h [ Not only is slavery
prohibited in Ohio, but no free negroes are allowed to enter the territory of
that State, or to hold property in it. See the Statutes of Ohio.]
Thus the traveller who floats down the current of the
Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi, may be said to
sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of the
surrounding objects will convince him as to which of the two is most favorable
to mankind. Upon the left bank of the stream the population is rare; from time
to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the
primaeval forest recurs at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be
idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and of life. From the right
bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard which proclaims the presence of
industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests, the elegance of the
dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborer, and man appears to
be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of
labor. *i
i [ The activity of Ohio is not
confined to individuals, but the undertakings of the State are surprisingly
great; a canal has been established between Lake Erie and the Ohio, by means of
which the valley of the Mississippi communicates with the river of the North,
and the European commodities which arrive at New York may be forwarded by water
to New Orleans across five hundred leagues of continent.]
The State of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the State of
Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a
century in Europe, and, at the present day, the population of Ohio exceeds that
of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls. *j These opposite
consequences of slavery and freedom may readily be understood, and they suffice
to explain many of the differences which we remark between the civilization of
antiquity and that of our own time.
j [ The exact numbers given by
the census of 1830 were: Kentucky, 688,-844; Ohio, 937,679. [In 1890 the
population of Ohio was 3,672,316, that of Kentucky, 1,858,635.]]
Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with
the idea of slavery, upon the right bank it is identified with that of
prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is
honored; on the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would
be afraid of assimilating themselves to the negroes; on the latter no one is
idle, for the white population extends its activity and its intelligence to
every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich
soil of Kentucky are ignorant and lukewarm; whilst those who are active and
enlightened either do nothing or pass over into the State of Ohio, where they
may work without dishonor.
It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to
pay wages to the slaves whom they employ; but they derive small profits from
their labor, whilst the wages paid to free workmen would be returned with
interest in the value of their services. The free workman is paid, but he does
his work quicker than the slave, and rapidity of execution is one of the great
elements of economy. The white sells his services, but they are only purchased
at the times at which they may be useful; the black can claim no remuneration
for his toil, but the expense of his maintenance is perpetual; he must be
supported in his old age as well as in the prime of manhood, in his profitless
infancy as well as in the productive years of youth. Payment must equally be
made in order to obtain the services of either class of men: the free workman
receives his wages in money, the slave in education, in food, in care, and in
clothing. The money which a master spends in the maintenance of his slaves goes
gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the
free workman is paid in a round sum, which appears only to enrich the
individual who receives it, but in the end the slave has cost more than the
free servant, and his labor is less productive. *k
k [ Independently of these
causes, which, wherever free workmen abound, render their labor more productive
and more economical than that of slaves, another cause may be pointed out which
is peculiar to the United States: the sugar-cane has hitherto been cultivated
with success only upon the banks of the Mississippi, near the mouth of that
river in the Gulf of Mexico. In Louisiana the cultivation of the sugar-cane is
exceedingly lucrative, and nowhere does a laborer earn so much by his work,
and, as there is always a certain relation between the cost of production and
the value of the produce, the price of slaves is very high in Louisiana. But
Louisiana is one of the confederated States, and slaves may be carried thither
from all parts of the Union; the price given for slaves in New Orleans
consequently raises the value of slaves in all the other markets. The
consequence of this is, that in the countries where the land is less
productive, the cost of slave labor is still very considerable, which gives an
additional advantage to the competition of free labor.]
The influence of slavery extends still further; it
affects the character of the master, and imparts a peculiar tendency to his
ideas and his tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio, the character of the
inhabitants is enterprising and energetic; but this vigor is very differently
exercised in the two States. The white inhabitant of Ohio, who is obliged to
subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the principal aim
of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible
resources to his industry and ever-varying lures to his activity, his
acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is
tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path which
fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a laborer
with the same indifference, and he supports, with equal constancy, the fatigues
and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his
intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to
a species of heroism.
But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor, but all the
undertakings which labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his
tastes are those of an idle man; money loses a portion of its value in his
eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy
which his neighbor devotes to gain, turns with him to a passionate love of
field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he
is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to
expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery not only prevents the whites
from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.
As the same causes have been continually producing
opposite effects for the last two centuries in the British colonies of North
America, they have established a very striking difference between the
commercial capacity of the inhabitants of the South and those of the North. At
the present day it is only the Northern States which are in possession of
shipping, manufactures, railroads, and canals. This difference is perceptible
not only in comparing the North with the South, but in comparing the several
Southern States. Almost all the individuals who carry on commercial operations,
or who endeavor to turn slave labor to account in the most Southern districts
of the Union, have emigrated from the North. The natives of the Northern States
are constantly spreading over that portion of the American territory where they
have less to fear from competition; they discover resources there which escaped
the notice of the inhabitants; and, as they comply with a system which they do
not approve, they succeed in turning it to better advantage than those who
first founded and who still maintain it.
Were I inclined to continue this parallel, I could easily
prove that almost all the differences which may be remarked between the
characters of the Americans in the Southern and in the Northern States have
originated in slavery; but this would divert me from my subject, and my present
intention is not to point out all the consequences of servitude, but those
effects which it has produced upon the prosperity of the countries which have
admitted it.
The influence of slavery upon the production of wealth
must have been very imperfectly known in antiquity, as slavery then obtained
throughout the civilized world; and the nations which were unacquainted with it
were barbarous. And indeed Christianity only abolished slavery by advocating
the claims of the slave; at the present time it may be attacked in the name of
the master, and, upon this point, interest is reconciled with morality.
As these truths became apparent in the United States, slavery
receded before the progress of experience. Servitude had begun in the South,
and had thence spread towards the North; but it now retires again. Freedom,
which started from the North, now descends uninterruptedly towards the South.
Amongst the great States, Pennsylvania now constitutes the extreme limit of
slavery to the North: but even within those limits the slave system is shaken:
Maryland, which is immediately below Pennsylvania, is preparing for its
abolition; and Virginia, which comes next to Maryland, is already discussing
its utility and its dangers. *l
l [ A peculiar reason
contributes to detach the two last-mentioned States from the cause of slavery.
The former wealth of this part of the Union was principally derived from the
cultivation of tobacco. This cultivation is specially carried on by slaves; but
within the last few years the market-price of tobacco has diminished, whilst
the value of the slaves remains the same. Thus the ratio between the cost of
production and the value of the produce is changed. The natives of Maryland and
Virginia are therefore more disposed than they were thirty years ago, to give
up slave labor in the cultivation of tobacco, or to give up slavery and tobacco
at the same time.]
No great change takes place in human institutions without
involving amongst its causes the law of inheritance. When the law of
primogeniture obtained in the South, each family was represented by a wealthy
individual, who was neither compelled nor induced to labor; and he was
surrounded, as by parasitic plants, by the other members of his family who were
then excluded by law from sharing the common inheritance, and who led the same
kind of life as himself. The very same thing then occurred in all the families
of the South as still happens in the wealthy families of some countries in
Europe, namely, that the younger sons remain in the same state of idleness as
their elder brother, without being as rich as he is. This identical result
seems to be produced in Europe and in America by wholly analogous causes. In
the South of the United States the whole race of whites formed an aristocratic
body, which was headed by a certain number of privileged individuals, whose
wealth was permanent, and whose leisure was hereditary. These leaders of the
American nobility kept alive the traditional prejudices of the white race in
the body of which they were the representatives, and maintained the honor of
inactive life. This aristocracy contained many who were poor, but none who
would work; its members preferred want to labor, consequently no competition
was set on foot against negro laborers and slaves, and, whatever opinion might
be entertained as to the utility of their efforts, it was indispensable to
employ them, since there was no one else to work.
No sooner was the law of primogeniture abolished than
fortunes began to diminish, and all the families of the country were
simultaneously reduced to a state in which labor became necessary to procure
the means of subsistence: several of them have since entirely disappeared, and
all of them learned to look forward to the time at which it would be necessary
for everyone to provide for his own wants. Wealthy individuals are still to be
met with, but they no longer constitute a compact and hereditary body, nor have
they been able to adopt a line of conduct in which they could persevere, and
which they could infuse into all ranks of society. The prejudice which
stigmatized labor was in the first place abandoned by common consent; the
number of needy men was increased, and the needy were allowed to gain a
laborious subsistence without blushing for their exertions. Thus one of the
most immediate consequences of the partible quality of estates has been to
create a class of free laborers. As soon as a competition was set on foot
between the free laborer and the slave, the inferiority of the latter became
manifest, and slavery was attacked in its fundamental principle, which is the
interest of the master.
As slavery recedes, the black population follows its
retrograde course, and returns with it towards those tropical regions from
which it originally came. However singular this fact may at first appear to be,
it may readily be explained. Although the Americans abolish the principle of
slavery, they do not set their slaves free. To illustrate this remark, I will
quote the example of the State of New York. In 1788, the State of New York
prohibited the sale of slaves within its limits, which was an indirect method
of prohibiting the importation of blacks. Thenceforward the number of negroes
could only increase according to the ratio of the natural increase of
population. But eight years later a more decisive measure was taken, and it was
enacted that all children born of slave parents after July 4, 1799, should be
free. No increase could then take place, and although slaves still existed,
slavery might be said to be abolished.
From the time at which a Northern State prohibited the
importation of slaves, no slaves were brought from the South to be sold in its
markets. On the other hand, as the sale of slaves was forbidden in that State,
an owner was no longer able to get rid of his slave (who thus became a
burdensome possession) otherwise than by transporting him to the South. But
when a Northern State declared that the son of the slave should be born free,
the slave lost a large portion of his market value, since his posterity was no
longer included in the bargain, and the owner had then a strong interest in
transporting him to the South. Thus the same law prevents the slaves of the South
from coming to the Northern States, and drives those of the North to the South.
The want of free hands is felt in a State in proportion
as the number of slaves decreases. But in proportion as labor is performed by
free hands, slave labor becomes less productive; and the slave is then a
useless or onerous possession, whom it is important to export to those Southern
States where the same competition is not to be feared. Thus the abolition of
slavery does not set the slave free, but it merely transfers him from one
master to another, and from the North to the South.
The emancipated negroes, and those born after the
abolition of slavery, do not, indeed, migrate from the North to the South; but
their situation with regard to the Europeans is not unlike that of the
aborigines of America; they remain half civilized, and deprived of their rights
in the midst of a population which is far superior to them in wealth and in
knowledge; where they are exposed to the tyranny of the laws *m and the
intolerance of the people. On some accounts they are still more to be pitied
than the Indians, since they are haunted by the reminiscence of slavery, and
they cannot claim possession of a single portion of the soil: many of them
perish miserably, *n and the rest congregate in the great towns, where they
perform the meanest offices, and lead a wretched and precarious existence.
m [ The States in which slavery
is abolished usually do what they can to render their territory disagreeable to
the negroes as a place of residence; and as a kind of emulation exists between
the different States in this respect, the unhappy blacks can only choose the
least of the evils which beset them.]
n [ There is a very great
difference between the mortality of the blacks and of the whites in the States
in which slavery is abolished; from 1820 to 1831 only one out of forty-two
individuals of the white population died in Philadelphia; but one negro out of
twenty-one individuals of the black population died in the same space of time.
The mortality is by no means so great amongst the negroes who are still slaves.
(See Emerson's "Medical Statistics," p. 28.)]
But even if the number of negroes continued to increase
as rapidly as when they were still in a state of slavery, as the number of
whites augments with twofold rapidity since the abolition of slavery, the
blacks would soon be, as it were, lost in the midst of a strange population.
A district which is cultivated by slaves is in general
more scantily peopled than a district cultivated by free labor: moreover,
America is still a new country, and a State is therefore not half peopled at
the time when it abolishes slavery. No sooner is an end put to slavery than the
want of free labor is felt, and a crowd of enterprising adventurers immediately
arrive from all parts of the country, who hasten to profit by the fresh
resources which are then opened to industry. The soil is soon divided amongst
them, and a family of white settlers takes possession of each tract of country.
Besides which, European emigration is exclusively directed to the free States;
for what would be the fate of a poor emigrant who crosses the Atlantic in
search of ease and happiness if he were to land in a country where labor is
stigmatized as degrading?
Thus the white population grows by its natural increase,
and at the same time by the immense influx of emigrants; whilst the black
population receives no emigrants, and is upon its decline. The proportion which
existed between the two races is soon inverted. The negroes constitute a scanty
remnant, a poor tribe of vagrants, which is lost in the midst of an immense
people in full possession of the land; and the presence of the blacks is only
marked by the injustice and the hardships of which they are the unhappy
victims.
In several of the Western States the negro race never
made its appearance, and in all the Northern States it is rapidly declining.
Thus the great question of its future condition is confined within a narrow
circle, where it becomes less formidable, though not more easy of solution.
The more we descend towards the South, the more difficult
does it become to abolish slavery with advantage: and this arises from several
physical causes which it is important to point out.
The first of these causes is the climate; it is well known
that in proportion as Europeans approach the tropics they suffer more from
labor. Many of the Americans even assert that within a certain latitude the
exertions which a negro can make without danger are fatal to them; *o but I do
not think that this opinion, which is so favorable to the indolence of the
inhabitants of southern regions, is confirmed by experience. The southern parts
of the Union are not hotter than the South of Italy and of Spain; *p and it may
be asked why the European cannot work as well there as in the two latter
countries. If slavery has been abolished in Italy and in Spain without causing
the destruction of the masters, why should not the same thing take place in the
Union? I cannot believe that nature has prohibited the Europeans in Georgia and
the Floridas, under pain of death, from raising the means of subsistence from
the soil, but their labor would unquestionably be more irksome and less
productive to them than to the inhabitants of New England. As the free workman
thus loses a portion of his superiority over the slave in the Southern States,
there are fewer inducements to abolish slavery.
o [ This is true of the spots in
which rice is cultivated; rice-grounds, which are unwholesome in all countries,
are particularly dangerous in those regions which are exposed to the beams of a
tropical sun. Europeans would not find it easy to cultivate the soil in that
part of the New World if it must be necessarily be made to produce rice; but
may they not subsist without rice-grounds?]
p [ These States are nearer to
the equator than Italy and Spain, but the temperature of the continent of
America is very much lower than that of Europe.
The Spanish Government formerly caused a certain number
of peasants from the Acores to be transported into a district of Louisiana
called Attakapas, by way of experiment. These settlers still cultivate the soil
without the assistance of slaves, but their industry is so languid as scarcely
to supply their most necessary wants.]
All the plants of Europe grow in the northern parts of
the Union; the South has special productions of its own. It has been observed
that slave labor is a very expensive method of cultivating corn. The farmer of
corn land in a country where slavery is unknown habitually retains a small number
of laborers in his service, and at seed-time and harvest he hires several
additional hands, who only live at his cost for a short period. But the
agriculturist in a slave State is obliged to keep a large number of slaves the
whole year round, in order to sow his fields and to gather in his crops,
although their services are only required for a few weeks; but slaves are
unable to wait till they are hired, and to subsist by their own labor in the
mean time like free laborers; in order to have their services they must be
bought. Slavery, independently of its general disadvantages, is therefore still
more inapplicable to countries in which corn is cultivated than to those which
produce crops of a different kind. The cultivation of tobacco, of cotton, and especially
of the sugar-cane, demands, on the other hand, unremitting attention: and women
and children are employed in it, whose services are of but little use in the
cultivation of wheat. Thus slavery is naturally more fitted to the countries
from which these productions are derived. Tobacco, cotton, and the sugar-cane
are exclusively grown in the South, and they form one of the principal sources
of the wealth of those States. If slavery were abolished, the inhabitants of
the South would be constrained to adopt one of two alternatives: they must
either change their system of cultivation, and then they would come into
competition with the more active and more experienced inhabitants of the North;
or, if they continued to cultivate the same produce without slave labor, they
would have to support the competition of the other States of the South, which
might still retain their slaves. Thus, peculiar reasons for maintaining slavery
exist in the South which do not operate in the North.
But there is yet another motive which is more cogent than
all the others: the South might indeed, rigorously speaking, abolish slavery;
but how should it rid its territory of the black population? Slaves and slavery
are driven from the North by the same law, but this twofold result cannot be
hoped for in the South.
The arguments which I have adduced to show that slavery
is more natural and more advantageous in the South than in the North,
sufficiently prove that the number of slaves must be far greater in the former
districts. It was to the southern settlements that the first Africans were
brought, and it is there that the greatest number of them have always been
imported. As we advance towards the South, the prejudice which sanctions
idleness increases in power. In the States nearest to the tropics there is not
a single white laborer; the negroes are consequently much more numerous in the
South than in the North. And, as I have already observed, this disproportion
increases daily, since the negroes are transferred to one part of the Union as
soon as slavery is abolished in the other. Thus the black population augments
in the South, not only by its natural fecundity, but by the compulsory
emigration of the negroes from the North; and the African race has causes of
increase in the South very analogous to those which so powerfully accelerate
the growth of the European race in the North.
In the State of Maine there is one negro in 300
inhabitants; in Massachusetts, one in 100; in New York, two in 100; in
Pennsylvania, three in the same number; in Maryland, thirty-four; in Virginia,
forty-two; and lastly, in South Carolina *q fifty-five per cent. Such was the
proportion of the black population to the whites in the year 1830. But this
proportion is perpetually changing, as it constantly decreases in the North and
augments in the South.
q [ We find it asserted in an
American work, entitled "Letters on the Colonization Society," by Mr.
Carey, 1833, "That for the last forty years the black race has increased
more rapidly than the white race in the State of South Carolina; and that if we
take the average population of the five States of the South into which slaves
were first introduced, viz., Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, North
Carolina, and Georgia, we shall find that from 1790 to 1830 the whites have
augmented in the proportion of 80 to 100, and the blacks in that of 112 to
100."
In the United States, in 1830, the population of the two
races stood as follows:—
States where slavery is abolished, 6,565,434 whites;
120,520 blacks. Slave States, 3,960,814 whites; 2,208,102 blacks. [In 1890 the
United States contained a population of 54,983,890 whites, and 7,638,360
negroes.]]
It is evident that the most Southern States of the Union
cannot abolish slavery without incurring very great dangers, which the North
had no reason to apprehend when it emancipated its black population. We have
already shown the system by which the Northern States secure the transition
from slavery to freedom, by keeping the present generation in chains, and
setting their descendants free; by this means the negroes are gradually
introduced into society; and whilst the men who might abuse their freedom are kept
in a state of servitude, those who are emancipated may learn the art of being
free before they become their own masters. But it would be difficult to apply
this method in the South. To declare that all the negroes born after a certain
period shall be free, is to introduce the principle and the notion of liberty
into the heart of slavery; the blacks whom the law thus maintains in a state of
slavery from which their children are delivered, are astonished at so unequal a
fate, and their astonishment is only the prelude to their impatience and
irritation. Thenceforward slavery loses, in their eyes, that kind of moral
power which it derived from time and habit; it is reduced to a mere palpable
abuse of force. The Northern States had nothing to fear from the contrast,
because in them the blacks were few in number, and the white population was
very considerable. But if this faint dawn of freedom were to show two millions
of men their true position, the oppressors would have reason to tremble. After
having affranchised the children of their slaves the Europeans of the Southern
States would very shortly be obliged to extend the same benefit to the whole
black population.
No comments:
Post a Comment