Chapter V: Conclusion (2)

There is another point in the case, which is with me final. Even if they come within the prerequisites of International Law, I am unwilling to make any recognition of them so long as they continue to hold human beings as slaves, which I understand they now do. I am told that there was a decree in May last, purporting to be signed by Cespedes, abolishing slavery; then I am told of another decree in July, maintaining slavery. There is also the story of a pro-slavery constitution to be read at home, and an anti-slavery constitution to be read abroad. Nor is there any evidence that any decree or constitution has had any practical effect. In this uncertainty I shall wait, even if all other things are propitious. In any event there must be Emancipation.

On the recognition of belligerence there is much latitude of opinion,--some asserting that a nation may take this step whenever it pleases; but this pretension excludes the idea that belligerence is always a question of fact on the evidence. Undoubtedly an independent nation may do anything in its power, whenever it pleases,--but subject always to just accountability, if another suffers from what it does. This may be illustrated in the three different cases of war, independence, and belligerence. In each case the declaration is an exercise of high prerogative, inherent in every nation, and kindred to that of eminent domain; but a nation declaring war without just cause becomes a wrong-doer; a nation recognizing independence where it does not exist in fact becomes a wrong-doer; and so a nation recognizing belligerence where it does not exist in fact becomes a wrong-doer also. Any present uncertainty on this last point I attribute to the failure of precedents sufficiently clear and authoritative; but with me there is one rule in such a case which I cannot disobey. In the absence of any precise injunction, I do not hesitate to adopt that interpretation of International Law which most restricts war and all that makes for war,--believing that in this way I shall best promote civilization and obtain new security for international peace.

* * * * *

From the case of Spain I pass to the case of England, contenting myself with a brief explanation. On this subject I have never spoken except with pain, as I have been obliged to expose a great transgression. I hope to say nothing now which shall augment difficulties,--although, when I consider how British anger was aroused by an effort in another place,[111] judged by all who heard it most pacific in character, I do not know that even these few words may not be misinterpreted.

There can be no doubt that we received from England incalculable wrong,--greater, I have often said, than was ever before received by one civilized power from another, short of unjust war. I do not say this in bitterness, but in sadness. There can be no doubt, that, through English complicity, our carrying-trade was transferred to English bottoms,--our foreign commerce sacrificed, while our loss was England’s gain,--our blockade rendered more expensive,--and generally, that our war, with all its fearful cost of blood and treasure, was prolonged indefinitely. This terrible complicity began with the wrongful recognition of Rebel belligerence, under whose shelter pirate ships were built and supplies sent forth. All this was at the very moment of our mortal agony, in the midst of a struggle for national life; and it was done in support of Rebels whose single declared object of separate existence as a nation was Slavery, being in this respect clearly distinguishable from an established power where slavery is tolerated without being made the vaunted corner-stone. Such is the case. Who shall fix the measure of this great accountability? For the present it is enough to expose it. I make no demand,--not a dollar of money, not a word of apology. I show simply what England has done to us. It will be for her, on a careful review of the case, to determine what reparation to offer; it will be for the American people, on a careful review of the case, to determine what reparation to require. On this head I content myself with the aspiration that out of this surpassing wrong, and the controversy it has engendered, may come some enduring safeguard for the future, some landmark of Humanity. Then will our losses end in gain for all, while the Law of Nations is elevated. But I have little hope of any adequate settlement, until our case, in its full extent, is heard. In all controversies the first stage of justice is to understand the case; and sooner or later England must understand ours.

The English arguments, so far as argument can be found in the recent heats, have not in any respect impaired the justice of our complaint. Loudly it is said that there can be no sentimental damages, or damages for wounded feelings; and then our case is dismissed, as having nothing but this foundation. Now, without undertaking to say that there is no remedy in the case supposed, I wish it understood that our complaint is for damages traced directly to England. If the amount is unprecedented, so also is the wrong. The scale of damages is naturally in proportion to the scale of operations. Who among us doubts that these damages were received? Call them what you please, to this extent the nation lost. The records show how our commerce suffered, and witnesses without number testify how the blockade was broken and the war prolonged. Ask any of our great generals,--ask Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Meade, Burnside,--ask Grant. In view of this transcendent wrong, it is a disparagement of International Law to say that there is no remedy. An eminent English judge once pronounced from the bench that “the law is astute to find a remedy”; but no astuteness is required in this case,--nothing but simple justice, which is always the object of a true diplomacy. How did the nation suffer? To what extent? These are the practical questions. No technicality can be set up on either side. _Damages_ are _damages_, no matter by what artificial term they may be characterized. Opposing them as _consequential_ shows the disposition to escape by technicality, even while confessing an equitable liability,--since England is bound for _all the consequences_ of her conduct, bound under International Law, which is a Law of Equity always, and bound, no matter how the damages occurred, _always provided they proceeded from her_. Because the damages are national, because all suffered instead of one, this is no reason for immunity on her part.

Then it is said, “Why not consider our good friends in England, and especially those noble working-men who stood by us so bravely?” We do consider them always, and give them gratitude for their generous alliance. They belong to what our own poet has called “the nobility of labor.” But they are not England. We trace no damages to them, nor to any class, high or low, but to England, corporate England, through whose Government we suffered.

Then, again, it is said, “Why not exhibit an account against France?” For the good reason, that, while France erred with England in recognition of Rebel belligerence, no pirate ships or blockade-runners were built under shelter of this recognition to prey upon our commerce. The two cases are wide asunder, and they are distinguished by two different phrases of the Common Law. The recognition of Rebel belligerence in France was wrong without injury; but that same recognition in England was wrong with injury, and it is of this unquestionable injury that we complain.

Fellow-citizens, it cannot be doubted that this great question, so long as it continues pending, will be a cloud always upon the relations of two friendly powers, when there should be sunshine. Good men on both sides should desire its settlement, and in such way as most to promote good-will, and make the best precedent for civilization. But there can be no good-will without justice, nor can any “snap judgment” establish any rule for the future. Nothing will do now but a full inquiry, without limitation or technicality, and a candid acceptance of the result. There must be equity, which is justice without technicality.

* * * * *

Sometimes there are whispers of territorial compensation, and Canada is named as the consideration. But he knows England little, and little also of that great English liberty from Magna Charta to the Somerset case, who supposes that this nation could undertake any such transfer. And he knows our country little, and little also of that great liberty which is ours, who supposes that we could receive such a transfer. On each side there is impossibility. Territory may be conveyed, but not a people. I allude to this suggestion only because, appearing in the public press, it has been answered from England.

But the United States can never be indifferent to Canada, nor to the other British provinces, near neighbors and kindred. It is well known historically, that, even before the Declaration of Independence, our fathers hoped that Canada would take part with them. Washington was strong in this hope; so was Franklin. The Continental Congress, by solemn resolution, invited Canada, and then appointed a Commission, with Benjamin Franklin at its head, “to form an Union between the United Colonies and the people of Canada.” In the careful instructions of the Congress, signed in their behalf by John Hancock, President, the Commissioners are, among other things, enjoined “in the strongest terms to assure the people of Canada that it is our earnest desire to adopt them into our Union as a sister Colony, and to secure the same general system of mild and equal laws for them and for ourselves, with only such local differences as may be agreeable to each Colony respectively”; and further, that in the judgment of the Congress “their interest and ours are inseparably united.”[112]

Long ago the Continental Congress passed away, living only in its deeds. Long ago the great Commissioner rested from his labors, to become a star in our firmament. But the invitation survives, not only in the archives of our history, but in all American hearts, constant and continuing as when first issued, believing, as we do, that such a union, in the fulness of time, with the good-will of the mother country and the accord of both parties, must be the harbinger of infinite good. Nor do I doubt that this will be accomplished. Such a union was clearly foreseen by the late Richard Cobden, who, in a letter to myself, bearing date, London, 7th November, 1849, wrote:--

“I agree with you that Nature has decided that _Canada and
the United States must become one_ for all purposes of
intercommunication. Whether they also shall be united in the
same Federal Government must depend upon the two parties to the
union. I can assure you that there will be no repetition of
the policy of 1776 on our part, to prevent our North American
colonies from pursuing their interests in their own way. If the
people of Canada are tolerably unanimous in wishing to sever
the very slight thread which now binds them to this country,
I see no reason why, if good faith and ordinary temper be
observed, it should not be done amicably.”

Nearly twenty years have passed since these prophetic words, and enough has already taken place to give assurance of the rest. “Reciprocity,” once established by treaty, and now so often desired on both sides, will be transfigured in Union, while our Plural Unit is strengthened and extended.

The end is certain; nor shall we wait long for its mighty fulfilment. Its beginning is the establishment of peace at home, through which the national unity shall become manifest. This is the first step. The rest will follow. In the procession of events it is now at hand, and he is blind who does not discern it. From the Frozen Sea to the tepid waters of the Mexican Gulf, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the whole vast continent, smiling with outstretched prairies, where the coal-fields below vie with the infinite corn-fields above,--teeming with iron, copper, silver, and gold,--filling fast with a free people, to whom the telegraph and steam are constant servants,--breathing already with schools, colleges, and libraries,--interlaced by rivers which are great highways,--studded with inland seas where fleets are sailing, and “poured round all old Ocean’s” constant tides, with tributary commerce and still expanding domain,--such will be the Great Republic, One and Indivisible, with a common Constitution, a common Liberty, and a common Glory.

THE QUESTION OF CASTE.

LECTURE DELIVERED IN THE MUSIC HALL, BOSTON, OCTOBER 21, 1869.

Man is a name of honor for a king;
Additions take away from each chief thing.

CHAPMAN, _Bussy d’Ambois_, Act IV. Sc. 1.

* * * * *

All men have the same rational nature and the same powers of
conscience, and all are equally made for indefinite improvement
of these divine faculties, and for the happiness to be found
in their virtuous use. Who that comprehends these gifts
does not see that the diversities of the race vanish before
them?--CHANNING, _Slavery_: Works, Vol. II. p. 21.

* * * * *

The Christian philosopher sees in every man a partaker of
his own nature and a brother of his own species.--CHALMERS,
_Utility of Missions_: Works, Vol. XI. p. 244.

LECTURE.

MR. PRESIDENT,--In asking you to consider the Question of Caste, I open a great subject of immediate practical interest. Happily, Slavery no longer exists to disturb the peace of our Republic; but it is not yet dead in other lands, while among us the impious pretension of this great wrong still survives against the African because he is black and against the Chinese because he is yellow. Here is nothing less than the claim of hereditary power from color; and it assumes that human beings cast in the same mould with ourselves, and in all respects _men_, with the same title of manhood that we have, may be shut out from Equal Rights on account of the skin. Such is the pretension, plainly stated.

On other occasions it has been my duty to show how inconsistent is this pretension with our character as a Republic, and with the promises of our fathers,--all of which I consider it never out of order to say and to urge. But my present purpose is rather to show how inconsistent it is with that sublime truth, being part of God’s law for the government of the world, which teaches the Unity of the Human Family, and its final harmony on earth. In this law, which is both commandment and promise, I find duties and hopes,--perpetual duties never to be postponed, and perpetual hopes never to be abandoned, so long as Man is Man.

Believing in this law, and profoundly convinced that by the blessing of God it will all be fulfilled on earth, it is easy to see how unreasonable is a claim of power founded on any unchangeable physical incident derived from birth. Because man is black, because man is yellow, he is none the less Man; because man is white, he is none the more Man. By this great title he is universal heir to all that Man can claim. Because he is Man, and not on account of color, he enters into possession of the promised dominion over the animal kingdom,--“over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” But this equal copartnership without distinction of color symbolizes equal copartnership in all the Rights of Man.

* * * * *

As I enter upon this important theme, I confess an unwelcome impediment, partly from the prevailing prejudice of color, which has become with many what is sometimes called a second nature, and partly from the little faith among men in the future development of the race. The cry, “A white man’s government,” which is such an insult to human nature, has influence in the work of degradation. Accustomed to this effrontery, people do not see its ineffable absurdity, which is made conspicuous, if they simply consider the figure our fathers would have cut, had they declared the equal rights of _white_ men, and not the equal rights of _men_. The great Declaration was axiomatic and self-evident because universal; confined to a class, it would have been neither. Hearkening to this disgusting cry, people close the soul to all the quickening voices, whether of prophet, poet, or philosopher, by which we are encouraged to persevere; nor do they heed the best lessons of science.

I begin by declaring an unalterable faith in the Future, which nothing can diminish or impair. Other things I may renounce, but this I cannot. Throughout a life of controversy and opposition, frequently in a small minority, sometimes almost alone, I have never for a moment doubted the final fulfilment of the great promises for Humanity without which this world would be a continuing chaos. To me it was clear from the beginning, even in the early darkness, and then in the bloody mists of war, that Slavery must yield to well-directed efforts against it; and now it is equally clear that every kindred pretension must yield likewise, until all are in the full fruition of those equal rights which are the crown of life on earth. Nor can this great triumph be restricted to our Republic. Wherever men are gathered into nations, wherever Civilization extends her beneficent sway, there will it be manifest. Against this lofty truth the assaults of the adversary are no better than the arrows of barbarians vainly shot at the sun. Still it moves, and it will move until all rejoice in its beams. The “all-hail Hereafter,” in which the poet pictures personal success, is a feeble expression for that transcendent Future where man shall be conqueror, not only over nations, but over himself, subduing pride of birth, prejudice of class, pretension of Caste.

* * * * *

The assurances of the Future are strengthened, when I look at Government and see how its character constantly improves as it comes within the sphere of knowledge. Men must know before they can act wisely; and this simple rule is applicable alike to individuals and communities. “Go, my son,” said the Swedish Chancellor, “and see with what little wisdom the world is governed.”[113] Down to his day government was little more than an expedient, a device, a trick, for the aggrandizement of a class, of a few, or, it may be, of one. Calling itself Commonwealth, it was so in name only. There were classes always, and egotism was the prevailing law. Macchiavelli, the much-quoted herald of modern politics, insisted that all governments, whether monarchical or republican, owed their origin or reformation to a single lawgiver, like Lycurgus or Solon.[114] If this was true in his day, it is not in ours. In the presence of an enlightened people, a single lawgiver, or an aristocracy of lawgivers, is impossible, while government becomes the rule of all for the good of all,--not the One Man Power, so constant in history,--not the Triumvirate, sometimes occurring,--not an Oligarchy, which is the rule of a few,--not an Aristocracy, which is the rule of a class,--not any combination, howsoever accepted, sanctioning exclusions,--but the whole body of the people, without exclusion of any kind, or, in the great words of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”[115]

Thus far government has been at best an Art, like alchemy or astrology, where ministers exercised a subtle power, or speculators tried imaginative experiments, seeking some philosopher’s-stone at the expense of the people. Though in many respects still an Art only, it is fast becoming a Science founded on principles and laws from which there can be no just departure. As a science, it is determined by knowledge, like any other science, aided by that universal handmaid, the philosophy of induction. From a succession of particulars the general rule is deduced; and this is as true of government as of chemistry or astronomy. Nor do I see reason to doubt, that, in the evolution of events, the time is at hand when government will be subordinated to unquestionable truth, making diversity of opinion as impossible in this lofty science as it is now impossible in other sciences already mastered by man. Science accomplishes part only of its beneficent work, when it brings physical nature within its domain. That other nature found in Man must be brought within the same domain. And is it true that man can look into the unfathomable Universe, there to measure suns and stars, that he can penetrate the uncounted ages of the earth’s existence, reading everywhere the inscriptions upon its rocks, but that he cannot look into himself, or penetrate his own nature, to measure human capacities and read the inscriptions upon the human soul? I do not believe it. What is already accomplished in such large measure for the world of matter will yet be accomplished for that other world of Humanity; and then it will appear, by a law as precise as any in chemistry or astronomy, that just government stands only on the consent of the governed, that all men must be equal before the law of man as they are equal before the law of God, and that any discrimination founded on the accident of birth is inconsistent with that true science of government which is simply the science of justice on earth.

One of our teachers, who has shed much light on the science of government,--I refer to Professor Lieber, of New York,--shows that the State is what he calls “a _jural_ society,” precisely as the Church is a religious society, and an insurance company a financial society.[116] The term is felicitous as it is suggestive. Above the State rises the image of Justice, lofty, blindfold, with balance in hand. There it stands in colossal form with constant lesson of Equal Rights for All, while under its inspiration government proceeds according to laws which cannot be disobeyed with impunity, and Providence is behind to sustain the righteous hand. In proportion as men are wise, they recognize these laws and confess the exalted science.

“Know thyself” is the Heaven-descended injunction which ancient piety inscribed in letters of gold in the temple at Delphi.[117] The famous oracle is mute, but the divine injunction survives; nor is it alone. Saint Augustine impresses it in his own eloquent way, when he says, “Men go to admire the heights of mountains, and the great waves of the sea, and the widest flow of rivers, and the compass of the ocean, and the circuits of the stars, _and leave themselves behind_.”[118] Following the early mandate, thus seconded by the most persuasive of the Christian Fathers, man will consider his place in the universe and his relations to his brother man. Looking into his soul, he will there find the great irreversible Law of Right, universal for the nation as for himself, commanding to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and under the safeguard of this universal law I now place the rights of all mankind. It is little that I can do; but, taking counsel of my desires, I am not without hope of contributing something to that just judgment which shall blast the effrontery of Caste as doubly offensive, not only to the idea of a Republic, but to Human Nature itself.

* * * * *

Already you are prepared to condemn Caste, when you understand its real character. To this end, let me carry you to that ancient India, with its population of more than a hundred and eighty millions, where this artificial discrimination, born of impossible fable, was for ages the dominating institution of society,--being, in fact, what Slavery was in our Rebellion, the corner-stone of the whole structure.

The Portuguese were the first of European nations to form establishments in India, and therefore through them was the civilized world first acquainted with its peculiar institutions. But I know no monument of their presence there, and no contribution from them to our knowledge of the country, so enduring as the word Caste, or, in the Portuguese language, _Casta_, by which they designated those rigid orders or ranks into which the people of India were divided. The term originally applied by them has been adopted in the other languages of Europe, where it signifies primarily the orders or ranks of India, but by natural extension any separate and fixed order of society. In the latter sense Caste is now constantly employed. The word is too modern, however, for our classical English literature, or for that most authentic record of our language, the Dictionary of Dr. Johnson, when it first saw the light in 1755.

Though the word was unknown in earlier times, the hereditary discrimination it describes entered into the political system of modern Europe, where people were distributed into classes, and the son succeeded to the condition of his father, whether of privilege or disability,--the son of a noble being a noble with great privileges, the son of a mechanic being a mechanic with great disabilities. And this inherited condition was applicable even to the special labor of the father; nor was there any business beyond its tyrannical control. According to Macaulay, “the tinkers formed an hereditary caste.”[119] The father of John Bunyan was a tinker, and the son inherited the position. The French Revolution did much to shake this irrational system; yet in many parts of Europe, down to this day, the son emancipates himself with difficulty from the class in which he is born. But just in proportion to the triumph of Equality does Caste disappear.

This institution is essentially barbarous, and therefore appears in barbarous ages, or in countries not yet relieved from the early incubus. It flourished side by side with the sculptured bulls and cuneïform characters of Assyria, side by side with the pyramids and hieroglyphics of Egypt. It showed itself under the ambitious sway of Persia, and even in the much-praised Cecropian era of Attica. In all these countries Caste was organized, differing somewhat in divisions, but hereditary in character. And the same phenomenon arrested the attention of the conquering Spaniards in Peru. The system had two distinct elements: first, separation, with rank and privilege, or their opposite, with degradation and disability; secondly, descent from father to son, so that it was perpetual separation from generation to generation.[120]

* * * * *

In Hindustan, this dreadful system, which, under the name of Order, is the organization of disorder, has prolonged itself to our day, so as to be a living admonition to mankind. That we may shun the evil it entails, in whatever shape, I now endeavor to expose its true character.

The regular castes of India are four in number, called in Sanscrit _varnas_, or _colors_, although it does not appear that by nature they were of different colors. Their origin will be found in the sacred law-book of the Hindoos, the “Ordinances of Menu,” where it is recorded that the Creator caused the Brahmin, the Cshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra, so named from _Scripture_, _Protection_, _Wealth_, and _Labor_, to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thigh, and his foot, appointing separate duties for each class. To the Brahmin, proceeding from the mouth, was allotted the duty of reading the Veda and of teaching it; to the Cshatriya, proceeding from the arm, the duty of soldier; to the Vaisya, proceeding from the thigh, the duty of cultivating the land and keeping herds of cattle; and to the Sudra, proceeding from the foot, was appointed the chief duty of serving the other classes without depreciating their worth. Such was the original assignment of parts; but, under the operation of natural laws, those already elevated increased their importance, while those already degraded sank lower. Ascent from an inferior class was absolutely impossible: as well might a vegetable become a man. The distinction was perpetuated by the injunction that each should marry only in his own class, with sanguinary penalties upon any attempted amalgamation.

The Brahmin was child of rank and privilege; the Sudra, child of degradation and disability. Omitting the two intermediate classes, soldiers and husbandmen, look for one moment at the two extremes, as described by the sacred volume.

The Brahmin is constantly hailed as first-born, and, by right, chief of the whole creation. This eminence is declared in various terms. Thus it is said, “When a Brahmin springs to light, he is born above the world”; and then again, “Whatever exists in the universe is all in effect the wealth of the Brahmin.” As he engrosses the favor of the Deity, so is he entitled to the veneration of mortals; and thus, “whether learned or ignorant, he is a powerful divinity, even as fire is a powerful divinity, whether consecrated or common.” Immunities of all kinds cluster about him. Not for the most insufferable crime can he be touched in person or property; nor can he be called to pay taxes, while all other classes must bestow their wealth upon him. Such is the Brahmin, with these privileges crystallized in his blood from generation to generation.

On the other hand is the Sudra, who is the contrast in all particulars. As much as the Brahmin is object of constant veneration, so is the Sudra object of constant contempt. As one is exalted above Humanity, so is the other degraded below it. The life of the Sudra is servile, but according to the sacred volume he was created by the Self-Existent especially to serve the Brahmin. Everywhere his degradation is manifest. He holds no property which a Brahmin may not seize. The crime he commits is visited with the most condign punishment, beyond that allotted to other classes subject to punishment. The least disrespect to a Brahmin is terribly avenged. For presuming to sit on a Brahmin’s carpet, the penalty is branding and banishment, or maiming; for contumelious words to a Brahmin, it is an iron style ten fingers long thrust red-hot into the mouth; and for offering instruction to a Brahmin, it is nothing less than hot oil poured into mouth and ears. Such is the Sudra; and this fearful degradation, with all its disabilities, is crystallized in his blood from generation to generation.

Below these is another more degraded even than the Sudra, being the outcast, with no place in either of the four regular castes, and known commonly as the Pariah. Here is another term imported into familiar usage to signify generally those on whom society has set its ban. No person of the regular castes holds communication with the Pariah. His presence is contaminating. Milk, and even water, is defiled by his passing shadow, and cannot be used until purified. The Brahmin sometimes puts him to death at sight. In well-known language of our country, once applied to another people, he has no rights which a Brahmin is bound to respect.[121]

Such a system, so shocking to the natural sense, has been denounced by all who have considered it, whether on the spot or at a distance,--unless I except the excellent historian Robertson, who seems to find apologies for it, as men among us find apologies for the caste which sends its lengthening shadow across our Republic. I might take your time until late in the evening unfolding its obvious evil, as exposed by those who have witnessed its operation. This testimony is collected in a work entitled “Caste opposed to Christianity,” by Rev. Joseph Roberts, and published in London in 1847. I give brief specimens only. A Hindoo converted to Christianity exposes its demoralizing influence, when he says, “Caste is the stronghold of pride, which makes a man think of himself more highly than he ought to think”; and so also another converted Hindoo, when he says, “Caste makes a man think that he is holier than another, and that he has some inherent virtue which another has not”; and still another converted Hindoo, when he says, “Caste is part and parcel of idolatry and all heathen abomination.” But no testimony surpasses that of the eminent Reginald Heber, the Bishop of Calcutta, when he declares that it is “a system which tends, more than anything else the Devil has yet invented, to destroy the feelings of general benevolence, and to make nine tenths of mankind the hopeless slaves of the remainder.”[122] Under these protests, and the growing influence of Christianity, the system is so far mitigated, that, according to an able writer whose soul is enlisted against it, “the distinctions are felt on certain limited occasions only.”[123] These are the words of James Mill, interesting always as the author of the best work on India, and the father of John Stuart Mill. It is now admitted, that, under constraint of necessity, the member of a superior caste may descend to the pursuits of an inferior caste. The lofty Brahmin engages in traffic, yet he cannot touch “leather”; for contact with this article of commerce is polluting. But I am obliged to add that no modification leaving “distinctions” transmissible with the blood can be adequate. So long as these continue, the natural harmonies of society are disturbed and man is degraded. The system in its mildest form can have nothing but evil; for it is a constant violation of primal truth, and a constant obstruction to that progress which is the appointed destiny of man.

* * * * *

Change now the scene,--from ancient India, and the shadow of unknown centuries, to our Republic, born on yesterday. How unlike in venerable antiquity! How like in the pretension of Caste! Here the caste claiming hereditary rank and privilege is white, the caste doomed to hereditary degradation and disability is black or yellow; and it is gravely asserted that this difference of color marks difference of race, which in itself justifies the discrimination. To save this enormity of claim from indignant reprobation, it is insisted that the varieties of men do not proceed from a common stock,--that they are different in origin,--that this difference is perpetuated in their respective capacities; and the apology concludes with the practical assumption, that the white man is a superior caste not unlike the Brahmin, while the black man is an inferior caste not unlike the Sudra, sometimes even the Pariah; nor is the yellow man exempted from this same insulting proscription. When I consider how for a long time the African was shut out from testifying in court, even when seeking redress for the grossest outrage, and how at this time in some places the Chinese is also shut out from testifying in court, each seems to have been little better than the Pariah. In stating this assumption of superiority, which I do not exaggerate, I open a question of surpassing interest, whether in science, government, or religion.

Here I must not forget that some, who admit the common origin of all men, insist that the African is descended from Ham, son of Noah, through Canaan, cursed by Noah to be servant of his brethren, and that therefore he may be degraded even to slavery. But this apology is not original with us. Nobles in Poland seized upon it to justify their lordly pretensions, calling their serfs, though white, descendants of Ham.[124] But whether employed by Pole or American, it is worthy only of derision. I do not know that this apology is invoked for maltreating the Chinese, although he is descended from Ham as much as the Pole.

* * * * *

Two passages of Scripture, one in the Old Testament and the other in the New, both governing this question, attest the Unity of the Human Family. The first is in that sublime chapter of Genesis, where, amidst the wonders of Creation, it is said: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.”[125] The other passage is from that great sermon of Saint Paul, when, standing in the midst of Mars Hill, he proclaimed to the men of Athens, and through them to all mankind, that God “hath made of _one blood_ all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.”[126] If, as is sometimes argued, there be ambiguity in the account of the Creation, or if in any way its authority has been impaired by scientific criticism, there is nothing of the kind to detract from the sermon of Saint Paul, which must continue forevermore venerable and beautiful.

* * * * *

Appealing from these texts, the apologists hurry to Science; and there I follow. But I must compress into paragraphs what might fill volumes.

Ethnology, to which we repair, is a science of recent origin, exhibiting the different races or varieties of Man in their relations with each other, as that other science, Anthropology, exhibits Man in his relation to the animal world. Nature and History are our authorities, but all science and all knowledge are tributary. Perhaps no other theme is grander; for it is the very beginning of human history, in which all nations and men have a common interest. Its vastness is increased, when we consider that it embraces properly not only the origin, distribution, and capacity of Man, but his destiny on earth,--stretching into the infinite past, stretching also into the infinite future, and thus spanning Humanity.

The subject is entirely modern. Hippocrates, one of our ancient masters, has left a treatise on “Air, Water, and Place,” where climatic influences are recognized; but nobody in Antiquity studied the varieties of our race, or regarded its origin except mythically. The discovery of America, and the later circumnavigation of the globe, followed by the development of the sciences generally, prepared the way for this new science.

* * * * *

It is obvious to the most superficial observer that there are divisions or varieties in the Human Family, commonly called Races; but the most careful explorations of Science leave the number uncertain. These differences are in Color and in Skull,--also in Language. Of these the most obvious is Color; but here, again, the varieties multiply in proportion as we consider transitional or intermediate hues. Two great teachers in the last century--Linnæus, of whom it was said, “God created, Linnæus classified,” _Deus creavit, Linnæus disposuit_,[127] and Kant, a sincere and penetrating seeker of truth--were content with four,--white, copper, tawny or olive, and black,--corresponding geographically to European, American, Asiatic, and African. Buffon, in his eloquent portraiture, recognizes five, with geographical designations. He was followed by Blumenbach, who also recognizes five, with the names which have become so famous since,--Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Here first appears the popular, but deceptive term, Caucasian; for nobody supposes now that the white cradle was on Caucasus, which is best known to English-speaking people by the verse of Shakespeare, making it anything but Eden,--

“Oh, who can hold a fire in his hand
By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?”[128]

Blumenbach was an able and honest inquirer; and if his nomenclature is defective, it is only another illustration of the adage, that nothing is at the same time invented and perfected.

If I mention other attempts, it is only to show how Science hesitates before this great problem. Cuvier reduces the Family to three, with branches or subdivisions, and lends his great authority to the term Caucasian, which he adopts from Blumenbach. Lesson began with three, according to color,--white, yellow, and black; but afterwards recognized six,--white, bistre, orange, yellow, red, black,--represented respectively by European, Hindoo, Malay, Mongolian, American, and Negro, African and Asiatic. Desmoulins makes eleven. Bory de Saint-Vincent adds to Desmoulins. Broc adds to Saint-Vincent. The London “Ethnological Journal” makes no less than sixty-three, of which twenty-eight varieties are intellectual and thirty-five physical; and we are told[129] that thirty varieties of Caucasian alone are recognized on the monuments of ancient Egypt, as they appear in the magnificent works of Rosellini and Lepsius. Our own countryman, Pickering,--whose experience was gained on the Exploring Expedition of Captain Wilkes,--in his work on “The Races of Man and their Geographical Distribution,” enumerates eleven varieties of Man, divided into four groups, according to color,--white, brown, blackish-brown, and black. In his opinion, “there is no middle ground between the admission of eleven distinct species in the Human Family and the reduction to one.”[130]

The Dutch anatomist, Camper, distinguishes the Human Family by the facial angle, ranging from eighty degrees, in the European, down to seventy degrees, in the Negro.[131] This attempt was continued by Virey, who divides Man into two species: the first with a facial angle of 85° to 90°, including Caucasian, Mongolian, and copper-colored American; and the second with a facial angle of 75° to 82°, including dark-brown Malay, blackish Hottentot and Papuan, and the Negro. Prichard, whose voluminous works constitute an ethnological mine, finds, chiefly from the skull, seven varieties, which he calls (1.) Iranian, from Iran, the primeval seat in Persia of the Aryan race, embracing the Caucasian of Blumenbach with some Asiatic and African nations; (2.) Turanian or Mongolian; (3.) American, including Esquimaux; (4.) Hottentot and Bushman; (5.) Negro; (6.) Papuan, or woolly-haired Polynesian; (7.) Australian. The same industrious observer finds three principal varieties in the conformation of the head, corresponding respectively to Savage, Nomadic, and Civilized Man. In the savage African and Australian the jaw is prolonged forward, constituting what he calls, by an expressive term, _prognathous_. In the nomadic Mongolian the skull is pyramidal and the face broad. In Civilized Man the skull is oval or elliptical. But the naturalist records that there are forms of transition, as nations approach to civilization or relapse into barbarism.

Thus does the Human Skull refuse any definitive answer. There are varieties of skull, as of color; but the question remains, to what extent they attest original diversity. Equally vain is the attempt to obtain a guide in the form of the human pelvis. But every such attempt and its failure have their lesson.

There remains one other criterion: I mean Language. And here the testimony is such as to disturb all divisions founded on Color or Skull; for it is ascertained that people differing in these respects speak languages having a common origin. The ancient Sanscrit, sometimes called the most elaborate of human dialects, has yielded its secret to philological research, and now stands forth the mother tongue of the European nations. It is difficult to measure the importance of this revelation; for, while not decisive on the main question, it increases our difficulty in accepting any postulate of original diversity.[132]

And now the question arises, How are these varieties to be regarded in the light of science? Are they aboriginal and from the beginning,--or are they super-induced by secondary causes, of which the record is lost in the extended night preceding our historic day? Here the authorities are divided. On the one side, we are reminded that within the period of recognized chronology no perceptible change has occurred in any of these varieties,--that on the earliest monuments of Egypt the African is pictured precisely as we see him now, even to that servitude from which among us he is happily released,--and it is insisted that no known influences of climate or place are sufficient to explain such transformations from an aboriginal type, while plural types are in conformity with the analogies of the animal and vegetable world. On the other side, we are reminded, that, whatever may be the difficulties from supposing a common centre of Creation, there are greater still in supposing plural centres,--that it is easier to understand one creation than many,[133]--that geographical science makes us acquainted with intermediate gradations of color and conformation in which the great contrasts disappear,--that, even within the last half-century and in Europe, people have tended to lose their national physiognomy and run into a common type, thus attesting subjection to transforming influences,--that, after accepting the races already described, there are other varieties, national, family, and individual, not less difficult of explanation,--and it is insisted, that, whatever these varieties, be they few or many, there is among them all _an overruling Unity_, by which they are constituted one and the same cosmopolitan species, endowed with speech, reason, conscience, and the hope of immortality, knitting all together in a common Humanity, and, amidst all seeming differences, making all as near to each other as they are far apart from every other created thing, while to every one is given that great first instrument of civilization, the human hand, by which the earth is tilled, cities built, history written, and the stars measured;--and this unquestionable Unity is pronounced all-sufficient evidence of a common origin.

In considering this great question, do all inquirers sufficiently recognize the element of Time? Obviously the sphere of operation is enlarged in proportion to the time employed. Everything is possible with time. Confining ourselves to recognized chronology, existing varieties cannot be reconciled with that unity found in a common origin. What are the six thousand years of Hebrew time, what are the twenty-two thousand years of human annals sanctioned by the learning and piety of Bunsen,[134] for the consummation of these transformations? And this longest period, how brief for the completion of those two marvellous languages, Sanscrit and Greek, which at the earliest dawn of authentic history were already so perfect! Considering the infinitudes of astronomy, and those other infinitudes of geology, it is not unreasonable to claim an antiquity for Primeval Man compared with which all the years of authentic history are a span. With such incalculable opportunity, amidst unknown changes of Nature where heat and cold strove for mastery, no transformation consistent with the preservation of the characteristic species was impossible. Egypt is not alone in its Sphinx, perplexing mortals with perpetual enigma. Science is our Sphinx, and its enigma is Man and his varieties on earth: to which I answer, “Time.”

Nor is it unreasonable to suppose that at the Creation conditions were stamped upon man, making transformations natural. Because unnatural according to observation during the brief period of historic time, it does not follow that they are not strictly according to law. The famous Calculating Engine of Charles Babbage, the distinguished mathematician, as described in his remarkable “Bridgewater Treatise,” where Science vindicates anew the ways of Providence to man, supplies an illustration which is not without instruction. This machine, with a power almost miraculous, was so adjusted as to produce a series of natural numbers in regular order from unity to a number expressed by one hundred millions and one,--100,000,001,--when another series was commenced, regulated by a different law, which continued until at a certain number the series was again changed; and all these changes in the immense progression proceeded from a propulsion at the beginning.[135] Any simple observer, finding that the series stretched onwards through successive millions, would have no hesitation in concluding from the vast induction that it must proceed always according to the same law; and yet it was not so. But the Calculating Engine is only a contrivance of human skill. And cannot the Creator do as much? That is a very inadequate conception of the Almighty Power creating the universe and placing man in it, which supposes, according to the language of Sir John Herschel, the eminent astronomer, that “His combinations are exhausted upon any one of the theatres of their former exercise.”[136] Thus far we know not the law of the series which governed Primeval Man. Who can say that after lapse of time changes did not occur, always in obedience to conditions stamped upon him at the Creation?

A simpler illustration carries us to the same result. A cog-wheel, so common in machinery, operates ordinarily by the cogs on its rim; but the wheel may be so constructed, that, after a certain series of rotations, another set of cogs is presented, inducing a different motion. All can see how, in conformity with preëxisting law, a change may occur in the operations of the machine. But it was not less easy for the Creator to fix His law at the beginning, according to which the evolutions of this world proceed. And thus are we brought back to the conclusion, so often announced, that unity of origin must not be set aside simply because existing varieties of Man cannot be sufficiently explained by known laws, operating during that brief period which we call History.

In considering this great question, there are authorities which cannot be disregarded. Count them or weigh them, it is the same. I adduce a few only, beginning with Latham, the ethnologist, who insists,--

“(1.) That, as a matter of fact, the languages of the earth’s
surface are referable to one common origin; (2.) that, as a
matter of logic, this common origin of language is _primâ
facie_ evidence of a common origin for those who speak it.”[137]

The great French geographer and circumnavigator, Dumont d’Urville, testifies thus:--

“I see on the whole surface of the globe only three types or
divisions of mankind which seem to me to merit the title of
distinct races: the white, more or less colored with red; the
yellow, inclining to different tints of copper or bronze; and
the black.--I share in the opinion which refers these three
races to one and the same primitive stock, and which places
their common cradle on the central plateau of Asia.”[138]

Buffon, the brilliant naturalist, whose work is one of the French classics, thus records his judgment:--

“All concurs to prove that the human race is not composed of
species essentially different among themselves,--that, on
the contrary, there was originally but a single species of
men, who, in multiplying and spreading over all the surface
of the globe, have undergone different changes through the
influence of climate, difference of food, difference in the
manner of living, epidemic maladies, and the infinitely varied
intermixture of individuals more or less alike.”[139]

Another authority, avoiding the question of origin, has given a summary full of instruction and beauty. I refer to Alexander von Humboldt, the life-long companion of every science, to whom all science was revealed,--who studied Man in both hemispheres, and ever afterwards, throughout his long and glorious career, continued the pursuit. Adopting the words of the great German anatomist, Johannes Müller, that “the different races of mankind are forms of one sole species, by the union of two individuals of which descendants are propagated,”[140] and criticizing the popular classifications of Blumenbach and Prichard as wanting “typical sharpness” or “well-established principle,” the author of “Cosmos” insists that “the distribution of mankind is only a distribution into _varieties_, which are commonly designated by the somewhat indefinite term _races_,” and then announces the grand conclusion:--

“Whilst we maintain the unity of the human species, we at the
same time repel the depressing assumption of superior and
inferior races of men. There are nations more susceptible of
cultivation, more highly civilized, more ennobled by mental
cultivation, than others, _but none in themselves nobler than
others_.”[141]

Such is the testimony of Science by one of its greatest masters. Rarely have better words been uttered. Nor should it be said longer that Science is silent. Humboldt has spoken. And what he said is much in little,--most simple, but most comprehensive; for, while asserting the Unity of the Human Family, he repels that disheartening pretension of Caste which I insist shall find no place in our political system. Through him Science is enlisted for the Equal Rights of All.

Whatever the judgment on the unity of origin, where, from the nature of the case, there can be no final human testimony, it is a source of infinite consolation that we can anchor to that other unity found in a common organization, a common nature, and a common destiny, being at once physical, moral, and prophetic. This is the true Unity of the Human Family. In all essentials constituting Humanity, in all that makes Man, all varieties of the human species are one and the same. There is no real difference between them. The variance, whether of complexion, configuration, or language, is external and superficial only, like the dress we wear. Here all knowledge and every science concur. Anatomy, physiology, psychology, history, the equal promises to all men, testify. Look at Man on the dissecting table, and he is always the same, no matter in what color he is clad,--same limbs, same bones, same proportions, same structure, same upright stature. Look at Man in the world, and you will find him in nature always the same,--modified only by the civilization about him. There is no human being, black or yellow, who may not apply to himself the language of Shakespeare’s Jew:--

“Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions?--fed with the same food, hurt
with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed
by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and
summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not
die?”[142]