On the Slave-Trade
To the Editor of the
Federal Gazette
March 23d, 1790.
Sir,
Reading last night in your excellent Paper the speech of
Mr. Jackson in Congress against their meddling
with the Affair of Slavery, or attempting to mend the Condition of the
Slaves, it put me in mind of a similar One made about 100 Years since by
Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the Divan of Algiers, which may be seen in
Martin’s Account of his Consulship, anno 1687. It was against
granting the Petition of the Sect called Erika, or Purists who
pray’d for the Abolition of Piracy and Slavery as being unjust.
Mr. Jackson does not quote it; perhaps he has
not seen it. If, therefore, some of its Reasonings are to be found in his
eloquent Speech, it may only show that men’s Interests and Intellects
operate and are operated on with surprising similarity in all Countries and
Climates, when under similar Circumstances. The African’s Speech, as
translated, is as follows.
“Allah Bismillah, &c. God is great, and Mahomet is
his Prophet.
“Have these Erika considered the Consequences of
granting their Petition? If we cease our Cruises against the Christians,
how shall we be furnished with the Commodities their Countries produce, and
which are so necessary for us? If we forbear to make Slaves of their People,
who in this hot Climate are to cultivate our Lands? Who are to perform the
common Labours of our City, and in our Families? Must we not then be our own
Slaves? And is there not more Compassion and more Favour due to us as
Mussulmen, than to these Christian Dogs? We have now about 50,000 Slaves in
and near Algiers. This Number, if not kept up by fresh Supplies, will soon
diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If we then cease taking and
plundering the Infidel Ships, and making Slaves of the Seamen and Passengers,
our Lands will become of no Value for want of Cultivation; the Rents of
Houses in the City will sink one half; and the Revenues of Government arising
from its Share of Prizes be totally destroy’d! And for what? To
gratify the whims of a whimsical Sect, who would have us, not only forbear
making more Slaves, but even to manumit those we have.
“But who is to indemnify their Masters for the Loss? Will the State do
it? Is our Treasury sufficient? Will the Erika do it? Can they do it?
Or would they, to do what they think Justice to the Slaves, do a greater
Injustice to the Owners? And it we set our Slaves free, what is to be done
with them? Few of them will return to their Countries; they know too well
the great Hardships they must there be subject to; they will not embrace our
holy Religion; they will not adopt our Manners; our People will not pollute
themselves by intermarrying with them. Must we maintain them as Beggars in
our Streets, or suffer our Properties to be the Prey of their Pillage? For
men long accustom’d to Slavery will not work for a Livelihood when not
compell’d. And what is there so pitiable in their present Condition?
Were they not Slaves in their own Countries?
“Are not Spain, Portugal, France, and the Italian states
govern’d by Despots, who hold all their Subjects in Slavery, without
Exception? Even England treats its Sailors as Slaves; for they are, whenever
the Government pleases, seiz’d, and confin’d in Ships of War,
condemn’d not only to work, but to fight, for small Wages, or a mere
Subsistence, not better than our Slaves are allow’d by us. Is their
Condition then made worse by their falling into our Hands? No; they have
only exchanged on Slavery for another, and I may say a better; for here they
are brought into a land where the Sun of Islamism gives forth its Light, and
shines in full Splendor, and they have an Opportunity of making themselves
acquainted with the true Doctrine, and thereby saving their immortal Souls.
Those who remain at home have not that Happiness. Sending the Slaves home
then would be sending them out of Light into Darkness.
“I repeat the Question, What is to be done with them? I have heard it
suggested, that they may be planted in the Wilderness, where there is plenty
of Land for them to subsist on, and where they may flourish as a free State;
but they are, I doubt, to little dispos’d to labour without
Compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish a good government, and the
wild Arabs would soon molest and destroy or again enslave them. While serving
us, we take care to provide them with every thing, and they are treated with
Humanity. The Labourers in their own Country are, as I am well informed,
worse fed, lodged, and cloathed. The Condition of most of them is therefore
already mended, and requires no further Improvement. Here their Lives are in
Safety. They are not liable to be impress’d for Soldiers, and
forc’d to cut one another’s Christian throats, as in the Wars of
their own Countries. If some of the religious mad Bigots, who now teaze us
with their silly Petitions, have in a Fit of blind Zeal freed their Slaves,
it was not Generosity, it was not Humanity, that mov’d them to the
Action; it was from the conscious Burthen of a Load of Sins, and Hope, from
the supposed Merits of so good a Work, to be excus’d Damnation.
“How grossly are they mistaken in imagining Slavery to be
disallow’d by the Alcoran? Are not the two Precepts, to quote no more,
‘Masters, treat your Slaves with kindness; Slaves, serve your
Masters with Cheerfulness and Fidelity,’ clear Proofs to the
contrary? Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book
forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and
all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of
Right as fast as they conquer it. Let us then hear no more of this
detestable Proposition, the Manumission of Christian Slaves, the Adoption of
which would, by depreciating our Lands and Houses, and thereby depriving so
many good Citizens of their Properties, create universal Discontent, and
provoke Insurrections, to the endangering of Government and producing
general Confusion. I have therefore no doubt, but this wise Council will
prefer the Comfort and Happiness of a whole Nation of true Believers to the
Whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their Petition.”
The Result was, as Martin tells us, that the Divan came to this Resolution;
“The Doctrine, that Plundering and Enslaving the Christians
is unjust, is at best problematical; but that it is the Interest of
this State to continue the Practice, is clear; therefore let the Petition be
rejected.”
And it was rejected accordingly.
And since like Motives are apt to produce in the Minds of Men like Opinions
and Resolutions, may we not, Mr. Brown, venture
to predict, from this Account, that the Petitions to the Parliament of
England for abolishing the Slave-Trade, to say nothing of other
Legislatures, and the Debates upon them, will have a similar Conclusion? I
am, Sir, your constant Reader and humble Servant,
HISTORICUS.
|
