SLAVERY

From Agepedia

Jump to: navigation , search

SLAVERY. The history of mankind shows that the empire of force gives way but slowly to the empire of reason. It is one of the most interesting and useful labors of the historian, though not the most flattering to human pride, to trace the steps by which this change takes place, as exemplified, for instance, in the history of political institutions, the relation of the wife to the husband,* and of the servant to the master. At present, we shall confine ourselves to the institution of domestic slavery. This originates in the power of the strong over the weak. Man, in the infancy of society, uses his physical power according to his own pleasure. In the case of his wife and children, natural affection restrains him, in a great measure, from the abuse of his power. But there is another class of dependants, his conduct towards whom is not restrained by such feelingshis slaves. Slaves were probably at first captives. It being considered that the victor had a right over the life of the vanquished, the latter was looked upon as altogether at the disposal of the former, who, if he chose to spare him, might subject him to any restraint that he saw fit. The principle on which slavery was thus made to rest, was only adapted to the rudest condition of society, and is* In the article Marriage, it is stated that, in ai most all original marriage ceremonies, the symbolic expression of buying and selling is to be founa. wholly inconsistent with the present state of morals and religion. We carry on wars, indeed, for the attainment of specific objects, and, as far as the destruction of human life is required for the attainment of those objects, we regard it as a necessary evil; but we do not consider that either individuals or governments have any right to dispose of the lives of the vanquished; nor are even criminals allowed to be made slaves in the full sense of the word. Philosophy allows of no obligation from one man to another without an equivalent; and the idea of making a man a slave, that is, of subjecting all that lie has and is to the disposal of a master, who is not bound, on his part, to render any thing in return, is at war with the first principles of bodies politic. Slavery can never be a legal relation. It rests entirely on force. The slave, being treated as property, and not allowed legal rights, cannot be under legal obligations. Slavery is, also, inconsistent with the moral nature of man. Each man has an individual worth, significance and responsibility, is bound to the work of selfimprovement, and to labor in a sphere for which his capacity is adapted. To give up his individual liberty, is to disqualify himself for fulfilling the great objects of his being. Hence political societies, which have made a considerable degree of advancement, do not allow any one to resign his liberty, any more than his life, to the pleasure of another. In fact, the great object of political institutions in civilized nations, is to enable man to fulfil, most perfectly, the ends of his individual being. Christianity, moreover, which enjoins us, while we remain in this world, to regulate our conduct with reference to a better, lays down the doctrine of brotherhood and mutual love, of " doing as we would be done by," as one of its fundamental maxims, which is wholly opposed to the idea of one man's becom* ing the property of another. These two principles of mutual obligation, and the worth of the individual, were beyond the comprehension of the states of antiquity, but are now at the basis of morals, politics and religion. In the most cultivated states of antiquity, the individual, as such, was little regarded. He was considered only as a citizen of a body politic. In fact, whilst we found the whole idea of the state on the prior idea of the individual, the state with them was the primitive idea, from which the individual received his significance and worth, for they did not consider the individual as a being placed on earth for the purpose of selfimprovement, to promote which political bocieties are formed. To foreigners they gave the names of barbarians, enemies, slaves. Aristotle, one of the most powerful minds of antiquity, says in his politics, "Withbarbarians,the family consists of male and female slaves; but to the Greeks belongs dominion over the barbarians, because the former have the understanding requisite to rule, the latter the body only to obey." He calls the slave a living instrument, as the instrument is an inanimate slave. Yet he adds, " For the slave, considered simply as such, no friendship can be entertained ; but it may be felt for him, as he is a man." We perceive here the nobleness of his nature struggling with the limited ideas of his age. We find several traces of a similar feeling among men of elevated character. Plutarch, for instance (in his life of Numa), expresses his belief in an early golden age, when there were neither masters nor slaves. Notwithstanding the injustice of the state of slavery, yet, when we come to the question of its abolition, the subject is often attended with numerous difficulties, of which the dangers that may accrue from the removal of restraint from men wholly unaccustomed to selfcontrol, are among the chief; but, on the other hand, cupidity and prejudice often unnecessarily magnify the real difficulties. The abolition of slavery, and its kindred institution, vilienage, and the improvement in the condition of women, are among the most important services which Western Europe has rendered to the world. The abolition of slavery in Europe was the consequence, and, in its turn, the cause, of its civilization; for slavery is the greatest bar to the progress of society. Look at Asia, so far, at one time, in advance of Europe, and now so far behind it, struggling under the burden of slavery. It is a melancholy reflection that Europe reestablished in her colonies the hateful institution which she had overthrown at home, thereby furnishing another proof that man is capable of committing the most appalling inconsistencies, provided he finds his interest in so doing, and is at a distance from the voice of reproof We should add, that the vilienage which still exists in some parts of Europe, ie still more absurd than slavery, because il attempts to treat the human individual aa a person and as a thing at the same time, a contradiction which appears, indeed, to some extent in all laws respecting slaves, because the rights of man cannot be altogether overlooked. Slavery having once originated, many circumstances favored its continuance. From the heads of families who, in the infancy of society in Asia, regarded their domestic dependants in the light of property, as much as they did their flocks, originated the chiefs of the nomadic tribes, who became conquerors or priests; and from these two classes all the political institutions in Asia seem to have sprung. The conquerors established absolute despotisms, in which the persons and property of the subjects were completely at the disposal of the ruler. This is political slavery, i. e. the total absence of legal relations (i. e. mutual obligation) between sovereign and subject. Rules may, indeed, sometimes be laid down by the sovereign for the regulation of these relations; but the continuance of them depends entirely on his pleasure.* This state of political slavery furnished a great support to domestic slavery by the analogy between the rule of a king and that of a head of a family. The priests secured their power by the establishment of castes, by which society was made to form a sort of pyramid, at the top of which the priests strove to place themselves. The Greeks and Romans, by freeing themselves from the debasing institution of castes, made a great advance in civilization ; but they could not elevate themselves to the idea of liberty in the domestic connexions, which lies at the basis of the political institutions of all modern civilized nations, so that the social institutions of our times are founded upon principles essentially differing from those of the ancientsa circumstance which is often overlooked. The circumscribed views of the ancients, respecting the rights and relations of men, was the reason why, in spite of their progress in civilization, they continued to treat the prisoner of war as a slave. Had they considered their enemies as equals, and not as mere barbarians, this custom would* Here we may be allowed a remark respecting the difference of absolute governments in Europe and Asia. Even the supporters of the divine right of king's in Europe, who maintain that a monarch is answerable to none but God; nevertheless admit that he is bound to rule conscientiously, and to administer justice : whilst the despotism of Asia rests simply on the idea of power, without the supposition of a. higher origin. Hence the vizier who murders the reigning monarch and his family, and usurps the government, is Jooked upon as the lawful master of the lives of his subjects^ as much as his predecessor was, while he possesses power to enforce his will. probably have been sooner abolished. If Christian nations, at later periods, also reduced prisoners of war, in some cases, to slavery,as the Spaniards did with the Indians in America,it was owing to the contempt which they felt for them as heathens. This made the Spaniards look upon the Indians much in the same light as the Romans did upon barbarians. Fanaticism varnished over this measure, and the disciples of the religion of love and truth pretended that the savages could be more easily converted to Christianity in slavery than in freeclom.f It was this idea, also, which, as Montesquieu states, induced his most Christian majesty, Louis XIII, to sign a law, declaring the negroes m his colonies slaves. The true motive, however, in both cases, undoubtedly was cupidity; and this motive, in other instan ces, is proclaimed without disguise.J The Europeans and their descendants, in fact, have been preeminent for cupidity. Whether their greater civilization has made them more sensible of the value of money, or their superior intellectual cultivation has furnished them with more means of satisfying the universal thirst for acquisition, or whether they are naturally more prone than other races to avarice and the vices which flow from it, they are notorious for the violation of every moral and religious principle, and the commission of the most enormous inconsistencies and cruelties in the gratification of this passion. History can show no instance of such prolonged and coldblooded cruelty as is presented in the nefarious slavetrade of the Europeans and their descendants. A historical account of the various forms of slavery in different nations, and particularly a sketch of the laws respecting slavery that have existed,f Arguments readily accommodate themselves to circumstances. At that time, men were to be enslaved for the good of their souls 5 and now, the security of the masters, as well as the happiness of the slaves themselves, require that they should be kept from all means of moral and intellectual improvement.i By an act passed in Virginia in the year 1679, it was, for the better encouragement of soldiers, declared, that what Indian prisoners should be taken in a war in which the colony was then engaged, should be free purchase to the soldiers taking them. In 1G82, it was declared, that all servants brought into this country (Virginia), by sea or land, not being Christians, whether Ne groes, Moors, Mulattoes or Indians (except Turks and Moors in amity with Great Britain), and all Indians which should thereafter be sold by neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us, as slaves, should be slaves to all intents and pur poses. Per judge Tucker, in the case of Hudg ins vs. Wright. {Hemmig and Murtford's Reports, 139.) and still exist, among the more civilized nations, would be highly interesting, but would far exceed our limits. The effects of slavery have always been most injurious to the nations which have permitted it. It is so directly opposed to the nature of man (which can as little endure absolute power as absolute subjection, without greatly degenerating), that, it has always had a palsying influence on the industry and morality both of the masters and the slaves. The human mind cannot thrive without freedom. Among the evils which have originated from slavery are, the use of eunuchs, the shows of gladiators, the encouragement of the grossest sensuality and indolence, and an unparalleled disregard of human life, the corrupt character of the freedmen, and the outrages of the slave when he breaks his chainsfrom the horrible war in Italy, 70 B. C. (see Spartacus), down to the atrocities of the Haytian revolution, and the bloody insurrections on the island of Earbadoes in 1816, and several more recent ones. These are a few of the consequences of slavery, more or less conspicuous wherever it has existed, but particularly so in ancient Rome, of whose ruin slavery was the chief and most direct cause.* In Athens, slaves were treated with considerable mildness; in Sparta and Rome, with harshness. By the Roman law, if a master was killed, all the slaves who were under the same roof, or near enough to be able to hear his cry, were to be put to death. The right of the master over the life of the slave was not abolished till the time of the Antonines, in the second century A. D. If slaves were ill treated by a third person, the Aquilian law only allowed the owner of the slave to demand indemnification for the damage. In Athens, however, the perpetrator was punished sometimes even with death. Modern legislation has, in many cases, sought to protect slaves a'gainst abuses on the part of their masters, and to afford them facilities for manumission, but, as yet, with very imperfect success; nor can legislation ever protect effectually a being who is the property of another. Many legal investigations, of late years, respecting the treatment of slaves, have brought to light atrocities which most persons would have thought impossible in this age, and which would make many believe that the superiority of our race consists less in moral advancement* The late debates in the legislature of Virginia, after the insurrection in that state, in 1831, contain many highly interesting remarks on this subject. than in refinement of manners. Examine, for instance, the facts disclosed in the proceedings instituted against Picton, the British governor of Trinidad. The laws of the Mohammedans respecting slaves, in their general, spirit, and compared to the laws respecting free persons, are more humane than those enacted by Christians ; one cause of which may be, that a part of their slaves are of the same color with themselves, whilst the slaves of Christian nations are all of a different color from their masters; and the color itself, from association, has become an object of disgust, peculiarly to the descendants of the English race in the U. States. The laws respecting slaves are, generally speaking, among Christians, milder in monarchical governments than in the slaveholding republics of the U. States. Thus manumission, under the Spanish and English laws, is much easier than under those of this Union. Some of the former governments allow the slave to accumulate property, by which he may eventually purchase his freedom. This is the case in the Spanish colonies; but no such right is recognised by law in the U. States, One reason of this difference undoubtedly is, that in monarchical states the government is distinct both from the master and the slave, whilst in republics like ours the masters (the interested party) are themselves the legislators, and, of course, are guided principally by their interest, in the enactment of laws: another reason is, that republics like ours, in which the executive department is intrusted with comparatively little power, must be more attentive to provide for their safety, by severe laws, than monarchical states, in which the executive has a strong military force at its disposal. Thus, whilst several English laws encourage the instruction of slaves in reading, arithmetic, and the elementary truths of religion, several slaveholding states of the Union prohibit the teaching them reading and writing, under severe penalties. Yet North America and England have done most to ameliorate the condition of this class of persons; and we believe it is generally admitted that the slave is no where better treated than in the slaveholding states of this Union. The evil of slavery was entailed on the U. States by the measures of the mother country, during the period of colonial dependence. The colonies made repeated efforts to prevent the importation of slaves into this country, but could not obtain the consent of the English government.See Walsh's Appeal frorA the Jndg ject is fully discussed. In aJlusion to the fact just stated, Mr. Jefferson, in his draft of the Declaration of Independence, said, " He (the king of England) has waged civil war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the persons of a distant people, who never offended him; captivating, and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain : determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce ; and, that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off form er crimes, committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." (See the facsimile of this draft in Jefferson's Correspondence.) But this passage was struck out when the Declaration of Independence was adopted ; and the constitution of the U. States acknowledges slavery, by the provision that " Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free personsincluding those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxedthree fifths of all other persons." Previous to the admission of Missouri into the Union, in 1820, a warm contest took place in congress, respecting the permission of slavery in the new state. It was finally admitted without any restrictions in regard to this point. But, though the U. States have been unable to relieve themselves from the burden of slavery, they were the first to prohibit the prosecution of the slavetrade. In the year 1794, it was enacted that no person in the U. States should fit out any vessel there, for the purpose of carrying on any traffic in slaves to any foreign country, or for procuring from any foreign country the inhabitants thereof, to be disposed of as slaves. In 1800, it was envoi,, xi. 37 erty in any vessel employed in transporting slaves from one foreign country to another, or to serve on board any vessel so employed* Any of the commissioned vessels of the U. States were authorized to seize and take any vessel employed in the slavetrade, to be proceeded against in any of the circuit or district courts, and to be condemned for the use of the officers and crew of the vessel making the capture. In 1807, it was enacted, that after the first of January, 1808, it should not be lawful to bring into the U. States, or the territories thereof, from any foreign place, any negro, mulatto, or person of color, with intent to hold or sell him as a slave ; and heavy penalties are imposed on the violators of these acts, and others of similar import. In 1820, it was enacted, that if any citizen of the U. States, belonging to the company of any foreign vessel engaged in the slavetrade, or any person whatever, belonging to the company of any vessel, owned in whole or in part by, or navigated for, any citizen of the U. States, should land on any foreign shore, to seize any negro, or mulatto, not held to service by the laws of either of the states or territories of the U. States, with intent to make him a slave, or should decoy or forcibly cany off such negro, or mulatto, or receive him on board any such vessel, with the intent aforesaid, he should be adjudged a pirate, and, on conviction, should suffer death. The same penalty was extended to those of the ship's company who should aid in confining such negro, or mulatto, on board of such vessel, or transfer him, on the sea or tidewater, to any other ship or vessel, or land him, with intent to sell, or having previously sold him.A traffic in negroes was carried on from the beginning of the sixteenth century, by the Portuguese, and, after them, by all the Christian colonial powers, and has been continued to the latest times, in consequence of the colonial system of the European powers, and the idea that the colonial produce cannot be raised without slaves, with an atrocity at which nature revolts, and which could never have reached the height, that it did, it the color of the slave had not given rise to t^e idea of his being by "."nature a degraded Wing.' In the year 1503, slaves were carried liom the Portuguese possessions in Africa *o the Spanish colonies in America.* It ha*)*It is stated that, in 1434, a Portuguese captain, named Alonzo Gonzales, landed in Guinea, an"$ been generally stated, that Bartolomeo de las Casas proposed to cardinal Ximenes the regular importation of negroes, from charity towards the feeble aborigines of South America, who were treated by the Spaniards as mere beasts of burthen. But this story has been contradicted by the abbe Gregoire, in his Apologie de B. de las Casas, in the Memoires of the French institute; also by the writer of the article Casas, in the Biographie Universelle, after an examination of all the Spanish and Portuguese historians of that period. This charge, he says, rests solely on the authority of Herrera, an elegant but inaccurate author. The Spanish government, the French under Louis XIII, and the English under queen Elizabeth, formally permitted this traffic, because the negroes were represented as delivered by it from misery or death. Yet Elizabeth declared herself against the violences used. In Spain, the slavetrade was first regularly established in 1517. Charles V granted to Lebresa, his favorite, the exclusive privilege of importing annually 4000 slaves, which the latter sold to the Genoese. These received the black slaves from the Portuguese, in whose hands, properly speaking, the traffic was. Slaves soon came to be introduced much more extensively into the plantation colonies than into the mining colonies. And thus the slavery of the negroes became, unhappily, apart of a political system. It also became a great source of profit to the petty African despots, and gave rise to interminable wars and outrages, which struck at the root of all social ties. The powerful became chiefly occupied with forcing their brethren to the market of Christian Europeans, to barter them for rum and toys. When, therefore, in consequence of the French revolution, the demand for this human merchandise had lessened, the king of Dahomy, on the Slave Coast, sent, in 1796, an embassy, consisting of his brother and son, to Lisbon, for the purpose of reviving this traffic, and concluding a treaty with Portugal against the other European powers. The most important markets for slaves in Africa were Bonny and Calabar, on the coast of Guinea; and they still remain among the principal. Here the slaves who came from the interior were and are exchanged for rum, brandy, toys, iron, salt, &c.; and the number of these beings who have been thus torn carried away some colored lads, whom he sold advantageously to Moorish families settled in the soutli of Spain. Six years after, he committed a similar robbery, and many merchants imitated the practice, and built a fort to protect the traffic. from their country during the last three centuries, is calculated to amount to above forty millions. It is estimated that at least from 15 to 20 per cent, die on the passage. The sufferings of the slaves during the passage are horrible; and the only restraint, generally speaking, on the cruelty of the traders, is such as arises from motives of interest ; so that, when it interferes with humanity (for instance, if the slave labors under an infectious disease), the latter is entirely overlooked, and murder is not unfrequently committed. Since the prohibition of the slavetrade by so many nations, and the great efforts which have been made for the capture of the slaveships, though the extent of the trade may be diminished, yet the cruelty with which it is carried on is often increased, because the slavetrader, being obliged to guard against capture by the menofwar who are watching his movements, and, altogether, to carry on his traffic by stealth, subjects the slaves to many restraints for the purposes of concealment, which he did not find necessaiy while the slavetrade was legal. Notwithstanding all that has been done for its abolition, a contraband trade in slaves is still carried on to a frightful extent, and they are stilj imported into Cuba and many other West India islands, frequently, as is asserted, by the connivance of the public authorities. As a specimen of the cruelties committed in this nefarious trade, we will give the account of a recent traveller, whose statements are corroborated by many other authorities.**Mr. R. Walsh, in his Notices of Brazil in 1828 and 1829 (London, 1830, and Boston, 1832), says, in describing a slaveship, examined by the English manofwar in which he returned from Brazil, in May, 1829, " She had taken in, on the coast of Africa, 336 males and 226 females, making in all 562, and had been out seventeen days, during which she had thrown overboard fiftyfive. The slaves were all enclosed under grated hatchways, between decks. The space was so low, that they sat between each other's legs, and stowed so close together, that there was no possibility of their lying down, or at all changing their position, by night or day. As they belonged to, and were shipped on account of, different individuals, they were all branded, like sheep, with the owners' marks, of different forms. These were impressed under their breasts, or on their arms, and, as the mate informed me, with perfect indifference, u quehnados peloferro quento burnt with the redhot iron." Over the hatchway stood a ferocious looking fellow, with a scourge of many twisted thongs in his hand, who was, the slavedriver of the ship; and whenever he heard the slightest noise below, he shook it over them, and seemed eager to exercise it. As soon as the poor creatures saw us looking1 down at them The first persons who liberated their slaves, and labored to effect the abolition of the slavetrade, were some Quakers in England and North America, particularly since 1727. In 1751, the Quakers entirely abolished it among themselves. Granville Sharp, in 1772, effected the acknowledgment, by the English courts, of the principle that the slave who lands in England becomes free. The principle had been earlier adopted in France. In 1783, a petition was addressed to parliament for the abolition of the trade, which Wilberforce (q. v.) eloquently supported. He labored, at the same time, to aid the cause by his pen. But the soul of all the efforts for the abolition of the slavetrade, was Thomas Clarkson. From early youth, he devoted his whole time and fortune to this object; exposed himself to hatred and outrage, even at the haz their dark and melancholy visages brightened up. They perceived something of sympathy and kindness in our looks, which they had not been accustomed to, and feeling, instinctively, that we were friends, they immediately began to shout and clap their hands. One or two had picked up a few Portuguese words, and cried out, " Viva! viva ! " The women were particularly excited. They all held up their arms ; and when we bent down and shook hands with them, they could not contain their delight j they endeavored to scramble upon their knees, stretching up to kiss our hands; and we understood that they knew we had come to liberate them. Some, however, hung down their heads in apparently hopeless dejection; some were greatly emaciated, and some, particularly children, seemed dying. But the circumstance which struck us most forcibly, was, how it was possible for such a number of human beings to exist, packed up and wredged together as tight as they could cram, in low cells, three feet high, the greater part of which, except that immediately under the grated hatchways, was shut out from light or air, and this when the thermometer, exposed to the open sky, was standing in the shade, on our deck, at 89°. The space between decks was divided into two compartments, three feet three inches high ; the size of one was sixteen feet by eighteen, and of the other forty by twentyone j into the first were crammed the women and girls 5 into the second, the men and boys: 226 fellow creatures were thus thrust into one space 288 feet square, and 336 into another space 800 feet square, giving to the whole an average of twentythree inches, and to each of the women not more than thirteen inches, though many of them were pregnant. We also found manacles and fetters of different kinds ; but it appears that they had all been taken off before we boarded. The heat of these horrid places was so great, and the odor so offensive, that it was quite impossible to enter them, even had there been room. They were measured, as above, when the slaves had left them. The officers insisted that the poor suffering creatures should be admitted on deck, to get air and water. This was opposed by the mate of the slaver, who, from a feeling that they deserved it, declared they would murder them all. The officers, however, persisted, and the poor beings ard of his life, in Liverpool and Paris made numerous journeys, and was deterred by no obstacles. He principally contributed to gain over Wilberforce, Pitt and Fox. For a full account of the protracted struggle of the friends of humanity in the British parliament against the slavetrade, and their final success, we must refer our reader to English works. It is briefly summed up in the New Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. We must confine ourselves here to a short notice. The subject of the abolition of the slavetrade was introduced into the house of commons in 1788, when Pitt presented a petition against the trade. Many peti tions followed, upon which the merchants immediately took the alarm. They calculated that the number of slaves in the West Indies amounted to 410,000, and that, to keep up that number, the were all turned up together. It is impossible to conceive the effect of this eruption507 fellow creatures, of all ages and sexes, some children, some adults, some old men and women, all m a state of total nudity, scrambling'out together to taste the luxury of a little fresh air and water. They came swarming up, like bees from the aperture of a hive, till the whole deck was crowded to suffocation, from stem to stern; so that it was impossible to imagine where they could all have come from, or how they could all have been stowed away. On looking into the places where they had been crammed, there were found some children next the sides of the ship, in the places most remote from light and air; they were lying nearly in a torpid state, after the rest had turned out. The little creatures seemed indifferent as to life or death; and when they were carried on deck, many of them could not stand. After enjoying, for a short time, the unusual luxury of air, some water was brought; it was then that the extent of their sufferings was exposed in a fearful manner. They all rushed like maniacs towards it. No entreaties, or threats, or blows, could restrain them j they shrieked and struggled, and fought with one another, for a drop of this precious liquid, as if they grew rabid at the sight of it. There is nothing which slaves, in the mid ?assage, suffer from so much as want of water, t is sometimes usual to take out casks filled with seawater as ballast, and when the slaves are received on board, to start the casks and refill them with fresh. On one occasion, a ship from Bahia neglected to change the contents of the casks, and on the midpassage found, to their horror, that they were filled with nothing but salt water. All the slaves on board perished! We could judge of the extent of Jheir sufferings from the afflicting sight we now saw. When the poor creatures were ordered down again, several of them came, and pressed their heads against our knees, with looks of the greatest anguish, at the prospect of returning to the horrid prace of suffering below." The English ship, however,wasobhgeu, though with great reluctance, to release the slaver, as it could not be proved, after a strict examination, that he had exceeded the privilege allowed to Brazilian ships of procuring slaves south of tfoe liue. annual importation of 10,000 was required; that the English bought in Africa 30,000 annually, and, therefore, could sell 20,000 to other nations; that in the prosecution of this trade, English manufactures to the amount of above £800,000 sterling were exported, and above £1,400,000 in value obtained in return; and that government received £256,000 annually by the slavetax.* Liverpool and Bristol, which carried on the slavetrade most extensively, resisted its abolition so violently that Wiiberforce, Fox, Pitt, and their friends, could effect nothing more than the institution of an inquiry into the trade, and the passage of some provisions for diminishing the hardships of the confinement on shipboard. At length, the house of commons was induced, in 1792, to pass a bill for the abolition of the slavetrade in 1795, by a majority of nineteen ; the lords rejected this as well as the bill proposed by Wiiberforce, in 1794, for prohibiting the English from selling slaves to other nations. In the mean time, the French national convention, February 4, 1794, had declared all the slaves in the French colonies free. Wiiberforce brought in another bill, in 1796, providing that the slavetrade should be abolished for ever after March 1, 1797, and that all persons carrying on the trade after that time, should be transported to Botany bay for fourteen years. Fox and Pitt voted for the immediate abolition; but the bill did not pass. The African society, established by Wiiberforce and Claikson, now redoubled its efforts to convince the public of the horrors of this traffic. The colony at Sierra Leone (q. v.) was founded in consequence of the exertion of this society, whose object was to teach the negroes agriculture and the mechanic arts; and, from 1809, young Africans were instructed in various branches of .knowledge in that colony. At length the cause of humanity triumphed. June 10,1806, Fox moved that the house of commons should declare the slavetrade inconsistent with justice, humanity, and sound policy, and immediately take effective measures for its abolition. Generals Tarleton and Gascoyne opposed the mo* Such calculations; in which the extremest human suffering1 is coolly weighed against pecuniary yrofit, excite horror; but we should not overlook the influence of habit and circumstances, in accustoming men whose dispositions are, in general, good, to what they would otherwise abhor. The frauds practised in Prussia and some other countries, before 1806, in enlisting of soldiers, were abominable; and violence was not unfrequently ased to oblige men to take the oath. (See Soldier.) tion in vain. It passed by 114 votes against fifteen. The abolition was resolved upon, and a petition was presented to the king, requesting him to take measures to induce the other powers of Europe and the American states to cooperate with Great Britain in the suppression of this traffic. The famous Abolition Act, as finally settled, passed February 5 and 6, 1807, when Roscoe spoke in favor of it, though he represented Liverpool, which owed a great part of its wealth to this trade. January 1, 1808, was fixed as the time when this trade, on the part of the English, should cease. On this occasion, the British papers contained, almost unanimously, the remark, that it was a melancholy yet undeniable fact, that king George III, the prince of Wales, and the whole royal family, with the exception of the duke of Gloucester, were opposed to the abolition. Another act, May 4, 1811, provided that all who knowingly participated in the slavetrade should be punished with fourteen years' transportation and hard labor. In 1824, a law for declaring the slavetrade piracy, which had been already done by the U. States, was proposed by Canning, passed the two houses, and, on March 31, received the royal assent. In Denmark, king Christian VII, in 1794, declared the slavetrade unlawful after January 1,1804; and Frederic VI promised, at the peace of Tilsit, to prohibit his subjects from taking part in the foreign slavetrade. In France, Napoleon, when first consul, promised the continuance of their liberty to the inhabitants of St. Domingo, whilst he praised the inhabitants of Isle de France for not having freed their slaves, and promised that France would never again decree the slavery of the whites by the liberation of the negroes. After the successes of the French on St. Domingo, the slavetrade was once more established ; and the counsellor of state, Bruix, said, on this occasion, La liberie de Rome s'entourait d'esclaves. Plus douce parnil nous elle les reUgue auloin! In 1814, lord Castlereagh obtained from Louis XVIII a promise that France would abolish the slavetrade ; but, by the influence of the chamber of commerce at Nantes, this traffic was permitted for five years more. Public opinion obliged lord Castlereagh to press upon the congress of Vienna the adoption of general measures for the abolition of the slavetrade; but all that he could effect was that Spain and Portugal promised to give up the slavetrade north of the line.See the treaty between England am* Portugal, Vienna, January 22, 1815. But a paper was drawn up, and signed by Castlereagh, Stewart, Wellington, Nesselrode, Lowenhielm, Gomez Labrador, Palmella, Saldanha, Lobo, Humboldt, Metternichand Talleyrand (Vienna, February 8, 1815), stating that the great powers would make arrangements to fix a term for the general abolition of the slavetrade, since public opinion condemned it as a stain on European civilization. February 6,1815, Portugal provided for the total abolition of the slavetrade on January 21, 1823, and England promised to pay £300,000 as an indemnification to Portuguese subjects. Louis XVIII, by the treaty of Paris, November 20, 1815, consented to its immediate abolition, for which Napoleon had declared himself prepared, in April, 1815. Spain promised, by the treaty of September 30,1817, to abolish the slavetrade entirely, October 31,1820, in all the Spanish territories, even south of the line ; and England, February 9,1818, paid £400,000 as an indemnification to Spanish subjects. The king of the Netherlands prohibited his subjects from taking part in the slavetrade, after the provisions of the treaty of August 13, 1814, had been rendered more precise and extensive by the treaty concluded with England, at the Hague, May 4, 1818. Sweden had already done the same, according to the treaty of March 3, 1813.* The U. States engaged, in the treaty of Ghent, December 24, 1814, to do all in their power for the entire suppression of the slavetrade. November 23, 1826, a treaty was concluded, with Brazil, for the abolition of the slavetrade; and it was accordingly prohibited after March, 1830. The laws of the U. States on this subject, were mentioned in a previous part of this article. Thus England finally succeeded in her great undertaking, prompted by motives both of humanity and interestas the abolition of the trade would pave the way for the civilization of Northern Africa, and furnish additional markets for English manufactures in that part of the globe. In spite of these treaties, the illicit slavetrade continued, and, as we have already stated, more cruelly than before. Spanish and French vessels were, and probably are still, the ones chiefly engaged in it. The latter were considered to outnumber, much, all the others put together. The* Sweden seems altogether liberally disposed towards the negroes. In 1831, the government conferred on all the free negroes on the island of St. Bartholomew the same rights with the whiles ; so that, in official papers, no distinction of color JS to be mentioned37* English, therefore, sent ships of war to Sierra Leone, in 1816, to capture the slaveships ; but they were unable to put a stop to the trade, for the slavemarkets in Brazil and Cuba offered powerful temptations to unprincipled men, and some individuals in the U. States are willing to provide them with swift vessels, calculated for their disgraceful and worse than piratical traffiaf In 1832, France and England concluded a treaty, by which the two governments allow each the right of searching the other's ships, under certain circumstances, in the region of the slavetrade; and if the U. States should consent to the same arrangements, important consequences might be expected. Still more advantageous, perhaps, would it be if the U; States and Spain would conclude such a treaty, so that the vessels of the former power could search the Spanish slavevessels in the vicinity of Cuba, which at present can be done only by the English.The evils of slavery we have already touched on in the previous part of this article. The productiveness of slavelabor, as compared with free labor we cannot speak of at present. It is generally considered far inferior. Some, indeed, have maintained that certain kinds of workfor instance, that required on the rice and sugar plantationscould not be performed without slaves ; but this is denied by others, as Bryan Edwards4 The numerous insurrections on the West India islands and in the U. States have shown that the abolition of slavery is highly ,def " It should appear, then/' says Mr. Walsh, in his Notices of Brazil, " that, notwithstanding the benevolent and persevering exertions of England, this horrid traffic in human flesh is nearly as extensively carried on as ever, and under circumstances, perhaps, of a more revolting character. The restriction of slavery to the south of the line, was, in fact, nugatory and evaded on all occasions. The whole number of slaves captured by our cruisers, and afterwards emancipated, for nine years, from June, 1819, to July, 1828, was 13,28L, being about 1400 on an average each year. During that period, it is supposed that nearly 100,000 human beings were annually transported as slaves from different parts of the coast, of whom more than 4-3,000 were legally imported into one city alone. It is deeply to be regretted, therefore, that the proportion of the good to the evil is so small."X The creation of free laborers, by which the mechanic arts have come to honor, is one of the. greatest revolutions which have taken place in society. It is due to the cities of the middle ages (see Cities); and great as the effects have been, still greater remain to be produced by ihfc cultivation and intelligence which, in consequence, of it, have spread, and are spreading through all classes, of society. sirable; but the difficulty is, how to bring it about. In the U. States, a colonization society has been formed, with the view jf exporting as many colored persons as possible to the colony of Liberia. Virginia has lately made an appropriation, with a provision for its increase, in aid of the colonization society. (See the articles Colonization Society, and Liberia; also the Letters on the Colonization Society, &c, byM. Carey, 1832.) In England, Wilberforce proposed, June 10, 1816, in parliament, that slaves should be treated as British subjects, and that the children born in future should be educated as free persons. These were the views of Burke, Fox, PVtt, Lansdowne, Howick (the present earl Grey), &c. Wyndham and others insisted that the negroes were incapable of liberty. The registering of the slaves, proposed by Wilberforce, in order to prevent the sale and importation of new slaves, as well as the reenslaving of free persons of color in the British colonies, did not then pass. At present, the registering of the slaves is established in Trinidad, St. Lucia and Mauritius (.1814), which are immediately under the crown. Schools have also been established in the British colonies for the slaves. Such religious instruction as the slaves receive, is principally afforded by missionaries. In several colonies, the greatest excitement exists against Methodist missionaries, who, the planters think, not unfrequently excite the slaves to revolt; and during the recent rebellion in Jamaica, one or two of the missionaries were shot, and most of them ordered to leave the island. The . Moravian missionaries are generally much preferred. In South America, with the exception of Brazil, slavery has either been abolished or is drawing to a close. In Colombia, slave children born since the revolution, are to be free on reaching their eighteenth year. Bolivar early set free all his slaves. In Mexico, president Guerrero declared all slaves free on September 15, 182.9.For the number of slaves in the various foreign countries where slavery is permitted, we must refer the reader to the articles on these countries. There are at present eleven slaveholding states in the Union, viz. Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri. The district of Columbia, and Missouri, Arkansas and Florida territories also contain slaves. The sum total of the slaves in the U. States is 2,010,436. Of these, however, 3305 are in the state of Delaware, 2246in New Jersey, 386 in Pennsylvania, and a few survivors of former times in New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The progress of the slave population in the U. States has been as follows : Census of Slaves. Total pop. 1790 697,697 3,929,827 1800 896,849 5,305,925 1810 1,191,364 7,289,3.14 1820 1,538,064 9,638,181 1830 2,010,436 ¦12,856,407 For information on the slavery of the blacks, see Clarkson's History of the Abolition of the SlaveTrade; Gregoire On the Literature of Negroes ; Wadstrom's 06-semotions on the SlaveTrade, during a voyage in 1787 and 1788 (London, 1789); Falconbridge's Account of the SlaveTrade on the Coast of Africa (London, 1788), &c. Some account of slavery among the Greeks and Romans may be found in the works of Reitemeier (History of Slavery in Greece), Walch, (Elrichs and Hurler (On the Roman Slaves), in German. (See also Comte, Sur la Legislation.) Slavery of the Whites, in the Barbary states ; a stain on the history of the European governments, as the negro slavetrade was and is on that of the nations. It never was taken into serious consideration by the monarchs of Europe collectively (though it would have been easy for them to have destroyed those nests of piracy at once), until they met at the congress of Vienna and AixlaChapelle. Piracy on the Mediterranean is as uld as history ; but, after the Mohammedans settled on its shores, they considered the practice of it against Christians legal. The Christian slave, in the Barbary states, was entirely at the mercy of his master. In 1815, the whole number of white slaves was computed at 49,000: in Algiers, there were 1000. As early as 1270, England and France concluded a "holy alliance" for the chastisement of the people of Barbary. Philip the Bold attacked Tunis, then their chief place, and liberated all the Christian slaves. In 1389, the English, with the French, Genoese and Venetians, forming a united force under the earl of Derby (subsequently king Henry IV), made a second attack upon Tunis with the same success. When the great Algerine state, after the downfall of the Almoravides, had fallen to pieces, Oran, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli became petty independent republics, which, partly to revenge the expulsion of the Moors and JewTs from Spain, devoted themselves, Brom 1494, principally to piracy. Ferdinand, Charles V, Philip V, and others, attacked them in vain. (See Barbae States.) Little more success attended the attempt of the English. Blake, in Cromwell's time, destroyed the greater part of the united fleet of Tunis and Algiers in 1655, and liberated many prisoners; but, in 1669 and 1670, the fleet of Charles II, in connexion with that of the Netherlands, bombarded Algiers without success. The French did the same in 1682, 1683 and 1688, with a like result. In 1683, the French admiral threw I2#0 bombs into the city, and burned part of it; but the dey, Mezzo Morto, ordered the French consul Vacher to be put into a mortar and thrown towards the French. From the insufficiency of the means employed, the mutual jealousy of the European powers, the fanaticism of the Moors and Turks, and the fear inspired by the Barbary states, the humiliations which Algiers received were but momentary. In Algiers, as well as in Tunis and Tripoli, a Turkish militia, eager for pillage, were in possession of the government; and all the European governments have submitted to the degradation of purchasing peace from these barbarians by regular or extraordinary presents. France alone stood on a better footing with them ; and England concluded with Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli in 1662, and witrf Morocco in 1721, treaties which provided that no British subject should ever be made a slave, even if he should be found as a passenger on board a hostile vessel. All English vessels furnished with passes by the admiralty wrere to be allowed to navigate the Mediterranean unsearched; the cargoes of wrecked vessels were not to be seized, nor their crews to be made slaves; and English menofwrar were to be permitted to enter the various Barbary ports to obtain provisions, without paying any duty. But the Barbary states kept these treaties only as long as they found it convenient. Austria, not many years since, obtained letters of protection from the Porte, without tribute, for her own ships and those of Tuscany. Russia and Prussia obtained similar firmans from the Porte. Sweden and Denmark purchased peace by the payment of tribute. Portugal, from 1795, required a contribution from the Hanse towns for protecting their vessels on her coasts. Lubeck and Bremen, as late as 1806, concluded treaties with Morocco ; but they were, nevertheless, obliged at length to abandon almost entirely the navigation of the Mediterra nean. The U. States protected their national honor by sending a squadron to Algiers, in 1815, under the command of Decatur, who bombarded the city, and obliged her to declare that the flag of the republic should in future be respected. (See Lyman's Diplomacy, and our article Barbary States.) Sir Sidney Smith, in 1814, soon after the general peace, founded a society at Paris, called the Institution Antipirate; but it was dissolved in 1818. The attempt of Joseph Bonaparte (q. v.) to unite England and France against these pirates at the peace of Amiens was defeated by the breaking out of war soori after the conclusion of that peace. Lord Exmouth (formerly sir Edward Pellew) concluded, April 17,1816, a treaty with the dey of Tunis, Mahmoud Pacha, which provided that prisoners should not be treated as slaves, and should be restored at the conclusion of peace. England, at the same time, undertook to protect her allies, Naples and Sardinia, against the Barbary powers. Lord Exmouth had already appeared, March 31, 1815, before Algiers, and forced the dey to conclude a treaty with Naples and Sardinia. But the king of Naples had to pay for every captured subject 1000 piasters, and 24,000 piasters annually, besides the usual presents; and Sardinia, for every captured subject, 500 piasters. Hanover was included in the treaty with England. Tunis gave up the Sardinian prisoners without ransom, but the Neapolitans had to pay 300 piasters each. Tripoli also declared, like Algiers, that she would abolish the slavery of Christians and introduce the common laws of Europe respecting prisoners of war. May 15, 1816, lord Exmouth appeared a second time before Algiers, to force the dey also to acknowledge the European law of nations respecting prisoners of war. The dey declared that the permission of the sultan was necessary, and captain Dundas carried the Algerine minister to Constantinople, while Exmouth returned to England. In the mean time, the dey had sent orders to Oran and Bona, that all the English, and their property, on shore and on shipboard, should be seized. This order was executed most cruelly. May 23, Turkish and Moorish soldiers surprised 359 Italian vessels, which had purchased permission to fish for coral, and were lying peaceably under the English flag in the port of Bona. The Englisji consul was ill treated, and many Christians killed; and the cruelties did not cease until a messenger arrived, whom sea., and washed on shore by the waves uninjured. The plan was put in operation at the time when a heavy gale rendered all ordinary communication with the shore utterly impossible, and enabled the army already landed to receive supplies from the fleet. On the 29th, the fieldpieces of the French arrived before Algiers, which was taken on the 4th of July. The dey was allowed to retire with his family to any place out of Africa, and the country was occupied in the name of the French. Since the revolution of the same month in France, the office of governor of the conquered country has been held by several different persons. The last is the duke of Rovigo (Savary). The French government has declared its intention to make Algiers a French colony ; but the disturbed state of France has not as yet allowed this plan to receive that attention which it so much deserves.