Page:Littell's Living Age - Volume 140.pdf/466

Rh Meanwhile the popular movement was becoming irresistible. From 1772 onward, Granville Sharp had continued to exert himself, and in 1787 became chairman of a committee of twelve persons, the nucleus of the Anti-Slavery Society. All but two were Quakers. Sharp began the colony of Sierra Leone at his own expense, by sending thither a number of negroes whom he met in the streets of London. Till his death in 1813 he continued such philanthropic action. But the society thus formed was soon strengthened by eminent and zealous coadjutors. The names of Clarkson and Wilberforce, Lushington, Denman, Mackintosh, Stephen, Zachary Macaulay (editor of the Anti-Slavery Reporter), Henry Brougham, live in honored memory. Sir William Dolben began with the claim that the slave trade should be "regulated and conducted with humanity"! On approaching the problem practically it was soon found that nothing but total prohibition could succeed. So it is, when avarice and wealth have organized any huge scheme of mischief. The same thing was experienced in "regulating" slavery, simply because the masters were adverse. But here, for a little while, the Spanish colonies, it seems, held out to us a false light.

These colonies had been formed under a monarchy practically absolute. The marvellous and execrable enormities of such men as Cortes and Pizarro had presented the kings of Spain with transatlantic dominions; but Charles V. rather shuddered at Cortes, and felt no gratitude for a valor which so little respected royalty. By his laws of the Indies he sincerely intended to protect the unfortunate native Americans who had become his subjects, and the stronger African race imported to fill their places. The royal power did effectually prevent the chronic slavery under Spain from ever being so bad as under freer states — England and Holland. One very important point alone shall here be noticed. To this day in Cuba, the nobler parent determines the rank of the offspring: the child of a freeman is free, though the mother be a slave. One might have thought that national pride would have claimed the same privilege for the children of an Englishman. But terrible to say, with us avarice overpowered both parental instinct and personal pride; our colonists decreed that in the case of mixed blood the children were all slaves. Thus the male profligacy, which tended to advance freedom in the Spanish colonies, tended in ours to multiply slavery in its most hateful and demoralizing form. A man's own children became his slaves — his cattle, and could be seized for his debts; his beautiful daughters might be sold as articles of voluptuousness. As an old overseer in Louisiana said to Mr. Olmsted, "There is not an estate here, but the grandchildren of a former proprietor are whipped on the field." But in the Spanish colonies, despite of plentiful cruelties where men were despots, the sentiment was far better than in ours, and there was no enmity against color. Hence, as soon as they attained liberation from Spain, the problem of emancipation was started by themselves, and solved differently in different colonies. One method was, to allow to the slave one day in the week as his own (in addition to any previous arrangement), and to fix a maximum for his price; then to enact, that when he could earn and pay a fifth part of his price, he should have a right to buy a second day free, leaving only four days in the week for his master. Thus an active and strong man bought first his own freedom, and afterwards that of his wife, and one helped another. In a climate where wants are few and the crops abundant, the slaves so rejoiced in the process of selfliberation, as not to brood over the injustice which withheld immediate unbought freedom. A second method was to declare all children born after a certain day to be free; or, indeed, both methods might be combined. The practical result was, that, in one way or other, all the Spanish colonies got rid of slavery. Mexico, which had an arduous struggle against Spain, and scarcely established a firm government until 1824, immediately proceeded to abolish caste and slavery, and effected the latter finally in 1829. Reports of the proceedings in the Spanish colonies, no doubt, reached the English ministers, although neither by commerce nor by politics was there for a while any regular connection with them. Hence arose various schemes for gradual emancipation. The simplest and most plausible was to decree freedom for all children born after a certain day. This very measure was proposed by Lord Melville in the beginning of the century, but he did not succeed in carrying it, and apparently it was not renewed; yet it is evident that the ministry from 1820 onward were bent upon some gradual form of emancipation, which should save the interests of the planters, and be in harmony with the principles and action of their predecessors. They did not understand, that when masters desire freedom for their