By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments - Comprising the Writings of Hammond, Harper, Christy, - Stringfellow, Hodge, Bledsoe, and Cartrwright on This - Important Subject
Author: Elliott, E. N. [Editor]
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments - Comprising the Writings of Hammond, Harper, Christy, - Stringfellow, Hodge, Bledsoe, and Cartrwright on This - Important Subject" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

at http://www.eBookForge.net

Transcriber's Notes:

Spelling and punctuation anomalies were retained, such as
"Masachusettes" and "philanthrophy" on page 40. The table of
contents can be found at the end of this book.












Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by M. P. ABBOTT

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for
the Southern District of Georgia.


THERE is now but one great question dividing the American people, and
that, to the great danger of the stability of our government, the
concord and harmony of our citizens, and the perpetuation of our
liberties, divides us by a geographical line. Hence estrangement,
alienation, enmity, have arisen between the North and the South, and
those who, from "the times that tried men's souls," have stood shoulder
to shoulder in asserting their rights against the world; who, as a band
of brothers, had combined to build up this fair fabric of human liberty,
are now almost in the act of turning their fratricidal arms against each
other's bosoms. All other parties that have existed in our country, were
segregated on questions of policy affecting the whole nation and each
individual composing it alike; they pervaded every section of the Union,
and the acerbity of political strife was softened by the ties of blood,
friendship, and neighborhood association. Moreover, these parties were
constantly changing, on account of the influence mutually exerted by the
members of each; the Federalist of yesterday becomes the Republican of
to-day, and Whigs and Democrats change their party allegiance with every
change of leaders. If the republicans mismanaged the government, they
suffered the consequences alike with the federalists; if the democrats
plunged our country into difficulties, they had to abide the penalty as
well as the whigs. All parties alike had to suffer the evils, or enjoy
the advantages of bad or good government. But it has been reserved to
our own times to witness the rise, growth, and prevalence of a party
confined exclusively to one section of the Union, whose fundamental
principle is opposition to the rights and interests of the other
section; and this, too, when those rights are most sacredly guaranteed,
and those interests protected, by that compact under which we became a
united nation. In a free government like ours, the eclecticism of
parties--by which we mean the affinity by which the members of a party
unite on questions of national policy, by which all sections of the
country are alike affected--has always been considered as highly
conducive to the purity and integrity of the government, and one of the
causes most promotive of its perpetuity. Such has been the case, not
only in our own country, but also in England, from whom we have mainly
derived our ideas of civil and religious liberty, and even, to some
extent, our form of government. But there, the case of oppressed and
down-trodden Ireland, bears witness to the baneful effects of
geographical partizan government and legislation.

In our own country this same spirit, which had its origin in the
Missouri contest, is now beginning to produce its legitimate fruits:
witness the growing distrust with which the people of the North and the
South begin to regard each other; the diminution of Southern travel,
either for business or pleasure, in the Northern States; the efforts of
each section to develop its own resources, so as virtually to render it
independent of the other; the enactment of "unfriendly legislation," in
several of the States, towards other States of the Union, or their
citizens; the contest for the exclusive possession of the territories,
the common property of the States; the anarchy and bloodshed in Kansas;
the exasperation of parties throughout the Union; the attempt to
nullify, by popular clamor, the decision of the supreme tribunal of our
country; the existence of the "underground railroad," and of a party in
the North organized for the express purpose of robbing the citizens of
the Southern States of their property; the almost daily occurrence of
fugitive slave mobs; the total insecurity of slave property in the
border States;[1] the attempt to circulate incendiary documents among
the slaves in the Southern States, and the flooding of the whole country
with the most false and malicious misrepresentations of the state of
society in the slave States; the attempt to produce division among us,
and to array one portion of our citizens in deadly hostility to the
other; and finally, the recent attempt to excite, at Harper's Ferry, and
throughout the South, an insurrection, and a civil and servile war, with
all its attendant horrors.

All these facts go to prove that there is a great wrong somewhere, and
that a part, or the whole, of the American people are demented, and
hurrying down to swift destruction. To ascertain where this great wrong
and evil lies, to point out the remedy, to disabuse the public mind of
all erroneous impressions or prejudices, to combat all false doctrines
on _this_ subject, and to establish the truth, shall be the aim of the
following pages. In preparing them we have consulted the works of most
of the writers on both sides of this question, as well as the statistics
and history tending to throw light upon the subject. To this we would
invite the candid and dispassionate attention of every patriot and
philanthropist. To all such we would say, in the language of the Roman

          "Si quid novisti vectius istis,
           Candidus imperti; si non,
           His utere mecum."

In the following pages, the words slave and slavery are not used in the
sense commonly understood by the abolitionists. With them these terms
are contradistinguished from servants and servitude. According to their
definition, a slave is merely a "chattel" in a human form; a _thing_ to
be bought and sold, and treated worse than a brute; a being without
rights, privileges, or duties. Now, if this is a correct definition of
the word, we totally object to the term, and deny that we have any such
institution as _slavery_ among us. We recognize among us no class,
which, as the abolitionists falsely assert, that the Supreme Court
decided "had no rights which a white man was bound to respect." The
words _slave_ and _servant_ are perfectly synonymous, and differ only in
being derived from different languages; the one from Sclavonic, the
other from the Latin, just as feminine and womanly are respectively of
Latin and Saxon origin. The Saxon synonym _thrall_ has become obsolete
in our language, but some of its derivations, as thralldom, are still in
use. In Greek the same idea was expressed by _δοῦλος_, and in Hebrew by
_ebed_. The one idea of servitude, or of obedience to the will of
another, is accurately expressed by all these terms. He who wishes to
see this topic thoroughly examined, may consult "Fletcher's Studies on

The word _slavery_ is used in the following discussions, to express the
condition of the _African race_ in our Southern States, as also in other
parts of the world, and in other times. This word, as defined by most
writers, does not truly express the relation which the African race in
our country, _now_ bears to the white race. In some parts of the world,
the relation has essentially changed, while the word to express it has
remained the same. In most countries of the world, especially in former
times, the _persons_ of the slaves were the absolute property of the
master, and might be used or abused, as caprice or passion might
dictate. Under the Jewish law, a slave might be beaten to death by his
master, and yet the master go entirely unpunished, unless the slave died
outright under his hand. Under the Roman law, slaves had no rights
whatever, and were scarcely recognized as human beings; indeed, they
were sometimes drowned in fish-ponds, to feed the eels. Such is not the
labor system among us. As an example of faulty definition, we will
adduce that of Paley: "Slavery," says he, "is an obligation to labor for
the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the
servant." Waiving, for the present, the accuracy of this definition, as
far as it goes, we would remark that it is only half of the definition;
the only idea here conveyed is that of compulsory and unrequited labor.
Such is not our labor-system. Though we prefer the term slave, yet if
this be its true definition, we must protest against its being applied
to our system of African servitude, and insist that some other term
shall be used. The true definition of the term, as applicable to the
domestic institution in the Southern States, is as follows: Slavery is
the duty and obligation of the slave to labor for the mutual benefit of
both master and slave, under a warrant to the slave of protection, and a
comfortable subsistence, under all circumstances. The person of the
slave is not property, no matter what the fictions of the law may say;
but the right to his labor is property, and may be transferred like any
other property, or as the right to the services of a minor or an
apprentice may be transferred. Nor is the labor of the slave solely for
the benefit of the master, but for the benefit of all concerned; for
himself, to repay the advances made for his support in childhood, for
present subsistence, and for guardianship and protection, and to
accumulate a fund for sickness, disability, and old age. The master, as
the head of the system, has a right to the obedience and labor of the
slave, but the slave has also his mutual rights in the master; the right
of protection, the right of counsel and guidance, the right of
subsistence, the right of care and attention in sickness and old age. He
has also a right in his master as the sole arbiter in all his wrongs and
difficulties, and as a merciful judge and dispenser of law to award the
penalty of his misdeeds. Such is American slavery, or as Mr. Henry
Hughes happily terms it, "Warranteeism."

In order that the subject of American slavery may be thoroughly
discussed, we have availed ourselves of the labors of several of the
ablest writers in the Union. These have been taken, not from one section
only, but from both sections of our country. It is true, most of them
are citizens of the Southern States, and for this there is a good and
obvious reason; no one can correctly discuss this subject, or any other,
who is practically unacquainted with it. This was the error of the
French nation, when they undertook to legislate the African savages of
St. Domingo into free citizens of the model republic; of the English
nation when they undertook to interfere in the internal affairs of
their colonies; and thus must it always be, when men undertake to think
or write, or act, in reference to any subject, of whose fundamental
truths, they are profoundly ignorant. It is true, that in every part of
the civilized world there are noble minds, rising superior to the
prejudices of education, and the influence of the society in which they
are placed, and defending the truth for its own sake; to all such we
render their due homage.

It is objected to the defenders of American slavery, that they have
changed their ground; that from being apologists for it as an inevitable
evil, they have become its defenders as a social and political good,
morally right, and sanctioned by the Bible and by God himself. This
charge is unjust, as by reference to a few historical facts will
abundantly appear. The present slave States had little or no agency in
the first introduction of Africans into this country; this was achieved
by the Northern commercial States and by Great Britain. Wherever the
climate suited the negro constitution, slavery was profitable and
flourished; where the climate was unsuitable, slavery was unprofitable,
and died out. Most of the slaves in the Northern States were sent
southward to a more congenial clime. Upon the introduction into Congress
of the first abolition discussions, by John Quincy Adams, and Joshua
Giddings, Southern men altogether refused to engage in the debate, or
even to receive petitions on the subject. They averred that no good
could grow out of it, but only unmitigated evil.

The agitation of the abolition question had commenced in France during
the horrors of her first revolution, under the auspices of the Red
Republicans; it had pervaded England until it achieved the ruin of her
West India colonies, and by anti-slavery missionaries it had been
introduced into our Northern States. During all this agitation the
Southern States had been quietly minding their own business, regardless
of all the turmoil abroad. They had never investigated the subject
theoretically, but they were well acquainted with all its practical
workings. They had received from Africa a few hundred thousand pagan
savages, and had developed them into millions of civilized Christians,
happy in themselves, and useful to the world. They had never made the
inquiry whether the system were fundamentally wrong, but they judged it
by its fruits, which were beneficent to all. When therefore they were
charged with upholding a moral, social, and political evil; and its
immediate abolition was demanded, as a matter not only of policy, but
also of justice and right, their reply was, we have never investigated
the subject. Our fathers left it to us as a legacy, we have grown up
with it; it has grown with our growth, and strengthened with our
strength, until it is now incorporated with every fibre of our social
and political existence. What you say concerning its evils _may_ be true
or false, but we clearly see that your remedy involves a vastly greater
evil, to the slave, to the master, to our common country, and to the
world. We understand the nature of the negro race; and in the relation
in which the providence of God has placed them to us, they are happy and
useful members of society, and are fast rising in the scale of
intelligence and civilization, and the time may come when they will be
capable of enjoying the blessings of freedom and self-government. We are
instructing them in the principles of our common Christianity, and in
many instances have already taught them to read the word of life. But we
know that the time has not yet come; that this liberty which is a
blessing to _us_, would be a curse to _them_. Besides, to us and to you,
such a violent disruption would be most disastrous, it would topple to
its foundations the whole social and political edifice. Moreover, we
have had warning on this subject. God, in his providence, has permitted
the emancipation of the African race in a few of the islands contiguous
to our shores, and far from being elevated thereby to the condition of
Christian freemen, they have rapidly retrograded to the state of pagan
savages. The value of property in those islands has rapidly depreciated,
their production has vastly diminished, and their commerce and
usefulness to the world is destroyed. We wish not to subject either
ourselves or our dependents to such a fate. God has placed them in our
hands, and he holds us responsible for our course of policy towards

This courteous, common-sense, and practical reply, far from closing the
mouths of the agitators, only encouraged them to redouble their
exertions, and to imbitter the epithets which they hurled at the
slave-holders. They exhausted the vocabulary of billingsgate in
denouncing those guilty of this most henious of all sins, and charged
them in plain terms, with being _afraid_ to investigate or to discuss
the subject. Thus goaded into it, many commenced the investigation. Then
for the first time did the Southern people take a position on this
subject. It is due to a citizen of this State, the Rev. J. Smylie, to
say that he was the first to promulgate the truth, as deduced from the
Bible, on the subject of slavery. He was followed by a host of others,
who discussed it not only in the light of revelation and morals, but as
consistent with the Federal Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence; until many of those who had commenced their career of
abolition agitation by reasoning from the Bible and the Constitution,
were compelled to acknowledge that they both were hopelessly
pro-slavery, and to cry: "give us an anti-slavery constitution, an
anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery God." To such straits are men
reduced by fanaticism. It is here worthy of remark, that most of the
early abolition propagandists, many of whom commenced as Christian
ministers, have ended in downright infidelity. Let us then hear no more
of this charge, that the defenders of slavery have changed their ground;
it is the abolitionists who have been compelled to appeal to "a higher
law," not only than the Federal Constitution, but also, than the law of
God. This is the inevitable result when men undertake to be "wise above
what is written." The Apostle, in the Epistle to Timothy, has not only
explicitly laid down the law on the subject of slavery, but has, with
prophetic vision, drawn the exact portrait of our modern abolitionists.

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters
worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not
blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise
them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because
they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things
teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the
doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing,
but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy,
strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings, of men of
corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is
godliness; from such withdraw thyself."

Can any words more accurately and vividly portray the character and
conduct of the abolitionists, or more plainly point out the results of
their efforts? Is it any wonder that after having received such a
castigation, they should totally repudiate the authority of God's law,
and say, "Not _thy_ will, but _mine_ be done." It is here explicitly
declared that this doctrine, the obedience of slaves to their masters,
are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ; and the arguments of its
opposers are characterized as doting sillily about questions and strifes
of words, and therefore unworthy of reply and refutation. But the
consequences are more serious; look at the catalogue. Envy, the root of
the evil; strife, see the divisions in our churches, and in our
political communities; railings, their calling slaveholders robbers,
thieves, murderers, outlaws; evil surmisings, can any good thing come
out of Nazareth, or from the Slave States? Perverse disputings of men of
corrupt minds, their wresting the Scriptures from their plain and
obvious meaning to compel them to teach abolitionism. Finally; the duty
of all Christians: from such withdraw thyself.

The monographs embraced in this compendium of discussions on slavery,
were written at different periods; some of them several years ago, and
some of them were prepared expressly for this work, and some have been
re-written in order to continue the subject down to the present time.
There is this further advantage in combining works of different dates,
that by comparing them it is evident that the earlier and later writers
both stood on, substantially, the same ground, and take the same general
views of the institution. The charge of inconsistency must, therefore,
fall to the ground. To the reading public, most of the matter contained
in these pages will be new; as, though some of them have been before the
public for several years, they have had but a limited circulation, no
efforts having been made by the Southern people to scatter them
broadcast throughout the land, in the form of _Sunday school books_, or
_religious tracts_. Nor will it be expected by the reader, that the
authors of the works on the different topics embraced in this
discussion, should have been able to confine their arguments strictly
within the assigned limits. The subjects themselves so inosculate, that
it would be strange indeed if the writers should not occasionally
encroach upon each other's province; but even this, from the variety of
argument, and mode of illustration, will be found interesting.

The work of Professor Christy, on the Economical Relations of Slavery,
contains a large amount of the most accurate, valuable and well arranged
statistical matter, and his combinations and deductions are remarkable
for their philosophical accuracy. He spent several years in the service
of the American Colonization Society, as agent for Ohio, and made
himself thoroughly acquainted with the results, both to the blacks and
whites, both of slavery and emancipation.

Governor Hammond is too well known, as an eminent statesman and
political writer, to require notice here. His letters are addressed to
Mr. Clarkson, of England, who, in conjunction with Wilberforce, after a
long struggle, at last secured the passage, by the Parliament of Great
Britain, of acts to abolish the slave trade and slavery, in the British
West India colonies. The results of this are vividly portrayed by the
author, and his predictions are now history.

Chancellor Harper, with a master hand, draws a parallel between the
social condition of communities where slave labor exists and where it
does not, and vindicates the South from the aspersions cast upon her.

Dr. Bledsoe's "Liberty and Slavery," or Slavery in the Light of Moral
Science, discusses the right or wrong of slavery, exposes the fallacies,
and answers the arguments of the abolitionists. His established
reputation as an accurate reasoner, and a forcible writer, guarantees
the excellence of this work.

Dr. Stringfellow's Slavery in the Light of Divine Revelation, and Dr.
Hodge's Bible Argument on Slavery, form a synopsis of the whole
theological argument on the subject. The plain and obvious teachings, of
both Old and New Testament, are given with such irresistible force as to
carry conviction to every mind, except those wedded to the theory of a
"Higher Law" than the Law of God.

Dr. Cartwright's "Ethnology of the African Race," are the results of the
observation and experience of a lifetime, spent in an extensive practice
of medicine in the midst of the race. He has had the best of
opportunities for becoming intimately acquainted with all the
idiosyncrasies of this race, and he has well improved them. That the
negro is _now_ an inferior species, or at least variety of the human
race, is well established, and must, we think, be admitted by all. That
by himself he has never emerged from barbarism, and even when partly
civilized under the control of the white man, he speedily returns to the
same state, if emancipated, are now indubitable truths. Whether or not,
under our system of slavery, he can ever be so elevated as to be worthy
of freedom, time and the providence of God alone can determine. The most
encouraging results have already been achieved by American slavery, in
the elevation of the negro race in our midst; as they are now as far
superior to the natives of Africa, as the whites are to them. In a
religious point of view, also, there is great encouragement, as there
are twice as many communicants of Christian churches among our slaves,
as there are among the heathen at all the missionary stations in the
world. (See Prof. Christy's statistics in this volume.) What the negroes
might have been, but for the interference of the abolitionists, it is
impossible to conjecture. That their influence has only been unmitigated
evil, we have the united testimony, both of themselves and of the slave
holders. (See Dr. Beecher's late sermon on the Harper's Ferry trials.)

To show what has been the uniform course of Christians in the South
towards the slaves, we will quote from the first pastoral letter of the
Synod of the Carolinas and Georgia, to the churches under their care.

After addressing husbands and wives, parents and children, on their
relative duties, the Synod continues, "But parents and heads of
families, think it not surprising that we inform you that God has
committed others to your care, besides your natural offspring, in the
welfare of whose souls you are also deeply interested, and whose
salvation you are bound to endeavor to promote--we mean your slaves;
poor creatures! shall they be bound for life, and their owners never
once attempt to deliver their souls from the bondage of sin, nor point
them to eternal freedom through the blood of the Son of God! On this
subject we beg leave to submit to your consideration the conduct of
Abraham, the father of the faithful, through whose example is
communicated unto you the commandment of God (Gen. xviii: 19); 'For I
know him,' says God, 'that he will command his children and his
household after him, that they shall keep the ways of the Lord, to do
justice and judgment.'

"Masters and servants, attend to your duty--in the express language of
the Holy Ghost--'servants, obey your masters in all things; not with eye
service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God; and
whatsoever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not to man. And
you, masters, render to your servants their due, knowing that your
master is also in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with Him.'
And let those who govern, and those who are governed, make the object of
living in this world be, to prepare to meet your God and judge, when all
shall stand on a level before His bar, and receive their decisive
sentence according to the deeds done in the body.

"Servants, be willing to receive instruction, and discourage not your
masters by your stubbornness or aversion. Remember, the interest is your
own, and if you be wise, it will be for your own good; _spend the
Sabbath in learning to read, and in teaching your young ones_, instead
of rambling abroad from place to place; a few years will give you many
Sabbaths, which, if rightly improved, will be sufficient for the
purpose. Attend, also, on public worship, when you have opportunity, and
behave there with decency and good order.

"Were these relative duties conscientiously practiced, by husbands and
wives, parents and children, masters and servants, how pleasing would be
the sight; expressing by your conduct pious Joshua's resolution, as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

The argument on slavery, deduced from the law of nations, we commend to
the special attention of the candid reader. Indeed, it is from the
recognition of the duty of the various races and nations composing the
human family, to contribute their part for the advancement and good of
the whole, not only that slavery has existed in all ages, but also that
efforts have been, and are now being made, to extend the benefits of
civilization and religion to the benighted races of the earth. This has
been done in two different ways; one by sending the teacher forth to the
heathen, the other by bringing the heathen to the teacher. Both have
achieved great good, but the latter has been the more successful. Though
the principles embraced in this general law of nations have been
acknowledged and acted out in all times, it is due to J. Q. Adams, to
state that he first gave a clear elucidation of those principles, so far
as they apply to commerce.

Commending these arguments to the candid consideration of every friend
to his country, we may be permitted to express the hope that they will
redound, not only to the perpetuity of our blood-bought liberties, but
to the glory of God, and the good of all men.

PORT GIBSON, MISS., Jan. 1, 1860.


[1] Strange that we should be compelled to call those _border_ States,
which lie in the very midst of our Union.





          OF CINCINNATI.





THE first edition of COTTON IS KING was issued as an experiment. Its
favorable reception led to further investigation, and an enlargement of
the work for a second edition.

The present publishers have bought the copyright of the third edition,
with the privilege of printing it in the form and manner that may best
suit their purposes. This step severs the author from all further
connection with the work, and affords him an opportunity of stating a
few of the facts which led, originally, to its production. He was
connected with the newspaper press, as an editor, from 1824 till 1836.
This included the period of the tariff controversy, and the rise of the
anti-slavery party of this country. After resigning the editorial chair,
he still remained associated with public affairs, so as to afford him
opportunities of observing the progress of events. In 1848 he accepted
an appointment as Agent of the American Colonization Society, for Ohio;
and was thus brought directly into contact with the elements of
agitation upon the slavery question, in the aspect which that
controversy had then assumed. Upon visiting Columbus, the seat of
government of the State, in January, 1849, the Legislature, then in
session, was found in great, agitation about the repeal of the Black
Laws, which had originally been enacted to prevent the immigration of
colored men into the State. The abolitionists held the balance of
power, and were uncompromising in their demands. To escape from the
difficulty, and prevent all future agitation upon the subject,
politicians united in erasing this cause of disturbance from the statute
book. The colored people had been in convention at the capitol; and felt
themselves in a position, as they imagined, to control the legislation
of the State. They were encouraged in this belief by the abolitionists,
and proceeded to effect an organization by which black men were to
_stump_ the State in advocacy of their claims to an equality with white

At this juncture the Colonization cause was brought before the
Legislature, by a memorial asking aid to send emigrants to Liberia. An
appointment was also made, by the agent, for a Lecture on Colonization,
to be delivered in the hall of the House of Representatives; and
respectful notices sent to the African churches, inviting the colored
people to attend. This invitation was met by them with the publication
of a call for an indignation meeting; which, on assembling, denounced
both the agent and the cause he advocated, in terms unfitted to be
copied into this work. One of the resolutions, however, has some
significance, as foreshadowing the final action they contemplated, and
which has shown itself so futile, as a means of redress, in the recent
Harper's Ferry Tragedy. That resolution reads as follows:

"_Resolved_,--That we will never leave this country while one of our
brethren groans in slavish fetters in the United States, but will remain
on this soil and contend for our rights, and those of our enslaved
race--upon the rostrum--in the pulpit--in the social circle, and upon
the field, if necessary, until liberty to the captive shall be
proclaimed throughout the length and breadth of this great Republic, or
we called from time to eternity."

In the winter of 1850, Mr. Stanley's proposition, to Congress, for the
appropriation of the last installment of the Surplus Revenue to
Colonization, was laid before the Ohio Legislature for approval. The
colored people again held meetings, denouncing this proposition also,
and the following resolutions, among others, were adopted--the first at
Columbus and the second at Cincinnati:

"_Resolved_,--That it is our unalterable and eternal determination, as
heretofore expressed, to remain in the United States at all hazards, and
to 'buffet the withering flood of prejudice and misrule,' which menaces
our destruction until we are exalted, to ride triumphantly upon its
foaming billows, or honorably sink into its destroying vortex: although
inducements may be held out for us to emigrate, in the shape of odious
and oppressive laws, or liberal appropriations."

"_Resolved_,--That we should labor diligently to secure--first, the
abolition of slavery, and, failing in this, the separation of the
States; one or the other event being necessary to our ever enjoying in
its fullness and power, the privilege of an American citizen."

Again, some three or four years later, on the occasion of the formation
of the Ohio State Colonization Society, another meeting was called, in
opposition to Colonization, in the city of Cincinnati, which, among
others, passed the following resolution:

"_Resolved_,--That in our opinion the emancipation and elevation of our
enslaved brethren depends in a great measure upon their brethren who are
free, remaining in the country; and we will remain to be that 'agitating
element' in American politics, which Mr Wise, in a late letter,
concludes, has done so much for the slave."

Many similar resolutions might be quoted, all manifesting a
determination, on the part of the colored people, to maintain their
foothold in the United States, until the freedom of the slave should be
effected; and indicating an expectation, on their part, that this result
would be brought about by an insurrection, in which they expected to
take a prominent part. In this policy they were encouraged by nearly all
the opponents of Colonization, but especially by the active members of
the organizations for running off slaves to Canada.

To meet this state of things, COTTON IS KING was written. The mad folly
of the Burns' case, at Boston, in 1854, proved, conclusively, that white
men, by the thousand, stood prepared to provoke a collision between the
North and the South. The eight hundred men who volunteered at Worcester,
and proceeded to Boston, on that occasion, with banner flying, showed
that such a condition of public sentiment prevailed; while, at the same
time, the sudden dispersion of that valorous army, by a single officer
of the general government, who, unaided, captured their leader and bore
off their banner, proved, as conclusively, that such philanthropists are
not soldiers--that promiscuous crowds of undisciplined men are wholly
unreliable in the hour of danger.

The author would here repeat, then, that the main object he had in view,
in the preparation of COTTON IS KING, was to convince the abolitionists
of the utter failure of their plans, and that the policy they had
adopted was productive of results, the opposite of what they wished to
effect;--that British and American abolitionists, in destroying tropical
cultivation by emancipation in the West Indies, and opposing its
promotion in Africa by Colonization, had given to slavery in the United
States its prosperity and its power;--that the institution was no longer
to be controlled by moral or physical force, but had become wholly
subject to the laws of Political Economy;--and that, therefore, labor in
tropical countries, to supply tropical products to commerce, and not
insurrection in the United States, was the agency to be employed by
those who would successfully oppose the extension of American Slavery:
for, just as long as the hands of the free should persist in refusing to
supply the demands of commerce for cotton, just so long it would
continue to be obtained from those of the slave.

It will be seen in the perusal of the present edition, that Great
Britain, in her efforts to promote cotton cultivation in India and
Africa, now acts upon this principle, and that she thereby acknowledges
the truth of the views which the author has advanced. It will be seen
also, that to check American slavery and prevent a renewal of the slave
trade by American planters, she has even determined to employ the slaves
of Africa in the production of cotton: that is to say, the slavery of
America is to be opposed by arraying against it the slavery of
Africa--the petty chiefs there being required to force their slaves to
the cotton patches, that the masters here may find a diminishing market
for the products of their plantations.

In this connection it may be remarked, that the author has had many
opportunities of conversing with colored men, on the subject of
emigration to Africa, and they have almost uniformly opposed it on the
ground that they would be needed here. Some of them, in defending their
conduct, revealed the grounds of their hopes. But details on this point
are unnecessary. The subject is referred to, only as affording an
illustration of the extent to which ignorant men may become the victims
of dangerous delusions. The sum of the matter was about this: the
colored people, they said, had organizations extending from Canada to
Louisiana, by means of which information could be communicated
throughout the South, when the blow for freedom was to be struck.
Philanthropic white men were expected to take sides against the
oppressor, while those occupying neutral ground would offer no
resistance to the passage of forces from Canada and Ohio to Virginia and
Kentucky. Once upon slave territory, they imagined the work of
emancipation would be easily executed, as every slave would rush to the
standard of freedom.

These schemes of the colored people were viewed, at the time, as the
vagaries of over excited and ignorant minds, dreaming of the repetition
of Egyptian miracles for their deliverance; and were subjects of regret,
only because they operated as barriers to Colonization. But when a
friend placed in the author's hand, a few days since, a copy of the
_Chatham_ (Canada West) _Weekly Pilot_, of October 13, he could see that
the seed sown at Columbus in 1849, had yielded its harvest of bitterness
and disappointment at Harper's Ferry in 1859. That paper contained the
proceedings and resolutions of the colored men, at Chatham, on the 3d of
that month, in which the annexed resolution was included:

"_Resolved_,--That in view of the fact that a crisis will soon occur in
the United States to affect our friends and countrymen there, we feel it
the duty of every colored person to make the Canadas their homes. The
temperature and salubrity of the climate, and the productiveness and
fertility of the soil afford ample field for their encouragement. To
hail their enslaved bondmen upon their deliverance, in the glorious
kingdom of British Liberty, in the Canadas, we cordially invite the free
and the bond, the noble and the ignoble--we have no 'Dred Scott Law.'"

The occasion which called out this resolution, together with a number of
others, was the delivery of a lecture, on the 3d of October last, by an
agent from Jamaica, who urged them to emigrate to that beautiful island.
The import of this resolution will be better understood, when it is
remembered, that the organization of Brown's insurrectionary scheme took
place, in this same city of Chatham, on the 8th of May last. The
"crisis" which was soon to occur in the United States, and the
importance of every colored man remaining at his post, at that
particular juncture, as urged by the resolutions, all indicate, very
clearly, that Brown's movements were known to the leaders of the
meeting, and that they desired to co-operate in the movement. The
spirit breathed by the whole series of the Chatham resolutions, is so
fully in accord with those passed from time to time in the United
States, that there is no difficulty in perceiving that the views,
expectations, and hopes of the colored people of both countries have
been the same. The Chatham meeting was on the night of the 3d October,
and the outbreak of Brown on that of the 16th.

But the failure of the Harper's Ferry movement should now serve as
convincing proof, that nothing can be gained, by such means, for the
African race. No successful organization, for their deliverance, can be
effected in this country; and foreign aid is out of the question, not
only because foreign nations will not wage war for a philanthropic
object, but because they cannot do without our cotton for a single year.
They are very much in the condition of our Northern politicians, since
the old party landmarks have been broken down. The slavery question is
the only one left, upon which any enthusiasm can be awakened among the
people. The negro is to American politics what cotton is to European
manufactures and commerce--the controlling element. As the overthrow of
American slavery, with the consequent suspension of the motion of the
spindles and looms of Europe, would bring ruin upon millions of its
population; so the dropping of the negro question, in American politics,
would at once destroy the prospects of thousands of aspirants to office.
In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the clamor against slavery is
made only for effect; and there is not now, nor has there been at any
other period, any intention on the part of political agitators to wage
actual war against the slave States themselves. But while the author
believes that no intention of exciting to insurrection ever existed
among leading politicians at the North, he must express the opinion that
evil has grown out of the policy they have pursued, as it has excited
the free negro to attempts at insurrection, by leading him to believe
that they were in earnest in their professions of prosecuting the
"irrepressible conflict," between freedom and slavery, to a termination
destructive to the South; and, lured by this hope, he has been led to
consider it his duty, as a man, to stand prepared for Mr Jefferson's
crisis, in which Omnipotence would be arrayed upon his side. This stand
he has been induced to take from principles of honor, instead of seeking
new fields of enterprise in which to better his condition.

But there is another evil to the colored man, which has grown out of
northern agitation on the question of slavery. The controversy is one of
such a peculiar nature, that any needed modification of it can be made,
by politicians, to suit whatever emergency may arise. The Burns' case
convinced them that many men, white and black, were then prepared for
treason. This was a step, however, that voters at large disapproved;
and, not only was it unpopular to advocate the forcing of emancipation
upon the slave States, but it seemed equally repugnant to the people to
have the North filled with free negroes. The free colored man was,
therefore, given to understand, that slavery was not to be disturbed in
the States where it had been already established. But this was not all.
He had to have another lesson in the philosophy of _dissolving scenes_,
as exhibited in the great political magic lantern. Nearly all the
Western States had denied him an equality with the white man, in the
adoption or modification of their constitutions. He looked to Kansas for
justice, and lo! it came. The first constitution, adopted by the free
State men of that territory, excluded the free colored man from the
rights of citizenship! "Why is this," said the author, to a leading
German politician of Cincinnati: "why have the free State men excluded
the free colored people from the proposed State?" "Oh," he replied, "we
want it for our sons--for white men,--and we want the _nigger_ out of
our way: we neither want him there as a slave or freeman, as in either
case his presence tends to degrade labor." This is not all. Nearly every
slave State is legislating the free colored men out of their bounds, as
a "disturbing element" which their people are determined no longer to
tolerate. Here, then, is the result of the efforts of the free colored
man to sustain himself in the midst of the whites; and here is the evil
that political agitation has brought upon him.

Under these circumstances, the author believes he will be performing a
useful service, in bringing the question of the economical relations of
American slavery, once more, prominently before the public. It is time
that the true character of the negro race, as compared with the white,
in productive industry, should be determined. If the negro, as a
voluntary laborer, is the equal of the white man, as the abolitionists
contend, then, set him to work in tropical cultivation, and he can
accomplish something for his race; but if he is incapable of competing
with the white man, except in compulsory labor,--as slaveholders most
sincerely believe the history of the race fully demonstrates--then let
the truth be understood by the world, and all efforts for his elevation
be directed to the accomplishment of the separation of the races.
Because, until the colored men, who are now free, shall afford the
evidence that freedom is best for the race, those held in slavery cannot
escape from their condition of servitude.

Some new and important facts in relation to the results of West India
emancipation are presented, which show, beyond question, that the
advancing productiveness, claimed for these islands, is not due to any
improvement in the industrial habits of the negroes, but is the result,
wholly, of the introduction of immigrant labor from abroad. No
advancement, of any consequence, has been made where immigrants have not
been largely imported; and in Jamaica, which has received but few, there
is a large decline in production from what existed during even the first
years of freedom.

The present edition embraces a considerable amount of new matter, having
a bearing on the condition of the cotton question, and a few other
points of public interest. Several new Statistical Tables have been
added to the appendix, that are necessary to the illustration of the
topics discussed; and some historical matter also, in illustration of
the early history of slavery in the United States.



"COTTON IS KING" has been received, generally, with much favor by the
public. The author's name having been withheld, the book was left to
stand or fall upon its own merits. The first edition has been sold
without any special effort on the part of the publishers. As they did
not risk the cost of stereotyping, the work has been left open for
revision and enlargement. No change in the matter of the first edition
has been made, except a few verbal alterations and the addition of some
qualifying phrases. Two short paragraphs only have been omitted, so as
to leave the public documents and abolitionists, only, to testify as to
the moral condition of the free colored people. The matter added to the
present volume equals nearly one-fourth of the work. It relates mainly
to two points: _First_, The condition of the free colored people;
_Second_, The economical and political relations of slavery. The facts
given, it is believed, will completely fortify all the positions of the
author, on these questions, so far as his views have been assailed.

The field of investigation embraced in the book is a broad one, and the
sources of information from which its facts are derived are accessible
to but few. It is not surprising, then, that strangers to these facts,
on first seeing them arranged in their philosophical relations and
logical connection, should be startled at their import, and misconceive
the object and motives of the author.

For example: One reviewer, in noticing the first edition, asserts that
the writer "endeavors to prove that slavery is a great blessing in its
relations to agriculture, manufactures, and commerce." The candid reader
will be unable to find any thing, in the pages of the work, to justify
such an assertion. The author has proved that the products of slave
labor are in such universal demand, through the channels named by the
reviewer, that it is impracticable, in the existing condition of the
world, to overthrow the system; and that as the free negro has
demonstrated his inability to engage successfully in cotton culture,
therefore American slavery remains immovable, and presents a standing
monument of the folly of those who imagined they could effect its
overthrow by the measures they pursued. This was the author's aim.

Another charges, that the whole work is based on a fallacy, and that all
its arguments, therefore, are unsound. The fallacy of the book, it is
explained, consists in making cotton and slavery indivisible, and
teaching that cotton can not be cultivated except by slave labor;
whereas, in the opinion of the objector, that staple can be grown by
free labor. Here, again, the author is misunderstood. He only teaches
what is true beyond all question: not that free labor is incapable of
producing cotton, but that it does not produce it so as to affect the
interests of slave labor; and that the American planter, therefore,
still finds himself in the possession of the monopoly of the market for
cotton, and unable to meet the demand made upon him for that staple,
except by a vast enlargement of its cultivation, requiring the
employment of an increased amount of labor in its production.

Another says: "The real object of the work is an apology for American
slavery. Professing to repudiate extremes, the author pleads the
necessity for the present continuance of slavery, founded on economical,
political, and moral considerations." The dullest reader can not fail to
perceive that the work contains not one word of apology for the
institution of slavery, nor the slightest wish for its continuance. The
author did not suppose that Southern slave holders would thank any
Northern man to attempt an apology for their maintaining what they
consider their rights under the constitution; neither did he imagine
that any plea for the continuance of American slavery was needed, while
the world at large is industriously engaged in supporting it by the
consumption of its products. He, therefore, neither attempted an apology
for its existence nor a plea for its continuance. He was writing history
and not recording his own opinions, about which he never imagined the
public cared a fig. He was merely aiming at showing, how an institution,
feeble and ill supported in the outset, had become one of the most
potent agents in the advancement of civilization, notwithstanding the
opposition it has had to encounter; and that those who had attempted its
overthrow, in consequence of a lack of knowledge of the plainest
principles of political economy and of human nature in its barbarous
state, had contributed, more than any other class of persons, to produce
this result.

Another charges the author with ignorance of the recent progress making
in the culture of cotton, by free labor, in India and Algeria; and
congratulates his readers that, "on this side of the ocean, the
prospects of free soil and free labor, and of free cotton as one of the
products of free soil and free labor, were never so fair as now." This
is a pretty fair example of one's "whistling to keep his courage up,"
while passing, in the dark, through woods where he thinks ghosts are
lurking on either side. Algeria has done nothing, yet, to encourage the
hope that American slavery will be lessened in value by the cultivation
of cotton in Africa. The British custom-house reports, as late as
September, 1855, instead of showing any increase of imports of cotton
from India, it will be seen, exhibit a great falling off in its
supplies; and, in the opinion of the best authorities, extinguishes the
hope of arresting the progress of American slavery by any efforts made
to render Asiatic free labor more effective. As to the prospects on this
side of the ocean, a glance at the map will show, that the chances of
growing cotton in Kansas are just as good, and only as good as in
Illinois and Missouri, from whence not a pound is ever exported. Texas
was careful to appropriate nearly all the cotton lands acquired from
Mexico, which lie on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains; and, by
that act, all such lands, mainly, have been secured to slavery. Where,
then, is free labor to operate, even were it ready for the task?

Another alleges that the book is "a weak effort to slander the people of
color." This is a charge that could have come only from a careless
reader. The whole testimony, embraced in the first edition, nearly, as
to the economical failure of West India Emancipation, and the moral
degradation of the free colored people, generally, is quoted from
abolition authorities, as is expressly stated; not to slander the people
of color, but to show them what the world is to think of them, on the
testimony of their particular friends and self-constituted guardians.

Another objects to what is said of those who hold the opinion that
slavery is _malum in se_, and who yet continue to purchase and use its
products. On this point it is only necessary to say, that the logic of
the book has not been affected by the sophistry employed against it; and
that if those who hold the _per se_ doctrine, and continue to use slave
labor products, dislike the charge of being _participes criminis_ with
robbers, they must classify slavery in some other mode than that in
which they have placed it in their creeds. For, if they are not
partakers with thieves, then slavery is not a system of robbery; but if
slavery be a system of robbery, as they maintain, then, on their own
principles, they are as much partakers with thieves as any others who
deal in stolen property.

The severest criticism on the book, however, comes from one who charges
the author with a "disposition to mislead, or an ignorance which is
inexcusable," in the use of the statistics of crime, having reference to
the free colored people, from 1820 to 1827. The object of the author, in
using the statistics referred to, was only to show the reasons why the
scheme of colonization was then accepted, by the American public, as a
means of relief to the colored population, and not to drag out these
sorrowful facts to the disparagement of those now living. But the
reviewer, suspicious of every one who does not adopt his abolition
notions, suspects the author of improper motives, and asks: "Why go so
far back, if our author wished to treat the subject fairly?" Well, the
statistics on this dismal topic have been brought up to the latest date
practicable, and the author now leaves it to the colored people
themselves to say, whether they have gained any thing by the reviewer's
zeal in their behalf. He will learn one lesson at least, we hope, from
the result: that a writer can use his pen with greater safety to his
reputation, when he knows something about the subject he discusses.

But this reviewer, warming in his zeal, undertakes to philosophise, and
says, that the evils existing among the free colored people, will be
found in exact proportion to the slowness of emancipation; and complains
that New Jersey was taken as the standard, in this respect, instead of
Massachusetts, where, he asserts, "all the negroes in the commonwealth,
were, by the new constitution, liberated in a day, and none of the ill
consequences objected followed, either to the commonwealth or to
individuals." The reviewer is referred to the facts, in the present
edition, where he will find, that the amount of crime, at the date to
which he refers, was _six times_ greater among the colored people of
Massachusetts, in proportion to their numbers, than among those of New
Jersey. The next time he undertakes to review KING COTTON, it will be
best for him not to rely upon his imagination, but to look at the facts.
He should be able at least, when quoting a writer, to discriminate
between evils resulting from insurrections, and evils growing out of
common immoralities. Experience has taught, that it is unsafe, when
calculating the results of the means of elevation employed, to reason
from a civilized to a half civilized race of men.

The last point that needs attention, is the charge that the author is a
slaveholder, and governed by mercenary motives. To break the force of
any such objection to the work, and relieve it from prejudices thus
created, the veil is lifted, and the author's name is placed upon the
title page.

The facts and statistics used in the first edition, were brought down to
the close of 1854, mainly, and the arguments founded upon the then
existing state of things. The year 1853 was taken as best indicating the
relations of our planters and farmers to the manufactures and commerce
of the country and the world; because the exports and imports of that
year were nearer an average of the commercial operations of the country
than the extraordinary year which followed; and because the author had
nearly finished his labors before the results of 1854 had been
ascertained. In preparing the second edition for the press, many
additional facts, of a more recent date, have been introduced: all of
which tend to prove the general accuracy of the author's conclusions, as
expressed in the first edition.

Tables IV and V, added to the present edition, embrace some very curious
and instructive statistics, in relation to the increase and decrease of
the free colored people, in certain sections, and the influence they
appear to exert on public sentiment.


IN the preparation of the following pages, the author has aimed at
clearness of statement, rather than elegance of diction. He sets up no
claim to literary distinction; and even if he did, every man of
classical taste knows, that a work, abounding in facts and statistics,
affords little opportunity for any display of literary ability.

The greatest care has been taken, by the author, to secure perfect
accuracy in the statistical information supplied, and in all the facts

The authorities consulted are Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature
and Art; Porter's Progress of the British Nation; McCullough's
Commercial Dictionary; Encyclopædia Americana; London Economist; De
Bow's Review; Patent Office Reports; Congressional Reports on Commerce
and Navigation; Abstract of the Census Reports, 1850; and Compendium of
the Census Reports. The extracts from the Debates in Congress, on the
Tariff Question, are copied from the _National Intelligencer_.

The tabular statements appended, bring together the principal facts,
belonging to the questions examined, in such a manner that their
relations to each other can be seen at a glance.

The first of these Tables, shows the date of the origin of cotton
manufactories in England, and the amount of cotton annually consumed,
down to 1853; the origin and amount of the exports of cotton from the
United States to Europe; the sources of England's supplies of cotton,
from countries other than the United States; the dates of the
discoveries which have promoted the production and manufacture of
cotton; the commencement of the movements made to meliorate the
condition of the African race; and the occurrence of events that have
increased the value of slavery, and led to its extension.

The second and third of the tables, relate to the exports and imports of
the United States; and illustrate the relations sustained by slavery, to
the other industrial interests and to the commerce of the country.



          Character of the Slavery controversy in the United
          States--In Great Britain--Its influence in
          modifying the policy of Anti-Slavery men in
          America--Course of the Churches--Political
          Parties--Result, COTTON IS KING--Necessity of
          reviewing the policy in relation to the African
          race--Topics embraced in the discussion.

THE controversy on SLAVERY, in the United States, has been one of an
exciting and complicated character. The power to emancipate existing, in
fact, in the States separately and not in the general government, the
efforts to abolish it, by appeals to public opinion, have been fruitless
except when confined to single States. In Great Britain the question was
simple. The power to abolish slavery in her West Indian colonies was
vested in Parliament. To agitate the people of England, and call out a
full expression of sentiment, was to control Parliament and secure its
abolition. The success of the English abolitionists, in the employment
of moral force, had a powerful influence in modifying the policy of
American anti-slavery men. Failing to discern the difference in the
condition of the two countries, they attempted to create a public
sentiment throughout the United States adverse to slavery, in the
confident expectation of speedily overthrowing the institution. The
issue taken, that slavery is _malum in se_--a sin in itself--was
prosecuted with all the zeal and eloquence they could command. Churches
adopting the _sin per se_ doctrine, inquired of their converts, not
whether they supported slavery by the use of its products, but whether
they believed the institution itself sinful. Could public sentiment be
brought to assume the proper ground; could the slaveholder be convinced
that the world denounced him as equally criminal with the robber and
murderer; then, it was believed, he would abandon the system. Political
parties, subsequently organized, taught, that to vote for a slaveholder,
or a pro-slavery man, was sinful, and could not be done without violence
to conscience; while, at the same time, they made no scruples of using
the products of slave labor--the exorbitant demand for which was the
great bulwark of the institution. This was a radical error. It laid all
who adopted it open to the charge of practical inconsistency, and left
them without any moral power over the consciences of others. As long as
all used their products, so long the slaveholders found the _per se_
doctrine working them no harm; as long as no provision was made for
supplying the demand for tropical products by free labor, so long there
was no risk in extending the field of operations. Thus, the very things
necessary to the overthrow of American slavery, were left undone, while
those essential to its prosperity, were continued in the most active
operation; so that, now, after more than a thirty years' war, we may
say, emphatically, COTTON IS KING, and his enemies are vanquished.

Under these circumstances, it is due to the age--to the friends of
humanity--to the cause of liberty--to the safety of the Union--that we
should review the movements made in behalf of the African race, in our
country; so that errors of principle may be abandoned; mistakes in
policy corrected; the free colored people taught their true relations to
the industrial interests of the world; the rights of the slave as well
as the master secured; and the principles of the constitution
established and revered. It is proposed, therefore, to examine this
subject in the light of the social, civil, and commercial history of the
country; and, in doing this, to embrace the facts and arguments under
the following heads:

1. The early movements on the subject of slavery; the circumstances
under which the Colonization Society took its rise; the relations it
sustained to slavery and to the schemes projected for its abolition; the
origin of the elements which have given to American slavery its
commercial value and consequent powers of expansion; and the futility of
the means used to prevent the extension of the institution.

2. The relations of American slavery to the industrial interests of our
own country; to the demands of commerce; and to the present political

3. The industrial, social, and moral condition of the free colored
people in the British colonies and in the United States; and the
influence they have exerted on public sentiment in relation to the
perpetuation of slavery.

4. The moral relations of persons holding the _per se_ doctrine, on the
subject of slavery, to the purchase and consumption of slave labor



          Emancipation in the United States begun--First
          Abolition Society organized--Progress of
          Emancipation--First Cotton Mill--Exclusion of
          Slavery from N. W. Territory--Elements of Slavery
          expansion--Cotton Gin invented--Suppression of the
          Slave Trade--Cotton Manufactures commenced in
          Boston--Franklin's Appeal--Condition of the Free
          Colored People--Boston Prison-Discipline
          Society--Darkening Prospects of the Colored

FOUR years after the Declaration of American Independence, Pennsylvania
and Massachusetts had emancipated their slaves; and, eight years
thereafter, Connecticut and Rhode Island followed their example.

Three years after the last named event, an _abolition society_ was
organized by the citizens of the State of New York, with John Jay at its
head. Two years subsequently, the Pennsylvanians did the same thing,
electing Benjamin Franklin to the presidency of their association. The
same year, too, slavery was forever excluded, by act of Congress, from
the Northwest Territory. This year is also memorable as having witnessed
the erection of the first cotton mill in the United States, at Beverley,

During the year that the New York Abolition Society was formed, Watts,
of England, had so far perfected the _steam engine_ as to use it in
propelling machinery for spinning cotton; and the year the Pennsylvania
Society was organized witnessed the invention of the _power loom_. The
_carding machine_ and the _spinning jenny_ having been invented twenty
years before, the power loom completed the machinery necessary to the
indefinite extension of the manufacture of cotton.

The work of emancipation, begun by the four States named, continued to
progress, so that in seventeen years from the adoption of the
constitution, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and New Jersey, had also
enacted laws to free themselves from the burden of slavery.

As the work of manumission proceeded, the elements of slavery expansion
were multiplied. When the four States first named liberated their
slaves, no regular exports of cotton to Europe had yet commenced; and
the year New Hampshire set hers free, only 138,328 lbs. of that article
were shipped from the country. Simultaneously with the action of
Vermont, in the year following, the _cotton gin_ was invented, and an
unparalleled impulse given to the cultivation of cotton. At the same
time, Louisiana, with her immense territory, was added to the Union, and
room for the extension of slavery vastly increased. New York lagged
behind Vermont for six years, before taking her first step to free her
slaves, when she found the exports of cotton to England had reached
9,500,000 lbs.; and New Jersey, still more tardy, fell five years behind
New York; at which time the exports of that staple--so rapidly had its
cultivation progressed--were augmented to 38,900,000 lbs.

Four years after the emancipations by States had ceased, the slave trade
was prohibited; but, as if each movement for freedom must have its
counter-movement to stimulate slavery, that same year the manufacture of
cotton goods was commenced in Boston. Two years after that event, the
exports of cotton amounted to 93,900,000 lbs. War with Great Britain,
soon afterward, checked both our exports and her manufacture of the
article; but the year 1817, memorable in this connection, from its being
the date of the organization of the Colonization Society, found our
exports augmented to 95,660,000 lbs., and her consumption enlarged to
126,240,000 lbs. Carding and spinning machinery had now reached a good
degree of perfection, and the power loom was brought into general use in
England, and was also introduced into the United States. Steamboats,
too, were coming into use, in both countries; and great activity
prevailed in commerce, manufactures, and the cultivation of cotton.

But how fared it with the free colored people during all this time? To
obtain a true answer to this question we must revert to the days of the
Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

With freedom to the slave, came anxieties among the whites as to the
results. Nine years after Pennsylvania and Massachusetts had taken the
lead in the trial of emancipation, Franklin issued an appeal for aid to
enable his society to form a plan for the promotion of industry,
intelligence, and morality among the free blacks; and he zealously urged
the measure on public attention, as essential to their well-being, and
indispensable to the safety of society. He expressed his belief, that
such is the debasing influence of slavery on human nature, that its very
extirpation, if not performed with care, may sometimes open a source of
serious evils; and that so far as emancipation should be promoted by the
society, it was a duty incumbent on its members to instruct, to advise,
to qualify those restored to freedom, for the exercise and enjoyment of
civil liberty.

How far Franklin's influence failed to promote the humane object he had
in view, may be inferred from the fact, that forty-seven years after
Pennsylvania passed her act of emancipation, and thirty-eight after he
issued his appeal, _one-third_ of the convicts in her penitentiary were
colored men; though the preceding census showed that her slave
population had almost wholly disappeared--there being but _two hundred
and eleven_ of them remaining, while her free colored people had
increased in number to more than _thirty thousand_. Few of the other
free States were more fortunate, and some of them were even in a worse
condition--_one-half_ of the convicts in the penitentiary of New Jersey
being colored men.

But this is not the whole of the sad tale that must be recorded. Gloomy
as was the picture of crime among the colored people of New Jersey, that
of Massachusetts was vastly worse. For though the number of her colored
convicts, as compared with the whites, was as _one_ to _six_, yet the
proportion of her colored population in the penitentiary was _one_ out
of _one hundred and forty_, while the proportion in New Jersey was but
_one_ out of _eight hundred and thirty-three_. Thus, in Massachusetts,
where emancipation had, in 1780, been _immediate_ and unconditional,
there was, in 1826, among her colored people, about six times as much
crime as existed among those of New Jersey, where _gradual_ emancipation
had not been provided for until 1804.

The moral condition of the colored people in the free States, generally,
at the period we are considering, may be understood more clearly from
the opinions expressed, at the time, by the _Boston Prison Discipline
Society_. This benevolent association included among its members, Rev.
Francis Wayland, Rev. Justin Edwards, Rev. Leonard Woods, Rev. William
Jenks, Rev. B. B. Wisner, Rev. Edward Beecher, Lewis Tappan, Esq., John
Tappan, Esq., Hon. George Bliss, and Hon. Samuel M. Hopkins.

In the First Annual Report of the Society, dated June 2, 1826, they
enter into an investigation "of the progress of crime, with the causes
of it," from which we make the following extracts:

existing in society, of the frequency and increase of crime is the
degraded character of the colored population. The facts, which are
gathered from the penitentiaries, to show how great a proportion of the
convicts are colored, even in those States where the colored population
is small, show, most strikingly, the connection between ignorance and

The report proceeds to sustain its assertions by statistics, which
prove, that, in Massachusetts, where the free colored people constituted
_one seventy-fourth_ part of the population, they supplied _one-sixth_
part of the convicts in her penitentiary; that in New York, where the
free colored people constituted _one thirty-fifth_ part of the
population, they supplied more than _one-fourth_ part of the convicts;
that, in Connecticut and Pennsylvania, where the colored people
constituted _one thirty-fourth_ part of the population, they supplied
more than _one-third_ part of the convicts; and that, in New Jersey,
where the colored people constituted _one-thirteenth_ part of the
population, they supplied more than _one-third_ part of the convicts.

"It is not necessary," continues the report, "to pursue these
illustrations. It is sufficiently apparent, that one great cause of the
frequency and increase of crime, is neglecting to raise the character of
the colored population.

"We derive an argument in favor of education from these facts. It
appears from the above statement, that about _one-fourth_ part of all
the expense incurred by the States above mentioned, for the support of
their criminal institutions, is for the colored convicts. * * Could
these States have anticipated these surprising results, and appropriated
the money to raise the character of the colored population, how much
better would have been their prospects, and how much less the expense of
the States through which they are dispersed for the support of their
colored convicts! * * If, however, their character can not be raised,
where they are, a powerful argument may be derived from these facts, in
favor of colonization, and civilized States ought surely to be as
willing to expend money on any given part of its population, to prevent
crime, as to punish it.

"We can not but indulge the hope that the facts disclosed above, if they
do not lead to an effort to raise the character of the colored
population, will strengthen the hands and encourage the hearts of all
the friends of colonizing the free people of color in the United

The Second Annual Report of the Society, dated June 1, 1827, gives the
results of its continued investigations into the condition of the free
colored people, in the following language and figures:

          report, this subject was exhibited at considerable
          length. From a deep conviction of its importance,
          and an earnest desire to keep it ever before the
          public mind, till the remedy is applied, we
          present the following table, showing, in regard to
          several States, the whole population, the colored
          population, the whole number of convicts, the
          number of colored convicts, proportion of convicts
          to the whole population, proportion of colored

                                    Whole     Number  Proportion  Proportion
                                    number      of        of         of
             Whole      Colored      of       Colored   Colored    Colored
           Population. Population. Convicts. Convicts.  People.   Convicts.
  Mass.        523,000    7,000      314        50      1 to 74    1 to 6
  Conn.        275,000    8,000      117        39      1 to 34    1 to 3
  N. York    1,372,000   39,000      637       154      1 to 35    1 to 4
  N. Jersey    277,000   20,000       74        24      1 to 13    1 to 3
  Penn.      1,049,000   30,000      474       165      1 to 34    1 to 3


                      _Proportion of the       _Proportion of the
                      Population sent to      Colored Popu'n
                      Prison._                 sent to Prison._

  In Massachusetts,   1 out of 1665           1 out of 140
  In Connecticut,     1 out of 2350           1 out of 205
  In New York,        1 out of 2153           1 out of 253
  In New Jersey,      1 out of 3743           1 out of 833
  In Pennsylvania,    1 out of 2191           1 out of 181


  In Masachusetts,             in 10 years,   $17,734
  In Connecticut,               in 15 years,    37,166
  In New York,                  in 27 years,   109,166
        Total                                 $164 066

"Such is the abstract of the information presented last year, concerning
the degraded character of the colored population. The returns from
several prisons show, that the white convicts are remaining nearly the
same, or are diminishing, while the colored convicts are increasing. At
the same time, the white population is increasing, in the Northern
States, much faster than the colored population."

                      _Whole No.        _Colored
                     of Convicts._      Convicts._    _Proportion._

  In Massachusetts,       313              50            1 to 6
  In New York,            381             101            1 to 4
  In New Jersey,           67              33            1 to 2

Such is the testimony of men of unimpeachable veracity and undoubted
philanthrophy, as to the early results of emancipation in the United
States. Had the freedmen, in the Northern States, improved their
privileges; had they established a reputation for industry, integrity,
and virtue, far other consequences would have followed their
emancipation. Their advancement in moral character would have put to
shame the advocate for the perpetuation of slavery. Indeed, there could
have been no plausible argument found for its continuance. No regular
exports of cotton, no cultivation of cane sugar, to give a profitable
character to slave labor, had any existence when Jay and Franklin
commenced their labors, and when Congress took its first step for the
suppression of the slave trade.

Unfortunately, the free colored people persevered in their evil habits.
This not only served to fix their own social and political condition on
the level of the slave, but it reacted with fearful effect upon their
brethren remaining in bondage. Their refusing to listen to the counsel
of the philanthropists, who urged them to forsake their indolence and
vice, and their frequent violations of the laws, more than all things
else, put a check to the tendencies, in public sentiment, toward general
emancipation. The failure of Franklin to obtain the means of
establishing institutions for the education of the blacks, confirmed the
popular belief that such an undertaking was impracticable, and the whole
African race, freedmen as well as slaves, were viewed as an intolerable
burden, such as the imports of foreign paupers are now considered. Thus
the free colored people themselves, ruthlessly threw the car of
emancipation from the track, and tore up the rails upon which, alone, it
could move.


          State of public opinion in relation to colored
          population--Southern views of
          Emancipation--Influence of Mr. Jefferson's
          opinions--He opposed Emancipation except connected
          with Colonization--Negro equality not contemplated
          by the Father's of the Revolution--This proved by
          the resolutions of their conventions--The true
          objects of the opposition to the slave
          trade--Motives of British Statesmen in forcing
          Slavery on the colonies--Absurdity of supposing
          negro equality was contemplated.

THE opinion that the African race would become a growing burden had its
origin before the revolution, and led the colonists to oppose the
introduction of slaves; but failing in this, through the opposition of
England, as soon as they threw off the foreign yoke many of the States
at once crushed the system--among the first acts of sovereignty by
Virginia, being the prohibition of the slave trade. In the determination
to suppress this traffic all the States united--but in emancipation
their policy differed. It was found easier to manage the slaves than the
free blacks--at least it was claimed to be so--and, for this reason, the
slave States, not long after the others had completed their work of
manumission, proceeded to enact laws prohibiting emancipations, except
on condition that the persons liberated should be removed. The newly
organized free States, too, taking alarm at this, and dreading the
influx of the free colored people, adopted measures to prevent the
ingress of this proscribed and helpless race.

These movements, so distressing to the reflecting colored man, be it
remembered, were not the effect of the action of colonizationists, but
took place, mostly, long before the organization of the American
Colonization Society; and, at its first annual meeting, the importance
and humanity of colonization was strongly urged, on the very ground that
the slave States, as soon as they should find that the persons liberated
could be sent to Africa, would relax their laws against emancipation.

The slow progress made by the great body of the free blacks in the
North, or the absence, rather, of any evidences of improvement in
industry, intelligence, and morality, gave rise to the notion, that
before they could be elevated to an equality with the whites, slavery
must be wholly abolished throughout the Union. The constant ingress of
liberated slaves from the South, to commingle with the free colored
people of the North, it was claimed, tended to perpetuate the low moral
standard originally existing among the blacks; and universal
emancipation was believed to be indispensable to the elevation of the
race. Those who adopted this view, seem to have overlooked the fact,
that the Africans, of savage origin, could not be elevated at once to an
equality with the American people, by the mere force of legal
enactments. More than this was needed, for their elevation, as all are
now, reluctantly, compelled to acknowledge. Emancipation, unaccompanied
by the means of intellectual and moral culture, is of but little value.
The savage, liberated from bondage, is a savage still.

The slave States adopted opinions, as to the negro character, opposite
to those of the free States, and would not risk the experiment of
emancipation. They said, if the free States feel themselves burdened by
the few Africans they have freed, and whom they find it impracticable to
educate and elevate, how much greater would be the evil the slave States
must bring upon themselves by letting loose a population nearly twelve
times as numerous. Such an act, they argued, would be suicidal--would
crush out all progress in civilization; or, in the effort to elevate the
negro with the white man, allowing him equal freedom of action, would
make the more energetic Anglo-Saxon the slave of the indolent African.
Such a task, onerous in the highest degree, they could not, and would
not undertake; such an experiment, on their social system, they dared
not hazard; and in this determination they were encouraged to
persevere, not only by the results of emancipation, then wrought out at
the North, but by the settled convictions which had long prevailed at
the South, in relation to the impropriety of freeing the negroes. This
opinion was one of long standing, and had been avowed by some of the
ablest statesmen of the Revolution. Among these Mr. Jefferson stood
prominent. He was inclined to consider the African inferior "in the
endowments both of body and mind" to the European; and, while expressing
his hostility to slavery earnestly, vehemently, he avowed the opinion
that it was impossible for the two races to live equally free in the
same government--that "nature, habit, opinion, had drawn indelible lines
of distinction between them"--that, accordingly, emancipation and
"deportation" (colonization) should go hand in hand--and that these
processes should be gradual enough to make proper provisions for the
blacks in a new country, and fill their places in this with free white

Another point needs examination. Notwithstanding the well-known opinions
of Mr. Jefferson, it has been urged that the Declaration of Independence
was designed, by those who issued it, to apply to the negro as well as
to the white man; and that they purposed to extend to the negro, at the
end of the struggle, then begun, all the privileges which they hoped to
secure for themselves. Nothing can be further from the truth, and
nothing more certain than that the rights of the negro never entered
into the questions then considered. That document was written by Mr.
Jefferson himself, and, with the views which he entertained, he could
not have thought, for a moment, of conferring upon the negro the rights
of American citizenship. Hear him further upon this subject and then

"It will probably be asked, why not retain and incorporate the blacks
into the State, and thus save the expense of supplying by importation of
white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep-rooted prejudices
entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of
the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real
distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will
divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably
never end, but in the extermination of the one or the other race. To
these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are
physical and moral"[3]

Now it is evident, from this language, that Mr. Jefferson was not only
opposed to allowing the negroes the rights of citizenship, but that he
was opposed to emancipation also, except on the condition that the
freedmen should be removed from the country. He could, therefore, have
meant nothing more by the phrase, "all men are created equal," which he
employed in the Declaration of Independence, than the announcement of a
general principle, which, in its application to the colonists, was
intended most emphatically to assert their equality, before God and the
world, with the imperious Englishmen who claimed the divine right of
lording it over them. This was undoubtedly the view held by Mr.
Jefferson, and the extent to which he expected the language of the
Declaration to be applied.[4] Nor could the signers of that instrument,
or the people whom they represented, ever have intended to apply its
principles to any barbarous or semi-barbarous people, in the sense of
admitting them to an equality with themselves in the management of a
free government. Had this been their design, they must have enfranchised
both Indians and Africans, as both were within the territory over which
they exercised jurisdiction.

But testimony of a conclusive character is at hand, to show that quite
a different object was to be accomplished, than negro equality, in the
movements of the colonists which preceded the outbreak of the American
Revolution. They passed resolutions upon the subject of the slave trade,
it is true, but it was to oppose it, because it increased the colored
population, a result they deprecated in the strongest language. The
checking of this evil, great as the people considered it, was not the
principal object they had in view, in resolving to crush out the slave
trade. It was one of far greater moment, affecting the prosperity of the
mother country, and designed to force her to deal justly with the

This point can only be understood by an examination of the history of
that period, so as to comprehend the relations existing between Great
Britain and her several colonies. Let us, then, proceed to the
performance of this task.

The whole commerce of Great Britain, in 1704, amounted, in value, to
thirty-two and a half millions of dollars. In less than three quarters
of a century thereafter, or three years preceding the outbreak of the
American Revolution, it had increased to eighty millions annually. More
than thirty millions of this amount, or over one-third of the whole,
consisted of exports to her West Indian and North American colonies and
to Africa. The yearly trade with Africa, alone, at this
period--1772--was over four and a third millions of dollars: a
significant fact, when it is known that this African traffic was in

But this statement fails to give a true idea of the value of North
America and the West Indies to the mother country. Of the commodities
which she imported from them--tobacco, rice, sugar, rum--ten millions of
dollars worth, annually, were re-exported to her other dependencies, and
five millions to foreign countries--thus making her indebted to these
colonies, directly and indirectly, for more than one-half of all her

If England was greatly dependent upon these colonies for her increasing
prosperity, they were also dependent upon her; and upon each other, for
the mutual promotion of their comfort and wealth. This is easily
understood. The colonies were prohibited from manufacturing for
themselves. This rendered it necessary that they should be supplied with
linen and woolen fabrics, hardware and cutlery, from the looms and shops
of Great Britain; and, in addition to these necessaries, they were
dependent upon her ships to furnish them with slaves from Africa. The
North American colonies were dependent upon the West Indies for coffee,
sugar, rum; and the West Indies upon North America, in turn, for their
main supplies of provisions and lumber. The North Americans, if
compelled by necessity, could do without the manufacures of England, and
forego the use of the groceries and rum of the West Indies; but Great
Britain could not easily bear the loss of half her commerce, nor could
the West India planters meet a sudden emergency that would cut off their
usual supplies of provisions.

Such were the relations existing between Great Britain and the colonies,
and between the colonies themselves, when the Bostonians cast the tea
overboard. This act of resistance to law, was followed by the passage,
through Parliament, of the Boston Port Bill, closing Boston Harbor to
all commerce whatsoever. The North American colonies, conscious of their
power over the commerce of Great Britain, at once obeyed the call of the
citizens of Boston, and united in the adoption of peaceful measures, to
force the repeal of the obnoxious act. Meetings of the people were held
throughout the country, generally, and resolutions passed, recommending
the non-importation and non-consumption of all British manufactures and
West India products; and resolving, also, that they would not export any
provisions, lumber, or other products, whatever, to Great Britain or any
of her colonies. These resolutions were accompanied by another, in many
of the counties of Virginia, in some of the State conventions, and,
finally, in those of the Continental Congress, in which the slave trade,
and the purchase of additional slaves, were specially referred to as
measures to be at once discontinued. These resolutions, in substance,
declare, as the sentiment of the people: That the African trade is
injurious to the colonies; that it obstructs the population of them by
freemen; that it prevents the immigration of manufacturers and other
useful emigrants from Europe from settling among them; that it is
dangerous to virtue and the welfare of the population; that it occasions
an annual increase of the balance of trade against them; that they most
earnestly wished to see an entire stop put to such a wicked, cruel, and
unlawful traffic; that they would not purchase any slaves hereafter to
be imported, nor hire their vessels, nor sell their commodities or
manufactures to those who are concerned in their importation.

From these facts it appears evident, that the primary object of all the
resolutions was to cripple the commerce of England. Those in relation to
the slave trade, especially, were expected, at once, when taken in
connection with the determination to withhold all supplies of provisions
from the West India planters--to stop the slave trade, and deprive the
British merchants of all further profits from that traffic. But it would
do more than this, as it would compel the West India planters, in a
great degree, to stop the cultivation of sugar and cotton, for export,
and force them to commence the growing of provisions for food--thus
producing ruinous consequences to British manufactures and commerce.[5]
But, in the opposition thus made to the slave trade, there is no act
warranting the conclusion that the negroes were to be admitted to a
position of equality with the whites. The sentiments expressed, with a
single exception,[6] are the reverse, and their increase viewed as an
evil. South Carolina and Georgia did not follow the example of Virginia
and North Carolina in resolving against the slave trade, but acquiesced
in the non-intercourse policy, until the grievances complained of should
be remedied. Another reason existed for opposing the slave trade; this
was the importance of preventing the increase of a population that might
be employed against the liberties of the colonies. That negroes were
thus employed, during the Revolution, is a matter of history; and that
the British hoped to use that population for their own advantage, is
clearly indicated by the language of the Earl of Dartmouth, who
declared, as a sufficient reason for turning a deaf ear to the
remonstrances of the colonists against the further importation of
slaves, that "Negroes cannot become Republicans--they will be a power in
our hands to restrain the unruly colonists."

And, now, will any one say, that the fathers of the Revolution ever
intended to declare the negro the equal of the white man, in the sense
that he was entitled to an equality of political privileges under the
constitution of the United States!


[2] Randall's Life of Jefferson, vol. i. page 370.

[3] Randall's Life of Jefferson, vol. i. page 370, Note.

[4] That Mr. Jefferson was considered as having no settled plans or
views in relation to the disposal of the blacks, and that he was
disinclined to risk the disturbance of the harmony of the country for
the sake of the negro, appears evident from the opinions entertained of
him and his schemes by John Quincy Adams. After speaking of the zeal of
Mr. Jefferson, and the strong manner in which, at times, he had spoken
against slavery, Mr. Adams says: "But Jefferson had not the spirit of
martyrdom. He would have introduced a flaming denunciation of slavery
into the Declaration of Independence, but the discretion of his
colleagues struck it out. He did insert a most eloquent and impassioned
argument against it in his Notes on Virginia; but, on that very account,
the book was published almost against his will. He projected a plan of
general emancipation, in his revision of the Virginia laws, but finally
presented a plan leaving slavery precisely where it was; and, in his
Memoir, he leaves a posthumous warning to the planters that they must,
at no distant day, emancipate their slaves, or that worse will follow;
but he withheld the publication of his prophecy till he should himself
be in the grave."--_Life of J. Q. Adams, page 177, 178._

[5] See a more extended detail of the proceedings in relation to this
subject, both in England and the colonies, in the Appendix.

[6] Providence, Rhode Island.


          Dismal condition of Africa--Hopes of Wilberforce
          disappointed--Organization of the American
          Colonization Society--Its necessity, objects, and
          policy--Public sentiment in its favor--Opposition
          developes itself--Wm. Lloyd Garrison, James G.
          Birney, Gerrit Smith--Effects of
          opposition--Stimulants to Slavery--Exports of
          Cotton--England sustaining American
          Slavery--Failure of the Niger Expedition--Strength
          of Slavery--Political action--Its failure--Its

ANOTHER question, "How shall the slave trade be suppressed?" began to be
agitated near the close of the last century. The moral desolation
existing in Africa, was without a parallel among the nations of the
earth. When the last of our Northern States had freed its slaves, not a
single Christian Church had been successfully established in Africa, and
the slave trade was still legalized to the citizens of every Christian
nation. Even its subsequent prohibition, by the United States and
England, had no tendency to check the traffic, nor ameliorate the
condition of the African. The other Europeon powers, having now the
monopoly of the trade, continued to prosecute it with a vigor it never
felt before. The institution of slavery, while lessened in the United
States, where it had not yet been made profitable, was rapidly acquiring
an unprecedented enlargement in Cuba and Brazil, where its profitable
character had been more fully realized. How shall the slave trade be
annihilated, slavery extension prevented, and Africa receive a Christian
civilization? were questions that agitated the bosom of many a
philanthropist, long after Wilberforce had achieved his triumphs. It was
found, that the passage of laws prohibiting the slave trade, and the
extermination of that traffic, were two distinct things--the one not
necessarily following the other. The success of Wilberforce with the
British Parliament, only increased the necessity for additional
philanthropic efforts; and a quarter of a century afterwards found the
evil vastly increased which he imagined was wholly destroyed.

It was at the period in the history of Africa, and of public sentiment
on slavery, which we have been considering, that the American
Colonization Society was organized. It began its labors when the eye of
the statesman, the philanthropist, and the Christian, could discover no
other plan of overcoming the moral desolation, the universal oppression
of the colored race, than by restoring the most enlightened of their
number to Africa itself. Emancipation, by States, had been at an end for
a dozen of years. The improvement of the free colored people, in the
presence of the slave, was considered impracticable. Slave labor had
become so profitable, as to leave little ground to expect general
emancipation, even though all other objections had been removed. The
slave trade had increased twenty-five per cent. during the preceding ten
years. Slavery was rapidly extending itself in the tropics, and could
not be arrested but by the suppression of the slave trade. The foothold
of the Christian missionary was yet so precarious in Africa, as to leave
it doubtful whether he could sustain his position.

The colonization of the free colored people in Africa, under the
teachings of the Christian men who were prepared to accompany them, it
was believed, would as fully meet all the conditions of the race, as was
possible in the then existing state of the world. It would separate
those who should emigrate from all further contact with slavery, and
from its depressing influences; it would relax the laws of the slave
States against emancipation, and lead to the more frequent liberation of
slaves; it would stimulate and encourage the colored people remaining
here, to engage in efforts for their own elevation; it would establish
free republics along the coast of Africa, and drive away the slave
trader; it would prevent the extension of slavery, by means of the slave
trade, in tropical America; it would introduce civilization and
Christianity among the people of Africa, and overturn their barbarism
and bloody superstitions; and, if successful, it would react upon
slavery at home, by pointing out to the States and General Government, a
mode by which they might free themselves from the whole African race.

The Society had thus undertaken as great an amount of work as it could
perform. The field was broad enough, truly, for an association that
hoped to obtain an income of but five to ten thousand dollars a year,
and realized annually an average of only $3,276 during the first six
years of its existence. It did not include the destruction of American
slavery among the objects it labored to accomplish. That subject had
been fully discussed; the ablest men in the nation had labored for its
overthrow; more than half the original States of the Union had
emancipated their slaves; the advantages of freedom to the colored man
had been tested; the results had not been as favorable as anticipated;
the public sentiment of the country was adverse to an increase of the
free colored population; the few of their number who had risen to
respectability and affluence, were too widely separated to act in
concert in promoting measures for the general good; and, until better
results should follow the liberation of slaves, further emancipations,
by the States, were not to be expected. The friends of the Colonization
Society, therefore, while affording every encouragement to emancipation
by individuals, refused to agitate the question of the general abolition
of slavery. Nor did they thrust aside any other scheme of benevolence in
behalf of the African race. Forty years had elapsed from the
commencement of emancipation in the country, and thirty from the date of
Franklin's Appeal, before the society sent off its first emigrants. At
that date, no extended plans were in existence, promising relief to the
free colored man. A period of lethargy, among the benevolent, had
succeeded the State emancipations, as a consequence of the indifference
of the free colored people, as a class, to their degraded condition. The
public sentiment of the country was fully prepared, therefore, to adopt
colonization as the best means, or, rather, as the only means for
accomplishing any thing for them or for the African race. Indeed, so
general was the sentiment in favor of colonization, somewhere beyond the
limits of the United States, that those who disliked Africa, commenced a
scheme of emigration to Hayti, and prosecuted it, until eight thousand
free colored persons were removed to that island--a number nearly
equaling the whole emigration to Liberia up to 1850. Haytien emigration,
however, proved a most disastrous experiment.

But the general acquiescence in the objects of the Colonization Society
did not long continue. The exports of cotton from the South were then
rapidly on the increase. Slave labor had become profitable, and slaves,
in the cotton-growing States, were no longer considered a burden. Seven
years after the first emigrants reached Liberia, the South exported
294,310,115 lbs. of cotton; and, the year following, the total cotton
crop reached 325,000,000 lbs. But a great depression in prices had
occurred,[7] and alarmed the planters for their safety. They had
decided against emancipation, and now to have their slaves rendered
valueless, was an evil they were determined to avert. The Report of the
Boston Prison Discipline Society, which appeared at this moment, was
well calculated, by the disclosures it made, to increase the alarm in
the South, and to confirm slaveholders in their belief of the dangers of

At this juncture, a warfare against colonization was commenced at the
South, and it was pronounced an abolition scheme in disguise. In
defending itself, the society re-asserted its principles of neutrality
in relation to slavery, and that it had only in view the colonization of
the free colored people. In the heat of the contest, the South were
reminded of their former sentiments in relation to the whole colored
population, and that colonization merely proposed removing one division
of a people they had pronounced a public burden.[8]

The emancipationists at the North had only lent their aid to
colonization in the hope that it would prove an able auxiliary to
abolition; but when the society declared its unalterable purpose to
adhere to its original position of neutrality, they withdrew their
support, and commenced hostilities against it. "The Anti-Slavery
Society," said a distinguished abolitionist, "began with a declaration
of war against the Colonization Society."[9] This feeling of hostility
was greatly increased by the action of the abolitionists of England.
The doctrine of "Immediate, not Gradual Abolition," was announced by
them as their creed; and the anti-slavery men of the United States
adopted it as the basis of their action. Its success in the English
Parliament, in procuring the passage of the Act for West India
emancipation, in 1833, gave a great impulse to the abolition cause in
the United States.

In 1832, William Lloyd Garrison declared hostilities against the
Colonization Society; in 1834, James G. Birney followed his example;
and, in 1836 Gerritt Smith also abandoned the cause. The North
everywhere resounded with the cry of "Immediate Abolition;" and, in
1837, the abolitionists numbered 1,015 societies; had seventy agents
under commission, and an income, for the year, of $36,000.[10] The
Colonization Society, on the other hand, was greatly embarrassed. Its
income, in 1838, was reduced to $10,000; it was deeply in debt; the
parent society did not send a single emigrant, that year, to Liberia;
and its enemies pronounced it bankrupt and dead.[11]

But did the abolitionists succeed in forcing emancipation upon the
South, when they had thus rendered colonization powerless? Did the
fetters fall from the slave at their bidding? Did fire from heaven
descend, and consume the slaveholder at their invocation? No such thing!
They had not touched the true cause of the extension of slavery. They
had not discovered the secret of its power; and, therefore, its locks
remained unshorn, its strength unabated. The institution advanced as
triumphantly as if no opposition existed. The planters were progressing
steadily, in securing to themselves the monopoly of the cotton markets
of Europe, and in extending the area of slavery at home. In the same
year that Gerritt Smith declared for abolition, the title of the Indians
to fifty-five millions of acres of land, in the slave States, was
extinguished, and the tribes removed. The year that colonization was
depressed to the lowest point, the exports of cotton, from the United
States, amounted to 595,952,297 lbs., and the consumption of the article
in England, to 477,206,108 lbs.

When Mr. Birney seceded from colonization, he encouraged his new allies
with the hope, that West India free labor would render our slave labor
less profitable, and emancipation, as a consequence, be more easily
effected. How stood this matter six years afterward? This will be best
understood by contrast. In 1800, the West Indies exported 17,000,000
lbs. of cotton, and the United States, 17,789,803 lbs. They were then
about equally productive in that article. In 1840, the West India
exports had dwindled down to 427,529 lbs., while those of the United
States had increased to 743,941,061 lbs.

And what was England doing all this while? Having lost her supplies from
the West Indies, she was quietly spinning away at American slave labor
cotton; and to ease the public conscience of the kingdom, was loudly
talking of a free labor supply of the commodity from the banks of the
Niger! But the expedition up that river failed, and 1845 found her
manufacturing 626,496,000 lbs. of cotton, mostly the product of American
slaves! The strength of American slavery at that moment may be inferred
from the fact, that we exported that year 872,905,996 lbs. of cotton,
and our production of cane sugar had reached over 200,000,000 lbs.;
while, to make room for slavery extension, we were busied in the
annexation of Texas and in preparations for the consequent war with

But abolitionists themselves, some time before this, had, mostly, become
convinced of the feeble character of their efforts against slavery, and
allowed politicians to enlist them in a political crusade, as the last
hope of arresting the progress of the system. The cry of "Immediate
Abolition" died away; reliance upon moral means was mainly abandoned;
and the limitation of the institution, geographically, became the chief
object of effort. The results of more than a dozen years of political
action are before the public, and what has it accomplished! We are not
now concerned in the inquiry of how far the strategy of politicians
succeeded in making the votes of abolitionists subservient to slavery
extension. That they did so, in at least one prominent case, will never
be denied by any candid man. All we intend to say, is, that the cotton
planters, instead of being crippled in their operations, were able, in
the year ending the last of June, 1853, to export 1,111,570,370 lbs. of
cotton, beside supplying near 300,000,000 lbs. for home consumption; and
that England, the year ending the last of January, 1853, consumed the
unprecedented quantity of 817,998,048 lbs. of that staple.[12] The year
1854, instead of finding slavery perishing under the blows it had
received, has witnessed the destruction of all the old barriers to its
extension, and beholds it expanded widely enough for the profitable
employment of the slave population, with all its natural increase, for a
hundred years to come!!

If political action against slavery has been thus disastrously
unfortunate, how is it with anti-slavery action, at large, as to its
efficiency at this moment? On this point, hear the testimony of a
correspondent of Frederick Douglass' Paper, January 26, 1855:

"How gloriously did the anti-slavery cause arise . . . . . . in 1833-4!
And now what is it, in our agency! . . . . . . What is it, through the
errors or crimes of its advocates variously--probably quite as much as
through the brazen, gross, and licentious wickedness of its enemies.
Alas! what is it but a mutilated, feeble, discordant, and half-expiring
instrument, at which Satan and his children, legally and illegally,
scoff! Of it I despair."

Such are the crowning results of both political and anti-slavery action,
for the overthrow of slavery! Such are the demonstrations of their utter
impotency as a means of relief to the bond and free of the colored

Surely, then, if the negro is capable of elevation, it is time that some
other measures should be devised, than those hitherto adopted, for the
melioration of the African race! Surely, too, it is time for the
American people to rebuke that class of politicians, North and South,
whose only capital consists in keeping up a fruitless warfare upon the
subject of slavery--nay! abundant in fruits to the poor colored man; but
to him, "their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of
Gomorrah; their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter;
their vine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps."[13]

The application of this language, to the case under consideration, will
be fully justified when the facts, in the remaining pages of this work,
are carefully studied.


[7] See Table I, Appendix.

[8] The sentiment of the Colonization Society, was expressed in the
following resolution, embraced in its annual report of 1826:

"_Resolved_,--That the society disclaims, in the most unqualified terms,
the design attributed to it, of interfering, on the one hand, with the
legal rights and obligations of slavery; and, on the other, of
perpetuating its existence within the limits of the country."

On another occasion Mr. Clay, on behalf of the society, defined its
position thus:

"It protested, from the commencement, and throughout all its progress,
and it now protests, that it entertains no purpose, on its own
authority, or by its own means, to attempt emancipation, partial or
general; that it knows the General Government has no constitutional
power to achieve such an object; that it believes that the States, and
the States only, which tolerate slavery, can accomplish the work of
emancipation; and that it ought to be left to them exclusively,
absolutely, and voluntarily, to decide the question."--_Tenth Annual
Report, p. 14, 1828._

[9] Gerrit Smith, 1835.

[10] Lundy's Life.

[11] On the floor of an Ecclesiastical Assembly, one minister pronounced
colonization "a dead horse;" while another claimed that his "old mare
was giving freedom to more slaves, by trotting off with them to Canada,
than the Colonization Society was sending of emigrants to Liberia."

[12] This portion of the work is left unchanged, and the statistics of
the increase of slave labor products, up to 1859, introduced elsewhere.

[13] Deuteronomy, xxxii. 32, 33.



          Present condition of Slavery--Not an isolated
          system--Its relations to other industrial
          interests--To manufactures, commerce, trade, human
          comfort--Its benevolent aspect--The reverse
          picture--Immense value of tropical possessions to
          Great Britain--England's attempted monopoly of
          Manufactures--Her dependence on American
          Planters--Cotton Planters attempt to monopolize
          Cotton markets--_Fusion_ of these parties--Free
          Trade essential to their success--Influence on
          agriculture, mechanics--Exports of Cotton,
          Tobacco, etc.--Increased production of
          Provisions--Their extent--New markets needed.

THE institution of slavery, at this moment, gives indications of a
vitality that was never anticipated by its friends or foes. Its enemies
often supposed it about ready to expire, from the wounds they had
inflicted, when in truth it had taken two steps in advance, while they
had taken twice the number in an opposite direction. In each successive
conflict, its assailants have been weakened, while its dominion has been

This has arisen from causes too generally overlooked. Slavery is not an
isolated system, but is so mingled with the business of the world, that
it derives facilities from the most innocent transactions. Capital and
labor, in Europe and America, are largely employed in the manufacture of
cotton. These goods, to a great extent, may be seen freighting every
vessel, from Christian nations, that traverses the seas of the globe;
and filling the warehouses and shelves of the merchants over two-thirds
of the world. By the industry, skill, and enterprise employed in the
manufacture of cotton, mankind are better clothed; their comfort better
promoted; general industry more highly stimulated; commerce more widely
extended; and civilization more rapidly advanced than in any preceding

To the superficial observer, all the agencies, based upon the sale and
manufacture of cotton, seem to be legitimately engaged in promoting
human happiness; and he, doubtless, feels like invoking Heaven's
choicest blessings upon them. When he sees the stockholders in the
cotton corporations receiving their dividends, the operatives their
wages, the merchants their profits, and civilized people everywhere
clothed comfortably in cottons, he can not refrain from exclaiming: The
lines have fallen unto them in pleasant places; yea, they have a goodly

But turn a moment to the source whence the raw cotton, the basis of
these operations, is obtained, and observe the aspect of things in that
direction. When the statistics on the subject are examined, it appears
that nine-tenths of the cotton consumed in the Christian world is the
product of the slave labor of the United States.[14] It is this monopoly
that has given to slavery its commercial value; and, while this monopoly
is retained, the institution will continue to extend itself wherever it
can find room to spread. He who looks for any other result, must expect
that nations, which, for centuries, have waged war to extend their
commerce, will now abandon that means of aggrandizement, and bankrupt
themselves to force the abolition of American slavery!

This is not all. The economical value of slavery, as an agency for
supplying the means of extending manufactures and commerce, has long
been understood by statesmen.[15] The discovery of the power of steam,
and the inventions in machinery, for preparing and manufacturing cotton,
revealed the important fact, that a single island, having the monopoly
secured to itself, could supply the world with clothing. Great Britain
attempted to gain this monopoly; and, to prevent other countries from
rivaling her, she long prohibited all emigration of skillful mechanics
from the kingdom, as well as all exports of machinery. As country after
country was opened to her commerce, the markets for her manufactures
were extended, and the demand for the raw material increased. The
benefits of this enlarged commerce of the world, were not confined to a
single nation, but mutually enjoyed by all. As each had products to
sell, peculiar to itself, the advantages often gained by one were no
detriment to the others. The principal articles demanded by this
increasing commerce have been coffee, sugar, and cotton, in the
production of which slave labor has greatly predominated. Since the
enlargement of manufactures, cotton has entered more extensively into
commerce than coffee and sugar, though the demand for all three has
advanced with the greatest rapidity. England could only become a great
commercial nation, through the agency of her manufactures. She was the
best supplied, of all the nations, with the necessary capital, skill,
labor, and fuel, to extend her commerce by this means. But, for the raw
material, to supply her manufactories, she was dependent upon other
countries. The planters of the United States were the most favorably
situated for the cultivation of cotton; and while Great Britain was
aiming at monopolizing its manufacture, they attempted to monopolize the
markets for that staple. This led to a fusion of interests between them
and the British manufacturers; and to the adoption of principles in
political economy, which, if rendered effective, would promote the
interests of this coalition. With the advantages possessed by the
English manufacturers, "Free Trade" would render all other nations
subservient to their interests; and, so far as their operations should
be increased, just so far would the demand for American cotton be
extended. The details of the success of the parties to this combination,
and the opposition they have had to encounter, are left to be noticed
more fully hereafter. To the cotton planters, the co-partnership has
been eminently advantageous.

How far the other agricultural interests of the United States are
promoted, by extending the cultivation of cotton, may be inferred from
the Census returns of 1850, and the Congressional Reports on Commerce
and Navigation, for 1854.[16] Cotton and tobacco, only, are largely
exported. The production of sugar does not yet equal our consumption of
the article, and we import, chiefly from slave labor countries,
445,445,680 lbs. to make up the deficiency.[17] But of cotton and
tobacco, we export more than _two-thirds_ of the amount produced; while
of other products of the agriculturists, less than the _one forty-sixth_
part is exported. Foreign nations, generally, can grow their provisions,
but can not grow their tobacco and cotton. Our surplus provisions, not
exported, go to the villages, towns, and cities, to feed the mechanics,
manufacturers, merchants, professional men, and others; or to the cotton
and sugar districts of the South, to feed the planters and their slaves.
The increase of mechanics and manufacturers at the North, and the
expansion of slavery at the South, therefore, augment the markets for
provisions, and promote the prosperity of the farmer. As the mechanical
population increases, the implements of industry and articles of
furniture are multiplied, so that both farmer and planter can be
supplied with them on easier terms. As foreign nations open their
markets to cotton fabrics, increased demands for the raw material are
made. As new grazing and grain-growing States are developed, and teem
with their surplus productions, the mechanic is benefited, and the
planter, relieved from food-raising, can employ his slaves more
extensively upon cotton. It is thus that our exports are increased; our
foreign commerce advanced; the home markets of the mechanic and farmer
extended, and the wealth of the nation promoted. It is thus, also, that
the free labor of the country finds remunerating markets for its
products--though at the expense of serving as an efficient auxiliary in
the extension of slavery!

But more: So speedily are new grain-growing States springing up; so
vast is the territory owned by the United States, ready for settlement;
and so enormous will soon be the amount of products demanding profitable
markets, that the national government has been seeking new outlets for
them, upon our own continent, to which, alone, they can be
advantageously transported. That such outlets, when our vast possessions
Westward are brought under cultivation, will be an imperious necessity,
is known to every statesman. The farmers of these new States, after the
example of those of the older sections of the country, will demand a
market for their products. This can be furnished, only, by the extension
of slavery; by the acquisition of more tropical territory; by opening
the ports of Brazil, and other South American countries, to the
admission of our provisions; by their free importation into European
countries; or by a vast enlargement of domestic manufactures, to the
exclusion of foreign goods from the country. Look at this question as it
now stands, and then judge of what it must be twenty years hence. The
class of products under consideration, in the whole country, in 1853,
were valued at $1,551,176,490; of which there were exported to foreign
countries, to the value of only $33,809,126.[18] The planter will not
assent to any check upon the foreign imports of the country, for the
benefit of the farmer. This demands the adoption of vigorous measures to
secure a market for his products by some of the other modes stated.
Hence, the orders of our executive, in 1851, for the exploration of the
valley of the Amazon; the efforts, in 1854, to obtain a treaty with
Brazil, for the free navigation of that immense river; the negotiations
for a military foothold in St. Domingo; and the determination to acquire
Cuba. But we must not anticipate topics to be considered at a later
period in our discussion.


[14] See Appendix, Table I.

[15] It may be well here to illustrate this point, by an extract from
McQueen, of England, in 1844, when this highly intelligent gentleman was
urging upon his government the great necessity which existed for
securing to itself, as speedily as possible, the control of the labor
and the products of tropical Africa. In reference to the benefits which
had been derived from her West India colonies, before the suppression of
the slave trade and the emancipation of the slaves had rendered them
comparatively unproductive, he said: "During the fearful struggle of a
quarter of a century, for her existence as a nation, against the power
and resources of Europe, directed by the most intelligent but
remorseless military ambition against her, the command of the
productions of the torrid zone, and the advantageous commerce which that
afforded, gave to Great Britain the power and the resources which
enabled her to meet, to combat, and to overcome, her numerous and
reckless enemies in every battle-field, whether by sea or land,
throughout the world. In her the world saw realized the fabled giant of
antiquity. With her hundred hands she grasped her foes in every region
under heaven, and crushed them with resistless energy."

In further presenting the considerations which he considered necessary
to secure the adoption of the policy he was urging, Mr. McQueen referred
to the difficulties which were then surrounding Great Britain, and the
extent to which rival nations had surpassed her in tropical cultivation.
He continued: "The increased cultivation and prosperity of foreign
tropical possessions is become so great, and is advancing so rapidly the
power and resources of other nations, that these are embarrassing this
country, (England,) in all her commercial relations, in her pecuniary
resources, and in all her political relations and negotiations." . . . .
. . "Instead of supplying her own wants with tropical productions, and
next nearly all Europe, as she formerly did, she had scarcely enough, of
some of the most important articles, for her own consumption, while her
colonies were mostly supplied with foreign slave produce." . . . . . .
"In the mean time tropical productions had been increased from
$75,000,000, to $300,000,000 annually. The English capital invested in
tropical productions in the East and West Indies, had been, by
emancipation in the latter, reduced from $750,000,000, to $650,000,000;
while, since 1808, on the part of foreign nations $4,000,000,000 of
fixed capital had been created in slaves and in cultivation wholly
dependent upon the labor of slaves." The odds, therefore, in
agricultural and commercial capital and interest, and consequently in
political power and influence, arrayed against the British tropical
possessions, were very fearful--six to one. This will be better
understood by giving the figures on the subject. The contrast is very
striking, and reveals the secret of England's untiring zeal about
slavery and the slave trade. Indeed, Mr. McQueen frankly acknowledges,
that "If the foreign slave trade be not extinguished, and the
cultivation of the tropical territories of other powers opposed and
checked by British tropical cultivation, then the interests and the
power of such states will rise into a preponderance over those of Great
Britain; and the power and the influence of the latter will cease to be
felt, feared and respected, amongst the civilized and powerful nations
of the world."

But here are the figures upon which this humiliating acknowledgement is
made. The productions of the tropical possessions of Great Britain and
foreign countries, respectively, at the period alluded to by Mr.
McQueen, and as given by himself, stood as follows:


        British Possessions.         |       Foreign countries.
  West Indies,      cwts.  2,508,552 | Cuba,          cwts.   5,800,000
  East Indies,       "       940,452 | Brazil,         "      2,400,000
  Mauritius,(1841)   "       544,767 | Java,           "      1,105,757
                   ------------------| Louisiana,      "      1,400,000
                   Total   3,993,771 |               ------------------
                                     |               Total   10,705,757


  West Indies,      lbs.   9,186,555 | Java,          lbs.  134,842,715
  East Indies,       "    18,206,448 | Brazil,         "    135,000,800
                  ------------------ | Cuba,           "     33,589,325
                   Total  27,393,003 | Venezuela,      "     34,000,000
                                     |               ------------------
                                     |               Total  337,432,840


  West Indies,      lbs.     427,529 | United States, lbs.  790,479,275
  East Indies,       "    77,015,917 | Java,           "    165,504,800
  To China from do.  "    60,000,000 | Brazil,         "     25,222,828
                   ------------------|               ------------------
                   Total 137,443,446 |               Total  981,206,903

[16] See Appendix, Table II.

[17] Table III. For Statistics up to 1859, see chapter VI. and Appendix.

[18] See Appendix, Table II.


          Foresight of Great Britain--Hon. George Thompson's
          predictions--Their failure--England's dependence
          on Slave labor--Blackwood's Magazine--London
          Economist--McCullough--Her exports of cotton
          goods--Neglect to improve the proper moment for
          Emancipation--Admission of Gerrit Smith--_Cotton_,
          its exports, its value, extent of crop, and cost
          of our cotton fabrics--_Provisions_, their value,
          their export, their consumption--_Groceries_,
          source of their supplies, cost of amount
          consumed--Our total indebtedness to Slave
          labor--How far Free labor sustains Slave labor.

ANTECEDENT to all the movements noticed in the preceding chapter, Great
Britain had foreseen the coming increased demand for tropical products.
Indeed, her West Indian policy, of a few years previous, had hastened
the crisis; and, to repair her injuries, and meet the general outcry for
cotton, she made the most vigorous efforts to promote its cultivation in
her own tropical possessions. The motives prompting her to this policy,
need not be referred to here, as they will be noticed hereafter. The
Hon. George Thompson, it will be remembered, when urging the increase of
cotton cultivation in the East Indies, declared that the scheme must
succeed, and that, soon, all slave labor cotton would be repudiated by
the British manufacturers. Mr Garrison indorsed the measure, and
expressed his belief that, with its success, the American slave system
must inevitably perish from starvation! But England's efforts signally
failed, and the golden apple, fully ripened, dropped into the lap of our
cotton planters.[19] The year that heard Thompson's pompous
predictions,[20] witnessed the consumption of but 445,744,000 lbs. of
cotton, by England; while, fourteen years later, she used 817,998,048
lbs., nearly 700,000,000 lbs. of which were obtained from America!

That we have not overstated her dependence upon our slave labor for
cotton is a fact of world-wide notoriety. _Blackwood's Magazine_,
January, 1853, in referring to the cultivation of the article, by the
United States, says:

"With its increased growth has sprung up that mercantile navy, which
now waves its stripes and stars over every sea, and that foreign
influence, which has placed the internal peace--we may say the
subsistence of millions in every manufacturing country in Europe--within
the power of an oligarchy of planters."

In reference to the same subject, the _London Economist_ quotes as

"Let any great social or physical convulsion visit the United States,
and England would feel the shock from Land's End to John O'Groats. The
lives of nearly two millions of our countrymen are dependent upon the
cotton crops of America; their destiny may be said, without any kind of
hyperbole, to hang upon a thread. Should any dire calamity befall the
land of cotton, a thousand of our merchant ships would rot idly in dock;
ten thousand mills must stop their busy looms; two thousand thousand
mouths would starve, for lack of food to feed them."

A more definite statement of England's indebtedness to cotton, is given
by McCullough; who shows that as far back as 1832, her exports of cotton
fabrics were equal in value to about two-thirds of all the woven fabrics
exported from the empire. The same state of things, nearly, existed in
1849, when the cotton fabrics exported, according to the _London
Economist_, were valued at about $140,000,000, while all the other woven
fabrics exported did not quite reach to the value of $68,000,000. On
consulting the same authority, of still later dates, it appears, that
the last four years has produced no material change in the relations
which the different classes of British fabrics, exported, bear to each
other. The present condition of the demand and supplies of cotton,
throughout Europe, and the extent to which the increasing consumption of
that staple must stimulate the American planters to its increased
production, will be noticed in the proper place.[21]

There was a time when American slave labor sustained no such relations
to the manufactures and commerce of the world as it now so firmly holds;
and when, by the adoption of proper measures, on the part of the free
colored people and their friends, the emancipation of the slaves, in all
the States, might, possibly, have been effected. But that period has
passed forever away, and causes, unforeseen, have come into operation,
which are too powerful to be overcome by any agencies that have since
been employed.[22] What Divine Providence may have in store for the
future, we know not; but, at present, the institution of slavery is
sustained by numberless pillars, too massive for human power and wisdom
to overthrow.

Take another view of this subject. To say nothing now of the tobacco,
rice, and sugar, which are the products of our slave labor, we exported
raw cotton to the value of $109,456,404 in 1853. Its destination was, to
Great Britain, 768,596,498 lbs.; to the Continent of Europe, 335,271,434
lbs.; to countries on our own Continent, 7,702,438 lbs.; making the
total exports, 1,111,570,370 lbs. The entire crop of that year being
1,305,152,800 lbs., gives, for home consumption, 268,403,600 lbs.[23] Of
this, there was manufactured into cotton fabrics to the value of
$61,869,274;[24] of which there was retained, for home markets, to the
value of $53,100,290. Our imports of cotton fabrics from Europe, in
1853, for consumption, amounted in value to $26,477,950:[25] thus
making our cottons, foreign and domestic, for that year, cost us

In bringing down the results to 1858, it will be seen that the imports
of foreign cotton goods has fluctuated at higher and lower amounts than
those of 1853; and that an actual decrease of our exports of cotton
manufactures has taken place since that date.[26] But in the exports of
raw cotton there has been an increase of nearly a hundred millions of
pounds over that of 1853--the total exports of 1859 being 1,208,561,200
lbs. The total crop of 1859, in the United States, was 1,606,800,000
lbs., and the amount taken for consumption 371,060,800 lbs.[27]

Thus, while our consumption of foreign cotton goods is not on the
increase, the foreign demand for our raw cotton is rapidly augmenting;
and thus the American planter is becoming more and more important to the
manufactures and commerce of the world.

This, now, is what becomes of our cotton; this is the way in which it so
largely constitutes the basis of commerce and trade; and this is the
nature of the relations existing between the slavery of the United
States and the economical interests of the world.

But have the United States no other great leading interests, except
those which are involved in the production of cotton? Certainly, they
have. Here is a great field for the growth of provisions. In ordinary
years, exclusive of tobacco and cotton, our agricultural property, when
added to the domestic animals and their products, amounts in value
$1,551,176,490. Of this, there is exported only to the value of
$33,809,126; which leaves for home consumption and use, a remainder to
the value of $1,517,367,364.[28] The portions of the property
represented by this immense sum of money, which pass from the hands of
the agriculturists, are distributed throughout the Union, for the
support of the day laborers, sailors, mechanics, manufacturers, traders,
merchants, professional men, planters, and the slave population. This is
what becomes of our provisions.

Besides this annual consumption of provisions, most of which is the
product of free labor, the people of the United States use a vast amount
of groceries, which are mainly of slave labor origin. Boundless as is
the influence of cotton, in stimulating slavery extension, that of the
cultivation of groceries falls but little short of it; the chief
difference being, that they do not receive such an increased value under
the hand of manufacturers. The cultivation of coffee, in Brazil, employs
as great a number of slaves as that of cotton in the United States.

But, to comprehend fully our indebtedness to slave labor for groceries,
we must descend to particulars. Our imports of coffee, tobacco, sugar,
and molasses, for 1853, amounted in value to $38,479,000; of which the
hand of the slave, in Brazil and Cuba, mainly, supplied to the value of
$34,451,000.[29] This shows the extent to which we are sustaining
foreign slavery, by the consumption of these four products. But this is
not our whole indebtedness to slavery for groceries. Of the domestic
grown tobacco, valued at $19,975,000, of which we retain nearly
one-half, the Slave States produce to the value of $16,787,000; of
domestic rice, the product of the South, we consume to the value of
$7,092,000; of domestic slave grown sugar and molasses, we take, for
home consumption, to the value of $34,779,000; making our grocery
account, with domestic slavery, foot up to the sum of $50,449,000. Our
whole indebtedness, then, to slavery, foreign and domestic, for these
four commodities, after deducting two millions of re-exports amounts to

The exports of tobacco are on the increase, as appears from Table VIII
of Appendix, showing an extension of its cultivation; but the exports of
rice are not on the increase, from which it would appear that its
production remains stationary.

By adding the value of the foreign and domestic cotton fabrics,
consumed annually in the United States, to the yearly cost of the
groceries which the country uses, our total indebtedness, for articles
of slave labor origin, will be found swelling up to the enormous sum of

We have now seen the channels through which our cotton passes off into
the great sea of commerce, to furnish the world its clothing. We have
seen the origin and value of our provisions, and to whom they are sold.
We have seen the sources whence our groceries are derived, and the
millions of money they cost. To ascertain how far these several
interests are sustained by one another, will be to determine how far any
one of them becomes an element of expansion to the others. To decide a
question of this nature with precision is impracticable. The statistics
are not attainable. It may be illustrated, however, in various ways, so
as to obtain a conclusion proximately accurate. Suppose, for example,
that the supplies of food from the North were cut off, the manufactories
left in their present condition, and the planters forced to raise their
provisions and draught animals: in such circumstances, the export of
cotton must cease, as the lands of these States could not be made to
yield more than would subsist their own population, and supply the
cotton demanded by the Northern States. Now, if this be true of the
agricultural resources of the cotton States--and it is believed to be
nearly the full extent of their capacity--then the surplus of cotton, to
the value of more than a hundred millions of dollars, now annually sent
abroad, stands as the representative of the yearly supplies which the
cotton planters receive from the farmers north of the cotton line. This,
therefore, as will afterward more fully appear, may be taken as the
probable extent to which the supplies from the North serve as an element
of slavery expansion in the article of cotton alone.


[19] Paganism has, long since, attained its maximum in agricultural
industry, and the introduction of Christian civilization, into India,
can, alone, lead to an increase of its productions for export.

[20] 1839.

[21] ENGLAND AND SLAVERY.--In the _London Times_ of October 7th, 1858,
there is a long and very able and candid article on the subject of
cotton. The proportions of the article used by different nations are
thus stated:

          Great Britain,            51.28
          France,                   13.24
          Northern Europe,           6.84
          Other foreign ports,       5.91
          Consumption of the U. S., 23.58

Thus it appears that England uses more of the raw material than all the
rest of the world. After giving the great facts the writer uses the
following language:

"An advance of one pence per pound on the price of American cotton is
welcomed by the slave-owner of the Southern States as supplying him with
the sinews of war for the struggle now waging with the Northern
abolitionists. This mere advance of one pence on our present annual
consumption is equivalent to an annual subscription of sixteen millions
of dollars toward the maintainance of American slavery."--_American

[22] See the speech of the Hon. Gerrit Smith, on the "Kansas-Nebraska
Bill," in which he asserts, that the invention of the _Cotton Gin_
fastened slavery upon the country; and that, but for its invention,
slavery would long since have disappeared.

[23] This is only the consumption north of Virginia.

[24] This estimate is probably too low, being taken from the census of
1850. The exports of cottons for 1850 were $4,734,424; and for 1353,
$8,768,894; having nearly doubled in four years.

[25] These figures were taken from the official documents for the first
edition. They vary a little from the revised documents from which Table
VII is taken, but not so as to affect our argument.

[26] See Table VII, in Appendix.

[27] See Table VI, in Appendix; and in this connection it may be
explained that the _crop year_ ends August 31st.

[28] See Table II, in Appendix. We have of course to limit our
statements in relation to some of these amounts to the figures used in
the first edition, because they can only be ascertained from the census
tables of 1850. While it will be found that the exports of bread-stuffs
and provisions have increased considerably, it will be seen from Table
VIII that it is not in a greater ratio than the exports of cotton and
tobacco. To show that the statement as it stands was a fair one at the
time, it is only necessary for the reader to look at the last named
table to see that the three years preceding 1853 exported considerably
less than that year.

[29] See Table III, Appendix.

[30] These estimates have not been recast and adapted to 1859, for the
third edition, because, as will be seen from Tables VII, VIII and X,
there has been no great change in the amount of these commodities
consumed since 1853.


          Economical relations of Slavery further
          considered--System unprofitable in grain growing,
          but profitable in culture of Cotton--Antagonism of
          Farmer and Planter--"Protection," and, "Free
          Trade" controversy--Congressional Debates on the
          subject--Mr. Clay--Position of the South--"Free
          Trade," considered indispensable to its

BUT the subject of the relations of American slavery to the economical
interests of the world, demands a still closer scrutiny, in order that
the causes of the failure of abolitionism to arrest its progress, as
well as the present relations of the institution to the politics of the
country, may fully appear.

Slave labor has seldom been made profitable where it has been wholly
employed in grazing and grain growing; but it becomes remunerative in
proportion as the planters can devote their attention to cotton, sugar,
rice, or tobacco. To render Southern slavery profitable in the highest
degree, therefore, the slaves must be employed upon some one of these
articles, and be sustained by a supply of food and draught animals from
Northern agriculturists; and before the planter's supplies are complete,
to these must be added cotton gins, implements of husbandry, furniture,
and tools, from Northern mechanics. This is a point of the utmost
moment, and must be considered more at length.

It has long been a vital question to the success of the slaveholder, to
know how he could render the labor of his slaves the most profitable.
The grain growing States had to emancipate their slaves, to rid
themselves of a profitless system. The cotton-growing States, ever after
the invention of the cotton gin, had found the production of that staple
highly remunerative. The logical conclusion, from these different
results, was, that the less provisions, and the more cotton grown by the
planter, the greater would be his profits. This must be noted with
special care. _Markets_ for the surplus products of the farmer of the
North, were equally as important to him as the supply of _Provisions_
was to the planter. But the planter, to be eminently successful, must
purchase his supplies at the lowest possible prices; while the farmer,
to secure his prosperity, must sell his products at the highest possible
rates. Few, indeed, can be so ill informed, as not to know, that these
two topics, for many years, were involved in the "Free Trade" and
"Protective Tariff" doctrines, and afforded the _materiel_ of the
political contests between the North and the South--between free labor
and slave labor. A very brief notice of the history of that controversy,
will demonstrate the truth of this assertion.

The attempt of the agricultural States, thirty years since, to establish
the protective policy, and promote "Domestic Manufactures," was a
struggle to create such a division of labor as would afford a "Home
Market" for their products, no longer in demand abroad. The first
decisive action on the question, by Congress, was in 1824; when the
distress in these States, and the measures proposed for their relief, by
national legislation, were discussed on the passage of the "Tariff Bill"
of that year. The ablest men in the nation were engaged in the
controversy. As provisions are the most important item on the one hand,
and cotton on the other, we shall use these two terms as the
representatives of the two classes of products, belonging, respectively,
to free labor and to slave labor.

Mr. Clay, in the course of the debate, said: "What, again, I would ask,
is the cause of the unhappy condition of our country, which I have
fairly depicted? It is to be found in the fact that, during almost the
whole existence of this government, we have shaped our industry, our
navigation, and our commerce, in reference to an extraordinary war in
Europe, and to foreign markets which no longer exist; in the fact that
we have depended too much on foreign sources of supply, and excited too
little the native; in the fact that, while we have cultivated, with
assiduous care, our foreign resources, we have suffered those at home to
wither, in a state of neglect and abandonment. The consequence of the
termination of the war of Europe, has been the resumption of European
commerce, European navigation, and the extension of European
agriculture, in all its branches. Europe, therefore, has no longer
occasion for any thing like the same extent as that which she had during
her wars, for American commerce, American navigation, the produce of
American industry. Europe in commotion, and convulsed throughout all her
members, is to America no longer the same Europe as she is now,
tranquil, and watching with the most vigilant attention, all her own
peculiar interests, without regard to their operation on us. The effect
of this altered state of Europe upon us, has been to circumscribe the
employment of our marine, and greatly to reduce the value of the produce
of our territorial labor. . . . . The greatest want of civilized society
is a market for the sale and exchange of the surplus of the products of
the labor of its members. This market may exist at home or abroad, or
both, but it must exist somewhere, if society prospers; and, wherever it
does exist, it should be competent to the absorption of the entire
surplus production. It is most desirable that there should be both a
home and a foreign market. But with respect to their relative
superiority, I can not entertain a doubt. The home market is first in
order, and paramount in importance. The object of the bill under
consideration, is to create this home market, and to lay the foundation
of a genuine American policy. It is opposed; and it is incumbent on the
partisans of the foreign policy (terms which I shall use without any
invidious intent) to demonstrate that the foreign market is an adequate
vent for the surplus produce of our labor. But is it so? 1. Foreign
nations can not, if they would, take our surplus produce. . . . . 2. If
they could, they would not. . . . . We have seen, I think, the causes of
the distress of the country. We have seen that an exclusive dependence
upon the foreign market must lead to a still severer distress, to
impoverishment, to ruin. We must, then, change somewhat our course. We
must give a new direction to some portion of our industry. We must
speedily adopt a genuine American policy. Still cherishing a foreign
market, let us create also a home market, to give further scope to the
consumption of the produce of American industry. Let us counteract the
policy of foreigners, and withdraw the support which we now give to
their industry, and stimulate that of our own country. . . . . The
creation of a home market is not only necessary to procure for our
agriculture a just reward of its labors, but it is indispensable to
obtain a supply of our necessary wants. If we can not sell, we can not
buy. That portion of our population (and we have seen that it is not
less than four-fifths) which makes comparatively nothing that foreigners
will buy, has nothing to make purchases with from foreigners. It is in
vain that we are told of the amount of our exports, supplied by the
planting interest. They may enable the planting interest to supply all
its wants; but they bring no ability to the interests not planting,
unless, which can not be pretended, the planting interest was an
adequate vent for the surplus produce of all the labor of all other
interests. . . . . But this home market, highly desirable as it is, can
only be created and cherished by the protection of our own legislation
against the inevitable prostration of our industry, which must ensue
from the action of FOREIGN policy and legislation. . . . . The sole
object of the tariff is to tax the produce of foreign industry, with the
view of promoting American industry. . . . . But it is said by the
honorable gentleman from Virginia, that the South, owing to the
character of a certain portion of its population, can not engage in the
business of manufacturing. . . . . The circumstances of its degradation
unfits it for manufacturing arts. The well-being of the other, and the
larger part of our population, requires the introduction of those arts.

"What is to be done in this conflict? The gentleman would have us
abstain from adopting a policy called for by the interests of the
greater and freer part of the population. But is that reasonable? Can it
be expected that the interests of the greater part should be made to
bend to the condition of the servile part of our population? That, in
effect, would be to make us the slaves of slaves. . . . . I am sure that
the patriotism of the South may be exclusively relied upon to reject a
policy which should be dictated by considerations altogether connected
with that degraded class, to the prejudice of the residue of our
population. But does not a perseverance in the foreign policy, as it now
exists, in fact, make all parts of the Union, not planting, tributary to
the planting parts? What is the argument? It is, that we must continue
freely to receive the produce of foreign industry, without regard to the
protection of American industry, that a market may be retained for the
sale abroad of the produce of the planting portion of the country; and
that, if we lessen the consumption, in all parts of America, those which
are not planting, as well as the planting sections, of foreign
manufactures, we diminish to that extent the foreign market for the
planting produce. The existing state of things, indeed, presents a sort
of tacit compact between the cotton-grower and the British manufacturer,
the stipulations of which are, on the part of the cotton-grower, that
the whole of the United States, the other portions as well as the
cotton-growing, shall remain open and unrestricted in the consumption of
British manufactures; and, on the part of the British manufacturer,
that, in consideration thereof, he will continue to purchase the cotton
of the South. Thus, then, we perceive that the proposed measure, instead
of sacrificing the South to the other parts of the Union, seeks only to
preserve them from being actually sacrificed under the operation of the
tacit compact which I have described."

The opposition to the Protective Tariff, by the South, arose from two
causes: the first openly avowed at the time, and the second clearly
deducible from the policy it pursued: the one to secure the foreign
market for its cotton, the other to obtain a bountiful supply of
provisions at cheap rates. Cotton was admitted free of duty into foreign
countries, and Southern statesmen feared its exclusion, if our
government increased the duties on foreign fabrics. The South exported
about twice as much of that staple as was supplied to Europe by all
other countries, and there were indications favoring the desire it
entertained of monopolizing the foreign markets. The West India planters
could not import food, but at such high rates as to make it
impracticable to grow cotton at prices low enough to suit the English
manufacturer. To purchase cotton cheaply, was essential to the success
of his scheme of monopolizing its manufacture, and supplying the world
with clothing. The close proximity of the provision and cotton-growing
districts in the United States, gave its planters advantages over all
other portions of the world. But they could not monopolize the markets,
unless they could obtain a cheap supply of food and clothing for their
negroes, and raise their cotton at such reduced prices as to undersell
their rivals. A manufacturing population, with its mechanical
coadjutors, in the midst of the provision-growers, on a scale such as
the protective policy contemplated, it was conceived, would create a
permanent market for their products, and enhance the price; whereas, if
this manufacturing could be prevented, and a system of free trade
adopted, the South would constitute the principal provision market of
the country, and the fertile lands of the North supply the cheap food
demanded for its slaves. As the tariff policy, in the outset,
contemplated the encouragement of the production of iron, hemp, whisky,
and the establishment of woolen manufactories, principally, the South
found its interests but slightly identified with the system--the coarser
qualities of cottons, only, being manufactured in the country, and, even
these, on a diminished scale, as compared with the cotton crops of the
South. Cotton, up to the date when this controversy had been fairly
commenced, had been worth, in the English market, an average price of
from 29 7/10 to 48 4/10 cents per lb.[31] But at this period, a wide
spread and ruinous depression both in the culture and manufacture of the
article, occurred--cotton, in 1826, having fallen, in England, as low as
11 9/10 to 18 9/10 cents per lb. The home market, then, was too
inconsiderable to be of much importance, and there existed little hope
of its enlargement to the extent demanded by its increasing cultivation.
The planters, therefore, looked abroad to the existing markets, rather
than to wait for tardily creating one at home. For success in the
foreign markets, they relied, mainly, upon preparing themselves to
produce cotton at the reduced prices then prevailing in Europe. All
agricultural products, except cotton, being excluded from foreign
markets, the planters found themselves almost the sole exporters of the
country; and it was to them a source of chagrin, that the North did not,
at once, co-operate with them in augmenting the commerce of the nation.

At this point in the history of the controversy, politicians found it an
easy matter to produce feelings of the deepest hostility between the
opposing parties. The planters were led to believe that the millions of
revenue collected off the goods imported, was so much deducted from the
value of the cotton that paid for them, either in the diminished price
they received abroad, or in the increased price which they paid for the
imported articles. To enhance the duties, for the protection of our
manufacturers, they were persuaded, would be so much of an additional
tax upon themselves, for the benefit of the North; and, beside, to give
the manufacturer such a monopoly of the home market for his fabrics,
would enable him to charge purchasers an excess over the true value of
his stuffs, to the whole amount of the duty. By the protective policy,
the planters expected to have the cost of both provisions and clothing
increased, and their ability to monopolize the foreign markets
diminished in a corresponding degree. If they could establish free
trade, it would insure the American market to foreign manufacturers;
secure the foreign markets for their leading staple; repress home
manufactures; force a large number of the Northern men into
agriculture; multiply the growth, and diminish the price of provisions;
feed and clothe their slaves at lower rates; produce their cotton for a
third or fourth of former prices; rival all other countries in its
cultivation; monopolize the trade in the article throughout the whole of
Europe; and build up a commerce and a navy that would make us ruler of
the seas.


[31] This includes the period from 1806 to 1826, though the decline
began a few years before the latter date.


          Tariff controversy continued--Mr. Hayne--Mr.
          Carter--Mr. Govan--Mr. Martindale--Mr.
          Buchanan--Sugar Planters invoked to aid Free
          Trade--The West also invoked--Its pecuniary
          embarrassments for want of markets--Henry
          Baldwin--Remarks on the views of the
          parties--State of the world--Dread of the
          Protective policy by the Planters--Their schemes
          to avert its consequences, and promote Free Trade.

TO understand the sentiments of the South, on the Protective Policy, as
expressed by its statesmen, we must again quote from the Congressional
Debates of 1824:

Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, said: "But how, I would seriously ask, is
it possible for the home market to supply the place of the foreign
market, for our cotton? We supply Great Britain with the raw material,
out of which she furnishes the Continent of Europe, nay, the whole
world, with cotton goods. Now, suppose our manufactories could make
every yard of cloth we consume, that would furnish a home market for no
more than 20,000,000 lbs. out of the 180,000,000 lbs. of cotton now
shipped to Great Britain; leaving on our hands 160,000,000 lbs., equal
to two-thirds of our whole produce. . . . . Considering this scheme of
promoting certain employments, at the expense of others, as unequal,
oppressive, and unjust--viewing prohibition as the _means_, and the
destruction of all foreign commerce as the _end_ of this policy--I take
this occasion to declare, that we shall feel ourselves, justified in
embracing the very first opportunity of repealing all such laws as may
be passed for the promotion of these objects."

Mr. Carter, of South Carolina, said: "Another danger to which the
present measure would expose this country, and one in which the
Southern States have a deep and vital interest, would be the risk we
incur, by this system of exclusion, of driving Great Britain to
countervailing measures, and inducing all other countries, with whom the
United States have any considerable trading connections, to resort to
measures of retaliation. There are countries possessing vast capacities
for the production of rice, of cotton, and of tobacco, to which England
might resort to supply herself. She might apply herself to Brazil,
Bengal, and Egypt, for her cotton; to South America, as well as to her
colonies, for her tobacco; and to China and Turkey for her rice."

Mr. Govan, of South Carolina, said: "The effect of this measure on the
cotton, rice, and tobacco-growing States, will be pernicious in the
extreme:--it will exclude them from those markets where they depended
almost entirely for a sale of those articles, and force Great Britain to
encourage the cottons, (Brazil, Rio Janeiro, and Buenos Ayres,) which,
in a short time, can be brought in competition with us. Nothing but the
consumption of British goods in this country, received in exchange, can
support a command of the cotton market to the Southern planter. It is
one thing very certain, she will not come here with her gold and silver
to trade with us. And should Great Britain, pursuing the principles of
her reciprocal duty act, of last June, lay three or four cents on our
cotton, where would, I ask, be our surplus of cotton? It is well known
that the United States can not manufacture one-fourth of the cotton that
is in it; and should we, by our imprudent legislative enactments, in
pursuing to such an extent this restrictive system, force Great Britain
to shut her ports against us, it will paralyze the whole trade of the
Southern country. This export trade, which composes five-sixths of the
export trade of the United States, will be swept entirely from the
ocean, and leave but a melancholy wreck behind."

It is necessary, also, to add a few additional extracts, from the
speeches of Northern statesmen, during this discussion.

Mr. Martindale, of New York, said: "Does not the agriculture of the
country languish, and the laborer stand still, because, beyond the
supply of food for his own family, his produce perishes on his hands, or
his fields lie waste and fallow; and this because his accustomed market
is closed against him? It does, sir. . . . . A twenty years' war in
Europe, which drew into its vortex all its various nations, made our
merchants the carriers of a large portion of the world, and our farmers
the feeders of immense belligerent armies. An unexampled activity and
increase in our commerce followed--our agriculture extended itself, grew
and nourished. An unprecedented demand gave the farmer an extraordinary
price for his produce. . . . . Imports kept pace with exports, and
consumption with both. . . . . Peace came into Europe, and shut out our
exports, and found us in war with England, which almost cut off our
imports. . . . . Now we felt how _comfortable_ it was to have plenty of
food, but no clothing. . . . . Now we felt the imperfect organization of
our system. Now we saw the imperfect distribution and classification of
labor. . . . . Here is the explanation of our opposite views. It is
employment, after all, that we are all in search of. It is a market for
our labor and our produce, which we all want, and all contend for. 'Buy
foreign goods, that we may import,' say the merchants: it will make a
market for importations, and find employment for our ships. Buy English
manufactures, say the cotton planters; England will take our cotton in
exchange. Thus the merchant and the cotton planter fully appreciate the
value of a market when they find their own encroached upon. The farmer
and manufacturer claim to participate in the benefits of a market for
their labor and produce; and hence this protracted debate and struggle
of contending interests. It is a contest for a market between the
_cotton-grower and the merchant_ on the one side, and the _farmer and
the manufacturer_ on the other. That the manufacturer would furnish this
market to the farmer, admits no doubt. The farmer should reciprocate the
favor; and government is now called upon to render this market
accessible to foreign fabrics for the mutual benefit of both. . . . .
This, then, is the remedy we propose, sir, for the evils which we
suffer. Place the mechanic by the side of the farmer, that the
manufacturer who makes our cloth, should make it from _our_ farmers'
wool, flax, hemp, etc., and be fed by our farmers' provisions. Draw
forth our iron from our own mountains, and we shall not drain our
country in the purchase of the foreign. . . . . We propose, sir, to
supply our own wants from our own resources, by the means which God and
Nature have placed in our hands. . . . . But here is a question of
sectional interest, which elicits unfriendly feelings and determined
hostility to the bill. . . . . The cotton, rice, tobacco, and
indigo-growers of the Southern States, claim to be deeply affected and
injured by this system. . . . . Let us inquire if the Southern planter
does not demand what, in fact, he denies to others. And now, what does
he request? That the North and West should buy--what? Not their cotton,
tobacco, etc., for that we do already, to the utmost of our ability to
consume, or pay, or vend to others; and that is to an immense amount,
greatly exceeding what they purchase of us. But they insist that we
should buy English wool, wrought into cloth, that they may pay for it
with their cotton; that we should buy Russia iron, that they may sell
their cotton; that we should buy Holland gin and linen, that they may
sell their tobacco. In fine, that we should not grow wool, and dig and
smelt the iron of the country; for, if we did, they could not sell their
cotton." (On another occasion, he said:) "Gentlemen say they _will_
oppose every part of the bill. They will, therefore, move to strike out
every part of it. And, on every such motion, we shall hear repeated, as
we have done already, the same objections: that it will ruin trade and
commerce; that it will destroy the revenue, and prostrate the navy; that
it will enhance the prices of articles of the first necessity, and thus
be taxing the poor; and that it will destroy the cotton market, _and
stop the future growth of cotton_."

Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, said: "No nation can be perfectly
independent which depends upon foreign countries for its supply of iron.
It is an article equally necessary in peace and in war. Without a
plentiful supply of it, we cannot provide for the common defense. Can we
so soon have forgotten the lesson which experience taught us during the
late war with Great Britain? Our foreign supply was then cut off, and we
could not manufacture in sufficient quantities for the increased
domestic demand. The price of the article became extravagant, and both
the Government and the agriculturist were compelled to pay double the
sum for which they might have purchased it, had its manufacture, before
that period, been encouraged by proper protecting duties."

Sugar cane, at that period, had become an article of culture in
Louisiana, and efforts were made to persuade her planters into the
adoption of the Free Trade system. It was urged that they could more
effectually resist foreign competition, and extend their business, by a
cheap supply of food, than by protective duties. But the Louisianians
were too wise not to know, that though they would certainly obtain
cheap provisions by the destruction of Northern manufactures, still,
this would not enable them to compete with the cheaper labor supplied by
the slave trade to the Cubans.

The West, for many years, gave its undivided support to the
manufacturing interests, thereby obtaining a heavy duty on hemp, wool,
and foreign distilled spirits: thus securing encouragement to its hemp
and wool-growers, and the monopoly of the home market for its whisky.
The distiller and the manufacturer, under this system, were equally
ranked as public benefactors, as each increased the consumption of the
surplus products of the farmer. The grain of the West could find no
remunerative market, except as fed to domestic animals for droving East
and South, or distilled into whisky which would bear transportation.
Take a fact in proof of this assertion. Hon. Henry Baldwin, of
Pittsburgh, at a public dinner given him by the friends of General
Jackson, in Cincinnati, May, 1828, in referring to the want of markets,
for the farmers of the West, said, "He was certain, the aggregate of
their agricultural produce, finding a market in Europe, would not pay
for the pins and needles they imported."

The markets in the Southwest, now so important, were then quite limited.
As the protective system, coupled with the contemplated internal
improvements, if successfully accomplished, would inevitably tend to
enhance the price of agricultural products; while the free trade and
anti-internal improvement policy, would as certainly reduce their value;
the two systems were long considered so antagonistic, that the success
of the one must sound the knell of the other. Indeed, so fully was Ohio
impressed with the necessity of promoting manufactures, that all capital
thus employed, was for many years entirely exempt from taxation.

It was in vain that the friends of protection appealed to the fact, that
the duties levied on foreign goods did not necessarily enhance their
cost to the consumer; that the competition among home manufacturers, and
between them and foreigners, had greatly reduced the price of nearly
every article properly protected; that foreign manufacturers always had,
and always would advance their prices according to our dependence upon
them; that domestic competition was the only safety the country had
against foreign imposition; that it was necessary we should become our
own manufacturers, in a fair degree, to render ourselves independent of
other nations in times of war, as well as to guard against the
vacillations in foreign legislation; that the South would be vastly the
gainer by having the market for its products at its own doors, to avoid
the cost of their transit across the Atlantic; that, in the event of the
repression or want of proper extension of our manufactures, by the
adoption of the free trade system, the imports of foreign goods, to meet
the public wants, would soon exceed the ability of the people to pay,
and, inevitably, involve the country in bankruptcy.

Southern politicians remained inflexible, and refused to accept any
policy except free trade, to the utter abandonment of the principle of
protection. Whether they were jealous of the greater prosperity of the
North, and desirous to cripple its energies, or whether they were truly
fearful of bankrupting the South, we shall not wait to inquire. Justice
demands, however, that we should state that the South was suffering from
the stagnation in the cotton trade existing throughout Europe. The
planters had been unused to the low prices, for that staple, they were
compelled to accept. They had no prospect of an adequate home market for
many years to come, and there were indications that they might lose the
one they already possessed. The West Indies was still slave territory,
and attempting to recover its early position in the English market. This
it had to do, or be forced into emancipation. The powerful Viceroy of
Egypt, Mehemet Ali, was endeavoring to compel his subjects to grow
cotton on an enlarged scale. The newly organized South American
republics were assuming an aspect of commercial consequence, and might
commence its cultivation. The East Indies and Brazil were supplying to
Great Britain from one-third to one-half of the cotton she was annually
manufacturing. The other half, or two-thirds, she might obtain from
other sources, and repudiate all traffic with our planters. Southern
men, therefore, could not conceive of any thing but ruin to themselves,
by any considerable advance in duties on foreign imports. They
understood the protective policy as contemplating the supply of our
country with home manufactured articles to the exclusion of those of
foreign countries. This would confine the planters, in the sale of their
cotton, to the American market mainly, and leave them in the power of
moneyed corporations; which, possessing the ability, might control the
prices of their staple, to the irreparable injury of the South. With
slave labor they could not become manufacturers, and must, therefore,
remain at the mercy of the North, both as to food and clothing, unless
the European markets should be retained. Out of this conviction grew the
war upon Corporations; the hostility to the employment of foreign
capital in developing the mineral, agricultural, and manufacturing
resources of the country; the efforts to destroy the banks and the
credit system; the attempts to reduce the currency to gold and silver;
the system of collecting the public revenues in coin; the withdrawal of
the public moneys from all the banks as a basis of paper circulation;
and the sleepless vigilance of the South in resisting all systems of
internal improvements by the General Government. Its statesmen foresaw
that a paper currency would keep up the price of Northern products one
or two hundred per cent. above the specie standard; that combinations of
capitalists, whether engaged in manufacturing wool, cotton, or iron,
would draw off labor from the cultivation of the soil, and cause large
bodies of the producers to become consumers; and that roads and canals,
connecting the West with the East, were effectual means of bringing the
agricultural and manufacturing classes into closer proximity, to the
serious limitation of the foreign commerce of the country, the checking
of the growth of the navy, and the manifest, injury of the planters.


          Character of the Tariff controversy--Peculiar
          condition of the people--Efforts to enlist the
          West in the interest of the South--Mr.
          McDuffie--Mr. Hamilton--Mr. Rankin--Mr.
          Garnett--Mr. Cuthbert--the West still shut out
          from market--Mr. Wickliffe--Mr. Benton--Tariff of
          1828 obnoxious to the South--Georgia
          Resolutions--Mr. Hamilton--Argument to Sugar

The Protective Tariff and Free Trade controversy, at its origin, and
during its progress, was very different in its character from what many
now imagine it to have been. People, on both sides, were often in great
straits to know how to obtain a livelihood, much less to amass
fortunes. The word _ruin_ was no unmeaning phrase at that day. The news,
now, that a bank has failed, carries with it, to the depositors and
holders of its notes, no stronger feelings of consternation, than did
the report of the passage or repeal of tariff laws, then, affect the
minds of the opposing parties. We have spoken of the peculiar condition
of the South in this respect. In the West, for many years, the farmers
often received no more than _twenty-five cents_, and rarely over _forty
cents_, per bushel for their wheat, after conveying it, on horseback, or
in wagons, not unfrequently, a distance of fifty miles, to find a
market. Other products were proportionally low in price; and such was
the difficulty in obtaining money, that people could not pay their taxes
but with the greatest sacrifices. So deeply were the people interested
in these questions of national policy, that they became the basis of
political action during several Presidential elections. This led to much
vacillation in legislation on the subject, and gave alternately, to one
and then to the other section of the Union, the benefits of its favorite

The vote of the West, during this struggle, was of the first importance,
as it possessed the balance of power, and could turn the scale at will.
It was not left without inducements to co-operate with the South, in its
measures for extending slavery, that it might create a market among the
planters for its products. This appears from the particular efforts made
by the Southern members of Congress, during the debate of 1824, to win
over the West to the doctrines of free trade.

Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, said: "I admit that the Western people
are _embarrassed_, but I deny that they are _distressed_, in any other
sense of the word. . . . . I am well assured that the permanent
prosperity of the West depends more upon the improvement of the means of
transporting their produce to market, and of receiving the returns, than
upon every other subject to which the legislation of this government can
be directed. . . . . Gentlemen (from the West) are aware that a very
profitable trade is carried on by their constituents with the Southern
country, in _live stock_ of all descriptions, which they drive over the
mountains and sell for cash. This extensive trade, which, from its
peculiar character, more easily overcomes the difficulties of
transportation than any that can be substituted in its place, is about
to be put in jeopardy for the conjectural benefits of this measure. When
I say this trade is about to be put in jeopardy, I do not speak
unadvisedly. I am perfectly convinced that, if this bill passes, it will
have the effect of inducing the people of the South, partly from the
feeling and partly from the necessity growing out of it, to raise within
themselves, the live stock which they now purchase from the West. . . .
. If we cease to take the manufactures of Great Britain, she will
assuredly cease to take our cotton to the same extent. It is a settled
principle of her policy--a principle not only wise, but essential to her
existence--to purchase from those nations that receive her manufactures,
in preference to those who do not. We have, heretofore, been her best
customers, and, therefore, it has been her policy to purchase our cotton
to the full extent of our demand for her manufactures. But, say
gentlemen, Great Britain does not purchase your cotton from affection,
but from interest. I grant it, sir; and that is the very reason of my
decided hostility to a system which will make it her interest to
purchase from other countries in preference to our own. It _is_ her
interest to purchase cotton, even at a higher price, from those
countries which receive her manufactures in exchange. It is better for
her to give a little more for cotton, than to obtain nothing for her
manufactures. It will be remarked that the situation of Great Britain
is, in this respect, widely different from that of the United States.
The powers of her soil have been already pushed very nearly to the
maximum of their productiveness. The productiveness of her manufactures
on the contrary, is as unlimited as the demand of the whole world. . . .
. In fact, sir, the policy of Great Britain is not, as gentlemen seem to
suppose, to secure the _home_, but the _foreign_ market for her
manufactures. The former she has without an effort. It is to attain the
latter that all her policy and enterprise are brought into requisition.
The manufactures of that country are _the basis of her commerce_; our
manufactures, on the contrary are to be _the destruction of our
commerce_. . . . . It can not be doubted that, in pursuance of the
policy of forcing her manufactures into foreign markets, she will, if
deprived of a large portion of our custom, direct all her efforts to
South America. That country abounds in a soil admirably adapted to the
production of cotton, and will, for a century to come, import her
manufactures from foreign countries."

Mr. Hamilton, of South Carolina, said: "That the planters in his section
shared in that depression which is common in every department of the
industry of the Union, _excepting those from which we have heard the
most clamor for relief_. This would be understood when it was known that
sea-island cotton had fallen from 50 or 60 cents, to 25 cents--a fall
even greater than that which has attended wheat, of which we had heard
so much--as if the grain-growing section was the only agricultural
interest which had suffered. . . . . While the planters of this region
do not dread competition in the foreign markets on equal terms, from the
superiority of their cotton, they entertain a well-founded apprehension,
that the restrictions contemplated will lead to retaliatory duties on
the part of Great Britain, which must end in ruin. . . . . In relation
to our upland cottons, Great Britain may, without difficulty, in the
course of a very short period, supply her wants from Brazil. . . . . How
long the exclusive production, even of the sea-island cotton, will
remain to our country, is yet a doubtful and interesting problem. The
experiments that are making on the Delta of the Nile, if pushed to the
Ocean, may result in the production of this beautiful staple, in an
abundance which, in reference to other productions, has long blest and
consecrated Egyptian fertility. . . . . We are told by the honorable
Speaker (Mr. Clay,) that our manufacturing establishments will, in a
very short period, supply the place of the foreign demand. The futility,
I will not say mockery of this hope, may be measured by one or two
facts. First, the present consumption of cotton, by our manufactories,
is about equal to one-sixth of our whole production. . . . . How long it
will take to increase these manufactories to a scale equal to the
consumption of this production, he could not venture to determine; but
that it will be some years after the epitaph will have been written on
the fortunes of the South, there can be but little doubt." . . . .
[After speaking of the tendency of increased manufactures in the East,
to check emigration to the West, and thus to diminish the value of the
public lands and prevent the growth of the Western States, Mr. H.
proceeded thus:] "That portion of the Union could participate in no part
of the bill, except in its burdens, in spite of the fallacious hopes
that were cherished, in reference to cotton bagging for Kentucky, and
the woolen duty for Steubenville, Ohio. He feared that to the entire
region of the West, no 'cordial drops of comfort' would come, even in
the duty on foreign spirits. To a large portion of our people, who are
in the habit of solacing themselves with Hollands, Antigua, and
Cogniac, whisky would still have 'a most villainous twang.' The cup, he
feared, would be refused, though tendered by the hand of patriotism as
well as conviviality. No, the West has but one interest, and that is,
that its best customer, the South, should be prosperous."

Mr. Rankin, of Mississippi, said: "With the West, it appears to me like
a rebellion of the members against the body. It is true, we export, but
the amount received from those exports is only apparently, largely in
our favor, inasmuch as we are the consumers of your produce, dependent
on you for our implements of husbandry, the means of sustaining life,
and almost every thing except our lands and negroes; all of which draws
much from the apparent profits and advantages. In proportion as you
diminish our exportations, you diminish our means of purchasing from
you, and destroy your own market. You will compel us to use those
advantages of soil and of climate which God and Nature have placed
within our reach, and to live, as to you, as you desire us to live as to
foreign nations--dependent on our own resources."

Mr. Garnett, of Virginia, said: "The Western States can not manufacture.
The want of capital (of which they, as well as the Southern States, have
been drained by the policy of government,) and other causes render it
impossible. The Southern States are destined to suffer more by this
policy than any other--the Western next; but it will not benefit the
aggregate population of any State. It is for the benefit of capitalists
only. If persisted in, it will drive the South to ruin and resistance."

Mr. Cuthbert, of Georgia, said: "He hoped the market for the cotton of
the South was not about to be contracted within a little miserable
sphere, (the home market,) instead of being spread throughout the world.
If they should drive the cotton-growers from the only source from whence
their means were derived, (the foreign market,) they would be unable any
longer to take their supplies from the West--they must contract their
concerns within their own spheres, and begin to raise flesh and grain
for their own consumption. The South was already under a severe
pressure--if this measure went into effect, its distress would be

In 1828, the West found still very limited means of communication with
the East. The opening of the New York canal, in 1825, created a means of
traffic with the seaboard, to the people of the Lake region; but all of
the remaining territory, west of the Alleghanies, had gained no
advantages over those it had enjoyed in 1824, except so far as steamboat
navigation had progressed on the Western rivers. In the debate preceding
the passage of the tariff in 1828, usually termed the "Woolens' Bill,"
allusion is made to the condition of the West, from which we quote as

Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, said: "My constituents may be said to be a
grain-growing people. They raise stock, and their surplus grain is
converted into spirits. Where, I ask, is our market? . . . . Our market
is where our sympathies should be, in the South. Our course of trade,
for all heavy articles, is down the Mississippi. What breadstuffs we
find a market for, are principally consumed in the States of
Mississippi, Louisiana, South Alabama, and Florida. Indeed, I may say,
these States are the consumers, at miserable and ruinous prices to the
farmers of my State, of our exports of spirits, corn, flour, and cured
provisions. . . . . We have had a trade of some value to the South in
our stock. We still continue it under great disadvantages. It is a
ready-money trade--I may say it is the only money trade in which we are
engaged. . . . . Are the gentlemen acquainted with the extent of that
trade? It may be fairly stated at three millions per annum."

Mr. Benton urged the Western members to unite with the South, "for the
purpose of enlarging the market, increasing the demand in the South, and
its ability to purchase the horses, mules, and provisions, which the
West could sell nowhere else."

The tariff of 1828, created great dissatisfaction at the South. Examples
of the expressions of public sentiment, on the subject, adopted at
conventions, and on other occasions, might be multiplied indefinitely.
Take a case or two, to illustrate the whole. At a public meeting in
Georgia, held subsequently to the passage of the "Woolens' Bill," the
following resolution was adopted:

          _Resolved_, That to retaliate as far as possible
          upon our oppressors, our Legislature be requested
          to impose taxes, amounting to prohibition, on the
          hogs, horses, mules, and cotton-bagging, whisky,
          pork, beef, bacon, flax, and hemp cloth, of the
          Western, and on all the productions and
          manufactures of the Eastern and Northern States.

Mr. Hamilton, of South Carolina, in a speech at the Waterborough
Dinner, given subsequently to the passage of the tariff of 1828, said:

"It becomes us to inquire what is to be our situation under this
unexpected and disastrous conjunction of circumstances, which, in its
progress, will deprive us of the benefits of a free trade with the rest
of the world, which formed one of the leading objects of the Union. Why,
gentlemen, ruin, unmitigated ruin, must be our portion, if this system
continues. . . . . From 1816 down to the present time, the South has
been drugged, by the slow poison of the miserable empiricism of the
prohibitory system, the fatal effects of which we could not so long have
resisted, but for the stupendously valuable staples with which God has
blessed us, and the agricultural skill and enterprise of our people."

In further illustration of the nature of this controversy, and of the
arguments used during the contest, we must give the substance of the
remarks of a prominent politician, who was aiming at detaching the sugar
planters from their political connection with the manufacturers. We have
to rely on memory, however, as we can not find the record of the
language used on the occasion. It was published at the time, and
commented on, freely, by the newspapers at the North. He said: "We must
prevent the increase of manufactories, force the surplus labor into
agriculture, promote the cultivation of our unimproved western lands,
until provisions are so multiplied and reduced in price, that the slave
can be fed so cheaply as to enable us to grow our sugar at _three cents
a pound_. Then, without protective duties, we can rival Cuba in the
production of that staple, and drive her from our markets."


Tariff controversy continued--Tariff of 1832--The crisis--_Secession_
threatened--Compromise finally adopted--Debates--Mr. Hayne--Mr.
McDuffie--Mr. Clay--Adjustment of the subject.

THE opening of the year 1832, found the parties to the Tariff
controversy once more engaged in earnest debate, on the floor of
Congress; and midsummer witnessed the passage of a new Bill, including
the principle of protection. This Act produced a crisis in the
controversy, and led to the movements in South Carolina toward
secession; and, to avert the threatened evil, the Bill was modified, in
the following year, so as to make it acceptable to the South; and, so
as, also, to settle the policy of the Government for the succeeding nine
years. A few extracts from the debates of 1832, will serve to show what
were the sentiments of the members of Congress, as to the effects of the
protective policy on the different sections of the Union, up to that

Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, said: "When the policy of '24 went into
operation, the South was supplied from the West, through a single
avenue, (the Saluda Mountain Gap,) with live stock, horses, cattle, and
hogs, to the amount of considerably upward of a million of dollars a
year. Under the pressure of the system, this trade has been regularly
diminishing. It has already fallen more than one-half. . . . . In
consequence of the dire calamities which the system has inflicted on the
South--blasting our commerce, and withering our prosperity--the West has
been very nearly deprived of her best customer. . . . . And what was
found to be the result of four years' experience at the South? Not a
hope fulfilled; not one promise performed; and our condition infinitely
worse than it had been four years before. Sir, the whole South rose up
as one man, and protested against any further experiment with this
system. . . . . Sir, I seize the opportunity to dispel forever the
delusion that the South can find any compensation, in a home market, for
the injurious operation of the protective system. . . . . What a
spectacle do you even now exhibit to the world? A large portion of your
fellow-citizens, believing themselves to be grievously oppressed by an
unwise and unconstitutional system, are clamoring at your doors for
justice: while another portion, supposing that they are enjoying rich
bounties under it, are treating their complaints with scorn and
contempt. . . . . This system may destroy the South, but it will not
permanently advance the prosperity of the North. It may depress us, but
can not elevate them. Beside, sir, if persevered in, it must annihilate
that portion of the country from which the resources are to be drawn.
And it may be well for gentlemen to reflect whether adhering to this
policy would not be acting like the man who 'killed the goose which laid
the golden eggs.' Next to the Christian religion, I consider _Free
Trade_, in its largest sense, as the greatest blessing that can be
conferred on any people."

Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, said: "At the close of the late war
with Great Britain, every thing in the political and commercial changes,
resulting from the general peace, indicated unparalleled prosperity to
the Southern States, and great embarrassment and distress to those of
the North. The nations of the Continent had all directed their efforts
to the business of manufacturing; and all Europe may be said to have
converted their swords into machinery, creating unprecedented demand for
cotton, the great staple of the Southern States. There is nothing in the
history of commerce that can be compared with the increased demand for
this staple, notwithstanding the restrictions by which this Government
has limited that demand. As cotton, tobacco, and rice, are produced only
on a small portion of the globe, while all other agricultural staples
are common to every region of the earth, this circumstance gave the
planting States very great advantages. To cap the climax of the
commercial advantages opened to the cotton planters, England, their
great and most valued customer, received their cotton under a mere
nominal duty. On the other hand, the prospects of the Northern States
were as dismal as those of the Southern States were brilliant. They had
lost the carrying trade of the world, which the wars of Europe had
thrown into their hands. They had lost the demand and the high prices
which our own war had created for their grain and other productions;
and, soon afterward, they also lost the foreign market for their grain,
owing, partly, to foreign corn laws, but still more to other causes.
Such were the prospects, and such the well-founded hope of the Southern
States at the close of the late war, in which they bore so glorious a
part in vindicating the freedom of trade. But where are now these
cheering prospects and animating hopes? Blasted, sir--utterly
blasted--by the consuming and withering course of a system of
legislation which wages an exterminating war against the blessings of
commerce and the bounties of a merciful Providence; and which, by an
impious perversion of language, is called 'Protection.' . . . . I will
not add, sir, my deep and deliberate conviction, in the face of all the
miserable cant and hypocrisy with which the world abounds on the
subject, that any course of measures which shall hasten the abolition of
slavery, by destroying the value of slave labor, will bring upon the
Southern States the greatest political calamity with which they can be
afflicted; for I sincerely believe, that when the people of those States
shall be compelled, by such means, to emancipate their slaves, they will
be but a few degrees above the condition of slaves themselves. Yes, sir,
mark what I say: when the people of the South cease to be masters, by
the tampering influence of this Government, direct or indirect, they
will assuredly be slaves. It is the clear and distinct perception of the
irresistible tendency of this protective system to precipitate us upon
this great moral and political catastrophe, that has animated me to
raise my warning voice, that my fellow-citizens may foresee, and
foreseeing, avoid the destiny that would otherwise befall them. . . . .
And here, sir, it is as curious as it is melancholy and distressing, to
see how striking is the analogy between the colonial vassalage to which
the manufacturing States have reduced the planting States, and that
which formerly bound the Anglo-American colonies to the British
Empire. . . . England said to her American colonies 'You shall not trade
with the rest of the world for such manufactures _as are produced in the
mother country_.' The manufacturing States say to their Southern
colonies, 'You shall not trade with the rest of the world for such
manufactures as _we produce_, under a penalty of forty per cent. upon
the value of every cargo detected in this illicit commerce; which
penalty, aforesaid, shall be levied, collected, and paid out of the
products of your industry, to nourish and sustain ours.'"

Mr. Clay, in referring to the condition of the country at large, said:
"I have now to perform the more pleasing task of exhibiting an imperfect
sketch of the existing state of the unparalleled prosperity of the
country. On a general survey, we behold cultivation extended; the arts
flourishing; the face of the country improved; our people fully and
profitably employed, and the public countenance exhibiting tranquillity,
contentment, and happiness. And, if we descend into particulars, we have
the agreeable contemplation of a people out of debt; land rising slowly
in value, but in a secure and salutary degree; a ready, though not an
extravagant market for all the surplus productions of our industry;
innumerable flocks and herds browsing and gamboling on ten thousand
hills and plains, covered with rich and verdant grasses; our cities
expanded, and whole villages springing up, as it were, by enchantment;
our exports and imports increased and increasing; our tonnage, foreign
and coastwise, swelled and fully occupied; the rivers of our interior
animated by the perpetual thunder and lightning of countless steamboats;
the currency sound and abundant; the public debt of two wars nearly
redeemed; and, to crown all, the public treasury overflowing,
embarrassing Congress, not to find subjects of taxation, but to select
the objects which shall be liberated from the impost. If the term of
seven years were to be selected, of the greatest prosperity which this
people have enjoyed since the establishment of their present
Constitution, it would be exactly that period of seven years which
immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824.

"This transformation of the condition of the country from gloom and
distress to brightness and prosperity, has been mainly the work of
American legislation, fostering American industry, instead of allowing
it to be controlled by foreign legislation, cherishing foreign industry.
The foes of the American system, in 1824, with great boldness and
confidence, predicted, first, the ruin of the public revenue, and the
creation of a necessity to resort to direct taxation. The gentleman from
South Carolina, (General Hayne,) I believe, thought that the tariff of
1824 would operate a reduction of revenue to the large amount of eight
millions of dollars; secondly, the destruction of our navigation;
thirdly, the desolation of commercial cities; and, fourthly, the
augmentation of the price of articles of consumption, and further
decline in that of the articles of our exports. Every prediction which
they made has failed--utterly failed. . . . . It is now proposed to
abolish the system to which we owe so much of the public prosperity. . .
. . Why, sir, there is scarcely an interest--scarcely a vocation in
society--which is not embraced by the beneficence of this system. . . . .
The error of the opposite argument, is in assuming one thing, which,
being denied, the whole fails; that is, it assumes that the _whole_
labor of the United States would be profitably employed without
manufactures. Now, the truth is, that the system _excites_ and _creates_
labor, and this labor creates wealth, and this new wealth communicates
additional ability to consume; which acts on all the objects
contributing to human comfort and enjoyment. . . . . I could extend and
dwell on the long list of articles--the hemp, iron, lead, coal, and
other items--for which a demand is created in the home market by the
operation of the American system; but I should exhaust the patience of
the Senate. _Where, where_ should we find a market for all these
articles, if it did not exist at home? What would be the condition of
the largest portion of our people, and of the territory, if this home
market were annihilated? How could they be supplied with objects of
prime necessity? What would not be the certain and inevitable decline in
the price of all these articles, but for the home market?"

But we must not burden our pages with further extracts. What has been
quoted affords the principal arguments of the opposing parties, on the
points in which we are interested, down to 1832. The adjustment, in
1833, of the subject until 1842, and its subsequent agitation, are too
familiar, or of too easy access to the general reader, to require a
notice from us here.


          Results of the contest on Protection and Free
          Trade--More or less favorable to all--Increased
          consumption of Cotton at home--Capital invested in
          Cotton and Woolen factories--Markets thus afforded
          to the Farmer--South successful in securing the
          monopoly of the Cotton markets--Failure of Cotton
          cultivation in other countries--Diminished prices
          destroyed Household Manufacturing--Increasing
          demand for Cotton--Strange Providences--First
          efforts to extend Slavery--Indian lands
          acquired--No danger of over-production--Abolition
          movements served to unite the South--Annexation of
          territory thought essential to its
          security--Increase of Provisions necessary to its
          success--Temperance cause favorable to this
          result--The West ready to supply the Planters--It
          is greatly stimulated to effort by Southern
          markets--_Tripartite Alliance_ of Western Farmers,
          Southern Planters, and English Manufacturers--The
          East competing--The West has a choice of
          markets--Slavery extension necessary to Western
          progress--Increased price of Provisions--More
          grain growing needed--Nebraska and Kansas needed
          to raise food--The Planters stimulated by
          increasing demand for Cotton--Aspect of the
          Provision question--California gold changed the
          expected results of legislation--Reciprocity
          Treaty favorable to Planters--Extended cultivation
          of Provisions in the Far West essential to
          Planters--Present aspect of the Cotton question
          favorable to Planters--London Economist's
          statistics and remarks--Our Planters must extend
          the culture of Cotton to prevent its increased
          growth elsewhere.

THE results of the contest, in relation to Protection and Free Trade,
have been more or less favorable to all parties. This has been an
effect, in part, of the changeable character of our legislation; and, in
part, of the occurrence of events in Europe, over which our legislators
had no control. The manufaturing States, while protection lasted,
succeeded in placing their establishments upon a comparatively permanent
basis; and, by engaging largely in the manufacture of cottons, as well
as woolens, have rendered home manufactures, practically, very
advantageous to the South. Our cotton factories, in 1850, consumed as
much cotton as those of Great Britain did in 1831; thus affording
indications, that, by proper encouragement, they might, possibly, be
multiplied so as to consume the whole crop of the country. The cotton
and woolen factories, in 1850, employed over 130,000 work hands, and had
$102,619,581 of capital invested in them. They thus afford an important
market to the farmer, and, at the same time, have become an equally
important auxiliary to the planter. They may yet afford him the only
market for his cotton.

The cotton planting States, toward the close of the contest, found
themselves rapidly accumulating strength, and approximating the
accomplishment of the grand object at which they aimed--the monopoly of
the cotton markets of the world. This success was due, not so much to
any triumph over the North--to any prostration of our manufacturing
interests--as to the general policy of other nations. All rivalry to the
American planters from those of the West Indies, was removed by
emancipation; as, under freedom, the cultivation of cotton was nearly
abandoned. Mehemet Ali had become imbecile, and the indolent Egyptians
neglected its culture. The South Americans, after achieving their
independence, were more readily enlisted in military forays, than in the
art of agriculture, and they produced little cotton for export. The
emancipation of their slaves, instead of increasing the agricultural
products of the Republics, only supplied, in ample abundance, the
elements of promoting political revolutions, and keeping their soil
drenched with human blood. Such are the uses to which degraded men may
be applied by the ambitious demagogue. Brazil and India both supplied to
Europe considerably less in 1838 than they had done in 1820; and the
latter country made no material increase afterward, except when her
chief customer, China, was at war, or prices were above the average
rates in Europe. While the cultivation of cotton was thus stationary or
retrograding, everywhere outside of the United States, England and the
Continent were rapidly increasing their consumption of the article,
which they nearly doubled from 1835 to 1845; so that the demand for the
raw material called loudly for its increased production. Our planters
gathered a rich harvest of profits by these events.

But this is not all that is worthy of note, in this strange chapter of
Providences. No prominent event occurred, but conspired to advance the
prosperity of the cotton trade, and the value of American slavery. Even
the very depression suffered by the manufacturers and cultivators of
cotton, from 1825 to 1829, served to place the manufacturing interests
upon the broad and firm basis they now occupy. It forced the planters
into the production of their cotton at lower rates; and led the
manufacturers to improve their machinery, and reduce the price of their
fabrics low enough to sweep away all household manufacturing, and
secure to themselves the monopoly of clothing the civilized world. This
was the object at which the British manufacturers had aimed, and in
which they had been eminently successful. The growing manufactures of
the United States, and of the Continent of Europe, had not yet sensibly
affected their operations.

There is still another point requiring a passing notice, as it may serve
to explain some portions of the history of slavery, not so well
understood. It was not until events diminishing the foreign growth of
cotton, and enlarging the demand for its fabrics, had been extensively
developed, that the older cotton-growing States became willing to allow
slavery extension in the Southwest; and, even then, their assent was
reluctantly given--the markets for cotton, doubtless, being considered
sufficiently limited for the territory under cultivation. Up to 1824,
the Indians held over thirty-two millions of acres of land in Georgia,
Mississippi, and Alabama, and over twenty millions of acres in Florida,
Missouri and Arkansas; which was mostly retained by them as late as
1836. Although the States interested had repeatedly urged the matter
upon Congress, and some of them even resorted to forcible means to gain
possession of these Indian lands, the Government did not fulfill its
promise to remove the Indians until 1836; and even then, the measure met
with such opposition, that it was saved but by one vote--Mr. Calhoun and
six other Southern Senators voting against it.[32] In justice to Mr.
Calhoun, however, it must be stated that his opposition to the measure
was based on the conviction that the treaty had been fraudulently

The older States, however, had found, by this time, that the foreign and
home demand for cotton was so rapidly increasing that there was little
danger of over-production; and that they had, in fact, secured to
themselves the monopoly of the foreign markets. Beside this, the
abolition movement at that moment, had assumed its most threatening
aspect, and was demanding the destruction of slavery or the dissolution
of the Union. Here was a double motive operating to produce harmony in
the ranks of Southern politicians, and to awaken the fears of many,
North and South, for the safety of the Government. Here, also, was the
origin of the determination, in the South, to extend slavery, by the
annexation of territory, so as to gain the political preponderance in
the National Councils, and to protect its interests against the
interference of the North.

It was not the increased demand for cotton, alone, that served as a
protection to the older States. The extension of its cultivation, in the
degree demanded by the wants of commerce, could only be effected by a
corresponding increased supply of provisions. Without this, it could not
increase, except by enhancing their price to the injury of the older
States. This food did not fail to be in readiness, so soon as it was
needed. Indeed, much of it had long been awaiting an outlet to a
profitable market. Its surplus, too, had been somewhat increased by the
Temperance movement in the North, which had materially checked the
distillation of grain.

The West, which had long looked to the East for a market, had its
attention now turned to the South, as the most certain and convenient
mart for the sale of its products--the planters affording to the farmers
the markets they had in vain sought from the manufacturers. In the
meantime, steamboat navigation was acquiring perfection on the Western
rivers--the great natural outlets for Western products--and became a
means of communication between the Northwest and the Southwest, as well
as with the trade and commerce of the Atlantic cities. This gave an
impulse to industry and enterprise, west of the Alleghanies,
unparalleled in the history of the country. While, then, the bounds of
slave labor were extending from Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia,
Westward, over Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, the area of
free labor was enlarging, with equal rapidity, in the Northwest,
throughout Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. Thus, within these
provision and cotton regions, were the forests cleared away, or the
prairies broken up, simultaneously by those old antagonistic forces,
opponents no longer, but harmonized by the fusion of their
interests--the connecting link between them being the steamboat. Thus,
also, was a _tripartite alliance_ formed, by which the Western Farmer,
the Southern Planter, and the English Manufacturer, became united in a
common bond of interest: the whole giving their support to the doctrine
of Free Trade.

This active commerce between the West and South, however, soon caused a
rivalry in the East, that pushed forward improvements, by States or
Corporations, to gain a share in the Western trade. These improvements,
as completed, gave to the West a choice of markets, so that its Farmers
could elect whether to feed the slave who grows the cotton, or the
operatives who are engaged in its manufacture. But this rivalry did
more. The competition for Western products enhanced their price, and
stimulated their more extended cultivation. This required an enlargement
of the markets; and the extension of slavery became essential to Western

We have not reached the end of the alliance between the Western Farmer
and Southern Planter. The emigration which has been filling Iowa and
Minnesota, and is now rolling like a flood into Kansas and Nebraska, is
but a repetition of what has occurred in the other Western States and
Territories. Agricultural pursuits are highly remunerative, and tens of
thousands of men of moderate means, or of no means, are cheered along to
where none forbids them land to till. For the last few years, public
improvements have called for vastly more than the usual share of labor,
and augmented the consumption of provisions. The foreign demand added to
this, has increased their price beyond what the planter can afford to
pay. For many years free labor and slave labor maintained an even race
in their Western progress. Of late the freemen have begun to lag behind,
while slavery has advanced by several degrees of longitude. Free labor
must be made to keep pace with it. There is an urgent necessity for
this. The demand for cotton is increasing in a ratio greater than can be
supplied by the American planters, unless by a corresponding increased
production. This increasing demand must be met, or its cultivation will
be facilitated elsewhere, and the monopoly of the planter in the
European markets be interrupted. This can only be effected by
concentrating the greatest possible number of slaves upon the cotton
plantations. Hence they must be supplied with provisions.

This is the present aspect of the Provision question, as it regards
slavery extension. Prices are approximating the maximum point, beyond
which our provisions can not be fed to slaves, unless there is a
corresponding increase in the price of cotton. Such a result was not
anticipated by Southern statesmen, when they had succeeded in
overthrowing the protective policy, destroying the United States Bank,
and establishing the Sub-Treasury system. And why has this occurred? The
mines of California prevented both the Free-Trade Tariff,[33] and the
Sub-Treasury scheme from exhausting the country of the precious metals,
extinguishing the circulation of Bank Notes, and reducing the prices of
agricultural products to the specie value. At the date of the passage of
the Nebraska Bill, the multiplication of provisions, by their more
extended cultivation, was the only measure left that could produce a
reduction of prices, and meet the wants of the planters. The Canadian
Reciprocity Treaty, since secured, will bring the products of the
British North American colonies, free of duty, into competition with
those of the United States, when prices, with us, rule high, and tend to
diminish their cost; but in the event of scarcity in Europe, or of
foreign wars, the opposite results may occur, as our products, in such
times, will pass, free of duty, through these colonies, into the foreign
market. It is apparent, then, that nothing short of extended free labor
cultivation, far distant from the seaboard, where the products will bear
transportation to none but Southern markets, can fully secure the cotton
interests from the contingencies that so often threaten them with
ruinous embarrassments. In fact, such a depression of our cotton
interests has only been averted by the advanced prices which cotton has
commanded, for the last few years, in consequence of the increased
European demand, and its diminished cultivation abroad.

On this subject, the _London Economist_, of June 9, 1855, in remarking
on the aspects of the cotton question, at that moment says:

"Another somewhat remarkable circumstance, considering we are at war,
and considering the predictions of some persons, is the present high
price and consumption of cotton. The crop in the United States is short,
being only 1,120,000,000 or 1,160,000,000 lbs., but not so short as to
have a very great effect on the markets had consumption not increased.
Our mercantile readers will be well aware of this fact, but let us state
here that the total consumption between January 1st and the last week in
May was:

                      =CONSUMPTION OF COTTON.=
                             =1853.=       =1854.=      =1855.=

  Pounds,                 331,708,000   295,716,000   415,648,000
  Less than 1855,          83,940,000   119,932,000
  Average consumption of
     lbs. per week,        15,600,000    14,000,000    19,600,000

"Though the crop in the United States is short up to this time, Great
Britain has received 12,400,000 lbs. more of the crop of 1854 than she
received to the same period of the crop of 1853. Thus, in spite of the
war, and in spite of a short crop of cotton, in spite of dear corn and
failing trade to Australia and the United States, the consumption of
cotton has been one-fourth in excess of the flourishing year of 1853,
and more than a third in excess of 1854. These facts are worth

"It is reasonably expected that the present high prices will bring
cotton forward rapidly; but as yet this effect has not ensued. . . . .
Thus, it will be seen that, notwithstanding the short crop in the
States, (at present, they have sent us more in 1855 than in 1854, but
not so much as in 1853,) the supply from other sources, except Egypt,
has been smaller in 1855 than in either of the preceding years, and the
supply from Egypt, though greater than in 1854, is less than in 1853."
[From India, the principal hope of increased supplies, the imports for
1855, in the first four months of the year, were less by 47,960,000 lbs.
than in 1854, and less by 64,000,000 lbs. than in 1853.[34]] "We may
infer, therefore, that the rise in price hitherto, has not been
sufficient to bring increased supplies from India and other places; but
these will, no doubt, come when it is seen that the rise will probably
be permanent in consequence of the enlarged consumption, and the
comparative deficiency in the crop of the United States."

After noticing the increasing exports of raw cotton from both England
and the United States to France and the other countries of the
Continent, from which it is inferred that the consumption is increasing
in Europe, generally, as well as in Great Britain, the _Economist_
proceeds to remark:

"A rapidly increasing consumption of cotton in Europe has not been met
by an equally rapidly increasing supply, and the present relative
condition of the supply to the demand seems to justify an advance of
price, unless a greatly diminished consumption can be brought about.
What supplies may yet be obtained from India, the Brazils, Egypt, etc.,
we know not; but, judging from the imports of the three last years, they
are not likely to supply the great deficiency in the stocks just
noticed. A decrease in consumption, which is recommended, can only be
accomplished by the state of the market, not by the will of individual
spinners; for if some lessen their consumption of the raw material while
the demand of the market is for more cloth, it will be supplied by
others, either here or abroad; and the only real solution of the
difficulty or means of lowering the price, is an increased supply. This
points to other exertions than those which have been latterly directed
to the production of fibrous materials to be converted directly into
paper. Exertions ought rather to be directed to the production of
fibrous materials which shall be used for textile fabrics, and so much
larger supplies of rags--the cheapest and best material for making paper
will be obtained. But theoretical production, and the schemers who
propose it, not guided by the market demands, are generally erroneous,
and what we now require is more and cheaper material for clothing as the
means of getting more rags to make paper.

"Another important deduction may be made from the state of the cotton
market. It has not been affected, at least the production of cotton with
the importation into Europe has not been disturbed by the war, and yet
it seems not to have kept pace with the consumption. From this we infer
that legislative restrictions on traffic, permanently affecting the
habits of the people submissive to them, and of all their customers,
have a much more pernicious effect on production and trade than national
outpourings in war of indignation and anger--which, if terrible in their
effects, are of short duration. These are in the order of nature, except
as they are slowly corrected and improved by knowledge; while the
restrictions--the offspring of ignorance and misplaced ambition--are at
all times opposed to her beneficent ordinances."

The _Economist_ of June 30, in its Trade Tables, sums up the imports for
the 5th month of the year 1855; from which it appears, that instead of
any increase of the imports of cotton having occurred, they had fallen
off to the extent of 43,772,176 lbs. below the quantity imported in the
corresponding month of 1854.

The _Economist_ of September 1, 1855, in continuing its notices of the
cotton markets, and stating that there is still a falling off in its
supplies, says:

"The decline in the quantity of cotton imported is notoriously the
consequence of the smallness of last year's crops in the United
States. . . . . It is remarkable that the additional supply which has
made up partly for the shortness of the American crop comes from the
Brazils, Egypt, and other parts. From British India the supply is
relatively shorter than from the United States. It fails us more than
that of the States, and the fact is rather unfavorable to the
speculations of those who wish to make us independent of the States, and
dependent chiefly on our own possessions. The high freights that have
prevailed, and are likely to prevail with a profitable trade, would
obviously make it extremely dangerous for our manufacturers to increase
their dependence on India for a supply of cotton. In 1855, when we have
a short supply from other quarters, India has sent us one-third less
than in 1853."

The _Economist_ of February 23, 1856, contains the Annual Statement of
Imports for 1855, ending December 31, from which it appears that the
supplies of cotton from India, for the whole year, were only 145,218,976
lbs., or 35,212,520 lbs. less than the imports for 1853. Of these
imports 66,210,704 lbs. were re-exported; thus leaving the British
manufacturers but 79,008,272 lbs. of the free labor cotton of India,
upon which to employ their looms.[35]

This increasing demand for cotton beyond the present supplies, if not
met by the cotton growers of the United States, must encourage its
cultivation in countries which now send but little to market. To prevent
such a result, and to retain in their own hands the monopoly of the
cotton market, will require the utmost vigilance on the part of our
planters. That vigilance will not be wanting.


[32] Benton's Thirty Year's View.

[33] The Tariff of 1846, under which our imports are now made,
approximates the Free Trade principles very closely.

[34] These figures are taken from a part of the _Economist's_ article
not copied. For the difference between the imports from India, in the
whole of the years 1850 to 1855, see Table I.

[35] The commercial year is five days shorter for 1855 than in former


          Consideration of foreign cultivation of Cotton
          further considered--Facts and opinions slated by
          the London Economist--Consumption of Cotton
          tending to exceed the production--India affords
          the only field of competition with the United
          States--Its vast inferiority--Imports from India
          dependent upon price--Free Labor and Slave Labor
          cannot be united on the same field--Supply of the
          United States therefore limited by natural
          increase of slaves--Limited supply of labor tends
          to renewal of slave trade--Cotton production in
          India the only obstacle which Great Britain can
          interpose against American Planters--Africa, too,
          to be made subservient to this
          object--Parliamentary proceedings on this
          subject--Successful Cotton culture in
          Africa--Slavery to be permanently established by
          this policy--Opinions of the _American
          Missionary_--Remarks showing the position of the
          Cotton question in its relations to slavery--Great
          Britain building up slavery in Africa to break it
          down in America.

THE remark which closes the preceding chapter was made in 1856. An
opportunity is now offered for recording the results of the movements of
Great Britain to promote cotton culture in her own possessions between
that and 1859. The results will be startling. Few anti-slavery men in
the United States expected that Great Britain would so soon be engaged
zealously in establishing slave labor in Africa, or that Lord Palmerston
should publicly commend the measure. The question is one of so much
importance as to demand a full examination. The extracts are taken,
mainly, from the _London Economist_, a periodical having the highest
reputation for candor and fair dealing. On Feb. 12, 1859, the
_Economist_ said:

"We are not surprised that the future supply of cotton should have
engaged the attention of Parliament on an early night of the Session. It
is a question the importance of which can not well be overrated, if we
refer only to the commercial interests which it involves, or to the
social comfort or happiness of the millions who are now dependent upon
it for their support. But it has an aspect far loftier and even more
important. At its root lies the ultimate success of a policy for which
England has made great struggles and great sacrifices--the maintaining
of existing treaties, and perhaps the peace of the world. Every year as
it passes, proves more and more that the question of slavery, and even
of the slave trade, is destined to be materially affected, if not
ultimately governed, by considerations arising out of the cultivation of
this plant. It is impossible to observe the tendency of public opinion
throughout America, not even excepting the Free States, with relation to
the slave trade, without feeling conscious that it is drifting into
indifference, and even laxity. In every light, then, in which this great
subject can be viewed, it is one which well deserves the careful
attention equally of the philanthropist and the statesman.

"It has been said, that in the case of cotton we have found an exception
to the great commercial principle of supply and demand. Is this so? We
doubt it. We doubt if, on the contrary, we shall not find, upon
investigation, that it presents one of the strongest examples of the
struggle of that principle to maintain its conclusions. No doubt the
conditions of its production have made that struggle a severe one; but,
nevertheless, it has not been altogether unsuccessful. Eighteen years
ago, (in 1840) the total supply of cotton imported into this country was
592,488,000 lbs.: with temporary fluctuations, it had steadily grown
until it had reached, in the last three years, upwards of 900,000,000
lbs., showing an increase of more than fifty per cent. Nevertheless, the
demand had been constantly pressing upon the supply, the consumption has
always shown a tendency to exceed the production, and the consequent
result of a high price has, during a majority of those years, acted as a
powerful stimulant to cultivation. But, practically speaking, we possess
but two sources of supply, and both present such powerful obstacles to
extended cultivation, that we are not surprised at the habitual
uneasiness of those whose interests demand a continually increasing
quantity. Those two sources are the United States and British India. It
is true that Brazil, Egypt, the West Indies, and some other countries,
furnish small quantities of cotton; but when we state that of the
931,847,000 lbs., imported into the United Kingdom in 1858, the
proportion furnished by America and India was 870,656,000 lbs., leaving
for all other places put together, a supply of only 61,191,000 lbs.,
notwithstanding the many laudable efforts, both on the part of
Government, and of the mercantile community, to encourage its growth in
new countries, it will be admitted that, as an _immediate_ and practical
question, it is confined to those two sources. They are not only the
sources from whence the largest supplies are received, but they are
also those where the chief increase has taken place.

"In 1840 the supply received from the United States was 487,856,000 lbs.
Since that time, with some considerable fluctuations, it has steadily
increased, until in 1858 it rose to 732,403,000 lbs.--the maximum
quantity having reached in 1856, 780,040,000 lbs. Yet, great as this
increase has been, it appears that it has not been equal to the
increased demand, if we may judge from the price, at the two
periods.[36] The large supplies of the last three years have commanded
prices at least _sixteen per cent._ higher than the smaller supplies
from 1840 to 1842. Every encouragement, therefore, which high and
remunerative prices could give to increased cultivation has been
liberally afforded to the cotton-growing States of America.

"But whatever the price, there is a condition which places an absolute
limit upon the growth. Land in every way suited for the purpose, is
abundant and cheap. Means of transport is of the cheapest and best kind,
and is without limit. The limit lies in the necessary ingredient of
labor. If cotton had been the produce of free labor, no doubt the
principle of supply and demand would have solved the difficulty. The
surplus of the Old World would have steadily maintained the balance
between the two in the New World. Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, the
Southern parts of France, and Portugal, would have sent their surplus
labor to the best market. As it is, the two kinds of labor--that of the
freeman and that of the slave--can not be united in the same
cultivation. The slave States of America are, therefore, dependent for
any increase of labor only upon themselves. The consuming States can
draw supplies only from the breeding States. It is, therefore, exactly
in proportion as the slave population increases that the cotton crop
becomes larger. Taking the average of three or four years at any period
of the history of the United States for the last forty years, it will be
found that the growth of cotton is equal to one bale for each person of
the slave population. The calculation is well known. When the slave
population was two millions, the average produce of cotton was two
millions of bales:--as the one rose the other increased. The slave
population is now about three millions and a half; the cotton crop of
the present year is computed at from 3,500,000 to 3,700,000 bales. The
high price of cotton, and the great profit attached to its cultivation,
have no doubt furnished the greatest stimulant to an increase of that
part of the population. In the competition for more labor, the price of
slaves was enormously increased. Some years ago the price of a slave was
about £100; now they are worth from £200 to £400. But what must be the
tendency of this fearful competition for a limited supply of human
labor--limited as long as the slave trade is prohibited--unlimited as
soon as the slave trade is legalized? What is the actual condition of
the Southern States at this moment? There is on the ground and being
secured, according to computation, the largest cotton crop ever known.
The last estimates vary from 3,550,000 bales to 3,700,000 bales. A very
few years ago it was calculated that cotton at any thing above _four
cents_ the pound for "middling quality" on the spot was a profitable
crop. Now, the price for the same quality on the spot is fully _ten
cents_ the pound;--and it has been about the same or higher for a long
time. What is the consequence? A correspondent writing by the last mail
says: 'The people of this section of the country feel _made of gold_,
and every thing here is, of course, going at full cry--_every planter
wants to open more land and buy more negroes_.' What do these facts
suggest? Do they furnish no explanation of the strong desire in the
Southern States to possess Cuba? Do they furnish no explanation of the
exaggerated irritation got up last year in respect to the West India
squadron, and the demand of the American Government, we fear too
successfully made, that the right of search in the mitigated form in
which it existed should be altogether abandoned? A people familiarized
not only with slavery, but also with the slave trade as between one
class of States and another, can hardly be expected to entertain a very
strong repugnance to a slave trade from beyond the seas. That cargoes of
imported slaves have recently been landed in the United States is not
denied:--that vessels fitted out as slavers have recently been seized in
American ports, we know upon official authority. The same correspondent
whom we have already quoted, says there are two great questions which
occupy the Southern States at this moment. The one is the acquisition of
Cuba. 'The other,' he says, 'is one which has been presented to me
forcibly during my sojourn in the South, and that is the increase of
slave population. You must have noticed an illicit importation of
negroes from Africa landed in Georgia. This has undoubtedly been done,
and I doubt not also that other negroes have been landed. It is of
course the desire of every honest man that the whole force of the
government should be used to put down such a trade, and punish the
offenders; but I fear the profits of the trade are so enormous that it
will be carried on in the face of all opposition. Negroes are now worth
here from 1,000 to 2,000 dollars a-piece. The subject of their being
introduced is being openly discussed, and the propriety of the trade
being again legalized. It is plain this discussion will by and by take
shape. Will not the government be obliged to listen to it, and what will
be the result? When labor is so profitable it will be obtained. How? I
confess to looking upon this subject with great anxiety. The feeling
with regard to slavery both in the North and South has undergone a
material change in the last four years. It is now looked upon with far
less abhorrence.' Is it possible to separate the danger which is here
presented so forcibly from the question of the high price of cotton? We
know by experience the influence which the Southern States can exercise
upon the election of a President. . . . . . . If the free States are
indifferent, we know that, at whatever risk, the slave States will have
their own way; and with them it is plain that much must depend upon the
price of cotton and the motives which it furnishes to '_open more land
and buy more negroes_.'

"But with what an enormous interest does this view of the case invest
the cultivation of cotton in India. It is the only real obstacle that we
can interpose to the growing feeling in favor of slavery, to the
diminishing abhorrence of the slave trade in the United States. It is
the only field, competition with which can, for many years to come,
redress the undue stimulant which high prices are giving to slave labor
in America. Nor do the facts as regard the past discourage the hope that
it may be successfully used for that purpose. In 1840 the supply of
cotton from India was 77,011,000 lbs.;--in 1858 it had risen to
138,253,000 lbs.: having been in the immediately preceding year no less
than 250,338,000 lbs. The average importation for four years from 1840
to 1843 amounted to 83,300,000 lbs.:--the average importation for the
last four years has been 178,000,000 lbs. or somewhat more than double
that of the former period. In some important respects the conditions of
supply from India differ very much from those which attach to and
determine the supply from America. In India there is no limit to the
quantity of labor. There may be said to be little or none to the
quantity of land. The obstacle is of another kind; it lies almost
exclusively in the want of cheap transit. Our supplies of India cotton
are not even determined by the quantity produced, but by that which,
when produced, can profitably be forwarded to England. It is, therefore,
a question of price whether we obtain more or less. A rise in the price
of _one penny_ the pound in 1857, suddenly increased the supply from
180,000,000 lbs. in 1856 to 250,000,000 lbs. in 1857. A fall in the
price in 1858 again suddenly reduced it to 138,000,000 lbs. It was not
that the production of cotton varied in these proportions in those
years, but that at given prices it was possible to incur more cost in
the transit than at others. The same high price, therefore, which at
present renders a large supply possible from India, creates an unusual
demand for slaves in the United States. But would not the same
corrective consequence be produced if we could diminish the cost of
transit in India? Every farthing a pound saved in carriage is equivalent
to so much added to the price of cotton. Four-pence the pound in the
Liverpool market for good India cotton, with a cost of two-pence from
the spot of production, would command just as great a supply as a price
of five-pence the pound if the intermediate cost were three-pence. The
whole question resolves itself into one of good roads and cheap
conveyance. Labor in India is infinitely more abundant than in the
United States, and much cheaper; land is at least as cheap; the climate
is as good;--but the bullock trains on the miserable roads of Hindostan
cannot compete with the steamers and other craft on the Mississippi. No
doubt we have new hopes in the district of Scinde, and in the aid of the
Indus. We have new hopes in the railways which are being
constructed,--not only in cheapening transit, but even more in improving
the condition in which native produce will be brought to market.
Whatever, therefore, be the financial sacrifice which in the first place
must be made for the purpose of opening the interior of India, it should
be cheerfully made, as the only means by which we can hope permanently
to improve the revenues of India, to increase and cheapen the supply of
the most important raw material of our own industry, and to bring in
the abundant labor of the millions of our fellow-subjects in India, to
redress the deficiency in the slave States of America, and thus to give
the best practical check to the growing attractions of slavery and the
slave trade."

On March 5, 1859, the editor resumes the subject, and discusses the
bearing which the movements making in Africa are likely to have upon
these interests.

"We pointed out in a recent number the very close connection between the
traditional policy of England in resisting the slave trade, and the
efforts which are now making to find other sources of cotton supply
besides the United States. We showed that a cry is now arising in the
United States, for the renewal of the slave trade--a cry stimulated
principally by the high price of cotton. We showed that for every slave
in the Southern States there is on the average a bale of cotton produced
annually, and that as the demand for cotton, and consequently the price
of cotton rises, the demand for slaves and the price of slaves rises
with it. In the words of a correspondent whom we then quoted, 'every
planter wants to open more land and buy more negroes.' Hence the demand
in the South for the recently successful attempt to smuggle
slave-cargoes into Georgia. If, then, either in India or any other
quarter of the world, it be possible either to cheapen the carriage or
facilitate the growth of cotton, so as to bring it into the English
markets at a price that can compete successfully with the American
cotton, we are conferring a double benefit on mankind--we are increasing
the supply of one of the most necessary, and, relatively to the demand,
one of the least abundant, articles of commerce, on the steady supply of
which the livelihood of millions, and the comfort of almost every
civilized nation on the face of the earth, depends, and by means of the
increased competition we are diminishing the force of the motive which
is now threatening the United States with a renewal of the slave trade.
We cannot, therefore, well conceive of stronger considerations than
those which are now urging Englishmen to do what may be in their power
for the promotion of an increased supply from cotton-growing countries
other than the States of America.

"Besides these reasons which apply to the promotion of the cotton-supply
in India, or in our own West Indian islands, there is one peculiar to
the case of Africa which makes it important that no opportunities of
encouraging the cotton-growth of that continent should be neglected. The
African supply, if ever it become large, will not only check the rise in
the price of cotton, and therefore of slaves in America,--but it will
diminish the profits of slave exportation on the coast of Africa.
Experience has now sufficiently proved to us, that no one agency has
been so effective in paralyzing the slave trade as the growth of any
branch of profitable industry which convinces the native African chiefs
that they can get a surer and, in the long run, larger profit by
employing their subjects in peaceful labor, than they can even get from
the large but uncertain gains of the slave trade. . . . . Once let the
African chiefs find out, as in many instances they have already found
out, that the sale of the laborer can be only a source of profit _once_,
while his labor may be a source of constant and increasing profit, and
we shall hear no more of their killing the hen which may lay so many
golden eggs, for the sake only of a solitary and final prize."

The _American Missionary_, of April, 1859, gives a condensed statement
of a discussion in the British Parliament, last summer, in which the
condition of cotton culture in Africa was brought out, and its
encouragement strongly urged as a means of suppressing the slave trade,
and of increasing the supplies of that commodity to the manufacturers of
England. S. Fitzgerald, Under Secretary of State, said:

"He did not scruple to say that, looking at the papers which he had
perused, it was to the West Coast of Africa that we must look for that
large increase in our supply of cotton which was now becoming absolutely
necessary, and without which he and others who had studied this subject
foresaw grave consequences to the most important branch of the
manufactures of this country. Our consul at Lagos reported:

"The whole of the Yoruba and other countries south of the Niger, with
the Houssa and the Nuffe countries on the north side of that river, have
been, from all time, cotton-growing countries; and notwithstanding the
civil wars, ravages, disorders and disruptions caused by the slave
trade, more than sufficient cotton to clothe their populations has
always been cultivated, and their fabrics have found markets and a ready
sale in those countries where the cotton plant is not cultivated, and
into which the fabrics of Manchester and Glasgow have not yet
penetrated. The cultivation of cotton, therefore, in the above-named
countries is not new to the inhabitants; all that is required is to
offer them a market for the sale of as much as they can cultivate, and
by preventing the export of slaves from the seaboard render some
security to life, freedom, property, and labor." Another of our consuls,
speaking of the trade in the Bight of Benin in 1856, said:

"'The readiness with which the inhabitants of the large town of
Abbeokuta have extended their cultivation of the cotton plant merits the
favorable notice of the manufacturer and of the philanthropist, as a
means of supplanting the slave trade.'"

"It was worthy of notice that while the quantity of cotton obtained from
America between 1784 and 1791, the first seven years of the importation
into this country was only 74 bales; during the years 1855 and 1856 the
town of Abbeokuta alone exported nearly twenty times that quantity. He
thought he might fairly say that if we succeed in repressing the
slave-trade, as he believed we should, we should in a few years receive
a very large supply of this most important article from the West Coast
of Africa."

"Mr. J. H. Gurney said he had received from Mr. Thomas Clegg, of
Manchester, a few figures, from which it appeared that while in 1852
only 1800 lbs. of cotton had been brought into Great Britain from
Africa, in the first five months of the present year it was 94,400 lbs.

"Mr. Buxton said: 'There was no question now, that any required amount
of cotton, equal to that of New Orleans in quality, might be obtained. A
very short time ago Mr. Clegg, of Manchester, aided by the Rev. H. Venn,
and a few other gentlemen, trained and sent out two or three young
negroes as agents to Abbeokuta. These young men taught the natives to
collect and clean their cotton, and sent it home to England. The result
was, that the natives had actually purchased 250 cotton-gins for
cleaning their cotton. Mr. Clegg stated that he was in correspondence
with seventy-six natives and other African traders, twenty-two of them
being chiefs. With one of them Mr. Clegg had a transaction, by which he
(the African) received £3500. And the amount of cotton received at
Manchester had risen, hand over hand, till it came last year to nearly
100,000 lbs.' Well might Mr. Clegg say, that this was 'a rare instance
of the rapid development of a particular trade, and the more so because
every ounce of cotton had been collected, all labor performed, and the
responsibility borne by native Africans alone.' The fact was, that the
West African natives were not mere savages. In trade no men could show
more energy and quickness. And a considerable degree of social
organization existed. He could give a thousand proofs of this, but he
would only quote a word or two from Lieutenant May's despatch to Lord
Clarendon, dated the 24th of November, 1857. Lieutenant May crossed
overland from the Niger to Lagos, and he says:

"A very pleasing and hopeful part of my report lies in the fact, that
certainly three-quarters of the country was under cultivation. Nor was
this the only evidence of the industry and peace of the country; in
every hut is cotton spinning; in every town is weaving, dyeing; often
iron smelting, pottery works, and other useful employments are to be
witnessed; while from town to town, for many miles, the entire road
presents a continuous file of men, women, and children carrying these
articles of their production for sale. I entertain feelings of much
increased respect for the industry and intellect of these people, and
admiration for their laws and manners."

"Lord Palmerston said: 'I venture to say that you will find on the West
Coast of Africa a most valuable supply of cotton, so essential to the
manufactures of this country. The cotton districts of Africa are more
extensive than those of India. The access to them is more easy than to
the Indian cotton district; and I venture to say that your commerce with
the Western Coast of Africa, in the article of cotton, will, in a few
years, prove to be far more valuable than that of any other portion of
the world, the United States alone excepted.'"

The _London Anti-Slavery Reporter_, as quoted by the _American
Missionary_ of March, 1859, says:

"A few days ago, Mr. Consul Campbell addressed us, saying: 'African
cotton is no myth. A vessel has just arrived from Lagos with 607 bales
on board, _on native account_. Several hundred bales more have been
previously shipped this year.'

"In order to afford our readers some idea of the extraordinary
development of this branch of native African industry and commerce, we
append a statement which will exhibit it at a single glance. We have
only to observe that we are indebted to Mr. Thomas Clegg, of Manchester,
for these interesting particulars, and that the quantities ordered have
been obtained from Abbeokuta alone. He is about to extend the field of
his operations. Four Europeans have gone out, expressly to trade in
native cotton; and several London houses, encouraged by the success
which has attended Mr. Clegg's experiment, are about to invest largely
in the same traffic. The quantity of raw cotton which has already been
imported into England, from Abbeokuta, since 1851, is 276,235 lbs., and
the trade has developed itself as follows:

  1851-52       9 Bags or Bales      lbs.   1810
  1853         37    ditto                  4617
  1854          7    ditto                  1588
  1855         14    ditto                  1651
  1856        103    ditto                11,492
  1857        283    ditto                35,419
  1858       1819    ditto               220,099

"The last importation includes advices from Lagos up to the 1st of last
November. Since that time, the presses and other machinery sent out,
have been got into full work, and the quantity of the raw staple in
stock has rapidly accumulated, the bulk shipped being on 'native
account.' Each bag or bale weighs about 120 lbs. Let it be borne in mind
that the whole of this quantity has been collected, all the labor
performed and the responsibility borne by native Africans; while the
cost of production, Mr. Clegg informs us, does not exceed one half-penny
a pound in the end. It can be laid down in England at about 4 1/4_d._ a
pound, and sells at from 7_d._ to 9_d._"

The great point of interest in this movement consists in the fact, that
in promoting the production of cotton in Africa, Englishmen are giving
direct encouragement to the employment of slave labor. It is an
undeniable fact, that from eight-tenths to nine-tenths of the population
of Africa are held as slaves by the petty kings and chiefs; and that,
more especially, the women, under the prevailing system of polygamy, are
doomed to out-doors' labor for the support of their indolent and sensual
husbands. Hitherto the labor of the women has, in general, been
comparatively light, as the preparation of food and clothing limited the
extent of effort required of them; but now, the cotton mills of England
must be supplied by them, and the hum of the spindles will sound the
knell of their days of ease. That we are not alone in this view of the
question, will appear from the opinions expressed by the _American
Missionary_, when referring to this subject. It says:

"An encouraging feature in this movement is, that the men engaged in it
all feel that the suppression of the slave trade is absolutely essential
to its success. The necessity of this is the great burden of all their
arguments in its behalf. It thus acts with a double force. There can be
no question that the development of the resources of Africa will be an
effectual means, in itself, of discouraging the exportation of slaves,
while at the same time those who would encourage this development are
seeking the overthrow of that infamous traffic as the necessary removal
of an obstacle to their success.

"There is, however, one danger connected with all this that can not be
obviated by any effort likely to be put forth under the stimulus of
commerce, or the spirit of trade. This danger can be averted only by
sending the missionaries of a pure gospel, a gospel of equal and
impartial love, into Africa, in numbers commensurate with the increase
of its agricultural resources and its spirit of general enterprise.

"The danger to which we allude is not merely that of worldliness, such
as in a community always accompanies an increase of wealth, but that the
slavery now existing there may be strengthened and increased by the
rapid rise in the value of labor, and thus become so firmly rooted that
the toil of ages may be necessary for it removal. All this might have
been prevented if the spirit of Christian enterprise had gone ahead of
that of commerce, and thus prepared the way for putting commerce, under
the influence of Christianity. For years Africa has been open to the
missionary of the cross, to go everywhere preaching love to God and man,
with nothing to hinder except the sickliness of the climate. This evil,
and the dangers arising from it, business men are willing to risk, and
within the next ten years there will be thousands, and tens of
thousands, looking to Africa for the means of increasing their riches."

From all this it appears, that the question of slavery is becoming more
intimately blended with cotton culture than at any former period; and
that the urgent demand for its increased production must establish the
system permanently, under the control of Great Britain, in Africa
itself. Look at the facts, and especially at the position of Great
Britain. The supply of cotton is inadequate to the demands of the
manufacturing nations. Great Britain stands far in advance of all others
in the quantity consumed. The ratio of increased production in the
United States cannot be advanced except by a renewal of the slave trade,
or a resort to the scheme of immigration on the plan of England and
France. It is thought by English writers, that the renewal of the slave
trade by the United States is inevitable, as a consequence of the
present high prices of cotton and slaves, unless the slave traders can
be shut out from the slave markets of Africa. They assume it as a
settled principle, that the immigration system is impracticable wherever
slavery exists; and that the American planter can only succeed in
securing additional labor by means of the slave trade. Then, according
to this theory, to prevent an increased production of cotton in the
United States, it is only necessary to make it impracticable for us to
renew that traffic.

The supply of cotton from India is not on the increase, nor can be,
except when prices rule high in England, or until rail roads shall be
constructed into the interior, a work requiring much time and money. The
renewal of the slave trade by the United States, on a large scale,
would, of course, cheapen cotton in the proportion of the amount of
labor supplied. In this view the writers referred to are correct. They
are right also in supposing that a reduction below present prices, of a
cent or two per pound, would be ruinous to India in the present
condition of her inland transportation. They desire, very naturally,
therefore, that prices should be kept up for the advantage of India, so
that its cotton can bear export. But while high prices benefit India,
they also enrich the American planter, and afford him inducements to
renew the slave trade.

Here Great Britain is thrown into a dilemma. The slave trade to America
must be prevented, in her opinion, or it will ruin the East Indies. To
prevent the renewal of this traffic--to keep up the price of cotton as
long as may be necessary, for the benefit of India, and prevent a supply
of African slaves from reaching the American planter--is a problem that
requires more than an ordinary amount of skill to solve. That skill, if
it exists any where, is possessed by British statesmen, and they are now
employed in the execution of this difficult task. They are convinced
that free labor cannot be found, at this moment, any where in the world,
to meet the growing demands for cotton. To supply this increasing
demand, a new element must be brought into requisition; or rather old
elements must be employed anew. Her cotton spindles must not cease to
whir, or millions of the people of Great Britain will starve at home, or
be forced into emigration, to the weakening of her strength. The old
sources of supply being inadequate, a new field of operations must be
opened up--new forces must be brought into requisition in the
cultivation of cotton. Slave labor and free labor, both combined, are
not now able to furnish the quantity needed. Free labor cannot be
increased, at present, in this department of production. Slave labor,
therefore, is the only means left by which the work can be
accomplished--not slave labor to the extent now employed, but to the
extent to which it may be increased from the ranks of the scores of
millions of the population of Africa.

This is the true state of the case; and the important question now
agitated is: Who shall have the advantages of this labor? Two fields,
only, present themselves in which this additional labor can be
employed--Africa and America. Great Britain is deeply interested in
limiting it to Africa, which she can only do by preventing a renewal of
the slave trade to America: for she takes it for granted that we will
renew the slave trade if we can make money by the operation. South
Africa is unavailable for this purpose, as it is under British rule, and
slavery abolished within its limits by law. Nothing can be done there,
as it is filling up with English emigrants who will not toil, under a
burning sun, in the cotton fields; and they can not be permitted to
reduce the natives again to slavery. West Africa alone, affords the
climate, soil, and population, necessary to success in cotton culture.
To this point the attention of Englishmen is now mainly directed. One
feature in the civil condition of West Africa must be specially noticed,
as adapting it to the purposes to which it is to be devoted. The
territory has not been seized by the British crown, as in South Africa,
and British law does not bear rule within its limits. The tribes are
treated as independent sovereignties, and are governed by their own
customs and laws. This is fortunate for the new policy now inaugurating,
as the native chiefs and kings hold the population at large as slaves.
Heretofore they have sold their slaves at will, as well as their
captives taken in war, to the slave traders. Now they are to be taught a
different policy by Englishmen; and the African slaveholders are to be
convinced that they will make more money by employing their slaves in
growing cotton, than in selling them to be carried off to the American
planters. This done, and the transportation of laborers to the United
States will be prevented. This will put it out of the power of our
planters, to increase their production of cotton so as to reduce prices;
and this will enable India to complete her rail roads, so as to be able
to compete with American cotton at any price whatever.

But this new policy, if successful, will do more than stop the slave
trade, to the supposed injury of the American planter. England will
thereby have the benefit of the labor of Africa secured to herself. With
its scores of millions of population under her direction, she hopes to
compete with American slavery in the production of cotton; and not only
to compete with it, but to surpass it altogether, and, in time, to
render it so profitless as to force emancipation upon us. She will there
have access to a population ten fold greater than that of the slave
population of the United States; and the only doubt of success exists in
the question, as to whether the negro master in Africa can make the
slave work as well there as the white master in America has done here.

But how shall England, in this measure, preserve her "traditional
policy," in which she pledged herself no longer to cherish slave labor.
This will be very easily done. She need not authorize slavery in Western
Africa; but as it already exists among all the tribes "by local law,"
she has only to recognize their independence, and bargain with the
chiefs for all the cotton they can force their slaves to produce. This
has already been done, by Englishmen, at several points in Africa, and
will doubtless be resorted to in many other portions of that country.
The moral responsibility of establishing slavery permanently in Africa,
will thus be thrown upon the chiefs and kings, as it has heretofore been
upon the American planter; and Great Britain can reap all the advantages
of the increased production of slave labor cotton, while her moralists
can easily satisfy the conscience of the people at home, by declaiming
against the system which secures to them their bread.

Here now the policy of British statesmen can be comprehended. They must
have cotton. The products of free labor would be preferred, but as it
can not be had, in sufficient quantities, they must take that of slave
labor. To allow the American planter to supply this want, by renewing
the slave trade, would ruin India and benefit America. To save India,
and, at the same time, to secure the cotton demanded by the
manufacturers, slavery is to be encouraged in Africa; and this is to be
done as a means not only of preventing the slave trade, and checking the
extension of slavery in America, but of multiplying the fields of cotton
cultivation--a policy very essential to the wants of the British nation.
Thus, slavery is to be promoted in Africa as an effectual means of
checking it in America; it is to be converted into a blessing there, and
made instrumental in wiping out its curse here!

And this, now, is the result of England's philanthropic efforts for
African freedom. Her economical errors, in West Indian emancipation, are
to be repaired by the permanent establishment of slavery in Africa! But
what must be the practical moral effect of her policy? What must be the
opinion entertained of the negro race, when Great Britain abandons her
policy in reference to them? This is not hard to divine. It will wipe
out the odium she has managed to cast upon the system; and, so far as
her example is concerned, will justify the American planter in refusing
to emancipate his slaves. Her conduct is a practical acknowledgment of
the Southern theory of the African race--that slavery is their normal
condition, otherwise she must have adopted the same policy in West
Africa that she has in South Africa.

But before closing this part of our investigations, it may be well to
examine the claims of Great Britain in relation to her humanity towards
the African, or any of the inferior races doomed to lives of toil--such
as the coolies of India and the laborers of China.

The contest for the advantages of supplying the increasing demands for
cotton, is between Great Britain operating in India and Africa, and the
American planter operating by an increased amount of labor furnished by
means of the slave trade. The contest between the parties may be
imagined as assuming this form: A portion of the American planters
insist, that they should be allowed to manage this matter; but Great
Britain says, nay: my subjects can do it better than you can. You
Americans are governed by mercenary motives: we Britons by philanthropic
intentions. You Americans have made no sacrifices for the cause of
humanity: we Britons have emancipated our West India slaves.

Aye, aye, replies the American planter; we understand all about the
humanity of which you boast. Your special type of philanthropy is fully
displayed in the history of your West Indies. Look at it. The total
importation of slaves from Africa into your West Indian Islands, was
1,700,000 persons; of whom and their descendants, in 1833, only 660,000
remained for emancipation; we had less than 400,000 imported Africans,
of whom and their descendants there existed among us, in 1850, more than
3,600,000 persons of African descent; that is to say, the number of
Africans and their descendants in the United States, is nearly eight or
ten to one of those that were imported, whilst in the British West
Indies there are not two persons remaining for every five imported.[37]
And besides, we have 500,000 free colored persons among us, a number
nearly equal to that which your emancipation act set at liberty, and
more than the whole number imported. Your slavery seems to have been a
system of wholesale slaughter: ours the reverse.

All true, says Britain: but then we have ceased to do evil, and are
learning to do well. We found "that slavery was bearing our colonies
down to ruin with awful speed; that had it lasted but another half
century, they must have sunk beyond recovery."[38]

What! says the planter; sunk beyond recovery! why, we find our slaves
rapidly increasing, and ourselves almost "made of gold." Be pleased to
explain, why slavery in the hands of Englishmen should be so
destructive, while with the American it is not only profitable to the
slaveholder himself, but the comfort of the slaves has been so well
secured, from the first, that their natural increase has been about
equal to that of any other people in the full enjoyment of the
necessaries of life.

Certainly, says Britain: having done our duty, we are free to confess,
that "what gave the death blow to slavery, in the minds of English
statesmen, was the population returns, which showed the fact, 'the
appalling fact,' that although only eleven out of the eighteen islands
had sent them in, yet in those eleven islands the slaves had decreased
in twelve years, by no less than 60,219, namely: from 558,194 to
497,975![39] Had similar returns been procured from the other seven
colonies (including Mauritius, Antigua, Barbadoes, and Granada,) the
decrease must have been little, if at all, less than 100,000! Now it was
plain to every one that if this were really so, the system could not
last. The driest economist would allow that it would not pay, to let the
working classes be slaughtered. To work the laboring men of our West
Indies to death, might bring in a good return for a while, but could not
be a profitable enterprise in the long run. Accordingly, this was the
main, we had almost said the only, topic of the debates on slavery in
1831 and 1832. Is slavery causing a general massacre of the working
classes in our sugar islands, or is it not, was a question worth
debating, in the pounds, shillings, and pence view, as well as in the
moral one. And debated it was, long and fiercely. The result was the
full establishment of the dreadful fact. The slaves, as Mr. Marryatt
said, were 'dying like rotten sheep.' Whatever then may be said for West
Indian slavery, this damning thing must be said of it, that _the slaves
were dying of it_. Then came emancipation."[40] And in performing this
act--in demonstrating to the world the destructive character of
slavery--Englishmen expected America to follow their example, and to
emancipate her slaves also.

And thereby deceived yourselves, says the planter, into the ruin of your
islands, without effecting any good for the Africans at large, and but
little for those upon whom your bounties were bestowed. And, then, we
cannot see the vastness of your philanthropy, in allowing such
destructive cruelties to prevail so long, and in only emancipating your
slaves when it was apparent they must soon become extinct under the
lash, as applied by the hands of Britons. We know that you claimed that
slavery was the same everywhere, and that humane men in our country were
deceived into the belief that American slavery was as ruinous to life as
British West Indian slavery. We know that the elder Mr. Buxton, in 1831,
used this language, "where the blacks are free they increase. But let
there be a change in only one circumstance, let the population be the
same in every respect, only let them be slaves instead of freemen, and
the current is immediately stopped;" and, in support of this, his
biographer adds: "This appalling fact was never denied, that at the time
of the abolition of the slave trade, the number of slaves in the West
Indies was 800,000; in 1830 it was 700,000; that is to say, in
twenty-three years it had diminished by 100,000."[41] This assertion,
that slavery is always destructive of life, was made by Mr. Buxton, in
the face of the fact, that ten distinct sets of our _Census tables_ were
then accessible to him, in each one of which he had the evidence that
American slavery, instead of reducing the number of our slave
population, tended to its rapid increase. From this and kindred acts of
that gentleman, we came to the conclusion, that, though he might be very
benevolent, he was not very truthful; and was, therefore, a very unsafe
guide to follow, as you must now acknowledge; unsafe, because your
emancipation on a small scale, before securing a general emancipation by
other countries, has thrown you under the necessity of now attempting to
establish slavery elsewhere on a large scale; unsafe, because your negro
population have not made half the moral progress under freedom, that
ours have done under slavery; and because, that, where cultivation has
depended upon the emancipated negro alone, with a single exception, the
islands have almost gone to ruin.[42]

You misinterpret facts, says Britain: our islands are not ruined; no, by
no means. Under slavery they would have been totally ruined; but
emancipation has placed them in a position favorable to a full
development of all their resources. "It is to be borne in mind that the
influx of free labor is exactly one of those advantages of which a land
is debarred by slavery. It is a part of the curse of slavery that it
repels the freeman. When we are told that to judge of the effect of
emancipation we must exclude those colonies that imported coolies, we
reply at once that this useful importation has been one of the many
blessings that freedom has brought in her train."[43]

I understand your views now, says the planter: but for emancipation,
your colonies would have sunk to irretrievable destruction. That measure
has prepared the way for the coolie system; and under its operations the
prosperity of your islands is on the increase. But what is the character
of this coolie system, that is working such wonders? In what does it
differ from the slave trade, of which you desire to deprive us? And what
must be its effects upon the colored population, which have received
their freedom at your hands, and whose moral elevation your Christian
missionaries are laboring to promote? On this point I would not multiply
testimony. The character of the coolie traffic is but too well
understood, and is now believed by all intelligent men to be the slave
trade in disguise. A writer, representing the anti-slavery society of
Great Britain, makes these statements.[44]

"I am prepared to show, that fraud, misrepresentation, and actual
violence are the constituent elements of the immigration system, even as
it is now conducted, and that no vigilance on the part of the government
which superintends its prosecution can prevent the abuses incidental to
it. . . . . In China, especially, this is notoriously the case, and I
refer you to Sir John Bowring's despatches on Immigration from China,
for the fullest revelations. I need only add, that he designates the
Chinese coolie traffic as being in every essential particular 'as bad as
the African slave trade,' and that he recommends its entire prohibition.
. . . . The mortality during the sea-voyage is so great, that the
Emigration Commissioners declare 'these results to be shocking to
humanity, and disgraceful to the manner in which the traffic is carried
on.' I beg to call your special attention to the term 'traffic,' and to
refer you for particulars of the mortality, to the Emigration
Commissioners' Report for 1858. They may be briefly summarised. During
the season 1856-57 the deaths at sea amounted to 17. 26/100 per cent. on
4,094 coolies shipped from Calcutta--a rate which, if computed for the
whole year, instead of 90 days, the term of the voyage, would average
upwards of 70 per cent. The rate of mortality on shipments of Chinese
bound to British Guiana, varied from 14 per cent. to 50. . . . . On
shipments of Chinese bound to Havanna, on board British vessels, the
death-rate fluctuated between 20 per cent. and 60. Yet, sir, immigration
is said, by its advocates, to be now conducted on an improved system. .
. . . We come now to the treatment of the coolie, as soon as he is
discharged from the ship. There is no official evidence, that I am yet
aware of, to show what abuses of authority he is subjected to, but the
Jamaica Immigration Bill, now awaiting the sanction of Her Majesty's
Government, proves that the imported laborer is, during his term of
service, subject to conditions quite incompatible with a system of free
labor, and the same remark applies to other colonies. That the
immigrants are liable to ill usage and neglect, may be gathered from the
reports of travelers who have seen them in every stage of destitution
and misery; and that they are peculiarly affected by the kind of service
they contract to render, and by climate, is sufficiently proved by the
awful mortality during industrial residence, which we are assured the
Immigration Agent General's returns for Jamaica show to be equal to 50
per cent. Sir E. B. Lytton admits it to be 33 per cent. But if we accept
his correction--which I confess I am not prepared to do without knowing
upon what evidence he makes it--I maintain that even this death-rate
establishes the startling fact, that coolie labor in Jamaica is
proportionately more destructive to human life than slave labor in

On the question of the influence that the coolie immigration exerts upon
the emancipated blacks in the West Indies, the Editor of the _London
Economist_ very justly remarks:

"Bringing with them depraved heathen habits, and the detestable
traditions of the worst forms of idolatry, and always looking forward to
their return as the epoch when they will renew their heathen worship and
find themselves again among heathen standards of action,--they are
almost proof against the best influences which can be brought to bear
upon them, and, what is worse, they are not only proof against the good,
but missionaries for evil. They are closely associated in their labor
with a race that is just emerging out of barbarism with the fostering
care of Christianity, and we need not say that their social influence on
such a race is deteriorating in the extreme. The difficulty would be
indefinitely diminished, were the new immigrants a permanent addition to
the population. By careful regulations for that purpose, they might, in
that case, be subdued by the higher influences of their English
teachers; but the prospect of speedy restoration to the country and
habits of their birth, entirely foils such attempts as these. How far
this great difficulty can be overcome; and if it cannot, how far it may
more than balance the moral and physical advantages of a fuller labor
market,--it requires the most careful inquiry to determine." Here now
are four distinct points upon which the testimony shows, conclusively,
that the coolie system is worse than ever the slave trade has been
represented to be; and that as the slave trade is opposed on the ground
of the destruction of human life which attends it, so the coolie system
should be abandoned upon the same grounds. The points are these: 1st,
the frauds and cruelties incident to the procuring of immigrants; 2d,
the mortality during the middle passage; 3d, the mortality in the
islands where they are employed; 4th, the influence of the heathen
coolies in demoralizing the emancipated blacks among whom they are
intermingled. These points demand serious consideration by Britons, as
well as Americans--by those who would reopen the slave trade, as well as
those who would substitute for that traffic the immigration system.

And now, in conclusion, says the planter, I must beg to demur to
Britain's claiming a monopoly of all the philanthropy in the world
toward the African race; and upon that claim founding another which, if
granted, will secure to her the monopoly of all the labor of Africa
itself; and I would beg, further, that myself and my fellow planters may
be excused, if we cannot see any thing more in all her movements than a
determination to have a full supply of cotton, even at the risk of
dooming Africa to become one vast slave plantation.

While a faithful view of the plans and expectations of the British, in
relation to the production of cotton in Africa, has been presented, it
would be doing injustice to the reader not to give a few facts, in
closing, which indicate that their success, after all, may not equal
their anticipations. The Rev. T. J. Bowen,[45] says of African cotton
generally, that "the staple is good, but the yield can not be more than
one-fourth of what it was on similar lands in the Southern States;" and
of Yoruba, in particular, he says, that "both upland and sea island
cotton are planted; but neither produces very well, owing to the extreme
and constant heat of the climate." Of this, Mr. Bowen, who is a native
of Georgia, must be regarded as a good judge. He spent six years as a
missionary of the Baptist Church in exploring the Abbeokuta and Yoruba
country. This cause of short crops in Yoruba is evidently incurable. It
does not exist in equal force in Liberia and its vicinity. Mr. Bowen
says: "The average in the dry season is about 80 degrees at Ijaye, and
82 at Ogbomoshaw, and a few degrees lower during the rains. I have never
known the mercury to rise higher than 93 degrees in the shade, at Ijaye.
The highest reading at Ogbomoshaw was 97.5." These places are from 100
to 150 miles inland.[46]

Another remark. The confidence with which it is asserted, that
immigration is impracticable as a means of obtaining labor, wherever
slavery prevails, will remind the reader of another theory to which
Englishmen long tried to make us converts: that slave labor is
necessarily unprofitable and should be abandoned on economical grounds.
Now they are forced to admit that our planters seem to "be made of
gold." Perhaps these same planters can use immigrant labor as
successfully as slave labor. If necessary, doubtless, they will make the
attempt, notwithstanding the opinions entertained beyond the sea.


[36] See Table VIII, in Appendix.

[37] Compendium of United States Census, 1850.

[38] Mr. C. Buxton, in _Edinburgh Review_, April, 1859.

[39] Parliamentary Papers, Population Returns for the West Indies, (of
course the decrease by manumission is not included.)

[40] Mr. C. Buxton, in _Edinburgh Review_, April, 1859, from which these
extracts are made.

[41] _North British Review_, August, 1848.

[42] This point will be examined more fully in a subsequent chapter.

[43] Mr. C. Buxton, in _Edinburgh Review_, April, 1859.

[44] _London Economist_, Feb. 12, 1859.

[45] See _African Repository_, October, 1859.

[46] See _African Repository_, October, 1859.


          Rationale of the Kansas-Nebraska movement--Western
          Agriculturists merely Feeders of Slaves--Dry goods
          and groceries nearly all of Slave labor
          origin--Value of Imports--How paid for--Planters
          pay for more than three-fourths--Slavery
          intermediate between Commerce and
          Agriculture--Slavery not self-sustaining--Supplies
          from the North essential to its success--Proximate
          extent of those supplies--Slavery the central
          power of the industrial interests depending on
          Manufactures and Commerce--Abolitionism
          contributing to this result--Protection
          prostrate--Free Trade dominant--The South
          triumphant--Country ambitious of territorial
          aggrandizement--The world's peace disturbed--our
          policy needs modifying to meet
          contingencies--Defeat of Mr. Clay--War with
          Mexico--Results unfavorable to renewal of
          Protective policy--Dominant political party at the
          North gives its adhesion to Free Trade--Leading
          Abolition paper does the same--Ditches on the
          wrong side of breastworks--Inconsistency--Free
          Trade the main element in extending
          Slavery--Abolition United States Senators' voting
          with the South--North thus shorn of its
          power--_Home Market_ supplied by Slavery--People
          acquiesce--Despotism and Freedom--Preservation of
          the Union paramount--Colored people must wait a
          little--Slavery triumphant--People at large
          powerless--Necessity of severing the Slavery
          question from politics--Colonization the only
          hope--Abolitionism prostrate--Admissions on this
          point, by Parker, Sumner, Campbell--Other dangers
          to be averted--Election of Speaker Banks a Free
          Trade triumph--Neutrality necessary--Liberia the
          colored man's hope.

FROM what has been said, the dullest intellect can not fail, now, to
perceive the _rationale_ of the Kansas-Nebraska movement. The political
influence which these Territories will give to the South, if secured,
will be of the first importance to perfect its arrangements for future
slavery extension--whether by divisions of the larger States and
Territories, now secured to the institution, its extension into
territory hitherto considered free, or the acquisition of new territory
to be devoted to the system, so as to preserve the balance of power in
Congress. When this is done, Kansas and Nebraska, like Kentucky and
Missouri, will be of little consequence to slaveholders, compared with
the cheap and constant supply of provisions they can yield. Nothing,
therefore, will so exactly coincide with Southern interests, as a rapid
emigration of freemen into these new Territories. White free labor,
doubly productive over slave labor in grain-growing, must be multiplied
within their limits, that the cost of provisions may be reduced and the
extension of slavery and the growth of cotton suffer no interruption.
The present efforts to plant them with slavery, are indispensable to
produce sufficient excitement to fill them speedily with a free
population; and if this whole movement has been a Southern scheme to
cheapen provisions, and increase the ratio of the production of sugar
and cotton, as it most unquestionably will do, it surpasses the
statesman-like strategy which forced the people into an acquiescence in
the annexation of Texas.

And should the anti-slavery voters succeed in gaining the political
ascendency in these Territories, and bring them as free States
triumphantly into the Union; what can they do, but turn in, as all the
rest of the Western States have done, and help to feed slaves, or those
who manufacture or who sell the products of the labor of slaves. There
is no other resource left, either to them or to the older free States,
without an entire change in almost every branch of business and of
domestic economy. Reader, look at your bills of dry goods for the year,
and what do they contain? At least three-fourths of the amount are
French, English, or American cotton fabrics, woven from slave labor
cotton. Look at your bills for groceries, and what do they contain?
Coffee, sugar, molasses, rice--from Brazil, Cuba, Louisiana, Carolina;
while only a mere fraction of them are from free labor countries. As now
employed, our dry goods' merchants and grocers constitute an immense
army of agents for the sale of fabrics and products coming, directly or
indirectly, from the hand of the slave; and all the remaining portion of
the people, free colored, as well as white, are exerting themselves,
according to their various capacities, to gain the means of purchasing
the greatest possible amount of these commodities. Nor can the country,
at present, by any possibility, pay the amount of foreign goods
consumed, but by the labor of the slaves of the planting States. This
can not be doubted for a moment. Here is the proof:

Commerce supplied us, in 1853, with foreign articles, for consumption,
to the value of $250,420,187, and accepted, in exchange, of our
provisions, to the value of but $33,809,126; while the products of our
slave labor, manufactured and unmanufactured, paid to the amount of
$133,648,603, on the balance of this foreign debt. This, then, is the
measure of the ability of the Farmers and Planters, respectively, to
meet the payment of the necessaries and comforts of life, supplied to
the country by its foreign commerce. The farmer pays, or seems only to
pay, $33,800,000, while the planter has a broad credit, on the account,
of $133,600,000.

This was true in 1853: is it so in 1859? The amounts are not now the
same, but the proportions have not varied materially. Reference to Table
VIII, in the Appendix, will show, that while the provisions exported,
for the three years preceding 1859, amounted to a yearly average of
$67,512,812, the value of the cotton and tobacco exported, during the
same period, amounted to an annual average of $147,079,647.

But is this seeming productiveness of slavery real, or is it only
imaginary? Has the system such capacities, over the other industrial
interests of the nation, in the creation of wealth, as these figures
indicate? Or, are these results due to its intermediate position between
the agriculture of the country and its foreign commerce? These are
questions worthy of consideration. Were the planters left to grow their
own provisions, they would, as already intimated, be unable to produce
any cotton for export. That their present ability to export so
extensively, is in consequence of the aid they receive from the North,
is proved by facts such as these:

In 1820, the cotton-gin had been a quarter of a century in operation,
and the culture of cotton was then nearly as well understood as at
present. The North, though furnishing the South with some live stock,
had scarcely begun to supply it with provisions, and the planters had to
grow the food, and manufacture much of the clothing for their slaves. In
that year the cotton crop equaled 109 lbs. to each slave in the Union,
of which 83 lbs. per slave were exported. In 1830 the exports of the
article had risen to 143 lbs., in 1840 to 295 lbs., and in 1853 to 337
lbs. per slave. The total cotton crop of 1853 equaled 395 lbs. per
slave--making both the production and export of that staple, in 1853,
more than four times as large, in proportion to the slave population, as
they were in 1820.[47] Had the planters, in 1853, been able to produce
no more cotton, per slave, than in 1820, they would have grown but
359,308,472 lbs., instead of the actual crop of 1,305,152,800 lbs.; and
would not only have failed to supply any for export, but have barely
supplied the home demand, and been _minus_ the total crop of that year,
by 945,844,328 lbs.

In this estimate, some allowance, perhaps, should be made, for the
greater fertility of the new lands, more recently brought under
cultivation; but the difference, on this account, can not be equal to
the difference in the crops of the several periods, as the lands, in the
older States, in 1820, were yet comparatively fresh and productive.

Again, the dependence of the South upon the North, for its provisions,
may be inferred from such additional facts as these: The "Abstract of
the Census," for 1850, shows, that the production of wheat, in Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, averaged, the year
preceding, very little more than a peck, (it was 27/100 of a bushel,) to
each person within their limits. These States must purchase flour
largely, but to what amount we can not determine. The shipments of
provisions from Cincinnati to New Orleans and other down river ports,
show that large supplies leave that city for the South; but what
proportion of them is taken for consumption by the planters, must be
left, at present, to conjecture. These shipments, as to a few of the
prominent articles, for the four years ending August 31, 1854, averaged
annually the following amounts:

  Wheat flour        brls.         385,204
  Pork and Bacon      lbs.      43,689,000
  Whisky             gals.       8,115,360

Cincinnati also exports eastward, by canal, river and railroad, large
amounts of these productions. The towns and cities westward send more of
their products to the South, as their distance increases the cost of
transportation to the East. But, in the absence of full statistics, it
is not necessary to make additional statements.

From this view of the subject, it appears that slavery is not a
self-sustaining system, independently remunerative; but that it attains
its importance to the nation and to the world, by standing as an agency,
intermediate, between the grain-growing States and our foreign commerce.
As the distillers of the West transformed the surplus grain into
whisky, that it might bear transport, so slavery takes the products of
the North, and metamorphoses them into cotton, that they may bear

It seems, indeed, when the whole of the facts brought to view are
considered, that American slavery, though of little force unaided, yet
properly sustained, is the great central power, or energizing influence,
not only of nearly all the industrial interests of our own country, but
also of those of Great Britain and much of the Continent; and that, if
stricken from existence, the whole of these interests, with the
advancing civilization of the age, would receive a shock that must
retard their progress for years to come.

This is no exaggerated picture of the present imposing power of slavery.
It is literally true. Southern men, at an early day, believed that the
Protective Tariff would have paralyzed it--would have destroyed it. But
the abolitionists, led off by their sympathies with England, and
influenced by American politicians and editors, who advocated free
trade, were made the instruments of its overthrow. No such extended
mining and manufacturing, as the Protective system was expected to
create, has now any existence in the Union. Under it, according to the
theory of its friends, more than one hundred and sixty millions in
value, of the foreign imports for 1853, would have been produced in our
own country. But free trade is dominant: the South has triumphed in its
warfare with the North: the political power passed into its hands with
the defeat of the Father of the Protective Tariff, ten years since, in
the last effort of his friends to elevate him to the Presidency: the
slaveholding and commercial interests then gained the ascendency, and
secured the power of annexing territory at will: the nation has become
rich in commerce, and unbounded in ambition for territorial
aggrandizement: the people acquiesce in the measures of Government, and
are proud of the influence it has gained in the world: nay, more, the
peaceful aspect of the nations has been changed, and the policy of our
own country must be modified to meet the exigencies that may arise.

One word more on the point we have been considering. With the defeat of
Mr. Clay, came the immediate annexation of Texas, and, as he predicted,
the war with Mexico. The results of these events let loose from its
attachments a mighty avalanche of emigration and of enterprise, under
the rule of the free trade policy, then adopted, which, by the golden
treasures it yields, renders that system, thus far, self-sustaining, and
able to move on, as its friends believe, with a momentum that forbids
any attempt to return again to the system of protection. Whether the
Tariff controversy is permanently settled, or not, is a question about
which we shall not speculate. It may be remarked, however, that one of
the leading parties in the North gave its adhesion to free trade many
years since, and still continues to vote with the South. The leading
abolition paper, too, ever since its origin, has advocated the Southern
free trade system; and thus, in defending the cause it has espoused, as
was said of a certain general in the Mexican war, its editors have been
digging their ditches on the wrong side of their breastworks. To say the
least, their position is a very strange one, for men who profess to
labor for the subversion of American slavery. It would be as rational to
pour oil upon a burning edifice, to extinguish the fire, as to attempt
to overthrow that system under the rule of free trade. For, whatever
differences of opinion may exist on the question of free trade, as
applied to the nations at large, there can be no question that it has
been the main element in promoting the value of slave labor in the
United States; and, consequently, of extending the system of slavery,
vastly, beyond the bounds it would otherwise have reached. But the
editors referred to, do not stand alone. More than one United States
Senator, after acquiring notoriety and position by constant clamors
against slavery at home, has not hesitated to vote for free trade at
Washington, with as hearty a good will as any friend of the extension of
slavery in the country!

All these things together have paralyzed the advocates of the protection
of free labor, at present, as fully as the North has thereby been shorn
of its power to control the question of slavery. Indeed, from what has
been said of the present position of American slavery, in its relation
to the other industrial interests of the country, and of the world,
there is no longer any doubt that it now supplies the complement of that
_home market_, so zealously urged as essential to the prosperity of the
agricultural population of the country: and which, it was supposed,
could only be created by the multiplication of domestic manufactures.
This desideratum being gained, the great majority of the people have
nothing more to ask, but seem desirous that our foreign commerce shall
be cherished; that the cultivation of cotton and sugar shall be
extended; that the nation shall become cumulative as well as
progressive; that, as despotism is striving to spread its raven wing
over the earth, freedom must strengthen itself for the protection of the
liberties of the world; that while three millions of Africans, only, are
held to involuntary servitude for a time, to sustain the system of free
trade, the freedom of hundreds of millions is involved in the
preservation of the American Constitution; and that, as African
emancipation, in every experiment made, has thrown a dead weight upon
Anglo-Saxon progress, the colored people must wait a little, until the
general battle for the liberties of the civilized nations is gained,
before the universal elevation of the barbarous tribes can be achieved.
This work, it is true, has been commenced at various outposts in
heathendom, by the missionary, but is impeded by numberless hindrances;
and these obstacles to the progress of Christian civilization, doubtless
will continue, until the friends of civil and religious liberty shall
triumph in nominally Christian countries; and, with the wealth of the
nations at command, instead of applying it to purposes of war, shall
devote it to sweeping away the darkness of superstition and barbarism
from the earth, by extending the knowledge of science and revelation to
all the families of man.

But we must hasten.

There are none who will deny the truth of what is said of the present
strength and influence of slavery, however much they may have deprecated
its acquisition of power. There are none who think it practicable to
assail it, successfully, by political action, in the States where it is
already established by law. The struggle against the system, therefore,
is narrowed down to an effort to prevent its extension into territory
now free; and this contest is limited to the people who settle the
territories. The question is thus taken out of the hands of the people
at large, and they are cut off from all control of slavery both in the
States and Territories. Hence it is, that the American people are
considering the propriety of banishing this distracting question from
national politics, and demanding of their statesmen that there shall no
longer be any delay in the adoption of measures to sustain the
Constitution and laws of our glorious Union, against all its enemies,
whether domestic or foreign.

The policy of adopting this course, may be liable to objection; but it
does not appear to arise from any disposition to prove recreant to the
cause of philanthropy, that a large portion of the people of the free
States are desirous of divorcing the slavery question from all
connection with political movements. It is because they now find
themselves wholly powerless, as did the colonizationists, forty years
since, in regard to emancipation, and are thus forced into a position of
neutrality on that subject.

A word on this point. The friends of colonization, in the outset of that
enterprise, found themselves shut up to the necessity of creating a
Republic on the shores of Africa, as the only hope for the free colored
people--the further emancipation of the slaves, by State action, having
become impracticable. After nearly forty years of experimenting with the
free colored people, by others, colonizationists still find themselves
circumscribed in their operations, to their original design of building
up the Republic of Liberia, as the only rational hope of the elevation
of the African race--the prospects of general emancipation being a
thousand-fold more gloomy in 1859 than they were in 1817.

Abolitionists, themselves, now admit that slavery completely controls
all national legislation. This is equivalent to admitting that all their
schemes for its overthrow have failed. Theodore Parker, of Boston, in a
sermon before his congregation, recently, is reported as having made the
following declaration: "I have been preaching to you in this city for
ten years; and beside the multitudes addressed here, I have addressed a
hundred thousand annually in excursions through the country; and in that
time the area of slavery has increased a hundred fold." Gerrit Smith, in
his late speech in Congress, said, that cotton is now the dominant
interest of the country, and sways Church, and State, and commerce, and
compels all of them to go for slavery. Mr. Sumner, in his thrice
repeated lecture, in New York, in May, 1855, declared, that,
"notwithstanding all its excess of numbers, wealth, and intelligence,
the North is now the vassal of an oligarchy, whose single inspiration
comes from slavery." . . . . . It "now dominates over the Republic,
determines its national policy, disposes of its offices, and sways all
to its absolute will." . . . . "In maintaining its power, the slave
oligarchy has applied a new test for office"--. . . . "Is he faithful to
slavery?" . . . . "With arrogant ostracism, it excludes from every
national office all who can not respond to this test." Hon. L. D.
Campbell, in a letter to the Cincinnati Convention of Colored Freemen,
January 5, 1852, said: "I regard the _present position_ of your race in
this country as infinitely worse than it was ten years ago. The States
which were _then_ preparing for gradual emancipation, are _now_
endeavoring to extend, perpetuate, and strengthen slavery! . . . . A
vast amount of territory which was _then_ free is _now_ everlastingly
dedicated to slavery. . . . . From the lights of the past, I confess, I
see nothing to justify a promise of much to your _future prospects_."

That these gentlemen state a great truth, as to the present position of
the slavery question, and the darkening prospects of emancipation, will
be denied by no man of intelligence and candor. Doubtless, a certain
class of politicians, because of the present dearth of political
capital, of any other kind, will continue to agitate this subject. But,
sooner or later, it must take the form we have stated, and become a
question of minor importance in politics. This result is inevitable,
because the people at large are beginning to realize their want of power
over the institution of slavery, and the futility of any measures
hitherto adopted to arrest its progress, and elevate the free colored
people on terms of equality among the whites.

But, I am told that the North has recently achieved a great victory over
the South, in the election of Mr. Banks, as Speaker.[48] Time was when
such a result would have been considered far otherwise than a Northern
triumph. Mr. Banks is an ultra free trade man, and his sentiments will
assuredly work no ill to the commercial interests of the South. His
election provoked no threats of secession. What, then, has been gained
to the North, in the wild excitement consequent upon the controversy
relative to the Speakership? The opponents of slavery are further than
ever from accomplishing any thing practicable in checking the demand for
the great staple of the South. Cotton is King still.

In such a crisis as this, shall the friends of the Union be rebuked, if
they determine to take a position of neutrality, in politics, on the
subject of slavery; while, at the same time, they offer to guarantee the
free colored people a Republic of their own, where they may equal other
races, and aid in redeeming a Continent from the woes it has suffered
for thousands of years!


[47] The progressive increase is indicated by the following figures:

                            =1820.=       =1830.=     =1840.=       =1853.=
  Total slaves
     in United States,     1,538,098    2,009,043    2,487,356      3,296,408
  Cotton exported, lbs., 127,800,000  298,459,102  743,941,061  1,111,570,370
  Average export to
    each slave, lbs.,            83           143          295            337

[48] The remarks in this chapter remain as they were in the first



          Effects of opposition to Colonization on
          Liberia--Its effects on free colored people--Their
          social and moral condition--Abolition testimony on
          the subject--American Missionary Association--Its
          failure in Canada--Degradation of West India free
          colored people--American and Foreign Anti-Slavery
          Society--Its testimony on the dismal condition of
          West India free negroes--London Times on same
          subject--Mr. Bigelow on same subject--Effect of
          results in West Indies on Emancipation--Opinion of
          Southern Planters--Economical failure of West
          India Emancipation--Ruinous to British
          Commerce--Similar results in Hayti--Extent of
          diminution of exports from West Indies resulting
          from Emancipation--Results favorable to American
          Planter--Moral condition of Hayti--Later facts in
          reference to the West Indies--Negro free labor a
          failure--Necessity of education to render freedom
          of value--Franklin's opinion
          confirmed--Colonization essential to promote

We have noticed the social and moral condition of the free colored
people, from the days of Franklin, to the projection of colonization. We
have also glanced at the main facts in relation to the abolition warfare
upon colonization, and its success in paralyzing the enterprise. This
subject demands a more extended notice. The most serious injury from
this hostility, sustained by the cause of colonization, was the
prejudice created, in the minds of the more intelligent free colored
men, against emigration to Liberia. The Colonization Society had
expressed its belief in the natural equality of the blacks and whites;
and that there were a sufficient number of educated, upright, free
colored men, in the United States, to establish and sustain a Republic
on the coast of Africa, "whose citizens, rising rapidly in the scale of
existence, under the stimulants to noble effort by which they would be
surrounded, might soon become equal to the people of Europe, or of
European origin--so long their masters and oppressors." These were the
sentiments of the first Report of the Colonization Society, and often
repeated since. Its appeals were made to the moral and intelligent of
the free colored people; and, with their co-operation, the success of
its scheme was considered certain. But the very persons needed to lead
the enterprise, were, mostly, persuaded to reject the proffered aid, and
the society was left to prosecute its plans with such materials as
offered. In consequence of this opposition, it was greatly embarrassed,
and made less progress in its work of African redemption, than it must
have done under other circumstances. Had three-fourths of its emigrants
been the enlightened, free colored men of the country, a dozen Liberias
might now gird the coast of Africa, where but one exists; and the slave
trader be entirely excluded from its shores. Doubtless, a wise
Providence has governed here, as in other human affairs, and may have
permitted this result, to show how speedily even semi-civilized men can
be elevated under American Protestant free institutions. The great body
of emigrants to Liberia, and nearly all the leading men who have sprung
up in the colony, and contributed most to the formation of the Republic,
went out from the very midst of slavery; and yet, what encouraging
results! It has been a sad mistake to oppose colonization, and thus to
retard Africa's redemption!

But how has it fared with the free colored people elsewhere? The answer
to this question will be the solution of the inquiry, What has
abolitionism accomplished by its hostility to colonization, and what is
the condition of the free colored people, whose interests it volunteered
to promote, and whose destinies it attempted to control?

The abolitionists themselves shall answer this question. The colored
people shall see what kind of commendations their tutors give them, and
what the world is to think of them, on the testimony of their particular

The concentration of a colored population in Canada, is the work of
American abolitionists. _The American Missionary Association_, is their
organ for the spread of a gospel untainted, it is claimed, by contact
with slavery. Out of four stations under its care in Canada, at the
opening of 1853, but one school, that of Miss Lyon, remained at its
close. All the others were abandoned, and all the missionaries had asked
to be released,[49] as we are informed by its Seventh Annual Report,
chiefly for the reasons stated in the following extract, page 49:

"The number of missionaries and teachers in Canada, with which the year
commenced, has been greatly reduced. Early in the year, Mr. Kirkland
wrote to the committee, that the opposition to white missionaries,
manifested by the colored people of Canada, had so greatly increased, by
the interested misrepresentations of ignorant colored men, pretending to
be ministers of the gospel, that he thought his own and his wife's
labors, and the funds of the association, could be better employed

This Mission seems never to have been in a prosperous condition. Passing
over to the Eleventh Annual Report, 1857, it is found that the
Association had then but one missionary, the Rev. David Hotchkiss, in
that field. In relation to his prospects, the Report says:

"It has, however, happened to him, as it frequently did to Paul and his
fellow-laborers, that his faithfulness and his success have been the
occasion of stirring up certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, so that
at one time it was thought by some lookers-on that his life was in
danger, and that he might be compelled to leave the scene of his present
labors." He had succeeded, however, in gathering a church of 28 members,
but "on the 21st of June, the house in which the little church worshiped
was burned to the ground. This was undoubtedly the work of an
incendiary, as there had been no fire in it for more than two weeks.
Threats now were freely used against Mr. Hotchkiss and the church, but
he continued his labors, and procured another house, and had it fitted
up for worship. On the 24th of August, this also was burned down. They
have since had to meet in private houses, and much doubt has been felt
relative to ultimate duty. At later dates, however, the opposition was
more quiet, and hopes revived. This field is emphatically a hard one,
and requires much faith and patience from those who labor there."[50]

On the 30th of August, 1858, Mr. Hotchkiss writes: "My wife's school is
in a prosperous condition. She has had nearly forty scholars, and they
learn well. There are numbers who can not come to school for want of
suitable clothing. They are nearly naked."[51]

On a late occasion it is remarked, that "this society seems to meet with
the trouble which accompanies the efforts of other missionary societies
in their endeavors to 'to seek and to save that which was lost.' They
say they find it 'extremely difficult to win the confidence of the
colored people of Canada.'"[52]

But we have a picture of a different kind to present, and one that
proves the capacity of the free colored people for improvement--not when
running at large and uncared for, but when subjected to wholesome
restraint. This is as essential to the progress of the blacks as the
whites, while they are in the course of intellectual, moral and
industrial training:

"Some years ago the Rev. William King, a slave owner in Louisiana,
manumitted his slaves and removed them to Canada. They now, with others,
occupy a tract of land at Buxton and the vicinity, called the Elgin
Block, where Mr. King is stationed as a Presbyterian missionary.

"A recent general meeting there was attended by Lord Althorp, son of
Earl Spencer, and J. W. Probyn, Esq., both members of the British
Parliament, who made addresses. The whole educational and moral
machinery is worked by the presiding genius of the Rev. W. King, to whom
the entire settlement are under felt and acknowledged obligations. He
teaches them agriculture and industry. He superintends their education,
and preaches on the Lord's day. He regards the experiment as highly

It is not our purpose to multiply testimony on this subject, but simply
to afford an index to the condition of the colored people, as described
by abolition pens, best known to the public. We turn, therefore, from
the British colonies in the North, to her possessions in the Tropics.

West India emancipation, under the guidance of English abolitionists,
has always been viewed as the grand experiment, which was to convince
the world of the capacity of the colored man to rise, side by side, with
the white man. We shall let the friends of the system, and the public
documents of the British Government, testify as to its results, both
morally and economically. Opening, again, the Seventh Annual Report of
the _American Missionary Association_, page 30, where it speaks of their
moral condition, we find it written:

"One of our missionaries, in giving a description of the moral condition
of the people of Jamaica, after speaking of the licentiousness which
they received as a legacy from those who denied them the pure joys of
holy wedlock, and trampled upon and scourged chastity, as if it were a
fiend to be driven out from among men--that enduring legacy, which, with
its foul, pestilential influence, still blights, like the mildew of
death, every thing in society that should be lovely, virtuous, and of
good report; and alluding to their intemperance, in which they have
followed the example set by the governor in his palace, the bishop in
his robes, statesmen and judges, lawyers and doctors, planters and
overseers, and even professedly Christian ministers; and the deceit and
falsehood which oppression and wrong always engender, says: 'It must not
be forgotten that we are following in the wake of the accursed system of
_slavery_--a system that _unmakes man_, by warring upon his conscience,
and crushing his spirit, leaving naught but the shattered wrecks of
humanity behind it. If we may but gather up some of these floating
fragments, from which the image of God is well nigh effaced, and pilot
them safely into that better land, we shall not have labored in vain.
But we may _hope to do more_. The chief fruit of our labors is to be
sought in the _future_, rather than in the _present_.' It should be
remembered, too, (continues the Report,) that there is but a small part
of the population yet brought within the reach of the influence of
enlightened Christian teachers, while the great mass by whom they are
surrounded are but little removed from actual heathenism." Another
missionary, page 33, says, it is the opinion of all intelligent
Christian men, that "nothing save the furnishing of the people with
ample means of education and religious instruction will save them from
relapsing into a state of barbarism." And another, page 36, in speaking
of certain cases of discipline, for the highest form of crime, under the
seventh commandment, says: "There is _nothing_ in public sentiment to
save the youth of Jamaica in this respect."

The missions of this Association, in Jamaica, differ scarcely a shade
from those among the actual heathen. On this point, the Report, near its
close, says:

"For most of the adult population of Jamaica, the unhappy victims of
long years of oppression and degradation, our missionaries have great
fear. Yet for even these there may be hope, even though with trembling.
But it is around the youth of the island that their brightest hopes and
anticipations cluster; from them they expect to gather their principal
sheaves for the great Lord of the harvest."

The _American Missionary_, a monthly paper, and organ of this
Association, for July, 1855, has the following quotation from the
letters of the missionaries, recently received. It is given, as
abolition testimony, in further confirmation of the moral condition of
the colored people of Jamaica:

"From the number of churches and chapels in the island, Jamaica ought
certainly to be called a Christian land. The people may be called a
church-going people. There are chapels and places of worship enough, at
least in this part of the island, to supply the people if every station
of our mission were given up. And there is no lack of ministers and
preachers. As far as I am acquainted, almost the entire adult population
profess to have a hope of eternal life, and I think the larger part are
connected with churches. In view of such facts some have been led to
say, 'The spiritual condition of the population is very satisfactory.'
But there is another class of facts that is perfectly astounding. With
all this array of the externals of religion, one broad, deep wave of
moral death rolls over the land. A man may be a drunkard, a liar, a
Sabbath-breaker, a profane man, a fornicator, an adulterer, and such
like--and be known to be such--and go to chapel, and hold up his head
there, and feel no disgrace from these things, because they are so
common as to create a public sentiment in his favor. He may go to the
communion table, and cherish a hope of heaven, and not have his hope
disturbed. I might tell of persons guilty of some, if not all, these
things, ministering in holy things."

What motives can prompt the American Missionary Association to cast such
imputations upon the missions of the English and Scotch Churches, in
Jamaica, we leave to be determined by the parties interested. Few,
indeed, will believe that the English and Scotch Churches would, for a
moment, tolerate such a condition of things, in their mission stations,
as is here represented.

Next we turn to the Annual Report of the American and Foreign
Anti-Slavery Society, 1853, which discourses thus, in its own language,
and in quotations which it indorses:[54]

"The friends of emancipation in the United States have been
disappointed in some respects at the results in the West Indies, because
they expected too much. A nation of slaves can not at once be converted
into a nation of intelligent, industrious, and moral freemen." . . . .
"It is not too much, even now, to say of the people of Jamaica, . . . .
their condition is exceedingly degraded, their morals woefully corrupt.
But this must, by no means, be understood to be of universal
application. With respect to those who have been brought under a
healthful educational and religious influence, _it is not true_. But as
respects the great mass, whose humanity has been ground out of them by
cruel oppression--whom no good Samaritan hand has yet reached--how could
it be otherwise? We wish to turn the tables; to supplant oppression by
righteousness, insult by compassion and brotherly kindness, hatred and
contempt by love and winning meekness, till we allure these wretched
ones to the hope and enjoyment of manhood and virtue."[55] . . . . "The
means of education and religious instruction are better enjoyed,
although but little appreciated and improved by the great mass of the
people. It is also true, that the moral sense of the people is becoming
somewhat enlightened. . . . . But while this is true, yet their moral
condition is very far from being what it ought to be. . . . . It is
exceedingly dark and distressing. Licentiousness prevails to a most
alarming extent among the people. . . . . The almost universal
prevalence of intemperance is another prolific source of the moral
darkness and degradation of the people. The great mass, among all
classes of the inhabitants, from the governor in his palace to the
peasant in his hut--from the bishop in his gown to the beggar in his
rags--are all slaves to their cups."[56]

This is the language of American abolitionists, going out under the
sanction of their Annual Reports. Lest it may be considered as too
highly colored, we add the following from the _London Times_, of near
the same date. In speaking of the results of emancipation, in Jamaica,
it says:

"The negro has not acquired, with his freedom, any habits of industry or
morality. His independence is but little better than that of an
uncaptured brute. Having accepted few of the restraints of civilization,
he is amenable to few of its necessities; and the wants of his nature
are so easily satisfied, that at the present rate of wages, he is called
upon for nothing but fitful or desultory exertion. The blacks,
therefore, instead of becoming intelligent husbandmen, have become
vagrants and squatters, and it is now apprehended that with the failure
of cultivation in the island will come the failure of its resources for
instructing or controlling its population. So imminent does this
consummation appear, that memorials have been signed by classes of
colonial society hitherto standing aloof from politics, and not only the
bench and the bar, but the bishop, clergy, and ministers of all
denominations in the island, without exception, have recorded their
conviction, that, in the absence of timely relief, the religious and
educational institutions of the island must be abandoned, and the masses
of the population retrogade to barbarism."

One of the editors of the _New York Evening Post_, Mr. Bigelow, a few
years since, spent a winter in Jamaica, and continues to watch, with
anxious solicitude, as an anti-slavery man, the developments taking
place among its colored population. In reviewing the returns published
by the Jamaica House of Assembly, in 1853, in reference to the ruinous
decline in the agriculture of the island, and stating the enormous
quantity of lands thrown out of cultivation, since 1848, the _Post_

"This decline has been going on from year to year, daily becoming more
alarming, until at length the island has reached what would appear to be
the last profound of distress and misery, . . . . when thousands of people
do not know, when they rise in the morning, whence or in what manner
they are to procure bread for the day."

We must examine, more closely, the economical results of emancipation,
in the West Indies, before we can judge of the effects, upon the trade
and commerce of the world, which would result from general emancipation
in the United States. We do this, not to afford an argument in behalf of
the perpetuation of slavery, because its abolition might injuriously
affect the interests of trade and commerce; but because the whole of
these results have long been well known to the American planter, and
serve as conclusive arguments, with him, against emancipation. He
believes that, in tropical cultivation, African free labor is worthless;
that the liberation of the slaves in this country, must, necessarily, be
followed with results similar to what has occurred in the West Indies;
and, for this reason, as well as on account of the profitable character
of slavery, he refuses to give freedom to his slaves. We repeat, we do
not cite the fact of the failure, economically, of free labor in
Jamaica, as an argument for the perpetuation of slavery. Not at all. We
allude to the fact, only to show that emancipation has greatly reduced
the commerce of the colonies, and that the logic of this result
militates against the colored man's prospects of advancement in the
scale of political and social equality. But to the facts:

The British planters, up to 1806, had received from the slave traders an
uninterrupted supply of laborers, and had rapidly extended their
cultivation as commerce increased its demands for their products. Let us
take the results in Jamaica as an example of the whole of the British
West India islands. She had increased her exports of sugar from a yearly
average of 123,979,000 lbs. in 1772-3, to 234,700,000 lbs. in 1805-6. No
diminution of exports had occurred, as has been asserted by some
anti-slavery writers, before the prohibition of the slave trade. The
increase was progressive and undisturbed, except so far as affected by
seasons, more or less favorable. But no sooner was her supply of slaves
cut off, by the act of 1806, which took effect in 1808, than the exports
of Jamaica began to diminish, until her sugar had fallen off from 1822
to 1832, to an annual average of 131,129,000 lbs., or nearly to what
they had been sixty years before. It was not until 1833 that the
Emancipation Act was passed; so that this decline in the exports of
Jamaica, took place under all the rigors of West India slavery. The
exports of rum, coffee, and cotton, were diminished in nearly the same

To arrest this ruinous decline in the commercial prosperity of the
islands, emancipation was adopted in 1833 and perfected in 1838. This
policy was pursued under the plea, that free labor is doubly as
productive as slave labor; and, that the negroes, liberated, would labor
twice as well as when enslaved. But what was the result? Ten years after
final emancipation was effected, the exports of sugar from Jamaica were
only 67,539,200 lbs. a year, instead of 234,700,000 lbs., as in 1805-6.
The exports of coffee, during the same year, were reduced to 5,684,921
lbs., instead of 23,625,377 lbs., as in 1805-6; and the extinction of
the cultivation of cotton, for export, had become almost complete,
though in 1800, it had nearly equaled that of the United States. These
are no fancy sketches, drawn for effect, but sober realities, attested
by the public documents of the British government.[57] The Jamaica
negro, ignorant and destitute of forethought, disappointed the English

In Hayti, emancipation had been productive of results, fully as
disastrous to its commerce, as it had been to that of Jamaica. There was
an almost total abandonment of the production of sugar, soon after
freedom was declared. This took place in 1793. In 1790 the island
exported 163,318,810 lbs. of sugar. But in 1801 its export was reduced
to 18,534,112 lbs., in 1818, to 5,443,765 lbs., and in 1825 to 2,020
lbs.;[58] since which time its export has nearly ceased. Indeed, it is
asserted, that, "at this moment there is not one pound of sugar exported
from the island, and all that is used is imported from the United

The exports of coffee, from Hayti, in 1790, were 76,835,219 lbs.; and of
cotton, 7,004,274 lbs. But the exports of the former article, in 1801,
were reduced to 43,420,270 lbs., and the latter to 474,118 lbs.[60] The
exports of coffee have varied, annually, since that period, from thirty
to forty million pounds; and the cotton exported has rarely much
exceeded one million pounds.[61] At present, "with the exception of
Gonaives, there is not a pound of cotton produced, and only a very
limited quanity there, barely sufficient for consumption; and instead of
exporting indigo, as formerly, they import all they use from the United

According to the authorities before cited, the deficit of free labor
tropical cultivation, as compared with that of slave labor, while
sustained by the slave trade, including the British West Indies and
Hayti, stands as follows:--a startling result, truly, to those who
expected emancipation to work well for commerce, and supersede the
necessity of employing slave labor:

_Contrast of Slave Labor and Free Labor Exports from the West Indies._


                      _Years._ _lbs. Sugar._  _lbs. Coffee._ _lbs. Cotton._
  British West Indies, 1807,    636,025,643    31,610,764     17,000,000[63]
  Hayti,               1790,    163,318,810    76,835,219     7,286,126
                                -----------    -----------    ----------
     Total                      809,344,453    108,245,983    24,286,126


                      _Years._  _lbs. Sugar._  _lbs. Coffee._ _lbs. Cotton._
  British West Indies, 1848,     313,306,112    6,770,792       427,529[64]
  Hayti                1848,     very little.   34,114,717[C] 1,591,454[65]
                                 -----------    ----------    ---------
     Total                       313,306,112    40,885,509    2,018,983

     Free Labor Deficit          496,038,341    67,360,474    22,267,143

To understand the bearing which this decrease of production, by free
labor, has upon the interests of the African race, it must be
remembered, that the consumption of cotton and sugar has not diminished,
but increased, vastly; and that for every bale of cotton, or hogshead of
sugar, that the free labor production is diminished, an equal amount of
slave labor cotton and sugar is demanded to supply its place; and, more
than this, for every additional bale or hogshead required by their
increased consumption, an additional one must be furnished by slave
labor, because the world will not dispense with their use. As no
material change has occurred, for several years, in the commercial
condition of the islands, it is not necessary to bring this statement
down to a later date than 1848. The causes operating to encourage the
American planters, in extending their cultivation of cotton and sugar,
can now be understood.

In relation to the moral condition of Hayti, we need say but little. It
is known that a great majority of the children of the island are born
out of wedlock, and that the Christian Sabbath is the principal market
day in the towns. The _American and Foreign Christian Union_, a
missionary paper of New York, after quoting the report of one of the
missionaries in Hayti, who represents his success as encouraging, thus
remarks: "This letter closes with some singular incidents not suitable
for publication, showing the deplorable state of community there, both
morally and socially. There seems to be a mixture of African barbarism
with the sensuous civilization of France. . . . . That dark land needs
the light which begins to dawn thereon."

Thus matters stood when the second edition of this work went to press.
An opportunity is now afforded, of embracing the results of emancipation
to a later date, and of forming a better judgment of the effects of that
policy on the question of freedom in the United States. For, if the
negro, with full liberty, in the West Indies, has proved himself
unreliable in voluntary labor, the experiment of freeing him here will
not be attempted by our slaveholders.

Much has been said, recently, about British emancipation, and the
returning commercial prosperity of her tropical islands. The American
Missionary Association[66] gives currency to the assertion, that "they
yield more produce than they ever did during the existence of slavery."
It is said, also, in the _Edinburgh Review_, that existing facts "show
that slavery was bearing our colonies down to ruin with awful speed;
that had it lasted but another half century, they must have sunk beyond
recovery. On the other hand, that now, under freedom and free trade,
they are growing day by day more rich and prosperous; with spreading
trade, with improving agriculture, with a more educated, industrious and
virtuous people; while the comfort of the quondam slaves is increased
beyond the power of words to portray."[67]

Now all this seems very encouraging; but how such language can be used,
without its being considered as flatly contradicting well known facts,
and what the American Missionary Association, Mr. Bigelow, and others,
have heretofore said, will seem very mysterious to the reader. And yet,
the assertions quoted would seem to be proved, by taking the aggregate
production of the whole British West India islands and Mauritius, as the
index to their commercial prosperity. But if the islands be taken
separately, and all the facts considered, a widely different conclusion
would be formed, by every candid man, than that the improvement is due
to the increased industry of the negroes. On this subject the facts can
be drawn from authorities which would scorn to conceal the truth with
the design of sustaining a theory of the philanthropist. This question
is placed in its true light by the _London Economist_, July 16, 1859, in
which it is shown that the apparent industrial advancement of the
islands is due to the importation of immigrants from India, China, and
Africa, by the "coolie traffic," and not to the improved industry of the
emancipated negroes. Says the _Economist_:

"We find one of the Emigration Commissioners, Mr. Murdock,[68] in an
interesting memorandum on this subject, giving us the following
comparison between the islands which have been recently supplied with
immigrants, and those which have not:

                           _Sugar, pounds. The  _Sugar, pounds.
               _Number of   three years before   the last three
               Immigrants._    Immigration._         years._
  Mauritius      209,490       217,200,256        469,812,784
  British Guiana  24,946       173,626,208        250,715,584
  Trinidad        11,981        91,110,768        150,579,072

"With these are contrasted the results in Jamaica and Antigua, where
there has been very little immigration:--

                 _Sugar, pounds.       _Sugar, pounds. The last
               The three years after       three years._
  Jamaica          202,973,568             139,369,776
  Antigua           63,824,656              70,302,736

Here, now, is presented the key to the mystery overhanging the British
West Indies. Men, high in station, have asserted that West India
emancipation has been an economic success; while others, equally
honorable, have maintained the opposite view. Both have presented
figures, averred to be true, that seemed to sustain their declarations.
This apparent contradiction is thus explained. The first take the
aggregate production in the whole of the islands, which, they say,
exceeds that during the existence of slavery;[70] the second take the
production in Jamaica alone, as representing the whole; and, thus, the
startling fact appears, that the sugar crop of the last three years in
Jamaica, has fallen 63,603,000 lbs., below what it was during the first
three years of freedom. This argues badly for the free negroes; but it
must be the legitimate fruits of emancipation, as no exterior force has
been brought into that island to interfere, materially, with its
workings. In Mauritius, Trinidad, and British Guiana, it will be seen
that the production has greatly increased; but from a very different
cause than any improvement in the industry of the blacks who had
received their freedom--the increase in Mauritius having been more than
double what it had been when the production depended upon them. The
sugar crop, in this island, for the three years preceding the
introduction of immigrant labor, was but 217,200,000 lbs.; while, during
the last three years, by the aid of 210,000 immigrants, it has been run
up to 469,812,000 lbs.

Taking all these facts into consideration, it is apparent that West
India emancipation has been a failure, economically considered. The
production in Jamaica, when it has depended upon the labor of the free
blacks alone, has materially declined in some of the islands, since the
abandonment of slavery, and is not so great now as it was during the
first years of freedom; and, so far is it from being equal to what it
was while slavery prevailed, and especially while the slave trade was
continued, that it now falls short of the production of that period by
an immense amount. In no way, therefore, can it be claimed, that the
cultivation of the British West India islands is on the increase, except
by resorting to the pious fraud of crediting the products of the
immigrant labor to the account of emancipation--a resort to which no
conscientious Christian man will have recourse, even to sustain a
philanthropic theory.

But the Island of Barbadoes is an exception. It is said to have suffered
no diminution in its production since emancipation, and that this result
was attained without the aid of immigrant labor. The _London Economist_
must be permitted to explain this phenomenon; and must also be allowed
to give its views on the subject of the effects of emancipation, after
the lapse of a quarter of a century from the date of the passage of the
Emancipation Act:

"We are no believers in Mr. Carlyle's gospel of the 'beneficent whip' as
the bearer of salvation to tropical indolence. But we can not for a
moment doubt that the first result of emancipation was, in most of the
islands, to substitute for the worst kind of moral and political evil,
one of a less fatal but still of a very pernicious kind. The negroes had
been treated as mere machines for raising sugar and coffee. They were
suddenly liberated from that mechanical drudgery; they became free
beings--but without the discipline needful to use freedom well, and
unfortunately with a larger amount of practical freedom than the
laboring class of any Northern or temperate climate could by any
possibility enjoy. They suddenly found themselves, in most of the
islands, in a position in many respects analagous to that of a people
possessed of a moderate property in England, who can supply their
principal wants without any positive labor, and have no ambition to rise
into any higher sphere than that into which they were born. The only
difference was, that the negroes in most of the West India islands
wanted vastly less than such people as these in civilized
States,--wanted nothing in fact, but the plantains they could grow
almost without labor, and the huts which they could build on any waste
mountain land without paying rent for it. The consequence naturally was,
that when the spur of physical tyranny was removed, there was no
sufficient substitute for it, in most of the islands, in the wholesome
hardships of natural exigencies. The really beneficent 'whip' of hunger
and cold was not substituted for the human cruelty from which they had
escaped. In Barbadoes alone, perhaps, the pressure of a dense
population, with the absence of any waste mountain lands on which the
negroes could squat, rent free, was an efficient substitute for the
terrors of slavery. And, consequently, in Barbadoes alone, has the
Emancipation Act produced unalloyed and conspicuous good. The natural
spur of competition for the means of living, took the place there of the
artificial spur of slavery, and the slow, indolent temperament of the
African race was thus quickened into a voluntary industry essential to
its moral discipline, and most favorable to its intellectual culture."

In further commenting on the figures quoted, the _Economist_ remarks:

"These results, do not of course, necessarily represent in any degree
the fresh spur to diligence on the part of the old population, caused by
the new labor. In islands like Trinidad, where the amount of unredeemed
land suited for such production is almost unlimited, the new labor
introduced cannot for a long time press on the old labor at all. But
wherever the amount of land fitted for this kind of culture is nearly
exhausted, the presence of the new competition will soon be felt. And,
in any case, it is only through this gradual supply of the labor market
that we can hope to bring the wholesome spur of necessity to act
eventually on the laboring classes. Englishmen, indeed, may well think
that at times the good influences of this competitive jostling for
employment are overrated and its evil underrated. But this is far from
true of the negro race. To their slow and unambitious temperament,
influences of this kind are almost unalloyed good, as the great
superiority in the population of Barbadoes to that of the other islands
sufficiently shows."

The _Economist_, in further discussing this question, favors the
introduction of a permanent class of laborers, not only that the
cultivation may be increased, but because there is "no doubt at all that
if a larger supply of labor could be attained in the West Indies,
without any very great incidental evils, the benefit experienced even by
the planters would be by no means so great as that of the negro
population themselves;" and thinks that "the philanthropic party, in
their tenderness for the emancipated Africans, are sometimes not a
little blind to the advantages of stern industrial necessities;" and
that, "what the accident of population and soil has done for Barbadoes,
it cannot be doubted that a stream of immigration, if properly
conducted, might do in some degree for the other islands."

Lest it should be thought that the _Economist_ stands alone in its
representations in relation to the failure of negro free labor in
Jamaica, we quote a statement of the Colonial Minister, which recently
appeared in the _New York Tribune_, and was thence transferred to the
_American Missionary_, February, 1859:

"The Colonial Minister says: 'Jamaica is now the only important sugar
producing colony which exports a considerable smaller quantity of sugar
than was exported in the time of slavery, while some such colonies since
the passage of the Emancipation Act have largely increased their

Time is thus casting light upon the question of the capacity of the
African race for voluntary labor. Jamaica included 311,692 negroes, at
the time of emancipation, out of the 660,000 who received their freedom
in the whole of the West Indian islands. This was but little less than
half of the whole number. It was a fair field to test the question of
the willingness of the free negro to work. But what is the result? We
have it admitted by both the _Economist_ and the Colonial Minister, that
there has been a vast falling off in the exports from Jamaica, and that
a spur of some kind must be applied to secure their adopting habits of
industry. The spur of the "whip" having been thrown away, the remedy
proposed is to press them into a corner, by immigration from India and
China, so that the securing of bread shall become the great necessity
with them, and they be compelled to labor or starve, as has been the
case in Barbadoes. This is the opinion of the _Economist_, always
opposed to slavery, but now convinced that the "slow, indolent
temperament of the African race" needs such a "spur" to quicken it "into
a voluntary industry essential to its moral discipline, and most
favorable to its intellectual culture."

The West India emancipation experiments have demonstrated the truth of a
few principles that the world should fully understand. It must now be
admitted that mere personal liberty, even connected with the stimulus of
wages, is insufficient to secure the industry of an ignorant population.
It is intelligence, alone, that can be acted upon by such motives.
Intelligence, then, must precede voluntary industry. And, hereafter,
that man, or nation, may find it difficult to command respect, or
succeed in being esteemed wise, who will not, along with exertions to
extend personal freedom to man, intimately blend with their efforts
adequate means for intellectual and moral improvement. The results of
West India emancipation, it must be further noticed, fully confirm the
opinions of Franklin, that freedom, to unenlightened slaves, must be
accompanied with the means of intellectual and moral elevation,
otherwise it may be productive of serious evils to themselves and to
society. It also sustains the views entertained by Southern
slaveholders, that emancipation, unaccompanied by the colonization of
the slaves, could be of little value to the blacks, while it would
entail a ruinous burden upon the whites. These facts must not be
overlooked in the projection of plans for emancipation, as none can
receive the sanction of Southern men, which does not embrace in it the
removal of the colored people. With the example of West India
emancipation before them, and the results of which have been closely
watched by them, it can not be expected that Southern statesmen will
ever risk the liberation of their slaves, except on these conditions.


[49] Mr. Wilson, the Missionary at St. Catharines, still remained there,
but not under the care of the Association.

[50] 11th Annual Report, pages 36, 37.

[51] _American Missionary_, October, 1858.

[52] _African Repository_, October, 1859.

[53] _African Repository_, January, 1858.

[54] Page 170.

[55] Extract from the report of a missionary, quoted in the Report, page

[56] Extract from the report of another missionary, page 171, of the

[57] The average exports from the Island of Jamaica, omitting cotton,
during the three epochs referred to--that of the slave trade, of slavery
alone, and of freedom--for periods of five years, during the first two,
and for the three years separately, in the last, will give a full view
of this point:

  _Years of Exports._               _lbs. Sugar._  _P. Rum. lbs._  _Coffee._

  Annual average, 1803 to 1807,[A]  211,139,200      50,426       23,625,377
  Annual average, 1829 to 1833,[A]   152,564,800     35,505       17,645,602
  Annual average, 1839 to 1843,[A]   67,924,800      14,185        7,412,498
  Annual exports,         1846,[B]   57,956,800      14,395        6,047,150
  Annual exports,         1847,[B]   77,686,400      18,077        6,421,122
  Annual exports,         1848.[B]   67,539,200      20,194        5,684,921

[A] _Blackwood's Magazine_ 1848, p. 225.

[B] _Littel's Living Age_, 1850, No. 309, p. 125.--_Letter of Mr.

[58] Macgregor, London ed., 1847.

[59] _De Bow's Review_, August, 1855.

[60] Macgregor, London ed., 1847.

[61] Ibid.

[62] _De Bow's Review_, 1855.

[63] 1800.

[64] 1840.

[65] 1847.

[66] American Missionary Association's Report, 1857, p. 32.

[67] The West Indies as they were and are--_Edinburgh Review_, April,
1859.--The article said to be by Mr. C. Buxton.

[68] The statement was made at a meeting which met to consider the evils
of the Chinese and coolie system of immigration into the West Indies and
Mauritius. It is not stated whether the amounts given are the whole
production or only the exports.

[69] The reader will remember that the Emancipation Act, of 1833, left
the West India blacks in the relation of apprentices to their masters,
but that the system worked so badly that total emancipation was declared
in 1838.

[70] They must refer to slavery in its later years, after the
suppression of the slave trade. Previous to that event, the production
of Jamaica was more than seventy-five per cent. greater than at present.


          Moral condition of the free colored people in
          United States--What have they gained by refusing
          to accept Colonization?--Abolition testimony on
          the subject--Gerrit Smith--New York Tribune--Their
          moral condition as indicated by proportions in
          Penitentiaries--Census Reports--Native whites,
          foreign born, and free colored, in
          Penitentiaries--But little improvement in
          Massachusetts in seventy years--Contrasts of Ohio
          with New England--Antagonism of Abolitionism to
          free negroes.

In turning to the condition of our own free colored people, who rejected
homes in Liberia, we approach a most important subject. They have been
under the guardianship of their abolition friends, ever since that
period, and have cherished feelings of determined hostility to
colonization. What have they gained by this hostility? What has been
accomplished for them by their abolition friends, or what have they done
for themselves? Those who took refuge in Liberia have built up a
Republic of their own; and with the view of encouraging them to laudable
effort, have been recognized as an independent nation, by five of the
great governments of the earth. But what has been the progress of those
who remained behind, in the vain hope of rising to an equality with the
whites, and of assisting in abolishing American slavery?

We offer no opinion, here, of our own, as to the present social and
moral condition of the free colored people in the North. What it was at
the time of the founding of Liberia, has already been shown. On this
subject we might quote largely from the proceedings of the Conventions
of the colored people, and the writings of their editors, so as to
produce a dark picture indeed; but this would be cruel, as their voices
are but the wailings of sensitive and benevolent hearts, while weeping
over the moral desolations that, for ages, have overwhelmed their
people. Nor shall we multiply testimony on the subject; but in this, as
in the case of Canada and the West Indies, allow the abolitionists to
speak of their own schemes. The Hon. Gerrit Smith, in his letter to
Governor Hunt, of New York, in 1852, while speaking of his ineffectual
efforts, for fifteen years past, to prevail upon the free colored people
to betake themselves to mechanical and agricultural pursuits, says:

"Suppose, moreover, that during all these fifteen years, they had been
quitting the cities, _where the mass of them rot, both physically and
morally_, and had gone into the country to become farmers and
mechanics--suppose, I say, all this--and who would have the hardihood to
affirm that the Colonization Society lives upon the malignity of the
whites--but it is true that it lives upon _the voluntary degradation of
the blacks_. I do not say that the colored people are more debased than
the white people would be if persecuted, oppressed and outraged as are
the colored people. But I do say that they are debased, deeply debased;
and that to recover themselves they must become heroes, self-denying
heroes, capable of achieving a great moral victory--a two-fold
victory--a victory over themselves and a victory over their enemies."

The _New York Tribune_, September 22, 1855, in noticing the movements of
the colored people of New York, to secure to themselves equal suffrage,
thus gives utterance to its views of their moral condition:

"Most earnestly desiring the enfranchisement of the Afric-American race,
we would gladly wean them, at the cost of some additional ill-will, from
the sterile path of political agitation. They can help win their rights
if they will, but not by jawing for them. One negro on a farm which he
has cleared or bought patiently hewing out a modest, toilsome
independence, is worth more to the cause of equal suffrage than three in
an Ethiopian (or any other) convention, clamoring against white
oppression with all the fire of a Spartacus. It is not logical
conviction of the justice of their claims that is needed, but a
prevalent belief that they would form a wholesome and desirable element
of the body politic. Their color exposes them to much unjust and
damaging prejudice; but if their degradation were but skin-deep, they
might easily overcome it. . . . . Of course, we understand that the evil
we contemplate is complex and retroactive--that the political
degradation of the blacks is a cause as well as a consequence of their
moral debasement. Had they never been enslaved, they would not now be so
abject in soul; had they not been so abject, they could not have been
enslaved. Our aborigines might have been crushed into slavery by
overwhelming force; but they could never have been made to live in it.
The black man who feels insulted in that he is called a 'nigger,'
therein attests the degradation of his race more forcibly than does the
blackguard at whom he takes offense; for negro is no further a term of
opprobrium than the character of the blacks has made it so. . . . . If
the blacks of to-day were all or mainly such men as Samuel R. Ward or
Frederick Douglass, nobody would consider 'negro' an invidious or
reproachful designation.

"The blacks of our State ought to enjoy the common rights of man; but
they stand greatly in need of the spirit in which those rights have been
won by other races. They will never win them as white men's barbers,
waiters, ostlers and boot blacks; that is to say, the tardy and
ungracious concession of the right of suffrage, which they may
ultimately wrench from a reluctant community, will leave them still the
political as well as social inferiors of the whites--excluded from all
honorable office, and admitted to white men's tables only as waiters and
plate-washers--unless they shall meantime have wrought out, through
toil, privation and suffering, an intellectual and essential
enfranchisement. At present, white men dread to be known as friendly to
the black, because of the never-ending, still-beginning importunities to
help this or that negro object of charity or philanthrophy to which such
a reputation inevitably subjects them. Nine-tenths of the free blacks
have no idea of setting themselves to work except as the hirelings and
servitors of white men; no idea of building a church, or accomplishing
any other serious enterprise, except through beggary of the whites. As a
class, the blacks are indolent, improvident, servile and licentious; and
their inveterate habit of appealing to white benevolence or compassion
whenever they realize a want or encounter a difficulty, is eminently
baneful and enervating. If they could never more obtain a dollar until
they shall have earned it, many of them would suffer, and some perhaps
starve; but, on the whole, they would do better and improve faster than
may now be reasonably expected."

In tracing the causes which led to the organization of the American
Colonization Society, the statistics of the penitentiaries down to 1827,
were given, as affording an index to the moral condition of the free
colored people at that period. The facts of a similar kind, for 1850,
are added here, to indicate their present moral condition. The
statistics are compiled from the Compendium of the Census of the United
States, for 1850, and published in 1854.

_Tabular Statement of the number of the native and foreign white
population, the colored population, the number of each class in the
Penitentiaries, the proportion of the convicts to the whole number of
each class, the proportion of colored convicts over the foreign and also
over the native whites, in the four States named, for the year_ 1850:

  _Classes, etc._         Mass._    _N. York._     _Penn._      _Ohio._
  NATIVE WHITES,         819,044    2,388,830    1,953,276   1,732,698
    In the Penitentiary,     264          835          205         291
    Being 1 out of         3,102        2,860        9,528       5,954

  FOREIGN WHITES,        163,598      655,224      303,105     218,099
    In the Penitentiary,     125          545          123          71
    Being 1 out of          1,308       1,202        2,464       3,077

  COLORED POPULATION,     9,064        49,069       53,626      25,279
    In the Penitentiary,     47           257          109          44
    Being 1 out of          192          190           492         574

  Colored convicts over
  foreign,              6.8 times    6.3 times      5 times   5.3 times

  Colored convicts over
  native whites,       16.1 times   15 times     19.3 times  10.3 times

It appears from these figures, that the amount of crime among the
colored people of Massachusetts, in 1850, was 6 8/10 times greater than
the amount among the foreign born population of that State, and that
the amount, in the four States named, among the free colored people,
averages _five-and-three-quarters_ times more, in proportion to their
numbers, than it does among the foreign population, and over _fifteen_
times more than it does among the native whites. It will be instructive,
also, to note the _moral condition_ of the free colored people in
Massachusetts, the great center of abolitionism, where they have enjoyed
equal rights ever since 1780. Strange to say, there is nearly three
times as much among them, in that State, as exists among those of Ohio!
More than this will be useful to note, as it regards the direction of
the _emigration_ of the free colored people. Massachusetts, in 1850, had
but 2,687 colored persons born out of the State, while Ohio had 12,662
born out of her limits. Take another fact: the increase, _per cent._, of
the colored population, in the whole New England States, was, during the
ten years, from 1840 to 1850, but 1 71/100, while in Ohio, it was,
during that time, 45 76/100.

There is another point worthy of notice. Though the New England
abolition States have offered equal political rights to the colored man,
it has afforded him little temptation to emigrate into their bounds. On
the contrary, several of these States have been diminishing their free
colored population, for many years past, and none of them can have had
accessions of colored immigrants; as is abundantly proved by the fact,
that their additions, of this class of persons, have not exceeded the
natural increase of the resident colored population.[71] Another fact is
equally as instructive. It will be noted, that, in Ohio, the largest
increase of the free colored population, is in the anti-abolition
counties--the abolition counties, often, having increased very little,
indeed, between 1840 and 1850. But the most curious fact is, that the
largest majorities for the abolition candidate for governor, in 1855,
were in the counties having the fewest colored people, while the largest
majorities against him, were in those having the largest numbers of free
negroes and mullatoes.[72] From these facts, both in regard to New
England and Ohio, one of two conclusions may be logically deduced:
Either the colored people find so little sympathy from the
abolitionists, that they will not live among them; or else their
presence, in any community, in large numbers, tends to cure the whites
of all tendencies toward practical abolitionism!


[71] See Table IV, Appendix.

[72] See Table V, Appendix.


         Disappointment of English and American
         Abolitionists--Their failure attributed to the
         inherent evils of Slavery--Their want of
         discrimination--The differences in the system in
         the British Colonies and in the United
         States--Colored people of United States vastly in
         advance of all others--Success of the Gospel among
         the Slaves--_Democratic Review_ on African
         civilization--Vexation of Abolitionists at their
         failure--Their apology not to be accepted--Liberia
         attests its falsity--The barrier to the colored
         man's elevation removable only by
         Colonization--Colored men begin to see
         it--Chambers, of Edinburgh--His testimony on the
         crushing effects of New England's treatment of
         colored people--Charges Abolitionists with
         insincerity--Approves Colonization--Abolition
         violence rebuked by an English clergyman.

The condition of the free colored people can now be understood. The
results, in their case, are vastly different from what was anticipated,
when British philanthropists succeeded in West India emancipation. They
are very different, also, from what was expected by American
abolitionists: so different, indeed, that their disappointment is fully
manifested, in the extracts made from their published documents. As an
apology for the failure, it seems to be their aim to create the belief,
that the dreadful moral depravation, existing in the West Indies, is
wholly owing to the demoralizing tendencies of slavery. They speak of
this effect as resulting from laws inherent in the system, which have no
exceptions, and must be equally as active in the United States as in the
British colonies. But in their zeal to cast odium on slavery, they prove
too much--for, if this be true, it follows, that the slave population of
the United States must be equally debased with that of Jamaica, and as
much disqualified to discharge the duties of freemen, as both have been
subjected to the operations of the same system. This is not all. The
logic of the argument would extend even to our free colored people, and
include them, according to the American Missionary Association, in the
dire effects of "that enduring legacy which, with its foul, pestilential
influences, still blights, like the mildew of death, every thing in
society that should be lovely, virtuous, and of good report." Now, were
it believed, generally, that the colored people of the United States are
equally as degraded as those of Jamaica, upon what grounds could any one
advocate the admission of the blacks to equal social and political
privileges with the whites? Certainly, no Christian family or community
would willingly admit such men to terms of social or political equality!
This, we repeat, is the logical conclusion from the Reports of the
American Missionary Association and the American and Foreign
Anti-Slavery Society--a conclusion, too, the more certain, as it makes
no exceptions between the condition of the colored people under the
slavery of Jamaica and under that of the United States.

But in this, as in much connected with slavery, abolitionists have taken
too limited a view of the subject. They have not properly discriminated
between the effects of the original barbarism of the negroes, and those
produced by the more or less favorable influences to which they were
afterward subjected under slavery. This point deserves special notice.
According to the best authorities, the colored people of Jamaica, for
nearly three hundred years, were entirely without the gospel; and it
gained a permanent footing among them, only at a few points, at their
emancipation, twenty-five years ago; so that, when liberty reached them,
the great mass of the Africans, in the British West Indies, were
heathen.[73] Let us understand the reason of this. Slavery is not an
element of human progress, under which the mind necessarily becomes
enlightened; but Christianity is the _primary_ element of progress, and
can elevate the savage, whether in bondage or in freedom, if its
principles are taught him in his youth. The slavery of Jamaica began
with savage men. For three hundred years, its slaves were destitute of
the gospel, and their barbarism was left to perpetuate itself. But in
the United States, the Africans were brought under the influence of
Christianity, on their first introduction, over two hundred and thirty
years since, and have continued to enjoy its teachings, in a greater or
less degree, to the present moment. The disappearance from among our
colored people, of the savage condition of the human mind--the
incapacity to comprehend religious truths--and its continued existence
among those of Jamaica, can now be understood. The opportunities enjoyed
by the former, for advancement, over the latter, have been _six_ to
_one_. With these facts before the mind, it is not difficult to perceive
that the colored population of Jamaica can not but still labor under
the disadvantages of hereditary barbarism and involuntary servitude,
with the superadded misfortune of being inadequately supplied with
Christian instruction, along with their recent acquisition of freedom.
But while all this must be admitted, of the colored people of Jamaica,
it is not true of those of our own country; for, long since, they have
cast off the heathenism of their fathers, and have become enlightened in
a very encouraging degree. Hence it is, that the colored people of the
United States, both bond and free, have made vastly greater progress,
than those of the British West Indies, in their knowledge of moral
duties and the requirements of the gospel; and hence, too, it is, that
Gerrit Smith is right, in asserting that the demoralized condition of
the great mass of the free colored people, in our cities, is
inexcusable, and deserving of the utmost reprobation, because it is
_voluntary_--they knowing their duty but abandoning themselves to
degrading habits.

This brings us to another point of great moment. It will be denied by
but few--and by none maintaining the natural equality of the races--that
the free colored people of the United States are sufficiently
enlightened, to be elevated by education, in an encouraging degree,
where proper restraints from vice, and encouragements to virtue prevail.
A large portion, even, of the slave population, are similarly
enlightened. We speak not of the state of the morals of either class.

As the public are not well informed, in relation to the extent to which
the religious instruction of the slaves at the South prevails, the
following information will prove interesting, and show that a good work
has long been in progress, and has been producing its fruits:

"The South Carolina Methodist Conference have a missionary committee
devoted entirely to promoting the religious instruction of the slave
population, which has been in existence twenty-six years. The Report[74]
of the last year shows a greater degree of activity than is generally
known. They have twenty-six missionary stations in which thirty-two
missionaries are employed. The Report affirms that public opinion in
South Carolina is decidedly in favor of the religious instruction of
slaves, and that it has become far more general and systematic than
formerly. It also claims a great degree of success to have attended the
labors of the missionaries."

The Report of the Missionary Board, of the Louisiana Conference, of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, 1855, says:[75]

"It is stated upon good authority, that the number of colored members in
the Church South, exceeds that of the entire membership of all the
Protestant missions in the world. What an enterprise is this committed
to our care! The position we, of the Methodist Church South, have taken
for the African, has, to a great extent, cut us off from the sympathy of
the Christian Church throughout the world; and it behooves us to make
good this position in the sight of God, of angels, of men, of churches,
and to our own consciences, by presenting before the throne of His glory
multitudes of the souls of these benighted ones abandoned to our care,
as the seals of our ministry. Already Lousiana promises to be one vast
plantation. Let us--we must gird ourselves for this Heaven-born
enterprise of supplying the pure gospel to the slave. The great question
is, How can the greatest number be preached to?--The building roadside
chapels is as yet the best solution of it. In some cases planters build
so as to accommodate adjoining plantations, and by this means the
preacher addresses three hundred or more slaves, instead of one hundred
or less. Economy of this kind is absolutely essential where the labor of
the missionary is so much needed and demanded.

"On the Lafourche and Bayou Black Missionwork, several chapels are in
process of erection, upon a plan which enables the slave, as his master,
to make an offering towards building a house of God. Instead of money,
the hands subscribe labor. Timber is plenty; many of the servants are
carpenters. Upon many of the plantations are saw mills. Here is much
material; what hindereth that we should build a church on every tenth
plantation? Let us maintain our policy steadily. Time and diligence are
required to effect substantial good, especially in this department of
labor. Let us continue to ask for buildings adapted to the worship of
God, and set apart; to urge, when practicable, the preaching to blacks
in the presence of their masters, their overseers, and the neighbors

"One of the effects of the great revival among colored people has been
the establishment of a regular system of prayer-meetings for their
benefit. Meetings are held every night during the week at the tobacco
factories, the proprietors of which have been kind enough to place those
edifices at the disposal of the colored brethren. The owners of the
several factories preside over these meetings, and the most absolute
good conduct is exhibited."[76]

"In Newbern, N. C., the slaves have a large church of their own, which
is well attended. They pay a salary of $500 per annum to their white
minister. They have likewise a negro preacher in their employ, whom they
purchased from his master.[77]

And Newbern in this respect is not isolated. For in nearly every town of
any size in the Southern States, the colored people have their churches,
and what is more than is always known at the North, _they sustain their
churches and pay their ministers_,[78]

"_Resolved_, that the religious instruction of our _colored population_
be affectionately and earnestly commended to the ministry and eldership
of our churches generally, as opening to us a field of most obligatory
and interesting Christian effort, in which we are called to labor more
faithfully and fully, by our regard for our social interests, as well as
by the higher considerations of duty to God and the souls of our fellow

The following extracts are copied from the _New York Observer_, of the
present year:

The Presbytery of Roanoke, Virginia, (O. S.) has addressed a Pastoral
letter, on the instruction of the colored people, to the churches under
its care, and ordered the same to be read in all the churches of the
Presbytery, in those that are vacant, as well as where there are pastors
or stated supplies. It commences by saying: "Among the important
interests of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, which have claimed
our special attention since the organization of the Presbytery in April
last,--that the work of the Lord may be vigorously and efficiently
carried forward within our bounds,--_the religious instruction of the
colored people_, is hardly to be placed second to any other." After
speaking of the obstacles and encouragements to the work, it gives the
following statistics:

"In the Presbytery of Charleston, S. C., 1637 out of 2889 members, or
considerably over one-half, are colored. In the whole Synod of South
Carolina, 5,009 out of 13,074, are colored members. The Presbyteries of
Mississippi and Central Mississippi, of Tuscaloosa and South Alabama, of
Georgia, of Concord, and Fayetteville, also show many churches with
large proportions of colored communicants, from one-third to one-seventh
of the whole. Our own Presbytery reports 276 out of 1737 members. In the
whole of the above mentioned bodies, there are 9,076 colored, out of
33,667 communicants. Among the churches of these Presbyteries, we find
twenty with an aggregate colored membership of 3,600, or an average of
130 to each. We find also, such large figures as these, 260, 333, 356,
525! These facts speak for themselves and forbid discouragement."

Speaking of the obligations to instruct this class, the letter says:

"But these people are _among_ us, at our doors, in our own fields, and
around our firesides! If they need instruction, then the command of our
Lord, and every obligation of benevolence, call us to the work of
teaching them, with all industry, the doctrines of Christ. The _first
and kindest_ outgoings of our Christian compassion should be toward
them. They are not only near us, but are also entirely _dependent_ upon
us. As to all means of securing religious privileges for themselves, and
as to energy and self-directing power, they are but children,--forced to
look to their masters for every supply. From this arises an obligation,
at once imperative, and of most solemn and momentous significance to us,
to make thorough provision for their religious instruction, to the full
extent that we are able to provide it for ourselves. This obligation
acquires great additional force when it is further considered, that
besides proximity and dependence, they are indeed _members of our_
'_households_.' As the three hundred and eighteen 'trained servants' of
Abraham were 'born in his own house;' i. e., were born and bred as
members of his _household_, so are our servants. Of course no argument
is needed, to show that every man is bound by high and sacred
obligations, for the discharge of which he must give account, to provide
his _family_ suitably, or to the extent of his ability, with the means
of grace and salvation.

After dwelling on the duties of the ministry, the letter goes on:

"But the work of Christianizing our colored population can never be
accomplished by the labors of the ministry alone, unaided by the hearty
co-operation of families, by carrying on a system of _home instruction_.
_We must begin with the children._ For if the children of our servants
be left to themselves during their early years, this neglect must of
necessity beget two enormous evils. Evil habits will be rapidly acquired
and strengthened; since if children are not learning good, they will be
learning what is bad. And having thus grown up both ignorant and
vicious, they will have no inclination to go to the Lord's house; or if
they should go, their minds will be found so dark, so entirely
unacquainted with the rudimental language and truths of the gospel, that
much of the preaching must at first prove unintelligible, unprofitable
at the time, and so uninteresting as to discourage further attendance.
In every regard, therefore, masters are bound to see that religious
instruction is provided at home for their people, especially for the

"If there be no other to undertake the work, (the mistress, or the
children of the family,) the master is bound to deny himself and
discharge the duty. It is for him to see that the thing is properly
done; for the whole responsibility rests on him at last. It usually,
however, devolves upon the mistress, or upon the younger members of the
family, where there are children qualified for it, to perform this
service. Some of our young men, and, _to their praise be it spoken_,
still more of our young women, have willingly given themselves to this
self-denying labor; in aid of their parents, or as a duty which they
themselves owe to Christ their Redeemer, and to their fellow creatures.
We take this occasion, gladly, to bid all these 'God speed' in their
work of love. Co-workers together with us, we praise you for this. We
bid you take courage. Let no dullness, indifference, or neglect, weary
out your patience. You are laboring for Christ, and for precious souls.
You are doing a work the importance of which _eternity_ will fully
reveal. You will be blessed, too, in your deed even now. This labor will
prove to you an important means of grace. You will have something to
pray for, and will enjoy the pleasing consciousness, that you are not
idlers in the Lord's vineyard. You will be winning stars for your crowns
of rejoicing through eternity. Grant that it will cost you much
self-denial. Can you, notwithstanding, consent to see these immortal
beings growing up in ignorance and vice, at your very doors?

"The methods of carrying on the home instruction are various, and we are
abundantly supplied with the needful facilities. We need not name the
reading of the Bible; and judiciously selected sermons, to be read to
the adults when they cannot attend preaching, should not be omitted.
Catechetical instruction, by means of such excellent aids as our own
'Catechism for young children,' and 'Jones' Catechism of Scripture
doctrine and practice,' will of course be resorted to; together with
teaching them _hymns_ and _singing with them_. The reading to them, for
variety, such engaging and instructive stories as are found in the
'Children's column' of some of our best religious papers; and suitable
Sabbath school, or other juvenile books, such as 'The Peep of Day,'
'Line upon Line,' etc., will, in many cases, prove an excellent aid, in
imbuing their minds with religious truth. _Masters should not spare
expense or trouble_, to provide liberally these various helps to those
who take this work in hand, to aid and encourage them to the utmost in
their self-denying toil.

"Brethren, the time is propitious to urge your attention to this
important duty. A deep and constantly increasing interest in the work,
is felt throughout the South. Just at this time, also, extensively
throughout portions of our territory, an unusual awakening has been
showing itself among the colored people. It becomes us, and it is of
vital importance on every account, by judicious instruction, both to
guide the movement, and to improve the opportunity.

"We commend this whole great interest to the Divine blessing; and, under
God, to your conscientious reflection, to devise the proper ways; and to
your faithful Christian zeal, to accomplish whatever your wisdom may
devise and approve."

The _Mobile Daily Tribune_, in referring to the religious training of
the slaves, says:[80]

"Few persons are aware of the efforts that are continually in progress,
in a quiet way, in the various Southern States, for the moral and
religious improvement of the negroes--of the number of clergymen of good
families, accomplished education, and often of a high degree of talent,
who devote their whole time and energies to this work; or of the many
laymen--almost invariably slaveholders themselves--who sustain them by
their purses and by their assistance as catechists, Sunday school
teachers, and the like. These men do not make platform speeches, or talk
in public on the subject of their 'mission,' or theorize about the
'planes' on which they stand: they are too busy for this, but they work
on quietly in labor and self-denial, looking for a sort of reward very
different from the applause bestowed upon stump agitators. Their work is
a much less noisy one, but its results will be far more momentous.

"We have very limited information on this subject, for the very reasons
just mentioned, but enough to give some idea of the zeal with which
these labors are prosecuted by the various Christian denominations.
Thus, among the Old School Presbyterians it is stated that about one
hundred ministers are engaged in the religious instruction of the
negroes exclusively. In South Carolina alone there are forty-five
churches or chapels of the Episcopal Church, appropriated exclusively to
negroes; thirteen clergymen devote to them their whole time, and
twenty-seven a portion of it; and one hundred and fifty persons of the
same faith are engaged in imparting to them catechetical instruction.
There are other States which would furnish similar statistics if they
could be obtained.

"It is in view of such facts as these, that one of our cotemporaries,
(the _Philadelphia Inquirer_,) though not free from a certain degree of
anti-slavery proclivity, makes the following candid admission:

"'The introduction of African slavery into the colonies of North
America, though doubtless brought about by wicked means, may in the end
accomplish great good to Africa; a good, perhaps, to be effected in no
other way. Hundreds and thousands have already been saved, temporally
and spiritually, who otherwise must have perished. Through these and
their descendants it is that civilization and Christianity have been
sent back to the perishing millions of Africa.'"

The Fourteenth Annual Report of the Missionary Society of the Methodist
Episcopal Church South, 1859, says:

"In our colored missions great good has been accomplished by the labors
of the self-sacrificing and zealous missionaries.

"This seems to be at home our most appropriate field of labor. By our
position we have direct access to those for whom these missions are
established. Our duty and obligation in regard to them are evident.
Increased facilities are afforded us, and open doors invite our entrance
and full occupancy. The real value of these missions is often overlooked
or forgotten by _Church census-takers_ and statistic-reporters of our
benevolent associations. We can but repeat that this field, which seems
almost, by common consent, to be left for our occupancy, is one of the
most important and promising in the history of missions. At home even
its very humility obscures, and abroad a mistaken philanthropy
repudiates its claims. But still the fact exists; and when we look at
the large number of faithful, pious, and self-sacrificing missionaries
engaged in the work, the wide field of their labors, and the happy
thousands who have been savingly converted to God through their
instrumentality, we can but perceive the propriety and justice of
assigning to these missions the prominence we have. Indeed, the subject
assumes an importance beyond the conception even of those more directly
engaged in this great work, when it is remembered that these missions
absolutely number more converts to Christianity, according to statistics
given, than all the members of all other missionary societies combined."

The Tennessee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, in
their Report for 1859, says:

"It is gratifying that so much has been done for the evangelization of
this people. In addition to the missions presented in our report,
thousands of this people are served by preachers in charge of circuits
and stations. But still a great work remains to be accomplished among
the negroes within your limits. New missions are needed, and increased
attention to the work in this department generally demanded. Heaven
devolves an immense responsibility upon us with reference to these sable
sons of Ham. Providence has thrown them in our midst, not merely to be
our household and agricultural servants, but to be served by us with the
blessed gospel of the Son of God. Let us then, in the name of Him who
made it a special sign of his Messiahship that the poor had the gospel
preached unto them--let us in his name go forth, bearing the bread of
life to these poor among us, and opening to them all the sources of
consolation and encouragement afforded by the religion of Jesus."

The Texas Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, in their
Report for 1859, say:

"At the last Conference, Gideon W. Cottingham and David W. Fly were
appointed Conference African missionaries, whose duties were to travel
throughout the Conference, visit the planters in person, and organize
missions in regions unsupplied. They report an extensive field open, and
truly white unto the harvest, and have succeeded in organizing several
important missions. All the planters, questioned upon the subject, were
willing to give the missionary access to their servants, to preach and
catechize, not only on the Sabbath, but during the week. And this
willingness was not confined to the professors alone, but the deepest
interest was displayed by many who make no pretensions to religion
whatever. An interest shown not merely by giving the missionary access
to their servants, but by their pledging their prompt support. The
servants themselves receive the word with the utmost eagerness. They are
hungering for the bread of life; our tables are loaded. Shall not these
starving souls be fed? Cases of appalling destitution are found: numbers
who heard for the first time the word of life listened eagerly to the
wonders it unfolded. The Greeks are truly at our doors, heathens growing
up in our midst, revival fire flames around them, a polar frost within
their hearts. God help the Church to take care of these perishing souls!
Our anniversaries are usually scenes of unmingled joy. With our sheaves
in our hands, we come from the harvest field, and though sad that so
little has been done, yet rejoicing that we have the privilege of laying
any pledge of devotion upon the altar."

The Mississippi Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in their
Report for 1859, say:

"We are cheered to see a growing interest among our planters and
slave-owners in our _domestic missions_. Still that interest is not what
the importance of the subject demands. While few are willing to bar
their servants all gospel privileges, there is a great want in many
places of suitable houses for public worship. Too many masters think
that to permit the missionary to come on the plantation, and preach in
the gin, or mill, or elsewhere, as circumstances may dictate, is their
only duty, especially if the missionary gets his bread. None of the
attendant circumstances of a neat church, and suitable Sunday apparel,
etc., to cheer and gladden the heart on the holy Sabbath, and cause its
grateful thanksgiving to go up as clouds of incense before Him, are
thought necessary by many masters.

"Notwithstanding, we are cheered by a brightening prospect. Christian
masters are building churches for their servants. Owners in many places
are adopting the wise policy of erecting their churches so as to bring
two, three, or more plantations together for preaching. This plan is so
consonant with the gospel economy, and so advantageous every way, that
it must become the uniform practice of all our missionary operations
among the slaves. Our late Conference wisely adopted a resolution,
encouraging the building of churches for the accommodation of several
plantations together, wherever it can be done."

The South Carolina Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in
their Report for 1859, say:

"Meanwhile the increasing claims of the destitute colored population
must not be ignored. New fields are opening before us, the claims of
which are pressed with an earnestness which nothing but deeply-felt
necessity could dictate. And the question is pressed upon us, What shall
we do? Must not the contributions of the Church be more liberal and more
systematic? Must not the friends of the enterprise become more zealous?
Will not the wealthy patrons of our society, whose people are served,
contribute a sum equal in the aggregate to the salary of the
missionaries who serve their people? This done, and every claim urged
upon your Board shall be honored.

"This is wondrous work! God loves it, honors it, blesses it! He has
crowned it with success. The old negro has abandoned his legendary
rites, and has sought and found favor with God through Jesus Christ. The
catechumens have received into their hearts the gracious instructions
given by the missionary, and scores of them are converted annually, and
become worthy members of the Church. Here lies the most inviting field
of labor. To instruct these children of Ham in the plan of salvation, to
preoccupy their minds with "the truth as it is in Jesus," to see them
renounce the superstitions of their forefathers, and embrace salvation's
plan, would make an angel's heart rejoice."

Failing in securing the Reports of the Baptists at the South, we are
unable to exhibit in detail, their operations among the slave
population. The same failure has also occurred in reference to the
Cumberland Presbyterians, and some of the other denominations at the
South. The statistics, taken from the _Southern Baptist Register_, will
indicate the extent of their success. The following statement made up
from the Annual Reports of the Churches named, or from the _Register_,
shows the extent to which the slave population, in the entire South,
have been brought under the influence of the gospel, and led to profess
their faith in the Saviour:

  Methodist Episcopal Church South,                      188,000
  Methodist Episcopal Church North,[81] in Va. and Md.,    15,000
  Missionary and Anti-Missionary Baptist,                175,000
  General Assembly Presbyterian, (O. S.,)                 12,000
  General Assembly Presbyterian, (N. S.,) estimated        6,000
  Cumberland Presbyterians,                               20,000
  Protestant Episcopal Church, estimated                   7,000
  Christian Church,                                       10,000
  All other denominations,                                20,000
                 Total                                   453,000

The remark has been made, in two of the reports quoted, that the number
of slaves brought into the Christian Church, as a consequence of the
introduction of the African race into the United States, exceeds all the
converts made, throughout the heathen world, by the whole missionary
force employed by Protestant Christendom. Newcomb's Encyclopedia of
Missions, 1856, gives the whole number of converts in the Protestant
Christian missions in Asia, Africa, Pacific islands, West Indies, and
North American Indians at 211,389; but more recent estimates make the
number approximate 250,000: thus showing that the number of African
converts in the Southern States, is almost double the whole number of
heathen converts. It is well enough to observe here, that these facts
are not given to prove that slavery should be adopted as a means of
converting the heathen, but to call attention to the mode in which
Divine Providence is working for the salvation of the African race.

Our opinion as to the advancement of the free colored people of the
United States, in general intelligence, does not stand alone. It is
sustained by high authority, not of the abolition school. The
_Democratic Review_, of 1852,[82] when discussing the question of their
ability to conquer and civilize Africa, says:

"The negro race has, among its freemen in this country, a mass of men
who are eminently fitted for deeds of daring. They have generally been
engaged in employments which give a good deal of leisure, and stimulus
toward improvement of the mind. They have associated much more freely
with the cultivated and intelligent white than even with their own color
of the same humble station; and on such terms as to enable them to
acquire much of his spirit, and knowledge, and valor. The free blacks
among us are not only confident and well informed, but they have almost
all seen something of the world. They are pre-eminently locomotive and
perambulating. In rail roads, and hotels, and stages, and steamers, they
have been placed incessantly in contact with the news, the views, the
motives, and the ideas of the day. Compare the free black with ordinary
white men without advantages, and he stands well. Add to this
cultivation, that the negro body is strong and healthy, and the negro
mind keen and bright, though not profound nor philosophical, and you
have at once a formidable warrior, with a little discipline and
knowledge of weapons. There is no doubt that the picked American free
blacks, would be five times, ten times as efficient in the field of
battle as the same number of native Africans."

Why is it then, that the efforts for the moral elevation of the free
colored people, have been so unsuccessful? Before answering this
question, it is necessary to call attention to the fact, that
abolitionists seem to be sadly disappointed in their expectations, as to
the progress of the free colored people. Their vexation at the
stubborness of the negroes, and the consequent failure of their
measures, is very clearly manifested in the complaining language, used
by Gerrit Smith, toward the colored people of the eastern cities, as
well as by the contempt expressed by the American Missionary
Association, for the colored preachers of Canada. They had found an
apology, for their want of success in the United States, in the presence
and influence of colonizationists; but no such excuse can be made for
their want of success in Canada and the West Indies. Having failed in
their anticipations, now they would fain shelter themselves under the
pretense, that a people once subjected to slavery, even when liberated,
can not be elevated in a single generation; that the case of adults,
raised in bondage, like heathen of similar age, is hopeless, and their
children, only, can make such progress as will repay the missionary for
his toil. But they will not be allowed to escape the censure due to
their want of discrimination and foresight, by any such plea; as the
success of the Republic of Liberia, conducted from infancy to
independence, almost wholly by liberated slaves, and those who were born
and raised in the midst of slavery, attests the falsity of their

But to return. Why have the efforts for the elevation of the free
colored people, not been more successful? On this point our remarks may
be limited to our own free colored people. The barrier to their progress
here, exists not so much in their want of capacity, as in the absence of
the incitements to virtuous action, which are constantly stimulating the
white man to press onward and upward in the formation of character and
the acquisition of knowledge. There is no position in church or state,
to which the poorest white boy, in the common school, may not aspire.
There is no post of honor, in the gift of his country, that is legally
beyond his reach. But such encouragements to noble effort, do not and
cannot reach the colored man, and he remains with us a depressed and
disheartened being. Persuading him to remain in this hopeless condition,
has been the great error of the abolitionists. They accepted Jefferson's
views in relation to emancipation, but rejected his opinions as to the
necessity of separating the races; and thus overlooked the teachings of
history, that two races, differing so widely as to prevent their
amalgamation by marriage, can never live together, in the same
community, but as superiors and inferiors--the inferior remaining
subordinate to the superior. The encouraging hopes held out to the
colored people, that this law would be inoperative upon them, has led
only to disappointment. Happily, this delusion is nearly at an end; and
some of them are beginning to act on their own judgments. They find
themselves so scattered and peeled, that there is not another half a
million of men in the world, so enlightened, who are accomplishing so
little for their social and moral advancement. They perceive that they
are nothing but branches, wrenched from the great African _banyan_, not
yet planted in genial soil, and affording neither shelter nor food to
the beasts of the forest or the fowls of the air--their roots unfixed in
the earth, and their tender shoots withering as they hang pendent from
their boughs.

That this is no exaggerated picture of the discouragements surrounding
our free colored people, is fully confirmed by the testimony of
impartial witnesses. Chambers, of Edinburgh, who recently made the tour
of the United States, investigated this point very carefully. His
opinions on the subject have been published, and are so discriminating
and truthful, that we must quote the main portion of them. In speaking
of the agitation of the question of slavery, he says:

"For a number of years, as is well known, there has been much angry
discussion on the subject between the Northern and Southern States; and
at times the contention has been so great, as to lead to mutual threats
of a dismemberment of the Union. A stranger has no little difficulty in
understanding how much of this war of words is real, and how much is
merely an explosion of _bunkum_. . . . . I repeat, it is difficult to
understand what is the genuine public feeling on this entangled
question; for with all the demonstrations in favor of freedom in the
North, there does not appear in that quarter to be any practical
relaxation of the usages which condemn persons of African descent to an
inferior social status. There seems, in short, to be a fixed notion
throughout the whole of the States, whether slave or free, that the
colored is by nature a subordinate race; and that, in no circumstances,
can it be considered equal to the white. Apart from commercial views,
this opinion lies at the root of American slavery; and the question
would need to be argued less on political and philanthropic than on
physiological grounds. . . . . I was not a little surprised to find,
when speaking a kind word for at least a very unfortunate, if not
brilliant race, that the people of the Northern States, though
repudiating slavery, did not think more favorably of the negro character
than those further South. Throughout Massachusetts, and other New
England States, likewise in the States of New York, Pennsylvania, etc.,
there is a rigorous separation of the white and black races. . . . . The
people of England, who see a negro only as a wandering curiosity, are
not at all aware of the repugnance generally entertained toward persons
of color in the United States: it appeared to amount to an absolute
monomania. As for an alliance with one of the race, no matter how faint
the shade of color, it would inevitably lead to a loss of caste, as
fatal to social position and family ties as any that occurs in the
Brahminical system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Glad to have had an opportunity of calling attention to many cheering
and commendable features in the social system of the Americans, I
consider it not less my duty to say, that in their general conduct
toward the colored race, a wrong is done which can not be alluded to
except in terms of the deepest sorrow and reproach. I can not think
without shame of the pious and polished New Englanders adding to their
offenses on this score the guilt of hypocrisy. Affecting to weep over
the sufferings of imaginary dark-skinned heroes and heroines;
denouncing, in well-studied platform oratory, the horrid sin of reducing
human beings to the abject condition of chattels; bitterly scornful of
Southern planters for hard-hearted selfishness and depravity; fanatical
on the subject of abolition; wholly frantic at the spectacle of fugitive
slaves seized and carried back to their owners--these very persons are
daily surrounded by manumitted slaves, or their educated descendants,
yet shrink from them as if the touch were pollution, and look as if they
would expire at the bare idea of inviting one of them to their house or
table. Until all this is changed, the Northern abolitionists place
themselves in a false position, and do damage to the cause they espouse.
If they think that negroes are MEN, let them give the world an evidence
of their sincerity, by moving the reversal of all those social and
political arrangements which now, in the free States, exclude persons of
color, not only from the common courtesies of life, but from the
privileges and honors of citizens. I say, until this is done, the uproar
about abolition is a delusion and a snare. . . . .

"While lamenting the unsatisfactory condition, present and prospective,
of the colored population, it is gratifying to consider the energetic
measures that have been adopted by the African Colonization Society, to
transplant, with their own consent, free negroes from America to
Liberia. Viewing these endeavors as, at all events, a means of
encouraging emancipation, checking the slave trade, and, at the same
time, of introducing Christianity and civilized usages into Africa, they
appear to have been deserving of more encouragement than they have had
the good fortune to receive. Successful only in a moderate degree, the
operations of this society are not likely to make a deep impression on
the numbers of the colored population; and the question of their
disposal still remains unsettled."

That the Christian churches of the South are pursuing the true policy
for the moral welfare of the slave population, will be admitted by every
right minded man. The present chapter cannot be more appropriately
closed, than by quoting the language of Rev. J. Waddington, of England,
at a meeting in behalf of the American Missionary Association, held in
Boston, July, 1859. The speakers had been very violent in their
denunciations of slavery, and when Mr. Waddington came to speak, he thus
rebuked their unchristian spirit:

"I have," said Mr. Waddington, "a strong conviction, that freedom can
never come but of vital Christianity. It is not born of the intellect,
it is not the product of the conscience; it can never be the result of
the sword. It was with extreme horror that I heard the assertion made
last night, that it must be through a baptism of blood that freedom must
come. Never! never! The sword can destroy, it can never create. What do
we want for freedom? Expansion of the heart. That we should honor other
men; that we should be concerned for other men. What is it that causes
slavery and oppression? Selfishness, intense, self-destroying
selfishness if you will. Nothing can exorcise that selfishness but the
constraining love of Christ. The gospel alone, by the Spirit of God, can
waken freedom in men, in families, in nations."

Mr. Waddington, also remarked, that "every thing in America was
extremely wonderful and surprising to him; and nothing more surprised
him than the burning words with which his ministerial friends pelted
each other; yet he had no doubt they were the kindest men in the world.
He thought it was not intended that any harm should be done, but only
that the cause of truth should be advanced."[83]


[73] Rev. Mr. Phillippo, for twenty years a missionary in Jamaica, in
his "Jamaica, its Past and Present Condition."

[74] _New York Evangelist_, 1858.

[75] _New York Observer_, March, 1856.

[76] _Lynchburgh_ (Va.) _Courier_, quoted by _African Repository_,
January, 1858.

[77] _Southern Monitor_, quoted by _African Repository_, January, 1858.

[78] _Express_--Ibid.

[79] Synod of Virginia, quoted by _African Repository_, 1858.

[80] Quoted in _African Repository_, April, 1858.

[81] The Methodist Episcopal Church North, in 1858, had a total of
22,326 of colored members, in all the States.

[82] Page 102.

[83] _American Missionary_, July, 1859.


          Failure of free colored people in attaining an
          equality with the whites--Their failure also in
          checking Slavery--Have they not aided in its
          extension? Yes--Facts in proof of this
          view--Abolitionists bad Philosophers--Colored
          men's influence destructive of their
          hopes--Summary manner in which England acts in
          their removal--Lord Mansfield's
          decision--Granville Sharp's labors and their
          results--Colored immigration into
          Canada--Information supplied by Major
          Lachlan--Demoralized condition of the blacks as
          indicated by the crimes they committed--Elgin
          Association--Public meeting protesting against its
          organization--Negro meeting at Toronto--Memorial
          of municipal council--Negro riot at St.
          Catherines--Col. Prince and the Negroes--Later
          cases of presentation by Grand Jury--Opinion of
          the Judge--Darkening prospects of the colored
          race--Views of Rev. Henry Ward Beecher--Their
          accuracy--The lesson they teach.

BUT little progress, it will be seen, has been made, by the free colored
people, toward an approximation of equality with the whites. Have they
succeeded better in aiding in the abolition of slavery? They have not,
as is abundantly demonstrated by the triumph of the institution. This is
an important point for consideration, as the principal object
influencing them to remain in the country, was, that they might assist
in the liberation of their brethren from bondage. But their agency in
the attempts made to abolish the institution having failed, a more
important question arises, as to whether the free colored people, by
refusing to emigrate, may not have contributed to the advancement of
slavery? An affirmative answer must be given to this inquiry. Nor is a
protracted discussion necessary to prove the assertion.

One of the objections urged with the greatest force against
colonization, is, its tendency, as is alleged, to increase the value of
slaves by diminishing their numbers. "Jay's Inquiry," 1835, presents
this objection at length; and the Report of the "Anti-Slavery Society of
Canada," 1853, sums it up in a single proposition thus:

"The first effect of beginning to reduce the number of slaves, by
colonization, would be to increase the market value of those left
behind, and thereby increase the difficulty of setting them free."

The practical effect of this doctrine, is to discourage all
emancipations; to render eternal the bondage of each individual slave,
unless all can be liberated; to prevent the benevolence of one master
from freeing his slaves, lest his more selfish neighbor should be
thereby enriched; and to leave the whole system intact, until its total
abolition can be effected. Such philanthropy would leave every
individual, of suffering millions, to groan out a miserable existence,
because it could not at once effect the deliverance of the whole. This
objection to colonization can be founded only in prejudice, or is
designed to mislead the ignorant. The advocates of this doctrine do not
practice it, or they would not promote the escape of fugitives to

But abolitionists object not only to the colonization of liberated
slaves, as tending to perpetuate slavery; they are equally hostile to
the colonization of the free colored people, for the same reason. The
"American Reform Tract and Book Society," the organ of the
abolitionists, for the publication of anti-slavery works, has issued a
Tract on "Colonization," in which this objection is stated as follows:

"The Society perpetuates slavery, by removing the free laborer, and
thereby increasing the demand for, and the value of, slave labor."

The projectors and advocates of such views may be good philanthropists,
but they are bad philosophers. We have seen that the power of American
slavery lies in the demand for its products; and that the whole country,
North of the sugar and cotton States, is actively employed in the
production of provisions for the support of the planter and his slaves,
and in consuming the products of slave labor. This is the constant
vocation of the whites. And how is it with the blacks? Are they
competing with the slaves, in the cultivation of sugar and cotton, or
are they also supporting the system, by consuming its products? The
latitudes in which they reside, and the pursuits in which they are
engaged, will answer this question.

The census of 1850, shows but 40,900 free colored persons in the nine
sugar and cotton States, including Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina,
while 393,500 are living in the other States. North Carolina is omitted,
because it is more of a tobacco and wool-growing, than cotton-producing

Of the free colored persons in the first-named States, 19,260 are in the
cities and larger towns; while, of the remainder, a considerable number
may be in the villages, or in the families of the whites. From these
facts it is apparent, that less than 20,000 of the entire free colored
population (omitting those of North Carolina,) are in a position to
compete with slave labor, while all the remainder, numbering over
412,800, are engaged, either directly or indirectly, in supporting the
institution. Even the fugitives escaping to Canada, from having been
producers necessarily become consumers of slave-grown products; and,
worse still, under the Reciprocity Treaty, they must also become growers
of provisions for the planters who continue to hold their brothers,
sisters, wives and children, in bondage.

These are the practical results of the policy of the abolitionists.
Verily, they, also, have dug their ditches on the wrong side of their
breastworks, and afforded the enemy an easy entrance into their
fortress. But, "Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind. And
if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."[84]

But we are not yet prepared to estimate the full extent of the
influence, for ill, exerted by the free colored people upon public
sentiment. The picture of their degraded moral condition, drawn by the
abolitionists, is a dark one indeed, and calculated to do but little
toward promoting emancipation, or in placing themselves in a position of
equality with the whites. According to their testimony, the condition of
the slave, under the restraints of Christian masters, must be vastly
more favorable to moral progress, than that of the majority of those who
have received their freedom. While they have all the animal appetites
and passions fully developed, they seem to remain, intellectually,
child-like, with neither the courage nor the foresight enabling them to
seize upon fields of enterprise that would lead to wealth and fame. Look
at the facts upon this point. They were offered a home and government of
their own in Africa, with the control of extensive tropical cultivation;
but they rejected the boon, and refused to leave the land of their
birth, in the vain belief that they could, by remaining here, assist in
wrenching the chains from the slaves of the South. They expected great
aid, too, in their work, from the moral effect of West Indian
emancipation; but that has failed in the results anticipated, and the
free colored laborer is about to be superseded there by imported coolie
labor from abroad. They expected, also, that the emigrants and fugitives
to Canada, rising into respectability under British laws, would do the
race much honor, and show the value of emancipation; but even there the
hope has not been realized, and it will be no uncommon thing should the
Government set its face against them as most unwelcome visitors. A few
scraps of history will be of service, in illustrating the feeling of the
subjects of the British North American colonies, in relation to the
inroads made upon them by the free colored people.

In 1833, an English military officer, thus wrote:

"There is a settlement of negroes a few miles from Halifax, Nova Scotia,
at Hammond's Plains. Any one would have imagined that the Government
would have taken warning from the trouble and expense it incurred by
granting protection to those who emigrated from the States during the
Revolution; 1200 of whom were removed to Sierra Leone in 1792 by their
own request. Again when 600 of the insurgent negroes--the Maroons of
Jamaica--were transported to Nova Scotia in 1796, and received every
possible encouragement to become good subjects, by being granted a
settlement at Preston, and being employed upon the fortifications at
Halifax; yet they, too, soon became discontented, and being unwilling to
earn a livelihood by labor, were, in 1800, removed to the same colony,
after costing the island of Jamaica more than $225,000, and a large
additional expense to the Province, _i. e._ Nova Scotia. Notwithstanding
which, when the runaway slaves were received on board the fleet, off the
Chesapeake, during the late war, permission was granted to them to form
a settlement at Hammond's Plains, where the same system of discontent
arose--many of the settlers professing that they would prefer their
former well-fed life of slavery, in a more congenial climate, and
earnestly petitioning to be removed, were sent to Trinidad in 1821. Some
few of those who remained are good servants and farmers, disposing of
the produce of their lands in the Halifax market; but the majority are
idle, roving, and dirty vagabonds."[85]

Thus it appears, that as late as 1821, the policy of the British
colonies of North America, was to remove the fugitive negroes from their
territories. The 1200 exported from Halifax, in 1792, were fugitive
slaves who had joined the English during the American Revolutionary war,
and had been promised lands in Nova Scotia; but the Government having
failed to meet its pledge, and the climate proving unfavorable, they
sought refuge in Africa. These shipments of the colored people, from the
British colonies at the North to those of the Tropics, was in accordance
with the plan that England had adopted at home, in reference to the same
class of persons--that of removing a people who were a public burden, to
where they could be self-supporting. This is a matter of some interest,
and is deserving of notice in this connection. On the 22d of May, 1772,
Lord Mansfield decided the memorable Somerset case, and pronounced it
unlawful to hold a slave in Great Britain. The close of that decision
reads thus:

"Immemorial usage preserves a positive law, after the occasion or
accident which gave rise to it, has been forgotten; and tracing the
subject to natural principles, the claim of slavery never can be
supported. The power claimed was never in use here, or acknowledged by
the law. Upon the whole, we can not say the cause returned is sufficient
by the law; therefore the man must be discharged."

Previous to this date, many slaves had been introduced into English
families, and, on running away, the fugitives had been delivered up to
their masters, by order of the Court of King's Bench, under Lord
Mansfield; but now the poor African, no longer hunted as a beast of
prey, in the streets of London, slept under his roof, miserable as it
might be, in perfect security.[86]

To Granville Sharp belonged the honor of this achievement. By the
decision, about 400 negroes were thrown upon their own resources. They
flocked to Mr. Sharp as their patron; but considering their numbers, and
his limited means, it was impossible for him to afford them adequate
relief. To those thus emancipated, others, discharged from the army and
navy, were afterward added, who, by their improvidence, were reduced to
extreme distress. After much reflection, Mr. Sharp determined to
colonize them in Africa; but this benevolent scheme could not be
executed at once, and the blacks--indigent, unemployed, despised,
forlorn, vicious--became such nuisances, as to make it necessary they
should be sent somewhere, and no longer suffered to infest the streets
of London.[87] Private benevolence could not be sufficiently enlisted in
their behalf, and fifteen years passed away, when Government, anxious to
remove what it regarded as injurious, at last came to the aid of Mr.
Sharp, and supplied the means of their transportation and support. In
April, 1787, these colored people, numbering over 400, were put on
shipboard for Africa, and in the following month were landed in Sierra

But to return to Canada. We have at hand a flood of information, to
enable us to present a true picture of the colored population of that
Province, and to discern the feelings entertained toward them by the
white inhabitants. On the 27th April, 1841, the Assistant Secretary to
Government, addressed MAJOR ROBERT LACHLAN, Chairman of the Quarter
Sessions for the Western District, requesting information relating to
the colored immigrants in that quarter. Major Lachlan replied at length
to the inquiries made, and kept a record of his Report. This volume he
has had the goodness to place in our hands, from which to make such
extracts as may be necessary to a true understanding of this question.

The Major entered the public service of the British Government in 1805,
and was connected with the army in India for twenty years. Having
retired from that service, he settled in Canada in 1835, with the
intention of devoting himself to agriculture; but he was again called
into public life, as sheriff, magistrate, colonel of militia, Chairman
of the Quarter Sessions, and Associate Judge at the Assizes. In 1857 he
removed to Cincinnati, where he now resides. A true Briton, he is an
enemy of the system of slavery; but having been a close observer of the
workings of society, under various circumstances, systems of law,
degrees of intelligence, and moral conditions, he is opposed to placing
two races, so widely diverse as the blacks and whites, upon terms of
legal equality; not that he is opposed to the elevation of the colored
man, but because he is convinced that, in his present state of ignorance
and degradation, the two races cannot dwell together in peace and
harmony. This opinion, it will be seen, was the outgrowth of his
experience and observation in Canada, and not the result of a prejudice
against the African race. The Western District, the field of his
official labors, is the main point toward which nearly all the
emigration from the States is directed; and the Major had, thus, the
best of opportunities for studying this question. Besides the facts of
an official nature, in the volume from which we quote, it has a large
amount of documentary testimony, from other sources, from which liberal
extracts have also been made.

   _To the Honorable S. B. Harrison, Secretary, etc., etc._
                                     COLCHESTER, 28th _May_, 1841.

          "SIR:--I have to apologize for being thus late in
          acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Assistant
          Secretary Hopkirk's letter of the 27th ult.,
          requesting me to furnish Government with such
          information as I might be able to afford,
          'respecting the colored people settled in the
          Western District;'[89] and beg to assure you that
          the delay has neither arisen from indifference to
          the task, nor indisposition to comply with the
          wishes of Government upon the subject--being one
          upon which I have long and anxiously bent my most
          serious reflections,--but owing to bad health, and
          want of leisure, coupled with the difficulty I
          have experienced, (without entering into an
          extended correspondence,) in arriving at any thing
          like a correct account of the gradual _increase_
          of these people, or even a fair estimate of their
          present numbers. I trust, therefore, that should
          the particulars furnished by me upon these heads,
          be found more meager and defective than might be
          expected, it will either be assigned to these
          causes, or to others which may be given in the
          course of the following remarks: and if these
          remarks, themselves, be found to be drawn up with
          more of loose unmethodical freedom than official
          conciseness, I trust that that feature will rather
          be regarded in their favor than otherwise.

          "The exact period at which the colored people
          began to make their appearance in the Western
          District, _as settlers_, I have not been able to
          ascertain to my satisfaction; but it is generally
          believed to have been about the time of the War
          with the Americans, in 1812. Before then, however,
          there had been a few scattered about, who,
          generally speaking, had, prior to the passing of
          the Emancipation Bill, been slaves to different
          individuals in the District. From 1813 to 1821,
          the increase was very trifling; and they were
          generally content to hire themselves out as
          domestic or farm servants; but about the latter
          period the desire of several gentlemen residing
          near Sandwich and Amherstburgh to place settlers
          on their lands, induced them, in the absence of
          better, to resort to the unfortunate, impolitic
          expedient of leasing out or selling small portions
          of land to colored people on such inviting
          conditions as not only speedily allowed many of
          those who had already settled in the country to
          undertake 'farming on their own account,' but
          encouraged many more to escape from their American
          masters, to try their fortunes in this now
          far-famed 'land of liberty and promise.' The
          stream having thus begun to flow, the secret
          workings of the humane, but not unexceptionable
          abolitionist societies, existing in the American
          States, speedily widened and deepened the channel
          of approach, until a flood of colored immigrants,
          of the very worst classes, has been progressively
          introduced into the District, which had, last
          year, reached an aggregate of about 1500 souls,
          and which threatens to be doubled in the course of
          a very short time, unless it be within the power
          of the Government to counteract it;--but which,
          _if suffered to roll on unchecked_, will sooner or
          later lead to the most serious, if not most
          lamentable consequences.

          "From my making so strong an observation at the
          very threshold of my remarks, it will be readily
          perceived that my opinion of these unfortunate
          people is unfavorable. I am therefore anxious,
          before proceeding further, to shield myself from
          the imputation of either groundless antipathy or
          pre-indisposition toward men of color, and to have
          it thoroughly understood that, as far as I can
          judge of my own feelings, _they_ are the very
          reverse, having not only been warmly in favor of
          the poor enslaved negro, but having for near
          twenty years of my life been surrounded by free
          colored people, and retained my favorable leaning
          toward even the African race, till some time after
          my arrival in this Province. Unfortunately,
          however, for this pre-disposition, as well as for
          the character of this ill-fated race, my attention
          was shortly after directed by particular
          circumstances to the quiet study of their
          disposition and habits, and ended in a thorough
          conviction that without a radical change they
          would ere long, like the snake in the bosom of the
          husbandman, prove a curse, instead of a benefit to
          the country which fosters and protects them.

          "The first time that I had occasion to express
          myself thus strongly on the subject, in an
          official way, was less than two years after my
          arrival in the District, while holding the office
          of sheriff,--when, in corresponding with Mr.
          Secretary Joseph, during the troubles in January,
          1838, I, in a postscript to a letter in which I
          expressed unwillingness to call in aid from other
          quarters, while our own population were allowed to
          remain inactive, was led to add the following
          remarkable words: 'My vote has been equally
          decided against employing the colored people,
          except on a similar emergency;--in fact, though a
          cordial friend to the emancipation of the poor
          African, I regard the rapidly increasing
          population rising round us, as destined to be a
          bitter curse to the District; and do not think our
          employing them as our _defenders_ at all likely to
          retard the progress of such an event;'--an opinion
          which all my subsequent observation and
          experience, whether as a private individual, as
          Sheriff of the District, as a local Magistrate, as
          Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, or as an anxious
          friend to pure British immigration, have only the
          more strongly confirmed."

          After these preliminary remarks, the Records of
          Major Lachlan, proceed to the details of the
          various points upon which he was required by
          Government to report. Much of this, though the
          whole is interesting, must be omitted in our
          extracts. In speaking of the several townships to
          which the colored immigration was directed, he
          says of Amherstburgh:

          "That place may now be regarded as the Western
          rendezvous of the colored race,--being the point
          to which all the idle and worthless, as well as
          the well disposed, first direct their steps,
          before dispersing over other parts of the
          District,--a distinction of which it unfortunately
          bears too evident marks in the great number of
          petty crimes committed by or brought home to these
          people,--to the great trouble of the investigating
          local magistrates, and the still greater annoyance
          of the inhabitants generally,--arising from the
          constant nightly depredations committed on their
          orchards, barns, granaries, sheep-folds,
          fowl-yards, and even cellars." . . . . "In Gosfield,
          I am given to understand their general character is
          rather above par; . . . . while in the next adjoining
          township of Mersea, so much are they disliked by
          the inhabitants, that they are, in a manner,
          proscribed by general consent--a colored man being
          there scarcely suffered to travel along the
          highroads unmolested.

          "The first thing that forcibly struck me, in these
          people, was a total absence of that modest and
          unpresuming demeanor which I had been some how led
          to expect, and the assumption, instead, of a 'free
          and easy' independence of manner as well as
          language toward all white inhabitants, except
          their immediate employers, together with an
          apparent utter indifference to being hired on
          reasonable average wages, though, as already
          stated, seemingly without any visible means of a
          livelihood, and their also, at all times,
          estimating the value of their labor on a par, if
          not above that of the white man. And I had
          scarcely recovered from my surprise, at such
          conduct, as a private individual, when, as a
          magistrate, I was still more astonished at the
          great amount of not only petty offenses, but of
          crime of the most atrocious dye, perpetrated by so
          small a body of strangers compared with the great
          bulk of the white population: and such still
          continuing to be the unabating case, Session after
          Session, Assize after Assize, it at length became
          so appalling to my feelings, that on being placed
          in the chair of the Quarter Sessions, I could not
          refrain from more than once pointing to it in
          strong language in my charges to the Grand Juries.
          In July last year, for instance, I was led, in
          connection with a particular case of larceny, to
          observe . . . . 'The case itself will, I trust,
          involve no difficulty so far as the Grand Jury is
          concerned; but it affords the magistrates another
          opportunity of lamenting that there should so
          speedily be furnished no less than five additional
          instances of the rapid increase of crime in this
          (hitherto in that respect highly fortunate)
          District, arising solely from the recent great
          influx of colored people into it from the
          neighboring United States,--and who unfortunately
          not only furnish the major part of the crime
          perpetrated in the District, but also thereby a
          very great portion of its rapidly increasing
          debt,--from the expense attending their
          maintenance in jail before trial, as well as after
          conviction! . . . .

          "In spite of these solemn admonitions, a large
          proportion of the criminals tried at the ensuing
          September Assizes were colored people; and among
          them were two aggravated cases of rape and arson;
          the former wantonly perpetrated on a respectable
          farmer's wife, in this township, to whom the
          wretch was a perfect stranger; the latter
          recklessly committed at a merchant's store in the
          vicinity of Sandwich, for the mere purpose of
          opening a hole through which to convey away his
          plunder. And, notwithstanding 'the general jail
          delivery' that then took place, the greater part
          of the crimes brought before the following mouth's
          Quarter Sessions (chiefly larceny and assaults)
          were furnished by the same people!--a circumstance
          of so alarming and distressing a character, that I
          was again led to comment upon it in my charge to
          the Grand Jury in the following terms. 'Having
          disposed of the law relating to these offenses, I
          arrive at a very painful part of nay observations,
          in once more calling the particular attention of
          the Grand Jury, as well as the public at large, to
          the remarkable and appalling circumstance that
          among a population of near 20,000 souls,
          inhabiting this District, the greater portion of
          the crime perpetrated therein should be committed
          by less than 2,000 refugees from a life of _abject
          slavery_, to a land of _liberty, protection and
          comfort_,--and from whom, therefore, if there be
          such generous feelings as thankfulness and
          gratitude, a far different line of conduct might
          reasonably be expected. I allude to the alarming
          increase of crime still perpetrated by the colored
          settlers, and who, in spite of the late numerous,
          harrowing, _convicted examples_, unhappily furnish
          _the whole of the offenses now likely to be
          brought before you_!'. . . . .

          "But, sir, the wide spreading current of crime
          among this unfortunate race was not to be easily
          arrested;--and I had long become so persuaded that
          it must sooner or later force itself upon the
          notice of the Legislature, that on feeling it my
          duty to draw the attention of my brother
          magistrates to the embarrassed state of the
          District finances, and to the greater portion of
          its expenses arising from this disreputable
          source, I was led, in framing the report of a
          special committee (of which I was chairman)
          appointed to investigate our pecuniary
          difficulties, to advert once more to the great
          undue proportion of our expenses arising from
          crime committed by so small a number of colored
          people, compared with the great body of the
          inhabitants, in the following strong but
          indisputable language: 'It is with pain and regret
          that your committee, in conclusion, feel bound to
          recur to the great additional burthen thrown upon
          the District, as well as the undeserved stigma
          cast upon the general character of its population,
          whether native or immigrant British, by the late
          great influx of colored people of the worst
          description from the neighboring States--a great
          portion of whom appear to have no visible means of
          gaining a livelihood,--and who, therefore, not
          only furnish a large proportion of the basest
          crimes perpetrated in the country, such as murder,
          rape, arson, burglary, and larceny, besides every
          other description of minor offense,--untraceable
          to the _color_ of the perpetrators in a
          miscellaneous published calendar; but also,
          besides the constant trouble they entail upon
          magistrates who happen to reside in their
          neighborhood, produce a large portion of the debt
          incurred by the District, from the great number
          committed to and subsisted in prison, etc.; and
          they would with all respect for the liberty of the
          subject, and the sincerest good will toward their
          African brethren generally,--whom they would wish
          to regard with every kindly feeling, venture to
          suggest, for the consideration of Government,
          whether any legislative check can possibly be
          placed upon the rapid importation of the most
          worthless of this unfortunate race, such, as the
          good among themselves candidly lament, has of late
          inundated this devoted section of the Province, to
          the great detriment of the claims of the poor
          emigrant from the mother country upon our
          consideration, the great additional and almost
          uncontrollable increase of crime, and the
          proportionate demoralization of principle among
          the inhabitants of the country.' . . . . . .

          "Notwithstanding all these strenuous endeavors,
          added to the most serious and impressive
          admonitions to various criminals after conviction
          and sentence, no apparent change for the better
          occurred; for at the Quarter Sessions of last
          January, the usual preponderance of negro crime
          struck me so forcibly as again to draw from me, in
          my charge to the Grand Jury, the following
          observations: 'I am extremely sorry to be unable
          to congratulate you or the country on a light
          calendar, the matters to be brought before you
          embracing no less than three cases of larceny, and
          one of enticing soldiers to desert, besides
          several arising from that ever prolific source,
          assaults, etc. I cannot, however, pass the former
          by altogether without once more emphatically
          remarking, that it is as much to the disgrace of
          the free colored settlers in our District, as it
          is creditable to the rest of our population, that
          the greater part of the culprits to be brought
          before us are still men of color: and I lament
          this the more, as I was somewhat in hopes that the
          earnest admonitions that I had more than once felt
          it my duty to address to that race, would have
          been attended with some good effect.'. . . . .

          "In spite of all these reiterated, anxious
          endeavors, the amount of crime exhibited in the
          Calendar of the following Quarter Sessions, in
          April last, consisted solely (I think) of five
          cases of larceny, perpetrated by negroes; and at
          the late Assizes, held on the 20th instant, out of
          five criminal cases, one of enticing soldiers to
          desert, and two of theft, were, as usual,
          committed by men of color!!!

          "Having thus completed a painful retrospect of the
          appalling amount of crime committed by the colored
          population in the District at large, compared with
          the general mass of the white population, I now
          consider it my duty to advert more particularly to
          what has been passing more immediately under my
          own observation in the township of Colchester."

The record from which we quote, has, under this head, the statement of
the township collector, as to the moral and social condition of the
colored people of the township, in which he says, "that, in addition to
the black women there were fourteen yellow ones, and fifteen _white_
ones--that they run together like beasts, and that he did not suppose
one third of them were married; and further, that they would be a curse
to this part of Canada, unless there is something done to put a stop to
their settling among the white people.'

In referring to the enlistment of the blacks as soldiers, to the
prejudice of the legitimate prospects of the deserving European
emigrants, the record says: "With regard to continuing to employ the
colored race to discharge--in some instances exclusively, as is now the
case at Chatham--the duties of regular soldiers, in such times as these,
_in a country peopled by BRITONS_, I regard it as not only impolitic in
the extreme, but even _dangerous_ also,--besides throwing a stigma of
degradation on the honorable profession of which I was for twenty-four
years of my life a devoted member. And I even put it to yourself, sir,
what would have been your feelings, if, amid the great political
excitement prevalent during the late Kent election,[90] there had been a
serious disturbance and some unthinking magistrate had called in '_the
aid of the military_' to quell it, and blood had been shed!--for the
thing was within possibility, and for some time gave me much uneasiness.
Had such been the case,--what would have been the appalling, and
probable, nay, almost _certain_ result,--if I may judge from the well
known feelings of the white population generally,--_that that
unfortunate company would have been instantly turned upon, by men of all
parties, and massacred on the spot with their own weapons!_" . . . . .
"Allow me, therefore, at all events briefly to remark, that before any
thing can be accomplished connected with the moral and religious
improvement of the negro settlers, they must be rescued from the hands
of the utterly ignorant and uneducated, yet conceited coxcombs of their
own color, who assume to themselves the grave character and holy office
of ministers and preachers of the gospel, and lead their still more
ignorant followers into all the extravagancies of 'Love Feasts' and
'Camp Meetings,' without at all comprehending their import, and at the
same time utterly neglecting all other essentials!--an object well
deserving of the most serious and anxious consideration of an
enlightened Government, as far as those who are already settled in the
country are concerned; while it would be a most sound and politic
measure to take every lawful step to discourage as much as possible, if
we can not altogether _prevent_ the further introduction of so
objectionable and deleterious a class of settlers into a BRITISH
_colony_." . . . . "Perhaps one of the wisest measures that could be
devised--(since our friends, the American abolitionists, will insist on
peopling Canada with run-away negro slaves)--will be to throw every
possible obstacle in the way of the sadly deteriorating _amalgamation of
color_ already in progress, by Government allotting, at least, a
distinct and separate location to all negro settlers, except those who
choose to occupy the humble but useful station of farm and domestic
servants; and even, if possible, purchasing back at the public expense,
on almost any terms, whatever scattered landed property they may have
elsewhere acquired in different parts of the Province."

The Report of Major Lachlan is very extensive, and embraces many topics
connected with the question of negro immigration into Canada. His
response to Government led to further investigation, and to some
legislative action in the Canadian Parliament. The latest recorded
communications upon the subject, from his pen, are dated November 9th,
1849, and June 4th, 1850, from which it appears that up to that date,
there had been no abatement of the hostile feeling of the whites toward
the blacks, nor any improvement in the social and moral condition of the
blacks themselves.

In 1849, the Elgin Association went into operation. Its object was to
concentrate the colored people at one point, and thus have them in a
more favorable position for intellectual and moral culture. A large body
of land was purchased in the Township of Raleigh, and offered for sale
in small lots to colored settlers. The measure was strongly opposed, and
called out expressions of sentiment adverse to it, from the people at
large. A public meeting, held in Chatham, August 18, 1849, thus
expressed itself:

"The Imperial Parliament of Great Britain has forever banished slavery
from the Empire. In common with all good men, we rejoice at the
consummation of this immortal act; and we hope, that all other nations
may follow the example. Every member of the human family is entitled to
certain rights and privileges, and no where on earth are they better
secured, enjoyed, or more highly valued, than in Canada. Nature,
however, has divided the same great family into distinct species, for
good and wise purposes, and it is no less our interest, than it is our
duty, to follow her dictates and obey her laws. Believing this to be a
sound and correct principle, as well as a moral and a Christian duty, it
is with alarm we witness the fast increasing emigration, and settlement
among us of the African race; and with pain and regret, do we view the
establishment of an association, the avowed object of which is to
encourage the settlement in old, well-established communities, of a race
of people which is destined by nature to be distinct and separate from
us. It is also with a feeling of deep resentment that we look upon the
selection of the Township of Raleigh, in this District, as the first
portion of our beloved country, which is to be cursed, with a systematic
organization for setting the laws of nature at defiance. Do communities
in other portions of Canada, feel that the presence of the negro among
them is an annoyance? Do they feel that the increase of the colored
people among them, and amalgamation its necessary and hideous attendant,
is an evil which requires to be checked? With what a feeling of horror,
would the people of any of the old settled townships of the eastern
portion of this Province, look upon a measure which had for its avowed
object, the effect of introducing several hundreds of Africans, into the
very heart of their neighborhood, their families interspersing
themselves among them, upon every vacant lot of land, their children
mingling in their schools, and all claiming to be admitted not only to
political, but to social privileges? and when we reflect, too, that many
of them must from necessity, be the very worst species of that neglected
race; the fugitives from justice; how much more revolting must the
scheme appear? How then can you adopt such a measure? We beseech our
fellow subjects to pause before they embark in such an enterprise, and
ask themselves, 'whether they are doing by us as they would wish us to
do unto them.' . . . . Surely our natural position is irksome enough
without submitting to a measure, which not only holds out a premium for
filling up our district with a race of people, upon whom we can not look
without a feeling of repulsion, and who, having been brought up in a
state of bondage and servility, are totally ignorant both of their
social and political duties; but at the same time makes it the common
receptable into which all other portions of the Province are to void the
devotees of misery and crime. Look at your prisons and your
penitentiary, and behold the fearful preponderance of their black over
their white inmates in proportion to the population of each. . . . . We
have no desire to show hostility toward the colored people, no desire to
banish them from the Province. On the contrary, we are willing to assist
in any well-devised scheme for their moral and social advancement. Our
only desire is, that they shall be separated from the whites, and that
no encouragement shall hereafter be given to the migration of the
colored man from the United States, or any where else. The idea that we
have brought the curse upon ourselves, through the establishment of
slavery by our ancestors, is false. As Canadians, we have yet to learn
that we ought to be made a vicarious atonement for European sins.

"Canadians: The hour has arrived when we should arouse from our
lethargy; when we should gather ourselves together in our might, and
resist the onward progress of an evil which threatens to entail upon
future generations a thousand curses. Now is the day. A few short years
will put it beyond our power. Thousands and tens of thousands of
American negroes, with the aid of the abolition societies in the States,
and with the countenance given them by our philanthropic institutions,
will continue to pour into Canada, if resistance is not offered. Many of
you who live at a distance from this frontier, have no conception either
of the number or the character of these emigrants, or of their poisonous
effect upon the moral and social habits of a community. You listen with
active sympathy to every thing narrated of the sufferings of the poor
African; your feelings are enlisted, and your purse strings unloosed,
and this often by the hypocritical declamation of some self-styled
philanthropist. Under such influences many of you, in our large cities
and towns, form yourselves into societies, and, without reflection, you
supply funds for the support of schemes prejudicial to the best
interests of our country. Against such proceedings, and especially
against any and every attempt to settle any township in this District
with negroes, we solemnly protest, and we call upon our countrymen, in
all parts of the Province, to assist in our opposition.

"Fellow Christians: Let us forever maintain the sacred dogma, that all
men have equal, natural, and inalienable rights. Let us do every thing
in our power, consistent with international polity and justice, to
abolish the accursed system of slavery in the neighboring Republic. But
let us not, through a mistaken zeal to abate the evil of another land,
entail upon ourselves a misery which every enlightened lover of his
country must mourn. Let the slaves of the United States be free, but let
it be in their own country. Let us not countenance their further
introduction among us; in a word, let the people of the United States
bear the burthen of their own sins.

"What has already been done, can not now be avoided; but it is not too
late to do justice to ourselves, and retrieve the errors of the past.
Let a suitable place be provided by the Government, to which the colored
people may be removed, and separated from the whites, and in this scheme
we will cordially join. We owe it to them, but how much more do we owe
it to ourselves? But we implore you that you will not, either by your
counsel, or your pecuniary aid, assist those who have projected the
association for the settlement of a horde of ignorant slaves in the town
of Raleigh. It is one of the oldest and most densely settled townships,
in the very center of our new and promising District of Kent, and we
feel that this scheme, if carried into operation, will have the effect
of hanging like a dead weight upn our rising prosperity. What is our
case to-day, to-morrow may be yours; join us then, in endeavoring to put
a stop to what is not only a general evil, but in this case an act of
unwarrantable injustice; and when the time may come when you shall be
similarly situated to us, we have no doubt that, like us, you will cry
out, and your appeal shall not be in vain."

On the 3d of September, 1849, the colored people of Toronto, Canada,
held a meeting, in which they responded at length to the foregoing
address. The spirit of the meeting can be divined from the following
resolutions, which were unanimously passed:

"1st. _Resolved_, That we, as a portion of the inhabitants of Canada,
conceive it to be our imperative duty to give an expression of sentiment
in reference to the proceedings of the late meeting held at Chatham,
denying the right of the colored people to settle where they please.

"2d. _Resolved_, That we spurn with contempt and burning indignation,
any attempt, on the part of any person, or persons, to thrust us from
the general bulk of society, and place us in a separate and distinct
classification, such as is expressly implied in an address issued from
the late meeting above alluded to.

"3d. _Resolved_, That the principle of selfishness, as exemplified in
the originators of the resolutions and address, we detest, as we do
similar ones emanating from a similar source; and we can clearly see the
workings of a corrupt and depraved heart, arranged in hostility to the
heaven-born principle of _liberty_, in its broadest and most
unrestricted sense."

On the 9th of October, 1849, the Municipal Council of the Western
District, adopted a Memorial to His Excellency, the Governor General,
protesting against the proposed Elgin Association, in which the
following language occurs:

. . . . . "Clandestine petitions have been got up, principally, if not
wholly, signed by colored people, in order to mislead Government and the
Elgin Association. These petitions do not embody the sentiments or
feelings of the respectable, intelligent, and industrious yeomanry of
the Western District. We can assure your Excellency that any such
statement is false, that there is but one feeling, and that is of
disgust and hatred, that they, the negroes, should be allowed to settle
in any township where there is a white settlement. Our language is
strong; but when we look at the expressions used at a late meeting held
by the colored people of Toronto, openly avowing the propriety of
amalgamation, and stating that it must, and will, and shall continue, we
cannot avoid so doing. . . . . . The increased immigration of foreign
negroes into this part of the Province is truly alarming. We cannot omit
mentioning some facts for the corroboration of what we have stated. The
negroes, who form at least one-third of the inhabitants of the township
of Colchester, attended the township meeting for the election of parish
and township officers, and insisted upon their right to vote, which was
denied them by every individual white man at the meeting. The
consequence was, that the Chairman of the meeting was prosecuted and
thrown into heavy costs, which costs were paid by subscription from
white inhabitants. In the same township of Colchester, as well as in
many others, the inhabitants have not been able to get schools in many
school sections, in consequence of the negroes insisting on their right
of sending their children to such schools. No white man will ever act
with them in any public capacity; this fact is so glaring, that no
sheriff in this Province would dare to summons colored men to do jury
duty. That such things have been done in other quarters of the British
dominions we are well aware of, but we are convinced that the Canadians
will never tolerate such conduct."

A Toronto paper of December 24, 1847, says: "The white inhabitants are
fast leaving the vicinity of the proposed colored settlement, for the
United States."

The _St. Catharines Journal_, June, 1852, under the head of "the fruits
of having colored companies and colored settlements," says: "On the
occasion of the June muster of the militia, a pretty large turn out took
place at St. Catharines. We regret exceedingly that the day did not pass
over without a serious riot. It seems that on the parade ground some
insult was offered to the colored company, which was very properly
restrained by Colonel Clark, and others. If the affair had ended here,
it would have been fortunate; but the bad feeling exhibited on the
parade ground was renewed, by some evil-minded person, and the colored
population, becoming roused to madness, they proceeded to wreak their
vengeance on a company in Stinson's tavern, after which a general melee
took place, in which several men were wounded, and it is likely some
will die of the injuries received. The colored village is a ruin, and
much more like a place having been beseiged by an enemy than any thing
else. This is the reward which the colored men have received for their
loyalty, and the readiness with which they turned out to train, and no
doubt would if the country required their services. This is a most
painful occurrence, and must have been originated by some very ignorant
persons. How any man possessing the common feelings of humanity, to say
nothing of loyalty, could needlessly offer insult to so many men, so
cheerfully turning out in obedience to the laws of the country, exceeds
belief, if it were not a matter of fact. Too much credit cannot be given
to those worthy citizens who used their best efforts to restrain the
excitement, and prevented any further blood-shedding."

But here we have testimony of a later date. Hon. Colonel Prince, member
of the Canadian Parliament in 1857, had resided among the colored people
of the Western District; and, like other humane men, had sympathized
with them, at the outset, and shown them many favors. Time and
observation changed his views, and, in the course of his parliamentary
duties, we find him taking a stand adverse to the further increase of
the negro population in Canada. Hear him, as reported at the time:

"On the order of the day for the third reading of the emigrants' law
amendment bill being called, Hon. Col. Prince said he was wishful to
move a rider to the measure. The black people who infested the land were
the greatest curse to the Province. The lives of the people of the West
were made wretched by the inundation of these animals, and many of the
largest farmers in the county of Kent have been compelled to leave their
beautiful farms, because of the pestilential swarthy swarms.--What were
these wretches fit for? Nothing. They cooked our victuals and shampooned
us; but who would not rather that these duties should be performed by
white men? The blacks were a worthless, useless, thriftless set of
beings--they were too indolent, lazy and ignorant to work, too proud to
be taught; and not only that, if the criminal calendars of the country
were examined, it would be found that they were a majority of the
criminals. They were so detestable that unless some method were adopted
of preventing their influx into this country by the "underground rail
road," the people of the West would be obliged to drive them out by open
violence. The bill before the House imposed a capitation tax upon
emigrants from Europe, and the object of his motion was to levy a
similar tax upon blacks who came hither from the States. He now moved,
seconded by Mr. Patton, that a capitation tax of 5_s_ for adults, and
3_s_ 9_d_ for children above one year and under fourteen years of age,
be levied on persons of color emigrating to Canada from any foreign

"Ought not the Western men to be protected from the rascalities and
villainies of the black wretches? He found these men with fire and food,
and lodging when they were in need; and he would be bound to say that
the black men of the county of Essex would speak well of him in this
respect. But he could not admit them as being equal to white men; and,
after a long and close observation of human nature, he had come to the
conclusion that the black man was born to and intended for slavery, and
that he was fit for nothing else. [Sensation.] Honorable gentlemen might
try to groan him down, but he was not to be moved by mawkish sentiment,
and he was persuaded that they might as well try to change the spots of
the leopard as to make the black a good citizen. He had told black men
so, and the lazy rascals had shrugged their shoulders and wished they
had never ran away from their "good old massa" in Kentucky. If there was
any thing unchristian in what he had proposed, he could not see it, and
he feared that he was not born a Christian."

The _Windsor Herald_, of July 3d, 1857, contains the proceedings of an
indignation meeting, held by the colored people of Toronto, at which
they denounced Colonel Prince in unmeasured terms of reproach. The same
paper contains the reply of the Colonel, copied from the _Toronto
Colonist_, and it is given entire, as a specimen of the spicy times they
have, in Canada, over the negro question. The editor remarks, in
relation to the reply of Colonel Prince, that it has given general
satisfaction in his neighborhood. It is as follows:

"DEAR SIR:--Your valuable paper of yesterday has afforded me a rich
treat and not a little fun in the report of an indignation meeting of
'the colored citizens' of Toronto, held for the purpose of censuring me.
Perhaps I ought not to notice their proceedings--perhaps it would be
more becoming in me to allow them to pass at once into the oblivion
which awaits them; but as it is the fashion in this country not
unfrequently to assume that to be true which appears in print against an
individual, unless he flatly denies the accusation, I shall, at least,
for once, condescend to notice these absurd proceedings. They deal in
generalities, and so shall I. Of the colored citizens of Toronto I know
little or nothing; no doubt, some are respectable enough in their way,
and perform the inferior duties belonging to their station tolerably
well. Here they are kept in order--in their proper place--but their
'proceedings' are evidence of their natural conceit, their vanity, and
their ignorance; and in them the cloven foot appears, and evinces what
they would do, if they could. I believe that in this city, as in some
others of our Province, they are looked upon as necessary evils, and
only submitted to because white servants are so scarce. But I now deal
with these fellows as a body, and I pronounce them to be, as such, the
_greatest curse_ ever inflicted upon the two magnificent western
counties which I have the honor to represent in the Legislative Council
of this Province! and few men have had the experience of them that I
have. Among the many _estimable_ qualities they possess, a systematic
habit of _lying_ is not the least prominent; and the 'colored citizens'
aforesaid seem to partake of that quality in an eminent degree, because
in their famous _Resolutions_ they roundly assert that during the
Rebellion 'I walked arm and arm with colored men'--that 'I owe my
election to the votes of colored men'--and that I have 'accumulated much
earthly gains,' as a lawyer, among 'colored clients.' All Lies! Lies!
Lies! from beginning to end. I admit that one company of blacks did
belong to my contingent battalion, but they made the very worst of
soldiers, and were, comparatively speaking, unsusceptible of drill or
discipline, and were conspicuous for one act only--a stupid sentry shot
the son of one of our oldest colonels, under a mistaken notion that he
was thereby doing his duty. But I certainly never did myself the honor
of 'walking arm in arm' with any of the colored gentlemen of that
distinguished corps. Then, as to my election. Few, very few blacks voted
for me. _I never canvassed them_, and hence, I suppose, they supported,
as a body, my opponent. They took compassion upon '_a monument of
injured innocence_,' and they sustained the monument for a while, upon
the pedestal their influence erected. But the monument fell, and the
fall proved that such influence was merely ephemeral, and it sank into
insignificant nothingness, as it should, and I hope ever will do; or God
help this noble land. Poor Blackies! Be not so bold or so conceited, or
so insolent hereafter, I do beseech you.

"Then how rich I have become among my 'colored clients!' I assert,
without the fear of contradiction, that I have been the friend--the
steady friend of our western 'Darkies' for more than twenty years; and
amidst difficulties and troubles innumerable, (for they are a litigious
race,) I have been their adviser, and I never made twenty pounds out of
them in that long period! The fact is that the poor creatures had never
the ability to pay a lawyer's fee.

"It has been my misfortune, and the misfortune of my family, to live
among those blacks, (and they have lived _upon_ us,) for twenty-four
years. I have employed _hundreds_ of them, and, with the exception of
one, (named Richard Hunter,) not one has ever done for us a week's
honest labor. I have taken them into my service, have fed and clothed
them, year after year, on their arrival from the States, and in return I
have generally found them rogues and thieves, and a graceless,
worthless, thriftless, lying set of vagabonds. That is my very plain and
very simple description of the darkies as a body, and it would be
indorsed by all the western white men with very few exceptions.

"I have had scores of their George Washingtons, Thomas Jeffersons, James
Madisons, as well as their Dinahs, and Gleniras, and Lavinias, in my
service, and I understand them thoroughly, and I include the whole batch
(old Richard Hunter excepted) in the category above described. To
conclude, you 'Gentlemen of color,' East and West, and especially you
'colored citizens of Toronto,' I thank you for having given me an
opportunity to publish my opinion of your race. Call another indignation
meeting, and there make greater fools of yourselves than you did at the
last, and then 'to supper with what appetite you may.'

                 "Believe me to remain,
                       Mr. Editor,
                  Yours very faithfully,
                                                 =JOHN PRINCE.=
  Toronto, 26th June, 1857."

It is impracticable to extract the whole of the important facts referred
to in Maj. Lachlan's Report, as it would make a volume of itself. In
many places he takes occasion to urge the necessity of education for the
colored people, as the only possible means of their elevation; and also
presses upon the attention of the better classes of that race, the duty
of co-operating with the magistrates in their efforts for the
suppression of crime, as well as the advantages to be derived from the
formation of associations for their intellectual and moral advancement.
On the 23d of May, 1847, he addressed the Right Honorable, the Earl of
Elgin, the Governor of Canada, on the subject of the causes checking the
prosperity of the Western District, the fourth one of which he states to
be "the unfortunate influx into its leading townships of swarms of
run-away negro slaves, of the worst description, from the American
States." After referring to the facts contained in his report of 1841, a
portion of which are presented in the preceding pages, he says: "I shall
therefore rest content with stating, in connection with these extracts,
the simple fact, that on the Province gradually recovering from the
shock given to immigration by the late rebellion, and the stream of
British settlers beginning once more to flow toward the Province, a
considerable number of emigrants of the laboring classes made their way
to the Western District, and for some time wandered about in search of
employment; but with the exception of those who had come to join
relations and friends, and a few others, the greater portion, finding
themselves unable to obtain work, from the ground which they naturally
expected to occupy being already monopolized by negroes, and there being
no public works of any kind on which they could be engaged, became
completely disheartened, and were ultimately forced to disperse
themselves elsewhere; and, most generally, found a refuge in the
neighboring States of Michigan and Ohio. And such, it may be added, has
ever since continued to be the case; while, on the other hand, the
influx of negroes has been greatly on the increase. . . . . Far,
however, be it for me to suppose it possible to abridge for one moment
that noble constitutional principle--that slavery and _British Rule_ and
_British feeling are incompatible_; but still I consider it no trifling
evil that any part of an essentially _British_ colony should be thereby
exposed to be made the receptable of the worst portion of the lowest
grade of the human race, from every part of the American Union, to the
evident serious injury of its own inhabitants, and equally serious
prejudice to the claims of more congenial settlers."

This statement shows, very clearly, how the negro immigration into
Canada operates injuriously to its prosperity by repelling the white

What was true of the colored population of the "Western District of
Canada, in 1841, while Major Lachlan filled the chair of the Quarter
Sessions, seems to be equally true in 1859. The _Essex Advocate_,
contains the following extract from the Presentment of the Grand Jury,
at the Essex Assizes, November 17, 1859, in reference to the jail: "We
are sorry to state to your Lordship the great prevalence of the colored
race among its occupants, and beg to call attention to an accompanying
document from the Municipal Council and inhabitants of the Township of
Anderdon, which we recommend to your Lordship's serious consideration.

"'_To the Grand Jury of the County of Essex, in Inquest assembled_: We,
the undersigned inhabitants of the Township of Anderdon, respectfully
wish to call the attention of the Grand Inquest of the County of Essex
to the fearful state of crime in our township. That there exists
organized bands of thieves, too lazy to work, who nightly plunder our
property! That nearly all of us, more or less, have suffered losses; and
that for the last two years the stealing of sheep has been most
alarming, one individual having had nine stolen within that period. We
likewise beg to call your attention to the fact, that seven colored
persons are committed to stand trial at the present assizes on the
charge of sheep stealing, and that a warrant is out against the eighth,
all from the Town of Anderdon. We beg distinctly to be understood, that
although we are aware that nine-tenths of the crimes committed in the
County of Essex, according to the population, are so committed by the
colored people, yet we willingly extend the hand of fellowship and
kindness to the emancipated slave, whom Great Britain has granted an
asylum to in Canada We therefore hope the Grand Jury of the County of
Essex will lay the statement of our case before his Lordship, the Judge
at the present assizes, that some measure may be taken by the Government
to protect us and our property, or persons of capital will be driven
from the country.'"

We find it stated in the _Cincinnati Daily Commercial_, that the "Court,
in alluding to this presentment, remarked that 'he was not surprised at
finding prejudice existing against them (the negroes) among the
respectable portion of the people, for they were indolent, shiftless and
dishonest, and unworthy of the sympathy that some mistaken parties
extended to them; they would not work when opportunity was presented,
but preferred subsisting by thieving from respectable farmers, and
begging from those benevolently inclined.'"

In September, 1859, Mr. Stanley, a government agent from the West
Indies, visited Canada with the view of inducing the colored people of
that Province to emigrate to Jamaica. The _Windsor Herald_, in noticing
the movement, gives the details of the arguments presented, at the
meeting in Windsor, to influence them to accept the offer. To men of
intelligence and foresight, the reasons would have been convincing; but
upon the minds of the colored people, they seem to have had scarcely any
weight whatever--only one man entering his name, as an emigrant, at the
close of the lecture. They were assured that in Jamaica they could
obtain employment at remunerative salaries, and in three years become
owners of property, besides possessing all the advantages of British
subjects. Only a stipulated number were called for at the present time,
they were told, but if the experiment proved successful, the gates would
be thrown open for a general emigration. The Governor of the Island
guaranteed them occupations on their arrival, or a certain stipend until
such were found, and also their passage thither gratis. Four hundred
emigrants were wanted to commence the experiment, and if they succeeded
in getting the number required, they designed starting for Jamaica in
the space of a month.

The indisposition of the colored people to accept the liberal offer of
the authorites of Jamaica, created some surprise among the whites; but
the mystery was explained when the agent visited Chatham, and made
similar offers to the colored people of that town. As already stated, in
the Preface to this work, they not only rejected the offered boon with
contempt, but gave as their reason, that events would shortly transpire
in the United States, which would demand their aid in behalf of their
fellow countrymen there.[91] This was thirteen days before the Harper's
Ferry outbreak, and Chatham was the town in which John Brown and his
associates concocted their insurrectionary movement. The chief reason
why the Jamaica emigration scheme was rejected, must have been the
determination of the blacks of Canada to co-operate in the Brown

Here, now, are all the results of the Canada experiment, as presented
by the official action of its civil officers and public men. Need it be
said, that the prospects of the African race have only been rendered the
more dark and gloomy, by the conduct of the free colored men of that
Province. And when we couple the results there with those of the West
Indies, it must be obvious to all, that what has been attempted for the
colored race is wholly impracticable; that in its present state of
advancement from barbarism, the attainment of civil and social equality,
with the enlightened white races, is utterly impossible.

It would appear, then, that philanthropists have committed a grave error
in their policy, and the sooner they retrace their steps the better for
the colored people. The error to which we refer, is this: they found a
small portion of colored men, whose intelligence and moral character
equaled that of the average of the white population; and, considering it
a great hardship that such men should be doomed to a degraded condition,
they attempted to raise them up to the civil and social position which
their merits would entitle them to occupy. But in attempting to secure
equal rights to the enlightened negro, the philanthropists claimed the
same privilege for the whole of that race. In this they failed to
recognize the great truth, that free government is not adapted to men in
a condition of ignorance and moral degradation. By taking such broad
ground--by securing the largest amount of liberty for a great mass of
the most degraded of humanity--they have altogether failed in convincing
the world, that freedom is a boon worth the bestowal upon the African in
his present condition. The intelligent colored man, who could have been
lifted up to a suitable hight, and maintained his position, if he had
been taken alone, could not be elevated at all when the whole race were
fastened to his skirts. And this mistake was a very natural one for men
who think but superficially. Despotic government is repugnant to
enlightened men: hence, in rejecting it for themselves, they repudiate
it as a form of rule for all others. This decision, plausible as it may
appear, is not consistent with the philosophy of human nature as it now
is; nor is it in accordance with the sentiments of the profound
statesmen who framed the American Constitution. They held that only men
of intelligence and moral principle were capable of self-government;
and, hence, they excluded from citizenship the barbarous and
semi-barbarous Indians and Africans, who were around them and in their

In discussing the results of emancipation in the United States, in a
preceding chapter, it is stated that one principal cause, operating to
check the further liberation of the slaves, at an early day in our
history, was, that freedom had proved itself of little value to the
colored man, while the measure had greatly increased the burdens of the
whites; and that until he should make such progress as would prove that
freedom was the best condition for the race, while intermingled with the
whites, any further movements toward general emancipation were not to be
expected. This view is now indorsed by some of the most prominent
abolitionists. Listen to the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher on this subject. In
his sermon in reference to the Harper's Ferry affair, he says:

"If we would benefit the African at the South, we must _begin at home_.
This is to some men the most disagreeable part of the doctrine of
emancipation. It is very easy to labor for the emancipation of beings a
thousand miles off; but when it comes to the practical application of
justice and humanity to those about us, it is not so easy. The truths of
God respecting the rights and dignities of men, are just as important to
free colored men, as to enslaved colored men. It may seem strange for me
to say that the lever with which to lift the load of Georgia is in New
York; but it is. I do not believe the whole free North can tolerate
grinding injustice toward the poor, and inhumanity toward the laboring
classes, without exerting an influence unfavorable to justice and
humanity in the South. No one can fail to see the inconsistency between
our treatment of those among us, who are in the lower walks of life, and
our professions of sympathy for the Southern slaves. How are the free
colored people treated at the North? They are almost without education,
with but little sympathy for their ignorance. They are refused the
common rights of citizenship which the whites enjoy. They can not even
ride in the cars of our city rail roads. They are snuffed at in the
house of God, or tolerated with ill-disguised disgust. Can the black man
be a mason in New York? Let him be employed as a journeyman, and every
Irish lover of liberty that carries the hod or trowel, would leave at
once, or compel him to leave! Can the black man be a carpenter? There is
scarcely a carpenter's shop in New York in which a journeyman would
continue to work, if a black man was employed in it. Can the black man
engage in the common industries of life? There is scarcely one in which
he can engage. He is crowded down, down, down through the most menial
callings, to the bottom of society. We tax them and then refuse to allow
their children to go to our public schools. We tax them and then refuse
to sit by them in God's house. We heap upon them moral obloquy more
atrocious than that which the master heaps upon the slave. And
notwithstanding all this, we lift ourselves up to talk to the Southern
people about the rights and liberties of the human soul, and especially
the African soul! It is true that slavery is cruel. But it is not at all
certain that there is not more love to the race in the South than in the
North. . . . . . Whenever we are prepared to show toward the lowest, the
poorest, and the most despised, an unaffected kindness, such as led
Christ, though the Lord of glory, to lay aside his dignities and take on
himself the form of a servant, and to undergo an ignominious death, that
he might rescue men from ignorance and bondage--whenever we are prepared
to do such things as these, we may be sure that the example at the North
will not be unfelt at the South. Every effort that is made in Brooklyn
to establish churches for the free colored people, and to encourage them
to educate themselves and become independent, is a step toward
emancipation in the South. The degradation of the free colored men in
the North will fortify slavery in the South!"

We think we may safely guarantee, that whenever Northern abolitionists
shall carry out Mr. Beecher's scheme, of spending their time and money
for the moral and intellectual culture of the free colored people, the
South will at once emancipate every slave within her limits; because we
will then be in the midst of the millenium. Intelligent free colored men
will agree with us in opinion, as they have tested them upon this

One point more remains to be noticed:--the influence which the results
in Canada and Jamaica have exerted upon the prospects of the free
colored man in the United States. We mean, of course, his prospects for
securing the civil and social equality to which he has been aspiring.
His own want of progress has been the main cause of checking the
extension of emancipation. This is now admitted even by Rev. H. W.
Beecher, himself. Then, again, the fact that much less advancement has
been made by the negroes in the British Provinces, than by those in the
United States, operates still more powerfully in preventing any further
liberation of the slaves. These two causes, combined, have dealt a
death-blow to the hope of emancipation, in the South, by any moral
influence coming from that quarter; and has, in fact, put back that
cause, so far as the moral power of the negro is concerned, to a period
hopelessly distant. Loyal Britons may urge upon us the duty of
emancipation as strongly as they please; but so long as they denounce
the influx of colored men as a curse to Canada, just so long they will
fail in persuading Americans that an increase of free negroes will be a
blessing to the United States. The moral power of the free negro, in
promoting emancipation, is at an end; but how is it with his prospects
of success in the employment of force? The Harper's Ferry movement is
pronounced, by anti-slavery men themselves, as the work of a madman; and
no other attempt of that kind can be more successful, as none but the
insane and the ignorant will ever enlist in such an enterprise. The
power of the free colored people in promoting emancipation, say what
they will, is now at an end.

But these are not all the results of the movements noticed. They have
not only rendered the free colored people powerless in emancipation, but
have acted most injuriously upon themselves, as a class, in both the
free and the slave States. In the Northwestern free States, every new
Constitution framed, and every old one amended, with perhaps one
exception, exclude the free negroes from the privileges of citizenship.
In the slave States, generally, efforts are making not only to prevent
farther emancipations, but to drive out the free colored population from
their territories.

Thus, at this moment, stands the question of the capacity of the free
colored people of the United States, to influence public opinion in
favor of emancipation. And where are their champions who kindled the
flame which is now extinguished? Many of them are in their graves; and
the Harper's Ferry act, but applied the match that exploded the existing
organizations. One chieftain--always truthful, ever in earnest--is,
alas, in the lunatic asylum; another--whose zeal overcomes his judgment,
at times--backs down from the position he had taken, that rifles were
better than bibles in the conflict with slavery; another--coveting not
the martyr's crown, yet a little--has left his editorial chair, to put
the line dividing English and American territory between himself and
danger; another--whose life could not well be spared, as he, doubtless,
thought--after helping to organize the conspiracy at Chatham, in
Canada, immediately set out to explore Africa: perhaps to select a home
for the Virginia slaves, and be ready to receive them when Brown should
set them free. These forces can never be re-combined. As for others, so
far as politicians are concerned, the colored race have nothing to hope.
The battle for free territory, in the sense in which they design to be
understood, is a contest to keep the blacks and whites entirely
separate. It is a determination to carry out the policy of Jefferson, by
separating the races where it can be accomplished--a policy that will be
adhered to in the free States, and which the Canadians would gladly
adopt, if the mother country would permit them to carry out their

Free colored men of the United States! "in the days of adversity
consider." Are not the signs of the times indicative of the necessity of
a change of policy?


[84] Matthew's Gospel, xv: 14.

[85] "A Subaltern's Furlough," by Lt. Coke, 45th Regiment, being a
description of scenes in various parts of America, in 1833.

[86] Clarkson's History of the Slave Trade.

[87] Wadstrom, page 220.

[88] Memoirs of Granville Sharp.

[89] The testimony here offered is the more important, as the Western
District is the center of emigration from the United States.

[90] The Hon. Mr. Harrison was one of the candidates at the time alluded

[91] See the resolution copied into the Preface to the present edition.



          Moral relations of Slavery--Relations of the
          consumer of Slave labor products to the
          system--Grand error of all Anti-Slavery
          effort--Law of _particeps criminis_--Daniel
          O'Connell--_Malum in se_ doctrine--Inconsistency
          of those who hold it--English
          Emancipationists--Their commercial
          argument--Differences between the position of
          Great Britain and the United States--Preaching
          versus practice by Abolitionists--Cause of their
          want of influence over the Slaveholder--Necessity
          of examining the question--Each man to be judged
          by his own standard--Classification of opinions in
          the United States, in regard to the morality of
          Slavery--Three Views--A case in
          illustration--Apology of _per se_ men for using
          Slave grown products insufficient--Law relating to
          "confusion of goods"--_Per se_ men _participes
          criminis_ with Slaveholders--Taking Slave grown
          products under _protest_ absurd--World's Christian
          Evangelical Alliance--Amount of Slave labor Cotton
          in England at that moment--Pharisaical
          conduct--The Scotchman taking his wife under
          protest--Anecdote--American Cotton more acceptable
          to Englishmen than Republican principles--Secret
          of England's policy toward American Slavery--The
          case of robbery again cited, and the English
          Satirized--A contrast--Causes of the want of moral
          power of Abolitionists--Slaveholders no cause to
          cringe--Other results--Effect of the adoption of
          the _per se_ doctrine by ecclesiastical
          bodies--Slaves thus left in all their moral
          destitution--Inconsistency of _per se_ men
          denouncing others--What the Bible says of similar

HAVING noticed the political and economical relations of slavery, it may
be expected that we shall say something of its moral relations. In
attempting this, we choose not to traverse that interminable labyrinth,
without a thread, which includes the moral character of the system, as
it respects the relation between the master and the slave. The only
aspect in which we care to consider it, is in the moral relations which
the consumers of slave labor products sustain to slavery: and even on
this, we shall offer no opinion, our aim being only to promote inquiry.

This view of the question is not an unimportant one. It includes the
germ of the grand error in nearly all anti-slavery effort; and to which,
chiefly, is to be attributed its want of moral power over the conscience
of the slaveholder. The abolition movement, was designed to create a
public sentiment, in the United States, that should be equally as potent
in forcing emancipation, as was the public opinion of Great Britain. But
why have not the Americans been as successful as the English? This is an
inquiry of great importance. When the Anti-Slavery Convention, which
met, December 6, 1833, in Philadelphia, declared, as a part of its
creed: "That there is no difference in principle, between the African
slave trade, and American slavery," it meant to be understood as
teaching, that the person who purchased slaves imported from Africa, or
who held their offspring as slaves, was _particeps criminis_--partaker
in the crime--with the slave trader, on the principle that he who
receives stolen property, knowing it be such, is equally guilty with the

On this point Daniel O'Connell was very explicit, when, in a public
assembly, he used this language: "When an American comes into society,
he will be asked, 'are you one of the thieves, or are you an honest man?
If you are an honest man, then you have given liberty to your slaves; if
you are among the thieves, the sooner you take the outside of the house,
the better.'"

The error just referred to was this: they based their opposition to
slavery on the principle, that it was _malum in se_--a sin in
itself--like the slave trade, robbery and murder; and, at the same time,
continued to use the products of the labor of the slave as though they
had been obtained from the labor of freemen. But this seeming
inconsistency was not the only reason why they failed to create such a
public sentiment as would procure the emancipation of our slaves. The
English emancipationists began their work like philosophers--addressing
themselves, respectfully to the power that could grant their requests.
Beside the moral argument, which declared slavery a crime, the English
philanthropists labored to convince Parliament, that emancipation would
be advantageous to the commerce of the nation. The commercial value of
the Islands had been reduced one-third, as a result of the abolition of
the slave trade. Emancipation, it was argued, would more than restore
their former prosperity, as the labor of freemen was twice as productive
as that of slaves. But American abolitionists commenced their crusade
against slavery, by charging those who sustained it, and who alone, held
the power to manumit, with crimes of the blackest dye. This placed the
parties in instant antagonism, causing all the arguments on human
rights, and the sinfulness of slavery, to fall without effect upon the
ears of angry men. The error on this point, consisted in failing to
discriminate between the sources of the power over emancipation in
England and in the United States. With Great Britain, the power was in
Parliament. The masters, in the West Indies, had no voice in the
question. It was the voters in England alone who controlled the
elections, and, consequently, controlled Parliament. But the condition
of things in the United States is the reverse of what it was in England.
With us, the power of emancipation is in the States, not in Congress.
The slaveholders elect the members to the State Legislatures; and they
choose none but such as agree with them in opinion. It matters not,
therefore, what public sentiment may be at the North, as it has no power
over the Legislatures of the South. Here, then, is the difference: with
us the slaveholder controls the question of emancipation, while in
England the consent of the master was not necessary to the execution of
that work.

Our anti-slavery men seem to have fallen into their errors of policy, by
following the lead of those of England, who manifested a total ignorance
of the relations existing between our General Government and the State
Governments. On the abolition platform, slaveholders found themselves
placed in the same category with slave traders and thieves. They were
told that all laws, giving them power over the slave, were void in the
sight of heaven; and that their appropriation of the fruits of the labor
of the slave, without giving him compensation, was robbery. Had the
preaching of these principles produced conviction, it must have promoted
emancipation. But, unfortunately, while these doctrines were held up to
the gaze of slaveholders, in the one hand of the exhorter, they beheld
his other hand stretched out, from beneath his cloak of seeming
sanctity, to clutch the products of the very robbery he was professing
to condemn! Take a fact in proof of this view of the subject.

At the date of the declarations of Daniel O'Connell, on behalf of the
English, and by the Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Convention, on the part of
Americans, the British manufacturers were purchasing, annually, about
300,000,000 lbs. of cotton, from the very men denounced as equally
criminal with slave traders and thieves; and the people of the United
States were almost wholly dependent upon slave labor for their supplies
of cotton and groceries. It is no matter for wonder, therefore, that
slaveholders, should treat, as fiction, the doctrine that slave labor
products are the fruits of robbery, so long as they are purchased
without scruple, by all classes of men, in Europe and America. The
pecuniary argument for emancipation, that free labor is more profitable
than slave labor, was also urged here, but was treated as the greatest
absurdity. The masters had, before their eyes, the evidence of the
falsity of the assertion, that, if emancipated, the slaves would be
doubly profitable as free laborers. The reverse was admitted, on all
hands, to be true in relation to our colored people.

But this question, of the moral relations which the consumers of slave
labor products sustain to slavery, is one of too important a nature to
be passed over without a closer examination; and, beside, it is involved
in less obscurity than the morality of the relation existing between the
master and the slave. Its consideration, too, affords an opportunity of
discriminating between the different opinions entertained on the broad
question of the morality of the institution, and enables us to judge of
the consistency and conscientiousness of every man, by the standard
which he himself adopts.

The prevalent opinions, as to the morality of the institution of
slavery, in the United States, may be classified under three heads: 1.
That it is justified by Scripture example and precept. 2. That it is a
great civil and social evil, resulting from ignorance and degradation,
like despotic systems of government, and may be tolerated until its
subjects are sufficiently enlightened to render it safe to grant them
equal rights. 3. That it is _malum in se_, like robbery and murder, and
can not be sustained, for a moment, without sin; and, like sin, should
be immediately abandoned.

Those who consider slavery sanctioned by the Bible, conceive that they
can, consistently with their creed, not only hold slaves, and use the
products of slave labor, without doing violence to their consciences,
but may adopt measures to perpetuate the system. Those who consider
slavery merely a great civil and social evil, a despotism that may
engender oppression, or may not, are of opinion that they may purchase
and use its products, or interchange their own for those of the
slaveholder, as free governments hold commercial and diplomatic
intercourse with despotic ones, without being responsible for the moral
evils connected with the system, But the position of those who believe
slavery _malum in se_, like the slave trade, robbery and murder, is a
very different one from either of the other classes, as it regards the
purchase and use of slave labor products. Let us illustrate this by a
case in point.

A company of men hold a number of their fellow men in bondage under the
laws of the commonwealth in which they live, so that they can compel
them to work their plantations, and raise horses, cattle, hogs, and
cotton. These products of the labor of the oppressed, are appropriated
by the oppressors to their own use, and taken into the markets for sale.
Another company proceed to a community of freemen, on the coast of
Africa, who have labored voluntarily during the year, seize their
persons, bind them, convey away their horses, cattle, hogs, and cotton,
and take the property to market. The first association represents the
slaveholders; the second a band of robbers. The commodities of both
parties, are openly offered for sale, and every one knows how the
property of each was obtained. Those who believe the _per se_ doctrine,
place both these associations in the same moral category, and call them
robbers. Judged by this rule, the first band are the more criminal, as
they have deprived their victims of personal liberty, forced them into
servitude, and then "despoiled them of the fruits of their labor."[92]
The second band have only deprived their victims of liberty, while they
robbed them; and thus have committed but two crimes, while the first
have perpetrated three. These parties attempt to negotiate the sale of
their cotton, say in London. The first company dispose of their cargo
without difficulty--no one manifesting the slightest scruple at
purchasing the products of slave labor. But the second company are not
so fortunate. As soon as their true character is ascertained, the police
drag its members to Court, where they are sentenced to Bridewell. In
vain do these robbers quote the Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Convention,
and Daniel O'Connell, to prove that their cotton was obtained by means
no more criminal than that of the slaveholders, and that, therefore,
judgment ought to be reversed. The Court will not entertain such a
plea, and they have to endure the penalty of the law. Now, why this
difference, if slavery be _malum in se_? And if the receiver of stolen
property is _particeps criminis_ with the thief, why is it, that the
Englishman, who should receive and sell the cotton of the robbers, would
run the risk of being sent to prison with them, while if he acted as
agent of the slaveholders, he would be treated as an honorable man? If
the master has no moral right to hold his slaves, in what respect can
the products of their labor differ from the property acquired by
robbery? And if the property be the fruits of robbery, how can any one
use it, without violating conscience?

We have met with the following sage exposition of the question, in
justification of the use of slave labor products, by those who believe
the _per se_ doctrine: The master owns the lands, gives his skill and
intelligence to direct the labor, and feeds and clothes the slaves. The
slaves, therefore, are entitled only to a part of the proceeds of their
labor, while the master is also justly entitled to a part of the crop.
When brought into the market, the purchaser can not know what part
belongs, rightfully, to the master, and what to his slaves, as the whole
is offered in bulk. He may, therefore, purchase the whole, innocently,
and throw the sinfulness of the transaction upon the master, who sells
what belongs to others. But if the _per se_ doctrine be true, this
apology for the purchaser is not a justification. Where a "confusion of
goods" has been made by one of the owners, so that they can not be
separated, he who "confused" them can have no advantage, in law, from
his own wrong, but the goods are awarded to the innocent party. On this
well known principle of law, this most equitable rule, the master
forfeits his right in the property, and the purchaser, knowing the
facts, becomes a party in his guilt. But aside from this, the "confusion
of goods," by the master, can give him no moral right to dispose of the
interest of his slaves therein for his own benefit; and the persons
purchasing such property, acquire no moral right to its possession and
use. These are sound, logical views. The argument offered, in
justification of those who hold that slavery is _malum in se_, is the
strongest that can be made. It is apparent, then, from a fair analysis
of their own principles, that they are _participes criminis_ with

Again, if the laws regulating the institution of slavery, be morally
null and void, and not binding on the conscience, then the slaves have a
moral right to the proceeds of their labor. This right can not be
alienated by any act of the master, but attaches to the property
wherever it may be taken, and to whomsoever it may be sold. This
principle, in law, is also well established. The recent decision on the
"Gardiner fraud," confirms it; the Court asserting, that the money paid
out of the Treasury of the United States, under such circumstances,
continued its character as the money and property of the United States,
and may be followed into the hands of those who cashed the orders of
Gardiner, and subsequently drew the money, but who are not the true
owners of the said fund; and decreeing that the amount of funds, thus
obtained, be collected off the estate of said Gardiner, and off those
who drew funds from the treasury, on his orders.

These principles of law are so well understood, by every man of
intelligence, that we can not conceive how those advocating the _per se_
doctrines, if sincere, can continue in the constant use of slave grown
products, without a perpetual violation of conscience and of all moral
law. Taking them under _protest_, against the slavery which produced
them, is ridiculous. Refusing to fellowship the slaveholder, while
eagerly appropriating the products of the labor of the slave, which he
brings in his hand, is contemptible. The most noted case of the kind, is
that of the British Committee, who had charge of the preliminary
arrangements for the admission of members to the World's Christian
Evangelical Alliance. One of the rules it adopted, but which the
Alliance afterward modified, excluded all American clergymen, suspected
of a want of orthodoxy on the _per se_ doctrine, from seats in that
body. Their language, to American clergymen, was virtually, "Stand
aside, I am holier than thou;" while, at the same moment, their
parishioners, the manufacturers, had about completed the purchase of
624,000,000 lbs. of cotton, for the consumption of their mills, during
the year; the bales of which, piled together, would have reached
mountain-high, displaying, mostly, the brands, "New Orleans," "Mobile,"

As not a word was said, by the Committee, against the Englishmen who
were buying and manufacturing American cotton, the case may be viewed as
one in which the fruits of robbery were taken under _protest_ against
the robbers themselves. To all intelligent men, the conduct of the
people of Britain, in protesting against slavery, as a system of
robbery, while continuing to purchase such enormous quantities of the
cotton produced by slaves, appears as Pharasaical as the conduct of the
_conscientious_ Scotchman, in early times, in Eastern Pennsylvania, who
married his wife under protest against the constitution and laws of the
Government, and especially, against the authority, power, and right of
the magistrate who had just tied the knot.[93]

Such pliable consciences, doubtless, are very convenient in cases of
emergency. But as they relax when selfish ends are to be subserved, and
retain their rigidity only when judging the conduct of others, the
inference is, that the persons possessing them are either hypocritical,
or else, as was acknowledged by Parson D., in similar circumstances,
they have mistaken their _prejudices_ for their _consciences_.

So far as Britain is concerned, she is, manifestly, much more willing to
receive American slave labor cotton for her factories, than American
republican principles for her people. And why so? The profits derived by
her, from the purchase and manufacture of slave labor cotton, constitute
so large a portion of the means of her prosperity, that the Government
could not sustain itself were the supplies of this article cut off. It
is easy to divine, therefore, why the people of England are boundless in
their denunciation of American slavery, while not a single remonstrance
goes up to the throne, against the importation of American cotton.
Should she exclude it, the act would render her unable to pay the
interest on her national debt; and many a declaimer against slavery,
losing his income, would have to go supperless to bed.

Let us contrast the conduct of a pagan government with that of Great
Britain. When the Emperor of China became fully convinced of his
inability to resist the prowess of the British arms, in the famous
"Opium War," efforts were made to induce him to legalize the traffic in
opium, by levying a duty on its import, that should yield him a heavy
profit. This he refused to do, and recorded his decision in these
memorable words:

"It is true, I can not prevent the introduction of the flowing poison.
Gain-seeking and corrupt men will, for profit and sensuality, defeat my
wishes, but nothing will induce me to derive a revenue from the vice and
misery of my people."[94]

Let us revert a moment to the case of robbery, before cited, in further
illustration of this subject. The prisoners serve out their term in
Bridewell, and, after a year or two, again visit London with a cargo of
cotton. The police recognize them, and they are a second time arraigned
before the court for trial. The judge demands why they should have dared
to revisit the soil of England, to offer for sale the products of their
robbery. The prisoners assure his honor that they have neither outraged
the public sentiment of the kingdom, nor violated its laws. "While in
your prison, sir," they go on to say, "we became instructed in the
morals of British economics. Anxious to atone for our former fault, and
to restore ourselves to the confidence and respect of the pious subjects
of your most gracious Queen, no sooner were we released from prison,
than we hastened to the African coast, from whence our former cargo was
obtained, and seizing the self-same men whom we had formerly robbed, we
bore them off, bodily, to the soil of Texas. They resisted sturdily, it
is true, but we mastered them. We touched none of the fruits of their
previous labors. Their cotton we left in the fields, to be drenched by
the rains or drifted by the winds; because, to have brought it into your
markets would have subjected us, anew, to a place in your dungeons. In
Texas, we brought our prisoners under the control of the laws, which
there give us power to hold them as slaves. Stimulated to labor, under
the lash of the overseer, they have produced a crop of cotton, which is
now offered in your markets as a lawful article of commerce. We are not
subjects of your Government, and, therefore, not indictable under your
laws against slave trading. Your honor, will perceive, then, that our
moral relations are changed. We come now to your shores, not as dealers
in stolen property, but as slaveholders, with the products of slave
labor. We are aware that _bunkum_ speakers, at your public assemblies,
denounce the slaveholder as a thief, and his appropriation of the fruits
of the labor of his slaves, as robbery. We comprehend the motives
prompting such utterances. We come not to attend meetings of
Ecclesiastical Conventions, representing the republican principles of
America, to unsettle the doctrines upon which the throne of your kingdom
is based. But we come as cotton planters, to supply your looms with
cotton, that British commerce may not be abridged, and England, the
great civilizer of the world, may not be forced to slack her pace in the
performance of her mission. This is our character and position; and your
honor will at once see that it is your duty, and the interest of your
Government, to treat us as gentlemen and your most faithful allies." The
judge at once admits the justice of their plea, rebukes the police,
apologizes to the prisoners, assures them that they have violated no law
of the realm; and that, though the public sentiment of the nation
denounces the slaveholder as a thief, yet the public necessity demands a
full supply of cotton from the planter. He then orders their immediate
discharge, and invites them to partake of the hospitalities of his house
during their stay in London.

This is a fair example of British consistency, on the subject of
slavery, so far as the supply of cotton is concerned. The English
manufacturers are under the absolute necessity of procuring it; but as
free labor is incapable of increasing its production, slave labor must
be made to remedy the defect.

The reason can now be clearly comprehended, why abolitionists have had
so little moral power over the conscience of the slaveholder. Their
practice has been inconsistent with their precepts; or, at least, their
conduct has been liable to this construction. Nor do we perceive how
they can exert a more potent influence, in the future, unless their
energies are directed to efforts such as will relieve them from a
position so inconsistent with their professions, as that of constantly
purchasing products which they, themselves, declare to be the fruits of
robbery. While, therefore, things remain as they are, with the world so
largely dependent upon slave labor, how can it be otherwise, than that
the system will continue to flourish? And while its products are used by
all classes, of every sentiment, and country, nearly, how can the
slaveholder be brought to see any thing, in the practice of the world,
to alarm his conscience, and make him cringe, before his fellow-men, as
a guilty robber?

But, has nothing worse occurred from the advocacy of the _per se_
doctrine, than an exhibition of inconsistency on the part of
abolitionists, and the perpetuation of slavery resulting from their
conduct? This has occurred. Three highly respectable religious
denominations, now limited to the North, had once many flourishing
congregations in the South. On the adoption of the _per se_ doctrine, by
their respective Synods, their congregations became disturbed, were soon
after broken up, or the ministers in charge had to seek other fields of
labor. Their system of religious instruction, for the family, being
quite thorough, the slaves were deriving much advantage from the
influence of these bodies. But when they resolved to withhold the gospel
from the master, unless he would emancipate, they also withdrew the
means of grace from the slave; and, so far as they were concerned, left
him to perish eternally! Whether this course was proper, or whether it
would have been better to have passed by the morality of the legal
relation, in the creation of which the master had no agency, and
considered him, under Providence, as the moral guardian of the slave,
bound to discharge a guardian's duty to an immortal being, we shall not
undertake to determine. Attention is called to the facts, merely to show
the practical effects of the action of these churches upon the slave,
and what the _per se_ doctrine has done in depriving him of the gospel.

Another remark, and we have done with this topic. Nothing is more
common, in certain circles, than denunciations of the Christian men and
ministers, who refuse to adopt the _per se_ principle. We leave others
to judge whether these censures are merited. One thing is certain: those
who believe that slavery is a great civil and social evil, entailed upon
the country, and are extending the gospel to both master and slave, with
the hope of removing it peacefully, can not be reproached with acting
inconsistently with their principles; while those who declare slavery
_malum in se_, and refuse to fellowship the Christian slaveholder,
because they consider him a robber, but yet use the products of slave
labor, may fairly be classified, on their own principles, with the
hypocritical people of Israel, who were thus reproached by the Most
High: "What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou
shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth?. . . . . When thou sawest a
thief, then thou consentedst with him."[95]


[92] This is the phrase, nearly verbatim, used by Mr. Sumner in his
speech on the Fugitive Slave Bill. Language, a little more to the point,
is used in "The Friendly Remonstrance of the People of Scotland, on the
Subject of Slavery," published in the _American Missionary_, September,
1855. In depicting slavery it speaks of it as a system "which robs its
victims of the fruits of their toil."

[93] An anecdote, illustrative of the pliability of some consciences, of
this apparently rigid class, where interest or inclination demands it,
has often been told by the late Governor Morrow, of Ohio. An old Scotch
"Cameronian," in Eastern Pennsylvania, became a widower, shortly after
the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. He refused to
acknowledge either the National or State Government, but pronounced them
both unlawful, unrighteous, and ungodly. Soon he began to feel the want
of a wife, to care for his motherless children. The consent of a woman
in his own Church was gained, because to take any other would have been
like an Israelite marrying a daughter of the land of Canaan. On this
point, as in refusing to swear allegiance to Government, he was
controlled by conscience. But now a practical difficulty presented
itself. There was no minister of his Church in the country--and those of
other denominations, in his judgment, had no Divine warrant for
exercising the functions of the sacred office. He repudiated the whole
of them. But how to get married, that was the problem. He tried to
persuade his intended to agree to a marriage contract, before witnesses,
which could be confirmed whenever a proper minister should arrive from
Scotland. But his "lady-love" would not consent to the plan. She must be
married "like other folk," or not at all--because "people would talk
so." The Scotchman for want of a wife, like Great Britain for want of
cotton, saw very plainly that his children must suffer; and so he
resolved to get married at all hazards, as England buys her cotton, but
so as not to violate conscience. Proceeding with his intended to a
magistrate's office, the ceremony was soon performed, and they twain
pronounced "one flesh." But no sooner had he "kissed the bride," the
sealing act of the contract at that day, than the good Cameronian drew a
written document from his pocket, which he read aloud before the officer
and witnesses; and in which he entered his solemn protest against the
authority of the Government of the United States, against that of the
State of Pennsylvania, and especially against the power, right, and
lawfulness of the acts of the magistrate who had just married him. This
done, he went his way, rejoicing that he had secured a wife without
recognizing the lawfulness of ungodly governments, or violating his

[94] _National Intelligencer_, 1854.

[95] Psalm 1: 16, 18.


IN concluding our labors, there is little need of extended observation.
The work of emancipation, in our country, was checked, and the extension
of slavery promoted:--first, by the neglect of the free colored people
to improve the advantages afforded them; second, by the increasing value
imparted to slave labor; third, by the mistaken policy into which the
English and American abolitionists have fallen. Whatever reasons might
now be offered for emancipation, from an improvement of our free colored
people, is far more than counterbalanced by its failure in the West
Indies, and the constantly increasing value of the labor of the slave.
If, when the planters had only a moiety of the markets for cotton, the
value of slavery was such as to arrest emancipation, how must the
obstacles be increased, now, when they have the monopoly of the markets
of the world? And, besides all this, a more deadly blow, than has been
given by all other causes combined, is now levelled at negro freedom
from a quarter the least suspected. The failure of the Canadian
immigrants to improve the privileges afforded them under British law,
proves, conclusively, that the true laws of progress for the African
race, do not consist in a mere escape from slavery.

We propose not to speak of remedies for slavery. That we leave to
others. Thus far this very perplexing question, has baffled all human
wisdom. Either some radical defect must have existed, in the measures
devised for its removal, or the time has not yet come for successfully
assailing the institution. Our work is completed, in the delineation we
have given of its varied relations to our agricultural, commercial, and
social interests. As the monopoly of the culture of cotton, imparts to
slavery its economical value, the system will continue as long as this
monopoly is maintained. Slave labor products have now become necessities
of human life, to the extent of more than half the commercial articles
supplied to the Christian world. Even free labor, itself, is made
largely subservient to slavery, and vitally interested in its
perpetuation and extension.

Can this condition of things be changed? It may be reasonably doubted,
whether any thing efficient can be speedily accomplished: not because
there is lack of territory where freemen may be employed in tropical
cultivation, as all Western and Central Africa, nearly, is adapted to
this purpose; not because intelligent free labor, under proper
incentives, is less productive than slave labor; but because freemen,
whose constitutions are adapted to tropical climates, will not avail
themselves of the opportunity offered for commencing such an enterprise.

KING COTTON cares not whether he employs slaves or freemen. It is the
_cotton_, not the _slaves_, upon which his throne is based. Let freemen
do his work as well, and he will not object to the change. The efforts
of his most powerful ally, Great Britain, to promote that object, have
already cost her people many hundreds of millions of dollars, with total
failure as a reward for her zeal; and she is now compelled to resort to
the expedient of employing the slave labor of Africa, to meet the
necessities of her manufacturers. One-sixth of the colored people of the
United States are free; but they shun the cotton regions, and have been
instructed to detest emigration to Liberia. Their improvement has not
been such as was anticipated; and their more rapid advancement can not
be expected, while they remain in the country. The free colored people
of the British West Indies, can no longer be relied on to furnish
tropical products, for they are resting contented in a state of almost
savage indolence; and the introduction of coolie labor has become
indispensable as a means of saving the Islands from ruin, as well as of
forcing the negro into habits of industry. Hayti is not in a more
promising condition; and even if it were, its population and territory
are too limited to enable it to meet the increasing demand. HIS MAJESTY,
KING COTTON, therefore, is forced to continue the employment of his
slaves; and, by their toil, is riding on, conquering and to conquer! He
receives no check from the cries of the oppressed, while the citizens of
the world are dragging forward his chariot, and shouting aloud his

KING COTTON is a profound statesman, and knows what measures will best
sustain his throne. He is an acute mental philosopher, acquainted with
the secret springs of human action, and accurately perceives who can
best promote his aims. He has no evidence that colored men can grow his
cotton, except in the capacity of slaves. Thus far, all experiments made
to increase the production of cotton, by emancipating the slaves
employed in its cultivation, have been a total failure. It is his
policy, therefore, to defeat all schemes of emancipation. To do this, he
stirs up such agitations as lure his enemies into measures that will do
him no injury. The venal politician is always at his call, and assumes
the form of saint or sinner, as the service may demand. Nor does he
overlook the enthusiast, engaged in Quixotic endeavors for the relief of
suffering humanity, but influences him to advocate measures which tend
to tighten, instead of loosing the bands of slavery. Or, if he can not
be seduced into the support of such schemes, he is beguiled into efforts
that waste his strength on objects the most impracticable; so that
slavery receives no damage from the exuberance of his philanthropy. But
should such a one, perceiving the futility of his labors, and the evils
of his course, make an attempt to avert the consequences; while he is
doing this, some new recruit, pushed forward into his former place,
charges him with lukewarmness, or pro-slavery sentiments, destroys his
influence with the public, keeps alive the delusions, and sustains the
supremacy of KING COTTON in the world.

In speaking of the economical connections of slavery, with the other
material interests of the world, we have called it a _tripartite
alliance_. It is more than this. It is _quadruple_. Its structure
includes four parties, arranged thus: The Western Agriculturists; the
Southern Planters; the English Manufacturers; and the American
Abolitionists! By this arrangement, the abolitionists do not stand in
direct contact with slavery; they imagine, therefore, that they have
clean hands and pure hearts, so far as sustaining the system is
concerned. But they, no less than their allies, aid in promoting the
interests of slavery. Their sympathies are with England on the slavery
question, and they very naturally incline to agree with her on other
points. She advocates _Free Trade_, as essential to her manufactures and
commerce; and they do the same, not waiting to inquire into its bearings
upon _American slavery_. We refer now to the people, not to their
leaders, whose integrity we choose not to indorse. The free trade and
protective systems, in their bearings upon slavery, are so well
understood, that no man of general reading, especially an editor, or
member of Congress, who professes anti-slavery sentiments, at the same
time advocating free trade, will ever convince men of intelligence,
pretend what he may, that he is not either woefully perverted in his
judgment, or emphatically, a "dough-face" in disguise! England, we were
about to say, is in alliance with the cotton planter, to whose
prosperity free trade is indispensable. Abolitionism is in alliance with
England. All three of these parties, then, agree in their support of the
free trade policy. It needed but the aid of the Western farmer,
therefore, to give permanency to this principle. His adhesion has been
given, the _quadruple alliance_ has been perfected, and slavery and free
trade _nationalized_!

Slavery, thus intrenched in the midst of such powerful allies, and
without competition in tropical cultivation, has become the sole
reliance of KING COTTON. Lest the sources of his aggrandisement should
be assailed, we can well imagine him as being engaged constantly, in
devising new questions of agitation, to divert the public from all
attempts to abandon free trade and restore the protective policy. He now
finds an ample source of security, in this respect, in agitating the
question of slavery extension. This exciting topic, as we have said,
serves to keep politicians of the abolition school at the North in his
constant employ. But for the agitation of this subject, few of these men
would succeed in obtaining the suffrages of the people. Wedded to
England's free trade policy, their votes in Congress, on all questions
affecting the tariff, are always in perfect harmony with Southern
interests, and work no mischief to the system of slavery. If Kansas
comes into the Union as a slave State, he is secure in the political
power it will give him in Congress; but if it is received as a free
State, it will still be tributary to him, as a source from whence to
draw provisions to feed his slaves. Nor does it matter much which way
the controversy is decided, so long as all agree not to disturb slavery
in the States where it is already established by law. Could KING COTTON
be assured that this position will not be abandoned, he would care
little about slavery in Kansas; but he knows full well that the public
sentiment in the North is adverse to the system, and that the present
race of politicians may readily be displaced by others who will pledge
themselves to its overthrow in all the States of the Union, Hence he
wills to retain the power over the question in his own hands.

The crisis now upon the country, as a consequence of slavery having
become dominant, demands that the highest wisdom should be brought to
the management of national affairs. Slavery, nationalized, can now be
managed only as a national concern. It can now be abolished only with
the consent of those who sustain it. Their assent can be gained only by
employing other agents to meet the wants it now supplies. It must be
superseded, then, if at all, by means that will not injuriously affect
the interests of commerce and agriculture, to which it is now so
important an auxiliary. None other will be accepted, for a moment, by
the slaveholder. To supply the existing demand for tropical products,
except by the present mode, is impossible. To make the change, is not
the work of a day, nor of a generation. Should the influx of foreigners
continue, such a change may, one day, be possible. But to effect the
transition from slavery to freedom, on principles that will be
acceptable to the parties who control the question; to devise and
successfully sustain such measures as will produce this result; must be
left to statesmen of broader views and loftier conceptions than are to
be found among those at present engaged in this great controversy.

Take a more particular view of this subject, in the light of the
commercial operations of the United States, for the year 1859, as best
indicating the relations of the North and the South, and their mutual
dependence upon each other. The total value of the imports of foreign
commodities, including specie, was $338,768,130.[96] Of this $20,895,077
were re-exported, leaving for home consumption, $317,873,053--an amount
more than eleven times greater than the whole foreign commerce of Great
Britain one hundred and fifty-six years ago, and more than four times
greater than her exports eighty-six years ago.[97]

Let us inquire how this immense foreign commerce is sustained; how these
$317,873,000 of foreign imports are paid for by the American people; and
how far the Northern and Southern States respectively have contributed
to its payment. More than one-half the amount, or $161,434,923, was paid
in raw cotton, and more than one-third of the remainder, or $57,502,305,
in the precious metals; leaving less than $100,000,000 to be paid in the
other productions of the country. More than one-third of this remainder
was paid in cotton fabrics, tobacco, and rice; while the products of the
forest, of the sea, and of various minor manufactures, swelled up our
credits, so that the exports of breadstuffs and provisions, needed to
liquidate the debt, only amounted to a little over $38,000,000.[98] Of
this amount the exports, from the Northern States, of wheat and wheat
flour, made up only $15,262,769, and the corn and corn meal but
$2,206,396. "King Hay," so much lauded for his magnitude and money
value, never once ventured on board a merchant vessel, to seek a foreign
land, so as to aid in paying for the commodities which we imported.[99]
In a word, the products of the forest and of agriculture, exported by
the free States, amounted in value to about $45,300,000; while the same
classes of products, supplied for export by the Slave States, amounted
to more than $193,400,000.[100]

The economical relations of the North and the South can now be
understood more clearly than they could be from the statistics referred
to in the body of this work. The facts, in relation to the commerce of
the United States, for 1859, were not accessible until after the
stereotyping had been completed; and they are only crowded in here by
omitting two or three pages of remarks of another kind, but of less
importance, which closed the volume. By consulting Table XII, and two or
three of the others, which contain similar facts, covering the
commercial operations of the country since the year 1821, the whole
question of the relations of the North and the South can be fully
comprehended. It will be seen that the exports of tobacco, which are
mainly from the South, have equaled in value considerably more than
one-third the amount of that of breadstuffs and provisions; and that, in
the same period, the exports of cotton have exceeded in value those of
breadstuffs and provisions to the amount of $1,421,482,261.[101] Here,
now, a just conception can be formed of the importance of cotton to the
commerce of the country, as compared with our other productions. The
amount exported, of that article, in the last thirty-nine years, has
exceeded in value the exports of breadstuffs and provisions to the
extent of _fourteen hundred and twenty-one millions of dollars_! Verily,
Cotton is King!

Another point needs consideration. It is a fact, not to be questioned,
that the productions of the Northern States amount to an immense sum,
above those of the Southern States, when valued in dollars and cents;
but the proportion of the products of the former; exported to foreign
countries, is very insignificant, indeed, when compared with the value
of the exports from the latter.[102] And, yet, the North is acquiring
wealth with amazing rapidity. This fact could not exist, unless the
Northern people produce more than they consume--unless they have a
surplus to sell, after supplying their own wants. They must, therefore,
find a permanent and profitable market, somewhere, for the surplus
products that yield them their wealth. As that market is not in Europe,
it must be in the Southern States. But the extent to which the South
receive their supplies from the North, cannot be determined by any data
now in the possession of the public. It must, however, be very large in
amount, and, if withheld, would greatly embarrass the Southern people,
by lessening their ability to export as largely as hitherto. So, on the
other hand, if the Northern people were deprived of the markets afforded
by the South, they would find so little demand elsewhere for their
products, that it would have a ruinous effect upon their prosperity. All
that can be safely said upon this subject is, that the interests of both
sections of the country are so intimately connected, so firmly blended
together, that a dissolution of the Union would be destructive to all
the economical interests of both the North and the South. Cut off from
the South all that the North supplies to the planters, in such articles
as agricultural implements, furniture, clothing, provisions, horses, and
mules, and cotton culture would at once have to be abandoned to a great
extent. But would the South alone be the sufferer? Could the Northern
agriculturist, manufacturer, and mechanic, remain prosperous, and
continue to accumulate wealth, without a market for their products?
Could Northern merchants dwell in their palaces, and roll in luxury,
with a foreign commerce contracted to one-third of its present extent,
and a domestic demand for merchandize reduced to one-half its present
amount? Certainly not.

And if the mere necessity of self supply, of food and clothing, such as
existed in 1820, would now be disastrous to the South, and react
destructively upon the North, what would be the effect of emancipation
upon the country at large? What would be the effect of releasing from
restraint three and a half millions of negroes, to bask in idleness,
under the genial sunshine of the South, or to emigrate hither and
thither, at will, with none to control their actions? It is too late to
insist that free labor would be more profitable than slave labor, when
negroes are to be the operatives: Jamaica has solved that problem. It is
too late to claim that white labor could be made to take the place of
black labor, while the negroes remain upon the ground: Canada, and the
Northern States, demonstrate that the two races cannot be made to labor
together peacefully and upon terms of equality. Nothing is more certain,
therefore, than that emancipation would inevitably place the Southern
States in a similar position to that of Jamaica. On this point take a
fact or two.

The _Colonial Standard_,[103] of the 13th January, 1859, in speaking of
the present industrial condition of that Island, says, that there are
not more than twenty thousand laborers who employ themselves in sugar
cultivation for wages. This will seem astonishing to those who expected
so much from emancipation, when it is stated that the black population
of Jamaica, when liberated from slavery, numbered three hundred and
eleven thousand, six hundred and ninety two; and that the exports of
sugar from the Island, in 1805, before the slave trade was prohibited,
amounted to 237,751,150 lbs.;[104] while, in 1859, the exports of that
staple commodity, only amounted to 44,800,000 lbs.[105] It will thus be
seen that the exports of sugar from Jamaica is now less than one-fifth
of what it was in the prosperous days of slavery; and so it must be as
to cotton, in the South, were emancipation forced upon this country. And
what would be the condition of our foreign commerce, and what the effect
upon the country, generally, were the exports of the South diminished to
less than one-fifth of their present amount? Would the lands of the
Northern farmers still continue to advance in price, if the markets for
the surplus products of the soil no longer existed? Would those of the
Southern planters rise in value, in the event of emancipation, to an
equality with the lands at the North, when no laborers could be found to
till the soil? No man entitled to the name of statesman--no man of
practical common sense--could imagine that such a result would follow
the liberation of the slaves in the Southern States. Under the
philanthropic legislation of Great Britain, no such result followed the
passage of the act for the abolition of slavery in her colonies; but, on
the contrary, the value of their real estate soon became reduced to a
most ruinous extent; and such must inevitably be the result under the
adoption of similar measures in the United States. This is the
conviction of the men of the South, and they will act upon their own

There are strong indications that the views presented in the first
edition of this work, and reported in the subsequent issues, are rapidly
becoming the views of intelligent and unprejudiced men everywhere. At a
late date in the British Parliament, Lord Brougham made a strong
anti-American cotton and anti-American slavery speech. The _London
Times_, thus "takes the backbone all out of his argument, and leaves
him nothing but his sophistries to stand on," thus:

"Lord Brougham and the veterans of the old Anti-Slavery Society do not
share our delight at this great increase in the employment of our home
population. Their minds are still seared by those horrible stories which
were burnt in upon them in their youth, when England was not only a
slave-owning, but even a slave-trading State. Their remorse is so great
that the ghost of a black man is always before them. They are benevolent
and excellent people; but if a black man happened to have broken his
shin, and a white man were in danger of drowning, we much fear that a
real anti-slavery zealot would bind up the black man's leg before he
would draw the white man out of the water. It is not an inconsistency,
therefore, that while we see only cause of congratulation in this
wonderful increase of trade, Lord Brougham sees in it the exaggeration
of an evil he never ceases to deplore.

"We, and such as we, who are content to look upon society as Providence
allows it to exist--to mend it when we can, but not to distress
ourselves immoderately for evils which are not of our creation--we see
only the free and intelligent English families who thrive upon the wages
which these cotton bales produce. Lord Brougham sees only the black
laborers who, on the other side of the Atlantic, pick the cotton pods in
slavery. Lord Brougham deplores that in this tremendous exportation of a
thousand millions of pounds of cotton, the lion's share of the profits
goes to the United States, and has been produced by slave labor. Instead
of twenty-three millions, the United States now send us eight hundred
and thirty millions, and this is all cultivated by slaves. It is very
sad that this should be so, but we do not see our way to a remedy. There
seems to be rather a chance of its becoming worse.

"If France, who is already moving onwards in a restless, purblind state,
should open her eyes wide, should give herself fair-play, by accepting
our coals, iron, and machinery, and, under the stimulus of a wholesome
competition, should take to manufacturing upon a large scale, even these
three millions of slaves will not be enough. France will be competing
with us in the foreign cotton markets, stimulating still further the
produce of Georgia and South Carolina. The jump which the consumption of
cotton in England has just made is but a single leap, which may be
repeated indefinitely. There are a thousand millions of mankind on the
globe, all of whom can be most comfortably clad in cotton. Every year
new tribes and new nations are added to the category of cotton-wearers.
There is every reason to believe that the supply of this universal
necessity will, for many years yet to come, fail to keep pace with the
demand, and in the interest of that large class of our countrymen to
whom cotton is bread, we must continue to hope that the United States
will be able to supply us in years to come with twice as much as we
bought of them in years past. 'Let us raise up another market,' says the
anti-slavery people. So say we all. . . . . .

"But even Lord Brougham would not ask us to believe that there is any
proximate hope that the free cotton raised in Africa will, within any
reasonable time, drive out of culture the slave-grown cotton of America.
If this be so, of what use can it be to make irritating speeches in the
House of Lords against a state of things by which we are content to
profit? Lord Brougham and Lord Grey are not men of such illogical minds
as to be incapable of understanding that it is the demand of the English
manufacturers which stimulates the produce of slave-grown American
cotton. They are, neither of them, we apprehend, so reckless or so
wicked as to close our factories and to throw some two millions of our
manufacturing population out of bread. Why, then, these inconsequent and
these irritating denunciations? Let us create new fields of produce of
we can; but, meanwile, it is neither just nor dignified to buy the raw
material from the Americans, and to revile them for producing it."

We have said that the more popular belief, in reference to the moral
character of slavery, now prevailing throughout the world, ranks it as
identical in principle with despotic forms of government. Here arises a
question of importance. Can despotism be acknowledged by Christians as a
lawful form of government? Those who hold the view of slavery under
consideration, answer in the affirmative. The necessity of civil
government, they say, is denied by none. Society can not exist in its
absence. Republicanism can be sustained only where the majority are
intelligent and moral. In no other condition can free government be
maintained. Hence, despotism establishes itself, of necessity, more or
less absolutely, over an ignorant or depraved people; obtaining the
acquiescence of the enlightened, by offering them security to person and
property. Few nations, indeed, possess moral elevation sufficient to
maintain republicanism. Many have tried it, have failed, and relapsed
into despotism. Republican nations, therefore, must forego all
intercourse with despotic governments, or acknowledge them to be lawful.
This can be done, it is claimed, without being accountable for moral
evils connected with their administration. Elevated examples of such
recognitions are on record. Christ paid tribute to Cæsar; and Paul, by
appealing to Cæsar's tribunal, admitted the validity of the despotic
government of Rome, with its thirty millions of slaves. To deny the
lawfulness of despotism, and yet hold intercourse with such governments,
is as inconsistent as to hold the _per se_ doctrine, in regard to
slavery, and still continue to use its products.

How far masters in general escape the commission of sin, in the
treatment of their slaves, or whether any are free from guilt, is not
the point at issue, in this view of slavery. The mere possession of
power over the slave, under the sanction of law, is held not to be
sinful; but, like despotism, may be used for the good of the governed.
That Southern masters are laboring for the good of the slave, to an
encouraging extent, is apparent from the missionary efforts they are
sustaining among the slave population. And when it is considered that
the African race, under American slavery, have made much greater
progress than they have ever done in any other part of the world; and
that the elevating influences are now greatly increased among them; it
is to be expected that dispassionate men will be disposed to leave the
present condition of things undisturbed, rather than to rush madly into
the adoption of measures that may prove fatal to the existence of the


[96] See Table XII, in Appendix.

[97] See Speech of Edmund Burke, in Appendix.

[98] See Table VIII, in Appendix.

[99] It has been denied that "Cotton is King," and claimed that Hay is
entitled to that royal appellation; because its estimated value exceeds
that of Cotton. The imperial character of Cotton rests upon the fact,
that it enters so largely into the manufactures, trade, and commerce of
the world, while hay is only in demand at home.

[100] See Table XII, in Appendix, for the statistics on this subject.

[101] See Table VIII, in Appendix.

[102] See Table XII.

[103] This paper is published at Kingston, Jamaica, and in confirmation
of the views of the _London Economist_, quoted in the body of the work,
the following extract is copied from its columns:

"Barbadoes, we all know, is prosperous because she possesses a native
population almost as dense as that of China, with a very limited extent
of superficial soil. In Barbadoes, therefore, population presses on the
means of subsistence, in the same way, if not to the same extent, as in
England, and the people are industrious from necessity. Trinidad and
British Guiana, on the other hand, have taken steps to produce this
pressure artificially, by large importations of foreign labor. The
former colony, by the importation of eleven thousand coolies, has
trebled her crops since 1854, while the latter has doubled hers by the
introduction of twenty-three thousand immigrants.

"While Jamaica is the single instance of retrogression, she affords also
the solitary example of non-immigration.

"Mauritius, by importing something like one hundred and seventy thousand
laborers, has increased her exports of sugar from 70,000,000 lbs. in
1844, to 250,000,000 lbs. in 1858. Jamaica, by depending wholly on
native labor, has fallen from an export of 69,000 hhds. in 1848, to one
of 28,000 hhds. in 1859.

"It is believed that there are not at this moment above twenty thousand
laborers who employ themselves in sugar cultivation for wages."

[104] Martin's British Colonies. See also Ethiopia, by the author, page
132, for full details on this question.

[105] The hhd. of sugar, as in Martin's tables, is here estimated at
1,600 lbs. See foot note on page 222.



SENTIMENTS have been quoted from the proceedings of the public meetings
held by the fathers of the Revolution, which, when taken in connection
with the language of the Declaration of Independence, seem to favor the
opinion that it was their purpose to extend to the colored people all
the privileges to be secured by that struggle. An examination of the
historical records, leads to the conclusion, that no such intention
existed on the part of the statesmen and patriots of that day. The
opinions expressed, with scarcely an exception, show that they viewed
the slave trade and slavery as productive of evils to the colonies, and
calculated to retard their prosperity, if not to prevent their
acquisition of independence. The question of negro slavery was one of
little moment, indeed, in the estimation of the colonists, when compared
with the objects at which they aimed; and the resolutions adopted, which
bound them not to import any more slaves, or purchase any imported by
others, was a blow aimed at the commerce of the mother country, and
designed to compel Parliament to repeal its obnoxious laws. But the
resolutions themselves must be given, as best calculated to demonstrate
what were the designs of those by whom they were adopted. Before doing
this, however, it is necessary to ascertain what were the relations
which the North American Colonies bore to the commerce of the British
Empire, and why it was, that the refusal any longer to purchase imported
slaves would be so ruinous to Great Britain, and her other colonies.
When this is done, and not till then, can the full meaning of the
resolutions be determined. Such were the links connecting these colonies
with England--with the West Indies--and with the African slave trade,
conducted by British merchants--that more than one-half of the commerce
of the mother country was directly or indirectly under their control.
The facts on this subject are extracted from the debates in the British
Parliament, and especially from the speech of Hon. EDMUND BURKE, on his
resolutions, of March 22d, 1775, for conciliation with America.[106] He

"I have in my hand two accounts; one, a comparative statement of the
export trade of England to its colonies, as it stood in the year 1704,
and as it stood in the year 1772. The other, a state of the export trade
of this country to its colonies alone, as it stood in 1772, compared
with the whole trade of England to all parts of the world, (the colonies
included,) in the year 1704. They are from good vouchers; the latter
period from the accounts on your own table, the earlier, from an
original manuscript of Davenant, who first established the Inspector
General's Office, which has been, ever since his time, so abundant a
source of Parliamentary information.

"The export trade to the colonies, consists of three great branches. The
African, which, terminating almost wholly in the colonies, must be put
to the account of their commerce; the West Indian, and the North
American. All these are so interwoven, that the attempt to separate them
would tear to pieces the contexture of the whole; and if not entirely
destroy, would very much depreciate the value of all the parts. I,
therefore, consider these three denominations to be, what in effect they
are, one trade.

"The trade to the colonies, taken on the export side, at the beginning
of this century, that is, in the year 1704, stood thus:

  "Exports to North America and the West Indies   $2,416,325
   To Africa                                         433,325

"In the year 1772, which I take as a middle year, between the highest
and lowest of those lately laid on your table, the account was as

  "To North America and the West Indies               $23,958,670
   To Africa                                            4,331,990
   To which, if you add the export trade from Scotland,
      which had, in 1704, no existence                  1,820,000

"From a little over two millions and three quarters, it has grown to
over thirty millions.[107] It has increased no less than twelve fold.
This is the state of the colony trade, as compared with itself at these
two periods, within this century; and this is matter for meditation. But
this is not all. Examine my second account. See how the export trade to
the colonies alone, in 1772, stood in the other point of view, that is,
as compared to the whole trade of England, in 1704.

  "The whole trade of England, including that
     to the colonies, in 1704                $32,545,000
   Export to the colonies alone, in 1772      30,120,000
        Difference                            $2,425,000

"The trade with America alone, is now within less than two millions and
a half of being equal to what this great commercial nation, England,
carried on at the beginning of this century with the whole world! If I
had taken the largest year of those on your table, it would rather have
exceeded. But, it will be said, is not this American trade an unnatural
protuberance, that has drawn the juices from the rest of the body? The
reverse. It is the very food that has nourished every other part into
its present magnitude. Our general trade has been greatly augmented; and
augmented more or less in almost every part to which it ever extended;
but with this material difference, that of the thirty-two millions and a
half, which, in the beginning of the century, constituted the whole mass
of our export commerce, the colony trade was but one-twelfth part; it is
now considerably more than a third of the whole--[which is $80,000,000.]
This is the relative proportion of the importance of the colonies at
these two periods; and all reasoning concerning our mode of treating
them, must have this proportion as its basis; or it is a reasoning,
weak, rotten, and sophistical."

It is easy to perceive, from what is said by Mr. Burke, the
embarrassments that must fall upon the mother country, in the event of a
rebellion in the North American colonies. Take another illustration of
this point. More than one-third of the exports of Great Britain were
made to North America, the West Indies, and Africa. They stood thus
during the three years ending at Christmas, 1773:

  Annual average exports to North America      $17,500,000
  To the West Indies                             6,500,000
  To Africa                                      3,500,000
      Total value of exports                   $27,500,000

But this is not all. The total value of the exports of Great Britain to
all the world, at this date, was $80,000,000. These exports were made
up, in part, of colonial products, tobacco, rice, sugar, etc., to the
amount of $15,000,000;--$5,000,000 to foreign countries, and $10,000,000
to Ireland,--which, when added to the $27,500,000, paid for by the
colonies, exhibits them as sustaining more than one-half of the commerce
of the mother country.[108]

The immediate cause of the alarm which led to the examination of this
subject by the Hon. Edmund Burke, and others, of the British Parliament,
was the adoption, by the North American colonies, of the policy of
non-importation and non-consumption of all English products, whether
from the mother country, or any of her colonies; and the non-exportation
of any North American products to Great Britain, the West Indies, or any
of the dependencies of the crown. This agreement was adopted as a
measure of retaliation upon Parliament, for the passage of the Boston
Port Bill, which ordered the closing of Boston harbor to all commerce.
The measure was first proposed at a meeting of the citizens of Boston,
held on May 13, 1774. It was soon seconded by all the principal cities,
towns, and counties, throughout the colonies; and when the Continental
Congress met at Philadelphia, the terms of the league were drawn up and
adopted, October 20, 1774, and went into operation.

A few extracts from memorials to Parliament, praying that the
difficulties with North America might be adjusted, and the threatened
evils averted, will show how the slave trade was then interwoven with
the commerce and national prosperity of Great Britain, and to what
extent the American league could affect that prosperity.

In the House of Commons, January 23, 1775: "Mr. Burke then presented a
petition of the Master, Wardens, and Commonalty, of the Society of
Merchants Venturers of the city of Bristol, under their common seal;
which was read, setting forth, That a very beneficial and increasing
trade to the British colonies in America, has been carried on from the
port of Bristol, highly to the advantage of the kingdom in general, and
of the said city in particular; and that the exports from the said port
to America, consist of almost every species of British manufactures,
besides East India goods, and other articles of commerce; and the
returns are made not only in many valuable and useful commodities from
thence, but also, by a circuitous trade, carried on with Ireland, and
most parts of Europe, to the great emolument of the merchant, and
improvement of his Majesty's revenue; and that the merchants of the said
port are also deeply engaged in the trade to the West India islands,
which, by the exchange of their produce with America, for provisions,
lumber, and other stores, are thereby almost wholly maintained, and
consequently, become dependent upon North America for support; and that
the trade to Africa, which is carried on from the said port to a very
considerable extent, is also dependent upon the flourishing state of the
West India islands, and America; and that these different branches of
commerce give employment not only to a very numerous body of artists and
manufacturers, but also to a great number of ships, and many thousand
seamen, by which means a very capital increase is made to the naval
strength of Great Britain. . . . . . The passing certain acts of
Parliament, and other measures lately adopted, caused such a great
uneasiness in the minds of the inhabitants of America, as to make the
merchants apprehensive of the most alarming consequences, and which, if
not speedily remedied, must involve them in utter ruin. And the
petitioners, as merchants deeply interested in measures which so
materially affect the commerce of this kingdom, and not less concerned
as Englishmen, in every thing that relates to the general welfare,
cannot look without emotion on the many thousands of miserable objects,
who, by the total stop put to the export trade of America, will be
discharged from their manufactories for want of employment, and must be
reduced to great distress."[109]

January 26, 1775. A petition of the merchants and tradesmen of the port
of Liverpool, was presented to the House, and read, setting forth: "That
an extensive and most important trade has been long carried on, from
said town to the continent and islands of America; and that the exports
from thence infinitely exceed in value the imports from America, from
whence an immense debt arises, and remains due to the British merchant;
and that every article which the laborer, manufacturer, or more
ingenious artist, can furnish for use, convenience, or luxury, makes a
part in these exports, for the consumption of the American; and that
those demands, as important in amount as various in quality, have for
many seasons been so constant, regular, and diffusive, that they are now
become essential to the flourishing state of all their manufactures, and
of consequence to every ndividual in these kingdoms; and that the bread
of thousands in Great Britain, principally and immediately depends upon
this branch of commerce, of which a temporary interruption will reduce
the hand of industry to idleness and want, and a longer cessation of it
would sink the now opulent trader in indigence and ruin; and that at
this particular season of the year, the petitioners have been accustomed
to send to North America many ships wholly laden with the products of
Britain; but by the unhappy differences at present subsisting, from
whatever source they flow, the trade to these parts is entirely at a
stand; and that the present loss, though great, is nothing, when
compared with the dreadful mischiefs which will certainly ensue, if some
effectual remedy is not speedily applied to this spreading malady, which
must otherwise involve the West India islands, and the trade to Africa,
in the complicated ruin; but that the petitioners can still, with
pleasing hopes, look up to the British Parliament, from whom they trust
that these unhappy divisions will speedily be healed, mutual confidence
and credit restored, and the trade of Britain again flourishing with
undecaying vigor."[110]

March 16, 1775. To the question "From what places do the sugar colonies
draw food for subsistence?" the answer, given before Parliament, was, in
part, as follows: "I confine myself at present to necessary food.
Ireland furnishes a large quantity of salted beef, pork, butter, and
herrings, but no grain. North America supplies all the rest, both corn
and provisions. North America is truly the granary of the West Indies;
from whence they draw the great quantities of flour and biscuit for the
use of one class of people, and of Indian corn for the support of all
the others; for the support, not of man only, but of every animal . . .
. . . North America also furnishes the West Indies with rice . . . . . .
North America not only furnishes the West Indies with bread, but with
meat, with sheep, with poultry, and some live cattle; but the demand for
these is infinitely short of the demand for the salted beef, pork, and
fish. Salted fish, (if the expression may be permitted in contrast with
bread,) is the meat of all the lower ranks in Barbadoes and the Leeward
Islands. It is the meat of all the slaves in the West Indies. Nor is it
disdained by persons in better condition. The North American colonies
also furnishes the sugar colonies with salt from Turks' Island, Sal
Tortuga, and Anguilla; although these islands are themselves a part of
the West Indies. The testimony which some experience has enabled me to
bear, you will find confirmed, Sir, by official accounts. The same
accounts will distinguish the source of the principal, the great supply
of corn and provisions. They will fix it precisely in the middle
colonies of North America; in those colonies who have made a public
agreement in their Congress, to withhold all their supplies after the
tenth of next September. How far that agreement may be precipitated in
its execution, may be retarded or frustrated, it is for the wisdom of
Parliament to consider: but if it is persisted in, I am well founded to
say, that nothing will save Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands from the
dreadful consequences of absolute famine. I repeat, the famine will not
be prevented. The distress will fall upon them suddenly; they will be
overwhelmed with it, before they can turn themselves about to look for
relief. What a scene! when rapine, stimulated by hunger, has broken down
all screens, confounded the rich with the poor, and leveled the freeman
with his slave! The distress will be sudden. The body of the people do
not look forward to distant events; if they should do this, they will
put their trust in the wisdom of Parliament. Suppose them to be less
confident in the wisdom of Parliament, they are destitute of the means
of purchasing an extraordinary stock. Suppose them possessed of the
means; a very extraordinary stock is not to be found at market. There is
a plain reason in the nature of the thing, which prevents any
extraordinary stock at market, and which would forbid the planter from
laying it in, if there was; it is, that the objects of it are
perishable. In those climates, the flour will not keep over six or eight
weeks; the Indian corn decays in three months; and all the North
American provisions are fit only for present use."[111]

To the question, what are the advantages of the sugar colonies to Great
Britain? it was answered: "The advantage is not that the profits all
centre here; it is, that it creates, in the course of attaining those
profits, a commerce and navigation in which multitudes of your people,
and millions of your money are employed; it is that the support which
the sugar colonies received in one shape, they give in another. In
proportion to their dependence on North America, and upon Ireland, they
enable North America and Ireland to trade with Great Britain. By their
dependence upon Great Britain for hands to push the culture of the
sugar-cane, they uphold the trade of Great Britain to Africa. A trade
which in the pursuit of negroes, as the principal, if not the only
intention of the adventurer, brings home ivory and gold as secondary
objects. In proportion as the sugar colonies consume, or cause to be
consumed, among their neighbors, Asiatic commodities, they increase the
trade of the English East India Company. In this light I see the India
goods which are carried to the coast of Guinea.[112]

To the question, what proportion of land in the Leeward Islands, being
applied to raising provisions, would supply the negroes with provisions,
on an estate of two hundred hogsheads, for instance? it was answered:
"The native products of the Islands are very uncertain; all so, but
Guinea corn; therefore, much more land would be applied to this purpose
than would be necessary to raise the supply for the regular constant
consumption. They must provide against accidents, such as hurricanes,
excess of wet weather, or of dry weather, the climate being very
uncertain; it is, therefore, impossible to answer this question
precisely; but this I can say, that if they were obliged to raise their
own food, that their food then must be their principal object, and sugar
only a secondary object; it would be but the trifle, which provisions
are now."[113]

The testimony in reference to Jamaica, was very similar to that quoted
in relation to Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands; except that as
Jamaica had more unimproved land, and greater diversity of soil and
climate, it might, in time, stand prepared to meet the shock. But as the
emergency was likely to be sudden and unexpected, much suffering must
ensue in the outset of the non-intercourse policy.

It is only necessary to add a few remarks, from the speech of Mr.
Glover, in summing up the testimony. He said: "From this ground see what
is put in hazard; not merely a monied profit, but our bulwark of
defense, our power in offense--the acts and industry of our Nation.
Instead of thousands and tens of thousands of families in comfort, a
navigation extensive and enlarging, the value and rents of lands yearly
rising, wealth abounding, and at hand for further improvements, see or
foresee, that this third of our whole commerce, that sole basis of our
Empire, and this third in itself the best, once lost, carries with it a
proportion of our national faculties, our treasure, our public revenue,
and the value of land, succeeded in its fall by a multiplication of
taxes to reinstate that revenue, an increasing burden on every
increasing estate, decreasing by the reduced demand of its produce for
the support of Manufactures, and menaced with a heavier calamity
still--the diminution of our Marine, of our seamen, of our general
population, by the emigration of useful subjects, strengthening that
very country you wish to humble, and weakening this in the sight of
rival powers, who wish to humble us.

"To recapitulate the heads of that material evidence delivered before
you, would be tedious in me, unnecessary in itself. Leaving it,
therefore, to its own powerful impression, I here add only, in a general
mode of my own, that of the inhabitants of those Islands, above four
hundred thousand are blacks, from whose labor the immense riches there,
so distinctly proved at your bar, are derived, with such immense
advantage to these kingdoms. How far these multitudes, if their
intercourse with North America is stopped, may be exposed to famine, you
have heard. One-half in Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands, say one
hundred thousand negroes, in value at least twenty millions of dollars,
possibly, it grieves me to say probably, may perish. The remainder must
divert to provisions the culture of the produce so valuable to Great
Britain. The same must be the practice in great part throughout Jamaica
and the new settled acquisitions. They may feel a distress just short of
destruction, but must divert for subsistence so much labor as, in
proportion, will shorten their rich product."[114]

The North American colonies could not have devised a measure so alarming
to Great Britain, and so well calculated to force Parliament into the
repeal of her obnoxious laws, as this policy of non-intercourse. It
would deprive the West Indies of their ordinary supplies of provisions,
and force them to suspend their usual cultivation, to produce their own
food. It would cause not only the cessation of imports from Great
Britain into the West Indies, on account of the inability of its people
to pay, but would, at once, check all demand for slaves, both in the
sugar Islands and in North America--thus creating a loss, in the
African trade alone, of three and a half millions of dollars, and
putting in peril one-half of the commerce of England.

We are now prepared to introduce the resolutions, passed by the North
American colonies, on the subject of the slave trade and slavery. It is
not considered necessary to burden our pages with a repetition of the
whole of the accompanying resolutions. They embraced every item of
foreign commodities, excepting in a few instances where medicines,
saltpetre, and other necessaries, were exempted from the prohibition. In
a few counties, though they condemned the slave trade, they excepted
negroes, and desired to retain the privilege of procuring them. This was
in the early part of the movement. When the Continental Congress came to
act upon it, no such exemption was made.

On May 17, 1774, the citizens of Providence, Rhode Island, met and
acquiesced in the Boston resolutions. Their proceedings closed with this
declaration: "Whereas, the inhabitants of America are engaged in the
preservation of their rights and liberties; and as personal liberty is
an essential part of the natural rights of mankind, the deputies of the
town are directed to use their endeavors to obtain an act of the General
Assembly, prohibiting the importation of negro slaves in this colony;
and that all negroes born in the colony should be free at a certain

Prince George county, Virginia, June 1774, responded to Boston, and
added this resolution: "_Resolved_, That the African trade is injurious
to this colony, obstructs the population of it by freemen, prevents
manufacturers and other useful emigrants from Europe from settling among
us, and occasions an annual balance of trade against the colony."[115]

Culpepper County, Virginia, July 7, 1774 acquiesced in the
non-intercourse policy, and added this resolution: "_Resolved_, That the
importing slaves and convict servants, is injurious to this colony, as
it obstructs the population of it with freemen and useful manufacturers,
and that we will not buy such slave or convict hereafter to be

The Provincial Convention, at Charleston, South Carolina, July 6, 7, 8,
1774, resolved to acquiesce in the Boston non-intercourse measures, and
the merchants agreed not to import goods or slaves, until the grievances
were redressed.[117]

Nansemond County Virginia, July 11, 1774, gave full assent to the Boston
measures, and also "_Resolved_, That the African trade is injurious to
this colony, obstructs the population of it by freemen, prevents
manufacturers and other useful emigrants from Europe from settling among
us, and occasions an annual increase of the balance of trade against the
colony ."[118]

Caroline County, Virginia, July 14, 1774, cordially acceded to the
Boston policy, and also "_Resolved_, That the African trade is injurious
to this colony, obstructs our population by freemen, manufacturers, and
others, who would emigrate from Europe and settle here, and occasions a
balance of trade against the country that ought to be associated

Surry County, Virginia, July 6, 1774, decided to sustain the Bostonians
and also "_Resolved_, That as the population of this colony, with
freemen and useful manufacturers, is greatly obstructed by the
importation of slaves and convict servants, we will not purchase any
such slaves or servants, hereafter to be imported."[120]

Fairfax County, Virginia, July 18, 1774, took ground strongly with
Boston, and further "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this meeting,
that during our present difficulties and distress, no slaves ought to be
imported into any of the British colonies on the continent; and we take
this opportunity of declaring our most earnest wishes to see an entire
stop forever put so such a wicked, cruel, and unnatural trade."[121]

Hanover county, Virginia, July 20, 1774, sustained the Boston
resolutions, and also "_Resolved_, That the African trade for slaves, we
consider as most dangerous to virtue and the welfare of this country; we
therefore most earnestly wish to see it totally discouraged."[122]

Prince Ann County, Virginia, July 27, 1784, adopted the Boston policy,
most distinctly, and also "_Resolved_, That our Burgesses be instructed
to oppose the importation of slaves and convicts as injurious to this
colony, by preventing the population of it by freemen and useful

The Virginia Convention of Delegates, which met at Williamsburgh, August
1, 1774, fully indorsed the non-intercourse policy, medicines excepted,
and in their resolutions declared: "We will neither ourselves import,
nor purchase any slave or slaves imported by any other person, after the
first day of November next, either from Africa, the West Indies, or any
other place."[124]

The North Carolina Convention of Delegates, which met at Newbern, August
24, 1774, fully indorsed the non-intercourse policy, and also passed
this among their other resolutions: "_Resolved_, That we will not import
any slave or slaves, or purchase any slave or slaves, imported or
brought into this Province by others, from any part of the world, after
the first day of November next."[125]

And, finally, the Continental Congress, which met at Philadelphia, Sept.
5, 1774, in passing its non-importation, non-exportation, and
non-consumption Agreement, included the following as the second article
of that document:

"That we will neither import nor purchase any slave imported after the
first day of December next; after which time we will wholly discontinue
the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will
we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manfactures to those
who are concerned in it."[126]

To afford a clear view of the reasons which prompted the colonies to
adopt such stringent measures to compel Parliament to repeal its
oppressive acts, it is only necessary to quote the very brief summary of
grievances of which they complained, as drawn up by the Pennsylvania
Convention, which met in Philadelphia, July 15, 1774:

"The legislative authority claimed by Parliament over these colonies,
consists of two heads: first, a general power of internal legislation;
and, secondly, a power of regulating our trade; both, she contends, are
unlimited. Under the first may be included, among other powers, those of
forbidding us to worship our Creator in the manner we think most
acceptable to him--imposing taxes on us--collecting them by their own
officers--enforcing the collection by Admiralty Courts, or Courts
Martial--abolishing trials by jury--establishing a standing army among
us in time of peace, without consent of our Assemblies--paying them with
our money--seizing our young men for recruits--changing constitutions of
government--stopping the press--declaring any action, even a meeting of
the smallest number, to consider of peaceable modes to obtain redress of
grievances, high treason--taking colonists to Great Britain to be
tried--exempting 'murderers' of colonists from punishment, by carrying
them to England, to answer indictments found in the colonies--shutting
up our ports--prohibiting us from slitting iron to build our houses,
making hats to cover our heads, or clothing to cover the rest of our
bodies, etc."[127]

It was in the midst of grievances such as these, and of efforts of
redress such as the adoption of the Non-Intercourse Agreement was
expected to afford, that the resolutions against the slave trade and
slavery were passed. What, then, was their true import? Did the patriots
of the Revolution contemplate the enfranchisement of the negro, in the
event of securing their own independence? Did their views of free
institutions include the idea that barbarism and civilization could
coalesce and co-exist in harmony and safety? Or did they not hold, as a
great fundamental truth, that a high degree of intelligence and moral
principle was essential to the success of free government? And was it
not on this very principle, that they opposed the further introduction
of negroes from Africa, and afterwards, by a special clause in the
Constitution, excluded the Indians from citizenship?

The resolutions which have been quoted, have given rise to much
discussion, and have often been misrepresented. By severing them from
their connection with the circumstances under which they were adopted,
and associating them with the phrase in the Declaration of Independence,
that "all men are created equal," the impression has been made that the
negroes were to be included in the rights therein claimed. But as they
have not been made participants in the benefits of the Revolution, it
has been argued that the nation has broken its covenant engagements, and
must expect that the judgments of Heaven will be poured out upon her.

Now, what are the facts? The colonists were aiming at a high degree of
mental and moral culture, and were desirous of developing the resources
of the country, by encouraging the influx of freemen from Europe, and
especially of mechanics and manufacturers. They were anxiously looking
forward to the time when they could cast off the yoke of oppression
which the mother country had forced upon their necks. The multiplication
of the negro population was considered as a barrier to the success of
their measures, and as most dangerous to virtue and the welfare of the
country. It was increasing the indebtedness of the citizens to foreign
merchants, and augmenting the balance of trade against the colonies. But
there was no settled policy in reference to the future disposition of
the colored population. Feelings of pity were manifested toward them,
and some expressed themselves in favor of emancipation. The Continental
Congress, in addition to its action in the Non-Intercourse Agreement,
_Resolved_, April 6, 1776, "That no slaves be imported into any of the
thirteen United Colonies."[128] The Delaware Convention, August 27,
1776, adopted, as the 26th article of its Constitution, that "No person
hereafter imported into this State from Africa, ought to be held in
slavery on any pretense whatever; and no negro, Indian, or mulatto slave
ought to be brought into this State, for sale, from any part of the

There was more of meaning in this action, than the resolution, standing
alone, would seem to indicate. On the 11th of July, preceding, Gen.
Washington wrote to the Massachusetts Assembly, that the enemy had
excited the slaves and savages to arms against him;[130] and on November
7th, 1775, Lord Dunmore had issued a proclamation, declaring the
emancipation of all slaves "that were able and willing to bear arms,
they joining his Majesty's troops, as soon as may be, for the more
speedy reducing the colonists to their duty to his Majesty's crown and

Previous to the commencement of hostilities, the resolutions of the
colonists, adverse to the slave trade and slavery, were designed to
operate against British commerce; but, after that event, the measures
adopted had reference, mainly, to the prevention of the increase of a
population that had been, and might continue to be, employed against the
liberties of the colonies. That such a course formed a part of the
policy of Great Britain, is beyond dispute; and that she considered the
prosecution of the slave trade as necessary to her purposes, was clearly
indicated by the Earl of Dartmouth, who declared, as a sufficient reason
for turning a deaf ear to the remonstrances of the colonists against the
further importation of slaves, that "Negroes cannot become
republicans--they will be a power in our hands to restrain the unruly
colonists." That such motives prompted England to prosecute the
introduction of slaves into the colonies, was fully believed by American
statesmen; and their views were expressed, by Mr. Jefferson, in a clause
in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, but which was
afterward omitted.

That the emancipation of the negroes was not contemplated, by those in
general, who voted for the resolutions quoted, is evident from the
subsequent action of Virginia, where the greater portion of the meetings
were held. They could not have intended to enfranchise men, whom they
declared to be obstacles in the way of public prosperity, and as
dangerous to the virtues of the people. Nor could the signers of the
Declaration of Independence have designed to include the Indians and
negroes in the assertion that all men are created equal, because these
same men, in afterwards adopting the Constitution, deliberately
excluded the Indians from citizenship, and forever fixed the negro in a
condition of servitude, under that Constitution, by including him, as a
slave, in the article fixing the ratio of Congressional representation
on the basis of five negroes equaling three white men. The phrase--"all
men are created equal"--could, therefore, have meant nothing more than
the declaration of a general principle, asserting the equality of the
colonists, before God, with those who claimed it as a divine right to
lord it over them. The Indians were men as well as the negroes. Both
were within the territory over which the United Colonies claimed
jurisdiction. The exclusion of both from citizenship under the
Constitution, is conclusive that neither were intended to be embraced in
the Declaration of Independence.

That the colonists were determined, at any sacrifice, to achieve their
own liberties, even at the sacrifice of their slave property, seems to
have been the opinion of intelligent Englishmen. Burke, in his speech
already quoted, thus dissipates the hopes of those who expected to find
less resistance at the South than at the North.

"There is, however, a circumstance attending the [Southern] colonies,
which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and makes
the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in those to the
Northward. It is that in Virginia and the Carolinas, they have a vast
multitude of slaves. Where this is the case, in any part of the world,
those who are free, are by far the most proud and jealous of their
freedom. Freedom is to them not only an enjoyment, but a kind of rank
and privilege. Not seeing there that freedom, as in countries where it
is a common blessing, and as broad and general as the air, may be united
with much abject toil, with great misery with all the exterior of
servitude, liberty looks, among them, like something that is more noble
and liberal. I do not mean, sir, to commend the peculiar morality of
this sentiment, which has at least as much pride as virtue in it; but I
can not alter the nature of man. The fact is so; and these people of the
Southern colonies are much more strongly, and with a higher and more
stubborn spirit, attached to liberty, than those to the Northward. Such
were all the ancient commonwealths; such were our Gothic ancestors; such
in our days were the Poles; and such will be all masters of slaves, who
are not slaves themselves. In such a people the haughtiness of
domination combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and
renders it invincible."


[106] See American Archives, vol i. folio 1749.

[107] His estimates are in pounds sterling. It is here, for sake of
uniformity, reduced to dollars, the pound being estimated at five

[108] Investigations before the Committee on the Petition of the West
India Planters. See American Archives, vol i. folio 1736.

[109] American Archives, vol. i. folio 1519.

[110] American Archives, vol. i. folio 1531.

[111] Testimony of Geo. Walker, Esq, American Archives, vol. i. folios

[112] Testimony of Geo. Walker, Esq, American Archives, vol. i. folios

[113] Testimony of Geo. Walker, Esq, American Archives, vol. i. folio

[114] American Archives, vol i. folio 1737.

[115] American Archives, vol. i. folio 494.

[116] American Archives, vol. i. folio 523.

[117] American Archives, vol. i. folio 525.

[118] American Archives, vol. i. folio 530.

[119] American Archives, vol. i. folio 541.

[120] American Archives, vol. i. folio 593.

[121] American Archives, vol. i. folio 600.

[122] American Archives, vol. i. folio 616.

[123] American Archives, vol. i. folio 641.

[124] American Archives, vol. i. folio 687.

[125] American Archives, vol. i. folio 735.

[126] American Archives, vol. i. folio 914.

[127] American Archives, vol i. folio 573.

[128] American Archives, 4th series, vol. iii. folio 11.

[129] American Archives, 5th series, vol. i. folio 1178.

[130] American Archives, 5th series, vol. i. folio 192.

[131] American Archives, 4th series, vol. iii. folio 1385.


WHEN the author was carefully collating the facts from the Record of
MAJOR LACHLAN, in reference to the fugitive slaves in Canada, he was not
aware that he should be so fortunate as to obtain, from other sources,
any testimony in their support. Canada has all along been a sealed book
to the public of the States, so far as the condition of blacks, who had
escaped thither, were concerned. Since the completion of the
stereotyping of the volume, and just as it was about ready for the
press, the _New York Herald_, of January 5, reached us. It embraces a
detailed report on this important subject, which was prepared by a
special agent, who visited the settlements he describes. It is very
interesting to find, that the opinions and predictions of Major Lachlan,
made in 1841 to 1850, as to the results of colored immigration into
Canada, should be so fully sustained and fulfilled, by a report upon the
actual facts in 1859.

It may be remarked, here, that we believe a crisis has arrived in the
history of the free colored people of the United States, which demands
the most calm and serious consideration; and we would remind the more
intelligent colored men, that the honor of conducting their fellow-men
in the road to a high civilization, will be as great as are the honors
heaped upon the few of the white race, who have been the master spirits
in bringing up their fellow-men to the pinnacle of greatness upon which
they now stand. More than one field, for the accomplishment of this
object, now presents itself; and, as the darkest hour is said to be that
which immediately proceeds the dawn of day; it may be hoped that the
lowering clouds now overshadowing their prospects, will soon be
dissipated by a brighter sun, that shall reveal the highway of their

But to the extracts from the _Herald_. After giving a detailed account
of the whole subject of negro immigration into Canada, together with the
particulars of the results of the several attempts at founding
settlements for the refugees, the _Herald's_ reporter sums up the whole
matter thus:


"While, as we have seen, the British abolitionists in Canada are
laboring with the republican abolitionists of America to entice away the
slave property of the South, and to foment a servile insurrection in the
Southern States, and a disruption of the Union, there are men of sense
and of honor among our neighbors over the borders, who deplore this
interference of their countrymen in the affairs of the republic, and
appreciate the terrible catastrophe to which, if persevered in, it must
eventually lead. I conversed with a prominent abolitionist in Chatham,
holding a public position of trust and honor, who told me that the first
suggestion of the Harper's Ferry attack was made to Brown by British
abolitionists in Chatham, and who assured me that he had himself
subscribed money to aid Brown in raising men for the service in Ohio and
elsewhere in the States. In reply to some questions I put to him, he
stated that he and his associates on the other side looked with
expectation and hope to the day, not far distant, when a disruption of
the Union would take place; for that, in that case, the British
abolitionists would join the republican abolitionists of America in open
warfare upon the slaveholding States. When I reminded him that the
patriotic men of the North would raise a barrier of brave hearts,
through which such traitors would find it difficult to reach the
Southern States, he replied--'Oh, we have often talked over and
calculated upon that; but you forget that we should have the negroes of
the South to help us in their own homes against their oppressors, with
the knife and the fire-brand.'

"I conversed on the other hand with conservative, high-minded men, who
expressed the most serious apprehension that the bold and unjustifiable
association of Canadian abolitionists with the negro stealers and
insurrectionists of America would eventually plunge the two countries
into war.

"We have seen that the immigration of fugitive slaves into Canada is
unattended by any social or moral good to the negro. It is injurious,
also, to the white citizens of Canada, inasmuch as it depresses the
value of their property, diminishes their personal comfort and safety,
and destroys the peace and good order of the community. Mr. Sheriff
Mercer, of Kent county, assured me that the criminal statistics of that
county prove that nine-tenths of the offenses against the laws are
committed by colored persons. The same proportion holds good in Essex
county, and the fact is the more startling when it is remembered that
the blacks do not at present number more than one-fourth of the whole

"In the township of Anderdon, Essex county, this fall, nearly every
sheep belonging to the white farmers has been stolen. The fact was
presented in the return of the Grand Jury of the county, and some twelve
negro families, men, women and children, were committed to jail on the
charge of sheep stealing. The cases of petit larceny are incredibly
numerous in every township containing negro settlements, and it is a
fact that frequently the criminal calendars would be bare of a
prosecution but for the negro prisoners.

"The offenses of the blacks are not wholly confined to those of a light
character. Occasionally some horrible crime startles the community, and
is almost invariably attended by a savage ferocity peculiar to the
vicious negro. If a murder is committed by a black, it is generally of
an aggravated and brutal nature. The offense of rape is unfortunately
peculiarly prevalent among the negroes. Nearly every assize is marked by
a charge of this character. A prominent lawyer of the Province, who has
held the position of public prosecutor, told me that his greatest dread
was of this offense, for that experience had taught him that no white
woman was safe at all times, from assault, and those who were rearing
daughters in that part of Canada, might well tremble at the danger by
which they are threatened. He told me that he never saw a really brutal
look on the human face until he beheld the countenances of the negroes
charged with the crime of rape. When the lust comes over them they are
worse than the wild beast of the forest. Last year, in broad daylight, a
respectable white woman, while walking in the public road within the
town of Chatham, was knocked down by a black savage and violated. This
year, near Windsor, the wife of a wealthy farmer, while driving alone
in a wagon, was stopped by a negro in broad daylight, dragged out into
the road, and criminally assaulted in a most inhuman manner. It was
impossible to hear the recital of these now common crimes without a

"The fugitive slaves go into Canada as beggars, and the mass of them
commit larceny and lay in jail until they become lowered and debased,
and ready for worse crimes. Nor does there seem at present a prospect of
education doing much to better their condition, for they do not appear
anxious to avail themselves of school privileges as a general rule. The
worse class of blacks are too poor and too indolent to clothe their
children in the winter, and their services are wanted at home in the
summer. The better class affect airs as soon as they become tolerably
well to do, and refuse to send their little ones to any but white
schools. In Windsor there are two public colored schools, but the
negroes of that place choose to refuse to allow their children to attend
these institutions, and sent them to the schools for whites. They were
not admitted, and two of the black residents, named Jones and Green,
tested the question at law, to try whether the trustees or teachers had
a right to exclude their children. It was decided that the trustees had
such power, when separate schools were provided for colored persons.

"That property is seriously depreciated in all neighborhoods in which
the negroes settle is a well known fact. Mr. S. S. Macdonnel, a resident
of Windsor, and a gentleman of high social and political position, is
the owner of a large amount of real estate in that place. The Bowyer
farm, a large tract of land belonging to him, was partitioned into lots
some few years since, and sold at auction. Some of the lots were bid in
by negroes of means, among others, by a mulatto named De Baptiste,
residing in Detroit. As soon as the white purchasers found that negroes
were among the buyers, they threw up their lots, and since then the
value of the property has been much depressed. In several instances Mr.
Macdonnel paid premiums to the negroes to give up their purchases, where
they had happened to buy in the midst of white citizens. At a subsequent
sale of another property, cut up into very fine building lots, by the
same gentleman, one of the conditions of sale announced was, that no bid
should be received from colored persons. De Baptiste attended and bid in
a lot. When his bid was refused, he endeavored to break up the auction
in a row, by the aid of other negroes, and failing in this, brought an
action at law against Mr. Macdonnel. This Mr. M. prepared to defend, but
it was never pressed to a trial. These incidents, together with the
attempt of the Windsor negroes to force their children into the schools
for whites, illustrate the impudent assumption of the black, as soon as
he becomes independent, and the deeply seated antipathy of the whites in
Canada to their dark skinned neighbors. At the same time it is
observable that the 'free negro' in Canada--that is, the black who was
free in the States--endeavors to hold his head above the 'fugitive,' and
has a profound contempt for the escaped slave.

"As I desired to obtain the views of intelligent Canadians upon the
important questions before me, I requested a prominent and wealthy
citizen of Windsor to favor me with a written statement of his
observations on the effect of the negro immigration and received the
following hastily prepared and brief communication, in reply. The
opinions expressed are from one of the most accomplished gentlemen in
the Province, and are worthy of serious consideration, although the
public position he occupies renders it proper that I should not make
public use of his name:--

                                              "'WINDSOR, Dec. 23, 1859.

          "'MY DEAR SIR--In reply to your request, I beg to
          say that I would cheerfully give you my views at
          length upon the important topics discussed at our
          interview, did not my pressing engagements just
          now occupy too much of my time to make it possible
          that I should do more than hastily sketch down
          such thoughts as occur to me in the few moments I
          can devote to the subject.

          "'The constant immigration of fugitives from
          slavery into the two western counties of the
          Province of Canada, Kent and Essex, has become a
          matter for serious consideration to the landed
          proprietors in those counties, both as it effects
          the value and salability of real estate, and as
          rendering the locality an undesirable place of

          "'It is certain that ever since large numbers of
          fugitive slaves have, by means of the organization
          known here and in the States as "the Underground
          Railroad," and of such associations as the Dawn
          and Elgin Institutes and the Refugee Home Society,
          been annually introduced into these two counties,
          no settlers from the old country, from the States,
          or from the eastern part of Canada, have taken up
          lands there. And there is every reason to assign
          the fact of there being a large colored
          population, and that population constantly on the
          increase, as the chief cause why these counties do
          not draw a portion at least of the many seeking
          Western homes.

          "'Kent and Essex have been justly styled "the
          Garden of Upper Canada." The soil in most parts of
          the counties cannot be excelled in richness and
          fertility, and the climate is mild and delightful.
          There are thousands of acres open for sale at a
          moderate price, but it now seldom happens that a
          lot of wild land is taken up by a new comer. The
          farmer who has achieved the clearing of the land
          that years ago was settled upon may wish to extend
          his possessions for the sake of his sons who are
          growing up, by the acquisition of an adjoining or
          neighboring piece of wild land; but seldom or
          never is the uncleared forest intruded upon now by
          the encampment of emigrant families.

          "'It may be broadly asserted, first, in general,
          that the existence of a large colored population
          in Kent and Essex has prevented many white
          settlers from locating there who otherwise would
          have made a home in one of those counties; and,
          secondly, that in particular instances it
          constantly occurs that the sale of a lot of land
          is injuriously affected by reason of the near
          settlement of colored people.

          "'Next, as to the general feeling of the gentry
          and farmers who live in the midst of this
          population: All regard it with dissatisfaction,
          and with a foreboding--an uncomfortable
          anticipation for the future, as they behold the
          annual inpouring of a people with whom they have
          few or no sympathies in common, many of whose
          characteristics are obnoxious and bad, and who
          have to make a commencement here, in the
          development of their better nature, should they
          possess any, from perhaps the lowest point to
          which the human mind can be degraded,
          intellectually and morally.

          "'There is undoubtedly hardly a well thinking
          person whose heart is not touched with a feeling
          of pity for the unfortunates who present
          themselves as paupers, in the name of liberty, to
          become denizens of our country. And it would,
          doubtless, be a great moral spectacle to witness
          these escaped slaves, as they are sometimes
          pictured by professional philanthropists,
          rendering themselves happy in their freedom,
          acquiring property, surrounding themselves with
          the comforts, if not the elegancies of life, and
          advancing themselves intellectually, socially and
          politically. But, alas for human nature! If the
          negro is really fitted by the Creator to enjoy
          freedom as we enjoy it, the habits of mind and of
          action, however baneful they may be, that have
          been long exercised, are not to be suddenly broken
          or changed; and the slave who was idle, and lying,
          and thievish in the South, will not obtain
          opposite qualities forthwith by crossing the line
          that makes him free.

          "'This is not said in a spirit of malevolence
          toward the colored people that are here and are
          brought here, but as presenting their case as it
          really is, and as explaining the position in which
          residents of these counties are placed, or will be
          placed, if this continuous flow from the slave
          States is poured in by means of the organizations
          and societies formed for that purpose in many of
          the Northern States of America, and fostered and
          aided by many indiscreet men in our own country.

          "'The main argument in favor of the free school
          system is, that it is a benefit to all to be
          surrounded by an intelligent and moral community,
          and for such a benefit every property holder
          should be glad to contribute his quota. Is there,
          then, any need of asking the question, if the
          people of these counties desire the sort of
          population that comes to them from the Southern

          "'What is the condition of the negroes on their
          arrival here? What their progress in the
          acquisition of property and knowledge, and their
          conduct as citizens?

          "'There are very few indeed who arrive here with
          sufficient means at once to acquire a farm, or to
          enter into business of any kind. The great mass of
          them may be called paupers, claiming aid from the
          societies through whose agency they are brought
          out. Some of these societies hold large tracts of
          land, which they sub-divide and sell to new comers
          upon long time, but with conditions as to
          clearing, residence, etc., that are difficult of
          observance. I believe there is much trouble in
          carrying out this plan, arising in some measure
          from the peculiarities of negro character--a want
          of constancy or steadiness of purpose, as well as
          from a feeling of distrust as to their having the
          land secured to them. If the land is not purchased
          from any of these societies, a parcel of ten or
          fifteen colored families get together and purchase
          and settle upon some other spot.

          "While there are instances of colored men
          accumulating property here, the great mass of them
          fail even in securing a living without charity or
          crime. They have but little forethought for the
          future, and care only to live lazily in the
          present. The criminal records of the county show
          that nine-tenths of the offenses are committed by
          the colored population, and I think the experience
          of every citizen who resides near a settlement
          will testify to their depredating habits.

          "'I have given you thus hurriedly and
          disconnectedly my views on these subjects. They
          are important enough to demand more time and
          consideration in their discussion, but I believe
          the opinions I have advanced you will find shared
          in by a large proportion of the residents of the
          Province. I am, my dear sir, faithfully yours.'
                                              ----- -----.

"In addition to the testimony of the writer of the above communication,
my views upon the subject under examination were confirmed by the
valuable opinion of the Hon. Colonel Prince, the representative of the
county in the Provincial Parliament for a long term of years. Colonel
Prince has bestowed much consideration upon the negro question, and he
has practical experience of the condition and conduct of the colored
population. In June, 1858, in the course of a debate in the Legislative
Council, Col. Prince was reported to have spoken as follows:

"'In the county of Essex the greatest curse that befell them was the
swarm of blacks that infested that county. They were perfectly inundated
with them. Some of the finest farmers of the county of Kent had actually
left their beautiful farms, so as not to be near this terrible nuisance.
If they looked over the criminal calendars of the country they would see
that the majority of names were those of colored people. They were a
useless, worthless, thriftless set of people, too lazy and indolent to
work, and too proud to be taught. . . . . Were the blacks to swarm the
country and annoy them with their rascalities? Honorable gentlemen might
speak feelingly for the negroes, but they had never lived among them as
he had done. Notwithstanding all that he said about them, they would
say, if asked on the subject, that they had no better friend than Col.
Prince. But there was no use in trying to get the white man to live with
them. It was a thing they would not do. There was a great sympathy
always expressed for the black man who escaped from the slave life; but
he had lived with them twenty-five years, and had come to the conclusion
that the black man was born for servitude, and was not fit for any thing
else. He might listen to the morbid philanthropy of honorable gentlemen
in favor of the negro; but they might as well try to change the spots of
the leopard as to change the character of the blacks. They would still
retain their idle and thievish propensities.'

"While Col. Prince claims that he was very inaccurately reported, and
that he never said one word in favor of slavery, which he professes to
abhor with a holy horror, he yet adheres to the opinion that the colored
race is not fit to live and mix in freedom with the whites. He deplores
deeply the action of such of his countrymen as improperly interfere in
the affairs of the States, and condemns the lawless running off of
slaves from the South, and the attempts to raise servile insurrection in
the slaveholding States. As a constitutional British gentleman, he
reveres the laws, and believes that where they are bad, or where the
constitution of a country is unwise, the remedy lies in the power of the
people by legal means. He sees the evil effect, morally and socially, of
the influx of fugitive slaves into Canada, and would shut them out if he
could. He knows that the negroes form an enormous portion of the
criminals of his county, and the county of Kent, and he is doubly
annoyed that men who come from servitude to freedom should abuse their
privileges as the negroes do. He admits that every distinct attempt to
make a settlement of negroes self-supporting and prosperous, has failed,
and he believes that the negro is not yet fit for self-government, and
requires over him a guiding, if not a master's hand.

Col. Prince is a gentleman of the old school--hale, hearty and
whole-souled--and does not fear to express the sentiments he entertains.

"The lessons taught by an examination into the action of the Canadian
abolitionists, and of the condition and prospects of the fugitive slaves
in the Province, should be made useful to the American people. The
history of the past proves that Great Britain would gladly destroy the
Union of the States, which makes the American republic a leading power
among nations. As in days past she sought to accomplish this object
through the instrumentality of traitors and of the foes of the Union, so
now she seeks aid in her designs from the republican abolition enemies
of the confederacy in our own States. The intrigues of the British
emissaries in Canada should stay the hand of every man who fancies that
in helping to rob the South of its slaves he is performing an act of
humanity; for they should teach him that he is but helping on the
designs of those who look eagerly to the slavery agitation and the
sectional passions engendered thereby, to accomplish a disruption of the
Union, and encompass the failure of our experiment of free
government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Let our merchants and our farmers carefully consider these facts, and
then reflect upon what they are required by the abolition agitators to
do. To what end are the systematized negro stealing of the North, the
attempts to incite insurrection at the South, and their natural results,
a dissolution of the Union, to lead? Are we to render New York and the
other free States subject to the same deplorable evils as afflict the
western counties of Canada? Are our Northern farmers willing to have the
value of their lands depreciated, and to subject their crops and stock
to constant depredations by inviting here the same class of neighbors
that at present deplete whole Canadian townships of their sheep? Unless
we desire to accomplish such results, why, under a mistaken idea of
charity to the negro, do we take him from a life of usefulness and
content at the South to plant him in freedom and suffering at the North?
Why do we consent to help forward, directly or indirectly, an agitation
that can only incite a disruption of the Union and bring upon us the
very evils we deplore?"


Since the volume was in type, the Supreme Court of Ohio has made a
decision of great importance to the free colored people. We copy from
the _Law Journal_, December, 1859:


"The Supreme Court of Ohio, on Tuesday, on a question before them
involving the right of _colored_ children to be admitted into the Common
Schools of the State, decided that the law of the State interfered with
no right of colored children on the subject, and that they were not,
therefore, entitled of _right_ to the admission demanded. The following
is the reported statement of the case:

"'Enos Van Camp _vs._ Board of Equalization of incorporated village of
Logan, Hocking County, Ohio. Error to District Court of Hocking County.

"'Peck J. held:

"'1. That the statute of March 14, 1853, 'to provide for the
reorganization, supervision, and maintenance of Common Schools, is a law
of _classification_ and not of _exclusion_, providing for the education
of _all_ youths within the prescribed ages, and that the words 'white'
and 'colored,' as used in said act, are used in their popular and
ordinary signification.

"'2. That children of three-eighths African and five-eighths white
blood, but who are distinctly colored, and generally treated and
regarded as colored children by the community where they reside, are
not, _as of right_, entitled to admission into the Common Schools, set
apart under said act, for the instruction of white youths.

"'Brinkherhoff, C. J., and Sutliff, J., dissented.'"

(From the Cincinnati Gazette.)


Last Wednesday a bill passed by the Massachusetts Legislature
authorizing colored persons to join military organizations, was vetoed
by Gov. Banks, on the ground that he believed the chapter in the bill
relating to the militia, in which the word "white" was stricken out, to
be unconstitutional. In this opinion he is sustained by the Supreme
Court and by the Attorney General.

The matter was discussed in the House at some length, and the veto
sustained by a vote of 146 to 6.

A new chapter was then introduced on leave, and it being precisely the
same as the other, except that the word "white" was restored, it passed
the House with but one negative vote.

Under a suspension of the rules the new bill was then sent to the
Senate, where, after debate, it was passed by a vote of 11 to 15.

The Governor signed the new bill, and the Legislature adjourned _sine


REV. Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore, has written a long letter to Hon. Edward
Everett, in regard to the present state of things as regards slavery. We
subjoin two or three specimens:--_Cincinnati Gazette._

"In June, 1845, there assembled in Charleston a body of men,
representing almost all the wisdom and wealth of South Carolina. There
were present, also, delegates from Georgia, and I believe from other
States. It was a meeting of the association for the improvement, moral
and religious, of the slave population. The venerable Judge Huger
presided. Having been appointed to address that large and noble
audience, I did not hesitate to speak my whole mind: appealing to
masters to imitate the Antonines and other magnanimous Roman Emperors,
to become the guardians of their slaves, to have laws enacted protecting
them in their relations as husbands and wives and parents; to recognize
the rights which the Gospel asserts for servants as well as masters. In
a word, I pressed upon them the solemn obligations which their power
over these human beings imposed upon them--obligations only the more
sacred, because their power was so irresponsible.

"That august assembly not only honored me with their attention, but
expressed their approval, the presiding officer concurring most
emphatically in the views submitted.

"I need scarcely tell you that no such address would be regarded as wise
or prudent at this time. It is not that masters are less engaged in
seeking to promote the moral and religious well-being of their servants;
but measures which once could have been adopted most beneficially would
now only expose master and servant to the baneful influence of fanatical

"If any thing is certain, it is that the Gospel does not recognise
hatred, abuse, violence and blood as the means by which good is to be
done. The Gospel is a system of love. It assails no established social
relations, but it infuses love into the hearts of those who are bound
together, and thus unites them in affection."

Again he says:

"I think I speak accurately when I say, that hitherto every sacrifice
for the emancipation of slaves has been made by Southern men; and many
hundred thousand dollars have been expended in such liberations. The
North has wasted large sums for abolition books and lectures; for
addresses calculated to inflame the imaginations of women and children,
and to mislead multitudes of men--most excellent and pious--but utterly
ignorant as to the condition of things at the South. We now find,
indeed, that money has been contributed even for the purchase of deadly
weapons to be employed against the South, and to enlist the most
ferocious passions in secret crusades, compared with which an open
invasion by foreign enemies would be a blessing. I believe, however,
that not one cent has yet been given to set on foot--or even encourage
when proposed--any plausible enterprise for the benefit of the slave."

       *       *       *       *       *

"I do now believe that the guardianship of a kind master is at this time
a great blessing to the African. If emancipation is ever to take place,
it will be gradually, and under the mild, but resistless influence of
the Gospel. Whether slavery be an evil or not, we at the South did not
bring these Africans here--we protested against their introduction. The
true friend of the African is at the South, and thousands of hearts
there are seeking to know what can be done for the race. There must be
some limits to human responsibility, and a man in New England has no
more right to interfere with the institutions of Virginia, than he has
to interfere with those of England or France. All such interference
will be repelled by the master, but it will prove injurious to the
slave. Dr. Channing was regarded as a leading abolitionist in his day,
but could that noble man now rise up, he would stand aghast at the
madness which is rife everywhere on this subject. 'One great principle,
which we should lay down as immovably true, is, that if a good work
cannot be carried on by the calm, self-controlled, benevolent spirit of
Christianity, then the time for doing it has not yet come.' Such was his
language, when opposing slavery. Were he now living, the delirious
spirit of the day would denounce him, as it denounced Mr. Webster, and
now denounces you and every true patriot. Nay, even Mr. Beecher is
abused as not truculent enough.

"Jesus saw slavery all around him. Did he seek to employ force? He said
'All power in heaven and earth is given unto me, therefore, go teach, go
preach the Gospel.'"


The _New Orleans Picayune_ notices that a vessel cleared from that port
on the previous day, having on board eighty-one free colored persons,
emigrating to Hayti. The _Picayune_ says:

"These people are all from the Opelousas parishes, and all
cultivators--well versed in farming, and in all the mechanical arts
connected with a farm. Among them are brickmakers, blacksmiths,
wheelwrights, carpenters, etc. Some of them are proficient weavers, who
have long been employed making the stuff called Attakapas cottonade, so
favorably known in the market. They take along with them the necessary
machinery for that trade, and all sorts of agricultural and mechanical

"These eighty-one persons--twenty-four adults and fifty-seven children
and youths--compose fourteen families, or rather households, for they
are all related, and the eighty-one may be called one family. They are
all in easy circumstances, some even rich, one family being worth as
much as $50,000. They were all land owners in this State, and have sold
out their property with the intention of investing their capital in

                             _Cincinnati Commercial_, January, 1860.


It may be well to put upon record one of those extreme cases of hardship
and cruelty which necessarily accompany the transportation of laborers
to the West Indies, whether under the name of the slave trade, or coolie
immigration. The China correspondent of the _New York Journal of
Commerce_, of a recent date, says: The Flora Temple, an English vessel,
had made all arrangements to secure a full cargo of coolies. They were
cheated, inveigled, or stolen, and either taken directly to the ship or
else confined in the barracoons in Macao till the ship was ready to
sail for Havanna--the crew numbering fifty, and the coolies eight
hundred and fifty. The vessel sailed October 8, 1859, when the coolies
soon learned their destiny, and resolved to avert it at all hazards. On
the morning of the 11th, without weapons of any kind, they rushed upon
the guard and killed him. The noise brought the captain and his brother
on deck, fully armed with revolvers, who by rapid firing and resolutely
pressing forward, drove the miserable wretches below; where, without
light and air, they were locked and barred like felons, in a space too
limited to permit their living during the long voyage before them. Think
of eight hundred and fifty human beings all full grown men, pressed into
this contracted, rayless, airless dungeon, in which they were to be
deported from China to Havana, all the long way over the China sea, the
Indian ocean, and the Atlantic!

On the 14th, the vessel struck upon an unknown reef, a gale of wind in
the meantime blowing, and the sea running high. Every effort was made to
save the ship by the officers and crew; the poor coolies, battened down
beneath the decks, being allowed no chance to aid in saving the ship or
themselves. Although the yards were "braced around" and the ship "hove
aback," she struck first slightly, and then soon after several times
with a tremendous crash, the breakers running alongside very high.
Pieces of her timbers and planking floated up on her port side, and
after some more heavy thumps she remained apparently immovable. The
water rapidly increased in the hold till it reached the "between-decks,"
where the eight hundred and fifty coolies were confined.

While this was going on, indeed, almost immediately after the ship first
struck, the officers and crew very naturally became afraid of the
coolies for the treatment they had received, and the captain ordered the
boats to be lowered, not to save the coolies in whole or in part, but to
preserve himself and crew. These boats, even under favorable
circumstances, were not more than sufficient for the officers and crew,
showing that no provision had been made for the poor coolies in case of
disaster. The boats passed safely through the breakers, leaving the ship
almost without motion, all her masts standing, her back broken, and the
sea making a clear break over her starboard and quarter.

When the boats left the ship, and steered away, without making an effort
to save the eight hundred and fifty coolies, or allowing them to do any
thing themselves, with their last look toward the ship they saw that the
coolies had escaped from their prison through doors which the concussion
had made for them, and stood clustering together, helpless and
despairing, upon the decks, and gazing upon the abyss which was opening
its jaws to receive them. My friend assures me that he knows these poor
creatures were completely imprisoned all the night these terrible
occurences were going on, the hatches being "battened down," and made as
secure as a jail door under lock and bars.

The ship was three hundred miles from land when it struck, and after
fourteen days of toil and struggle, one of the boats only succeeded in
reaching Towron, in Cochin-China. The three other boats were never heard
of. Here the French fleet was lying; and the admiral at once sent one of
his vessels to the fatal scene of the disaster, where some of the wreck
was to be seen; but not a _single coolie_! Every one of the _eight
hundred and fifty_ had perished.



          | Great Britain Annual Import | United States' Annual    |
   YEARS. | and Consumption of Cotton,  | Exports Cotton to Great  |
          | from earliest dates to      | Britain and Europe       |
          | 1858, in lbs.               | generally.               |
    1641  | Cotton manufacture first    |                          |
          | named in English history.   |                          |
          |                             |                          |
          |      TOTAL IMPORTS.         |                          |
    1697  |        1,976,359            |                          |
    1701  |        1,985,868            |                          |
    1700  |}                            |                          |
     to   |}       1,170,881            |                          |
    1705  |}                            |                          |
    1710  |          715,008            |                          |
    1720  |        1,972,805            |                          |
    1730  |        1,545,472            |                          |
    1741  |        1,645,031            | 1747-48, 7 bags of       |
    1751  |        2,976,610            | Cotton were shipped from |
    1764  |        3,870,392            | Charleston, S. C., to    |
    1771  |}                            | England.                 |
     to   |}       6,766,613            |                          |
    1775  |}                            | 1770, 2,000 lbs. shipped |
    1781  |        5,198,778            | from Charleston.         |
    1782  |       11,828,039            |                          |
    1783  |        9,735,663            |                          |
    1784  |       11,482,083            | 71 bags shipped and      |
    1785  |       18,400,384            | seized in England, on    |
    1786  |       19,475,020            | the ground that America  |
    1787  |       23,250,268            | could not produce so     |
    1788  |       20,467,436            | much.                    |
    1789  |       32,576,023            |                          |
    1790  |       31,447,605            |                          |
    1791  |       28,706,675            |  lbs.   189,316          |
    1792  |       34,907,497            |         138,328          |
    1793  |       19,040,929            |         500,000          |
    1794  |       24,358,567            |       1,601,760          |
    1795  |       26,401,340            |       6,276,300          |
    1796  |       23,126,357            |       6,100,000          |
    1797  |       23,354,371            |       3,800,000          |
    1798  |       31,880,641            |       9,330,000          |
    1799  |       43,379,278            |       9,500,000          |
    1800  |       56,010,732            |      17,789,803          |
    1801  |       56,004,305            |      20,900,000          |
    1802  |       60,345,600            |      27,500,000          |
    1803  |       53,812,284            |      41,900,000          |
    1804  |       61,867,329            |      38,900,000          |
    1805  |       59,682,406            |      40,330,000          |
    1806  |       58,176,283            |      37,500,000          |
    1807  |       74,925,306            |      66,200,000          |
    1808  |       43,605,982            |      12,000,000          |
    1809  |       92,812,282            |      53,200,000          |
    1810  |      132,488,935            |      93,900,000          |
    1811  |       91,576,535            |      62,200,000          |
    1812  |       63,025,936            |      29,000,000          |
    1813  |       50,966,000            |      19,400,000          |
    1814  |       73,728,000            |      17,800,000          |

   Great Britain's sources of Cotton supplies other than the       |
   United States, with total Cotton crop of United States at       |
   intervals.                                                      |
   Previous to 1791 Great Britain obtained her supplies of Cotton  |
   from the West Indies and South America, and the countries       |
   around the eastern parts of the Mediterranean. From that date   |
   she began to receive supplies from the U. S.                    |
   1786. _Imports_ by Great Britain from--                         |
           Br. W. Indies,                      lbs.   5,800,000    |
           Fr. and Spanish Colonies                   5,500,000    |
           Dutch             do.                      1,600,000    |
           Portuguese        do.                      2,000,000    |
           Turkey and Smyrna,                         5,000,000    |
   1789. Cotton crop of United States, 1,000,000 lbs.              |
   1791. _Imports_ by Great Britain from--                         |
           Br. West Indies,                    lbs.  12,000,000    |
           Brazil,                                   20,000,000    |
   1794. Cotton crop of the U. S., 8,000,000 lbs.                  |
   1796. Cotton crop of the U. S., 10,000,000 lbs.                 |
   1798. India, the first imports from, 1,622,000 lbs.             |
   1799. Cotton crop of the U. S., 20,000,000 lbs.                 |
   1800. _Exports_ from--                                          |
           India,                              lbs.  30,000,000    |
           West Indies,                              17,000,000    |
           Brazil,                                   24,000,000    |
           Elsewhere,                                 7,000,000    |
   1806. Cotton crop of the U. S., 80,000,000 lbs.                 |
   1812. War declared between the United States and Great Britain. |

   Dates of Inventions promoting the growth and manufacture of
   Cotton, and of movements to elevate the African race.

   Previous to the invention of the machinery named below, all
   carding, spinning, and weaving of wool and cotton had been done
   by the use of the hand-cards, one-spindle wheels, and common
   hand-looms. The work, for a long period, was performed in
   families; but the improved machinery propelled by steam power,
   has so reduced the cost of cotton manufactures, that all
   household manufacturing has long since been abandoned, and the
   monopoly yielded to capitalists, who now fill the world with
   their cheap fabrics.

   1762. Carding machine invented.
   1767. Spinning Jenny invented.
   1769. Spinning Roller-frame invented.
     "   Cotton first planted in the United States.
     "   Watt's Steam Engine patented.
   1775. Mule Jenny invented.
   1776. Virginia forbids foreign slave trade.
   1780. Emancipation by Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
   1781. Muslins first made in England.
   1784. Emancipation by Connecticut and Rhode Island.
   1785. Watts' Engine improved and applied to cotton machinery.
     First cotton mill erected, 1783.
   1785. New York Abolition Society organized.
   1786. Carding and spinning machines erected in Massachusetts.
   1787. Power Loom invented.
     "   First Cotton mill erected in Beverly, Massachusetts.
     "   Pennsylvania Abolition Society formed.
     "   Slavery excluded from N. W. Territory, including Ohio,
           Indiana, Illinois, &c.
   1789. Franklin issues an appeal for aid to instruct the free
   1792. Emancipation by New Hampshire.
   1793. Cotton Gin invented.
   1799. Emancipation by New York.
   1804.      Do.        New Jersey.
   1800. Cotton consumed in the United States, 200,000 lbs.
   1801. United States exported to--
           France,                             lbs.     750,000
           England                                   19,000,000
   1803. Louisiana Territory acquired, including the region
           between the Mississippi river (upper and lower) and
           the Mexican line.
   1805. United States export to France, 4,500,000 lbs.
   1807. Fulton started his steamboat.
   1808. Slave trade prohibited by United States and England.
   1808. Cotton manufacture established in Boston.
   1810. Cotton consumed in United States, 4,000,000 lbs.
   1812. Two-thirds of steam engines in Great Britain employed in
           cotton spinning, etc.
   1813. United States export to France, 10,250,000 lbs.

          | Great Britain Annual Import | United States' Annual    |
   YEARS. | and Consumption of Cotton,  | Exports Cotton to Great  |
          | from earliest times to      | Britain and Europe       |
          | 1858, in lbs.               | generally.               |
    1815  |       96,200,000            |      83,000,000          |
    1816  |       97,310,000            |      81,800,000          |
    1817  |      126,240,000            |      95,660,000          |
          |                             |                          |
          |   Total Consumption.        |                          |
    1818  |      109,902,000            |      92,500,000          |
    1819  |      109,518,000            |      88,000,000          |
    1820  |      120,265,000            |     127,800,000          |
    1821  |      129,029,000            |     124,893,405          |
    1822  |      145,493,000            |     144,675,095          |
    1823  |      154,146,000            |     173,723,270          |
    1824  |      165,174,000            |     142,369,663          |
    1825  |      166,831,000            |     176,449,907          |
    1826  |      150,213,000            |     204,535,415          |
    1827  |      197,200,000            |     294,310,115          |
    1828  |      217,860,000            |     210,590,463          |
    1829  |      219,200,000            |     264,837,186          |
    1830  |      247,600,000            |     298,459,102          |
    1831  |      262,700,000            |     276,979,784          |
    1832  |      276,900,000            |     322,215,122          |
    1833  |      287,000,000            |     324,698,604          |
    1834  |      303,000,000            |     384,717,907          |
    1835  |      326,407,692            |     387,358,992          |
    1836  |      363,684,232            |     423,631,307          |
    1837  |      367,564,752            |     444,211,537          |
    1838  |      477,206,108            |     595,952,297          |
    1839  |      445,744,000            |     413,624,212          |
    1840  |      517,254,400            |     743,941,061          |
    1841  |      460,387,200            |     530,204,100          |
    1842  |      477,339,200            |     584,717,017          |
    1843  |      555,214,400            |     792,297,106          |
    1844  |      570,731,200            |     663,633,455          |
    1845  |      626,496,000            |     872,905,996          |
    1846  |      624,000,000            |     547,558,055          |
    1847  |      442,416,000            |     527,219,958          |
    1848  |      602,160,000            |     814,274,431          |
    1849  |      624,000,000            |   1,026,602,269          |
    1850  |      606,000,000            |     635,381,604          |
    1851  |      648,000,000            |     927,237,089          |
    1852  |      817,998,048            |   1,093,230,639          |
    1853  |      746,376,848            |   1,111,570,370          |
    1854  |      761,646,704            |     987,833,106          |
    1855  |      775,814,112            |   1,008,424,601          |
    1856  |      877,225,440            |   1,351,431,827          |
    1857  |      837,406,300            |   1,048,282,475          |
    1858  |      884,733,696            |   1,118,624,012          |
    1859  |                             |   1,372,755,006          |
          |                             |                          |
          |                             |                          |
          |                             |                          |
          |                             |                          |
          |                             |                          |

   Great Britain's sources of Cotton supplies other than the       |
   United States, with total Cotton crop of United States at       |
   intervals.                                                      |
   1815. Peace proclaimed between the United States and Great      |
           Britain.                                                |
   1818. Cotton crop of the U. S., 125,000,000 lbs.                |
   1821. _Exports_ from--                                          |
           West Indies,                        lbs.   9,000,000    |
           Brazil,                                   28,000,000    |
           India,                                    50,000,000    |
           Turkey and Egypt,                          5,500,000    |
           Elsewhere,                                 6,000,000    |
   1822. Cotton crop of the U. S., 210,000,000 lbs.                |
   1828. Cotton crop of the U. S., 325,000,000 lbs.                |
   _Imports_ by Great Britain from West Indies,--                  |
   1829.                                       lbs.   4,640,414    |
   1830,                                              3,449,249    |
   1831,                                              2,401,685    |
   1834,                                              2,296,525    |
   1832. _Imports_ by Great Britain from--                         |
           Brazil,                             lbs.  20,109,560    |
           Turkey and Egypt,                          9,113,890    |
           East Indies and Mauritius                  5,178,625    |
           British West Indies.                      1,708,764    |
           Elsewhere,                                   964,933    |
   1838. _Imports_ by Great Britain from--                         |
           Brazil,                             lbs.  24,464,505    |
           East Indies and Mauritius                 40,230,064    |
           British West Indies,                         928,425    |
   1840. _Imports_ by Great Britain from--                         |
           British West Indies,                lbs.     427,529    |
   1841. _Imports_ by Great Britain from India, 1835 to 1839,      |
           annual average, 57,600,000 lbs.                         |
   _Imports_ by Great Britain, 1840 to 1844, during the Chinese    |
     war, 92,800,000 lbs.                                          |
   1845. Do. from Egypt, 32,537,600 lbs.                           |
   1848. _Imports_ by Great Britain from--                         |
           West Indies and Demarara,           lbs.   3,155,600    |
           Brazil and Portuguese Colonies            40,080,400    |
           East Indies,                              91,004,800    |
   _Imports_ by Great Britain from--                               |
     1849. East Indies,                        lbs.  72,800,000    |
     1850.     Do.                                  123,200,000    |
     1852.     Do.                                   84,022,432    |
     1853.     Do.                                  180,431,496    |
     1854.     Do.                                  119,835,968    |
     1855.     Do.                                  145,218,976    |
   1856. _Imports_ by Great Britain from--                         |
           British East Indies,                lbs. 180,496,624    |
           Brazil,                                   21,830,704    |
           Egypt,                                    34,399,008    |
   1857. _Imports_ from--                                          |
           Brazil,                             lbs.  29,910,832    |
           Egypt,                                    24,532,256    |
   1858. _Imports_ from Brazil,                lbs.  18,617,872    |
                 Do.    Egypt,                       38,232,320    |

   Dates of Inventions promoting the growth and manufacture of
   Cotton, and of movements to elevate the African race.

   1815. Power Loom first used in United States.
   1816. First steamboat crossed the British Channel.
   1816. Power Loom brought into general use in England.
   1817. Colonization Society organized.
   1819. Florida annexed.
   1820. Slave trade declared piracy by Congress.
   1820. Emigrants to Liberia first sent.
   1821. Benjamin Lundy published his "Genius of Universal
   1823. United States export to France, 25,000,000 lbs.
   1824.      Do.       do.       do.    40,500,000 lbs.
   1825. New York and Erie Canal opened.
     Production and manufacture of cotton now greatly above the
     consumption, and prices fell so as to produce general distress
     and stagnation, which continued with more or less intensity
     throughout 1828 and 1829. The fall of prices was about 55
     per cent.--_Encyc. Amer._
   1826. Creek Indians removed from Georgia.
   1829. Emancipation in Mexico.
   1830. United States export to France, 75,000,000 lbs.
   1831. Slave Insurrection in Virginia.
   1832. Garrison declares war against the Colonization Society.
   1832. Ohio Canal completed.
   1833. Cotton consumption in France, 72,767,551 lbs.
   1834. Emancipation in West Indies, commenced.
   1834. Birney deserted the Colonization Society.
   1835. United States export to France, 100,330,000 lbs.
   1836. Gerrit Smith repudiates the Colonization Society.
   1836. Cherokee and Choctaw Indians removed from Georgia,
     Mississippi, and Alabama.
   1837. American Anti-Slavery Society had an income of $36,000,
     and 70 agents commissioned.
   1838. Colonization Society had an income of only $10,900.
   1840. Cotton consumed in the United States, 106,000,000 lbs.
   1844. Value of cotton goods imported into the United States
   1845. Texas annexed.
   1846. Mexican War.
   1847. Gold discovered in California.
   1848. New Mexico and California annexed.
   1849. United States export to France, 151,340,000 lbs.
    Do.  Other Continental countries, 128,800,000 lbs.
   1850. Cotton consumed in United States, 256,000,000 lbs.
   1851. Value of United States cotton fabrics, $61,869,184.
   1853. Value of cottons imported, $27,675,000.
   1853. United States export to England, 768,596,498 lbs.
   1853.     Do.      do.        Continent, 335,271,064 lbs.
   1855. United States export to Great Britain and North American
     Colonies, 672,409,874 lbs.
   1855.     Do.      do.        Continent, 322,905,056 lbs.
   1855. Value of Cottons imported, $21,655,624.
   The remaining statistics of this column can be found in the
     other Tables.

NOTE.--Our commercial year ends June 30: that of England January 1. This
will explain any seeming discrepancy in the imports by her from us, and
our exports to her.

N. B.--In 1781 Great Britain commenced re-exporting a portion of her
imports of Cotton to the Continent; but the amount did not reach a
million of pounds, except in one year, until 1810, when it rose to over
eight millions. The next year, however, it fell to a million and a
quarter, and only rose, from near that amount, to six millions in 1814
and 1815. From 1818, her _consumption_, only, of cotton, is given, as
best representing her relations to slave labor for that commodity. After
this date her exports of cotton gradually enlarged, until, in 1853, they
reached over one hundred and forty-seven millions of pounds. Of this,
over eighty-two millions were derived from the United States, and over
fifty-nine millions from India. That is to say, of her imports of
180,431,000 lbs. in 1853, from India, she re-exported 59,000,000.

We are enabled to add, for our second edition, that the imports of
Cotton into Great Britain, from India, for 1854, amounted to 119,835,968
lbs., of which 66,405,920 lbs. were re-exported; and that her imports
from the same for 1855 amounted to 145,218,976 lbs., of which 66,210,704
lbs. were re-exported; thus leaving, for the former year, but 53,430,048
lbs., and for the latter but 79,008,272 lbs. of East India Cotton for
consumption in England. The present condition of cotton supplies from
India up to 1859, will be seen in the extracts from the _London


          FOR THE YEAR 1853. See Patent Office Report;
          Abstract of Census; Rep. Com. Nav., etc.

                     |   Value of   |   Total Value      | Value of
                     |   Exports.   |   of Products      | portion left
                     |              |   and Animals.     | for home
                     |              |                    | consumption.
  Cattle, and their  |              |                    |
    products,        |   $3,076,897 | Catt. $400,000,000 |  $396,923,103
  Horses and Mules,  |      246,731 |        300,000,000 |   299,753,269
  Sheep and Wool,    |       44,375 | Sheep,  46,000,000 |    45,955,625
  Hogs and their     |              |                    |
    products,        |    6,202,324 | Hogs,  160,000,000 |   153,797,676
  Indian Corn and    |              |                    |
    Meal,            |    2,084,051 | Corn,  240,000,000 |   237,915,949
  Wheat Flour and    |              |                    |
    Biscuit,         |   19,591,817 | Wheat, 100,000,000 |    80,408,183
  Rye Meal,          |       34,186 | Rye,    12,600,000 |    12,565,814
  Other Grains, and  |              |                    |
     Peas and Beans, |      165,824 |        54,144,874  |    53,979,050
  Potatoes,          |      152,569 |         42,400,00  |    42,247,431
  Apples,            |      107,283 |(1850)   7,723,326  |     7,616,043
  Hay, averaged at   |              |                    |
    $10 per ton,     |              |(1850) 138,385,790  |   138,385,790
  Hemp,              |       18,195 |         4,272,500  |     4,254,305
  Sugar--Cane and    |              |                    |
    maple, etc.,     |      427,216 |(1850)  36,900,000  |    36,472,784
  Rice,              |    1,657,658 |         8,750,000  |     7,092,342
  Totals,            |  $33,809,126 |    $ 1,551,176,490 |$1,517,367,364
  Cotton,            | $109,456,404 |    $128,000,000    |    $18,543,596
  Tobacco, and its   |              |                    |
    products,        |   11,319,319 |      19,900,000    |      8,580,681
  Totals,            | $120,775,723 |    $147,900,000    |    $27,124,277

NOTE.--This table is left as it was in the first edition. As the census
tables supply a portion of its materials, a new statement cannot be made
until after 1860.


          on Commerce and Navigation.

  Coffee, Imported,            | Value, $15,525,954 | lbs.  199,049,823
    "     Re-Exported,         |          1,163,875 |  "     13,349,319
    "     Slave-Labor          |                    |
            production,        |         12,059,476 |  "    156,108,569
                               |                    |
  Sugar, Imported,             |        $15,093,003 |  "    464,427,281
    "    Re-Exported,          |            819,439 |  "     18,981,601
    "    Slave-Labor           |                    |
           production,         |         14,810,091 |  "    459,743,322
                               |                    |
  Molasses, Imported,          |         $3,684,888 | gals.  31,886,100
    "       Re-Exported,       |             97,880 |   "       488,666
    "       Slave-Labor        |                    |
              production,      |          3,607,160 |   "    31,325,735
                               |                    |
  Tobacco, etc., Imported,     |         $4,175,238 |
    "            Re-Exported,  |            312,733 |
    "            Slave-Labor   |                    |
                   production, |          3,674,402 |

NOTE.--A part of the modifications necessary in this table to adopt it
to 1859, can be inferred from some of the tables which follow.



  STATES AND CLASSES.| 1790. | 1800. | 1810. | 1820. | 1830. | 1840. | 1850.
     PENNSYLVANIA.   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | 6,537 | 14,561| 22,492| 30,202| 37,930| 47,854| 53,626
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......|  12.27|   5.44|   3.42|   2.55|   2.61|   1.20
  Slaves             | 3,737 |  1,706|    795|    211|    403|     64| ......
     MASSACHUSETTS.  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |  5,463|  6,452|  6,737|  6,740|  7,048|  8,669|  9,064
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......|   1.81|    .44|   .004|    .45|   2.29|    .45
  Slaves             | ......| ......| ......| ......| ......| ......| ......
     NEW YORK.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |  4,654| 10,374| 25,333| 29,279| 44,870| 50,027| 49,069
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......|  12.29|  14.41|   1.55|   5.32|   1.14| [D].19
  Slaves             | 21,324| 20,343| 15,017| 10,088|     75|      4| ......
     NEW JERSEY.     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |  2,762|  4,402|  7,843| 12,460| 18,303| 21,044| 23,810
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......|   5.93|   7.81|   5.88|   4.68|   1.49|   1.31
  Slaves             | 11,423| 12,422| 10,851|  7,557|  2,254|    674|    236
     RHODE ISLAND.   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |  3,469|  3,304|  3,609|  3,554|  3,561|  3,238|  3,670
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......| [D].47|    .92| [D].15|    .01|  [D]90|   1.33
  Slaves             |    952|    381|    108|     48|     17|      5| ......
    VERMONT.         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |    225|    557|    750|    903|    881|    730|    718
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......|  11.84|   3.46|   2.04| [D].24|[D]1.71|  [D]16
  Slaves             |     17| ......| ......| ......| ......| ......| ......

  STATES AND CLASSES.| 1790. | 1800. | 1810. | 1820. | 1830. | 1840. | 1850.
     MAINE.          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |    538|    818|    969|    929|  1,190|  1,355|  1,356
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......|   5.20|   1.84| [D].41|   2.80|   1.38|   .007
  Slaves             | ......| ......| ......| ......|      2| ......| ......
     NEW HAMPSHIRE.  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |    630|    856|    970|    786|    604|    537|    520
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......|   3.58|   1.33|[D]1.89|[D]2.31|[D]1.10| [D].31
  Slaves             |    158|      8| ......| ......|      3|      1| ......
     CONNECTICUT.    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |  2,801|  5,330|  6,453|  7,844|  8,047|  8,105|  7,693
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......|   9.02|   2.10|   2.15|    .25|    .07| [D].50
  Slaves             |  2,759|    951|    310|     97|     25|     17| ......
     OHIO.           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......|    337|  1,899|  4,723|  9,568| 17,342| 25,279
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......| ......|  46.35|  14.87|  10.25|   8.12|   4.57
  Slaves             | ......| ......| ......| ......|      6|      3| ......
     INDIANA.        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......|    163|    393|  1,230|  3,629|  7,165| 11,262
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......| ......|  14.11|  21.29|  19.50|   9.74|   5.75
  Slaves             | ......|    135|    237|    190|      3|      3| ......
     DELAWARE.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |  3,899|  8,268| 13,163| 12,958| 15,855| 16,919| 18,073
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......|  11.20|   5.88| [D].13|   2.23|    .67|    .68
  Slaves             |  8,887|  6,153|  4,177|  4,509|  3,292|  2,605|  2,290
     MARYLAND.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |  8,043| 19,587| 33,927| 39,730| 52,938| 62,078| 74,723
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......|  14.35|   7.32|   1.71|   3.32|   1.72|   2.03
  Slaves             |103,036|105,635|111,502|107,397|102,994| 89,737| 90,368
     VIRGINIA.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | 12,766| 20,124| 30,570| 36,889| 47,348| 49,852| 54,333
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......|   5.76|   5.99|   2.06|   2.83|    .52|    .89
  Slaves             |293,427|345,796|392,518|425,153|469,757|449,087|472,528

  STATES AND CLASSES.| 1790. | 1800. | 1810. | 1820. | 1830. | 1840. | 1850.
     NORTH CAROLINA. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |  4,975|  7,043| 10,266| 14,612| 19,543| 22,732| 27,463
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......|   4.15|   4.57|   4.23|   3.37|   1.63|   2.08
  Slaves             |100,572|133,296|168,824|205,017|245,601|245,817|288,548
     SOUTH CAROLINA. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |  1,801|  3,185|  4,554|  6,826|  7,921|  8,276|  8,960
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......|   7.68|   4.29|   4.98|   1.60|    .44|    .82
  Slaves             |107,094|146,151|196,365|258,475|315,401|327,038|584,984
     GEORGIA.        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |    398|  1,019|  1,801|  1,763|  2,486|  2,753|  2,931
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......|  15.60|   7.67| [D].21|   4.10|   1.07|    .64
  Slaves             | 22,264| 59,404|105,218|149,654|217,531|280,944|381,682
     TENNESSEE.      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |    361|    309|  1,317|  2,727|  4,555|  5,524|  6,422
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......|[D]1.44|  32.62|  10.70|   6.70|   2.12|   1.62
  Slaves             |  3,417| 13,584| 44,535| 80,107|141,603|183,050|239,459
     MISSISSIPPI.    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......|    182|    240|    458|    519|  1,366|    930
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......| ......|   3.18|   9.08|   1.33|  16.31|[D]3.19
  Slaves             | ......|  3,489| 17,088| 32,814| 65,659|195,211|309,878
     ALABAMA.        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......| ......| ......|    517|  1,572|  2,039|  2,265
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......| ......| ......| ......|  17.53|   2.97|   1.10
  Slaves             | ......| ......| ......| 41,879|117,549|252,532|342,844
     MISSOURI.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......| ......|    607|    347|    596|  1,574|  2,618
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......| ......| ......|[D]4.28|   6.39|  17.66|   6.63
  Slaves             | ......| ......|  3,011| 10,222| 25,091| 58,240| 87,422
     KENTUCKY.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       |    114|    741|  1,713|  2,759|  4,917|  7,317| 10,011
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......|  55.00|  13.11|   6.10|   7.82|   4.88|   3.68
  Slaves             | 11,830| 40,343| 80,561|126,732|165,213|182,258|210,981

  STATES AND CLASSES.| 1790. | 1800. | 1810. | 1820. | 1830. | 1840. | 1850.
     LOUISIANA.      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......| ......|  7,585| 10,476| 16,710| 25,502| 17,462
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......| ......| ......|   3.81|   5.95|   5.26|[D]3.15
  Slaves             | ......| ......| 34,660| 69,064|109,588|168,452|244,809
     ILLINOIS.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......| ......|    613|    457|  1,637|  3,598|  5,436
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    decrease per     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    cent. per annum  | ......| ......| ......|[D]2.54|  25.82|  11.97|   5.10
  Slaves             | ......| ......|    168|    917|    747|    331| ......
     FLORIDA.        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......| ......| ......| ......|    844|    817|    932
  Increase or        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
   decrease per      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
   cent. per annum   | ......| ......| ......| ......| ......| [D].31|   1.40
  Slaves             | ......| ......| ......| ......| 15,501| 25,717| 39,310
     ARKANSAS.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......| ......| ......|     59|    141|    465|    608
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......| ......| ......| ......|  13.89|   2.29|   1.10
  Slaves             | ......| ......| ......|  1,617|  4,576| 19,935| 47,100
     MICHIGAN.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......| ......|    120|    174|    261|    707|  2,583
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......| ......| ......|   4.50|   5.00|  17.08|  25.53
  Slaves             | ......| ......|     24| ......|     32| ......| ......
     DISTRICT OF     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     COLUMBIA.       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
  Free Colored       | ......|    783|  2,549|  4,048|  6,152|  8,361| 10,059
  Increase per cent. |       |       |       |       |       |       |
    per annum        | ......| ......|  22.55|   5.88|   5.19|   3.59|   2.03
  Slaves             | ......|  3,244|  5,395|  6,377|  6,119|  4,694|  3,687





          GOVERNOR, OCTOBER, 1855.

        SOUTHERN COUNTIES.       |  MR. CHASE.   ||
  COUNTIES.      | 1840. | 1850. |  FOR  |AGAINST||
  Hamilton,      |  2,576|  3,600|  4,516| 18,764||
  Clermont,      |    122|    412|  2,434|  2,879||
  Brown,         |    614|    863|  1,571|  2,129||
  Adams,         |     63|     55|  1,139|  1,629||
  Scioto,        |    206|    211|  1,042|  1,497||
  Lawrence,      |    148|    326|  1,092|  1,067||
  Gallia,        |    799|  1,198|    344|  1,972||
  Meigs,         |     28|     52|  1,515|  1,504||
  Jackson,       |    315|    391|    714|    906||
  Pike,          |    329|    618|    641|  1,156||
  Highland,      |    786|    896|  1,209|  2,599||
  Clinton,       |    377|    598|  1,640|    964||
  Warren,        |    341|    602|  2,306|  1,821||
  Butler,        |    254|    367|  1,960|  3,235||
  Preble,        |     88|     77|  1,567|  1,326||
  Montgomery,    |    376|    249|  2,746|  3,830||
  Greene,        |    344|    654|  1,953|  1,357||
  Fayette,       |    239|    291|    909|    757||
  Ross,          |  1,195|  1,906|  2,160|  2,255||
  Vinton,        |    [E]|    107|    722|    901||
  Hocking,       |     46|    117|    927|  1,199||
  Pickaway,      |    333|    412|  1,521|  1,862||
  Fairfield,     |    342|    280|  2,474|  2,726||
  Perry,         |     47|     29|  1,772|  1,540||
  Athens,        |     55|    106|  1,634|  1,072||
  Washington,    |    269|    390|  2,212|  1,774||
  Morgan,        |     68|     90|  1,776|  1,235||
  Noble,         |    [E]|    [F]|  1,361|  1,030||
  Monroe,        |     13|     69|  1,451|  1,901||
  Belmont,       |    742|    778|  1,755|  2,856||
  Guernsey,      |    190|    168|  1,893|  1,491||
  Muskingum,     |    562|    631|  2,551|  3,204||
  Franklin,      |    805|  1,607|  2,487|  4,033||
  Madison,       |     97|     78|    562|  1,012||
  Clarke,        |     20|    323|  1,866|  1,404||
  Miami,         |    211|    602|  1,787|  1,977||
  Darke,         |    200|    248|  1,685|  1,829||
  Champaigne,    |    328|    494|  1,353|  1,463||
  Union,         |     78|    128|  1,222|    829||
  Delaware,      |     76|    135|  1,602|  1,504||
  Licking,       |    140|    128|  2,021|  3,252||
  Harrison,      |    163|    287|  1,712|  1,259||
  Jefferson,     |    497|    665|  2,156|  1,654||
  Shelby,        |    262|    407|    955|  1,286||
  Total, South,  | 14,924| 21,745| 72,915| 95,941||

        NORTHERN COUNTIES.       |  MR. CHASE.
  COUNTIES.      | 1840. | 1850. |  FOR  |AGAINST
  Ashtabula,     |     17|     43|  3,772|  1,156
  Lake,          |     21|     38|  1,640|    521
  Geauga,        |      3|      7|  1,816|    486
  Cuyahoga,      |    121|    359|  3,965|  3,545
  Trumbull,      |     70|     65|  3,109|  1,505
  Portage,       |     39|     58|  2,660|  1,871
  Summit,        |     42|    121|  2,242|  1,326
  Medina,        |     13|     35|  2,032|  1,526
  Lorain,        |     62|    264|  2,693|    919
  Huron,         |    106|     39|  2,295|  1,411
  Erie,          |     97|    202|  1,564|  1,191
  Seneca,        |     65|    151|  2,332|  1,976
  Sandusky,      |     41|     47|  1,382|  1,509
  Ottawa,        |      5|      1|    369|    406
  Lucas,         |     54|    139|  1,618|  1,156
  Fulton,        |    [E]|      1|    715|    453
  Williams,      |      2|      0|    890|    878
  Defiance,      |    [E]|     19|    592|    626
  Henry,         |      6|      0|    440|    511
  Wood,          |     32|     18|  1,099|    636
  Paulding,      |      0|      1|    362|    115
  Putnam,        |    [E]|     11|    528|    858
  Hancock,       |      8|     26|  1,238|  1,359
  Vanwert,       |      0|     47|    602|    483
  Allen,         |     23|     27|  1,235|    929
  Wyandott,      |    [E]|     49|  1,143|  1,106
  Crawford,      |      5|     10|  1,449|  1,753
  Richland,      |     65|     67|  2,220|  2,329
  Ashland,       |    [E]|      3|  1,580|  1,660
  Wayne,         |     41|     28|  2,421|  2,585
  Starke,        |    204|    159|  3,343|  3,044
  Mahoning,      |    [E]|     90|  1,592|  1,552
  Columbiana,    |    417|    182|  3,118|  2,170
  Carroll,       |     49|     52|  1,502|  1,082
  Tuscarawas,    |     71|     89|  2,552|  2,179
  Coshocton,     |     38|     44|  2,064|  2,014
  Holmes,        |      3|      5|  1,194|  1,675
  Knox,          |     63|     62|  2,166|  2,135
  Morrow,        |    [E]|     18|  1,631|  1,371
  Marion,        |     52|     21|  1,220|  1,184
  Hardin,        |      4|     14|    903|    725
  Logan,         |    407|    536|  1,424|  1,119
  Mercer,        |    204|    399|    492|    968
  Auglaise,      |   [E]|     87|    643|  1,286
  Total, North,  |  2,450|  3,524| 73,877| 59,319


[E] Not organized in 1840.

[F] Not organized in 1850.


          SEPTEMBER 1, OF EACH YEAR, FROM 1840 TO 1859, IN
          POUNDS.--_London Economist_, 1859.

        |             |                 EXPORTS TO VARIOUS PLACES.      |
  YEARS.| TOTAL CROP. |-------------------------------------------------|
        |             |           |           |  OTHER    |             |
        |             | ENGLAND.  |  FRANCE.  | POINTS.   |    TOTAL.   |
  1840  |  871,134,000|498,716,400|178,986,000| 72,698,800|  750,401,200|
  1841  |  653,978,000|343,496,800|139,510,400| 42,303,600|  525,290,800|
  1842  |  673,429,600|374,252,400|159,251,600| 52,594,800|  586,098,800|
  1843  |  551,550,000|587,884,400|138,455,600| 77,714,800|  804,052,000|
  1844  |  812,163,600|480,999,200|113,074,000| 57,722,800|  651,796,000|
  1845  |  957,801,200|575,722,400|143,742,800|114,037,200|  433,502,400|
  1846  |  840,214,800|440,497,600|143,881,200| 81,888,000|  666,716,800|
  1847  |  711,460,400|332,363,600| 96,594,400| 67,530,800|  496,488,800|
  1848  |  939,053,600|529,706,000|111,668,800|101,929,600|1,743,304,400|
  1849  |1,091,437,600|615,160,400|147,303,600|128,672,400|  891,141,600|
  1850  |  838,682,400|422,708,400|115,850,800| 77,502,800|  636,062,000|
  1851  |  942,102,800|565,306,000|120,534,200|107,634,800|  795,484,000|
  1852  |1,206,011,600|667,499,600|168,550,000|141,408,800|  977,458,400|
  1853  |1,305,152,800|694,744,000|170,691,200|145,924,800|1,011,360,000|
  1854  |1,172,010,800|641,500,000|149,623,200|136,536,000|  927,659,200|
  1855  |1,138,935,600|619,886,400|163,972,400|113,824,000|  897,683,600|
  1856  |1,411,138,000|768,554,400|192,254,800|221,033,200|1,181,842,400|
  1857  |1,175,807,600|571,548,000|165,342,800|164,172,000|  901,062,800|
  1858  |1,245,584,800|723,986,400|153,600,800|158,594,800|1,036,181,000|
  1859  |1,606,800,000|...........|...........|...........|1,208,561,200|

        |  VIRGINIA.    | 1ST SEPTEMBER.
  1840  | 118,077,200   |  23,376,800
  1841  | 118,915,200   |  28,991,600
  1842  | 107,140,000   |  12,722,800
  1843  | 130,051,600   |  37,794,400
  1844  | 138,697,600   |  63,908,800
  1845  | 155,602,400   |  39,368,000
  1846  | 169,038,800   |  42,848,800
  1847  | 171,186,800   |  85,934,800
  1848  | 212,708,800   |  68,587,200
  1849  | 207,215,600   |  61,901,200
  1850  | 195,107,600   |  67,172,000
  1851  | 161,643,200   |  51,321,600
  1852  | 241,211,600   |  36,470,400
  1853  | 268,403,600   |  54,257,200
  1854  | 244,228,400   |  27,120,600
  1855  | 237,433,600   |  28,667,200
  1856  | 261,091,600   |  25,668,400
  1857  | 280,855,200   |  17,703,200
  1858  | 184,692,800   |  40,410,000
  1859  | 304,087,200   |  ..........

[Illustration: Right Index] Consumption for Virginia and South of that
State, for 1859, is estimated at 66,973,600 lbs. The _crop_ year closes,
August 31st.



        |   FOREIGN   |  DOMESTIC  ||      |   FOREIGN   |  DOMESTIC
  1840. | $ 6,504,484 | $3,549,607 ||1850. | $20,108,719 | $4,734,424
  1841. |  11,757,036 |  3,122,546 ||1851. |  22,164,442 |  7,241,205
  1842. |   9,578,515 |  2,970,690 ||1852. |  19,689,496 |  7,672,151
  1843. |   2,958,796 |  3,223,550 ||1853. |  27,731,313 |  8,768,894
  1844. |  13,641,478 |  2,898,780 ||1854. |  33,949,503 |  5,535,516
  1845. |  13,863,282 |  4,327,928 ||1855. |  17,757,112 |  5,857,181
  1846. |  13,530,625 |  3,545,481 ||1856. |  25,917,999 |  6,967,309
  1847. |  15,192,875 |  4,082,523 ||1857. |  28,685,726 |  6,115,177
  1848. |  18,421,589 |  5,718,205 ||1858. |  17,965,130 |  5,651,504
  1849. |  15,754,841 |  4,933,129 ||1859. |  26,026,140 |  8,316,222

NOTE. Of the goods imported, a part were re-exported, and the remainder
was used in the United States. The re-exports stood as follows,
beginning with 1840:--$1,103,489--$929,056--$836,892--$314,040--$404,648
$390,988.--_Congress Report on Finances._


  1850. |  lbs. 152,580,310  |  lbs. 134,539,736
  1851. |       216,043,870  |       181,225,700
  1852. |       205,542,855  |       204,991,595
  1853. |       193,112,300  |       175,687,790
  1854. |       182,473,853  |       179,481,083
  1855. |       283,214,533  |       210,378,287
  1856. |       230,913,150  |       218,225,490
  1857. |       217,871,839  |       172,565,934
  1858. |       227,656,186  |       251,255,099

NOTE. The New York _Shipping and Commercial List_, to which we are
indebted for these statements, says, that it includes the quantity
withdrawn from our markets, and forwarded inland to Canada and the
British Provinces; the amount of which is not ascertained, but will not
vary greatly from 2,230,000 lbs., for the last year.


          THE YEAR FROM 1821 TO 1842 ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
          AND FROM 1844 TO 1859 ENDING JUNE 30,--THE YEAR

       |            |            COTTON.           |AVERAGE  |
       |BREADSTUFFS |------------------------------|COST PER |
       |    AND     |               |              | lb. IN  |   TOBACCO
  1821 | $12,341,901|    124,893,405|   $20,157,484|   16.2  |  $5,648,962
  1822 |  13,886,856|    144,675,095|    24,035,058|   16.6  |   6,222,838
  1823 |  13,767,847|    173,723,270|    20,445,520|   11.8  |   6,282,672
  1824 |  15,059,484|    142,369,663|    21,947,401|   15.4  |   4,855,566
  1825 |  11,634,449|    176,449,907|    36,846,649|   20.9  |   6,115,623
  1826 |  11,303,496|    204,535,415|    25,025,214|   12.2  |   5,347,208
  1827 |  11,685,556|    294,310,115|    29,359,545|   10    |   6,577,123
  1828 |  11,461,144|    210,590,463|    22,487,229|   10.7  |   5,269,960
  1829 |  13,131,858|    264,837,186|    26,575,311|   10    |   4,982,974
  1830 |  12,075,430|    298,459,102|    29,674,883|    9.9  |   5,586,365
  1831 |  17,538,227|    276,979,784|    25,289,492|    9.1  |   4,892,388
  1832 |  12,424,703|    322,215,122|    31,724,682|    9.8  |   5,999,769
  1833 |  14,209,128|    324,698,604|    36,191,105|   11.1  |   5,755,968
  1834 |  11,524,024|    384,717,907|    49,448,402|   12.8  |   6,595,305
  1835 |  12,009,399|    387,358,992|    64,961,302|   16.8  |   8,250,577
  1836 |  10,614,130|    423,631,307|    71,284,925|   16.8  |  10,058,640
  1837 |   9,588,359|    444,211,537|    63,240,102|   14.2  |   5,795,647
  1838 |   9,636,650|    595,952,297|    61,566,811|   10.3  |   7,392,029
  1839 |  14,147,779|    413,624,212|    61,238,982|   14.8  |   9,832,943
  1840 |  19,067,535|    743,941,061|    63,870,307|    8.5  |   9,883,957
  1841 |  17,196,102|    530,204,100|    54,330,341|   10.2  |  12,576,703
  1842 |  16,902,876|    584,717,017|    47,593,464|    8.1  |   9,540,755
  1843 |  11,204,123|    792,297,106|    49,119,806|    6.2  |   4,650,979
  1844 |  17,970,135|    663,633,455|    54,063,501|    8.1  |   8,397,255
  1845 |  16,743,421|    872,905,996|    51,739,643|    5.92 |   7,469,819
  1846 |  27,701,121|    547,558,055|    42,767,341|    7.81 |   8,478,270
  1847 |  68,701,921|    527,219,958|    53,415,848|   10.34 |   7,242,086
  1848 |  37,472,751|    814,274,431|    61,998,294|    7.61 |   7,551,122
  1849 |  38,155,507|  1,026,602,269|    66,396,967|    6.4  |   5,804,207
  1850 |  26,051,373|    635,381,604|    71,984,616|   11.3  |   9,951,023
  1851 |  21,948,651|    927,237,089|   112,315,317|   12.11 |   9,219,251
  1852 |  25,857,027|  1,093,230,639|    87,965,732|    8.05 |  10,031,283
  1853 |  32,985,322|  1,111,570,370|   109,456,404|    9.85 |  11,319,319
  1854 |  65,941,323|    987,833,106|    93,596,220|    9.47 |  10,016,046
  1855 |  38,895,348|  1,008,424,601|    88,143,844|    8.74 |  14,712,468
  1856 |  77,187,301|  1,351,431,701|   128,382,351|    9.49 |  12,221,843
  1857 |  74,667,852|  1,048,282,475|   131,575,859|   12.55 |  20,662,772
  1858 |  50,683,285|  1,118,624,012|   131,386,661|   11.70 |  17,009,767
  1859 |  38,171,881|  1,372,755,006|   161,434,923|   11.75 |  21,074,038
       |------------|---------------|--------------|         |---------------
       |$961,545,275|$23,366,357,434|$2,383,027,536|         |$339,274,520

NOTE. The articles exported which are not included above, are as
follows, for 1859:--product of the sea, $4,462,974; product of the
forest, $14,489,406; cotton piece goods, manufactured tobacco, spirits,
seeds, hemp, and various other articles, $31,579,008. The value of the
manufactured tobacco, exported in 1859, and included in the last item,
was over $3,334,401, which, added to the $21,074,038, of unmanufactured
included above, makes the total exports of tobacco for that year amount
to $24,408,439.


          1859 INCLUSIVE: THE YEAR FROM 1821 TO 1842 ENDING
          SEPTEMBER 30, AND FROM 1844 TO 1859 ENDING JUNE

  YEARS.|EXCLUSIVE OF    |EXCLUSIVE OF     |---------------------------
        |SPECIE.         |SPECIE.          |   IMPORTED. |   EXPORTED.
  1821  |   $43,696,405  |   $43,671,894   |  $8,064,890 |  $10,477,969
  1822  |    68,367,425  |    49,874,079   |   3,369,846 |   10,810,180
  1823  |    51,308,936  |    47,155,408   |   5,097,896 |    6,372,987
  1824  |    53,846,567  |    50,649,500   |   8,379,835 |    7,014,552
  1825  |    66,375,722  |    66,944,745   |   6,150,765 |    8,787,659
  1826  |    57,652,577  |    52,449,855   |   6,880,966 |    4,704,533
  1827  |    54,901,108  |    57,878,117   |   8,151,130 |    8,014,880
  1828  |    66,975,475  |    49,976,632   |   7,489,741 |    8,243,476
  1829  |    54,741,571  |    55,087,307   |   7,403,612 |    4,924,020
  1830  |    49,575,009  |    58,524,878   |   8,155,964 |    2,178,773
  1831  |    82,808,110  |    59,218,583   |   7,305,945 |    9,014,931
  1832  |    75,327,688  |    61,726,529   |   5,907,504 |    5,656,340
  1833  |    83,470,067  |    69,950,856   |   7,070,368 |    2,611,701
  1834  |    86,973,147  |    80,623,662   |  17,911,632 |    2,076,758
  1835  |   122,007,974  |   100,459,481   |  13,131,447 |    6,477,775
  1836  |   158,811,392  |   106,570,942   |  13,400,881 |    4,324,336
  1837  |   113,310,571  |    94,280,895   |  10,516,414 |    5,976,249
  1838  |    86,552,598  |    95,560,880   |  17,747,116 |    3,508,046
  1839  |   145,870,816  |   101,625,533   |   8,595,176 |    8,776,743
  1840  |    86,250,335  |   111,660,561   |   8,882,813 |    8,417,014
  1841  |   114,776,309  |   103,636,236   |   4,988,633 |   10,034,332
  1842  |    87,996,318  |    91,798,242   |   4,087,016 |    4,813,539
  1843  |    37,294,129  |    77,686,354   |  22,390,559 |    1,520,791
  1844  |    96,390,548  |    99,531,774   |   5,830,429 |    5,454,214
  1845  |   105,599,541  |    98,455,330   |   4,070,242 |    8,606,495
  1846  |   110,048,859  |   101,718,042   |   3,777,732 |    3,905,268
  1847  |   116,257,595  |   150,574,844   |  24,121,289 |    1,907,024
  1848  |   140,651,902  |   130,203,709   |   6,360,224 |   15,841,616
  1849  |   132,565,168  |   131,710,081   |   6,651,240 |    5,404,648
  1850  |   164,032,033  |   134,900,233   |   4,628,792 |    7,522,994
  1851  |   200,476,219  |   178,620,138   |   5,453,592 |   29,472,752
  1852  |   195,072,695  |   154,931,147   |   5,505,044 |   42,674,135
  1853  |   251,071,358  |   189,869,162   |   4,201,382 |   27,486,875
  1854  |   275,955,893  |   215,156,304   |   6,958,184 |   41,436,456
  1855  |   231,650,340  |   192,751,135   |   3,659,812 |   56,247,343
  1856  |   295,650,938  |   266,438,051   |   4,207,632 |   45,745,485
  1857  |   333,511,295  |   278,906,713   |  12,461,799 |   69,136,922
  1858  |   242,678,413  |   251,351,033   |  19,274,496 |   52,633,147
  1859  |   324,258,159  |   278,392,080   |   7,434,789 |   63,887,411
        |$5,064,761,199  |$4,540,620,945   |$332,476,827 | $522,100,369

NOTE. There is usually re-exported from twenty to thirty million dollars
worth of the foreign articles imported. In 1859 the re-exports were to
the value of $14,509,971; in 1858 they were $30,886,142; in 1857 they
were $23,975,617; and in 1856, but $16,378,578. By adding the re-exports
to the imports entered for consumption, the product will show the whole
amount of the imports. The above figures are from the Congressional
Report on Finances, 1857-8, and the Report on Commerce and Navigation,



  YEARS. |    FOREIGN.      |     DOMESTIC.    |      TOTAL.
   1850. | lbs. 319,420,800 | lbs. 283,183,040 | lbs. 603,603,840
   1851. |      406,530,880 |      240,661,120 |      646,206,400
   1852. |      440,289,920 |      265,796,160 |      706,086,080
   1853. |      449,366,400 |      386,128,960 |      835,495,360
   1854. |      337,912,960 |      522,954,560 |      863,067,520
   1855. |      431,432,960 |      304,731,520 |      846,164,480
   1856. |      594,254,080 |      276,568,320 |      848,422,400
   1857. |      541,553,600 |       87,360,000 |      628,913,600
   1858. |      548,257,920 |      310,740,160 |      870,222,080

          DECEMBER 31.

  YEARS. |     FOREIGN.     |     DOMESTIC.    |     TOTAL.
   1850. | Gals. 24,806,949 | Gals. 12,202,300 | Gals. 37,019,249
   1851. |       33,238,278 |       10,709,740 |       43,948,018
   1852. |       29,417,511 |       18,840,000 |       48,258,511
   1853. |       28,576,821 |       26,930,000 |       55,536,821
   1854. |       24,437,019 |       32,053,000 |       56,493,019
   1855. |       23,533,423 |       24,251,207 |       47,266,085
   1856. |       23,014,878 |       16,584,000 |       39,608,878
   1857. |       23,266,404 |        5,242,380 |       28,508,784
   1858. |       24,795,374 |       20,373,790 |       45,169,164

NOTE. The above table is taken from the _Shipping and Commercial List,
and New York Price Current_, January 22, 1859. The sources of supply are
the same as when the first edition went to press, and the proportions
from slave labor and free labor countries respectively, has undergone
very little change. The year ends December 31st, while the Congressional
fiscal year ends June 30th.

The value of imports of Sugar, for the year ending June 30, 1858, from a
few principal countries, stood thus: Cuba, $15,555,409; Porto Rico,
$3,584,503; British West Indies, $386,546; British Guiana, $255,481;
British Honduras, $26; Hayti, $851; San Domingo, $5,529.



        |           |           |              |           |
        |    From   |           |    From      |   From    |
        |   United  |  From     |Mediterranean.|   East    |
  YEARS.|   States. | Brazil.   |              |  Indies.  |
   1840.|487,856,504|14,779,171 |     8,324,937| 77,011,839|
   1841.|358,240,964|16,671,348 |     9,097,180| 97,388,153|
   1842.|414,030,779|15,222,828 |     4,489,017| 92,972,609|
   1843.|574,738,520|18,675,123 |     9,674,076| 65,709,729|
   1844.|517,218,662|21,084,744 |    12,406,327| 88,639,776|
   1845.|626,650,412|20,157,633 |    14,614,699| 58,437,426|
   1846.|401,949,393|14,746,321 |    14,278,447| 34,540,143|
   1847.|364,599,291|19,966,922 |     4,814,268| 83,934,614|
   1848.|600,247,488|19,971,378 |     7,231,861| 84,101,961|
   1849.|634,504,050|30,738,133 |    17,369,843| 70,838,515|
   1850.|493,153,112|30,299,982 |    18,931,414|118,872,742|
   1851.|596,638,962|19,339,104 |    16,950,525|122,626,976|
   1852.|765,630,544|26,506,144 |    48,058,640| 84,922,432|
   1853.|658,451,796|24,190,628 |    28,353,575|181,848,160|
   1854.|722,151,346|19,703,600 |    23,503,003|119,836,009|
   1855.|681,629,424|24,577,952 |    32,904,153|145,179,216|
   1856.|780,040,016|21,830,704 |    34,616,848|180,496,624|
   1857.|654,758,048|29,910,832 |    24,882,144|250,338,144|
   1858.|732,403,840|16,466,800 |    34,867,840|138,253,360|

        |  West   |          |             |           |
        | Indies  |          |             |           |
        |  and    |  Other   |     Total   |  Amount   |  Stocks,
  YEARS.| Guiana. |Countries.|   Imported. | Exported. |December 31.
   1840.|  866,157|3,649,402 |  592,488,010| 38,673,229|233,600,000
   1841.|1,533,197|5,061,513 |  487,992,355| 37,673,586|247,760,000
   1842.|  593,603|4,441,250 |  531,750,086| 45,251,248|269,760,000
   1843.|1,260,444|3,135,224 |  673,193,116| 39,620,000|368,280,000
   1844.|1,707,194|5,054,641 |  646,111,304| 47,222,560|414,760,000
   1845.|1,394,447|  725,336 |  721,979,953| 42,916,384|478,160,000
   1846.|1,201,857|1,140,113 |  467,856,274| 65,930,704|263,520,000
   1847.|  793,933|  598,587 |  474,707,615| 74,954,320|204,760,000
   1848.|  640,437|  827,036 |  713,020,161| 74,019,792|239,440,000
   1849.|  944,307|1,074,164 |  755,469,012| 98,893,536|263,760,000
   1850.|  228,913|2,090,698 |  663,576,861|102,469,696|248,960,000
   1851.|  446,529|1,377,653 |  757,379,749|111,980,400|237,600,000
   1852.|  703,696|3,960,992 |  929,782,448|111,894,303|322,960,000
   1853.|  350,428|2,084,162 |  895,278,749|148,596,680|327,000,000
   1854.|  409,110|1,730,081 |  887,333,149|123,326,112|282,520,000
   1855.|  468,452|6,992,755 |  891,751,952|124,368,100|226,600,000
   1856.|  462,784|6,439,328 |1,023,886,304|146,660,864|197,080,000
   1857.|1,443,568|7,986,160 |  969,318,896|131,928,720|217,040,000
   1858.|      9,862,272     |  931,847,056|153,035,680|184,782,000


  COUNTRIES.           |   1850.  |   1851.  |   1852.  |   1853.  |
  France               | 2,830,800| 2,869,200| 4,230,000| 3,607,200|
  Belgium              |   453,600|   446,000|   653,600|   615,200|
  Holland              |   415,200|   415,200|   546,000|   469,200|
  Germany              |   661,200|   846,000|   976,800| 1,107,600|
  Trieste              |   915,200|   884,400| 1,038,400|   792,400|
  Genoa, Naples, etc.  |   223,200|   238,400|   376,800|   392,000|
  Spain                |   592,400|   707,200|   730,400|   653,600|
  Russia, Norway, etc. | 1,169,200| 1,169,200| 1,622,800| 1,600,000|
  Total on Continent   | 7,260,800| 7,575,600|10,174,800| 9,237,200|
  Add Great Britain    |11,650,000|12,795,200|14,316,000|14,545,200|
  Total weekly         |          |          |          |          |
  European Consumption |18,910,800|20,370,800|24,490,800|23,882,400|

  COUNTRIES.          |   1854.  |   1855.  |   1856.  |   1857.  |   1858.
  France              | 3,400,000| 3,684,400| 4,046,000| 3,438,400|
  Belgium             |   538,400|   484,400|   615,200|   438,400|
  Holland             |   661,200|   684,400|   761,200|   753,200|
  Germany             | 1,592,400|   822,800| 1,900,000|   444,800|
  Trieste             |   715,200|   651,200|   746,000|   576,800|
  Genoa, Naples, etc. |   322,800|   439,400|   846,000|   692,000|
  Spain               |   715,200|   876,800|   938,400|   692,000|
  Russia, Norway, etc.| 1,030,800|   961,600| 1,769,200| 1,538,400|
  Total on Continent  | 8,976,000| 9,414,000|11,622,000| 9,786,000|
  Add Great Britain   |15,131,600|16,161,200|16,794,800|15,626,000|16,533,200
  Total weekly        |          |          |          |          |
  European Consumption|24,107,600|25,575,200|28,416,800|25,412,000|


[135] The _London Economist_, from which we copy, observes, that the
figures in this table differ slightly from some other estimates, as must
be the case in all computations that are not official, but that from
examination it has reason to think them as near the truth as any
practical object can require. The quantities consumed in each country
include the direct imports from the producing countries, as well as the
indirect imports, chiefly from England. The consumption on the
Continent, for 1858, was not known. January 15, 1859, the date of
publication of the _Economist_. The bales are estimated at 400 lbs.


          SEPARATELY.--_Report on Com. and Nav._, 1859.

  Wood and its products, $7,829,666 | Wood and its products,   $2,210,884
  Ashes, pot and pearl,     643,861 | Tar and pitch               141,058
  Ginseng,                   54,204 | Rosin and turpentine,     2,248,381
  Skins and furs,         1,361,352 | Spirits of turpentine,    1,306,035
  Animals and their                 |
     products,           15,262,769 | Animals and their products, 287,048
  Wheat and wheat flour, 15,113,455 | Wheat and wheat flour,    2,169,328
  Indian corn and meal,   2,206,396 | Indian corn and meal,       110,976
  Other grains, biscuit,            | Biscuit or ship bread,       12,864
    and vegetables,       2,226,585 | Rice,                     2,207,148
  Hemp, and Clover seed,    546,060 | Cotton,                 161,434,923
  Flax seed,                  8,177 | Tobacco, in leaf,        21,074,038
  Hops,                      53,016 | Brown sugar,                196,935
                        ----------- |                        ------------
                        $45,305,541 |                        $193,399,618


  Refined sugar, wax, chocolate, molasses,                           $  550,937
  Spirituous liquors, ale, porter, beer, cider, vinegar, linseed oil, 1,370,787
  Household furniture, carriages, rail-road cars, etc.                1,722,797
  Hats, fur, silk, palm leaf, saddlery, trunks, valises,                317,727
  Tobacco, manufactured and snuff,                                    3,402,491
  Gunpowder, leather, boots, shoes, cables, cordage,                  2,011,931
  Salt, lead, iron and its manufactures,                              5,744,952
  Copper and brass, and manufactures of,                              1,048,246
  Drugs and medicines, candles and soap,                              1,933,973
  Cotton fabrics of all kinds,                                        8,316,222
  Other products of manufactures and mechanics,                       3,852,910
  Coal and ice,                                                         818,117
  Products not enumerated,                                            4,132,857
  Gold and silver, in coin and bullion,                              57,502,305
  Products of the sea, being oil, fish, whalebone, etc.               4,462,974
      Add Northern exports,                                          45,305,541
      Add Southern exports,                                         193,399,618
      Total exports,                                               $335,894,385

EXPLANATORY NOTE.--The whole of the exports from the ports of Delaware,
Baltimore, and New Orleans, are placed in the column of Northern
exports, because there is no means of determining what proportion of
them were from free or slave States, and it has been thought best to
give this advantage to the North. Taking into the account only the
heavier amounts, the exports from these ports foot up $11,287,898; of
which near one-half consisted of provisions and lumber. The total
imports for the year were $338,768,130. Of this $20,895,077 were
re-exported, which, added to the domestic exports, makes the total
exports $356,789,462, thus leaving a balance in our favor of












THIS work has, for the most part, been thought out for several years,
and various portions of it reduced to writing. Though we have long
cherished the design of preparing it for the press, yet other
engagements, conspiring with a spirit of procrastination, have hitherto
induced us to defer the execution of this design. Nor should we have
prosecuted it, as we have done, during a large portion of our last
summer vacation, and the leisure moments of the first two months of the
present session of the University, but for the solicitation of two
intelligent and highly-esteemed friends. In submitting the work, as it
now is, to the judgment of the truth-loving and impartial reader, we beg
leave to offer one or two preliminary remarks.

We have deemed it wise and proper to notice only the more decent,
respectable, and celebrated among the abolitionists of the North. Those
scurrilous writers, who deal in wholesale abuse of Southern character,
we have deemed unworthy of notice. Their writings are, no doubt, adapted
to the taste of their readers; but as it is certain that no educated
gentleman will tolerate them, so we would not raise a finger to promote
their downfall, nor to arrest their course toward the oblivion which so
inevitably awaits them.

In replying to the others, we are conscious that we have often used
strong language; for which, however, we have no apology to offer. We
have dealt with their arguments and positions rather than with their
motives and characters. If, in pursuing this course, we have often
spoken strongly, we merely beg the reader to consider whether we have
not also spoken justly. We have certainly not spoken without
provocation. For even these men--the very lights and ornaments of
abolitionism--have seldom condescended to argue the great question of
Liberty and Slavery with us as with equals. On the contrary, they
habitually address us as if nothing but a purblind ignorance of the very
first elements of moral science could shield our minds against the force
of their irresistible arguments. In the overflowing exuberance of their
philanthropy, they take pity of our most lamentable moral darkness, and
graciously condescend to teach us the very A B C of ethical philosophy!
Hence, if we have deemed it a duty to lay bare their pompous inanities,
showing them to be no oracles, and to strip their pitiful sophisms of
the guise of a profound philosophy, we trust that no impartial reader
will take offense at such vindication of the South against her accusers
and despisers.

In this vindication, we have been careful throughout to distinguish
between the abolitionists, our accusers, and the great body of the
people of the North. Against these we have said nothing, and we could
say nothing; since for these we entertain the most profound respect. We
have only assailed those by whom we have been assailed; and we have held
each and every man responsible only for what he himself has said and
done. We should, indeed, despise ourselves if we could be guilty of the
monstrous injustice of denouncing a whole people on account of the
sayings and doings of a portion of them. We had infinitely rather suffer
such injustice--as we have so long done--than practice it toward others.

We cannot flatter ourselves, of course, that the following work is
without errors. But these, whatever else may be thought of them, are not
the errors of haste and inconsideration. For if we have felt deeply on
the subject here discussed, we have also thought long, and patiently
endeavored to guard our minds against fallacy. How far this effort has
proved successful, it is the province of the candid and impartial reader
alone to decide. If our arguments and views are unsound, we hope he will
reject them. On the contrary, if they are correct and well-grounded, we
hope he will concur with us in the conclusion, that the institution of
slavery, as it exists among us at the South, is founded in political
justice, is in accordance with the will of GOD and the designs of his
providence, and is conducive to the highest, purest, best interests of



          The commonly-received definition of Civil
          Liberty.--Examination of the commonly-received
          definition of Civil Liberty.--No good law ever
          limits or abridges the Natural Liberty of
          Mankind.--The distinction between Rights and
          Liberty.--The Relation between the State of Nature
          and Civil Society.--Inherent and Inalienable
          Rights.--Conclusion of the First Chapter.

FEW subjects, if any, more forcibly demand our attention, by their
intrinsic grandeur and importance, than the great doctrine of human
liberty. Correct views concerning this are, indeed, so intimately
connected with the most profound interests, as well as with the most
exalted aspirations, of the human race, that any material departure
therefrom must be fraught with evil to the living, as well as to
millions yet unborn. They are so inseparably interwoven with all that is
great and good and glorious in the destiny of man, that whosoever aims
to form or to propagate such views should proceed with the utmost care,
and, laying aside all prejudice and passion, be guided by the voice of
reason alone.

Hence it is to be regretted--deeply regretted--that the doctrine of
liberty has so often been discussed with so little apparent care, with
so little moral earnestness, with so little real energetic searching and
longing after truth. Though its transcendent importance demands the best
exertion of all our powers, yet has it been, for the most part, a theme
for passionate declamation, rather than of severe analysis or of
protracted and patient investigation. In the warm praises of the
philosopher, no less than in the glowing inspirations of the poet, it
often stands before us as a vague and ill-defined _something_ which all
men are required to worship, but which no man is bound to understand. It
would seem, indeed, as if it were a mighty something not to be clearly
seen, but only to be deeply felt. And felt it has been, too, by the
ignorant as well as by the learned, by the simple as well as by the
wise: felt as a fire in the blood, as a fever in the brain, and as a
phantom in the imagination, rather than as a form of light and beauty in
the intelligence. How often have the powers of darkness surrounded its
throne, and desolation marked its path! How often from the altars of
this _unknown idol_ has the blood of human victims streamed! Even here,
in this glorious land of ours, how often do the _too-religious_
Americans seem to become deaf to the most appalling lessons of the past,
while engaged in the frantic worship of this their tutelary deity! At
this very moment, the highly favored land in which we live is convulsed
from its centre to its circumference, by the agitations of these pious
devotees of freedom; and how long ere scenes like those which called
forth the celebrated exclamation of Madame Roland--"O Liberty, what
crimes are perpetrated in thy name!" may be enacted among us, it is not
possible for human sagacity or foresight to determine.

If no one would talk about liberty except those who had taken the pains
to understand it, then would a perfect calm be restored, and peace once
more bless a happy people. But there are so many who imagine they
understand liberty as Falstaff knew the true prince, namely, by
instinct, that all hope of such a consummation must be deferred until it
may be shown that their instinct is a blind guide, and its oracles are
false. Hence the necessity of a close study and of a clear analysis of
the nature and conditions of civil liberty, in order to a distinct
delineation of the great idol, which all men are so ready to worship,
but which so few are willing to take the pains to understand. In the
prosecution of such an inquiry, we intend to consult neither the
pecuniary interests of the South nor the prejudices of the North; but
calmly and immovably proceed to discuss, upon purely scientific
principles, this great problem of our social existence and national
prosperity, upon the solution of which the hopes and destinies of
mankind in no inconsiderable measure depend. We intend no appeal to
passion or to sordid interest, but only to the reason of the wise and
good. And if justice, or mercy, or truth, be found at war with the
institution of slavery, then, in the name of God, let slavery perish.
But however guilty, still let it be tried, condemned, and executed
according to law, and not extinguished by a despotic and lawless power
more terrific than itself.

§ I. _The commonly-received definition of civil liberty._

"Civil liberty," says Blackstone, "is no other than natural liberty so
far restrained as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage."
This definition seems to have been borrowed from Locke, who says that,
when a man enters into civil society, "he is to part with so much of his
_natural liberty_, in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity,
and safety of the society shall require." So, likewise, say Paley,
Berlamaqui, Rutherforth, and a host of others. Indeed, among jurists and
philosophers, such seems to be the commonly-received definition of civil
liberty. It seems to have become a political maxim that civil liberty is
no other than a certain portion of our natural liberty, which has been
carved therefrom, and secured to us by the protection of the laws.

But is this a sound maxim? Has it been deduced from the nature of
things, or is it merely a plausible show of words? Is it truth--solid
and imperishable truth--or merely one of those fair semblances of truth,
which, through the too hasty sanction of great names, have obtained a
currency among men? The question is not what Blackstone, or Locke, or
Paley may have thought, but what is truth? Let us examine this point,
then, in order that our decision may be founded, not upon the authority
of man, but, if possible, in the wisdom of God.

§ II. _Examination of the commonly-received definition of civil

Before we can determine whether such be the origin of civil liberty, we
must first ascertain the character of that natural liberty out of which
it is supposed to be reserved. What, then, is natural liberty? What is
the nature of the material out of which our civil liberty is supposed to
be fashioned by the art of the political sculptor? It is thus defined by
Locke: "To understand political power right, and derive it from its
original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in; and that
is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of
their possessions and persons as they think fit, _within the bounds of
the law of nature_, without asking leave or depending upon the will of
any other man."[136] In perfect accordance with this definition,
Blackstone says: "This natural liberty consists in a power of acting as
one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the laws of
nature, being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of
God to man at his creation, when he endowed him with the faculty of
free-will." Such, according to Locke and Blackstone, is that natural
liberty, which is limited and abridged, as they suppose, when we enter
into the bonds of civil society.

Now mark its features: it is the gift of God to man at his creation; the
very top and flower of his existence; that by which he is distinguished
from the lower animals and raised to the rank of moral and accountable
beings. Shall we sacrifice this divine gift, then, in order to secure
the blessings of civil society? Shall we abridge or mutilate the image
of God, stamped upon the soul at its creation, by which we are capable
of knowing and obeying his law, in order to secure the aid and
protection of man? Shall we barter away any portion of this our glorious
birthright for any poor boon of man's devising? Yes, we are told--and
why? Because, says Blackstone, "Legal obedience and conformity is
infinitely more valuable than _the wild and savage liberty which is
sacrificed to obtain it_."

But how is this? _Now_ this natural liberty is a thing of light, and
_now_ it is a power of darkness. Now it is the gift of God, that moves
within a sphere of light, and breathes an atmosphere of love; and anon,
it is a wild and savage thing that carries terror in its train. It would
be an angel of light, if it were not a power of darkness; and it would
be a power of darkness, if it were not an angel of light. But as it is,
it is both by turns, and neither long, but runs through its Protean
changes, according to the exigencies of the flowing discourse of the
learned author. Surely such inconsistency, so glaring and so portentous,
and all exhibited on one and the same page, is no evidence that the
genius of the great commentator was as steady and profound as it was
elegant and classical.

The source of this vacillation is obvious. With Locke, he defines
natural liberty to be a power of acting as one thinks fit, _within the
limits prescribed by the law of nature_; but he soon loses sight of
this all-important limitation, from which natural liberty derives its
form and beauty. Hence it becomes in his mind a power to act as one
pleases, without the restraint or control of any law whatever, either
human or divine. The sovereign will and pleasure of the individual
becomes the only rule of conduct, and lawless anarchy the condition
which it legitimates. Thus, having loosed the bonds and marred the
beauty of natural liberty, he was prepared to see it, now become so
"wild and savage," offered up as a sacrifice on the altar of civil

This, too, was the great fundamental error of Hobbes. What Blackstone
thus did through inadvertency, was knowingly and designedly done by the
philosopher of Malmesbury. In a state of nature, says he, all men have a
right to do as they please. Each individual may set up a right to all
things, and consequently to the same things. In other words, in such a
state there is no law, exept that of force. The strong arm of power is
the supreme arbiter of all things. Robbery and outrage and murder are as
lawful as their opposites. That is to say, there is no such thing as a
law of nature; and consequently all things are, in a state of nature,
equally allowable. Thus it was that Hobbes delighted to legitimate the
horrors of a state of nature, as it is called, in order that mankind
might, without a feeling of indignation or regret, see the wild and
ferocious liberty of such a state sacrificed to despotic power. Thus it
was that he endeavoured to recommend the "Leviathan," by contrasting it
with the huger monster called Natural Liberty.

This view of the state of nature, by which all law and the great
Fountain of all law are shut out of the world, was perfectly agreeable
to the atheistical philosophy of Hobbes. From one who had extinguished
the light of nature, and given dominion to the powers of darkness, no
better could have been expected; but is it not deplorable that a
Christian jurist should, even for a moment, have forgotten the great
central light of his own system, and drawn his arguments from such an
abyss of darkness?

Blackstone has thus lost sight of truth, not only in regard to his
general propositions, but also in regard to particular instances. "The
law," says he, "which restrains a man from doing mischief to his
fellow-citizens diminishes the natural liberty of mankind." Now, is this
true? The doing of mischief is contrary to the law of nature, and hence,
according to the definition of Blackstone himself, the perpetration of
it is not an exercise of any natural right. As no man possesses a
natural right to do mischief, so the law which forbids it does not
diminish the natural liberty of mankind. The law which forbids mischief
is a restraint not upon the _natural liberty_, but upon the _natural
tyranny_, of man.

Blackstone is by no means alone in the error to which we have alluded.
By one of the clearest thinkers and most beautiful writers of the
present age,[137] it is argued, "that as government implies restraint,
it is evident we give up a certain portion of our liberty by entering
into it." This argument would be valid, no doubt, if there were nothing
in the world beside liberty to be restrained; but the evil passions of
men, from which proceed so many frightful tyrannies and wrongs, are not
to be identified with their rights or liberties. As government implies
restraint, it is evident that something is restrained when we enter into
it; but it does not follow that this something must be our natural
liberty. The argument in question proceeds on the notion that government
can restrain nothing, unless it restrain the natural liberty of mankind;
whereas, we have seen, the law which forbids the perpetration of
mischief, or any other wrong, is a restriction, not upon the _liberty_,
but upon the _tyranny_, of the human will. It sets a bound and limit,
not to any right conferred on us by the Author of nature, but upon the
evil thoughts and deeds of which we are the sole and exclusive
originators. Such a law, indeed, so far from restraining the natural
liberty of man, recognizes his natural rights, and secures his freedom,
by protecting the weak against the injustice and oppression of the

The way in which these authors show that natural liberty is, and of
right ought to be, abridged by the laws of society, is, by identifying
this natural freedom, not with a power to act as God wills, but with a
power in conformity with our own sovereign will and pleasure. The same
thing is expressly done by Paley.[138] "To do what we will," says he,
"is natural liberty." Starting from this definition, it is no wonder
that he should have supposed that natural liberty is restrained by civil
government. In like manner, Burke first says, "That the effect of
liberty to individuals is, _that they may do what they please_;" and
then concludes, that in order to "secure some liberty," we make "a
surrender in trust of the whole of it."[139] Thus the natural rights of
mankind are first caricatured, and then sacrificed.

If there be no God, if there be no difference between right and wrong,
if there be no moral law in the universe, then indeed would men possess
a natural right to do mischief or to act as they please. Then indeed
should we be fettered by no law in a state of nature, and liberty
therein would be coextensive with power. Right would give place to
might, and the least restraint, even from the best laws, would impair
our natural freedom. But we subscribe to no such philosophy. That
learned authors, that distinguished jurists, that celebrated
philosophers, that pious divines, should thus deliberately include the
enjoyment of our natural rights and the indulgence of our evil passions
in one and the same definition of liberty, is, it seems to us, matter of
the most profound astonishment and regret. It is to confound the source
of all tyranny with the fountain of all freedom. It is to put darkness
for light, and light for darkness. And it is to inflame the minds of men
with the idea that they are struggling and contending for liberty, when,
in reality, they may be only struggling and contending for the
gratification of their malignant passions. Such an offense against all
clear thinking, such an outrage against all sound political ethics,
becomes the more amazing when we reflect on the greatness of the authors
by whom it is committed, and the stupendous magnitude of the interests
involved in their discussions.

Should we, then, exhibit the fundamental law of society, and the natural
liberty of mankind, as antagonistic principles? Is not this the way to
prepare the human mind, at all times so passionately, not to say so
madly, fond of freedom, for a repetition of those tremendous conflicts
and struggles beneath which the foundations of society have so often
trembled, and some of its best institutions been laid in the dust? In
one word, is it not high time to raise the inquiry, Whether there be, in
reality, any such opposition as is usually supposed to exist between the
law of the land and the natural rights of mankind? Whether such
opposition be real or imaginary? Whether it exists in the nature of
things, or only in the imagination of political theorists?

§ III. _No good law ever limits or abridges the natural liberty of

By the two great leaders of opposite schools, Locke and Burke, it is
contended that when we enter into society the natural rights of
self-defense is surrendered to the government. If any natural right,
then, be limited or abridged by the laws of society, we may suppose the
right of self-defense to be so; for this is the instance which is always
selected to illustrate and confirm the reality of such a surrender of
our natural liberty. It has, indeed, become a sort of maxim, that when
we put on the bonds of civil society, we give up the natural right of

But what does this maxim mean? Does it mean that we transfer the right
to repel force by force? If so, the proposition is not true; for this
right is as fully possessed by every individual after he has entered
into society as it could have been in a state of nature. If he is
assailed, or threatened with immediate personal danger, the law of the
land does not require him to wait upon the strong but slow arm of
government for protection. On the contrary, it permits him to protect
himself, to repel force by force, in so far as this may be necessary to
guard against injury to himself; and the law of nature allows no more.
Indeed, if there be any difference, the law of the land allows a man to
go further in the defense of self than he is permitted to go by the law
of God. Hence, in this sense, the maxim under consideration is not true;
and no man's natural liberty is abridged by the State.

Does this maxim mean, then, that in a state of nature every man has a
right to redress his own wrongs by the _subsequent_ punishment of the
offender, which right the citizen has transferred to the government? It
is clear that this must be the meaning, if it have any correct meaning
at all. But neither in this sense is the maxim or proposition true. The
right to punish an offender must rest upon the one or the other of two
grounds: either upon the ground that the offender deserves punishment,
or that his punishment is necessary to prevent similar offenses. Now,
upon neither of these grounds has any man, even in a state of nature,
the right to punish an offense committed against himself.

First, he has no right to punish such an offense on the ground that it
deserves punishment. No man has, or ever had, the right to wield the
awful attribute of retributive justice; that is, to inflict so much pain
for so much guilt or moral turpitude. This is the prerogative of God
alone. To his eye, all secrets are known, and all degrees of guilt
perfectly apparent; and to him alone belongs the vengeance which is due
for moral ill-desert. His law extends over the state of nature as well
as over the state of civil society, and calls all men to account for
their evil deeds. It is evident that, in so far as the intrinsic demerit
of actions is concerned, it makes no difference whether they be punished
here or hereafter. And beside, if the individual had possessed such a
right in a state of nature, he has not transferred it to society; for
society neither has nor claims any such right. Blackstone but utters the
voice of the law when he says: "The end or final cause of human
punishment is not by way of atonement or expiation, for that must be
left to the just determination of the supreme Being, but a precaution
against future offenses of the same kind." The exercise of retributive
justice belongs exclusively to the infallible Ruler of the world, and
not to frail, erring man, who himself so greatly stands in need of
mercy. Hence, the right to punish a transgressor on the ground that such
punishment is deserved, has not been transferred from the individual to
civil society: first, because he had no such natural right to transfer;
and, secondly, because society possesses no such right.

In the second place, if we consider the other ground of punishment, it
will likewise appear that the right to punish never belonged to the
individual, and consequently could not have been transferred by him to
society. For, by the law of nature, the individual has no right to
punish an offense against himself _in order to prevent further offences
of the same kind_. If the object of human punishment be, as indeed it
is, to prevent the commission of crime, by holding up examples of terror
to evil-doers, then, it is evidently no more the natural right of the
party injured to redress the wrong, than it is the right of others. All
men are interested in the prevention of wrongs, and hence all men should
unite to redress them. All men are endowed by their Creator with a sense
of justice, in order to impel them to secure its claims, and throw the
shield of its protection around the weak and oppressed.

The prevention of wrong, then, is clearly the natural duty, and
consequently the natural right, of all men.

This duty should be discharged by others, rather than by the party
aggrieved. For it is contrary to the law of nature itself, as both Locke
and Burke agree, that any man should be "judge in his own case;" that
any man should, by an _ex post facto_ decision, determine the amount of
punishment due to his enemy, and proceed to inflict it upon him. Such a
course, indeed, so far from preventing offenses, would inevitably
promote them; instead of redressing injuries, would only add wrong to
wrong; and instead of introducing order, would only make confusion worse
confounded, and turn the moral world quite upside down.

On no ground, then, upon which the right to punish may be conceived to
rest, does it appear that it was ever possessed, or could ever have been
possessed, by the individual. And if the individual never possessed such
a right, it is clear that he has never transferred it to society. Hence,
this view of the origin of government, however plausible at first sight,
or however generally received, has no real foundation in the nature of
things. It is purely a creature of the imagination of theorists; one of
the phantoms of that manifold, monstrous, phantom deity called Liberty,
which has been so often invoked by the _pseudo_ philanthropists and
reckless reformers of the present day to subvert not only the law of
capital punishment, but also other institutions and laws which have
received the sanction of both God and man.

The simple truth is, that we are all bound by the law of nature and the
law of God to love our neighbor as ourselves. Hence it is the duty of
every man, in a state of nature, to do all in his power to protect the
rights and promote the interests of his fellow-men. It is the duty of
all men to consult together, and concert measures for the general good.
Right here it is, then, that the law of man, the constitution of civil
society, comes into contact with the law of God and rests upon it. Thus,
civil society arises, not from a surrender of individual rights, but
from a right originally possessed by all; nay, from a solemn duty
originally imposed upon all by God himself--a duty which must be
performed, whether the individual gives his consent or not. The very law
of nature itself requires, as we have seen, not only the punishment of
the offender, but also that he be punished acccording to a
pre-established law, and by the decision of an impartial tribunal. And
in the enactment of such law, as well as in the administration, the
collective wisdom of society, or its agents, moves in obedience to the
law of God, and not in pursuance of rights derived from the individual.

§ IV. _The distinction between rights and liberty._

In the foregoing discussion we have, in conformity to the custom of
others, used the terms _rights_ and _liberty_ as words of precisely the
same import. But, instead of being convertible terms, there seems to be
a very clear difference in their signification. If a man be taken, for
example, and without cause thrown into prison, this deprives him of his
_liberty_, but not of his _right_, to go where he pleases. The right
still exists; and his not being allowed to enjoy this right, is
precisely what constitutes the oppression in the case supposed. If there
were no right still subsisting, then there would be no oppression.
Hence, as the _right_ exists, while the _liberty_ is extinguished, it is
evident they are distinct from each other. The liberty of a man in such
a case, as in all others, would consist in an opportunity to enjoy his
right, or in a state in which it might be enjoyed if he so pleased.

This distinction between rights and liberty is all-important to a clear
and satisfactory discussion of the doctrine of human freedom. The great
champions of that freedom, from a Locke down to a Hall, firmly and
passionately grasping the natural rights of man, and confounding these
with his liberty, have looked upon society as the restrainer, and not as
the author, of that liberty. On the other hand, the great advocates of
despotic power, from a Hobbes down to a Whewell, seeing that there can
be no genuine liberty--that is, no secure enjoyment of one's rights--in
a state of nature, have ascribed, not only our liberty, but all our
existing rights also, to the State.

But the error of Locke is a noble and generous sentiment when compared
with the odious dogma of Hobbes and Whewell. These learned authors
contend that we derive all our existing rights from society. Do we,
then, live and move and breathe and think and worship God only by rights
derived from the State? No, certainly. We have these rights from a
higher source. God gave them, and all the powers of earth combined
cannot take them away. But as for our liberty, this we freely own is,
for the most part, due to the sacred bonds of civil society. Let us
render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things
that are God's.

§ V. _The relation between the state of nature and of civil society._

Herein, then, consists the true relation between the _natural_ and the
_social_ states. Civil society does not abridge our natural rights, but
secures and protects them. She does not assume our right of
self-defense,--she simply discharges the duty imposed by God to defend
us. The original right is in those who compose the body politic, and not
in any individual. Hence, civil society does not impair our natural
liberty, as actually existing in a state of nature, or as it might
therein exist; for, in such a state, there would be no real liberty, no
real enjoyment of natural rights.

Mr. Locke, as we have seen, defines the state of nature to be one of
"perfect freedom." Why, then, should we leave it? "If man, in the state
of nature, be so free," says he, "why will he part with his freedom? To
which it is obvious to answer," he continues, "that though, in the state
of nature, he hath such a right, _yet the enjoyment of it is very
uncertain_, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all
being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part not
strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he
has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing
to quit a condition which, _however free, is full of fears and continual
dangers_; and it is not without reason that he seeks out, and is willing
to join in society with, others who are already united, or have a mind
to unite, _for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and
estates_, which I call by the general name _property_."[140] What! can
that be a state of perfect freedom which is subject to fears and
perpetual dangers? In one word, can a reign of terror be the reign of
liberty? It is evident, we think, that Locke has been betrayed into no
little inaccuracy and confusion of thought from not having distinguished
between rights and liberty.

The truth seems to be that, in a state of nature, we would possess
rights, but we could not enjoy them. That is to say, notwithstanding all
our rights, we should be destitute of freedom or liberty. Society
interposes the strong arm of the law to protect our rights, to secure
us in the enjoyment of them. She delivers us from the alarms, the
dangers, and the violence of the natural state. Hence, under God, she is
the mother of our peace and joy, by whose sovereign rule anarchy is
abolished and liberty established. Liberty and social law can never be
dissevered. Liberty, robed in law, and radiant with love, is one of the
best gifts of God to man. But liberty, despoiled of law, is a wild,
dark, fierce spirit of licentiousness, which tends "to uproar the
universal peace."

Hence it is a frightful error to regard the civil state or government as
antagonistic to the natural liberty of mankind; for this is, indeed, the
author of the very liberty we enjoy. Good government it is that
restrains the elements of tyranny and oppression, and introduces liberty
into the world. Good government it is that shuts out the reign of
anarchy, and secures the dominion of equity and goodness. He who would
spurn the restraints of law, then, by which pride, and envy, and hatred,
and malice, ambition, and revenge are kept within the sacred bounds of
eternal justice,--he, we say, is not the friend of human liberty. He
would open the flood-gates of tyranny and oppression; he would mar the
harmony and extinguish the light of the world. Let no such man be

If the foregoing remarks be just, it would follow that the state of
nature, as it is called, would be one of the most unnatural states in
the world. We may conceive it to exist, for the sake of illustration or
argument; but if it should actually exist, it would be at war with the
law of nature itself. For this requires, as we have seen, that men
should unite together, and frame such laws as the general good demands.

Not only the law, but the very necessities of nature, enjoin the
institution of civil government. God himself has thus laid the
foundations of civil society deep in the nature of man. It is an
ordinance of Heaven, which no human decree can reverse or annul. It is
not a thing of compacts, bound together by promises and paper, but is
itself a law of nature as irreversible as any other. Compacts may give
it one form or another, but in one form or another it must exist. It is
no accidental or artificial thing, which may be made or unmade, which
may be set up or pulled down, at the mere will and pleasure of man. It
is a decree of God; the spontaneous and irresistible working of that
nature, which, in all climates, through all ages, and under all
circumstances, manifests itself in social organizations.

§ VI. _Inherent and inalienable rights._

Much has been said about inherent and inalienable rights, which is
either unintelligible or rests upon no solid foundation. "The
inalienable rights of men" is a phrase often brandished by certain
reformers, who aim to bring about "the immediate abolition of slavery."
Yet, in the light of the foregoing discussion, it may be clearly shown
that the doctrine of inalienable rights, if properly handled, will not
touch the institution of slavery.

An inalienable right is either one which the possessor of it himself
cannot alienate or transfer, or it is one which society has not the
power to take from him. According to the import of the terms, the first
would seem to be what is meant by an inalienable right; but in this
sense it is not pretended that the right to either life or liberty has
been transferred to society or alienated by the individual. And if, as
we have endeavored to show, the right, or power, or authority of society
is not derived from a transfer of individual rights, then it is clear
that neither the right to life nor liberty is transferred to society.
That is, if no rights are transferred, than these particular rights are
still untransferred, and, if you please, untransferable. Be it conceded,
then, that the individual has never transferred his right to life or
liberty to society.

But it is not in the above sense that the abolitionist uses the
expression, _inalienable rights_. According to his view, an inalienable
right is one of which society itself cannot, without doing wrong,
deprive the individual, or deny the enjoyment of it to him. This is
evidently his meaning; for he complains of the injustice of society, or
civil government, in depriving a certain portion of its subjects of
civil freedom, and consigning them to a state of servitude. "Such an
act," says he, "is wrong, because it is a violation of the inalienable
rights of all men." But let us see if his complaint be just or well

It is pretended by no one that society has the right to deprive any
subject of either life or liberty, _without good and sufficient cause or
reason_. On the contrary, it is on all hands agreed that it is only for
good and sufficient reasons that society can deprive any portion of its
subjects of either life or liberty. Nor can it be denied, on the other
side, that a man may be deprived of either, or both, by a preordained
law, in case there be a good and sufficient reason for the enactment of
such law. For the crime of murder, the law of the land deprives the
criminal of life: _à fortiori_, might it deprive him of liberty. In the
infliction of such a penalty, the law seeks, as we have seen, not to
deal out so much pain for so much guilt, nor even to deal out pain for
guilt at all, but simply to protect the members of society, and _secure
the general good_. The general good is the sole and sufficient
consideration which justifies the State in taking either the life or the
liberty of its subjects.

Hence, if we would determine in any case whether society is justified in
depriving any of its members of civil freedom by law, we must first
ascertain whether the general good demands the enactment of such a law.
If it does, then such a law is just and good--as perfectly just and good
as any other law which, for the same reason or on the same ground, takes
away the life or liberty of its subjects. All this talk about the
inalienable rights of men may have a very admirable meaning, if one will
only be at the pains to search it out; but is it not evident that, when
searched to the bottom, it has just nothing at all to do with the great
question of slavery? But more of this hereafter.[141]

This great problem, as we have seen, is to be decided, not by an appeal
to the inalienable rights of men, but simply and solely by a reference
to the general good. It is to be decided, not by the aid of abstractions
alone; a little good sense and _practical sagacity_ should be allowed to
assist in its determination. There are inalienable rights, we
admit--inalienable both because the individual cannot transfer them, and
because society can never rightfully deprive any man of their enjoyment.
But life and liberty are _not_ "among these." There are inalienable
rights, we admit, but then such abstractions are the edge-tools of
political science, with which it is dangerous for either men or children
to play. They may inflict deep wounds on the cause of humanity; they can
throw no light on the great problem of slavery.

One thing seems to be clear and fixed; and that is, that the rights of
the individual are subordinate to those of the community. _An
inalienable right is a right coupled with a duty; a duty with which no
other obligation can interfere._ But, as we have seen, it is the _duty_,
and consequently, the _right_, of society to make such laws as the
general good demands. This inalienable right is conferred, and its
exercise enjoined, by the Creator and Governor of the universe. All
individual rights are subordinate to this inherent, universal, and
inalienable right. It should be observed, however, that in the exercise
of this paramount right, this supreme authority, no society possesses
the power to contravene the principles of justice. In other words, it
should be observed that no unjust law can ever promote the public good.
Every law, then, which is not unjust, and which the public good demands,
should be enacted by society.

But we have already seen and shall still more fully see, that the law
which ordains slavery is not unjust in itself, or, in other words, that
it interferes with none of the inalienable rights of man. Hence, if it
be shown that the public good, and especially the good of the slave,
demands such a law, then the question of slavery will be settled. We
purpose to show this before we have done with the present discussion.
And if, in the prosecution of this inquiry, we should be so fortunate as
to throw only one steady ray of light on the great question of slavery,
by which the very depths of society have been so fearfully convulsed, we
shall be more than rewarded for all the labor which, with no little
solicitude, we have felt constrained to bestow upon an attempt at its

§ VII. _Conclusion of the first chapter._

In conclusion, we shall merely add that if the foregoing remarks be
just, it follows that the great problem of political philosophy is not
precisely such as it is often taken to be by statesmen and historians.
This problem, according to Mackintosh and Macaulay, consists in finding
such an adjustment of the antagonistic principles of public order and
private liberty, that neither shall overthrow or subvert the other, but
each be confined within its own appropriate limits. Whereas, if we are
not mistaken, these are not _antagonistic_, but _co-ordinate_,
principles. The very law which institutes public order is that which
introduces private liberty, since no secure enjoyment of one's rights
can exist where public order is not maintained. And, on the other hand,
unless private liberty be introduced, public order cannot be
maintained, or at least such public order as should be established;
for, if there be not private liberty, if there be no secure enjoyment of
one's rights, then the highest and purest elements of our nature would
have to be extinguished, or else exist in perpetual conflict with the
surrounding despotism. As license is not liberty, so despotism is not
order, nor even friendly to that enlightened, wholesome order, by which
the good of the public and the individual are at the same time
introduced and secured. In other words, what is taken from the one of
these principles is not given to the other; on the contrary, every
additional element of strength and beauty which is imparted to the one
is an accession of strength and beauty to the other. Private liberty,
indeed, lives and moves and has its very being in the bosom of public
order. On the other hand, that public order alone which cherishes the
true liberty of the individual is strong in the approbation of God and
in the moral sentiments of mankind. All else is weakness, and death, and

The true problem, then, is, not how the conflicting claims of these two
principles may be adjusted, (for there is no conflict between them,) but
how a real public order, whose claims are identical with those of
private liberty, may be introduced and maintained. The practical
solution of this problem, for the heterogeneous population of the South
imperatively demands, as we shall endeavor to show, the institution of
slavery; and that without such an institution it would be impossible to
maintain either a sound public order or a decent private liberty. We
shall endeavor to show, that the very laws or institution which is
supposed by fanatical declaimers to shut out liberty from the Negro race
among us, really shuts out the most frightful _license_ and disorder
from society. In one word, we shall endeavor to show that in preaching
up liberty _to and for_ the slaves of the South, the abolitionist is
"casting pearls before swine," that can neither comprehend the nature,
nor enjoy the blessings, of the freedom which is so officiously thrust
upon them. And if the Negro race should be moved by their fiery appeals,
it would only be to rend and tear in pieces the fair fabric of American
liberty, which, with all its shortcomings and defects, is by far the
most beautiful ever yet conceived or constructed by the genius of man.


[136] Locke on Civil Government, chap. ii.

[137] Robert Hall.

[138] Political Philosophy, chap. v.

[139] Reflections on the Revolution in France.

[140] Locke on Civil Government, chap. ix.

[141] Chap. ii. § x.



          The first fallacy of the Abolitionist.--The second
          fallacy of the Abolitionist.--The third fallacy of
          the Abolitionist.--The fourth fallacy of the
          Abolitionist.--The fifth fallacy of the
          Abolitionist.--The sixth fallacy of the
          Abolitionist.--The seventh fallacy of the
          Abolitionist.--The eighth fallacy of the
          Abolitionist.--The ninth fallacy of the
          Abolitionist.--The tenth, eleventh, twelfth,
          thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth
          fallacies of the Abolitionist; or his seven
          arguments against the right of a man to hold
          property in his fellow-man.--The seventeenth
          fallacy of the Abolitionist; or, the Argument from
          the Declaration of Independence.

HAVING in the preceding chapter discussed and defined the nature of
civil liberty, as well as laid down some of the political conditions on
which its existence depends, we shall now proceed to examine the
question of slavery. In the prosecution of this inquiry, we shall, in
the first place, consider the arguments and positions of the advocates
of immediate abolition; and, in the second, point out the reasons and
grounds on which the institution of slavery is based and its justice
vindicated. The first branch of the investigation, or that relating to
the arguments and positions of the abolitionist, will occupy the
remainder of the present chapter.

It is insisted by abolitionists that the institution of slavery is, in
all cases and under all circumstances, morally wrong, or a violation of
the law of God. Such is precisely the ground assumed by the one side and
denied by the other.

Thus says Dr. Wayland: "I have wished to make it clear that slavery, or
the holding of men in bondage, and 'obliging them to labor for our
benefit, without their contract or consent,' is always and everywhere,
or, as you well express it, _semper et ubique_, a moral wrong, a
violation of the obligations under which we are created to our
fellow-men, and a transgression of the law of our Creator."

Dr. Fuller likewise: "The simple question is, Whether it _is
necessarily, and amid all circumstances, a crime to hold men in a
condition where they labor for another without their consent or
contract_? and in settling this matter all impertinences must be

In one word, Dr. Wayland insists that slavery is condemned by the law of
God, by the moral law of the universe. We purpose to examine the
arguments which he has advanced in favor of this position. We select his
arguments for examination, because, as a writer on moral and political
science, he stands so high in the northern portion of the Union. His
work on these subjects has indeed long since passed the fiftieth
thousand; a degree of success which, in his own estimation, authorizes
him to issue his letters on slavery over the signature of "THE AUTHOR OF
THE MORAL SCIENCE." But the very fact that his popularity is so great,
and that he is _the_ author of _the_ Moral Science, is a reason why his
arguments on a question of such magnitude should be subjected to a
severe analysis and searching scrutiny, in order that, under the
sanction of so imposing a name, no error may be propagated and no
mischief done.

Hence we shall hold Dr. Wayland amenable to all the laws of logic.
Especially shall we require him to adhere to the point he has undertaken
to discuss, and to retrench all irrelevancies. If, after having
subjected his arguments to such a process, it shall be found that every
position which is assumed on the subject is directly contradicted by
himself, we shall not make haste to introduce anarchy into the Southern
States, in order to make it answer to the anarchy in his views of civil
and political freedom. But whether this be the case or not, it is not
for us to determine; we shall simply proceed to examine, and permit the
impartial reader to decide for himself.

§ I. _The first fallacy of the abolitionist._

The abolitionists do not hold their passions in subjection to reason.
This is not merely the judgment of a Southern man: it is the opinion of
the more decent and respectable abolitionists themselves. Thus says Dr.
Channing, censuring the conduct of the abolitionists: "They have done
wrong, I believe; nor is their wrong to be winked at because done
fanatically or with good intentions; for how much mischief may be
wrought with good designs! They have fallen into the common error of
enthusiasts--that of exaggerating their object, of feeling as if no evil
existed but that which they opposed, and as if no guilt could be
compared with that of countenancing or upholding it."[142] In like
manner, Dr. Wayland says: "I unite with you and the lamented Dr Channing
in the opinion that the tone of the abolitionists at the North has been
frequently, I fear I must say generally, 'fierce, bitter, and abusive.'
The abolitionist press has, I believe, from the beginning, too commonly
indulged in _exaggerated statement_, in violent denunciation, and in
coarse and lacerating invective. At our late Missionary Convention in
Philadelphia, I heard many things from men who claim to be the exclusive
friends of the slave, which pained me more than I can express. It seemed
to me that the spirit which many of them manifested was very different
from the spirit of Christ. I also cheerfully bear testimony to the
general courtesy, the Christian urbanity, and the calmness under
provocation which, in a remarkable degree, characterized the conduct of
the members from the South."

In the flood of sophisms which the abolitionists usually pour out in
their explosions of passion, none is more common than what is
technically termed by logicians the _ignoratio elenchi_, or a mistaking
of the point in dispute. Nor is this fallacy peculiar to the more vulgar
sort of abolitionists. It glares from the pages of Dr. Wayland, no less
than from the writings of the most fierce, bitter, and vindictive of his
associates in the cause of abolitionism. Thus, in one of his letters to
Dr. Fuller, he says: "To present this subject in a simple light. Let us
suppose that your family and mine were neighbors. We, our wives and
children, are all human beings in the sense that I have described, and,
in consequence of that common nature, and by the will of our common
Creator, are subject to the law, _Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself_. Suppose that I should set fire to your house, shoot you as you
came out of it, and seizing your wife and children, 'oblige them to
labor for my benefit without their contract or consent.' Suppose,
moreover, aware that I could not thus oblige them, unless they were
inferior in intellect to myself, I should forbid them to read, and thus
consign them to intellectual and moral imbecility. Suppose I should
measure out to them the knowledge of God on the same principle. Suppose
I should exercise this dominion over them and their children as long as
I lived, and then do all in my power to render it certain that my
children should exercise it after me. _The question before us I suppose
to be simply this: Would I, in so doing, act at variance with the
relations existing between us as creatures of God?_ Would I, in other
words, violate the supreme law of my Creator, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself? or that other, Whatsoever ye would that men should
do unto you, do ye even so unto them? I do not see how any intelligent
creature can give more than one answer to this question. Then I think
that every intelligent creature must affirm that do this is wrong, or,
in the other form of expression, that it is a great moral evil. Can we
conceive of any greater?"

It was surely very kind in Dr. Wayland to undertake, with so much pains,
to instruct us poor, benighted sons of the South in regard to the
difference between right and wrong. We would fain give him full credit
for all the kindly feeling he so freely professes for his "Southern
brethren;" but if he really thinks that the question, whether arson, and
murder, and cruelty are offenses against the "supreme law of the
Creator," is still open for discussion among us, then we beg leave to
inform him that he labors under a slight hallucination. If he had never
written a word, we should have known, perhaps, that it is wrong for a
man to set fire to his neighbor's house, and shoot him as he came out,
and reduce his wife and children to a state of ignorance, degradation,
and slavery. Nay, if we should find his house already burnt, and himself
already shot, we should hardly feel justified in treating his wife and
children in so cruel a manner. Not even if they were "guilty of a skin,"
or ever so degraded, should we deem ourselves justified in reducing them
to a state of servitude. This is NOT "the question before us." We are
quite satisfied on all such points. The precept, too, Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself, was not altogether unknown in the Southern
States before his letters were written. A committee of very amiable
philanthropists came all the way from England, as the agents of some
abolition society there, and told us all that the law of God requires us
to love our neighbor as ourselves. In this benevolent work of
enlightenment they were, if we mistake not, several months in advance of
Dr. Wayland. We no longer need to be enlightened on such points. Being
sufficiently instructed, we admit that we should love our neighbor as
ourselves, and also that arson, murder, and so forth are violations of
this law. But we want to know whether, _semper et ubique_, the
institution of slavery is morally wrong. _This is the question_, and to
this we intend to hold the author.

§ II. _The second fallacy of the abolitionist._

Lest we should be suspected of misrepresentation, we shall state the
position of Dr. Wayland in his own words. In regard to the institution
of slavery, he says: "I do not see that it does not sanction the whole
system of the slave-trade. _If I have a right to a thing after I have
gotten it, I have a natural right to the means necessary for getting
it._ If this be so, I should be as much justified in sending a vessel to
Africa, murdering a part of the inhabitants of a village, and making
slaves of the rest, as I should be in hunting a herd of wild animals,
and either slaying them or subjecting them to the yoke."

Now mark the principle on which this most wonderful argument is based:
"If I have a right to a thing after I have gotten it, I have a natural
right to the means for getting it." That is to say, If I have the right
to a slave, now that I have got him, then I may rightfully use all
necessary means to reduce other men to slavery! I may shoot, burn, or
murder, if by this means I can only get slaves! Was any consequence ever
more wildly drawn? Was any _non sequitur_ ever more glaring?

Let us see how this argument would apply to other things. If I have a
right to a watch after I have gotten it, no matter how, then I have a
right to use the means necessary to get watches; I may steal them from
my neighbors! Or, if I have a right to a wife, provided I can get one,
then may I shoot my friend and marry his widow! Such is the argument of
one who seeks to enlighten the South and reform its institutions!

§ III. _The third fallacy of the abolitionist._

Nearly allied to the foregoing argument is that of the same author, in
which he deduces from the right of slavery, supposing it to exist,
another retinue of monstrous rights. "This right also," says Dr.
Wayland, referring to the right to hold slaves, "as I have shown,
involves the right to use all the means necessary to its establishment
and perpetuity, and, _of course, the right to crush his intellectual and
social nature_, and to stupefy his conscience, in so far as may be
necessary to enable me to enjoy this right with the least possible
peril." This is a compound fallacy, a many-sided error. But we will
consider only two phases of its absurdity.

In the first place, if the slaveholder should reason in this way, no one
would be more ready than the author himself to condemn his logic. If any
slaveholder should say, That because I have a right to my slaves,
therefore I have the right to crush the intellectual and moral nature of
men, in order to _establish_ and perpetuate their bondage,--he would be
among the first to cry out against such reasoning. This is evident from
the fact that he everywhere commends those slaveholders who deem it
their duty, as a return for the service of their slaves, to promote both
their temporal and eternal good. He everywhere insists that such is the
duty of slaveholders; and if such be their duty, they surely have no
right to violate it, by crushing the intellectual and moral nature of
those whom they are bound to elevate in the scale of being. If the
slaveholder, then, should adopt such an argument, his logic would be
very justly chargeable by Dr. Wayland with evidencing not so much the
existence of a clear head as of a bad heart.

In the second place, the above argument overlooks the fact that the
Southern statesman vindicates the institution of slavery on the ground
that it finds the Negro race already so degraded as to unfit it for a
state of freedom. He does not argue that it is right to seize those who,
by the possession of cultivated intellects and pure morals, are fit for
freedom, and debase them in order to prepare them for social bondage. He
does not imagine that it is ever right to shoot, burn, or corrupt, in
order to reduce any portion of the enlightened universe to a state of
servitude. He merely insists that those only who are already unfit for a
higher and nobler state than one of slavery, should be held by society
in such a state. This position, although it is so prominently set forth
by every advocate of slavery at the South, is almost invariably
overlooked by the Northern abolitionists. They talk, and reason, and
declaim, indeed, just as if we had caught a bevy of black angels as they
were winging their way to some island of purity and bliss here upon
earth, and reduced them from their heavenly state, by the most
diabolical cruelties and oppressions, to one of degradation, misery, and
servitude. They forget that Africa is not yet a paradise, and that
Southern servitude is not quite a hell. They forget--in the heat and
haste of their argument they forget--that the institution of slavery is
designed by the South not for the enlightened and the free, but only for
the ignorant and the debased. They need to be constantly reminded that
the institution of slavery is not the mother, but the daughter, of
ignorance and degradation. It is, indeed, the legitimate offspring of
that intellectual and moral debasement which, for so many thousand
years, has been accumulating and growing upon the African race. And if
the abolitionists at the North will only invent some method by which all
this frightful mass of degradation may be blotted out _at once_, then
will we most cheerfully consent to "the _immediate_ abolition of
slavery." On this point, however, we need not dwell, as we shall have
occasion to recur to it again when we come to consider the grounds and
reasons on which the institution of slavery is vindicated.

Having argued that the right of slavery, if it exist, implies the right
to shoot and murder an enlightened neighbor, with a view to reduce his
wife and children to a state of servitude, as well as to crush their
intellectual and moral nature in order to keep them in such a state, the
author adds, "If I err in making these inferences, I _err innocently_."
We have no doubt of the most perfect and entire innocence of the author.
But we would remind him that innocence, however perfect or _childlike_,
is not the only quality which a great reformer should possess.

§ IV. _The fourth fallacy of the abolitionist._

He is often guilty of a _petitio principii_, in taking it for granted
that the institution of slavery is an injury to the slave, which is the
very point in dispute. Thus says Dr. Wayland: "If it be asked when,
[slavery must be abandoned,] I ask again, when shall a man begin to
cease doing wrong? Is not the answer _immediately_? If a man is injuring
us, do we doubt as to the _time when_ he ought to cease? There is, then,
no doubt in respect to the time when we ought to cease inflicting injury
upon others."[143] Here it is assumed that slavery is an _injury_ to the
slave: but this is the very point which is denied, and which he should
have discussed. If a state of slavery be a greater injury to the slave
than a state of freedom would be, then are we willing to admit that it
should be abolished. But even in that case, not _immediately_, unless it
could be shown that the remedy would not be worse than the evil. If, on
the whole, the institution of slavery be a curse to the slave, we say
let it be abolished; not suddenly, however, as if by a whirlwind, but by
the counsels of wise, cautious, and far-seeing statesmen, who, capable
of looking both before and after, can comprehend in their plans of
reform all the diversified and highly-complicated interests of society.

"But it may be said," continues the author, "immediate abolition would
be the greatest possible injury to the slaves themselves. They are not
competent to self-government." True: this is the very thing which may
be, and which is, said by every Southern statesman in his advocacy of
the institution of slavery. Let us see the author's reply. "This is a
question of fact," says he, "_which is not in the province of moral
philosophy to decide_. It very likely may be so. So far as I know, the
facts are not sufficiently known to warrant a full opinion on the
subject. We will, therefore, suppose it to be the case, and ask, What is
the duty of masters _under these circumstances_?" In the discussion of
this question, the author comes to the conclusion that a master may hold
his slaves in bondage, provided his intentions be good, and with a view
to set them at liberty as soon as they shall be qualified for such a

Moral philosophy, then, it seems, when it closes its eyes upon facts,
pronounces that slavery should be _immediately_ abolished; but if it
consider facts, which, instead of being denied, are admitted to be "very
likely" true, it decides against its immediate abolition! Or, rather,
moral philosophy looks at the fact that slavery is an _injury_, in order
to see that it should be forthwith abolished; but closes its eyes upon
the fact that its abolition may be a still greater injury, lest this
foregone conclusion should be called in question! Has moral philosophy,
then, an eye only for the facts which lie one side of the question it
proposes to decide?

Slavery is an _injury_, says Dr. Wayland, and therefore it should be
_immediately_ abolished. But its abolition would be a still greater
injury, replies the objector. This may be true, says Dr. Wayland: it is
highly probable; but then this question of injury is one of fact, which
it is not in the province of moral philosophy to decide! So much for the
consistency and even-handed justice of the author.

The position assumed by him, that questions of fact are not within the
province of moral philosophy, is one of so great importance that it
deserves a separate and distinct notice. Though seldom openly avowed,
yet is it so often tacitly assumed in the arguments and declamations of
abolitionists, that it shall be more fully considered in the following

§ V. _The fifth fallacy of the abolitionist._

"Suppose that A has a right to use the body of B according to his--that
is, A's--will. Now if this be true, it is true universally; and hence, A
has the control over the body of B, and B has control over the body of
C, C of D, &c., and Z again over the body of A: that is, every separate
will has the right of control over some other body besides its own, and
has no right of control over its own body or intellect."[144] Now, if
men were cut out of pasteboard, all exactly alike, and distinguished
from each other only by the letters of the alphabet, then the reasoning
of the author would be excellent. But it happens that men are not cut
out of pasteboard. They are distinguished by differences of character,
by diverse habits and propensities, which render the reasonings of the
political philosopher rather more difficult than if he had merely to
deal with or arrange the letters of the alphabet. In one, for example,
the intellectual and moral part is almost wholly eclipsed by the brute;
while, in another, reason and religion have gained the ascendency, so as
to maintain a steady empire over the whole man. The first, as the author
himself admits, is incompetent to self-government, and should,
therefore, be held by the law of society in a state of servitude. But
does it follow that "if this be true, it is true _universally_?" Because
one man who can not govern himself may be governed by another, does it
follow that every man should be governed by others? Does it follow that
the one who has acquired and maintained the most perfect
self-government, should be subjected to the control of him who is wholly
incompetent to control himself? Yes, certainly, if the reasoning of Dr.
Wayland be true; but, according to every sound principle of political
ethics, the answer is, emphatically, No!

There is a difference between a Hottentot and a Newton. The first should
no more be condemned to astronomical calculations and discoveries, than
the last should be required to follow a plough. Such differences,
however, are overlooked by much of the reasoning of the abolitionist. In
regard to the question of fact, whether a man is really a man and not a
mere thing, he is profoundly versed. He can discourse most eloquently
upon this subject: he can prove, by most irrefragable arguments, that a
Hottentot is a man as well as a Newton. But as to the differences among
men, such nice distinctions are beneath his philosophy! It is true that
one may be sunk so low in the scale of being that civil freedom would be
a curse to him; yet, whether this be so or not, is a question of fact
which his philosophy does not stoop to decide. He merely wishes to know
what rights A can possibly have, either by the law of God or man, which
do not equally belong to B? And if A would feel it an injury to be
placed under the control of B, then, "there is no doubt" that it is
equally wrong to place B under the control of A? In plain English, if it
would be injurious and wrong to subject a Newton to the will of a
Hottentot, then it would be equally injurious and wrong to subject a
Hottentot to the will of a Newton! Such is the inevitable consequence of
his very profound political principles! Nay, such is the identical
consequence which he draws from his own principles!

If questions of fact are not within the province of the moral
philosopher, then the moral philosopher has no business with the science
of political ethics. This is not a pure, it is a mixed science. Facts
can no more be overlooked by the political architect, than magnitude can
be disregarded by the mathematician. The man, the political dreamer, who
pays no attention to them, may be fit, for aught we know, to frame a
government out of moonshine for the inhabitants of Utopia; but, if we
might choose our own teachers in political wisdom, we should decidedly
prefer those who have an eye for facts as well as abstractions. If we
may borrow a figure from Mr. Macaulay, the legislator who sees no
difference among men, but proposes the same kind of government for all,
acts about as wisely as a tailor who should measure the Apollo Belvidere
to cut clothes for all his customers--for the pigmies as well as for the

§ VI. _The sixth fallacy of the abolitionist._

It is asserted by Dr. Wayland that the institution of slavery is
condemned as "a violation of the plainest dictates of natural justice,"
by "the natural conscience of man, from at least as far back as the time
of Aristotle." If any one should infer that Aristotle himself condemned
the institution of slavery, he would be grossly deceived; for it is
known to every one who has read the Politics of Aristotle that he is,
under certain circumstances, a strenuous advocate of the natural
justice, as well as of the political wisdom, of slavery. Hence we shall
suppose that Dr. Wayland does not mean to include Aristotle in his broad
assertion, but only those who came after him. Even in this sense, or to
this extent, his positive assertion is so diametrically opposed to the
plainest facts of history, that it is difficult to conceive how he could
have persuaded himself of its truth. It is certain that, on other
occasions, he was perfectly aware of the fact that the natural
conscience of man, from the time of Aristotle down to that of the
Christian era, was in favor of the institution of slavery; for as often
as it has served his purpose to assert this fact, he has not hesitated
to do so. Thus, "the universal existence of slavery at the time of
Christ," says he, "took its origin from the moral darkness of the age.
The immortality of the soul was unknown. Out of the Hebrew nation not a
man on earth had any true conception of the character of the Deity or of
our relations and obligations to him. The law of universal love to man
had never been heard of."[145] No wonder he here argues that _slavery
received the universal sanction of the heathen world_, since so great
was the moral darkness in which they were involved. This darkness was so
great, if we may believe the author, that the men of one nation esteemed
those of another "as by nature foes, whom they had a right" not only "to
subdue or enslave," but also to murder "whenever and in what manner
soever they were able."[146] The sweeping assertion, that such was the
moral darkness of the heathen world, is wide of the truth; for, at the
time of Christ, no civilized nation "esteemed it right to murder or
enslave, whenever and in what manner soever they were able," the people
of other nations. There were some ideas of natural justice, even then,
among men; and if there were not, why does Dr. Wayland appeal to their
ideas of natural justice as one argument against slavery? If the heathen
world "esteemed it right" to make slaves, how can it be said that its
conscience condemned slavery? Is it not evident that Dr. Wayland is
capable of asserting either the one thing or its opposite, just as it
may happen to serve the purpose of his anti-slavery argument? Whether
facts lie within the province of moral philosophy or not, it is certain,
we think, that the moral philosopher who may be pleased to set facts at
naught has no right to substitute fictions in their stead.

§ VII. _The seventh fallacy of the abolitionist._

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," is the rule of action which,
in the estimation of abolitionists, should at once and forever decide
every good man against the institution of slavery. But when we consider
the stupendous interests involved in the question, and especially those
of an intellectual and moral nature, we dare not permit ourselves to be
carried away by any form of mere words. We _must_ pause and investigate.
The fact that the dexterous brandishing of the beautiful precept in
question has made, and will no doubt continue to make, its thousands of
converts or victims, is a reason why its real import should be the more
closely examined and the more clearly defined. The havoc it makes among
those whose philanthropy is stronger than their judgment--or, if you
please, whose judgment is weaker than their philanthropy--flows not from
the divine precept itself, but only from human interpretations thereof.
And it should ever be borne in mind that he is the real enemy of the
great cause of philanthropy who, by absurd or overstrained applications
of this sublime precept, lessens that profound respect to which it is so
justly entitled from every portion of the rational universe.

It is repeatedly affirmed by Dr. Wayland that every slaveholder lives in
the habitual and open violation of the precept which requires us to love
our neighbor as ourselves. "The moral precepts of the Bible," says he,
"are diametrically opposed to slavery. These are, 'Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself,' and 'All things whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.' Now, were this precept
obeyed," he continues, "it is manifest that slavery could not in fact
exist for a single instant. The principle of the precept is absolutely
subversive of the principle of slavery." If strong assertion were
argument, we should no doubt be overwhelmed by the irresistible logic of
Dr. Wayland. But the assertion of no man can be accepted as sound
argument. We want to know the very meaning of the words of the great
Teacher, and to be guided by _that_, rather than by the fallible
authority of an earthly oracle. What, then, is the meaning, the real
meaning, of his inspired words?

Do they mean that whatsoever we might, in any relation of life, desire
for ourselves, we should be willing to grant to others in the like
relation or condition? This interpretation, we are aware, has been put
upon the words by a very celebrated divine. If we may believe that
divine, we cannot do as we would be done by, unless, when we desire the
estate of another, we forthwith transfer our estate to him! If a poor
man, for example, should happen to covet the estate of his rich
neighbor, then he is bound by this golden rule of benevolence to give
his little all to him, without regard to the necessities or wants of his
own family! But this interpretation, though seriously propounded by a
man of undoubted genius and piety, has not, so far as we know, made the
slightest possible impression on the plain good sense of mankind. Even
among his most enthusiastic admirers, it has merely excited a
good-natured smile at what they could not but regard as the strange
hallucination of a benevolent heart.

_A wrong desire in one relation of life is not a reason for a wrong act
in another relation thereof._ A man may desire the estate, he may desire
the man-servant, or the maid-servant, or the wife of his neighbor, but
this is no reason why he should abandon his own man-servant, or his
maid-servant, or his wife to the will of another. The criminal who
trembles at the bar of justice may desire both judge and jury to acquit
him, but this is no reason why, if acting in the capacity of either
judge or juror, he should bring in a verdict of acquittal in favor of
one justly accused of crime. If we would apply the rule in question
aright, we should consider, not what we might wish or desire if placed
in the situation of another, but what we _ought_ to wish or desire.

If a man were a child, he might wish to be exempt from the wholesome
restraint of his parents; but this, as every one will admit, is no
reason why he should abandon his own children to themselves. In like
manner, if he were a slave, he might most vehemently desire freedom; but
this is no reason why he should set his slaves at liberty. The whole
question of right turns upon what he _ought_ to wish or desire if placed
in such a condition. If he were an intelligent, cultivated, civilized
man,--in one word, if he were fit for freedom,--then his desire for
liberty would be a rational desire, would be such a feeling as he
_ought_ to cherish; and hence, he should be willing to extend the same
blessing to all other intelligent, cultivated, civilized men, to all
such as are prepared for its enjoyment. Such is the sentiment which he
should entertain, and such is precisely the sentiment entertained at the
South. No one here proposes to reduce any one to slavery, much less
those who are qualified for freedom; and hence the inquiry so often
propounded by Dr. Wayland and other abolitionists, how we would like to
be subjected to bondage, is a grand impertinence. We should like it as
little as themselves; and in this respect we shall do as we would be
done by.

But suppose we were veritable slaves--slaves in character and in
disposition as well as in fact--and as unfit for freedom as the Africans
of the South--what _ought_ we then to wish or desire? Ought we to desire
freedom? We answer, no; because on that supposition freedom would be a
curse and not a blessing. Dr. Wayland himself admits that "it is very
likely" freedom would be "the greatest possible injury" to the slaves of
the South. Hence, we cannot perceive that if we were such as they, we
ought to desire so great an evil to ourselves. It would indeed be to
desire "the greatest possible injury" to ourselves; and though, as
ignorant and blind slaves, we might cherish so foolish a desire,
especially if instigated by abolitionists, yet this is no reason why, as
enlightened citizens, we should be willing to inflict the same great
evil upon others. _A foolish desire, we repeat, in one relation of life,
is not a good reason for a foolish or injurious act in another relation

The precept which requires us to do as we would be done by, was intended
to enlighten the conscience. It is used by abolitionists to hoodwink and
deceive the conscience. This precept directs us to conceive ourselves
placed in the condition of others, in order that we may the more clearly
perceive what is due to them. The abolitionist employs it to convince us
that, because we desire liberty for ourselves, we should extend it to
all men, even to those who are not qualified for its enjoyment, and to
whom it would prove "the greatest possible injury." He employs it not
to show us what is due to others, but to persuade us to injure them! He
may deceive himself; but so long as we believe what even he admits as
highly probable--namely, that the "abolition of slavery would be the
greatest possible injury to the slaves themselves"--we shall never use
the divine precept as an instrument of delusion and of wrong. What!
inflict the greatest injury on our neighbor, and that, too, out of pure
Christian charity?

But we need not argue with the abolitionist upon his own admissions. We
have infinitely stronger ground to stand on. The precept, "Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself," is to be found in the Old Testament as
well as in the New. Thus, in the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, it is
said, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" and no greater love
than this is any where inculcated in the New Testament. Yet in the
twenty-fifth chapter of the same book, it is written, "Of the children
of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of
their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and
they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance
for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they
shall be your bondmen forever." This language is too plain for
controversy. In regard to this very passage, in which the Hebrews are
commanded to enter upon and take possession of the land of the
Canaanites, Dr. Wayland himself is constrained to admit--"The authority
to take them as slaves seems to be a part of this original, peculiar,
and I may perhaps say, anomalous grant."[147] Now, if the principle of
slavery, and the principle of the precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself, be as Dr. Wayland boldly asserts, _always and everywhere_ at
war with each other, how has it happened that both principles are so
clearly and so unequivocally embodied in one and the same code by the
Supreme Ruler of the world? Has this discrepancy escaped the eye of
Omniscience, and remained in the code of laws from heaven, to be
detected and exposed by "the author of the Moral Science"?

We do not mean that Dr. Wayland sees any discrepancy among the
principles of the divine legislation. It is true he sees there the
precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," and also this
injunction, "Thou shalt buy them for a possession," and "They shall be
your bondmen forever;" but although this looks very "anomalous" to him,
he dare not pronounce it absurd or self-contradictory. It is true, he
declares, that slavery is condemned _always and everywhere_ by "the
plainest dictates of natural justice;" but yet, although, according to
his own admission,[148] it was instituted by Heaven, he has found out a
method to save the character of the Almighty from the disgrace of such a
law. He says, "I know the word '_shalt_' is used when speaking of this
subject, but it is clearly used as _prophetic_, and not as _mandatory_."
Ay, the words "thou shalt" are used in regard to the buying and holding
of slaves, just as they are used in the commands which precede and
follow this injunction. There is no change in the form of the
expression. There is not, in any way, the slightest intimation that the
Lawgiver is about to prophesy; all seems to be a series of commands, and
is clothed in the same language of authority--"_thou shalt_." Yet in one
particular instance, and in one instance only, this language seems
"clearly" _prophetic_ to Dr. Wayland, and not _mandatory_. Now, I submit
to the candid and impartial reader, if this be not egregious trifling
with the word of God.

Dr. Wayland forgets that he had himself admitted that the very passage
in question clothed the Hebrews with "the authority to take
slaves."[149] He now, in the face of his own admission, declares that
this language "is clearly prophetic," and tells what _would_ or what
_might_ be, and not what _should_ or what _must_ be." The poor Hebrews,
however, when they took slaves by the authority of a "_thou shalt_" from
the Lord, never imagined that they were merely fulfilling a prophecy,
and committing an abominable sin.

This is clear to Dr. Wayland, if we may trust the last expression of his
opinion. But it is to be regretted, that either the clearness of his
perceptions, or the confidence of his assertions, is so often
disproportioned to the evidence before him. Thus, he says with the most
admirable modesty, "It _seems to me_ that the soul is the most important
part of a human being;"[150] and yet he peremptorily and positively
declares that the very strongest language of authority ever found in
Scripture "is _clearly_ used as prophetic and not mandatory!" He may,
however, well reserve the tone of dogmatic authority for such
propositions, since, if they may not be carried by assertion, they must
be left wholly without the least shadow of support. But one would
suppose that strength of assertion in such cases required for its
unembarrassed utterance no little strength of countenance.

"If any one doubts," says Dr. Wayland, "respecting the bearing of the
Scripture precept upon this case, a few plain questions may throw
additional light upon the subject."[151] Now, if we mistake not, the few
plain questions which he deems so unanswerable may be answered with the
most perfect ease. "Would the master be willing," he asks, "that another
person should subject him to slavery, for the same reasons and on the
same grounds that he holds his slave in bondage?" We answer, No. If any
man should undertake to subject Southern masters to slavery, on the
ground that they are intellectually and morally sunk so low as to be
unfit for freedom or self-control, we should certainly not like the
compliment. It may argue a very great degree of self-complacency in us,
but yet the plain fact is, that we really do believe ourselves competent
to govern ourselves, and to manage our affairs, without the aid of
masters. And as we are not willing to be made slaves of, especially on
any such humiliating grounds, so we are not willing to see any other
nation or race of men, whom we may deem qualified for the glorious
condition of freedom, subjected to servitude.

"Would the gospel allow us," he also asks, "if it were in our power, to
reduce our fellow-citizens of our own color to slavery?" Certainly not.
Nor do we propose to reduce any one, either white or black, to a state
of slavery. It is amazing to see with what an air of confidence such
questions are propounded. Dr. Channing, no less than Dr. Wayland, seems
to think they must carry home irresistible conviction to the heart and
conscience of every man who is not irremediably blinded by the
detestable institution of slavery. "Now, let every reader," says he,
"ask himself this plain question: Could I, can I, be rightfully seized
and made an article of property?" And we, too, say, Let every reader ask
himself this plain question, and then, if he please, answer it in the
negative. But what, then, should follow? Why, if you please, he should
refuse to seize any other man or to make him an article of property. He
should be opposed to the crime of kidnapping. But if, from such an
answer, he should conclude that the institution of slavery is
"everywhere and always wrong," then surely, after what has been said,
not another word is needed to expose the ineffable weakness and futility
of the conclusion.

This golden rule, this divine precept, requires us to conceive ourselves
placed in the condition of our slaves, and then to ask ourselves, How
should we be treated by the master? in order to obtain a clear and
impartial view of our duty to them. This it requires of us; and this we
can most cheerfully perform. We can conceive that we are poor, helpless,
dependent beings, possessing the passions of men and the intellects of
children. We can conceive that we are by nature idle, improvident, and,
without a protector and friend to guide and control us, utterly unable
to take care of ourselves. And, having conceived all this, if we ask
ourselves, How should we be treated by the masters whom the law has
placed over us, what is the response? Is it that they should turn us
loose to shift for ourselves? Is it that they should abandon us to
ourselves, only to fall a prey to indolence, and to the legion of vices
and crimes which ever follow in its train? Is it that they should set us
free, and expose us, without protection, to the merciless impositions of
the worst portions of a stronger and more sagacious race? Is it, in one
word, that we should be free from the dominion of men, who, as a general
thing, are humane and wise in their management of us, only to become the
victims--the most debased and helpless victims--of every evil way? We
answer, No! Even the spirit of abolitionism itself has, in the person of
Dr. Wayland, declared that such treatment would, in all probability, be
the greatest of calamities. We feel sure it would be an infinite and
remediless curse. And as we believe that, if we were in the condition of
slaves, such treatment would be so great and so withering a curse, so we
cannot, out of a feeling of love, proceed to inflict this curse upon our
slaves. On the contrary, _we would do as we so clearly see we ought to
be done by_, if our conditions were changed.

Is it not amazing, as well as melancholy, that learned divines, who
undertake to instruct the benighted South in the great principles of
duty, should entertain such superficial and erroneous views of the
first, great, and all-comprehending precept of the gospel? If their
interpretation of this precept were correct, then the child might be set
free from the authority of the father, and the criminal from the
sentence of the judge. All justice would be extinguished, all order
overthrown, and boundless confusion introduced into the affairs of men.
Yet, with unspeakable self-complacency, they come with such miserable
interpretations of the plainest truths to instruct those whom they
conceive to be blinded by custom and the institution of slavery to the
clearest light of heaven. They tell us, "Thou shouldst love thy neighbor
as thyself;" and they reiterate these words in our ears, just as if we
had never heard them before. If this is all they have to say, why then
we would remind them that the _meaning_ of the precept is the precept.
It is not a mere _sound_, it is _sense_, which these glorious words are
intended to convey. And if they can only repeat the words for us, why
then they might just as well send a host of free negroes with good,
strong lungs to be our instructors in moral science.

§ VIII. _The eighth fallacy of the abolitionist._

An argument is drawn from the divine attributes against the institution
of slavery. One would suppose that a declaration from God himself is
some little evidence as to what is agreeable to his attributes; but it
seems that moral philosophers have, now-a-days, found out a better
method of arriving at what is implied by his perfections. Dr. Wayland is
one of those who, setting aside the word of God, appeal to his
attributes in favor of the immediate and universal abolition of slavery.
If slavery were abolished, says he, "the laborer would then work in
conformity with the conditions which God has appointed, whereas he now
works at variance with them; in the one case, we should be attempting to
accumulate property under the blessing of God, whereas now we are
attempting to do it under _his special and peculiar malediction_. How
can we expect to prosper, when there is not, as Mr. Jefferson remarks,
'an attribute of the Almighty that can be appealed to in our
favor'?"[152] If we may rely upon his own words, rather than upon the
confident assertions of Dr. Wayland, we need not fear the curse of God
upon the slaveholder. The readiness with which Dr. Wayland points the
thunders of the divine wrath at our heads, is better evidence of the
passions of his own heart than of the perfections of the Almighty.

Again he says: "If Jefferson trembled for his country when he remembered
that God is just, and declared that, 'in case of insurrection, the
Almighty has no attribute that can take part with us in the contest,'
surely it becomes a _disciple of Jesus Christ_ to pause and reflect."
Now let it be borne in mind that all this proceeds from a man, from a
professed disciple of Jesus Christ, who, in various places, has truly,
as well as emphatically, said, "_The duty of slaves_ is also explicitly
made known in the Bible. They are bound to _obedience_, _fidelity_,
_submission_, and respect to their masters,"[153] etc., etc.

Such, then, according to Dr. Wayland himself, is the clear and
unequivocal teaching of revelation. And such being the case, shall the
_real_ "disciple of Jesus Christ" be made to believe, on the authority
of Mr. Jefferson or of any other man, that the Almighty has no attribute
which could induce him to take sides with his own law? If, instead of
submission to that law, there should be rebellion,--and not only
rebellion, but bloodshed and murder,--shall we believe that the
Almighty, the supreme Ruler of heaven and earth, would look on well
pleased? Since such is the express declaration of God himself respecting
the duty of slaves, it surely becomes a disciple of Christ to pause and
reflect whether he will follow his voice or the voice of man.

We owe at least one benefit to the Northern abolitionists. Ere the
subject of slavery was agitated by them, there were many loose, floating
notions among us, as well as among themselves, respecting the nature of
liberty, which were at variance with the institution of slavery. But
since this agitation began, we have looked more narrowly into the
grounds of slavery, as well as into the character of the arguments by
which it is assailed, and we have found the first as solid as adamant,
the last as unsubstantial as moonshine. If Mr. Jefferson had lived till
the present day, there can be no doubt, we think, that he would have
been on the same side of this great question with the Calhouns, the
Clays, and the Websters of the country. We have known many who, at one
time, fully concurred with Mr. Jefferson on this subject, but are now
firm believers in the perfect justice and humanity of negro slavery.

§ IX. _The ninth fallacy of the abolitionist._

We have already seen that the abolitionist argues the question of
slavery as if Southerners were proposing to catch freemen and reduce
them to bondage. He habitually overlooks the fact, that slavery results,
not from the action of the individual, but from an ordinance of the
State. He forgets that it is a civil institution, and proceeds to argue
as if it were founded in individual wrong. And even when he rises--as he
sometimes does--to a contemplation of the real question in dispute, he
generally takes a most narrow and one-sided view of the subject. For he
generally takes it for granted that the legislation which ordains the
institution of slavery is _intended_ solely and exclusively for the
benefit of the master, without the least regard to the interests of the

Thus says Dr. Wayland: "Domestic slavery proceeds upon the principle
that the master has a right to control the actions--physical and
intellectual--of the slave for his own (that is, the master's)
individual benefit,"[154] etc. And again: "It supposes that the Creator
intended one human being to govern the physical, intellectual, and moral
actions of as many other human beings as, by purchase, he can bring
within his physical power; and that _one human being may thus acquire a
right to sacrifice the happiness of any number of other human beings,
for the purpose of promoting his own_."[155] Now, surely, if this
representation be just, then the institution of slavery should be held
in infinite abhorrence by every man in Christendom.

But we can assure Dr. Wayland that, however ignorant or heathenish he
may be pleased to consider the people of the Southern States, we are not
so utterly lost to all reverence for the Creator as to suppose, even for
a moment, that he _intended any one human being to possess the right of
sacrificing the happiness of his fellow-men to his own_. We can assure
him that we are not quite so dead to every sentiment of political
justice, as to imagine that any legislation which intends to benefit the
one at the expense of the many is otherwise than unequal and iniquitous
in the extreme. There is some little sense of justice left among us yet;
and hence we approve of no institution or law which proceeds on the
monstrous principle that any one man has, or can have, the "_right to
sacrifice the happiness of any number of other human beings for the
purpose of promoting his own_." We recognize no such right. It is as
vehemently abhorred and condemned by us as it can be abhorred and
condemned by the author himself.

In thus taking it for granted, as Dr. Wayland so coolly does, that the
institution in question is "intended" to sacrifice the happiness of the
slaves to the selfish interest of the master, he incontinently begs the
whole question. Let him establish this point, and the whole controversy
will be at an end. But let him not hope to establish any thing, or to
satisfy any one, by assuming the very point in dispute, and then proceed
to demolish what every man at the South condemns no less than himself.
Surely, no one who has looked at both sides of this great question can
be ignorant that the legislation of the South proceeds on the principle
that slavery is beneficial, not to the master only, but also and
_especially_ to the slave. Surely, no one who has either an eye or an
ear for facts can be ignorant that the institution of slavery is based
on the ground, or principle, that it is beneficial, not only to the
parts, but also to the whole, of the society in which it exists. This
ground, or principle, is set forth in every defense of slavery by the
writers and speakers of the South; it is so clearly and so unequivocally
set forth, that he who runs may read. Why, then, is it overlooked by Dr.
Wayland? Why is he pleased to imagine that he is combating Southern
principles, when, in reality, he is merely combating the monstrous
figment, the distorted conception of his own brain,--namely, the right
of one man to sacrifice the happiness of multitudes to his own will and
pleasure? Is it because facts do not lie within the province of the
moral philosopher? Is it because fiction alone is worthy of his
attention? Or is it because a blind, partisan zeal has so far taken
possession of his very understanding, that he finds it impossible to
speak of the institution of slavery, except in the language of the
grossest misrepresentation?

§ X. _The tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth,
and sixteenth fallacies of the abolitionist; or his seven arguments
against the right of a man to hold property in his fellow-man._

"This claim of property in a human being," says Dr. Channing, "is
altogether false, groundless. No such right of man in man can exist. A
human being cannot be justly owned." The only difficulty in maintaining
this position is, according to Dr. Channing, "on account of its
exceeding obviousness. It is too plain for proof. To defend it is like
trying to confirm a self-evident truth," etc., etc. Yet he advances no
less than seven "arguments," as he calls them, in order to establish
this self-evident position. We shall examine these seven arguments, and
see if his great confidence be not built on a mere abuse of words.

"The consciousness of our humanity," says he, "involves the persuasion
that we cannot be owned as a tree or a brute." This, as every body
knows, is one of the hackneyed commonplaces of the abolitionist. He
never ceases to declaim about the injustice of slavery, because it
regards, as he is pleased to assert, a man as a mere thing or a brute.
Now, once for all, we freely admit that it were monstrously unjust to
regard or treat a man otherwise than as a man. We freely admit that a
human being "can not be owned as a tree or a brute."

A tree may be _absolutely_ owned. That is to say, the owner of a tree
may do what he pleases with his own, provided he do no harm or injury
with it. He may cut it down; and, if he please, he may beat it as long
as he has the power to raise an arm. He may work it into a house or into
a piece of furniture, or he may lay it on the fire, and reduce it to
ashes. He may, we repeat, do just exactly what he pleases with his own,
if his own be such a thing as a tree, _for a tree has no rights_.

It is far otherwise with a brute. The owner of a horse, for example, may
not do what he pleases with his own. Here his property is not
_absolute_; it is _limited_. He may not beat his horse without mercy,
"for a good man is merciful to his beast." He may not cut his horse to
pieces, or burn him on the fire. For the horse has rights, which the
owner himself is bound to respect. The horse has a right to food and
kind treatment, and the owner who refuses these is a tyrant. Nay, the
very worm that crawls beneath our feet has his rights as well as the
monarch on his throne; and just in so far as these rights are
disregarded by a man is that man a tyrant.

Hence even the brute may not be regarded or treated as a mere thing or a
tree. He can be owned and treated no otherwise than as a brute. The
horse, for example, may not be left, like a tree, without food and care;
but he may be saddled and rode as a horse; or he may be hitched to the
plough, and compelled to do his master's work.

In like manner, a man cannot be owned or treated as a horse. He cannot
be saddled or rode, nor hitched to the plough and be made to do the work
of a horse. On the contrary, he should be treated as a man, and required
to perform only the work of a man. The right to such work is all the
ownership which any one man can rightfully have in another; and this is
all which any slaveholder of the South needs to claim.

The real question is, _Can one man have a right to the personal service
or obedience of another without his consent?_ We do not intend to let
the abolitionist throw dust in our eyes, and shout victory amid a clamor
of words. We intend to hold him to the point. Whether he be a learned
divine, or a distinguished senator, we intend he shall speak to the
point, or else his argument shall be judged, not according to the
eloquent noise it makes or the excitement it produces, but according to
the _sense_ it contains.

_Can a man, then, have a right to the labor or obedience of another
without his consent?_ Give us this right, and it is all we ask. We lay
no claim to the soul of the slave. We grant to the abolitionist, even
more freely than he can assert, that the "soul of the slave is his own."
Or, rather, we grant that his soul belongs exclusively to the God who
gave it. The master may use him not as a tree or a brute, but only as a
rational, accountable, and immortal being may be used. He may not
command him to do any thing which is wrong; and if he should so far
forget himself as to require such service of his slave, he would himself
be guilty of the act. If he should require his slave to violate any law
of the land, he would be held not as a _particeps criminis_ merely, but
as a criminal in the first degree. In like manner, if he should require
him to violate the law of God, he would be guilty--far more guilty than
the slave himself--in the sight of heaven. These are truths which are
just as well understood at the South as they are at the North.

The master, we repeat, lays no claim to the soul of the slave. He
demands no spiritual service of him, he exacts no divine honors. With
his own soul he is fully permitted to serve his own God. With this soul
he may follow the solemn injunction of the Most High, "Servants, obey
your masters;" or he may listen to the voice of the tempter, "Servants,
fly from your masters." Those only who instigate him to violate the law
of God, whether at the North or at the South, are the men who seek to
deprive him of his rights and to exercise an infamous dominion over his

Since, then, the master claims only a right to the labor and lawful
obedience of the slave, and no right whatever to his soul, it follows
that the argument, which Dr. Channing regards as the strongest of his
seven, has no real foundation. Since the master claims to have no
property in the "rational, moral, and immortal" part of his being, so
all the arguments, or rather all the empty declamation, based on the
false supposition of such claim, falls to the ground. So the passionate
appeals, proceeding on the supposition of such a monstrous claim, and
addressed to the religious sensibilities of the multitude, are only
calculated to deceive and mislead their judgment. It is a mere thing of
words; and, though "full of sound and fury," it signifies nothing. "The
traffic in human souls," which figures so largely in the speeches of the
divines and demagogues, and which so fiercely stirs up the most
unhallowed passions of their hearers, _is merely the transfer of a right
to labor_.

Does any one doubt whether such a right may exist? The master certainly
has a right to the labor of his apprentice for a specified period of
time, though he has no right to his soul even for a moment. The father,
too, has a right to the personal service and obedience of his child
until he reach the age of twenty-one; but no one ever supposed that he
owned the soul of his child, or might sell it, if he pleased, to
another. Though he may not sell the soul of his child, it is universally
admitted that he may, for good and sufficient reasons, transfer his
right to the labor and obedience of his child. Why, then, should it be
thought impossible that such a right to service may exist for life? If
it may exist for one period, why not for a longer, and even for life?
If the good of both parties and the good of the whole community require
such a relation and such a right to exist, why should it be deemed so
unjust, so iniquitous, so monstrous? This whole controversy turns, we
repeat, not upon any consideration of abstract rights, but solely upon
the highest good of all--upon the highest good of the slave as well as
upon that of the community.

"It is plain," says Dr. Channing, in his first argument, "that if any
one may be held as property, then any other man may be so held." This
sophism has been already sufficiently refuted. It proceeds on the
supposition that if one man, however incapable of self-government, may
be placed under the control of another, then all men may be placed under
the control of others! It proceeds on the idea that all men should be
placed in precisely the same condition, subjected to precisely the same
authority, and required to perform precisely the same kind of labor. In
one word, it sees no difference and makes no distinction between a Negro
and a Newton. But as an overstrained and false idea of equality lies at
the foundation of this argument, so it will pass under review again,
when we come to consider the great demonstration which the abolitionist
is accustomed to deduce from the axiom that "all men are created equal."

The third argument of Dr. Channing is, like the first, "founded on the
essential equality of men." Hence, like the first, it may be postponed
until we come to consider the true meaning and the real political
significancy of the natural equality of all men. We shall barely remark,
in passing, that two arguments cannot be made out of one by merely
changing the mode of expression.

The second argument of the author is as follows: "A man cannot be seized
and held as property, because he has rights. . . . A being having rights
cannot justly be made property, _for this claim over him virtually
annuls all his rights_." This argument, it is obvious, is based on the
arbitrary idea which the author has been pleased to attach to the term
_property_. If it proves any thing, it would prove that a horse could
not be held as property, for a horse certainly has rights. But, as we
have seen, a limited property, or a right to the labor of a man, does
not deny or annul all his rights, nor necessarily any one of them. This
argument needs no further refutation. For we acknowledge that the slave
has rights; and the limited or qualified property which the master
claims in him, extending merely to his personal human labor and his
lawful obedience, touches not one of these rights.

The fourth argument of Dr. Channing is identical with the second. "That
a human being," says he, "cannot be justly held as property, is apparent
from _the very nature of property_. Property is an exclusive right. It
shuts out all claim but that of the possessor. What one man owns cannot
belong to another." The only difference between the two arguments is
this: in one the "_nature of_ property" is said "to annul all rights;"
and in the other it is said "to exclude all rights!" Both are based on
the same idea of property, and both arrive at the same conclusion, with
only a very slight difference in the mode of expression!

And both are equally unsound. True; "what one man owns cannot belong to
another." But may not one man have a right to the labor of another, as a
father to the labor of his son, or a master to the labor of his
apprentice; and yet that other a right to food and raiment, as well as
to other things? May not one have a right to the service of another,
without annulling or excluding all the rights of that other? This
argument proceeds, it is evident, on the false supposition that if any
being be held as property, then he has no rights; a supposition which,
if true, would exclude and annul the right of property in every living

Dr. Channing's fifth argument is deduced from "the universal indignation
excited toward _a man_ who makes another his slave." "Our laws," says
he, "know no higher crime than that of reducing a man to slavery. To
steal or to buy an African on his own shores is piracy." "To steal a
man," we reply, is one thing; and, by the authority of the law of the
land, to require him to do certain labor, is, one would think, quite
another. The first may be as high a crime as any known to our laws; the
last is recognized by our laws themselves. Is it not wonderful that Dr.
Channing could not see so plain a distinction, so broad and so glaring a
difference? The father of his country held slaves; _he did not commit
the crime of man-stealing_.

The sixth argument of Dr. Channing, "against the right of property in
man," is "drawn from a very obvious principle of moral science. It is a
plain truth, universally received, that every right supposes or involves
a corresponding obligation. If, then, a man has a right to another's
person or powers, the latter is under obligation to give himself up as
a chattel to the former." Most assuredly, if one man has a right to the
service or obedience of another, then that other is under obligation to
render that service or obedience to him. But is such an obligation
absurd? Is it inconsistent with the inherent, the inalienable, the
universal rights of man that the "servant should obey his master?" If
so, then we fear the rights of man were far better understood by Dr.
Channing than by the Creator of the world and the Author of revelation.

Such are the seven arguments adduced by Dr. Channing to show that no man
can rightfully hold property in his fellow-man. But before we quit this
branch of the subject, we shall advert to a passage in the address of
the Hon. Charles Sumner, before the people of New York, at the
Metropolitan Theatre, May 9, 1855. "I desire to present this argument,"
says he, "on grounds above all controversy, impeachment, or suspicion,
even from slave-masters themselves. Not on triumphant story, not even on
indisputable facts, do I now accuse slavery, but on its character, as
revealed in its own simple definition of itself. Out of its own mouth do
I condemn it." Well, and why does he condemn it? Because, "by the law of
slavery, man, created in the image of God, is _divested of his human
character_ and declared to be a _mere_ chattel. That the statement may
not seem to be put forward without precise authority, I quote the law of
two different slave States." That is the accusation. It is to be proved
by the law of slavery itself. It is to be proved beyond "all
controversy," by an appeal to "indisputable facts." Now let us have the
facts: here they are. "The law of another polished slave State, says Mr.
Sumner, "gives this definition: 'Slaves shall be delivered, sold, taken,
reputed, and adjudged in law to be chattels personal, in the hands of
their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and
assignees, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.'"

Now, _mark_; the learned Senator undertook to prove, beyond all doubt
and controversy, that slavery _divests the slave of his human
character_, and declares him to be a _mere_ chattel. But he merely
proves that it declares him to be a "chattel personal." He merely proves
that the law of a Southern State regards the slave, not as real estate
or landed property, but as a "chattel personal." Does this divest him of
his human character? Does this make him a _mere_ chattel? May the
slave, in consequence of such law, be treated as a brute or a tree? May
he be cut in pieces or worked to death at the will and pleasure of the

"We think that a learned Senator, especially when he undertakes to
demonstrate, should distinguish between declaring a man to be "a chattel
personal," and a _mere_ chattel. No one doubts that a man is a thing;
but is he therefore a _mere_ thing, or nothing more than a thing? In
like manner, no one doubts that a man is an animal; does it follow,
therefore, that he is a _mere_ animal, or nothing but an animal? It is
clear, that to declare a man may be held as a "chattel personal," is a
very different thing from declaring that he is a _mere_ chattel. So much
for his honor's "precise authority."

In what part of the law, then, is the slave "divested of his human
character?" In no part whatever. If it had declared him to be a _mere_
thing, or a _mere_ chattel, or a _mere_ animal, it would have denied his
human character, we admit; but the law in question has done no such
thing. Nor is any such declaration contained in the other law quoted by
the learned Senator from the code of Louisiana. It is _merely_ by the
interpolation of this little word _mere_, that the Senator of
Massachusetts has made the law of South Carolina divest an immortal
being of his "human character." He is welcome to all the applause which
this may have gained for him in the "Metropolitan Theatre."

The learned Senator adduces another authority. "A careful writer," says
he, "Judge Stroud, in a work of juridical as well as philanthropic
merit, thus sums up the laws: 'The cardinal principle of slavery--that
the slave is not to be ranked among _sentient_[156] beings, but among
things--as an article of property--a chattel personal--obtains as
undoubted law in all these (the slave) States.'" We thus learn from this
very "careful writer" that slaves among us are "not ranked among
_sentient_ beings," and that this is "the cardinal principle of
slavery." No, they are not fed, nor clothed, nor treated as sentient
beings! They are left without food and raiment, just as if they were
stocks and stones! They are not talked to, nor reasoned with, as if they
were rational animals, but only driven about, like dumb brutes beneath
the lash! No, no, not the lash, for that would recognize them as
"sentient beings!" They are only thrown about like stones, or boxed up
like chattels; they are not set, like men, over the lower animals,
required to do the work of men; the precise work which, of all others,
in the grand and diversified economy of _human_ industry, they are the
best qualified to perform! So far, indeed, is this from being "the
cardinal principle of slavery," that it is no principle of slavery at
all. It bears not the most distant likeness or approximation to any
principle of slavery, with which we of the South have any the most
remote acquaintance.

That man may, in certain cases, be held as property, is a truth
recognized by a higher authority than that of senators and divines. It
is, as we have seen, recognized by the word of God himself. In that
word, the slave is called the "possession"[157] of the master, and even
"his money."[158] Now, is not this language as strong, if not stronger,
than that adduced from the code of South Carolina? It certainly calls
the "bondman" his master's "money." Why, then, did not the Senator from
Massachusetts denounce this language, as divesting "a man of his human
character," and declaring him to be _mere_ money? Why did he not proceed
to condemn the legislation of Heaven, as well as of the South, out of
its own mouth? Most assuredly, if his principles be correct, then is he
bound to pronounce the law of God itself manifestly unjust and
iniquitous. For that law as clearly recognizes the right of property in
man as it could possibly be recognized in words. But it nowhere commits
the flagrant solecism of supposing that this right of the master annuls
or excludes all the rights of the slave. On the contrary, the rights of
the slave are recognized, as well as those of the master. For, according
to the law of God, though "a possession," and an "inheritance," and "a
bondman forever," yet is the slave, nevertheless, a man; and, as a man,
is he protected in his rights; in his rights, not as defined by
abolitionists, but as recognized by the word of God.

§ XI. _The seventeenth fallacy of the abolitionist; or the argument from
the Declaration of Independence._

This argument is regarded by the abolitionists as one of their great
strongholds; and no doubt it is so in effect, for who can bear a
superior? Lucifer himself, who fell from heaven because he could not
acknowledge a superior, seduced our first parents by the suggestion that
in throwing off the yoke of subjection, they should become "as gods." We
need not wonder, then, if it should be found, that an appeal to the
absolute equality of all men is the most ready way to effect the ruin of
States. We can surely conceive of none better adapted to subvert all
order among us of the South, involving the two races in a servile war,
and the one or the other in utter extinction. Hence we shall examine
this argument from the equality of all men, or rather this appeal to all
men's abhorrence of inferiority. This appeal is usually based on the
Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness." We do not mean to play upon these words; we
intend to take them exactly as they are understood by our opponents. As
they are not found in a metaphysical document or discussion, so it would
be unfair to suppose--as is sometimes done--that they inculcate the wild
dream of Helvetius, that all men are created with equal natural
capacities of mind. They occur in a declaration of independence; and as
the subject is the doctrine of human rights, so we suppose they mean to
declare that all men are created equal with respect to natural rights.

Nor do we assert that there is no truth in this celebrated proposition
or maxim; for we believe that, if rightly understood, it contains most
important and precious truth. It is not on this account, however, the
less dangerous as a maxim of political philosophy. Nay, falsehood is
only then the more dangerous, when it is so blended with truth that its
existence is not suspected by its victims. Hence the unspeakable
importance of dissecting this pretended maxim, and separating the
precious truth it contains from the pernicious falsehood by which its
followers are deceived. Its truth is certainly very far from being
self-evident, or rather its truth is self-evident to some, while its
falsehood is equally self-evident to others, according to the side from
which it is viewed. We shall endeavor to throw some light both upon its
truth and its falsehood, and, if possible, draw the line which divides
them from each other.

This maxim does not mean, then, that all men have, by nature, an equal
right to political power or to posts of honor. No doubt the words are
often understood in this sense by those who, without reflection, merely
echo the Declaration of Independence; but, in this sense, they are
utterly untenable. If all men had, by nature, an equal right to any of
the offices of government, how could such rights be adjusted? How could
such a conflict be reconciled? It is clear that all men could not be
President of the United States; and if all men had an equal natural
right to that office, no one man could be elevated to it without a wrong
to all the rest. In such case, all men should have, at least, an equal
chance to occupy the presidential chair. Such equal chance could not
result from the right of all men to offer themselves as candidates for
the office; for, at the bar of public opinion, vast multitudes would not
have the least shadow of a chance. The only way to effect such an object
would be by resorting to the lot. We might thus determine who, among so
many equally just claimants, should actually possess the power of the
supreme magistrate. This, it must be confessed, would be to recognize in
deed, as well as in word, the equal rights of all men. But what more
absurd than such an equality of rights? It is not without example in
history; but it is to be hoped that such example will never be copied.
The democracy of Athens, it is well known, was, at one time, so far
carried away by the idea of equal rights, that her generals and orators
and poets were elected by the lot. This was an equality, not in theory
merely, but in practice. Though the lives and fortunes of mankind were
thus intrusted to the most ignorant and depraved, or to the most wise
and virtuous, as the lot might determine, yet this policy was based on
an equality of rights. It is scarcely necessary to add that this idea of
equality prevailed, not in the better days of the Athenian democracy,
but only during its imbecility and corruption.

If all men, then, have not a natural right to fill an office of
government, who has this right? Who has the natural right, for example,
to occupy the office of President of the United States? Certainly some
men have no such right. The man, for example, who has no capacity to
govern himself, but needs a guardian, has no right to superintend the
affairs of a great nation. Though a citizen, he has no more right to
exercise such power or authority than if he were a Hottentot, or an
African, or an ape. Hence, in bidding such a one to stand aside and
keep aloof from such high office, no right is infringed and no injury
done. Nay, right is secured, and injury prevented.

Who has such a right, then?--such natural right, or right according to
the law of nature or reason? The man, we answer, who, all things
considered, is the best qualified to discharge the duties of the office.
The man who, by his superior wisdom, and virtue, and statesmanship,
would use the power of such office more effectually for the good of the
whole people than would any other man. If there be one such man, and
only one, he of _natural right_ should be our President. And all the
laws framed to regulate the election of President are, or should be,
only so many means designed to secure the services of that man, if
possible, and thereby secure the rights of all against the possession of
power by the unworthy or the less worthy. This object, it is true, is
not always attained, these means are not always successful; but this is
only one of the manifold imperfections which necessarily attach to all
human institutions; one of the melancholy instances in which natural and
legal right run in different channels. All that can be hoped, indeed,
either in the construction or in the administration of human laws, is an
approximation, more or less close, to the great principles of natural

What is thus so clearly true in regard to the office of President, is
equally true in regard to all the other offices of government. It is
contrary to reason, to natural right, to justice, that either fools, or
knaves, or demagogues should occupy seats in Congress; yet all of these
classes are sometimes seen there, and by the law of the land are
entitled to their seats. Here, again, that which is right and fit in
itself is different from that which exists under the law.

The same remarks, it is evident, are applicable to governors, to judges,
to sheriffs, to constables, and to justices of the peace. In every
instance, he who is best qualified to discharge the duties of an office,
and who would do so with greatest advantage to all concerned, has the
natural right thereto. And no man who would fill any office, or exercise
any power so as to injure the community, has any right to such office or

There is precisely the same limitation to the exercise of the elective
franchise. Those only should be permitted to exercise this power who are
qualified to do so with advantage to the community; and all laws which
regulate or limit the possession of this power should have in view, not
the equal rights of all men, but solely and exclusively the public good.
It is on this principle that foreigners are not allowed to vote as soon
as they land upon our shores, and that native Americans can do so only
after they have reached a certain age. And if the public good required
that any class of men, such as free blacks or slaves, for example,
should be excluded from the privilege altogether, then no doubt can
remain the law excluding them would be just. It might not be equal, but
would be _just_. Indeed, in the high and holy sense of the word, it
would be equal; for, if it excluded some from a privilege or power which
it conferred upon others, this is because they were not included within
the condition on which alone it should be extended to any. Such is not
an equality of rights and power, it is true; but it is an equality of
justice, like that which reigns in the divine government itself. In the
light of that justice, it is clear that no man, and no class of men, can
have a natural right to exercise a power which, if intrusted to them,
would be wielded for harm, and not for good.

This great truth, when stripped of the manifold sophistications of a
false logic, is so clear and unquestionable, that it has not failed to
secure the approbation of abolitionists themselves. Thus, after all his
wild extravagancies about inherent, inalienable, and equal rights, Dr.
Channing has, in one of his calmer moods, recognized this great
fundamental truth. "The slave," says he, "cannot rightfully, and should
not, be owned by the individual. But, like every citizen, _he is subject
SLAVE DEMANDS." Now this is all we ask in regard to the question of
equal rights. All we ask is, that each and every individual may be in
such wise and so far restrained as the public good demands and no
further. All we ask is, as may be seen from the first chapter of this
Essay, that the right of the individual, whether real or imaginary, may
be held in subjection to the undoubted right of the community to protect
itself and to secure its own highest good. This solemn right, so
inseparably linked to a sacred duty, is paramount to the rights and
powers of the individual. Nay, as we have already seen,[159] the
individual can have no right that conflicts with this; because it is
his _duty_ to co-operate in the establishment of the general good.
Surely he can have no right which is adverse to duty. Indeed, if for the
general good, he would not cheerfully lay down both liberty and life,
then both may be rightfully taken from him. We have, it is true,
inherent and _inalienable rights_, but among these is neither liberty
nor life. For these, upon our country's altar, may be sacrificed; but
conscience, truth, honor may not be touched by man.

Has the community, then, after all, the right to compel "a man," a
"rational and immortal being," to work? Let Dr. Channing answer: "If he
(the slave) cannot be induced to work by rational and natural motives,
_he should be obliged to labor, on the same principle on which the
vagrant in other communities is confined and compelled to earn his
bread_." Now, if a man be "confined, and compelled" to work in his
confinement, what becomes of his "inalienable right to liberty?" We
think there must be a slight mistake somewhere. Perhaps it is in the
Declaration of Independence itself. Nay, is it not evident, indeed, that
if all men have an inalienable right to liberty," then is this sacred
right trampled in the dust by every government on earth? Is it not as
really disregarded by the enlightened Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
which "confines and compels" vagrants to earn their bread, as it is by
the Legislature of Virginia, which has taken the wise precaution to
prevent the rise of a swarm of vagrants more destructive than the
locusts of Egypt? The plain truth is, that although this notion of the
"inalienable right" of all to liberty may sound very well in a
declaration of independence, and may be most admirably adapted to stir
up the passions of men and produce fatal commotions in a commonwealth,
yet no wise nation ever has been or ever will be guided by it in the
construction of her laws. It may be a brand of discord in the hands of
the abolitionist and the demagogue. It will never be an element of
light, or power, or wisdom, in the bosom of the statesman.

"The gift of liberty," continues Dr. Channing, "would be a mere name,
and worse than nominal, were he (the slave) to be let loose on society
under circumstances driving him to commit crimes, for which he would be
condemned to severer bondage than he had escaped." If then, after all,
liberty may be worse than a mere name, is it not a pity that all men
should have an "inalienable right" to it? If it may be a curse, is it
not a pity that all men should be required to embrace it, and to be even
ready to die for it, as an invaluable blessing? We trust that "no man,"
that "no rational and immortal being," will ever be so ungrateful as to
complain of those who have withheld from him that which is "worse than
nominal," and a curse. For if such, and such only, be his inalienable
birthright, were it not most wisely exchanged for a mess of pottage? The
vagrant, then, should not be consulted whether he will work or not. He
should be "confined and compelled" to work, says Dr. Channing. Nor
should the idle and the vicious, those who cannot be induced to work by
rational motives, be asked whether they will remain pests to society, or
whether they will eat their bread in the sweat of their brow. "For they,
too," says Dr. Channing, "should be compelled to work." But how? "The
slave should not have an owner," says Dr. Channing, "but he should have
a guardian. He needs authority, to supply the lack of that discretion
which he has not yet attained; but it should be the authority of a
friend, an official authority, conferred by the State, and for which
there should be responsibility to the State." Now, if all this be true,
is not the doctrine of equal rights, as held by Dr. Channing, a mere
dream? If one man may have "a guardian," "an official authority,"
appointed by the State, to compel him to work, why may not another be
placed under the same authority, and subjected to the same servitude?
Are not all equal? Have not all men an equal right to liberty and to a
choice of the pursuits of happiness? Let these questions be answered by
the admirers of Dr. Channing; and it will be found that they have
overthrown all the plausible logic, and blown away all the splendid
rhetoric, which has been reared, on the ground of equal rights, against
the institution of slavery at the South.

We are agreed, then, that men may be compelled to work. We are also
agreed that, for this purpose, the slaves of the South should be placed
under guardians and friends by the authority of the State. Dr. Channing
thinks, however, that the owner is not the best guardian or the best
friend whom the State could place over the slave. On the contrary, he
thinks his best friend and guardian would be an official overseer, bound
to him by no ties of interest, and by no peculiar feelings of affection.
In all this, we think Dr. Channing greatly mistaken; and mistaken
because he is an utter stranger to the feelings usually called forth by
the relation of master and slave. But, be this as it may, since such are
the concessions made by Dr. Channing, it is no longer necessary to
debate the question of slavery with him, on the high ground of abstract
inalienable rights. It is brought down to one of practical utility, of
public expediency.

And such being the nature of the question, we, as free citizens of the
South, claim the right to settle the matter for ourselves. We claim the
right to appoint such guardians and friends for this class of our
population as we believe will be most advantageous to them, as well as
to the whole community. We claim the right to impose such restraints,
and such only, as the well-being of our own society seems to us to
demand. This claim may be denied. The North may claim the right to think
for us in regard to this question of expediency. But it cannot be denied
that if liberty may be a curse, then no man can, in such case, have a
right to it as a blessing.

If liberty would be an equal blessing to all men, then, we freely admit,
all men would have an equal right to liberty. But to concede, as Dr.
Channing does, that it were a curse to some men and yet contend that all
men have an equal right to its enjoyment, is sheer absurdity and
nonsense. But Dr. Channing, as we have seen, sometimes speaks a better
sense. Thus, he has even said, "It would be cruelty, not kindness, to
the latter (to the slave) to give him a freedom which he is unprepared
to understand or enjoy. It would be cruelty to strike the fetters from a
man whose first steps would infallibly lead him to a precipice." So far,
then, according to the author himself, are all men from having an
"inalienable right" to liberty, that some men have no right to it at

In like manner, Dr. Wayland, by his own admission, has overthrown all
his most confident deductions from the notion of equal rights. He, too,
quotes the Declaration of Independence, and adds, "That the equality
here spoken of is not of the means of happiness, but in the right to use
them as one wills, is too evident to need illustration." If this be the
meaning, then the meaning is not so evidently true. On the contrary, the
vaunted maxim in question, as understood by Dr. Wayland, appears to be
pure and unmixed error. Power, for example, is one means of happiness;
and so great a means, too, that without it all other means would be of
no avail. But has any man a right to use this means of happiness as he
wills? Most assuredly not. He has no right to use the power he may
possess, nor any other means of happiness, as he will, but only as
lawful authority has willed. If it be a power conferred by man, for
example, such as that of a chief magistrate, or of a senator, or of a
judge, he may use it no otherwise than as the law of the land permits,
or in pursuance of the objects for which it was conferred. In like
manner, if it proceed from the Almighty, it may be used only in
conformity with his law. So far, then, is it from being true that all
men possess an equal right to use the means of happiness as they please,
that no man ever has, or ever will, possess any such right at all. And
if such be the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, then the
Declaration of Independence is too evidently erroneous to need any
further refutation. Unless, indeed, man may put forth a declaration of
independence which shall annul and destroy the immutable obligations of
the moral law, and erect _one's will_ as the rule of right. But is an
equal exemption from the restraints of that law liberty, or is it
universal anarchy and confusion?

It were much nearer the truth to say that all men have an equal right,
not to act as "one wills," but to have their wills restrained by law. No
greater want is known to man, indeed, than the restraints of law and
government. Hence, all men have an equal right to these, but not to the
same restraints, to the same laws and governments. All have an equal
right to that government which is the best for them. But the same
government is not the best for all. A despotism is best for some; a
limited monarchy is best for others; while, for a third people, a
representative republic is the best form of government.

This proposition is too plain for controversy. It has received the
sanction of all the great teachers of political wisdom, from an
Aristotle down to a Montesquieu, and from a Montesquieu down to a Burke.
It has become, indeed, one of the commonplaces of political ethics; and,
however strange the conjunction, it is often found in the very works
which are loudest in proclaiming the universal equality of human rights.
Thus, for example, says Dr. Wayland: "The best form of government for
any people _is the best that its present moral condition renders
practicable. A people may be so entirely surrendered to the influence of
passion, and so feebly influenced by moral restraints, that a
government which relied upon moral restraint could not exist for a day_.
In this case, a subordinate and inferior principle remains--_the
principle of fear, and the only resort is to a government of force_ or a
military despotism. And such do we see to be the fact." What, then,
becomes of the equal and inalienable right of all men to freedom? Has it
vanished with the occasion which gave it birth?

But this is not all. "Anarchy," continues Wayland, "always ends in this
form of government. [A military despotism.] After this has been
established, and habits of subordination have been formed, while the
moral restraints are too feeble for self-government, an hereditary
government, which addresses itself to the imagination, and strengthens
itself by the influence of domestic connections, may be as good a form
as a people can sustain. As they advance in intellectual and moral
cultivation, it may advantageously become more and more elective, and,
in a suitable moral condition, it may be wholly so. For beings who are
willing to govern themselves by moral principles, there can be no doubt
that a government relying upon moral principle is the true form of
government. There is no reason why a man should be oppressed by taxation
and subjected to fear who is willing to govern himself by the law of
reciprocity. It is surely better for an intelligent and moral being to
do right from his own will, than _to pay another to force him to do
right_. And yet, as it is better that he should do right than wrong,
even though he be forced to do it, it is well that he should pay others
to force him, if there be no other way of insuring his good conduct. God
has rendered the blessing of freedom inseparable from moral restraint to
the individual; and hence it is vain for a people to expect to be free
unless they are first willing to be virtuous." Again, "There is no
self-sustaining power in any form of social organization. The only
self-sustaining power is in individual virtue.

"And the form of a government will always adjust itself to the moral
condition of a people. A virtuous people will, by their own moral power,
frown away oppression, and, under any form of constitution, become
essentially free. A people surrendered up to their own licentious
passions must be held in subjection by force; for every one will find
that force alone can protect him from his neighbors; and he will submit
to be oppressed, if he can only be protected. Thus, in the feudal ages,
the small independent landholders frequently made themselves slaves of
one powerful chief to shield themselves from the incessant oppression of

Now all this is excellent sense. One might almost imagine that the
author had been reading Aristotle, or Montesquieu, or Burke. It is
certain he was not thinking of equal rights. It is equally certain that
his eyes were turned away from the South; for he could see how even
"independent landholders" might rightfully make slaves of themselves.
After such concessions, one would think that all this clamor about
inherent and _inalienable_ rights ought to cease.

In a certain sense, or to a certain extent, all men have equal rights.
All men have an equal right to the air and light of heaven; to the same
air and the same light. In like manner, all men have an equal right to
food and raiment, though not to the same food and raiment. That is, all
men have an equal right to food and raiment, provided they will earn
them. And if they will not earn them, choosing to remain idle,
improvident, or nuisances to society, then they should be placed under a
government of force, and compelled to earn them.

Again, all men have an equal right to serve God according to the
dictates of their own consciences. The poorest slave on earth possesses
this right--this inherent and inalienable right; and he possesses it as
completely as the proudest monarch on his throne. He may choose his own
religion, and worship his own God according to his own conscience,
provided always he seek not in such service to interfere with the rights
of others. But neither the slave nor the freeman has any right to
murder, or instigate others to murder, the master, even though he should
be ever so firmly persuaded that such is a part of his religious duty.
He has, however, the most absolute and perfect right to worship the
Creator of all men in all ways not inconsistent with the moral law. And
wo be to the man by whom such right is denied or set at naught! Such a
one we have never known; but whosoever he may be, or wheresoever he may
be found, let all the abolitionists, we say, hunt him down. He is not
fit to be a man, much less a Christian master.

But, it will be said, the slave has also a right to religious
instruction, as well as to food and raiment. So plain a proposition no
one doubts. But is this right regarded at the South? No more, we fear,
than in many other portions of the so-called Christian world. Our
children, too, and our poor, destitute neighbors, often suffer, we fear,
the same wrong at our remiss hands and from our cold hearts. Though we
have done much and would fain do more, yet, the truth must be confessed,
this sacred and imperious claim has not been fully met by us.

It may be otherwise at the North. There, children and poor neighbors,
too, may all be trained and taught to the full extent of the moral law.
This godlike work may be fully done by our Christian brethren of the
North. They certainly have a large surplus of benevolence to bestow on
us. But if this glorious work has not been fully done by them, then let
him who is without sin cast the first stone. This simple thought,
perhaps, might call in doubt their right to rail at us, at least with
such malignant bitterness and gall. This simple thought, perhaps, might
save us many a pitiless pelting of philanthropy.

But here lies the difference--here lies our peculiar sin and shame. This
great, primordial right is, with us, denied by law. The slave shall not
be taught to read. Oh! that he might be taught! What floods of sympathy,
what thunderings and lightnings of philanthropy, would then be spared
the world! But why, we ask, should the slave be taught to read? That he
might read the Bible, and feed on the food of eternal life, is the
reply; and the reply is good.

Ah! if the slave would only read his Bible, and drink its very spirit
in, we should rejoice at the change; for he would then be a better and a
happier man. He would then know his duty, and the high ground on which
his duty rests. He would then see, in the words of Dr. Wayland, "_That
the duty of slaves is explicitly made known in the Bible_. They are
bound to obedience, fidelity, submission, and respect to their
masters--not only to the good and kind, but also to the unkind and
froward; not, however, on the ground of duty to man, but _on the ground
of duty to God_." But, with all, we have some little glimpse of our
dangers, as well as some little sense of our duties.

The tempter is not asleep. His eye is still, as ever of old, fixed on
the forbidden tree; and thither he will point his hapless victims. Like
certain senators, and demagogues, and doctors of divinity, he will
preach from the Declaration of Independence rather than from the Bible.
He will teach, not that submission, but that _resistance_, is a duty. To
every evil passion his inflammatory and murder-instigating appeals will
be made. Stung by these appeals and maddened, the poor African, it is to
be feared, would have no better notions of equality and freedom, and no
better views of duty to God or man, than his teachers themselves have.
Such, then, being the state of things, ask us not to prepare the slave
for his own utter undoing. Ask us not--O most kind and benevolent
Christian teacher!--ask us not to lay the train beneath our feet, that
_you_ may no longer hold the blazing torch in vain!

Let that torch be extinguished. Let all incendiary publications be
destroyed. Let no conspiracies, no insurrections, and no murders be
instigated. Let the pure precepts of the gospel and its sublime lessons
of peace be everywhere set forth and inculcated. In one word, let it be
seen that in reality the eternal good of the slave is aimed at, and, by
the co-operation of all, may be secured, and then may we be asked to
teach him to read. But until then we shall refuse to head a conspiracy
against the good order, the security, the morals, and against the very
lives, of both the white and the black men of the South.

We might point out other respects in which men are essentially equal, or
_have equal rights_. But our object is not to write a treatise on the
philosophy of politics. It is merely to expose the errors of those who
push the idea of equality to an extreme, and thereby unwisely deny the
great differences that exist among men. For if the scheme or the
political principles of the abolitionists be correct, then there is no
difference among men, not even among the different races of men, that is
worthy the attention of the statesman.

There is one difference, we admit, which the abolitionists have
discovered between the master and the slave at the South. Whether this
discovery be entirely original with them, or whether they received hints
of it from others, it is clear that they are now fully in possession of
it. The dazzling idea of equality itself has not been able to exclude it
from their visions. For, in spite of this idea, they have discovered
that between the Southern master and slave there is a difference of
color! Hence, as if this were the only difference, in their political
harangues, whether from the stump or from the pulpit, they seldom fail
to rebuke the Southern statesman in the words of the poet: "He finds his
fellow guilty of a skin not colored like his own;" and "for such worthy
cause dooms and devotes him as his lawful prey." Shame and confusion
seize the man, we say, who thus dooms and devotes his fellow-man,
because he finds him "guilty of a skin!" If his sensibilities were only
as soft as his philosophy is shallow, he would certainly cry, "Down with
the institution of slavery!" For how could he tolerate an institution
which has no other foundation than a difference of color? Indeed, if
such were the only difference between the two races among us, we should
ourselves unite with Mr. Seward of New York, and most "affectionately
advise all men to be born white." For thus, the only difference having
been abolished, all men would be equal in fact, and consequently
entitled to become equal in political rights, and power, and position.
But if such be not the only difference between the white and the black
man of the South, then neither philosophy nor paint can establish an
equality between them.

Every man, we admit, is a man. But this profound aphorism is not the
only one to which the political architect should give heed. An equality
of conditions, of political powers and privileges, which has no solid
basis in an equality of capacity or fitness, is one of the wildest and
most impracticable of all Utopian dreams. If in the divine government
such an equality should prevail, it is evident that all order would be
overthrown, all justice extinguished, and utter confusion would reign.
In like manner, if in human government such equality should exist, it
would be only for a moment Indeed, to aim at an equality of conditions,
or of rights and powers except by first aming at an equality of
intelligence and virtue, is not to reform--it is to demolish--the
governments of society. It is, indeed, to war against the eternal order
of divine Providence itself in which an immutable justice ever regins.
"It is this aiming after an equality," says Aristotle, "which is the
cause of seditions." But though seditions it may have stirred up, and
fierce passions kindled, yet has it never led its poor deluded victims
to the boon after which they have so fondly panted.

Equality is not liberty. "The French," said Napoleon, "love equality:
they care little for liberty." Equality is plain, simple, easily
understood. Liberty is complex, and exceedingly difficult of
comprehension. The most illiterate peasant may, at a glance, grasp the
idea of equality; the most profound statesman may not, without much care
and thought, comprehend the nature of liberty. Hence it is that
equality, and not liberty, so readily seizes the mind of the multitude,
and so mightily inflames its passions. The French are not the only
people who care but little for liberty, while they are crazy for
equality. The same blind passion, it is to be feared, is possible even
in this enlightened portion of the globe. Even here, perhaps, a man may
rant and rave about equality, while, really, he may know but little
more, and consequently care but little more, about that complicated and
beautiful structure called civil liberty, than a horse does about the
mechanism of the heavens.

Thus, for example, a Senator[160] of the United States declares that the
democratic principle is "Equality of natural rights, guaranteed and
secured to all by the laws of a just, popular government. For one, I
desire to see that principle applied to every subject of legislation, no
matter what that subject may be--to the great question involved in the
resolution now before the Senate, and to every other question." Again,
this principle is "the element and guarantee of liberty."

Apply this principle, then, to every subject, to every question, and see
what kind of government would be the result. All men have an equal right
to freedom from restraint, and consequently all are made equally free.
All have an equal right to the elective franchise, and to every
political power and privilege. But suppose the government is designed
for a State in which a large majority of the population is without the
character, or disposition, or habits, or experience of freemen? No
matter: the equal rights of all are natural; and hence they should be
applied in all cases, and to every possible "subject of legislation."
The principle of equality should reign everywhere, and mold every
institution. Surely, after what has been said, no comment is necessary
on a scheme so wild, on a dream so visionary. "As distant as heaven is
from earth," says Montesquieu, "so is the true spirit of equality from
that of extreme equality." And just so distant is the Senator in
question, with all his adherents, from the true idea of civil and
political freedom.

The Senator thinks the conduct of Virginia "singular enough," because,
in presenting a bill of rights to Congress, she omitted the provision of
"her own bill of rights," "that all men are born[161] equally free and
independent." We think she acted wisely. For, in truth and in deed, all
men are born absolutely dependent and utterly devoid of freedom. What
right, we ask, has the new born infant? Has he the right to go where he
pleases? He has no power to go at all; and hence he has no more a right
to go than he has to fly. Has he the right to think for himself? The
power of thought is as yet wholly undeveloped. Has he the right to
worship God according to his own conscience? He has no idea of God, nor
of the duties due to him. The plain truth is, that no human being
possesses a right until the power or capacity on which the enjoyment of
that right depends is suitably developed or acquired. The child, for
instance, has no right to think for himself, or to worship God according
to the dictates of conscience, until his intellectual and moral powers
are suitably developed. He is certainly not born with such rights. Nor
has he any right to go where he pleases, or attempt to do so, until he
has learned to walk. Nor has he the right then, for, according to the
laws of all civilized nations, he is subject to the control of the
parent until he reaches the lawful age of freedom. The truth is, that
all men are born not equally free and independent, but equally without
freedom and without independence. "All men are born equal," says
Montesquieu; but he does not say they "are born equally free and
independent." The first proposition is true: the last is diametrically
opposed to the truth.

Another Senator[162] seems to entertain the same passion for the
principle of equality. In his speech on the Compromise Bill of 1850, he
says that "a statesman or a founder of States" should adopt as an axiom
the declaration, "That all men are created equal, and have inalienable
rights of life, liberty, and choice of pursuits of happiness." Let us
suppose, then, that this distinguished statesman is himself about to
establish a constitution for the people of Mississippi or Louisiana, in
which there are more blacks than whites. As they all have a natural and
"inalienable right" to liberty, of course he would make them all free.
But would he confer upon all, upon black as well as upon white, the
power of the elective franchise? Most certainly. For he has said, "We of
New York are guilty of slavery still by withholding the _right of
suffrage_ from the race we have emancipated." Surely, if he had to found
a State himself, he would not thus be guilty of slavery--of the one
odious thing which his soul abhors. All would then be invested with the
right of suffrage. A black legislature would be the consequence. The
laws passed by such a body would, we fear, be no better than the
constitution provided by the Senator--by the statesman--from New York.

"All men are born equal," says Montesquieu; but in the hands of such a
thinker no danger need be apprehended from such an axiom. For having
drank deeply of the true spirit of law, he was, in matters of
government, ever ready to sacrifice abstract perfection to concrete
utility. Neither the principle of equality, nor any other, would he
apply in all cases or to every subject. He was no dreamer. He was a
profound thinker and a real statesman. "Though real equality," says he,
"be the very soul of a democracy, _it is so difficult to establish, that
an extreme exactness in this respect is not always convenient_."

Again, he says: "All inequalities in democracies ought to be derived
from the nature of the government, and even from the principle of
equality. For example, it may be apprehended that people who are obliged
to live by labor would be too much impoverished by public employment, or
neglect the duties of attending to it; that artisans would grow
insolent; and that _too great a number of freemen would overpower the

Thus to give all men equal power where the majority is ignorant and
depraved, would be indeed to establish equality, but not liberty. On the
contrary, it would be to establish the most odious despotism on
earth,--the reign of ignorance, passion, prejudice, and brutality. It
would be to establish a mere nominal equality, and a real inequality.
For, as Montesquieu says, by introducing "too great a number of
freemen," the "ancient citizens" would be oppressed. In such case, the
principle of equality, even in a democracy, should be "suppressed for
the good of the State." It should be suppressed, in order to shut out a
still greater and more tremendous inequality. The legislator, then, who
aims to introduce an extreme equality, or to apply the principle of
equality to every question, would really bring about the most frightful
of all inequalities, especially in a commonwealth where the majority are
ignorant and depraved.

Hence the principle of equality is merely a standard toward which an
approximation may be made--an approximation always limited and
controlled by the public good. This principle should be applied, not to
every question, but only to such as the general good permits. For this
good it "may be suppressed." Nay, it must be suppressed, if, without
such suppression, the public order may not be sustained; for, as we have
abundantly seen, it is only in the bosom of an enlightened public order
that liberty can live, or move, or have its being. Thus, as Montesquieu
advises, we deduce an inequality from the very principle of equality
itself; since, if such inequality be not deduced and established by law,
a still more terrific inequality would be forced upon us. Blind passion
would dictate the laws, and brute force would reign, while innocence and
virtue would be trampled in the dust. Such is the inequality to which
the honorable senators would invite us; and that, too, by an appeal to
our love of equality! If we decline the invitation, this is not because
we are the enemies, but because we are the friends, of human freedom. It
is not because we love equality less, but liberty more.

The legislators of the North may, if they please, choose the principle
of equality as the very "element and guarantee" of their liberty; and,
to make that liberty perfect, they may apply it to every possible
"subject of legislation," and to "every question" under the sun. But, if
we may be permitted to choose for ourselves, we should beg to be
delivered from such an extreme equality. We should reject it as the very
worst "element," and the very surest "guarantee" of an unbounded
licentiousness and an intolerable oppression. As the "element and
guarantee" of freedom for ourselves, and for our posterity, we should
decidedly prefer the principle of an enlightened public order.


[142] Channing's Works, vol. ii. p. 126.

[143] Elements of Moral Science, Part ii. chap. i. sec. 11.

[144] Moral Science, Part ii. chap. i. sec. 2.

[145] Letters on Slavery, p. 89.

[146] Ibid, p. 92.

[147] Letters, p. 50.

[148] Letters, p. 50.

[149] Letters, p. 50.

[150] Letters, p. 113.

[151] Moral Science, Part ii. chap. i. sec. 2.

[152] Letters, p. 119, 120.

[153] Moral Science Part ii. chap. i. sec. 2.

[154] Moral Science, Part ii. chap. i. sec. 2.

[155] Ibid.

[156] The _Italics_ are our own.

[157] Lev. chap. xxv.

[158] Exod. chap. xxi.

[159] In the first chapter.

[160] Mr. Chase, of Ohio.

[161] "By nature," in the Original Bill of Rights.

[162] Mr. Seward, of New York.



The Argument from the Old Testament.--The Argument from the New

IN discussing the arguments of the abolitionists, it was scarcely
possible to avoid intimating, to a certain extent, the grounds on which
we intend to vindicate the institution of slavery, as it exists among us
at the South. But these grounds are entitled to a more distinct
enunciation and to a more ample illustration. In the prosecution of this
object we shall first advert to the argument from revelation; and, if we
mistake not, it will be found that in the foregoing discussion we have
been vindicating against aspersion not only the peculiar institution of
the Southern States, but also the very legislation of Heaven itself.

§ I. _The argument from the Old Testament._

The ground is taken by Dr. Wayland and other abolitionists, that slavery
is always and everywhere, _semper et ubique_, morally wrong, and should,
therefore, be instantly and universally swept away. We point to slavery
among the Hebrews, and say, There is an instance in which it was not
wrong, because there it received the sanction of the Almighty. Dr.
Wayland chooses to overlook or evade the bearing of that case upon his
fundamental position; and the means by which he seeks to evade its force
is one of the grossest fallacies ever invented by the brain of man.

Let the reader examine and judge for himself. Here it is: "Let us reduce
this argument to a syllogism, and it will stand thus: Whatever God
sanctioned among the Hebrews he sanctions for all men and at all times.
God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews; therefore God sanctions
slavery for all men and at all times."

Now I venture to affirm that no man at the South has ever put forth so
absurd an argument in favor of slavery,--not only in favor of slavery
for the negro race so long as they may remain unfit for freedom, but in
favor of slavery for all men and for all times. If such an argument
proved any thing, it would, indeed, prove that the white man of the
South, no less than the black, might be subjected to bondage. But no one
here argues in favor of the subjection of the white man, either South or
North, to a state of servitude. No one here contends for the subjection
to slavery of any portion of the civilized world. We only contend for
slavery in certain cases; in opposition to the thesis of the
abolitionist, we assert that it is not always and everywhere wrong. For
the truth of this assertion we rely upon the express authority of God
himself. We affirm that since slavery has been ordained by him, it
cannot be always and everywhere wrong. And how does the abolitionist
attempt to meet this reply? Why, by a little legerdemain, he converts
this reply from an argument against his position, that slavery is always
and everywhere wrong, into an argument in favor of the monstrous dogma
that it is always and everywhere right! If we should contend that, in
some cases, it is right to take the life of a man, he might just as
fairly insist that we are in favor of having every man on earth put to
death! Was any fallacy ever more glaring? was any misrepresentation ever
more flagrant?

Indeed we should have supposed that Dr. Wayland might have seen that his
representation is not a fair one, if he had not assured us of the
contrary. We should have supposed that he might have distinguished
between an argument in favor of slavery for the lowest grade of the
ignorant and debased, and an argument in favor of slavery for all men
and all times, if he had not assured us that he possesses no capacity to
make it. For after having twisted the plea of the most enlightened
statesmen of the South into an argument in favor of the universal
subjection of mankind to slavery, he coolly adds, "I believe that in
these words I express the argument correctly. If I do not, it is solely
because I do not know how to state it more correctly." Is it possible
Dr. Wayland could not distinguish between the principle of slavery for
some men and the principle of slavery for all men? between the
proposition that the ignorant, the idle, and the debased may be
subjected to servitude, and the idea that all men, even the most
enlightened and free, may be reduced to bondage? If he had not
positively declared that he possessed no such capacity, we should most
certainly have entertained a different opinion.

It will not be denied, we presume, that the very best men, whose lives
are recorded in the Old Testament, were the owners and holders of
slaves. "I grant at once," says Dr. Wayland, "that the Hebrews held
slaves from the time of the conquest of Canaan, and that Abraham and the
patriarchs held them many centuries before. I grant also that Moses
enacted laws with special reference to that relation. . . . . I wonder
that any should have had the hardihood to deny so plain a matter of
record. I should almost as soon deny the delivery of the ten
commandments to Moses."

Now, is it not wonderful that directly in the face of "so plain a matter
of record," a pious Presbyterian pastor should have been arraigned by
abolitionists, not for holding slaves, but for daring to be so far a
freeman as to express his convictions on the subject of slavery? Most
abolitionists must have found themselves a little embarrassed in such a
proceeding. For _there_ was the fact, staring them in the face, that
Abraham himself, "the friend of God" and the "father of the faithful,"
was the owner and holder of more than a thousand slaves. How, then,
could these professing Christians proceed to condemn and excommunicate a
poor brother for having merely approved what Abraham had practiced? Of
all the good men of old, Abraham was the most eminent. The sublimity of
his faith and the fervor of his piety has, by the unerring voice of
inspiration itself, been held up as a model for the imitation of all
future ages. How, then, could a parcel of poor common saints presume,
without blushing, to cry and condemn one of their number because he was
no better than "Father Abraham?" This was the difficulty; and, but for a
very happy discovery, it must have been an exceedingly perplexing one.
But "Necessity is the mother of invention." On this trying occasion she
conceived the happy thought that the plain matter of record "was all a
mistake;" that Abraham never owned a slave; that, on the contrary, he
was "a prince," and the "men whom he bought with his money" were "his
subjects" merely! If, then, we poor sinners of the South should be
driven to the utmost extremity,--all honest arguments and pleas failing
us,--may we not escape the unutterable horrors of civil war, by calling
our masters princes, and our slaves subjects?

We shall conclude this topic with the pointed and powerful words of Dr.
Fuller, in his reply to Dr. Wayland: "Abraham," says he, "was 'the
friend of God,' and walked with God in the closest and most endearing
intercourse; nor can any thing be more exquisitely touching than those
words, 'Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?' It is the
language of a friend who feels that concealment would wrong the
confidential intimacy existing. The love of this venerable servant of
God in his promptness to immolate his son has been the theme of apostles
and preachers for ages; and such was his faith, that all who believe are
called 'the children of faithful Abraham.' This Abraham, you admit, held
slaves. Who is surprised that Whitefield, with this single fact before
him, could not believe slavery to be a sin? Yet if your definition of
slavery be correct, holy Abraham lived all his life in the commission of
one of the most aggravated crimes against God and man which can be
conceived. His life was spent in outraging the rights of hundreds of
human beings, as moral, intellectual, immortal, fallen creatures, and in
violating their relations as parents and children, and husbands and
wives. And God not only connived at this appalling iniquity, but, in the
covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, expressly mentions it, and
confirms the patriarch in it, speaking of those 'bought with his money,'
and requiring him to circumcise them. Why, at the very first blush,
every Christian will cry out against this statement. To this, however,
you must come, or yield your position; and this is only the first
utterly incredible and monstrous corollary involved in the assertion
that slavery is essentially and always 'a sin of appalling magnitude.'"

Slavery among the Hebrews, however, was not left merely to a tacit or
implied sanction. It was thus sanctioned by the express legislation of
the Most High: "Both thy bondmen and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye
buy bondmen and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families
that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your
possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
forever."[163] Now these words are so perfectly explicit, that there is
no getting around them. Even Dr. Wayland, as we have seen, admits that
the authority to take slaves _seems_ to be a part of "this original,
peculiar," and perhaps "anomalous grant." No wonder it appeared
_peculiar_ and _anomalous_. The only wonder is, that it did not appear
impious and absurd. So it has appeared to some of his co-agitators, who,
because they could not agree with Moses, have denied his mission as an
inspired teacher, and joined the ranks of infidelity.

Dr. Channing makes very light of this and other passages of Scripture.
He sets aside this whole argument from revelation with a few bold
strokes of the pen. "In this age of the world," says he, "and amid the
light which has been thrown on the true interpretation of the
Scriptures, such reasoning hardly deserves notice." Now, even if not for
our benefit, we think there are two reasons why such passages as the
above were worthy of Dr. Channing's notice. In the first place, if he
had condescended to throw the light in his possession on such passages,
he might have saved Dr. Wayland, as well as other of his admirers, from
the necessity of making the very awkward admission that the Almighty had
authorized his chosen people to buy slaves, and hold them as "bondmen
forever." He might have enabled them to see through the great
difficulty, that God has authorized his people to commit "a sin of
apalling magnitude," to perpetrate as "great a crime as can be
conceived;" which seems so clearly to be the case, if their views of
slavery be correct. Secondly, he might have enabled his followers to
espouse the cause of abolition without deserting, as so many of them
have openly done, the armies of the living God. For these two reasons,
if for no other, we think Dr. Channing owed it to the honor of his cause
to notice the passages of Scripture bearing on the subject of slavery.

The Mosaic Institutes not only recognize slavery as lawful; they contain
a multitude of minute directions for its regulation. We need not refer
to all of them; it will be sufficient for our purpose if we only notice
those which establish some of the leading characteristics of slavery
among the people of God.

1. Slaves were regarded as property. They were, as we have seen, called
a "possession" and an "inheritance."[164] They were even called the
"money" of the master. Thus, it is said, "if a man smite his servant or
his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be
punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished, for he is his money."[165] In one of the ten commandments this
right of property is recognized: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor _his_ man-servant,
nor _his_ maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is
thy neighbor's."

2. They might be sold. This is taken for granted in all those passages
in which, for particular reasons, the master is forbidden to sell his
slaves. Thus it is declared: "Thou shalt not make merchandise of her,
because thou hast humbled her." And still more explicitly: "If a man
sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the
men-servants do. If she please not her master who hath betrothed her to
himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her to a strange
nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with

3. The slavery thus expressly sanctioned was hereditary and perpetual:
"Ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to
inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever." Even
the Hebrew servant might, by his own consent, become in certain cases a
slave for life: "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve;
and in the seventh shall he go out free for nothing. If he came in by
himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife
shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have
borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her
master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall
plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go
out free: then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall also
bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore
his ear through with an awl, and _he shall serve him forever_."

Now it is evident, we think, that the legislator of the Hebrews was not
inspired with the sentiments of an abolitionist. The principles of his
legislation are, indeed, so diametrically opposed to the political
notions of the abolitionist, that the latter is sadly perplexed to
dispose of them. While some deny the authority of these principles
altogether, and of the very book which contains them, others are
content to evade their force by certain ingenious devices of their own.
We shall now proceed to examine some of the more remarkable of these
cunningly-devised fables.

It is admitted by the inventors of these devices, that God expressly
permitted his chosen people to buy and hold slaves. Yet Dr. Wayland, by
whom this admission is made, has endeavored to weaken the force of it by
alleging that God has been pleased to enlighten our race progressively.
If, he argues, the institution of slavery among His people appears so
very "peculiar and anomalous," this is because he did not choose to make
known his whole mind on the subject. He withheld a portion of it from
his people, and allowed them, by express grant, to hold slaves until the
fuller revelation of his will should blaze upon the world. Such is,
perhaps, the most plausible defense which an abolitionist could possibly
set up against the light of revelation.

But to what does it amount? If the views of Dr. Wayland and his
followers, respecting slavery, be correct, it amounts to this: The
Almighty has said to his people, you may commit "a sin of appalling
magnitude;" you may perpetrate "as great an evil as can be conceived;"
you may persist in a practice which consists in "outraging the rights"
of your fellow-men, and in "crushing their intellectual and moral"
nature. They have a natural, inherent, and inalienable right to liberty
as well as yourselves, but yet you may make slaves of them, and they may
be your bondmen forever. In one word, _you_, my chosen people, may
degrade "rational, accountable, and immortal beings" to the "rank of
brutes." Such, if we may believe Dr. Wayland, is the first stage in the
divine enlightenment of the human race! It consists in making known a
part of God's mind, not against the monstrous iniquity of slavery, but
in its favor! It is the utterance, not of a partial truth, but of a
monstrous falsehood! It is the revelation of his will, not against sin,
but in favor of as great a sin "as can be conceived." Now, we may
fearlessly ask if the cause which is reduced to the necessity of
resorting to such a defense may not be pronounced desperate indeed, and
unspeakably forlorn?

It is alleged that polygamy and divorce, as well as slavery, are
permitted and regulated in the Old Testament. This, we reply, proves, in
regard to polygamy and divorce, exactly what it proves in regard to
slavery,--namely, that neither is in itself sinful, that neither is
_always_ and _everywhere_ sinful. In other words, it proves that
neither polygamy nor divorce, as permitted in the Old Testament, is
"_malum in se_," is inconsistent with the eternal and unchangeable
principles of right. They are forbidden in the New Testament, not
because they are in themselves absolutely and immutably wrong, but
because they are inconsistent with the best interests of society;
especially in civilized and Christian communities. If they had been
wrong in themselves, they never could have been permitted by a holy God,
who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, except with inifinite

Again, it is contended by Dr. Wayland that "Moses intended to abolish
slavery," because he forbade the Jews "to deliver up a fugitive slave."
The words are these: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant
that is escaped from his master unto thee: "He shall dwell with thee,
even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of the gates
where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."[167] "This
precept, I think," says Dr. Wayland, "clearly shows that Moses intended
to abolish slavery. How could slavery long continue in a country where
every one was forbidden to deliver up a fugitive slave? How different
would be the condition of slaves, and how soon would slavery itself
cease, were this the law of compulsory bondage among us!"

The above passage of Scripture is a precious morsel with those who are
opposed to a fugitive slave law. A petition from Albany, New York, from
the enlightened seat of empire of the Empire State itself, signed, if we
recollect right, by one hundred and fifty persons, was presented to the
United States Senate by Mr. Seward, praying that no bill in relation to
fugitive slaves might be passed, which should not contain that passage.
Whether Mr. Seward was enlightened by his constituents, or whether he
made the discovery for himself, it is certain that he holds an act for
the reclamation of fugitive slaves to be "contrary to the divine law."
It is certain that he agrees with his constituents, who, in the petition
referred to, pronounced every such act "immoral," and contrary to the
law of God. But let us look at this passage a little, and see if these
abolitionists, who thus plant themselves so confidently upon "a higher
law," even upon "the divine law" itself, be not as hasty and rash in
their interpretation of this law as they are accustomed to be in their
judgment respecting the most universal and long-established institutions
of human society.

In the first place, if their interpretation be correct, we are at once
met by a very serious difficulty. For we are required to believe that
one passage of Scripture grants an "authority to take slaves," while
another passage is designed to annul this authority. We are required to
believe that, in one portion of the divine law, the right of the master
to hold his slaves as "bondmen" is recognized, while another part of the
same law denies the existence of such right. In fine, we are required to
believe that the legislator of the Jews intended, in one and the same
code, both to establish and to abolish slavery; that with one hand he
struck down the very right and institution which he had set up with the
other. How Dr. Channing and Mr. Sumner would have disposed of this
difficulty we know full well, for they carry within their own bosoms a
higher law than this higher law itself. But how Dr. Wayland, as an
enlightened member of the good old orthodox Baptist Church, with whom
the Scripture is really and in truth the inspired word of God, would
have disposed of it, we are at some loss to conceive.

We labor under no such difficulty. The words in question do not relate
to slaves owned by Hebrew masters. They relate to those slaves only who
should escape from heathen masters, and seek an asylum among the people
of God. "The first inquiry of course is," says a learned divine,[168]
"in regard to those very words, 'Where does his master live?' Among the
Hebrews, or among foreigners? The language of the passage fully develops
this and answers the question. 'He has escaped from his master unto the
Hebrews; (the text says--_thee_, _i. e._ Israel;) _he shall dwell with
thee, even among you . . . in one of thy gates_.' Of course, then, he is
an _immigrant_, and did _not dwell among them_ before his flight. If he
had been a Hebrew servant, belonging to a Hebrew, the whole face of the
thing would be changed. Restoration, or restitution, if we may judge by
the tenor of other property-laws among the Hebrews, would have surely
been enjoined. But, be that as it may, the language of the text puts it
beyond a doubt that the servant is a _foreigner_, and has fled from a
_heathen master_. This entirely changes the complexion of the case. The
Hebrews were God's chosen people, and were the only nation on earth
which worshiped the only living and true God. . . . . In case a slave
escaped from them (the heathen) and came to the Hebrews, two things were
to be taken into consideration, according to the views of the Jewish
legislator. The first was that the treatment of slaves among the heathen
was far more severe and rigorous than it could lawfully be under the
Mosaic law. The heathen master possessed the power of life and death, of
scourging or imprisoning, or putting to excessive toil, even to any
extent that he pleased. Not so among the Hebrews. _Humanity_ pleaded
there for the protection of the fugitive. The second and most important
consideration was, that only among the Hebrews could the fugitive slave
come to the knowledge and worship of the only living and true God."

Now this view of the passage in question harmonizes one portion of
Scripture with another, and removes every difficulty. It shows, too, how
greatly the abolitionists have deceived themselves in their rash and
blind appeal to "the divine law" in question. "The reason of the law,"
says my Lord Coke, "is the law." It is applicable to those cases, and to
those cases only, which come within the reason of the law. Hence, if it
be a fact, and if our Northern brethren really believe that we are sunk
in the darkness of heathen idolatry, while the light of the true
religion is with them alone, why, then, we admit that the reason and
principle of the divine law in question is in their favor. Then we admit
that the return of our fugitive slaves is "contrary to the divine law."
But if we are not heathen idolaters, if the God of the Hebrews be also
the God of Southern masters, then the Northern States do not violate the
precept in question--they only discharge a solemn constitutional
obligation--in delivering up our "fugitives from labor."

§ II. _The argument from the New Testament._

The New Testament, as Dr. Wayland remarks, was given, "not to one
people, but to the whole race; not for one period, but for all time."
Its lessons are, therefore, of universal and perpetual obligation. If,
then, the Almighty had undertaken to enlighten the human race by
degrees, with respect to the great sin of slavery, is it not wonderful
that, in the very last revelation of his will, he has uttered not a
single syllable in disapprobation thereof? Is it not wonderful, that he
should have completed the revelation of his will,--that he should have
set his seal to the last word he will ever say to man respecting his
duties, and yet not one word about the great obligation of the master to
emancipate his slaves, nor about the "appalling sin" of slavery? Such
silence must, indeed, appear exceedingly peculiar and anomalous to the
abolitionist. It would have been otherwise had he written the New
Testament. He would, no doubt, have inserted at least one little precept
against the sin of slavery.

As it is, however, the most profound silence reigns through the whole
word of God with respect to the sinfulness of slavery. "It must be
granted," says Dr. Wayland, "that the New Testament contains no
_precept_ prohibitory of slavery." Marvellous as such silence must needs
be to the abolitionist, it cannot be more so to him than his attempts to
account for it are to others. Let us briefly examine these attempts:

"You may give your child," says Dr. Wayland, "if he were approaching to
years of discretion, permission to do an act, while you inculcate upon
him principles which forbid it, for the sake of teaching him to be
governed by principles, rather than by any direct enactment. In such
case you would expect him to obey the principle, and not avail himself
of the permission." Now we fearlessly ask every reader whose moral sense
has not been perverted by false logic, if such a proceeding would not be
infinitely unworthy of the Father of mercies? According to Dr. Wayland's
view, he beholds his children living and dying in the practice of an
abominable sin, and looks on without the slightest note of admonition or
warning. Nay, he gives them permission to continue in the practice of
this frightful enormity, to which they are already bound by the triple
tie of habit, interest, and feeling! Though he gives them line upon
line, and precept upon precept, in order to detach them from other sins,
he yet gives them permission to live and die in this awful sin! And why?
To teach them, forsooth, not to follow his permission, but to be guided
by his principles! Even the guilty Eli remonstrated with his sons. Yet
if, instead of doing this, he had given them permission to practice the
very sins they were bent upon, he might have been, for all that, as pure
and faithful as the Father of mercies himself is represented to be in
the writings of Dr. Wayland. Such are the miserable straits, and such
the impious sophisms, to which even divines are reduced, when, on the
supposition that slavery is a sin, they undertake to vindicate or defend
the word which they themselves are ordained to preach!

Another reason, scarcely less remarkable than the one already noticed,
is assigned for the omission of all precepts against slavery. "It was no
part of the scheme of the gospel revelation," we are told by Dr.
Wayland, (who quotes from Archbishop Whately,) "to lay down any thing
approaching to a complete system of _moral precepts_--to enumerate every
thing that is _enjoined_ or _forbidden_ by our religion." If this method
of teaching had been adopted, "the New Testament would," says Dr.
Wayland, "have formed a library in itself, more voluminous than the laws
of the realm of Great Britain." Now, all this is very true; and hence
the necessity of leaving many points of duty to the enlightened
conscience, and to the application of the more general precepts of the
gospel. But how has it happened that slavery is passed over in silence?
Because, we are told; "every thing" could not be noticed. If, indeed,
slavery be so great a sin, would it not have been easier for the divine
teacher to say, Let it be abolished, than to lay down so many minute
precepts for its regulation? Would this have tended to swell the gospel
into a vast library, or to abridge its teachings? Surely, when Dr.
Wayland sets up such a plea, he must have forgotten that the New
Testament, though it cannot notice "every thing," contains a multitude
of rules to regulate the conduct of the master and the slave. Otherwise
he could scarcely have imagined that it was from an aversion to
minuteness, or from an impossibility to forbid every evil, that the sin
of slavery is passed over in silence.

He must also have forgotten another thing. He must have forgotten the
colors in which he had painted the evils of slavery. If we may rely upon
these, then slavery is no trifling offense. It is, on the contrary, a
stupendous sin, overspreading the earth, and crushing the
faculties--both intellectual and moral--of millions of human beings
beneath its odious and terrific influence. Now, if this be so, then
would it have been too much to expect that at least one little word
might have been directed against so great, so tremendous an evil? The
method of the gospel may be comprehensive, if you please; it may teach
by great principles rather than by minute precepts. Still, it is
certain that St. Paul could give directions about his cloak; and he
could spend many words in private salutations. In regard to the great
social evil of the age, however, and beneath which a large majority of
even the civilized world were crushed to the earth, he said nothing,
lest he should become too minute,--lest his epistles should swell into
too large a volume! Such is one of Dr. Wayland's defences of the gospel.
We shall offer no remark; we shall let it speak for itself.

A third reason for the silence in question is the alleged ease with
which precepts may be evaded. "A simple precept or prohibition," says
Dr. Wayland, "is, of all things, the easiest to be evaded. Lord Eldon
used to say, that 'no man in England could construct an act of
Parliament through which he could not drive a coach-and-four.' We find
this to have been illustrated by the case of the Jews in the time of our
Saviour. The Pharisees, who prided themselves on their strict obedience
to the _letter_, violated the _spirit_ of every precept of the Mosaic

Now, in reply to this most extraordinary passage, we have several
remarks to offer. In the first place, perhaps every one is not so good a
driver as Lord Eldon. It is certain, that acts of Parliament have been
passed, through which the most slippery of rogues have not been able to
make their escape. They have been caught, tried, and condemned for their
offenses, in spite of all their ingenuity and evasion.

Secondly, a "principle" is just as easily evaded as a "precept;" and, in
most cases, it is far more so. The great principle of the New Testament,
which our author deems so applicable to the subject of slavery, is this:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Now, if this be the great
principle intended to enlighten us respecting the sin of slavery, we
confess it has been most completely evaded by every slave State in the
Union. We have, indeed, so entirely deceived ourselves in regard to its
true import, that it seems to us to have not the most remote application
to such a subject. If any one will give our remarks on this great
"principle" a candid examination, we think he will admit that we have
deceived ourselves on very plausible, if not on unanswerable, grounds.
If slavery be a sin,--_always and everywhere_ a monstrous
iniquity,--then we should have been far more thoroughly enlightened with
respect to its true nature, and found evasion far more difficult, if
the New Testament had explicitly declared it to be such, and commanded
all masters everywhere to emancipate their slaves. We could have driven
a coach-and-four neither through, nor around, any such express
prohibition. It is indeed only in consequence of the default, or
omission, of such precept or command, that the abolitionist appeals to
what he calls the principles of the gospel. If he had only one such
precept,--if he had only one such precise and pointed prohibition, he
might then, and he _would_, most triumphantly defy evasion. He would
say, There is _the word_; and none but the obstinate gainsayers, or
unbelievers, would dare reply. But as it is, he is compelled to lose
himself in vague generalities, and pretend to a certainty which nowhere
exists, except in his own heated mind. This pretense, indeed, that an
express precept, prohibitory of slavery, is not the most direct way to
reveal its true nature, because a precept is so much more easily evaded
than a principle, is merely one of the desperate expedients of a forlorn
and hopeless cause. If the abolitionist would maintain that cause, or
vindicate his principles, it will be found that he must retire, and hide
himself from the light of revelation.

Thirdly, the above passage seems to present a very strange view of the
Divine proceedings. According to that view, it appears that the Almighty
tried the method of teaching by precept in the Old Testament, and the
experiment failed. For precepts may be so easily evaded, that every one
in the Mosaic code was violated by the Pharisees. Hence, the method of
teaching by precept was laid aside in the New Testament, and the better
method of teaching by principle was adopted. Such is the conclusion to
which we must come, if we adopt the reasoning of Dr. Wayland. But we
cannot adopt his reasoning; since we should then have to believe that
the experiment made in the Old Testament proved a failure, and that its
Divine Author, having grown wiser by experience, improved upon his
former method.

The truth is, that the method of the one Testament is the same as that
of the other. In both, the method of teaching by precept is adopted; by
precepts of greater and of lesser generality. Dr. Wayland's principle is
merely a general or comprehensive precept; and his precept is merely a
specific or limited principle. The distinction he makes between them,
and the use he makes of this distinction, only reflect discredit upon
the wisdom and consistency of the Divine Author of revelation.

A third account which Dr. Wayland gives of the silence of the New
Testament respecting the sin of slavery, is as follows: "If this form of
wrong had been singled out from all the others, and had alone been
treated preceptively, the whole system would have been vitiated. We
should have been authorized to inquire why were not similar precepts in
other cases delivered? and if they were not delivered, we should have
been at liberty to conclude that they were intentionally omitted, and
that the acts which they would have forbidden are innocent." Very well.
But idolatry, polygamy, divorce, is each and every one singled out, and
forbidden by precept, in the New Testament. Slavery alone is passed over
in silence. Hence, according to the principle of Dr. Wayland himself, we
are at liberty to conclude that a precept forbidding slavery was
"intentionally omitted," and that slavery itself "is innocent."

Each one of these reasons is not only exceedingly weak in itself, but it
is inconsistent with the others. For if a precept forbidding slavery
were purposely omitted, in order to teach mankind to be governed by
principle and to disregard permissions, then the omission could not have
arisen from a love of brevity. Were it not, indeed, just as easy to give
a precept forbidding, as to give one permitting, the existence of
slavery? Again, if a great and world-devouring sin, such as the
abolitionists hold slavery to be, has been left unnoticed, lest its
condemnation should impliedly sanction other sins, then is it not worse
than puerile to suppose that the omission was made for the sake of
brevity, or to teach mankind that the permissions of the Most High may
in certain cases be treated with contempt, may be set at naught, and
despised as utterly inconsistent, as diametrically opposed to the
principles and purity of his law?

If the abolitionist is so completely lost in his attempts to meet the
argument from the silence of Scripture, he finds it still more difficult
to cope with that from its express precepts and injunctions. _Servants,
obey your masters_, is one of the most explicit precepts of the New
Testament. This precept just as certainly exists therein as does the
great principle of love itself. "The obedience thus enjoined is placed,"
says Dr. Wayland, "not on the ground of duty to man, but on the ground
of duty to God." We accept the interpretation. It cannot for one moment
disturb the line of our argument. It is merely the shadow of an attempt
at an evasion. All the obligations of the New Testament are, indeed,
placed on the same high ground. The obligation of the slave to obey his
master could be placed upon no higher, no more sacred, no more
impregnable, ground.

Rights and obligations are correlative. That is, every right implies a
corresponding obligation, and every obligation implies a corresponding
right. Hence, as the slave is under an obligation to obey the master, so
the master has a right to his obedience. Nor is this obligation
weakened, or this right disturbed, by the fact that the first is imposed
by the word of God, and rests on the immutable ground of duty to him.
If, by the divine law, the obedience of the slave is due to the master,
then, by the same law, the master has a right to his obedience.

Most assuredly, the master is neither "a robber," nor "a murderer," nor
"a manstealer," merely because he claims of the slave that which God
himself commands the slave to render. All these epithets may be, as they
have been, hurled at us by the abolitionist. His anathemas may thunder.
But it is some consolation to reflect, that, as he was not consulted in
the construction of the moral code of the universe, so, it is to be
hoped, he will not be called upon to take part in its execution.

The most enlightened abolitionists are sadly puzzled by the precept in
question; and, from the manner in which they sometimes speak of it, we
have reason to fear it holds no very high place in their respect. Thus,
says the Hon. Charles Sumner, "Seeking to be brief, I shall not
undertake to reconcile texts of the Old Testament, which, whatever may
be their import, are all absorbed in the New; nor shall I stop to
consider the precise interpretation of the oft-quoted phrase, _Servants,
obey your masters_; nor seek to weigh any such imperfect injunction in
the scales against those grand commandments on which hang all the law
and the prophets."[169] Now this is a very significant passage. The
orator, its learned author, will not stop to consider the texts of the
Old Testament bearing on the subject of slavery, because they are all
merged in the New! Nor will he stop to consider any "such _imperfect
injunction_" as those contained in the New, because they are all
swallowed up and lost in the grand commandment, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself!"

If he had bestowed a little more attention on this grand commandment
itself, he might have seen, as we have shown, that it in no wise
conflicts with the precept which enjoins servants to obey their masters.
He might have seen that it is not at all necessary to "weigh" the one of
those precepts "in the scales against" the other, or to brand either of
them as imperfect. For he might have seen a perfect harmony between
them. It is no matter of surprise, however, that an abolitionist should
find imperfections in the moral code of the New Testament.

It is certainly no wonder that Mr. Sumner should have seen imperfections
therein. For he has, in direct opposition to the plainest terms of the
gospel, discovered that it is the first duty of the slave to fly from
his master. In his speech delivered in the Senate of the United States,
we find among various other quotations, a verse from Sarah W. Morton, in
which she exhorts the slave to fly from bondage. Having produced this
quotation "as part of the testimony of the times," and pronounced it "a
truthful homage to the inalienable rights" of the slave, Mr. Sumner was
in no mood to appreciate the divine precept, "Servants, obey your
masters." Having declared fugitive slaves to be "the heroes of the age,"
he had not, as we may suppose, any very decided taste for the
commonplace Scriptural duties of submission and obedience. Nay, he
spurns at and rejects such duties as utterly inconsistent with the
"inalienable rights of man." He appeals from the oracles of eternal
truth to "the testimony of the times." He appeals from Christ and his
apostles to Sarah W. Morton. And yet, although he thus takes ground
directly against the plainest precepts of the gospel, and even ventures
to brand some of them as "imperfect," he has the hardihood to rebuke
those who find therein, not what it really contains, but only a
reflection of themselves!

The precept in question is not an isolated injunction of the New
Testament. It does not stand alone. It is surrounded by other
injunctions, equally authoritative, equally explicit, equally
unequivocal. Thus, in Eph. vi. 5: "Servants, be obedient to them that
are your masters according to the flesh." Precisely the same doctrine
was preached to the Colossians: (iii. 22:) "Servants, obey in all
things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as
men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God." Again, in St.
Paul's Epistle to Timothy, he writes: "Let as many servants as are under
the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of
God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." Likewise, in Tit. ii. 9, 10, we
read: "Exhort servants to be obedient to their own masters, and to
please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but
showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our
Saviour in all things." And in 1 Pet. ii. 18, it is written: "Servants,
be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and
gentle, but also to the froward." Yet, in the face of these passages,
Mr. Sumner declares that it is the duty of slaves to fly from bondage,
and thereby place themselves among "the heroes of the age." He does not
attempt to interpret or explain these precepts; he merely sets them
aside, or passes them by with silent contempt, as "imperfect." Indeed,
if his doctrines be true, they are not only imperfect--they are
radically wrong and infamously vicious. Thus, the issue which Mr. Sumner
has made up is not with the slaveholders of the South; it is with the
word of God itself. The contradiction is direct, plain, palpable, and
without even the decency of a pretended disguise. We shall leave Mr.
Sumner to settle this issue and controversy with the Divine Author of

In the mean time, we shall barely remind the reader of what that Divine
Author has said in regard to those who counsel and advise slaves to
disobey their masters, or fly from bondage. "They that have believing
masters," says the great Apostle to the Gentiles, "let them not despise
them because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they
are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach
and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine
which is according to godliness, _he is proud, knowing nothing_." Mr.
Sumner congratulates himself that he has stripped "from slavery the
apology of Christianity." Let servants "count their own masters worthy
of all honor," and "do them service," says St. Paul. "Let servants
disobey their masters," says Mr. Sumner, "and cease to do them service."
"These things teach and exhort," says St. Paul. "These things denounce
and abhor," says Mr. Sumner. "If any man teach otherwise," says St.
Paul, "he is proud, knowing nothing." "I teach otherwise," says Mr.
Sumner. And is it by such conflict that he strips from slavery the
sanction of Christianity? If the sheer _ipse dixit_ of Mr. Sumner be
sufficient to annihilate the authority of the New Testament, which he
professes to revere as divine, then, indeed, has he stripped the
sanction of Christianity from the relation of master and slave.
Otherwise, he has not even stripped from his own doctrines the burning
words of her condemnation.

Dr. Wayland avoids a direct conflict with the teachings of the gospel.
He is less bold, and more circumspect, than the Senator from
Massachusetts. He has honestly and fairly quoted most of the texts
bearing on the subject of slavery. He shows them no disrespect. He
pronounces none of them imperfect. But with this array of texts before
him he proceeds to say: "Now, I do not see that the scope of these
passages can be misunderstood." Nor can we. It would seem, indeed,
impossible for the ingenuity of man to misunderstand the words, quoted
by Dr. Wayland himself, "Servants, _obey_ in all things your masters
according to the flesh." Dr. Wayland does not misunderstand them. For he
has said, in his Moral Science: "The _duty of slaves_ is explicitly made
known in the Bible. They are bound to obedience, fidelity, submission,
and respect to their masters, not only to the good and kind, but also to
the unkind and froward." But when he comes to reason about these words,
which he finds it so impossible for any one to misunderstand, he is not
without a very ingenious method to evade their plain import and to
escape from their influence. Let the reader hear, and determine for

"I do not see," says Dr. Wayland, "that the scope of these passages can
be misunderstood. They teach patience, meekness, fidelity, and
charity--duties which are obligatory on Christians toward all men, and,
of course, toward masters. These duties are obligatory on us toward
enemies, because an enemy, like every other man, is a moral creature of
God." True. But is this all? Patience, meekness, fidelity,
charity--duties due to all men! But what has become of the word
_obedience_? This occupies a prominent--nay, the most prominent--place
in the teachings of St. Paul. It occupies no place at all in the
reasonings of Dr. Wayland. It is simply dropped out by him, or
overlooked; and this was well done, for this word _obedience_ is an
exceedingly inconvenient one for the abolitionist. If Dr. Wayland had
retained it in his argument, he could not have added, "duties which are
obligatory on Christians toward all men, and, of course, toward
masters." Christians are not bound to obey all men. But slaves are bound
to obey "their own masters." It is precisely upon this injunction to
obedience that the whole argument turns. And it is precisely this
injunction to obedience which Dr. Wayland leaves out in his argument. He
does not, and he cannot, misunderstand the word. But he can just drop it
out, and, in consequence, proceed to argue as if nothing more were
required of slaves than is required of all Christian men!

The only portion of Scripture which Mr. Sumner condescends to notice is
the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon. He introduces the discussion of
this epistle with the remark that, "In the support of slavery, it is the
habit to pervert texts and to invent authority. Even St. Paul is vouched
for a wrong which his Christian life rebukes."[170] Now we intend to
examine who it is that really perverts texts of Scripture, and invents
authority. We intend to show, as in the clear light of noonday, that it
is the conduct of Mr. Sumner and other abolitionists, and not that of
the slaveholder, which is rebuked by the life and writings of the great

The epistle in question was written to a slaveholder, who, if the
doctrine of Mr. Sumner be true, lived in the habitual practice of "a
wrong so transcendent, so loathsome, so direful," that it "must be
encountered _wherever it can be reached_, and the battle must be
continued, without truce or compromise, until the field is entirely
won." Is there any thing like this in the Epistle to Philemon? Is there
any thing like it in any of the epistles of St. Paul? Is there anywhere
in his writings the slightest hint that slavery is a sin at all, or that
the act of holding slaves is in the least degree inconsistent with the
most exalted Christian purity of life? We may safely answer these
questions in the negative. The very epistle before us is from "Paul, a
prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon, _our
dearly-beloved, and fellow-laborer_." The inspired writer then proceeds
in these words: "I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my
prayers. Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord
Jesus, and toward all saints; that the communication of thy faith may
become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in
you in Christ Jesus. For we have great joy and consolation in thy love,
because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother."

Now if, instead of leaving out this portion of the epistle, Mr. Sumner
had pronounced it in the hearing of his audience, the suspicion might
have arisen in some of their minds that the slaveholder may not, after
all, be so vile a wretch. It might even have occurred to some, perhaps,
that the Christian character of Philemon, the slaveholder, might
possibly have been as good as that of those by whom all slaveholders are
excommunicated and consigned to perdition. It might have been supposed
that a Christian man may possibly hold slaves without being as bad as
robbers, or cut-throats, or murderers. We do not say that Mr. Sumner
shrunk from the reading of this portion of the epistle in the hearing of
his audience, lest it should seem to rebuke the violence and the
uncharitableness of his own sentiments, as well as those of his brother
abolitionists at the North. We do say, however, that Mr. Sumner had no
sort of use for this passage. It could in no way favor the impression
his oration was designed to make. It breathes, indeed, a spirit of
good-will toward the Christian master as different from that which
pervades the speeches of the honorable Senator, as the pure charity of
Heaven is from the dire malignity of earth.

"It might be shown," says Mr. Sumner, "that the present epistle, when
truly interpreted, is a protest against slavery, and a voice for
freedom." If, instead of merely asserting that this "might be done," the
accomplished orator had actually done it, he would have achieved far
more for the cause of abolitionism than has been effected by all the
splendors of his showy rhetoric. He has, indeed, as we shall presently
see, made some attempt to show that the Epistle to Philemon is an
emancipation document. When we come to examine this most extraordinary
attempt, we shall perceive that Mr. Sumner's power "to pervert texts and
to invent authority," has not been wholly held in reserve for what
"might be done." If his view of this portion of Scripture be not very
profound, it certainly makes up in originality what it lacks in depth.
If it should fail to instruct, it will at least amuse the reader. It
shall be noticed in due time.

The next point that claims our attention is the intimation that St.
Paul's "real judgment of slavery" may be inferred "from his
condemnation, on another occasion, of 'manstealers,' or, according to
the original text, slave-traders, in company with murderers of fathers
and murderers of mothers." Were we disposed to enter into the exegesis
of the passage thus referred to, we might easily show that Mr. Sumner is
grossly at fault in his Greek. We might show that something far more
enormous than even trading in slaves is aimed at by the condemnation of
the apostle. But we have not undertaken to defend "manstealers," nor
"slave-traders," in any form or shape. Hence, we shall dismiss this
point with the opinion of Macknight, who thinks the persons thus
condemned in company with murderers of fathers and mothers, are "they
who make war for the inhuman purpose of selling the vanquished as
slaves, as is the practice of the African princes." To take any free
man, whether white or black, by force, and sell him into bondage, is
manstealing. To make war for such a purpose, were, we admit, wholesale
murder and manstealing combined. This view of the passage in question
agrees with that of the great abolitionist, Mr. Barnes, who holds that
"the _essential_ idea of the term" in question, "is _that of converting
a free man into a slave_" . . . . the "changing of a freeman into a
slave, especially by traffic, subjection, etc." Now, as we of the South,
against whom Mr. Sumner is pleased to inveigh, propose to make no such
changes of freemen into slaves, much less to wage war for any such
purpose, we may dismiss his gross perversion of the text in question. He
may apply the condemnation of the apostle to us now, if it so please the
benignity of his Christian charity, but it will not, we assure him,
enter into our consciences, until we shall not only become
"slave-traders," but also, with a view to the gain of such odious
traffic, make war upon freemen.

We have undertaken to defend, as we have said, neither "slave-traders,"
nor "manstealers." We leave them both to the tender mercies of Mr.
Sumner. But we have undertaken to defend slavery, that is, _the_ slavery
of the South, and to vindicate the character of Southern masters against
the aspersions of their calumniators. And in this vindication we shrink
not from St. Paul's "real judgment of slavery." Nay, we desire, above
all things, to have his real judgment. His judgment, we mean, not of
manstealers or of murderers, but of slavery and slaveholders. We have
just seen "his real judgment" respecting the character of one
slaveholder. We have seen it in the very epistle Mr. Sumner is
discussing. Why, then, does he fly from St. Paul's opinion of the
slaveholder to what he has said of the manstealer and the murderer? We
would gather an author's opinion of slavery from what he has said of
slavery itself, or of the slaveholder. But this does not seem to suit
Mr. Sumner's purpose quite so well. Entirely disregarding the apostle's
opinion of the slaveholder contained in the passage right before him, as
well as elsewhere, Mr. Sumner infers his "real judgment of slavery" from
what he has said of manstealers and murderers! He might just as well
have inferred St. Paul's opinion of Philemon from what he has, "on
another occasion," said of Judas Iscariot.

Mr. Sumner contents himself with "calling attention to two things,
apparent on the face" of the epistle itself; and which, in his opinion,
are "in themselves an all-sufficient response." The first of these
things is, says he: "While it appears that Onesimus had been in some way
the servant of Philemon, it does not appear that he had ever been held
as a slave, much less as a chattel." It does not appear that Onesimus
was the slave of Philemon, is the position of the celebrated senatorial
abolitionist. We cannot argue this position with him, however, since he
has not deigned to give any reasons for it, but chosen to let it rest
upon his assertion merely. We shall, therefore, have to argue the point
with Mr. Albert Barnes, and other abolitionists, who have been pleased
to attempt to bolster up so novel, so original, and so bold an
interpretation of Scripture with exegetical reasons and arguments.

In looking into these reasons and arguments,--if reasons and arguments
they may be called,--we are at a loss to conceive on what principle
their authors have proceeded. The most plausible conjecture we can make
is, that it was deemed sufficient to show that it is possible, by a bold
stroke of interpretation, to call in question the fact that Onesimus was
the slave of Philemon; since, if this may only be questioned by the
learned, then the unlearned need not trouble themselves with the
Scripture, but simply proceed with the work of abolitionism. Then may
they cry, "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?"[171] and give all
such disputings to the wind. Such seems to us to have been the principle
on which the assertion of Mr. Sumner and Mr. Barnes has proceeded;
evincing, as it does, an utter, total, and reckless disregard of the
plainest teachings of inspiration. But let the candid reader hear, and
then determine for himself.

The Greek word δοῦλος, applied to Onesimus, means, according to Mr.
Barnes, either a slave, or a hired servant, or an apprentice. It is not
denied that it means a _slave_. "The word," says Mr. Barnes himself, "is
that which is commonly applied to a slave." Indeed, to assert that the
Greek word δοῦλος does not mean _slave_, were only a little less
glaringly absurd than to affirm that no such meaning belongs to the
English term _slave_ itself. If it were necessary, this point might be
most fully, clearly, and conclusively established; but since is is not
denied, no such work of supererogation is required at our hands.

But it is insisted, that the word in question has a more extensive
signification than the English term _slave_. "Thus," says Mr. Barnes,
"it is so extensive in its signification as to be applicable to any
species of servitude, whether voluntary or involuntary." Again: "All
that is necessairly implied by it is, that he was, in some way, the
servant of Philemon--whether _hired or bought cannot be shown_." Once
more, he says: "The word denotes _servant_ of any kind, and it should
never be assumed that those to whom it was applied were slaves." Thus,
according to Mr. Barnes, the word in question denotes a slave, or a
hired servant, or, as he has elsewhere said, an apprentice. It denotes
"servant of _any_ kind," whether "voluntary or involuntary."

Such is the positive assertion of Mr. Barnes. But where is the proof?
Where is the authority on which it rests? Surely, if this word is
applied to hired servants, either in the Greek classics or in the New
Testament, Mr. Barnes, or Mr. Sumner, or some other learned
abolitionist, should refer us to the passage where it is so used. We
have Mr. Barnes' assertion, again and again repeated, in his very
elaborate Notes on the Epistle to Philemon; but not the shadow of an
authority for any such use of the word. But stop: in making this
assertion, he refers us to his "Notes on Eph. vi 5, and 1 Tim. vi."
Perhaps we may find his authority by the help of one of these
references. We turn, then, to Eph. vi. 5; and we find the following
note: "Servants. Οἱ δοῦλοι. The word here used denotes one who is bound
to render service to another, whether that service be free or voluntary,
and may denote, therefore, either a slave, or one who binds himself to
render service to another. _It is often used in these senses in the New
Testament, just as it is elsewhere._"[172] Why, then, if it is so often
used to denote a hired servant, or an apprentice, or a voluntary servant
of any kind, in the New Testament, is not at least one such instance of
its use produced by Mr. Barnes? He must have been aware that one such
authority from the New Testament was worth more than his bare assertion,
though it were a hundred times repeated. Yet no such authority is
adduced or referred to; he merely supports his assertion in the one
place by his assertion in the other?

Let us look, in the next place, to his other reference, which is to 1
Tim. vi. 1. Here, again, we find not the shadow of an authority that the
word in question is applicable to "hired servants," or "apprentices." We
simply meet the oft-repeated assertion of the author, that it is
applicable to _any_ species of servitude. He refers from assertion to
assertion, and nowhere gives a single authority to the point in
question. If we may believe him, such authorities are abundant, even in
the New Testament; yet he leaves the whole matter to rest upon his own
naked assertion! Yea, as Greek scholars, he would have us to believe
that δοῦλος may mean a "hired servant," just as well as a slave; and he
would have us to believe this, too, not upon the usage of Greek writers,
but upon his mere assertion! We look for other evidence; and we intend
to pin him down to proof, ere we follow him in questions of such
momentous import as the one we have in hand.

Why is it, then, we ask the candid reader, if the term in question mean
"a hired servant," as well as a slave, that no such application of the
word is given? If such applications be as abundant as our author asserts
they are, why not refer us to a single instance, that our utter
ignorance may be at least relieved by one little ray of light? Why
refer us from assertion to assertion, if authorities may be so
plentifully had? We cannot conceive, unless the object be to deceive the
unwary, or those who may be willingly deceived. An assertion merely,
bolstered up with a "See note," here or there, may be enough for such;
but if, after all, there be nothing but assertion on assertion piled, we
shall not let it pass for proof. Especially, if such assertion be at war
with truth, we shall track its author, and, if possible, efface his
footprints from the immaculate word of God.

If the term δοῦλος signifies "a hired servant," or "an apprentice," it
is certainly a most extraordinary circumstance that the best
lexicographers of the Greek language have not made the discovery. This
were the more wonderful, if, as Mr. Barnes asserts, the word "is often
used in these senses" by Greek writers. We have several Greek lexicons
before us, and in not one of them is there any such meaning given to the
word. Thus, in Donnegan, for example, we find: "δοῦλος, a slave, a
servant, as opposed to δεσποτης, a master." But we do not find from him
that it is ever applied to hired servants or apprentices. In like
manner, Liddell and Scott have "δοῦλος, a _slave_, _bondman_, strictly
one born so, opposed to ανδραποδον." But they do not lay down "a hired
servant," or "an apprentice," as one of its significations. If such,
indeed, be found among the meanings of the word, these celebrated
lexicographers were as ignorant of the fact as ourselves. Stephens also,
as any one may see by referring to his "Thesaurus, Ling. Græc., Tom I.
art. Δοῦλος," was equally ignorant of any such use of the term in
question. Is it not a pity, then, that, since such knowledge rested with
Mr. Barnes, and since, according to his own statement, proofs of its
accuracy were so abundant, he should have withheld all the evidence in
his possession, and left so important a point to stand or fall with his
bare assertion? Even if the rights of mankind had not been in question,
the interests of Greek literature were, one would think, sufficient to
have induced him to enlighten our best lexicographers with respect to
the use of the word under consideration. Such, an achievement would, we
can assure him, have detracted nothing from his reputation for

But how stands the word in the New Testament? It is certain that,
however "often it may be applied" to hired servants in the New
Testament, Mr. Barnes has not condescended to adduce a single
application of the kind. This is not all. Those who have examined every
text of the New Testament in which the word δοῦλος occurs, and compiled
lexicons especially for the elucidation of the sacred volume, have found
no such instance of its application.

Thus, Schleusner, in his Lexicon of the New Testament, tells us that it
means slave as opposed to, ελευθερος, _freeman_. His own words are:
Δοῦλος, ου, ὁ, (1) proprie: _servus, minister, homo non liber nec sui
juris_, et opponitur τῷ ελευθερος. Matt. viii. 9; xiii. 27, 28; 1 Cor.
vii. 21, 22; xii. 13; εἴτε δοῦλοι, εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι. Tit. ii. 9."

We next appeal to Robinson's Lexicon of the New Testament. We there find
these words: "δοῦλος, ου, ὁ, _a bondman, slave, servant, pr. by birth_;
diff. from ανδραποδον, 'one enslaved in war,' comp. Xen. An., iv. 1,
12," etc. Now if, as Mr. Barnes asserts, the word in question is so
often applied to hired servants in the New Testament, is it not passing
strange that neither Schleusner nor Robinson should have discovered any
such application of it? So far, indeed, is Dr. Robinson from having made
any such discovery, that he expressly declares that the δοῦλος "WAS
NEVER A HIRED SERVANT; _the latter being called_ μισθιος, μισθωτος." "In
a family," continues the same high authority, "the δοῦλος was _bound to
serve, a slave_, and was the property of his master, 'a living
possession,' as Aristotle calls him."

"The Greek δοῦλος," says Dr. Smith, in his Dictionary of Antiquities,
"like the Latin _servus_, corresponds to the usual meaning of our word
slave. . . . . Aristotle (Polit. i. 3.) says that a complete household
is that which consists of slaves and freemen, (οἰκία δὲ τέλειος εκδουλων καὶ
ελευθερων,) and he defines a slave to be a living working-tool and
possession. (Ὁ δοῦλος ἔμφυχον, ὄργανον, Ethic. Nicim. viii. 13; ὁ δοῦλος κτημα
τι εμφυχον, Pol. i. 4.) Thus Aristotle himself defines the δοῦλος to be, not
a "servant of any kind," but a slave; and we presume that he understood
the force of this Greek word at least as well as Mr. Barnes or Mr.
Sumner. And Dr. Robinson, as we have just seen, declares that it never
means a hired servant.

Indeed, all this is so well understood by Greek scholars, that Dr.
Macknight does not hesitate to render the term δοῦλος, applied to
Onesimus in the Epistle to Philemon, by the English word _slave_. He has
not even added a footnote, as is customary with him when he deems any
other translation of a word than that given by himself at all worthy of
notice. In like manner, Moses Stuart just proceeds to call Onesimus "the
slave of Philemon," as if there could be no ground for doubt on so plain
a point. Such is the testimony of these two great Biblical critics, who
devoted their lives in great measure to the study of the language,
literature, and interpretation of the Epistles of the New Testament.

Now, it should be observed, that not one of the authorities quoted by us
had any motive "to pervert texts," or "to invent authorities," "in
support of slavery." Neither Donnegan, nor Liddell and Scott, nor
Stephens, nor Schleusner, nor Robinson, nor Smith, nor Macknight, nor
Stuart, could possibly have had any such motive. If they were not all
perfectly unbiassed witnesses, it is certain they had no bias in favor
of slavery. It is, indeed, the abolitionist, and not the slaveholder,
who, in this case, "has perverted texts;" and if he has not "invented
authorities," it is because his attempts to do so have proved abortive.

Beside the clear and unequivocal import of the word applied to Onesimus,
it is evident, from other considerations, that he was the slave of
Philemon. To dwell upon all of these would, we fear, be more tedious
than profitable to the reader. Hence we shall confine our attention to a
single circumstance, which will, we think, be sufficient for any candid
or impartial inquirer after truth. Among the arguments used by St. Paul
to induce Philemon to receive his fugitive slave kindly, we find this:
"For perhaps he therefore departed _for a season_, that thou shouldest
receive him _forever_." This verse is thus paraphrased by Macknight: "To
mitigate thy resentment, consider, that _perhaps also for this reason he
was separated_ from thee _for a little while_, (so προς ὡραν signified,
1 Thess. ii. 17, note 2,) _that thou mightest have him_ thy slave _for
life_." Dr. Macknight also adds, in a footnote: "By telling Philemon
that he would now have Onesimus forever, the apostle intimates to him
his firm persuasion that Onesimus would never any more run away from
him." Such seems to be the plain, obvious import of the apostle's
argument. No one, it is believed, who had no set purpose to subserve, or
no foregone conclusion to support, would view this argument in any other
light. Perhaps he was separated for a while as a slave, that "thou
mightest have him forever," or for life. How have him? Surely, one
would think, as a slave, or in the same capacity from which he was
separated for a while. The argument requires this; the opposition of the
words, and the force of the passage, imperatively require it. But yet,
if we may believe Mr. Barnes, the meaning of St. Paul is, that perhaps
Onesimus was separated for a while _as a servant_, that Philemon might
never receive him again as a servant, but forever as a Christian
brother! Lest we should be suspected of misrepresentation, we shall give
his own words. "The meaning is," says he, "that it was possible that
this was permitted in the providence of God, _in order_ that Onesimus
might be brought under the influence of the gospel, and be far more
serviceable to Philemon as a Christian than he could have been in his
former relation to him."

In the twelfth verse of the epistle, St. Paul says: "Whom I have sent
again," or, as Macknight more accurately renders the words, "Him I have
sent back," (ὅν ανεπεμφα.) Here we see the great apostle _actually
sending back a fugitive slave to his master_. That act of St. Paul is
not, and cannot be, denied. The words are too plain for denial. Onesimus
"_I have sent back_." Surely it cannot be otherwise than a most
unpleasant spectacle to abolitionist eyes thus to see Paul, the
aged--perhaps the most venerable and glorious hero whose life is upon
record--assume such an attitude toward the institution of slavery. Had
he dealt with slavery as he always dealt with every thing which he
regarded as sin; had he assumed toward it an attitude of stern and
uncompromising hostility, and had his words been thunderbolts of
denunciation, then indeed would he have been a hero after the very
hearts of the abolitionists. But, as it is, they have to _apologize_ for
the great apostle, and try, as best they may, to deliver him from his
_very equivocal position_! But if they are true apostles, and not false,
then, we fear, the best apology for his conduct is that he had never
read the Declaration of Independence, nor breathed the air of Boston.

This point, however, we shall not decide. We shall examine their
apologies, and let the candid reader decide for himself. St. Paul, it is
not denied, sent back Onesimus. But, says Mr. Barnes, he did not
_compel_ or _urge_ him to go. He did not send him back against his will.
Onesimus, no doubt, desired to return, and St. Paul was moved to send
him by his own request. Now, in the first place, this apology is built
on sheer assumption. There is not the slightest evidence that Onesimus
requested St. Paul to send him back to his master. "There may have been
many reasons," says Mr. Barnes, "why Onesimus desired to return to
Colosse, and no one can prove that he did not express that desire to St.
Paul, and that his 'sending' him was not in consequence of such
request." True; even if Onesimus had felt no such desire, and had
expressed no such desire to St. Paul, it would have been impossible, in
the very nature of things, for any one to prove such negatives, unless
he had been expressly informed on the subject by the writer of the
epistle. But is it not truly wonderful, that any one should, without the
least particle or shadow of evidence, be pleased to imagine a series of
propositions, and then call upon the opposite party to disprove them? Is
not such proceeding the very stuff that dreams are made of?

No doubt there may have been reasons why Onesimus should desire to
return to his master. There were certainly reasons, and reasons of
tremendous force, too, why he should have desired no such thing. The
fact that Philemon, whom he had offended by running away, had, according
to law, the power of life and death over him, is one of the reasons why
he should have dreaded to return. Hence, unless required by the apostle
to return, he _may_ have desired no such thing, and no one can prove
that an expression of such desire on his part was the ground of the
apostle's action. It is certain, that he who affirms should prove.

In the second place, if St. Paul were an abolitionist at heart, he
should have avoided the appearance of so great an evil. He should not,
for a moment, have permitted himself to stand before the world in the
simple and unexplained attitude of one who had sent back a fugitive
slave to his master. No honest abolitionist would permit himself to
appear in such a light. He would scorn to occupy such a position. Hence,
we repeat, if St. Paul were an abolitionist at heart, he should have let
it be known that, in sending Onesimus back, he was moved, not originally
by the principles of his own heart, but by the desire and request of the
fugitive himself. By such a course, he would have delivered himself from
a false position, and spared his friends among the abolitionists the
necessity of making awkward apologies for his conduct.

Thirdly, the positions of Mr. Barnes are not merely sheer assumptions;
they are perfectly gratuitous. For it is easy to explain the
determination of St. Paul to send Onesimus back, without having recourse
to the supposition that Onesimus desired him to do so. Such
determination was, indeed, the natural and necessary result of the well
known principles of the great apostle. He had repeatedly, and most
emphatically, inculcated the principle, that it is the duty of slaves to
"obey their masters," and to "count them worthy of all honor." This duty
Onesimus had clearly violated in running away from his master. If St.
Paul, then, had not taught Onesimus a different doctrine from that which
he had taught the churches, he must have felt that he had done wrong in
absconding from Philemon, and desired to repair the wrong by returning
to him. "It is," says Mr. Barnes, "by no means necessary to suppose that
Paul felt that Onesimus was under _obligation_ to return." But we must
suppose this, unless we suppose that Paul felt that Onesimus was under
no obligation to obey the precepts which he himself had delivered for
the guidance and direction of all Christian servants.

We shall now briefly notice a few other of Mr. Barnes' arguments, and
then dismiss this branch of the subject. "If St. Paul sent back
Onesimus," says he, "this was, doubtless, at his own request; for there
is not the slightest evidence that he _compelled_ him, or even urged
him, to go." We might just as well conclude that St. Paul first required
Onesimus to return, because there is not the slightest evidence that
Onesimus made any such request.

"Paul," says Mr. Barnes, "had no power to send Onesimus back to his
master unless he chose to go." This is very true. But still Onesimus may
have chosen to go, just because St. Paul, his greatest benefactor and
friend, had told him it was his duty to do so. He may have chosen to go,
just because the apostle had told him it is the duty of servants not to
run away from their masters, but to obey them, and count them worthy of
all honor. It is also true, that "there is not the slightest evidence
that he _compelled_ him, or even _urged_ him, to go." It is, on the
other hand, equally true, that there is not the slightest evidence that
any thing more than a bare expression of the apostle's opinion, or a
reiteration of his well-known sentiments, was necessary to induce him to

"The language is just as would have been used," says our author, "on
the supposition, either that he requested him to go and bear a letter to
Colosse, or that Onesimus desired to go, and that Paul sent him
agreeably to his request. Compare Phil. ii. 25: 'Yet I suppose it
necessary _to send_ Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labor,'
etc.; Col. iv. 7, 8: 'All my estate shall Tychicus declare unto you, who
is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellow-servant in the
Lord: whom I have _sent_ unto you for the same purpose, that he might
know your estate.' But Epaphroditus and Tychicus were not sent against
their own will,--nor is there any more reason to think that Onesimus
was." Now there is not the least evidence that either Epaphroditus or
Tychicus _requested_ the apostle to _send_ them as he did; and, so far
as appears from his statements, the whole thing originated with himself.
It is simply said that he _sent_ them. It is true, they were "not sent
against their own will," for they were ready and willing to obey his
directions. We have good reason, as we have seen, to believe that
precisely the same thing was true in regard to the sending of Onesimus.

But there is another case of _sending_ which Mr. Barnes has overlooked.
It is recorded in the same chapter of the same epistle which speaks of
the sending of Epaphroditus. We shall adduce it, for it is a case
directly in point. "But ye know the proof of him, (_i. e._ of Timothy,)
that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel.
Him, therefore, I hope to _send_ presently, so soon as I shall see how
it will go with me." Now, here the apostle proposes to send Timothy, not
so soon as Timothy should request to be sent, but so soon as he should
see how it would go with himself as a prisoner at Rome. "As a son with
the father," so Timothy, after his conversion, served with the great
apostle, and, not against his own will, but most cheerfully, obeyed his
directions. And in precisely the same ineffably endearing relation did
Onesimus stand to the apostle. As a recent convert,--as a sincere and
humble Christian,--he naturally looked to his great inspired teacher for
advice, and was, no doubt, with more than filial affection, ready to

Hence, we insist that Paul was responsible for the return of Onesimus to
his master. He might have prevented his return, had he so desired; for
he tells us so himself, (ver. 13.) But he chose to send him back. And
why? Because Onesimus requested? The apostle says not so. "I would have
retained him with me," says he to Philemon, "that in thy stead he might
have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel. BUT WITHOUT THY MIND
WOULD I DO NOTHING." Nay, whatever may have been his own desires, or
those of Onesimus, he would do nothing without the mind of Philemon.
Such is the reason which the apostle assigns for his own conduct, for
his own determination not to retain the fugitive slave.

"What the apostle wrote to Philemon on this occasion is," says Dr.
Macknight, "highly worthy of notice; namely, that although he had great
need of an affectionate, honest servant to minister to him in his bonds,
such as Onesimus was, who had expressed a great inclination to stay with
him; and although, if Onesimus had remained with him, he would only have
discharged the duty which Philemon himself owed to his spiritual father,
yet the apostle would by no means detain Onesimus without Philemon's
leave, because it belonged to him to dispose of his own slave in the way
he thought proper. Such was the apostle's regard to justice, and to the
rights of mankind!"

According to Mr. Barnes, however, the apostle was governed in this
transaction, not by a regard to principle or the rights of mankind, but
by a regard for the feelings of the master! Just listen, for one moment,
to his marvellous discourse: "It is probable," says he, "that _if_
Onesimus had proposed to return, it would have been easy for Paul to
have retained him with him. He might have represented his own want of a
friend. He might have appealed to his gratitude on account of his
efforts for his conversion. He might have shown him that he was under no
moral obligation to go back. He might have refused to give him this
letter, and might have so represented to him the dangers of the way, and
the probability of a harsh reception, as effectually to have dissuaded
him from such a purpose. But, in that case, it is clear that this might
have caused hard feeling in the bosom of Philemon, and rather than do
that, he preferred to let him return to his master, and to plead for him
that he might have a kind reception. It is, therefore, by no means
necessary to suppose that Paul felt that Onesimus was under _obligation_
to return, or that he was disposed to _compel_ him, or that Onesimus was
not inclined to return voluntarily; but all the circumstances of the
case are met by the supposition that, if Paul had retained him, Philemon
might conceive that he had injured _him_."

Alas! that so much truth should have been suppressed; and that, too, by
the most glorious champion of truth the world has ever seen. He tells
not his "son Onesimus" that he is under no moral obligation to return to
his master. On the contrary, he leaves him ignorant of his rights--of
his inherent, sacred, and eternal rights. He sees him blindly put off
"the hero," and put on "the brute" again. And why? Because, forsooth, if
he should only speak, _he might cause hard feeling in the bosom of his
master_! Should he retain Onesimus, his son, he would not injure
Philemon at all. But then Philemon "might _conceive_" that he had
injured him. Ah! when will abolitionist again suppress such mighty
truth, lest he disturb some _fancied_ right, or absurd feeling ruffle?
When the volcano of his mind suppress and keep its furious fires in,
lest he consume some petty despot's despicable sway; or else, at least,
touch his tender sensibilities with momentary pain? "_Fiat justitia,
ruat cœlum_," is a favorite maxim with other abolitionists. But St.
Paul, it seems, could not assume quite so lofty a tone. He could not
say, "Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall." He could not
even say, "Let justice be done," though the feelings of Philemon should
be hurt.

It is evident, we think, that St. Paul needs to be defended against Mr.
Barnes' defenses of him, and vindicated against his apologies. If,
indeed, he were so pitiful a pleader of "the innocent cause" as Mr.
Barnes would have us to believe he is, then, we ask if those
abolitionists are not in the right who despise both the apostle and his
doctrine? No other abolitionist, it is certain, will ever imitate his
example, as that example is represented by Mr. Barnes. No other
abolitionist will ever suppress the great truths--as he conceives them
to be--with which his soul is on fire, and which, in his view, lie at
the foundation of human happiness, lest he should "cause hard feelings"
in the bosom of a slaveholder.

It may be said, perhaps, that the remarks and apology of Mr. Barnes do
not proceed on the supposition that Onesimus was a slave. If so, the
answer is at hand. For surely Mr. Barnes cannot think it would have been
dishonorable in the apostle to advise, or even to urge, "a hired
servant," or "an apprentice," to return and fulfill his contract. It is
evident that, although Mr. Barnes would have the reader to believe that
Onesimus was merely a hired servant or an apprentice, he soon forgets
his own interpretation, and proceeds to reason just as if he himself
regarded him as a slave. This, if possible, will soon appear still more

The apostle did not, according to Mr. Barnes, wholly conceal his
abolition sentiments. He made them known to Philemon. Yes, we are
gravely told, the letter which Onesimus carried in his pocket, as he
wended his way back from Rome to Colosse, was and is an emancipation
document! This great discovery is, we believe, due to the abolitionists
of the present day. It was first made by Mr. Barnes, or Dr. Channing, or
some other learned emancipationist, and after them by Mr. Sumner.
Indeed, the discovery that it appears from the face of the epistle
itself that it is an emancipation document, is the second of the two
"conclusive things" which, in Mr. Sumner's opinion, constitute "an
all-sufficient response" to anti-abolitionists.

Now supposing St. Paul to have been an abolitionist, such a disclosure
of his views would, we admit, afford some little relief to our minds.
For it would show that, although he did not provoke opposition by
proclaiming the truth to the churches and to the world, he could at
least run the risk of hurting the feelings of a slaveholder. But let us
look into this great discovery, and see if the apostle has, in reality,
whispered any such words of emancipation in the ear of Philemon.

In his note to the sixteenth verse of the epistle, Mr. Barnes says: "Not
now as a servant. The adverb rendered 'not now,' (οὐκέτι) means _no
more_, _no further_, _no longer_." So let it be. We doubt not that such
is its meaning. Hence, we need not examine Mr. Barnes' numerous
authorities, to show that such is the force of the adverb in question.
He has, we admit, most abundantly established his point that οὐκέτι
means _no longer_. But then this is a point which no anti-abolitionist
has the least occasion to deny. We find precisely the same rendition in
Macknight, and we are perfectly willing to abide by his translation. If
Mr. Barnes had spared himself the trouble of producing these
authorities, and adduced only one to show that δοῦλος means _a hired
servant_, or _an apprentice_, his labor would have been bestowed where
it is needed.

As the passage stands, then, St. Paul exhorts Philemon to receive
Onesimus, "no longer as a servant." Now this, we admit, is perfectly
correct _as far as it goes_. "It (_i. e._ this adverb) implies," says
Mr. Barnes, "that he had been in this condition, _but was not to be
now_." He was _no longer_ to be a servant! Over this view of the
passage, Mr. Sumner goes into quite a paroxysm of triumphant joy.
"Secondly," says he, "in charging Onesimus with this epistle to
Philemon, the apostle announces him as 'not now a servant, but above a
servant,--a brother beloved;' and he enjoins upon his correspondent the
hospitality due only to a freeman, saying expressly, 'If thou count me,
therefore, as a partner, _receive him as myself_;' ay, sir, not as
slave, not even as servant, but as a brother beloved, even as the
apostle himself. Thus with apostolic pen wrote Paul to his disciple
Philemon. Beyond all doubt, in these words of gentleness, benediction,
and EMANCIPATION,[173] dropping with celestial, soul-awakening power,
there can be no justification for a conspiracy, which, beginning with
the treachery of Iscariot, and the temptation of pieces of silver, seeks
by fraud, brutality, and violence, through officers of the law armed to
the teeth like pirates, and amid soldiers who degrade their uniform, to
hurl a fellow-man back into the lash-resounding den of American slavery;
and if any one can thus pervert this beneficent example, allow me to say
that he gives too much occasion to doubt his intelligence or his

Now in regard to the spirit of this passage we have at present nothing
to say. The sudden transition from the apostle's "words of blessing and
benediction," to Mr. Sumner's words of railing and vituperation, we
shall pass by unnoticed. Upon these the reader may make his own
comments. It is our object simply to comment on the words of the great
apostle. And, in the first place, we venture to suggest that there are
several very serious difficulties in the way of Mr. Barnes' and Mr.
Sumner's interpretation of the passage in question.

Let us, for the sake of argument, concede to these gentlemen that
Onesimus was merely the hired servant, or apprentice, of Philemon. What
then follows? If they are not in error, it clearly and unequivocally
follows that St. Paul's "words of emancipation" were intended, not for
slaves merely, but for hired servants and apprentices! For servants of
any and every desrciption! Mr. Sumner expressly tells us that he was to
return, "not as a slave, _not even as a servant_, but as a brother
beloved." Now such a scheme of emancipation would, it seems to us, suit
the people of Boston as little as it would those of Richmond. It would
abolish every kind of "servitude, whether voluntary or involuntary," and
release all hired servants, as well as apprentices, from the obligation
of their contracts. Such is one of the difficulties in their way. It may
not detract from the "sincerity," it certainly reflects no credit on the
"intelligence," of Mr. Sumner, to be guilty of such an oversight.

There is another very grave difficulty in the way of these gentlemen.
St. Paul writes that the servant Onesimus, who had been unprofitable to
Philemon in times past, would now be profitable to him. But how
profitable? As a servant? No! he was no longer to serve him at all. His
"emancipation" was announced! He was to be received, not as a slave, not
even as a servant, but _only_ as a brother beloved! Philemon was,
indeed, to extend to him the hospitalities due to a freeman, even such
as were due to the apostle himself? Now, for aught we know, it may have
been very agreeable to the feelings of Philemon, to have his former
servant thus unceremoniously "emancipated," and quartered upon him as "a
gentleman of elegant leisure;" but how this could have been so
_profitable_ to him is more than we can conceive.

It must be admitted, we think, that in a worldly point of view, all the
profits would have been on the side of Onesimus. "But," says Mr. Barnes,
"he would now be more profitable as a Christian brother." It is true,
Onesimus had not been very profitable as a Christian brother before he
ran away, for he had not been a Christian brother at all. But if he were
sent back by the apostle, because he would be profitable merely as a
Christian brother, we cannot see why any other Christian brother would
not have answered the purpose just as well as Onesimus. If such, indeed,
were the apostle's object, he might have conferred a still greater
benefit upon Philemon by sending several Christian brethren to live with
him, and to feast upon his good things.

Thirdly, the supposition that St. Paul thus announced the emancipation
of Onesimus, is as inconsistent with the whole scope and design of the
passage, as it is with the character of the apostle. If he would do
nothing without the consent of Philemon, not even retain his servant to
minister to himself while in prison, much less would he declare him
emancipated, and introduce him to his former master as a freeman. We
submit to the candid reader, we submit to every one who has the least
perception of the character and spirit of the apostle, if such an
interpretation of his words be not simply ridiculous.

It is certain that such an interpretation is peculiar to abolitionists.
"Men," says Mr. Sumner, "are prone to find in uncertain, disconnected
texts, a confirmation of their own personal prejudices or
prepossessions. And I,"--he continues, "who am no divine, but only a
simple layman--make bold to say, that whosoever finds in the gospel any
sanction of slavery, finds there merely a reflection of himself." He
must have been a very simple layman indeed, if he did not perceive how
very easily his words might have been retorted. We venture to affirm
that no one, except an abolitionist, has ever found the slightest
tincture of abolitionism in the writings of the great apostle to the

The plain truth is, that Philemon is exhorted to receive Onesimus "no
longer as a slave ONLY, but above a slave,--a brother beloved." Such is
the translation of Macknight, and such, too, is the concurrent voice of
every commentator to whom we have access. Pool, Clarke, Scott, Benson,
Doddridge--all unite in the interpretation that Onesimus was, in the
heaven-inspired and soul-subduing words of the loving apostle, commended
to his master, not as a slave _merely_, but also as a Christian brother.
The great fact--the "words of emancipation," which Mr. Sumner sees so
clearly on "the face of the epistle,"--they cannot see at all. Neither
sign nor shadow of any such thing can they perceive. It is a sheer
reflection of the abolitionist himself. Thus, the Old Testament is not
only merged in the New, but the New itself is merged in Mr. Charles
Sumner, of Massachusetts.

We shall notice one passage more of Scripture. The seventh chapter of
the Epistle to the Corinthians begins thus: "Now concerning the things
whereof ye wrote unto me;" and it proceeds to notice, among other
things, the relation of master and slave. This passage was designed to
correct the disorders among the Christian slaves at Corinth, who,
agreeably to the doctrine of the false teacher, _claimed their liberty,
on pretense that, as brethren in Christ, they were on an equality with
their Christian masters_." Here, then, St. Paul met abolitionism face
to face. And how did he proceed? Did he favor the false teacher? Did he
recognize the claim of the discontented Christian slaves? Did he even
once hint that they were entitled to their freedom, on the ground that
all men are equal, or on any other ground whatever? His own words will
furnish the best answer to these questions.

"Let every man," says he, "abide in the same calling wherein he was
called. Art thou called, being a servant? _care not for it._" Thus, were
Christian slaves exhorted to continue in that condition of life in which
they were when converted to Christianity. This will not be denied. It is
too plain for controversy. It is even admitted by Mr. Barnes himself. In
the devout contemplation of this passage Chrysostom exclaims: "Hast thou
been called, being a slave? Care not for it. Continue to be a slave.
Hast thou been called, being in uncircumcision? Remain uncircumcised.
Being circumcised, didst thou become a believer? Continue circumcised.
For these are no hindrances to piety. Thou are called, being a slave;
another, with an unbelieving wife; another, being circumcised.
[Astonishing! Where has he put slavery?] As circumcision profits not,
and uncircumcision does no harm, so neither doth slavery nor yet

"The great argument" against slavery is, according to Dr. Channing and
other abolitionists, drawn from the immortality of the soul. "Into every
human being," says he, "God has breathed an immortal spirit, more
precious than the whole outward creation. No earthly nor celestial
language can exaggerate the worth of a human being." The powers of this
immortal spirit, he concludes, "reduce to insignificance all outward
distinctions." Yea, according to St. Paul himself, they reduce to utter
insignificance all outward distinctions, and especially the distinction
between liberty and slavery. "Art thou called," says he, "being a slave?
care not for it." Art thou, indeed, the Lord's freeman and _as such_
destined to reign on a throne of glory forever? Oh, then, care not for
the paltry distinctions of the passing world!

Now, whom shall the Christian teacher take for his model?--St. Paul, or
Dr. Channing? Shall he seek to make men contented with the condition in
which God has placed them, or shall he stir up discontent, and inflame
the restless passions of men? Shall he himself, like the great apostle,
be content to preach the doctrines of eternal life to a perishing
world; or shall he make politics his calling, and inveigh against the
domestic relations of society? Shall he exhort men not to continue in
the condition of life in which God has placed them, but to take his
providence out of his hands, and, _in direct opposition to his word_,
assert their rights? In one word, shall he preach the gospel of Christ
and his apostles, or shall he preach the gospel of the abolitionist?

"Art thou called, being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest
be made free, use it rather." The Greek runs thus: αλλ' εἱ καἱ δὑνασαι
ἑλἑὑθερος γενἑσαι μαλλον χρἡσαι,--literally, "but even if thou canst
become free, rather make use of." Make use of what? The Greek verb is
left without a case. How, then, shall this be applied? To what does the
ambiguous _it_ of our translation refer? "One and all of the native
Greek commentators in the early ages," says Stuart, "and many expositors
in modern times, say that the word to be supplied is δουλεἱα, i. e.
_slavery, bondage_. The reason which they give for it is, that this is
the only construction which can support the proposition the apostle is
laboring to establish, viz.: 'Let every man abide in _statu quo_.' Even
De Wette, (who, for his high liberty notions, was banished from
Germany,) in his commentary on this passage, seems plainly to accede to
the force of this reasoning; and with him many others have agreed. No
man can look at the simple continuity of logic in the passage without
feeling that there is force in the appeal." Yet the fact should not be
concealed, that Stuart himself is "not satisfied with this exegesis of
the passage;" which, according to his own statement, was the universal
interpretation from "the early ages" down to the sixteenth century. This
change, says he, "seems to have been the spontaneous prompting of the
spirit of liberty, that beat high" in the bosom of its author.

Now have we not some reason to distrust an interpretation which comes
not exactly from Heaven, but from a spirit beating high in the human
breast? _That_ is certainly not an unerring spirit. We have already seen
what it can do with the Scriptures. But whether it has erred in this
instance, or not, it is certain that it should never be permitted to
beat so very high in any human breast as to annul the teachings of the
apostle, or to make him contradict himself. This has been too often
done. We too frequently hear those who admit that St. Paul exhorts
"slaves to continue in slavery," still contend that "if they may be
made free," they should move heaven and earth to attain so desirable an
object. They "should continue in that state," and yet exert all their
power to escape therefrom!

Conybeare and Howson, who are acknowledged to be among the best
commentators of the Epistles of St. Paul, have restored "the continuity
of his logic." They translate his words thus: "Nay, though thou have
power to gain thy freedom, seek rather to remain content." This
translation certainly possesses the advantage that it makes the doctrine
of St. Paul perfectly consistent with itself.

But let us return to the point in regard to which there is no
controversy. It is on all sides agreed, that St. Paul no less than three
times exhorts every man to continue in the condition in which Providence
has placed him. "And this rule," says he, "ordain I in all the
churches." Yet--would any man believe it possible?--the very
quintessence of abolitionism itself has been extracted from this passage
of his writings! Let us consider for a moment the wonderful alchemy by
which this has been effected.

We find in this passage the words: "Be not ye the servants of men."
These words are taken from the connection in which they stand,
dissevered from the words which precede and follow them, and then made
to teach that slaves should not submit to the authority of their
masters, should not continue in their present condition. It is certain
that no one but an abolitionist, who has lost all respect for revelation
except when it happens to square with his own notions, could thus make
the apostle so directly and so flatly contradict himself and all his
teaching. Different interpretations have been given to the words just
quoted; but until abolitionism set its cloven foot upon the Bible, such
violence had not been done to its sacred pages.

Conybeare and Howson suppose that the words in question are intended to
caution the Corinthians against "their servile adherence to party
leaders." Bloomfield, in like manner, says: "The best commentators are
agreed," that they are "to be taken figuratively, in the sense, 'do not
be blindly followers of men, conforming to their opinions,' etc." It is
certain that Rosenmüller, Grotius, and we know not how many more, have
all concurred in this interpretation. But be the meaning what it may,
_it is not_ an exhortation to slaves to burst their bonds in sunder,
unless the apostle has, in one and the same breath, taught
diametrically opposite doctrines.

Yet, in direct opposition to the plain words of the apostle, and to the
concurrent voice of commentators and critics, is he made to teach that
slaves should throw off the authority of their masters! Lest such a
thing should be deemed impossible, we quote the words of the author by
whom this outrage has been perpetrated. "The command of the 23d verse,"
says he, "'be not ye the servants of men,' is equally plain. There are
no such commands uttered in regard to the relations of husband and wife,
parent and child, as are here given in regard to slavery. _No one is
thus urged to dissolve the marriage relation. No such commands are given
to relieve children from obedience to their parents_," etc.[174] Nor is
any such command, we repeat, given to relieve slaves from obedience to
their masters, or to dissolve the relation between them.

If such violence to Scripture had been done by an obscure scribbler, or
by an infidel quoting the word of God merely for a purpose, it would not
have been matter of such profound astonishment. But is it not
unspeakably shocking that a Christian man, nay, that a Christian
minister and doctor of divinity, should thus set at naught the clearest,
the most unequivocal, and the most universally received teachings of the
gospel? If he had merely accused the Christian man of the South, as he
has so often done in his two stupid volumes on slavery, of the crimes of
"swindling," of "theft," of "robbing," and of "manstealing," we could
have borne with him well; and, as we have hitherto done, continued to
pass by his labors with silent contempt. But we have deemed it important
to show in what manner, and to what extent, the spirit of abolitionism
can wrest the pure word of God to its antichristian purpose.

We shall conclude the argument from scripture with the following just
and impressive testimony of the Princeton Review: "The mass of the pious
and thinking people in this country are neither abolitionists nor the
advocates of slavery. They stand where they ever have stood--on the
broad Scriptural foundation; maintaining the obligation of all men, in
their several places and relations, to act on the law of love, and to
promote the spiritual and temporal welfare of others by every means in
their power. They stand aloof from the abolitionists for various
reasons. In the first place, they disapprove of their principles. The
leading characteristic doctrine of this sect is that slaveholding is in
all cases a sin, and should, therefore, under all circumstances, be
immediately abandoned. _As nothing can be plainer than that slaveholders
were admitted to the Christian church by the inspired apostles, the
advocates of this doctrine are brought into direct collision with the
Scriptures. This leads to one of the most dangerous evils connected with
the whole system, viz., a disregard of the authority of the word of God,
a setting up a different and higher standard of truth and duty, and a
proud and confident wresting of Scripture to suit their own purposes._
manifestations of the result of this disposition to consider their own
light a surer guide than the word of God, are visible in the anarchical
opinions about human governments, civil and ecclesiastical, and on the
rights of women, which have found appropriate advocates in the abolition
publications. Let these principles be carried out, and there is an end
to all social subordination, to all security for life and property, to
all guarantee for public or domestic virtue. If our women are to be
emancipated from subjection to the law which God has imposed upon them,
if they are to quit the retirement of domestic life, where they preside
in stillness over the character and destiny of society; if they are to
come forth in the liberty of men, to be our agents, our public
lecturers, our committee-men, our rulers; if, in studied insult to the
authority of God, we are to renounce in the marriage contract all claim
to obedience, we shall soon have a country over which the genius of Mary
Wolstonecraft would delight to preside, but from which all order and all
virtue would speedily be banished. There is no form of human excellence
before which we bow with profounder deference than that which appears in
a delicate woman, adorned with the inward graces and devoted to the
peculiar duties of her sex; and there is no deformity of human
character from which we turn with deeper loathing than from a woman
forgetful of her nature, and clamorous for the vocation and rights of
men. It would not be fair to object to the abolitionists the disgusting
and disorganizing opinions of even some of their leading advocates and
publications, did they not continue to patronize those publications, and
were not these opinions the legitimate consequences of their own
principles. Their women do but apply their own method of dealing with
Scripture to another case. This no inconsiderable portion of the party
have candor enough to acknowledge, and are therefore prepared to abide
the result."


[163] Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 56.

[164] Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46.

[165] Exod. xxi. 20, 21.

[166] Exod. xxi. 7, 8.

[167] Deut. xxiii. 15, 16.

[168] Moses Stewart, a divine of Massachusetts, who had devoted a long
and laborious life to the interpretation of Scripture, and who was by no
means a friend to the institution of slavery.

[169] Speech in the Metropolitan Theatre, 1855.

[170] Speech at the Metropolitan Theatre, 1855.

[171] Fools may hope to escape responsibility by such a cry. But if
there be any truth in moral science, than every man should examine and
decide, or else forbear to act.

[172] The Italics are ours.

[173] The emphasis is ours.

[174] Elliott on Slavery, vol. i. p. 205.



          The Question--Emancipation in the British
          Colonies--The manner in which Emancipation has
          ruined the British Colonies--The great benefit
          supposed, by American Abolitionists, to result to
          the freed Negroes from the British Act of
          Emancipation--The Consequences of Abolition to the
          South--Elevation of the Blacks by Southern

WE have not shunned the abstractions of the abolitionist. We have, on
the contrary, examined all his arguments, even the most abstract, and
endeavored to show that they either rest on false assumptions, or
consist in false deductions. While engaged in this analysis of his
errors, we have more than once had occasion to remind him that the great
practical problem of slavery is to be determined, if determined at all,
not by an appeal to abstractions, but simply by a consideration of the
public good. It is under this point of view, or with reference to the
highest good of the governed, that we now proceed to consider the
institution of slavery.

The way is open and clear for this view of the subject. For we have
seen, we trust, that slavery is condemned neither by any principle of
natural justice, nor by any precept of divine revelation. On the other
hand, if we mistake not, it has been most clearly shown that the
doctrines and practices of the abolitionist are at war with the most
explicit words of God, as well as with the most unquestionable
principles of political ethics. Hence, without the least disrespect to
the eternal principles of right, we may now proceed to subject his
doctrines to the only remaining test of political truth, namely, _to the
test of experience_. Having examined the internal qualities of the tree
and found them bad, we may now proceed to inquire if "its fruits" be not
poison. And if the sober lessons of history, if the infallible records
of experience, be found in perfect harmony with the conclusions of
reason and of revelation, then shall we not be triply justified in
pronouncing abolitionism a social and a moral curse?

§ I. _The Question._

Here, at the outset, we may throw aside a mass of useless verbiage, with
which our inquiry is usually encumbered. We are eternally told that
Kentucky has fallen behind Ohio, and Virginia behind Pennsylvania,
because their energies have been crippled, and their prosperity
over-clouded, by the institution of slavery. Now, it is of no importance
to our argument that we should either deny the fact, or the explanation
which is given of it by abolitionists. If the question were, whether
slavery should be introduced among us, or into any non-slaveholding
State, then such facts and explanations would be worthy of our notice.
Then such an appeal to experience would be relevant to the point in
dispute. But such is not the question. We are not called upon to decide
whether slavery shall be established in our midst or not. This question
has been decided for us. Slavery--as every body knows--was forced upon
the colonies by the arbitrary and despotic rule of Great Britain, and
that, too, against the earnest remonstrances of our ancestors. The thing
has been done. The past is beyond our control. It is fixed and
unalterable. The only inquiry which remains for us now is, whether the
slavery which was thus forced upon our ancestors shall be continued, or
whether it shall be abolished? The question is not what Virginia, or
Kentucky, or any other slave State, _might_ have been, but what they
would be in case slavery were abolished. If abolitionists would speak to
the point, then let them show us some country in which slavery has been
abolished, and we will abide by the experiment. Fortunately for us, we
need not look far for such an experiment;--an experiment which has been
made, not upon mere chattels or brutes, but upon the social and moral
well-being of more than a million of human beings. We refer, of course,
to the emancipation of the slaves in the British colonies. This work, as
every one knows, was the great vaunted achievement of British
abolitionists. Here, then, we may see their philosophy--if philosophy it
may be called--"teaching by example." Here we may see and taste the
fruits of abolitionism, ere we conclude to grow them upon our own soil.

§ II. _Emancipation in the British Colonies._

It is scarcely in the power of human language to describe the
enthusiastic delight with which the abolitionists, both in England and
in America, were inspired by the spectacle of West India Emancipation.
We might easily adduce a hundred illustrations of the almost frantic joy
with which it intoxicated their brains. We shall, however, for the sake
of brevity, confine our attention to a single example,--which will, at
the same time, serve to show, not only how wild the abolitionist himself
was, but also how indignant he became that others were not equally
disposed to part with their sober senses. "The prevalent state of
feeling," said Dr. Channing in 1840, "in the free States in regard to
slavery is indifference--an indifference strengthened by the notion of
great difficulties attending the subject. The fact is painful, but the
truth should be spoken. The majority of the people, even yet, care
little about the matter. A painful proof of this insensibility was
furnished about a year and a half ago, when the English West Indies were
emancipated. An event surpassing this in moral grandeur is not recorded
in history. In one day, probably seven hundred thousand of human beings
were rescued from bondage to full, unqualified freedom. The
consciousness of wrongs, in so many breasts, was exchanged into
rapturous, grateful joy. What shouts of thanksgiving broke forth from
those liberated crowds! What new sanctity and strength were added to the
domestic ties! What new hopes opened on future generations! The crowning
glory of this day was the fact that the work of emancipation was wholly
due to the principles of Christianity. The West Indies were freed, not
by force, or human policy, but by the reverence of a great people for
justice and humanity. The men who began and carried on this cause were
Christian philanthropists; and they prevailed by spreading their own
spirit through a nation. In this respect, the emancipation of the West
Indies was a grander work than the redemption of the Israelites from
bondage. This was accomplished by force, by outward miracles, by the
violence of the elements. That was achieved by love, by moral power, by
God, working, not in the stormy seas, but in the depths of the human
heart. And how was this day of emancipation--one of the most blessed
days that ever dawned upon the earth--received in this country? While in
distant England a thrill of gratitude and joy pervaded thousands and
millions, we, the neighbors of the West Indies, and who boast of our
love of liberty, saw the sun of that day rise and set with hardly a
thought of the scenes on which it was pouring its joyful light. The
greater part of our newspapers did not refer to the event. The great
majority of the people had forgotten it. Such was the testimony we gave
to our concern for the poor slave; and is it from discussions of slavery
among such a people that the country is to be overturned?"

Such were the glowing expectations of the abolitionists. It now remains
to be seen whether they were true prophets, or merely "blind leaders of
the blind." Be that as it may, for the present we cannot agree with Dr.
Channing, that the good people of the free States were insincere in
boasting of their "love of liberty," because they did not go into
raptures over so fearful an experiment before they had some little time
to see how it would work. They did, no doubt, most truly and profoundly
love liberty. But then they had some reason to suspect, perhaps, that
liberty may be one thing, and abolitionism quite another. Liberty, they
knew, was a thing of light and love; but as for abolitionism, it was,
for all they knew, a demon of destruction. Hence they would wait, and
see. We do well to rejoice at once, exclaims Dr. Channing. If a
man-child is born into the world, says he, do we wait to read his future
life ere we rejoice at his birth? Ah, no! But then, perhaps, this
offspring of abolitionism is no man-child at all. It may, for aught we
know, be an abortion of night and darkness merely. Hence, we shall wait,
and mark his future course, ere we rend the air with shouts that he is
born at last.

This man-child, or this monster, is now seventeen years and four months
old. His character is developed, and fixed for life. We may now read
his history, written by impartial men, and determine for ourselves,
whether it justifies the bright and boundless hopes of the
abolitionists, or the "cold indifference," nay, the suspicions and the
fears, of the good people of the free States.

We shall begin with Jamaica, which is by far the largest and most
valuable of the British West Indies. The very first year after the
complete emancipation of the slaves of this island, its prosperity began
to manifest symptoms of decay. As long as it was possible, however, to
find or invent an explanation of these fearful signs, the abolitionists
remained absolutely blind to the real course of events. In 1839, the
first year of complete emancipation, it appeared that the crop of sugar
exported from the island had fallen off no less than eight thousand four
hundred and sixty-six hogsheads. But, then, it was discovered that the
hogsheads had been larger this year than the preceding! It is true,
there was not exactly any proof that larger hogsheads had been used all
over the island, but it was rumored; and the rumor was, of course,
eagerly swallowed by the abolitionists.

And besides, it was quite certain that the free negroes had eaten more
sugar than while they were slaves, which helped mightily to account for
the great diminution in the exports of the article. No one could deny
this. It is certain, that if the free negroes only devoured sugar as
eagerly as such floating conjectures were gulped down by the
abolitionists, the whole phenomenon needed no other cause for its
perfect explanation. It never once occured, however, to these reasoners
to imagine that the decrease in the amount of rum exported from another
island _might_ be owing to the circumstance that the free blacks had
swallowed a little more of that article as well as of sugar. On the
contrary, this fact was held up as a most conclusive and triumphant
proof that the free negroes had not only become temperate themselves,
but also so virtuous that they scorned to produce such an article to
poison their fellow-men. The English abolitionists who rejoiced at such
a reflection were, it must be confessed, standing on rather delicate
ground. For if such an inference proved any thing, it proved that the
blacks of the island in question had, at one single bound, passed from
the depths of degradation to an exaltation of virtue far above their
emancipators, the English people themselves; since these, as every
reader of history knows, not only enforced the culture of opium in
India, but also absolutely compelled the poor Chinese to receive it at
the mouth of the cannon!

It also appears that, for 1839, the amount of coffee exported had fallen
off 38,554 cwt., or about one third of the whole amount of the preceding
year. "The coffee is a very uncertain crop," said a noted English
emancipationist, in view of this startling fact, "and the deficiency, on
the comparison of these two years, is not greater, I believe, than has
often occurred before." This is true, for a drought or a hurricane had
before created quite as great a deficiency. But while the fact is true,
it only proves that the first year of emancipation was no worse on the
coffee crop than a drought or a hurricane.

"We should also remember," says this zealous abolitionist, "that, both
in sugar and coffee, the profit to the planter may be increased by the
saving of expense, even where the produce is diminished." Such a thing,
we admit, is possible; it _may_ be true. But _in point of fact_, as we
shall soon see, the expense was increased, while the crop was

But after every possible explanation, even Dr. Channing and Mr. Gurney
were bound to admit "that some decrease has taken place in both the
articles, in connection with the change of system." They also admitted
that "so far as this decrease of produce is connected with the change of
system, _it is obviously to be traced to a corresponding decrease in the
quantity of labor_."

May we not suppose, then, that here the ingenuity of man is at an end,
and the truth begins to be allowed to make its appearance? By no means.
For here "comes the critical question,"--says Mr. Gurney, "the real
turning point. To what is this decrease in the quantity of labor owing?
I answer deliberately but without reserve, '_Mainly_ to causes which
class under slavery and not under freedom.' It is, for the most part,
the result of those impolitic attempts to force the labor of freemen
which have disgusted the peasantry, and have led to the desertion of
many of the estates."

Now suppose this were the case, is it not the business, is it not the
duty, of the legislator to consider the passions, the prejudices, and
the habits of those for whom he legislates? Indeed, if he overlook
these, is he not a reckless experimenter rather than a wise statesman?
If he legislates, not for man as he _is_, but for man as he _ought to
be_, is he not a political dreamer rather than a sound philosopher?

The abolitionist not only closed his eyes on every appearance of decline
in the prosperity of the West Indies, he also seized with avidity every
indication of the successful operation of his scheme, and magnified it
both to himself and to the world. He made haste, in particular, to paint
in the most glowing colors the rising prosperity of Jamaica.[175] His
narrative was hailed with eager delight by abolitionists in all parts of
the civilized world. It is a pity, we admit, to spoil so fine a story,
or to put a damper on so much enthusiasm. But the truth, especially in a
case like the present, should be told. While, then, to the enchanted
imagination of the abolitionist, the wonderful industry of the freed
negroes and the exuberant bounty of nature were concurring to bring
about a paradise in the island of Jamaica, the dark stream of
emancipation was, in reality, undermining its prosperity and glory. We
shall now proceed to adduce the evidence of this melancholy fact, which
has in a few short years become so abundant and so overwhelming, that
even the most blind and obstinate must feel its force.

After describing the immense sources of wealth to be found in Jamaica,
an intelligent eye-witness says: "Such are some of the natural resources
of this dilapidated and poverty-stricken country. Capable as it is of
producing almost every thing, and actually producing nothing which might
not become a staple with a proper application of capital and skill, its
inhabitants are miserably poor, and daily sinking deeper into the utter
helplessness of abject want.

          "'Magnas inter opes inops.'

"Shipping has deserted her ports; her magnificent plantations of sugar
and coffee are running to weeds; her private dwellings are falling to
decay; the comforts and luxuries which belong to industrial prosperity
have been cut off, one by one, from her inhabitants; and the day, I
think, is at hand when there will be none left to represent the wealth,
intelligence, and hospitality for which the Jamaica planter was once

"It is impossible," says Mr. Carey, "to read Mr. Bigelow's volume,
without arriving at the conclusion that the freedom granted to the negro
has had little effect except that of enabling him to live at the expense
of the planter so long as any thing remained. Sixteen years of freedom
did not appear to its author to have 'advanced the dignity of labor or
of the laboring classes one particle,' while it had ruined the
proprietors of the land, and thus great damage had been done to the one
class without benefit of any kind to the other.

From a statistical table, published in August, 1853, it appears, says
one of our northern journals, that, since 1846, "the number of sugar
estates on the island that have been totally abandoned amounts to one
hundred and sixty-eight, and the number partially abandoned to
sixty-three; the value of which two hundred and thirty-one estates was
assessed, in 1841, at £1,655,140, or nearly eight millions and a half of
dollars. Within the same period two hundred and twenty-three
coffee-plantations have been totally, and twenty partially, abandoned,
the assessed value of which was, in 1841, £500,000, or two millions and
a half of dollars; and of cattle-pens, (grazing farms,) one hundred and
twenty-two have been totally, and ten partially, abandoned, the value of
which was a million and a half of dollars. The aggregate value of these
six hundred and six estates, which have been thus ruined and abandoned
in the island of Jamaica, within the last seven or eight years, amounted
by the regular assessments, ten years since, to the sum of nearly two
and a half millions of pounds sterling, or twelve and a half millions of

In relation to Jamaica, another witness says: "The marks of decay
abound. Neglected fields, crumbling houses, fragmentary fences,
noiseless machinery--these are common sights, and soon become familiar
to observation. I sometimes rode for miles in succession over fertile
ground, which used to be cultivated, and which is now lying waste. So
rapidly has cultivation retrograded, and the wild luxuriance of nature
replaced the conveniences of art, that parties still inhabiting these
desolated districts have sometimes, in the strong language of a speaker
at Kingston, 'to seek about the bush to find the entrance into their

"The towns present a spectacle no less gloomy. A great part of Kingston
was destroyed, some years ago, by an extensive conflagration: yet
multitudes of the houses which escaped that visitation are standing
empty, though the population is little, if at all, diminished. The
explanation is obvious. Persons who have nothing, and can no longer keep
up their domestic establishments, take refuge in the abodes of others,
where some means of subsistence are still left; and in the absence of
any discernible trade or occupation, the lives of crowded thousands
appear to be preserved from day to day by a species of miracle. The most
busy thoroughfares of former times have now almost the quietude of a

"'The finest land in the world,' says Mr. Bigelow, 'may be had at any
price, and almost for the asking.' Labor 'receives no compensation, and
the product of labor does not seem to know how to find the way to

From the report made in 1849, and signed by various missionaries, the
moral and religious state of the island appears no less gloomy than its
scenes of poverty and distress. The following extract from that report
we copy from Mr. Carey's "Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign:"--

"Missionary efforts in Jamaica are beset at the present time with many
and great discouragements. Societies at home have withdrawn or
diminished the amount of assistance afforded by them to chapels and
schools throughout this island. The prostrate condition of its
agriculture and commerce disables its own population from doing as much
as formerly for maintaining the worship of God and the tuition of the
young, and induces numbers of negro laborers to retire from estates
which have been thrown up, to seek the means of subsistence in the
mountains, where they are removed in general from moral training and
superintendence. The consequences of this state of matters are very
disastrous. Not a few missionaries and teachers--often struggling with
difficulties which they could not overcome--have returned to Europe, and
others are preparing to follow them. Chapels and schools are abandoned,
or they have passed into the hands of very incompetent instructors."

We cannot dwell upon each of the West India Islands. Some of these have
not suffered so much as others; but while some, from well-known causes,
have been partially exempt from the evils of emancipation, all have
suffered to a fearful extent. This, as we shall now show, is most amply
established by English authorities.

Mr. Bigelow, whose "Notes on Jamaica in 1850" we have noticed, is an
American writer; a Northern man; and, it is said, by no means a friend
to the institution of slavery. It is certain that Mr. Robert Baird, from
whom we shall now quote, is not only a subject of Great Britain, but
also a most enthusiastic advocate of "the glorious Act of British
Emancipation." But although he admires that act, yet, on visiting the
West Indies for his health, he could not fail to be struck with the
appalling scenes of distress there exhibited. In describing these, his
object is not to reflect shame on the misguided philanthropy of Great
Britain; but only to urge the adoption of other measures, in order to
rescue the West Indies from the utter ruin and desolation which must
otherwise soon overtake them. We might easily adduce many impressive
extracts from his work; but, for the sake of brevity, we shall confine
our attention to one or two passages.

"Hope," says Mr. Baird, "delights to brighten the prospects of the
future; and thus it is that the British West Indian planter goes on from
year to year, struggling against his downward progress, and still hoping
that something may yet turn up to retrieve his ruined fortunes. But all
do not struggle on. Many have given in, and many more can and will
confirm the statement of a venerable friend of my own--a gentleman high
in office in one of the islands above-mentioned--who, when showing me
his own estate and sugar-works, assured me, that for above a quarter of
a century they had yielded him nearly £2000 per annum; and that now,
despite all his efforts and improvements, (which were many,) he could
scarcely manage to make the cultivation pay itself. Instances of this
kind might be multiplied till the reader was tired, and even heart-sick,
of such details. But what need of such? Is it not notorious? Has it not
been proved by the numerous failures that have taken place of late years
among our most extensive West Indian merchants? Are not the reports of
almost all the governors of our colonial possessions filled with
statements to the effect that great depreciation of property has taken
place in all and each of our West Indian colonies, and that great has
been the distress consequent thereupon? These governors are, of course,
all of them imbued, to some extent, with the ministerial policy--at
least it is reasonable to assume that they are so. At all events,
whether they are so or not, their position almost necessitates their
doing their utmost to carry out, with success, the ministerial views and
general policy. To embody the substance of the answer given by a
talented lieutenant-governor, in my own hearing, to an address which set
forth, somewhat strongly, the ruined prospects and wasted fortunes of
the colonists under his government: 'It must, or it ought to be, the
object and the desire of every governor or lieutenant-governor in the
British West Indian Islands, to disappoint and stultify, if he can, the
prognostications of coming ruin with which the addresses he receives
from time to time are continually charged?' Yet what say these
governors? Do not the reports of one and all of them confirm the above
statement as to the deplorable state of distress to which the West
Indian planters in the British colonies are reduced?"[179]

Again, he says: "That the British West Indian colonists have been loudly
complaining that they are ruined, is a fact so generally acknowledged,
that the very loudness and frequency of the complaint has been made a
reason for disregarding or undervaluing the grounds of it. That the West
Indians are always grumbling is an observation often heard; and, no
doubt, it is very true that they are so. But let any one who thinks that
the extent and clamor of the complaint exceeds the magnitude of the
distress which has called it forth, go to the West Indies and judge for
himself. Let him see with his own eyes the neglected and abandoned
estates,--the uncultivated fields, fast hurrying back into a state of
nature, with all the speed of tropical luxuriance--the dismantled and
silent machinery, the crumbling walls, and deserted mansions, which are
familiar sights in most of the British West Indian colonies. Let him,
then, transport himself to the Spanish islands of Porto Rico and Cuba,
and witness the life and activity which in these slave colonies prevail.
Let him observe for himself the activity of the slavers--the
improvements daily making in the cultivation of the fields and in the
processes carried on at the Ingenios or sugar-mills--and _the general
indescribable air of thriving and prosperity which surrounds the
whole_,--and then let him come back to England and say, if he honestly
can, that the British West Indian planters and proprietors are
grumblers, who complain without adequate cause."[180]

Great Britain has shown no little solicitude to ascertain the real state
of things in her West India colonies. For this purpose, she appointed,
in 1842, a select committee, consisting of some of the most prominent
members of Parliament, with Lord Stanley at their head. In 1848, another
committee was appointed by her, with Lord George Bentinck as its
chairman, to inquire into the condition of her Majesty's East and West
India possessions and the Mauritius, and to consider whether any
measures could be adopted for their relief. The report of both
committees show, beyond all doubt, that unexampled distress existed in
the colonies. The report of 1848 declares: "That many estates in the
British West India colonies have been already abandoned, that many more
are in the course of abandonment, and that from this cause a very
serious diminution is to be apprehended in the total amount of
production. That the first effect of this diminution will be an increase
in the price of sugar, and the ultimate effect a greater extension to
the growth of sugar in slave countries, and a greater impetus to slavery
and the slave-trade." From the same report, we also learn that the
prosperity of the Mauritius, no less than that of the West India
Islands, had suffered a fearful blight, in consequence of the "glorious
act of emancipation."

A third commission was appointed, in 1850, to inquire into the condition
and prospects of British Guiana. Lord Stanley, in his second letter to
Mr. Gladstone, the Secretary of the British colonies, has furnished us
with the following extracts from the report of this committee:--

"Of Guiana generally they say--'It would be but a melancholy task to
dwell upon the misery and ruin which so alarming a change must have
occasioned to the proprietary body; but your commissioners feel
themselves called upon to notice the effects which this wholsale
abandonment of property has produced upon the colony at large. Where
whole districts are fast relapsing into bush, and occasional patches of
provisions around the huts of village settlers are all that remain to
tell of once flourishing estates, it is not to be wondered at that the
most ordinary marks of civilization are rapidly disappearing, and that
in many districts of the colony all travelling communication by land
will soon become utterly impracticable.'

"Of the Abary district:--'Your commission find that the line of road is
nearly impassable, and that a long succession of formerly cultivated
estates presents now a series of pestilent swamps, overrun with bush,
and productive of malignant fevers.'

"Nor are matters," says Lord Stanley, "much better further south.

"'Proceeding still lower down, your commissioners find that the public
roads and bridges are in such a condition that the few estates still
remaining on the upper west bank of Mahaica Creek are completely cut
off, save in the very dry season; and that with regard to the whole
district, unless something be done very shortly, travelling by land will
entirely cease. In such a state of things it cannot be wondered at that
the herdsman has a formidable enemy to encounter in the jaguar and other
beasts of prey, and that the keeping of cattle is attended with
considerable loss from the depredations committed by these animals.'

"It may be worth noticing," continues Lord Stanley, "that this
district--now overrun with wild beasts of the forest--was formerly the
very garden of the colony. The estates touched one another along the
whole line of the road, leaving no interval of uncleared land.

"The east coast, which is next mentioned by the commissioners, is better
off. Properties, once of immense value, had there been bought at nominal
prices; and the one railroad of Guiana passing through that tract, a
comparatively industrious population--composed of former laborers on the
line--enabled the planters still to work these to some profit. Even of
this favored spot, however, they report that it 'feels most severely the
want of continuous labor.'

"The commissioners next visit the east bank of the Demerara River, thus

"'Proceeding up the east bank of the river Demerara, the generally
prevailing features of ruin and distress are everywhere perceptible.
Roads and bridges almost impassable are fearfully significant exponents
of the condition of the plantations which they traverse; and Canal No.
3, once covered with plantains and coffee, presents now a scene of
almost total desolation.'

"Crossing to the west side, they find prospects somewhat brighter: 'A
few estates, are still 'keeping up a cultivation worthy of better
times.' But this prosperous neighborhood is not extensive, and the next
picture presented to our notice is less agreeable:--

"'Ascending the river still higher, your commissioners learn that the
district between Hobaboe Creek and "Stricken Heuvel" contained, in 1829,
eight sugar and five coffee and plantain estates, and now there remain
but three in sugar, and four partially cultivated with plantains, by
petty settlers; while the roads, with one or two exceptions, are in a
state of utter abandonment. Here, as on the opposite bank of the river,
hordes of squatters have located themselves, who avoid all communication
with Europeans, and have seemingly given themselves up altogether to the
rude pleasures of a completely savage life.'

"The west coast of Demerara--the only part of the country which still
remains unvisited--is described as showing _only_ a diminution of fifty
per cent. upon its produce of sugar; and with this fact the evidence
concludes as to one of the three sections into which the colony is
divided. Does Demerara stand alone in its misfortunes?

"Again hear the report:--'If the present state of the county of Demerara
affords cause for deep apprehension, your commissioners find that
Essequibo has retrograded to a still more alarming extent. In fact,
unless a large and speedy supply of labor be obtained to cultivate the
deserted fields of this once flourishing district, there is great reason
to fear that it will relapse into total abandonment.'

"Describing another portion of the colony--they say of one district,
'Unless a fresh supply of labor be very soon obtained, there is every
reason to fear that it will become completely abandoned.' Of a second,
'speedy immigration alone can save this island from total ruin.' 'The
prostrate condition of this once beautiful part of the coast,' are the
words which begin another paragraph, describing another tract of
country. Of a fourth, 'the proprietors on this coast seem to be keeping
up a hopeless struggle against approaching ruin.' Again, 'the once
famous Arabian coast, so long the boast of the colony, presents now but
a mournful picture of departed prosperity. Here were formerly situated
some of the finest estates in the country, and a large resident body of
proprietors lived in the district, and freely expended their incomes on
the spot whence they derived them.' Once more, 'the lower part of the
coast, after passing Devonshire Castle, to the river Pomeroon, presents
a scene of almost total desolation.' Such is Essequibo!

"Berbice," says Lord Stanley, "has fared no better. Its rural population
amounts to 18,000. Of these, 12,000 have withdrawn from the estates, and
mostly from the neighborhood of the white man, to enjoy a savage freedom
of ignorance and idleness, beyond the reach of example and sometimes of
control. But on the condition of the negro I shall dwell more at length
hereafter; at present it is the state of property with which I have to
do. What are the districts which together form the county of Berbice?
The Corentyne coast--the Canje Creek--east and west banks of the Berbice
River--and the west coast, where, however, cotton was formerly the chief
article produced. To each of these respectively the following passages,
quoted in order, apply:--

"'The abandoned plantations on this coast,[181] which, if capital and
labor could be procured, might easily be made very productive, are
either wholly deserted, or else appropriated by hordes of squatters, who
of course are unable to keep up at their own expense the public roads
and bridges; and consequently all communication by land between the
Corentyne and New Amsterdam is nearly at an end. The roads are
impassable for horses or carriages, while for foot passengers they are
extremely dangerous. The number of villages in this deserted region must
be upward of 2500, and as the country abounds with fish and game, they
have no difficulty in making a subsistence. In fact, the Corentyne coast
is fast relapsing into a state of nature.'

"'Canje Creek was formerly considered a flourishing district of the
county, and numbered on its east bank seven sugar and three coffee
estates, and on its west bank eight estates, of which two were in sugar
and six in coffee, making a total of eighteen plantations. The coffee
cultivation has long since been entirely abandoned, and of the sugar
estates but eight still now remain. They are suffering severely for want
of labor, and being supported principally by African and Coolie
immigrants, it is much to be feared that if the latter leave and claim
their return passages to India, a great part of the district will
become abandoned.'

"Under present circumstances, so gloomy is the condition of affairs
here,[182] that the two gentlemen whom your commissioners have examined
with respect to this district, both concur in predicting "its slow but
sure approximation to the condition in which civilized man first found

"'A district[183] that in 1829 gave employment to 3635 registered
slaves, but at the present moment there are not more than 600 laborers
at work on the few estates still in cultivation, although it is
estimated there are upward of 2000 people idling in villages of their
own. The roads are in many parts several feet under water and perfect
swamps, while in some places the bridges are wanting altogether. In fact
the whole district is fast becoming a total wilderness, with the
exception of the one or two estates which yet continue to struggle on,
and which are hardly accessible now but by water.'

"'Except in some of the best villages,[184] they care not for back or
front dams to keep off the water; their side-lines are disregarded, and
consequently the drainage is gone, while in many instances the public
road is so completely flooded that canoes have to be used as a means of
transit. The Africans are unhappily following the example of the Creoles
in this district, and buying land on which they settle in contented
idleness; and your commissioners cannot view instances like these
without the deepest alarm, for if this pernicious habit of squatting is
allowed to extend to the immigrants also, there is no hope for the

We might fill a volume with extracts to the same effect. We might in
like manner point to other regions, especially to Guatemala, to the
British colony on the southern coast of Africa, and to the island of
Hayti, in all of which emancipation has been followed by precisely
similar results. But we must hasten to consider how it is that
emancipation has wrought all this ruin and desolation. In the mean time,
we shall conclude this section in the ever-memorable words of Alison,
the historian: "The negroes," says he, "who, in a state of slavery, were
comfortable and prosperous beyond any peasantry in the world, and
rapidly approaching the condition of the most opulent serfs of Europe,
_have been by the act of emancipation irretrievably consigned to a state
of barbarism_."

§ III. _The manner in which emancipation has ruined the British

By the act of emancipation, Great Britain paralyzed the right arm of her
colonial industry. The laborer would not work except occasionally, and
the planter was ruined. The morals of the negro disappeared with his
industry, and he speedily retraced his steps toward his original
barbarism. All this had been clearly foretold. "Emancipation," says Dr.
Channing in 1840, "was resisted on the ground that the slave, if
restored to his rights, _would fall into idleness and vagrancy, and even
relapse into barbarism_."

This was predicted by the West Indian planters, who certainly had a good
opportunity to know something of the character of the negro, whether
bond or free. But who could suppose for a moment that an enlightened
abolitionist would listen to slaveholders? His response was, that "their
unhappy position as slaveholders had robbed them of their reason and
blunted their moral sense." Precisely the same thing had been foretold
by the Calhouns and the Clays of this country. But they, too, were
unfortunately slaveholders, and, consequently, so completely "sunk in
moral darkness," that their testimony was not entitled to credit. The
calmest, the profoundest, the wisest statesman of Great Britain likewise
forewarned the agitators of the desolation and the woes they were about
to bring upon the West Indies. But the madness of the day would confide
in no wisdom except its own, and listen to no testimony except to the
clamor of fanatics. Hence the frightful experiment was made, and, as we
have seen, the prediction of the anti-abolitionist has been fulfilled to
the very letter.

The cause of this downward tendency in the British colonies is now
perfectly apparent to all who have eyes to see. On this point, the two
committees above referred to both concur in the same conclusion. The
committee of 1842 declare, "that the principal causes of this diminished
production, and consequent distress, are the great difficulty which has
been experienced by the planters in obtaining _steady_ and _continuous_
labor, and the high rate of remuneration which they give for even the
_broken_ and _indifferent_ work which they are able to procure."

The cry of the abolitionist has been changed. At first--even before the
experiment was more than a year old--he insisted that the industry of
the freed black was working wonders in the British colonies. In the West
Indies, in particular, he assured us that the freed negro would do "an
infinity of work for wages."[186] Though he had been on the islands, and
had had an opportunity to see for himself, he boasted that "the old
notion that the negro is, by constitution, a lazy creature, who will do
no work at all except by compulsion, _is now forever exploded_."[187] He
even declared, that the free negro "understands his interest as well as
a Yankee."[188] These confident statements, made by an eye-witness, were
hailed by the abolitionists as conclusive proof that the experiment was
working admirably. "The great truth has come out," says Dr. Channing,
"that the hopes of the most sanguine advocates of emancipation have been
realized--if not surpassed--by the West Indies." What! the negro become
idle, indeed! "He is more likely," says the enchanted doctor, "to fall
into the civilized man's cupidity than into the filth and sloth of the
savage." But all these magnificent boasts were quite premature. A few
short years have sufficed to demonstrate that the deluded authors of
them, who had so lamentably failed to predict the future, could not even
read the present.

Their boasts are now exploded. Their former hopes are blasted; and their
cry is changed. The song now is,--"Well, suppose the negroes will not
work: they are FREE! They can now do as they list, and there is no man
to hinder." Ah, yes! they can now, at their own sweet will, stretch
themselves "under their gracefully-waving groves," and be lulled to
sleep amid the sound of waterfalls and the song of birds.

Such, precisely, is the paradise for which the negro sighs, except that
he does not care for the waterfalls and the birds. But it should be
remarked, that when sinful man was driven from the only Paradise that
earth has ever seen, he was doomed to eat his bread in the sweat of his
brow. This doom he cannot reverse. Let him make of life--as the Haytien
negroes do--"one long day of unprofitable ease,"[189] and he may dream
of Paradise, or the abolitionists may dream for him. But while he
dreams, the laws of nature are sternly at their work. Indolence benumbs
his feeble intellect, and inflames his passions. Poverty and want are
creeping on him. Temptation is surrounding him; and vice, with all her
motley train, is winding fast her deadly coils around his very soul, and
making him the devil's slave, to do his work upon the earth. Thus, the
blossoms of his paradise are _fine words_, and its fruits are _death_.

"If but two hours' labor per day," says Theodore Parker, "are necessary
for the support of each colored man, I know not why he should toil
longer." You know not, then, why the colored man should work more than
two hours a day? Neither does the colored man himself. You know not why
he should have any higher or nobler aim in life than to supply his few,
pressing, animal wants? Neither does he. You know not why he should
think of the future, or provide for the necessities of old age? Neither
does he. You know not why he should take thought for seasons of
sickness? Neither does he; and hence his child often dies under his own
eyes, for the want of medical attendance. You know not that the colored
man, who begins with working only two hours a day, will soon end with
ceasing from all regular employment, and live, in the midst of filth, by
stealing or other nefarious means? In one word, you know not why the
colored man should not live like the brute, in and for the present
merely--blotting out all the future from his plans of life? If, indeed,
you really know none of these things, then we beg you will excuse us, if
_we_ do not know why you should assume to teach our senators wisdom;--if
we do not know why the cobbler should not stick to his last, and all
such preachers to their pulpits.[190]

Abolitionism is decidedly progressive. The time was when Dr. Channing
thought that men should work, and that, if they would not labor from
rational motives, they should be compelled to labor.[191] The time was,
when even abolitionists looked upon labor with respect, and regarded it
as merely an obedience to the very first law of nature, or merely a
compliance with the very first condition of all economic, social, and
moral well-being. But the times are changed. The exigencies of
abolitionism now require that _manual labor, and the gross material
wealth_ it produces, should be sneeringly spoken of, and great swelling
eulogies pronounced on the infinite value of the negro's freedom. For
this is all he has; and for this, all else has been sacrificed. Thus,
since abolitionists themselves have been made to see that the freed
negro--the pet and idol of their hearts--will not work from rational
motives, then the principles of political economy, and the affairs of
the world, all must be adjusted to the course _he_ may be pleased to

In this connection we shall notice a passage from Montesquieu, which is
exactly in point. He is often quoted by the abolitionists, but seldom
fairly. It is true, he is exceedingly hostile to slavery _in general_,
and very justly pours ridicule and contempt on some of the arguments
used in favor of the institution. But yet, with all his enthusiastic
love of liberty,--nay, with his ardent passion for equality,--he saw far
too deeply into the true "Spirit of Laws" not to perceive that slavery
is, in certain cases, founded on the great principles of political
justice. It is precisely in those cases in which a race or a people will
not work without being compelled to do so, that he justifies the
institution in question. Though warmly and zealously opposed to slavery,
yet he was not bent on sacrificing the good of society to abstractions
or to prejudice. Hence, he could say: "But as all men are born equal,
slavery must be accounted unnatural, THOUGH IN SOME COUNTRIES IT BE
FOUNDED ON NATURAL REASON; and a wide difference ought to be made
betwixt such countries, and those in which natural reason rejects it, as
in Europe, where it has been happily abolished."[192] Now, if we inquire
in what countries, or under what circumstances, he considered slavery
founded on natural reason, we may find his answer in a preceding portion
of the same page. It is in those "countries," says he, "where the excess
of heat enervates the body, and renders men so slothful and dispirited,
that nothing but the fear of chastisement can oblige them to perform any
laborious duty," etc. Such, as we have seen, is precisely the case with
the African race in its present condition.

"Natural slavery, then," he continues, "is to be limited to some
particular parts of the world."[193] And again: "Bad laws have made lazy
men--they have been reduced to slavery because of their laziness." The
first portion of this remark--that bad laws have made lazy men--is not
applicable to the African race. For they were made lazy, not by bad
laws, but by the depravity of human nature, in connection and
co-operation with long, long centuries of brutal ignorance and the most
savage modes of life. But, be the cause of this laziness what it may, it
is sufficient, according to the principles of this great advocate of
human freedom and equality, to justify the servitude in which the
providence of God has placed the African.

No doubt it is very hard on lazy men that they should be compelled to
work. It is for this reason that Montesquieu calls such slavery "the
most cruel that is to be found among men;" by which he evidently means
that it is the most cruel, though necessary, because those on whom it is
imposed are least inclined to work. If he had only had greater
experience of negro slavery, the hardship would have seemed far less to
him. For though the negro is naturally lazy, and too improvident to work
for himself, he will often labor for a master with a right good will,
and with a loyal devotion to his interests. He is, indeed, often
prepared, and made ready for labor, because he feels that, in his
master, he has a protector and a friend.

But whether labor be a heavy burden or a light, it must be borne. The
good of the lazy race, and the good of the society into which they have
been thrown, both require them to bear this burden, which is, after all
and at the worst, far lighter than that of a vagabond life. "Nature
cries aloud," says the abolitionist, "for freedom." Nature, we reply,
demands that man shall work, and her decree must be fulfilled. For ruin,
as we have seen, is the bitter fruit of disobedience to her will.

It is now high time that we should notice some of the exalted eulogies
bestowed by abolitionists upon freedom; and also _the kind of freedom_
on which these high praises have been so eloquently lavished. This,
accordingly, we shall proceed to do in the following section.

§ IV. _The great benefit supposed by American abolitionists to result to
the freed negroes from the British act of emancipation._

We have, in the preceding sections, abundantly seen that the freed
colored subjects of the British crown are fast relapsing into the most
irretrievable barbarism, while the once flourishing colonies themselves
present the most appalling scenes of desolation and distress. Surely it
is no wonder that the hurrahing of the English people has ceased. "At
the present moment," says the London Times for December 1st, 1852, "if
there is one thing in the world that the British public do not like to
talk about, or _even to think about_, it is the condition of the race
for whom this great effort was made." Not so with the abolitionists of
this country. They still keep up the annual celebration of that great
event, the act of emancipation, by which, in the language of one of
their number, more than half a million of human beings were "turned from
brutes into freemen!"

It is the freedom of the negro which they celebrate. Let us look, then,
for a few moments, into the mysteries of this celebration, and see, if
we may, the nature of the praises they pour forth in honor of freedom,
and _the kind of freedom on which_ they are so passionately bestowed.

We shall not quote from the more insane of the fraternity of
abolitionists, for their wild, raving nonsense would, indeed, be
unworthy of serious refutation. We shall simply notice the language of
Dr. Channing, the scholar-like and the eloquent, though visionary,
advocate of British emancipation. Even as early as 1842, in an address
delivered on the anniversary of that event, he burst into the following
strain of impassioned eulogy: "Emancipation works well, far better than
could have been anticipated. _To me it could hardly have worked
otherwise than well._ It banished _slavery_, that wrong and curse not to
be borne. It gave _freedom_, the dear birthright of humanity; and had it
done nothing more, I should have found in it cause for joy. Freedom,
simple freedom, is 'in my estimation just, far prized above all price.'
_I do not stop to ask if the emancipated are better fed and clothed than
GOOD,[194] unknown to the most pampered slave." And again, he says,
"Nature cries aloud for freedom as our proper good, our birthright and
our end, and resents nothing so much as its loss."

In these high-sounding praises, which hold up personal freedom as "our
proper good," as "our end," it is assumed that man was made for liberty,
and not liberty for man. It is, indeed, one of the fundamental errors of
the abolitionist to regard freedom as a great substantive good, or as in
itself a blessing, and not merely as a relative good. It may be, and
indeed often is, an unspeakable benefit, but then it is so only as a
means to an end. The end of our existence, the _proper good_, is the
improvement of our intellectual and moral powers, the perfecting of our
rational and immortal natures. When freedom subserves this end, it is a
good; when it defeats this end, it is an evil. Hence there may be a
world of evil as well as a world of good in "this one word."

The wise man adapts the means to the end. It were the very hight of
folly to sacrifice the end to the means. No man gives personal freedom
to his child because he deems it always and in all cases a good. His
heart teaches him a better doctrine when the highest good of his child
is concerned. Should we not be permitted, then, to have something of the
same feeling in regard to those whom Providence has placed under our
care, especially since, having the passions of men, with only the
intellects of children, they stand in utmost need of guidance and

As it is their duty to labor, so the law which compels them to do so is
not oppressive. It deprives them of the enjoyment of no right, unless,
indeed, they may be supposed to have a right to violate their duty.
Hence, in compelling the colored population of the South to work, the
law does not deprive them of liberty, in the true sense of the word;
that is, _it does not deprive them of the enjoyment of any natural
right_. It merely requires them to perform a natural duty.

This cannot be denied. It has been, as we have shown, admitted both by
Dr. Wayland and Dr. Channing.[195] But while the _end_ is approved, the
_means_ are not liked. Few of the abolitionists are disposed to offer
any substitute for our method. They are satisfied merely to pull down
and destroy, without the least thought or care in regard to
consequences. Dr. Channing has, however, been pleased to propose another
method, for securing the industry of the black and the prosperity of the
State. Let us then, for a moment, look at this scheme.

The black man, says he, should not be owned. He should work, but not
under the control of a master. His overseer should be appointed by the
State, and be amenable to the State for the proper exercise of his
authority. Now, if this learned and eloquent orator had only looked one
inch beneath the surface of his own scheme, he would have seen that it
is fraught with the most insuperable difficulties, and that its
execution must needs be attended with the most ruinous consequences.

Emancipate the blacks, then, and let the State undertake to work them.
In the first place, we must ignore every principle of political economy,
and consent to the wildest and most reckless of experiments, ere we can
agree that the State should superintend and carry on the agricultural
interests of the country. But suppose this difficulty out of the way, on
what land would the State cause _its slaves_ to be worked? It would
scarcely take possession of the plantations now under improvements; and,
setting aside the owners, proceed to cultivate the land. But it must
either do this, or else leave these plantations to become worthless for
the want of laborers, and open new ones for the benefit of the State! In
no point of view could a more utterly chimerical or foolish scheme be
well conceived. If we may not be allowed to adhere to our own plan, we
beg that some substitute may be proposed which is not fraught with such
inevitable destruction to the whole South. Otherwise, we shall fear
that these self-styled friends of humanity are more bent on carrying out
their own designs than they are on promoting our good.

But what is meant by the freedom of the emancipated slaves, on which so
many exalted eulogies have been pronounced? Its first element, it is
plain, is a freedom from labor[196]--freedom from the very first law of
nature. In one word, its sum and substance is a power on the part of the
freed black to act pretty much as he pleases. Now, before we expend
oceans of enthusiasm on such a freedom, would it not be well to see
_how_ he would be pleased to act?

Dr. Channing has told us, we are aware, of the "indomitable love of
liberty," which had been infused into the breast of "fierce barbarians"
by their native wildernesses.[197] But we are no great admirers of a
liberty which knows no law except its own will, and seeks no end except
the gratification of passion.[198] Hence, we have no very great respect
for the liberty of fierce barbarians. It would make a hell on earth. "My
maxim," exclaims Dr. Channing, "is anything but slavery!" Even slavery,
we cry, before a freedom such as his!

This kind of freedom, it should be remembered, was born in France and
cradled in the revolution. May it never be forgotten that the "Friends
of the Blacks" at Boston had their exact prototypes in "_les Amis des
Noirs_" of Paris. Of this last society Robespierre was the ruling
spirit, and Brissot the orator. By the dark machinations of the
one,[199] and the fiery eloquence of the other, the French people--_la
grande nation_--were induced, in 1791, to proclaim the principle of
equality to and for the free blacks of St. Domingo. This beautiful
island, then the brightest and most precious jewel in the crown of
France, thus became the first of the West Indies in which the dreadful
experiment of a forced equality was tried. The authors of that
experiment were solemnly warned of the horrors into which it would
inevitably plunge both the whites and the blacks of the island. Yet,
firm and immovable as death, Robespierre sternly replied, then "Perish
the colonies rather than sacrifice one iota of our principles!"[200] The
magnificent colony of St. Domingo did not quite perish, it is true; but
yet, as every one, except the philanthropic "Ami des Noirs" of the
present day, still remembers with a thrill of horror, the entire white
population soon melted, like successive flakes of snow, in the furnace
of that freedom which a Robespierre had kindled.

The atrocities of this awful massacre have had, as the historian has
said,[201] no parallel in the annals of human crime. "The negroes," says
Alison, "marched with spiked infants on their spears instead of colors;
they sawed asunder the male prisoners, and violated the females on the
dead bodies of their husbands." The work of death, thus completed with
such outbursts of unutterable brutality, constituted and closed the
first act in the grand drama of Haytien freedom.

But equality was not yet established. The colored men, or mulattoes,
beheld, with an eye burning with jealousy, the superior power and
ascendency of the blacks. Hence arose the horrors of a civil war.
Equality had been proclaimed, and anarchy produced. In this frightful
chaos, the ambitious mulattoes, whose insatiable desire of equality had
first disturbed the peace of the island, perished miserably beneath the
vengeance of the very slaves whom they had themselves roused from
subjection and elevated into irresistible power. Thus ended the second
act of the horrible drama.

This bloody discord, this wild chaos of disgusting brutalities, of
course terminated not in freedom, but in a military despotism. With the
subsequent wars and fearful destruction of human life our present
inquiry has nothing to do. We must confine our attention to the point
before us, namely, the kind of freedom achieved by the blacks of St.
Domingo. We have witnessed the two great manifestations of that freedom;
we shall now look at its closing scene. This we shall, for obvious
reasons, present in the language of an English author.

"An independent negro state," says he, "was thus established in Hayti;
but the people have not derived all the benefits which they sanguinely
expected. Released from their compulsory toil, they have not yet learned
to subject themselves to the restraints of regular industry. The first
absolute rulers made the most extraordinary efforts to overcome the
indolence which soon began to display itself. The _Code Rural_ directed
that the laborer should fix himself on a certain estate, which he was
never afterward to quit without a passport from the government. His
hours of labor and rest were fixed by statute. The whip, at first
permitted, was ultimately prohibited; but as every military officer was
allowed to chastise with a thick cane, and almost every proprietor held
a commission, the laborer was not much relieved. By these means Mr.
Mackenzie supposes that the produce of 1806 was raised to about a third
of that of 1789. But such violent regulations could not continue to be
enforced amid the succeeding agitations, and under a republican
_régime_. Almost all traces of laborious culture were soon obliterated;
large tracts, which had been one entire sugar garden, presented now only
a few scattered plantations."[202]

Thus the lands were divided out among the officers of the army, while
the privates were compelled to cultivate the soil under their former
military commanders, clothed with more than "a little brief authority."
No better could have been expected except by fools or fanatics. The
blacks might preach equality, it is true, but yet, like the more
enlightened ruffians of Paris, they would of course take good care not
to practice what they had preached. Hence, by all the horrors of their
bloody resolution, they only effected a change of masters. The white man
had disappeared, and the black man, one of their own race and color, had
assumed his place and his authority. And of all masters, it is well
known, the naturally servile are the most cruel. "The earth," says
Solomon, "cannot bear a servant when he reigneth."[203]

          "The sensual and the dark rebel in vain:
           Slaves by their own compulsion, in mad game
           They burst their manacles, to wear the _name_
           Of Freedom, graven on a heavier chain."


Thus "the world of good" they sought was found, most literally, in "the
word;" for the word, the name of freedom, was all they had achieved--at
least of good. Poverty, want, disease, and crime, were the substantial
fruits of their boasted freedom.

In 1789, the sugar exported was 672,000,000 pounds; in 1806, it was
47,516,531 pounds; in 1825, it was 2020 pounds; in 1832, it was 0
pounds. If history had not spoken, we might have safely inferred, from
this astounding decline of industry, that the morals of the people had
suffered a fearful deterioration. But we are not left to inference. We
are informed, by the best authorities,[204] that their "morals are
exceedingly bad;" and that under the reign of liberty, as it is called,
their condition has, in all respects, become far worse than it was
before. "There appears every reason to apprehend," says James Franklin,
"that it will recede into irrecoverable insignificance, poverty, and

Mr. T. Babington Macaulay has, we are aware, put forth certain notions
on the subject of liberty, which are exactly in accordance with the
views and the spirit of the abolitionists, as well as with the
cut-throat philosophy of the Parisian philanthropists of the revolution.
As these notions are found in one of his juvenile productions, and
illustrated by "a pretty story" out of Ariosto, we should not deem it
worth while to notice them, if they had not been retained in the latest
edition of his Miscellanies. But for this circumstance, we should pass
them by as the rhetorical flourish of a young man who, in his most
mature productions, is often more brillant than profound.

"Ariosto," says he, "tells a pretty story of a fairy, who, by some
mysterious law of her nature, was condemned to appear at certain seasons
in the form of a foul and poisonous snake. Those who injured her during
the period of her disguise were forever excluded from participation in
the blessings which she bestowed. But to those who, in spite of her
loathsome aspect, pitied and protected her, she afterward revealed
herself in the beautiful and celestial form which was natural to her,
accompanied their steps, granted all their wishes, filled their houses
with wealth, made them happy in love, and victorious in war. Such a
spirit is Liberty. At times she takes the form of a hateful reptile. She
grovels, she hisses, she stings. But wo to those who in disgust shall
venture to crush her! And happy are those who, having dared to receive
her in her degraded and frightful shape, shall at length be rewarded by
her in the time of her beauty and her glory."

For aught we know, all this may be very fine poetry, and may deserve the
place which it has found in some of our books on rhetoric. But yet this
beautiful passage will--like the fairy whose charms it celebrates--be so
surely transformed into a hateful snake or venomous toad, that it should
not be swallowed without an antidote. Robespierre, Danton, Marat,
Barrière, and the black Dessalines, took this hateful, hissing,
stinging, maddening reptile to their bosoms, and they are welcome to its
rewards. But they mistook the thing: it was not liberty transformed; it
was tyranny unbound, the very scourge of hell, and Satan's chief
instrument of torture to a guilty world. It was neither more nor less
than Sin, despising GOD, and warring against his image on the earth.

We do not doubt--nay, we firmly believe--that in the veritable history
of the universe, _analogous_ changes have taken place. But then these
awful changes were not mere fairy tales. They are recorded in the word
of God. When Lucifer, the great bearer of light, himself was _free_, he
sought equality with God, and thence became a hateful, hissing serpent
in the dust. But he was not fully cursed, until "by devilish art" he
reached "the organs of man's fancy," and with them forged the grand
illusion that equality alone is freedom.

For even sinless, happy Eve was made to feel herself oppressed, until,
with keen desire of equality with gods, "forth reaching to the fruit,
she plucked, she ate:"--

          "Earth felt the wound, and Nature from her seat,
           Sighing through all her works, gave signs of wo,
           That all was lost."

How much easier, then, to effect the ruin of poor, fallen man, by
stirring up this fierce desire of equality with discontented thoughts
and vain hopes of unattainable good! It is this dark desire, and not
liberty, which, in its rage, becomes the "poisonous snake;" and, though
decked in fine, allegoric, glowing garb, it is still the loathsome
thing, the "false worm," that turned God's Paradise itself into a
blighted world.

If Mr. Macaulay had only distinguished between liberty and license,
than which no two things in the universe are more diametrically opposed
to each other, his passion for fine rhetoric would not have betrayed him
into so absurd a conceit respecting the diverse forms of freedom.
Liberty is--as we have seen--the bright emanation of reason in the form
of law; license is the triumph of blind passion over all law and order.
Hence, if we would have liberty, the great deep of human passion must be
restrained. For this purpose, as Mr. Burke has said, there must be power
somewhere; and if there be not moral power within, there must be
physical power without. Otherwise, the restraints will be too weak; the
safeguards of liberty will give way, and the passions of men will burst
into anarchy, the most frightful of all the forms of tyranny. Shall we
call this liberty? Shall we seek the secure enjoyment of natural rights
in a wild reign of lawless terror? As well might we seek the pure light
of heaven in the bottomless pit. It is, indeed, a most horrible
desecration of the sacred name of liberty, to apply it either to the
butcheries and brutalities of the French Revolution, or to the more
diabolical massacres of St. Domingo. If such were freedom, it would, in
sober truth, be more fitly symbolized by ten thousand hissing serpents
than by a single poisonous snake; and by all on earth, as in heaven, it
should be abhorred. Hence, those pretended friends and advocates of
freedom, who would thus fain transmute her form divine into such
horribly distorted shapes, are with her enemies confederate in dark,
misguided league.

§ V. _The consequences of abolition to the South._

"We have had experience enough in our own colonies," says the
_Prospective Review_, for November, 1852, "not to wish to see the
experiment tried elsewhere on a larger scale." Now this, though it comes
to us from across the Atlantic, really sounds like the voice of genuine
philanthropy. Nor do we wish to see the experiment, which has brought
down such wide-spread ruin on all the great interests of St. Domingo and
the British colonies, tried in this prosperous and now beautiful land of
ours. It requires no prophet to foresee the awful consequences of such
an experiment on the lives, the liberties, the fortunes, and the morals,
of the people of the Southern States. Let us briefly notice some of
these consequences.

Consider, in the first place, the vast amount of property which would be
destroyed by the madness of such an experiment. According to the
estimate of Mr. Clay, "the total value of the slave property in the
United States is twelve hundred millions of dollars," all of which the
people of the South are expected to sacrifice on the altar of
abolitionism. It only moves the indignation of the abolitionist that we
should for one moment hesitate. "I see," he exclaims, "in the
immenseness of the value of the slaves, the enormous amount of the
robbery committed on them. I see 'twelve hundred millions of dollars'
seized, extorted by unrighteous force."[206] But, unfortunately, his
passions are so furious, that his mind no sooner comes into contact with
any branch of the subject of slavery, than instantly, as if by a flash
of lightning, his opinion is formed, and he begins to declaim and
denounce as if reason should have nothing to do with the question. He
does not even allow himself time for a single moment's serious
reflection. Nay, resenting the opinion of the most sagacious of our
statesmen as an insult to his understanding, he deems it beneath his
dignity even to make an attempt to look beneath the surface of the great
problem on which he condescends to pour the illuminations of his genius.
Ere we accept his oracles as inspired, we beg leave to think a little,
and consider their intrinsic value.

Twelve hundred millions of dollars extorted by unrighteous force! What
enormous robbery! Now, let it be borne in mind, that this is the
language of a man who, as we have seen, has--in one of his lucid
intervals--admitted that _it is right to apply force_ to compel those to
work who will not labor from rational motives. Such is precisely the
application of the force which now moves his righteous indignation!

This force, so justly applied, has created this enormous value of twelve
hundred millions of dollars. It has neither seized, nor extorted this
vast amount from others; it has simply created it out of that which, but
for such force, would have been utterly valueless. And if experience
teaches any thing, then, no sooner shall this force be withdrawn, than
the great value in question will disappear. It will not be restored; it
will be annihilated. The slaves--now worth so many hundred millions of
dollars--would become worthless to themselves, and nuisances to
society. No free State in the Union would be willing to receive
them--or a considerable portion of them--into her dominions. They would
be regarded as pests, and, if possible, everywhere expelled from the
empires of freemen.

Our lands, like those of the British West Indies, would become almost
valueless for the want of laborers to cultivate them. The most beautiful
garden-spots of the sunny South would, in the course of a few years, be
turned into a jungle, with only here and there a forlorn plantation.
Poverty and distress, bankruptcy and ruin, would everywhere be seen. In
one word, the condition of the Southern States would, in all material
respects, be like that of the once flourishing British colonies in which
the fatal experiment of emancipation has been tried.

Such are some of the fearful consequences of emancipation. But these are
not all. The ties that would be severed, and the sympathies crushed, by