Anti-Slavery Crusade; a chronicle of the gathering storm

Jesse Macy

Description

pubOne.info present you this new edition. The Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln marks the beginning of the end of a long chapter in human history. Among the earliest forms of private property was the ownership of slaves. Slavery as an institution had persisted throughout the ages, always under protest, always provoking opposition, insurrection, social and civil war, and ever bearing within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Among the historic powers of the world the United States was the last to uphold slavery, and when, a few years after Lincoln's proclamation, Brazil emancipated her slaves, property in man as a legally recognized institution came to an end in all civilized countries.

Informations

• Publié par: Pub One Info
• Date de parution: 06 novembre 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9782819945154
• Langue: English

Extrait

THE ANTI-SLAVERY CRUSADE,
A CHRONICLE OF THE GATHERING STORM
By Jesse Macy
THE ANTI-SLAVERY CRUSADE
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
The Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincolnmarks the beginning of the end of a long chapter in human history.Among the earliest forms of private property was the ownership ofslaves. Slavery as an institution had persisted throughout theages, always under protest, always provoking opposition,insurrection, social and civil war, and ever bearing within itselfthe seeds of its own destruction. Among the historic powers of theworld the United States was the last to uphold slavery, and when, afew years after Lincoln's proclamation, Brazil emancipated herslaves, property in man as a legally recognized institution came toan end in all civilized countries.
Emancipation in the United States marked theconclusion of a century of continuous debate, in which the entirehistory of western civilization was traversed. The literature ofAmerican slavery is, indeed, a summary of the literature of theworld on the subject. The Bible was made a standard text-book bothfor and against slavery. Hebrew and Christian experiences wereexploited in the interest of the contending parties in this crucialcontroversy. Churches of the same name and order were divided amongthemselves and became half pro-slavery and half anti-slavery.
Greek experience and Greek literature were likewisedrawn into the controversy. The Greeks themselves had set theexample of arguing both for and against slavery. Their practice andtheir prevailing teaching, however, gave support to thisinstitution. They clearly enunciated the doctrine that there is anatural division among human beings; that some are born to commandand others to obey; that it is natural to some men to be mastersand to others to be slaves; that each of these classes shouldfulfill the destiny which nature assigns. The Greeks alsorecognized a difference between races and held that some were bynature fitted to serve as slaves, and others to command as masters.The defenders of American slavery therefore found among thewritings of the Greeks their chief arguments already stated inclassic form.
Though the Romans added little to the theory of thefundamental problem involved, their history proved rich inpractical experience. There were times, in parts of the RomanEmpire, when personal slavery either did not exist or was limitedand insignificant in extent. But the institution grew with Romanwars and conquests. In rural districts, slave labor displaced freelabor, and in the cities servants multiplied with the concentrationof wealth. The size and character of the slave populationeventually became a perpetual menace to the State. Insurrectionsproved formidable, and every slave came to be looked upon as anenemy to the public. It is generally conceded that the extension ofslavery was a primary cause of the decline and fall of Rome. In theAmerican controversy, therefore, the lesson to be drawn from Romanexperience was utilized to support the cause of free labor.
After the Middle Ages, in which slavery under themodified form of feudalism ran its course, there was a reversion tothe ancient classical controversy. The issue became clearly definedin the hands of the English and French philosophers of theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In place of the time-honoreddoctrine that the masses of mankind are by nature subject to thefew who are born to rule, the contradictory dogma that all men areby nature free and equal was clearly enunciated. According to thislater view, it is of the very nature of spirit, or personality, tobe free. All men are endowed with personal qualities of will andchoice and a conscious sense of right and wrong. To subject thesenative faculties to an alien force is to make war upon humannature. Slavery and despotism are, therefore, in their nature but aspecies of warfare. They involve the forcing of men to act inviolation of their true selves. The older doctrine makes governmenta matter of force. The strong command the weak, or the richexercise lordship over the poor. The new doctrine makes ofgovernment an achievement of adult citizens who agree amongthemselves as to what is fit and proper for the good of the Stateand who freely observe the rules adopted and apply force only tothe abnormal, the delinquent, and the defective.
Between the upholders of these contradictory viewsof human nature there always has been and there always must beperpetual warfare. Their difference is such as to admit of nocompromise; no middle ground is possible. The conflict is indeedirresistible. The chief interest in the American crusade againstslavery arises from its relation to this general world conflictbetween liberty and despotism.
The Athenians could be democrats and at the sametime could uphold and defend the institution of slavery. They werecommitted to the doctrine that the masses of the people were slavesby nature. By definition, they made slaves creatures void of willand personality, and they conveniently ignored them in matters ofstate. But Americans living in States founded in the era of theDeclaration of Independence could not be good democrats and at thesame time uphold and defend the institution of slavery, for theDeclaration gives the lie to all such assumptions of humaninequality by accepting the cardinal axiom that all men are createdequal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among whichare life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The doctrine ofequality had been developed in Europe without special reference toquestions of distinct race or color. But the terms, which areuniversal and as broad as humanity in their denotation, came to beapplied to black men as well as to white men. Massachusettsembodied in her state constitution in 1780 the words, “All men areborn free and equal, ” and the courts ruled that these words in thestate constitution had the effect of liberating the slaves and ofgiving to them the same rights as other citizens. This is aperfectly logical application of the doctrine of theRevolution.
The African slave-trade, however, developed earlierthan the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence. Negro slaveryhad long been an established institution in all the Americancolonies. Opposition to the slave-trade and to slavery was anintegral part of the evolution of the doctrine of equal rights. Asthe colonists contended for their own freedom, they becameanti-slavery in sentiment. A standard complaint against Britishrule was the continued imposition of the slave-trade upon thecolonists against their oft-repeated protest.
In the original draft of the Declaration ofIndependence, there appeared the following charges against the Kingof Great Britain:
“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself,violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the personsof distant people who never offended him, captivating and carryingthem into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserabledeath in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, theopprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian Kingof Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men shouldbe bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressingevery legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrablecommerce. ”
Though this clause was omitted from the document asfinally adopted, the evidence is abundant that the languageexpressed the prevailing sentiment of the country. To the believerin liberty and equality, slavery and the slave-trade are instancesof war against human nature. No one attempted to justify slavery orto reconcile it with the principles of free government. Slavery wasaccepted as an inheritance for which others were to blame.Colonists at first blamed Great Britain; later apologists forslavery blamed New England for her share in the continuance of theslave-trade.
The fact should be clearly comprehended that thesentiments which led to the American Revolution, and later to theFrench Revolution in Europe, were as broad in their application asthe human race itself— that there were no limitations norexceptions. These new principles involved a complete revolution inthe previously recognized principles of government. The Frenchsought to make a master-stroke at immediate achievement and theyincurred counterrevolutions and delays. The Americans moved in amore moderate and tentative manner towards the great achievement,but with them also a counter-revolution finally appeared in therise of an influential class who, by openly defending slavery,repudiated the principles upon which the government wasfounded.
At first the impression was general, in the South aswell as in the North, that slavery was a temporary institution. Thecause of emancipation was already advocated by the Society ofFriends and some other sects. A majority of the States adoptedmeasures for the gradual abolition of slavery, but in other casesthere proved to be industrial barriers to emancipation. Slaves werefound to be profitably employed in clearing away the forests; theywere not profitably employed in general agriculture. A markedexception was found in small districts in the Carolinas and Georgiawhere indigo and rice were produced; and though cotton later becamea profitable crop for slave labor, it was the producers of rice andindigo who furnished the original barrier to the immediateextension of the policy of emancipation. Representatives from theirStates secured the introduction of a clause into the Constitutionwhich delayed for twenty years the execution of the will of thecountry against the African slave-trade. It is said that a slaveimported from Africa paid for himself in a single year in theproduction of rice. There were thus a few planters in Georgia andthe Carolinas who had an obvious interest in the prolongation ofthe institution of slavery and who had influence enough, to secureconstitutional recognition for both slavery and thesla