View Document Frames
Pennington, J.W.C. A Textbook of the Origin and History, &c. &c. of the Colored People. Hartford: L. Skinner, 1841.
_______________
A
TEXT BOOK
OF THE
ORIGIN AND HISTORY, &c. &c.
OF THE
COLORED PEOPLE.
_________
BY JAMES W. G. PENNINGTON
_______
HARTFORD:
L. SKINNER, PRINTER.
1841
_________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The author of the forthcoming chapters, has aimed to state facts, points,
and arguments, simply, rather that to go extensively into them. It is for this reason
that he calls his work A TEXT BOOK. The book is offered to
families, and to students and lecturers in history. It is an humble attempt to to
direct them, and to [unembarrass] the origin, and to show the relative position of
the colored people in the different periods among the different nations. How far
he has succeeded he must rely upon the candid to say.
The writer has attempted to do what he has long desired to see performed by some
abler party and so far as he has failed, he hopes yet to see the subject explored,
and full justice made to it by someone more competent. And the hope is [animated]
by the importance of the subject as connected with a right state of feeling on the
total subject of HUMAN RIGHTS.
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 fittedonly 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. Tytler's Mod. His. part II. sect. 41.
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 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.
Tytler's Mod. His. part II.
Indians were stolen from the coast of New England and sold at Malaga, 1614. Webster's
His. U.S.
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 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 the 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 apolgizing 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 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.
CHAP. VI.
Are colored Americans, in point of intellect,
inferior to white people?
This is a question of great importance for two reasons; first, the negative is
resolutely assumed, and second, on account of the interests involved. If we are inferior
we should be content to pass into the shade; but if not then we protest against the
assumption of our opponents.
My position is that the notion of inferiority, is not only false but absurd, and
therefore ought to be abandoned.
I shall now present a chain of facts to prove the notion of our inferiority to be
false, and then in a short dissertation I shall endeavor to show it to be absurd.
In discussing the question, however, it is to be understood,
1. That in opposing this notion I do not intend to controvert the fact that we are
inferior in attainment. If this was the question I should have to be content to yield
it and go no further.
2. I am not to be understood as denying the fact that some men are of less vigorous
habits of study that others.
3. Nor do I assert that the mind, under certain circumstances, does not lose both
the habits of and the taste for enlightened education.
4. Nor yet do I mean to say that the human mind does not greatly vary in talents;
talents I mean as distinguished from intellect.
5. I do not know exactly what the advocates of this notion mean by inferiority, but
from the popular sense of the word I shall take it for granted that they mean to
hold that there is an inferior order of intellect, and that those of this order
are radically and constitutionally inferior, so that no means can change that constitution
or raise them from that order. I do not know but that many of the advocates will
object to this statement: but I presume enough upon their modesty to believe that
they do not mean more than I have stated for them; and if they mean less, the question
is reduced to so small a compass as to be worth nothing to their purpose. Believing
however, that their views are correctly embodied in my statement, I proceed to dispute
them.
I. By facts and incidents from the history of our intellect.
1. The first general fact is that the arts and sciences had their origin with
our ancestors and from them have flown forth to the world. They gave them to Greece,
Greece to Rome, and Rome to others. Tytler's An. His. part I. sect. III.
The question is not whether they gave perfect systems, nor whether those systems
might not have been discovered by other; but I am only now concerned with the fact
of their originating the arts and sciences. Many will seek to evade this fact by
saying that we are not of Egypt; but I have shown from Herodotus that the Egyptians
were black people, and from other facts that they are one with the Ethiopians in
the great events of history.
2. As to the state of the arts &c. among the native Africans, since the beginning
of the slave trade, the reader is referred to such as Clarkson, Park, Wilson, Stedman,
Lucas, Durand, Wadstroom, Falconbridge, Holben, Barbet, Dalrymple, Towne, and Borman.
These have visited that country since it has began to be drenched with blood by the
man stealer, and have seen the arts in a hightly cultivated state. These have also
given accounts of their rulers, their states, or kingdoms and resources, which cannot
be abridged for a work like this.
3. Colored men who have been distinguished themselves in the midst of slavery generally.
1680. HIGIEMONDO.
This man was an able artist in the business of painting. And if the painter's business is to give nature life, this man knew his business, since Sandrart's testimony is that his compositions discovered less of art than nature. He lived in India. And in this same business I may refer to Cuguano, born in Africa. In 1788 he was in the service of Cosway[,] first painter of the Prince of Wales.
1744. AMO.
Antony W. Amo was taken to Europe at an early age, and the Princess of Brunswick took charge of his education. He became skilled in the languages and lectured with great success on Philosophy, received at the University of Wittenberg, the degree of doctor of Philosophy, and published several important treatises in 1744. He was born in Guinea.
1796. THOMAS FULLER.
Thomas Fuller was born in Africa and brought to Virginia as a slave, and though not able to read or write, possessed, according to Dr. Rush and others the talents of correct and rapid calculation. He was once asked how many seconds there are in seventy years, seven months and seven days. He gave the answer correctly and proved it in a minute and a half.
1742---1802. CAPITEIN.
J. E. J. Capitein was brought from Africa at the age of seven. Miss Bascam instructed
him in the elements of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldaic languages. He was a painter
by taste. He published at Hague an elegy in Latin verse, on the death of his instructor.
From Hague he went to the University of Leyden; on entering which he published a
Latin dissertation on the calling of the Gentiles. The slaveholder will probably
grant us the benefit of Capitein's talents, as they may avail themselves of a part,
at least, of his principles. He was instigated by the Dutch planters to become the
apologist of slavery. He composed a politico-theological dissertation to prove
for them that slavery is not opposed to Christian freedom.
He took his degree at Leyden, was ordained to the office of the Christian ministry,
and returned to his country. In 1802 it was reported in England that he had abjured
the Christian faith. But Blumenbach after diligent inquiry contradicts the report.
If those five individuals, being full blood Africans, have sustained a claim to intellectual
worth, it will answer my purpose, though I might name many others. And I have been
the more confined in this selection, to native Africans, because my opponents of
the Jefferson school always pitifully reply to the argument when pressed with cases,
by answering that they are either whites,or so intermixed as to have the benefit
of white intellect. Thus they beg the question. They either do this, or else
immodestly deny that to be intellectual worth, which is admitted to be such by judges
as respectable as themselves. Thus Mr. Jefferson says that the Dunciad are divinities
compared with the muse of Philis Wheatly! He also reproaches a respectable colored
writer of London, of having too much imagination! But has a horseany imagination?
They also make false issues to avoid the force of these cases. Thus Francis Williams,
of the island of Jamaica, born of African parents, was educated at the University
of Cambridge, in mathematics and the languages, became a successful teacher and a
poet. But they dispose of his case by saying he was so and so to his parents! As
if the want of filial piety proved the absence of intellect.
I have only to regret that Mr. Jefferson has so plainly discovered to the world the
adverse influence of slavery on his great mind. O that he had reflected for a moment
that his opinions were destined to undergo a rigid scrutiny by an improved state
of intellect, assisted by the rising power of an unbiased spirit of benevolence.
Had he done this, he would, as a wise man have modified that ill judged part of his
work which relates to the colored people. The most unfortunate thing for the memory
of this man is, that he seems to have committed himself against our claims. He makes
a labored effort to conclude his proof against us, and reasons throughout as is he
intended to claim the case, but his conclusion is a budget of confusion. After taking
exception to the case of every educated colored person to which his attention was
directed, and alleging that notwithstanding many had been taught the handicraft arts,
and that others might have improved by the conversation of their masters and mistresses,
he submits it as an anomaly that he had never known of negro intellect
to rise above narration! As ifhe did not know that slavery could produce anomalies,
and as if he expected a man to learn as much from a tea table talk, by those who
are studiously guarded in teaching even the Bible, lest too much light be seen, as
from the lecture of a professor in his chair.
II. A dissertation on the main question of inferiority of intellect.
In this I am to be understood as disputing the idea of our inferiority by a direct
effort of my own reasoning powers. My position is, that intellect is identical
in all human beings, and that the contrary opinion is an absurdity. ""NO MAN IS ANY THING MORE THAN A MAN, AND NO MAN LESS
THAN A MAN." Intellect, is the grand distinguishing point between man
and the brute creation. Take intellect from man and he is an animal only. But while
this remains firmly in his constitution, as fixed by the God of his nature, man cannot,
by any possible process in creation, be converted into a mere animal.
However near a brute may approach to a man in bodily form and instinct,
yet the grand point cannot be passed. A mere animal is not a man
because it has no intellect, and it never can be identical with man because
it cannot be, by any possible process, supplied with intellect; and man cannot become
a mere animal because he cannot be divested of intellect. If I am require
to say what I intend by intellect, I reply, I mean those powers of the human soul,
as distinct from mere instinct, which alone enable man to reason and reflect. Now
if the absence of intellectual intelligence in the brute constitutes the difference
between man and brute, then intellectual intelligence cannot be predictable of a
brute or mere animal in any possible degree. And if the possession of intellectual
intelligence be that thing which raises man above the brute or mere animal, this
must be the dividing line; nor can we conceive of more than one such line. To talk
about another dividing line is to talk about a species between man and brute,
which is false and absurd.
If man be thus qualified then by the possession of intellectual intelligence, as
distinguished from brute instinct, then man is TOTALLY distinct from every species
of mere animal, is he not?
If this be just, then our question has a fair and distinct boundary, below which
it is not honorable to descend. He who in discussing the nature of man, can stoop
to talk about monkies, apes, and ourang outangs [sic], offers insult to the majesty
of his own nature, for which he ought to be ashamed.
The rational consideration to which I appeal for the truth of my position that human
intellect is identical, are that it has been produced, improved and perfected,
in identically the same way.
1. Intellect in all human beingshas been produced in the same way, and therefore
it is inconceivable that there should be inferior orders of intellect radically so
considered. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; AND MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL." Gen. ii.
7. Here is the production of the human soul, and consequently of all that we understand
by mind and intellect. To this we may also add the text Acts xvii 26. "And hath
made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth.."
This creature of God so produced, was destined to propagate his kind, and it is said
of his son that he was "in his own likeness, and after his own image."
Hence propagation does not involve power to produce any change in the intellect.
But if this be true of the first father, it is no less so of the second, and so on
down to the present time. I think it likely I may be reproached for introducing this
sentence, and I would not be ready to avail myself of the bad example of my opponents,
concerning indelicate paragraphs in their writings, but I may be permitted
to say, in anticipation, that they are very copious with their indelicacies.
God is not only the all-glorious author, then, of the black man's mind as well as
of that of the white man, but he has produced it in the same way identically.
That wonderful thing in each called mind or soul is nothing less in
its nature, than the breath of the Almighty God. The author of their being is the
author of ours also, and the father of their spirits is the father of ours also.
We sustain those important relations in the same sense and in the same degree, since
they were constituted by the same act on his part.
The design of God in that action was to produce intelligence, and at the same time
to constitute a relation between himself and that intelligence. That was an action
in itself. It was an Almighty action and the effect of that action corresponded to
the design of the Almighty actor.
But I have said the constitution of intelligence was included in that Almighty design,
and hence this was a part of the effect of the action. But I claim it to be inconceivable
that different orders of intelligences should have been produced by that action which
was identical in itself, and exist under the constitution which was a part of the
effect of that action, which constitution must also be identical in itself. But to
talk against evidence is false, and to talk without conception is absurd. I assign
both of these to my opponents.
I might have also referred to all the previous acts of the Creator in the works of
creation. Every act was specific in itself, had a specific design and was followed
by a specific effect; and why should this be imagined to be an exception?
2. The mode of improving intellect is identical, and therefore intellect
itself must be identical.
Intellect is in all cases improved by the organs of sense. These are the great channels
of communication through which the mind communicates with external objects, and receives
its whole store of knowledge. The case does not turn upon the extent of our acquaintances
with the systems of education, but on the actual effect of any degree of knowledge
in any one system.
Take the common school system. Now the inquiry is this, is this an intellectual system?
Does it develop intellect and do all who master this system experience this effect?
If this is an intellectual system it is an evidence of intellect to master it.
But it if be an evidence of intellect to master this system, then all who master
it must have their minds improved in that identical way and degree which this
system is adapted to. Hence, so far as this system is concerned, all minds, then,
are improved by the same method. And they are improved to the same degree. The common
school system is the first educational measure by which the intellectual powers are
tried. It is called the elementary, or primary system, because it is the foundation
of all acquirement. It is the first gate way to the temple of knowledge. He who cannot
lay this stone cannot build. He who does not enter this gate cannot ascend to the
interior of the temple. But who lays this stone in a masterly manner, can surely
lay another on top of it, another on the top of that, and so onward, can he not?
Whoever sees his way through this gate, may pass through the second and then the
third, until he finds the gorgeous interior. But this is the way our intellects are
improved. A man who did not need process was never known. Adam, though created
an adult, was not without the need of maturity. These men talk, however, as if they
neverhad to learn to say, a, b, c, and bla, and baker. As if they never had
to learn how many 2 and 3 make, and what the amount of 5 and 5 is when added
together! I mean of course those men who claim an order of intellect superior to
that of the writer. Let them remember the rock whence they have been hewn and the
hole of the pit whence they were digged.
3. Intellect is improved in the same way, and it is also perfected in the same
way.
I have, in the previous division, called the common school system the first educational
measure by which the intellectual powers are tried. Now when we have determined what
the whole system of education comprises, we have the total measure by which the intellect
is tried in point of education. But, then, why is it, I ask, that all minds are thus
perfected in the same way and by the same means? It is not because education, as
a system, is not identical. Education is a system of principles which are ever the
same. There are, first principles; and these are first whether they be placed
first, middle, or last. They will be first, and must be first, because there is no
system without them.
The mode of arranging those principles may vary, but that mode which isolates
principles is at once wrong and ruinous. All minds then, are perfected by means of
education not because education is not identical, for although one mind may be perfected
more successfully by one mode of training than by another, yet when so perfected
it is perfected in the same thing. Then, what must be the result of a comparison
between minds which are thus perfected by means of education? What is the difference?
Look at them as they stride from one extreme of the system to the other. What is
the proper definition and nature of that power or energy which compasses this system?
Can you term it any other in any case but intellect? And can intellect thus shown
be any thing but what it is, the grand dividing point between man and brute?
And let us further contemplate minds in their onward course. Here we behold them
stripping along the path trodden only by such high intelligences. We see judgment
maturing, memory strengthening, and reflection deepening. But in all this minds
are inseparable companions. The judgment of one mind sways another, the memory of
one arouses another, and the reflections of one enlightens another. In short mind
contacts mind, mind operates on mind, and mind flows with mind. And when they have
arrived on yonder highest pivot of the cupola of the temple of knowledge, they are
not only in the same element, but they have arrived there by the same route, and
inhale the same salubrious air, doubtless with the same exquisite pleasure.
4. God, the author of the human intellect, recognises fully its identity
by administering identically the same moral government over all human beings.
That God does administer identically the same moral government over all human beings
is manifest from the identity and universality of his law, the only
proper proof of the existence of a moral government, and also from the universality
of his works of providence.
First, the law of God is identical and universal.
God is the moral governor of the world. The evidence of this is found in the fact
that he has given a law for the government of moral agents. This law is given to
men and therefore men are moral agents. But what is it that makes a man a fit subject
of moral law, and which makes it just and right in God to enjoin on him obedience
to this law? The answer from heaven and from all quarters of the civilized world
in concert is INTELLIGENCE.
This is the foundation of obligation such as is claimed by moral law. The earth is
bound by the law of gravitation, but not by moral law. The brute creatures are bound
by the laws of their nature, but not by moral law. But why this difference
of relation. But why this difference in point of law. Because man is intelligent
but the others are not.
Let it be remembered then, that moral law is only applicable to intelligent creatures,
and that the same law is given to all intelligent creatures. But why
has God who is moral Governor, and also the Creator of man, done this act? Is it
credible to say that he has put a difference between men in point of intellect, whilst
he has put none in point of obligation? The supposition is not incredible only, but
it is also inadmissible:--absurd.
Then we are placed thus heel to heel with you on the broad basis of law, why?
Not because we are not capable of sustaining the same obligations. This will not
be said. Then it must be because we are capable of the same obligations. God was
perfectly aware of what he intended to do, and of what he did do in giving this law
to men. Now it was no part of God's intention to do any of his creatures injustice
by giving this law, nor did he do any of them injustice. But this was avoided because
he gave a law perfectly consistent with human ability. But there is no ability
without intellect.
Second. It is the design of God's works of providence in part to administer and
enforce the law in question. But this law is thus enforced on all to whom it
is given. God declares himself to be "a great King." Christ declares him
to be "Lord of heaven and earth." David in the 103rd Psalm, 19th verse,
declares that God hath "prepared his throne in the heavens, and that his kingdom
ruleth over all the earth."
But now for what has God prepared his throne in the heavens, and wherein consists
his greatness as a king or moral governor? Why doubtless his greatness consists in
this, that He is the Creator, Lawgiver, and the executive of all moral beings. "Here
O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." Then it is one Lord, one law and one
race of moral beings over whom this one Lord administers this one law. Who then,
is the idolater? Who is the blasphemer? Who is the Sabbath breaker? Who is the murderer?
Does it matter in the sight of God and in His dispensation of rewards and punishments,
whether he is of Africa, Asia, Europe or America? Does God slacken his hand upon
the idolatrous colored man" Does the sword of justice fall more lightly upon
him for his sin of idolatry than upon the European, or upon the American" Nay
his law "is truth," Psalm cxix.142, and "the Judge of all the earth
does right." Gen. xviii.25.
God cannot be accused of injustice in the providential administration of his law
over all nations of people with an equally right hand. In this department of his
holy work, God is continually working with men, among them, and over them. He works
with men by making instruments of them, or so controling their conduct as to make
them subserve his purposes. He brings one man from infancy and moulds him every step
till he gets him on the stage. He appears to let another find his way up, and then
he just picks him up from among others and makes his use of him. One man comes upon
the stage of action and appears to create himself the circumstances by which he is
to be made prominent. Another comes forward and finds all of his materials at hand
waiting for him. One man dawns into life, and his course seems to lay by the nearest
cut through the world. His work is soon done and he is gone. If he brings
a blessing to his species it is short and sweet. If he brings a curse, it is short
and severe. Another man's course seems to stretch from the eastern to the western
horizon. If this man brings a curse it is the curse of ages; if he brings a blessing,
he is a welcome visiter[sic] to generations.
It is even so with nations. One nation is a curse or a blessing to all others. Look
at the Babylonians, the Medes, Persians, Macedonians, Egyptians, and the Romans.
The dominions of these and other nations are like so many stages on which such men
as Belteshazzar, Cyrus, Alexander, Sezostris; and Caesar, have been seen figuring.
God works among men. We see the fool dealing foolishly, the proud lifting up the
horn on high, as if promotion came from the north, south, east, or west; but too
soon God, the judge of strife, appears among the actors. The high are brought down,
and the low are set up high against him that puffeth at him. I have often been struck
with wonder at the expression of the whites that we are their "natural enemies."
I know full well what they mean, and for this reason I object against the phrase.
They refer to that lesson in the history of divine providence, in which we are taught
that a man's own measure cup is sometimes returned to his own hand with the same
fill, from the same hand into which he placed it. So also with nations. But these
people ought to see the wise difference between our disposition and the constituted
tendency of their own folly. If God has overturned strong nations for sin, he is
doubtless doing the same now, and will do it again. They should look with their eyes
and see this, and from it learn to be wise. They ought not to pervert truth, and
turn the quarrel more severely against us. God will rule over both them and us. And
for this reason, I am not only glad that we have done them no wrong, but I would
still be fearfully careful to do them no hurt. Wrong doers are always the fuel
of God's providential wrath. If colored people do wrong, they suffer as wrong
doers, in the same way that all subjects of moral law suffer. This is true not only
in the direct administrations of providence, but also in the administration of human
law. Has it ever been known that a murderer or a thief escaped the hand of justice
only because he was a colored man? No. But all this is so, and just as it ought to
be because he is adjudged in law intelligent. But why put him under the same law,
and [then] punish him with the same hand, if he is not equally intelligent
with the white man? If we are not equally intelligent, then, we must, in self
defence, enter a plea against the strictness of all moral law, human and divine!
It should be known, that if there is any difference put between the white and colored
man in point of law, under this government, it is that laws for the colored man are
more severe.
All the tact and skill of which our general government is capable, has been brought
to bear upon the slave question. And the records of legislation from Maine to Louisiana,
will show a balance of severity against us. So that here the conduct of our opponents
turns against their theory.
If the limits of this work would allow, the writer is of the opinion that he could
bring to his position a forcible argument from the total scope of Christianity as
a system, whose grand center is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all, who is above all, and in you all. But to every one is given grace
according to the measure of the gift of Christ." Ephes. iv. 7. What! To the
colored saint too, Paul? How you do talk against Americans!
