slaves on account of any _charters_, which they may be able to produce,
though their charters are the only source of their power. It is through
these that they have hitherto legislated, and that they continue to
legislate. Take away their charters, and they would have no right or
power to legislate at all. And yet, though they have their charters, and
though the slavery, which now exists, has been formed and kept together
entirely by the laws, which such charters have given them the power to
make, this very slavery _is illegal_. There is not an individual, who
holds any of the slaves by a _legal_ title: for it is expressed in all
these charters, whether in those given to William Penn and others for
the continent of North America, or in those given for the islands now
under our consideration, that "the laws and statutes, to be made there,
are _not to be repugnant_, but, as near as may be, _agreeable, to the
laws_ and statutes of this our _kingdom of Great Britain_." But is it
consistent with the laws of England, that any one man should have the
power of forcing another to work for him without wages? Is it consistent
with the laws of England, that any one man should have the power of
flogging, beating, bruising, or wounding another at his discretion? Is
it consistent with the laws of England, that a man should be judged by
any but his peers? Is it consistent with the same laws, that a man
should be deprived of the power of giving evidence against the man who
has injured him? or that there should be a privileged class, against
whom no testimony can be admitted on certain occasions, though the
perpetrators of the most horrid crimes? But when we talk of consistency
on this occasion, let us not forget that old law of Barbadoes, made
while the charter of that island was fresh in every body's memory, and
therefore in the very teeth of the charter itself, which runs thus: "If
any slave, under punishment by his master or by his order, shall suffer
in life or member, no person shall be liable to any fine for the same:
but if any person shall _wantonly_ or _cruelly_ kill his own slave, he
shall pay the treasury 15 l." And here let us remark, that, when Lord
Seaforth, governor of Barbadoes, proposed, so lately as in 1802, the
repeal of this bloody law, the Legislature of that island rejected the
proposition with indignation. Nay, the very proposal to repeal it so
stirred up at the time the bad passions of many, that several brutal
murders of slaves were committed in consequence; and it was not till two
or three years afterwards that the governor had influence enough to get
the law repealed. Let the West Indians then talk no more of their
_charters_; for in consequence of having legislated upon principles,
which are at variance with those upon which the laws of England are
founded, they have _forfeited them all_. The mother country has
therefore a right to withdraw these charters whenever she pleases, and
to substitute such others as she may think proper. And here let it be
observed also, that the right of the West Indians to make any laws at
all for their own islands being founded upon their charters, and upon
these alone, and the laws relating to the slaves being contrary to what
such charters prescribe, the _slavery itself_, that is, the daily living
practice with respect to slaves under such laws, _is illegal_ and _may
be done away_. But if so, all our West Indian slaves are, without
exception, unlawfully held in bondage. There is no master, who has a
legal title to any of them. This assertion may appear strange and
extravagant to many; but it does not follow on that account that it is
the less true. It is an assertion, which has been made by a West Indian
proprietor himself. Mr. Steele[4], before quoted, furnishes us with what
passed at the meeting of the Society of Arts in Barbadoes at their
committee-room in August 1785, when the following question was in the
order of the day: "Is there any law written, or printed, by which a
proprietor can prove his title to his slave under or conformable to the
laws of England?" And "Why, (immediately said one of the members,) why
conformable to the laws of England? Will not the courts in England admit
such proof as is authorized by _our slave laws_?"--"I apprehend not,
(answered a second,) unless we can show that _our slave laws_ (according
to the limitations of the charter) are _not_ repugnant to the laws of
England."--The same gentleman resumed: "Does the original purchaser of
an African slave in this island obtain any legal title from the merchant
or importer of slaves--and of what nature? Does it set forth any title
of propriety, agreeable to the laws of England (or even to the laws of
nations) to be in the importer more than what depends upon his simple
averment? And have not free Negroes been at sundry times trepanned by
such dealers, and been brought contrary to the laws of nations, and sold
here as slaves?"--"There is no doubt, (observed a third,) but such
villainous actions have been done by worthless people: however, though
an honest and unsuspicious man may be deceived in buying a stolen horse,
it does not follow that he may not have a fair and just title to a horse
or any thing else bought in an open and legal market; but according to
the obligation _of being not repugnant to the laws of England_, I do not
see how _we can have any title to our slaves_ likely to be supported by
the laws of England." In fact, the Colonial system is an excrescence
upon the English Constitution, and is constantly at variance with it.
There is not one English law, which gives a man a right to the liberty
of any of his fellow creatures. Of course there cannot be, according to
charters, any Colonial law to this effect. If there be, it is _null and
void_. Nay, the very man, who is held in bondage by the Colonial law,
becomes free by English law the moment he reaches the English shore. But
we have said enough for our present purpose. We have shown that the
slaves in our Colonies, whether they be Africans, or whether they be
Creoles, _have been unjustly deprived of their rights_. There is of
course a great debt due to them. They have a claim to a restoration to
liberty; and as this restoration was included by the Abolitionists in
their original idea of the abolition of the slavetrade, so it is their
duty to endeavour to obtain it _the first moment it is practicable_. I
shall conclude my observations on this part of the subject, in the words
of that old champion of African liberty, Mr. W. Smith, the present
Member for Norwich, when addressing the House of Commons in the last
session of parliament on a particular occasion. He admitted, alluding to
the slaves in our colonies, that "immediate emancipation might be an
injury, and not a blessing to the slaves themselves. A period of
_preparation_, which unhappily included delay, seemed to be necessary.
The ground of this delay, however, was not the intermediate advantage to
be derived from their labour, but a conviction of its expediency as it
related to themselves. We had to _compensate_ to these wretched beings
_for ages of injustice_. We were bound by the strongest obligations _to
train up_ these subjects of our past injustice and tyranny _for an equal
participation with ourselves in the blessings of liberty and the
protection of the law_; and by these considerations ought our measures
to be strictly and conscientiously regulated. It was only in consequence
of the necessity of time to be consumed in such a preparation, that we
could be justified in the retention of the Negroes in slavery _for a
single hour_; and he trusted that the eyes of all men, both here and in
the colonies, would be open to this view of the subject as their clear
and indispensable duty."
Having led the reader to the first necessary step to be taken in favour
of our slaves in the British Colonies,--namely, the procuring for them a
new and better code of laws; and having since led him to the last or
final one,--namely, the procuring for them the rights of which they have
been unjustly deprived: I shall now confine myself entirely to this
latter branch of the subject, being assured, that it has a claim to all
the attention that can be bestowed upon it; and I trust that I shall be
able to show, by appealing to historical facts, that however awful and
tremendous the work of _emancipation_ may seem, it is yet _practicable_;
that it is practicable also _without danger_; and moreover, that it is
practicable with the probability of _advantage_ to all the parties
concerned.
In appealing however to facts for this purpose, we must expect no light
from antiquity to guide us on our way; for history gives us no account
of persons in those times similarly situated with the slaves in the
British colonies at the present day. There were no particular nations in
those times, like the Africans, expressly set apart for slavery by the
rest of the world, so as to have a stigma put upon them on that account,
nor did a difference of the colour of the skin constitute always, as it
now does, a most marked distinction between the master and the slave, so
as to increase this stigma and to perpetuate antipathies between them.
Nor did the slaves of antiquity, except perhaps once in Sparta, form the
whole labouring population of the land; nor did they work incessantly,
like the Africans, under the whip; nor were they generally so behind
their masters in cultivated intellect. Neither does ancient history give
us in the cases of manumission, which it records, any parallel, from
which we might argue in the case before us. The ancient manumissions
were those of individuals only, generally of but one at a time, and only
now and then; whereas the emancipation, which we contemplate in the
colonies, will comprehend _whole bodies of men_, nay, _whole
populations_, at a given time. We must go therefore in quest of examples
to modern times, or rather to the history of the colonial slavery
itself; and if we should find any there, which appear to bear at all
upon the case in question, we must be thankful for them, and, though
they should not be entirely to our mind, we must not turn them away, but
keep them, and reason from them as far as their analogies will warrant.
In examining a period comprehending the last forty years, I find no less
than six or seven instances of the emancipation of African slaves _in
bodies_. The first of these cases occurred at the close of the first
American war. A number of slaves had run away from their North American
masters and joined the British army. When peace came, the British
Government did not know what to do with them. Their services were no
longer wanted. To leave them behind to fall again into the power of
their masters would have been great cruelty as well as injustice; and as
to taking them to England, what could have been done with them there? It
was at length determined to give _them their liberty_, and to disband
them in Nova Scotia, and to settle them there upon grants of land as
_British subjects_ and as _free men_. The Nova Scotians on learning
their destination were alarmed. They could not bear the thought of
having such a number of black persons among them, and particularly as
these understood the use of arms. The Government, however, persevering
in its original intention, they were conveyed to Halifax, and
distributed from thence into the country. Their number, comprehending
men, women, and children, were two thousand and upwards. To gain their
livelihood, some of them worked upon little portions of land of their
own; others worked as carpenters; others became fishermen; and others
worked for hire in other ways. In process of time they raised places of
worship of their own, and had ministers of their own from their own
body. They led a harmless life, and gained the character of an
industrious and honest people from their white neighbours. A few years
afterwards the land in Nova Scotia being found too poor to answer, and
the climate too cold for their constitutions, a number of them, to the
amount of between thirteen and fourteen hundred, volunteered to form a
new colony, which was then first thought of, at Sierra Leone.
Accordingly, having been conveyed there, they realized the object in
view; and they are to be found there, they or their descendants, most of
them in independent and some of them in affluent circumstances, at the
present day.
A second case may be taken from what occurred at the close of the
second, or last American war. It may be remembered that a large British
naval force, having on board a powerful land force, sailed in the year
1814, to make a descent on the coast of the southern States of America.
The British army, when landed, marched to Washington, and burnt most of
its public buildings. It was engaged also at different times with the
American army in the field. During these expeditions, some hundreds of
slaves in these parts joined the British standard by invitation. When
the campaign was over, the same difficulty occurred about disposing of
these as in the former case. It was determined at length to ship them to
Trinidad _as free labourers_. But here, that is, at Trinidad, an
objection was started against receiving them, but on a different ground
from that which had been started in the similar case in Nova Scotia. The
planters of Trinidad were sure that no free Negroes would ever work,
and therefore that the slaves in question would, if made free and
settled among them, support themselves _by plunder_. Sir Ralph Woodford,
however, the governor of the island, resisted the outcry of these
prejudices. He received them into the island, and settled them where he
supposed the experiment would be most safely made. The result has shown
his discernment. These very men, formerly slaves in the Southern States
of America and afterwards emancipated in a body at Trinidad, are now
earning their own livelihood, and with so much industry and good conduct
that the calumnies originally spread against them have entirely died
away.
A third case may comprehend those Negroes, who lately formed what we
call our West Indian black regiments. Some of these had been originally
purchased in Africa, not as slaves but recruits, and others in Jamaica
and elsewhere. They had all served as soldiers in the West Indies. At
length certain of these regiments were transported to Sierra Leone and
disbanded there, and the individuals composing them received their
discharge _as free men_. This happened in the spring of 1819. _Many
hundreds_ of them were _set at liberty at once_ upon this occasion. Some
of these were afterwards marched into the interior, where they founded
Waterloo, Hastings, and other villages. Others were shipped to the Isles
de Loss, where they made settlements in like manner. Many, in both
cases, took with them their wives, which they had brought from the West
Indies, and others selected wives from the natives on the spot. They
were all settled upon grants given them by the Government. It appears
from accounts received from Sir Charles M'Carthy, the governor of Sierra
Leone, that they have conducted themselves to his satisfaction, and that
they will prove a valuable addition to that colony.
A fourth case may comprehend what we call _the captured Negroes_ in the
colony now mentioned. These are totally distinct from those either in
the first or in the last of the cases which have been mentioned. It is
well known that these were taken out of slave-ships captured at
different times from the commencement of the abolition of the slave
trade to the present moment, and that on being landed _they were made
free_. After having been recruited in their health they were marched in
bodies into the interior, where they were taught to form villages and to
cultivate land for themselves. They were _made free_ as they were landed
from the vessels, _from fifty to two or three hundred at a time_. They
occupy at present twelve towns, in which they have both their churches
and their schools. Regents Town having been one of the first
established, containing about thirteen hundred souls, stands foremost in
improvement, and has become a pattern for industry and good example.
The people there have now fallen entirely into the habits of English
society. They are decently and respectably dressed. They attend divine
worship regularly. They exhibit an orderly and moral conduct. In their
town little shops are now beginning to make their appearance; and their
lands show the marks of extraordinary cultivation. Many of them, after
having supplied their own wants for the year, have a surplus produce in
hand for the purchase of superfluities or comforts.
Here then are four cases of slaves, either Africans or descendants of
Africans, _emancipated_ in _considerable bodies_ at a time. I have kept
them by themselves, became they are of a different complexion from
those, which I intend should follow. I shall now reason upon them. Let
me premise, however, that I shall consider the three first of the cases
as one, so that the same reasoning will do for all. They are alike
indeed in their _main_ features; and we must consider this as
sufficient; for to attend minutely to every shade of difference[5],
which may occur in every case, would be to bewilder the reader, and to
swell the size of my work unnecessarily, or without conferring an
adequate benefit to the controversy on either side.
It will be said then (for my reasoning will consist principally in
answering objections on the present occasion) that the three first cases
_are not strictly analogous_ to that of our West Indian slaves, whose
emancipation we are seeking. It will be contended, that the slaves in
our West Indian colonies have been constantly in an abject and degraded
state. Their faculties are benumbed. They have contracted all the vices
of slavery. They are become habitually thieves and liars. Their bosoms
burn with revenge against the whites. How then can persons in such a
state be fit to receive their freedom? The slaves, on the other hand,
who are comprehended in the three cases above mentioned, found in the
British army a school as it were, _which fitted them by degrees for
making a good use of their liberty_. While they were there, they were
never out of the reach of discipline, and yet were daily left to
themselves to act as free men. They obtained also in this _preparatory
school_ some knowledge of the customs of civilized life. They were in
the habit also of mixing familiarly with the white soldiers. Hence, it
will be said, they were in a state much _more favourable for undergoing
a change in their condition_ than the West Indian slaves before
mentioned. I admit all this. I admit the difference between the two
situations, and also the preference which I myself should give to the
one above the other on account of its desirable tendencies. But I never
stated, that our West Indian slaves were to be emancipated _suddenly_,
but _by degrees_. I always, on the other hand, took it for granted, that
they were to have _their preparatory school_ also. Nor must it be
forgotten, as a comparison has been instituted, that if there was _less
danger_ in emancipating the other slaves, _because they had received
something like a preparatory education_ for the change, there was _far
more_ in another point of view, because _they were all acquainted with
the use of arms_. This is a consideration of great importance; but
particularly when we consider _the prejudices of the blacks against the
whites_; for would our West Indian planters be as much at their ease, as
they now are, if their slaves had acquired _a knowledge of the use of
arms_, or would they think them on this account more or less fit for
emancipation?
It will be said again, that the fourth case, consisting of the Sierra
Leone captured Negroes, _is not strictly analogous_ to the one in point.
These had probably been slaves but _for a short time_,--say a few
months, including the time which elapsed between their reduction to
slavery and their embarkation from Africa, and between this their
embarkation and their capture upon the ocean. They had scarcely been
slaves when they were returned to the rank of free men. Little or no
change therefore could have been effected in so short an interim in
their disposition and their character; and, as they were never carried
to the West Indies, so they never could have contracted the bad habits,
or the degradation or vices, of the slavery there. It will be contended
therefore, that they were _better_, _or less hazardous_, subjects for
_emancipation_, than the slaves in our colonies. I admit this objection,
and I give it its full weight. I admit it to be _less hazardous_ to
emancipate a _new_ than an _old_ slave. And yet the case of the Sierra
Leone captured Negroes is a very strong one. They were all _Africans_.
They were all _slaves_. They must have contracted _as mortal a hatred of
the whites_ from their sufferings on board ship by fetters, whips, and
suffocation in the hold, as the West Indian from those severities which
are attached to their bondage upon shore. Under these circumstances then
we find them _made free_; but observe, not after any _preparatory_
discipline, but almost _suddenly_, and _not singly_, but _in bodies_ at
a time. We find them also settled or made to live under the _unnatural_
government of the _whites_; and, what is more extraordinary, we find
their present number, as compared with that of the whites in the same
colony, nearly as _one hundred and fifty to one_; notwithstanding which
superiority fresh emancipations are constantly taking place, as fresh
cargoes of the captured arrive in port.
It will be said, lastly, that all the four cases put together prove
nothing. They can give us nothing like _a positive assurance_, that the
Negro slaves in our colonies would pass through the ordeal of
emancipation without danger to their masters or the community at large.
Certainly not. Nor if these instances had been far more numerous than
they are, could they, in this world of accidents, have given us _a moral
certainty of this_. They afford us however _a hope_, that emancipation
is practicable without danger: for will any one pretend to say, that we
should have had as much reason for entertaining such a hope, _if no such
instances had occurred_; or that we should not have had reason to
despair, _if four such experiments had been made, and if they had all
failed_? They afford us again ground for believing, that there is a
peculiar softness, and plasticity, and pliability in the African
character. This softness may be collected almost every where from the
Travels of Mr. Mungo Park, and has been noticed by other writers, who
have contrasted it with the unbending ferocity of the North American
Indians and other tribes. But if this be a feature in the African
character, we may account for the uniformity of the conduct of those
Africans, who were liberated on the several occasions above mentioned,
or for their yielding so uniformly to the impressions, which had been
given them by their superiors, after they had been made free; and, if
this be so, why should not our colonial slaves, if emancipated, conduct
themselves in the same manner? Besides, I am not sure whether the good
conduct of the liberated in these cases was not to be attributed in part
to a sense of interest, when they came to know, that their condition
_was to be improved_. Self-interest is a leading principle with all who
are born into the world; and why is the Negro slave in our colonies to
be shut out from this common feeling of our nature?--why is he to rise
against his master, when he is informed that his condition is to be
bettered? Did not the planters, as I have before related, declare in the
House of Commons in the year 1816, that their Negroes had then imbibed
the idea that they were to be made free, and that they were _extremely
restless on that account_? But what was the cause of all this
restlessness? Why, undoubtedly the thought of their emancipation was so
interesting, or rather a matter of such exceedingly great joy to them,
that _they could not help thinking and talking of it_. And would not
this be the case with our Negroes at this moment, if such a prospect
were to be set before them? But if they would be overjoyed at this
prospect, is it likely they would cut the throats of those, who should
attempt to realize it? would they not, on the other hand, be disposed to
conduct themselves equally well as the other African slaves before
mentioned, when they came to know, that they were immediately to be
prepared for the reception of this great blessing, the _first
guarantee_ of which would be an _immediate_ and _living experience_ of
better laws and better treatment?
The fifth case may comprehend the slaves of St. Domingo as they were
made free at different intervals in the course of the French Revolution.
To do justice to this case, I must give a history of the different
circumstances connected with it. It may be remembered, then, that when
the French Revolution, which decreed equality of rights to all citizens,
had taken place, the _free People of Colour_ of St. Domingo, many of
whom were persons of large property and liberal education, petitioned
the National Assembly, that they might enjoy the same political
privileges as the _Whites_ there. At length the subject of the petition
was discussed, but not till the 8th of March 1790, when the Assembly
agreed upon a decree concerning it. The decree, however, was worded so
ambiguously, that the two parties in St. Domingo, the _Whites_ and the
_People of Colour_, interpreted it each of them in its own favour. This
difference of interpretation gave rise to animosities between them, and
these animosities were augmented by political party-spirit, according as
they were royalists or partizans of the French Revolution, so that
disturbances took place and blood was shed.
In the year 1791, the People of Colour petitioned the Assembly again,
but principally for an explanation of the decree in question. On the
15th of May, the subject was taken into consideration, and the result
was another decree in explicit terms, which determined, that the _People
of Colour_ in all the French islands were entitled to all the rights of
citizenship, provided _they were born of free parents on both sides_.
The news of this decree had no sooner arrived at the Cape, than it
produced an indignation almost amounting to phrensy among the _Whites_.
They directly trampled under foot the national cockade, and with
difficulty were prevented from seizing all the French merchant ships in
the roads. After this the two parties armed against each other. Even
camps began to be formed. Horrible massacres and conflagrations
followed, the reports of which, when brought to the mother-country, were
so terrible, that the Assembly abolished the decree in favour of _the
Free People of Colour_ in the same year.
In the year 1792, the news of the rescinding of the decree as now
stated, produced, when it reached St. Domingo, as much irritation among
the People of Colour, as the news of the passing of it had done among
the Whites, and hostilities were renewed between them, so that new
battles, massacres, and burnings, took place. Suffice it to say, that as
soon as these events became known in France, the Conventional Assembly,
which had then succeeded the Legislative, took them into consideration.
Seeing, however, nothing but difficulties and no hope of reconciliation
on either side, they knew not what other course to take than to do
justice, whatever the consequences might be. They resolved, accordingly,
in the month of April, that the decree of 1791, which had been both made
and reversed by the preceding Assembly in the same year, should stand
good. They restored therefore the People of Colour to the privileges
which had been before voted to them, and appointed Santhonax, Polverel,
and another, to repair in person to St. Domingo, with a large body of
troops, and to act there as commissioners, and, among other things, to
enforce the decree and to keep the peace.
In the year 1793, the same divisions and the same bad blood continuing,
notwithstanding the arrival of the commissioners, a very trivial matter,
viz. a quarrel between a _Mulatto_ and a _White man_ (an officer in the
French marine), gave rise to new disasters. This quarrel took place on
the 20th of June. On the same day the seamen left their ships in the
roads, and came on shore, and made common cause of the affair with the
white inhabitants of the town. On the other side were opposed the
Mulattos and other People of Colour, and these were afterwards joined by
some insurgent Blacks. The battle lasted nearly two days. During this
time the arsenal was taken and plundered, and some thousands were killed
in the streets, and more than half the town was burnt. The
commissioners, who were spectators of this horrible scene, and who had
done all they could to restore peace, escaped unhurt, but they were left
upon a heap of ruins, and with but little more power than the authority
which their commission gave them. They had only about a thousand troops
left in the place. They determined, therefore, under these
circumstances, to call in the Negro Slaves in the neighbourhood to their
assistance. They issued a proclamation in consequence, by which _they
promised to give freedom to all the Blacks who were willing to range
themselves under the banners of the Republic_. This was the first
proclamation made by public authority for emancipating slaves in St.
Domingo. It is usually called the Proclamation of Santhonax, though both
commissioners had a hand in it; and sometimes, in allusion to the place
where it was issued (the Cape), the Proclamation of the North. The
result of it was, that a considerable number of slaves came in and were
enfranchised.