land; and twenty from Wales. Free labor sugar could not then be had in England.
Here I cannot feel myself absolved from the duty of offering a few lines on the subject of abstaining from slave produce. The question relates, not to domestic, but to agricultural slavery: and the slavery here meant, is "the forced servitude of the guiltless poor." Be it also remembered, that the producc spoken of, is "produce, poisoned (morally poisoned) by the unrequited toil, and the unpitied anguish of the plundered and outraged poor. Whenever I see people, especially if they in other respects be anti-slavery men, enjoying this destructive material, I am forcibly reminded of the fable of "the boys and the frogs." "It is pleasure to you; but death to us."
Why do slave masters keep slaves? To get labor out of them—and to get money by their labor—and to gratify their affections and appetites by money. They keep slaves to please themselves and to pamper their families—God and their neighbor, in this relation, are as nought to them.
Why do people use slave produce? To please themselves and their company! The cry of the laborer, whose wages are kept back by fraud and force, has gone up to God against it. It has been watered with his sweat—his blood, gushing from the frequent lash, has manured it; the curse of his iniquitous bondage is upon it; for it, he has been deprived of wife, and child, and sacred home; of time and liberty; of body and of mind—all—all being his master's—yet, this deeply poisoned produce, people use, because they like it. Excellent reason to produce at the bar of God!! How will it differ from the slave master's?
Who gives to the slave master the money, which is his sole motive for keeping slaves? The consumers of the produce of forced and unrequited toil.
What is the main source and support of slavery? The demand for the products of its labor.
Would the supply be continued, if the demand cease? Certainly not.
Would slave masters keep slaves, if they could not sell the products of their labor? Certainly not.
