Part 11 (1/2)

But the _receivers_, notwithstanding the ample and disinterested evidence, that can be brought on the occasion, do not admit the description to be true. They say first, ”that if the slavery were such as has been now represented, no human being could possibly support it long.” Melancholy truth! the wretched Africans generally perish in their prime. Let them reflect upon the prodigious supplies that are _annually_ required, and their argument will be nothing less than a confession, that the slavery has been justly depicted.

They appeal next to every man's own reason, and desire him to think seriously, whether ”self-interest will not always restrain the master from acts of cruelty to the slave, and whether such accounts therefore, as the foregoing, do not contain within themselves, their own refutation.” We answer, ”No.” For if this restraining principle be as powerful as it is imagined, why does not the general conduct of men afford us a better picture? What is imprudence, or what is vice, but a departure from every man's own interest, and yet these are the characteristicks of more than half the world?--

--But, to come more closely to the present case, _self-interest_ will be found but a weak barrier against the sallies of _pa.s.sion_: particularly where it has been daily indulged in its greatest lat.i.tude, and there are no laws to restrain its calamitous effects. If the observation be true, that pa.s.sion is a short madness, then it is evident that self-interest, and every other consideration, must be lost, so long as it continues. We cannot have a stronger instance of this, than in a circ.u.mstance related in the second part of this Essay, ”that though the Africans have gone to war for the express purpose of procuring slaves, yet so great has been their resentment at the resistance they have frequently found, that their _pa.s.sion_ has entirely got the better of their _interest_, and they have murdered all without any discrimination, either of age or s.e.x.” Such may be presumed to be the case with the no less savage _receivers_. Impressed with the most haughty and tyrannical notions, easily provoked, accustomed to indulge their anger, and, above all, habituated to scenes of cruelty, and unawed by the fear of laws, they will hardly be found to be exempt from the common failings of human nature, and to spare an unlucky slave, at a time when men of cooler temper, and better regulated pa.s.sions, are so frequently blind to their own interest.

But if _pa.s.sion_ may be supposed to be generally more than a ballance for _interest_, how must the scale be turned in favour of the melancholy picture exhibited, when we reflect that _self-preservation_ additionally steps in, and demands the most _rigorous severity_. For when we consider that where there is _one_ master, there are _fifty_ slaves; that the latter have been all forcibly torn from their country, and are retained in their present situation by violence; that they are perpetually at war in their hearts with their oppressors, and are continually cheris.h.i.+ng the seeds of revenge; it is evident that even _avarice_ herself, however cool and deliberate, however free from pa.s.sion and caprice, must sacrifice her own sordid feelings, and adopt a system of tyranny and oppression, which it must be ruinous to pursue.

Thus then, if no picture had been drawn of the situation of slaves, and it had been left solely to every man's sober judgment to determine, what it might probably be, he would conclude, that if the situation were justly described, the page must be frequently stained with acts of uncommon cruelty.

It remains only to make a reply to an objection, that is usually advanced against particular instances of cruelty to slaves, as recorded by various writers. It is said that ”some of these are so inconceivably, and beyond all example inhuman, that their very excess above the common measure of cruelty shews them at once exaggerated and incredible.” But their credibility shall be estimated by a supposition. Let us suppose that the following instance had been recorded by a writer of the highest reputation, ”that the master of a s.h.i.+p, bound to the western colonies with slaves, on a presumption that many of them would die, selected an _hundred and thirty two_ of the most sickly, and ordered them to be thrown into the sea, to recover their value from the insurers, and, above all, that the fatal order was put into execution.” What would the reader have thought on the occasion? Would he have believed the fact? It would have surely staggered his faith; because he could never have heard that any _one_ man ever was, and could never have supposed that any _one_ man ever could be, guilty of the murder of _such a number_ of his fellow creatures. But when he is informed that such a fact as this came before a court[068] of justice in this very country; that it happened within the last five years; that hundreds can come forwards and say, that they heard the melancholy evidence with tears; what bounds is he to place to his belief? The great G.o.d, who looks down upon all his creatures with the same impartial eye, seems to have infatuated the parties concerned, that they might bring the horrid circ.u.mstance to light, that it might be recorded in the annals of a publick court, as an authentick specimen of the treatment which the unfortunate Africans undergo, and at the same time, as an argument to shew, that there is no species of cruelty, that is recorded to have been exercised upon these wretched people, so enormous that it may not _readily be believed_.

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 068: The action was brought by the owners against the underwriters, to recover the value of the _murdered_ slaves. It was tried at Guildhall.]

CHAP. VI.

If the treatment then, as before described, is confirmed by reason, and the great credit that is due to disinterested writers on the subject; if the unfortunate Africans are used, as if their flesh were stone, and their vitals bra.s.s; by what arguments do you _receivers_ defend your conduct?

You say that a great part of your savage treatment consists in punishment for real offences, and frequently for such offences, as all civilized nations have concurred in punis.h.i.+ng. The first charge that you exhibit against them is specifick, it is that of _theft_. But how much rather ought you _receivers_ to blush, who reduce them to such a situation! who reduce them to the dreadful alternative, that they must either _steal_ or _perish_! How much rather ought you _receivers_ to be considered as _robbers_ yourselves, who cause these unfortunate people to be _stolen_! And how much greater is your crime, who are _robbers of human liberty_!

The next charge which you exhibit against them, is general, it is that of _rebellion_; a crime of such a lat.i.tude, that you can impose it upon almost every action, and of such a nature, that you always annex to it the most excruciating pain. But what a contradiction is this to common sense! Have the wretched Africans formally resigned their freedom? Have you any other claim upon their obedience, than that of force? If then they are your subjects, you violate the laws of government, by making them unhappy. But if they are not your subjects, then, even though they should resist your proceedings, they are not _rebellious_.

But what do you say to that long catalogue of offences, which you punish, and of which no people but yourselves take cognizance at all?

You say that the wisdom of legislation has inserted it in the colonial laws, and that you punish by authority. But do you allude to that execrable code, that _authorises murder_? that tempts an unoffended person to kill the slave, that abhors and flies your service? that delegates a power, which no host of men, which not all the world, can possess?--

Or,--What do you say to that daily unmerited severity, which you consider only as common discipline? Here you say that the Africans are vicious, that they are all of them ill-disposed, that you must of necessity be severe. But can they be well-disposed to their oppressors?

In their own country they were just, generous, hospitable: qualities, which all the African historians allow them eminently to possess. If then they are vicious, they must have contracted many of their vices from yourselves; and as to their own native vices, if any have been imported with them, are they not amiable, when compared with yours?

Thus then do the excuses, which have been hitherto made by the _receivers_, force a relation of such circ.u.mstances, as makes their conduct totally inexcusable, and, instead of diminis.h.i.+ng at all, highly aggravates their guilt.

CHAP. VII.

We come now to that other system of reasoning, which is always applied, when the former is confuted; ”that the Africans are an inferiour link of the chain of nature, and are made for slavery.”

This a.s.sertion is proved by two arguments; the first of which was advanced also by the ancients, and is drawn from the _inferiority of their capacities_.

Let us allow then for a moment, that they appear to have no parts, that they appear to be void of understanding. And is this wonderful, when, you _receivers_ depress their senses by hunger? Is this wonderful, when by incessant labour, the continual application of the lash, and the most inhuman treatment that imagination can devise, you overwhelm their genius, and hinder it from breaking forth?--No,--You confound their abilities by the severity of their servitude: for as a spark of fire, if crushed by too great a weight of inc.u.mbent fuel, cannot be blown into a flame, but suddenly expires, so the human mind, if depressed by rigorous servitude, cannot be excited to a display of those faculties, which might otherwise have shone with the brightest l.u.s.tre.