ABOLITIONISM CONSIDERED AS PROPOSING NO COMPENSATION FOR
SLAVE-PROPERTY.
The political frame of society governs the world, the doctrines of
_perfectionists_ to the contrary notwithstanding; and we shall be
heartily thankful that it is so, until we can fall into better hands
than this visionary fraternity. And since the Abolitionists have come
into the political field, it might be wise for them to consider,
whether they can carry their measures in contempt of established
political principles. The responsibility of slavery is divided among
the community of nations; and there are few of those which profess
respect for the code of international law, and feel obliged by their
political relations to regard it, that have not some share in it,
directly or indirectly. Among these exceptions, if there is any, is
the Government of the United States. For we have seen, that it has
never made itself responsible for the slavery of individual States. We
have also seen, that the slave States are not responsible for its
introduction, but that it was imposed upon them by authority. And
before the public conscience of the parties concerned had become alive
to the enormities and guilt of the slave trade, and much more before
slavery itself had become the subject of public remonstrance, it had
attained to a growth in the Southern States, not easily to be
eradicated. So long, therefore, as political society is dominant, and
is bound together by common ties, by common interests, and by common
principles, no part of such society can claim of another part the
relinquishment of property in slaves without an indemnification. This
principle, it will be observed, does not vitiate the claim of the
slave to his own freedom; it only affects the parties concerned in the
political structure of general society.
The British Government acquitted itself honorably on this point, in
decreeing the abolition of slavery in its West India Colonies, and
voted a full indemnification for the property, the right to which was
thus effaced from the statute book. We say, a _full_ indemnification,
notwithstanding it is commonly rated higher, as quoted in this
country. The reason of this high quotation results from the fact, that
it is not commonly considered, perhaps not known, that slave property
in the British West Indies had depreciated so greatly and so rapidly
in a few years, by political aspects having a bearing upon it, as to
have passed, in very large amounts, into other hands, at the
depreciated price, by the necessities of bankruptcy, and consequently
graduated the valuation of all such property in the same
circumstances. Whenever, therefore, that property should be
transferred to other holders for any purpose whatever, the commercial
valuation at the time would of course be assumed as the rule of
estimate. That was the rule consulted by the British Parliament, and
it was considered, that the 20,000,000 sterling was a fair estimate of
the property redeemed. But, whether this be the exact truth or not,
the principle of indemnification was recognized, and was supposed to
have been honorably respected in this transaction.
Clearly, it must be seen, that by the political history of the world,
and the action of general society, under the sanction of which all
those commercial transactions have been carried on, which have
determined and graduated the valuation of slave property from time to
time, in all and any States where it exists, the public faith of the
world that has sanctioned and tolerated slavery so long, and thereby
profited by it, is pledged as the guardian of that property to the
indemnification of the holders, whenever the public conscience shall
demand it to be annihilated, as to its previous form, and return to
that law which generally prevails in human society. There is not a
man, woman, or child, in the circle of Christendom, hardly in the
world, that has not profited by slavery, in a commercial point of
view, which is the only point we are here concerned to notice. Much
less is there one such individual in the free States of our country,
that has not profited by it. All the property of the Northern States,
and all their commercial interests, have been interwoven with it. It
is that property which has determined the value of ours, and ours that
has determined the value of that, reciprocally. And just in proportion
to the foreign commercial relations and transactions of our country,
does the same rule apply to the respective communities with which we
have maintained such intercourse. The amount of the slave property of
the South is not theirs, except in the convenient title of a
regulation of general society; but it is the world’s, or all that part
of the world’s, where commercial transactions have determined its
estimate. But since it has been convenient for the world, for general
society, that it should _vest_ in certain persons, in the same manner
as any other property vests in certain other persons, either here or
there, in this country or any other, and that no persons should have
any other title in any other property than that which is held by this
conventional rule for general good, it would be a manifest and
flagrant injustice, robbery, for one part of general society to demand
of another part, to resign this title without indemnification, while
the party making this demand claims to hold its own. Of course, this
question does not touch the right of the slave to himself, or in any
way affect that claim.
It may be seen, then, how this matter stands in the United States. We
strike at the very foundations of society, when we use our influence
to impair the rights of property, as established by general consent;
and the impulse of the blow, in the circle of its action, must
necessarily return to ourselves, in its natural, or rather artificial,
channel, as society in all its parts is an artificial edifice. We can
no more move upon the South for such an object, than they can move
upon us; in laying our hand upon their property to impair its title,
we impair our own in the same degree. For our convenience and profit,
be it known, the title to slave property has happened to vest in them;
and for their convenience and profit the title to our property has
happened to vest in us, because we happen to be here and not there,
and they there and not here. Both titles are equally sacred in the
relations we bear to each other.
Unless, therefore, the Abolitionists have made up their minds to go
into this field in the character of pirates and brigands, we see not
how they can move an inch, till they are prepared to make the tender
of indemnification for the release of the property which they claim.
We aver solemnly, that it is with pain we have written the last
sentence, and that if any other terms would have represented the exact
truth of the case, as it stands before our mind, we should have
preferred them. We agree with the Abolitionists as to the _wrong_ of
slavery, though we dissent from them, both as to the expediency and
duty of _immediate_ emancipation, in view of all the facts and
circumstances of the case; and we dissent from them utterly, _ab imo
pectore_, as to the _validity_ of slave property, not in relation to
the slave, however, but in relation to general society; and we are
prepared to go with the nation for redemption by a fair
indemnification. Though we may have little at stake in such a concern,
yet he who has little may feel the burden more than he that has much.
We are prepared, however, to point out a way, the burden of which no
man will feel, and one that is practicable, too. To enforce abolition
without indemnification, would be as bad for the slave, as for the
master, because it would be the ruin of both; it would blot from
future history all those political Commonwealths, because they would
be absolutely too poor to maintain themselves.
The most formidable difficulty of Abolitionism, therefore, and the
most disorganizing principle, of all, plants itself on the very
threshold of the enterprise: _non-indemnification_. Their only reason,
so far as we understand, is, that indemnification would be a tacit and
implied confession on the _right_ of slavery. Admitting, that
Abolitionists themselves think and feel so; the rest of the public do
not; Abolitionists, therefore, would neither be weakened in principle,
nor injured in fact, by giving up this point, except in the workings
of their own imagination. This can be a valid objection only as it
vitiates principle before the eyes of the public, and in the view of
opponents. That, however, not being the fact, the objection ought to
lose its force. But suppose some mischievous wags _should_ say to the
Abolitionists: “Well, gentlemen, you have given up a main principle,
after all”--as they would be intitled to make declaration of their
reason for consenting to indemnification, they would not only be
defended on that point, but receive credit for making a concession,
that involves no sacrifice of principle, for the public good. Consent
to indemnification, either for one reason or for another--and every
man may have his own reason--and one of the principal causes of the
contest is superseded. But will the Abolitionists, from sheer
stubbornness, insist upon a point, which, if carried, will ruin the
slave States, and reduce them to beggary, involving in the catastrophe
the ruin of the slaves; upon a point, which levels its blow at the
foundation stone of the fabric of society, as it has heretofore
existed; upon a point, which, unless human nature be miraculously
changed, can never, no never, be gained, without the effusion of
blood, no one can tell how much, or what state of things may succeed?
Let that point be once properly adjusted, as it may be without
compromitting the principles of either party, and much, very much will
be gained towards pacification. It is not unlikely, indeed, that the
zeal of some engaged in the cause, when they shall find that they may
be required to put their hands in their pockets, will be somewhat
cooled. And is it not reasonable to suppose also, that some other
men’s zeal will be somewhat sharpened, when they shall find what will
be to them--without imputing any such motives to the aggressors--a
horde of bandits at their doors to rob them of their all?
But it may possibly be said, “We do not exactly see how the giving up
of slave property, without indemnification, will be the ruin of the
slave States.” Then we think it must be for the want of eyes.
The value of all capital is commercial, and accidental, and depends on
the ever shifting conditions of political society. This may be seen
and illustrated by the fluctuating price of that species of capital,
called stocks, which is to be found in the market of every civilized
community. The price of stocks never makes a false report, as to the
political aspects of society, but is as infallible a guage in this
particular, as is the thermometer of the weather; and the wise
statesman understands it. The same principle which determines the
value of this species of capital, determines the value of every other.
It only happens that the guage of one is always visible, and that of
the others invisible, until they come into market.
The moment emancipation for the British West Indies began to be
agitated, the value of slave and other property connected with it,
began to fall, and continued to fall, till the certainty of the event
reduced it to about one third of what it would otherwise have been, at
which time it was redeemed by the British Government at the commercial
valuation. It was only public faith in the Government which kept it
from going down to nothing; and _this nothing_ would of course have
been the ruin of the former state of society. What might succeed to
such a revolution, would have depended on contingencies which no human
foresight could solve beforehand, as every thing would have required
to be erected on a new basis. It is a new basis even as it is, but
saved from the wreck of a revolution by the care of the British
Government; and it is to be hoped, that the wise counsels and strong
arm of that Government will make it do well. It is, however, to be
observed, that the actual depreciation of slave and other property in
the British West Indies, during and in consequence of the Abolition
agitation, was so much loss to the individual holders during that
period, it being 40,000,000 sterling in slave property alone, if the
price of redemption be assumed to have been _one-third_ of the
hypothetical estimate. It may, possibly, be said, that this is
imaginary; but the only sure criterion is the commercial value at any
given time, which is always the true value.
In the same manner, the slave property of the southern States, and
other portions of their wealth necessarily connected with it, will
sink instantly, whenever it shall be seen that the Abolition movement
is likely to break down the only protection which it has; and the
wealth of the slave States will dwindle, and continue to dwindle, so
long as there is any uncertainty in their political prospects arising
from such a cause, and in exact proportion to the degree of that
uncertainty. This is a principle, a law of society, that is sure to
prevail over all other laws, because it is the concentrated action of
the entire machinery of society on a single point for the time being,
and so far as occasion calls, resulting not from the force of
legislation directly--though it may be indirectly--but from the
watchful care which every man has over his own interests, in a given
state of things.
Political economy, in all its accidental bearings and in its scope,
is, indeed, deep water for any man to dive into; but there are
certain practical principles, applicable to this question, which may
be obvious to all minds. First, slave property is the capital of the
slave States. No dispute about that, as a general truth, and
sufficiently comprehensive to decide the question now before us.
Consequently, it is this property which gives value to all other
property. Take it away, without a fair consideration, without
indemnification, and all that portion of the United States is ruined.
This is the nutshell of the matter, and comprehends it all.
“No, no,” it is said: “the same bone, and muscle, and sinews are
there.” Nay, but you have changed the whole machinery of society; you
have revolutionized it; you have put the master in the power of the
quondam slave, and constituted the latter master over the former,
without leaving the quondam master a penny in his pocket, unless
peradventure, by some good luck, here and there one may have an
interest somewhere else beyond the reach of your rapacity. Even with a
fair and full indemnification in the present master’s hand, or subject
to his order, after such a revolution; and in the midst of its
disorders and unsettled condition of things, it would be, as we think,
somewhat more than enough to baffle ordinary wisdom and perseverance
to establish permanently and comfortably that new and untried state of
society, that would be required; and it is not unlikely, that enough
would abandon the attempt in discouragement,--seeking a better fortune
in other States and Territories of the Union--to leave the residue
inadequate to sustain the interests of the several Commonwealths thus
deserted, in any degree of prosperity. They might dwindle and decline,
till all would be glad to be out of them, if they could
conscientiously. This is purely a question of domestic and political
economy, that would depend on the practical workings of such a system.
If this were the only field open before them, then they would all be
compelled to stay, and put to their strength, and make the best of it.
But we know, that men are always governed by their interests, and
habits, as to where they will stay or go.
Certainly, we do not present the doubtfulness of such a prospect,
pending on such contingencies, as an objection to the measure; but as
one that claims to be considered in this discussion, that will of
course be considered by the parties immediately concerned. It is
impossible to determine beforehand how many influences, in such a new
state of things, might operate to their discouragement or the
contrary, or what would be the balance of those influences on either
side, after each shall have been neutralized by each, to the extent of
their action. It is sufficiently obvious, however, that they would
require all the capital invested in a fair indemnification for the
property resigned, to work such a system advantageously. It would be
enough, and probably more than many of them could well endure, to
change all their habits of society and of living so entirely as the
new system would require; and those who could not satisfactorily
accommodate themselves to it, would of course emigrate--and a general
disposition to emigrate would probably involve political ruin--that
is, ruin absolute; for nothing is better for mankind, in their
associated capacity, than political prosperity, and nothing worse than
political adversity.
Admitting, then, that the effects of the operation of such a system on
the internal condition, absolute wealth, and political prosperity of
the present slave States, would present the result as _simply
doubtful_, as to what it would be with the capital of indemnification
available on the premises--what would it be without any
indemnification at all? We think this question might fairly be set
down as the end of the story and of the argument. Every practical man
must see, that it would be beggary and ruin; and that the entire field
must be abandoned to the colored race, now there, to set up such a
state of society as they might be able, unless the Government of the
United States, in charity, should take it in charge as an immense poor
house, to make the best of it they could--the white population in the
mean time, reduced to poverty, and going out where they might, to
begin the world anew.
But do the Abolitionists say, “These are questions we never regard
ourselves as bound to consider, and consequences with which we have
nothing to do.” But gentlemen, you _are_ bound to consider these
questions; you _cannot_ rid yourselves of the responsibility of these
consequences, if the work that produces them be yours. “But, _no
matter_ what becomes of the master, so the slave be free; if the
master _should_ be ruined, he has well deserved it.” _Say_ this,
gentlemen, but _once_--say it _openly_, _fairly_, _publicly_, that the
world may understand you--and we think, that will be enough.
But do the Abolitionists still say, “We can neither talk nor treat
with persons or parties, who speak of ‘_slave property_,’ of property
in the persons of men, a thing not possible _to be_, and an idea not
to be tolerated for a moment, wherever, and whatever authority, may
have usurped it.” This may be a very good reason why they should not
talk _at all_ on the subject, since it is a simple matter of fact,
which constitutes the matter and ground of controversy. We hope we
have a proper respect for scruples of conscience, and that we are
sufficiently unwilling to disturb nervous sensitiveness; but we have
not forgotten honest Joe’s definition of his own conscience, in a
certain case, when hardly pressed, viz. “I wont.” Nothing would more
effectually put a party in argument, _hors de combat_, than such
logic. There is really no getting at them; and yet they insist on
having to do with the matter. We have probably as great an aversion to
_the thing_ signified by these terms, as the Abolitionists; at least,
we used to have, and we have seen no good reason for a change of
sentiment. But for the practical purposes of so great a theme, if we
think fit to meddle with it, we see not how such language can be
avoided, as it is indispensible to set forth the facts of the case.
But, if the Abolitionists prefer to foreclose debate, by saying, “We
lay our hands upon our swords, in the presence of all persons, who
shall presume thus to insult humanity, and assume this defiance in the
presence of the country, and before the world, as to the cause in
which we are engaged, the Constitution and the laws of the land and
the Government and all the slave States to the contrary
notwithstanding,” there is of course an end of logic, and of “free
discussion;” and their position would be well understood, under such a
frank avowal. But we cannot say, that we are prepared to commend it;
although we are unable to see, how this violent setting aside of the
only terms of debate, through the medium of which the subject can be
approached, and yet urging forward the irresistible momentum of their
tremendous machinery on the parties most intimately concerned in this
question, is much short of this.