SECTION III.

THE AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY RECOGNISES SLAVES AS PROPERTY.

The heresies of this combination are flagrant and numerous. A larger

volume than this is needed to define and illustrate them all. Much

important evidence, and many pertinent reflections, I am compelled to

suppress.

My next allegation against it is, _that it recognises slaves as

property_. This recognition is not merely technical, or strictly

confined to a statutable interpretation. I presume the advocates of the

Society will attempt to evade this point, by saying that it never meant

to concede the moral right of the masters to possess human beings; but

the evidence against them is full and explicit. The Society, if language

mean any thing, does unequivocally acknowledge property in slaves to be

as legitimate and sacred as any other property, of which to deprive the

owners either by force or by legislation, without making restitution,

would be unjust and tyrannical. Here is the proof:

'It interferes in no wise with the _rights of property_.' * *

'It is utterly opposed to any measures which might infringe upon

the _rights of property_.' * * 'We hold their slaves _as we hold

their other property_, SACRED.'--[African Repository, vol. i.

pp. 39, 225, 283.]

'Does this Society wish to meddle with our slaves as our

_rightful property_? I answer _no_, I think not.' * * 'The

Society cannot be justly charged with aiming to disturb the

_rights of property_ or the peace of society.' * * 'It seeks to

affect no man's _property_.' * * 'To found in Africa, an empire

of _christians and republicans_; to reconduct the blacks to

their native land, without disturbing the order of society, the

_laws of property_, or the rights of individuals,' &c.--[African

Repository, vol. ii. pp. 13, 58, 334, 375.]

'They are also convinced, that the Society have conducted their

operations with so much prudence, as to give no cause of alarm

to the holders of slaves, for the security of _this

property_.'--[African Repository, volume iii. p. 341.]

'The rights of masters are to remain sacred in the eyes of the

Society.'--[African Repository, vol. iv. p. 274.]

'The Society has never interfered, and has no disposition to

interfere with the rights of private property.' * * 'The alarm

for the rights of property appears to have subsided, and the

Society is no longer charged with any sinister or insidious

design. It has constantly disclaimed any intention of disturbing

the rights of others; and its conduct entitles its declaration

to credit.' * * 'The American Colonization Society has, at all

times, solemnly disavowed any purpose of interference with the

institutions or rights of our Southern communities.' * * 'Our

friends, who are cursed with this greatest of human evils

(slavery) deserve our kindest attention and consideration. Their

_property_ and safety are both involved.'--[African Repository,

vol. v. pp. 215, 241, 307, 334.]

'It has constantly disclaimed all intention whatever of

interfering, in the smallest degree, with the rights of

property.' * * 'The Society, from considerations like these,

whilst it disclaims the remotest idea of ever disturbing the

_right of property_ in slaves,' &c. * * 'It is not the object of

this Society to liberate slaves, or touch the rights of

_property_.' * * 'Honorable instances might be adduced of

_disinterested benevolence_ on the part of the owners of slaves,

and of their _sacrificing property_ to a large amount, in their

enfranchisement and restoration to the land of their ancestors.'

* * 'The American Society has disclaimed from the first moment

of its institution, all intention of interfering with _rights of

property_.' * * 'The federal government has no control over this

subject: it concerns rights of property secured by the federal

compact, upon which our civil liberties mainly depend; it is a

part of the same collection of political rights; and _any

invasion of it would impair the tenure by which every other is

held_.' * * 'It is equally plain and undeniable, that the

Society in the prosecution of this work, has never interfered or

evinced even a disposition to interfere in any way with the

_rights of proprietors of slaves_.' * * 'The slaveholder, so far

from having just cause to complain of the Colonization Society,

has reason to congratulate himself, that in this Institution a

channel is opened up, in which the public feeling and public

action can flow on, without doing violence to his

_rights_.'--[African Repository, vol. vi. pp. 13, 69, 81, 153,

165, 169, 205, 363.]

'It was proper again and again to repeat, that it was far from

the intention of the Society to affect, in any manner, the

tenure by which a _certain species of property_ is held. He was

himself a slaveholder; _and he considered that kind of property

as inviolable as any other in the country_.'--[Speech of Henry

Clay.--First Annual Report.]

'Your committee would not thus favorably regard the prayer of

the memorialists, if it sought to impair, _in the slightest

degree, the rights of private property_.'--[Report of the

committee of the House of Representatives of the United States,

on the memorial of the President and Board of Managers of the

Colonization Society.--Second Annual Report.]

'The Society has at all times recognised the constitutional and

LEGITIMATE existence of slavery.'--[Tenth Annual Report.]

'The Society protests that it has no designs on the rights of

the master in the slave--or the property in his slave, which the

laws guarantee to him.'--[Fourteenth Annual Report.]

'Something he must yet be allowed to say, as regarded the object

the Society was set up to accomplish. This object, if he

understood it aright, _involved no intrusion on property_, NOR

EVEN UPON PREJUDICE.'--[Fifteenth Annual Report.]

'To the slaveholder, who had charged upon them the wicked design

of interfering with the RIGHTS OF PROPERTY under the specious

pretext of removing a vicious and dangerous free population,

they address themselves in a tone of conciliation and sympathy.

We know your rights, say they, and _we respect them_.' * *

'Equally absurd and false is the objection, that this Society

seeks indirectly to disturb the rights of property, and to

interfere with the well established relation subsisting between

master and slave.'--[African Repository, vol. vii. pp. 100,

228.]

'I repeat, that though not a slaveholder, yet I think that every

man ought to be protected in his property, and as the laws of

our country have decreed that negroes are property, every person

that holds a slave, according to these laws, ought to be

protected.'--['A new and interesting View of Slavery.' By

Humanitas, a colonization advocate. Baltimore, 1820.]

'We are made to disregard this description of _property_, and to

touch without reserve the _rights_ of our

neighbors.'--[Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the

New-Jersey Colonization Society.]

Thus the American Colonization Society shamelessly surrenders the claims

of justice, and leaves the enemies of oppression weaponless! Hence it

rejects the proposition, that _man cannot hold property in man_; and we

are called upon to prove that which is self-evident. No accidental

differences of condition or complexion--no vicissitudes of fortune--no

reprisal or purchase or inheritance, can justly make one individual the

slave of another. When God created man, he gave him dominion over the

fowls of the air and the beasts of the field; but not over his fellow

man. 'All men are born free and equal,' and are 'made of one blood.'

Shall we look to wealth as giving one a title to the labor and freedom

of another? Wealth is the creature of circumstances, and not an

arbitrary law of nature. It takes to itself wings, and flies away; and

he who is an opulent tyrant to-day, may on this principle be an

impoverished slave to-morrow. Does physical strength make valid this

claim? This, too, is evanescent: sickness and age would ultimately

degrade the most muscular tyrants to servitude; and mankind would be

composed of but two parties--the strong and the weak. Can high birth

annul the rights of the lower classes? There is no difference at their

birth, between the children of the beggar and those of the king. 'We

brought nothing into this world,' says an inspired apostle, 'and it is

certain we can carry nothing out.'

Man is created a rational being; and therefore he is a subject of moral

government, and accountable. Being rational and accountable, he is bound

to improve his mind and intellect. With this design, his Creator has

outstretched the heavens, and set the sun in his course, and hung out

the burning jewels of the sky, and spread abroad the green earth, and

poured out the seas, that he might steadily progress in knowledge.

The slaves are men; they were born, then, as free as their masters; they

cannot be property; and he who denies them an opportunity to improve

their faculties, comes into collision with Jehovah, and incurs a fearful

responsibility. But we know that they are not treated like rational

beings, and that oppression almost entirely obliterates their sense of

moral obligation to God or man.

I fully coincide in opinion with the authoress of a work entitled,

'IMMEDIATE, NOT GRADUAL ABOLITION,' that the holder of a slave, whether

he obtained him by purchase or by inheritance, is as guilty as the

original thief.[K] The wretch who stole him could by no possible means

acquire or transmit the right to make a slave of him, or to keep him in

slavery. _He has a right to his liberty:_--through whatever number of

transfers the usurpation of it may have passed, the right is

undiminished.

No man, says Algernon Sidney, can have a right over others, unless it be

by them granted to him: That which is not just, is not law; and that

which is not law, ought not to be in force: Whosoever grounds his

pretensions of right upon usurpation and tyranny, declares himself to be

an usurper and a tyrant--that is, an enemy to God and man--and to have

no right at all: _That which was unjust in its beginning, can of itself

never change its nature:_ HE WHO PERSISTS IN DOING INJUSTICE, AGGRAVATES

IT, AND TAKES UPON HIMSELF ALL THE GUILT OF HIS PREDECESSORS: The right

to be free is a truth planted in the hearts of men, and acknowledged so

to be by all who have hearkened to the voice of nature, and disproved by

none but such as through wickedness, stupidity, or baseness of spirit,

seem to have degenerated into the worst of beasts, and to have retained

nothing of men but the outward shape, or the ability of doing those

mischiefs which they have learnt from their master the devil.

The following is the indignant, emphatic, eloquent language of HENRY

BROUGHAM, on the subject of slave property:

'_Tell me not of rights--talk not of the property of the planter

in his slaves._ I DENY THE RIGHT--I ACKNOWLEDGE NOT THE

PROPERTY. The principles, the feelings of our common nature,

rise in rebellion against it. Be the appeal made to the

understanding or to the heart, the sentence is the same that

rejects it. In vain you tell me of the laws that sanction such a

claim! There is a law above all the enactments of human

codes--the same throughout the world, the same in all

times--such as it was before the daring genius of Columbus

pierced the night of ages, and opened to one world the sources

of power, wealth and knowledge; to another, all unutterable

woes;--such it is at this day: it is the law written by the

finger of God on the heart of man; and by that law, unchangeable

and eternal, while men despise fraud, and loathe rapine, and

abhor blood, they shall reject with indignation the wild and

guilty fantasy, that man can hold property in man! In vain you

appeal to treaties, to covenants between nations. The covenants

of the Almighty, whether the old or the new, denounce such

unholy pretensions. To those laws did they of old refer, who

maintained the African trade. Such treaties did they cite, and

not untruly; for by one shameful compact, you bartered the

glories of Blenheim for the traffic in blood. Yet, in despite of

law and of treaties, that infernal traffic is now destroyed, and

its votaries put to death like other pirates. How came this

change to pass? Not assuredly by parliament leading the way; but

the country at length awoke; the indignation of the people was

kindled; it descended in thunder, and smote the traffic, and

scattered its guilty profits to the winds. Now, then, let the

planters beware--let their assemblies beware--let the government

at home beware--let the parliament beware! the same country is

once more awake,--awake to the condition of negro slavery; the

same indignation kindles in the bosom of the same people; the

same cloud is gathering that annihilated the slave trade; and,

if it shall descend again, they, on whom its crash shall fall,

will not be destroyed before I have warned them; but I pray that

their destruction may turn away from us the more terrible

judgments of God!'

Is this the language of fanaticism? Is Henry Brougham a madman?

The following extracts must close the evidence in support of my third

allegation, that the Colonization Society disregards the fundamental

principle of human liberty and equality, that man cannot hold _property_

in man:

'Let me ask, who can wish under existing circumstances that the

constitution should be altered, when it must bring with it a

_violation of property_--and when that violation of private

property must engender such hostility of feelings, and elicit

such bitter vituperation? The whole Union would feel a

concussion, and no one can count the costs of the contest.'

* * * 'By means of our colony, they may remove their slaves and

restore them to freedom--and at the same time no way jeopardize

the safety of themselves or their _property_.'--[Proceedings of

the First Annual Meeting of the New-Jersey Colonization

Society.]

'The establishment of our colony will afford facilities to

proprietors for completing in Africa the exercise of the _right

which can only be partially exercised in this country, of

disposing of our property, in our own way, without injury to the

community_.'--[Fourteenth Annual Report.]

What audacity do those advocates of the Society exhibit, who use, in

reference to beings made a little lower than the angels, language like

this--'disposing of _our property_ in _our own way_'--'we hold their

_slaves_, as we hold their other _property_, SACRED'!![L] If they really

mean and believe what they say, it is something more heinous than

impertinence to urge the planters to dispossess themselves of their

property by colonization; and if the slaves belong _of right_ to

them,--are on a par with goods and chattels,--how idle, how supremely

ridiculous it is to mourn over their _wretched condition_, to sigh for

their emancipation, to declaim against the evil and wickedness of

slavery, or even to denounce the slave trade! But the unfortunate blacks

are not now, and never can be, the property of the planters;

consequently the claims of their pretended owners are no better than

those of the pirate or highway robber.

FOOTNOTES:

[K] The owners of slaves are licensed robbers, and not the just

proprietors of what they claim: freeing them is not depriving them of

property, but restoring it to the right owner; it is suffering the

unlawful captive to escape. It is not wronging the master, but doing

justice to the slave, restoring him to himself. Emancipation would only

take away property that is its own property, and not ours; property that

has the same right to possess us, as we have to possess it; property

that has the same right to convert our children into dogs and calves and

colts, as we have to convert theirs into these beasts; property that may

transfer our children to strangers, by the same right that we transfer

theirs.--_Rice._

[L] 'Is there no difference between a vested interest in a house or a

tenement, and a vested interest in a human being? No difference between

a right to bricks and mortar, and a right to the flesh of man--a right

to torture his body and to degrade his mind at your good will and

pleasure? There is this difference,--the right to the house originates

in law, and is reconcilable to justice; the claim (for I will not call

it a right) to the man, originated in robbery, and is an outrage upon

every principle of justice, and every tenet of religion.'--_Speech of

Fowell Buxton in the British Parliament._

Thoughts on African Colonization · 第 3 / 11 章