Part 6

This act of national generosity was followed by peace with Tripoli, purchased November 4, 1796, for the sum of fifty thousand dollars, under the guaranty of the Dey of Algiers, who was declared to be "the mutual friend of the parties." By an article in this treaty, negotiated by Joel Barlow,--out of tenderness, perhaps, to Mohammedanism, and to save our citizens from the slavery which was regarded as the just doom of "Christian dogs,"--it was expressly declared that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."[105] At a later day, by a treaty with Tunis, purchased after some delay, but at a smaller price than that with Tripoli, all danger to our citizens seemed to be averted. In this treaty it was ignominiously provided, that fugitive slaves, taking refuge on board American merchant vessels, and even vessels of war, should be restored to their owners.[106]

[Footnote 105: Article 11; Lyman's Diplomacy, vol. ii. pp. 380, 381; United States Statutes at Large, vol. viii. p. 154.]

[Footnote 106: Article 6; United States Statutes at Large, vol. viii. p. 157. This treaty has two dates, August, 1797, and March, 1799. William Eaton and James Leander Cathcart were the agents of the United States at the latter date.]

As early as 1787, a treaty of a more liberal character had been entered into with Morocco, which was confirmed in 1795,[107] at the price of twenty thousand dollars; while, by a treaty with Spain, in 1799, this slave-trading empire _expressly declared its desire that the name of slavery might be effaced from the memory of man_.[108]

[Footnote 107: Lyman's Diplomacy, vol. ii. p. 350; United States Statutes at Large, vol. viii. p. 100.]

[Footnote 108: History of the War with Tripoli, p. 80.]

But these governments were barbarous, faithless, and regardless of the duties of humanity and justice. Treaties with them were evanescent. As in the days of Charles the Second, they seemed made merely to be broken. They were observed only so long as money was derived under their stipulations. Our growing commerce was soon again fatally vexed by the Barbary corsairs, who now compelled even the ships of our navy to submit to peculiar indignities. In 1801, the Bey of Tripoli formally declared war against the United States, and in token thereof "our flagstaff [before the consulate] was chopped down six feet from the ground, and left reclining on the terrace."[109] Our citizens once more became the prize of man-stealers. Colonel Humphreys, now at home in retirement, was aroused. In an address to the public, he called again for united action, saying, "Americans of the United States, your fellow-citizens are in fetters! Can there be but one feeling? Where are the gallant remains of the race who fought for freedom? Where the glorious heirs of their patriotism? _Will there never be a truce between political parties? Or must it forever be the fate of_ FREE STATES, _that the soft voice of union should be drowned in the hoarse clamors of discord?_ No! Let every friend of blessed humanity and sacred freedom entertain a better hope and confidence."[110] Colonel Humphreys was not a statesman only; he was known as a poet also. And in this character he made another appeal to his country. In a poem on "The Future Glory of the United States," he breaks forth into an indignant condemnation of slavery, which, whatever may be the merits of its verse, should not be omitted here.

Teach me curst slavery's cruel woes to paint, Beneath whose weight our captured freemen faint! * * * * * Where am I! Heavens! what mean these dolorous cries? And what these horrid scenes that round me rise? Heard ye the groans, those messengers of pain? Heard ye the clanking of the captive's chain? Heard ye your free-born sons their fate deplore, Pale in their chains and laboring at the oar? Saw ye the dungeon, in whose blackest cell, That house of woe, your friends, your children, dwell?-- Or saw ye those who dread the torturing hour, Crushed by the rigors of a tyrant's power? _Saw ye the shrinking slave, th' uplifted lash, The frowning butcher, and the reddening gash? Saw ye the fresh blood where it bubbling broke From purple scars, beneath the grinding stroke? Saw ye the naked limbs writhed to and fro, In wild contortions of convulsing woe?_ Felt ye the blood, with pangs alternate rolled, Thrill through your veins and freeze with deathlike cold, Or fire, as down the tear of pity stole, Your manly breasts, and harrow up the soul?[111]

[Footnote 109: Lyman's Diplomacy, vol. ii. p. 384.]

[Footnote 110: Miscellaneous Works of David Humphreys, p. 75.]

[Footnote 111: Miscellaneous Works of David Humphreys, pp. 52, 53.]

The people and government responded to this voice. And here commenced those early deeds by which our navy became known in Europe. The frigate Philadelphia, through a reverse of shipwreck rather than war, falling into the hands of the Tripolitans, was, by a daring act of Decatur, burned under the guns of the enemy. Other feats of hardihood ensued. A romantic expedition by General Eaton, from Alexandria, in Egypt, across the desert of Libya, captured Derne. Three several times Tripoli was attacked, and, at last, on the 3d of June, 1805, entered into a treaty, by which it was stipulated that the United States should pay sixty thousand dollars for the freedom of two hundred American slaves; and that, in the event of future war between the two countries, prisoners should not be reduced to slavery, but should be exchanged rank for rank; and if there were any deficiency on either side, it should be made up by the payment of five hundred Spanish dollars for each captain, three hundred dollars for each mate and supercargo, and one hundred dollars for each seaman.[112] Thus did our country, after successes not without what is called the glory of arms, again purchase by money the emancipation of her white citizens.

[Footnote 112: United States Statutes at Large, vol. viii. p. 214; Lyman's Diplomacy, vol. ii. p. 388.]

The power of Tripoli was, however, inconsiderable. That of Algiers was more formidable. It is not a little curious that the largest ship of this slave-trading state was the Crescent, of thirty-four guns, built in New Hampshire;[113] _though it is hardly to the credit of our sister State that the Algerine power derived such important support from her_. The lawlessness of the corsair again broke forth by the seizure, in 1812, of the brig Edwin, of Salem, and the enslavement of her crew. All the energies of the country were at this time enlisted in war with Great Britain; but, even amidst the anxieties of this gigantic contest, the voice of these captives was heard, awakening a corresponding sentiment throughout the land, until the government was prompted to seek their release. Through Mr. Noah, recently appointed consul at Tunis, it offered to purchase their freedom at three thousand dollars a head.[114] The answer of the Dey, repeated on several occasions, was, that "not for two millions of dollars would he sell his American slaves."[115] The timely treaty of Ghent, in 1815, establishing peace with Great Britain, left us at liberty to deal with this enslaver of our countrymen. A naval force was promptly despatched to the Mediterranean, under Commodore Bainbridge and Commodore Decatur. The rapidity of their movements and their striking success had the desired effect. In June, 1815, a treaty was extorted from the Dey of Algiers, by which, after abandoning all claim to tribute in any form, he delivered his American captives, ten in number, without any ransom; and stipulated, that hereafter no Americans should be made slaves or forced to hard labor, and still further, that "any Christians whatever, captives in Algiers," making their escape and taking refuge on board an American ship of war, should be safe from all requisition or reclamation.[116]

[Footnote 113: History of the War between the United States and Tripoli, p. 88.]

[Footnote 114: Noah's Travels, p. 69.]

[Footnote 115: Ibid. p. 144; National Intelligencer of March 7, 1815.]

[Footnote 116: United States Statutes at Large, vol. viii. p. 224; Lyman's Diplomacy, vol. ii. p. 376.]

It is related of Decatur, that he walked his deck with impatient earnestness, awaiting the promised signature of the treaty. "Is the treaty signed?" he cried to the captain of the port and the Swedish consul, as they reached the Guerriere with a white flag of truce. "It is," replied the Swede; and the treaty was placed in Decatur's hands. "Are the prisoners in the boat?" "They are." "Every one of them?" "Every one, sir." The captive Americans now came forward to greet and bless their deliverer.[117] Surely this moment--when he looked upon his emancipated fellow-countrymen, and thought how much he had contributed to overthrow the relentless system of bondage under which they had groaned--must have been one of the sweetest in the life of that hardy son of the sea. But should I not say, even here, that there is now a citizen of Massachusetts, who, without army or navy, by a simple act of self-renunciation, has given freedom to a larger number of Christian American slaves than was done by the sword of Decatur?

[Footnote 117: Mackenzie's Life of Decatur, p. 268.]

Thus, not by money, but by arms, was emancipation this time secured. The country was grateful for the result; though the poor freedmen, ingulfed in the unknown wastes of ocean, on their glad passage home, were never able to mingle joys with their fellow-citizens. They were lost in the Epervier, of which no trace has ever appeared. Nor did the people feel the melancholy mockery in the conduct of the government, which, having weakly declared that it "was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," now expressly confined the protecting power of its flag to fugitive "Christians, captives in Algiers," leaving slaves of another faith to be snatched as between the horns of the altar, and returned to the continued horrors of their lot.

The success of the American arms was followed speedily by a more signal triumph of Great Britain, acting generously in behalf of all the Christian powers. Her expedition was debated, perhaps prompted, in the Congress of Vienna, where, after the overthrow of Napoleon, the brilliant representatives of the different states of Europe, in the presence of the monarchs of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, were assembled to consider the evils proper to be remedied by joint action, and to adjust the disordered balance of empire. Among many high concerns, here entertained, was the project of a crusade against the Barbary States, in order to accomplish the complete abolition of Christian slavery there practised. For this purpose, it was proposed to form "a holy league." This was earnestly enforced by a memoir from Sir Sidney Smith, the same who foiled Napoleon at Acre, and who at this time was president of an association called the "Knights Liberators of the _White_ Slaves in Africa,"--in our day it might be called an Abolition Society,--thus adding to the doubtful laurels of war the true glory of striving for the freedom of his fellow-men.[118]

[Footnote 118: Memoire sur la Necessite et les Moyens de faire cesser les Pirateries des Etats Barbaresques. Recu, considere, et adopte a Paris en Septembre, a Turin le 14 Octobre, 1814, a Vienne durant le Congres. Par M. Sidney Smith. See Quarterly Review, vol. xv. p. 140, where this is noticed. Schoell, _Histoire des Traites de Paix_, tom. xi. p. 402.]

This project, though not adopted by the Congress, awakened a generous echo in the public mind. Various advocates appeared in its behalf; and what the Congress failed to undertake was now especially urged upon Great Britain, by the agents of Spain and Portugal, who insisted, that, _because_ this nation had abolished the negro slave trade, it was her _duty_ to put an end to the slavery of the _whites_.[119]

[Footnote 119: Edinburgh Review, vol. xxvi. p. 451; Osler's Life of Exmouth, p. 302; Mackenzie's Life of Decatur, p. 263.]

A disgraceful impediment seemed at first to interfere. There was a common belief that the obstructions of the Barbary States, in the navigation of the Mediterranean, were advantageous to British commerce, by thwarting and strangling that of other countries; and that therefore Great Britain, ever anxious for commercial supremacy, would rather encourage them than seek their overthrow--the love of trade prevailing over the love of man.[120] This suggestion of a sordid selfishness, which was willing to coin money out of the lives and liberties of fellow-Christians, was soon answered.

[Footnote 120: Quarterly Review, vol. xv. p. 145; Edinburgh Review, vol. xxvi. p. 449, noticing "A Letter to a Member of Parliament, on the Slavery of the Christians at Algiers. By Walter Croker, Esq., of the Royal Navy. London, 1816." Schoell, _Traites de Paix_, tom. xi. p. 402.]

At the beginning of the year 1816, Lord Exmouth, who, as Sir Edward Pellew, had already acquired distinction in the British navy, was despatched with a squadron to Algiers. By his general orders, bearing date, Boyne, Port Mahon, March 21, 1816, he announced the object of his expedition as follows:--

"He has been instructed and directed by his Royal Highness, the Prince Regent, to proceed with the fleet to Algiers, and _there make certain arrangements for diminishing, at least_, the piratical excursions of the Barbary States, _by which thousands of our fellow-creatures, innocently following their commercial pursuits, have been dragged into the most wretched and revolting state of slavery_.

"The commander-in-chief is confident that _this outrageous system of piracy and slavery rouses in common the same spirit of indignation which he himself feels_; and should the government of Algiers refuse the reasonable demands he bears from the Prince Regent, he doubts not but the flag will be honorably and zealously supported by every officer and man under his command, in his endeavors to procure the acceptation of them by force; and _if force must be resorted to, we have the consolation of knowing that we fight in the sacred cause of humanity, and cannot fail of success_."[121]

[Footnote 121: Osler's Life of Exmouth, p. 297.]

The moderate object of his mission was readily obtained. "Arrangements for diminishing the piratical excursions of the Barbary States" were established. Certain Ionian slaves, claimed as British subjects, were released, and peace was secured for Naples and Sardinia--the former paying a ransom of five hundred dollars, and the latter of three hundred dollars, a head, for their subjects liberated from bondage. This was at Algiers. Lord Exmouth next proceeded to Tunis and Tripoli, where, acting beyond his instructions, he obtained from both these piratical governments a promise to abolish Christian slavery within their dominions. In one of his letters on this event, he says that, in pressing these concessions, he "acted solely on his own responsibility and without orders, the causes and reasoning on which, upon general principles, may be defensible; but, as applying to our own country, may not be borne out, _the old mercantile interest being against it_."[122] A similar distrust had been excited in another age by a similar achievement. Admiral Blake, in the time of Cromwell, after his attack upon Tunis, writing to his government at home, said, "And now, seeing it hath pleased God soe signally to justify us herein, I hope his highness will not be offended at it, nor any who regard duly the honor of our nation, _although I expect to have the clamors of interested men_."[123] Thus, more than once in the history of these efforts to abolish White Slavery, did commerce, the daughter of freedom, fall under the foul suspicion of disloyalty to her parent!

[Footnote 122: Osler's Life of Exmouth, p. 303.]

[Footnote 123: Thurloe's State Papers, vol. ii. p. 390.]

Lord Exmouth did injustice to the moral sense of England. His conduct was sustained and applauded, not only in the House of Commons, but by the public at large. He was soon directed to return to Algiers,--which had failed to make any general renunciation of the custom of enslaving Christians,--to extort by force such a stipulation. This expedition is regarded by British historians with peculiar pride. In all the annals of their triumphant navy, there is none in which the barbarism of war seems so much "to smooth its wrinkled front." With a fleet complete at all points, the Admiral set sail July 25, 1816, on what was deemed a holy war. With five line-of-battle ships, five heavy frigates, four bomb vessels, and five gun brigs, besides a Dutch fleet of five frigates and a corvette, under Admiral Van de Capellan,--who, on learning the object of the expedition, solicited and obtained leave to cooperate,--on the 27th of August he anchored before the formidable fortifications of Algiers. It would not be agreeable or instructive to dwell on the scene of desolation and blood which ensued. Before night the fleet fired, besides shells and rockets, one hundred and eighteen tons of powder, and fifty thousand shot, weighing more than five hundred tons. The citadel and massive batteries of Algiers were shattered and crumbled to ruins. The storehouses, ships, and gun boats were in flames, while the blazing lightnings of battle were answered, in a storm of signal fury, by the lightnings of heaven. The power of the Great Slave Dealer was humbled.

The terms of submission were announced to his fleet by the Admiral in an order, dated, Queen Charlotte, Algiers Bay, August 30, 1816, which may be read with truer pleasure than any in military or naval history.

"The commander-in-chief," he said, "is happy to inform the fleet of the final termination of their strenuous exertions, by the signature of peace, confirmed under a salute of twenty-one guns, on the following conditions, dictated by his Royal Highness, the Prince Regent of England.

"_First._ THE ABOLITION OF CHRISTIAN SLAVERY FOREVER.

"_Second. The delivery to my flag of all slaves in the dominions of the Dey, to whatever nation they may belong, at noon to-morrow._

"_Third._ To deliver also to my flag all money received by him for the redemption of slaves since the commencement of this year, at noon also to-morrow."

On the next day, twelve hundred slaves were emancipated, making, with those liberated in his earlier expedition, more than three thousand, whom, by address or force, Lord Exmouth had delivered from bondage.[124]

[Footnote 124: Osler's Life of Exmouth, p. 334; British Annual Register, (1816,) vol. lviii. pp. 97-106; Shaler's Sketches, pp. 279-294.]

Thus ended White Slavery in the Barbary States. It had already died out in Morocco. It had been quietly renounced by Tripoli and Tunis. Its last retreat was Algiers, whence it was driven amidst the thunder of the British cannon.

Signal honors now awaited the Admiral. He was elevated to a new rank in the peerage, and on his coat of arms was emblazoned a figure never before known in heraldry--_a Christian slave holding aloft the cross and dropping his broken fetters_.[125] From the officers of the squadron he received a costly service of plate, with an inscription, in testimony of "the memorable victory gained at Algiers, _where the great cause of Christian freedom was bravely fought and nobly accomplished_."[126] But higher far than honor were the rich personal satisfactions which he derived from contemplating the nature of the cause in which he had been enlisted. In his despatch to the government, describing the battle, and written at the time, he says, in words which may be felt by others, engaged, like him, against slavery, "In all the vicissitudes of a long life of public service, no circumstance has ever produced on my mind such impressions of gratitude as the event of yesterday. _To have been one of the humble instruments in the hands of divine Providence for bringing to reason a ferocious government, and destroying forever the insufferable and horrid system of Christian slavery, can never cease to be a source of delight and heartfelt comfort to every individual happy enough to be employed in it._"[127]

[Footnote 125: Osler's Life of Exmouth, p. 340.]

[Footnote 126: Osler's Life of Exmouth, p. 342.]

[Footnote 127: Ibid. 432; Shaler's Sketches of Algiers, p. 382.]

The reverses of Algiers did not end here. Christian slavery was abolished; but, in 1830, the insolence of this barbarian government aroused the vengeance of France to take military possession of the whole country. Algiers capitulated, the Dey abdicated, and this considerable state became a French colony.

Thus I have endeavored to present what I could glean in various fields on the _history_ of Christian Slavery in the Barbary States. I have often employed the words of others, as they seemed best calculated to convey the exact idea of the scene, incident, or sentiment which I wished to preserve. So doing, I have occupied much time; but I may find my apology in the words of an English chronicler.[128] "Algier," he says, "were altogether unworthy so long a discourse, _were not the unworthinesse worthy our consideration_. I meane the cruell abuse of the Christian name, which let us for inciting our zeale and exciting our charitie and thankfulness more deeply weigh, to releeve those in miseries, as we may, with our paynes, prayers, purses, and all the best meditations."

[Footnote 128: Purchas's Pilgrims, vol. ii. p. 1565.]

III. It is by a natural transition that I am now conducted to the inquiry into the _true character_ of the evil whose history has been traced. And here I shall be brief.

The slavery of Christians by the Barbary States is regarded as an unquestionable outrage upon humanity and justice. Nobody hesitates in this judgment. Our liveliest sympathies attend these white brethren--torn from their homes, the ties of family and friendship rudely severed, parent separated from child and husband from wife, exposed at public sale like cattle, and dependent, like cattle, upon the uncertain will of an arbitrary taskmaster. We read of a "gentleman" who was compelled to be the valet of the barbarian Emperor of Morocco;[129] and Calderon, the pride of the Spanish stage, has depicted the miserable fate of a Portuguese prince, condemned by infidel Moors to carry water in a garden. But the lowly in condition had their unrecorded sorrows also, whose sum total must swell to a fearful amount. Who can tell how many hearts have been wrung by the pangs of separation, how many crushed by the comfortless despair of interminable bondage? "Speaking as a Christian," says the good Catholic father who has chronicled much of this misery, "if on the earth there can be any condition which, in its character and evils, may represent in any manner the dolorous passion of the Son of God, (which exceeded all evils and torments, because by it the Lord suffered every kind of evil and affliction,) it is, beyond question and doubt, none other than slavery and captivity in Algiers and Barbary, whose infinite evils, terrible torments, miseries without number, afflictions without mitigation, it is impossible to comprehend in a brief span of time."[130] When we consider the author's character, as a father of the Catholic Church, it will be felt that language can no further go.

[Footnote 129: Braithwaite's Revolutions of Morocco, p. 233; Noah's Travels, p. 367.]