VI.
If the treatment then, as before described, is confirmed by reason, and the great credit that is due to disinterested writers on the subject; if the unfortunate Africans are used, as if their flesh were stone, and their vitals brass; by what arguments do you _receivers_ defend your conduct?
You say that a great part of your savage treatment consists in punishment for real offences, and frequently for such offences, as all civilized nations have concurred in punishing.

The first charge that you exhibit against them is specifick, it is that of _theft_.

But how much rather ought you _receivers_ to blush, who reduce them to such a situation! who reduce them to the dreadful alternative, that they must either _steal_ or _perish_! How much rather ought you _receivers_ to be considered as _robbers_ yourselves, who cause these unfortunate people to be _stolen_! And how much greater is your crime, who are _robbers of human liberty_! The next charge which you exhibit against them, is general, it is that of _rebellion_; a crime of such a latitude, that you can impose it upon almost every action, and of such a nature, that you always annex to it the most excruciating pain.

But what a contradiction is this to common sense! Have the wretched Africans formally resigned their freedom?
Have you any other claim upon their obedience, than that of force?
If then they are your subjects, you violate the laws of government, by making them unhappy.

But if they are not your subjects, then, even though they should resist your proceedings, they are not _rebellious_.
But what do you say to that long catalogue of offences, which you punish, and of which no people but yourselves take cognizance at all?
You say that the wisdom of legislation has inserted it in the colonial laws, and that you punish by authority.