{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_10611/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_10611","id":"gutenberg_10611","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10611","summary":null,"tags":["Africa","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Slave trade -- Africa","Slavery","Slavery -- History"],"text":"AN ESSAY ON THE SLAVERY AND COMMERCE OF THE HUMAN SPECIES,\nPARTICULARLY THE AFRICAN,\n\nTRANSLATED FROM A LATIN DISSERTATION, WHICH WAS HONOURED WITH\nTHE FIRST PRIZE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, FOR THE YEAR 1785,\nWITH ADDITIONS.\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n_Neque premendo alium me extulisse velim_.--LIVY.\n\n\n\nM.DCC.LXXXVI.\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nTO THE\nRIGHT HONOURABLE\nWILLIAM CHARLES COLYEAR,\nEARL OF PORTMORE,\nVISCOUNT MILSINTOWN.\n\n\nMY LORD,\n\nThe dignity of the subject of this little Treatise, not any persuasion\nof its merits as a literary composition, encourages me to offer it to\nyour Lordship's patronage. The cause of freedom has always been found\nsufficient, in every age and country, to attract the notice of the\ngenerous and humane; and it is therefore, in a more peculiar manner,\nworthy of the attention and favour of a personage, who holds a\ndistinguished rank in that illustrious island, the very air of which has\nbeen determined, upon a late investigation of its laws, to be an\nantidote against slavery. I feel a satisfaction in the opportunity,\nwhich the publication of this treatise affords me, of acknowledging your\nLordship's civilities, which can only be equalled by the respect, with\nwhich I am,\n\nYour Lordship's,\nmuch obliged,\nand obedient servant,\n\nTHOMAS CLARKSON.\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nBooks Printed and Sold by J. PHILLIPS,\n\nESSAY on the TREATMENT and CONVERSION of\nAFRICAN SLAVES in the BRITISH Sugar Colonies.\nBy the Rev. J. RAMSAY, Vicar of Teston in\nKent, who resided many Years in the West-Indies.\nIn One Volume, Octavo. Price 5s bound,\nor 4s in Boards.\n\nAn INQUIRY into the Effects of putting a Stop\nto the African Slave Trade, and of granting Liberty\nto the Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies.\nBy J. RAMSAY. Price 6d.\n\nA REPLY to the Personal Invectives and Objections\ncontained in two Answers, published by\ncertain anonymous Persons, to an Essay on the\nTreatment and Conversion of African Slaves, in\nthe British Colonies. By JAMES RAMSAY. Price 2s.\n\nA LETTER from Capt. J.S. SMITH, to the\nRev. Mr. HILL, on the State of the Negroe Slaves;\nto which are added an Introduction, and Remarks\non Free Negroes, &c. by J. RAMSAY. Price 6d.\n\nTHOUGHTS on the Slavery of the Negroes.\nPrice 4d.\n\nThe CASE of our Fellow-Creatures, the Oppressed\nAfricans, respectfully recommended to the serious\nConsideration of the Legislature of Great-Britain,\nby the People called Quakers. Price 2d.\n\nA SERIOUS ADDRESS to the Rulers of America,\non the Inconsistency of their Conduct respecting\nSlavery. Price 3d.\n\nA CAUTION to GREAT BRITAIN and her\nColonies, in a short Representation of the calamitous\nState of the enslaved Negroes in the British\nDominions. By ANTHONY BENEZET. Price 6d.\n\nA Description of Guinea, its Situation, Produce,\nand the general Disposition of its Inhabitants; with\nan Inquiry into the Rise and Progress of the Slave\nTrade, &c. By ANTHONY BENEZET. Bound 2s. 6d.\n\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nTHE PREFACE.\n\n\nAs the subject of the following work has fortunately become of late a\ntopick of conversation, I cannot begin the preface in a manner more\nsatisfactory to the feelings of the benevolent reader, than by giving an\naccount of those humane and worthy persons, who have endeavoured to draw\nupon it that share of the publick attention which it has obtained.\n\nAmong the well disposed individuals, of different nations and ages, who\nhave humanely exerted themselves to suppress the abject personal slavery,\nintroduced in the original cultivation of the _European_ colonies\nin the western world, _Bartholomew de las Casas_, the pious bishop\nof _Chiapa_, in the fifteenth century, seems to have been the\nfirst. This amiable man, during his residence in _Spanish America_,\nwas so sensibly affected at the treatment which the miserable Indians\nunderwent that he returned to _Spain_, to make a publick remonstrance\nbefore the celebrated emperor _Charles_ the fifth, declaring, that\nheaven would one day call him to an account for those cruelties, which\nhe then had it in his power to prevent. The speech which he made on the\noccasion, is now extant, and is a most perfect picture of benevolence\nand piety.\n\nBut his intreaties, by opposition of avarice, were rendered ineffectual:\nand I do not find by any books which I have read upon the subject, that\nany other person interfered till the last century, when _Morgan\nGodwyn_, a _British_ clergyman, distinguished himself in the\ncause.\n\nThe present age has also produced some zealous and able opposers of the\n_colonial_ slavery. For about the middle of the present century, _John\nWoolman_ and _Anthony Benezet_, two respectable members of the\nreligious society called Quakers, devoted much of their time to the\nsubject. The former travelled through most parts of _North America_\non foot, to hold conversations with the members of his own sect, on the\nimpiety of retaining those in a state of involuntary servitude, who had\nnever given them offence. The latter kept a free school at\n_Philadelphia_, for the education of black people. He took every\nopportunity of pleading in their behalf. He published several treatises\nagainst slavery,[001] and gave an hearty proof of his attachment to the\ncause, by leaving the whole of his fortune in support of that school, to\nwhich he had so generously devoted his time and attention when alive.\n\nTill this time it does not appear, that any bodies of men, had\ncollectively interested themselves in endeavouring to remedy the evil.\nBut in the year 1754, the religious society, called Quakers, publickly\ntestified their sentiments upon the subject,[002] declaring, that \"to\nlive in ease and plenty by the toil of those, whom fraud and violence\nhad put into their power, was neither consistent with Christianity nor\ncommon justice.\"\n\nImpressed with these sentiments, many of this society immediately\nliberated their slaves; and though such a measure appeared to be\nattended with considerable loss to the benevolent individuals, who\nunconditionally presented them with their freedom, yet they adopted it\nwith pleasure: nobly considering, that to possess a little, in an\nhonourable way, was better than to possess much, through the medium of\ninjustice. Their example was gradually followed by the rest. A general\nemancipation of the slaves in the possession of Quakers, at length took\nplace; and so effectually did they serve the cause which they had\nundertaken, that they denied the claim of membership in their religious\ncommunity, to all such as should hereafter oppose the suggestions of\njustice in this particular, either by retaining slaves in their\npossession, or by being in any manner concerned in the slave trade: and\nit is a fact, that through the vast tract of North America, there is not\nat this day a single slave in the possession of an acknowledged Quaker.\n\nBut though this measure appeared, as has been observed before, to be\nattended with considerable loss to the benevolent individuals who\nadopted it, yet, as virtue seldom fails of obtaining its reward, it\nbecame ultimately beneficial. Most of the slaves, who were thus\nunconditionally freed, returned without any solicitation to their former\nmasters, to serve them, at stated wages; as free men. The work, which\nthey now did, was found to better done than before. It was found also,\nthat, a greater quantity was done in the same time. Hence less than the\nformer number of labourers was sufficient. From these, and a variety of\ncircumstances, it appeared, that their plantations were considerably\nmore profitable when worked by free men, than when worked, as before, by\nslaves; and that they derived therefore, contrary to their expectations,\na considerable advantage from their benevolence.\n\nAnimated by the example of the Quakers, the members of other sects began\nto deliberate about adopting the same measure. Some of those of the\nchurch of England, of the Roman Catholicks, and of the Presbyterians and\nIndependants, freed their slaves; and there happened but one instance,\nwhere the matter was debated, where it was not immediately put in force.\nThis was in _Pennsylvania_. It was agitated in the synod of the\nPresbyterians there, to oblige their members to liberate their slaves.\nThe question was negatived by a majority of but one person; and this\nopposition seemed to arise rather from a dislike to the attempt of\nforcing such a measure upon the members of that community, than from any\nother consideration. I have the pleasure of being credibly informed,\nthat the manumission of slaves, or the employment of free men in the\nplantations, is now daily gaining ground in North America. Should\nslavery be abolished there, (and it is an event, which, from these\ncircumstances, we may reasonably expect to be produced in time) let it\nbe remembered, that the Quakers will have had the merit of its\nabolition.\n\nNor have their brethren here been less assiduous in the cause. As there\nare happily no slaves in this country, so they have not had the same\nopportunity of shewing their benevolence by a general emancipation. They\nhave not however omitted to shew it as far as they have been able. At\ntheir religious meetings they have regularly inquired if any of their\nmembers are concerned in the iniquitous _African_ trade. They have\nappointed a committee for obtaining every kind of information on the\nsubject, with a view to its suppression, and, about three or four years\nago, petitioned parliament on the occasion for their interference and\nsupport. I am sorry to add, that their benevolent application was\nineffectual, and that the reformation of an evil, productive of\nconsequences equally impolitick and immoral, and generally acknowledged\nto have long disgraced our national character, is yet left to the\nunsupported efforts of piety morality and justice, against interest\nviolence and oppression; and these, I blush to acknowledge, too strongly\ncountenanced by the legislative authority of a country, the basis of\nwhose government is _liberty_.\n\nNothing can be more clearly shewn, than that an inexhaustible mine of\nwealth is neglected in _Africa_, for prosecution of this impious\ntraffick; that, if proper measures were taken, the revenue of this\ncountry might be greatly improved, its naval strength increased, its\ncolonies in a more flourishing situation, the planters richer, and a\ntrade, which is now a scene of blood and desolation, converted into one,\nwhich might be prosecuted with _advantage_ and _honour_.\n\nSuch have been the exertions of the Quakers in the cause of humanity\nand virtue. They are still prosecuting, as far as they are able, their\nbenevolent design; and I should stop here and praise them for thus\ncontinuing their humane endeavours, but that I conceive it to be\nunnecessary. They are acting consistently with the principles of\nreligion. They will find a reward in their own consciences; and they\nwill receive more real pleasure from a single reflection on their\nconduct, than they can possibly experience from the praises of an host\nof writers.\n\nIn giving this short account of those humane and worthy persons, who\nhave endeavoured to restore to their fellow creatures the rights of\nnature, of which they had been unjustly deprived, I would feel myself\nunjust, were I to omit two zealous opposers of the _colonial_ tyranny,\nconspicuous at the present day.\n\nThe first is Mr. _Granville Sharp_. This Gentleman has particularly\ndistinguished himself in the cause of freedom. It is a notorious fact,\nthat, but a few years since, many of the unfortunate black people, who\nhad been brought from the colonies into this country, were sold in the\nmetropolis to merchants and others, when their masters had no farther\noccasion for their services; though it was always understood that every\nperson was free, as soon as he landed on the British shore. In\nconsequence of this notion, these unfortunate black people, refused to\ngo to the new masters, to whom they were consigned. They were however\nseized, and forcibly conveyed, under cover of the night, to ships then\nlying in the _Thames_, to be retransported to the colonies, and to be\ndelivered again to the planters as merchantable goods. The humane Mr.\n_Sharpe_, was the means of putting a stop to this iniquitous traffick.\nWhenever he gained information of people in such a situation, he caused\nthem to be brought on shore. At a considerable expence he undertook\ntheir cause, and was instrumental in obtaining the famous decree in the\ncase of _Somersett_, that as soon as any person whatever set his foot in\nthis country, he came under the protection of the _British_ laws, and was\nconsequently free. Nor did he interfere less honourably in that cruel\nand disgraceful case, in the summer of the year 1781, when _an hundred\nand thirty two_ negroes, in their passage to the colonies, were thrown\ninto the sea alive, to defraud the underwriters; but his pious\nendeavours were by no means attended with the same success. To enumerate\nhis many laudable endeavours in the extirpation of tyranny and\noppression, would be to swell the preface into a volume: suffice it to\nsay, that he has written several books on the subject, and one\nparticularly, which he distinguishes by the title of \"_A Limitation of\nSlavery_.\"\n\nThe second is the _Rev. James Ramsay_. This gentleman resided for\nmany years in the _West-Indies_, in the clerical office. He perused\nall the colonial codes of law, with a view to find if there were any\nfavourable clauses, by which the grievances of slaves could be\nredressed; but he was severely disappointed in his pursuits. He\npublished a treatise, since his return to England, called _An Essay on\nthe Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the British Sugar\nColonies_, which I recommend to the perusal of the humane reader.\nThis work reflects great praise upon the author, since, in order to be\nof service to this singularly oppressed part of the human species, he\ncompiled it at the expence of forfeiting that friendship, which he had\ncontracted with many in those parts, during a series of years, and at\nthe hazard, as I am credibly informed, of suffering much, in his private\nproperty, as well as of subjecting himself to the ill will and\npersecution of numerous individuals.\n\nThis Essay _on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves_,\ncontains so many important truths on the colonial slavery, and has come\nso home to the planters, (being written by a person who has a thorough\nknowledge of the subject) as to have occasioned a considerable alarm.\nWithin the last eight months, two publications have expressly appeared\nagainst it. One of them is intitled \"_Cursory Remarks_ on Mr.\nRamsay's Essay;\" the other an \"_Apology for Negroe Slavery_.\" On\neach of these I am bound, as writing on the subject, to make a few\nremarks.\n\nThe _cursory remarker_ insinuates, that Mr. Ramsay's account of the\ntreatment is greatly exaggerated, if not wholly false. To this I shall\nmake the following reply. I have the honour of knowing several\ndisinterested gentlemen, who have been acquainted with the West Indian\nislands for years. I call them disinterested, because they have neither\nhad a concern in the _African_ trade, nor in the _colonial_\nslavery: and I have heard these unanimously assert, that Mr.\n_Ramsay's_ account is so far from being exaggerated, or taken from\nthe most dreary pictures that he could find, that it is absolutely below\nthe truth; that he must have omitted many instances of cruelty, which he\nhad seen himself; and that they only wondered, how he could have written\nwith so much moderation upon the subject. They allow the _Cursory\nRemarks_ to be excellent as a composition, but declare that it is\nperfectly devoid of truth.\n\nBut the _cursory remarker_ does not depend so much on the\ncircumstances which he has advanced, (nor can he, since they have no\nother existence than in his own, brain) as on the instrument\n_detraction_. This he has used with the utmost virulence through\nthe whole of his publication, artfully supposing, that if he could bring\nMr. _Ramsay's_ reputation into dispute, his work would fall of\ncourse, as of no authenticity. I submit this simple question to the\nreader. When a writer, in attempting to silence a publication, attacks\nthe character of its author, rather than the principles of the work\nitself, is it not a proof that the work itself is unquestionable, and\nthat this writer is at a loss to find an argument against it?\n\nBut there is something so very ungenerous in this mode of replication,\nas to require farther notice. For if this is the mode to be adopted in\nliterary disputes, what writer can be safe? Or who is there, that will\nnot be deterred from taking up his pen in the cause of virtue? There are\ncircumstances in every person's life, which, if given to the publick in\na malevolent manner, and without explanation, might essentially injure\nhim in the eyes of the world; though, were they explained, they would be\neven reputable. The _cursory remarker_ has adopted this method of\ndispute; but Mr. _Ramsay_ has explained himself to the satisfaction\nof all parties, and has refuted him in every point. The name of this\n_cursory remarker_ is _Tobin_: a name, which I feel myself\nobliged to hand down with detestation, as far as I am able; and with an\nhint to future writers, that they will do themselves more credit, and\nserve more effectually the cause which they undertake, if on such\noccasions they attack the work, rather than the character of the writer,\nwho affords them a subject for their lucubrations.\n\nNor is this the only circumstance, which induces me to take such\nparticular notice of the _Cursory Remarks_. I feel it incumbent\nupon me to rescue an injured person from the cruel aspersions that have\nbeen thrown upon him, as I have been repeatedly informed by those, who\nhave the pleasure of his acquaintance, that his character is\nirreproachable. I am also interested myself. For if such detraction is\npassed over in silence, my own reputation, and not my work, may be\nattacked by an anonymous hireling in the cause of slavery.\n\nThe _Apology for Negroe Slavery_ is almost too despicable a\ncomposition to merit a reply. I have only therefore to observe, (as is\nfrequently the case in a bad cause, or where writers do not confine\nthemselves to truth) that the work refutes itself. This writer, speaking\nof the slave-trade, asserts, that people are never kidnapped on the\ncoast of _Africa_. In speaking of the treatment of slaves, he\nasserts again, that it is of the very mildest nature, and that they live\nin the most comfortable and happy manner imaginable. To prove each of\nhis assertions, he proposes the following regulations. That the\n_stealing_ of slaves from _Africa_ should be felony. That the\n_premeditated murder_ of a slave by any person on board, should\ncome under the same denomination. That when slaves arrive in the\ncolonies, lands should be allotted for their provisions, _in\nproportion to their number_, or commissioners should see that a\n_sufficient_ quantity of _sound wholesome_ provisions is\npurchased. That they should not work on _Sundays_ and _other_\nholy-days. That extra labour, or _night-work, out of crop_, should\nbe prohibited. That a _limited number_ of stripes should be\ninflicted upon them. That they should have _annually_ a suit of\nclothes. That old infirm slaves should be _properly cared for_,\n&c.--Now it can hardly be conceived, that if this author had tried to\ninjure his cause, or contradict himself, he could not have done it in a\nmore effectual manner, than by this proposal of these salutary\nregulations. For to say that slaves are honourably obtained on the\ncoast; to say that their treatment is of the mildest nature, and yet to\npropose the above-mentioned regulations as necessary, is to refute\nhimself more clearly, than I confess myself to be able to do it: and I\nhave only to request, that the regulations proposed by this writer, in\nthe defence of slavery, may be considered as so many proofs of the\nassertions contained in my own work.\n\nI shall close my account with an observation, which is of great\nimportance in the present case. Of all the publications in favour of the\nslave-trade, or the subsequent slavery in the colonies, there is not\none, which has not been written, either by a chaplain to the African\nfactories, or by a merchant, or by a planter, or by a person whose\ninterest has been connected in the cause which he has taken upon him to\ndefend. Of this description are Mr. _Tobin_, and the _Apologist\nfor Negroe Slavery_. While on the other hand those, who have had as\ncompetent a knowledge of the subject, but not the _same interest_\nas themselves, have unanimously condemned it; and many of them have\nwritten their sentiments upon it, at the hazard of creating an\ninnumerable host of enemies, and of being subjected to the most\nmalignant opposition. Now, which of these are we to believe on the\noccasion? Are we to believe those, who are parties concerned, who are\ninterested in the practice?--But the question does not admit of a\ndispute.\n\nConcerning my own work, it seems proper to observe, that when, the\noriginal Latin Dissertation, as the title page expresses, was honoured\nby the University of Cambridge with the first of their annual prizes for\nthe year 1785, I was waited upon by some gentlemen of respectability and\nconsequence, who requested me to publish it in English. The only\nobjection which occurred to me was this; that having been prevented, by\nan attention to other studies, from obtaining that critical knowledge of\nmy own language, which was necessary for an English composition, I was\nfearful of appearing before the publick eye: but that, as they flattered\nme with the hope, that the publication of it might be of use, I would\ncertainly engage to publish it, if they would allow me to postpone it\nfor a little time, till I was more in the habit of writing. They\nreplied, that as the publick attention was now excited to the case of\nthe unfortunate _Africans_, it would be serving the cause with\ndouble the effect, if it were to be published within a few months. This\nargument prevailed. Nothing but this circumstance could have induced me\nto offer an English composition to the inspection of an host of\ncriticks: and I trust therefore that this circumstance will plead much\nwith the benevolent reader, in favour of those faults, which he may find\nin the present work.\n\nHaving thus promised to publish it, I was for some time doubtful from\nwhich of the copies to translate. There were two, the original, and an\nabridgement. The latter (as these academical compositions are generally\nof a certain length) was that which was sent down to Cambridge, and\nhonoured with the prize. I was determined however, upon consulting with\nmy friends, to translate from the former. This has been faithfully done\nwith but few[003] additions. The reader will probably perceive the Latin\nidiom in several passages of the work, though I have endeavoured, as far\nas I have been able, to avoid it. And I am so sensible of the\ndisadvantages under which it must yet lie, as a translation, that I wish\nI had written upon the subject, without any reference at all to the\noriginal copy.\n\nIt will perhaps be asked, from what authority I have collected those\nfacts, which relate to the colonial slavery. I reply, that I have had\nthe means of the very best of information on the subject; having the\npleasure of being acquainted with many, both in the naval and military\ndepartments, as well as with several others, who have been long\nacquainted with _America_ and the _West-Indian_ islands. The\nfacts therefore which I have related, are compiled from the\ndisinterested accounts of these gentlemen, all of whom, I have the\nhappiness to say, have coincided, in the minutest manner, in their\ndescriptions. It mud be remarked too, that they were compiled, not from\nwhat these gentlemen heard, while they were resident in those parts, but\nfrom what they actually _saw_. Nor has a single instance been taken\nfrom any book whatever upon the subject, except that which is mentioned\nin the 235th page; and this book was published in _France_, in the\nyear 1777, by _authority_.\n\nI have now the pleasure to say, that the accounts of these disinterested\ngentlemen, whom I consulted on the occasion, are confirmed by all the\nbooks which I have ever perused upon slavery, except those which have\nbeen written by _merchants, planters, &c_. They are confirmed by\nSir _Hans Sloane's_ Voyage to Barbadoes; _Griffith Hughes's_\nHistory of the same island, printed 1750; an Account of North America,\nby _Thomas Jeffries_, 1761; all _Benezet's_ works, &c. &c. and\nparticularly by Mr. _Ramsay's_ Essay on the Treatment and\nConversion of the African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies; a work\nwhich is now firmly established; and, I may add in a very extraordinary\nmanner, in consequence of the controversy which this gentleman has\nsustained with the _Cursory Remarker_, by which several facts which\nwere mentioned in the original copy of my own work, before the\ncontroversy began, and which had never appeared in any work upon the\nsubject, have been brought to light. Nor has it received less support\nfrom a letter, published only last week, from Capt. J.S. Smith, of the\nRoyal Navy, to the Rev. Mr. Hill; on the former of whom too high\nencomiums cannot be bestowed, for standing forth in that noble and\ndisinterested manner, in behalf of an injured character.\n\nI have now only to solicit the reader again, that he will make a\nfavourable allowance for the present work, not only from those\ncircumstances which I have mentioned, but from the consideration, that\nonly two months are allowed by the University for these their annual\ncompositions. Should he however be unpropitious to my request, I must\nconsole myself with the reflection, (a reflection that will always\nafford me pleasure, even amidst the censures of the great,) that by\nundertaking the cause of the unfortunate _Africans_, I have\nundertaken, as far as my abilities would permit, the cause of injured\ninnocence.\n\nLondon, June 1st 1786.\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 001: A Description of Guinea, with an Inquiry into the Rise\nand Progress of the Slave Trade, &c.--A Caution to Great Britain and her\nColonies, in a short Representation of the calamitous State of the\nenslaved Negroes in the British Dominions. Besides several smaller\npieces.]\n\n\n[Footnote 002: They had censured the _African Trade_ in the year\n1727, but had taken no publick notice of the _colonial_ slavery\ntill this time.]\n\n\n[Footnote 003: The instance of the _Dutch_ colonists at the Cape,\nin the first part of the Essay; the description of an African battle, in\nthe second; and the poetry of a negroe girl in the third, are the only\nconsiderable additions that have been made.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPART I.\n\nThe History of Slavery.\n\n    CHAP. I. Introduction.--Division of slavery into voluntary and\n    involuntary.--The latter the subject of the present work.--Chap. II.\n    The first class of involuntary slaves among the ancients, from\n    war.--Conjecture concerning their antiquity.--Chap. III. The second\n    class from piracy.--Short history of piracy.--The dance\n    carpoea.--Considerations from hence on the former topick.--Three\n    orders of involuntary slaves among the ancients.--Chap. IV. Their\n    personal treatment.--Exception in \u00c6gypt.--Exception at\n    Athens.--Chap. V. The causes of such treatment among the ancients in\n    general.--Additional causes among the Greeks and Romans.--A\n    refutation of their principles.--Remarks on the writings of\n    \u00c6sop.--Chap. VI. The ancient slave-trade.--Its antiquity.--\u00c6gypt\n    the first market recorded for this species of traffick.--Cyprus the\n    second.--The agreement of the writings of Moses and Homer on the\n    subject.--The universal prevalence of the trade.--Chap. VII. The\n    decline of this commerce and slavery in Europe.--The causes of\n    their decline.--Chap. VIII. Their revival in Africa.--Short history\n    of their revival.--Five classes of involuntary slaves among the\n    moderns.--Cruel instance of the Dutch colonists at the Cape.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPART II.\n\nThe African Commerce or Slave-Trade.\n\n    CHAP. I. The history of mankind from their first situation to a\n    state of government.--Chap. II. An account of the first\n    governments.--Chap. III. Liberty a natural right.--That of\n    government adventitious.--Government, its nature.--Its end.--Chap.\n    IV. Mankind cannot be considered as property.--An objection\n    answered.--Chap. V. Division of the commerce into two parts, as it\n    relates to those who sell, and those who purchase the human species\n    into slavery.--The right of the sellers examined with respect to\n    the two orders of African slaves, \"of those who are publickly seized\n    by virtue of the authority of their prince, and of those, who are\n    kidnapped by individuals.\"--Chap. VI. Their right with respect to\n    convicts.--From the proportion of the punishment to the\n    offence.--From its object and end.--Chap. VII. Their right with\n    respect to prisoners of war.--The jus captivitatis, or right of\n    capture explained.--Its injustice.--Farther explication of the\n    right of capture, in answer to some supposed objections.--Chap.\n    VIII. Additional remarks on the two orders that were first\n    mentioned.--The number which they annually contain.--A description\n    of an African battle.--Additional remarks on prisoners of war.--On\n    convicts.--Chap. IX. The right of the purchasers\n    examined.--Conclusion.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPART III.\n\nThe Slavery of the Africans in the European\nColonies.\n\n    CHAP. I. Imaginary scene in Africa.--Imaginary conversation with an\n    African.--His ideas of Christianity.--A Description of a body of\n    slaves going to the ships.--Their embarkation.--Chap. II. Their\n    treatment on board.--The number that annually perish in the\n    voyage.--Horrid instance at sea.--Their debarkation in the\n    colonies.--Horrid instance on the shore.--Chap. III. The condition\n    of their posterity in the colonies.--The lex nativitatis\n    explained.--Its injustice.--Chap. IV. The seasoning in the\n    colonies.--The number that annually die in the seasoning.--The\n    employment of the survivors.--The colonial discipline.--Its\n    tendency to produce cruelty.--Horrid instance of this\n    effect.--Immoderate labour, and its consequences.--Want of food\n    and its consequences.--Severity and its consequences.--The forlorn\n    situation of slaves.--An appeal to the memory of Alfred.--Chap. V.\n    The contents of the two preceding chapters denied by the\n    purchasers.--Their first argument refuted.--Their second\n    refuted.--Their third refuted.--Chap. VI. Three arguments, which\n    they bring in vindication of their treatment, refuted.--Chap. VII.\n    The argument, that the Africans are an inferiour link of the chain\n    of nature, as far as it relates to their genius, refuted.--The\n    causes of this apparent inferiority.--Short dissertation on African\n    genius.--Poetry of an African girl.--Chap. VIII. The argument, that\n    they are an inferiour link of the chain of nature, as far as it\n    relates to colour, &c. refuted.--Examination of the divine writings\n    in this particular.--Dissertation on the colour.--Chap. IX. Other\n    arguments of the purchasers examined.--Their comparisons\n    unjust.--Their assertions, with respect to the happy situation of\n    the Africans in the colonies, without foundation.--Their happiness\n    examined with respect to manumission.--With respect to\n    holy-days.--Dances, &c.--An estimate made at St. Domingo.--Chap. X.\n    The right of the purchasers over their slaves refuted upon their own\n    principles.--Chap. XI. Dreadful arguments against this commerce and\n    slavery of the human species.--How the Deity seems already to punish\n    us for this inhuman violation of his laws.--Conclusion.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n    For _Dominique_, (Footnote 107) read _Domingue_.\n\n    N. B. In page 18 a Latin note has been inserted by mistake, under\n    the quotation of Diodorus Siculus. The reader will find the original\n    Greek of the same signification, in the same author, at page 49.\n    Editio Stephani.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nAN ESSAY\n\nON THE SLAVERY and COMMERCE\n\nOF THE HUMAN SPECIES.\n\n\nIN THREE PARTS.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\nTHE HISTORY OF SLAVERY.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\nWhen civilized, as well as barbarous nations, have been found, through a\nlong succession of ages, uniformly to concur in the same customs, there\nseems to arise a presumption, that such customs are not only eminently\nuseful, but are founded also on the principles of justice. Such is the\ncase with respect to _Slavery_: it has had the concurrence of all\nthe nations, which history has recorded, and the repeated practice of\nages from the remotest antiquity, in its favour. Here then is an\nargument, deduced from the general consent and agreement of mankind, in\nfavour of the proposed subject: but alas! when we reflect that the\npeople, thus reduced to a state of servitude, have had the same feelings\nwith ourselves; when we reflect that they have had the same propensities\nto pleasure, and the same aversions from pain; another argument seems\nimmediately to arise in opposition to the former, deduced from our own\nfeelings and that divine sympathy, which nature has implanted in our\nbreasts, for the most useful and generous of purposes. To ascertain the\ntruth therefore, where two such opposite sources of argument occur;\nwhere the force of custom pleads strongly on the one hand, and the\nfeelings of humanity on the other; is a matter of much importance, as\nthe dignity of human nature is concerned, and the rights and liberties\nof mankind will be involved in its discussion.\n\nIt will be necessary, before this point can be determined, to consult\nthe History of Slavery, and to lay before the reader, in as concise a\nmanner as possible, a general view of it from its earliest appearance to\nthe present day.\n\nThe first, whom we shall mention here to have been reduced to a state of\nservitude, may be comprehended in that class, which is usually\ndenominated the _Mercenary_. It consisted of free-born citizens,\nwho, from the various contingencies of fortune, had become so poor, as\nto have recourse for their support to the service of the rich. Of this\nkind were those, both among the Egyptians and the Jews, who are recorded\nin the sacred writings.[004] The Grecian _Thetes_[005] also were of\nthis description, as well as those among the Romans, from whom the class\nreceives its appellation, the [006]_Mercenarii_.\n\nWe may observe of the above-mentioned, that their situation was in many\ninstances similar to that of our own servants. There was an express\ncontract between the parties; they could, most of them, demand their\ndischarge, if they were ill used by their respective masters; and they\nwere treated therefore with more humanity than those, whom we usually\ndistinguish in our language by the appellation of _Slaves_.\n\nAs this class of servants was composed of men, who had been reduced to\nsuch a situation by the contingencies of fortune, and not by their own\nmisconduct; so there was another among the ancients, composed entirely\nof those, who had suffered the loss of liberty from their own\nimprudence. To this class may be reduced the Grecian _Prodigals_,\nwho were detained in the service of their creditors, till the fruits of\ntheir labour were equivalent to their debts; the _delinquents_, who\nwere sentenced to the oar; and the German _enthusiasts_, as\nmentioned by Tacitus, who were so immoderately charmed with gaming, as,\nwhen every thing else was gone, to have staked their liberty and their\nvery selves. \"The loser,\" says he, \"goes into a voluntary servitude, and\nthough younger and stronger than the person with whom he played,\npatiently suffers himself to be bound and sold. Their perseverance in\nso bad a custom is stiled honour. The slaves, thus obtained, are\nimmediately exchanged away in commerce, that the winner may get rid of\nthe scandal of his victory.\"\n\nTo enumerate other instances, would be unnecessary; it will be\nsufficient to observe, that the servants of this class were in a far\nmore wretched situation, than those of the former; their drudgery was\nmore intense; their treatment more severe; and there was no retreat at\npleasure, from the frowns and lashes of their despotick masters.\n\nHaving premised this, we may now proceed to a general division of\nslavery, into _voluntary_ and _involuntary_. The _voluntary_\nwill comprehend the two classes, which we have already mentioned;\nfor, in the first instance, there was a _contract_, founded\non _consent_; and, in the second, there was a _choice_ of\nengaging or not in those practices, the known consequences of which\nwere servitude. The _involuntary_; on the other hand, will\ncomprehend those, who were forced, without any such _condition_ or\n_choice_, into a situation, which as it tended to degrade a part of\nthe human species, and to class it with the brutal, must have been, of\nall human situations, the most wretched and insupportable. These are\nthey, whom we shall consider solely in the present work. We shall\ntherefore take our leave of the former, as they were mentioned only,\nthat we might state the question with greater accuracy, and, be the\nbetter enabled to reduce it to its proper limits.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 004: Genesis, Ch. 47. Leviticus XXV. v. 39, 40.]\n\n\n[Footnote 005: The _Thetes_ appear very early in the Grecian\nHistory.--kai tines auto kouroi epont'Ithakes exairetoi; he eoi autou\nthentes te Dmoes(?) te; Od. Homer. D. 642. They were afterwards so much\nin use that, \"Murioi depou apedidonto eautous ose douleuein kata\nsungraphen,\" till Solon suppressed the custom in Athens.]\n\n\n[Footnote 006: The mention of these is frequent among the classics; they\nwere called in general _mercenarii_, from the circumstances of\ntheir _hire_, as \"quibus, non mal\u00e8 pr\u00e6cipiunt, qui ita jubent uti,\nut _mercenariis_, operam exigendam, justa proebenda. Cicero de\noff.\" But they are sometimes mentioned in the law books by the name of\n_liberi_, from the circumstances of their _birth_, to distinguish\nthem from the _alieni_, or foreigners, as Justinian. D. 7. 8. 4.\n--Id. 21. 1. 25. &c. &c. &c.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\nThe first that will be mentioned, of the _involuntary_, were\n_prisoners of war_.[007] \"It was a law, established from time\nimmemorial among the nations of antiquity, to oblige those to undergo\nthe severities of servitude, whom victory had thrown into their hands.\"\nConformably with this, we find all the Eastern nations unanimous in the\npractice. The same custom prevailed among the people of the West; for as\nthe Helots became the slaves of the Spartans, from the right of conquest\nonly, so prisoners of war were reduced to the same situation by the rest\nof the inhabitants of Greece. By the same principles that actuated\nthese, were the Romans also influenced. Their History will confirm the\nfact: for how many cities are recorded to have been taken; how many\narmies to have been vanquished in the field, and the wretched survivors,\nin both instances, to have been doomed to servitude? It remains only now\nto observe, in shewing this custom to have been universal, that all\nthose nations which assisted in overturning the Roman Empire, though\nmany and various, adopted the same measures; for we find it a general\nmaxim in their polity, that whoever should fall into their hands as a\nprisoner of war, should immediately be reduced to the condition of a\nslave.\n\nIt may here, perhaps, be not unworthy of remark, that the\n_involuntary_ were of greater antiquity than the _voluntary_\nslaves. The latter are first mentioned in the time of Pharaoh: they\ncould have arisen only in a state of society; when property, after its\ndivision, had become so unequal, as to multiply the wants of\nindividuals; and when government, after its establishment, had given\nsecurity to the possessor by the punishment of crimes. Whereas the\nformer seem to be dated with more propriety from the days of Nimrod; who\ngave rise probably to that inseparable idea of _victory_ and\n_servitude_, which we find among the nations of antiquity, and\nwhich has existed uniformly since, in one country or another, to the\npresent day.[008]\n\nAdd to this, that they might have arisen even in a state of nature, and\nhave been coequal with the quarrels of mankind.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 007: \"Nomos en pasin anthropois aidios esin, otan polemounton\npolis alo, ton elonton einai kai ta somata ton en te poleis, kai ta\nchremata.\" Xenoph. Kyrou Paid. L. 7. fin.]\n\n\n[Footnote 008:\n\n\"Proud Nimrod first the bloody chace began,\nA mighty hunter, and his prey was man.\"\n\n--POPE.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\nBut it was not victory alone, or any presupposed right, founded in the\ndamages of war, that afforded a pretence for invading the liberties of\nmankind: the honourable light, in which _piracy_ was considered in\nthe uncivilized ages of the world, contributed not a little to the\n_slavery_ of the human species. Piracy had a very early beginning.\n\"The Grecians,\"[009] says Thucydides, \"in their primitive state, as well\nas the contemporary barbarians, who inhabited the sea coasts and\nislands, gave themselves wholly to it; it was, in short, their only\nprofession and support.\" The writings of Homer are sufficient of\nthemselves to establish this account. They shew it to have been a common\npractice at so early a period as that of the Trojan war; and abound with\nmany lively descriptions of it; which, had they been as groundless as\nthey are beautiful, would have frequently spared the sigh of the reader\nof sensibility and reflection.\n\nThe piracies, which were thus practised in the early ages, may be\nconsidered as _publick_ or _private_. In the former, whole\ncrews embarked for the benefit[010] of their respective tribes. They\nmade descents on the sea coasts, carried off cattle, surprized whole\nvillages, put many of the inhabitants to the sword, and carried others\ninto slavery.\n\nIn the latter, individuals only were concerned, and the emolument was\ntheir own. These landed from their ships, and, going up into the\ncountry, concealed themselves in the woods and thickets; where they\nwaited every opportunity of catching the unfortunate shepherd or\nhusbandman alone. In this situation they sallied out upon him, dragged\nhim on board, conveyed him to a foreign market, and sold him for a\nslave.\n\nTo this kind of piracy Ulysses alludes, in opposition to the former,\nwhich he had been just before mentioning, in his question to Eumoeus.\n\n\n\"Did pirates wait, till all thy friends were gone,\nTo catch thee singly with thy flocks alone;\nSay, did they force thee from thy fleecy care,\nAnd from thy fields transport and sell thee here?\"[011]\n\n\nBut no picture, perhaps, of this mode of depredation, is equal to that,\nwith which[012] Xenophon presents us in the simple narrative of a dance.\nHe informs us that the Grecian army had concluded a peace with the\nPaphlagonians, and that they entertained their embassadors in\nconsequence with a banquet, and the exhibition of various feats of\nactivity. \"When the Thracians,\" says he, \"had performed the parts\nallotted them in this entertainment, some Aenianian and Magnetian\nsoldiers rose up, and, accoutred in their proper arms, exhibited that\ndance, which is called _Karpoea_. The figure of it is thus. One of\nthem, in the character of an husbandman, is seen to till his land, and\nis observed, as he drives his plough, to look frequently behind him, as\nif apprehensive of danger. Another immediately appears in fight, in\nthe character of a robber. The husbandman, having seen him previously\nadvancing, snatches up his arms. A battle ensues before the plough. The\nwhole of this performance is kept in perfect time with the musick of the\nflute. At length the robber, having got the better of the husbandman,\nbinds him, and drives him off with his team. Sometimes it happens that\nthe husbandman subdues the robber: in this case the scene is only\nreversed, as the latter is then bound and driven, off by the former.\"\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to observe, that this dance was a\nrepresentation of the general manners of men, in the more uncivilized\nages of the world; shewing that the husbandman and shepherd lived in\ncontinual alarm, and that there were people in those ages, who derived\ntheir pleasures and fortunes from _kidnapping_ and _enslaving_\ntheir fellow creatures.\n\nWe may now take notice of a circumstance in this narration, which will\nlead us to a review of our first assertion on this point, \"that the\nhonourable light, in which _piracy_ was considered in the times of\nbarbarism, contributed not a little to the _slavery_ of the human\nspecies.\" The robber is represented here as frequently defeated in his\nattempts, and as reduced to that deplorable situation, to which he was\nendeavouring to bring another. This shews the frequent difficulty and\ndanger of his undertakings: people would not tamely resign their lives\nor liberties, without a struggle. They were sometimes prepared; were\nsuperior often, in many points of view, to these invaders of their\nliberty; there were an hundred accidental circumstances frequently in\ntheir favour. These adventures therefore required all the skill,\nstrength, agility, valour, and every thing, in short, that may be\nsupposed to constitute heroism, to conduct them with success. Upon this\nidea piratical expeditions first came into repute, and their frequency\nafterwards, together with the danger and fortitude, that were\ninseparably connected with them, brought them into such credit among the\nbarbarous nations of antiquity, that of all human professions, piracy\nwas the most honourable.[013]\n\nThe notions then, which were thus annexed to piratical expeditions, did\nnot fail to produce those consequences, which we have mentioned before.\nThey afforded an opportunity to the views of avarice and ambition, to\nconceal themselves under the mask of virtue. They excited a spirit of\nenterprize, of all others the most irresistible, as it subsisted on the\nstrongest principles of action, emolument and honour. Thus could the\nvilest of passions be gratified with impunity. People were robbed,\nstolen, murdered, under the pretended idea that these were reputable\nadventures: every enormity in short was committed, and dressed up in the\nhabiliments of honour.\n\nBut as the notions of men in the less barbarous ages, which followed,\nbecame more corrected and refined, the practice of piracy began\ngradually to disappear. It had hitherto been supported on the grand\ncolumns of _emolument_ and _honour_. When the latter therefore\nwas removed, it received a considerable shock; but, alas! it had still a\npillar for its support! _avarice_, which exists in all states, and\nwhich is ready to turn every invention to its own ends, strained hard\nfor its preservation. It had been produced in the ages of barbarism; it\nhad been pointed out in those ages as lucrative, and under this notion\nit was continued. People were still stolen; many were intercepted (some,\nin their pursuits of pleasure, others, in the discharge of their several\noccupations) by their own countrymen; who previously laid in wait for\nthem, and sold them afterwards for slaves; while others seized by\nmerchants, who traded on the different coasts, were torn from their\nfriends and connections, and carried into slavery. The merchants of\nThessaly, if we can credit Aristophanes[014] who never spared the vices\nof the times, were particularly infamous for the latter kind of\ndepredation; the Athenians were notorious for the former; for they had\npractised these robberies to such an alarming degree of danger to\nindividuals, that it was found necessary to enact a law[015], which\npunished kidnappers with death.--But this is sufficient for our present\npurpose; it will enable us to assert, that there were two classes of\n_involuntary_ slaves among the ancients, \"of those who were taken\npublickly in a state of war, and of those who were privately stolen in\na state of innocence and peace.\" We may now add, that the children and\ndescendents of these composed a third.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 009: Thucydides. L. 1. sub initio.]\n\n\n[Footnote 010: Idem.--\"the strongest,\" says he, \"engaging in these\nadventures, Kerdous tou spheterou auton eneka kai tois asthenesi trophes.\"]\n\n\n[Footnote 011: Homer. Odyss. L. 15. 385.]\n\n\n[Footnote 012: Xenoph. Kyrou Anab. L. 6. sub initio.]\n\n\n[Footnote 013: ouk echontos po Aischynen toutou tou ergou pherontos de\nti kai Doxes mallon. Thucydides, L. 1. sub initio. kai euklees touto\noi Kilikes enomizon. Sextus Empiricus. ouk adoxon all'endoxon touto.\nSchol. &c. &c.]\n\n\n[Footnote 014: Aristoph. Plut. Act. 2. Scene 5.]\n\n\n[Footnote 015: Zenoph. Apomnemon, L. 1.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\nIt will be proper to say something here concerning the situation of the\nunfortunate men, who were thus doomed to a life of servitude. To\nenumerate their various employments, and to describe the miseries which\nthey endured in consequence, either from the severity, or the long and\nconstant application of their labour, would exceed the bounds we have\nproposed to the present work. We shall confine ourselves to their\n_personal treatment_, as depending on the power of their masters, and\nthe protection of the law. Their treatment, if considered in this light,\nwill equally excite our pity and abhorrence. They were beaten, starved,\ntortured, murdered at discretion: they were dead in a civil sense; they\nhad neither name nor tribe; were incapable of a judicial process; were\nin short without appeal. Poor unfortunate men! to be deprived of all\npossible protection! to suffer the bitterest of injuries without the\npossibility of redress! to be condemned unheard! to be murdered with\nimpunity! to be considered as dead in that state, the very members of\nwhich they were supporting by their labours!\n\nYet such was their general situation: there were two places however,\nwhere their condition, if considered in this point of view, was more\ntolerable. The \u00c6gyptian slave, though perhaps of all others the greatest\ndrudge, yet if he had time to reach the temple[016] of Hercules, found a\ncertain retreat from the persecution of his master; and he received\nadditional comfort from the reflection, that his life, whether he could\nreach it or not, could not be taken with impunity. Wise and salutary\nlaw![017] how often must it have curbed the insolence of power, and\nstopped those passions in their progress, which had otherwise been\ndestructive to the slave!\n\nBut though the persons of slaves were thus greatly secured in \u00c6gypt, yet\nthere was no place so favourable to them as Athens. They were allowed a\ngreater liberty of speech;[018] they had their convivial meetings, their\namours, their hours of relaxation, pleasantry, and mirth; they were\ntreated, in short, with so much humanity in general, as to occasion that\nobservation of Demosthenes, in his second Philippick, \"that the\ncondition of a slave, at Athens, was preferable to that of a free\ncitizen, in many other countries.\" But if any exception happened (which\nwas sometimes the case) from the general treatment described; if\npersecution took the place of lenity, and made the fangs of servitude\nmore pointed than before,[019] they had then their temple, like the\n\u00c6gyptian, for refuge; where the legislature was so attentive, as to\nexamine their complaints, and to order them, if they were founded in\njustice, to be sold to another master. Nor was this all: they had a\nprivilege infinitely greater than the whole of these. They were allowed\nan opportunity of working for themselves, and if their diligence had\nprocured them a sum equivalent with their ransom, they could\nimmediately, on paying it down,[020] demand their freedom for ever. This\nlaw was, of all others, the most important; as the prospect of liberty,\nwhich it afforded, must have been a continual source of the most\npleasing reflections, and have greatly sweetened the draught, even of\nthe most bitter slavery.\n\nThus then, to the eternal honour of \u00c6gypt and Athens, they were the only\nplaces that we can find, where slaves were considered with any humanity\nat all. The rest of the world seemed to vie with each other, in the\ndebasement and oppression of these unfortunate people. They used them\nwith as much severity as they chose; they measured their treatment only\nby their own passion and caprice; and, by leaving them on every\noccasion, without the possibility of an appeal, they rendered their\nsituation the most melancholy and intolerable, that can possibly be\nconceived.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 016: Herodotus. L. 2. 113.]\n\n\n[Footnote 017: \"Apud \u00c6gyptios, si quis servum sponte occiderat, eum\nmorte damnari \u00e6que ac si liberum occidisset, jubebant leges &c.\"\nDiodorus Sic. L. 1.]\n\n\n[Footnote 018:\n\n\"Atq id ne vos miremini, Homines servulos\nPotare, amare, atq ad coenam condicere.\nLicet hoc Athenis.\nPlautus. Sticho.\"\n]\n\n\n[Footnote 019:\n\"Be me kratison esin eis to Theseion\nDramein, ekei d'eos an eurombou prasin\nmenein\" Aristoph. Hor\u00e6.\n\nKaka toiade paskousin oude prasin\nAitousin. Eupolis. poleis.]\n\n\n[Footnote 020: To this privilege Plautus alludes in his _Casina_,\nwhere he introduces a slave, speaking in the following manner.\n\n\"Quid tu me ver\u00f2 libertate territas?\nQuod si tu nolis, siliusque etiam tuus\nVobis _invitis_, atq amborum _ingratiis_,\n_Una libella liber possum fieri_.\"\n]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\nAs we have mentioned the barbarous and inhuman treatment that generally\nfell to the lot of slaves, it may not be amiss to inquire into the\nvarious circumstances by which it was produced.\n\nThe first circumstance, from whence it originated, was the\n_commerce_: for if men could be considered as _possessions_;\nif, like _cattle_, they could be _bought_ and _sold_, it\nwill not be difficult to suppose, that they could be held in the same\nconsideration, or treated in the same manner. The commerce therefore,\nwhich was begun in the primitive ages of the world, by classing them\nwith the brutal species, and by habituating the mind to consider the\nterms of _brute_ and _slave_ as _synonimous_, soon caused\nthem to be viewed in a low and despicable light, and as greatly\ninferiour to the human species. Hence proceeded that treatment, which\nmight not unreasonably be supposed to arise from so low an estimation.\nThey were tamed, like beasts, by the stings of hunger and the lash, and\ntheir education was directed to the same end, to make them commodious\ninstruments of labour for their possessors.\n\nThis _treatment_, which thus proceeded in the ages of barbarism,\nfrom the low estimation, in which slaves were unfortunately held from\nthe circumstances of the commerce, did not fail of producing, in the\nsame instant, its _own_ effect. It depressed their minds; it numbed\ntheir faculties; and, by preventing those sparks of genius from blazing\nforth, which had otherwise been conspicuous; it gave them the appearance\nof being endued with inferiour capacities than the rest of mankind. This\neffect of the _treatment_ had made so considerable a progress, as\nto have been a matter of observation in the days of Homer.\n\n\nFor half _his_ senses Jove conveys away,\n_Whom_ once he dooms to see the _servile_ day.[021]\n\n\nThus then did the _commerce_, by classing them originally with\n_brutes_, and the consequent _treatment_, by cramping their\n_abilities_, and hindering them from becoming _conspicuous_,\ngive to these unfortunate people, at a very early period, the most\nunfavourable _appearance_. The rising generations, who received\nboth the commerce and treatment from their ancestors, and who had always\nbeen accustomed to behold their _effects_, did not consider these\n_effects_ as _incidental_: they judged only from what they\nsaw; they believed the _appearances_ to be _real_; and hence\narose the combined principle, that slaves were an _inferiour_ order\nof men, and perfectly void of _understanding_. Upon this\n_principle_ it was, that the former treatment began to be fully\nconfirmed and established; and as this _principle_ was handed down\nand disseminated, so it became, in succeeding ages, an _excuse_ for\nany severity, that despotism might suggest.\n\nWe may observe here, that as all nations had this excuse in common, as\narising from the _circumstances_ above-mentioned, so the Greeks\nfirst, and the Romans afterwards, had an _additional excuse_, as\narising from their own _vanity_.\n\nThe former having conquered Troy, and having united themselves under one\ncommon name and interest, began, from that period, to distinguish the\nrest of the world by the title of _barbarians_; inferring by such\nan appellation, \"that they were men who were only noble in their own\ncountry; that they had no right, from their _nature_, to authority\nor command; that, on the contrary, so low were their capacities, they\nwere _destined_ by nature _to obey_, and to live in a state of\nperpetual drudgery and subjugation.\"[022] Conformable with this opinion\nwas the treatment, which was accordingly prescribed to a\n_barbarian_. The philosopher Aristotle himself, in the advice which\nhe gave to his pupil Alexander, before he went upon his Asiatick\nexpedition, intreated him to \"use the Greeks, as it became a\n_general_, but the _barbarians_, as it became a _master_;\nconsider, says he, the former as _friends_ and _domesticks_;\nbut the latter, as _brutes_ and _plants_;\"[023] inferring that\nthe Greeks, from the superiority of their capacities, had a\n_natural_ right to dominion, and that the rest of the world, from\nthe inferiority of their own, were to be considered and treated as the\n_irrational_ part of the creation.\n\nNow, if we consider that this was the treatment, which they judged to be\nabsolutely proper for people of this description, and that their slaves\nwere uniformly those, whom they termed _barbarians_; being\ngenerally such, as were either kidnapped from _Barbary_, or\npurchased from the _barbarian_ conquerors in their wars with one\nanother; we shall immediately see, with what an additional excuse their\nown vanity had furnished them for the sallies of caprice and passion.\n\nTo refute these cruel sentiments of the ancients, and to shew that their\nslaves were by no means an inferiour order of beings than themselves,\nmay perhaps be considered as an unnecessary task; particularly, as\nhaving shewn, that the causes of this inferiour appearance were\n_incidental_, arising, on the one hand, from the combined effects\nof the _treatment_ and _commerce_, and, on the other, from\n_vanity_ and _pride_, we seem to have refuted them already.\nBut we trust that some few observations, in vindication of these\nunfortunate people, will neither be unacceptable nor improper.\n\nHow then shall we begin the refutation? Shall we say with Seneca, who\nsaw many of the slaves in question, \"What is a _knight_, or a\n_libertine_, or a _slave_? Are they not names, assumed either\nfrom _injury_ or _ambition_?\" Or, shall we say with him on\nanother occasion, \"Let us consider that he, whom we call our slave, is\nborn in the same manner as ourselves; that he enjoys the same sky, with\nall its heavenly luminaries; that he breathes, that he lives, in the\nsame manner as ourselves, and, in the same manner, that he expires.\"\nThese considerations, we confess, would furnish us with a plentiful\nsource of arguments in the case before us; but we decline their\nassistance. How then shall we begin? Shall we enumerate the many\ninstances of fidelity, patience, or valour, that are recorded of the\n_servile_ race? Shall we enumerate the many important services,\nthat they rendered both to the individuals and the community, under whom\nthey lived? Here would be a second source, from whence we could collect\nsufficient materials to shew, that there was no inferiority in their\nnature. But we decline to use them. We shall content ourselves with some\nfew instances, that relate to the _genius_ only: we shall mention\nthe names of those of a _servile_ condition, whose writings, having\nescaped the wreck of time, and having been handed down even to the\npresent age, are now to be seen, as so many living monuments, that\nneither the Grecian, nor Roman genius, was superiour to their own.\n\nThe first, whom we shall mention here, is the famous \u00c6sop. He was a\nPhrygian by birth, and lived in the time of Croesus, king of Lydia, to\nwhom he dedicated his fables. The writings of this great man, in\nwhatever light we consider them, will be equally entitled to our\nadmiration. But we are well aware, that the very mention of him as a\nwriter of fables, may depreciate him in the eyes of some. To such we\nshall propose a question, \"Whether this species of writing has not been\nmore beneficial to mankind; or whether it has not produced more\nimportant events, than any other?\"\n\nWith respect to the first consideration, it is evident that these\nfables, as consisting of plain and simple transactions, are particularly\neasy to be understood; as conveyed in images, they please and seduce the\nmind; and, as containing a _moral_, easily deducible on the side of\nvirtue; that they afford, at the same time, the most weighty precepts of\nphilosophy. Here then are the two grand points of composition, \"a manner\nof expression to be apprehended by the lowest capacities, and, (what is\nconsidered as a victory in the art) an happy conjunction of utility and\npleasure.\"[024] Hence Quintilian recommends them, as singularly useful,\nand as admirably adapted, to the puerile age; as a just gradation\nbetween the language of the nurse and the preceptor, and as furnishing\nmaxims of prudence and virtue, at a time when the speculative principles\nof philosophy are too difficult to be understood. Hence also having been\nintroduced by most civilized nations into their system of education,\nthey have produced that general benefit, to which we at first alluded.\nNor have they been of less consequence in maturity; but particularly to\nthose of inferiour capacities, or little erudition, whom they have\nfrequently served as a guide to conduct them in life, and as a medium,\nthrough which an explanation might be made, on many and important\noccasions.\n\nWith respect to the latter consideration, which is easily deducible from\nhence, we shall only appeal to the wonderful effect, which the fable,\npronounced by Demosthenes against Philip of Macedon, produced among his\nhearers; or to the fable, which was spoken by Menenius Agrippa to the\nRoman populace; by which an illiterate multitude were brought back to\ntheir duty as citizens, when no other species of oratory could prevail.\n\nTo these truly _ingenious_, and _philosophical_ works of \u00c6sop,\nwe shall add those of his imitator Phoedrus, which in purity and\nelegance of style, are inferiour to none. We shall add also the Lyrick\n_Poetry_ of Alcman, which is no _servile_ composition; the\nsublime _Morals_ of Epictetus, and the incomparable _comedies_\nof Terence.\n\nThus then does it appear, that the _excuse_ which was uniformly\nstarted in defence of the _treatment_ of slaves, had no foundation\nwhatever either in truth or justice. The instances that we have\nmentioned above, are sufficient to shew, that there was no inferiority,\neither in their _nature_, or their understandings: and at the same\ntime that they refute the principles of the ancients, they afford a\nvaluable lesson to those, who have been accustomed to form too\nprecipitate a judgment on the abilities of men: for, alas! how often has\n_secret anguish_ depressed the spirits of those, whom they have\nfrequently censured, from their gloomy and dejected appearance! and how\noften, on the other hand, has their judgment resulted from their own\n_vanity_ and _pride_!\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 021: Homer. Odys. P. 322. In the latest edition of Homer, the\nword, which we have translated _senses_, is _Aretae_, or\n_virtue_, but the old and proper reading is _Noos_, as appears\nfrom Plato de Legibus, ch. 6, where he quotes it on a similar occasion.]\n\n\n[Footnote 022: Aristotle. Polit. Ch. 2. et inseq.]\n\n\n[Footnote 023: Ellesin hegemonikos, tois de Barbarois despotikos krasthar\nkai ton men os philon kai oikeion epimeleisthai, tois de os\nzoois he phytois prospheresthai. Plutarch. de Fortun. Alexand. Orat. 1.]\n\n\n[Footnote 024: Omne tulit punctum, qui miscuit utile dulci. Horace.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\nWe proceed now to the consideration of the _commerce_: in\nconsequence of which, people, endued with the same feelings and\nfaculties as ourselves, were made subject to the laws and limitations of\n_possession_.\n\nThis commerce of the human species was of a very early date. It was\nfounded on the idea that men were _property_; and, as this idea was\ncoeval with the first order of _involuntary_ slaves, it must have\narisen, (if the date, which we previously affixed to that order, be\nright) in the first practices of barter. The Story of Joseph, as\nrecorded in the sacred writings, whom his brothers sold from an envious\nsuspicion of his future greatness, is an ample testimony of the truth of\nthis conjecture. It shews that there were men, even at that early\nperiod, who travelled up and down as merchants, collecting not only\nbalm, myrrh, spicery, and other wares, but the human species also, for\nthe purposes of traffick. The instant determination of the brothers, on\nthe first sight of the merchants, _to sell him_, and the immediate\nacquiescence of these, who purchased him for a foreign market, prove\nthat this commerce had been then established, not only in that part of\nthe country, where this transaction happened, but in that also, whither\nthe merchants were then travelling with their camels, namely, \u00c6gypt: and\nthey shew farther, that, as all customs require time for their\nestablishment, so it must have existed in the ages, previous to that of\nPharaoh; that is, in those ages, in which we fixed the first date of\n_involuntary_ servitude. This commerce then, as appears by the\npresent instance, existed in the earliest practices of barter, and had\ndescended to the \u00c6gyptians, through as long a period of time, as was\nsufficient to have made it, in the times alluded to, an established\ncustom. Thus was \u00c6gypt, in those days, the place of the greatest resort;\nthe grand emporium of trade, to which people were driving their\nmerchandize, as to a centre; and thus did it afford, among other\nopportunities of traffick, the _first market_ that is recorded, for\nthe sale of the human species.\n\nThis market, which was thus supplied by the constant concourse of\nmerchants, who resorted to it from various parts, could not fail, by\nthese means, to have been considerable. It received, afterwards, an\nadditional supply from those piracies, which we mentioned to have\nexisted in the uncivilized ages of the world, and which, in fact, it\ngreatly promoted and encouraged; and it became, from these united\ncircumstances, so famous, as to have been known, within a few centuries\nfrom the time of Pharaoh, both to the Grecian colonies in Asia, and the\nGrecian islands. Homer mentions Cyprus and \u00c6gypt as the common markets\nfor slaves, about the times of the Trojan war. Thus Antinous, offended\nwith Ulysses, threatens to send him to one of these places, if he does\nnot instantly depart from his table.[025] The same poet also, in his\nhymn to Bacchus[026], mentions them again, but in a more unequivocal\nmanner, as the common markets for slaves. He takes occasion, in that\nhymn, to describe the pirates method of scouring the coast, from the\ncircumstance of their having kidnapped Bacchus, as a noble youth, for\nwhom they expected an immense ransom. The captain of the vessel, having\ndragged him on board, is represented as addressing himself thus, to the\nsteersman:\n\n\n\"Haul in the tackle, hoist aloft the sail,\nThen take your helm, and watch the doubtful gale!\nTo mind the captive prey, be our's the care,\nWhile you to _\u00c6gypt_ or to _Cyprus_ steer;\nThere shall he go, unless his friends he'll tell,\nWhose ransom-gifts will pay us full as well.\"\n\n\nIt may not perhaps be considered as a digression, to mention in few\nwords, by itself, the wonderful concordance of the writings of Moses and\nHomer with the case before us: not that the former, from their divine\nauthority, want additional support, but because it cannot be unpleasant\nto see them confirmed by a person, who, being one of the earliest\nwriters, and living in a very remote age, was the first that could\nafford us any additional proof of the circumstances above-mentioned.\n\u00c6gypt is represented, in the first book of the sacred writings, as a\nmarket for slaves, and, in the [027]second, as famous for the severity\nof its servitude. [028]The same line, which we have already cited from\nHomer, conveys to us the same ideas. It points it out as a market for\nthe human species, and by the epithet of \"_bitter_ \u00c6gypt,\"\n([029]which epithet is peculiarly annexed to it on this occasion)\nalludes in the strongest manner to that severity and rigour, of which\nthe sacred historian transmitted us the first account.\n\nBut, to return. Though \u00c6gypt was the first market recorded for this\nspecies of traffick; and though \u00c6gypt, and Cyprus afterwards, were\nparticularly distinguished for it, in the times of the Trojan war; yet\nthey were not the only places, even at that period, where men were\nbought and sold. The Odyssey of Homer shews that it was then practised\nin many of the islands of the \u00c6gean sea; and the Iliad, that it had\ntaken place among those Grecians on the continent of Europe, who had\nembarked from thence on the Trojan expedition. This appears particularly\nat the end of the seventh book. A fleet is described there, as having\njust arrived from Lemnos, with a supply of wine for the Grecian camp.\nThe merchants are described also, as immediately exposing it to sale,\nand as receiving in exchange, among other articles of barter, \"_a\nnumber of slaves_.\"\n\nIt will now be sufficient to observe, that, as other states arose, and\nas circumstances contributed to make them known, this custom is\ndiscovered to have existed among them; that it travelled over all Asia;\nthat it spread through the Grecian and Roman world; was in use among the\nbarbarous nations, which overturned the Roman empire; and was practised\ntherefore, at the same period, throughout all Europe.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 025: me tacha pikren Aigypton kai Kypron idnai. Hom.\nOdyss. L. 17. 448.]\n\n\n[Footnote 026: L. 26.]\n\n\n[Footnote 027: Exodus. Ch. 1.]\n\n\n[Footnote 028: Vide note 1st. (Here shown as footnote 025).]\n\n\n[Footnote 029: This strikes us the more forcibly, as it is stiled\n_eurreiten_ and _perikallea_, \"_beautiful and well watered_,\"\nin all other passages where it is mentioned, but this.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\nThis _slavery_ and _commerce_, which had continued for so long\na time, and which was thus practised in Europe at so late a period as\nthat, which succeeded the grand revolutions in the western world, began,\nas the northern nations were settled in their conquests, to decline,\nand, on their full establishment, were abolished. A difference of\nopinion has arisen respecting the cause of their abolition; some having\nasserted, that they were the necessary consequences of the _feudal\nsystem_; while others, superiour both in number and in argument, have\nmaintained that they were the natural effects of _Christianity_.\nThe mode of argument, which the former adopt on this occasion, is as\nfollows. \"The multitude of little states, which sprang up from one great\none at this \u00c6ra, occasioned infinite bickerings and matter for\ncontention. There was not a state or seignory, which did not want all\nthe hands they could muster, either to defend their own right, or to\ndispute that of their neighbours. Thus every man was taken into the\nservice: whom they armed they must trust: and there could be no trust\nbut in free men. Thus the barrier between the two natures was thrown\ndown, and _slavery_ was no more heard of, in the _west_.\"\n\nThat this was not the _necessary_ consequence of such a situation,\nis apparent. The political state of Greece, in its early history, was\nthe same as that of Europe, when divided, by the feudal system, into an\ninfinite number of small and independent kingdoms. There was the same\nmatter therefore for contention, and the same call for all the hands\nthat could be mustered: the Grecians, in short, in _heroick_, were\nin the same situation in these respects as the _feudal barons_ in\nthe _Gothick_ times. Had this therefore been a _necessary_\neffect, there had been a cessation of servitude in Greece, in those\nages, in which we have already shewn that it existed.\n\nBut with respect to _Christianity_, many and great are the\narguments, that it occasioned so desirable an event. It taught, \"that\nall men were originally equal; that the Deity was no respecter of\npersons, and that, as all men were to give an account of their actions\nhereafter, it was necessary that they should be free.\" These doctrines\ncould not fail of having their proper influence on those, who first\nembraced _Christianity_, from a _conviction_ of its truth; and\non those of their descendents afterwards, who, by engaging in the\n_crusades_, and hazarding their lives and fortunes there, shewed,\nat least, an _attachment_ to that religion. We find them\naccordingly actuated by these principles: we have a positive proof, that\nthe _feudal system_ had no share in the honour of suppressing\nslavery, but that _Christianity_ was the only cause; for the\ngreatest part of the _charters_ which were granted for the freedom\nof slaves in those times (many of which are still extant) were granted,\n\"_pro amore Dei, pro mercede anim\u00e6_.\" They were founded, in short,\non religious considerations, \"that they might procure the favour of the\nDeity, which they conceived themselves to have forfeited, by the\nsubjugation of those, whom they found to be the objects of the divine\nbenevolence and attention equally with themselves.\"\n\nThese considerations, which had thus their first origin in\n_Christianity_, began to produce their effects, as the different\nnations were converted; and procured that general liberty at last,\nwhich, at the close of the twelfth century, was conspicuous in the west\nof Europe. What a glorious and important change! Those, who would have\nhad otherwise no hopes, but that their miseries would be terminated by\ndeath, were then freed from their servile condition; those, who, by the\nlaws of war, would have had otherwise an immediate prospect of servitude\nfrom the hands of their imperious conquerors, were then\n_exchanged_; a custom, which has happily descended to the present\nday. Thus, \"a numerous class of men, who formerly had no political\nexistence, and were employed merely as instruments of labour, became\nuseful citizens, and contributed towards augmenting the force or riches\nof the society, which adopted them as members;\" and thus did the greater\npart of the Europeans, by their conduct on this occasion, assert not\nonly liberty for themselves, but for their fellow-creatures also.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\nBut if men therefore, at a time when under the influence of religion\nthey exercised their serious thoughts, abolished slavery, how impious\nmust they appear, who revived it; and what arguments will not present\nthemselves against their conduct![030] The Portuguese, within two\ncenturies after its suppression in Europe, in imitation of those\n_piracies_, which we have shewn to have existed in the _uncivilized_\nages of the world, made their descents on Africa, and committing\ndepredations on the coast,[031] _first_ carried the wretched\ninhabitants into slavery.\n\nThis practice, however trifling and partial it might appear at first,\nsoon became serious and general. A melancholy instance of the depravity\nof human nature; as it shews, that neither the laws nor religion of any\ncountry, however excellent the forms of each, are sufficient to bind the\nconsciences of some; but that there are always men, of every age,\ncountry, and persuasion, who are ready to sacrifice their dearest\nprinciples at the shrine of gain. Our own ancestors, together with the\nSpaniards, French, and most of the maritime powers of Europe, soon\nfollowed the _piratical_ example; and thus did the Europeans, to their\neternal infamy, renew a custom, which their _own_ ancestors had so\nlately exploded, from a _conscientiousness_ of its _impiety_.\n\nThe unfortunate Africans, terrified at these repeated depredations, fled\nin confusion from the coast, and sought, in the interiour parts of the\ncountry, a retreat from the persecution of their invaders. But, alas,\nthey were miserably disappointed! There are few retreats, that can\nescape the penetrating eye of avarice. The Europeans still pursued them;\nthey entered their rivers; sailed up into the heart of the country;\nsurprized the unfortunate Africans again; and carried them into slavery.\n\nBut this conduct, though successful at first, defeated afterwards its\nown ends. It created a more general alarm, and pointed out, at the same\ninstant, the best method of security from future depredations. The banks\nof the rivers were accordingly deserted, as the coasts had been before;\nand thus were the _Christian_ invaders left without a prospect of\ntheir prey.\n\nIn this situation however, expedients were not wanting. They now formed\nto themselves the resolution of settling in the country; of securing\nthemselves by fortified ports; of changing their system of force into\nthat of pretended liberality; and of opening, by every species of\nbribery and corruption, a communication with the natives. These plans\nwere put into immediate execution. The Europeans erected their\nforts[032]; landed their merchandize; and endeavoured, by a peaceable\ndeportment, by presents, and by every appearance of munificence, to\nseduce the attachment and confidence of the Africans. These schemes had\nthe desired effect. The gaudy trappings of European art, not only caught\ntheir attention, but excited their curiosity: they dazzled the eyes and\nbewitched the senses, not only of those, to whom they were given, but of\nthose, to whom they were shewn. Thus followed a speedy intercourse with\neach other, and a confidence, highly favourable to the views of avarice\nor ambition.\n\nIt was now time for the Europeans to embrace the opportunity, which this\nintercourse had thus afforded them, of carrying their schemes into\nexecution, and of fixing them on such a permanent foundation, as should\nsecure them future success. They had already discovered, in the\ndifferent interviews obtained, the chiefs of the African tribes. They\npaid their court therefore to these, and so compleatly intoxicated their\nsenses with the luxuries, which they brought from home, as to be able to\nseduce them to their designs. A treaty of peace and commerce was\nimmediately concluded: it was agreed, that the kings, on their part,\nshould, from this period, sentence _prisoners of war_ and _convicts_\nto _European servitude_; and that the Europeans should supply them, in\nreturn, with the luxuries of the north. This agreement immediately took\nplace; and thus begun that _commerce_, which makes so considerable a\nfigure at the present day.\n\nBut happy had the Africans been, if those only, who had been justly\nconvicted of crimes, or taken in a just war, had been sentenced to the\nseverities of servitude! How many of those miseries, which afterwards\nattended them, had been never known; and how would their history have\nsaved those sighs and emotions of pity, which must now ever accompany\nits perusal. The Europeans, on the establishment of their western\ncolonies, required a greater number of slaves than a strict adherence to\nthe treaty could produce. The princes therefore had only the choice of\nrelinquishing the commerce, or of consenting to become unjust. They had\nlong experienced the emoluments of the trade; they had acquired a taste\nfor the luxuries it afforded; and they now beheld an opportunity of\ngratifying it, but in a more extentive manner. _Avarice_ therefore,\nwhich was too powerful for _justice_ on this occasion, immediately\nturned the scale: not only those, who were fairly convicted of offences,\nwere now sentenced to servitude, but even those who were _suspected_.\nNew crimes were invented, that new punishments might succeed. Thus was\nevery appearance soon construed into reality; every shadow into a\nsubstance; and often virtue into a crime.\n\nSuch also was the case with respect to prisoners of war. Not only those\nwere now delivered into slavery, who were taken in a state of publick\nenmity and injustice, but those also, who, conscious of no injury\nwhatever, were taken in the _arbitrary_ skirmishes of these _venal_\nsovereigns. War was now made, not as formerly, from the motives of\nretaliation and defence, but for the sake of obtaining prisoners alone,\nand the advantages resulting from their sale. If a ship from Europe came\nbut into sight, it was now considered as a sufficient motive for a war,\nand as a signal only for an instantaneous commencement of hostilities.\n\nBut if the African kings could be capable of such injustice, what vices\nare there, that their consciences would restrain, or what enormities,\nthat we might not expect to be committed? When men once consent to be\nunjust, they lose, at the same instant with their virtue, a considerable\nportion of that sense of shame, which, till then, had been found a\nsuccessful protector against the sallies of vice. From that awful\nperiod, almost every expectation is forlorn: the heart is left\nunguarded: its great protector is no more: the vices therefore, which so\nlong encompassed it in vain, obtain an easy victory: in crouds they pour\ninto the defenceless avenues, and take possession of the soul: there is\nnothing now too vile for them to meditate, too impious to perform. Such\nwas the situation of the despotick sovereigns of Africa. They had once\nventured to pass the bounds of virtue, and they soon proceeded to\nenormity. This was particularly conspicuous in that general conduct,\nwhich they uniformly observed, after any unsuccessful conflict.\nInfluenced only by the venal motives of European traffick, they first\nmade war upon the neighbouring tribes, contrary to every principle of\njustice; and if, by the flight of the enemy, or by other contingencies,\nthey were disappointed of their prey, they made no hesitation of\nimmediately turning their arms against their own subjects. The first\nvillages they came to, were always marked on this occasion, as the first\nobjects of their avarice. They were immediately surrounded, were\nafterwards set on fire, and the wretched inhabitants seized, as they\nwere escaping from the flames. These, consisting of whole families,\nfathers, brothers, husbands, wives, and children, were instantly driven\nin chains to the merchants, and consigned to slavery.\n\nTo these calamities, which thus arose from the tyranny of the kings, we\nmay now subjoin those, which arose from the avarice of private persons.\nMany were kidnapped by their own countrymen, who, encouraged by the\nmerchants of Europe, previously lay in wait for them, and sold them\nafterwards for slaves; while the seamen of the different ships, by every\npossible artifice, enticed others on board, and transported them to the\nregions of servitude.\n\nAs these practices are in full force at the present day, it appears that\nthere are four orders of _involuntary_ slaves on the African\ncontinent; of [033]_convicts_; of _prisoners of war_; of\nthose, who are publickly seized by virtue of the _authority_ of\ntheir prince; and of those, who are privately _kidnapped_ by\nindividuals.\n\nIt remains only to observe on this head, that in the sale and purchase\nof these the African commerce or _Slave Trade_ consists; that they\nare delivered to the merchants of Europe in exchange for their various\ncommodities; that these transport them to their colonies in the west,\nwhere their _slavery_ takes place; and that a fifth order arises\nthere, composed of all such as are born to the native Africans, after\ntheir transportation and slavery have commenced.\n\nHaving thus explained as much of the history of modern servitude, as is\nsufficient for the prosecution of our design, we should have closed our\naccount here, but that a work, just published, has furnished us with a\nsingular anecdote of the colonists of a neighbouring nation, which we\ncannot but relate. The learned [034]author, having described the method\nwhich the Dutch colonists at the Cape make use of to take the Hottentots\nand enslave them, takes occasion, in many subsequent parts of the work,\nto mention the dreadful effects of the practice of slavery; which, as he\njustly remarks, \"leads to all manner of misdemeanours and wickedness.\nPregnant women,\" says he, \"and children in their tenderest years, were\nnot at this time, neither indeed are they ever, exempt from the effects\nof the hatred and spirit of vengeance constantly harboured by the\ncolonists, with respect to the [035]Boshies-man nation; _excepting such\nindeed as are marked out to be carried away into bondage_.\n\n\"Does a colonist at any time get sight of a Boshies-man, he takes fire\nimmediately, and spirits up his horse and dogs, in order to hunt him\nwith more ardour and fury than he would a wolf, or any other wild beast?\nOn an open plain, a few colonists on horseback are always sure to get\nthe better of the greatest number of Boshies-men that can be brought\ntogether; as the former always keep at the distance of about an hundred,\nor an hundred and fifty paces (just as they find it convenient) and\ncharging their heavy fire-arms with a very large kind of shot, jump off\ntheir horses, and rest their pieces in their usual manner on their\nramrods, in order that they may shoot with the greater certainty; so\nthat the balls discharged by them will sometimes, as I have been\nassured, go through the bodies of six, seven, or eight of the enemy at a\ntime, especially as these latter know no better than to keep close\ntogether in a body.\"--\n\n\"And not only is the capture of the Hottentots considered by them merely\nas a party of pleasure, but in cold blood they destroy the bands which\nnature has knit between their husbands, and their wives and children,\n&c.\"\n\nWith what horrour do these passages seem to strike us! What indignation\ndo they seem to raise in our breasts, when we reflect, that a part of\nthe human species are considered as _game_, and that _parties of\npleasure_ are made for their _destruction_! The lion does not\nimbrue his claws in blood, unless called upon by hunger, or provoked by\ninterruption; whereas the merciless Dutch, more savage than the brutes\nthemselves, not only murder their fellow-creatures without any\nprovocation or necessity, but even make a diversion of their sufferings,\nand enjoy their pain.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 030: The following short history of the African servitude, is\ntaken from Astley's Collection of Voyages, and from the united\ntestimonies of Smyth, Adanson, Bosman, Moore, and others, who were\nagents to the different factories established there; who resided many\nyears in the country; and published their respective histories at their\nreturn. These writers, if they are partial at all, may be considered as\nfavourable rather to their own countrymen, than the unfortunate\nAfricans.]\n\n\n[Footnote 031: We would not wish to be understood, that slavery was\nunknown in Africa before the _piratical_ expeditions of the\n_Portuguese_, as it appears from the _Nubian's Geography_,\nthat both the slavery and commerce had been established among the\nnatives with one another. We mean only to assert, that the\n_Portuguese_ were the first of the _Europeans_, who made their\n_piratical_ expeditions, and shewed the way to that _slavery_,\nwhich now makes so disgraceful a figure in the western colonies of the\n_Europeans_. In the term \"Europeans,\" wherever it shall occur in\nthe remaining part of this first dissertation, we include the\n_Portuguese_, and _those nations only_, who followed their\nexample.]\n\n\n[Footnote 032: The _Portuguese_ erected their first fort at\n_D'Elmina_, in the year 1481, about forty years after Alonzo\nGonzales had pointed the Southern Africans out to his countrymen\nas articles of commerce.]\n\n\n[Footnote 033: In the ancient servitude, we reckoned _convicts_\namong the _voluntary_ slaves, because they had it in their power,\nby a virtuous conduct, to have avoided so melancholy a situation; in the\n_African_, we include them in the _involuntary_, because, as\nvirtues are frequently construed into crimes, from the venal motives of\nthe traffick, no person whatever possesses such a _power_ or\n_choice_.]\n\n[Footnote 034: Andrew Sparrman, M.D. professor of Physick at Stockholm,\nfellow of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden, and inspector of its\ncabinet of natural history, whose voyage was translated into English,\nand published in 1785.]\n\n\n[Footnote 035: Boshies-man, or _wild Hottentot_.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nEnd of the First Part.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n\n\nTHE AFRICAN COMMERCE,\n\nOR\n\nSLAVE TRADE.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\nAs we explained the History of Slavery in the first part of this Essay,\nas far as it was necessary for our purpose, we shall now take the\nquestion into consideration, which we proposed at first as the subject\nof our inquiry, viz. how far the commerce and slavery of the human\nspecies, as revived by some of the nations of Europe in the persons of\nthe unfortunate Africans, and as revived, in a great measure, on the\nprinciples of antiquity, are consistent with the laws of nature, or the\ncommon notions of equity, as established among men.\n\nThis question resolves itself into two separate parts for discussion,\ninto _the African commerce (as explained in the history of\nslavery)_ and _the subsequent slavery in the colonies, as founded\non the equity of the commerce_. The former, of course, will be first\nexamined. For this purpose we shall inquire into the rise, nature, and\ndesign of government. Such an inquiry will be particularly useful in the\npresent place; it will afford us that general knowledge of subordination\nand liberty, which is necessary in the case before us, and will be\nfound, as it were, a source, to which we may frequently refer for many\nand valuable arguments.\n\nIt appears that mankind were originally free, and that they possessed an\nequal right to the soil and produce of the earth. For proof of this, we\nneed only appeal to the _divine_ writings; to the _golden age_\nof the poets, which, like other fables of the times, had its origin in\ntruth; and to the institution of the _Saturnalia_, and of other\nsimilar festivals; all of which are so many monuments of this original\nequality of men. Hence then there was no rank, no distinction, no\nsuperiour. Every man wandered where he chose, changing his residence, as\na spot attracted his fancy, or suited his convenience, uncontrouled by\nhis neighbour, unconnected with any but his family. Hence also (as every\nthing was common) he collected what he chose without injury, and enjoyed\nwithout injury what he had collected. Such was the first situation of\nmankind; [036]a state of _dissociation_ and _independence_.\n\nIn this dissociated state it is impossible that men could have long\ncontinued. The dangers to which they must have frequently been exposed,\nby the attacks of fierce and rapacious beasts, by the proedatory\nattempts of their own species, and by the disputes of contiguous and\nindependent families; these, together with their inability to defend,\nthemselves, on many such occasions, must have incited them to unite.\nHence then was _society_ formed on the grand principles of\npreservation and defence: and as these principles began to operate, in\nthe different parts of the earth, where the different families had\nroamed, a great number of these _societies_ began to be formed and\nestablished; which, taking to themselves particular names from\nparticular occurrences, began to be perfectly distinct from one another.\n\nAs the individuals, of whom these societies were composed, had\nassociated only for their defence, so they experienced, at first, no\nchange in their condition. They were still independent and free; they\nwere still without discipline or laws; they had every thing still in\ncommon; they pursued the same, manner of life; wandering only, in\n_herds_, as the earth gave them or refused them sustenance, and\ndoing, as a _publick body_, what they had been accustomed to do as\n_individuals_ before. This was the exact situation of the Get\u00e6 and\nScythians[037], of the Lybians and Goetulians[038], of the Italian\nAborigines[039], and of the Huns and Alans[040]. They had left their\noriginal state of _dissociation_, and had stepped into that, which\nhas been just described. Thus was the second situation of men a state of\n_independent society_.\n\nHaving thus joined themselves together, and having formed themselves\ninto several large and distinct bodies, they could not fail of\nsubmitting soon to a more considerable change. Their numbers must have\nrapidly increased, and their societies, in process of time, have become\nso populous, as frequently to have experienced the want of subsistence,\nand many of the commotions and tumults of intestine strife. For these\ninconveniences however there were remedies to be found.\n_Agriculture_ would furnish them with that subsistence and support,\nwhich the earth, from the rapid increase of its inhabitants, had become\nunable spontaneously to produce. An _assignation_ of _property_\nwould not only enforce an application, but excite an emulation,\nto labour; and _government_ would at once afford a security\nto the acquisitions of the industrious, and heal the intestine\ndisorders of the community, by the introduction of laws.\n\nSuch then were the remedies, that were gradually applied. The\n_societies_, which had hitherto seen their members, undistinguished\neither by authority or rank, admitted now of magistratical pre-eminence.\nThey were divided into tribes; to every tribe was allotted a particular\ndistrict for its support, and to every individual his particular spot.\nThe Germans[041], who consisted of many and various nations, were\nexactly in this situation. They had advanced a step beyond the\nScythians, Goetulians, and those, whom we described before; and thus was\nthe third situation of mankind a state of _subordinate society_.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 036: This conclusion concerning the dissociated state of\nmankind, is confirmed by all the early writers, with whose descriptions\nof primitive times no other conclusion is reconcileable.]\n\n\n[Footnote 037: Justin. L. 2. C. 2.]\n\n\n[Footnote 038: Sallust. Bell. Jug.]\n\n\n[Footnote 039: Sallust. Bell. Catil.]\n\n\n[Footnote 040: Ammianus Marcellinus. L. 31. C. 2. et. inseq.]\n\n\n[Footnote 041: Agri pro Numero Cultorum ab universis per vicos\noccupantur, quos mox inter se secundum dignationem partiuntur. Tacitus.\nC. 26. de Mor. Germ.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\nAs we have thus traced the situation of man from unbounded liberty to\nsubordination, it will be proper to carry our inquiries farther, and to\nconsider, who first obtained the pre-eminence in these _primoeval\nsocieties_, and by what particular methods it was obtained.\n\nThere were only two ways, by which such an event could have been\nproduced, by _compulsion_ or _consent_. When mankind first saw\nthe necessity of government, it is probable that many had conceived the\ndesire of ruling. To be placed in a new situation, to be taken from the\ncommon herd, to be the first, distinguished among men, were thoughts,\nthat must have had their charms. Let us suppose then, that these\nthoughts had worked so unusually on the passions of any particular\nindividual, as to have driven him to the extravagant design of obtaining\nthe preeminence by force. How could his design have been accomplished?\nHow could he forcibly have usurped the jurisdiction at a time, when, all\nbeing equally free, there was not a single person, whose assistance he\ncould command? Add to this, that, in a state of universal liberty, force\nhad been repaid by force, and the attempt had been fatal to the usurper.\n\nAs _empire_ then could never have been gained at first by\n_compulsion_, so it could only have been obtained by _consent_;\nand as men were then going to make an important sacrifice,\nfor the sake of their _mutual_ happiness, so he alone could\nhave obtained it, (not whose _ambition_ had greatly distinguished\nhim from the rest) but in whose _wisdom, justice, prudence_,\nand _virtue_, the whole community could confide.\n\nTo confirm this reasoning, we shall appeal, as before, to facts; and\nshall consult therefore the history of those nations, which having just\nleft their former state of _independent society_, were the very\npeople that established _subordination_ and _government_.\n\nThe commentaries of C\u00e6sar afford us the following accounts of the\nancient Gauls. When any of their kings, either by death, or deposition,\nmade a vacancy in the regal office, the whole nation was immediately\nconvened for the appointment of a successor. In these national\nconventions were the regal offices conferred. Every individual had a\nvoice on the occasion, and every individual was free. The person upon\nwhom the general approbation appeared to fall, was immediately advanced\nto pre-eminence in the state. He was uniformly one, whose actions had\nmade him eminent; whose conduct had gained him previous applause; whose\nvalour the very assembly, that elected him, had themselves witnessed in\nthe field; whose prudence, wisdom and justice, having rendered him\nsignally serviceable, had endeared him to his tribe. For this reason,\ntheir kingdoms were not hereditary; the son did not always inherit the\nvirtues of the sire; and they were determined that he alone should\npossess authority, in whose virtues they could confide. Nor was this\nall. So sensible were they of the important sacrifice they had made; so\nextremely jealous even of the name of superiority and power, that they\nlimited, by a variety of laws, the authority of the very person, whom\nthey had just elected, from a confidence of his integrity; Ambiorix\nhimself confessing, \"that his people had as much power over him, as he\ncould possibly have over his people.\"\n\nThe same custom, as appears from Tacitus, prevailed also among the\nGermans. They had their national councils, like the Gauls; in which the\nregal and ducal offices were confirmed according to the majority of\nvoices. They elected also, on these occasions, those only, whom their\nvirtue, by repeated trial, had unequivocally distinguished from the\nrest; and they limited their authority so far, as neither to leave them\nthe power of inflicting imprisonment or stripes, nor of exercising any\npenal jurisdiction. But as punishment was necessary in a state of civil\nsociety, \"it was permitted to the priests alone, that it might appear to\nhave been inflicted, by the order of the gods, and not by any superiour\nauthority in man.\"\n\nThe accounts which we have thus given of the ancient Germans and Gauls,\nwill be found also to be equally true of those people, which had arrived\nat the same state of subordinate society. We might appeal, for a\ntestimony of this, to the history of the Goths; to the history of the\nFranks and Saxons; to, the history, in short, of all those nations, from\nwhich the different governments, now conspicuous in Europe, have\nundeniably sprung. And we might appeal, as a farther proof, to the\nAmericans, who are represented by many of the moderns, from their own\nocular testimony, as observing the same customs at the present day.\n\nIt remains only to observe, that as these customs prevailed among the\ndifferent nations described, in their early state of subordinate\nsociety, and as they were moreover the customs of their respective\nancestors, it appears that they must have been handed down, both by\ntradition and use, from the first introduction of _government_.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\nWe may now deduce those general maxims concerning _subordination_,\nand _liberty_, which we mentioned to have been essentially\nconnected with the subject, and which some, from speculation only, and\nwithout any allusion to facts, have been bold enough to deny.\n\nIt appears first, that _liberty_ is a _natural_, and\n_government_ an _adventitious_ right, because all men were\noriginally free.\n\nIt appears secondly, that government is a [042]_contract_ because,\nin these primeval subordinate societies, we have seen it voluntarily\nconferred on the one hand, and accepted on the other. We have seen it\nsubject to various restrictions. We have seen its articles, which could\nthen only be written by tradition and use, as perfect and binding as\nthose, which are now committed to letters. We have seen it, in short,\npartaking of the _federal_ nature, as much as it could in a state,\nwhich wanted the means of recording its transactions.\n\nIt appear thirdly, that the grand object of the _contrast_, is the\n_happiness_ of the people; because they gave the supremacy to him\nalone, who had been conspicuous for the splendour of his abilities, or\nthe integrity of his life: that the power of the multitude being\ndirected by the _wisdom_ and _justice_ of the prince, they\nmight experience the most effectual protection from injury, the highest\nadvantages of society, the greatest possible _happiness_.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 042: The author has lately read a work, intitled Paley's Moral\nand Political Philosophy, which, in this one respect, favours those\nwhich have been hinted at, as it denies that government was a contract.\n\"No social compact was ever made in fact,\"--\"it is to suppose it\npossible to call savages out of caves and deserts, to deliberate upon\ntopicks, which the experience and studies, and the refinements of civil\nlife alone suggest. Therefore no government in the universe begun from\nthis original.\" But there are no grounds for so absurd a supposition;\nfor government, and of course the social compact, does not appear to\nhave been introduced at the time, when families coming out of their\ncaves and deserts, or, in other words, quitting their former\n_dissociated_ state, joined themselves together. They had lived a\nconsiderable time in _society_, like the Lybians and G\u00e6tulians\nbefore-mentioned, and had felt many of the disadvantages of a want of\ndiscipline and laws, before government was introduced at all. The author\nof this Essay, before he took into consideration the origin of\ngovernment, was determined, in a matter of such importance, to be\nbiassed by no opinion whatever, and much less to indulge himself in\nspeculation. He was determined solely to adhere to fact, and, by looking\ninto the accounts left us of those governments which were in their\ninfancy, and, of course in the least complicated state, to attempt to\ndiscover their foundation: he cannot say therefore, that upon a very\nminute perusal of the excellent work before quoted, he has been so far\nconvinced, as to retract in the least from his sentiments on this head,\nand to give up maxims, which are drawn from historical facts, for those,\nwhich are the result of speculation. He may observe here, that whether\ngovernment was a _contract_ or not, it will not affect the\nreasoning of the present Essay; since where ever the contract is\nafterwards mentioned, it is inferred only that its object was \"the\n_happiness of the people_,\" which is confessedly the end of\ngovernment. Notwithstanding this, he is under the necessity of inserting\nthis little note, though he almost feels himself ungrateful in\ncontradicting a work, which has afforded him so much entertainment.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\nHaving now collected the materials that are necessary for the\nprosecution of our design, we shall immediately enter upon the\ndiscussion.\n\nIf any man had originally been endued with power, as with other\nfaculties, so that the rest of mankind had discovered in themselves an\n_innate necessity_ of obeying this particular person; it is evident\nthat he and his descendants, from the superiority of their nature, would\nhave had a claim upon men for obedience, and a natural right to command:\nbut as the right to empire is _adventitious_; as all were\noriginally free; as nature made every man's body and mind _his\nown_; it is evident that no just man can be consigned to\n_slavery_, without his own _consent_.\n\nNeither can men, by the same principles, be considered as lands, goods,\nor houses, among _possessions_. It is necessary that all\n_property_ should be inferiour to its _possessor_. But how\ndoes the _slave_ differ from his _master_, but by _chance_?\nFor though the mark, with which the latter is pleased to\nbrand him, shews, at the first sight, the difference of their\n_fortune_; what mark can be found in his _nature_, that can\nwarrant a distinction?\n\nTo this consideration we shall add the following, that if men can justly\nbecome the property of each other, their children, like the offspring of\ncattle, must inherit their _paternal_ lot. Now, as the actions of\nthe father and the child must be thus at the sole disposal of their\ncommon master, it is evident, that the _authority_ of the one, as a\n_parent_, and the _duty_ of the other, as a _child_, must\nbe instantly annihilated; rights and obligations, which, as they are\nsounded in nature, are implanted in our feelings, and are established by\nthe voice of God, must contain in their annihilation a solid argument to\nprove, that there cannot be any _property_ whatever in the _human\nspecies_.\n\nWe may consider also, as a farther confirmation, that it is impossible,\nin the nature of things, that _liberty_ can be _bought_ or\n_sold_! It is neither _saleable_, nor _purchasable_. For\nif any one man can have an absolute property in the liberty of another,\nor, in other words, if he, who is called a _master_, can have a\n_just_ right to command the actions of him, who is called a\n_slave_, it is evident that the latter cannot be accountable for\nthose crimes, which the former may order him to commit. Now as every\nreasonable being is accountable for his actions, it is evident, that\nsuch a right cannot _justly_ exist, and that human liberty, of\ncourse, is beyond the possibility either of _sale_ or _purchase_.\nAdd to this, that, whenever you sell the liberty of a man,\nyou have the power only of alluding to the _body_: the _mind_\ncannot be confined or bound: it will be free, though its\nmansion be beset with chains. But if, in every sale of the _human\nspecies_, you are under the necessity of considering your slave in\nthis abstracted light; of alluding only to the body, and of making no\nallusion to the mind; you are under the necessity also of treating him,\nin the same moment, as a _brute_, and of abusing therefore that\nnature, which cannot otherwise be considered, than in the double\ncapacity of _soul_ and _body_.\n\nBut some person, perhaps, will make an objection to one of the former\narguments. \"If men, from _superiority_ of their nature, cannot be\nconsidered, like lands, goods, or houses, among possessions, so neither\ncan cattle: for being endued with life, motion, and sensibility, they\nare evidently _superiour_ to these.\" But this objection will\nreceive its answer from those observations which have been already made;\nand will discover the true reason, why cattle are justly to be estimated\nas property. For first, the right to empire over brutes, is\n_natural_, and not _adventitious_, like the right to empire\nover men. There are, secondly, many and evident signs of the\n_inferiority_ of their nature; and thirdly, their liberty can be\nbought and sold, because, being void of reason, they cannot be\n_accountable_ for their actions.\n\nWe might stop here for a considerable time, and deduce many valuable\nlessons from the remarks that have been made, but that such a\ncircumstance might be considered as a digression. There is one, however,\nwhich, as it is so intimately connected with the subject, we cannot but\ndeduce. We are taught to treat men in a different manner from brutes,\nbecause they are so manifestly superiour in their nature; we are taught\nto treat brutes in a different manner from stones, for the same reason;\nand thus, by giving to every created thing its due respect, to answer\nthe views of Providence, which did not create a variety of natures\nwithout a purpose or design.\n\nBut if these things are so, how evidently against reason, nature, and\nevery thing human and divine, must they act, who not only force men into\n_slavery_, against their own _consent_; but treat them altogether\nas _brutes_, and make the _natural liberty_ of man an article\nof publick commerce! and by what arguments can they possibly\ndefend that commerce, which cannot be carried on, in any single\ninstance, without a flagrant violation of the laws of nature and of God?\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\nThat we may the more accurately examine the arguments that are advanced\non this occasion, it will be proper to divide the _commerce_ into\ntwo parts; first, as it relates to those who _sell_, and secondly,\nas it relates to those who _purchase_, the _human species_\ninto slavery. To the former part of which, having given every previous\nand necessary information in the history of servitude, we shall\nimmediately proceed.\n\nLet us inquire first, by what particular right the _liberties_ of\nthe harmless people are invaded by the _prince_. \"By the _right\nof empire_,\" it will be answered; \"because he possesses dominion and\npower by their own approbation and consent.\" But subjects, though under\nthe dominion, are not the _property_, of the prince. They cannot be\nconsidered as his _possessions_. Their _natures_ are both the\nsame; they are both born in the same manner; are subject to the same\ndisorders; must apply to the same remedies for a cure; are equally\npartakers of the grave: an _incidental_ distinction accompanies\nthem through life, and this--is all.\n\nWe may add to this, that though the prince possesses dominion and power,\nby the consent and approbation of his subjects, he possesses it only for\nthe most _salutary_ ends. He may tyrannize, if he can: he may alter\nthe _form_ of his government: he cannot, however, alter its\n_nature_ and _end_. These will be immutably the same, though\nthe whole system of its administration should be changed; and he will be\nstill bound to _defend_ the lives and properties of his subjects,\nand to make them _happy_.\n\nDoes he defend those therefore, whom he invades at discretion with the\nsword? Does he protect the property of those, whose houses and effects\nhe consigns at discretion to the flames? Does he make those happy, whom\nhe seizes, as they are trying to escape the general devastation, and\ncompels with their wives and families to a wretched _servitude?_ He\nacts surely, as if the use of empire consisted in violence and\noppression; as if he, that was most exalted, ought, of necessity, to be\nmost unjust. Here then the voice of _nature_ and _justice_ is\nagainst him. He breaks that law of _nature_, which ordains, \"that no\njust man shall be given into slavery, against his own _consent_:\"\nhe violates the first law of _justice_, as established among men,\n\"that no person shall do harm to another without a previous and\nsufficient _provocation_;\" and he violates also the sacred\ncondition of _empire_, made with his ancestors, and necessarily\nunderstood in every species of government, \"that, the power of the\nmultitude being given up to the wisdom and justice of the prince, they\nmay experience, in return, the most effectual protection from injury,\nthe highest advantages of society, the greatest possible\n_happiness_.\"\n\nBut if kings then, to whom their own people have granted dominion and\npower, are unable to invade the liberties of their harmless subjects,\nwithout the highest _injustice_; how can those private persons be\njustified, who treacherously lie in wait for their fellow-creatures, and\nsell them into slavery? What arguments can they possibly bring in\ntheir defence? What treaty of empire can they produce, by which their\ninnocent victims ever resigned to them the least portion of their\n_liberty_? In vain will they plead the _antiquity_ of the\ncustom: in vain will the _honourable_ light, in which _piracy_\nwas considered in the ages of barbarism, afford them an excuse. Impious\nand abandoned men! ye invade the liberties of those, who, (with respect\nto your impious selves) are in a state of _nature_, in a state of\noriginal _dissociation_, perfectly _independent_, perfectly\n_free_.\n\nIt appears then, that the two orders of slaves, which have been\nmentioned in the history of the African servitude, \"of those who are\npublickly seized by virtue of the authority of their prince; and of\nthose, who are privately kidnapped by individuals,\" are collected by\nmeans of violence and oppression; by means, repugnant to _nature_,\nthe principles of _government_, and the common notions of\n_equity_, as established among men.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\nWe come now to the third order of _involuntary_ slaves, \"to\nconvicts.\" The only argument that the sellers advance here, is this,\n\"that they have been found guilty of offences, and that the punishment\nis just.\" But before the equity of the sentence can be allowed two\nquestions must be decided, whether the punishment is _proportioned_\nto the offence, and what is its particular _object_ and _end_?\n\nTo decide the first, we may previously observe, that the African\nservitude comprehends _banishment_, a _deprivation_ of _liberty_,\nand many _corporal_ sufferings.\n\nOn _banishment_, the following observations will suffice. Mankind\nhave their _local_ attachments. They have a particular regard for\nthe spot, in which they were born and nurtured. Here it was, that they\nfirst drew their infant-breath: here, that they were cherished and\nsupported: here, that they passed those scenes of childhood, which, free\nfrom care and anxiety, are the happiest in the life of man; scenes,\nwhich accompany them through life; which throw themselves frequently\ninto their thoughts, and produce the most agreeable sensations. These\nthen are weighty considerations; and how great this regard is, may be\nevidenced from our own feelings; from the testimony of some, who, when\nremote from their country, and, in the hour of danger and distress, have\nfound their thoughts unusually directed, by some impulse or other, to\ntheir native spot; and from the example of others, who, having braved\nthe storms and adversities of life, either repair to it for the\nremainder of their days, or desire even to be conveyed to it, when\nexistence is no more.\n\nBut separately from these their _local_, they have also their\n_personal_ attachments; their regard for particular men. There are\nties of blood; there are ties of friendship. In the former case, they\nmust of necessity be attached: the constitution of their nature demands\nit. In the latter, it is impossible to be otherwise, since friendship is\nfounded on an harmony of temper, on a concordance of sentiments and\nmanners, on habits of confidence, and a mutual exchange of favours.\n\nWe may now mention, as perfectly distinct both from their _local_\nand_ personal_, the _national_ attachments of mankind, their\nregard for the whole body of the people, among whom they were born and\neducated. This regard is particularly conspicuous in the conduct of\nsuch, as, being thus _nationally_ connected, reside in foreign\nparts. How anxiously do they meet together! how much do they enjoy the\nfight of others of their countrymen, whom fortune places in their way!\nwhat an eagerness do they show to serve them, though not born on the\nsame particular spot, though not connected by consanguinity or\nfriendship, though unknown to them before! Neither is this affection\nwonderful, since they are creatures of the same education; of the same\nprinciples; of the same manners and habits; cast, as it were, in the\nsame mould; and marked with the same impression.\n\nIf men therefore are thus separately attached to the several objects\ndescribed, it is evident that a separate exclusion from either must\nafford them considerable pain. What then must be their sufferings, to be\nforced for ever from their country, which includes them all? Which\ncontains the _spot_, in which they were born and nurtured; which\ncontains their _relations_ and _friends_; which contains the\nwhole body of the _people_, among whom they were bred and educated.\nIn these sufferings, which arise to men, both in bidding, and in having\nbid, adieu to all that they esteem as dear and valuable,\n_banishment_ consists in part; and we may agree therefore with the\nancients, without adding other melancholy circumstances to the account,\nthat it is no inconsiderable punishment of itself.\n\nWith respect to the _loss_ of _liberty_, which is the second\nconsideration in the punishment, it is evident that men bear nothing\nworse; that there is nothing, that they lay more at heart; and that they\nhave shewn, by many and memorable instances, that even death is to be\npreferred. How many could be named here, who, having suffered the\n_loss_ of _liberty_, have put a period to their existence! How\nmany, that have willingly undergone the hazard of their lives to destroy\na tyrant! How many, that have even gloried to perish in the attempt! How\nmany bloody and publick wars have been undertaken (not to mention the\nnumerous _servile_ insurrections, with which history is stained)\nfor the cause of _freedom_!\n\nBut if nothing is dearer than _liberty_ to men, with which, the\nbarren rock is able to afford its joys, and without which, the glorious\nfun shines upon them but in vain, and all the sweets and delicacies of\nlife are tasteless and unenjoyed; what punishment can be more severe\nthan the loss of so great a blessing? But if to this _deprivation_\nof _liberty_, we add the agonizing pangs of _banishment_; and\nif to the complicated stings of both, we add the incessant _stripes,\nwounds_, and _miseries_, which are undergone by those, who are\nsold into this horrid _servitude_; what crime can we possibly\nimagine to be so enormous, as to be worthy of so great a punishment?\n\nHow contrary then to reason, justice, and nature, must those act, who\napply this, the severest of human punishments, to the most insignificant\noffence! yet such is the custom with the Africans: for, from the time,\nin which the Europeans first intoxicated the African princes with their\nforeign draughts, no crime has been committed, no shadow of a crime\ndevised, that has not immediately been punished with _servitude_.\n\nBut for what purpose is the punishment applied? Is it applied to amend\nthe manners of the criminal, and thus render him a better subject? No,\nfor if you banish him, he can no longer be a subject, and you can no\nlonger therefore be solicitous for his morals. Add to this, that if you\nbanish him to a place, where he is to experience the hardships of want\nand hunger (so powerfully does hunger compel men to the perpetration of\ncrimes) you force him rather to corrupt, than amend his manners, and to\nbe wicked, when he might otherwise be just.\n\nIs it applied then, that others may be deterred from the same\nproceedings, and that crimes may become less frequent? No, but that\n_avarice_ may be gratified; that the prince may experience the\nemoluments of the sale: for, horrid and melancholy thought! the more\ncrimes his subjects commit, the richer is he made; the more\n_abandoned_ the subject, the _happier_ is the prince!\n\nNeither can we allow that the punishment thus applied, tends in any\ndegree to answer _publick happiness_; for if men can be sentenced\nto slavery, right or wrong; if shadows can be turned into substances,\nand virtues into crimes; it is evident that none can be happy, because\nnone can be secure.\n\nBut if the punishment is infinitely greater than the offence, (which has\nbeen shewn before) and if it is inflicted, neither to amend the\ncriminal, nor to deter others from the same proceedings, nor to advance,\nin any degree, the happiness of the publick, it is scarce necessary to\nobserve, that it is totally unjust, since it is repugnant to\n_reason_, the dictates of _nature_, and the very principles of\n_government_.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\nWe come now to the fourth and last order of slaves, to _prisoners of\nwar_. As the _sellers_ lay a particular stress on this order of\nmen, and infer much, from its _antiquity_, in support of the\njustice of their cause, we shall examine the principle, on which it\nsubsisted among the ancients. But as this principle was the same among\nall nations, and as a citation from many of their histories would not be\nless tedious than unnecessary, we shall select the example of the Romans\nfor the consideration of the case.\n\nThe law, by which prisoners of war were said to be sentenced to\nservitude, was the _law of nations_[043]. It was so called from the\nuniversal concurrence of nations in the custom. It had two points in\nview, the _persons_ of the _captured_, and their _effects_; both\nof which it immediately sentenced, without any of the usual\nforms of law, to be the property of the _captors_.\n\nThe principle, on which the law was established, was the _right of\ncapture_. When any of the contending parties had overcome their\nopponents, and were about to destroy them, the right was considered to\ncommence; a right, which the victors conceived themselves to have, to\nrecall their swords, and, from the consideration of having saved the\nlives of the vanquished, when they could have taken them by the laws of\nwar, to commute _blood_ for _service_. Hence the Roman lawyer,\nPomponius, deduces the etymology of _slave_ in the Roman language.\n\"They were called _servi_[044], says he, from the following\ncircumstance. It was usual with our commanders to take them prisoners,\nand sell them: now this circumstance implies, that they must have been\npreviously _preserved_, and hence the name.\" Such then was the\n_right of capture_. It was a right, which the circumstance of\n_taking_ the vanquished, that is, of _preserving_ them alive,\ngave the conquerors to their persons. By this right, as always including\nthe idea of a previous preservation from death, the vanquished were said\n_to be slaves_[045]; and, \"as all slaves,\" says Justinian, \"are\nthemselves in the power of others, and of course can have nothing of\ntheir own, so their effects followed the condition of their persons, and\nbecame the property of the captors.\"\n\nTo examine this right, by which the vanquished were said to be slaves,\nwe shall use the words of a celebrated Roman author, and apply them to\nthe present case[046]. \"If it is lawful,\" says he, \"to deprive a man of\nhis life, it is certainly not inconsistent with nature to rob him;\" to\nrob him of his liberty. We admit the conclusion to be just, if the\nsupposition be the same: we allow, if men have a right to commit that,\nwhich is considered as a greater crime, that they have a right, at the\nsame instant, to commit that, which is considered as a less. But what\nshall we say to the _hypothesis_? We deny it to be true. The voice\nof nature is against it. It is not lawful to kill, but on\n_necessity_. Had there been a necessity, where had the wretched\ncaptive survived to be broken with chains and servitude? The very act of\nsaving his life is an argument to prove, that no such necessity existed.\nThe _conclusion_ is therefore false. The captors had no right to\nthe _lives_ of the captured, and of course none to their\n_liberty_: they had no right to their _blood_, and of course\nnone to their _service_. Their right therefore had no foundation in\njustice. It was founded on a principle, contrary to the law of nature,\nand of course contrary to that law, which people, under different\ngovernments, are bound to observe to one another.\n\nIt is scarce necessary to observe, as a farther testimony of the\ninjustice of the measure, that the Europeans, after the introduction of\nChristianity, exploded this principle of the ancients, as frivolous and\nfalse; that they spared the lives of the vanquished, not from the sordid\nmotives of _avarice_, but from a conscientiousness, that homicide\ncould only be justified by _necessity_; that they introduced an\n_exchange_ of prisoners, and, by many and wise regulations,\ndeprived war of many of its former horrours.\n\nBut the advocates for slavery, unable to defend themselves against these\narguments, have fled to other resources, and, ignorant of history, have\ndenied that the _right of capture_ was the true principle, on which\nslavery subsisted among the ancients. They reason thus. \"The learned\nGrotius, and others, have considered slavery as the just consequence of\na private war, (supposing the war to be just and the opponents in a\nstate of nature), upon the principles of _reparation_ and\n_punishment_. Now as the law of nature, which is the rule of\nconduct to individuals in such a situation, is applicable to members of\na different community, there is reason to presume, that these principles\nwere applied by the ancients to their prisoners of war; that their\n_effects_ were confiscated by the right of _reparation_, and\ntheir _persons_ by the right of _punishment_.\"--\n\nBut, such a presumption is false. The _right of capture_ was the\nonly argument, that the ancients adduced in their defence. Hence\nPolybius; \"What must they, (the Mantinenses) suffer, to receive the\npunishment they deserve? Perhaps it will be said, _that they must be\nsold, when they are taken, with their wives and children into\nslavery_: But this is not to be considered as a punishment, since\neven those suffer it, by the laws of war, who have done nothing that is\nbase.\" The truth is, that both the _offending_ and the _offended_\nparties, whenever they were victorious, inflicted slavery\nalike. But if the _offending_ party inflicted slavery on\nthe persons of the vanquished, by what right did they inflict it? It\nmust be answered from the presumption before-mentioned, \"by the right of\n_reparation_, or of _punishment:_\" an answer plainly absurd\nand contradictory, as it supposes the _aggressor_ to have a\n_right_, which the _injured_ only could possess.\n\nNeither is the argument less fallacious than the presumption, in\napplying these principles, which in a _publick_ war could belong to\nthe _publick_ only, to the persons of the _individuals_ that\nwere taken. This calls us again to the history of the ancients, and, as\nthe rights of reparation and punishment could extend to those only, who\nhad been injured, to select a particular instance for the consideration\nof the case.\n\nAs the Romans had been injured without a previous provocation by the\nconduct of Hannibal at Saguntum, we may take the treaty into\nconsideration, which they made with the Carthaginians, when the latter,\ndefeated at Zama, sued for peace. It consisted of three articles[047].\nBy the first, the Carthaginians were to be free, and to enjoy their own\nconstitution and laws. By the second, they were to pay a considerable\nsum of money, as a reparation for the damages and expence of war: and,\nby the third, they were to deliver up their elephants and ships of war,\nand to be subject to various restrictions, as a punishment. With these\nterms they complied, and the war was finished.\n\nThus then did the Romans make that distinction between _private_\nand _publick_ war, which was necessary to be made, and which the\nargument is fallacious in not supposing. The treasury of the vanquished\nwas marked as the means of _reparation_; and as this treasury was\nsupplied, in a great measure, by the imposition of taxes, and was,\nwholly, the property of the _publick_, so the _publick_ made\nthe reparation that was due. The _elephants_ also, and _ships of\nwar_, which were marked as the means of _punishment_, were\n_publick_ property; and as they were considerable instruments of\nsecurity and defence to their possessors, and of annoyance to an enemy,\nso their loss, added to the restrictions of the treaty, operated as a\ngreat and _publick_ punishment. But with respect to the\nCarthaginian prisoners, who had been taken in the war, they were\nretained in _servitude:_ not upon the principles of _reparation_\nand _punishment_, because the Romans had already received,\nby their own confession in the treaty, a sufficient satisfaction:\nnot upon these principles, because they were inapplicable\nto _individuals:_ the legionary soldier in the service of the\ninjured, who took his prisoner, was not the person, to whom the\n_injury had been done_, any more than the soldier in the service of\nthe aggressors, who was taken, was the person, who had _committed the\noffence:_ but they were retained in servitude by the _right of\ncapture_; because, when both parties had sent their military into the\nfield to determine the dispute, it was at the _private_ choice of\nthe legionary soldier before-mentioned, whether he would spare the life\nof his conquered opponent, when he was thought to be entitled to take\nit, if he had chosen, by the laws of war.\n\nTo produce more instances, as an illustration of the subject, or to go\nfarther into the argument, would be to trespass upon the patience, as\nwell as understanding of the reader. In _a state of nature_, where\na man is supposed to commit an injury, and to be unconnected with the\nrest of the world, the act is _private_, and the right, which the\ninjured acquires, can extend only to _himself:_ but in _a state\nof society_, where any member or members of a particular community\ngive offence to those of another, and they are patronized by the state,\nto which they belong, the case is altered; the act becomes immediately\n_publick_, and the _publick_ alone are to experience the\nconsequences of their injustice. For as no particular member of the\ncommunity, if considered as an individual, is guilty, except the person,\nby whom the injury was done, it would be contrary to reason and justice,\nto apply the principles of _reparation_ and _punishment_,\nwhich belong to the people as a collective body, to any individual of\nthe community, who should happen to be taken. Now, as the principles of\n_reparation_ and _punishment_ are thus inapplicable to the\nprisoners, taken in a _publick_ war, and as the _right of\ncapture_, as we have shewn before, is insufficient to intitle the\nvictors to the _service_ of the vanquished, it is evident that\n_slavery_ cannot justly exist at all, since there are no other\nmaxims, on which it can be founded, even in the most equitable wars.\n\nBut if these things are so; if slavery cannot be defended even in the\nmost _equitable_ wars, what arguments will not be found against\nthat servitude, which arises from those, that are _unjust?_ Which\narises from those African wars, that relate to the present subject? The\nAfrican princes, corrupted by the merchants of Europe, seek every\nopportunity of quarrelling with one another. Every spark is blown into a\nflame; and war is undertaken from no other consideration, than that\n_of procuring slaves:_ while the Europeans, on the other hand,\nhappy in the quarrels which they have thus excited, supply them with\narms and ammunition for the accomplishment of their horrid purpose. Thus\nhas Africa, for the space of two hundred years, been the scene of the\nmost iniquitous and bloody wars; and thus have many thousands of men, in\nthe most iniquitous manner, been sent into servitude.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 043: _Jure Gentium_ servi nostri sunt, qui ab hostibus\ncapiuntur. Justinian, L. 1. 5. 5. 1.]\n\n\n[Footnote 044: _Serverum_ appellatio ex eo fluxit, quod imperatores\nnostri captivos vendere, ac per hoc _servare_, nec occidere\nsolent.]\n\n\n[Footnote 045: Nam sive victoribus _jure captivitatis_ servissent,\n&c. Justin, L. 4. 3. et passim apud scriptores antiquos.]\n\n\n[Footnote 046: Neque est contra naturam spoliare eum, si possis, quem\nhonestum est necare. Cicero de officiis. L. 3. 6.]\n\n\n[Footnote 047: 1. Ut liberi suis legibus viverent. Livy, L. 30. 37. 2.\nDecem millia talentum argenti descripta pensionibus \u00e6quis in annos\nquinquaginta solverent. Ibid. 3. Et naves rostratas, pr\u00e6ter decem\ntriremes, traderent, elephantosque, quos haberent domitos; neque\ndomarent alios; Bellum neve in Africa, neve extra Africam, injussu P. R.\ngererent, &c. Ibid.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\nWe shall beg leave, before we proceed to the arguments of the\n_purchasers_, to add the following observations to the substance of\nthe three preceding chapters.\n\nAs the two orders of men, of those who are privately kidnapped by\nindividuals, and of those who are publickly seized by virtue of the\nauthority of their prince, compose together, at least[048], nine tenths\nof the African slaves, they cannot contain, upon a moderate computation,\nless than ninety thousand men annually transported: an immense number,\nbut easily to be credited, when we reflect that thousands are employed\nfor the purpose of stealing the unwary, and that these diabolical\npractices are in force, so far has European _injustice_ been\nspread, at the distance of a thousand miles from the factories on the\ncoast. The _slave merchants_, among whom a quantity of European\ngoods is previously divided, travel into the heart of the country to\nthis amazing distance. Some of them attend the various markets, that are\nestablished through so large an extent of territory, to purchase the\nkidnapped people, whom the _slave-hunters_ are continually bringing\nin; while the rest, subdividing their merchandize among the petty\nsovereigns with whom they deal, receive, by an immediate exertion of\nfraud and violence, the stipulated number.\n\nNow, will any man assert, in opposition to the arguments before\nadvanced, that out of this immense body of men, thus annually collected\nand transported, there is even _one_, over whom the original or\nsubsequent seller can have any power or right? Whoever asserts this, in\nthe first instance, must, contradict his own feelings, and must consider\n_himself_ as a just object of prey, whenever any daring invader\nshall think it proper to attack _him_. And, in the second instance,\nthe very idea which the African princes entertain of their villages, as\n_parks_ or _reservoirs_, stocked only for their own convenience,\nand of their subjects, as _wild beasts_, whom they may pursue\nand take at pleasure, is so shocking, that it need only be\nmentioned, to be instantly reprobated by the reader.\n\nThe order of slaves, which is next to the former in respect to the\nnumber of people whom it contains, is that of prisoners of war. This\norder, if the former statement be true, is more inconsiderable than is\ngenerally imagined; but whoever reflects on the prodigious slaughter\nthat is constantly made in every African skirmish, cannot be otherwise\nthan of this opinion: he will find, that where _ten_ are taken, he\nhas every reason to presume that an _hundred_ perish. In some of\nthese skirmishes, though they have been begun for the express purpose of\n_procuring slaves_, the conquerors have suffered but few of the\nvanquished to escape the fury of the sword; and there have not been\nwanting instances, where they have been so incensed at the resistance\nthey have found, that their spirit of vengeance has entirely got the\nbetter of their avarice, and they have murdered, in cool blood, every\nindividual, without discrimination, either of age or sex.\n\nThe following[049] is an account of one of these skirmishes, as\ndescribed by a person, who was witness to the scene. \"I was sent, with\nseveral others, in a small sloop up the river Niger, to purchase slaves:\nwe had some free negroes with us in the practice; and as the vessels are\nliable to frequent attacks from the negroes on one side of the river, or\nthe Moors on the other, they are all armed. As we rode at anchor a long\nway up the river, we observed a large number of negroes in huts by the\nriver's side, and for our own safety kept a wary eye on them. Early next\nmorning we saw from our masthead a numerous body approaching, with\napparently but little order, but in close array. They approached very\nfast, and fell furiously on the inhabitants of the town, who seemed to\nbe quite _surprized_, but nevertheless, as soon as they could get\ntogether, fought stoutly. They had some fire-arms, but made very little\nuse of them, as they came directly to close fighting with their spears,\nlances, and sabres. Many of the invaders were mounted on small horses;\nand both parties fought for about half an hour with the fiercest\nanimosity, exerting much more courage and perseverance than I had ever\nbefore been witness to amongst them. The women and children of the town\nclustered together to the water's edge, running shrieking up and down\nwith terrour, waiting the event of the combat, till their party gave\nway and took to the water, to endeavour to swim over to the Barbary\nside. They were closely pursued even into the river by the victors, who,\nthough they came for the purpose of _getting slaves_, gave no\nquarter, _their cruelty even prevailing over their avarice_. They\nmade no prisoners, but put all to the sword without mercy. Horrible\nindeed was the carnage of the vanquished on this occasion, and as we\nwere within two or three hundred yards of them, their cries and shrieks\naffected us extremely. We had got up our anchor at the beginning of the\nfray, and now stood close in to the spot, where the victors having\nfollowed the vanquished into the water, were continually dragging out\nand murdering those, whom by reason of their wounds they easily\novertook. The very children, whom they took in great numbers, did not\nescape the massacre. Enraged at their barbarity, we fired our guns\nloaden with grape shot, and a volley of small arms among them, which\neffectually checked their ardour, and obliged them to retire to a\ndistance from the shore; from whence a few round cannon shot soon\nremoved them into the woods. The whole river was black over with the\nheads of the fugitives, who were swimming for their lives. These poor\nwretches, fearing _us_ as much as their conquerors, dived when we\nfired, and cried most lamentably for mercy. Having now effectually\nfavoured their retreat, we stood backwards and forwards, and took up\nseveral that were wounded and tired. All whose wounds had disabled them\nfrom swimming, were either butchered or drowned, before we got up to\nthem. With a justice and generosity, _never I believe before heard of\namong slavers_, we gave those their liberty whom we had taken up,\nsetting them on shore on the Barbary side, among the poor residue of\ntheir companions, who had survived the slaughter of the morning.\"\n\nWe shall make but two remarks on this horrid instance of African\ncruelty. It adds, first, a considerable weight to the statements that\nhave been made; and confirms, secondly, the conclusions that were drawn\nin the preceding chapter. For if we even allow the right of capture to be\njust, and the principles of reparation and punishment to be applicable\nto the individuals of a community, yet would the former be unjust, and\nthe latter inapplicable, in the present case. Every African war is a\nrobbery; and we may add, to our former expression, when we said, \"that\nthus have many thousands of men, in the most iniquitous manner, been\nsent into servitude,\" that we believe there are few of this order, who\nare not as much the examples of injustice, as the people that have been\nkidnapped; and who do not additionally convey, when we consider them as\nprisoners of war, an idea of the most complicated scene of murder.\n\nThe order of _convicts_, as it exists almost solely among those\nprinces, whose dominions are contiguous to the European factories, is\nfrom this circumstance so inconsiderable, when compared with either of\nthe preceding, that we should not have mentioned it again, but that we\nwere unwilling to omit any additional argument that occurred against it.\n\nIt has been shewn already, that the punishment of slavery is inflicted\nfrom no other motive, than that of gratifying the _avarice_ of the\nprince, a confederation so detestable, as to be sufficient of itself to\nprove it to be unjust; and that it is so disproportionate, from its\n_nature_, to the offence, as to afford an additional proof of its\ninjustice. We shall add now, as a second argument, its disproportion\nfrom its _continuance:_ and we shall derive a third from the\nconsideration, that, in civil society, every violation of the laws of\nthe community is an offence against the _state_[050].\n\nLet us suppose then an African prince, disdaining for once the idea of\nemolument: let us suppose him for once inflamed with the love of his\ncountry, and resolving to punish from this principle alone, \"that by\nexhibiting an example of terrour, he may preserve that _happiness of\nthe publick_, which he is bound to secure and defend by the very\nnature of his contract; or, in other words, that he may answer the end\nof government.\" If actuated then by this principle, he should adjudge\nslavery to an offender, as a just punishment for his offence, for whose\nbenefit must the convict labour? If it be answered, \"for the benefit of\nthe state,\" we allow that the punishment, in whatever light it is\nconsidered, will be found to be equitable: but if it be answered, \"for\nthe benefit of any _individual whom he pleases to appoint_,\" we\ndeny it to be just. The state[051] alone is considered to have been\ninjured, and as _injuries cannot possibly be transferred_, the\nstate alone can justly receive the advantages of his labour. But if the\nAfrican prince, when he thus condemns him to labour for the benefit of\nan _unoffended individual_, should at the same time sentence him to\nbecome his _property_; that is, if he should make the person and\nlife of the convict at the absolute disposal of him, for whom he has\nsentenced him to labour; it is evident that, in addition to his former\ninjustice, he is usurping a power, which no ruler or rulers of a state\ncan possess, and which the great Creator of the universe never yet gave\nto any order whatever of created beings.\n\nThat this reasoning is true, and that civilized nations have considered\nit as such, will be best testified by their practice. We may appeal here\nto that _slavery_, which is now adjudged to delinquents, as a\npunishment, among many of the states of Europe. These delinquents are\nsentenced to labour at the _oar_, to work in _mines_, and on\n_fortifications_, to cut and clear _rivers_, to make and\nrepair _roads_, and to perform other works of national utility.\nThey are employed, in short, in the _publick_ work; because, as the\ncrimes they have committed are considered to have been crimes against\nthe publick, no individual can justly receive the emoluments of their\nlabour; and they are neither _sold_, nor made capable of being\n_transferred_, because no government whatsoever is invested with\nsuch a power.\n\nThus then may that slavery, in which only the idea of _labour_ is\nincluded, be perfectly equitable, and the delinquent will always receive\nhis punishment as a man; whereas in that, which additionally includes\nthe idea of _property_, and to undergo which, the delinquent must\npreviously change his nature, and become a _brute_; there is an\ninconsistency, which no arguments can reconcile, and a contradiction to\nevery principle of nature, which a man need only to appeal to his own\nfeelings immediately to evince. And we will venture to assert, from the\nunited observations that have been made upon the subject, in opposition\nto any arguments that may be advanced, that there is scarcely one of\nthose, who are called African convicts, on whom the prince has a right\nto inflict a punishment at all; and that there is no one whatever, whom\nhe has a power of sentencing to labour for the benefit of an unoffended\nindividual, and much less whom he has a right to sell.\n\nHaving now fully examined the arguments of the _sellers_[052], and\nhaving made such additional remarks as were necessary, we have only to\nadd, that we cannot sufficiently express our detestation at their\nconduct. Were the reader coolly to reflect upon the case of but\n_one_ of the unfortunate men, who are annually the victims of\n_avarice_, and consider his situation in life, as a father, an\nhusband, or a friend, we are sure, that even on such a partial\nreflection, he must experience considerable pain. What then must be his\nfeelings, when he is told, that, since the slave-trade began,\n[053]_nine millions_ of men have been torn from their dearest\nconnections, and sold into slavery. If at this recital his indignation\nshould arise, let him consider it as the genuine production of nature;\nthat she recoiled at the horrid thought, and that she applied instantly\na torch to his breast to kindle his resentment; and if, during his\nindignation, she should awaken the sigh of sympathy, or seduce the tear\nof commiseration from his eye, let him consider each as an additional\nargument against the iniquity of the _sellers_.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 048: The total annual exportation from Africa, is estimated\nhere at 100,000 men, two thirds of whom are exported by the British\nmerchants alone. This estimate is less than that which is usually made,\nand has been published. The author has been informed by disinterested\npeople, who were in most of the West India islands during the late war,\nand who conversed with many of the most intelligent of the negroes, for\nthe purpose of inquiring by what methods they had originally been\nreduced to slavery, that they did not find even two in twenty, who had\nbeen reduced to that situation, by any other means than those mentioned\nabove. The author, desirous of a farther confirmation of this\ncircumstance, stopped the press till he had written to another friend,\nwho had resided twenty years in the West-Indies, and whose opinion he\nhad not yet asked. The following is an extract from the answer. \"I do\nnot among many hundreds recollect to have seen but one or two slaves, of\nthose imported from Africa, who had any scars to shew, that they had\nbeen in war. They are generally such as are kidnapped, or sold by their\ntyrants, after the destruction of a village. In short, I am firmly of\nopinion, that crimes and war together do not furnish one slave in an\nhundred of the numbers introduced into the European colonies. Of\nconsequence the trade itself, were it possible to suppose convicts or\nprisoners of war to be justly sentenced to servitude, is accountable for\nninety-nine in every hundred slaves, whom it supplies. It an insult to\nthe publick, to attempt to palliate the method of procuring them.\"]\n\n\n[Footnote 049: The writer of the letter of which this is a faithful\nextract, and who was known to the author of the present Essay, was a\nlong time on the African coast. He had once the misfortune to be\nshipwrecked there, and to be taken by the natives, who conveyed him and\nhis companions a considerable way up into the country. The hardships\nwhich he underwent in the march, his treatment during his captivity, the\nscenes to which he was witness, while he resided among the inland\nAfricans, as well as while in the African trade, gave occasion to a\nseries of very interesting letters. These letters were sent to the\nauthor of the present Essay, with liberty to make what use of them he\nchose, by the gentleman to whom they were written.]\n\n\n[Footnote 050: Were this not the case, the government of a country could\nhave no right to take cognizance of crimes, and punish them, but every\nindividual, if injured, would have a right to punish the aggressor with\nhis own hand, which is contrary to the notions of all civilized men,\nwhether among the ancients or the moderns.]\n\n\n[Footnote 051: This same notion is entertained even by the African\nprinces, who do not permit the person injured to revenge his injury, or\nto receive the convict as his slave. But if the very person who has been\n_injured_, does not possess him, much less ought any other person\nwhatsoever.]\n\n\n[Footnote 052: There are instances on the African continent, of\n_parents_ selling their _children_. As the slaves of this\ndescription are so few, and are so irregularly obtained, we did not\nthink it worth our while to consider them as forming an order; and, as\nGod never gave the parent a power over his child to make him\n_miserable_, we trust that any farther mention of them will be\nunnecessary.]\n\n\n[Footnote 053: Abb\u00e8 Raynal, Hist. Phil. vol. 4. P. 154.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\nIt remains only now to examine by what arguments those, who\n_receive_ or _purchase_ their fellow-creatures into slavery,\ndefend the _commerce_. Their first plea is, \"that they receive\nthose with propriety, who are convicted of crimes, because they are\ndelivered into their hands by _their own magistrates_.\" But what is\nthis to you _receivers_? Have the unfortunate _convicts_ been\nguilty of injury to _you_? Have they broken _your_ treaties?\nHave they plundered _your_ ships? Have they carried _your_\nwives and children into slavery, that _you_ should thus retaliate?\nHave they offended _you_ even by word or gesture?\n\nBut if the African convicts are innocent with respect to you; if you\nhave not even the shadow of a claim upon their persons; by what right do\nyou receive them? \"By the laws of the Africans,\" you will say; \"by which\nit is positively allowed.\"--But can _laws_ alter the nature of\nvice? They may give it a sanction perhaps: it will still be immutably\nthe same, and, though dressed in the outward habiliments of\n_honour_, will still be _intrinsically base_.\n\nBut alas! you do not only attempt to defend yourselves by these\narguments, but even dare to give your actions the appearance of lenity,\nand assume _merit_ from your _baseness_! and how first ought\nyou particularly to blush, when you assert, \"that prisoners of war are\nonly purchased from the hands of their conquerors, _to deliver them\nfrom death_.\" Ridiculous defence! can the most credulous believe it?\nYou entice the Africans to war; you foment their quarrels; you supply\nthem with arms and ammunition, and all--from the _motives of\nbenevolence_. Does a man set fire to an house, for the purpose of\nrescuing the inhabitants from the flames? But if they are only\npurchased, to _deliver them from death_; why, when they are\ndelivered into your hands, as protectors, do you torture them with\nhunger? Why do you kill them with fatigue? Why does the whip deform\ntheir bodies, or the knife their limbs? Why do you sentence them to\ndeath? to a death, infinitely more excruciating than that from which you\nso kindly saved them? What answer do you make to this? for if you had\nnot humanely preserved them from the hands of their conquerors, a quick\ndeath perhaps, and that in the space of a moment, had freed them from\ntheir pain: but on account of your _favour_ and _benevolence_,\nit is known, that they have lingered years in pain and agony, and have\nbeen sentenced, at last, to a dreadful death for the most insignificant\noffence.\n\nNeither can we allow the other argument to be true, on which you found\nyour merit; \"that you take them from their country for their own\nconvenience; because Africa, scorched with incessant heat, and subject\nto the most violent rains and tempests, is unwholesome, and unfit to be\ninhabited.\" Preposterous men! do you thus judge from your own feelings?\nDo you thus judge from your own constitution and frame? But if you\nsuppose that the Africans are incapable of enduring their own climate,\nbecause you cannot endure it yourselves; why do you receive them into\nslavery? Why do you not measure them here by the same standard? For if\nyou are unable to bear hunger and thirst, chains and imprisonment,\nwounds and torture, why do you not suppose them incapable of enduring\nthe same treatment? Thus then is your argument turned against\nyourselves. But consider the answer which the Scythians gave the\n\u00c6gyptians, when they contended about the antiquity of their\noriginal[054], \"That nature, when she first distinguished countries by\ndifferent degrees of heat and cold, tempered the bodies of animals, at\nthe same instant, to endure the different situations: that as the\nclimate of Scythia was severer than that of \u00c6gypt, so were the bodies of\nthe Scythians harder, and as capable of enduring the severity of their\natmosphere, as the \u00c6gyptians the temperateness of their own.\"\n\nBut you may say perhaps, that, though they are capable of enduring their\nown climate, yet their situation is frequently uncomfortable, and even\nwretched: that Africa is infested with locusts, and insects of various\nkinds; that they settle in swarms upon the trees, destroy the verdure,\nconsume the fruit, and deprive the inhabitants of their food. But the\nsame answer may be applied as before; \"that the same kind Providence,\nwho tempered the body of the animal, tempered also the body of the tree;\nthat he gave it a quality to recover the bite of the locust, which he\nsent; and to reassume, in a short interval of time, its former glory.\"\nAnd that such is the case experience has shewn: for the very trees that\nhave been infested, and stripped of their bloom and verdure, so\nsurprizingly quick is vegetation, appear in a few days, as if an insect\nhad been utterly unknown.\n\nWe may add to these observations, from the testimony of those who have\nwritten the History of Africa from their own inspection, that no country\nis more luxurious in prospects, none more fruitful, none more rich in\nherds and flocks, and none, where the comforts of life, can be gained\nwith so little trouble.\n\nBut you say again, as a confirmation of these your former arguments, (by\nwhich you would have it understood, that the Africans themselves are\nsensible of the goodness of your intentions) \"that they do not appear to\ngo with you against their will.\" Impudent and base assertion! Why then\ndo you load them with chains? Why keep you your daily and nightly\nwatches? But alas, as a farther, though a more melancholy proof, of the\nfalsehood of your assertions, how many, when on board your ships, have\nput a period to their existence? How many have leaped into the sea? How\nmany have pined to death, that, even at the expence of their lives, they\nmight fly from your _benevolence_?\n\nDo you call them obstinate then, because they refuse your favours? Do\nyou call them ungrateful, because they make you this return? How much\nrather ought you receivers to blush! How much rather ought you receivers\nto be considered as abandoned and execrable; who, when you usurp the\ndominion over those, who are as free and independent as yourselves,\nbreak the first law of justice, which ordains, \"that no person shall do\nharm to another, without a previous provocation;\" who offend against\nthe dictates of nature, which commands, \"that no just man shall be given\nor received into slavery against his own consent;\" and who violate the\nvery laws of the empire that you assume, by consigning your subjects to\nmisery.\n\nNow, as a famous Heathen philosopher observes, from whose mouth you\nshall be convicted[055], \"there is a considerable difference, whether an\ninjury is done, during any perturbation of mind, which is generally\nshort and momentary; or whether it is done with any previous meditation\nand design; for, those crimes, which proceed from any sudden commotion\nof the mind, are less than those, which are studied and prepared,\" how\ngreat and enormous are your crimes to be considered, who plan your\nAfrican voyages at a time, when your reason is found, and your senses\nare awake; who coolly and deliberately equip your vessels; and who spend\nyears, and even lives, in the traffick of _human liberty_.\n\nBut if the arguments of those, who _sell_ or _deliver_ men\ninto slavery, (as we have shewn before) and of those, who _receive_\nor _purchase_ them, (as we have now shewn) are wholly false; it is\nevident that this _commerce_, is not only beyond the possibility of\ndefence, but is justly to be accounted wicked, and justly impious, since\nit is contrary to the principles of _law_ and _government_,\nthe dictates of _reason_, the common maxims of _equity_, the\nlaws of _nature_, the admonitions of _conscience_, and, in\nshort, the whole doctrine of _natural religion_.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 054: Justin, L. 2. C. 1.]\n\n\n[Footnote 055: Cicero de Officiis. L. 1. C. 8.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nSLAVERY of the AFRICANS\n\nIN THE\n\nEUROPEAN COLONIES.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n Having confined ourselves wholly, in the second part of this Essay, to\nthe consideration of the _commerce_, we shall now proceed to the\nconsideration of the _slavery_ that is founded upon it. As this\nslavery will be conspicuous in the _treatment_, which the\nunfortunate Africans uniformly undergo, when they are put into the hands\nof the _receivers_, we shall describe the manner in which they are\naccustomed to be used from this period.\n\nTo place this in the clearest, and most conspicuous point of view, we\nshall throw a considerable part of our information on this head into the\nform of a narrative: we shall suppose ourselves, in short, on the\ncontinent of Africa, and relate a scene, which, from its agreement with\nunquestionable facts, might not unreasonably be presumed to have been\npresented to our view, had we been really there.\n\nAnd first, let us turn our eyes to the cloud of dust that is before us.\nIt seems to advance rapidly, and, accompanied with dismal shrieks and\nyellings, to make the very air, that is above it, tremble as it rolls\nalong. What can possibly be the cause? Let us inquire of that melancholy\nAfrican, who seems to walk dejected near the shore; whose eyes are\nstedfastly fixed on the approaching object, and whose heart, if we can\njudge from the appearance of his countenance, must be greatly agitated.\n\n\"Alas!\" says the unhappy African, \"the cloud that you see approaching,\nis a train of wretched slaves. They are going to the ships behind you.\nThey are destined for the English colonies, and, if you will stay here\nbut for a little time, you will see them pass. They were last night\ndrawn up upon the plain which you see before you, where they were\nbranded upon the breast with an _hot iron_; and when they had\nundergone the whole of the treatment which is customary on these\noccasions, and which I am informed that you Englishmen at home use to\nthe _cattle_ which you buy, they were returned to their prison. As\nI have some dealings with the members of the factory which you see at a\nlittle distance, (though thanks to the Great Spirit, I never dealt in\nthe _liberty_ of my fellow creatures) I gained admittance there. I\nlearned the history of some of the unfortunate people, whom I saw\nconfined, and will explain to you, if my eye should catch them as they\npass, the real causes of their servitude.\"\n\nScarcely were these words spoken, when they came distinctly into sight.\nThey appeared to advance in a long column, but in a very irregular\nmanner. There were three only in the front, and these were chained\ntogether. The rest that followed seemed to be chained by pairs, but by\npressing forward, to avoid the lash of the drivers, the breadth of the\ncolumn began to be greatly extended, and ten or more were observed\nabreast.\n\nWhile we were making these remarks, the intelligent African thus resumed\nhis discourse. \"The first three whom you observe, at the head of the\ntrain, to be chained together, are prisoners of war. As soon as the\nships that are behind you arrived, the news was dispatched into the\ninland country; when one of the petty kings immediately assembled his\nsubjects, and attacked a neighbouring tribe. The wretched people, though\nthey were surprized, made a formidable resistance, as they resolved,\nalmost all of them, rather to lose their lives, than survive their\nliberty. The person whom you see in the middle, is the father of the two\nyoung men, who are chained to him on each side. His wife and two of his\nchildren were killed in the attack, and his father being wounded, and,\non account of his age, _incapable of servitude_, was left bleeding\non the spot where this transaction happened.\"\n\n\"With respect to those who are now passing us, and are immediately\nbehind the former, I can give you no other intelligence, than that some\nof them, to about the number of thirty, were taken in the same skirmish.\nTheir tribe was said to have been numerous before the attack; these\nhowever are _all that are left alive_. But with respect to the\nunhappy man, who is now opposite to us, and whom you may distinguish, as\nhe is now looking back and wringing his hands in despair, I can inform\nyou with more precision. He is an unfortunate convict. He lived only\nabout five days journey from the factory. He went out with his king to\nhunt, and was one of his train; but, through too great an anxiety to\nafford his royal master diversion, he roused the game from the covert\nrather sooner than was expected. The king, exasperated at this\ncircumstance, immediately sentenced him to slavery. His wife and\nchildren, fearing lest the tyrant should extend the punishment to\nthemselves, _which is not unusual_, fled directly to the woods,\nwhere they were all devoured.\"\n\n\"The people, whom you see close behind the unhappy convict, form a\nnumerous body, and reach a considerable way. They speak a language,\nwhich no person in this part of Africa can understand, and their\nfeatures, as you perceive, are so different from those of the rest, that\nthey almost appear a distinct race of men. From this circumstance I\nrecollect them. They are the subjects of a very distant prince, who\nagreed with the _slave merchants, for a quantity of spirituous\nliquors_, to furnish him with a stipulated number of slaves. He\naccordingly surrounded, and set fire to one of his own villages in the\nnight, and seized these people, who were unfortunately the inhabitants,\nas they were escaping from the flames. I first saw them as the merchants\nwere driving them in, about two days ago. They came in a large body, and\nwere tied together at the neck with leather thongs, which permitted\nthem to walk at the distance of about a yard from one another. Many of\nthem were loaden with elephants teeth, which had been purchased at the\nsame time. All of them had bags, made of skin, upon their shoulders; for\nas they were to travel, in their way from the great mountains, through\nbarren sands and inhospitable woods for many days together, they were\nobliged to carry water and provisions with them. Notwithstanding this,\nmany of them perished, some by hunger, but the greatest number by\nfatigue, as the place from whence they came, is at such an amazing\ndistance from this, and the obstacles, from the nature of the country,\nso great, that the journey could scarcely be completed in seven moons.\"\n\nWhen this relation was finished, and we had been looking stedfastly for\nsome time on the croud that was going by, we lost sight of that\npeculiarity of feature, which we had before remarked. We then discovered\nthat the inhabitants of the depopulated village had all of them passed\nus, and that the part of the train, to which we were now opposite, was a\nnumerous body of kidnapped people. Here we indulged our imagination. We\nthought we beheld in one of them a father, in another an husband, and in\nanother a son, each of whom was forced from his various and tender\nconnections, and without even the opportunity of bidding them adieu.\nWhile we were engaged in these and other melancholy reflections, the\nwhole body of slaves had entirely passed us. We turned almost insensibly\nto look at them again, when we discovered an unhappy man at the end of\nthe train, who could scarcely keep pace with the rest. His feet seemed\nto have suffered much from long and constant travelling, for he was\nlimping painfully along.\n\n\"This man,\" resumes the African. \"has travelled a considerable way. He\nlived at a great distance from hence, and had a large family, for whom\nhe was daily to provide. As he went out one night to a neighbouring\nspring, to procure water for his thirsty children, he was kidnapped by\ntwo _slave hunters_, who sold him in the morning to some country\nmerchants for a _bar of iron_. These drove him with other slaves,\nprocured almost in the same manner, to the nearest market, where the\nEnglish merchants, to whom the train that has just now passed us\nbelongs, purchased him and two others, by means of their travelling\nagents, for a _pistol_. His wife and children have been long\nwaiting for his return. But he is gone for ever from their sight: and\nthey must be now disconsolate, as they must be certain by his delay,\nthat he has fallen into the hands of the _Christians_\".\n\n\"And now, as I have mentioned the name of _Christians_, a name, by\nwhich the Europeans distinguish themselves from us, I could wish to be\ninformed of the meaning which such an appellation may convey. They\nconsider themselves as _men_, but us unfortunate Africans, whom\nthey term _Heathens_, as the _beasts_ that serve us. But ah!\nhow different is the fact! What is _Christianity_, but a system\nof _murder_ and _oppression_? The cries and yells of the\nunfortunate people, who are now soon to embark for the regions of\nservitude, have already pierced my heart. Have you not heard me sigh,\nwhile we have been talking? Do you not see the tears that now trickle\ndown my cheeks? and yet these hardened _Christians_ are unable to\nbe moved at all: nay, they will scourge them amidst their groans, and\neven smile, while they are torturing them to death. Happy, happy\nHeathenism! which can detest the vices of Christianity, and feel for\nthe distresses of mankind.\"\n\n\"But\" we reply, \"You are totally mistaken: _Christianity_ is the\nmost perfect and lovely of moral systems. It blesses even the hand of\npersecution itself, and returns good for evil. But the people against\nwhom you so justly declaim; are not _Christians_. They are\n_infidels_. They are _monsters_. They are out of the common\ncourse of nature. Their countrymen at home are generous and brave. They\nsupport the sick, the lame, and the blind. They fly to the succour of\nthe distressed. They have noble and stately buildings for the sole\npurpose of benevolence. They are in short, of all nations, the most\nremarkable for humanity and justice.\"\n\n\"But why then,\" replies the honest African, \"do they suffer this? Why is\nAfrica a scene of blood and desolation? Why are her children wrested\nfrom her, to administer to the luxuries and greatness of those whom they\nnever offended? And why are these dismal cries in vain?\"\n\n\"Alas!\" we reply again, \"can the cries and groans, with which the air\nnow trembles, be heard across this extensive continent? Can the southern\nwinds convey them to the ear of Britain? If they could reach the\ngenerous Englishman at home, they would pierce his heart, as they have\nalready pierced your own. He would sympathize with you in your distress.\nHe would be enraged at the conduct of his countrymen, and resist their\ntyranny.\"--\n\nBut here a shriek unusually loud, accompanied with a dreadful rattling\nof chains, interrupted the discourse. The wretched Africans were just\nabout to embark: they had turned their face to their country, as if to\ntake a last adieu, and, with arms uplifted to the sky, were making the\nvery atmosphere resound with their prayers and imprecations.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\nThe foregoing scene, though it may be said to be imaginary, is strictly\nconsistent with fact. It is a scene, to which the reader himself may\nhave been witness, if he has ever visited the place, where it is\nsupposed to lie; as no circumstance whatever has been inserted in it,\nfor which the fullest and most undeniable evidence cannot be produced.\nWe shall proceed now to describe, in general terms, the treatment which\nthe wretched Africans undergo, from the time of their embarkation.\n\nWhen the African slaves, who are collected from various quarters, for\nthe purposes of sale, are delivered over to the _receivers_, they\nare conducted in the manner above described to the ships. Their\nsituation on board is beyond all description: for here they are crouded,\nhundreds of them together, into such a small compass, as would scarcely\nbe thought sufficient to accommodate twenty, if considered as _free\nmen_. This confinement soon produces an effect, that may be easily\nimagined. It generates a pestilential air, which, co-operating with, bad\nprovisions, occasions such a sickness and mortality among them, that not\nless than _twenty thousand_[056] are generally taken off in every\nyearly transportation.\n\nThus confined in a pestilential prison, and almost entirely excluded\nfrom the chearful face of day, it remains for the sickly survivors to\nlinger out a miserable existence, till the voyage is finished. But are\nno farther evils to be expected in the interim particularly if we add to\ntheir already wretched situation the indignities that are daily offered\nthem, and the regret which they must constantly feel, at being for ever\nforced from their connexions? These evils are but too apparent. Some of\nthem have resolved, and, notwithstanding the threats of the\n_receivers_, have carried their resolves into execution, to starve\nthemselves to death. Others, when they have been brought upon deck for\nair, if the least opportunity has offered, have leaped into the sea, and\nterminated their miseries at once. Others, in a fit of despair, have\nattempted to rise, and regain their liberty. But here what a scene of\nbarbarity has constantly ensued. Some of them have been instantly killed\nupon the spot; some have been taken from the hold, have been bruised and\nmutilated in the most barbarous and shocking manner, and have been\nreturned bleeding to their companions, as a sad example of resistance;\nwhile others, tied to the ropes of the ship, and mangled alternately\nwith the whip and knife, have been left in that horrid situation, till\nthey have expired.\n\nBut this is not the only inhuman treatment which they are frequently\nobliged to undergo; for if there should be any necessity, from\ntempestuous weather, for lightening the ship; or if it should be\npresumed on the voyage, that the provisions will fall short before the\nport can be made, they are, many of them, thrown into the sea, without\nany compunction of mind on the part of the _receivers_, and without\nany other regret for their loss, than that which _avarice_\ninspires. Wretched survivors! what must be their feelings at such a\nsight! how must they tremble to think of that servitude which is\napproaching, when the very _dogs_ of the _receivers_ have been\nretained on board, and preferred to their unoffending countrymen. But\nindeed so lightly are these unhappy people esteemed, that their lives\nhave been even taken away upon speculation: there has been an instance,\nwithin the last five years, of _one hundred and thirty two_ of them\nbeing thrown into the sea, because it was supposed that, by this\n_trick_, their value could be recovered from the insurers[057].\n\nBut if the ship should arrive safe at its destined port, a circumstance\nwhich does not always happen, (for some have been blown up, and many\nlost) the wretched Africans do not find an alleviation of their sorrow.\nHere they are again exposed to sale. Here they are again subjected to\nthe inspection of other brutal _receivers_, who examine and treat\nthem with an inhumanity, at which even avarice should blush. To this\nmortifying circumstance is added another, that they are picked out, as\nthe purchaser pleases, without any consideration whether the wife is\nseparated from her husband, or the mother from her son: and if these\ncruel instances of separation should happen; if relations, when they\nfind themselves about to be parted, should cling together; or if filial,\nconjugal, or parental affection, should detain them but a moment longer\nin each other's arms, than these _second receivers_ should think\nsufficient, the lash instantly severs them from their embraces.\n\nWe cannot close our account of the treatment, which the wretched\nAfricans undergo while in the hands of the _first receivers_,\nwithout mentioning an instance of wanton, barbarity, which happened some\ntime ago; particularly as it may be inserted with propriety in the\npresent place, and may give the reader a better idea of the cruelties,\nto which they are continually exposed, than any that he may have yet\nconceived. To avoid making a mistake, we shall take the liberty that has\nbeen allowed us, and transcribe it from a little manuscript account,\nwith which we have been favoured by a person of the strictest integrity,\nand who was at that time in the place where the transaction\nhappened[058]. \"Not long after,\" says he, (continuing his account) \"the\nperpetrator of a cruel murder, committed in open day light, in the most\npublick part of a town, which was the seat of government, escaped every\nother notice than the curses of a few of the more humane witnesses of\nhis barbarity. An officer of a Guinea ship, who had the care of a number\nof new slaves, and was returning from the _sale-yard_ to the\nvessel with such as remained unsold; observed a stout fellow among them\nrather slow in his motions, which he therefore quickened with his\nrattan. The slave soon afterwards fell down, and was raised by the same\napplication. Moving forwards a few yards, he fell down again; and this\nbeing taken as a proof of his sullen perverse spirit, the enraged\nofficer furiously repeated his blows, till he expired at his feet. The\nbrute coolly ordered some of the surviving slaves to carry the dead body\nto the water's side, where, without any ceremony or delay, being thrown\ninto the sea, the tragedy was supposed to have been immediately finished\nby the not more inhuman sharks, with which the harbour then abounded.\nThese voracious fish were supposed to have followed the vessels from\nthe coast of Africa, in which ten thousand slaves were imported in that\none season, being allured by the stench, and daily fed by the dead\ncarcasses thrown overboard on the voyage.\"\n\nIf the reader should observe here, that cattle are better protected in\nthis country, than slaves in the colonies, his observation will be just.\nThe beast which is driven to market, is defended by law from the goad of\nthe driver; whereas the wretched African, though an human being, and\nwhose feelings receive of course a double poignancy from the power of\nreflection, is unnoticed in this respect in the colonial code, and may\nbe goaded and beaten till he expires.\n\nWe may now take our leave of the _first receivers_. Their crime has\nbeen already estimated; and to reason farther upon it, would be\nunnecessary. For where the conduct of men is so manifestly impious,\nthere can be no need, either of a single argument or a reflection; as\nevery reader of sensibility will anticipate them in his own feelings.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 056: It is universally allowed, that at least one fifth of the\nexported negroes perish in the passage. This estimate is made from the\ntime in which they are put on board, to the time when they are disposed\nof in the colonies. The French are supposed to lose the greatest number\nin the voyage, but particularly from this circumstance, because their\nslave ships are in general so very large, that many of the slaves that\nhave been put on board sickly, die before the cargo can be completed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 057: This instance happened in a ship, commanded by one\nCollingwood. On the 29th of November, 1781, fifty-four of them were\nthrown into the sea alive; on the 30th forty-two more; and in about\nthree days afterwards, twenty-six. Ten others, who were brought upon the\ndeck for the same purpose, did not wait to be hand-cuffed, but bravely\nleaped into the sea, and shared the fate of their companions. It is a\nfact, that the people on board this ship had not been put upon short\nallowance. The excuse which this execrable wretch made on board for his\nconduct, was the following, \"_that if the slaves, who were then\nsickly, had died a natural death, the loss would have been the owners;\nbut as they were thrown alive into the sea, it would fall upon the\nunderwriters_.\"]\n\n\n[Footnote 058: This gentleman is at present resident in England. The\nauthor of this Essay applied to him for some information on the\ntreatment of slaves, so far as his own knowledge was concerned. He was\nso obliging as to furnish him with the written account alluded to,\ninterspersed only with such instances, as he himself could undertake to\nanswer for. The author, as he has never met with these instances before,\nand as they are of such high authority, intends to transcribe two or\nthree of them, and insert them in the fourth chapter. They will be found\nin inverted commas.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\nWhen the wretched Africans are thus put into the hands of the _second\nreceivers_, they are conveyed to the plantations, where they are\ntotally considered as _cattle_, or _beasts of labour_; their\nvery children, if any should be born to them in that situation, being\npreviously destined to the condition of their parents. But here a\nquestion arises, which, will interrupt the thread of the narration for a\nlittle time, viz. how far their descendants, who compose the fifth order\nof slaves, are justly reduced to servitude, and upon what principles the\n_receivers_ defend their conduct.\n\nAuthors have been at great pains to inquire, why, in the ancient\nservitude, the child has uniformly followed the condition of the mother.\nBut we conceive that they would have saved themselves much trouble, and\nhave done themselves more credit, if instead of, endeavouring to\nreconcile the custom with _heathen_ notions, or their own laboured\nconjectures, they had shewn its inconsistency with reason and nature,\nand its repugnancy to common justice. Suffice it to say, that the whole\ntheory of the ancients, with respect to the descendants slaves, may be\nreduced to this principle, \"that as the parents, by becoming\n_property_, were wholly considered as _cattle_, their children,\nlike _the progeny of cattle_, inherited their parental lot.\"\n\nSuch also is the excuse of the tyrannical _receivers_\nbefore-mentioned. They allege, that they have purchased the parents,\nthat they can sell and dispose of them as they please, that they possess\nthem under the same laws and limitations as their cattle, and that their\nchildren, like the progeny of these, become their property _by\nbirth_.\n\nBut the absurdity of the argument will immediately appear. It depends\nwholly on the supposition, that the parents are _brutes_. If they\nare _brutes_, we shall instantly cease to contend: if they are\n_men_, which we think it not difficult to prove, the argument must\nimmediately fall, as we have already shewn that there cannot justly be\nany _property_ whatever in the _human species_.\n\nIt has appeared also, in the second part of this Essay, that as nature\nmade, every man's body and mind _his own_, so no _just_ person\ncan be reduced to slavery against his own _consent_. Do the\nunfortunate offspring ever _consent_ to be slaves?--They are slaves\nfrom their birth.--Are they _guilty_ of crimes, that they lose\ntheir freedom?--They are slaves when they cannot speak.--Are their\n_parents_ abandoned? The crimes of the parents cannot justly extend\nto the children.\n\nThus then must the tyrannical _receivers_, who presume to sentence\nthe children of slaves to servitude, if they mean to dispute upon the\njustice of their cause; either allow them to have been _brutes_\nfrom their birth, or to have been guilty of crimes at a time, when they\nwere incapable of offending the very _King of Kings_.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\nBut to return to the narration. When the wretched Africans are conveyed\nto the plantations, they are considered as _beasts of labour_, and\nare put to their respective work. Having led, in their own country, a\nlife of indolence and ease, where the earth brings forth spontaneously\nthe comforts of life, and spares frequently the toil and trouble of\ncultivation, they can hardly be expected to endure the drudgeries of\nservitude. Calculations are accordingly made upon their lives. It is\nconjectured, that if three in four survive what is called the\n_seasoning_, the bargain is highly favourable. This seasoning is\nsaid to expire, when the two first years of their servitude are\ncompleted: It is the time which an African must take to be so accustomed\nto the colony, as to be able to endure the common labour of a\nplantation, and to be put into the _gang_. At the end of this\nperiod the calculations become verified, _twenty thousand_[059] of\nthose, who are annually imported, dying before the seasoning is over.\nThis is surely an horrid and awful consideration: and thus does it\nappear, (and let it be remembered, that it is the lowest calculation\nthat has been ever made upon the subject) that out of every annual\nsupply that is shipped from the coast of Africa, _forty thousand\nlives_[060] are regularly expended, even before it can be said, that\nthere is really any additional stock for the colonies.\n\nWhen the seasoning is over, and the survivors are thus enabled to endure\nthe usual task of slaves, they are considered as real and substantial\nsupplies. From this period[061] therefore we shall describe their\nsituation.\n\nThey are summoned at five in the morning to begin their work. This work\nmay be divided into two kinds, the culture of the fields, and the\ncollection of grass for cattle. The last is the most laborious and\nintolerable employment; as the grass can only be collected blade by\nblade, and is to be fetched frequently twice a day at a considerable\ndistance from the plantation. In these two occupations they are jointly\ntaken up, with no other intermission than that of taking their\nsubsistence twice, till nine at night. They then separate for their\nrespective huts, when they gather sticks, prepare their supper, and\nattend their families. This employs them till midnight, when they go to\nrest. Such is their daily way of life for rather more than half the\nyear. They are _sixteen_ hours, including two intervals at meals,\nin the service of their masters: they are employed _three_\nafterwards in their own necessary concerns; _five_ only remain for\nsleep, and their day is finished.\n\nDuring the remaining portion of the year, or the time of crop, the\nnature, as well as the time of their employment, is considerably\nchanged. The whole gang is generally divided into two or three bodies.\nOne of these, besides the ordinary labour of the day, is kept in turn at\nthe mills, that are constantly going, during the whole of the night.\nThis is a dreadful encroachment upon their time of rest, which was\nbefore too short to permit them perfectly to refresh their wearied\nlimbs, and actually reduces their sleep, as long as this season lasts,\nto about three hours and an half a night, upon a moderate\ncomputation[062]. Those who can keep their eyes open during their\nnightly labour, and are willing to resist the drowsiness that is\ncontinually coming upon them, are presently worn out; while some of\nthose, who are overcome, and who feed the mill between asleep and awake,\nsuffer, for thus obeying the calls of nature, by the loss of a\nlimb[063]. In this manner they go on, with little or no respite from\ntheir work, till the crop season is over, when the year (from the time\nof our first description) is completed.\n\nTo support[064] a life of such unparalleled drudgery, we should at least\nexpect: to find, that they were comfortably clothed, and plentifully\nfed. But sad reverse! they have scarcely a covering to defend themselves\nagainst the inclemency of the night. Their provisions are frequently\nbad, and are always dealt out to them with such a sparing hand, that the\nmeans of a bare livelihood are not placed within the reach of four out\nof five of these unhappy people. It is a fact, that many of the\ndisorders of slaves are contracted from eating the vegetables, which\ntheir little spots produce, before they are sufficiently ripe: a clear\nindication, that the calls of hunger are frequently so pressing, as not\nto suffer them to wait, till they can really enjoy them.\n\nThis, situation, of a want of the common necessaries of life, added to\nthat of hard and continual labour, must be sufficiently painful of\nitself. How then must the pain be sharpened, if it be accompanied with\nseverity! if an unfortunate slave does not come into the field exactly\nat the appointed time, if, drooping with sickness or fatigue, he appears\nto work unwillingly, or if the bundle of grass that he has been\ncollecting, appears too small in the eye of the overseer, he is equally\nsure of experiencing the whip. This instrument erases the skin, and cuts\nout small portions of the flesh at almost every stroke; and is so\nfrequently applied, that the smack of it is all day long in the ears of\nthose, who are in the vicinity of the plantations. This severity of\nmasters, or managers, to their slaves, which is considered only as\ncommon discipline, is attended with bad effects. It enables them to\nbehold instances of cruelty without commiseration, and to be guilty of\nthem without remorse. Hence those many acts of deliberate mutilation,\nthat have taken place on the slightest occasions: hence those many acts\nof inferiour, though shocking, barbarity, that have taken place without\nany occasion at all: the very slitting[065] of ears has been considered\nas an operation, so perfectly devoid of pain, as to have been performed\nfor no other reason than that for which a brand is set upon cattle,\n_as a mark of property_.\n\nBut this is not the only effect, which this severity produces: for\nwhile it hardens their hearts, and makes them insensible of the misery\nof their fellow-creatures, it begets a turn for wanton cruelty. As a\nproof of this, we shall mention one, among the many instances that\noccur, where ingenuity has been exerted in contriving modes of torture.\n\"An iron coffin, with holes in it, was kept by a certain colonist, as an\nauxiliary to the lash. In this the poor victim of the master's\nresentment was inclosed, and placed sufficiently near a fire, to\noccasion extreme pain, and consequently shrieks and groans, until the\nrevenge of the master was satiated, without any other inconvenience on\nhis part, than a temporary suspension of the slave's labour. Had he been\nflogged to death, or his limbs mutilated, the interest of the brutal\ntyrant would have suffered a more irreparable loss.\n\n\"In mentioning, this instance, we do not mean to insinuate, that it is\ncommon. We know that it was reprobated by many. All that we would infer\nfrom it is, that where men are habituated to a system of severity, they\nbecome _wantonly cruel_, and that the mere toleration of such an\ninstrument of torture, in any country, is a clear indication, _that\nthis wretched class of men do not there enjoy the protection of any\nlaws, that may be pretended to have been enacted in their favour_.\"\n\nSuch then is the general situation of the unfortunate Africans. They are\nbeaten and tortured at discretion. They are badly clothed. They are\nmiserably fed. Their drudgery is intense and incessant and their rest\nshort. For scarcely are their heads reclined, scarcely have their bodies\na respite from the labour of the day, or the cruel hand of the overseer,\nbut they are summoned to renew their sorrows. In this manner they go on\nfrom year to year, in a state of the lowest degradation, without a\nsingle law to protect them, without the possibility of redress, without\na hope that their situation will be changed, unless death should\nterminate the scene.\n\nHaving described the general situation of these unfortunate people, we\nshall now take notice of the common consequences that are found to\nattend it, and relate them separately, as they result either from long\nand painful _labour_, a _want_ of the common necessaries of\nlife, or continual _severity_.\n\nOppressed by a daily task of such immoderate labour as human nature is\nutterly unable to perform, many of them run away from their masters.\nThey fly to the recesses of the mountains, where they choose rather to\nlive upon any thing that the soil affords them, nay, the very soil\nitself, than return to that _happy situation_, which is represented\nby the _receivers_, as the condition of a slave.\n\nIt sometimes happens, that the manager of a mountain plantation, falls\nin with one of these; he immediately seizes him, and threatens to carry\nhim to his former master, unless he will consent to live on the mountain\nand cultivate his ground. When his plantation is put in order, he\ncarries the delinquent home, abandons him to all the suggestions of\ndespotick rage, and accepts a reward for his _honesty_. The unhappy\nwretch is chained, scourged, tortured; and all this, because he obeyed\nthe dictates of nature, and wanted to be free. And who is there, that\nwould not have done the same thing, in the same situation? Who is there,\nthat has once known the charms of liberty; that would not fly from\ndespotism? And yet, by the impious laws of the _receivers_, the\nabsence[066] of six months from the lash of tyranny is--_death_.\n\nBut this law is even mild, when compared with another against the same\noffence, which was in force sometime ago, and which we fear is even now\nin force, in some of those colonies which this account of the treatment\ncomprehends. \"Advertisements have frequently appeared there, offering a\nreward for the apprehending of fugitive slaves either alive or\n_dead_. The following instance was given us by a person of\nunquestionable veracity, under whose own observation it fell. As he was\ntravelling in one of the colonies alluded to, he observed some people in\npursuit of a poor wretch, who was seeking in the wilderness an asylum\nfrom his labours. He heard the discharge of a gun, and soon afterwards\nstopping at an house for refreshment, the head of the fugitive, still\nreeking with blood, was brought in and laid upon a table with\nexultation. The production of such a trophy was the proof _required by\nlaw_ to entitle the heroes to their reward.\" Now reader determine if\nyou can, who were the most execrable; the rulers of the state in\nauthorizing murder, or the people in being bribed to commit it.\n\nThis is one of the common consequences of that immoderate share of\nlabour, which is imposed upon them; nor is that, which is the result of\na scanty allowance of food, less to be lamented. The wretched African is\noften so deeply pierced by the excruciating fangs of hunger, as almost\nto be driven to despair. What is he to do in such a trying situation?\nLet him apply to the _receivers_. Alas! the majesty of _receivership_\nis too sacred for the appeal, and the intrusion would be\nfatal. Thus attacked on the one hand, and shut out from every\npossibility of relief on the other, he has only the choice of being\nstarved, or of relieving his necessities by taking a small portion of\nthe fruits of his own labour. Horrid crime! to be found eating the\ncane, which probably his own hands have planted, and to be eating it,\nbecause his necessities were pressing! This crime however is of such a\nmagnitude, as always to be accompanied with the whip; and so\nunmercifully has it been applied on such an occasion, as to have been\nthe cause, in wet weather, of the delinquent's death. But the smart of\nthe whip has not been the only pain that the wretched Africans have\nexperienced. Any thing that passion could seize, and convert into an\ninstrument of punishment, has been used; and, horrid to relate! the very\nknife has not been overlooked in the fit of phrenzy. Ears have been\nslit, eyes have been beaten out, and bones have been broken; and so\nfrequently has this been the case, that it has been a matter of constant\nlamentation with disinterested people, who out of curiosity have\nattended the markets[067] to which these unhappy people weekly resort,\nthat they have not been able to turn their eyes on any group of them\nwhatever, but they have beheld these inhuman marks of passion,\ndespotism, and caprice.\n\nBut these instances of barbarity have not been able to deter them from\nsimilar proceedings. And indeed, how can it be expected that they\nshould? They have still the same appetite to be satisfied as before, and\nto drive them to desperation. They creep out clandestinely by night, and\ngo in search of food into their master's, or some neighbouring\nplantation. But here they are almost equally sure of suffering. The\nwatchman, who will be punished himself, if he neglects his duty,\nfrequently seizes them in the fact. No excuse or intreaty will avail; he\nmust punish them for an example, and he must punish them, not with a\nstick, nor with a whip, but with a cutlass. Thus it happens, that these\nunhappy slaves, if they are taken, are either sent away mangled in a\nbarbarous manner, or are killed upon the spot.\n\nWe may now mention the consequences of the severity. The wretched\nAfricans, daily subjected to the lash, and unmercifully whipt and beaten\non every trifling occasion, have been found to resist their opposers.\nUnpardonable crime! that they should have the feelings of nature! that\ntheir breasts should glow with resentment on an injury! that they should\nbe so far overcome, as to resist those, whom _they are under no\nobligations to obey_, and whose only title to their services consists\nin _a violation of the rights of men_! What has been the\nconsequence?--But here let us spare the feelings of the reader, (we\nwish we could spare our own) and let us only say, without a recital of\nthe cruelty, _that they have been murdered at the discretion of their\nmasters_. For let the reader observe, that the life of an African is\nonly valued at a price, that would scarcely purchase an horse; that the\nmaster has a power of murdering his slave, if he pays but a trifling\nfine; and that the murder must be attended with uncommon circumstances\nof horrour, if it even produces an inquiry.\n\nImmortal Alfred! father of our invaluable constitution! parent of the\ncivil blessings we enjoy! how ought thy laws to excite our love and\nveneration, who hast forbidden us, thy posterity, to tremble at the\nfrown of tyrants! how ought they to perpetuate thy name, as venerable,\nto the remotest ages, who has secured, even to the meanest servant, a\nfair and impartial trial! How much does nature approve thy laws, as\nconsistent with her own feelings, while she absolutely turns pale,\ntrembles, and recoils, at the institutions of these _receivers_!\nExecrable men! you do not murder the horse, on which you only ride; you\ndo not mutilate the cow, which only affords you her milk; you do not\ntorture the dog, which is but a partial servant of your pleasures: but\nthese unfortunate men, from whom, you derive your very pleasures and\nyour fortunes, you torture, mutilate, murder at discretion! Sleep then\nyou _receivers_, if you can, while you scarcely allow these\nunfortunate people to rest at all! feast if you can, and indulge your\ngenius, while you daily apply to these unfortunate people the stings of\nseverity and hunger! exult in riches, at which even avarice ought to\nshudder, and, which humanity must detest!\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 059: One third of the whole number imported, is often computed\nto be lost in the seasoning, which, in round numbers, will be 27000. The\nloss in the seasoning depends, in a great measure, on two circumstances,\nviz. on the number of what are called refuse slaves that are imported,\nand on the quantity of new land in the colony. In the French windward\nislands of Martinico, and Guadaloupe, which are cleared and highly\ncultivated, and in our old small islands, one fourth, including refuse\nslaves, is considered as a general proportion. But in St. Domingo, where\nthere is a great deal of new land annually taken into culture, and in\nother colonies in the same situation, the general proportion, including\nrefuse slaves, is found to be one third. This therefore is a lower\nestimate than the former, and reduces the number to about 23000. We may\nobserve, that this is the common estimate, but we have reduced it to\n20000 to make it free from all objection.]\n\n\n[Footnote 060: Including the number that perish on the voyage, and in\nthe seasoning. It is generally thought that not half the number\npurchased can be considered as an additional stock, and of course that\n50,000 are consumed within the first two years from their embarkation.]\n\n\n[Footnote 061: That part of the account, that has been hitherto given,\nextends to all the Europeans and their colonists, who are concerned in\nthis horrid practice. But we are sorry that we must now make a\ndistinction, and confine the remaining part, of it to the colonists of\nthe British West India islands, and to those of the southern provinces\nof North America. As the employment of slaves is different in the two\nparts of the world last mentioned, we shall content ourselves with\ndescribing it, as it exists in one of them, and we shall afterwards\nannex such treatment and such consequences as are applicable to both. We\nhave only to add, that the reader must not consider our account as\n_universally_, but only _generally_, true.]\n\n\n[Footnote 062: This computation is made on a supposition, that the gang\nis divided into three bodies; we call it therefore moderate, because the\ngang is frequently divided into two bodies, which must therefore set up\nalternately _every other night_.]\n\n\n[Footnote 063: An hand or arm being frequently ground off.]\n\n\n[Footnote 064: The reader will scarcely believe it, but it is a fact,\nthat a slave's annual allowance from his master, for provisions,\nclothing, medicines when sick, &c. is limited, upon an average, to\nthirty shillings.]\n\n\n[Footnote 065: \"A boy having received six slaves as a present from his\nfather, immediately slit their ears, and for the following reason, that\nas his father was a whimsical man, he might claim them again, unless\nthey were marked.\" We do not mention this instance as a confirmation of\nthe passage to which it is annexed, but only to shew, how cautious we\nought to be in giving credit to what may be advanced in any work written\nin defence of slavery, by any native of the colonies: for being trained\nup to scenes of cruelty from his cradle, he may, consistently with his\nown feelings, represent that treatment as mild, at which we, who have\nnever been used to see them, should absolutely shudder.]\n\n\n[Footnote 066: In this case he is considered as a criminal against the\nstate. The _marshal_, an officer answering to our sheriff,\nsuperintends his execution, and the master receives the value of the\nslave from the publick treasury. We may observe here, that in all cases\nwhere the delinquent is a criminal of the state, he is executed, and his\nvalue is received in the same manner; He is tried and condemned by two\nor three justices of the peace, and without any intervention of a\n_jury_.]\n\n\n[Footnote 067: Particularly in Jamaica. These observations were made by\ndisinterested people, who were there for three or four years during the\nlate war.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\nSome people may suppose, from the melancholy account that has been given\nin the preceding chapter, that we have been absolutely dealing in\nromance: that the scene exhibited is rather a dreary picture of the\nimagination, than a representation of fact. Would to heaven, for the\nhonour of human nature, that this were really the case! We wish we could\nsay, that we have no testimony to produce for any of our assertions, and\nthat our description of the general treatment of slaves has been greatly\nexaggerated.\n\nBut the _receivers_, notwithstanding the ample and disinterested\nevidence, that can be brought on the occasion, do not admit the\ndescription to be true. They say first, \"that if the slavery were such\nas has been now represented, no human being could possibly support it\nlong.\" Melancholy truth! the wretched Africans generally perish in their\nprime. Let them reflect upon the prodigious supplies that are\n_annually_ required, and their argument will be nothing less than a\nconfession, that the slavery has been justly depicted.\n\nThey appeal next to every man's own reason, and desire him to think\nseriously, whether \"self-interest will not always restrain the master\nfrom acts of cruelty to the slave, and whether such accounts therefore,\nas the foregoing, do not contain within themselves, their own\nrefutation.\" We answer, \"No.\" For if this restraining principle be as\npowerful as it is imagined, why does not the general conduct of men\nafford us a better picture? What is imprudence, or what is vice, but a\ndeparture from every man's own interest, and yet these are the\ncharacteristicks of more than half the world?--\n\n--But, to come more closely to the present case, _self-interest_\nwill be found but a weak barrier against the sallies of _passion_:\nparticularly where it has been daily indulged in its greatest latitude,\nand there are no laws to restrain its calamitous effects. If the\nobservation be true, that passion is a short madness, then it is evident\nthat self-interest, and every other consideration, must be lost, so long\nas it continues. We cannot have a stronger instance of this, than in a\ncircumstance related in the second part of this Essay, \"that though the\nAfricans have gone to war for the express purpose of procuring slaves,\nyet so great has been their resentment at the resistance they have\nfrequently found, that their _passion_ has entirely got the better\nof their _interest_, and they have murdered all without any\ndiscrimination, either of age or sex.\" Such may be presumed to be the\ncase with the no less savage _receivers_. Impressed with the most\nhaughty and tyrannical notions, easily provoked, accustomed to indulge\ntheir anger, and, above all, habituated to scenes of cruelty, and unawed\nby the fear of laws, they will hardly be found to be exempt from the\ncommon failings of human nature, and to spare an unlucky slave, at a\ntime when men of cooler temper, and better regulated passions, are so\nfrequently blind to their own interest.\n\nBut if _passion_ may be supposed to be generally more than a\nballance for _interest_, how must the scale be turned in favour of\nthe melancholy picture exhibited, when we reflect that\n_self-preservation_ additionally steps in, and demands the most\n_rigorous severity_. For when we consider that where there is\n_one_ master, there are _fifty_ slaves; that the latter have\nbeen all forcibly torn from their country, and are retained in their\npresent situation by violence; that they are perpetually at war in their\nhearts with their oppressors, and are continually cherishing the seeds\nof revenge; it is evident that even _avarice_ herself, however cool\nand deliberate, however free from passion and caprice, must sacrifice\nher own sordid feelings, and adopt a system of tyranny and oppression,\nwhich it must be ruinous to pursue.\n\nThus then, if no picture had been drawn of the situation of slaves, and\nit had been left solely to every man's sober judgment to determine, what\nit might probably be, he would conclude, that if the situation were\njustly described, the page must be frequently stained with acts of\nuncommon cruelty.\n\nIt remains only to make a reply to an objection, that is usually\nadvanced against particular instances of cruelty to slaves, as recorded\nby various writers. It is said that \"some of these are so inconceivably,\nand beyond all example inhuman, that their very excess above the common\nmeasure of cruelty shews them at once exaggerated and incredible.\" But\ntheir credibility shall be estimated by a supposition. Let us suppose\nthat the following instance had been recorded by a writer of the highest\nreputation, \"that the master of a ship, bound to the western colonies\nwith slaves, on a presumption that many of them would die, selected an\n_hundred and thirty two_ of the most sickly, and ordered them to be\nthrown into the sea, to recover their value from the insurers, and,\nabove all, that the fatal order was put into execution.\" What would the\nreader have thought on the occasion? Would he have believed the fact? It\nwould have surely staggered his faith; because he could never have heard\nthat any _one_ man ever was, and could never have supposed that any\n_one_ man ever could be, guilty of the murder of _such a\nnumber_ of his fellow creatures. But when he is informed that such a\nfact as this came before a court[068] of justice in this very country;\nthat it happened within the last five years; that hundreds can come\nforwards and say, that they heard the melancholy evidence with tears;\nwhat bounds is he to place to his belief? The great God, who looks down\nupon all his creatures with the same impartial eye, seems to have\ninfatuated the parties concerned, that they might bring the horrid\ncircumstance to light, that it might be recorded in the annals of a\npublick court, as an authentick specimen of the treatment which the\nunfortunate Africans undergo, and at the same time, as an argument to\nshew, that there is no species of cruelty, that is recorded to have been\nexercised upon these wretched people, so enormous that it may not\n_readily be believed_.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 068: The action was brought by the owners against the\nunderwriters, to recover the value of the _murdered_ slaves. It was\ntried at Guildhall.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\nIf the treatment then, as before described, is confirmed by reason, and\nthe great credit that is due to disinterested writers on the subject; if\nthe unfortunate Africans are used, as if their flesh were stone, and\ntheir vitals brass; by what arguments do you _receivers_ defend\nyour conduct?\n\nYou say that a great part of your savage treatment consists in\npunishment for real offences, and frequently for such offences, as all\ncivilized nations have concurred in punishing. The first charge that you\nexhibit against them is specifick, it is that of _theft_. But how\nmuch rather ought you _receivers_ to blush, who reduce them to such\na situation! who reduce them to the dreadful alternative, that they must\neither _steal_ or _perish_! How much rather ought you _receivers_\nto be considered as _robbers_ yourselves, who cause these\nunfortunate people to be _stolen_! And how much greater is\nyour crime, who are _robbers of human liberty_!\n\nThe next charge which you exhibit against them, is general, it is that\nof _rebellion_; a crime of such a latitude, that you can impose it\nupon almost every action, and of such a nature, that you always annex to\nit the most excruciating pain. But what a contradiction is this to\ncommon sense! Have the wretched Africans formally resigned their\nfreedom? Have you any other claim upon their obedience, than that of\nforce? If then they are your subjects, you violate the laws of\ngovernment, by making them unhappy. But if they are not your subjects,\nthen, even though they should resist your proceedings, they are not\n_rebellious_.\n\nBut what do you say to that long catalogue of offences, which you\npunish, and of which no people but yourselves take cognizance at all?\nYou say that the wisdom of legislation has inserted it in the colonial\nlaws, and that you punish by authority. But do you allude to that\nexecrable code, that _authorises murder_? that tempts an unoffended\nperson to kill the slave, that abhors and flies your service? that\ndelegates a power, which no host of men, which not all the world, can\npossess?--\n\nOr,--What do you say to that daily unmerited severity, which you\nconsider only as common discipline? Here you say that the Africans are\nvicious, that they are all of them ill-disposed, that you must of\nnecessity be severe. But can they be well-disposed to their oppressors?\nIn their own country they were just, generous, hospitable: qualities,\nwhich all the African historians allow them eminently to possess. If\nthen they are vicious, they must have contracted many of their vices\nfrom yourselves; and as to their own native vices, if any have been\nimported with them, are they not amiable, when compared with yours?\n\nThus then do the excuses, which have been hitherto made by the\n_receivers_, force a relation of such circumstances, as makes their\nconduct totally inexcusable, and, instead of diminishing at all, highly\naggravates their guilt.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\nWe come now to that other system of reasoning, which is always applied,\nwhen the former is confuted; \"that the Africans are an inferiour link of\nthe chain of nature, and are made for slavery.\"\n\nThis assertion is proved by two arguments; the first of which was\nadvanced also by the ancients, and is drawn from the _inferiority of\ntheir capacities_.\n\nLet us allow then for a moment, that they appear to have no parts, that\nthey appear to be void of understanding. And is this wonderful, when,\nyou _receivers_ depress their senses by hunger? Is this wonderful,\nwhen by incessant labour, the continual application of the lash, and the\nmost inhuman treatment that imagination can devise, you overwhelm their\ngenius, and hinder it from breaking forth?--No,--You confound their\nabilities by the severity of their servitude: for as a spark of fire, if\ncrushed by too great a weight of incumbent fuel, cannot be blown into a\nflame, but suddenly expires, so the human mind, if depressed by rigorous\nservitude, cannot be excited to a display of those faculties, which\nmight otherwise have shone with the brightest lustre.\n\nNeither is it wonderful in another point of view. For what is it that\nawakens the abilities of men, and distinguishes them from the common\nherd? Is it not often the amiable hope of becoming serviceable to\nindividuals, or the state? Is it not often the hope of riches, or of\npower? Is it not frequently the hope of temporary honours, or a lasting\nfame? These principles have all a wonderful effect upon the mind. They\ncall upon it to exert its faculties, and bring those talents to the\npublick view, which had otherwise been concealed. But the unfortunate\nAfricans have no such incitements as these, that they should shew their\ngenius. They have no hope of riches, power, honours, fame. They have no\nhope but this, that their miseries will be soon terminated by death.\n\nAnd here we cannot but censure and expose the murmurings of the\nunthinking and the gay; who, going on in a continual round of pleasure\nand prosperity, repine at the will of Providence, as exhibited in the\nshortness of human duration. But let a weak and infirm old age overtake\nthem: let them experience calamities: let them feel but half the\nmiseries which the wretched Africans undergo, and they will praise the\ngoodness of Providence, who hath made them mortal; who hath prescribed\ncertain ordinary bounds to the life of man; and who, by such a\nlimitation, hath given all men this comfortable hope, that however\npersecuted in life, a time will come, in the common course of nature,\nwhen their sufferings will have an end.\n\nSuch then is the nature of this servitude, that we can hardly expect to\nfind in those, who undergo it, even the glimpse of genius. For if their\nminds are in a continual state of depression, and if they have no\nexpectations in life to awaken their abilities, and make them eminent,\nwe cannot be surprized if a sullen gloomy stupidity should be the\nleading mark in their character; or if they should appear inferiour to\nthose, who do not only enjoy the invaluable blessings of freedom, but\nhave every prospect before their eyes, that can allure them to exert\ntheir faculties. Now, if to these considerations we add, that the\nwretched Africans are torn from their country in a state of nature, and\nthat in general, as long as their slavery continues, every obstacle is\nplaced in the way of their improvement, we shall have a sufficient\nanswer to any argument that may be drawn from the inferiority of their\ncapacities.\n\nIt appears then, from the circumstances that have been mentioned, that\nto form a true judgment of the abilities of these unfortunate people, we\nmust either take a general view of them before their slavery commences,\nor confine our attention to such, as, after it has commenced, have had\nany opportunity given them of shewing their genius either in arts or\nletters. If, upon such a fair and impartial view, there should be any\nreason to suppose, that they are at all inferiour to others in the same\nsituation, the argument will then gain some of that weight and\nimportance, which it wants at present.\n\nIn their own country, where we are to see them first, we must expect\nthat the prospect will be unfavourable. They are mostly in a savage\nstate. Their powers of mind are limited to few objects. Their ideas are\nconsequently few. It appears, however, that they follow the same mode of\nlife, and exercise the same arts, as the ancestors of those very\nEuropeans, who boast of their great superiority, are described to have\ndone in the same uncultivated state. This appears from the Nubian's\nGeography, the writings of Leo, the Moor, and all the subsequent\nhistories, which those, who have visited the African continent, have\nwritten from their own inspection. Hence three conclusions; that their\nabilities are sufficient for their situation;--that they are as great,\nas those of other people have been, in the same stage of society;--and\nthat they are as great as those of any civilized people whatever, when\nthe degree of the barbarism of the one is drawn into a comparison with\nthat of the civilization of the other.\n\nLet us now follow them to the colonies. They are carried over in the\nunfavourable situation described. It is observed here, that though their\nabilities cannot be estimated high from a want of cultivation, they are\nyet various, and that they vary in proportion as the nation, from which\nthey have been brought, has advanced more or less in the scale of social\nlife. This observation, which is so frequently made, is of great\nimportance: for if their abilities expand in proportion to the\nimprovement of their state, it is a clear indication, that if they were\nequally improved, they would be equally ingenious.\n\nBut here, before we consider any opportunities that may be afforded\nthem, let it be remembered that even their most polished situation may\nbe called barbarous, and that this circumstance, should they appear less\ndocile than others, may be considered as a sufficient answer to any\nobjection that may be made to their capacities. Notwithstanding this,\nwhen they are put to the mechanical arts, they do not discover a want of\ningenuity. They attain them in as short a time as the Europeans, and\narrive at a degree of excellence equal to that of their teachers. This\nis a fact, almost universally known, and affords us this proof, that\nhaving learned with facility such of the mechanical arts, as they have\nbeen taught, they are capable of attaining any other, at least, of the\nsame class, if they should receive but the same instruction.\n\nWith respect to the liberal arts, their proficiency is certainly less;\nbut not less in proportion to their time and opportunity of study; not\nless, because they are less capable of attaining them, but because they\nhave seldom or ever an opportunity of learning them at all. It is yet\nextraordinary that their talents appear, even in some of these sciences,\nin which they are totally uninstructed. Their abilities in musick are\nsuch, as to have been generally noticed. They play frequently upon a\nvariety of instruments, without any other assistance than their own\ningenuity. They have also tunes of their own composition. Some of these\nhave been imported among us; are now in use; and are admired for their\nsprightliness and ease, though the ungenerous and prejudiced importer\nhas concealed their original.\n\nNeither are their talents in poetry less conspicuous. Every occurrence,\nif their spirits are not too greatly depressed, is turned into a song.\nThese songs are said to be incoherent and nonsensical. But this proceeds\nprincipally from two causes, an improper conjunction of words, arising\nfrom an ignorance of the language in which they compose; and a wildness\nof thought, arising from the different manner, in which the organs of\nrude and civilized people will be struck by the same object. And as to\ntheir want of harmony and rhyme, which is the last objection, the\ndifference of pronunciation is the cause. Upon the whole, as they are\nperfectly consistent with their own ideas, and are strictly musical as\npronounced by themselves, they afford us as high a proof of their\npoetical powers, as the works of the most acknowledged poets.\n\nBut where these impediments have been removed, where they have received\nan education, and have known and pronounced the language with propriety,\nthese defects have vanished, and their productions have been less\nobjectionable. For a proof of this, we appeal to the writings of an\nAfrican girl[069], who made no contemptible appearance in this species\nof composition. She was kidnapped when only eight years old, and, in the\nyear 1761, was transported to America, where she was sold with other\nslaves. She had no school education there, but receiving some little\ninstruction from the family, with whom she was so fortunate as to live,\nshe obtained such a knowledge of the English language within sixteen\nmonths from the time of her arrival, as to be able to speak it and read\nit to the astonishment of those who heard her. She soon afterwards\nlearned to write, and, having a great inclination to learn the Latin\ntongue, she was indulged by her master, and made a progress. Her\nPoetical works were published with his permission, in the year 1773.\nThey contain thirty-eight pieces on different subjects. We shall beg\nleave to make a short extract from two or three of them, for the\nobservation of the reader.\n\n\n_From an Hymn to the Evening_[070].\n\n\n\n\"Fill'd with the praise of him who gives the light,\nAnd draws the sable curtains of the night,\nLet placid slumbers sooth each weary mind,\nAt morn to wake more heav'nly and refin'd;\nSo shall the labours of the day begin,\nMore pure and guarded from the snares of sin.\n----&c. &c.\"\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_From an Hymn to the Morning_.\n\n\n\n\"Aurora hail! and all the thousand dies,\nThat deck thy progress through the vaulted skies!\nThe morn awakes, and wide extends her rays,\nOn ev'ry leaf the gentle zephyr plays.\nHarmonious lays the feather'd race resume,\nDart the bright eye, and shake the painted plume.\n----&c. &c.\"\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_From Thoughts on Imagination_.\n\n\n\n\"Now here, now there, the roving _fancy_ flies,\nTill some lov'd object strikes her wand'ring eyes,\nWhose silken fetters all the senses bind,\nAnd soft captivity involves the mind.\n\n\"_Imagination!_ who can sing thy force,\nOr who describe the swiftness of thy course?\nSoaring through air to find the bright abode,\nTh' empyreal palace of the thund'ring God,\nWe on thy pinions can surpass the wind,\nAnd leave the rolling universe behind:\nFrom star to star the mental opticks rove,\nMeasure the skies, and range the realms above.\nThere in one view we grasp the mighty whole,\nOr with new worlds amaze th' unbounded soul.\n----&c. &c.\"\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nSuch is the poetry which we produce as a proof of our assertions. How\nfar it has succeeded, the reader may by this time have determined in his\nown mind. We shall therefore only beg leave to accompany it with this\nobservation, that if the authoress _was designed for slavery_, (as\nthe argument must confess) the greater part of the inhabitants of\nBritain must lose their claim to freedom.\n\nTo this poetry we shall only add, as a farther proof of their abilities,\nthe Prose compositions of Ignatius Sancho, who received some little\neducation. His letters are too well known, to make any extract, or\nindeed any farther mention of him, necessary. If other examples of\nAfrican genius should be required, suffice it to say, that they can be\nproduced in abundance; and that if we were allowed to enumerate\ninstances of African gratitude, patience, fidelity, honour, as so many\ninstances of good sense, and a sound understanding, we fear that\nthousands of the enlightened Europeans would have occasion to blush.\n\nBut an objection will be made here, that the two persons whom we have\nparticularized by name, are prodigies, and that if we were to live for\nmany years, we should scarcely meet with two other Africans of the same\ndescription. But we reply, that considering their situation as before\ndescribed, two persons, above mediocrity in the literary way, are as\nmany as can be expected within a certain period of years; and farther,\nthat if these are prodigies, they are only such prodigies as every day\nwould produce, if they had the same opportunities of acquiring knowledge\nas other people, and the same expectations in life to excite their\ngenius. This has been constantly and solemnly asserted by the pious\nBenezet[071], whom we have mentioned before, as having devoted a\nconsiderable part of his time to their instruction. This great man, for\nwe cannot but mention him with veneration, had a better opportunity of\nknowing them than any person whatever, and he always uniformly declared,\nthat he could never find a difference between their capacities and those\nof other people; that they were as capable of reasoning as any\nindividual Europeans; that they were as capable of the highest\nintellectual attainments; in short, that their abilities were equal, and\nthat they only wanted to be equally cultivated, to afford specimens of\nas fine productions.\n\nThus then does it appear from the testimony of this venerable man,\nwhose authority is sufficient of itself to silence all objections\nagainst African capacity, and from the instances that have been\nproduced, and the observations that have been made on the occasion, that\nif the minds of the Africans were unbroken by slavery; if they had the\nsame expectations in life as other people, and the same opportunities of\nimprovement, they would be equal; in all the various branches of\nscience, to the Europeans, and that the argument that states them \"to be\nan inferiour link of the chain of nature, and designed for servitude,\"\nas far as it depends on the _inferiority of their capacities_, is\nwholly malevolent and false[072].\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 069: Phillis Wheatley, negro slave to Mr. John Wheatley, of\nBoston, in New-England.]\n\n\n[Footnote 070:\nLest it should be doubted whether these Poems are genuine, we shall\ntranscribe the names of those, who signed a certificate of their\nauthenticity.\n\n\nHis Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Governor.\nThe Honourable Andrew Oliver, Lieutenant Governor.\n\nThe Hon. Thomas Hubbard\nThe Hon. John Erving\nThe Hon. James Pitts\nThe Hon. Harrison Gray\nThe Hon. James Bowdoin\nJohn Hancock, Esq.\nJoseph Green, Esq.\nRichard Carey, Esq.\nThe Rev. Cha. Chauncy, D.D.\nThe Rev. Mather Byles, D.D.\nThe Rev. Ed. Pemberton, D.D.\nThe Rev. Andrew Elliot, D.D.\nThe Rev. Sam. Cooper, D.D.\nThe Rev. Samuel Mather\nThe Rev. John Moorhead\nMr. John Wheatley, her Master.\n]\n\n\n[Footnote 071: In the Preface.]\n\n\n[Footnote 072: As to Mr. Hume's assertions with respect to African\ncapacity, we have passed them over in silence, as they have been so\nadmirably refuted by the learned Dr. Beattie, in his Essay on Truth, to\nwhich we refer the reader. The whole of this admirable refutation\nextends from p. 458. to 464.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\nThe second argument, by which it is attempted to be proved, \"that the\nAfricans are an inferiour link of the chain of nature, and are designed\nfor slavery,\" is drawn from _colour_, and from those other marks,\nwhich distinguish them from the inhabitants of Europe.\n\nTo prove this with the greater facility, the _receivers_ divide in\nopinion. Some of them contend that the Africans, from these\ncircumstances, are the descendants of Cain[073]: others, that they are\nthe posterity of Ham; and that as it was declared by divine inspiration,\nthat these should be servants to the rest of the world, so they are\ndesigned for slavery; and that the reducing of them to such a situation\nis only the accomplishment of the will of heaven: while the rest,\nconsidering them from the same circumstances as a totally distinct\nspecies of men, conclude them to be an inferiour link of the chain of\nnature, and deduce the inference described.\n\nTo answer these arguments in the clearest and fullest manner, we are\nunder the necessity of making two suppositions, first, that the\nscriptures are true; secondly, that they are false.\n\nIf then the scriptures are true, it is evident that the posterity of\nCain were extinguished in the flood. Thus one of the arguments is no\nmore.\n\nWith respect to the curse of Ham, it appears also that it was limited;\nthat it did not extend to the posterity of all his sons, but only to the\ndescendants of him who was called Canaan[074]: by which it was foretold\nthat the Canaanites, a part of the posterity of Ham, should serve the\nposterity of Shem and Japhet. Now how does it appear that these wretched\nAfricans are the descendants of Canaan?--By those marks, it will be\nsaid, which distinguish them from the rest of the world.--But where are\nthese marks to be found in the divine writings? In what page is it said,\nthat the Canaanites were to be known by their _colour_, their\n_features_, their _form_, or the very _hair of their heads_,\nwhich is brought into the account?--But alas! so far are the\ndivine writings from giving any such account, that they shew the\nassertion to be false. They shew that the descendants of Cush[075] were\nof the colour, to which the advocates for slavery allude; and of course,\nthat there was no such limitation of colour to the posterity of Canaan,\nor the inheritors of the curse.\n\nSuppose we should now shew, upon the most undeniable evidence[076], that\nthose of the wretched Africans, who are singled out as inheriting the\ncurse, are the descendants of Cush or Phut; and that we should shew\nfarther, that but a single remnant of Canaan, which was afterwards\nruined, was ever in Africa at all.--Here all is consternation.--\n\nBut unfortunately again for the argument, though wonderfully for the\nconfirmation that the scriptures are of divine original, the whole\nprophecy has been completed. A part of the descendants of Canaan were\nhewers of wood and drawers of water, and became tributary and subject to\nthe Israelites, or the descendants of Shem. The Greeks afterwards, as\nwell as the Romans, who were both the descendants of Japhet, not only\nsubdued those who were settled in Syria and Palestine, but pursued and\nconquered all such as were then remaining. These were the Tyrians and\nCarthaginians: the former of whom were ruined by Alexander and the\nGreeks, the latter by Scipio and the Romans.\n\nIt appears then that the second argument is wholly inapplicable and\nfalse: that it is false in its _application_, because those, who\nwere the objects of the curse, were a totally distinct people: that it\nis false in its _proof_, because no such distinguishing marks, as\nhave been specified, are to be found in the divine writings: and that,\nif the proof could be made out, it would be now _inapplicable_, as\nthe curse has been long completed.\n\nWith respect to the third argument, we must now suppose that the\nscriptures are false; that mankind did not all spring from the same\noriginal; that there are different species of men. Now what must we\njustly conclude from such a supposition? Must we conclude that one\nspecies is inferiour to another, and that the inferiority depends upon\ntheir _colour_, or their _features_, or their _form_?--No--We\nmust now consult the analogy of nature, and the conclusion will be this:\n\"that as she tempered the bodies of the different species of men in a\ndifferent degree, to enable them to endure the respective climates of\ntheir habitation, so she gave them a variety of colour and appearance\nwith a like benevolent design.\"\n\nTo sum up the whole. If the scriptures are true, it is evident that the\nposterity of _Cain_ are no more; that the curse of _Ham_ has\nbeen accomplished; and that, as all men were derived from the same\nstock, so this variety of appearance in men must either have proceeded\nfrom some interposition of the Deity; or from a co-operation of certain\ncauses, which have an effect upon the human frame, and have the power of\nchanging it more or less from its primitive appearance, as they happen\nto be more or less numerous or powerful than those, which acted upon the\nframe of man in the first seat of his habitation. If from the\ninterposition of the Deity, then we must conclude that he, who bringeth\ngood out of evil, produced it for their convenience. If, from the\nco-operation of the causes before related, what argument may not be\nfound against any society of men, who should happen to differ, in the\npoints alluded to, from ourselves?\n\nIf, on the other hand, the scriptures are false, then it is evident,\nthat there was neither such a person as _Cain_, nor _Ham_, nor\n_Canaan_; and that nature bestowed such colour, features, and form,\nupon the different species of men, as were best adapted to their\nsituation.\n\nThus, on which ever supposition it is founded, the whole argument must\nfall. And indeed it is impossible that it can stand, even in the eye of\ncommon sense. For if you admit the _form_ of men as a justification\nof slavery, you may subjugate your own brother: if _features_, then\nyou must quarrel with all the world: if _colour_, where are you to\nstop? It is evident, that if you travel from the equator to the northern\npole, you will find a regular gradation of colour from black to white.\nNow if you can justly take him for your slave, who is of the deepest\ndie, what hinders you from taking him also, who only differs from the\nformer but by a shade. Thus you may proceed, taking each in a regular\nsuccession to the poles. But who are you, that thus take into slavery so\nmany people? Where do you live yourself? Do you live in _Spain_, or\nin _France_, or in _Britain_? If in either of these countries,\ntake care lest the _whiter natives of the north_ should have a\nclaim upon yourself.--But the argument is too ridiculous to be farther\nnoticed.\n\nHaving now silenced the whole argument, we might immediately proceed to\nthe discussion of other points, without even declaring our opinion as to\nwhich of the suppositions may be right, on which it has been refuted;\nbut we do not think ourselves at liberty to do this. The present age\nwould rejoice to find that the scriptures had no foundation, and would\nanxiously catch at the writings of him, who should mention them in a\ndoubtful manner. We shall therefore declare our sentiments, by asserting\nthat they are true, and that all mankind, however various their\nappearances are derived from the same stock.\n\nTo prove this, we shall not produce those innumerable arguments, by\nwhich the scriptures have stood the test of ages, but advert to a single\nfact. It is an universal law, observable throughout the whole creation,\n_that if two animals of a different species propagate, their offspring\nis unable to continue its own species_. By this admirable law, the\ndifferent species are preserved distinct; every possibility of confusion\nis prevented, and the world is forbidden to be over-run by a race of\nmonsters. Now, if we apply this law to those of the human kind, who are\nsaid to be of a distinct species from each other, it immediately fails.\nThe _mulattoe_ is as capable of continuing his own species as his\nfather; a clear and irrefragable proof, that the scripture[077] account\nof the creation is true, and that \"God, who hath made the world, hath\nmade of one blood[078] all the nations of men that dwell on all the face\nof the earth.\"\n\nBut if this be the case, it will be said that mankind were originally of\none colour; and it will be asked at the same time, what it is probable\nthat the colour was, and how they came to assume so various an\nappearance? To, each of these we shall make that reply, which we\nconceive to be the most rational.\n\nAs mankind were originally of the same stock, so it is evident that they\nwere originally of the same colour. But how shall we attempt to\nascertain it? Shall we _Englishmen_ say, that it was the same as\nthat which we now find to be peculiar to ourselves?--No--This would be\na vain and partial consideration, and would betray our judgment to have\narisen from that false fondness, which habituates us to suppose, that\nevery thing belonging to ourselves is the perfectest and the best. Add\nto this, that we should always be liable to a just reproof from every\ninhabitant of the globe, whose colour was different from our own;\nbecause he would justly say, that he had as good a right to imagine that\nhis own was the primitive colour, as that of any other people.\n\nHow then shall we attempt to ascertain it? Shall we look into the\nvarious climates of the earth, see the colour that generally prevails in\nthe inhabitants of each, and apply the rule? This will be certainly free\nfrom partiality, and will afford us a better prospect of success: for as\nevery particular district has its particular colour, so it is evident\nthat the complexion of Noah and his sons, from whom the rest of the\nworld were descended, was the same as that, which is peculiar to the\ncountry, which was the seat of their habitation. This, by such a mode of\ndecision, will be found a dark olive; a beautiful colour, and a just\nmedium between white and black. That this was the primitive colour, is\nhighly probable from the observations that have been made; and, if\nadmitted, will afford a valuable lesson to the Europeans, to be cautious\nhow they deride those of the opposite complexion, as there is great\nreason to presume, _that the purest white[079] is as far removed from\nthe primitive colour as the deepest black_.\n\nWe come now to the grand question, which is, that if mankind were\noriginally of this or any other colour, how came it to pass, that they\nshould wear so various an appearance? We reply, as we have had occasion\nto say before, either _by the interposition of the Deity_; or _by\na co-operation of certain causes, which have an effect upon the human\nframe, and have the power of changing it more or less from its primitive\nappearance, as they are more or less numerous or powerful than those,\nwhich acted upon the frame of man in the first seat of his\nhabitation_.\n\nWith respect to the Divine interposition, two epochs have been assigned,\nwhen this difference of colour has been imagined to have been so\nproduced. The first is that, which has been related, when the curse was\npronounced on a branch of the posterity of _Ham_. But this argument\nhas been already refuted; for if the particular colour alluded to were\nassigned at this period, it was assigned to the descendants of\n_Canaan_, to distinguish them from those of his other brothers, and\nwas therefore _limited_ to the former. But the descendants of\n_Cush_[080], as we have shewn before, partook of the same colour; a\nclear proof, that it was neither assigned to them on this occasion, nor\nat this period.\n\nThe second epoch is that, when mankind were dispersed on the building of\n_Babel_. It has been thought, that both _national features and\ncolour_ might probably have been given them at this time, because\nthese would have assisted the confusion of language, by causing them to\ndisperse into tribes, and would have united more firmly the individuals\nof each, after the dispersion had taken place. But this is improbable:\nfirst, because there is great reason to presume that Moses, who has\nmentioned the confusion of language, would have mentioned these\ncircumstances also, if they had actually contributed to bring about so\nsingular an event: secondly, because the confusion of language was\nsufficient of itself to have accomplished this; and we cannot suppose\nthat the Deity could have done any thing in vain: and thirdly, because,\nif mankind had been dispersed, each tribe in its peculiar hue, it is\nimpossible to conceive, that they could have wandered and settled in\nsuch a manner, as to exhibit that regular gradation of colour from the\nequator to the poles, so conspicuous at the present day.\n\nThese are the only periods, which there has been even the shadow of a\nprobability for assigning; and we may therefore conclude that the\npreceding observations, together with such circumstances as will appear\nin the present chapter, will amount to a demonstration, that the\ndifference of colour was never caused by any interposition of the Deity,\nand that it must have proceeded therefore from that _incidental\nco-operation of causes_, which has been before related.\n\nWhat these causes are, it is out of the power of human wisdom positively\nto assert: there are facts, however, which, if properly weighed and put\ntogether, will throw considerable light upon the subject. These we shall\nsubmit to the perusal of the reader, and shall deduce from them such\ninferences only, as almost every person must make in his own mind, on\ntheir recital.\n\nThe first point, that occurs to be ascertained, is, \"What part of the\nskin is the seat of colour?\" The old anatomists usually divided the skin\ninto two parts, or lamina; the exteriour and thinnest, called by the\nGreeks _Epidermis_, by the Romans _Cuticula_, and hence by us\n_Cuticle_; and the interiour, called by the former _Derma_,\nand by the latter _Cutis_, or _true skin_. Hence they must\nnecessarily have supposed, that, as the _true skin_ was in every\nrespect the same in all human subjects, however various their external\nhue, so the seat of colour must have existed in the _Cuticle_, or\nupper surface.\n\nMalphigi, an eminent Italian physician, of the last century, was the\nfirst person who discovered that the skin was divided into three lamina,\nor parts; the _Cuticle_, the _true skin_, and a certain\ncoagulated substance situated between both, which he distinguished by\nthe title of _Mucosum Corpus_; a title retained by anatomists to\nthe present day: which coagulated substance adhered so firmly to the\n_Cuticle_, as, in all former anatomical preparations, to have come\noff with it, and, from this circumstance to have led the ancient\nanatomists to believe, that there were but two lamina, or divisible\nportions in the human skin.\n\nThis discovery was sufficient to ascertain the point in question: for it\nappeared afterwards that the _Cuticle_, when divided according to\nthis discovery from the other lamina, was semi-transparent; that the\ncuticle of the blackest negroe was of the same transparency and colour,\nas that of the purest white; and hence, the _true skins_ of both\nbeing invariably the same, that the _mucosum corpus_ was the seat\nof colour.\n\nThis has been farther confirmed by all subsequent anatomical\nexperiments, by which it appears, that, whatever is the colour of this\nintermediate coagulated substance, nearly the same is the apparent\ncolour of the upper surface of the skin. Neither can it be otherwise;\nfor the _Cuticle_, from its transparency, must necessarily transmit\nthe colour of the substance beneath it, in the same manner, though not\nin the same degree, as the _cornea_ transmits the colour of the\n_iris_ of the eye. This transparency is a matter of ocular\ndemonstration in white people. It is conspicuous in every blush; for no\none can imagine, that the cuticle becomes red, as often as this happens:\nnor is it less discoverable in the veins, which are so easy to be\ndiscerned; for no one can suppose, that the blue streaks, which he\nconstantly sees in the fairest complexions, are painted, as it were, on\nthe surface of the upper skin. From these, and a variety of other\nobservations[081], no maxim is more true in physiology, than that _on\nthe mucosum corpus depends the colour of the human body_; or, in\nother words, that the _mucosum corpus_ being of a different colour\nin different inhabitants of the globe, and appearing through the cuticle\nor upper surface of the skin, gives them that various appearance, which\nstrikes us so forcibly in contemplating the human race.\n\nAs this can be incontrovertibly ascertained, it is evident, that\nwhatever causes cooperate in producing this different appearance, they\nproduce it by acting upon the _mucosum corpus_, which, from the\nalmost incredible manner in which the cuticle[082] is perforated, is as\naccessible as the cuticle itself. These causes are probably those\nvarious qualities of things, which, combined with the influence of the\nsun, contribute to form what we call _climate_. For when any person\nconsiders, that the mucous substance, before-mentioned, is found to vary\nin its colour, as the _climates_ vary from the equator to the\npoles, his mind must be instantly struck with the hypothesis, and he\nmust adopt it without any hesitation, as the genuine cause of the\nph\u00e6nomenon.\n\nThis fact[083], _of the variation of the mucous substance according to\nthe situation of the place_, has been clearly ascertained in the\nnumerous anatomical experiments that have been made; in which, subjects\nof all nations have come under consideration. The natives of many of the\nkingdoms and isles of _Asia_, are found to have their _corpus\nmucosum_ black. Those of _Africa_, situated near the line, of\nthe same colour. Those of the maritime parts of the same continent, of a\ndusky brown, nearly approaching to it; and the colour becomes lighter or\ndarker in proportion as the distance from the equator is either greater\nor less. The Europeans are the fairest inhabitants of the world. Those\nsituated in the most southern regions of _Europe_, have in their\n_corpus mucosum_ a tinge of the dark hue of their _African_\nneighbours: hence the epidemick complexion, prevalent among them, is\nnearly of the colour of the pickled Spanish olive; while in this\ncountry, and those situated nearer the north pole, it appears to be\nnearly, if not absolutely, white.\n\nThese are facts[084], which anatomy has established; and we acknowledge\nthem to be such, that we cannot divest ourselves of the idea, that\n_climate_ has a considerable share in producing a difference of\ncolour. Others, we know, have invented other hypotheses, but all of them\nhave been instantly refuted, as unable to explain the difficulties for\nwhich they were advanced, and as absolutely contrary to fact: and the\ninventors themselves have been obliged, almost as soon as they have\nproposed them, to acknowledge them deficient.\n\nThe only objection of any consequence, that has ever been made to the\nhypothesis of _climate_, is this, _that people under the same\nparallels are not exactly of the same colour_. But this is no\nobjection in fact: for it does not follow that those countries, which\nare at an equal distance from the equator, should have their climates\nthe same. Indeed nothing is more contrary to experience than this.\nClimate depends upon a variety of accidents. High mountains, in the\nneighbourhood of a place, make it cooler, by chilling the air that is\ncarried over them by the winds. Large spreading succulent plants, if\namong the productions of the soil, have the same effect: they afford\nagreeable cooling shades, and a moist atmosphere from their continual\nexhalations, by which the ardour of the sun is considerably abated.\nWhile the soil, on the other hand, if of a sandy nature, retains the\nheat in an uncommon degree, and makes the summers considerably hotter\nthan those which are found to exist in the same latitude, where the soil\nis different. To this proximity of what may be termed _burning\nsands_, and to the sulphurous and metallick particles, which are\ncontinually exhaling from the bowels of the earth, is ascribed the\ndifferent degree of blackness, by which some _African_ nations are\ndistinguishable from each other, though under the same parallels. To\nthese observations we may add, that though the inhabitants of the same\nparallel are not exactly of the same hue, yet they differ only by shades\nof the same colour; or, to speak with more precision, that there are no\ntwo people, in such a situation, one of whom is white, and the other\nblack. To sum up the whole--Suppose we were to take a common globe; to\nbegin at the equator; to paint every country along the meridian line in\nsuccession from thence to the poles; and to paint them with the same\ncolour which prevails in the respective inhabitants of each, we should\nsee the black, with which we had been obliged to begin, insensibly\nchanging to an olive, and the olive, through as many intermediate\ncolours, to a white: and if, on the other hand, we should complete any\none of the parallels according to the same plan, we should see a\ndifference perhaps in the appearance of some of the countries through\nwhich it ran, though the difference would consist wholly in shades of\nthe same colour.\n\nThe argument therefore, which is brought against the hypothesis, is so\nfar from being, an objection, that we shall consider it one of the first\narguments in its favour: for if _climate_ has really an influence\non the _mucous substance_ of the body, it is evident, that we must\nnot only expect to see a gradation of colour in the inhabitants from the\nequator to the poles, but also different[085] shades of the same colour\nin the inhabitants of the same parallel.\n\nTo this argument, we shall add one that is incontrovertible, which is,\nthat when the _black_ inhabitants of _Africa_ are transplanted\nto _colder_, or the _white_ inhabitants of _Europe_ to _hotter_\nclimates, their children, _born there_, are of a _different\ncolour from themselves_; that is, lighter in the first, and\ndarker in the second instance.\n\nAs a proof of the first, we shall give the words of the Abb\u00e9\nRaynal[086], in his admired publication. \"The children,\" says he, \"which\nthey, (the _Africans_) procreate in _America_, are not so\nblack as their parents were. After each generation the difference\nbecomes more palpable. It is possible, that after a numerous succession\nof generations, the men come from _Africa_ would not be\ndistinguished from those of the country, into which they may have been\ntransplanted.\"\n\nThis circumstance we have had the pleasure of hearing confirmed by a\nvariety of persons, who have been witnesses of the fact; but\nparticularly by many intelligent[087] Africans, who have been parents\nthemselves in _America_, and who have declared that the difference\nis so palpable in the _northern provinces_, that not only they\nthemselves have constantly observed it, but that they have heard it\nobserved by others.\n\nNeither is this variation in the children from the colour of their\nparents improbable. _The children of the blackest Africans are born\nwhite_[088]. In this state they continue for about a month, when they\nchange to a pale yellow. In process of time they become brown. Their\nskin still continues to increase in darkness with their age, till it\nbecomes of a dirty, sallow black, and at length, after a certain period\nof years, glossy and shining. Now, if climate has any influence on the\n_mucous substance_ of the body, this variation in the children from\nthe colour of their parents is an event, which must be reasonably\nexpected: for being born white, and not having equally powerful causes\nto act upon them in colder, as their parents had in the hotter climates\nwhich they left, it must necessarily follow, that the same affect cannot\npossibly be produced.\n\nHence also, if the hypothesis be admitted, may be deduced the reason,\nwhy even those children, who have been brought from their country at an\nearly age into colder regions, have been observed[089] to be of a\nlighter colour than those who have remained at home till they arrived at\na state of manhood. For having undergone some of the changes which we\nmentioned to have attended their countrymen from infancy to a certain\nage, and having been taken away before the rest could be completed,\nthese farther changes, which would have taken place had they remained at\nhome, seem either to have been checked in their progress, or weakened in\ntheir degree, by a colder climate.\n\nWe come now to the second and opposite case; for a proof of which we\nshall appeal to the words of Dr. Mitchell[090], in the Philosophical\nTransactions. \"The _Spaniards_ who have inhabited _America_\nunder the torrid zone for any time, are become as dark coloured as our\nnative _Indians_ of _Virginia_, of which, _I myself have\nbeen a witness_; and were they not to intermarry with the\n_Europeans_, but lead the same rude and barbarous lives with the\n_Indians_, it is very probable that, in a succession of many\ngenerations, they would become as dark in complexion.\"\n\nTo this instance we shall add one, which is mentioned by a late\nwriter[091], who describing the _African_ coast, and the\n_European_ settlements there, has the following passage. \"There are\nseveral other small _Portuguese_ settlements, and one of some note\nat _Mitomba_, a river in _Sierra Leon_. The people here\ncalled _Portuguese_, are principally persons bred from a mixture of\nthe first _Portuguese discoverers_ with the natives, and now\nbecome, in their _complexion_ and _woolly quality_ of their\nhair, _perfect negroes_, retaining however a smattering of the\n_Portuguese_ language.\"\n\nThese facts, with respect to the colonists of the _Europeans_, are\nof the highest importance in the present case, and deserve a serious\nattention. For when we know to a certainty from whom they are descended;\nwhen we know that they were, at the time of their transplantation, of\nthe same colour as those from whom they severally sprung; and when, on\nthe other hand, we are credibly informed, that they have changed it for\nthe native colour of the place which they now inhabit; the evidence in\nsupport of these facts is as great, as if a person, on the removal of\ntwo or three families into another climate, had determined to ascertain\nthe circumstance; as if he had gone with them and watched their\nchildren; as if he had communicated his observations at his death to a\nsuccessor; as if his successor had prosecuted the plan, and thus an\nuninterrupted chain of evidence had been kept up from their first\nremoval to any determined period of succeeding time.\n\nBut though these facts seem sufficient of themselves to confirm our\nopinion, they are not the only facts which can be adduced in its\nsupport. It can be shewn, that the members of the _very same\nfamily_, when divided from each other, and removed into different\ncountries, have not only changed their family complexion, but that they\nhave changed it to _as many different colours_ as they have gone\ninto _different regions of the world_. We cannot have, perhaps, a\nmore striking instance of this, than in the _Jews_. These people,\nare scattered over the face of the whole earth. They have preserved\nthemselves distinct from the rest of the world by their religion; and,\nas they never intermarry with any but those of their own sect, so they\nhave no mixture of blood in their veins, that they should differ from\neach other: and yet nothing is more true, than that the _English\nJew_[092] is white, the _Portuguese_ swarthy, the _Armenian_\nolive, and the _Arabian_ copper; in short, that there appear\nto be as many different species of _Jews_, as there are countries\nin which they reside.\n\nTo these facts we shall add the following observation, that if we can\ngive credit to the ancient historians in general, a change from the\ndarkest black to the purest white must have actually been accomplished.\nOne instance, perhaps, may be thought sufficient. _Herodotus_[093]\nrelates, that the _Colchi were black_, and that they had _crisped\nhair_. These people were a detachment of the _\u00c6thiopian_ army\nunder _Sesostris_, who followed him in his expedition, and settled\nin that part of the world, where _Colchis_ is usually represented\nto have been situated. Had not the same author informed us of this\ncircumstance, we should have thought it strange[094], that a people of\nthis description should have been found in such a latitude. Now as they\nwere undoubtedly settled there, and as they were neither so totally\ndestroyed, nor made any such rapid conquests, as that history should\nnotice the event, there is great reason to presume, that their\ndescendants continued in the same, or settled in the adjacent country;\nfrom whence it will follow, that they must have changed their complexion\nto that, which is observable in the inhabitants of this particular\nregion at the present day; or, in other words, that the _black\ninhabitant of Colchis_ must have been changed into the _fair\nCircassian_[095].\n\nAs we have now shewn it to be highly probable, from the facts which have\nbeen advanced, that climate is the cause of the difference of colour\nwhich prevails in the different inhabitants of the globe, we shall now\nshew its probability from so similar an effect produced on the _mucous\nsubstance_ before-mentioned by so similar a cause, that though the\nfact does not absolutely prove our conjecture to be right, yet it will\ngive us a very lively conception of the manner, in which the ph\u00e6nomenon\nmay be caused.\n\nThis probability may be shewn in the case of _freckles_, which are\nto be seen in the face of children, but of such only, as have the\nthinnest and most transparent skins, and are occasioned by the rays of\nthe sun, striking forcibly on the _mucous substance_ of the face,\nand drying the accumulating fluid. This accumulating fluid, or\nperspirable matter, is at first colourless; but being exposed to violent\nheat, or dried, becomes brown. Hence, the _mucosum corpus_ being\ntinged in various parts by this brown coagulated fluid, and the parts so\ntinged appearing through the _cuticle_, or upper surface of the\nskin, arises that spotted appearance, observable in the case recited.\n\nNow, if we were to conceive a black skin to be an _universal\nfreckle_, or the rays of the sun to act so universally on the\n_mucous substance_ of a person's face, as to produce these spots so\ncontiguous to each other that they should unite, we should then see, in\nimagination, a face similar to those, which are daily to be seen among\nblack people: and if we were to conceive his body to be exposed or acted\nupon in the same manner, we should then see his body assuming a similar\nappearance; and thus we should see the whole man of a perfect black, or\nresembling one of the naked inhabitants of the torrid zone. Now as the\nfeat of freckles and of blackness is the same; as their appearance is\nsimilar; and as the cause of the first is the ardour of the sun, it is\ntherefore probable that the cause of the second is the same: hence, if\nwe substitute for the word \"_sun_,\" what is analogous to it, the\nword _climate_, the same effect may be supposed to be produced, and\nthe conjecture to receive a sanction.\n\nNor is it unlikely that the hypothesis, which considers the cause of\nfreckles and of blackness as the same, may be right. For if blackness is\noccasioned by the rays of the sun striking forcibly and universally on\nthe _mucous substance_ of the body, and drying the accumulating\nfluid, we can account for the different degrees of it to be found in the\ndifferent inhabitants of the globe. For as the quantity of perspirable\nfluid, and the force of the solar rays is successively increased, as\nthe climates are successively warmer, from any given parallel to the\nline, it follows that the fluid, with which the _mucous substance_\nwill be stained, will be successively thicker and deeper coloured; and\nhence, as it appears through the cuticle, the complexion successively\ndarker; or, what amounts to the same thing, there will be a difference\nof colour in the inhabitants of every successive parallel.\n\nFrom these, and the whole of the preceding observations on the subject,\nwe may conclude, that as all the inhabitants of the earth cannot be\notherwise than the children of the same parents, and as the difference\nof their appearance must have of course proceeded from incidental\ncauses, these causes are a combination of those qualities, which we call\n_climate_; that the blackness of the _Africans_ is so far\ningrafted in their constitution, in a course of many generations, that\ntheir children wholly inherit it, if brought up in the same spot, but\nthat it is not so absolutely interwoven in their nature, that it cannot\nbe removed, if they are born and settled in another; that _Noah_\nand his sons were probably of an _olive_ complexion; that those of\ntheir descendants, who went farther to the south, became of a deeper\nolive or _copper_; while those, who went still farther, became of a\ndeeper copper or _black_; that those, on the other hand, who\ntravelled farther to the north, became less olive or _brown_, while\nthose who went still farther than the former, became less brown or\n_white_; and that if any man were to point out any one of the\ncolours which prevails in the human complexion, as likely to furnish an\nargument, that the people of such a complexion were of a different\nspecies from the rest, it is probable that his own descendants, if\nremoved to the climate to which this complexion is peculiar, would, in\nthe course of a few generations, degenerate into the same colour.\n\nHaving now replied to the argument, \"that the Africans are an inferiour\nlink of the chain of nature,\" as far as it depended on their\n_capacity_ and _colour_, we shall now only take notice of an\nexpression, which the _receivers_ before-mentioned are pleased to\nmake use of, \"that they are made for slavery.\"\n\nHad the Africans been _made for slavery_, or to become the property\nof any society of men, it is clear, from the observations that have been\nmade in the second part of this Essay, that they must have been created\n_devoid of reason_: but this is contrary to fact. It is clear\nalso, that there must have been, many and evident signs of the\n_inferiority of their nature_, and that this society of men must\nhave had a _natural right_ to their dominion: but this is equally\nfalse. No such signs of _inferiority_ are to be found in the one,\nand the right to dominion in the other is _incidental_: for in what\nvolume of nature or religion is it written, that one society of men\nshould _breed slaves_ for the benefit, of another? Nor is it less\nevident that they would have wanted many of those qualities which they\nhave, and which brutes have not: they would have wanted that _spirit\nof liberty_, that _sense of ignominy and shame_[096], which so\nfrequently drives them to the horrid extremity of finishing their own\nexistence. Nor would they have been endowed with a _contemplative\npower_; for such a power would have been unnecessary to people in\nsuch a situation; or rather, its only use could have been to increase\ntheir pain. We cannot suppose therefore that God has made an order of\nbeings, with such mental qualities and powers, for the sole purpose of\nbeing used as _beasts_, or _instruments_ of labour. And here,\nwhat a dreadful argument presents itself against you _receivers_?\nFor if they have no understandings as you confess, then is your conduct\nimpious, because, as they cannot perceive the intention of your\npunishment, your severities cannot make them better. But if, on the\nother hand, they have had understandings, (which has evidently appeared)\nthen is your conduct equally impious, who, by destroying their faculties\nby the severity of your discipline, have reduced men; who had once the\npower of reason, to an equality with the brute creation.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 073: Genesis, ch. iv. 15.]\n\n\n[Footnote 074: Genesis, ch. ix. 25, 26, 27.]\n\n\n[Footnote 075: Jeremiah says, ch. xiii. 23, \"Can the \u00c6thiopian change\nhis colour, or the leopard his spots?\" Now the word, which is here\ntranslated _\u00c6thiopian_, is in the original Hebrew \"_the descendant of\nCush_,\" which shews that this colour was not confined to the descendants\nof _Canaan_, as the advocates for slavery assert.]\n\n\n[Footnote 076: It is very extraordinary that the advocates for slavery\nshould consider those Africans, whom they call negroes, as the\ndescendants of _Canaan_, when few historical facts can be so well\nascertained, as that out of the descendants of the four sons of Ham, the\ndescendants of Canaan were the only people, (if we except the\nCarthaginians, who were a colony of Canaan, and were afterwards ruined)\nwho did not settle in that quarter of the globe. Africa was\nincontrovertibly peopled by the posterity of the three other sons. We\ncannot shew this in a clearer manner, than in the words of the learned\nMr. Bryant, in his letter to Mr. Granville Sharp on this subject.\n\n\"We learn from scripture, that Ham had four sons, _Chus, Mizraim, Phut_,\nand _Canaan_, Gen. x. 5, 6. _Canaan_ occupied _Palestine_, and the\ncountry called by his name: _Mizraim, Egypt_: but _Phut_ passed deep\ninto _Africa_, and, I believe, most of the nations in that part of the\nworld are descended from him; at least more than from any other person.\"\n_Josephus_ says, \"_that Phut was the founder of the nations in Libya,\nand the people were from him called (phoutoi) Phuti_.\" Antiq. L. 1. c.\n7. \"By _Lybia_ he understands, as the _Greeks_ did, _Africa_ in general:\nfor the particular country called _Lybia Proper_, was peopled by the\n_Lubim_, or _Lehabim_, one of the branches from _Mizraim_, (Labieim ex ou\nLibnes) Chron. Paschale, p. 29.\n\n\"The sons of _Phut_ settled in _Mauritania_, where was a country called\n_Phutia_, and a river of the like denomination. Mauritani\u00e6 Fluvius usque\nad pr\u00e6sens Tempus _Phut_ dicitur, omnisq; circa eum Regio _Phutensis_.\nHieron. Tradit. Hebroe\u00e6.--Amnem, quem vocant _Fut_.\" Pliny, L. 5. c. 1.\nSome of this family settled above \u00c6gypt, near \u00c6thiopia, and were styled\nTroglodyt\u00e6. (phoud ex ou troglodotai). Syncellus, p. 47. Many of them\npassed inland, and peopled the Mediterranean country.\"\n\n\"In process of time the sons of _Chus_ also, (after their expulsion from\nEgypt) made settlements upon the sea coast of _Africa_, and came into\n_Mauritania_. Hence we find traces of them also in the names of places,\nsuch as _Churis, Chusares_, upon the coast: and a river _Chusa_, and a\ncity _Cotta_, together with a promontory, _Cotis_, in _Mauritania_, all\ndenominated from _Chus_; who at different times, and by different\npeople, was called _Chus, Cuth, Cosh_, and _Cotis_. The river _Cusa_ is\nmentioned by _Pliny_, Lib. 5. c. 1. and by _Ptolomy_.\"\n\n\"Many ages after these settlements, there was another eruption of the\n_Cushites_ into these parts, under the name of _Saracens_ and _Moors_,\nwho over-ran _Africa_, to the very extremity of Mount Atlas. They passed\nover and conquered _Spain_ to the north, and they extended themselves\nsouthward, as I said in my treatise, to the rivers _Senegal_ and\n_Gambia_, and as low as the _Gold Coast_. I mentioned this, because I do\nnot think that they proceeded much farther: most of the nations to the\n_south_ being, as I imagine, of the race of _Phut_. The very country\nupon the river _Gambia_ on one side, is at this day called _Phuta_, of\nwhich _Bluet_, in his history of _Juba Ben Solomon_, gives an account.\"]\n\n\n[Footnote 077: When America was first discovered, it was thought by\nsome, that the scripture account of the creation was false, and that\nthere were different species of men, because they could never suppose\nthat people, in so rude a state as the Americans, could have transported\nthemselves to that continent from any parts of the known world. This\nopinion however was refuted by the celebrated Captain Cooke, who shewed\nthat the traject between the continents of Asia and America, was as\nshort as some, which people in as rude a state have been actually known\nto pass. This affords an excellent caution against an ill-judged and\nhasty censure of the divine writings, because every difficulty which may\nbe started, cannot be instantly cleared up.]\n\n\n[Footnote 078: The divine writings, which assert that all men were\nderived from the _same stock_, shew also, in the same instance of\n_Cush_, (Footnote 075), that some of them had changed their original\ncomplexion.]\n\n\n[Footnote 079: The following are the grand colours discernible in\nmankind, between which there are many shades;\n\nWhite }         { Copper\n      }--Olive--{\nBrown }         { Black\n]\n\n\n[Footnote 080: See note, (Footnote 075). To this we may add, that the\nrest of the descendants of _Ham_, as far as they can be traced, are now\nalso black, at well as many of the descendants of _Shem_.]\n\n\n[Footnote 081: Diseases have a great effect upon the _mucosum corpus_,\nbut particularly the jaundice, which turns it yellow. Hence, being\ntransmitted through the cuticle, the yellow appearance of the whole\nbody. But this, even as a matter of ocular demonstration, is not\nconfined solely to white people; negroes themselves, while affected with\nthese or other disorders, changing their black colour for that which the\ndisease has conveyed to the _mucous_ substance.]\n\n\n[Footnote 082: The cutaneous pores are so excessively small, that one\ngrain of sand, (according to Dr. Lewenhoeck's calculations) would cover\nmany hundreds of them.]\n\n\n[Footnote 083: We do not mean to insinuate that the same people have\ntheir _corpus mucosum_ sensibly vary, as often as they go into another\nlatitude, but that the fact is true only of different people, who have\nbeen long established in different latitudes.]\n\n\n[Footnote 084: We beg leave to return our thanks here to a gentleman,\neminent in the medical line, who furnished us with the above-mentioned\nfacts.]\n\n\n[Footnote 085: Suppose we were to see two nations, contiguous to each\nother, of black and white inhabitants in the same parallel, even this\nwould be no objection, for many circumstances are to be considered. A\nblack people may have wandered into a white, and a white people into a\nblack latitude, and they may not have been settled there a sufficient\nlength of time for such a change to have been accomplished in their\ncomplexion, as that they should be like the old established inhabitants\nof the parallel, into which they have lately come.]\n\n\n[Footnote 086: Justamond's Abbe Raynal, v. 5. p. 193.]\n\n\n[Footnote 087: The author of this Essay made it his business to inquire\nof the most intelligent of those, whom he could meet with in London, as\nto the authenticity of the fact. All those from _America_ assured him\nthat it was strictly true; those from the West-Indies, that they had\nnever observed it there; but that they had found a sensible difference\nin themselves since they came to England.]\n\n\n[Footnote 088: This circumstance, which always happens, shews that they\nare descended from the same parents as ourselves; for had they been a\ndistinct species of men, and the blackness entirely ingrafted in their\nconstitution and frame, there is great reason to presume, that their\nchildren would have been born _black_.]\n\n\n[Footnote 089: This observation was communicated to us by the gentleman\nin the medical line, to whom we returned our thanks for certain\nanatomical facts.]\n\n\n[Footnote 090: Philos. Trans. No. 476. sect. 4.]\n\n\n[Footnote 091: Treatise upon the Trade from Great Britain to Africa, by\nan African merchant.]\n\n\n[Footnote 092: We mean such only as are _natives_ of the countries which\nwe mention, and whose ancestors have been settled there for a certain\nperiod of time.]\n\n\n[Footnote 093: Herodotus. Euterpe. p. 80. Editio Stephani, printed\n1570.]\n\n\n[Footnote 094: This circumstance confirms what we said in a former note,\n(Footnote 085), that even if two nations were to be found in the same\nparallel, one of whom was black, and the other white, it would form no\nobjection against the hypothesis of climate, as one of them might have\nbeen new settlers from a distant country.]\n\n\n[Footnote 095: Suppose, without the knowledge of any historian, they had\nmade such considerable conquests, as to have settled themselves at the\ndistance of 1000 miles in any one direction from _Colchis_, still they\nmust have changed their colour. For had they gone in an Eastern or\nWestern direction, they must have been of the same colour as the\n_Circassians_; if to the north, whiter; if to the south, of a copper.\nThere are no people within that distance of _Colchis_, who are black.]\n\n\n[Footnote 096: There are a particular people among those transported\nfrom Africa to the colonies, who immediately on receiving punishment,\ndestroy themselves. This is a fact which the _receivers_ are unable to\ncontradict.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\nThe reader may perhaps think, that the _receivers_ have by this\ntime expended all their arguments, but their store is not so easily\nexhausted. They are well aware that justice, nature, and religion, will\ncontinue, as they have ever uniformly done, to oppose their conduct.\nThis has driven them to exert their ingenuity, and has occasioned that\nmultiplicity of arguments to be found in the present question.\n\nThese arguments are of a different complexion from the former. They\nconsist in comparing the state of _slaves_ with that of some of the\nclasses of _free_ men, and in certain scenes of felicity, which the\nformer are said to enjoy.\n\nIt is affirmed that the punishments which the Africans undergo, are less\nsevere than the military; that their life is happier than that of the\nEnglish peasant; that they have the advantages of manumission; that they\nhave their little spots of ground, their holy-days, their dances; in\nshort, that their life is a scene of festivity and mirth, and that they\nare much happier in the colonies than in their own country.\n\nThese representations, which have been made out with much ingenuity and\nart, may have had their weight with the unwary; but they will never pass\nwith men of consideration and sense, who are accustomed to estimate the\nprobability of things, before they admit them to be true. Indeed the\nbare assertion, that their situation is even comfortable, contains its\nown refutation, or at least leads us to suspect that the person, who\nasserted it, has omitted some important considerations in the account.\nSuch we shall shew to have been actually the case, and that the\nrepresentations of the _receivers_, when stripped of their glossy\nornaments, are but empty declamation.\n\nIt is said, first, of _military punishments_, that they are more\nsevere than those which the _Africans_ undergo. But this is a bare\nassertion without a proof. It is not shewn even by those, who assert it,\nhow the fact can be made out. We are left therefore to draw the\ncomparison ourselves, and to fill up those important considerations,\nwhich we have just said that the _receivers_ had omitted.\n\nThat military punishments are severe we confess, but we deny that they\nare severer than those with which they are compared. Where is the\nmilitary man, whose ears have been slit, whose limbs have been\nmutilated, or whose eyes have been beaten out? But let us even allow,\nthat their punishments are equal in the degree of their severity: still\nthey must lose by comparison. The soldier is never punished but after a\nfair and equitable trial, and the decision of a military court; the\nunhappy African, at the discretion of his Lord. The one knows what\nparticular conduct will constitute an offence[097]; the other has no\nsuch information, as he is wholly at the disposal of passion and\ncaprice, which may impose upon any action, however laudable, the\nappellation of a crime. The former has it of course in his power to\navoid a punishment; the latter is never safe. The former is punished for\na real, the latter, often, for an imaginary fault.\n\nNow will any person assert, on comparing the whole of those\ncircumstances together, which relate to their respective punishments,\nthat there can be any doubt, which of the two are in the worst\nsituation, as to their penal systems?\n\nWith respect to the declaration, that the life of an _African_ in\nthe colonies is happier than that of an _English_ peasant, it is\nequally false. Indeed we can scarcely withhold our indignation, when we\nconsider, how shamefully the situation of this latter class of men has\nbeen misrepresented, to elevate the former to a state of fictitious\nhappiness. If the representations of the _receivers_ be true, it\nis evident that those of the most approved writers, who have placed a\nconsiderable share of happiness in the _cottage_, have been\nmistaken in their opinion; and that those of the rich, who have been\nheard to sigh, and envy the felicity of the _peasant_, have been\ntreacherous to their own sensations.\n\nBut which are we to believe on the occasion? Those, who endeavour to\ndress _vice_ in the habit of _virtue_, or those, who derive\ntheir opinion from their own feelings? The latter are surely to be\nbelieved; and we may conclude therefore, that the horrid picture which\nis given of the life of the _peasant_, has not so just a foundation\nas the _receivers_ would, lead us to suppose. For has he no\npleasure in the thought, that he lives in his _own country_, and\namong his relations and friends? That he is actually _free_, and\nthat his children will be the same? That he can never be _sold_ as\na beast? That he can speak his mind _without the fear of the lash_?\nThat he cannot even be struck _with impunity_? And that he\npartakes, equally with his superiours, of the _protection of the\nlaw_?--Now, there is no one of these advantages which the\n_African_ possesses, and no one, which the defenders of slavery\ntake into their account.\n\nOf the other comparisons that are usually made, we may observe in\ngeneral, that, as they consist in comparing the iniquitous practice of\nslavery with other iniquitous practices in force among other nations,\nthey can neither raise it to the appearance of virtue, nor extenuate its\nguilt. The things compared are in these instances both of them evils\nalike. They call equally for redress[098], and are equally disgraceful\nto the governments which suffer them, if not encourage them, to exist.\nTo attempt therefore to justify one species of iniquity by comparing it\nwith another, is no justification at all; and is so far from answering\nthe purpose, for which the comparison is intended, as to give us reason\nto suspect, that the _comparer_ has but little notion either of\nequity or honour.\n\nWe come now to those scenes of felicity, which slaves are said to enjoy.\nThe first advantage which they are said to experience, is that of\n_manumission_. But here the advocates for slavery conceal an\nimportant circumstance. They expatiate indeed on the charms of freedom,\nand contend that it must be a blessing in the eyes of those, upon whom\nit is conferred. We perfectly agree with them in this particular. But\nthey do not tell us that these advantages are _confined_; that they\nare confined to some _favourite domestick_; that not _one in an\nhundred_ enjoy them; and that they are _never_ extended to\nthose, who are employed in the _cultivation of the field_, as long\nas they can work. These are they, who are most to be pitied, who are\ndestined to _perpetual_ drudgery; and of whom _no one whatever_\nhas a chance of being freed from his situation, till death\neither releases him at once, or age renders him incapable of continuing\nhis former labour. And here let it be remarked, _to the disgrace of\nthe receivers_, that he is then made free, not--_as a reward for\nhis past services_, but, as his labour is then of little or no\nvalue,--_to save the tax_[099].\n\nWith the same artifice is mention also made of the little spots, or\n_gardens_, as they are called, which slaves are said to possess\nfrom the _liberality_ of _the receivers_. But people must not\nbe led away by agreeable and pleasant sounds. They must not suppose that\nthese gardens are made for _flowers_; or that they are places of\n_amusement_, in which they can spend their time in botanical\nresearches and delights. Alas, they do not furnish them with a theme for\nsuch pleasing pursuits and speculations! They must be cultivated in\nthose hours, which ought to be appropriated to rest[100]; and they must\nbe cultivated, not for an amusement, but to make up, _if it be\npossible_, the great deficiency in their weekly allowance of\nprovisions. Hence it appears, that the _receivers_ have no merit\nwhatever in such an appropriation of land to their unfortunate slaves:\nfor they are either under the necessity of doing this, or of\n_losing_ them by the jaws of famine. And it is a notorious fact,\nthat, with their weekly allowance, and the produce of their spots\ntogether, it is often with the greatest difficulty that they preserve a\nwretched existence.\n\nThe third advantage which they are said to experience, is that of\n_holy-days_, or days of respite from their usual discipline and\nfatigue. This is certainly a great indulgence, and ought to be recorded\nto the immortal honour of the _receivers_. We wish we could express\ntheir liberality in those handsome terms, in which it deserves to be\nrepresented, or applaud them sufficiently for deviating for once from\nthe rigours of servile discipline. But we confess, that we are unequal\nto the task, and must therefore content ourselves with observing, that\nwhile the horse has _one_ day in _seven_ to refresh his limbs,\nthe happy _African_[101] has but _one_ in _fifty-two_, as\na relaxation from his labours.\n\nWith respect to their _dances_, on which such a particular stress\nhas been generally laid, we fear that people may have been as shamefully\ndeceived, as in the former instances. For from the manner in which these\nare generally mentioned, we should almost be led to imagine, that they\nhad certain hours allowed them for the purpose of joining in the dance,\nand that they had every comfort and convenience, that people are\ngenerally supposed to enjoy on such convivial occasions. But this is far\nfrom the case. Reason informs us, that it can never be. If they wish for\nsuch innocent recreations, they must enjoy them in the time that is\nallotted them for sleep; and so far are these dances from proceeding\nfrom any uncommon degree of happiness, which excites them to convivial\nsociety, that they proceed rather from an uncommon depression of\nspirits, which makes them even sacrifice their rest[102], for the sake\nof experiencing for a moment a more joyful oblivion of their cares. For\nsuppose any one of the _receivers_, in the middle of a dance, were\nto address his slaves in the following manner: \"_Africans!_ I begin\nat last to feel for your situation; and my conscience is severely hurt,\nwhenever I reflect that I have been reducing those to a state of misery\nand pain, who have never given me offence. You seem to be fond of these\nexercises, but yet you are obliged to take them at such unseasonable\nhours, that they impair your health, which is sufficiently broken by the\nintolerable share of labour which I have hitherto imposed upon you. I\nwill therefore make you a proposal. Will you be content to live in the\ncolonies, and you shall have the half of every week entirely to\nyourselves? or will you choose to return to your miserable, wretched\ncountry?\"--But what is that which strikes their ears? Which makes them\nmotionless in an instant? Which interrupts the festive scene?--their\ncountry?--transporting sound!--Behold! they are now flying from the\ndance: you may see them running to the shore, and, frantick as it were\nwith joy, demanding with open arms an instantaneous passage to their\nbeloved native plains.\n\nSuch are the _colonial delights_, by the representation of which\nthe _receivers_ would persuade us, that the _Africans_ are\ntaken from their country to a region of conviviality and mirth; and that\nlike those, who leave their usual places of residence for a summer's\namusement, they are conveyed to the colonies--_to bathe_,--_to\ndance_,--_to keep holy-day_,--_to be jovial_.--But there\nis something so truly ridiculous in the attempt to impose these scenes\nof felicity on the publick, as scenes which fall to the lot of slaves,\nthat the _receivers_ must have been driven to great extremities, to\nhazard them to the eye of censure.\n\nThe last point that remains to be considered, is the shameful assertion,\nthat the _Africans_ are much _happier in the colonies, than in\ntheir own country_. But in what does this superiour happiness\nconsist? In those real scenes, it must be replied, which have been just\nmentioned; for these, by the confession of the receivers, constitute the\nhappiness they enjoy.--But it has been shewn that these have been\nunfairly represented; and, were they realized in the most extensive\nlatitude, they would not confirm the fact. For if, upon a\nrecapitulation, it consists in the pleasure of _manumission_, they\nsurely must have passed their lives in a much more comfortable manner,\nwho, like the _Africans at home_, have had no occasion for such a\nbenefit at all. But the _receivers_, we presume, reason upon this\nprinciple, that we never know the value of a blessing but by its loss.\nThis is generally true: but would any one of them make himself a\n_slave_ for years, that he might run the chance of the pleasures of\n_manumission_? Or that he might taste the charms of liberty with\n_a greater relish_? Nor is the assertion less false in every other\nconsideration. For if their happiness consists in the few\n_holy-days_, which _in the colonies_ they are permitted to\nenjoy, what must be their situation _in their own country_, where\nthe whole year is but one continued holy-day, or cessation from\ndiscipline and fatigue?--If in the possession of _a mean and\ncontracted spot_, what must be their situation, where a whole region\nis their own, producing almost spontaneously the comforts of life, and\nrequiring for its cultivation none of those hours, which should be\nappropriated to _sleep_?--If in the pleasures of the _colonial\ndance_, what must it be in _their own country_, where they may\ndance for ever; where there is no stated hour to interrupt their\nfelicity, no intolerable labour immediately to succeed their\nrecreations, and no overseer to receive them under the discipline of the\nlash?--If these therefore are the only circumstances, by which the\nassertion can be proved, we may venture to say, without fear of\nopposition, that it can never be proved at all.\n\nBut these are not the only circumstances. It is said that they are\nbarbarous at home.--But do you _receivers_ civilize them?--Your\nunwillingness to convert them to Christianity, because you suppose you\nmust use them more kindly when converted, is but a bad argument in\nfavour of the fact.\n\nIt is affirmed again, that their manner of life, and their situation is\nsuch in their own country, that to say they are happy is a jest. \"But\nwho are you, who pretend to judge[103] of another man's happiness? That\nstate which each man, under the guidance of his maker, forms for\nhimself, and not one man for another? To know what constitutes mine or\nyour happiness, is the sole prerogative of him who created us, and cast\nus in so various and different moulds. Did your slaves ever complain to\nyou of their unhappiness, amidst their native woods and desarts? Or,\nrather, let me ask, did they ever cease complaining of their condition\nunder you their lordly masters? Where they see, indeed, the\naccommodations of civil life, but see them all pass to others,\nthemselves unbenefited by them. Be so gracious then, ye petty tyrants\nover human freedom, to let your slaves judge for themselves, what it is\nwhich makes their own happiness, and then see whether they do not place\nit _in the return to their own country_, rather than in the\ncontemplation of your grandeur, of which their misery makes so large a\npart.\"\n\nBut since you speak with so much confidence on the subject, let us ask\nyou _receivers_ again, if you have ever been informed by your\nunfortunate slaves, that they had no connexions in the country from\nwhich they have forcibly been torn away: or, if you will take upon you\nto assert, that they never sigh, when they are alone; or that they never\nrelate to each other their tales of misery and woe. But you judge of\nthem, perhaps, in an happy moment, when you are dealing out to them\ntheir provisions for the week; and are but little aware, that, though\nthe countenance may be cheered with a momentary smile, the heart may be\nexquisitely tortured. Were you to shew us, indeed, that there are laws,\nsubject to no evasion, by which you are obliged to clothe and feed them\nin a comfortable manner; were you to shew us that they are\nprotected[104] at all; or that even _one_ in a _thousand_ of\nthose masters have suffered death[105], who have been guilty of\n_premeditated_ murder to their slaves, you would have a better\nclaim to our belief: but you can neither produce the instances nor the\nlaws. The people, of whom you speak, are _slaves_, are your own\n_property_, are wholly _at your own disposal_; and this idea\nis sufficient to overturn your assertions of their happiness.\n\nBut we shall now mention a circumstance, which, in the present case,\nwill have more weight than all the arguments which have hitherto been\nadvanced. It is an opinion, which the _Africans_ universally\nentertain, that, as soon as death shall release them from the hands of\ntheir oppressors, they shall immediately be wafted back to their native\nplains, there to exist again, to enjoy the sight of their beloved\ncountrymen, and to spend the whole of their new existence in scenes of\ntranquillity and delight; and so powerfully does this notion operate\nupon them, as to drive them frequently to the horrid extremity of\nputting a period to their lives. Now if these suicides are frequent,\n(which no person can deny) what are they but a proof, that the situation\nof those who destroy themselves must have been insupportably wretched:\nand if the thought of returning to their country after death, _when\nthey have experienced the colonial joys_, constitutes their supreme\nfelicity, what are they but a proof, that they think there is as much\ndifference between the two situations, as there is between misery and\ndelight?\n\nNor is the assertion of the _receivers_ less liable to a refutation\nin the instance of those, who terminate their own existence, than of\nthose, whom nature releases from their persecutions. They die with a\nsmile upon their face, and their funerals are attended by a vast\nconcourse of their countrymen, with every possible demonstration of\njoy[106]. But why this unusual mirth, if their departed brother has left\nan happy place? Or if he has been taken from the care of an indulgent\nmaster, who consulted his pleasures, and administered to his wants? But\nalas, it arises from hence, that _he is gone to his happy country_:\na circumstance, sufficient of itself, to silence a myriad of those\nspecious arguments, which the imagination has been racked, and will\nalways be racked to produce, in favour of a system of tyranny and\noppression.\n\nIt remains only, that we should now conclude the chapter with a fact,\nwhich will shew that the account, which we have given of the situation\nof slaves, is strictly true, and will refute at the same time all the\narguments which have hitherto been, and may yet be brought by the\n_receivers_, to prove that their treatment is humane. In one of the\nwestern colonies of the Europeans, [107]six hundred and fifty thousand\nslaves were imported within an hundred years; at the expiration of which\ntime, their whole posterity were found to amount to one hundred and\nforty thousand. This fact will ascertain the treatment of itself. For\nhow shamefully must these unfortunate people have been oppressed? What a\ndreadful havock must famine, fatigue, and cruelty, have made among them,\nwhen we consider, that the descendants of _six hundred and fifty\nthousand_ people in the prime of life, gradually imported within a\ncentury, are less numerous than those, which only _ten thousand_[108]\nwould have produced in the same period, under common advantages,\nand in a country congenial to their constitutions?\n\nBut the _receivers_ have probably great merit on the occasion. Let\nus therefore set it down to their humanity. Let us suppose for once,\nthat this incredible waste of the human species proceeds from a\nbenevolent design; that, sensible of the miseries of a servile state,\nthey resolve to wear out, as fast as they possibly can, their\nunfortunate slaves, that their miseries may the sooner end, and that a\nwretched posterity may be prevented from sharing their parental\ncondition. Now, whether this is the plan of reasoning which the\n_receivers_ adopt, we cannot take upon us to decide; but true it\nis, that the effect produced is exactly the same, as if they had\nreasoned wholly on this _benevolent_ principle.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 097: The articles of war are frequently read at the head of\nevery regiment in the service, stating those particular actions which\nare to be considered as crimes.]\n\n\n[Footnote 098: We cannot omit here to mention one of the customs, which\nhas been often brought as a palliation of slavery, and which prevailed\nbut a little time ago, and we are doubtful whether it does not prevail\nnow, in the metropolis of this country, of kidnapping men for the\nservice of the East-India Company. Every subject, as long as he behaves\nwell, has a right to the protection of government; and the tacit\npermission of such a scene of iniquity, when it becomes known, is as\nmuch a breach of duty in government, as the conduct of those subjects,\nwho, on other occasions, would be termed, and punished as, rebellious.]\n\n\n[Footnote 099: The expences of every parish are defrayed by a poll-tax\non negroes, to save which they pretend to liberate those who are past\nlabour; but they still keep them employed in repairing fences, or in\ndoing some trifling work on a scanty allowance. For to free a\n_field-negroe_, so long as he can work, is a maxim, which,\nnotwithstanding the numerous boasted manumissions, no master _ever\nthinks of adopting_ in the colonies.]\n\n\n[Footnote 100: They must be cultivated always on a _Sunday_, and\nfrequently in those hours which should be appropriated to _sleep_,\nor the wretched possessors must be inevitably _starved_.]\n\n\n[Footnote 101: They are allowed in general three holy-days at Christmas,\nbut in Jamaica they have two also at Easter, and two at Whitsuntide: so\nthat on the largest scale, they have only seven days in a year, or one\nday in fifty-two. But this is on a supposition, that the receivers do\nnot break in upon the afternoons, which they are frequently too apt to\ndo. If it should be said that Sunday is an holy-day, it is not true; it\nis so far an holy-day, that they do not work for their masters; but such\nan holy-day, that if they do not employ it in the cultivation of their\nlittle spots, they must _starved_.]\n\n\n[Footnote 102: These dances are usually in the middle of the night; and\nso desirous are these unfortunate people of obtaining but a joyful hour,\nthat they not only often give up their sleep, but add to the labours of\nthe day, by going several miles to obtain it.]\n\n\n[Footnote 103: Bishop of Glocester's sermon, preached before the society\nfor the propagation of the gospel, at the anniversary meeting, on the\n21st of February, 1766.]\n\n\n[Footnote 104: There is a law, (but let the reader remark, that it\nprevails but in _one_ of the colonies), against mutilation. It took\nits rise from the frequency of the inhuman practice. But though a master\ncannot there chop off the limb of a slave with an axe, he may yet work,\nstarve, and beat him to death with impunity.]\n\n\n[Footnote 105: _Two_ instances are recorded by the\n_receivers_, out of about _fifty-thousand_, where a white man\nhas suffered death for the murder of a negroe; but the receivers do not\ntell us, that these suffered more because they were the pests of\nsociety, than because the _murder of slaves was a crime_.]\n\n\n[Footnote 106: A negroe-funeral is considered as a curious sight, and is\nattended with singing, dancing, musick, and every circumstance that can\nshew the attendants to be happy on the occasion.]\n\n\n[Footnote 107: In 96 years, ending in 1774, 800,000 slaves had been\nimported into the French part of St. Domingo, of which there remained\nonly 290,000 in 1774. Of this last number only 140,000 were creoles, or\nnatives of the island, i. e. of 650,000 slaves, the whole posterity were\n140,000. _Considerations sur la Colonie de St. Dominique_,(See\nerrata--should be read as \"_St. Domingue_\") published by authority\nin 1777.]\n\n\n[Footnote 108: Ten thousand people under fair advantages, and in a soil\ncongenial to their constitutions, and where the means of subsistence are\neasy, should produce in a century 160,000. This is the proportion in\nwhich the Americans increased; and the Africans in their own country\nincrease in the same, if not in a greater proportion. Now as the climate\nof the colonies is as favourable to their health as that of their own\ncountry, the causes of the prodigious decrease in the one, and increase\nin the other, will be more conspicuous.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\nWe have now taken a survey of the treatment which the unfortunate\n_Africans_ undergo, when they are put into the hands of the\n_receivers_. This treatment, by the four first chapters of the\npresent part of this Essay, appears to be wholly insupportable, and to\nbe such as no human being can apply to another, without the imputation\nof such crimes, as should make him tremble. But as many arguments are\nusually advanced by those who have any interest in the practice, by\nwhich they would either exculpate the treatment, or diminish its\nseverity, we allotted the remaining chapters for their discussion. In\nthese we considered the probability of such a treatment against the\nmotives of interest; the credit that was to be given to those\ndisinterested writers on the subject, who have recorded particular\ninstances of barbarity; the inferiority of the _Africans_ to the\nhuman species; the comparisons that are generally made with respect to\ntheir situation; the positive scenes of felicity which they are said to\nenjoy, and every other argument, in short, that we have found to have\never been advanced in the defence of slavery. These have been all\nconsidered, and we may venture to pronounce, that, instead of answering\nthe purpose for which they were intended, they serve only to bring such\ncircumstances to light, as clearly shew, that if ingenuity were racked\nto invent a situation, that would be the most distressing and\ninsupportable to the human race; it could never invent one, that would\nsuit the description better, than the--_colonial slavery_.\n\nIf this then be the case, and if slaves, notwithstanding all the\narguments to the contrary, are exquisitely miserable, we ask you\n_receivers, by what right_ you reduce them to so wretched a\nsituation?\n\nYou reply, that you _buy them_; that your _money_ constitutes\nyour _right_, and that, like all other things which you purchase,\nthey are wholly at your own disposal.\n\nUpon this principle alone it was, that we professed to view your\ntreatment, or examine your right, when we said, that \"the question[109]\nresolved itself into two separate parts for discussion; into the\n_African_ commerce, as explained in the history of slavery, and the\nsubsequent slavery in the colonies, _as founded on the equity of the\ncommerce_.\" Now, since it appears that this commerce, upon the\nfullest investigation, is contrary to \"_the principles[110] of law and\ngovernment, the dictates of reason, the common maxims of equity, the\nlaws of nature, the admonitions of conscience, and, in short, the whole\ndoctrine of natural religion_,\" it is evident that the _right_,\nwhich is founded upon it, must be the same; and that if those\nthings only are lawful in the sight of God, which are either\nvirtuous in themselves, or proceed from virtuous principles, you _have\nno right over them at all_.\n\nYou yourselves also confess this. For when we ask you, whether any human\nbeing has a right to sell you, you immediately answer, No; as if nature\nrevolted at the thought, and as if it was so contradictory to your own\nfeelings, as not to require consideration. But who are you, that have\nthis exclusive charter of trading in the liberties of mankind? When did\nnature, or rather the Author of nature, make so partial a distinction\nbetween you and them? When did He say, that you should have the\nprivilege of selling others, and that others should not have the\nprivilege of selling you?\n\nNow since you confess, that no person whatever has a right to dispose of\nyou in this manner, you must confess also, that those things are\nunlawful to be done to you, which are usually done in consequence of the\nsale. Let us suppose then, that in consequence of the _commerce_\nyou were forced into a ship; that you were conveyed to another country;\nthat you were sold there; that you were confined to incessant labour;\nthat you were pinched by continual hunger and thirst; and subject to be\nwhipped, cut, and mangled at discretion, and all this at the hands of\nthose, whom you had never offended; would you not think that you had a\nright to resist their treatment? Would you not resist it with a safe\nconscience? And would you not be surprized, if your resistance should be\ntermed rebellion?--By the former premises you must answer, yes.--Such\nthen is the case with the wretched _Africans_. They have a right to\nresist your proceedings. They can resist them, and yet they cannot\njustly be considered as rebellious. For though we suppose them to have\nbeen guilty of crimes to one another; though we suppose them to have\nbeen the most abandoned and execrable of men, yet are they perfectly\ninnocent with respect to you _receivers_. You have no right to\ntouch even the hair of their heads without their own consent. It is not\nyour money, that can invest you with a right. Human liberty can neither\nbe bought nor sold. Every lash that you give them is unjust. It is a\nlash against nature and religion, and will surely stand recorded against\nyou, since they are all, with respect to your _impious_ selves, in\na state of nature; in a state of original dissociation; perfectly free.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 109: See Part II Chapter I second paragraph.]\n\n\n[Footnote 110: See Part II Chapter IX last paragraph.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\nHaving now considered both the _commerce_ and _slavery_, it\nremains only to collect such arguments as are scattered in different\nparts of the work, and to make such additional remarks, as present\nthemselves on the subject.\n\nAnd first, let us ask you, who have studied the law of nature, and you,\nwho are learned in the law of the land, if all property must not be\ninferiour in its nature to its possessor, or, in other words, (for it is\na case, which every person must bring home to his own breast) if you\nsuppose that any human being can have _a property in yourselves_?\nLet us ask you appraisers, who scientifically know the value of things,\nif any human creature is equivalent only to any of the trinkets that you\nwear, or at most, to any of the horses that you ride: or in other words,\nif you have ever considered the most costly things that you have valued,\nas _equivalent to yourselves?_ Let us ask you rationalists, if man,\nas a reasonable being, is not _accountable_ for his actions, and\nlet us put the same question to you, who have studied the divine\nwritings? Let us ask you parents, if ever you thought that you possessed\nan _authority_ as such, or if ever you expected a _duty_ from\nyour sons; and let us ask you sons, if ever you felt an impulse in your\nown breasts to _obey_ your parents. Now, if you should all answer\nas we could wish, if you should all answer consistently with reason,\nnature, and the revealed voice of God, what a dreadful argument will\npresent itself against the commerce and slavery of the human species,\nwhen we reflect, that no man whatever can be bought or reduced to the\nsituation of a slave, _but he must instantly become a brute, he must\ninstantly be reduced to the value of those things, which were made for\nhis own use and convenience; he must instantly cease to be accountable\nfor his actions, and his authority as a parent, and his duty as a son,\nmust be instantly no more_.\n\nNeither does it escape our notice, when we are speaking of the fatal\nwound which every social duty must receive, how considerably\nChristianity suffers by the conduct of you _receivers_. For by\nprosecuting this impious commerce, you keep the _Africans_ in a\nstate of perpetual ferocity and barbarism; and by prosecuting it in such\na manner, as must represent your religion, as a system of robbery and\noppression, you not only oppose the propagation of the gospel, as far as\nyou are able yourselves, but throw the most certain impediments in the\nway of others, who might attempt the glorious and important task.\n\nSuch also is the effect, which the subsequent slavery in the colonies\nmust produce. For by your inhuman treatment of the unfortunate\n_Africans_ there, you create the same insuperable impediments to a\nconversion. For how must they detest the very name of _Christians_,\nwhen you _Christians_ are deformed by so many and dreadful vices?\nHow must they detest that system of religion, which appears to resist\nthe natural rights of men, and to give a sanction to brutality and\nmurder?\n\nBut, as we are now mentioning Christianity, we must pause for a little\ntime, to make a few remarks on the arguments which are usually deduced\nfrom thence by the _receivers_, in defence of their system of\noppression. For the reader may readily suppose, that, if they did not\nhesitate to bring the _Old_ Testament in support of their\nbarbarities, they would hardly let the _New_ escape them.\n\n_St. Paul_, having converted _Onesimus_ to the Christian\nfaith, who was a fugitive slave of _Philemon_, sent him back to his\nmaster. This circumstance has furnished the _receivers_ with a\nplea, that Christianity encourages slavery. But they have not only\nstrained the passages which they produce in support of their assertions,\nbut are ignorant of historical facts. The benevolent apostle, in the\nletter which he wrote to _Philemon_, the master of _Onesimus_,\naddresses him to the following effect: \"I send him back to you, but not\nin his former capacity[111], _not now as a servant, but above a\nservant, a brother beloved_. In this manner I beseech you to receive\nhim, for though I could _enjoin_ you to do it, yet I had rather it\nshould be a matter of your _own will_, than of _necessity_.\"\n\nIt appears that the same _Onesimus_, when he was sent back, was no\nlonger _a slave_, that he was a minister of the gospel, that he was\njoined with _Tychicus_ in an ecclesiastical commission to the\nchurch of the _Colossians_, and was afterwards bishop of\n_Ephesus_. If language therefore has any meaning, and if history\nhas recorded a fact which may be believed, there is no case more\nopposite to the doctrine of the _receivers_, than this which they\nproduce in its support.\n\nIt is said again, that Christianity, among the many important precepts\nwhich it contains, does not furnish us with one for the abolition of\nslavery. But the reason is obvious. Slavery at the time of the\nintroduction of the gospel was universally prevalent, and if\nChristianity had abruptly declared, that the millions of slaves should\nhave been made free, who were then in the world, it would have been\nuniversally rejected, as containing doctrines that were dangerous, if\nnot destructive, to society. In order therefore that it might be\nuniversally received, it never meddled, by any positive precept, with\nthe civil institutions of the times; but though it does not expressly\nsay, that \"you shall neither buy, nor sell, nor possess a slave,\" it is\nevident that, in its general tenour, it sufficiently militates against\nthe custom.\n\nThe first doctrine which it inculcates, is that of _brotherly\nlove_. It commands good will towards men. It enjoins us to love our\nneighbours as ourselves, and to do unto all men, as we would that they\nshould do unto us. And how can any man fulfil this scheme of universal\nbenevolence, who reduces an unfortunate person _against his will_,\nto the _most insupportable_ of all human conditions; who considers\nhim as his _private property_, and treats him, not as a brother,\nnor as one of the same parentage with himself, but as an _animal of\nthe brute creation?_\n\nBut the most important doctrine is that, by which we are assured that\nmankind are to exist in a future state, and to give an account of those\nactions, which they have severally done in the flesh. This strikes at\nthe very root of slavery. For how can any man be justly called to an\naccount for his actions, whose actions are not _at his own\ndisposal?_ This is the case with the _proper_[112] slave. His\nliberty is absolutely bought and _appropriated_; and if the\npurchase is _just and equitable_, he is _under the necessity_\nof perpetrating any crime, which the purchaser may order him to commit,\nor, in other words, of ceasing to be _accountable for his actions_.\n\nThese doctrines therefore are sufficient to shew, that slavery is\nincompatible, with the Christian system. The _Europeans_ considered\nthem as such, when, at the close of the twelfth century, they resisted,\ntheir hereditary prejudices, and occasioned its abolition. Hence one,\namong many other proofs, that Christianity was the production of\ninfinite wisdom; that though it did not take such express cognizance of\nthe wicked national institutions of the times, as should hinder its\nreception, it should yet contain such doctrines, as, when it should be\nfully established, would be sufficient for the abolition of them all.\n\nThus then is the argument of you _receivers_ ineffectual, and your\nconduct impious. For, by the prosecution of this wicked slavery and\ncommerce, you not only oppose the propagation of that gospel which was\nordered to be preached unto every creature, and bring it into contempt,\nbut you oppose its tenets also: first, because you violate that law of\n_universal benevolence_, which was to take away those hateful\ndistinctions of _Jew_ and _Gentile_, _Greek_ and _Barbarian,\nbond_ and _free_, which prevailed when the gospel was introduced;\nand secondly, because, as every man is to give an account of\nhis actions hereafter, it is necessary that he should be _free_.\n\nAnother argument yet remains, which, though nature will absolutely turn\npale at the recital, cannot possibly be omitted. In those wars, which\nare made for the sake of procuring slaves, it is evident that the\ncontest must be generally obstinate, and that great numbers must be\nslain on both sides, before the event can be determined. This we may\nreasonably apprehend to be the case: and we have shewn[113], that there\nhave not been wanting instances, where the conquerors have been so\nincensed at the resistance they have found, that their spirit of\nvengeance has entirely got the better of their avarice, and they have\nmurdered, in cool blood, every individual, without discrimination,\neither of age or sex. From these and other circumstances, we thought we\nhad sufficient reason to conclude, that, where _ten_ were supposed\nto be taken, an _hundred_, including the victors and vanquished,\nmight be supposed to perish. Now, as the annual exportation from\n_Africa_ consists of an hundred thousand men, and as the two\norders, of those who are privately kidnapped by individuals, and of\nthose, who are publickly seized by virtue of the authority of their\nprince, compose together, at least, nine-tenths of the _African_\nslaves, it follows, that about ten thousand consist of convicts and\nprisoners of war. The last order is the most numerous. Let us suppose\nthen that only six thousand of this order are annually sent into\nservitude, and it will immediately appear that no less than\n_sixty-thousand_ people annually perish in those wars, which are\nmade only for the purpose of procuring slaves. But that this number,\nwhich we believe to be by no means exaggerated, may be free from all\nobjection, we will include those in the estimate, who die as they are\ntravelling to the ships. Many of these unfortunate people have a journey\nof one thousand miles to perform on foot, and are driven like sheep\nthrough inhospitable woods and deserts, where they frequently die in\ngreat numbers, from fatigue and want. Now if to those, who thus perish\non the _African_ continent, by war and travelling, we subjoin\nthose[114], who afterwards perish on the voyage, and in the seasoning\ntogether, it will appear that, in every yearly attempt to supply the\ncolonies, an _hundred thousand_ must perish, even before _one_\nuseful individual can be obtained.\n\nGracious God! how wicked, how beyond all example impious, must be that\nservitude, which cannot be carried on without the continual murder of so\nmany and innocent persons! What punishment is not to be expected for\nsuch monstrous and unparalleled barbarities! For if the blood of one\nman, unjustly shed, cries with so loud a voice for the divine vengeance,\nhow shall the cries and groans of an _hundred thousand_ men,\n_annually murdered_, ascend the celestial mansions, and bring down\nthat punishment, which such enormities deserve! But do we mention\npunishment? Do we allude to that punishment, which shall be inflicted on\nmen as individuals, in a future life? Do we allude to that awful day,\nwhich shall surely come, when the master shall behold his murdered\nnegroe face to face? When a train of mutilated slaves shall be brought\nagainst him? When he shall stand confounded and abashed? Or, do we\nallude to that punishment, which may be inflicted on them here, as\nmembers of a wicked community? For as a body politick, if its members\nare ever so numerous, may be considered as an whole, acting of itself,\nand by itself, in all affairs in which it is concerned, so it is\naccountable, as such, for its conduct; and as these kinds of polities\nhave only their existence here, so it is only in this world, that, as\nsuch, they can be punished.\n\n\"Now, whether we consider the crime, with respect to the individuals\nimmediately concerned in this most barbarous and cruel traffick, or\nwhether we consider it as patronized[115] and encouraged by the laws of\nthe land, it presents to our view an equal degree of enormity. A crime,\nfounded on a dreadful pre-eminence in wickedness,--a crime, which being\nboth of individuals and the nation, must sometime draw down upon us the\nheaviest judgment of Almighty God, who made of one blood all the sons of\nmen, and who gave to all equally a natural right to liberty; and who,\nruling all the kingdoms of the earth with equal providential justice,\ncannot suffer such deliberate, such monstrous iniquity, to pass long\nunpunished[116].\"\n\nBut alas! he seems already to have interfered on the occasion! The\nviolent[117] and supernatural agitations of all the elements, which, for\na series of years, have prevailed in those European settlements, where\nthe unfortunate _Africans_ are retained in a state of slavery, and\nwhich have brought unspeakable calamities on the inhabitants, and\npublick losses on the states to which they severally belong, are so many\nawful visitations of God for this inhuman violation of his laws. And it\nis not perhaps unworthy of remark, that as the subjects of Great-Britain\nhave two thirds of this impious commerce in their own hands, so they\nhave suffered[118] in the same proportion, or more severely than the\nrest.\n\nHow far these misfortunes may appear to be acts of providence, and to\ncreate an alarm to those who have been accustomed to refer every effect\nto its apparent cause; who have been habituated to stop there, and to\noverlook the finger of God; because it is slightly covered under the\nveil of secondary laws, we will not pretend to determine? but this we\nwill assert with confidence, that the _Europeans_ have richly\ndeserved them all; that the fear of sympathy, which can hardly be\nrestrained on other melancholy occasions, seems to forget to flow at the\nrelation of these; and that we can never, with any shadow of justice,\nwith prosperity to the undertakers of those, whose success must be at\nthe expence of the happiness of millions of their fellow-creatures.\n\nBut this is sufficient. For if liberty is only an adventitious right; if\nmen are by no means superiour to brutes; if every social duty is a\ncurse; if cruelty is highly to be esteemed; if murder is strictly\nhonourable, and Christianity is a lye; then it is evident, that the\n_African_ slavery may be pursued, without either the remorse of\nconscience, or the imputation of a crime. But if the contrary of this is\ntrue, which reason must immediately evince, it is evident that no custom\nestablished among men was ever more impious; since it is contrary to\n_reason, justice, nature, the principles of law and government, the\nwhole doctrine, in short, of natural religion, and the revealed voice of\nGod_.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 111: Epist. to Philemon.]\n\n\n[Footnote 112: The _African_ slave is of this description; and we\ncould wish, in all our arguments on the present subject, to be\nunderstood as having spoken only of _proper slaves_. The slave who\nis condemned to the oar, to the fortifications, and other publick works,\nis in a different predicament. His liberty is not _appropriated_,\nand therefore none of those consequences can be justly drawn, which have\nbeen deduced in the present case.]\n\n\n[Footnote 113: See the description of an African battle (Footnote 049).]\n\n\n[Footnote 114: The lowest computation is 40,000, (Footnote 060).]\n\n\n[Footnote 115: The legislature has squandered away more money in the\nprosecution of the slave trade, within twenty years, than in any other\ntrade whatever, having granted from the year 1750, to the year 1770, the\nsum of 300,000 pounds.]\n\n\n[Footnote 116: Sermon preached before the University of Cambridge, by\nthe Rev. Peter Peckard.]\n\n\n[Footnote 117: The first noted earthquake at Jamaica, happened June the\n7th 1692, when Port Royal was totally sunk. This was succeeded by one in\nthe year 1697, and by another in the year 1722, from which time to the\npresent, these regions of the globe seem to have been severely visited,\nbut particularly during the last six or seven years. See a general\naccount of the calamities, occasioned by the late tremendous hurricanes\nand earthquakes in the West-Indian islands, by Mr. Fowler.]\n\n\n[Footnote 118: The many ships of war belonging to the British navy,\nwhich were lost with all their crews in these dreadful hurricanes, will\nsufficiently prove the fact.]\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\nFINIS.\n\n\n       *        *        *        *        *","title":"An Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, Particularly the African: Translated from a Latin Dissertation, Which Was Honoured with the First Prize in the University of Cambridge, for the Year 1785, with Additions","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":53049}