[figure description] Page 181.[end figure description]

IT is thought by some, the Captain was not serious
in thus advocating the cause of slavery. Be
that as it may, he omitted some serious arguments,
that naturally present themselves on that side on
which he reasoned: For instance, it strikes me at
first blush, that there can be no moral wrong in
catching a young African, and bringing him away
from his own happiness to pursue ours. For if there
were, is it to be supposed, that humane and just
persons, would promote and support the evil, by
purchasing such negro, or retaining him, and his
offspring, when purchased. For, on the principle
that the receiver is the thief, or, to speak more stricly,
a thief, the purchaser of the African takes the
guilt along with the possession; and, in the language
of the law, every act of retainer is a new trespass.
For the evil of the original act, if there be evil in it,
cannot be rendered pure by the filtration of purchase,
and retaining. So that the holder of the negro, in
the tenth transmission, is an aider, or abettor, of the
original act of taking; if I may use the word aider,
or abettor, in a case of trespass; where, by the

[figure description] Page 182.[end figure description]

definition of the law, all who any way concur in the act,
and further it, are principals. The holder of a negro
must, therefore, look back to that act which first
made him, or an ancestor, a slave; and if he cannot
justify this, he cannot justify the retaining him in servitude:...
What a consequence must this be! There is
no man that pretends to humanity, much less to religion,
would be safe in being the possessor of a slave.
The only way therefore to get rid of the difficulty is
to justify, ab origine, traffic in all such property.

That it is justifiable I have no doubt. Is there any
religious denomination, except the fanatical people
called Quakers, that have made it a term of communion
not to hold a slave. In admitting to church
privileges, I have never heard of the question asked,
Have you any negroes, and do you keep slaves? If
it was a matter of conscience, would not conscientious
persons themselves make it.

The assemblies or synods of the Presbyterian
church, or conventions of the Episcopal, in America,
have said nothing on this subject. Is an omission of
this kind reconcileable with the idea, that it is a natural
evil, or a moral wrong.

In the phrensy of the day, some weak minded
powers, in Europe, begin to consider what is called
the African trade as a moral wrong, and to provide
for a gradual abolition of it. If they will abolish it,
I approve of its being done gradually; because, numbers
being embarked in this trade, it must ruin them
all at once, to desist from it. On this principle, I
have always thought a defect in the criminal codes
of most nations, not giving licence to the perpetrators
of offences, to proceed, for a limited time, in larcenies,
burglaries, &c. until they get their hands out
of use to these pursuits, and in use to others. For
it must be greatly inconvenient to thieves and

[figure description] Page 183.[end figure description]

cutthroats, who have engaged in this way of life, and
run great risks in acquiring skill in their employment,
to be obliged all at once to withdraw their
hands, and lay aside picking locks, and apply themselves
to industry in other ways, for a livelihood.

The law of Pennsylvania on this principle, has
provided for the gradual abolition of the slavery of
negroes. For those who have got them could not
do without them, no more than a robber could do
without the money that he takes, being pressed by
some great necessity to make use of that expedient
to recruit his purse. All those therefore who have
been originally taken from the coast of Africa, and
deprived of liberty, or descended from such, and inheriting
slavery, when recorded agreeably to the act
in question, continue slaves, and for life, and their
offspring to a certain period. But were we to entramel
the case with political or moral doubts respecting
the original right of caption, and subjugation,
the difficulty would exist of reconciling it with natural
right to hold a slave for a moment, even whether
the law sanctioned it or not; in which case we should
find it necessary to go as far as the fanatics in religion,
and set our slaves free altogether.

It is from not duly attending to this circumstance,
that abstract reasoners talk of abolition; a doctrine
which, however absurd, is becoming the whim of the
day; and the phrensy seems to gain such ground,
that I would not wonder if they would next assert
that it is unlawful to use the servitude of horses, or
other beasts of burden, as having a natural right to
live in the fields, and be as free as mankind. The
best way to avoid extremes, is to check the principle;
I hold the right of absolute subjugation, of
whites, blacks, and browns of all nations, against
gradual abolition, or any abolition whatsoever. This

[figure description] Page 184.[end figure description]

being the only consistent principle, short of an absolute
emancipation, made instantly; for in no mean is
there reason, or a rest for conscience.

That it is of importance to settle the consciences
of sober minded persons in Pennsylvania, clergymen,
and members of the Presbyterian church especially,
who have negroes, must be well known from that
tenderness of conscience, for which such are remarkable.
Some, indeed, carry their ideas of the extent
of duties so far, as not to admit grace to meats, or
the formal worship of prayer, reading chapters, and
singing psalms, on the set occasions, on any consideration
whatsoever; what is more, would not shave
a beard, on the Sabbath day, for a cow. Now, should
they, by any means, come once to think of the wickedness
of enslaving men, there would be no getting
them to keep a negro. For those of this denomination;
and, indeed, most, or all others of the Christian,
hold, that the Africans, though of a sable race, is of
their own species; being descended from Adam.....
This being the case, a slight matter, the bare directing
their attention to the subject, would alarm pious
people, and lead them to the favourite maxim of the
gospel—“Do to others, as you would have others to
do to you.”

As opposed to the enfranchisement of negroes, generally,
and in Pennsylvania in particular, I have
been under apprehensions, that some of our young
lawyers in the courts, might plead the constitution
of the state, by which it is established that “all men
are born equally free and independent.” Now admitting
that a negro is a man, how shall any master
retain him as a slave? On a habeus corpus, he must
be set at liberty. At least I cannot conceive how the
judge could remand him to his drudgery. The constitution
is the law paramount, and framed by a

[figure description] Page 185.[end figure description]

convention of the people, recognizing the original right
of freedom in a negro, allowing him to be a man;
and carries us above the act of the legislature for the
gradual abolition, &c. which by implication seems to
suppose that negroes may be slaves:—

An implication inconsistent with the power exercised
by the law. For if negroes were slaves, and so
the property of those who claimed them, could the
legislature affect that property, without indemnification
to the masters?

I shall say no more on this head, lest I should furnish
hints to pettifoggers, who may make an ill use
of their information.

The fact is that this chapter, or something else
gave rise to a habeas corpus in the case of a negro;
and which came to trial in the supreme court of the
state. The argument occupied a whole week; but
it was determined that slavery by law did exist in
Pennsylvania; maugre the constitution; which did
not respect those in a state of slavery at the time of
forming the constitution; and who were not parties
to the compact; that it is a claim of property founded
in wrong; but tolerated until it can be consentient
with general safety, and the happiness of slave and
master to abolish it altogether.

Previous section

Next section