If Slavery be regarded as the subjection of one man, by force, to the
will of another, all other considerations being left out of view, it
must appear to be the most cruel outrage to which humanity is liable.
But the control of one man over another, of some men over other men, of
individuals over masses, may exist without implying outrage or wrong.
It is as a representative that man exercises power--as the
representative of truths, principles, sentiments. Thus the officials of
a government, few in number, representing order and justice, personify
the sovereignty of the realm, and rule over millions.
The will and the understanding constitute the man; the strength and
purity of the one, the capacity of the other, form the measure of his
just influence. Sometimes it may happen, when there is need that a
nation should have the energy of action and singleness of purpose of an
individual mind, that a man shall arise capable of embodying in himself
the intellect and the will of the nation, which he will then control
with despotic sway. Such was Napoleon in the earlier period of his
career, who with some show of truth could have adopted the saying of
one of his predecessors on the throne of France, “_l’état c’est moi_.”
Slavery, if it implies the degradation of an equal, or the subjugation
by brute force of a superior--what is it but a shocking atrocity, most
monstrous to think of! When we read of the enslaving of Christians,
refined and intelligent persons, by the corsairs of Algiers, as used in
former times to happen, the mind revolts at such violations of right
and justice.
It is usual, when one speaks of Slavery, to imagine himself in
the condition of servitude, and thence to form his conceptions of
the injustice of that relation, and to express his indignation
accordingly. But this is to take a very partial view of the matter.
Freedom, in its usual acceptation, means the absence of external
control. But there must be a power to control some where. If it be not
in the will and understanding of the man himself, it must be in the
will and understanding of some one else; if not in one or the other,
after some fashion, then society perishes. In other words, men or
nations who can not govern themselves must be governed.
A perverted will or an imbecile understanding, at certain stages, works
the forfeit of freedom in the freest communities on earth. Prisons
and penitentiaries are for the one; lunatic asylums for the other.
Children, wanting the power of self-direction, are kept under control
for a period more than half as long as the average duration of human
life.
With regard to servitude, there are various degrees of it. In some
parts of Europe _serfdom_ exists, with its usages more or less
restrictive. In all the kingdoms of Europe there are subordinations
of ranks, by which some classes are constituted superior and others
are kept in subjection. There is but one principle running through
all these gradations. Control on the one hand; obedience on the
other; these are the correlatives. In whatever forms, modes, customs,
institutions or laws, these relations may be reduced to actual
operation; whether the terms to denote them be king and subject, lord
and vassal, upper classes and lower classes, or master and slave, the
ideas of command and subjugation, in some form or other, are still
presented.
The question then is of _more_ or _less_ freedom. For if _Freedom_
be used to denote a positive definite thing, or, in the slang of
metaphysics, an _abstract right_, where is the standard to be fixed
to measure it by? Shall we look to England, and take the half starved
operative as the type of this impalpable entity--the half starved
operative, with freedom only to choose whether he shall be a drudge or
a pauper, and often saved the trouble of deciding by finding himself
both? The English operative! part and parcel of the machinery which
fills the markets of the world with British manufactures--a working
anatomy of bone and muscle, animated by a vital principle instead of
steam, and thereby differing from the other works and running gear of
the mills!
The relation of master and slave implies the extremes of control on
the one hand, and obedience on the other; some intermediate forms of
which extend throughout all society. Whether the relation be proper
or not, must depend mainly on the greater or less disparity between
the two classes, and the circumstances which mark their connection. If
the masters be of one race, and the slaves of another; if they be of
different complexions; if the former be characterized by great strength
of will and capacity of understanding, while the latter are weak in
both; it is inevitable, if these two races must dwell together in one
community, that the one should occupy the position of masters and the
other that of slaves. They could not hold intercourse together on any
other terms. If the inferior race should prove fierce and intractable,
like our aboriginal Indians, they must disappear as the master power
approaches; if they are docile and gentle, like the negroes, they may
live in domestic servitude, and thrive in that condition. It may be
remarked that the negro is the only race that has ever been able to
abide in contact with the Anglo-Saxon.