|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 6
It would be well for the people of the United States to inquire into
the origin of this slavery agitation. It is of foreign origin! It was
our old enemy England, that first sowed broadcast the seeds of
dissension in our midst. Abolitionism in this country first originated
in, and has been sustained by, foreign interference, and religious
fanaticism. It is the last hope of European monarchies to destroy our
republic. The fact is notorious, and is susceptible of proof, that the
abolition excitement was first set on foot in this country by British
influence. There has been a constant effort in England, to array the
North against the South. "We have the best of reasons for believing,
that her original object was the severance of this Union." One English
journal says, "The people of England will never rest, till slavery is
terminated in the United States;" and another says, "Slavery can only
be reached through the Federal Constitution." That is, slavery can
only be reached, by destroying our present form of government, and
dissolving our Union. The English are well aware, that they cannot
reach slavery in this country, except by dissolving our Union and
involving us in civil war; in which war, of course, they expect to
take an active part. In the name of God, are we prepared for all this?
Have we ever counted the cost? I hope I shall be pardoned for using
strong language, when I allude to this subject. It is enough. Who that
loves his country, can keep cool, while reflecting on these things? Is
it not almost enough to make a Christian swear? No my friends we will
not swear about it; but I entreat you to keep your eyes upon that old
rascal, John Bull. He needs watching, and his Northern allies in the
United States, are as vile scamps as he is.
I might quote from English journals, and English statesmen, to show
what her feelings, views, and intentions have been in relation to this
country; but I forbear at present. We know that her unwarrantable
interference with the civil institutions of our country, did not
originate in any sympathy that she felt for the oppressed African in
our midst. The idea is ridiculous. The whole history of the English
government proves the contrary. Talk about the English government
sympathizing with the oppressed of other nations. It is nonsense--a
ridiculous inconsistency. No part of the English government can be
pointed out, in which there is not worse slavery in some form or
other, than there is in the United States:--yes, worse, far worse,
than negro-slavery in the Southern States. What says Southy, the
English poet, of the great mass of the English poor? He says that
"they are deprived, in childhood, of all instruction, and enjoyment.
They grow up without decency--without comfort--without hope--without
morals, and without shame." The North British Review expressed similar
sentiments. If I am correctly informed, negro slavery, itself, is not
extinct in the British dominions. I am aware that they call it an
apprenticeship, but it is slavery notwithstanding. Yes, it is
involuntary slavery and nothing else. But yet she would have us
believe that she feels an intense interest in African slavery, in the
United States. How does it happen that she is so interested about
slavery among us, but is deaf to the cry of her own enslaved and
starving millions, in British India, and other parts of her dominions?
It is said that in 1838, five hundred thousand perished of famine, in
a single district, in British India; and that too within the reach of
English granaries locked up, and guarded by a military force! This is
a fair sample of English benevolence; _alias_, English cupidity. And
what says Allison the English historian of wretched Ireland? Her
history and her sufferings are familiar to every one. He avows the
opinion, in his History of Europe, "that it would be a real blessing
to its inhabitants, in lieu of the destitution of freedom, to obtain
the protection of slavery." And Murray the English traveler says of
the slaves of the United States, "if they could forget that they are
slaves, their condition is decidedly better than the great mass of
European laborers." And what said Dr. Durbin a few years ago of the
British nation? He told us that "the mass of the people were slaves,
and the few were masters without the responsibility of masters." He
proceeds to tell us, that the condition of the slaves of the United
States, is in every respect better than millions in Ireland and
England. This is the testimony of a distinguished minister of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, (North,) whom, nobody will suspect of any
undue partiality for Southern slave-holders. When we look at the
"degradation, the slavery, the exile, the hunger, the toil, the filth
and the nakedness," of the English poor, we are astonished at the
brazen impudence of that cruel, godless, and hypocritical nation! Nor
are we less surprised, when we think of the ungodly crew of fools and
fanatics in the United States, who are leagued with that monster
England to overthrow their own government! I have said, and I boldly
reiterate the assertion, that slavery exists in every part of the
British dominions, in a form far worse than negro slavery in the
United States! And I am able to corroborate the truth of the remark,
by a volume of the most reliable testimony; and much of that might be
drawn from the admissions of English Journals, and English statesmen.
I will quote a few more English authorities, and dismiss the subject.
The British Asiatic Journal says, "the whole of Hindostan, with the
adjacent possessions, is one magnificent plantation, peopled by more
than one hundred millions of slaves, belonging to a company of
gentlemen in England, whose power is far more unlimited than any
Southern planter over his slaves in the United States." And the same
authority tells us, "that in Malabar, the islands of Ceylon, St.
Helena and other places, the English government is a notorious
slave-factor--a regular jobber in the purchase and sale of slaves; and
that this system is carried on and perpetuated by the purses and
bayonet of the English government." Dr. Bowering affirms of the
British subjects in India, "that the entire population of that empire
_are_ subjected to the most degrading servitude--a deeper degradation
than any produced by American slavery." The same writer declares "that
a regular system of kidnapping is carried on by the English." The Duke
of Wellington remarked in the House of Lords, that "slavery does exist
in India--domestic slavery in particular." Sir Robert Peel made the
charge and offered the evidence, "that British merchants are even now
deeply and extensively engaged in the slave trade;" and that the
English government was, at the time he spoke, "engaged in a new system
of English negro slavery, by the forcible capture of negroes in
Africa, &c." We are told by the London Times of Feb. 20, 1853, "that
British slavery is ten thousand times worse than negro slavery of the
United States," and that the condition of those, whom he denominated
British slaves, "is a scandal and a reproach, not only to the
government, but to the owners of every description of property in
England." This is strong language, and the reader will please
recollect, that it is the testimony of a leading English Journal, so
late as February, 1853.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|