An attempt to prove the dangerous tendency, injustice, and disgrace of tolerating slavery amongst Englishmen, would, in any former age, have been esteemed as superfluous and ridiculous, as if a man should undertake, in a formal manner, to prove, that darkness is not light.
Sorry am I, that the depravity of the present age has made a demonstration of this kind necessary.
Now, that I may sum up the amount of what has been said in a single sentence, I shall beg leave to conclude in the words of the great Sir Edward c.o.ke, which, though spoken on a different occasion, are yet applicable to this; see Rushworth"s Hist. Col. An. 1628. 4 Caroli. fol.
450.
"It would be no honour to a King or kingdom, to be a King of bondmen or slaves: the end of this would be both _dedecus_[A] and _d.a.m.num_[B] both to King and kingdom, that in former times have been so renowned."
[Footnote A: Disgrace.]
[Footnote B: Loss.]
Note, at page 63; According to the laws of Jamaica, printed in London, in 1756, "If any slave having been one whole year in this island, (says an act, No 64, clause 5, p. 114) shall run away, and continue absent from his owner"s service for the s.p.a.ce of thirty days, upon complaint and proof, &c. before any two justices of the peace, and three freeholders, &c. it shall and may be lawful for such justices and freeholders to order such slave to be punished, by _cutting off one of the feet of such slave_, or inflict such other corporal punishment as they _shall think fit_." Now that I may inform my readers, what corporal punishments are sometimes thought fit to be inflicted, I will refer to the testimony of Sir Hans Sloane, (see voyage to the islands of Madeira, Barbadoes, &c. and Jamaica, with the natural history of the last of these islands, &c. London 1707. Introduction, p. 56, and 57.) "The punishment for crimes of slaves (says he) are usually, for _rebellions_, burning them, by nailing them down to the ground with crooked sticks on every limb, and then applying the fire, by degrees, from the feet and hands, and burning them gradually up to the head, whereby _the pains are extravagant_; for crimes of a lesser nature, _gelding_, or _chopping off half the foot_ with an axe. These punishments are suffered by them with great constancy.--For negligence, they are usually whipped by the overseers with lance-wood switches, till they be b.l.o.o.d.y, and several of the switches broken, being first tied up by their hands in the mill houses.--After they are whipped till they are raw, some put on their skins pepper and salt, to make them smart; at other times, their masters will drop melted wax on their skins, and use several _very exquisite torments_." Sir Hans adds, "These punishments are sometimes merited by the Blacks, who are a very perverse generation of people; and though they appear very harsh, yet are scarce equal to some of their crimes, and inferior to what punishments other European nations inflict on their slaves in the East-Indies, as may be seen by Moquet, and other travellers." Thus Sir Hans Sloane endeavours to excuse those shocking cruelties, but certainly in vain, because no crimes whatsoever can merit such severe punishments, unless I except the crimes of those who devise and inflict them. Sir Hans Sloane, indeed, mentions _rebellion_ as the princ.i.p.al crime; and certainly it is very justly esteemed a most heinous crime, in a land of liberty, where government is limited by equitable and just laws, if the same are tolerably well observed; but in countries where arbitrary power is exercised with such intolerable cruelty as is before described, if resistance be a crime, it is certainly the most natural of all others.
But the 19th clause of the 38th act, would indeed, on a slight perusal, induce us to conceive, that the punishment for rebellion is not so severe as it is represented by Sir Hans Sloane; because a slave, though _deemed rebellious_, is thereby condemned to no greater punishment than transportation. Nevertheless, if the clause be thoroughly considered, we shall find no reason to commend the mercy of the legislature; for it only proves, that the Jamaica law-makers will not scruple to charge the slightest and most natural offences with the most opprobrious epithets; and that a poor slave, who perhaps has no otherwise incurred his master"s displeasure than by endeavouring (upon the just and warrantable principles of self-preservation,) to escape from his master"s tyranny, without any criminal intention whatsoever, is liable to be _deemed rebellious_, and to be arraigned as a capital offender. "For every slave and slaves that shall run away, and continue but for the s.p.a.ce of twelve months, except such slave or slaves as shall not have been three years in this island, shall be _deemed rebellious_," &c. (see act 38, clause 19. p. 60.) Thus we are enabled to define what a West Indian tyrant means by the word _rebellious_. But unjust as this clause may seem, yet it is abundantly more merciful and considerate than a subsequent act against the same poor miserable people, because the former a.s.signs no other punishment for persons so _deemed rebellious_, than that they, "_Shall be transported_ by order of two justices and three freeholders,"
&c. whereas the latter spares not the blood of these poor injured fugitives: For by the 66th act, a reward of 50 pounds is offered to those who "shall kill or bring in alive any _rebellious slaves_," that is, any of these unfortunate people whom the law has "_deemed rebellious_," as above; and this premium is not only tendered to commissioned parties (see 2d. clause) but even to any private "_hunter, slave, or other person_," (see 3d. clause.) Thus it is manifest, that the law treats these poor unhappy men with as little ceremony and consideration as if they were merely wild beasts. But the innocent blood that is shed in consequence of such a detestable law, must certainly call for vengeance on the murderous abettors and actors of such deliberate wickedness: And though many of the guilty wretches should even be so hardened and abandoned as never afterwards to be capable of sincere remorse, yet a time will undoubtedly come, when they will shudder with dreadful apprehensions, on account of the insufficiency of so wretched an excuse, as that their poor murdered brethren were by law "_deemed rebellious_" But bad as these laws are, yet in justice to the freeholders of Jamaica, I must acknowledge, that their laws are not near so cruel and inhuman as the laws of Barbadoes and Virginia, and seem at present to be much more reasonable than they have formerly been; many very oppressive laws being now expired, and others less severe enacted in their room.
But it is far otherwise in Barbadoes; for by the 329th act, p. 125. "If any Negro or other slave, under punishment by his master, or his order, for running away, or any other crimes or misdemeanors towards his said master, unfortunately shall suffer in life, or member, (which seldom happens) (but it is plain by this law that it does sometimes happen) _no person whatever shall be liable to any fine therefore; but if any man shall, of wantonness or only of b.l.o.o.d.y-mindedness, or cruel intention, wilfully kill a Negroe or other slave of his own_;"--now the reader, to be sure, will naturally expect, that some very severe punishment must in this case be ordained, to deter the _wanton, b.l.o.o.d.y-minded, and cruel_ wretch, from _wilfully killing_ his fellow creatures; but alas! the Barbadian law-makers have been so far from intending to curb such abandoned wickedness, that they have absolutely made this law on purpose to skreen these enormous crimes from the just indignation of any righteous person, who might think himself bound in duty to prosecute a b.l.o.o.d.y-minded villain; they have therefore presumptuously taken upon them to give a sanction, as it were, by law, to the horrid crime of wilful murder; and have accordingly ordained, that he who is guilty of it in Barbadoes, though the act should be attended with all the aggravating circ.u.mstances before-mentioned--"_shall pay into the public treasury_ (no more than) _fifteen pounds sterling_," but if he shall kill another man"s, he shall pay the owner of the Negroe double the value, and into the public treasury _twenty-five pounds sterling_; and he shall further, by the next justice of the peace, be bound to his good behaviour during the pleasure of the governor and council, _and not be liable to any other punishment or forfeiture for the same_.
The most consummate wickedness, I suppose, that any body of people, under the specious form of a legislature, were ever guilty of! This act contains several other clauses which are shocking to humanity, though too tedious to mention here.
According to an act of Virginia, (4 Anne, ch. 49. sec. 37. p. 227.) "after proclamation is issued against slaves that run away and lie out, it is lawful for any person whatsoever, _to kill and destroy such slaves, by such ways and means as he, she, or they, shall think fit_, without accusation or impeachment of any crime for the same," &c. And lest private interest should incline the planter to mercy, (to which we must suppose such people can have no other inducement) it is provided and enacted in the succeeding clause, (No 28.) "That for _every slave killed_, in pursuance of this act, or _put to death by law_, the master or owner of such slave _shall be paid by the public_."
Also by an act of Virginia, (9 Geo. I. ch. 4. sect. 18. p. 343.) it is ordained, "That, where any slave shall hereafter be found notoriously guilty of going abroad in the night, or running away, and lying out, and cannot be reclaimed from _such_ disorderly courses by the common method of punishment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the court of the county, upon complaint and proof thereof to them made by the owner of such slave, to order and direct every such slave to be punished by _dismembering, or any other_ way, not touching life, as the said county court _shall think fit_."
I have already given examples enough of the horrid cruelties which are sometimes _thought fit_ on such occasions. But if the innocent and most natural act of "_running away_" from intolerable tyranny, deserves such relentless severity, what kind of punishment have these law-makers themselves to expect hereafter, on account of their own enormous offences! Alas! to look for mercy (without a timely repentance) will only be another instance of their gross injustice! "_Having their consciences seared with a hot iron_," they seem to have lost all apprehensions that their slaves are men, for they scruple not to number them with beasts. See an act of Barbadoes, (No 333. p. 128.) int.i.tuled, "An act for the better regulating of _outcries_ in open market:" here we read of "_Negroes, cattle, coppers, and stills, and other chattels_, brought by execution to open market to be outcried, and these (as if all of equal importance) are ranged together _in great lots or numbers to be sold_."
--Page 70. In the 329th act of Barbadoes, (p. 122.) it is a.s.serted, that "brutish slaves deserve not, for the baseness of their condition, to _be tried by a legal trial of twelve men of their peers, or neighbourhood_, which neither truly can be rightly done, as the subjects of England are;" (yet slaves also are subjects of England, whilst they remain within the British dominions, notwithstanding this insinuation to the contrary) "nor is execution to be delayed towards them, in case of such horrid crimes committed," &c.
A similar doctrine is taught in an act of Virginia, (9 Geo. I. ch. 4.
sect. 3. p. 339.) wherein it is ordained, "that every slave, committing such offence as by the laws ought to be punished by death, or loss of member, shall be forthwith committed to the common goal of the county, &c. And the sheriff of such county, upon such commitment, shall forthwith certify the same, with the cause thereof, to the governor or commander in chief, &c. who is thereupon desired and impowered to issue a commission of Oyer and Terminer, _To such persons as he shall think fit_; which persons, forthwith after the receipt of such commission, are impowered and required to cause the offender to be publicly arraigned and tried, &c. without the solemnity of a jury," &c. Now let us consider the dangerous tendency of those laws. As Englishmen, we strenuously contend for this absolute and immutable necessity of trials by juries: but is not the spirit and equity of this old English doctrine entirely lost, if we partially confine that justice to ourselves alone, when we have it in our power to extend it to others? The natural right of all mankind, must princ.i.p.ally justify our insisting upon this necessary privilege in favour of ourselves in particular; and therefore if we do not allow that the judgment of an impartial jury is indispensably necessary in all cases whatsoever, wherein the life of man is depending, we certainly undermine the equitable force and reason of those laws, by which _we ourselves are protected_, and consequently are unworthy to be esteemed either Christians or Englishmen.
Whatever right the members of a provincial a.s.sembly may have to enact _bye laws_, for particular exigences among themselves, yet in so doing they are certainly bound, in duty to their sovereign, to observe most strictly the fundamental principles of that const.i.tution, which his Majesty is sworn to maintain; for wheresoever the bounds of the British empire are extended, there the common law of England must of course take place, and cannot be safely set aside by any _private law_ whatsoever, because the introduction of an unnatural tyranny must necessarily endanger the King"s dominions. The many alarming insurrections of slaves in the several colonies, are sufficient proofs of this. The common law of England ought therefore to be so established in every province, as to include the respective _bye laws_ of each province; instead of being by them _excluded_, which latter has been too much the case.
Every inhabitant of the British colonies, black as well as white, bond as well as free, are undoubtedly the _King"s subjects_, during their residence within the limits of the King"s dominions; and as such, are ent.i.tled to personal protection, however bound in service to their respective masters; therefore, when any of these are put to death, "_without the solemnity of a jury_," I fear that there is too much reason to attribute _the guilt of murder_ to every person concerned in ordering, the same, or in consenting thereto; and all such persons are certainly responsible _to the King and his laws, for the loss of a subject_. The horrid iniquity, injustice, and dangerous tendency of the several plantation laws which I have quoted, are so apparent, that it is unnecessary for me to apologize for the freedom with which I have treated them. If such laws are not absolutely necessary for the government of slaves, the law-makers must unavoidably allow themselves to be the most cruel and abandoned tyrants upon earth; or, perhaps, that ever were on earth. On the other hand, if it be said, that it is impossible to govern slaves without such inhuman severity, and detestable injustice, the same will certainly be an invincible argument against the least toleration of slavery amongst christians, because the temporal profit of the planter or master, however lucrative, cannot compensate the forfeiture of his everlasting welfare, or (at least I may be allowed to say) the apparent danger of such a forfeiture.
Oppression is a most grievous crime, and the cries of these much injured people, (though they are only poor ignorant heathens) will certainly reach heaven! The scriptures (_which are the only true foundation of all laws_) denounce a tremendous judgment against the man who should offend even one little-one; _"It were better for him_ (even the merciful Saviour of the world hath himself declared) _that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."_ Luke xvii. 2. Who then shall attempt to vindicate those inhuman establishments of government, under which, even our own countrymen so grievously _offend_ and _oppress_ (not merely _one_, or a few little ones, but) an immense mult.i.tude of _men, women, children_, and the _children of their children_, from generation to generation? May it not be said with like justice, it were better for the English nation that these American dominions had never existed, or even that they should have been sunk into the sea, than that the kingdom of Great Britain should be loaded with the horrid guilt of tolerating such abominable wickedness! In short, if the _King"s prerogative_ is not speedily exerted for the relief of his Majesty"s oppressed and much injured subjects in the British colonies, (because to _relieve the subject_ from the oppression of petty tyrants is the princ.i.p.al use of the royal prerogative, as well as the princ.i.p.al and most natural means of maintaining the same) and for the extension of the British const.i.tution to the most distant colonies, whether in the East or West Indies, it must inevitably be allowed, that great share of this enormous guilt will certainly rest on this side the water.
I hope this hint will be taken notice of by those whom it may concern; and that the freedom of it will be excused, as from a _loyal and disinterested_ adviser.
Extracts from the writings
of several _noted authors_,
on the subject of the, _slavery of the Negroes_,
viz.
George Wallace,
Francis Hutcheson,
James Foster.
George Wallace, in his _System of the Principles of the Laws of Scotland_, speaking of the slavery of the Negroes in our colonies, says, "We all know that they (the Negroes) are purchased from their Princes, who pretend to have a right to dispose of them, and that they are, like other commodities, transported, by the merchants who have bought them, into America, in order to be exposed to sale. If this trade admits of a moral or a rational justification, every crime, even the most atrocious, may be justified. Government was inst.i.tuted for the good of mankind; kings, princes, governors, are not proprietors of those who are subject to their authority; they have not a right to make them miserable. On the contrary, their authority is vested in them, that they may, by the just exercise of it, promote the happiness of their people. Of course, they have not a right to dispose of their liberty, and to sell them for slaves. Besides no man has a right to acquire, or to purchase them; men and their liberty are not _in commercio_; they are not either saleable or purchaseable. One, therefore, has no body but himself to blame, in case he shall find himself deprived of a man, whom he thought he had, by buying for a price, made his own; for he dealt in a trade which was illicit, and was prohibited by the most obvious dictates of humanity.
For these reasons, every one of those unfortunate men who are pretended to be slaves, has a right to be declared to be free, for he never lost his liberty; he could not lose it; his Prince had no power to dispose of him. Of course, the sale was _ipso jure_ void. This right he carries about with him, and is ent.i.tled every where to get it declared. As soon, therefore, as he comes into a country in which the judges are not forgetful of their own humanity, it is their duty to remember that he is a man, and to declare him to be free. I know it has been said, that questions concerning the state of persons ought to be determined by the law of the country to which they belong; and that, therefore, one who would be declared to be a slave in America, ought, in case he should happen to be imported into Britain, to be adjudged, according to the law of America, to be a slave; a doctrine than which nothing can be more barbarous. Ought the judges of any country, out of respect to the law of another, to shew no respect to their kind, and to humanity? out of respect to a law, which is in no sort obligatory upon them, ought they to disregard the law of nature, which is obligatory on all men, at all times, and in all places? Are any laws so binding as the eternal laws of justice? Is it doubtful, whether a judge ought to pay greater regard to them, than to those arbitrary and inhuman usages which prevail in a distant land? Aye, but our colonies would be ruined if slavery was abolished. Be it so; would it not from thence follow, that the bulk of mankind ought to be abused, that our pockets may be filled with money, or our mouths with delicacies? The purses of highwaymen would be empty, in case robberies were totally abolished; but have men a right to acquire money by going out to the highway? Have men a right to acquire it by rendering their fellow-creatures miserable? Is it lawful to abuse mankind, that the avarice, the vanity, or the pa.s.sions of a few may be gratified? No! There is such a thing as justice to which the most sacred regard is due. It ought to be inviolably observed. Have not these unhappy men a better right to their liberty, and to their happiness, than our American merchants have to the profits which they make by torturing their kind? Let, therefore, our colonies be ruined, but let us not render so many men miserable. Would not any of us, who should--be s.n.a.t.c.hed by pirates from his native land, think himself cruelly abused, and at all times ent.i.tled to be free? Have not these unfortunate Africans, who meet with the same cruel fate, the same right? Are they not men as well as we, and have they not the same sensibility? Let us not, therefore, defend or support a usage which is contrary to all the laws of humanity.
"But it is false, that either we or our colonies would be ruined by the abolition of slavery. It might occasion a stagnation of business for a short time. Every great alteration produces that effect; because mankind cannot, on a sudden, find ways of disposing of themselves, and of their affairs; but it would produce many happy effects. It is the slavery which is permitted in America, that has hindered it from becoming so soon populous as it would otherwise have done. Let the Negroes be free, and, in a few generations, this vast and fertile continent would be crowded with inhabitants; learning, arts, and every thing would flourish amongst them; instead of being inhabited by wild beasts, and by savages, it would be peopled by philosophers, and by men."
Francis Hutcheson, professor of philosophy at the university of Glasgow, in his _System of Moral Philosophy_, page 211, says "He who detains another by force in slavery, is always bound to prove his t.i.tle. The slave sold, or carried into a distant country, must not be obliged to prove a negative, that _he never forfeited his liberty_. The violent possessor must, in all cases, shew his t.i.tle, especially where the old proprietor is well known. In this case, each man is the original proprietor of his own liberty. The proof of his losing it must be inc.u.mbent on those who deprive him of it by force. The Jewish laws had great regard to justice, about the servitude of Hebrews, founding it only on consent, or some crime or damage, allowing them always a proper redress upon any cruel treatment, and fixing a limited time for it; unless upon trial the servant inclined to prolong it. The laws about foreign slaves had many merciful provisions against immoderate severity of the masters. But under christianity, whatever lenity was due from an Hebrew towards his countryman, must be due towards all; since the distinctions of nations are removed, as to the point of humanity and mercy, as well as natural right; nay, some of these rights granted over foreign slaves, may justly be deemed only such indulgences as those of poligamy and divorce, granting only external impunity in such practice, and not sufficient vindication of them in conscience."
_Page_ 85. It is pleaded, that "In some barbarous nations, unless the captives were bought for slaves, they would be all murthered. They, therefore, owe their lives, and all they can do, to their purchasers; and so do their children, who would not otherwise have come into life."
But this whole plea is no more than that of _negotium utile gestum_ to which any civilized nation is bound by humanity; it is a prudent expensive office, done for the service of others without a gratuitous intention; and this founds no other right, than that to full compensation of all charges and labour employed for the benefit of others.
A set of inaccurate popular phrases blind us in these matters; "Captives owe their lives, and all to the purchasers, say they. Just in the same manner, we, our n.o.bles, and princes, often owe our lives to midwives, chirurgeons, physicians," &c. one who was the means of preserving a man"s life, is not therefore ent.i.tled to make him a slave, and sell him as a piece of goods. Strange, that in a nation where the sense of liberty prevails, where the christian religion is professed, custom and high prospects of gain can so stupify the conscience of men, and all sense of natural justice, that they can hear such computations made about the value of their fellow-men, and their liberty, without abhorrence and indignation.
_James Foster_, D.D. in his _discourses on natural religion_ and _social virtue_ also shews his just indignation at this wicked practice; which he declares to be "_a criminal and outrageous violation of the natural right of mankind_." At _page_ 156, vol. 2 he says, "Should we have read concerning the Greeks or Romans of old, that they traded with a view to make slaves of their own species, when they certainly knew that this would involve in schemes of blood and murder, of destroying, or enslaving each other; that they even fomented wars, and engaged whole nations and tribes in open hostilities, for their own private advantage; that they had no detestation of the violence and cruelty, but only feared the ill success of their inhuman enterprises; that they carried men like themselves, their brethren, and the off-spring of the same common parent, to be sold like beasts of prey, or beasts of burden, and put them to the same reproachful trial, of their soundness, strength, and capacity for greater bodily service; that quite forgetting and renouncing the original dignity of human nature, communicated to all, they treated them with more severity, and ruder discipline, than even the _ox_ or the _a.s.s_, who are _void of understanding_--should we not, if this had been the case, have naturally been led to despise all their _pretended refinements of morality_; and to have concluded, that as they were not nations dest.i.tute of politeness, they must have been _entire strangers to virtue and benevolence_?
"But notwithstanding this, we ourselves (who profess to be christians, and boast of the peculiar advantage we enjoy, by means of an express revelation of our duty from heaven) are, in effect, these very untaught and rude heathen countries. With all our superior light, we instill into those, whom we call savage and barbarous, the most despicable opinion of human nature. We, to the utmost of our power, weaken and dissolve the universal tie, that binds and unites mankind. We practise what we should exclaim against, as the utmost excess of cruelty and tyranny, if nations of the world, differing in colour, and form of government, from ourselves, were so possessed of empire, as to be able to reduce us to a state of unmerited and brutish servitude. Of consequence, we sacrifice our reason, our humanity, our christianity, to an unnatural sordid gain.
We teach other nations to despise, and trample under foot, all the obligations of social virtue. We take the most effectual method to prevent the propagation of the gospel, by representing it as a scheme of power and barbarous oppression, and an enemy to the natural privileges and rights of men.
"Perhaps all that I have now offered, may be of very little weight to restrain this enormity, this aggravated iniquity; however, I still have the satisfaction of having entered my private protest against a practice, which, in my opinion, bids that G.o.d, who is the G.o.d and Father of the Gentiles, unconverted to christianity, most daring and bold defiance, and spurns at all the principles both of natural and revealed religion."
EXTRACT
From an ADDRESS
in the
VIRGINIA _GAZETTE_,
of MARCH 19, 1767.
Mr. RIND,
Permit me, in your paper, to address the members of our a.s.sembly on two points, in which the public interest is very nearly concerned.