Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

let those who think such a conclusion extravagant or monstrous, be consoled by the consideration, that its worst features will all be removed for ever, if it can be established that even the various races of mankind could not have sprung from one single human pair.

But, as we need not ignore the fact that the majority of monogenists are influenced considerably by what is recorded in Scripture as to man's creation, what can it really signify to them, whether all men are descended from a single Adam or not, when the same Scriptures also tell us of the curse of Ham, the father of Canaan-"a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren "-the name of Ham's firstborn being also Cush, which (it is a remarkable circumstance) signifies "black" in Hebrew? Moreover, the scriptural question, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" seems a recognition of the fact that permanence of type, as races are now developed, has become a rule in nature, whatever may have been the origin of the diverse races. The monogenists, then, are thus simply brought to the precise position of the polygenists, that is, to the actual facts, that individuals among men and races of mankind differ materially one from another now; and that it is more than doubtful whether the lower types can ever be raised to anything like the higher. And then a prior question intervenes, which ought to be the only question in connection with slavery:- While the inferior grades are actually inferior, how is it best for the higher races to deal with them?

It is gratifying to know that miscegenation can scarcely be regarded as having found respectable advocates in America, even in the northern states. Mr. M. D. Conway has adopted it, and is "firmly persuaded that the mixture of the blacks and whites is good." But he publishes with Messrs. Chapman and Hall, of Piccadilly; he dedicates his Testimonies to an English Member of Parliament, and writes, in fact, for the "English people." Before the establishment of the Anthropological Review, perhaps his address might have had some effect. But the negro and mulatto have been too well discussed in its pages, to make such an appeal to sheer ignorance successful in England now. I would only remark, that, while a certain mixture of breed and judicious crossing may often improve the progeny of animals, there is nothing in nature or reason to warrant, even theoretically, that the bringing together and intercrossing of breeds with extremely contrary characteristics could produce anything better than mongrels or abnormal monsters. But we may well object to having man thus discussed, merely as if he were an inferior animal. It may be a laudable ambition in a Negro or a Bosjesman to long for an alliance with a Caucasian; but we cannot say as much on the other side, and are utterly unable to understand how the instincts of the

latter can reciprocate such a desire! If the well-marked types of mankind have really, by slow degrees, been evolved from a common source, then, at all events, let nature be followed in the ascending scale. Or rather, may it not be asked, why attempt to interfere at all with these arrangements of Providence? Let the black man bleach in the north, if he can; and let the pale, spare Yankees go to the south, if they would enrich their blood and complexion, without debasing their stock by miscegenation!

Mr. Robert Dale Owen entirely repudiates the miscegenation theory, or what he calls Amalgamation. He was a member of a commission appointed to inquire into the question, and he says, "In the first place, such evidence in this matter as our commission has obtained goes to show that, at least in a northern climate, the mixed race is inferior, in physical power and in health, to the pure race, black or white." ... "Dr. Mack testified, 'The mixed race are the most unhealthy, and the pure blacks the least so."" . . . . “If this be so, then amalgamation of those two races is in itself a physical evil, injurious to both, a practice which ought to be discouraged by public opinion, and avoided by all who consider it a duty, as parents, to transmit to their offspring the best conditions for sound health and physical well-being."

It is to be regretted that the moral effects of amalgamation had not also received equal attention; but, after all, the physical deterioration is probably a better criterion for the purpose of convincing any one who would be likely to become a convert to "miscegenation." Mr. Owen's work, then, enables us to get rid of this scientific sham, and brings us to the real issues of the case.

The political question. This, as it very properly ought to do, mainly occupies Mr. Owen's pages. Obviously he cannot be followed here throughout the ramifications of his argument, more especially since so much space has been already taken up in clearing away the mischievous irrelevant issues which have been imported into the discussion. Nor is it necessary to do so. A very few words will suffice to show where Mr. Owen's logic halts. He mars his whole reasoning by a major proposition, which he entirely fails to establish. He claims the right of the Northern States to emancipate the slaves of the South; and he justifies the emancipation proclamation, but in such a way as shows that he is conscious it needs justification. This takes us into another political question, besides the mere right or wrong of slavery. And we need not regret that it does; for certainly the prevailing feeling in England and all Europe now is, that this is not precisely the moment to hamper the Southern States, in their noble struggle for freedom, with homilies upon the evils of their ser

vile institutions. At all events, civilised men must be naturally anxious to see that the civilised races should have their inherited freedom and rights secured to them, before they will care to discuss the emancipation of Negro slaves. That a gentleman like Mr. R. Dale Owen should think otherwise is matter for regret, but scarcely for surprise, when we consider some of his antecedents. A thorough believer in the comical manifestations of what is called "spiritualism", we need not have expected he would take a common-sense and ordinary view of affairs, where there is necessarily so much involved tending to bias his judgment. We may give him credit, however, for the best intentions, though we must pronounce his logic to be wofully twisted. He admits that the emancipation proclamation involved "a confiscation never before exercised, perhaps, by a belligerent, on so grand a scale, but [he concludes that it is nevertheless] in strict conformity to the law of nations in the premises" (p. 155); and this though he has previously admitted that "a parallel case cannot, probably, be found in all history. A case in which, during a civil war, a question touching the confiscation and cancelling of certain claims or debts due by one portion of the inhabitants of one insurrectionary district to another portion of the same, rises to the grandeur of a great measure, involving not only the peace, but the national existence of the power which proposes to confiscate. This could only occur when, as in the present instance, these claims constitute the basis of a vast labour system, endangering domestic tranquillity, and imperilling the national unity and life." (P. 154.) If Mr. Owen had simply acknowledged that the proclamation was dictated by necessity, and could only be excused upon that plea, his reasoning might at least have been consistent; and as "necessity has no law", he could hardly have been answered. He admits that "at the time when the President, as commander-in-chief, issued his Proclamation of Emancipation, the life of the nation [that is, of the Federal States,] was imminently threatened. . . . Northern councils were divided, and there was a loud clamour for peace. . . . So far as foreign nations had declared themselves, either by official acts or by the expression of public opinion, it appeared to be rather in favour of the Southern insurgents than of the established government.” (P. 158.) This is, of course, a clear acknowledgment that the proclamation was a desperate expedient, as well as a mere despotic act, perpetrated by Mr. Lincoln, not as President, but as a military ruler. Fortunately for the interests of humanity, the measure was as futile as it was flagrant; and its reception by the Negroes must raise them in men's estimation. The South could never feel as bitter towards them, as it ever must towards the unprincipled instigators of a servile insurrection.

But Mr. Owen's great error lies in his attempts to justify such a

shocking and unprecedented measure by the law of nations! He observes, "Deriving all rights attendant on conquest from justifiable self-defence,' Vattel says, When the conqueror has subdued a hostile nation, he may"" do so and so; but Mr. Owen overlooks the force of the words here placed in italics. If the South are regarded as "belligerents" (as Mr. Owen has called them), and as a "hostile nation", nobody would question the right of the Federal States to abolish slavery, "when", but certainly not until, they have become the "conquerors" of the South. This is really at present the whole question. We may quite admit, and doubtless the rulers of the Southern States deeply feel, that since the President's Proclamation of Emancipation "the dangers to their slave-system from propagan. dism will be increased a hundred fold." (Owen, p. 166.) But this ought only to make other nations more tender in discussing the question of slavery, while the South has such cause for anxiety. At present the doctrine preached by Mr. Dale Owen is not "miscegenation" nor "subgenation;" but simply, and without much qualification, the Subjugation of unconquered free whites. He really admits the notorious fact, that by the Federal Constitution slavery was acknowledged. "We know very well," he says, "that the men who framed the Constitution regarded a Negro held to service or labour, not, indeed (to speak of the majority of opinions), as a chattel, but as a slave." (P. 145.) But he endeavours to explain this away, and to take from the Southern States their right to maintain this institution so long as they think it for their true interests to do so. He cannot defend the Proclamation of Emancipation as a constitutional act of the President, but he pleads for Mr. Lincoln the right of absolute military despotism, as Commander-in-Chief! "In the exercise of this discretion he is not amenable under any provision of the Constitution. The Constitution, in making him Commander-in-Chief, neither designated nor restricted his powers as such"! (p. 156.) Here is the opening of a rôle, as the French say, for some President who may be equal to the occasion! Surely such language in the mouth of an American citizen of respectability serves to show to what straits the Federal cause has been driven for its defence. In the meantime we shall hope in England, that calmer sentiments and more determinate "counsels for peace" may now prevail in the North; and that we may hereafter venture to discuss all the political, social, and moral bearings of slavery upon a population of mixed races, without being traitors to the advancement of true civilisation in the world, or adding to the dangers and difficulties of a people who have immortalised themselves by an exhibition of constancy, courage and ability, never surpassed before in the world.

294

ANTHROPOLOGY AT THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION, A.D. 1864.

IN chronicling the position given to Anthropology at the recent meeting of the British Association, we cannot find a better introduction than the following report of what took place before the first meeting of the General Committee.

C. CARTER BLAKE, Esq., addressing the President, said:-At the last meeting of the General Committee of the British Association, Dr. Hunt gave notice that at the present meeting he should propose that Section E should include Geography, Ethnology, and Anthropology. I am sorry to say that Dr. Hunt has recently been suffering from a severe illness, and is not yet sufficiently recovered to attend at this meeting. I have been deputed by him, and requested by the Council of the Anthropological Society of London, to undertake to move the resolution which stands on the paper. I am fully aware, sir, that the British Association is rather a representative of sciences than of societies, but I believe there is no London scientific society which is not to some extent recognised by the British Association. The Anthropological Society have deputed me to attend here, and have instructed me to urge on the Association both the desirability and the prudence of recognising Anthropological Science as a special subject in some section. The Anthropological Society has instructed me to advocate the recognition of the science of Anthropology, not for any real or imaginary benefit to the Society, but simply for the benefit of the science of Anthropology. Last year it was suggested that there ought to be a special sub-section for Anthropology, but the proposer of this resolution, and many others, were of opinion that it would be best that anthropologists, ethnologists, and geographers should all endeavour to work harmoniously together, rather than to be divided into two or more sections. Last year, at Newcastle, the anthropological papers brought up by the delegates of the London Society were only read by sufferance; but I may be permitted to observe that all the papers submitted were original, whilst the papers submitted by a sister society-the Ethnological-had mostly been read before in London. The Anthropological Society have deputed me to ask the General Committee to pass this resolution. I may state, sir, that this Society now numbers more than 430 members, exclusive of more than 100 honorary and corresponding members. I feel convinced that the good sense of the Committee will not allow them to refuse the claims of such a Society, which is founded, like the British Association itself, for the advancement of truth. I have been informed that there are some here, who, for reasons best known to themselves, will oppose such a resolution; but I beg the Committee to pause before they commit themselves by a step which would thus estrange a large scientific society from this Association. The Society have deputed me to bring up several papers, and to submit

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »