From the consideration of Slavery in its practical results, illustrated
by contrast between the Free States and Slave States, I pass to another
stage of the argument, where Slavery appears in its influence on the
CHARACTER OF SLAVE-MASTERS. Nothing could I undertake more painful,
and yet there is nothing more essential to the discussion, especially
in response to pretensions of Senators on this floor, nor is there any
point on which the evidence is more ample.
It is in the Character of Slavery itself that we are to find the
Character of Slave-Masters. I need not go back to the golden mouth
of Chrysostom to learn that “Slavery is the fruit of covetousness,
of extravagance, of insatiable greediness”;[54] for we have already
seen that this fivefold enormity is inspired by the single idea of
_compelling men to work without wages_. This spirit must naturally
appear in the Slave-Master. But the eloquent Saint did not disclose the
whole truth. Slavery is founded on violence, as we have already too
clearly seen; of course it can be sustained only by kindred violence,
sometimes against the defenceless slave, sometimes against the freeman
whose indignation is aroused at the outrage. It is founded on brutal
and vulgar pretensions, as is unhappily too apparent; of course it can
be sustained only by kindred brutality and vulgarity. The denial of
all rights in the slave can be sustained only by disregard of other
rights, common to the whole community, whether of the person, the
press, or speech. Where this exists there can be but one supreme law,
to which all other laws, statute or social, are subordinate,--and this
is the pretended law of Slavery. All these things must be manifest in
Slave-Masters; and yet, unconscious of their true condition, they make
boasts which reveal still further the unhappy influence. Barbarous
standards of conduct are unblushingly avowed. The swagger of a bully
is called chivalry; a swiftness to quarrel is called courage; the
bludgeon is adopted as substitute for argument; and assassination is
lifted to be one of the Fine Arts. Long ago it was fixed certain that
the day which makes man a slave “takes half his worth away,”--words
from the ancient harp of Homer, sounding through long generations.
Nothing here is said of the human being at the other end of the chain.
To aver that on this same day all his worth is taken away might seem
inconsistent with exceptions which we gladly recognize; but, alas! it
is too clear, both from reason and from facts, that, bad as Slavery is
for the Slave, it is worse for the Master.
In making this exposure I am fortified at the outset by two classes of
authority, whose testimony it will be difficult to question: the first
personal, and founded on actual experience; the second philosophical,
and founded on everlasting truth.
First, _Personal Authority_. And here I adduce words, often quoted,
which dropped from the lips of Slave-Masters in those better days,
when, seeing the wrong of Slavery, they escaped from its injurious
influence. Of these, none expressed themselves with more vigor than
George Mason, a Slave-Master from Virginia, in debate on the adoption
of the National Constitution. This is his language:--
“Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise
labor, when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration
of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. _They
produce the most pernicious effect on manners._ EVERY MASTER
OF SLAVES IS BORN A PETTY TYRANT. They bring the judgment of
Heaven on a country.”[55]
Thus, with a few touches, does this Slave-Master portray his class,
putting them in that hateful list which, according to every principle
of liberty, must be resisted so long as we obey God. And this clear
testimony received kindred support from the fiery soul of Jefferson.
Here are his words:--
“There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of
our people produced by the existence of Slavery among us. The
whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise
of the most boisterous passions, THE MOST UNREMITTING DESPOTISM
on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our
children see this, and learn to imitate it.… _The man must be
a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved
by such circumstances._ And with what execration should the
statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half the citizens thus
to trample on the rights of the other, _transforms those into
despots_ and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one
part and the _amor patriæ_ of the other!… With the morals of
the people, their industry also is destroyed.”[56]
Next comes the _Philosophic Authority_. Here, while the language which
I quote may be less familiar, it is hardly less commanding. Among names
of such weight I shall not discriminate, but simply follow the order
of time. First is John Locke, the great author of the English system
of Intellectual Philosophy, who, though once unhappily indulgent to
American Slavery, in another place describes it, in words which every
Slave-Master should know, as--
“The state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a
captive.” “So directly opposite to the generous temper and
courage of our nation, that _’tis hardly to be conceived that
an Englishman_, MUCH LESS A GENTLEMAN, _should plead for
’t_.”[57]
Then comes Adam Smith, the founder of the science of Political Economy,
who, in his work on Morals, thus utters himself:--
“There is not a negro from the coast of Africa who does not
possess a degree of magnanimity which the soul of his sordid
master is too often scarce capable of conceiving. Fortune never
exerted more cruelly her empire over mankind than when she
subjected those nations of heroes to the refuse of the jails
of Europe, to wretches who possess the virtues neither of the
countries which they come from nor of those which they go to,
_and whose levity, brutality, and baseness so justly expose
them to the contempt of the vanquished_.”[58]
This judgment, pronounced just a century ago, was repelled by the
Slave-Masters of Virginia in a feeble publication, which attests at
least their own consciousness that they were the criminals arraigned by
the distinguished philosopher. This was soon followed by the testimony
of the great English moralist, Dr. Johnson, who, in a letter to a
friend, thus shows his opinion of Slave-Masters:--
“To omit for a year, or for a day, the most efficacious method
of advancing Christianity, in compliance with any purposes that
terminate on this side of the grave, is a crime of which I
know not that the world has yet had an example, except in the
practice of _the planters of America, a race of mortals whom, I
suppose, no other man wishes to resemble_.”[59]
These are British voices. There are French also of equal character,
whose is the same implacable judgment. First I name Condorcet, who did
so much to develop the idea of Human Progress. Constantly he testifies
against Slavery. His brand of it as Barbarism is sententiously
expressed in a letter to Voltaire, describing a successful
Slave-Master:--
“L’Éprémesnil is a little American, who, by dint of plying his
negroes with the lash, has succeeded in getting enough sugar
and indigo to buy an office of King’s Councillor in the revenue
service.”[60]