If this then be the case, and if slaves, notwithstanding all the arguments to the contrary, are exquisitely miserable, we ask you receivers, by what right you reduce them to so wretched a situation?

You reply, that you buy them; that your money constitutes your right, and that, like all other things which you purchase, they are wholly at your own disposal.

Upon this principle alone it was, that we professed to view your treatment, or examine your right, when we said, that “the question[109] resolved itself into two separate parts for discussion; into the African commerce, as explained in the history of slavery, and the subsequent slavery in the colonies, as founded on the equity of the commerce.”  Now, since it appears that this commerce, upon the fullest investigation, is contrary to “the principles[110] of law and government, the dictates of reason, the common maxims of equity, the laws of nature, the admonitions of conscience, and, in short, the whole doctrine of natural religion,” it is evident that the right, which is founded upon it, must be the same; and that if those things only are lawful in the sight of God, which are either virtuous in themselves, or proceed from virtuous principles, you have no right over them at all.

You yourselves also confess this.  For when we ask you, whether any human being has a right to sell you, you immediately answer, No; as if nature revolted at the thought, and as if it was so contradictory to your own feelings, as not to require consideration.  But who are you, that have this exclusive charter of trading in the liberties of mankind?  When did nature, or rather the Author of nature, make so partial a distinction between you and them?  When did He say, that you should have the privilege of selling others, and that others should not have the privilege of selling you?

Now since you confess, that no person whatever has a right to dispose of you in this manner, you must confess also, that those things are unlawful to be done to you, which are usually done in consequence of the sale.  Let us suppose then, that in consequence of the commerce you were forced into a ship; that you were conveyed to another country; that you were sold there; that you were confined to incessant labour; that you were pinched by continual hunger and thirst; and subject to be whipped, cut, and mangled at discretion, and all this at the hands of those, whom you had never offended; would you not think that you had a right to resist their treatment?  Would you not resist it with a safe conscience?  And would you not be surprized, if your resistance should be termed rebellion?—­By the former premises you must answer, yes.—­Such then is the case with the wretched Africans.  They have a right to resist your proceedings.  They can resist them, and yet they cannot justly be considered as rebellious.  For though we suppose them to have