36 



FARMERS' REGISTER— AGRICULTURAL REVIEW. 



Agricwltiiral Review. 



Slavery aiitl Eiwaiiciiiatioii. 



1. lievieio of the debate in the Virginia Legisla- 

 ture of 1831 and 1832. By Thomas B. Dew, 

 Professor of History , Metaphysics, and Political 

 Law, William and 3Iary College. Ilichmond. 

 White— 18S2. 1). 133. 



2. Review of the Slave Question. By A Virgi- 

 nian. Riclmiond. White — 1833. p. 48. 



The courteous usage of periodicals may seem to 

 forbid a review of the tAvo works here named, as 

 they are themselves reviews of earlier publica- 

 tions. They originally appeared as articles in the 

 American Quarterly Review— but both have sine* 

 been republished as independent works, and one 

 of them (Mr. Dew's) with important additions. 

 Under these circumstances, and considering the 

 intimate connexion (in whatever aspect it is view- 

 ed,) of the interests of agriculture with the exist- 

 ence and continuance of slavery in Virginia, we 

 could not with propriety, and conformably to our 

 expressed engagement,"^ omit all notice of these 

 works. Still, however, there are obvious reasons 

 why we should not launch our frail bark on this 

 stormy ocean of controversy ; and we shall, there- 

 fore, confine our remarks within narrow limits, 

 and content ourselves with presenting such ex- 

 tracts from both works, as will exhibit the strong 

 points of their opposing arguments. We hope 

 thus to aid in drawing the attention of the farm- 

 ers of Virginia to the entire publications, both of 

 which do honor to their authors, and deserve well 

 the serious consideration of their countrymen. 



The question of slavery in Virginia requires for 

 its examination the exercise of cautious and sound 

 judgment, a deliberate and clear view of the whole 

 ground of the argument, and a disposition to ar- 

 rive at truth, wherever it may I e found, and not 

 to support particular tenets in a partizan spirit. 

 Unfortunately, a very different course has been 

 pursued. Slavery affects,, and deeply affects the 

 interest of every citizen of Virginia — and in a 

 greater or less degree, the discussion of its effects 

 and tendencies, has engaged every pen, and every 

 tongue. But nearly all have taken sides without 

 a full examination of the arguments of their an- 

 tagonists; and each one has been satisfied with, 

 urging and maintaining the strong positions of his 

 party, and exposing and denouncing the absurdi- 

 ties of his opponents, without attending to the 

 other points in dispute, in which he perhaps is fee- 

 ble, and his adversary unanswerable. The aboli- 

 tionist can scarcely fail, when attempting to pro\e 

 that negro slavery in Virginia is attended with 

 enormous evils; and having established that posi- 

 tion, he passes at once to the conclusion that the 

 removal of slavery v/ould be cheaply purchased at 

 any cost. The ant i -abolitionist is equally success- 

 ful in maintaining the im.mense difficulties of the 

 attempt, and evil consequences of his opponent's 

 schemes, and thence persuades himself that slave- 

 ry, if not a positive good, is at least an institution 

 that admits of no remedy from legislative enact- 

 ments. These strictures are intended to apply in 

 their full extent, only to those who argue and de- 

 cide without due deliberation — and certainly are 

 not applicable to the authors of the works no\v be- 

 fore us. Yet, profound and extended as have been 

 their investigations and views, and closely as each 

 of them has examined the positions of his oppo- 



nents, still eiilier work taken alone, will serve as 

 an arsenal to furnish powerful weapons to those 

 who maintain the same truths in a partizan and 

 fanatical spirit. Mr. Harrison, (the author of the 

 latest of these works) proves 1)eyond dispute, that 

 the existence of slavery in Virginia, is a great and 

 increasing evil — and his views are presented with 

 a degree of force and eloquence worthy of his 

 cause, and the generous feelings it calls forth; and 

 Mr. Dew as clearly demonstrates the utter ineffi- 

 ciency, or ruinous cost, of all the schemes that 

 have been proposed for the emancipation and re- 

 moval of tlie African race. If we can ever settle 

 beneficially this distracting question, it Avill be 

 only by giving due consideration to the opinions 

 of our antagonists, as well as to those on our own 

 side. In this spirit of toleration and of compro- 

 mise, we invite the attention of our readers to the 

 perusal of both the able works before us. We 

 proceed to give as copious extracts as our limits 

 will permit, and in such manner as will do justice 

 to the most material and opposing arguments of 

 each. Considering this question only as it affects 

 the agricultural interests of Virginia, we inten- 

 tionally avoid the other branches of the discussion, 

 which however important, are unsuitable for an 

 agricultural review. 



We will commence our extracts, by presenting 

 ]Mr. Harrison's views of the evils of slavery as 

 existing in Virginia: — 



" Before beginning to unfold more fully our own views 

 of the present exigency in Virginia, we take occasion 

 to declare distinctly that our purpose is not by over- 

 cliargcd pictures of the iniquity of slavery, or the cruel 

 lot of the slaves, to raise a storm of gratuitous indigna- 

 tion in the minds of the jieoj^le of the United States 

 against Virginia. We believe that there is not the 

 shghlest moral turpitude in holding slaves under exist- 

 ing circumstances in the south. We know too that the 

 ordinary condition of slaves in Virginia is nol such as 

 to make humanity weep for his lot. Our solicitations 

 to the slaveholders, it will be perceived, are founded but 

 little on the miseries of the blacks. We direct ourselves 

 almost exclusively to the injur-es slavery inflicts on 

 the whites. And of these evils suffered by the whites, 

 the evil consequences of practising the immorality of 

 slaveholding will not be our mark. Reproach and re- 

 crimination on such a subject would answer no good 

 purpose; it would naturally provoke defiance from die 

 slaveholders. All the eloquent invectives of the British 

 abolitionists have not made one convert in the West In- 

 dies. This is no part of our humor. It is o?h" oliject to 

 lure Virginia onward in her present hopeful state of 

 mind. We mean to confine every word we write to 

 Virginia. The whole scope of this article will be to 

 shoti) the necessity of her promptly doing something to 

 check the palpable mischiefs her prosperity is suffering from 

 slavery. We design to show that all her sources of 

 economical prosperity are poisoned by slavery, and we 

 shall hint at its moral evils only as they occasion or im- 

 ply destruction to the real prosperity of a nation. Un- 

 less we flrst make this position impregnable, we shall 

 ask no one to sacrifice merely to abstiact humanity and 

 justice. Nor shall we insist on Virginia's beginning 

 action on this momentous subject, until we have shown 

 that her genuine ultimate interest will be promoted by 

 it. The best way of persuading men of this world to 

 deeds which involve the sacrifice of present interests, is 

 to convince them that a greater prospective interest may 

 be thereby secured. We shall strive then to procure 

 the concurrence of self-interest ss well as the approba- 

 tion of humanity. Hence, even should we succeed in 

 making out our case as to Virginia, it will be instantly 

 remarked that we have said very little that will touch 

 South Carolina and Georgia, and scarcely any thing 



