{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_11274/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_11274","id":"gutenberg_11274","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11274","summary":null,"tags":["Antislavery movements -- United States -- Periodicals","Category: History - American","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Slavery","Slavery -- United States -- Periodicals"],"text":"THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER Part 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\nBy The American Anti-Slavery Society 1839\n\n\n\n    No. 12. Chattel Principle The Abhorrence of Jesus Christ\n            and the Apostles; Or No Refuge for American Slavery\n            in the New Testament.\n\n            On the Condition of the Free People of Color in the\n            United States.\n\n    No. 13. Can Abolitionists Vote or Take Office Under the United\n            States Constitution?\n\n            Address to the Friends of Constitutional Liberty, on the\n            Violation by the United States House of Representatives\n            of the Right of Petition at the Executive Committee of\n            the American Anti-Slavery Society.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNo. 12.\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\nCHATTEL PRINCIPLE\n\nTHE ABHORRENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES; OR,\nNO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nBY BERIAH GREEN.\n\nNEW YORK\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\nNO. 143 NASSAU STREET\n\n1839\n\nThis No. contains 4-1/2 sheet--Postage under 100 miles, 7 cts. over\n100, 10 cts.\n\nPlease Read and circulate.\n\n\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY.\n\n  \"THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST.\"\n\nIs Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? In 1776 THOMAS\nJEFFERSON, supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by\nthe American people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration:\n\"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are\ncreated equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain\ninalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the\npursuit of happiness.\" And from the inmost heart of the multitudes\naround, and in a strong and clear voice, broke forth the unanimous\nand decisive answer: Amen--such truths we do indeed hold to be\nself-evident. And animated and sustained by a declaration, so\ninspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the result of\nagonizing efforts and dreadful sufferings, achieved under God the\nindependence of their country. The great truth, whence they derived\nlight and strength to assert and defend their rights, they made the\nfoundation of their republic. And in the midst of this republic,\nmust we prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict\n\"the truths\" which He Himself; as their Creator, had made\nself-evident to mankind?\n\nIs Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, according to\nthose laws which make it what it is, is American slavery? In the\nStatute-book of South Carolina thus it is written:[1] \"Slaves shall\nbe deemed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels\npersonal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their\nexecutors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, construction\nand purposes whatever.\" The very root of American slavery consists\nin the assumption, that law has reduced men to chattels. But this\nassumption is, and must be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are\nseparated from each other by the Creator, immutably, eternally, and\nby an impassable gulf. To confound or identify men and cattle must\nbe to lie most wantonly, impudently, and maliciously. And must we\nprove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of palpable, monstrous\nfalsehood?\n\n[Footnote 1: Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23.]\n\n\nIs Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? How can a system,\nbuilt upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth--a\nsystem of treating men like cattle--operate? Thomas Jefferson shall\nanswer. Hear him. \"The whole commerce between master and slave is a\nperpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most\nunremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on\nthe other. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the\nlineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller\nslaves, gives loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated,\nand daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with\nodious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his\nmanners and morals undepraved by such circumstances.\"[2] Such is the\npractical operation of a system, which puts men and cattle into the\nsame family and treats them alike. And must we prove, that Jesus\nChrist is not in favor of a school where the worst vices in their\nmost hateful forms are systematically and efficiently taught and\npracticed? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, in\n1818, did the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm\nrespecting its nature and operation? \"Slavery creates a paradox in\nthe moral system--it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal\nbeings, in such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of\nmoral action. It exhibits them as dependent on the will of others,\nwhether they shall receive religious instruction; whether they shall\nknow and worship the true God; whether they shall enjoy the\nordinances of the gospel; whether they shall perform the duties and\ncherish the endearments of husbands and wives, parents and children,\nneighbors and friends; whether they shall preserve their chastity\nand purity, or regard the dictates of justice and humanity. Such are\nsome of the consequences of slavery; consequences not imaginary, but\nwhich connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which\nthe slave is _always_ exposed, _often take place_ in their very\nworst degree and form; and where all of them do not take place,\nstill the slave is deprived of his natural rights, degraded as a\nhuman being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of\na master who may inflict upon him all the hardship and injuries\nwhich inhumanity and avarice may suggest.\"[3] Must we prove, that\nJesus Christ is not in favor of such things?\n\n[Footnote 2: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 169, 170.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Minutes of the General assembly for 1818, p. 29.]\n\n\nIs Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? It is already widely\nfelt and openly acknowledged at the South, that they cannot support\nslavery without sustaining the opposition of universal Christendom.\nAnd Thomas Jefferson declared, \"I tremble for my country when I\nreflect that God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever;\nthat considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a\nrevolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is\namong possible events; that it may become practicable by\nsupernatural influences! The Almighty has no attribute which can\ntake sides with us in such a contest.\"[4] And must we prove, that\nJesus Christ is not in favor of what universal Christendom is\nimpelled to abhor, denounce, and oppose; is not in favor of what\nevery attribute of Almighty God is armed against?\n\n[Footnote 4: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 170, 171.]\n\n\n               \"YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR.\"\n\nIt is no man of straw, with whom, in making out such proof, we are\ncalled to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist! Would to\nGod that our labor of love could be regarded as a work of\nsupererogation! But we may well be ashamed and grieved to find it\nnecessary to \"stop the mouths\" of grave and learned ecclesiastics,\nwho from the heights of Zion have undertaken to defend the\ninstitution of slavery. We speak not now of those, who amidst the\nmonuments of oppression are engaged in the sacred vocation; who, as\nministers of the Gospel, can \"prophesy smooth things\" to such as\npollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices; nay, who\nthemselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That they\nshould put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips\nsomething in favor of slavery, is not to be wondered at. They\nconsent to the murder of the children; can they respect the rights\nof the Father? But what shall we say of distinguished theologians of\nthe north--professors of sacred literature at our oldest divinity\nschools--who stand up to defend, both by argument and authority,\nsouthern slavery! And from the Bible! Who, Balaam-like, try a\nthousand expedients to force from the mouth of Jehovah a sentence\nwhich they know the heart of Jehovah abhors! Surely we have here\nsomething more mischievous and formidable than a man of straw. More\nthan two years ago, and just before the meeting of the General\nAssembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an article in the\nBiblical Repertory,[5] understood to be from the pen of the\nProfessor of Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is\nmade to show, that slavery, whatever may be said of any abuses of\nit, is not a violation of the precepts of the Gospel. This article,\nwe are informed, was industriously and extensively distributed among\nthe members of the General Assembly--a body of men, who by a\nfrightful majority seemed already too much disposed to wink at the\nhorrors of slavery. The effect of the Princeton Apology on the\nsouthern mind, we have high authority for saying, has been most\ndecisive and injurious. It has contributed greatly to turn the\npublic eye off from the sin--from the inherent and necessary evils\nof slavery to incidental evils, which the abuse of it might be\nexpected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit, that\nwhatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such\nthing is chargeable upon them! Thus our Princeton prophet has done\nwhat he could to lay the southern conscience asleep upon ingenious\nperversions of the sacred volume!\n\n[Footnote 5: For April, 1836. The General Assembly of the\nPresbyterian Church met in the following May, at Pittsburgh, where,\nin pamphlet form, this article was distributed. The following\nappeared upon the title page:\n\n         PITTSBURGH:\n         1836.\n         _For gratuitous distribution_.\n]\n\n\nAbout a year after this, an effort in the same direction was jointly\nmade by Dr. Fisk and Professor Stuart. In a letter to a Methodist\nclergyman, Mr. Merrit, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives\nutterance to such things as the following:--\n\n\"But that you and the public may see and feel, that you have the\nablest and those who are among the honestest men of this age,\narrayed against you, be pleased to notice the following letter from\nProf. Stuart. I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity of\npurpose, his unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved\nreputation as a scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following\nquestions:--\"\n\n1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that slavery\nexisted in the primitive church?\n\n2. In 1 Tim. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., what\nis the relation expressed or implied between \"they\" (servants) and\n\"believing masters?\" And what are your reasons for the construction\nof the passage?\n\n3. What was the character of ancient and eastern slavery?--\nEspecially what (legal) power did this relation give the master over\nthe slave?\n\n\n\n\n\nPROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY.\n\n\n  ANDOVER, 10th Apr., 1837\n\n  REV. AND DEAR SIR,--Yours is before me. A sickness of three\n  month's standing (typhus fever) in which I have just escaped death,\n  and which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me\n  to answer your letter at large.\n\n  1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of\n  slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the\n  existence of slavery. The masters are in part \"believing masters,\" so\n  that a precept to them, how they are to behave as masters,\n  recognizes that the relation may still exist, _salva fide et salva\n  ecclesia_, (\"without violating the Christian faith or the church.\")\n  Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at once.\n  He could not lawfully and properly temporize with a _malum in se_,\n  (\"that which is in itself sin.\")\n\n  If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesimus\n  back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending\n  him back to be his servant for life. The relation did exist, may\n  exist. The _abuse_ of it is the essential and fundamental wrong.\n  Not that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No; \"Love thy\n  neighbor as thyself,\" \"Do unto others that which ye would that others\n  should do unto you,\" decide against this. But the relation once\n  constituted and continued, is not such a _malum in se_ as calls\n  for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did not\n  counsel.\n\n  2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are\n  Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and\n  because _as Christians they are brethren_, to forego the reverence\n  due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is\n  not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay,\n  servants should in such a case, _a fortiori_, do their duty\n  cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What\n  the master's duty in such a case may be in respect to _liberation_,\n  is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of.\n\n  3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin antiquities,\n  that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more unqualified\n  and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves were\n  _property_ in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about\n  their _relation_. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the\n  temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was,\n  for a long time, that of _life and death_. Horrible cruelties at\n  length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great\n  as among us.\n\n  After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have been\n  exhibited, the _good old Book_ remains the same. Paul's conduct\n  and advice are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity\n  would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew,\n  too, that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth:\n  for it is fundamentally a doctrine of _true liberty and equality_.\n  Yet Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and\n  gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor _ad interim_.\n\n  With sincere and paternal regard,\n\n  Your friend and brother,\n\n  M. STUART.\n\n\n  --This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is _Bible\n  doctrine_. The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have\n  traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must\n  take a different position, and approach the subject in a different\n  manner.\n\n  Respectfully yours,\n\n  W. FISK\n\n\n\n          \"SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP.\"\n\nWhat are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations\nwhich grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted\nas a relation that did not violate the Christian faith; that the\nrelation may now in like manner exist; that \"the abuse of it is the\nessential and fundamental wrong;\" and of course, that American\nChristians may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring\nguilt or inflicting injury. Thus, according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus\nChrist has not a word to say against \"the peculiar institutions\" of\nthe South. If our brethren there do not \"abuse\" the privilege of\nenacting unpaid labor, they may multiply their slaves to their\nhearts' content, without exposing themselves to the frown of the\nSavior or laying their Christian character open to the least\nsuspicion. Could any trafficker in human flesh ask for greater\nlatitude! And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly and earnestly\nsubscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention of his\nbrethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to embrace.\nAccording to him, it is \"_Bible doctrine_,\" showing, that \"the\nabolitionists are on a wrong course,\" and must, \"if they would\nsucceed, take a different position.\"\n\nWe now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting\nto prove that Jesus Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we\ncontend with something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task,\nwhich a particular examination of Professor Stuart's letter lays\nupon us, we hope fairly to dispose of in due season. Enough has now\nbeen said to make it clear and certain, that American slavery has its\napologists and advocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and\napologists, who fall behind few if any of their brethren in the\nreputation they have acquired, the stations they occupy, and the\ngeneral influence they are supposed to exert.\n\nIs it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its\nworst form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves,\nthey must have done in open and flagrant violation of the letter and\nthe spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of\nthis may well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument\nentitled \"The Bible against Slavery.\" If, after a careful and\nthorough examination of that article, he can believe that\nslaveholding prevailed during the ministry of Jesus Christ among the\nJews and in accordance with the authority of Moses, he would do the\nreading public an important service to record the grounds of his\nbelief--especially in a fair and full refutation of that Argument.\nTill that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting to\nprove what we now repeat, that if the Jews during our Savior's\nincarnation held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant\nviolation of the letter and spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Could\nChrist and the Apostles every where among their countrymen come in\ncontact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross violation of that\nlaw which their office and their profession required them to honor\nand enforce, without exposing and condemning it?\n\nIn its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole\nworld, not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as\nStuart, Hodge and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term\n\"_worst_\" could be applied only to \"_abuses_\" of this innocent\nrelation. Slavery accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and\ndisgraced by the \"worst abuses\" to which it is liable. These abuses\nin the ancient world, Professor Stuart describes as \"horrible\ncruelties.\" And in our own country, such abuses have grown so rank,\nas to lead a distinguished eye-witness--no less a philosopher and\nstatesman than Thomas Jefferson--to say, that they had armed against\nus every attribute of the Almighty. With these things the Savior\nevery where came in contact, among the people to whose improvement\nand salvation he devoted his living powers, and yet not a word, not\na syllable, in exposure and condemnation of such \"horrible cruelties\"\nescaped his lips! He saw--among the \"covenant people\" of Jehovah he\nsaw, the babe plucked from the bosom of its mother; the wife torn\nfrom the embrace of her husband; the daughter driven to the market\nby the scourge of her own father;--he saw the word of God sealed up\nfrom those who, of all men, were especially entitled to its\nenlightening, quickening influence;--nay, he saw men beaten for\nkneeling before the throne of heavenly mercy;--such things he saw\nwithout a word of admonition or reproof! No sympathy with them who\nsuffered wrong--no indignation at them who inflicted wrong, moved\nhis heart!\n\nFrom the alleged silence of the Savior, when in contact with slavery\namong the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent with\nChristianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms;\nthat is, he witnessed what Professor Stuart ventures to call\n\"horrible cruelties.\" But what right have these interpreters of the\nsacred volume to regard any form of slavery which the Savior found,\nas \"worst,\" or even bad? According to their inference--which they\nwould thrust gag-wise into the mouths of abolitionists--his silence\nshould seal up their lips. They ought to hold their tongues. They\nhave no right to call any form of slavery bad--an abuse; much less,\nhorribly cruel! Their inference is broad enough to protect the most\nbrutal driver amidst his deadliest inflictions!\n\n\n\n  \"THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS;\n     I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL.\"\n\nAnd did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind\nthe prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for\nsuffering humanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed,\nexcited their compassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the\nmost pointed and powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They\ncould not endure the creatures, \"who used their neighbors' service\nwithout wages, and gave him not for his work;\"[6] who imposed\n\"heavy burdens\"[7] upon their fellows, and loaded them with\n\"the bands of wickedness;\" who, \"hiding themselves from their own\nflesh,\" disowned their own mothers' children. Professions of piety\njoined with the oppression of the poor, they held up to universal\nscorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They warned the\ncreature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath of\nJehovah only by heart-felt repentance. And yet, according to the\necclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets\npassed by in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to\nexpose and denounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in\nits worst forms--\"horrible cruelties\" forced themselves upon his\nnotice; but not a word of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw\n\"a boy given for a harlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might\ndrink,\"[8] without the slightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark\nof disapprobation! To such disgusting and horrible conclusions, do\nthe arguings which, from the haunts of sacred literature, are\ninflicted on our churches, lead us! According to them, Jesus Christ,\ninstead of shining as the light of the world, extinguished the\ntorches which his own prophets had kindled, and plunged mankind into\nthe palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O savior, in pity to\nthy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer used as a\n\"den of thieves!\"\n\n[Footnote 6: Jeremiah, xxii. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Isaiah, lviii. 6, 7.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Joel, iii. 3.]\n\n\n\n  \"THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF.\"\n\nIn passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where\ncame in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been\ninconsistent with himself. He was commissioned to preach glad\ntidings to the poor; to heal the broken-hearted; to preach\ndeliverance to the captives; to set at liberty them that are bruised;\nto preach the year of Jubilee. In accordance with this commission,\nhe bound himself, from the earliest date of his incarnation, to the\npoor, by the strongest ties; himself \"had not where to lay his head;\"\nhe exposed himself to misrepresentation and abuse for his\naffectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society; he stood up\nas the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the heartless\necclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain; and in\ndescribing the scenes of the final judgment, he selected the very\npersonification of poverty, disease and oppression, as the test by\nwhich our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and\nwretched; to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open.\nThey had his tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His\nheart's blood he poured out upon the ground for the human family,\nreduced to the deepest degradation, and exposed to the heaviest\ninflictions, as the slaves of the grand usurper. And yet, according\nto our ecclesiastics, that class of sufferers who had been reduced\nimmeasurably below every other shape and form of degradation and\ndistress; who had been most rudely thrust out of the family of Adam,\nand forced to herd with swine; who, without the slightest offence,\nhad been made the footstool of the worst criminals; whose \"tears\nwere their meat night and day,\" while, under nameless insults and\nkilling injuries they were continually crying, O Lord, O Lord:--this\nclass of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical expositors,\noccupying the high places of sacred literature, would make us\nbelieve the compassionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion\nof pity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his\ngracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces\ndamnation upon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster,\nwhose trade it is to make widows and devour them and their babes, he\ncan calmly endure! O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such\nblasphemers!\n\n\n  \"IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH.\"\n\nIt seems that though, according to our Princeton professor,\n\"the subject\" of slavery \"is hardly alluded to by Christ in any\nof his personal instructions,\"[9] he had a way of \"treating it.\"\nWhat was that?  Why, \"he taught the true nature, DIGNITY, EQUALITY,\nand destiny of men,\" and \"inculcated the principles of justice and\nlove.\"[10] And according to Professor Stuart, the maxims which our\nSavior furnished, \"decide against\" \"the theory of slavery.\" All, then,\nthat these ecclesiastical apologists for slavery can make of the\nSavior's alleged silence is, that he did not, in his personal\ninstructions, \"_apply his own principles to this particular form of\nwickedness_.\" For wicked that must be, which the maxims of the\nSavior decide against, and which our Princeton professor assures\nus the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would speedily\nextinguish.[11] How remarkable it is, that a teacher should\n\"hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions,\"\nand yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing\nupon it!--should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that\n\"slaveholding is not a crime,\"[12] and at the same time lend its\nauthority for its \"speedy extinction!\"\n\n[Footnote 9: Pittsburg pamphlet, (already alluded to,) p.9.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 11: The same, p. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 12: The same, p. 13.]\n\n\nHigher authority than sustains _self-evident truths_ there cannot\nbe. As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah.\nNot only are their presence and power self-manifested, but they\nalso shed a strong and clear light around them. In their light,\nother truths are visible. Luminaries themselves, it is their\noffice to enlighten. To their authority, in every department of\nthought, the same mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their\nauthority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his\nattention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning\ncreature.  For what, when thus employed and when most successful, is\nthe utmost he can accomplish?  Why, to make the conclusions which he\nwould establish and commend, _clear in the light of reason_;--in\nother words, to evince that _they are reasonable_. He expects that\nthose with whom he has to do will acknowledge the authority of\nprinciple--will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason. If\nthey require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to\ndo something more than show that the doctrines he maintains, and the\nmethods he proposes, are accordant with reason--are illustrated and\nsupported with \"self-evident truths\"--they are plainly \"beside\nthemselves.\" They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be\nargued with. They belong to the mad-house.\n\n\n\n      \"COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD.\"\n\nAre we to honor the Bible, which Professor Stuart quaintly calls\n\"the good old book,\" by turning away from \"self-evident truths\" to\nreceive its instructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied\nthere? Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness,\nor break their force, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find\nsomething there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing\nor of inference, in broad statement or blind hints, creed-wise or\nfact-wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first\nprinciples? And what if we were to discover what we were thus in\nsearch of?--something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly\nprejudicial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the\nauthority of, makes self-evident? In what estimation, in that case,\nshould we be constrained to hold the Bible? Could we longer honor\nit as the book of God? _The book of God opposed to the authority of_\nREASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the\nsacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of reason. _This\nevery one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject_.\nAnd what must reason do with a book, which reduces the authority of\nits own principles--breaks the force of self-evident truths? Is he\nnot, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a\nminister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts\nhimself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt\nthe Bible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such\npiety prevail, and Jesus Christ is \"crucified afresh and put to an\nopen shame.\"\n\nWhat saith the Princeton professor? Why, in spite of \"general\nprinciples,\" and \"clear as we may think the arguments against\nDESPOTISM, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED _and good men_,\nwho _honestly_ believe it to be of all forms of government the best\nand most acceptable to God.\"[13] Now these \"good men\" must have been\nthus warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in\nopposition to, their being \"enlightened.\" In other words, the light,\nwhich in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position\nin favor of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily\nshook hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in\ndespite of its hallowed influence. Either in accordance with, or in\nresistance to the light, they became what he found them--the\nadvocates of despotism. If in resistance to the light--and he says\nthey were \"enlightened men\"--what, so far as the subject with which\nalone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their \"honesty\" and\n\"goodness?\" Good and honest resisters of the light, which was freely\npoured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's \"good old\nBook?\" Their authority, where \"general principles\" command the least\nrespect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the light,\nthey have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism\n\"the best form of government and most acceptable to God.\" It is\nsustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the\nwill of Heaven! If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain\ntheological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit\nwhich they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why\ndid not the Princeton professor place this \"general principle\" as a\nshield, heaven-wrought and reason approved, over that cherished form\nof despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and\nleave the \"peculiar institutions\" he is so forward to defend, under\nits protection?\n\n[Footnote 13: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.]\n\n\nWhat is the \"general principle\" to which, whatever may become of\ndespotism, with its \"honest\" admirers and \"enlightened\" supporters,\nhuman governments should be universally and carefully adjusted?\nClearly this--_that as capable of, man is entitled to, self\ngovernment_. And this is a specific form of a still more\ngeneral principle, which may well be pronounced self-evident--_that\nevery thing should be treated according to its nature_. The mind\nthat can doubt this, must be incapable of rational conviction.\nMan, then,--it is the dictate of reason, it is the voice of\nJehovah--must be treated as _a man_. What is he? What are his\ndistinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own image on him.\nIn this were found the grand peculiarities of his character. Here\nshone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here the WILL puts\nforth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why such\nendowments? Thus furnished--the image of Jehovah--is he not capable\nof self-government? And is he not to be so treated? _Within the\nsphere where the laws of reason place him_, may he not act according\nto his choice--carry out his own volitions?--may he not enjoy life,\nexult in freedom, and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If\nnot, why was he so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful\nattribute of will? To be a source, profound as the depths of hell,\nof exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man,\nformed \"according to the image of Jehovah,\" to be crossed, thwarted,\ncounteracted; to be forced in upon himself; to be the sport of\nendless contradictions; to be driven back and forth forever between\nmutually repellant forces; and all, all \"at the discretion of\nanother!\"[14] How can man be treated according to his nature, as\nendowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers and\nprivileges of self-government?--if \"despotism\" be let loose upon\nhim, to \"deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the\ndiscretion of another\" and with the power of \"transferring\" such\n\"authority\" over him and such claim upon him, to \"another master?\"\nIf \"thousands of enlightened and good men\" can so easily be found,\nwho are forward to support \"despotism\" as \"of all governments the\nbest and most acceptable to God,\" we need not wonder at the\ntestimony of universal history, that \"the whole creation groaneth\nand travaileth in pain together until now.\" Groans and travail pangs\nmust continue to be the order of the day throughout \"the whole\ncreation,\" till the rod of despotism be broken, and man be treated\nas man--as capable of, and entitled to, self-government.\n\n[Footnote 14: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.]\n\n\nBut what is the despotism whose horrid features our smooth professor\ntries to hide beneath an array of cunningly selected words and\nnicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American\nslavery--which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims,\nand transforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to\nthings! \"Slaves,\" saith Professor Stuart, \"were _property_ in Greece\nand Rome. That decides all questions about their _relation_.\" Yes,\ntruly. And slaves in republican America are _property_; and as that\neasily, clearly, and definitely settles \"all questions about their\n_relation_,\" why should the Princeton professor have put himself\nto the trouble of weaving a definition equally ingenious and\ninadequate--at once subtle and deceitful. Ah, why? Was he willing thus\nto conceal the wrongs of his mother's children even from himself? If\namong the figments of his brain, he could fashion slaves, and make\nthem something else than property, he knew full well that a very\ndifferent pattern was in use among the southern patriarchs. Why did\nhe not, in plain words and sober earnest, and good faith, describe\nthe thing as it was, instead of employing honied words and courtly\nphrases, to set forth with all becoming vagueness and ambiguity,\nwhat might possibly be supposed to exist in the regions of fancy.\n\n\n   \"FOR RULERS ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL.\"\n\nBut are we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to\noverlook the unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our\nfellow-men with whom we may be connected?--or the strong passions,\nvicious propensities, or criminal pursuits of others? Certainly not.\nBut in providing for their welfare, we are to exert influences and\nimpose restraints suited to their character. In wielding those\nprerogatives which the social of our nature authorizes us to employ\nfor their benefit, we are to regard them as they are in truth, not\nthings, not cattle, not articles of merchandize, but men, our\nfellow-men--reflecting, from however battered and broken a surface,\nreflecting with us the image of a common Father. And the great\nprinciple of self-government is to be the basis, to which the whole\nstructure of discipline under which they may be placed, should be\nadapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house\nand state-prison, this principle is ever and in all things to be\nbefore the eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart.\nOtherwise, God is insulted, while his image is despised and abused.\nYes, indeed; we remember, that in carrying out the principle of\nself-government, multiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out\nof wickedness on the one hand and passion on the other. Such\ndifficulties and obstacles we are far enough from overlooking. But\nwhere are they to be found? Are imbecility and wickedness, bad\nhearts and bad heads, confined to the bottom of society? Alas, the\nweakest of the weak, and the desperately wicked, often occupy the\nhigh places of the earth, reducing every thing within their reach to\nsubserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the very power they have\nusurped, has often been the chief instrument of turning their heads,\ninflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts. All the world\nknows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong tendency\nto make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous. And\nthis, whether the vassals over whom they domineer, be few or many.\nIf you cannot trust man with himself, will you put his fellows\nunder his control?--and flee from the inconveniences incident to\nself-government, to the horrors of despotism?\n\n\n\"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL.\"\n\nIs the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots,\nto be entrusted with the discipline of the injured men who he\nhimself has reduced to cattle?--with the discipline with which they\nare to be prepared to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of\nfreemen? Alas, of such discipline as _he_ can furnish, in the\nrelation of owner to property, they have had enough. From this\nsprang the very ignorance and vice, which in the view of many, lie\nin the way of their immediate enfranchisement. He it is, who has\ndarkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are they to look\nto him for illumination and renewed vigor!--and expect \"grapes from\nthorns and figs from thistles!\" Heaven forbid! When, according to\narrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he consented\nto receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims to the\nesteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers themselves,\nbut also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder, he\nbecame the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war\nupon human nature. What less can be made of the process of turning\nmen to cattle? It is rank absurdity--it is the height of madness, to\npropose to employ _him_ to train, for the places of freemen, those\nwhom he has wantonly robbed of every right--whom he has stolen from\nthemselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of\nselling bodies to the dissector, at the head of a hospital. Why,\nwhat have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have\nthey not been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of\neducation?--training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas\nJefferson shall answer. \"The whole commerce between master and slave,\nis a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most\nunremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on\nthe other.\" Is this the way to fit the unprepared for the duties and\nprivileges of American citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful\nprocess be diminished by adding to its length? What, in 1818, was\nthe unanimous testimony of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian\nChurch? Why, after describing a variety of influences growing out of\nslavery, most fatal to mental and moral improvement, the General\nAssembly assure us, that such \"consequences are not imaginary, but\nconnect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE[15] of slavery. The evils to\nwhich the slave is _always_ exposed, _often_ take place in fact, and\nIN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM; and where all of them do not\ntake place,\" \"still the slave is deprived of his natural right,\ndegraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into\nthe hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and\ninjuries which inhumanity and avarice may suggest.\" Is this the\ncondition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least\na little longer, to fit him to be restored to himself?\n\n[Footnote 15: The words here marked as emphatic, were so distinguished\nby ourselves.]\n\n\n                    \"AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS.\"\n\nThe methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders; the Southrons\nnow place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great\nwrath, forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in\nthe assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they\ngive us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take\nobservations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will\ndispose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from\nspeedy and deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant?\nSurely, not that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy\nof universal application. If so, why do they not take the praise,\nand give us the benefit of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who,\nthat has nothing to hide, practices concealment? \"He that doeth\ntruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they\nare wrought in God.\" Is this the way of slaveholders? Darkness they\ncourt--they will have darkness. Doubtless \"because their deeds are\nevil.\" Can we confide in methods for the benefit of our enslaved\nbrethren, which it is death for us to examine? What good ever came,\nwhat good can we expect, from deeds of darkness?\n\nDid the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West\nIndies to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily.\nAll the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back\nthe tide of blessings, which, through emancipation, was pouring in\nupon the famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in\nEngland now thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification,\ncan be a school for freedom?\n\nWe say such things to the many who allege, that slaves cannot at\nonce be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government.\nHowever this may be, they cannot be better qualified under the\n_influence of slavery_. _That must be broken up_ from which their\nignorance, and viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which\ncan only do what it has always done, pollute and degrade, must not\nbe employed to purify and elevate. _The lower their character and\ncondition, the louder, clearer, sterner, the just demand for\nimmediate emancipation_. The plague-smitten sufferer can derive no\nbenefit from breathing a little longer an infected atmosphere.\n\nIn thus referring to elemental principles--in thus availing ourselves\nof the light of self-evident truths--we bow to the authority and tread\nin the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for\nrefusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their\nspiritual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives\nthem distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves\nto form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects,\nas standing in the presence of the Messiah. \"Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES,\"\nhe demands of them, \"judge ye not what is _right_?\"[16] How could\nthey, unless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard within\nthem, whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests\nthey had to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and\nfalsehood, right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they\nought to eschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior,\nit is clear and certain, that in human consciousness may be found\nself-evident truths, self-manifested principles; that every man,\nstudying his own consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence\nand authority, and in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to\nthe highest practical concerns of \"life and godliness.\" It is in\nobedience to the Bible, that we apply self-evident truths, and walk\nin the light of general principles. When our fathers proclaimed\nthese truths, and at the hazard of their property, reputation, and\nlife, stood up in their defence, they did homage to the sacred\nScriptures--they honored the Bible. In that volume, not a syllable\ncan be found to justify that form of infidelity, which in the abused\nname of piety, reproaches us for practising the lessons which nature\nteacheth. These lessons, the Bible requires us[17] reverently to listen\nto, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently and faithfully to\nact upon in every direction, and on all occasions.\n\n[Footnote 16: Luke, xii. 57.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Cor. xi. 14.]\n\nWhy, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encourage\nmen universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and\ndistinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles.\n\"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether\nit be of God, or whether I speak of myself.\"[18] Natural religion--the\nprinciples which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature teaches--he\nthus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed religion. So\nfar was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest and most\npiercing rays of reason--from calling off the attention of those around\nhim from the import, bearings, and practical application of general\nprinciples. And those who would have us escape from the pressure of\nself-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and precepts\nof Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do foul dishonor\nto the Savior of mankind.\n\n[Footnote 18: John, vii. 17.]\n\nAnd what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the\nSavior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible? \"Whatsoever ye\nwould that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is\nthe law and the prophets.\"\n\nAccording to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be\nfound,\n\n  1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circumstances of\n  life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us.\n\n  2. The just application of this standard, is practicable for, and\n  obligatory upon, every child of Adam.\n\n  3. The qualification requisite to a just application of this rule to\n  all the cases in which we can be concerned, is simply this--_to\n  regard all the members of the human family as our brethren, our\n  equals_.\n\nIn other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles\nand laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations\nand circumstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following\nthis guide, but the bias of _selfishness_; and that the moment, in\ndeciding any moral question, we place _ourselves in the room of our\nbrother_, before the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought\nto be pronounced. Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing\nself-evident truths!--like decrying the authority of general\nprinciples!--like exalting himself at the expense of reason!--like\nopening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose practice is at\nvariance with the dictates of humanity!\n\nWhat then is the just application of the Golden Rule--that\nfundamental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding\nlight upon, all its precepts and arrangements--to the subject of\nslavery?--_that we must \"do to\" slaves as we would be done by_, AS\nSLAVES, _the_ RELATION _itself being justified and continued_? Surely\nnot. A little reflection will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule\nreaches farther in its demands, and strikes deeper in its influences\nand operations. The _natural equality_ of mankind lies at the very\nbasis of this great precept. It obviously requires _every man to\nacknowledge another self in every other man_. With my powers and\nresources, and in my appropriate circumstances, I am to recognize in\nany child of Adam who may address me, another self in his\nappropriate circumstances and with his powers and resources. This is\nthe natural equality of mankind; and this the Golden Rule requires\nus to admit, defend, and maintain.\n\n                \"WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH;\n                EVEN BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD.\"\n\nThey strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine,\nwho charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which _any\n\"levelling system\"_ cannot but produce. In all its bearings,\ntendencies, and effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully\nhostile to any such system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine asserts;\nand this necessarily opens the way for _variety of condition_. In\nother words, every child of Adam has, from the Creator, the\ninalienable right of wielding, within reasonable limits, his own\npowers, and employing his own resources, according to his own\nchoice;--the right, while he respects his social relations, to promote\nas he will his own welfare. But mark--HIS OWN powers and resources,\nand NOT ANOTHER'S, are thus inalienably put under his control. The\nCreator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to exert HIMSELF,\nand not another. Here no man may lawfully cripple or embarrass\nanother. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the strong\ncrush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself, in his own\nproper sphere. Now, as in the constitutional endowments; and natural\nopportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety\nprevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according\nto his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less\nthan infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of\ncondition.\n\nBut with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered\nindividually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties\nwhich can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social\nof their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While\neach is inalienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality\nas a man, each sustains to all and all to each, various relations.\nWhile each owns and honors the individual, all are to own and honor\nthe social of their nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly\nrecognizes, lays its requisitions upon, and extends its obligations\nto, the whole nature of man, in his individual capacities and social\nrelations. What higher honor could it do to man, as _an individual_,\nthan to constitute him the judge, by whose decision, when fairly\nrendered, all the claims of his fellows should be authoritatively\nand definitely disposed of? \"Whatsoever YE WOULD\" have done to you,\nso do ye to others. Every member of the family of Adam, placing\nhimself in the position here pointed out, is competent and\nauthorized to pass judgment on all the cases in social life in which\nhe may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or greater\nconfidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are their\n_claims upon each other_ herein magnified! What inherent worth and\nsolid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every\nman with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of\n_another self_, whose case I am to make _my own_. And thus I am to\ndispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me.\n\nThus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally\nbrought, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to\npromote each other's welfare. As his contribution to this great\nobject, it is the inalienable birthright of every child of Adam,\nto consecrate whatever he may possess. With exalted powers and large\nresources, he has a natural claim to a correspondent field of effort.\nIf his \"abilities\" are small, his task must be easy and his burden\nlight. Thus the Golden Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each\nother. In this service, each is to exert _himself_--employ _his own_\npowers, lay out his own resources, improve his own opportunities. A\ndivision of labor is the natural result. One is remarkable for his\nintellectual endowments and acquisitions; another, for his wealth;\nand a third, for power and skill in using his muscles. Such\nattributes, endlessly varied and diversified, proceed from the basis\nof a _common character_, by virtue of which all men and each--one as\ntruly as another--are entitled, as a birthright, to \"life, liberty,\nand the pursuit of happiness.\" Each and all, one as well as another,\nmay choose his own modes of contributing his share to the general\nwelfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under one\ngreat law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are\nplaced--the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor,\nthe learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the\nproducts of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market,\nwhere mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular\nexertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas\nwith his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields\nthe axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua,\nand Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the\nservice of the community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and\nCaleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them\npartakers of the general prosperity. And all this by mutual\nunderstanding and voluntary arrangement. And all this according to\nthe Golden Rule.\n\nWhat then becomes of _slavery_--a system of arrangements in which\none man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing--a\nchattel--an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in\nany disposition which may be made of it;--a system which is built on\nthe annihilation of the attributes of our common nature--in which\nman doth to others what he would sooner die than have done to himself?\nThe Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If\none stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of\nthe other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION\nITSELF, in which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every\nthing within the scope of _human action_. To \"whatever MEN DO.\" it\nextends its authority. And the relation itself, in which slavery\nconsists, is the work of human hands. It is what men have done to\neach other--contrary to nature and most injurious to the general\nwelfare. This RELATION, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns.\nWherever its authority prevails, this relation must be annihilated.\nMutual service and slavery--like light and darkness, life and\ndeath--are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other. The\none the Golden Rule cannot endure; the other it requires, honors,\nand blesses.\n\n\n\n\n  \"LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR.\"\n\nLike unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment--\"_Thou\nshalt love thy neighbor as thyself_.\" \"A certain lawyer,\" who seems\nto have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human\nobligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the\nmeaning of the word \"neighbor\" ought to be confined. \"And who is my\nneighbor?\" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the\nclearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every man\nwhom we could reach with our sympathy and assistance, was our\nneighbor, entitled to the same regard which we cherished for\nourselves. Consistently with such obligations, can _slavery,\nas a_ RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a _labor of love_--such\nlove as we cherish for ourselves--to strip a child of Adam of all the\nprerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birthright? To\nobscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his\nimmortality?--To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the\nheart of his heart?--To thrust him out of the human family, and\ndispose of him as a chattel--as a thing in the hands of an owner, a\nbeast under the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing\nincidental and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which\nslavery, as such, consists. All this--well fed or ill fed,\nunderwrought or overwrought, clothed or naked, caressed or kicked,\nwhether idle songs break from his thoughtless tongue or \"tears be his\nmeat night and day,\" fondly cherished or cruelly murdered;--_all this_\nENTERS VITALLY INTO THE RELATION ITSELF, _by which every slave_, AS A\nSLAVE, _is set apart from the rest of the human family_. Is it an\nexercise of love, to place our \"neighbor\" under the crushing\nweight, the killing power, of such a relation?--to apply the\nmurderous steel to the very vitals of his humanity?\n\n  \"YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS;\n  FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES.\"[19]\n\nThe slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is\nchargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly allege, that\nhe is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed.\nSlavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his\ninheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But\nwhy will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and\nrapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and\nreligion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to\ncatch him with their wretched sophistries?--and devour him, body,\nsoul, and substance? Let him know, as he must one day with shame and\nterror own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for\n_the relation_, into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he\nthus enters. _The relation cannot be forced upon him_. What though\nElizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of\nAfrica?--what though James, and Charles, and George, opened a market\nfor them in the English colonies?--what though modern Dracos have\n\"framed mischief by law,\" in legalizing man-stealing and\nslaveholding?--what though your ancestors, in preparing to go\n\"to their own place,\" constituted you the owner of the \"neighbors\"\nwhom they had used as cattle?--what of all this, and as much more like\nthis, as can be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by\nwhich men are \"deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be\n_chattels personal_?\" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the\nclimax--to clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in\nthe work of slave-making would be attempted? _The slaveholder is the\nsoul of the whole system_. Without him, the chattel principle is a\nlifeless abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws,\nand testaments, are empty names. And does _he_ think to escape\nresponsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers,\nare nothing but his _agents_. He is the guilty _principal_. Let him\nlook to it.\n\n[Footnote 19: You join with them in their bloody work. They murder,\nand you bury the victims.]\n\n\nBut what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his \"neighbor's\" throat.\nLet him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel\nprinciple is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of\nderision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten\nits bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue;\nwhatever may betide him--scorn, flight, flames--let him promptly and\nsteadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath\nof Heaven! \"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it\nfrom thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members\nshould perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.\"\n\nProfessor Stewart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great\ncommandment \"decide against the theory of slavery, as being in\nitself right.\" What, then, is their relation to the particular\nprecepts, institutions, and usages, which are authorized and\nenjoined in the New Testament? Of all these, they are the summary\nexpression--the comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible,\nenforcing our mutual obligations, can be more or less than _the\napplication of these injunctions to specific relations or particular\noccasions and conditions_. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New,\ndo prophets teach or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule\nand the second great command do not contain.  Whatever they forbid,\nno other precept can require; and whatever they require, no other\nprecept can forbid. What, then, does he attempt, who turns over the\nsacred pages to find something in the way of permission or command,\nwhich may set him free from the obligations of the Golden Rule? What\nmust his objects, methods, spirit be, to force him to enter upon\nsuch inquiries?--to compel him to search the Bible for such a purpose?\nCan he have good intentions, or be well employed? Is his frame of\nmind adapted to the study of the Bible?--to make its meaning plain\nand welcome? What must he think of God, to search his word in quest\nof gross inconsistencies, and grave contradictions! Inconsistent\nlegislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions at war\nwith prohibitions! General requirements at variance with particular\narrangements!\n\nWhat must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden\nRule decides against?--which the second great command condemns?\n_It cannot but be wicked_, whether newly established or long\nmaintained. However it may be shaped, turned, colored--under every\nmodification and at all times--_wickedness must be its proper\ncharacter. It must be_, IN ITSELF, _apart from its circumstances_,\nIN ITS ESSENCE, _apart from its incidents_, SINFUL.\n\n\n            \"THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES,\n              WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER.\"\n\nIn disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a\nspecific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important,\nnay, absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects\naround us from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take\nat some central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental\nprecepts, the known circumstances and characteristic arrangements,\nof primitive Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false\nconclusions will be the result of our studies. We cannot, therefore,\nbe too earnest in trying to catch the general features and prevalent\nspirit of the New Testament institutions and arrangements. For to\nwhat conclusions must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our\ninquiries under the bias of the prejudice, that the general maxims\nof social life which now prevail in this country, were current, on\nthe authority of the Savior, among the primitive Christians! That,\nfor instance, wealth, station, talents, are the standard by which our\nclaims upon, and our regard for, others, should be modified?--That\nthose who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease, tasked in\nmenial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of the\nartificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing\nand elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be\nexpected to exert; that thus they are to constitute a class by\nthemselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very\nbottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the\nprimitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as\nHeaven has lavished upon the American churches?--as if they were as\nremarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had\nas high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and\nliterature?--having directly or indirectly, the control over the\nhigh places of learning and of power?\n\nIf we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments--if we\nshould explain words and interpret language--under such a bias, what\nmust inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our\nconclusions? What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we\nmight undertake to furnish? And is not this the way in which the\nadvocates and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which\nprimitive Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly,\nperhaps, to the primitive churches; the character, relations, and\ncondition of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and\nstrange confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language\nand explaining the usages of the New Testament!\n\n\n\n                \"SO THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE.\"\n\nAmong the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having a\ngeneral bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up\nthe _true standard of greatness_, deserves particular attention. In\nrepressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the\nmethods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be\ngratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the\nclearest light. \"Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over\nthe Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones\nexercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but\nwhosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister; _and\nwhosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all_.\" In\nother words, through the selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim\nwidely prevails in the world, that it is the privilege, prerogative,\nand mark of greatness, TO EXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to\nothers, while it authorizes us to relax the exertion of our own\npowers, gives us a fair title to the use of theirs; that \"might,\"\nwhile it exempts us from serving, \"gives the right\" to be served.\nThe instructions of the Savior open the way to greatness for us in\nthe opposite direction. Superiority to others, in whatever it may\nconsist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion, and demands\nof us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we _are\nuseful_. And \"might gives right\" to bless our fellow men, by\nimproving every opportunity and employing every faculty,\naffectionately, earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus\nthe greater the man, the more active, faithful, and useful the\nservant.\n\nThe Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied.\nHe bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even\nthrough the most menial services, in blessing the human family. And\nto make this lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts,\nhe embodied in it a most instructive and attractive example. On a\nmemorable occasion, and just before his crucifixion, he discharged\nfor his disciples the most menial of all offices--taking, _in\nwashing their feet_, the place of the lowest servant. He took great\npains to make them understand, that only by imitating this example\ncould they honor their relations to him as their Master; that thus\nonly would they find themselves blessed. By what possibility could\nslavery exist under the influence of such a lesson, set home by such\nan example? _Was it while washing the disciples' feet, that our\nSavior authorized one man to make a chattel of another_?\n\nTo refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul\nteaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the\nThessalonian Christians, that in addition to all his official\nexertions he had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls\ntheir attention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical\nauthority, \"that if any would not work, neither should he eat.\" In\nthe most earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord\nJesus Christ, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful\nlabor, \"_with quietness to work and eat their own bread_.\" What must\nbe the bearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained\nwhere every man eat the bread which himself had earned?--where\nidleness was esteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of\nstarvation as a punishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted,\nor used, or needed? Must not every one in such a community\ncontribute his share to the general welfare?--and mutual service and\nmutual support be the natural result?\n\nThe same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true\nsource whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. \"Let him\nthat stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his\nhands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that\nneedeth.\" Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed\nthroughout the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be\nuniversally welcomed and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up\nwhat they had stolen to the lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and\nbegin at once to \"labor, working with their hands,\" for necessary\nand charitable purposes. Could slavery, in such a case, continue to\nexist? Surely not! Instead of exacting unpaid services from others,\nevery man would be busy, exerting himself not only to provide for\nhis own wants, but also to accumulate funds, \"that he might have to\ngive to\" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root and branch, at once\nand forever.\n\nIn describing the source whence his ministers should expect their\nsupport, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an\nobvious and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would\nhave them remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of\ntheir fellow men, that \"the laborer is worthy of his hire.\" He has\nthus united wages with work. Whoever renders the one is entitled to\nthe other. And this manifestly according to a mutual understanding\nand a voluntary arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you\nto work for me for whatever consideration I may please to fix upon,\nfairly opens the way for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force\nme to render you whatever wages you may choose to exact for any\nservices you may see fit to render. Thus slavery, even as\ninvoluntary servitude, is cut up by the root. Even the Princeton\nprofessor seems to regard it as a violation of the principle which\nunites work with wages.\n\nThe apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual\nlaborers--of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He\ncalls the rich lordlings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to\n\"weeping and howling,\" assuring them that the complaints of\nthe injured laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts,\nand that, as a result of their oppression, their riches were\ncorrupted, and their garments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were\ncankered; that the rust of them should be a witness against them,\nand should eat their flesh as it were fire; that, in one word, they\nhad heaped treasures together for the last days, when \"miseries were\ncoming upon them,\" the prospect of which might well drench them in\ntears and fill them with terror. If these admonitions and warnings\nwere heeded there, would not \"the South\" break forth into \"weeping\nand wailing, and gnashing of teeth?\" What else are its rich men about,\nbut withholding by a system of fraud, his wages from the laborer,\nwho is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear, in cultivating\ntheir fields and producing their luxuries! Encouragement and support\ndo they derive from James, in maintaining the \"peculiar institution\"\nwhich they call patriarchal, and boast of as the \"corner-stone\" of\nthe republic?\n\nIn the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction,\n\"_Honor all men_.\" Under this broad precept, every form of humanity\nmay justly claim protection and respect. The invasion of any human\nright must do dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this\ncommand. How then, in the light of such obligations, must slavery be\nregarded? Are those men honored, who are rudely excluded from a\nplace in the human family, and shut up to the deep degradation and\nnameless horrors of chattelship? _Can they be held as slaves, and at\nthe same time be honored as men_?\n\nHow far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from\nthe admonitions and instructions which James applies to the\narrangements and usages of religious assemblies. Into these he can\nnot allow \"respect of persons\" to enter. \"My brethren,\" he exclaims,\n\"have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory,\nwith respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a\nman with a gold ring, in goodly apparel; and there come in also\na poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth\nthe gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place;\nand say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool;\nare ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil\nthoughts?\" _If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are\nconvinced of the law as transgressors_. On this general principle,\nthen, religious assemblies ought to be regulated--that every man is\nto be estimated, not according to his _circumstances_--not according\nto anything incidental to his _condition_; but according to his _moral\nworth_--according to the essential features and vital elements of his\n_character_. Gold rings and gay clothing, as they qualify no man for,\ncan entitle no man to, a \"good place\" in the church. Nor can the\n\"vile raiment of the poor man,\" fairly exclude him from any sphere,\nhowever exalted, which his heart and head may fit him to fill. To\ndeny this, in theory or practice, is to degrade a man below a thing;\nfor what are gold rings, or gay clothing, or vile raiment, but things,\n\"which perish with the using?\" And this must be \"to commit sin, and\nbe convinced of the law as transgressor.\"\n\nIn slavery, we have \"respect of persons,\" strongly marked, and\nreduced to system. Here men are despised not merely for \"the vile\nraiment,\" which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough.\nBut the deepest contempt of humanity here grows out of birth or\ncomplexion. Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence,\nor improvidence, or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of\ncharacter. But how can I be responsible for the incidents of my\nbirth?--how for my complexion? To despise or honor me for these, is to\nbe guilty of \"respect of persons\" in its grossest form, and with its\nworst effects. It is to reward or punish me for what I had nothing\nto do with; for which, therefore, I cannot, without the greatest\ninjustice, be held responsible. It is to poison the very fountains\nof justice, by confounding all moral distinctions. What, then, so\nfar as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of\nslavery, which cannot be maintained under any form nor for a single\nmoment, without \"respect of persons\" the most aggravated and\nunendurable? And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and\nwicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshippers\nof a dark complexion are to be sent up to the negro pew?[20]\n\n[Footnote 20: In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we\nhave the following anecdote illustrative of the character of a\n\"grandmother\" of the Count. \"Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately\ntowards the church font; another dame striking in to take precedence\nof her; the dame Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the\near, and these words, '_Here, as in the army_, THE BAGGAGE _goes\nlast_!'\" Let those who justify the negro-pew arrangement, throw\na stone at this proud woman--if they dare.]\n\nNor are we permitted to confine this principle to religious\nassemblies. It is to pervade social life everywhere. Even where\nplenty, intelligence and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays,\nthe poor are to be welcomed with especial favor. \"Then said he to\nhim that bade him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not\nthy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich\nneighbors, lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made\nthee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor and the maimed,\nthe lame and the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot\nrecompense thee, but thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection\nof the just.\"\n\nIn the high places of social life then--in the parlor, the\ndrawing-room, the saloon--special reference should be had, in every\narrangement, to the comfort and improvement of those who are least\nable to provide for the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these,\nample accommodations must be made, whatever may become of our\nkinsmen and rich neighbors. And for this good reason, that while\nsuch occasions signify little to the latter, to the former they are\npregnant with good--raising their drooping spirits, cheering their\ndesponding hearts, inspiring them with life, and hope, and joy. The\nrich and the poor thus meeting joyfully together, cannot but\nmutually contribute to each other's benefit; the rich will be led to\nmoderation, sobriety, and circumspection, and the poor to industry,\nprovidence, and contentment. The recompense must be great and sure.\n\nA most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which\nthese things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He\nfreely mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of\nsociety. At the tables of the outcasts of society he did not\nhesitate to be a cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners.\nAnd when flouted and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics,\nas an ultraist and leveler, he explained and justified himself by\nobserving, that he had only done what his office demanded. It was\nhis to seek the lost, to heal the sick, to pity the wretched;--in a\nword, to bestow just such benefits as the various necessities of\nmankind made appropriate and welcome. In his great heart, there was\nroom enough for those who had been excluded from the sympathy of\nlittle souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel overlooked\nnone--least of all, the outcasts of a selfish world.\n\nCan slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel?--a\ngospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social\nlife, to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our\nwarmest sympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor\nof the world?\n\nThose who are in \"bonds\" are set before us as deserving an especial\nremembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modification of\nthe Golden Rule--as one of the many forms to which its obligations\nare reducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard\nas we would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were\nfastened upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved\nhave a natural claim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they\nsuffer spring from a persecution which can hardly be surpassed in\nmalignancy. Their birth and complexion are the occasion of the\ninsults and injuries which they can neither endure nor escape. It is\nfor _the work of God_, and not their own deserts, that they are\nloaded with chains. _This is persecution_.\n\nCan I regard the slave as another self--can I put myself in his\nplace--and be indifferent to his wrongs? Especially, can I, thus\naffected, take sides with the oppressor? Could I, in such a state of\nmind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or\nkeep him in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally\nsubversive of every system and every form of slavery?\n\nThe general descriptions of the church, which are found here and\nthere in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing\non the subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words\nmeet the eye: \"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond\nnor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in\nChrist Jesus.\"[21] Here we have--\n\n  1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of _human\n  equality_. \"Ye are all ONE;\"--so much alike, so truly placed on\n  common ground, all wielding each his own powers with such freedom,\n  _that one is the same as another_.\n\n  2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on\n  divine authority. \"IN CHRIST JESUS, _ye are all one_.\" The natural\n  equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For--\n\n  3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether\n  men or women, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all\n  are alike entitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Whether\n  Christianity prevails, the _artificial_ distinctions which grow out\n  of birth, condition, sex, are done away. _Natural_ distinctions are\n  not destroyed. _They_ are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The\n  gospel does not abolish the sexes, forbid a division of labor, or\n  extinguish patriotism. It takes woman from beneath the feet, and\n  places her by the side of man; delivers the manual laborer from\n  \"the yoke,\" and gives him wages for his work; and brings the Jew and\n  the Gentile to embrace each other with fraternal love and confidence.\n  Thus it raises all to a common level, gives to each the free use of\n  his own powers and resources, binds all together in one dear and\n  loving brotherhood. Such, according to the description of the apostle,\n  was the influence, and such the effect of primitive Christianity.\n  \"Behold the picture!\" Is it like American slavery, which, in all its\n  tendencies and effects, is destructive of all oneness among brethren?\n\n[Footnote 21: Gal. iii. 28.]\n\n\n\"Where the spirit of the Lord is,\" exclaims the same apostle, with\nhis eye upon the condition and relations of the church, \"_where the\nspirit of the Lord is_, THERE IS LIBERTY.\" Where, then, may we\nreverently recognize the presence, and bow before the manifested\npower, of this spirit? _There_, where the laborer may not choose how\nhe shall be employed!--in what way his wants shall be supplied!--with\nwhom he shall associate!--who shall have the fruit of his exertions!\n_There_, where he is not free to enjoy his wife and children!\n_There_, where his body and his soul, his very \"destiny,\"[22]\nare placed altogether beyond his control! _There_, where every\npower is crippled, every energy blasted, every hope crushed! _There_,\nwhere in all the relations and concerns of life, he is legally\ntreated as if he had nothing to do with the laws of reason, the\nlight of immortality, or the exercise of will! Is the spirit of the\nLord _there_, where liberty is decried and denounced, mocked at and\nspit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church which\njustified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which\ncarried on its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle\nhave found the fruits of the Spirit of the Lord! Let that Spirit\nexert his influences, and assert his authority, and wield his power,\nand slavery must vanish at once and for ever.\n\n[Footnote 22: \"The legislature (of South Carolina) from time to time,\nhas passed many restricted and penal acts, with a view to bring\nunder direct control and subjection the DESTINY of the black\npopulation.\" See the Remonstrance of James S. Pope and 352 others\nagainst home missionary efforts for the benefit of the enslaved--a\nmost instructive paper.]\n\n\nIn more than one connection, the apostle James describes Christianity\nas \"_the law of liberty_.\" It is, in other words, the law under\nwhich liberty cannot but live and flourish--the law in which liberty\nis clearly defined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law\nof liberty, how can it be consistent with the law of slavery? The\npresence and the power of this law are felt wherever the light of\nreason shines. They are felt in the uneasiness and conscious\ndegradation of the slave, and in the shame and remorse which the\nmaster betrays in his reluctant and desperate efforts to defend\nhimself. This law it is which has armed human nature against the\noppressor. Wherever it is obeyed, \"every yoke is broken.\"\n\nIn these references to the New Testament we have a _general\ndescription_ of the primitive church, and the _principles_ on which\nit was founded and fashioned. These principles bear the same\nrelation to Christian _history_ as to Christian _character_, since\nthe former is occupied with the development of the latter. What then\nis Christian character but Christian principle _realized_, acted out,\nbodied forth, and animated? Christian principle is the soul, of\nwhich Christian character is the expression--the manifestation. It\ncomprehends in itself, as a living seed, such Christian character,\nunder every form, modification, and complexion. The former is,\ntherefore, the test and interpreter of the latter. In the light of\nChristian principle, and in that light only we can judge of and\nexplain Christian character. Christian history is occupied with the\nforms, modifications, and various aspects of Christian character.\nThe facts which are there recorded serve to show, how Christian\nprinciple has fared in this world--how it has appeared, what it has\ndone, how it has been treated. In these facts we have the various\ninstitutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church\nof Christ. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to\nChristian principle. They are the production of its power. Through\nthem, it is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be\nstudied, explained, and understood. Without it they must be as\nunintelligible and insignificant as the letters of a book scattered\non the wind.\n\nIn the principles of Christianity, then, we have a comprehensive and\nfaithful account of its objects, institutions, and usages--of how it\nmust behave, and act, and suffer, in a world of sin and misery. For\nbetween the principles which God reveals, on the one hand, and the\nprecepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages\nhe approves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony.\nOtherwise we impute to God what we must abhor in man--practice at war\nwith principle. Does the Savior, then, lay down the _principle_ that\nour standing in the church must depend upon the habits formed within\nus, of readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and\npermit us _in practice_ to invade the rights and trample on the\nhappiness of our fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he,\n_in principle_ and by example, require us to go all lengths in\nrendering mutual service, or comprehending offices that most menial,\nas well as the most honorable; and permit us _in practice_ to EXACT\nservice of our brethren, as if they were nothing better than\n\"articles of merchandize!\" Does he require us _in principle_\n\"to work with quietness and eat our own bread;\" and permit us\n_in practice_ to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their\nunrequited toil? Does he _in principle_ require us, abstaining from\nevery form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only\nto provide for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others;\nand permit us _in practice_, abstaining from every form of labor, to\nenrich and aggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing?\nDoes he require us _in principle_ to regard \"the laborer as worthy\nof his hire\"; and permit us _in practice_ to defraud him of his wages?\nDoes he require us _in principle_ to honor ALL men; and permit us\n_in practice_ to treat multitudes like cattle? Does he _in\nprinciple_ prohibit \"respect of persons;\" and permit us _in practice_\nto place the feet of the rich upon the necks of the poor? Does he\n_in principle_ require us to sympathize with the bondman as\nanother self; and permit us _in practice_ to leave him unpitied and\nunhelped in the hands of the oppressor? _In principle_, \"where the\nSpirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;\" _in practice_, is _slavery_\nthe fruit of the Spirit? _In principle_, Christianity is the law of\nliberty; _in practice_, it is the law of slavery? Bring practice in\nthese various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes\nof slavery? And if, where the divine government is concerned,\npractice is the expression of principle, and principle the standard\nand interpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained\nand must be asserted. In studying, therefore, fragments of history\nand sketches of biography--in disposing of references to institutions,\nusages, and facts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony\nbetween principle and practice in the government _of God_, should be\ncontinually present to the thoughts of the interpreter. Principles\nassert what practice must be. Whatever principle condemns, God\ncondemns. It belongs to those weeds of the dung-hill which, planted\nby \"an enemy,\" his hand will assuredly \"root up.\" It is most certain\nthen, that if slavery prevailed in the first ages of Christianity,\nit could nowhere have prevailed under its influence and with its\nsanction.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe condition in which in its efforts to bless mankind, the\nprimitive church was placed, must have greatly assisted the early\nChristians in understanding and applying the principles of the gospel.\nTheir _Master_ was born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest\npoverty, and died the most ignominious death. The place of his\nresidence, his familiarity with the outcasts of society, his\nwelcoming assistance and support from female hands, his casting his\nbeloved mother, when he hung upon the cross, upon the charity of a\ndisciple--such things evince the depth of his poverty, and show to\nwhat derision and contempt he must have been exposed. Could such an\none, \"despised and rejected of men--a man of sorrows and acquainted\nwith grief,\" play the oppressor, or smile on those who made\nmerchandize of the poor!\n\nAnd what was the history of the _apostles_, but an illustration of\nthe doctrine, that \"it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his\nMaster?\" Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth,\nshining with splendor, bloated with luxury! Were they ambitious of\ndistinction, fleecing, and trampling, and devouring \"the flocks,\"\nthat they themselves might \"have the pre-eminence!\" Were they\nslaveholding bishops! Or did they derive their support from the\nwages of iniquity and the price of blood! Can such inferences be\ndrawn from the account of their condition, which the most gifted and\nenterprising of their number has put upon record? \"Even unto this\npresent hour, we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and _are\nbuffetted_, and have _no certain dwelling place, and labor working\nwith our own hands_. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we\nsuffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as _the filth of\nthe world_, and are THE OFFSCOURING OF ALL THINGS unto this day.\"[23]\nAre these the men who practised or countenanced slavery? _With\nsuch a temper, they_ WOULD NOT; _in such circumstances, they_ COULD\nNOT. Exposed to \"tribulation, distress, and persecution;\" subject to\nfamine and nakedness, to peril and the sword; \"killed all the day\nlong; accounted as sheep for the slaughter,\"[24] they would have made\nbut a sorry figure at the _great-house_ or slave-market.\n\n[Footnote 23: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Rom. viii. 35, 36.]\n\n\nNor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of\nthe apostles. The position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to\nthe strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest\npersecution. But derision and contempt must have been the lot of\nChristians generally. Surely we cannot think so ill of primitive\nChristianity as to suppose that believers, generally, refused to\nshare in the trials and sufferings of their leaders; as to suppose\nthat while the leaders submitted to manual labor, to buffeting, to be\nreckoned the filth of the world, to be accounted as sheep for the\nslaughter, his brethren lived in affluence, ease, and honor!\ndespising manual labor and living upon the sweat of unrequited toil!\nBut on this point we are not left to mere inference and conjecture.\nThe apostle Paul in the plainest language explains the ordination of\nHeaven. \"But _God hath_ CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to\nconfound the wise; and God hath CHOSEN the weak things of the world\nto confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world,\nand things which are despised hath God CHOSEN, yea, and THINGS WHICH\nARE NOT, to bring to nought things that are.\"[25] Here we may well\nnotice,\n\n  1. That it was not by _accident_, that the primitive churches were\n  made up of such elements, but the result of the DIVINE CHOICE--an\n  arrangement of His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is\n  natural, that this ordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of\n  Christianity. It was nothing new or strange, that Jehovah had\n  concealed his glory \"from the wise and prudent, and had revealed it\n  unto babes,\" or that \"the common people heard him gladly,\" while\n  \"not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,\n  had been called.\"\n\n  2. The description of character, which the apostle records, could be\n  adapted only to what are reckoned the _very dregs of humanity_. The\n  foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the\n  estimation of worldly pride and wisdom--these were they whose broken\n  hearts were reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel; these\n  were they whom the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren.\n\n[Footnote 25: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.]\n\n\nThat _slaves_ abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. _They_\nhave a place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to\nthe apostle, the church there was composed. The most remarkable\nclass found there, consisted of \"THINGS WHICH ARE NOT\"--mere nobodies,\nnot admitted to the privileges of men, but degraded to a level with\n\"goods and chattels;\" of whom _no account_ was made in such\narrangements of society as subserved the improvement, and dignity,\nand happiness of MANKIND. How accurately the description applies to\nthose who are crushed under the chattel principle!\n\nThe reference which the apostle makes to the \"deep poverty of the\nchurches of Macedonia,\"[26] and this to stir up the sluggish\nliberality of his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the\nimpression, that the latter were by no means inferior to the former\nin the gifts of Providence. But, pressed with want and pinched by\npoverty as were the believers in \"Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased\nthem to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which were\nat Jerusalem.\"[27] Thus it appears, that Christians everywhere were\nfamiliar with contempt and indigence, so much so, that the apostle\nwould dissuade such as had no families from assuming the\nresponsibilities of the conjugal relation![28]\n\n[Footnote 26: 2 Cor. viii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Rom. xviii. 18-25.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Cor. vii. 26, 27.]\n\nNow, how did these good people treat each other? Did the few among\nthem, who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their\ninfluence and employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing\nof the \"things that are not,\" as marketable commodities!--kneeling\nwith them in prayer in the evening, and putting them up at auction\nthe next morning! Did the church sell any of the members to swell\nthe \"certain contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem!\" Far\nother wise--as far as possible! In those Christian communities where\nthe influence of the apostles was most powerful, and where the\narrangements drew forth their highest commendations, believers\ntreated each other as _brethren_, in the strongest sense of that\nsweet word. So warm was their mutual love, so strong the public\nspirit, so open-handed and abundant the general liberality, that\nthey are set forth as \"_having all things common_.\"[29] Slaves and\ntheir holders here? Neither the one nor the other could, in that\nrelation to each other, have breathed such an atmosphere. The appeal\nof the kneeling bondman, \"Am I not a man and a brother,\" must here\nhave met with a prompt and powerful response.\n\n[Footnote 29: Acts, iv. 32.]\n\n\nThe _tests_ by which our Savior tries the character of his professed\ndisciples, shed a strong light upon the genius of the gospel. In one\nconnection,[30] an inquirer demands of the Savior, \"What good thing\nshall I do that I may have eternal life?\" After being reminded of the\nobligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured,\nwhile claiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to\ndemand, \"what lack I yet?\" The radical deficiency under which his\ncharacter labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out.\n\"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the\npoor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.\"\nOn this passage it is natural to suggest--\n\n  1. That we have here a _test of universal application_. The\n  rectitude and benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to\n  suppose, that he would subject this inquirer, especially as he was\n  highly amiable, to a trial, where eternal life was at stake,\n  _peculiarly_ severe. Indeed, the test seems to have been only a fair\n  exposition of the second great command, and of course it must be\n  applicable to all who are placed under the obligations of that\n  precept. Those who cannot stand this test, as their character is\n  radically imperfect and unsound, must, with the inquirer to whom\n  our Lord applied it, be pronounced unfit for the kingdom of heaven.\n\n  2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood to\n  demand is, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to\n  the welfare of mankind, \"the poor\" especially. We are to put\n  ourselves on a level with _them_, as we must do \"in selling that we\n  have\" for their benefit--in other words, in employing our powers and\n  resources to elevate their character, condition, and prospects. This\n  our Savior did; and if we refuse to enter into sympathy and\n  co-operation with him, how can we be his _followers_? Apply this\n  test to the slaveholder. Instead of \"selling that he hath\" for the\n  benefit of the poor, he BUYS THE POOR, and exacts their sweat with\n  stripes, to enable him to \"clothe himself in purple and fine linen,\n  and fare sumptuously every day;\" or, HE SELLS THE POOR to support\n  the gospel and convert the heathen!\n\n[Footnote 30: Luke, xviii. 18-25.]\n\n\nWhat, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Savior\nteach us? _By what standard_ must our character be estimated, and the\nretributions of eternity be awarded? A standard, which both the\nrighteous and the wicked will be surprised to see erected. From the\n\"offscouring of all things,\" the meanest specimen of humanity will\nbe selected--a \"stranger\" in the hands of the oppressor, naked,\nhungry, sickly; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the\nassembled universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be\nopenly acknowledged as his representative. \"Glory, honor, and\nimmortality,\" will be the reward of those who had recognized and\ncheered their Lord through his outraged poor. And tribulation,\nanguish, and despair, will seize on \"every soul of man\" who had\nneglected or despised them. But whom, within the limits of our\ncountry, are we to regard especially as the representatives of our\nfinal Judge? Every feature of the Savior's picture finds its\nappropriate original in our enslaved countrymen.\n\n\n  1. They are the LEAST of his brethren.\n\n  2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to command a cup\n     of water or a crumb of bread.\n\n  3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to\n     procure a nurse or employ a physician.\n\n  4. They are emphatically \"in prison,\" restrained by chains, goaded\n     with whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any\n     cell of the prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement\n     so vigorous and heartbreaking as the law allows theirs to be\n     continually and permanently.\n\n  5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively,\n     STRANGERS--_strangers_ in the land which gave them birth. Whom\n     else do we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free\n     institutions? The Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even?\n     Alas, it is the _negro_ only, who may not strike his roots into\n     our soil. Every where we have conspired to treat him as a\n     stranger--every where he is forced to feel himself a stranger. In\n     the stage and steamboat, in the parlor and at our tables, in the\n     scenes of business and in the scenes of amusement--even in the\n     church of God and at the communion table, he is regarded as a\n     stranger. The intelligent and religious are generally disgusted\n     and horror-struck at the thought of his becoming identified with\n     the citizens of our republic--so much so, that thousands of them\n     have entered into a conspiracy to send him off \"out of sight,\" to\n     find a home on a foreign shore!--and justify themselves by openly\n     alleging, that a \"single drop\" of his blood, in the veins of any\n     human creature, must make him hateful to his fellow\n     citizens!--That nothing but banishment from \"our coasts,\" can\n     redeem him from the scorn and contempt to which his \"stranger\"\n     blood has reduced him among his own mother's children!\n\nWho, then, in this land \"of milk and honey,\" is \"hungry and athirst,\"\nbut the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of bread and\nthe smallest drop of water?\n\nWho \"naked,\" but the man whom the law strips of the last rag of\nclothing?\n\nWho \"sick,\" but the man whom the law deprives of the power of\nprocuring medicine or sending for a physician?\n\nWho \"in prison,\" but the man who, all his life, is under the control\nof merciless masters and cruel keepers!\n\nWho a \"stranger,\" but the man who is scornfully denied the cheapest\ncourtesies of life--who is treated as an alien in his native country?\n\nThere is one point in this awful description which deserves\nparticular attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the\nJudge, are not charged with inflicting _positive_ injuries on their\nhelpless, needy, and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often\ncalled _negative_ character. What they _had done_ is not described\nin the indictment. Their _neglect_ of duty, what they _had_ NOT\n_done_, was the ground of their \"everlasting punishment.\" The\nrepresentative of their Judge, they had seen a hungered and they\ngave him no meat, thirsty and they gave him no drink, a stranger and\nthey took him not in, naked and they clothed him not, sick and in\nprison and they visited him not. In as much as they did NOT yield to\nthe claims of suffering humanity--did NOT exert themselves to bless\nthe meanest of the human family, they were driven away in their\nwickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was a\nhungered and ye snatched away the crust which might have saved me\nfrom starvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the\n\"cup of cold water,\" which might have moistened my parched lips; I\nwas a stranger and ye drove me from the hovel which might have\nsheltered me from the piercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me\nto my task; in prison and you sold me for my jail-fees--to what\ndepths of hell must not those who were convicted under such charges\nbe consigned! And what is the history of American slavery but one\nlong indictment, describing under ever-varying forms and hues just\nsuch injuries!\n\nNor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure\nof their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past\nhistory. The charges which he brought against them, they heard with\ngreat surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away\nfrom his necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to\npoverty, insult, and oppression? Never. And as to that poor\nfriendless creature, whom they left unpitied and unhelped in the\nhands of the oppressor, and whom their Judge now presented as his\nown representative, they never once supposed, that _he_ had any\nclaims on their compassion and assistance. Had they known, that he\nwas destined to so prominent a place at the final judgment, they\nwould have treated him as a human being, in despite of any social,\npecuniary, or political considerations. But neither their _negative\nvirtue_ nor their _voluntary ignorance_ could shield them from the\npenal fire which their selfishness had kindled.\n\nNow amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the \"great\ncommandments\" of the gospel; amidst its comprehensive descriptions\nand authorized tests of Christian character, we should take our\nposition in disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and\nusages of the primitive churches as are supported by divine authority.\nThe latter must be interpreted and understood in the light of the\nformer. But how do the apologists and defenders of slavery proceed?\nPlacing themselves amidst the arrangements and usages which grew out\nof the _corruptions_ of Christianity, they make these the standard\nby which the gospel is to be explained and understood! Some Recorder\nor Justice. without the light of inquiry or the aid of a jury,\nconsigns the negro whom the kidnapper has dragged into his presence\nto the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch shrieks and faints,\nHumanity shudders and demands why such atrocities are endured. Some\n\"priest\" or \"Levite,\" \"passing by on the other side,\" quite\nself-possessed and all complacent, reads in reply from his broad\nphylactery, _Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! Yes, echoes the\nnegro-hating mob, made up of \"gentlemen of property and standing\"\ntogether with equally gentle-men reeking from the gutter; _Yes--Paul\nsent back Onesimus to Philemon_! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned\nwith noise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen\nthis of the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the\nsacred Scriptures?\n\nOf the particular passages in the New Testament on which the\napologists for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon\nfirst demands our attention.\n\n  1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a \"prisoner of\n  Jesus Christ\" at Rome.\n\n  2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at\n  Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their assemblies,\n  and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indirectly to\n  the ministry of Paul.\n\n  3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it\n  is difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition,\n  though servile, could not have been like that of an American slave;\n  as, in that case, however he might have \"wronged\" Philemon, he could\n  not also have \"owed him ought.\"[31] The American slave is, according\n  to law, as much the property of his master as any other chattel; and\n  can no more \"owe\" his master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis\n  of all pecuniary obligations lies in some \"value received.\" How can\n  \"an article of merchandise\" stand on this basis and sustain\n  commercial relations to its owner? There is no _person_ to offer or\n  promise. _Personality is swallowed up in American slavery_!\n\n  4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine.\n  He and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms.\n  The general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to\n  Philemon, had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left\n  him without repairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts\n  which he owed him. At Rome, by the blessing of God upon the\n  exertions of the apostle, he was brought to reflection and repentance.\n\n  5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he\n  became painfully aware of the injuries he had inflicted on Philemon.\n  He longed for an opportunity for frank confession and full\n  restitution. Having, however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he\n  knew not how to appear in his presence. Under such embarrassments,\n  he naturally sought sympathy and advice of Paul. _His_ influence\n  upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be powerful, especially as an\n  apostle.\n\n  6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the\n  apostle to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and\n  thanksgiving as the good character and useful life of Philemon\n  naturally drew from the heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of\n  the letter. He admits that Onesimus had behaved ill in the service\n  of Philemon; not in running away, for how they had parted with each\n  other is not explained; but in being unprofitable and in refusing to\n  pay the debts[32] which he had contracted. But his character had\n  undergone a radical change. Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness\n  would be his aim and mark his course. And as to any pecuniary\n  obligations which he had violated, the apostle authorized Philemon\n  to put them on his account.[33] Thus a way was fairly opened to the\n  heart of Philemon. And now what does the apostles ask?\n\n  7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus, How? \"Not as a\n  _servant_, but above a _servant_.\"[34] How much above? Philemon was\n  to receive him as \"a son\" of the apostle--\"as a brother\n  beloved\"--nay, if he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to\n  receive Onesimus as he would receive _the apostle himself_.[35] _So\n  much_ above a servant was he to receive him!\n\n  8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with\n  as to put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as \"an article of\n  merchandise,\" CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a\n  \"brother beloved,\" SPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon\n  consistently with the request of Paul have reduced Onesimus to a\n  chattel, as A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom,\n  as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle! Never. As if,\n  however to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and\n  moonshine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to\n  the dignity of a brother beloved, \"BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE\n  LORD;\"[36] as a man and Christian, in all the relations,\n  circumstances, and responsibilities of life.\n\n[Footnote 31: Philemon, 18.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Verse 11, 18.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Verse 18.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Verse 16.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Verse 10, 16, 17.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Verse 16.]\n\nIt is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what\nsense the apostle in such connections uses the word \"_brother_\". It\ndescribes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the _servile_.\nIt is \"NOT\" the relation of a \"SERVANT.\" It elevates its subject\n\"above\" the servile condition. It raises him to full equality with\nthe master, to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood\nside by side as brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined,\nspiritual sense, affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds,\nbut in every way, \"both in the FLESH and in the Lord.\" This matter\ndeserves particular and earnest attention. It sheds a strong light\non other lessons of apostolic instruction.\n\n  9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the\n  apostle clearly defines the _moral character_ of his request. It was\n  fit, proper, right, suited to the nature and relation of things--a\n  thing which _ought_ to be done.[37] On this account, he might have\n  urged it upon Philemon in the form of an _injunction_, on apostolic\n  authority and with great boldness.[38] _The very nature_ of the\n  request made it obligatory on Philemon. He was sacredly bound, out\n  of regard to the fitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full\n  equality with himself--to treat him as a brother both in the Lord\n  and as having flesh--as a fellow man. Thus were the inalienable\n  rights and birthright privileges of Onesimus, as a member of the\n  human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority.\n\n  10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command,\n  on the ground of CHARITY.[39] He would give Philemon an opportunity\n  of discharging his obligations under the impulse of love. To this\n  impulse, he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield.\n  How could he do otherwise? The thing itself was right. The request\n  respecting it came from a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was\n  under the highest obligations.[40] That benefactor, now an old man,\n  and in the hands of persecutors, manifested a deep and tender\n  interest in the matter and had the strongest persuasion that\n  Philemon was more ready to grant than himself to entreat. The result,\n  as he was soon to visit Collosse, and had commissioned Philemon to\n  prepare a lodging for him, must come under the eye of the apostle.\n  The request was so manifestly reasonable and obligatory, that the\n  apostle, after all, described a compliance with it, by the strong\n  word \"_obedience_.\"[41]\n\n[Footnote 37: Verse 8. To [Greek: anaekon]. See Robinson's New\nTestament Lexicon; \"_it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought_.\" In\nwhat sense King James' translators used the word \"convenient\" any\none may see who will read Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Verse 8.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Verse 9--[Greek: dia taen agapaen]]\n\n[Footnote 40: Verse 19.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Verse 21.]\n\n\nNow, how must all this have been understood by the church at Colosse?\n--a church, doubtless, made up of such materials as the church at\nCorinth, that is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks of life.\nMany of them had probably felt the degradation and tasted the\nbitterness of the servile condition. Would they have been likely to\ninterpret the apostle's letter under the bias of feelings friendly to\nslavery!--And put the slaveholder's construction on its contents!\nWould their past experience or present sufferings--for doubtless\nsome of them were still \"under the yoke\"--have suggested to their\nthoughts such glosses as some of our theological professors venture\nto put upon the words of the apostle! Far otherwise. The Spirit of\nthe Lord was there, and the epistle was read in the light of\n\"_liberty_.\" It contained the principles of holy freedom, faithfully\nand affectionately applied. This must have made it precious in the\neyes of such men \"of low degree\" as were most of the believers, and\nwelcome to a place in the sacred canon. There let it remain as a\nluminous and powerful defence of the cause of emancipation!\n\nBut what saith Professor Stuart? \"If any one doubts, let him take\nthe case of Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology\nfor his running away, and sending him back to be his servant for\nlife.\"[42]\n\n[Footnote 42: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 8]\n\n\n\"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon.\" By what process? Did the\napostle, a prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him\nbefore some heartless and perfidious \"Judge,\" for authority to send\nhim back to Colosse? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence\nof the fat and supple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the\nlash to the field of unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had the\napostle been like some teachers in the American churches, he might,\nas a professor of sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a\npreacher of the gospel to the rich in some of our cities, have consented\nthus to subserve the \"peculiar\" interests of a dear slaveholding brother.\nBut the venerable champion of truth and freedom was himself under\nbonds in the imperial city, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He\nwrote a letter to the church a Colosse, which was accustomed to meet\nat the house of Philemon, and another letter to that magnanimous\ndisciple, and sent them by the hand of Onesimus. So much for _the way_\nin which Onesimus was sent back to his master.\n\n\nA slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in\nthe parish of the Connecticut doctor of Divinity, who once gave\npublic notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of\nhis fellow men.[43] Under his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian\nconvert. Burning with love for the son whom he hath begotten in the\ngospel, our doctor resolves to send him back to his master.\nAccordingly, he writes a letter, gives it to Caesar, and bids him\nreturn, staff in hand, to the \"corner-stone of our republican\ninstitutions.\" Now, what would my Caesar do, who had ever felt a\nlink of slavery's chain? As he left his _spiritual father_, should\nwe be surprised to hear him say to himself, What, return of my own\naccord to the man who, with the hand of a robber, plucked me from my\nmother's bosom!--for whom I have been so often drenched in the sweat\nof unrequited toil!--whose violence so often cut my flesh and\nscarred my limbs!--who shut out every ray of light from my mind!--who\nlaid claim to those honors to which my Creator and Redeemer only\nare entitled! And for what am I to return? To be cursed, and\nsmitten, and sold! To be tempted, and torn, and destroyed! I cannot\nthus throw myself away--thus rush upon my own destruction.\n\n[Footnote 43: \"Why should I care?\"]\n\n\nWho ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American\noppression? Do you think that the doctor and his friends could\npersuade one to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had\nescaped? And must we believe this of Onesimus?\n\n\"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon.\" On what occasion?--\"If,\"\nwrites the apostle, \"he hath wronged thee, or oweth the aught, put\nthat on my account.\" Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus would\n\"restore\" whatever he \"had taken away.\" He would honestly pay his\ndebts. This resolution the apostle warmly approved. He was ready, at\nwhatever expense, to help his young disciple in carrying it into\nfull effect. Of this he assured Philemon, in language the most\nexplicit and emphatic. Here we find one reason for the conduct of\nPaul in sending Onesimus to Philemon.\n\nIf a fugitive slave of the Rev. Dr. Smylie, of Mississippi, should\nreturn to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New York,\ncontaining such an assurance, how would the reverend slaveholder\ndispose of it? What, he exclaims, have we here? \"If Cato has not\nbeen upright in his pecuniary intercourse with you--if he owes you\nany thing--put that on my account.\" What ignorance of southern\ninstitutions! What mockery, to talk of pecuniary intercourse between\na slave and his master! _The slave himself, with all he is and has,\nis an article of merchandise_. What can _he_ owe his master? A\nrustic may lay a wager with his mule, and give the creature the peck\nof oats which he has permitted it to win. But who, in sober earnest,\nwould call this a pecuniary transaction?\n\n\"TO BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE!\" From what part of the epistle could\nthe expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants--so\nrevolting to every man who loves his own nature? From this?\n\"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst\nreceive him for ever.\" Receive him how? _As a servant_, exclaims our\ncommentator. But what wrote the apostle? \"NOT _now as a servant, but\nabove a servant_, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much\nmore unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord.\" Who authorized\nthe professor to bereave the word \"_not_\" of its negative influence?\nAccording to Paul, Philemon was to receive Onesimus \"_not_ as a\nservant;\"--according to Stuart, he was to receive him \"_as a\nservant_!\" If the professor will apply the same rules of exposition\nto the writings of the abolitionists, all difference between him and\nthem must in his view presently vanish away. The harmonizing process\nwould be equally simple and effectual. He has only to understand\nthem as affirming what they deny, and as denying what they affirm.\n\nSuppose that Professor Stuart had a son residing, at the South. His\nslave, having stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He\nfled to Andover, to find a refuge among the \"sons of the prophets.\"\nThere he finds his way to Professor Stuart's house, and offers to\nrender any service which the professor, dangerously ill \"of a typhus\nfever,\" might require. He is soon found to be a most active, skilful,\nfaithful nurse. He spares no pains, night and day, to make himself\nuseful to the venerable sufferer. He anticipates every want. In the\nmost delicate and tender manner, he tries to sooth every pain. He\nfastens himself strongly on the heart of the reverend object of his\ncare. Touched with the heavenly spirit, the meek demeanor, the\nsubmissive frame, which the sick bed exhibits, Archy becomes a\nChristian. A new bond now ties him and his convalescent teacher\ntogether. As soon as he is able to write, the professor sends Archy\nwith the following letter to the South, to Isaac Stuart, Esq.:--\n\n\"MY DEAR SON,--With a hand enfeebled by a distressing and dangerous\nillness, from which I am slowly recovering, I address you on a\nsubject which lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge,\nwhich our mutual relation to each other, and your strong obligations\nto me, will, I cannot doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a\nrequest, though the thing I ask is, in its very nature and on the\nprinciples of the gospel, obligatory upon you. I might, therefore,\nboldly demand, what I earnestly entreat. But I know how generous,\nmagnanimous, and Christ-like you are, and how readily you will 'do\neven more than I say'--I, your own father, an old man, almost\nexhausted with multiplied exertions for the benefit of my family and\nmy country and now just rising, emaciated and broken, from the brink\nof the grave. I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard with the\naffection of a father, and whom, indeed, 'I have forgotten in my\nsickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be _an Isaac_ to me;\nfor how often did not his soothing voice, and skilful hand, and\nunwearied attention to my wants remind me of you! But I chose to\ngive you an opportunity of manifesting, voluntarily, the goodness of\nyour heart; as, if I had retained him with me, you might seem to\nhave been forced to grant what you will gratefully bestow. His\ntemporary absence from you may have opened the way for his permanent\ncontinuance with you. Not now as a slave. Heaven forbid! But\nsuperior to a slave. Superior, did I say? Take him to your bosom, as\na beloved brother; for I own him as a son, and regard him as such,\nin all the relations of life, both as a man and a Christian.\n'Receive him as myself.' And that nothing may hinder you from\ncomplying with my request at once, I hereby promise, without\nadverting to your many and great obligations to me, to pay you every\ncent which he took from your drawer. Any preparation which my\ncomfort with you may require, you will make without much delay, when\nyou learn, that I intend, as soon as I shall be able 'to perform the\njourney,' to make you a visit.\"\n\nAnd what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should\npublicly declare that Professor Stuart, of Andover regarded\nslaveholding as lawful; for that \"he had sent Archy back to his son\nIsaac, with an apology for his running away\" to be held in perpetual\nslavery? With what propriety might not the professor exclaim: False,\nevery syllable false. I sent him back, NOT TO BE HELD AS A SLAVE,\n_but recognized as a dear brother, in all respects, under every\nrelation, civil and ecclesiastical_. I bade my son receive _Archy as\nmyself_. If this was not equivalent to a requisition to set him\nfully and most honorably free, and that, too, on the ground of\nnatural obligation and Christian principle, then I know not how to\nframe such a requisition.\n\nI am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough\nfully to illustrate the case to which it is applied. Professor Stuart\nlacks apostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of\na church consisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of\nwhat the world regard as the dregs of society--\"the offscouring of\nall things.\" Nor was slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such\nbarbarous usages, such horrid laws as disgrace the South.\n\nBut it is time to turn to another passage which, in its bearing on\nthe subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of\nDr. Fisk. and Prof. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and\ninstructive. \"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their\nown masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his\ndoctrines be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters,\nlet them not despise them because they are brethren; but rather do\nthem service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of\nthe benefit.\" [44]\n\n[Footnote 44: 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this\npassage is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR.:--\n\n  \"This word [Greek: antilambanesthai] in our humble opinion, has been\n  so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to\n  take its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause\n  'partakers of the benefit,' evidently lost sight of the component\n  preposition, which expresses the _opposition of reciprocity_, rather\n  than the _connection of participation_. They have given it exactly\n  the sense of [Greek: metalambanein], (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle\n  intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of\n  the more common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonomtes, &c.] (See Heb.\n  iii. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause,\n  'neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had the verb in our text\n  been used, it might have been rendered, 'neither be the _part-taker_\n  of other men's sins.') The primary sense of [Greek: antilambans] is\n  _to take in return_--_to take instead of, &c._ Hence, in the middle\n  with the genitive, it signifies _assist_, or _do one's part towards_\n  the person or thing expressed by that genitive. In this sense only\n  is the word used in the New Testament,--(See Luke i. 54, and Acts, xx.\n  35.) If this be true, the word [Greek: emsgesai] cannot signify the\n  benefit conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it,\n  but the _well doing_ of the servants, who should continue to serve\n  their believing masters, while they were no longer under the _yoke_\n  of compulsion. This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but\n  once (Acts. iv. 3.) in relation to the '_good deed_' done to the\n  impotent man. The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the\n  commentators, is, that believing masters would not fail to do\n  their part towards, or encourage by suitable returns, the free\n  service of those who had once been under the yoke.\"]\n\n\n  1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes of servants,\n  with instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one\n  class and the other, in Professor Stuart's eye, were slaves. This\n  he assumes, and thus begs the very question in dispute. The term\n  servant is generic, as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends\n  all the various offices which men discharge for the benefit of each\n  other, however honorable, or however menial; from that of an\n  apostle[45] opening the path to heaven, to that of washing \"one\n  another's feet.\"[46] A general term it is, comprehending every\n  office which belongs to human relations and Christian character.[47]\n\n  [Footnote 45: Cor. iv. 5.]\n\n  [Footnote 46: John, xiii, 14.]\n\n  [Footnote 47: Mat, xx, 26-28.]\n\n\n  A leading signification gives us the manual laborer, to whom, in\n  the division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his\n  exertions the bodily powers are especially employed--such powers as\n  belong to man in common with mere animals--his sphere has generally\n  been considered low and humble. And as intellectual power is\n  superior to bodily, the manual laborer has always been exposed in\n  very numerous ways and in various degrees to oppression. Cunning,\n  intrigue, the oily tongue, have, through extended and powerful\n  conspiracies, brought the resources of society under the control of\n  the few, who stood aloof from his homely toil. Hence his dependence\n  upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries which have fallen so\n  heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages from one degree\n  to another, till at length, in the case of millions, fraud and\n  violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record of\n  _mankind_, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away\n  to toil among the cattle. _Here you find the slave_. To reduce\n  the servant to his condition, requires abuses altogether\n  monstrous--injuries reaching the very vitals of man--stabs upon the\n  very heart of humanity. Now, what right has Professor Stuart to make\n  the word \"_servants_,\" comprehending, even as manual laborers, so\n  many and such various meanings, signify \"_slaves_,\" especially where\n  different classes are concerned? Such a right he could never have\n  derived from humanity, or philosophy, or hermeneutics. It is his by\n  sympathy with the oppressor?\n\n  Yes, different classes. This is implied in the term \"as many,\"[48]\n  which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he\n  proceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,[49] whose\n  natural meaning indicates the presence of another and a different\n  subject.\n\n  [Footnote 48: [Greek: Ochli] See Passow's Schneider.]\n\n  [Footnote 49: [Greek: Dd.] See Passow.]\n\n  2. The first class are described as \"_under the yoke_\"--a yoke from\n  which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if\n  possible.[50] If not, they must in every way regard the master with\n  respect--bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his\n  interests so far as might be consistent with Christian\n  character.[51] And this, to prevent blasphemy--to prevent the pagan\n  master from heaping profane reproaches upon the name of God and the\n  doctrines of the gospel. They should beware of rousing his passions,\n  which, as his helpless victims, they might be unable to allay or\n  withstand.\n\n  [Footnote 50: See 1 Cor. vii, 21--[Greek: All' ei kai dunasai\n   eleuphoros genesthai].]\n\n  [Footnote 51: See 1 Cor. vii, 23--[Greek: Mae ginesthe doulos\n   anthroton].]\n\n\n  But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not \"_under the\n  yoke_\"[52]--an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These\n  he distinguishes from another class, who instead of a \"yoke\"--the\n  badge of a slave--had \"_believing masters_.\" _To have a \"believing\n  master,\" then, was equivalent to freedom from \"the yoke_.\" These\n  servants were exhorted not _to despise_ their masters. What need of\n  such an exhortation, if their masters had been slaveholders, holding\n  them as property, wielding them as mere instruments, disposing of\n  them as \"articles of merchandise.\" But this was not consistent with\n  believing. Faith, \"breaking every yoke,\" united master and servants\n  in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a\n  relation which, excluding the yoke,[53] placed them side by side on\n  the ground of equality, where, each in his appropriate sphere, they\n  might exert themselves freely and usefully, to the mutual benefit of\n  each other. Here, servants might need to be cautioned against getting\n  above their appropriate business, putting on airs, despising their\n  masters, and thus declining or neglecting their service. [54]\n  Instead of this, they should be, as emancipated slaves often\n  have been, [55] models of enterprise, fidelity, activity, and\n  usefulness--especially as their masters were \"worthy of their\n  confidence and love,\" their helpers in this well-doing.\n\n[Footnote 52: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa lviii. 6, 9.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Supra p. 44.]\n\n[Footnote 54: See Mat. vi. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 55: Those, for instance, set free by that \"believing master\"\nJames G. Birney.]\n\n\nSuch, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of\nProfessor Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves\n[56]--the relation of \"brethren,\" which, excluding \"the yoke,\" and of\ncourse conferring freedom, placed them side by side on the common\nground of mutual service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the\none while giving and the other while receiving employment, the\ncorrelative name, _as is usual in such cases_, under which they had\nbeen known. Such was the instruction which Timothy was required, as\na Christian minister, to give. Was it friendly to slaveholding?\n\n[Footnote 56: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.]\n\n\nAnd on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these\nmasters and these servants stand in their relation to each other? On\nthat _of a \"perfect religious equality.\"_[57] In all the relations,\nduties, and privileges--in all the objects, interests, and prospects,\nwhich belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free\nas their master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range\nand as free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids,\nand as high results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant\nto his master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments,\noccasioned no injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in\n\"_perfect religious equality_,\" which the Princeton professor\naccords to servants in relation to their master. Might the _master_,\nthen, in order more fully to attain the great ends for which he was\ncreated and redeemed, freely exert himself to increase his\nacquaintance with his own powers, and relations, and resources--with\nhis prospects, opportunities, and advantages? So might his _servants_.\nWas _he_ at liberty to \"study to approve himself to God,\" to submit\nto his will and bow to his authority, as the sole standard of\naffection and exertion? So were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty to\nsanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the \"solemn assembly?\" So were\n_they_. Was _he_ at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal, and\npaternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and\nthat source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So\nwere _they_. In every department of interest and exertion, they\nmight use their capacities, and wield their powers, and improve\ntheir opportunities, and employ their resources, as freely as he, in\nglorifying God, in blessing mankind, and in laying up imperishable\ntreasures for themselves! Give perfect religious equality to the\nAmerican slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied.\nSuch equality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the\nlast link of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit\nof slavery, have given so wide and active a circulation to the\nPittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment?\n\n[Footnote 57: Pittsburg Pamphlet, p. 9.]\n\n\nIn the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves\nearnest attention:--\"Servants, obey in all things your masters\naccording to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but\nin singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it\nheartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing, that of the\nLord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve\nthe Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong\nwhich he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.--Masters,\ngive unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that\nye have a Master in heaven.\"[58]\n\n[Footnote 58: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.]\n\n\nHere it is natural to remark--\n\n  1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them,\n  both masters and servants were to act in conformity with the\n  principles of the divine government. Whatever _they_ did, servants\n  were to do in hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they\n  were to be controlled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To\n  the same Lord, and according to the same law, was the _master_ to\n  hold himself responsible. _Both the one and the other were of course\n  equally at liberty and alike required to study and apply the standard,\n  by which they were to be governed and judged_.\n\n  2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed,\n  was _righteousness_--strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias\n  or antipathy. Birth, wealth, station,--the dust of the balance not\n  so light! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal,\n  where nothing of \"respect of persons\" could be feared or hoped for.\n  There the wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top\n  or bottom of society, must be dealt with according to his deservings.\n\n  3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and\n  heartily obedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master,\n  faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part,\n  in his relations to the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY\n  the _standard of his conduct_. Under the authority of such\n  instructions, slavery falls discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It\n  is flagrantly at war with the government of God, consists in\n  \"respect of persons\" the most shameless and outrageous, treads\n  justice and equality under foot, and in its natural tendency and\n  practical effects is nothing else than a system of wrong-doing. What\n  have _they_ to do with the just and the equal who in their \"respect\n  of persons\" proceed to such a pitch as to treat one brother as a\n  thing because he is a servant, and place him, without the least\n  regard to his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely\n  at the disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in\n  the relation of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one\n  hand, and the chattel principle on the other, are naturally\n  subversive of each other--proof clear and decisive that the\n  correlates, masters and servants, cannot here be rendered slaves\n  and owners, without the grossest absurdity and the greatest\n  violence.\n\n\n  \"Servants, be obedient to them that are _your_ masters according\n  to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart,\n  as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the\n  servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good\n  will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that\n  whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the\n  Lord, whether _he be_ bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same\n  things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master\n  also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with\n  him.\"[59]\n\n  [Footnote 59: Ephesians, vi. 5-9.]\n\nWithout repeating here what has already been offered in exposition\nof kindred passages, it may be sufficient to say:--\n\n  1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their master,\n  was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment.\n  Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an\n  affectionate service.\n\n  2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had\n  its soul in _good-will_, mutually cherished and properly expressed.\n  Hence \"THE SAME THINGS,\" the same in principle, the same in\n  substance, the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of\n  the master and the servants, was to be rendered back and forth\n  by the one and the other. It was clearly the relation of mutual\n  service. Do we here find the chattel principle?\n\n  3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving,\n  unfaithful. Of course, the master must \"FORBEAR THREATENING.\"\n  Slavery without threatening! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is\n  of necessity a _system of threatening_, injecting into the bosom of\n  the slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and\n  torment him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it\n  derives from \"threatening,\" and you annihilate it at once and\n  forever.\n\n  4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the\n  principles of the divine government, where \"RESPECT OF PERSONS\"\n  could not be admitted. It was, therefore, totally inconsistent with,\n  and submissive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery\n  is developed in a system of \"respect of persons,\" equally gross and\n  hurtful. No Abolitionist, however eager and determined in his\n  opposition to slavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once\n  obeyed, would be sure to confer.\n\n\"The relation of slavery,\" according to Professor Stuart, is\nrecognized in \"the precepts of the New Testament,\" as one which \"may\nstill exist without violating the Christian faith or the church.\"[60]\nSlavery and the chattel principle! So our professor thinks;\notherwise his reference has nothing to do with the subject--with the\nslavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to.\nHow gross and hurtful is the mistake into which he allows himself to\nfall. The relation recognized in the precepts of the New Testament\nhad its basis and support in \"justice and equality;\" the very\nopposite of the chattel principle; a relation which may exist as\nlong as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the destruction\nto which, in the view of Professor Stuart, slavery is doomed. The\ndescription of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery,\nraising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his\nrights under the protection of justice; yet the eye of Professor\nStuart can see nothing in his master and servant but a slave and his\nowner. With this relation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like\nan evil angel, it haunts him even when he enters the temple of\njustice!\n\n[Footnote 60: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.]\n\n\n\"It is remarkable,\" saith the Princeton professor, \"that there is\nnot even an exhortation\" in the writings of the apostles \"to masters\nto liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and\nimmediate duty.\"[61] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were\nchargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have\nnothing to say upon the subject? _That_ not even the Princeton\nprofessor has the assurance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY,\nAND JUSTICE, were enjoined with a _distinct reference to the\ngovernment of God_.[62] \"Without respect of persons,\" they were to be\nGod-like in doing justice. They were to act the part of kind and\nmerciful \"brethren.\" And whither would this lead them? Could they\nstop short of restoring to every man his natural, inalienable\nrights?--of doing what they could to redress the wrongs, sooth the\nsorrows, improve the character, and raise the condition of the\ndegraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and degraded by any\nagency of theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to keep the\nchains of slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would this\nbe to honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of\n\"their Master in Heaven?\" Could the apostles have subserved the cause\nof freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than _to\nenjoin the principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which\nfreedom consists--constituting its living root and fruitful germ_!\n\n[Footnote 61: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 62: The same, p. 10.]\n\n\nThe Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South\nhas so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural\ndefence of \"the peculiar institution,\" maintains, that the \"GENERAL\nPRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout the\ngreater part of Christendom_\"[63]--\"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED\nBOTH POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE\nSCOPE--_that it_ ENJOINS _a fair compensation for labor; insists on\nthe mental and intellectual improvement of_ ALL _classes of men;\ncondemns_ ALL _infractions of marital or parental rights; requires, in\nshort, not only that_ FREE SCOPE _should be allowed to human\nimprovement, but that_ ALL SUITABLE MEANS _should be employed for the\nattainment of that end_.\"[64] It is indeed \"remarkable,\" that while\nneither Christ nor his apostles ever gave \"an exhortation to masters\nto liberate their slaves,\" they enjoined such \"general principles as\nhave destroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of\nChristendom;\" that while Christianity forbears \"to urge\"\nemancipation \"as an imperative and immediate duty,\" it throws a\nbarrier, heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the\nrights of the husband and the father; gives every laborer a fair\ncompensation; and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of\nall classes, with free scope and all suitable means, the object\nof its tender solicitude and high authority. This is not only\n\"remarkable,\" but inexplicable. Yes and no--hot and cold, in one and\nthe same breath! And yet these things stand prominent in what is\nreckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defence of slavery!\n\n[Footnote 63: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 18, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 64: The same, p. 31.]\n\n\nIn his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes\nanother lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings\non the subject of slavery. \"Let every man abide in the same calling\nwherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for\nit; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is\ncalled in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise\nalso he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are\nbought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.\" [65]\n\n[Footnote 65: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.]\n\n\nIn explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest:\n\n  1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind\n  the Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the\n  gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible,\n  from their present condition. In the servile state, \"under the yoke,\"\n  they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity.\n  \"If thou canst be free, use it rather.\" If they ought to prefer\n  freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter\n  for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the\n  claims and spirit of the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in\n  so doing? Their \"brother\" could _he_ be, who kept \"the yoke\" upon\n  their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible?\n  And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what\n  inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their\n  servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian\n  institution?--or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce\n  or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him\n  than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the\n  cause of freedom?\n\n  2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it,\n  they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to\n  ceaseless anxiety. \"The Lord was no respecter of persons.\" They need\n  not fear, that the \"low estate,\" to which they had been wickedly\n  reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or\n  the light of his countenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth\n  their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the\n  spirit of liberty. \"For he that is called in the Lord, being a\n  servant, is the Lord's freeman.\" In _him_, therefore, should they\n  cheerfully confide.\n\n  3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile\n  relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations.\n  To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased.\n  It should be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty\n  and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be,\n  to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. \"_Ye are\n  bought with a price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN.\"\n\nWith his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the\nPrinceton professor asserts that \"Paul represents this relation\"--the\nrelation of slavery--\"as of comparatively little account.\"[66]\nAnd this he applies--otherwise it is nothing to his purpose--to\n_American_ slavery. Does he then regard it as a small matter, a\nmere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic,\ngrimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means\nof improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and\nmaking him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, \"the\nservant of men?\" Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently\nwith the instructions of the apostle?\n\n[Footnote 66: Pittsburg pamphlet, p.10.]\n\nTo the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the\nbearing of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for\nthe unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which\nin various forms and under different names, unite the southern with\nthe northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his\nfeelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit,\nproceed to Georgia. No religious teacher [67] from any free State, can\nbe likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To\nallay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the\nabolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as\nmuch despatch as possible, collect, as he goes from place to place,\nmasters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see\nand own that slavery is a Christian institution! With his Bible in his\nhand and his eye upon the passage in question, he addresses himself\nto the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts,\nmy brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your\nservile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him\n\"who is no respecter of persons.\" Freedom you ought, indeed, to\nprefer. If you can escape from \"the yoke,\" throw it off. In the mean\ntime rejoice that \"where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;\"\nthat the gospel places slaves \"on a perfect religious equality\" with\ntheir master; so that every Christian is \"the Lord's freeman.\" And,\nfor your encouragement, remember that \"Christianity has abolished\nboth political and domestic servitude wherever it has had free scope.\nIt enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and\nintellectual improvement of all classes of men; it condemns all\ninfractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not\nonly that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all\nsuitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end.\"\n[68] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your\nSavior. He bought you with his own blood; and is entitled to your\nwarmest love and most effective service. \"Be not ye the servants of\nmen.\" Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the\nkingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and\nopportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made,\nallay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord,\nevery day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of\nthe republic, and cement \"the Union?\"\n\n[Footnote 67: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very\nlong ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in\nthe literary and religious world from a slaveholding State, where\nthe \"peculiar institution\" is cherished with great warmth and\nmaintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the\nPrinceton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed\nmost powerfully and effectually to bring the \"whole South\" under the\npersuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_--a system _to\nwhich the Bible gives countenance and support_.\n\nIn an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a\nnew Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina,\nand inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find\nthe following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and,\naccording to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor.\n\"There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this\nsubject. The great mass of the people, believing slavery to be sinful,\nare clearly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished\nthroughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the\ntime and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue,\nthat whatever is sinful should be instantly abandoned. The others,\n_by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men_, contend that\nthough slavery is sinful, _yet it may be allowed to exist until it\nshall he expedient to abolish it_; or, if, in many cases, this\nreasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be,\nboth in Church and State, _slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to\nexist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be\nabolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating\na plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become\nan abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible\nallows no tampering with sin.\n\n\"To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be found in\nboth parties in the church. _The South owes a debt of gratitude to\nthe Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the\nposition, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of\nthat article is said, without contradiction, to be _Professor Hodge,\nof Princeton_--HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU,\n_my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the_ ONLY\nONE _who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious\ncharge of living in the habitual transgression of God's holy law_.\"]\n\n[Footnote 68: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31.]\n\n\n\"It is,\" affirms the Princeton professor, \"on all hands acknowledged,\nthat, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its\nworst forms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it\naround him_ IN JUDEA.\"[69] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to\nspeak ambiguously. Many things were to be found \"_in_ Judea,\" which\nneither belonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is\nnot denied that _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have\nhad slaves; _but of the Jews this is denied_. How could the\nprofessor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally\ninto the argument and was essential to the soundness of the\nconclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take\nadvantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding\nreaders on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must\nhave known they could not hold in the light of open day!\n\n[Footnote 69: The same, p. 9]\n\n\nWe do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or\ncourage,[70] for refusing to \"break down the wall of partition between\nJews and Gentiles\" \"before the time appointed.\" While this barrier\nstood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption,\nimpart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on\nextraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business\nthen was with \"the lost sheep of the house of Israel.\" [71] The\npropriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between\nthe Princeton professor and ourselves.\n\n[Footnote 70: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 71: Matt. xv. 24.]\n\n\nIn disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our\nSavior's incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest\nattention:--\n\n  1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the\n  proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more\n  or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded\n  to.[72] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of\n  life, the Jews, during our Savior's ministry among them, seem to\n  have been scrupulously observant of the institutions and usages of\n  the \"Old Dispensation.\" They stood far aloof from whatever was\n  characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and\n  slaveholding--those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed\n  among the heathen--they seem at length, as the result of a most\n  painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced.\n\n  [Footnote 72: \"The Bible against Slavery.\"]\n\n\n  2. While, therefore, John the Baptist; with marked fidelity and\n  great power, acted among the Jews the part of a _reprover_, he found\n  no occasion to repeat and apply the language of his\n  predecessors,[73] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and\n  slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the prophets, have been\n  less effectually aroused by the presence of \"the yoke,\" than was\n  Isaiah?--or less intrepid and decisive in exposing and denouncing\n  the sin of oppression under its most hateful and injurious forms?\n\n  [Footnote 73: Psalm lxxxii; Isa. lviii. 1-12 Jer. xxii. 13-16.]\n\n\n  3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly\n  and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews.\n  These principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the\n  Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had\n  this prevailed within the sphere of our Savior's ministry, he could\n  not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose\n  and condemn it. The oppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics,\n  of parents by their selfish children, of widows by their ghostly\n  counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible\n  denunciations.[74] How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the\n  presence of such tyranny, if _such tyranny had been within his\n  official sphere_, as should _have made widows_, by driving their\n  husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not orphans,\n  _but cattle_?\n\n  [Footnote 74: Matt. xxiii; Mark, vii. 1-13.]\n\n\n  4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the _industry_,\n  which, _in the form of manual labor_, so generally prevailed among\n  the Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are\n  informed, that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul \"found a certain\n  Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his\n  wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to\n  depart from Rome;) and came unto them. And because he was of the\n  same craft, he abode with them and wrought: (for by their occupation\n  they were tent-makers.\")[75] This passage has opened the way for\n  different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and\n  general practice of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual\n  labor. According to _Lightfoot_, \"it was their custom to bring up\n  their children to some trade, yea, though they gave them learning or\n  estates.\" According to Rabbi Judah, \"He that teaches not his son a\n  trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief.\"[76] It was, _Kuinoel_\n  affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor\n  (opificium) with the study of the law. This he confirms by the\n  highest Rabbinical authority.[77] _Heinrichs_ quotes a Rabbi as\n  teaching, that no man should by any means neglect to train his son\n  to honest industry.[78] Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though\n  brought up at the \"feet of Gamaliel,\" the distinguished disciple of\n  a most illustrious teacher, practised the art of tent-making. His\n  own hands ministered to his necessities; and his example is so\n  doing, he commends to his Gentile brethren for their imitation.[79]\n  That Zebedee, the father of John the Evangelist, had wealth, various\n  hints in the New Testament render probable.[80] Yet how do we find\n  him and his sons, while prosecuting their appropriate business? In\n  the midst of the hired servants, \"in the ship mending their\n  nets.\"[81]\n\n  [Footnote 75: Acts, xviii. 1-3.]\n\n  [Footnote 76: Henry on Acts, xviii. 1-3.]\n\n  [Footnote 77: Kuinoel on Acts.]\n\n  [Footnote 78: Heinrichs on Acts.]\n\n  [Footnote 79: Acts, xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11.]\n\n  [Footnote 80: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.]\n\n  [Footnote 81: Mark, i. 19, 20.]\n\n\n  Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were\n  used to manual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could\n  it be maintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people\n  generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if\n  men of learning, wealth, and station, \"labor, working with their\n  hands,\" such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish\n  maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the \"peculiar\n  institution\" would vanish like a ghost at daybreak.\n\n  5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished\n  in the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most\n  servile employments among the Jews. With profligates, _publicans_\n  were joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society\n  were described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a\n  place among Samaritans and publicans. They were \"_hired servants_,\"\n  whom Zebedee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a\n  wealthy Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The\n  prodigal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described\n  their condition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change\n  which should place him by their side? His remorse, and shame, and\n  penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them\n  all. But these--what was their condition? They were HIRED SERVANTS.\n  \"Make me as one of thy hired servants.\" Such he refers to as the\n  lowest menials known in Jewish life.\n\nLay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be\nremembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy;\nthat John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no\nreference \"to the yoke\" which, had it been before him, he would, like\nIsaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of\nthe poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the\npain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence,\nof the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever\nthey might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, \"to labor,\nworking with their hands;\" and that where reference was had to the\nmost menial employments, in families, they were described as carried\non by hired servants; and the question of slavery \"in Judea,\" so far\nas the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of.\nWith every phase and form of society among them slavery was\ninconsistent.\n\nThe position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper,\nthe Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern\nabolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern\nslaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of\nthe human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the\nbattle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives\nthe abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the\ncharacter of the objections they have set themselves so openly and\nsternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to\nthe law of God. It was witnessed by the Savior \"in its worst\nforms\"[82] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. \"The\nsacred writers did not condemn it.\" [83] And why should they? By a\ndefinition[84] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to\nset forth a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the\nlaw of Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the\nabolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that American\nslavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that\nit ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the\nslaveholding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally,\nas if a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[85]\n\n[Footnote 82: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 83: The same, p. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 84: The same, p. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 85: Supra, p. 58.]\n\n\nA few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate.\n\n  1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent\n  _the form_ witnessed by our Savior \"in Judea?\" That, _he_ will by\n  no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the \"worst\"\n  kind. _How then does he account for the alleged silence of the\n  Savior?--a silence covering the essence and the form--the\n  institution and its \"worst\" abuses_?\n\n  2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor,\n  Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so\n  earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see.\n\n\n  _Christianity in supporting Slavery,      _The American system for\n   according to Professor Hodge_,           supporting Slavery_,\n\n  \"Enjoins a fair compensation for          Makes compensation\n  labor\"                                    impossible by reducing the\n                                            laborer to a chattel.\n\n  \"It insists on the moral and              It sternly forbids its\n  intellectual improvement of all           victim to learn to read\n  classes of men\"                           even the name of his\n                                            Creator and Redeemer.\n\n  \"It condemns all infractions of           It outlaws the conjugal\n  marital or parental rights.\"              and parental relations.\n\n  \"It requires that free scope              It forbids any effort, on\n  should be allowed to human                the part of myriads of the\n  improvement.\"                             human family, to improve\n                                            their character,\n                                            condition, and prospects.\n\n  \"It requires that all suitable            It inflicts heavy\n  means should be employed to improve       penalties for teaching\n  mankind\"                                  letters to the poorest of\n                                            the poor.\n\n  \"Wherever it has had free scope,          Wherever it has free\n  it has abolished domestic bondage.\"       scope, it perpetuates\n                                            domestic bondage.\n\n\n  _Now it is slavery according to the American system_ that the\n  abolitionists are set against. _Of the existence of any_ such form\n  of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the\n  requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met\n  their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or\n  called forth their exertions. What, then, have _they_ to do with the\n  censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around?\n  Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the man of\n  _straw_ he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business.\n  It is not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of\n  oppression which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying\n  both Church and State;--it is this that they feel pledged to do\n  battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown,\n  dead and damned, into the bottomless abyss.\n\n  3. _How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may\n  be thrown over_ SUCH SLAVERY, _as may be consistent with what the\n  Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity_?\n  Is _this_ THE _slavery_ which their laws describe, and their hands\n  maintain? \"Fair compensation for labor\"--\"marital and parental\n  rights\"--\"free scope\" and \"all suitable means\" for the \"improvement,\n  moral and intellectual, of all classes of men;\"--are these,\n  according to the statutes of the South, among the objects of\n  slaveholding legislation? Every body knows that any such\n  requisitions and American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly\n  subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton\n  professor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the\n  \"peculiar institution?\" Their gratitude must be of a stamp and\n  complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their\n  \"domestic system\" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as\n  must at once crush its snaky head \"and grind it to powder.\"\n\nAnd what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions,\nwhich Professor Hodge quotes, upon the definition of slavery which\nhe has elaborated? \"All the ideas which necessarily enter into the\ndefinition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty,\nobligation of service at the discretion of another, and the\ntransferable character of the authority and claim of service of the\nmaster.\"[86]\n\n[Footnote 86: Pittsburg pamphlet p. 12.]\n\n\n_According to Professor Hodge's      _According to Professor Hodge's\naccount of the                       definition of Slavery_,\nrequisitions of Christianity_,\n\nThe spring of effort in the          The laborer must serve at the\nlaborer is a fair compensation.      discretion of another.\n\nFree scope must be given for         He is deprived of personal\nhis moral and intellectual           liberty--the necessary condition,\nimprovement.                         and living soul of improvement,\n                                     without which he has no control\n                                     of either intellect or morals.\n\n\n\nHis rights as a husband and          The authority and claims of the\na father are to be protected.        master may throw an ocean between\n                                     him and his family, and separate\n                                     them from each other's presence\n                                     at any moment and forever.\n\n\n\nChristianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so\ncunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the\npeace of the respective parties, that he placed _his definition_ so\nfar from _the requisitions of Christianity_. Had he brought them\ninto each other's presence, their natural and invincible antipathy\nto each other would have broken out into open and exterminating\nwarfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is\nbased on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as\n_wish_ to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger\nof rushing into the professor's dungeon. Those who, having something\nto conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their heart's\ncontent. The hour cannot be far away, when upright and reflective\nminds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could\nwelcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the\nslaveholder.\n\nBut _Professor Stuart_ must not be forgotten. In his celebrated\nletter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that \"_Paul did not expect slavery to\nbe ousted in a day_.\"[87] _Did not_ EXPECT! What then! Are the\n_requisitions_ of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which\nin any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human\nconsciousness? And are we to interpret the _precepts_ of the gospel\nby the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every\nwhere to repent, and this, though \"Paul did not expect\" that human\nwickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community\n\"be ousted in a day.\" Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite\nanother.\n\n[Footnote 87: Supra, p. 7.]\n\n\nIn the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds,\n\"gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor.\" _That_ he\ndid. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been\nin harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Professor\nStuart, \"decides against the righteousness of slavery\" even as a\n\"theory.\" Accordingly, Christians were required, _without respect of\npersons_, to do each other justice--to maintain equality as common\nground for all to stand upon--to cherish and express in all their\nintercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one\n_brother_ naturally feels for another. These were the \"ad interim\nprecepts.\"[88] which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery,\n\"root and branch,\" at once and forever.\n\n[Footnote 88: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]\n\n\nProfessor Stuart comforts us with the assurance that \"_Christianity\nwill ultimately certainly destroy slavery_.\" Of this _we_ have not\nthe feeblest doubt. But how could _he_ admit a persuasion and utter\na prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that\n\"_slavery may exist without_ VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE\nCHURCH?\"[89] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient\nand cherished institution which hurts neither her character nor\ncondition?[90] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and\nshedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of\nher reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward\nprogress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful\nto her? This is to be _aggressive_ with a witness. Far be it from\nthe Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the\nsame destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and\nscarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that\nChristianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its\ninherent wickedness--its malignant temper--its deadly effects--its\nconstitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the\nauthority of God and the welfare of man.\n\n[Footnote 89: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 90: Professor Stuart applies here the words, _salva fide et\nsalva ecclesia_.]\n\n\n\"Christianity will _ultimately_ destroy slavery.\" \"ULTIMATELY!\" What\nmeaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time,\nconcealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O\nwatchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have\nrolled over this world of wrong and outrage--and yet we tremble in\nthe presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang\nis death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but\nfor a single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen\nin such cold blood, to write that word \"ultimately,\" how, under the\nsufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the\nlamentable cry, \"How _long_, O Lord, HOW LONG!\" In the agony of\nbeholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while\nevery bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small\ncomfort would he find in the dull assurance of some heartless prophet,\nquite at \"ease in Zion,\" that \"ULTIMATELY _Christianity would\ndestroy slavery_.\" As the hammer falls, and the beloved of his soul,\nall helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of\n_legalized_ debauchery, his hearts turns to stone, while the cry\ndies upon his lips, \"_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG!\"\n\n\"_Ultimately_!\" In _what circumstances_ does Professor Stuart\nassure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as\nAmerican citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts\nof this republic--as living members of this community, did we forfeit\nthe prerogatives of _freemen_? Have we not the right to speak and\nact as wielding the powers which the privileges of self-government\nhas put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or\nstatesman of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the\nfreedom which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven\nand the Constitution of our country! Can we expect to see Christianity\non higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In\nthe midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of\nmankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state,\nfreely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest\npolitical privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the\nmembers of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of\nslavery, what \"_ultimately_\" must Christianity here wait for before\nshe crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over\nslavery is retarded by nothing but the corruption and defection so\nwidely spread through the \"sacramental host\" beneath her banners!\nLet her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the _ultimately_\nof the \"dark spirit of slavery\" would at once give place to the\n_immediately_ of the Avenger of the Poor.\n\n\n\nNo. 12.\n\nTHE\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nDISUNION.\n\n\nADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY\n\nAND\n\nF. JACKSON'S LETTER ON THE PRO-SLAVERY CHARACTER\nOF THE CONSTITUTION\n\n\n\n\nNEW YORK:\n\nAMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.\n\n142 NASSAU STREET.\n\n1845.\n\n\n\nBOSTON:\nPRINTED BY DAVID H. ELA,\nNO. 37, CORNHILL.\n\n\n\n\n\nADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE\nOF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY\nTO Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the U. States.\n\n\nAt the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held\nin the city of New-York, May 7th, 1844,--after grave deliberation,\nand a long and earnest discussion,--it was decided, by a vote of\nnearly three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the\ncause of human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who\nare held in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to\nGod, require that the existing national compact should be instantly\ndissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and\npolitical duty; that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom\nshould be, NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for\ntyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together\nfor the preservation of human rights, or the promotion of the\ninterests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be\noccupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good\nmay come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of\nJustice and Humanity.\n\nA decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calculated\nto startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of\nthings, demands of us, as the official representatives of the\nAmerican Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This\nis due not only to the Society, but also to the country and the world.\n\nIt is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth,\n\"that all men are created equal; that they are endowed BY THEIR\nCREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are\nlife, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.\" It is further\nmaintained by them, that \"all governments derive their just powers\nfrom the consent of the governed;\" that \"whenever any form of\ngovernment becomes destructive of human rights, it is the right of\nthe people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new government,\nlaying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers\nin such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their\nsafety and happiness.\" These doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed\nwith their blood. They would not brook even the menace of oppression.\nThey held that there should be no delay in resisting, at whatever\ncost or peril, the first encroachments of power on their liberties.\nAppealing to the great Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of\ntheir course, they pledged to each other \"their lives, their\nfortunes and their sacred honor,\" to conquer or perish in their\nstruggle to be free.\n\nFor the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic\nsway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish\ntheir memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their\ndeeds, and glory in their triumphs.\n\nIt is not necessary, therefore, for us to prove that a state of\nslavery is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or\nthat it is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the\nsacred rights of mankind.\n\nWe regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every\nman sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment,\ninvincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step is\none that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the\ninfluence of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are\nof--whether they have counted the cost of the warfare--what are the\nprinciples they advocate--and how they are to achieve their object--is\nthe first duty of revolutionists.\n\nBut, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in\nevery great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever\nthey restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it.\n\nWe charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at\nthe expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle,\nand to this hour is cemented with human blood.\n\nWe charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains provisions,\nand enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the\noath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to\nfavor a slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one\nportion of the people a prey to another.\n\nWe charge upon the existing national government, that it is an\ninsupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all\nlegal and constitutional restraints--equally indisposed and unable to\nprotect the lives or liberties of the people--the prop and safeguard\nof American slavery.\n\nThese charges we proceed briefly to establish:\n\nI. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,--or if it be denied in\nany quarter, the records of our national history settle the question\nbeyond doubt,--that the American Union was effected by a guilty\ncompromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words,\nby immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by\ndepriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by\nincorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive\nand pertinent language of scripture, it was \"a covenant with death,\nand an agreement with hell\"--null and void before God, from the first\nhour of its inception--the framers of which were recreant to duty,\nand the supporters of which are equally guilty.\n\nIt was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that,\nwithout such a compromise there could have been no union; that,\nwithout union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the\nmother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity,\ndeplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to\nthe safety of the republic.\n\nTo this we reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was tyrannical.\nIt is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. It\nis a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its\nperpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and\nsubversive of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our\nrefuge, and under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape\nthe overflowing scourge. \"Therefore, thus saith the Lord God,\nJudgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet;\nand the bail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters\nshall overflow the hiding place.\" Moreover, \"because ye trust in\noppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this\niniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in\na high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he\nshall break it as the breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken\nin pieces; he shall not spare.\"\n\nThis plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and\nvillany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said,\n\"Let there by light.\" It assumes that to be practicable, which is\nimpossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union\nwith injustice, and safety with blood guiltiness. A union of virtue\nwith pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership\nbetween right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the\nprinciples of Justice, is the deification of crime.\n\nBetter that the American Union had never been formed, than that it\nshould have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were\nguilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful\nconsequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of\nall that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was\nsinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a\ngreater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the\nsame reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its\ncorruption?\n\nThe fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union,\nrendered it impracticable; unless by the term union we are to\nunderstand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the\nwhole country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just\nuse of words, the American Union is and always has been a sham--an\nimposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the\ncriminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently\nsustained? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had\nnot been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the\ncolonies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to\ncrime,--to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor,--to\ndare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the\nrights of one human being,--could never have been subjugated by any\nmortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and\ndevotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say\nthat, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they\nwould have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England.\n\nII. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national compact.\nWe affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind\nhimself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-Christian\nrequirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that,\nin regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been\nuniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts\nand by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual\ninterpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is\nnot a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party\ncontrivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of\nwords, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the\naccomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it\nmay determine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted\nit meant_--NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, _as a matter of bargain and\ncompromise_. Even if it can be construed to mean something else,\nwithout violence to its language, such construction is not to be\ntolerated _against the wishes of either party_. No just or honest\nuse of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its\nframers, _except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to\nserve under it_.\n\nTo the argument, that the words \"slaves\" and \"slavery\" are not to be\nfound in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended\nto give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is\nsufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that\ninstrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically,\nTO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in\ngood faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be\neffected_. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no\nintelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected,\nthat though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as\nthey can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse,\nit is allowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially\nas the cause of freedom will thereby be promoted_--we reply, that\nthis is to advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting\nparties, _whose co-operation was secured only by an express\nagreement and understanding between them both, in regard to the\nclauses alluded to_; and that such a construction, if enforced by\npains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in\nwhich the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed,\nand robbed of their constitutional rights.\n\nAgain, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and\nvoid--we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is\nalso true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of\nwhich, AS A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore,\n_because they are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION\nTO ENFORCE IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the\nConstitution.\n\nAgain, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the\npeople of the United States, in order to establish justice, to\npromote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to\nthemselves and their posterity: and therefore, it is to be so\nconstrued as to harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that\nits language is _not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of\nthe contracting parties understood_, and which would frustrate every\ndesign of their alliance--to wit, _union at the expense of the\ncolored population of the country_. Moreover, nothing is more\ncertain than that the preamble alluded to never included, in the\nminds of those who framed it, _those who were then pining in\nbondage_--for, in that case, a general emancipation of the slaves\nwould have instantly been proclaimed throughout the United States. The\nwords, \"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our\nposterity,\" assuredly meant only the white population. \"To promote the\ngeneral welfare,\" referred to their own welfare exclusively. \"To\nestablish justice,\" was understood to be for their sole benefit as\nslaveholders, and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is\ndemonstrated by other parts of the same instrument, and by their own\npractice under it.\n\nWe would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is\nas reprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_,\nas it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false,\nit is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the\nConstitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the\ncountry under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were\nactuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty;\nor that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to\nmake it harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly\nmight it be argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration\nof Independence, that all men are created equal, and endowed with an\ninalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were\nslaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from\nthe American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing\nliberty _to themselves_, without being very scrupulous as to the\nmeans they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated\nby the spirit of universal philanthropy; and though _in words_ they\nrecognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, _in\npractice_ they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave\na portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in\nthe market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the\nmother country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man.\nWhy, then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses.\n_Why cling to the falsehood, that they were not respecters of\npersons in the formation of the government_?\n\nAlas! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, in\ntheir hearts! \"The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [the\nNorth and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood,\nand the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath\nforsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not.\"\n\nWe proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution,\nin its relations to slavery.\n\nIn ARTICLE 1, Section 9, it is declared--\"the migration or\nimportation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall\nthink proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior\nto the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty\nmay be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for\neach person.\"\n\nIn this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded\nas not to imply, _ex necessitate_, any criminal intent or inhuman\narrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to\ndeny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to\nmean that there should be no interference with the African slave\ntrade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808.\nFor twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the\ncitizens of the United States were to be encouraged and protected in\nthe prosecution of that infernal traffic--in sacking and burning the\nhamlets of Africa--in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive\nnatives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater\nproportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave\nships, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and\nsubjecting the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated\nbondage! This awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though,\nsince its termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave\ntraffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American\nflag, instead of being the terror of the African slavers, has given\nthem the most ample protection.\n\nThe manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national\nconvention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by\nthe Hon. Luther Martin,[91] who was a prominent member of that body:\n\n  \"The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!)\n  _were very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with\n  a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the\n  Southern States would, in the return, _gratify_ them by laying no\n  restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the\n  committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, _by which the\n  general government was to be prohibited from preventing the\n  importation of slaves_ for a limited time; and the restrictive\n  clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.\"\n\n\nBehold the iniquity of this agreement! How sordid were the motives\nwhich led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity,\non the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right\nof all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth!\n\nIt is due to the national convention to say, that this section was\nnot adopted \"without considerable opposition.\" Alluding to it,\nMr. Martin observes--\n\n[Footnote 91: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]\n\n\"It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent\nnations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great\nBritain to _enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the\npreservation of those rights to which God and nature has entitled us,\nnot in _particular_, but in _common with all the rest of mankind_;\nthat we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the\nGod of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve\nthe rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now,\nwhen we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his\nmercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a\ngovernment formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for\nits preservation,--in that government to have a provision, not only\nof putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade,\neven encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States\nthe power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly\nand wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures,\nought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that\nGod whose protection we had thus implored, and could not fail to\nhold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true\nfriend of liberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can\nonly be, and frequently are, punished in this world by _national\npunishments_, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus\ngiving it a national character, sanction, and encouragement, ought\nto be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and\nvengeance of him who is equally the Lord of all, and who views\nwith equal eye the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_![92]\n\n[Footnote 92: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been\nscourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and\nthe slave trade! Secret Proceedings, p. 64.]\n\n\n\"It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general\ngovernment full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which\ngeneral power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit,\nthe slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and\ndisgraceful to the last degree that we should except from the\nexercise of that power the only branch of commerce which is\nunjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind.\nThat, on the contrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our\nConstitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize\nthe general government, from time to time, to make such regulations\nas should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of\nslavery, and the emancipation of the slaves already in the States.\nThat slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and\nhas a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported,\nas it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and\nhabituates to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by\nthis system of government, every State is to be protected both from\nforeign invasion and from domestic insurrections; and, from this\nconsideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have the\npower to restrain the importation of slaves, since in proportion as\nthe number of slaves increased in any State, in the same proportion\nis the State weakened and exposed to foreign invasion and domestic\ninsurrection: and by so much less will it be able to protect itself\nagainst either, and therefore by so much, want aid from, and be a\nburden to, the Union.\n\n\"It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the\ngeneral government power, under the idea of national character, or\nnational interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and\nhave prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing\ninsolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we\nprohibited the government from interfering with the slave trade,\nthan which nothing could more effect our national honor and interest.\n\n\"These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the\nconvention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as\nit now makes part of the system.\"[93]\n\n[Footnote 93: Secret Proceedings, p. 64.]\n\n\nHappy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations\nbeen heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But for the sake of\nsecuring some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good may\ncome, and to make the end sanctify the means. They were willing to\nenslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. They did\nthis deed deliberately, with their eyes open, with all the facts and\nconsequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of all\ntheir heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of\nthe overruling power of God. \"The Eastern States were very willing\nto _indulge_ the Southern States\" in the unrestricted prosecution of\ntheir piratical traffic, provided in return they could be _gratified_\nby no restriction being laid on navigation acts!!--Had there been no\nother provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection, this\none alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible with\nthe duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It was\nthe poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but a\nvery slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one\nwho partook of it.\n\nIf it be asked to what purpose are these animadversions, since the\nclause alluded to has long since expired by its own limitation--we\nanswer, that, if at any time the foreign slave trade could be\n_constitutionally_ prosecuted, it may yet be renewed, under the\nConstitution, at the pleasure of Congress, whose prohibitory statute\nis liable to be reversed at any moment, in the frenzy of Southern\nopposition to emancipation. It is ignorantly supposed that the\nbargain was, that the traffic _should cease_ in 1808; but the only\nthing secured by it was, the _right_ of Congress (not any obligation)\nto prohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not\nchosen to exercise that right, _the traffic might have been\nprolonged indefinitely, under the Constitution_. The right to\ndestroy any particular branch of commerce, implies the right to\nre-establish it. True, there is no probability that the African slave\ntrade will ever again be legalized by the national government; but\nno credit is due the framers of the Constitution on this ground; for,\nwhile they threw around it all the sanction and protection of the\nnational character and power for twenty years, _they set no bounds to\nits continuance by any positive constitutional prohibition_.\n\nAgain, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution of\nit, prove what was meant by the words of the preamble--\"to form a\nmore perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,\nprovide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and\nsecure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our\nposterity\"--namely, that the parties to the Constitution regarded\nonly their own rights and interests, and never intended that its\nlanguage should be so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to\nmake it unlawful for one portion of the people to enslave another,\n_without an express alteration in that instrument, in the manner\ntherein set forth_. While, therefore, the Constitution remains as it\nwas originally adopted, they who swear to support it are bound to\ncomply with all its provisions, as a matter of allegiance. For it\navails nothing to say, that some of those provisions are at war with\nthe law of God and the rights of man, and therefore are not\nobligatory.  Whatever may be their character, they are\n_constitutionally_ obligatory; and whoever feels that he cannot\nexecute them, or swear to execute them, without committing sin, has no\nother choice left than to withdraw from the government, or to violate\nhis conscience by taking on his lips an impious promise. The object of\nthe Constitution is not to define _what is the law of God_, but WHAT IS\nTHE WILL OF THE PEOPLE--which will is not to be frustrated by an\ningenious moral interpretation, by those whom they have elected to\nserve them.\n\nARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides--\"Representatives and direct taxes\nshall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included\nwithin this Union, according to their respective numbers, which\nshall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons,\nincluding those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding\nIndians not taxed, _three-fifths of all other persons_.\"\n\nHere, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a\nform of words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic\ngovernment, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and\naugmentation of the slaveholding power--a provision scarcely less\natrocious than that which related to the African slave trade, and\nalmost as afflictive in its operation--a provision still in force,\nwith no possibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the\nslave States choose to maintain their slave system--a provision which,\nat the present time, enables the South to have twenty-five additional\nrepresentatives in Congress on the score of _property_, while the\nNorth is not allowed to have one--a provision which concedes to the\noppressed three-fifths of the political power which is granted to\nall others, aid then puts this power into the hands of their\noppressors, to be wielded by them for the more perfect security of\ntheir tyrannous authority, and the complete subjugation of the\nnon-slaveholding States.\n\nReferring to this atrocious bargain, ALEXANDER HAMILTON remarked in\nthe New York Convention--\n\n\"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a\nrepresentation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said\nof the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own:\nwhether this is _reasoning_ or _declamation_, (!!) I will not\npresume to say. It is the _unfortunate_ situation of the Southern\nStates to have a great part of their population, as well as _property_,\nin blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of _the\nspirit of accommodation_ which governed the Convention; and\nwithout this _indulgence_, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED.\nBut, sir, considering some _peculiar advantages_ which we derive\nfrom them it is entirely JUST that they should be _gratified_--The\nSouthern States possess certain staples,--tobacco, rice, indigo,\n&c.--which must be _capital_ objects in treaties of commerce with\nforeign nations; and the advantage which they necessarily procure in\nthese treaties will be felt throughout the United States.\"\n\nIf such was the patriotism, such the love of liberty, such the\nmorality of ALEXANDER HAMILTON, what can be said of the character of\nthose who were far less conspicuous than himself in securing\nAmerican independence, and in framing the American Constitution?\n\nListen, now, to the opinions of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, respecting the\nconstitutional clause now under consideration:--\n\n\"'In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in\nfact, it is a representation of their masters,--the oppressor\nrepresenting the oppressed.'--'Is it in the compass of human\nimagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of\ncommitting the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?'--'The\nrepresentative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and\ntrustee of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of\nhis foes.'--'It was _one_ of the curses from that Pandora's box,\nadjusted at the time, as usual, by a _compromise_, the whole\nadvantage of which inured to the benefit of the South, and to\naggravate the burdens of the North.'--'If there be a parallel to it\nin human history, it can only be that of the Roman Emperors, who,\nfrom the days when Julius Caesar substituted a military despotism in\nthe place of a republic, among the offices which they always\nconcentrated upon themselves, was that of tribune of the people. A\nRoman Emperor tribune of the people, is an exact parallel to that\nfeature in the Constitution of the United States which makes the\nmaster the representative of his slave.'--'The Constitution of the\nUnited States expressly prescribes that no title of nobility shall\nbe granted by the United States. The spirit of this interdict is not\na rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless empty _titles_,\nbut to titles of _nobility_; to the institution of privileged orders\nof men. But what order of men under the most absolute of monarchies,\nor the most aristocratic of republics, was ever invested with such\nan odious and unjust privilege as that of the separate and exclusive\nrepresentation of less than half a million owners of slaves, in the\nHall of this House, in the Chair of the Senate, and in the\nPresidential mansion?'--'This investment of power in the owners of\none species of property concentrated in the highest authorities of\nthe nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the twenty-six\nStates of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men in the\ncommunity, more adverse to the rights of all, and more pernicious to\nthe interests of the whole, than any order of nobility ever known.\nTo call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the\nunderstanding of mankind. To call it an aristocracy, is to do\ninjustice to that form of government. Aristocracy is the government\nof _the best_. Its standard qualification for accession to power\n_is merit_, ascertained by popular election recurring at short\nintervals of time. If even that government is prone to degenerate\ninto tyranny, what must be the character of that form of polity in\nwhich the standard qualification for access to power is wealth in\nthe possession of slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of\nriches and of slavery. _There is no name in the language of national\njurisprudence that can define it_--no model in the records of\nancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with\nwhich it can be likened. It was introduced into the Constitution of\nthe United States by an equivocation--a representation of property\nunder the name of persons. Little did the members of the Convention\nfrom the free States foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden\nunder the mask of this concession.'--'The House of Representatives\nof the United States consists of 223 members--all, by the _letter_ of\nthe Constitution, representatives only of _persons_, as 135 of them\nreally are; but the other 88, equally representing the _persons_ of\ntheir constituents, by whom they are elected, also represent, under\nthe name of _other persons_, upwards of two and a half millions of\n_slaves_, held as the _property_ of less than half a million of\nthe white constituents, and valued at twelve hundred millions of\ndollars. Each of these 88 members represents in fact the whole of\nthat mass of associated wealth, and the persons and exclusive\ninterests of its owners; all thus knit together, like the members of\na moneyed corporation, with a capital not of thirty-five or forty or\nfifty, but of twelve hundred millions of dollars, exhibiting the\nmost extraordinary exemplification of the anti-republican tendencies\nof associated wealth that the world ever saw,'--'Here is one class\nof men, consisting of not more than one fortieth part of the whole\npeople, not more than one-thirtieth part of the free population,\nexclusively devoted to their personal interests identified with\ntheir own as slaveholders of the same associated wealth, and\nwielding by their votes, upon every question of government or of\npublic policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the House.  In the\nSenate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding power is yet\ngreater.  By the influence of slavery, in the States where the\ninstitution is tolerated, over their elections, no other than a\nslaveholder can rise to the distinction of obtaining a seat in the\nSenate; and thus, of the 52 members of the federal Senate, 26 are\nowners of slaves, and as effectively representatives of that\ninterest as the 88 members elected by them to the House.'--'By this\nprocess it is that all political power in the States is absorbed and\nengrossed by the owners of _slaves_, and the overruling policy of\nthe States is shaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination.\nThe legislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in\ntheir hands--the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the\nblack code of slavery--every law of the legislature becomes a link\nin the chain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his\nhapless fate; every judicial decision a perversion of the human\nintellect to the justification of _wrong_.--Its reciprocal\noperation upon the government of the nation is, to establish an\nartificial majority in the slave representation over that of the\nfree people, in the American Congress, and thereby to make the\nPRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND\nANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.--The result is seen\nin the fact that, at this day, the President of the United States,\nthe President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of\nRepresentatives, and five out of nine of the Judges of the Supreme\nJudicial Courts of the United States, are not only citizens of\nslaveholding States, but individual slaveholders themselves. So are,\nand constantly have been, with scarcely an exception, all the\nmembers of both Houses of Congress from the slaveholding States; and\nso are, in immensely disproportionate numbers, the commanding\nofficers of the army and navy; the officers of the customs; the\nregisters and receivers of the land offices, and the post-masters\nthroughout the slaveholding States.--The Biennial Register indicates\nthe birth-place of all the officers employed in the government of\nthe Union.  If it were required to designate the owners of this\nspecies of property among them, it would be little more than a\ncatalogue of slaveholders.'\"\n\nIt is confessed by Mr. Adams, alluding to the national convention\nthat framed the Constitution, that \"the delegation from the free\nStates, in their extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendency of the\nSouthern slaveholder, did listen to a _compromise between right and\nwrong_--_between freedom and slavery_; of the ultimate fruits of which\nthey had no conception, but which already even now is urging the\nUnion to its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile,\nforeign, and Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential\nissue of which will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the\nunhallowed standard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the\nNorth American Union--that banner, first unfurled to the breeze,\ninscribed with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of\nIndependence.\"\n\nHence, to swear to support the Constitution of the United States, _as\nit is_, is to make \"a compromise between right and wrong,\" and to\nwage war against human liberty. It is to recognize and honor as\nrepublican legislators, _incorrigible men-stealers_, MERCILESS\nTYRANTS, BLOOD THIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weapons\nabout their persons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives,\nwith which they threaten to murder any Northern senator or\nrepresentative who shall dare to stain their _honor_, or interfere\nwith their _rights_! They constitute a banditti more fierce and cruel\nthan any whose atrocities are recorded on the pages of history or\nromance. To mix with them on terms of social or religious fellowship,\nis to indicate a low state of virtue; but to think of administering\na free government by their co-operation, is nothing short of insanity.\n\nArticle IV., Section 2, declares,--\"No person held to service or\nlabor in one State, _under the laws thereof_, escaping into another,\nshall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be\ndischarged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on\nclaim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.\"\n\nHere is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no mention\nof slavery or slaves, in express terms; and yet, like them, was\nintelligently framed and mutually understood by the parties to the\nratification, and intended both to protect the slave system and to\nrestore runaway slaves. It alone makes slavery a national institution,\na national crime, and all the people who are not enslaved, the\nbody-guard over those whose liberties have been cloven down. This\nagreement, too, has been fulfilled to the letter by the North.\n\nUnder the Mosaic dispensation it was imperatively commanded,--\"Thou\nshalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped\nfrom his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you,\nin that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it\nliketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.\" The warning which the\nprophet Isaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind:\n\"Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the\nmidst of the noon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that\nwandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert\nto them from the face of the spoiler.\" The prophet Obadiah brings\nthe following charge against treacherous Edom, which is precisely\napplicable to this guilty nation:--\"For thy violence against thy\nbrother Jacob, shame shall come over thee, and thou shalt be cut off\nfor ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the\nday that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and\nforeigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem,\n_even thou wast as one of them_. But thou shouldst not have looked\non the day of thy brother, in the day that he became a stranger;\nneither shouldst thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah, in\nthe day of their destruction; neither shouldst thou have spoken\nproudly in the day of distress; neither shouldst thou have _stood in\nthe cross-way, to cut off those of his that did escape_; neither\nshouldst thou have _delivered up those of his that did remain_, in\nthe day of distress.\"\n\nHow exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeachment\nof Edom by the same prophet! \"The pride of thy heart hath deceived\nthee, thou whose habitation is high; that sayeth in thy heart, Who\nshall bring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the\neagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I\nbring thee down, saith the Lord.\" The emblem of American pride and\npower is the _eagle_, and on her banner she has mingled _stars_ with\nits _stripes_. Her vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her\nself-exaltation, and her defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the\nmadness and wickedness of Edom. What shall be her punishment? Truly,\nit may be affirmed of the American people, (who live not under the\nLevitical but Christian code, and whose guilt, therefore, is the\nmore awful, and their condemnation the greater,) in the language of\nanother prophet--\"They all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every\nman his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands\nearnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and\nthe great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: _so they wrap it\nup_.\" Likewise of the colored inhabitants of this land it may be said,\n--\"This is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared\nin holes, and they are hid in prison-houses; they are for a prey,\nand none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.\"\n\nBy this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting ground\nof slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with blood-hounds,\nand capture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber\nhands upon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves\nare now in Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could\nnot find, throughout its vast extent, a single road on which they\ncould dwell in safety, _in consequence of this provision of the\nConstitution_? How is it possible, then, for the advocates of\nliberty to support a government which gives over to destruction\none-sixth part of the whole population?\n\nIt is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which has\nbeen cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves. This indicates\neither ignorance, or folly, or something worse. JAMES MADISON as one\nof the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority on this\npoint. Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia convention, he\nsaid:--\n\n  \"Another clause _secures us that property which we now possess_. At\n  present, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free,\n  _he becomes emancipated by their laws_; for the laws of the States\n  are _uncharitable_(!) to one another in this respect; but in this\n  constitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State,\n  under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or\n  regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but\n  shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or\n  labor away be due. THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE\n  OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. _This is a better security than\n  any that now exists_. No power is given to the general government to\n  interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the\n  States.\"\n\nIn the same convention, alluding to the same clause, GOV. RANDOLPH\nsaid:--\n\n  \"Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor. And, when\n  authority is given to owners of slaves to _vindicate their\n  property_, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a\n  citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his\n  runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought that, after\n  taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?\"\n\nIt is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as\nthe clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. But this is\ncriticism against fact. Slaves are recognized not merely as property,\nbut also as persons--as having a mixed character--as combining the\nhuman with the brutal. This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is\na paradox--the American Constitution is a paradox--the American\nUnion is a paradox--the American Government is a paradox; and if any\none of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That\nit is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding\nauthority of them all, and to secede from them all, we distinctly\naffirm. After the independence of this country had been achieved,\nthe voice of God exhorted the people, saying, \"Execute true judgment,\nand show mercy and compassion every man to his brother: and oppress\nnot the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and\nlet none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But\nthey refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped\ntheir ears, that they should not hear; yea, they made their hearts\nas an adamant stone.\" \"Shall I not visit for these things? saith the\nLord. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?\"\n\nWhatever doubt may have rested on any honest mind, respecting the\nmeaning of the clause in relation to persons held to service or labor,\nmust have been removed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme\nCourt of the United States, in the case of Prigg versus The State of\nPennsylvania. By that decision, any Southern slave-catcher is\nempowered to seize and convey to the South, without hindrance or\nmolestation on the part of the State, and without any legal process\nduly obtained and served, any person or persons, irrespective of\ncaste or complexion, whom he may choose to claim as runaway slaves;\nand if, when thus surprised and attacked, or on their arrival South,\nthey cannot prove by legal witnesses, that they are freemen, their\ndoom is sealed! Hence the free colored population of the North are\nspecially liable to become the victims of this terrible power, and\nall the other inhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers,\nbecause there are multitudes of white as well as black slaves on\nSouthern plantations, and slavery is no longer fastidious with\nregard to the color of its prey.\n\nAs soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was\nenunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North\nshould have risen _en masse_, if for no other cause, and declared the\nUnion at an end; and they would have done so, if they had not lost\ntheir manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty.\n\nIn the 4th Sect. of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect\nevery State in the Union \"_against domestic violence_.\" By the 8th\nSection of Article 1., congress is empowered \"to provide for calling\nforth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, _suppress\ninsurrections_, and repel invasions.\" These provisions, however\nstrictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white\npopulation, were adopted with special reference to the slave\npopulation, for the purpose of keeping them in their chains by the\ncombined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and\nthe South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile\ninsurrection would ere long be the consequence, as general as it\nwould unquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting\nthese clauses:--\n\n  \"On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be,\n  the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress\n  domestic insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth\n  their own militia? No; but it gives them a _supplementary_ security\n  to suppress insurrections and domestic violence.\"\n\nThe answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the\nconstitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left\nto the States to quell an insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly\nvested in congress, George Nicholas asked:--\n\n  \"Have they it now? If they have, does the constitution take it away?\n  If it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been\n  mentioned by the worthy member. The first part gives the general\n  government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it\n  away from the States? No! but _it gives an additional security_;\n  for, beside the power in the State government to use their own\n  militia, it will be _the duty of the general government_ to aid\n  them WITH THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION, when called for.\"\n\nThis solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the\nclimax of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the\ngarments of all the people. In consequence of it, that system has\nmultiplied its victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three\nmillions--a vast amount of territory has been purchased, in order to\ngive it extension and perpetuity--several new slave States have been\nadmitted into the Union--the slave trade has been made one of the\ngreat branches of American commerce--the slave population, though\nover-worked, starved, lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to\nevery form of deprivation and every species of torture, have been\nover awed and crushed,--or, whenever they have attempted to gain\ntheir liberty by revolt, they have been shot down and quelled by the\nstrong arm of the national government; as, for example, in the case\nof Nat Turner's insurrection in Virginia, when the naval and military\nforces of the government were called into active service. Cuban\nbloodhounds have been purchased with the money of the people, and\nimported and used to hunt slave fugitives among the everglades of\nFlorida. A merciless warfare has been waged for the extermination or\nexpulsion of the Florida Indians, because they gave succor to those\npoor hunted fugitives--a warfare which has cost the nation several\nthousand lives, and forty millions of dollars. But the catalogue\nof enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the present address.\n\nWe have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North and the\nSouth embraces every variety of wrong and outrage,--is at war with\nGod and man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be\nimmediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent,\nwe call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to\nobey God rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful\nrevolutionists, and to unite with us under the stainless banner of\nLiberty, having for its motto--\"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL--NO UNION WITH\nSLAVEHOLDERS!\"\n\nIt is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amendment;\nand we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this object.\nTrue, there is such a proviso; but, until the amendment be made,\nthat instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every\nmoral instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue\nthat we may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because\nit may be necessary to do so only for the time being, and because\nthere is some remote probability that the instrument which requires\nthat we should be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some\nfuture day be amended in these particulars? Let us not palter with\nour consciences in this manner--let us not deny that the compact was\nconceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity--let us not be so\ndishonest, even to promote a good object, as to interpret the\nConstitution in a manner utterly at variance with the intentions and\narrangements of the contracting parties; but, confessing the guilt\nof the nation, acknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond,\nwashing our hands in the waters of repentance from all further\nparticipation in this criminal alliance, and resolving that we will\nsustain none other than a free and righteous government, let us\nglory in the name of revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion,\nand consecrate our talents and means to the overthrow of all that is\ntyrannical in the land,--to the establishment of all that is free,\njust, true and holy,--to the triumph of universal love and peace.\n\nIf, in utter disregard of the historical facts which have been cited,\nit is still asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to\nmake it a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free\npeople, and was never intended to give any strength or countenance\nto the slave system--the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty\nreplies:--\"What though the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere\npiece of parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with\nwords of truth and freedom--though its provisions be as impartial and\njust as words can express, or the imagination paint--though it be as\npure as the gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven--it is\npowerless; it has no executive vitality; it is a lifeless corpse, even\nthough beautiful in death. I am famishing for lack of bread! How is my\nappetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? I am\nmanacled, wounded, bleeding dying! What consolation is it to know,\nthat they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words to be\nmy friends?\" If the liberties of the people have been betrayed--if\njudgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off, and\ntruth has fallen in the streets, and equality cannot enter--if the\nprinces of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves,\nthe people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with\npollution--if we are living under a frightful despotism, which scoffs\nat all constitutional restraints, and wields the resources of the\nnation to promote its own bloody purposes--tell us not that the\nforms of freedom are still left to us! Would such tameness and\nsubmission have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it\nhave resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering\nwedges of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive\nthe liberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have\nrusted on its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to\ngive it motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties\nwere infringed--\"_Why, what is done cannot be undone_. That is the\nfirst thought.\" No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather,\nit never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at\nonce--\"_What is done_ SHALL _be undone_. That is our FIRST and ONLY\nthought.\"\n\n\n  \"Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still\n  Old Plymouth Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill?\n  The debt we owe our fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn,\n  Whose heritage ourselves must make a thing of pride or scorn?\"\n\n  \"Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb;\n  And voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come:\n  They call on us to stand our ground--they charge us still to be\n  Not only free from chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!\"\n\n\nIt is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind\nit a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the\ntheory of the government, if the practice of the government be unjust\nand tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism\nincomparably more dreadful than that which induced the colonists to\ntake up arms against the mother country; not on account of a\nthree-penny tax on tea, but because fetters of living iron are\nfastened on the limbs of millions of our countrymen, and our most\nsacred rights are trampled in the dust. As citizens of the State,\nwe appeal to the State in vain for protection and redress. As\ncitizens of the United States, we are treated as outlaws in one\nhalf of the country, and the national government consents to our\ndestruction. We are denied the right of locomotion, freedom of speech,\nthe right of petition, the liberty of the press, the right peaceably\nto assemble together to protest against oppression and plead for\nliberty--at least in thirteen States of the Union. If we venture, as\navowed and unflinching abolitionists, to travel South of Mason and\nDixon's line, we do so at the peril of our lives. If we would escape\ntorture and death, on visiting any of the slave States, we must\nstifle our conscientious convictions, bear no testimony against\ncruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling emotions of humanity,\ndivest ourselves of all letters and papers of an anti-slavery\ncharacter, and do homage to the slaveholding power--or run the risk\nof a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and undeniable facts.\n\nThree millions of the American people are crushed under the American\nUnion! They are held as slaves--trafficked as merchandise--registered\nas goods and chattels! The government gives them no protection--the\ngovernment is their enemy--the government keeps them in chains!\nThere they lie bleeding--we are prostrate by their side--in\ntheir sorrows and sufferings we participate--their stripes are\ninflicted on our bodies, their shackles are fastened on our limbs,\ntheir cause is ours!  The Union which grinds them to the dust\nrests upon us, and with them we will struggle to overthrow it!\nThe Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless bondage, is one\nthat we cannot swear to support!  Our motto is, \"NO UNION WITH\nSLAVEHOLDERS,\" either religious or political. They are the fiercest\nenemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of God!  We separate from\nthem not in anger, not in malice, not for a selfish purpose, not to\ndo them an injury, not to cease warning, exhorting, reproving them\nfor their crimes, not to leave the perishing bondman to his fate--O\nno! But to clear our skirts of innocent blood--to give the oppressor\nno countenance--to signify our abhorrence of injustice and\ncruelty--to testify against an ungodly compact--to cease striking\nhands with thieves and consenting with adulterers--to make no\ncompromise with tyranny--to walk worthily of our high profession--to\nincrease our moral power over the nation--to obey God and vindicate\nthe gospel of his Son--hasten the downfall of slavery in America,\nand throughout the world!\n\nWe are not acting under a blind impulse.  We have carefully counted\nthe cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences.\nIt will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy--it will prove a\nfiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it--it may cost us our\nlives.  We shall be ridiculed as fools, accused as visionaries,\nbranded as disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps\npunished as traitors.  But we shall bide our time.  Whether safety\nor peril, whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours,\nbelieving that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that\nour position is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is\nrational and steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious\npromises on which to rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not\nfalter nor be dismayed, \"though the earth be removed, and though the\nmountains be carried into the midst of the sea,\"--though our ranks\nbe thinned to the number of \"three hundred men.\" Freemen! are you\nready for the conflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that\nbinds you to a slaveholding government, and declare your independence?\nUp, then, with the banner of revolution! Not to shed blood--not to\ninjure the person or estate of any oppressor--not by force and arms\nto resist any law--not to countenance a servile insurrection--not to\nwield any carnal weapons! No--ours must be a bloodless strife,\nexcepting _our_ blood be shed--for we aim, as did Christ our leader,\nnot to destroy men's lives, but to save them--to overcome evil with\ngood--to conquer through suffering for righteousness' sake--to set\nthe captive free by the potency of truth!\n\nSecede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay\nit no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices\nunder it. Send no senators or representatives to the national or\nState legislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform\nyourself, you cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate\na declaration of DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout the country.\nHold mass meetings--assemble in conventions--nail your banners to\nthe mast!\n\nDo you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot-box? What did\nthe crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? What did\nthe apostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and\nconfessors do? What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What\ncan women and children do? What has Father Mathew done for teetotalism?\nWhat has Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? \"Stand, having your\nloins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of\nrighteousness,\" and arrayed in the whole armor of God!\n\nThe form of government that shall succeed the present government of\nthe United States, let time determine. It would be a waste of time\nto argue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned\nfrom their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of\norder and obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty.\nWhat is now fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and\nshine like a gem set in the heavens, for a light to all coming ages.\n\nFinally--we believe that the effect of this movement will be,--First,\nto create discussion and agitation throughout the North; and these\nwill lead to a general perception of its grandeur and importance.\n\nSecondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, and\nconvince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or be\nabandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety.\n\nThirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and\nto carry the battle to the gate.\n\nFourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and\ninvigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it.\n\nWe reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American Union,\nwe have the God of justice with us. We know that we have our\nenslaved countrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts\nwill be with us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will\nbe against us.\n\nIn behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety,\n\nWM. LLOYD GARRISON, _President_.\n\n  WENDELL PHILLIPS,     } _Secretaries_.\n  MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN, }\n\n  _Boston, May_ 20, 1844.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nLETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON.\n\nBOSTON, 4TH July, 1844\n\n_To His Excellency George N. Briggs_:\n\nSIR--Many years since, I received from the Executive of the\nCommonwealth a commission as Justice of the Peace. I have held the\noffice that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have\nfound it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to\nbe so, could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount\nconsiderations forbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission,\nrespectfully asking you to accept my resignation.\n\nWhile I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called on\nto state the reasons that influence me.\n\nIn entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied\nwith the requirements of the law, by taking an oath \"_to support the\nConstitution of the United States_.\" I regret that I ever took that\noath. Had I then as maturely considered its full import, and the\nobligations under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who\ntake it, as I have done since, I certainly never would have taken it,\nseeing, as I now do, that the Constitution of the United States\ncontains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish,\nuphold and perpetuate _slavery_. It pledges the country to guard and\nprotect the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose\nto retain it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States\nwhich enact it. Still more, \"it has done that, which, until its\nadoption, was never before done for African slavery. It took it out\nof its former category of municipal law and local life, adopted it\nas a national institution, spread around it the broad and sufficient\nshield of national law, and thus gave to slavery a national existence.\"\nConsequently, the oath to support the Constitution of the United\nStates is a solemn promise to do that which is morally wrong; that\nwhich is a violation of the natural rights of man, and a sin in the\nsight of God.\n\nI am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I\ndo not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it.\nI only say, that _I_ would not now deliberately take it; and that,\nhaving inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie\nupon my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back\nthe commission, which was the occasion of my taking it.\n\nI am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded as\nsingular, if not censurable; and I must, therefore, be allowed to\nmake a more specific statement of those _provisions of the\nConstitution_ which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of\nslavery.\n\nThe very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once\nunder its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in\nthe popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves\nunder the description \"of all other _persons_\"--as of only\nthree-fifths of the value of free persons; thus to appearance\nundervaluing them in comparison with freemen. But its dark and\ninvolved phraseology seems intended to blind us to the consideration,\nthat those underrated slaves are merely a _basis_, not the _source_\nof representation; that by the laws of all the States where they live,\nthey are regarded not as _persons_; but as _things_; that they are\nnot the _constituency_ of the representative, but his property; and\nthat the necessary effect of this provision of the Constitution is,\nto take legislative power out of the hands of _men_, as such, and\ngive it to the mere possessors of goods and chattels. Fixing upon\nthirty thousand persons, as the smallest number that shall send one\nmember into the House of Representatives, it protects slavery by\ndistributing legislative power in a free and in a slave State thus:\nTo a congressional district in South Carolina, containing fifty\nthousand slaves, claimed as the property of five hundred whites, who\nhold, on an average, one hundred apiece, it gives one Representative\nin Congress; to a district in Massachusetts containing a population\nof thirty thousand five hundred, one Representative is assigned. But\ninasmuch as a slave is never permitted to vote, the fifty thousand\npersons in a district in Carolina form no part of \"the constituency;\"\nthat is found only in the five hundred free persons. Five hundred\nfreemen of Carolina could send one Representative to Congress, while\nit would take thirty thousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts,\nto do the same thing: that is, one slaveholder in Carolina is\nclothed by the Constitution with the same political power and\ninfluence in the Representatives Hall at Washington, as sixty\nMassachusetts men like you and me, who \"eat their bread in the sweat\nof their own brows.\"\n\nAccording to the census of 1830, and the ratio of representation\nbased upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the\nHouse of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an\napproximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves\nin the United States are held as property by about two hundred and\nfifty thousand persons--giving an average of ten slaves to each\nslaveholder, those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most,\nby only ten thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths\nof that number, were the representatives, not only of the two\nhundred and fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of _property_\nwhich, five years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at\npresent, were estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent\ncandidate for the Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a\nsum, which, by the natural increase of five years, and the enhanced\nvalue resulting from a more prosperous state of the planting\ninterest, cannot now be less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars.\nAll this vast amount of property, as it is \"peculiar,\" is also\nidentical in its character. In Congress, as we have seen, it is\nanimated by one spirit, moves in one mass, and is wielded with one\naim; and when we consider that tyranny is always timid, and despotism\ndistrustful, we see that this vast money power would be false to\nitself, did it not direct all its eyes and hands, and put forth all\nits ingenuity and energy, to one end--self-protection and\nself-perpetuation. And this it has ever done. In all the vibrations\nof the political scale, whether in relation to a Bank or Sub-Treasury,\nFree Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has moved, and will\ncontinue to move, in one mass, for its own protection.\n\nWhile the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of\nRepresentatives, \"in the Senate of the Union,\" says John Quincy Adams,\n\"the proportion of slaveholding power is still greater. By the\ninfluence of slavery in the States where the institution is tolerated,\nover their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to the\ndistinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the\nfifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of\nslaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as\nthe eighty-eight members elected by them to the House.\"\n\nThe dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave interest,\nas thus seen and exercised in the _Legislative Halls_ of our nation,\nis equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the\nNational government.\n\nIn the _Electoral colleges_, the same cause produces the same\neffect--the same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the\nHalls of Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before\nthey dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the\npeople, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will\nshow herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great\npolitical parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating\neach a slaveholder for the chair of the State. The candidate of one\nparty declares. \"I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose,\nany scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;\"\nand adds, \"It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that\neither of the two great parties of this country has any design or\naim at abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true.\"[94]\n\n[Footnote 94: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839,\nand confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.]\n\n\nThe other party nominates a man who says, \"I have no hesitation in\ndeclaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas\nto the territory and government of the United States.\"\n\nThus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie\nwith each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a\ncondition precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the\nexecutive chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the\nexistence of our constitutional government, has been occupied by a\nslaveholder.\n\nThe same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of\n_justice_. Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United\nStates, five are slaveholders, and of course, must be faithless to\ntheir own interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them\nplace, or must, so far as _they_ are concerned, give both to law and\nconstitution such a construction as shall justify the language of\nJohn Quincy Adams, when he says--\"The legislative, executive, and\njudicial authorities, are all in their hands--for the preservation,\npropagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every\nlaw of the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave;\nevery executive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial\ndecision a perversion of the human intellect to the justification of\nwrong.\"\n\nThus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical\neffect of this clause of the Constitution, that I have sworn to\nsupport, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation\ninto the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it\nmay be regarded by the Constitution as \"persons,\" is in fact and\npractical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an\nindissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger;\ncounselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the\nwhole power, and controlling the destiny of the nation.\n\nIf we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair\nof the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both.\nSlavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The\nparamount voice that comes from the temple of national justice,\nissues from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery,\nand at her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or\nmarch from the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her\ninterests in Texas.\n\nThe navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to\nsuppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery.\n\nFreemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice\nagainst slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the\nperil of their lives.\n\nThe representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor of\nCongress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to\npray that she would let her poor victims go.\n\nI renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a\npower, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of\nrobbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own\nprotection, support and perpetuation.\n\nPassing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Congress\nfor twenty years, from passing any law against the African slave\ntrade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen\nsons of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which\nguarantees protection against \"_domestic violence_,\" and which\npledges to the South the military force of the country, to protect\nthe masters against their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our\nchildren, to shoot down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in\nemulation of our revolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable\n\"right to life, _liberty_ and the pursuit of happiness,\"--this\nclause of the Constitution, I say distinctly, I never will\nsupport.\n\nThat part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of\nfugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join\nin no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for\nthe panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it\nagainst him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! Under\nthis clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into effect,\nslavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such a\ncharacter, as have left the free citizen of the North without\nprotection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized\nin a free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress\ndoes not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of\na Judge of a United States' Court, or even of the humblest State\nmagistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party\nmost deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law,\nfreemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery--and\nshould I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country\nwhere I am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws\nof the United States would shield me from the same destiny.\n\nThese, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the United\nStates, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once\nto the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the\nprincipal reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my\nallegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to\nsupport it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law\nof God, or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break\nit.\n\nIt is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, and\nthat by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged.\nBut it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done.\nIt cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made.\n\nIt is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously\nkeep the words \"Slave\" and \"Slavery\" from its face. But to do our\nconstitutional fathers justice, while they forebore--from very\nshame--to give the word \"Slavery\" a place in the Constitution, they\ndid not forbear--again to do them justice--to give place in it to\nthe _thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance\nof Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though\nthey sacrificed justice in doing so.\n\nThere is abundant evidence that this clause touching \"persons held\nto service or labor,\" not only operates practically, under the\njudicial construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but\nthat it was intended so to operate by the framers of the\nConstitution. The highest judicial authorities--Chief Justice Shaw,\nof the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and\nMr. Justice Story, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the\ncase of _Prigg_ vs. _The State of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know\nnot on what evidence, that without this \"compromise,\" this security\nfor Southern slaveholders, \"the Union could not have been formed.\"\nAnd there is still higher evidence, not only that the framers of the\nConstitution meant by this clause to protect slavery, but that they\ndid this, knowing that slavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[95] informs us\nthat the clause in question, as it came out of the hands of Dr.\nJohnson, the chairman of the \"committee on style,\" read thus: \"No\nperson legally held to service, or labor, in one State, escaping into\nanother, shall,\" &c., and that the word \"legally\" was struck out, and\nthe words \"under the laws thereof\" inserted after the word \"State,\" in\ncompliance with the wish of some, who thought the term _legal_\nequivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal \"_in a moral\nview_.\" A conclusive proof that, although future generations might\napply that clause to other kinds of \"service or labor,\" when slavery\nshould have died out, or been killed off by the young spirit of\nliberty, which was _then_ awake and at work in the land; still,\nslavery was what they were wrapping up in \"equivocal\" words; and\nwrapping it up for its protection and safe keeping: a conclusive proof\nthat the framers of the Constitution were more careful to protect\nthemselves in the judgment of coming generations, from the charge\nof ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive proof that they knew that\nslavery was _not_ \"legal in a moral view,\" that it was a violation\nof the moral law of God; and yet knowing and confessing its\nimmorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its support and\ndefence.\n\n[Footnote 95: Madison Papers, p. 1589]\n\nThis language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a\npart of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the\npatriots of the Revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are\nbound to _do_ all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we\n_should_ do. But the claims of truth and right are paramount to\nall other claims.\n\nWith all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must\nadmit,--for they have left on record their own confession of it,--that\nin this part of their work they intended to hold the shield of\ntheir protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They\nmade a \"compromise\" which they had no right to make--a compromise of\nmoral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as\n\"political expediency.\" I am sure they did not know--no man could\nknow, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the\nwrong, that they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy\nAdams,[96] in relation to the article fixing the basis of\nrepresentation, \"Little did the members of the Convention, from the\nfree States, imagine or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden\nunder the mask of this concession.\"\n\n[Footnote 96: See his Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions.]\n\n\nI verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits\nconferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity,\nits swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external\nprosperity of its multiplying millions; yet the _moral_ injury that\nhas been done, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over\nthat tremendous sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus\nbreaking down in the eyes of the nation the barrier between right\nand wrong; by so tenderly cherishing slavery as, in less than the\nlife of man, to multiply her children from half a million to nearly\nthree millions; by exacting oaths from those who occupy prominent\nstations in society, that they will violate at once the rights of\nman and the law of God; by substituting itself as a rule of right,\nin place of the moral laws of the universe;--thus in effect,\ndethroning the Almighty in the hearts of this people and setting up\nanother sovereign in his stead--more than outweighs it all. A\nmelancholy and monitory lesson this, to all timeserving and\ntemporising statesmen! A striking illustration of the _impolicy_ of\nsacrificing _right_ to any considerations of expediency! Yet, what\nbetter than the evil effects that we have seen, could the authors of\nthe Constitution have reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of\nright, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it reasonable in\nthem to expect that after they had introduced a vicious element into\nthe very Constitution of the body politic which they were calling\ninto life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it reasonable\nin them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting the public\nmorals for a whole generation, their children would have too much\nvirtue to _use_ for the defence of slavery, a power which they\nthemselves had not too much virtue to _give_? It is dangerous for\nthe sovereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the\nshield of its protection over any thing that is not \"legal in a moral\nview.\" Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down upon\nyour warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room it\nmay crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask\nin the fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we\nnow see, both her minions and her victims multiply apace till the\npolitics, the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation,\nare brought completely under her control.\n\n\nTo me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the\nConstitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now\nso pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government,\nthat literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can\nsee for the disease, is to be found in the _dissolution of the\npatient_.\n\nThe Constitution of the United States, both in theory and practice,\nis so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery,\nso imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for\nevil, that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any\nlonger.\n\nHenceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession\nof allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The\nburdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall\nendeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law,\nand distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will\nbe a party to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his.\n\nVery respectfully, your friend,\n\nFRANCIS JACKSON.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFROM MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH AT NIBLO'S GARDENS.\n\n\"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it\namong us; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the\nfull extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in\njustice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in\nthe Constitution, _in favor of the slaveholding States_ which are\nalready in the Union, ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends\non me, shall be fulfilled, in the fullness of their spirit, and to\nthe exactness of their letter.\"!!!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS FROM JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS\n\nAT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844.\n\nThe benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the\nrestoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of\ncommerce, navigation, and ship-building--the acquisition of the\nmeans of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection\nand encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the\ncountry. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was\ninsufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to\nthe adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was\n_protection_.--Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of\nIndians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most\nterrible of wars--and protection from their own negroes--protection\nfrom their insurrections--protection from their escape--protection\neven to the trade by which they were brought into the\ncountry--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to the very\nbondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be denied--the\nslaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their\nassent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the\nperpetuity of their dominion over their slaves. The first was the\nimmunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave-trade; the\nsecond was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves--an\nengagement positively prohibited by the laws of God, delivered from\nSinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to the principles of popular\nrepresentation, of a representation for slaves--for articles of\nmerchandise, under the name of persons.\n\nThe reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the\ndictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and\nambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is\nmost cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument.\nA stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the\nConstitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or\na slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a\nword in the Constitution _apparently_ bearing upon the condition of\nslavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of\npractical execution, if there were not a slave in the land.\n\nThe delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that,\nwithout this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves,\nthey would not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the\nfreemen of the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from\nthe vital principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union\nitself, averted their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the\nbond.\n\nTwenty years passed away--the slave markets of the South were\nsaturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the\n31st of December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever\nmore to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was\nstill lawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to\na prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade,\nand they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death\nthe slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and\nenjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively\nto themselves.\n\nPerhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether\nescaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense\nanxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit\nalready formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing\ntone which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of\nthe lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the\ninternal slave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa\nhad been allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the\nslave representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the\nConstitution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been,\nnever--no, never would they have consented to it.\n\nThe representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of persons,\nwas in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of\nproprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of\nall the rest of the community. This species of property was odious\nin its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and\ninalienable rights of man, and of the vital principles of\nChristianity; it was all accumulated in one geographical section of\nthe country, and was all held by wealthy men, comparatively small in\nnumbers, not amounting to a tenth part of the free white population\nof the States in which it was concentrated.\n\nIn some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordinary\npolitical power and privileges have been invested in the owners of\nhorses; but then these privileges and these powers have been granted\nfor the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the\ncommunity, required of the favoured class. The Roman knights\nconstituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings\ngathered by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of\nCannae, amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were\nno gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States,\nthe political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely\ngratuitous. No extraordinary service is required of them; they are,\non the contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community,\nalways threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered\nin the blood of both parties, master and slave, and always\ndepressing the condition of the poor free laborer, by competition\nwith the labor of the slave. The property in horses was the gift of\nGod to man, at the creation of the world; the property in slaves is\nproperty acquired and held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect\nfrom the pillage of a freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can\ngive a prescriptive right. You are told that this is no concern of\nyours, and that the question of freedom and slavery is exclusively\nreserved to the consideration of the separate States. But if it be so,\nas to the mere question of right between master and slave, it is of\ntremendous concern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners\nshould possess, besides their own share in the representative hall\nof the nation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of\nthe whole number of the representatives of the people. This is now\nyour condition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of\nprinciple, which begins by declaring the representation in the\npopular branch of the legislature a representation of persons, and\nthen provides that one class of persons shall have neither part not\nlot in the choice of their representatives; but their elective\nfranchise shall be transferred to their masters, and the oppressors\nshall represent the oppressed. The same perversion of the\nrepresentative principle pollutes the composition of the colleges of\nelectors of President and Vice President of the United States, and\nevery department of the government of the Union is thus tainted at\nits source by the gangrene of slavery.\n\nFellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators\nand executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been\nyour legislation?  The numbers of freemen constituting your nation\nare much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free.\nYou have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union.\nYour influence on the legislation and the administration of the\ngovernment ought to be in the proportion of three to two.--But how\nstands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence\nexercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers,\nhere is an intrusive influence in every department, by a\nrepresentation nominally of persons, but really of property,\nostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters,\noverbalancing your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of\nsupplementary power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the\ncompact, CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR\nGOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the sordid private\ninterest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves.\n\nFrom the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United\nStates, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more\nand more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as\nit has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been\nsinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of\nslaves themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown\nin the Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added\nlargely to the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of\nthe African slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing\nthe benefit of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the\nancient dominion, has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a\ncommunity of slave-breeders for sale, and converted the land of\nGeorge Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas\nJefferson, into a great barracoon--a cattle-show of human beings, an\nemporium, of which the staple articles of merchandise are the flesh\nand blood, the bones and sinews of immortal man.\n\nOf the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of\nmen at the time when the Constitution of the United States was formed,\nwhat clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same year in\nwhich that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of the\nConfederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people to\nthe Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for ever\nthroughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remonstrance\nor a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no\nguaranty for the property of the slaveholder--no double representation\nof him in the Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation\nfor the recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of\n_government_ came to be delegated to the Union, the South--that\nis, South Carolina and Georgia--refused their subscription to\nthe parchment, till it should be saturated with the infection\nof slavery, which no fumigation could purify, no quarantine could\nextinguish. The freemen of the North gave way, and the deadly\nvenom of slavery was infused into the Constitution of freedom. Its\nfirst consequence has been to invert the first principle of Democracy,\nthat the will of the majority of numbers shall rule the land. By\nmeans of the double representation, the minority command the whole,\nand a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF\nTHE COUNTRY. To acquire this superiority of a large majority of\nfreemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly all the seats\nof power and place, is constantly for a long series of years\npursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the\nChief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by\nthe owners of slaves. The Executive departments, the Army and Navy,\nthe Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all\npresent the same spectacle:--an immense majority of power in the\nhands of a very small minority of the people--millions made for a\nfraction of a few thousands.\n\n*       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom that day (1830), SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE-BREEDING AND\nSLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE\nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and of the slaveholding States, at home and\nabroad; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a large\nincrease upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has\npresented the portentous evidence of increased influence and\nascendancy of the slaveholding power.\n\nOf the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and\nconclusive evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of\nthe right of petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee\nagainst slavery, by the first article amendatory of the Constitution.\n\n\n\nNo. 13.\n\nTHE\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR\nIN THE UNITED STATES.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNEW YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\nNO. 143 NASSAU STREET.\n\n1839.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis No. contains 1-1/2 sheet.--Postage, under 100 miles,\n2-1/2 cts. over 100, 3 cts.\n\nPlease Read and circulate.\n\n\n\n\n  ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt appears from the census of 1830, that there were then 319,467\nfree colored persons in the United States. At the present time the\nnumber cannot be less than 360,000. Fifteen States of the Federal\nUnion have each a smaller population than this aggregate. Hence if\nthe whole mass of human beings inhabiting Connecticut, or New Jersey,\nor any other of these fifteen States, were subjected to the ignorance,\nand degradation, and persecution and terror we are about to describe,\nas the lot of this much injured people, the amount of suffering would\nstill be numerically less than that inflicted by a professedly\nChristian and republican community upon the free negroes. Candor,\nhowever, compels us to admit that, deplorable as is their condition,\nit is still not so wretched as Colonizationists and slaveholders,\nfor obvious reasons, are fond of representing it. It is not true\nthat free negroes are \"more vicious and miserable than slaves _can_\nbe,\"[97] nor that \"it would be as humane to throw slaves from the\ndecks of the middle passage, as to set them free in this country,\"[98]\nnor that \"a sudden and universal emancipation without\ncolonization, would be a greater CURSE to the slaves themselves,\nthan the bondage in which they are held.\"\n\n[Footnote 97: Rev. Mr. Bacon, of New Haven, 7 Rep. Am. Col. Soc.\np. 99.]\n\n[Footnote 98: African Repository, Vol. IV. p. 226.]\n\n\nIt is a little singular, that in utter despite of these rash\nassertions slaveholders and colonizationists unite in assuring us,\nthat the slaves are rendered _discontented_ by _witnessing_ the\nfreedom of their colored brethren; and hence we are urged to assist\nin banishing to Africa these sable and dangerous mementoes of liberty.\n\nWe all know that the wife and children of the free negro are not\nordinarily sold in the market--that he himself does not toil under\nthe lash, and that in certain parts of our country he is permitted\nto acquire some intelligence, and to enjoy some comforts, utterly\nand universally denied to the slave. Still it is most unquestionable,\nthat these people grievously suffer from a cruel and wicked\nprejudice--cruel in its consequences; wicked in its voluntary\nadoption, and its malignant character.\n\nColonizationists have taken great pains to inculcate the opinion that\nprejudice against color is implanted in our nature by the Author of\nour being; and whence they infer the futility of every effort to\nelevate the colored man in this country, and consequently the duty\nand benevolence of sending him to Africa, beyond the reach of our\ncruelty.[99] The theory is as false in fact as it is derogatory to\nthe character of that God whom we are told is LOVE.  With what\nastonishment and disgust should we behold an earthly parent exciting\nfeuds and animosities among his own children; yet we are assured,\nand that too by professing Christians, that our heavenly Father has\nimplanted a principle of hatred, repulsion and alienation between\ncertain portions of his family on earth, and then commanded them, as\nif in mockery, to \"love one another.\"\n\n[Footnote 99: \"Prejudices, which neither refinement, nor argument,\nnor education, NOR RELIGION ITSELF can subdue, mark the people of\ncolor, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation\n_inevitable and incurable_.\"--_Address of the Connecticut Col.\nSociety_. \"The managers consider it clear that causes exist, and are\nnow operating, to prevent their improvement and elevation to any\nconsiderable extent as a class in this country, which are fixed, not\nonly beyond the control of the friends of humanity, but of _any\nhuman power_: CHRISTIANITY cannot do for them here, what it will do\nfor them in Africa. This is not the _fault_ of the colored man,\n_nor of the white man_, but an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE, _and no\nmore to be changed than the laws of nature_.\"--15 Rep. Am. Col. Soc.\np. 47.\n\n\"The people of color must, in this country, remain for ages,\nprobably for ever, a separate and distinct caste, weighed down by\ncauses powerful, universal, invincible, which neither legislation\nnor CHRISTIANITY can remove.\"--African Repository Vol. VIII. p. 196.\n\n\"Do they (the abolitionists) not perceive that in thus confounding\nall the distinctions which GOD himself has made, they arraign the\nwisdom and goodness of Providence itself? It has been His divine\npleasure, to make the black man black, and the white man white, and\nto distinguish them by other _repulsive_ constitutional\ndifferences.\"--Speech in Senate of the United States, February 7,\n1839, by HENRY CLAY, PRESIDENT OF THE AM. COL. SOC.]\n\n\nIn vain do we seek in nature, for the origin of this prejudice. Young\nchildren never betray it, and on the continent of Europe it is\nunknown. We are not speaking of matters of taste, or of opinions of\npersonal beauty, but of a prejudice against complexion, leading to\ninsult, degradation and oppression. In no country in Europe is any\nman excluded from refined society, or deprived of literary, religious,\nor political privileges on account of the tincture of his skin. If\nthis prejudice is the fiat of the Almighty, most wonderful is it,\nthat of all the kindreds of the earth, none have been found\nsubmissive to the heavenly impulse, excepting the white inhabitants\nof North America; and of these, it is no less strange than true,\nthat this divine principle of repulsion is most energetic in such\npersons as, in other respects, are the least observant of their\nMaker's will.  This prejudice is sometimes erroneously regarded as\nthe _cause_ of slavery; and some zealous advocates of emancipation\nhave flattered themselves that, could the prejudice be destroyed,\nnegro slavery would fall with it.  Such persons have very inadequate\nideas of the malignity of slavery.  They forget that the slaves in\nGreece and Rome were of the same hue as their masters; and that at\nthe South, the value of a slave, especially of a female, rises, as\nthe complexion recedes from the African standard.\n\nWere we to inquire into the geography of this prejudice, we should\nfind that the localities in which it attains its rankest luxuriance,\nare not the rice swamps of Georgia, nor the sugar fields of Louisiana,\nbut the hills and valleys of New England, and the prairies of Ohio!\nIt is a fact of acknowledged notoriety, that however severe may be\nthe laws against colored people at the South, the prejudice against\ntheir _persons_ is far weaker than among ourselves.\n\nIt is not necessary for our present purpose, to enter into a\nparticular investigation of the condition of the free negroes in the\nslave States. We all know that they suffer every form of oppression\nwhich the laws can inflict upon persons not actually slaves. That\nunjust and cruel enactments should proceed from a people who keep\ntwo millions of their fellow men in abject bondage, and who believe\nsuch enactments essential to the maintenance of their despotism,\ncertainly affords no cause for surprise.\n\nWe turn to the free States, where slavery has not directly steeled\nour hearts against human suffering, and where no supposed danger of\ninsurrection affords a pretext for keeping the free blacks in\nignorance and degradation; and we ask, what is the character of the\nprejudice against color _here_?  Let the Rev. Mr. Bacon, of\nConnecticut, answer the question.  This gentleman, in a vindication\nof the Colonization Society, assures us, \"The _Soodra_ is not\nfarther separated from the _Brahim_ in regard to all his privileges,\ncivil, intellectual, and moral, than the negro from the white man by\nthe prejudices which result from the difference made between them by\nTHE GOD OF NATURE.\"--(_Rep. Am. Col. Soc._ p. 87.)\n\nWe may here notice the very opposite effect produced on Abolitionists\nand Colonizationists, by the consideration that this difference\n_is_ made by the GOD OF NATURE; leading the one to discard the\nprejudice, and the other to banish its victims.\n\nWith these preliminary remarks we will now proceed to take a view of\nthe condition of the free people of color in the non-slaveholding\nStates; and will consider in order, the various disabilities and\noppressions to which they are subjected, either by law or the\ncustoms of society.\n\n\n1. GENERAL EXCLUSION FROM THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.\n\nWere this exclusion founded on the want of property, or any other\nqualification deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the\nfranchise, it would afford no just cause of complaint; but it is\nfounded solely on the color of the skin, and is therefore irrational\nand unjust. That taxation and representation should be inseparable,\nwas one of the axioms of the fathers of our revolution; and one of\nthe reasons they assigned for their revolt from the crown of Britain.\nBut _now_, it is deemed a mark of fanaticism to complain of the\ndisfranchisement of a whole race, while they remain subject to the\nburden of taxation. It is worthy of remark, that of the thirteen\noriginal States, only _two_ were so recreant to the principles of\nthe Revolution, as to make a _white skin_ a qualification for\nsuffrage. But the prejudice has grown with our growth, and\nstrengthened with our strength; and it is believed that in _every_\nState constitution subsequently formed or revised,[excepting\nVermont and Maine, and the Revised constitution of Massachusetts,]\nthe crime of a dark complexion has been punished, by debarring its\npossessor from all approach to the ballot-box.[100] The necessary\neffect of this proscription in aggravating the oppression and\ndegradation of the colored inhabitants must be obvious to all who\ncall to mind the solicitude manifested by demagogues, and\noffice-seekers, and law makers, to propitiate the good will of all\nwho have votes to bestow.\n\n[Footnote 100: From this remark the revised constitution of New York\nis _nominally_ an exception; colored citizens, possessing a _freehold_\nworth two hundred and fifty dollars, being allowed to vote; while\nsuffrage is extended to _white_ citizens without any property\nqualification.]\n\n\n2. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION.\n\nIt is in vain that the Constitution of the United States expressly\nguarantees to \"the citizens of each State, all the privileges and\nimmunities of citizens in the several States:\"--It is in vain that\nthe Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that this\nclause confers on every citizen of one State the right to \"pass\nthrough, or reside in any other State for the purposes of trade,\nagriculture, professional pursuits, or _otherwise_.\" It is in vain\nthat \"the members of the several State legislatures\" are required to\n\"be bound by oath or affirmation to support\" the constitution\nconferring this very guarantee. Constitutions, and judicial decisions,\nand religious obligations are alike outraged by our State enactments\nagainst people of color. There is scarcely a slave State in which a\ncitizen of New York, with a dark skin, may visit a dying child\nwithout subjecting himself to legal penalties. But in the slave\nStates we look for cruelty; we expect the rights of humanity and the\nlaws of the land to be sacrificed on the altar of slavery. In the\nfree States we had reason to hope for a greater deference to decency\nand morality. Yet even in these States we behold the effects of a\nmiasma wafted from the South. The Connecticut Black Act, prohibiting,\nunder heavy penalties, the instruction of any colored person from\nanother State, is well known. It is one of the encouraging signs of\nthe times, that public opinion has recently compelled the repeal of\nthis detestable law. But among all the free States, OHIO stands\npre-eminent for the wickedness of her statutes against this class of\nour population. These statutes are not merely infamous outrages on\nevery principle of justice and humanity, but are gross and palpable\nviolations of the State constitution, and manifest an absence of\nmoral sentiment in the Ohio legislature as deplorable as it is\nalarming. We speak the language, not of passion, but of sober\nconviction; and for the truth of this language we appeal, first, to\nthe Statutes themselves, and then to the consciences of our readers.\nWe shall have occasion to notice these laws under the several\ndivisions of our subject to which they belong; at present we ask\nattention to the one intended to prevent the colored citizens of\nother States from removing into Ohio. By the constitution of New York,\nthe colored inhabitants are expressly recognized as \"citizens.\" Let\nus suppose then a New York freeholder and voter of this class,\nconfiding in the guarantee given by the Federal constitution removes\ninto Ohio. No matter how much property he takes with him; no matter\nwhat attestations he produces to the purity of his character, he is\nrequired by the Act of 1807, to find, within twenty days, two\nfreehold sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars for his _good\nbehavior_; and likewise for his _maintenance_, should he at any\nfuture period from any cause whatever be unable to maintain himself,\nand in default of procuring such sureties he is to be removed by the\noverseers of the poor. The legislature well knew that it would\ngenerally be utterly impossible for a stranger, and especially a\n_black_ stranger, to find such sureties. It was the _design_ of\nthe Act, by imposing impracticable conditions, to prevent colored\nemigrants from remaining within the State; and in order more\ncertainly to effect this object, it imposes a pecuniary penalty on\nevery inhabitant who shall venture to \"harbor,\" that is, receive\nunder his roof, or who shall even \"employ\" an emigrant who has not\ngiven the required sureties; and it moreover renders such inhabitant\nso harboring or employing him, legally liable for his future\nmaintenance!!\n\nWe are frequently told that the efforts of the abolitionists have in\nfact aggravated the condition of the colored people, bond and free.\nThe _date_ of this law, as well as the date of most of the laws\ncomposing the several slave codes, show what credit is to be given\nto the assertion. If a barbarous enactment is _recent_, its odium is\nthrown upon the friends of the blacks--if _ancient_, we are assured\nit is _obsolete_. The Ohio law was enacted only four years after the\nState was admitted into the Union. In 1800 there were only three\nhundred and thirty-seven free blacks in the territory, and in 1830\nthe number in the State was nine thousand five hundred. Of course a\nvery large proportion of the present colored population of the State\nmust have entered it in ignorance of this iniquitous law, or in\ndefiance of it. That the law has not been universally enforced,\nproves only that the people of Ohio are less profligate than their\nlegislators--that it has remained in the statute book for thirty-two\nyears, proves the depraved state of public opinion and the horrible\npersecution to which the colored people are legally exposed. But let\nit not be supposed that this vile law is in fact obsolete, and its\nvery existence forgotten.\n\nIn 1829, a very general effort was made to enforce this law, and\nabout _one thousand free blacks_ were in consequence of it driven\nout of the State; and sought a refuge in the more free and Christian\ncountry of Canada. Previous to their departure, they sent a\ndeputation to the Governor of the Upper Province, to know if they\nwould be admitted, and received from Sir James Colebrook this\nreply,--\"Tell the _republicans_ on your side of the line, that we\nroyalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us, you\nwill be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of his majesty's\nsubjects.\" This was the origin of the Wilberforce colony in Upper\nCanada.\n\nWe have now before us an Ohio paper, containing a proclamation by\nJohn S. Wiles, overseer of the poor in the town of Fairfield, dated\n12th March, 1838. In this instrument notice is given to all\n\"black or mulatto persons\" residing in Fairfield, to comply with the\nrequisitions of the Act of 1807 within twenty days, or the law would\nbe enforced against them. The proclamation also addresses the white\ninhabitants of Fairfield in the following terms,--\"Whites, look out!\nIf any person or persons _employing_ any black or mulatto person,\ncontrary to the 3d section of the above law, you may look out for\nthe breakers.\" The extreme vulgarity and malignity of this notice\nindicates the spirit which gave birth to this detestable law, and\ncontinues it in being.\n\nNow what says the constitution of Ohio? \"ALL are born free and\nindependent, and have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights;\namong which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty,\n_acquiring, possessing, and protecting property_, and pursuing and\nattaining happiness and safety.\" Yet men who had called their Maker\nto witness, that they would obey this very constitution, require\nimpracticable conditions, and then impose a pecuniary penalty and\ngrievous liabilities on every man who shall give to an innocent\nfellow countryman a night's lodging, or even a meal of victuals in\nexchange for his honest labor!\n\n\n3. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION.\n\nWe explicitly disclaim all intention to imply that the several\ndisabilities and cruelties we are specifying are of universal\napplication. The laws of some States in relation to people of color\nare more wicked than others; and the spirit of persecution is not in\nevery place equally active and malignant. In none of the free States\nhave these people so many grievances to complain of as in Ohio, and\nfor the honor of our country we rejoice to add, that in no other\nState in the Union, has their right to petition for a redress of\ntheir grievances been denied.\n\nOn the 14th January, 1839, a petition for relief from certain legal\ndisabilities, from colored inhabitants of Ohio, was presented to the\n_popular_ branch of the legislature, and its rejection was moved\nby George H. Flood.[101] This rejection was not a denial of the prayer,\nbut an _expulsion of the petition itself_, as an intruder into the\nhouse. \"The question presented for our decision,\" said one of the\nmembers, \"is simply this--Shall human beings, who are bound by every\nenactment upon our statute book, be _permitted_ to _request_ the\nlegislature to modify or soften the laws under which they live?\" To\nthe Grand Sultan, crowded with petitions as he traverses the streets\nof Constantinople, such a question would seem most strange; but\nAmerican democrats can exert a tyranny over _men who have no votes_,\nutterly unknown to Turkish despotism. Mr. Flood's motion was lost by\na majority of only _four_ votes; but this triumph of humanity and\nrepublicanism was as transient as it was meagre. The _next_ day, the\nHouse, by a large majority, resolved: \"That the blacks and mulattoes\nwho may be residents within this State, have no constitutional right\nto present their petitions to the General Assembly for any purpose\nwhatsoever, and that any reception of such petitions on the part of\nthe General Assembly is a mere act of privilege or policy, and not\nimposed by any expressed or implied power of the Constitution.\"\n\n[Footnote 101: It is sometimes interesting to preserve the names of\nindividuals who have perpetrated bold and unusual enormities.]\n\n\nThe phraseology of this resolution is as clumsy as its assertions are\nbase and sophistical. The meaning intended to be expressed is simply,\nthat the Constitution of Ohio, neither in terms nor by implication,\nconfers on such residents as are negroes or mulattoes, any right\nto offer a petition to the legislature for any object whatever; nor\nimposes on that body any obligation to notice such a petition; and\nwhatever attention it may please to bestow upon it, ought to be\nregarded as an act not of duty, but merely of favor or expediency.\nHence it is obvious, that the _principle_ on which the resolution is\nfounded is, that the reciprocal right and duty of offering and\nhearing petitions _rest solely on constitutional enactment_, and not\non moral obligation. The reception of negro petitions is declared\nto be a mere act of _privilege or policy_. Now it is difficult to\nimagine a principle more utterly subversive of all the duties of\nrulers, the rights of citizens, and the charities of private life.\nThe victim of oppression or fraud has no _right_ to appeal to the\nconstituted authorities for redress; nor are those authorities under\nany obligation to consider the appeal--the needy and unfortunate\nhave no right to implore the assistance of their more fortunate\nneighbors: and all are at liberty to turn a deaf ear to the cry of\ndistress. The eternal and immutable principles of justice and\nhumanity, proclaimed by Jehovah, and impressed by him on the\nconscience of man, have no binding force on the legislature of Ohio,\nunless expressly adopted and enforced by the State Constitution!\n\nBut as the legislature has thought proper thus to set at defiance the\nmoral sense of mankind, and to take refuge behind the enactments of\nthe Constitution, let us try the strength of their entrenchments. The\nwords of the Constitution, which it is pretended sanction the\nresolution we are considering are the following, viz.--\"The _people_\nhave a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult\nfor their common good, to _instruct their representatives_, and to\napply to the legislature for a redress of grievances.\" It is obvious\nthat this clause confers no rights, but is merely declaratory of\nexisting rights. Still, as the right of the people to apply for a\nredress of grievances is coupled with the right of _instructing\ntheir representatives_, and as negroes are not electors and\nconsequently are without representatives, it is inferred that they\nare not part of _the people_. That Ohio legislators are not\nChristians would be a more rational conclusion. One of the members\navowed his opinion that \"none but voters had a right to petition.\" If\nthen, according to the principle of the resolution, the Constitution\nof Ohio denies the right of petition to all but electors, let us\nconsider the practical results of such a denial. In the first place,\nevery female in the State is placed under the same disability with\n\"blacks and mulattoes.\" No wife has a right to ask for a divorce--no\ndaughter may plead for a father's life. Next, no man under\ntwenty-one years--no citizen of any age, who from want of sufficient\nresidence, or other qualification, is not entitled to vote--no\nindividual among the tens of thousands of aliens in the\nState--however oppressed and wronged by official tyranny or\ncorruption, has a right to seek redress from the representatives of\nthe people, and should he presume to do so, may be told, that, like\n\"blacks and mulattoes,\" he \"has no constitutional right to present\nhis petition to the General Assembly for any purpose whatever.\"\nAgain--the State of Ohio is deeply indebted to the citizens of other\nStates, and also to the subjects of Great Britain for money borrowed\nto construct her canals. Should any of these creditors lose their\ncertificates of debt, and ask for their renewal; or should their\ninterest be withheld, or paid in depreciated currency, and were they\nto ask for justice at the hands of the legislature, they might be\ntold, that any attention paid to their request must be regarded as a\n\"mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed\nor implied power of the Constitution,\" for, not being voters, they\nstood on the same ground as \"blacks and mulattoes.\" Such is the\nfolly and wickedness in which prejudice against color has involved\nthe legislators of a republican and professedly Christian State in\nthe nineteenth century.\n\n\n4. EXCLUSION FROM THE ARMY AND MILITIA.\n\nThe Federal Government is probably the only one in the world that\nforbids a portion of its subjects to participate in the national\ndefence, not from any doubts of their courage, loyalty, or physical\nstrength, but merely on account of the tincture of their skin! To\nsuch an absurd extent is this prejudice against color carried, that\nsome of our militia companies have occasionally refused to march to\nthe sound of a drum when beaten by a black man. To declare a certain\nclass of the community unworthy to bear arms in defence of their\nnative country, is necessarily to consign that class to general\ncontempt.\n\n\n5. EXCLUSION FROM ALL PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.\n\nNo colored man can be a judge, juror, or constable. Were the talents\nand acquirements of a Mansfield or a Marshall veiled in a sable skin,\nthey would be excluded from the bench of the humblest court in the\nAmerican republic. In the slave States generally, no black man can\nenter a court of justice as a witness against a white one. Of course\na white man may, with perfect impunity, defraud or abuse a negro to\nany extent, provided he is careful to avoid the presence of any of\nhis own caste, at the execution of his contract, or the indulgence of\nhis malice. We are not aware that an outrage so flagrant is\nsanctioned by the laws of any _free_ State, with one exception. That\nexception the reader will readily believe can be none other than OHIO.\nA statute of this State enacts, \"that no black or mulatto _person_ or\n_persons_ shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn, or give evidence\nin any court of Record or elsewhere, in this State, in any cause\ndepending, or matter of controversy, when either party to the same\nis a WHITE person; or in any prosecution of the State against any\nWHITE person.\"\n\nWe have seen that on the subject of petition the legislature regards\nitself as independent of all obligation except such as is imposed by\nthe Constitution. How mindful they are of the requirements even of\nthat instrument, when obedience to them would check the indulgence of\ntheir malignity to the blacks, appears from the 7th Section of the\n8th Article, viz.--\"All courts shall be open, and every _person_, for\nany injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall\nhave remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered\nwithout denial or delay.\"\n\nOhio legislators may deny that negroes and mulattoes are citizens, or\npeople; but they are estopped by the very words of the statute just\nquoted, from denying that they are \"_persons_.\" Now, by the\nConstitution every _person_, black as well as white, is to have\njustice administered to him without denial or delay. But by the law,\nwhile any unknown _white_ vagrant may be a witness in any case\nwhatever, no black suitor is permitted to offer a witness of his own\ncolor, however well established may be his character for\nintelligence and veracity, to prove his rights or his wrongs; and\nhence in a multitude of cases, justice is denied in despite of the\nConstitution; and why denied? Solely from a foolish and wicked\nprejudice against color.\n\n\n6. IMPEDIMENTS TO EDUCATION.\n\nNo people have ever professed so deep a conviction of the importance\nof popular education as ourselves, and no people have ever resorted\nto such cruel expedients to perpetuate abject ignorance. More than\none third of the whole population of the slave States are prohibited\nfrom learning even to read, and in some of them free men, if with\ndark complexions, are subject to stripes for teaching their own\nchildren. If we turn to the free States, we find that in all of them,\nwithout exception, the prejudices and customs of society oppose\nalmost insuperable obstacles to the acquisition of a liberal\neducation by colored youth. Our academies and colleges are barred\nagainst them. We know there are instances of young men with dark\nskins having been received, under peculiar circumstances, into\nnorthern colleges; but we neither know nor believe, that there have\nbeen a dozen such instances within the last thirty years.\n\nColored children are very generally excluded from our common schools,\nin consequence of the prejudices of teachers and parents. In some of\nour cities there are schools _exclusively_ for their use, but in the\ncountry the colored population is usually too sparse to justify such\nschools; and white and black children are rarely seen studying under\nthe same roof; although such cases do sometimes occur, and then they\nare confined to elementary schools. Some colored young men, who\ncould bear the expense, have obtained in European seminaries the\neducation denied them in their native land.\n\nIt may not be useless to cite an instance of the malignity with\nwhich the education of the blacks is opposed. The efforts made in\nConnecticut to prevent the establishment of schools of a higher order\nthan usual for colored pupils, are too well known to need a recital\nhere; and her BLACK ACT, prohibiting the instruction of colored\nchildren from other States, although now expunged from her statute\nbook through the influence of abolitionists, will long be remembered\nto the opprobrium of her citizens. We ask attention to the following\nillustration of public opinion in another New England State.\n\nIn 1834 an academy was built by subscription in CANAAN, New Hampshire,\nand a charter granted by the legislature; and at a meeting of the\nproprietors it was determined to receive all applicants having\n\"suitable moral and intellectual recommendations, without other\ndistinctions;\" in other words, without reference to _complexion_.\nWhen this determination was made known, a TOWN MEETING was forthwith\nconvened, and the following resolutions adopted, viz.\n\n\"RESOLVED, That we view with _abhorrence_ the attempt of the\nAbolitionists to establish in this town a school for the instruction\nof the sable sons and daughters of Africa, in common with our sons\nand daughters.\n\n\"RESOLVED, That we will not associate with, nor in any way\ncountenance, any man or woman who shall hereafter persist in\nattempting to establish a school in this town for the _exclusive_\neducation of blacks, _or_ for their education in conjunction with\nthe whites.\"\n\nThe frankness of this last resolve is commendable. The inhabitants\nof Canaan, assembled in legal town meeting, determined, it seems,\nthat the blacks among them should in future have no education\nwhatever--they should not be instructed in company with the whites,\nneither should they have schools exclusively for themselves.\n\nThe proprietors of the academy supposing, in the simplicity of their\nhearts, that in a free country they might use their property in any\nmanner not forbidden by law, proceeded to open their school, and in\nthe ensuing spring had twenty-eight white, and fourteen colored\nscholars. The crisis had now arrived when the cause of prejudice\ndemanded the sacrifice of constitutional liberty and of private\nproperty. Another town meeting was convoked, at which, without a\nshadow of authority, and in utter contempt of law and decency, it\nwas ordered, that the academy should be forcibly removed, and a\ncommittee was appointed to execute the abominable mandate. Due\npreparations were made for the occasion, and on the 10th of August,\nthree hundred men, with about 200 oxen, assembled at the place, and\ntaking the edifice from off its foundation, dragged it to a distance,\nand left it a ruin. No one of the actors in this high-handed outrage\nwas ever brought before a court of justice to answer for this\ncriminal and riotous destruction of the property of others.\n\nThe transaction we have narrated, expresses in emphatic terms the\ndeep and settled hostility felt in the free States to the education\nof the blacks. The prejudices of the community render that hostility\ngenerally effective without the aid of legal enactments. Indeed,\nsome remaining regard to decency and the opinion of the world, has\nrestrained the Legislatures of the free States, with _one exception_,\nfrom consigning these unhappy people to ignorance by \"decreeing\nunrighteous decrees,\" and \"framing mischief by a law.\" Our readers,\nno doubt, feel that the exception must of course be OHIO.\n\nWe have seen with what deference Ohio legislators profess to regard\ntheir _constitutional_ obligations; and we are now to contemplate\nanother instance of their shameless violation of them. The\nConstitution which these men have sworn to obey declares, \"NO LAW\nSHALL BE PASSED to prevent the poor of the several townships and\ncounties in this State from an _equal_ participation in the schools,\nacademies, colleges, and universities in this State, which are\nendowed in whole, or _in part_, from the revenue arising from\n_donations_ made by the United States, for the support of _colleges\nand schools_--and the door of said schools, academies, and\nuniversities shall be open for the reception of scholars, students,\nand teachers of every _grade_, without ANY DISTINCTION OR PREFERENCE\nWHATEVER.\"\n\nCan language be more explicit or unequivocal? But have any donations\nbeen made by the United States for the support of colleges and\nschools in Ohio? Yes--by an act of Congress, the sixteenth section of\nland in _each_ originally surveyed township in the State, was set\napart as a donation for the express purpose of endowing and\nsupporting common schools. And now, how have the scrupulous\nlegislators of Ohio, who refuse to acknowledge any other than\nconstitutional obligations to give ear to the cry of distress--how\nhave they obeyed this injunction of the Constitution respecting the\nfreedom of their schools? They enacted a law in 1831, declaring that,\n\"when any appropriation shall be made by the directors of any school\ndistrict, from the treasury thereof, for the payment of a teacher,\nthe school in such district shall be open\"--to whom? \"_to scholars,\nstudents, and teachers of every grade, without distinction or\npreference whatever_,\" as commanded by the Constitution? Oh no!\n\"Shall be open to all the WHITE children residing therein!!\" Such is\nthe impotency of written constitutions, where a sense of moral\nobligation is wanting to enforce them.\n\nWe have now taken a review of the Ohio laws against free people of\ncolor. Some of them are of old, and others of recent date. The\nopinion entertained of all these laws, new and old, by the _present_\nlegislators of Ohio, may be learned by a resolution adopted in\nJanuary last, (1839) by both houses of the legislature. \"RESOLVED,\nThat in the opinion of this general assembly it is unwise, impolitic,\nand inexpedient to repeal _any_ law now in force imposing\ndisabilities upon black or mulatto persons, thus placing them upon\nan equality with the whites, so far as this legislature can do, and\nindirectly inviting the black population of other States to emigrate\nto this, to the manifest injury of the public interest.\" The best\ncomment on the _spirit_ which dictated this resolve is an enactment\nby the _same_ legislature, abrogating the supreme law which requires\nus to \"Do unto others as we would they should do unto us,\" and\nprohibiting every citizen of Ohio from _harboring or concealing_ a\nfugitive slave, under the penalty of fine or imprisonment. General\nobedience to this vile statute is alone wanting to fill to the brim\nthe cup of Ohio's iniquity and degradation. She hath done what she\ncould to oppress and crush the free negroes within her borders. She\nis now seeking to rechain the slave who has escaped from his fetters.\n\n\n7. IMPEDIMENTS TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.\n\nIt is unnecessary to dwell here on the laws of the slave States\nprohibiting the free people of color from learning to read the Bible,\nand in many instances, from assembling at discretion to worship their\nCreator. These laws, we are assured, are indispensable to the\nperpetuity of that \"peculiar institution,\" which many masters in\nIsrael are now teaching, enjoys the sanction of HIM who \"will have\nall men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth,\" and\nwho has left to his disciples the injunction, \"search the Scriptures.\"\nWe turn to the free States, in which no institution requires, that\nthe light of the glorious gospel of Christ should be prevented from\nshining on any portion of the population, and inquire how far\nprejudice here supplies the place of southern statutes.\n\nThe impediments to education already mentioned, necessarily render\nthe acquisition of religious knowledge difficult, and in many\ninstances impracticable. In the northern cities, the blacks have\nfrequently churches of their own, but in the country they are too few,\nand too poor to build churches and maintain ministers. Of course they\nmust remain destitute of public worship and religious instruction,\nunless they can enjoy these blessings in company with the whites.\nNow there is hardly a church in the United States, not exclusively\nappropriated to the blacks, in which one of their number owns a pew,\nor has a voice in the choice of a minister. There are usually, indeed,\na few seats in a remote part of the church, set apart for their use,\nand in which no white person is ever seen. It is surely not\nsurprising, under all the circumstances of the case, that these\nseats are rarely crowded.\n\nColored ministers are occasionally ordained in the different\ndenominations, but they are kept at a distance by their white\nbrethren in the ministry, and are very rarely permitted to enter\ntheir pulpits; and still more rarely, to sit at their tables,\nalthough acknowledged to be ambassadors of Christ. The distinction\nof _caste_ is not forgotten, even in the celebration of the Lord's\nSupper, and seldom are colored disciples permitted to eat and drink\nof the memorials of the Redeemer's passion till after every white\ncommunicant has been served.\n\n\n8. IMPEDIMENTS TO HONEST INDUSTRY.\n\nIn this country ignorance and poverty are almost inseparable\ncompanions; and it is surely not strange that those should be poor\nwhom we compel to be ignorant. The liberal professions are virtually\nsealed against the blacks, if we except the church, and even in that\nadmission is rendered difficult by the obstacles placed in their way\nin acquiring the requisite literary qualifications;[102] and when once\nadmitted, their administrations are confined to their own color.\nMany of our most wealthy and influential citizens have commenced\nlife as ignorant and as pennyless as any negro who loiters in our\nstreets. Had their complexion been dark, notwithstanding their\ntalents, industry, enterprize and probity, they would have continued\nignorant and pennyless, because the paths to learning and to wealth,\nwould then have been closed against them. There is a conspiracy,\nembracing all the departments of society, to keep the black man\nignorant and poor. As a general rule, admitting few if any exceptions,\nthe schools of literature and of science reject him--the counting\nhouse refuses to receive him as a bookkeeper, much more as a\npartner--no store admits him as a clerk--no shop as an apprentice.\nHere and there a black man may be found keeping a few trifles on a\nshelf for sale; and a few acquire, as if by stealth, the knowledge\nof some handicraft; but almost universally these people, both in\ntown and country, are prevented by the customs of society from\nmaintaining themselves and their families by any other than menial\noccupations.\n\n[Footnote 102: Of the truth of this remark, the trustees of the\nEpiscopal Theological Seminary at New-York, lately (June, 1839)\nafforded a striking illustration. A young man, regularly\nacknowledged by the Bishop as a candidate for orders, and in\nconsequence of such acknowledgment entitled, by an _express statute_\nof the seminary, to admission to its privileges, presented himself\nas a pupil. But God had given him a dark complexion, and _therefore_\nthe trustees, regardless of the statute, barred the doors against him,\nby a formal and deliberate vote. As a compromise between conscience\nand prejudice, the professors offered to give him _private_\ninstruction--to do in secret what they were ashamed to do openly--to\nconfer as a favor, what he was entitled to demand as a right. The\noffer was rejected.\n\nIt is worthy of remark, that of the trustees who took an _active_\npart against the _colored_ candidate, one is the PRESIDENT _of the\nNew York Colonization Society_; another a MANAGER, and a third, one\nof its public champions; and that the Bishop of the diocese, who\nwished to exclude his candidate from the theological school of which\nhe is both a trustee and a professor, lately headed a recommendation\nin the newspapers for the purchase of a packet ship for Liberia, as\nlikely to \"render far more efficient than heretofore, the enterprize\nof colonization.\"]\n\nIn 1836, a black man of irreproachable character, and who by his\nindustry and frugality had accumulated several thousand dollars, made\napplication in the City of New York for a carman's license, and was\nrefused solely and avowedly on account of his complexion! We have\nalready seen the effort of the Ohio legislature, to consign the\nnegroes to starvation, by deterring others from employing them.\nIgnorance, idleness, and vice, are at once the punishments we\ninflict upon these unfortunate people for their complexion; and the\ncrimes with which we are constantly reproaching them.\n\n\n9. LIABILITY TO BE SEIZED, AND TREATED AS SLAVES.\n\nAn able-bodied colored man sells in the southern market for from\neight hundred to a thousand dollars; of course he is worth stealing.\nColonizationists and slaveholders, and many northern divines,\nsolemnly affirm, that the situation of a slave is far preferable to\nthat of a free negro; hence it would seem an act of humanity to\nconvert the latter into the former. Kidnapping being both a\nlucrative and a benevolent business, it is not strange it should be\nextensively practised. In many of the States this business is\nregulated by law, and there are various ways in which the\ntransmutation is legally effected. Thus, in South Carolina, if a\nfree negro \"entertains\" a runaway slave, it may be his own wife or\nchild, he himself is turned into a slave. In 1827, a _free woman\nand her three children_ underwent this benevolent process, for\n_entertaining_ two fugitive children of six and nine years old. In\nVirginia all emancipated slaves remaining twelve months in the State,\nare kindly restored to their former condition. In Maryland a free\nnegro who marries a white woman, thereby acquires all the privileges\nof a slave--and generally, throughout the slave region, including\nthe District of Columbia, every negro not known to be free, is\nmercifully considered as a slave, and if his master cannot be\nascertained, he is thrown into a dungeon, and there kept, till by a\npublic sale a master can be provided for him. But often the law\ngrants to colored men, _known to be free_, all the advantages of\nslavery. Thus, in Georgia, every _free_ colored man coming into the\nState, and unable to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, becomes a\nslave for life; in Florida, insolvent debtors, if _black_, are SOLD\nfor the benefit of their creditors; and in the District of Columbia\na free colored man, thrown into jail on suspicion of being a slave\nand proving his freedom, is required by law to be sold as a slave,\nif too poor to pay his jail fees. Let it not be supposed that these\nlaws are all obsolete and inoperative. They catch many a northern\nnegro, who, in pursuit of his own business, or on being decoyed\nby others ventures to enter the slave region; and who, of course,\nhelps to augment the wealth of our southern brethren. On the 6th\nof March, 1839, a report by a Committee was made to the House of\nRepresentatives of the Massachusetts Legislature, in which are given\nthe _names_ of seventeen free colored men who had been enslaved at\nthe south. It also states an instance in which twenty-five colored\ncitizens, belonging to Massachusetts, were confined at one time in a\nsouthern jail, and another instance in which 75 free colored persons\nfrom different free States were confined, all preparatory to their\nsale as slaves according to law.\n\nThe facts disclosed in this report induced the Massachusetts\nLegislature to pass a resolution protesting against the kidnapping\nlaws of the slave States, \"as invading the sacred rights of citizens\nof this commonwealth, as contrary to the Constitution of the United\nStates, and in utter derogation of that great principle of the\ncommon law which presumes every person to be innocent until proved\nto be guilty;\" and ordered the protest to be forwarded to the\nGovernors of the several States.\n\nBut it is not at the south alone that freemen may be converted into\nslaves \"according to law.\" The Act of Congress respecting the\nrecovery of fugitive slaves, affords most extraordinary facilities\nfor this process, through official corruption and individual perjury.\nBy this Act, the claimant is permitted to _select_ a justice of the\npeace, before whom he may bring or send his alleged slave, and even\nto prove his property by _affidavit_. Indeed, in almost every State\nin the Union, a slaveholder may recover at law a human being as his\nbeast of burden with far less ceremony than he could his pig from\nthe possession of his neighbor. In only three States is a man,\nclaimed as a slave, entitled to a trial by jury. At the last session\nof the New York Legislature a bill allowing a jury trial in such\ncases was passed by the lower House, but rejected by a _democratic_\nvote in the Senate, democracy in that State, being avowedly only\n_skin_ deep, all its principles of liberty, equality, and human rights\ndepending on complexion.\n\nConsidering the wonderful ease and expedition with which fugitives\nmay be recovered by law, it would be very strange if mistakes did not\nsometimes occur. _How_ often they occur cannot, of course, be known,\nand it is only when a claim is _defeated_, that we are made sensible\nof the exceedingly precarious tenure by which a poor friendless\nnegro at the north holds his personal liberty. A few years since, a\ngirl of the name of Mary Gilmore was arrested in Philadelphia, as a\nfugitive slave from Maryland. Testimony was not wanting in support\nof the claim; yet it was most conclusively proved that she was the\ndaughter of poor _Irish_ parents--having not a drop of negro blood\nin her veins--that the father had absconded, and that the mother had\ndied a drunkard in the Philadelphia hospital, and that the infant\nhad been kindly received and _brought up in a colored family_. Hence\nthe attempt to make a slave of her. In the spring of 1839, a colored\nman was arrested in Philadelphia, on a charge of having absconded\nfrom his owner _twenty-three_ years before. This man had a wife and\nfamily depending upon him, and a home where he enjoyed their society;\nand yet, unless he could find witnesses who could prove his freedom\nfor more than this number of years, he was to be torn from his wife,\nhis children, his home, and doomed for the remainder of his days to\ntoil under the lash. _Four_ witnesses for the claimant swore to his\nidentity, although they had not seen him before for twenty-three years!\nBy a most extraordinary coincidence, a New England Captain, with\nwhom this negro had sailed _twenty-nine_ years before, in a sloop\nfrom Nantucket, happened at this very time to be confined for debt\nin the same prison with the alleged slave, and the Captain's\ntestimony, together with that of some other witnesses, who had\nknown the man previous to his pretended elopement, so fully\nestablished his freedom, that the Court discharged him.\n\nAnother mode of legal kidnapping still remains to be described. By\nthe Federal Constitution, fugitives from _justice_ are to be\ndelivered up, and under this constitutional provision, a free negro\nmay be converted into a slave without troubling even a Justice of\nthe Peace to hear the evidence of the captor's claim. A fugitive\nslave is, of course, a felon--he not only steals himself, but also\nthe rags on his back which belong to his master. It is understood he\nhas taken refuge in New York, and his master naturally wishes to\nrecover him with as little noise, trouble, and delay as possible.\nThe way is simple and easy. Let the Grand Jury indict A.B. for\nstealing wearing apparel, and let the indictment, with an affidavit\nof the criminal's flight, be forwarded by the Governor of the State,\nto his Excellency of New York, with a requisition for the delivery\nof A.B., to the agent appointed to receive him. A warrant is, of\ncourse, issued to \"any Constable of the State of New York,\" to\narrest A.B. For what purpose?--to bring him before a magistrate\nwhere his identity may be established?--no, but to deliver him up to\nthe foreign agent. Hence, the Constable may pick up the first likely\nnegro he finds in the street, and ship him to the south; and should\nit be found, on his arrival on the plantation, that the wrong man\nhas come, it will also probably be found that the mistake is of no\nconsequence to the planter. A few years since, the Governor of New\nYork signed a warrant for the apprehension of 17 Virginia negroes,\nas fugitives from justice.[103] Under this warrant, a man who had\nlived in the neighborhood for three years, and had a wife and\nchildren, and who claimed to be free, was seized, on a Sunday evening,\nin the public highway, in West Chester County, N.Y., and without\nbeing permitted to take leave of his family, was instantly\nhand-cuffed, thrown into a carriage, and hurried to New York, and\nthe next morning was on his voyage to Virginia.\n\n[Footnote 103: There is no evidence that he knew they were negroes;\nor that he acted otherwise than in perfect good faith. The alleged\ncrime was stealing a boat. The _real_ crime, it is said, was\nstealing themselves and escaping in a boat. The most horrible abuses\nof these warrants can only be prevented by requiring proof of\nidentity before delivery.]\n\nFree colored men are converted into slaves not only by law, but also\ncontrary to law. It is, of course, difficult to estimate the extent\nto which illegal kidnapping is carried, since a large number of\ncases must escape detection. In a work published by Judge Stroud, of\nPhiladelphia, in 1827, he states, that it had been _ascertained_\nthat more than _thirty_ free colored persons, mostly children, had\nbeen kidnapped in that city within the last two years.[104]\n\n[Footnote 104: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, p. 94.]\n\n\n\n10. SUBJECTION TO INSULT AND OUTRAGE.\n\nThe feeling of the community towards these people, and the contempt\nwith which they are treated, are indicated by the following notice,\nlately published by the proprietors of a menagerie, in New York.\n\"The proprietors wish it to be understood, that people of color are\nnot permitted to enter, _except when in attendance upon children and\nfamilies_.\" For two shillings, any white scavenger would be freely\nadmitted, and so would negroes, provided they came in a capacity\nthat marked their dependence--their presence is offensive, _only_\nwhen they come as independent spectators, gratifying a laudable\ncuriosity.\n\nEven death, the great leveller, is not permitted to obliterate, among\nChristians, the distinction of caste, or to rescue the lifeless form\nof the colored man from the insults of his white brethren. In the\nporch of a Presbyterian Church, in Philadelphia, in 1837, was\nsuspended a card, containing the form of a deed, to be given to\npurchasers of lots in a certain burial ground, and to enhance the\nvalue of the property, and to entice buyers, the following clause was\ninserted, \"No person of _color_, nor any one who has been the\nsubject of _execution_, shall be interred in said lot.\"\n\nOur colored fellow-citizens, like others, are occasionally called to\npass from one place to another; and in doing so are compelled to\nsubmit to innumerable hardships and indignities. They are frequently\ndenied seats in our stage coaches; and although admitted upon the\n_decks_ of our steam boats, are almost universally excluded from\nthe cabins. Even women have been forced, in cold weather, to pass\nthe night upon deck, and in one instance the wife of a colored\nclergyman lost her life in consequence of such an exposure.\n\nThe contempt poured upon these people by our laws, our churches, our\nseminaries, our professions, naturally invokes upon their heads the\nfierce wrath of vulgar malignity. In order to exhibit the actual\ncondition of this portion of our population, we will here insert\nsome _samples_ of the outrages to which they are subjected, taken\nfrom the ordinary public journals.\n\nIn an account of the New York riots of 1834, the _Commercial\nAdvertiser_ says--\"About twenty poor African (native American)\nfamilies, have had their all destroyed, and have neither bed,\nclothing, nor food remaining. Their houses are completely eviscerated,\ntheir furniture a wreck, and the ruined and disconsolate tenants of\nthe devoted houses are reduced to the necessity of applying to the\ncorporation for bread.\"\n\nThe example set in New York was zealously followed in Philadelphia.\n\"Some arrangement, it appears, existed between the mob and the white\ninhabitants, as the dwelling houses of the latter, contiguous to the\nresidences of the blacks, were illuminated and left undisturbed,\nwhile the huts of the negroes were singled out with unerring\ncertainty. The furniture found in these houses was generally broken\nup and destroyed--beds ripped open and their contents scattered in\nthe streets.... The number of houses assailed was not less than\ntwenty. In one house there was a _corpse, which was thrown from the\ncoffin, and in another a dead infant was taken out of the bed, and\ncast on the floor, the mother being at the same time barbarously\ntreated_.\"--_Philadelphia Gazette_.\n\n\"No case is reported of an attack having been _invited_ or _provoked_\nby the residents of the dwellings assailed or destroyed. The extent\nof the depredations committed on the _three_ evenings of riot and\noutrage can only be judged of by the number of houses damaged or\ndestroyed. So far as ascertained, this amounts to FORTY-FIVE. One of\nthe houses assaulted was occupied by an unfortunate cripple--who,\nunable to fly from the fury of the mob, was so beaten by some of the\nruffians, that he has since died in consequence of the bruises and\nwounds inflicted ... For the last two days the Jersey steam boats\nhave been loaded with numbers of the colored population, who,\nfearful their lives were not safe in this, determined to seek refuge\nin another State. On the Jersey side, tents were erected, and the\nnegroes have taken up a temporary residence, until a prospect shall\nbe offered for their perpetual location in some place of security\nand liberty.\"--_National Gazette_.\n\nThe facts we have now exhibited, abundantly prove the extreme\ncruelty and sinfulness of that prejudice against color which we are\nimpiously told is an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE. Colonizationists,\nassuming the prejudice to be natural and invincible, propose to\nremove its victims beyond its influence. Abolitionists, on the\ncontrary, remembering with the Psalmist, that \"It is HE that hath\nmade us, and not we ourselves,\" believe that the benevolent Father\nof us all requires us to treat with justice and kindness every\nportion of the human family, notwithstanding any particular\norganization he has been pleased to impress upon them. Instead,\ntherefore, of gratifying and fostering this prejudice, by\ncontinually banishing from our country those against whom it is\ndirected, Abolitionists are anxious to destroy the prejudice itself;\nfeeling, to use the language of another, that--\"It is time to\nrecognize in the humblest portions of society, partakers of our\nnature with all its high prerogatives and awful destinies--time to\nremember that our distinctions are _exterior_ and evanescent, our\nresemblance real and permanent--that all is transient but what is\nmoral and spiritual--that the only graces we can carry with us into\nanother world, are graces of divine implantation, and that amid the\nrude incrustations of poverty and ignorance there lurks an\nimperishable jewel--a SOUL, susceptible of the highest spiritual\nbeauty, destined, perhaps, to adorn the celestial abodes, and to\nshine for ever in the mediatorial diadem of the Son of God--_Take\nheed that ye despise not one of these little ones_.\"\n\n\n\n\nNo. 13.\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\nCAN ABOLITIONISTS VOTE OR TAKE OFFICE UNDER\nTHE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?\n\n\"The preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery\nis the vital and animating spirit of the National Government.\"\n\nNEW YORK:\nAMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\n142 NASSAU STREET\n\n1815.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nThe American Anti-Slavery Society, at its Annual Meeting in May, 1844,\nadopted the following Resolution:\n\n_Resolved_, That secession from the present United States\ngovernment is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take\noffice, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the United\nStates Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles,\nand rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin.\n\nThe passage of this Resolution has caused two charges to be brought\nagainst the Society: _First_, that it is a _no-government_ body,\nand that the whole doctrine of non-resistance is endorsed by this\nvote:--and _secondly_, that the Society transcended its proper\nsphere and constitutional powers by taking such a step.\n\nThe logic which infers that because a man thinks the Federal\nGovernment bad, he must necessarily think _all_ government so, has\nat least, the merit and the charm of novelty. There is a spice of\narrogance just perceptible, in the conclusion that the Constitution\nof these United States is so perfect, that one who dislikes it could\nnever be satisfied with any form of government whatever!\n\nWere O'Connell and his fellow Catholics non-resistants, because for\ntwo hundred years they submitted to exclusion from the House of\nLords and the House of Commons, rather than qualify themselves for a\nseat by an oath abjuring the Pope? Were the _non-juring_ Bishops of\nEngland non-resistants, when they went down to the grave without\ntaking their seats in the House of Lords, rather than take an oath\ndenying the Stuarts and to support the House of Hanover? Both might\nhave purchased power at the price of one annual falsehood. There are\nsome in this country who do not seem to think that price at all\nunreasonable. It were a rare compliment indeed to the non-resistants,\nif every exhibition of rigid principle on the part of an individual\nis to make the world suspect him of leaning towards their faith.\n\nThe Society is not opposed to government, but only to _this_\nGovernment based upon and acting for slavery.\n\nWith regard to the second charge, of exceeding its proper limits and\ntrespassing on the rights of the minority, it is enough to say, that\nthe object of the American Anti-Slavery Society is the \"entire\nabolition of slavery in the United States.\" Of course it is its duty\nto find out all the sources of pro-slavery influence in the land. It\nis its right, it is its duty to try every institution in the land,\nno matter how venerable, or sacred, by the touchstone of\nanti-slavery principle; and if it finds any one false, to proclaim\nthat fact to the world, with more or less of energy, according to\nits importance in society. It has tried the Constitution, and\npronounced it unsound.\n\nNo member's conscience need be injured--The qualification for\nmembership remains the same, \"the belief that slave-holding is a\nheinous crime\"--No new test has been set up--But the majority of the\nSociety, for the time being, faithful to its duty of trying every\ninstitution by the light of the present day--of uttering its opinion\non every passing event that touches the slave's welfare, has seen it\nto be duty to sound forth its warning,\n\n\nNO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.\n\nNo one who did not vote for the Resolution is responsible for it. No\none is asked to quit our platform. We, the majority, only ask him to\nextend to our opinions the same toleration that we extend to him,\nand agreeing to differ on this point, work together where we can. We\nproscribe no man for difference of opinion.\n\nIt is said, that having refused in 1840, to say that a man _ought to\nvote_, on the ground that such a resolution would be tyrannical and\nintolerant, the Society is manifestly inconsistent now in taking\nupon itself to say that no abolitionist _can_ consistently vote. But\nthe inconsistency is only apparent and not real.\n\nThere may he a thousand reasons why a particular individual ought\nnot to do an act, though the act be innocent in itself. It would be\ntyranny therefore in a society which can properly take notice of but\none subject, slavery, to promulgate the doctrine that all its\nmembers ought to do any particular act, as for instance, to vote, to\ngive money, to lecture, to petition, or the like. The particular\ncircumstances and opinions of each one must regulate his actions.\nAll we have a right to ask is, that he do for the slave's cause as\nmuch as he does for any other of equal importance. But when an act\nis wrong, it is no intolerance to say to the whole world that it\nought _not to be done_. After the abolitionist has granted that\nslavery is wrong, we have the right to judge him by his own\nprinciples, and arraign him for inconsistency that, so believing, he\nhelps the slaveholder by his oath.\n\nThe following pages have been hastily thrown together in explanation\nof the vote above recited. They make no pretension to a full\nargument of the topic. I hope that in a short time I shall get\nleisure sufficient to present to our opponents, unless some one does\nit for me, a full statement of the reasons which have led us to this\nstep.\n\nI am aware that we non-voters are rather singular. But history, from\nthe earliest Christians downwards, is full of instances of men who\nrefused all connection with government, and all the influence which\noffice could bestow, rather than deny their principles, or aid in\ndoing wrong. Yet I never heard them called either idiots or\nover-scrupulous. Sir Thomas More need never have mounted the scaffold,\nhad he only consented to take the oath of supremacy. He had only to\ntell a lie with solemnity, as we are asked to do, and he might not\nonly have saved his life, but, as the trimmers of his day would have\ntold him, doubled his influence. Pitt resigned his place as Prime\nMinister of England, rather than break faith with the Catholics of\nIreland. Should I not resign a petty ballot rather than break faith\nwith the slave? But I was specially glad to find a distinct\nrecognition of the principle upon which we have acted, applied to a\ndifferent point, in the life of that Patriarch of the Anti-Slavery\nenterprise, Granville Sharpe. It is in a late number of the\nEdinburgh Review. While an underclerk in the War Office, he\nsympathized with our fathers in their struggle for independence.\n\"Orders reached his office to ship munitions of war to the revolted\ncolonies. If his hand had entered the account of such a cargo, it\nwould have contracted in his eyes the stain of innocent blood. To\navoid this pollution, he resigned his place and his means of\nsubsistence at a period of life when be could no longer hope to find\nany other lucrative employment.\" As the thoughtful clerk of the War\nOffice takes his hat down from the peg where it has used to hang for\ntwenty years, methinks I hear one of our opponents cry out,\n\"Friend Sharpe, you are absurdly scrupulous.\" \"You may innocently\naid Government in doing wrong,\" adds another. While Liberty Party\nyelps at his heels, \"My dear Sir, you are quite losing your influence!\"\nAnd indeed it is melancholy to reflect how, from that moment the\nmighty underclerk of the War Office(!) dwindled into the mere\nGranville Sharpe of history! the man of whom Mansfield and Hargrave\nwere content to learn law, and Wilberforce, philanthropy.\n\nOne friend proposes to vote for men who shall be pledged not to take\noffice unless the oath to the Constitution is dispensed with, and\nwho shall then go on to perform in their offices only such duties as\nwe, their constituents, approve. He cites, in support of his view,\nthe election of O'Connell to the House of Commons, in 1828, I believe,\njust one year before the \"Oath of Supremacy,\" which was the\nobjectionable one to the Catholics, was dispensed with. Now, if we\nstood in the same circumstances as the Catholics did in 1828, the\nexample would be in point. When the public mind is thoroughly\nrevolutionized, and ready for the change, when the billow has\nreached its height and begins to crest into foam, then such a\nmeasure may bring matters to a crisis. But let us first go through,\nin patience, as O'Connell did, our twenty years of agitation.\nWaiving all other objections, this plan seems to me mere playing at\npolitics, and an entire waste of effort.\n\nIt loses our high position as moral reformers; it subjects us to all\nthat malignant opposition and suspicion of motives which attend the\narray of parties; and while thus closing up our access to the\nnational conscience, it wastes in fruitless caucussing and party\ntactics, the time and the effort which should have been directed to\nefficient agitation.\n\nThe history of our Union is lesson enough, for every candid mind, of\nthe fatal effects of every, the least, compromise with evil. The\nexperience of the fifty years passed under it, shows us the slaves\ntrebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and\ndictating the policy of the Government;--prostituting the strength\nand influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and\nelsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States, and making\nthe courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous\nalliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years only proves\nthat it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms,\nwithout all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the\nsin of slavery. Why prolong the experiment? Let every honest man\njoin in the outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society,\n\n\nNO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.\n\nWENDELL PHILLIPS.\n\n_Boston, Jan_. 15, 1845.\n\n\n\n\nTHE NO-VOTING THEORY.\n\n\n\"God never made a CITIZEN, and no one will escape as a man, from the\nsins which he commits as a citizen.\"\n\n\nCan an abolitionist consistently take office, or vote, under the\nConstitution of the United States?\n\n1st. What is an abolitionist?\n\nOne who thinks slaveholding a sin in all circumstances, and desires\nits abolition. Of course such an one cannot consistently aid another\nin holding his slave;--in other words, I cannot innocently aid a man\nin doing that which I think wrong. No amount of fancied good will\njustify me in joining another in doing wrong, unless I adopt the\nprinciple \"of doing evil that good may come.\"\n\n2d. What do taking office and voting under the Constitution imply?\n\nThe President swears \"to execute the office of president,\" and\n\"to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United\nStates.\" The judges \"to discharge the duties incumbent upon them\nagreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.\"\n\nAll executive, legislative, and judicial officers, both of the\nseveral States and of the General Government, before entering on the\nperformance of their official duties, are bound to take an oath or\naffirmation, \"_to support the Constitution of the United States_.\"\nThis is what every office-holder expressly _promises in so many\nwords_. It is a contract between him and the _whole nation_. The\nvoter, who, by voting, sends his fellow citizen into office as his\nrepresentative, knowing beforehand that the taking of this oath is\nthe first duty his agent will have to perform, does by his vote,\nrequest and authorize him to take it. He therefore, by voting,\nimpliedly engages to support the Constitution. What one does by his\nagent he does himself. Of course no honest man will authorize and\nrequest another to do an act which he thinks it wrong to do himself!\nEvery voter, therefore, is bound to see, _before voting_, whether he\ncould himself honestly swear to _support_ the constitution. Now what\ndoes this oath of office-holders relate to and imply? \"It applies,\"\nsays Chief Justice Marshall, \"in an especial manner, to their conduct\nin their official character.\" Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the\nConstitution, speaks of it as \"a solemn obligation to the due\nexecution of the trusts reposed in them, and to support the\nConstitution.\" It is universally considered throughout the country,\nby common men and by the courts, as a promise to do what the\nConstitution bids, and to avoid what it forbids. It was in the\nspirit of this oath, under which he spake, that Daniel Webster said\nin New York, \"The Constitution gave it (slavery) SOLEMN GUARANTIES.\nTo the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound by the\nConstitution. All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in\nfavor of the slaveholding States ought to be fulfilled; and so far\nas depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit\nand to the exactness of their letter.\"\n\nIt is more than an oath of allegiance; more than a mere promise that\nwe will not resist the laws. For it is an engagement to \"support them\";\nas an _officer_ of government, to carry them into effect. Without\nsuch a promise on the part of its functionaries, how could\ngovernment exist? It is more than the expression of that obligation\nwhich rests on all peaceable citizens to _submit_ to laws, even\nthough they will not actively _support_ them. For it is the promise\nwhich the judge makes, that he will actually _do_ the business of\nthe courts; which the sheriff assumes, that he will actually _execute_\nthe laws.\n\nLet it be remarked, that it is an oath to support _the_\nConstitution--that is, _the whole of it_; there are no exceptions.\nAnd let it be remembered, that by it each _one_ makes a contract\nwith the _whole_ nation, that he will do certain acts.\n\n3d. What is the Constitution which each voter thus engages to support?\n\nIt contains the following clauses:\n\nArt. 1, Sect. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be\napportioned among the several States, which may be included within\nthis Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be\ndetermined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including\nthose bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians\nnot taxed, _three fifths of all other persons_.\n\nArt. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power ... to suppress\ninsurrections.\n\nArt. 4, Sec. 2. No person, held to service or labor in one State,\nunder the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence\nof any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or\nlabor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such\nservice or labor may be due.\n\nArt. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in\nthis Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each\nof them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or\nof the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against\ndomestic violence_.\n\nThe first of these clauses, relating to representation, gives to\n10,000 inhabitants of Carolina equal weight in the government with\n40,000 inhabitants of Massachusetts, provided they are rich enough\nto hold 50,000 slaves:--and accordingly confers on a slaveholding\ncommunity additional political power for every slave held among them,\nthus tempting them to continue to uphold the system.\n\nIts result has been, in the language of John Quincy Adams, \"to make\nthe preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the vital\nand animating spirit of the National Government;\" and again, to\nenable \"a knot of slaveholders to give the law and prescribe the\npolicy of the country.\" So that \"since 1830 slavery, slaveholding,\nslavebreeding, and slavetrading have formed the whole foundation of\nthe policy of the Federal Government.\" The second and the last\narticles relating to insurrection and domestic violence, perfectly\ninnocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact directly in\nview that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge the whole\nnational force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our fathers\nand resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of\nsustaining slavery: the third is a promise, on the part of the whole\nNorth, to return fugitive slaves to their masters; a deed which\nGod's law expressly condemns, and which every noble feeling of our\nnature repudiates with loathing and contempt.\n\nThese are the clauses which the abolitionist, by voting or taking\noffice, engages to uphold. While he considers slaveholding to be sin,\nhe still rewards the master with additional political power for\nevery additional slave that he can purchase. Thinking slaveholding\nto be sin, he pledges to the master the aid of the whole army and\nnavy of the nation to reduce his slave again to chains, should he at\nany time succeed a moment in throwing them off. Thinking\nslaveholding to be sin, he goes on, year after year, appointing by\nhis vote judges and marshals to aid in hunting up the fugitives, and\nseeing that they are delivered back to those who claim them! How\nbeautifully consistent are his _principles_ and his _promises_!\n\n\n\nOBJECTIONS.\n\n\nOBJECTION I.\n\nAllowing that the clause relating to representation and that relating\nto insurrections are immoral, it is contended that the article which\norders the return of fugitive slaves was not meant to apply to slaves,\nbut has been misconstrued and misapplied!\n\nANSWER. The meaning of the other two clauses, settled as it has been\nby the unbroken practice and cheerful acquiescence of the Government\nand people, no one has attempted to deny. This also has the same\nlength of practice, and the same acquiescence, to show that it\nrelates to slaves. No one denies that the Government and Courts have\nso construed it, and that the great body of the people have freely\nconcurred in and supported this construction. And further, \"The\nMadison Papers\" (containing the debates of those who framed the\nConstitution, at the time it was made) settle beyond all doubt what\nmeaning the framers intended to convey.\n\nLook at the following extracts from those Papers:\n\n  _Tuesday, August 28th_, 1787.\n\n  Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require \"fugitive slaves and\n  servants to be delivered up like criminals.\"\n\n  Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it,\n  at the public expense.\n\n  Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and\n  surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.\n\n  Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular\n  provision might be made, apart from this article.\n\n  Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con._--Madison\n  papers, pp. 1447-8.\n\n  _Wednesday, August_ 29, 1787.\n\n  Mr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, \"If any person bound to\n  service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into\n  another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service\n  or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State\n  to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly\n  claiming their service or labor,\"--which was agreed to, _nem.\n  con._--p. 1456.\n\nAnd again, after the wording of the above article had been slightly\nchanged, and the clause newly numbered, as in the present\nConstitution, we find another statement most clearly showing to what\nsubject the whole was intended to refer:\n\n  _Saturday, September_ 15, 1787.\n\n  Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term \"legally\" was\n  struck out; and the words, \"under the laws thereof,\" inserted after\n  the word \"State,\" in compliance with the wish of some who thought\n  the term legal equivocal, and favoring the idea that SLAVERY was\n  _legal_ in a moral view.--p. 1589.\n\nIs it not hence evident that SLAVERY was the subject referred to by\nthe whole article?\n\nThe debates of the Convention held in the several States to ratify\nthe Constitution, at the same time show clearly what meaning it was\nthought the framers had conveyed:--In Virginia Mr. Madison said,\n\n  Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess. At\n  present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are\n  free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the\n  States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this\n  Constitution, \"no person held to service, or labor, in one State,\n  under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence\n  of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or\n  labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such\n  service or labor may be due.\" This clause was expressly inserted to\n  enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security\n  than any that now exists.\n\nPatrick Henry, in reply observed,\n\n  The clause which had been adduced by the gentleman was no more than\n  this--that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New\n  York.\n\nGovernor Randolph said,\n\n  But another clause of the Constitution proves the absurdity of the\n  supposition. The words of the clause are, \"No person held to service\n  or labor in one State,\" &c. Every one knows that slaves are held to\n  service and labor. If a citizen of this State, in consequence of\n  this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, &c.\n\nGeneral Pinckney in South Carolina Convention observed,\n\n  \"We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of\n  America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before.\"\n\nIn North Carolina, Mr. Iredell\n\n  Begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some of the\n  Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of\n  our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they\n  would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that\n  their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely\n  prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to\n  prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the\n  word _slave_ be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The\n  Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the\n  subject of slavery, did not choose the word _slave_ to be mentioned.\n\nBut even if TWO clauses are immoral that is enough for our purpose,\nand shews that no honest man should engage to uphold them. Who has\nthe right to construe and expound the laws? Of course the Courts of\nthe Nation. The Constitution provides (Article 3, Section 2,) that\nthe Supreme Court shall be the final and only interpreter of its\nmeaning. What says the Supreme Court? That this clause does relate\nto slaves, and order their return. All the other courts concur in\nthis opinion. But, say some, the courts are corrupt on this question.\nLet us appeal to the people. Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of\nevery thousand answer, that the courts have construed it rightly,\nand almost as many cheerfully support it. If the unanimous,\nconcurrent, unbroken practice of every department of the Government,\njudicial, legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the\npeople for fifty years, do not prove which is the true construction,\nthen how and where can such a question ever be settled? If the\npeople and the courts of the land do not know what they themselves\nmean, who has authority to settle their meaning for them?\n\nIf the Constitution is not what history, unbroken practice, and the\ncourts prove that our fathers intended to make it, and what too,\ntheir descendants, this nation say they did make it, and agree to\nuphold,--who shall decide what the Constitution is?\n\nThis is the sense then in which the Nation understand that the\npromise is made to them. The Nation _understand_ that the judge\npledges himself to return fugitive slaves. The judge knows this when\nhe takes the oath. And Paley expresses the opinion of all writers on\nmorals, as well as the conviction of all honest men, when he says,\n\"that a promise is binding in that sense in which the promiser\nthought at the time that the other party understood it.\"\n\n\nOBJECTION II.\n\nA promise to do an immoral act is not binding: therefore an oath to\nsupport the Constitution of the United States, does not bind one to\nsupport any provisions of that instrument which are repugnant to his\nideas of right. And an abolitionist, thinking it wrong to return\nslaves, may as an office-holder, innocently and properly take an\noath to support a Constitution which commands such return.\n\nANSWER. Observe that this objection allows the Constitution to be\npro-slavery, and admits that there are clauses in it which no\nabolitionist ought to carry out or support.\n\nAnd observe, further, that we all agree, that a bad promise is\nbetter broken than kept--that every abolitionist, who has before now\ntaken the oath to the Constitution, is bound to break it, and\ndisobey the pro-slavery clauses of that instrument. So far there is\nno difference between us. But the point in dispute now is, whether a\nman, having found out that certain requirements of the Constitution\nare wrong, can, after that, innocently swear to support and obey them,\n_all the while meaning not to do so_.\n\nNow I contend that such loose construction of our promises is\ncontrary alike to honor, to fair dealing, and to truthfulness--that\nit tends to destroy utterly that confidence between man and man\nwhich binds society together, and leads, in matters of government,\nto absolute tyranny.\n\nThe Constitution is a series of contracts made by each individual\nwith every other of the fourteen millions. A man's oath is evidence\nof his assent to this contract. If I offer a man the copy of an\nagreement, and he, after reading, swears to perform it, have I not a\nright to infer from his oath that he assents to the _rightfulness_\nof the articles of that paper? What more solemn form of expressing\nhis assent could he select? A man's oath expresses his conviction of\nthe rightfulness of the actions he promises to do, as well as his\ndetermination to do them. If this be not so, I can have no trust in\nany man's word. He may take my money, promise to do what I wish in\nreturn, and yet, keeping my money, tell me, on the morrow, that he\nshall not keep his promise, and never meant to, because the act, his\nconscience tells him, is wrong. Who would trust property to such men,\nor such maxims in the common affairs of life? Shall we not be as\nhonest in the Senate House as on 'Change? The North makes a contract\nwith the South by which she receives certain benefits, and agrees to\nrender certain services. The benefits she carefully keeps--but the\nservices she refuses to render, because immoral contracts are not\nbinding! Is this fair dealing? It is the rule alike of law and\ncommon sense, that if we are not able, from _any cause_, to furnish\nthe article we have agreed to, we ought to return the pay we have\nreceived. If power is put into our hands on certain conditions, and\nwe find ourselves unable to comply with those conditions, we ought\nto surrender the power back to those who gave it.\n\nImmoral laws are doubtless void, and should not be obeyed. But the\nquestion is here, whether one knowing a law to be immoral, may\ninnocently promise to obey it in order to get into office? The\npeople have settled the conditions on which one may take office. The\nfirst is, that he assent to their Constitution. Is it honest to\naccept power with the intention at the time of not keeping the\nconditions?--The rightfulness of those conditions is not here the\nquestion.\n\n\nOBJECTION III.\n\nI swear to support the Constitution, _as I understand it_. Certain\nparts of it, in my opinion, contradict others and are therefore void.\n\nANSWER. Will any one take the title deed of his house and carry it\nto the man he bought of, and let him keep the covenants of that\npaper as he says \"he understands them?\" Do we not all recognize the\njustice of having some third, disinterested party to judge between\ntwo disputants about the meaning of contracts? Who ever heard of a\ncontract of which each party was at liberty to keep as much as he\nthought proper?\n\nAs in all other contracts, so in that of the Constitution, there is\na power provided to affix the proper construction to the instrument,\nand that construction both parties are bound to abide by, or\nrepudiate the _whole_ contract. That power is the Supreme Court of\nthe United States.\n\nDo we seek the common sense, practical view of this question? Go to\nthe Exchange and ask any broker how many dollars he will trust any\nman with, who avows his right to make promises with the design, at\nthe time, of breaking some parts, and not feeling called upon to\nstate which those parts will be?\n\nDo you seek the moral view of the point, which philosophers have\ntaken? Paley says, \"A promise is binding in that sense in which the\npromiser thought at the time of making that the other party\nunderstood it.\" Is there any doubt what meaning the great body of\nthe American people attach to the Constitution and the official oath?\nThey are that party to whom the promise is made.\n\nBut, say some, our lives are notice to the whole people what meaning\nwe attach to the oath, and we will protest when we swear, that we do\nnot include in our oath the pro-slavery clauses. You may as well\nutter the protest now, as when you are swearing--or at home, equally\nas well as within the State House. For no such protest can be of any\navail. The Chief Justice stands up to administer to me the oath of\nsome office, no matter which. \"Sir,\" say I, \"I must take that oath\nwith a qualification, excluding certain clauses.\" His reply will be,\n\"Sir, I have no discretion in this matter. I am here merely to\nadminister a prescribed form of oath. If you assent to it, you are\nqualified for your station. If you do not, you cannot enter. I have\nno authority given me to listen to exceptions. I am a servant--the\npeople are my masters--here is what they require that you support,\nnot this or that part of the Constitution, but '_the Constitution_,'\nthat is, the _whole_.\"\n\nBaffled here, I turn to the people. I publish my opinions in\nnewspapers. I proclaim them at conventions, I spread them through\nthe country on the wings of a thousand presses. Does this avail me?\nYes, says Liberty party, if after this, men choose to vote for you,\nit is evident they mean you shall take the oath as you have given\nnotice that you understand it.\n\nWell, the voters in Boston, with this understanding, elect me to\nCongress, and I proceed to Washington. But here arises a\ndifficulty,--my constituents at home have assented--but when I get\nto Congress, I find I am not the representative of Boston only, but\nof the whole country. The interests of Carolina are committed to my\nhands as well as those of Massachusetts; I find that the contract I\nmade by my oath was not with Boston, but with the whole nation. It\nis the _nation_ that gives me the power to declare war and make\npeace--to lay taxes on cotton, and control the commerce of New\nOrleans. The nation prescribed the conditions in 1789, when the\nConstitution was settled, and though Boston may be willing to accept\nme on other terms, Carolina is not willing. Boston has accepted my\nprotest, and says, \"Take office.\" Carolina says, \"The oath you swear\nis sworn to me, as well as to the rest--I demand the whole bond.\"\nIn other words, when I have made my protest, what evidence is there\nthat _the nation_, the other party to the contract, assents to it?\nThere can be none until that nation amends its Constitution.\nMassachusetts when she accepted that Constitution, bound herself to\nsend only such men as could swear to return slaves. If by an underhand\ncompromise with some of her citizens, she sends persons of other\nsentiments, she is perjured, and any one who goes on such an errand\nis a partner in the perjury. Massachusetts has no right to assent to\nmy protest--she has no right to send representatives, except on\ncertain conditions. She cannot vary those conditions, without\nleave from those whose interests are to be affected by the change,\nthat is, the whole nation. Those conditions are written down in the\nConstitution. Do she and South Carolina differ, as to the meaning?\nThe Court will decide for them.\n\nBut, says the objector, do you mean to say that I swear to support\nthe Constitution, not as I understand it, but as some judge\nunderstands it? Yes, I do--otherwise there is no such thing as law.\nThis right of private judgment, for which he contends, exists in\nreligion--but not in Government. Law is a rule _prescribed_. The\nparty prescribing must have the right to construe his own rule,\notherwise there would be as many laws as there are individual\nconsciences. Statutes would be but recommendations if every man was\nat liberty to understand and obey them as he thought proper. But I\nneed not argue this. The absurdity of a Government that has no right\nto govern--and of laws which have no fixed meaning--but which each\nman construes to mean what he pleases and obeys accordingly--must be\nevident to every one.\n\nWhat more power did the most despotic of the English Stuarts ask,\nthan the right, after having sworn to laws, to break such as their\nconsciences disapproved? It is the essence of tyranny.\n\nWhat is the Constitution of the United States? In good old fashioned\ntimes we thought we knew, when we had read it and listened to the\ncourt's exposition. But we have improved upon that. The Liberty\nparty man says, it is for him \"what he understands it.\" John C.\nCalhoun, of course, has the same right, and instead of \"Liberty\nregulated by law,\" we have liberty regulated by fourteen millions of\nunderstandings!\n\nThe Liberty party man takes office on conditions, which, he says,\nare not binding upon him. He gives us notice that he shall use the\npower as he thinks right, without any regard to these conditions of\nhis oath. Well, if this is law, it is good for all. John C. Calhoun\ncan of course take office with the same broad liberty, and swear to\nsupport the Constitution \"as _he_ understands it.\" He has told us\noften what that \"understanding\" is--\"to sustain Slavery.\" Of course\nhaving made this public, if, after that, Carolina sends him,\naccording to Liberty party logic, it is evidence that Massachusetts\nassents to his \"understanding,\" and accepts his oath with that\nmeaning! Why I thought I had fathomed the pro-slavery depths of the\nConstitution when I read over all its wicked clauses--but that is\nskimming only the surface, if the Constitution allows every man, to\nwhom it commits power to use it, as he chooses to \"understand\" the\nconditions, and not as the nation understands them. If with this\nright, Abolitionists may take office and help Liberty, we must\nremember that by the same rule, slaveholders may take office and\nlawfully use all their power to help Slavery. If this be so, how\nabsurd to keep crying out of this and the other thing it is\n\"unconstitutional.\"\n\nAway with such logic! If we have a Constitution, let us remember\nJefferson's advice, and not make it \"waste paper by construction.\"\nThe man who tampers thus with the sacred obligation of an\noath,--swears, and Jesuit like, keeps \"reserved meanings\" in his own\nbreast,--does more harm to society by loosening the foundations of\nmorals, than he would do good, did his one falsehood free every\nslave from the Potomac to the Del Norte.\n\n\nOBJECTION IV.\n\n\"The oath does not mean that I will positively do what I swear to do,\nbut only that I will do it, _or submit_ to the penalty the law awards.\nIf my actions in office don't suit the nation, let them impeach me.\"\n\nANSWER. That is, John Tyler may, without consulting Congress, plunge\nus into war with Mexico--incur fifty millions of public debt--lose a\nhundred thousand lives--and the _sufficient recompense_ to this\nnation will be to impeach John Tyler, Esq., and send him home to his\nslaves! These are the wise safeguards of Constitutional liberty! He\nhas faithfully kept it \"as he understands it.\" What is a Russian\nslave? One who holds life, property, and all, at the mercy of the\nCzar's idea of right. Does not this description of the power every\nofficer has here, under our Constitution, reduce Americans to the\nsame condition?\n\nBut, is it true that the bearing of the penalty is an excuse for\nbreach of our official oaths?\n\nThe Judge who, in questions of divorce, has trifled with the\nsanctity of the marriage tie--who, in matters of property has\ndecided unjustly, and taken bribes--in capital cases has so dealt\njudgment as to send innocent men to the gallows--may cry out,\n\"If you don't like me, impeach me.\" But will impeachment restore the\ndead to life, or the husband to his defamed wife? Would the community\nconsider his submission to impeachment as equivalent to the keeping\nof his oath of office, and thenceforward view him as an honest,\ntruth-speaking, unperjured man? It is idle to suppose so. Yet the\ninterests committed to some of our officeholders' keeping, are more\nimportant often than even those which a Judge controls. And we must\nremember that men's ideas of right always differ. To admit such a\nprinciple into the construction of oaths, if it enable one man to do\nmuch good, will enable scoundrels who creep into office to do much\nharm, \"according to _their_ consciences.\" But yet the rule, if it be\nadmitted, must be universal. Liberty becomes, then, matter of\naccident.\n\n\nOBJECTION V.\n\nI shall resign whenever a case occurs that requires me to aid in\nreturning a fugitive slave.\n\nANSWER. \"The office-holder has promised active obedience to the\nConstitution in every exigency which it has contemplated and sought\nto provide for. If he promised, not meaning to perform in certain\ncases, is he not doubly dishonest? Dishonest to his own conscience\nin promising to do wrong, and to his fellow-citizens in purposing\nfrom the first to break his oath, as he knew they understood it? If\nhe had sworn, not regarding anything as immoral which he bound\nhimself to do, and afterwards found in the oath something against\nhis conscience of which he was not at first aware, or if by change\nof views he had come to deem sinful what before he thought right,\nthen doubtless, by promptly resigning, he might escape guilt. But is\nnot the case different, when among the acts promised are some known\nat the time to be morally wrong? 'It is a sin to swear unto sin,'\nsays the poet, although it be, as he truly adds, 'a greater sin to\nkeep the sinful oath.'\"\n\nThe captain has no right to put to sea, and resign when the storm\ncomes. Besides what supports a wicked government more than good men\ntaking office under it, even though they secretly determine not to\ncarry out all its provisions? The slave balancing in his lonely\nhovel the chance of escape, knows nothing of your secret reservations,\nyour future intentions. He sees only the swarming millions at the\nNorth ostensibly sworn to restore him to his master, if he escape a\nlittle way. Perchance it is your false oath, which you don't mean to\nkeep, that makes him turn from the attempt in despair. He knows you\nonly--the world knows only by your _actions_, not your _intentions_,\nand those side with his master. The prayer which he lifts to Heaven,\nin his despair, numbers you rightly among his oppressors.\n\n\nOBJECTION VI.\n\nI shall only take such an office as brings me into no connection\nwith slavery.\n\nANSWER. Government is a whole; unless each in his circle aids his\nnext neighbor, the machine will stand still. The Senator does not\nhimself return the fugitive slave, but he appoints the Marshal,\nwhose duty it is to do so. The State representative does not himself\nappoint the Judge who signs the warrant for the slave's recapture,\nbut he chooses the United States Senator who does appoint that Judge.\nThe elector does not himself order out the militia to resist\n\"domestic violence,\" but he elects the President, whose duty requires,\nthat a case occurring, he should do so.\n\nTo suppose that each of these may do that part of his duty that\nsuits him, and leave the rest undone, is _practical anarchy_. It is\nbringing ourselves precisely to that state which the Hebrew describes.\n\"In those days there was no king in Israel, but each man did what\nwas right in his own eyes.\" This is all consistent in us, who hold\nthat man is to do right, even if anarchy follows. How absurd to set\nup such a scheme, and miscall it a _government_,--where nobody\ngoverns, but everybody does as he pleases.\n\n\nOBJECTION VII.\n\nAs men and all their works are imperfect, we may innocently\n\"support a Government which, along with many blessings, assists in\nthe perpetration of some wrong.\"\n\nANSWER. As nobody disputes that we may rightly assist the worst\nGovernment in doing good, provided we can do so without at the same\ntime aiding it in the wrong it perpetrates, this must mean, of course,\nthat it is right to aid and obey a Government _in doing wrong_, if\nwe think that, on the whole, the Government effects more good than\nharm. Otherwise the whole argument is irrelevant, for this is the\npoint in dispute; since every office of any consequence under the\nUnited States Constitution has some immediate connection with Slavery.\nLet us see to what lengths this principle will carry one. Herod's\nservants, then, were right in slaying every child in Bethlehem, from\ntwo years old and under, provided they thought Herod's Government,\non the whole, more a blessing than a curse to Judea! The soldiers of\nCharles II. were justified in shooting the Covenanters on the muirs\nof Scotland, if they thought his rule was better, on the whole, for\nEngland, than anarchy! According to this theory, the moment the\nmagic wand of Government touches our vices, they start up into\nvirtues! But has Government any peculiar character or privilege in\nthis respect? Oh, no--Government is only an association of\nindividuals, and the same rules of morality which govern my conduct\nin relation to a thousand men, ought to regulate my conduct to any\none. Therefore, I may innocently aid a man in doing wrong, if I\nthink that, on the whole, he has more virtues than vices. If he\ngives bread to the hungry six days in the week, I may rightly help\nhim, on the seventh, in forging bank notes, or murdering his father!\nThe principle goes this length, and every length, or it cannot be\nproved to exist at all. It ends at last, practically, in the old\nmaxim, that the subject and the soldier have no right to keep any\nconscience, but have only to obey the rulers they serve: for there\nare few, if any, Governments this side of Satan's, which could not,\nin some sense, be said to do more good than harm. Now I candidly\nconfess, that I had rather be covered all over with inconsistencies,\nin the struggle to keep my hands clean, than settle quietly down on\nsuch a principle as this. It is supposing that we may--\n\n  \"To do a great right, do a little wrong;\"\n\na rule, which the master poet of human nature has rebuked. It is\ndoing evil that good may come--a doctrine, of which an Apostle has\npronounced the condemnation.\n\nAnd let it be remembered that in dealing with the question of slavery,\nwe are not dealing with extreme cases. Slavery is no minute evil\nwhich lynx-eyed suspicion has ferreted out. Every sixth man is a\nslave. The ermine of justice is stained. The national banner clings\nto the flag-staff heavy with blood. \"The preservation of slavery,\"\nsays our oldest and ablest statesman, \"is the vital and animating\n_spirit_ of the National Government.\"\n\nSurely IF it be true that a man may justifiably stand connected with\na government in which he sees some slight evils--still it is also\ntrue, even then, that governments _may_ sin so atrociously, so\nenormously, may make evil so much the _purpose_ of their being, as\nto render it the duty of honest men to wash their hands of them.\n\nI may give money to a friend whose life has some things in it which\nI do not fully approve--but when his nights are passed in the brothel,\nand his days in drunkenness, when he uses his talents to seduce\nothers, and his gold to pave their road to ruin, surely the case is\nchanged.\n\nI may perhaps sacrifice health by staying awhile in a room rather\noverheated, but I shall certainly see it to be my duty to rush out,\nwhen the whole house is in full blaze.\n\n\nOBJECTION VIII.\n\nGod intended that society and governments should exist. We therefore\nare bound to support them. He has conferred upon us the rights of\ncitizenship in this country, and we cannot escape from the\nresponsibility of exercising them. God made us _citizens_.\n\nANSWER. This reminds me of an old story I have heard. When the\nLegislature were asked to set off a portion of the town of\nDorchester and call it South Boston, the old minister of the town is\nsaid to have objected, saying, \"God made it Dorchester, and\nDorchester it ought to be.\"\n\nGod made us social beings, it is true, but _society_ is not\nnecessarily the Constitution of the United States! Because God meant\nsome form of government should exist, does not at all prove that we\nare justified in supporting a wicked one. Man confers the rights and\nregulates the duties of citizenship. God never made a _citizen_, and\nno one will escape, as a man, from the sins he commits as a citizen.\nThis is the first time that it has ever been held an excuse for sin\nthat we \"went with the multitude to do evil!\"\n\nCertainly we can be under no _such_ responsibility to become and\nremain _citizens_, as will excuse us from the sinful acts which as\nsuch citizens we are called to commit. Does God make obligatory on\nhis creature the support of institutions which require him to do\nacts in themselves wrong? To suppose so, were to confound all the\nrules of God's moral kingdom.\n\nPresident Wayland has lately been illustrating, and giving his\ntestimony to the principle, that a combination of men cannot change\nthe moral character of an act, which is in itself sinful--that the\nlaw of morals is binding the same on communities, corporations, &c.\nas on individuals.\n\nAfter describing slavery, and saying that to hold a man in such a\nstate is wrong--he goes on:\n\n  \"I will offer but one more supposition. Suppose that any number, for\n  instance one half of the families in our neighborhood, should by law\n  enact that the weaker half should be slaves, that we would exercise\n  over them the authority of masters, prohibit by law their\n  instruction, and concert among ourselves means for holding them\n  permanently in their present situation. In what manner would this\n  alter the moral aspect of the case?\"\n\n  A law in this case is merely a determination of one party, in which\n  all unite, to hold the other party in bondage; and a compact by\n  which the whole party bind themselves to assist every individual of\n  themselves to subdue all resistance from the other party, and\n  guaranteeing to each other that exercise of this power over the\n  weaker party which they now possess.\n\n  Now I cannot see that this in any respect changes the nature of the\n  parties. They remain, as before, human beings, possessing the same\n  intellectual and moral nature, holding the same relations to each\n  other and to God, and still under the same unchangeable law, Thou\n  shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. By the act of holding a man in\n  bondage, this law is violated. Wrong is done, moral evil is\n  committed. In the former case it was done by the individual; now it\n  is done by the individual and the society. Before, the individual\n  was responsible only for his own wrong; now he is responsible both\n  for his own, and also, as a member of the society, for all the wrong\n  which the society binds itself to uphold and render perpetual.\n\n  The scriptures frequently allude to the fact, that wrong done by\n  law, that is by society, is amenable to the same retribution as\n  wrong done by the individual. Thus, Psalm 94:20-23. 'Shall the\n  throne of iniquity have fellowship with them which frame mischief by\n  a law, and gather themselves together against the soul of the\n  righteous, and condemn the innocent blood? But the Lord is my\n  defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring\n  upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own\n  wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off' So also\n  Isaiah 10:1-4. 'Wo unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and\n  that write grievousness which they have prescribed.' &c. Besides,\n  persecution for the sake of religious opinion is always perpetrated\n  by law; but this in no manner affects its moral character.\n\n  There is, however, one point of difference, which arises from the\n  fact that this wrong has been established by law. It becomes a\n  social wrong. The individual, or those who preceded him, may have\n  surrendered their individual right over it to the society. In this\n  case it may happen that the individual cannot act as he might act,\n  if the law had not been made. In this case the evil can only be\n  eradicated by changing the opinions of the society, and inducing\n  them to abolish the law. It will however be apparent that this, as I\n  said before, does not change the relation of the parties either to\n  each other or to God. The wrong exists as before. The individual act\n  is wrong. The law which protects it is wrong. The whole society, in\n  putting the law into execution, is wrong. Before only the\n  individual, now, the whole society, becomes the wrong doer, and\n  for that wrong, both the individuals and the society are held\n  responsible in the sight of God.\"\n\nIf such \"individual act is wrong,\" the man who knowingly does it is\nsurely a sinner. Does God, through society, require men to sin?\n\n\nOBJECTION IX.\n\nIf not being non-resistants, we concede to mankind the right to\nframe Governments, which must, from the very nature of man, be more\nor less evil, the right or duty to support them, when framed,\nnecessarily follows.\n\nANSWER. I do not think it follows at all. Mankind, that is, any\nnumber of them, have a right to set up such forms of worship as they\nsee fit, but when they have done so, does it necessarily follow that\nI am in duty bound to support any one of them, whether I approve it\nor not? Government is precisely like any other voluntary association\nof individuals--a temperance or anti-slavery society, a bank or\nrailroad corporation. I join it, or not, as duty dictates. If a\ntemperance society exists in the village where I am, that love for\nmy race which bids me seek its highest good, commands me to join it.\nSo if a Government is formed in the land where I live, the same\nfeeling bids me to support it, if I innocently can. This is the\nwhole length of my duty to Government. From the necessity of the case,\nand that constitution of things which God has ordained, it follows\nthat in any specified district, the majority must rule--hence\nresults the duty of the minority to submit. But we must carefully\npreserve the distinction between _submission_ and _obedience_\n--between _submission_ and _support_. If the majority set up an\nimmoral Government, I obey those laws which seem to me good, because\nthey are good--and I submit to all the penalties which my\ndisobedience of the rest brings on me. This is alike the dictate of\ncommon sense, and the command of Christianity. And it must be the\ntrue doctrine, since any other obliges me to obey the majority if\nthey command me to commit murder, a rule which even the Tory\nBlackstone has denied. Of course for me to do anything I deem wrong,\nis the same, in quality, as to commit murder.\n\n\nOBJECTION X.\n\nBut it is said, your theory results in good men leaving government\nto the dishonest and wicked.\n\nANSWER. Well, if to sustain government we must sacrifice honesty,\ngovernment could not be in a more appropriate place, than in the\nhands of dishonest men.\n\nBut it by no means follows, that if I go out of government, I leave\nnothing but dishonest men behind. An act may be sin to me, which\nanother may sincerely think right--and if so, let him do it, till he\nchanges his mind. I leave government in the hands of those whom I do\nnot think as clear-sighted as myself, but not necessarily in the\nhands of the dishonest. Whether it be so in this country now, is not,\nat present, the question, but whether it would be so necessarily, in\nall cases. The real question is, what is the duty of those who\npresume to think that God has given them clearer views of duty than\nthe bulk of those among whom they live?\n\nDon't think us conceited in supposing ourselves a little more\nenlightened than our neighbors. It is no great thing after all to be a\nlittle better than a lynching--mobocratic--slaveholding--debt\nrepudiating community.\n\nWhat then is the duty of such men? Doubtless to do all they can to\nextend to others the light they enjoy.\n\nWill they best do so by compromising their principles? by letting\ntheir political life give the lie to their life of reform? Who will\nhave the most influence, he whose life is consistent, or he who says\none thing to-day, and swears another thing to-morrow--who looks one\nway and rows another? My object is to let men _understand me_, and I\nsubmit that the body of the Roman people understood better, and felt\nmore earnestly, the struggle between the people and the princes,\nwhen the little band of democrats _left the city_ and encamped on\n_Mons Sacer, outside_, than while they remained mixed up and\nvoting with their masters, shoulder to shoulder. _Dissolution_ is\nour _Mons Sacer_--God grant that it may become equally famous in the\nworld's history as the spot where the right triumphed.\n\nIt is foolish to suppose that the position of such men, divested of\nthe glare of official distinction, has no weight with the people. If\nit were so, I am still bound to remember that I was not sent into\nthe world _to have influence_, but to do my duty according to my own\nconscience. But it is not so. People do know an honest man when they\nsee him. (I allow that this is so rare an event now-a-days, as\nalmost to justify one in supposing they might have forgotten how he\nlooked.) They will give a man credit, when his life is one manly\ntestimony to the truthfulness of his lips. Even Liberty party, blind\nas she is, has light enough to see that \"Consistency is the jewel,\nthe everything of such a cause as ours.\" The position of a non-voter,\nin a land where the ballot is so much idolized, kindles in every\nbeholder's bosom something of the warm sympathy which waits on the\npersecuted, carries with it all the weight of a disinterested\ntestimony to truth, and pricks each voter's conscience with an\nuneasy doubt, whether after all voting _is_ right. There is\nconstantly a Mordecai in the gate.\n\nI admit that we should strive to have a _political_ influence--for\nwith politics is bound up much of the welfare of the people. But\nthis objection supposes that the ballot box is the _only_ means of\npolitical influence. Now it is a good thing that every man should\nhave the right to vote. But it is by no means necessary that every\nman should actually vote, in order to influence his times. We by no\nmeans necessarily desert our social duty when we refuse to take\noffice, or to confer it. Lafayette did better service to the cause\nof French liberty when he retired to Lagrange and refused to\nacknowledge Napoleon, than he could have done had he stood, for years,\nat the tyrant's right hand. From the silence of that chamber there\nwent forth a voice--from the darkness of that retreat there burst\nforth a light; feeble indeed at first, like the struggling beams of\nthe morning, but destined like them to brighten into perfect day.\n\nThis objection, that we non-voters shall lose all our influence,\nconfounds the broad distinction between _influence_ and _power_.\n_Influence_ every honest man must and will have, in exact\nproportion to his honesty and ability. God always annexes influence\nto worth. The world, however unwilling, can never get free from the\ninfluence of such a man. This influence the possession of office\ncannot give, nor the want of it take away. For the exercise of such\ninfluence as this, man is responsible. _Power_ we buy of our fellow\nmen at a certain price. Before making the bargain it is our duty to\nsee that we do not pay \"too dear for our whistle.\" He who buys it at\nthe price of truth and honor, buys only weakness--and sins beside.\n\nOf those who go to the utmost verge of honesty in order to reach the\nseats of worldly power, and barter a pure conscience for a weighty\nname, it may be well said with old Fuller, \"They need to have steady\nheads who can dive into these gulfs of policy, and come out with a\nsafe conscience.\"\n\n\nOBJECTION XI.\n\nThis withdrawing from government is pharisaical--\"Shall we, 'weak,\nsinful men,'\" one says, \"perhaps even more sinful than the\nslaveholder, cry out, No Union with Slaveholders?\" Such a course is\nwanting in brotherly kindness.\n\nANSWER. Because we refuse to aid a wrong-doer in his sin, we by no\nmeans proclaim, or assume, that we think our _whole character_\nbetter than his. It is neither pharisaical to have opinions, nor\npresumptuous to guide our lives by them. If I have joined with\nothers in doing wrong, is it either presumptuous or unkind, when my\neyes are opened, to refuse to go any further with them in their\ncareer of guilt? Does love to the thief require me to help him in\nstealing? Yet this is all we refuse to do. We will extend to the\nslaveholder all the courtesy he will allow. If he is hungry, we will\nfeed him; if he is in want, both hands shall be stretched out for\nhis aid. We will give him full credit for all the good that he does,\nand our deep sympathy in all the temptations under whose strength he\nfalls. But to help him in his sin, to remain partners with him in\nthe slave-trade, is more than he has a right to ask. He would be a\nstrange preacher who should set out to reform his circle by joining\nin all their sins! It is a principle similar to that which the tipsy\nDuke of Norfolk acted on, when seeing a drunken friend in the gutter,\nhe cried out, \"My dear fellow, I can't help you out, but I'll do\nbetter, I'll lie down by your side.\"\n\n\nOBJECTION XII.\n\nBut consider, the abstaining from all share in Government will leave\nbad men to have everything their own way--admit Texas--extend\nslavery, &c. &c.\n\nANSWER. That is no matter of mine. God, the great conservative power\nof the Universe, when he established the right, saw to it that it\nshould always be the safest and best. He never laid upon a poor\nfinite worm the staggering load of following out into infinity the\ncomplex results of his actions. We may rest on the bosom of\nInfinite Wisdom, confident that it is enough for us to do justice,\nhe will see to it that happiness results.\n\n\nOBJECTION XIII.\n\nBut the same conscientious objection against promising your support\nto government, ought to lead you to avoid actually giving your\nsupport to it by paying taxes or sueing in the courts.\n\nANSWER. This is what logicians call a _reductio ad absurdum_: an\nattempt to prove our principle unsound by showing that, fairly\ncarried out, it leads to an absurdity. But granting all it asks, it\ndoes not saddle us with any absurdity at all. It is perfectly\npossible to live without petitioning, sueing, or holding stocks.\nThousands in this country have lived, died, and been buried, without\ndoing either. And does it load us with any absurdity to prove that\nwe shall be obliged to do from principle, what the majority of our\nfellow-citizens do from choice? We lawyers may think it is an\nabsurdity to say a man can't sue, for, like the Apostle at Ephesus,\nit touches our \"craft,\" but that don't go far to prove it. Then, as\nto taxes, doubtless many cases might be imagined, when every one\nwould allow it to be our duty to resist the slightest taxation, did\nChristianity allow it, with \"war to the hilt.\" If such cases may\never arise, why may not this be one?\n\nUntil I become an Irishman, no one will ever convince me that I\nought to vote, by proving that I ought not to pay taxes! Suppose\nall these difficulties do really encompass us, it will not be\nthe first time that the doing of one moral duty has revealed a\ndozen others which we never thought of. The child has climbed the\nhill over his native village, which he thought the end of the world,\nand lo! there are mountains beyond! He won't remedy the matter by\ncreeping back to his cradle and disbelieving in mountains!\n\nBut then, is there any such inconsistency in non-voters sueing and\npaying taxes?\n\nLook at it. A. and B. have agreed on certain laws, and appointed C.\nto execute them. A. owes me, who am no party to the contract, a just\ndebt, which his laws oblige him to pay. Do I acknowledge the\nrightfulness of his relation to B. and C. by asking C. to use the\npower given him, in my behalf? It appears to me that I do not. I may\nsurely ask A. to pay me my debt--why not then ask the keeper, whom\nhe has appointed over himself, to make him do so?\n\nI am a prisoner among pirates. The mate is abusing me in some way\ncontrary to their laws. Do I recognize the rightfulness of the\nCaptain's authority, by asking him to use the power the mate has\nconsented to give him, to protect me? It seems to me that I do not\nnecessarily endorse the means by which a man has acquired money or\npower, when I ask him to use either in my behalf.\n\nAn alien does not recognize the rightfulness of a government by\nliving under it. It has always been held that an English subject may\nswear allegiance to an usurper and yet not be guilty of treason to\nthe true king. Because he may innocently acknowledge the king\n_de facto_ (the king _in deed_,) without assuming him to be king\n_de jure_ (king by _right_.) The distinction itself is as old as\nthe time of Edward the First. The principle is equally applicable to\nsuits. It has been universally acted on and allowed. The Catholic,\nwho shrank from acknowledging the heretical Government of England,\nalways, I believe, sued in her courts.\n\nWho could convince a common man, that by sueing in Constantinople or\nTimbuctoo, he does an act which makes him responsible for the\ncharacter of those governments?\n\nThen, as for taxes. It is only our voluntary acts for which we are\nresponsible. And when did government ever trust tax-paying to the\nvoluntary good will of its subjects? When it does so, I, for one,\nwill refuse to pay.\n\nWhen did any sane man conclude that our Saviour's voluntary payment\nof a tax acknowledged the rightfulness of Rome's authority over Judea?\n\n\"The States,\" says Chief Justice Marshall, \"have only not to elect\nSenators, and this government expires without a struggle.\"\n\nEvery November, then, we _create_ the government anew. Now, what\n\"instinct\" will tell a common-sense man, that the act of a\n_sovereign_,--voting--which creates a wicked government, is,\n_essentially_ the same as the submission of a\n _subject_,--tax-paying,--an act done without our consent. It should\nbe remembered, that we vote as _sovereigns_,--we pay taxes as\n_subjects_. Who supposes that the humble tax-payer of Austria, who\ndoes not, perhaps, know in what name the charter of his bondage runs,\nis responsible for the doings of Metternich? And what sane man likens\nhis position to that of the voting sovereign of the United States?\nMy innocent acts may, through others' malice, result in evil. In that\ncase, it will be for my best judgment to determine whether to continue\nor cease them. They are not thereby rendered essentially sinful. For\ninstance, I walk out on Sabbath morning. The priest over the way will\nexclaim, \"Sabbath-breaker,\" and the infidel will delude his followers,\nby telling them I have no regard for Christianity. Still, it will be\nfor me to settle which, in present circumstances, is best,--to\nremain in, and not be misconstrued, or to go out and bear a\ntestimony against the superstitious keeping of the day. Different\ncircumstances will dictate different action on such a point.\n\nI may often be the _occasion_ of evil when I am not responsible for\nit. Many innocent acts _occasion_ evil, and in such case all I am\nbound to ask myself before doing such _innocent act_, is, \"Shall I\noccasion, on the whole, more harm or good.\" There are many cases\nwhere doing a duty even, we shall occasion evil and sin in others.\nTo save a slaveholder from drowning, when we know he has made a will\nfreeing his slaves, would put off, perhaps forever, their\nemancipation, but of course that is not my fault. This making a man\nresponsible for all the evil his acts, _incidentally_, without his\nwill, occasion, reminds me of that principle of Turkish law which\nDr. Clarke mentions, in his travels, and which they call \"homicide\nby an intermediate cause.\" The case he relates is this: A young man\nin love poisoned himself, because the girl's father refused his\nconsent to the marriage. The Cadi sentenced the father to pay a fine\nof $80, saying \"if you had not had a daughter, this young man had\nnot loved; if he had not loved, he had never been disappointed; if\nnot disappointed, he would never have taken poison.\" It was the same\nCadi possibly, who sentenced the island of Samos to pay for the\nwrecking of a vessel, on the principle that \"if the island had not\nbeen in the way, the vessel would never have been wrecked!\"\n\nThen of taxes on imports. Buying and selling, and carrying from\ncountry to country, is good and innocent. But government, if I trade\nhere, will take occasion to squeeze money out of me. Very well. I\nshall deliberate whether I will cease trading, and deprive them of\nthe opportunity, or go on and use my wealth to reform them. 'Tis a\nquestion of expediency, not of right, which my judgment, not my\nconscience, must settle. An act of mine, innocent in itself, and\ndone from right motives, no after act of another's can make a sin.\nTo import, is rightful. After-taxation, against my consent, cannot\nmake it wrong. Neither am I obliged to smuggle, in order to avoid it.\nI include in these remarks, all taxes, whether on property, or\nimports, or railroads.\n\nA chemist, hundreds of years ago, finds out how to temper steel. The\nart is useful for making knives, lancets, and machinery. But he\nknows that the bad will abuse it by making swords and daggers. Is he\nresponsible? Certainly not.\n\nSimilar to this is trading in America,--knowing government will thus\nhave an opportunity to increase its revenue.\n\nBut suppose the chemist to see two men fighting, one has the other\ndown,--to the first our chemist presents a finely tempered dagger.\n\nSuch is voting under the United States Constitution--appointing an\nofficer to help the oppressor.\n\nThe difference between voting and tax-paying is simply this: I may do\nan act right in itself, though I know some evil will result. Paul was\nbound to preach the gospel to the Jews, though he knew some of them\nwould thereby be led to add to their sins by cursing and mobbing him.\n\nSo I may locate property in Philadelphia, trade there, and ride on\nits railroads, though I know government will, without my consent,\nthereby enrich itself. Other things being equal, of course I shall\nnot allow it the opportunity. But the advantages and good results of\nmy doing so, _may be_ such as would make it my duty there to live\nand trade, even subject to such an evil.\n\nBut on the other hand, I may not do an act wrong in itself to secure\nany amount of fancied good.\n\nNow, appointing a man by my vote to a pro-slavery office, (and such\nis every one under the United States Constitution,) is wrong in\nitself, and no other good deeds which such officer may do, will\njustify an abolitionist in so appointing him.\n\nLet it not be said, that this reasoning will apply to voting--that\nvoting is the right of every human being, (which I grant only for\nthe sake of argument,) and innocent in itself.\n\nVoting _under our_ Constitution is appointing a man to swear to\nprotect, and actually to protect slavery. Now, appointing agents\ngenerally is the right of every man, and innocent in itself, but\nappointing an agent to commit a murder is sin.\n\nI trade, and government taxes me; do I authorize it? No.\n\nI vote, and the marshal whom my agent appoints, returns a slave to\nSouth Carolina. Do I authorize it? _Yes_. I knew it would be his\n_sworn duty_, when I voted; and I assented to it, by voting under\nthe Constitution which makes it his duty. If I trade, it is said, I\nmay foresee that government will be helped by the taxes I pay,\ntherefore I ought not to trade. But I do not trade _for the purpose_\nof paying taxes! And if I am to be charged with all the foreseen\nresults of my actions, then Garrison is responsible for the Boston\nmob!\n\nThe reason why I am responsible for the pro-slavery act of a United\nStates officer, for whom I have voted, is this: I must be supposed\nto have _intended_ that which my agent is _bound_ by his contract\nwith me (that is, his oath of office) to do.\n\nAllow me to request our opposers to keep distinctly in view the\nprecise point in debate. This is not whether Massachusetts can\nrightfully trade and make treaties with South Carolina, although she\nknows that such a course will result in strengthening a wrongdoer.\nSuch are most of the cases which they consider parallel to ours, and\nfor permitting which they charge us with inconsistency. But the\nquestion really is, whether Massachusetts can join hands and\nstrength with South Carolina, for the express and avowed purpose of\nsustaining Slavery. This she does in the Constitution. For he who\nswears to support an instrument of twelve clauses, swears to support\none as well as another,--and though one only be immoral,--still he\nswears to do an immoral act. Now, my conviction is, \"which fire will\nnot burn out of me,\" that to return fugitive slaves is sin--to\npromise so to do, and not do it, is, if possible, baser still; and\nthat any conjunction of circumstances which makes either necessary,\nis of the Devil, and not of God.\n\n\nOBJECTION XIV.\n\nDuty requires of a non-voter to quit the country, and go where his\ntaxes will not help to build up slavery.\n\nANSWER. God gave me my birth here. Because bad men about me\n\"play such tricks before high Heaven, as make the angels weep,\" does\nit oblige me to quit? I have as good right here as they. If they\nchoose to leave, let them--I Shall remain. 'Twould be a pretty thing,\nindeed, if, as often as I found myself next door to a bad man, who\nwould bring up his children to steal my apples and break my windows,\nI were obliged to take the temptation away by cutting down all my\napple trees and moving my house further west, into the wilderness.\nThis would be, in good John Wesley's phrase, \"giving up all the good\ntimes to the devil,\" with a witness.\n\n\nOBJECTION XV.\n\n\"Society has the right to prescribe the terms, upon the expressed or\nimplied agreement to comply with which a person may reside within\nits limits.\"\n\nANSWER. This principle I utterly deny. All that Society has a right\nto demand is peaceful submission to its exactions:--_consent_ they\nhave neither the power nor the right to exact or to imply. Twenty\nmen live on a lone island. Nineteen set up a government and say,\nevery man who lives there shall worship idols. The twentieth submits\nto all their laws, but refuses to commit idolatry. Have they the\n_right_ to say, \"Do so, or quit;\" or, to say, \"If you stay, we\nwill consider you as impliedly worshipping idols?\" Doubtless they\nhave the _power_, but the majority have no _rights_, except those\nwhich justice sanctions. Will the objector show me the justice of\nhis principle? I was born here. I ask no man's permission to remain.\nAll that any man or body of men have a right to infer from my\nstaying here, is that, in doing this _innocent act_, I think, that on\nthe whole, I am effecting more good than harm. Lawyers say, I cannot\nfind this right laid down in the books. That will not trouble me.\nSome old play has a character in it who never ties his neckcloth\nwithout a warrant from Mr. Justice Overdo. I claim no relationship\nto that very scrupulous individual.\n\n\nOBJECTION XVI.\n\nThese clauses, to which you refer, are inconsistent with the\nPreamble of the Constitution, which describes it as made \"to\nestablish justice\" and \"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves\nand our posterity:\" And as, when two clauses of the same instrument\nare inconsistent, one must yield and be held void--we hold these\nthree clauses void.\n\nANSWER. A _specific_ clause is not to be held void on account of\ngeneral terms, such as those of the preamble. It is rather to be\ntaken as an exception, allowed and admitted at the time, to those\ngeneral terms.\n\nAgain. You say they are inconsistent. But the Courts and the People\ndo not think so. Now they, being the majority, settle the law. The\nquestion then is, whether the law being settled,--and according to\nyour belief settled immorally,--you will _volunteer_ your services\nto execute it and carry it into effect? This you do by becoming an\nofficeholder. It seems to me this question can receive but one\nanswer from honest men.\n\n\nLAST OF ALL, THE OBJECTOR CRIES OUT,\n\nThe Constitution may be _amended_, and I shall vote to have it\nchanged.\n\nANSWER. But at present it is necessary to swear to support it\n_as it is_. What the Constitution may become, a century hence, we\nknow not; we speak of it _as it is_, and repudiate it _as it is_.\nHow long may one promise to do evil, in hope some time or other to\nget the power to do good? We will not brand the Constitution of the\nUnited States as pro-slavery, after--it had ceased to be so! This\nobjection reminds me of Miss Martineau's story of the little boy,\nwho hurt himself, and sat crying on the sidewalk. \"Don't cry!\" said\na friend, \"it won't hurt you tomorrow.\"--\"Well then,\" said the child,\n\"I won't cry tomorrow.\"\n\nWe come then, it seems to me, back to our original conclusion: that\nthe man who swears to support the Constitution, swears to support\nthe whole of it, pro-slavery clauses and all,--that he swears to\nsupport it _as it is_, not as it hereafter may become,--that he\nswears to support it in the sense given to it by the Courts and the\nNation, not as he chooses to understand it,--and that the Courts and\nthe Nation expect such an one in office to do his share toward the\nsuppression of slave, as well as other, insurrections, and to aid\nthe return of fugitive slaves. After an _abolitionist_ has taken\nsuch an oath, or by his vote sent another to take it for him, I do\nnot see how he can look his own principles in the face.\n\nThou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou lie?\n\nWe who call upon the slaveholder to do right, no matter what the\nconsequences or the cost, are certainly bound to look well to our\nown example. At least we can hardly expect to win the master to do\njustice by _setting him an example of perjury_. It is almost an\ninsult in an abolitionist, while not willing to sacrifice even a\npetty ballot for his principles, to demand of the slaveholder that\nhe give up wealth, home, old prejudices and social position at their\ncall.\n\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM J.Q. ADAMS.\n\n\nThe benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the\nrestoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of\ncommerce, navigation, and ship building--the acquisition of the\nmeans of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection\nand encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the\ncountry. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was\ninsufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to\nthe adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was\n_protection_. Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of\nIndians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the\nmost terrible of wars--and protection from their own\nnegroes--protection from their insurrections--protection from their\nescape--protection even to the trade by which they were brought into\nthis country--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to\nthe very bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be\ndenied--the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a\ncondition of their assent to the Constitution, three special\nprovisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their\nslaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of preserving\nthe African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to surrender\nfugitive slaves--an engagement positively prohibited by the laws of\nGod, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction, fatal to the\nprinciples of popular representation, of a representation for\nslaves--for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons.\n\nIn outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in\nfact, it is a representation of their masters,--the oppressor\nrepresenting the oppressed.--Is it in the compass of human\nimagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of\ncommitting the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?--The\nrepresentative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and trustee\nof the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of his foes.\nTo call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the\nunderstanding of mankind. It is doubly tainted with the infection of\nriches and of slavery. _There is no name in the language of national\njurisprudence that can define it_--no model in the records of\nancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with\nwhich it can be likened. Here is one class of men, consisting of not\nmore than one-fortieth part of the whole people, not more than\none-thirtieth part of the free population, exclusively devoted to\ntheir personal interests identified with their own as slaveholders\nof the same associated wealth, and wielding by their votes, upon\nevery question of government or of public policy, two-fifths of the\nwhole power of the House. In the Senate of the Union, the proportion\nof the slaveholding power is yet greater. Its operation upon the\ngovernment of the nation is, to establish an artificial majority in\nthe slave representation over that of the free people, in the\nAmerican Congress, and thereby to make the PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION,\nAND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE\nNATIONAL GOVERNMENT.--The result is seen in the fact that, at this\nday, the President of the United States, the President of the Senate,\nthe Speaker of the House of Representatives, and five out of nine of\nthe Judges of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the United States, are\nnot only citizens of slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders\nthemselves. So are, and constantly have been, with scarcely an\nexception, all the members of both Houses of Congress from the\nslaveholding States; and so are, in immensely disproportionate\nnumbers, the commanding officers of the army and navy; the officers\nof the customs; the registers and receivers of the land offices, and\nthe post-masters throughout the slaveholding States.\n\nFellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators\nand executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been\nyour legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation\nare much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free.\nYou have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union.\nYour influence on the legislation and the administration of the\nGovernment ought to be in the proportion of three to two. But how\nstands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence\nexercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers,\nhere is an intrusive influence in every department, by a\nrepresentation, nominally of persons, but really of property,\nostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, overbalancing\nyour superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary\npower to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the compact,\nCONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND\nHOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the sordid private interest and\noppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves.\n\nIn the Articles of Confederation, there was no guaranty for the\nproperty of the slaveholder--no double representation of him in the\nFederal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation for the\nrecovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of _government_ came\nto be delegated to the Union, the South--that is, South Carolina and\nGeorgia--refused their subscription to the parchment, till it should\nbe saturated with the infection of slavery, which no fumigation\ncould purify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the\nNorth gave way, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the\nConstitution of freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert\nthe first principle of Democracy, that the will of the majority\nshall rule the land. By means of the double representation, the\nminority command the whole, and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW\nAND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY.\n\n\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n  ADDRESS TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY,\n  ON THE VIOLATION BY THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\n  OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION AT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE\n  OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.\n\n\nNEW YORK:\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\nNO. 143 NASSAU STREET.\n\n1840.\n\nThis No. contains 1 sheet.--Postage, under 100 miles, 1-1/2 ct.\nover 100, 2-1/2 cts. Please Read and circulate.\n\n\nADDRESS.\n\n  TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY:--\n\nThere was a time, fellow citizens, when the above address would have\nincluded the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. But, alas! the freedom of\nthe press, freedom of speech, and the right of petition, are now\nhated and dreaded by our Southern citizens, as hostile to the\nperpetuity of human bondage; while, by their political influence in\nthe Federal Government, they have induced numbers at the North to\nunite with them in their sacrilegious crusade against these\ninestimable privileges.\n\nOn the 28th January last, the House of Representatives, on motion of\nMr. Johnson, from Maryland, made it a standing RULE of the House\nthat \"no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the\nabolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or\nTerritory of the United States, in which it now exists, SHALL BE\nRECEIVED BY THE HOUSE, OR ENTERTAINED IN ANY WAY WHATEVER.\"\n\nThus has the RIGHT OF PETITION been immolated in the very Temple of\nLiberty, and offered up, a propitiatory sacrifice to the demon of\nslavery. Never before has an outrage so unblushingly profligate been\nperpetrated upon the Federal Constitution. Yet, while we mourn the\ndegeneracy which this transaction evinces, we behold, in its\nattending circumstances, joyful omens of the triumph which awaits\nour struggle with the hateful power that now perverts the General\nGovernment into an engine of cruelty and loathsome oppression.\n\nBefore we congratulate you on these omens, let us recall to your\nrecollection the steps by which the enemies of human rights have\nadvanced to their present rash and insolent defiance of moral and\nconstitutional obligation.\n\nIn 1831, a newspaper was established in Boston, for the purpose of\ndisseminating facts and arguments in favor of the duty and policy of\nimmediate emancipation. The Legislature of Georgia, with all the\nrecklessness of despotism, passed a law, offering a reward of $5000,\nfor the abduction of the Editor, and his delivery in Georgia. As\nthere was no law, by which a citizen of Massachusetts could be tried\nin Georgia, for expressing his opinions in the capital of his own\nState, this reward was intended as the price of BLOOD. Do you start\nat the suggestion? Remember the several sums of $25,000, of $50,000,\nand of $100,000, offered in Southern papers for kidnapping certain\nabolitionists. Remember the horrible inflictions by Southern Lynch\nclubs. Remember the declaration, in the United States Senate, by the\nbrazen-fronted Preston, that, should an abolitionist be caught in\nCarolina, he would be HANGED. But, as the Slaveholders could not\ndestroy the lives of the Abolitionists, they determined to murder\ntheir characters. Hence, the President of the United States was\ninduced, in his Message of 1835, to Congress, to charge them with\nplotting the massacre of the Southern planters; and even to stultify\nhimself, by affirming that, for this purpose, they were engaged in\nsending, by _mail_, inflammatory appeals to the _slaves_--sending\npapers to men who could not read them, and by a conveyance through\nwhich they could not receive them! He well knew that the papers\nalluded to were appeals on the immorality of converting men, women,\nand children, into beasts of burden, and were sent to the masters,\nfor _their_ consideration. The masters in Charleston, dreading the\nmoral influence of these appeals on the conscience of the\nslaveholding community, forced the Post Office, and made a bonfire\nof the papers. The Post Master General, with the sanction of the\nPresident, also hastened to their relief, and, in violation of oaths,\nand laws, and the constitution, established ten thousand censors of\nthe press, each one of whom was authorized to abstract from the mail\nevery paper which _he_ might think too favorable to the rights of man.\n\nFor more than twenty years, petitions have been presented to Congress,\nfor the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. The right\nto present them, and the power of Congress to grant their prayer,\nwere, until recently, unquestioned. But the rapid multiplication of\nthese petitions alarmed the slaveholders, and, knowing that they\ntended to keep alive at the North, an interest in the slave, they\ndeemed it good policy to discourage and, if possible, suppress all\nsuch applications. Hence Mr. Pinckney's famous resolution, in 1836,\ndeclaring, \"that all petitions, or papers, relating _in any way, or\nto any extent_ whatever to the _subject of slavery_, shall, without\nbeing printed or referred, be laid on the table; and no further\naction, whatever shall be had thereon!\"\n\nThe peculiar atrocity of this resolution was, that it not merely\ntrampled upon the rights of the petitioners, but took from each\nmember of the House his undoubted privilege, as a legislator of the\nDistrict, to introduce any proposition he might think proper, for the\nprotection of the slaves. In every Slave State there are laws\naffording, at least, some nominal protection to these unhappy beings;\nbut, according to this resolution, slaves might be flayed alive in\nthe streets of Washington, and no representative of the people could\noffer even a resolution for inquiry. And this vile outrage upon\nconstitutional liberty was avowedly perpetrated \"to repress agitation,\nto allay excitement, and re-establish harmony and tranquillity among\nthe various sections of the Union!!\"\n\nBut this strange opiate did not produce the stupefying effects\nanticipated from it. In 1836, the petitioners were only 37,000--the\nnext session they numbered 110,000. Mr. Hawes, of Ky., now essayed\nto restore tranquillity, by gagging the uneasy multitude; but, alas!\nat the next Congress, more than 300,000 petitioners carried new\nterror to the hearts of the slaveholders. The next anodyne was\nprescribed by Mr. Patton, of Va., but its effect was to rouse from\ntheir stupor some of the Northern Legislatures, and to induce them\nto denounce his remedy as \"a usurpation of power, a violation of the\nConstitution, subversive of the fundamental principles of the\ngovernment, and at war with the prerogatives of the people.\"[105] It\nwas now supposed that the people most be drugged by a _northern_ man,\nand _Atherton_ was found a fit instrument for this vile purpose; but\nthe dose proved only the more nauseous and exciting from the foul\nhands by which it was administered.\n\n[Footnote 105: Resolutions of Massachusetts and Connecticut, April and\nMay, 1838.]\n\n\nIn these various outrages, although all action on the petitions was\nprohibited, the papers themselves were received and laid on the table,\nand _therefore_ it was contended, that the right of petition had\nbeen preserved inviolate. But the slaveholders, maddened by the\nfailure of all their devices, and fearing the influence which the\nmere sight of thousands and tens of thousands of petitions in behalf\nof liberty, would exert, and, taking advantage of the approaching\npresidential election to operate upon the selfishness of some\nnorthern members, have succeeded in crushing the right of petition\nitself.\n\nThat you may be the more sensible, fellow citizens, of the exceeding\nprofligacy of the late RULE and of its palpable violation of both the\nspirit and the letter of the Constitution, which those who voted for\nit had sworn to support, suffer us to recall to your recollection a\nfew historical facts.\n\nThe framers of the Federal Constitution supposed the right of\npetition too firmly established in the habits and affections of the\npeople, to need a constitutional guarantee. Their omission to notice\nit, roused the jealousy of some of the State conventions, called to\npass upon the constitution. The _Virginia_ convention proposed,\nas an amendment, \"that every _freeman_ has a right to petition,\nor apply to the Legislature, for a redress of grievances.\" And this\namendment, with others, was ordered to be forwarded to the different\nStates, for their consideration. The Conventions of North Carolina,\nNew York, and Rhode Island, were held subsequently, and, of course,\nhad before them the Virginia amendment. The North Carolina Convention\nadopted a declaration of rights, embracing the very words of the\nproposed amendment; and this declaration was ordered to be submitted\nto Congress, before that State would enter the Union. The Conventions\nof New York and of Rhode Island incorporated in their _certificates\nof ratification_, the assertion that \"Every _person_ has a right to\npetition or apply to the legislature for a redress of\ngrievances\"--using the Virginia phraseology, merely substituting the\nword _person_ for _freeman_, thus claiming the right of petition even\nfor slaves; while Virginia and North Carolina confined it to freemen.\n\nThe first Congress, assembled under the Constitution, gave effect to\nthe wishes thus emphatically expressed, by proposing, as an amendment,\nthat \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of\nreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or _abridging_\nthe freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to\nassemble, and _to petition Government_ for a redress of grievances.\"\nThis amendment was duly ratified by the States, and when members of\nCongress swear to support the Constitution of the United States,\nthey are as much bound by their oath to refrain from abridging the\nright of petition, as they are to fulfil any other constitutional\nobligation. And will the slaveholders and their abettors, dare to\nmaintain that they have not foresworn themselves, because they have\nabridged the right of the people to petition for a redress of\ngrievances, by a RULE of the House, and not by a _law_? If so, they\nmay by a RULE require every member, on taking his seat, to subscribe\nthe creed of a particular church, and then call their Maker to\nwitness that they are guiltless of making a _law_ \"respecting an\nestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\"\n\nThe right to petition is one thing, and the disposition of a petition\nafter it is received, is another. But the new rule makes no\ndisposition of the petitions; it PROHIBITS THEIR RECEPTION; they may\nnot be brought into the legislative chamber. Hundreds of thousands\nof the people are debarred all access to their representatives, for\nthe purpose of offering them a prayer.\n\nIt is said that the manifold abominations perpetrated in the District\nare no grievances to the petitioners, and _therefore_ they have no\nright to ask for their removal. But the right guaranteed by the\nConstitution, is a right to ask for the redress of _grievances_,\nwhether personal, social, or moral. And who, except a slaveholder,\nwill dare to contend that it is no grievance that our agents, our\nrepresentatives, our servants, in our name and by our authority,\nenact laws erecting and licensing markets in the Capital of the\nRepublic, for the sale of human beings, and converting free men into\nslaves, for no other crime, than that of being too poor to pay\nUnited States' officers the JAIL FEES accruing from an iniquitous\nimprisonment?\n\nAgain, it is pretended that the objects prayed for, are palpably\nunconstitutional, and that _therefore_ the petitions ought not to be\nreceived. And by what authority are the people deprived of their\nright to petition for any object which a majority of either\nHouse of Congress, for the time being, may please to regard as\nunconstitutional? If this usurpation be submitted to, it will not be\nconfined to abolition petitions. It is well known that most of the\nslaveholders _now_ insist, that all protecting duties are\nunconstitutional, and that on account of the tariff the Union was\nnearly rent by the very men who are now horrified by the danger to\nwhich it is exposed by these _petitions_! Should our Northern\nManufacturers again presume to ask Congress to protect them from\nforeign competition, the Southern members will find a precedent,\nsanctioned by Northern votes, for a rule that \"no petition, memorial,\nresolution, or other paper, praying for the IMPOSITION OF DUTIES FOR\nTHE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MANUFACTURES, shall be received by the House,\nor entertained in any way whatever.\"\n\nIt does indeed, require Southern arrogance, to maintain that,\nalthough Congress is invested by the Constitution with \"exclusive\njurisdiction, in all cases whatsoever,\" over the District of Columbia,\nyet that it would be so palpably unconstitutional to abolish the\nslave-trade, and to emancipate the slaves in the District, that\npetitions for these objects ought not to be received. Yet this is\nasserted in that very House, on whose minutes is recorded a\nresolution, in 1816, appointing a committee, with power to send for\npersons and papers, \"to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and\nillegal traffic in slaves, carried on, in and through the District\nof Columbia, and report whether any, and what means are necessary\nfor putting a stop to the same:\" and another, in 1829, instructing\nthe Committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the\nexpediency of providing by law, \"for the gradual abolition of\nslavery in the District.\"\n\nIn the very first Congress assembled under the Federal Constitution,\npetitions were presented, asking its interposition for the\nmitigation of the evils, and final abolition of the African\nslave-trade, and also praying it, as far as it possessed the power,\nto take measures for the abolition of slavery. These petitions\nexcited the wrath and indignation of many of the slave-holding\nmembers, yet no one thought of refusing to receive them. They were\nreferred to a select committee, at the instance of Mr. Madison,\nhimself, who \"entered into a critical review of the circumstances\nrespecting the adoption of the Constitution, and the ideas upon the\nlimitation of the powers of Congress to interfere in the regulation\nof the commerce of slaves, and showed that they undoubtedly were not\nprecluded from interposing in their importation; and generally to\nregulate the mode in which every species of business shall be\ntransacted. He adverted to the western country, and the Cession of\nGeorgia, in which Congress have certainly the power to _regulate the\nsubject of slavery_; which shows that gentlemen are mistaken in\nsupposing, that Congress cannot constitutionally interfere in the\nbusiness, in any degree, whatever. He was in favor of committing the\npetition, and justified the measure by repeated precedents in the\nproceedings of the House.\"--_U.S. Gazette, 17th Feb._, 1790.\n\nHere we find one of the earliest and ablest expounders of the\nConstitution, maintaining the power of Congress to \"regulate the\nsubject of slavery\" in the national territories, and urging the\nreference of abolition petitions to a special committee.\n\nThe committee made a report; for which, after a long debate, was\nsubstituted a declaration, by the House, that Congress could not\nabolish the slave trade prior to the year 1808, but had a right so\nto regulate it as to provide for the humane treatment of the slaves\non the passage; and that Congress could not interfere in the\nemancipation or treatment of slaves in the _States_.\n\nThis declaration gave entire satisfaction, and no farther abolition\npetitions were presented, till after the District of Columbia had\nbeen placed under the \"exclusive jurisdiction\" of the General\nGovernment.\n\nYou all remember, fellow citizens, the wide-spread excitement which\na few years since prevailed on the subject of SUNDAY MAILS. Instead\nof attempting to quiet the agitation, by outraging the rights of the\npetitioners, Congress referred the petitions to a committee, and\nmade no attempt to stifle discussion.\n\nWhy, then, we ask, with such authorities and precedents before them,\ndo the slaveholders in Congress, regardless of their oaths, strive to\ngag the friends of freedom, under _pretence_ of allaying agitation?\nBecause conscience does make cowards of them all--because they know\nthe accursed system they are upholding will not bear the\nlight--because they fear, if these petitions are discussed, the\nabominations of the American slave trade, the secrets of the\nprison-houses in Washington and Alexandria, and the horrors of the\nhuman shambles licensed by the authority of Congress, will be\nexposed to the score and indignation of the civilized world.\n\nUnquestionably the late RULE surpasses, in its profligate contempt of\nconstitutional obligation, any act in the annals of the Federal\nGovernment. As such it might well strike every patriot with dismay,\nwere it not that attending circumstances teach us that it is the\nexpiring effort of desperation. When we reflect on the past\nsubserviency of our northern representatives to the mandates of the\nslaveholders, we may well raise, on the present occasion, the shout\nof triumph, and hail the vote on the recent RULE as the pledge of a\nglorious victory. Suffer us to recall to your recollection the\nmajorities by which the successive attempts to crush the right of\npetition and the freedom of debate have been carried.\n\n\nPinckney's Gag was passed May, 1836, by a majority of 51\nHawes's                   Jan. 1837,                  58\nPatton's                  Dec. 1837,                  48\nAtherton's                Dec. 1838,                  48\nJOHNSON's                 Jan. 1840,                   6\n\n\nSurely, when we find the majority against us reduced from 58 to\n6, we need no new incentive to perseverance.\n\nAnother circumstance which marks the progress of constitutional\nliberty, is the gradual diminution in the number of our northern\n_serviles_. The votes from the free States in favor of the several\ngags were as follows:--\n\n\nFor Pinckney's             62\nFor Hawes's                70\nFor Patton's               52\nFor Atherton's             49\nFor JOHNSON's              28\n\n\nThere is also another cheering fact connected with the passage of\nthe RULE which deserves to be noticed. Heretofore the slaveholders\nhave uniformly, by enforcing the previous question, imposed their\nseveral gags by a silent vote. On the present occasion they were\ntwice baffled in their efforts to stifle debate, and were, for days\ntogether, compelled to listen to speeches on a subject which they\nhave so often declared should not be discussed.\n\nA base strife for southern votes has hitherto, to no small extent,\nenlisted both the political parties at the north in the service of\nthe slaveholders. The late unwonted independence of northern\npoliticians, and the deference paid by them to the wishes of their\nown constituents, in preference to those of their southern colleagues,\nindicates the advance of public opinion. No less than 49 northern\nmembers of the administration party voted for the Atherton gag,\nwhile only 27 dared to record their names in favor of Johnson's; and\nof the representation of SIX States, _every vote_ was given _against_\nthe rule, without distinction of party. The tone in which opposite\npolitical journals denounce the late outrage may warn the\nslaveholders that they will not much longer hold the north in bonds.\nThe leading administration paper in the city of New York regards the\nRULE with \"utter abhorrence;\" while the official paper of the\nopposition, edited by the state printer, trusts that the names of\nthe recreant northerners who voted for it may be \"handed down to\neternal infamy and execration.\"\n\nThe advocates of abolition are no longer consigned to unmitigated\ncontempt and obloquy. Passing by the various living illustrations of\nour remark, we appeal for our proofs to the dead. The late WILLIAM\nLEGGETT, the editor of a Democratic Journal in the city of New York,\nwas denounced, in 1835, by the \"Democratic Republican General\nCommittee,\" for his abolition doctrines. Far from faltering in his\ncourse, on account of the censure of his own party, he exclaimed,\nwith a presentiment almost amounting to prophecy, \"The stream of\npublic opinion now sets against us, but it is about to turn, and the\nregurgitation will be tremendous. Proud in that day may well be the\nman who can float in triumph on the first refluent wave, swept\nonward by the deluge which he himself, in advance of his fellows,\nhad largely shared in occasioning. Such be my fate; and, living or\ndying, it will in some measure be mine. I have written my name in\nineffaceable letters on the abolition record.\" And he did live to\nbehold the first swelling of the refluent wave. The denounced\nabolitionist was honored by a democratic President with a diplomatic\nmission; and since his death, the resolution condemning him has been\nEXPUNGED from the minutes of the democratic committee.\n\nOf the many victims of the recent awful calamity in our waters, what\nname has been most frequently uttered by the pulpit and the press in\nthe accents of lamentation and panegyric? On whose tomb have freedom,\nphilanthropy, and letters been invoked to strew their funeral wreaths?\nAll who have heard of the loss of the Lexington are familiar with\nthe name of CHARLES FOLLEN. And who was he? One of the men\nofficially denounced by President Jackson as a gang of miscreants,\nplotting insurrection and murder--and, recently, a member of the\nExecutive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.\n\nLet us then, fellow citizens, in view of all these things, thank God\nand take courage. We are now contending, not merely for the\nemancipation of our unhappy fellow men, kept in bondage under the\nauthority of our own representatives--not merely for the overthrow\nof the human shambles erected by Congress on the national\ndomain--but also for the preservation of those great constitutional\nrights which were acquired by our fathers, and are now assailed by\nthe slaveholders and their northern auxiliaries. That you may\nremember these auxiliaries and avoid giving them new opportunities\nof betraying your rights, we annex a list of their dishonored names.\n\nThe following twenty-eight members from the Free States voted in the\naffirmative on the recent GAG RULE.\n\n\n  MAINE.\n\n  Virgil D. Parris\n  Albert Smith\n\n  NEW HAMPSHIRE.\n\n  Charles G. Atherton\n  Edmund Burke\n  Ira A. Eastman\n  Tristram Shaw\n\n  NEW YORK.\n\n  Nehemiah H. Earle\n  John Fine\n  Nathaniel Jones\n  Governeur Kemble\n  James de la Montayne\n  John H. Prentiss\n  Theron R. Strong\n\n  PENNSYLVANIA.\n\n  John Davis\n  Joseph Fornance\n  James Gerry\n  George M'Cullough\n  David Petriken\n  William S. Ramsey\n\n  OHIO.\n\n  D.P. Leadbetter\n  William Medill\n  Isaac Parrish\n  George Sweeney\n  Jonathan Taylor\n  John B. Weller\n\n  INDIANA.\n\n  John Davis\n  George H. Proffit\n\n  ILLINOIS.\n\n  John Reynolds.\n\n\nLet us turn to our more immediate representatives, and we trust more\nfaithful servants. Our State Legislatures will not refuse to hear\nour prayers. Let us petition them immediately to rebuke the treason\nby which the Constitution has been surrendered into the hands of the\nslaveholders--let us implore them to demand from Congress, in the\nname of the free States, that they shall neither destroy nor abridge\nthe right of petition--a right without which our government would be\nconverted into a despotism.\n\nWe call on you, fellow citizens of every religious faith and party\nname, to unite with us in guarding the citadel of our country's\nfreedom. If there are any who will not co-operate with us in\nlaboring for the emancipation of the slave, surely there are none\nwho will stand aloof from us while contending for the liberty of\nthemselves, their children, and their children's children.\n\nTo the rescue, then, fellow citizens! and, trusting in HIM without\nwhom all human effort is weakness, let us not doubt that our faithful\nendeavors to preserve the rights HE has given us will, through HIS\nblessing, be crowned with success.\n\n\n  ARTHUR TAPPAN,\n  JAMES G. BIRNEY,\n  JOSHUA LEAVITT,\n  LEWIS TAPPAN,\n  SAMUEL E. CORNISH,\n  SIMEON S. JOCELYN,\n  LA ROY SUNDERLAND,\n  THEODORE S. WRIGHT,\n  DUNCAN DUNBAR,\n  JAMES S. GIBBONS,\n  HENRY B. STANTON\n\n  _Executive Committee\n  of the\n  American\n  Anti-Slavery Society_.\n\n\n\n\n_New York, February_ 13, 1840.","title":"The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 4 of 4","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":72322}