yaleUnueisi^LitJiaPj 39002040219355 Cb8. 300 SLAVERY IN THE feOUTH: A REVIEW OF HAMMOND'S AND FULLER'S LETTERS, AND CHANCELLOR HARPER'S MEMOIR ON THAT SUBJECT, From the Oct. No. (1845) ofthe Southern Quarterly. Among the popular gchool books, some forty or fifty years ago, was a plain prose edition of Esop's fables. The stories, told in the simplest possible language, were illustrated with vvood cuts, very coarse it is true, but sufficiently expressive. One of tbese represented a naked blackamoor standing in a tub of water. Around hira is assembled a group of women — ^busy bodies in matters not their own — aiatrons not over attentive to their own households — widows seeking somebody to care about — Sjiinsters anxious for notoriety, and not scrupulous about the means for obtaining it. With muth clamor and gossip, and infinite zeal, they are employed; some of them in throwing water on the black; some in scrubbing him with mops and brushes; and the .rest in encouraging and directing the efforts of their companions. The labor of love was intended to wash the blackamoor white; it ended, as Esop tells us, in the death ofthe favored party. During the progress ofthe experiment, the ladies, no doubt, discussed the certainty ofits success; the benevolence of their own motives; the folly and ma lice of those, who refused to believe that black could be made wh,jte; and the advantages of amalgamation vvith the interesting patient, when the process of regen- eration should be over. Esop's benevolent woraen were the prototypes af the present abolitionists, or ahlu- tionisis. These also are busy with their tub and blackamoor. Mr. Jay plies his mop, and Tappan his bucket, and John Quincy Adams his newly invented scrubbing brush— the right of petition — with exemplary vigor, whilst Alvan Stewart, and Cassius M. Clay, stand by in delirious ecstacy, and the TroUopes, Martineaus, and Abby Kellys, with all the abolition matrons and maidens of blushing New-England, are earnest and, eloquent on the necessity and benefits of immediate amalgamation. The zeal of these modern transmuters of races and colors, is not only as warm and clamorous as fhat of their predecessors, but promises the same result to the object of their affection, . .0r . ' If the operators could confine their experiment to subjects among themselves, the Southern people would neither complain nor interfere. We should feel some sym- pathy for the poor black, and some wonder at the crazy white, but there is no Paul- Pry ism in the character ofthe South, and we would leave our neighbors of old, or New-England, to eonduct their own affairs in their own way. Indeed we are so far • acquainted with fhe ethics offanaticism, and have so much charity for folly, as to bei willing toexcuse the abolitionists, if fhey should ocraslonally steal from the Southern States a negro or two for their experiments, as ihey often do, when their prisons and penitentiaries have absorbed their own — it would be unreasonable to require that a fanatic should be able to respect the rights of property, or that a party should ac knowledge the obligations imposed by the decalpgue, who virtually reject the a«thar. ity ofthe Old and New Testaments. ^ Slavery in the South. But these good people are not content to indulge their whims within their own limits, or, to any moderate extent, at our expense. Tbey have a perfect mi nia for the tub and scrubbing brush, and cannot be satisfied without thrusting them info fhe Southern States, and experimenting among us upon our slaves. We have, therefore, been compelled, from time to time, fo tell them, in very plain terms, that we have no faith in their wi.sdora or th^ir motives; tbat their passion for intermeddling in vvhat does nof concern them, has nothing in common with fhe pure and noble sentiment of christian benevolence, which is incompatible with anything malevolent or vindic tive; fhat if is in truth the offspring of inordinate vanity, the love of excitement, or the bastard ambition, which seeks power by other than the ordinary and legitimate modes When, in fhe pursuit of their object, they send agents among us to amend our laws, we dismiss them wifh as much civility as the case permits. When they abuse tbe common council room ofthe nation to annoy the South, we are constrained to let them know that their agitation in Congress is a faithless violatFon of rigtifs guaranteed by the Constitution, and which honest and honorable men could nof fail to respect — very moderate language, and altogether short ofa just description of that arrogant and insolent surveillance over the social condition of the Southern States, established and kept up by societies and associations af fhe North, under the pitiful pretence ofa right to discuss, or a right to petition, or benevolence, or religion, or some other glossing falsehood. But fhe people ofthe Southern States have never formally vindicated, until lately, the rightfulness, advantages, and necessity of slavery, as established among us. Some have thought it idle fo reason wifh fanatics, and others have been averse tothe ex citement to which such a discussion might possibly lead, or, perhaps, fhey have dis. trusted the strength of their own position; whatever fhe reason may have been, fhey have ab.stained from any discussion ofthe subject wben it was possible fo avoid if. But a change is perceptible in the Southern States, The perpetual din ofthe North ern and European press, has roused the attention ofour people. It is proper fhat it should do so. Continued attacks unmet, arguments unanswered, misrepresentation Unexplained, and falsehoods unbranded, may produce evil consequences even among ourselves. Itis due, therefore, even fo our own people, fo look fhe subject fairly in tbe face, to lay aside all scruple, and to challenge investigation. If is due also fo those ofthe Northern States — composing by far tbe greater numberof their people — who are not abolitionists, and who need information on a subject of wbicb tbey have no personal knowledge. The pamphlets at the head of our article, will show that certain distinguished and able men at fhe South have come to this conclusion; tbe execution of them proves that ithas been from no lack of logic or wif, fhat fhe amis des noirs had so long remained unanswered. Tbe South is indebted, we believe, to Professor Dew, for the first clear and com prehensive argument on the subject of slavery. In a review of the debates in the Virginia Convention, he has produced an argument on the subject, which a distinguished judge pronounces to be the most able and philosophic that be has met with in our time. He was followed by Chancellor Harper, who, in the year 1836, delivered an oration, and in 1837, read a memoir on the same subject, before the Literary and Philosophical Sociefy of South-Carolina, He fakes fhe broad ground that slavery cannot be proven to be a moral, polititfM, or social evil, or to be incompatible with a well regulated and happy civil polity. To those who have the happiness to know Chancellor Harper; the purity of his life; ihe fairness of bis mind; the simplicity of his character; his love for truth; his devotion to knowledge; the exactness of his taste; andthe force and compass of his intellect; it need hardly be said, that whatever he writes is worthy of serious attention, not only for the abili ty which if must exhibit, buf because it comes from a man of wisdom and virtue, the busine.ss of whose life is fhe conscientious and earnest seeking after fruth. The Chancellor has been followed by Dr. Cartwright, the Rev. Dr. Fuller, and Governor Hammond, who have discussed fhe subject, in its several relations, with great ability.* Dr. Cartwright's article, in a former number ofthis review, is exceedingly inge'ni- • See also an able argument in the 3d No. of the Southem Review. u slavery in the South. 3 oUs and interesting, and well deserves a careful perusal. Governor Ilamniohd'slet^ lers are in every body's hands, they have been published in Various forms, and a large! number ofthe pamphlet edition has been sent to England for circulation. They are written in thaf discursive but p'pular form, wifh intermingled logic, wit, and sarcasm, which commands the public favor, and gives them fhe bost possible tjUality for a book, tbat of being, like Randolph's speeches, readable by every body. We shall •attempt fo give a concise summary ofthe arguments of some of these gentlemetii The first topic that meets us, in their discussion ofthe question of slavery, is a sori of argumentum ad hominem, as tar as England and the North are concerned. The impugners of slavery and slaveholders in America, are the very people by whom slaves and slaveholders were established there. The capital which, in New-England, is now invested in presses and print shops for fhe slander of fhe slaveholder; for en- tictng negroes to fly from their masters; for cramming runaway negro orators to rival Birney and Tappan; for paying small traffickers in philanthropy fo sneak into South ern families, and chronicle lies inthe intervals of fawning and feeding, was invested a few years ago in tranisporting negroes from Africa.* Being compelled bylaw fo abandon fhe old trade of making the black a slave, fhe business men have taken up the new one of making hira free. If the law permitted a return to the formertraffic, there is no doubt that both branches ofthe concern would be carried on with equal activity. Even now, the law to the contrary notwithstanding, according to the repcirt of an American officer on fhe African station, Northern merchants furnish vessels and merchandize fo the slavers on the coast of Africa, and in this raanner faciliafe the trade in slaves. But this, by no means, confiicts with the abolitionists' carrying on the trade of emancipation. It is quite possible, indeed, that the same parties may be active in both departments, and fhat Mr, Tappan may do a turn of business in making bond, as well as making free, Il is of little moraent fo these revilers of their own countrymen, that all such libellers as fhey are, belong to the proverbially respectable order of evil birds who befoul their own nests. To the hunter after notoriety, or money, the cleanliness of the field is of small importance, or consideration. He is like the Romatf emperor, who could find no unsavourry smell in fhe gold derb'ed from the filthiest object of taxation. To this argumenlunfad hominen fhe people of England are even more exposed, than our own countrymen. If individuals and nations are re. United States. It is the proper name of the United States. In Eu, rope, by Araerica, they mean the United States : by Americans, they mean the citizens of the United States. Other parts of the continent have different names : Mexico, Brazil, Chili. Amer.. iea is appropriated by us. To attempt to substitute for it Alleghania, etc , is both unnecessary and ridiculous. 4 Savery in the South, scheme for rebuilding their colonial prosperity, and correcting the blunders of their West India policy, by checking, in other countries, tho growth of those productions wbich she has virtually abandoned, by the abolition of slavery in her own Nothing like it — they are actuated by tbe purest benevobnce only — tbeir captains of slavers have all been converted irito Howards, and have exchanged their zeal for making slaves, info an equal zeal for making freemen. From their anxiety to take care ofthe poor ot other nations, it might be naturally inferred that they have none at bome — no rags, no wretchedness unequalled in any other country; no filthy hovels with mud floors, the common abode of pigs, poultry, and peasant; no crowded cellars, where families occupy each ifs corner; no millions of paupers never fed, never clothed, never warmed in winter; no children put to bard labor below ground; no girls at work among naked men; no examples of human de gradation and suffering more brutal than any American imagination, unassisted hy British Parliamentary Reports, could possibly conceive. Nothing of all this can ex ist in England. The Parliamentary Reports must be false. If true, would not English hearts and hands be first and exclusively devoted to extirpate so horrible a condition of society? — would they write, declaim, expend thousands on a supposed abuse three thousand miles off, with which they have no connectioii, civil, social, or political, and of which they know little or nothing, whilst the horrors of their own hearths continue to cry to heaven for redress? Would they pass by their fellow-sub- jects dying of hunger on their very door sills, to make long prayers in the market place for the sufferin s ofthe negro, who never knows vvhat hunger is. But if British philanthropy is resolved to look over and beyond their own homeless, unfed, ragged millions, and expend ifs unsought sympathy on other nations, it is sug gested fo Mr, Clarkson, with all due respect, fo pursue the only course by which his end can be accomplished. His countrymen brought the negro here, let tbem take hirn away. They are in possession ofthe millions for which they .sold him, let them use the money fo buy them. They may purchase asany body else may purchase. They may carry their property where they please, as other owners do. But tbey have never done this. They have never released from slavery^ single slave, by tbe only possible mode by which they can release him. It is far^more agreeable tothe system by which fhey combine the pleasures of charity and gain, to hold great meet ings at Exeter Hall; to boast of English philanthropy and liberty; to issue circulars full of self-complacency and self-gratulation, thanking that they are nof as other men — slave-holders, and man-stealers — and fo continue, with their hands in their breeches pockets, to jingle the very gold for which they sold tbe .African savage, kidnapped by their ship-masters on the coast of Guinea. This negro frade has been invaluable fo our English friends. It first filled their purses with an immense amount of money, and now it affords a capital, on which their traders in philanthrophy, as Coleridge calls them, carry on a^large and profitable business. Being no longer able fo coin money out of slavery, they now turn it to another account, and make it a reputation- for-humanity fund. They manage to earn a character for hating slavery out ofthe very plantations in America, which they themselves stocked with slaves. Tbey contrive, from the same quarter, at the same time, to obtain credit for benevolence, and cotton for their Manchester trade. Tbey are like their Bishop of London, who declaims, before the House of Lords, on the debaucheries of the age, and rents out the very stews in vvhich tbey flourish; securing a subject for his moral lecture on licen tiousness, 1/y 'providing tenements for those who indulge in it. They resemble their ownbeau ideal of a fine gentleraan — George the IV. — who drove his wife into im- prudencies by his brutality and neglect, and persecuted her to death Ibr having fallen into them; — or, one of fhe fashionable Wharfons ofthe London Clubs, who seduces a woman, and then upbraids her with a want of virtue. The case is even worse, as violation is worse than seduction, for John Bull forced fhe colonies fo do, what he now abuses thera for having done. This knack in our old friend, of reconciling the propensities first for getting money, and next for making rhetorical flourishes about his benevolence, is not confined to American slavery. It is quite as conspicuous, and amusing in other matters for example, in bis East India affairs. Slavery in the South. § For many years fhe gold and jewels of Hindostan continued to flow into England without interruption During half a century, not a ship arrived from Calcutta, which did not bring with it some nabob returning with his chests of gold and diamonds, the plundered treasure of Begums and Rajahs, hoarded from generation to generation, for centuries. When Clive was accused of rapacity, he burst into an exclamation, that so far from being guilty, he looked back with astonishment at his own moderation when he remembered how he walked in the trea.sury of Moorshedabad, between heaps of gold and precious stones, his will being the only lirait lo his power, Clive had few equals. There were not many of fhe Company's servants who left them selves, under similar circumstances, tbe sarae cause for astonishment. Pennyless wri ters who went to India with small salaries, in a few years returned, to buy manors, su.-- pass the aristocracy in profusion and ostentation, and rival princes in their expenditure. But whilst the vvhole nation were eagerly rushing to this harvest of '"barbaric pearl and gold," they got up, to balance the account, the most magnificent indignation- meeting that the world has ever seen, Hastings, the Governor-General of India, was arraigned in Westminster Hall. Ladies, and Lords, and Commons — allthat England possessed of beauty, and talent, and noble birth — were assembled, day after day, to hear the denunciations of an eloquence never surpassed, perhaps never equalled — to listen, with wonder, to the vehement logic of Fox, tbe sparkling decla mation of Sheridan, the gorgeous imagination of Burke, luxuriating in kindred themes of Eastern character and scenery. Tbe effect on the female audience was terrific — one fainted, another vvas carried out in hysterics. But time passed on; the ladiei became weary, or found something more attractive in tbe opera, or the play; the counsel flagged; every thing grew tired buf the hatred of Francis, and the ardour of Burke; the trial closed, and the enemy of Cheyte Sing and Nunoomar retired from the bar of the Senate to purchase an estate, and enjoy a pension. We are not to suppose that, during all this, time, there was one rupee less taken from the plundered Indian, The grand-national-sympathy-meeting vindicated tbe British character for humanity, and tbe Company's servants took care to gratify tbe national passion for wealth. One incident occurred, during the grand exhibition of benevolence and justice by fhe British Parliament, which sufiiciently explains the nature ofthe show. Mr. .Martin, au honest country member, very deeply affected by fhe eloquent account ¦ ofthe wrongs done to the Indian Princesses, got up and declared, in his simplicity, that if any member would move to restore tbe treasures of which tbe Princesses bad been plundered, he would second the motion. He looked round for support; but not a voice was heard; not a rnan was found to make the motion, and the honaist countryman discovered, thaf restoration ofthe stolen property was not the policy of the receivers of stolen goods, however eloquent they may be in denouncing the thief. The East India company have shown a very happy conformity to the national character, in their transactions of commerce and conquest, "always," says a distin guished English writer, "protesting against adding a foot to their territory, and de nouncing tbe policy which extended it, wbile they quietly take possession, without a murmur, ofthe gains thus acquired; at once relieving their conscience by the protest, and replenishing their purses by the spoil.'* The war in China furnishes anotherhappy exemplification ofthe manner in which the British combine the love of gain, and a benevolent regard fo tbe happiness of their neighbors. They waged war on the poor Celestials, battered down their forts, stormed Their towns, butchered the almost unresisting people like sheep, not for conquest, or commerce only, but for the advancement ofthe christian religion, and the amelioration of the Chinese moral and religious character. They fought at once for the exte_nsion of trade, and of true religion, and made converts with the same zeal to the use of Opium, and ihe New Testament. There can be no doubt that the business part ofthe transaction was a fair one, because it has been justified by the casuist of Quincy, who thinks it horrible to whip a delinquent negro with a lash, but very commendable to poison the Chinese yith *BroughBm. 6 Slavei-y in tlie South. opium. The Hong Kong Gazette announces that the trade has fully succeeded; that opium is now eaten by the Celestials without opposition, or enquiry, on the part of their government; and the London papers announce the arrival ofthe last two mil- lions of sycee silver. Whether the philanthropic part ofthe undertaking is equally successful, we are not yet informed. This amiable and benevolent desire to promote the happifiess of the wbole human race, so con.=picuously exhibited in tbe censure ol slavery, the conquest of India, and the improvement of China, bas alone induced the people of England to appropriate to themselves endless possessions in all parts ofthe globe. In addition to India, witb its hundred millions, they po.ssess New-Holland, atid the Cape of Good Hope, and Gibralter, and Canada, and parts of South America and Africa, and countless islands in every ocean and sea. This certainly, to a careless observer, seeras to indicate a grasping and greedy spirit in the English people, but then, per contra, to demonstrate their moderation, they show a most laudable zeal for the independence of Texas, and denounce the rapacity of tbe United States in seeking, or desiring its annexation. They exhibit an equal zeal to save Onjgon from the ambition of America, and are even willing to take it themselves, worthless as tbey say fhe country is, rather than see it fall into the hands ofthe unprincipled republicans. In tbis way England recon ciles, to her own satisfaction, fhe passion for acquisition, and the profession of moder. ation, and i.s at once most insatiable in her own acquisitions, and most cen.sorious on those of other nations. One of her writers is now recommending tbe seizure of Egypt, If she takes it, tbe occupation will be accompanied with endless declarations, fhat it is intended for the benefit of tbe world in general, and for the religious, moral, and civil improvement ofthe Egyptians in particular, and for no other purpose. We are told ofa Benedictine who boasted or confeissed, that his vow of poverty had sit. cured to him an income ot 100,000 crowns, his yow of humility had clothed him with princely dignities, and his vow of chastity had produced effects equally surprising and agreeable. The English professions of generosity, magnanimity, and moderation, have led to consequences quite as singular, unexpected, and edifying. We have been puzzled to understand how it is, fhat England sbould be nof only blameless, but proiseworthy, in seizing upon India with one hundred millions of in habitants, and that Ameries^ should be unprincipled and ambitious, in adding certain vacant territory to her possessions, The fact must be so, for all England affirms it to be so. It is perhaps the only point on which tbe English and Irish agree, and about which Mr, O'Connell does not pronounce the Premier a dealer in falsehoods. It is true, tbat there are sorne differences in our proceedings and theirs. We appro priate a country by purchase, they by conquest; we with the consent ofthe inhabi tants, they without it; we deal in resolutions, conventions, constitutions, fhey in flying artillery, and sharp pointed bayonets; we. annex a kw t\io\is,a,nd new citizens, and many acres of revenueless connfiy, tbey raillions of new subjects, and countless lacs of contributions. It must be tbese differences tbat make tbe objection lous. Our mode of acquisition is not that wbich is recognized in monarchical and aristocratic Europe, and, tbt'ref()re, not tbe legitimate mode. We presume to difier vvith Kings, in obtaining increase of territory hy peaceable means, and not Ijy glorious war, and are therefore unprincipled republicans — uninstructed in the true royal doctrines, which direct acquisitions ot territory to be made by violence only, and justify such acts <'ven as the attack on Denmark, provided it be attended with a sufficient destruction of human life. Tested by these royal maxims, tbe annexation of Ireland vvas originally a wise and just raeasure, and ought to be adhered to, because it was ac complished in spite of the Irish, and with an abundant shedding of Irish blood; but the annexation of Texas is an act of unprincipled arabition and capacity, because it was done with the consent of every Texan man, woman, and child — an independent people by the admission and recognition of England and France. It arises, no doubt, from this legitimate raode of annexation applied hy England to Ireland, tbat there exists betvveen the two countries a love and e.steem s.o cordial, as to excite universal admiration. No two nations iu the vvorld, nehher Italians and Gerraans, nor Turks and Grerks, nor Rassians and Poles — another example ofthe royal mode of annexa tion — feel for each other so much affectionate solicitude, or dwell together like breth-. Slavery in the South. T ren, in such perfect unity. We are content, however, vvith our plain republican vcay of doing these things; and imitating, as we do, our worthy progenitor. In tbe deter mined spirit for making acquisitions, we prefer onr American mode by purchase, and consent of parties, to the Irish plan of England, There is no hypocrisy in all this assumption of huraanity and disinterestedness, by the British people. The Englishman really persuades himself tbat bo makes war for theadvantageof every body but himself; tbat he conquers Hindostan to rescue the Indians from despoliim, storms Canton for tbe comfort of Counsellor Lin, and seizes upon countless islands and countries, to give lessons of moderation and disintere.sted- ness to the whole family of mankind. There is nothing so monstrous that an En glishman isnot ready to believe it, if it be flattering to the pride of England, On this subject his self-deception is without limit; all contradiction, inconsiste .cy, or absurdity is overlooked, ornever seen, if the statement he in praise uf English cour- age, good faith,. or humanity. In a work lately publisbed — the Crescent and the Cross — Mr. Elliott Warburton very gravely tells us that England, alone, carried on war for twenty years on the whole vvorld, for that world's liberty, Buf no, he adds, she was not alone — she bad one ally in this stiuggle for religion and freedom. In the great battle forthe christian faith, and civil liberty, the Turk — the successor of the Mahomets aud \muraths — the representative ofthe bowstring and Koran — made common cause with English bayonets and Bibles, to defend the freedom and faith of the infidel dogs, whose father's graves the Moslem are accustomed to defile. This was indeed a miracle of English diplomacy; audit may certainly be admitted, tbat the defence ofreligion and the civil liberty ofthe vvhole world, was quite as much fhe real object ofthe Turk, as ofthe Englishman. The same writer delights in denouncing tbe French atrocities in Egypt, and else- where. No tale on this subjectis incredible to him. In a few pages afterthe de scribes an inundation produced by the British army having cut the great dara separa ting the salt-water lake Maadee from lake Mareotis, by which fifty Arab villages vvere swept away, and a country fertile until visited by ijv English allies, was converted into a swarap. The author adds, that Mehemet Ali intends to drain tbe lake, and to restore it to cultivation; but, he co6ly remarks, "many years will I. e required to repair the ruin which a fevv hours were sufficient to effect." If this had been done by the French brigands, vve should never hear tbe last o' it. But, it being an exploit of British troops, there are, wiihout doubt, forty excellent reasons why they sbould do it, — one perhaps being, thatthey went to Egypt to defend and protect the inhabitants from tho horrors of French domination. This geritle and considerate mode of dealing wilh the lives and property of their allies by a British army, so sensibly felt by their Turkish or Egyptian fiiends, was shown even more emphatically lo the Spaniards, during the Peninsular War, The inhabitants of St, Sebastian, Ciudad Rodrigo, and Badajos, filled Europe wilh e.iiiii- plaints ofthe rapine, house-burning, rape, and murder, consequent upon the storming of those places hy the British troops, and Napier admits their complaint to bo well founded. But what then? — is it reasonable to require soldiers to discriminate so iiicely, as to distinguish between a Iriend's city held against his consent by an enemy, and a city of fhe enemy himself, or to consider them, when taken by storm, as enti- tied to any difference of treatment? Besides this, was not the army of England doing battle for the civil liberty and the religion ofthe whole vvorld, and surely they are not to be judged by the common standard of humanity and morals, .which may be supposed to regulate a more ordinary warfare. If, however, after all, any man should be so,unreasonable and impracticable, as to entertain doubts respecting tbe benevolence and philanthropy of the British nation, and to be dissatisfied with the evidence in their favor, exhibited so forcibly by the anti-slavery doings ofthe great English traders in negroes— by their impeaching the plunderer, Hastings, but refusing to restore tbe stolen goods— by their forcing the trade in opium on tbe Chinese al tbe point ofthe fiayonet, to give the tea-drinhing Celestials another agreeable stimulant, and so improve their nioral and religious character; by tbeir peculiar mode of dealing wilh the dykes and cities of their aUics. when under the protection ofa British force— we would refer any such unbeliever 8 Mavery vn the i^uth. toth* domestic history of Great Britain, as proving conclusively the humanity of her people. Let him advert to their punishments, arauseraents, and civil wars — the three great fests of tbe temper and disposition ofa nation — and he can no longer fail to acknowledge the gentleness ofthe national character. Take their punishraents for example, — chopping off heads with axes; dismembering the dead body ofthe crimi nal; sticking up tbe limbs over gateways; gibbeting in chains; killing by law for the theft ofa shilling; imprisoning and starving for debt; transporting for shooting a hare: or their amusements, so particularly humane — seeing men beat each oiher to mum- ies; bull-bailing; dog-worrying; cock-fighting, wbere the death ofthe bird is ensured by steel vveapons; tearing foxes fo pieces vvith hounds; steeple-chasing, wbere the poor horse is often killed, to say nothing ofthe benevolent gentleman vvho rides him; and the love of coarse practical jokes, which tbe taste and delicacy of Marryalt so delight in describing: or tbeir civil conflicts — so marked hy forbearance and humanity — from tbe war of the roses, to Cromwell's gentle dealing with tbe royalist Catholics, or Lauderdale's tender mercies lo the rebel Scotch Presbyterian, or North's Indian allies in our ovvn revolution, the employment of whora Lord Chatham so strangely ihought a disgrace to the ancestr}' of British soldiers and nobles. To these excellencies ofthe English character, so prominently exhibited in ibeir disinterested wars and acquisitions for the good of mankind, there may be added an amiable passion for libelling their neighbors. For many centuries the French en- joyed a Benjamin's portion ofthe good things that flow from the insular spleen. The frog-eating, wooden shoed, attenuated Gaul, was a standing dish for tie fun of fhe pursy Saxon. Even the Gallic courage was held cheap, and it became a test of , British patriotism to believe, that one Englishman could whip thiee Frenchmen. The subjects ofthe Grand Monarque bore the incessant barking of their neighbor witb great equanimity, and politely ascribed his ill nature to his climate, as Rosseau laid his own in.sanily when in England on the "cliraat D'Angleterre." They thought it not surprising tbat men, who were always hanging themselves, should be always abusing other people. il But for some years past, fhe United States appear to have become the favored na tion. We have utterly eclipsed the French in sharing the civilities of the English press and people. Their favorite topic now is, the unprincipled, irreligious, profli gate, spilling, tobacco chewing, julip drinking, drawling, lounging, unmannerly American, They roll the subject, like a sweet morsel, under (heir tongues. They have an affection for it. They place it in all kinds of lights. It assumes the shape of travels in tbis country. It makes a favorite article in the reviews. It enlivens a leader in the Times or Chronicle. It gives poignancy to a speech in Parliament. Il is the staple ofthe Exeter love meetings, and helps out the scurrility ofthe corn Exchange, Thej are never weary ofit. Ah, if they could only, really, and in truth, bring themselves to believe in their sayings — if tbey could but persuade themselves to have faith in their own invectives — to credit their own assertion, that America has neither men, nor money, nor intelligence, nor power; what comfort it would be to our English kin, how calmly and contentedly they would dream over a future of undisputed dominion on every shore. Bul unfortunately for their happiness, they do not believe one word of the speculations of traveller, reviewer, orator or editor. They have no genuine faith in iLe speedy downfall of the Great Republic, whose existence "witb fear of change perplexes monarchs." They knovv that fheir abuse and misrepresentations are all fudge, and tbey, are the more exasperated forknovi-ing it. They feel, that all their invective notwithstanding, America will go on in her gigantic race, growing every day iri population, wealth and power. They predict the speedy dissolution of her government, and have done so for fifty years, buf are the most unfortunate of all prophets. Thev neither believe themselves nor are believed in by others. It is very much to be lamented. We pity the unhappy pa tient, but know no remedy, unless it be a course of anti-bilious medicines and absti nence from pen and ink. But if his convalescence depends on the stoppine or retarding America in her advance to a power, which will defy all attacks or interfe- rence, the case is hopeless. mierie- One ofthe most prominent points in the abuse ofthe AmeHcans at prJSsent is their slavery in the South. 9 frauds — the failure to pay their debts, Thore is nothing of which the Englishman is so intolerant as a non-punctual debtor. In his ovvn country he hunts ihe poor devil with bailiffs, as he does a hare vvith hounds, and to a foreign delinquent fiis anger is ferocious. This is all very well, we bave not a word lo say for the knaves wbo repudiate. Let thera be roasted by the Quarterly, or by any of the scurrilous scrib blers, vvho, like Dickens and Marryalt, may be paying off old scores bv libels on the United States, But il would be as vvell for tbe good people of England to remark, that Pennsylvania is not Anierica — that most ofthe Slates never failed lo pay their debts — that raany of them have none to pay — that the American Government has paid interest and principal — that England's bankruptcy, hopeless and irretrievable, awaits a revulsion only in her Ea.stern Empire — that "trades proud empire hastes to swift tdecay," is a truth not taught ly her own poet only, but by the experience of all ages — heat there is no essential diflisrence between the integrity ofa people who lefuse, or delay to pay their debts, and one vvhich deliberately contracts a debt which renders ultimate insolvency inevitable, — that whatever fraucis may at present flourish on either side of the Atlantic, they are only humble imitations of one to wbich England has bad the honor fo give birth — the South-sea bubble, "that tremendous hoax," as Lamb calls it "whose extent the petty speculators ofour day look back upon with tbe same expression of incredulous adrairation, and hopeless ambition of rivalry, as would be come the puny face of modern conspiracy, contemplating the Titan size ofVaux's superhuman plot;"* — or of another — the suspension of specie payments in 1797 — when the pound note sunk to the value of fourteen shillings, and Parliament enacted tbat it should be regarded as worth twenty, "a gross and revolting absurdity, says Lord Brougham, unparalleled in the liislory of deliberative bodies." The conse quence ofthis was, that "the havoc which the depreciation raade in the dealings of men was incalculable. Those who had lent their money when the currency was at par, were compelled to receive- the depreciated money in payments, and thus loose thirl} or forty per cent of their capital. Those who had let land or houses at a lease, must take so much less rent than they had stipulated lo receive. Above all, those who had lent tbeir money to tbe Governraenl, vvere obliged lo lake two-thirds only ofthe inleresi for wbicb they had bargained, or were liable lo be paid off with -two- thirds of the principal,"f And this continued for twenty years to be the condition of England so immaculate for honesty. Indeed al the present moment, the frauds perpetrated under the influence ofthe existing rail-road inania, are superior lo any that vve can pretend to produce, and prove conclusively that we are very humble imitators of English excellence. Tbe bubble will burst to the ruin of thousands, aud E nglish morality will sit amidst tho wreck of their fortunes, and declaim on the cupidity of olher nations. In tbe face of all this, itis quite ludicrous to see the grave charges brought against America fbr her exceeding love ofthe ^'¦almighty dollar," implying, as they do, that the accusers are quite superior to the weakness of attaching any undue value to an object so gross. W'hy, truely, there never existed a nation where the love of raoney, or the rage to obtain it, has been more ungovernable than in England — and vvith reason too, for what is an Englishman, in England, without money'' He looses caste. He flies his country. He lives an exile in Belgium, Italy, France, Germany, any where but at horae, where his diminished purse would expose him to unendurable scorn from his former equals. What vvill not gold buy or do in England? For what but the love ofit. do the landholders insist nn their monopoly of coining money out of the stomachs of the people? In what other region ofthe globe vvill iha "almighty dollar secure larger indulgence," lo "Ward, to Waters, Charlies, or the Devil?" As to us. it isthe standing complaint of English travi^llers in this country, tbat even the porr privilege of kicking the waiter, and bullying the landlord, is denied in .America, to the possessor of that mighty talisman, which, in England, numbers these enjoy ments among the least ofits gifts. It is on=! ofthe points of inferiority in America, that in this country, the traveller is obliged lo be civil to the tavern keeper, and that a full purse confers no right to be insolent or rude even to' the coachmanof a stage coach. * Eli a + Lord Brougham. Qj^ Slavery in the South. But we must apologize for this digression on the eccentricities of our English neighbors — his eagerness one day for making the negro a slave, tbe next for making him free, — ^his pocketing the spoils, and impeaching the spoilers, — his carrying civilization and religion into foreign lands, hy presenting the bible with one hand, and opium with tbe olher. It bas proceeded from no want of respect or veneration for our kinsman — quite tbe reverse. We bave for him all the indulgence of a true affection, and adrait tbat he labors under a sort of idiosyncracy — ;that the habit of praising hiraself and abusing others, is what he cannot help — that it is one of his lux uries besides, and ll would bo as reasonable tn expect him to abandon his roast beef,' and plura pudding, and pot of London porter — that concentration of all the purities of the Thames — as to forego bis favorite enjoyment of libelling bis neighbors. We will leave him then to carry on the trade in negroes, on the Eastern shore of Africa, after the old fashion, and on the Western afler the new — to make slaves on.the ono side, aud apprentices on the other — wbile we follow Chancellor Harper and Gover- nor Haramond, in their inquiry into the merits of that slavery, vvhich our English ancestors have established among us. The subject is one of great magnitude and importance. It presents many ques. tions — all of them interesting — as il is considered in reference to religion, to political economy, to the interests of the master, to those of the slave. Is slavery a sin — does it conflict with the will of God as revealed in the Old and New Testament? Is it the best system for society — for securing the greatest good to the greatest nuinber? Is il in our own country the besl system for the master — can he cultivate his lands to belter advantage with other labor? Does it most conduce lo the welfare of the slave in America — would not liberty be to him a norainal blessing, but a real and iiLsup- portable curse? These are tbe most Interesting poinls from which the subject may be regarded. Greatly the most important view of the subject is' the religious one. For assured ly if slavery he adjifdged a sin, if it be condemned by the revealed willof God, then in Christendom in cannol continue to exist. Il is the duty of every r-an, making the. laws of God the rule of his conduct, lo use all practicable efforts to abolish whatever violates them. But It is on this ground, above all others, thaf the defender of slavery. as wo find it among us, is unassailable. It may be asserted with confidence, that there is no fact in history, and no maxim in ethics better established by evidence or argument than the proposition, that slavery was recognized under the Jewish theo cracy, and by tbe christian apostles, as a legitiraate form of social life, a.id that being so recognized, it cannot be deemed a sin by those who take the holy writing.?, old and new, as the only revealed will ol God, and standard of religious and moral duly. Slaves existed, under the divine government, among the Jewish people. The Scriptures distinctly set forth the rules by which tbey shall be made, by which they shall be governed, by which they shall be punished. They are described as bought for a price; as the property of tbeir masters; as subject to his will; as beaten vvith stripes; as marked; as sold; as manumitted; as placed in every possible position, to which the condition of slavery is liable. Slavery then is recognized, permitted, regu lated, enjoined, bythe Old Testament; "but thaf which is recognized, permitted, reg ulated, enjoined, h) the divine lavv, cannot be sinful. To assert that it may be, would be maintaining a proposition quite as extravagant, as that two and two make five. Slavery then being so recognized, permitted, regulated and enjoined, can by no possibility be a sin. Again, wben our Saviour taught, slaves where every were about him; he fre quently makes allusion fo tbeir condition: he denounces every form of sin around him; he reproves Sadducee. and Pharisee without scruple, bui he uses no expression tbat can be tortured into a condemnation of slavery. The apostles were in the midst of slavery in its worst forms and abuses in .Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. It could not, therefore, elude their of>servation. They taught the new converts to chrislianity, not only tbe great truths of religion, and the rules of morals, bul many minor observances incidental to their situation, many reg ulations of behaviour, and even of dress becoming their new condition and profesision and rebuked any infringement of them with severity. If slavery were a sin it could not, therefore escape either their notice, or their condemnation. Far less would thi» Slavery in the South. 1 1 be possible, if it Were the heinous and devilish cri.ne which Mr. Clarkson represents it to be, Bul there is not in the New Testament a single expression, wbicb even insinuates a condemnation of slavery. Either then slavery is not sin, or tbe Apostles not only winked at, but wilfully closed their eyes on iniquity ofthe vilest nature. Now this is so clear, phiin, and conclusive, ihat to a mind capable ofa candid and honest judgment, it is irresistible. Accordingly every christian teacher since the apostolic age, from (Jbrysostom to Chalmers, who believes ihat there is meaning in language, or who.se opinion is worth a groat, admits that neither tho Old or New Testament, contains one word in condemnation of slavery or slaveholders, Tbe great Greek father, commenting on a passage of St. Paul relating to slavery, yives full force to the doctrine of tbe Apostle in reference to its duties — draws no disiincliori between his general princip'es and bis particular precepts, as we shall see Dr. Way- land do, — drops 1.0 word agaiust slavery, bul advi.ses tbe christian slave lo continue in this station, considering, his condition as one of the many forms of social life to all which the blessings of gospel truth are alike dispensed. Chalmers admits fully, that slavery is not condemned by the Scriptures, and therefiire is not a sin, Bul, there is a cla.ss of theological in,structors, who use the bible not so much to discover truth, as lo support previously conceived opinions. They ask, not what St, Paul teaches, bul what there is in bis teaching to confirm the opinions which thern- selvesentertain. It is Mr. Clarkson that plants, the Apostle only waters. It is Dr, Wayland wbo builds, Paul and Peter are used lo supply materials merely, if they have any, for the work. The .disposition lo set aside the bible whicli is commonly imputed lo the Church of Rome, may be more fairly ascribed to tbe class of which we speak, Rome is accused of substituting tradition for the Scripture,s, the nominal protestant postpones the gospel to his own system of ethics. If the bible cannol be twist ed lo go with the systera, it is rejected vvith contempt and abhorrence, "If the religion of Christ, says Dr, Wayland, allows us to take such a licen-se from such precepts as these, the New Testament would be the greatest curse that ever was inflicted on our race." Or, to apply the general remark to the particular case, "if the religion of Christ allows masters lo hold slaves — if it permits what Dr. Wayland condemns — the New Testament would be tbe greatest curse ever inflicted on mankind," Such sentences as these manfestly indicate the temper wilh which the abolitionists ap proaches the Scripture argument. It is not one which seeks diligently and humbly to know what the bible teaches, with the resolution to submit to that leaching, what ever il may be. It calls arrogantly and presumptuously on tbe divine writings lo sustain the position ofthe abolitionist, Il searches thera merely for vveapons of offence against slavery, and if il be once driven to confess that they furnish none, it denounces the book as an imposture and a curse. The argument of the same parties speak this sentiment also, in a mode more covert, but equally plain. It sets up, as effectually, a standard of right and wrong, independent of the law and the gospal, and supplants the eternal word hy some crotchety abstract notion of their own. If they do not repudiate the Scriptures in direct terms, they do so indirectly, by undermining tbeir character and authorily as the word of God, Take for example, the argument ofthe President of Brown Uni versity in reference to the Old Tesiament, in answer lo Dr, Fuller. Dr, Wayland admits unreservedly that slavery existed in tbe Jewish nation during the theocracy — that it was not forbidden — that il vvas regulated by the divine law, Verv vvell, says his opponent, then slavery is not a sin, because a sin is an offence against the re vealed will of God, and you grant that slavery is not forbidden bythe Old Testament, Not so fast rejoins ihe worthy President; I admil, itis true, that slavery is permited by the inspired word of God, but I deny that what is permitted by that word is there- fore no sin, Dr, Fuller stands aghast at this, and with uplifted hands, asks his wor thy brother of Brown how this can be. Nothing more easy, replies the moral phi- losopber other acts are permitted by tbe Old Testament which are sins — as, for example, polygamy — and, consequently, it does not follow, because a thing is per mitted by the divine will, that, therefore, it is not a sin, Bul, wilh all due respect to one so high in position as a chri.stian teacher, another conclusion does follow from his position that the Old Testament permits what is sinful — it follows thatthe Old Tes- 12 Slavery in the South. lament is not tbe word of thai God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, much less \.o permit il — it follows tbat Dr, Wayland must abandon his bible, or his argu- ment. The most inveterate infidel could not more effectually demolish the authority ofthe Scriptures, than by proving that they enjoin, or permit a sin. Thus, either by sentences like the above, or by arguments like the la.st quoted, the authority of the Old Testament, as the word of God, is annihilated to tbe mind ofthe ¦ abolitionist, and be coines to regard Moses as an ordinary lawgiver to be judged, witb his code, by the unerring ethics of modern presidents of colleges, and professors of moral philosophy. Now, for our part, admitting, as we freely do, that the moral philosophy ofthe amiable head of Brown Universily, is a very respectable school book, and vastly superior lo the other productions ofa like nature, which inundate us from the New-England press, such as the various performances of Peter Parley — of fences, as thej' are, against the young, fully equal lo that ofthe pedagogue of Falerii, and worthy of the same punishment — yet we are not prepared to abandon even Paley or Smith, or Hutchinson, for Dr.- Wayland, and vve cannot hesitate to take the Old Testament and slavery, in preference to the "Moral Science" and abolition. In a manner equally summary, and equally inconsistent with its character as the word of God. Dr. Wayland deals with the New Testament, He admits that it does not condemn slavery. Ho will not deny tbat it alludes to slavery as a form of social life — that it regulates the conduct ofthe slave as a member ofthe christian church, • But, surely what the apo.stles suffered daily before their eyes without rebuke — what they prescribed rules fi)r — what they therefore permitted, could not be a sin; an enormous sin, as the abolitionists consider it. The answer ofthe Clarkson school to this is a singular piece of protestant Jesuitism, True, they say, the apostles did not condemn slavery In their preaching and conver sation, but they eistablished, in their writings, certain general principles, which would gradually destroy whatever vvas inconsistent with christian truth, and they left slavery to the operation of these principles. Now, however proper and necessary a reference to these general doctrines raay be, as to abuses vvhich raight arise in after times, and of which the apostles knew nothing, who can believe that they were intended as a substitute for their direct condemation of wrong, and sin committed daily before their eyes? Is there any class afevil doers so high as to escape the censure of Christ and his apostles? The Saviour rebukes the wise and the great, fhe rich and the powerfiil, those vvho sat in Moses' seat. The Apostle Paul denounces idolatry in the midst of Athens and Rome, Is there any thing so minute in the misconduct rjf christians -as to elude their notice? The apostle reproves a departure from propriety in tbe dress even ot the disciples. But there is not a word of condemnation for the sin of slavery — tbat enorraous wrong — that detestable crime. Why is this? Itis easy of expla nation. The apostle satisfied his conscience by propounding certain doctrines in bis writings, which would in time undo the mischief which he himself was inevitably doing, by permitting, by countenancing an offence against God. Il is not easy to sec afler this, with what propriety the apostle could ask the questions, — "thou fhat preache.'sl a man shall not steal, dost thou steal" — "thou that ahborrest idols, dost thou comrait sacrilege" — "thou tbat leachest another, teachesl thou not thyself." He might have added — thou that leachest indirectly by general maxims that slavery is sin, dost thou sanction it directly by thy dally conversation- and preaching. Tbe assuniptionlhat the apostles would, or did abstain from censuring any existing vice by direct precepts, and contented themselves with turning it over to tbe opera tion ot their general principles, is just the reverse of the truth. They givc us prin ciples for cases; where they had no opportunity for giving precepts. For what are we now doing when we attempt to apply to any particular case the principles es tablished by the apostles? We merely endeavor to discover what their precepts would have been, if tbe case had existed in their own day. If slavery had never been known before, and now for the fir.st time, in the progress of missionary labors, the christian preacher had discovered it in sorao remote tribe or country, the question would naturally arise, whether it was bonsislent with the principles, the spirit, tem per, and scope ofthe apostolic doctrine; or, in other words, whether the apostles, if now living, would approve or condemn this newly found form ofsocialiife. But Slavery in the South. 13 there is no room for such enquiries in relation to slavery, when it is admitted that the apostles knew it, saw il, spoke about it. The only proper question then i.s, what did the apostles speak? Did tbey conderan it? Suppose that they saw it, and were silent about it. The silence of the apo.stles is not like the silence of other writers. It means something. In the case supposed it would mean that there was nothing worthy of condemnation. But they were not silent. They prescribed rules for the conduct ofthe slave; for the conduct ofthe master. Arc we lo believe that tbe apostles re gulated a sin? — defined the mode in which it sbould be indulged? Would not this' be approuing il? Apply the reasoning to any olher sin. Suppose the apostle bad written to the Ephesians, giving certain directions as to the manner irt which they should offer sacrifice to fhe great goddess of their temple. Would it be enough to tell us that they had settled certain principles and truths respecting the exjstenee and attributes ofthe Deity, which would in due time extinguish idolatry, Bul Dr. Way- land tells us, "we are not competent to decide upon the manner in which God can, or does teach." It is very possible, therefore, that the apostles raay teach one thing by maxiras, and another by the tolerance of their daily conversation; that their preaching may lean one way, and their general doctrines anofher; that tbeir precepts and their principles do not agree; that the first were meant for their own times, and the last for all tiraes after. We have sometimes heard irreverent wits talk ofthe difference between the say ings and doings; the theory and practice; the life and preaching of the modern ministers and teachers of divine truth, but we never new the jest to be directed against the Apostle Paul. It remained forthe President of Brown University to discover, that the frail bishops and pastors ofour own times, may plead the example ofthe apostles, for the diversity between their principles and tbeir conduct. We have not had the advantage of reading the "moral science," but vve shall lake the earliest opportunity oflooking for the chapt-r establishing the rules, by wbich the balance may be pre served between a divines public teaching, and his private conversation; between his doctrines intended for the world at large, and the precepts which he reserves for his own domestic or social circle; between the right, and the expedient. But admit that the apostles belong to tbat class of christian instructors, whose preaching and whose principles are not always in accordance — that, on the subject of slavery, they have refused to rebuke an offence daily before their eyes, and have been contentto entrust its removal tothe influence ofthe general doctrines of Scrip ture. By what authority does Dr. Wayland depart frora the apostolic practice? — why does he disregard St. Paul's example? — the supposed mode of teaching, as to slavery, indirectly by general principles, is what he considers God's mode of teaching; why does he pursue another? He admits ihal there is not one word in the New Testament condemning slavery; why are there so many 'pages in Dr. Wayland's writings? Whence this contrariety between the president and the apostle? Weare assured, with all imaginable dogmatism, that slavery is a sin. Why is it.' — have Christ or the aposvles said so? — no, but .Mr. Tappan and Mr. Birney have. It is a wrong. Do the Scriptures condemn it? — no, but Dr. Wayland, Presidenl of Brown University does. It ought to be abolished. Does St, Paul teach this? — not a word like it, but Mr Clarkson has issued his bulls to that effect, ofa breed quite as forrai- dable as those of Lord Peter in the tale ofa tub. Will christians in their senses hesitate between St. Paul and Mr. Clarkson, or Dr. Wayland, or Mr. Birney? — certainly they will. The Northern Methodist Church, the Northern Baptist Church, all the drearaers of dreams, and seers of visions, and appealers to moral codes purer than that ofthe bible, turn their backs on St. Paul, and kick the Old and Neyt' Testa ment into tbe kennel, as a curse. The continued existence ofthe christian religion, such professed friends as these notwithstanding, is, perhaps, the most striking evidence ofits divine origin. If, as we have heard a friend reraark, a fo,-tress is assailed from without, andis underrained within by treacherous defenders, and still from the ram parts the standard continues to fly year after year, who can resist the conviction, that a power more than human defends and protects its walls? The substance then of Dr. Wayland's argument is this. It is true that slavery was permitted by the Old Testaraent, but that does not prove tbat slavery is no sin, 14 Slavery in the South. because other sins were perraitted by the Old Testament. It is true that there is not a word in the New Tesl;iment conderaning slavery, but that is because the apos- ties determined tbat the best mode of rebuking tbis sin, was to say nothing against it — to regulate the mode in which it sbould be indulged— to leave it to the general spirit of Christianity to abolish the evil. It is not. Dr. Wayland add.s. for man to ask why the apostles pursued tbis vvay of teaching in reference to slavery. It is enough that it is God's way. Bul in our day, the apostolic, or God's manner of teaching, is no longer the right one. The ab»litionists--Mr. Clarkson, Dr. Wayland, — have changed all that. Tbey have grown wiser than St, Paul, and have been blessed with a new revelation like the Mormon, The apostles said not a word in censure of slavery or slaveholders; the abolitionists rail at them like fishwomen — St, Paul regu lates the duty of master to slave, and of slave lo master; Dr, Wayland denies that any such relation cau properly exist — the apostle restores to the master tbe runaway slave, the abolitionists entice fhe slave to runaway — the first, directs the believing slave lo cimtinue in his condition, lo be content, to rtegard himself and master as equally the .servants of Christ, and equally bound by the duties of their several sta tions; the last, counsels, discontent, hatred, disobedience, and revolt, — the one ad dresses the owner of slaves as a beloved brother; the other reviles him. as a iniscre- ant. Il is evident that we must choose between St. Paul and Dr. Wayland, It is not possible to serve two such masters. On this branch of the subject — the relation of slavery to religion — we cannot too highly commend the argument of Dr, Fuller. It is clear, acute, and unanswerable. His opponent, in atterapting to reply, looses himself in a mist of metaphy.'slcal subtle ties, like one of Homer's heroes, whose exploits vvere suddenly cut short by a fog. We hope that the worthy President of Brown, like the Greek hero, will have sense and piety enough to pray for I'ght, and not go on vainly to do battle in the dark. There are some little things that we could wish amended in Dr, Fuller's letters. Ho is a strong and skilful disputant, but a somewhat incautious one. We do not understand why slaver)' should. not continue fo be possible, when for four thousand years it has been actual, or why its continuance should not be desirable, when, as -'•egards the black, it is a choice between servitude and extinction. We could wish too for a litlle prunimg of his excessive defftsrences and solicitudes for his reverend brother, and that he had been a llttie more chary of promoting untried books to the dignity of classical standards. But we know the kindly humor from which this comes, and that he could not possibly break his worthy brother's head even sylogistically, wiihout an affectionate solicitude lo apply a plaster to the wound. We notice the slight defects, only because the letters are so excellent, as to make us desire to see hem without a fault. The Soutbern Slates then have nothing to apprehend in discussing the question of slavery, as connected vvith the religion ofthe bible. For those other religions, which virtually repudiate the bible, whether tbey go by tbe name of Mormonisra, or aboli tionism, or assurae the garb of sorae refined system of ethics, transcending the morals of the apostles, we bave no concern. They will perish and come to naught, like a thousand fanatical follies wbich havo goiie before them. Slavery, in its relation to political economy, presents the next important question connected with it. Is it belter for the whole community, including both master and slave — the entire body politic, or Slate — tbat predial and domestic slavejy should, or should not, exist? Does il secure the greatest good to the greatest number? This is tbe question, as Chancellor Harper propounds it. He adds, 'let me not be understood as taking upon me lo determine, that it is better that it should exist, God forbid that the responsibility of deciding such a question should be thrown on me, or my coun- tryraeu. Hut this I will say, and not without confidence, that it is in the power of no huraan intellect lo establish the contrary proposition; — the proposition, that if is better it should not exist. This is probably known to but one Being, und is concealed from human .sagacity," Chancellor Harper then goes into a clear, comprehensive, philo. sophical argument, which even an opponent, if he be an ingenuous one, must admire. Slavery, he says, has existed in all ages, and in almost all nations. It has been the instruraent for the promotion of civilization every where. In no couutry, have the Slavery in the South. 1 5 arts or improvements of society flourished or advanced, but by the aid of slavery. The savage will not labor: War, tho chase, an indolent sensuality divide his life. This condition of society endures as long as the barbarian continues to put his prison ers lo death. When he ceases lo amuse hiraself after a victory, by making riddles of his captives with arrows, or tearing their flesh with pincers, or dashing out their brains with a tomahawk, and discovers that he can make ihem contribute lo his wants by preserving theh lives, then improvement commences. Tbe continuous, .systema tic, perseverving labor of the prisoner, converted inlo a slave, pr: duces food, com- forLs, conveniences, luxuries. The roaming savage becomes tixed. Agriculture advances; the arts appear, and are cultivated, and society gradually, bul certainly, assumes the form of civilized life. This is the history of prog ess among all nations. Slavery is fhe instrument, the means, by vvhich the barbarian reaches the advantages of civilization. In warm countries, it is lmpo.ssible, perhaps, after attaining them, to perpetuate them by any other other means. Compulsory labor is the only labor which can be sufficiently depended on, to counteract tbe influ nee of a hot climate A tropical sun at once produces an indisposition to work, and supplies without it, all that is necessary for sustaining life. In severer climates where the danger of freeze ing, and starving, and the absolute necessity of shelter, are sufficiently compulsory, withoutthe help of a master's control, anew modification of ,«ocial life arises, and a different condition of society is gradually established. Servitude takes the place of slavery. Tbe hired laborer supersedes the slave. But it is by no means certain, that ihls change is forthe benefit of ihe last. In the progress of that state uf society, to which we have just adverted, population increases; labor becomes superabundant. It is discovered that the work of the slave no longer pays for bis support. The period comes when tbe master is willing lo run away from his slaves, or, in olher words, lo manumit them, and get rid of feeding, clothing, and housing them. He perceives that he can hire tbe peasant for less than t co-(s bim to muiiiiain the slave, ar. J therefwe he manumits ihe slave. The freedom conferred on tbe serf in Europe a few centuries ago, was a concession, not to the serf, bul to the m;ister. It was a change for the benefit of capital, not of labor. It vvas intended to place ihe master, the proprietor, tbe capitalisJl, in a better condition than before. There was nothing in society, as then constiluled in any nation of Europe, that could by any possibility have produced a concession to the peasant. Who vvas be? what was he? that a change, in the fundamental laws of any govern ment, sbould be made for his advantage, or hy his advice? The change was intended for the benefit ofthe lord — Ibr the advantage of the master only, was the serf con verted into ihe "masterless slave," When he was made a free man, be was driven from a condition which he himself had chosen as a refuge from freedom. Gibbon relates that, on the establishment of the feudal system in Europe, the poor, the feeble, the timid, sought admission among the bondsmen of llie powerful lords. They were glad to transfer to ano'her, thai right of property in themselves, vvhich the abolition ists tell us cannot be alienated. When the nobles subsequently found them nn in cumbrance, tbey restored ilicin lo their previous condition — the condition of free laborers. Isthat condition now, any better than it was, wben the poor ran away from it, by enrolling themselves amongthe .serfs of the nobles? In tbe increased and crowded population of Europe, is it easier for tbe laborer to win his bread by the sweat of his brow? Is it loss difficult to procure clothes, lodgings, fuel? Island more easy of rent? Does not every day afford evidence of tbe continued desire of the landholder to get rid ofthe niiinumilled serf— tu drive off the cotter from his es tate, and free himself from the remains of the servile incumbrance left upon his liands? Il is true that the violence of the middle age.s, wbicb drove the feeble and the poor into slavery, exists no longer, but want, desliluiion, misery, starvation, constitute a motive quite as irresistible— hunger is as powerful as the sword. The laborer lives by work, but he cannot obtain it. The complaint of thousands conliiiually, is, that they are not ab'o lo gt^ employment. How happy would they be, to be alwaya se- cureof It to hold their employer bound never lo dismiss his laborers, without finding for them auother employer — to enjoy one of the benefits conferred by the condition 16 Slav&ry in the South. of the slave. He is always secure of employment, always, therefore, secure of sub sistence. And lo this condilion, only call it by another name, we cannot but think that thousands of European operatives vvould rejoice to be brought; Where, then, is tbe essential or important practical difference between the servi. tude of modern Europe, and American slavery? Except in the fancy of those, who corapose new Eutopias, or imaginary Republics, a laboring class — a very large class who depend on daily labor for daily bread — musi exist in every civilized state. In one country this laboring class is free, that is, he may seek his own master, and make his own contract. But want drives him to take the least possible wages that can sustain life. He is very often unable to obtain employment at all. Then he starves. He sleeps under hedges. To be able to get into a barn upon straw is a luxury. His wife and children suffer with him. If he falls sick, they perish togelher. In another country, the laborer is transferred by one employer lo another — his contract is made for him. He Is sure of employment, and therefore sure of subsistence. He never wanders aboul in pursuit of work, I le has a fixed home, certain support, food, clothing, help vvhen sick, "In periods of commercial revulsion and distress, in countiies of free labor, the distress fills principally^ on the laborer. In thoje of slave labor, it falls almos exclusively on the employer. In the former, whert a business becomes unprofitable, the employer dismisses his laborers, or lowers their wages. But with the latter, it is the very period at which he is least able to dismiss his laborers; and if he would suffer a farther loss, he cannot reduce their wages."* If wilh the free laborer, there be better chances for the few of superior raind lo improve their condition, witb ihe slave there is greater certainty, for the mass, of .security from want and sill rvation. There are compensations in either condition of society, which makes it not easy to determint which best secures the greatest happiness lo the laboring poor. It is with good reason then, that Gov. Hammond affirms, "that slavery is an es tablished and inevitable condition of human society." You may give it another name but the case of the laboring poor in countries of free labor, does not materially differ from thai of the slave. The Marquis of Normandy, as quoted by Gov. Haramond, declares tbe English operatives "in effect slaves." They are more degraded phy. sicully, and morally, than our slaves," To prove this, and show that it is not a rhetorical flourish only, a number of passages are quoted by Haramond, from the reports of the commissioners appointed by parliament to invesiigate the condition of the operatives. We refer to his letters for a fevv of the cases of suffering, ignorance, and brutal degradation, which abound throughout England, and will inflict but one or tvvo upon the reader, "I wish," says a Commissioner, "lo call the attention of the Board lo the pits about Brampton, The seumsareso thin that several of ihem have only tvvo feet head. way, to all the working. They are worked altogether by boys from 8 io 12 years of age, on all fours, with a dogbelt and a chain. The passages being neitb'er ironed nor wooded, are o.ten an inch or two thick with mud. In Mr. Barns' pit, ihese poor boys have to drag the barrows with one cwt. of coal or slack 60 times a day 60 yards, and ihe empty barrows back without once straightening their backs." "Richard North, aged 16, went into the pit at 7 — when he drew bythe girdle and chain his skin was broken, and the blood ran down." When they refused to draw they were beaten. In these pits, girls were al work, clad in nothing but their shifts, among naked men. In Liverpool, 40,000 persons live in cellars; in Manchester, 15,000, In England, 23,000 people dwell in barns,' tents, and in the open air. According to Mr, O'Connell, there are novv in Ireland alone 4,000,000 of paupers in rags without homes, '-living on potatoes when they can get them, and to whom a blanket is an unknmon luxury." D'israeli, iu a work of fiction it is true, but one professing to give a picture less horrible than the facts would justify, abounds in details of misery that are almost incredible. We refer our readers to the work, and particularly to tbe biographical notice of Mr, Devilsdust, the foundling pauper. It is- sufficiently evident from these accounts, that the condition of the English * Harper's Memoir. Slavery in tke South. It operative is not superior to that of the American slave. We have no such destitution and misery in the United States. Our slaves are better fed, better clothed, and cer tainly not more ignorant or immoral. We challenge comparison on this subject. Take for example the relative condilion of the children of slave and operative. The very worst feature in the case of the laboring poor of England, is the miserable state of the children of tender years, of both sexes, working, under exposures which set all decency at defiance, and harnessed literally to their work. The child of the slave, to the age of twelve or thirteen, is as happy as perfect exemption from work and care can make him. There is this essential difference, too, in the case of the English operative, and the African slave. The one has been degraded, by the increasing hardships of his situa tion, from a better condition; the other has been raised by slavery from a lower one — ¦ the worst features of English social life were not known two hundred years ago in England; Mr. Clarkson himself would hardly deny, that the African in America isa civilized and cultivated being, compared with the savage ofthe slave coast. In reference to this suffering and degrading class of operatives, Chancellor Harper says, "If some superior being vvould impose on the laboring poor of any country — ¦ this as their unalterable condilion — you shall be saved from the torturing anxiety concerning your own future support, and that ofyour children, vvhich now pursues you through life, and haunts you in death — you shall be under the necessity of regu. lar and healthful, though not excessive labor — in return you shall have the ample supply of your natural wants — you may follow the insitinct of nature in becoming pa rents, without apprehending that this supply will fail yourselves, or your children — ¦ you shall be supported and relieved in sickness, and in old age, wear out the remains of existence among familiar scenes and associates, wiihout being driven to be^, orlo resort to the hard and miserable cbar'ity of a workhouse — you shall of necessity be temperate, and shall have neither the temptation or opporiunity tb commit great crimes, or practise the more destructive vices — how inappreciable would the boon be thought." "Yet tbis is a very near approach to the condition of our slaves;"* and we confidently ask, whether the laboring millions of Great Britain would not joyfully accept a proposal from their landlords, permitting them to give their labor for life, to be ensured a dwelling, food, clothing, fire, and the support of their fami. lies at their death. What else is slavery but such an exchange? "May we not then say justly that we have less slavery, or more mitigated slavery than any other country in the civilized world,"')' The misfortune with the theorists and speculators on the subject of slavery is, that they compare the condition ofthe slave not with the laboring poor of their own or other countries, but with some imaginary state of society, where there is no excessive labor, no severe privation, no want, starvation, or wretchedness. "But theorists cannot control nature and bend berto their views,":}: and the class marked by pover ty, and hard work, and want, will continue to the end of time among all nations. Whether this class be in a better condition as serfs, or free laborers, is a question, which Chancellor Harper says no human sagacity oan fairly solve. To the several ob;ections to slavery, made from various quarters, the writers to whom we have referred, give sound and satisfactory answers. It is said that the life ofthe slave is insecure. We challenge comparison, replies Chancellor Harpei-j and affirm, that witb us there have 'been fewer murders of slaves, than of parents, chil dren, apprentices, in societies where slavery does not exist. It is pretended that nations owning slaves are feeble in a military capacity, let us recur to the histories of Greece and Rome for the answer. We are supposed to be exposed lo internal dangers — to the risk of insurrection and violence to person and property. Compare tbe condition of the Southern with that of the Northern States, or Great Britain — with the riots of Massachusetts, where helpless women were burnt out of their convent home at midnight — the ruthless violence of a like nature in Philadelphia— the anti-rent disturbances in New-York, where law and order have been trampled under fool for two years, and the Governor and the judges talk mincingly of the hardships of the *Haiyer's Memdir. t Harper. tHammtind. 3 18 Siaoery in the South. anti-renters, who are obliged — poor innocents — to live on leased land, and not on fee simple estates, contrary to the genius of our institutions — or the infamous Mormon and anti- Mormon troubles, burnings, and murders which disgrace Illinois — or the disorders of Ireland, where one man at the head ofthe populace virtually governs, conflagrations and murders are perpetrated with impunity throughout the land, and government looks helplessly and hopelessly on — compare all this with the unbroken quiet of the Southern Slates. It is asserted that the slave is the object of oppression and tyranny, jjf a laborer in England steals a lamb, or entraps the game kept for the sport of his employers, he is imprisoned, or transported; ifa slave wilh us robs his master ofa sheep, he is punished with a few lashes; if be kills his game, he has an unlimited privilege to eat iti'j But the slave is whipped — subject to a degrading, punishment. So also are the sailors and soldiers of England. Are they less sensi tive than the slave? Is the lash administered wilb a gentler temper, or a weaker arm in the navy, or army? Shall the tar be brought to the gangway and the cat for his offences, and the slave go free? Is the boy, or apprentice, degraded in England by a whipping from bis master? It is very idle to dispute about mere modes of punish ment. All are evils — unavoidable evils. Eacb nation selects that which ia deemed most conducive fo the end in view. Between whipping, imprisonment, transporta tion, wbo can authoritatively decide? As to the severity with whioh the lash is applied, it may confidently be asserted that nothing, to which the slave is expoaed, is at all comparable to the merciless inflictions to which English sailors and soldiers bave been frequently condemnedi We have remarked that in his social, moral, and religious condition, tbe African is immeasurably improved since his transfer to America from his own country, and this isthe true point of comparison. From an idolater, according to the most brutal forms of the most stupid of all superstition, he has been converted into a worshipper of the true God. From an ignorant and idle barbarian, he has been changed into an industrious, orderly, quiet, and useful laborer. Have the philanthropists, false or true, done half as much forthe African? Have they done any thing for him, but to make him discontented with a condition which is the best he ever krtew — ithe only one in which be can ever improve — that of subjectipp to a superior and more intelli gent race. Whether the system of education, which the African enjoys among us, may not be modified and made better; whether it may not be divested of some remains of colonial rudeness, is a question for those only to decide, to whose government Providence has entrusted him; but this is certain, it is the best which the negro race has ever yet been permitted to enjoy. In considei;ing slavery as a question of political economy, we have so far regarded it, as it influences the well being of the slave only. We have not adverted to some of the consequences of the system of free labor on the situation ofthe employer or capi. talist. It has been said that the manumission of the slave in Europe was a concession to the lord, and not to the serf; that it relieved the master from the support ofthe slave, when the work ofthe last was no longer profitable. In other words; it was perceived by the dominant class, that free labor was cheaper than slave labor, and therefore the .slave was made free. But to this gain on the partof the master, time has gradually attached certain counter-balancing evils, which may make it doubtful whether he bas really reaped any material advantage from tbe change. A paUper class isthe necessary consequence of a free labor class, andthe poor soon become numerous and destitute. It is not quite possible in a christian country, to see men starve in the streets of a great city, as in London for example, wiihout some effort to aid them. But this must happen to the free laborer who has qo work, and therefore no Vread, if some provision is not made for bis support. A popr taj? must: be levied, work-houses must be built, and, the expenses of managing them must be paid. Enormous sums of money are tjius forced from the reluctant master. Tbe number of paiipe.-s in Great Britain, by the censusof 1841, was 3,522,000, to -ay nothiiig of the partially destitute. The paupers of Ireland alone, according lo Mr." O'Connell, are now 4,000,Q00. The poor tax of 1839 was £4,400,000— a sum nearly equal to the wbole revenue of the United Stale!=. There i» no part of the system of English society, about wbich .their statesmen and Mav^y m tha Souih. 19 writers bave so differed and disputed, as their poor laws. It Is difficult to say whether they are most hateful to the tax-paying landholder, or the alms-supported pauper; whether the rate-receiver, or the poor-house commissioner, be the mo.st detested ob ject; whether tbe beadle, or charity boy — .Mr. Bumble, or Oliver Twist. — be the happiest illustration ofthe blessings of the system. It would seem then, that the great proprietors and capitalist have not altogether escaped the burthen of supporting the old, the sick, and the infirm laborer — that however reluctant, tbey are still compelled to contribute to this puipose. They doso in a way more onerous lo themselves, and less acceptable to the lab(rriiig poor. It may be well doubted whether, if the poor-laws and poor-rates had been foreseen, the landholders of England would have been so ready to exchange the dear labor of the serf, for the cheap labor of the freeman. When to this continued and increasing evil is added the danger to vvhich property is exposed from the despair ofthe starving laborer, it is very qyeslionable, whether the European master has ihnproved his own condition by the manumission ofthe serf. Il has been shown that to the serf himself, the change has been no sure blessing. As a general question then, of political economy, or civil government, it is by no means certain whether slavery, or free labor, be the most useful element in civil society. Such is the view sketched concisely and imperfectly from the writings at the head ofour article, of slavery as one of the conditions of civilized society — one of the classes, or castes, into vvhich the population of a great nation must be necessarily distributed. You may call the mass of poor laborers vvhat you will, but destitution, and suffering, and hard labor will be the attendants on poverty. There are some evil.s accompanying the condition of the free laborer, there are others peculiar lo that ofthe slave; which may predominate, as a general question it is not easy to decide. But whatever may be the truth in reference to the laborers of other countries, where thfre is no bVoad or marked line of discrimination between the rich and the poor, except what wealth or want may create, a new element enters into the calculation of advantages and evils incident to the several conditions of slavery, or free labor, when the question refers, as it does with us, to two distinct, heterogeneous races, who can never unite. If tbe two races so brought together are whiles an., blacks, the white will not endure the union — the happiness of the African is best secured in bondage underthe supeiior race. It is in this condition only, that he can enjoy or partake the advantages ofa high state of civilization. The negro never originated a civilization of his own. In Africa he is found always and every where, in a state of the rudest barbarism. In our own day the folly of France has enabled him to prove, that after having been trained to a high degree of efficient industry and improvement, he relapses, when left to himself, into hopeless savageism; and England is trying a series of experiments, to enable him to establish the same truth in ber West India Islands. If then he is ever to enjoy the advantages physical, moral, and religious, ofa highly civilized society, it must be in permanent connection wilh a race superior to bis own. But with such a race he cannot hope to live as an equal. He never did from the beginning of the world. He never can. The nonsense of the abolitionists about amalgamation is as stupid as it is nauseous. It violates the common instincfs ofour nature, Mr, Tappan himself would shun a negro son-in-law, and Mr. Alvan Stewart avoid the odors of an African spouse. The most careless observer of events will be continually struck- at the difficulty with which different tribes, or nations, mix and combine, even when they approach to physical and intellectual equality. In England they still talk ofthe Norman, and Saxon, and Celt, But where one race is decidedly an inferior one, greatly an inferior one— a race of slaves in all ages — never reach ing to a high condition of moral, or intellectual culture; always ignorant, always savage; in°the eye of the white, disgusting from color and features; to talk of a mix ture, is' to exhibit an ignorance of our nature, worse than that of the most arrant clodhopper, vvho selects his sheep and his swine from superior breeds. The stupidity, indeed, of the ranters for abolition, is one ofthe aggravating points of the annoyance to which they subject us. It would be an almost ludicrous dealb to be brayed out of existence by a chorus of donkies. 20 Savery in the South. But if the African cannot live on equal terms with the white race, or unite with It, ha is reduced to one of two conditions. ' He becomes «ilher tbd slave of the State- like the Helots of Sparta, or the Hindoo cultivator of Company lands — or of individ uals, as in the United States. No one who has ihought on the subject for a moment, can doubt wbich of these two is the belter condition. A candid comparison will show, that the situation ofthe American slave is not only preferable to tbat of tbe Stale slave, but that itis not worse than the condition ofthe Irish, or English laborer, and has indeed fewer wants, cares, and sufferings. This then is the case of the Sotithern States, The negro has been brought among us by no act ofour own. If he remaina with us, it must be in the relation of slaves to a master. It is the only relation consistent with our well being, and most condu cive lo his. It is the social arrangement, which alone can secure the happiness of white and black, so long as they continue to be dwellers in the same land. Il is the only system vvhich, vvith us, provides the greatest good tothe greatest number. Leaving the general question of slavery, let us consider the subject in our own immediate case, and flrst in reference to the master's interest. The amount of ex penditure for the support of paupers, has been stated to be one of the evils attendant on the system of free labor, and as going far to neutralize the advantages enjoyed by the employer under that system. We must return to this view ofthe subject, when we examine the question in relation to the benefit derived from it by the master in our own counfry. It is admitted that slave labor is dear labor — that the compensation made indirectly to the slave is substantially greater than that made directly to the free laborer. It might seem then that it would be tothe advantage of the master, in fhe Southern Stites, to exchange one kind of labor for the other. The first objection in the way, is that wbich is common to all similar cases in all countries. Pauperism, as we have said, is the necessary attendant on free labor. It was not known in England until the abolition of villeinage. The one springs natu rally from the olher. If there be no obligation on the laborer to work for any one, neither can there be an obligation on any one person to support the laborer in sick ness, infancy, or old age. The burthen of his support must then fall on the commu nity, and be provided for by the law. Hence the poor-laws and poor-house. In slave States, the law interferes only to compel the master to take care ofthe slave. It goes no farther, but this it requires. Where slavery is tbe established system of labor therefore, there can be no pauper class of laborers. The first evil then which would result to the master from the conversion of the negro into a free laborer, would be the support of an immense mass of black paupess. The proportion of poor among thera would be vastly gieater than among the same number of whites, from the indolent and unthrifty habits ofthe blacks. The amount saved to the masters, or employers, by the superior cheapness of free labor, would be expended on the support of this new class of paupers. But a still greater difficulty to the master in any exchange of slave lor free labor is, that in truth he has no choice — it is slave labor with b.m, or none. If the British experiment in Jamaica proves nothing else, it establishes this fact, thatthe manumit. ted negro vvill not work. We have no Coolies to enlist, rior is it at all probable that we should be either willing, or able, to carry on a quasi slave trade with Africa by bringing over negroes nomiraaZZy hired, or by making apprentices, lor twenty years, from the crews of captured slave ships. Much of the Southern country is too un healthy for white labor. The manumission of the blacks would therefore deprive the master of all labor, and restore a large portion of the North American continent to its primitive condition of swamp and forest. Now we ofthe Anglo-Saxon race, who claim this part of the continent as our heritage, and who intend, wilh God's help, to transmit it to our children, have no intention to see established among us thisenor- mous system of pauperism and destitution, nor are we al all willing to have our fields restored to their former wildness, by changing the present efficient laboring slave into an idle and dissolute freeman — and this, for the purpose of enabling certain empirics to do Slavery in the South. " 21 ed. As the negro is an inhabitant ofour country, we do not ask bow, or by whose agency, he must occupy that position in society vvhich, in our judgment, is the only one compatible with the happiness ofthe two races, who have thus been thrown to gelher. We vvill live with the negro race in no other relation than that of master and slave. As they have never been placed in any other condition in connection wilh a superior peojile, they shall hold no other with us. This is our fixed resolu tion, and we will not be driven from it. The idle gossip of such men as Birney, uiid Tappan, and Cassius M. Clay — half madman, half simpleton — whether it takes the shape of falsehood, or false sentiment, or mere stupidity — the element in which tlioy chiefly delight — is powerless against the settled feelings, resolves, interests, und in stincts of a whole people. Nor is the factious and foolish agitation of these men less at variance with the best interests of the slave. For to the question — the last which we set out with proposing to e.xamine — whether manumission woulu benefit the negro, the answer — no — is most clear, conclusive, and irrefutable. It vvould release him at once from the salutary authority and restraints vvhich make him an industrious, well behaved, useful mem ber of the community to vvhich he belongs. It would deprive him of that social con dition, which secures to bim and his family, a home, food, clothing, fuel, and exemp tion from the cares of ordinary life; places him under a rule more lenient greatly than that vvhich consigns English laborers for the smallest offences, to the jail, the courts, the hulks, or penal colonies,* where they are put to hard labor in chains, and under the lash; enables him to enjoy the blessings of true religion, of which in his own country he would have heard nothing; bestows on him the advantages ofa civi. lizalion which he could never attain in any other way; and fi.xes him in a state of more uninterrupted safety from want or violence, than is knovvn to any other ne^ro in the world. Great however as the benefits are, which we have enumerated as resulting from slavery lo the African, and of which the abolition of slavery would deprive him, thev ¦ areas nothing inthe estimate, compared with one overwhelraing evil, which would be the necessary consequence of manumission. Il is certain as any thing human can be, that the abolition of slavery would befollowed by the extinction ofthe black race. They w.ho seek to make them free, seek their destruction. We vvho contend for their continuance in slavery, are protecting not their well being only, but their existence. If after the abolition of slavery, peace continued to be preserved between thc two colours, the blacks woidd waste away under the consequences of competition with a more intelligent race, from which slavery alone now protects them. They would become idle or mischievous, and gradually wear out. "The African (says Governor Hammond) loves change, novelty, sensual excitements of all kinds. Released from his present obligations, his first impulse would be to go somewhere. At first, they would all seek the towns, and lapidly accumulate, in squalid masses, upon their out skirts. Driven ihence by the police, they would scatter in all directions. Some would wander to the free States, marking their tracks by their depredations. Many would roam wild in the woods or swamps. Few would be induced to labor, none to labor continuously. They would live by depredetions on cattle, barns, and poultry yards. When this supply vvas exhausted, they would perish for want." Such being their character, and compelled, as tbey would be, to compete with the more active and energetic white race, they would be driven from every pursuit and occupation of social life. The poverty, want, disease, and starvation, to which their idle and improvident habits must lead, would annually de,cimate their numbers, We have often asked noi'thern men, what had become of the blacks, — slaves formerly on their farms, — now enjoying the advantages of nominal freedom. The reply has al. ways been, they could not tell. The negroes hud disappeared. They had been im proved from slaves, into free operatives; from contented laborers in the country, to squalid paupers of the city; from the happy dependants of the while man, into equals with him, so fer as a commumty of jails, work-houses, or penitentiaries can confer • ¦WUkes' Voyage. 22 Sluveiy in tlie South. equality. The consequences of manumission lo tbe blacks, in driving them from em. ployment, and rapidly lessening their number, are so obvious as to arrest the attention of the transient observer, "The colored population (says Mr, Lyeli*) are protected ag.'inst the free competition of the white emigrants, with whom, if they were once liberated, they could no longer successfully contend." "Experience has proved in the Northern States, that emancipation immediately checks the increase of the color. ed population, and causes tne relative number of whites to augment very rapidly." "Before the influx of vvhite laborers, ihe coloured race will give way, and it will re quire the watchful care of the philanthropist, whether in the North or South, to pre. vent them from being thrown out of employment, and .-educed lo destitution." A moments reflection however would convince Mr. Lyell, that no effort of philanthropy could overcome the influence of those causes — the leges legum of which, civil institu. tions are themselves the mere effects — hy which the fate of the African race would be decided. We might deplore that fate, we could not chnnge it. Has philanthropy changed or even retarded that of the Indian tribes of North America? Bul the disadvantage resulting to the manumitted black, from his marked inferiori ty, and inabilty to engage in competition with the white man in the ordinary pursuits of life, is a small evil, compared with the infinitely greater one which would perpetu ally threaien him, of actual collision between the two colours. Various causes might lead to this — the depredation ofthe starving negro — the ambition of aspiring men of his ovvn race, or unprincipled and reckless demagogues of the other, — hatred for sup. posed wrongs, — the discontent arising from real inferiority. If from these, or any other causes, a resort to arms between the two races should occur, then the sure and speedy destmction of the unhappy African must be the consequence. The abolition. ists. with their characteristic stupidity and malignity, seem desirous lo hasten the conflict, as they profess to augur victory to the object of thoir sympathy; but no man capable of thinking vvould for a moment be in doubt as to the result. Atthe settlement of this country, according to Catlin's calculation, there were 6,000,000 of red men scattered over the Continent. There are now 1,400,000. They have disappeared before the indomitable race of Caucassian origin. But if the red men of North America, numerous as they were — brave, persevering, resolute of purpose, and trained to the art of war, were unable to resist the stea,dy, determined onset of the few, feeble, scattered colonies, spread out along a thousand miles of coast, vvhat hope could there be for the sluggish, timid, unskilled African, in a con test wilh these colonists — numerous, bold, energetic, and practised in arms, and stimulated to fierce indignation, by the circumstances ofthe conflict, and the nature of the foe? It would be a war of extermination to the black. Such is the conclu sion of Lord Brougham, In illustrating the peculiarly amiable character ofour English friend, and the amu sing blunders into which his love of himself, and his hatred for his neighbors, some. times lead him, we omitted the most ludicrous example vvhich has met our notice. Lord Sydenham, when Governoi-general of Canada, wrote a series of letters to his colleagues at home. The letteis are libels on the Americans, after the approved English model. They are so delighfuliy abusive, that it never seems to have oc curred to his friends, that they were also very silly. They have accordingly been published, and are religiously believed in by nine out of ten among their readers in England. We wjll give only one of ihe many pleasant passages which abound inthe Sydenham correspondence, and which bappens to be connected wilh our subject. The Americans, says this nobleman, are "such a set of braggadocios, that their public men must submit to the claims of their extravagant vanity." Then in another place, he says, "if they drive us into a war, the blacks in the Soulh will soon settle all ihat pari ofthe Union; and in ihe North, I feel sure we can lick tbem to their heart's content." — a pleasant speciraen this ofthe genuine John Bull — of what N, G. Willis calls the perfect thoroughbred. He is abusing ihe Araericans tor braggadocios, and their public men for submitting to the v&nhj ofthe people, and in the next sentence exhibits a sample ofthe most farcical bluster, and convinces us that he himself had * Travels in North America. Slavery in tlie South. 23 been filled so brim-full ofthe silliest flanadian vanities, as to believe that the blue noses could ZjcA;the Northern, and the bliicks seMZe tho Southern States— the settling ou which the umiable Governur.gcneral relies wilh so much complacency, being, of course, something like that of St. Domingo. This licking -and settUng is almost as ridiculous as Alvan Stewart's habeas corpus case in Utica, wben Mr. Munn's old ne gro woman vvas frightened almost to death at tbe prospect of being made a free labor er — or the similar affair of Dr. Hudson at Northampton, where the habeas-corpused slave brought an action for false imprisonment against the poor philanthrc pist, or Mr. Hoar's solemn que.stion to the Massachusetts Legislature, in his account of the mission to the Soulh, when he gravely asks whether the States are all conquered provinces of South Carolina— or Mr. Clarkson's playing the part of Gregory the VII,; issuing his bulls to the good people ofthe United Stales, and denouncing the errors of omission, and commission perpetrated by the framers of the Federal Constitution — or Col, Milchel's late work, which proves tothe satisfaction ofthe English public, that Na poleon was a dolt and a coward ' We had no intention, however to dwell on Lord Sydenham's nonsense, but adver ted to the passage merely for the purpose of introducing the remarks upon it of a much abler and more distinguished raan, "Lord Sydenham, says the celebrated ex- Chancellor, is thoughtless enough to view wilh a kind of exultation the prospect ofa negro insurrection, as a consequence ofthe United States daring to wage war vvith England. Misguided, short sighted man! and ignorant, oh, profoundly ignorant of the things tbat belong to the peace and, the happiness of either color in the new world! A negro revolt in our islands, where the whites are a handftil among their sable brethren, might prove fatal to Eurcqiean life, buf tbe African, al least, would be secure as far as security would be derived from the suceessful shedling of blood. But on the continent, where the numbers of the two colors are evenly balanced,* and all the arras are in the white man's hands, who bul the bitterest enemy ofthe unhappy slaves could bear to con- template their wretchedness in the attempt by violence to shake of their chains." Yet this is the wretchedness which the pretended friends ofthe negro in England and in America, not only bear to contemplate, but greedily seek lo bring about — let it corae exclaims the Senator of Quincy in the ecstacy of anticipated enjoyment — let it come repeats the philanthropist of Utica, who entertains his guests on alternate courses of free-labor sugarsf and abolition prints, and discusses, with the same coolness, an ice cream, and the cutting of Southern throats, J But we of the Soulh regard the catastrophe deprecated by Lord Bougham with horror, and believing it to be the cer tain consequence ofthe abolition of slavery in the United States, we say lo tbe aboli tionists, for the sake ofthe negro, cease from your machinations — setting aside every other a.'gument and reason against your projects, tbis single one is conclusive — there is but one alternative for the African in Araerica — he must live a slave, or from causes which no human power or influence can control, he must cease lolive at all. Our objections, therefore, to the manumission of the blacks, may be stated like those ofMr, Grosvenor, to the abolition of the slave trade. One of them is, that it would destroy the negroes; it is unnecessary to give any more. To one then who is content to view the afiairs of human life in fheir chequered and sad reality, and is not deluded by visions of imaginary equality and happiness never yet enjoyed among men, the condition of slivery, as one ofthe perraanently estab lished condilions of society, presents no such hideous features as are conjured up in * Lord Brougham does not state the case with all its strength. In the slave States the number of whites to blacks is as five to three. t Nothing can be more inconsistent with their professed good will to the negro, than the refusal of the abolitionists to consume slave-grown Sugar, for although the negro is always sure of food, clothing, etc., his enjoyments are materially promoted by the prosperous condition of the master. The condition of slave and master is indeed the only one securing an intimate anion between the interest of labor 2Uid capital. In Englaud the object is manifest — to give a monoply of the sugar market to her own colonies. In America, our abolition party, in their blind imitation of Exeter hall have taken a position precisely the reverse of that of England — the American party discourage their own country's.production, for the benefit of foreigners. t This gentlemen on his supper tables, displays, among the dishes, pictures of imaginary doings of masters and slaver, with whips, 6hains, handoulTs, eto^, to improve the appetite of his guests- 24 Slavery in the South. the fancies of real and pretended philanthropists. It is the position in which it bag pleased Divine Providence lo place .the poor and the feeble in all ages, and almost all counlries, which he has recognized and established as a form of social life, and, for tbe regulation of which, he has prescribed rules that, if duly regarded, secure to the slave all the benefits physical, moral, and religious, which the laboring poor can ever hopS to command. When compared vvith free labor, it vvill be found that each condition has its bene- fils and its evils to the whole community — to the destitute and to the rich, the laborer and the lord; that whatever may be true as to the superior advantages of free over slave labor in other counfries, where no radical difficulty prevents the manumitted serf from melting into the mass of the dominant people, there is no choice left us in America where the slave is an inferior race, of different color, with whom the master will never unite; that the cultivation ofthe South requires the preservation of the only species of labor wbich she isable to command, and, without which, our fields would be abandoned; that to the slave himself, his present condition is not only the besl, as securing to him advantages, comforts, enjoyments, which the African never before possessed, but it is his only security from the operation of circumstances, which would either gradually wear away his kind, or suddenly extinguish it in blood. These are the conclusions to which our argument conducts us, and we leave it with every well meaning man to deterrnine, bow he can with a clear conscience, lend his aid, to an agitation which seeks to bring about by violence a cata.strophe so dis astrous to society, so injurious lo the master., so destructive to the slave? Can he — dare he meddle wilh a question, with which he has no immediate concern, against the protests of those most interested, and wilh the almost certainty that his interference will produce incalculable evil to the object of his care, W, G. ; UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 04021 9355