Chapter XVII

ABOLITIONISM CONSIDERED AS PROPOSING NO COMPENSATION FOR SLAVE-PROPERTY.

The political frame of society governs the world, the doctrines of _perfectionists_ to the contrary notwithstanding; and we shall be heartily thankful that it is so, until we can fall into better hands than this visionary fraternity. And since the Abolitionists have come into the political field, it might be wise for them to consider, whether they can carry their measures in contempt of established political principles. The responsibility of slavery is divided among the community of nations; and there are few of those which profess respect for the code of international law, and feel obliged by their political relations to regard it, that have not some share in it, directly or indirectly. Among these exceptions, if there is any, is the Government of the United States. For we have seen, that it has never made itself responsible for the slavery of individual States. We have also seen, that the slave States are not responsible for its introduction, but that it was imposed upon them by authority. And before the public conscience of the parties concerned had become alive to the enormities and guilt of the slave trade, and much more before slavery itself had become the subject of public remonstrance, it had attained to a growth in the Southern States, not easily to be eradicated. So long, therefore, as political society is dominant, and is bound together by common ties, by common interests, and by common principles, no part of such society can claim of another part the relinquishment of property in slaves without an indemnification. This principle, it will be observed, does not vitiate the claim of the slave to his own freedom; it only affects the parties concerned in the political structure of general society.

The British Government acquitted itself honorably on this point, in decreeing the abolition of slavery in its West India Colonies, and voted a full indemnification for the property, the right to which was thus effaced from the statute book. We say, a _full_ indemnification, notwithstanding it is commonly rated higher, as quoted in this country. The reason of this high quotation results from the fact, that it is not commonly considered, perhaps not known, that slave property in the British West Indies had depreciated so greatly and so rapidly in a few years, by political aspects having a bearing upon it, as to have passed, in very large amounts, into other hands, at the depreciated price, by the necessities of bankruptcy, and consequently graduated the valuation of all such property in the same circumstances. Whenever, therefore, that property should be transferred to other holders for any purpose whatever, the commercial valuation at the time would of course be assumed as the rule of estimate. That was the rule consulted by the British Parliament, and it was considered, that the 20,000,000 sterling was a fair estimate of the property redeemed. But, whether this be the exact truth or not, the principle of indemnification was recognized, and was supposed to have been honorably respected in this transaction.

Clearly, it must be seen, that by the political history of the world, and the action of general society, under the sanction of which all those commercial transactions have been carried on, which have determined and graduated the valuation of slave property from time to time, in all and any States where it exists, the public faith of the world that has sanctioned and tolerated slavery so long, and thereby profited by it, is pledged as the guardian of that property to the indemnification of the holders, whenever the public conscience shall demand it to be annihilated, as to its previous form, and return to that law which generally prevails in human society. There is not a man, woman, or child, in the circle of Christendom, hardly in the world, that has not profited by slavery, in a commercial point of view, which is the only point we are here concerned to notice. Much less is there one such individual in the free States of our country, that has not profited by it. All the property of the Northern States, and all their commercial interests, have been interwoven with it. It is that property which has determined the value of ours, and ours that has determined the value of that, reciprocally. And just in proportion to the foreign commercial relations and transactions of our country, does the same rule apply to the respective communities with which we have maintained such intercourse. The amount of the slave property of the South is not theirs, except in the convenient title of a regulation of general society; but it is the world’s, or all that part of the world’s, where commercial transactions have determined its estimate. But since it has been convenient for the world, for general society, that it should _vest_ in certain persons, in the same manner as any other property vests in certain other persons, either here or there, in this country or any other, and that no persons should have any other title in any other property than that which is held by this conventional rule for general good, it would be a manifest and flagrant injustice, robbery, for one part of general society to demand of another part, to resign this title without indemnification, while the party making this demand claims to hold its own. Of course, this question does not touch the right of the slave to himself, or in any way affect that claim.

It may be seen, then, how this matter stands in the United States. We strike at the very foundations of society, when we use our influence to impair the rights of property, as established by general consent; and the impulse of the blow, in the circle of its action, must necessarily return to ourselves, in its natural, or rather artificial, channel, as society in all its parts is an artificial edifice. We can no more move upon the South for such an object, than they can move upon us; in laying our hand upon their property to impair its title, we impair our own in the same degree. For our convenience and profit, be it known, the title to slave property has happened to vest in them; and for their convenience and profit the title to our property has happened to vest in us, because we happen to be here and not there, and they there and not here. Both titles are equally sacred in the relations we bear to each other.

Unless, therefore, the Abolitionists have made up their minds to go into this field in the character of pirates and brigands, we see not how they can move an inch, till they are prepared to make the tender of indemnification for the release of the property which they claim. We aver solemnly, that it is with pain we have written the last sentence, and that if any other terms would have represented the exact truth of the case, as it stands before our mind, we should have preferred them. We agree with the Abolitionists as to the _wrong_ of slavery, though we dissent from them, both as to the expediency and duty of _immediate_ emancipation, in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case; and we dissent from them utterly, _ab imo pectore_, as to the _validity_ of slave property, not in relation to the slave, however, but in relation to general society; and we are prepared to go with the nation for redemption by a fair indemnification. Though we may have little at stake in such a concern, yet he who has little may feel the burden more than he that has much. We are prepared, however, to point out a way, the burden of which no man will feel, and one that is practicable, too. To enforce abolition without indemnification, would be as bad for the slave, as for the master, because it would be the ruin of both; it would blot from future history all those political Commonwealths, because they would be absolutely too poor to maintain themselves.

The most formidable difficulty of Abolitionism, therefore, and the most disorganizing principle, of all, plants itself on the very threshold of the enterprise: _non-indemnification_. Their only reason, so far as we understand, is, that indemnification would be a tacit and implied confession on the _right_ of slavery. Admitting, that Abolitionists themselves think and feel so; the rest of the public do not; Abolitionists, therefore, would neither be weakened in principle, nor injured in fact, by giving up this point, except in the workings of their own imagination. This can be a valid objection only as it vitiates principle before the eyes of the public, and in the view of opponents. That, however, not being the fact, the objection ought to lose its force. But suppose some mischievous wags _should_ say to the Abolitionists: “Well, gentlemen, you have given up a main principle, after all”--as they would be intitled to make declaration of their reason for consenting to indemnification, they would not only be defended on that point, but receive credit for making a concession, that involves no sacrifice of principle, for the public good. Consent to indemnification, either for one reason or for another--and every man may have his own reason--and one of the principal causes of the contest is superseded. But will the Abolitionists, from sheer stubbornness, insist upon a point, which, if carried, will ruin the slave States, and reduce them to beggary, involving in the catastrophe the ruin of the slaves; upon a point, which levels its blow at the foundation stone of the fabric of society, as it has heretofore existed; upon a point, which, unless human nature be miraculously changed, can never, no never, be gained, without the effusion of blood, no one can tell how much, or what state of things may succeed? Let that point be once properly adjusted, as it may be without compromitting the principles of either party, and much, very much will be gained towards pacification. It is not unlikely, indeed, that the zeal of some engaged in the cause, when they shall find that they may be required to put their hands in their pockets, will be somewhat cooled. And is it not reasonable to suppose also, that some other men’s zeal will be somewhat sharpened, when they shall find what will be to them--without imputing any such motives to the aggressors--a horde of bandits at their doors to rob them of their all?

But it may possibly be said, “We do not exactly see how the giving up of slave property, without indemnification, will be the ruin of the slave States.” Then we think it must be for the want of eyes.

The value of all capital is commercial, and accidental, and depends on the ever shifting conditions of political society. This may be seen and illustrated by the fluctuating price of that species of capital, called stocks, which is to be found in the market of every civilized community. The price of stocks never makes a false report, as to the political aspects of society, but is as infallible a guage in this particular, as is the thermometer of the weather; and the wise statesman understands it. The same principle which determines the value of this species of capital, determines the value of every other. It only happens that the guage of one is always visible, and that of the others invisible, until they come into market.

The moment emancipation for the British West Indies began to be agitated, the value of slave and other property connected with it, began to fall, and continued to fall, till the certainty of the event reduced it to about one third of what it would otherwise have been, at which time it was redeemed by the British Government at the commercial valuation. It was only public faith in the Government which kept it from going down to nothing; and _this nothing_ would of course have been the ruin of the former state of society. What might succeed to such a revolution, would have depended on contingencies which no human foresight could solve beforehand, as every thing would have required to be erected on a new basis. It is a new basis even as it is, but saved from the wreck of a revolution by the care of the British Government; and it is to be hoped, that the wise counsels and strong arm of that Government will make it do well. It is, however, to be observed, that the actual depreciation of slave and other property in the British West Indies, during and in consequence of the Abolition agitation, was so much loss to the individual holders during that period, it being 40,000,000 sterling in slave property alone, if the price of redemption be assumed to have been _one-third_ of the hypothetical estimate. It may, possibly, be said, that this is imaginary; but the only sure criterion is the commercial value at any given time, which is always the true value.

In the same manner, the slave property of the southern States, and other portions of their wealth necessarily connected with it, will sink instantly, whenever it shall be seen that the Abolition movement is likely to break down the only protection which it has; and the wealth of the slave States will dwindle, and continue to dwindle, so long as there is any uncertainty in their political prospects arising from such a cause, and in exact proportion to the degree of that uncertainty. This is a principle, a law of society, that is sure to prevail over all other laws, because it is the concentrated action of the entire machinery of society on a single point for the time being, and so far as occasion calls, resulting not from the force of legislation directly--though it may be indirectly--but from the watchful care which every man has over his own interests, in a given state of things.

Political economy, in all its accidental bearings and in its scope, is, indeed, deep water for any man to dive into; but there are certain practical principles, applicable to this question, which may be obvious to all minds. First, slave property is the capital of the slave States. No dispute about that, as a general truth, and sufficiently comprehensive to decide the question now before us. Consequently, it is this property which gives value to all other property. Take it away, without a fair consideration, without indemnification, and all that portion of the United States is ruined. This is the nutshell of the matter, and comprehends it all.

“No, no,” it is said: “the same bone, and muscle, and sinews are there.” Nay, but you have changed the whole machinery of society; you have revolutionized it; you have put the master in the power of the quondam slave, and constituted the latter master over the former, without leaving the quondam master a penny in his pocket, unless peradventure, by some good luck, here and there one may have an interest somewhere else beyond the reach of your rapacity. Even with a fair and full indemnification in the present master’s hand, or subject to his order, after such a revolution; and in the midst of its disorders and unsettled condition of things, it would be, as we think, somewhat more than enough to baffle ordinary wisdom and perseverance to establish permanently and comfortably that new and untried state of society, that would be required; and it is not unlikely, that enough would abandon the attempt in discouragement,--seeking a better fortune in other States and Territories of the Union--to leave the residue inadequate to sustain the interests of the several Commonwealths thus deserted, in any degree of prosperity. They might dwindle and decline, till all would be glad to be out of them, if they could conscientiously. This is purely a question of domestic and political economy, that would depend on the practical workings of such a system. If this were the only field open before them, then they would all be compelled to stay, and put to their strength, and make the best of it. But we know, that men are always governed by their interests, and habits, as to where they will stay or go.

Certainly, we do not present the doubtfulness of such a prospect, pending on such contingencies, as an objection to the measure; but as one that claims to be considered in this discussion, that will of course be considered by the parties immediately concerned. It is impossible to determine beforehand how many influences, in such a new state of things, might operate to their discouragement or the contrary, or what would be the balance of those influences on either side, after each shall have been neutralized by each, to the extent of their action. It is sufficiently obvious, however, that they would require all the capital invested in a fair indemnification for the property resigned, to work such a system advantageously. It would be enough, and probably more than many of them could well endure, to change all their habits of society and of living so entirely as the new system would require; and those who could not satisfactorily accommodate themselves to it, would of course emigrate--and a general disposition to emigrate would probably involve political ruin--that is, ruin absolute; for nothing is better for mankind, in their associated capacity, than political prosperity, and nothing worse than political adversity.

Admitting, then, that the effects of the operation of such a system on the internal condition, absolute wealth, and political prosperity of the present slave States, would present the result as _simply doubtful_, as to what it would be with the capital of indemnification available on the premises--what would it be without any indemnification at all? We think this question might fairly be set down as the end of the story and of the argument. Every practical man must see, that it would be beggary and ruin; and that the entire field must be abandoned to the colored race, now there, to set up such a state of society as they might be able, unless the Government of the United States, in charity, should take it in charge as an immense poor house, to make the best of it they could--the white population in the mean time, reduced to poverty, and going out where they might, to begin the world anew.

But do the Abolitionists say, “These are questions we never regard ourselves as bound to consider, and consequences with which we have nothing to do.” But gentlemen, you _are_ bound to consider these questions; you _cannot_ rid yourselves of the responsibility of these consequences, if the work that produces them be yours. “But, _no matter_ what becomes of the master, so the slave be free; if the master _should_ be ruined, he has well deserved it.” _Say_ this, gentlemen, but _once_--say it _openly_, _fairly_, _publicly_, that the world may understand you--and we think, that will be enough.

But do the Abolitionists still say, “We can neither talk nor treat with persons or parties, who speak of ‘_slave property_,’ of property in the persons of men, a thing not possible _to be_, and an idea not to be tolerated for a moment, wherever, and whatever authority, may have usurped it.” This may be a very good reason why they should not talk _at all_ on the subject, since it is a simple matter of fact, which constitutes the matter and ground of controversy. We hope we have a proper respect for scruples of conscience, and that we are sufficiently unwilling to disturb nervous sensitiveness; but we have not forgotten honest Joe’s definition of his own conscience, in a certain case, when hardly pressed, viz. “I wont.” Nothing would more effectually put a party in argument, _hors de combat_, than such logic. There is really no getting at them; and yet they insist on having to do with the matter. We have probably as great an aversion to _the thing_ signified by these terms, as the Abolitionists; at least, we used to have, and we have seen no good reason for a change of sentiment. But for the practical purposes of so great a theme, if we think fit to meddle with it, we see not how such language can be avoided, as it is indispensible to set forth the facts of the case.

But, if the Abolitionists prefer to foreclose debate, by saying, “We lay our hands upon our swords, in the presence of all persons, who shall presume thus to insult humanity, and assume this defiance in the presence of the country, and before the world, as to the cause in which we are engaged, the Constitution and the laws of the land and the Government and all the slave States to the contrary notwithstanding,” there is of course an end of logic, and of “free discussion;” and their position would be well understood, under such a frank avowal. But we cannot say, that we are prepared to commend it; although we are unable to see, how this violent setting aside of the only terms of debate, through the medium of which the subject can be approached, and yet urging forward the irresistible momentum of their tremendous machinery on the parties most intimately concerned in this question, is much short of this.