Complete Works of Harriet Beecher Stowe

by Harriet Beecher Stowe

  In order that I may be clearly understood, I will reiterate tho foregoing argument. Before the adoption of the Federal constitution, the states were to a great extent sovereign and independent, and of course were in a condition to settle terms on which to form a more perfect union. The North and the South, otherwise, the slave-holding and the non-slaveholding states met in convention to settle those terms. The North in convention conceded to the South the right to hold slave property; and the sole right of making all laws necessary for the regulation of slavery. It was thus, we see, by a solemn contract or agreement, that the South acquired exclusive right to control domestic slavery within her borders. What right then, have the citizens of free states, to intermeddle with it? They have none, as long as the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The union of these states is based on that instrument, and whenever we cease faithfully to observe its provisions, the Union must necessarily cease to exist. All interference then on the part of the North, endangering the rights or injuriously affecting the interests of the South in slave property, is a violation of the supreme law of the nation. I need not say more; the argument must be clear to every one; and I think the duty of all concerned equally clear.

  Ralfe, referring to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, says, “It was no easy task to reconcile the local interests and discordant prepossessions of different sections of the United States, but it was accomplished by acts of concession.” Madison says, “Mutual deference and concession were absolutely necessary,” and that the Southern States never would have entered the Union, without concession as to slave property. And Governor Randolph informs us, “That the Southern States conceived their property in slaves to be secured by this arrangement?”

  We are also informed by Patrick Henry, Chief Justice Tiglman, Chancellor Kent, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Justice Shaw, Chief Justice Parker, Edward Everett and others, that no union of these states ever could have taken place, had not the right to hold slave property, and the sole right to control that property been conceded to the southern States. And, Edward Everett, moreover, tells us that the northern States “deemed it a point of the highest policy, to enter with the slave states into the present Union.” The reader will observe, that a majority of the authorities referred to, are northern men of the highest distinction.

  I remarked in the preceding pages, that whoever invades the rights of the South in her slave property, violates the law of the land, and is guilty of a civil trespass; and I will now prove from the sacred record, that in opposing the civil laws of their country, they violate the laws of God, and consequently are guilty of a moral trespass. The primitive church of Christ was, under all circumstances, and at all times, subordinate to the civil authorities. They never stopped to inquire whether the laws were good or bad, just or unjust; their business was to obey the laws and not to find fault with them.

  Christ and his apostles enjoined on their followers unreserved obedience and submission to the civil authorities. I need not here quote the language of our Saviour; it must be familiar to every Bible reader. I will, however, quote the remarks of St. Paul and St. Peter, on this topic. The former says, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.” “Whosoever therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” He instructs Bishop Titus to put his flock “in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” “To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, showing meekness unto all men.” St. Peter says, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of men for the Lord’s sake; whether to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers.” There is neither precept nor precedent in the Bible, which will countenance opposition to the laws of our country. No, not one word in the sacred volume, that can be thus construed. Opposition and resistance to the civil authorities, is one of the many corruptions winch have crept into the church of Christ. Men “have become wise above what is written;” and truly as our Saviour said unto the ancient scribes and pharisees, “they shall receive the greater damnation.”

  What a marked contrast between Christ and his apostles, and the apostles of modern reform, alias abolitionists. How dare they professing Christianity to fly in the face of the laws of their country? How dare they resist the execution of those laws? How dares Mrs. Stowe inculcate disobedience and open resistance to her country’s laws? Great God! shall our country ever be freed from the dark and damnable deeds of religious fanatics? Shall our country ever be freed from the curse of curses, religious ultraism, bigotry, and delusion? Let those who profess to be the followers of the meek and lowly Jesus — those who profess to take the Bible as their guide, cease from their unwarrantable and seditious opposition to the laws of their country; or otherwise let them renounce the Bible, lay aside their Christian garb, and appear before us in their true colors, that we may know who they are, what they are, whom they serve, and under what standard they are fighting. Throw off your masks, gentlemen; don’t try to deceive us any longer; some of us understand you, and we intend to expose you, and hold you up to the public gaze, as long as the good Lord will vouchsafe to us health and strength sufficient to sit in our seats, and hold a pen in our hands. Your conduct is a reproach to the Christian name, a stigma on the Christian character.

  SECTION II.

  There are nearly four millions of slaves in the United States; and the question now presents itself to every free born American citizen; what are we to do with them? The abolition party demand their immediate emancipation. Is it practicable, safe, or proper? What would be the consequences? What would be the consequence of turning loose upon ourselves four millions of human beings, to prowl about like wild beasts without restraint, or control, and commit depredations on the white population? Four millions of human beings without property or character, and utterly devoid of all sense of honor and shame, or any other restraining motive or influence whatever! And they too, under the ban of a prejudice, as firm, as fixed as the laws which govern the material universe. In that event, is it not probable; is it not almost certain, that there would be either a general massacre of the slaves, or otherwise that the white population would be forced to abandon the soil? Will any one pretend to deny that either entire extinction of the African race would be likely to result from universal emancipation, supposing the manumitted slaves should remain in our midst, or that otherwise the consequences would be disastrous to the white population? None, I presume. What then shall we do? The slaves are among us; they must be governed and provided for, and is it not our duty in making provisions for them, to act with reference to the general welfare of all concerned — white and black? Is there an intelligent man in this nation, who has reflected on the subject, that really believes that the condition of the African race in the United States, would be bettered or improved in any respect, by immediate emancipation? I have clearly shown in the following pages that it would not. Facts prove the contrary. Yes, stubborn undeniable facts, that none but a knave or a fool will gainsay. We know that improvidence, idleness, vagrancy, and crime, are the fruits of emancipation; not only in the United States, but also in the West Indies. We have already stated on good English authority, (Lord Brougham), that the West India free negroes, are rapidly retrograding into their original barbarism and brutality; and the London Times quite recently asserted, that the British emancipation experiment was a failure; that the negro would not work; that his freedom was little better than that of a brute; that the island was going to the dogs, and the negroes would have to be removed, &c. Have we any reason to believe, that a different result would follow emancipation in the United States? No, we have none, for it is a notorious fact, that free negroes are everywhere idle and vicious in this country, and that crime among them is ten-fold more common than it is among Southern slaves.

  We hear a great deal about emancipation — the freedom of the African race — free negroes, &c. I
t is all sheer nonsense. Strictly speaking, there is not a free negro in the limits of the United States! There never has been, and there never will be. The white and the black races have never co-existed under the same government, on equal footing, and never can. Their liberty is only nominal! “It is all a lie and a cheat!” Is the negro free any where in the Northern States? No, he is not. There is no sympathy between the two races. Northern people loathe and despise free negroes. They cannot bear the sight or smell of them. The negro then is not free anywhere in the Northern States. Not only the prejudices, but also the laws of the free states proclaim it impossible: and the prejudices of the whites against the African race is stronger in the free states, than it is in the slave states. Every free state in this Union is disposed to cast them off as a nuisance. They cannot bear their presence. Their very color renders them odious; and this aversion to the African race, is daily becoming stronger and stronger in every free state in this union. Nothing can counteract it — nothing can overcome it. It is in the very nature of things impossible. No, no! Negro novels piled mountain high in every street and alley, in every city and village in this Union, will accomplish nothing for the poor despised African. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots,” then may ye who are accustomed to loathe, shun, and cast off the African race, receive them to your kind embraces.

  It is true that abolitionists affect to have a great deal of sympathy for them while they are slaves in the South, but they have none for the ignorant, degraded, half starved, ill clad, free negroes in the North. No wonder, for their Southern sympathy costs them nothing, but Northern sympathy might empty their purses. Show me the abolitionist who is willing to meet the free negro on terms of equality. No man can point to one — no, not one. The African is neglected, scorned, and trodden under foot every where; by abolitionists and every one else. This prejudice is invincible, irremediable. The poor African is hopelessly and irretrievably doomed to scorn, contempt and degradation while in the midst of the white race. Is the African allowed the ordinary privileges of the white man any where in all the liberty loving North? Show me the spot! Where is it? Show me the state — show me the neighborhood — the man — the woman among all the white race in all the North, who is willing to allow the despised African, the ordinary privileges of white men. Ah! you cannot do it. Shame! shame! Hold! cease, — for God’s sake cease your hypocritical cant about Southern slavery. No! no! there is not a state in all this union where they enjoy the privileges of white men. There is not — there never has been — and there never will be! They are no where equal parties in an action at law. They are no where credible witnesses against white men. They are no where allowed the right of suffrage; or if the law allows it, they are not suffered to avail themselves of it. They are no where admitted as judge, juror, or counsellor. They are no where eligible to any office of profit, trust, or honor. Their children are no where admitted into the same school-room with the whites. They are no where protected, encouraged, and rewarded in all the North. They are victims of injustice, scorned and despised in every free state in this confederacy. And abolitionists are as far from making equals of them, or associating with them, as any one else.

  The city of Baltimore presents the largest and most intelligent mass of free negroes found in the United States. These in an appeal to the citizens of Baltimore, and through them to the people of the United States, say, “we reside among you, and yet are strangers, — natives, yet not citizens — surrounded by the freest people and the most republican institutions in the world, and yet we enjoy none of the immunities of freedom. As long as we remain among you, we shall be a distinct race — an extraneous mass of men irrecoverably excluded from your institutions. Though we are not slaves — we are not free.”

  Judge Blackford, speaking of free negroes, says, “They are of no service here, (in the free states,) to the community or themselves. They live in a country, the favorite abode of liberty, without the enjoyment of her rights.”

  Dr. Miller says, “if liberated and left among the whites, they would be a constant source of corruption, annoyance and danger. They could never be trusted as faithful citizens.”

  There is at last no sympathy between the two races, except in the slave states. There, for the most part, we find kind feelings and strong attachments between the slaves and the families in which they reside. I must, however, refer the reader to other parts of this volume for additional remarks on the subjects discussed in the preceding pages, — more particularly to chapters, 4, 5, 6, 7. But I would ask, in the name of all that is sacred, what advantage, what benefit under these circumstances is conferred on the Southern slaves by emancipation? I know from personal observation, that Southern slaves are better fed, better clothed, and better housed than are free negroes, either North or South; in short, they are better paid for their labor. The South is the only part of the United States, where ministers of the gospel are successful in Christianizing the African race — the only part of the United States where there is anything like good order, good morals, or Christianity among them. The only place at last, on this continent, where the African is cared for and provided for, and where there is any thing like sympathy, kindness or fellow-feeling between the two races.

  It would be well for the people of the United States to inquire into the origin of this slavery agitation. It is of foreign origin! It was our old enemy England, that first sowed broadcast the seeds of dissension in our midst. Abolitionism in this country first originated in, and has been sustained by, foreign interference, and religious fanaticism. It is the last hope of European monarchies to destroy our republic. The fact is notorious, and is susceptible of proof, that the abolition excitement was first set on foot in this country by British influence. There has been a constant effort in England, to array the North against the South. “We have the best of reasons for believing, that her original object was the severance of this Union.” One English journal says, “The people of England will never rest, till slavery is terminated in the United States;” and another says, “Slavery can only be reached through the Federal Constitution.” That is, slavery can only be reached, by destroying our present form of government, and dissolving our Union. The English are well aware, that they cannot reach slavery in this country, except by dissolving our Union and involving us in civil war; in which war, of course, they expect to take an active part. In the name of God, are we prepared for all this? Have we ever counted the cost? I hope I shall be pardoned for using strong language, when I allude to this subject. It is enough. Who that loves his country, can keep cool, while reflecting on these things? Is it not almost enough to make a Christian swear? No my friends we will not swear about it; but I entreat you to keep your eyes upon that old rascal, John Bull. He needs watching, and his Northern allies in the United States, are as vile scamps as he is.

  I might quote from English journals, and English statesmen, to show what her feelings, views, and intentions have been in relation to this country; but I forbear at present. We know that her unwarrantable interference with the civil institutions of our country, did not originate in any sympathy that she felt for the oppressed African in our midst. The idea is ridiculous. The whole history of the English government proves the contrary. Talk about the English government sympathizing with the oppressed of other nations. It is nonsense — a ridiculous inconsistency. No part of the English government can be pointed out, in which there is not worse slavery in some form or other, than there is in the United States: — yes, worse, far worse, than negro-slavery in the Southern States. What says Southy, the English poet, of the great mass of the English poor? He says that “they are deprived, in childhood, of all instruction, and enjoyment. They grow up without decency — without comfort — without hope — without morals, and without shame.” The North British Review expressed similar sentiments. If I am correctly informed, negro slavery, itself, is not extinct in the British dominions. I am aware that they call it an apprenticeship, but it is slavery notwithstanding. Yes, it is inv
oluntary slavery and nothing else. But yet she would have us believe that she feels an intense interest in African slavery, in the United States. How does it happen that she is so interested about slavery among us, but is deaf to the cry of her own enslaved and starving millions, in British India, and other parts of her dominions? It is said that in 1838, five hundred thousand perished of famine, in a single district, in British India; and that too within the reach of English granaries locked up, and guarded by a military force! This is a fair sample of English benevolence; alias, English cupidity. And what says Allison the English historian of wretched Ireland? Her history and her sufferings are familiar to every one. He avows the opinion, in his History of Europe, “that it would be a real blessing to its inhabitants, in lieu of the destitution of freedom, to obtain the protection of slavery.” And Murray the English traveler says of the slaves of the United States, “if they could forget that they are slaves, their condition is decidedly better than the great mass of European laborers.” And what said Dr. Durbin a few years ago of the British nation? He told us that “the mass of the people were slaves, and the few were masters without the responsibility of masters.” He proceeds to tell us, that the condition of the slaves of the United States, is in every respect better than millions in Ireland and England. This is the testimony of a distinguished minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (North,) whom, nobody will suspect of any undue partiality for Southern slave-holders. When we look at the “degradation, the slavery, the exile, the hunger, the toil, the filth and the nakedness,” of the English poor, we are astonished at the brazen impudence of that cruel, godless, and hypocritical nation! Nor are we less surprised, when we think of the ungodly crew of fools and fanatics in the United States, who are leagued with that monster England to overthrow their own government! I have said, and I boldly reiterate the assertion, that slavery exists in every part of the British dominions, in a form far worse than negro slavery in the United States! And I am able to corroborate the truth of the remark, by a volume of the most reliable testimony; and much of that might be drawn from the admissions of English Journals, and English statesmen. I will quote a few more English authorities, and dismiss the subject. The British Asiatic Journal says, “the whole of Hindostan, with the adjacent possessions, is one magnificent plantation, peopled by more than one hundred millions of slaves, belonging to a company of gentlemen in England, whose power is far more unlimited than any Southern planter over his slaves in the United States.” And the same authority tells us, “that in Malabar, the islands of Ceylon, St. Helena and other places, the English government is a notorious slave-factor — a regular jobber in the purchase and sale of slaves; and that this system is carried on and perpetuated by the purses and bayonet of the English government.” Dr. Bowering affirms of the British subjects in India, “that the entire population of that empire are subjected to the most degrading servitude — a deeper degradation than any produced by American slavery.” The same writer declares “that a regular system of kidnapping is carried on by the English.” The Duke of Wellington remarked in the House of Lords, that “slavery does exist in India — domestic slavery in particular.” Sir Robert Peel made the charge and offered the evidence, “that British merchants are even now deeply and extensively engaged in the slave trade;” and that the English government was, at the time he spoke, “engaged in a new system of English negro slavery, by the forcible capture of negroes in Africa, &c.” We are told by the London Times of Feb. 20, 1853, “that British slavery is ten thousand times worse than negro slavery of the United States,” and that the condition of those, whom he denominated British slaves, “is a scandal and a reproach, not only to the government, but to the owners of every description of property in England.” This is strong language, and the reader will please recollect, that it is the testimony of a leading English Journal, so late as February, 1853.