{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_25277/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_25277","id":"gutenberg_25277","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25277","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Slavery","Slavery -- Justification","Slavery -- United States"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from scans of public domain works at the University\nof Michigan's Making of America collection.)\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's Note: Every effort has been made to replicate this\ntext as faithfully as possible, including obsolete and variant\nspellings and other inconsistencies. Text that has been changed to\ncorrect an obvious error is noted at the end of this ebook.]\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n\n  RIGHT\n\n  OF\n\n  AMERICAN SLAVERY.\n\n  BY\n\n  T. W. HOIT,\n\n  OF THE ST. LOUIS LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION.\n\n  SOUTHERN AND WESTERN EDITION.\n\n\n  FIRST AND SECOND EDITIONS, 500,000 COPIES.\n\n\n  FOR SALE BY THE PRINCIPAL PUBLISHERS THROUGHOUT THE UNION.\n\n\n  ST. LOUIS, MO.:\n  PUBLISHED BY L. BUSHNELL.\n  1860.\n\n\n  Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860,\n\n  By T. W. HOIT,\n\n  In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States\n  in and for the District of Missouri.\n\n\n  BAKER & GODWIN, PRINTERS,\n  Printing-House Square, opposite City Hall,\n  NEW YORK.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.\n\n_My Fellow Countrymen:_--Upon what manner of times have we fallen? Is\nour supposed experiment of self-government about to prove a failure?\nAre we so blind as not to see the abyss into which we are about to\nplunge? Section hostile against section; States arrayed against the\nConstitution; Churches sundered; the springs of intelligence poisoned\nat their source; treason stalking at noonday; insurrection rife; the\nequality of States and citizens denied, and derided; justice rebuked;\ntreachery applauded; traitors canonized; anarchy inaugurated; monarchy\ncalculating the end of republicanism; and the wheels of government\nclogged by the minions of despotism! All this, my Countrymen, and you\npassive, silent, sightless; reckless of your own and your children's\ndoom? And while all this is true, you go about your usual avocations,\nas though the eyes of the civilized world were not upon you; as though\nthe great, the good, the magnanimous of all lands were not breathless,\nand spell-bound, and appalled at the spectacle; as though the\nprophetic admonitions of the Father of our Country were forgotten, and\nnature, with an ominous silence, conspired to lull you into\nforgetfulness, the more to astound you with the wonders and the woes\nof an approaching catastrophe!\n\nWhat fatal error is there in our Republican principle? What virus\nsickens our body politic? What fascination lures us from the shrine of\nfreedom? What infatuation hath seized the American people, that they\nshould put to hazard this priceless inheritance,--the home, and\nrefuge, and hope, of the down-trodden nations?\n\nI aver there is a fatal fallacy adopted by a large number of the\nAmerican people, which, if not rejected, will lead us down to national\noblivion. That fallacy is exposed in the following pages, by showing\nwhat is right, and what is wrong, and explaining the fundamental error\nby which our public opinion is divided, and the way of a reunion\npointed out. No one can desire to remain in error. It is the desire to\ndo right which animates the great mass of the American people. It was,\nperhaps, the _desire_ to do right, that made John Brown a rebel and a\ntraitor, and which consigned him to a traitor's doom. There is no\nsafety, then, in _desiring_ to do right; but to KNOW what is right,\nand to DO it. The time has now arrived when the American people must\ndo right, or suffer the penalty of doing wrong.\n\nGood _intentions_ will not do. Good DEEDS are demanded,--actions\nfounded upon truth and justice, and in accordance with nature's\nirrevocable laws. We boast of our greatness, and power, and\nintelligence. Of what avail are all these, if they will not save us\nfrom national ruin? What boots it that a slumbering giant dreams of\nhis strength while he is falling upon the bosom of a burning lake? The\nmightiest empires have sunk to oblivion. Are we soon to follow them?\n\nOur material greatness and vigor seem to forbid the idea of premature\ndecay; but let us not be blind to the delusive dream of an immortality\nspringing from mental imbecility, nor the chimera of a political\nfinality in governmental system which establishes and tolerates\nINJUSTICE, nor the permanence of a State in the midst of\npreponderating elements of fluctuating popular delusion.\n\nEither the institutions under which we live are founded in truth, or\nthey are founded in error. Our constitution is the work of wisdom, or\nof folly. It is founded in justice, or injustice; in RIGHT, or\n_wrong_. Shall we honor the astuteness of its founders, and\nperpetuate these institutions to remotest ages? or shall we prove\nrecreant to this trust, unworthy of these manifold blessings, and in\nour mental blindness and moral imbecility invoke the scorn of future\nages, and the just execrations of all mankind?\n\nThe _material_ elements of greatness of the Great American Republic,\nmust be vivified and enlivened by a corresponding degree of INTELLECT;\nthey must be permeated by an adequate element of illuminating soul, or\nthey will fall, a lifeless mass, into chaotic ruin. Let us remember\n\n    \"That trade's proud empire hastes to swift decay,\n    As ocean sweeps the labored mote away;\n    Whilst self-dependent power can time defy,\n    As rocks resist the billows and the sky.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE RIGHT OF SLAVERY.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nAFRICAN SLAVERY is, at present, the subject of all-absorbing interest\nto the American mind; for, our people, almost intoxicated with their\nown freedom, seem unsatisfied with those manifold blessings acquired\nby the labors of their sires; and while they are conscious of not\nexcelling them in wisdom, virtue, or valor, they are becoming ideal,\nand seem willing to sacrifice the practical, safe rules of republican\naction, for mere idealisms, born in the dizzy sphere of their own\nover-wrought imaginations. They tremble at the name of Washington,\nwhose purity and moral power shed lustre upon the name of man, and\nthey worship him as a god; but while the REAL WASHINGTON commands the\nhomage of mankind, and stands the intermediate between the race of men\nand the Infinite, we find the imaginations of men ignoring reason, and\nembarked upon a voyage aerial, amid the clouds. There they revel high\nabove the mountain tops of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, where\nthe atmosphere is pure, where the light is clear, and where the\nlightnings play; but, alas for human weakness and frailty! they are\nthere only in imagination, though the splendid illusion is to them a\nreality, and the pleasing dream of ideal beauty, which, by the magic\npower of transmutation, annihilates or obliterates the reason and\nmemory, destroys those distinctions of great and little, right and\nwrong, weakness and power, which nature has arbitrarily made, and the\nexperience of mankind recognized as fundamental; upon which all law is\nbased, and all order and civilization sustained and advanced, for the\nsecurity and elevation of nations and of men.\n\n\nTHE IDEAL AND THE REAL\n\nThis ideal element so predominates, in consequence of over or false\n_culture_; by the reading of a spurious literature, which dwells in\nthe regions of fiction and romance, to the proportionate neglect of\nthe stirring incidents of our time, which actually go to make up true\nhistory--which seem marvellous enough of themselves, without the\nnecessity of invention, or the aid of artificial novelties, except for\nmere embellishment.\n\nIt would seem that the rise and progress of this Republic; the spread\nof our ocean commerce; the building of a thousand cities; the rush of\nthe world to our shores; the peopling of our boundless plains; the\nrapid birth of new States into our Union; the triumph of our arms; our\nrepeated accessions of territory; our maritime and commercial\nsuperiority; our foreign discoveries; our inventions in mechanism; our\ndiscoveries in science; the use of steam, and electricity; our\nstatesmanship, and foreign diplomacy; a thousand miraculous incidents\nof individual enterprise and success; the discovery of gold, of\nsilver, and iron; our internal improvements and meliorations; our\nnational _prestige_; and finally, our greatness and glory as a\nnation,--ought to suffice for any reasonable conception of the\nmarvellous, as they outstrip the more ignoble creations of fancy, and\nabsolutely invade the former domain of fiction and romance. Hence the\nseeming puerility of fiction when contrasted with these more wondrous\nphenomena of fact. The substitution of fiction for fact is, therefore,\nunnecessary and absurd, as it defeats the very purpose intended, by\nits own inferiority. Its chief effect, then, is but to mislead the\nmind.\n\nLet us, then, control the imagination; discard the _ideal_ in\npractical affairs, hold it in its sphere, and adopt the REAL, in order\nthat by the exercise of right reason we may be enabled to consider the\npresent subject as it _is_, and not as it would be when weighed in the\nscale of the ideal; for in this way, and this alone, can we come to\njust conclusions, and our labors result in practical benefit to those\nmost concerned in the premises. In the spirit of truth, of candor, of\nsober reality, let us, therefore, approach the subject of American\nSlavery.\n\n\nTHE NEGRO EVER A SLAVE.\n\nThe Negro has been a slave from time immemorial. This is shown from\nthe earliest Egyptian monuments, paintings, and traditions. Herodotus,\nthe father of Grecian History, tells us of negro slavery in Ancient\nGreece. It existed in Rome also. During the tenth century of the\nChristian era, the Moors, from Barbary, established an extensive\ntraffic in the cities of Nigritia, where they bought large numbers of\nslaves; and the merchants of Seville brought slaves from the western\ncoast of Africa, and established slavery in that city, and in\nAndalusia, long before the time of Columbus.[1] It is also a curious\nfact in history, that Hanno, the great Carthagenian commander and\ndiscoverer, having explored Africa from the Straits of Gibraltar to\nthe bounds of Arabia, brought back to Carthage a cargo of\nourang-outangs, which he supposed to be Negro men and women; _showing\nmore historically his estimate of African character, than his\nfamiliarity with Natural History_. The Negro has ever been a slave;[2]\nand it is to be considered whether his quick and sudden transition\nfrom slavery to freedom, by emancipation, is probable or possible, or\nis sanctioned by the history of human development and progress.\n\n\nTWO PHASES OF SLAVERY.\n\nSlavery has two phases; the moral, which involves the RIGHT, and the\nprudential, which is the expedient. But strictly, the moral is the\nprincipal and controlling view of the subject, and that which has made\nand will continually constitute the criterion of action from which the\nexpediency is deduced, and the anomaly of slavery in our Republic\nunderstood, the paradox of a slaveholding democracy explained, and the\ninstitution of slavery justified with human equality, by justly\ndiscriminating between barbarism and humanity, civilization and\nsavagism, justice and injustice, right and wrong.\n\n\nTHE RIGHT OF SLAVERY.\n\nI assert the right and justice of slavery, and found my arguments on\nthe subject in right alone. If it can be shown to be right, then it is\nexpedient; if wrong, then it cannot be shown to be expedient, and, if\npossible, it ought to be abolished. It is the _idea_ of the _wrong_ of\nslavery which has misled, and is continuing to mislead, the American\nmind.\n\nBy what process of reasoning, then, can slavery be shown to be just? I\nanswer, because RIGHT holds a just and hereditary control over\n_wrong_. I answer, that it is right that barbarism should subserve\ncivilization. I assert that barbarism is _wrong_, and civilization is\nRIGHT; that the former conduces to the misery and the latter to the\nhappiness of mankind. Barbarism--with its pagan idolatries, its\nmonstrous superstitions, its devil-worship, its false religious rites,\nits heathen orgies, its cruelties, its cannibalism--is wrong. Who will\ndeny this? Who are its apologists and advocates? Let them stand forth\nand show the right of barbarism! Let us have a homily on its beauties!\nlet them picture to us the meliorations of cannibalism! Will any one\ndo it? No; it is a self-evident wrong. To attempt, even, to prove it\nwrong, would seem to be a work of supererogation. Barbarism it\nrepugnant to the common sense of the Anglo-Saxon race; a violation of\nthe conscience of civilization. Cannibalism is an almost inconceivable\noutrage against all right, in moral, social, or even superior animal\nexistence. Few animals or even reptiles devour their kind. It is,\ntherefore, an act repugnant to human nature, and in violation of the\namenities even of a nobler animal existence. In a word, it is\nunmitigated wrong, showing its subjects and votaries to be incarnate\ndevils.\n\n\nBARBARISM OF THE AFRICAN RACE.\n\nThe African race is a race of barbarians, and civilization to that\nrace would be an artificial state of existence.[3] The vestiges of\nbarbarism characterize the African, in his normal state. The latent\nprinciple of cannibalism, lurks, in dormant energy, within the very\ncore of his being, and constitutes a prominent characteristic of his\nanimal existence. The economy and order of nature is no less marked in\nthe _carnivorous_ than in the herbivorous mammalia and quadrumana; and\nalthough their physical distinctions are not always so marked as to\nrender apparent, to superficial observation, the uses and functions of\ntheir entire organism, yet science has been a tolerably faithful\ninterpreter of cause and effect, and has not failed to recognize those\norganic qualities, and the structural adaptability of the African\nrace, which qualify it for its mission as the representative of\nbarbaric fury and degradation, and the type, in human form, of that\nchaotic element of self-annihilation, which nature has kindly\nrestricted to the fewest number of the lowest orders of animated\nbeing.[4] The inhabitants of Southern and Central Africa, from whence\nour slaves are drawn, the Feejeean, the Caffrarian, the New-Zealander,\nand the Hottentot, are stamped by nature with the unmistakable\ncharacter of unmitigated barbarism, and absolute antagonism to\ncivilization; and their improvement when brought in contact with\ncivilization is so slow as almost to escape detection. Indeed it is\ndoubtful whether the arts of European and American civilization have\nsucceeded in so fascinating the African race among us as to warrant\nthe expectation of permanency to the colony of Liberia, except from\nthe light reflected by constant and continued emigration; and it is\nbelieved, by many shrewd philanthropists whose efforts have been long\ndevoted to the cause of African colonization, that should emigration\nto the colony cease, the Negroes there would immediately relapse into\ntheir former habits and customs, and ultimately resume their original\ncharacter of cannibals.\n\n\nTHE AFRICAN NOT INTENDED FOR FREEDOM.\n\nNo race will remain slaves which the God of nature intended, or which\nis fit, to be free; and it is the history of the African in this\ncountry, that the more fit to be free the more he is inclined to\nremain a slave. That portion of the African race here which have been\nmost benefited by our civilization, scorn the false philanthropy which\nwould restore them to barbarism, and beg the immunity of perpetual\nthralldom. This is a clear proof that the African is not intended for\nfreedom, and at the same time shows that _instinct_ teaches him, as it\nteaches all our domestic animals, to know the path of safety better\nthan it can be learned in the school of fanaticism, or from the\ndialect of fools.\n\nIt is, therefore, in the philosophical aspect of the subject, in which\nit should be viewed, since philosophy searches down into the deep\nrecesses of nature, and drags to light those hideous deformities of a\nrace of barbarians, whose inherent passions revel in a sphere\ninfinitely beneath the dignity of our domestic animals, and from whose\nfrenzied rage for self-annihilation, enkindled by a morbid desire to\ndevour their kind, the gentler beasts of the forest turn away in\ndisgust, and humanity shrinks back with unmitigated horror!\n\n\nBARBARISM SHOULD SUBSERVE CIVILIZATION.\n\nTo say, then, that it is JUST that barbarism should subserve\ncivilization is a laconical axiom, which decides a plain question of\nright and wrong. The wrong is, that the African is a barbarian, and\ndevours his kind; the right is, that in his service due and rendered\nto civilization, he receives its protection, and is compelled to\nforego the, to him, exquisite pleasure of devouring his kind. It will\nbe observed that this view of the subject justifies, not only the\nperpetuation, but the inception of slavery, and renders emancipation\nabsurd and cruel, and the inception of slavery just; leaving the\ncontinued transfer of barbarians to the midst of civilized\ncommunities, a right, the exercise of which could not involve or\nsacrifice any right of the barbarian, but must depend upon the\nenlightened decision of civilization, as to the reciprocal benefits to\nbe derived therefrom. The conscience of civilization is the tribunal\nat which to try barbarism, as well as every other grade of inferior\nsubjective existence. It stands above and controls all below it. The\nconscience of civilization decides both the right to summon the\nbarbarian, and to hold him subject to its dictates; to weigh the\nbenefits to civilization against the evils resulting from the adoption\nof the element of this super-animal force as an aid to civilization.\nCivilization deciding to take and hold the barbarian, it becomes right\nby the decision of the highest arbiter. The taking of the barbarian,\nand his employment as an adjunct of civilization, being in consequence\nof his moral delinquency, and his consequent mental imbecility, is no\narrogation of right, because it is just; it is no assumption of right,\nbecause the empire of right is universal; it is no violation of right,\nbecause the act in itself is the exercise of the prerogative of right,\nof justice, in civilization, to suppress wrong and compel it to\nsubserve right. In this view emancipation is no less unjust to the\nAfrican than opposed to the law of right. To seize him and drag him\naway to barbarism, against his will, is an act in favor of barbarism\nand in violation of right. It restores to barbarism its victim, and\nrobs the African of his supposed natural prerogative and choice, of\nservice to civilization. The act, of itself, is the abnegation of that\nsame right which it is designed or intended to assert.\n\n\nTHE AFRICAN'S AVERSION TO COLONIZATION.\n\nGo ask the African his opinion of Liberia! Consult him as to the\nchoice of his future home. He looks upon this land as a paradise, and\nupon that with instinctive dread and apprehension. Go ask the very\nslaves of the inventor of Central American Colonization (that devout\napostle of _political philanthropy_, and most zealous advocate of\nemancipation), go ask _his slaves_ their opinion of the merits of\ntheir master's invention, and their faces will kindle with the half\ningenuous blush of conscious degradation, as they denounce his\nproject, as the last device of insolence to degrade and oppress them.\n\n\nIMPRACTICABILITY OF COLONIZATION.\n\nThe impracticability of African colonization[5] had long since become\na foregone conclusion, so far as it could be made applicable to the\npresent or prospective transfer of 4,000,000 of negroes from this\nrepublic to Liberia. A mathematical solution of that problem shows the\ncost of purchase and transportation to be no less a sum than\n$2,400,000,000, or ten times the amount of all the gold and silver\ncoin in the United States. The purchase of these Negroes, alone,\nwould cost $2,000,000,000, or eight times the amount of all our coin;\nand if we add to this the cost of transportation to Central America,\nthe entire cost would not be less than $2,200,000,000. It will be seen\nthat one scheme is as practicable as the other; and the alternative\nremains, of either robbing the people of nearly half the States of the\nUnion of their property, or the Negro must remain a slave. No sane man\nwill say that the purchase of this property is practicable or\npossible. Fancy, if you please, the Negroes bought and paid for; the\nestates of all the people of this country involved in the vain chimera\nof transferring to our Southern States, in remuneration, all the coin\nin Europe and America, and all that will be added thereto in a hundred\nyears to come, and you have a picture not very suggestive of\npracticability or expediency.\n\nBut, even if the citizens of our Southern States should magnanimously\npropose the totally improbable act of voluntary and gratuitous\nmanumission of their slaves, for the purpose of elevating them to\npolitical equality, what would be the effect upon our country? Three\nmillions and a half of Negroes let loose upon our community, in\ncompetition, in the main departments of industry, with free white\nlabor. Or would you, in accordance with the legislation of many of the\nStates, exclude the negro from the Northern, Middle, and Western\nStates, and the Territories, and thus, by confining him to the South,\ngive him political preponderance over the white man in many of the\nStates of the Union? Imagine the pure crystal pillars of this temple\nof freedom turned to ebony; the radiant eyes of Freedom's Goddess\nshocked at the gloomy spectacle of symbolic night, and suffused with\ntears at such a desecration of her shrine!\n\n\nGRADUAL OR PROSPECTIVE EMANCIPATION.\n\nThere is another popular idea of emancipation, which is unjust,\nfallacious, and impossible of application. It is known by the specious\nthough plausible appellation of gradual or prospective emancipation;\nby which it is proposed to destroy, by legislation, the productiveness\nand the value of this species of property, after a limited period, by\ndeclaring the _confiscation of its increase_. This has been tried by\nmistaken philanthropy, or by organized duplicity, with no other effect\nbut to transfer the slaves from State to State, and from the North to\nthe South; but while this process has been going on, the number of\nslaves in the United States has increased more than four-fold,--from\nless than one to more than four millions. This is emancipation with a\nvengeance. In this ratio, prospective or gradual _emancipation_ would\ngive us, in seventy years more, 16,000,000 slaves. It will be seen\nthat this process is not emancipation, but merely transposition, or\nchange of locality. The very name of emancipation, thus applied, is a\nmisnomer.\n\n\nOF PARTIAL LEGISLATION.\n\nBut of the injustice of that partial legislation which would\ndiscriminate against the property of one class of citizens, to destroy\nits value, by proposing the confiscation of its increase, or excluding\nit from the State,--this is oppression. It may be submitted to, but it\nis unjust, partial legislation, and an arbitrary act of tyranny, and\nif persisted in will, some day, lead to war. Besides, it does not\neffect the purpose intended. It does not diminish slavery, but only\nchanges its locality. What would be said if it were attempted to\ninvalidate any other species of property, by the confiscation of its\nincrease, or an attempt to legislate it out of the State? To declare\nby legislation a forfeiture of rents of houses or lands, after a\nspecified period, or the increase of any species of stocks, or other\nproperty? What is this but agrarianism? what but the first blow of the\n_levelers_? And if this is done with impunity, how long before some\nother species of property, in the shape of fancied _superfluous_\nindividual wealth, will also be confiscated? There is no safety in\nestablishing such a precedent.\n\n\nPURPOSES OF BRITISH EMANCIPATION.\n\nEmancipation contemplates the social and political equality of the\nraces. It proposes to mix the pure Anglo-Saxon blood with the dark\nblood of Ethiopia! It proposes the amalgamation of civilization with\nbarbarism. It proposes the debasement and downfall of this Republic,\nand the erection upon its ruins of a mighty military despotism. The\nalienation of that friendly sentiment and brotherly affection which\nexisted among our people in the days of the Revolution, is prophetic\nof this; and unless reason resume her seat, and the convulsed sea of\nAmerican mind, now lashed to fury by blind zealots and European\nemissaries among us, be calmed, and the angry wave of fanaticism be\nstayed, such will most certainly be the sad and startling\nconsummation.\n\n\nOF THE RIGHT TO ENSLAVE THE BARBARIAN.\n\nIt is pretended by certain sophists and visionary theorists, that the\nRIGHT does not exist to enslave the barbarian; that to assert such\nright is fatal to the principle of human equality. To which I answer,\nthat barbarity is not humanity, but its opposite, and the right of the\none to control the other is supported by law, founded upon the\nimmutable principles of justice. The experience of mankind has\ndemonstrated, and the judgment of mankind has decided, that certain\nacts are wrong in themselves; that to kill is an act abhorrent to the\nsoul of man, and as it is also a violation of natural right, the\nmurderer shall die--that in his death an element of chaos and\ndestruction, in him, is annihilated--and the principle or element of\nmurder in the wicked be thereby repressed. Here is an instance wherein\nthe right is asserted, to take, not only the liberty, but the life of\nan individual. Some deny this right, but they do not deny the right to\ndeprive the murderer of his liberty. All will agree that the murderer\nshall, at least, be deprived of his liberty. So with other crimes.\nThere is a tolerable agreement in civilized communities, that for\ncertain crimes men shall be deprived of their natural right to\nfreedom. So, the principle is established, that communities have the\nright to deprive men of their liberties. Laws are established and\nexecuted by this principle. Every State, and almost every small\ncommunity, endorses this principle, and constantly illustrates it by\nthe punishment of offenders against law, who are confined in jails and\nprisons. And it is folly to deny a right founded upon the universal\nusage and experience of mankind. So with nations. Did we not repress\nthe wrong exercised against us by Mexico and Algeria? Did we not even\ndeny the right of maritime isolation to Japan, on the score of cruelty\nor neglected hospitality to our shipwrecked mariners? Suppose she slay\nour ambassador, or our resident minister; would we not still further\nforce upon her, in a summary manner, those well-known rules of law,\nand amenities of civilization, and principles of justice, which are\nproclaimed to be right by the united voice of nations?\n\nWe are considering the subject of the enslavement of the African race\nin this Republic. We are inquiring into the RIGHT of African Slavery.\nWe have asserted the right of slavery, as founded upon the principle\nthat universal right holds a just and hereditary control over wrong;\nand as the African is a race of barbarians, and barbarism is wrong,\nit follows that it is the right of civilization to hold the African\nsubject to those rules of justice which pertain to civilization, and\nto protect him from the injustice, violence, and degradation, which\nare the concomitants of barbarism. To deny this is to deny the\nsuperiority of RIGHT over _wrong_. He who denies this, becomes the\nadvocate of barbarism; for, barbarism being below civilization, he\nasserts its equality with civilization, and thus becomes its apologist\nand advocate.\n\n\nVIOLATION OF NATURAL RIGHT.\n\nSuch an one will claim that involuntary labor performed by the\nAfrican, in behalf of civilization; or the production, by his labor,\nof material or fabrics to hide his nakedness, or adorn the human race,\nor protect them from the cold, degrades the barbarian, because it\nencroaches upon his natural right to go naked and houseless, and\nperish with the cold. He is quite _primitive_ in his ideas of dress,\nand ought to emigrate to a warm climate, like South Africa or South\nAmerica, where the elements of nature do not conspire with\ncivilization to degrade and oppress him. He perceives that our unjust\nand oppressive laws actually punish, as an offense, the exposure to\nview of man's natural external beauties! This is about as far as it is\nsafe to go on the subject of natural right, both from considerations\nof propriety and modesty, and also, as it almost amounts to a\ndigression from the subject immediately under consideration; but we\nare merely following the advocate of emancipation, on the score of\nequality and natural right, just where his principles lead him; and as\nit forcibly suggests the inexpediency of emancipation, and consequent\nbarbarism, on the score of morality and decency, it seems entirely\napposite to the subject.\n\nBut it is claimed by some, that the African slave here has ceased to\nbe a barbarian, which I deny. His nature is not essentially changed;\nhis habits are forced; and he would at once fall, as he has fallen,\nand is falling, in San Domingo, Jamaica, and Canada, but for\ncoercion. It is, therefore, an external power which holds him up, and\nno innate principle within him.\n\n\nTHE DEBT OF THE BARBARIAN.\n\nBut even for argument, admitting the African were civilized, still he\nis not legally entitled to his freedom. Why? Because on account of his\nbarbarism he became the property of another, who has a vested right in\nhim. His transition from barbarism to civilization was at the expense\nof civilization, and he owes a just equivalent therefor. His debt is\nthe difference between barbarism and civilization, and will be\nestimated according as the one in held higher than the other.\n\n\nTHE RIGHT OF THE AFRICAN TO REMAIN A SLAVE.\n\nIf the African is entitled to his freedom, he is also entitled to the\nprivilege of remaining in servitude; a privilege which nine tenths of\nthe Negroes in this country are well known to crave. But we deny his\nright of choice in the premises. His barbarism was the oblivion of his\nright to choose his own proper position; and the absence of inherent\nright in him subjects him at once to the dominion of universal or\nexternal right in civilization. His right of choice, therefore, has no\nreal validity, and should not even be tolerated to denounce the\nheinous wrong of his emancipation, and consequent restoration to\nbarbarism. His right to remain a slave is not his own, but the right\nof civilization; and even his willingness to remain in servitude,\nthough a double evidence of his barbarism and of his appreciation of\nhis partially ameliorated condition as an accessory of civilization,\nis not available in deciding as to his present or future condition;\nbecause the right exercised in his subjection to the rules of\ncivilization is primordial, and sovereign, and all-controlling, as\nUniversal Right, and is in no case subject to the will of barbarism.\n\n\nTHE MELIORATION OF THE AFRICAN.\n\nWith regard to the degradation of the African slave, that is admitted;\nbut at the same time his position as an accessory to civilization is\nfar higher than that wherein he was wholly the subject of barbarism.\nNow, he is dignified to the useful avocations of the civilized race;\nlearns their rudimental arts and customs, and methods of subsistence;\nis subject to, and protected by law; becomes semi-civilized, and in\nrare, individual instances, as a _lusus naturae_, even aspires to the\nnobler prerogatives of mind. The meanest slave that wears the shackle\nor feels the whip of civilization, in the reluctant performance of\ncoerced labor, is a far nobler being than the African barbarian in his\nnative wilds.\n\n\nOF THE DEGRADATION OF LABOR.\n\nLabor degrades no man. Labor is honorable, because the products of\nlabor feed and clothe the world, and thus conduce to the welfare and\nhappiness of mankind. Coerced labor is better than no labor. Coercion\nitself does not necessarily degrade man; rather may it ennoble and\nelevate, when it is exercised to summon the barbarian to the lessons\nof civilization. Coercion degrades not the man whom it compels to do\nright; it only exposes that degradation which is the result of doing\nwrong. The man only is degraded who, voluntarily or by coercion, does\nwrong, or neglects to do right. To talk of the degradation of labor,\nwhether coerced or free, is, therefore, preposterous.\n\n\nHUMAN EQUALITY.\n\nBut the question of emancipation is started and agitated on the ground\nof human _equality_. It is the supposed equality of the African with\nthe white race, that is the pretext for emancipation, and the\nfoundation of the assumed right and expediency of emancipation. It has\nbeen supposed by some, that the enunciation of human equality in the\nAmerican Declaration of Independence was intended for all the races\nof men in the world. Such a supposition is totally unfounded, and\nunwarrantable in the very nature of things. In the first place, it is\nnot true; and in the next place, the writer of that Declaration meant\nno such thing, for he held slaves, and knew their inferiority. What a\nmonstrous act of hypocrisy and folly it would have been in the author\nof that instrument, and his cotemporaries, to declare that all men are\ncreated _free_ when they knew millions are born slaves, or when they\nknew no _equality_ existed, even of right, between the barbarian and\nthe man whose sense of justice and perception of RIGHT secured to him\nthe approbation of Heaven and his own conscience, by a recognition of\nand obedience to the laws of morality, and conformity to the just\nrules of civilization. They wrote that Declaration for white\nmen,--meaning white men,--because it did not and could not apply to\nthe barbarous and savage nations. They saw the world in chains, and\nknew the bondage of mankind to be the result of their violation of\nmoral right, and their incapacity for self-government. They estimated\nrightly when they announced freedom to the white race in these\ncolonies; for, up to this time, the fact of self-government by our\npeople has verified their prophetic annunciation; but the sages who\nfounded this Republic, excluded, by legislation, the African and the\nIndian from this boon of freedom, and they and their descendants have\nheld the African in the condition of servitude.\n\n\nINCAPACITY OF THE MINGLED RACES FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT.\n\nThe question of the enfranchisement of the African, therefore,\ninvolves the question of the capacity of the mingled races for\nself-government; a problem which is already solved in Mexico, in\nJamaica, in San Domingo, and several of the Spanish American States.\nThere, the mixed races have no common bond of union. The predominance\nof one petty State, or military chieftain, is the signal for the\nsemi-barbarous hordes of mingled races to combine for the purpose of\ndestruction. Urged on by the emissaries of that colossal superstition\nwhich casts its shadow over this Republic (whose home is a foreign\nkingdom, and whose head is a foreign prince), the semi-barbarous\nhordes of mingled races in the South American States, are a prey to\nsuccessive bloody revolutions, through that imbecility which is the\nsure result of the amalgamation of civilization with barbarism.\n\n\nWRONG SHOULD SUBSERVE RIGHT.\n\nIn considering the subject of slavery, there is one principle which\nmust not, and cannot be lost sight of, as it underlies all else, and\nis the root from which springs the tree of all knowledge on this\nsubject, as well as all others; to wit: That RIGHT holds a just and\nhereditary control over _wrong_. Not because right is the strongest,\nbut because it is the BEST. It is very common when right asserts its\nprerogative, that we hear the subjects and votaries of _wrong_\ndenounce RIGHT as mere _might_. This is a common foible of vice, to\nconceal its own deformity; a mere subterfuge, which, when pushed to\nthe wall, vice adopts, and meets the executioner of justice with the\naccusation that he is the mere instrument of might; the servile tool\nof arbitrary power. This glozing of vice avails not. Justice stands\nerect in the dignity of its own moral beauty, and commends itself to\nthe intellect and conscience of mankind. All the affections, all the\nwisdom, and all the experience of men, do homage at the shrine of\njustice, as the arbiter of right. This great moral tribunal,\nestablished at the dawn of creation, has existed through all time, and\nstill exists; and at this tribunal we try barbarism, and find it to be\nwrong, because it conduces to the misery and degradation of men. At\nthis tribunal, we find civilization to be right, because it conduces\nto the happiness and welfare of mankind. This being so (and the man\nwho denies it, is a barbarian), it follows, that civilization,\ncarrying with it the preponderating elements of right and justice,\nholds a just and hereditary control over barbarism, which is wrong.\nWhen we assert, therefore, the right of slavery, because it is just\nthat barbarism shall subserve civilization, we only say it is just\nthat wrong should subserve right;--a proposition, which, certainly,\nought to commend itself to the common sense, the intellect, and the\nconscience of every good man.\n\nSome assert that civilization should subserve barbarism; but when\ntried by our rule, they at once see that it is preposterous to assume\nthat right should subserve wrong.\n\n\nFORFEITURE OF NATURAL RIGHT.\n\nSome propose, that the advantages of the great and little, the served\nand the servant, the good and the bad, should be reciprocal; that that\nwhich is used is, or should be, as much advantaged in the using as is\nthe user. I would ask them--what particular advantage it is to the\noyster to be devoured? or what return can the earth make to the sun\nfor his rays, constantly poured upon it? Some assert that every human\nbeing is unqualifiedly endowed by nature with the right of individual\nfreedom. This we deny. We assert that barbarism is not humanity, and\ncannot claim to exercise the prerogative of civilization, which it has\nignored, or which it never knew. We assert that the murderer has\nforfeited that right; and more than this, with the element of murder\ndeveloped in him, originally, he never was entitled to freedom.\nPrisons, and even dungeons, are as necessary and proper as schools and\ncolleges, but not more so than servitude to the barbarian. They are\nall appliances of right and justice and civilization, not to make the\ngood subserve the bad, but to make the bad subserve the good.\n\n\nTAKING THE EXCEPTION FOR THE RULE.\n\nIt will not do for men to pretend that they do not know which is right\nand which is wrong; what is civilization and what is barbarism. The\nexception for the rule is as proper to adopt in the one case as in the\nother. We cannot condemn civilization for the incidents of bad\ngovernment in some cases, false religion in others, and crime in\nothers, when the general tenor of civilization is to protect the weak\nagainst the strong, give security to life and property, and by\ndeveloping the intellect and cultivating the moral faculties, elevate\nand ennoble the race. Neither can we acquit barbarism if it affords\noccasional instances of _immoderate instinct_, closely approximating\nto intellect, or even intellect itself, and moral worth, or the\nabsence of ferocity, or the presence of positive amiability, render it\npossible that the barbarian is not a fiend, or that he may be schooled\nto tolerable docility, while the general tenor of barbarism is to\nwrong, cruelty, violence, and self-annihilation.\n\n\nPASSION; SYMPATHY MISAPPLIED.\n\nNor will it do to ignore reason, and adopt passion when we consider\nthe subject of slavery. Passions have their uses, but how often they\nare perverted! Reason is sometimes perverted too, and never more than\nwhen exercised against truth, justice, and civilization, and in favor\nof barbarism. There is false sympathy, amounting to passion, that is\nblindly lavished upon objects which neither need nor appreciate it. We\noften see it exercised in behalf of the brute animals, whose proper\nnatures are totally unconscious of it; while their gentleness and\nquietness seem to rebuke this shallow, human sentimentality, as\nsomething wandering from its sphere, or as seed wasted upon the sand.\nYour sympathy has its legitimate uses, and it is against the economy\nof nature to misuse it, or bestow it upon natures foreign to its own.\nIf we pity the slave because he is not like ourselves, we shall\nprobably receive his pity, in return, for some weakness or power in\nus, that covers an abyss which he cannot fathom, and from which he\nturns away in terror. He is adapted to his place, and so are we, if we\nare content.\n\n\nPERFECTION OF NATURE'S WORK.\n\nIt has been said, with how much truth let us consider,\n\n    \"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise;\"\n\nthe reverse of which is, \"Where knowledge is bliss, 'tis folly to be\nignorant.\" The first proposition was evidently intended for the Negro,\nand the last for the white man; as intellectual pleasures and\nknowledge are esteemed highest by the latter, and animal pleasures by\nthe former. Happiness is the aim of both; the difference is in the\nmode of attaining it, and the degree of it when attained. The negro is\nperfect in his kind. Sympathy will not make him a white man. Would you\ninterrogate nature on the wisdom of her works? Would you denounce them\nas imperfect? Can you improve upon the architecture of the honey-bee,\nor the method of his distillation? or on nature's processes of\ngermination and vegetation? Your cup of liquid poison is but a mean\nequivalent for his treasured nectar; your hot-house culture yields\nnought for the beauties of Flora, nor the sweetness of her priceless\nperfumes. The spider would not be a butterfly even if you could give\nhim wings. The power to fly would only enable him to spin his web in\nair, and obscure the sunlight. His own way is best, both for him and\nman.\n\n\nTHE NEGRO SATISFIED WITH HIS CONDITION.\n\nReason will bring all things right. We must take things as they ARE,\nnot as fancy would paint them. It is of no use to get exasperated\nbecause the Negro is dark of skin, and because his inferiority and\ndegradation adapt him to the rougher, or rudimental departments and\npursuits of civilization. Pity for him on account of the labor which\nmakes his sleep sweet, and his digestion perfect, is thrown away. He\nknows nothing of the ennui of sloth, nor the misanthropy of idle\ndeclaimers. He has his rude affections, and does not hate wrongs which\nhe does not know nor feel, nor is he shocked at manacles which he\ncannot see, and which hold him from falling into the abyss of\nbarbarism, whence they have lifted him. He loves his condition as a\nslave to civilization, because his instinct tells him it is better\nthan subjection to the usages and wrongs of the condition from whence\nhe has risen. If he is satisfied with his present condition, it is\nfrom an intuitive instinct, teaching him his fitness for it, and\nshows, by the slowness of the transition from barbarism to\ncivilization, how wide and deep is the gulf which divides the one from\nthe other.\n\n\nUNITY OF THE AFRICAN RACES.\n\nI use the term barbarism in contradistinction to civilization, and\nvery respectfully refer to authorities of repute in justification of\nthis use of the word, both to designate the quality of the _thing_,\nand the precise locality of its fittest application; for although\nHerodotus tells us that the Egyptians and Greeks applied the term\n_barbari_ to all who spoke a language different from their own; and\neven the Hindoos used almost the same word to express the quality\nindicated, differing only by the accidental dissimilarity of the\nSanskrit orthography, which makes it _varvvarah_ or _varvvaras_, we\nhave the authority of Professor Wilson, who says it means \"an outcast,\nand in another sense, woolly or curly haired, as the hair of the\nAfrican.\" And for authorities showing the unity of the Negro races,\ndialects, and languages, in Western, Southern, and Central Africa, I\nrefer to the writings of Progart, Ritter, Oldendorf, Marsden,\nBruseiotti, Harves, Grandpre, Vater, Salt, Ludolf, and Oldfield; who,\nfrom other motives than those which have prompted the partial accounts\nof more recent travelers and writers on the subject, have shown\nconclusively, that the degrees of barbarism existing in the tribes\ninhabiting the Western and Southern coasts of Africa, and the\ninterior, are, in fact, mere modifications of that same barbarism,\nproduced by local causes, and mitigated only by the force of nature\nfrom without, rather than by any inherent quality belonging to any\nportion of the Negro race. I speak of language as the connecting chain\nwhich links together the various African tribes, showing, if not their\nidentity, their immediate connection, and holding to the account of\nbarbarism those exceptions to the rule of barbarism which suggest the\npretext for breaking down the barriers which divide barbarism from\ncivilization, and form the basis of all the false philanthropy and\nefforts of political emancipation which are the curse of the age and\ncountry in which we live.\n\nAccording to Pritchard, and others familiar with the subject, the\nslaves exported from Congo, which was long the principal resort of the\nPortuguese traders in black men, have always been regarded by\nslave-dealers and planters as genuine Negroes. If the physical traits\nof the Mapoota tribe, who will, as I suppose, be admitted to be\nundoubtedly of the Kafir race, so fairly represent the Negro\ncharacter, it will be less difficult to admit that the natives of\nMozambique and Congo belong to the same stock. All the inhabitants of\nthe great empire of Congo speak one language, though it is divided\ninto a number of dialects, including the dialect of Loango in the\n_north_, that of Congo in the south, and _Banda_, or idiom of\nCassanga, in the interior, forming, collectively, one nearly allied\nfamily of languages, or, in fact, one language.\n\n\nTRAVELERS IN AFRICA.\n\nSince emancipation contemplates the transfer of the slaves to Africa,\nas the means of mitigating those supposed evils to which they are\nsubjected, having already established by way of derision a _republic_\nthere, I deem it legitimate to make some inquiry into the nature and\ncondition of the inhabitants of Africa, in order to ascertain if such\na change would be expedient or proper, with a view to the amelioration\nof the condition of the slaves. Of course, to do this, we must take\nthe general authorities of history, and not confine ourselves to those\nindividual authorities of recent date, which may be influenced by the\npopular delusion of _Negro equality_, or, for purposes of _gain_ or\nfrom _political motives, have written books to sell, or_ been\n_employed for pay_ to belie the KNOWN TRUTHS OF HISTORY.\n\n\nCANNIBALISM.\n\nWith regard to cannibalism, I demand that the advocates of\nemancipation either adopt it as right and proper, or denounce it, as\nI do, as beneath the dignity of ordinary animal existence, and as the\nmost disgusting prerogative of barbarism. Probably they will adopt it\non the very antique authority of Zeno, Diogenes, Chrysippius, and the\nStoics, who esteemed it perfectly reasonable for men to devour one\nanother; or because, in China (and other countries) it is practiced,\nwhere, according to Herrera, one great market is supplied with human\nflesh alone, for the better sort of people; or because cannibalism was\nuniversal before the days of Orpheus. I almost fear lest the\nemancipationists, by adopting cannibalism as right, with such high\nauthorities and precedents to support their position, may endeavor to\npalliate African cannibalism on the ground that it is not a monopoly,\nand claim exemption from the great verdict of modern civilization\nwhich denounces, as forfeited and condemned, this disgusting and\nleading custom of barbarism. But if the common sense of the\nAnglo-Saxon race did not almost universally denounce this hideous\ncustom, I would bring Sextus Empiricus to show that the first laws\never enacted were to prevent men from devouring each other; and even\nthis may be declared, by our sophistical emancipationists, to be one\nof the first violations of _natural right_. If the right of\ncannibalism is claimed, then will nature assert its wrong, and\nvindicate civilization. But if cannibalism is rejected by the\nemancipationists, then let us see to what dangers and degradation he\nwould expose the now happy and contented slave.\n\n\nCANNIBALISM IN AFRICA.\n\nIn the \"UNIVERSAL VOCABULARY,\" which is compiled from the very highest\nauthority (p. 218), we learn that the Jagas, of the kingdom of Congo,\n\"take pleasure in _eating young women_!\" And \"a princess was so fond\nof her gallants, that she _ate them successively_!\" \"Their choicest\nfood is _warm human blood_!\" \"The Jaga chieftain, Cassangi, used to\nhave _a young woman killed every day for his table_!\" \"Five or six\nstrong men will at once destroy and share the flesh of a captive.\"\n\"The women are equally as ferocious as the men, _delighting to\ncleave the skull, and suck the warm brain of the slain_!\" This is\nsolemn history, though almost horribly incredible.\n\nFrom the same authority, and others, we learn that seven-eighths of\nAfrica is at present either savage or barbarous. This is _the present\ncondition of Africa_, by nearly the unanimous voice of enlightened\ntravelers, and scientific explorers.\n\nAccording to Pritchard, \"the Mumbas, a numerous and savage people who\nlive at the east and northeast of Te-te, and at Chicorango, are\ncannibals.\"\n\nDos Sanctas says, \"They have in their principal town a\nslaughter-house, where they butcher men every day.\"\n\nWe learn from Pritchard, that \"the Zimbas, or Mazimbas, are a\nman-eating tribe near Senna.\" Also, that \"the Mulua tribe slaughter\nfifteen or twenty men every day.\"\n\nIt is a well-authenticated fact, that the subjects of the Great Macaco\nare anthropophagi, or cannibals. \"This prince has a court so numerous,\nas to require two hundred men to be butchered every day to supply his\ntable; a part of them criminals, and a part slaves furnished in the\nway of tribute.\" It is a part of history, both ancient and modern,\nthat in the market-places in the principal towns and large villages\nthroughout southern, and in portions of central Africa, Negro flesh is\nsold by the pound, as commonly as beef or mutton is sold throughout\nthese United States; and what is worse, it in only the wealthy or more\n_intelligent_ classes who are able to indulge in so great a luxury;\nwhile the poorer classes, the mass of the people, are envious\nspectators of the traffic in this so great a luxury, as to tempt them\nto every violence and crime to enable them to indulge in it.\n\n\nSUPREMACY OF PAGANISM IN AFRICA.\n\nThis is the fate to which emancipation would consign the Negro. These\nare a few of the selected examples of the horrors of barbarism,\nfurnished by historians, scientific travelers, and Christian\nmissionaries, whose testimony, as eye-witnesses, has become history\nduring the last few hundred years. Meanwhile, the light of\ncivilization has blazed upon Africa from three quarters of the globe,\neven as the rays of the sun have enveloped the globe itself.\nMissionaries from Europe and America, from Rome, and London, and New\nYork, have striven with a zeal and fidelity known only to religious\nenthusiasm, incited by mutual emulation, and armed with those terrors\nwhich awe the soul, those allurements which beguile the affections,\nand those fascinations which enkindle hope; but they have striven in\nvain against the colossal power of barbarism; and to-day, those\nheathen orgies which have darkened the annals of the world for four\nthousand years, are as sacred, to paganism in Africa, as are the rites\nand ceremonies of Christianity in London or in Rome.\n\nIs this no evidence of the unfitness of the African for civilization?\nAnd is it just, in the sight of heaven, to force him from his present\nwilling position of service to civilization, and consign him to a fate\nmore terrible than even death itself!\n\n\nTHE AFRICAN RACE ON THIS CONTINENT.\n\nLook at the African race on this continent, in this Republic, in\nCanada, and in the Islands of San Domingo and Jamaica. Compare the\nAfrican in this Republic, under the wholesome regimen of civilization,\nwith his emancipated brethren in the West Indies, or his recusant,\nfugitive brother in the Canadas. Has he not advanced here, and\nretrograded there? Compare his condition in these States, North and\nSouth. Why do the free States enact laws to prohibit the African from\ncoming into them to settle? Is it because he is a civilized man, an\nequal, and a good citizen? Is it not rather, because the Anglo-Saxon\nrace shuns the supposed contamination of barbarism? The wisdom of\nthese prohibitory laws will be seen in the future time; when the idea\nof Negro equality has become exploded and obsolete; after the question\nof emancipation has served its purpose in political combination; but\nalas! not until the fallacy of negro equality has resulted in a\nmongrel race which will have spread itself like the shadow of a cloud\nover some of the fairest portions of freedom's heritage.\n\n\nTHE AFRICAN IS DEEMED A BARBARIAN IN THE NORTHERN STATES.\n\nIt will be seen that the arguments here advanced are predicated, to\nsome extent, upon the fact that the African is a barbarian. That he is\nso in his native wilds, we have shown by high authority. That he is so\nin this country, is obvious, from the fact that in the South he is\nheld a slave, and is satisfied with his condition; and because, as a\nrace, the African in this country, and on this continent, shows not\nthe least capacity for self-control. In the South, the African, in his\nbest estate, is a slave. In the North, laws are wisely enacted to\nprevent him from going there, because of his barbarism, and because\nthat portion of the most advanced race on earth shrinks from contact\nwith it. The fact, then, of his barbarism is sustained, fully,--by his\nnormal condition in Africa; his condition of retrogradation in Jamaica\nand San Domingo, where the experiment of emancipation has proved a\nfailure, where the relapse into barbarism is sure and irrevocable; and\nin this country, where common sense and public opinion and public law,\nboth North and South, hold him in the condition of social, moral, and\nphysical vassalage and servitude, and confine him effectually within\ncertain prescribed limits, or hold him in that marked estimation of\ninferiority which makes him forever conscious of his own degradation.\nI have felt justified, therefore, not by way of opprobrium, nor in the\nspirit of invidious or odious comparison, to name the category in\nwhich he belongs, and then, by fair moral and philosophical argument\nto deduce the justice and right of civilization in holding dominion\nover him.\n\n\nEMANCIPATION IS WRONG.\n\nIt is not our purpose to blame the African for being a barbarian; but\nto insist that emancipation is wrong because it restores him to\nbarbarism, and that slavery is right because it holds him to those\nroles of justice which pertain to civilization, and protects him from\nthe injustice, violence, and degradation which are the concomitants of\nbarbarism. As the slave of civilization, he is raised infinitely above\nhis former condition as the subject of barbarism. He knows this, and\nit satisfied. His instinct teaches him to love his master, because he\nis his protector, and because, mistrusting his own capacity for\nself-government, he knows the necessity for a master; and instances\nare numerous, of slaves, having misjudged their own capacity for\nself-government, having fled from supposed wrongs, they found they\nwere mistaken as to the means of bettering their condition, and\nreturned to voluntary servitude, begging, with tears, to be again\nadmitted to the sacred precincts of the patriarchial care.\n\n\nFITNESS OF THE AFRICAN FOR SLAVERY.\n\nIt is the fitness of things that makes the African a slave. His brawny\nlimbs, seconding and aiding the intellect of the superior race,\nconstitute the left hand and foot of labor. Slavery is the left hand\nof our body politic. Free labor is the right hand. Intellect is the\nhead. All combined, constitute a power which is felt and feared by the\nfoes of this Republic. Hence their endeavor to detach one portion from\nthe other, and thus weaken the whole. To change the position of the\nslave is to interrupt or reverse the order of nature.\n\n    \"What if the foot, ordained the dust to tread,\n    Or hand to toil, aspired to be the head?\n    What if the head, the eye, or ear repined\n    To serve, mere engines of the ruling mind?\n    Just as absurd for any part to claim\n    To be another in this general frame;\n    Just as absurd to mourn the tasks or pains\n    The great directing Mind of All ordains.\"\n\n\nABSURDITY OF NEGRO EQUALITY.\n\nThe truth is, slavery is right, and is proved to be so,\nnotwithstanding all the noisy declamation we hear about human\nequality. The Negro is a barbarian, and barbarism is not humanity but\ninhumanity; hence the unfitness to the case, of such illogical\nreasoning as is adopted by the advocates of Negro equality. Human\nequality, as applied to the Negro, is an idle fantasy, without even\nthe shadow or semblance of plausibility. White men are equals in few\nthings; certainly not in physical nor mental capacity, nor power. The\nequality declared by our Revolutionary Sires was the political\nequality of white men. Let us arise from that lethargy in which we\nhave dreamed of universal equality, and escape the dangers of that\nmoral and intellectual somnambulism in which we have been groping to\nthe verge of social and political destruction.\n\n\nAMERICAN AND EUROPEAN RADICALISM.\n\nThis restless spirit of change, in a portion of our people, this\ncraving for universal equality, by the blind victims of popular\nfanaticism, finds its parallel in the destructive element of European\nradicalism, (that bane of European democracy,) which mistakes freedom\nfor the right of plunder, and Democracy for the right of popular\ndespotism. It is that blind spirit of rage which adapts not the means\nto the end, but overreaches itself, and falls a prey to its own\ncupidity, duplicity, and folly.\n\n\nINEQUALITY OF RACES.\n\nUniversal equality,--the equality of the African with the Caucasian,\nor the savage with the civilized races, is no more possible than to\nblend right with wrong. The inequality exists in nature, as\nindubitably as the varied magnitudes of the stars. And the\ncharacteristics of the various savage races differ as widely as their\nvaried physiognomy. There is no equality among them, mental or\nphysical,--not even equality of degradation. The gigantic Patagonian,\nand the dwarfish Laplander; the wild Feejeeian, and docile Guinea\nNegro; the stolid Indian, and ant-like plodder of teeming India,--are\nbut the outward symbols of that contrariety of moral, or rather\nimmoral existence which is the fate of barbarism. They have no\nequality of beauty nor ugliness, leanness nor obesity, vice nor\nvirtue, but varying differences, such as the spontaneous growth of\nuncultured nature in different climes exhibits in the vegetable and\nlower orders of the animal creation. What a contrast is this to\nthat trained, drilled conformation to the order and proper\nconventionalities of civilized life, which our free schools, free\npress, social rites, laws, and customs impose.\n\n\nQUIBBLE OF THE SOPHIST.--TAKING THE EXCEPTION FOR THE RULE.\n\nAnd here comes the quibble of the sophist, who singles out instances\nof law violated in civilized communities, and holds them up as the\ncriterion by which to judge civilization, and triumphantly exclaims,\nLo! the fruits of civilization--of that civilization which arrogates\nto itself the right to enslave mankind! But this is merely a bare\nperversion of truth. He deceives no one so much as himself, when he\nimagines the world will take the _exception_ for the RULE of\ncivilization, or make it the pretext to sustain barbarism.\n\n\nTHE SUPREMACY OF MIND OVER MATTER.\n\nIt is safe to assert that right holds a just and hereditary control\nover wrong. _Veritas vincit._ Justice and truth go hand in hand.\nBarbarism must bow before the genius of civilization. And what is not\nfound in international law, nor suppressed by it, nor dictated by the\ncommercial rivalries of nations, nor the zealous diplomacy of kings,\nwill yet continue as it ever has, to recognize the power of mind over\nmatter, of reason over passion, of intellect over animal existence;\nand the dominion and supremacy of written constitutions over citizens,\ncommunities, States, and empires. The right of government in civilized\nStates more than suggests the right and supremacy of civilization over\nbarbarism. But the right of mind over matter, of intellect over mere\nanimal life, of reason over passion, is asserted upon the broadest\nprinciples of philosophy in nature. The Infinite Spirit, unseen, moves\nthe visible material creation as the creature of his will.\n\n    He framed the universe, and instant twirled\n    Upon its orbit, this terrestrial world;\n    Bid chaos flee, and called the glittering train\n    Of constellations to the ethereal plain;\n    He built the fabric of creation fair;\n    Lit every sun that shines in glory there;\n    Strewed with his hand, to deck heaven's argent fields,\n    Each starry atom that refraction yields;\n    And holds in order, as it moves along,\n    Each seraph bright, of the celestial throng!\n\n\nSHALL BARBARISM CONTROL CIVILIZATION?\n\nBehold the order of heaven! Does any passion bear sway there? The\nponderous globes obey the mandate of spiritual superiority; and shall\nthe order of nature be reversed here, and the animal species lord it\nover men? Shall barbarism again come on the track of civilization,\nwith fire and sword, and ruthless annihilation? Shall civilization\ninvoke the demon of destruction to its own downfall? Shall the frenzy\nand rage of visionary enthusiasts, _or the dark schemes of the\nemissaries of despotism in this Republic_, lay in ruins this fair\ntemple of freedom, the home, and refuge, and hope of the down-trodden\nnations?\n\n\nTHE RAGE OF PASSION.\n\nWhat are these dreams of sophists, these vagaries of imagination, this\nrage of passion, this perversion of reason, and high-sounding\ndeclamation, confounding right with wrong, civilization with\nbarbarism, but the paraphernalia of despotism arrayed against the\nliberties of mankind? Emancipation is all a delusion, a foible,\na fantasy, an idle dream! The soul and intellect of man is\nheaven-derived, and knows its order and beauty, and will hold in\nabeyance these elements of chaos. The barbarian is indeed dark of\nskin, and the radiance of a million constellations in a thousand ages\nwill not change him, nor the light of civilization fade to moral\nbrightness his gloomy mind!\n\n\nEMANCIPATION OF THE WHITE RACES.\n\nIt will be observed that my argument on the subject of slavery is new,\nand is drawn from the actual nature of the case. I offer no antique\nauthority to sustain the RIGHT of slavery. The history of the African\nrace for four thousand years is sufficient, which is, that in no\ncountry nor condition has that race shown the capacity for or enjoyed\nself-government. And, indeed, self-government with the superior white\nraces is still deemed but an experiment. The great mass of the white\nraces ever have been, and still are, governed by the strong hand of\ndespotism, or by the more plausible, but ofttimes not less diabolical\npower of constitutional sovereignties, or hereditary or revolutionary\noligarchies. It is not, then, so great a disparagement to the African\nthat he is unfit for freedom, when nine-tenths of the foremost of the\nwhite races, show not the capacity to enjoy it. Certainly, the African\nis not their superior. Why, then, demand for him more than is allowed\nto the superior white races? If emancipation is to be thought of,\nwould it not be well to emancipate the white races first?\n\n\nTHE ARGUMENT INVULNERABLE.\n\nI have rested my argument on no antique authority to show the right of\nslavery. I have appealed to no religious dogmas to show this right. I\nhave not even availed myself of the whole tenor of sacred history to\njustify it, which has been done heretofore by others, and done in\nvain. I have not labored to produce a voluminous collation of other\nmen's opinions to swell my pages. Sacred history is in the hands of\nall, and its teachings need not my endorsement, recommendation, nor\nreiteration. Indeed, if the right of slavery here asserted is not\nbased upon truth, and if it does not commend itself to the unbiased\njudgment of my countrymen, then I demand that they discard it. I ask\nif the argument here advanced, has been or can be refuted? If it can\nbe, let it be done fairly, openly, and without circumvention. Let it\nbe shown that barbarism ought not to subserve civilization. Let it be\nshown that civilization is wrong, because it does not conduce to the\nwell-being and happiness of mankind; let it be shown that barbarism is\nright because it does this. Let the apologists and advocates of\nbarbarism show its equality with civilization. Let it be denied, and\nthe denial proved, that the laws of universal right and justice hold\ntrue and heaven-derived supremacy over wrong. Let it be shown that the\nslave-owner has no legal right of property in his slaves. Or, if it be\nadmitted that he has such right, let any possible process of\nemancipation be pointed out. Will the violent denunciations of\nfanaticism induce him to free his slaves? Does the divided sentiment\nand feeling evinced in even the division of the churches north and\nsouth, indicate the willingness of the owners to free their slaves? If\nnot, then by what means are they to be set free? Is it to be by\npurchase? and if so, is it proposed to pay the value of the slaves?\nand how? Let it be shown that the purchase and transportation of\n4,000,000 of Negroes to Africa will cost less than $2,400,000,000; or\nto Central America less than $2,200,000,000. Let it be shown to be\nexpedient, practicable, or possible to do this; and even if done, let\nit be shown to be a benefit to the slave or the master; a benefit\neither to civilization or barbarism.\n\nIf none of these things can be shown, and I aver they cannot, then how\nabout the last startling alternative of robbing the slave-owner of his\nproperty? of the freeing of the Negroes by servile insurrection and\ncivil war? What would be the cost in blood and treasure to effect\nthis? and the probable result of _such_ an effort at emancipation, on\nthe freedom and civilization of the world?\n\n\nWHY ENGLAND ABOLISHED THE SLAVE TRADE,--HER DREAD OF OUR GREATNESS AND\nPOWER.\n\nThe truth is, the slave trade was abolished by British and Tory\ninfluence, at about the time of the American Revolution, when slavery,\nas an adjunct of colonial vassalage, could no longer subserve the\ninterests of British commerce. This was their first success in\ncircumventing us. Her complicity in the Cooley trade is an evidence of\nthis. She is willing to morally damn herself for purposes of\nmonarchical intrigue, in order to supplant us. Our agriculture and\ncommerce, and rapidly accumulating wealth and power, and republican\nglory, are too much for her. Our example of success in freedom tempts\nthe loyalty of the most enlightened subjects of the British crown. The\nfascinations of freedom beguile the ardent and noble aspirations of\nthe English democracy, and Britannia, with her antiquated and wrinkled\nvisage, shrinks abashed from the majestic presence of Freedom's\nimmortal and fadeless bloom!\n\nThis is the true cause of the present British Negro philanthropy, and\nthe occasion of her _assumed_ moral turpitude in elevating the heathen\nbarbarian of Africa to the primary plane of civilization, to the\nprotection of its laws, and the meliorations of its moral, political,\nsocial, and religious institutions. It is because monarchy was\nbeginning to be odious in the eyes of the European democracy, when\ncontrasted with our antagonistical system of the divine right of the\npeople. It is her policy and her purpose to render our institutions\nunstable by means of a suborned and venal press, and a band of\nmercenary, hireling, political and religious monarchical conspirators,\nparasites and traitors. These her gold can furnish. Her arms having\nrepeatedly failed to subjugate the American democracy, she now has\nrecourse to her diplomacy, her intrigues, and her gold. Twenty\nmillions of money expended in this way in the last twenty years, has\nhad its effect, and to her emissaries, and hireling presses and\nscribblers, we are indebted for a dastardly generation of traitors,\nwho would barter the liberties of their country for the applause of\nfaction, and the complacency of kings.\n\n\nENGLAND'S SELF-IMPOSED ODIUM.\n\nIt is a monstrous absurdity, nay it is an act of egregious hypocrisy,\nfor England now to _assume_ for herself an _hypothetical\nguilt_,--after bringing the African to her American Colonies for\npurposes of _gain_, and after exercising an intolerable tyranny over\nthe white race in those colonies, and even invoking the aid of the\ntomahawk and scalping knife of the American savage in their attempted\nsubjugation,--for the purpose now, when her arms and diplomacy have\nrepeatedly failed, of seeking to overthrow the freedom of a Republic,\nwhich has risen, in despite of her, to such colossal proportions, as,\nin its very existence, to menace the combined monarchies of the world.\nBut we hold these 4,000,000 of barbarians subject to the laws of\ncivilization; and let England remember that we, even now, have the\nmagnanimity to relieve her from the self-imposed odium of doing right!\nWe now tell her monarchists, degenerate sons of illustrious sires,\nthat in their maritime decadence they have also morally retrograded,\nfor they now seek to restore these Africans to barbarism!\n\n\nSLAVERY IS AN INCIDENT OF CIVILIZATION.\n\nLet it not be claimed, even as a sophistical subterfuge, that the\n_motive_ which brought the African here was mercenary, and that,\ntherefore, his coming here was not justifiable. Commerce is the\nhandmaid of civilization, and if his coming was only incidentally\nright, yet that incident belongs to civilization, which is amenable to\nthe moral code, and is also to be commended, with all its incidental,\nas well as more matured blessings. The institutions of civilization\nrescued these 4,000,000 of barbarians from the dangers, degradation,\nand miseries of barbarism, and by causing them to subserve\ncivilization, compelled them to do right. The English and American\nfalse philanthropists, monarchical emissaries, ecclesiastical\nparasites, and pseudo-republican traitors now demand that these\nAfricans shall be restored to barbarism, not because it is practicable\nor possible, or right, but because the proposition involves the\nequality of these States, and consequently the existence of the\nAmerican Union. The success of these conspirators depends upon an\nadequate numerical proportion of knaves and monomaniacs, the\nwell-adjusted mechanism of monarchy for the overthrow of this\nRepublic. Their success would forever settle the long mooted question\nof the capacity of Anglo-Saxon race for self government. Hence the\nlavish employment of British gold to suborn the American press, and\nseduce the American mind from the safe precepts of Washington, whose\nname is, and ever has been, a terror to the British oligarchy.\n\n\nSOLUTION OF THE SUBJECT.\n\nThe only tribunal at which to try human actions, is the tribunal of\njustice. That which is right can stand the test of this tribunal; that\nwhich is wrong will shrink in terror from it. At this tribunal\nAmerican Negro slavery has nothing to fear, because it is founded in\nmoral right. Its advocacy is the advocacy of right, and right alone;\nunless, forsooth, we are to confound right with wrong, and declare\nbarbarism equal with civilization. Of course, our argument is based\nupon the hypothesis that civilization is one thing, and barbarism\nanother. To the mind which is so mentally and morally obtuse as not to\ndiscover the difference between these two conditions, this appeal must\nbe in vain. But to the right-minded man, who is open to conviction of\ntruth, who has the mental freedom to act and think independent of his\nprepossessions and prejudices, who is guided by his intellect, and\nreason, and not by passion nor prejudice, this solution of the slavery\nquestion, though new, must and will be satisfactory, because it is the\nlogical result of a trial of the question at the tribunal of justice\nand of rights, because slavery rescues the African from wrong, and\nsubjects him to the rule of right; because it rescues him from the\nwrongs and miseries of barbarism, and raises him to the _primary_\nelevation of a progressive and ennobling civilization.\n\n\nEQUALITY OF THE STATES AND CITIZENS.\n\nThe equality of the sovereign States which compose the American\nRepublic, and the equality of the citizens, both in the States and the\nTerritories, constitute the true and only bond of union for the\nAmerican people. This equality is the foundation stone upon which our\nwhole social and political superstructure rests. To call this in\nquestion is to menace the very existence of the Union which is founded\nupon it. The sovereignty of the Union, extending over the Territories,\nwhere no other sovereignty exists, is the panoply of protection to all\nthe inhabitants of the Territories. There they are all equal in person\nand property. There they are not sovereign, but subjects under the\nsovereignty of the united confederacy of States, which have no\nindividual superiority and right in the Territories, neither for\nthemselves, nor their citizens. For the inhabitants of such\nTerritories to _assume_ a sovereignty therein, not in accordance with\nthe Constitution of the United States, not in conformity to law, and\nin violation of the equality of the people of the States there\ncongregated, is USURPATION. Nor can the democracy of numbers, nor the\nwill of the majority of inhabitants congregated in such Territories be\ninvoked to decide the rights of the people of the several States\ncongregated in such Territories, either as to persons or property;\nbecause the sovereignty of the Union holds, until superseded by the\nsovereignty of a State constitutionally organized, deriving its\nsovereignty from the supreme authority of the confederated States, by\nwhose assent alone the primordial sovereignty of the Union is so far\nabandoned as to admit the exercise of State sovereignty in such\nTerritories. There would be no propriety nor justice in allowing an\n_hypothetical sovereignty_ to a few thousands of individuals\ncongregated in a large Territory, not one fiftieth part of which they\noccupied; allowing them to establish a rule of exclusion of the\npersons or property of the people of a portion of the States coming to\nsettle in the Territories. Such persons have neither the right to\ndecide for the present, nor the future; because at present they are\nnot sovereign, and certainly they should not be allowed to exercise a\n_usurped_ authority over the millions who shall occupy those\nTerritories in the future. It is a morbid desire to forestall the\nfuture, in its judgment of barbarism, and of its fitness to subserve\ncivilization, that creates the present animosity between the citizens\nof the different sections of the Union, going into the Territories.\nThis is all wrong. The sovereignty of the Union is the present, and\nthe sovereignty of States the future arbiter of the rights of the\npeople in the Territories; all other power is assumed, arbitrary,\ngratuitous, and in violation of legitimate, delegated constitutional\npower.\n\nThe wisdom of the sages who founded the American Union left nothing\nfor experiment to their successors, so far as the absolute equality of\nAmerican citizens is concerned; and there is no safety but in the\nrecognition of that perfect equality which the spirit of our race\ndemands, and which the power of the civilized world will be invoked to\nmaintain.\n\n\nTHE NECESSITY OF OUR ONWARD PROGRESS AS A NATION.\n\nThe intimate commercial relations existing between this Republic and\nthe principal maritime and warlike nations of the globe, mainly by\nmeans of the products of slave labor, constitute a necessity for our\nonward, uninterrupted progress, as the great agricultural and\ncommercial almoner of civilization, and cannot be disturbed, except at\nthe peril of that civilization which they have been so instrumental\nand conspicuous to promote. The proposed annihilation of the hand of\nlabor whose products amount to $250,000,000 per annum, and those\nproducts constituting the articles of prime necessity to civilization,\nis a matter which involves other interests than our own; and however\nwilling monarchists and their minions may be to disrupt our political\nsystem, and destroy this temple of freedom, they will find the genius\nof commerce and the genius of liberty will continue to go hand in hand\nto uphold the principles of right and justice, which demand that\nbarbarism shall subserve civilization.\n\n\nAMERICAN COTTON.\n\nAmerican cotton, the product of slave labor, clothes, to a large\nextent, one-fourth part of the human race; without it the glory of\ncivilization would vanish. It embellishes the denizen of the city, and\nhides the nakedness of barbarism. It is the tablet on which is\ninscribed the history of the present, and rescues from oblivion the\nmouldering records of the past. It is the talisman of thought, and the\nvehicle of those electric currents that blaze athwart the sky of mind,\nwith which intellect binds together, with silver thread, the mind's\ngreat empire, where kings do homage at the shrine of genius, and bow\nin awe, and humble reverence before the majesty of mind. It is the\nmedium through which the internal and external domains of thought are\nblended, and truth made universal, and obvious to the apprehension of\na world!\n\n\nWASHINGTON NOT OPPOSED TO SLAVERY AS WRONG.\n\nIt has been urged, that because Washington regretted the impossibility\nof devising some feasible means of emancipation, that, therefore, he\nwas opposed to slavery, as wrong. The precise opposite was the case.\nHe was too wise to oppose that which he could not overcome. His whole\ncareer was success in overcoming opposition. He might, with us, regret\nthe barbarism of the African and the impracticability of his release\nfrom servitude, on account of his unfitness for freedom; but he never\ncould logically or reasonably oppose, as wrong, that which made the\nAfrican better and happier, and which protects him from the dangers\nand miseries of barbarism, though it placed him in the position to\nlearn only the rudiments of civilization. To assert that Washington\ndeemed slavery a wrong to the slave, is to accuse him of knowingly\ndoing wrong, for he held slaves to the day of his death; and if he\nemancipated them then, it was more with the hope than the reasonable\nexpectation, that even HIS slaves, with all the force of his example\nduring his whole life, had become fitted for freedom, or that they\nwould be benefited by the experiment of their own attempted\nself-control. Washington could not, therefore, consistently oppose\nslavery as a wrong to the slave, nor conscientiously believe it to be\nwrong; because he would not oppose that which he could not overcome,\nand because his whole life was occupied in doing right. It is against\nthe prophetic character of Washington's mission, ever crowned with\nsuccess; against his wisdom, which was most profound; and against his\njudgment, which was unerring,--to presume his hostility to slavery as\nwrong, or his opposition to it in a moral point of view, when he knew,\nas we know, the emancipation of the slaves to be wrong in itself, and\nimpossible, even if right or desirable. It is plain, then, that if\nWashington had any real aversion to Negro slavery, it was not because\nit was wrong so far as any natural right of the slave was involved,\nbut because of his ability to do without slaves; and notwithstanding\nhis fortune was ample, he _held_ his slaves during the whole course of\nhis life; whereas, if he had deemed slavery a wrong to the slaves, he\nwould undoubtedly have granted them their liberty. What right would he\nhave had, as a just man, to bestow his generosity upon the public, by\nrefusing the emoluments of office, justly due him, and unjustly\nappropriating the proceeds or avails of the labor of his slaves, if he\nknew, or believed they were justly entitled to their freedom. If our\nmoral view of slavery is clear, he was _just_, as well as _generous_,\nand wise as well as successful.\n\n\nWASHINGTON REPROACHES THE EMANCIPATIONISTS.\n\nIt is well known how powerful the secret influence of the British and\nTory abolitionists was in this country immediately after the American\nRevolution, as well as before and since that time; and that at about\nthat time, or soon after, the question was seriously entertained of\nabolishing slavery in Virginia by legislation, as was done in other\nStates of the Union; and it was on account of the annoying\nimportunities of these _disinterested philanthropists_ (_?_), and the\napparent inclination of the people of the State of Virginia to\nexperiment in their theories, that Washington expressed his\nwillingness to see slavery abolished by legislative enactment. But in\nwhat characteristic terms of manly reproach did he address the\nEmancipation Society on the subject when he found their principles and\npractices to be that \"_the end justifies the means_.\" He says:\n\n\"_But when slaves, who are happy and contented with their present\nmasters, are tampered with and seduced to leave them; when masters are\ntaken unawares by these practices; when a conduct of this kind begets\ndiscontent on one side, and resentment on the other; and when it\nhappens to fall on a man whose purse will not measure with that of the\nSociety, and he loses his property for want of means to defend it,--it\nis oppression in such a case, *AND NOT HUMANITY IN ANY*, because it\nintroduces more evils than it can cure._\"[6]\n\n\nOUR FATHERS ON THE RIGHT OF SLAVERY.\n\nIt is not to be concealed, however, that some of the sages who framed\nthis Republic, in their zeal for freedom, overlooked the fact of\nAfrican barbarism, or failed to be explicit in their unpremeditated\nenunciations of human freedom. Perhaps, however, they had more\nastuteness than has been supposed by some. Perchance they considered\nbarbarity not humanity, but its opposite, and would have deemed it a\nwork of supererogation to explain that which natural history, the\nhistory of the African ram for four thousand years, and common sense,\nand common observation, had established as a self-evident\nproposition; to wit, that equality was a _political_, and not a\nsocial, nor moral, nor even physical condition; and that, especially,\nneither equality nor freedom were to be construed to be the\nprerogatives nor the right of barbarism. And the Constitution of the\nUnited States, the work of their own hands, sanctions this\nsupposition, by recognizing the existence, and providing for the right\nof Negro slavery, and rescues the Fathers of the Republic from the\nabsurd and opprobrious imputation of advocating Negro equality.\nWhatever opinions they may have expressed under the varying aspects of\nour Revolutionary epoch, the Constitution of these United States was\nthe finality of their arduous toils, heroic achievements, and sublime\nwisdom; and that Constitution, the very sublimation and quintessence\nof a hundred civilizations, exhibiting the onward progress of the\nhuman race, recognizes the Right of Slavery, founded upon the\nimmutable principles of justice.\n\n\nMONARCHICAL SCHEMES TO DESTROY THIS REPUBLIC.\n\nIs it strange, however, that since this Republic is the mighty\nantagonism of monarchy, and since it is invincible in arms, is it\nstrange, that civil dissension, and the appropriate means to produce\nit, should be employed by despotism to subvert this government? What\nelse should they do; What is the interest of monarchy in relation to\nthe existence and onward progress of this Empire of Freedom? What, but\nits subversion, its disseverment, by its own internal antagonism? And\nwhat other means could monarchy and its parasites employ to accomplish\nthis, but precisely the means and agency which have been employed, at\nvast expense, especially for the last twenty-five years, first to\ndivide, and finally to destroy that which no external force, nor\ncombination of external forces could subdue? Is it not already the\nboast of the minions of despotism that they have rendered our\ngovernment insecure? With what jubilation did they catch the tidings\nof our recent rebellion, as the harbinger of their own redemption\nfrom the fate of political decadence and downfall, which our\nall-absorbing greatness was beginning to make so manifest to the\nwilling apprehension of mankind? Their ears were charmed, even at the\nsupposed triumphant voice of barbarism over a civilization as stable\nas the sun, which is immortal in its every individual microcosm, and\nto which they are conscious their own unequal systems of government\nnever can attain.\n\n\nOUR VINDICATION.\n\nNeed we inquire further what is the interest of monarchy? Can we any\nlonger be blind to our own interest? Are we not arraigned at the\ntribunal of civilization, by the helots of despotism? Are we not\naccused of wrong? Are not we, and our sainted and godlike ancestors,\nheld as amenable to moral law for a violation of Right? And shall we\nsubmit in silence to all this clamor: this false and slanderous\naccusation, when all history, all knowledge, all experience, all\nreason, and all nature, are voluble in our defense, and pronounce our\njust and triumphant vindication!\n\nLet us, then, henceforth cultivate and encourage friendship and\ncordial co-operation between the different sections of the Union, and\na patriotic emulation for its continuance; not upon any such visionary\nand deceptive hypothesis as the superiority and predominance of\nsectional partiality, but upon the equable and fundamental principles\nof justice, and of the absolute equality of these sovereign States,\nand the equality of the citizens of a well-compacted and glorious\nconfederacy.\n\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHICAL POSTULATES OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.\n\n1. Right holds a just and heaven-derived supremacy over wrong.\n\n2. Barbarism is wrong. It conduces to the misery and degradation of\nmankind. Africa is barbarous. The African race is a race of\nbarbarians.\n\n3. Civilization is right. It conduces to the elevation and happiness\nof mankind.\n\n4. Civilization carries with it the right of supremacy over barbarism.\n\n5. It is right to summon the barbarian to the lessons of civilization,\nand to teach him its _primary_ lessons; to elevate him to the dignity\nof labor.\n\n6. It is right to HOLD the barbarian subject to the rules of\ncivilization; to protect him by its laws, and rescue him from the\nwrongs and miseries of barbarism. In this way, only, he can be made\nhappier and better. He falls, if unsupported by external power.\n\n7. American Slavery promotes civilization by the production of\nmaterials wherewith to clothe the nakedness of mankind, and the useful\nmedium or knowledge and intelligence, through books, and literature,\nprinted upon materials which are the product of slave labor.\n\n8. It is just that barbarism should subserve civilization; that Wrong\nshould subserve Right.\n\n9. The African is not equal to the white man, but is a barbarian, and\nas such has no political rights.\n\n10. American Slavery is Right.\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nIf, then, it is not right, nor practicable, nor possible, to restore\nthese 4,000,000 of Africans to barbarism, why any longer agitate the\nsubject? Why keep the negro in perpetual dread of change, and the\nowner dubious of the future? Why, by this negro agitation, create\napprehension in the minds of our own people for the stability and\npermanence of this government, and hope in the minds of all the\nmonarchists of the world that this agitation will divide and destroy\nthis last great bulwark of human freedom?\n\nWhy shall we put to hazard that freedom which is already secure? Why\ninvolve in experiments those tangible acquisitions which we have made\nto this priceless inheritance of freedom? Washington is gone, but he\nhas left us his bright example, and his solemn admonitions. Let those\nwho are greater, and wiser, and purer than Washington, impeach him.\nLet those whose precepts or examples excel his, question the\nsuperiority of his virtue and valor. Let those who have done more for\nhuman freedom, denounce him as the enemy of mankind, and erect for\nthemselves a standard of moral action, which shall rise to the\nstupendous height of their own boundless egotism!\n\nBut if it is found to be inexpedient and wrong to agitate the subject\nof slavery, when it is known to be impracticable, impossible, and\nunjust to emancipate the slaves, then let us go on in our career of\ngreatness, with success and tranquility. Let us watch with jealous\ncare the honor of our country, and scorn the aspersions of its\nvilifiers. Let us honor and vindicate our country in its attitude of\njustice, and in its mission of civilization, and mark with the\nimputation of opprobrium every recreant defamer of our government and\nits institutions. Let the emissaries of despotism find some other\nmeans of subduing us than to \"divide and conquer.\" Let the name of\nWashington be revered; let his admonitions be heeded: let his commands\nbe obeyed, and his example followed. Let barbarism still be blessed\nwith the light of civilization; let the glory and dominion of freedom\nbe established, and the citizens of this Republic rest in security and\npeace within their patriarchal bowers!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Leo Africanus says, Book vii., \"The King of Borno sent for the\nmerchants of Barbary, and willed them to bring the great store of\nhorses; for in this country they used to exchange horses for slaves,\nand to give fifteen and sometimes twenty slaves for one horse; and by\nthis means there were abundance of horses brought; howbeit, the\nmerchants were constrained to stay for their slaves till the king\nreturned home with a great number of captives and satisfied his\ncreditors for their horses.\" \"The king maketh invasions but every year\nonce, and that at one set and appointed time of the year.\"--_Geogr.\nHist. of Africa, trans. by Pory, pp. 293, 294, Lon., 1600._\n\n[2] \"From Abyssinia, the caravans carry yearly to Cairo nearly two\nthousand Negroes, those poor creatures having unfortunately been\ncaptured in war. Most of the chiefs and sovereigns in the interior of\nAfrica sell or put to death all their prisoners.\"--_Narrative of a Ten\nYears' Residence at Tripoli, p. 185, London, 1816._\n\n[3] Hegel, the distinguished German philosopher, in his Philosophy of\nHistory, says, pp. 102, 103:\n\nAn English traveler states that when a war is determined on in\nAshantee, solemn ceremonies precede it. Among other things, the bones\nof the king's mother are laved with human blood. As a prelude to the\nwar, the king ordains an onslaught upon his own metropolis, as if to\nexcite the due degree of frenzy.\n\nIn Dahomey, when the king dies, the bonds of society are loosed; in\nhis palace begins indiscriminate havoc and disorganization. All the\nwives of the king (in Dahomey their number is exactly 3,333) are\nmassacred, and through the whole town plunder and carnage run riot.\nThe wives of the king regard their deaths as a necessity; they go\nrichly attired to meet it. The authorities have to hasten to proclaim\nthe new governor, simply to put a stop to massacre.\n\nThe only essential connection that has existed and continued between\nthe Negroes and Europeans is that of slavery. In this the Negroes see\nnothing unbecoming them; and the English, who have done most for\nabolishing the slave trade and slavery, are treated by the Negroes\nthemselves as enemies. For it is a point of first importance with the\nkings to sell their captured enemies, or even their own subjects; and\nviewed in the light of such facts, we may conclude _slavery_ to have\nbeen the occasion of the increase of human feeling among Negroes.\n\nTyranny is regarded as no wrong, and _cannibalism is looked upon as\nquite customary and proper_. Among us, instinct deters from it, if we\ncan speak of instinct at all as appertaining to man. But with the\nNegro this is not the case, and the _devouring of human flesh is\naltogether consistent with the general principles of the African\nrace_; to the sensual Negro, human flesh is but an object of\nsense,--mere flesh. At the death of a king, hundreds are killed and\neaten; prisoners are butchered, and _their flesh is sold in the\nmarkets_. The victor is accustomed to eat the heart of his slain foe.\nWhen magical rites are performed, it frequently happens that the\nsorcerer kills the first that comes in his way, _and divides his body\namong the bystanders_.\n\n[4] Says Herder,--But the peculiar formation of the members of the\nhuman body says more than all these; and this appears to me applicable\nin the African organization. According to various physiological\nobservations, the lips, breasts, and private parts, are proportionate\nto each other; and as nature, agreeably to the simple principle of her\nplastic art, must have conferred on these people, to whom she was\nobliged to deny nobler gifts, an ampler measure of sensual enjoyment,\nthis could not but have appeared to the physiologist. _According to\nthe rules of physiognomy, thick lips are held to indicate a sensual\ndisposition_; as thin lips, displaying a slender, rosy line, are\ndeemed symptoms of chaste and delicate taste; not to mention other\ncircumstances. _What wonder, then, that in a nation for whom the\nsensual appetite is the height of happiness, external marks of it\nshould appear?_ A Negro child is born white; the skin round the nails,\nthe nipples, and private parts, first become colored; and the same\nconsent of parts in the disposition to color is observable in other\nnations. _A hundred children are a trifle to a Negro; and an old man\nwho had not above seventy, lamented his fate with tears._\n\nWith this oleaginous organization to sensual pleasure, the profile and\nwhole frame of the body must alter. _The projection of the mouth would\nrender the nose short and small, the forehead would incline backwards,\nand the face would have at a distance the resemblance of that of an\nape._ Conformably to this would be the position of the neck, the\ntransition to the occiput, and the elastic structure of the whole\nbody, which is formed, even to the nose and skin, for sensual, animal\nenjoyment.--_Herder's Philosophy of the History of Man, pp. 150, 151.\nTranslated by Churchill, London, 1800._\n\n[5] Witness the following extract from the Report of the Committee of\nthe Maryland Legislature in 1860, recommending the discontinuance of\nthe annual appropriation of $5,000 to the Colonization Society for the\npurpose of sending free Negroes back to Africa. It will be seen by\nthis extract, that the expense of transporting Negroes to Africa is\nmuch greater than I have stated, owing, perhaps, to an extravagant use\nor waste of the money by the Colonization Society; for if it costs\n$500,000 to transport 300 Negroes, it would certainly cost\n$6,668,000,000 to send away the 4,000,000 of Negroes in the United\nStates. Add to this the value of the Negroes, to be paid in\nremuneration to the owners for their property, $2,000,000,000, and the\ntotal cost of purchase and transportation, based upon the experience\nand the statistics of the State of Maryland, would be $8,668,000,000!\nor more than forty times the amount of all the gold and silver in the\nUnited States! It will be seen that my own is a low estimate compared\nwith this, and either of those estimates shows the utter futility of\nthe advocacy of emancipation. That Report says:--\n\n\"The passage of the act of 1831, ch. 281, was framed with the design\nof removing our free Negroes beyond the limits of this State. But\nexperience has shown that they will not willingly leave us. That act\nhas been in operation for twenty-seven years, at an expense to the\nState of about $280,000, raised by taxation upon our citizen\npopulation. It is safe to say that $75,000 more has been cleared by\nthe profits in trade to the coast of Africa in that time; and that\n$145,000 has probably been bestowed by voluntary contribution for the\nsame object--making in all the sum of $500,000. And yet, with all this\nvast outlay of money, not over _three hundred free Negroes_ have been\nremoved. Slaves to a larger number have been set free and sent to\nAfrica. During the last year not one single free Negro was sent to\nAfrica from this State. When this law went into effect, we had 52,000\nfree Negroes in the State; and after a trial of twenty-seven years, we\nnow have 90,000 or 100,000. The inefficiency of this enterprise being\nso obvious to every one of the least reflection, your committee\npropose the repeal of all laws taxing the people for colonization\npurposes.\"\n\n[6] Scroeder's Max. of Washington, p. 256.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Transcriber's Notes:\n\nEvery effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as\npossible, including obsolete and variant spellings and other\ninconsistencies.\n\nThe transcriber noted the following issues and made changes as\nindicated to the text to correct obvious errors:\n\n  1. p. 14, \"sieze\" changed to \"seize\"\n  2. p. 30, \"Iagas\" changed to \"Jagas\"\n  3. p. 30, \"Iaga\" changed to \"Jaga\"\n  4. p. 31, \"Macoco\" partially illegible, changed to \"Macaco\"\n  5. p. 41, \"retrogaded\" changed to \"retrograded\"\n  6. p. 42, \"psuedo-\" changed to \"pseudo-\"\n  7. p. 51, \"opprobium\" changed to \"opprobrium\"\n  8. various, The source document for this ebook contains several\n              handwritten changes. They have not been incorporated\n              into this ebook, except as noted above.\n  9. various, text in bold is marked as *BOLD*.\n\nEnd of Transcriber's Notes]","title":"The Right of American Slavery","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":16278}