An Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, Particularly the African - Thomas Clarkson
But, such a presumption is false. The _right of capture_ was the
only argument, that the ancients adduced in their defence. Hence
Polybius; "What must they, (the Mantinenses) suffer, to receive the
punishment they deserve? Perhaps it will be said, _that they must be
sold, when they are taken, with their wives and children into
slavery_: But this is not to be considered as a punishment, since
even those suffer it, by the laws of war, who have done nothing that is
base." The truth is, that both the _offending_ and the _offended_
parties, whenever they were victorious, inflicted slavery
alike. But if the _offending_ party inflicted slavery on
the persons of the vanquished, by what right did they inflict it? It
must be answered from the presumption before-mentioned, "by the right of
_reparation_, or of _punishment:_" an answer plainly absurd
and contradictory, as it supposes the _aggressor_ to have a
_right_, which the _injured_ only could possess.
Neither is the argument less fallacious than the presumption, in
applying these principles, which in a _publick_ war could belong to
the _publick_ only, to the persons of the _individuals_ that
were taken. This calls us again to the history of the ancients, and, as
the rights of reparation and punishment could extend to those only, who
had been injured, to select a particular instance for the consideration
of the case.
As the Romans had been injured without a previous provocation by the
conduct of Hannibal at Saguntum, we may take the treaty into
consideration, which they made with the Carthaginians, when the latter,
defeated at Zama, sued for peace. It consisted of three articles[047].
By the first, the Carthaginians were to be free, and to enjoy their own
constitution and laws. By the second, they were to pay a considerable
sum of money, as a reparation for the damages and expence of war: and,
by the third, they were to deliver up their elephants and ships of war,
and to be subject to various restrictions, as a punishment. With these
terms they complied, and the war was finished.
Thus then did the Romans make that distinction between _private_
and _publick_ war, which was necessary to be made, and which the
argument is fallacious in not supposing. The treasury of the vanquished
was marked as the means of _reparation_; and as this treasury was
supplied, in a great measure, by the imposition of taxes, and was,
wholly, the property of the _publick_, so the _publick_ made
the reparation that was due. The _elephants_ also, and _ships of
war_, which were marked as the means of _punishment_, were
_publick_ property; and as they were considerable instruments of
security and defence to their possessors, and of annoyance to an enemy,
so their loss, added to the restrictions of the treaty, operated as a
great and _publick_ punishment. But with respect to the
Carthaginian prisoners, who had been taken in the war, they were
retained in _servitude:_ not upon the principles of _reparation_
and _punishment_, because the Romans had already received,
by their own confession in the treaty, a sufficient satisfaction:
not upon these principles, because they were inapplicable
to _individuals:_ the legionary soldier in the service of the
injured, who took his prisoner, was not the person, to whom the
_injury had been done_, any more than the soldier in the service of
the aggressors, who was taken, was the person, who had _committed the
offence:_ but they were retained in servitude by the _right of
capture_; because, when both parties had sent their military into the
field to determine the dispute, it was at the _private_ choice of
the legionary soldier before-mentioned, whether he would spare the life
of his conquered opponent, when he was thought to be entitled to take
it, if he had chosen, by the laws of war.
To produce more instances, as an illustration of the subject, or to go
farther into the argument, would be to trespass upon the patience, as
well as understanding of the reader. In _a state of nature_, where
a man is supposed to commit an injury, and to be unconnected with the
rest of the world, the act is _private_, and the right, which the
injured acquires, can extend only to _himself:_ but in _a state
of society_, where any member or members of a particular community
give offence to those of another, and they are patronized by the state,
to which they belong, the case is altered; the act becomes immediately
_publick_, and the _publick_ alone are to experience the
consequences of their injustice. For as no particular member of the
community, if considered as an individual, is guilty, except the person,
by whom the injury was done, it would be contrary to reason and justice,
to apply the principles of _reparation_ and _punishment_,
which belong to the people as a collective body, to any individual of
the community, who should happen to be taken. Now, as the principles of
_reparation_ and _punishment_ are thus inapplicable to the
prisoners, taken in a _publick_ war, and as the _right of
capture_, as we have shewn before, is insufficient to intitle the
victors to the _service_ of the vanquished, it is evident that
_slavery_ cannot justly exist at all, since there are no other
maxims, on which it can be founded, even in the most equitable wars.
But if these things are so; if slavery cannot be defended even in the
most _equitable_ wars, what arguments will not be found against
that servitude, which arises from those, that are _unjust?_ Which
arises from those African wars, that relate to the present subject? The
African princes, corrupted by the merchants of Europe, seek every
opportunity of quarrelling with one another. Every spark is blown into a
flame; and war is undertaken from no other consideration, than that
_of procuring slaves:_ while the Europeans, on the other hand,
happy in the quarrels which they have thus excited, supply them with
arms and ammunition for the accomplishment of their horrid purpose. Thus
has Africa, for the space of two hundred years, been the scene of the
most iniquitous and bloody wars; and thus have many thousands of men, in
the most iniquitous manner, been sent into servitude.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES
[Footnote 043: _Jure Gentium_ servi nostri sunt, qui ab hostibus
capiuntur. Justinian, L. 1. 5. 5. 1.]
[Footnote 044: _Serverum_ appellatio ex eo fluxit, quod imperatores
nostri captivos vendere, ac per hoc _servare_, nec occidere
solent.]
[Footnote 045: Nam sive victoribus _jure captivitatis_ servissent,
&c. Justin, L. 4. 3. et passim apud scriptores antiquos.]
[Footnote 046: Neque est contra naturam spoliare eum, si possis, quem
honestum est necare. Cicero de officiis. L. 3. 6.]
[Footnote 047: 1. Ut liberi suis legibus viverent. Livy, L. 30. 37. 2.
Decem millia talentum argenti descripta pensionibus aequis in annos
quinquaginta solverent. Ibid. 3. Et naves rostratas, praeter decem
triremes, traderent, elephantosque, quos haberent domitos; neque
domarent alios; Bellum neve in Africa, neve extra Africam, injussu P. R.
gererent, &c. Ibid.]
* * * * *
CHAP. VIII.
We shall beg leave, before we proceed to the arguments of the
_purchasers_, to add the following observations to the substance of
the three preceding chapters.
As the two orders of men, of those who are privately kidnapped by
individuals, and of those who are publickly seized by virtue of the
authority of their prince, compose together, at least[048], nine tenths
of the African slaves, they cannot contain, upon a moderate computation,
less than ninety thousand men annually transported: an immense number,
but easily to be credited, when we reflect that thousands are employed
for the purpose of stealing the unwary, and that these diabolical
practices are in force, so far has European _injustice_ been
spread, at the distance of a thousand miles from the factories on the
coast. The _slave merchants_, among whom a quantity of European
goods is previously divided, travel into the heart of the country to
this amazing distance. Some of them attend the various markets, that are
established through so large an extent of territory, to purchase the
kidnapped people, whom the _slave-hunters_ are continually bringing
in; while the rest, subdividing their merchandize among the petty
sovereigns with whom they deal, receive, by an immediate exertion of
fraud and violence, the stipulated number.
Now, will any man assert, in opposition to the arguments before
advanced, that out of this immense body of men, thus annually collected
and transported, there is even _one_, over whom the original or
subsequent seller can have any power or right? Whoever asserts this, in
the first instance, must, contradict his own feelings, and must consider
_himself_ as a just object of prey, whenever any daring invader
shall think it proper to attack _him_. And, in the second instance,
the very idea which the African princes entertain of their villages, as
_parks_ or _reservoirs_, stocked only for their own convenience,
and of their subjects, as _wild beasts_, whom they may pursue
and take at pleasure, is so shocking, that it need only be
mentioned, to be instantly reprobated by the reader.
The order of slaves, which is next to the former in respect to the
number of people whom it contains, is that of prisoners of war. This
order, if the former statement be true, is more inconsiderable than is
generally imagined; but whoever reflects on the prodigious slaughter
that is constantly made in every African skirmish, cannot be otherwise
than of this opinion: he will find, that where _ten_ are taken, he
has every reason to presume that an _hundred_ perish. In some of
these skirmishes, though they have been begun for the express purpose of
_procuring slaves_, the conquerors have suffered but few of the
vanquished to escape the fury of the sword; and there have not been
wanting instances, where they have been so incensed at the resistance
they have found, that their spirit of vengeance has entirely got the
better of their avarice, and they have murdered, in cool blood, every
individual, without discrimination, either of age or sex.
The following[049] is an account of one of these skirmishes, as
described by a person, who was witness to the scene. "I was sent, with
several others, in a small sloop up the river Niger, to purchase slaves:
we had some free negroes with us in the practice; and as the vessels are
liable to frequent attacks from the negroes on one side of the river, or
the Moors on the other, they are all armed. As we rode at anchor a long
way up the river, we observed a large number of negroes in huts by the
river's side, and for our own safety kept a wary eye on them. Early next
morning we saw from our masthead a numerous body approaching, with
apparently but little order, but in close array. They approached very
fast, and fell furiously on the inhabitants of the town, who seemed to
be quite _surprized_, but nevertheless, as soon as they could get
together, fought stoutly. They had some fire-arms, but made very little
use of them, as they came directly to close fighting with their spears,
lances, and sabres. Many of the invaders were mounted on small horses;
and both parties fought for about half an hour with the fiercest
animosity, exerting much more courage and perseverance than I had ever
before been witness to amongst them. The women and children of the town
clustered together to the water's edge, running shrieking up and down
with terrour, waiting the event of the combat, till their party gave
way and took to the water, to endeavour to swim over to the Barbary
side. They were closely pursued even into the river by the victors, who,
though they came for the purpose of _getting slaves_, gave no
quarter, _their cruelty even prevailing over their avarice_. They
made no prisoners, but put all to the sword without mercy. Horrible
indeed was the carnage of the vanquished on this occasion, and as we
were within two or three hundred yards of them, their cries and shrieks
affected us extremely. We had got up our anchor at the beginning of the
fray, and now stood close in to the spot, where the victors having
followed the vanquished into the water, were continually dragging out
and murdering those, whom by reason of their wounds they easily
overtook. The very children, whom they took in great numbers, did not
escape the massacre. Enraged at their barbarity, we fired our guns
loaden with grape shot, and a volley of small arms among them, which
effectually checked their ardour, and obliged them to retire to a
distance from the shore; from whence a few round cannon shot soon
removed them into the woods. The whole river was black over with the
heads of the fugitives, who were swimming for their lives. These poor
wretches, fearing _us_ as much as their conquerors, dived when we
fired, and cried most lamentably for mercy. Having now effectually
favoured their retreat, we stood backwards and forwards, and took up
several that were wounded and tired. All whose wounds had disabled them
from swimming, were either butchered or drowned, before we got up to
them. With a justice and generosity, _never I believe before heard of
among slavers_, we gave those their liberty whom we had taken up,
setting them on shore on the Barbary side, among the poor residue of
their companions, who had survived the slaughter of the morning."
We shall make but two remarks on this horrid instance of African
cruelty. It adds, first, a considerable weight to the statements that
have been made; and confirms, secondly, the conclusions that were drawn
in the preceding chapter. For if we even allow the right of capture to be
just, and the principles of reparation and punishment to be applicable
to the individuals of a community, yet would the former be unjust, and
the latter inapplicable, in the present case. Every African war is a
robbery; and we may add, to our former expression, when we said, "that
thus have many thousands of men, in the most iniquitous manner, been
sent into servitude," that we believe there are few of this order, who
are not as much the examples of injustice, as the people that have been
kidnapped; and who do not additionally convey, when we consider them as
prisoners of war, an idea of the most complicated scene of murder.
The order of _convicts_, as it exists almost solely among those
princes, whose dominions are contiguous to the European factories, is
from this circumstance so inconsiderable, when compared with either of
the preceding, that we should not have mentioned it again, but that we
were unwilling to omit any additional argument that occurred against it.
It has been shewn already, that the punishment of slavery is inflicted
from no other motive, than that of gratifying the _avarice_ of the
prince, a confederation so detestable, as to be sufficient of itself to
prove it to be unjust; and that it is so disproportionate, from its
_nature_, to the offence, as to afford an additional proof of its
injustice. We shall add now, as a second argument, its disproportion
from its _continuance:_ and we shall derive a third from the
consideration, that, in civil society, every violation of the laws of
the community is an offence against the _state_[050].
Let us suppose then an African prince, disdaining for once the idea of
emolument: let us suppose him for once inflamed with the love of his
country, and resolving to punish from this principle alone, "that by
exhibiting an example of terrour, he may preserve that _happiness of
the publick_, which he is bound to secure and defend by the very
nature of his contract; or, in other words, that he may answer the end
of government." If actuated then by this principle, he should adjudge
slavery to an offender, as a just punishment for his offence, for whose
benefit must the convict labour? If it be answered, "for the benefit of
the state," we allow that the punishment, in whatever light it is
considered, will be found to be equitable: but if it be answered, "for
the benefit of any _individual whom he pleases to appoint_," we
deny it to be just. The state[051] alone is considered to have been
injured, and as _injuries cannot possibly be transferred_, the
state alone can justly receive the advantages of his labour. But if the
African prince, when he thus condemns him to labour for the benefit of
an _unoffended individual_, should at the same time sentence him to
become his _property_; that is, if he should make the person and
life of the convict at the absolute disposal of him, for whom he has
sentenced him to labour; it is evident that, in addition to his former
injustice, he is usurping a power, which no ruler or rulers of a state
can possess, and which the great Creator of the universe never yet gave
to any order whatever of created beings.
That this reasoning is true, and that civilized nations have considered
it as such, will be best testified by their practice. We may appeal here
to that _slavery_, which is now adjudged to delinquents, as a
punishment, among many of the states of Europe. These delinquents are
sentenced to labour at the _oar_, to work in _mines_, and on
_fortifications_, to cut and clear _rivers_, to make and
repair _roads_, and to perform other works of national utility.
They are employed, in short, in the _publick_ work; because, as the
crimes they have committed are considered to have been crimes against
the publick, no individual can justly receive the emoluments of their
labour; and they are neither _sold_, nor made capable of being
_transferred_, because no government whatsoever is invested with
such a power.
Thus then may that slavery, in which only the idea of _labour_ is
included, be perfectly equitable, and the delinquent will always receive
his punishment as a man; whereas in that, which additionally includes
the idea of _property_, and to undergo which, the delinquent must
previously change his nature, and become a _brute_; there is an
inconsistency, which no arguments can reconcile, and a contradiction to
every principle of nature, which a man need only to appeal to his own
feelings immediately to evince. And we will venture to assert, from the
united observations that have been made upon the subject, in opposition
to any arguments that may be advanced, that there is scarcely one of
those, who are called African convicts, on whom the prince has a right
to inflict a punishment at all; and that there is no one whatever, whom
he has a power of sentencing to labour for the benefit of an unoffended
individual, and much less whom he has a right to sell.
Having now fully examined the arguments of the _sellers_[052], and
having made such additional remarks as were necessary, we have only to
add, that we cannot sufficiently express our detestation at their
conduct. Were the reader coolly to reflect upon the case of but
_one_ of the unfortunate men, who are annually the victims of
_avarice_, and consider his situation in life, as a father, an
husband, or a friend, we are sure, that even on such a partial
reflection, he must experience considerable pain. What then must be his
feelings, when he is told, that, since the slave-trade began,
[053]_nine millions_ of men have been torn from their dearest
connections, and sold into slavery. If at this recital his indignation
should arise, let him consider it as the genuine production of nature;
that she recoiled at the horrid thought, and that she applied instantly
a torch to his breast to kindle his resentment; and if, during his
indignation, she should awaken the sigh of sympathy, or seduce the tear
of commiseration from his eye, let him consider each as an additional
argument against the iniquity of the _sellers_.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES
[Footnote 048: The total annual exportation from Africa, is estimated
here at 100,000 men, two thirds of whom are exported by the British
merchants alone. This estimate is less than that which is usually made,
and has been published. The author has been informed by disinterested
people, who were in most of the West India islands during the late war,
and who conversed with many of the most intelligent of the negroes, for
the purpose of inquiring by what methods they had originally been
reduced to slavery, that they did not find even two in twenty, who had
been reduced to that situation, by any other means than those mentioned
above. The author, desirous of a farther confirmation of this
circumstance, stopped the press till he had written to another friend,
who had resided twenty years in the West-Indies, and whose opinion he
had not yet asked. The following is an extract from the answer. "I do
not among many hundreds recollect to have seen but one or two slaves, of
those imported from Africa, who had any scars to shew, that they had
been in war. They are generally such as are kidnapped, or sold by their
tyrants, after the destruction of a village. In short, I am firmly of
opinion, that crimes and war together do not furnish one slave in an
hundred of the numbers introduced into the European colonies. Of
consequence the trade itself, were it possible to suppose convicts or
prisoners of war to be justly sentenced to servitude, is accountable for
ninety-nine in every hundred slaves, whom it supplies. It an insult to
the publick, to attempt to palliate the method of procuring them."]
[Footnote 049: The writer of the letter of which this is a faithful
extract, and who was known to the author of the present Essay, was a
long time on the African coast. He had once the misfortune to be
shipwrecked there, and to be taken by the natives, who conveyed him and
his companions a considerable way up into the country. The hardships
which he underwent in the march, his treatment during his captivity, the
scenes to which he was witness, while he resided among the inland
Africans, as well as while in the African trade, gave occasion to a
series of very interesting letters. These letters were sent to the
author of the present Essay, with liberty to make what use of them he
chose, by the gentleman to whom they were written.]
[Footnote 050: Were this not the case, the government of a country could
have no right to take cognizance of crimes, and punish them, but every
individual, if injured, would have a right to punish the aggressor with
his own hand, which is contrary to the notions of all civilized men,
whether among the ancients or the moderns.]
[Footnote 051: This same notion is entertained even by the African
princes, who do not permit the person injured to revenge his injury, or
to receive the convict as his slave. But if the very person who has been
_injured_, does not possess him, much less ought any other person
whatsoever.]
[Footnote 052: There are instances on the African continent, of
_parents_ selling their _children_. As the slaves of this
description are so few, and are so irregularly obtained, we did not
think it worth our while to consider them as forming an order; and, as
God never gave the parent a power over his child to make him
_miserable_, we trust that any farther mention of them will be
unnecessary.]
[Footnote 053: Abbe Raynal, Hist. Phil. vol. 4. P. 154.]
* * * * *
CHAP. IX.
It remains only now to examine by what arguments those, who
_receive_ or _purchase_ their fellow-creatures into slavery,
defend the _commerce_. Their first plea is, "that they receive
those with propriety, who are convicted of crimes, because they are
delivered into their hands by _their own magistrates_." But what is
this to you _receivers_? Have the unfortunate _convicts_ been
guilty of injury to _you_? Have they broken _your_ treaties?
Have they plundered _your_ ships? Have they carried _your_
wives and children into slavery, that _you_ should thus retaliate?
Have they offended _you_ even by word or gesture?
But if the African convicts are innocent with respect to you; if you
have not even the shadow of a claim upon their persons; by what right do
you receive them? "By the laws of the Africans," you will say; "by which
it is positively allowed."--But can _laws_ alter the nature of
vice? They may give it a sanction perhaps: it will still be immutably
the same, and, though dressed in the outward habiliments of
_honour_, will still be _intrinsically base_.
But alas! you do not only attempt to defend yourselves by these
arguments, but even dare to give your actions the appearance of lenity,
and assume _merit_ from your _baseness_! and how first ought
you particularly to blush, when you assert, "that prisoners of war are
only purchased from the hands of their conquerors, _to deliver them
from death_." Ridiculous defence! can the most credulous believe it?
You entice the Africans to war; you foment their quarrels; you supply
them with arms and ammunition, and all--from the _motives of
benevolence_. Does a man set fire to an house, for the purpose of
rescuing the inhabitants from the flames? But if they are only
purchased, to _deliver them from death_; why, when they are
delivered into your hands, as protectors, do you torture them with
hunger? Why do you kill them with fatigue? Why does the whip deform
their bodies, or the knife their limbs? Why do you sentence them to
death? to a death, infinitely more excruciating than that from which you
so kindly saved them? What answer do you make to this? for if you had
not humanely preserved them from the hands of their conquerors, a quick
death perhaps, and that in the space of a moment, had freed them from
their pain: but on account of your _favour_ and _benevolence_,
it is known, that they have lingered years in pain and agony, and have
been sentenced, at last, to a dreadful death for the most insignificant
offence.