benevolent father De las Casas," the advocate of oppressed humanity in the new world exclaimed [114] against the slavery of Indians; and finding his efforts of no avail, proposed to Charles V. 1517, the slavery of the Africans in their stead. This proposal had the effect of lightening the chains of the natives, and of forging new ones upon the pacific inhabitants of another clime. The Spaniards at first had some scruples of conscience, about engaging in this traffic; but at length, they so far eased their consciences, as to open their ports for their admission, and, in a short time, they employed others to traffic for them, and finally they entered largely into it themselves.

But it is a stain on the character of a civilized people, that slavery was ever countenanced, aside from being authorized, by law among them; and how it is possible for a christian people to reconcile it to their consciences, no one can determine, unless it be from interest. If this be the case, as it undoubtedly is, we here find a motive for all our actions, much more powerful than the dictates of morality and religion. While we keep so many of our fellow creatures in bondage, let us close our lips in eternal silence, as to talking about liberty and the rights of men; let us not claim for ourselves what we deny to others.

The slavery sometimes imposed on some of our citizens, by foreign powers, has frequently excited the sympathy and indignation [115] of the United States. Those who are the most clamorous for revenge, whether individuals or organ

" Bartolomé de Las Casas (1474-1566), known as the "Apostle to the Indies,'' a Spanish Dominican who came to America with Columbus in 1498. In 1514 he began his crusade against the iniquities of the Spanish conquerors of the New World, in their treatment of the natives. Seven times he undertook the voyage between Europe and America on behalf of the oppressed natives. His writings are a chief source for the study of Spanish discoveries in America, but his Historia was not published until 1875. See George E. Ellis, "Las Casas and the Spaniards and Indians," in Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, ii.- ED.

ized bodies, and the most forward to condemn the practice of those powers, seem not aware that they stand self-convicted of the same offence; the censures they bestow on the pirates of the Mediterranean, are so many libels on their own conduct. Modesty dictates that we be more reserved on the subject of personal liberty, at least till we emancipate those whom we retain in bondage. With what justice can we demand a right, when at the same time we forbid that right to others?

The most substantial argument in favor of slavery, is derived from the right of the strongest. The origin of this right may be traced to the dark ages of barbarism. Modern civilized nations do not sell their children, nor enslave their insolvent debtors, nor even their prisoners of war, to whose service they have no shadow of claim; but they depredate on the harmless and inoffensive Africans, merely to gratify their avarice, without the least provocation, and without any apprehended danger of their power. The laws of most European nations disclaim the right of slavery; and the great oracle of English jurisprudence declared some years ago from the bench, that by the laws of that kingdom, a right of property could not exist in the human [116] species. The common law of the United States recognizes the same doctrine. If slavery be maintained in some of the individual states and territories, it is by virtue of particular statutes, added to the mutual concessions inserted in the federal constitution.

Slave-holders pretend to justify slavery upon three grounds. The first is that other nations continue the practice, therefore to abandon it themselves would have no sensible effect on the system in general. The second is that the slaves they purchase were reduced to this unhappy condition in their own country; and therefore they are now in as eligible a situation as if they had never crossed the ocean. The third

is that they have been entailed upon them; and therefore it would be almost certain ruin for them to liberate them.

This reasoning has no better foundation than downright avarice; and to this quality alone of the mind, must be attributed all the miseries of the many millions of human beings now in bondage. For it is impossible, consistent with common sense, to adduce the wickedness of other nations to justify our own! For if precedent be allowed to sanctify crimes, why are murders and robberies exposed to the vengeance of the law? If other nations have done wrong let us profit by it, and shun the pernicious example.

[117] Were we to adopt some plan for the gradual manumission of slaves, it might possibly have some effect on the policy of others. We have strictly prohibited the importation of slaves; Great Britian has done the same; and some other nations appear to be inclined to do so likewise. These prohibitions will induce slave-holders either to treat their slaves with more kindness, and in this way enable them to preserve their number by propagation; or they will gradually waste away under the rigors of their fate; and eventually become extinct. However, none of the consequences of either case strike at the root of the evil.

The proprietors of Slaves have earnestly contended that the Africans are as well off, in a state of slavery, in America, as they were in their own country; but is it not, I would ask, as criminal for our Southern Planters to purchase those who have been reduced to slavery in their own country, as those of a different description?- The wars, which have taken place among the various tribes of Africa, have mostly been moved and instigated by Slave-merchants, and these same merchants, have secured millions of the vanquished for the express purpose of traffic. Man, lost to virtue and humanity, alas! what is he? Is it no crime to tear men from their country, families and friends? How is it possible for [118]

that man, if he be allowed to possess the common feelings of humanity, to tear the infant offspring from the mother's tender embrace, the affectionate wife from the husband she loves, and the husband from the wife of his youth! but they part, yes, alas! they part to meet no more, until they meet in that bright world of ineffable delight, where the clanking chains of despotism will no more be heard, where the lash will no more be felt, and where the MASTER and SERVANT will both be on a level! but alas! these parting scenes have been often witnessed, and witnessed by those too, who, when respited from a long voyage in the African Slave-trade, on their own native shore, apparently bow in reverential awe at the shrine of Deity, and pay their crocodile devotions to an insulted God! but if angels can weep over such a horrid scene, or if tears can tarnish the lustre of immaculate heaven, Sherabic legions now weep over the actions of such "hellhounds" of savage cruelty! The Africans are not destitute of sensibility, and they sometimes manifest it in a manner that does honor to human nature. The indignity and cruelty with which they are treated, often impels them to put a period to their existence, because if that existence, were to be protracted, it could only prolong a scene of misery and degraded servitude, which would be far more intolerable [119] than death itself; and this is frequently done even in the presence of their masters and overseers; and are we so blind as to conclude that this is rather the effect of insanity than of greatness of soul! When the whites cease to purchase Slaves, wars, among these tribes, will cease in a great measure, and they will enjoy as much peace and harmony as other nations in the same circumstances. There are physical evils enough in the world without the addition of fictitious ones; and it becomes us as men and as christians, to provide against the asperities of the former, and prohibit the creation of the latter.

Notwithstanding the guards, placed on the slave system, by the constitution and laws of the southern States, which secure to them the enjoyment and perpetuity of their rights, perhaps a way may be devised to remove this badge of disgrace, without any infringement whatever. We readily concede that the right of property in slaves, cannot be invaded; but doubts may very honestly arise as to the extent of this right, and it will be well for us to ascertain it with precision. The laws of some States impose on the child the condition of the mother; the consequence is, that the children of freemen are frequently born slaves, and many of them drag out their existence in servitude, under their own fathers.

[120] The American Slave States present at least one instance of awful depravity; the father disposes of his children as slaves, together with the mother. But among some nations the contrary principle obtains; the child born of a female slave follows the condition of the father. This principle is more just than the other, though it is attended with one difficulty not easily removed; the father cannot be so readily ascertained as the mother. At any rate, this kind of right, from the nature of things, is limited to actual slaves; it does not attach till they are in existence; it is not present and absolute, but contingent and future. If this position be correct, and it is supported by good authorities, it seems to follow, that the Legislature may provide for the emancipation of the children of slaves, at any age it pleases, born at some stipulated future period. Were such a measure adopted, it is easy to see, that a gradual abolition of Slavery would take place among us. Perhaps this plan is less objectionable than some others which have been frequently suggested; and it may be so modified and extended as to embrace a provision for the benefit of the objects of it.

Slave-holders not only contend, that the children of slaves,