or in each situation taken by itself, by the particular circumstances which complicate it.

And if history, in this way of looking at it, must yield to statistics in precision, it agrees better, by its picturesque and animated forms, with the attractions of living Nature.

SLAVERY.

BY JAMES REDDIE, Esq., F.A.S.L.

HON. MEM. DIAL. SOC., EDIN. UNIVER.

THERE can scarcely be conceived a more delicate or painful subject for impartial consideration and discussion than slavery. Nothing can be more easily disposed of, if we shut our eyes to all that we know of the world's history, to the facts of nature around us and the whole experience of the present generation, and start off with the indefinite axiom, that "all men are born equal", which we assume to be undeniable, and make the foundation of a mere Utopia. But the axiom is not true; and, if true, it would not settle the question. There is no such equality among those born in the same country, or even in the same family. Still less does it exist among the diverse races of mankind. If ever true, it is not true now; and, if ever true, those who say so have then to account for its non-continuance, and the development of humanity into something so totally different. They have also to justify to the world their attempt to reverse what has thus been the natural course of human progress. It is clear that to alter or reform the world and oppose its natural tendencies, they must rest upon some higher principle. But even if men were born equal, this would be of little consequence if they do not remain so. And the fact is, this so-called "axiom", in as far as it is not a truism, is utterly false or meaningless. Except that all men are born equally men, the saying is untrue; and when we consider the degradation of some of the genus homo, we instinctively feel that to make such a statement is to convey but a questionable appreciation of all that manhood implies.

We may, nevertheless, feel and speak thus, and yet also hesitate to become the advocates or apologists for the right of "whatever is", including the right of slavery. At the best we may be willing to concede that it can only be tolerated as a necessary evil, like many other evil things we should be glad to see extirpated from the world, if we only saw how to do it, without the creation of other evils as a consequence. If the mind of England has arrived in any degree at such a hesitating state of balance upon the question of slavery, it is

not at any rate from the want of high principle, or of generous impulses, or from any coolness towards the true advancement of civilisation, or want of anxiety for the best interests of those under bondage. Her acts would belie all such accusations; and the terms in which she is appealed to from America might serve alone to refute them: "Great God," exclaims Mr. Conway,* "that this should be a question in England to day!" But that the writer knows, also, why it has become a question here, is evident from his subsequent language. He proceeds: "That it should be something to canvass whether her poets and preachers, her scholars and statesmen, can be surely counted upon as opposed to having men and women sold like cattle, and children torn from their mothers' breasts, by vile men for gain!"-And of course, in saying this, the writer knows perfectly well that if that were the whole question, just as he puts it sensationally, it would neither be a question in England nor America for a single moment. But he goes on, with equal injustice and indiscretion (that is, if he really is anxious to influence public opinion in England),-"Yet, blush as we may for our common race to say it, there is a very serious doubt as to how many of the most influential men of England, if asked to-day to unite in a protest against the existence of slavery for one moment longer, would utter some cant or fatuity about the bad results of emancipation in the West Indies, or the unfitness of the slaves for freedom (which is as about as wise as to talk of the unfitness of an invalid for health.)"

Now the author is perfectly right, that the questionable results of England's generous experiment of emancipating the slaves in her West India possessions must needs weigh with most influential Englishmen now-be they poets, statesmen, or philosophical students of human nature-in judging of the fitness or unfitness of the slaves for freedom. But to describe this as cant or fatuity is an insult and impertinence, which, notwithstanding the writer's vehemence, must cast doubt upon his sincerity. If he had the real compassion for human misery he professes, he could not have characterised an allusion to the miserable condition of the freed slaves in the West Indies as "cant". His use of the word "fatuity", in such a case, must be passed over as mere stump-oratory. England parted with twenty millions sterling, to purchase the freedom of the slaves in her colonies, willingly; she afterwards saw the colonists well nigh ruined, some entirely so, as a consequence, with many regrets; but even then she can scarcely be said to have repined at what she had done. She has since seen with dismay, that while the whites thus suffered loss,

Testimonies concerning Slavery. By M. D. Conway, a native of Virginia. London: Chapman and Hall. 1864 (p. 138).

VOL. II.-NO. VII.

U

and the colonies themselves became deteriorated, the coloured population did not profit save in name, and that in far too many respects "bad results" have been the effects of emancipation. And yet, even now, she cannot be said to repent, though she feels grievously disappointed, that what was so well meant has turned out so very badly. She still lives in hope that the evils may be remedied. There are persons who can find grounds for such hope, and even some consolation, from the present state, social and moral, of the freed coloured people. But without doubt we have had a serious lesson; we are also daily learning more and more of the horrors of abject slavery in Africa itself; and we are assured on better authority than that of Mr. M. D. Conway, a native of Virginia, that the prejudices of race are so strong against the Negroes in the Northern States of America,* where they are free, that we may well doubt what the ultimate result would be, were a sudden emancipation of the slaves now enforced upon the South. The present war in America is deplorable enough; but a war of races would be worse and bloodier. It could end only in one of two things-extermination of the African race, or the bitter re-enactment of slavery.

In saying this, however, it is not to be understood as implying that slavery in the abstract involves any question of race. On the contrary we may assume-or if we are content with the actual facts of history we must be assured-that it was originally the result of Might conferring Right; and that the first slaves were families and tribes subdued by their nearest neighbours, of the same race, and probably, but a few years back, of the same family. The first slaves were mere prisoners of war; and it was part of international law-i. e., a well understood practice by all peoples, perhaps throughout the world-that slavery must be the consequence of defeat. Civilisation has modified that state of things; because the proper organisation of governments and the consequent stability of political systems, have enabled society to get rid of such a necessity. It was only in later times, when wars became extended to more distant regions, that distinctly diverse races came face to face and enslaved one another. In the present day it is perfectly true the practical question is different and variously complicated; and in the interests of humanity and truth it is certainly of the greatest consequence that the subject should be impartially discussed. This can be better done here than in America; or at least we are in a better position for weighing calmly the arguments now advanced on either side, and clearing away the fallacies which have been imported into the controversy.

*Vide The Wrong of Slavery and Right of Emancipation, etc. By Robert Dale Owen. Philadelphia: 1864 (p. 211).

It must further be premised that in undertaking to review the question of slavery in America, no conclusion here arrived at, on the one side or the other, must be misconstrued as a condemnation of states or individuals who have made slavery really a blessing to the Negroes, or as a justification of any undue severity or harshness in the slave laws or customs of other states or families. I mean, there must be no question of philanthropy mixed up, to confuse the argument. True philanthropy, or goodwill to man, must be assumed as the motive of all that is said for or against the institution. What is really best for mankind as a whole,-what is most likely to conduce to the improvement and elevation of all the races,—these are the ultimate objects of the inquiry, whether it be regarded from a religious, scientific, or political point of view.

The religious argument. On both sides of the Atlantic, of course, when religion is appealed to, there is but one religion in question. In the name of no other religion than Christianity, could any pretence for an argument against slavery be found; and yet Christianity has never, like some other religions, made it a duty to offer freedom to converts. On the contrary, the founder of Christianity and his Apostles, systematically avoided all interference with human institutions. In government, "the powers that be"-the "rulers" whosoever-were recognised; in other words, the Christian system was not established as a kingdom of this world; but under it, republican governors, as well as monarchs, have their "right divine", so long as they are in power. As regards the origin of such power, there is no divine institution:-placuit gentibus. The great mass of a people have no interest in the particular form of the government under which they live, if so be their own liberties and happiness are secured to them. But government is a sacred trust; and when it is abused, the rulers may be hurled from power, and the very form of the government may be violently changed for one less likely to tyrannize. At a certain stage of oppression it may be truly said that there is a "right divine of rebellion." But it is obvious that while government and stability must be the rule, or civilisation would come to an end, revolutions ought (like convulsions in nature) to be rare and exceptional; and-for that is the point with which we are now concerned-it must be evident that were religion to interfere with the principles of human governments, it must either become anarchical and triumph at the point of the sword, or be itself extirpated.

Christianity, on the contrary, is a religion of peace, and rather teaches the endurance of evils than the redressing of wrongs. Not that that must be construed into a forfeiture of public rights, or an abject submission to political oppression, as a duty incumbent upon

men because they are Christians. Not at all. Men's civil and political rights remain unaffected by Christianity. Whatever rights we have by nature, whether as men, simply, or as members of a body politic, such rights continue ours under Christianity. It takes no such rights away; but neither does it confer them. St. Paul's teaching was, that, if freemen, we should glory in our freedom, and use it rightly; if bondmen, then be Christian bondmen, if we cannot obtain our freedom. The duties of masters and servants, of the bondmen and the free, are both very clearly laid down, without any enunciation of antislavery principles, in Scripture.

No doubt, inasmuch as Christianity teaches good will to man, and makes it our duty to do to others as we would be done by, the minds of individuals must be affected by these principles, in considering the question of the emancipation of slaves. But how affected? The precept, as we have already seen, can never have been intended to teach that we ought necessarily, as a duty, to alter the status of a slave, in order to carry out the precept. If we were convinced the slave was unfit for freedom, and that he would abuse his liberty, it would not be doing towards him as we would he should do to us, were we to make him free. The idle must be made to work, or they are not even entitled to eat, according to St. Paul. All who, from their position under Providence, have power over others, are bound to consider how they will use it; and thus are obliged to qualify (ifit be so regarded) the application of the Christian precepts of love and good will to man. If not so qualified, the most grievous evils may result, not merely as regards aliens or slaves or vagabonds, but in the management of men's own families. We are not without experience of this in England. They probably know still more of it in America, and especially in the Northern States.

Again, in so far as Christianity is a moral system, men must be influenced in their opinions concerning slavery by the consideration whether the existence of such an institution tends to improve the morals of a people, or to demoralise them, judging from a Christian stand-point. Perhaps the very strongest arguments advanced by the abolitionists against slavery have been based upon such considerations. Unfortunately, however, they have been urged in a one-sided way: all the immoralities of the Northern States have been veiled, and those of the Southern States dwelt upon and exaggerated. We have also, no doubt, had the reverse of the shield, in like manner, presented A writer, to whose treatise I must hereafter refer, when we come to another branch of the subject, has put it forward as a distinct

to us.

Subgenation: the Theory of the Normal Relation of the Races: an Answer to Miscegenation. New York: Bradburn. 1864.