A Text Book of the Origins and History Etc. of the Colored People
by James W.C. Pennington
CHAP. V.
Slavery on this continent did not originate in the condition of the Africans.
It is very commonly asserted that the Africans have been enslaved because they are fit only for slaves. This would prove to be a very summary and cheap way of setting the south right, provided the above assertion were true, or that we should take it without investigation.
But is it true that the American colonists did not think of instituting slavery until they saw in the condition of the Africans, subjects fitted only for that state?
Let us hear the voice of facts in the case. Slavery had its origin on this continent, in the Spanish colonies in South America, not with Africans for slaves, but with the aborigines!
Those colonies with their fertile soil and extensive mines of gold and silver, were crown property. And Charles the Fifth, who wore the Spanish crown at that time, could not long withstand the temptation to reduce the aborigines to a state of vassalage, and compel them to work their own soil and dig in their own mines for his benefit. He did thus reduce them to slavery.
Slavery had its origin simultaneously with the conquests of this continent, and was invented by that same plundering, bloody and murderous spirit which characterised those conquests.
In process of time an effort was made to effect the abolition of aboriginal slavery; but Charles the Fifth was so elated with his royal patent of property in man, that when the abolition delegate plead the cause of the aborigines before him, he turned the damper of both ears, indicating that he had not the beginning of a notion to entertain the prayer.
But when the bishop of Chiapa told him that the place of the suffering aborigines could be supplied by a people on the coast of Africa, he entertained the project! Thus the “humane” bishop of Chiapa pointed Charles, who was not at all wanting in disposition to go, to a new field of plunder and blood.
In 1532, three hundred and eight years since, the Africans took the place of the aborigines in the institution of slavery, after it had been dedicated and sealed with blood, twenty or thirty years.
Christopher Columbus carried off some of the aborigines of Cuba to Spain in 1492.
Indians were stolen from the coast of New England, and sold at Malaga, 1614.
This was five years before Africans were known in Virginia, viz. 1619, and twenty-four years before they were brought to New England, viz. 1638.
In 1566, Sir John Hawkins carried African slaves to the West Indies; but this was more than fifty years after the aborigines had been enslaved.
And yet, in the face of all this, it is pretended that the condition of the Africans first suggested the idea of slavery. And now I shall claim the benefit of two inferences from these facts.
1. The spirit of slavery was mature and fully in action before the Africans were slaves on this continent.
Columbus sounded the news “a new world,” and a multitude of adventurers soon flew to make conquests. But to get gain for nought in lands was not sufficient for their purpose. They must have property in human flesh. They must have the aborigines’ lands for nought, and in addition to this they must have the aborigines work it for nought. And when this appeared to be not so convenient, they must have a supply of Africans. This spirit broke forth from the old world like a lion from his cage, pinched with hunger; and see here how desperately it figures about the world to complete its measure of iniquity. First it pounces upon the aborigines, head and heels, and then away to Africa, and there is blood, blood and blood only in its train.
2. Slavery is an institution of the dark age! Did the monarchs, patriarchs, and prophets of the south ever think of this? Yes, slavery was bred, born and nurtured in the will of Charles the Fifth of Spain, second only to Nero of Rome; this rebel ghost who was capable of fulminating, and figuring in the darkest of the darkness of the dark age; this great patron of the mother of abomination; this stoutest of the co-workers with the Pope of Rome, in his persecution of Luther and the reformers; he was also the first patron and patriarch of the institution which is so peculiar at the south. And who knows, perhaps those chivalrous patriarchs of the south have descended from Charles, and have from him inherited their patents? Have the apologists for slavery ever thought of this? They are apologizing for the dark age. Have the ministers of the sacred office at the south, who interpret the Bible in support of slavery, ever thought that they are preaching a doctrine first invented by a bishop of the Romish church!?
Let this point then, stand in bold relief to the view of the world. And let it be fairly understood that the American slaveholder and his apologists are patrons of Rome and the dark age!
Let it be particularly borne in mind by ministers, churches, and deacons at the north, that American slavery, against which we are now contending, is an invention of the dark age. Who goes for it then, must know that he goes for the dark age. Who apologizes for it apologizes for the dark. Can any wonder then, that the spirit of slavery hides God and truth from the understanding, when it comes under the damning and accumulated darkness of the dark age.