Jackson (MS) Mississippian, "The African Slave Trade," July 8, 1859

                            For the Mississippian.

    The African Slave Trade.

Editor Mississippian:

   Senator Brown has spoken; and we can now to a certain extent, understand his position upon the great question of Slavery, in connection with the revival of the trade, indirectly, by means of a repel of the prohibitory laws now in force. Disguise it as we will, the crisis has now arrived when men, attached to the time-honored institutions of the South, must speak out; must declare, in unambiguous terms, their well-considered opinions upon this subject; and let the great mass of the people know what to expect of them. It will not do to palliate, or to compromise; the issue is looming up for good or evil, and we must be prepared to meet it like good men and true. 

   When Mr. Brown informs us that "no one could suspect him of any mawkish, sentimental, sublimated, double-refined philanthropy, all culminating in a negro," we are prepared to regard him as an honest man; one whose opinions are formed upon what he esteems to be a broad, Union, platform, connected with a strong proclivity to the material advancement of the South, the development of its resources, and the elevation of its social condition. And, therefore, we approach the subject in hand with no disposition to attribute improper motives or intentions. 

   Mr. Brown considers a repeal of the laws prohibiting the African Slave Trade, as utterly impracticable; he apprehends that when the question is put fairly before the people, it will have literally no friends at the North––that great diversity of opinion will exist in reference to it at the South; and he regrets that it has been thus early brought forward, inasmuch as it will embarrass our "conservative Northern friends" in their action on other living and attainable issues on which we need the aid and they are willing to give us. 

   These "attainable issues" we understand to be: "a fair settlement of the slavery question in the Territories," and the acquisition of Cuba. Such objections to the discussion of the question cannot be regarded for a moment; they are utterly futile. If the question has arisen––as it undoubtedly has––from a known want existing in our midst, there certainly must be a very grave necessity for its full and fair discussion. We leave it for the urbane and dignified Senator to say whether anything  is an attainable issue in which the question of slavery arises? Is it possible to attain a "fair settlement" of any such question? The history of the last Congress precludes such a proposition, and the known operation of political fanaticism the world over is a beacon light to guard us against the shoals and breakers reflected in the distance. 

   The attempt to ignore the issue cannot but result calamitously to the true interests of the Southern people. It is a living, a momentous issue; how far "attainable" we do not know. There are some things that lie buried in the womb of futurity, so deeply hidden, that the ken of the most astute and far-seeing cannot reach them. We shall bide our time; and in the interval, press the proper consideration of the subject. 

   We understand Mr. Brown to be opposed to a total repeal of the anti-slave trade laws without the substitution of others more in union with the Southern sentiment, and less offensive to the Constitution; or that he would favor such material modifications of said laws as would pluck from them their sting to Southern honor, and make them more conform to the Constitution as it is. 

   We do not quite understand the position taken by the honorable Senator. His project is without reason to sustain it, if it look to anything else than a more stringent law in fact. If we are to have an anti-slave trade law at all, why not rest content with the present statutes? It is surely no reason against their policy that they declare the trade piracy. If this declaration is necessary to carry the law into active exercise, and to check the wanton operations of reckless trafficers in slaves, why surely it can be justified upon the plainest principles of common sense. If the object is to prevent the trade, Congress, having the power to prevent, can affix any penalty adequate to the end proposed, and can as readily direct a man to be hung for it, as impose an onerous fine upon him, call it piracy or not as you please. The temptations to engage in this profitable traffic are so great, that even the fear of death loses its force. The cupidity of man will defy––as it as from time "whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary"––as well the fury of the stern and savage penalty of a violated law. This so called "sting to Southern honor," is a fallacy. If we are correctly, the South,––or at least the slave-holding States,––passed the Constitution as it is; and by their subsequent actions sanctioned the policy now existing. That they were not more enlightened we regret; the so-called "sting" has but recently been felt, and can be readily accounted for. The "sting" if felt at all, is felt because of the existence of any law prohibitory of that institution which is intimately associated with our dearest interests. 

   We would respectfully suggest to Mr. Brown that he could hardly substitute a prohibitory law more in union with the Southern sentiment until that sentiment can be ascertained; and he has left us in worse that Cimerian darkness as to what that sentiment is. He has said enough, however, to let us know that he is in favor of a prohibitory law, from motives of policy; that he is in principle against the slave trade; and that come when the issue may, he will co-operate with our "conservative Northern friends to engraft upon our statute books other laws equally efficacious with those in being, though less offensive to the Constitution," and "more in unison with Southern sentiment." We submit that this language is somewhat Delphic. 

   But we proceed to consider Mr. Brown's objections to a repeal; his arguments in favor of a repeal being without solid foundation. 

   He is not in favor of throwing "open the gates for an influx of "untold millions of wild Africans," because the security of the white man would be impaired. We do not suppose that any one would be in favor of the importation of "untold millions" to import; and we do not imagine that there could be captured and imported within the next twenty years enough of negroes to affect to any great extent the exiting state of things. The supply of Africans would be much more limited than Mr. Brown's imagination would lead him to affirm. His argument is wholly founded upon the importation of these "untold millions;" and when this charm is broken, like the baseless fabric of a  vision, it melts away into the misty realms of mere conjecture. 

   We need scarcely say that we are in favor of a total repeal of all the existing Federal laws prohibitory of the trade, and of leaving the question of importation or not to be settled by the States. If the revival of the trade involve a violation of the laws of God, the duty of a good man is plain; and in our opinion to this complexion must it come at last; and this is where a repeal of the laws would leave it. 

   Mr. Brown has so defined his position, that we scarcely know how to shape a reply. His whole argument against the policy of a repeal, is predicated upon its immediate effects in the importance of "untold millions," an exaggerated form of expression that is to a great extent, meaningless. There certainly would not be "untold millions" imported; and if this is the case, does not the argument admit that the importation of a limited number would be a positive good? There would inevitably be imported a great many Africans; and if Mr. Brown asks, how many? We answer, just so many as the agricultural interest and the wants of the community demand. After that, the well known laws of the demand and supply which he himself invokes, would operate to the exclusion of any more. This sticking in the bark when one argues great questions of vital importance to a government, is of very little avail. This position assumed by Mr. Brown, we think, is decidedly untenable. 

   Mr. Brown himself, admits that "more" and "cheaper labor" is a want pressing to some extent, though not to the extent represented by the more earnest advocates of total and unqualified repeal. If the honorable Senator wishes such a repeal as would facilitate the satisfying of this want, "pressing to some extent," we cordially concur with him. He is right, but not wholly right. We conceive, however, that the question is conceded when it is admitted that we want more and cheaper labor. How is this want to be satirized? This cheaper labor certainly cannot be satisfied without an occasional illegal importation of Africans. The educated negro laborers of Kentucky and Virginia, are every day appreciating in value; and in view of the daily stampedes to the friendly shores of the neighboring free States, there is no hope of a change for the better. Africans cannot be imported without doing violence to the laws of the land, and certainly no law-abiding citizen would justify such an introduction. There is, therefore, nothing left for us but to advocate a repeal. 

   Mr. Brown avoids this difficulty by doubting that it would be cheaper labor. "Labor is cheap," says he, "only as it is profitable." "A slave laborer is cheaper at $1,500 if he made 1,000 pounds of cotton worth, 12 cents, than he would be at $500 making the same amount of cotton worthy 7 cents per pound, and why? The cost of production must always be paid before we commence counting profits," &c. Granted. What follows? Let us make a small calculation. If negroes cost $500, a man who could purchase one at $1,500 before importation, could purchase three afterwards. Three negroes, but he honorable Senator's own showing, (for we take his figures) could make 9,000 pounds of cotton, which, at a clear gain of three cents, would bring the produce $270; whereas, by the one negro he would realize $240. This would be the result upon the basis of the Senator's calculation; leaving out of consideration the casualties of death, accident, &c. The assumption, though, that the well known law of supply and demand would justify the proposition, that the immediate effect of an unfettered importation of Africans would be a fall of five cents per pound in cotton, is one, we think, devoid of a reasonable foundation in fact. It goes upon the presumption that all the labor thus introduced would be exclusively appropriated to the raising of cotton; that it would not be diverted into the thousand channels through which slave labor may be made conducive to the agricultural and commercial aggrandizement of a people; that the bleak hills of the mountain regions would not rejoice in the culture by slaves of the life-giving grape, and their valley wave with fields of feathered wheat; that the sugar fields of Louisiana, and the rice plantation of South Carolina would not demand their quota of this labor; and that the rail road and the steam boat would not seek a supply for their greater practical efficacy. 

   That the demand for cotton at particular junctions, is less than the supply, no one can doubt; but as a general thing the supply laws never yet kept pace with the demand, and the negro has been pressed from every direction into the cotton-growing regions––much to the injury of those localities from which they have been brought. If the permanent supply of cotton exceed the demand, (which we insist will never be the case,) labor, slave labor, will immediately assume an aggressive attitude, and seek other pursuits; it will become diversified and benefit American society in other ways. The world has not yet become fully acquainted with the uses to which cotton can be applied; the consumers of the great staple are daily increasing; China, Japan, and Persia, will make a requisition upon us for their pro rata, and the Isles of the ocean, awaking amid the blazes of civilization and the beneficent, evangelizing influences of christianity, will follow in the train. The whole argument of Mr. Brown is limited to individual aggrandizement, not by the reasonable accumulations of industry well expended, but by making the supply an article of pure necessity; considerably less than the demand. Certainly a very unphilosophic mode of discussing a great, national question!

   There would, says he, be "a sad falling off in the present price of slaves." Not according to his calculations. There might in time be a falling off, but what would be the consequences? Virginia, South Carolina, and Kentucky, instead of sending their slaves to Southern markets, would employ them in profitable occupation at home; and thus be saved from the impending danger of gradual emancipation. The South would continue to import Africans it may well be admitted, until her demand was satisfied. The increased importation would enhance the price of "bread stuff, clothing, and plantation supplies." This would sent additional allurements to other fields of industry; African labor would be diverted to them; and cotton, by the Senator's rule and argument, which we are here adopting, would immediately appreciate in value, instead of alone being reduced. It is an article of pure commercial importance, and regulates the price of almost every thing else, and to say that its commercial importance will continue, as it must, is tantamount to yielding the whole question. 

   But lands fit for the production of cotton, would rise in value, says Mr. Brown. We answer, yes; until the demand for such lands ceased, and this would be determined by the demand for cotton in connection with the supply. Cotton will always be remunerative as long as the supply and demand are co-equal; and owing to the limited region suitable for its growth, the supply in all probability, never will exceed the demand. If lands appreciate in value, they can only do so to a limited extent, and no harm result. Certainly it would require more than ordinary reasoning to establish the converse. 

   Mr. Brown's argument addressed to the poor man is equally fallacious with that produced upon what he terms the supply and demand. "If he could not pay family expenses and buy a negro for fifteen hundred dollars, and pay for him in cotton at 12 cents, he could never pay expenses and buy at five hundred dollars in cotton at 7 cents." And why? Because "he would find almost every article of ordinary family consumption increased and the price of cotton decreased." "Non-slave-holders" do not generally raise cotton; and the argument with the context, is absurd. But suppose the non-slaveholder would, instead of raising cotton, pursue his customary avocation of raising "articles of ordinary family consumption," these being increased in price, would renumerate him handsomely, and afford him the desired opportunity for purchasing a negro. This would not, however, be the direct or remote effect of a decrease in the price of cotton. If cotton became so depressed that it would not pay to raise it, an the articles specified by Mr. Brown would enhance in value immediately, according to the well known laws of trade, a diversion of labor would take place, and the equilibrium be restored. 

   The arguments drawn from the insecurity of the whites and the driving out of white labor, suggest to them our answer. Men usually take care of self-interest; an the instinct of self-preservation exists in unimpaired efficacy among slaveholders as well as any other class of men; and it is not too much to say that white labor would always be necessary. 

   But we forbear. We have, we trust, in a spirit of proper deference and respect, suggested some objections to Mr. Browns' arguments, and may hereafter have something more to say on the subject, should suitable occasion present itself.   SILEX.