I have rested my argument on no antique authority to show the right of
slavery. I have appealed to no religious dogmas to show this right. I
have not even availed myself of the whole tenor of sacred history to
justify it, which has been done heretofore by others, and done in
vain. I have not labored to produce a voluminous collation of other
men's opinions to swell my pages. Sacred history is in the hands of
all, and its teachings need not my endorsement, recommendation, nor
reiteration. Indeed, if the right of slavery here asserted is not
based upon truth, and if it does not commend itself to the unbiased
judgment of my countrymen, then I demand that they discard it. I ask
if the argument here advanced, has been or can be refuted? If it can
be, let it be done fairly, openly, and without circumvention. Let it
be shown that barbarism ought not to subserve civilization. Let it be
shown that civilization is wrong, because it does not conduce to the
well-being and happiness of mankind; let it be shown that barbarism is
right because it does this. Let the apologists and advocates of
barbarism show its equality with civilization. Let it be denied, and
the denial proved, that the laws of universal right and justice hold
true and heaven-derived supremacy over wrong. Let it be shown that the
slave-owner has no legal right of property in his slaves. Or, if it be
admitted that he has such right, let any possible process of
emancipation be pointed out. Will the violent denunciations of
fanaticism induce him to free his slaves? Does the divided sentiment
and feeling evinced in even the division of the churches north and
south, indicate the willingness of the owners to free their slaves? If
not, then by what means are they to be set free? Is it to be by
purchase? and if so, is it proposed to pay the value of the slaves?
and how? Let it be shown that the purchase and transportation of
4,000,000 of Negroes to Africa will cost less than $2,400,000,000; or
to Central America less than $2,200,000,000. Let it be shown to be
expedient, practicable, or possible to do this; and even if done, let
it be shown to be a benefit to the slave or the master; a benefit
either to civilization or barbarism.
If none of these things can be shown, and I aver they cannot, then how
about the last startling alternative of robbing the slave-owner of his
property? of the freeing of the Negroes by servile insurrection and
civil war? What would be the cost in blood and treasure to effect
this? and the probable result of _such_ an effort at emancipation, on
the freedom and civilization of the world?
WHY ENGLAND ABOLISHED THE SLAVE TRADE,--HER DREAD OF OUR GREATNESS AND
POWER.
The truth is, the slave trade was abolished by British and Tory
influence, at about the time of the American Revolution, when slavery,
as an adjunct of colonial vassalage, could no longer subserve the
interests of British commerce. This was their first success in
circumventing us. Her complicity in the Cooley trade is an evidence of
this. She is willing to morally damn herself for purposes of
monarchical intrigue, in order to supplant us. Our agriculture and
commerce, and rapidly accumulating wealth and power, and republican
glory, are too much for her. Our example of success in freedom tempts
the loyalty of the most enlightened subjects of the British crown. The
fascinations of freedom beguile the ardent and noble aspirations of
the English democracy, and Britannia, with her antiquated and wrinkled
visage, shrinks abashed from the majestic presence of Freedom's
immortal and fadeless bloom!
This is the true cause of the present British Negro philanthropy, and
the occasion of her _assumed_ moral turpitude in elevating the heathen
barbarian of Africa to the primary plane of civilization, to the
protection of its laws, and the meliorations of its moral, political,
social, and religious institutions. It is because monarchy was
beginning to be odious in the eyes of the European democracy, when
contrasted with our antagonistical system of the divine right of the
people. It is her policy and her purpose to render our institutions
unstable by means of a suborned and venal press, and a band of
mercenary, hireling, political and religious monarchical conspirators,
parasites and traitors. These her gold can furnish. Her arms having
repeatedly failed to subjugate the American democracy, she now has
recourse to her diplomacy, her intrigues, and her gold. Twenty
millions of money expended in this way in the last twenty years, has
had its effect, and to her emissaries, and hireling presses and
scribblers, we are indebted for a dastardly generation of traitors,
who would barter the liberties of their country for the applause of
faction, and the complacency of kings.