The following is a transcription of the letter written to the Va. Independent Chronicle in 1790 and signed "Humanity."  This remarkable letter is a public answer to complaints heard regarding the newly organized Abolition Society.  On page 227 of his book, The Friendly Virginians, Jay Worrall identifies Robert Pleasants as the author of this letter signed, "Humanity."

Transcribed from the Virginia Independent Chronicle, and General Advertiser, July 7, 1790, page 1, column 1

1790 Letter Attributed to Robert Pleasants

To the PRINTER

Is it not strange that, so many writers of the present times should, either directly or indirectly undertake to condemn the freedom of negroes, without attempting on righteous principles or sound policy to justify slavery? Among this class of writers, I find some that, have of late made their appearance in the Virginia Independent Chronicle, who seem to speak of that unhappy race as an inferior species of mankind, unworthy of the rights and privileges they claim to themselves. The first that I take notice of, appears under the signature of Z. L. who suggests an impropriety in the humane institution lately formed in this state, for the purpose of promoting the abolition of slavery, and the relief of free negroes, of others unlawfully held in bondage. He supposeth that no man who has labored to purchase a servant to assist him in the cultivation of his farm, would willingly lose that part of his labor, less (as he is pleased to say) by the same rule, “the Society should claim his horse and leave him to draw the plough.” -- But if men with black skins have the same right to liberty that others have, I conclude he has purchased a bad title, of one who could have no right to sell; and as such is defective in both law and equity, and ought to be given up; but seeing his horse is not endowed with human faculties, I apprehend he can have nothing to fear on that account from the society, and I am sorry to find in any writer so degrading a comparison.

Another writer professeth to be an advocate for the liberation of slaves, and has offered a plan for that purpose; but as it appears to me highly unjust, I cannot look upon him as a real friend to freedom, or his scheme consistent with good policy. He objects to the admission of negroes to the privileges of citizens, because (as he saith) there is something repugnant to the general feelings even in the thought of their being allowed the free intercourse and marriage with the white inhabitants, and as a proof asks, where is the man of all those who have liberated their slaves, who would marry a son or daughter to them? and if they would not, who would? He supposeth too they would form a separate interest and endanger the peace of the society; which to prevent he recommends the settlement of a colony in Africa, with the negroes now free or hereafter to become so. But can this author seriously believe that the admission of a large proportion of the inhabitants (of any country) in a state of bondage, to equal rights and liberty can in the nature of things be productive of discord or separate interests? For my part I look upon a union of interests, to be the most likely means that can be devised to prevent those consequences, and to establish a permanent constitution: Nor do I suppose there would be much danger of his son or daughter’s intermarriage with them, so long as such connection appear repugnant, and those unsurmountable prejudices opperate so powerfully as he talks of: But suppose there was real cause to apprehend his son or daughter would get over those prejudices, I ask him, if that would be a sufficient reason to deprive so many thousands of fellow creatures of one of the most valuable blessings in life, or forcing them to remove to Africa, or any other part of the world? But setting aside the injustice and cruelty of such a procedure, would it not be bad policy to deprive the country of so great a number of labourers, who have generally been looked upon by wise legislatures as the most sure source of power and opulence; especially too, as we have so much uncultivated land in this state, and an extensive territory to the westward uninhabited?

I would also query whether it would be reasonable after a long and hard servitude of the present and former generations of more than a century, now against their wills to repeat the dangers and hardships of a long voyage and change of climate? For I suppose that country would be as fatal to those born here, as it is to Europeans, or as this climate was to their ancestors on their first coming to America. But suppose his plan for settling a colony in Africa were adopted, how or where would he procure a tract of country sufficient to answer the purpose. For although it is an extensive country, I can’t suppose there is any part of it, but what is in actual possession of the natives, or claimed by them; so that I conclude the land in that case must either be purchased or conquered before his scheme could be perfected, and I presume neither of these would be quite convenient at present to do. A third propose under the signature of A. C. seems to apprehend dangerous consequences from so much noise about emancipation, and yet himself proposes a notable law to pass for a general one, of men, women and children; but with a saving clause that, they nevertheless remain in a state of servitude for and during the term of ninety nine years. This I agree with him would be a concise and easy mode of abolishing slavery, if it consisted only in the word; it might at least make the matter easy to some masters, who by such a law losing nothing, but I am not so clear that such a kind of emancipation would be quite agreeable to the servant, who is to receive no other benefit than a change of character from slave to servant; especially such who might be foolish enough to expect a real enlargement, and finding themselves disappointed, might in all probability be of worse consequence than the noise he complains of. But I suppose from his quotation of a scripture passage out of the Mosaic law, which allowed the Israelites to keep the Heathen in bondage, he means to justify the present practice of making slaves of negroes, without considering perhaps that both the master and slave, are of the Heathen or Gentile extraction; so that his text will by no means apply; and were a Jew from authority, to whom alone the right (if any) descends, to claim his services, I fancy he would not be very ready to acknowledge the validity of that law. I will not dispute that slavery was practiced in former ages, for we have scripture authority that the Egyptians kept the children of Israel in that state; but I conclude the plagues and judgments which were inflicted on that account, will not make much for his purpose. And I can but admire when the spirit of liberty seems diffusing itself over the world, and among the most enlightened part of mankind, these writers should justify slavery: They ought to have remembered the self-evident truths contained in divers publications, and declarations, not long since esteemed in America as undeniable; particularly the bill of rights, which declare all mankind by nature equally entitled to freedom; and a short by very expressive sentiment, circulated among us during our late troubles with applause (viz:) “The liberty of mankind is the immediate gift of God, it is not derived from any one but originally in every one; it is inherent and alienable, the most ancient inheritance cannot strengthen this right, the want of inheritance cannot impair it. The child of a slave is as free born according to the law of nature, as he who could trace a free ancestry up to the creation. – Freedom not withstanding all that sophistry may say to the contrary, cannot be alienated by any creature, much less can he enslave his posterity.” -- I think too there are some other texts of scripture at least as clear and of as high authority as the one quoted by this author, which more immediately concern the professors of christianity, and which he and others concerned in the business of slavery, may do well seriously to consider (viz:) “God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. – God is no respector of persons – Do violence to no man. – Love they neighbor as thyself. – Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.” –

If however there should be any who can lay their hands on their hearts, and honestly say, they believe a man born in Africa or their offspring, have not the same natural right to freedom as themselves, or can from scripture or right reason, justify perpetual slavery, to people of any particular country or color, it might be a satisfaction to many, who doubt the rectitude of bondage among christians, and are fluctuating in their minds between interest and duty, whether to discharge or continue to hold such property; and should they succeed in removing the doubt, it may be a more effectual remedy to keep up the value of slaves, than stopping the mouths of those who talk about emancipation.

HUMANITY

June 22, 1790