Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another to dishonor?" (Rom. 9:20-1.) These distinctions, therefore, are all ordered by the divine Master. And if my condition in life is a subject of thankfulness, because it is exempt from the humiliation of a slave, I have none the less reason to fear the final result, if I fail to discharge the far more difficult duties which devolve upon the freeman. My objections to being a slave, however, might be extended much further. I should be unwilling to be a blacksmith, a tailor, a shoemaker, a hatter, a sailor, or a soldier. Nay, I should be unwilling to be a politician or a statesman. And why? Precisely for the same reason. I am not fitted for any of them. It is not because I lack respect for these various conditions. On the contrary, I honor them all, as necessary and laudable parts of the vast system of society which composes the nation. But I am only qualified for the condition in which it has pleased God to place me. And probably you may think me not very well qualified for that. If so, there is one point, at least, in which we shall not differ. And this brings me to the fundamental principle which determines the fitness of men for their respective stations in the community, namely, the power of habit. A certain measure of capacity must of course be taken for granted, for without it, no habit could be formed. But beyond that, all the rest is dependent on the repetition of the same round of study, of labor, and of duty, which, by degrees, moulds the whole mind, desires, and actions of the individual into the form adapted to his circumstances. And this, for the most part, requires many years, before the result can be accomplished. I speak of the general rule, to which we all know that there are occasional exceptions. Still, with respect to the great bulk of mankind, nothing is more true than the fact, that habit alone can fit them fully for their specific situations. And when that habit is completely established, all experience proves how dangerous it is to make any serious change. The character of thought once fixed, the circle of knowledge once filled, the routine of occupation once settled, it is rarely possible for the individual to succeed in any new and strange relation to society. And the attempt to accomplish any sudden revolution in the established course of life, seldom fails to injure the powers both of the, mind and of the body. But if this be true in the case of the individual, much more must it be true in the case of nations. All history proves that changes in the fixed habits of whole communities can never be effected wisely or well, except it be done gradually and slowly, by the insensible progress of feeling and education amongst the people themselves. For habit has been justly termed our second nature, in most cases stronger than the first. Hence the well-known difficulty of overcoming old habits in the individual. Hence the vastly greater difficulty of eradicating the old habits of society at large. And hence the perilous character which marks the wild theory of ultra-abolitionists. That the Southern States can be revolutionized in their social habits by a single stroke of power-that the relations of master and slave, fixed firmly by the habits of generations, can be suddenly torn asunderthat millions of slaves can be safely set free before they are fitted for freedom-that millions of the governing race can be forcibly reduced to an equality with those who were so lately their servants, and the whole condition of the community totally subverted and thrown into confusion, without any of the wise guards and careful preparation which so vast a change requires—such a scheme as this appears to be so contrary to every dictate of experience, every lesson of history, every law of justice, and every rule of common-sense and reason, that its acceptance on the part of so many enlightened minds can only be accounted for as a sort of monomania on the part of its zealous originators, while the crowd of their followers have never taken the trouble to examine for themselves, seriously and calmly, the real merits of the question. I have already said, and have frequently published my own hope and persuasion, that the time will come for the total abolition of slavery. But when it comes, it will not be by the insane projects of politicians, through blood and desolation. The Supreme Ruler of nations, in whose hand are the hearts of men, will incline the minds of the South, when He sees it to be right, to institute and carry on the process, in the only safe and effectual way, which has been pur sued by the other States in relation to it. Since the world began, slavery has never been abolished by external force and violence. It has only been done away by internal action on the part of those who are directly concerned. Of this we have two very different examples. The first was that of St. Domingo, where the slaves, excited by the pestilent orators of the French Revolution, rose against their masters, and attained their horrid triumph by the most savage butchery which history has recorded. The other was the abolition movement of England, where the result was regularly effected by the peaceful action of Parliament, after the discussion of more than twenty years, with compensation to the masters, and the restraints of apprenticeship upon the slaves, in order to avoid the dangers anticipated from a sudden and complete change. Yet neither of these examples suits our ultra-abolitionists. They are philanthropists, and of course would not desire that the South should suffer under a bloody and inhuman massacre, like that of St. Domingo. But they have quite as little inclination to imitate the course of England, because they are determined to condemn slaveholding as a sin, and they could not be partakers in the sin, by paying the masters for their slaves, for that would be acknowledging that they had a right to hold them. Moreover, such payment would be rather costly, and therefore their view is not only philanthropic, but withal it is economical—and economy is a virtue! Hence, according to their theory, the emancipation of four millions of slaves must be accomplished on a new principle, which they have the sole merit of inventing. It is not in the Bible. It is not in history. It is not in justice, nor in reason, nor in common-sense. But they cling to it, like a fond mother to a deformed bantling, because it is their own ; and argument, and authority, and experience, though sustained by the Scriptures and the unanimous voice of all Christendom, fail to convince them of their gross delusion. The results, however, of these two cases in history, namely, that of St. Domingo, and the more recent one of England, may aid the intelligent reader, who is not infected by the mania of ultra-abolitionism, to understand the practical aspects of the question, and to them I shall proceed in the next chapter. CHAPTER XXXIII. RIGHT REVEREND BROTHER: As philanthropy is the acknowledged motive of the ultra-abolitionist, and he holds it to be self-evident that the deliverance of the African race from slavery is the one thing needful to raise them to an equality with the best and most favored portions of mankind, it is fair to inquire how the experiment has succeeded in the case of St. Domingo, which has been, for two generations, entirely under negro domination. On this subject, we have had conflicting statements, on none of which reliance can be placed, because the writers were so largely influenced by their particular prejudices. But I shall set the matter before you in the words of the eminent Alison, whose "History of Europe" is one of the most trustworthy productions of modern literature, and who, as a native of Scotland, surrounded by English sympathies, and naturally inclined to favor abolition, is altogether unlikely to fall into any error on the Southern side of the question. "St. Domingo," saith this distinguished historian, "the greatest except Cuba, and, beyond all question, the most flourishing of the West-India Islands before the Revolution, is about three hundred miles long, and its average breadth about ninety miles. The Spaniards possessed two thirds, and the French the remainder. In the French portion, the inhabitants consisted of about forty thousand whites, sixty thousand mulattoes, and five hundred thousand negro slaves. This French colony was immensely productive, exceeding all the British islands together. Its exports, including the Spanish portion, were £18,400,000, and its imports £10,000,000 sterling. Eighteen hundred vessels and 27,000 sailors were employed in conducting the vast colonial traffic. It was this splendid and unequaled colonial possession which the French nation threw away and destroyed at the commencement of the revolution, with a recklessness and improvidence of which the previous history of the world had afforded no example." "Hardly had the cry of liberty and equality been raised in France,” continues our historian, "when it responded warmly and vehemently from the shores of St. Domingo. The slave population were rapidly assailed by revolutionary agents and emissaries, and the workshops and fields of the planters overrun by heated missionaries, who poured into an ignorant and ardent multitude the new-born ideas of European freedom. The constituent Assembly of March 8, 1790, had empowered the colonies to make known their wishes on the subject of a Constitution, by Colonial Assemblies, freely elected by their own citizens. And on the 15th of May, 1791, the privileges of equality were conferred by the same authority on all persons of color, born of a free father and mother. The planters openly endeavored to resist the decree, and civil war was preparing, when, on the night of the 26th August, 1791, the negro insurrection, long and silently organized, at once broke forth, and wrapped the whole northern part of the colony in flames. The conspiracy embraced nearly the whole negro population of the island. The cruelties exercised exceeded any thing recorded in history. The negroes marched with spiked infants on their spears instead of colors. They sawed asunder their male prisoners, and violated the females on the dead bodies of their husbands," etc.. "Louis XVI. was condemned January 15th, 1793. On the 21st of January he was executed. The Democratic passions of St. Domingo were roused to the highest pitch by this event. Twenty thousand negroes rushed in and completed the work of ruin. And the universal freedom of the blacks was proclaimed June 3d, 1793."* "By the expulsion of the French from St. Domingo," saith this historian, "it has been nominally independent, but slavery has been far indeed from being abolished, and the condition of the people any thing but ameliorated by the change. Nominally free, the blacks have remained really enslaved. Compelled to labor by the terrors of military discipline, for a small part of the products of the soil, they have retained the severity without the advantages of servitude. The industrious habits, the flourishing aspect of the island, have disappeared, and the inhabitants, reduced to half their former amount, and bitterly galled by their republican task-masters, have relapsed into the indolence and inactivity of savage life."+ * Alison's History of Europe. Vol. ii. p. 240. Harper's Ed. 1843. |