The Barbarism of Slavery

The Barbarism of Slavery. MR. MADISON THOUGHT IT WRONG TO ADMIT IN THE CONSTITUTION THE IDEA OF PROPERTY IN MEN.—Debates in the Federal Convention, 25th August, 1187. SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES SUMNER, ON THE Bill for the Admission of Kansas as a Free State. 0-------------- In the United States Senate, June 4, 1860. ------------- 0-------------- Mr. President: Undertaking now, after a silence of more than four years, to address the Senate on this important subject, I should suppress the emotions natural to such an occasion, if I did not declare on the threshold my gratitude to that Supreme Being, through whose benign care I am enabled, after much suffering and many changes, once again to resume my duties here, and to speak for the cause which is so near my heart. To the honored Commonwealth whose representative I am, and also to my immediate associates in this body, with whom I enjoy the fellowship which is found in thinking alike concerning the Republic, I owe thanks which I seize this moment to express for the indulgence shown me throughout the protracted seclusion enjoined ] by medical skill; and I trust that it will not i be thought unbecoming in me to put on rec- , ord here, as an apology for leaving my seat so ■ long vacant, without making way, by resigna- i tion, for a successor, that I acted under the ! illusion of an invalid, whose hopes for restora- ' tion to his natural health constantly triumphed over his disappointments. When last I entered into this debate, it became my duty to expose the Crime against Kansas, and to insist upon the immediate admission of that Territory as a State of this Union, with a Constitution forbidding Slavery. Time has passed; but the question remains. Resuming the discussion precisely where I left it, I am happy to avow that rule of moderation, which, it is said, may venture even to fix the boundaries of wisdom itself. I have no personal griefs to utter; only a barbarous egotism could intrude these into this chamber. I have no personal wrongs to avenge; only a barbarous nature could attempt to wield that vengeance which belongs to the Lord. The years that have intervened and the tombs that have been opened since I spoke have their voices too, which I cannot fail to hear. Besides, what am I—what is any man among the living or among the dead, compared with the Question before us ? It is this alone which I shall discuss, and I open the argument with that easy victory which is found in charity. The Crime against Kansas stands forth in painful light. Search history, and you cannot find its parallel. The slave-trade is bad; but even this enormity is petty, compared with that elaborate contrivance by which, in a Christian age and within the limits of a Republic, all forms of constitutional liberty were perverted ; by which all the rights of human nature were violated, and the whole country was held trembling on the edge of civil war; while all this large exuberance of wickedness, detestable in itself, becomes tenfold more detestable when its origin is traced to the madness for Slavery. The fatal partition between Freedom and Slavery, known as the Missouri Compromise; the subsequent overthrow of this partition, and the seizure of all by Slavery; the violation of plighted faith; the conspiracy to force Slavery at all hazards into Kansas; the successive invasions by which all security there was destroyed, and the electoral franchise itself was trodden down; the sacrilegious seizure of the very polls, and, through pretended forms of law, the imposition of a foreign legislature upon

2 this Territory; the acts of this legislature, fortifying the Usurpation, and, among other things, establishing test-oaths, calculated to disfranchise actual settlers, friendly to Freedom, and securing the privileges of the citizen to actual strangers friendly to Slavery; the whole crowned by a statute—“ the be-all and the end- all” of the whole Usurpation—through which Slavery was not only recognised on this beautiful soil, but made to bristle with a Code of Death such as the world has rarely seen; all these I have fully exposed on a former occasion. And yet the most important part of the argument was at that time left untouched ; I mean that which is found in the Character of Slavery. This natural sequel, with the permission of the Senate, I propose now to supply. Motive is to Crime as soul to body ; and it is only when we comprehend the motive that we can truly comprehend the Crime. Here, the motive is found in Slavery and the rage for its extension. Therefore, by logical necessity, must Slavery be discussed; not indirectly, timidly, and sparingly, but directly, openly, and thoroughly. It must be exhibited as it is; alike in its influence and in its animating character, so that not only its outside but its inside may be seen. This is no time for soft words or excuses. All such are out of place. They may turn away wrath; but what is the wrath of man ? This is no time to abandon any advantage in the argument. Senators sometimes announce that they resist Slavery on political grounds only, and. remind us that they say nothing of the moral question. This is wrong. Slavery must be resisted not only on political grounds ; but on all other grounds, whether social, economical, or moral. Ours is no holiday contest; nor is it any strife of rival factions; of White and Red Roses; of theatric Neri and Bianchi; but it is a solemn battle between Right and Wrong; between Good and Evil. Such a battle cannot be fought with excuses or with rosewater. There is austere work to be done, and Freedom cannot consent to fling away any of her weapons. If I were disposed to shrink from this discussion, the boundless assumptions now made by Senators on the other side would not allow me. The whole character of Slavery as a pretended form of civilization is put directly in issue, with a pertinacity and a hardihood which banish all reserve on this side. In these assumptions, Senators from South Carolina naturally take the lead. Following Mr. Calhoun, who pronounced “ Slavery the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world,” and Mr. McDuffie, who did not shrink from calling it “ the corner-stone of the republican edifice,” the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hammond] insists that “its forms of society are the best in the world;” and his colleague [Mr. Chesnut] takes up the strain. One Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Davis] adds, that Slavery “ is but a form of civil government for those who are not fit to govern themselves;” and bis colleague [Mr. Brown] openly vaunts that it “ is a great moral, social, and political blessing—a blessing to the slave and a blessing to the master.” One Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Hunter,] in a studied vindication of what he is pleased to call “ the social system of the slaveholding States,” exalts Slavery as “the normal condition of human society; ” “ beneficial to the non-slave-owner as it is to the slave-owner ”—“ best for the happiness of both races; ” and, in enthusiastic advocacy, declares, “ that the very keystone of the mighty arch, which by its concentrated strength is able to sustain our social superstructure, consists in the black marble block of African slavery. Knock that out,” he says, “ and the mighty fabric, with all that it upholds, topples and tumbles to its fall.” These were his very words, uttered in debate here. And his colleague, [Mr. Mason,] who has never hesitated where slavery was in question, has proclaimed that it is “ ennobling to both master and slave”—a word which, so far as the slave was concerned, he changed, on a subsequent day, to “elevating,” assuming still that it is “ennobling” to the master—which is simply a new version of an old assumption, by Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, that “ Slavery supersedes the necessity of an order of nobility.” Thus, by various voices, is the claim made for Slavery, which is put forward defiantly as a form of civilization—as if its existence were not plainly inconsistent with the first principles of anything that can be called Civilization—except by that figure of speech in classical literature, where a thing takes its name from something which it has not, as the dreadful Fates were called merciful because they were without mercy. And pardon the allusion, if I add, that, listening to these sounding words for Slavery, I am reminded of the kindred extravagance related by that remarkable traveller in China, the late Abb6 Hue, of a gloomy hole in which he was lodged, pestered by mosquitoes and exhaling noisome vapors, where light and air entered only by a single narrow aperture, but styled by Chinese pride the Hotel of the Beatitudes. It is natural that Senators thus insensible to the true character of Slavery, should evince an equal insensibility to the true character of the Constitution. This is shown in the claim now made, and pressed with unprecedented energy, degrading the work of our fathers, that by virtue of the Constitution, the pretended property in man is placed beyond the reach of Congressional prohibition even within Congressional jurisdiction, so that the Slave-master may at all times enter the broad outlying Territories of the Union with the victims of his op-3 pression, and there continue to hold them by lash and chain. Such are the two assumptions, the first an

3 assumption of fact, and the second an assumption of constitutional law, which are now made without apology or hesitation. I meet them both. To the first I oppose the essential Barbarism of Slavery, in all its influences, whether high or low, as Satan is Satan still, whether towering in the sky or squatting in the toad. To the second I oppose the unanswerable, irresistible truth, that the Constitution of the United States nowhere recognises property in man. These two assumptions naturally go together. They are 11 twins ” suckled by the same wolf. They are the “couple” in the present slave hunt. And the latter cannot be answered without exposing the former. It is only when Slavery is exhibited in its truly hateful character, that we can fully appreciate the absurdity of the assumption, which, in defiance of the express letter of the Constitution, and without a single sentence, phrase, or word, upholding human bondage, yet foists into this blameless text the barbarous idea that man can hold property in man. On former occasions, I have discussed Slavery only incidentally; as, in unfolding the principle that Slavery is Sectional and Freedom National; in exposing the unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Bill; in vindicating the Prohibition of Slavery in the Missouri Territory ; in exhibiting the imbecility throughout the Revolution of the. Slave States, and especially of South Carolina; and lastly, in unmasking the Crime against Kansas. On all these occasions, where I have .spoken at length, I have said too little of the character of Slavery, partly because other topics were presented, and partly from a disinclination which I have always felt to press the argument against those whom I knew to have all the sensitiveness of a sick man. But, God be praised, this time has passed, and the debate is now lifted from details to principles. Grander debate has not Occurred in our history ; rarely in any history; nor can this debate close or subside except with the triumph of Freedom. First Assumption.—Of course I begin with the assumption of fact. It was the often-quoted remark of John Wesley, who knew well how to use words, as also howto touch hearts, that Slavery was “the sum of all villainies.” The phrase is pungent; but it would be rash in any of us to criticize the testimony of that illustrious founder of Methodism, whose ample experience of Slavery in Georgia and the Carolinas seems to have been all condensed in this sententious judgment. Language is feeble to express all the enormity of this institution, which is now vaunted as in itself a form of civilization, “ ennobling ” at least to the master, if not to the slave. Look at it in whatever light you will, and it is always the scab, the canker, the “ bare-bones,” and the shame of the country; wrong, not merely in the abstract, as is often admitted by its apologists, but wrong in the concrete also, and possessing no single element of right. Look at it in the light of principles, and it is nothing less than a huge insurrection against the eternal law of God, involving in its pretensions the denial of all human rights, and also the denial of that Divine Law in which God himself is manifest, thus being practically the grossest lie and the grossest Atheism. Founded in violence, sustained only by violence, such a wrong must by a sure law of compensation blast the master as Well as the slave; blast the lands on which they live ; blast the community of which they are a part.; blast the Government which does not forbid the outrage; and the longer it exists and the more completely it prevails, must its blasting influences penetrate the whole social system. Barbarous in origin; barbarous in its law ; barbarous in all its pretensions; barbarous in the instruments it employs; barbarous in consequences; barbarous in spirit; barbarous wherever it shows, itself, Slavery must breed Barbarians, while it develops everywhere,« alike in the individual and in the society to which he belongs, the essential elements of Barbarism. In this character it is now conspicuous before the world. In undertaking now to expose the Barbarism of Slavery, the whole broad field is open before me. There is nothing in its character, its manifold wrong, its wretched results, and especially in its influence on the class who claim to be “ ennobled ” by it, that will not fall naturally under consideration. I know well the difficulty of this discussion involved in the humiliating Truth with which I begin. Senators on former occasions, revealing their sensibility, have even protested against any comparison between what were called the “two civilizations,” meaning the two social systems produced respectively by Freedom and by Slavery. The sensibility and the protest are not unnatural, though mistaken. “Two civilizations!” Sir, in this nineteenth century of Christian light, there can be but one Civilization, and this is where Freedom prevails. Between Slavery and Civilization there is an essential incompatibility. If you are for the one, you cannot be for the other; and just in proportion to the embrace of Slavery is the divorce from Civilization. That Slave-masters should be disturbed when this is exposed,, might be expected. But the assumptions now so boastfully made, while they may not prevent the sensibility, yet surely exclude all ground of protest when these assumptions are exposed. Nor is this the only difficulty. Slavery is a bloody Touch-me-not, and everywhere in sight now blooms the bloody flower. It is on the way side as we approach the national capital; it is on the marble steps which we mount; it flaunts on this floor. I stand now in the house of its friends. About me while I speak are its most sensitive guardians, who have shown in the past how much they are

4 ready either to do or not to do where Slavery is in question. Menaces to deter me have not been spared. But I should ill deserve this high post of duty here, with which I have been honored by a generons and enlightened people, if I could hesitate. Idolatry has been often exposed in the presence of idolaters, and hypocrisy has been chastised in the presence of Scribes and Pharisees. Such examples may give encouragement to a Senator who undertakes in this presence to expose Slavery; nor can any language, directly responsive to the assumptions now made for this Barbarism, be open to question. Slavery can only be painted in the sternest colors; but I cannot forget that nature’s sternest painter has been called the best. The Barbarism oe Slavery appears ; first in the character of Slavery, and secondly in the character of Slave-masters. Under the first head we shall naturally consider (1) the Law of Slavery and its Origin, and (2) the practical results of Slavery as shown in a comparison between the Free States and the Slave States. Under the second head we shall naturally consider (1) Slave-masters as shown in the Law of Slavery; (2) Slave-masters in their relations with slaves, here glancing at their three brutal instruments; and (3) Slave-masters in their relations with each other, with society, and with Government; and (4) Slave-masters in their unconsciousness. The way will then be prepared for the consideration of the assumption of constitutional law. I. In presenting the Character of Slavery, there is little for me to do, except to allow Slavery to paint itself. When this is done, the picture will need no explanatory words. (1.) I begin with the Law of Slavery and its Origin, and here this Barbarism paints itself in its own chosen definition. 11 is simply this: Man, created in the image of God, is divested of his human character, and declared to be a “ chattel”—that is, a beast, a thing or article of property. That this statement may not seem to be put forward without precise authority, I quote the statutes of three different States, beginning with South Carolina, whose voice for Slavery always has an unerring distinctiveness. Here is the definition supplied by this State: ‘'Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to al) intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”—2 Brev. Dig., 229. _ And here is the definition supplied by the Civil Code of Louisiana: / “ A'slave is one who is in the power of amast'r to whom he belongs. The matter may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor. He can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything, but what must belong to his master.”— Civil Code, art. 35. In similar spirit, the law of Maryland thus indirectly defines a slave as an article: “ In ease the personal property of a ward shall consist ofspeeific articles, such as slaves, working beasts, animals of any kind, the court, if it deem it advantageous for the ward, may at any time pass an order for the sale thereof.”—Statutes of Maryland. Not to occupy time unnecessarily, I present a summary of the pretended law defining Slaveryin all the Slave States, as made by a careful writer, Judge Stroud, in a work of juridical as well as philanthropic merit: “The cardinal principle of Slavery—that the slave is not to be ranked among sentient beings, but among things— is an article of property—a chmterpersonal—obtains as undoubted Jaw in all of these [Slave] Slates.”—Stroud's Law of Slavery, p 22. Out of this definition, as from a solitary germ, which in its pettiness might be crushed by the hand, towers our Upas Tree and all its gigantic poison. Study it, and you will comprehend the whole monstrous growth. Sir, look at its plain import, and see the relation which it establishes. The slave is held simply for the use of his master, to whose behests, his life, liberty, and happiness, are devoted, and by whom he may be bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped as cargo, stored as goods, sold on execution, knocked off at public auction, and even staked at the gaming table on the hazard of a card or a die; all according to law. Nor is there anything, within the limit of life, inflicted on a beast which may not be inflicted on the slave. He may be marked like a hog, branded like a mule, yoked like an ox, hobbled like a horse, driven like an ass, sheared like a sheep, maimed like a cur, and constantly beaten like a brute; all according to law. And should life itself be taken, what is the remedy ? The Law of Slavery, imitating that rule of evidence which, in barbarous days and barbarous countries, prevented a Christian from testifying against a Mahomedan, openly pronounces the incompetency of the whole African race—whether bond or free—to testify in any case against a white man, and, thus having already surrendered the slave to all possible outrage, crowns its tyranny, by excluding the very testimony through which the bloody cruelty of the Slave-master might be exposed. Thus in its Law does Slavery paint itself; but it is only when we look at details, and detect its essential elements—five in number—all inspired by a single motive, that its character becomes completely7 manifest. Foremost, of course, in these elements, is the impossible pretension, where Barbarism is lost in impiety, by which man claims property in man. Against such arrogance the argument is brief. According to the law of nature, written by the same hand that placed the planets in their orbits, and like them, constituting a part of the eternal system of the Universe, every human being has a complete title to himself direct from the Almighty. Naked he is born; but this birthright is inseparable from the human form. A man may be poor in this world’s goods; but he owns himself. No war or robbery, ancient or recent; no capture; no mid-

5 die passage ; no change of clime; no purchase money; no transmission from hand to hand, no matter how many times, and no matter at what price, can defeat this indefeasible Godgiven franchise. And a Divine mandate, strong as that which guards Life, guards Liberty also. Even at the very morning, of Cre ation, when God said, let there be Light— earlier than the malediction against murder— He set an everlasting difference between man and a chattel, giving to man dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth: ---------that right we hold By His donation; but man over men He made not lord, such title to Himself Reserving, human left from human free. Slavery tyrannically assumes a power which Heaven denied, while, under its barbarous necromancy, borrowed from the Source of Evil, a man is changed into a chattel—a person is withered into a thing—a soul is shrunk into merchandise. Say, sir, in your madness, that you own the sun, the stars, the moon; but do not say that you own a man, endowed with a soul that shall live immortal, when sun and moon and stars have passed away. Secondly. Slavery paints itself again in its complete abrogation of marriage, recognised as a sacrament by the church, and recognised as a contract wherever civilization prevails. Under the law of Slavery, no such sacrament is respected, and no such contract can exist. The ties that may be formed between slaves are all subject to the selfish interests or more selfish lust of the master, whose license knows no check. Natural affections which have come together are rudely torn asunder; nor is this all. Stripped of every defence, the chastity of a whole race is exposed to violence, while the result is recorded in the tell-tale faces of children, glowing with their master’s blood, but doomed for their mother’s skin to Slavery, through all descending fenerations. The Senator from Mississippi Mr. Brown] is galled by the comparison between Slavery and Polygamy, and winces. I hail this sensibility as the sign of virtue. Let him reflect, and he will confess, that there are many disgusting elements in Slavery, which are not present in Polygamy, while the single disgusting element of Polygamy is more than present in Slavery. By the license of Polygamy, one man may have many wives, all bound to him by the marriage tie, and in other respects protected by. law. By the license of Slavery, a whole race is delivered over to prostitution and concubinage, without the protection of any law. Sir, is not Slavery barbarous ? Thirdly. Slavery paints itself again in its complete abrogation of the parental relation, which God in his benevolence has provided for the nurture and education of the human family, and which constitutes an essential part of Civilization itself. And yet, by the law of Slavery— happily beginning to be modified in some places—this relation is set at naught, and in its place is substituted the arbitrary control of the master, at whose mere command little children, such as the Saviour called unto him, though clasped by a mother’s arms, may be swept under the hammer of the auctioneer. I do not dwell on this exhibition. Sir, is not Slavery barbarous ? Fourthly. Slavery paints itself again in closing the gates of knowledge, which are also the shining gates of civilization. Under its plain unequivocal law, the bondma . may, at the unrestrained will of his master, be shut out from all instruction, while in many places, incredible to relate! the law itself, by cumulative provisions, positively forbids that he shall be taught to read. Of course, the slave cannot be allowed to read, for his soul would then expand in larger air, while he saw the glory of the North Star, and also the helping truth, that God, who made iron, never made a slave; for he would then become familiar with the Scriptures, with the Decalogue still speaking in the thunders of Sinai; with that ancient text, “ He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death; ” with that other text, “ Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; ” with that great story of redemption, when the Lord raised the slave-born Moses to deliver his chosen people from the house of bondage; and with that sublimer story, where the Saviour died a cruel death, that all men, without distinction of race, might be saved— leaving to mankind commandments, which, even without his example, make Slavery impossible. Thus, in order to fasten your manacles upon the slave, you fasten other manacles upon his soul. Sir, is not Slavery barbarous 1 Fifthly. Slavery paints itself again in the appropriation of all the toil of its victims, excluding them from that property in their own earnings, which the law of nature allows, and civilization secures. The painful injustice of this pretension is lost in its meanness. It is robbery and petty larceny under the garb of law. And even its meanness is lost in the absurdity of its associate pretension, that the African, thus despoiled of ill his earnings, is saved from poverty, and that for his own good he must work for his master, and not for himself. Alas! by such a fallacy, is a whole race pauperized ! And yet this transaction is not without illustrative example. A solemn poet, whose verse has found wide favor, pictures a creature who, -- With one hand put A penny in the urn of poverty, And with the other took a shilling out. Pollak's “ Course of Kwie,” Book VIII, 632. And a celebrated traveller through Russia, more than a generation ago, describes a kindred spirit, who, while on his knees before an altar of the Greek Church, devoutly told his

6 >ads with one hand, and with the other deliberately picked the pocket of a fellow-sinner by his side. Not admiring these instances, I cannot cease to deplore a system which has much of both, while, under an affectation of charity, it sordidly takes from the slave all the fruits of his bitter sweat, and thus takes from him the mainspring to exertion. Tell me, sir, is not Slavery barbarous ? Such is Slavery in its five special elements of Barbarism, as recognised by law ; first, assuming that man can hold property in man ; secondly, abrogating the relation of husband and wife ; thirdly, abrogating the parental tie ; fourthly, closing the gates of knowledge ; and fifthly, appropriating the unpaid labor of another. Take away these elements, sometimes called “ abuses,” and Slavery will cease to exist, for it is these very “ abuses ” which constitute Slavery. Take away any one of them, and the abolition of Slavery begins. And when I present Slavery for judgment, I mean no slight evil, with regard to which there may be a reasonable difference of opinion, but I mean this five-fold embodiment of11 abuse ”—this ghastly quincunx of Barbarism — each particular of which, if considered separately, must be denounced at once with all the ardor of an honest soul, while the whole five-fold combination must awake a five-fold denunciation. But this five-fold combination becomes still more hateful when its single motive is considered. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Da- vis] says that it is “ but a form of civil government for those who are not fit to govern themselves.” The Senator is mistaken. It is an outrage where five different pretensions all concur in one single object, looking only to the profit pf the master, and constituting its everpresent motive power, which is simply to compel the labor of fellow-men without wages 1 If the offence of Slavery were less extended; if it .were confined to some narrow region ; if it had less of grandeur in its proportions; if its victims were counted by tens and hundreds, instead of millions, the five-headed enormity would find little indulgence. All would rise against it, while religion and civilization would lavish their choicest efforts in the general warfare. But what is wrong when done to one man cannot be right when done to many. If it is wrong thus to degrade a single soul—-if it is wrong thus to degrade you, Mr. President— it cannot be right to, degrade a whole race. And yet this is denied by the barbarous logic of Slavery, which, taking advantage of its own wrong, claims immunity because its Usurpation has assumed a front of audacity that cannot be safely attacked.. Unhappily, there is Barbarism elsewhere in the world; but American Slavery, as defined by existing law, stands forth as the greatest organized Barbarism on which the sun now shines. It is without a single peer. Its author, after making it, broke Sie die. If curiosity carries us to the origin of this law—and here I approach a topic often considered in this Chamber—we shall confess again its Barbarism. It is not derived from the common law, that fountain of Liberty; for this law, while unhappily recognising a system of servitude, known as villeinage, secured to the bondman privileges unknown to the American slave; protected his person against mayhem; protected his wife against rape ; gave to his marriage equal validity with the marriage of his master, and surrounded his offspring with generous presumptions of Freedom, unlike that rule of yours by which the servitude of the mother is necessarily stamped upon the child. It is not derived from the Roman law, that fountain of tyranny; for two reasons—first, because this law, in its better days, when its early rigors were spent—like the common law itself—secured to the bondman privileges unknown to the American slave—in certain cases of cruelty rescued him from his master—prevented the separation of parents and children, also of brothers and sisters—and even protected him in the marriage relation; and secondly, because the Thirteen Colonies were not derived from any of those countries which recognised the Roman law, while this law even before the discovery of this continent had lost all living efficacy. It is not derived from the Mahomedan law; for under the mild injunctions of the Koran, a benignant servitude, unlike yours, has prevailed—where the lash is not allowed to lacerate the back of a female ; where no knife or branding-iron is employed upon any human being to mark him as the property of his fellow-man; where the master is expressly enjoined to listen to the desires of his slave for emancipation; and where the blood of the master, mingling with his bond-woman, takes from her the transferable character of a chattel, and confers complete freedom upon their offspring. It is not derived from the Spanish law; for this law contains humane elements, unknown to your system, borrowed, perhaps, from the Mahomedan Moors who so long occupied Spain; and, besides, our Thirteen Colonies had no umbilical connection with Spain. Nor is it derived from English statutes or American statutes; for we have the positive and repeated averment of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] and also of other Senators that in not a single State of the Union can any such statutes establishing Slavery be found. From none of these does it come. No, sir; not/rom any land of civilization is this Barbarism derived. It comes from Africa; ancient nurse of monsters; from Guihea, Dahomey, and Congo. There is its origin and fountain. This benighted region, we are told by Chief Justice Marshall in a memorable judgment, {The Antelope, 10 Wheaton R., 66,) still asserts a right, discarded by Christendom, to enslave captives taken in war; and this African Barbarism is the beginning of American

7 is a higher law above, so there is a lower law below, and each is felt in human affairs. Thus far, we have seen Slavery only in its pretended law, and in the origin of that law. And here I might stop, without proceeding in this argument; for, on the letter of the law alone Slavery must be condemned. But the tree is known by its fruits, and these I now shall exhibit; and this brings me to the second stage of the argument. (2.) In considering the practical results of Slavery, the materials are so obvious and diversified, that my chief CQ.re will be to abridge and reject; and here I shall put the Slave States and Free States face to face, showing at each point the blasting influence of Slavery; The States where this Barbarism now exists excel the Free States in all natural advantages. Their territory is more extensive, stretching over 851,448 square miles, while the Free States, including California, embrace only 612,597 square miles. Here is a difference of more than 238,000 square miles in favor of the Slave States, showing that Freedom starts in this great controversy; with a field more than a quarter less than that of Slavery. In happiness of climate, adapted to productions of special value; in exhaustless motive power distributed throughout its space; in natural highways, by more than fifty navigable rivers, never closed by the rigors of winter, and in a stretch of coast along ocean and gulf, indented by hospitable harbors—the whole presenting incomparable advantages for that true civilization where agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, both domestic and foreign, blend—in all these respects the Slave States excel the Free States, whose climate is often churlish, whose motive power., is less various, whose navigable rivers are fewer and often sealed by ice, and whose coast, while less in extent and with fewer harbors, is often perilous from storm-and cold. But Slavery plays the part of a Harpy, and defiles the choicest banquet. See what it does with this territory, thus spacious and fair. An important indication of prosperity is to be found in the growth of population. In this respect the two regions started equal. In 1790, at the first census under the Constitution, the population of the present Slave States was 1,961,372, of the present Free States 1,968,455, showing a difference of only 7,083 in favor of the Free States. This difference, at first merely nominal, has been constantly increasing since, showing itself more strongly in each decennial census, until, in 1850, the population of the Slave States, swollen by the annexation of three foreign Territories, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, was only 9,612,769, while that of the Free States, without any such annexations, reached 13,434,922, showing a difference of 3,822,153 in favor of FreeSlavery. And the Supreme Court of Georgia, a Slave State, has not shrunk from this conclusion. 11 Licensed to hold slave property,” says the Court, “ the-Georgia planter held the slave as a chattel; either directly from the slave-trader, or from those who held under him, and he from the slave-captor in Africa. The property of the planter in the slave became, thus, the property of the original captor.” {Neal v. Farmer, 9 Georgia Reports, p. 555.) It is natural that a right, thus derived in defiance of Christendom, and openly founded on the most vulgar Paganism, should be exercised without any mitigating influence from Christianity; that the master’s authority over the person of his slave—over his conjugal relations—over his parental relations—over the employment of his time—over all his acquisitions, should be recognised, while no generous presumption inclines to Freedom, and the womb of the bond-woman can deliver only a slave. From its home in Africa, where it is sustained by immemorial usage, this Barbarism, thus derived and thus developed, traversed the ocean to American soil. It entered on board that fatal slave-ship “ built in the eclipse, and rigged with curses dark,” which in 1620 landed its cruel cargo at Jamestown, in Virginia, and it has. boldly taken its place in every succeeding slave-ship from that early day till now— helping to pack the human freight, regardless of human agony; surviving the torments of the middle passage; surviving its countless victims plunged beneath the waves; and it has left the slave-ship only to travel inseparable from the slave in his various doom, sanctioning by its barbarous code every outrage, whether of mayhem or robbery, of lash or lust, and fastening itself upon his offspring to the remotest generation. Thus are the barbarous prerogatives of barbarous half-naked African chiefs perpetuated in American Slave-masters, while the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Mason,] perhaps unconscious of their origin—perhaps desirous to secure for them the appearance of a less barbarous pedigree—tricks them out with a phrase of the Boman law, discarded by the common law, partus sequitur ventrem, which simply renders into ancient Latin an existing rule of African Barbarism, recognised as an existing rule of American Slavery. Such is the plain juridical origin of the American slave code, which is now vaunted as a badge of Civilization. But all law, whatever may be its juridical origin, whether English or Mahomedan, Boman or African, may be traced to other and ampler influences in nature, sometimes of Eight, and sometimes of Wrong. Surely the law which blasted the slave-trade as piracy punishable with death had a different inspiration from that other law, which secured immunity for the slave-trade throughout an immense territory, and invested its supporters with political power. As there |

8 But thia difference becomes still more narkable, if we confine our inquiries to the /hite population, which, at this period, was only 6,184,477 in the Slave States, while it was 13,238,670 in the Free States, showing a difference of more than 7,054,193 in favor of Freedom, and showing that the white population of the Free States had not only doubled but commenced to triple that of the Slave States, although occupying a smaller territory. The comparative sparseness of the two populations furnishes another illustration. In the Slave States the average number of inhabitants to a square mile was 11.28, while in the Free States it was 21.93, or almost two to one in favor of Freedom. These results are general; but if we take any particular Slave State, and compare it with a Free State, we shall find the same constant evidence for Freedom. Take Virginia, with a territory of 61,352 miles, and New York, with a territory of 47,-000, or over 14,000 square miles less than her sister State. New York has one sea-port, Virginia some three or four; New York has one noble river, Virginia has several; New York for 400 miles runs along the frozen line of Canada; Virginia basks in a climate of constant felicity. But Freedom is better than climate, rivers, or sea-port! In 1790 the population of Virginia was 748,308, and in 1850 it was 1,421,661. In 1790, the population of New York was 340,120, and in 1850 it was 3,097,394; that of Virginia had not doubled in sixty years, while that of New York had multiplied more than nine-fold. A similar comparison may be made between Kentucky, with 37,680 square miles, admitted into the Union as long ago as 1790, and Ohio, with 39,964 square miles, admitted into the Union in 1802. In 1850, the Slave State had a population of only 982,405, while Ohio had a population of 1,980,329, showing a difference of nearly a million in favor of Freedom. As in population, so also in the value of\ property, real and personal, do the Free States excel the Slave States. According to the census of 1850, the value of property in the Free States was $4,107,162,198, while in the Slave States it was $2,936,090,737; or, if we deduct the asserted property in human flesh, only $1,655,945,137—showing an enormous difference of billions in favor of Freedom. In the Free States the valuation per acre was $10.47, in the Slave States only $3.04. This disproportion was still greater in 1855, according to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, when the valuation of the Free States was $5,770,194,680; dr $14.72 per acre; and of the Slave States, $3,977,353,946, or, if we deduct the asserted property in human flesh, $2,505,186,346, or $4.59 per acre. Thus, in five years from 1850, the valuation of property in the Free States received an increase of more than the whole accumulated valuation of the Slave States at that time’. Looking at details, we find the same disproportions. Arkansas and Michigan, equal in territory, were admitted into the Union in the same year; and yet, in 1855, the whole valuation of Arkansas, including its asserted property in human flesh, was only $64,240,726, while that of Michigan, without a single slave, was $116,593,580. The whole accumulated valuation of all the Slave States, deducting the asserted property in human flesh, in 1850, was only $1,655,945,137 ; but the valuation of New York alone, in 1855, reached the nearly equal sum of $1,401,285,279. The valuation of Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Texas, all together, in 1850, deducting human flesh, was $573,332,860, or simply $1.81 per acre—being less than that of Massachusetts alone, which was $573,342,286, or $114.85 per acre. The Slave States boast of agriculture; but here again, notwithstanding their superior natural advantages, they must yield to the free States at every point, in the number of farms and plantations, in the number of acres of improved lands, in the cash value of farms, in the average value per acre, and in- the value of farming implements and machinery. Here is a short table: Free States. — Number of farms, 877,736; acres of improved land, 57,688,040; cash value of farms, $2,143,344,437 ; average value per acre, $19.83; value of farming implements, $85,736,658. Slave States.—Number of farms, 564,203 ; acres of improved land, 54,970,427; cash value of farms, $1,117,649,649; average value per acre, $6.18; value of farming implements, $65,345,625. Such is the mighty contrast. But it does not stop here. Careful tables place the agricultural products of the Free States, for the year ending Juue, 1850, at $858,634,334, while those of the Slave States were $631,277,417; the product per acre in the Free States at $7.94, and the product per acre in the Slave States at $3.49; and the average product of each agriculturist in the Free States at $342, and in the Slave States at $171. Thus the Free States, with a smaller population engaged in agriculture than the Slave States, with smaller territory, show an annual sum total of agricultural products surpassing those of the Slave States by two hundred and twenty-seven millions of dollars, while twice as much is produced on an acre, and more than twice as much is produced by each agriculturist. The monopoly of cotton, rice, and cane sugar, with a climate granting two and sometimes three crops in a year, are thus impotent in the competition with Freedom. In manufactures, the failure of* the Slave States is greater still. It appears at all points, in the capital employed, in the value of the raw material, in the annual wages, and in the annual product. A short table will show the contrast:

9 Free States. — Capital, $430,240,051; value of raw material, $465,844,092; annual wages, $195,976,453; annual product, $842,586,058. Slave States. — Capital, $95,029,879 ; value of raw material, $86,190,639; annual wages, $33,257,360; annual product, $165,413,027. This might be illustrated by details with regard to different manufactures—whether of shoes, cotton, woollen, pig iron, wrought iron, and iron castings—all showing the contrast. It might also be illustrated by a comparison between different States; showing, fbr instance, that the manufactures of Massachusetts, during the last year, exceeded those <5f all the Slave States combined. In commerce, the failure of the Slave States is on yet a larger scale. Under this head, the census does not supply proper statistics, and we are left, therefore, to approximations from other quarters; but these are enough for our purpose. It appears that, of the products which enter into commerce, the Free States had an amount valued at $1,377,199,968; the Slave States an amount valued only at $410,754,992 ; that of the persons engaged in trade, the Free States had 136,856, and the Slave States 52,622; and that of the tonnage employed, the Free Stateshad 2,790,195 tons, and the Slave States only 726,285. This was in 1850. But in 1855 the disproportion was still greater, the Free States having 4,252,615 tons, and the Slave States 855,517 tons, being a difference of five to one; and the tonnage of Massachusetts alone being 970,727 tons, an amount larger than that of all the Slave States. The tonnage built during this year by the Free States was 528,844 tons; by the Slave States, 52,959 tons. Maine alone built 215,905 tons, or more than four times the whole built in the Slave States. The foreign commerce, as indicated by the exports and imports in 1855; of the Free States, was $404,368,503 ; of the Slave States, $132,067,216. The exports of the Free States were $167,520,693 ; of the Slave States, including the vaunted cotton crop, $132,007,216. The imports ofthe Free States were $236,847,810; of the Slave States, $24,586,528. ,The foreign commerce of New York alone was more than twice as large as that of all the Slave States; her imports were larger, and her exports were larger also. Add to this testimony of figures the testimony of a Virginian, Mr. Loudon, in a letter written j ust before the sitting of a Southern Commercial Convention. Thus he complains and testifies: “ There are not half a dozen vessels engaged in our own trade that are owned in Virginia; and I have been unable to find a vessel at Liverpool loading for Virginia within three years, during the height of our busy season.” Railroads and canals are the avenues of commerce; and here again the Free States excel. Of railroads in operation in 1854, there were 13,105 miles in the Free States, and 4,212 in the Slave States. Of canals there were 3,682 miles in the Free States, and 1,116 in the Slave States. . The Post Office, which is not only the agent of commerce, but of civilization, joins in the uniform testimony. According to the tables for 1859, the postage collected in the Free States wa§ $5,532,999, and the expense of carrying the mails $6,748,189, leaving a deficit of $1,215,189. In the Slave States the amount collected was only $1,988,050, and the expense of carrying the mails $6,016,612, leaving the enormous deficit of $4,028,568; the difference between the two deficits being $2,813,372. The Slave States did not pay one-third of the expense of transporting their mails ; and not a single Slave State paid for the transportation of its mails; not even the small State of Delaware. Massachusetts, besides paying for hers, had a surplus larger than the whole amount collected in South Carolina. According to the census of 1850, the value of churches in the Free States was $67,773,477; in the Slave States, $21,674,581. The voluntary charity contributed in 1855, for certain leading purposes of Christian benevolence, was, in the Free States, $953,813; for the same purposes, in the Slave States, $194,784. For the Bible cause, the Free States contributed $319,667; the Slave States, $68,125. For the missionary cause, the first contributed $319,667 ; and the second, $101,934. For the Tract Society, the first contributed $131,972 ; and the second, $24,725. The amount contributed in Massachusetts for the support of missions was greater than that contributed by all the Slave States, and more than eight times that contributed by South Carolina. Nor have the Free States been backward in charity, when the Slave States have been smitten. The records of Massachusetts show that as long ago as 1781, at the beginning of the Government, there was an extensive contribution throughout the Commonwealth, under the particular direction of that eminent patriot, Samuel Adams, for the relief of inhabitants of South Carolina and Georgia. In 1855 we were saddened by the prevalence of yellow fever in Portsmouth, Virginia; and now, from a report of the relief committee of that place, we learn that the amount of charity contributed by the Slave States, exclusive of Virginia, the afflicted State, was $12,182 ; and, including Virginia, it was $33,398 ; while $42,547 were contributed by the Free States. In all this array we see the fatal influence of Slavery, but its Barbarism is yet more conspicuous when we consider its Educational Establishments, and the unhappy results, which naturally ensue from their imperfect character. Of colleges, in 1856, the Free States had 61, and the Slave States 59; but the comparative efficacy of the institutions which assume this name may be measured by certain facts. The number of graduates in the Free States was 47,752, in the Slave States 19,648; the number of ministers educated jn Slave colleges was 747, in the Free colleges 10,702; and the number of

10 at an annual expense of $237,000; Baltimore has only 36 public schools, with 138 teachers, and 8,011 pupils, supported at an annual expense of $32,423. But even these figures do not disclose the whole difference; for there exist in the Free States teachers’ institutes, normal schools, lyceums, and public courses of lectures, which are unknown in the region of Slavery. These advantages are enjoyed also by the children of colored persons; and here is a comparison which shows the degradation of the Slave States. It is their habit particularly to deride free colored persons. See, now, with what cause. The number of colored persons in the Free States is 196,016, of whom 22,043, or more than one-ninth, attend school, which is a larger proportion than is supplied by the whites of the Slave States. In Massachusetts there are 9,064 colored per- 1 sons, of whom 1,439, or nearly one sixth, attend school, which is a much larger proportion than is supplied by the whites of South Carolina. Among educational establishments are public libraries; and here, again, the Free States have their customary eminence, whether we consider libraries strictly called public, or libraries of the common school, of the Sunday school, of the college, and of the church. Here the disclosures are startling. The number of libraries in the Free States is 14,911, and the sum total of volumes is 3,888,234; the number of libraries in the Sl^ve' States is< 695, and the sum total of volumes is 649,577 ; showing an excess for Freedom of more than fourteen thousand libraries, and more than three millions of volumes. In the Free States the common school libraries are 11,881, and contain 1,589,683 volumes; in the Slave States they are 186, and contain 57,721 volumes. In the Free States the Sunday school libraries are 1,713, and contain 478,858 volumes; in the Slave States they are 275, and contain 63,463 volumes. In the Free States the college libraries are 132, and contain 660,573 volumes; in the Slave States they are 79, and contain 249,248 volumes. In the Free States the church libraries are 109, and contain 52,723 volumes; in the Slave States they are 21, and ■ contain 5,627 volumes. In the Free States the I libraries strictly called public, and not inclu- ; ded under the heads already enumerated, are 1,058, and contain 1,106,397 volumes; those of the Slave States are 152, and contain 273,518 volumes. Turn these figures over, look at them in any light, and the conclusion will be irresistible for Freedom. The college libraries alone of the Free States are greater than all the libraries of Slavery. So, also, are the libraries of Massachusetts alone greater than all the libraries of Slavery; and the common school libraries alone of New York are more than twice as large as all the libraries of Slavery. Michigan has 107,943 volumes in her libraries; Arkansas has 420. /nes in" the libraries ,’of Slave colleges ■ .3,011.; in the libraries of the Free colleges , ,67,227. If the materials were at hand for a comparison between these colleges, in buildings, cabinets, and scientific apparatus, or in the standard of scholarship, the difference would be still more apparent. Of professional schools, teaching law, medicine, and theology, the Free States had 65, with 269 professors, 4,426 students, and 175,951 volumes in their libraries, while the Slave States had only 32 professional schools, with 122 professors, 1,807 student’s, and 30,796 volumes in their libraries. The whole number educated at these institutions in the Free States was 23,513, in the Slave States 3,812. Of these, the largest number in the Slave States study law, next medicine, and lastly theology. According to the census, there are only 808 in the Slave theological schools, and 747 studying for the ministry in the Slave colleges; and this is all the record we have of the education of the Slave clergy. Of academies and private schools, in 1850, the Free States, notwithstanding their multitudinous public schools, had 3,197, with 7,175 teachers, 154,893 pupils, and an annual income of $2,457,372 ; the Slave States had 2,797 academies and private schools, with 4,913 teachers, 104,976 pupils, and an annual income of $2,079,724. In the absence of public schools, to a large extent, where Slavery exists, the dependence must be chiefly upon private schools; and yet even in these the Slave States fall below the Free States, whether we consider the number of pupils, the number of teachers, or the amount paid for their support. In public schools, open to all, alike the poor and the rich, the eminence of the Free States is complete. Here the figures show a difference as wide as that between Freedom and Slavery. Their number in the Free States is 62,433, with 72,621 teachers, and with 2,769,901 pupils, supported by an annual expense of $6,780,337. Their number in the Slave States is 18,507, with 19,307 teachers, and with 581,861 pupils, supported by an annual expense of $2,719,534. This difference may be illustrated by details. Virginia, an old State, and more than a third larger than Ohio, has 67,353 pupils in her public schools, while the latter State has 484,153. Arkansas, equal in age and size with Michigan, has only 8,493 pupils at her public schools, while the latter State has 110,455. South Carolina, three times as large' as Massachusetts, has 17,838 pupils at public school, while the latter State has 176,475. South Carolina spends for this purpose, annually, $200,600 ; Massachusetts, $1,006,795. Baltimore, with a population of 169,012, on the northern verge of Slavery, has school buildings valued at $105,729 ; those of Boston are valued at $729,502. Boston, with a population smaller than that of Baltimore, has 203 public schools, with 353 teachers, and 21,678 pupils, supported

Made with FlippingBook

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=