Chapter IV: Part 4

These statements--which, to those who do not place freedom above all price, may seem, at first view, to take the sting even from slavery--are not without support from other sources. Colonel Keatinge, who, as a member of a diplomatic mission from England, visited Morocco in 1785, says of this evil there, that "it is very slightly inflicted, and as to any labor undergone, it does not deserve the name;"[146] while Mr. Lempriere, who was in the same country not long afterwards, adds, "To the disgrace of Europe, the Moors treat their slaves with humanity."[147] In Tripoli, we are told, by a person for ten years a resident, that the same gentleness prevailed. "It is a great alleviation to our feelings," says the writer, speaking of the slaves, "to see them easy and well dressed, and, so far from wearing chains, as captives do in most other places, they are perfectly at liberty."[148] We have already seen the testimony of General Eaton with regard to slavery in Tunis; while Mr. Noah, one of his successors in the consulate of the United States at that place, says, "In Tunis, from my observation, the slaves are not severely treated; they are very useful, and many of them have made money."[149] And Mr. Shaler, describing the chief seat of Christian slavery, says, "In short, there were slaves who left Algiers with regret."[150]

[Footnote 146: Keatinge's Travels, p. 250; Quarterly Review, vol. xv. p. 146. See also Chenier's Present State of Morocco, vol. i. p. 192; ii. p. 369.]

[Footnote 147: Lempriere's Tour, p. 290. See also pp. 3, 147, 190, 279.]

[Footnote 148: Narrative of Ten Years' Residence at Tripoli, p. 241.]

[Footnote 149: Noah's Travels, p. 368.]

[Footnote 150: Shaler's Sketches, p. 77.]

A French writer of more recent date asserts with some vehemence, and with the authority of an eye witness, that the Christian slaves at Algiers were not exposed to the miseries which they represented. I do not know that he vindicates their slavery, but, like Captain Braithwaite, he evidently regards many of them as better off than they would be at home. According to him, they were well clad and well fed, _much better than the free Christians there_. The youngest and most comely were taken as pages by the Dey. Others were employed in the barracks; others in the galleys; but even here there was a chapel, as in the time of Cervantes, for the free exercise of the Christian religion. Those who happened to be artisans, as carpenters, locksmiths, and calkers, were let to the owners of vessels. Others were employed on the public works; while others still were allowed the privilege of keeping a shop, in which their profits were sometimes so large as to enable them at the end of a year to purchase their ransom. But these were often known to become indifferent to freedom, and to prefer Algiers to their own country. The slaves of private persons were sometimes employed in the family of their master, where their treatment necessarily depended much upon his character. If he were gentle and humane, their lot was fortunate; they were regarded as children of the house. If he were harsh and selfish, then the iron of slavery did, indeed, enter their souls. Many were bought to be sold again for profit into distant parts of the country, where they were doomed to exhausting labor; in which event their condition was most grievous. But special care was bestowed upon all who became ill--not so much, it is admitted, from humanity as through fear of losing them.[151]

[Footnote 151: _Histoire d'Alger: Description de ce Royaume, etc., de ses Forces de Terre et de Mer, Moeurs et Costumes des Habitans, des Mores, des Arabes, des Juifs, des Chretiens, de ses Lois, etcs._ (Paris, 1830,) chap. 27.]

But, whatever deductions may be made from the familiar stories of White Slavery in the Barbary States,--admitting that it was mitigated by the genial influence of Mohammedanism,--that the captives were well clad and well fed, much better than the free Christians there,--that they were allowed opportunities of Christian worship,--that they were often treated with lenity and affectionate care,--that they were sometimes advanced to posts of responsibility and honor,--and that they were known, in their contentment or stolidity, to become indifferent to freedom,--still the institution or custom is hardly less hateful in our eyes. Slavery in all its forms, even under the mildest influences, is a wrong and a curse. No accidental gentleness of the master can make it otherwise. Against it reason, experience, the heart of man, all cry out. "Disguise thyself as thou wilt, still, Slavery! thou art a bitter draught! and though thousands in all ages have been made to drink of thee, thou art no less bitter on that account." Algerine Slavery was a violation of the law of nature and of God. It was a usurpation of rights not granted to man.

O execrable son, so to aspire
Above his brethren, to himself assuming
Authority usurped, from God not given!
He gave us only over beast, fish, fowl,
Dominion absolute; that right we hold
By his donation; but man over men
He made not lord, such title to himself
Reserving, human left from human free.[152]

Such a relation, in defiance of God, could not fail to accumulate disastrous consequences upon all in any way parties to it; for injustice and wrong are fatal alike to the doer and the sufferer. It is notorious that, in Algiers, it exerted a most pernicious influence on master as well as slave. The slave was crushed and degraded, his intelligence abased, even his love of freedom extinguished. The master, accustomed from childhood to revolting inequalities of condition, was exalted into a mood of unconscious arrogance and self-confidence, inconsistent with the virtues of a pure and upright character. Unlimited power is apt to stretch towards license; and the wives and daughters of Christian slaves were often pressed to be the concubines of their Algerine masters.[153]

[Footnote 152: Paradise Lost, book xii. 64-71.]

[Footnote 153: Noah's Travels, p. 248, 253; Quarterly Review, vol. xv. p. 168. Among the concubines of a prince of Morocco were two slaves of the age of fifteen, one of English, and the other of French extraction. Lempriere's Tour, p. 147. There is an account of the fate of "one Mrs. Shaw, an Irish woman," in words hardly polite enough to be quoted. She was swept into the harem of Muley Ishmael, who "forced her to turn Moor;" "but soon after, having taken a dislike to her, he gave her to a soldier."--Braithwaite's Morocco, p. 191.]

It is well, then, that it has passed away! The Barbary States seem less barbarous, when we no longer discern this cruel oppression!

But the story of slavery there is not yet all told. While the Barbary States received white slaves by sea, stolen by corsairs, they also, from time immemorial, imported black slaves from the south. Over the vast, illimitable sea of sand, in which is absorbed their southern border,--traversed by camels, those "ships of the desert,"--were brought those unfortunate beings, as merchandise, with gold dust and ivory, doomed often to insufferable torments, while cruel thirst parched the lips, and tears vainly moistened the eyes. They also were ravished from their homes, and, like their white brethren from the north, compelled to taste of slavery. In numbers they have far surpassed their Christian peers. But for long years no pen or voice pleaded their cause; nor did the Christian nations--professing a religion which teaches universal humanity, without respect of persons, and sends the precious sympathies of neighborhood to all who suffer, even at the farthest pole--ever interfere in any way in their behalf. The navy of Great Britain, by the throats of their artillery, argued the freedom of all _fellow-Christians_, without distinction of _nation_; but they heeded not the slavery of other brethren in bonds--Mohammedans or idolaters, children of the same Father in heaven. Lord Exmouth did but half his work. In confining the stipulation to the abolition of Christian slavery only, this Abolitionist made a discrimination, which, whether founded on religion or color, was selfish and unchristian. Here, again, was the same inconsistency which darkened the conduct of Charles the Fifth, and has constantly recurred throughout the history of this outrage. Forgetful of the Brotherhood of the Race, Christian powers have deemed the slavery of blacks just and proper, while the slavery of whites has been branded as unjust and sinful.

As the British fleet sailed proudly from the harbor of Algiers, bearing its emancipated white slaves, and the express stipulation, that Christian slavery was abolished there forever, it left behind in bondage large numbers of blacks, distributed throughout all the Barbary States. Neglected thus by exclusive and unchristian Christendom, it is pleasant to know that their lot is not always unhappy. In Morocco, negroes are still detained as slaves; but the prejudice of color seems not to prevail there. They have been called "the grand cavaliers of this part of Barbary."[154] They often become the chief magistrates and rulers of cities.[155] They constituted the body guard of several of the emperors, and, on one occasion at least, exercised the prerogative of the Praetorian cohorts, in dethroning their master.[156] If negro slavery still exists in this state, it has little of the degradation connected with it elsewhere. Into Algiers France has already carried the benign principle of law--earlier recognized by her than by the English courts[157]--which secures freedom to all beneath its influence. And now we are cheered anew by the glad tidings recently received, that the Bey of Tunis, "for the glory of God, and to distinguish man from the brute creation," has decreed the total abolition of human slavery throughout his dominions.

[Footnote 154: Braithwaite's Morocco, p. 350. See also Quarterly Review, vol. xv. p. 168.]

[Footnote 155: Braithwaite, p. 222.]

[Footnote 156: Ibid. p. 381.]

[Footnote 157: Somersett's case, first declaring this principle, was decided in 1772. M. Schoell says, that "this fine maxim has always obtained" in France.--_Histoire Abregee des Traites de Paix_, tom. xi. p. 178. By the royal ordinance 1318, it was declared, that "all men are born free (_francs_) by nature; and that the kingdom of the French (_Francs_) should be so in reality as in name." But this "fine maxim" was not recognized in France so completely as M. Schoell asserts. See Encyclopedie, (de Diderot et de D'Alembert,) art. _Esclavage_.]

Let us, then, with hope and confidence, turn to the Barbary States! The virtues and charities do not come singly. Among them is a common bond, stronger than that of science or knowledge. Let one find admission, and a goodly troop will follow. Nor is it unreasonable to anticipate other improvements in states which have renounced a long-cherished system of White Slavery, while they have done much to abolish or mitigate the slavery of others not white, and to overcome the inhuman prejudice of color. The Christian nations of Europe first declared, and practically enforced, within their own European dominions, the vital truth of freedom, that man cannot hold property in his brother man. Algiers and Tunis, like Saul of Tarsus, have been turned from the path of persecution, and now receive the same faith. Algiers and Tunis now help to plead the cause of Freedom. Such a cause is in sacred fellowship with all those principles which promote the Progress of Man. And who can tell that this despised portion of the globe is not destined to yet another restoration? It was here in Northern Africa that civilization was first nursed, that commerce early spread her white wings, that Christianity was taught by the honeyed lips of Augustine. All these are again returning to their ancient home. Civilization, commerce, and Christianity once more shed their benignant influences upon the land to which they have long been strangers. A new health and vigor now animate its exertions. Like its own giant Antaeus,--whose tomb is placed by tradition among the hillsides of Algiers,--it has been often felled to the earth, but it now rises with renewed strength, to gain yet higher victories.

* * * * *

[Transcribers' Note: Delivered as a Lecture before the Boston Mercantile Library Association, February 17, 1847; this illustrated version published in 1853.--Spelling varieties as in "stanch" (staunch) have been maintained.--This text uses _underscores_ to indicate italic fonts.]

<pre id="pg-footer">