It will be seen that the arguments here advanced are predicated, to
some extent, upon the fact that the African is a barbarian. That he is
so in his native wilds, we have shown by high authority. That he is so
in this country, is obvious, from the fact that in the South he is
held a slave, and is satisfied with his condition; and because, as a
race, the African in this country, and on this continent, shows not
the least capacity for self-control. In the South, the African, in his
best estate, is a slave. In the North, laws are wisely enacted to
prevent him from going there, because of his barbarism, and because
that portion of the most advanced race on earth shrinks from contact
with it. The fact, then, of his barbarism is sustained, fully,--by his
normal condition in Africa; his condition of retrogradation in Jamaica
and San Domingo, where the experiment of emancipation has proved a
failure, where the relapse into barbarism is sure and irrevocable; and
in this country, where common sense and public opinion and public law,
both North and South, hold him in the condition of social, moral, and
physical vassalage and servitude, and confine him effectually within
certain prescribed limits, or hold him in that marked estimation of
inferiority which makes him forever conscious of his own degradation.
I have felt justified, therefore, not by way of opprobrium, nor in the
spirit of invidious or odious comparison, to name the category in
which he belongs, and then, by fair moral and philosophical argument
to deduce the justice and right of civilization in holding dominion
over him.