The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-12-15
lCoPYRIGHT SECURED by THE AUTHOR
For the National Era
THE LEGAL TENURE OF SLAVERY.
AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE ILLEGAL IN ITS
COMMENCEMENT.
LETTER w.
To the Friends of american Liberty:

To the Friends of american Liberty:
You will indulge me in the earnest and Oft
reiterated inquiry, When, tchere, how and by
| whom, 1ods dmerican Slavery legdltzed2N IL le-
gal at all, there must have been time, place,
a process, an authority, and an agency, by the
citation and verifcatiOn of which, it's legality
can be proved or ascertained. IL it be legal now,
it was not always legal "From the beginning
it was not 500 Natural law knows nothing of
it; common law repudiates and abhOrs it, The
question of its legality becomes, then a histor1.
cal one. We will 60 back to the beginning of
modern negro Slavery, so far as the United
States and our mother country" are concern
ed. We will trace the process down, step by
STEP to our own times; and at every successive
step press the inquiry "Was Slavery legalized
by this procedure Or was it legal at this pc.
Rod And if So Oho legalized it and how was
it d0ne9
We have right to know the particulars the
world has right to know and to judge of them,
before admitting that American saveholding
has ever been legalized.
"The first importation OF slaves from Africa
by Englishmcn, was in the reign of Queen Eliz-
abeth in the year 1929 This was done by
Captain afterwards Sir John) Hawkins. No
one prctends tnat at this period there was any
act or permission of the British Parliament au-
thorizing John Hawkins OF any one else, to 20
to Africa and bring away slaves All the au-
thority he could claim was permit from
Queen Elizabeth But royal permits, or even
mandates, in England, are not always nor OF
necessity, equivalent to LAW. On the contra.
ry, they mag be unlawful; and if so, tho courts
may set them aside They must be inherently
lawful, in accordance with natural right, and
not in violation either of Magma Charta, the
British Constitution, or English common law
otherwise, they are of no legal force. But Sla
very and the slave trade were manifesty and
VIGOROUSLY in violation of all these 80 that the
most unlimited and plenary license Of Queen
Elizabeth, or even her mandate, to John Haw-
kins, could not have made his unlawful acts
lawful
This principle, which no sound English law
yer will controvert may be illustrated by a
well-known historical fact, lying in another di.
rection. During a long series of years the GUS
tom obtained, in oil the seaports of England,
of impressing English merchant seamen, and
dragging them by force on board the armed
vessels of the British navy, where they were
compelled to do service. They were taken
from on board merchant vessels in the docks /;
they were taken along street, in their boarding
houses, in brothels, in dram-shops, or even from
under their own roofs or the roofs of their pa
rents; the houses in which they resided were
forcibly entered, they were walked from Sleep
and dragged from their beds. All this was
done by officers of the Royal Navy, by order of
Captains and Admrals, with the connivance, if
not by the express direction, of the Lords Of
the Admiralty by the license OF mandate of
the reigning monarch himself The whoie
process wds illegal, nevertheless, without Parlia-
mentary enactment without sanction of the
civil courts. So sell known was this, that
whenever an impressed sailor had wealthy or
influential friends TO bring q civil action in his
favor, and who could be seasonably apprized of
the fact, he was sure Of being set at liberty.
From the Lieutenant OF the press.gang up to
the Lords of the Admiralty and the Monarch,
1t was we'll understood that no case of the kind
must be permitted to come before the civil
courts, lest the practice should be judicially
condemned! And 80 odious was the custom,
that no act of Parliament could be invoked iu
its favor. Ii was an unlawful practice, and the
rank or authority Of those who practiced it
could not render it lawful The British Gov
ernment, though monarchy, was not an ,in.
limited one
Just 70 of the slave trade. Could it be shown
that John Hawkins acted precisely in accord
ance with the permit, or even in obedience to
the mandate, Of Queen Elizabeth-nay, that she
was herself Las some say) secret partner with
him in the enterprise-that circumstance would
furnish no proof Of the legality Of the practice.
British monarchs may commit unlawful acts as
well as other people, and like other people,
they sometimes lose their heads for their crimes
But | need not stop long TO insist upon this
plain principle Of common English law
could afford to spare it entirely. For the his
torical fact ia, that Queen Elizabeth's permit
to John Hawkins contained the special condi-
ton that the Africans should he taken away
only nth their free consent! Whereas, it is
well known that, in direct violation Of this con-
dition, he took them away by brute fore. On
his returning from his first voyage some rumors
Of his conduct having reached the Queen, she
sent for him, and expressed her concern lest
any Of the Africans should be carried of with.
out their free consent, declaring that 1t would
be detestablc and call down Heavens ven
gcsnce upon the undertakers't Captain Haw.
kins promised TO comply with this injunction,
but he forfeited his word for, when he went to
Africa again, he seized many Of the inhabitants,
and carried them of az slaves which occasion
Cd Hill in the account he gives Of this second
voyage, to use these remarkable words: Here
began the horrid practice Of forcing the h;ri-
cans into Slsvcry--an injustice and barbarty
which, ~ sure ~ there is vengeance in Heaven
ior the worst Of crimes, will, sometime, be the
obstruction OF all who encourage it, 1
Edwards the Pro- Slavery Historian Of West
'no'A slavery aud spologist Of the African
slave trade h forced 70 make this remarkable
concer~son
In regard 70 Hawkins himself he was, (