Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments Part 51

[248] Johnson on Change of Air.

[249] Eight days in the Abruzzi.--_Blackwood's Magazine_, November, 1835.

[250] I do not use the word democracy in the Athenian sense, but to describe the government in which the slave and his master have an equal voice in public affairs.

[251] Example of St. Domingo.

[252] Effects in Mexico and South American republics among the mongrel races. See Prof. Christy's Ethiopia.

[253] On the abolition of slavery, Mr. Adams observed: "It is the only part of European democracy which will find no favor in the United States. It may aggravate the condition of slaves in the South, but the result of the Missouri question, and the att.i.tude of parties, have silenced most of the declaimers on the subject. This state of things is not to continue forever. It is possible that the danger of the abolition doctrines, when brought home to Southern statesmen, may teach them the value of the Union, as the only means which can maintain their system of slavery."--Life of J. Q. Adams, page 177.--_Editor._

[254] Invariably true.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

SLAVERY

IN THE LIGHT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.

BY

J. H. HAMMOND,

OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

SLAVERY

IN

THE LIGHT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.

LETTER I.

Statement of the Question--Slave Trade increased by the efforts made to suppress it--t.i.tle to Slaves, to Lands--Abstract Ideas--Is Slavery Sin?--Argument from the Old Testament--Argument from the New Testament--The "Higher Law"--Political Influence of Slavery--Free Labor Police--In war, Slavery is Strength--Code of Honor--Mercantile Credit--Religion and Education--Licentiousness and Purity--Economy of Slave Labor, and of Free Labor--Responsibility of Power--Kindness and Cruelty--Curtailment of Privileges--Punishment of Slaves, children and soldiers--Police of Slavery--Condition of Slaves--Condition of Free Laborers in England--Slavery a necessary condition of human Society--Moral Suasion of the Abolitionists--Coolie Labor--Results of Emanc.i.p.ation in the West Indies--Revival of the Slave Trade by Emanc.i.p.ationists--Results of Emanc.i.p.ation in the United States--Radicalism of the present Age.

SILVER BLUFF, (SO. CA.,) JANUARY 28, 1845.

SIR: I received, a short time ago, a letter from the Rev. Willoughby M.

d.i.c.kinson, dated at your residence, "Playford Hall, near Ipswich, 26th November, 1844," in which was inclosed a copy of your Circular Letter, addressed to professing Christians in our Northern States, having no concern with slavery, and to others there. I presume that Mr.

d.i.c.kinson's letter was written with your knowledge, and the doc.u.ment inclosed with your consent and approbation. I therefore feel that there is no impropriety in my addressing my reply directly to yourself, especially as there is nothing in Mr. d.i.c.kinson's communication requiring serious notice. Having abundant leisure, it will be a recreation to devote a portion of it to an examination and free discussion of the question of slavery as it exists in our Southern States: and since you have thrown down the gauntlet to me, I do not hesitate to take it up.

Familiar as you have been with the discussions of this subject in all its aspects, and under all the excitements it has occasioned for sixty years past, I may not be able to present much that will be new to you.

Nor ought I to indulge the hope of materially affecting the opinions you have so long cherished, and so zealously promulgated. Still, time and experience have developed facts, constantly furnishing fresh tests to opinions formed sixty years since, and continually placing this great question in points of view, which could scarcely occur to the most consummate intellect even a quarter of a century ago: and which may not have occurred yet to those whose previous convictions, prejudices, and habits of thought, have thoroughly and permanently biased them to one fixed way of looking at the matter: while there are peculiarities in the operation of every social system, and special local as well as moral causes materially affecting it, which no one, placed at the distance you are from us, can fully comprehend or properly appreciate. Besides, it may be possibly, a novelty to you to encounter one who conscientiously believes the domestic slavery of these States to be not only an inexorable necessity for the present, but a moral and humane inst.i.tution, productive of the greatest political and social advantages, and who is disposed, as I am, to defend it on these grounds.

I do not propose, however, to defend the African slave trade. That is no longer a question. Doubtless great evils arise from it as it has been, and is now conducted: unnecessary wars and cruel kidnapping in Africa: the most shocking barbarities in the middle pa.s.sage: and perhaps a less humane system of slavery in countries continually supplied with fresh laborers at a cheap rate. The evils of it, however, it may be fairly presumed, are greatly exaggerated. And if I might judge of the truth of transactions stated as occurring in this trade, by that of those reported as transpiring among us, I should not hesitate to say, that a large proportion of the stories in circulation are unfounded, and most of the remainder highly colored.

On the pa.s.sage of the Act of Parliament prohibiting this trade to British subjects rests, what you esteem, the glory of your life. It required twenty years of arduous agitation, and the intervening extraordinary political events, to convince your countrymen, and among the rest your pious king, of the expediency of the measure: and it is but just to say, that no one individual rendered more esessential service to the cause than you did. In reflecting on the subject, you can not but often ask yourself: What, after all, has been accomplished; how much human suffering has been averted; how many human beings have been rescued from transatlantic slavery? And on the answers you can give these questions, must in a great measure, I presume, depend the happiness of your life. In framing them, how frequently must you be reminded of the remark of Mr. Grosvenor, in one of the early debates upon the subject, which I believe you have yourself recorded, "that he had twenty objections to the abolition of the slave trade: the first was, _that it was impossible_--the rest he need not give." Can you say to yourself, or to the world, that this _first_ objection of Mr.

Grosvenor has been yet confuted? It was estimated at the commencement of your agitation in 1787, that forty-five thousand Africans were annually transported to America and the West Indies. And the mortality of the middle pa.s.sage, computed by some at five, is now admitted not to have exceeded nine per cent. Notwithstanding your Act of Parliament, the previous abolition by the United States, and that all the powers in the world have subsequently prohibited this trade--some of the greatest of them declaring it piracy, and covering the African seas with armed vessels to prevent it--Sir Thomas Fowel Buxton, a coadjutor of yours, declared in 1840, that the number of Africans now annually sold into slavery beyond the sea, amounts, at the very least, to one hundred and fifty thousand souls; while the mortality of the middle pa.s.sage has increased, in consequence of the measures taken to suppress the trade, to twenty-five or thirty per cent. And of the one hundred and fifty thousand slaves who have been captured and liberated by British men-of-war, since the pa.s.sage of your Act, Judge Jay, an American abolitionist, a.s.serts that one hundred thousand, or two-thirds, have perished between their capture and liberation. Does it not really seem that Mr. Grosvenor was a prophet? That though nearly all the "impossibilities" of 1787 have vanished, and become as familiar _facts_,as our household customs, under the magic influence of steam, cotton, and universal peace, yet this wonderful prophecy still stands, defying time and the energy and genius of mankind.

Thousands of valuable lives, and fifty millions of pounds sterling, have been thrown away by your government in fruitless attempts to overturn it. I hope you have not lived too long for your own happiness, though you have been spared to see that in spite of all your toils and those of your fellow laborers, and the accomplishment of all that human agency could do, the African slave trade has increased three-fold under your own eyes--more rapidly, perhaps, than any other ancient branch of commerce--and that your efforts to suppress it, have affected _nothing more_ than a three-fold increase of its horrors. There is a G.o.d who rules this world--all-powerful--far-seeing: He does not permit his creatures to foil his designs. It is he who, for his all-wise, though to us often inscrutable purposes, throws "impossibilities" in the way of our fondest hopes and most strenuous exertions. Can you doubt this?

Experience having settled the point, that this trade _can not be abolished by the use of force_, and that blockading squadrons serve only to make it more profitable and more cruel, I am surprised that the attempt is persisted in, unless it serves as a cloak to other purposes.

It would be far better than it now is, for the African, if the trade was free from all restrictions, and left to the mitigation and decay which time and compet.i.tion would surely bring about. If kidnapping, both secretly, and by war made for the purpose, could be by any means prevented in Africa, the next greatest blessing you could bestow upon that country would be to transport its actual slaves in comfortable vessels across the Atlantic. Though they might be perpetual bondsmen, still they would emerge from darkness into light--from barbarism into civilization--from idolatry to Christianity--in short from death to life.

But let us leave the African slave trade, which has so signally defeated the _philanthropy_ of the world, and turn to American slavery, to which you have now directed your attention, and against which a crusade has been preached as enthusiastic and ferocious as that of Peter the Hermit--destined, I believe, to be about as successful. And here let me say, there is a vast difference between the two, though you may not acknowledge it. The wisdom of ages has concurred in the justice and expediency of establishing rights by prescriptive use, however tortuous in their origin they may have been. You would deem a man insane, whose keen sense of equity would lead him to denounce your right to the lands you hold, and which perhaps you inherited from a long line of ancestry, because your t.i.tle was derived from a Saxon or Norman conqueror, and your lands were originally wrested by violence from the vanquished Britons. And so would the New England abolitionists regard any one who would insist that he should restore his farm to the descendants of the slaughtered red men, to whom G.o.d had as clearly given it as he gave life and freedom to the kidnapped African. That time does not consecrate wrong, is a fallacy which all history exposes; and which the best and wisest men of all ages and professions of religious faith have practically denied. The means, therefore, whatever they may have been, by which the African race now in this country have been reduced to slavery, cannot affect us, since they are our property, as your land is yours, by inheritance or purchase and prescriptive right. You will say that man cannot hold _property in man_. The answer is, that he can and _actually does_ hold property in his fellow all the world over, in a variety of forms, and _has always done so_. I will show presently his authority for doing it.

If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract, I should probably answer, that I am not, according to my understanding of the question. I do not like to deal in abstractions. It seldom leads to any useful ends. There are few universal truths. I do not now remember any single moral truth universally acknowledged. We have no a.s.surance that it is given to our finite understanding to comprehend abstract moral truth. Apart from revelation and the inspired writings, what ideas should we have even of G.o.d, salvation, and immortality? Let the heathen answer. Justice itself is impalpable as an abstraction, and abstract liberty the merest phantasy that ever amused the imagination. This world was made for man, and man for the world as it is. We ourselves, our relations with one another and with all matter, are real, not ideal. I might say that I am no more in favor of slavery in the abstract, than I am of poverty, disease, deformity, idiocy, or any other inequality in the condition of the human family; that I love perfection, and think I should enjoy a millennium such as G.o.d has promised. But what would it amount to? A pledge that I would join you to set about eradicating those apparently inevitable evils of our nature, in equalizing the condition of all mankind, consummating the perfection of our race, and introducing the millennium? By no means. To effect these things, belongs exclusively to a higher power. And it would be well for us to leave the Almighty to perfect his own works and fulfill his own covenants. Especially, as the history of the past shows how entirely futile all human efforts have proved, when made for the purpose of aiding him in carrying out even his revealed designs, and how invariably he has accomplished them by unconscious instruments, and in the face of human expectation. Nay more, that every attempt which has been made by fallible man to extort from the world obedience to his "abstract" notions of right and wrong, has been invariably attended with calamities dire, and extended just in proportion to the breadth and vigor of the movement. On slavery in the abstract, then, it would not be amiss to have as little as possible to say. Let us contemplate it as it is. And thus contemplating it, the first question we have to ask ourselves is, whether it is contrary to the will of G.o.d, as revealed to us in his Holy Scriptures--the only certain means given us to ascertain his will. If it is, then slavery is a sin. And I admit at once that every man is bound to set his face against it, and to emanc.i.p.ate his slaves, should he hold any.

Let us open these Holy Scriptures. In the twentieth chapter of Exodus, seventeenth verse, I find the following words: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his a.s.s, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's"--which is the tenth of those commandments that declare the essential principles of the great moral law delivered to Moses by G.o.d himself. Now, discarding all technical and verbal quibbling as wholly unworthy to be used in interpreting the word of G.o.d, what is the plain meaning, undoubted intent, and true spirit of this commandment? Does it not emphatically and explicitly forbid you to disturb your neighbor in the enjoyment of his property; and more especially of that which is here specifically mentioned as being lawfully, and by this commandment made sacredly his? Prominent in the catalogue stands his "man-servant and his maid-servant," who are thus distinctly _consecrated as his property_, and guaranteed to him for his exclusive benefit, in the most solemn manner. You attempt to avert the otherwise irresistible conclusion, that slavery was thus ordained by G.o.d, by declaring that the word "slave" is not used here, and is not to be found in the Bible, And I have seen many learned dissertations on this point from abolition pens. It is well known that both the Hebrew and Greek words translated "servant" in the Scriptures, means also, and most usually, "slave." The use of the one word, instead of the other, was a mere matter of taste with the translators of the Bible, as it has been with all the commentators and religions writers, the latter of whom have, I believe, for the most part, adopted the term "slave," or used both terms indiscriminately. If, then, these Hebrew and Greek words include the idea of both systems of servitude, the conditional and unconditional, they should, as the major includes the minor proposition, be always translated "slaves," unless the sense of the whole text forbids it. The real question, then is, what idea is intended to be conveyed by the words used in the commandment quoted? And it is clear to my mind, that as no limitation is affixed to them, and the express intention was to secure to mankind the peaceful enjoyment of every species of property, that the terms "men-servants and maid-servants"

include all cla.s.ses of servants, and establish a lawful, exclusive, and indefeasible interest equally in the "Hebrew brother who shall go out in the seventh year," and "the yearly hired servant," and "those purchased from the heathen round about," who were to be "bond-men forever," _as the property of their fellow-man_.

You cannot deny that there were among the Hebrews "bond-men forever."

You cannot deny that G.o.d especially authorized his chosen people to purchase "bond-men forever" from the heathen, as recorded in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus, and that they are there designated by the very Hebrew word used in the tenth commandment. Nor can you deny that a "BOND-MAN FOREVER" is a "SLAVE;" yet you endeavor to hang an argument of immortal consequence upon the wretched subterfuge, that the precise word "slave" is not to be found in the _translation_ of the Bible. As if the translators were canonical expounders of the Holy Scriptures, and _their words_, not _G.o.d's meaning_, must be regarded as his revelation.

It is vain to look to Christ or any of his apostles to justify such blasphemous perversions of the word of G.o.d. Although slavery in its most revolting form was everywhere visible around them, no visionary notions of piety or philanthropy ever tempted them to gainsay the LAW, even to mitigate the cruel severity of the existing system. On the contrary, regarding slavery as an _established_, as well as _inevitable condition of human society_, they never hinted at such a thing as its termination on earth, any more than that "the poor may cease out of the land,"

which G.o.d affirms to Moses shall never be: and they exhort "all servants under the yoke" to "count their masters as worthy of all honor:" "to obey them in all things according to the flesh; not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing G.o.d;" "not only the good and gentle, but also the froward:" "for what glory is it if when ye are buffeted for your faults ye shall take it patiently? but if when ye do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently, this is acceptable to G.o.d." St. Paul actually apprehended a run-away slave, and sent him to his master! Instead of deriving from the gospel any sanction for the work you have undertaken, it would be difficult to imagine sentiments and conduct more strikingly in contrast, than those of the apostles and the abolitionists.

It is impossible, therefore, to suppose that slavery is contrary to the will of G.o.d. It is equally absurd to say that American slavery differs in form or principle from that of the chosen people. _We accept the Bible terms as the definition of our slavery, and its precepts as the guide of our conduct._ We desire nothing more. Even the right to "buffet," which is esteemed so shocking, finds its express license in the gospel. 1 Peter ii. 20. Nay, what is more, G.o.d directs the Hebrews to "bore holes in the ears of their brothers" to _mark_ them, when under certain circ.u.mstances they become _perpetual slaves_. Exodus xxi. 6.

I think, then, I may safely conclude, and I firmly believe, that American slavery is not only not a sin, but especially commanded by G.o.d through Moses, and approved by Christ through his apostles. And here I might close its defense; for what G.o.d ordains, and Christ sanctifies, should surely command the respect and toleration of man. But I fear there has grown up in our time a transcendental religion, which is throwing even transcendental philosophy into the shade--a religion too pure and elevated for the Bible; which seeks to erect among men a higher standard of morals than the Almighty has revealed, or our Saviour preached; and which is probably destined to do more to impede the extension of G.o.d's kingdom on earth than all the infidels who have ever lived. Error is error. It is as dangerous to deviate to the right hand as to the left. And when men, professing to be holy men, and who are by numbers so regarded, declare those things to be sinful which our Creator has expressly authorized and inst.i.tuted, they do more to destroy his authority among mankind than the most wicked can effect, by proclaiming that to be innocent which he has forbidden. To this self-righteous and self-exalted cla.s.s belong all the abolitionists whose writings I have read. With them it is no end of the argument to prove your propositions by the text of the Bible, interpreted according to its plain and palpable meaning, and as understood by all mankind for three thousand years before their time. They are more ingenious at construing and interpolating to accommodate it to their new-fangled and ethereal code of morals, than ever were Voltaire and Hume in picking it to pieces, to free the world from what they considered a delusion. When the abolitionists proclaim "man-stealing" to be a sin, and show me that it is so written down by G.o.d, I admit them to be right, and shudder at the idea of such a crime. But when I show them that to hold "bond-men forever" is ordained by G.o.d, _they deny the Bible, and set up in its place a law of their own making_. I must then cease to reason with them on this branch of the question. Our religion differs as widely as our manners. The great Judge in our day of final account must decide between us.

Turning from the consideration of slaveholding in its relations to man as an accountable being, let us examine it in its influence on his political and social state. Though, being foreigners to us, you are in no wise ent.i.tled to interfere with the civil inst.i.tutions of this country, it has become quite common for your countrymen to decry slavery as an enormous political evil to us, and even to declare that our Northern States ought to withdraw from the Confedracy rather than continue to be contaminated by it. The American abolitionists appear to concur fully in these sentiments, and a portion, at least, of them are incessantly threatening to dissolve the Union. Nor should I be at all surprised if they succeed. It would not be difficult, in my opinion, to conjecture which region, the North or South, would suffer most by such an event. For one, I should not object, by any means, to cast my lot in a confederacy of States whose citizens might all be slaveholders.

I indorse without reserve the much abused sentiment of Governor M'Duffie, that "slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice;"

while I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that "all men are born equal."[255]

No society has ever yet existed, and I have already incidentally quoted the highest authority to show that none ever will exist, without a natural variety of cla.s.ses. The most marked of these must, in a country like ours, be the rich and the poor, the educated and the ignorant. It will scarcely be disputed that the very poor have less leisure to prepare themselves for the proper discharge of public duties than the rich; and that the ignorant are wholly unfit for them at all. In all countries save ours, these two cla.s.ses, or the poor rather, who are presumed to be necessarily ignorant, are by law expressly excluded from all partic.i.p.ation in the management of public affairs. In a Republican Government this can not be done. Universal suffrage, though not essential in theory, seems to be in fact a necessary appendage to a republican system. Where universal suffrage obtains, it is obvious that the government is in the hands of a numerical majority; and it is hardly necessary to say that in every part of the world more than half the people are ignorant and poor. Though no one can look upon poverty as a crime, and we do not here generally regard it as any objection to a man in his individual capacity, still it must be admitted that it is a wretched and insecure government which is administered by its most ignorant citizens, and those who have the least at stake under it.

Though intelligence and wealth have great influence here, as everywhere, in keeping in check reckless and unenlightened numbers, yet it is evident to close observers, if not to all, that these are rapidly usurping all power in the non-slaveholding States, and threaten a fearful crisis in republican inst.i.tutions there at no remote period. In the slaveholding States, however, nearly one-half of the whole population, and those the poorest and most ignorant, have no political influence whatever, because they are slaves. Of the other half, a large proportion are both educated and independent in their circ.u.mstances, while those who unfortunately are not so, being still elevated far above the ma.s.s, are higher toned and more deeply interested in preserving a stable and well-ordered government, than the same cla.s.s in any other country. Hence, slavery is truly the "corner-stone" and foundation of every well-designed and durable "republican edifice."

With us every citizen is concerned in the maintenance of order, and in promoting honesty and industry among those of the lowest cla.s.s who are our slaves; and our habitual vigilance renders standing armies, whether of soldiers or policemen, entirely unnecessary. Small guards in our cities, and occasional patrols in the country, insure us a repose and security known no where else. You can not be ignorant that, excepting the United States, there is no country in the world whose existing government would not be overturned in a month, but for its standing armies, maintained at an enormous and destructive cost to those whom they are destined to overawe--so rampant and combative is the spirit of discontent wherever nominal free labor prevails, with its extensive privileges and its dismal servitude. Nor will it be long before the "_free States_" of this Union will be compelled to introduce the same expensive machinery, to preserve order among their "free and equal"

citizens. Already has Philadelphia organized a permanent battalion for this purpose; New York, Boston and Cincinnati will soon follow her example; and then the smaller towns and densely populated counties. The intervention of their militia to repress violations of the peace is becoming a daily affair. A strong government, after some of the old fashions--though probably with a new name--sustained by the force of armed mercenaries, is the ultimate destiny of the non-slaveholding section of this confederacy, and one which may not be very distant.

It is a great mistake to suppose, as is generally done abroad, that in case of war slavery would be a source of weakness. It did not weaken Rome, nor Athens, nor Sparta, though their slaves were comparatively far more numerous than ours, of the same color for the most part with themselves, and large numbers of them familiar with the use of arms. I have no apprehension that our slaves would seize such an opportunity to revolt. The present generation of them, born among us, would never think of such a thing at any time, unless instigated to it by others. Against such instigations we are always on our guard. In time of war we should be more watchful and better prepared to put down insurrections than at any other periods. Should any foreign nation be so lost to every sentiment of civilized humanity, as to attempt to erect among us the standard of revolt, or to invade us with black troops, for the base and barbarous purpose of stirring up servile war, their efforts would be signally rebuked. Our slaves could not be easily seduced, nor would any thing delight them more than to a.s.sist in stripping Cuffee of his regimentals to put him in the cotton-field, which would be the fate of most black invaders, without any very prolix form of "apprenticeship."

If, as I am satisfied would be the case, our slaves remained peaceful on our plantations, and cultivated them in time of war under the superintendence of a limited number of our citizens, it is obvious that we could put forth more strength in such an emergency, at less sacrifice, than any other people of the same numbers. And thus we should in every point of view, "out of this nettle danger, pluck the flower safety."

How far slavery may be an advantage or disadvantage to those not owning slaves, yet united with us in political a.s.sociation, is a question for their sole consideration. It is true that our representation in Congress is increased by it. But so are our taxes; and the non-slaveholding States, being the majority, divide among themselves far the greater portion of the amount levied by the Federal Government. And I doubt not that, when it comes to a close calculation, they will not be slow in finding out that the balance of profit arising from the connection is vastly in their favor.

In a social point of view the abolitionists p.r.o.nounce slavery to be a monstrous evil. If it was so, it would be our own peculiar concern, and superfluous benevolence in them to lament over it. Seeing their bitter hostility to us, they might leave us to cope with our own calamities.

But they make war upon us out of excess of charity, and attempt to purify by covering us with calumny. You have read and a.s.sisted to circulate a great deal about affrays, duels and murders, occurring here, and all attributed to the terrible demoralization of slavery. Not a single event of this sort takes place among us, but it is caught up by the abolitionists, and paraded over the world, with endless comments, variations and exaggerations. You should not take what reaches you as a mere sample, and infer that there is a vast deal more you never hear.

You hear all, and more than all, the truth.

It is true that the point of honor is recognized throughout the slave region, and that disputes of certain cla.s.ses are frequently referred for adjustment, to the "trial by combat." It would not be appropriate for me to enter, in this letter, into a defense of the practice of duelling, nor to maintain at length, that it does not tarnish the character of a people to acknowledge a standard of honor. Whatever evils may arise from it, however, they can not be attributed to slavery, since the same custom prevails both in France and England. Few of your Prime Ministers, of the last half century even, have escaped the contagion, I believe.