LESSON VIII.
In vol. ii. page 82, Dr. Channing says—
“I cannot leave the subject of the evils of slavery, without saying a word of its political influence.”
He considers that “slave labour is less productive than free.” This is doubtless true; and if so, it proves that the master of the slave does not require of him so much labour as is required of a hired labourer. Are the friends of abolition angry, because, in their sympathy for the slave, they have found something to be pleased with?
He considers that “by degrading the labouring population to a state which takes from them motives to toil, and renders them objects of suspicion or dread,” impairs “the ability of a community to unfold its resources in peace, and to defend itself in war.”
This proposition includes the idea that the Slave States have degraded a portion of their citizens to a state of slavery. This is not true. Our ancestors, contrary to their will, were forced to receive a degraded race among them, not as citizens, but slaves;—and does it follow now, that we must again be forced to make this degraded race our political equals? Even the British Government, with all its claim to sovereign rule, never dreamed of imposing on us a demand so destructive to our political rights; so blighting to social happiness; so annihilating to our freedom as men; so extinguishing to our very race. Do the friends of abolition deem us so stupid as not to see, if, even when the negro is in slavery, cases of amalgamation happen, that, when he shall be elevated to political freedom, the country would, by their aid, be overspread by it? Do they think that we do not see that such a state of things is degeneracy, degradation, ruin, worse than death to the white men? And will they chide, if, in its prevention, we drench our fields in our own blood in preference? The British Government urged the race here as an article of property, of commerce and profit, as they did their tea. They stipulated, they guaranteed them to be slaves, they and their posterity for ever—not citizens! On such terms alone could they have been received. The South then, as now, to a man would have met death on the battle-field, sooner than have suffered their presence on other conditions.
The British governmental councils, our colonial assemblies, our primitive inquiring conventions never viewed them in any other light. It was not on their account we sought for freedom. It was not in their behalf we fought for liberty. It was not for them our blood ran like water. It was not to establish for them political rights we broke the British yoke, or founded here this great government. Our national synods recognised them only as property; our constitutional charter, only as slaves; our congressional statutes, only as the subjects of their masters.
There is falsity in the very language that frames the proposition which inculcates that these slaves are a portion of population that ever can be justly entitled to equal political rights, or that they are, or ever were, degraded by the community among whom they are now found.
So degraded, both mentally and physically, is the African in his own native wilds, that, however humiliating to a freeman slavery may seem, to him it is an elevated school; and however dull and stupid may be his scholarship, yet a few generations distinctly mark some little improvement. We cannot doubt, some few individuals of this race have been so far elevated in their constitutional propensities that they might be well expected to make provident citizens; and the fact is, such generally become free, without the aid of fanaticism. But what is the value of a general assertion predicated alone upon a few exceptions? Some few of our own race give ample proof that they are not fit to take care of themselves: shall we, therefore, subject our whole race to pupilage?
That such a population, such a race of men, is as conducive to national grandeur, either as to resources or defence, as the same number of intellectual, high-minded yeomanry of our own race might be well expected to be, perhaps few contend; and we pray you not to force us to try the experiment. But if such weakness attend the position in which we feel God has placed us, why distress us by its distortion? Why torment our wound with your inexperienced, and therefore unskilful hand? Why strive ye to enrage our passions, by constantly twitting us with what is not our fault? Do you indeed wish to destroy, because you have no power to amend? Why, then, your inexperience as to facts, aided by misrepresentation and sophistry in the digestion of language and sentiment,—and we exceedingly regret that we can correctly say, open falsehood,—as found on pages 86, 87?—
“Slavery is a strange element to mix up with free institutions. It cannot but endanger them. It is a pattern for every kind of wrong. The slave brings insecurity on the free. Whoever holds one human being in bondage, invites others to plant the foot on his own neck. Thanks to God, not one human being can be wronged with impunity. The liberties of a people ought to tremble, until every man is free. Tremble they will. Their true foundation is sapped by the legalized degradation of a single innocent man to slavery. That foundation is impartial justice, is respect for human nature, is respect for the rights of every human being. I have endeavoured in these remarks to show the hostility between slavery and ‘free institutions.’ If, however, I err; if these institutions cannot stand without slavery for their foundation, then I say, let them fall. Then they ought to be buried in perpetual ruins. Then the name of republicanism ought to become a by-word and reproach among the nations. Then monarchy, limited as it is in England, is incomparably better and happier than our more popular forms. Then, despotism, as it exists in Prussia, where equal laws are in the main administered with impartiality, ought to be preferred. A republican government, bought by the sacrifice of half, or more than half of a people, stripping them of their most sacred rights, by degrading them to a brutal condition, would cost too much. A freedom so tainted with wrong ought to be our abhorrence.”
Let not the looseness of the doctor’s regard for the Union surprise. With him a dissolution of the Union had become a fixed idea. On pages 237 and 238, he says—
“To me it seems not only the right, but the duty of the Free States, in case of the annexation of Texas, to say to the Slave-holding States, ‘We regard this act as the dissolution of the Union.’ * * * A pacific division in the first instance seems to me to threaten less contention than a lingering, feverish dissolution of the Union, such as must be expected under this fatal innovation. For one, then, I say, that, earnestly as I deprecate the separation of these States, and though this event would disappoint most cherished hopes for my country, still I could submit to it more readily than to the reception of Texas into the confederacy.” “I do not desire to share the responsibility or to live under the laws of a government adopting such a policy.” * * * “If the South is bent on incorporating Texas with itself, as a new prop to slavery, it would do well to insist on a division of the States. It would, in so doing, consult best its own safety. It should studiously keep itself from communion with the free part of the country. It should suffer no railroad from that section to cross its borders. It should block up intercourse with us by sea and land.” Vol. ii. p. 239.
We do not quote these passages for the sake of refuting them. “In Europe, the doctrine would be thought too absurd for refutation.” “What must Europe have thought when” these sentiments “crossed the ocean.” * * * “What must Europe have said, when brought to understand that, in a republic founded on the principles of human rights and equality,”—and this writer acknowledges the doctrine that “the constitution was a compromise among independent States, and it is well known that geographical relations and the local interest were among the essential conditions on which the compromise was made;” and concerning which, he adds, “Was not the constitution founded on conditions or considerations which are even more authoritative than its particular provisions?” (see vol. ii. p. 237,)—“What must Europe have said,” when informed that these sentiments were expressed against the right of the South to hold slaves? Slaves, whom she, herself, in our childhood, had sold us? Why, she must have thought that we were on the eve of a civil war, and that Dr. Channing was about to take command of an army of abolitionists to compel the South to submit to his terms! “Europe might well open its eyes in wonder” at such extravagance.
“Such,” says our author, are “the chief evils of slavery;” and we are willing to leave it to “Europe” to decide whether he has not furnished us with declamation instead of argument.
Under the head, “Evils of Slavery,” he examines those considerations that have been urged in its favour, or in mitigation, which we deem unnecessary to notice further than to note a few passages in which there is between us some unity of sentiment.
Page 89. “Freedom undoubtedly has its perils. It offers nothing to the slothful and dissolute. Among a people left to seek their own good in their own way, some of all classes fail from vice, some from incapacity, some from misfortune.”
Page 92. “Were we to visit a slave-country, undoubtedly the most miserable human beings would be found among the free; for among them the passions have a wider sweep, and the power they possess may be used to their own ruin. Liberty is not a necessity of happiness. It is only a means of good. It is a trust that may be abused.” Page 93. “Of all races of men, the African is the mildest and most susceptible of attachment. He loves where the European would hate. He watches the life of a master, whom the North American Indian, in like circumstances, would stab to the heart.”
The African may exhibit mildness and attachment in slavery when others would exhibit a reverse feeling; but it is not true that he exhibits these qualities as a fixed moral principle, resulting from intellectual conclusion.
Page 95. “No institution, be it what it may, can make the life of a human being wholly evil, or cut off every means of improvement.” Idem. “The African is so affectionate, imitative, and docile, that, in favourable circumstances, he catches much that is good; and accordingly the influence of a wise and kind master will be seen in the very countenance and bearing of his slaves.” Or, rather, we find traces of these qualities developed among their descendants. But the truth is far below this description.
We had expected to have received light and pleasure from the examination of Dr. Channing’s view of slavery in a political attitude. We confess we are disappointed. His political view of it is, at least, jejune. To us, it suggests the superior adaptation of his genius and education to the rhapsody of a prayer-meeting than to the labours of a legislative hall. We doubt much whether he had ever arrived to any very clear and general view of the organization of society. Finding, under this head, very little in his volumes that a politician can descend to encounter, we shall close our present Lesson with a very few remarks.
Capital and labour can exist in but two relations; congenerous or antagonistic. They are never congenerous only when it is true that labour constitutes capital, which can only happen through slavery. The deduction is then clear, that capital for ever governs labour; and the deduction is also as clear, that, out of slavery, capital and labour must be for ever antagonistic. But, again, capital governs labour, because, while capital now exists, labour can possess it only by its own consumption. But when the two are congenerous, labour, as a tool, is not urged to its injury, because the tool itself is capital; but when antagonistic, the tool is urged to its utmost power, because its injury, its ruin touches not the capital. Hence, we often hear slave-labour is the less productive. The proposition is not affected by facts attending him who is said to be free, but who only labours for his individual support; because while he adds nothing to the general stock of capital, he yet falls within the catalogue of being a slave to himself: “The Lord sent him forth to till the ground,” (לַעֲבֹדlaʿăbōd la evod, to slave the ground;) to do slave-labour for his own support; to slave himself for his own subsistence.
Such is the first degree of slavery to which sin has subjected all mankind. Therefore, in such case, labour is capital. But the very moment a lower degradation forces him to sell his labour, capital is the only purchaser, and they at once become antagonistic. On the one hand, labour is seeking for all; on the other, capital is seeking for all. But the capital governs, and always obtains the mastery, and reduces labour down to the smallest pittance. Thus antagonistic are capital and labour, that the former is for ever trying to lessen the value of the other by art, by machinery; thus converting the tool of labour into capital itself. The political difference between the influence of these two relations, capital and labour, is very great. We feel surprised that the sympathies of the abolitionists are not changed, from the miseries where capital and labour are decidedly congenerous, to a consideration of that morass of misery into which the worn-out, broken tools of labour are thrown, with cruel heartlessness, where capital and labour are antagonistic.
Under the one system, beggars and distress from want are unknown, because such things cannot exist under such an organization of society. But, under the other, pauperism becomes a leading element. The history of that class of community, in all free countries, is a monument and record of free labour.
We ask the politician to consider these facts, while he searches the history of man for light in the inquiry of what is the most tranquil, and, in all its parts, the most happy organization of society.
Under the head of “The Political Influence of Slavery,” Dr. Channing has taken occasion to inform us of his feelings as to the stability of this Union; that he prefers its dissolution to the perpetuation of slavery; and that he proposes a “pacific division.” And what is his “pacific division?” Why, he says, (if we must repeat it,) “the South must studiously keep itself from communion with the Free States; to suffer no railroad from the Free States to cross its border; and to block up all intercourse by sea and land!” Why, it is “death in the pot!”
O most unhappy man! the most unfortunate of all, to have left such a record of intellectual weakness and folly behind! But we will forbear.
We think Dr. Channing’s declarations and proposals wholly uncalled for. We regret the existence of such feelings at the North. We say feelings, because we are bold to say, such sentiments are alone the offspring of the most ignorant, wicked, and black-hearted feelings of the human soul. Their very existence shows a preparedness to commit treason, perjury, and the murders of civil war! The disciples of Dr. Channing, on the subject of abolitionism, may be too stupid to perceive it; for “Evil men understand not judgment.” Prov. xxviii. 5.
We regret this feeling at the North the more deeply on the account of the extraordinary generant quality of sin. For it propagates, not only its peculiar kind, but every monster, in every shape, by the mere echo of its voice! Will they remember, “He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him.” Or, that, “It is an honour to cease from strife; but every fool will be meddling.” Prov. But since such feelings do exist, we feel thankful to God that the sin of the initiative in the dissolution of this Union is not with the Slave States. We know there are many good men in the North. Much depends on what they may do. We believe the union of these States need not—will not be disrupted.
But if the laws of Congress can neither be executed nor continued, nor oaths to be true to the constitution longer bind these maniacs, the issue will finally be left in the hand of the God of battles! It becomes the South to act wisely, to be calm, and to hope as long as there can be hope. And to the North, let them say now, before it be too late, “We pray you to forbear. We entreat you to be true to your oaths, and not force us, in hostile array, to bathe our hands in blood.”
But, if the term of our great national destiny is to be closed, and war, the most cruel of all wars, is to spread far beyond the reach of human foresight,—the South, like Abraham in olden time, will “arm their trained servants,” and go out to the war, shouting under the banner of the Almighty!