Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-12-14

African slave has ever been introduced into
America since that law was enacted, nor that
we have evadcd the law by the introduction OF
| Chinese or Indian Coolies, or African imini-
grants or apprentices, and thereby inauguratinG
| more cruel forms Of servitude than that before
existing Suppose We were to charge that
Englishmen were professional murdererS, like
the Thugs of Asia could we not show that Il
hundred EngliShmen committed murder where
one American engaged in the slave trade !:
Your laws punish murder so do ours punish
African slave traders. You yourself cite the
recent case of the Echo, when the ship was
seized and confiscated, the negroes sent back
to Africa, and the crew incarcerated to await
their trial. for their lives The writer well
knew that we, so far back as our declaration OF
independence in 1916 protested against this
trade which England had inflicted on us, that
in 1850 We excluded slavery from the North
Western territory, that our Northern States
had abolished slavery ITSELF Cthe only people
who ever did abolish it for themselves before
England had abolished the slave trdt'e.
the United States were not only the first by
law and in fact to abolish the slave trade from
Africa to her own dominions, (Which was all
she could rightfully do,) but imbibing like Re
voutionary France and England. the crusadnS
philanthropy of Wilberforcc, Brougham and
the Edinburgh Review. she undertook TO abo-
lish it for other nations In this she was gull
ty ofviolatng the law of nations, and the moral
code Of mankind; for General CasS truly re-
marks in his letter to Lord Napier, the slave
trade has been recognised by the nations OF the
earth us a lawful commerce, from the earliest
period of history And again, he says, al
most all maratimc nations have been engaged III
the slave trade" Even the writer We are re-
viewing admits the improperly OF such legs
lation, for he says, page o95, it is admitted that
an American SLAYER "in .Ragranh dettcfH
might sail with impunity through fleet of our
cruisers
Our law was called for by public opinion,
and has been therefore successful in its opera
ton So fir as our own territories were concern
ed 1t should have stopped there. We are no
more accountable for the acts of our citizens.
who conduct commerce between Cuba and AZ
RIGA, than for that of those Of them who COM
nit robberies in France or England. In neither
case is there an offence against our peace and
dignity" and it is an impcrtinent interference,
and breach of the principles OF common law
and the law Of nations for us to treat such acts
us crimes, (quoad nos.)
The writer whom We are criticlSlng, page
go thus speaks Of France, and the general
reaction of opinion on the subject OF negro
slavery: AT the end Of half 4 century, when
the next generation of Wilberlorces and Mackin-
toshes had grown DID, an alarm arose that the
slave trade was in course Of revival by France,
or rather by the Emperor Of France, under Il
thin disguise; and that certain State Governors
of the United States were openly proposing =
rc.opcning OF the African trade in negroes -
One wear more and we find the French ippor-
tation of negro laborers into Martinique, Gua-
daloupe and Cayenne to be real trade III
slaves, the subject Of revival of the slave
trade to be the most important of the moment
in the United States, and some English news
papers adopting tone and putting forth scnti-
ments of which q West India planter Of the
last generation would have been ashamed.
Again: ave are told by the retrogreSsivc
party that the subject is old and tircsomc, the
arguments against slave labor worn out, the
sentiment supcranuated the whole opposition
an obsolete affair, which must give way TO mo-
dern views and fresh interests" Page 2T9, al
ter charging that the United States and Cuba
are the two nations that sustain the slave trade,
he thus proceeds 10 contradict himself
France, or rather the French government, has
recently been ranked with these two on ac-
her West India colonies. but rs this new crime
NAV be soon repcnted of. Ton account Of its
folly, if not of its guilt we may adhere to the
usual classitication-"th United States and
Cuba against the world" (Why may not they
repent also y Again, page 296, he sayS--"At
the outset of our remarks We called it a dis
guised slave trade that the French Emperor
had instituted, but from evidence that has since
arrived in abundance, it is an undsguiscd trade
of the kind condemned by the allied Powers a
quarter Of century ago
The writer repeatedly asserts that the United
States and Cuba alone carry on the slave
trade Then charges As often that France also
is engaged in it, and finally proves. by conclu-
Siye evidence that the United States will have
nothing to do with the traffic, under any dis
guscS, in any form, or under any new name.
So much for the present as TO his facts and
his Sclfcontradictions.
We will now give Il specimen Of his logic.
After repeatedly admitting the reaction i'll pub
lie opinion Is to negro slavery and the slave
trade in France England and America after
telling us that the Cotton Plant a new pa
pcr in London, is edited for the avowcd pur-
pose Of reyiying the slave trade, and that it
quotes rs authority the Times" the lcadln.
journal OF Western Europe, and Mr.. Carlyle,
the ablcst of English authors. and that other
newspapers advocate the same policy it most
unreasonably concludes. that this universal re-
action is but the symptom of approaching.
death: Il, is quite natural that so critical Il
moment should be eagerly seized on by the
lovers of power and pclf for last attempt 10
shake off the obligations Of treaties, and to re-
open the African slave trade. Reasonable men
have always known that this is the way the old
practice would expire" What evidence would
satisfy this Reviewer that the oil practice was
revived, or about to be revived, if the known
practices of England be added to its own adj.
mission? The writers logic is only cquallcd
by his inconsistency and want of vcracity
TO cleanse his Augcan stable of all its filth,
folly and falsehood would be llcrculcan task,
equally tedious, unnecessary and disgusting
For tie presxnt we will content ourselves with
q ctirsory exposure of his immaculate England,
in her conduct with regard to slavery and the
slave trade The writer informs us, page 2I6,
"Wc will venture to say that there never will
be any change in the decision and energy with
which the people Of Great Britain will demand
of their government all possible vigilance in
the prevention of the traffic on the high seas
and all necessary resolution in keeping the
powers of the world to their treaty engagements
with regard TO the African race" This is said
in the face of the facts that she permits France
to renew the trade in an undisguised form, and
yields the right ofvisit at the categorical de
mand of America. Near the conclusion of his
. article we find this language: Cost what
it may, England will cxtinguish the slave trade
because any yielding Of so clear and detcrmin
, ed policy would cost yet more
+ England did not abolish the African slave
trade until 1907, and slaveholdins in her colo
pies in 1888 The great and available argu,
nient for the abolition of slavery, was, that the
negroes, as slaves to capital, dixie the libe
rated white serfs of Europc,) would work
harder and cheaper, after emancipation than
before But, except in Barbados. plain
, lcvcl country where every inch of land wa,