THOUGHTS ON THE NECESSITY OF IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF THE SLAVES IN
THE BRITISH COLONIES, WITH A VIEW TO THEIR ULTIMATE EMANCIPATION; AND ON
THE PRACTICABILITY, THE SAFETY, AND THE ADVANTAGES OF THE LATTER
MEASURE.
BY T. CLARKSON, ESQ.
1823.
PREFACE.
The following sheets first appeared in a periodical work called The
Inquirer. They are now republished without undergoing any substantial
alteration. The author however thinks it due to himself to state, that
_he would have materially qualified those parts of his essay which speak
of the improved Condition of the Slaves in the West Indies since the
abolition_, had he then been acquainted with the recent evidence
obtained upon that subject. His present conviction certainly is, that he
has overrated that improvement, and that in point of fact Negro Slavery
is, in its main and leading feature, the same system which it was when
the Abolition controversy first commenced.
It is possible there may be some, who, having glanced over the Title
Page of this little work, may be startled at the word _Emancipation_. I
wish to inform such, that Mr. Dundas, afterwards Lord Melville, an acute
Man, and a Friend to the Planters, _proposed this very measure to
Parliament_ in the year 1792. We see, then, that the word Emancipation
cannot be charged with _Novelty_. It contains now _no new ideas_. It
contains now nothing but what has been _thought practicable_, and _even
desirable to be accomplished_. The Emancipation which I desire is such
an Emancipation only, as I firmly believe to be compatible not only with
the due subordination and happiness of the labourer, but with the
permanent interests of his employer.
I wish also to say, in case any thing like an undue warmth of feeling on
my part should be discovered in the course of the work, that I had no
intention of being warm against the West Indians as a body. I know that
there are many estimable men among them living in England, who deserve
every desirable praise for having sent over instructions to their Agents
in the West Indies from time to time in behalf of their wretched Slaves.
And yet, alas! even these, _the Masters themselves, have not had
influence enough to secure the fulfilment of their own instructions upon
their own estates_; nor will they, _so long as the present system
continues_. They will never be able to carry their meritorious designs
into effect against _Prejudice, Law, and Custom_. If this be not so, how
happens it that you cannot see the Slaves, belonging to such estimable
men, _without marks of the whip upon their backs_? The truth is, that
_so long as overseers, drivers, and others, are entrusted with the use
of arbitrary power_, and _so long as Negro-evidence is invalid against
the white oppressor_, and _so long as human nature continues to be what
it is_, _no order_ from the Master for the better personal treatment of
the Slave _will or can be obeyed_. It is against the _system_ then, and
not against the West Indians as a body, that I am warm, should I be
found so unintentionally, in the present work.
One word or two now on another part of the subject. A great noise will
be made, no doubt, when the question of Emancipation comes to be
agitated, about _the immense property at stake_, I mean the property of
the Planters;--and others connected with them. This is all well. Their
interests ought undoubtedly to be attended to. But I hope and trust,
that, if property is to be attended to _on one side_ of the question, it
will be equally attended to _on the other_. This is but common justice.
If you put into one scale _the gold_ and _jewels_ of the Planters, you
are bound to put into the other _the liberty_ of 800,000 of the African
race; for every man's liberty is _his own property_ by the laws of
_Nature_, _Reason_, _Justice_, and _Religion_? and, if it be not so with
our West Indian Slaves, it _is only because_ they have been, and
continue to be, _deprived_ of it _by force_. And here let us consider
for a moment which of these two different sorts of property is of the
greatest value. Let us suppose an English gentleman to be seized by
ruffians on the banks of the Thames (and why not a _gentleman_ when
African _princes_ have been so served?) and hurried away to a land (and
Algiers is such a land, for instance), where white persons are held as
Slaves. Now this gentleman has not been used to severe labour (neither
has the African in his own country); and being therefore unable, though
he does his best, to please his master, he is roused to further exertion
_by the whip_. Perhaps he takes this treatment indignantly. This only
secures him _a severer punishment_. I say nothing of his being badly
fed, or lodged, or clothed. If he should have a wife and daughters with
him, how much more cruel would be his fate! to see the tender skins of
these lacerated by the whip! to see them torn from him, with a
knowledge, that they are going to be compelled to submit to the lust of
an overseer! _and no redress_. "How long," says he, "is this frightful
system, which tears my body in pieces and excruciates my soul, which
kills me by inches, and which involves my family in unspeakable misery
and unmerited disgrace, to continue?"--"For _ever_," replies a voice
Suddenly: "_for ever_, as relates to your _own_ life, and the life _of
your wife and daughters_, and that of _all their posterity_," Now would
not this gentleman give _all that he had left behind him_ in England,
and _all that he had in the world besides_, and _all that he had in
prospect and expectancy_, to get out of this wretched state, though he
foresaw that on his return to his own country he would be obliged to beg
his bread for the remainder of his life? I am sure he would. I am sure
he would _instantly_ prefer his _liberty to his gold_. There would not
be _the hesitation of a moment_ as to the choice he would make. I hope,
then, that if _the argument of property_ should he urged on _one side_
of the question, the _argument of property (liberty) will not be
overlooked on the other_, but that they will be fairly weighed, the one
against the other, and that an allowance will be made as the scale shall
preponderate on either side.
THOUGHTS, &c.
I know of no subject, where humanity and justice, as well as public and
private interest, would be more intimately united than in that, which
should recommend a mitigation of the slavery, with a view afterwards to
the emancipation of the Negroes, wherever such may be held in bondage.
This subject was taken up for consideration, so early as when the
Abolition of the slave trade was first practically thought of, and by
the very persons who first publicly embarked in that cause in England;
but it was at length abandoned by them, not on the ground _that Slavery
was less cruel, or wicked, or impolitic, than the slave trade_, but for
other reasons. In the first place there were not at that time so many
obstacles in the way of the Abolition, as of the Emancipation of the
Negroes. In the second place Abolition could be effected immediately,
and with but comparatively little loss, and no danger. Emancipation, on
the other hand, appeared to be rather a work of time. It was beset too
with many difficulties, which required deep consideration, and which, if
not treated with great caution and prudence, threatened the most
alarming results. In the third place, it was supposed, that, by
effecting the abolition of the slave trade, the axe would be laid to the
root of the whole evil; so that by cutting off the more vital part of
it, the other would gradually die away:--for what was more reasonable
than to suppose, that, when masters could no longer obtain Slaves from
Africa or elsewhere, they would be compelled individually, by a sort of
inevitable necessity, or a fear of consequences, or by a sense of their
own interest, _to take better care of those whom they might then have in
their possession_? What was more reasonable to suppose, than that the
different legislatures themselves, moved also by the same necessity,
_would immediately interfere_, without even the loss of a day, _and so
alter and amend the laws_ relative to the treatment of Slaves, as to
enforce that as a public duty, which it would be thus the private
interest of individuals to perform? Was it not also reasonable to
suppose that a system of better treatment, thus begun by individuals,
and enforced directly afterwards by law, would produce more willing as
well as more able and valuable labourers than before; and that this
effect, when once visible, would again lead both masters and legislators
on the score of interest to treat their slaves still more like men; nay,
at length to give them even privileges; and thus to elevate their
condition by degrees, till at length it would be no difficult task, and
no mighty transition, _to pass them_ to that most advantageous situation
to both parties, _the rank of Free Men?_
These were the three effects, which the simple measure of the abolition
of the slave trade was expected to produce by those, who first espoused
it, by Mr. Granville Sharp, and those who formed the London committee;
and by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Wilberforce, and others of
illustrious name, who brought the subject before Parliament. The
question then is, how have these fond expectations been realized? or how
many and which of these desirable effects have been produced? I may
answer perhaps with truth, that in our own Islands, where the law of the
abolition is not so easily evaded, or where there is less chance of
obtaining new slaves, than in some other parts, there has been already,
that is, since the abolition of the slave trade, a somewhat _better
individual_ treatment of the slaves than before. A certain care has been
taken of them. The plough has been introduced to ease their labour.
Indulgences have been given to pregnant women both before and after
their delivery; premiums have been offered for the rearing of infants to
a certain age; religious instruction has been allowed to many. But when
I mention these instances of improvement, I must be careful to
distinguish what I mean;--I do not intend to say, that there were no
instances of humane treatment of the slaves before the abolition of the
slave trade. I know, on the other hand, that there were; I know that
there were planters, who introduced the plough upon their estates, and
who much to their Honour granted similar indulgences, premiums, and
permissions to those now mentioned, previously to this great event. All
then that I mean to say is this, that, independently of the common
progress of humanity and liberal opinion, the circumstance of not being
able to get new slaves as formerly, has had its influence upon some of
our planters; that it has made some of them think more; that it has put
some of them more upon their guard; and that there are therefore upon
the whole, more instances of good treatment of slaves by individuals in
our Islands (though far from being as numerous as they ought to be) than
at any former period.
But, alas! though the abolition of the slave trade may have produced a
somewhat better individual treatment of the slaves, and this also to a
somewhat greater extent than formerly, _not one of the other effects_,
so anxiously looked for, has been realized. The condition of the slaves
has not yet been improved by _law_. It is a remarkable, and indeed
almost an incredible fact, _that no one effort has been made_ by the
legislative bodies in our Islands with _the real_ intention of meeting
the new, the great, and the extraordinary event of the abolition of the
slave trade. While indeed this measure was under discussion by the
British Parliament, an attempt was made in several of our Islands to
alter the old laws with a view, as it was then pretended, of providing
better for the wants and personal protection of the slaves; but it was
afterwards discovered, that the promoters of this alteration never meant
to carry it into effect. It was intended, by making a show of these
laws, _to deceive the people of England_, and _thus to prevent them from
following up the great question of the abolition_. Mr. Clappeson, one of
the evidences examined by the House of Commons, was in Jamaica, when the
Assembly passed their famous consolidated laws, and he told the House,
that "he had often heard from people there, that it was passed because
of the stir in England about the slave trade;" and he added, "that
slaves continued to be as ill treated there _since the passing of that
act as before_." Mr. Cook, another of the evidences examined, was long
resident in the same island, and, "though he lived there also _since the
passing of the_ act, _he knew of no legal protection_, which slaves had
against injuries from their masters." Mr. Dalrymple was examined to the
same point for Grenada. He was there in 1788, when the Act for that
island was passed also, called "An Act for the better Protection and
promoting the Increase and Population of Slaves." He told the House,
that, "while he resided there, the proposal in the British Parliament
for the abolition of the slave trade was a matter of general discussion,
and that he believed, that this was a principal reason for passing it.
He was of opinion, however, that this Act would prove ineffectual,
because, as Negro evidence was not to be admitted, those, who chose to
abuse their slaves, might still do it with impunity; and people, who
lived on terms of intimacy, would dislike the idea of becoming spies and
informers against each other." We have the same account of the
ameliorating Act of Dominica. "This Act," says Governor Prevost,
"appears to have been considered from the day it was passed until this
hour as _a political measure to avert the interference of the mother
country in the management of the slaves_." We, are informed also on the
same authority, that the clauses of this Act, which had given a promise
of better days, "_had been wholly neglected_." In short, the Acts passed
in our different Islands for the pretended purpose of bettering the
condition of the slaves have been all of them most shamefully
neglected; and they remain only a dead letter; or they are as much a
nullity, as if they had never existed, at the present day.
And as our planters have done nothing yet effectively by _law_ for
ameliorating the condition of their slaves, so they have done nothing or
worse than nothing in the case of their _emancipation_. In the year 1815
Mr. Wilberforce gave notice in the House of Commons of his intention to
introduce there a bill for the registration of slaves in the British
colonies. In the following year an insurrection broke out among some
slaves in Barbadoes. Now, though this insurrection originated, as there
was then reason to believe, in local or peculiar circumstances, or in
circumstances which had often produced insurrections before, the
planters chose to attribute it to the Registry Bill now mentioned. They
gave out also, that the slaves in Jamaica and in the other islands had
imbibed a notion, that this Bill was to lead to _their emancipation_;
that, while this notion existed, their minds would be in an unsettled
state; and therefore that it was necessary that _it should be done
away_. Accordingly on the 19th day of June 1816, they moved and procured
an address from the Commons to the Prince Regent, the substance of which
was (as relates to this particular) that "His Royal Highness would be
pleased to order all the governors of the West India islands to
proclaim, in the most public manner, His Royal Highness's concern and
surprise at the false and mischievous opinion, which appeared to have
prevailed in some of the British colonies,--that either His Royal
Highness or the British Parliament had sent out orders for _the
emancipation_ of the Negroes; and to direct the most effectual methods
to be adopted for discountenancing _these unfounded and dangerous
impressions_." Here then we have a proof "that in the month of June 1816
the planters _had no notion of altering the condition of their
Negroes_." It is also evident, that they have entertained _no such
notion since_; for emancipation implies a _preparation_ of the persons
who are to be the subjects of so great a change. It implies a previous
alteration of treatment for the better, and a previous alteration of
customs and even of circumstances, no one of which can however be really
and truly effected without _a previous change of the laws_. In fact, a
progressively better treatment _by law_ must have been settled as a
preparatory and absolutely necessary work, had _emancipation been
intended_. But as we have never heard of the introduction of any new
laws to this effect, or with a view of producing this effect, in any of
our colonies, we have an evidence, almost as clear as the sun at
noonday, that our planters have no notion of altering the condition of
their Negroes, though fifteen years have elapsed since the abolition of
the slave trade. But if it be true that the abolition of the slave
trade has not produced all the effects, which the abolitionists
anticipated or intended, it would appear to be their duty, unless
insurmountable obstacles present themselves, _to resume their labours:_
for though there may be upon the whole, as I have admitted, a somewhat
better _individual_ treatment of the slaves by their masters, arising
out of an increased prudence in same, which has been occasioned by
stopping the importations, yet it is true, that not only many of the
former continue to be ill-treated by the latter, but that _all may be so
ill-treated_, if the _latter be so disposed_. They may be ill-fed,
hard-worked, ill-used, and wantonly and barbarously punished. They may
be tortured, nay even deliberately and intentionally killed without the
means of redress, or the punishment of the aggressor, so long as the
evidence of a Negro is not valid against a white man. If a white master
only take care, that no other white man sees him commit an atrocity of
the kind mentioned, he is safe from the cognizance of the law. He may
commit such atrocity in the sight of a thousand black spectators, and no
harm will happen to him from it. In fact, the slaves in our Islands have
_no more real protection or redress from law_, than when _the
Abolitionists first took up the question of the slave trade_. It is
evident therefore, that the latter have still one-half of their work to
perform, and that it is their duty to perform it. If they were ever
influenced by any good motives, whether of humanity, justice, or
religion, to undertake the cause of the Negroes, they must even now be
influenced by the same motives to continue it. If any of those disorders
still exist, which it was their intention to cure, they cannot (if these
are curable) retire from the course and say--there is now no further
need of our interference.
The first step then to be taken by the Abolitionists is to attempt to
introduce an _entire new code of laws_ into our colonies. The treatment
of the Negroes there must no longer be made to depend upon _the presumed
effects_ of the abolition of the slave trade. Indeed there were persons
well acquainted with Colonial concerns, who called the abolition _but a
half measure_ at the time when it was first publicly talked of. They
were sure, that it would never _of itself_ answer the end proposed. Mr.
Steele also confessed in his letter to Dr. Dickson[1] (of both of whom
more by and by), that "the abolition of the stave trade would _be
useless_, unless at the same time the infamous laws, which he had
pointed out, _were repealed_." Neither must the treatment of the Negroes
be made to depend upon what may be called _contingent humanity_. We now
leave in this country neither the horse, nor the ass, nor oxen, nor
sheep, to the contingent humanity even of _British bosoms_;--and shall
we leave those, whom we have proved to be _men_, to the contingent
humanity of a _slave colony_, where the eye is familiarized with cruel
sights, and where we have seen a constant exposure to oppression without
the possibility of redress? No. The treatment of the Negroes must be
made to depend _upon law_; and unless this be done, we shall look in
vain for any real amelioration of their condition. In the first place,
all those old laws, which are repugnant to humanity and justice, must be
done away. There must also be new laws, positive, certain, easy of
execution, binding upon all, by means of which the Negroes in our
islands shall have speedy and substantial redress in real cases of
ill-usage, whether by starvation, over-work, or acts of personal
violence, or otherwise. There must be new laws again more akin to the
principle of _reward_ than of _punishment_, of _privilege_ than of
_privation_, and which shall, have a tendency to raise or elevate their
condition, so as to fit them by degrees to sustain the rank of free men.
But if a new Code of Laws be indispensably necessary in our colonies in
order to secure a better treatment to the slaves, to whom must we look
for it? I answer, that we must not look for it to the West Indian
Legislatures. For, in the first place, judging of what they are likely
to do from what they have already done, or rather from what they have
_not_ done, we can have no reasonable expectation from that quarter. One
hundred and fifty years have passed, during which long interval their
laws have been nearly stationary, or without any material improvement.
In the second place, the individuals composing these Legislatures,
having been used to the exercise of unlimited power, would be unwilling
to part with that portion of it, which would be necessary to secure the
object in view. In the third place, their prejudices against their
slaves are too great to allow them to become either impartial or willing
actors in the case. The term _slave_ being synonymous according to their
estimation and usage with the term _brute_, they have fixed a stigma
upon their Negroes, such as we, who live in Europe, could not have
conceived, unless we had had irrefragable evidence upon the point. What
evils has not this cruel association of terms produced? The West Indian
master looks down upon his slave with disdain. He has besides a certain
antipathy against him. He hates the sight of his features, and of his
colour; nay, he marks with distinctive opprobrium the very blood in his
veins, attaching different names and more or less infamy to those who
have it in them, according to the quantity which they have of it in
consequence of their pedigree, or of their greater or less degree of
consanguinity with the whites. Hence the West Indian feels an
unwillingness to elevate the condition of the Negro, or to do any thing
for him as a human being. I have no doubt, that this prejudice has been
one of the great causes why the improvement of our slave population _by
law_ has been so long retarded, and that the same prejudice will
continue to have a similar operation, so long as it shall continue to
exist. Not that there are wanting men of humanity among our West Indian
legislators. Their humanity is discernible enough when it is to be
applied to the _whites_; but such is the system of slavery, and the
degradation attached to this system, that their humanity seems to be
lost or gone, when it is to be applied to the _blacks_. Not again that
there are wanting men of sense among the same body. They are shrewd and
clever enough in the affairs of life, where they maintain an intercourse
with the _whites_; but in their intercourse with the _blacks_ their
sense appears to be shrivelled and not of its ordinary size. Look at the
laws of their own making, as far as the Negroes are concerned, and they
are a collection of any thing but--wisdom.
It appears then, that if a new code of laws is indispensably necessary
in our Colonies in order to secure a better treatment of the slaves
there, we are not to look to the West Indian Legislatures for it. To
whom then are we to turn our eyes for help on this occasion? We answer,
To the British Parliament, the source of all legitimate power; to that
Parliament, _which has already heard and redressed in part the wrongs of
Africa_. The West Indian Legislatures must be called upon to send their
respective codes to this Parliament for revision. Here they will be well
and impartially examined; some of the laws will be struck out, others
amended, and others added; and at length they will be returned to the
Colonies, means having been previously devised for their execution
there.
But here no doubt a considerable opposition would arise on the part of
the West India planters. These would consider any such interference by
the British Parliament as an invasion of their rights, and they would
cry out accordingly. We remember that they set up a clamour when the
abolition of the slave trade was first proposed. But what did Mr. Pitt
say to them in the House of Commons? "I will now," said he, "consider
the proposition, that on account of some patrimonial rights of the West
Indians, the prohibition of the slave trade would be an invasion of
their legal inheritance. This proposition implied, that Parliament had
no right to stop the importations: but had this detestable traffic
received such a sanction, as placed it more out of the jurisdiction of
the Legislature for ever after, than any other branch of our trade? But
if the laws respecting the slave trade implied a contract for its
perpetual continuance, the House could never regulate any other of the
branches of our national commerce. But _any contract_ for the promotion
of this trade must, in his opinion, _have been void from the
beginning_; for if it was _an outrage upon justice_, and only another
name for _fraud, robbery, and murder_, what _pledge_ could devolve upon
the Legislature to incur the obligation of becoming principals in the
commission of such enormities by sanctioning their continuance?"
They set up again a similar clamour, when the Registry Bill before
mentioned was discussed in Parliament, contending that the introduction
of it there was an interference with their rights also: but we must not
forget the reply which Mr. Canning made to them on that occasion. "He
had known, (he said,) and there might again occur, instances of
obstinacy in the colonial assemblies, which left the British Parliament
no choice but direct interference. Such conduct might now call for such
an exertion on the part of Parliament; but all that he pleaded for was,
that time should be granted, that it might be known if the colonial
assemblies would take upon them to do what that House was pleased to
declare should be done. The present address could not be misunderstood.
It told the colonial assemblies, You are safe for the present from the
interference of the British Parliament, on the belief, and on the
promise made for you, that left to yourselves you will do what is
required of you. To hold this language was sufficient. The Assemblies
might be left to infer the consequences of a refusal, and Parliament
might rest satisfied with the consciousness, that they held in their
hands the means of accomplishing that which they had proposed." In a
subsequent discussion of the subject in the House of Lords, Lord Holland
remarked, that "in his opinion there had been more prejudice against
this Bill than the nature of the thing justified; but, whatever might be
the objection felt against it in the Colonies, it might be well for them
to consider, that it would be _impossible for them to resist_, and that,
if the thing was not done by them, _it would be done for them_." But on
this subject, that is, on the subject of colonial rights, I shall say
more in another place. It will be proper, however, to repeat here, and
to insist upon it too, that there is no _effectual way_ of remedying the
evil complained of, but by subjecting the colonial laws to the _revision
of the Legislature of the mother country_; and perhaps I shall disarm
some of the opponents to this measure, and at any rate free myself from
the charge of a novel and wild proposition, when I inform them that Mr.
Long, the celebrated historian and planter of Jamaica, and to whose
authority all West Indians look up, adopted the same idea. Writing on
the affairs of Jamaica, he says: "The system[2] of Colonial government,
and the imperfection of their several laws, are subjects, which never
were, but _which ought to be_, strictly canvassed, examined, and amended
by the British Parliament."
The second and last step to be taken by the Abolitionists should be, to
collect all possible light on the subject of _emancipation_ with a view
of carrying that measure into effect in its due time. They ought never
to forget, that _emancipation_ was included in _their original idea of
the abolition of the slave trade_. Slavery was then as much an evil in
their eyes as the trade itself; and so long as the former continues in
its present state, the extinction of it ought to be equally an object of
their care. All the slaves in our colonies, whether men, women, or
children, whether _Africans or Creoles_, have been unjustly deprived of
their rights. There is not a master, who has the least claim to their
services in point of equity. There is, therefore, a great debt due to
them, and for this no payment, no amends, no equivalent can be found,
but a _restoration to their liberty_.
That all have been unjustly deprived of their rights, may be easily
shown by examining the different grounds on which they are alleged to be
held in bondage. With respect to those in our colonies, who are
_Africans_, I never heard of any title to them but by the _right of
purchase_. But it will be asked, where did the purchasers get them? It
will be answered, that they got them from the sellers; and where did the
sellers, that is, the original sellers, get them? They got them by
_fraud or violence_. So says the evidence before the House of Commons;
and so, in fact, said both Houses of Parliament, when they abolished the
trade: and this is the plea set up for retaining them in a cruel
bondage!!!
With respect to the rest of the slaves, that is, the _Creoles_, or those
born in the colonies, the services, the perpetual services, of these are
claimed on the plea of the _law of birth_. They were born slaves, and
this circumstance is said to give to their masters a sufficient right to
their persons. But this doctrine sprung from the old Roman law, which
taught that all slaves were to be considered as _cattle_. "Partus
sequitur ventrem," says this law, or the "condition or lot of the mother
determines the condition or lot of the offspring." It is the same law,
which we ourselves now apply to cattle while they are in our possession.
Thus the calf belongs to the man who owns the cow, and the foal to the
man who owns the mare, and not to the owner of the bull or horse, which
were the male parents of each. It is then upon this, the old Roman law,
and not upon any English law, that the planters found their right to the
services of such as are born in slavery. In conformity with this law
they denied, for one hundred and fifty years, both the moral and
intellectual nature of their slaves. They considered them themselves,
and they wished them to be considered by others, in these respects, as
upon a level only _with the beasts of the field_. Happily, however,
their efforts have been in vain. The evidence examined before the House
of Commons in the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, has confirmed the
falsehood of their doctrines. It has proved that the social affections
and the intellectual powers both of Africans and Creoles are the same as
those of other human beings. What then becomes of the Roman law? For as
it takes no other view of slaves than as _cattle_, how is it applicable
to those, whom we have so abundantly proved _to be men_?
This is the grand plea, upon which our West Indian planters have founded
their right to the perpetual services of their _Creole_ slaves. They
consider them as the young or offspring of cattle. But as the slaves in
question have been proved, and are now acknowledged, to be the offspring
of men and women, of social, intellectual, and accountable beings, their
right must fall to the ground. Nor do I know upon what other principle
or right they can support it. They can have surely no _natural right_ to
the infant, who is born of a woman slave. If there be any right to it by
_nature_, such right must belong, not to the master of the mother, but
to the mother herself. They can have no right to it again, either on the
score of _reason_ or of _justice_. Debt and crime have been generally
admitted to be two fair grounds, on which men may be justly deprived of
their liberty for a time, and even made to labour, inasmuch as they
include _reparation of injury_, and the duty of the magistrate to _make
examples_, in order that he may not bear the sword in vain. But what
injury had the infant done, when it came into the world, to the master
of its mother, that reparation should be sought for, or punishment
inflicted for example, and that this reparation and this punishment
should be made to consist of a course of action and suffering, against
which, more than against any other, human nature would revolt? Is it
reasonable, is it just, that a poor infant who has done no injury to any
one, should be subjected, _he and his posterity for ever_, to _the
arbitrary will and tyranny of another_, and moreover to _the condition
of a brute_, because by _mere accident_, and by _no fault_ or _will of
his own_, he was born of a person, who had been previously in the
condition of a slave?
And as the right to slaves, because they were born slaves, cannot be
defended either upon the principles of reason or of justice, so this
right absolutely falls to pieces, when we come to try it by the
touchstone _of the Christian religion_. Every man who is born into the
world, whether he be white or whether he be black, is born, according to
Christian notions, a _free agent_ and _an accountable creature_. This is
the Scriptural law of his nature as a human bring. He is born under this
law, and he continues under it during his life. Now the West Indian
slavery is of such an arbitrary nature, that it may be termed _proper_
or _absolute_. The dominion attached to it is a despotism without
control; a despotism, which keeps up its authority by terror only. The
subjects of it _must do_, and this _instantaneously_, whatever their
master _orders them to do_, whether it _be right or wrong_. His will,
and his will alone, is their law. If the wife of a slave were ordered by
a master to submit herself to his lusts, and therefore to commit
adultery, or if her husband were ordered to steal any thing for him, and
therefore to commit theft, I have no conception that either the one or
the other would _dare_ to disobey his commands. "The whip, the shackles,
the dungeon," says Mr. Steele before mentioned, "are at all times in his
power, whether it be to gratify his _lust_, or display his
authority[3]." Now if the master has the power, _a just, and moral
power_, to make his slaves do what he orders them to do, even if it be
wrong, then I must contend that the Scriptures, whose authority we
venerate, are false. I must contend that his slaves never could have
been born free agents and accountable creatures; or that, as soon as
they became slaves, they were absolved from the condition of free-agency
and that they lost their responsibility as men. But if, on the other
hand, it be the revealed will of God, that all men, without exception,
must be left free to act, but accountable to God for their actions;--I
contend that no man can be born, nay, further, that no man can be made,
held, or possessed, as a proper slave. I contend that there can be,
according to the Gospel-dispensation, _no such state as West Indian
slavery_. But let us now suppose for a moment, that there might be found
an instance or two of slaves enlightened by some pious Missionary, who
would refuse to execute their master's orders on the principle that they
were wrong; even this would not alter our views of the case. For would
not this refusal be so unexampled, so unlooked-for, so immediately
destructive to all authority and discipline, and so provocative of
anger, that it would be followed by _immediate and signal punishment_?
Here then we should have a West Indian master reversing all the laws and
rules of civilized nations, and turning upside down all the morality of
the Gospel by the novel practice of _punishing men for their virtues_.
This new case affords another argument, why a man cannot be born a
proper slave. In fact, the whole system of our planters appears to me to
be so directly in opposition to the whole system of our religion, that I
have no conception, how a man can have been born a slave, such as the
West Indian is; nor indeed have I any conception, how he can be,
rightly, or justly, or properly, a West Indian slave at all. There
appears to me something even impious in the thought; and I am convinced,
that many years will not pass, before the West Indian slavery will
fall, and that future ages will contemplate with astonishment how the
preceding could have tolerated it.
It has now appeared, if I have reasoned conclusively, that the West
Indians have no title to their slaves on the ground of purchase, nor on
the plea of the law of birth, nor on that of any natural right, nor on
that of reason or justice, and that Christianity absolutely annihilates
it. It remains only to show, that they have no title to them on the
ground of _original grants or permissions of Governments_, or of _Acts
of Parliament_, or of _Charters_, or of _English law_.
With respect to original grants or permissions of Governments, the case
is very clear. History informs us, that neither the African slave trade
nor the West Indian slavery would have been allowed, had it not been for
the _misrepresentations_ and _falsehoods_ of those, _who were first
concerned in them_. The Governments of those times were made to believe,
first, that the poor Africans embarked _voluntarily_ on board the ships
which took them from their native land; and secondly, that they were
conveyed to the Colonies principally for _their own benefit_, or out of
_Christian feeling for them_, that they might afterwards _be converted
to Christianity_. Take as an instance of the first assertion, the way in
which Queen Elizabeth was deceived, in whose reign the execrable slave
trade began in England. This great princess seems on the very
commencement of the trade to have questioned its lawfulness. She seems
to have entertained a religious scruple concerning it, and indeed, to
have revolted at the very thoughts of it. She seems to have been aware
of the evils to which its continuance might lead, or that, if it were
sanctioned, the most unjustifiable means might be made use of to procure
the persons of the natives of Africa. And in what light she would have
viewed any acts of this kind, had they taken place to her knowledge, we
may conjecture from this fact--that when Captain (afterwards Sir John)
Hawkins returned from his first voyage to Africa and Hispaniola, whither
he had carried slaves, she sent for him, and, as we learn from Hill's
Naval History, expressed her concern lest any of the Africans should be
carried off _without their free consent_, declaring, "that it would be
detestable and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertakers."
Capt. Hawkins promised to comply with the injunctions of Elizabeth in
this respect. But he did not keep his word; for when he went to Africa
again, _he seized_ many of the inhabitants _and carried them off_ as
slaves, "Here (says Hill) began the horrid practice of forcing the
Africans into slavery, an injustice and barbarity, which, so sure as
there is vengeance in Heaven for the worst of crimes, will sometime be
the destruction of all who encourage it." Take as an instance of the
second what Labat, a Roman missionary, records in his account of the
Isles of America. He says, that Louis the Thirteenth was very uneasy,
when he was about to issue the edict, by which all Africans coming into
his colonies were to be made slaves; and that this uneasiness continued,
till he was assured that the introduction of them in this capacity into
his foreign dominions was the readiest way of _converting them_ to the
principles _of the Christian religion_. It was upon these ideas then,
namely, that the Africans left their own country voluntarily, and that
they were to receive the blessings of Christianity, and upon these
alone, that the first transportations were allowed, and that the first
_English_ grants and Acts of Parliament, and that the first _foreign_
edicts, sanctioned them. We have therefore the fact well authenticated,
as it relates _to original Government grants and permissions_, that the
owners of many of the Creole slaves in our colonies have no better title
to them as property, than as being the descendants of persons forced
away from their country and brought thither by a traffic, which had its
allowed origin in _fraud and falsehood_.