Page images
PDF
EPUB

WEST INDIAN AND OLD TESTAMENT SLANERY.

amount to the entire value of the islands and all their slaves, (but it is believed they will amount to much more,) then the abolitionists would immediately raise a fund to make the purchase proposed, and at once set every captive free. But the abolitionists think it too much for any man, who is found in the possession of stolen property, to say, "I'll not give it up, unless you will pay me its full value; and if you wish me to do so on any other terms, you are a consummate hypocrite."

Were an ordinary horse-stealer thus to reason, he would be immediately convinced of its fallacy by a lodgment in some prison, and the morally certain prospect of ending his life of villany upon some drop and it is very bad policy for the retainers, not of stolen horses, but of stolen men, and women, and children, to take high ground, and indicate their claims to such property, and insult and bespatter with opprobrious epithets all those who desire them to give it up. They had better speak softly, and sing low, or the proba. bility is, that a British public will be tempted strictly to analyze their claims, and the claims of their slaves; and should they do this, it is not the most improbable thing in the world, that the result of the analysis would be, that, instead of having to receive any thing, they would be required to pay to their slaves such a sum as would educate the rising generation, and supply the afflicted, the infirm, and the aged with every necessary comfort.

So zealous is this writer in defence of the slave system, that even in this very loyal paper he absolutely turns rebel, and says, "If I were a member of the House of Assembly in any of the West India islands-Jamaica, for instance-1 should say:-Gentlemen,-You may pass as many acts in England as you like, but we shall pay no attention to them." Very likely, for the Jamaica Assembly has done this already. But they had better not repeat it too often, for though the British lion may permit a little cur once or twice to frisk and jump about it, yet, should it take too great liberty, and become indecently troublesome, it will, by a single whisk of its tail, lay it prostrate and lifeless at its

[graphic]

Emancipation is certain, and the only
question is, shall they emancipate them-
selves, as the slaves of St. Domingo did,
or shall Government emancipate them?
The former would be attended with the loss
of the islands, and the massacre of a large
portion of its white population; whereas,
the latter would be accomplished without
the loss of either life or territory.

The arguments in favour of slavery are
in the estimation of its advocates very cogent
and conclusive, and are reducible to three
classes:-first, to the loss which abolition
would occasion to the proprietor; secondly,
to the inferiority and incapacity of the
slaves; and, thirdly, to abolition being in
opposition to the Divine will, and greatly
injurious to the spiritual interests of slaves!
On the first of these, we have perhaps
already said enough. Let the whole of
the case be examined by impartial and dis-
interested judges, and should it appear
that, on the whole account, there is a balance
in favour of any proprietor, in such case
the abolitionists would feel no objection to
the payment of the utmost farthing of that
balance. More than this, they ought not
to expect.

The second argument requires more extended remark. According to the statements of some slave advocates, the West India negroes do not belong to the human family, but are a grade lower in the chain of being; an order as distant from man, as the dog is from the ape. Yet, like man, they have the organs of speech-like man, they are physically and anatomically the same-like man, they perform the mechanic arts-like man, they possess the powers of perception, judgment, imagination, will, and memory-like man, they reason-like man, they are sentient as well as intellectual, and hence they are the subjects of every human passion-like man, too, they are capable of religion, and many of them know, love, and obey God, enjoy the consolations of religion in life, and die in the lively hope of a blessed immortality. It is true that they have retiring foreheads, and flat noses, and thick lips, and that their hue is black; but what of all this? Perhaps, were the physiognomy of the Jamaica Assembly examined, it would be found, that though not quite so black as the negro, some of them have nothing either of the lily or the rose in their complexion, and that many of their forheads are not prominent, nor their noses aquiline, nor their lips remarkably thin; yet for all this they never for a moment doubt their affinity to the human family, but believe themselves to be the

"Distinguished link in being's endless chain, Midway from nothing to the Deity." Men who would exclude them, for this reason, from the human family, betray their utter ignorance of such illustrious names as Hamilcar, and Hannibal, and Cyprian.

But suppose them not to be of the human species; in what a position does this conclusion place many West Indian proprietors, and attorneys, and managers! The West India islands contain an immense multitude of coloured people. Whence came they? Many of them are the offspring of white men and black female slaves. But if black female slaves belong not to the human family, then the white men, who are the fathers of these coloured people, deserve to be put to death, both by the laws of God and man. See Exodus xxii. 19, and Burns' Justice, vol. 1, page 267. On their own shewing, therefore, a system pregnant with such unnatural and monstrous abominations ought not to be tolerated another day. If what they say be true, the miscreant white fathers of these coloured slaves, deserve not only to be excommunicated from all respectable society, but to be utterly exterminated by the hand of justice from the face of the earth; and a pillar should be erected to perpetuate their infamy, and hold them up to the endless execration of posterity.

This argument is indeed abandoned by some West India advocates, who admit them to be a part, though a very humble and inferior part, of the human family. Such admission parries the consequences of its rejection, referred to in the preceding paragraph, whilst, at the same time, it places the slave system in a most unamiable and forbidding light.

It is a fact which none will have the hardihood to deny, that many West India proprietors have children by their slaves, and these children, their own sons and daughters, are in general doomed to a state of perpetual slavery. Where are the tenderness, and the bowels of compassion, for which we have sometimes heard West India planters eulogized? Fathers abandoning their own children to all the horrors of slavery, to the laceration of the driver's whip, to the prison, and to the stocks; and in addition to all this, their daughters are made the victims of the lust as well as the cruelty of a licentious attorney, or manager, or driver. A system under which such evils are tolerated is intolerable, and should be at once and for ever overthrown.

They are admitted to be of the human family, but so intellectually inferior as to be utterly incapable of liberty, and utterly

unfit to be placed in the condition of the British peasant. work? Yes, they can work well. Among Why? Can they not them are all descriptions of mechanics and artisans, and they are admirable cultivators of sugar, and cotton, &c. Will they not work? No, say the slave system advocates, they wont work unless they are driven to it. Neither would you, Mr. Advocate, if you could get nothing by it. The hope of reward sweetens labour, and makes a man work cheerfully; but, alas! they have, in general, no such sweetener of their labour; whether they work much or little, they and their wives and their little ones still remain slaves-slavery, interminable slavery, is still before them. But give them the hope of reward, and they will work as diligently as their European brethren.

for the cultivation of vegetables for themMany of them have small plots of ground selves, in which they labour as cheerfully from his master's labour, without being as any English peasant when he returns followed by the merciless driver. Have they understanding enough to take care of this? A few, of the many thousands of what they may acquire? Who can doubt West India slaves, have been fortunate enough to belong to planters of more than ordinary kindness, in whose service they have, from the produce of their own little gardens, or from other sources, been able to lay by a sum sufficient to purchase their freedom. Besides, multitudes of the slave population are sober and moral from principle, having been favoured with Christian instruction. They are both able and willing to labour; only let them have adequate encouragement, and they, for any evidence that has yet appeared to the contrary, are quite as provident as their neighbours.

But,

Where then lies their incapacity for liberty? Is it in their ignorance? Whose fault is this? Beyond all question, it is the fault of their masters, in not providing them with the means of instruction. after all, their ignorance is not such as to bar their liberty; it is rather an argument why they should be liberated, for so long as they continue in their present state of bondage, that ignorance will be perpetuated. Set them free, and furnish them with the ordinary means of knowledge, and they will soon rise, to say the least, as high as our own peasantry, and conduct themselves as peaceable and loyal subjects, and be useful and important members of civil society.

Already they know much more than many of their masters wish them to know, and than well consists with their remaining

much longer in their present degraded state of bondage. Many of them are married, and know that they have an exclusive right to their own wives. But, alas! this knowledge is often fatal to their peace. Not long since, a poor, but virtuous slave, who had not long been married, came in a state of frenzy to the minister who had married him, and said, in his imperfect English, "Massah Minister, you know you married me to (naming his wife) but de big man at de big house has taken my wife to sleep with him dis night. Me will shoot him!" Under the present system, such villanies, it is to be feared, are not unfrequent; nor can the slave easily, if at all, obtain any redress.* Should he complain, he is punished for his insolence, and the lascivious tyrant continues and extends his debaucheries with impunity. And what else can be expected, so long as slaves are considered as mere chattels !

But the slave population have too much knowledge to submit much longer to such enormous villanies. Emancipate them, and the sanctuary of marriage could not thus outrageously be profaned, but at the risk of condign punishment. Instead of being too ignorant to be capable of liberty, they are too wise tamely much longer to submit to those multifarious injuries which they have sustained; and multitudes of them have too much virtuous principle, to witness the seduction and ruin of their wives and daughters by a libidinous planter, or manager, or overseer, without the highest indignation. Nothing can tend more directly to the moral improvement of West Indian society, than the extinction of slavery, for it will at once rescue from the unhallowed domination of unprincipled libertines, the whole female slave population.

In some of the islands, such offences, indeed, are by recent acts punishable: in Antigua by a fine of £100, and in Jamaica by death. But of what avail are such Acts, when, in many of the islands, slave evidence is not admitted against any white person; and in many others, not admitted against either the owner or his representative? Now, suppose these big men" to select, as the victims of their lasciviousness, either the wife or daughter of a slave, in the presence of slaves only, he could not be convicted, and consequently would go unpunished; unless, indeed, the injured and indignant slave were to take summary vengeance

by stabbing the wretch to the heart, or shooting

him through the head. Besides, who does not know that West India laws, in favour of the slave, are, as regards them, a dead letter, and that their chief object is to mislead and deceive a British public? The recent case of the infamous Parson Bridges furnishes a striking illustration of the utter inefficiency of colonial law to protect the slave. In reference to such laws, Burke long ago said, with as much truth as eloquence, "It is arrant trifling; they have done little; and what they have done is good for nothing. It is totally destitute of an executory principle."

[ocr errors]

But, after all, it seems, according to another writer, in the same Morning Post, who signs himself "Philalethes, M.," that slavery is a good thing, that it is of divine institution, that it will continue for ever, "notwithstanding the clamour raised against it, and that this nation has most grievously sinned in abolishing the slave trade, for which we "ought to repent in sackcloth and ashes." The religious quailing of Philalethes forcibly reminded me of the very pious address of Judge Jefferies to the venerable Richard Baxter. "Richard," said Jefferies, "thou art an old fellow, an old knave; thou hast written books enough to load a cart, every one as full of sedition (I might say, treason) as an egg is full of meat. Hadst thou been whipped out of thy writing trade forty years ago, it had been happy. Thou pretendest to be a preacher of the gospel of peace, and thou hast one foot in the grave; 'tis time for thee to think what account thou intendest to give. But leave thee to thyself, and I see thou wilt go on as thou hast begun; but, by the grace of God, I'll look after thee." And Philalethes seems determined, Jefferieslike, to look after those "old fellows" and "old knaves," who have so wickedly put an end to men-stealing in Africa, with all the horrors of the middle passage, and whose restless spirits urge them onwards, to fill up the measure of their iniquity, by abolishing slavery altogether. I shall conclude this paper with an examination of the religious argument of Philalethes.

That slavery, and the buying of bondmen, or slaves, are recognized and sanctioned in the Old Testament, is readily conceded. But, in order to make this concession available in favour of West India slavery, it will be necessary to prove, 1st., That, whatever was either permitted or enjoined, in patriarchal or levitical times, is equally enjoined or permitted now. 2. That the slavery formerly enjoined, and West India slavery, are the same. 3. That such slavery, or any other species of slavery, is necessary to be perpetuated, in order to the fulfilment of the curse pronounced upon Canaan. And, 4. That great spiritual good is the natural result of the system: for each of these is assumed by Philalethes. Let us inquire whether these assumptions are true or false.

Is it true, that, whatever was either permitted or enjoined, in Old Testament times, is also enjoined or permitted now? Then polygamy and concubinage were permitted. Then divorce, whenever the husband chose to be separated from his wife, was allowed. Then the lex talionis,

"an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," was enjoined. But, will Philalethes say, that, under the Christian dispensation, these things are either allowed or commanded? Christianity permits neither concubinage nor polygamy; nor divorce, except in case of adultery; nor the ler talionis at any time, but commands us not to resist evil, but to love them that hate us, and to do good to them who despitefully

use us.

Besides, it lays down this golden rule, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Whatever, therefore, cannot be made to harmo nize with this rule, Christianity absolutely interdicts. If, indeed, Philalethes, or any of his slave-loving friends, really desire to be kidnapped, and to enjoy the filth, and effluvia, and suffocation, with all the ac companying luxuries of a slave ship-and, to taste the delicate pleasures of a naked exhibition in a slave market, and the subsequent enjoyment of being tickled by the driver's cart whip, &c. they, for any thing I can see to the contrary, may, consistently with the golden rule, continue to support slavery. But, unless they really desire all this, they must either give up Christianity or slavery. And such desire is so much out of the ordinary way of feeling, that Philalethes will never obtain credit for its existence, unless he and his friends actually put theinselves under the yoke, and experimentally prove what are the great privileges of slavery.

Philalethes assumes, that the slavery allowed in the Old Testament, and West India slavery, are the same. But is this the fact? Are they the same in their origin? The allowed bond-servants, or slaves, of the Old Testament, were of two classes; those who were made slaves in war, and those who, in extreme poverty, sold themselves. In the former case, slavery was a commutation of punishment for that of death; for, according to the laws and usages of war, the victor might have put them to the sword. In their case it was an exercise of mercy, similar to that which a felon experiences, when transported for life, instead of being hanged.

In the latter case, the act was voluntary, This was evidently the case with the Egyptians; they went to Joseph, and said, "We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies and our lands wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our

[ocr errors]

land will be servants unto Pharaoh," Exod. xlvii. 18, 19.

Such, too, appears to have been the origin of the servitude of a poor Israelite to a richer brother, and of the bondage of the heathen to the Jews, as recorded and commanded in Leviticus xxv. 39,44. In both cases they appear voluntarily to have sold themselves. That a man has a right to give up his liberty, if he pleases, and to place himself entirely at the command of another, for a limited period, or for his whole life, is a thing which I shall not controvert a thing which is actually done by every man who enters his majesty's service, either in the army or navy; for, so long as he is there, he must not act on his own judgment or inclination, but must in all things implicitly obey his superiors.

But have West India slaves become such in either of these ways? Is there a man or woman among them, who, like the Egyptians, voluntarily sold themselves? If so, let all such remain in bondage, and fulfil their engagement; it is their duty to do so, and their purchaser has, in such case, a right to their service. Or, are they slaves in virtue of being prisoners of legitimate war? No, they are not; they were made such by methods the most villanous and cruel.

One of the ordinary methods of enslaving them, was to set fire to their villages at night, and then, when in their fright they attempted to escape from the flames, a set of base miscreant armed Europeans seized them, and, regardless of the agonizing shrieks of men, women, and children, forced them into that worst of all receptacles, a slave ship, where they were crowded together like so many beasts, and nearly scorched to death with intense heat, and almost poisoned with the stench of the indescribable filth of their floating prison.

Old Testament and West India slavery do not bear to each other the most distant resemblance in their origin. The Old Tes tament, instead of sanctioning, denounces West India slavery, and dooms its abettors to death. "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death," Exod. xxi. 16. But West India slaves have been stolen, and the thieves have sold them, which thieves, according to the Old Testament, have forfeited their lives; nor they only, but their present possessors alsoeven all those in whose hands these stolen ones are found. Did Philalethes, when he appealed to the Old Testament in favour of West India planters, know this? As a friend, let me advise him in future to be careful how he runs into the lion's mouth.

Besides, the cruelties inflicted upon West India slaves has no parallel in Old Testment slavery no, not even in Israel's slavery in Egypt. They were never exposed in a state of nudity, without regard to sex or age, in a public market, and handled like so many beasts in Smithfield. The husband was never sold away from the wife, nor the parent from the child. They were, indeed, cruelly oppressed, and severe labour was exacted from them, but we never read of the cart whip-of the thirty-nine lashes upon the naked back-or of the indecent exposure and severe lacerations of female slaves. No; West India slavery, both as it regards its origin and its character, is, for its villany and its cruelty, pre-eminent and unparalleled in the annals of slavery.

Philalethes refers to some prophecy, from which he confidently infers interminable slavery. He does not, indeed, give us the words of the prophecy, nor even say where it may be found. He simply says, "We know that slavery, in its origin, was a prophetic curse inflicted for a heinous offence," and that "the prophecy will be fulfilled to the end of the world." I suppose, however, he means the curse pronounced by Noah against Canaan, in Gen. ix, 25-27. "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant; God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." This is a most remarkable prophecy, and one which has been so clearly fulfilled, as to produce the most perfect conviction that it proceeded from the inspiration of the Almighty, to whom the future is as the past or the present. It includes three important facts-the peculiar blessedness of Shem-the great enlargement of Japheth-and the subjection of Canaan.

At present we are concerned with the prophecy only as it regards Canaan. Philalethes thinks it predicts slavery, uninterrupted and interminable slavery. But why he thinks so, he has not condescended to inform us. Certainly, the expression, "servant of servants," obviously implies a low and degraded state; yet it does not necessarily imply a state of slavery, much less West India slavery. But, suppose the expression to mean a state of slavery, how does it appear that it must be interminable? Do the words of the prophecy determine this? They simply assert that he shall be "a servant of servants" to his brethren, without specifying any time of servitude. Should Philalethes say, that the prophecy of degradation is coeval with the duration

of Canaan and his descendants, then he will assert what is completely at variance with the truth of history; for Canaan never was subject either to Shem or Japheth, till about nine hundred years after the prophecy, when the Jews, who were the descendants of Shem, took possession of Palestine. Now, if the prophecy did not require the slavery of Canaan for so long a time in the beginning of their history, why should it require its bondage to the end of the world? Already they have been under the dominion both of Shem and Japheth, and many of them in a condition of deep degradation; and, therefore, should they from this day rise to a state of independence, the truth of the prophecy would not be at all impugned.

Besides, to suppose that slavery shall continue to the end of the world, is entirely at variance with all those predictions which relate to the universal spread and influence of Christianity-a state of things in which all the charities of the gospel will be in full and vigorous operation, and in which the existence of slavery will be utterly impossible; when "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them: and the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den. They shall not HURT nor DESTROY in all my holy mountain." Such is the purpose of Him who came both to purchase liberty, and proclaim it to the captive.

Philalethes greatly regrets the abolition of the slave trade, inasmuch as through that abolition the poor inheritors of the curse of Canaan are continued in a pagan land, and thus are "prevented from being baptized into the Christian church, and made partakers of the other blessed sacrament.” The good people in this country were so simple as not to perceive the godlike and benevolent object of the African slavetraders; they thought their object was the same as that of horse-stealers, merely to get money in this, however, it seems they have been egregiously mistaken, for it was the conversion of the heathen which they had in view! After all, the methods they took for their conversion were not much calculated to make them fall in love with Christianity. Kidnapping, and the middle passage, and the slave market, and the application of the cart whip, with the other benedictions of their Christian masters and

« PreviousContinue »