Page:A Chapter on Slavery.djvu/139

 ever other than the difference of local situation — and not in any degree ascribable to any superiority in the character of the inhabitants! Then, what ground, in truth, is there for boasting? Few think of these things — because, as before observed, the multitude do not reflect; in fact, they do not know the history or origin of things; they look merely at the present appearance, and acquit or condemn accordingly. But the educated and the just-minded should look more thoroughly and judge more justly!

But it may be said, perhaps, that England has exculpated herself by emancipating her own slaves, and that therefore she may justly call upon America to emancipate hers, or may justifiably reproach her for continuing a course of wrong which she herself has given up. But, pause a moment! Are the two cases at all parallel? Is it true that England, has done what she calls upon America to do? By no means: the cases are altogether different. England had no slaves to give up — England had no deep-rooted institution of slavery within her. own borders, as America has. What England has done, in fact, is simply this — to exercise a power which she happened to possess over certain other countries, and to take away slavery from them. For the West India Colonies, though nominally or politically belonging to her, and hence under her power — nevertheless, as far as the institution of slavery was concerned, stood in the relation to her of distant and foreign countries, with whom, though she had a political connection, she had very little more social sympathy than with the United States themselves. So that she could, afar off, coolly look at the