“I cannot leave the subject of the evils of slavery, without saying a
word of its political influence.”
He considers that “slave labour is less productive than free.” This is
doubtless true; and if so, it proves that the master of the slave does
not require of him so much labour as is required of a hired labourer.
Are the friends of abolition angry, because, in their sympathy for the
slave, they have found something to be pleased with?
He considers that “by degrading the labouring population to a state
which takes from them motives to toil, and renders them objects of
suspicion or dread,” impairs “the ability of a community to unfold its
resources in peace, and to defend itself in war.”
This proposition includes the idea that the Slave States have degraded a
portion of their citizens to a state of slavery. This is not true. Our
ancestors, contrary to their will, were forced to receive a degraded
race among them, not as citizens, but slaves;—and does it follow now,
that we must again be forced to make this degraded race our political
equals? Even the British Government, with all its claim to sovereign
rule, never dreamed of imposing on us a demand so destructive to our
political rights; so blighting to social happiness; so annihilating to
our freedom as men; so extinguishing to our very race. Do the friends of
abolition deem us so stupid as not to see, if, even when the negro is in
slavery, cases of amalgamation happen, that, when he shall be elevated
to political freedom, the country would, by their aid, be overspread by
it? Do they think that we do not see that such a state of things is
degeneracy, degradation, ruin, worse than death to the white men? And
will they chide, if, in its prevention, we drench our fields in our own
blood in preference? The British Government urged the race here as an
article of property, of commerce and profit, as they did their _tea_.
They stipulated, they guaranteed them to be _slaves_, they and their
posterity for ever—not _citizens_! On such terms alone could they have
been received. The South then, as now, to a man would have met death on
the battle-field, sooner than have suffered their presence on other
conditions.
The British governmental councils, our colonial assemblies, our
primitive inquiring conventions never viewed them in any other light. It
was not on their account we sought for freedom. It was not in their
behalf we fought for liberty. It was not for them our blood ran like
water. It was not to establish for them political rights we broke the
British yoke, or founded here this great government. Our national synods
recognised them only as property; our constitutional charter, only as
slaves; our congressional statutes, only as the subjects of their
masters.
There is falsity in the very language that frames the proposition which
inculcates that these slaves are a portion of population that ever can
be justly entitled to equal political rights, or that they are, or ever
were, degraded by the community among whom they are now found.
So degraded, both mentally and physically, is the African in his own
native wilds, that, however humiliating to a freeman slavery may seem,
to him it is an elevated school; and however dull and stupid may be his
scholarship, yet a few generations distinctly mark some little
improvement. We cannot doubt, some few individuals of this race have
been so far elevated in their constitutional propensities that they
might be well expected to make provident citizens; and the fact is, such
generally become free, without the aid of fanaticism. But what is the
value of a _general assertion_ predicated alone upon a few exceptions?
Some few of our own race give ample proof that they are not fit to take
care of themselves: shall we, therefore, subject our whole race to
pupilage?
That such a population, such a race of men, is as conducive to national
grandeur, either as to resources or defence, as the same number of
intellectual, high-minded yeomanry of our own race might be well
expected to be, perhaps few contend; and we pray you not to force us to
try the experiment. But if such weakness attend the position in which we
feel God has placed us, why distress us by its distortion? Why torment
our wound with your inexperienced, and therefore unskilful hand? Why
strive ye to enrage our passions, by constantly _twitting_ us with what
is not our fault? Do you indeed wish to destroy, because you have no
power to amend? Why, then, your inexperience as to facts, aided by
misrepresentation and sophistry in the digestion of language and
sentiment,—and we exceedingly regret that we can correctly say, open
falsehood,—as found on pages 86, 87?—
“Slavery is a strange element to mix up with free institutions. It
cannot but endanger them. It is a pattern for every kind of wrong. The
slave brings insecurity on the free. Whoever holds one human being in
bondage, invites others to plant the foot on his own neck. Thanks to
God, not one human being can be wronged with impunity. The liberties of
a people ought to tremble, until every man is free. Tremble they will.
Their true foundation is sapped by the legalized degradation of a single
innocent man to slavery. That foundation is impartial justice, is
respect for human nature, is respect for the rights of every human
being. I have endeavoured in these remarks to show the hostility between
slavery and ‘free institutions.’ If, however, I err; if these
institutions cannot stand without slavery for their foundation, then I
say, let them fall. Then they ought to be buried in perpetual ruins.
Then the name of republicanism ought to become a by-word and reproach
among the nations. Then monarchy, limited as it is in England, is
incomparably better and happier than our more popular forms. Then,
despotism, as it exists in Prussia, where equal laws are in the main
administered with impartiality, ought to be preferred. A republican
government, bought by the sacrifice of half, or more than half of a
people, stripping them of their most sacred rights, by degrading them to
a brutal condition, would cost too much. A freedom so tainted with wrong
ought to be our abhorrence.”
Let not the looseness of the doctor’s regard for the Union surprise.
With him a dissolution of the Union had become a fixed idea. On pages
237 and 238, he says—
“To me it seems not only the right, but the duty of the Free States, in
case of the annexation of Texas, to say to the Slave-holding States, ‘We
regard this act as the dissolution of the Union.’ * * * A pacific
division in the first instance seems to me to threaten less contention
than a lingering, feverish dissolution of the Union, such as must be
expected under this fatal innovation. For one, then, I say, that,
earnestly as I deprecate the separation of these States, and though this
event would disappoint most cherished hopes for my country, still I
could submit to it more readily than to the reception of Texas into the
confederacy.” “I do not desire to share the responsibility or to live
under the laws of a government adopting such a policy.” * * * “If the
South is bent on incorporating Texas with itself, as a new prop to
slavery, it would do well to insist on a division of the States. It
would, in so doing, consult best its own safety. It should studiously
keep itself from communion with the free part of the country. It should
suffer no railroad from that section to cross its borders. It should
block up intercourse with us by sea and land.” Vol. ii. p. 239.
We do not quote these passages for the sake of refuting them. “_In
Europe, the doctrine would be thought too absurd for refutation._”
_“What must Europe have thought when” these sentiments “crossed the
ocean.”_ * * * “_What must Europe have said, when brought to understand
that, in a republic founded on the principles of human rights and
equality_,”—and this writer acknowledges the doctrine that “the
constitution was a compromise among independent States, and it is well
known that geographical relations and the local interest were among the
essential conditions on which the compromise was made;” and concerning
which, he adds, “Was not the constitution founded on conditions or
considerations which are even more authoritative than its particular
provisions?” (see vol. ii. p. 237,)—“_What must Europe have said_,” when
informed that these sentiments were expressed against the right of the
South to hold slaves? Slaves, whom she, herself, in our childhood, had
sold us? Why, she must have thought that we were on the eve of a civil
war, and that Dr. Channing was about to take command of an army of
abolitionists to compel the South to submit to his terms! “_Europe might
well open its eyes in wonder_” at such extravagance.
“Such,” says our author, are “the chief evils of slavery;” and we are
willing to leave it to “Europe” to decide whether he has not furnished
us with declamation instead of argument.
Under the head, “Evils of Slavery,” he examines those considerations
that have been urged in its favour, or in mitigation, which we deem
unnecessary to notice further than to note a few passages in which there
is between us some unity of sentiment.
Page 89. “Freedom undoubtedly has its perils. It offers nothing to the
slothful and dissolute. Among a people left to seek their own good in
their own way, some of all classes fail from vice, some from incapacity,
some from misfortune.”
Page 92. “Were we to visit a slave-country, undoubtedly the most
miserable human beings would be found among the free; for among them the
passions have a wider sweep, and the power they possess may be used to
their own ruin. Liberty is not a necessity of happiness. It is only a
means of good. It is a trust that may be abused.” Page 93. “Of all races
of men, the African is the mildest and most susceptible of attachment.
He loves where the European would hate. He watches the life of a master,
whom the North American Indian, in like circumstances, would stab to the
heart.”
The African may exhibit mildness and attachment in slavery when others
would exhibit a reverse feeling; but it is not true that he exhibits
these qualities as a fixed moral principle, resulting from intellectual
conclusion.
Page 95. “No institution, be it what it may, can make the life of a
human being wholly evil, or cut off every means of improvement.” _Idem._
“The African is so affectionate, imitative, and docile, that, in
favourable circumstances, he catches much that is good; and accordingly
the influence of a wise and kind master will be seen in the very
countenance and bearing of his slaves.” Or, rather, we find traces of
these qualities developed among their descendants. But the truth is far
below this description.
We had expected to have received light and pleasure from the examination
of Dr. Channing’s view of slavery in a political attitude. We confess we
are disappointed. His political view of it is, at least, jejune. To us,
it suggests the superior adaptation of his genius and education to the
rhapsody of a prayer-meeting than to the labours of a legislative hall.
We doubt much whether he had ever arrived to any very clear and general
view of the organization of society. Finding, under this head, very
little in his volumes that a politician can descend to encounter, we
shall close our present Lesson with a very few remarks.
* * * * *
Capital and labour can exist in but two relations; congenerous or
antagonistic. They are never congenerous only when it is true that
labour constitutes capital, which can only happen through slavery. The
deduction is then clear, that capital for ever governs labour; and the
deduction is also as clear, that, out of slavery, capital and labour
must be for ever antagonistic. But, again, capital governs labour,
because, while capital _now exists_, labour can possess it only by its
own consumption. But when the two are congenerous, labour, as a tool, is
not urged to its injury, because the tool itself is capital; but when
antagonistic, the tool is urged to its utmost power, because its injury,
its ruin touches not the capital. Hence, we often hear slave-labour is
the less productive. The proposition is not affected by facts attending
him who is said to be _free_, but who only labours for his individual
support; because while he adds nothing to the general stock of capital,
he yet falls within the catalogue of being a slave _to himself_: “The
Lord sent him forth _to till_ the ground,” (לַעֲבֹד _la evod, to slave
the ground_;) to do slave-labour for his own support; _to slave himself_
for his own subsistence.
Such is the first degree of slavery to which sin has subjected all
mankind. Therefore, in such case, labour is capital. But the very moment
a lower degradation forces him to sell his labour, capital is the only
purchaser, and they at once become antagonistic. On the one hand, labour
is seeking for all; on the other, capital is seeking for all. But the
capital governs, and always obtains the mastery, and reduces labour down
to the smallest pittance. Thus antagonistic are capital and labour, that
the former is for ever trying to lessen the value of the other by art,
by machinery; thus converting the tool of labour into capital itself.
The political difference between the influence of these two relations,
capital and labour, is very great. We feel surprised that the sympathies
of the abolitionists are not changed, from the miseries where capital
and labour are decidedly congenerous, to a consideration of that morass
of misery into which the worn-out, broken tools of labour are thrown,
with cruel heartlessness, where capital and labour are antagonistic.
Under the one system, beggars and distress from want are unknown,
because such things cannot exist under such an organization of society.
But, under the other, pauperism becomes a leading element. The history
of that class of community, in all free countries, is a monument and
record of _free labour_.
We ask the politician to consider these facts, while he searches the
history of man for light in the inquiry of what is the most tranquil,
and, in all its parts, the most happy organization of society.
Under the head of “The Political Influence of Slavery,” Dr. Channing has
taken occasion to inform us of his feelings as to the stability of this
Union; that he prefers its dissolution to the perpetuation of slavery;
and that he proposes a “pacific division.” And what is his “pacific
division?” Why, he says, (if we must repeat it,) “_the South must
studiously keep itself from communion with the Free States; to suffer no
railroad from the Free States to cross its border; and to block up all
intercourse by sea and land_!” Why, it is “death in the pot!”
O most unhappy man! the most unfortunate of all, to have left such a
record of intellectual weakness and folly behind! But we will forbear.
We think Dr. Channing’s declarations and proposals wholly uncalled for.
We regret the existence of such feelings at the North. We say
_feelings_, because we are bold to say, such sentiments are alone the
offspring of the most ignorant, wicked, and black-hearted feelings of
the human soul. Their very existence shows a preparedness to commit
_treason_, perjury, and the murders of civil war! The disciples of Dr.
Channing, on the subject of abolitionism, may be too stupid to perceive
it; for “Evil men understand not judgment.” _Prov._ xxviii. 5.
We regret this feeling at the North the more deeply on the account of
the extraordinary generant quality of sin. For it propagates, not only
its peculiar kind, but every monster, in every shape, by the mere echo
of its voice! Will they remember, “He that diggeth a pit shall fall into
it; and whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him.” Or, that, “It
is an honour to cease from strife; but every fool will be meddling.”
_Prov._ But since such feelings do exist, we feel thankful to God that
the sin of the initiative in the dissolution of this Union is not with
the Slave States. We know there are many good men in the North. Much
depends on what they may do. We believe the union of these States need
not—will not be disrupted.
But if the laws of Congress can neither be executed nor continued, nor
oaths to be true to the constitution longer bind these maniacs, the
issue will finally be left in the hand of the God of battles! It becomes
the South to act wisely, to be calm, and to hope as long as there can be
hope. And to the North, let them say now, before it be too late, “We
pray you to forbear. We entreat you to be true to your oaths, and not
force us, in hostile array, to bathe our hands in blood.”
But, if the term of our great national destiny is to be closed, and war,
the most cruel of all wars, is to spread far beyond the reach of human
foresight,—the South, like Abraham in olden time, will “arm their
trained servants,” and go out to the war, SHOUTING UNDER THE BANNER OF
THE ALMIGHTY!
------------------