The Athens Post

THE REVIVAL OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.

While a resolution in favor of the revival of the African slave trade appears to have been thus far the engrossing topic of the Southern Commercial Convention at Montgomery, Alabama, we perceive that a number of Southern journals are also discussing the subject with a most remarkable unction.— For example, take the following extract from a late Washington letter to the Charleston Mercury:—

From all accounts the French are carrying large numbers of "apprentices" from the coast of Africa to their West India colonies. If it is lawful for them, and the English and American war vessels do not interfere with them, why should it not be lawful for us?— There are immense quantities of rich land in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and the other Southern and Southwestern States, lying in waste and wild condition. which only want slave labor applied to them to enable them to feed and clothe millions.— Why do not the enterprising planters of the South bestir themselves—for they can, without molestation, and without violating a single law upon the statute book, enrich themselves and their section, and give employment to Northern vessels, by importing apprentices to their plantations? The thing must soon commence—who will have the energy to give it a trial first?

"Why not lawful for us?" For the simple reason that the existing laws of Congress upon this subject stand in the way; and because the jurisdiction over this business, in every shape and form, belongs to Congress. and not to any enterprising individual, or company, or State, or Southern Convention of any sort. Before any company, or State, or combination of States, can lawfully enter into this business of the importation of African apprentices, they must have the following sweeping restrictions repealed by act of Congress, to wit:

That from and after the first day of January, 1808, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States, or the Territories thereof, any negro, mulatto, or person of color, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of color, as a slave, or to be held to service or labor. (Act March 2, 1807.)

It will thus be seen that this brief but comprehensive Congressional interdict of 1807 will render unlawful not only any attempt to import African apprentices, but also any attempt to introduce Asiatic coolies of any description. Thus, in the interval to the repeal of this act, should any attempt be made to inaugurate in the South the business of the importation of Africans or Asiatic coolies, as slaves or as apprentices, it will become the duty of the President to enforce the law. That is all, but for all practical purposes that is quite enough.

But who are these Southern agitators, so clamorous and enthusiastic in their appeals for the revival of the African trade? They are not the 340,000 slaveholders of the South. for they know that any large infusion of negro laborers from Africa would seriously depreciate the cash value of their existing slave property, and that this would probably be only the beginning of the mischief. As they now exist, the relations between the whites and the slave population of the South are perfectly harmonious, and perfectly understood between the two races. But throw into any slaveholding community there a lot of wild Africans, and is it not probable that their contact with the native negroes will demoralize the latter to a great extent? and, in proportion to their infusion among the native slaves, may we not conclude that this demoralization will be increased? There is a great difference between the slave holding system of our Southern States and that of Cuba. In the one case it is a patriarchal system, comprehending the most harmonious relations of protection and dependence; in the other it is a despotic and merciless system, the mortality of which among the negroes can only be supplied by the African trade, and can only be indemnified by the rich tropical products of Cuba.

But this agitation of the revival of the Africa slave trade is a mere scarecrow, a mere device of desperate and reckless Southern politicians who are not slaveholders, for sectional party purposes. The Southern slaveholders, as a class, have had as little to do in getting up this agitation as the New York merchants. But the Northern nigger worshipers are taking up the matter with the same avidity as the Southern political nigger drivers; and from the progress they have already made on both sides, it is very likely that within a year or so we shall have an exciting brush upon the subject between the anti-slavery dirt eaters and pro-slavery fire eaters in Congress.—N. Y. Herald.