Part 8 (1/2)
WORDSWORTH.
Political economists found their systems on those broad and general principles, the application of which has been proved by reason and experience to produce the greatest possible happiness to the greatest number of people. All writers of this cla.s.s, I believe without exception, prefer free labor to slave labor.
Indeed a very brief glance will show that slavery is inconsistent with _economy_, whether domestic or political.
The slave is bought, sometimes at a very high price; in free labor there is no such investment of capital. When the slave is ill, a physician must be paid by the owner; the free laborer defrays his own expenses.
The children of the slave must be supported by his master; the free man maintains his own. The slave is to be taken care of in his old age, which his previous habits render peculiarly helpless; the free laborer is hired when he is wanted, and then returns to his home. The slave does not care how slowly or carelessly he works; it is the free man's interest to do his business well and quickly. The slave is indifferent how many tools he spoils; the free man has a motive to be careful. The slave's clothing is indeed very cheap, but it is of no consequence to him how fast it is destroyed--his master _must_ keep him covered, and that is all he is likely to do; the hired laborer pays more for his garments, but makes them last three times as long. The free man will be honest for reputation's sake; but reputation will make the slave none the richer, nor invest him with any of the privileges of a human being--while his poverty and sense of wrong both urge him to steal from his master. A salary must be paid to an overseer to compel the slave to work; the free man is impelled by the desire of increasing the comforts of himself and family. Two hired laborers will perform as much work as three slaves; by some it is supposed to be a more correct estimate that slaves perform only _half_ as much labor as the same number of free laborers. Finally, _where_ slaves are employed, manual industry is a degradation to white people, and indolence becomes the prevailing characteristic.
Slave-owners have indeed frequently shown great adroitness in defending this bad system; but, with few exceptions, they base their arguments upon the necessity of continuing slavery because it is already begun.
Many of them have openly acknowledged that it was highly injurious to the prosperity of the State.
The Hon. Henry Clay, in his address before the Colonization Society of Kentucky, has given a view of the causes affecting, and likely to affect, slavery in this country, which is very remarkable for its completeness, its distinctness, and its brevity. The following sentences are quoted from this address: ”As a mere laborer, the slave feels that he toils for his master, and not for himself; that the laws do not recognise his capacity to acquire and hold property, which depends altogether upon the pleasure of his proprietor, and that all the fruits of his exertions are reaped by others. He knows that, whether sick or well, in times of scarcity or abundance, his master is bound to provide for him by the all-powerful influence of self-interest. He is generally, therefore, indifferent to the adverse or prosperous fortunes of his master, being contented if he can escape his displeasure or chastis.e.m.e.nt, by a careless and slovenly performance of his duties.
”This is the state of the relation between master and slave, prescribed by the law of its nature, and founded in the reason of things. There are undoubtedly many exceptions, in which the slave dedicates himself to his master with a zealous and generous devotion, and the master to the slave with a parental and affectionate attachment. But it is my purpose to speak of the _general_ state of this unfortunate relation.
”That labor is best, in which the laborer knows that he will derive the profits of his industry, that his employment depends upon his diligence, and his reward upon this a.s.siduity. He then has every motive to excite him to exertion, and to animate him in perseverance. He knows that if he is treated badly, he can exchange his employer for one who will better estimate his service; and that whatever he earns is _his_, to be distributed by himself as he pleases, among his wife and children, and friends, or enjoyed by himself. In a word, he feels that he is a free agent, with rights, and privileges, and sensibilities.
”Wherever the option exists to employ, at an equal hire, free or slave labor, the former will be decidedly preferred, for the reasons already a.s.signed. It is more capable, more diligent, more faithful, and in every respect more worthy of confidence.
”It is believed that nowhere in the _farming_ portion of the United States would slave labor be generally employed, if the proprietor were not tempted to raise slaves by the high price of the Southern market, which keeps it up in his own.”
Speaking of an attempt more than thirty-five years ago, to adopt gradual emanc.i.p.ation in Kentucky, Mr. Clay says: ”We were overpowered by numbers, and submitted to the decision of the majority, with the grace which the minority, in a republic, should ever yield to such a decision.
I have nevertheless never ceased, and never shall cease, to regret a decision, the effects of which have been, to place us in the rear of our neighbors, who are exempt from slavery, in the state of agriculture, the progress of manufactures, the advance of improvement, and the general prosperity of society.”
Mr. Appleton, in his reply to Mr. McDuffie in the winter of 1832,--a speech distinguished for its good temper and sound practical sense,--says: ”I do not think the gentleman from South Carolina has overrated the money price of New-England labor at fifty cents; but most of the labor is performed by the _owners of the soil_. It is great industry alone, which makes New-England prosperous. The circ.u.mstance that with this cheap slave labor, the South is complaining of suffering, while the North is content and prosperous with dear free labor, is a striking fact and deserves a careful and thorough examination. The experience of all ages and nations proves that high wages are the most powerful stimulus to exertion, and the best means of attaching the people to the inst.i.tutions under which they live. It is apparent that this political effect upon the character of society cannot have any action upon slaves. Having no choice or volition, there is nothing for stimulus to act upon; they are in fact no part of society. So that, in the language of political economy, they are, like machinery, merely capital; and the productions of their labor consists wholly of profits of capital. But it is not perceived how the tariff can lessen the value of the productions of their labor, in comparison with that of the other States. New-York and Virginia both produce wheat; New-York with dear labor is content, and Virginia with cheap labor is dissatisfied.
”What is the _occupation_ of the white population of the planting States? I am at a loss to know how this population is employed. We hear of no products of these States, but those produced by slave labor. It is clear the white population cannot be employed in raising cotton or tobacco, because in doing so they can earn but twelve and a half cents per day, since the same quant.i.ty of labor performed by a slave is worth no more. I am told also that the wages of overseers, mechanics, &c. are higher than the white labor of the North; and it is well known that many mechanics go from the North to the South, to get employment during the winter. These facts suggest the inquiry whether this cheap slave labor does not paralyze the industry of the whites? Whether _idleness_ is not the greatest of their evils?”
During the famous debate in the Virginia Legislature, in the winter of 1832, Mr. Brodnax made the following remark: ”That slavery in Virginia is an evil, and a transcendent evil, it would be more than idle for any human being to doubt or deny. It is a mildew which has blighted every region it has touched, from the creation of the world. Ill.u.s.trations from the history of other countries and other times might be instructive and profitable, had we the time to review them; but we have evidence tending to the same conviction nearer at hand and accessible to daily observation, in the short histories of the different States of this great confederacy, which are impressive in their admonitions and conclusive in their character.”
During the same session, Mr. Faulkner of Virginia said: ”Sir, I am gratified to perceive that no gentleman has yet risen in this hall, the avowed _advocate_ of slavery. The day has gone by, when such a voice could be listened to with patience, or even forbearance. I even regret, sir, that we should find one amongst us, who enters the lists as its _apologist_, except on the ground of uncontrolable necessity. If there be one, who concurs with the gentleman from Brunswick (Mr. Gholson) in the harmless character of this inst.i.tution, let me request him to compare the condition of the slaveholding portion of this Commonwealth--barren, desolate, and seared as it were by the avenging hand of Heaven,--with the descriptions which we have of this same country from those who first broke its virgin soil. To what is this change ascribable? Alone to the withering and blasting effects of slavery. If this does not satisfy him, let me request him to extend his travels to the Northern States of this Union,--and beg him to contrast the happiness and contentment which prevails throughout the country--the busy and cheerful sounds of industry--the rapid and swelling growth of their population--their means and inst.i.tutions of education--their skill and proficiency in the useful arts--their enterprise and public spirit--the monuments of their commercial and manufacturing industry;--and, above all, their devoted attachment to the government from which they derive their protection, with the division, discontent, indolence, and poverty of the Southern country. To what, sir, is all this ascribable? To that vice in the organization of society, by which one half of its inhabitants are arrayed in interest and feeling against the other half--to that unfortunate state of society in which freemen regard labor as disgraceful--and slaves shrink from it as a burden tyranically imposed upon them--to that condition of things, in which half a million of your population can feel no sympathy with the society in the prosperity of which they are forbidden to partic.i.p.ate, and no attachment to a government at whose hands they receive nothing but injustice.
”If this should not be sufficient, and the curious and incredulous inquirer should suggest that the contrast which has been adverted to, and is so manifest, might be traced to a difference of climate, or other causes distinct from slavery itself, permit me to refer him to the two States of Kentucky and Ohio. No difference of soil--no diversity of climate--no diversity in the original settlement of those two States, can account for the remarkable disproportion in their national advancement. Separated by a river alone, they seem to have been purposely and providentially designed to exhibit in their future histories the difference, which necessarily results from a country free from, and a country afflicted with, the curse of slavery. The same may be said of the two States of Missouri and Illinois.
”Slavery, it is admitted, is an evil--it is an inst.i.tution which presses heavily against the best interests of the State. It banishes free white labor--it exterminates the mechanic--the artisan--the manufacturer. It deprives them of occupation. It deprives them of bread. It converts the energy of a community into indolence--its power into imbecility--its efficiency into weakness. Sir, being thus injurious, have we not a right to demand its extermination! Shall society suffer, that the slaveholder may continue to gather his _vigintial crop_ of human flesh? What is his mere pecuniary claim, compared with the great interests of the common weal? Must the country languish and die, that the slaveholder may flourish? Shall all interest be subservient to one?--all rights subordinate to those of the slaveholder? Has not the mechanic--have not the middle cla.s.ses their rights?--rights incompatible with the existence of slavery?”
Sutcliff, in his Travels in North America, says: ”A person not conversant with these things would naturally think that where families employ a number of slaves, every thing about their houses, gardens, and plantations, would be kept in the best order. But the reverse of this is generally the case. I was sometimes tempted to think that the more slaves there were employed, the more disorder appeared. I am persuaded that one or two hired servants, in a well-regulated family, would preserve more neatness, order, and comfort, than treble the number of slaves.
”There is a very striking contrast between the appearance of the horses or teams in Pennsylvania, and those in the Southern States, where slaves are kept. In Pennsylvania we meet with great numbers of wagons, drawn by four or more fine fat horses, the carriages firm and well made, and covered with stout good linen, bleached almost white; and it is not uncommon to see ten or fifteen together, travelling cheerfully along the road, the driver riding on one of his horses. Many of these come more than three hundred miles to Philadelphia, from the Ohio, Pittsburg, and other places; and I have been told by a respectable friend, a native of Philadelphia, that more than one thousand covered carriages frequently come to Philadelphia market.”
”The appearance of things in the slave States is quite the reverse of this. We sometimes meet a ragged black boy or girl driving a team, consisting of a lean cow or a mule, sometimes a lean bull, or an ox and a mule; and I have seen a mule, a bull, and a cow, each miserable in its appearance, composing one team, with a half-naked black slave or two, riding or driving, as occasion suited. The carriage or wagon, if it may be called such, appeared in as wretched a condition as the team and its driver. Sometimes a couple of horses, mules, or cows, &c., would be dragging a hogshead of tobacco, with a pivot, or axle, driven into each end of the hogshead, and something like a shaft attached, by which it was drawn, or rolled along the road. I have seen two oxen and two slaves pretty fully employed in getting along a single hogshead; and some of these come from a great distance inland.”
The inhabitants of free States are often told that they cannot argue fairly upon the subject of slavery because they know nothing about its actual operation; and any expression of their opinions and feelings with regard to the system, is attributed to ignorant enthusiasm, fanatical benevolence, or a wicked intention to do mischief.
But Mr. Clay, Mr. Brodnax, and Mr. Faulkner, belong to slaveholding States; and the two former, if I mistake not, are slave-owners. _They_ surely are qualified to judge of the system; and I might fill ten pages with other quotations from southern writers and speakers, who acknowledge that slavery is a great evil. There are zealous partisans indeed, who defend the system strenuously, and some of them very eloquently. Thus, Mr. Hayne, in his reply to Mr. Webster, denied that the south suffered in consequence of _slavery_; he maintained that the slaveholding States were prosperous, and the princ.i.p.al cause of all the prosperity in the Union. He laughed at the idea of any danger, however distant, from an overgrown slave population, and supported the position by the fact that slaves had always been kept in entire subjection in the British West Indies, where the white population is less than ten per cent. of the whole. But the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina did not mention that the _peace_ establishment of the British West Indies costs England _two million pounds annually_! Yet such is the fact. This system is so closely entwined with the apparent interests and convenience of individuals, that it will never want for able defenders, so long as it exists. But I believe I do not misrepresent the truth, when I say the prevailing opinion at the South is, that it would have been much better for those States, and for the country in general, if slavery had never been introduced.
Miss Martineau, in her most admirable little book on Demerara, says: ”Labor is the product of mind as much as of body; and to secure that product, we must sway the mind by the natural means--by motives.
Laboring against self-interest is what n.o.body ought to expect of white men--much less of slaves. Of course every man, woman and child, would rather play for nothing than work for nothing.
”It is the mind, which gives sight to the eye, and hearing to the ear, and strength to the limbs; and the mind cannot be purchased. Where a man is allowed the possession of himself, the purchaser of his labor is benefitted by the vigor of his mind through the service of his limbs: where man is made the possession of another, the possessor loses at once and for ever all that is most valuable in that for which he has paid the price of crime. He becomes the owner of that which only differs from an idiot in being less easily drilled into habits, and more capable of effectual revenge.