Address of a convention of Negroes held in Alexandria Virginia August 1865
We , the undersigned members of a Convention of colored citizens of the State of Virginia, would
respectfully represent that, although we have been held as slaves, and denied all recognition as a
constituent of your nationality for almost the entire period of the duration of your Government, and that
by your permission we have been denied either home or country, and deprived of the dearest rights of
human nature: yet when you and our immediate oppressors met in deadly conflict upon the field of battle the one to destroy and the other to save your Government and nationality, we, with scarce an exception, in
our inmost souls espoused your cause, and watched, and prayed, and waited, and labored for your
success.
When the contest waxed long, and the result hung doubtfully, you appealed to us for help, and how well we
answered is written in the rosters of the two hundred thousand colored troops now enrolled in your service;
and as to our undying devotion to your cause, let the uniform acclamation of escaped prisoners, "whenever
we saw a black face we felt sure of a friend," answer.
Well, the war is over, the rebellion is "put down," and we are declared free! Four fifths of our enemies are
paroled or amnestied, and the other fifth are being pardoned, and the President has, in his efforts at the
reconstruction of the civil government of the States, late in rebellion, left us entirely at the mercy of these
subjugated but unconverted rebels, in everything save the privilege of bringing us, our wives and little ones,
to the auction block. . . . We know these men-know them well-and we assure you that, with the majority of
them, loyalty is only "lip deep," and that their professions of loyalty are used as a cover to the cherished
design of getting restored to their former relations with the Federal Government, and then, by all sorts of
"unfriendly legislation," to render the freedom you have given us more intolerable than the slavery they
intended for us.
We warn you in time that our only safety is in keep ing them under Governors of the military
persuasion until you have so amended the Federal Constitution that it will prohibit the States from making
any distinction between citizens on account of race or color. In one word, the only salvation for us besides
the power of the Government, is in the possession of the ballot. Give us this, and we will protect ourselves.
. . . But, is said we are ignorant. Admit it. Yet who denies we know a traitor from a loyal man, a gentleman
from a rowdy, a friend from an enemy? The twelve thousand colored votes of the State of New York sent
Governor Seymour home and Reuben E. Fenton to Albany. Did not they know who to vote for? . . . All we
ask is an equal chance with the white traitors varnished and japanned with the oath of amnesty. Can you
deny us this and still keep faith with us? .
We are "sheep in the midst of wolves," and nothing but the military arm of the Government prevents us and
all the truly loyal white men from being driven from the land of our birth. Do not then, we beseech you, give
to one of these "wayward sisters" the rights they abandoned and forfeited when they rebelled until you have
secured our rights by the aforementioned amendment to the Constitution. .
Trusting that you will not be deaf to the appeal herein made, nor unmindful of the warnings which the
malignity of the rebels are constantly giving you, and that you will rise to the height of being just for the
sake of justice, we remain yours for our flag, our country and humanity.
Alexander Stephens on Reconstruction April 11 1866
I think the people of the State would be unwilling do more than they have done for restoration. Restricted to limited
suffrage would not be so objectionable as general or universal. But it is a matter that belongs to the State to
regulate. The question of suffrage, whether universal or restricted, is one of State policy exclusively, as they believe.
Individually I should not be opposed to a propose system of restricted or limited suffrage to this class our population.
. . . The only view in their opinion that could possibly justify the war that was carried on by the federal government
against them was the idea of the indisolubleness of the Union; that those who held the administration for the time
were bound to enforce the execution of the laws and the maintenance of the integrity of the country under the
Constitution. . . . They expected as soon as the confederate cause was abandoned that immediately the States would
be brought back into their practical relations with the government as previously constituted. That is what they
looked to. They expected that the States would immediately have their representatives in the Senate and in the
House; and they expected in good faith, as loyal men, as the term is frequently used- loyal to law, order, and the
Constitution-to support the government under the Constitution. . . . Towards the Constitution of the United States
the great mass of our people were always as much devoted in their feelings as any people ever were towards any
laws or people . they resorted to secession with a view of more securely maintaining these principles. And when they
found they were not successful in their object in perfect good faith, as far as I can judge from meeting with them and
conversing with them, looking to the future development of their country . . . their earnest desire and expectation
was to allow the past struggle . . . to pass by and to co-operate with . . . those of all sections who earnestly desire the
preservation of constitutional liberty and the perpetuation of the government in its purity. They have been . . .
disappointed in this, and are . . . patiently waiting, however, and believing that when the passions of the hour have
passed away this delay in representation will cease. .
My own opinion is, that these terms ought not to be offered as conditions precedent. . . . It would be best for the
peace, harmony, and prosperity of the whole country that there should be an immediate restoration, an immediate
bringing back of the States into their original practical relations; and let all these questions then be discussed in
common council. Then the representatives from the south could be heard, and you and all could judge much better
of the tone and temper of the people than you could from the opinions given by any individuals. . . .
My judgment, therefore, is very decided, that it would have been better as soon as the lamentable conflict was over,
when the people of the south abandoned their cause and agreed to accept the issue, desiring as they do to resume
their places for the future in the Union, and to look to the arena of reason and justice for the protection of their
rights in the Union-it would have been better to have allowed that result to take place, to follow under the policy
adopted by the administration, than to delay or hinder it by propositions to amend the Constitution in respect to
suffrage. . . . I think the people of all the southern States would in the halls of Congress discuss these questions
calmly and deliberately. and if they did not show that the views they entertained were just and proper, such as to
control the judgment of the people of the other sections and States, they would quietly . yield to whatever should be
constitutionally determined in common council. But I think they feel very sensitively the offer to them of
propositions to accept while they are denied all voice . . . in the discussion of these propositions. I think they feel
very sensitively that they are denied the right to be heard.
*Stephens made these comments in answer to the question posed by the ardent Radical George S. Boutwell, whether Georgia would accept
restoration to the Union either on the basis of granting suffrage to Negroes or accepting a diminution in her representation in Congress
proportionate to the number of those to whom suffrage was denied. These were, of course, the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment which
had recently passed Congress and stood before the states for ratification. Stephens did not feel that such terms should be put to the Southern
states as conditions precedent of restoration to the Union.
Of the advantages which Europe has derived from the discovery of America.
Those advantages may be divided, first, into the general advantages which Europe, considered as one great country,
has derived from those great events; and, secondly great events; and secondly, into the particular advantages which
each colonizing country has derived from the colonles which particulars belong to it, in consequence of the authority
or dominion which it exercises over them.
The general advantages which Europe, considered as one great country, has derived from the discovery and
colonization of America, consist, first, in the increase of its enjoyments; and, secondly, in the augmentation of its
industry.
The surplus produce of America, imported into Europe, furnishes the inbabitants of this great continent with a
variety of commodities which they could not Otherwise have possessed, some for conveniency and use, some for
pleasure, and some for ornament, and thereby contributes to increase their enjoyments.
The discovery and colonization of America, it will readily be allowed, have contributed to augment the in dustry,
first, of all the countries which trade to it directly; such as Spain, Portugal, France, and England; and, secondly, of all
those which, without trading to it directly, send, through the medium of other countries, goods to it of their own
produce; such as Austrian Flanders, and some provinces of Germany, which, through the medium of the countries
before mentioned, send to it a considerable quantity of linen and other goods. All such countries have evidently
gained a more extensive market for their surplus produce, and must tonsequently have been encouraged to increase
its quantity.
But, that those great events should likewise have contributed to encourage the industry of countries, such as
Hungary and Poland, which may never, perhaps, have sent a single commodity of their own produce to America, is
not, perhaps, altogether so evident. That those events have done so, however, cannot be doubted. Some part of the
produce of America is consumed in Hungary and Poland, and there is some demand there for the sugar, chocolate,
and tobacco, of that new quarter of the world. But those commodities must be purchased with something which is
either the produce of the industry of Hungary and Poland, or with something which had been purchased with some
part of that produce. Those commodities of America are new values, new equivalents, introduced into Hungary and
Poland to be exchanged there for the surplus produce of those countries. By being carried thither they create a new
and more extensive market for that surplus produce. They raise its value, and thereby contribute to encourage its
increase. Though no part of it may ever be carried to America, it may be carried to other countries which purchase it
with a part of their share of the surplus produce of America; and its may find a market by means of the circulation of
that trade which was originally put into motion by the surplus produce of America.
Those great events may even have contributed increase the enjoyments, and to augment the industry of countries
which not only never sent any commodities to America, but never received any from it. Even such countries may
have received a greater abundance if other commodities from countries of which the surplus produce had been
augmented by means of the American trade. This greater abundance, as it must necessarily have increase their
enjoyments, so it must likewise have augmented their industry. A greater number of new equivalents of some kind
or other must have been presented to them to be exchanged for the surplus produce of that industry. A more
extensive market must have been created for that surplus produce, so as to raise its value, and thereby encourag its
increase. The mass of commodities annually thrown into the great circle of European commerce, and by it various
revolutions annually distributed among all the different nations comprehended within it, must have been
augmented by the whole surplus produce of America. A greater share of this greater mass, therefore, is likely to
have fallen to each of those nations, to have increase their enjoyments, and augmented their industry....
The particular advantages which each colonizing country derives from the colonies which particularly belong to it,
are of two different kinds; first, those common advantages which every empire derives from the provinces subject to
its dominion; and, secondly, those peculiar advantages which are supposed to result from provinces of so very
peculiar a nature as the European colonies of America...
The discovery of America, and that of a passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, are the two greatest
and most important events recorded in the history of mankind. Their consequences have already been veryb great:
but, in the short period of between two and three centuries which has elapsed since these discoveries were made, it
is impossible that the whole extent of their consequences can have been seen. What benefits, or what misfortunes
to mankind may hereafter result from those great events, no human wisdom can foresee. By uniting, in some
measure, the most distant parts of the world, by enabling them to relieve one another's wants, to increase one
another's enjoyments, and to encourage one another's industry, their general tendency would seem to be beneficial.
In the mean time, one of the principal effects of those discoveries has been to raise the mercantile system to a
degree of splendour and glory which it could never otherwise have attained to. It is the object of that system to
enrich a great nation rather by trade and manufactures than by the improvement and cultivation of land, rather by
the industry of the towns than by that of the country. But, in consequence of those discoveries, the commercial
towns of Europe, instead of being the manufacturers and carriers for but a very small part of the world (that part of
Europe which is washed by the Atlantic ocean, and the countries which lie round the Baltic and Mediterranean seas),
have now become the manufacturers for the numerous and thriving cultivators of America, and the carriers, and in
some respects the manufacturers too, for almost all the different nations of Asia, Africa, and America. Two new
worlds have been opened to their industry, each of them much greater and more extensive than the old one, and
the market of one of them growing still greater and greater every day....
Cost of the empire
The countries which possess the colonies of America, and which trade directly to the East Indies, enjoy, indeed, the
whole show and splendour of this great commerce. Other countries, however, notwithstanding all the invidious
restraints by which it is meant to exclude them, frequently enjoy a greater share of the real benefit of it. The
colonies of Spain and Portugal, for example, give more real encouragement to the industry of other countries than to
that of Spain and Portugal. . .
After all the unjust attempts, therefore, of every country in Europe to engross to itself the whole advantage of the
trade of its own colonies, no country has yet been able to engross to itself anything but the expense of supporting in
time of peace, and of defending in time of war, the oppressive authority which it assumes over them. The
inconveniencies resulting from the possession of its colonies, every country has engrossed to itself completely. The
advantages resulting from their trade it has been obliged to share with many other countries.
At first sight, no doubt, the monopoly of the great commerce of America naturally seems to be an acquisition of the
highest value. To the undiscerning eye of giddy ambition, it naturally presents itself amidst the confused scramble of
politics and war, as a very dazzling object to fight for. The dazzling splendour of the object, however the immense
greatness of the commerce, is the very quality which renders the monopoly of it hurtful, or which makes one
employment, in its own nature necessarily less advantageous to the country than the greater part of other
employments, absorb a much greater proportion of the capital of the country than what would otherwise have gone
to it. .
It is not contrary to justice that . . . America should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of Great
Britain. . . . a government to which several of the colonies of America owe their present charters, and consequently
their present constitution; and to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty, security, and property which
they have ever since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the defence, not of Great Britain alone, but of
all the different provinces of the empire; the immense debt contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part
of that contracted in the war before, were both properly contracted in defence of America. . .
If it should be found impracticable for Great Britain to draw any considerable augmentation of revenue from any of
the resources above mentioned; the only resource which can remain to her is a diminution of her expense. In the
mode of collecting, and in that of expending the public revenue; though in both there may be still room for
improvement; Great Britain seems to be at least as economical as any of her neighbours. The military establishment
which she maintains for her own defence in time of peace, is more moderate than that of any European state which
can pretend to rival her either in wealth or in power. None of those articles, therefore, seem to admit of any
considerable reduction of expense. The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was, before the
commencement of the present disturbances, very considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can
be drawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This constant expense in time of peace, though very
great, is insignificant in comparison with what the defence of the colonies has cost us in time of war. The last war,
which was undertaken altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain . . . upwards of ninety millions. The
Spanish war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their account; in which, and in the French war that was the
consequence of it, Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of which ought justly to be charged to
the colonies. In those two wars the colonies cost Great Britain much more than double the sum which the national
debt amounted to before the commencement of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt might,
and probably would by this time, have been completely paid; and had it not been for the colonies, the former of
those wars might not, and the latter certainly would not have been undertaken. It was because the colonies were
supposed to be provinces of the British empire, that this expense was laid out upon them. But countries which
contribute neither revenue nor military force towards the support of the empire, cannot be considered as provinces.
They may perhaps be considered as appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the empire. But if the
empire can no longer support the expense of keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it down; and if it
cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it ought at least, to accommodate its expense to its revenue. If
the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submit to British taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of the
British empire, their defence in some future war may cost Great Britain as great an expense as it ever has done in
any former war. The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with the
imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto
existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire; not a gold mine, but
the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way
as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of
the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of
profit. It is surely now time that our rulers should either realise this golden dream, in which they have been indulging
themselves, perhaps, as well as the people; or, that they should awake from it themselves, and endeavour to
awaken the people. If the project cannot be completed, it ought to be given up. If any of the provinces of the British
empire cannot be made to contribute towards the support of the whole empire, it is surely time that Great Britain
should free herself from the expense of defending those provinces in time of war, and of supporting any part of their
civil or military establishments in time of peace, and endeavour to accommodate her future views and designs to the
real mediocrity of her circumstances.
Excerpts from Henrey Carey The Slave Trade Domestic and Foreign 1853
Hence it is that we see the slave trade prevail to so great an extent in all the countries subject to the British
system.... The system to which the world is indebted for these results is called ``free trade''; but there can be no
freedom of trade where there is no freedom of man, for the first of all commodities to be exchanged is labour, and
the freedom of man consists only in the exercise of the right to determine for himself in what manner his labour
shall be employed, and how he will dispose of its products.... It [the British System] is the most gigantic system of
slavery the world has yet seen, and therefore it is that freedom gradually disappears from every country over which
England is enabled to obtain control.... In this country protection has always, to some extent, existed; but at some
times it has been efficient, and at others not; and our tendency toward freedom or slavery has always been in the
direct ratio of its efficiency or inefficiency. In the period from 1824 to 1833, the tendency was steadily in the former
direction, but it was only in the latter part of it that it was made really efficient. Then mills and furnaces increased in
number, and there was a steady increase in the tendency toward the establishment of local places of exchange; and
then it was that Virginia held her convention at which was last discussed in that State the question of emancipation.
In 1833, however, protection was abandoned, and a tariff was established by which it was provided that we should,
in a few years, have a system of merely revenue duties; and from that date the abandonment of the older State
proceeded with a rapidity never before known, and with it grew the domestic slave trade and the pro-slavery feeling.
Then it was that were passed the laws restricting emancipation and prohibiting education; and then it was that the
exports of slaves from Virginia and the Carolinas was so great that the population of those States remained almost, if
not quite stationary, and the growth of the black population fell from thirty percent, in the ten previous years, to
twenty-four percent....
Slavery now travels North, whereas only twenty years ago freedom was traveling South. That such is the case is the
natural consequence of our submission, even in part, to the system that looks to compelling the export of raw
products, the exhaustion of the land, the cheapening of labour, and the export of the labourer. Wherever it is
resisted, slaver dies away and freedom grows.
excerpts from the XV chapter on
``How Can Slavery Be Extinguished?''
The system commonly called free trade tends to produce the former results (``the cheapening of labour and land
everywhere, the perpetuation of slavery, and the extension of its domain'' --ed.); and where man is enslaved there
can be no real freedom of trade. That one which looks to protection against this extraordinary system of taxation,
tends to enable men to determine for themselves whether they will make their exchanges abroad or at home; and it
is in this power of choice that consists the freedom of trade and of man. By adopting the 'free trade,' or British,
system we place ourselves side by side with the men who have ruined Ireland and India, and are now poisoning and
enslaving the Chinese people. By adopting the other, we place ourselves by the side of those whose measures tend
not only to the improvement of their own subjects, but to the emancipation of the slave everywhere, whether in the
British Islands, India, Italy, or America.
It will be said, however, that protection tends to destroy commerce, the civilizer of mankind. Directly the reverse,
however, is the fact. It is the system now called free trade that tends to the destruction of commerce, as is shown
wherever it obtains. Protection looks only to resisting a great scheme of foreign taxation that everywhere limits the
power of man to combine his efforts with those of his neighborman for the increase of his production, the
improvement of his mind, and the enlargement of his desires for, and his power to procure, the commodities
produced among the different nations of the world. The commerce of India does not grow, nor does that of Portugal,
or of Turkey; that but that of the protected countries does increase, as has been shown in the case of Spain, and can
now be shown in that of Germany. In 1834, before the formation of the Zollverein, Germany took from Great Britain
her own produce and manufactures, only 4,429,727 pounds, whereas in 1852 she took 7,694,069 pounds.
And as regards this country, in which protection has always to some extent existed, it is the best customer that
England ever had, and our demands upon her grow most steadily and regularly under protection, because the
greater our power to make coarse goods, the greater are those desires which lead to the purchase of iron ones, and
the greater our ability to gratify them.
Whatever tends to increase the power of man to associate with his neighborman, tends to promote the growth of
commerce, and to produce that material, moral, and intellectual improvement which leads to freedom. To enable
men to exercise that power is the object of protection. The men of this country, therefore, who desire that all men,
black, white and brown, shall at the earliest period enjoy perfect freedom of thought, speech, action, and trade, will
find, on full consideration, that duty to themselves and to their fellow-men requires that they should advocate
efficient protection, as the true and only mode of abolishing the domestic trade in slaves, whether black or white.'
Jefferson's notes on Slavery
.... It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of
supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the
whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real
distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce
convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. - To these
objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes
us is that of colour. - Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarfskin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that
of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to
us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two
races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of
colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of
black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form,
their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference
of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of Superior beauty, is
thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of
man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They
have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidneys, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives
them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat,
and less so of cold than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late
ingenious [1] experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them
from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to
part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. A black after hard labour through the day, will be induced by
the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the
morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of
forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present..- When present, they do not go through it with
more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to
be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those
numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less
felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than
reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and
unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of
course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory
they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and
comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would
be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation.
We will consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a
judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of
conversation, of the sphere in which they move. Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America.
Most of them indeed have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their own society: yet many have been
so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought
up to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been
liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable
degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad.
The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit.
They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only
wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and
sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a
thought above the level of plain narration; never saw even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they
are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable of
imagining a small catch. [2] Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of
complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry. Among
the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. Love is the peculiar oestrum of the poet. Their love is ardent,
but it kindles the senses only, not the imagination. Religion indeed has produced a Phyllis Whately [3] but it could
not produce a poet. The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism. The heroes of
the Dunciad are to her, as Hercules to the author of that poem. Ignatius Sancho has approached nearer to merit in
composition; yet his letters do more honour to the heart than the head. They breathe the purest effusions of
friendship and general philanthropy, and show how great a degree of the latter may be compounded with strong
religious zeal. He is often happy in the turn of his compliments, and his style is easy and familiar, except when he
affects a Shandean fabrication of words. But his imagination is wild and extravagant, escapes incessantly from every
restraint of reason and taste, and, in the course of its vagaries, leaves a tract of thought as incoherent and eccentric,
as is the course of a meteor through the sky. His subjects should often have led him to a process of sober reasoning:
yet we find him always substituting sentiment for demonstration. Upon the whole, though we admit him to the first
place among those of his own colour who have presented themselves to the public judgment, yet when we compare
him with the writers of the race among whom he lived and particularly with the epistolary class, in which he has
taken his own stand, we are compelled to enrol him at the bottom of the column. This criticism supposes the letters
published under his name to be genuine, and to have received amendment from no other hand; points which would
not be of easy investigation. The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture
with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their
condition of life. We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the condition of their slaves
was much more deplorable than that of the blacks on the continent of America. The two sexes were confined in
separate apartments, because to raise a child cost the master more than to buy one. Cato, for a very restricted
indulgence to his slaves in this particular, took from them a certain price. But in this country the slaves multiply as
fast as the free inhabitants. Their situation and manners place the commerce between the two sexes almost without
restraint. The same Cato, on a principle of oeconomy, always sold his sick and superannuated slaves. He gives it as a
standing precept to a master visiting his farm, to sell his old oxen, old wagons, old tools, old and diseased servants,
and every thing else become useless. . . . The American slaves cannot enumerate this among the injuries and insults
they receive. It was the common practice to expose in the island Esculapius, in the Tyber, diseased slaves, whose
cure was like to become tedious. The emperor Claudius, by an edict, gave freedom to such of them as should
recover, and first declared that if any person chose to kill rather than expose them, it should be deemed homicide.
The exposing them is a crime of which no instance has existed with us; and were it to be followed by death, it would
be punished capitally. We are told of a certain Vedius Pollio, who, in the presence of Augustus, would have given a
slave as food to his fish, for having broken a glass. With the Romans, the regular method of taking the evidence of
their slaves was under torture. Here it has been thought better never to resort to their evidence. When a master was
murdered, all his slaves, in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death. Here punishment falls on
the guilty only, and as precise proof is required against him as against a freeman. Yet notwithstanding these and
other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled too
in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their masters' children. Epictetus, Terence, and
Phaedrus, were slaves. But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but nature, which has
produced the distinction. Whether further observation will or will not verify the conjecture, that nature has been
less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head, I believe that in those of the heart she will be found to have
done them justice. That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation,
and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favour no laws of property exist, probably feels
himself less bound to respect those made in favour of others. When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a
fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules
of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience: and it is a problem which I give to the master to solve, whether
the religious precepts against the violation of property were not framed for him as well as his slave? And whether
the slave may not as justifiably take a little from one, who has taken all from him, as he may slay one who would slay
him? That a change in the relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of moral right or wrong, is
neither new, nor peculiar to the colour of the blacks. Homer tells us it was so 2600 years ago.
Jove fix'd it certain, that whatever day
Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.
But the slaves of which Homer speaks were whites. Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their
respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as
among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude and unshaken fidelity. The opinion, that they are
inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general
conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subject may be submitted to the anatomical knife, to
optical classes, to analysis by fire, or by solvents. How much more then where it is a faculty, not a substance, we are
examining; where it eludes the research of all the Senses; where the conditions of its existence are various and
variously combined; where the effects of those which are present or absent bid defiance to calculation; let me add
too, as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank
in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them. To our reproach it must be said, that though
for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been
viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether
originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments
both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different Species of the same genus, or varieties
of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the
gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of
man as distinct as nature has formed them?
This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these
people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature are anxious also to
preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with
them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans
emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his
master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of
mixture.
The particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that state?
It is difficult to determine on the standard by which the manners of a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or
particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his own nation, familiarized to him
by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of
slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous
passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see
this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his
cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his
philanthropy or his self love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a
sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches
the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions,
and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious pecularities. The
man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what
execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trarnple on the rights of
the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor
patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in
which he is born to live and labour for another; in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far
as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable
condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry also is
destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so
true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of
a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that
these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my
country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and
natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it
may become probable by supernatural interference! The almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in
such a contest. - But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of
policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every
one's mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is
abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices
of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the
masters, rather than by their extirpation.
Charles Inglis The True Interest of America Impartially Stated 1776
Introduction
One of the best evidences of the power of Paine's Common Sense is the number of Loyalists who leaped to the
counterattack. Some of these are better known to history then the Anglican clergyman Charles Inglis, but none made
a more succinct statement of the forebodings of Loyalists. His anonymous counterblast against Paine was
entitled, The True Interest of America Impartially Stated in Certain Strictures on a Pamphlet Intitled Common Sense.
Inglis had come to live in America in 1755 and, at the outbreak of hostillties, was attached to Trinity Church in New
York City. Throughout the war he kept writing essays intended to convince the patriots that they were on the wrong
track.
But in 1783, when he was about to sail for exile In England, he declared: "I do not leave behind me an individual,
against whom I have the smallest degree of resentment or ill-will.
I think it no difficult matter to point out many advantages which will certainly attend our reconciliation and
connection with Great-Britain, on a firm, constitutional plan. I shall select a few of these; and that their importance
may be more clearly discerned, I shall afterwards point out some of the evils which inevitably must attend our
separating from Britain, and declaring for independency. On each article I shall study brevity.
1. By a reconciliation with Britain, a period would be put to the present calamitous war, by which so many lives
have been lost, and so many more must be lost, if it continues. This alone is an advantage devoutly to he
wished for. This author says- "The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, Tis time to part." I
think they cry just the reverse. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries-It is time to be
reconciled; it is time to lay aside those animosities which have pushed on Britons to shed the blood of
Britons; it is high time that those who are connected by the endearing ties of religion, kindred and country,
should resume their former friendship, and be united in the bond of mutual atfection, as their interests are
inseparably united.
2. By a Reconciliation with Great-Britain, Peace - that fairest offspring and gift of Heaven - will be restored. In
one respect Peace is like health; we do not sufficiently know its value but by its absence. What uneasiness
and anxiety, what evils, has this short interruption of peace with the parent-state, brought on the whole
British empire! Let every man only consult his feelings - I except my antagonist - and it will require no great
force of rhetoric to convince him, that a removal of those evils, and a restoration of peace, would be a
singular advantage and blessing.
3. Agriculture, commerce, and industry would resume their wonted vigor. At present, they languish and droop,
both here and in Britain; and must continue to do so, while this unhappy contest remains unsettled.
4. By a connection with Great-Britain, our trade would still have the protection of the greatest naval power in
the world. England has the advantage, in this respect, of every other state, whether of ancient or modern
times. Her insular situation, her nurseries for seamen, the superiority of those seamen above others-these
circumstances to mention no other, combine to make her the first maritime power in the universe---such
exactly is the power whose protection we want for our commerce. To suppose, with our author, that we
should have no war, were we to revolt from England, is too absurd to deserve a confutation. I could just as
soon set about refuting the reveries of some brain-sick enthusiast. Past experience shews that Britain is able
to defend our commerce, and our coasts; and we have no reason to doubt of her being able to do so for the
future.
5. The protection of our trade, while connected with Britain, will not cost a fiftieth part of what it must cost,
were we ourselves to ralse a naval force sufficient for this purpose.
6. Whilst connected with Great-Britain, we have a bounty on almost every article of exportation; and we may
be better supplied with goods by her, than we could elsewhere. What our author says is true; "that our
imported goods must be paid for, buy them where we will",; but we may buy them dearer, and of worse
quality, in one place than another. The manufactures of Great-Britain confessedly surpass any in the world particularly those in every kind of metal, which we want most; and no country can afford linens and
woollens, of equal quality cheaper.
7. When a Reconciliation is effected, and things return into the old channel, a few years of peace will restore
everything to its pristine state. Emigrants will flow in as usual from the different parts of Europe. Population
will advance with the same rapid progress as formerly, and our lands will rise in value.
These advantages are not imaginary but real. They are such as we have already experienced; and such as we may
derive from a connection with Great Britain for ages to come. Each of these might easily be enlarged on, and others
added to them; but I only mean to suggest a few hints to the reader.
Let us now, if you please, take a view of the other side of the question. Suppose we were to revolt from GreatBritain, declare ourselves Independent, and set up a Republic of our own-what would be the consequence? - I stand
aghast at the prospect - my blood runs chill when I think of the calamities, the complicated evils that must ensue,
and may be clearly foreseen - it is impossible for any man to foresee them all. . .
1. All our property throughout the continent would be unhinged; the greatest confusion, and most violent
convulsions would take place. It would not he here, as it was in England at the Revolution in 1688. That
revolution was not brought about by an defiance or disannulling the right of succession. James II, by
abdicating the throne, left it vacant for the next in succession; acordingly his eldest daughter and her
husband stept in. Every other matter went on in the usual, regular way; and the constitution, instead of
being dissolved, was strengthened. But in case of our revolt, the old constitution would be totally subverted.
The common bond that tied us together, and by which our property was secured, would be snapt asunder. It
is not to be doubted but our Congress would endeavor to apply some remedy for those evils; but with all
deference to that respectable body, I do not apprehend that any remedy in their power would be adequate,
at least for some time. I do not chuse to be more explicit; but l am able to support my opinion.
2. What a horrid situation would thousands be reduced to who have taken the oath of allegiance to the King:
yet contrary to their oath, as well as inclination, must be compelled to renounce that allegiance, or abandon
all their property in America! How many thousands more would be reduced to a similar situation; who,
although they took not that oath, yet would think it inconsistent with their duty and a good conscience to
renounce their Sovereign; I dare say these will appear trifling difficulties to our author; but whatever he may
think, there are thousands and thousands who would sooner lose all they had in the world, nay life itself,
than thus wound their conscience. A Declaration of Independency would infallibiy disunite and divide the
colonists.
3. By a Declaration for Independency, every avenue to an accommodation with Great-Britain would be closed;
the sword only could then decide the quarrel; and the sword would not be sheathed till one had conquered
the other.
The importance of these colonies to Britain need not be enlarged on, it is a thing so universally known. The greater
their importance is to her, so much the more obstinate will her struggle be not to lose them. The independency of
America would, in the end, deprive her of the West-Indies, shake her empire to the foundation, and reduce her to a
state of the most mortifying insignificance. Great-Britain therefore must, for her own preservation, risk every thing,
and exert her whole strength, to prevent such an event from taking place. This being the case --4. Devastation and ruin must mark the progress of this war along the sea coast of America. Hitherto, Britain has
not exerted her power. Her number of troops and ships of war here at present, is very little more than she
judged expedient in time of peace - the former does not amount to 12,000 men - nor the latter to 40 ships,
including frigates. Both she, and the colonies, hoped for and expected an accommodation; neither of them
has lost sight of that desirable object. The seas have been open to our ships; and although some skirmishes
have unfortunately had pened, yet a ray of hope still cheered both sides that, peace was not distant. But as
soon as we declare for independency, every prospect of this kind must vanish. Ruthless war, with all its
aggravated horrors, will ravage our once happy land-our seacoasts and ports will be ruined, and our ships
taken. Torrents of blood will be split, and thousands reduced to beggary and wretchedness.
This melancholy contest would last till one side conquered. Supposing Britain to be victorious; however high my
opinion is of British Generosity, I should be exceedingly sorry to receive terms from her in the haughty tone of a
conqueror. Or supposing such a failure of her manufactures, commerce and strength, that victory should incline to
the side of America; yet who can say in that case, what extremities her sense of resentment and self-preservation
will drive Great-Britain to? For my part, I should not in the least be surprized, if on such a prospect as the
Independency of America, she would parcel out this continent to the different European Powers. Canada might be
restored to France, Florida to Spain, with additions to each-other states also might come in for a portion. Let no man
think this chimerical or improbable. The independency of America would be so fatal to Britain, that she would leave
nothing in her power undone to prevent it. I believe as firmly as I do my own existence, that if every other method
failed, she would try some such expedient as this, to disconcert our scheme of independency; and let any man figure
to himself the situation of these British colonies, if only Canada were restored to France!
5. But supposing once more that we were able to cut off every regiment that Britain can spare or hire, and to
destroy every ship she can send - that we could beat off any other European power that would presume to
intrude upon this continent: Yet, a republican form of government would neither suit the genius of the
people, nor the extent of America.
In nothing is the wisdom of a legislator more conspicuous than in adapting his government to the genius, manners,
disposition and other circumstances of the people with whom he is concerned. If this important point is overlooked,
confusion will ensue; his system will sink into neglect and ruin. Whatever check or barriers may be interposed,
nature will always surmount them, and finally prevail. It was chiefly by attention to this circumstance, that Lycurgus
and Solon were so much celebrated; and that their respective republics rose afterwards to such eminence, and
acquired such stability.
The Americans are properly Britons. They have the manners, habits, and ideas of Britons; and have been accustomed
to a similar form of government. But Britons never could bear the extremes, either of monarchy or republicanism.
Some of their Kings have aimed at despotism; but always failed. Repeated efforts have been made towards
democracy, and they equally failed. Once indeed republicanism triumphed over the constitution; the despotism of
one person ensued; both were finally expelled. The inhabitants of Great-Britain were quite anxious for the
restoration of royalty in 1660, as they were for its expulsion in 1642, and for some succeeding years. If we may judge
of future events by past transactions, in similar circumstances, this would most probably be the case if America,
were a republican form of government adopted in our present ferment. After much blood was shed, those
confusions would terminate in the despotism of some one successful adventurer; and should the Americans be so
fortunate as to emancipate themselves from that thraldom, perhaps the whole would end in a limited monarchy,
after shedding as much more blood. Limited monarchy is the form of government which is most favourable to liberty
- which is best adapted to the genius and temper of Britons; although here and there among us a crack-brained
zealot for democracy or absolute monarchy, may be sometimes found.
Besides the unsuitableness of the republican form to the genius of the people, America is too extensive for it. That
form may do well enough for a single city, or small territory; but would be utterly improper for such a continent as
this. America is too unwieldy for the feeble, dilatory administration of democracy. Rome had the most extensive
dominions of any ancient republic. But it should be remembered, that very soon after the spirit of conquest carried
the Romans beyond the limits that were proportioned to their constitution, they fell under a despotic yoke. A very
few years had elapsed from the time of their conquering Greece and first entering Asia, till the battle of Pharsalia,
where Julius Caesar put an end to the liberties of his country. .
But here it may be said - That all the evils above specified, are more tolerable than slavery. With this sentiment I
sincerely agree - any hardships, however great, are preferable to slavery. But then I ask, is there no other alternative
in the present case? Is there no choice left us but slavery, or those evils? I am confident there is; and that both may
be equally avoided. Let us only shew a disposition to treat or negociate in earnest - let us fall upon some method to
set a treaty or negociation with Great Britain on foot; and if once properly begun, there is moral certainty that this
unhappy dispute will be settled to the mutual satisfaction and interest of both countries. For my part, I have not the
least doubt about it. .
But a Declaration for Independency on the part of America, would preclude treaty intirely; and could answer no
good purpose. We actually have already every advantage of Independency, without its inconveniences. By a
Declaration of Independency, we should instantly lose all assistance from our friends in England. It would stop their
mouths; for were they to say any thing in our favour, they would be deemed rebels, and treated accordingly.
Our author is much elated with the prospect of foreign succour, if we once declare ourselves Independent; and from
thence promiseth us mighty matters. This, no doubt, is intended to spirit up the desponding - all who might shrink at
the thought of America encountering, singly and unsupported, the whole strength of Great-Britain. I believe in my
conscience, that he is as much mistaken in this, as in any thing else; and that this expectation is delusive, vain and
fallacious. My reasons are these, and I submit them to the reader's judgment.
The only European power from which we can possibly receive assistance, is France. But France is now at peace with
Great-Britain; and is it possible that France would interrupt that peace, and hazard a war with the power which lately
reduced her so low, from a disinterested motive of aiding and protecting these Colonies?
It is well known that some of the French and Spanish Colonists, not long since, offered to put themselves under the
protection of England, and declare themselves Independent of France and Spain; but England rejected both offers.
The example would be rather dangerous to states that have colonies - to none could it be more so than to France
and Spain, who have so many and such extensive colonies. "The practice of courts are as much against us" in this, as
in the instance our author mentions. Can any one imagine, that because we declared ourselves Independent of
England, France would therefore consider us as really Independent! And before England had acquiesced, or made
any effort worth mentioning to reduce us? Or can any one be so weak as to think, that France would run the risque
of a war with England, unless she (France) were sure of some extraordinary advantage by it, in having the colonies
under her immediate jurisdiction? If England will not protect us for our trade, surely France will not. . .
America is far from being yet in a desperate situation. I am confident she may obtain honourable and advantageous
terms from Great-Britain. A few years of peace will soon retrieve all her losses. She will rapidly advance to a state of
maturity, whereby she may not only repay the parent state amply for all past benefits; but also lay under the
greatest obligations. . .
However distant humanity may wish the period; yet, in the rotation of human affairs, a period may arrive, when
(both countries being prepared for it) some terrible disaster, some dreadful convulsion in Great-Britain, may transfer
the seat of empire to this western hemisphere - where the British constitution, like the Phoenix from its parent's
ashes, shall rise with youthful vigour and shine with redoubled splendor.