Works of the late Doctor Benjamin Franklin/On the Slave Trade
ON THE SLAVE TRADE.
READING in the newſpapers the ſpeech of Mr. Jackſon in congreſs, againſt meddling with the affair of ſlavery, or attempting to mend the condition of ſlaves, it put me in mind of a ſimilar ſpeech, made about one hundred years ſince, by Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the Divan of Algiers, which may be ſeen in Martin's account of his conſulſhip, 1687. It was againſt granting the petition of the ſect called Erika, or Puriſts, who prayed for the abolition of piracy and ſlavery as being unjuſt.—Mr. Jackſon does not quote it; perhaps he has not een it. If, therefore, ſome of its reaſonings are to be found in his eloquent ſpeech, it may only ſhew that men's intereſts operate, and are operated on, with ſurpriſing ſimilarity, in all countries and climates, whenever they are under ſimilar circumſtances. The African ſpeech, as tranſlated, is as follows:
"Alla 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 of our families? Muſt we not then be our own ſlaves? And is there not more compaſſion and more favour due to us Muſſulmen, than to thoſe Chriſtian dogs?—We have now above fifty thouſand ſlaves in and near Algiers. This kept up by freſh ſupplies, will ſoon diminiſh, and be gradually annihilated. If, then, we 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 the ſhare of prizes, muſt be totally deſtroyed.—And for what? To gratify the whim of a whimſical ſect, who would have us not only forbear making more ſlaves, but even 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 if we ſet our ſlaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their native countries; they know too well the greater 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 accuſtomed to ſlavery will not work for a livelihood, when not compelled.—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, governed by deſpots, who hold all their ſubjects in ſlavery, without exception? Even England treats her ſailors as ſlaves, for they are, whenever the government pleaſes, ſeized and confined in ſhips of war, condemned not only to work, but to fight for ſmall wages, or a mere ſubſiſtence, not better than our ſlaves are allowed by us. Is their condition then made worſe by their falling into our hands? No; they have only exchanged one 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 ſplendour, 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 fending 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, too little diſpoſed to labour without compulſion, as well as too ignorant to eſtabliſh 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 countries are, as I am informed, worſe fed, lodged, and clothed. The condition of moſt of them is therefore already mended, and requires no farther improvement. Here their lives are in ſafety. They are not liable to be impreſſed for ſoldiers, and forced to cut one another's Chriſtian throats, as in the wars of their own countries. If ſome of the religious mad bigots, who now teaſe us with their ſilly petitions, have, in a fit of blind zeal, freed their ſlaves, it was not generoſity, it was not humanity that moved 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 excuſed from damnation—How groſsly are they miſtaken, in imagining ſlavery to be diſavowed 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 can conquer it. Let us then hear no more of this deteſtable propoſition, the manumiſſion of Chriſtian Haves, 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 that 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: "That the doctrine, that the 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 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.
March 13, 1790.