Volume Three—Chapter Six.Remarks—Slavery.It had always appeared to me as singular that the Americans, at the time of their Declaration of Independence, took no measures for the gradual, if not immediate, extinction of slavery; that at the very time they were offering up thanks for having successfully struggled for their own emancipation from what they considered foreign bondage, their gratitude for their liberation did not induce them to break the chains of those whom they themselves held in captivity. It is useless for them to exclaim, as they now do, that it was England who left them slavery as a curse and reproach us as having originally introduced the system among them. Admitting, as is the fact, that slavery did commence when the colonies were subject to the mother country admitting that the petitions for its discontinuance were disregarded, still there was nothing to prevent immediate manumission at the time of the acknowledgement of their independence by Great Britain. They had then everything to recommence they had to select a new form of government, and to decide upon new laws; they pronounced, in their declaration, that “all men were equal;” and yet, in the face of this declaration, and their solemn invocation to the Deity, the negroes, intheirfetters, pleaded to them in vain.I had always thought that this sad omission, which has left such an anomaly in the Declaration of Independence as to have made it the taunt and reproach of the Americans by the whole civilised world, did really arise from forgetfulness; that, as is but too often the case, when we are ourselves made happy, the Americans in their joy at their own deliverance from the foreign yoke, and the repossessing themselves of their own rights, had been too much engrossed to occupy themselves with the undeniable claims of others. But I was mistaken; such was not the case, as I shall presently show.In the course of one of my sojourns in Philadelphia, Mr Vaughan, of the Athenium of that city, stated to me that he had found theoriginal draftof the Declaration of Independence, in the hand-writing of Mr Jefferson, and that it was curious to remark the alterations which had been made previous to the adoption of the manifesto which was afterwards promulgated. It was to Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, that was entrusted the primary drawing up of this important document, which was then submitted to others, and ultimately to the Convention, for approval and it appears that the question of slavery hadnotbeen overlooked when the document was first framed, as the following clause, inserted in the original draft by Mr Jefferson, (butexpungedwhen it was laid before the Convention,) will sufficiently prove. After enumerating the grounds upon which they threw off their allegiance to the king of England, the Declaration continued in Jefferson’s nervous style:“He (the king) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights oflife and liberty, in the person of a distant people who never offended him; captivating and carrying them into slavery, in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain, determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold; he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now exciting these very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”Such was the paragraph which had been inserted by Jefferson, in the virulence of his democracy, and his desire to hold up to detestation the king of Great Britain. Such was at that time, unfortunately, the truth; and had the paragraph remained, and at the same time emancipation been given to the slaves, it would have been a lasting stigma upon George the Third. But the paragraph was expunged; and why I because they could not hold up to public indignation the sovereign whom they had abjured, without reminding the world that slavery still existed in a community which had declared that “all men were equal;” and that if, in a monarch, they had stigmatised it as “violating the most sacred rights of life and liberty,” and “waging cruel war against human nature,” they could not have afterward been so barefaced and unblushing as to continue a system which was at variance with every principle which they professed.Note. Miss Martineau, in her admiration of democracy, says, that, in the formation of the government, “The rule by which they worked was no less than the golden one, which seems to have been, by some unlucky chance, omitted in the Bibles of other statesmen, ‘Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you’” I am afraid the American Bible, by some unlucky chance, has also omitted that precept.It does, however, satisfactorily prove, that the question of slavery was notoverlooked; on the contrary, their determination to take advantage of the system was deliberate, and, there can be no doubt, well considered—the very omission of the paragraph proves it. I mention these facts to show that the Americans have no right to revile us on being the cause of slavery in America. They had the means, and were bound, as honourable men, to act up to their declaration but they entered into the question, they decided otherwise, and decided that they would retain their ill-acquired property at the expense of their principles.The degrees of slavery in America are as various in their intensity as are the communities composing the Union. They may, however, be divided with great propriety under two general heads—eastern and western slavery. By eastern slavery, I refer to that in the slave states bordering on the Atlantic, and those slave states on the other side of the Alleghany mountains, which may be more directly considered as their colonies, viz, in the first instance, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North and South Carolina; and, secondly, Kentucky and Tennessee. We have been accustomed lately to class the slaves as non-predial and predial,—that is, those who are domestic, and those who work on the plantations. This classification is not correct, if it is intended to distinguish between those who are well, and those who are badly treated. The true line to be drawn is between those who work separately, and those who are worked in a gang and superintended by an overseer. This is fully exemplified in the United States, where it will be found that in all states where they are worked in gangs the slaves are harshly treated, while in the others their labour is light.Now, with the exception of the rice grounds in South Carolina, the eastern states are growers of corn, hemp, and tobacco; but their chief staple is the breeding of horses, mules, horned cattle, and other stock: the largest portion of these states remain in wild luxuriant pasture, more especially in Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, either of which states is larger than the other four mentioned.The proportion of slaves required for the cultivation of the purely agricultural and chiefly grazing farms or plantations in these states is small, fifteen or twenty being sufficient for a farm of two hundred or three hundred acres; and their labour, which is mostly confined to tending stock, is not only very light, but of the quality most agreeable to the negro. Half the day you will see him on horseback with his legs idly swinging—as he goes along, or seated on a shaft-horse driving his wagons. He is quite in his glory; nothing delights a negro so much as riding or driving, particularly when he has a whole team under his control. He takes his wagon for a load of corn to feed the hogs, sits on the edge of the shaft as he tosses the cobs to the grunting multitude, whom he addresses in the most intimate terms; in short, everything is done leisurely, after his own fashion.In these grazing states, as they may very properly be called, the negroes are well fed; they refuse beef and mutton, and will have nothing but pork; and are, without exception, the fattest and most saucy fellows I ever met with in a state of bondage; and such may be said generally to be the case with all the negroes in the eastern states which I have mentioned. The rice grounds in South Carolina are unhealthy, but the slaves are very kindly treated. But the facts speak for themselves. When the negro works in a gang with the whip over him, he may be overworked and ill-treated; but when he is not regularly watched, he will take very good care that the work he performs shall not injure his constitution.It has been asserted, and generally credited, that in the eastern states negroes are regularly bred up like the cattle for the western market. That the Virginians, and the inhabitants of the other eastern slave states, do sell negroes which are taken to the west, there is no doubt; but that the negroes are bred expressly for that purpose, is, as regards the majority of the proprietors, far from the fact: it is the effect of circumstances, over which they have had no control. Virginia, when first settled, was one of the richest states, but, by continually cropping the land without manuring it, and that for nearly two hundred years, the major portion of many valuable estates has become barren, and the land is no longer under cultivation; in consequence of this, the negroes, (increasing so rapidly as they do in that country.) so far from being profitable, have become a serious task upon their masters, who have to rear and maintain, without having any employment to give them. The small portion of the estates under cultivation will subsist only a certain portion of the negroes; the remainder must, therefore, be disposed of, or they would eat their master out of his home. That the slaves are not willingly disposed of by many of the proprietors I am certain, particularly when it is known, that they are purchased for the west. I know of many instances of this, and wins informed of others; and by wills, especially, slaves have been directed to be sold fortwo-thirdsof the price which they would fetch for the western market, on condition that they were not to leave the state. These facts establish two points, viz, that the slaves in the eastern states is well treated, and that in the western states slavery still exists with all its horrors. The common threat to, and ultimate punishment of, a refractory and disobedient slave in the east, is to sell, him for the western market. Many slave proprietors, whose estates have been worn out in the east, have preferred migrating to the west with their slaves rather than sell them, and thus is the severity of the western treatment occasionally and partially mitigated.But doing justice, as I always will, to those who have been unjustly calumniated, at the same time I must admit that there is a point connected with slavery in America which renders it more odious than in other countries; I refer to the system of amalgamation, which has, from promiscuous intercourse, been carried on to such an extent, that you very often meet with slaves whose skins are whiter than their master’s.At Louisville, Kentucky, I saw a girl, about twelve years old, carrying a child; and, aware that in a slave state the circumstance of white people hiring themselves out to service is almost unknown, I inquired of her if she were a slave. To my astonishment, she replied in the affirmative. She was as fair as snow, and it was impossible to detect any admixture of blood from her appearance, which was that of a pretty English cottager’s child.I afterward spoke to the master, who stated when he had purchased her, and the sum which he had paid.I took down the following advertisement for a runaway slave, which was posted up in every tavern I stopped at in Virginia on my way to the springs. The expression of, “in a manner white” would imply that there was some shame felt it holding a white man in bondage:—“Fifty Dollars Reward.“Ran away from the subscriber, on Saturday, the 21st instant, a slave named George, between twenty and twenty-four years of age, five feet five or six inches high, slender made, stoops when standing, a little bow legged; generally wears right and left boots and shoes; had on him when he left a fur cap, a checked stock, and linen roundabout; had with him other clothing, a jean coat with black horn buttons, a pair of jean pantaloons, both coat and pantaloons of handsome grey mixed; no doubt other clothing not recollected. He had with him a common silver watch; he wears his pantaloons generally very tight in the legs.Said boyis in a mannerwhite, would be passed byand taken for a white man. Hishairislong and straight, like that of awhiteperson; looks very steady when spoken to, speaks slowly, and would not be likely to look a person full in the face when speaking to him. It is believed he is making his way to Canada by way of Ohio. I will give twenty dollars for the apprehension of said slave if taken in the county, or fifty dollars if taken out of the county, and secured so that I recover him again.“Andrew Beirne, junior,“Union Monroe City,“July 31st, 1838. Virginia.”The above is a curious document, independently of its proving the manner in which man preys upon his fellow-man in this land of liberty and equality. It is a well-known fact, that a considerable portion of Mr Jefferson’s slaves were his own children. If any of them absconded, he would smile, thereby implying that he should not be very particular in looking after them; and yet this man, this great andgoodman, as Miss Martineau calls him, this man who penned the paragraph I have quoted, as having been erased from the Declaration of Independence, who asserted that the slavery of the negro was a violation of the most sacred rights of life and liberty, permitted these his slaves and his children, the issue of his own loins, to be sold at auction after his demise, not even emancipating them, as he might have done, before his death. And, but lately, a member of congress for Georgia, whose name I shall not mention, brought up a fine family of children, his own issue by a female slave; for many years acknowledged them us his own children; permitted them to call him by the endearing title ofpapa, and eventually the whole of them were sold by public auction, and that, too, during his own lifetime!But there is, I am sorry to say, a more horrible instance on record and one well authenticated. A planter of good family (I shall not mention his name or the state in which it occurred, as he was not so much to blame as were the laws), connected himself with one of his own female slaves, who was nearly white; the fruits of this connexion were two daughters, very beautiful girls, who were sent to England to be educated.They were both grown up when their father died. At his death his affairs were found in a state of great disorder; in fact, there was not sufficient left to pay his creditors. Having brought up and educated these two girls and introduced them as his daughters, it quite slipped his memory that, having been born of a slave, and not manumitted, they were in reality slaves themselves. This fact was established after his decease; they were torn away from the affluence and refinement to which they had been accustomed, sold and purchased as slaves, and with the avowed intention of the purchaser to reap his profits from their prostitution it must not, however, be supposed that the planters of Virginia and the other Eastern states, encourage this intercourse; on the contrary, the young men who visit at the plantations cannot affront them more than to take notice of their slaves, particularly the lighter coloured, who are retained in the house and attend upon their wives and daughters. Independently of the moral feeling which really guides them (as they naturally do not wish that the attendants of their daughters should be degraded) it is against their interest in case they should wish to sell; as a mulatto or light male will not fetch so high a price as a full-blooded negro; the cross between the European and negro; especially the first cross, i.e. the mulatto, is of a sickly constitution, and quite unable to bear up against the fatigue of field labour in the West. As the race becomes whiter, the stamina is said to improve.Examining into the question of emancipation in America, the first inquiry will be, how far this consummation is likely to be effected by means of the abolitionists. Miss Martineau, in her book, says, “The good work has begun, and will proceed.” She is so far right; it has begun, and has been progressing very fast, as may be proved by the single fact of the abolitionists having decided the election in the state of Ohio in October last. But let not Miss Martineau exult; for the stronger the abolition party may become, the more danger is there to be apprehended of a disastrous conflict between the states.The fact is that, by the constitution of the United States, the federal government have not only no power tointerfereor toabolishslavery, but they are bound tomaintainit; the abolition of slavery is expresslywithheld. The citizens of any state may abolish slavery in their own state but the federal government cannot do so without an express violation of the federal compact. Should all the states in the Union abolish slavery, with the exception of one, and that one be Maryland, (the smallest of the whole of the states,) neither the federal government, or the other states could interfere with her. The federal compact binds the general government, “first, not tomeddlewith the slavery of the states where it exists, and next, toprotectit in the case of runaway slaves, and todefendit in case ofinvasionordomestic violenceon account of it.”It appears, therefore, that slavery can only be abolished by the slave state itself in which it exists; and it is not very probable that any class of people will voluntarily make themselves beggars by surrendering up their whole property to satisfy the clamour of a party. That this party is strong, and is daily becoming stronger, is very true: the stronger it becomes the worse will be the prospects of the United States. In England the case was very different; the government had a right to make the sacrifice to public opinion by indemnification to the slave-holders; but in America the government have not that power; and the efforts of the abolitionists will only have the effects of plunging the country into difficulties and disunion. As an American author truly observes, “The American abolitionists must trample on the constitution, and wade through the carnage of a civil war, before they can triumph—”Already the abolition party have done much mischief. The same author observes, “The South has been compelled, in self-defence, to rivet the chains of slavery afresh, and to hold on to their political rights with a stronger hand. The conduct of the abolitionists has arrested the improvements which were in progress in the slave states for the amelioration of the condition of the slave; it has broken up the system of intellectual and moral culture that was extensively in operation for the slave’s benefit, lest the increase of his knowledge should lend him a dangerous power, in connection with these crusading efforts; it has rivetted the chains of slavery with a greatly increased power, and enforced a more rigorous discipline; it has excluded for the time being the happy moral influence which was previously operating on the South from the North, and from the rest of the world, by the lights of comparison, by the interchange of a friendly intercourse, and by a friendly discussion of the great subject, all tending to the bettering of the slave’s condition, and, as was supposed, to his ultimate emancipation. Before this agitation commenced, this subject, in all its aspects and bearings, might be discussed as freely at the South as anywhere; but now, not a word can be said. It has kindled a sleepless jealousy in the South toward the North, and made the slave-holders feel as if all the rest of the world were their enemies, and that they must depend upon themselves for the maintenance of their political rights. We say rights, because they regard them as such; and so long as they do so, it is all the same in their feelings, whether the rest of the world acknowledge them or not. And they are, in fact,politicalrights, guaranteed to them by the constitution of the United States.”It is not, however, impossible that the abolition party in the Eastern and Northern states may be gradually checked by the citizens of those very states. Their zeal may be as warm as ever; but public opinion will compel them, at the risk of their lives, to hold their tongues. This possibility can, however, only arise from the Northern and Eastern states becoming manufacturing states, as they are most anxious to be. Should this happen, the raw cotton grown by slave labour will employ the looms of Massachusetts; and then, as the Quarterly Review very correctly observes, “by a cycle of commercial benefits, the Northern and Eastern states will feel that there is some material compensation for the moral turpitude of the system of slavery.”The slave proprietors in these states are as well aware as any political economist can be, that slavery is a loss instead of a gain, and that no state can arrive at that degree of prosperity under a state of slavery which it would under free labour. The case is simple. In free labour, where there is competition, you exact the greatest possible returns for the least possible expenditure; a man is worked as a machine; he is paid for what he produces, and nothing more. By slave labour, you receive the least possible return for the greatest possible expense, for the slave is better fed and clothed than the freeman, and does as little work as he can. The slave-holders in the eastern states are well aware of this, and are as anxious to be rid of slavery as are the abolitionists; but the time is not yet come, nor will it come until the country shall have so filled up as to render white labour attainable. Such, indeed, are not the expectations expressed in the language of the representatives of their states when in congress; but, it must be remembered, that this is a question which has convulsed the Union, and that, not only from a feeling of pride, added to indignation at the interference, but from if feeling of the necessity of not yielding up one tittle upon this question, the language of determined resistance is in congress invariably resorted to. But these gentlemen have one opinion for congress, and another for their private table; in the first, they stand up unflinchingly for their slave rights; in the other, they reason calmly, and admit what they could not admit in public. There is no labour in the eastern states, excepting that of the rice plantations in South Carolina, which cannot be performed by white men; indeed, a large proportion of the cotton in the Carolinas is now raised by afree whitepopulation. In the grazing portion of these states, white labour would be substituted advantageously, could white labour be procured at any reasonable price.The time will come, and I do not think it very distant, say perhaps twenty or thirty years, when, provided America receives no check, and these states are not injudiciously interfered with, that Virginia, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, (and, eventually, but probably somewhat later, Tennessee and South Carolina) will, of their own accord, enrol themselves among the free states. As a proof that in the eastern slave states the negro is not held in such contempt, or justice toward him so much disregarded, I extract the following from an American work:—“An instance of the force of law in the southern states for the protection of the slave has just occurred, in the failure of a petition to his excellency, PM Butler, governor of South Carolina, for the pardon of Nazareth Allen, a white person, convicted of the murder of a slave, and sentenced to be hung. The following is part of the answer of the governor to the petitioners:—“‘The laws of South Carolina make no distinction in cases of deliberate murder, whether committed on a black man or a white man; neither can I. I am not a law-maker, but the executive officer of the laws already made; and I must not act on a distinction which the legislature might have made, but has not thought fit to make.’“That the crime of which the prisoner stands convicted was committed against one of an inferior grade in society, is a reason for being especially cautious in intercepting the just severity of the law. This class of our population are subjected to us as well for their protection as our advantage. Our rights, in regard to them, are not more imperative than their duties; and the institutions, which for wise and necessary ends have rendered them peculiarly dependent, at least pledge the law to be to them peculiarly a friend and a protector.“The prayer of the petition is not granted.“Pierce M Butler.”In the western states, comprehending Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama, the negroes are, with the exception perhaps of the two latter States, in a worse condition than they ever were in the West India islands. This may be easily imagined, when the character of the white people who inhabit the larger portion of these states is considered a class of people, the majority of whom are without feelings of honour, reckless in their habits, intemperate, unprincipled, and lawless, many of them having fled from the eastern states, as fraudulent bankrupts, swindlers, or committers of other crimes, which have subjected them to the penitentiaries—miscreants defying the climate, so that they can defy the laws. Still this representation of the character of the people inhabiting these states must, from the chaotic state of society in America, be received with many exceptions. In the city of New Orleans, for instance, and in Natchez and its vicinity, and also among the planters, there are many most honourable exceptions. I have said the majority: for we must look to themass—the exceptions do but prove the rule. It is evident that slaves, under such masters, can have but little chance of good treatment, and stories are told of them at which humanity shudders.It appears, then, that the slaves, with the rest of the population of America, areworking their way west, and the question may now be asked:—Allowing that slavery will be soon abolished in the eastern states, what prospect is there of its ultimate abolition and total extinction in America?I can see no prospect of exchanging slave labour for free in the western states, as, with the exception of Missouri, I do not think it possible that white labour could be substituted, the extreme heat and unhealthiness of the climate being a bar to any such attempt. The cultivation of the land must be carried on by a negro population, if it is to be carried on at all. The question, therefore, to be considered is, whether these states are to be inhabited and cultivated by a free or a slave negro population. It must be remembered, that not one-twentieth part of the land in the southern states is under cultivation; every year, as the slates are brought in from the east, the number of acres taken into cultivation increases. Not double or triple the number of the slaves at present in America would be sufficient for the cultivation of the whole of these vast territories. Every year the cotton crops increase, and at the same time the price of cotton has not materially lowered; as an everywhere increasing population takes off the whole supply, this will probably continue to be the case for many years, since it must be remembered, that, independently of the increasing population increasing the demand, cotton, from its comparative cheapness, continually usurps the place of some other raw material; this, of course, adds to the consumption. In various manufactures, cotton has already taken the place of linen and fur; but there must eventually be a limit to consumption: and this is certain, that as soon as the supply is so great as to exceed the demand, the price will be lowered by the competition; and, as soon as the price is by competition so lowered as to render the cost and keeping of the slave greater than the income returned by his labour, then, and not till then, is there any chance of slavery being abolished in the western states of America. See Note 4.The probability of this consummation being brought about sooner is in the expectation that the Brazils, Mexico, and particularly the independent State of Texas, will in a few years produce a crop of cotton which may considerably lower its price. At present, the United States grow nearly, if not more, than half of the cotton produced in the whole world, as the return down to 1831 will substantiate.Cotton grown all over the world in the years 1821 and 1831; showing the increase in each country in ten years.1821 lbs.1831 lbs.United States180,000,000385,000,000Brazil32,000,00038,000,000West Indies10,000,0009,000,000Egypt6,000,00018,000,000Rest of Africa40,000,00036,000,000India176,000.000180,000,000Rest of Asia185,000,000115,000,000Mexico and South America,44,000,00035,000,000except BrazilElsewhere8,000,0004,000,000In the World630,000,000820,000,000The increase of cotton grown all over the world in ten years is therefore 190,000,000 lbs. Brazil has only increased 6,000,000; Egypt has increased 12,000,000; India, 5,000,000. Africa, West indies, South America, Asia, have all fallen off; but the defalcation has been made good by the United States, which have increased their growth by 205,000,000 of lbs.In the Southern portion of America there are millions of acres on which cotton can be successfully cultivated, particularly Texas, the soil of which is so congenial that they can produce 1,000 lb. to the 400 lb. raised by the Americans; and the quality of the Texian cotton is said to be equal to the finest sea island produce. It is to Texas particularly that we must look for this produce, as it can there be raised by white labour; (see Note) and being so produced, will, as soon as its population in creases to a certain extent, be able to under sell that which is grown in America by the labour of the slave.Increase of cotton grown in the United States, from the year 1802 to 1831.Yearslbs.Years.lbs.180255,000,0001817130.000,000180360,001,0001818125,000,000180465,000,0001819167,000,000180570,000,0001820160,000,000180680,000,0001821180,000,000180780,000,0001822210,000,000180875,000,0031823185,000,000180982,000,0001824215,000,000181086,000,0001825256,000,000181180,000,0001826300,000,000181275,000,0061827270,000,000181375,000,0001828325,000,000181470,000,0001829365,000,0001815100,000,0001830360,000,0001816124,000,0001831385,000,000It may be asked: how is it, as Texas is so far south, that a white population can labour there? It is because Texas is a prairie country, and situated at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. A sea-breeze always blows across the whole of the country, rendering it cool, and refreshing it notwithstanding the power of the sun’s rays. This breeze is apparently a continuation of the trade-winds following the course of the sun.From circumstances, therefore, Texas, which but a few years since was hardly known as a country, becomes a state of the greatest importance to the civilised and moral world.I am not in this chapter about to raise the question how Texas has been ravished from Mexico. Miss Martineau, with all her admiration of democracy, admits it to have been “the mosthigh-handedtheft of modern times;” and the letter of the celebrated Dr Charming to Mr Clay has laid bare to the world the whole nefarious transaction. In this letter Dr Charming points out the cause of the seizure of Texas, and the wish to enrol it among the federal states.“Mexico, at the moment of throwing off the Spanish yoke, gave a noble testimony of her loyalty to free principles, by decreeing ‘That no person thereafter should be born a slave, or introduced as such into the Mexican states; that all slaves then held should receive stipulated wages, and be subject to no punishment but on trial and judgment by the magistrate.’ The subsequent acts of the government fully carried out these constitutional provisions. It is matter of deep grief and humiliation, that the emigrants from this country, while boasting of superior civilisation, refused to second this honourable policy, intended to set limits to one of the greatest of social evils. Slaves come into Texas with their masters from the neighbouring states of this country. One mode of evading the laws was, to introduce slaves under formal indentures for long periods, in some cases, it is said, for ninety-nine years; but by a decree of the state legislature of Coahuila and Texas, all indentures for a longer period than ten years were annulled, and provision was made for the freedom of children during this apprenticeship. This settled, invincible purpose of Mexico to exclude slavery from her limits, created as strong a purpose to annihilate her authority in Texas. By this prohibition, Texas was virtually shut against emigration from the southern and western portions of this country; and it is well known that the eyes of the south and west had for some time been turned to this province as a new market for slaves, as a new field for slave labour, and as a vast accession of political power to the slave-holding states. That such views were prevalent we know; for, nefarious as they are, they found their way into the public prints. The project of dismembering a neighbouring republic, that slaveholders and slaves might overspread a region which had been consecrated to a free population, was discussed in newspapers as coolly as if it were a matter of obvious right and unquestionable humanity. A powerful interest was thus created for severing from Mexico her distant province.”The fact is this:— America, (for the government looked on and offered no interruption,) has seized upon Texas, with a view of extending the curse of slavery, and of finding a mart for the excess of her negro population: if Texas is admitted into the Union, all chance of the abolition of slavery must be thrown forward to such an indefinite period, as to be lost in the mist of futurity; if, on the contrary, Texas remains an independent province, or is restored to its legitimate owners, and in either case slavery is abolished, she then becomes, from the very circumstance of her fertility and aptitude for white labour, not only the greatcheck to slavery, but eventually the means of itsabolition. Never, therefore, was there a portion of the globe upon which the moral world must look with such interest.England may, if she acts promptly and wisely, make such terms with this young state as to raise it up as a barrier against the profligate ambition of America. Texas was a portion of Mexico, and Mexico abolished slavery; the Texians are bound (if they areTexiansand not Americans) to adhere to what might be considered a treaty with the whole Christian world; if not, they can make no demand upon its sympathy or protection, and it should be asine qua nonwith England and all other European powers previous to acknowledging or entering into commercial relations with Texas, that she should adhere to the law which was passed at the time that she was an integral portion of Mexico, and declare herself to be a Free State—if she does not, unless the chains are broken by the negro himself, the cause and hopes ofemancipationare lost.There certainly is one outlet for the slaves, which as they are removed thither and farther to the west will eventually be offered:— that of escaping to the Indian tribes which are spread over the western frontier, and amalgamating with them; such indeed, I think, will some future day be the result, whether they gain their liberty by desertion, insurrection, or manumission.Of insurrection there is at present but little fear. In the eastern slave states, the negroes do not think of it, and if they did, the difficulty of combination and of procuring arms is so great, that it would be attended with very partial success. The intervention of a foreign power might indeed bring it to pass, but it is to be hoped that England, at all events, will never be the party to foment a servile war. Let us not forget that for more than two centuries we have beenparticeps criminis, and should have been in as great a difficulty as the Americans now are, had we had the negro population on our own soil, and not on distant islands which could be legislated for without affecting the condition of the mother country. Nay, at this very moment, by taking nearly the whole of the American cotton off their hands in exchange for our manufactures, we are ourselves virtually encouraging slavery by affording the Americans such a profitable mart for their slave labour.There is one point to which I have not yet adverted, which is, Whether the question of emancipation is likely to produce a separation between the Northern and Southern states? The only reply that can be given is, that it entirely depends upon whether the abolition party can be held in check by the federal government. That the federal government will do its utmost there can be no doubt, but the federal government is not so powerful as many of the societies formed in America, and especially the Abolition Society, which every day adds to its members. The interests of the North are certainly at variance with the measures of the society, yet still it gains strength. The last proceedings in congress show that the federal government is aware of its rapid extension, and are determined to do all in its power to suppress it. The following are a portion of the resolutions which were passed last year by an overwhelming majority.The first resolution was; “That the government is of limited powers, and that by the constitution of the United States, congress has no jurisdiction whatever over the institution of slavery in the several states of the confederacy;” the last was as follows: “Resolved, therefore, that all attempts on the part of congress toabolish slaveryin the district of Columbia, or the territories, or to prohibit the removal of the slaves from state to state; or to discriminate between the constitution of one portions of the confederacy and another, with the views aforesaid, are inviolationof the constitutional principles on which theunionof these States rests, and beyond the jurisdiction of congress; and that every petition, memorial, resolution, proposition, or paper touching or relating in any way or to any extent whatever to slavery as aforesaid, or the abolition thereof, shall without any farther action thereon, be laid on the table, withoutprinting, reading, debate, or reference.” Question put, “Shall the resolutions pass?” Yeas, 198; Noes, 6—Examiner.These resolutions are very firm and decided, but in England people have no idea of the fanaticism displayed and excitement created in these societies, which are a peculiar feature in the states, and arising from the nature of their institutions. Their strength and perseverance are such that they bear down all before them, and, regardless of all consequences, they may eventually control the government.As to the question which portion of the States will be the losers by a separation, I myself think that it will be the northern slates which will suffer. But as I always refer to American authority when I can, I had better give the reader a portion of a letter written by one of the southern gentlemen on this subject. In a letter to the editor of theNational Gazette, Mr Cooper, after referring to a point at issue with the abolitionists, not necessary to introduce here, says—“I shall therefore briefly touch upon the subject once more; and if farther provocation is given, I may possibly enter into more details hereafter; for the present I desire to hint at some items of calculation of the value of the Unionto the North.“1. Mr Rhett, in his bold and honest address, has stated that the expenditures of the government for twenty years, ending 1836, have been four hundred and twenty millions of dollars; of which one hundred and thirty were dedicated to the payment of the national debt. Of the remainder, two hundred and ten millions were expended in the northern, and eighty millions in the southern states. Suppose this Union to be severed, I rather guess the government expenditure of what is now about fifteen millions a-year to the North, would be an item reluctantly spared. No people know better what to do with the ‘cheese-parings and the candle-ends’ than our good friends to the North.“2. I beg permission to address New York especially. In the year 1836 our exports were one hundred and sixteen millions of dollars, and our imports one hundred and forty millions. It is not too much to assign seventy-five millions of these imports to the state of New York. The South furnishes on an average two-thirds of the whole value of theexports. It is fair, therefore, to say, that two-thirds of theimportsare consumed in the South, that is, fifty millions. The mercantile profit on fifty millions of merchandise, added to the agency and factorage of the Southern products transmitted to pay for them, will be at least twenty per cent. That is, New York is gainer by the South, of at least ten millions of dollars annually; for the traffic is not likely to decrease after the present year. No wonder ‘her merchants are like princes!’ Sever the Union, and what becomes of them!“3. The army, the navy, the departments of government, are supported by a revenue obtained from the indirect taxation of custom-house entries, the most fraudulent and extravagant mode of taxation known. Of this the South pays two-thirds. What will become of the system if the South be driven away!“4. The banking system of the Northern states is founded mainly on the traffic and custom of the South. Withdraw that for one twelve-month, and the whole banking system of the North”— tumbles all precipitateDown dash’d.“Suppose even one state withdrawn from the Union, would not the pecuniary intercourse with Europe be paralysed at once?“5. The South even now are the great consumers of New England manufactures. We take her cotton, her woollen goods, her boots and shoes. These last form an item of upwards of fourteen millions annually, manufactured at the North. Much also of her iron ware comes to the South; many other ‘notions’ are sent among us, greatly to the advantage of that wise people, who know better the value of small gains and small savings than we do.“6. What supports the shipping of the North but her commerce; and of her commerce two-thirds is Southern commerce. Nor is hercommercein any manner or degreenecessaryto the South;Europemanufactures what theSouth wants, and theSouthraises what Europewants. Between Europe and the South there is not and cannot be any competition, for there is no commercial or manufacturing, of territorial interference to excite jealousies between them. We want not the North.We can do without the North, if we separate to-morrow. We can find carriers and purchasers ofall we have to sell, and ofall we wish to buy, without casting one glance to the North.“7. The North seems to have a strange inclination to quarrel with England. The late war of 1812 to 1814 was a war for Northern claims and Northern interests, now we are in jeopardy from the unjust interference in favour of the patriots of Canada; and a dispute is threatened on account of the north-eastern boundary. The manufacturing and commercial interferences of the north with Europe will always remain a possible, if not a probable, source of disputes. TheNorthraises whatEuroperaises; commercially they need not each other—they are two of a trade, they raise not what each other wants—they arerivalsandcompetitorswhen they go to war. Does not the South, who is not interested in it, pay most part of the expense, and is not the war expenditure applied to the benefit of the North? Sever, if you please, the Union, and the North will have to pay the whole expense of her own quarrels.“8. Our system of domestic servitude is a great eye-sore to the fanatics of the North. But there are very many wise and honest men in the North; ay, even in Massachusetts. I ask of these gentlemen, does not at least one-third of the labour produce of every Southern slave ultimately lodge in the purse of the North! If the South works for itself it works also for the Northern merchant, and views his prosperity without grudging.“9. Nor is it a trifling article of gain that arises from the expenditure of southern visitors and southern travellers, who spend their summers and their money in the north. The quarrelsome rudeness of northern society is fast diminishing this source of expenditure among us. Sever the Union, and we relinquish it altogether. We can go to London, Paris, or Rome, as cheaply and as pleasantly as to Saratoga or Niagara.“Such are some of the advantages which the north derives from a continuance of that union which her fanatic population is so desirous to sever. A population with whom peace, humanity, mercy, oaths, contracts, and compacts, pass for nothing—whose promises and engagements are as chaff before the wind—to whom bloodshed, robbery, assassination, and murder, are objects of placid contemplation—whose narrow creed of bigotry supersedes all the obligations, of morality, and all the commands of positive law. With such men what valid compact can be made? The appeal must be to those who think that a deliberate compact is mutually binding on parties of any and every religious creed. To such men I appeal, and ask, ought you not resolutely to restore peace, and give the south confidence and repose?“I have now lived twenty years in South Carolina, and have had much intercourse with her prominent and leading men; not a man among them is ignorant how decidedly in most respects, the south would gain by a severance from the north, and how much more advantageous is this union to the north than to the south. But I am deeply, firmly persuaded that there is not one man in South Carolina that would move one step toward a separation, on account of the superior advantages the north derives from the union. No southern is actuated by these pecuniary feelings; no southern begrudges the north her prosperity. Enjoy your advantages, gentlemen of the north, and much good may they do ye, as they have hitherto. But if these unconstitutional abolition attacks upon us, in utter defiance of the national compact, are to be continued, God forbid this union should last another year.“I am, sir, your obedient servant,“Thomas Cooper.”“Many fine looking districts were pointed out to me in Virginia, formerly rich in tobacco and Indian corn, which had been completely exhausted by the production of crops for the maintenance of the slaves. In thickly peopled countries, where the great towns are at hand, the fertility of such soils may be recovered and even improved by manuring, but over the tracts of country I now speak of, no such advantages are within the farmer’s reach.”—Captain Hall.“Many, very many, with whom I met, would willingly have released their slaves, but the law requires that in such cases they should leave the state; and this would mostly be not to improve their condition, but to banish them from their home, and to make them miserable outcasts. What they cannot at present remove, they are anxious to mitigate, and I have never seen kinder attention paid to any domestics than by such persons to their slaves. In defiance of the infamous laws, making it criminal for the slave to be taught to read, and difficult to assemble for an act of worship, they are instructed, and they are assisted to worship God.”—Rev. Mr Reid.“The law declares the children of slaves are to follow the fortunes of the mother. Hence the practice of planters selling and bequeathing their own children.”—Miss Martineau.The return at present is very great in these western states; the labour of a slave, after all his expenses are paid, producing on an average 300 dollars (65 pounds) per annum to his master.
It had always appeared to me as singular that the Americans, at the time of their Declaration of Independence, took no measures for the gradual, if not immediate, extinction of slavery; that at the very time they were offering up thanks for having successfully struggled for their own emancipation from what they considered foreign bondage, their gratitude for their liberation did not induce them to break the chains of those whom they themselves held in captivity. It is useless for them to exclaim, as they now do, that it was England who left them slavery as a curse and reproach us as having originally introduced the system among them. Admitting, as is the fact, that slavery did commence when the colonies were subject to the mother country admitting that the petitions for its discontinuance were disregarded, still there was nothing to prevent immediate manumission at the time of the acknowledgement of their independence by Great Britain. They had then everything to recommence they had to select a new form of government, and to decide upon new laws; they pronounced, in their declaration, that “all men were equal;” and yet, in the face of this declaration, and their solemn invocation to the Deity, the negroes, intheirfetters, pleaded to them in vain.
I had always thought that this sad omission, which has left such an anomaly in the Declaration of Independence as to have made it the taunt and reproach of the Americans by the whole civilised world, did really arise from forgetfulness; that, as is but too often the case, when we are ourselves made happy, the Americans in their joy at their own deliverance from the foreign yoke, and the repossessing themselves of their own rights, had been too much engrossed to occupy themselves with the undeniable claims of others. But I was mistaken; such was not the case, as I shall presently show.
In the course of one of my sojourns in Philadelphia, Mr Vaughan, of the Athenium of that city, stated to me that he had found theoriginal draftof the Declaration of Independence, in the hand-writing of Mr Jefferson, and that it was curious to remark the alterations which had been made previous to the adoption of the manifesto which was afterwards promulgated. It was to Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, that was entrusted the primary drawing up of this important document, which was then submitted to others, and ultimately to the Convention, for approval and it appears that the question of slavery hadnotbeen overlooked when the document was first framed, as the following clause, inserted in the original draft by Mr Jefferson, (butexpungedwhen it was laid before the Convention,) will sufficiently prove. After enumerating the grounds upon which they threw off their allegiance to the king of England, the Declaration continued in Jefferson’s nervous style:
“He (the king) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights oflife and liberty, in the person of a distant people who never offended him; captivating and carrying them into slavery, in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain, determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold; he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now exciting these very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”
Such was the paragraph which had been inserted by Jefferson, in the virulence of his democracy, and his desire to hold up to detestation the king of Great Britain. Such was at that time, unfortunately, the truth; and had the paragraph remained, and at the same time emancipation been given to the slaves, it would have been a lasting stigma upon George the Third. But the paragraph was expunged; and why I because they could not hold up to public indignation the sovereign whom they had abjured, without reminding the world that slavery still existed in a community which had declared that “all men were equal;” and that if, in a monarch, they had stigmatised it as “violating the most sacred rights of life and liberty,” and “waging cruel war against human nature,” they could not have afterward been so barefaced and unblushing as to continue a system which was at variance with every principle which they professed.
Note. Miss Martineau, in her admiration of democracy, says, that, in the formation of the government, “The rule by which they worked was no less than the golden one, which seems to have been, by some unlucky chance, omitted in the Bibles of other statesmen, ‘Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you’” I am afraid the American Bible, by some unlucky chance, has also omitted that precept.
It does, however, satisfactorily prove, that the question of slavery was notoverlooked; on the contrary, their determination to take advantage of the system was deliberate, and, there can be no doubt, well considered—the very omission of the paragraph proves it. I mention these facts to show that the Americans have no right to revile us on being the cause of slavery in America. They had the means, and were bound, as honourable men, to act up to their declaration but they entered into the question, they decided otherwise, and decided that they would retain their ill-acquired property at the expense of their principles.
The degrees of slavery in America are as various in their intensity as are the communities composing the Union. They may, however, be divided with great propriety under two general heads—eastern and western slavery. By eastern slavery, I refer to that in the slave states bordering on the Atlantic, and those slave states on the other side of the Alleghany mountains, which may be more directly considered as their colonies, viz, in the first instance, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North and South Carolina; and, secondly, Kentucky and Tennessee. We have been accustomed lately to class the slaves as non-predial and predial,—that is, those who are domestic, and those who work on the plantations. This classification is not correct, if it is intended to distinguish between those who are well, and those who are badly treated. The true line to be drawn is between those who work separately, and those who are worked in a gang and superintended by an overseer. This is fully exemplified in the United States, where it will be found that in all states where they are worked in gangs the slaves are harshly treated, while in the others their labour is light.
Now, with the exception of the rice grounds in South Carolina, the eastern states are growers of corn, hemp, and tobacco; but their chief staple is the breeding of horses, mules, horned cattle, and other stock: the largest portion of these states remain in wild luxuriant pasture, more especially in Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, either of which states is larger than the other four mentioned.
The proportion of slaves required for the cultivation of the purely agricultural and chiefly grazing farms or plantations in these states is small, fifteen or twenty being sufficient for a farm of two hundred or three hundred acres; and their labour, which is mostly confined to tending stock, is not only very light, but of the quality most agreeable to the negro. Half the day you will see him on horseback with his legs idly swinging—as he goes along, or seated on a shaft-horse driving his wagons. He is quite in his glory; nothing delights a negro so much as riding or driving, particularly when he has a whole team under his control. He takes his wagon for a load of corn to feed the hogs, sits on the edge of the shaft as he tosses the cobs to the grunting multitude, whom he addresses in the most intimate terms; in short, everything is done leisurely, after his own fashion.
In these grazing states, as they may very properly be called, the negroes are well fed; they refuse beef and mutton, and will have nothing but pork; and are, without exception, the fattest and most saucy fellows I ever met with in a state of bondage; and such may be said generally to be the case with all the negroes in the eastern states which I have mentioned. The rice grounds in South Carolina are unhealthy, but the slaves are very kindly treated. But the facts speak for themselves. When the negro works in a gang with the whip over him, he may be overworked and ill-treated; but when he is not regularly watched, he will take very good care that the work he performs shall not injure his constitution.
It has been asserted, and generally credited, that in the eastern states negroes are regularly bred up like the cattle for the western market. That the Virginians, and the inhabitants of the other eastern slave states, do sell negroes which are taken to the west, there is no doubt; but that the negroes are bred expressly for that purpose, is, as regards the majority of the proprietors, far from the fact: it is the effect of circumstances, over which they have had no control. Virginia, when first settled, was one of the richest states, but, by continually cropping the land without manuring it, and that for nearly two hundred years, the major portion of many valuable estates has become barren, and the land is no longer under cultivation; in consequence of this, the negroes, (increasing so rapidly as they do in that country.) so far from being profitable, have become a serious task upon their masters, who have to rear and maintain, without having any employment to give them. The small portion of the estates under cultivation will subsist only a certain portion of the negroes; the remainder must, therefore, be disposed of, or they would eat their master out of his home. That the slaves are not willingly disposed of by many of the proprietors I am certain, particularly when it is known, that they are purchased for the west. I know of many instances of this, and wins informed of others; and by wills, especially, slaves have been directed to be sold fortwo-thirdsof the price which they would fetch for the western market, on condition that they were not to leave the state. These facts establish two points, viz, that the slaves in the eastern states is well treated, and that in the western states slavery still exists with all its horrors. The common threat to, and ultimate punishment of, a refractory and disobedient slave in the east, is to sell, him for the western market. Many slave proprietors, whose estates have been worn out in the east, have preferred migrating to the west with their slaves rather than sell them, and thus is the severity of the western treatment occasionally and partially mitigated.
But doing justice, as I always will, to those who have been unjustly calumniated, at the same time I must admit that there is a point connected with slavery in America which renders it more odious than in other countries; I refer to the system of amalgamation, which has, from promiscuous intercourse, been carried on to such an extent, that you very often meet with slaves whose skins are whiter than their master’s.
At Louisville, Kentucky, I saw a girl, about twelve years old, carrying a child; and, aware that in a slave state the circumstance of white people hiring themselves out to service is almost unknown, I inquired of her if she were a slave. To my astonishment, she replied in the affirmative. She was as fair as snow, and it was impossible to detect any admixture of blood from her appearance, which was that of a pretty English cottager’s child.
I afterward spoke to the master, who stated when he had purchased her, and the sum which he had paid.
I took down the following advertisement for a runaway slave, which was posted up in every tavern I stopped at in Virginia on my way to the springs. The expression of, “in a manner white” would imply that there was some shame felt it holding a white man in bondage:—
“Fifty Dollars Reward.
“Ran away from the subscriber, on Saturday, the 21st instant, a slave named George, between twenty and twenty-four years of age, five feet five or six inches high, slender made, stoops when standing, a little bow legged; generally wears right and left boots and shoes; had on him when he left a fur cap, a checked stock, and linen roundabout; had with him other clothing, a jean coat with black horn buttons, a pair of jean pantaloons, both coat and pantaloons of handsome grey mixed; no doubt other clothing not recollected. He had with him a common silver watch; he wears his pantaloons generally very tight in the legs.Said boyis in a mannerwhite, would be passed byand taken for a white man. Hishairislong and straight, like that of awhiteperson; looks very steady when spoken to, speaks slowly, and would not be likely to look a person full in the face when speaking to him. It is believed he is making his way to Canada by way of Ohio. I will give twenty dollars for the apprehension of said slave if taken in the county, or fifty dollars if taken out of the county, and secured so that I recover him again.
“Andrew Beirne, junior,
“Union Monroe City,
“July 31st, 1838. Virginia.”
The above is a curious document, independently of its proving the manner in which man preys upon his fellow-man in this land of liberty and equality. It is a well-known fact, that a considerable portion of Mr Jefferson’s slaves were his own children. If any of them absconded, he would smile, thereby implying that he should not be very particular in looking after them; and yet this man, this great andgoodman, as Miss Martineau calls him, this man who penned the paragraph I have quoted, as having been erased from the Declaration of Independence, who asserted that the slavery of the negro was a violation of the most sacred rights of life and liberty, permitted these his slaves and his children, the issue of his own loins, to be sold at auction after his demise, not even emancipating them, as he might have done, before his death. And, but lately, a member of congress for Georgia, whose name I shall not mention, brought up a fine family of children, his own issue by a female slave; for many years acknowledged them us his own children; permitted them to call him by the endearing title ofpapa, and eventually the whole of them were sold by public auction, and that, too, during his own lifetime!
But there is, I am sorry to say, a more horrible instance on record and one well authenticated. A planter of good family (I shall not mention his name or the state in which it occurred, as he was not so much to blame as were the laws), connected himself with one of his own female slaves, who was nearly white; the fruits of this connexion were two daughters, very beautiful girls, who were sent to England to be educated.
They were both grown up when their father died. At his death his affairs were found in a state of great disorder; in fact, there was not sufficient left to pay his creditors. Having brought up and educated these two girls and introduced them as his daughters, it quite slipped his memory that, having been born of a slave, and not manumitted, they were in reality slaves themselves. This fact was established after his decease; they were torn away from the affluence and refinement to which they had been accustomed, sold and purchased as slaves, and with the avowed intention of the purchaser to reap his profits from their prostitution it must not, however, be supposed that the planters of Virginia and the other Eastern states, encourage this intercourse; on the contrary, the young men who visit at the plantations cannot affront them more than to take notice of their slaves, particularly the lighter coloured, who are retained in the house and attend upon their wives and daughters. Independently of the moral feeling which really guides them (as they naturally do not wish that the attendants of their daughters should be degraded) it is against their interest in case they should wish to sell; as a mulatto or light male will not fetch so high a price as a full-blooded negro; the cross between the European and negro; especially the first cross, i.e. the mulatto, is of a sickly constitution, and quite unable to bear up against the fatigue of field labour in the West. As the race becomes whiter, the stamina is said to improve.
Examining into the question of emancipation in America, the first inquiry will be, how far this consummation is likely to be effected by means of the abolitionists. Miss Martineau, in her book, says, “The good work has begun, and will proceed.” She is so far right; it has begun, and has been progressing very fast, as may be proved by the single fact of the abolitionists having decided the election in the state of Ohio in October last. But let not Miss Martineau exult; for the stronger the abolition party may become, the more danger is there to be apprehended of a disastrous conflict between the states.
The fact is that, by the constitution of the United States, the federal government have not only no power tointerfereor toabolishslavery, but they are bound tomaintainit; the abolition of slavery is expresslywithheld. The citizens of any state may abolish slavery in their own state but the federal government cannot do so without an express violation of the federal compact. Should all the states in the Union abolish slavery, with the exception of one, and that one be Maryland, (the smallest of the whole of the states,) neither the federal government, or the other states could interfere with her. The federal compact binds the general government, “first, not tomeddlewith the slavery of the states where it exists, and next, toprotectit in the case of runaway slaves, and todefendit in case ofinvasionordomestic violenceon account of it.”
It appears, therefore, that slavery can only be abolished by the slave state itself in which it exists; and it is not very probable that any class of people will voluntarily make themselves beggars by surrendering up their whole property to satisfy the clamour of a party. That this party is strong, and is daily becoming stronger, is very true: the stronger it becomes the worse will be the prospects of the United States. In England the case was very different; the government had a right to make the sacrifice to public opinion by indemnification to the slave-holders; but in America the government have not that power; and the efforts of the abolitionists will only have the effects of plunging the country into difficulties and disunion. As an American author truly observes, “The American abolitionists must trample on the constitution, and wade through the carnage of a civil war, before they can triumph—”
Already the abolition party have done much mischief. The same author observes, “The South has been compelled, in self-defence, to rivet the chains of slavery afresh, and to hold on to their political rights with a stronger hand. The conduct of the abolitionists has arrested the improvements which were in progress in the slave states for the amelioration of the condition of the slave; it has broken up the system of intellectual and moral culture that was extensively in operation for the slave’s benefit, lest the increase of his knowledge should lend him a dangerous power, in connection with these crusading efforts; it has rivetted the chains of slavery with a greatly increased power, and enforced a more rigorous discipline; it has excluded for the time being the happy moral influence which was previously operating on the South from the North, and from the rest of the world, by the lights of comparison, by the interchange of a friendly intercourse, and by a friendly discussion of the great subject, all tending to the bettering of the slave’s condition, and, as was supposed, to his ultimate emancipation. Before this agitation commenced, this subject, in all its aspects and bearings, might be discussed as freely at the South as anywhere; but now, not a word can be said. It has kindled a sleepless jealousy in the South toward the North, and made the slave-holders feel as if all the rest of the world were their enemies, and that they must depend upon themselves for the maintenance of their political rights. We say rights, because they regard them as such; and so long as they do so, it is all the same in their feelings, whether the rest of the world acknowledge them or not. And they are, in fact,politicalrights, guaranteed to them by the constitution of the United States.”
It is not, however, impossible that the abolition party in the Eastern and Northern states may be gradually checked by the citizens of those very states. Their zeal may be as warm as ever; but public opinion will compel them, at the risk of their lives, to hold their tongues. This possibility can, however, only arise from the Northern and Eastern states becoming manufacturing states, as they are most anxious to be. Should this happen, the raw cotton grown by slave labour will employ the looms of Massachusetts; and then, as the Quarterly Review very correctly observes, “by a cycle of commercial benefits, the Northern and Eastern states will feel that there is some material compensation for the moral turpitude of the system of slavery.”
The slave proprietors in these states are as well aware as any political economist can be, that slavery is a loss instead of a gain, and that no state can arrive at that degree of prosperity under a state of slavery which it would under free labour. The case is simple. In free labour, where there is competition, you exact the greatest possible returns for the least possible expenditure; a man is worked as a machine; he is paid for what he produces, and nothing more. By slave labour, you receive the least possible return for the greatest possible expense, for the slave is better fed and clothed than the freeman, and does as little work as he can. The slave-holders in the eastern states are well aware of this, and are as anxious to be rid of slavery as are the abolitionists; but the time is not yet come, nor will it come until the country shall have so filled up as to render white labour attainable. Such, indeed, are not the expectations expressed in the language of the representatives of their states when in congress; but, it must be remembered, that this is a question which has convulsed the Union, and that, not only from a feeling of pride, added to indignation at the interference, but from if feeling of the necessity of not yielding up one tittle upon this question, the language of determined resistance is in congress invariably resorted to. But these gentlemen have one opinion for congress, and another for their private table; in the first, they stand up unflinchingly for their slave rights; in the other, they reason calmly, and admit what they could not admit in public. There is no labour in the eastern states, excepting that of the rice plantations in South Carolina, which cannot be performed by white men; indeed, a large proportion of the cotton in the Carolinas is now raised by afree whitepopulation. In the grazing portion of these states, white labour would be substituted advantageously, could white labour be procured at any reasonable price.
The time will come, and I do not think it very distant, say perhaps twenty or thirty years, when, provided America receives no check, and these states are not injudiciously interfered with, that Virginia, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, (and, eventually, but probably somewhat later, Tennessee and South Carolina) will, of their own accord, enrol themselves among the free states. As a proof that in the eastern slave states the negro is not held in such contempt, or justice toward him so much disregarded, I extract the following from an American work:—
“An instance of the force of law in the southern states for the protection of the slave has just occurred, in the failure of a petition to his excellency, PM Butler, governor of South Carolina, for the pardon of Nazareth Allen, a white person, convicted of the murder of a slave, and sentenced to be hung. The following is part of the answer of the governor to the petitioners:—
“‘The laws of South Carolina make no distinction in cases of deliberate murder, whether committed on a black man or a white man; neither can I. I am not a law-maker, but the executive officer of the laws already made; and I must not act on a distinction which the legislature might have made, but has not thought fit to make.’
“That the crime of which the prisoner stands convicted was committed against one of an inferior grade in society, is a reason for being especially cautious in intercepting the just severity of the law. This class of our population are subjected to us as well for their protection as our advantage. Our rights, in regard to them, are not more imperative than their duties; and the institutions, which for wise and necessary ends have rendered them peculiarly dependent, at least pledge the law to be to them peculiarly a friend and a protector.
“The prayer of the petition is not granted.
“Pierce M Butler.”
In the western states, comprehending Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama, the negroes are, with the exception perhaps of the two latter States, in a worse condition than they ever were in the West India islands. This may be easily imagined, when the character of the white people who inhabit the larger portion of these states is considered a class of people, the majority of whom are without feelings of honour, reckless in their habits, intemperate, unprincipled, and lawless, many of them having fled from the eastern states, as fraudulent bankrupts, swindlers, or committers of other crimes, which have subjected them to the penitentiaries—miscreants defying the climate, so that they can defy the laws. Still this representation of the character of the people inhabiting these states must, from the chaotic state of society in America, be received with many exceptions. In the city of New Orleans, for instance, and in Natchez and its vicinity, and also among the planters, there are many most honourable exceptions. I have said the majority: for we must look to themass—the exceptions do but prove the rule. It is evident that slaves, under such masters, can have but little chance of good treatment, and stories are told of them at which humanity shudders.
It appears, then, that the slaves, with the rest of the population of America, areworking their way west, and the question may now be asked:—Allowing that slavery will be soon abolished in the eastern states, what prospect is there of its ultimate abolition and total extinction in America?
I can see no prospect of exchanging slave labour for free in the western states, as, with the exception of Missouri, I do not think it possible that white labour could be substituted, the extreme heat and unhealthiness of the climate being a bar to any such attempt. The cultivation of the land must be carried on by a negro population, if it is to be carried on at all. The question, therefore, to be considered is, whether these states are to be inhabited and cultivated by a free or a slave negro population. It must be remembered, that not one-twentieth part of the land in the southern states is under cultivation; every year, as the slates are brought in from the east, the number of acres taken into cultivation increases. Not double or triple the number of the slaves at present in America would be sufficient for the cultivation of the whole of these vast territories. Every year the cotton crops increase, and at the same time the price of cotton has not materially lowered; as an everywhere increasing population takes off the whole supply, this will probably continue to be the case for many years, since it must be remembered, that, independently of the increasing population increasing the demand, cotton, from its comparative cheapness, continually usurps the place of some other raw material; this, of course, adds to the consumption. In various manufactures, cotton has already taken the place of linen and fur; but there must eventually be a limit to consumption: and this is certain, that as soon as the supply is so great as to exceed the demand, the price will be lowered by the competition; and, as soon as the price is by competition so lowered as to render the cost and keeping of the slave greater than the income returned by his labour, then, and not till then, is there any chance of slavery being abolished in the western states of America. See Note 4.
The probability of this consummation being brought about sooner is in the expectation that the Brazils, Mexico, and particularly the independent State of Texas, will in a few years produce a crop of cotton which may considerably lower its price. At present, the United States grow nearly, if not more, than half of the cotton produced in the whole world, as the return down to 1831 will substantiate.
Cotton grown all over the world in the years 1821 and 1831; showing the increase in each country in ten years.
The increase of cotton grown all over the world in ten years is therefore 190,000,000 lbs. Brazil has only increased 6,000,000; Egypt has increased 12,000,000; India, 5,000,000. Africa, West indies, South America, Asia, have all fallen off; but the defalcation has been made good by the United States, which have increased their growth by 205,000,000 of lbs.
In the Southern portion of America there are millions of acres on which cotton can be successfully cultivated, particularly Texas, the soil of which is so congenial that they can produce 1,000 lb. to the 400 lb. raised by the Americans; and the quality of the Texian cotton is said to be equal to the finest sea island produce. It is to Texas particularly that we must look for this produce, as it can there be raised by white labour; (see Note) and being so produced, will, as soon as its population in creases to a certain extent, be able to under sell that which is grown in America by the labour of the slave.
Increase of cotton grown in the United States, from the year 1802 to 1831.
It may be asked: how is it, as Texas is so far south, that a white population can labour there? It is because Texas is a prairie country, and situated at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. A sea-breeze always blows across the whole of the country, rendering it cool, and refreshing it notwithstanding the power of the sun’s rays. This breeze is apparently a continuation of the trade-winds following the course of the sun.
From circumstances, therefore, Texas, which but a few years since was hardly known as a country, becomes a state of the greatest importance to the civilised and moral world.
I am not in this chapter about to raise the question how Texas has been ravished from Mexico. Miss Martineau, with all her admiration of democracy, admits it to have been “the mosthigh-handedtheft of modern times;” and the letter of the celebrated Dr Charming to Mr Clay has laid bare to the world the whole nefarious transaction. In this letter Dr Charming points out the cause of the seizure of Texas, and the wish to enrol it among the federal states.
“Mexico, at the moment of throwing off the Spanish yoke, gave a noble testimony of her loyalty to free principles, by decreeing ‘That no person thereafter should be born a slave, or introduced as such into the Mexican states; that all slaves then held should receive stipulated wages, and be subject to no punishment but on trial and judgment by the magistrate.’ The subsequent acts of the government fully carried out these constitutional provisions. It is matter of deep grief and humiliation, that the emigrants from this country, while boasting of superior civilisation, refused to second this honourable policy, intended to set limits to one of the greatest of social evils. Slaves come into Texas with their masters from the neighbouring states of this country. One mode of evading the laws was, to introduce slaves under formal indentures for long periods, in some cases, it is said, for ninety-nine years; but by a decree of the state legislature of Coahuila and Texas, all indentures for a longer period than ten years were annulled, and provision was made for the freedom of children during this apprenticeship. This settled, invincible purpose of Mexico to exclude slavery from her limits, created as strong a purpose to annihilate her authority in Texas. By this prohibition, Texas was virtually shut against emigration from the southern and western portions of this country; and it is well known that the eyes of the south and west had for some time been turned to this province as a new market for slaves, as a new field for slave labour, and as a vast accession of political power to the slave-holding states. That such views were prevalent we know; for, nefarious as they are, they found their way into the public prints. The project of dismembering a neighbouring republic, that slaveholders and slaves might overspread a region which had been consecrated to a free population, was discussed in newspapers as coolly as if it were a matter of obvious right and unquestionable humanity. A powerful interest was thus created for severing from Mexico her distant province.”
The fact is this:— America, (for the government looked on and offered no interruption,) has seized upon Texas, with a view of extending the curse of slavery, and of finding a mart for the excess of her negro population: if Texas is admitted into the Union, all chance of the abolition of slavery must be thrown forward to such an indefinite period, as to be lost in the mist of futurity; if, on the contrary, Texas remains an independent province, or is restored to its legitimate owners, and in either case slavery is abolished, she then becomes, from the very circumstance of her fertility and aptitude for white labour, not only the greatcheck to slavery, but eventually the means of itsabolition. Never, therefore, was there a portion of the globe upon which the moral world must look with such interest.
England may, if she acts promptly and wisely, make such terms with this young state as to raise it up as a barrier against the profligate ambition of America. Texas was a portion of Mexico, and Mexico abolished slavery; the Texians are bound (if they areTexiansand not Americans) to adhere to what might be considered a treaty with the whole Christian world; if not, they can make no demand upon its sympathy or protection, and it should be asine qua nonwith England and all other European powers previous to acknowledging or entering into commercial relations with Texas, that she should adhere to the law which was passed at the time that she was an integral portion of Mexico, and declare herself to be a Free State—if she does not, unless the chains are broken by the negro himself, the cause and hopes ofemancipationare lost.
There certainly is one outlet for the slaves, which as they are removed thither and farther to the west will eventually be offered:— that of escaping to the Indian tribes which are spread over the western frontier, and amalgamating with them; such indeed, I think, will some future day be the result, whether they gain their liberty by desertion, insurrection, or manumission.
Of insurrection there is at present but little fear. In the eastern slave states, the negroes do not think of it, and if they did, the difficulty of combination and of procuring arms is so great, that it would be attended with very partial success. The intervention of a foreign power might indeed bring it to pass, but it is to be hoped that England, at all events, will never be the party to foment a servile war. Let us not forget that for more than two centuries we have beenparticeps criminis, and should have been in as great a difficulty as the Americans now are, had we had the negro population on our own soil, and not on distant islands which could be legislated for without affecting the condition of the mother country. Nay, at this very moment, by taking nearly the whole of the American cotton off their hands in exchange for our manufactures, we are ourselves virtually encouraging slavery by affording the Americans such a profitable mart for their slave labour.
There is one point to which I have not yet adverted, which is, Whether the question of emancipation is likely to produce a separation between the Northern and Southern states? The only reply that can be given is, that it entirely depends upon whether the abolition party can be held in check by the federal government. That the federal government will do its utmost there can be no doubt, but the federal government is not so powerful as many of the societies formed in America, and especially the Abolition Society, which every day adds to its members. The interests of the North are certainly at variance with the measures of the society, yet still it gains strength. The last proceedings in congress show that the federal government is aware of its rapid extension, and are determined to do all in its power to suppress it. The following are a portion of the resolutions which were passed last year by an overwhelming majority.
The first resolution was; “That the government is of limited powers, and that by the constitution of the United States, congress has no jurisdiction whatever over the institution of slavery in the several states of the confederacy;” the last was as follows: “Resolved, therefore, that all attempts on the part of congress toabolish slaveryin the district of Columbia, or the territories, or to prohibit the removal of the slaves from state to state; or to discriminate between the constitution of one portions of the confederacy and another, with the views aforesaid, are inviolationof the constitutional principles on which theunionof these States rests, and beyond the jurisdiction of congress; and that every petition, memorial, resolution, proposition, or paper touching or relating in any way or to any extent whatever to slavery as aforesaid, or the abolition thereof, shall without any farther action thereon, be laid on the table, withoutprinting, reading, debate, or reference.” Question put, “Shall the resolutions pass?” Yeas, 198; Noes, 6—Examiner.
These resolutions are very firm and decided, but in England people have no idea of the fanaticism displayed and excitement created in these societies, which are a peculiar feature in the states, and arising from the nature of their institutions. Their strength and perseverance are such that they bear down all before them, and, regardless of all consequences, they may eventually control the government.
As to the question which portion of the States will be the losers by a separation, I myself think that it will be the northern slates which will suffer. But as I always refer to American authority when I can, I had better give the reader a portion of a letter written by one of the southern gentlemen on this subject. In a letter to the editor of theNational Gazette, Mr Cooper, after referring to a point at issue with the abolitionists, not necessary to introduce here, says—“I shall therefore briefly touch upon the subject once more; and if farther provocation is given, I may possibly enter into more details hereafter; for the present I desire to hint at some items of calculation of the value of the Unionto the North.
“1. Mr Rhett, in his bold and honest address, has stated that the expenditures of the government for twenty years, ending 1836, have been four hundred and twenty millions of dollars; of which one hundred and thirty were dedicated to the payment of the national debt. Of the remainder, two hundred and ten millions were expended in the northern, and eighty millions in the southern states. Suppose this Union to be severed, I rather guess the government expenditure of what is now about fifteen millions a-year to the North, would be an item reluctantly spared. No people know better what to do with the ‘cheese-parings and the candle-ends’ than our good friends to the North.
“2. I beg permission to address New York especially. In the year 1836 our exports were one hundred and sixteen millions of dollars, and our imports one hundred and forty millions. It is not too much to assign seventy-five millions of these imports to the state of New York. The South furnishes on an average two-thirds of the whole value of theexports. It is fair, therefore, to say, that two-thirds of theimportsare consumed in the South, that is, fifty millions. The mercantile profit on fifty millions of merchandise, added to the agency and factorage of the Southern products transmitted to pay for them, will be at least twenty per cent. That is, New York is gainer by the South, of at least ten millions of dollars annually; for the traffic is not likely to decrease after the present year. No wonder ‘her merchants are like princes!’ Sever the Union, and what becomes of them!
“3. The army, the navy, the departments of government, are supported by a revenue obtained from the indirect taxation of custom-house entries, the most fraudulent and extravagant mode of taxation known. Of this the South pays two-thirds. What will become of the system if the South be driven away!
“4. The banking system of the Northern states is founded mainly on the traffic and custom of the South. Withdraw that for one twelve-month, and the whole banking system of the North”
— tumbles all precipitateDown dash’d.
— tumbles all precipitateDown dash’d.
“Suppose even one state withdrawn from the Union, would not the pecuniary intercourse with Europe be paralysed at once?
“5. The South even now are the great consumers of New England manufactures. We take her cotton, her woollen goods, her boots and shoes. These last form an item of upwards of fourteen millions annually, manufactured at the North. Much also of her iron ware comes to the South; many other ‘notions’ are sent among us, greatly to the advantage of that wise people, who know better the value of small gains and small savings than we do.
“6. What supports the shipping of the North but her commerce; and of her commerce two-thirds is Southern commerce. Nor is hercommercein any manner or degreenecessaryto the South;Europemanufactures what theSouth wants, and theSouthraises what Europewants. Between Europe and the South there is not and cannot be any competition, for there is no commercial or manufacturing, of territorial interference to excite jealousies between them. We want not the North.We can do without the North, if we separate to-morrow. We can find carriers and purchasers ofall we have to sell, and ofall we wish to buy, without casting one glance to the North.
“7. The North seems to have a strange inclination to quarrel with England. The late war of 1812 to 1814 was a war for Northern claims and Northern interests, now we are in jeopardy from the unjust interference in favour of the patriots of Canada; and a dispute is threatened on account of the north-eastern boundary. The manufacturing and commercial interferences of the north with Europe will always remain a possible, if not a probable, source of disputes. TheNorthraises whatEuroperaises; commercially they need not each other—they are two of a trade, they raise not what each other wants—they arerivalsandcompetitorswhen they go to war. Does not the South, who is not interested in it, pay most part of the expense, and is not the war expenditure applied to the benefit of the North? Sever, if you please, the Union, and the North will have to pay the whole expense of her own quarrels.
“8. Our system of domestic servitude is a great eye-sore to the fanatics of the North. But there are very many wise and honest men in the North; ay, even in Massachusetts. I ask of these gentlemen, does not at least one-third of the labour produce of every Southern slave ultimately lodge in the purse of the North! If the South works for itself it works also for the Northern merchant, and views his prosperity without grudging.
“9. Nor is it a trifling article of gain that arises from the expenditure of southern visitors and southern travellers, who spend their summers and their money in the north. The quarrelsome rudeness of northern society is fast diminishing this source of expenditure among us. Sever the Union, and we relinquish it altogether. We can go to London, Paris, or Rome, as cheaply and as pleasantly as to Saratoga or Niagara.
“Such are some of the advantages which the north derives from a continuance of that union which her fanatic population is so desirous to sever. A population with whom peace, humanity, mercy, oaths, contracts, and compacts, pass for nothing—whose promises and engagements are as chaff before the wind—to whom bloodshed, robbery, assassination, and murder, are objects of placid contemplation—whose narrow creed of bigotry supersedes all the obligations, of morality, and all the commands of positive law. With such men what valid compact can be made? The appeal must be to those who think that a deliberate compact is mutually binding on parties of any and every religious creed. To such men I appeal, and ask, ought you not resolutely to restore peace, and give the south confidence and repose?
“I have now lived twenty years in South Carolina, and have had much intercourse with her prominent and leading men; not a man among them is ignorant how decidedly in most respects, the south would gain by a severance from the north, and how much more advantageous is this union to the north than to the south. But I am deeply, firmly persuaded that there is not one man in South Carolina that would move one step toward a separation, on account of the superior advantages the north derives from the union. No southern is actuated by these pecuniary feelings; no southern begrudges the north her prosperity. Enjoy your advantages, gentlemen of the north, and much good may they do ye, as they have hitherto. But if these unconstitutional abolition attacks upon us, in utter defiance of the national compact, are to be continued, God forbid this union should last another year.
“I am, sir, your obedient servant,
“Thomas Cooper.”
“Many fine looking districts were pointed out to me in Virginia, formerly rich in tobacco and Indian corn, which had been completely exhausted by the production of crops for the maintenance of the slaves. In thickly peopled countries, where the great towns are at hand, the fertility of such soils may be recovered and even improved by manuring, but over the tracts of country I now speak of, no such advantages are within the farmer’s reach.”—Captain Hall.
“Many, very many, with whom I met, would willingly have released their slaves, but the law requires that in such cases they should leave the state; and this would mostly be not to improve their condition, but to banish them from their home, and to make them miserable outcasts. What they cannot at present remove, they are anxious to mitigate, and I have never seen kinder attention paid to any domestics than by such persons to their slaves. In defiance of the infamous laws, making it criminal for the slave to be taught to read, and difficult to assemble for an act of worship, they are instructed, and they are assisted to worship God.”—Rev. Mr Reid.
“The law declares the children of slaves are to follow the fortunes of the mother. Hence the practice of planters selling and bequeathing their own children.”—Miss Martineau.
The return at present is very great in these western states; the labour of a slave, after all his expenses are paid, producing on an average 300 dollars (65 pounds) per annum to his master.