ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub

1

The exceptions to this rule 1 were few and of little practical value.

This system of slavery, which at least in the British colonies and the Slave States surpassed in cruelty the slavery of any pagan country ancient or modern, was not only recognised by Christian governments, but was supported by the large bulk of the clergy, Catholic2 and Protestant alike. In the beginning of the abolitionist movement the Churches acknowledged slavery to be a great evil, but with the making of this acknowledgment they believed that they had done their share, and denied that there was any obligation on them, or even that they had any right, to proceed against the slave-holders. But things did not stop here. The lamentations of resignation were gradually changed into excuses, and the excuses into justifications.3 The Bible, it was said, contains no prohibition of slavery; on the contrary, slavery is recognised both in the Old and New Testaments. Abraham, the father of the faithful and the friend of God, had slaves; the Hebrews were directed to make slaves of the surrounding nations; St. Paul and St. Peter approved of the

1 Morgan, Civil Code of Louisiana, art. 192, p. 33. Morehead and Brown, Digest of the Statute Laws of Kentucky, ii. 1481. Edwards, op. cit. ii. 192 (Jamaica). Stephen, op. cit. i. 106 (some other British colonies). In the French islands a negro who had been cruelly treated, contrary to royal ordinances, was forfeited to the crown, and acquired, if not freedom, at least deliverance from a tyrannical master (Code Noir, Edit du mois, de Mars 1685, art. 42, p. 48 sq.; Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 38, p. 303 sq.); but the Court which adjudged the offence might also decree the sufferer to be manumitted (Stephen, op. cit. i. 119).

2 The attempts to represent the Roman Catholic clergy as ardent abolitionists (Cochin, L'abolition de l'esclavage, ii. 443; de Locqueneuille, L'esclavage, ses promoteurs et ses adversaires, p. 193) are certainly not justified by facts. Among the Catholics

of the United States there were some advocates of emancipation, but their number was not large (Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 195 sq.; Parker, Collected Works, vi. 127 sq.). Dr. England, the Catholic bishop of Charleston, South Carolina, undertook in public to prove that the Catholic Church had always been the uncompromising friend of slave-holding (Parker, op. cit. v. 57). In Brazil it was common for clergymen not only to possess slaves, but to buy and sell them with as little scruple as other merchandises (da Fonseca, A esravidão, o clero e o abolicionismo, pp. 28, 33). Bishop Bouvier wrote (op. cit. p. 568):

"Servi autem dominis suis obedire, sortem suam patienter tolerare et officia sibi imposita fideliter exsequi debent, quoadusque libertas ipsis concedatur. Meminerint præsentem vitam esse momentaneam, futuram vero æternam.' von Holst, op. cit. ii. 231 sqq.

3

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

relation of master and slave when they gave admonitions to both as to their reciprocal behaviour; the Saviour Himself said nothing in condemnation of slavery, although it existed in great aggravation while He was upon earth. If slavery were sinful, would it have been too much to expect that the Almighty had directed at least one little word against it in the last revelation of His will?1 Nay, God not only permitted slavery, but absolutely provided for its perpetuity; it is the very legislation of Heaven itself; it is an institution which it is a religious duty to maintain, and which cannot be abolished, because "God is pledged to sustain it." 5 According to some, slavery was founded on the judgment of God on a damned race, the descendants of Ham; according to others, it was only in this way that the African could be raised to a participation in the blessings of Christianity and civilisation." With the name of "abolitionist" was thus associated the idea of infidelity, and the emancipation movement was branded as an attempt to spread the evils of scepticism through the land. According to Governor Macduffie, of South Carolina, no human institution is more manifestly consistent with the will of God than slavery, and every community ought to punish the interference of abolitionists with death, without the benefit of clergy, “regarding the authors of it as enemies of the human race." It is true that religious arguments were also adduced in favour of abolition. To hold men in bondage was said to be utterly inconsistent with the inalienable rights which the Creator had granted mankind, and still more obviously

1 Barnes, The Church and Slavery, p. 15. Birney, Letter to the Churches, p. 3 sq. Bledsoe, Essay on Liberty and Slavery, p. 138 sqq.

Gerrit

Smith, Letter to Rev. James Smylie, P. 3. Cobb, op. cit. p. 54 sqq. Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, pp. 154-156, 167, 176, 181, 184, 186, &c. Parker, Collected Works, v. 157.

2 Thornton, quoted by Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, p. 147. Fisk, quoted ibid. p. 147.

3 Bledsoe, op. cit. p. 138.

[ocr errors]

4 Smylie, quoted by Gerrit Smith, op. cit. p. 3.

5 Quoted by Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, p. 347.

6 Barnes, op. cit. p. 16.

7 Ibid. p.

18. Newman, AngloSaxon Abolition of Negro Slavery, p. 56. Bledsoe, op. cit. p. 223.

8 Newman, op. cit. p. 53. von Holst, op. cit. ii. 118, n. 1.

at variance with the dictates of Christian love. Many clergymen also joined the abolitionists. But it seems that in the middle of the nineteenth century the Quakers and the United Brethren were the only religious bodies that regarded slave-holding and slave-dealing as ecclesiastical offences.2 The American Churches were justly said to be "the bulwarks of American slavery."

3

Nobody would suppose that this attitude towards slavery was due to religious zeal. It was one of those cases, only too frequent in the history of morals, in which religion is called in to lend its sanction to a social institution agreeable to the leaders of religious opinion. Many clergymen and missionaries were themselves slave-holders, the chapel funds largely rested on slave property, and the ministers naturally desired to be on friendly terms with the more important members of their respective congregations, who were commonly owners of slaves. Adam Smith observes that the resolution of the Quakers in Pennsylvania to set at liberty all their slaves, was due to the fact that the principal produce there was corn, the raising of which cannot afford the expense of slave cultivation; had the slaves "made any considerable part of their property, such a resolution could never have been agreed to."

96

To explain the establishment of colonial slavery, the difficulties in the way of its abolition, and the laws relating to it, it is necessary to consider not only economic conditions and the motive of self-interest, but, as a factor of equal importance, the want of sympathy for, or positive antipathy to, the coloured race. The negro was looked upon almost as an animal, according to some he was a being without a soul. Even when free he was a pariah, subject to special laws and regulations. In the Code of

[blocks in formation]

2

Louisiana it is said:" Free people of colour ought never to insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive themselves equal to the whites; but, on the contrary, they ought to yield to them on every occasion, and never speak or answer them but with respect, under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the offence."1 The Code Noir prohibited white men and women from marrying negroes, "à peine de punition et d'amende arbitraire"; and in the Revised Statutes of North Carolina we read:-"If any white man or woman, being free, shall intermarry with an Indian, negro, mustee or mulatto man or woman, or any person of mixed blood to the third generation, bond or free, he shall, by judgment of the county court, forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred dollars to the use of the county. In Mississippi a free negro or mulatto was legally punished with thirtynine lashes if he exercised the functions of a minister of the Gospel. Coloured men in the North were excluded from colleges and high schools, from theological seminaries and from respectable churches, as also from the town hall, the ballot, and the cemetery where white people were interred. The Anglo-Saxon aversion to the black race is thus expressed by an English writer:-"We hate slavery, but we hate the negroes still more.' Among the Spaniards and Portuguese racial antipathies were not so strong, and their slaves were consequently better treated.

4

[ocr errors]

"6

Thus we notice in the opinions regarding slavery throughout the same distinction as in the judgments on other matters of moral concern. A person is, as a rule, allowed to enslave or to keep as slaves only persons belonging to a different community or a different race from his own, or their descendants. To deprive anybody of his liberty is to inflict an injury on him, and is regarded as

1 Quoted by Stroud, op. cit. p. 157.
2 Code Noir, Edit donné au mois de

Mars 1724, art. 6, p. 286.

3 Revised Statutes of North Carolina, lxxi. 5, vol. i. 386 sq.

4 Alden and van Hoesen, op. cit. P. 771.

5 Parker, op. cit. v. 58. Goodell Slavery and Anti-Slavery, p. 200.

6 Seward, quoted by Newman, Abolition of Negro Slavery, p. 54

7 Couty, L'esclavage au Brésil, p. 8 sqq.

wrong whenever the act gives rise to sympathetic resentment, whereas nothing is thought of it where no sympathy is felt for its victim. Thus, whilst slavery grows up only under economic conditions favourable to slave labour, it is always limited by feelings of an altruistic character, and where these feelings are sufficiently broad and powerful it is not tolerated at all. The same factor also influences the condition of the slaves where slavery exists. We have seen that native slaves are better treated than foreign ones and slaves born in the household better than those who have been captured or purchased. The advancement of a nation, again, is frequently attended with greater severity in the treatment of the slaves, because, whilst the simplicity of early ages admits of little distinction between the master and his servants in their employments and manner of living, the introduction of wealth and luxury gradually destroys the equality. Besides, the number of slaves maintained in a wealthy nation makes them formidable both to their owners and to the State, hence it is necessary that they should be strictly watched and kept in the utmost subjection.1

The condition of slaves is in various respects influenced by the selfish considerations of their masters. Stuart Mill observes :-" When, as among the ancients, the slavemarket could only be supplied by captives either taken in war, or kidnapped from thinly scattered tribes on the remote confines of the human world, it was generally more profitable to keep up the number by breeding, which necessitates a far better treatment of them, and for this reason, joined with several others, the condition of slaves

"2

was probably much less bad in the ancient world, than in the colonies of modern nations.' Among the Bedouins, says Burckhardt, "the slaves are treated with kindness, and seldom beaten, as severity might induce them to run away." Superstition may also help to

"3

1 Millar, op. cit. p. 256 sqq. 2 Mill, Principles of Political Economy, i. 307. Cf. supra, p. 701.

3 Burckhardt, Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 103.

« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »