PROTECTION, AND CHARITY, TO THE WEAK.
A mere verbal formula often distinguishes a truism from a paradox. "It
is the duty of society to protect the weak;" but protection cannot be
efficient without the power of control; therefore, "It is the duty of
society to enslave the weak." And it is a duty which no organized and
civilized society ever failed to perform. Parents, husbands, guardians,
teachers, committees, &c, are but masters under another name, whose duty
it is to protect the weak, and whose right it is to control them. The
blacks in America are both positively and relatively weak. Positively
so, because they are too improvident to lay up for the exigencies of
sickness, of the seasons, or of old age. Relatively so, because they are
wholly unequal to the whites among whom they live, in the war of the
wits and free competition, which universal liberty begets, and political
economy encourages.
In old countries the white laborers are relatively weak, because all
property is closely appropriated, and the capitalist class possess the
means of unlimited oppression. Everybody admits that in such countries
the poor need protection. But there can be no efficient protection
without enslavement of some sort. In England, it has often been
remarked, that all the legislation for the poor is borrowed from the
system of domestic slavery.
Public and private charity is a fund created by the labor of the
industrious poor, and too often bestowed on the idle or improvident. It
is apt to aggravate the evils which it intends to cure.
Those who give should have the power to control, to some extent, the
conduct and expenditure of the objects of their charity. Not till then
can they be sure that their gifts will be promotive of good. But such
power of control would be slavery.
Can abolitionists solve these social problems?
Ambition has ever been considered the most noble of human failings. It
is, however, no failing, or crime, at all. Ambition desires power, and
without power there can be no safe, prudent and active benevolence. The
selfish, the indolent, and the timid, are without ambition, and eschew
power, because of the trouble, the expenses, and the responsibilities
which it imposes. The actively good are always ambitious, and desire to
possess power, in order that they may control, in some measure, the
conduct of those whom they desire to benefit.
The best thing a philanthropist can do, is to buy slaves, because then
his power of control is greatest--his ability to do practical good, most
perfect.
We take this occasion to correct an error into which we had fallen as
to Northern character. Benevolence, affection, generosity, and
philanthropy, are equally common North and South; and only differ in
their modes of manifestation. We are one people.
The daily and hourly exercise of these qualities is elicited at the
South, because it is safe, prudent and expedient so to exercise them.
The reverse is true at the North: yet, "expel Nature and she will return
again." Man is social and philanthropic, and his affections, dammed out
in one direction, find vent and gush out in another. The people of the
North are far more generous and munificent in the endowment of public
charities, and other public institutions, than we. This correction of
our error does not affect our theories--if it be true, that you can only
safely be charitable to dependents whom you can control. But if it did
or does affect, neutralize and subvert them, it is due to truth,--and if
we advance the cause of truth, we are ready for the sacrifice of all
else.
"Our Trip to the North" excited doubts as to our estimate of Northern
character; and subsequent observation, reading and reflection, have
brought us to the conclusion, which we now with pleasure avow. We would
rather be right than consistent.