"after proclamation is issued against slaves that run away and lie out,
it is lawful for any person whatsoever, _to kill and destroy such
slaves, by such ways and means as he, she, or they, shall think fit_,
without accusation or impeachment of any crime for the same," &c. And
lest private interest should incline the planter to mercy, (to which we
must suppose such people can have no other inducement) it is provided
and enacted in the succeeding clause, (No 28.) "That for _every slave
killed_, in pursuance of this act, or _put to death by law_, the master
or owner of such slave _shall be paid by the public_."
Also by an act of Virginia, (9 Geo. I. ch. 4. sect. 18. p. 343.) it is
ordained, "That, where any slave shall hereafter be found notoriously
guilty of going abroad in the night, or running away, and lying out, and
cannot be reclaimed from _such_ disorderly courses by the common method
of punishment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the court of the
county, upon complaint and proof thereof to them made by the owner of
such slave, to order and direct every such slave to be punished by
_dismembering, or any other_ way, not touching life, as the said county
court _shall think fit_."
I have already given examples enough of the horrid cruelties which are
sometimes _thought fit_ on such occasions. But if the innocent and most
natural act of "_running away_" from intolerable tyranny, deserves such
relentless severity, what kind of punishment have these law-makers
themselves to expect hereafter, on account of their own enormous
offences! Alas! to look for mercy (without a timely repentance) will
only be another instance of their gross injustice! "_Having their
consciences seared with a hot iron_," they seem to have lost all
apprehensions that their slaves are men, for they scruple not to number
them with beasts. See an act of Barbadoes, (No 333. p. 128.) intituled,
"An act for the better regulating of _outcries_ in open market:" here we
read of "_Negroes, cattle, coppers, and stills, and other chattels_,
brought by execution to open market to be outcried, and these (as if all
of equal importance) are ranged together _in great lots or numbers to be
sold_."
--Page 70. In the 329th act of Barbadoes, (p. 122.) it is asserted, that
"brutish slaves deserve not, for the baseness of their condition, to _be
tried by a legal trial of twelve men of their peers, or neighbourhood_,
which neither truly can be rightly done, as the subjects of England
are;" (yet slaves also are subjects of England, whilst they remain
within the British dominions, notwithstanding this insinuation to the
contrary) "nor is execution to be delayed towards them, in case of such
horrid crimes committed," &c.
A similar doctrine is taught in an act of Virginia, (9 Geo. I. ch. 4.
sect. 3. p. 339.) wherein it is ordained, "that every slave, committing
such offence as by the laws ought to be punished by death, or loss of
member, shall be forthwith committed to the common goal of the county,
&c. And the sheriff of such county, upon such commitment, shall
forthwith certify the same, with the cause thereof, to the governor or
commander in chief, &c. who is thereupon desired and impowered to issue
a commission of Oyer and Terminer, _To such persons as he shall think
fit_; which persons, forthwith after the receipt of such commission, are
impowered and required to cause the offender to be publicly arraigned
and tried, &c. without the solemnity of a jury," &c. Now let us consider
the dangerous tendency of those laws. As Englishmen, we strenuously
contend for this absolute and immutable necessity of trials by juries:
but is not the spirit and equity of this old English doctrine entirely
lost, if we partially confine that justice to ourselves alone, when we
have it in our power to extend it to others? The natural right of all
mankind, must principally justify our insisting upon this necessary
privilege in favour of ourselves in particular; and therefore if we do
not allow that the judgment of an impartial jury is indispensably
necessary in all cases whatsoever, wherein the life of man is depending,
we certainly undermine the equitable force and reason of those laws, by
which _we ourselves are protected_, and consequently are unworthy to be
esteemed either Christians or Englishmen.
Whatever right the members of a provincial assembly may have to enact
_bye laws_, for particular exigences among themselves, yet in so doing
they are certainly bound, in duty to their sovereign, to observe most
strictly the fundamental principles of that constitution, which his
Majesty is sworn to maintain; for wheresoever the bounds of the British
empire are extended, there the common law of England must of course take
place, and cannot be safely set aside by any _private law_ whatsoever,
because the introduction of an unnatural tyranny must necessarily
endanger the King's dominions. The many alarming insurrections of slaves
in the several colonies, are sufficient proofs of this. The common law
of England ought therefore to be so established in every province, as to
include the respective _bye laws_ of each province; instead of being by
them _excluded_, which latter has been too much the case.
Every inhabitant of the British colonies, black as well as white, bond
as well as free, are undoubtedly the _King's subjects_, during their
residence within the limits of the King's dominions; and as such, are
entitled to personal protection, however bound in service to their
respective masters; therefore, when any of these are put to death,
"_without the solemnity of a jury_," I fear that there is too much
reason to attribute _the guilt of murder_ to every person concerned in
ordering, the same, or in consenting thereto; and all such persons are
certainly responsible _to the King and his laws, for the loss of a
subject_. The horrid iniquity, injustice, and dangerous tendency of the
several plantation laws which I have quoted, are so apparent, that it is
unnecessary for me to apologize for the freedom with which I have
treated them. If such laws are not absolutely necessary for the
government of slaves, the law-makers must unavoidably allow themselves
to be the most cruel and abandoned tyrants upon earth; or, perhaps, that
ever were on earth. On the other hand, if it be said, that it is
impossible to govern slaves without such inhuman severity, and
detestable injustice, the same will certainly be an invincible argument
against the least toleration of slavery amongst christians, because the
temporal profit of the planter or master, however lucrative, cannot
compensate the forfeiture of his everlasting welfare, or (at least I may
be allowed to say) the apparent danger of such a forfeiture.
Oppression is a most grievous crime, and the cries of these much injured
people, (though they are only poor ignorant heathens) will certainly
reach heaven! The scriptures (_which are the only true foundation of all
laws_) denounce a tremendous judgment against the man who should offend
even one little-one; _"It were better for him_ (even the merciful
Saviour of the world hath himself declared) _that a millstone were
hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea, than that he should
offend one of these little ones."_ Luke xvii. 2. Who then shall attempt
to vindicate those inhuman establishments of government, under which,
even our own countrymen so grievously _offend_ and _oppress_ (not merely
_one_, or a few little ones, but) an immense multitude of _men, women,
children_, and the _children of their children_, from generation to
generation? May it not be said with like justice, it were better for the
English nation that these American dominions had never existed, or even
that they should have been sunk into the sea, than that the kingdom of
Great Britain should be loaded with the horrid guilt of tolerating such
abominable wickedness! In short, if the _King's prerogative_ is not
speedily exerted for the relief of his Majesty's oppressed and much
injured subjects in the British colonies, (because to _relieve the
subject_ from the oppression of petty tyrants is the principal use of
the royal prerogative, as well as the principal and most natural means
of maintaining the same) and for the extension of the British
constitution to the most distant colonies, whether in the East or West
Indies, it must inevitably be allowed, that great share of this enormous
guilt will certainly rest on this side the water.
I hope this hint will be taken notice of by those whom it may concern;
and that the freedom of it will be excused, as from a _loyal and
disinterested_ adviser.
Extracts from the writings
of several _noted authors_,
on the subject of the, _slavery of the Negroes_,
viz.
George Wallace,
Francis Hutcheson,
James Foster.
George Wallace, in his _System of the Principles of the Laws of
Scotland_, speaking of the slavery of the Negroes in our colonies, says,
"We all know that they (the Negroes) are purchased from their Princes,
who pretend to have a right to dispose of them, and that they are, like
other commodities, transported, by the merchants who have bought them,
into America, in order to be exposed to sale. If this trade admits of a
moral or a rational justification, every crime, even the most atrocious,
may be justified. Government was instituted for the good of mankind;
kings, princes, governors, are not proprietors of those who are subject
to their authority; they have not a right to make them miserable. On the
contrary, their authority is vested in them, that they may, by the just
exercise of it, promote the happiness of their people. Of course, they
have not a right to dispose of their liberty, and to sell them for
slaves. Besides no man has a right to acquire, or to purchase them; men
and their liberty are not _in commercio_; they are not either saleable
or purchaseable. One, therefore, has no body but himself to blame, in
case he shall find himself deprived of a man, whom he thought he had, by
buying for a price, made his own; for he dealt in a trade which was
illicit, and was prohibited by the most obvious dictates of humanity.
For these reasons, every one of those unfortunate men who are pretended
to be slaves, has a right to be declared to be free, for he never lost
his liberty; he could not lose it; his Prince had no power to dispose of
him. Of course, the sale was _ipso jure_ void. This right he carries
about with him, and is entitled every where to get it declared. As soon,
therefore, as he comes into a country in which the judges are not
forgetful of their own humanity, it is their duty to remember that he is
a man, and to declare him to be free. I know it has been said, that
questions concerning the state of persons ought to be determined by the
law of the country to which they belong; and that, therefore, one who
would be declared to be a slave in America, ought, in case he should
happen to be imported into Britain, to be adjudged, according to the law
of America, to be a slave; a doctrine than which nothing can be more
barbarous. Ought the judges of any country, out of respect to the law of
another, to shew no respect to their kind, and to humanity? out of
respect to a law, which is in no sort obligatory upon them, ought they
to disregard the law of nature, which is obligatory on all men, at all
times, and in all places? Are any laws so binding as the eternal laws of
justice? Is it doubtful, whether a judge ought to pay greater regard to
them, than to those arbitrary and inhuman usages which prevail in a
distant land? Aye, but our colonies would be ruined if slavery was
abolished. Be it so; would it not from thence follow, that the bulk of
mankind ought to be abused, that our pockets may be filled with money,
or our mouths with delicacies? The purses of highwaymen would be empty,
in case robberies were totally abolished; but have men a right to
acquire money by going out to the highway? Have men a right to acquire
it by rendering their fellow-creatures miserable? Is it lawful to abuse
mankind, that the avarice, the vanity, or the passions of a few may be
gratified? No! There is such a thing as justice to which the most sacred
regard is due. It ought to be inviolably observed. Have not these
unhappy men a better right to their liberty, and to their happiness,
than our American merchants have to the profits which they make by
torturing their kind? Let, therefore, our colonies be ruined, but let us
not render so many men miserable. Would not any of us, who should--be
snatched by pirates from his native land, think himself cruelly abused,
and at all times entitled to be free? Have not these unfortunate
Africans, who meet with the same cruel fate, the same right? Are they
not men as well as we, and have they not the same sensibility? Let us
not, therefore, defend or support a usage which is contrary to all the
laws of humanity.
"But it is false, that either we or our colonies would be ruined by the
abolition of slavery. It might occasion a stagnation of business for a
short time. Every great alteration produces that effect; because mankind
cannot, on a sudden, find ways of disposing of themselves, and of their
affairs; but it would produce many happy effects. It is the slavery
which is permitted in America, that has hindered it from becoming so
soon populous as it would otherwise have done. Let the Negroes be free,
and, in a few generations, this vast and fertile continent would be
crowded with inhabitants; learning, arts, and every thing would flourish
amongst them; instead of being inhabited by wild beasts, and by savages,
it would be peopled by philosophers, and by men."
Francis Hutcheson, professor of philosophy at the university of Glasgow,
in his _System of Moral Philosophy_, page 211, says "He who detains
another by force in slavery, is always bound to prove his title. The
slave sold, or carried into a distant country, must not be obliged to
prove a negative, that _he never forfeited his liberty_. The violent
possessor must, in all cases, shew his title, especially where the old
proprietor is well known. In this case, each man is the original
proprietor of his own liberty. The proof of his losing it must be
incumbent on those who deprive him of it by force. The Jewish laws had
great regard to justice, about the servitude of Hebrews, founding it
only on consent, or some crime or damage, allowing them always a proper
redress upon any cruel treatment, and fixing a limited time for it;
unless upon trial the servant inclined to prolong it. The laws about
foreign slaves had many merciful provisions against immoderate severity
of the masters. But under christianity, whatever lenity was due from an
Hebrew towards his countryman, must be due towards all; since the
distinctions of nations are removed, as to the point of humanity and
mercy, as well as natural right; nay, some of these rights granted over
foreign slaves, may justly be deemed only such indulgences as those of
poligamy and divorce, granting only external impunity in such practice,
and not sufficient vindication of them in conscience."
_Page_ 85. It is pleaded, that "In some barbarous nations, unless the
captives were bought for slaves, they would be all murthered. They,
therefore, owe their lives, and all they can do, to their purchasers;
and so do their children, who would not otherwise have come into life."
But this whole plea is no more than that of _negotium utile gestum_ to
which any civilized nation is bound by humanity; it is a prudent
expensive office, done for the service of others without a gratuitous
intention; and this founds no other right, than that to full
compensation of all charges and labour employed for the benefit of
others.
A set of inaccurate popular phrases blind us in these matters; "Captives
owe their lives, and all to the purchasers, say they. Just in the same
manner, we, our nobles, and princes, often owe our lives to midwives,
chirurgeons, physicians," &c. one who was the means of preserving a
man's life, is not therefore entitled to make him a slave, and sell him
as a piece of goods. Strange, that in a nation where the sense of
liberty prevails, where the christian religion is professed, custom and
high prospects of gain can so stupify the conscience of men, and all
sense of natural justice, that they can hear such computations made
about the value of their fellow-men, and their liberty, without
abhorrence and indignation.
_James Foster_, D.D. in his _discourses on natural religion_ and _social
virtue_ also shews his just indignation at this wicked practice; which
he declares to be "_a criminal and outrageous violation of the natural
right of mankind_." At _page_ 156, vol. 2 he says, "Should we have read
concerning the Greeks or Romans of old, that they traded with a view to
make slaves of their own species, when they certainly knew that this
would involve in schemes of blood and murder, of destroying, or
enslaving each other; that they even fomented wars, and engaged whole
nations and tribes in open hostilities, for their own private advantage;
that they had no detestation of the violence and cruelty, but only
feared the ill success of their inhuman enterprises; that they carried
men like themselves, their brethren, and the off-spring of the same
common parent, to be sold like beasts of prey, or beasts of burden, and
put them to the same reproachful trial, of their soundness, strength,
and capacity for greater bodily service; that quite forgetting and
renouncing the original dignity of human nature, communicated to all,
they treated them with more severity, and ruder discipline, than even
the _ox_ or the _ass_, who are _void of understanding_--should we not,
if this had been the case, have naturally been led to despise all their
_pretended refinements of morality_; and to have concluded, that as they
were not nations destitute of politeness, they must have been _entire
strangers to virtue and benevolence_?
"But notwithstanding this, we ourselves (who profess to be christians,
and boast of the peculiar advantage we enjoy, by means of an express
revelation of our duty from heaven) are, in effect, these very untaught
and rude heathen countries. With all our superior light, we instill into
those, whom we call savage and barbarous, the most despicable opinion of
human nature. We, to the utmost of our power, weaken and dissolve the
universal tie, that binds and unites mankind. We practise what we should
exclaim against, as the utmost excess of cruelty and tyranny, if nations
of the world, differing in colour, and form of government, from
ourselves, were so possessed of empire, as to be able to reduce us to a
state of unmerited and brutish servitude. Of consequence, we sacrifice
our reason, our humanity, our christianity, to an unnatural sordid gain.
We teach other nations to despise, and trample under foot, all the
obligations of social virtue. We take the most effectual method to
prevent the propagation of the gospel, by representing it as a scheme of
power and barbarous oppression, and an enemy to the natural privileges
and rights of men.
"Perhaps all that I have now offered, may be of very little weight to
restrain this enormity, this aggravated iniquity; however, I still have
the satisfaction of having entered my private protest against a
practice, which, in my opinion, bids that God, who is the God and Father
of the Gentiles, unconverted to christianity, most daring and bold
defiance, and spurns at all the principles both of natural and revealed
religion."
EXTRACT
From an ADDRESS
in the
VIRGINIA _GAZETTE_,
of MARCH 19, 1767.
Mr. RIND,
Permit me, in your paper, to address the members of our assembly on two
points, in which the public interest is very nearly concerned.
The abolition of slavery, and the retrieval of specie in this colony,
are the subjects on which I would bespeak their attention.--
Long and serious reflections upon the nature and consequences of slavery
have convinced me, that it is a violation both of justice and religion;
that it is dangerous to the safety of the community in which it
prevails; that it is destructive to the growth of arts and sciences; and
lastly, that it produces a numerous and very fatal train of vices, both
in the slave and in his master.
To prove these assertions, shall be the purpose of the following essay.
That slavery then is a violation of justice, will plainly appear, when
we consider what justice is. It is truly and simply defined, as by
_Justinian, constans et perpetua voluntas ejus suum cuique tribuendi_; a
constant endeavour to give every man his right.
Now, as freedom is unquestionably the birth-right of all mankind,
_Africans_ as well as _Europeans_, to keep the former in a state of
slavery, is a constant violation of that right, and therefore of
justice.
The ground on which the civilians who favour slavery, admit it to be
just, namely, consent, force, and birth, is totally disputable; for
surely a man's own will and consent cannot be allowed to introduce so
important an innovation into society, as slavery, or to make himself an
outlaw, which is really the state of a slave; since neither consenting
to, nor aiding the laws of the society in which he lives, he is neither
bound to obey them, nor entitled to their protection.
To found any right in force, is to frustrate all right, and involve
every thing in confusion, violence, and rapine. With these two, the last
must fall; since, if the parent cannot justly be made a slave, neither
can the child be born in slavery. "The law of nations, says Baron
_Montesquieu_, has doomed prisoners to slavery, to prevent their being
slain; the _Roman_ civil law permitted debtors, whom their creditors
might treat ill, to sell themselves. And the law of nature requires that
children, whom their parents, being slaves, cannot maintain, should be
slaves like them. These reasons of the civilians are not just; it is not
true that a captive may be slain, unless in a case of absolute
necessity; but if he hath been reduced to slavery, it is plain that no
such necessity existed, since he was not slain. It is not true that a
free man can sell himself, for sale supposes a price; but a slave and
his property becomes immediately that of his master; the slave can
therefore receive no price, nor the master pay, &c. And if a man cannot
sell himself, nor a prisoner of war be reduced to slavery, much less can
his child." Such are the sentiments of this illustrious civilian; his
reasonings, which I have been obliged to contract, the reader interested
in this subject will do well to consult at large.
Yet even these rights of imposing slavery, questionable, nay, refutable
as they are, we have not to authorise the bondage of the _Africans_. For
neither do they consent to be our slaves, nor do we purchase them of
their conquerors. The _British_ merchants obtain them from _Africa_ by
violence, artifice, and treachery, with a few trinkets to prompt those
unfortunate people to enslave one another by force or stratagem.
Purchase them indeed they may, under the authority of an act of the
British parliament. An act entailing upon the _Africans_, with whom we
are not at war, and over whom a British parliament could not of right
assume even a shadow of authority, the dreadful curse of perpetual
slavery, upon them and their children for ever. _There cannot be in
nature, there is not in all history, an instance in which every right of
men is more flagrantly violated._ The laws of the antients never
authorised the making slaves, but of those nations whom they had
conquered; yet they were heathens, and we are christians. They were
misled by a monstrous religion, divested of humanity, by a horrible and
barbarous worship; we are directed by the unerring precepts of the
revealed religion we possess, enlightened by its wisdom, and humanized
by its benevolence; before them, were gods deformed with passions, and
horrible for every cruelty and vice; before us, is that incomparable
pattern of meekness, charity, love and justice to mankind, which so
transcendently distinguished the Founder of christianity, and his ever
amiable doctrines.