_ into these parts, under the name of _Saracens_ and _Moors_, who over-ran _Africa_, to the very extremity of Mount Atlas. They passed over and conquered _Spain_ to the north, and they extended themselves southward, as I said in my treatise, to the rivers _Senegal_ and _Gambia_, and as low as the _Gold Coast_. I mentioned this, because I do not think that they proceeded much farther: most of the nations to the _south_ being, as I imagine, of the race of _Phut_. The very country upon the river _Gambia_ on one side, is at this day called _Phuta_, of which _Bluet_, in his history of _Juba Ben Solomon_, gives an account."]

[Footnote 077: When America was first discovered, it was thought by some, that the scripture account of the creation was false, and that there were different species of men, because they could never suppose that people, in so rude a state as the Americans, could have transported themselves to that continent from any parts of the known world. This opinion however was refuted by the celebrated Captain Cooke, who shewed that the traject between the continents of Asia and America, was as short as some, which people in as rude a state have been actually known to pass. This affords an excellent caution against an ill-judged and hasty censure of the divine writings, because every difficulty which may be started, cannot be instantly cleared up.]

[Footnote 078: The divine writings, which assert that all men were derived from the _same stock_, shew also, in the same instance of _Cush_, (Footnote 075), that some of them had changed their original complexion.]

[Footnote 079: The following are the grand colours discernible in mankind, between which there are many shades;

White } { Copper }--Olive--{ Brown } { Black ]

[Footnote 080: See note, (Footnote 075). To this we may add, that the rest of the descendants of _Ham_, as far as they can be traced, are now also black, at well as many of the descendants of _Shem_.]

[Footnote 081: Diseases have a great effect upon the _mucosum corpus_, but particularly the jaundice, which turns it yellow. Hence, being transmitted through the cuticle, the yellow appearance of the whole body. But this, even as a matter of ocular demonstration, is not confined solely to white people; negroes themselves, while affected with these or other disorders, changing their black colour for that which the disease has conveyed to the _mucous_ substance.]

[Footnote 082: The cutaneous pores are so excessively small, that one grain of sand, (according to Dr. Lewenhoeck's calculations) would cover many hundreds of them.]

[Footnote 083: We do not mean to insinuate that the same people have their _corpus mucosum_ sensibly vary, as often as they go into another latitude, but that the fact is true only of different people, who have been long established in different latitudes.]

[Footnote 084: We beg leave to return our thanks here to a gentleman, eminent in the medical line, who furnished us with the above-mentioned facts.]

[Footnote 085: Suppose we were to see two nations, contiguous to each other, of black and white inhabitants in the same parallel, even this would be no objection, for many circumstances are to be considered. A black people may have wandered into a white, and a white people into a black latitude, and they may not have been settled there a sufficient length of time for such a change to have been accomplished in their complexion, as that they should be like the old established inhabitants of the parallel, into which they have lately come.]

[Footnote 086: Justamond's Abbe Raynal, v. 5. p. 193.]

[Footnote 087: The author of this Essay made it his business to inquire of the most intelligent of those, whom he could meet with in London, as to the authenticity of the fact. All those from _America_ assured him that it was strictly true; those from the West-Indies, that they had never observed it there; but that they had found a sensible difference in themselves since they came to England.]

[Footnote 088: This circumstance, which always happens, shews that they are descended from the same parents as ourselves; for had they been a distinct species of men, and the blackness entirely ingrafted in their constitution and frame, there is great reason to presume, that their children would have been born _black_.]

[Footnote 089: This observation was communicated to us by the gentleman in the medical line, to whom we returned our thanks for certain anatomical facts.]

[Footnote 090: Philos. Trans. No. 476. sect. 4.]

[Footnote 091: Treatise upon the Trade from Great Britain to Africa, by an African merchant.]

[Footnote 092: We mean such only as are _natives_ of the countries which we mention, and whose ancestors have been settled there for a certain period of time.]

[Footnote 093: Herodotus. Euterpe. p. 80. Editio Stephani, printed 1570.]

[Footnote 094: This circumstance confirms what we said in a former note, (Footnote 085), that even if two nations were to be found in the same parallel, one of whom was black, and the other white, it would form no objection against the hypothesis of climate, as one of them might have been new settlers from a distant country.]

[Footnote 095: Suppose, without the knowledge of any historian, they had made such considerable conquests, as to have settled themselves at the distance of 1000 miles in any one direction from _Colchis_, still they must have changed their colour. For had they gone in an Eastern or Western direction, they must have been of the same colour as the _Circassians_; if to the north, whiter; if to the south, of a copper. There are no people within that distance of _Colchis_, who are black.]

[Footnote 096: There are a particular people among those transported from Africa to the colonies, who immediately on receiving punishment, destroy themselves. This is a fact which the _receivers_ are unable to contradict.]

* * * * *

CHAP. IX.

The reader may perhaps think, that the _receivers_ have by this time expended all their arguments, but their store is not so easily exhausted. They are well aware that justice, nature, and religion, will continue, as they have ever uniformly done, to oppose their conduct. This has driven them to exert their ingenuity, and has occasioned that multiplicity of arguments to be found in the present question.

These arguments are of a different complexion from the former. They consist in comparing the state of _slaves_ with that of some of the classes of _free_ men, and in certain scenes of felicity, which the former are said to enjoy.

It is affirmed that the punishments which the Africans undergo, are less severe than the military; that their life is happier than that of the English peasant; that they have the advantages of manumission; that they have their little spots of ground, their holy-days, their dances; in short, that their life is a scene of festivity and mirth, and that they are much happier in the colonies than in their own country.

These representations, which have been made out with much ingenuity and art, may have had their weight with the unwary; but they will never pass with men of consideration and sense, who are accustomed to estimate the probability of things, before they admit them to be true. Indeed the bare assertion, that their situation is even comfortable, contains its own refutation, or at least leads us to suspect that the person, who asserted it, has omitted some important considerations in the account. Such we shall shew to have been actually the case, and that the representations of the _receivers_, when stripped of their glossy ornaments, are but empty declamation.

It is said, first, of _military punishments_, that they are more severe than those which the _Africans_ undergo. But this is a bare assertion without a proof. It is not shewn even by those, who assert it, how the fact can be made out. We are left therefore to draw the comparison ourselves, and to fill up those important considerations, which we have just said that the _receivers_ had omitted.

That military punishments are severe we confess, but we deny that they are severer than those with which they are compared. Where is the military man, whose ears have been slit, whose limbs have been mutilated, or whose eyes have been beaten out? But let us even allow, that their punishments are equal in the degree of their severity: still they must lose by comparison. The soldier is never punished but after a fair and equitable trial, and the decision of a military court; the unhappy African, at the discretion of his Lord. The one knows what particular conduct will constitute an offence[097]; the other has no such information, as he is wholly at the disposal of passion and caprice, which may impose upon any action, however laudable, the appellation of a crime. The former has it of course in his power to avoid a punishment; the latter is never safe. The former is punished for a real, the latter, often, for an imaginary fault.

Now will any person assert, on comparing the whole of those circumstances together, which relate to their respective punishments, that there can be any doubt, which of the two are in the worst situation, as to their penal systems?

With respect to the declaration, that the life of an _African_ in the colonies is happier than that of an _English_ peasant, it is equally false. Indeed we can scarcely withhold our indignation, when we consider, how shamefully the situation of this latter class of men has been misrepresented, to elevate the former to a state of fictitious happiness. If the representations of the _receivers_ be true, it is evident that those of the most approved writers, who have placed a considerable share of happiness in the _cottage_, have been mistaken in their opinion; and that those of the rich, who have been heard to sigh, and envy the felicity of the _peasant_, have been treacherous to their own sensations.

But which are we to believe on the occasion? Those, who endeavour to dress _vice_ in the habit of _virtue_, or those, who derive their opinion from their own feelings? The latter are surely to be believed; and we may conclude therefore, that the horrid picture which is given of the life of the _peasant_, has not so just a foundation as the _receivers_ would, lead us to suppose. For has he no pleasure in the thought, that he lives in his _own country_, and among his relations and friends? That he is actually _free_, and that his children will be the same? That he can never be _sold_ as a beast? That he can speak his mind _without the fear of the lash_? That he cannot even be struck _with impunity_? And that he partakes, equally with his superiours, of the _protection of the law_?--Now, there is no one of these advantages which the _African_ possesses, and no one, which the defenders of slavery take into their account.

Of the other comparisons that are usually made, we may observe in general, that, as they consist in comparing the iniquitous practice of slavery with other iniquitous practices in force among other nations, they can neither raise it to the appearance of virtue, nor extenuate its guilt. The things compared are in these instances both of them evils alike. They call equally for redress[098], and are equally disgraceful to the governments which suffer them, if not encourage them, to exist. To attempt therefore to justify one species of iniquity by comparing it with another, is no justification at all; and is so far from answering the purpose, for which the comparison is intended, as to give us reason to suspect, that the _comparer_ has but little notion either of equity or honour.

We come now to those scenes of felicity, which slaves are said to enjoy. The first advantage which they are said to experience, is that of _manumission_. But here the advocates for slavery conceal an important circumstance. They expatiate indeed on the charms of freedom, and contend that it must be a blessing in the eyes of those, upon whom it is conferred. We perfectly agree with them in this particular. But they do not tell us that these advantages are _confined_; that they are confined to some _favourite domestick_; that not _one in an hundred_ enjoy them; and that they are _never_ extended to those, who are employed in the _cultivation of the field_, as long as they can work. These are they, who are most to be pitied, who are destined to _perpetual_ drudgery; and of whom _no one whatever_ has a chance of being freed from his situation, till death either releases him at once, or age renders him incapable of continuing his former labour. And here let it be remarked, _to the disgrace of the receivers_, that he is then made free, not--_as a reward for his past services_, but, as his labour is then of little or no value,--_to save the tax_[099].

With the same artifice is mention also made of the little spots, or _gardens_, as they are called, which slaves are said to possess from the _liberality_ of _the receivers_. But people must not be led away by agreeable and pleasant sounds. They must not suppose that these gardens are made for _flowers_; or that they are places of _amusement_, in which they can spend their time in botanical researches and delights. Alas, they do not furnish them with a theme for such pleasing pursuits and speculations! They must be cultivated in those hours, which ought to be appropriated to rest[100]; and they must be cultivated, not for an amusement, but to make up, _if it be possible_, the great deficiency in their weekly allowance of provisions. Hence it appears, that the _receivers_ have no merit whatever in such an appropriation of land to their unfortunate slaves: for they are either under the necessity of doing this, or of _losing_ them by the jaws of famine. And it is a notorious fact, that, with their weekly allowance, and the produce of their spots together, it is often with the greatest difficulty that they preserve a wretched existence.

The third advantage which they are said to experience, is that of _holy-days_, or days of respite from their usual discipline and fatigue. This is certainly a great indulgence, and ought to be recorded to the immortal honour of the _receivers_. We wish we could express their liberality in those handsome terms, in which it deserves to be represented, or applaud them sufficiently for deviating for once from the rigours of servile discipline. But we confess, that we are unequal to the task, and must therefore content ourselves with observing, that while the horse has _one_ day in _seven_ to refresh his limbs, the happy _African_[101] has but _one_ in _fifty-two_, as a relaxation from his labours.

With respect to their _dances_, on which such a particular stress has been generally laid, we fear that people may have been as shamefully deceived, as in the former instances. For from the manner in which these are generally mentioned, we should almost be led to imagine, that they had certain hours allowed them for the purpose of joining in the dance, and that they had every comfort and convenience, that people are generally supposed to enjoy on such convivial occasions. But this is far from the case. Reason informs us, that it can never be. If they wish for such innocent recreations, they must enjoy them in the time that is allotted them for sleep; and so far are these dances from proceeding from any uncommon degree of happiness, which excites them to convivial society, that they proceed rather from an uncommon depression of spirits, which makes them even sacrifice their rest[102], for the sake of experiencing for a moment a more joyful oblivion of their cares. For suppose any one of the _receivers_, in the middle of a dance, were to address his slaves in the following manner: "_Africans!_ I begin at last to feel for your situation; and my conscience is severely hurt, whenever I reflect that I have been reducing those to a state of misery and pain, who have never given me offence. You seem to be fond of these exercises, but yet you are obliged to take them at such unseasonable hours, that they impair your health, which is sufficiently broken by the intolerable share of labour which I have hitherto imposed upon you. I will therefore make you a proposal. Will you be content to live in the colonies, and you shall have the half of every week entirely to yourselves? or will you choose to return to your miserable, wretched country?"--But what is that which strikes their ears? Which makes them motionless in an instant? Which interrupts the festive scene?--their country?--transporting sound!--Behold! they are now flying from the dance: you may see them running to the shore, and, frantick as it were with joy, demanding with open arms an instantaneous passage to their beloved native plains.

Such are the _colonial delights_, by the representation of which the _receivers_ would persuade us, that the _Africans_ are taken from their country to a region of conviviality and mirth; and that like those, who leave their usual places of residence for a summer's amusement, they are conveyed to the colonies--_to bathe_,--_to dance_,--_to keep holy-day_,--_to be jovial_.--But there is something so truly ridiculous in the attempt to impose these scenes of felicity on the publick, as scenes which fall to the lot of slaves, that the _receivers_ must have been driven to great extremities, to hazard them to the eye of censure.

The last point that remains to be considered, is the shameful assertion, that the _Africans_ are much _happier in the colonies, than in their own country_. But in what does this superiour happiness consist? In those real scenes, it must be replied, which have been just mentioned; for these, by the confession of the receivers, constitute the happiness they enjoy.--But it has been shewn that these have been unfairly represented; and, were they realized in the most extensive latitude, they would not confirm the fact. For if, upon a recapitulation, it consists in the pleasure of _manumission_, they surely must have passed their lives in a much more comfortable manner, who, like the _Africans at home_, have had no occasion for such a benefit at all. But the _receivers_, we presume, reason upon this principle, that we never know the value of a blessing but by its loss. This is generally true: but would any one of them make himself a _slave_ for years, that he might run the chance of the pleasures of _manumission_? Or that he might taste the charms of liberty with _a greater relish_? Nor is the assertion less false in every other consideration. For if their happiness consists in the few _holy-days_, which _in the colonies_ they are permitted to enjoy, what must be their situation _in their own country_, where the whole year is but one continued holy-day, or cessation from discipline and fatigue?--If in the possession of _a mean and contracted spot_, what must be their situation, where a whole region is their own, producing almost spontaneously the comforts of life, and requiring for its cultivation none of those hours, which should be appropriated to _sleep_?--If in the pleasures of the _colonial dance_, what must it be in _their own country_, where they may dance for ever; where there is no stated hour to interrupt their felicity, no intolerable labour immediately to succeed their recreations, and no overseer to receive them under the discipline of the lash?--If these therefore are the only circumstances, by which the assertion can be proved, we may venture to say, without fear of opposition, that it can never be proved at all.

But these are not the only circumstances. It is said that they are barbarous at home.--But do you _receivers_ civilize them?--Your unwillingness to convert them to Christianity, because you suppose you must use them more kindly when converted, is but a bad argument in favour of the fact.

It is affirmed again, that their manner of life, and their situation is such in their own country, that to say they are happy is a jest. "But who are you, who pretend to judge[103] of another man's happiness? That state which each man, under the guidance of his maker, forms for himself, and not one man for another? To know what constitutes mine or your happiness, is the sole prerogative of him who created us, and cast us in so various and different moulds. Did your slaves ever complain to you of their unhappiness, amidst their native woods and desarts? Or, rather, let me ask, did they ever cease complaining of their condition under you their lordly masters? Where they see, indeed, the accommodations of civil life, but see them all pass to others, themselves unbenefited by them. Be so gracious then, ye petty tyrants over human freedom, to let your slaves judge for themselves, what it is which makes their own happiness, and then see whether they do not place it _in the return to their own country_, rather than in the contemplation of your grandeur, of which their misery makes so large a part."

But since you speak with so much confidence on the subject, let us ask you _receivers_ again, if you have ever been informed by your unfortunate slaves, that they had no connexions in the country from which they have forcibly been torn away: or, if you will take upon you to assert, that they never sigh, when they are alone; or that they never relate to each other their tales of misery and woe. But you judge of them, perhaps, in an happy moment, when you are dealing out to them their provisions for the week; and are but little aware, that, though the countenance may be cheered with a momentary smile, the heart may be exquisitely tortured. Were you to shew us, indeed, that there are laws, subject to no evasion, by which you are obliged to clothe and feed them in a comfortable manner; were you to shew us that they are protected[104] at all; or that even _one_ in a _thousand_ of those masters have suffered death[105], who have been guilty of _premeditated_ murder to their slaves, you would have a better claim to our belief: but you can neither produce the instances nor the laws. The people, of whom you speak, are _slaves_, are your own _property_, are wholly _at your own disposal_; and this idea is sufficient to overturn your assertions of their happiness.

But we shall now mention a circumstance, which, in the present case, will have more weight than all the arguments which have hitherto been advanced. It is an opinion, which the _Africans_ universally entertain, that, as soon as death shall release them from the hands of their oppressors, they shall immediately be wafted back to their native plains, there to exist again, to enjoy the sight of their beloved countrymen, and to spend the whole of their new existence in scenes of tranquillity and delight; and so powerfully does this notion operate upon them, as to drive them frequently to the horrid extremity of putting a period to their lives. Now if these suicides are frequent, (which no person can deny) what are they but a proof, that the situation of those who destroy themselves must have been insupportably wretched: and if the thought of returning to their country after death, _when they have experienced the colonial joys_, constitutes their supreme felicity, what are they but a proof, that they think there is as much difference between the two situations, as there is between misery and delight?

Nor is the assertion of the _receivers_ less liable to a refutation in the instance of those, who terminate their own existence, than of those, whom nature releases from their persecutions. They die with a smile upon their face, and their funerals are attended by a vast concourse of their countrymen, with every possible demonstration of joy[106]. But why this unusual mirth, if their departed brother has left an happy place? Or if he has been taken from the care of an indulgent master, who consulted his pleasures, and administered to his wants? But alas, it arises from hence, that _he is gone to his happy country_: a circumstance, sufficient of itself, to silence a myriad of those specious arguments, which the imagination has been racked, and will always be racked to produce, in favour of a system of tyranny and oppression.

It remains only, that we should now conclude the chapter with a fact, which will shew that the account, which we have given of the situation of slaves, is strictly true, and will refute at the same time all the arguments which have hitherto been, and may yet be brought by the _receivers_, to prove that their treatment is humane. In one of the western colonies of the Europeans, [107]six hundred and fifty thousand slaves were imported within an hundred years; at the expiration of which time, their whole posterity were found to amount to one hundred and forty thousand. This fact will ascertain the treatment of itself. For how shamefully must these unfortunate people have been oppressed? What a dreadful havock must famine, fatigue, and cruelty, have made among them, when we consider, that the descendants of _six hundred and fifty thousand_ people in the prime of life, gradually imported within a century, are less numerous than those, which only _ten thousand_[108] would have produced in the same period, under common advantages, and in a country congenial to their constitutions?

But the _receivers_ have probably great merit on the occasion. Let us therefore set it down to their humanity. Let us suppose for once, that this incredible waste of the human species proceeds from a benevolent design; that, sensible of the miseries of a servile state, they resolve to wear out, as fast as they possibly can, their unfortunate slaves, that their miseries may the sooner end, and that a wretched posterity may be prevented from sharing their parental condition. Now, whether this is the plan of reasoning which the _receivers_ adopt, we cannot take upon us to decide; but true it is, that the effect produced is exactly the same, as if they had reasoned wholly on this _benevolent_ principle.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 097: The articles of war are frequently read at the head of every regiment in the service, stating those particular actions which are to be considered as crimes.]

[Footnote 098: We cannot omit here to mention one of the customs, which has been often brought as a palliation of slavery, and which prevailed but a little time ago, and we are doubtful whether it does not prevail now, in the metropolis of this country, of kidnapping men for the service of the East-India Company. Every subject, as long as he behaves well, has a right to the protection of government; and the tacit permission of such a scene of iniquity, when it becomes known, is as much a breach of duty in government, as the conduct of those subjects, who, on other occasions, would be termed, and punished as, rebellious.]

[Footnote 099: The expences of every parish are defrayed by a poll-tax on negroes, to save which they pretend to liberate those who are past labour; but they still keep them employed in repairing fences, or in doing some trifling work on a scanty allowance. For to free a _field-negroe_, so long as he can work, is a maxim, which, notwithstanding the numerous boasted manumissions, no master _ever thinks of adopting_ in the colonies.]

[Footnote 100: They must be cultivated always on a _Sunday_, and frequently in those hours which should be appropriated to _sleep_, or the wretched possessors must be inevitably _starved_.]

[Footnote 101: They are allowed in general three holy-days at Christmas, but in Jamaica they have two also at Easter, and two at Whitsuntide: so that on the largest scale, they have only seven days in a year, or one day in fifty-two. But this is on a supposition, that the receivers do not break in upon the afternoons, which they are frequently too apt to do. If it should be said that Sunday is an holy-day, it is not true; it is so far an holy-day, that they do not work for their masters; but such an holy-day, that if they do not employ it in the cultivation of their little spots, they must _starved_.]

[Footnote 102: These dances are usually in the middle of the night; and so desirous are these unfortunate people of obtaining but a joyful hour, that they not only often give up their sleep, but add to the labours of the day, by going several miles to obtain it.]

[Footnote 103: Bishop of Glocester's sermon, preached before the society for the propagation of the gospel, at the anniversary meeting, on the 21st of February, 1766.]

[Footnote 104: There is a law, (but let the reader remark, that it prevails but in _one_ of the colonies), against mutilation. It took its rise from the frequency of the inhuman practice. But though a master cannot there chop off the limb of a slave with an axe, he may yet work, starve, and beat him to death with impunity.]

[Footnote 105: _Two_ instances are recorded by the _receivers_, out of about _fifty-thousand_, where a white man has suffered death for the murder of a negroe; but the receivers do not tell us, that these suffered more because they were the pests of society, than because the _murder of slaves was a crime_.]

[Footnote 106: A negroe-funeral is considered as a curious sight, and is attended with singing, dancing, musick, and every circumstance that can shew the attendants to be happy on the occasion.]

[Footnote 107: In 96 years, ending in 1774, 800,000 slaves had been imported into the French part of St. Domingo, of which there remained only 290,000 in 1774. Of this last number only 140,000 were creoles, or natives of the island, i. e. of 650,000 slaves, the whole posterity were 140,000. _Considerations sur la Colonie de St. Dominique_,(See errata--should be read as "_St. Domingue_") published by authority in 1777.]

[Footnote 108: Ten thousand people under fair advantages, and in a soil congenial to their constitutions, and where the means of subsistence are easy, should produce in a century 160,000. This is the proportion in which the Americans increased; and the Africans in their own country increase in the same, if not in a greater proportion. Now as the climate of the colonies is as favourable to their health as that of their own country, the causes of the prodigious decrease in the one, and increase in the other, will be more conspicuous.]

* * * * *

CHAP. X.

We have now taken a survey of the treatment which the unfortunate _Africans_ undergo, when they are put into the hands of the _receivers_. This treatment, by the four first chapters of the present part of this Essay, appears to be wholly insupportable, and to be such as no human being can apply to another, without the imputation of such crimes, as should make him tremble. But as many arguments are usually advanced by those who have any interest in the practice, by which they would either exculpate the treatment, or diminish its severity, we allotted the remaining chapters for their discussion. In these we considered the probability of such a treatment against the motives of interest; the credit that was to be given to those disinterested writers on the subject, who have recorded particular instances of barbarity; the inferiority of the _Africans_ to the human species; the comparisons that are generally made with respect to their situation; the positive scenes of felicity which they are said to enjoy, and every other argument, in short, that we have found to have ever been advanced in the defence of slavery. These have been all considered, and we may venture to pronounce, that, instead of answering the purpose for which they were intended, they serve only to bring such circumstances to light, as clearly shew, that if ingenuity were racked to invent a situation, that would be the most distressing and insupportable to the human race; it could never invent one, that would suit the description better, than the--_colonial slavery_.

If this then be the case, and if slaves, notwithstanding all the arguments to the contrary, are exquisitely miserable, we ask you _receivers, by what right_ you reduce them to so wretched a situation?

You reply, that you _buy them_; that your _money_ constitutes your _right_, and that, like all other things which you purchase, they are wholly at your own disposal.

Upon this principle alone it was, that we professed to view your treatment, or examine your right, when we said, that "the question[109] resolved itself into two separate parts for discussion; into the _African_ commerce, as explained in the history of slavery, and the subsequent slavery in the colonies, _as founded on the equity of the commerce_." Now, since it appears that this commerce, upon the fullest investigation, is contrary to "_the principles[110] of law and government, the dictates of reason, the common maxims of equity, the laws of nature, the admonitions of conscience, and, in short, the whole doctrine of natural religion_," it is evident that the _right_, which is founded upon it, must be the same; and that if those things only are lawful in the sight of God, which are either virtuous in themselves, or proceed from virtuous principles, you _have no right over them at all_.

You yourselves also confess this. For when we ask you, whether any human being has a right to sell you, you immediately answer, No; as if nature revolted at the thought, and as if it was so contradictory to your own feelings, as not to require consideration. But who are you, that have this exclusive charter of trading in the liberties of mankind? When did nature, or rather the Author of nature, make so partial a distinction between you and them? When did He say, that you should have the privilege of selling others, and that others should not have the privilege of selling you?

Now since you confess, that no person whatever has a right to dispose of you in this manner, you must confess also, that those things are unlawful to be done to you, which are usually done in consequence of the sale. Let us suppose then, that in consequence of the _commerce_ you were forced into a ship; that you were conveyed to another country; that you were sold there; that you were confined to incessant labour; that you were pinched by continual hunger and thirst; and subject to be whipped, cut, and mangled at discretion, and all this at the hands of those, whom you had never offended; would you not think that you had a right to resist their treatment? Would you not resist it with a safe conscience? And would you not be surprized, if your resistance should be termed rebellion?--By the former premises you must answer, yes.--Such then is the case with the wretched _Africans_. They have a right to resist your proceedings. They can resist them, and yet they cannot justly be considered as rebellious. For though we suppose them to have been guilty of crimes to one another; though we suppose them to have been the most abandoned and execrable of men, yet are they perfectly innocent with respect to you _receivers_. You have no right to touch even the hair of their heads without their own consent. It is not your money, that can invest you with a right. Human liberty can neither be bought nor sold. Every lash that you give them is unjust. It is a lash against nature and religion, and will surely stand recorded against you, since they are all, with respect to your _impious_ selves, in a state of nature; in a state of original dissociation; perfectly free.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 109: See Part II Chapter I second paragraph.]

[Footnote 110: See Part II Chapter IX last paragraph.]

* * * * *

CHAP. XI.

Having now considered both the _commerce_ and _slavery_, it remains only to collect such arguments as are scattered in different parts of the work, and to make such additional remarks, as present themselves on the subject.

And first, let us ask you, who have studied the law of nature, and you, who are learned in the law of the land, if all property must not be inferiour in its nature to its possessor, or, in other words, (for it is a case, which every person must bring home to his own breast) if you suppose that any human being can have _a property in yourselves_? Let us ask you appraisers, who scientifically know the value of things, if any human creature is equivalent only to any of the trinkets that you wear, or at most, to any of the horses that you ride: or in other words, if you have ever considered the most costly things that you have valued, as _equivalent to yourselves?_ Let us ask you rationalists, if man, as a reasonable being, is not _accountable_ for his actions, and let us put the same question to you, who have studied the divine writings? Let us ask you parents, if ever you thought that you possessed an _authority_ as such, or if ever you expected a _duty_ from your sons; and let us ask you sons, if ever you felt an impulse in your own breasts to _obey_ your parents. Now, if you should all answer as we could wish, if you should all answer consistently with reason, nature, and the revealed voice of God, what a dreadful argument will present itself against the commerce and slavery of the human species, when we reflect, that no man whatever can be bought or reduced to the situation of a slave, _but he must instantly become a brute, he must instantly be reduced to the value of those things, which were made for his own use and convenience; he must instantly cease to be accountable for his actions, and his authority as a parent, and his duty as a son, must be instantly no more_.

Neither does it escape our notice, when we are speaking of the fatal wound which every social duty must receive, how considerably Christianity suffers by the conduct of you _receivers_. For by prosecuting this impious commerce, you keep the _Africans_ in a state of perpetual ferocity and barbarism; and by prosecuting it in such a manner, as must represent your religion, as a system of robbery and oppression, you not only oppose the propagation of the gospel, as far as you are able yourselves, but throw the most certain impediments in the way of others, who might attempt the glorious and important task.

Such also is the effect, which the subsequent slavery in the colonies must produce. For by your inhuman treatment of the unfortunate _Africans_ there, you create the same insuperable impediments to a conversion. For how must they detest the very name of _Christians_, when you _Christians_ are deformed by so many and dreadful vices? How must they detest that system of religion, which appears to resist the natural rights of men, and to give a sanction to brutality and murder?

But, as we are now mentioning Christianity, we must pause for a little time, to make a few remarks on the arguments which are usually deduced from thence by the _receivers_, in defence of their system of oppression. For the reader may readily suppose, that, if they did not hesitate to bring the _Old_ Testament in support of their barbarities, they would hardly let the _New_ escape them.

_St. Paul_, having converted _Onesimus_ to the Christian faith, who was a fugitive slave of _Philemon_, sent him back to his master. This circumstance has furnished the _receivers_ with a plea, that Christianity encourages slavery. But they have not only strained the passages which they produce in support of their assertions, but are ignorant of historical facts. The benevolent apostle, in the letter which he wrote to _Philemon_, the master of _Onesimus_, addresses him to the following effect: "I send him back to you, but not in his former capacity[111], _not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved_. In this manner I beseech you to receive him, for though I could _enjoin_ you to do it, yet I had rather it should be a matter of your _own will_, than of _necessity_."

It appears that the same _Onesimus_, when he was sent back, was no longer _a slave_, that he was a minister of the gospel, that he was joined with _Tychicus_ in an ecclesiastical commission to the church of the _Colossians_, and was afterwards bishop of _Ephesus_. If language therefore has any meaning, and if history has recorded a fact which may be believed, there is no case more opposite to the doctrine of the _receivers_, than this which they produce in its support.

It is said again, that Christianity, among the many important precepts which it contains, does not furnish us with one for the abolition of slavery. But the reason is obvious. Slavery at the time of the introduction of the gospel was universally prevalent, and if Christianity had abruptly declared, that the millions of slaves should have been made free, who were then in the world, it would have been universally rejected, as containing doctrines that were dangerous, if not destructive, to society. In order therefore that it might be universally received, it never meddled, by any positive precept, with the civil institutions of the times; but though it does not expressly say, that "you shall neither buy, nor sell, nor possess a slave," it is evident that, in its general tenour, it sufficiently militates against the custom.

The first doctrine which it inculcates, is that of _brotherly love_. It commands good will towards men. It enjoins us to love our neighbours as ourselves, and to do unto all men, as we would that they should do unto us. And how can any man fulfil this scheme of universal benevolence, who reduces an unfortunate person _against his will_, to the _most insupportable_ of all human conditions; who considers him as his _private property_, and treats him, not as a brother, nor as one of the same parentage with himself, but as an _animal of the brute creation?_

But the most important doctrine is that, by which we are assured that mankind are to exist in a future state, and to give an account of those actions, which they have severally done in the flesh. This strikes at the very root of slavery. For how can any man be justly called to an account for his actions, whose actions are not _at his own disposal?_ This is the case with the _proper_[112] slave. His liberty is absolutely bought and _appropriated_; and if the purchase is _just and equitable_, he is _under the necessity_ of perpetrating any crime, which the purchaser may order him to commit, or, in other words, of ceasing to be _accountable for his actions_.

These doctrines therefore are sufficient to shew, that slavery is incompatible, with the Christian system. The _Europeans_ considered them as such, when, at the close of the twelfth century, they resisted, their hereditary prejudices, and occasioned its abolition. Hence one, among many other proofs, that Christianity was the production of infinite wisdom; that though it did not take such express cognizance of the wicked national institutions of the times, as should hinder its reception, it should yet contain such doctrines, as, when it should be fully established, would be sufficient for the abolition of them all.

Thus then is the argument of you _receivers_ ineffectual, and your conduct impious. For, by the prosecution of this wicked slavery and commerce, you not only oppose the propagation of that gospel which was ordered to be preached unto every creature, and bring it into contempt, but you oppose its tenets also: first, because you violate that law of _universal benevolence_, which was to take away those hateful distinctions of _Jew_ and _Gentile_, _Greek_ and _Barbarian, bond_ and _free_, which prevailed when the gospel was introduced; and secondly, because, as every man is to give an account of his actions hereafter, it is necessary that he should be _free_.

Another argument yet remains, which, though nature will absolutely turn pale at the recital, cannot possibly be omitted. In those wars, which are made for the sake of procuring slaves, it is evident that the contest must be generally obstinate, and that great numbers must be slain on both sides, before the event can be determined. This we may reasonably apprehend to be the case: and we have shewn[113], that there have not been wanting instances, where the conquerors have been so incensed at the resistance they have found, that their spirit of vengeance has entirely got the better of their avarice, and they have murdered, in cool blood, every individual, without discrimination, either of age or sex. From these and other circumstances, we thought we had sufficient reason to conclude, that, where _ten_ were supposed to be taken, an _hundred_, including the victors and vanquished, might be supposed to perish. Now, as the annual exportation from _Africa_ consists of an hundred thousand men, and as the two orders, of those who are privately kidnapped by individuals, and of those, who are publickly seized by virtue of the authority of their prince, compose together, at least, nine-tenths of the _African_ slaves, it follows, that about ten thousand consist of convicts and prisoners of war. The last order is the most numerous. Let us suppose then that only six thousand of this order are annually sent into servitude, and it will immediately appear that no less than _sixty-thousand_ people annually perish in those wars, which are made only for the purpose of procuring slaves. But that this number, which we believe to be by no means exaggerated, may be free from all objection, we will include those in the estimate, who die as they are travelling to the ships. Many of these unfortunate people have a journey of one thousand miles to perform on foot, and are driven like sheep through inhospitable woods and deserts, where they frequently die in great numbers, from fatigue and want. Now if to those, who thus perish on the _African_ continent, by war and travelling, we subjoin those[114], who afterwards perish on the voyage, and in the seasoning together, it will appear that, in every yearly attempt to supply the colonies, an _hundred thousand_ must perish, even before _one_ useful individual can be obtained.

Gracious God! how wicked, how beyond all example impious, must be that servitude, which cannot be carried on without the continual murder of so many and innocent persons! What punishment is not to be expected for such monstrous and unparalleled barbarities! For if the blood of one man, unjustly shed, cries with so loud a voice for the divine vengeance, how shall the cries and groans of an _hundred thousand_ men, _annually murdered_, ascend the celestial mansions, and bring down that punishment, which such enormities deserve! But do we mention punishment? Do we allude to that punishment, which shall be inflicted on men as individuals, in a future life? Do we allude to that awful day, which shall surely come, when the master shall behold his murdered negroe face to face? When a train of mutilated slaves shall be brought against him? When he shall stand confounded and abashed? Or, do we allude to that punishment, which may be inflicted on them here, as members of a wicked community? For as a body politick, if its members are ever so numerous, may be considered as an whole, acting of itself, and by itself, in all affairs in which it is concerned, so it is accountable, as such, for its conduct; and as these kinds of polities have only their existence here, so it is only in this world, that, as such, they can be punished.

"Now, whether we consider the crime, with respect to the individuals immediately concerned in this most barbarous and cruel traffick, or whether we consider it as patronized[115] and encouraged by the laws of the land, it presents to our view an equal degree of enormity. A crime, founded on a dreadful pre-eminence in wickedness,--a crime, which being both of individuals and the nation, must sometime draw down upon us the heaviest judgment of Almighty God, who made of one blood all the sons of men, and who gave to all equally a natural right to liberty; and who, ruling all the kingdoms of the earth with equal providential justice, cannot suffer such deliberate, such monstrous iniquity, to pass long unpunished[116]."

But alas! he seems already to have interfered on the occasion! The violent[117] and supernatural agitations of all the elements, which, for a series of years, have prevailed in those European settlements, where the unfortunate _Africans_ are retained in a state of slavery, and which have brought unspeakable calamities on the inhabitants, and publick losses on the states to which they severally belong, are so many awful visitations of God for this inhuman violation of his laws. And it is not perhaps unworthy of remark, that as the subjects of Great-Britain have two thirds of this impious commerce in their own hands, so they have suffered[118] in the same proportion, or more severely than the rest.

How far these misfortunes may appear to be acts of providence, and to create an alarm to those who have been accustomed to refer every effect to its apparent cause; who have been habituated to stop there, and to overlook the finger of God; because it is slightly covered under the veil of secondary laws, we will not pretend to determine? but this we will assert with confidence, that the _Europeans_ have richly deserved them all; that the fear of sympathy, which can hardly be restrained on other melancholy occasions, seems to forget to flow at the relation of these; and that we can never, with any shadow of justice, with prosperity to the undertakers of those, whose success must be at the expence of the happiness of millions of their fellow-creatures.

But this is sufficient. For if liberty is only an adventitious right; if men are by no means superiour to brutes; if every social duty is a curse; if cruelty is highly to be esteemed; if murder is strictly honourable, and Christianity is a lye; then it is evident, that the _African_ slavery may be pursued, without either the remorse of conscience, or the imputation of a crime. But if the contrary of this is true, which reason must immediately evince, it is evident that no custom established among men was ever more impious; since it is contrary to _reason, justice, nature, the principles of law and government, the whole doctrine, in short, of natural religion, and the revealed voice of God_.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 111: Epist. to Philemon.]

[Footnote 112: The _African_ slave is of this description; and we could wish, in all our arguments on the present subject, to be understood as having spoken only of _proper slaves_. The slave who is condemned to the oar, to the fortifications, and other publick works, is in a different predicament. His liberty is not _appropriated_, and therefore none of those consequences can be justly drawn, which have been deduced in the present case.]

[Footnote 113: See the description of an African battle (Footnote 049).]