But do the Abolitionists still say, “We can neither talk nor treat with persons or parties, who speak of ‘slave property,’ of property in the persons of men, a thing not possible to be, and an idea not to be tolerated for a moment, wherever, and whatever authority, may have usurped it.” This may be a very good reason why they should not talk at all on the subject, since it is a simple matter of fact, which constitutes the matter and ground of controversy. We hope we have a proper respect for scruples of conscience, and that we are sufficiently unwilling to disturb nervous sensitiveness; but we have not forgotten honest Joe’s definition of his own conscience, in a certain case, when hardly pressed, viz. “I wont.” Nothing would more effectually put a party in argument, hors de combat, than such logic. There is really no getting at them; and yet they insist on having to do with the matter. We have probably as great an aversion to the thing signified by these terms, as the Abolitionists; at least, we used to have, and we have seen no good reason for a change of sentiment. But for the practical purposes of so great a theme, if we think fit to meddle with it, we see not how such language can be avoided, as it is indispensible to set forth the facts of the case.
But, if the Abolitionists prefer to foreclose debate, by saying, “We lay our hands upon our swords, in the presence of all persons, who shall presume thus to insult humanity, and assume this defiance in the presence of the country, and before the world, as to the cause in which we are engaged, the Constitution and the laws of the land and the Government and all the slave States to the contrary notwithstanding,” there is of course an end of logic, and of “free discussion;” and their position would be well understood, under such a frank avowal. But we cannot say, that we are prepared to commend it; although we are unable to see, how this violent setting aside of the only terms of debate, through the medium of which the subject can be approached, and yet urging forward the irresistible momentum of their tremendous machinery on the parties most intimately concerned in this question, is much short of this.
[CHAPTER XVIII.]
THE CONDITION OF AMERICAN SLAVES AS COMPARED WITH OTHER PORTIONS OF THE AFRICAN RACE.
There is nothing but the most enlarged view of a great question, that can fairly determine its merits; and it cannot be denied, that slavery is one of the great questions appertaining to the social state of mankind, and to the political state of the world. It is so great, in our opinion, that it can neither be disposed of by the logic of visionary theorists, nor by a coup du main of an ill-considered and intemperate effort, nor by any legerdemain of political quackery. Ever since human society was set up, so far as history deposes, slavery has been a component element in one form or another. We suppose, there are some good reasons for saying, that there is no institution—we beg pardon of the Abolitionists for using this term, and assure them that we mean nothing by it but the fact—none, that can assert a more ancient date, except that of matrimony, and the natural relations accruing therefrom; and none that has been more uninterrupted, since it was first set up. Reason might teach us, therefore, that a custom thus sanctioned by time and the history of human society, so deeply rooted, so thoroughly interwoven, and incorporated with the social fabric of large portions of the human family, however wrong it may be, so long as there is not a uniform opinion on the subject among those who have the charge of it, cannot be eradicated and put out of the way by a single blow.
We are aware, that the Abolitionists have published some very strong and significant doctrines, intended to be applied to the evils of the social system. For example in their last Annual Report:—“The very vitality of human society for these six thousand years, has consisted in the victories of certain institutions over others—of the new over the old—of the better over the worse—just as the heart, by successive tides of regenerated blood, chases corruption and death from the bodily system. Tyranny in all ages, has striven to carry this moral (political) non-intercourse (non-interference) law into practice, but never with success. Had it succeeded, where would have been our Christianity and its successive reformations?” &c. Who would not say, “Good Lord deliver us” from the operation of a principle, thus boldly avowed, which asserts the right and necessity of everlasting revolution! and which plants itself on the platform, that might is right! Christianity itself is not protected from its invading sweep: “its successive reformations!” Where is the man in history, or living, that can lay claim to have reformed, or now to reform, Christianity? The very suggestion is blasphemous. And yet, it would seem, an act of this kind is even now, and among us, proposed to be enacted, because, forsooth, Christianity, after all “its reformations” and improvements, is not quite bold enough, is rather doubtful, and has even thrown out some suggestions a little adverse to the necessities of present exigencies!
But to return: Abolition simply, and in itself considered, is not the only question to be discussed, as the whole matter now presents itself to the mind of the public, and claims consideration. The phasis of the subject comprehends the broad disk of society. The Abolitionists have forced their opponents to this wide view, by having set the example. They have brought up so many questions, and implicated so many principles, as to have set aside the main question; at least have thrown it into the back ground, so that the term Abolition no longer suggests alone the primitive idea of emancipation, nor hardly suggests it at all; but arrays before the mind a system of principles, social and political, which are regarded by most people as of a very revolting character. It is impossible to meet such a foe without taking into consideration the ground which he occupies, without reconnoitring and surveying his position. He has already betrayed the poor slave, vitiated his cause, rivetted his chains, made all his prospects more hopeless, put far off the day of his emancipation, and at last run foul of a precipitous, frowning, and immoveable rock, that is likely to sit long in dignified composure on the base of the eternal hills, while the assailant exhausts his energies and breaks his sides by dashing against the rude and projecting points below.
The opponents of Abolition principles, therefore, are treated very unfairly when they are of course set down as opposed to emancipation. This latter question cannot now be taken up, till the battle is concluded in defence of other and more momentous principles, for the subversion of which a disciplined army of Destructives has rushed into the field. Nevertheless, so long as the Abolitionists continue to hold up the slave—whose prospects they have ruined, till he gets better help—as a shield for the accomplishment of other ends, it still remains necessary to give reasons why emancipation cannot be brought about with that precipitate haste which the Abolitionists propose.
We design, however, in this chapter, not to aim directly at the point above suggested, but to present somewhat of the comparative condition of the slaves in the United States, principally in relation to the history of the African race, since, at the time, and previous to the time, when the slave trade commenced, with the purpose of coming fairly to the conclusion, whether their condition in this country is an improvement or deterioration; and consequently, whether, in the Providence of God, and in their social right, as a distinct and separate race, they have a fair claim to the instant elevation among the people of this country, which the Abolitionists demand for them, if it can be obtained only at the expense of social order, and at the peril of our institutions.