The works of the late Dr. Benjamin Franklin consisting of his Life written by himself : together with Essays humorous, moral, & literary, chiefly in the manner of the Spectator.

About this Item

Title
The works of the late Dr. Benjamin Franklin consisting of his Life written by himself : together with Essays humorous, moral, & literary, chiefly in the manner of the Spectator.
Author
Franklin, Benjamin, 1706-1790.
Publication
New York :: Printed by Tiebout & Obrian for H. Gain, V. Nutter, R. McGill, T. Allen, J, Read, E. Duyckinck, & Co. and Edward Mitchell no. 9, Maiden Lane.,
[1794]
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Franklin, Benjamin, 1706-1790.
Franklin, Benjamin, 1706-1790 -- Portraits.
Wills -- Pennsylvania -- Philadelphia.
Memoirs.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/N20581.0001.001
Cite this Item
"The works of the late Dr. Benjamin Franklin consisting of his Life written by himself : together with Essays humorous, moral, & literary, chiefly in the manner of the Spectator." In the digital collection Evans Early American Imprint Collection. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/N20581.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed February 15, 2025.

Pages

ON THE SLAVE TRADE.

READING in the newspapers the speech of Mr. Jackson in congress, against meddling with the

Page 76

affair of slavery, or attempting to mend the con|dition of slaves, it put me in mind of a similar speech, made about an hundred years since, by Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the divan of Al|giers, which may be seen in Martin's account of his consulship, 1687. It was against granting the peti|tion of the sect called Erika or Purists, who prayed for the abolition of piracy and slavery, as being unjust.—Mr. Jackson does not quote it; perhaps he has not seen it. If, therefore, some of its reasonings are to be found in his eloquent speech, it may only shew that men's interests operate, and are operated on, with surprizing similarity, in all countries and climates, whenever they are under similar circum|stances. The African speech, as translated, is as follows:

Alla Bismillah, &c. God is great, and Maho|met is his prophet.

Have these Erika considered the consequences of granting their petition? If we cease our cruises against the Christians, how shall we be furnished with the commodities their countries produce, and which are so necessary for us? If we forbear to make slaves of their people, who, in this hot cli|mate, are to cultivate our lands? Who are to per|form the common labours of our city, and of our families? Must we not then be our own slaves? And is there not more compassion and more favour due to us Mussulmen than to those Christian dogs?—We have now above fifty thousand slaves in and near Algiers. This number, if not kept up by fresh supplies, will soon diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If, then, we cease taking and plun|dering the infidel ships, and making slaves of the seamen and passengers, our lands will become of

Page 77

no value, for want of cultivation; the rents of houses in the city will sink one half; and the re|venues of government, arising from the share of prizes, must be totally destroyed.—And for what? To gratify the whim of a whimsical sect, who would have us not only forbear making more slaves, but even manumit those we have. But who is to indemnify their masters for the loss? Will the state do it? Is our treasury sufficient? Will the Erika do it? Can they do it? Or would they, to do what they think justice to the slaves, do a great|er injustice to the owners? And if we set our slaves free what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their native countries? they know too well the greater hardships they must there be subject to. They will not embrace our holy religion: they will not adopt our manners: our people will not pollute themselves by inter|marrying with them. Must we maintain them as beggars in our streets? or suffer our properties to be the prey of their pillage? for men accustomed to slavery, will not work for a livelihood, when not compelled.—And what is there so pitiable in their present condition? Were they not slaves in their own countries? Are not Spain, Portugal, France, and the Italian states, governed by des|pots, who hold all their subjects in slavery, with|out exception? Even England treats her sailors as slaves, for they are, whenever the government pleases, seized, and confined in ships of war, con|demned, not only to work, but to fight for small wages, or a mere subsistence, not better than our slaves are allowed by us. Is their condition then made worse by their falling into our hands? No;

Page 78

they have only exchanged one slavery for another; and I may say a better: for here they are brought into a land where the sun of Islamism gives forth its light, and shines in full splendor, and they have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the true doctrine, and thereby saving their immortal souls. Those who remain at home, have not that happiness. Sending the slaves home, then, would be sending them out of light into darkness.

I repeat the question, what is to be done with them? I have heard it suggested, that they may be planted in the wilderness, where there is plenty of land for them to subsist on, and where they may flourish as a free state.—But they are, I doubt, too little disposed to labour without compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish good govern|ment: and the wild Arabs would soon molest and destroy, or again enslave them. While serving us, we take care to provide them with every thing; and they are treated with humanity. The labour|ers in their own countries, are, as I am informed, worse fed lodged, and clothed. The condition of most of them is therefore already mended, and re|quires no farther improvement. Here their lives are is safety. They are not liable to be impressed for soldiers, and forced to cut one another's Chris|tian throats as in the wars of their own countries. If 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the religious mad bigots who now tease us with their silly petitions, have, in a fit of blind zeal, freed their slaves, it was not generosity, it was not humanity that moved them to the action; it was from the conscious burthen of a load of sins, and hope▪ from the supposed merits of so good a work, to be excused from damnation—How gross|ly

Page 79

are they mistaken, in imagining slavery to be disavowed by the Alcoran! Are not the two pre|cepts, to quote no more, "Masters, treat your slaves with kindness—Slaves serve your masters with cheerfulness and fidelity," clear proofs to the contrary? Nor can the plundering of infidels be in that sacred book forbidden; since it is well known from it, that God has given the world, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it, of right, as fast as they can conquer it. Let us then hear no more of this detestable proposition, the manumission of Christian slaves, the adoption of which would, be depreciating our lands and houses, and thereby depriving so many good citizens of their properties, create universal discontent, and provoke insurrections, to the en|dangering of government, and producing general confusion. I have, therefore, no doubt that this wise council will prefer the comfort and happiness of a whole nation of true believers, to the whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their petition.

The result was, as Martin tells us, that the Di|van came to this resolution:

That the doctrine, that the plundering and enslaving the Christians is unjust, is at best problematical; but that it is the interest of this state to continue the practice is clear; therefore, let the petition be rejected.
—And it was rejected accordingly.

And since like motives are apt to produce, in the minds of men, like opinions and resolutions, may we not venture to predict; from this account, that the petitions to the parliament of England for abolishing the slave trade, to say nothing of other

Page 80

legislatures and the debates upon them, will have a similar conclusion.

HISTORICUS.

March 23, 1790.

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.