Freedom, in its usual acceptation, means the absence of external control. But there must be a power to control some where. If it be not in the will and understanding of the man himself, it must be in the will and understanding of some one else; if not in one or the other, after some fashion, then society perishes. In other words, men or nations who can not govern themselves must be governed.
A perverted will or an imbecile understanding, at certain stages, works the forfeit of freedom in the freest communities on earth. Prisons and penitentiaries are for the one; lunatic asylums for the other. Children, wanting the power of self-direction, are kept under control for a period more than half as long as the average duration of human life.
With regard to servitude, there are various degrees of it. In some parts of Europe serfdom exists, with its usages more or less restrictive. In all the kingdoms of Europe there are subordinations of ranks, by which some classes are constituted superior and others are kept in subjection. There is but one principle running through all these gradations. Control on the one hand; obedience on the other; these are the correlatives. In whatever forms, modes, customs, institutions or laws, these relations may be reduced to actual operation; whether the terms to denote them be king and subject, lord and vassal, upper classes and lower classes, or master and slave, the ideas of command and subjugation, in some form or other, are still presented.
The question then is of more or less freedom. For if Freedom be used to denote a positive definite thing, or, in the slang of metaphysics, an abstract right, where is the standard to be fixed to measure it by? Shall we look to England, and take the half starved operative as the type of this impalpable entity—the half starved operative, with freedom only to choose whether he shall be a drudge or a pauper, and often saved the trouble of deciding by finding himself both? The English operative! part and parcel of the machinery which fills the markets of the world with British manufactures—a working anatomy of bone and muscle, animated by a vital principle instead of steam, and thereby differing from the other works and running gear of the mills!
The relation of master and slave implies the extremes of control on the one hand, and obedience on the other; some intermediate forms of which extend throughout all society. Whether the relation be proper or not, must depend mainly on the greater or less disparity between the two classes, and the circumstances which mark their connection. If the masters be of one race, and the slaves of another; if they be of different complexions; if the former be characterized by great strength of will and capacity of understanding, while the latter are weak in both; it is inevitable, if these two races must dwell together in one community, that the one should occupy the position of masters and the other that of slaves. They could not hold intercourse together on any other terms. If the inferior race should prove fierce and intractable, like our aboriginal Indians, they must disappear as the master power approaches; if they are docile and gentle, like the negroes, they may live in domestic servitude, and thrive in that condition. It may be remarked that the negro is the only race that has ever been able to abide in contact with the Anglo-Saxon.
II. Of Rights.[1]
It may be asked, have not all enslaved people a right to freedom? To which it may be answered that rights are connected with duties; or, to go back to the other definition, the will and the understanding of a man, the strength of the one and the capacity of the other, combined together, constitute the measure of his rights, inasmuch as they are the measure of the sphere which he fills.
Freedom involves certain responsibilities, which, if a man can not meet, he is not free. Besides, Freedom is a relative thing—a thing of degrees. How much of external restraint must be thrown off to constitute Freedom? No one can say; it can not be defined by specific limits.
If we go to talking of abstract rights, we shall discourse very vaguely and to little purpose. The phrase itself is unmeaning; for rights can be considered only as pertaining to persons. Thus they can not be abstract at all.
Nor will it do to assume the position of the equality of all men, and to reason from it on this subject. Men are not equal. They are not born so; they do not become so; they can not be made equal. Neither in physical endowments, in stature, nor in the gifts of intellect are they upon an equality. The influence of some over others results from laws as fixed and as imperative as the laws of gravitation, of magnetic attraction, or any other laws of nature. The power of truth over the mind, the force of courage and decision of character in action, the influence which belongs to superior wisdom and goodness—these give preeminence to individuals in all forms of social organization. A civilized people hold ascendency over the less civilized; the particular nature of which ascendency will be determined by the circumstances attendant on the contact of the two, and their characteristics respectively. The sullen Indian, feeling the superiority of the white man, flies from before it, or is crushed beneath it; the tractable negro acknowledges its sway, and yields himself contentedly thereto.