"The appearance of things in the slave States is quite the reverse of this. We sometimes meet a ragged black boy or girl driving a team, consisting of a lean cow or a mule, sometimes a lean bull, or an ox and a mule; and I have seen a mule, a bull, and a cow, each miserable in its appearance, composing one team, with a half-naked black slave or two, riding or driving, as occasion suited. The carriage or wagon, if it may be called such, appeared in as wretched a condition as the team and its driver. Sometimes a couple of horses, mules, or cows, &c., would be dragging a hogshead of tobacco, with a pivot, or axle, driven into each end of the hogshead, and something like a shaft attached, by which it was drawn, or rolled along the road. I have seen two oxen and two slaves pretty fully employed in getting along a single hogshead; and some of these come from a great distance inland."

The inhabitants of free States are often told that they cannot argue fairly upon the subject of slavery because they know nothing about its actual operation; and any expression of their opinions and feelings with regard to the system, is attributed to ignorant enthusiasm, fanatical benevolence, or a wicked intention to do mischief.

But Mr. Clay, Mr. Brodnax, and Mr. Faulkner, belong to slaveholding States; and the two former, if I mistake not, are slave-owners. They surely are qualified to judge of the system; and I might fill ten pages with other quotations from southern writers and speakers, who acknowledge that slavery is a great evil. There are zealous partisans indeed, who defend the system strenuously, and some of them very eloquently. Thus, Mr. Hayne, in his reply to Mr. Webster, denied that the south suffered in consequence of slavery; he maintained that the slaveholding States were prosperous, and the principal cause of all the prosperity in the Union. He laughed at the idea of any danger, however distant, from an overgrown slave population, and supported the position by the fact that slaves had always been kept in entire subjection in the British West Indies, where the white population is less than ten per cent. of the whole. But the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina did not mention that the peace establishment of the British West Indies costs England two million pounds annually! Yet such is the fact. This system is so closely entwined with the apparent interests and convenience of individuals, that it will never want for able defenders, so long as it exists. But I believe I do not misrepresent the truth, when I say the prevailing opinion at the South is, that it would have been much better for those States, and for the country in general, if slavery had never been introduced.

Miss Martineau, in her most admirable little book on Demerara, says: "Labor is the product of mind as much as of body; and to secure that product, we must sway the mind by the natural means—by motives. Laboring against self-interest is what nobody ought to expect of white men—much less of slaves. Of course every man, woman and child, would rather play for nothing than work for nothing.

"It is the mind, which gives sight to the eye, and hearing to the ear, and strength to the limbs; and the mind cannot be purchased. Where a man is allowed the possession of himself, the purchaser of his labor is benefitted by the vigor of his mind through the service of his limbs: where man is made the possession of another, the possessor loses at once and for ever all that is most valuable in that for which he has paid the price of crime. He becomes the owner of that which only differs from an idiot in being less easily drilled into habits, and more capable of effectual revenge.

"Cattle are fixed capital, and so are slaves: But slaves differ from cattle on the one hand, in yielding (from internal opposition) a less return for their maintenance; and from free laborers on the other hand, in not being acted upon by the inducements which stimulate production as an effort of mind as well as of body. In all three cases the labor is purchased. In free laborers and cattle, all the faculties work together, and to advantage; in the slave they are opposed; and therefore he is, so far as the amount of labor is concerned, the least valuable of the three. The negroes can invent and improve—witness their ingenuity in their dwellings, and their skill in certain of their sports; but their masters will never possess their faculties, though they have purchased their limbs. Our true policy would be to divide the work of the slave between the ox and the hired laborer; we should get more out of the sinews of the one and the soul of the other, than the produce of double the number of slaves."

As a matter of humanity, let it be remembered that men having more reason than brutes, must be treated with much greater severity, in order to keep them in a state of abject submission.

It seems unnecessary to say that what is unjust and unmerciful, can never be expedient; yet men often write, talk, and act, as if they either forgot this truth, or doubted it. There is genuine wisdom in the following remark, extracted from the petition of Cambridge University to the Parliament of England, on the subject of slavery: "A firm belief in the Providence of a benevolent Creator assures us that no system, founded on the oppression of one part of mankind, can be beneficial to another."

But the tolerator of slavery will say, "No doubt the system is an evil; but we are not to blame for it; we received it from our English ancestors. It is a lamentable necessity;—we cannot do it away if we would:—insurrections would be the inevitable result of any attempt to remove it"—and having quieted their consciences by the use of the word lamentable, they think no more upon the subject.

These assertions have been so often, and so dogmatically repeated, that many truly kind-hearted people have believed there was some truth in them. I myself, (may God forgive me for it!) have often, in thoughtless ignorance, made the same remarks.

An impartial and careful examination has led me to the conviction that slavery causes insurrections, while emancipation prevents them.

The grand argument of the slaveholder is that sudden freedom occasioned the horrible massacres of St. Domingo.—If a word is said in favor of abolition, he shakes his head, and points a warning finger to St. Domingo! But it is a remarkable fact that this same vilified island furnishes a strong argument against the lamentable necessity of slavery. In the first place, there was a bloody civil war there before the act of emancipation was passed; in the second place enfranchisement produced the most blessed effects: in the third place, no difficulties whatever arose, until Bonaparte made his atrocious attempt to restore slavery in the island.

Colonel Malenfant, a slave proprietor, resident in St. Domingo at the time, thus describes the effect of sudden enfranchisement, in his Historical and Political Memoir of the Colonies:

"After this public act of emancipation, the negroes remained quiet both in the South and in the West, and they continued to work upon all the plantations. There were estates which had neither owners nor managers resident upon them, yet upon these estates, though abandoned, the negroes continued their labors where there were any, even inferior agents, to guide them; and on those estates where no white men were left to direct them, they betook themselves to the planting of provisions; but upon all the plantations where the whites resided, the blacks continued to labor as quietly as before." Colonel Malenfant says, that when many of his neighbors, proprietors or managers, were in prison, the negroes of their plantations came to him to beg him to direct them in their work.

He adds, "If you will take care not to talk to them of the restoration of slavery, but to talk to them of freedom, you may with this word chain them down to their labor. How did Toussaint succeed?—How did I succeed before his time in the plain of the Culde-Sae on the plantation Gouraud, during more than eight months after liberty had been granted to the slaves? Let those who knew me at that time, let the blacks themselves, be asked: they will all reply that not a single negro upon that plantation, consisting of more than four hundred and fifty laborers, refused to work: and yet this plantation was thought to be under the worst discipline and the slaves the most idle of any in the plain. I inspired the same activity into three other plantations of which I had the management. If all the negroes had come from Africa within six months, if they had the love of independence that the Indians have, I should own that force must be employed; but ninety-nine out of a hundred of the blacks are aware that without labor they cannot procure the things that are necessary for them; that there is no other method of satisfying their wants and their tastes. They know that they must work, they wish to do so, and they will do so."

Such was the conduct of the negroes for the first nine months after their liberation, or up to the middle of 1794. In the latter part of 1796, Malenfant says, "the colony was flourishing under Toussaint, the whites lived happily and in peace upon their estates, and the negroes continued to work for them." General Lecroix, who published his "Memoirs for a History of St. Domingo" in 1819, says, that in 1797 the most wonderful progress had been made in agriculture. "The Colony," says he, "marched as by enchantment towards its ancient splendor: cultivation prospered; every day produced perceptible proof of its progress." General Vincent,[U] who was a general of brigade of artillery in St. Domingo and a proprietor of estates in the island, was sent by Toussaint to Paris in 1801 to lay before the Directory the new constitution which had been agreed upon in St. Domingo. He arrived in France just at the moment of the peace of Amiens, and found that Bonaparte was preparing an armament for the purpose of restoring slavery in St. Domingo. He remonstrated against the expedition; he stated that it was totally unnecessary and therefore criminal, for every thing was going on well in St. Domingo. The proprietors were in peaceable possession of their estates; cultivation was making rapid progress; the blacks were industrious and beyond example happy. He conjured him, therefore, not to reverse this beautiful state of things; but his efforts were ineffectual, and the expedition arrived upon the shores of St. Domingo. At length, however, the French were driven from the island. Till that time the planters had retained their property, and then it was, and not till then, that they lost their all. In 1804, Dessalines was proclaimed Emperor; in process of time a great part of the black troops were disbanded, and returned to cultivation again. From that time to this, there has been no want of subordination or industry among them."

[Footnote U: Clarkson's Thoughts, p. 2.]

The following account of Hayti at a later period is quoted from Mr. Harvey's sketches of that island, during the latter part of the reign of Christophe:

"Those who by their exertions and economy were enabled to procure small spots of land of their own, or to hold the smaller plantations at an annual rent, were diligently engaged in cultivating coffee, sugar, and other articles, which they disposed of to the inhabitants of the adjacent towns and villages. It was an interesting sight to behold this class of the Haytians, now in possession of their freedom, coming in groups to the market nearest which they resided, bringing the produce of their industry for sale; and afterwards returning, carrying back the necessary articles of living which the disposal of their commodities had enabled them to purchase; all evidently cheerful and happy. Nor could it fail to occur to the mind that their present condition furnished the most satisfactory answer to that objection to the general emancipation of slaves, founded on their alleged unfitness to value and improve the benefits of liberty.

"Though of the same race and possessing the same general traits of character as the negroes of the other West India islands, they are already distinguished from them by habits of industry and activity, such as slaves are seldom known to exhibit. As they would not suffer, so they do not require, the attendance of one acting in the capacity of a driver with the instrument of punishment in his hand."

"In Guadaloupe, the conduct of the freed negroes was equally satisfactory. The perfect subordination which was established and the industry which prevailed there, are proved by the official Reports of the Governor of Guadaloupe, to the French government. In 1793 liberty was proclaimed universally to the slaves in that island, and during their ten years of freedom, their governors bore testimony to their regular industry and uninterrupted submission to the laws."

"During the first American war, a number of slaves ran away from their North American masters and joined the British army. When peace came, it was determined to give them their liberty, and to settle them in Nova Scotia, upon grants of land, as British subjects and as free men. Their number, comprehending men, women and children, was two thousand and upwards. Some of them worked upon little portions of land as their own; others worked as carpenters; others became fishermen; and others worked for hire in various ways. In time, having embraced Christianity, they raised places of worship of their own, and had ministers of their own from their own body. They led a harmless life, and gained the character of an industrious and honest people from their white neighbors. A few years afterwards, the land in Nova Scotia being found too poor to answer, and the climate too cold for their constitutions, a number of them to the amount of between thirteen and fourteen hundred, volunteered to form a new colony which was then first thought of at Sierra Leone, to which place they were accordingly conveyed. Many hundreds of the negroes who had formed the West Indian black regiments were removed in 1819 to Sierra Leone, where they were set at liberty at once, and founded the villages of Waterloo, Hastings, and others. Several hundred maroons, (runaway slaves and their descendants,) being exiled from Jamaica, were removed in 1801 to Sierra Leone, where they were landed with no other property than the clothes which they wore and the muskets which they carried in their hands. A body of revolted slaves were banished from Barbadoes in 1816, and sent also to Sierra Leone. The rest of the population of this colony consists almost entirely of negroes who have been recaptured from slave ships, and brought to Sierra Leone in the lowest state of misery, debility and degradation: naked, diseased, destitute, wholly ignorant of the English language, in this wretched, helpless condition, they have been suddenly made free, and put into possession at once of the rights and privileges of British subjects. All these instances of sudden emancipation have taken place in a colony where the disproportion between black and white is more than a hundred to one. Yet this mixed population of suddenly emancipated slaves—runaway slaves—criminal slaves—and degraded recaptured negroes, are in their free condition living in order, tranquillity and comfort, and many of them in affluence."

"During the last American war, seven hundred and seventy-four slaves escaped from their masters, and were at the termination of the war settled in Trinidad as free laborers, where they are earning their own livelihood with industry and good conduct. The following extract of a letter, received in 1829 from Trinidad by Mr. Pownall, will show the usefulness and respectability of these liberated negroes. 'A field negro brings four hundred dollars, but most of the work is done by free blacks and people from the main at a much cheaper rate; and as these are generally employed by foreigners, this accounts for their succeeding better than our own countrymen, who are principally from the old islands, and are unaccustomed to any other management than that of slaves; however, they are coming into it fast. In Trinidad, there are upwards of fifteen thousand free people of color; there is not a single pauper amongst them; they live independently and comfortably, and nearly half of the property of the island is said to be in their hands. It is admitted that they are highly respectable in character, and are rapidly advancing in knowledge and refinement.' Mr. Mitchell, a sugar planter who had resided twenty-seven years in Trinidad, and who is the superintendent of the liberated negroes there, says he knows of no instance of a manumitted slave not maintaining himself. In a paper printed by the House of Commons in 1827, (No. 479,) he says of the liberated blacks under his superintendence, that each of them possessed an allotment of land which he cultivated, and on which he raised provisions and other articles for himself and his family; his wife and children aiding him in the work. A great part, however, of the time of the men (the women attending to the domestic menage) was freely given to laboring on the neighboring plantations, on which they worked not in general by the day, but by the piece. Mr. Mitchell says that their work is well executed, and that they can earn as much as four shillings a day. If, then, these men who have land on which they can support themselves are yet willing to work for hire, how is it possible to doubt that in case of general emancipation, the freed negroes who would have no land of their own would gladly work for wages?"

"A few years ago, about one hundred and fifty negro slaves, at different times, succeeded in making their escape from Kentucky into Canada. Captain Stuart, who lived in Upper Canada from 1817 to 1822, was generally acquainted with them, and employed several of them in various ways. He found them as good and as trustworthy laborers, in every respect, as any emigrants from the islands, or from the United States, or as the natives of the country. In 1828, he again visited that country, and found that their numbers had increased by new refugees to about three hundred. They had purchased a tract of woodland, a few miles from Amherstburgh, and were settled on it, had formed a little village, had a minister of their own number, color, and choice, a good old man of some talent, with whom Captain Stuart was well acquainted, and though poor, were living soberly, honestly and industriously, and were peacefully and usefully getting their own living. In consequence of the Revolution in Colombia, all the slaves who joined the Colombian armies, amounting to a considerable number, were declared free. General Bolivar enfranchised his own slaves to the amount of between seven and eight hundred, and many proprietors followed his example. At that time Colombia was overrun by hostile armies, and the masters were often obliged to abandon their property. The black population (including Indians) amounted to nine hundred thousand persons. Of these, a large number was suddenly emancipated, and what has been the effect? Where the opportunities of insurrection have been so frequent, and so tempting, what has been the effect? M. Ravenga declares that the effect has been a degree of docility on the part of the blacks, and a degree of security on the part of the whites, unknown in any preceding period of the history of Colombia."

"Dr. Walsh[V] states that in Brazil there are six hundred thousand enfranchised persons, either Africans or of African descent, who were either slaves themselves or are the descendants of slaves. He says they are, generally speaking, 'well conducted and industrious persons, who compose indiscriminately different orders of the community. There are among them merchants, farmers, doctors, lawyers, priests and officers of different ranks. Every considerable town in the interior has regiments composed of them.' The benefits arising from them, he adds, have disposed the whites to think of making free the whole negro population."

[Footnote V: Walsh's Notes on Brazil, vol. ii. page 365.]

"Mr. Koster, an Englishman living in Brazil, confirms Mr. Walsh's statement.[W] 'There are black regiments,' he observes, 'composed entirely and exclusively of black creole soldiers, commanded by black creole officers from the corporal to the colonel. I have seen the several guard-houses of the town occupied by these troops. Far from any apprehension being entertained on this score, it is well known that the quietude of this country, and the feeling of safety which every one possesses, although surrounded by slaves, proceed from the contentedness of the free people.'"

[Footnote W: Amelioration of Slavery, published in No. 16 of the Pamphleteer.]

"The actual condition of the hundred thousand emancipated blacks and persons of color in the British West India Colonies, certainly gives no reason to apprehend that if a general emancipation should take place, the newly freed slaves would not be able and willing to support themselves. On this point the Returns from fourteen of the Slave Colonies, laid before the House of Commons, in 1826, give satisfactory information: they include a period of five years from January 1, 1821, to December 31, 1825, and give the following account of the state of pauperism in each of these colonies.

"Bahamas.—The only establishment in the colony for the relief of the poor, appears to be a hospital or poor-house. The number passing through the hospital annually was, on the average, fifteen free black and colored persons and thirteen whites. The number of free black and colored persons is about double that of the whites; so that the proportion of white to that of colored paupers in the Bahamas, is nearly two to one.

"Barbadoes.—The average annual number of persons supported in the nine parishes, from which returns have been sent, is nine hundred and ninety-eight, all of whom, with a single exception, are white. The probable amount of white persons in the island is fourteen thousand five hundred—of free black and colored persons, four thousand five hundred.

"Berbice.—The white population appears to amount to about six hundred, the free black and colored to nine hundred. In 1822, it appears that there were seventeen white and two colored paupers.

"Demerara.—The free black and colored population, it is supposed, are twice the number of the whites. The average number of white pensioners on the poor fund appears to be fifty-one, that of colored pensioners twenty-six. In occasional relief, the white paupers receive about three times as much as the colored.

"Dominica.—The white population is estimated at about nine hundred; the free black and colored population was ascertained, in 1825, to amount to three thousand one hundred and twenty-two. During the five years ending in November, 1825, thirty of the former class had received relief from the poor fund, and only ten of the latter, making the proportion of more than nine white paupers to one colored one in the same number of persons.

"Jamaica is supposed to contain twenty thousand whites, and double that number of free black and colored persons. The returns of paupers from the parishes which have sent returns, exhibit the average number of white paupers to be two hundred ninety-five, of black and colored paupers, one hundred and forty-eight; the proportion of white paupers to those of the other class, according to the whole population, being as four to one.

"Nevis.—The white population is estimated at about eight hundred, the free black and colored at about eighteen hundred. The number of white paupers receiving relief is stated to be twenty-five; that of the other class, two; being in the proportion of twenty-eight to one.

"St. Christophers.—The average number of white paupers appears to be one hundred and fifteen; that of the other class, fourteen; although there is no doubt that the population of the latter class greatly outnumbers that of the former.

"Tortola.—In 1825 the free black and colored population amounted to six hundred and seven. The whites are estimated at about three hundred. The number of white paupers relieved appears to be twenty-nine: of the other class, four: being in the proportion of fourteen to one.

"In short, in a population of free black and colored persons amounting to from eighty thousand to ninety thousand, only two hundred and twenty-nine persons have received any relief whatever as paupers during the years 1821, to 1825; and these chiefly the concubines and children of destitute whites; while of about sixty-five thousand whites, in the same time, sixteen hundred and seventy-five received relief. The proportion, therefore, of enfranchised persons receiving any kind of aid as paupers in the West Indies, is about one in three hundred and seventy: whereas the proportion among the whites of the West Indies is about one in forty; and in England, generally one in twelve or thirteen—in some counties, one in eight or nine.

"Can any one read these statements, made by the colonists themselves, and still think it necessary to keep the negroes in slavery, lest they should be unable to maintain themselves if free?

"In 1823, the Assembly of Grenada passed a resolution, declaring that the free colored inhabitants of these colonies, were a respectable, well behaved class of the community, were possessed of considerable property, and were entitled to have their claims viewed with favor.

"In 1824, when Jamaica had been disturbed for months by unfounded alarms relating to the slaves, a committee of the legislative assembly declared that 'the conduct of the freed people evinced not only zeal and alacrity, but a warm interest in the welfare of the colony, and every way identified them with those who are the most zealous promoters of its internal security.' The assembly confirmed this favorable report a few months ago, by passing a bill conferring on all free black and colored persons the same privileges, civil and political, with the white inhabitants.

"In the orders issued in 1829, by the British Government, in St. Lucia, placing all freemen of African descent upon the footing of equal rights with their white neighbors, the loyalty and good conduct of that class are distinctly acknowledged, and they are declared 'to have shown, hitherto, readiness and zeal in coming forward for the maintenance of order.' As similar orders have been issued for Trinidad, Berbice, and the Cape of Good Hope, it may be presumed that the conduct of the free blacks and colored persons in those colonies has likewise given satisfaction to Government.

"In the South African Commercial Advertiser, of the 9th of February, 1831, we are happy to find recorded one more of the numerous proofs which experience affords of the safety and expediency of immediate abolition.

"Three thousand prize negroes have received their freedom; four hundred in one day; but not the least difficulty or disorder occurred;—servants found masters—masters hired servants; all gained homes, and at night scarcely an idler was to be seen. In the last month, one hundred and fifty were liberated under precisely similar circumstances, and with the same result. These facts are within our own observation; and to state that sudden and abrupt emancipation would create disorder and distress to those you mean to serve, is not reason, but the plea of all men who are adverse to emancipation.

"As far as it can be ascertained from the various documents which have been cited, and from others, which, from the fear of making this account too long, are not particularly referred to, it appears that in every place and time in which emancipation has been tried, not one drop of white blood has been shed, or even endangered by it; that it has everywhere greatly improved the condition of the blacks, and in most places has removed them from a state of degradation and suffering to one of respectability and happiness. Can it, then, be justifiable, on account of any vague fears of we know not what evils, to reject this just, salutary and hitherto uninjurious measure; and to cling to a system which we know, by certain experience, is producing crime, misery and death, during every day of its existence?"

In Mexico, September 15, 1829, the following decree was issued; "Slavery is for ever abolished in the republic; and consequently all those individuals, who, until this day, looked upon themselves as slaves, are free." The prices of slaves were settled by the magistrates, and they were required to work with their master, for stipulated wages, until the debt was paid. If the slave wished to change masters he could do so, if another person would take upon himself the liability of payment, in exchange for his labor; and provided the master was secured against loss, he was obliged to consent to the transaction. Similar transfers might take place to accommodate the master, but never without the consent of the servant. The law regulated the allowance of provisions, clothing, &c., and if the negro wished for more, he might have it charged, and deducted from his wages; but lest masters should take advantage of the improvidence of their servants, it was enacted, that all charges exceeding half the earnings of any slave, or family of slaves, should be void in law. The duties of servants were defined as clearly as possible by the laws, and magistrates appointed to enforce them; but the master was entrusted with no power to punish, in any manner whatever. It was expressly required that the masters should furnish every servant with suitable means of religious and intellectual instruction.

A Vermont gentleman, who had been a slaveholder in Mississippi, and afterward resident at Matamoras, in Mexico, speaks with enthusiasm of the beneficial effects of these regulations, and thinks the example highly important to the United States. He declares that the value of the plantations was soon increased by the introduction of free labor. "No one was made poor by it. It gave property to the servant, and increased the riches of the master."

The republics of Buenos Ayres, Chili, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Guatemala and Monte Video, likewise took steps for the abolition of slavery, soon after they themselves came into possession of freedom. In some of these States, means were taken for the instruction of young slaves, who were all enfranchised by law, on arriving at a certain age; in others, universal emancipation is to take place after a certain date, fixed by the laws. The empire of Brazil, and the United States are the only American nations, that have taken no measures to destroy this most pestilent system; and I have recently been assured by intelligent Brazilians, that public opinion in that country is now so strongly opposed to slavery that something effectual will be done toward abolition, at the very next meeting of the Cortes. If this should take place, the United States will stand alone in most hideous pre-eminence.

When Necker wrote his famous book on French finances, he suggested a universal compact of nations to suppress the slave trade. The exertions of England alone have since nearly realized his generous plan, though avarice and cunning do still manage to elude her vigilance and power. She has obtained from Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, and Denmark, a mutual right to search all vessels suspected of being engaged in this wicked traffic.[X] I believe I am correct in saying that ours is now the only flag, which can protect this iniquity from the just indignation of England. When a mutual right of search was proposed to us, a strong effort was made to blind the people with their own prejudices, by urging the old complaint of the impressment of seamen; and alas, when has an unsuccessful appeal been made to passion and prejudice? It is evident that nothing on earth ought to prevent co-operation in a cause like this. Besides, "It is useless for us to attempt to linger on the skirts of the age that is departing. The action of existing causes and principles is steady and progressive. It cannot be retarded, unless we would 'blow out all the moral lights around us;' and if we refuse to keep up with it, we shall be towed in the wake, whether we are willing or not."[Y]

[Footnote X: The British Government actually paid Spain four hundred thousand pounds, as an indemnity to those engaged in the slave trade, on condition that the traffic should be abolished by law throughout her dominions.]

[Footnote Y: Speech of Mr. Brodnax, of Virginia.]

When I think of the colonies established along the coast of Africa—of Algiers, conquered and civilized—of the increasing wealth and intelligence of Hayti—of the powerful efforts now being made all over the world to sway public opinion in favor of universal freedom—of the certain emancipation of slaves in all British Colonies—and above all, the evident union of purpose existing between the French and English cabinets,—I can most plainly see the hand of God working for the deliverance of the negroes. We may resist the blessed influence if we will; but we cannot conquer. Every year the plot is thickening around us, and the nations of the earth, either consciously or unconsciously, are hastening the crisis. The defenders of the slave system are situated like the man in the Iron Shroud, the walls of whose prison daily moved nearer and nearer, by means of powerful machinery, until they crushed all that remained within them.

But to return to the subject of emancipation. Nearly every one of the States north of Mason and Dixon's line once held slaves. These slaves were manumitted without bloodshed, and there was no trouble in making free colored laborers obey the laws.

I am aware that this desirable change must be attended with much more difficulty in the Southern States, simply because the evil has been suffered until it is fearfully overgrown; but it must not be forgotten that while they are using their ingenuity and strength to sustain it for the present, the mischief is increasing more and more rapidly. If this be not a good time to apply a remedy, when will be a better? They must annihilate slavery, or slavery will annihilate them.

It seems to be forgotten that emancipation from tyranny is not an emancipation from law; the negro, after he is made free, is restrained from the commission of crimes by the same laws which restrain other citizens: if he steals, he will be imprisoned: if he commits murder, he will be hung.

It will, perhaps, be said that the free people of color in the slave portions of this country are peculiarly ignorant, idle, and vicious? It may be so: for our laws and our influence are peculiarly calculated to make them bad members of society. But we trust the civil power to keep in order the great mass of ignorant and vicious foreigners continually pouring into the country; and if the laws are strong enough for this, may they not be trusted to restrain the free blacks?

In those countries where the slaves codes are mild, where emancipation is rendered easy, and inducements are offered to industry, insurrections are not feared, and free people of color form a valuable portion of the community. If we persist in acting in opposition to the established laws of nature and reason, how can we expect favorable results? But it is pronounced unsafe to change our policy. Every progressive improvement in the world has been resisted by despotism, on the ground that changes were dangerous. The Emperor of Austria thinks there is need of keeping his subjects ignorant, that good order may be preserved. But what he calls good order, is sacrificing the happiness of many to the advancement of a few; and no doubt knowledge is unfavorable to the continuation of such a state of things. It is precisely so with the slaveholder; he insists that the welfare of millions must be subordinate to his private interest, or else all good order is destroyed.

It is much to be regretted that Washington enfranchised his slaves in the manner he did; because their poverty and indolence have furnished an ever ready argument for those who are opposed to emancipation.[Z] To turn slaves adrift in their old age, unaccustomed to take care of themselves, without employment, and in a community where all the prejudices were strongly arrayed against free negroes, was certainly an unhappy experiment.

[Footnote Z: With all my unbounded reverence for Washington, I have, I confess, sometimes found it hard to forgive him for not manumitting his slaves long before his death. A fact which has lately come to my knowledge, gave me great joy; for it furnishes a reason for what had appeared to me unpardonable. It appears that Washington possessed a gang of negroes in right of his wife, with which his own negroes had intermarried. By the marriage settlement, the former were limited, in default of issue of the marriage, to the representatives of Mrs. Washington at her death; so that her negroes could not be enfranchised. An unwillingness to separate parents and children, husbands and wives, induced Washington to postpone the manumission of his own slaves. This motive is briefly, and as it were accidentally, referred to in his will.]

But if slaves were allowed to redeem themselves progressively, by purchasing one day of the week after another, as they can in the Spanish colonies, habits of industry would be gradually formed, and enterprise would be stimulated, by their successful efforts to acquire a little property. And if they afterward worked better as free laborers than they now do as slaves, it would surely benefit their masters as well as themselves.

That strong-hearted republican, La Fayette, when he returned to France in 1785, felt strongly urged by a sense of duty, to effect the emancipation of slaves in the Colony of Cayenne. As most of the property in the colony belonged to the crown, he was enabled to prosecute his plans with less difficulty than he could otherwise have done. Thirty thousand dollars were expended in the purchase of plantations and slaves for the sole purpose of proving by experiment the safety and good policy of conferring freedom. Being afraid to trust the agents generally employed in the colony, he engaged a prudent and amiable man at Paris to undertake the business. This gentleman, being fully instructed in La Fayette's plans and wishes, sailed for Cayenne. The first thing he did when he arrived, was to collect all the cart-whips, and other instruments of punishment, and have them burnt amid a general assemblage of the slaves; he then made known to them the laws and rules by which the estates would be governed. The object of all the regulations was to encourage industry by making it the means of freedom. This new kind of stimulus had a most favorable effect on the slaves, and gave promise of complete success. But the judicious agent died in consequence of the climate, and the French Revolution threw every thing into a state of convulsion at home and abroad. The new republic of France bestowed unconditional emancipation upon the slaves in her colonies; and had she persevered in her promises with good faith and discretion, the horrors of St. Domingo might have been spared. The emancipated negroes in Cayenne came in a body to the agents, and declared that if the plantations still belonged to General La Fayette they were ready and willing to resume their labors for the benefit of one who had treated them like men, and cheered their toil by making it a certain means of freedom.

I cannot forbear paying a tribute of respect to the venerable Moses Brown, of Providence, Rhode Island, now living in virtuous and vigorous old age. He was a slave-owner in early life, and, unless I have been misinformed, a slave-dealer, likewise. When his attention became roused to religious subjects, these facts troubled his conscience. He easily and promptly decided that a Christian could not consistently keep slaves; but he did not dare to trust his own nature to determine the best manner of doing justice to those he had wronged. He therefore appointed a committee, before whom he laid a statement of the expenses he had incurred for the food and clothing of his slaves, and of the number of years, during which he had had the exclusive benefit of their labors. He conceived that he had no right to charge them for their freedom, because God had given them an inalienable right to that possession, from the very hour of their birth; but he wished the committee to decide what wages he ought to pay them for the work they had done. He cordially accepted the decision of the committee, paid the negroes their dues, and left them to choose such employments as they thought best. Many of the grateful slaves preferred to remain with him as hired laborers. It is hardly necessary to add that Moses Brown is a Quaker.

It is commonly urged against emancipation that white men cannot possibly labor under the sultry climate of our most southerly States. This is a good reason for not sending the slaves out of the country, but it is no argument against making them free. No doubt we do need their labor; but we ought to pay for it. Why should their presence be any more disagreeable as hired laborers, than as slaves? In Boston, we continually meet colored people in the streets, and employ them in various ways, without being endangered or even incommoded. There is no moral impossibility in a perfectly kind and just relation between the two races.

If white men think otherwise, let them remove from climates which nature has made too hot for their constitutions. Wealth or pleasure often induces men to change their abode; an emigration for the sake of humanity would be an agreeable novelty. Algernon Sidney said, "When I cannot live in my own country, but by such means as are worse than dying in it, I think God shows me that I ought to keep myself out of it."

But the slaveholders try to stop all the efforts of benevolence, by vociferous complaints about infringing upon their property; and justice is so subordinate to self-interest, that the unrighteous claim is silently allowed, and even openly supported, by those who ought to blush for themselves, as Christians and as republicans. Let men simplify their arguments—let them confine themselves to one single question, "What right can a man have to compel his neighbor to toil without reward, and leave the same hopeless inheritance to his children, in order that he may live in luxury and indolence?" Let the doctrines of expediency return to the Father of Lies, who invented them, and gave them power to turn every way for evil. The Christian knows no appeal from the decisions of God, plainly uttered in his conscience.

The laws of Venice allowed property in human beings; and upon this ground Shylock demanded his pound of flesh, cut nearest to the heart. Those who advertise mothers to be sold separately from their children, likewise claim a right to human flesh; and they too cut it nearest to the heart.

The personal liberty of one man can never be the property of another. All ideas of property are founded upon the mutual agreement of the human race, and are regulated by such laws as are deemed most conducive to the general good. In slavery there is no mutual agreement; for in that case it would not be slavery. The negro has no voice in the matter—no alternative is presented to him—no bargain is made. The beginning of his bondage is the triumph of power over weakness; its continuation is the tyranny of knowledge over ignorance. One man may as well claim an exclusive right to the air another man breathes, as to the possession of his limbs and faculties. Personal freedom is the birthright of every human being. God himself made it the first great law of creation; and no human enactment can render it null and void. "If," says Price, "you have a right to make another man a slave, he has a right to make you a slave;" and Ramsay says, "If we have in the beginning no right to sell a man, no person has a right to buy him."

Am I reminded that the laws acknowledge these vested rights in human flesh? I answer the laws themselves were made by individuals, who wished to justify the wrong and profit by it. We ought never to have recognised a claim, which cannot exist according to the laws of God; it is our duty to atone for the error; and the sooner we make a beginning, the better will it be for us all. Must our arguments be based upon justice and mercy to the slaveholders only? Have the negroes no right to ask compensation for their years and years of unrewarded toil? It is true that they have food and clothing, of such kind, and in such quantities, as their masters think proper. But it is evident that this is not the worth of their labor; for the proprietors can give from one hundred to five and six hundred dollars for a slave, beside the expense of supporting those who are too old or too young to labor. They could not afford to do this, if the slave did not earn more than he receives in food and clothing. If the laws allowed the slave to redeem himself progressively, the owner would receive his money back again; and the negro's years of uncompensated toil would be more than lawful interest.

The southerners are much in the habit of saying they really wish for emancipation, if it could be effected in safety; but I search in vain for any proof that these assertions are sincere. (When I say this I speak collectively; there are, no doubt, individual exceptions.)

Instead of profiting by the experience of other nations, the slave-owners, as a body, have resolutely shut their eyes against the light, because they preferred darkness. Every change in the laws has riveted the chain closer and closer upon their victims; every attempt to make the voice of reason and benevolence heard has been overpowered with threatening and abuse. A cautious vigilance against improvement, a keen-eyed jealousy of all freedom of opinion, has characterized their movements. There can be no doubt that the majority wish to perpetuate slavery. They support it with loud bravado, or insidious sophistry, or pretended regret; but they never abandon the point. Their great desire is to keep the public mind turned in another direction. They are well aware that the ugly edifice is built of rotten timbers, and stands on slippery sands—if the loud voice of public opinion could be made to reverberate through its dreary chambers, the unsightly frame would fall, never to rise again.

Since so many of their own citizens admit that the policy of this system is unsound, and its effects injurious, it is wonderful that they do not begin to destroy the "costly iniquity" in good earnest. But long-continued habit is very powerful; and in the habit of slavery are concentrated the strongest evils of human nature—vanity, pride, love of power, licentiousness, and indolence.

There is a minority, particularly in Virginia and Kentucky, who sincerely wish a change for the better; but they are overpowered, and have not even ventured to speak, except in the great Virginia debate of 1832. In the course of that debate, the spirit of slavery showed itself without disguise. The members talked of emancipation; but with one or two exceptions, they merely wanted to emancipate, or rather to send away, the surplus population, which they could neither keep nor sell, and which might prove dangerous. They wished to get rid of the consequences of the evil, but were determined to keep the evil itself. Some members from Western Virginia, who spoke in a better spirit, and founded their arguments on the broad principles of justice, not on the mere convenience of a certain class, were repelled with angry excitement. The eastern districts threatened to separate from the western, if the latter persisted in expressing opinions opposed to the continuance of slavery. From what I have uniformly heard of the comparative prosperity of Eastern and Western Virginia, I should think this was very much like the town's poor threatening to separate from the town.

The mere circumstance of daring to debate on the subject was loudly reprimanded; and there was a good deal of indignation expressed that "reckless editors, and imprudent correspondents, had presumed so far as to allude to it in the columns of a newspaper." Discussion in the Legislature was strongly deprecated until a plan had been formed; yet they must have known that no plan could be formed, in a republican government, without previous discussion. The proposal contained within itself that self-perpetuating power, for which the schemes of slave-owners are so remarkable.

Mr. Gholson sarcastically rebuked the restless spirit of improvement, by saying "he really had been under the impression that he owned his slaves. He had lately purchased four women and ten children, in whom he thought he had obtained a great bargain; for he supposed they were his own property, as were his brood mares." To which Mr. Roane replied, "I own a considerable number of slaves, and am perfectly sure they are mine; and I am sorry to add that I have occasionally, though not often, been compelled to make them feel the impression of that ownership. I would not touch a hair on the head of the gentleman's slave, any sooner than I would a hair in the mane of his horse."

Mr. Roane likewise remarked, "I think slavery as much a correlative of liberty as cold is of heat. History, experience, observation and reason, have taught me that the torch of liberty has ever burned brighter when surrounded by the dark and filthy, yet nutritious atmosphere of slavery! I do not believe in the fanfaronade that all men are by nature equal. But these abstract speculations have nothing to do with the question, which I am willing to view as one of cold, sheer state policy, in which the safety, prosperity, and happiness of the whites alone are concerned."

Would Mr. Roane carry out his logic into all its details? Would he cherish intemperance, that sobriety might shine the brighter? Would he encourage theft, in order to throw additional lustre upon honesty? Yet there seems to be precisely the same relation between these things that there is between slavery and freedom. Such sentiments sound oddly enough in the mouth of a republican of the nineteenth century!

When Mr. Wirt, before the Supreme Federal Court, said that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature and of nations, and that the law of South Carolina concerning seizing colored seamen, was unconstitutional, the Governor directed several reproofs at him. In 1825, Mr. King laid on the table of the United States Senate a resolution to appropriate the proceeds of the public lands to the emancipation of slaves, and the removal of free negroes, provided the same could be done under and agreeable to, the laws of the respective States. He said he did not wish it to be debated, but considered at some future time. Yet kindly and cautiously as this movement was made, the whole South resented it, and Governor Troup called to the Legislature and people of Georgia, to "stand to their arms." In 1827, the people of Baltimore presented a memorial to Congress, praying that slaves born in the District of Columbia after a given time, specified by law, might become free on arriving at a certain age. A famous member from South Carolina called this an "impertinent interference, and a violation of the principles of liberty," and the petition was not even committed. Another southern gentleman in Congress objected to the Panama mission because Bolivar had proclaimed liberty to the slaves.

Mr. Hayne, in his reply to Mr. Webster, says: "There is a spirit, which, like the father of evil, is constantly walking to and fro about the earth, seeking whom it may devour; it is the spirit of false philanthropy. When this is infused into the bosom of a statesman (if one so possessed can be called a statesman) it converts him at once into a visionary enthusiast. Then he indulges in golden dreams of national greatness and prosperity. He discovers that 'liberty is power,' and not content with vast schemes of improvement at home, which it would bankrupt the treasury of the world to execute, he flies to foreign lands to fulfil 'obligations to the human race, by inculcating the principles of civil and religious liberty,' &c. This spirit had long been busy with the slaves of the South; and it is even now displaying itself in vain efforts to drive the government from its wise policy in relation to the Indians."

Governor Miller, of South Carolina, speaking of the tariff and "the remedy," asserted that slave labor was preferable to free, and challenged the free States to competition on fair terms. Governor Hamilton, of the same State, in delivering an address on the same subject, uttered a eulogy upon slavery; concluding as usual that nothing but the tariff—nothing but the rapacity of Northerners, could have nullified such great blessings of Providence, as the cheap labor and fertile soil of Carolina. Mr. Calhoun, in his late speech in the Senate, alludes in a tone of strong disapprobation, and almost of reprimand, to the remarkable debate in the Virginia Legislature; the occurrence of which offence he charges to the opinions and policy of the north.

If these things evince any real desire to do away the evil, I cannot discover it. There are many who inherit the misfortune of slavery, and would gladly renounce the miserable birthright if they could; for their sakes, I wish the majority were guided by a better spirit and a wiser policy. But this state of things cannot last. The operations of Divine Providence are hastening the crisis, and move which way we will, it must come in some form or other; if we take warning in time, it may come as a blessing. The spirit of philanthropy, which Mr. Hayne calls 'false,' is walking to and fro in the earth; and it will not pause, or turn back, till it has fastened the golden band of love and peace around a sinful world. The sun of knowledge and liberty is already high in the heavens—it is peeping into every dark nook and corner of the earth—and the African cannot be always excluded from its beams.

The advocates of slavery remind me of a comparison I once heard differently applied: Even thus does a dog, unwilling to follow his master's carriage, bite the wheels, in a vain effort to stop its progress.



CHAPTER IV.

INFLUENCE OF SLAVERY ON THE POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Casca. I believe these are portentous things Unto the climate that they point upon.

Cicero. Indeed it is a strange disposed time: But men may construe things after their fashion, Clean from the purpose of the things themselves.

JULIUS CAESAR.

When slave representation was admitted into the Constitution of the United States, a wedge was introduced, which has ever since effectually sundered the sympathies and interests of different portions of the country. By this step, the slave States acquired an undue advantage, which they have maintained with anxious jealousy, and in which the free States have never perfectly acquiesced. The latter would probably never have made the concession, so contrary to their principles, and the express provisions of their State constitutions, if powerful motives had not been offered by the South. These consisted, first, in taking upon themselves a proportion of direct taxes, increased in the same ratio as their representation was increased by the concession to their slaves.

Second.—In conceding to the small States an entire equality in the Senate. This was not indeed proposed as an item of the adjustment, but it operated as such; for the small States, with the exception of Georgia, (which in fact expected to become one of the largest,) lay in the North, and were either free, or likely soon to become so.

During most of the contest, Massachusetts, then one of the large States, voted with Virginia and Pennsylvania for unequal representation in the Senate; but on the final question she was divided, and gave no vote. There was probably an increasing tendency to view this part of the compromise, not merely as a concession of the large to the small States, but also of the largely slaveholding, to the free, or slightly slaveholding States. The two questions of slave representation with a proportional increase of direct taxes, and of perfect equality in the Senate, were always connected together; and a large committee of compromise, consisting of one member from each State, expressly recommended that both provisions should be adopted, but neither of them without the other.

Such were the equivalents, directly or indirectly offered, by which the free States were induced to consent to slave representation. It was not without very considerable struggles that they overcame their repugnance to admitting such a principle in the construction of a republican government. Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, at first exclaimed against it with evident horror, but at last, he was chairman of the committee of compromise. Even the slave States themselves, seem to have been a little embarrassed with the discordant element. A curious proof of this is given in the language of the Constitution. The ugly feature is covered as cautiously as the deformed visage of the Veiled Prophet. The words are as follows: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States according to their respective numbers; which shall be ascertained by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons." In this most elaborate sentence, a foreigner would discern no slavery. None but those already acquainted with the serpent, would be able to discover its sting.

Governor Wright, of Maryland, a contemporary of all these transactions, and a slaveholder, after delivering a eulogy upon the kindness of masters[AA] expressed himself as follows: "The Constitution guaranties to us the services of these persons. It does not say slaves; for the feelings of the framers of that glorious instrument would not suffer them to use that word, on account of its anti-congeniality—its incongeniality to the idea of a constitution for freemen. It says, 'persons held to service, or labor.'"—Governor Wright's Speech in Congress, March, 1822.

[Footnote AA: It was stated, at the time, that this person frequently steamed his negroes, in order to reduce their size to an equal weight for riding race-horses. This practice is understood to be common at the South.]

This high praise bestowed on the form of our constitution, reminds me of an anecdote. A clergyman in a neighboring State, being obliged to be absent from his parish, procured a young man to supply his place, who was very worldly in his inclinations, and very gay in his manners. When the minister returned, his people said, somewhat reproachfully, "How could you provide such a man to preach for us; you might at least have left us a hypocrite."

While all parties agreed to act in opposition to the principles of justice, they all concurred to pay homage to them by hypocrisy of language! Men are willing to try all means to appear honest, except the simple experiment of being so. It is true, there were individuals who distrusted this compromise at the time, if they did not wholly disapprove of it. It is said that Washington, as he was walking thoughtfully near the Schuylkill, was met by a member of the Convention, to whom, in the course of conversation, he acknowledged that he was meditating whether it would not be better to separate, without proposing a constitution to the people; for he was in great doubt whether the frame of government, which was now nearly completed, would be better for them, than to trust to the course of events, and await future emergencies.

This anecdote was derived from an authentic source, and I have no doubt of its truth: neither is there any doubt that Washington had in his mind this great compromise, the pivot on which the system of government was to turn.

If avarice was induced to shake hands with injustice, from the expectation of increased direct taxation upon the South, she gained little by the bargain. With the exception of two brief periods, during the French war, and the last war with England, the revenue of the United States has been raised by duties on imports. The heavy debts and expenditures of the several States, which they had been accustomed to provide for by direct taxes, and which they probably expected to see provided for by the same means in time to come, have been all paid by duties on imports. The greatest proportion of these duties are, of course, paid by the free States; for here, the poorest laborer daily consumes several articles of foreign production, of which from one-eighth to one-half the price is a tax paid to government. The clothing of the slave population increases the revenue very little, and their food almost none at all.

Wherever free labor and slave labor exist under the same government, there must be a perpetual clashing of interests. The legislation required for one, is, in its spirit and maxims, diametrically opposed to that required for the other. Hence Mr. Madison predicted, in the convention which formed our Federal Constitution, that the contests would be between the great geographical sections; that such had been the division, even during the war and the confederacy.

In the same convention, Charles Pinckney, a man of great sagacity, spoke of the equal representation of large and small States as a matter of slight consequence; no difficulties, he said, would ever arise on that point; the question would always be between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding interests.

If the pressure of common danger, and the sense of individual weakness, during our contest for independence, could not bring the States to mutual confidence, nothing ever can do it, except a change of character. From the adoption of the constitution to the present time, the breach has been gradually widening. The South has pursued a uniform and sagacious system of policy, which, in all its bearings, direct and indirect, has been framed for the preservation and extension of slave power. This system has, in the very nature of the two things, constantly interfered with the interests of the free States; and hitherto the South have always gained the victory. This has principally been accomplished by yoking all important questions together in pairs, and strenuously resisting the passage of one, unless accompanied by the other. The South was desirous of removing the seat of government from Philadelphia to Washington, because the latter is in a slave territory, where republican representatives and magistrates can bring their slaves without danger of losing them, or having them contaminated by the principles of universal liberty. The assumption of the State debts, likely to bring considerable money back to the North, was linked with this question, and both were carried. The admission of Maine into the Union as a free State, and of Missouri as a slave State, were two more of these Siamese twins, not allowed to be separated from each other. A numerous smaller progeny may be found in the laying of imposts, and the successive adjustment of protection to navigation, the fisheries, agriculture, and manufactures.

There would perhaps be no harm in this system of compromises, or any objection to its continuing in infinite series, if no injustice were done to a third party, which is never heard or noticed, except for purposes of oppression.

I reverence the wisdom of our early legislators; but they certainly did very wrong to admit slavery as an element into a free constitution; and to sacrifice the known and declared rights of a third and weaker party, in order to cement a union between two stronger ones. Such an arrangement ought not, and could not, come to good. It has given the slave States a controlling power which they will always keep, so long as we remain together.

President John Adams was of opinion, that this ascendency might be attributed to an early mistake, originating in what he called the "Frankford advice." When the first Congress was summoned in Philadelphia, Doctor Rush, and two or three other eminent men of Pennsylvania, met the Massachusetts delegates at Frankford, a few miles from Philadelphia, and conjured them, as they valued the success of the common cause, to let no measure of importance appear to originate with the North, to yield precedence in all things to Virginia, and lead her if possible to commit herself to the Revolution. Above all, they begged that not a word might be said about "independence;" for that a strong prejudice already existed against the delegates from New-England, on account of a supposed design to throw off their allegiance to the mother country. "The Frankford advice" was followed. The delegates from Virginia took the lead on all occasions.

His son, John Q. Adams, finds a more substantial reason. In his speech on the Tariff, February 4, 1833, he said: "Not three days since, Mr. Clayton, of Georgia, called that species of population (viz. slaves) the machinery of the South. Now that machinery had twenty odd representatives[AB] in that hall,—not elected by the machinery, but by those who owned it. And if he should go back to the history of this government from its foundation, it would be easy to prove that its decisions had been affected, in general, by less majorities than that. Nay, he might go farther, and insist that that very representation had ever been, in fact, the ruling power of this government."

[Footnote AB: There are now twenty-five odd representatives—that is, representatives of slaves.]

"The history of the Union has afforded a continual proof that this representation of property, which they enjoy, as well in the election of President and Vice-President of the United States, as upon the floor of the House of Representatives, has secured to the slaveholding States the entire control of the national policy, and, almost without exception, the possession of the highest executive office of the Union. Always united in the purpose of regulating the affairs of the whole Union by the standard of the slaveholding interest, their disproportionate numbers in the electoral colleges have enabled them, in ten out of twelve quadrennial elections, to confer the Chief Magistracy upon one of their own citizens. Their suffrages at every election, without exception, have been almost exclusively confined to a candidate of their own caste. Availing themselves of the divisions which, from the nature of man, always prevail in communities entirely free, they have sought and found auxiliaries in the other quarters of the Union, by associating the passions of parties, and the ambition of individuals, with their own purposes, to establish and maintain throughout the confederated nation the slaveholding policy. The office of Vice-President, a station of high dignity, but of little other than contingent power, had been usually, by their indulgence, conceded to a citizen of the other section; but even this political courtesy was superseded at the election before the last, and both the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States were, by the preponderancy of slaveholding votes, bestowed upon citizens of two adjoining and both slaveholding States. At this moment the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the United States, are all citizens of that favored portion of the united republic. The last of these offices, being under the constitution held by the tenure of good behaviour, has been honored and dignified by the occupation of the present incumbent upwards of thirty years. An overruling sense of the high responsibilities under which it is held, has effectually guarded him from permitting the sectional slaveholding spirit to ascend the tribunal of justice; and it is not difficult to discern, in this inflexible impartiality, the source of the obloquy which that same spirit has not been inactive in attempting to excite against the Supreme Court of the United States itself: and of the insuperable aversion of the votaries of nullification to encounter or abide by the decision of that tribunal, the true and legitimate umpire of constitutional, controverted law."

It is worthy of observation that this slave representation is always used to protect and extend slave power; and in this way, the slaves themselves are made to vote for slavery: they are compelled to furnish halters to hang their posterity.

Machiavel says that "the whole politics of rival states consist in checking the growth of one another." It is sufficiently obvious, that the slave and free States are, and must be, rivals, owing to the inevitable contradiction of their interests. It needed no Machiavel to predict the result. A continual strife has been going on, more or less earnest, according to the nature of the interests it involved, and the South has always had strength and skill to carry her point. Of all our Presidents, Washington alone had power to keep the jealousies of his countrymen in check; and he used his influence nobly. Some of his successors have cherished those jealousies, and made effective use of them.

The people of the North have to manage a rocky and reluctant soil; hence commerce and the fisheries early attracted their attention. The products of these employments were, as they should be, proportioned to the dexterity and hard labor required in their pursuit. The North grew opulent; and her politicians, who came in contact with those of the South with any thing like rival pretensions, represented the commercial class, which was the nucleus of the old Federal party.

The Southerners have a genial climate and a fertile soil; but in consequence of the cumbrous machinery of slave labor, which is slow for every thing, (except exhausting the soil,) they have always been less prosperous than the free States. It is said, I know not with how much truth, but it is certainly very credible, that a great proportion of their plantations are deeply mortgaged in New-York and Philadelphia. It is likewise said that the expenses of the planters are generally one or two years in advance of their income. Whether these statements be true or not, the most casual observer will decide, that the free States are uniformly the most prosperous, notwithstanding the South possesses a political power, by which she manages to check-mate us at every important move. When we add this to the original jealousy spoken of by Mr. Madison, it is not wonderful that Southern politicians take so little pains to conceal their strong dislike of the North.

A striking difference of manners, also caused by slavery, serves to aggravate other differences. Slaveholders have the habit of command; and from the superior ease with which it sits upon them, they seem to imagine that they were "born to command," and we to obey. In time of war, they tauntingly told us that we might furnish the men, and they would furnish the officers; but in time of peace they find our list of pensioners so large, they complain that we did furnish so many men.

At the North, every body is busy in some employment, and politics, with very few exceptions, form but a brief episode in the lives of the citizens. But the Southern politicians are men of leisure. They have nothing to do but to ride round their plantations, hunt, attend the races, study politics for the next legislative or congressional campaign, and decide how to use the prodigious mechanical power, of slave representation, which a political Archimedes may effectually wield for the destruction of commerce, or any thing else, involving the prosperity of the free States.[AC]

[Footnote AC: The Hon. W. B. Seabrook, a southern gentleman, has lately written a pamphlet on the management of slaves, in which he says: "An addition of one million dollars to the private fortune of Daniel Webster, would not give to Massachusetts more than she now possesses in the federal councils. On the other hand, every increase of slave property in South Carolina, is a fraction thrown into the scale, by which her representation in Congress is determined."]

It has been already said, that most of the wealth in New-England was made by commerce; consequently the South became unfriendly to commerce. There was a class in New-England, jealous, and not without reason, of their own commercial aristocracy. It was the policy of the South to foment their passions, and increase their prejudices. Thus was the old Democratic party formed; and while that party honestly supposed they were merely resisting the encroachments of a nobility at home, they were actually playing a game for one of the most aristocratic classes in the world—viz. the Southern planters. A famous slave-owner and politician openly boasted, that the South could always put down the aristocracy of the North, by means of her own democracy. In this point of view, democracy becomes a machine used by one aristocratic class against another, that has less power, and is therefore less dangerous.

There are features in the organization of society, resulting from slavery, which are conducive to any thing but the union of these States. A large class are without employment, are accustomed to command, and have a strong contempt for habits of industry. This class, like the nobility of feudal times, are restless, impetuous, eager for excitement, and prompt to settle all questions with the sword. Like the fierce old barons, at the head of their vassals, they are ever ready to resist and nullify the central power of the State, whenever it interferes with their individual interests, or even approaches the strong holds of their prejudices. All history shows, that men possessing hereditary, despotic power, cannot easily be brought to acknowledge a superior, either in the administrators of the laws, or in the law itself. It was precisely such a class of men that covered Europe with camps, for upwards of ten centuries.

A Southern governor has dignified duelling with the name of an "institution;" and the planters generally, seem to regard it as among those which they have denominated their "peculiar institutions." General Wilkinson, who was the son of a slave-owner, expresses in his memoirs, great abhorrence of duelling, and laments the powerful influence which his father's injunction, when a boy, had upon his after life: "James," said the old gentleman, "if you ever take an insult, I will disinherit you."

A young lawyer, who went from Massachusetts to reside at the South, has frequently declared that he could not take any stand there as a lawyer, or a gentleman, until he had fought: he was subject to continual insult and degradation, until he had evinced his readiness to kill, or be killed. It is obvious that such a state of morals elevates mere physical courage into a most undue importance. There are indeed emergencies, when all the virtues, and all the best affections of man, are intertwined with personal bravery; but this is not the kind of courage, which makes duelling in fashion. The patriot nobly sacrifices himself for the good of others; the duellist wantonly sacrifices others to himself.

Browbeating, which is the pioneer of the pistol, characterizes, particularly of late years, the Southern legislation. By these means, they seek to overawe the Representatives from the free States, whenever any question even remotely connected with slavery is about to be discussed; and this, united with our strong reverence for the Union, has made our legislators shamefully cautious with regard to a subject, which peculiarly demands moral courage, and an abandonment of selfish considerations. If a member of Congress does stand his ground firmly, if he wants no preferment or profit, which the all-powerful Southern influence can give, an effort is then made to intimidate him. The instances are numerous in which Northern men have been insulted and challenged by their Southern brethren, in consequence of the adverse influence they exerted over the measures of the Federal government. This turbulent evil exists only in our slave States; and the peace of the country is committed to their hands whenever twenty-five votes in Congress can turn the scale in favor of war.

The statesmen of the South have generally been planters. Their agricultural products must pay the merchants—foreign and domestic,—the ship-owner, the manufacturer,—and all others concerned in the exchange or manipulation of them. It is universally agreed that the production of the raw materials is the least profitable employment of capital. The planters have always entertained a jealous dislike of those engaged in the more profitable business of the manufacture and exchange of products; particularly as the existence of slavery among them destroys ingenuity and enterprise, and compels them to employ the merchants, manufacturers, and sailors, of the free States.[AD] Hence there has ever been a tendency to check New-England, whenever she appears to shoot up with vigorous rapidity. Whether she tries to live by hook or by crook, there is always an effort to restrain her within certain limited bounds. The embargo, passed without limitation of time, (a thing unprecedented,) was fastened upon the bosom of her commerce, until life was extinguished. The ostensible object of this measure, was to force Great Britain to terms, by distressing the West Indies for food. But while England commanded the seas, her colonies were not likely to starve; and for the sake of this doubtful experiment, a certain and incalculable injury was inflicted upon the Northern States. Seamen, and the numerous classes of mechanics connected with navigation, were thrown out of employment, as suddenly as if they had been cast on a desert island by some convulsion of nature. Thousands of families were ruined by that ill-judged measure. Has any government a right to inflict so much direct suffering on a very large portion of their own people, for the sake of an indirect and remote evil which may possibly be inflicted on an enemy?

[Footnote AD: Virginia has great natural advantages for becoming a manufacturing country; but slavery, that does evil to all and good to none, produces a state of things which renders that impossible.]

It is true, agriculture suffered as well as commerce; but agricultural products could be converted into food and clothing; they would not decay like ships, nor would the producers be deprived of employment and sustenance, like those connected with navigation.

Whether this step was intended to paralyze the North or not, it most suddenly and decidedly produced that effect. We were told that it was done to save our commerce from falling into the hands of the English and French. But our merchants earnestly entreated not to be thus saved. At the very moment of the embargo, underwriters were ready to insure at the usual rates.

The non-intercourse was of the same general character as the embargo, but less offensive and injurious. The war crowned this course of policy; and like the other measures, was carried by slave votes. It was emphatically a Southern, not a national war. Individuals gained glory by it, and many of them nobly deserved it; but the amount of benefit which the country derived from that war might be told in much fewer words than would enumerate the mischiefs it produced.

The commercial States, particularly New-England, have been frequently reproached for not being willing to go to war for the protection of their own interests; and have been charged with pusillanimity and ingratitude for not warmly seconding those who were so zealous to defend their cause. Mr. Hayne, during the great debate with Mr. Webster, in the Senate, made use of this customary sarcasm. It is revived whenever the sectional spirit of the South, or party spirit in the North, prompts individuals to depreciate the talents and character of any eminent Northern man. The Southern States have even gone so far on this subject, as to assume the designation of "patriot States," in contra-distinction to their northern neighbors—and this too, while Bunker Hill and Faneuil Hall are still standing! It certainly was a pleasant idea to exchange the appellation of slave States for that of patriot States—it removed a word which in a republic is unseemly and inconsistent.

Whatever may be thought of the justice and expediency of the last war, it was certainly undertaken against the earnest wishes of the commercial States—two thirds of the Representatives from those States voted in opposition to the measure. According to the spirit of the constitution it ought not to have passed unless there were two thirds in favor of it. Why then should the South have insisted upon conferring a boon, which was not wanted; and how happened it, that Yankees, with all their acknowledged shrewdness in money matters, could never to this day perceive how they were protected by it? Yet New-England is reproached with cowardice and ingratitude to her Southern benefactors! If one man were to knock another down with a broad-axe, in the attempt to brush a fly from his face, and then blame him for not being sufficiently thankful, it would exactly illustrate the relation between the North and the South on this subject.

If the protection of commerce had been the real object of the war, would not some preparations have been made for a navy? It was ever the policy of the slave States to destroy the navy. Vast conquests by land were contemplated, for the protection of Northern commerce. Whatever was intended, the work of destruction was done. The policy of the South stood for awhile like a giant among ruins. New-England received a blow, which crushed her energies, but could not annihilate them. Where the system of free labor prevails, and there is work of any kind to be done, there is a safety-valve provided for any pressure. In such a community there is a vital and active principle, which cannot be long repressed. You may dam up the busy waters, but they will sweep away obstructions, or force a new channel.

Immediately after the peace, when commerce again began to try her broken wings, the South took care to keep her down, by multiplying permanent embarrasments, in the shape of duties. The direct tax (which would have borne equally upon them, and which in the original compact was the equivalent for slave representation,) was forthwith repealed, and commerce was burdened with the payment of the national debt. The encouragement of manufactures, the consumption of domestic products, or living within ourselves, was then urged upon us. This was an ancient doctrine of the democratic party. Mr. Jefferson was its strongest advocate. Did he think it likely to bear unfavorably upon "the nation of shopkeepers and pedlers?"[AE] The Northerners adopted it with sincere views to economy, and more perfect independence. The duties were so adjusted as to embarrass commerce, and to guard the interests of a few in the North, who from patriotism, party spirit, or private interest, had established manufactures on a considerable scale. This system of protection opposed by the North, was begun in 1816 by Southern politicians, and enlarged and confirmed by them in 1824. It was carried nearly as much by Southern influence, as was the war itself; and if the votes were placed side by side, there could not be a doubt of the identity of the interests and passions, which lay concealed under both. But enterprise, that moral perpetual motion, overcomes all obstacles. Neat and flourishing villages rose in every valley of New-England. The busy hum of machinery made music with her neglected waterfalls. All her streams, like the famous Pactolus, flowed with gold. From her discouraged and embarrassed commerce arose a greater blessing, apparently indestructible. Walls of brick and granite could not easily be overturned by the Southern lever, and left to decay, as the ship-timber had done. Thus Mordecai was again seated in the king's gate, by means of the very system intended for his ruin. As soon as this state of things became perceptible, the South commenced active hostility with manufactures. Doleful pictures of Southern desolation and decay were given, and all attributed to manufactures. The North was said to be plundering the South, while she, poor dame, was enriching her neighbors, and growing poor upon her extensive labors. (If this statement be true, how much gratitude do we owe the negroes; for they do all the work that is done at the South. Their masters only serve to keep them in a condition, where they do not accomplish half as much as they otherwise would.)

[Footnote AE: Mr. Jefferson's description of New-England.]

New-England seems to be like the poor lamb that tried to drink at the same stream with the wolf. "You make the water so muddy I can't drink," says the wolf: "I stand below you," replied the lamb, "and therefore it cannot be." "You did me an injury last year," retorted the wolf. "I was not born last year," rejoined the lamb. "Well, well," exclaimed the wolf, "then it was your father or mother. I'll eat you, at all events."

The bitter discussions in Congress have grown out of this strong dislike to the free States; and the crown of the whole policy is nullification. The single State of South Carolina has undertaken to abolish the revenues of the whole nation, and threatened the Federal Government with cecession from the Union, in case the laws were enforced by any other means, than through the judicial tribunals.

"It is not a little extraordinary that this new pretention of South Carolina, the State which above all others enjoys this unrequited privilege of excessive representation, released from all payment of the direct taxes, of which her proportion would be nearly double that of any non-slaveholding State, should proceed from that very complaint that she bears an unequal proportion of duties of imposts, which, by the constitution of the United States, are required to be uniform throughout the Union. Vermont, with a free population of two hundred and eighty thousand souls, has five representatives in the popular House of Congress, and seven Electors for President and Vice-President. South Carolina, with a free population of less than two hundred and sixty thousand souls, sends nine members to the House of Representatives, and honors the Governor of Virginia with eleven votes for the office of President of the United States. If the rule of representation were the same for South Carolina and for Vermont, they would have the same number of Representatives in the House, and the same number of Electors for the choice of President and Vice-President. She has nearly double the number of both."

What would the South have? They took the management at the very threshold of our government, and, excepting the rigidly just administration of Washington, they have kept it ever since. They claimed slave representation and obtained it. For their convenience the revenues were raised by imposts instead of direct taxes, and thus they give little or nothing in exchange for their excessive representation. They have increased the slave States, till they have twenty-five votes in Congress—They have laid the embargo, and declared war—They have controlled the expenditures of the nation—They have acquired Louisiana and Florida for an eternal slave market, and perchance for the manufactory of more slave States—They have given five presidents out of seven to the United States—And in their attack upon manufactures, they have gained Mr. Clay's concession bill. "But all this availeth not, so long as Mordecai the Jew sitteth in the king's gate." The free States must be kept down. But change their policy as they will, free States cannot be kept down. There is but one way to ruin them; and that is to make them slave States. If the South with all her power and skill cannot manage herself into prosperity, it is because the difficulty lies at her own doors, and she will not remove it. At one time her deserted villages were attributed to the undue patronage bestowed upon settlers on the public lands: at another, the tariff is the cause of her desolation. Slavery, the real root of the evil, is carefully kept out of sight, as a "delicate subject," which must not be alluded to. It is a singular fact in the present age of the world, that delicate and indelicate subjects mean precisely the same thing.