As I remarked in my last letter, the largest part of the negroes making a religious profession are classed under the denomination of Baptists. They insist upon immersion as necessary to salvation; and I have heard one of them argue the point with his master with no less confidence, wit and pertinacity than doctors of divinity commonly employ in theological discussions; it will not be disrespectful to those who intelligently embrace this doctrine, to nevertheless suppose that the mass of negroes accept it because it makes more of an event of the baptismal ceremony, thus gratifying their passionate fondness for excitement. All who write upon this dogma, and act upon it, are considered to be within the reach of God’s mercy, and are held in fellowship by them, but within this they also split into numerous parties or sects, each designated by a [165] title which is generally expressive of the degree of loyalty to some standard of orthodoxy attributed to each, such as “Hard Shell,” “Soft Shell,” &c.

On almost every large plantation, and in every neighborhood of small ones, there is one man who has come to be considered the head or pastor of the local church. The office among the negroes, as among all other people, confers a certain importance and power. A part of the reverence attaching to the duties is given to the person; vanity and self-confidence is cultivated, and a higher ambition aroused than usually can enter the mind of a slave. The self-respect of the preacher is also increased by the consideration in which he is held by his masters as well as his fellows; thus, the preachers generally have an air of superiority to other negroes; they acquire a remarkable memory of words, phrases and forms---a sort of curious poetic talent is developed---a habit is obtained of rhapsodizing and exciting furious emotions, to a great degree spurious and temporary, in themselves and others, through the imagination. I was once introduced to a preacher, who was represented to be quite distinguished among them. I took his hand respectfully, and said I was happy to meet him. He seemed to take this for a joke, and laughed heartily. He was a “driver,” and my friend said, “He drives the negroes at the cotton all the week, and Sundays he drives them at the Gospel-don’t you, John?” He commenced to reply in some Scriptural phrase, soberly, but before he could say three words, began to laugh again, and reeled off like a drunken man-entirely overcome with merriment. He recovered himself in a moment and came up to us again. “They say he preaches very powerfully, too.” “Yah, Massa! ’kordin to der grace-yah! yah!” and he staggered off again with the peculiar hearty negro guffaw. My friend’s tone was, I suppose, slightly humorous, but I was grave, and really meant to treat him respectfully, wishing to draw him into conversation; but he had started upon a merry mood, and I found it impossible to get the better of it.

There is no element in the difficult problem of Slavery which we of the North so little comprehend and leave out of view in our theorizing, as the exceedingly low moral and intellectual condition of the slaves. In one of my earliest letters after entering Virginia, I conveyed to you the impressions which I had received on this point from the general appearance, language, and conversation of the negroes. These impressions have been strengthened and confirmed by further observation of them as I have proceeded South. I described to you the influences which, by destroying ambition and elevated aims, and by cultivating improvidence and carelessness, and by stimulating only the lowest impulses of a man, combine to keep the negro in a condition of mental childishness and moral debasement.

In considering a great system, we cannot be too careful not to be deceived by its exceptional appearances. Individual instances, in which various Christian virtues and graces are beautifully exhibited by slaves, are constantly cited on both sides, by Southerners as well as Northerners, which can only properly be considered as eddies in the general current of slave life. Give the system fair play, where no sheltering point of an unusually indulgent and [166] sensible master, or a peculiar natural drift of mind (such as in a higher class, according to the proverb, produces the poet), and you see only a dark, deep tide of stupidity and superstitution. Mungo Park found exquisite benevolence touchingly displayed among the negroes of the darkest wilds of Africa. I can say myself of a certain heathen I have known, that I scarce ever saw evidence of a character more full of meekness, patience and affection, and I have had an East Indian idolator preach to me with an earnestness, candor and logical ability that deserved my gratitude and respect.

Such cases are to Paganism what such a character as “Uncle To” is to slavery, or the religion of slaves. “Such a character is impossible in a negro” (slave) is the most common criticism on “the greatest story of the age,” by Southerners, though once or twice, when I remarked that this was evidence unfavorable to slavery, I have been assured by others that they had known slaves wonderfully like“Uncle Tom.” I confess the character does not seem to me to be altogether consistent or natural under the circumstances.

The mind and higher faculties of the negro are less disciplined and improved in slavery than in the original barbarism of the race, because in the latter state he has at least to exercise them under the necessity of contriving to procure food, raiment, and habitation; in providing for his offspring, in the consequently necessary acquisition of property, exciting cautious enterprise, having reference to the chances of the future, and in the defence of personal liberty. I do not believe there is a body of men in the world that have so stupid, unmanly, and animal an existence as the rank and file plantation negroes of our Southern States. I have never been on the Slave Coast of Africa, but I have been among the essentially savage natives of the Malay Archipelago, and the latter, according to my observation, were as fully developed men by the side of babes compared with the mass of these plantation slaves. The agricultural laborer in those districts of England in which land is held in the largest parcels, such as Wiltshire, being in a large degree dependent on their immediate employer, more nearly resemble the negroes in this respect than any other people I have known. The number of these is small, their condition is improving, and so far as it is the result of a system of government or law, this is being yearly modified favorably to their elevation. This condition of the negro, which it seems to me is the main, and sufficient reason, against unconditional, immediate abolition of the relation of master and dependent, is not simply a circumstance attending his perpetual slavery, but is its result. I cannot see how this conclusion is avoidable by a candid and sensible observer. I therefore take ground against the writer of a recent article in Hunt’s Merchant’s Magazine, who maintains that slavery is the (only) true, speedy, and successful method for civilizing and christianizing the heathen; and am constrained to say that my judgment, and my observation of facts, a priori, would by no means lead me to recommend any such scheme for preaching the Gospel as he favors.

I do not admit, in evidence upon this subject, the statistics that are usually cited, of the number of slaves counted as religious by their owners or by [167] themselves. A profession or name for a religious character among them appears to be founded upon the exhibition of certain phrensied states of the imagination, excitable at will in any mind not habitually disciplined to the control of reason, and in the direction of words and actions according to certain precepts and formulas.

Delirium, madness, and even catalepsy, are often produced by the excited imagination in certain sects of the Mahometans, and in many idolaters, at their festivals and meetings for public worship; and blind obedience to certain rules of conduct which they have been taught to consider of supernatural importance, and slavish reverence to certain days and words and things, are as habitual among the Fetish worshippers of Africa as among their transplanted cousins, the baptized and enrolled church-members of America. That the morality and the superstition of these latter is in all cases better than theirs, that it is much more like what Christianity prompts a man to, is very true, but it is no more the same thing than a rush light is a sunbeam.

On two of the rice plantations that I visited there were neat buildings set apart and fitted up as chapels, (called by the negroes “Prayer houses”). In one of these were rows of seats with backs to them, and I was told that the negroes objected to these because they did not leave them room enough to pray. It was explained to me that it was their custom in social worship to work themselves up to a great pitch of excitement, in which they yell and cry aloud, and finally shriek and leap up, clapping their hands and dancing, as it is done at heathen festivals—the seats were too close together to admit of this exercise. Mr. A., the rice planter spoken of in a previous letter, told me that he had forbidden his negroes this shouting and jumping at their plantation meeting, from a conviction that there was not the slightest element of religious sentiment in it. He considered it to be engaged in more as an exciting amusement than from any really religious impulse. In the town churches, except, perhaps, those managed and conducted almost exclusively by negroes, they commonly engage in religious exercises in a sober and decorous manner, yet a member of a Presbyterian Church in a Southern city told me that he had seen the negroes in his own house of worship, during “a season of revival,” leap from their seats, throw their arms wildly in the air, shout vehemently and unintelligibly, cry, groan, rend their clothes, and fall into cataleptic trances.

In conversation with a very worthy and intelligent gentleman on this subject, I asked if he had often known religion to effect any very great elevation of character among slaves. He replied that he had, and mentioned the following as a case in point. A cook came into his possession, who was generally a very good and valuable servant, but who would sometimes get intoxicated, and then do and say a great deal that was wrong. He several times expostulated with her, but effected no good; at length, knowing that she was a member of a colored church (it was in a city), he threatened to complain to the officers of it of her conduct. This threat had more effect upon her than all the previous means he had used, but, at length, she had a drunken fit again, and he did call on the [168] officers of her church, and told them her conduct was such as was inconsistent with the professions of a church-member, and they ought to warn her. He found the officers—colored men—very respectable, intelligent and obliging persons. They thanked him for advising them of the case, and forthwith called upon the cook, and threatened her with suspension or excommunication if she did not reform. She was very much frightened and mortified, and since that time she had been constantly sober, and her moral character in every respect excellent. Now, such a case as this plainly shows the power for good (or evil) of an ecclesiastical inquisition, not the power of religion.

There was an improved morality, or rather, here was an improved self-control, a better degree of self—government, arising not from an elevated moral sense and love of the All Good, but from little better than a base, irreligious, and unmanly principle of heart—the fear or worship of man; or, if it be deemed rather the worship or fear of God, manifested in reverence and obedience to his human representatives or ministers, you simply elevate it from Infidelity to Idolatry. I make these observations with reference to a subject of frequent discussion—how far compensation for the evils, or palliation for the wrong of the perpetual Slavery of the Negroes of the South is to be found in the good it is doing in the way of christianizing them. Christianity can only be practically defined, in considering this question, as a principle of the heart which manifests itself in the constantly progressive, moral elevation of the individual. In my judgment, the general degradation of manhood, the training to cowardice and imbecility, or duplicity of mind, the constraint upon the free development of individuality of character, and the destruction of the sense of high individual responsibility, which is demanded by an established system of perpetual Slavery, is most strongly opposed to the reception in the hearts of its subjects of anything that can be reverently dignified with the holy name of Christianity.

I do not question, that there are many slaves whose lives are radiant with the light of the simple and pure faith of Christianity, nor that there has been a considerable improvement in their moral condition, as a people, since they have been removed from the savage and cannibal state of society and been held in the restraint of American civilization and law; but I think this improvement limited and restricted by the necessities of Slavery; that Slavery, in its effects on slaves, is at war with progress, with enlightenment, with Christianity.

I think the native manly spirit and capacity of the savage is but poorly compensated for by the pseudo-religion and civilization of the slave.

This opinion is not common or popular, but my very first observation of the manners, language and conversation of the slaves in Virginia, as I then expressed to you, favored it, and my continued investigation of this subject has surprisingly established it in my mind. I, therefore, wish to state it frankly and distinctly.

Out of respect to the generous spirit of the correspondent of the Daily Times, “A Native Southerner,” I will refer especially to his views. In my [169] judgment, Slavery as it is intended to be perpetuated at the South, in its general and legitimate operations upon the character of the slaves, is “inconsistent with a beautiful type of humanity.” He admits that the South is not faithful to the task of regenerating the slaves, but thinks that it is not for want of anxious solicitude and much steady, earnest labor on the part of the whites. So far as my knowledge extends, there is very little of such earnest, steady labor; the labor is isolated, intermittent, and, in the minds of most sensible men engaged in it that I have met, is far from encouraging in its results.

It is always difficult for us to distinctly understand the moral effect of institutions to which we are accustomed, and with which our whole lives are associated, but I think it is because it is felt how impracticable it is to free the slave’s mind without freeing his body, and how little he can be improved morally while his mind is left fettered in darkness, that so little is attempted; that so much is by law forbidden at the South in this field of Christian and benevolent labor. A clergyman confessed to me that after seven years’ daily intercourse with and labors among slaves, he was deeply grieved to find how little hold upon them he had gained, how small his influence was, and how little real confidence they had in him. He said they seemed to be always suspicious of his motives and to be unable to repose an unfeigned trust in him. A Northern clergyman who had resided for two years in a Southern city, told me that he thought that not more than one in seven of the negroes who were members of the churches in it had a sensible understanding of what they professed.

When “A Native Southerner” speaks of “the largest and most effective missionary operation in the world in steady earnest action on the negro mind,” I suppose he uses a figure of speech. There are no associated, systematic, special operations to improve the religious or moral character of the slaves, worth mentioning. Very rarely the planters of a small district may unite to support a missionary or white clergyman to preach in circuit, on their plantations, on Sundays. I have heard of three such, and I also know of one very large slave owner who keeps a white preacher employed upon his own property alone. I have been on plantations where Sunday-schools were formerly kept, and I presume they are not uncommon. In these the children are taught to repeat catechisms, creeds, hymns, and passages of scripture. A lady from Kentucky, on attending such a school while on a visit in Georgia, remarked that she had never seen a Sabbath-school for colored children before. But I will continue this subject in another letter.

In discussing the views presented in my last letter with Southerners, the labors of a society for the religious instruction of negroes in Liberty County, Georgia, have frequently been referred to as an instance of the great privileges which the negroes may be blessed with in Slavery. This Society has been in operation for many years, though I believe its operations were interrupted, as were nearly all public efforts to improve the condition of negroes at the South, during the periods of extreme sectional excitement. The Thirteenth Annual [173] Report of the Society, which has been sent me, conveys to a stranger abundant evidence of the general debased moral and intellectual condition of the slaves. It demonstrates that the tendency of the circumstances of ordinary slave life is exceedingly debasing and demoralizing, and it fails to show that the means used by the Society are generally effectual to counteract this tendency.

The view presented in my last, of the difficulties in the way of the elevation of the negro, inherent in the system of Slavery, is strikingly confirmed by the Missionary of the Society, in some remarks on the proposition that “the moral discipline and culture of the negroes is a duty equally binding upon all who hold the responsible relation of masters and managers with the improvement of their physical condition.”

As it is a point upon which many of your Southern readers will, I fear, have disagreed with me, and in which I may be thought to have observed superficially and judged with prejudice, I shall quote several passages, which will indicate the result of thirteen years’ experience in the duties of a special instructor and pastor of negroes, by a Southern Presbyterian clergyman (since appointed Professor of Theology at Columbia, S.C.):

A right estimation of servants as immortal and accountable beings, lies at the foundation of attention to their moral discipline and culture. And I am free to confess that while it is hard, in our corrupt and imperfect state, to estimate rightly even our children and relations as immortal and accountable beings, and to treat them accordingly, there are difficulties in the way of forming such an estimation of servants, because they are servants, (i.e. slaves.) You inquire why it is so? I presume your experience, if you have watched your own thoughts and feelings, will suggest the reply.

They are, in the language of Scripture, “your money.” They are the source, the means of your wealth; by their labor do you obtain the necessaries, the conveniences and comforts of life. The increase of them is the general standard of your worldly prosperity; without them, you would be comparatively poor. They are consequently sought after and desired as property, and when possessed, must be so taken care of and managed as to be made profitable.

Now it is exceedingly difficult to use them as money; to treat them as property, and at the same time render to them that which is just and equal as immortal and accountable beings, and as heirs of the grace of life, equally with ourselves. They are associated in our business, and thoughts, and feelings, with labor, and interest, and gain, and wealth. Under the influence of the powerful feeling of self-interest, there is a tendency to view and to treat them as instruments of labor, as a means of wealth, and to forget, or pass over lightly, the fact that they are what they are, under the eye and government of God. There is a tendency to rest satisfied with very small and miserable efforts for their moral improvement, and to give one’s self but little trouble to correct immoralities and reform wicked practices and habits, should they do their work quietly and profitably, and enjoy health, and go on to multiply and increase upon the earth.”

This is addressed to a body of professing evangelical Christians, in a district in which more is done for the elevation of the slaves than in any other of [174] the South. What they are called to witness from their own experience, as the tendency of a system, which recognizes slaves as absolute property, mere instruments of labor and means of wealth, “exceedingly difficult” for them to resist, it is evident to me, is the entirely irresistible effect upon the mass of slave holders. In general, I assert that they rest satisfied with “very small and miserable efforts (if they make any at all) for their moral improvement,” that they give themselves “but little (if any) trouble to correct immoralities and reform wicked practices and habits,” caring for little, if for anything, else but that “they do their work quietly and profitably, and enjoy health, and go on to multiply and increase upon earth.” More even than this. Fearing that moral and intellectual culture may injure their value as property, they oftener interfere to prevent, than they endeavor to assist, their slaves from using the poor opportunities that chance may throw in their way. Without referring to state enactments of this character, I could mention some instances of individuals so doing that have come within my personal observation.

But beside this direct influence of the system, it is remarked that there is, indirectly, an additional effect:

The current of the conversation and of business in society, in respect to negroes, runs in the channel of interest, and thus increases the blindness and insensibility of owners. We have a right to their obedience and service, it is true; but it is equally true that they have a right to our consideration, and care, and government, as immortal and accountable beings.

Now, see what effect the Christian missionary laboring among slaves has discovered this tendency of the system to have on their moral elevation, aside from its denying them the means of improvement:

The negroes themselves, seeing, and more than seeing, feeling and knowing, that their owners regard and treat them as their money—as property only—are inclined to lose sight of their better character and higher interests, and, in their ignorance and depravity, to estimate themselves, and religion, and virtue, no higher than their owners do.

Consider, with such an influence constantly acting upon them from all sides (and impossible to be counteracted by anyone or two masters, if it were desired), what advance it is probable the slaves are making, as men, and personally accountable beings. Does it not wholly bear out the judgment expressed in my last letter?

Many of the difficulties in the way of the progressive elevation of the negroes, while they continue to be considered as property, are mentioned. Owners are likely to provide them with only such accommodations for spending the time in which they are not actively employed, as shall be favorable to their bodily health, and enable them most rapidly to comply with the commandment, obedience to which will be most profitable to them, to “increase and multiply upon the earth,” without regard to their moral health, without caring much for their obedience to the more pure and spiritual commands of the Scriptures.

[175]

The mingling up of husbands and wives, children and youths, banishes the privacy and modesty essential to domestic peace and purity, and opens wide the door to dishonesty, oppression, violence, and profligacy. The owner may see or hear, or know little of it. His servants may appear cheerful, and go on in their usual way, and enjoy health and do his will, yet their actual moral state may be miserable. * * If family relations are not preserved and protected, we cannot look for any considerable degree of moral and religious improvement.

No one can doubt the truth of this last proposition, and it must be acknowledged of slavery, as a system, as that system finds the expression of the theory on which it is based in the laws of every Southern State, that family relations are not preserved and protected under it, as we should therefore expect. The missionary finds that:

One of the chief causes of the immorality of negroes, arises from the indifference both of themselves, and of owners, to their family relations.

The rice planters generally, and some others owning a large number of slaves, do not allow their negroes to marry off the plantation to which they belong, conceiving “that their own convenience and interest, and,” the missionary thinks, “the comfort and real happiness of their people, are promoted by such a regulation.” He disagrees with them, and in endeavoring to convince them of their error, asks a few questions practical to his duty as their agent to Christianize their property, which they could hardly answer in a way that would justify them in continuing the restriction. One of these questions is this:

Admitting that they are people having their preferences as well as others, and there be a supply, can that love which is the foundation and essence of the marriage state, be forced?

Did a missionary in “infidel France” ever have occasion to seriously ask such a question? And is the system defensible under the name of “the largest and most effective missionary operation in the world, in steady, earnest action,” which the combined legislative wisdom of every Slave State has always thought to require, that any poor, depraved mortal of a white citizen should possess power like this over numbers of such people, in the ratio of his talent for the acquisition of property? And while this is the case, does it seem likely that it will exert a beneficent moral influence upon the race? Is Slavery, for them, a reforming, civilizing, Christianizing process? Is the whole world wrong, and the Christian Church of the Southern United States of America alone right, in its theory and practice on this point? If so, then truly has it found godliness, great gain.

It is not denied that an owner’s people may be healthy and increase, and do their work, and be in a manner cheerful, and that, externally, things may wear a good appearance—but what is the actual morality of the people? That is the question.

[176]

And so I understand “B.,” whom a native Southerner undertakes to answer, to wish to know of the South—not denying that its people are healthy and multiplying in the most exemplary manner, that they are well fed and sufficiently well clothed, soft-bedded and lovingly cared for, and that externally things wear a good aspect—but now what is the actual Christianity they are acquiring? That is the question. And I must answer, from all I have heard and seen, that the great body of them are only dragged bodily along, as it were, in the path of Christianity, because they are attached to the skirts of the civilization and social customs that attend it.

“It is said by some,” continues the missionary, “that laws and regulations and punishments, in matters of this kind, can effect no good; that they amount to nothing; and the best, and least troublesome, plan, is to let the people alone.” He contends against this indolent view of the difficulty with some warmth of language, and evident bitterness of feeling, but finally acknowledges—“It may not be possible effectually to restrain immorality, even by the best and wisest regulations. Yet much will be accomplished. ’We speak what we do know, and testify to that which we have seen.’” How far a people may be made to swallow religion, or wear morality by “laws, regulations and punishments,” Spain, Italy, Prussia and New-England have given greater or less testimony precisely in proportion to the duration of the experiment in each.

The missionary calls attention to the character and conduct of the negro drivers, who, he says, “have it amply in their power to oppress and corrupt the people intrusted to their supervision.”

Yea, such may be the influence of these men, and the fear inspired by them, that they may carry on their immoralities among the people to a great extent, and the owner be kept in profound ignorance of the fact.

What, then, is the power, and how great the evil influence, of a corrupt and immoral owner! Is it right to give such power to any human beings?

Touching honesty and thrift among the negroes, the missionary observes:

While some discipline their people for every act of theft committed against their interests, they have no care whatever what amount of pilfering and stealing the people carry on among themselves. Hence, in some places, thieves thrive and honest men suffer, until it becomes a practice “to keep if you can what is your own, and get all you can besides that is your neighbor’s.” Things come to such a pass, that the saying of the negroes is literally true, “the people live upon one another.”

Recommending the authority of the master to be used to restrain quarrelling, fighting and profanity, the “custom of husbands whipping and beating their wives” is referred to as a common thing, as I have otherwise learned it to be. “The negro always plays the nabob in his own cabin,” an old planter observed to me; his wife is the slave of a slave, and respects her husband the more if he is a tyrant.

[177]

Referring to the evil of Intemperance, it is observed:

Whatever toleration masters use towards ardent spirits in others, they are generally inclined to use none in respect to their servants; and in effecting this reformation, masters and mistresses should set the example; for without example, precepts and persuasions are powerless. Nor can force effect this reformation as surely and perfectly as persuasion—appealing to the character and happiness of the servant himself, the appeal recognizes him in such a manner as to produce self-respect, and it tends to give elevation of conduct and character. I will not dwell upon this point.

Unfortunately this is the very point that needs to be dwelt upon. Here lies the whole insurmountable difficulty, and I will close the subject by reiterating it. Slavery, in itself, rendering impossible a strong appeal to the character and happiness of its subject, recognizing him solely in such a manner as produces self-humiliation, can tend only to degradation of conduct and character.

The present moral and intellectual condition of the majority of the plantation slaves at the South, as I have understood it, is such as must be explained on one of two theories: either that the original capacity of the race for improvement is very limited (in other words, that they constitute a distinct and inferior race), or that the effect of the system under which they live, is to reduce their natural capacity in some respects, to limit and forbid improvement in others, and is generally demoralizing and debasing. The latter effect may be counteracted by peculiar local and personal circumstances, such as confidential relations with cultivated whites, as often where the negroes reside in active trading communities, where they are family servants, or where they are the slaves of comparatively poor men, who, owning but a few of them, are brought into more intimate and constant personal association with them. The great contrast between the negroes living under these circumstances and the ordinary laboring plantation slaves, cannot but be manifest to the most superficial observer; it is much greater a degree than the difference between the corresponding classes of the white laboring people of the Free States. The character and intellectual condition of the more privileged negroes is so superior, that I deem it in itself the strongest evidence against the first hypothesis—which affirms that the negro race has but very little capacity for improvement.

This theory is that which was held by Mr. Calhoun, and which I find is sustained by most men of logical minds at the South—not so much, I imagine, because they have been convinced by evidence before them, as because only on this theory can Slavery be logically defended. An esteemed friend at the South writes to me: “Slavery has always existed about me, and without reasoning, I have accepted it as the natural condition of the black population.” Such is the situation of nearly all Southern-born men, and when called upon to reason about it, they must admit Slavery to be unjust, unnatural and cruel, or take the position that the negro is naturally incapacitated for personal freedom, for the attainment of such civilization or elevated moral character, or argue that the negro race needs training, cultivation and discipline to fit it for freedom; [178] and that to give it this education, it must be held in restraint as in a self-sustaining manual labor school. The argument for the first position is sustained on a strong basis of facts, in Ethnological science, by the present and past condition of the negroes in Africa, compared with other races of men; and it is supposed to be sustained by Scripture. It is simple, strong and consistent. At a future time, I will consider it more particularly, and examine whether, if it were admitted, the conclusions with regard to Slavery which are commonly based upon it are justifiable. At present, I take the hypothesis more generally accepted by the world, and more popular even at the South, especially among religious people, that the race is capable of indefinite elevation ; that the same general laws of progress apply to it that are admitted for our own race; that all are descended from one parent stock, and that difference of physique is due to outward circumstances, and has followed rather than caused the difference of mental character which has distinguished the races.

Admitting this, Slavery can only be justifiable temporarily—for so long a time, namely, be it for years, generations, or centuries, as shall suffice to elevate the subjects of it, or their descendants, to a mental and moral position in which they can be trusted to their own guidance with safety to themselves and others, and until their forced labor shall have paid fair. tuition fees to their masters; admitting this, it follows that the system of restraint (for it should no longer be revolting to the ear of a freeman under the odious name, even, of Slavery) should be carefully adapted, not only to the one purpose of self-sustentation, but to the other, namely, education.

In accordance with this theory, the state of bondage of the negroes is a painful but justifiable system, and under the circumstances in which they had to be dealt with at the Revolution, is no more inconsistent with republicanism, than the bondage of children or of the insane.

Such were the views and expectations of the earlier patriots and statesmen of the south; it was with such views and expectations, expressed by them and by many popular assemblies and legislative bodies at the South, that the compact of our Union was formed. Such views and purposes are still held by thousands of our fellow citizens of the South, who, holding slaves and sustaining Slavery on this theory, are, it is not to be doubted, consistent followers of Christ and true Democrats.

But this theory has never been accepted by the strength of the South. Popular legislation, custom, feeling and avowed purpose have not been in accordance with it. The negro is held in a state of pure and unmitigated slavery incompatible with his elevation, and only to be in the least degree defended as justifiable, on the theory on which our Government is based, on the ground that the negro is a brute, or on the plea of necessity for self-preservation. And in point of fact, all arguments for Slavery as it exists are reducible to one of these two. All other arguments which we hear from Southerners are in defence of Slavery as it should be—as I deny that it is. But I do not undertake to prove [179] that Slavery, intertwined with the most effective institutions for popular elevation in the world, can absolutely make the negro more degraded and debased in all points of character than heathen barbarism.

Along with the immense improvements of all other classes of the people, which the democratic and republican form of Government has occasioned, Slavery could not prevent an improvement of the physical condition of the negroes. They are better fed, better clothed and housed, and less often cruelly punished. This, in itself, would insure a better exercise of their moral and intellectual faculties. Admitting, therefore, in a certain sense, the better intellectual and moral aspect of the class, I deny that this shows that Slavery is an educating process. Under Slavery as it is now legalized by legislation and established in custom, I affirm that the negroes are instructed merely, that they acquire from without certain habits and forms, but that they are not educated in the primary and higher sense of the word; that their mind is not drawn out, that their capabilities are not developed, and that what is deemed their intellectual improvement is like the intellectual improvement of a parrot, who, once knowing only enough to croak when it was hungry, has now learned to call for food in a form of words.

I think it is obvious that the laws and customs of Slave States are such as to interfere with and prevent any general elevation of the negro. They are plainly and often avowedly contrived with reference to this end. The power of the master to govern his slaves with sole reference to his own profit, is not at all restricted by regulations to insure their intellectual elevation and eventual capacity for emancipation.

The order of society and the customs of the people, with exceptions that I have mentioned favorable to a moiety, are entirely opposed to the elevation of the negroes. Slaves are looked upon in law and in custom as property solely, and not in any sense in a state of pupilage. They are generally treated as property, and the restrictions upon the power of their masters, or the penalties for abusing it, enforced by law or in social usage, are of the same nature as those which restrict the power, or punish the abuse of power, of a man over his brutes in free countries. There are but few and unimportant exceptions to this rule.

The only defence for this course is the necessity which the danger of insurrection and anarchy is imagined or assumed, by those who are influenced by only low, cowardly and selfish views, to occasion. How far it is justifiable on this ground, it is difficult for a stranger to know. One thing I am certain of—if the slaves are satisfied with their present condition and prospects, they are more degraded and debased than I have described them to be. There is no reason why, in the future, the danger of treating them justly (by which I do not mean freeing them from the control of their masters) should be less than at present. If there is any such danger at present, it would seem likely to increase as their numbers increase and concentrate, unless this danger may be averted [180] by measures favorable to their improvement and elevation. Up to this time, there has been no disposition shown by the South to remove the difficulty before her in this way. On ’the contrary, the policy which most intelligent men of the more free and enlightened countries of the world consider suicidal in the despots of Austria and Sicily—the policy of restricting, holding down and keeping dark the minds of the dangerous class—is yet constantly adhered to. The laws of the South for this purpose are of precisely the same title, purport, tendency and effect (so far as a stranger in each can judge) with those of Russia, Germany, Italy and France. It would be equally dangerous for me to publish and circulate this letter in Charleston, Paris, or Naples. In Russia, I might do it—for I have but to insert this clause, reminding the serfs that only the power and goodness of the Emperor prevents them from being subject to the mere cupidity of their natural masters, equally with the American slaves, to obtain for it the approval of the censor. The only measure having reference to the difficulty, besides those of this character, generally and energetically advocated and pursued by the South, has been, and is, that of enlarging the area of the country which may be occupied by slaves—thus putting off the danger which their concentration will occasion.

Up to this point we of the North have politically nothing to do with it. Here we have much to do. Here we must be consulted, here we must assist; here, at least, we must permit, or here we must prevent.

Therefore, it is ’not impertinent for us to inquire if there is not a better way. There is nothing impracticable, nothing fanatical, nothing unconstitutional, in our holding and expressing the belief that there is.

For us to cry out for Abolition, the direct sundering of the tie of master and dependent, may be impracticable, fanatical, mischievous and unjust. For Amelioration, the improvement and elevation of the negro, it seems to me, in view of the honor, safety and future prosperity of the country whose institutions we unite to govern and protect, there is no impropriety for us to ask.