{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_11275/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_11275","id":"gutenberg_11275","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11275","summary":null,"tags":["Antislavery movements -- United States -- Periodicals","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Slavery","Slavery -- United States -- Periodicals"],"text":"THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER\n\nBY The American Anti-Slavery Society\n\n1836\n\n\n\n\n\n\n    No.  1. To the People of the United States; or, To Such Americans\n            As Value Their Rights, and Dare to Maintain Them.\n\n    No.  2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South.\n\n    No.  2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South. Revised and\n            Corrected.\n\n    No.  3. Letter of Gerrit Smith to Rev. James Smylie, of the State\n            of Mississippi.\n\n    No.  4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the\n            Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human\n            Rights.\n\n    No.  4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the\n            Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of\n            Human Rights. Third Edition--Revised.\n\n    No.  4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the\n            Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human\n            Rights. Fourth Edition--Enlarged.\n\n    No.  5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia.\n\n    No.  5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia. With\n            Additions by the Author.\n\n    No.  5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia. Fourth\n            Edition.\n\n    No.  6. NARRATIVE OF JAMES WILLIAMS, AN AMERICAN SLAVE.\n\n    No.  7. EMANCIPATION IN THE WEST INDIES.\n\n    No.  8. CORRESPONDENCE, BETWEEN THE HON. F.H. ELMORE, ONE OF THE\n            SOUTH CAROLINA DELEGATION IN CONGRESS, AND JAMES G.\n            BIRNEY, ONE OF THE SECRETARIES OF THE AMERICAN\n            ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.\n\n    No.  9. LETTER OF GERRIT SMITH, TO HON. HENRY CLAY.\n\n    No. 10. EMANCIPATION In The WEST INDIES, IN 1838.\n\n            THE CHATTEL PRINCIPLE THE ABHORRENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AND\n            THE APOSTLES; OR NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY IN THE NEW\n            TESTAMENT. 1839.\n\n    No. 10. American Slavery As It Is: Testimony of a Thousand\n            Witnesses.\n\n    No. 10. Speech of Hon. Thomas Morris, of Ohio, in Reply to the\n            Speech of the Hon. Henry Clay.\n\n    No. 11. The Constitution A Pro-Slavery Compact Or Selections\n            From the Madison Papers, &c.\n\n    No. 11. The Constitution A Pro-Slavery Compact Or Selections\n            From the Madison Papers, &c. Second Edition,\n            Enlarged.\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\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER\n\n\n\nVOL. I. AUGUST, 1836. NO. 1.\n\n\n\nTO THE\n\nPEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES;\n\nOR, TO SUCH AMERICANS AS VALUE THEIR RIGHTS, AND\n\nDARE TO MAINTAIN THEM.\n\n\nFELLOW COUNTRYMEN!\n\nA crisis has arrived, in which rights the most important which civil\nsociety can acknowledge, and which have been acknowledged by our\nConstitution and laws, in terms the most explicit which language can\nafford, are set at nought by men, whom your favor has invested with a\nbrief authority. By what standard is your liberty of conscience, of\nspeech, and of the press, now measured? Is it by those glorious charters\nyou have inherited from your fathers, and which your present rulers have\ncalled Heaven to witness, they would preserve inviolate? Alas! another\nstandard has been devised, and if we would know what rights are conceded\nto us by our own servants, we must consult the COMPACT by which the\nSouth engages on certain conditions to give its trade and votes to\nNorthern men. All rights not allowed by this compact, we now hold by\nsufferance, and our Governors and Legislatures avow their readiness to\ndeprive us of them, whenever in their opinion, legislation on the\nsubject shall be \"necessary[A].\" This compact is not indeed published to\nthe world, under the hands and seals of the contracting parties, but it\nis set forth in official messages,--in resolutions of the State and\nNational Legislatures--in the proceedings of popular meetings, and in\nacts of lawless violence. The temples of the Almighty have been sacked,\nbecause the worshipers did not conform their consciences to the\ncompact[B]. Ministers of the gospel have been dragged as criminals from\nthe altar to the bar, because they taught the people from the Bible,\ndoctrines proscribed by the compact[C]. Hundreds of free citizens,\npeaceably assembled to express their sentiments, have, because such an\nexpression was forbidden by the compact, been forcibly dispersed, and\nthe chief actor in this invasion on the freedom of speech, instead of\nbeing punished for a breach of the peace, was rewarded for his fidelity\nto the compact with an office of high trust and honor[D].\n\n[Footnote A: See the Messages of the Governors of New-York and\nConnecticut, the resolutions of the New-York Legislature, and the bill\nintroduced into the Legislature of Rhode Island.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: Churches in New-York attacked by the mob in 1834.]\n\n\n[Footnote C: See two cases within the last twelve months in New\nHampshire.]\n\n\n[Footnote D: Samuel Beardsley, Esq. the leader of the Utica riot, was\nshortly afterwards appointed Attorney General of the state of New-York.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPOSTAGE--This Periodical contains one sheet, postage under 100 miles, is\n1 1-2 cents over 100 miles, 2 1-2 cents.\n\n\"The freedom of the press--the palladium of liberty,\" was once a\nhousehold proverb. Now, a printing office[A] is entered by ruffians, and\nits types scattered in the highway, because disobedient to the compact.\nA Grand Jury, sworn to \"present all things truly as they come to their\nknowledge,\" refuse to indict the offenders; and a senator in Congress\nrises in his place, and appeals to the outrage in the printing office,\nand the conduct of the Grand Jury as evidence of the good faith with\nwhich the people of the state of New York were resolved to observe the\ncompact[B].\n\n[Footnote A: Office of the Utica Standard and Democrat newspaper.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: See speech of the Hon. Silas Wright in the U.S. Senate of\nFeb. 1836.]\n\nThe Executive Magistrate of the American Union, unmindful of his\nobligation to execute the laws for the equal benefit of his fellow\ncitizens, has sanctioned a censorship of the press, by which papers\nincompatible with the compact are excluded from the southern mails, and\nhe has officially advised Congress to do by law, although in violation\nof the Constitution, what he had himself virtually done already in\ndespite of both. The invitation has indeed been rejected, but by the\nSenate of the United States only, after a portentous struggle--a\nstruggle which distinctly exhibited the _political_ conditions of the\ncompact, as well as the fidelity with which those conditions are\nobserved by a northern candidate for the Presidency. While in compliance\nwith these conditions, a powerful minority in the Senate were forging\nfetters for the PRESS, the House of Representatives were employed in\nbreaking down the right of PETITION. On the 26th May last, the following\nresolution, reported by a committee was adopted by the House, viz.\n\n\n    \"Resolved, that all Petitions, Memorials, Resolutions and\n    Propositions relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to\n    the subject of Slavery, shall without being either printed or\n    referred, be laid on the table, and that no further action\n    whatever shall be had thereon.\" Yeas, 117. Nays, 68.\n\n\nBear with us, fellow countrymen, while we call your attention to the\noutrage on your rights, the contempt of personal obligations and the\nhardened cruelty involved in this detestable resolution. Condemn us not\nfor the harshness of our language, before you hear our justification. We\nshall speak only the truth, but we shall speak it as freemen.\n\nThe right of petition is founded in the very institution of civil\ngovernment, and has from time immemorial been acknowledged as among the\nunquestionable privileges of our English ancestors. This right springs\nfrom the great truth that government is established for the benefit of\nthe governed; and it forms the medium by which the people acquaint their\nrulers with their wants and their grievances. So accustomed were the\nAmericans to the exercise of this right, even during their subjection to\nthe British crown, that, on the formation of the Federal Constitution,\nthe Convention not conceiving that it could be endangered, made no\nprovision for its security. But in the very first Congress that\nassembled under the new Government, the omission was repaired. It was\nthought some case might possibly occur, in which this right might prove\ntroublesome to a dominant faction, who would endeavor to stifle it. An\namendment was therefore proposed and adopted, by which Congress is\nrestrained from making any law abridging \"the right of the People,\npeaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of\ngrievances.\" Had it not been for this prudent jealousy of our Fathers,\ninstead of the resolution I have transcribed, we should have had a LAW,\nvisiting with pains and penalties, all who dared to petition the Federal\nGovernment, in behalf of the victims of oppression, held in bondage by\nits authority. The present resolution cannot indeed consign such\npetitioners to the prison or the scaffold, but it makes the right to\npetition a congressional boon, to be granted or withheld at pleasure,\nand in the present case effectually withholds it, by tendering it\nnugatory.\n\nPetitions are to inform the Government of the wishes of the people, and\nby calling forth the action of the Legislature, to inform the\nconstituents how far their wishes are respected by their\nrepresentatives. The information thus mutually given and received is\nessential to a faithful and enlightened exercise of the right of\nlegislation on the one hand, and of suffrage on the other. But the\nresolution we are considering, provides that no petition in relation to\nslavery, shall be printed for the information of the members, nor\nreferred to a committee to ascertain the truth of its statements; nor\nshall any vote be taken, in regard to it, by which the People may learn\nthe sentiments of their representatives.\n\nIf Congress may thus dispose of petitions on one subject, they may make\nthe same disposition of petitions on any and every other subject. Our\nrepresentatives are bound by oath, not to pass any law abridging the\nright of petition, but if this resolution is constitutional, they may\norder every petition to be delivered to their door-keeper, and by him to\nbe committed to the flames; for why preserve petitions on which _no\naction can be had_? Had the resolution been directed to petitions for an\nobject palpably unconstitutional, it would still have been without\nexcuse. The construction of the Constitution is a matter of opinion, and\nevery citizen has a right to express that opinion in a petition, or\notherwise.\n\nBut this usurpation is aggravated by the almost universal admission that\nCongress does possess the constitutional power to legislate on the\nsubject of slavery in the District of Columbia and the Territories. No\nwonder that a distinguished statesman refused to sanction the right of\nthe House to pass such a resolution by even voting against it[A]. The\nmen who perpetrated this outrage had sworn to support the Constitution,\nand will they hereafter plead at the bar of their Maker, that they had\nkept their oath, because they had abridged the right of petition _by a\nresolution_, and not by law!\n\n[Footnote A: Mr. J.Q. Adams, on his name being called, refused to vote,\nsaying, \"the resolution is in direct violation of the Constitution of\nthe United States, and the privileges of the members of this House.\"]\n\nThis resolution not only violates the rights of the people, but it\nnullifies the privileges and obligations of their representatives. It is\nan undoubted right and duty of every member of Congress to propose any\nmeasure within the limits of the Constitution, which he believes is\nrequired by the interests of his constituents and the welfare of his\ncountry. Now mark the base surrender of this right--the wicked\ndereliction of this duty. All \"resolutions and propositions\" relating\n\"in _any way_ or to _any extent_ whatever to the subject of slavery,\"\nshall be laid on the table, and \"no further action _whatever_ shall be\nhad thereon.\" What a spectacle has been presented to the American\npeople!--one hundred and seventeen members of Congress relinquishing\ntheir own rights, cancelling their own solemn obligations, forcibly\ndepriving the other members of their legislative privileges, abolishing\nthe freedom of debate, condemning the right of petition, and prohibiting\npresent and future legislation on a most important and constitutional\nsubject, by a rule of order!\n\nIn 1820, the New-York Legislature instructed the representatives from\nthat state in Congress, to insist on making \"the prohibition of slavery\nan indispensable condition of admission\" of certain territories into the\nunion. In 1828, the Legislature of Pennsylvania instructed the\nPennsylvania members of Congress, to vote for the abolition of slavery\nin the district of Columbia. In vain hereafter shall a representative\npresent the instructions of his constituents, or the injunctions of a\nsovereign state. No question shall be taken, or any motion he may offer,\nin _any way_, or to _any extent_, relating to slavery!\n\nSearch the annals of legislation, and you will find no precedent for\nsuch a profligate act of tyranny, exercised by a majority over their\nfellow legislators, nor for such an impudent contempt of the rights of\nthe people.\n\nBut this resolution is no less barbarous than it is profligate and\nimpudent. Remember, fellow countrymen! that the decree has gone forth,\nthat there shall be no legislation by Congress, _in any way_, or to _any\nextent whatever_, on the subject of slavery. Now call to mind, that\nCongress is the local and only legislature of the District of Columbia,\nwhich is placed by the Constitution under its \"exclusive jurisdiction\n_in all cases whatsoever_.\" In this District, there are thousands of\nhuman beings divested of the rights of humanity, and subjected to a\nnegotiable despotism; and Congress is the only power that can extend the\nshield of law to protect them from cruelty and abuse; and that shield,\nit is now resolved, shall not be extended in any way, or to any extent!\nBut this is not all. The District has become the great slave-market of\nNorth America, and the port of Alexandria is the Guinea of our proud\nrepublic, whence \"cargoes of despair\" are continually departing[A].\n\n[Footnote A: One dealer, John Armfield, advertises in the National\nIntelligencer of the 10th of February last, that he has three vessels in\nthe trade, and they will leave the port of Alexandria on the first and\nfifteenth of each month.]\n\nIn the city which bears the name of the Father of his country, dealers\nin human flesh receive licenses for the vile traffic, at four hundred\ndollars each per annum; and the gazettes of the Capital have their\ncolumns polluted with the advertisements of these men, offering cash for\nchildren and youth, who, torn from their parents and families, are to\nwear out their existence on the plantations of the south.[A] For the\nsafe keeping of these children and youth, till they are shipped for the\nMississippi, private pens and prisons are provided, and the UNITED\nSTATES' JAIL used when required. The laws of the District in relation to\nslaves and free negroes are of the most abominable and iniquitous\ncharacter. Any free citizen with a dark skin, may be arrested on\npretence of being a fugitive slave, and committed to the UNITED STATES'\nPRISON, and unless within a certain number of days he proves his\nfreedom, while immured within its walls, he is, under authority of\nCongress, sold as a slave for life. Do you ask why? Let the blood mantle\nin your cheeks, while we give you the answer of the LAW--\"to pay his\njail fees!!\"\n\n[Footnote A: Twelve hundred negroes are thus advertised for in the\nNational Intelligencer of the 28th of March last. The negroes wanted are\ngenerally from the age of ten or twelve years to twenty-five, and of\nboth sexes.]\n\nOn the 11th of January, 1827, the Committee for the District of\nColumbia, (themselves slaveholders) introduced a bill providing that the\njail fees should hereafter be a county charge. The bill did not pass;\nand by the late resolution, a statute unparalleled for injustice and\natrocity by any mandate of European despotism, is to be like the law of\nthe Medes and Persians, that altereth not, since no proposition for its\nrepeal or modification can be entertained.\n\nThe Grand Jury of Alexandria presented the slave trade of that place, as\n\"disgraceful to our character as citizens of a free government,\" and as\n\"a grievance demanding legislative redress;\" that is, the interposition\nof Congress--but one hundred and seventeen men have decided that there\nshall be \"no action whatever\" by Congress in relation to slavery.\n\nIn March, 1816, John Randolph submitted the following resolution to the\nHouse of Representatives: \"_Resolved_, That a Committee be appointed to\ninquire into the existence of an _inhuman_ and illegal traffic of\nslaves, carried on in and through the District of Columbia, and to\nreport whether any, and what measures are necessary for putting a stop\nto the same.\" The COMPACT had not then been formed and the resolution\n_was adopted_. Such a resolution would _now_ \"be laid on the table,\" and\ntreated with silent contempt.\n\nIn 1828, eleven hundred inhabitants of the District presented a petition\nto Congress, complaining of the \"DOMESTIC SLAVE-TRADE\" as a grievance\ndisgraceful in its character, and \"even more demoralizing its influence\"\nthan the foreign traffic. The petition concluded as follows: \"The people\nof this District have within themselves no means of legislative redress,\nand we therefore appeal to your Honorable body as the _only one_ vested\nby the American Constitution with power to relieve us.\" No more shall\nsuch appeals be made to the national council. What matters it, that the\npeople of the District are annoyed by the human shambles opened among\nthem? What matters it, that Congress is \"the only body vested by the\nAmerican Constitution with power to relieve\" them? The compact requires\nthat no action shall be had on _any_ petition relating to slavery.\n\nThe horse or the ox may be protected in the District, by act of\nCongress, from the cruelty of its owner; but MAN, created in the image\nof God, shall, if his complexion be dark, be abandoned to every outrage.\nThe negro may be bound alive to the stake in front of the Capitol, as\nwell as in the streets of St. Louis--his shrieks may resound through the\nrepresentative hall--and the stench of his burning body may enter the\nnostrils of the law-givers--but no vote may rebuke the abomination--no\nlaw forbid its repetition.\n\nThe representatives of the nation may regulate the traffic in sheep and\nswine, within the ten miles square; but the SLAVERS of the District may\nbe laden to suffocation with human cattle--the horrors of the middle\npassage may be transcended at the wharves of Alexandria; but Congress\nmay not limit the size of the cargoes, or provide for the due feeding\nand watering the animals composing them!--The District of Columbia is\nhenceforth to be the only spot on the face of the globe, subjected to a\ncivilized and Christian police, in which avarice and malice may with\nlegal impunity inflict on humanity whatever sufferings ingenuity can\ndevise, or depravity desire.\n\nAnd this accumulation of wickedness, cruelty and baseness, is to render\nthe seat of the federal government the scoff of tyrants and the reproach\nof freemen FOREVER! On the 9th of January 1829, the House of\nRepresentatives passed the following vote. \"_Resolved_, that the\ncommittee of the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the\nexpediency of providing by law, for the gradual abolition of Slavery in\nthe District, in such manner that no individual shall be injured\nthereby.\" Never again while the present rule of order is in force, can\nsimilar instructions be given to a committee--never again shall even an\ninquiry be made into the expediency of abolishing slavery and the\nslave-trade in the District. What stronger evidence can we have, of the\ngrowing and spreading corruption caused by slavery, than that one\nhundred and seventeen republican legislators professed believers in\nChristianity--many of them from the North, aye even from the land of the\nPilgrims, should strive to render such curses PERPETUAL!\n\nThe flagitiousness of this resolution is aggravated if possible by the\narbitrary means by which its adoption was secured. No representative of\nthe People was permitted to lift up his voice against it--to plead the\ncommands of the Constitution which is violated--his own privileges and\nduties which it contemned--the rights of his constituents on which it\ntrampled--the chains of justice and humanity which it impiously\noutraged. Its advocates were afraid and ashamed to discuss it, and\nforbidding debate, they perpetrated in silence the most atrocious act\nthat has ever disgraced an American Legislature[A]. And was no reason\nwhatever, it may be asked, assigned for this bold invasion of our\nrights, this insult to the sympathies of our common nature?\nYes--connected with the resolution was a preamble explaining its OBJECT.\nRead it, fellow countrymen, and be equally astonished at the impudence\nof your rulers in avowing such an object, and at their folly in adopting\nsuch an expedient to effect it. The lips of a free people are to be\nsealed by insult and injury!\n\n[Footnote A:  A debate was allowed on a motion to re-commit the report,\nfor the purpose of preparing a resolution that Congress has no\nconstitutional power to interfere with slavery in the District of\nColumbia; but when the sense of the House was to be taken on the\nresolution reported by the committees, all debate was prevented by the\nprevious question.]\n\n\"Whereas, it is extremely important and desirable that the AGITATION on\nthis subject should be finally ARRESTED, for the purpose of restoring\n_tranquillity_ to the public mind, your committee respectfully recommend\nthe following resolution.\"\n\nORDER REIGNS IN WARSAW, were the terms in which the triumph of Russia\nover the liberties of Poland was announced to the world. When the right\nof petition shall be broken down--when no whisper shalt be heard in\nCongress in behalf of human rights--when the press shall be muzzled, and\nthe freedom of speech destroyed by gag-laws, then will the slaveholders\nannounce, that TRANQUILLITY IS RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC MIND!\n\nFellow countrymen! is such the tranquillity you desire--is such the\nheritage you would leave to your children? Suffer not the present\noutrage, by effecting its avowed object, to invite farther aggressions\non your rights. The chairman of the committee boasted that the number of\npetitioners the present session, for the abolition of slavery in the\nDistrict, was _only_ thirty-four thousand! Let us resolve, we beseech\nyou, that at the next session the number shall be A MILLION. Perhaps our\none hundred and seventeen representatives will then abandon in despair\ntheir present dangerous and unconstitutional expedient for tranquilizing\nthe public mind.\n\nThe purpose of this address, is not to urge upon you our own views of\nthe sinfulness of slavery, and the safety of its immediate abolition;\nbut to call your attention to the conduct of your rulers. Let no one\nthink for a moment, that because he is not an abolitionist, his\nliberties are not and will not be invaded. _We_ have no rights, distinct\nfrom the rights of the whole people. Calumny, falsehood, and popular\nviolence, have been employed in vain, to tranquilize abolitionists. It\nis now proposed to soothe them, by despoiling them of their\nConstitutional rights; but they cannot be despoiled _alone_. The right\nof petition and the freedom of debate are as sacred and valuable to\nthose who dissent from our opinions, as they are to ourselves. Can the\nConstitution at the same time secure liberty to you, and expose us to\noppression--give you freedom of speech, and lock our lips--respect your\nright of petition, and treat ours with contempt? No, fellow\ncountrymen!--we must be all free, or all slaves together. We implore\nyou, then, by all the obligations of interest, of patriotism, and of\nreligion--by the remembrance of your Fathers--by your love for your\nchildren, to unite with us in maintaining our common, and till lately,\nour unquestioned political rights.\n\nWe ask you as men to insist that your servants acting as the local\nlegislators of the District of Columbia, shall respect the common rights\nand decencies of humanity.--We ask you as freemen, not to permit your\nconstitutional privileges to be trifled with, by those who have sworn to\nmaintain them.--We ask you as Christian men, to remember that by\nsanctioning the sinful acts of your agents, you yourselves assume their\nguilt.\n\nWe have no candidates to recommend to your favor--we ask not your\nsupport for any political party; but we do ask you to give your\nsuffrages hereafter only to such men as you have reason to believe will\nnot sacrifice your rights, and their own obligations, and the claims of\nmercy and the commands of God, to an iniquitous and mercenary COMPACT.\nIf we cannot have northern Presidents and other officers of the general\ngovernment except in exchange for freedom of conscience, of speech, of\nthe press and of legislation, then let all the appointments at\nWashington be given to the South. If slaveholders will not trade with\nus, unless we consent to be slaves ourselves, then let us leave their\nmoney, and their sugar, and their cotton, to perish with them.\n\nFellow countrymen! we wish, we recommend no action whatever,\ninconsistent with the laws and constitutions of our country, or the\nprecepts of our common religion, but we beseech you to join with us in\nresolving, that while we will respect the rights of others, we will at\nevery hazard maintain our own.\n\n_In behalf of the American Anti-Slavery Society._\n\n\nARTHUR TAPPAN,      \\\n\nWM. JAY,             \\\n\nJNO. RANKIN,          \\\n\nLEWIS TAPPAN,          \\\n\nS.S. JOCELYN,           \\\n\nS.E. CORNISH,           |   _Executive Committee_.\n\nJOSHUA LEAVITT,         /\n\nABRAHAM L. COX,        /\n\nAMOS A. PHELPS,       /\n\nLA ROY SUNDERLAND,   /\n\nTHEO. S. WRIGHT,    /\n\nELIZUR WRIGHT, JR. /\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPublished by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce and\nNassau Streets.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n\n\n\nVOL. I.     SEPTEMBER 1836.     No. 2.\n\n\n\n\nAPPEAL\n\nTO THE\n\nCHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,\n\n\n\n\nBY A.E. GRIMK\u00c9.\n\n    \"Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not within\n    thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house more than all\n    the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time,\n    then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews\n    from another place: but thou and thy father's house shall be\n    destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom\n    for such a time as this. And Esther bade them return Mordecai\n    this answer:--and so will I go in unto the king, which is not\n    according to law, and _if I perish, I perish._\" Esther IV.\n    13-16.\n\n\nRESPECTED FRIENDS,\n\nIt is because I feel a deep and tender interest in your present and\neternal welfare that I am willing thus publicly to address you. Some of\nyou have loved me as a relative, and some have felt bound to me in\nChristian sympathy, and Gospel fellowship; and even when compelled by a\nstrong sense of duty, to break those outward bonds of union which bound\nus together as members of the same community, and members of the same\nreligious denomination, you were generous enough to give me credit, for\nsincerity as a Christian, though you believed I had been most strangely\ndeceived. I thanked you then for your kindness, and I ask you _now_, for\nthe sake of former confidence, and former friendship, to read the\nfollowing pages in the spirit of calm investigation and fervent prayer.\nIt is because you have known me, that I write thus unto you.\n\nBut there are other Christian women scattered over the Southern States,\nand of these, a very large number have never seen me, and never heard my\nname, and feel _no_ personal interest whatever in _me_. But I feel an\ninterest in _you_, as branches of the same vine from whose root I daily\ndraw the principle of spiritual vitality--Yes! Sisters in Christ I feel\nan interest in _you_, and often has the secret prayer arisen on your\nbehalf, Lord \"open thou their eyes that they may see wondrous things out\nof thy Law\"--It is then, because I _do feel_ and _do pray_ for you, that\nI thus address you upon a subject about which of all others, perhaps you\nwould rather not hear any thing; but, \"would to God ye could bear with\nme a little in my folly, and indeed bear with me, for I am jealous over\nyou with godly jealousy.\" Be not afraid then to read my appeal; it is\n_not_ written in the heat of passion or prejudice, but in that solemn\ncalmness which is the result of conviction and duty. It is true, I am\ngoing to tell you unwelcome truths, but I mean to speak those _truths in\nlove_, and remember Solomon says, \"faithful are the _wounds_ of a\nfriend.\" I do not believe the time has yet come when _Christian women_\n\"will not endure sound doctrine,\" even on the subject of Slavery, if it\nis spoken to them in tenderness and love, therefore I now address _you_.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPOSTAGE.--This periodical contains four and a half sheets. Postage under\n100 miles, 6 3-4 cents; over 100 miles, 11 1-4 cents. Please read and\ncirculate.\n\nTo all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for you\nare all _one_ to Christ,) I would speak. I have felt for you at this\ntime, when unwelcome light is pouring in upon the world on the subject\nof slavery; light which even Christians would exclude, if they could,\nfrom our country, or at any rate from the southern portion of it,\nsaying, as its rays strike the rock bound coasts of New England and\nscatter their warmth and radiance over her hills and valleys, and from\nthence travel onward over the Palisades of the Hudson, and down the soft\nflowing waters of the Delaware and gild the waves of the Potomac,\n\"hitherto shalt thou come and no further;\" I know that even professors\nof His name who has been emphatically called the \"Light of the world\"\nwould, if they could, build a wall of adamant around the Southern States\nwhose top might reach unto heaven, in order to shut out the light which\nis bounding from mountain to mountain and from the hills to the plains\nand valleys beneath, through the vast extent of our Northern States. But\nbelieve me, when I tell you, their attempts will be as utterly fruitless\nas were the efforts of the builders of Babel; and why? Because moral,\nlike natural light, is so extremely subtle in its nature as to overleap\nall human barriers, and laugh at the puny efforts of man to control it.\nAll the excuses and palliations of this system must inevitably be swept\naway, just as other \"refuges of lies\" have been, by the irresistible\ntorrent of a rectified public opinion. \"The _supporters_ of the slave\nsystem,\" says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work on the Principles of\nMorality, \"will _hereafter_ be regarded with the _same_ public feeling,\nas he who was an advocate for the slave trade _now is_.\" It will be, and\nthat very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged by all the\nvirtuous and the candid, that in _principle_ it is as sinful to hold a\nhuman being in bondage who has been born in Carolina, as one who has\nbeen born in Africa. All that sophistry of argument which has been\nemployed to prove, that although it is sinful to send to Africa to\nprocure men and women as slaves, who have never been in slavery, that\nstill, it is not sinful to keep those in bondage who have come down by\ninheritance, will be utterly overthrown. We must come back to the good\nold doctrine of our forefathers who declared to the world, \"this self\nevident truth that _all_ men are created equal, and that they have\ncertain _inalienable_ rights among which are life, _liberty_, and the\npursuit of happiness.\" It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man\ncan be legally born a slave under _our free Republican_ Government, than\nunder the petty despotisms of barbarian Africa. If then, we have no\nright to enslave an African, surely we can have none to enslave an\nAmerican; if it is a self evident truth that _all_ men, every where and\nof every color are born equal, and have an _inalienable right to\nliberty_, then it is equally true that _no_ man can be born a slave, and\nno man can ever _rightfully_ be reduced to _involuntary_ bondage and\nheld as a slave, however fair may be the claim of his master or mistress\nthrough wills and title-deeds.\n\nBut after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly mistaken, for\nthe Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now the\nBible is my ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, and it\nis to _this test_ I am anxious to bring the subject at issue between us.\nLet us then begin with Adam and examine the charter of privileges which\nwas given to him. \"Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the\nfowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the\nearth.\" In the eighth Psalm we have a still fuller description of this\ncharter which through Adam was given to all mankind. \"Thou madest him to\nhave dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things\nunder his feet. All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field,\nthe fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through\nthe paths of the seas.\" And after the flood when this charter of human\nrights was renewed, we find _no additional_ power vested in man. \"And\nthe fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the\nearth, and every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the\nearth, and upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they\ndelivered.\" In this charter, although the different kinds of\n_irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion\nover _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this\ndominion _over his fellow man;_ he was never told that any of the human\nspecies were put _under his feet;_ it was only _all things_, and man,\nwho was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be\ntermed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him \"a chattel\npersonal;\" _Man_ then, I assert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_,\nby that first charter of human rights which was given by God, to the\nFathers of the Antediluvian and Postdiluvian worlds, therefore this\ndoctrine of equality is based on the Bible.\n\nBut it may be argued, that in the very chapter of Genesis from which I\nhave last quoted, will be found the curse pronounced upon Canaan, by\nwhich his posterity was consigned to servitude under his brothers Shem\nand Japheth. I know this prophecy was uttered, and was most fearfully\nand wonderfully fulfilled, through the immediate descendants of Canaan,\n_i.e._ the Canaanites, and I do not know but it has been through all the\nchildren of Ham, but I do know that prophecy does _not_ tell us what\n_ought to be_, but what actually does take place, ages after it has been\ndelivered, and that if we justify America for enslaving the children of\nAfrica, we must also justify Egypt for reducing the children of Israel\nto bondage, for the latter was foretold as explicitly as the former. I\nam well aware that prophecy has often been urged as an excuse for\nSlavery, but be not deceived, the fulfillment of prophecy will _not\ncover one sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says\non this subject; \"it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto\nthat man through whom they come_\"--Witness some fulfillment of this\ndeclaration in the tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, occasioned by\nthat most nefarious of all crimes the crucifixion of the Son of God. Did\nthe fact of that event having been foretold, exculpate the Jews from sin\nin perpetrating it; No--for hear what the Apostle Peter says to them on\nthis subject, \"Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and\nforeknowledge of God, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have\ncrucified and slain.\" Other striking instances might be adduced, but\nthese will suffice.\n\nBut it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and therefore,\nslavery is right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was\nlike American slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of\nthese primitive fathers of the church and be undeceived. Look at\nAbraham, though so great a man, going to the herd himself and fetching a\ncalf from thence and serving it up with his own hands, for the\nentertainment of his guests. Look at Sarah, that princess as her name\nsignifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If the servants they had were\nlike Southern slaves, would they have performed such comparatively\nmenial offices for themselves? Hear too the plaintive lamentation of\nAbraham when he feared he should have no son to bear his name down to\nposterity. \"Behold thou hast given me no seed, &c., one born in my house\n_is mine_ heir.\" From this it appears that one of his _servants_ was to\ninherit his immense estate. Is this like Southern slavery? I leave it to\nyour own good sense and candor to decide. Besides, such was the footing\nupon which Abraham was with _his_ servants, that he trusted them with\narms. Are slaveholders willing to put swords and pistols into the hands\nof their slaves? He was as a father among his servants; what are\nplanters and masters generally among theirs? When the institution of\ncircumcision was established, Abraham was commanded thus; \"He that is\neight days old shall be circumcised among you, _every_ man-child in your\ngenerations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any\nstranger which is not of thy seed.\" And to render this command with\nregard to his _servants_ still more impressive it is repeated in the\nvery next verse; and herein we may perceive the great care which was\ntaken by God to guard the _rights of servants_ even under this \"dark\ndispensation.\" What too was the testimony given to the faithfulness of\nthis eminent patriarch. \"For I know him that he will command his\nchildren and his _household_ after him, and they shall keep the way of\nthe Lord to do justice and judgment.\" Now my dear friends many of you\nbelieve that circumcision has been superseded by baptism in the Church;\n_Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought\nwith money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham\nto command _your household to keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to\nyour own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like\nAmerican Slavery?\n\nBut I shall be told, God sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded Slavery under\nthe Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject calmly and\nprayerfully. I admit that a species of _servitude_ was permitted to the\nJews, but in studying the subject I have been struck with wonder and\nadmiration at perceiving how carefully the servant was guarded from\nviolence, injustice and wrong. I will first inform you how these\nservants became servants, for I think this a very important part of our\nsubject. From consulting Horne, Calmet and the Bible, I find there were\nsix different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.\n\n1. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself, i.e. his\nservices, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money\n_himself_. Lev. xxv, 39.\n\n2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e. his _daughters_,\nin which circumstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife\nor daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the _father_ received\nthe price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were\nin the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives_, _not_ as slaves. Ex.\nxxi, 7.\n\n3. Insolvent debtors might be delivered to their creditors as servants.\n2 Kings iv, 1.\n\n4. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for\nthe benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.\n\n5. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.\n\n6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be redeemed\nby one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he who\nredeemed him, was _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred,\nand rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.\n\nBefore going into an examination of the laws by which these servants\nwere protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have become\nslaves in any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. Did they\nsell themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money into their\nown hands? No! Did they become insolvent, and by their own imprudence\nsubject themselves to be sold as slaves? No! Did they steal the property\nof another, and were they sold to make restitution for their crimes? No!\nDid their present masters, as an act of kindness, redeem them from some\nheathen tyrant to whom _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of\nadversity? No! Were they born in slavery? No! No! not according to\n_Jewish Law_, for the servants who were born in servitude among them,\nwere born of parents who had _sold themselves_ for six years: Ex. xxi,\n4. Were the female slaves of the South sold by their fathers? How shall\nI answer this question? Thousands and tens of thousands never were,\n_their_ fathers _never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or\ngold for the tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless\nbondage of _their_ daughters. They labor day by day, and year by year,\nside by side, in the same field, if haply their daughters are permitted\nto remain on the same plantation with them, instead of being as they\noften are, separated from their parents and sold into distant states,\nnever again to meet on earth. But do the _fathers of the South ever sell\ntheir daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the\nawful affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell\ntheir daughters, _not_ as Jewish parents did, to be the wives and\ndaughters-in-law of the man who buys them, but to be the abject slaves\nof petty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends? I\nleave it to your own candor to corroborate my assertion. Southern slaves\nthen have _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which\nHebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters\n_cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men,\nwomen, or children they now hold in bondage.\n\nBut there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to\nservitude; it was this, he might he _stolen_ and afterwards sold as a\nslave, as was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful\ncrime of manstealing, God enacted this severe law. \"He that stealeth a\nman and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be\nput to death[A].\" As I have tried American Slavery by _legal_ Hebrew\nservitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that Jewish law\ncannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by _illegal_\nHebrew bondage. Have the Southern slaves then been stolen? If they did\nnot sell themselves into bondage; if they were not sold as insolvent\ndebtors or as thieves; if they were not redeemed from a heathen master\nto whom they had sold themselves; if they were not born in servitude\naccording to Hebrew law; and if the females were not sold by their\nfathers as wives and daughters-in-law to those who purchased them; then\nwhat shall we say of them? what can we say of them? but that according\n_to Hebrew Law they have been stolen_.\n\n[Footnote A: And again, \"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren\nof the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth\nhim; then _that thief shall die_, and thou shalt put away evil from\namong you.\" Deut. xxiv, 7.]\n\nBut I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were absolute\nslaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other servants who\nwere procured in two different ways.\n\n1. Captives taken in war were reduced to bondage instead of being\nkilled; but we are not told that their children were enslaved. Deut. xx,\n14.\n\n2. Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought from the heathen round about\nthem; these were left by fathers to their children after them, but it\ndoes not appear that the _children_ of these servants ever were reduced\nto servitude. Lev. xxv, 44.\n\nI will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew\nmasters over their _heathen_ slaves. Were the southern slaves taken\ncaptive in war? No! Were they bought from the heathen? No! for surely,\nno one will _now_ vindicate the slave-trade so far as to assert that\nslaves were bought from the heathen who were obtained by that system of\npiracy. The only excuse for holding southern slaves is that they were\nborn in slavery, but we have seen that they were _not_ born in servitude\nas Jewish servants were, and that the children of heathen slaves were\nnot legally subjected to bondage even under the Mosaic Law. How then\nhave the slaves of the South been obtained?\n\nI will next proceed to an examination of those laws which were enacted\nin order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for I wish you\nto understand that _both_ are protected by Him, of whom it is said \"his\nmercies are over all his works.\" I will first speak of those which\nsecured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was headed thus:\n\n1. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God.\n\n2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the\nseventh year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xx, 2[A].\n\n[Footnote A: And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt\nnot let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him _liberally_ out of thy\nflock and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press: of that wherewith\nthe Lord thy God hath blessed thee, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv,\n13, 14.]\n\n3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were\nmarried, then his wife shall go out with him.\n\n4. If his master have given him a wife and she have borne him sons and\ndaughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and he shall\ngo out by himself.\n\n5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my\nchildren; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto\nthe Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post,\nand his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall\nserve him _forever_. Ex. xxi, 3-6.\n\n6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that\nit perish, he shall let him go _free_ for his eye's sake. And if he\nsmite out his man servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth, he shall\nlet him go _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.\n\n7. On the Sabbath rest was secured to servants by the fourth\ncommandment. Ex. xx, 10.\n\n8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three times in\nevery year in celebrating the Passover, the feast of Pentecost, and the\nfeast of Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to appear\nbefore the Lord at Jerusalem with a gift; here the bond and the free\nstood on common ground. Deut. xvi.\n\n9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under\nhis hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a\nday or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Ex. xxi, 20,\n21.\n\nFrom these laws we learn that Hebrew men servants were bound to serve\ntheir masters _only six_ years, unless their attachment to their\nemployers, their wives and children, should induce them to wish to\nremain in servitude, in which case, in order to prevent the possibility\nof deception on the part of the master, the servant was first taken\nbefore the magistrate, where he openly declared his intention of\ncontinuing in his master's service, (probably a public register was kept\nof such) he was then conducted to the door of the house, (in warm\nclimates doors are thrown open,) and _there_ his ear was _publicly_\nbored, and by submitting to this operation he testified his willingness\nto serve him _forever_, i.e. during his life, for Jewish Rabbins who\nmust have understood Jewish _slavery_, (as it is called,) \"affirm that\nservants were set free at the death of their masters and did _not_\ndescend to their heirs:\" or that he was to serve him until the year of\nJubilee, when _all_ servants were set at liberty. To protect servants\nfrom violence, it was ordained that if a master struck out the tooth or\ndestroyed the eye of a servant, that servant immediately became _free_,\nfor such an act of violence evidently showed he was unfit to possess the\npower of a master, and therefore that power was taken from him. All\nservants enjoyed the rest of the Sabbath and partook of the privileges\nand festivities of the three great Jewish Feasts; and if a servant died\nunder the infliction of chastisement, his master was surely to be\npunished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for life was the Jewish law,\nof course he was punished with death. I know that great stress has been\nlaid upon the following verse: \"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or\ntwo, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.\"\n\nSlaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized upon\nthis little passage of scripture, and held it up as the masters' Magna\nCharta, by which they were licensed by God himself to commit the\ngreatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. But,\nmy friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father would\nprotect by law the eye and the tooth of a Hebrew servant, can we for a\nmoment believe that he would abandon that same servant to the brutal\nrape of a master who would destroy even life itself. Do we not rather\nsee in this, the _only_ law which protected masters, and was it not\nright that in case of the death of a servant, one or two days after\nchastisement was inflicted, to which other circumstances might have\ncontributed, that the master should be protected when, in all\nprobability, he never intended to produce so fatal a result? But the\nphrase \"he is his money\" has been adduced to show that Hebrew servants\nwere regarded as mere _things_, \"chattels personal;\" if so, why were so\nmany laws made to _secure their rights as men_, and to ensure their\nrising into equality and freedom? If they were mere _things_, why were\nthey regarded as responsible beings, and one law made for them as well\nas for their masters? But I pass on now to the consideration of how the\n_female_ Jewish servants were protected by _law_.\n\n1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then\nshall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation he shall\nhave no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.\n\n2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after\nthe manner of daughters.\n\n3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of\nmarriage, shall he not diminish.\n\n4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_\nwithout money.\n\nOn these laws I will give you Calmet's remarks; \"A father could not sell\nhis daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she was at the\nage of puberty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost indigence.\nBesides, when a master bought an Israelitish girl, it was _always_ with\nthe presumption that he would take her to wife.\" Hence Moses adds, \"if\nshe please not her master, and he does not think fit to marry her, he\nshall set her at liberty,\" or according to the Hebrew, \"he shall let her\nbe redeemed.\" \"To sell her to another nation he shall have no power,\nseeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her;\" as to the engagement\nimplied, at least of taking her to wife. \"If he have betrothed her unto\nhis son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters, i.e. he\nshall take care that his son uses her as his wife, that he does not\ndespise or maltreat her. If he make his son marry another wife, he shall\ngive her her dowry, her clothes and compensation for her virginity; if\nhe does none of these three, she shall _go out free_ without money.\"\nThus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under\nthe Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female\nslaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and\ndaughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go\nout free_? No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as\nservants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in\nbondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims,\n(_if they ever had any_,) to their female slaves.\n\nWe come now to examine the case of those servants who were \"of the\nheathen round about;\" Were _they_ left entirely unprotected by law?\nHorne in speaking of the law, \"Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor,\nbut shalt fear thy God,\" remarks, \"this law Lev. xxv, 43; it is true\nspeaks expressly of slaves who were of Hebrew descent; but as _alien\nborn_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circumcision,\n_there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ slaves;\" if so, then we\nmay reasonably suppose that the other protective laws extended to them\nalso; and that the only difference between Hebrew and Heathen servants\nlay in this, that the former served but six years unless they chose to\nremain longer; and were always freed at the death of their masters;\nwhereas the latter served until the year of Jubilee, though that might\ninclude a period of forty-nine years,--and were left from father to son.\n\nThere are however two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one\neffectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other\ncompletely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were\nequally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.\n\n1. \"Thou shall _not_ deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped\nfrom his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in\nthat place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh\nhim best: thou shall _not_ oppress him.\" Deut. xxxiii; 15, 16.\n\n2. \"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_\nthroughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof: it shall\nbe a jubilee unto you.\" Deut. xxv, 10.\n\nHere, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was\nopened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint;\nif he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him,\nand _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only\nso, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ where he should live, and\nno Jew was permitted to oppress him. He left his master just as our\nNorthern servants leave us; we have no power to compel them to remain\nwith us, and no man has any right to oppress them; they go and dwell in\nthat place where it chooseth them, and live just where they like. Is it\nso at the South? Is the poor runaway slave protected _by law_ from the\nviolence of that master whose oppression and cruelty has driven him from\nhis plantation or his house? No! no! Even the free states of the North\nare compelled to deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped\nfrom his master into them. By _human_ law, under the _Christian\nDispensation_, in the _nineteenth century_ we are commanded to do, what\n_God_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic\nDispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide\ndomain even of our free states, there is not _one_ city of refuge for\nthe poor runaway fugitive; not one spot upon which he can stand and say,\nI am a free man--I am protected in my rights as a _man_, by the strong\narm of the law; no! _not one_. How long the North will thus shake hands\nwith the South in sin, I know not. How long she will stand by like the\npersecutor Saul, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the\nraiment of them that slew him, I know not; but one thing I do know, the\n_guilt of the North_ is increasing in a tremendous ratio as light is\npouring in upon her on the subject and the sin of slavery. As the sun of\nrighteousness climbs higher and higher in the moral heavens, she will\nstand still more and more abashed as the query is thundered down into\nher ear, \"_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?\" It will be found _no_\nexcuse then that the Constitution of our country required that _persons\nbound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no\nmore excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the\nforbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to\nthe voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and\n_we_ will assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather\nthan _God_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for\nrepentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even _now_?\n\nBut by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is\ndisclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary\nservitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being\nperpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the\nJubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_\nwas proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the\nservants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there\nis no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ felt the weight of iron\nchains, and collars, and handcuffs; but I do say that even the man who\nhad voluntarily sold himself and the _heathen_ who had been sold to a\nHebrew master, were set free, the one as well as the other. This law was\nevidently designed to prevent the oppression of the poor, and the\npossibility of such a thing as _perpetual servitude_ existing among\nthem.\n\nWhere, then, I would ask, is the warrant, the justification, or the\npalliation of American Slavery from Hebrew servitude? How many of the\nsouthern slaves would now be in bondage according to the laws of Moses;\nNot one. You may observe that I have carefully avoided using the term\n_slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason,\nthat _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated\nservant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to\nAbraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then\n_never_ existed under the Jewish Dispensation at all, and I cannot but\nregard it as an aspersion on the character of Him who is \"glorious in\nHoliness\" for any one to assert that \"_God sanctioned, yea commanded\nslavery_ under the old dispensation.\" I would fain lift my feeble voice\nto vindicate Jehovah's character from so foul a slander. If slaveholders\nare determined to hold slaves as long as they can, let them not dare to\nsay that the God of mercy and of truth _ever_ sanctioned such a system\nof cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.\n\nWe have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to\nservants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to\nthem their _rights_ as _human beings_, to guard them from oppression and\ndefend them from violence of every kind. Let us now turn to the Slave\nlaws of the South and West and examine them too. I will give you the\nsubstance only, because I fear I shall trespass too much on your time,\nwere I to quote them at length.\n\n1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the\nslave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest\nposterity.\n\n2. The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the\nkind of labor, the amount of toil, the time allowed for rest, are\ndictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A\npure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and\nprovender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely on the\nmaster's discretion[A].\n\n[Footnote A: There are laws in some of the slave states, limiting the\nlabor which the master may require of the slave to fourteen hours daily.\nIn some of the states there are laws requiring the masters to furnish a\ncertain amount of food and clothing, as for instance, _one quart_ of\ncorn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ per month, and\n\"one linen shirt and pantaloons for the summer, and a linen shirt and\nwoolen great coat and pantaloons for the winter,\" &c. But \"still,\" to\nuse the language of Judge Stroud \"the slave is entirely under the\ncontrol of his master,--is unprovided with a protector,--and, especially\nas he cannot be a witness or make complaint in any known mode against\nhis master, the apparent object of these laws may _always_ be defeated.\"\nED.]\n\n3. The slave being considered a personal chattel may be sold or pledged,\nor leased at the will of his master. He may be exchanged for marketable\ncommodities, or taken in execution for the debts or taxes either of a\nliving or dead master. Sold at auction, either individually, or in lots\nto suit the purchaser, he may remain with his family, or be separated\nfrom them for ever.\n\n4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no _legal_ right to any\nproperty, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies\nof friends belong in point of law to their masters.\n\n5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness against\nany _white_, or free person, in a court of justice, however atrocious\nmay have been the crimes they have seen him commit, if such testimony\nwould be for the benefit of a _slave_; but they may give testimony\n_against a fellow slave_, or free colored man, even in cases affecting\nlife, if the _master_ is to reap the advantage of it.\n\n6. The slave may be punished at his master's discretion--without\ntrial--without any means of legal redress; whether his offence be real\nor imaginary; and the master can transfer the same despotic power to any\nperson or persons, he may choose to appoint.\n\n7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under _any_\ncircumstances, _his_ only safety consists in the fact that his _owner_\nmay bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is\ntaken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.\n\n8. Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters,\nthough cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for\ntheir personal safety.\n\n9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.\n\n10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the\nmaster is willing to enfranchise them.\n\n11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious\ninstruction and consolation.\n\n12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of\nthe lowest ignorance.\n\n13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.\nWhat is a trifling fault in the _white_ man, is considered highly\ncriminal in the _slave_; the same offences which cost a white man a few\ndollars only, are punished in the negro with death.\n\n14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color[A].\n\n[Footnote A:  See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II.]\n\nShall I ask you now my friends, to draw the _parallel_ between Jewish\n_servitude_ and American _slavery_? No! For there is _no likeness_ in\nthe two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of\nMoses _protected servants_ in their _rights as men and women_, guarded\nthem from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the\nSouth _robs the slave of all his rights_ as a _man_, reduces him to a\nchattel personal, and defends the _master_ in the exercise of the most\nunnatural and unwarrantable power over his slave. They each bear the\nimpress of the hand which formed them. The attributes of justice and\nmercy are shadowed out in the Hebrew code; those of injustice and\ncruelty, in the Code Noir of America. Truly it was wise in the\nslaveholders of the South to declare their slaves to be \"chattels\npersonal;\" for before they could be robbed of wages, wives, children,\nand friends, it was absolutely necessary to deny they were human beings.\nIt is wise in them, to keep them in abject ignorance, for the strong man\narmed must be bound before we can spoil his house--the powerful\nintellect of man must be bound down with the iron chains of nescience\nbefore we can rob him of his rights as a man; we must reduce him to a\n_thing_; before we can claim the right to set our feet upon his neck,\nbecause it was only _all things_ which were originally _put under the\nfeet of man_ by the Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has\ndeclared himself to be _no respecter_ of persons, whether red, white, or\nblack.\n\nBut some have even said that Jesus Christ did not condemn slavery. To\nthis I reply, that our Holy Redeemer lived and preached among the Jews\nonly. The laws which Moses had enacted fifteen hundred years previous to\nhis appearance among them, had never been annulled, and these laws\n_protected_ every servant in Palestine. That he saw nothing of\n_perpetual_ servitude is certain from the simple declaration made by\nhimself in John, viii, 35. \"The servant abideth _not_ in the house for\never, the son abideth ever.\" If then He did not condemn Jewish\n_temporary_ servitude, this does not prove that he would not have\ncondemned such a monstrous system as that of AMERICAN _slavery_, if that\nhad existed among them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us\nexamine some of his precepts. \"_Whatsoever_ ye would that men should do\nto you, do _ye even so to them_.\" Let every slaveholder apply these\nqueries to his own heart; Am _I_ willing to be a slave--Am _I_ willing\nto see _my_ husband the slave of another--Am _I_ willing to see my\nmother a slave, or my father, my _white_ sister, or my _white_ brother?\nIf _not_, then in holding others as slaves, I am doing what I would\n_not_ wish to be done to me or any relative I have; and thus have I\nbroken this golden rule which was given _me_ to walk by.\n\nBut some slaveholders have said, \"we were never in bondage to any man,\"\nand therefore the yoke of bondage would be insufferable to us, but\nslaves are accustomed to it, their backs are fitted to the burden. Well,\nI am willing to admit that you who have lived in freedom would find\nslavery even more oppressive than the poor slave does, but then you may\ntry this question in another form--Am I willing to reduce _my little\nchild_ to slavery? You know that _if it is brought up a slave_, it will\nnever know any contrast between freedom and bondage; its back will\nbecome fitted to the burden just as the negro child's does--_not by\nnature_--but by daily, violent pressure, in the same way that the head\nof the Indian child becomes flattened by the boards in which it is\nbound. It has been justly remarked that \"_God never made a slave_,\" he\nmade man upright; his back was _not_ made to carry burdens as the slave\nof another, nor his neck to wear a yoke, and the _man_ must be crushed\nwithin him, before _his_ back can be _fitted_ to the burden of perpetual\nslavery; and that his back is _not_ fitted to it, is manifest by the\ninsurrections that so often disturb the peace and security of\nslave-holding countries. Who ever heard of a rebellion of the beasts of\nthe field; and why not? simply because _they_ were all placed _under the\nfeet of man_, into whose hand they were delivered; it was originally\ndesigned that they should serve him, therefore their necks have been\nformed for the yoke, and their backs for the burden; but _not so with\nman_, intellectual, immortal man! I appeal to you, my friends, as\nmothers; Are you willing to enslave _your_ children? You start back with\nhorror and indignation at such a question. But why, if slavery is _no\nwrong_ to those upon whom it is imposed? why, if, as has often been\nsaid, slaves are happier than their masters, freer from the cares and\nperplexities of providing for themselves and their families? why not\nplace _your children_ in the way of being supported without your having\nthe trouble to provide for them, or they for themselves? Do you not\nperceive that as soon as this golden rule of action is applied to\n_yourselves_, that you involuntarily shrink from the test; as soon as\n_your_ actions are weighed in _this_ balance of the sanctuary, that _you\nare found wanting?_ Try yourselves by another of the Divine precepts,\n\"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\" Can we love a man _as_ we\nlove _ourselves_ if we do, and continue to do unto him, what we would\nnot wish any one to do to us? Look too, at Christ's example, what does\nhe say of himself, \"I came _not_ to be ministered unto, but to\nminister.\" Can you for a moment imagine the meek, and lowly, and\ncompassionate Saviour, a _slaveholder_? do you not shudder at this\nthought as much as at that of his being a _warrior_? But why, if slavery\nis not sinful?\n\nAgain, it has been said, the Apostle Paul did not condemn Slavery, for\nhe sent Onesimus back to Philemon. I do not think it can be said he sent\nhim back, for no coercion was made use of. Onesimus was not thrown into\nprison and then sent back in chains to his master, as your runaway\nslaves often are--this could not possibly have been the case, because\nyou know Paul as a Jew, was _bound to protect_ the runaway, _he had no\nright_ to send any fugitive back to his master. The state of the case\nthen seems to have been this. Onesimus had been an unprofitable servant\nto Philemon and left him--he afterwards became converted under the\nApostle's preaching, and seeing that he had been to blame in his\nconduct, and desiring by future fidelity to atone for past error, he\nwished to return, and the Apostle gave him the letter we now have as a\nrecommendation to Philemon, informing him of the conversion of Onesimus,\nand entreating him as \"Paul the aged to receive him, _not_ now as a\n_servant_, but _above_ a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me,\nbut how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou\ncount _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself._\" This then\nsurely cannot be forced into a justification of the practice of\nreturning runaway slaves back to their masters, to be punished with\ncruel beatings and scourgings as they often are. Besides the word\n[Greek: doulos] here translated servant, is the same that is made use of\nin Matt. xviii, 27. Now it appears that this servant owed his lord ten\nthousand talents; he possessed property to a vast amount. Onesimus could\nnot then have been a _slave_, for slaves do not own their wives, or\nchildren; no, not even their own bodies, much less property. But again,\nthe servitude which the apostle was accustomed to, must have been very\ndifferent from American slavery, for he says, \"the heir (or son), as\nlong as he is a child, differeth _nothing from a servant_, though he be\nlord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time\nappointed of the father.\" From this it appears, that the means of\n_instruction_ were provided for _servants_ as well as children; and\nindeed we know it must have been so among the Jews, because their\nservants were not permitted to remain in perpetual bondage, and\ntherefore it was absolutely necessary they should be prepared to occupy\nhigher stations in society than those of servants. Is it so at the\nSouth, my friends? Is the daily bread of instruction provided for _your\nslaves_? are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to\nrise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members\nof the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience,\nanswer these questions.\n\nIf this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, why did he exhort masters thus in\nhis epistle to the Ephesians, \"and ye, masters, do the same things unto\nthem (i.e. perform your duties to your servants as unto Christ, not unto\nme) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in\nheaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_.\" And in\nColossians, \"Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and\nequal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven.\" Let slaveholders\nonly _obey_ these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would\nsoon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ servants,\nsurely he must have thought it sinful to flog and to beat them with\nsticks and paddles; indeed, when delineating the character of a bishop,\nhe expressly names this as one feature of it, \"_no striker_.\" Let\nmasters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and\nall that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes,\nand if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ of their servants\nwithout pay, surely they could not think they had a right to their\nwives, their children, and their own bodies. Again, how can it be said\nPaul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter beyond all\ndoubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his first epistle\nto Timothy, he mentions \"_menstealers_,\" which word may be translated\n\"_slavedealers_.\" But you may say, we all despise slavedealers as much\nas any one can; they are never admitted into genteel or respectable\nsociety. And why not? Is it not because even you shrink back from the\nidea of associating with those who make their fortunes by trading in the\nbodies and souls of men, women, and children? whose daily work it is to\nbreak human hearts, by tearing wives from their husbands, and children\nfrom their parents? But why hold slavedealers as despicable, if their\ntrade is lawful and virtuous? and why despise them more than the\n_gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents?\nWhy more than the _professors of religion_ who barter their\nfellow-professors to them for gold and silver? We do not despise the\nland agent, or the physician, or the merchant, and why? Simply because\ntheir professions are virtuous and honorable; and if the trade of\nmen-jobbers was honorable, you would not despise them either. There is\nno difference in _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the\ndespised slavedealer and the _Christian_ who buys slaves from, or sells\nslaves to him; indeed, if slaves were not wanted by the respectable, the\nwealthy, and the religious in a community, there would be no slaves in\nthat community, and of course no _slavedealers_. It is then the\n_Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are\nthe _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch.\nIt is the _most enlightened_ in every country who are _most_ to blame\nwhen any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says,\n\"_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on\n_Jerusalem_, (then) I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the\nking of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.\" And was it not so?\nOpen the historical records of that age, was not Israel carried into\ncaptivity B.C. 606, Judah B.C. 588, and the stout heart of the heathen\nmonarchy not punished until B.C. 536, fifty-two years _after_ Judah's,\nand seventy years _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by\nCyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, \"judgment\nmust _begin at the house of God_.\" Surely this would not be the case, if\nthe _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame.\n\nBut it may be asked, why are _they_ most culpable? I will tell you, my\nfriends. It is because sin is imputed to us just in proportion to the\nspiritual light we receive. Thus the prophet Amos says, in the name of\nJehovah, \"_You only_ have I known of all the families of the earth:\n_therefore_ I will punish you for all your iniquities.\" Hear too the\ndoctrine of our Lord on this important subject; \"The servant who _knew_\nhis Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his\nwill, shall be beaten with _many_ stripes\": and why? \"For unto\nwhomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to\nwhom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_.\" Oh!\nthen that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in\ntheir hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon\nthem_ at this important crisis.\n\nI have thus, I think, clearly proved to you seven propositions, viz.:\nFirst, that slavery is contrary to the declaration of our independence.\nSecond, that it is contrary to the first charter of human rights given\nto Adam, and renewed to Noah. Third, that the fact of slavery having\nbeen the subject of prophecy, furnishes _no_ excuse whatever to\nslavedealers. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal\ndispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish\ndispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under\nthe _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all\n_involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth,\nthat slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a \"chattel\npersonal,\" _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters\nboth his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural\nand unreasonable power, whilst it _throws him out_ of the protection of\nlaw. Seventh, that slavery is contrary to the example and precepts of\nour holy and merciful Redeemer, and of his apostles.\n\nBut perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to _women_ on this\nsubject? _We_ do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. _No_\nlegislative power is vested in _us_; _we_ can do nothing to overthrow\nthe system, even if we wished to do so. To this I reply, I know you do\nnot make the laws, but I also know that _you are the wives and mothers,\nthe sisters and daughters of those who do_; and if you really suppose\n_you_ can do nothing to overthrow slavery, you are greatly mistaken. You\ncan do much in every way: four things I will name. 1st. You can read on\nthis subject. 2d. You can pray over this subject. 3d. You can speak on\nthis subject. 4th. You can _act_ on this subject. I have not placed\nreading before praying because I regard it more important, but because,\nin order to pray aright, we must understand what we are praying for; it\nis only then we can \"pray with the understanding and the spirit also.\"\n\n1. Read then on the subject of slavery. Search the Scriptures daily,\nwhether the things I have told you are true. Other books and papers\nmight be a great help to you to this investigation, but they are not\nnecessary, and it is hardly probable that your Committees of Vigilance\nwill allow you to have any other. The _Bible_ then is the book I want\nyou to read in the spirit of inquiry, and the spirit of prayer. Even the\nenemies of Abolitionists, acknowledge that their doctrines are drawn\nfrom it. In the great mob in Boston, last autumn, when the books and\npapers of the Anti-Slavery Society, were thrown out of the windows of\ntheir office, one individual laid hold of the Bible and was about\ntossing it out to the ground, when another reminded him that it was the\nBible he had in his hand. \"O! _'tis all one_,\" he replied, and out went\nthe sacred volume, along with the rest. We thank him for the\nacknowledgment. Yes, \"_it is all one_,\" for our books and papers are\nmostly commentaries on the Bible, and the Declaration. Read the _Bible\n_then, it contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life.\nJudge for yourselves whether _he sanctioned_ such a system of oppression\nand crime.\n\n2. Pray over this subject. When you have entered into your closets, and\nshut to the doors, then pray to your father, who seeth in secret, that\nhe would open your eyes to see whether slavery is _sinful_, and if it\nis, that he would enable you to bear a faithful, open and un-shrinking\ntestimony against it, and to do whatsoever your hands find to do,\nleaving the consequences entirely to him, who still says to us whenever\nwe try to reason away duty from the fear of consequences, \"_What is that\nto thee, follow thou me_.\" Pray also for that poor slave, that he may be\nkept patient and submissive under his hard lot, until God is pleased to\nopen the door of freedom to him without violence or bloodshed. Pray too\nfor the master that his heart may be softened, and he made willing to\nacknowledge, as Joseph's brethren did, \"Verily we are guilty concerning\nour brother,\" before he will be compelled to add in consequence of\nDivine judgment, \"therefore is all this evil come upon us.\" Pray also\nfor all your brethren and sisters who are laboring in the righteous\ncause of Emancipation in the Northern States, England and the world.\nThere is great encouragement for prayer in these words of our Lord.\n\"Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it to\nyou\"--Pray then without ceasing, in the closet and the social circle.\n\n3. Speak on this subject. It is through the tongue, the pen, and the\npress, that truth is principally propagated. Speak then to your\nrelatives, your friends, your acquaintances on the subject of slavery;\nbe not afraid if you are conscientiously convinced it is _sinful_, to\nsay so openly, but calmly, and to let your sentiments be known. If you\nare served by the slaves of others, try to ameliorate their condition as\nmuch as possible; never aggravate their faults, and thus add fuel to the\nfire of anger already kindled, in a master and mistress's bosom;\nremember their extreme ignorance, and consider them as your Heavenly\nFather does the _less_ culpable on this account, even when they do wrong\nthings. Discountenance _all_ cruelty to them, all starvation, all\ncorporal chastisement; these may brutalize and  _break_ their spirits,\nbut will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible,\nsee that they are comfortably and _seasonably_ fed, whether in the house\nor the field; it is unreasonable and cruel to expect slaves to wait for\ntheir breakfast until eleven o'clock, when they rise at five or six. Do\nall you can, to induce their owners to clothe them well, and to allow\nthem many little indulgences which would contribute to their comfort.\nAbove all, try to persuade your husband, father, brothers and sons, that\n_slavery is a crime against God and man_, and that it is a great sin to\nkeep _human beings_ in such abject ignorance; to deny them the privilege\nof learning to read and write. The Catholics are universally condemned,\nfor denying the Bible to the common people, but, _slaveholders must not_\nblame them, for _they_ are doing the _very same thing_, and for the very\nsame reason, neither of these systems can bear the light which bursts\nfrom the pages of that Holy Book. And lastly, endeavour to inculcate\nsubmission on the part of the slaves, but whilst doing this be faithful\nin pleading the cause of the oppressed.\n\n\n  \"Will _you_ behold unheeding,\n  Life's holiest feelings crushed,\n  Where _woman's_ heart is bleeding,\n  Shall _woman's_ voice be hushed?\"\n\n\n4. Act on this subject. Some of you _own_ slaves yourselves. If you\nbelieve slavery is _sinful_, set them at liberty, \"undo the heavy\nburdens and let the oppressed go free.\" If they wish to remain with you,\npay them wages, if not let them leave you. Should they remain teach\nthem, and have them taught the common branches of an English education;\nthey have minds and those minds, _ought to be improved_. So precious a\ntalent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a napkin and buried\nin the earth. It is the _duty_ of all, as far as they can, to improve\ntheir own mental faculties, because we are commanded to love God with\n_all our minds_, as well as with all our hearts, and we commit a great\nsin, if we _forbid or prevent_ that cultivation of the mind in others,\nwhich would enable them to perform this duty. Teach your servants then\nto read &c., and encourage them to believe it is their _duty_ to learn,\nif it were only that they might read the Bible.\n\nBut some of you will say, we can neither free our slaves nor teach them\nto read, for the laws of our state forbid it. Be not surprised when I\nsay such wicked laws _ought to be no barrier_ in the way of your duty,\nand I appeal to the Bible to prove this position. What was the conduct\nof Shiphrah and Puah, when the king of Egypt issued his cruel mandate,\nwith regard to the Hebrew children? \"_They_ feared _God_, and did _not_\nas the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.\"\nDid these _women_ do right in disobeying that monarch? \"_Therefore_\n(says the sacred text,) _God dealt well_ with them, and made them\nhouses\" Ex. i. What was the conduct of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,\nwhen Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden image in the plain of Dura, and\ncommanded all people, nations, and languages, to fall down and worship\nit? \"Be it known, unto thee, (said these faithful _Jews_) O king, that\n_we will not_ serve thy gods, nor worship the image which thou hast set\nup.\" Did these men _do right in disobeying the law_ of their sovereign?\nLet their miraculous deliverance from the burning fiery furnace, answer;\nDan. iii. What was the conduct of Daniel, when Darius made a firm decree\nthat no one should ask a petition of any man or God for thirty days? Did\nthe prophet cease to pray? No! \"When Daniel _knew that the writing was\nsigned_, he went into his house, and his windows being _open_ towards\nJerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed and\ngave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.\" Did Daniel do right\nthus to _break_ the law of his king? Let his wonderful deliverance out\nof the mouths of the lions answer; Dan. vii. Look, too, at the Apostles\nPeter and John. When the rulers of the Jews, \"_commanded them not_ to\nspeak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus,\" what did they say?\n\"Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than\nunto God, judge ye.\" And what did they do? \"They spake the word of God\nwith boldness, and with great power gave the Apostles witness of the\n_resurrection_ of the Lord Jesus;\" although _this_ was the very\ndoctrine, for the preaching of which, they had just been cast into\nprison, and further threatened. Did these men do right? I leave _you_ to\nanswer, who now enjoy the benefits of their labors and sufferings, in\nthat Gospel they dared to preach when positively commanded _not to teach\nany more_ in the name of Jesus; Acts iv.\n\nBut some of you may say, if we do free our slaves, they will be taken up\nand sold, therefore there will be no use in doing it. Peter and John\nmight just as well have said, we will not preach the gospel, for if we\ndo, we shall be taken up and put in prison, therefore there will be no\nuse in our preaching. _Consequences_, my friends, belong no more to\n_you_, than they did to these apostles. Duty is ours and events are\nGod's. If you think slavery is sinful, all _you_ have to do is to set\nyour slaves at liberty, do all you can to protect them, and in humble\nfaith and fervent prayer, commend them to your common Father. He can\ntake care of them; but if for wise purposes he sees fit to allow them to\nbe sold, this will afford you an opportunity of testifying openly,\nwherever you go, against the crime of _manstealing_. Such an act will be\n_clear robbery_, and if exposed, might, under the Divine direction, do\nthe cause of Emancipation more good, than any thing that could happen,\nfor, \"He makes even the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder of\nwrath he will restrain.\"\n\nI know that this doctrine of obeying _God_, rather than man, will be\nconsidered as dangerous, and heretical by many, but I am not afraid\nopenly to avow it, because it is the doctrine of the Bible; but I would\nnot be understood to advocate resistance to any law however oppressive,\nif, in obeying it, I was not obliged to commit _sin_. If for instance,\nthere was a law, which imposed imprisonment or a fine upon me if I\nmanumitted a slave, I would on no account resist that law, I would set\nthe slave free, and then go to prison or pay the fine. If a law commands\nme to _sin I will break it_; if it calls me to _suffer_, I will let it\ntake its course _unresistingly_. The doctrine of blind obedience and\nunqualified submission to _any human_ power, whether civil or\necclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought to have no place\namong Republicans and Christians.\n\nBut you will perhaps say, such a course of conduct would inevitably\nexpose us to great suffering. Yes! my christian friends, I believe it\nwould, but this will _not_ excuse you or any one else for the neglect of\n_duty_. If Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and Reformers had not been\nwilling to suffer for the truth's sake, where would the world have been\nnow? If they had said, we cannot speak the truth, we cannot do what we\nbelieve is right, because the _laws of our country or public opinion are\nagainst us_, where would our holy religion have been now? The Prophets\nwere stoned, imprisoned, and killed by the Jews. And why? Because they\nexposed and openly rebuked public sins; they opposed public opinion; had\nthey held their peace, they all might have lived in ease and died in\nfavor with a wicked generation. Why were the Apostles persecuted from\ncity to city, stoned, incarcerated, beaten, and crucified? Because they\ndared to _speak the truth_; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly,\nthat _they_ were the _murderers_ of the Lord of Glory, and that, however\ngreat a stumbling-block the Cross might be to them, there was no other\nname given under heaven by which men could be saved, but the name of\nJesus. Because they declared, even at Athens, the seat of learning and\nrefinement, the self-evident truth, that \"they be no gods that are made\nwith men's hands,\" and exposed to the Grecians the foolishness of\nworldly wisdom, and the impossibility of salvation but through Christ,\nwhom they despised on account of the ignominious death he died. Because\nat Rome, the proud mistress of the world, they thundered out the terrors\nof the law upon that idolatrous, war-making, and slave-holding\ncommunity. Why were the martyrs stretched upon the rack, gibbetted and\nburnt, the scorn and diversion of a Nero, whilst their tarred and\nburning bodies sent up a light which illuminated the Roman capital? Why\nwere the Waldenses hunted like wild beasts upon the mountains of\nPiedmont, and slain with the sword of the Duke of Savoy and the proud\nmonarch of France? Why were the Presbyterians chased like the partridge\nover the highlands of Scotland--the Methodists pumped, and stoned, and\npelted with rotten eggs--the Quakers incarcerated in filthy prisons,\nbeaten, whipped at the cart's tail, banished and hung? Because they\ndared to _speak_ the _truth_, to _break_ the unrighteous _laws_ of their\ncountry, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God,\n\"not accepting deliverance,\" even under the gallows. Why were Luther and\nCalvin persecuted and excommunicated, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer\nburnt? Because they fearlessly proclaimed the truth, though that truth\nwas contrary to public opinion, and the authority of Ecclesiastical\ncouncils and conventions. Now all this vast amount of human suffering\nmight have been saved. All these Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and\nReformers, might have lived and died in peace with all men, but\nfollowing the example of their great pattern, \"they despised the shame,\nendured the cross, and are now set down on the right hand of the throne\nof God,\" having received the glorious welcome of \"well _done_ good and\nfaithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord.\"\n\nBut you may say we are _women_, how can _our_ hearts endure persecution?\nAnd why not? Have not _women_ stood up in all the dignity and strength\nof moral courage to be the leaders of the people, and to bear a faithful\ntestimony for the truth whenever the providence of God has called them\nto do so? Are there no _women_ in that noble army of martyrs who are now\nsinging the song of Moses and the Lamb? Who led out the women of Israel\nfrom the house of bondage, striking the timbrel, and singing the song of\ndeliverance on the banks of that sea whose waters stood up like walls of\ncrystal to open a passage for their escape? It was a _woman_; Miriam,\nthe prophetess, the sister of Moses and Aaron. Who went up with Barak to\nKadesh to fight against Jabin, King of Canaan, into whose hand Israel\nhad been sold because of their iniquities? It was a _woman!_ Deborah the\nwife of Lapidoth, the judge, as well as the prophetess of that\nbacksliding people; Judges iv, 9. Into whose hands was Sisera, the\ncaptain of Jabin's host delivered? Into the hand of a _woman_. Jael the\nwife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to _speak the truth_ concerning\nthose judgments which were coming upon Judea, when Josiah, alarmed at\nfinding that his people \"had not kept the word of the Lord to do after\nall that was written in the book of the Law,\" sent to enquire of the\nLord concerning these things? It was a _woman_. Huldah the prophetess,\nthe wife of Shallum; 2, Chron. xxxiv, 22. Who was chosen to deliver the\nwhole Jewish nation from that murderous decree of Persia's King, which\nwicked Haman had obtained by calumny and fraud? It was a _woman_; Esther\nthe Queen; yes, weak and trembling _woman_ was the instrument appointed\nby God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern monarch, and save\nthe _whole visible church_ from destruction. What human voice first\nproclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother of our Lord? It was a\n_woman!_ Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias; Luke i, 42, 43. Who united\nwith the good old Simeon in giving thanks publicly in the temple, when\nthe child, Jesus, was presented there by his parents, \"and spake of him\nto all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem?\" It was a _woman!_\nAnna the prophetess. Who first proclaimed Christ as the true Messiah in\nthe streets of Samaria, once the capital of the ten tribes? It was a\n_woman!_ Who ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised\nand persecuted Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were\n_women!_ Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his fainting\nfootsteps trod the road to Calvary? \"A great company of people and of\n_women_;\" and it is remarkable that to _them alone_, he turned and\naddressed the pathetic language, \"Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for\nme, but weep for yourselves and your children.\" Ah! who sent unto the\nRoman Governor when he was set down on the judgment seat, saying unto\nhim, \"Have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered\nmany things this day in a dream because of him?\" It was a _woman_! the\nwife of Pilate. Although \"_he knew_ that for envy the Jews had delivered\nChrist,\" yet _he_ consented to surrender the Son of God into the hands\nof a brutal soldiery, after having himself scourged his naked body. Had\nthe _wife_ of Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, what would have been\nthe result of the trial of this \"just person?\"\n\nAnd who last hung round the cross of Jesus on the mountain of Golgotha?\nWho first visited the sepulchre early in the morning on the first day of\nthe week, carrying sweet spices to embalm his precious body, not knowing\nthat it was incorruptible and could not be holden by the bands of death?\nThese were _women_! To whom did he _first_ appear after his\nresurrection? It was to a _woman_! Mary Magdalene; Mark xvi, 9. Who\ngathered with the apostles to wait at Jerusalem, in prayer and\nsupplication, for \"the promise of the Father;\" the spiritual blessing of\nthe Great High Priest of his Church, who had entered, _not_ into the\nsplendid temple of Solomon, there to offer the blood of bulls, and of\ngoats, and the smoking censer upon the golden altar, but into Heaven\nitself, there to present his intercessions, after having \"given himself\nfor us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor?\"\n_Women_ were among that holy company; Acts i, 14. And did _women_ wait\nin vain? Did those who had ministered to his necessities, followed in\nhis train, and wept at his crucifixion, wait in vain? No! No! Did the\ncloven tongues of fire descend upon the heads of _women_ as well as men?\nYes, my friends, \"it sat upon _each one of them_;\" Acts ii, 3. _women_\nas well as men were to be living stones in the temple of grace, and\ntherefore _their_ heads were consecrated by the descent of the Holy\nGhost as well as those of men. Were _women_ recognized as fellow\nlaborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his epistle to the\nPhilippians, \"help those _women_ who labored with me, in the gospel;\"\nPhil. iv, 3.\n\nBut this is not all. Roman _women_ were burnt at the stake, _their_\ndelicate limbs were torn joint from joint by the ferocious beasts of the\nAmphitheatre, and tossed by the wild bull in his fury, for the diversion\nof that idolatrous, warlike, and slaveholding people. Yes, _women_\nsuffered under the ten persecutions of heathen Rome, with the most\nunshrinking constancy and fortitude; not all the entreaties of friends,\nnor the claims of new born infancy, nor the cruel threats of enemies\ncould make _them_ sprinkle one grain of incense upon the altars of Roman\nidols. Come now with me to the beautiful valleys of Piedmont. Whose\nblood stains the green sward, and decks the wild flowers with colors not\ntheir own, and smokes on the sword of persecuting France? It is\n_woman's_, as well as man's? Yes, _women_ were accounted as sheep for\nthe slaughter, and were cut down as the tender saplings of the wood.\n\nBut time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands of\n_women_, who perished in the Low countries of Holland, when Alva's sword\nof vengeance was unsheathed against the Protestants, when the Catholic\nInquisitions of Europe became the merciless executioners of vindictive\nwrath, upon those who dared to worship God, instead of bowing down in\nunholy adoration before \"my Lord God the _Pope_,\" and when England, too,\nburnt her Ann Ascoes at the stake of martyrdom. Suffice it to say, that\nthe Church, after having been driven from Judea to Rome, and from Rome\nto Piedmont, and from Piedmont to England, and from England to Holland,\nat last stretched her fainting wings over the dark bosom of the\nAtlantic, and found on the shores of a great wilderness, a refuge from\ntyranny and oppression--as she thought, but _even here_, (the warm blush\nof shame mantles my cheek as I write it,) _even here, woman_ was beaten\nand banished, imprisoned, and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the\nCross.\n\nAnd what, I would ask in conclusion, have _women_ done for the great and\nglorious cause of Emancipation? Who wrote that pamphlet which moved the\nheart of Wilberforce to pray over the wrongs, and his tongue to plead\nthe cause of the oppressed African? It was a _woman_, Elizabeth Heyrick.\nWho labored assiduously to keep the sufferings of the slave continually\nbefore the British public? They were _women_. And how did they do it? By\ntheir needles, paint brushes and pens, by speaking the truth, and\npetitioning Parliament for the abolition of slavery. And what was the\neffect of their labors? Read it in the Emancipation bill of Great\nBritain. Read it, in the present state of her West India Colonies. Read\nit, in the impulse which has been given to the cause of freedom, in the\nUnited States of America. Have English women then done so much for the\nnegro, and shall American women do nothing? Oh no! Already are there\nsixty female Anti-Slavery Societies in operation. These are doing just\nwhat the English women did, telling the story of the colored man's\nwrongs, praying for his deliverance, and presenting his kneeling image\nconstantly before the public eye on bags and needle-books, card-racks,\npen-wipers, pin-cushions, &c. Even the children of the north are\ninscribing on their handy work, \"May the points of our needles prick the\nslaveholder's conscience.\" Some of the reports of these Societies\nexhibit not only considerable talent, but a deep sense of religious\nduty, and a determination to persevere through evil as well as good\nreport, until every scourge, and every shackle, is buried under the feet\nof the manumitted slave.\n\nThe Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society of Boston was called last fall, to a\nsevere trial of their faith and constancy. They were mobbed by \"the\ngentlemen of property and standing,\" in that city at their anniversary\nmeeting, and their lives were jeoparded by an infuriated crowd; but\ntheir conduct on that occasion did credit to our sex, and affords a full\nassurance that they will _never_ abandon the cause of the slave. The\npamphlet, Right and Wrong in Boston, issued by them in which a\nparticular account is given of that \"mob of broad cloth in broad day,\"\ndoes equal credit to the head and the heart of her who wrote it. I wish\nmy Southern sisters could read it; they would then understand that the\nwomen of the North have engaged in this work from a sense of _religious\nduty_, and that nothing will ever induce them to take their hands from\nit until it is fully accomplished. They feel no hostility to you, no\nbitterness or wrath; they rather sympathize in your trials and\ndifficulties; but they well know that the first thing to be done to help\nyou, is to pour in the light of truth on your minds, to urge you to\nreflect on, and pray over the subject. This is all _they_ can do for\nyou, _you_ must work out your own deliverance with fear and trembling,\nand with the direction and blessing of God, _you can do it_. Northern\nwomen may labor to produce a correct public opinion at the North, but if\nSouthern women sit down in listless indifference and criminal idleness,\npublic opinion cannot be rectified and purified at the South. It is\nmanifest to every reflecting mind, that slavery must be abolished; the\nera in which we live, and the light which is overspreading the whole\nworld on this subject, clearly show that the time cannot be distant when\nit will be done. Now there are only two ways in which it can be\neffected, by moral power or physical force, and it is for _you_ to\nchoose which of these you prefer. Slavery always has, and always will\nproduce insurrections wherever it exists, because it is a violation of\nthe natural order of things, and no human power can much longer\nperpetuate it. The opposers of abolitionists fully believe this; one of\nthem remarked to me not long since, there is no doubt there will be a\nmost terrible overturning at the South in a few years, such cruelty and\nwrong, must be visited with Divine vengeance soon. Abolitionists\nbelieve, too, that this must inevitably be the case, if you do not\nrepent, and they are not willing to leave you to perish without\nentreating you, to save yourselves from destruction; well may they say\nwith the apostle, \"am I then your enemy because I tell you the truth,\"\nand warn you to flee from impending judgments.\n\nBut why, my dear friends, have I thus been endeavoring to lead you\nthrough the history of more than three thousand years, and to point you\nto that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before, \"from works to\nrewards?\" Have I been seeking to magnify the sufferings, and exalt the\ncharacter of woman, that she \"might have praise of men?\" No! no! my\nobject has been to arouse _you_, as the wives and mothers, the daughters\nand sisters, of the South, to a sense of your duty as _women_, and as\nChristian women, on that great subject, which has already shaken our\ncountry, from the St. Lawrence and the lakes, to the Gulf of Mexico, and\nfrom the Mississippi to the shores of the Atlantic; _and will continue\nmightily to shake it_, until the polluted temple of slavery fall and\ncrumble into ruin. I would say unto each one of you, \"what meanest thou,\nO sleeper! arise and call upon thy God, if so be that God will think\nupon us that we perish not.\" Perceive you not that dark cloud of\nvengeance which hangs over our boasting Republic? Saw you not the\nlightnings of Heaven's wrath, in the flame which leaped from the\nIndian's torch to the roof of yonder dwelling, and lighted with its\nhorrid glare the darkness of midnight? Heard you not the thunders of\nDivine anger, as the distant roar of the cannon came rolling onward,\nfrom the Texian country, where Protestant American Rebels are fighting\nwith Mexican Republicans--for what? For the re-establishment of\n_slavery_; yes! of American slavery in the bosom of a Catholic Republic,\nwhere that system of robbery, violence, and wrong, had been legally\nabolished for twelve years. Yes! citizens of the United States, after\nplundering Mexico of her land, are now engaged in deadly conflict, for\nthe privilege of fastening chains, and collars, and manacles--upon whom?\nupon the subjects of some foreign prince? No! upon native born American\nRepublican citizens, although the fathers of these very men declared to\nthe whole world, while struggling to free themselves from the three\npenny taxes of an English king, that they believed it to be a\n_self-evident_ truth that _all men_ were created equal, and had an\n_unalienable right to liberty_.\n\nWell may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm,\n\n\n  \"The fustian flag that proudly waves\n  In solemn mockery _o'er a land of slaves_.\"\n\n\nCan you not, my friends, understand the signs of the times; do you not\nsee the sword of retributive justice hanging over the South, or are you\nstill slumbering at your posts?--Are there no Shiphrahs, no Puahs among\nyou, who will dare in Christian firmness and Christian meekness, to\nrefuse to obey the _wicked laws_ which require _woman to enslave, to\ndegrade and to brutalize woman?_ Are there no Miriams, who would rejoice\nto lead out the captive daughters of the Southern States to liberty and\nlight? Are there no Huldahs there who will dare to _speak the truth_\nconcerning the sins of the people and those judgments, which it requires\nno prophet's eye to see, must follow if repentance is not speedily\nsought? Is there no Esther among you who will plead for the poor devoted\nslave? Read the history of this Persian queen, it is full of\ninstruction; she at first refused to plead for the Jews; but, hear the\nwords of Mordecai, \"Think not within thyself, that _thou_ shalt escape\nin the king's house more than all the Jews, for _if thou altogether\nholdest thy peace at this time_, then shall there enlargement and\ndeliverance arise to the Jews from another place: but _thou and thy\nfather's house shall be destroyed._\" Listen, too, to her magnanimous\nreply to this powerful appeal; \"_I will go_ in unto the king, which is\nnot according to law, and if I perish. I perish.\" Yes! if there were but\n_one_ Esther at the South, she _might_ save her country from ruin; but\nlet the Christian women there arise, as the Christian women of Great\nBritain did, in the majesty of moral power, and that salvation is\ncertain. Let them embody themselves in societies, and send petitions up\nto their different legislatures, entreating their husbands, fathers,\nbrothers and sons, to abolish the institution of slavery; no longer to\nsubject _woman_ to the scourge and the chain, to mental darkness and\nmoral degradation; no longer to tear husbands from their wives, and\nchildren from their parents; no longer to make men, women, and children,\nwork _without wages;_ no longer to make their lives bitter in hard\nbondage; no longer to reduce _American citizens_ to the abject condition\nof _slaves_, of \"chattels personal;\" no longer to barter the _image of\nGod_ in human shambles for corruptible things such as silver and gold.\n\nThe _women of the South can overthrow_ this horrible system of\noppression and cruelty, licentiousness and wrong. Such appeals to your\nlegislatures would be irresistible, for there is something in the heart\nof man which _will bend under moral suasion_. There is a swift witness\nfor truth in his bosom, which _will respond to truth_ when it is uttered\nwith calmness and dignity. If you could obtain but six signatures to\nsuch a petition in only one state, I would say, send up that petition,\nand be not in the least discouraged by the scoffs and jeers of the\nheartless, or the resolution of the house to lay it on the table. It\nwill be a great thing if the subject can be introduced into your\nlegislatures in any way, even by _women_, and _they_ will be the most\nlikely to introduce it there in the best possible manner, as a matter of\n_morals_ and _religion_, not of expediency or politics. You may\npetition, too, the different, ecclesiastical bodies of the slave states.\nSlavery must be attacked with the whole power of truth and the sword of\nthe spirit. You must take it up on _Christian_ ground, and fight against\nit with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with the\npreparation of the gospel of peace. And _you are now_ loudly called upon\nby the cries of the widow and the orphan, to arise and gird yourselves\nfor this great moral conflict, with the whole armour of righteousness\nupon the right hand and on the left.\n\nThere is every encouragement for you to labor and pray, my friends,\nbecause the abolition of slavery as well as its existence, has been the\ntheme of prophecy. \"Ethiopia (says the Psalmist) shall stretch forth her\nhands unto God.\" And is she not now doing so? Are not the Christian\nnegroes of the south lifting their hands in prayer for deliverance, just\nas the Israelites did when their redemption was drawing nigh? Are they\nnot sighing and crying by reason of the hard bondage? And think you,\nthat He, of whom it was said, \"and God heard their groaning, and their\ncry came up unto him by reason of the hard bondage,\" think you that his\near is heavy that he cannot _now_ hear the cries of his suffering\nchildren? Or that He who raised up a Moses, an Aaron, and a Miriam, to\nbring them up out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage, cannot\nnow, with a high hand and a stretched out arm, rid the poor negroes out\nof the hands of their masters? Surely you believe that his arm is _not_\nshortened that he cannot save. And would not such a work of mercy\nredound to his glory? But another string of the harp of prophecy\nvibrates to the song of deliverance: \"But they shall sit every man under\nhis vine, and under his fig-tree, and _none shall make them afraid_; for\nthe mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it.\" The _slave_ never can do\nthis as long as he is a _slave_; whilst he is a \"chattel personal\" he\ncan own _no_ property; but the time _is to come_ when _every_ man is to\nsit under _his own_ vine and _his own_ fig-tree, and no domineering\ndriver, or irresponsible master, or irascible mistress, shall make him\nafraid of the chain or the whip. Hear, too, the sweet tones of another\nstring: \"Many shall run to and fro, and _knowledge_ shall be increased.\"\nSlavery is an insurmountable barrier to the increase of knowledge in\nevery community where it exists; _slavery, then, must be abolished\nbefore_ this prediction can be fulfiled. The last chord I shall touch,\nwill be this, \"They shall _not_ hurt nor destroy in all my holy\nmountain.\"\n\n_Slavery, then, must be overthrown before_ the prophecies can be\naccomplished, but how are they to be fulfiled? Will the wheels of the\nmillennial car be rolled onward by miraculous power? No! God designs to\nconfer this holy privilege upon _man_; it is through _his_\ninstrumentality that the great and glorious work of reforming the world\nis to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of _moral power_ is\ndragging in its rear the Bible and peace societies, anti-slavery and\ntemperance, sabbath schools, moral reform, and missions? or to adopt\nanother figure, do not these seven philanthropic associations compose\nthe beautiful tints in that bow of promise which spans the arch of our\nmoral heaven? Who does not believe, that if these societies were broken\nup, their constitutions burnt, and the vast machinery with which they\nare laboring to regenerate mankind was stopped, that the black clouds of\nvengeance would soon burst over our world, and every city would witness\nthe fate of the devoted cities of the plain? Each one of these societies\nis walking abroad through the earth scattering the seeds of truth over\nthe wide field of our world, not with the hundred hands of a Briareus,\nbut with a hundred thousand.\n\nAnother encouragement for you to labor, my friends, is, that you will\nhave the prayers and co-operation of English and Northern\nphilanthropists. You will never bend your knees in supplication at the\nthrone of grace for the overthrow of slavery, without meeting there the\nspirits of other Christians, who will mingle their voices with yours, as\nthe morning or evening sacrifice ascends to God. Yes, the spirit of\nprayer and of supplication has been poured out upon many, many hearts;\nthere are wrestling Jacobs who will not let go of the prophetic promises\nof deliverance for the captive, and the opening of prison doors to them\nthat are bound. There are Pauls who are saying, in reference to this\nsubject, \"Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?\" There are Marys sitting\nin the house now, who are ready to arise and go forth is this work as\nsoon as the message is brought, \"the master is come and calleth for\nthee.\" And there are Marthas, too, who have already gone out to meet\nJesus, as he bends his footsteps to their brother's grave, and weeps,\n_not_ over the lifeless body of Lazarus bound hand and foot in\ngrave-clothes, but over the politically and intellectually lifeless\nslave, bound hand and foot in the iron chains of oppression and\nignorance. Some may be ready to say, as Martha did, who seemed to expect\nnothing but sympathy from Jesus, \"Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he\nhath been dead four days.\" She thought it useless to remove the stone\nand expose the loathsome body of her brother; she could not believe that\nso great a miracle could be wrought, as to raise _that putrefied body_\ninto life; but \"Jesus said, take _ye_ away the stone;\" and when _they_\nhad taken away the stone where the dead was laid, and uncovered the body\nof Lazarus, then it was that \"Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father,\nI thank thee that thou hast heard me,\" &c. \"And when he had thus spoken,\nhe cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.\" Yes, some may be ready\nto say of the colored race, how can _they_ ever be raised politically\nand intellectually, they have been dead four hundred years? But _we_\nhave _nothing_ to do with _how_ this is to be done; _our business_ is to\ntake away the stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother,\nto expose the putrid carcass, to show _how_ that body has been bound\nwith the grave-clothes of heathen ignorance, and his face with the\nnapkin of prejudice, and having done all it was our duty to do, to stand\nby the negro's grave, in humble faith and holy hope, waiting to hear the\nlife-giving command of \"Lazarus, come forth.\" This is just what\nAnti-Slavery Societies are doing; they are taking away the stone from\nthe mouth of the tomb of slavery, where lies the putrid carcass of our\nbrother. They want the pure light of heaven to shine into that dark and\ngloomy cave; they want all men to see _how_ that dead body has been\nbound, _how_ that face has been wrapped in the _napkin of prejudice_;\nand shall they wait beside that grave in vain? Is not Jesus still the\nresurrection and the life? Did He come to proclaim liberty to the\ncaptive, and the opening of prison doors to them that are bound, in\nvain? Did He promise to give beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for\nmourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness unto\nthem that mourn in Zion, and will He refuse to beautify the mind, anoint\nthe head, and throw around the captive negro the mantle of praise for\nthat spirit of heaviness which has so long bound him down to the ground?\nOr shall we not rather say with the prophet, \"the zeal of the Lord of\nHosts _will_ perform this?\" Yes, his promises are sure, and amen in\nChrist Jesus, that he will assemble her that halteth, and gather her\nthat is driven out, and her that is afflicted.\n\nBut I will now say a few words on the subject of Abolitionism. Doubtless\nyou have all heard Anti-Slavery Societies denounced as insurrectionary\nand mischievous, fanatical and dangerous. It has been said they publish\nthe most abominable untruths, and that they are endeavoring to excite\nrebellions at the South. Have you believed these reports, my friends?\nhave _you_ also been deceived by these false assertions? Listen to me,\nthen, whilst I endeavor to wipe from the fair character of Abolitionism\nsuch unfounded accusations. You know that _I_ am a Southerner; you know\nthat my dearest relatives are now in a slave State. Can you for a moment\nbelieve I would prove so recreant to the feelings of a daughter and a\nsister, as to join a society which was seeking to overthrow slavery by\nfalsehood, bloodshed, and murder? I appeal to you who have known and\nloved me in days that are passed, can _you_ believe it? No! my friends.\nAs a Carolinian, I was peculiarly jealous of any movements on this\nsubject; and before I would join an Anti-Slavery Society, I took the\nprecaution of becoming acquainted with some of the leading\nAbolitionists, of reading their publications and attending their\nmeetings, at which I heard addresses both from colored and white men;\nand it was not until I was fully convinced that their principles were\n_entirely pacific_, and their efforts _only moral_, that I gave my name\nas a member to the Female Anti-Slavery Society of Philadelphia. Since\nthat time, I have regularly taken the Liberator, and read many\nAnti-Slavery pamphlets and papers and books, and can assure you I\n_never_ have seen a single insurrectionary paragraph, and never read any\naccount of cruelty which I could not believe. Southerners may deny the\ntruth of these accounts, but why do they not _prove_ them to be false.\nTheir violent expressions of horror at such accounts being believed,\n_may_ deceive some, but they cannot deceive _me_, for I lived too long\nin the midst of slavery, not to know what slavery is. When _I_ speak of\nthis system, \"I speak that I do know,\" and I am not at all afraid to\nassert, that Anti-Slavery publications have _not_ overdrawn the\nmonstrous features of slavery at all. And many a Southerner _knows_ this\nas well as I do. A lady in North Carolina remarked to a friend of mine,\nabout eighteen months since, \"Northerners know nothing at all about\nslavery; they think it is perpetual bondage only; but of the _depth of\ndegradation_ that word involves, they have no conception; if they had,\n_they would never cease_ their efforts until so _horrible_ a system was\noverthrown.\" She did not know how faithfully some Northern men and\nNorthern women had studied this subject; how diligently they had\nsearched out the cause of \"him who had none to help him,\" and how\nfearlessly they had told the story of the negro's wrongs. Yes,\nNortherners know _every_ thing about slavery now. This monster of\niniquity has been unveiled to the world, her frightful features\nunmasked, and soon, very soon will she be regarded with no more\ncomplacency by the American republic than is the idol of Juggernaut,\nrolling its bloody wheels over the crushed bodies of its prostrate\nVictims.\n\nBut you will probably ask, if Anti-Slavery societies are not\ninsurrectionary, why do Northerners tell us they are? Why, I would ask\nyou in return, did Northern senators and Northern representatives give\ntheir votes, at the last sitting of congress, to the admission of\nArkansas Territory as a state? Take those men, one by one, and ask them\nin their parlours, do you _approve of slavery?_ ask them on _Northern_\nground, where they will speak the truth, and I doubt not _every man_ of\nthem will tell you, _no!_ Why then, I ask, did _they_ give their votes\nto enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already destroyed its tens\nof thousands? All our enemies tell _us_ they are as much anti-slavery as\nwe are. Yes, my friends, thousands who are helping you to bind the\nfetters of slavery on the negro, despise you in their hearts for doing\nit; they rejoice that such an institution has not been entailed upon\nthem. Why then, I would ask, do _they_ lend you their help? I will tell\nyou, \"they love _the praise of men more_ than the praise of God.\" The\nAbolition cause has not yet become so popular as to induce them to\nbelieve, that by advocating it in congress, they shall sit still more\nsecurely in their seats there, and like the _chief rulers_ in the days\nof our Saviour, though many believed on him, yet they did _not_ confess\nhim, lest they should _be put out of the synagogue_; John xii, 42, 43.\nOr perhaps like Pilate, thinking they could prevail nothing, and fearing\na tumult, they determined to release Barabbas and surrender the just\nman, the poor innocent slave to be stripped of his rights and scourged.\nIn vain will such men try to wash their hands, and say, with the Roman\ngovernor, \"I am innocent of the blood of this just person.\" Northern\nAmerican statesmen are no more innocent of the crime of slavery, than\nPilate was of the murder of Jesus, or Saul of that of Stephen. These are\nhigh charges, but I appeal to _their hearts_; I appeal to public opinion\nten years from now. Slavery then is a national sin.\n\nBut you will say, a great many other Northerners tell us so, who can\nhave no political motives. The interests of the North, you must know, my\nfriends, are very closely combined with those of the South. The Northern\nmerchants and manufacturers are making _their_ fortunes out of the\n_produce of slave labor_; the grocer is selling your rice and sugar; how\nthen can these men bear a testimony against slavery without condemning\nthemselves? But there is another reason, the North is most dreadfully\nafraid of Amalgamation. She is alarmed at the very idea of a thing so\nmonstrous, as she thinks. And lest this consequence _might_ flow from\nemancipation, she is determined to resist all efforts at emancipation\nwithout expatriation. It is not because _she approves of slavery_, or\nbelieves it to be \"the corner stone of our republic,\" for she is as much\n_anti-slavery_ as we are; but amalgamation is too horrible to think of.\nNow I would ask _you_, is it right, is it generous, to refuse the\ncolored people in this country the advantages of education and the\nprivilege, or rather the _right_, to follow honest trades and callings\nmerely because they are colored? The same prejudice exists here against\nour colored brethren that existed against the Gentiles in Judea. Great\nnumbers cannot bear the idea of equality, and fearing lest, if they had\nthe same advantages we enjoy, they would become as intelligent, as\nmoral, as religious, and as respectable and wealthy, they are determined\nto keep them as low as they possibly can. Is this doing as they would be\ndone by? Is this loving their neighbor _as themselves_? Oh! that _such_\nopposers of Abolitionism would put their souls in the stead of the free\ncolored man's and obey the apostolic injunction, to \"remember them that\nare in bonds _as bound with them_.\" I will leave you to judge whether\nthe fear of amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery\nefforts, when _they_ believe _slavery_ to be _sinful_. Prejudice against\ncolor, is the most powerful enemy we have to fight with at the North.\n\nYou need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said _against_\nAbolitionists by the North, for they are wielding a two-edged sword,\nwhich even here, cuts through the _cords of caste_, on the one side, and\nthe _bonds of interest_ on the other. They are only sharing the fate of\nother reformers, abused and reviled whilst they are in the minority; but\nthey are neither angry nor discouraged by the invective which has been\nheaped upon them by slaveholders at the South and their apologists at\nthe North. They know that when George Fox and William Edmundson were\nlaboring in behalf of the negroes in the West Indies in 1671 that the\nvery _same_ slanders were propogated against them, which are _now_\ncirculated against Abolitionists. Although it was well known that Fox\nwas the founder of a religious sect which repudiated _all_ war, and\n_all_ violence, yet _even he_ was accused of \"endeavoring to excite the\nslaves to insurrection and of teaching the negroes to cut their master's\nthroats.\" And these two men who had their feet shod with the preparation\nof the Gospel of Peace, were actually compelled to draw up a formal\ndeclaration that _they were not_ trying to raise a rebellion in\nBarbadoes. It is also worthy of remark that these Reformers did not at\nthis time see the necessity of emancipation under seven years, and their\nprincipal efforts were exerted to persuade the planters of the necessity\nof instructing their slaves; but the slaveholder saw then, just what the\nslaveholder sees now, that an _enlightened_ population _never_ can be a\n_slave_ population, and therefore they passed a law, that negroes should\nnot even attend the meetings of Friends. Abolitionists know that the\nlife of Clarkson was sought by slavetraders; and that even Wilberforce\nwas denounced on the floor of Parliament as a fanatic and a hypocrite by\nthe present King of England, the very man who, in 1834, set his seal to\nthat instrument which burst the fetters of eight hundred thousand slaves\nin his West India colonies. They know that the first Quaker who bore a\n_faithful_ testimony against the sin of slavery was cut off from\nreligious fellowship with that society. That Quaker was a _woman_. On\nher deathbed she sent for the committee who dealt with her--she told\nthem, the near approach of death had not altered her sentiments on the\nsubject of slavery and waving her hand towards a very fertile and\nbeautiful portion of country which lay stretched before her window, she\nsaid with great solemnity, \"Friends, the time will come when there will\nnot be friends enough in all this district to hold one meeting for\nworship, and this garden will be turned into a wilderness.\"\n\nThe aged friend, who with tears in his eyes, related this interesting\ncircumstance to me, remarked, that at that time there were seven\nmeetings of friends in that part of Virginia, but that when he was there\nten years ago, not a single meeting was held, and the country was\nliterally a desolation. Soon after her decease, John Woolman began his\nlabors in our society, and instead of disowning a member for testifying\n_against_ slavery, they have for fifty-two years positively forbidden\ntheir members to hold slaves.\n\nAbolitionists understand the slaveholding spirit too well to be\nsurprised at any thing that has yet happened at the South or the North;\nthey know that the greater the sin is, which is exposed, the more\nviolent will be the efforts to blacken the character and impugn the\nmotives of those who are engaged in bringing to light the hidden things\nof darkness. They understand the work of Reform too well to be driven\nback by the furious waves of opposition, which are only foaming out\ntheir own shame. They have stood \"the world's dread laugh,\" when only\ntwelve men formed the first Anti-Slavery Society in Boston in 1831. They\nhave faced and refuted the calumnies of their enemies, and proved\nthemselves to be emphatically _peace men_ by _never resisting_ the\nviolence of mobs, even when driven by them from the temple of God, and\ndragged by an infuriated crowd through the streets of the emporium of\nNew-England, or subjected by _slaveholders_ to the pain of corporal\npunishment. \"None of these things move them;\" and, by the grace of God,\nthey are determined to persevere in this work of faith and labor of\nlove: they mean to pray, and preach, and write, and print, until slavery\nis completely overthrown, until Babylon is taken up and cast into the\nsea, to \"be found no more at all.\" They mean to petition Congress year\nafter year, until the seat of our government is cleansed from the sinful\ntraffic of \"slaves and the souls of men.\" Although that august assembly\nmay be like the unjust judge who \"feared not God neither regarded man,\"\nyet it must yield just as he did, from the power of importunity. Like\nthe unjust judge, Congress _must_ redress the wrongs of the widow, lest\nby the continual coming up of petitions, it be wearied. This will be\nstriking the dagger into the very heart of the monster, and once 'tis\ndone, he must soon expire.\n\nAbolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. Did\nthe prophet Isaiah _abuse_ the Jews when he addressed to them the\ncutting reproofs contained in the first chapter of his prophecies, and\nended by telling them, they would be _ashamed_ of the oaks they had\ndesired, and _confounded_ for the garden they had chosen? Did John the\nBaptist _abuse_ the Jews when he called them \"_a generation of vipers_,\"\nand warned them \"to bring forth fruits meet for repentance?\" Did Peter\nabuse the Jews when he told them they were the _murderers_ of the Lord\nof Glory? Did Paul abuse the Roman Governor when he reasoned before him\nof righteousness, temperance, and judgment, so as to send conviction\nhome to his guilty heart, and cause him to tremble in view of the crimes\nhe was living in? Surely not. No man will now accuse the prophets and\napostles of _abuse_, but what have Abolitionists done more than they? No\ndoubt the Jews thought the prophets and apostles in their day, just as\nharsh and uncharitable as slaveholders now, think Abolitionists; if they\ndid not, why did they beat, and stone, and kill them?\n\nGreat fault has been found with the prints which have been employed to\nexpose slavery at the North, but my friends, how could this be done so\neffectually in any other way? Until the pictures of the slave's\nsufferings were drawn and held up to public gaze, no Northerner had any\nidea of the cruelty of the system, it never entered their minds that\nsuch abominations could exist in Christian, Republican America; they\nnever suspected that many of the _gentlemen_ and _ladies_ who came from\nthe South to spend the summer months in travelling among them, were\npetty tyrants at home. And those who had lived at the South, and came to\nreside at the North, were too _ashamed of slavery_ even to speak of it;\nthe language of their hearts was, \"tell it _not_ in Gath, publish it\n_not_ in the streets of Askelon;\" they saw no use in uncovering the\nloathsome body to popular sight, and in hopeless despair, wept in secret\nplaces over the sins of oppression. To such hidden mourners the\nformation of Anti-Slavery Societies was as life from the dead, the first\nbeams of hope which gleamed through the dark clouds of despondency and\ngrief. Prints were made use of to effect the abolition of the\nInquisition in Spain, and Clarkson employed them when he was laboring to\nbreak up the Slave trade, and English Abolitionists used them just as we\nare now doing. They are powerful appeals and have invariably done the\nwork they were designed to do, and we cannot consent to abandon the use\nof these until the _realities_ no longer exist.\n\nWith regard to those white men, who, it was said, did try to raise an\ninsurrection in Mississippi a year ago, and who were stated to be\nAbolitionists, none of them were proved to be members of Anti-Slavery\nSocieties, and it must remain a matter of great doubt whether, even they\nwere guilty of the crimes alledged against them, because when any\ncommunity is thrown into such a panic as to inflict Lynch law upon\naccused persons, they cannot be supposed to be capable of judging with\ncalmness and impartiality. _We know_ that the papers of which the\nCharleston mail was robbed, were _not_ insurrectionary, and that they\nwere _not_ sent to the colored people as was reported. _We know_ that\nAmos Dresser was _no insurrectionist_ though he was accused of being so,\nand on this false accusation was publicly whipped in Nashville in the\nmidst of a crowd of infuriated _slaveholders_. Was that young man\ndisgraced by this infliction of corporal punishment? No more than was\nthe great apostle of the Gentiles who five times received forty stripes,\nsave one. Like him, he might have said, \"henceforth I bear in my body\nthe marks of the Lord Jesus,\" for it was for the _truth's sake, he\nsuffered_, as much as did the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and\nWilliams, and other Abolitionists who have recently been banished from\nMissouri, insurrectionists? _We know_ they are _not_, whatever\nslaveholders may choose to call them. The spirit which now asperses the\ncharacter of the Abolitionists, is the _very same_ which dressed up the\nChristians of Spain in the skins of wild beasts and pictures of devils\nwhen they were led to execution as heretics. Before we condemn\nindividuals, it is necessary, even in a wicked community, to accuse them\nof some crime; hence, when Jezebel wished to compass the death of\nNaboth, men of Belial were suborned to bear _false_ witness against him,\nand so it was with Stephen, and so it ever has been, and ever will be,\nas long as there is any virtue to suffer on the rack, or the gallows.\n_False_ witnesses must appear against Abolitionists before they can be\ncondemned.\n\nI will now say a few words on George Thompson's mission to this country.\nThis Philanthropist was accused of being a foreign emissary. Were La\nFayette, and Steuben, and De Kalb, foreign emissaries when they came\nover to America to fight against the tories, who preferred submitting to\nwhat was termed, \"the yoke of servitude,\" rather than bursting the\nfetters which bound them to the mother country? _They_ came with _carnal\nweapons_ to engage in _bloody_ conflict against American citizens, and\nyet, where do their names stand on the page of History. Among the\nhonorable, or the low? Thompson came here to war against the giant sin\nof slavery, _not_ with the sword and the pistol, but with the smooth\nstones of oratory taken from the pure waters of the river of Truth. His\nsplendid talents and commanding eloquence rendered him a powerful\ncoadjutor in the Anti-Slavery cause, and in order to neutralize the\neffects of these upon his auditors, and rob the poor slave of the\nbenefits of his labors, his character was defamed, his life was sought,\nand he at last driven from our Republic, as a fugitive. But was\n_Thompson_ disgraced by all this mean and contemptible and wicked\nchicanery and malice? No more than was Paul, when in consequence of a\nvision he had seen at Troas, he went over to Macedonia to help the\nChristians there, and was beaten and imprisoned, because he cast out a\nspirit of divination from a young damsel which had brought much gain to\nher masters. Paul was as much a _foreign emissary_ in the Roman colony\nof Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because he\nwas a _Jew_, and taught customs it was not lawful for them to receive or\nobserve, being Romans, that the Apostle was thus treated.\n\nIt was said, Thompson was a felon, who had fled to this country to\nescape transportation to New Holland. Look at him now pouring the\nthundering strains of his eloquence, upon crowded audiences in Great\nBritain, and see in this a triumphant vindication of his character. And\nhave the slaveholder, and his obsequious apologist, gained any thing by\nall their violence and falsehood? No! for the stone which struck Goliath\nof Gath, had already been thrown from the sling. The giant of slavery\nwho had so proudly defied the armies of the living God, had received his\ndeath-blow before he left our shores. But what is George Thompson doing\nthere? Is he not now laboring there, as effectually to abolish American\nslavery as though he trod our own soil, and lectured to New York or\nBoston assemblies? What is he doing there, but constructing a stupendous\ndam, which will turn the overwhelming tide of public opinion over the\nwheels of that machinery which Abolitionists are working here. He is now\nlecturing to _Britons_ on _American Slavery_, to the _subjects_ of a\n_King_, on the abject condition of the _slaves of a Republic_. He is\ntelling them of that mighty confederacy of petty tyrants which extends\never thirteen States of our Union. He is telling them of the munificent\nrewards offered by slaveholders, for the heads of the most distinguished\nadvocates for freedom in this country. He is moving the British Churches\nto send out to the churches of America the most solemn appeals,\nreproving, rebuking, and exhorting them with all long suffering and\npatience to abandon the sin of slavery immediately. Where then I ask,\nwill the name of George Thompson stand on the page of History? Among the\nhonorable, or the base?\n\nWhat can I say more, my friends, to induce _you_ to set your hands, and\nheads, and hearts, to this great work of justice and mercy. Perhaps you\nhave feared the consequences of immediate Emancipation, and been\nfrightened by all those dreadful prophecies of rebellion, bloodshed and\nmurder, which have been uttered. \"Let no man deceive you;\" they are the\npredictions of that same \"lying spirit\" which spoke through the four\nthousand prophets of old, to Ahab king of Israel, urging him on to\ndestruction. _Slavery_ may produce these horrible scenes if it is\ncontinued five years longer, but Emancipation _never will_.\n\nI can prove the _safety_ of immediate Emancipation by history. In St.\nDomingo in 1793 six hundred thousand slaves were set free in a white\npopulation of forty-two thousand. That Island \"marched as by enchantment\ntowards its ancient splendor\", cultivation prospered, every day produced\nperceptible proofs of its progress, and the negroes all continued\nquietly to work on the different plantations, until in 1802, France\ndetermined to reduce these liberated slaves again to bondage. It was at\n_this time_ that all those dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we\nso often _unjustly_ hear spoken of, as the effects of Abolition. They\nwere occasioned _not_ by Emancipation, but by the base attempt to fasten\nthe chains of slavery on the limbs of liberated slaves.\n\nIn Guadaloupe eighty-five thousand slaves were freed in a white\npopulation of thirteen thousand. The same prosperous effects followed\nmanumission here, that had attended it in Hayti, every thing was quiet\nuntil Buonaparte sent out a fleet to reduce these negroes again to\nslavery, and in 1802 this institution was re-established in that Island.\nIn 1834, when Great Britain determined to liberate the slaves in her\nWest India colonies, and proposed the apprenticeship system; the\nplanters of Bermuda and Antigua, after having joined the other planters\nin their representations of the bloody consequences of Emancipation, in\norder if possible to hold back the hand which was offering the boon of\nfreedom to the poor negro; as soon as they found such falsehoods were\nutterly disregarded, and Abolition must take place, came forward\nvoluntarily, and asked for the compensation which was due to them,\nsaying, _they preferred immediate emancipation_, and were not afraid of\nany insurrection. And how is it with these islands now? They are\ndecidedly more prosperous than any of those in which the apprenticeship\nsystem was adopted, and England is now trying to abolish that system, so\nfully convinced is she that immediate Emancipation is the _safest_ and\nthe best plan.\n\nAnd why not try it in the Southern States, if it _never_ has occasioned\nrebellion; if _not a drop of blood_ has ever been shed in consequence of\nit, though it has been so often tried, why should we suppose it would\nproduce such disastrous consequences now? \"Be not deceived then, God is\nnot mocked,\" by such false excuses for not doing justly and loving\nmercy. There is nothing to fear from immediate Emancipation, but _every\nthing_ from the continuance of slavery.\n\nSisters in Christ, I have done. As a Southerner, I have felt it was my\nduty to address you. I have endeavoured to set before you the exceeding\nsinfulness of slavery, and to point you to the example of those noble\nwomen who have been raised up in the church to effect great revolutions,\nand to suffer for the truth's sake. I have appealed to your sympathies\nas women, to your sense of duty as _Christian women_>. I have attempted\nto vindicate the Abolitionists, to prove the entire safety of immediate\nEmancipation, and to plead the cause of the poor and oppressed. I have\ndone--I have sowed the seeds of truth, but I well know, that even if an\nApollos were to follow in my steps to water them, \"_God only_ can give\nthe increase.\" To Him then who is able to prosper the work of his\nservant's hand, I commend this Appeal in fervent prayer, that as he\n\"hath _chosen the weak things of the world_, to confound the things\nwhich are mighty,\" so He may cause His blessing, to descend and carry\nconviction to the hearts of many Lydias through these speaking pages.\nFarewell.--Count me not your \"enemy because I have told you the truth,\"\nbut believe me in unfeigned affection,\n\nYour sympathizing Friend,\n\nANGELINA E. GRIMK\u00c9.\n\nPublished by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce and\nNassau Streets.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nVOL. I. SEPTEMBER, 1836.    No. 2.\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPEAL\n\nTO THE\n\nCHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,\n\n\nBY A.E. GRIMK\u00c9 REVISED AND CORRECTED.\n\n\n    \"Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not within\n    thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house more than all\n    the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time,\n    then shalt there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews\n    from another place: but thou and thy father's house shall be\n    destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom\n    for such a time as this. And Esther bade them return Mordecai\n    this answer:--and so will I go in unto the king, which is not\n    according to law, and _if I perish, I perish_.\"\n\n    Esther IV. 13-16.\n\n\nRESPECTED FRIENDS,\n\nIt is because I feel a deep and tender interest in your present and\neternal welfare that I am willing thus publicly to address you. Some of\nyou have loved me as a relative, and some have felt bound to me in\nChristian sympathy, and Gospel fellowship; and even when compelled by a\nstrong sense of duty, to break those outward bonds of union which bound\nus together as members of the same community, and members of the same\nreligious denomination, you were generous enough to give me credit, for\nsincerity as a Christian, though you believed I had been most strangely\ndeceived. I thanked you then for your kindness, and I ask you _now_, for\nthe sake of former confidence, and former friendship, to read the\nfollowing pages in the spirit of calm investigation and fervent prayer.\nIt is because you have known me, that I write thus unto you.\n\nBut there are other Christian women scattered over the Southern States,\nof whom a very large number have never seen me, and never heard my name,\nand feel _no_ personal interest whatever in _me_. But I feel an interest\nin _you_, as branches of the same vine from whose root I daily draw the\nprinciple of spiritual vitality--Yes! Sisters in Christ I feel an\ninterest in _you_, and often has the secret prayer arisen on your\nbehalf, Lord \"open thou their eyes that they may see wondrous things out\nof thy Law\"--It is then, because I _do feel_ and _do pray_ for you, that\nI thus address you upon a subject about which of all others, perhaps you\nwould rather not hear any thing; but, \"would to God ye could bear with\nme a little in my folly, and indeed bear with me, for I am jealous over\nyou with godly jealousy.\" Be not afraid then to read my appeal; it is\n_not_ written in the heat of passion or prejudice, but in that solemn\ncalmness which is the result of conviction and duty. It is true, I am\ngoing to tell you unwelcome truths, but I mean to speak these _truths in\nlove_, and remember Solomon says, \"faithful are the _wounds_ of a\nfriend.\" I do not believe the time has yet come when _Christian women_\n\"will not endure sound doctrine,\" even on the subject of Slavery, if it\nis spoken to them in tenderness and love, therefore I now address _you_.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPOSTAGE.--This periodical contains four and a half sheets. Postage under\n100 miles, 6 3-4 cents; over 100 miles, 11 1-4 cents.\n\n_PLEASE READ AND CIRCULATE._\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nTo all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for you\nare all _one_ in Christ,) I would speak. I have felt for you at this\ntime, when unwelcome light is pouring in upon the world on the subject\nof slavery; light which even Christians would exclude, if they could,\nfrom our country, or at any rate from the southern portion of it,\nsaying, as its rays strike the rock bound coasts of New England and\nscatter their warmth and radiance over her hills and valleys, and from\nthence travel onward over the Palisades of the Hudson, and down the soft\nflowing waters of the Delaware and gild the waves of the Potomac,\n\"hitherto shalt thou come and no further;\" I know that even professors\nof His name who has been emphatically called the \"Light of the world\"\nwould, if they could, build a wall of adamant around the Southern States\nwhose top might reach unto heaven, in order to shut out the light which\nis bounding from mountain to mountain and from the hills to the plains\nand valleys beneath, through the vast extent of our Northern States. But\nbelieve me, when I tell you, their attempts will be as utterly fruitless\nas were the efforts of the builders of Babel; and why? Because moral,\nlike natural light, is so extremely subtle in its nature as to overleap\nall human barriers, and laugh at the puny efforts of man to control it.\nAll the excuses and palliations of this system must inevitably be swept\naway, just as other \"refuges of lies\" have been, by the irresistible\ntorrent of a rectified public opinion. \"The _supporters_ of the slave\nsystem,\" says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work on the Principles of\nMorality, \"will _hereafter_ be regarded with the _same_ public feeling,\nas he who was an advocate for the slave trade _now_ is.\" It will be, and\nthat very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged by all the\nvirtuous and the candid, that in _principle_ it is as sinful to hold a\nhuman being in bondage who has been born in Carolina, as one who has\nbeen born in Africa. All that sophistry of argument which has been\nemployed to prove, that although it is sinful to send to Africa to\nprocure men and women as slaves, who have never been in slavery, that\nstill, it is not sinful to keep those in bondage who have come down by\ninheritance, will be utterly overthrown. We must come back to the good\nold doctrine of our forefathers who declared to the world, \"this self\nevident truth that _all_ men are created equal, and that they have\ncertain _inalienable_ rights among which are life, _liberty_, and the\npursuit of happiness.\" It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man\ncan be legally born a slave under _our free Republican_ Government, than\nunder the petty despotisms of barbarian Africa. If then, we have no\nright to enslave an African, surely we can have none to enslave an\nAmerican; if it is a self evident truth that _all_ men, every where and\nof every color are born equal, and have an _inalienable right to\nliberty_, then it is equally true that _no_ man can be born a slave, and\nno man can ever _rightfully_ be reduced to _involuntary_ bondage and\nheld as a slave, however fair may be the claim of his master or mistress\nthrough wills and title-deeds.\n\nBut after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly mistaken, for\nthe Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now the\nBible is my ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, and it\nis to _this test_ I am anxious to bring the subject at issue between us.\nLet us then begin with Adam and examine the charter of privileges which\nwas given to him. \"Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the\nfowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the\nearth.\" In the eighth Psalm we have a still fuller description of this\ncharter which through Adam was given to all mankind. \"Thou madest him to\nhave dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things\nunder his feet. All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field,\nthe fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through\nthe paths of the seas.\" And after the flood when this charter of human\nrights was renewed, we find _no additional_ power vested in man. \"And\nthe fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the\nearth, and every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the\nearth, and upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they\ndelivered.\" In this charter, although the different kinds of\n_irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion\nover _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this\ndominion _over his fellow man_; he was never told that any of the human\nspecies were put _under his feet_; it was only _all things_, and man,\nwho was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be\ntermed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him \"a chattel\npersonal;\" _Man_ then, I assert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_,\nby that first charter of human right, which was given by God, to the\nFathers of the Antediluvian and Postdiluvian worlds, therefore this\ndoctrine of equality is based on the Bible.\n\nBut it may be argued, that in the very chapter of Genesis from which I\nhave last quoted, will be found the curse pronounced upon Canaan, by\nwhich his posterity was consigned to servitude under his brothers Shem\nand Japheth. I know this prophecy was uttered, and was most fearfully\nand wonderfully fulfilled, through the immediate descendants of Canaan,\ni.e. the Canaanites, and I do not know but it has been through all the\nchildren of Ham, but I do know that prophecy does _not_ tell us what\n_ought to be_, but what actually does take place, ages after it has been\ndelivered, and that if we justify America for enslaving the children of\nAfrica, we must also justify Egypt for reducing the children of Israel\nto bondage, for the latter was foretold as explicitly as the former. I\nam well aware that prophecy has often been urged as an excuse for\nSlavery, but be not deceived, the fulfilment of prophecy will _not cover\none sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says on this\nsubject; \"it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto that man\nthrough whom they come_\"--Witness some fulfilment of this declaration in\nthe tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, occasioned by that most\nnefarious of all crimes the crucifixion of the Son of God. Did the fact\nof that event having been foretold, exculpate the Jews from sin in\nperpetrating it; No--for hear what the Apostle Peter says to them on\nthis subject, \"Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and\nforeknowledge of God, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have\ncrucified and slain.\" Other striking instances might be adduced, but\nthese will suffice.\n\nBut it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and therefore,\nslavery is right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was\nlike American slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of\nthese primitive fathers of the church and be undeceived. Look at\nAbraham, though so great a man, going to the herd himself and fetching a\ncalf from thence and serving it up with his own hands, for the\nentertainment of his guests. Look at Sarah, that princess as her name\nsignifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If the servants they had were\nlike Southern slaves, would they have performed such comparatively\nmenial offices for themselves? Hear too the plaintive lamentation of\nAbraham when he feared he should have no son to bear his name down to\nposterity. \"Behold thou hast given me no seed, &c., one born in my house\nis _mine_ heir.\" From this it appears that one of his _servants_ was to\ninherit his immense estate. Is this like Southern slavery? I leave it to\nyour own good sense and candor to decide. Besides, such was the footing\nupon which Abraham was with _his_ servants, that he trusted them with\narms. Are slaveholders willing to put swords and pistols into the hands\nof their slaves? He was as a father among his servants; what are\nplanters and masters generally among theirs? When the institution of\ncircumcision was established, Abraham was commanded thus; \"He that is\neight days old shall be circumcised among you, _every_ man-child in your\ngenerations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any\nstranger which is not of thy seed.\" And to render this command with\nregard to his _servants_ still more impressive it is repeated in the\nvery next verse; and herein we may perceive the great care which was\ntaken by God to guard the _rights of servants_ even under this \"dark\ndispensation.\" What too was the testimony given to the faithfulness of\nthis eminent patriarch. \"For I know him that he will command his\nchildren and his _household_ after him, and they shall keep the way of\nthe Lord to do justice and judgment.\" Now my dear friends many of you\nbelieve that circumcision has been superseded by baptism in the Church;\n_Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought\nwith money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham\nto command _your household_ to _keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to\nyour own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like\nAmerican Slavery?\n\nBut I shall be told, God sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded Slavery under\nthe Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject calmly and\nprayerfully. I admit that a species of _servitude_ was permitted to the\nJews, but in studying the subject I have been struck with wonder and\nadmiration at perceiving how carefully the servant was guarded from\nviolence, injustice, and wrong. I will first inform you how these\nservants became servants, for I think this a very important part of our\nsubject. From consulting Horne, Calmet, and the Bible, I find there were\nsix different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.\n\n1. A Hebrew, whose father was still alive, and who on that account had\nnot inherited his patrimonial estate, might sell himself, i.e., his\nservices, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money\n_himself_. Ex. xxi, 2.\n\n2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e., his _daughters_,\nin which circumstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife\nor daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the _father_ received\nthe price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were\nin the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives, not_ as slaves. Ex. xxi,\n7-11.\n\n3. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for\nthe benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.\n\n4. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.\n\n5. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself; but in\nsuch a case he was to serve, not as a bondsman, whose term of service\nwas only six years, nor was he to serve as a hired servant, who received\nhis wages every evening, nor yet as a sojourner or temporary resident in\nthe family, but he was to serve his master until the year of Jubilee[A].\nLev. xxv, 39, 40.\n\n[Footnote A: If the reader will leave out the italicised words--But and\nAnd, in the 40th verse--he will find that I am fully authorized in the\nmeaning I have attached to it. But and And are _not_ in the original\nHebrew; have been introduced by the translators, and entirely destroy\nthe true sense of the passage.]\n\n6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be redeemed\nby one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he who\nredeemed him, was _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred,\nand rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.\n\nBefore going into an examination of the laws by which these servants\nwere protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have become\nslaves in any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. Did they\nsell themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money into their\nown hands? No! No! Did they steal the property of another, and were they\nsold to make restitution for their crimes? No! Did their present\nmasters, as an act of kindness, redeem them from some heathen tyrant to\nwhom _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of adversity? No! Were\nthey born in slavery? No! No! Not according to _Jewish Law_, for the\nservants who were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who\nhad _sold themselves_: Ex. xxi, 4; Lev. xxv, 39, 40. Were the female\nslaves of the South sold by their fathers? How shall I answer this\nquestion? Thousands and tens of thousands never were, _their_ fathers\n_never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or gold for the\ntears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless bondage of\n_their_ daughters. They labor day by day, and year by year, side by\nside, in the same field, if haply their daughters are permitted to\nremain on the same plantation with them, instead of being, as they often\nare, separated from their parents and sold into distant states, never\nagain to meet on earth. But do the _fathers of the South ever sell their\ndaughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the awful\naffirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell their\ndaughters, _not_ as Jewish parents did, to be the wives and\ndaughters-in-law of the men who buy them, but to be the abject slaves of\npetty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends? I\nleave it to your own candor to corroborate my assertion. Southern slaves\nthen have _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which\nHebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters\n_cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men,\nwomen, or children they now hold in bondage.\n\nBut there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to\nservitude; it was this, he might be _stolen_ and afterwards sold as a\nslave, as was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful\ncrime of manstealing, God enacted this severe law. \"He that stealeth a\nman and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be\nput to death.\" And again, \"If a man be found stealing any of his\nbrethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or\nselleth him; then _that thief shall die_; and thou shalt put away evil\nfrom among you.\" Deut. xxiv, 7. As I have tried American Slavery by\n_legal_ Hebrew servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that\nJewish law cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by\n_illegal_ Hebrew bondage. Have the Southern slaves then been stolen? If\nthey did not sell themselves into bondage; if they were not sold as\nthieves; if they were not redeemed from a heathen master to whom _they\nhad sold themselves;_ if they were not born in servitude according to\nHebrew law; and if the females were not sold by their fathers as wives\nand daughters-in-law to those who purchased them; then what shall we say\nof them? what can we say of them? but that according _to Hebrew Law they\nhave been stolen._\n\nBut I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were absolute\nslaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other servants who\nwere procured from the heathen.\n\nBondmen and bondmaids might be bought of the heathen round about them.\nLev. xxv, 44.\n\nI will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew\nmasters to their _heathen_ servants. Were the southern slaves bought\nfrom the heathen? No! For surely, no one will _now_ vindicate the\nslave-trade so far as to assert that slaves were bought from the heathen\nwho were obtained by that system of piracy. The only excuse for holding\nsouthern slaves is that they were born in slavery, but we have seen that\nthey were _not_ born in servitude as Jewish servants were, and that the\nchildren of heathen servants were not legally subjected to bondage, even\nunder the Mosaic Law. How then have the slaves of the South been\nobtained?\n\nI will next proceed to an examination of those laws which were enacted\nin order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for I wish you\nto understand that _both_ were protected by Him, of whom it is said \"his\nmercies are over _all_ his works.\" I will first speak of those which\nsecured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was headed thus:\n\n1. Thou shalt _not_ rule over him with _rigor_, but shalt fear thy God.\n\n2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the\nseventh year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xxi, 2. And when thou\nsendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:\nThou shalt furnish him _liberally_ out of thy flock and out of thy\nfloor, and out of thy wine-press: of that wherewith the Lord thy God\nhath blessed thee, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv, 13, 14.\n\n3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were\nmarried, then his wife shall go out with him. Ex. xxi, 3.\n\n4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons and\ndaughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and he shall\ngo out by himself. Ex. xxi, 4.\n\n5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my\nchildren; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto\nthe Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post,\nand his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall\nserve him _for ever_. Ex. xxi, 5, 6.\n\n6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that\nit perish, he shall let him go _free_ for his eye's sake. And if he\nsmite out his man servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth, he shall\nlet him go _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.\n\n7. On the Sabbath, rest was secured to servants by the fourth\ncommandment. Ex. xx, 10.\n\n8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three times in\nevery year in celebrating the Passover, the feast of Weeks, and the\nfeast of Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to appear\nbefore the Lord at Jerusalem with a gift; here the bond and the free\nstood on common ground. Deut. xvi.\n\n9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under\nhis hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a\nday or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Ex. xxi, 20,\n21.\n\nFrom these laws we learn, that one class of Hebrew men servants were\nbound to serve their masters _only six_ years, unless their attachment\nto their employers, their wives and children, should induce them to wish\nto remain in servitude, in which case, in order to prevent the\npossibility of deception on the part of the master, the servant was\nfirst taken before the magistrate, where he openly declared his\nintention of continuing in his master's service, (probably a public\nregister was kept of such,) he was then conducted to the door of the\nhouse, (in warm climates doors are thrown open.) and _there_ his ear was\n_publicly_ bored, and by submitting to this operation, he testified his\nwillingness to serve him in subserviency to the law of God; for let it\nbe remembered, that the door-post was covered with the precepts of that\nlaw. Deut. vi, 9. xi, 20: _for ever_, i.e., during his life, for Jewish\nRabbins, who must have understood Jewish _slavery_ (as it is called),\n\"affirm that servants were set free at the death of their masters, and\ndid _not_ descend to their heirs;\" or that he was to serve him until the\nyear of Jubilee, when _all_ servants were set at liberty. The other\nclass, when they first sold themselves, agreed to remain until the year\nof Jubilee. To protect servants from violence, it was ordained, that if\na master struck out the tooth or destroyed the eye of a servant, that\nservant immediately became _free_, for such an act of violence evidently\nshowed he was unfit to possess the power of a master, and therefore that\npower was taken from him. All servants enjoyed the rest of the Sabbath,\nand partook of the privileges and festivities of the three great Jewish\nFeasts; and if a servant died under the infliction of chastisement, his\nmaster was surely to be punished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for\nlife was the Jewish law, of course he was punished with death. I know\nthat great stress has been laid upon the following verse:\n\"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished,\nfor he is his money.\"\n\nSlaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized upon\nthis little passage of Scripture, and held it up as the masters' Magna\nCharta, by which they were licensed by God himself to commit the\ngreatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. But,\nmy friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father would\nprotect by law the _eye_ and the _tooth_ of a Hebrew servant, can we for\na moment believe that he would abandon that same servant to the brutal\nrage of a master who would destroy even life itself? Let us then examine\nthis passage with the help of the context. In the 18th and 19th verses\nwe have a law which was made for _freemen_ who strove together. Here we\nfind, that if one man smote another, so that he died not, but only kept\nhis bed from being disabled, and he rose again and walked abroad upon\nhis staff, then _he_ was to be paid for the loss of his time, and all\nthe expenses of his sickness were to be borne by the man who smote him.\nThe freeman's time was _his own_, and therefore he was to be remunerated\nfor the loss of it. But _not_ so with the _servant_, whose time was, as\nit were, _the money of his master_, because he had already paid for it:\nIf he continued a day or two after being struck, to keep his bed in\nconsequence of any wound received, then his lost time was _not_ to be\npaid for, because it was _not his own_, but his master's, who had\nalready paid him for it. The loss of his time was the _master's loss_,\nand _not_ the servant's. This explanation is confirmed by the fact, that\nthe Hebrew word translated continue, means \"to stand still;\" _i.e._, to\nbe unable to go out about his master's work.\n\nHere then we find this stronghold of slavery completely demolished.\nInstead of its being a license to inflict such chastisement upon a\nservant as to cause even death itself, it is in fact a law merely to\nprovide that a man should not be required to pay his servant twice over\nfor his time. It is altogether an unfounded assumption on the part of\nthe slaveholder, that this servant _died_ after a day or two; the text\ndoes not say so, and I contend that he _got well_ after a day or two,\njust as the man mentioned in the 19th verse recovered from the effects\nof the blows he received. The cases are completely parallel, and the\nfirst law throws great light on the second. This explanation is far more\nconsonant with the character of God, and were it not that our vision has\nbeen so completely darkened by the existence of slavery in our country,\nwe never could so far have dishonored Him as to have supposed that He\nsanctioned the murder of a servant; although slaveholding legislators\nmight legalize the killing of a slave in _four_ different\nways.--(_Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws_.)\n\nBut I pass on now to the consideration of how the _female_ Jewish\nservants were protected by _law_.\n\n1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then\nshall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation he shall\nhave no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.\n\n2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after\nthe manner of daughters.\n\n3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of\nmarriage, shall he not diminish.\n\n4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_\nwithout money.\n\nOn these laws I will give you Calmet's remarks; \"A father could not sell\nhis daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she was at the\nage of puberty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost indigence.\nBesides, when a master bought an Israelitish girl, it was _always_ with\nthe presumption that he would take her to wife. Hence Moses adds, 'if\nshe please not her master, and he does not think fit to marry her, he\nshall set her at liberty,' or according to the Hebrew, 'he shall let her\nbe redeemed.' 'To sell her to another nation he shall have no power,\nseeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her;' as to the engagement\nimplied, at least of taking her to wife. 'If he have betrothed her unto\nhis son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters;' i.e., he\nshall take care that his son uses her as his wife, that he does not\ndespise or maltreat her. If he make his son marry another wife, he shall\ngive her her dowry, her clothes, and compensation for her virginity; if\nhe does none of these three, she shall _go out free_ without money.\"\nThus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under\nthe Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female\nslaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and\ndaughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go\nout free?_ No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as\nservants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in\nbondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims,\n(_if they ever had any,_) to their female slaves.\n\nWe come now to examine the case of those servants who were \"of the\nheathen round about;\" Were _they_ left entirely unprotected by law?\nHorne, in speaking of the law, \"Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor,\nbut shalt fear thy God,\" remarks, \"this law, Lev. xxv, 43, it is true,\nspeaks expressly of slaves who were of Hebrew descent; but as _alien\nborn_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circumcision,\n_there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ slaves:\" if so, then we\nmay reasonably suppose that the other protective laws extended to them\nalso; and that the only difference between Hebrew and Heathen servants\nlay in this, that the former served but six years, unless they chose to\nremain longer, and were always freed at the death of their masters;\nwhereas, the latter served until the year of Jubilee, though that might\ninclude a period of forty-nine years,--and were left from father to son.\n\nThere are, however, two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one\neffectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other\ncompletely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were\nequally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.\n\n1. \"Thou shalt _not_ deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped\nfrom his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in\nthat place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh\nhim best: thou shalt _not_ oppress him.\" Deut. xxiii, 15, 16.\n\n2. \"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_\nthroughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof; it shall\nbe a jubilee unto you.\" Lev. xxv, 10.\n\nHere, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was\nopened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint;\nif he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him,\nand _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only\nso, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ where he should live, and\nno Jew was permitted to oppress him. He left his master just as our\nNorthern servants leave us; we have no power to compel them to remain\nwith us, and no man has any right to oppress them; they go and dwell in\nthat place where it chooseth them, and live just where they like. Is it\nso at the South? Is the poor runaway slave protected _by law_ from the\nviolence of that master whose oppression and cruelty has driven him from\nhis plantation or his house? No! no! Even the free states of the North\nare compelled to deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped\nfrom his master into them. By _human_ law, under the _Christian\nDispensation_, in the _nineteenth century we_ are commanded to do, what\n_God_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic\nDispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide\ndomain even of our free states, there is not _one_ city of refuge for\nthe poor runaway fugitive; not one spot upon which he can stand and say,\nI am a free man--I am protected in my rights as a _man_, by the strong\narm of the law; no! _not one_. How long the North will thus shake hands\nwith the South in sin, I know not. How long she will stand by like the\npersecutor Saul, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the\nraiment of them that slew him. I know not; but one thing I do know, the\n_guilt of the North_ is increasing in a tremendous ratio as light is\npouring in upon her on the subject and the sin of slavery. As the sun of\nrighteousness climbs higher and higher in the moral heavens, she will\nstand still more and more abashed as the query is thundered down into\nher ear, \"_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?\" It will be found _no_\nexcuse then that the Constitution of our country required that _persons\nbound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no\nmore excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the\nforbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to\nthe voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and\n_we_ shall assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather\nthan _God_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for\nrepentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even _now_?\n\nBut by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is\ndisclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary\nservitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being\nperpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the\nJubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_\nwas proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the\nservants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there\nis no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ felt the weight of iron\nchains, and collars, and handcuffs; but I do say that even the man who\nhad voluntarily sold himself and the _heathen_ who had been sold to a\nHebrew master, were set free, the one as well as the other. This law was\nevidently designed to prevent the oppression of the poor, and the\npossibility of such a thing as _perpetual servitude_ existing among\nthem.\n\nWhere, then, I would ask, is the warrant, the justification, or the\npalliation of American Slavery from Hebrew servitude? How many of the\nsouthern slaves would now be in bondage according to the laws of Moses;\nNot one. You may observe that I have carefully avoided using the term\n_slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason,\nthat _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated\nservant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to\nAbraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then\n_never_ existed under the Jewish Dispensation at all, and I cannot but\nregard it as an aspersion on the character of Him who is \"glorious in\nHoliness\" for any one to assert that \"_God sanctioned, yea commanded\nslavery_ under the old dispensation.\" I would fain lift my feeble voice\nto vindicate Jehovah's character from so foul a slander. If slaveholders\nare determined to hold slaves as long as they can, let them not dare to\nsay that the God of mercy and of truth _ever_ sanctioned such a system\nof cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.\n\nWe have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to\nservants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to\nthem their _rights_ as _human beings_, to guard them from oppression and\ndefend them from violence of every kind. Let us now turn to the Slave\nlaws of the South and West and examine them too. I will give you the\nsubstance only, because I fear I shall trespass too much on your time,\nwere I to quote them at length.\n\n1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the\nslave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest\nposterity.\n\n2. The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the\nkind of labor, the amount of toil, the time allowed for rest, are\ndictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A\npure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and\nprovender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely on the\nmaster's discretion[A].\n\n[Footnote A: There are laws in some of the slave states, limiting the\nlabor which the master may require of the slave to fourteen hours daily.\nIn some of the states there are laws requiring the masters to furnish a\ncertain amount of food and clothing, as for instance, _one quart_ of\ncorn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ per month, and\n\"_one_ linen shirt and pantaloons for the summer, and a linen shirt and\nwoolen great coat and pantaloons for the winter,\" &c. But \"still,\" to\nuse the language of Judge Stroud \"the slave is entirely under the\ncontrol of his master.--is unprovided with a protector,--and, especially\nas he cannot be a witness or make complaint in any known mode against\nhis master, the _apparent_ object of these laws may _always_ be\ndefeated.\" ED.]\n\n3. The slave being considered a personal chattel may be sold or pledged,\nor leased at the will of his master. He may be exchanged for marketable\ncommodities, or taken in execution for the debts or taxes either of a\nliving or dead master. Sold at auction, either individually, or in lots\nto suit the purchaser, he may remain with his family, or be separated\nfrom them for ever.\n\n4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no _legal_ right to any\nproperty, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies\nof friends belong in point of law to their masters.\n\n5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness against\nany _white_, or free person, in a court of justice, however atrocious\nmay have been the crimes they have seen him commit, if such testimony\nwould be for the benefit of a _slave_; but they may give testimony\n_against a fellow slave_, or free colored man, even in cases affecting\nlife, if the _master_ is to reap the advantage of it.\n\n6. The slave may be punished at his master's discretion--without\ntrial--without any means of legal redress; whether his offence be real\nor imaginary; and the master can transfer the same despotic power to any\nperson or persons, he may choose to appoint.\n\n7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under _any_\ncircumstances, _his_ only safety consists in the fact that his _owner_\nmay bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is\ntaken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.\n\n8. Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters,\nthough cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for\ntheir personal safety.\n\n9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.\n\n10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the\nmaster is willing to enfranchise them.\n\n11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious\ninstruction and consolation.\n\n12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of\nthe lowest ignorance.\n\n13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.\nWhat is a trifling fault in the _white_ man, is considered highly\ncriminal in the _slave_; the same offences which cost a white man a few\ndollars only, are punished in the negro with death.\n\n14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color[A].\n\n[Footnote A: See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II.]\n\nShall I ask you now my friends, to draw the _parallel_ between Jewish\n_servitude_ and American _slavery_? No! For there is _no likeness_ in\nthe two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of\nMoses _protected servants_ in their _rights_ as _men and women_, guarded\nthem from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the\nSouth _robs the slave of all his rights_ as a _man_, reduces him to a\nchattel personal, and defends the _master_ in the exercise of the most\nunnatural and unwarrantable power over his slave. They each bear the\nimpress of the hand which formed them. The attributes of justice and\nmercy are shadowed out in the Hebrew code; those of injustice and\ncruelty, in the Code Noir of America. Truly it was wise in the\nslaveholders of the South to declare their slaves to be \"chattels\npersonal;\" for before they could be robbed of wages, wives, children,\nand friends, it was absolutely necessary to deny they were human beings.\nIt is wise in them, to keep them in abject ignorance, for the strong man\narmed must be bound before we can spoil his house--the powerful\nintellect of man must be bound down with the iron chains of nescience\nbefore we can rob him of his rights as a man; we must reduce him to a\n_thing_ before we can claim the right to set our feet upon his neck,\nbecause it was only _all things_ which were originally _put under the\nfeet of man_ by the Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has\ndeclared himself to be _no respecter_ of persons, whether red, white or\nblack.\n\nBut some have even said that Jesus Christ did not condemn slavery. To\nthis I reply that our Holy Redeemer lived and preached among the Jews\nonly. The laws which Moses had enacted fifteen hundred years previous to\nhis appearance among them, had never been annulled, and these laws\nprotected every servant in Palestine. If then He did not condemn Jewish\nservitude this does not prove that he would not have condemned such a\nmonstrous system as that of American _slavery_, if that had existed\namong them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us examine some of\nhis precepts. \"_Whatsoever_ ye would that men should do to you, do _ye\neven so to them_.\" Let every slaveholder apply these queries to his own\nheart; Am _I_ willing to be a slave--Am _I_ willing to see my wife the\nslave of another--Am _I_ willing to see my mother a slave, or my father,\nmy sister or my brother? If not, then in holding others as slaves, I am\ndoing what I would _not_ wish to be done to me or any relative I have;\nand thus have I broken this golden rule which was given _me_ to walk by.\n\nBut some slaveholders have said, \"we were never in bondage to any man,\"\nand therefore the yoke of bondage would be insufferable to us, but\nslaves are accustomed to it, their backs are fitted to the burden. Well,\nI am willing to admit that you who have lived in freedom would find\nslavery even more oppressive than the poor slave does, but then you may\ntry this question in another form--Am I willing to reduce _my little\nchild_ to slavery? You know that _if it is brought up a slave_ it will\nnever know any contrast, between freedom and bondage, its back will\nbecome fitted to the burden just as the negro child's does--_not by\nnature_--but by daily, violent pressure, in the same way that the head\nof the Indian child becomes flattened by the boards in which it is\nbound. It has been justly remarked that \"_God never made a slave_,\" he\nmade man upright; his back was _not_ made to carry burdens, nor his neck\nto wear a yoke, and the _man_ must be crushed within him, before _his_\nback can be _fitted_ to the burden of perpetual slavery; and that his\nback is _not_ fitted to it, is manifest by the insurrections that so\noften disturb the peace and security of slaveholding countries. Who ever\nheard of a rebellion of the beasts of the field; and why not? simply\nbecause _they_ were all placed _under the feet of man_, into whose hand\nthey were delivered; it was originally designed that they should serve\nhim, therefore their necks have been formed for the yoke, and their\nbacks for the burden; but _not so with man_, intellectual, immortal man!\nI appeal to you, my friends, as mothers; Are you willing to enslave\n_your_ children? You start back with horror and indignation at such a\nquestion. But why, if slavery is _no wrong_ to those upon whom it is\nimposed? why, if as has often been said, slaves are happier than their\nmasters, free from the cares and perplexities of providing for\nthemselves and their _wanting_? Try yourselves by another of the Divine\nprecepts, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\" Can we love a man\n_as_ we love _ourselves if we do, and continue to do_ unto him, what we\nwould not wish any one to do to us? Look, too, at Christ's example, what\ndoes he say of himself, \"I came _not_ to be ministered unto, but to\nminister.\" Can you for a moment imagine the meek and lowly, and\ncompassionate Saviour, _a slaveholder_? Do you not shudder at this\nthought as much as at that of his being _a warrior_? But why, if slavery\nis not sinful?\n\nAgain, it has been said, the Apostle Paul did not condemn slavery, for\nhe sent Onesimus back to Philemon. I do not think it can be said he sent\nhim back, for no coercion was made use of. Onesimus was not thrown into\nprison and then sent back in chains to his master, as your runaway\nslaves often are--this could not possibly have been the case, because\nyou know Paul as a Jew, was _bound to protect_ the runaway; _he had no\nright_ to send _any_ fugitive back to his master. The state of the case\nthen seems to have been this. Onesimus had been an unprofitable servant\nto Philemon and left him--he afterwards became converted under the\nApostle's preaching, and seeing that he had been to blame in his\nconduct, and desiring by future fidelity to atone for past error, he\nwished to return, and the Apostle gave him the letter we now have as a\nrecommendation to Philemon, informing him of the conversion of Onesimus,\nand entreating him as \"Paul the aged\" \"to receive him, _not_ now as a\n_servant_, but _above_ a servant, a _brother beloved_, especially to me,\nbut how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou\ncount _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself_.\" This, then,\nsurely cannot be forced into a justification of the practice of\nreturning runaway slaves back to their masters, to be punished with\ncruel beatings and scourgings as they often are. Besides the word\n_doulos_ here translated servant, is the same that is made use of in\nMatt. xviii, 27. Now it appears that this servant _owed_ his lord ten\nthousand talents; he possessed property to a vast amount. And what is\nstill more surprising, if he was a _slave_, is, that \"forasmuch as he\nhad not to pay, his lord commanded _him_ to be sold, and his wife and\nchildren, and all that he had, and payment to be made.\" Whoever heard of\na slaveholder selling a _slave_ and his family to pay himself a debt due\nto him from a _slave_? What would he gain by it when the slave is\nhimself his _property_, and his wife and children also? Onesimus could\nnot, then, have been a _slave_, for slaves do not own their wives or\nchildren; no, not even their own bodies, much less property. But again,\nthe servitude which the apostle was accustomed to, must have been very\ndifferent from American slavery, for he says, \"the heir (or son), as\nlong as he is a child, differeth _nothing from a servant_, though he be\nlord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time\nappointed of the father.\" From this it appears, that the means of\n_instruction_ were provided for _servants_ as well as children; and\nindeed we know it must have been so among the Jews, because their\nservants were not permitted to remain in perpetual bondage, and\ntherefore it was absolutely necessary they should be prepared to occupy\nhigher stations in society than those of servants. Is it so at the\nSouth, my friends? Is the daily bread of instruction provided for _your\nslaves_? are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to\nrise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members\nof the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience,\nanswer these questions.\n\nIf this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, why did he exhort masters thus in\nhis epistle to the Ephesians, \"and ye, masters, do the same things unto\nthem (i.e. perform your duties to your servants as unto Christ, not unto\nmen) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in\nheaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_.\" And in\nColossians, \"Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and\nequal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven.\" Let slaveholders\nonly _obey_ these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would\nsoon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ servants,\nsurely he must have thought it sinful to flog and to beat them with\nsticks and paddles; indeed, when delineating the character of a bishop,\nhe expressly names this as one feature of it, \"_no striker_.\" Let\nmasters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and\nall that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes,\nand if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ of their servants\nwithout pay, surely they could not think they had a right to their\nwives, their children, and their own bodies. Again, how can it be said\nPaul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter beyond all\ndoubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his first epistle\nto Timothy, he mentions \"_menstealers_,\" which word may be translated\n\"_slavedealers_.\" But you may say, we all despise slavedealers as much\nas any one can; they are never admitted into genteel or respectable\nsociety. And why not? Is it not because even you shrink back from the\nidea of associating with those who make their fortunes by trading in the\nbodies and souls of men, women, and children? whose daily work it is to\nbreak human hearts, by tearing wives from their husbands, and children\nfrom their parents? But why hold slavedealers as despicable, if their\ntrade is lawful and virtuous? and why despise them more than the\n_gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents?\nWhy more than the _professors of religion_ who barter their\nfellow-professors to them for gold and silver? We do not despise the\nland agent, or the physician, or the merchant, and why? Simply because\ntheir processions are virtuous and honorable; and if the trade of\nmen-jobbers was honorable, you would not despise them either. There is\nno difference in _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the\ndespised slavedealer and the _Christian_ who buys slaves from, or sells\nslaves to him; indeed, if slaves were not wanted by the respectable, the\nwealthy, and the religious in a community, there would be no slaves in\nthat community, and of course no _slavedealers_. It is then the\n_Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are\nthe _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch.\nIt is the _most enlightened_, in every country who are _most_ to blame\nwhen any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says,\n\"_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on\n_Jerusalem_, (then) I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the\nking of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.\" And was it not so?\nOpen the historical records of that age, was not Israel carried into\ncaptivity B.C. 721, Judah B.C. 588, and the stout heart of the heathen\nmonarchy not punished until B.C. 536, fifty-two years _after_ Judah's,\nand 185 years, _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by\nCyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, \"judgment\nmust _begin at the house of God_.\" Surely this would not be the case, if\nthe _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame.\n\nBut it may be asked, why are _they_ most culpable? I will tell you, my\nfriends. It is because sin is imputed to us just in proportion to the\nspiritual light we receive. Thus the prophet Amos says, in the name of\nJehovah, \"_You only_ have I known of all the families of the earth:\n_therefore_ I will punish _you_ for all your iniquities.\" Hear too the\ndoctrine of our Lord on this important subject: \"The servant who _knew_\nhis Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his\nwill, shall be beaten with _many stripes_:\" and why? \"For unto\nwhomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to\nwhom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_.\" Oh!\nthen that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in\ntheir hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon\nthem_ at this important crisis.\n\nI have thus, I think, clearly proved to you seven propositions, viz.:\nFirst, that slavery is contrary to the declaration of our independence.\nSecond, that it is contrary to the first charter of human rights given\nto Adam, and renewed to Noah. Third, that the fact of slavery having\nbeen the subject of prophecy, furnishes _no_ excuse whatever to\nslaveholders. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal\ndispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish\ndispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under\nthe _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all\n_involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth,\nthat slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a \"chattel\npersonal,\" _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters\nboth his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural\nand unreasonable power, whilst it _throws him out_ of the protection of\nlaw. Seventh, that slavery is contrary to the example and precepts of\nour holy and merciful Redeemer, and of his apostles.\n\nBut perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to _women_ on this\nsubject? _We_ do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. _No_\nlegislative power is vested in _us; we_ can do nothing to overthrow the\nsystem, even if we wished to do so. To this I reply, I know you do not\nmake the laws, but I also know that _you are the wives and mothers, the\nsisters and daughters of those who do_; and if you really suppose _you_\ncan do nothing to overthrow slavery, you are greatly mistaken. You can\ndo much in every way: four things I will name. 1st. You can read on this\nsubject. 2d. You can pray over this subject. 3d. You can speak on this\nsubject. 4th. You can act on this subject. I have not placed reading\nbefore praying because I regard it more important, but because, in order\nto pray right, we must understand what we are praying for; it is only\nthen we can \"pray with the understanding and the spirit also.\"\n\n1. Read then on the subject of slavery. Search the Scriptures daily,\nwhether the things I have told you are true. Other books and papers\nmight be a great help to you in this investigation, but they are not\nnecessary, and it is hardly probable that your Committees of Vigilance\nwill allow you to have any other. The _Bible_ then is the book I want\nyou to read in the spirit of inquiry, and the spirit of prayer. Even the\nenemies of Abolitionists, acknowledge that their doctrines are drawn\nfrom it. In the great mob in Boston, last autumn, when the books and\npapers of the Anti-Slavery Society, were thrown out of the windows of\ntheir office, one individual laid hold of the Bible and was about\ntossing it out to the crowd, when another reminded him that it was the\nBible he had in his hand. _\"Oh! 'tis all one,\"_ he replied, and out went\nthe sacred volume, along with the rest. We thank him for the\nacknowledgment. _Yes, \"it is all one,\"_ for our books and papers are\nmostly commentaries on the Bible, and the Declaration. Read the _Bible_\nthen; it contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life.\nJudge for yourselves whether _he sanctioned_ such a system of oppression\nand crime.\n\n2. Pray over this subject. When you have entered into your closets, and\nshut to the doors, then pray to your father, who seeth in secret, that\nhe would open your eyes to see whether slavery is _sinful_, and if it\nis, that he would enable you to bear a faithful, open and unshrinking\ntestimony against it, and to do whatsoever your hands find to do,\nleaving the consequences entirely to him, who still says to us whenever\nwe try to reason away duty from the fear of consequences, _\"What is that\nto thee, follow thou me.\"_ Pray also for the poor slave, that he may be\nkept patient and submissive under his hard lot, until God is pleased to\nopen the door of freedom to him without violence or bloodshed. Pray too\nfor the master that his heart may be softened, and he made willing to\nacknowledge, as Joseph's brethren did, \"Verily we are guilty concerning\nour brother,\" before he will be compelled to add in consequence of\nDivine judgment, \"therefore is all this evil come upon us.\" Pray also\nfor all your brethren and sisters who are laboring in the righteous\ncause of Emancipation in the Northern States, England and the world.\nThere is great encouragement for prayer in these words of our Lord.\n\"Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in any name, he will give it to\nyou\"--Pray then without ceasing, in the closet and the social circle.\n\n3. Speak on this subject. It is through the tongue, the pen, and the\npress, that truth is principally propagated. Speak then to your\nrelatives, your friends, your acquaintances on the subject of slavery;\nbe not afraid if you are conscientiously convinced it is _sinful_, to\nsay so openly, but calmly, and to let your sentiments be known. If you\nare served by the slaves of others, try to ameliorate their condition as\nmuch as possible; never aggravate their faults, and thus add fuel to the\nfire of anger already kindled, in a master and mistress's bosom;\nremember their extreme ignorance, and consider them as your Heavenly\nFather does the _less_ culpable on this account, even when they do wrong\nthings. Discountenance _all_ cruelty to them, all starvation, all\ncorporal chastisement; these may brutalize and _break_ their spirits,\nbut will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible,\nsee that they are comfortably and _seasonably_ fed, whether in the house\nor the field; it is unreasonable and cruel to expect slaves to wait for\ntheir breakfast until eleven o'clock, when they rise at five or six. Do\nall you can, to induce their owners to clothe them well, and to allow\nthem many little indulgences which would contribute to their comfort.\nAbove all, try to persuade your husband, father, brothers and sons, that\n_slavery is a crime against God and man_, and that it is a great sin to\nkeep _human beings_ in such abject ignorance; to deny them the privilege\nof learning to read and write. The Catholics are universally condemned,\nfor denying the Bible to the common people, but, _slaveholders must not_\nblame them, for _they_ are doing the _very same thing_, and for the very\nsame reason, neither of these systems can bear the light which bursts\nfrom the pages of that Holy Book. And lastly, endeavour to inculcate\nsubmission on the part of the slaves, but whilst doing this be faithful\nin pleading the cause of the oppressed.\n\n\n  \"Will _you_ behold unheeding,\n    Life's holiest feelings crushed,\n  Where _woman's_ heart is bleeding,\n    Shall _woman's_ voice be hushed?\"\n\n\n4. Act on this subject. Some of you _own_ slaves yourselves. If you\nbelieve slavery is _sinful_, set them at liberty, \"undo the heavy\nburdens and let the oppressed go free.\" If they wish to remain with you,\npay them wages, if not, let them leave you. Should they remain, teach\nthem, and have them taught the common branches of an English education;\nthey have minds, and those minds _ought to be improved_. So precious a\ntalent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a napkin and buried\nin the earth. It is the _duty_ of all, as far as they can, to improve\ntheir own mental faculties, because we are commanded to love God with\n_all our minds_, as well as with all our hearts, and we commit a great\nsin, if we _forbid or prevent_ that cultivation of the mind in others,\nwhich would enable them to perform this duty. Teach your servants, then,\nto read, &c., and encourage them to believe it is their _duty_ to learn,\nif it were only that they might read the Bible.\n\nBut some of you will say, we can neither free our slaves nor teach them\nto read, for the laws of our state forbid it. Be not surprised when I\nsay such wicked laws _ought to be no barrier_ in the way of your duty,\nand I appeal to the Bible to prove this position. What was the conduct\nof Shiprah and Puah, when the king of Egypt issued his cruel mandate,\nwith regard to the Hebrew children? \"_They_ feared _God_, and did _not_\nas the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.\"\nAnd be it remembered, that it was through _their_ faithfulness that\nMoses was preserved. This great and immediate emancipator was indebted\nto a _woman_ for his spared life, and he became a blessing to the whole\nJewish nation. Did these _women_ do right in disobeying that monarch?\n\"_Therefore_ (says the sacred text,) _God dealt well_ with them, and\nmade them houses\" Ex. i. What was the conduct of Shadrach, Meshach, and\nAbednego, when Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden image in the plain of\nDura, and commanded all people, nations, and languages, to fall down and\nworship it? \"Be it known, unto thee, (said these faithful _Jews_) O\nking, that _we will not_ serve thy gods, nor worship the image which\nthou hast set up.\" Did these men _do right in disobeying the law_ of\ntheir sovereign? Let their miraculous deliverance from the burning fiery\nfurnace, answer; Dan. iii. What was the conduct of Daniel, when Darius\nmade a firm decree that no one should ask a petition of any man or God\nfor thirty days? Did the prophet cease to pray? No! \"When Daniel _knew\nthat the writing was signed_, he went into his house, and his windows\nbeing _open_ towards Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a\nday, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.\"\nDid Daniel do right thus to _break_ the law of his king? Let his\nwonderful deliverance out of the mouths of the lions answer; Dan. vii.\nLook, too, at the Apostles Peter and John. When the rulers of the Jews,\n\"_commanded them not_ to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus,\"\nwhat did they say? \"Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken\nunto you more than unto God, judge ye.\" And what did they do? \"They\nspake the word of God with boldness, and with great power gave the\nApostles witness of the _resurrection_ of the Lord Jesus;\" although\n_this_ was the very doctrine, for the preaching of which, they had just\nbeen cast into prison, and further threatened. Did these men do right? I\nleave _you_ to answer, who now enjoy the benefits of their labors and\nsufferings, in that Gospel they dared to preach when positively\ncommanded _not to teach any more_ in the name of Jesus; Acts iv.\n\nBut some of you may say, if we do free our slaves, they will be taken up\nand sold, therefore there will be no use in doing it. Peter and John\nmight just as well have said, we will not preach the gospel, for if we\ndo, we shall be taken up and put in prison, therefore there will be no\nuse in our preaching. _Consequences_, my friends, belong no more to\n_you_, than they did to these apostles. Duty is ours and events are\nGod's. If you think slavery is sinful, all _you_ have to do is to set\nyour slaves at liberty, do all you can to protect them, and in humble\nfaith and fervent prayer, commend them to your common Father. He can\ntake care of them; but if for wise purposes he sees fit to allow them to\nbe sold, this will afford you an opportunity of testifying openly,\nwherever you go, against the crime of _manstealing_. Such an act will be\n_clear robbery_, and if exposed, might, under the Divine direction, do\nthe cause of Emancipation more good, than any thing that could happen,\nfor, \"He makes even the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder of\nwrath he will restrain.\"\n\nI know that this doctrine of obeying _God_, rather than man, will be\nconsidered as dangerous, and heretical by many, but I am not afraid\nopenly to avow it, because it is the doctrine of the Bible; but I would\nnot be understood to advocate resistance to any law however oppressive,\nif, in obeying it, I was not obliged to commit _sin_. If for instance,\nthere was a law, which imposed imprisonment or a fine upon me if I\nmanumitted a slave, I would on no account resist that law, I would set\nthe slave free, and then go to prison or suffer the penalty. If a law\ncommands me to _sin I will break it_; if it calls me to _suffer_, I will\nlet it take its course _unresistingly_. The doctrine of blind obedience\nand unqualified submission to _any human_ power, whether civil or\necclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought to have no place\namong Republicans and Christians.\n\nBut you will perhaps say, such a course of conduct would inevitably\nexpose us to great suffering. Yes! my christian friends, I believe it\nwould, but this will _not_ excuse you or any one else for the neglect of\n_duty_. If Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and Reformers had not been\nwilling to suffer for the truth's sake, where would the world have been\nnow? If they had said, we cannot speak the truth, we cannot do what we\nbelieve is right, because the _laws of our country or public opinion are\nagainst us_, where would our holy religion have been now? The Prophets\nwere stoned, imprisoned, and killed by the Jews. And why? Because they\nexposed and openly rebuked public sins; they opposed public opinion; had\nthey held their peace, they all might have lived in ease and died in\nfavor with a wicked generation. Why were the Apostles persecuted from\ncity to city, stoned, incarcerated, beaten, and crucified? Because they\ndared to _speak the truth_; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly,\nthat _they_ were the _murderers_ of the Lord of Glory, and that, however\ngreat a stumbling-block the Cross might be to them, there was no other\nname given under heaven by which men could be saved, but the name of\nJesus. Because they declared, even at Athens, the seat of learning and\nrefinement, the self-evident truth, that \"they be no gods that are made\nwith men's hands\", and exposed to the Grecians the foolishness of\nworldly wisdom, and the impossibility of salvation but through Christ,\nwhom they despised on account of the ignominious death he died. Because\nat Rome, the proud mistress of the world, they thundered out the terrors\nof the law upon that idolatrous, war-making, and slave-holding\ncommunity. Why were the martyrs stretched upon the rack, gibbetted and\nburnt, the scorn and diversion of a Nero, whilst their tarred and\nburning bodies sent up a light which illuminated the Roman capital? Why\nwere the Waldenses hunted like wild beasts upon the mountains of\nPiedmont, and slain with the sword of the Duke of Savoy and the proud\nmonarch of France? Why were the Presbyterians chased like the partridge\nover the highlands of Scotland--the Methodists pumped, and stoned, and\npelted with rotten eggs--the Quakers incarcerated in filthy prisons,\nbeaten, whipped at the cart's tail, banished and hung? Because they\ndared to _speak_ the _truth_, to _break_ the unrighteous _laws_ of their\ncountry, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God,\n\"not accepting deliverance,\" even under the gallows. Why were Luther and\nCalvin persecuted and excommunicated, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer\nburnt? Because they fearlessly proclaimed the truth, though that truth\nwas contrary to public opinion, and the authority of Ecclesiastical\ncouncils and conventions. Now all this vast amount of human suffering\nmight have been saved. All these Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and\nReformers, might have lived and died in peace with all men, but\nfollowing the example of their great pattern, \"they despised the shame,\nendured the cross, and are now set down on the right hand of the throne\nof God,\" having received the glorious welcome of \"well _done_ good and\nfaithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord.\"\n\nBut you may say we are _women_, how can _our_ hearts endure persecution?\nAnd why not? Have not _women_ arisen in all the dignity and strength of\nmoral courage to be the leaders of the people, and to bear a faithful\ntestimony for the truth whenever the providence of God has called them\nto do so? Are there no _women_ in that noble army of martyrs who are now\nsinging the song of Moses and the Lamb? Who led out the women of Israel\nfrom the house of bondage, striking the timbrel, and singing the song of\ndeliverance on the banks of that sea whose waters stood up like walls of\ncrystal to open a passage for their escape? It was a _woman_; Miriam,\nthe prophetess, the sister of Moses and Aaron. Who went up with Barak to\nKadesh to fight against Jabin, King of Canaan, into whose hand Israel\nhad been sold because of their iniquities? It was a _woman_! Deborah the\nwife of Lapidoth, the judge, as well as the prophetess of that\nbacksliding people; Judges iv, 9. Into whose hands was Sisera, the\ncaptain of Jabin's host delivered? Into the hand of a _woman_. Jael the\nwife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to _speak the truth_ concerning\nthose judgments which were coming upon Judea, when Josiah, alarmed at\nfinding that his people \"had not kept the word of the Lord to do after\nall that was written in the book of the Law,\" sent to enquire of the\nLord concerning these things? It was a _woman_. Huldah the prophetess,\nthe wife of Shallum; 2, Chron. xxxiv, 22. Who was chosen to deliver the\nwhole Jewish nation from that murderous decree of Persia's King, which\nwicked Haman had obtained by calumny and fraud? It was a _woman_; Esther\nthe Queen; yes, weak and trembling _woman_ was the instrument appointed\nby God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern monarch, and save\nthe _whole visible church_ from destruction. What human voice first\nproclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother of our Lord? It was a\n_woman_! Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias; Luke i, 42, 43. Who united\nwith the good old Simeon in giving thanks publicly in the temple, when\nthe child, Jesus, was presented there by his parents, \"and spake of him\nto all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem?\" It was a _woman_!\nAnna the prophetess. Who first proclaimed Christ as the true Messiah in\nthe streets of Samaria, once the capital of the ten tribes? It was a\n_woman_! Who ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised\nand persecuted Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were\n_women_! Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his fainting\nfootsteps trod the road to Calvary? \"A great company of people and of\n_women_;\" and it is remarkable that to _them alone_, he turned and\naddressed the pathetic language, \"Daughters of Jerusalem weep not for\nme, but weep for yourselves and your children.\" Ah! who sent unto the\nRoman Governor when he was set down on the judgment seat, saying unto\nhim, \"Have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered\nmany things this day in a dream because of him?\" It was a _woman_! the\nwife of Pilate. Although \"_he knew_ that for envy the Jews had delivered\nChrist,\" yet _he_ consented to surrender the Son of God into the hands\nof a brutal soldiery, after having himself scourged his naked body. Had\nthe _wife_ of Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, what would have been\nthe result of the trial of this \"just person?\"\n\nAnd who last hung round the cross of Jesus on the mountain of Golgotha?\nWho first visited the sepulchre early in the morning on the first day of\nthe week, carrying sweet spices to embalm his precious body, not knowing\nthat it was incorruptible and could not be holden by the bands of death?\nThese were _women_! To whom did he _first_ appear after his\nresurrection? It was to a _woman_! Mary Magdalene; Mark xvi, 9. Who\ngathered with the apostles to wait at Jerusalem, in prayer and\nsupplication, for \"the promise of the Father;\" the spiritual blessing of\nthe Great High Priest of his Church, who had entered, _not_ into the\nsplendid temple of Solomon, there to offer the blood of bulls, and of\ngoats, and the smoking censer upon the golden altar, but into Heaven\nitself, there to present his intercessions, after having \"given himself\nfor us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor?\"\n_Women_ were among that holy company; Acts i, 14. And did _women_ wait\nin vain? Did those who had ministered to his necessities, followed in\nhis train, and wept at his crucifixion, wait in vain? No! No! Did the\ncloven tongues of fire descend upon the heads of _women_ as well as men?\nYes, my friends, \"it sat upon _each one of them_;\" Acts ii, 3. _Women_\nas well as men were to be living stones in the temple of grace, and\ntherefore _their_ heads were consecrated by the descent of the Holy\nGhost as well as those of men. Were _women_ recognized as fellow\nlaborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his epistle to the\nPhilippians, \"help those _women_ who labored with me, in the gospel;\"\nPhil. iv, 3.\n\nBut this is not all. Roman _women_ were burnt at the stake, _their_\ndelicate limbs were torn joint from joint by the ferocious beasts of the\nAmpitheatre, and tossed by the wild bull in his fury, for the diversion\nof that idolatrous, warlike, and slaveholding people. Yes, _women_\nsuffered under the ten persecutions of heathen Rome, with the most\nunshrinking constancy and fortitude; not all the entreaties of friends,\nnor the claims of new born infancy, nor the cruel threats of enemies\ncould make _them_ sprinkle one grain of incense upon the altars of Roman\nidols. Come now with me to the beautiful valleys of Piedmont. Whose\nblood stains the green sward, and decks the wild flowers with colors not\ntheir own, and smokes on the sword of persecuting France? It is\n_woman's_, as well as man's? Yes, _women_ were accounted as sheep for\nthe slaughter, and were cut down as the tender saplings of the wood.\n\nBut time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands of\n_women_, who perished in the Low countries of Holland, when Alva's sword\nof vengeance was unsheathed against the Protestants, when the Catholic\nInquisitions of Europe became the merciless executioners of vindictive\nwrath, upon those who dared to worship God, instead of bowing down in\nunholy adoration before \"my Lord God the _Pope_,\" and when England, too,\nburnt her Ann Ascoes at the stake of martyrdom. Suffice it to say, that\nthe Church, after having been driven from Judea to Rome, and from Rome\nto Piedmont, and from Piedmont to England, and from England to Holland,\nat last stretched her fainting wings over the dark bosom of the\nAtlantic, and found on the shores of a great wilderness, a refuge from\ntyranny and oppression--as she thought, but _even here_, (the warm blush\nof shame mantles my cheek as I write it,) _even here, woman_ was beaten\nand banished, imprisoned, and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the\nCross. And what, I would ask in conclusion, have _women_ done for the\ngreat and glorious cause of Emancipation? Who wrote that pamphlet which\nmoved the heart of Wilberforce to pray over the wrongs, and his tongue\nto plead the cause of the oppressed African? It was a _woman_, Elizabeth\nHeyrick. Who labored assiduously to keep the sufferings of the slave\ncontinually before the British public? They were _women_. And how did\nthey do it? By their needles, paint brushes and pens, by speaking the\ntruth, and petitioning Parliament for the abolition of slavery. And what\nwas the effect of their labors? Read it in the Emancipation bill of\nGreat Britain. Read it, in the present state of her West India Colonies.\nRead it, in the impulse which has been given to the cause of freedom, in\nthe United States of America. Have English women then done so much for\nthe negro, and shall American women do nothing? Oh no! Already are there\nsixty female Anti-Slavery Societies in operation. These are doing just\nwhat the English women did, telling the story of the colored man's\nwrongs, praying for his deliverance, and presenting his kneeling image\nconstantly before the public eye on bags and needle-books, card-racks,\npen-wipers, pin-cushions, &c. Even the children of the north are\ninscribing on their handy work, \"May the points of our needles prick the\nslaveholder's conscience.\" Some of the reports of these Societies\nexhibit not only considerable talent, but a deep sense of religious\nduty, and a determination to persevere through evil as well as good\nreport, until every scourge, and every shackle, is buried under the feet\nof the manumitted slave.\n\nThe Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society of Boston was called last fall, to a\nsevere trial of their faith and constancy. They were mobbed by \"the\ngentlemen of property and standing,\" in that city at their anniversary\nmeeting, and their lives were jeoparded by an infuriated crowd; but\ntheir conduct on that occasion did credit to our sex, and affords a full\nassurance that they will _never_ abandon the cause of the slave. The\npamphlet, Right and Wrong in Boston, issued by them in which a\nparticular account is given of that \"mob of broad cloth in broad day,\"\ndoes equal credit to the head and the heart of her who wrote it. I wish\nmy Southern sisters could read it; they would then understand that the\nwomen of the North have engaged in this work from a sense of _religious\nduty_, and that nothing will ever induce them to take their hands from\nit until it is fully accomplished. They feel no hostility to you, no\nbitterness or wrath; they rather sympathize in your trials and\ndifficulties; but they well know that the first thing to be done to help\nyou, is to pour in the light of truth on your minds, to urge you to\nreflect on, and pray over the subject. This is all _they_ can do for\nyou, _you_ must work out your own deliverance with fear and trembling,\nand with the direction and blessing of God, _you can do it_. Northern\nwomen may labor to produce a correct public opinion at the North, but if\nSouthern women sit down in listless indifference and criminal idleness,\npublic opinion cannot be rectified and purified at the South. It is\nmanifest to every reflecting mind, that slavery must be abolished; the\nera in which we live, and the light which is overspreading the whole\nworld on this subject, clearly show that the time cannot be distant when\nit will be done. Now there are only two ways in which it can be\neffected, by moral power or physical force, and it is for _you_ to\nchoose which of these you prefer. Slavery always has, and always will\nproduce insurrections wherever it exists, because it is a violation of\nthe natural order of things, and no human power can much longer\nperpetuate it. The opposers of abolitionists fully believe this; one of\nthem remarked to me not long since, there is no doubt there will be a\nmost terrible overturning at the South in a few years, such cruelty and\nwrong, must be visited with Divine vengeance soon. Abolitionists\nbelieve, too, that this must inevitably be the case if you do not\nrepent, and they are not willing to leave you to perish without\nentreating you, to save yourselves from destruction; well may they say\nwith the apostle, \"am I then your enemy because I tell you the truth,\"\nand warn you to flee from impending judgments.\n\nBut why, my dear friends, have I thus been endeavoring to lead you\nthrough the history of more than three thousand years, and to point you\nto that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before, \"from works to\nrewards?\" Have I been seeking to magnify the sufferings, and exalt the\ncharacter of woman, that she \"might have praise of men?\" No! no! my\nobject has been to arouse _you_, as the wives and mothers, the daughters\nand sisters, of the South, to a sense of your duty as _women_, and as\nChristian women, on that great subject, which has already shaken our\ncountry, from the St. Lawrence and the lakes, to the Gulf of Mexico, and\nfrom the Mississippi to the shores of the Atlantic; _and will continue\nmightily to shake it_, until the polluted temple of slavery fall and\ncrumble into ruin. I would say unto each one of you, \"what meanest thou,\nO sleeper! arise and call upon thy God, if so be that God will think\nupon us that we perish not.\" Perceive you not that dark cloud of\nvengeance which hangs over our boasting Republic? Saw you not the\nlightnings of Heaven's wrath, in the flame which leaped from the\nIndian's torch to the roof of yonder dwelling, and lighted with its\nhorrid glare the darkness of midnight? Heard you not the thunders of\nDivine anger, as the distant roar of the cannon came rolling onward,\nfrom the Texian country, where Protestant American Rebels are fighting\nwith Mexican Republicans--for what? For the re-establishment of\n_slavery_; yes! of American slavery in the bosom of a Catholic Republic,\nwhere that system of robbery, violence, and wrong, had been legally\nabolished for twelve years. Yes! citizens of the United States, after\nplundering Mexico of her land, are now engaged in deadly conflict, for\nthe privilege of fastening chains, and collars, and manacles--upon whom?\nupon the subjects of some foreign prince? No! upon native born American\nRepublican citizens, although the fathers of these very men declared to\nthe whole world, while struggling to free themselves from the three\npenny taxes of an English king, that they believed it to be a\n_self-evident_ truth that _all men_ were created equal, and had an\n_unalienable right to liberty_.\n\nWell may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm,\n\n\n  \"The fustian flag that proudly waves\n  In solemn mockery o'er _a land of slaves_.\"\n\n\nCan you not, my friends, understand the signs of the times; do you not\nsee the sword of retributive justice hanging over the South, or are you\nstill slumbering at your posts?--Are there no Shiphrahs, no Puahs among\nyou, who will dare in Christian firmness and Christian meekness, to\nrefuse to obey the _wicked laws_ which require _woman to enslave, to\ndegrade and to brutalize woman_? Are there no Miriams, who would rejoice\nto lead out the captive daughters of the Southern States to liberty and\nlight? Are there no Huldahs there who will dare to _speak the truth_\nconcerning the sins of the people and those judgments, which it requires\nno prophet's eye to see, must follow if repentance is not speedily\nsought? Is there no Esther among you who will plead for the poor devoted\nslave? Read the history of this Persian queen, it is full of\ninstruction; she at first refused to plead for the Jews; but, hear the\nwords of Mordecai, \"Think not within thyself, that _thou_ shalt escape\nin the king's house more than all the Jews, for _if thou altogether\nholdest thy peace at this time_, then shall there enlargement and\ndeliverance arise to the Jews from another place: but _thou and thy\nfather's house shall be destroyed_.\" Listen, too, to her magnanimous\nreply to this powerful appeal; \"_I will_ go in unto the king, which is\n_not_ according to law, and if I perish, I perish.\" Yes! if there were\nbut _one_ Esther at the South, she _might_ save her country from ruin;\nbut let the Christian women there arise, as the Christian women of Great\nBritain did, in the majesty of moral power, and that salvation is\ncertain. Let them embody themselves in societies, and send petitions up\nto their different legislatures, entreating their husbands, fathers,\nbrothers and sons, to abolish the institution of slavery; no longer to\nsubject _woman_ to the scourge and the chain, to mental darkness and\nmoral degradation; no longer to tear husbands from their wives, and\nchildren from their parents; no longer to make men, women, and children,\nwork _without wages_; no longer to make their lives bitter in hard\nbondage; no longer to reduce _American citizens_ to the abject condition\nof _slaves_, of \"chattels personal;\" no longer to barter the _image of\nGod_ in human shambles for corruptible things such as silver and gold.\n\nThe _women of the South can overthrow_ this horrible system of\noppression and cruelty, licentiousness and wrong. Such appeals to your\nlegislatures would be irresistible, for there is something in the heart\nof man which _will bend under moral suasion_. There is a swift witness\nfor truth in his bosom, which _will respond to truth_ when it is uttered\nwith calmness and dignity. If you could obtain but six signatures to\nsuch a petition in only one state, I would say, send up that petition,\nand be not in the least discouraged by the scoffs and jeers of the\nheartless, or the resolution of the house to lay it on the table. It\nwill be a great thing if the subject can be introduced into your\nlegislatures in any way, even by _women_, and _they_ will be the most\nlikely to introduce it there in the best possible manner, as a matter of\n_morals_ and _religion_, not of expediency or politics. You may\npetition, too, the different ecclesiastical bodies of the slave states.\nSlavery must be attacked with the whole power of truth and the sword of\nthe spirit. You must take it up on _Christian_ ground, and fight against\nit with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with the\npreparation of the gospel of peace. And _you are now_ loudly called upon\nby the cries of the widow and the orphan, to arise and gird yourselves\nfor this great moral conflict \"with the whole armour of righteousness on\nthe right hand and on the left.\"\n\nThere is every encouragement for you to labor and pray, my friends,\nbecause the abolition of slavery as well as its existence, has been the\ntheme of prophecy. \"Ethiopia (says the Psalmist) shall stretch forth her\nhands unto God.\" And is she not now doing so? Are not the Christian\nnegroes of the south lifting their hands in prayer for deliverance, just\nas the Israelites did when their redemption was drawing nigh? Are they\nnot sighing and crying by reason of the hard bondage? And think you,\nthat He, of whom it was said, \"and God heard their groaning, and their\ncry came up unto him by reason of the hard bondage,\" think you that his\near is heavy that he cannot _now_ hear the cries of his suffering\nchildren? Or that He who raised up a Moses, an Aaron, and a Miriam, to\nbring them up out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage, cannot\nnow, with a high hand and a stretched out arm, rid the poor negroes out\nof the hands of their masters? Surely you believe that his arm is _not_\nshortened that he cannot save. And would not such a work of mercy\nredound to his glory? But another string of the harp of prophecy\nvibrates to the song of deliverance: \"But they shall sit every man under\nhis vine, and under his fig-tree, and _none shall make them afraid_; for\nthe mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it.\" The _slave_ never can do\nthis as long as he is a _slave_; whilst he is a \"chattel personal\" he\ncan own _no_ property; but the time _is to come_ when _every_ man is to\nsit under _his own_ vine and _his own_ fig-tree, and no domineering\ndriver, or irresponsible master, or irascible mistress, shall make him\nafraid of the chain or the whip. Hear, too, the sweet tones of another\nstring: \"Many shall run to and fro, and _knowledge_ shall be increased.\"\nSlavery is an insurmountable barrier to the increase of knowledge in\nevery community where it exists; _slavery, then, must be abolished\nbefore_ this prediction can be fulfilled. The last chord I shall touch,\nwill be this, \"They shall _not_ hurt nor destroy in all my holy\nmountain.\"\n\n_Slavery, then, must be overthrown before_ the prophecies can be\naccomplished, but how are they to be fulfilled? Will the wheels of the\nmillennial car be rolled onward by miraculous power? No! God designs to\nconfer this holy privilege upon _woman_; it is through _their_\ninstrumentality that the great and glorious work of reforming the world\nis to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of _moral power_ is\ndragging in its rear the Bible and peace societies, anti-slavery and\ntemperance, sabbath schools, moral reform, and missions? or to adopt\nanother figure, do not these seven philanthropic associations compose\nthe beautiful tints in that bow of promise which spans the arch of our\nmoral heaven? Who does not believe, that if these societies were broken\nup, their constitutions burnt, and the vast machinery with which they\nare laboring to regenerate mankind was stopped, that the black clouds of\nvengeance would soon, burst over our world, and every city would witness\nthe fate of the devoted cities of the plain? Each one of these societies\nis walking abroad through the earth scattering the seeds of truth over\nthe wide field of our world, not with the hundred hands of a Briareus,\nbut with a hundred thousand.\n\nAnother encouragement for you to labor, my friends, is, that you will\nhave the prayers and co-operation of English and Northern\nphilanthropists. You will never bend your knees in supplication at the\nthrone of grace for the overthrow of slavery, without meeting there the\nspirits of other Christians, who will mingle their voices with yours, as\nthe morning or evening sacrifice ascends to God. Yes, the spirit of\nprayer and of supplication has been poured out upon many, many hearts;\nthere are wrestling Jacobs who will not let go of the prophetic promises\nof deliverance for the captive, and the opening, of prison doors to them\nthat are bound. There are Pauls who are saying, in reference to this\nsubject, \"Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?\" There are Marys sitting\nin the house now, who are ready to arise and go forth in this work as\nsoon as the message is brought, \"the master is come and calleth for\nthee.\" And there are Marthas, too, who have already gone out to meet\nJesus, as he bends his footsteps to their brother's grave, and weeps,\n_not_ over the lifeless body of Lazarus bound hand and foot in\ngrave-clothes, but over the politically and intellectually lifeless\nslave, bound hand and foot in the iron chains of oppression and\nignorance. Some may be ready to say, as Martha did, who seemed to expect\nnothing but sympathy from Jesus, \"Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he\nhath been dead four days.\" She thought it useless to remove the stone\nand expose the loathsome body of her brother; she could not believe that\nso great a miracle could be wrought, as to raise _that putrified body_\ninto life; but \"Jesus said, take _ye_ away the stone;\" and when _they_\nhad taken away the stone where the dead was laid, and uncovered the body\nof Lazarus, then it was that \"Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father,\nI thank thee that thou hast heard me,\" &c. \"And when he had thus spoken,\nhe cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.\" Yes, some may be ready\nto say of the colored race, how can _they_ ever be raised politically\nand intellectually, they have been dead four hundred years? But _we_\nhave _nothing_ to do with _how_ this is to be done; _our business_ is to\ntake away the stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother,\nto expose the putrid carcass, to show _how_ that body has been bound\nwith the grave-clothes of heathen ignorance, and his face with the\nnapkin of prejudice, and having done all it was our duty to do, to stand\nby the negro's grave, in humble faith and holy hope, waiting to hear the\nlife-giving command of \"Lazarus, come forth.\" This is just what\nAnti-Slavery Societies are doing; they are taking away the stone from\nthe mouth of the tomb of slavery, where lies the putrid carcass of our\nbrother. They want the pure light of heaven to shine into that dark and\ngloomy cave; they want all men to see _how_ that dead body has been\nbound, _how_ that face has been wrapped in the _napkin of prejudice_;\nand shall they wait beside that grave in vain? Is not Jesus still the\nresurrection and the life? Did He come to proclaim liberty to the\ncaptive, and the opening of prison doors to them that are bound, in\nvain? Did He promise to give beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for\nmourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness unto\nthem that mourn in Zion, and will He refuse to beautify the mind, anoint\nthe head, and throw around the captive negro the mantle of praise for\nthat spirit of heaviness which has so long bowed him down to the ground?\nOr shall we not rather say with the prophet, \"the zeal of the Lord of\nHosts _will_ perform this?\" Yes, his promises are sure, and amen in\nChrist Jesus, that he will assemble her that halteth, and gather her\nthat is driven out, and her that is afflicted.\n\nBut I will now say a few words on the subject of Abolitionism. Doubtless\nyou have all heard Anti-Slavery Societies denounced as insurrectionary\nand mischievous, fanatical and dangerous. It has been said they publish\nthe most abominable untruths, and that they are endeavoring to excite\nrebellions at the South. Have you believed these reports, my friends?\nhave _you_ also been deceived by these false assertions? Listen to me,\nthen, whilst I endeavor to wipe from the fair character of Abolitionism\nsuch unfounded accusations. You know that _I_ am a Southerner: your know\nthat my dearest relatives are now in a slave State. Can you for a moment\nbelieve I would prove so recreant to the feelings of a daughter and a\nsister, as to join a society which seeking to overthrow slavery by\nfalsehood, bloodshed and murder? I appeal to you who have known and\nloved me in days that are passed, can _you_ believe it? No! my friends.\nAs a Carolinian, I was peculiarly jealous of any movements on this\nsubject; and before I would join an Anti-Slavery Society, I took the\nprecaution of becoming acquainted with some of the leading\nAbolitionists, of reading their publications and attending their\nmeetings, at which I heard addresses both from colored and white men;\nand it was not until I was fully convinced that their principles were\n_entirely pacific,_ and their efforts _only moral,_ that I gave my name\nas a member to the Female Anti-Slavery Society of Philadelphia. Since\nthat time, I have regularly taken the Liberator, and read many\nAnti-Slavery pamphlets and papers and books, and can assure you I\n_never_ have seen a single insurrectionary paragraph, and never read any\naccount of cruelty which I could not believe. Southerners may deny the\ntruth of these accounts, but why do they not _prove_ them to be false.\nTheir violent expressions of horror at such accounts being believed,\n_may_ deceive some, but they cannot deceive _me,_ for I lived too long\nin the midst of slavery, not to know what slavery is. Such declarations\nremind me of an assertion made by a Catholic priest, who said that his\nChurch had never persecuted Protestants for their religion, when it is\nwell known that the pages of history are black with the crimes of the\nInquisition. Oh! if the slaves of the South could only write a book, it\nwould vie, I have no doubt, with the horrible details of Catholic\ncruelty. When _I_ speak of this system, \"I speak that I do know,\" and I\nam not afraid to assert, that Anti-Slavery publications have _not_\noverdrawn the monstrous features of slavery at all. And many a\nSoutherner _knows_ this as well as I do. A lady in North Carolina\nremarked to a friend of mine, about eighteen months since, \"Northerners\nknow nothing at all about slavery; they think it is perpetual bondage\nonly; but of the _depth of degradation_ that word involves, they have no\nconception; if they had, _they would never cease_ their efforts until so\n_horrible_ a system was overthrown.\" She did not, know how faithfully\nsome Northern men and Northern women had studied this subject; how\ndiligently they had searched out the cause of \"him who had none to help\nhim,\" and how fearlessly they had told the story of the negro's wrongs.\nYes, Northerners know _every_ thing about slavery now. This monster of\niniquity has been unveiled to the world, his frightful features\nunmasked, and soon, very soon, will he be regarded with no more\ncomplacency by the American republic than is the idol of Juggernaut,\nrolling its bloody wheels over the crushed bodies of its prostrate\nvictims.\n\nBut you will probably ask, if Anti-Slavery societies are not\ninsurrectionary, why do Northerners tell us they are! Why, I would ask\nyou in return, did Northern senators and Northern representatives give\ntheir votes, at the last sitting of congress, to the admission of\nArkansas Territory as a slave state? Take those men, one by one, and ask\nthem in their parlours, do you _approve of slavery?_ ask them on\n_Northern_ ground, where they will speak the truth, and I doubt not\n_every man_ of them will tell you, _no_! Why then, I ask, did _they_\ngive their votes to enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already\ndestroyed its tens of thousands! All our enemies tell _us_ they are as\nmuch anti slavery as we are. Yes, my friends, thousands who are helping\nyou to bind the fetters of slavery on the negro, despise you in their\nhearts for doing it; they rejoice that such an institution has not been\nentailed upon them. Why then, I would ask, do _they_ lend you their\nhelp? I will tell you, \"they love _the praise of men more_ than the\npraise of God.\" The Abolition cause has not yet become so popular as to\ninduce them to believe, that by advocating it in congress, they shall\nsit still more securely in their seats there, and like the _chief\nrulers_ in the days of our Saviour, though _many_ believed on him, yet\nthey did _not_ confess him, lest they should _be put out of the\nsynagogue_; John xii, 42, 43. Or perhaps like Pilate, thinking they\ncould prevail nothing, and fearing a tumult, they determined to release\nBarabbas and surrender the just man, the poor innocent slave to be\nstripped of his rights and scourged. In vain will such men try to wash\ntheir hands, and say, with the Roman governor, \"I am innocent of the\nblood of this just person.\" Northern American statesmen are no more\ninnocent of the crime of slavery, than Pilate was of the murder of\nJesus, or Saul of that of Stephen. These are high charges, but I appeal\nto _their hearts_; I appeal to public opinion ten years from now.\nSlavery then is a national sin.\n\nBut you will say, a great many other Northerners tell us so, who can\nhave no political motives. The interests of the North, you must know, my\nfriends, are very closely combined with those of the South. The Northern\nmerchants and manufacturers are making _their_ fortunes out of the\n_produce of slave labor_; the grocer is selling your rice and sugar; how\nthen can these men bear a testimony against slavery without condemning\nthemselves? But there is another reason, the North is most dreadfully\nafraid of Amalgamation. She is alarmed at the very idea of a thing so\nmonstrous, as she thinks. And lest this consequence _might_ flow from\nemancipation, she is determined to resist all efforts at emancipation\nwithout expatriation. It is not because she _approves of slavery_, or\nbelieves it to be \"the corner stone of our republic,\" for she is as much\n_anti-slavery_ as we are; but amalgamation is too horrible to think of.\nNow I would ask _you_, is it right, is it generous, to refuse the\ncolored people in this country the advantages of education and the\nprivilege, or rather the _right_, to follow honest trades and callings\nmerely because they are colored? The same prejudice exists here against\nour colored brethren that existed against the Gentiles in Judea. Great\nnumbers cannot bear the idea of equality, and fearing lest, if they had\nthe same advantages we enjoy, they would become as intelligent, as\nmoral, as religious, and as respectable and wealthy, they are determined\nto keep them as low as they possibly can. Is this doing as they would be\ndone by? Is this loving their neighbor as _themselves_? Oh! that _such_\nopposers of Abolitionism would put their souls in the stead of the free\ncolored man's and obey the apostolic injunction, to \"remember them that\nare in bonds _as bound with them_.\" I will leave you to judge whether\nthe fear of amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery\nefforts, when _they_ believe _slavery_ to be _sinful_. Prejudice against\ncolor, is the most powerful enemy we have to fight with at the North.\n\nYou need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said _against_\nAbolitionists by the North, for they are wielding a two-edged sword,\nwhich even here, cuts through the _cords of caste_, on the one side, and\nthe _bonds of interest_ on the other. They are only sharing the fate of\nother reformers, abused and reviled whilst they are in the minority; but\nthey are neither angry nor discouraged by the invective which has been\nheaped upon them by slaveholders at the South and their apologists at\nthe North. They know that when George Fox and William Edmundson were\nlaboring in behalf of the negroes in the West Indies in 1671 that the\nvery _same_ slanders were propogated against them, which are _now_\ncirculated against Abolitionists. Although it was well known that Fox\nwas the founder of a religious sect which repudiated _all_ war, and\n_all_ violence, yet _even he_ was accused of \"endeavoring to excite the\nslaves to insurrection and of teaching the negroes to cut their master's\nthroats.\" And these two men who had their feet shod with the preparation\nof the Gospel of Peace, were actually compelled to draw up a formal\ndeclaration that _they were not_ trying to raise a rebellion in\nBarbadoes. It is also worthy of remark that these Reformers did not at\nthis time see the necessity of emancipation under seven years, and their\nprincipal efforts were exerted to persuade the planters of the necessity\nof instructing their slaves; but the slaveholder saw then, just what the\nslaveholder sees now, that an _enlightened_ population _never_ can be a\n_slave_ population, and therefore they passed a law that negroes should\nnot even attend the meetings of Friends. Abolitionists know that the\nlife of Clarkson was sought by slavetraders, and that even Wilberforce\nwas denounced on the floor of Parliament as a fanatic and a hypocrite by\nthe present King of England, the very man who, in 1834 set his seal to\nthat instrument which burst the fetters of eight hundred thousand slaves\nin his West India colonies. They know that the first Quaker who bore a\n_faithful_ testimony against the sin of slavery was cut off from\nreligious fellowship with that society. That Quaker was a _woman_. On\nher deathbed she sent for the committee who dealt with her--she told\nthem, the near approach of death had not altered her sentiments on the\nsubject of slavery and waving her hand towards a very fertile and\nbeautiful portion of country which lay stretched before her window, she\nsaid with great solemnity, \"Friends, the time will come when there will\nnot be friends enough in all this district to hold one meeting for\nworship, and this garden will be turned into a wilderness.\"\n\nThe aged friend, who with tears in his eyes, related this interesting\ncircumstance to me, remarked, that at that time there were seven\nmeetings of friends in that part of Virginia, but that when he was there\nten years ago, not a single meeting was held, and the country was\nliterally a desolation. Soon after her decease, John Woolman began his\nlabors in our society, and instead of disowning a member for testifying\n_against_ slavery, they have for sixty-two years positively forbidden\ntheir members to hold slaves.\n\nAbolitionists understand the slaveholding spirit too well to be\nsurprised at any thing that has yet happened at the South or the North;\nthey know that the greater the sin is, which is exposed, the more\nviolent will be the efforts to blacken the character and impugn the\nmotives of those who are engaged in bringing to light the hidden things\nof darkness. They understand the work of Reform too well to be driven\nback by the furious waves of opposition, which are only foaming out\ntheir own shame. They have stood \"the world's dread laugh,\" when only\ntwelve men formed the first Anti-Slavery Society in Boston in 1831. They\nhave faced and refuted the calumnies of their enemies, and proved\nthemselves to be emphatically _peace men_ by _never resisting_ the\nviolence of mobs, even when driven by them from the temple of God, and\ndragged by an infuriated crowd through the streets of the emporium of\nNew-England, or subjected by _slaveholders_ to the pain of corporal\npunishment. \"None of these things move them;\" and, by the grace of God,\nthey are determined to persevere in this work of faith and labor of\nlove: they mean to pray, and preach, and write, and print, until slavery\nis completely overthrown, until Babylon is taken up and cast into the\nsea, to \"be found no more at all.\" They mean to petition Congress year\nafter year, until the seat of our government is cleansed from the sinful\ntraffic of \"slaves and the souls of men.\" Although that august assembly\nmay be like the unjust judge who \"feared not God neither regarded man,\"\nyet it _must_ yield just as he did, from the power of importunity. Like\nthe unjust judge, Congress _must_ redress the wrongs of the widow, lest\nby the continual coming up of petitions, it be wearied. This will be\nstriking the dagger into the very heart of the monster, and once this\ndone, he must soon expire.\n\nAbolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. Did\nthe prophet Isaiah _abuse_ the Jews when he addressed to them the\ncutting reproof contained in the first chapter of his prophecies, and\nended by telling them, they would be _ashamed_ of the oaks they had\ndesired, and _confounded_ for the garden they had chosen? Did John the\nBaptist _abuse_ the Jews when he called them \"_a generation of vipers_,\"\nand warned them \"to bring forth fruits meet for repentance!\" Did Peter\nabuse the Jews when he told them they were the murderers of the Lord of\nGlory? Did Paul abuse the Roman Governor when he reasoned before him of\nrighteousness, temperance, and judgment, so as to send conviction home\nto his guilty heart, and cause him to tremble in view of the crimes he\nwas living in? Surely not. No man will _now_ accuse the prophets and\napostles of _abuse_, but what have Abolitionists done more than they? No\ndoubt the Jews thought the prophets and apostles in their day, just as\nharsh and uncharitable as slaveholders now, think Abolitionists; if they\ndid not, why did they beat, and stone, and kill them?\n\nGreat fault has been found with the prints which have been employed to\nexpose slavery at the North, but my friends, how could this be done so\neffectively in any other way? Until the pictures of the slave's\nsufferings were drawn and held up to public gaze, no Northerner had any\nidea of the cruelty of the system, it never entered their minds that\nsuch abominations could exist in Christian, Republican America; they\nnever suspected that many of the _gentlemen_ and _ladies_ who came from\nthe South to spend the summer months in traveling among them, were petty\ntyrants at home. And those who had lived at the South, and came to\nreside at the North, were too _ashamed of slavery_ even to speak of it;\nthe language of their hearts was, \"tell it _not_ in Gath, publish it\n_not_ in the streets of Askelon;\" they saw no use in uncovering the\nloathsome body to popular sight, and in hopeless despair, wept in secret\nplaces over the sins of oppression. To such hidden mourners the\nformation of Anti-Slavery Societies was as life from the dead, the first\nbeams of hope which gleamed through the dark clouds of despondency and\ngrief. Prints were made use of to effect the abolition of the\nInquisition in Spain, and Clarkson employed them when he was laboring to\nbreak up the Slave trade, and English Abolitionists used them just as we\nare now doing. They are powerful appeals and have invariably done the\nwork they were designed to do, and we cannot consent to abandon the use\nof these until the _realities_ no longer exist.\n\nWith regard to those white men, who, it was said, did try to raise an\ninsurrection in Mississippi a year ago, and who were stated to be\nAbolitionists, none of them were proved to be members of Anti-Slavery\nSocieties, and it must remain a matter of great doubt whether, even they\nwere guilty of the crimes alledged against them, because when any\ncommunity is thrown into such a panic as to inflict Lynch law upon\naccused persons, they cannot be supposed to be capable of judging with\ncalmness and impartiality. _We know_ that the papers of which the\nCharleston mail was robbed, were _not_ insurrectionary, and that they\nwere _not_ sent to the colored people as was reported. _We know_ that\nAmos Dresser was _no insurrectionist_ though he was accused of being so,\nand on this false accusation was publicly whipped in Nashville in the\nmidst of a crowd of infuriated _slaveholders_. Was that young man\ndisgraced by this infliction of corporal punishment? No more than was\nthe great apostle of the Gentile; who five times received forty stripes,\nsave one. Like him, he might have said, \"henceforth I bear in my body\nthe marks of the Lord Jesus,\" for it was for the _truth's sake, he\nsuffered_, as much as did the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and\nWilliams, and other Abolitionists who have recently been banished from\nMissouri, insurrectionists? _We know_ they are _not_, whatever\nslaveholders may choose to call them. The spirit which now asperses the\ncharacter of the Abolitionists, is the _very same_ which dressed up the\nChristians of Spain in the skins of wild beasts and pictures of devils\nwhen they were led to execution as heretics. Before we condemn\nindividuals, it is necessary, even in a wicked community, to accuse them\nof some crime; hence, when Jezebel wished to compass the death of\nNaboth, men of Belial were suborned to bear false witness against him,\nand so it was with Stephen, and so it ever has been, and ever will be,\nas long as there is any virtue to suffer on the rack, or the gallows.\n_False_ witnesses must appear against Abolitionists before they can be\ncondemned.\n\nI will now say a few words on George Thompson's mission to this country.\nThis Philanthropist was accused of being a foreign emissary. Were\nLafayette, and Steuben, and De Kalb, and Pulawski, foreign emissaries\nwhen they came over to America to fight against the tories, who\npreferred submitting to what was termed, \"the yoke of servitude,\" rather\nthan bursting the fetters which bound them to the mother country? _They_\ncame with _carnal weapons_ to engage in _bloody_ conflict against\nAmerican citizens, and yet, where do their names stand on the page of\nHistory. Among the honorable, or the base? Thompson came here to war\nagainst the giant sin of slavery, _not_ with the sword and the pistol,\nbut with the smooth stones of oratory taken from the pure waters of the\nriver of Truth. His splendid talents and commanding eloquence rendered\nhim a powerful coadjutor in the Anti-Slavery cause, and in order to\nneutralize the effects of these upon his auditors, and rob the poor\nslave of the benefits of his labors, his character was defamed, his life\nwas sought, and he at last driven from our Republic, as a fugitive. But\nwas _Thompson_ disgraced by all this mean and contemptible and wicked\nchicanery and malice? No more than was Paul, when in consequence of a\nvision he had seen at Treas, he went over the Macedonia to help the\nChristians there, and was beaten and imprisoned, because he cast out a\nspirit of divination from a young damsel which had brought much gain to\nher masters. Paul was as much a _foreign emissary_ in the Roman colony\nof Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because he\nwas a _Jew_, and taught customs it was not lawful for them to receive or\nobserve being Romans, that the Apostle was thus treated.\n\nIt was said, Thompson was a felon, who had fled to this country to\nescape transportation to New Holland. Look at him now pouring the\nthundering strains of his eloquence, upon crowded audiences in Great\nBritain, and see in this a triumphant vindication of his character. And\nhave the slaveholder, and his obsequious apologist, gained anything by\nall their violence and falsehood? No! for the stone which struck Goliath\nof Gath, had already been thrown from the sling. The giant of slavery\nwho had so proudly defied the armies of the living God, had received his\ndeath-blow before he left our shores. But what is George Thompson doing\nthere? Is he not now laboring there, as effectually to abolish American\nslavery as though he trod our own soil, and lectured to New York or\nBoston assemblies? What is he doing there, but constructing a stupendous\ndam, which will turn the overwhelming tide of public opinion over the\nwheels of that machinery which Abolitionists are working here. He is now\nlecturing to _Britons_ on _American Slavery_, to the _subjects_ of a\n_King_, on the abject condition of the _slaves of a Republic_. He is\ntelling them of that mighty Confederacy of petty tyrants which extends\nover thirteen States of our Union. He is telling them of the munificent\nrewards offered by slaveholders, for the heads of the most distinguished\nadvocates for freedom in this country. He is moving the British Churches\nto send out to the churches of America the most solemn appeals,\nreproving, rebuking, and exhorting, them with all long suffering and\npatience to abandon the sin of slavery immediately. Where then I ask,\nwill the name of George Thompson stand on the page of History? Among the\nhonorable, or the base?\n\nWhat can I say more, my friends, to induce you to set your hands, and\nheads, and hearts, to the great work of justice and mercy. Perhaps you\nhave feared the consequences of immediate emancipation, and been\nfrightened by all those dreadful prophecies of rebellion, bloodshed and\nmurder, which have been uttered. \"Let no man deceive you;\" they are the\npredictions of that same \"lying spirit\" which spoke through the four\nhundred prophets of old, to Ahab king of Israel, urging him on to\ndestruction. _Slavery_ may produce these horrible scenes if it is\ncontinued five years longer, but Emancipation _never will_.\n\nI can prove the _safety_ of immediate Emancipation by history. In St.\nDomingo in 1793 six hundred thousand slaves were set free in a white\npopulation of forty-two thousand. That Island \"marched as by enchantment\ntowards its ancient splendor\", cultivation prospered, every day produced\nperceptible proofs of its progress, and the negroes all continued\nquietly to work on the different plantations, until in 1802, France\ndetermined to reduce these liberated slaves again to bondage. It was at\n_this time_ that all those dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we\nso often _unjustly_ hear spoken of, as the effects of Abolition. They\nwere occasioned _not_ by Emancipation, but by the base attempt to fasten\nthe chains of slavery on the limbs of liberated slaves.\n\nIn Guadaloupe eighty-five thousand slaves were freed in a white\npopulation of thirteen thousand. The same prosperous effects followed\nmanumission here, that had attended it in Hayti, every thing was quiet\nuntil Buonaparte sent out a fleet to reduce these negroes again to\nslavery, and in 1802 this institution was re-established in that Island.\nIn 1834, when Great Britain determined to liberate the slaves in her\nWest India colonies, and proposed the apprenticeship system; the\nplanters of Bermuda and Antigua, after having joined the other planters\nin their representations of the bloody consequences of Emancipation, in\norder if possible to hold back the hand which was offering the boon of\nfreedom to the poor negro; as soon as they found such falsehoods were\nutterly disregarded, and Abolition must take place, came forward\nvoluntarily, and asked for the compensation which was due to them,\nsaying, _they preferred immediate emancipation_, and were not afraid of\nany insurrection. And how is it with these islands now? They are\ndecidedly more prosperous than any of those on which the apprenticeship\nsystem was adopted, and England is now trying to abolish that system, so\nfully convinced is she that immediate Emancipation is the _safest_ and\nthe best plan.\n\nAnd why not try it in the Southern States, if it _never_ has occasioned\nrebellion; if _not a drop of blood_ has ever been shed in consequence of\nit, though it has been so often tried, why should we suppose it would\nproduce such disastrous consequences now? \"Be not deceived then, God is\nnot mocked,\" by such false excuses for not doing justly and loving\nmercy. There is nothing to fear from immediate Emancipation, but _every\nthing_ from the continuance of slavery.\n\nSisters in Christ, I have done. As a Southerner, I have felt it was my\nduty to address you. I have endeavoured to set before you the exceeding\nsinfulness of slavery, and to point you to the example of those noble\nwomen who have been raised up in the church to effect great revolutions,\nand to suffer for the truth's sake. I have appealed to your sympathies\nas women, to your sense of duty as _Christian women_. I have attempted\nto vindicate the Abolitionists, to prove the entire safety of immediate\nEmancipation, and to plead the cause of the poor and oppressed. I have\ndone--I have sowed the seeds of truth, but I well know, that even if an\nApollos were to follow in my steps to water them, \"_God only_ can give\nthe increase.\" To Him then who is able to prosper the work of his\nservant's hand, I commend this Appeal in fervent prayer, that as he\n\"hath _chosen the weak things of the world_, to confound the things\nwhich are mighty,\" so He may guise His blessing, to descend and carry\nconviction to the hearts of many Lydias through these speaking pages.\nFarewell--Count me not your \"enemy because I have told you the truth,\"\nbut believe me in unfeigned affection,\n\n\n\nYour sympathizing Friend,\n\nANGELINA E. GRIMK\u00c9.\n\nShrewsbury, N.J., 1836.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTHIRD EDITION.\n\nPrice 6 1-4 cents single, 62 1-2 cents per dozen, $4 per hundred.\n\n\nNo. 3.\n\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nLETTER OF GERRIT SMITH\n\nTO\n\nREV. JAMES SMYLIE,\n\nOF THE\n\nSTATE OF MISSISSIPPI.\n\n\n1837.\n\nLETTER, ETC.\n\nPETERBORO', October 28, 1836.\n\n\nRev. JAMES SMYLIE,\n\n_Late Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Mississippi:_\n\nSIR,--Accept my thanks for your politeness in sending me a copy of your\nbook on slavery. This book proves, that the often repeated assertion,\nthat the whole South is opposed to the discussion of the question of\nslavery, is not true:--and so far, I rejoice in its appearance. I\npresume--I know, indeed, that you are not the only man in the South, who\nis in favor of this discussion. There are, doubtless, many persons in\nthe South, who believe, that all attempts to suppress it, are vain, as\nwell as wicked. Besides, you virtually admit, that the South is\ncompelled to discuss the question of slavery; or, at least, to give her\nown views of it, in order to prevent the conscience of Southern\nChristians--that conscience, \"which does make cowards of us all\"--from\nturning traitor to the cause of slavery. I rejoice, too, that you\naccompanied the copy sent to me, with the request, that I should review\nit, and make \"candid remarks\" upon it; and, that you have thus put it in\nmy power to send to the South some of my views on slavery, without\nlaying myself open to the charge of being discourteous and obtrusive.\n\nYou undertake to show that slavery existed, and, with the Divine\napprobation, amongst the Old Testament Jews; and that it also existed,\nwhilst our Saviour and his Apostles were on the earth, and was approved\nby them. You thence argue, that it is not only an innocent institution,\nbut one which it is a religious duty to maintain.\n\nI admit, for the sake of argument, that there was a servitude in the\npatriarchal families which was approved by God. But what does this avail\nin your defence of slavery, unless you show, that that servitude and\nslavery are essentially alike? The literal terms of the relation of\nmaster and servant, under that servitude, are not made known to us; but\nwe can, nevertheless, confidently infer their spirit from facts, which\nillustrate their practical character; and, if this character be found to\nbe opposite to that of slavery, then it is manifest, that what you say\nof patriarchal servitude is impertinent, and tends to mislead, rather\nthan enlighten your readers. To a few of these facts and a few of the\nconsiderations arising from them, I now call your attention.\n\n1st. Read the first eight verses of the eighteenth chapter of Genesis,\nand tell me, if you ever saw Gov. McDuffie or any other Southern\npatriarch (for the governor desires to have all slaveholders looked upon\nin the character of patriarchs) putting himself on a level with his\nservants, and \"working with his hands,\" after the manner of Abraham and\nSarah?\n\n2d. There was such a community of interest--so much of mutual\nconfidence--between Abraham and his servants, that they fought his\nbattles. Indeed, the terms of this patriarchal servitude were such, that\nin the event of the master's dying without issue, one of his servants\ninherited his property (Gen. 15: 3). But, according to the code of\nSouthern slavery, the slave can no more own property, than he can own\nhimself. \"All that a slave possesses belongs to his master\"--\"Slaves are\nincapable of inheriting or transmitting property.\" These, and many\nsimilar phrases, are found in that code. Severe as was the system of\nRoman slavery, yet in this respect, it was far milder than yours; for\nits subjects could acquire property (their peculium); and frequently did\nthey purchase their liberty with it. So far from Southern slaves being,\nas Abraham's servants were, a dependence in war, it is historically\ntrue, that they are accustomed to improve this occasion to effect their\nescape, and strengthen the hands of the enemy. As a further proof that\nSouthern slavery begets none of that confidence between master and\nslave, which characterized the mutual intercourse of Abraham and his\nservants--the slave is prohibited, under severe penalties, from having\nany weapons in his possession, even in time of peace; and the nightly\npatrol, which the terror-stricken whites of Southern towns keep up, in\npeace, as well as in war, argues any thing, rather than the existence of\nsuch confidence. \"For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder or shot, or a\nclub, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, a slave\nincurs, says Southern statute book, for each offence, thirty-nine\nlashes.\"\n\n3d. When I read your quotation from the twenty-fourth chapter of\nGenesis, made for the purpose of showing that God allowed Abraham to\nhave slaves, I could not but wonder at your imprudence, in meddling with\nthis chapter, which is of itself, enough to convince any unbiased mind,\nthat Abraham's servants held a relation to their master and to society,\ntotally different from that held by Southern slaves. Have you ever known\na great man in your state send his slave into another to choose a wife\nfor his son?--And if so, did the lily white damsel he selected call the\nsable servant \"my lord?\"--And did her family spare no pains to manifest\nrespect for their distinguished guest, and promote his comfort? But this\nchapter, which you call to your aid, informs us, that Abraham's servant\nwas honored with such tokens of confidence and esteem. If a Southern\nslave shall ever be employed in such a mission, he may count himself\nhighly favored, if he be not taken up by the way, imprisoned, and \"sold\nfor his jail fees.\"\n\n4th. Did you ever know Southern slaves contend for their rights with\ntheir masters? When a Southern master reads the thirteenth verse of the\nthirty-first chapter of Job, he must think that Job was in the habit of\nletting down his dignity very low.\n\n5th. Do Southern masters accord religious privileges and impart\nreligious instruction equally to their slaves and their children? Your\nlaws, which visit with stripes, imprisonment, and death, the attempt to\nteach slaves to read the Bible, show but too certainly, that the\nSouthern master, who should undertake to place \"his children and his\nhousehold\" on the same level, in respect to their religious advantages,\nas it is probable that Abraham did (Gen. 18:19), would soon find himself\nin the midst of enemies, not to his reputation only, but to his life\nalso.\n\nAnd now, sir, admitting that the phrase, on which you lay so much\nstress--\"bought with his money\"--was used in connexion with a form of\nservitude which God approved--I put it to your candor, whether this\nphrase should be allowed to weigh at all against the facts I have\nadduced and the reasonings I have employed to show the true nature of\nthat servitude, and how totally unlike it is to slavery? Are you not\nbound by the principles of sound reasoning, to attach to it a meaning\nfar short of what, I grant, is its natural import in this age, and,\nespecially, amongst a people who, like ourselves, are accustomed to\nassociate such an expression with slavery? Can you deny, that you are\nbound to adopt such a meaning of it, as shall harmonize with the facts,\nwhich illustrate the nature of the servitude in question, and with the\nlaws and character of Him, whose sanction you claim for that servitude?\nAn opposite course would give a preference to words over things, which\ncommon sense could not tolerate. Many instances might be cited to show\nthe absurdity of the assumption that whatever is spoken of in the\nScriptures as being \"bought,\" is property. Boaz \"purchased\" his wife.\nHosea \"bought her (his wife) for fifteen pieces of silver.\" Jacob, to\nuse a common expression, \"took his wages\" in wives. Joseph \"bought\" the\nEgyptians, after they had said to him \"buy us.\" But, so far from their\nhaving become the property of Joseph or of his king, it was a part of\nthe bargain, that they were to have as much land as they wanted--seed to\nsow it--and four-fifths of the crops. The possessors of such\nindependence and such means of wealth are not the property of their\nfellow-men.\n\nI need say no more, to prove that slavery is entirely unlike the\nservitude in the patriarchal families. I pass on, now, to the period\nbetween the promulgation of the Divine law by Moses, and the birth of\nChrist.\n\nYou argue from the fifth and sixth verses of the twenty-first chapter of\nExodus, that God authorized the enslavement of the Jews: but, on the\nsame page, on which you do so, you also show the contrary. It may,\nnevertheless, be well for me to request you to read and read again\nLeviticus 25:39-42, until your remaining doubts, on this point, shall\nall be put to flight. I am free to admit the probability, that under\nsome of the forms of servitude, in which Jews were held, the servant was\nsubjected to a control so extensive as to expose him to suffer great\ncruelties. These forms corresponded with the spirit and usages of the\nage, in which they existed; entirely unsuited, as they are, to a period\nand portion of the world, blessed with the refining and softening\ninfluences of civilization and the gospel. Numerous as were the\nstatutory regulations for the treatment of the servant, they could not\npreclude the large discretion of the master. The apprentice, in our\ncountry, is subjected to an authority, equaling a parent's authority,\nbut not always tempered in its exercise, with a parent's love. His\ncondition is, therefore, not unfrequently marked with severity and\nsuffering. Now, imagine what this condition would be, under the harsh\nfeatures of a more barbarous age, and you will have in it, as I\nconjecture, no distant resemblance to that of some of the Jewish\nservants. But how different is this condition from that of the slave!\n\nI am reminded in this connexion, of the polished, but pernicious,\narticle on slavery in a late number of the Biblical Repertory. In that\narticle Professor Hodge says, that the claim of the slaveholder \"is\nfound to be nothing more than a transferable claim of service either for\nlife, or for a term of years.\" Will he allow me to ask him, where he\ndiscovered that the pretensions of the slaveholder are all resolvable\ninto this modest claim? He certainly did not discover it in any slave\ncode; nor in any practical slavery. Where then? No where, but in that\nundisclosed system of servitude, which is the creation of his own fancy.\nTo this system I raise no objection whatever. On the contrary, I am\nwilling to admit its beauty and its worthiness of the mint in which it\nwas coined. But I protest against his right to bestow upon it the name\nof another and totally different thing. He must not call it slavery.\n\nSuppose a poor German to be so desirous of emigrating with his family to\nAmerica, as to agree to give his services for ten years, as a\ncompensation for the passage. Suppose further, that the services are to\nbe rendered to the captain of the ship in which they sail, or to any\nother person, to whom he may assign his claim. Such a bargain is not\nuncommon. Now, according to Professor Hodge, this German may as rightly\nas any of your Southern servants, be called a slave. He may as rightly\nbe called _property_, as they may be, who, in the language of the South\nCarolina laws, \"shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in\nlaw, to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and\npossessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, _to all\nintents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever_.\"\n\nWe will glance at a few points of difference in their condition. 1st.\nThe German is capable of making a contract, and in the case supposed,\ndoes make a contract; but your slave is incapable of making any\ncontract. 2d. The German receives wages; the price of carrying himself\nand family being the stipulated price for his services, during the ten\nyears; but your slave receives no wages. 3d. The German, like any other\nhireling, and, like any apprentice in our country, is under the\nprotection of law. But, there is no law to shield the slave from wrongs.\nBeing a mere chattel or thing, he has no rights; and, therefore, he can\nhave no wrongs to be redressed. Does Professor Hodge say, that there are\nstatutes limiting and regulating the power of the slaveholder? I grant\nthere are; though it must be remembered, that there is one way of even\nmurdering a slave, which some of the slave States do not only not\nforbid, but impliedly and practically admit[A]. The Professor should\nknow, however, that all these statutes are, practically, a mere nullity.\nNevertheless, they show the absoluteness of the power which they\nnominally qualify. This absoluteness is as distinctly implied by them,\nas the like was by the law of the Emperor Claudius, which imposed\nlimitations upon the \"jus vitae et necis\" (the right of life and death)\nwhich Roman slavery put into the hand of the master. But if the\nProfessor should be so imprudent as to cite us to the slave code for\nevidence of its merciful provisions, he will, in so doing, authorize us\nto cite him to that code for evidence of the _nature_ of slavery. This\nauthority, however, he would not like to give us; for he is unwilling to\nhave slavery judged of by its own code. He insists, that it shall be\njudged of by that ideal system of slavery, which is lodged in his own\nbrain, and which he can bring forth by parcels, to suit present\noccasions, as Mahomet produced the leaves of the Koran.\n\n[Footnote A: The licensed murder referred to, is that where the slave\ndies under \"moderate correction.\" But is not the murder of a slave by a\nwhite man, _in any way_, practically licensed in all the slave States?\nWho ever heard of a white man's being put to death, under Southern laws,\nfor the murder of a slave? American slavery provides impunity for the\nwhite murderer of the slave, by its allowing none but whites--none but\nthose who construct and uphold the system of abominations--to testify\nagainst the murderer. But why particularize causes of this impunity? The\nwhole policy of the Southern slave system goes to provide it. How\nunreasonable is it to suppose, that they, who have conspired against a\nportion of their fellow-beings, and mutually pledged themselves to treat\nthem as _mere things_--how unreasonable, I say, is it to suppose, that\nthey would consent to put a _man_ to death, on account of his treatment,\nin whatever way, of a _mere thing_? Not long ago, I was informed by a\nhighly respectable lawyer of the State of Georgia, that he had known a\nnumber of attempts (attempts most probably but in form and name) to\neffect the conviction of whites for their undoubted murder of slaves.\nBut in every instance, the jurors perjured themselves, rather than\nconsent that a _man_ should be put to death, for the liberty he had\ntaken in disposing of a _thing_. They had rather perjure themselves,\nthan by avenging the blood of a _slave_ with that of a _man_, make a\nbreach upon the policy of keeping the slave ignorant, that he has the\n_nature_, and consequently the _rights_, of a man.]\n\nProfessor Hodge tells his readers, in substance, that the selling of\nmen, as they are sold under the system of slavery, is to be classed with\nthe cessions of territory, occasionally made by one sovereign to\nanother; and he would have the slave, who is sold from hand to hand, and\nfrom State to State, at the expense to his bleeding heart, of the\ndisruption of its dearest ties, think his lot no harder than that of the\ninhabitant of Louisiana, who was passed without his will, from the\njurisdiction of the French government to that of the United States.\n\nWhen a good man lends himself to the advocacy of slavery, he must, at\nleast for a time, feel himself to be anywhere but at home, amongst his\nnew thoughts, doctrines, and modes of reasoning. This is very evident in\nthe case before us--especially, when now and then, old habits of thought\nand feeling break out, in spite of every effort to repress them, and the\nProfessor is himself again, and discourses as manfully, as fearlessly,\nand as eloquently, as he ever had done before the slaveholders got their\nhands upon him. It is not a little amusing to notice, that, although the\nburden of his article is to show that slavery is one of God's\ninstitutions, (what an undertaking for a Professor of Theology in the\nyear 1836!) he so far forgets the interests of his new friends and their\nexpectations from him, as to admit on one page, that \"the general\nprinciples of the gospel have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the\ngreater part of Christendom;\" and on another, that \"the South has to\nchoose between emancipation, by the silent and holy influence of the\ngospel, or to abide the issue of a long continued conflict against the\nlaws of God.\" Whoever heard, until these strange times on which we have\nfallen, of any thing, which, to use the Professor's language about\nslavery, \"it is in vain, to contend is sin, and yet profess reverence\nfor the Scriptures,\" being at war with and destroyed by the principles\nof the gospel. What sad confusion of thought the pro-slavery influences,\nto which some great divines have yielded, have wrought in them!\n\nI will proceed to argue, that the institution in the Southern States\ncalled \"slavery,\" is radically unlike any form of servitude under which\nJews were held, agreeably to the Divine will; and also radically unlike\nany form of servitude approved of God in the patriarchal families.\n\n1st. God does not contradict Himself. He is \"without variableness or\nshadow of turning.\" He loves his word and has \"magnified it above all\nhis name.\" He commands his rational creatures to \"search the\nScriptures.\" He cannot, therefore, approve of a system which forbids the\nsearching of them, and shuts out their light from the soul; and which,\nby the confession of your own selves, turns men in this gospel land into\nheathen. He has written his commandment against adultery, and He cannot,\ntherefore, approve of a system, which induces this crime, by forbidding\nmarriage. The following extract from an opinion of the Attorney General\nof Maryland, shows some of the consequences of this \"forbidding to\nmarry.\" \"A slave has never maintained an action against the violator of\nhis bed. A slave is not admonished for incontinence, or punished for\nfornication or adultery; never prosecuted for bigamy.\" Again, God has\nwritten his commandment, that children should honor their parents. How,\nthen, can He approve of a system, which pours contempt on the relation\nof parent and child? Which subjects them to be forcibly separated from\neach other, and that too, beyond the hope of reunion?--under which\nparents are exposed and sold in the market-place along with horses and\ncattle?--under which they are stripped and lashed, and made to suffer\nthose innumerable, and some of them, nameless indignities, that tend to\ngenerate in their children, who witness them, any feelings, rather than\nthose of respect and honor, for parents thus degraded? Some of these\nnameless indignities are alluded to in a letter written to me from a\nslave state, in March, 1833. \"In this place,\" says the writer, \"I find a\nregular and a much frequented slave market, where thousands are yearly\nsold like cattle to the highest bidder. It is the opinion of gentlemen\nhere, that not far from five hundred thousand dollars are yearly paid in\nthis place for negroes; and at this moment, I can look from the window\nof my room and count six droves of from twenty to forty each, sitting in\nthe market place for sale. This morning I witnessed the sale of twelve\nslaves, and I could but shudder at the language used and the liberties\ntaken with the females!\"\n\n2d. As a proof, that in the kinds of servitude referred to, God did not\ninvest Abraham, or any other person with that absolute ownership of his\nfellow-men, which is claimed by Southern slaveholders--I would remark,\nthat He has made man accountable to Himself; but slavery makes him\naccountable to, and a mere appendage to his fellow-man. Slavery\nsubstitutes the will of a fallible fellow-man for that infallible rule\nof action--the will of God. The slave, instead of being allowed to make\nit the great end of his existence to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever,\nis degraded from his exalted nature, which borders upon angelic dignity,\nto be, to do, and to suffer what a mere man bids him be, do, and suffer.\n\nThe Southern slave would obey God in respect to marriage, and also to\nthe reading and studying of His word. But this, as we have seen, is\nforbidden him. He may not marry; nor may he read the Bible. Again, he\nwould obey God in the duties of secret and social prayer. But he may not\nattend the prayer-meeting--certainly not that of his choice; and\ninstances are known, where the master has intruded upon the slave's\nsecret audience with heaven, to teach him by the lash, or some other\ninstrument of torture, that he would allow \"no other God before\"\nhimself.\n\nSaid Joseph Mason, an intelligent colored man, who was born and bred\nnear Richmond, in Virginia, in reply to my question whether he and his\nfellow-slaves cared about their souls--\"We did not trouble ourselves\nabout our souls; we were our masters' property and not our own; under\ntheir and not our own control; and we believed that our masters were\nresponsible for our souls.\" This unconcern for their spiritual interests\ngrew very naturally out of their relation to their masters; and were the\nrelation ordained of God, the unconcern would, surely, be both\nphilosophical and sinless.\n\nGod cannot approve of a system of servitude, in which the master is\nguilty of assuming absolute power--of assuming God's place and relation\ntowards his fellow-men. Were the master, in every case, a wise and good\nman--as wise and good as is consistent with this wicked and\nheaven-daring assumption on his part--the condition of the slave would\nit is true, be far more tolerable, than it now is. But even then, we\nshould protest as strongly as ever against slavery; for it would still\nbe guilty of its essential wickedness of robbing a man of his right to\nhimself, and of robbing God of His right to him, and of putting these\nstolen rights into the hand of an erring mortal. Nay, if angels were\nconstituted slaveholders, our objection to the relation would remain\nundiminished; since there would still be the same robbery of which we\nnow complain.\n\nBut you will say, that I have overlooked the servitude in which the Jews\nheld strangers and foreigners; and that it is on this, more than any\nother, that you rely for your justification of slavery. I will say\nnothing now of this servitude; but before I close this communication, I\nwill give my reasons for believing, that whatever was its nature, even\nif it were compulsory, it cannot be fairly pleaded in justification of\nslavery.\n\nAfter you shall have allowed, as you will allow, that slavery, as it\nexists, is at war with God, you will be likely to say, that the fault is\nnot in the theory of it; but in the practical departure from that\ntheory; that it is not the system, but the practice under it, which is\nat war with God. Our concern, however, is with slavery as it is, and not\nwith any theory of it. But to indulge you, we will look at the system of\nslavery, as it is presented to us, in the laws of the slave States; and\nwhat do we find here? Why, that the system is as bad as the practice\nunder it. Here we find the most diabolical devices to keep millions of\nhuman beings in a state of heathenism--in the deepest ignorance and most\nloathsome pollution. But you will tell me, that I do not look far enough\nto find the true theory of slavery; and that the cruelties and\nabominations, which the laws of the slave States have ingrafted on this\ntheory, are not acknowledged by the good men in those States to be a\npart of the theory. Well, you shall have the benefit of this plea; and I\nadmit, for the sake of argument, that this theory of slavery, which lies\nfar back, and out of sight of every thing visible and known about\nslavery, is right. And what does this admission avail you? It is slavery\nas it is--as it is seen and known, that the abolitionists are contending\nagainst. But, say you, to induce our forbearance, \"We good men at the\nSouth are restoring slavery, as fast as we can, to what it should be;\nand we will soon make its erring practice quadrate with its perfect and\nsinless theory.\" Success to your endeavors! But let me ask these good\nmen, whether similar representations would avail to make them forbearing\ntowards any other class of offenders; and whether they would allow these\noffenders to justify the wickedness of their hands, by pleading the\npurity of their hearts. Suppose that I stand in court confessedly guilty\nof the crime of passing counterfeit money; and that I ask for my\nacquittal on the ground, that, notwithstanding I am practically wrong, I\nam, nevertheless, theoretically right. \"Believe me,\" I say, in tones of\ndeep and unfeigned pathos, and with a corresponding pressure of my hand\nupon my heart, \"that the principles within are those of the purest\nmorality; and that it is my faithful endeavor to bring my deportment,\nwhich, as you this day witness, is occasionally devious, into perfect\nconformity with my inward rectitude. My theory of honest and holy living\nis all that you could wish it to be. Be but patient, and you shall\nwitness its beautiful exhibitions in my whole conduct.\" Now, you\ncertainly would not have this plea turn to my advantage;--why then\nexpect that your similar plea should be allowed?\n\nWe must continue to judge of slavery by what it is, and not by what you\ntell us it will, or may be. Until its character be righteous, we shall\ncontinue to condemn it; but when you shall have brought it back to your\nsinless and beautiful theory of it, it will have nothing to fear from\nthe abolitionists. There are two prominent reasons, however, for\nbelieving that you will never present Southern slavery to us in this\nlovely character, the mere imagination of which is so dear to you. The\nfirst is, that you are doing nothing to this end. It is an indisputable\nfact that Southern slavery is continually getting wider and wider from\nGod, and from an innocent theory of servitude; and the \"good men at the\nSouth,\" of whom we have spoken, are not only doing nothing to arrest\nthis increasing divergency, but they are actually favoring it. The\nwritings of your Dews, and Baxters, and Plummers, and Postells, and\nAndersons, and the proceedings of your ecclesiastical bodies, abundantly\nshow this. Never, and the assertion is borne out by your statute books,\nas well as other evidences, has Southern slavery multiplied its\nabominations so rapidly, as within the last ten years; and never before\nhad the Southern Church been so much engaged to defend and perpetuate\nthese abominations. The other of these reasons for believing that\nSouthern slavery will never be conformed to your _beau ideal_ of\nslavery, in which it is presupposed there are none but principles of\nrighteousness, is, that on its first contact with these principles, it\nwould \"vanish into thin air,\" leaving \"not a wreck behind.\" In proof of\nthis, and I need not cite any other case, it would be immediate death to\nSouthern slavery to concede to its subjects, God's institution of\nmarriage; and hence it is, that its code forbids marriage. The rights of\nthe husband in the wife, and of the wife in the husband, and of parents\nin their children, would stand directly in the way of that traffic in\nhuman flesh, which is the very life-blood of slavery; and the\nassumptions of the master would, at every turn and corner, be met and\nnullified by these rights; since all his commands to the children of\nthose servants (for now they should no longer be called slaves) would be\nin submission to the paramount authority of the parents[A]. And here,\nsir, you and I might bring our discussion to a close, by my putting the\nfollowing questions to you, both of which your conscience would compel\nyou to answer in the affirmative.\n\n[Footnote A: I am aware that Professor Hodge asserts, that \"slavery may\nexist without those laws which interfere with their (the slaves) marital\nor parental right\" Now, this is a point of immense importance in the\ndiscussion of the question, whether slavery is sinful; and I, therefore,\nrespectfully ask him either to retract the assertion, or to prove its\ncorrectness. Ten thousands of his fellow-citizens, to whom the assertion\nis utterly incredible, unite with me in this request. If he can show,\nthat slavery does not \"interfere with marital or parental rights,\" they\nwill cease to oppose it. Their confident belief is, that slavery and\nmarriage, whether considered in the light of a civil contract, or a\nscriptural institution, are entirely incompatible with each other.]\n\n1st. Is not Southern slavery guilty of a most heaven-daring crime, in\nsubstituting concubinage for God's institution of marriage?\n\n2d. Would not that slavery, and also every theory and modification of\nslavery, for which you may contend, come speedily to nought, if their\nsubjects were allowed to marry? Slavery, being an abuse, is incapable of\nreformation. It dies, not only when you aim a fatal blow at its life\nprinciple--its foundation doctrine of man's right to property in\nman[B]--but it dies as surely, when you prune it of its manifold\nincidents of pollution and irreligion.\n\n[Footnote B: I mean by this phrase, \"right to property in man,\" a right\nto hold man as property; and I do not see with what propriety certain\nwriters construe it to mean, a property in the mere services of a man.]\n\nBut it would be treating you indecorously to stop you at this stage of\nthe discussion, before we are a third of the way through your book, and\nthus deny a hearing to the remainder of it. We will proceed to what you\nsay of the slavery which existed in the time of the New Testament\nwriters. Before we do so, however, let me call your attention to a few\nof the specimens of very careless reasoning in that part of your book,\nwhich we have now gone over. They may serve to inspire you with a modest\ndistrust of the soundness of other parts of your argument.\n\nAfter concluding that Abraham was a slaveholder, you quote the following\nlanguage from the Bible; \"Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my\ncommandments, my statutes, and my laws.\" You then inquire, \"How could\nthis be true of Abraham, holding as he did, until he was an old man,\nmore slaves than any man in Mississippi or Louisiana?\" To be consistent\nwith your design in quoting this passage, you must argue from it, that\nAbraham was perfect. But this he was not; and, therefore, your quotation\nis vain. Again, if the slaveholder would quiet his conscience with the\nsupposition, that \"Abraham held more slaves than any man in Mississippi\nor Louisiana,\" let him remember, that he had also more concubines (Gen.\n25: 6), \"than any man in Mississippi or Louisiana;\" and, if Abraham's\nauthority be in the one case conclusive for slaveholding, equally so\nmust it be in the other, for concubinage.\n\nPerhaps, in saying that \"Abraham had more concubines than any man in\nMississippi or Louisiana,\" I have done injustice to the spirit of\npropagation prevailing amongst the gentlemen of those States. It may be,\nthat some of your planters quite distance the old patriarch in obedience\nto the command to \"multiply and replenish the earth.\" I am correctly\ninformed, that a planter in Virginia, who counted, I know not how many\nslaves upon his plantation, confessed on his death-bed, that his\nlicentiousness had extended to every adult female amongst them. This\nplanter was a near relative of the celebrated Patrick Henry. It may be,\nthat you have planters in Mississippi and Louisiana, who avail\nthemselves to the extent that he did, of the power which slaveholding\ngives to pollute and destroy. The hundreds of thousands of mulattoes,\nwho constitute the Southern commentary on the charge, that the\nabolitionists design amalgamation, bear witness that this planter was\nnot singular in his propensities. I do not know what you can do with\nthis species of your population. Besides, that it is a standing and deep\nreproach on Southern chastity, it is not a little embarrassing and\npuzzling to those who have received the doctrine, that the descendants\nof Africa amongst us must be returned to the land of their ancestors.\nHow the poor mulatto shall be disposed of, under this doctrine, between\nthe call which Africa makes for him, on the one hand, and that which\nsome state of Europe sends out for him on the other, is a problem more\ndifficult of solution than that which the contending mothers brought\nbefore the matchless wisdom of Solomon.\n\nIn the paragraph, which relates to the fourth and tenth commandments,\nthere is another specimen of your loose reasoning. You say, that the\nlanguage, \"In it (the Sabbath) thou shalt do no work, thou, nor thy son,\nnor thy daughter, nor thy man servant, nor thy maid servant,\"\n\"recognises the authority of the master over the servant.\" I grant, that\nit does: but does it at all show, that these servants were slaves? Does\nit recognise any more authority than the master should exercise over his\nvoluntary servants? Should not the head of a family restrain all his\nservants, as well the voluntary as the involuntary, from unnecessary\nlabor on the Sabbath? You also say, that the tenth commandment\n\"recognizes servants as the _property_ of their masters.\" But how does\nit appear from the language of this commandment, that the man servant\nand maid servant are property any more than the wife is? We will\nproceed, however, to the third section of your book.\n\nYour acquaintance with history has enabled you to show some of the\ncharacteristics and fruits of Greek and Roman slavery. You state the\nfacts, that the subjects of this slavery were \"absolutely the property\nof their masters\"--that they \"were used like dogs\"--that \"they were\nforbidden to learn any liberal art or perform any act worthy of their\nmasters\"--that \"once a day they received a certain number of stripes for\nfear they should forget they were slaves\"--that, at one time, \"sixty\nthousand of them in Sicily and Italy were chained and confined to work\nin dungeons\"--that \"in Rome there was a continual market for slaves,\"\nand that \"the slaves were commonly exposed for sale naked\"--that, when\nold, they were turned away,\" and that too by a master, highly esteemed\nfor his superior virtues, to starve to death\"--that they were thrown\ninto ponds to be food for fish--that they were in the city of Athens\nnear twenty times as numerous as free persons--that there were in the\nRoman Empire sixty millions of slaves to twenty millions of freemen mind\nthat many of the Romans had five thousand, some ten thousand, and others\ntwenty thousand.\n\nAnd now, for what purpose is your recital of these facts?--not, for its\nnatural effect of awakening, in your readers, the utmost abhorrence of\nslavery:--no--but for the strange purpose (the more strange for being in\nthe breast of a minister of the gospel) of showing your readers, that\neven Greek and Roman slavery was innocent, and agreeable to God's will;\nand that, horrid as are the fruits you describe, the tree, which bore\nthem, needed but to be dug about and pruned--not to be cut down. This\nslavery is innocent, you insist, because the New Testament does not\nshow, that it was specifically condemned by the Apostles. By the same\nlogic, the races, the games, the dramatic entertainments, and the shows\nof gladiators, which abounded in Greece and Rome, were, likewise,\ninnocent, because the New Testament does not show a specific\ncondemnation of them by the apostles[A]. But, although the New Testament\ndoes not show such condemnation, does it necessarily follow, that they\nwere silent, in relation to these sins? Or, because the New Testament\ndoes not specifically condemn Greek and Roman slavery, may we,\ntherefore, infer, that the Apostles did not specifically condemn it?\nLook through the published writings of many of the eminent divines, who\nhave lived in modern times, and have written and published much for the\ninstruction of the churches, and you will not find a line in them\nagainst gambling or theatres or the slave-trade;--in some of them, not a\nline against the very common sin of drunkenness. Think you, therefore,\nthat they never spoke or wrote against these things? It would be\nunreasonable to expect to find, in print, their sentiments against all,\neven of the crying sins of their times. But how much more unreasonable\nis it to expect to find in the few pages of the Apostles' published\nletters, the whole of which can be read in a few hours, their sentiments\nin relation to all the prominent sins of the age in which they lived!\nAnd far greater still is the unreasonableness of setting them down, as\nfavorable to all practices which these letters do not specifically\ncondemn.\n\n[Footnote A: Prof. Hodge says, if the apostles did abstain from\ndeclaring slavery to be sinful, \"it must have been, because they did not\nconsider it as, in itself, a crime. No other solution of their conduct\nis consistent with their truth or fidelity.\" But he believes that they\ndid abstain from so doing; and he believes this, on the same evidence,\non which he believes, that they abstained from declaring the races,\ngames, &c., above enumerated, to be sinful. His own mode of reasoning,\ntherefore, brings him unavoidably to the conclusion, that these races,\ngames, &c., were not sinful.]\n\nIt may be, that the Saviour and the Apostles, in the course of their\nteachings, both oral and written, did specify sins to a far greater\nextent, than they are supposed to have done. It may be, that their\nfollowers had much instruction, in respect to the great sin of slavery.\nWe must bear in mind, that but a very small part of that Divine\ninstruction, which, on the testimony of an Apostle, \"the world itself\ncould not contain if written,\" has come down to us. Of the writings of\nour Saviour we have nothing. Of those of his Apostles a very small part.\nIt is probable, that, during his protracted ministry, the learned\napostle to the Gentiles wrote many letters on religious subjects to\nindividuals and to churches. So also of the immense amount of\ninstruction, which fell from the lips of the Apostles, but very little\nis preserved. It was Infinite Wisdom, however, which determined the size\nof the New, as well as of the Old Testament, and of what kinds and\nportions of the Saviour's and the Apostles' instructions it should\nconsist. For obvious considerations, it is made up, in a great measure,\nof general truths and propositions. Its limited size, if no other\nreason, accounts for this. But, these general truths and propositions\nare as comprehensive as the necessity of the case requires; and, carried\nout into all their suitable applications they leave no sin unforbidden.\nSmall as is the New Testament, it is as large as we need. It instructs\nus in relation to all our duties. It is as full on the subject of\nslavery, as is necessary; and, if we will but obey its directions, that\nbear on this subject, and \"love one another,\" and love our neighbors as\nourselves, and, as we would that men should do to us, do \"also to them\nlikewise,\" and \"remember them, that are in bonds as bound with them,\"\nand \"give unto servants, that which is just and equal\"--not a vestige of\nthis abomination will remain.\n\nFor the sake of the argument, I will admit, that the Apostles made no\nspecific attack on slavery[A]; and that they left it to be reached and\noverthrown, provided it be sinful, by the general principles and\ninstructions which they had inculcated. But you will say, that it was\ntheir practice, in addition to inculcating such principles and\ninstructions, to point out sins and reprove them:--and you will ask,\nwith great pertinence and force, why they did not also point out and\nreprove slavery, which, in the judgment of abolitionists, is to be\nclassed with the most heinous sins. I admit, that there is no question\naddressed to abolitionists, which, after the admission I have made for\nthem, it is less easy to answer; and I admit further, that they are\nbound to answer it. I will proceed to assign what to me appear to be\nsome of the probable reasons, why the Apostles specified the sins of\nlying, covetousness, stealing, &c., and, agreeably to the admission,\nwhich lays me under great disadvantage, did not specify slavery.\n\n[Footnote A: This is no small admission in the face of the passage, in\nthe first chapter of Timothy, which particularizes manstealing, as a\nviolation of the law of God. I believe all scholars will admit, that one\nof the crimes referred to by the Apostle, is kidnapping. But is not\nkidnapping an integral and most vital part of the system of slavery? And\nis not the slaveholder guilty of this crime? Does he not, indeed, belong\nto a class of kidnappers stamped with peculiar meanness? The pirate, on\nthe coast of Africa, has to cope with the strength and adroitness of\nmature years. To get his victim into his clutches is a deed of daring\nand of peril demanding no little praise, upon the principles of the\nworld's \"code of honor.\" But the proud chivalry of the South is securely\nemployed in kidnapping newborn infants. The pirate, in the one case,\nsoothes his conscience with the thought, that the bloody savages merit\nno better treatment, than they are receiving at his hands:--but the\npirate, in the other, can have no such plea--for they, whom he kidnaps,\nare untainted with crime.\n\nAnd what better does it make the case for you, if we adopt the\ntranslation of \"men stealers?\" Far better, you will say, for, on the\nauthority of Othello himself,\n\n  \"He that is robb'd------\n  Let him not know it, and he's not robbed at all.\"\n\n\nBut, your authority is not conclusive. The crime of the depredation is\nnone the less, because the subject is ignorant or unconscious of it. It\nis true, the slave, who never possessed liberty--who was kidnapped at\nhis birth--may not grieve, under the absence of it, as he does, from\nwhose actual and conscious possession it had been violently taken: but\nthe robbery is alike plain, and is coupled with a meanness, in the one\ncase, which does not disgrace it in the other. ]\n\n1st. The book of Acts sets forth the fundamental doctrines and\nrequirements of Christianity. It is to the letters of the Apostles we\nare to look for extended specifications of right and wrong affections,\nand right and wrong practices. Why do these letters omit to specify the\nsin of slaveholding? Because they were addressed to professing\nChristians exclusively; who, far more emphatically then than now, were\n\"the base things of the world,\" and were in circumstances to be slaves,\nrather than slaveholders. Doubtless, there were many slaves amongst\nthem--but I cannot admit, that there were slaveholders. There is not the\nleast probability, that slaveholding was a prevalent sin amongst\nprimitive Christians[B]. Instructions to them on that sin might have\nbeen almost as superfluous, as would be lectures on the sin of luxury,\naddressed to the poor Greenland disciples, whose poverty compels them to\nsubsist on filthy oil. No one, acquainted with the history of their\nlives, believes that the Apostles were slave-holders. They labored,\n\"working with (their) own hands.\" The supposition, that they were\nslaveholders, is inconsistent with their practice, and with the tenor of\ntheir instructions to others on the duty of manual labor. But if the\nApostles were not slaveholders, why may we suppose, that their disciples\nwere? At the South, it is, \"like people, like priest,\" in this matter.\nThere, the minister of the gospel thinks, that he has as good right to\nhold slaves, as has his parishioner: and your Methodists go so far, as\nto say, that even a bishop has as good right, as any other person, to\nhave slaves\n\n[Footnote B: How strongly does the following extract from the writings\nof the great and good Augustine, who lived in the fourth century, argue,\nthat slaveholding was not a prevalent sin amongst primitive Christians!\n\"Non opurtet Christianum possidere servum quomodo equum aut argentum.\nQuis dicere audeat ut vestimentum cum debere contemni? Hominem namque\nhomo tamquam seipsum diligere debet cui ab omnium Domino, ut inimicos\ndiligat, imperatur.\" _A Christian ought not to hold his servant as he\ndoes his horse or his money. Who dares say that he should be thought as\nlightly of as a garment? For man, whom the Lord of all has commanded to\nlove his enemies, should love his fellow-man as himself._]\n\n  \"------to fan him while he sleeps,\n  And tremble when he wakes.\"\n\n\nIndeed, they already threaten to separate from their Northern brethren,\nunless this right be conceded. But have we not other and conclusive\nevidence, that primitive Christians were not slaveholders? We will cite\na few passages from the Bible to show, that it was not the will of the\nApostles to have their disciples hold manual labor in disrepute, as it\nis held, in all slaveholding communities. \"Do your own business, and\nwork with your own hands, as we commanded you.\" \"For this we commanded\nyou, that, if any would not work, neither should he eat.\" \"Let him that\nstole, steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands\nthe thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.\"\nIn bringing the whole verse into this last quotation, I may have\ndispleased you. I am aware, that you slaveholders proudly and\nindignantly reject the applicableness to yourselves of the first phrase\nin this verse, and also of the maxim, that \"the partaker of stolen goods\nis as bad as the thief.\" I am aware, that you insist, that the\nkidnapping of a man, or getting possession of him, after he has been\nkidnapped, is not to be compared, if indeed it can be properly called\ntheft at all, with the crime of stealing a _thing_. It occurs to me,\nthat if a shrewd lawyer had you on trial for theft, he would say, that\nyou were _estopped_ from going into this distinction between a _man_ and\na _thing_, inasmuch as, by your own laws, the slave is expressly\ndeclared to be a _chattel_--is expressly _elevated_ into a _thing_. He\nwould say, however competent it may be for others to justify themselves\non the ground, that it was but a _man_, and not a _thing_, they had\nstolen; your own statutes, which, with magic celerity, convert stolen\nmen into things, make such a plea, on your part, utterly inadmissible.\nHe would have you as fast, as though the stolen goods, in your hands,\nwere a bushel of wheat, or some other important _thing_, instead of _a\nmere man_.\n\nBut, if you are not yet convinced that primitive Christians were not\nslaveholders, let me cite another passage to show you, how very\nimprobable it is, that they stood in this capacity:--\"all, that\nbelieved, had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods,\nand parted them to all men, as every man had need.\" Now I do not say,\nthat all the primitive believers did so. But if a portion of them did,\nand met with the Apostles' approbation in it, is it at all probable,\nthat a course, so diverse from it, as that of slaveholding in the\nChurch, met likewise with their approbation?\n\n2d. I go on to account for the Apostles' omission to specify slavery.\n\nCriminality is not always obvious, in proportion to its extent. The sin\nof the traffic in intoxicating liquors, was, until the last few years,\nalmost universally unfelt and unperceived. But now, we meet with men,\nwho, though it was \"in all good conscience,\" that they were once engaged\nin it, would not resume it for worlds; and who see more criminality, in\ntaking money from a fellow man, in exchange for the liquor which\nintoxicates him, than in simple theft. However it may be with others, in\nthis employment, they now see, that, for them to traffic in intoxicating\nliquors, would be to stain themselves with the twofold crime of robbery\nand murder. How is it, that good men ever get into this\nemployment?--and, under what influences and by what process of thought,\ndo they come to the determination to abandon it? The former is accounted\nfor, by the fact, that they grow up--have their education--their moral\nand intellectual training--in the midst of a public opinion, and even of\nlaws also, which favor and sanction the employment. The latter is\naccounted for, by the fact, that they are brought, in the merciful\nprovidence of God, to observe and study and understand the consequences\nof their employment--especially on those who drink their liquor--the\nliquor which they sell or make, or, with no less criminality, furnish\nthe materials for making. These consequences they find to be \"evil, only\nevil, and that continually.\" They find, that this liquor imparts no\nbenefit to them who drink it, but tends to destroy, and, oftentimes,\ndoes destroy, their healths and lives. To continue, therefore, in an\nemployment in which they receive their neighbor's money, without\nreturning him an equivalent, or any portion of an equivalent, and, in\nwhich they expose both his body and soul to destruction, is to make\nthemselves, in their own judgments, virtually guilty of theft and\nmurder.\n\nThus it is in the case of a national war, waged for conquest. Christians\nhave taken part in it; and, because they were blinded by a wrong\neducation, and were acting in the name of their country and under the\nimpulses of patriotism, they never suspected that they were doing the\ndevil, instead of \"God, service.\" But when, in the kind providence of\nGod, one of these butchers of their fellow beings is brought to pause\nand consider his ways, and to resolve his enormous and compound sin into\nits elements of wickedness,--into the lies, theft, covetousness,\nadultery, murder, and what not of crime, which enter into it,--he is\namazed that he has been so \"slow of heart to believe,\" and abandon the\niniquity of his deeds.\n\nWhat I have said to show that Christians, even in enlightened and\ngospelized lands, may be blind to the great wickedness of certain\ncustoms and institutions, serves to introduce the remark; that there\nwere probably some customs and institutions, in the time of the\nApostles, on which it would have been even worse than lost labor for\nthem to make direct attacks. Take, for example, the kind of war of which\nwe have been speaking. If there are reasons why the modern Christian can\nbe insensible to the sin of it, there are far stronger reasons why the\nprimitive Christian could be. If the light and instruction which have\nbeen accumulating for eighteen centuries, are scarcely sufficient to\nconvince Christians of its wickedness, is it reasonable to suppose that,\nat the commencement of this long period, they could have been\nsuccessfully taught it? Consider, that at that time the literature and\nsentiment of the world were wholly on the side of war; and especially,\nconsider how emphatically the authority of civil government and of human\nlaw was in favor of its rightfulness. Now, to how great an extent such\nauthority covers over and sanctifies sin, may be inferred from the fact,\nthat there are many, who, notwithstanding they believe slavery to be a\nmost Heaven-daring sin, yet, because it is legalized and under the wing\nof civil government, would not have it spoken against. Even Rev. Dr.\nMiller, in certain resolutions which he submitted to the last General\nAssembly, indicated his similar reverence for human laws; and the\nlamented Dr. Rice distinctly recognises, in his letter to Mr. Maxwell,\nthe doctrine that the Church is bound to be quiet about every sin which\nthe civil government adopts and whitewashes. That the Christian\nSpectator should indorse the Doctor's sentiments on this point is still\nmore worthy of remark than that he should utter them. Indeed, I judge\nfrom what you say on the 68th and 69th pages of your book, that you are\nyourself opposed to calling in question the morality of that which civil\ngovernment approves. But, to doubt the infallibility of civil\ngovernment,--to speak against Caesar,--was manifestly held to be quite\nas presumptuous in the time of the Apostles as it is now.\n\nAnother reason why an Apostle would probably have deemed it hopeless to\nattempt to persuade his disciples, immediately and directly, of the sin\nof war, is to be found in the fact of their feeble and distorted\nperception of truth and duty. We, whose advantage it is to have lived\nall our days in the light of the gospel, and whose ancestors, from time\nimmemorial, had the like precious advantage, can hardly conceive how\nvery feeble and distorted was that perception. But, consider for a\nmoment who those disciples were. They had, most of them, but just been\ntaken out of the gross darkness and filth of heathenism. In reading\naccounts which missionaries give of converted heathen--of such, even, as\nhave for ten, fifteen, or twenty years, been reputed to be pious--you\nare, doubtless, often surprised to find how grossly erroneous are their\nmoral perceptions. Their false education still cleaves to them. They are\nyet, to a great extent, in the mould of a corrupted public opinion; and,\nas far from having a clear discernment of moral truth, as were the\npartially unsealed eyes which saw \"men, as trees, walking.\" The first\nletter to the Church at Corinth, proves that the new principles\nimplanted in its members had not yet purged out the leaven of their old\nwickedness; and that their conceptions of Christian purity and conduct\nwere sadly defective. As it was with the Corinthian Christians, so was\nit to a great extent with the other Christians of that age. Now, if the\nApostles did not directly teach the primitive believers that wars, and\ntheatres, and games, and slavery, are sinful, it is because they thought\nit more fit to exercise their ignorant pupils chiefly in the mere\nalphabet and syllables of Christianity. (Acts xv, 28, 29.) The\nconstruction of words and sentences would naturally follow. The\nrudiments of the gospel, if once possessed by them, would be apt to lead\nthem on to greater attainments. Indeed, the love, peace, truth, and\nother elements of holy living inculcated by the Apostles, would, if\nturned to all proper account, be fatal to every, even the most gigantic,\nsystem of wickedness. Having these elements in their minds and hearts,\nthey would not fail of condemning the great and compound sin of war\nwhenever they should be led to take it up, examine it, resolve it into\nits constituent parts, and lay these parts for comparison, by the side\nof those elements. But, such an advance was hardly to be expected from\nmany of these heathen converts during the brief period in which they\nenjoyed Apostolic instruction; and it is but too probable, that most of\nthem died in great ignorance of the sin of national wars. Converts from\nthe heathen, in the present age, when conviction of the sinfulness of\nwar is spreading in different parts of Christendom, would be more likely\nto imbibe correct views of it.\n\nThe Apostles \"fed with milk\" before they fed with meat, as did our\nSaviour, who declared, \"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye\ncannot bear them now.\" In every community, the foundation principles of\nrighteousness must be laid, before there can be fulcrums for the levers\nto be employed in overthrowing the sins which prevail in it. You will\ndoubtless, then, agree with me, that it is not probable that the\nApostles taught their heathen converts, directly and specifically, the\nsinfulness of war. But slaves, in that age, with the exception of the\ncomparative few who were reduced to slavery on account of the crimes of\nwhich they had been judicially convicted, were the spoils of war. How\noften in that age, as was most awfully the fact, on the final\ndestruction of Jerusalem, were the slave-markets of the world glutted by\nthe captives of war! Until, therefore, they should be brought to see the\nsinfulness of war, how could they see the sinfulness of so direct and\nlegitimate a fruit of it as slavery?--and, if the Apostles thought their\nheathen converts too weak to be instructed in the sinfulness of war, how\nmuch more would they abstain from instructing them, directly and\nspecifically, in the sin of slavery!\n\n3d. In proceeding with my reasons why the Apostles did not extend their\nspecification of sins to slavery, I remark, that it is apparent from the\nviews we have taken, and from others which might have been taken, that\nnothing would have been gained by their making direct and specific\nattacks on the institutions of the civil governments under which they\nlived. Indeed, much might have been lost by their doing so. Weak\nconverts, with still many remains of heathenism about them, might in\nthis wise have been incurably prejudiced against truths, which, by other\nmodes of teaching,--by general and indirect instructions,--would\nprobably have been lodged in their minds. And there is another point of\nview in which vastly more, even their lives, might have been lost, by\nthe Apostles making the direct and specific attacks referred to. I know\nthat you ridicule the idea of their consulting their personal safety.\nBut what right have you to do so? They did, on many occasions, consult\nthe security of their lives. They never perilled them needlessly, and\nthrough a presumptuous reliance on God. It is the devil, who, in a\ngarbled quotation from the Scriptures, lays down, in unlimited terms,\nthe proposition, that God will keep his children. But, God promises them\nprotection only when they are in their own proper ways. The Saviour\nhimself consulted the safety of his life, until his \"time\" had \"full\ncome;\" and his command to his Apostles was, \"when they persecute you in\nthis city, flee ye into another.\" If you suppose me to admit for a\nmoment, that regard for the safety of their lives ever kept them from\nthe way of their duty, you are entirely mistaken; and, if you continue\nto assert, in the face of my reasoning to the contrary, that on the\nsupposition of the sinfulness of slavery, their omission to make direct\nand specific attacks on it would have been a failure of their duty, then\nI can only regret that this reasoning has had no more influence upon\nyou.\n\nI observe that Professor Hodge agrees with you, that if slavery is sin,\nit would have been specifically attacked by the Apostles at any hazard\nto their lives. This is his conclusion, because they did not hesitate to\nspecify and rebuke idolatry. Here is another of the Professor's\nsophisms. The fact, that the Apostles preached against idolatry, is no\nreason at all why, if slavery is sin, they would have preached against\nthat also. On the one hand, it is not conceivable that the gospel can be\npreached where there is idolatry, without attacking it: for, in setting\nforth the true God to idolaters, the preacher must denounce their false\ngods. On the other hand, gospel sermons can be preached without number,\nand the true God presented, not only in a nation of idolaters, but\nelsewhere, without one allusion being made to such crying sins as\nslavery, lewdness, and intemperance.\n\nIn the same connexion, Professor Hodge makes the remark \"We do not\nexpect them (our missionaries) to refrain from denouncing the\ninstitutions of the heathen as sinful, because they are popular, or\nintimately interwoven with society.\" If he means by this language, that\nit is the duty of missionaries on going into a heathen nation, to array\nthemselves against the civil government, and to make direct and specific\nattacks on its wicked nature and wicked administration, then is he at\nissue, on this point, with the whole Christian public; and, if he does\nnot mean this, or what amounts to this, I do not see how his remark will\navail any thing, in his attempt to show that the Apostles made such\nattacks on whatever sinful institutions came under their observation.\n\nWhat I have said on a former page shows sufficiently how fit it is for\nmissionaries to the heathen, more especially in the first years of their\nefforts among them, to labor to instruct their ignorant pupils in the\nelementary principles of Christianity, rather than to call their\nattention to the institutions of civil government, the sinfulness of\nwhich they would not be able to perceive until they had been grounded in\nthose elementary principles; and the sinfulness of which, more than of\nany thing else, their prejudices would forbid them to suspect. Another\nreason why the missionary to the heathen should not directly, and\ncertainly not immediately, assail their civil governments, is that he\nwould thereby arouse their jealousies to a pitch fatal to his influence,\nhis usefulness, and most probably his life; and another reason is, that\nthis imprudence would effectually close the door, for a long time,\nagainst all efforts, even the most judicious, to spread the gospel\namongst a people so needlessly and greatly prejudiced against it by an\nunwise and abrupt application of its principles. For instance, what\nfolly and madness it would be for our missionaries to Burmah, to make a\ndirect assault on the political institutions of that country! How fatal\nwould it be to their lives, and how incalculably injurious to the cause\nentrusted to their hands! And, if this can be said of them, after they\nhave spent ten, fifteen, and twenty years, in efforts to bring that\nportion of the heathen world to a knowledge and love of the truth, how\nmuch more emphatically could it be said if they had been in the field of\ntheir labors but three or four years! And yet, even this short space of\ntime exceeds the average period of the Apostles' labor among those\ndifferent portions of the heathen world which they visited;--labor, too,\nit must be remembered, not of the whole, nor even of half of \"the\ntwelve.\"\n\nThat the Apostles could not have made direct attacks on the institutions\nof the Roman government, but at the expense of their lives, is not to be\ndoubted. Our Saviour well knew how fatal was the jealousy of that\ngovernment to the man who was so unhappy as to have excited it; and he\naccordingly avoided the excitement of it, as far as practicable and\nconsistent. His ingenious and beautiful disposition of the question, \"Is\nit lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not,\" is among the instances, in\nwhich He studied to shun the displeasure of the civil government. Pilate\ngave striking evidence of his unwillingness to excite the jealousy of\nhis government, when, every other expedient to induce him to consent to\nthe Saviour's death having failed, the bare charge, utterly unproven and\ngroundless, that, the Divine prisoner had put forth pretensions,\ninterfering with Caesar's rights, availed to procure His death-warrant\nfrom the hands of that truth-convicted, but man-fearing governor. Had it\nnot availed, Pilate would have been exposed to the suspicion of\ndisloyalty to his government; and so perilous was this suspicion, that\nhe was ready, at any expense to his conscience and sense of justice, to\navoid incurring it.\n\nA direct attack on Roman slavery, as it would have called in question\nthe rightfulness of war--the leading policy of the Roman\ngovernment--would, of course, have been peculiarly perilous to its\npresumptuous author. No person could have made this attack, and lived;\nor, if possibly he might have escaped the vengeance of the government,\ndo we not know too much of the deadly wrath of slaveholders, to believe\nthat he could have also escaped the summary process of Lynch law? If it\nbe at the peril of his life that a Northern man travels in the Southern\nStates,--and that, too, whether he do or do not say a word about\nslavery, or even whether he be or be not an abolitionist;--if your\nleading men publicly declare, that it is your religious duty to put to\nan immediate death, whenever they come within your power, those who\npresume to say that slavery is sin (and such a declaration did a South\nCarolina gentleman make on the floor of congress, respecting the\ninconsiderable person who is addressing you);--and, if your professing\nChristians, not excepting ministers of the gospel, thirst for the blood\nof abolitionists[A], as I will abundantly show, if you require\nproof;--if, in a gospel land, all this be so, then I put it to your\ncandor, whether it can reasonably be supposed that the Apostles would\nhave been allowed to attack slavery in the midst of heathen\nslaveholders. Why it is that slaveholders will not allow a word to be\nbreathed against slavery, I cannot, perhaps, correctly judge.\nAbolitionists think that this unwillingness denotes that man is unfit\nfor absolute power over his fellow men. They think as unfavorably of the\ninfluence of this power on the slaveholder, as your own Jefferson did.\nThey think that it tends to make him impatient of contradiction,\nself-willed, supercilious, cruel, murderous, devilish; and they think\nthat they can establish this opinion, not by the soundest philosophy\nonly, but by the pages of many of your own writers, and by those daily\nscenes of horrid brutality which make the Southern States, in the sight\nboth of God and man, one of the most frightful and loathsome portions of\nthe world--of the whole world--barbarous as well as civilized.\n\n[Footnote A: I will relate an incident, to show what a fiend even woman,\ngentle, lovely woman, may become, after she has fallen under the sway of\nthe demon of slavery. Said a lady of Savannah, on a visit in the city of\nNew York, \"I wish he (Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Cox) would come to Savannah. I\nshould love to see him tarred and feathered, and his head cut off and\ncarried on a pole around Savannah.\" This lady is a professing Christian.\nHer language stirs me up to retaliate upon her, and to express the wish\nthat she would come to the town, and even to the dwelling, in which Dr.\nCox resides. She would find that man of God--that man of sanctified\ngenius--as glad to get his enemies into his hands, as she would be to\nget him into the hands of his enemies:--not, however, for the purpose of\ndisgracing and decapitating them, but, that he might pour out upon them\nthe forgiveness and love of his generous and _abolitionized_ heart. In\nthe city of New York there are thousands of whole-souled abolitionists.\nWhat a striking testimony is it, in behalf of their meekness and\nforbearance, when a southern fury is perfectly secure, in belching out\nsuch words of wrath in the midst of them! We abolitionists never love\nour principles better, than when we see the slaveholder feeling safe\namongst us. No man has been more abusive of us than Governor McDuffie;\nand yet, were he to travel in the Northern States, he would meet with no\nunkindness at the hands of any abolitionist. On the other hand, let it\nbe known to the governor, that he has within his jurisdiction a\nprominent abolitionist--one, whose heart of burning love has made him\nspecially anxious to persuade the unfortunate slaveholder to be just to\nhimself, to his fellow men, and to his God,--and the governor, true to\nthe horrid sentiments of his famous message, would advise that he be\n\"put to death without benefit of clergy.\" Let slaveholders say what they\nwill about our blood-thirstiness, there is not one of them who fears to\nput himself in our power. The many of them, who have been beneath my\nroof, and the roofs of other abolitionists, have manifested their\nconfidence in our kindness. Were a stranger to the institution of\nslavery to learn, in answer to his inquiries, that \"an abolitionist\" is\n\"an outlaw amongst slaveholders,\" and that \"a slaveholder\" is \"the\nkindly entertained guest of abolitionists,\"--here would be a puzzle\nindeed. But the solution of it would not fail to be as honorable to the\npersecuted man of peace, as it would be disgraceful to the bloody\nadvocate and executioner of Lynch law.]\n\nI need not render any more reasons why the Apostles did not specifically\nattack slavery; but I will reply to a question, which I am sure will be\nupon your lips all the time you are reading those I have rendered. This\nquestion is, \"If the Apostles did not make such an attack on slavery,\nwhy may the American abolitionists?\" I answer, that the difference\nbetween the course of the abolitionists and of the Apostles, in this\nmatter, is justified by the difference in their circumstances. Professor\nHodge properly says, that our course should be like theirs, \"unless it\ncan be shown that their circumstances were so different from ours, as to\nmake the rule of duty different in the two cases.\" And he as properly\nadds, \"the obligation to point out and establish this difference rests\nupon the abolitionists.\"\n\nThe reasons I have given, why the Apostles did not directly attack\nslavery, do not apply to the abolitionists. The arm of civil power does\nnot restrain us from attacking it. To open our lips against the policy\nand institutions of civil government is not certain death. A despotic\ngovernment restricted the efforts of the Apostles to do good. But we\nlive under governments which afford the widest scope for exertions to\nbless our fellow men and honor God. Now, if we may not avail ourselves\nof this advantage, simply because the Apostles did not have it to avail\nthemselves of, then whatever other interests may prosper under a\nrepublican government, certain it is, that the cause of truth and\nrighteousness is not to be benefited by it. Far better never to have had\nour boasted form of government, if, whilst it extends the freedom and\nmultiplies the facilities of the wicked, it relieves the righteous of\nnone of the restrictions of a despotic government. Again, there is a\nreligious conscience all over this land, and an enlightened and gospel\nsense of right and wrong; on which we can and do (as in your\nIntroduction you concede is the fact) bring our arguments against\nslavery to bear with mighty power. But, on the other hand, the creating\nof such a conscience and such a sense, in the heathen and semi-heathen\namongst whom they lived and labored, was the first, and appropriate, and\nprincipal work of the Apostles. To employ, therefore, no other methods\nfor the moral and religious improvement of the people of the United\nStates, than were employed by the Apostles for that of the people of the\nRoman empire, is as absurd as it would be to put the highest and lowest\nclasses in a school to the same lessons; or a raw apprentice to those\nhigher branches of his trade which demand the skill of an experienced\nworkman.\n\nI am here reminded of what Professor Hodge says were the means relied on\nby the Saviour and Apostles for abolishing slavery. \"It was,\" says he,\n\"by teaching the true nature, dignity, equality, and destiny of men; by\ninculcating the principles of justice and love; and by leaving these\nprinciples to produce their legitimate effects in ameliorating the\ncondition of all classes of society.\" I would not speak disparagingly of\nsuch a course of instruction; so far from it, I am ready to admit that\nit is indispensable for the removal of evils, in every age and among\nevery people. When general instructions of this character shall have\nceased to be given, then will all wholesome reforms have ceased also.\nBut, I cannot approve of the Professor's object in this remark. This\nobject is to induce his readers to believe, that these abstract and\ngeneral instructions are all that is needed to effect the termination of\nslavery. Now, I maintain that one thing more is wanting; and that is,\nthe application of these instructions--of the principles contained in\nthem--to the evil in hand. As well may it be supposed, that the mechanic\ncan accomplish his work without the application, and by the mere\npossession, of his tools, as that a given reformation can be effected by\nunapplied general principles. Of these principles, American\nphilanthropists have been possessed from time immemorial; and yet all\nthe while American slavery has been flourishing and growing strong. Of\nlate, however, these principles have been brought to bear upon the\nsystem, and it manifestly is already giving way. The groans of the\nmonster prove that those rays of truth, which did not disturb him whilst\nthey continued to move in the parallel lines of abstractions and\ngeneralities, make it quite too hot for him since they are converged to\na burning focus upon his devoted head. Why is it, for example, that the\ninfluence of the Boston Recorder and New-York Observer--why is it, that\nthe influence of most of our titled divines--is decidedly hostile to the\nabolition of slavery? It is not because they are deficient in just\ngeneral sentiments and principles respecting man's duties to God and his\nfellow man. It is simply because they stand opposed to the application\nof these sentiments and principles to the evil in question; or, in other\nwords, stand opposed to the Anti-Slavery Society, which is the chosen\nlens of Divine Providence for turning these sentiments and principles,\nwith all the burning, irresistible power of their concentration, against\na giant wickedness. What is the work of the Temperance Societies, but to\nmake a specific application of general truths and principles to the vice\nof intemperance? And the fact, that from the time of Noah's\nintoxication, until the organization of the American Temperance Society,\nthe desolating tide of intemperance had been continually swelling,\nproves that this reliance on unapplied principles, however sound--this\n\"faith without works\"--is utterly vain. Nathan found that nothing, short\nof a specific application of the principles of righteousness, would\nanswer in the case of the sin of adultery. He had to abandon all\ngeneralities and circuitousness, and come plump upon the royal sinner\nwith his \"Thou art the man.\" Those divines, whose policy it is to handle\nslaveholders \"with gloves,\" if they must handle them at all, doubtless\nregard Nathan as an exceedingly impolite preacher.\n\nBut, not only is it far less difficult to instruct the people of the\nUnited States than it was the people of the Roman Empire, in the sin of\nslavery; it is also--for the reason that the sin is ours, to a far\ngreater extent, than it was theirs--much more important for us than for\nthem to be instructed in it. They had no share in the government which\nupheld it. They could not abolish it by law. But, on the other hand, the\npeople of the United States are themselves the government of their\ncountry. They are the co-sovereigns of their nation. They uphold slavery\nby law, and they can put it down by law. In this point of view,\ntherefore, slavery is an incomparably greater sin in us, than it was in\nthem.\n\nOnly one other reason will be given why it is more needful to overthrow\nAmerican, than it was to overthrow Roman slavery. The Church was then\nbut a handful of \"strangers scattered throughout\" the heathen world. It\nwas made up of those who had little influence, and who were esteemed\n\"the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things.\" It had,\nprobably, little, if any thing, to do with slavery, except to suffer its\nrigors in the persons of many of its members. But here, the Church,\ncomprising no very small proportion of the whole population, and\nexerting a mighty influence for good or ill on the residue, is tainted,\nyes, rotten with slavery. In this contrast, we not only see another\nreason why the destruction of American slavery is more important than\nwas that of Roman slavery; but we also see, that the Apostles could have\nbeen little, if at all, actuated by that motive, which is more urgent\nthan any other in the breasts of the American abolitionists--the motive\nof purging the Church of slavery.\n\nTo return to what you say of the abominations and horrors of Greek and\nRoman slavery:--I should be doing you great injustice, were I to convey\nthe idea that you approve of them. It is admitted that you disapprove of\nthem; and, it is also admitted, that no responsibility for them rests on\nthe relation of slaveholder and slave, if that relation have, as you\nlabor to show, the stamp of Divine approbation. You say, that slavery,\nlike marriage, is an institution sanctioned by the New Testament; and\nthat, therefore, neither for the evils which attend it, nor for any\nother cause, is it to be argued against. This is sound reasoning, on\nyour part; and, if your premises are correct, there is no resisting your\ndeduction. We are, in that case, not only not to complain of the\ninstitution of slavery, but we are to be thankful for it. Considering,\nhowever, that the whole fabric of your argument, in the principal or New\nTestament division of your book, is based on the alleged fact that the\nNew Testament approves of slavery, it seems to me that you have\ncontented yourself, and sought to make your readers contented, with very\nslender evidences of the truth of this proposition. These evidences are,\nmainly--that the New Testament does not declare slavery to be a sin:\nand, that the Apostles enjoin upon masters and servants their respective\nduties; and this, too, in the same connexion in which they make similar\ninjunctions upon those who stand in the confessedly proper relations of\nlife--the husband and wife, the parent and child. Your other evidences,\nthat the New Testament approves of slavery, unimportant as they are,\nwill not be left unnoticed.\n\nI have attempted to show, that the omission of the New Testament to\ndeclare slavery to be a sin, is not proof that it is not a sin. I pass\non to show, that the Apostolic injunction of duties upon masters and\nservants does not prove that slavery is sinless.\n\nI have now reached another grand fallacy in your book. It is also found\nin Professor Hodge's article. You, gentlemen, take the liberty to depart\nfrom our standard English translation of the Bible, and to substitute\n\"slaveholder\" for \"master\"--\"slave\" for \"servant\"--and, in substance,\n\"emperor\" for \"ruler\"--and \"subject of an imperial government\" for\n\"subject of civil government generally.\" I know that this substitution\nwell suits your purposes: but, I know not by what right you make it.\nProfessor Hodge tells the abolitionists, certainly without much respect\nfor either their intelligence or piety, that \"it will do no good (for\nthem) to attempt to tear the Bible to pieces.\" There is but too much\nevidence, that he himself has not entirely refrained from the folly and\ncrime, which he is so ready to impute to others.\n\nI will proceed to offer some reasons for the belief, that when the\nApostles enjoined on masters and servants their respective duties, they\nhad reference to servitude in general, and not to any modification of\nit.\n\n1st. You find passages in the New Testament, where you think _despotes_\nrefers to a person who is a slaveholder, and _doulos_ to a person who is\na slave. Admit that you are right: but this (which seems to be your only\nground for it) does not justify you in translating these words\n\"slaveholder\" and \"slave,\" whenever it may be advantageous to your side\nof the question to have them thus translated. These words, have a great\nvariety of meanings. For instance, there are passages in the New\nTestament where _despotes_ means \"God\"--Jesus Christ\"--Head of a\nfamily:\" and where _doulos_ means \"a minister or agent\"--a subject of a\nking\"--a disciple or follower of Christ.\" _Despotes_ and _doulos_ are\nthe words used in the original of the expression: \"Lord, now lettest\nthou thy servant depart in peace:\" _doulos_ in that of the expressions,\n\"servant of Christ,\" and \"let him be servant of all.\" Profane writers\nalso use these words in various senses. My full belief is, that these\nwords were used in both a generic and special sense, as is the word\ncorn, which denotes bread-stuffs in general, and also a particular kind\nof them; as is the word meat, the meaning of which is, sometimes,\nconfined to flesh that is eaten, and, at other times, as is frequently\nthe case in the Scriptures, extends to food in general; and, as is the\nword servant, which is suitable, either in reference to a particular\nform of servitude, or to servitude in general. There is a passage in the\nsecond chapter of Acts, which is, of itself, perhaps, sufficient to\nconvince an unbiased mind, that the Apostles used the word _doulos_ in\na, generic, as well as in a special sense. _Doulos_ and _doule_ are the\nwords in the phrase: \"And on my servants and on my handmaidens.\" A\nreference to the prophecy as it stands; in Joel 2: 28, 29, makes it more\nobvious, that persons in servitude are referred to under the words\n_doulos_ and _doule_; and, that the predicted blessing was to be shed\nupon persons of all ages, classes, and conditions--upon old men and\nyoung men--upon sons and daughters--and upon man-servants and\nmaid-servants. But, under the interpretation of those, who, like\nProfessor Hodge and yourself, confine the meaning of _doulos_ and\n_doule_ to a species of servants, the prophecy would have reference to\npersons of all ages, classes, and conditions--_excepting certain\ndescriptions of servants_. Under this interpretation, we are brought to\nthe absurd conclusion, that the spirit is to be poured out upon the\nmaster and his slaves--_but not upon his hired servants_.\n\nI trust that enough has been said, under this my first head, to show\nthat the various senses in which the words _despotes_ and _doulos_ are\nemployed, justify me in taking the position, that whenever we meet with\nthem, we are to determine, from the nature of the case, and from the\nconnexion in which they are used, whether they refer to servitude in\ngeneral, or to a species of it.\n\n2d. The confinement of the meaning of the words in question supposes,\nwhat neither religion nor common sense allows us to suppose, that\nslaveholders and slaves, despots and those in subjection to them, were\nsuch especial favorites of the Apostles, as to obtain from them specific\ninstructions in respect to their relative duties, whilst all other\nmasters and servants, and all other rulers and subjects, throughout all\nfuture time, were left unprovided with such instructions. According to\nthis supposition, when slavery and despotism shall, agreeably to\nProfessor Hodge's expectations, have entirely ceased, there will be not\none master nor servant, not one ruler nor subject in the whole earth, to\nfall, as such, under the Apostolic injunctions.\n\n3d. You admit that there were hirelings, in a community of primitive\nbelievers; and I admit, for the moment, that there were slaves in it.\nNow, under my interpretation of the Apostolic injunction, all husbands,\nall wives, all parents, all children, and all servants, in this\ncommunity, are told their respective duties: but, under yours, these\nduties are enjoined on all husbands, all wives, all parents, all\nchildren, and a _part of the servants_. May we not reasonably complain\nof your interpretation, that it violates analogy?\n\nImagine the scene, in which a father, in the Apostolic age, assembles\nhis family to listen to a letter from the glowing Peter, or \"such an one\nas Paul the aged.\" The letter contains instructions respecting the\nrelative duties of life. The venerable pair, who stand in the conjugal\nand parental relations, receive, with calm thankfulness, what is\naddressed to themselves;--the bright-eyed little ones are eager to know\nwhat the Apostle says to children--a poor slave blesses God for his\nportion of the Apostolic counsel;--and the scene would be one of\nunmingled joy, if the writer had but addressed hired servants, as well\nas slaves. One of the group goes away to weep, because the Apostle had\nremembered the necessities of all other classes of men, and forgotten\nthose of the hireling. Sir, do you believe that the Apostle was guilty\nof such an omission? I rejoice that my side of the question between us,\ndoes not call for the belief of what is so improbable and\nunnatural--and, withal, so dishonoring to the memory of the Apostle.\n\n4th. Another reason for believing, that the Apostles intended no such\nlimitation as that which you impose upon their words, is, that their\ninjunctions are as applicable to the other classes of persons occupying\nthese relations, as they are to the particular class to which you\nconfine them. The hired servant, as well as the slave, needs to be\nadmonished of the sins of \"eye service\" and \"purloining;\" and the master\nof voluntary, as well as involuntary servants, needs to be admonished to\n\"give that which is just and equal.\" The ruler in a republic, or, in a\nlimited monarchy, as well as the despot, requires to be reminded, that\nhe is to be \"a minister of God for good.\" So the subject of one kind of\ncivil government, as well as that of another, needs to be told to be\n\"subject unto the higher powers.\"\n\nI need not extend my remarks to prove, that _despotes_ and _doulos_ are,\nin the case before us, to be taken in their comprehensive sense of\nmaster and servant: and, clearly, therefore, the abolitionist is not\nguilty of violating your rule, \"not to interfere with a civil relation\n(in another place, you say, 'any of the existing relations of life') for\nwhich, and to regulate which, either Christ or his Apostles have\nprescribed regulations.\" He believes, as fully as yourself, that the\nrelation of master and servant is approved of God. It is the slavery\nmodification of it--the slaveholder's abuse and perversion of the\nrelation, in reducing the servant to a chattel--which, he believes, is\nnot approved of God.\n\nFor the sake of the argument, I will admit, that the slave alone, of all\nclasses of servants, was favored with specific instructions from the\nApostles: and then, how should we account for the selection? In no other\nway, can I conceive, than, on the ground, that his lot is so peculiarly\nhard--so much harder than that of persons under other forms of\nservitude--that he needs, whilst they do not, Apostolic counsel and\nadvice to keep him just, and patient, and submissive. Let me be spared\nfrom the sin of reducing a brother man to such a lot. Your doctrine,\ntherefore, that the Apostles addressed slaves only, and not servants in\ngeneral, would not, were its correctness admitted, lift you out of all\nthe difficulties in your argument.\n\nAgain, does it necessarily follow from this admission, that the relation\nof slaveholder and slave is sinless? Was the despotism of the Roman\ngovernment sinless? I do not ask whether the _abuses_ of civil\ngovernment, in that instance, were sinless. But, I ask, was a\ngovernment, despotic in its constitution, depriving all its subjects of\npolitical power, and extending absolute control over their property and\npersons--was such a government, independently of the consideration of\nits _abuses_, (if indeed we may speak of the abuses of what is in itself\nan _abuse_,) sinless? I am aware, that Prof. Hodge says, that it was so:\nand, when he classes despotism and slavery with _adiaphora_, \"things\nindifferent;\" and allows no more moral character to them than to a table\nor a broomstick, I trust no good man envies his optics. May I not hope\nthat you, Mr. Smylie, perceive a difference between despotism and an\n\"indifferent thing.\" May I not hope, that you will, both as a Republican\nand a Christian, take the ground, that despotism has a moral character,\nand a bad one? When our fathers prayed, and toiled, and bled, to obtain\nfor themselves and their children the right of self-government, and to\neffect their liberation from a power, which, in the extent and rigor of\nits despotism, is no more to be compared to the Roman government, than\nthe \"little finger\" to the \"loins,\" I doubt not, that they felt that\ndespotism had a moral, and a very bad moral character. And so would\nProf. Hodge have felt, had he stood by their side, instead of being one\nof their ungrateful sons. I say ungrateful--for, who more so, than he\nwho publishes doctrines that disparage the holy cause in which they were\nembarked, and exhibits them, as contending for straws, rather than for\nprinciples? Tell me, how long will this Republic endure after our people\nshall have imbibed the doctrine, that the _nature_ of civil government\nis an indifferent thing: and that the poet was right when he said,\n\n  \"For forms of government let _fools_ contest?\"\n\n\nThis, however, is but one of many doctrines of ruinous tendency to the\ncause of civil liberty, advanced by pro-slavery writers to sustain their\nsystem of oppression.\n\nIt would surely be superfluous to go into proofs, that the Roman\ngovernment was vicious and wicked in its constitution and nature.\nNevertheless, the Apostle enjoined submission to it, and taught its\nsubjects how to demean themselves under it. Here, then, we have an\ninstance, in which we cannot argue the sinlessness of a relation, from\nthe fact of Apostolic injunctions on those standing in it. Take another\ninstance. The Chaldeans went to a foreign land, and enslaved its\npeople--as members of your guilty partnership have done for some of the\nslaves you now own, and for the ancestors of others. And God destroyed\nthe Chaldeans expressly \"for all their evil that they had done in Zion.\"\nBut, wicked as they were, for having instituted this relation between\nthemselves and the Jews, God, nevertheless, tells the Jews to submit to\nit. He tells them, \"Serve the King of Babylon.\" He even says, \"seek the\npeace of the city, whither I have caused you to be carried away\ncaptives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for, in the peace thereof,\nshall ye have peace.\" Here then, we have another instance, in addition\nto that of the Roman despot and his subjects, in which the Holy Spirit\nprescribed regulations for wicked relations. You will, at least, allow,\nthat the relation established by the Chaldeans between themselves and\nthe captive Jews, was wicked. But, you will perhaps say, that this is\nnot a relation coming within the contemplation of your rule. Your rule\nspeaks of a civil relation, and also of the existing relations of life.\nBut, the relation in question, being substantially that of slaveholder\nand slave, is, according to your own showing, a civil relation. Perhaps\nyou will say, it is not an \"existing relation of life.\" But what do you\nmean by \"an existing relation of life?\" Do you mean, that it is a\nrelation approved of God? If you do, and insist that the relation of\nslaveholder and slave is \"an existing relation of life,\" then you are\nguilty of begging the great question between us. Your rule, therefore,\ncan mean nothing more than this--that any relation is rightful, for\nwhich the Bible prescribes regulations. But the relation referred to\nbetween the Chaldeans and Jews, proves the falsity of the rule. Again,\nwhen a man compels me to go with him, is not the compelled relation\nbetween him and me a sinful one? And the relation of robber and robbed,\nwhich a man institutes between himself and me, is not this also sinful?\nBut, the Bible has prescribed regulations for the relations in both\nthese cases. In the one, it requires me to \"go with him twain;\" and, in\nthe other, to endure patiently even farther spoliation and, \"let him\nhave (my) cloak also.\" In these cases, also, do we see the falsity of\nyour rule--and none the less clearly, because the relations in question\nare of brief duration.\n\nBefore concluding my remarks on this topic, let me say, that your\ndoctrine, that God has prescribed no rules for the behaviour of persons\nin any other than the just relations of life, reflects no honor on His\ncompassion. Why, even we \"cut-throat\" abolitionists are not so\nhard-hearted as to overlook the subjects of a relation, because it is\nwicked. Pitying, as we do, our poor colored brethren, who are forced\ninto a wicked relation, which, by its very nature and terms, and not by\nits _abuses_, as you would say, has robbed them of their all--even we\nwould, nevertheless, tell them to \"resist not evil\"--to be obedient unto\ntheir own masters\"--not purloining, but showing all good fidelity.\" We\nwould tell them, as God told the captive Jews, to \"seek the peace of\nthose, whither they are carried away captives, and to pray unto the\nLord\" for them: and our hope of their emancipation is not, as it is most\nslanderously and wickedly reported to be, in their deluging the South\nwith blood: but, it is, to use again those sweet words of inspiration,\nthat \"in the peace thereof they shall have peace.\" We do not communicate\nwith the slave; but, if we did, we would teach him, that our hope of his\nliberation is grounded largely in his patience, and that, if he would\nhave us drop his cause from our hands, he has but to take it into his\nown, and attempt to accomplish by violence, that which we seek to effect\nthrough the power of truth and love on the understanding and heart of\nhis master.\n\nHaving disposed of your reasons in favor of the rightfulness of the\nrelation of slaveholder and slave, I will offer a few reasons for\nbelieving that it is not rightful.\n\n1st. My strongest reason is, that the great and comprehensive\nprinciples, and the whole genius and spirit of Christianity, are opposed\nto slavery.\n\n2d. In the case of Pharoah and his Jewish slaves, God manifested his\nabhorrence of the relation of slavery. The fact that the slavery in this\ncase was political, instead of domestic, and, therefore, of a milder\ntype than that of Southern slavery, does not forbid my reasoning from\nthe one form to the other. Indeed, if I may receive your declaration on\nthis point, for the truth, I need not admit that the type of the slavery\nin question is milder than that of Southern slavery;--for you say, that\n\"their (the Jews) condition was that of the most abject bondage or\nslavery.\" But the supposition that it is milder, being allowed to be\ncorrect, would only prove, that God's abhorrence of Southern bondage as\nmuch exceeds that which he expressed of Egyptian bondage, as the one\nsystem is more full than the other of oppression and cruelty.\n\nWe learn from the Bible, that it was not because of the _abuses_ of the\nEgyptian system of bondage, but, because of its sinful nature, that God\nrequired its abolition. He did not command Pharaoh to cease from the\n_abuses_ of the system, and to correct his administration of it, but to\ncease from the system itself. \"I have heard,\" says God, \"the groaning of\nthe children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage;\"--not whom\nthe Egyptians, availing themselves of their absolute power, compel to\nmake brick without straw, and seek to waste and exterminate by the\nmurder of their infant children;--but simply \"whom the Egyptians keep in\nbondage.\" These hardships and outrages were but the leaves and branches.\nThe root of the abomination was the bondage itself, the assertion of\nabsolute and slaveholding power by \"a new king over Egypt, which knew\nnot Joseph.\" In the next verse God says: \"I will rid you\"--not only from\nthe burdens and abuses, as you would say, of bondage,--but \"out of their\n(the Egyptians) bondage\" itself--out of the relation in which the\nEgyptians oppressively and wickedly hold you.\n\nGod sends many messages to Pharaoh. In no one of them does He reprove\nhim for the abuses of the relation into which he had forced the Jews. In\nno one of them is he called on to correct the evils which had grown out\nof that relation. But, in every one, does God go to the root of the\nevil, and command Pharaoh, \"let my people go\"--\"let my people go, that\nthey may serve me.\" The abolitionist is reproachfully called an\n\"ultraist\" and \"an immediatist.\" It seems that God was both, when\ndealing with this royal slaveholder:--for He commanded Pharaoh, not to\nmitigate the bondage of the Israelites, but to deliver them from it--and\nthat, too, immediately. The system of slavery is wicked in God's sight,\nand, therefore, did He require of Pharaoh its immediate abandonment. The\nphrase, \"let my people go, that they may serve me,\" shows most\nstrikingly one feature of resemblance between Egyptian and American\nslavery. Egyptian slavery did not allow its subjects to serve God,\nneither does American. The Egyptian master stood between his slave and\ntheir God: and how strikingly and awfully true is it, that the American\nmaster occupies the like position! Not only is the theory of slavery,\nthe world over, in the face of God's declaration; \"all souls are mine:\"\nbut American slaveholders have brought its practical character to\nrespond so fully to its theory--they have succeeded, so well, in\nexcluding the light and knowledge of God from the minds of their\nslaves--that they laugh at His claim to \"all souls.\"\n\n3d. Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthian Church, tells\nservants--say slaves, to suit your views--if they may be free, to prefer\nfreedom to bondage. But if it be the duty of slaves to prefer freedom to\nbondage, how clearly is it the correlative duty of the master to grant\nit to him! You interpret the Apostle's language, in this case, as I do;\nand it is not a little surprising, that, with your interpretation of it,\nyou can still advocate slavery. You admit, that Paul says--I use your\nown words--\"a state of freedom, on the whole, is the best.\" Now, it\nseems to me, that this admission leaves you without excuse, for\ndefending slavery. You have virtually yielded the ground. And this\nadmission is especially fatal to your strenuous endeavors to class the\nrelation of master and slave with the confessedly proper relations of\nlife, and to show that, like these, it is approved of God. Would Paul\nsay to the child, \"a state of freedom\" from parental government \"on the\nwhole is the best?\" Would he say to the wife, \"a state of freedom from\nyour conjugal bonds\" on the whole is the best? Would he say to the child\nand wife, in respect to this freedom, \"use it rather?\" Would he be thus\nguilty of attempting to annihilate the family relation?\n\nDoes any one wonder, that the Apostle did not use stronger language, in\nadvising to a choice and enjoyment of freedom? It is similar to that\nwhich a pious, intelligent, and prudent abolitionist would now use under\nthe like circumstances. Paul was endeavoring to make the slave contented\nwith his hard lot, and to show him how unimportant is personal liberty,\ncompared with liberation from spiritual bondage: and this explains why\nit is, that he spoke so briefly and moderately of the advantages of\nliberty. His advice to the slave to accept the boon of freedom, was a\npurely incidental remark: and we cannot infer from it, how great stress\nhe would have laid on the evils of slavery, and on the blessings of\nliberty, in a discourse treating directly and mainly of those subjects.\nWhat I have previously said, however, shows that it would, probably,\nhave been in vain, and worse than in vain, for him to have come out, on\nany occasion whatever, with an exposition of the evils of slavery.\n\nOn the thirty-second page of your book, you say, \"Masters cannot,\naccording to the command of Christ, render to their slaves that which is\njust and equal, if you abolish the relation; for, then they will cease\nto be masters.\" Abolish any of the relations for which regulations are\nprovided \"in the New Testament, and, in effect, you abolish some of the\nlaws of Christ.\" But, we have just seen that Paul was in favor of\nabolishing the relation of master and slave; which, as you insist, is a\nrelation for which regulations are provided in the New Testament. It is,\ntherefore, irresistibly deduced from your own premises, that he was in\nfavor of abolishing \"the laws of Christ.\" It would require but little,\nif any, extension of your doctrine, to make it wrong to remove all the\ngraven images out of a nation. For, in that event, the law of God\nagainst bowing down to them would have nothing left to act upon. It\nwould thenceforth be inoperative.\n\n4th. Another reason for believing, that the Apostles did not approve of\nthe slavery modification of servitude, is found in Paul's injunction;\n\"Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them.\" I admit, that it\nis probable that others as well as slaves, are referred to in this\ninjunction: but it certainly is not probable, that others, to the\nexclusion of slaves, are referred to. But, even on the supposition that\nslaves are not referred to, but those only who are tenants of prisons,\nlet me ask you which you would rather be--a slave or a prisoner, as Paul\nprobably was when he wrote this injunction?--and whether your own\ndescription of the wretched condition of the Roman slave, does not\nprepare you to agree with me, that if the Apostle could ask sympathy for\nthe prisoner, who, with all his deprivations, has still the protection\nof law, it is not much more due to the poor slave, who has no protection\nwhatever against lawless tyranny and caprice!\n\nBut to proceed, if slaves are the only, or even a part of the persons\nreferred to in the injunction, then you will observe, that the Apostle\ndoes not call for the exercise of sympathy towards those who are said to\nbe suffering what you call the _abuses_ of slavery; but towards those\nwho are so unhappy as to be but the subjects of it--towards those who\nare \"in bonds.\" The bare relation of a slave is itself so grievous, as\nto call for compassion towards those who bear it. Now, if this relation\nwere to be classed with the approved relations of life, why should the\nApostle have undertaken to awaken compassion for persons, simply because\nthey were the subject, of it? He never asked for sympathy for persons,\nsimply because they were parties to the relations of husband and wife,\nparent and child. It may be worthy of notice, that the injunction under\nconsideration is found in Paul's letter to the Jewish Christians. This\nattempt to awaken pity in behalf of the slave, and to produce abhorrence\nof slavery, was made upon these, and not upon the Gentile Christians;\nbecause, perhaps, that they, who had always possessed the Oracles of\nGod, could bear it; and they who had just come up out of the mire of\nheathenism, could not. If this explanation be just, it enforces my\nargument for ascribing to causes, other than the alleged sinfulness of\nthe institution, the Apostle's omission to utter specific rebukes of\nslavery.\n\n5th. Another reason for believing that the slavery modification of\nservitude should not be classed with the confessedly proper relations\nwith which you class it, is the conclusive one, that it interferes with,\nand tends to subvert, and does actually subvert, these relations. The\nApostles prescribe duties, which are necessary to sustain these\nrelations, and make them fruitful sources of happiness to the parties to\nthem. Among these duties are the following: \"Wives, submit yourselves to\nyour own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord\"--\"Children, obey your\nparents\"--\"Husbands, dwell with them\" (your wives). But slavery, where\nit does not make obedience to these commands utterly impossible,\nconditions it on the permission of usurpers, who have presumed to step\nbetween the laws of God and those on whom they are intended to bear.\nSlavery, not the law of God, practically determines whether husbands\nshall dwell with their wives: and an amount of anguish, which God alone\ncan compute, testifies that slavery has thus determined, times without\nnumber, that husbands shall not dwell with their wives. A distinguished\ngentleman, who has been much at the South, is spending a little time in\nmy family. He told me but this day, that he had frequently known the air\nfilled with shrieks of anguish for a whole mile around the spot, where,\nunder the hammer of the auctioneer, the members of a family were\nundergoing an endless separation from each other. It was but last week,\nthat a poor fugitive reached a family, in which God's commands, \"Hide\nthe outcasts, betray not him that wandereth\"--\"Hide not thyself from thy\nown flesh\"--are not a dead letter. The heaviest burden of his heart is,\nthat he has not seen his wife for five years, and does not expect to see\nher again: his master, in Virginia, having sold him to a Georgian, and\nhis wife to an inhabitant of the District of Columbia. Whilst the law of\nGod requires wives to \"submit themselves to their husbands, as it is fit\nin the Lord;\" the law of slavery commands them, under the most terrific\npenalties, to submit to every conceivable form of violence, and the most\nloathsome pollution, \"as it is fit\" in the eyes of slaveholders--no\nsmall proportion of whom are, as a most natural fruit of slavery,\nabandoned to brutality and lust. The laws of South Carolina and Georgia\nmake it an offence punishable with death, \"if any slave shall presume to\nstrike a white person.\" By the laws of Maryland and Kentucky, it is\nenacted \"if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or free, shall, at any\ntime, lift his or her hand in opposition to any person, not being a\nnegro or Indian, he or she shall, in the first-mentioned State, suffer\nthe penalty of cropped ears; and, in the other, thirty-nine lashes on\nhis or her bare back, well laid on, by order of the justice.\" In\nLouisiana there is a law--for the enactment of which, slavery is, of\ncourse, responsible--in these words: \"Free people of color ought never\nto insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive themselves\nequal to the whites: but, on the contrary, they ought _to yield to them\non every occasion_, and never speak or answer them but with respect,\nunder the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the\noffence.\" The following extract of a letter, written to me from the\nSouth, by a gentleman who still resides there, serves to show how true\nit is, that \"on every occasion,\" the colored person must yield to the\nwhite, and, especially, if the white be clothed with the authority of an\nambassador of Christ. \"A negro was executed in Autauga Co., not long\nsince, for the murder of his master. The latter, it seems, attempted to\nviolate the wife of his slave in his presence, when the negro enraged,\nsmote the wretch to the ground. And this master--this brute--this\nfiend--was a preacher of the gospel, in regular standing!\" In a former\npart of this communication, I said enough to show, that slavery prevents\nchildren from complying with the command to obey their parents. But, in\nreply to what I have said of these outrages on the rights of husbands\nand wives, parents and children, you maintain, that they are no part of\nthe system of slavery. Slaveholders, however, being themselves judges,\nthey are a part of it, or, at least, are necessary to uphold it; else\nthey would not by deliberate, solemn legislation, authorize them. But,\nbe this as it may, it is abundantly proven, that slavery is, essentially\nand inevitably, at war with the sacred rights of the family state. Let\nme say, then, in conclusion under this head, that in whatever other\ncompany you put slavery, place it not in that of the just relations of\nhusband and wife, parent and child. They can no more company with each\nother, than can fire with water. Their natures are not only totally\nopposite to, but destructive of, each other.\n\n6th. The laws, to which you refer on the sixty-eighth page of your book,\ntend to prove, and, so far as your admission of the necessity of them\ngoes, do prove, that the relation of slaveholder and slave does not\ndeserve a place, in the class of innocent and proper relations. You\nthere say, that the writings of \"such great and good men as Wesley,\nEdwards, Porteus, Paley, Horsley, Scott, Clark, Wilberforce, Sharp,\nClarkson, Fox, Johnson, and a host of as good if not equally great, men\nof later date,\" have made it necessary for the safety of the institution\nof slavery, to pass laws, forbidding millions of our countrymen to read.\nYou should have, also, mentioned the horrid sanctions of these\nlaws--stripes, imprisonment, and death. Now, these laws disable the\npersons on whom they bear, from fulfilling God's commandments, and,\nespecially, His commandment to \"search the Scriptures.\" They are,\ntherefore, wicked. What then, in its moral character, must be a\nrelation, which, to sustain it, requires the aid of wicked laws?--and,\nhow entirely out of place must it be, when you class it with those just\nrelations of life, that, certainly, require none of the support, which,\nyou admit, is indispensable to the preservation of the relation of\nslaveholder and slave! It is true, that you attempt to justify the\nenactment of the laws in question, by the occasions which you say led to\nit. But, every law forbidding what God requires, is a wicked law--under\nwhatever pretexts, or for whatever purposes, it may have been enacted.\nLet the occasions which lead to a wicked measure be what they may, the\nwickedness of the measure is still sufficient to condemn it.\n\nIn the case before us, we see how differently different persons are\naffected by the same fact. Whilst the stand taken against slavery by\nWesley, Edwards, and the other choice spirits you enumerate, serves but\nto inspire you with concern for its safety, it would, of itself, and\nwithout knowing their reasons for it, be well nigh enough to destroy my\nconfidence in the institution. Let me ask you, Sir, whether it would not\nbe more reasonable for those, who are so industriously engaged in\ninsulating the system of American slavery, and shrouding it with\ndarkness, to find less fault with the bright and burning light which the\nwritings of the wisest and best men pour upon it, and more with the\nsystem which \"hateth the light, neither cometh to the light.\"\n\nYou would have your readers believe, that the blessings of education are\nto be withheld from your slaves--only \"until the storm shall be\noverblown,\" and that you hope that \"Satan's being let loose will be but\nfor a little season.\" I say nothing more about the last expression, than\nthat I most sincerely desire you may penitently regret having attributed\nthe present holy excitement against slavery to the influences of Satan.\nBy \"the storm\" you, doubtless, mean the excitement produced by the\npublications and efforts of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Now, I\nwill not suppose that you meant to deceive your readers on this point.\nYou are, nevertheless, inexcusable for using language so strikingly\ncalculated to lead them into error. It is not yet three years since that\nSociety was organized: but the statute books of some of the slave States\ncontain laws, forbidding the instruction of slaves in reading, which\nwere enacted long before you and I were born. As long ago as the year\n1740, South Carolina passed a law, forbidding to teach slaves to write.\nGeorgia did so in 1770. In the year 1800, thirty-three years before \"the\nstorm\" of the Anti-Slavery Society began to blow, South Carolina passed\na law, forbidding \"assemblies of slaves, free negroes, &c., for the\npurpose of mental instruction.\" In the Revised Code of Virginia of 1819,\nis a law similar to that last mentioned. In the year 1818, the city of\nSavannah forbade by an ordinance, the instruction of all persons of\ncolor, either free or bond, in reading and writing. I need not specify\nany more of these man-crushing, soul-killing, God-defying laws;--nor\nneed I refer again to the shocking penalties annexed to the violation of\nmost of them. I conclude my remarks under this head, with the advice,\nthat, in the next edition of your book, you do not assign the\nanti-slavery excitement, which is now spreading over our land, as the\noccasion of the passage of the laws in question.\n\n7th. The only other reason I will mention for believing, that the\nslavery modification of servitude is not approved of God, is, that it\nhas never been known _to work well_--never been known to promote man's\nhappiness or God's glory. Wickedness and wretchedness are, so uniformly,\nthe product of slavery, that they must be looked upon, not as its\nabuses, but as its legitimate fruits. Whilst all admit, that the\nrelations of the family state are, notwithstanding their frequent\nperversions, full of blessings to the world; and that, but for them, the\nworld would be nothing better than one scene of pollution and wo;--to\nwhat history of slavery will you refer me, for proof of its beneficent\noperation? Will it be to the Bible history of Egyptian slavery? No--for\nthat informs us of the exceeding wickedness and wretchedness of Egyptian\nslavery. Will it be to the history of Greek and Roman slavery? No--for\nyour own book acknowledges its unutterable horrors and abominations.\nWill you refer me to the history of the West Indies for proofs of the\nhappy fruits of slavery? Not until the earth is no more, will its\npolluted and bloody pages cease to testify against slavery. And, when we\nhave come down to American slavery, you will not even open the book\nwhich records such facts, as that its subjects are forbidden to be\njoined in wedlock, and to read the Bible. No--you will not presume to\nlook for a single evidence of the benign influences of a system, where,\nby the admission of your own ecclesiastical bodies, it has turned\nmillions of men into heathen. I say nothing now of your beautiful and\nharmless theories of slavery:--but this I say, that when you look upon\nslavery as it has existed, or now exists, either amidst the darkness of\nMahommedanism or the light of Christianity, you dare not, as you hope\nfor the Divine favor, say that it is a Heaven-descended institution; and\nthat, notwithstanding it is like Ezekiel's roll, \"written within and\nwithout with lamentations and mourning and wo,\" it, nevertheless, bears\nthe mark of being a boon from God to man.\n\nHaving disposed of your \"strong reasons\" for the position, that the New\nTestament authorizes slavery, I proceed to consider your remaining\nreasons for it.\n\nBecause it does not appear, that our Saviour and the Apostle Peter told\ncertain centurions, who, for the sake of the argument, I will admit were\nslaveholders, that slaveholding is sinful, you argue, and most\nconfidently too, that it is not sinful. But, it does not appear, that\nthe Saviour and the Apostle charged _any_ sinful practices upon them.\nThen, by your logic, all their other practices, as well as their\nslaveholding, were innocent, and these Roman soldiers were literally\nperfect.--Again; how do you know that the Saviour and the Apostle did\nnot tell them, on the occasion you refer to, that they were sinners for\nbeing slaveholders? The fact, that the Bible does not inform us that\nthey told them so, does not prove that they did not; much less does it\nprove, that they did not tell them so subsequently to their first\ninterview with them. And again, the admission that they did not\nspecifically attack slavery, at any of their interviews with the\ncenturions, or on any other occasions whatever, would not justify the\ninference, that it is sinless. I need not repeat the reasoning which\nmakes the truth of this remark apparent.\n\nYou refer to the Saviour's declaration of the unequaled faith of one of\nthese centurions, with the view of making it appear that a person of so\ngreat faith could not be a great sinner. But, how long had he exercised\nthis, or, indeed, any Christian faith? That he was on good terms with\nthe Jews, and had built them a synagogue, is quite as strong evidence,\nthat he had not, as that he had, previously to that time, believed in\nJesus:--and, if he had not, then his faith, however strong, and his\nconversion, however decided, are nothing towards proving that slavery is\nsinless.\n\nIt is evident, that the Apostle was sent to Cornelius for the single\npurpose of inculcating the doctrine of the remission of sin, through\nfaith in Christ.\n\nI proceed to examine another of your arguments. From Paul's declaration\nto the Elders at Miletus, \"I have not shunned to declare unto you all\nthe counsel of God,\" taken in connexion with the fact, that the Bible\ndoes not inform us that he spoke to them of slaveholding, you\nconfidently and exultingly infer that it is innocent. Here, again, you\nprove too much, and therefore, prove nothing. It does not appear that he\nspecified a hundredth part of their duties. If he did not tell them to\nabstain from slaveholding, neither did he tell them to abstain from\ngames and theatres. But, his silence about slaveholding proves to your\nmind its sinlessness: equally then should his silence about games and\ntheatres satisfy you of their innocence. Two radical errors run through\na great part of your book. They are, that the Apostle gave specific\ninstructions concerning all duties, and that the Bible contains these\ninstructions. But, for these errors, your book would be far less\nobjectionable than it is. I might, perhaps, rather say, that but for\nthese, you could not have made up your book.\n\nAnd now, since Paul's address to the Elders has been employed by you in\nbehalf of slavery, allow me to try its virtue against slavery: and, if\nit should turn out that you are slain with your own weapon, it will not\nbe the first time that temerity has met with such a fate. I admit, that\nthe Apostle does not tell the Elders of any wrong thing which they had\ndone; but there are some wrong things from which he had himself\nabstained, and some right things which he had himself done, of which he\ndoes tell them. He tells them, for instance, that he had not been guilty\nof coveting what was another's, and also, that with his own hands he had\nministered to his own necessities and those of others: and he further\ntells them, that they ought to copy his example, and labor, as he had\ndone, \"to support the weak.\" Think you, sir, from this language that\nPaul was a slaveholder--and, that his example was such, as to keep lazy,\nluxurious slaveholders in countenance? The slaveholder is guilty of\ncoveting, not only all a man has, but even the man himself. The\nslaveholder will not only not labor with his hands to supply the wants\nof others, and \"to support the weak;\" but he makes others labor to\nsupply his wants:--yes, makes them labor unpaid--night and day--in\nstorm, as well as in sunshine--under the\nlash--bleeding--groaning--dying--and all this, not to minister to his\nactual needs, but to his luxuriousness and sensuality.\n\nYou ridicule the idea of the abolition of slavery, because it would make\nthe slaveholder \"so poor, as to oblige him to take hold of the maul and\nwedge himself--he must catch, curry, and saddle his own horse--he must\nblack his own brogans (for he will not be able to buy boots)--his wife\nmust go herself to the wash-tub--take hold of the scrubbing broom, wash\nthe pots, and cook all that she and her rail-mauler will eat.\" If Paul\nwere, as you judge he was, opposed to the abolition of slavery, it is at\nleast certain, from what he says of the character of his life in his\naddress to the Elders, that his opposition did not spring from such\nconsiderations as array you against it. In his estimation, manual labor\nwas honorable. In a slaveholding community, it is degrading. It is so in\nyour own judgment, or you would not hold up to ridicule those humble\nemployments, which reflect disgrace, only where the moral atmosphere is\ntainted by slavery. That the pernicious influences of slavery in this\nrespect are felt more or less, in every part of this guilty nation, is\nbut too true. I put it to your candor, sir, whether the obvious fact,\nthat slavery makes the honest labor of the hands disreputable, is not a\nweighty argument against the supposition that God approves it? I put it\nto your candor, sir, whether the fact, which you, at least, cannot\ngain-say, that slavery makes even ministers of the gospel despise the\nemployments of seven-eighths of the human family, and, consequently, the\nhumble classes, who labor in them--I put it to your candor, whether the\ninstitution, which breeds such contempt of your fellow-men and fellow\nChristians, must not be offensive to Him, who commands us to \"Honor all\nmen, and love the brotherhood?\"\n\nIn another argument, you attempt to show, that Paul's letter to Philemon\njustifies slaveholding, and also the apprehension and return of fugitive\nslaves. After having recited the Resolution of the Chilicothe\nPresbytery--\"that to apprehend a slave who is endeavoring to escape from\nslavery, with a view to restore him to his master, is a direct violation\nof the Divine law, and, when committed by a member of the church, ought\nto subject him to censure\"--you undertake to make your readers believe,\nthat Paul's sending Onesimus to Philemon, is a case coming fairly within\nthe purview of the resolution. Let us see if it does. A man by the name\nof Onesimus was converted to Christianity, under Paul's ministry at\nRome. Paul learnt that he had formerly been a servant--say a slave--of\nPhilemon, who was a \"dearly beloved\" Christian: and believing that his\nreturn to his old master would promote the cause of Christ, and\nbeautifully exemplify its power, he advised him to return to him. He\nfollowed the Apostle's advice and returned. Now, from this example, you\nattempt to derive a justification for \"a member of a Church\" to be\nengaged in forcibly apprehending and restoring fugitive slaves. I say\nforcibly--as the apprehension and return, referred to in the Resolution,\nare clearly forcible. I cannot refrain, sir, from saying, that you\ngreatly wrong the memory of that blessed Apostle of the Lord Jesus, in\nconstruing his writings to authorize such violence upon the persons and\nrights of men. And greatly, also, do you wrong the Resolution in\nquestion, by your endeavor to array the Bible against it. The Resolution\nis right; it is noble--it denotes in the source whence it emanated, a\nproper sense of the rights and dignity of man. It is all the better for\nbeing marked with an honorable contempt of wicked and heaven-daring\nlaws. May I, having the suspicion, or even the certain knowledge, that\nmy fellow man was once held in slavery, and is still _legally_ a slave,\nseize upon him and reduce him again to slavery? May I thus deal with a\nguiltless and unaccused brother? Human laws may, it is true, bear me out\nin this man-stealing, which is not less flagrant than that committed on\nthe coast of Africa:--but, says the Great Law-giver, \"The word that I\nhave spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day:\"--and, it is a\npart of this \"word,\" that \"he that stealeth a man shall surely be put to\ndeath.\" In that last day, the mayors, recorders, sheriffs, and others,\nwho have been engaged, whether in their official or individual capacity,\nin slave-catching and man-stealing, will find human laws but a flimsy\nprotection against the wrath of Him, who judges his creatures by his own\nand not by human laws. In that \"last day,\" all who have had a part, and\nhave not repented of it, in the sin of treating man as property; all, I\nsay, whether slaveholders or their official or unofficial assistants,\nthe drivers upon their plantations, or their drivers in the free\nStates--all, who have been guilty of throwing God's \"image\" into the\nsame class with the brutes of the field--will find, that He is the\navenger of his poorest, meanest ones--and that the crime of transmuting\nHis image into property, is but aggravated by the fact and the plea that\nit was committed under the sanction of human laws.\n\nBut, to return--wherein does the letter of Paul to Philemon justify\nslaveholding? What evidence does it contain, that Philemon was a\nslaveholder at the time it was written? He, who had been his slave \"in\ntime past,\" had, very probably, escaped before Philemon's conversion to\nChrist. This \"time past,\" may have been a _long_ \"time past.\" The word\nin the original, which is translated \"in time past,\" does not forbid the\nsupposition. Indeed, it is the same word, which the Apostle uses in the\nthirteenth verse of the first chapter of Galatians; and there it denotes\na _long_ \"time past\"--as much as from fifteen to eighteen years.\nBesides, Onesimus' escape and return both favor the supposition, that it\nwas between the two events that Philemon's conversion took place. On the\none hand, he fled to escape from the cruelties of an unconverted master;\non the other, he was encouraged to follow the Apostle's advice, by the\nconsideration, that on his return to Philemon he should not have to\nencounter again the unreasonableness and rage of a heathen, but that he\nshould meet with the justice and tenderness of a Christian--qualities,\nwith the existence and value of which, he had now come to an\nexperimental acquaintance. Again, to show that the letter in question\ndoes not justify slaveholding--in what character was it, that Paul sent\nOnesimus to Philemon? Was it in that of a slave? Far from it. It was, in\nthat of \"a brother beloved,\" as is evident from his injunction to\nPhilemon to \"receive him forever--not now as a _slave_, but above a\n_slave_--a brother beloved.\"\n\nIt is worthy of remark, that Paul's message to Philemon, shows, not only\nthat he himself was not in favor of slaveholding, but, that he believed\nthe gospel had wrought such an entire change on this subject, in the\nheart of Philemon, that Onesimus would find on his return to him, the\ntyrant and the slaveholder sunk in the brother and the Christian.\n\nPaul's course in relation to Onesimus was such, as an abolitionist would\ndeem it proper to adopt, under the like circumstances. If a fugitive\nslave, who had become a dear child of God, were near me, and, if I knew\nthat his once cruel master had also become a \"dearly beloved\" Christian;\nand if, therefore, I had reason to believe, as Paul had, in the case of\nPhilemon, that he would \"receive him forever--not now as a _slave_, but\nabove a _slave_, a brother beloved,\" I would advise him to revisit his\nold master, provided he could do so, without interference and violence\nfrom others. Such interference and violence did not threaten Onesimus in\nhis return to Philemon. He was not in danger of being taken up,\nimprisoned, and sold for his jail fees, as a returning Onesimus would be\nin parts of this nation.\n\nOn the 72d page of your book, you utter sentiments, which, I trust, all\nyour readers will agree, are unworthy of a man, a republican, and a\nChristian. You there endeavor again to make it appear, that it is not\nthe _relation_ of master and slave, but only the abuse of it, which is\nto be objected to.--You say: \"Independence is a charming idea,\nespecially to Americans: but what gives it the charm? Is it the thing in\nitself? or is it because it is a release from the control of a bad\nmaster? Had Great Britain been a kind master, our ancestors were willing\nto remain her slaves.\" In reply to this I would say, that it must be a\nbase spirit which does not prize \"independence\" for its own sake,\nwhatever privation and suffering may attend it; and much more base must\nbe that spirit, which can exchange that \"independence\" for a state of\nslavish subjection--even though that state abound in all sensual\ngratifications. To talk of \"a kind master\" is to talk of a blessing for\na dog, but not for a man, who is made to \"call no man master.\" Were the\npeople of this nation like yourself, they would soon exchange their\nblood-bought liberties for subjection to any despot who would promise\nthem enough to eat, drink, and wear. But, I trust, that we at the North\nare \"made of sterner stuff.\" They, who make slaves of others, can more\neasily become slaves themselves: for, in their aggressions upon others,\nthey have despised and trampled under foot those great, eternal\nprinciples of right, which _not only_ constitute the bulwark of the\ngeneral freedom; but his respect for which is indispensable to every\nman's valuation and protection of his individual liberties. This train\nof thought associates with itself in my mind, the following passage in\nan admirable speech delivered by the celebrated William Pinckney, in the\nMaryland House of Delegates in 1789. Such a speech, made at the present\ntime in a slave State, would probably cost the life of him who should\nmake it; nor could it be delivered in a free States at any less\nsacrifice, certainly, than that of the reputation of the orator. What a\nretrograde movement has liberty made in this country in the last fifty\nyears!\n\n\"Whilst a majority of your citizens are accustomed to rule with the\nauthority of despots, within particular limits--while your youths are\nreared in the habit of thinking that the great rights of human nature\nare not so sacred, but they may with innocence be trampled on, can it be\nexpected, that the public mind should glow with that generous ardor in\nthe cause of freedom, which can alone save a government, like ours, from\nthe lurking demon of usurpation? Do you not dread the contamination of\nprinciple? Have you no alarms for the continuance of that spirit, which\nonce conducted us to victory and independence, when the talons of power\nwere unclasped for our destruction? Have you no apprehension left, that\nwhen the votaries of freedom sacrifice also at the gloomy altars of\nslavery, they will, at length, become apostates from them for ever? For\nmy own part, I have no hope, that the stream of general liberty will\nflow for ever, unpolluted, through the foul mire of partial bondage, or\nthat they, who have been habituated to lord it over others, will not be\nbase enough, in time, to let others lord it over them. If they resist,\nit will be the struggle of _pride_ and _selfishness_, not of\n_principle_.\"\n\nHad Edmund Burke known slaveholders as well as Mr. Pinckney knew them,\nhe would not have pronounced his celebrated eulogium on their love of\nliberty;--he would not have ascribed to them any love of liberty, but\nthe spurious kind which the other orator, impliedly, ascribes to\nthem--that which \"pride and selfishness\" beget and foster. Genuine love\nof liberty, as Mr. Pinckney clearly saw, springs from \"principle,\" and\nis found no where but in the hearts of those who respect the liberties\nand the rights of others.\n\nI had reason, in a former part of this communication, to charge some of\nthe sentiments of Professor Hodge with being alike reproachful to the\nmemory of our fathers, and pernicious to the cause of civil liberty.\nThere are sentiments on the 72d page of your book, obnoxious to the like\ncharge. If political \"independence\"--if a free government--be the poor\nthing--the illusive image of an American brain--which you sneeringly\nrepresent it, we owe little thanks to those who purchased it for us,\neven though they purchased it with their blood; and little pains need we\ntake in that case to preserve it. When will the people of the Northern\nStates see, that the doctrines now put forth so industriously to\nmaintain slavery, are rapidly undermining liberty?\n\nOn the 43d page of your book you also evince your low estimate of man's\nrights and dues. You there say, \"the fact that the planters of\nMississippi and Louisiana, even while they have to pay from twenty to\ntwenty-five dollars per barrel for pork the present season, afford to\ntheir slaves from three to four and a half pounds per week, does not\nshow, that they are neglectful in rendering to their slaves that which\nis just and equal.\" If men had only an animal, and not a spiritual and\nimmortal nature also, it might do for you to represent them as well\nprovided for, if but pork enough were flung to them. How preposterous to\ntell us, that God approves a system which brings a man, as slavery seems\nto have brought you, to regard his fellow man as a mere animal!\n\nI am happy to find that you are not all wrong. You are no \"gradualist.\"\nYou are not inconsistent, like those who admit that slavery is sinful,\nand yet refuse to treat it as sinful. I hope our Northern \"gradualists\"\nwill profit by the following passage in your book: \"If I were convinced\nby that word (the Bible) that slavery is itself a sin, I trust that, let\nit cost what it would, I should be an abolitionist, because there is no\ntruth, more clear to my mind, than that the gospel requires an\n_immediate_ abandonment of sin.\"\n\nYou have no doubt of your right to hold your fellow men, as slaves. I\nwish you had given your readers more fully your views of the origin of\nthis right. I judge from what you say, that you trace it back to the\ncurse pronounced by Noah upon Canaan. But was that curse to know no end?\nWere Canaan's posterity to endure the entailment of its disabilities and\nwoes, until the end of time? Was Divine mercy never to stay the\ndesolating waves of this curse? Was their harsh and angry roar to reach,\neven into the gospel dispensation, and to mingle discordantly with the\nsongs of \"peace on earth and good will to men?\" Was the captivity of\nCanaan's race to be even stronger than He, who came \"to bind up the\nbroken-hearted, and proclaim liberty to the captives?\" But who were\nCanaan and his descendants? You speak of them, and with singular\nunfairness, I think, as \"_the_ posterity of Ham, from whom, it is\nsupposed, sprang the Africans.\" They were, it is true, a part of Ham's\nposterity; but to call them \"_the_ posterity of Ham,\" is to speak as\nthough he had no other child than Canaan. The fifteenth to nineteenth\nverses of the tenth chapter of Genesis teach us, beyond all question,\nthat Canaan's descendants inhabited the land of Canaan and adjacent\nterritory, and that this land is identical with the country afterwards\noccupied by the Jews, and known, in modern times, by the name of\nPalestine, or the Holy Land. Therefore, however true it may be, that a\nportion of Ham's posterity settled in Africa, we not only have no\nevidence that it was the portion cursed, but we have conclusive evidence\nthat it was not.\n\nBut, was it a state of slavery to which Canaanites were doomed? I will\nsuppose, for a moment, that it was: and, then, how does it appear right\nto enslave them? The curse in question is prophecy. Now prophecy does\nnot say what ought to come to pass: nor does it say, that they who have\nan agency in the production of the foretold event, will be innocent in\nthat agency. If the prediction of an event justifies those who are\ninstrumental in producing it, then was Judas innocent in betraying our\nSaviour. \"It must needs be that offences come, but wo to that man by\nwhom the offence cometh.\" Prophecy simply tells what will come to pass.\nThe question, whether it was proper to enslave Canaanites, depends for\nits solution not on the curse or prophecy in question. If the measure\nwere in conformity with the general morality of the Bible, then it was\nproper. Was it in conformity with it? It was not. The justice, equity\nand mercy which were, agreeable to the Divine command, to characterize\nthe dealings of the Jews with each other, are in such conformity, and\nthese are all violated by slavery. If those dealings were all based on\nthe general morality of the Bible, as they certainly were, then slavery,\nwhich, in its moral character, is completely opposite to them, cannot\nrest on that morality. If that morality did not permit the Jews to\nenslave Canaanites, how came they to enslave them? You will say, that\nthey had special authority from God to do so, in the words, \"Both thy\nbondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the\nheathen that are around about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and\nbondmaids.\" Well, I will admit that God did in one instance, and that He\nmay have done so in others, give special authority to the Jews to do\nthat, which, without such authority, would have been palpably and\ngrossly immoral. He required them to exterminate some of the tribes of\nthe Canaanites. He may have required them to bring other Heathens under\na form of servitude violative of the general morality of his word.--Of\ncourse, no blame attaches to the execution of such commands. When He\nspecially deputes us to kill for Him, we are as innocent in the agency,\nnotwithstanding the general law, \"thou shalt not kill,\" as is the\nearthquake or thunderbolt, when commissioned to destroy. Samuel was as\ninnocent in hewing \"Agag in pieces,\" as is the tree that falls upon the\ntraveler. It may be remarked, in this connexion, that the fact that God\ngave a special statute to destroy some of the tribes of the Canaanites,\nargues the contrariety of the thing required to the morality of the\nBible. It argues, that this morality would not have secured the\naccomplishment of what was required by the statute. Indeed, it is\nprobable that it was, sometimes, under the influence of the tenderness\nand mercy inculcated by this morality, that the Jews were guilty of\ngoing counter to the special statute in question, and sparing the\ndevoted Canaanites, as in the instance when they \"spared Agag.\" We might\nreason, similarly to show that a special statute, if indeed there were\nsuch a one, authorizing the Jews to compel the Heathen to serve them,\nargues that compulsory service is contrary to fundamental morality. We\nwill suppose that God did; in the special statute referred to, clothe\nthe Jews with power to enslave Heathens, and now let me ask you, whether\nit is by this same statute to enslave, that you justify your neighbors\nand yourself for enslaving your fellow men? But this is a special\nstatute, conferring a power on the Jews only--a power too, not to\nenslave whomsoever they could; but only a specified portion of the human\nfamily, and this portion, as we have seen, of a stock, other than that\nfrom which you have obtained your slaves. If the special statutes, by\nwhich God clothed the Jews with peculiar powers, may be construed to\nclothe you with similar powers, then, inasmuch as they were authorized\nand required to kill Canaanites, you may hunt up for destruction the\nstraggling descendants of such of the devoted ones, as escaped the sword\nof the Jews. Or, to make a different interpretation of your rights,\nunder this supposition; since the statute in question authorized and\nrequired the Jews to kill the heathen, within the borders of what was\nproperly the Jews' country, then you are also authorized and required to\nkill the heathens within the limits of your country:--and these are not\nwanting, if the testimony of your ecclesiastical bodies, before referred\nto, can be relied on; and, if it be as they say, that the millions of\nthe poor colored brethren in the midst of you are made heathens by the\noperation of the system, to which, with unparalleled wickedness, they\nare subjected.\n\nIf then, neither Noah's curse, nor the special statute in question,\nauthorize you to enslave your fellow men, there is, probably, but one\nground on which you will contend for authority to do so--and this is the\nground of the general morality of the Christian religion--of the general\nprinciples of right and duty, in the word of God. Do you find your\nauthority on this ground? If you do, then, manifestly, you have a right\nto enslave me, and I a right to enslave you, and every man has a right\nto enslave whomsoever he can;--a right as perfect, as is the right to do\ngood to one another. Indeed, the enslavement of each other would, under\nthis construction of duty, _be_ the doing of good to one another. Think\nyou, sir, that the universal exercise of this right would promote the\nfulfilment of the \"new commandment that ye love one another?\" Think you,\nit would be the harbinger of millenial peace and blessedness? Or, think\nyou not, rather, that it would fully and frightfully realize the\nprophet's declaration: \"They all lie in wait for blood: they hunt every\nman his neighbor with a net.\"\n\nIf any people have a right to enslave their fellow men, it must be the\nJews, if they once had it. But if they ever had it, it ceased, when all\ntheir peculiar rights ceased. In respect to rights from the Most High,\nthey are now on the same footing with other races of men. When \"the vail\nof the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom,\" then that\ndistinction from the Gentile, in which the Jew had gloried, ceased, and\nthe partition wall between them was prostrate for ever. The Jew, as well\nas the Gentile, was never more to depart from the general morality of\nthe Bible. He was never again to be under any special statutes, whose\nrequirements should bring him into collision with that morality: He was\nno more to confine his sympathies and friendships within the narrow\nrange of the twelve tribes: but every son and daughter of Adam were\nthenceforth entitled to claim from him the heart and hand of a brother.\n\"Under the glorious dispensation of the gospel,\" says the immortal\nGranville Sharp, \"we are absolutely bound to consider ourselves as\ncitizens of the world; every man whatever, without any partial\ndistinction of nation, distance, or complexion, must necessarily be\nesteemed our neighbor and our brother; and we are absolutely bound, in\nChristian duty, to entertain a disposition towards all mankind, as\ncharitable and benevolent, at least, as that which was required of the\nJews under the law towards their brethren; and, consequently, it is\nabsolutely unlawful for those who call themselves Christians, to exact\nof their brethren (I mean their brethren of the universe) a more\nburthensome service, than that to which the Jews were limited with\nrespect to their brethren of the house of Israel; and the slavery or\ninvoluntary bondage of a brother Israelite was absolutely forbid.\"\n\nIt occurs to me, that after all which has been said to satisfy you, that\ncompulsory servitude, if such there were among the Jews, cannot properly\nbe pleaded in justification of yours; a question may still be floating\nin your mind whether, if God directed his chosen people to enslave the\nHeathen, slavery should not be regarded as a good system of servitude?\nJust as pertinently may you ask, whether that is not a good system of\nservitude, which is found in some of our state prisons. Punishment\nprobably--certainly not labor--is the leading object in the one case as\nwell as the other: and the labor of the bondman in the one, as well as\nof the convict in the other, constitutes but a subordinate\nconsideration. To suppose that God would, with every consideration out\nof view, but that of having the best relation of employer and laborer,\nmake choice of slavery--to suppose that He believes that this state of\nservitude operates most beneficially, both for the master and the\nservant--is a high impeachment of the Divine wisdom and goodness. But\nthus guilty are you, if you are unwilling to believe, that, if He chose\nthe severe servitude in question, He chose it for the punishment of his\nenemies, or from some consideration, other than its suitableness for the\nordinary purposes of the relation of master and servant.\n\nBut it has been for the sake of argument only, that I have admitted that\nGod authorized the Jews to enslave the heathen. I now totally deny that\nHe did so. You will, of course, consent that if He did so, it was in a\nspecial statute, as was the case when He authorized them to exterminate\nother heathen: and you will as readily consent that He enacted the\nstatutes, in both instances, with the view of punishing his enemies.\nNow, in killing the Canaanites, the Jew was constituted, not the owner\nof his devoted fellow man, but simply the executioner of God's\nvengeance: and evidently, such and no other was his character when he\nwas reducing the Canaanite to involuntary servitude--that he did so\nreduce him, and was commissioned by God to do so, is the supposition we\nmake for the sake of argument. Had the Jews been authorized by God to\nshut up in dungeons for life those of the heathen, whom they were\ndirected to have for bondmen and bondmaids, you would not claim, that\nthey, any more than sheriffs and jailers in our day, are to be\nconsidered in the light of owners of the persons in their charge. Much\nless then, can the Jews be considered as the owners of any person whom\nthey held in servitude: for, however severe the type of that servitude,\nthe liberty of its subject was not restricted, as was that of the\nprisoners in question:--most certainly, the power asserted over him is\nnot to be compared in extent with that asserted by the Jew over the\nCanaanite, whom he slew;--a case in which he was, indisputably, but the\nexecutioner of the Divine wrath. The Canaanite, whether devoted to a\nviolent death or to an involuntary servitude, still remained the\nproperty of God: and God no more gave him up to be the property of the\nexecutioner of his wrath, than the people of the State of New York give\nup the offender against public justice to be the property of the\nministers of that justice. God never suspends the accountability of his\nrational creatures to himself: and his rights to them, He never\ntransfers to others. He could not do so consistently with his\nattributes, and his indissoluble relations to man. But slavery claims,\nthat its subjects are the property of man. It claims to turn them into\nmere chattels, and to make them as void of responsibility to God, as\nother chattels. Slavery, in a word, claims to push from his throne the\nSupreme Being, who declares, \"all souls are mine.\" That it does not\nsucceed in getting its victim out of God's hand, and in unmanning and\n_chattelizing_ him--that God's hold upon him remains unbroken, and that\nthose upward tendencies of the soul, which distinguish man from the\nbrute, are not yet entirely crushed in him--is no evidence in favor of\nits nature:--it simply proves, that its power is not equal to its\npurposes. We see, then, that the Jews--if it be true that they reduced\ntheir fellow men to involuntary servitude, and did so as the\nHeaven-appointed ministers of God's justice,--are not to be charged with\nslaveholding for it. There may be involuntary servitude where there is\nno slavery. The essential and distinguishing feature of slavery is its\nreduction of man to property--to a thing. A tenant of one of our state\nprisons is under a sentence of \"hard labor for life.\" But he is not a\nslave. That is, he is not the _thing_ which slavery would mark its\nsubject. He is still a man. Offended justice has placed him in his\npresent circumstances, because he is a man: and, it is because he is a\n_man_ and not a _thing_--a responsible, and not an irresponsible being,\nthat he must continue in his present trials and sufferings.\n\nGod's commandments to the Jews, respecting servants and strangers, show\nthat He not only did not authorize them to set up the claim of property\nin their fellow men, but that He most carefully guarded against such\nexercises of power, as might lead to the assumption of a claim so\nwrongful to Himself. Some of these commandments I will bring to your\nnotice. They show that whatever was the form of servitude under which\nGod allowed the Jews to hold the heathen, it was not slavery. Indeed, if\nall of the Word of God which bears on this point were cited and duly\nexplained, it would, perhaps, appear that He allowed no involuntary\nservitude whatever amongst the Jews. I give no opinion whether he\nallowed it or not. There are strong arguments which go to show, that He\ndid not allow it; and with these arguments the public will soon be made\nmore extensively acquainted. It is understood, that the next number of\nthe Anti-Slavery Examiner will be filled with them.\n\n1st. So galling are the bonds of Southern slavery, that it could not\nlive a year under the operation of a law forbidding the restoration of\nfugitive servants to their masters. How few of the discontented subjects\nof this oppressive servitude would agree with Hamlet, that it is better\nto\n\n  --\"bear those ills we have,\n  Than fly to others that we know not of.\"\n\n\nWhat a running there would be from the slave States to the free!--from\none slave State to another!--from one plantation to another! Now, such a\nlaw--a solemn commandment of God--many writers on slavery are of the\nopinion, perhaps too confident opinion, was in force in the Jewish\nnation (Deut. xxiii, 15); and yet the system of servitude on which it\nbore, and which you cite as the pattern and authority for your own,\nlived in spite of it. How could it? Manifestly, because its genius was\nwholly unlike that of Southern slavery; and because its rigors and\nwrongs, if rigors and wrongs there were in it, bear no comparison to\nthose which characterize Southern slavery; and which would impel\nnine-tenths of its adult subjects to fly from their homes, did they but\nknow that they would not be obliged to return to them. When Southern\nslaveholders shall cease to scour the land for fugitive servants, and to\nhunt them with guns and dogs, and to imprison, and scourge, and kill\nthem;--when, in a word, they shall subject to the bearing of such a law\nas that referred to their system of servitude, then we shall begin to\nthink that they are sincere in likening it to the systems which existed\namong the Jews. The law, enacted in Virginia in 1705, authorizing any\ntwo justices of the peace \"by proclamation to _outlaw_ runaways, who\nmight thereafter be killed and destroyed by any person whatsoever, by\nsuch ways and means as he might think fit, without accusation or\nimpeachment of any crime for so doing,\" besides that it justifies what I\nhave just said about hunting fugitive servants, shows, 1st. That the\nAmerican Anti-Slavery Society is of too recent an origin to be the\noccasion, as slaveholders and their apologists would have us believe, of\nall the cruel laws enacted at the South. 2d. That Southern slaveholders\nwould be very unwilling to have their system come under the operation of\nsuch a law as that which allowed the Jewish servant to change his\nmaster. 3d. That they are monsters, indeed, into which men may be turned\nby their possession of absolute power.\n\nYou, perhaps, suppose, (and I frankly admit to you, that there is some\nroom for the supposition,) that the servants referred to in the 15th and\n16th verses of the 23d chapter of Deuteronomy, were such as had escaped\nfrom foreign countries to the country of the Jews. But, would this view\nof the matter help you? By taking it, would you not expose yourself to\nbe most pertinently and embarrassingly asked, for what purpose these\nservants fled to a strange and most odious people?--and would not your\ncandid reply necessarily be, that it was to escape from the galling\nchains of slavery, to a far-famed milder type of servitude?--from\nGentile oppression, to a land in which human rights were protected by\nDivine laws? But, as I have previously intimated, I have not the\nstrongest confidence in the anti-slavery argument, so frequently drawn\nfrom this passage of the Bible. I am not sure that a Jewish servant is\nreferred to: nor that on the supposition of his being a foreigner, the\nservant came under any form of servitude when entering the land of the\nJews. Before leaving the topic, however, let me remark, that the\npassage, under any construction of it, makes against Southern slavery.\nAdmit that the fugitive servant was a foreigner, and that he was not\nreduced to servitude on coming among the Jews, let me ask you whether\nthe law in question, under this view of it, would be tolerated by the\nspirit of Southern slavery?--and whether, before obedience would be\nrendered to it, you would not need to have a different type of\nservitude, in the place of slavery? You would--I know you would--for you\nhave been put to the trial. When, by a happy providence, a vessel was\ndriven, the last year, to a West India island, and the chains of the\npoor slaves with which it was filled fell from around them, under\nfreedom's magic power, the exasperated South was ready to go to war with\nGreat Britain. _Then_, the law against delivering up foreign servants to\ntheir masters was not relished by you. The given case comes most\nstrikingly within the supposed policy of this law. The Gentile was to be\npermitted to remain in the land to which he had fled, and where he would\nhave advantages for becoming acquainted with the God of the Bible. Such\nadvantages are they enjoying who escaped from the confessed heathenism\nof Southern slavery to the island in question. They are now taught to\nread that \"Book of life,\" which before, they were forbidden to read. But\nagain, suppose a slave were to escape from a West India island into the\nSouthern States--would you, with your \"domestic institutions,\" of which\nyou are so jealous, render obedience to this Divine law? No; you would\nsubject him _for ever_ to a servitude more severe than that, from which\nhe had escaped. Indeed, if a _freeman_ come within a certain portion of\nour Southern country, and be so unhappy as to bear a physical\nresemblance to the slave, he will be punished for that resemblance, by\nimprisonment, and even by a reduction to slavery.\n\n2d. Southern slaveholders, who, by their laws, own men as absolutely as\nthey own cattle, would have it believed, that Jewish masters thus owned\ntheir fellow-men. If they did, why was there so wide a difference\nbetween the commandment respecting the stray man, and that respecting\nthe stray ox or ass? The man was not, but the beasts were, to be\nreturned; and that too, even though their owner was the enemy of him who\nmet them. (Ex. 23. 4.) I repeat the question;--why this difference? The\nonly answer is, because God made the brute to be the _property_ of man;\nbut He never gave us our noble nature for such degradation. Man's title\ndeed, in the eighth Psalm, extends his right of property to the\ninanimate and brute creation only--not to the flesh and bones and spirit\nof his fellow-man.\n\n3d. The very different penalties annexed to the crime of stealing a man,\nand to that of stealing a thing, shows the eternal and infinite\ndifference which God has established between a man and property. The\nstealing of a man was _surely_ to be punished with death; whilst mere\nproperty was allowed to atone for the offence of stealing property.\n\n4th. Who, if not the slave, can be said to be vexed and oppressed! But\nGod's command to his people was, that they should neither \"vex a\nstranger, nor oppress him.\"\n\n5th. Such is the nature of American slavery, that not even its warmest\nfriends would claim that it could recover itself after such a \"year of\njubilee\" as God appointed. One such general delivery of its victims\nwould be for ever fatal to it. I am aware that you deny that all the\nservants of the Jews shared in the blessings of the \"year of jubilee.\"\nBut let me ask you, whether if one third or one half of your servants\nwere discharged from servitude every fiftieth year--and still more,\nwhether if a considerable proportion of them were thus discharged every\nsixth year--the remainder would not be fearfully discontented? Southern\nmasters believe, that their only safety consists in keeping down the\ndiscontent of their servants. Hence their anxious care to withhold from\nthem the knowledge of human rights. Hence the abolitionist who is caught\nin a slave state, must be whipped or put to death. If there were a class\nof servants amongst the Jews, who could bear to see all their fellow\nservants go free, whilst they themselves were retained in bondage, then\nthat bondage was of a kind very different from what you suppose it to\nhave been. Had its subjects worn the galling chains of American slavery,\nthey would have struggled with bloody desperation for the deliverance\nwhich they saw accorded to others.\n\nI scarcely need say, that the Hebrew words rendered \"bondmen\" and\n\"bondmaids,\" do not, in themselves considered, and independently of the\nconnexion in which they are used, any more than the Greek words _doulos_\nand _doule_, denote a particular kind of servant. If the servant was a\nslave, because he was called by the Hebrew word rendered \"bondman,\" then\nwas Jacob a slave also:--and even still greater absurdities could be\ndeduced from the position.\n\nI promised, in a former part of this communication, to give you my\nreasons for denying that you are at liberty to plead in behalf of\nslavery, the example of any compulsory servitude in which Jews may have\nheld foreigners. My promise is now fulfilled, and I trust that the\nreasons are such as not to admit of an answer.\n\nDriven, as you now are, from every other conceivable defence of\nslaveholding it may be (though I must hope better things of you), that\nyou will fly to the ground taken by the wicked multitude--that there is\nauthority in the laws of man for being a slaveholder. But, not only is\nthe sin of your holding slaves undiminished by the consideration, that\nthey are held under human laws; but, your claiming to hold them under\nsuch laws, makes you guilty of an additional sin, which, if measured by\nits pernicious consequences to others, is by no means inconsiderable.\nThe truth of these two positions is apparent from the following\nconsiderations.\n\n1st. There is no valid excuse to be found, either in man's laws or any\nwhere else, for transgressing God's laws. Whatever may be thought, or\nsaid to the contrary, it still remains, and for ever will remain true,\nthat under all circumstances, \"sin is the transgression of the (Divine)\nlaw.\"\n\n2d. In every instance in which a commandment of God is transgressed,\nunder the cover and plea of a human law, purporting to permit what that\ncommandment forbids, there is, in proportion to the authority and\ninfluence of the transgressor, a fresh sanction imparted to that law;\nand consequently, in the same proportion the public habit of setting up\na false standard of right and wrong is promoted. It is this habit--this\nhabit of graduating our morality by the laws of the land in which we\nlive--that makes the \"mischief framed by a law\" so much more pernicious\nthan that which has no law to countenance it, and to commend it to the\nconscience. Who is unaware, that nothing tends so powerfully to keep the\ntraffic in strong drink from becoming universally odious, as the fact,\nthat this body and soul destroying business finds a sanction in human\nlaws? Who has not seen the man, authorized by these laws to distribute\nthe poison amongst his tippling neighbors, proof against all the shafts\nof truth, under the self-pleasing and self-satisfying consideration,\nthat his is a lawful business.\n\nThis habit of setting up man's law, instead of God's law, as the\nstandard of conduct, is strikingly manifested in the fact, that on the\nground, that the Federal Constitution binds the citizens of the United\nStates to perpetuate slavery, or at least, not to meddle with it, we\nare, both at the North and the South, called on to forbear from all\nefforts to abolish it. The exertions made to discover in that\ninstrument, authority for slavery, and authority against endeavors to\nabolish it, are as great, anxious, and unwearied, as if they who made\nthem, thought that the fortunate discovery would settle for ever the\ngreat question which agitates our country--would nullify all the laws of\nGod against slavery--and make the oppression of our colored brethren, as\nlong as time shall last, justifiable and praiseworthy. But this\ndiscovery will never be made; for the Constitution is not on the side of\nthe slaveholder. If it were, however, it would clothe him with no moral\nright to act in opposition to the paramount law of God. It is not at all\nnecessary to the support of my views, in this communication, to show\nthat the Constitution was not designed to favor slavery; and yet, a few\nwords to this end may not be out of place.\n\nA treaty between Great Britain and Turkey, by the terms of which the\nlatter should be prohibited from allowing slaves to be brought within\nher dominions, after twenty years from its date, would, all will admit,\nredound greatly to the credit of Great Britain. To be sure, she would\nnot have done as much for the cause of humanity, as if she had succeeded\nin bringing the further indulgence of the sin within the limits of a\nbriefer period, and incomparably less than if she had succeeded in\nreconciling the Sublime Porte to her glorious and emphatically English\ndoctrines of immediate emancipation. But still she would deserve some\npraise--much more than if she had done nothing in this respect. Now, for\nmy present purpose, and many of our statesmen say, for nearly all\npurposes, the Federal Constitution is to be regarded as a treaty between\nsovereign States. But how much more does this treaty do for the\nabolition of slavery, than that on which we were, a moment since,\nbestowing our praise! It imposes a prohibition similar to that in the\nsupposed treaty between Great Britain and Turkey, so that no slaves have\nbeen allowed to be introduced into the United States since the year\n1808. It goes further, and makes ample provision for the abolition and\nprevention of slavery in every part of the nation, save these States; so\nthat the District of Columbia and the national territories can be\ncleared forever of slavery, whenever a majority of the parties, bound by\nthe treaty, shall desire it. And it goes still farther, and clothes this\nmajority with the power of regulating commerce between the States, and\nconsequently, of prohibiting their mutual traffic in \"the bodies and\nsouls of men.\" Had this treaty gone but one step farther, and made an\nexception, as it should have done, in behalf of slaves, in the clause\nmaking necessary provision for the return of fugitives held to service\nin the States from which they flee, none but those who think it is\nfairly held responsible for the twenty years indulgence of the unholy\ntraffic, would have claimed any thing more from it in relation to\nslavery. Now, this instrument, which contains nothing more, bearing on\nthe subject of slavery, than what I have referred to, and whose pages\nare not once polluted with the words \"slave\" and \"slavery,\" is\nabundantly and triumphantly cited, as conclusive authority in favor of\nslavery, and against endeavors to abolish it. Whilst we regret, that the\ntrue-hearted sons of freedom in the Convention which formed it, could\nobtain no more concessions from the advocates of slavery, let us honor\ntheir sacred memory, and thank God for those they did obtain.\n\nI have supposed it possible, that you might number yourself with those,\nwho defend slavery on the ground of its alleged conformity with human\nlaws. It occurs to me, that you may, also, take hope, that slavery is\ndefensible in the supposed fact, that a considerable share of the\nprofessing Christians, in the free States, are in favor of it. \"Let God\nbe true, but every man a liar.\" If all professing Christians were for\nslavery, yet, if God is against it, that is reason enough why you also\nshould be against it. It is not true, however, that a considerable share\nof our professing Christians are on the side of slavery. Indeed, until I\nread Professor Hodge's article, I had not supposed that any of them\ndenied its sinfulness. It is true, that a large proportion of them\nrefuse to take a stand against it. Let them justify to their\nconsciences, and to their God, as they can, the equivocal silence and\nstill more equivocal action on this subject, by which they have left\ntheir Southern brethren to infer, that Northern piety sanctions slavery.\nIt is the doctrine of expediency, so prevalent and corrupting in the\nAmerican Church, which has deceived you into the belief, that a large\nshare of the professing Christians in the free States, think slavery to\nbe sinless. This share, which you have in your eye, is, as well as the\nremainder, convinced that slavery is sinful--_only they think it\ninexpedient to say so_. In relation to other sins, they are satisfied\nwith God's way of immediate abandonment. But, in relation to slavery,\nthey flatter themselves that they have discovered \"a more excellent\nway\"--that of leaving the sin untouched, and simply hoping for its\ncessation, at some indefinite period in the distant future. I say\nhoping, instead of praying, as prayer for an object is found to be\naccompanied by corresponding efforts. But for this vile doctrine of\nexpediency, which gives to our ecclesiastical bodies, whenever the\nsubject of such a giant and popular sin as slavery is broached in them,\nthe complexion of a political caucus steeped in unprincipled policy,\nrather than that of a company of the Saviour's disciples, inquiring \"in\nsimplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom,\" the way of the\nLord;--but for this doctrine, I say, you would, long ago, have heard the\ntestimony of Northern Christians against Southern slavery;--and not only\nso, but you would long ago have seen this Dagon fall before the power of\nthat testimony. I trust, however, that this testimony will not long be\nwithheld; and that Northern Christians will soon perceive, that, in\nrelation to slavery, as well as every other sin, it is the safest and\nwisest, as well as the holiest course, to drop all carnal policy--to\n\"trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own\nunderstanding.\"\n\nNot only are Northern Christians, with very rare exceptions, convinced\nof the sin of slavery; but even your slaveholders were formerly\naccustomed, with nearly as great unanimity, to admit, that they\nthemselves thought it to be sinful. It is only recently, and since they\nhave found that their system must be tested by the Bible, thoroughly and\nin earnest--not merely for the purpose, as formerly, of determining\nwithout any practical consequences of the determination, what is the\nmoral character of slavery--but, for the purpose of settling the point,\nwhether the institution shall stand or fall,--it is only, I say, since\nthe civilized world has been fast coming to claim that it shall be\ndecided by the Bible, and by no lower standard, whether slavery shall or\nshall not exist--that your slaveholders have found it expedient to take\nthe ground, that slavery is not sin.\n\nIt probably has not occurred to you, how fairly and fully you might have\nbeen stopped, upon the very threshold of your defence of slavery. The\nonly witness you have called to the stand to sustain your sinking cause,\nis the Bible. But this is a witness, which slavery has itself impeached,\nand of which, therefore, it is not entitled to avail itself. It is a\ngood rule in our civil courts, that a party is not permitted to impeach\nhis own witness; and it is but an inconsiderable variation of the letter\nof this rule, and obviously no violation of its spirit and policy to\nsay, that no party is permitted to attempt to benefit his cause by a\nwitness whom he has himself impeached. Now, the slaveholder palpably\nviolates this rule, when he presumes to offer the Bible as a witness for\nhis cause:--for he has previously impeached it, by declaring, in his\nslave system, that it is not to be believed--that its requirements are\nnot to be obeyed--that they are not even to be read (though the Bible\nexpressly directs that they shall be)--that concubinage shall be\nsubstituted for the marriage it enjoins--and that its other provisions\nfor the happiness, and even the existence, of the social relations,\nshall be trampled under foot. The scene, in which a lawyer should ask\nthe jury to believe what his witness is saying at one moment, and to\nreject what he is saying at another, would be ludicrous enough. But what\nmore absurdity is there in it than that which the pro-slavery party are\nguilty of, when they would have us deaf, whilst their witness is\ntestifying in favor of marriage and searching the Scriptures; and, all\nears, whilst that same witness is testifying, as they construe it, in\nfavor of slavery! No--before it will be competent for the American\nslaveholder to appeal to the Bible for justification of his system, that\nsystem must be so modified, as no longer to make open, shameless war\nupon the Bible. I would recommend to slaveholders, that, rather than\nmake so unhallowed a use of the Bible as to attempt to bolster up their\nhard beset cause with it, they should take the ground, which a very\ndistinguished slaveholding gentleman of the city of Washington took, in\na conversation with myself on the subject of slavery. Feeling himself\nuncomfortably plied by quotations from the word of God, he said with\nmuch emphasis, \"Stop, Sir, with that, if you please--SLAVERY IS A\nSUBJECT, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE.\"\n\nThis practice of attempting to put the boldest and most flagrant sins\nunder the wing and sanction of the Bible, is chargeable on others as\nwell as on the advocates of slavery. Not to speak of other instances of\nit--it is sought to justify by this blessed book the most despotic forms\nof civil government, and the drinking of intoxicating liquors. There are\ntwo evils so great, which arise from this perversion of the word of God,\nthat I cannot forbear to notice them. One is, that the consciences of\nmen are quieted, when they imagine that they have found a justification\nin the Bible for the sins of which they are guilty. The other is, that\ninfidels are multiplied by this perversion. A respectable gentleman, who\nedits a newspaper in this neighborhood, and who, unhappily, is not\nestablished in the Christian faith, was asked, a few months since, to\nattend a meeting of a Bible Society. \"I am not willing,\" said he, in\nreply, \"to favor the circulation of a volume, which many of its friends\nclaim to be on the side of slavery.\" Rely on it, Sir, that wherever your\nbook produces the conviction that the Bible justifies slavery, it there\nweakens whatever of respect for that blessed volume previously existed.\nWhoever is brought to associate slavery with the Bible, may, it is true,\nthink better of slavery; but he will surely think worse of the Bible. I\nhope, therefore, in mercy to yourself and the world, that the success of\nyour undertaking will be small.\n\nBut oftentimes the same providence has a bright, as well as a gloomy,\naspect. It is so in the case before us. The common attempt, in our day,\nto intrench great sins in the authority of the Bible, is a consoling and\ncheering evidence, that this volume is recognised as the public standard\nof right and wrong; and that, whatever may be their private opinions of\nit who are guilty of these sins, they cannot hope to justify themselves\nbefore the world, unless their lives are, apparently, at least,\nconformed, in some good degree, to this standard. We may add, too, that,\nas surely as the Bible is against slavery, every pro-slavery writer, who\nlike yourself appeals to it as the infallible and only admissible\nstandard of right and wrong, will contribute to the overthrow of the\niniquitous system. His writings may not, uniformly, tend to this happy\nresult. In some instances, he may strengthen confidence in the system of\nslavery by producing conviction, that the Bible sanctions it;--and then\nhis success will be, as before remarked, at the expense of the claims\nand authority of the Bible:--but these instances of the pernicious\neffects of his writings will be very rare, quite too rare we may hope,\nto counterbalance the more generally useful tendency of writings on the\nsubject of slavery, which recognise the paramount authority of God's\nlaw.\n\nHaving completed the examination of your book, I wish to hold up to you,\nin a single view, the substance of what you have done. You have come\nforth, the unblushing advocate of American slavery;--a system which,\nwhether we study its nature in the deliberate and horrid enactments of\nits code, or in the heathenism and pollution and sweat and tears and\nblood, which prove, but too well, the agreement of its practical\ncharacter with its theory--is, beyond all doubt, more oppressive and\nwicked than any other, which the avaricious, sensual, cruel heart of man\never devised. You have come forth, the unblushing advocate of a system\nunder which parents are daily selling their children; brothers and\nsisters, their brothers and sisters; members of the Church of Christ,\ntheir fellow-members--under which, in a word, immortal man, made \"in the\nimage of God,\" is more unfeelingly and cruelly dealt with, than the\nbrute. I know that you intimate that this system would work well, were\nit in the hands of none but good men. But with equal propriety might you\nsay, that the gaming-house or the brothel would work well in such hands.\nYou have attempted to sustain this system by the testimony of the Bible.\nThe system, a part only of the crimes of which, most of the nations of\nChristendom have declared to be piracy;--against which, the common\nsense, the philosophy, the humanity, the conscience of the world, are\narrayed;--this system, so execrable and infamous, you have had the\npresumption to attempt to vindicate by that blessed book, whose Author\n\"is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and (who) cannot look upon\niniquity\"--and who \"has magnified his word above all his name.\"\n\nAnd now, Sir, let me solemnly inquire of you, whether it is right to do\nwhat you have done?--whether it is befitting a man, a Christian, and a\nminister of the gospel?--and let me, further, ask you, whether you have\nany cheering testimony in your heart that it is God's work you have been\ndoing? That you and I may, in every future work of our hands, have the\nhappiness to know, that the approbation of our employer comes from the\nupper, and not from the under world, is the sincere desire of\n\n\n\nYour friend,\n\nGERRIT SMITH.\n\n\n\n\n\nNo. 4\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nBIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.\n\n\n\nAN INQUIRY\n\nINTO THE\n\nPATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS\n\nON THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.\n\n\nNEW-YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\n\nNO. 143 NASSAU STREET.\n\n\n1837.\n\nPOSTAGE--This periodical contains five and a half sheets. Postage under\n100 miles, 8-1/2 cts over 100 miles, 14 cents.\n\n_Please read and circulate._\n\nPIERCY & REED. PRINTERS,\n\n7 Theatre Alley.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n    Definition of Slavery\n\n    Man-stealing--Examination of Ex. xxi. 16\n\n    Import of \"Bought with money,\" etc.\n\n    Rights and privileges of servants\n\n    No involuntary servitude under the Mosaic system\n\n    Servants were paid wages\n\n    Masters, not owners\n\n    Servants distinguished from property\n\n    Social equality of servants with their masters\n\n    Condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew\n    Commonwealth\n\n    Egyptian bondage analyzed\n\n    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\n\n    \"Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be,\" etc. Gen.\n    ix. 25\n\n    \"For he is his money,\" Examination of, Ex. xxi. 20, 21\n\n    \"Bondmen and bondmaids\" bought of the heathen. Lev. xxv. 44-46\n\n    \"They shall be your bondmen forever.\" Lev. xxv. 46\n\n    \"Ye shall take them as an inheritance,\" etc. Lev. xxv. 46\n\n    The Israelite to serve as a hired servant. Lev. xxv. 39, 40\n\n    Difference between bought and hired servants\n\n    Bought servants the most privileged class\n\n    Summary of the different classes of servants\n\n    Disabilities of the servants from the heathen\n\n    Examination of Exodus xxi. 2-6\n\n    The Canaanites not sentenced to unconditional extermination\n\n\n\n\n\n\nINQUIRY, &c.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThe spirit of slavery never takes refuge in the Bible _of its own\naccord._ The horns of the altar are its last resort. It seizes them, if\nat all, only in desperation--rushing from the terror of the avenger's\narm. Like other unclean spirits, it \"hateth the light, neither cometh to\nthe light, lest its deeds should be reproved.\" Goaded to phrenzy in its\nconflicts with conscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and\nhunted from every covert, it breaks at last into the sacred enclosure,\nand courses up and down the Bible, \"seeking rest, and finding none.\" THE\nLAW OF LOVE, streaming from every page, flashes around it an omnipresent\nanguish and despair. It shrinks from the hated light, and howls under\nthe consuming touch, as demons recoiled from the Son of God, and\nshrieked, \"Torment us not.\" At last, it slinks away among the shadows of\nthe Mosaic system, and thinks to burrow out of sight among its types and\nshadows. Vain hope! Its asylum is its sepulchre; its city of refuge, the\ncity of destruction. It rushes from light into the sun; from heat, into\ndevouring fire; and from the voice of God into the thickest of His\nthunders.\n\n\nDEFINITION OF SLAVERY.\n\nIf we would know whether the Bible is the charter of slavery, we must\nfirst determine _just what slavery is_. The thing itself must be\nseparated from its appendages. A constituent element is one thing; a\nrelation another; an appendage another. Relations and appendages\npresuppose _other_ things, of which there are relations and appendages.\nTo regard them as _the things_ to which they pertain, or as constituent\nparts of them, leads to endless fallacies. A great variety of\nconditions, relations, and tenures, indispensable to the social state,\nare confounded with slavery; and thus slaveholding is deemed quite\nharmless, if not virtuous. We will specify some of the things which are\noften confounded with slavery.\n\n1. _Privation of the right of suffrage_. Then _minors_ are slaves.\n\n2. _Ineligibility to office_. Then _females_ are slaves.\n\n3. _Taxation without representation_. Then three-fourths of the people\nof Rhode Island are slaves, and _all_ in the District of Columbia.\n\n4. _Privation of one's oath in law_. Then the _free_ colored people of\nOhio are slaves. So are disbelievers in a future retribution, generally.\n\n5. _Privation of trial by jury_. Then all in France and Germany are\nslaves.\n\n6. _Being required to support a particular religion_. Then the people of\nEngland are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other\ndisabilities, merely political.]\n\n7. _Cruelty and oppression_. Wives are often cruelly treated; hired\ndomestics are often oppressed; but these forms of oppression are not\nslavery.\n\n8. _Apprenticeship_. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are\ncorrelative and reciprocal. The _claim_ of each upon the other results\nfrom the _obligation_ of each to the other. Apprenticeship is based on\nthe principle of equivalent for value received. The rights of the\napprentice are secured, and his interests are promoted equally with\nthose of the master. Indeed, while the law of apprenticeship is _just_\nto the master, it is _benevolent_ to the apprentice. Its main design is\nrather to benefit the apprentice than the master. It _promotes_ the\ninterests of the former, while it guards from injury those of the latter\nin doing it. It secures to the master a mere legal compensation, while\nit secures to the apprentice both a legal compensation, and a virtual\ngratuity in addition, the apprentice being of the two decidedly the\ngreatest gainer. The law not only recognizes the _right_ of the\napprentice to a reward for his labor, but appoints the wages, and\nenforces the payment. The master's claim covers only the _services_ of\nthe apprentice. The apprentice's claim covers _equally_ the services of\nthe master. The master cannot hold the apprentice as property, nor the\napprentice the master; but each holds property in the services of the\nother, and BOTH EQUALLY. Is this slavery?\n\n9. _Filial subordination and parental claims_. Both are nature's\ndictates, and indispensable to the existence of the social state; their\n_design_ the promotion of mutual welfare; and the _means_, those natural\naffections created by the relation of parent and child, and blending\nthem in one by irrepressible affinities; and thus, while exciting each\nto discharge those offices incidental to the relation, they constitute a\nshield for mutual protection. The parent's legal claim to the services\nof his children, while minors, is a slight boon for the care and toil of\ntheir rearing, to say nothing of outlays for support and education. This\nprovision for the good of the _whole_, is, with the greater part of\nmankind, indispensable to the preservation of the family state. The\nchild, in helping his parents, helps himself--increases a common stock,\nin which he has a share; while his most faithful services do but\nacknowledge a debt that money cannot cancel.\n\n10. _Bondage for crime, or governmental claims on criminals._ Must\ninnocence be punished because guilt suffers penalties? True, the\ncriminal works for the government without pay; and well he may. He owes\nthe government. A century's work would not pay its drafts on him. He is\na public defaulter, and will die so. Because laws make men pay their\ndebts, shall those be forced to pay who _owe nothing?_ Besides, the law\nmakes no criminal, PROPERTY. It restrains his liberty; it makes him pay\nsomething, a mere penny in the pound, of his debt to the government; but\nit does not make him a _chattel_. Test it. To own property is to own its\nproduct. Are children born of convicts government property? Besides, can\n_property_ be _guilty_? Are _chattels_ punished?\n\n11. _Restrictions upon freedom._ Children are restrained by parents,\nwards by guardians, pupils by teachers, patients by physicians and\nnurses, corporations by charters, and legislators by constitutions.\nEmbargoes, tariffs, quarantine, and all other laws, keep men from doing\nas they please. Restraints are the web of civilized society, warp and\nwoof. Are they slavery? then civilized society is a mammoth slave--a\ngovernment of LAW, _the climax of slavery_, and its executive a king\namong slaveholders.\n\n12. _Involuntary or compulsory service_. A juryman is empannelled\n_against his will_, and sit he _must_. A sheriff orders his posse;\nbystanders _must_ turn in. Men are _compelled_ to remove nuisances, pay\nfines and taxes, support their families, and \"turn to the right as the\nlaw directs,\" however much _against their wills_. Are they therefore\nslaves? To confound slavery with involuntary service is absurd. Slavery\nis a _condition_. The slave's _feelings_ toward it, are one thing; the\ncondition itself, the object of these feelings, is _another_ thing; his\nfeelings cannot alter the nature of that condition. Whether he _desire_\nor _detest_ it, the _condition_ remains the same. The slave's\n_willingness_ to be a slave is no palliation of his master's guilt in\nholding him. Suppose the slave verily thinks himself a chattel, and\nconsents that others may so regard him, does that _make_ him a chattel,\nor make those guiltless who _hold_ him as such? I may be sick of life,\nand I tell the assassin so that stabs me; is he any the less a murderer\nbecause I _consent_ to be made a corpse? Does my partnership in his\nguilt blot out his part of it? If the slave were willing to be a slave,\nhis _voluntariness_, so far from _lessening_ the guilt of the \"owner,\"\n_aggravates_ it. If slavery has so palsied his mind and he looks upon\nhimself as a chattel, and consents to be one, actually _to hold him as\nsuch_, falls in with his delusion, and confirms the impious falsehood.\n_These very feelings and convictions of the slave_, (if such were\npossible) increase a hundred fold the guilt of the master in holding him\nas property, and call upon him in thunder, immediately to recognize him\nas a MAN, and thus break the sorcery that binds his soul, cheating it of\nits birth-right, and the consciousness of its worth and destiny.\n\nMany of the foregoing conditions and relations are _appendages_ of\nslavery, and some of them inseparable from it. But no one, nor all of\nthem together, constitute its _intrinsic unchanging element_.\n\nWe proceed to state affirmatively that,\n\nENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY, making free\nagents chattels, converting _persons_ into _things_, sinking\nintelligence, accountability, immortality, into _merchandise_. A _slave_\nis one held in this condition. He is a mere tool for another's use and\nbenefit. In law \"he owns nothing, and can acquire nothing.\" _His right\nto himself is abrogated._ He is another's property. If he say _my_\nhands, _my_ feet, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY_self_; they are figures of\nspeech. To _use himself_ for his own good is a CRIME. To keep what he\n_earns_ is stealing. To take his body into his own keeping is\n_insurrection_. In a word, the> _profit_ of his master is the END of his\nbeing, and he, a _mere means_ to that end, a _mere means_ to an end into\nwhich his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no\nportion[A]. MAN sunk to a _thing_! the intrinsic element, the\n_principle_ of slavery; MEN sold, bartered, leased, mortgaged,\nbequeathed, invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on\nexecutions, and knocked off at public outcry! Their _rights_ another's\nconveniences, their interests, wares on sale, their happiness, a\nhousehold utensil; their personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable\narticle, or plaything, as best suits the humor of the hour; their\ndeathless nature, conscience, social affections, sympathies, hopes,\nmarketable commodities! We repeat it, _the reduction of persons to\nthings_; not robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading\nwith burdens, but making him a _beast of burden_; not _restraining_\nliberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them;\nnot inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not\nexacting involuntary labor, but sinking him into an _implement_ of\nlabor; not abridging his human comforts, but abrogating his _human\nnature_; not depriving an animal of immunities, but _despoiling a\nrational being of attributes_, uncreating a MAN to make room for a\n_thing_!\n\n[Footnote A: Whatever system sinks man from an END to a _means_, or in\nother words, whatever transforms him from an object of instrumentality\ninto a mere instrumentality _to_ an object, just so far makes him a\n_slave_. Hence West India apprenticeship retains in _one_ particular the\ncardinal principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three-fourths of\nhis time, is still forced to labor, and robbed of his earnings; just so\nfar forth he is a _mere means_, a _slave_. True, in all other respects\nslavery is abolished in the British West Indies. Its bloodiest features\nare blotted out--but the meanest and most despicable of all--forcing the\npoor to work for the rich without pay three-fourths of their time, with\na legal officer to flog them if they demur at the outrage, is one of the\nprovisions of the \"Emancipation Act!\" For the glories of that luminary,\nabolitionists thank God, while they mourn that it rose behind clouds,\nand shines through an eclipse.]\n\nThat this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states.\nJudge Stroud, in his \"Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery,\" says,\n\"The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked\namong sentient beings, but among _things_--is an article of property, a\nchattel personal, obtains as undoubted law in all of these states,\" (the\nslave states.) The law of South Carolina thus lays down the principle,\n\"Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be\n_chattels personal_ in the hands of their owners and possessors, and\ntheir executors, administrators, and assigns, to ALL INTENTS,\nCONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER.\" Brevard's Digest, 229. In\nLouisiana, \"a slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he\n_belongs_; the master may sell him, dispose of his _person, his\nindustry, and his labor_; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor\nacquire any thing, but what must belong to his master.\" Civil Code of\nLouisiana, Art. 35.\n\nThis is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person and a\nthing, trampled under foot--the crowning distinction of all\nothers--their centre and circumference--the source, the test, and the\nmeasure of their value--the rational, immortal principle, embalmed by\nGod in everlasting remembrance, consecrated to universal homage in a\nbaptism of glory and honor, by the gift of His Son, His Spirit, His\nWord, His presence, providence, and power; His protecting shield,\nupholding staff, and sheltering wing; His opening heavens, and angels\nministering, and chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a\ngreat voice in heaven, proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming the\nword with signs following.\n\nHaving stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE\nBIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A][A]? To the _law_ and the\n_testimony_. First, the moral law, or the ten commandments. Just after\nthe Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in Egypt, while they\nstood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet waxed louder, and\nthe mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments from the\nmidst of clouds and thunderings. _Two_ of those commandments deal death\nto slavery. Look at the eighth, \"_Thou shall not steal_,\" or, thou shalt\nnot take from another what belongs to him. All man's powers of body and\nmind are God's gift to _him_. That they are _his own_, and that he has a\nright to them, is proved from the fact that God has given them to _him\nalone_, that each of them is a part of _himself_, and all of them\ntogether _constitute_ himself. All _else_ that belongs to man is\nacquired by the _use_ of these powers. The _interest_ belongs to him,\nbecause the _principal_ does--the product is his, because he is the\n_producer_. Ownership of any thing is ownership of its _use_. The right\nto use according to will, is _itself_ ownership. The eighth commandment\n_presupposes and assumes the right of every man to his powers, and their\nproduct._ Slavery robs of both. A man's right to himself is the only\nright absolutely original and intrinsic--his right to whatever else that\nbelongs to him is merely _relative_ to his right to himself--is derived\nfrom it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the _foundation\nright_--the _post in the middle_, to which all other rights are\nfastened. Slaveholders, the world over, when talking about their RIGHT\nto their slaves, always assume _their own right to themselves_. What\nslaveholder ever undertook to prove his own right to himself? He knows\nit to be a self-evident proposition, that _a man belongs to\nhimself_--that the right is intrinsic and absolute. The slaveholder, in\nmaking out his own title to himself, makes out the title of every human\nbeing to _himself_. As the fact of being _a man_ is itself the title,\nthe whole human family have one common title deed. If _one_ man's title\nis valid, _all_ are valid. If one is worthless, all are. To deny the\nvalidity of the _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of _his own_;\nand yet in the act of making him a slave, the slaveholder _asserts_ the\nvalidity of his own title, while he seizes _him_ as his property who has\nthe _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he does not merely\nunhumanize _one_ individual, but UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the\nfoundations. He annihilates _all rights_. He attacks not only the human\nrace, but _universal being_, and rushes upon JEHOVAH.--For rights are\n_rights_; God's are no more--man's are no less.\n\n[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral\ncharacter. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records\nwithout rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob\nand his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and\nconcubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent\nentry_ God's _endorsement_? Because the Bible, in its catalogue of human\nactions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write\nagainst it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach\nit into a virtue?]\n\nThe eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any_ part of that which\nbelongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which\nforbids the taking of _any_ thing belonging to him, sanction the taking\nof _every_ thing? Is it such a medley of absurdities as to thunder wrath\nagainst him who robs his neighbor of a _cent_, while it bids God speed\nto him who robs his neighbor of _himself_? Slavery is the highest\npossible violation of the eighth commandment. To take from a man his\nearnings, is theft. But to take the _earner_, is compound, superlative,\nperpetual theft. It is to be a thief by profession. It is a trade, a\nlife of robbery, that vaults through all the gradations of the climax at\na leap--the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers among other\nrobberies, a solitary horror, monarch of the realm. The eighth\ncommandment forbids the taking away, and the _tenth_ adds, \"_Thou shalt\nnot COVET any thing that is thy neighbor's_;\" thus guarding every man's\nright to himself and his property, by making not only the actual taking\naway a sin, but even that state of mind which would _tempt_ to it. Who\never made human beings slaves, or held them as slaves without _coveting_\nthem? Why do they take from them their time, their labor, their liberty,\ntheir right of self-preservation and improvement, their right to acquire\nproperty, to worship according to conscience, to search the Scriptures,\nto live with their families, and their right to their own bodies? Why do\nthey _take_ them, if they do not _desire_ them? They COVET them for\npurposes of gain, convenience, lust of dominion, of sensual\ngratification, of pride and ostentation. _They break the tenth\ncommandment_, and pluck down upon their heads the plagues that are\nwritten in the book. _Ten_ commandments constitute the brief compend of\nhuman duty. _Two_ of these brand slavery as sin.\n\n\n\nThe giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation of\nthat body of laws and institutions, called the \"Mosaic system.\" Over the\ngateway of that system, fearful words were written by the finger of\nGod--\"HE THAT STEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF HE BE FOUND IN HIS\nHAND, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.\" See Exodus, xxi. 16.\n\nThe oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought for\ntheir deliverance, proclaim the reason for _such_ a law at _such_ a\ntime--when the body politic became a theocracy, and reverently waited\nfor the will of God. They had just been emancipated. The tragedies of\ntheir house of bondage were the realities of yesterday, and peopled\ntheir memories with thronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's\ntestimony against oppression in the plagues of Egypt--the burning blains\non man and beast--the dust quickened into loathsome life, and cleaving\nin swarms to every living thing--the streets, the palaces, the temples,\nand every house heaped up with the carcasses of things abhorred--even\nthe kneading troughs and ovens, the secret chambers and the couches,\nreeking and dissolving with the putrid death--the pestilence walking in\ndarkness at noonday, the devouring locusts and hail mingled with fire,\nthe first-born death-struck, and the waters blood, and, last of all,\nthat dread high hand and stretched out arm, that whelmed the monarch and\nhis hosts, and strewed their corpses in the sea. All this their eyes had\nlooked upon,--earth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying\nin desolation, and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the\nhand writing of God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood--a\nblackened monument of wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of\nmen.\n\nNo wonder that God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at such\na time, should light up on its threshold a blazing beacon to flash\nterror on slaveholders. \"_He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if\nhe be found in his hand, he shall be surely put to death_.\" Ex. xxii.\n16. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Mosaic\nsystem! See also Deut. xxiv. 7[A].\n\n[Footnote A: Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish writers, (if we\nexcept perhaps the Egyptian Maimonides,) who wrote seven hundred years\nago, in his comment on this stealing and making merchandize of men,\ngives the meaning thus:--\"Using a man against his will, as a servant\nlawfully purchased; yea though he should use his services ever so\nlittle, only to the value of a farthing, or use but his arm to lean on\nto support him, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_, the person\ncompelling him but once to do so shall die as a thief, whether he has\nsold him or not.\"]\n\nThe Hebrew word, _Gaunab_, here rendered _stealeth_, means the taking\nfrom another what _belongs_ to him, whether it be by violence or fraud;\nthe same word is used in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both\n_robbery_ and theft.\n\nThe crime specified is that of _depriving_ SOMEBODY _of the ownership of\na man_. Is this somebody a master? and is the crime that of depriving a\n_master_ of his _servant_? Then it would have been \"he that stealeth\" a\n_servant, not_ \"he that stealeth a _man_.\" If the crime had been the\ntaking of an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have\nbeen _expressive of that relation_, and _most especially_ if it was the\nrelation of property and _proprietor_!\n\nThe crime, as stated in the passage, is three-fold--man _stealing_,\n_selling_ and _holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one\npenalty--DEATH. This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of man, is the\n_man himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said to the servants\nof Pharoah, \"Indeed I was _stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews.\"\nGen. xl. 15. How _stolen_? His brethren took him and sold him as an\n_article of merchandize_. Contrast this penalty for _man_-stealing with\nthat for _property_-stealing. Exod. xxii. If a man stole an _ox_ and\nkilled or sold it, he was to restore five oxen; if he had neither sold\nnor killed it, the penalty was two oxen. The selling or the killing\nbeing virtually a deliberate repetition of the crime, the penalty was\nmore than doubled.\n\nBut in the case of stealing a _man_, the first act drew down the utmost\npower of punishment; however often repeated, or however aggravated the\ncrime, human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for\n_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-stealing, the\nmere _restoration of double_, shows that the two cases were adjudicated\non totally different principles. The man stolen might be past labor, and\nhis support a _burden_, yet death was the penalty, though not a cent's\nworth of _property value_ was taken. The penalty for stealing _property_\nwas a mere _property penalty_. However large the amount stolen, the\npayment of _double_ wiped out the score. It might have a greater _money_\nvalue than a _thousand_ men, yet _death_ was never the penalty, nor\nmaiming, nor branding, nor even _stripes_. Whatever the kind, or the\namount stolen, the unvarying penalty was double of _the same kind_. Why\nwas not the rule uniform? When a _man_ was stolen why not require the\nthief to restore _double of the same kind--two men_, or if he had sold\nhim, _five_ men? Do you say that the man-thief might not _have_ them? So\nthe _ox_-thief might not have two _oxen_, or if he had killed it,\n_five_. But if God permitted men to hold _men_ as property, equally with\n_oxen_, the _man_-thief could get _men_ with whom to pay the penalty, as\nwell as the _ox_-thief, _oxen_.\n\nFurther, when _property_ was stolen, the whole of the legal penalty was\na compensation to the person injured. But when a _man_ was stolen, no\nproperty compensation was offered. To tender _money_ as an equivalent,\nwould have been to repeat the outrage with the intolerable aggravations\nof supreme insult and impiety. Compute the value of a MAN in _money!_\nThrow dust into the scale against immortality! The law recoiled from\nsuch outrage and blasphemy. To have permitted the man-thief to expiate\nhis crime by restoring double, would have been making the repetition of\ncrime its atonement. But the infliction of death for _man-stealing_\nexacted from the guilty wretch the utmost possibility of reparation. It\nwrung from him, as he gave up the ghost, a testimony in blood, and death\ngroans, to the infinite dignity and worth of man,--a proclamation to the\nuniverse, voiced in mortal agony, that MAN IS INVIOLABLE,--a confession\nshrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth--\"I die accursed, and God is\njust.\"\n\nIf God permitted man to hold _man_ as property, why did He punish for\nstealing _that_ kind of property infinitely more than for stealing any\n_other_ kind of property? Why did he punish with _death_ for stealing a\nvery little, perhaps not a sixpence worth, of _that_ sort of property,\nand make a mere _fine_, the penalty for stealing a thousand times as\nmuch, of any other sort of property--especially if God did by his own\nact annihilate the difference between man and _property_, by putting him\n_on a level with it_?\n\nThe atrociousness of a crime, depends greatly upon the nature,\ncharacter, and condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the\nthief, or whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a _full_ man, is\ntheft; to steal it from a _starving_ man, is both theft and murder. If I\nsteal my neighbor's _property_, the crime consists not in the _nature_\nof the article, but in _shifting its external relation_ from _him to\nme_. But when I take my neighbor _himself_, and first make him\n_property_, and then _my_ property, the latter act, which was the sole\ncrime in the former case, dwindles to a mere appendage. The sin in\nstealing a man does not consist in transferring, from its owner to\nanother, that which is _already property_, but in turning _personality_\ninto _property_. True, the _attributes_ of man still remain, but the\nrights and immunities which grow out of them are _annihilated_. It is\nthe first law of reason and revelation to regard things and beings as\nthey are; and the sum of religion, to feel and act toward them according\nto their nature and value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise, is _sin_;\nand the degree of violence done to their nature, relations, and value,\nmeasures its guilt. When things are sundered which God has indissolubly\njoined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite\nextremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnished\nwith glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, _sin_ reddens\nin its \"scarlet dye.\" The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing\nviolence to the _nature_ of a _man_--his _intrinsic value_ and relations\nas a rational being, and blotting out the exalted distinction stamped\nupon him by his Maker. In the verse preceding, and in that which\nfollows, the same principle is laid down. Verse 15, \"_He then smiteth\nhis father or his mother shall surely be put to death._\" Verse 17, \"_He\nthat curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death._\"\nIf a Jew smote his neighbor, the law merely smote him in return. But if\nthat same blow were given to a _parent_, the law struck the smiter\n_dead_. Why this difference in the punishment of the same act, inflicted\non different persons? Answer--God guards the parental relation with\npeculiar care. It is the _centre_ of human relations. To violate that,\nis to violate _all_. Whoever trampled on _that_, showed that no relation\nhad any sacredness in his eyes--that he was unfit to move among human\nrelations who had violated one so sacred and tender.--Therefore, the\nMosaic law uplifted his bleeding corpse, and brandished the ghastly\nterror around the parental relation to guard it from impious inroads.\n\nBut why the difference in the penalty since the _act_ was the same? The\nsin had divers aggravations.\n\n1. The relation violated was obvious--the distinction between parents\nand others, manifest, dictated by natural affection--a law of the\nconstitution.\n\n2. The act was violence to nature--a suicide on constitutional\nsusceptibilities.\n\n3. The parental relation then, as now, was the centre of the social\nsystem, and required powerful safe-guards. \"_Honor thy father and thy\nmother_,\" stands at the head of those commands which prescribe the\nduties of man to man; and, throughout the Bible, the parental relation\nis God's favorite illustration, of his own relations to the whole family\nof man. In this case, death is inflicted not at all for the act of\n_smiting_, nor for smiting a _man_, but a _parent_--for violating a\nvital and sacred relation--a _distinction_ cherished by God, and around\nwhich, both in the moral and ceremonial law, He threw up a bulwark of\ndefence. In the next verse, \"He that stealeth a man,\" &c., the SAME\nPRINCIPLE is wrought out in still stronger relief. The crime here\npunished with death, is not the mere act of taking property from its\nowner, but the disregarding of _fundamental relations_, doing violence\nto an _immortal nature_, making war on a _sacred distinction_ of\npriceless worth. That distinction which is cast headlong by the\nprinciple of American slavery; which makes MEN \"_chattels_.\"\n\nThe incessant pains-taking throughout the old Testament, in the\nseparation of human beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard\nfor the sacredness of his own distinction.\n\n\"In the beginning\" the Lord uttered it in heaven, and proclaimed it to\nthe universe as it rose into being. He arrayed creation at the instant\nof its birth, to do it reverent homage. It paused in adoration while He\nushered forth its crowning work. Why that dread pause, and that creating\narm held back in mid career, and that high conference in the godhead?\n\"_Let us make man in_ OUR IMAGE, _after_ OUR LIKENESS, AND LET HIM HAVE\nDOMINION _over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and\nover the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every living thing\nthat moveth upon the earth_.\"\n\n_Then_ while every living thing, with land, and sea, and firmament, and\nmarshalled worlds, waited to catch and swell the shout of morning\nstars--THEN \"GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE. IN THE IMAGE OF GOD\nCREATED HE HIM.\" This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD CREATED HE\nHIM. Well might the sons of God cry all together, \"Amen,\nalleluia\"--\"_Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive blessing and\nhonor\"--\"For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast\ncrowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over\nthe works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. O Lord,\nour Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth_.\" Psalms viii. 5,\n6, 9. The frequent and solemn repetition of this distinction by God\nproclaims his infinite regard. The 26th, 27th, and 28th verses of the\n1st chapter of Genesis are little else than the repetition of it in\nvarious forms. In the 5th chapter, 1st verse, we find it again--\"In the\nday that God created man, IN THE LIKENESS of GOD MADE HE MAN.\" In the\n9th chapter, 6th verse, we find it again. After giving license to shed\nthe blood of \"every moving thing that liveth,\" it is added, \"_Whoso\nsheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for_ IN THE IMAGE\nOF GOD MADE HE MAN.\" As though he had said, \"All these other creatures\nare your property, designed for your use--they have the likeness of\nearth, they perish with the using, and their spirits go downward; but\nthis other being, MAN, has my own _likeness_; IN THE IMAGE OF GOD made I\nman; an intelligent, moral, immortal agent, invited to all that I can\ngive and he can be.\" So in Levit. xxiv. 17, 18, \"_He that killeth any_\nMAN _shall surely be put to death; and he, that killeth a beast shall\nmake it good, beast for beast; and he that killeth a_ MAN _shall be put\nto death_.\" So in the passage quoted above, Ps. viii. 5, 6. What an\nenumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely, MEN from brutes\nand things!\n\n1. \"_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels_.\" Slavery drags\nhim down among _brutes_.\n\n2. \"_And hast crowned him with glory and honor_.\" Slavery tears off his\ncrown, and puts on a _yoke_.\n\n3. \"_Thou madest him to have dominion_ OVER _the works of thy hands_.\"\nSlavery breaks his sceptre, and casts him down _among_ those works--yea,\n_beneath them_.\n\n4. \"_Thou hast put all things under his feet_.\" Slavery puts HIM _under\nthe feet of an owner_, with beasts and creeping things. Who, but an\nimpious scorner, dare thus strive with his Maker, and mutilate HIS\nIMAGE, and blaspheme the Holy One, who saith to those that grind his\npoor, \"_Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it\nunto me_.\"\n\nBut time would fail us to detail the instances in which this distinction\nis most impressively marked in the Bible.\n\nIn further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems\nwill be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, and\nas many regulations of the latter are mere _legal_ forms of Divine\ninstitutions previously existing. As a _system_, however, the latter\nalone is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the\n_patriarchs_, God has not made them our examplars[A].\n\n[Footnote A: Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit\nwith such delight under their shadow, hymning the praises of \"those good\nold patriarchs and slaveholders,\" might at small cost greatly augment\ntheir numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal _concubinage_,\nwinding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, would\nbe a trumpet call, summoning from bush and brake, highway and hedge, and\nsheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred affinities, each claiming\nAbraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, \"My name is legion.\"\nWhat a myriad choir, and thunderous song!]\n\nBefore entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under\nthese two states of society, let us settle the import of certain terms\nwhich describe the mode of procuring them.\n\n\nIMPORT OF THE WORD \"BUY,\" AND THE PHRASE \"BOUGHT WITH MONEY.\"\n\nFrom the direction to the Israelites to \"buy\" their servants, and from\nthe phrase \"bought with money,\" applied to Abraham's servants, it is\nargued that they were articles of _property_. The sole ground for this\nbelief is the _terms_ \"buy\" and \"bought with money,\" and such an import\nto these terms when applied to servants is assumed, not only in the\nabsence of all proof, but in the face of evidence to the contrary. How\nmuch might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be proved was always\n_assumed_. To _beg_ the question in debate, what economy of midnight\noil! what a forestaller of premature wrinkles, and grey hairs! Instead\nof protracted investigation into Scripture usage, and painful collating\nof passages, and cautiously tracing minute relations, to find the\nmeaning of Scripture terms, let every man boldly resolve to interpret\nthe language of the oldest book in the world, by the usages of his own\ntime and place, and the work is done. And then what a march of mind!\nInstead of _one_ revelation, they might be multiplied as the drops of\nthe morning! Every man might take orders as an inspired interpreter,\nwith an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, if he only understood\nthe dialect of his own neighborhood! We repeat it, the only ground of\nproof that these terms are to be interpreted to mean, when applied to\nservants in the Bible, the same that they mean when applied to our\n_slaves, is the terms themselves._\n\nWhat a Babel-jargon it would make of the Bible to take it for granted\nthat the sense in which words are _now_ used is the _inspired_ sense.\n\nDavid says, \"I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried.\" What a\nmiracle-worker, to stop the earth in its revolution! Rather too fast.\nTwo hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in the strict Latin sense to\n_come before_, or _anticipate_. It is always used in this sense in the\nOld and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English of the\nnineteenth century, is, \"Before the dawning of the morning I cried,\" or,\nI began to cry before day-break. \"So my prayer shall _prevent_ thee.\"\n\"Let us _prevent_ his face with thanksgiving.\" \"Mine eyes _prevent_ the\nnight watches.\" \"We shall not _prevent_ them that are asleep,\" &c. In\nalmost every chapter of the Bible, words are used in a sense now nearly\nor quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense totally _opposite_ to their\npresent meaning. A few examples follow: \"Oftentimes I purposed to come\nto you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto.\" \"And the four _beasts_\n(living ones) fell down and worshipped God,\"--Whosoever shall _offend_\n(cause to sin) one of these little ones,\"--Go out into the high ways and\n_compel_ (urge) them to come in,\"--Only let your _conversation_\n(habitual conduct or course of life) be as becometh the Gospel,\"--They\nthat seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,--Give me _by and by_\n(now) in a charger, the head of John the Baptist,\"--So when tribulation\nor persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (immediately) they are offended.\nNothing is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are\ncontinually throwing off particles and absorbing others. So long as they\nare mere _representatives,_ elected by the whims of universal suffrage,\ntheir meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for the next\ncentury is an employment sufficiently silly, (to speak within bounds,)\nfor a modern Bible dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit\nthan that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by\nshowing what it means _now_. Pity that hyper-fashionable mantuamakers\nand milliners were not a little quicker at taking hints from some of our\nDoctors of Divinity. How easily they could save their pious customers\nall qualms of conscience about the weekly shiftings of fashion, by\ndemonstrating that the last importation of Parisian indecency, just now\nflaunting here on promenade, was the identical style of dress in which\nthe pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels, the modest Rebecca drew\nwater for the camels of Abraham's servants. Since such fashions are rife\nin Chestnut-street and Broadway _now_, they _must_ have been in Canaan\nand Pandanaram four thousand years ago!\n\nII. 1. The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring\nof servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the\nfallacy--that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or\nwhoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of\nyour paying for it _proves_ that it is property. The children of Israel\nwere required to _purchase_ their first-born out from under the\nobligations of the priesthood, Numb. xviii. 15, 16; Exod. xxxiv. 20.\nThis custom is kept up to this day among the Jews, and the word _buy_ is\nstill used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their\nfirst-born were, or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really\nas were _servants_. So the Israelites were required to _pay money_ for\ntheir own souls. This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an\natonement. Were their _souls_ therefore marketable commodities?\n\n2. Bible saints _bought_ their wives. Boaz _bought_ Ruth. \"So Ruth the\nMoabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ to be my wife.\" Ruth\niv. 10. Hosea bought his wife. \"So I _bought_ her to me for fifteen\npieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of\nbarley.\" Hosea iii. 2. Jacob _bought_ his wives Rachel and Leah, and not\nhaving money, paid for them in labor--seven years a piece. Gen. xxix.\n15-29. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, and paid for her\nby his labor, as the servant of her father. Exod. ii. 21. Shechem, when\nnegotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, says, \"What ye shall say\nunto me, I will _give_. Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will\ngive according as ye shall say unto me.\" Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David\npurchased Michal, Saul's daughter, and Othniel, Achsab, the daughter of\nCaleb, by performing perilous services for the benefit of their\nfathers-in-law. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judges i. 12, 13. That the purchase\nof wives, either with money or by service was the general practice, is\nplain from such passages as Exod. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among\nthe Jews of the present day this usage exists, though it is now a mere\nform, there being no _real_ purchase. Yet among their marriage\nceremonies, is one called \"marrying by the penny.\" The coincidences, not\nonly in the methods of procuring wives and servants, and in the terms\nemployed in describing the transactions, but in the prices paid for\neach, are worthy of notice. The highest price of wives (virgins) and\nservants was the same. Compare Deut. xxii. 28, 29, and Exod. xxii. 17,\nwith Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The _medium_ price of wives and servants was the\nsame. Compare Hosea iii. 2, with Exod. xxi. 2. Hosea appears to have\npaid one half in money and the other in grain. Further, the Israelitish\nfemale bought-servants were _wives_, their husbands and their masters\nbeing the same persons. Exod. xxi. 8, and Judges xix. 3, 27. If _buying_\nservants among the Jews shows that they were property, then buying\n_wives_ shows that _they_ were property. The words in the original used\nto describe the one, describe the other. Why not contend that the wives\nof the ancient fathers of the faithful were their chattels, and used as\nready change at a pinch? And thence deduce the rights of modern\nhusbands. How far gone is the Church from primitive purity! How slow to\nemulate illustrious examples! Alas! Patriarchs and prophets are followed\nafar off! When will pious husbands live up to their Bible privileges,\nand become partakers with Old Testament worthies in the blessedness of a\nhusband's rightful immunities! Surely professors of religion now, are\n_bound_ to buy and hold their wives as property! Refusing so to do, is\nto question the morality of those \"good old\" wife-trading \"patriarchs,\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\" with the prophets, and a host of whom the\nworld was not worthy.\n\nThe use of the word buy, to describe the procuring of wives, is not\npeculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac language, the common expression\nfor \"the married,\" or \"the espoused,\" is \"the bought.\" Even so late as\nthe 16th century, the common record of _marriages_ in the old German\nChronicles was \"A. BOUGHT B.\"\n\nThe Hebrew word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the\nnature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve says, \"I have _gotten_\n(bought) a man of the Lord.\" She named him Cain, that is, _bought_. \"He\nthat heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding\", Prov. xv. 32. So\nin Isa. xi. 11. \"The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to _buy_)\nthe remnant of his people.\" So Ps. lxxviii. 54. He brought them to this\nmountain which his right hand had _purchased_, i.e. gotten. Jer. xiii.\n4. \"Take the girdle that thou hast got\" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. \"We of our\nability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the\nheathen.\" Here \"_bought_\" is not applied to persons who were made\nslaves, but to those taken _out_ of slavery. Prov. 8. 22. \"The Lord\npossessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way before his works of\nold.\" Prov. xix. 8. \"He that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own\nsoul.\" Prov. xvi. 16. \"How much better is it to _get_ (buy) wisdom than\ngold?\" Finally, to _buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word\n_Kana_.\n\n4. Even at this day the word _buy_ is used to describe the procuring of\nservants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, where\nslaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still \"bought.\" This is now\nthe current word in West India newspapers. So a few years since in\nNew-York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and even now in New-Jersey servants\nare \"_bought_\" as really as in Virginia. And the different senses in\nwhich the same word is used in the two states, puts no man in a\nquandary, whose common sense amounts to a modicum.\n\nSo under the system of legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are\n\"_bought_.\"[A] A short time since, hundreds of foreigners who came to\nthis country were \"bought\" annually. By voluntary contract they engaged\nto work for their purchasers a given time to pay for their passage. This\nclass of persons called \"redemptioners,\" consisted at one time of\nthousands. Multitudes are _bought out_ of slavery by themselves or\nothers, and remove into free states. Under the same roof with the writer\nis a \"servant bought with money.\" A few weeks since, she was a slave. As\nsoon as \"bought,\" she was a slave no longer. Alas! for our leading\npoliticians if \"buying\" men makes them \"chattels.\" The Whigs say that\nBenton and Rives were \"bought\" by the administration with the surplus\nrevenue; and the other party, that Clay and Webster were \"bought\" by the\nBank. The histories of the revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold was\n\"bought\" by British gold. Did that make him an article of property? When\na northern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country gossip hits\noff the indecency with this current phrase, \"The cotton bags _bought_\nhim.\" When Robert Walpole said, \"Every man has his price, and whoever\nwill pay it can _buy_ him,\" and when John Randolph said, while the\nMissouri question was pending, \"The northern delegation is in the\nmarket; give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them,\" they both meant\n_just what they said_. When the temperance publications tell us that\ncandidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street\ntattle, that the court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial\nof Robinson were _bought_, we have no floating visions of \"chattels\npersonal,\" man auctions, or coffles.\n\n[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the state of\nIllinois--\"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_\nany servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the\npersons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such\nservant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed, and\ntaken.\"]\n\nThe transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the\nmeaning attached to \"buy\" and \"bought with money.\" See Gen. xlvii.\n18-26. The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants, and that he\nshould _buy_ them. When the bargain was closed, Joseph said, \"Behold I\nhave _bought you_ this day,\" and yet it is plain that neither of the\nparties dreamed that the persons _bought_ were in any sense articles of\nproperty, but merely that they became thereby obligated to labor for the\ngovernment on certain conditions, as a _compensation_ for the entire\nsupport of themselves and families during the famine. And that the idea\nattached to \"buy us,\" and \"behold I have bought you,\" was merely the\nprocuring of services voluntarily offered, and secured by contract, as a\nreturn for _value received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were\nbereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And\nthis buying of _services_ (they were to give one-fifth part of their\ncrops to Pharaoh) is called in Scripture usage, _buying the persons_.\nThis case deserves special notice, as it is the only one where the whole\ntransaction of buying servants is detailed--the preliminaries, the\nprocess, the mutual acquiescence, and the permanent relation resulting\ntherefrom. In all other instances, the _mere fact_ is stated without\nentering into particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open.\n\n1. The persons \"bought,\" _sold themselves_, and of their own accord.\n\n2. Obtaining permanently the _services_ of persons, or even a portion of\nthem, is called \"buying\" those persons. The objector, at the outset,\nassumes that servants were bought of _third_ persons; and thence infers\nthat they were articles of property. This is sheer _assumption_. Not a\nsingle instance is recorded, of a servant being sold by any one but\nhimself; not a case, either under the patriarchal, or the Mosaic\nsystems, in which a _master sold his servant_. That the servants who\nwere \"bought\" _sold themselves_, is a fair inference from various\npassages of Scripture.\n\nIn Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of the Israelite, who became the servant\nof the stranger, the words are, \"If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger.\"\nThe _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in the 47th\nverse, is rendered _sell himself_, is in the 39th verse of the same\nchapter, rendered _be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is\nrendered \"_be sold_.\" Here it is the Hithpael conjugation, which is\nreflexive in its force, and, like the middle voice in Greek, represents\nwhat an individual does for himself; or in his own concerns; and should\nmanifestly have been rendered, ye shall _offer yourselves_ for sale. For\na clue to Scripture usage on this point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25--\"Thou\nhast _sold thyself_ to work evil.\" \"There was none like to Ahab that\n_sold himself_ to work wickedness.\"--2 Kings xvii. 17. \"They used\ndivination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_ to do evil.\"--Isa. l.\n1. \"For your iniquities have ye _sold yourselves_.\" Isa. lii. 3, \"Ye\nhave _sold yourselves_ FOR NOUGHT, and ye shall be redeemed without\nmoney.\" See also, Jeremiah xxxiv. 14--Romans vii. 14, and vi. 16--John\nviii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, already quoted.\n\nAgain, if servants were _bought of third persons_, where are the\ninstances? In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is\ngenerally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons. Is it not a\nfair inference, if servants were bought of third persons, that there\nwould _sometimes_ have been such an intimation?\n\n\n\nII.-THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC LAWS RELATING TO MASTERS AND\nSERVANTS, WITH AN ENUMERATION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO\nSERVANTS.\n\nThe general object of those statutes, which prescribed the relations of\nmaster and servant, was the good of both parties--but more especially\nthe good of the _servants_. While the interests of the master were\nspecially guarded from injury, those of the servants were _promoted_.\n\nThese laws were a merciful provision for the poorer classes, both of the\nIsraelites and Strangers. Not laying on burdens, but lightening\nthem--they were a grant of _privileges_--a bestowment of _favors_.\n\n1. _No servant from the Strangers, could remain a servant in the family\nof an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte_. Compliance with this\ncondition was the _price of the privilege_.--Genesis xvii. 9-14, 23, 27.\n\n2. _Excommunication from the family was a_ PUNISHMENT.--Genesis xxi.\n14-Luke xvi. 2-4.\n\n3. _The fact that every Hebrew servant could_ COMPEL _his master to keep\nhim after the six years contract had, expired_, shows that the system\nwas framed to advance the interests and gratify the wishes of the\nservant _quite as much_ as those of the master. If the servant\n_demanded_ it, the law _obliged_ the master to retain him in his\nhousehold, however little he might need his services, or great his\ndislike to the individual. Deut. xv. 12-17, and Exodus xxi. 2-6.\n\n4. _The rights and privileges guaranteed by law to all servants._ (1.)\n_They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.\n\n(2.) _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals\nof the household in which they resided._ Exodus xii. 43-44; Deut. xii.\n12, 18, and xvi. 10-16.\n\n(3.) _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut.\nxxxi. 10-13; Joshua viii. 33-35; 2 Chronicles xvii. 8-9.\n\n(4.) _They were released from their regular labor nearly_ ONE HALF OF\nTHE WHOLE TIME. During which, the law secured to them their entire\nsupport; and the same public and family instruction that was provided\nfor the other members of the Hebrew community.\n\n(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year_; Lev.\nxxv. 3-6; thus giving to those servants that remained such during the\nentire period between the jubilees, _eight whole years_ (including the\nJubilee year) of unbroken rest.\n\n(b.) _Every seventh day_. This in forty-two years, (the eight being\nsubtracted from the fifty) would amount to just _six years_.\n\n(c.) _The three great annual festivals_. The _Passover_, which commenced\non the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8.\nThe Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the sixth day of the\nthird month, and lasted seven days. Lev. xxiii. 15-21. And the Feast of\nTabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the seventh month, and\nlasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. As all met in\none place, much time would be spent on the journey. Their cumbered\ncaravans moved slowly. After their arrival at the place of sacrifice, a\nday or two at least, would be requisite for divers preparations, before\nentering upon the celebration of the festival, besides some time at the\nclose of it, in preparations for their return. If we assign three weeks\nto each festival--including the time spent on the journey going and\nreturning, and the delays before and after the celebration, together\nwith the _festival week_; it will be a small allowance for the cessation\nof their regular labor. As there were three festivals in the year, the\nmain body of the servants would be absent from their stated employments\nat least _nine weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years,\nsubtracting the sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.\n\n(e.) _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus tells us that\nthe Jews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the\nJewish Calender, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, 18, 19, 27.\nThis would amount in forty-two years, to two years, two hundred and\neighty days, after the necessary subtractions.\n\n(f.) _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and\nof the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.\n\n(g.) _The day of atonement_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev.\nxxiii. 27-32.\n\nThese two last feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days of\ntime not otherwise reckoned.\n\nThus it appears that those persons who continued servants during the\nwhole period between the jubilees, were by law released from their\nlabor, TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and\nthose who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In the\nforegoing calculation, besides making a generous donation of all the\n_fractions_ to the objector, we have left out of the account, those\nnumerous _local_ festivals to which frequent allusion is made, as in\nJudges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. 9th chapter. And the various _family_ festivals,\nsuch as at the weaning of children; at marriages; at sheep shearings; at\nthe making of covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in\n1st Sam. xx. 28, 29. Neither have we included those memorable festivals\ninstituted at a later period of the Jewish history. The feast of Purim,\nEsther, ix. 28, 29; and the feast of the Dedication, which lasted eight\ndays. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59.\n\nFinally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time,\nwhich, if distributed, would on an average be almost ONE HALF OF THE\nDAYS IN EACH YEAR. Meanwhile, they and their families were supported,\nand furnished with opportunities of instruction. If this amount of time\nwere distributed over _every day_, the servants would have _to\nthemselves_, all but a _fraction of_ ONE HALF OF EACH DAY, and would\nlabor for their masters the remaining fraction and the other half of the\nday.\n\nTHIS REGULATION IS A PART OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY\nSLAVEHOLDERS AS THE GREAT PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.\n\n5. _The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of\nthe community_.\n\nProof--\"_Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously\nbetween every man and his neighbor, and_ THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM.\"\n\"_Ye shall not_ RESPECT PERSONS _in judgment, but ye shall hear the_\nSMALL _as well as the great_.\" Deut. i. 16, 17. Also in Lev. xxiv. 22.\n\"_Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger, as for one\nof your own country, for I am the Lord your God_.\" So Numbers xv. 29.\n\"_Ye shall have_ ONE LAW _for him that sinneth through ignorance, both\nfor him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the_ STRANGER\n_that sojourneth among them_.\" Deut. xxvii. 19. \"_Cursed be he that_\nPERVERTETH THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER, _the fatherless and the\nwidow_.\"\n\n6. _The Mosaic system enjoined upon the Israelites the greatest\naffection and kindness toward their servants, foreign as well as\nJewish_.\n\nLev. xix. 34. \"_The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as\none born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself_.\" Also Deut. x.\n17, 19. \"_For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a\ngreat God, a mighty and a terrible, which_ REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, _nor\ntaketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow,\nand_ LOVETH THE STRANGER, _in giving him food and raiment_, LOVE YE\nTHEREFORE THE STRANGER.\" So Exodus xxii. 21. \"_Thou shalt neither vex a\nstranger nor oppress him_.\" Exodus xxiii. 9. \"_Thou shalt not oppress a\nstranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger_.\" Lev. xxv. 35, 36. \"_If\nthy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a_\nSTRANGER _or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no usury\nof him or increase, but fear thy God_.\" [What an absurdity to suppose\nthat _this same stranger_ could be taken by one that _feared his God_,\nheld as a _slave_, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights!]\n\n7. _Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil\nand religious rights_. See Numbers xv. 15, 16, 29. Numb. ix. 14. Deut,\ni. 16, 17. Lev. xxiv. 22.\n\n\n\nIII.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE\nSERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?\n\nWe argue that they became servants _of their own accord_,\n\n1. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to\nabjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[A], to be circumcised\nin token of it, to be bound to the observance of the Sabbath, of the\nPassover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive\ninstruction in all the particulars of the moral and ceremonial law.\n\n[Footnote A: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred years\nago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of\nJewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: \"Whether a\nservant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased\nfrom the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant.\"\n\"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that\nis bought with money, on the day on which the master receives him,\nunless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown\nslave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to\nwin him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year.\nAfter which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him,\nlonger than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers\nfrom whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than\nthe worship of a _willing_ heart.\"--Maimon, Hilcoth, Miloth, Chap. 1st,\nSec. 8th.\n\nThe ancient Jewish Doctors agree in the testimony, that the servant from\nthe strangers who at the close of his probationary year still refused to\nadopt the religion of the Mosaic system, and was on that account cut off\nfrom the family, and sent back to his own people, received a _full\ncompensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But\nthat _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign servant for a\nyear (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite)\nof which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_.\nWe find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system.\nCircumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_. Whether it was\na rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within the\nscope of this inquiry. Nor does it at all affect the argument. ]\n\nWere the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the\nrenunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant\nwith God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they\n_compelled_ mechanically to chew, and swallow, the flesh of the Paschal\nlamb, while they abhorred the institution, despised its ceremonies,\nspurned the law which enjoined it, detested its author and executors,\nand instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemmorated,\nbewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were\nthey _driven_ from all parts of the land three times in the year up to\nthe annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they\nnauseated? Were they goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them\nsenseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a\ncreed rank with loathed abominations?\n\nWe repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. And\nhow did God authorize his people to make proselytes? At the point of the\nsword? By the terror of pains and penalties? By converting men into\n_merchandise_? Were _proselyte_ and _chattel_ synonymes, in the Divine\nvocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenant\nwith God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole\npassport to the communion of the saints?\n\n2. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,\n\"_Thou shall not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped\nfrom his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in\nthat place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh\nhim best; thou shalt not oppress him_.\"\n\nAs though God had said, \"To deliver him up would be to recognize the\n_right_ of the master to hold him. His _fleeing_ \"shows his\n_choice_--proclaims his wrongs, his master's oppressive acts, and his\nown claim to legal protection.\" You shall not force him back, and thus\nrecognize the _right_ of the master to hold him in such a condition as\ninduces him to flee to others for protection.\" It may be objected, that\nthis command had no reference to servants among the _Israelites_, but\nonly to those of _heathen_ masters in the surrounding nations. We\nanswer, The regulation has no restriction. Its terms are unlimited. But\nthe objection, even if valid, merely shifts the pressure of the\ndifficulty to another point. Does God array his infinite authority to\nprotect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and\nyet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of\n_thousands_ of servants from the heathen! Suppose a case. A _foreign_\nservant flees from his master to the Israelites; God speaks, \"He shall\ndwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy\ngates where it _liketh_ him best.\" They were strictly charged not to put\nhim in a condition which he did not _choose_. Now, suppose this same\nservant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been\n_dragged_ in by some kidnapper who _bought_ him of his master, and\n_forced_ him into a condition against his will. Would He who forbade\nsuch treatment of the stranger, who _voluntarily_ came into the land,\nsanction the _same_ treatment of the _same person_, provided in\n_addition_ to this last outrage, the _previous_ one had been committed\nof _forcing him into the nation against his will_?\n\nTo commit violence on the free choice of a _foreign_ servant is a\nhorrible enormity, forsooth, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence _after_\nhe has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_, on the _other\nside of the line_; if you _begin_ the outrage by buying him from a third\nperson _against his will_, and then tear him from home, and drag him\nacross the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah!\nthat alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with\nimpunity! Would _greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer from\nthe heathen than to the old residents--those who had been servants in\nJewish families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded\nto exercise toward _him_, uncircumcised and _out_ of the covenant, a\njustice and kindness denied to the multitude, who _were_ circumcised,\nand _within_ the covenant?\n\nAgain: the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition\nthat the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding\nnations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition\nagainst their wills--the objector finds small gain to his argument. In\nthat case, the surrounding nations would of course adopt retaliatory\nmeasures, and resolve themselves into so many asylums for fugitive\nIsraelitish servants. As these nations were on every side of them such a\nproclamation would have been an effectual lure to men held in a\ncondition which was a constant _counteraction of will_. Further, the\nobjector's assumption destroys itself; for the same command which\nprotected the foreign servant from the power of his _master_, protected\nhim equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was not merely, \"Thou\nshalt not deliver him to his _master_,\" but \"he (the servant) shall\ndwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy\ngates where it liketh him best.\" Every Israelite was commanded to\nrespect his free choice, and to put him in no condition _against his\nwill_. What was this but a proclamation, that all who _chose_ to live in\nthe land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose\nof their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as\nthey pleased?\n\nBesides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of\n_foreign_ servants merely, was the any law requiring the return of\nservants who had escaped from the _Israelites_? There was a statute\nrequiring the return of _property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, but none\nrequiring the return of escaped _servants_.\n\nFinally, these verses contain, _first_, a command, \"Thou shalt not\ndeliver,\" &c. _Secondly_, a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free\nchoice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own\ndiscretion; and _thirdly_, a command guarding this right, namely, \"Thou\nshalt not oppress him,\" as though God had said, If you forbid him to\nexercise his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his\nresidence, it is _oppression_, and I will not tolerate it.\n\n3. _We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar\nopportunities and facilities for escape_. Three times every year, all\nthe males over twelve years of age, were required to attend the public\nfestivals. The main body were thus absent from their homes not less than\nthree weeks each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans\nmoved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, to\nintercept deserters?--a corporal's guard stationed at each pass of the\nmountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the\ndefiles? What safe contrivance had the Israelites for taking their\n_\"slaves\"_ three times in a year to Jerusalem and back? When a body of\nslaves is moved any distance in our free and equal _republic_, they are\nhandcuffed to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers'\nbrains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement left for the\nwisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less\nvenerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and\ntransported in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro,\nand while at the Holy City, \"lodged in jail for safe keeping,\" religions\nservices _extra_ being appointed, and special \"ORAL instruction\" for\ntheir benefit. But meanwhile, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_ left\nat home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps the\nIsraelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while\nthe young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, to pick up\nstragglers by day, and patrolled the streets as city guards, keeping a\nsharp look-out at night.\n\n4. _Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance\nof various rites and ceremonies necessarily_ VOLUNTARY.\n\nSuppose a servant from the heathen should, upon entering a Jewish\nfamily, refuse circumcision; the question whether he shall remain a\nservant, is in his own hands. If a _slave_, how simple the process of\nemancipation! His _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose that, at any time,\nhe should refuse to attend the tri-yearly feasts, or should eat leavened\nbread during the Passover, or compound the ingredients of the anointing\noil, he is \"cut off from the people;\" _excommunicated_.\n\n5. _We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from\nthe impossibility of their being held against their wills._ The servants\nof Abraham are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and\neighteen _young men_ \"born in his house,\" and probably many more _not_\nborn in his house. The whole number of his servants of all ages, was\nprobably MANY THOUSANDS. Doubtless, Abraham was a man of a million, and\nSarah too, a right notable housekeeper; still, it is not easy to\nconceive how they contrived to hold so many thousand servants against\ntheir wills, unless the patriarch and his wife _took turns_ in\nperforming the Hibernian exploit of surrounding them! The neighboring\ntribes, instead of constituting a picket guard to hem in his servants,\nwould have been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, as\nthey did Lot and his household. Besides, Abraham had neither\n\"Constitution,\" nor \"compact,\" nor statutes, nor judicial officers to\nsend back his fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon\npanic-stricken women, nor gentleman-kidnappers, suing for patronage,\nvolunteering to howl on the track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and\npledging their \"honor\" to hunt down and \"deliver up,\" _provided_ they\nhad a description of the \"flesh marks,\" and were stimulated in their\nchivalry by _pieces of silver_. Abraham seems also to have been sadly\ndeficient in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks,\nhand cuffs, foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution\nof these patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, when we\nconsider his faithful discharge of responsibilities to his household,\nthough so deplorably destitute of the needful aids.\n\n6. _We infer that servants were voluntary, from the fact that there is\nno instance of an Israelitish master ever_ SELLING _a servant_. Abraham\nhad thousands of servants, but appears never to have sold one. Isaac\n\"grew until he became very great,\" and had \"great store of servants.\"\nJacob's youth was spent in the family of Laban, where he lived a servant\ntwenty-one years. Afterward he had a large number of servants.\n\nWhen Joseph sent for Jacob to come into Egypt, the words are, \"thou and\nthy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks and thy herds,\nand ALL THAT THOU HAST.\" Jacob took his flocks and herds but _no\nservants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 6; xlvii. 1. His servants doubtless,\nserved under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they\n_chose_ to stay in their own country.\n\nThe government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until\ntheir services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.\nxxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their\n_servants_--the reason is obvious. To give the master a _right_ to sell\nhis servant, would annihilate the servant's right of choice in his own\ndisposal; but says the objector, To give the master a right to _buy_ a\nservant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_. Answer. It\nis one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a very different thing to\nhave a right to buy him of _another_ man.\n\nThough there is no instance of a servant being bought of his, or her\nmaster, yet there are instances of young females being bought of their\n_fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their betrothal as\nWIVES. Exodus xxi. 7, 8. \"_If a man sell his daughter to be a\nmaid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please\nnot her master_ WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, _he shall let her be\nredeemed_[A].\"\n\n[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows: \"A\nHebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under\nobligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit\nto be betrothed.\"--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV. Sec. XI.\n\nJarchi, on the same passage, says, \"He is bound to espouse her and take\nher to be his wife for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her\n_espousals_.\" ]\n\n7. _We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in_ COMMENCING _his\nservice, because he was pre-eminently so_ IN CONTINUING _it_. If, at the\nyear of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his\nmaster, so did the law guard his free will, that it required his ear to\nbe bored by the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for the\nservant to be held in an involuntary condition. Yea, so far was his\n_free choice_ protected, that his master was compelled to keep him,\nhowever much he might wish to get rid of him.\n\n8. _The method prescribed for procuring servants, recognized their\nchoice, and was an appeal to it_. The Israelites were commanded to offer\nthem a suitable _inducement_, and then leave them to decide. They might\nneither seize by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle\nthem by false pretenses, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they\nwere commanded to BUY them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the\n_right_ of the individuals to their own services--their right to\n_dispose_ of them, and their right to _refuse all offers_. They might,\nif they pleased, refuse all applications, and thus oblige those who made\nthem, _to do their own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, _refused_ to\nbecome servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an\nemergency? NONE.\n\n[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they\nhad earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay\nthe legal penalty, _stands by itself_, and has no relation to the\ncondition of servants.]\n\n9. _Various incidental expressions throughout the Bible, corroborate the\nidea that servants became such by virtue of their own contract_. Job\nxli. 4. is an illustration, \"_Will he_ (Leviathan) _make a_ COVENANT\n_with thee? wilt thou take him for a_ SERVANT _forever?_\"\n\n10. _The transaction which made the Egyptians the_ SERVANTS OF PHAROAH,\n_shows entire voluntariness throughout_. It is detailed in Gen. xlvii.\n18-26. Of their own accord, they came to Joseph and said, \"We have not\naught left but our _bodies_ and our lands; _buy_ us;\" then in the 25th\nverse, _\"Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my\nLord, and we will be servants to Pharaoh._\"\n\n11. _We argue that the condition of servants was an_ OPTIONAL _one from\nthe fact that_ RICH _strangers did not become servants._ Indeed, so far\nwere they from becoming servants themselves, that _they bought and held\nJewish servants._ Lev. xxv. 47.\n\n12. _The sacrifices and offerings which_ ALL _were required to present,\nwere to be made_ VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.\n\n13. _Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they were\nmanifestly and pre-eminently_ VOLUNTARY. The case of the Prophet Elisha\nis one. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. The\noriginal word, translated master, is the same that is so rendered in\nalmost every instance where masters are spoken of throughout the Mosaic\nand patriarchal systems. It is translated _master_ eighty-five times in\nour English version. Moses was the servant of Jethro. Exodus iii. 1.\nJoshua was the servant of Moses. Numbers xi. 28. Jacob was the servant\nof Laban. Genesis xxix, 18-27.\n\n\n\nIV. WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?\n\nHaving already shown that the servants became and continued such _of\ntheir own accord_, it would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work\nwithout pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a\nmotive.\n\nThat they _were paid_ for their labor, we argue,\n\n1. _Because, while Israel was under the Mosaic system, God rebuked in\nthunder, the sin of using the labor of others without wages. \"Wo unto\nhim that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by\nwrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him\nnot for his work._\" Jer. xxii. 13. Here God testifies that to use the\nservice of others without wages is \"unrighteousness,\" and He commissions\nhis \"wo\" to burn upon the doer of the \"wrong.\" This \"wo\" was a permanent\nsafeguard of the _Mosaic system_. The Hebrew word _Rea_, here translated\n_neighbor_, does not mean one man, or class of men, in distinction from\nothers, but _any one with whom we have to do_--all descriptions of\npersons, not merely servants and heathen, but even those who prosecute\nus in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting us--\"_As when a\nman riseth against his_ NEIGHBOR _and slayeth him._\" Deut. xxii. 26.\n\"_Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the\nend thereof, when thy_ NEIGHBOR _hath put thee to shame._\" Prov. xxv. 8.\n\"_Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy_ NEIGHBOR.\" Exod. xx.\n16. \"_If any man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with\nguile_.\" Exod. xxi. 14. In these, and in scores of similar cases, _Rea_\nis the original word.\n\n2. _We have the testimony of God, that in our duty to our fellow men,_\nALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS _hang upon this command, \"Thou shalt love\nthy neighbor as thyself._\" Our Saviour, in giving this command, quoted\n_verbatim_ one of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the\n34th verse of the same chapter, Moses commands obedience to this law in\nall the treatment of strangers, \"_The stranger that dwelleth with you\nshall be unto you as one born among you, and_ THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS\nTHYSELF.\" If it be loving others _as_ ourselves, to make them work for\nus without pay; to rob them of food and clothing, as well as wages,\nwould be a stranger illustration still of the law of love!\nSuper-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing to others as we\nwould have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good alone,\nPaul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human\nnature, especially for that libellous matter in Ephes. v. 29, \"_No man\never yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it_.\"\n\n3. _As persons became servants_ FROM POVERTY, _we argue that they were\ncompensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large\namount_. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a princely\npresent, \"An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins,\nand an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine.\" 2 Sam. xvi. 1.\nThe extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though\nthe father of fifteen sons, he still employed twenty servants, of whom\nhe was the master.\n\nA case is stated in Leviticus xxv. 47-55, where a servant, reduced to\npoverty, sells himself; and it is declared that afterward he may be\n_redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. As he was forced to\nsell himself from sheer poverty he must not only have acquired property\n_after_ he became a servant, but a considerable sum.\n\nIf it had not been common for servants to possess, and acquire property,\nover which they had the exclusive control, Gehazi, the servant of\nElisha, would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly\n$3000[A]) from Naaman, (2 Kings v. 22, 23.) As it was procured by\ndeceit, he was anxious to conceal the means used in getting it; but if\nthe Israelitish servants, like our slaves, could \"own nothing, nor\nacquire any thing,\" to embark in such an enterprise would have been\nconsummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents\nof silver, would of itself convict him of theft[B]. But since the\npossession and use of property by servants, was common under the Mosaic\nsystem, he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting\nspecial attention. And that consideration alone would have been a strong\nmotive to the act. His master, while he rebukes him for using such means\nto get the money, not only does not take it from him, but seems to\nexpect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would\nprocure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. In 1 Sam. ix. 8, we find the\nservant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency.\nArza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_. That it was\nspacious and somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from the\nfact that it was a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of the\nGibeonites, who, after they became servants, still occupied their\ncities, and remained, in many respects, a distinct people for centuries;\nand that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of Solomon, who\nworked out their tribute of bond-service in levies, periodically\nrelieving each other, while preparing the materials for the temple, are\nadditional illustrations of independence in the acquisition and\nownership of property.\n\n[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide with accuracy\nupon the _relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have\nenough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver had far more\nvalue _then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing\na large amount of money? They \"_know how to take care of themselves_\"\nquite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on\nsuch a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make\ndetection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then a little, and a\ngaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in\nthe footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if,\nafter so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the\nbusiness by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their\nbetters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at\na practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried\non around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high\nimpulse, prompting them to imitate the eminent pattern set before them\nin the daily vocation of \"Honorables\" and \"Excellencies,\" and to emulate\nthe illustrious examples of Doctor of Divinity and _Right_ and _Very\nReverends_! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his notes of\nVirginia, speaking of slaves, he says, \"That disposition to theft with\nwhich they (the slaves) have been branded, must be ascribed to their\n_situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is\na problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious\nprecepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as\nwell as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take\na little from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who\nwould slay him\" See Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8]\n\n4. _Heirship_--Servants frequently inherited their master's property;\nespecially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. This\nseems to have been a general usage.\n\nThe cases of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of\nMephibosheth, Jarha an Egyptian, the servant of Sheshan, and the husband\nof his daughter; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35, and of the _husbandmen_ who said\nof their master's son, \"_this is the_ HEIR, let us kill him, _and_ the\nINHERITANCE WILL BE OURS.\" Mark xii. 7, are illustrations. Also the\ndeclaration in Prov. xvii. 2--\"_A wise servant shall have rule over a\nson that causeth shame, and_ SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG\nTHE BRETHREN.\" This passage seems to give _servants_ precedence as\nheirs, even over the _wives_ and _daughters_ of their masters. Did\nmasters hold by force, and _plunder of earnings_, a class of persons,\nfrom which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs for\ntheir property, and husbands for their daughters?\n\n5. ALL _were required to present offerings and sacrifices_. Deut. xvi.\n15, 17. 2 Chron. xv. 9-11. Numb. ix. 13.\n\nServants must have had permanently, the means of _acquiring_ property to\nmeet these expenditures.\n\n6. _Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, were\nprovided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle_. Deut. xv.\n11-14. \"_Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of\nthy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy God\nhath blessed thee, thou shalt give him_[A].\" If it be objected, that no\nmention is made of the servants from the strangers, receiving a like\nbountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of the\n_Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they\ndid not go out in the seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If\nthe fact that no mention is made of the Gentile servants receiving such\na _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_; it proves\nthat the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs\nalso, a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators,\nhowever unscrupulous.\n\n[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as\nfollows--\"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say,\n'_Loading ye shall load him._' likewise every one of his family, with as\nmuch as he can take with him in abundant benefits. And if it be\navariciously asked, How much must I give him? I say unto _you, not less\nthan thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as declared\nin Exodus xxi. 32\"--Maimonides, Hilcoth, Obedim, Chapter ii. Section 3.]\n\n7. _The servants were_ BOUGHT. _In other words, they received\ncompensation for their services in advance_. Having shown, under a\nprevious head, that servants _sold themselves_, and of course received\nthe compensation for themselves, (except in cases where parents hired\nout the time of their children until they became of age[B],) a mere\nreference to the fact in this place is all that is required for the\npurposes of this argument.\n\n[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and\nboys at thirteen years.]\n\n8. _We infer that servants were paid, because we find masters at one\ntime having a large number of servants, and afterwards none, without any\nintimation that they were sold._ The wages of servants would enable them\nto set up in business for themselves. Jacob, after being the servant of\nLaban for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and was\nthe master of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43, and xxxii. 15. But all these\nservants had left him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless\nacquired enough to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11,\nand xlvi. 1-7, 32.\n\n9. _God's testimony to the character of Abraham._ Genesis xviii. 19.\n_\"For I know him that he will command his children and his household\nafter him, and they shall keep_ THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND\nJUDGMENT.\" We have here God's testimony, that Abraham taught his\nservants \"the way of the Lord.\" What was the \"way of the Lord\"\nrespecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? \"_Wo unto\nhim that useth his neighbor's service without wages_!\" Jer. xxii. 13.\n\"_Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal_.\" Col.\niv. 1. _\"Render unto all their_ DUES.\" ROM. xiii. 7. _\"The laborer is\nworthy of his hire.\"_ Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to\n_\"do justice\"_ to others? By doing _injustice to them?_ Did he exhort\nthem to \"render to all their dues\" by keeping back _their own_? Did he\nteach them that \"the laborer was worthy of his hire\" by robbing them of\n_theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for the eighth commandment by\npilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them \"not to defraud\"\nothers \"in any matter\" by denying _them_ \"what was just and equal?\" If\neach of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very\n_Aristides_ in justice, then an illustrious example, patriarchal\ndignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway against\nhuman perverseness!\n\n10. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles._\nOut of many, we select the following:\n\n(1.) _\"Thou shall not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn,\"_ or\nliterally, _while he thresheth._ Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general\nprinciple applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic\nanimals. Isaiah xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service--_all_ kinds;\nand a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal\nministering to man in a _certain_ way,--_a general principle of\ntreatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service._\nThe object of the law was, not merely to enjoin tenderness towards\nbrutes, but to inculcate the duty of _rewarding those who serve us_,\nshowing that they who labor for others, are entitled to what is just and\nequal in return; and if such care is enjoined, by God, not merely for\nthe ample sustenance, but for the _present enjoyment of a brute_, what\nwould be a meet return for the services of _man_? MAN, with his varied\nwants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul tells us expressly,\nthat the principle which we have named, lies at the bottom of the\nstatute. See 1 Corinthians ix. 9, 10--_\"For it is written in the law of\nMoses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the\ncorn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR\nsakes? that he that ploweth should plow in_ HOPE, _and that he that\nthresheth in hope should be_ PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE.\"\n\n(2.) \"_If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then\nthou shalt relieve him._ YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER OR a SOJOURNER,\n_that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but\nfear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him\nthy victuals for increase._\" Lev. xxv. 35-37. Or, in other words,\n\"relief at your hands is his right, and your duty--you shall not take\nadvantage of his necessities, but cheerfully supply them.\" Now, we ask,\nby what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this benevolent regulation\ncan be made to be in _keeping_ with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY?\nDid God declare the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in the same\nbreath, _authorize_ them to _\"use his services without wages_;\" force\nhim to work, and ROB HIM OF ALL HIS EARNINGS? Judge ye.\n\n\n\nV.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS THEIR LEGAL PROPERTY?\n\nThe discussion of this topic has been already somewhat anticipated under\nthe preceding heads; but a variety of considerations, not within the\nrange of our previous inquiries, remain to be noticed.\n\n\n\n1. _Servants were not subjected to the uses, nor liable to the\ncontingencies of property._\n\n(1.) _They were never taken in payment for their masters' debts_, though\nchildren were sometimes taken (without legal authority) for the debts of\na father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isaiah l. 1; Matt. xviii. 25.\n\nCases are recorded to which creditors took from debtors property of all\nkinds, to satisfy their demands. In Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; in\nProv. xxii 27, household furniture; in Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions\nof the soil; in Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; in Exodus xxii. 26-29, and\nDeut. xxiv. 10-13, and Matt. v. 40, clothing; but _servants_ were taken\nin _no instance_.\n\n(2.) _Servants were never given as pledges_. _Property_ of all sorts was\ngiven and held in pledge. We find in the Bible, household furniture,\nclothing, cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with divers\nother articles of property, used as pledges for value received. But no\n_servants_.\n\n(3.) _All lost_ PROPERTY _was to be restored._ \"Oxen, asses, sheep,\nraiment, and whatsoever lost things,\" are specified--servant _not_.\nDeut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were expressly forbidden to take\nback the runaway servant to his master. Deut. xxiii. 15.\n\n(4.) _The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents_. They\nmade princely presents of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of\nanimals, merchandize, family utensils, precious metals, and grain,\narmor, &c. are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents to\nsuperiors and persons of rank when visiting them, and at other times,\nwas a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5.\nAbraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt. Gen.\nxliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad\nto Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pileser, 2 Kings xvi. 8;\nSolomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings, x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1\nKings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no servants were\ngiven as presents--though that was a prevailing fashion in the\nsurrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen. xx. 14.\n\nOBJECTION 1. _Laban_ GAVE _handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives_.\nWithout enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent, it is\nenough to say that the handmaids of wives, at that time, were themselves\nregarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That Jacob\nso regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, (Gen.\nxlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1) also by the equality of their children with\nthose of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise--had Laban given\nthem _as articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this \"good\nold patriarch and slaveholder,\" Saint Laban, would have been a\nfore-closer to all argument.\n\nAh! We remember his jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when\nhe found that his \"GODS\" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and\nplunged over the desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced marches;\nhow he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent,\nlittle heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or female\nseclusion, for lo! the zeal of his \"IMAGES\" had eaten him up!\n\nNo wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled\nbefore the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a pious worthy\nto haul up and refit; invoking his protection, and the benediction of\nhis \"GODS!\"\n\nOBJECTION 2. _Servants were enumerated in inventories of property_. If\nthat proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. \"_Thou\nshalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy\nneighbor's_ WIFE, _nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his\nox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's_\" EXODUS xx. 17.\nAn examination of all the places in which servants are included among\nbeasts, chattels, &c., will show, that in inventories of _mere\nproperty_, servants are not included, or if included, it is in such a\nway, as to show that they are not regarded as _property_. Eccl. ii. 7,\n8. But when the design is to show, not merely the wealth but the\n_greatness_ of any personage, that he is a man of distinction, a ruler,\na prince, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if\n_riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if\n_greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. _\"And Abraham was very\nrich in cattle, in silver and in gold.\"_ No mention of _servants_. So in\nthe fifth verse; Lot's riches are enumerated, \"_And Lot also had flocks,\nand herds, and tents_.\" In the seventh verse servants are mentioned,\n\"_And there was a strife between the_ HERDMEN _of Abraham's cattle and\nthe_ HERDMEN _of Lot's cattle_\". See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23;\nJob. xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job 1. 3-5; Deut. viii.\n12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 13, and xxx. 43.\n\nDivers facts dropped incidentally, show that when servants are mentioned\nin connection with property, it is in such a way as to _distinguish_\nthem from it. When Jacob was about to leave Laban, his wives say, \"All\nthe _riches_ which thou hast taken from our father, that is ours and our\nchildren's.\" Then follows an inventory of property. \"All his cattle,\"\n\"all his goods,\" \"the cattle of his getting,\" &c. He had a large number\nof servants at the time, _but they are not included with his property_.\nCompare Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18.\n\nWhen he sent messengers to Esau, in order to secure his respect, and\nimpress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him\nnot only of _his_ RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that Jacob had \"_oxen,\nand asses, and flocks, and men servants, and maid servants_.\" Gen.\nxxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, there were no servants;\nthough he seems to have aimed to give it as much variety as possible.\nGen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; Gen. xxxiv. 23. As flocks\nand herds were the _staples_ of wealth, a large number of servants\n_presupposed_ large possessions of cattle, which would require many\nherdsmen. Further. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mere\nproperty_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the\nformer.\n\nThe Hebrew word _Mickna_ is an illustration. It is a derivative of\n_Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a _possession, wealth,\nriches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament--and is\napplied always to _mere property_--generally to domestic animals, but\n_never_ to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in\n_distinction_ from the _Mickna._ See Gen. xii. 5. _\"And Abraham took\nSarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son. And all their_ SUBSTANCE\n_that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran,\nand they went forth to go into the land of Canaan_.\" _Substance\ngathered_ and _souls gotten_! Many will have it, that these _souls_ were\na part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken to\nseparate them from it)--that they were _slaves_--probably captives in\nwar, and now, by right of conquest, taken with him in his migration as\npart of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually, or in\nheart, would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a\nharmless phrase as \"_the souls that they had gotten_?\" Until the slave\ntrade breathed its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote her\nwith palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, \"The souls that\nthey had gotten.\" In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is thus rendered, \"The\nsouls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran.\" In the Targum of\nJonathan, thus: \"The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran.\" In\nthe Targum of Jerusalem, \"The souls proselyted in Haran.\" Jarchi, placed\nby Jewish Rabbis at the head of their commentators, thus renders it:\n\"The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings.\" Jerome, one of\nthe most learned of the Christian fathers: \"The persons whom they had\nproselyted.\" The Persian version thus gives the whole verse, \"And\nAbraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their\nwealth which they had accumulated, and the souls which they had _made_.\"\nThe Vulgate version thus translates it, \"Universam substantiam quam\npossederant et animas quas fecerant in Haran.\" \"The entire wealth which\nthey possessed, and the souls which they had made.\" The Syriac thus,\n\"All their possessions which they possessed, and the souls which they\nhad made in Haran.\" The Arabic, \"All their property which they had\nacquired, and the souls whom they had made in Haran.\" The Samarian, \"All\nthe wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made in\nHaran.\" Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our present\ntranslation of the English Bible, renders it as follows:--\"Quas de\nidolotraria converterunt[B].\" \"Those whom they have converted from\nidolatry.\"--Paulus Fagius[C]. \"Quas instituerant in religione.\"--\"Those\nwhom they had instructed in religion.\"--Luke Franke, a German\ncommentator who lived two centuries ago. \"Quas legi\nsubjicerant.\"--\"Those whom they had brought to obey the law.\"\n\n[Footnote A: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old\nTestament. The Targum of Onkelos is for the most part, a very accurate\nand faithful translation of the original, and was probably made at about\nthe commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel\nbears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably about\nfive hundred years later. The Israelites, during their long captivity in\nBabylon, lost as a body, their knowledge of their own language. These\ntranslations of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Chaldee, the language\nwhich they acquired in Babylon, were thus called for by the necessity of\nthe case. ]\n\n\n[Footnote B: See his \"Brevis explicatio sensus literalis totius\nScripture.\"]\n\n\n[Footnote C: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England by\nCranmer, then Archbishop of Canterbury, to superintend the translation\nof the Bible into English, under the patronage of Henry the Eighth. He\nhad hardly commenced the work when he died. This was nearly a century\nbefore the date of our present translation.]\n\n\n\n2. _The condition of servants in their masters' families, the privileges\nwhich they shared in common with the children, and their recognition as\nequals by the highest officers of the government--make the doctrine that\nthey were mere_ COMMODITIES, _an absurdity._ The testimony of Paul, in\nGal. iv. 1, gives an insight into the condition of servants. _\"Now I say\nunto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child,_ DIFFERETH NOTHING\nFROM A SERVANT, _though he be lord of all.\"_\n\nThat Abraham's servants were voluntary,--that their interests were\nidentified with those of their master's family--that they were regarded\nwith great affection by the household, and that the utmost confidence\nwas reposed in them, is shown in the arming of 318 of them for the\nrecovery of Lot and his family from captivity. See Gen. xiv. 14, 15.\n\nWhen Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess Rebekah did\nnot disdain to say to him, \"Drink, MY Lord,\" as \"she hasted and let down\nher pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink,\" and \"she hasted and\nemptied her pitcher, and ran again unto the well, and drew for all his\ncamels.\" Laban, the brother of Rebekah, prepared the house for his\nreception, \"_ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash his\nfeet, and the men's feet that were with him!\"_\n\nIn the 9th chapter of 1 Samuel, we have an account of a high festival in\nthe city of Zuph, at which Samuel, the chief judge and ruler in Israel,\npresided. None sat down at the feast but those that were bidden. And\nonly \"about _thirty_ persons\" were invited. Quite a select party!--the\nelite of the city of Zuph! Saul and his servant arrived at Zuph just as\nthe party was assembling; and _both_ of them, at Samuel's solicitation,\naccompany him as invited guests. _\"And Samuel took Saul and his_\nSERVANT, _and brought_ THEM _into the_ PARLOR(!) _and made_ THEM _sit in\nthe_ CHIEFEST SEATS _among those that were bidden.\"_ A _servant_ invited\nby the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with\na select party, in company with his master, who was _at the same time\nanointed King of Israel_; and this servant introduced by Samuel into the\nPARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the _chiefest seat_ at the\ntable! This was \"_one_ of the servants\" of _Kish_, Saul's father; not\nthe _steward_ or the _chief_ of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but\n\"_one_ of the servants;\" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as\nno endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking\nafter asses.\n\nAgain: we learn from 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9, that Elah, the King of Israel,\nwas slain by Zimri, one of his chief officers, at a festive\nentertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with\nwhom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. Without detailing\nother cases, we refer the reader to the intercourse between Gideon and\nhis servant.--Judges vii. 10, 11.--Jonathan and his servant.--1 Samuel\nxiv. 1-14.--Elisha and his servant.\n\n\n\n3. _The condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew\ncommonwealth, shows that they were neither articles of property, nor\neven_ INVOLUNTARY _servants_. The condition of the inhabitants of\nGibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Israelites, is\nquoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are right\nwelcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's devils\nmade desperate snatches at fruit that turned to ashes on their lips. The\nspirit of slavery raves under tormenting gnawings, and casts about in\nblind phrenzy for something to ease, or even to _mock_ them. But for\nthis, it would never have clutched at the Gibeonites, for even the\nincantations of the demon cauldron, could not extract from their case\nenough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the question. What was the\ncondition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites?\n\n(1.) _It was voluntary_. It was their own proposition to Joshua to\nbecome servants. Joshua ix. 8, 11. Their proposition was accepted, but\nthe kind of service which they should perform, was not specified until\ntheir gross imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial\noffices in the tabernacle.\n\n(2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of the\nIsraelites_. They still continued to reside in their own cities,\ncultivating their own fields, tending their flocks and herds, and\nexercising the functions of a _distinct_, though not independent\ncommunity. They were _subject_ to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So\nfar from being distributed among the Israelites, their family relations\nbroken up, and their internal organization as a distinct people\nabolished, they seem to have remained a separate, and, in some respects,\nan independent community for many centuries. When they were attacked by\nthe Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it\nwas promptly rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left\nunmolested in the occupation of their cities, while all Israel returned\nto Gilgal. Joshua x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and\nGod sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David said to the\nGibeonites, \"What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the\natonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord?\" At their\ndemand, he delivered up to them, seven of the royal family, five of them\nthe sons of Michal, his own former wife. 2 Samuel xxi. 1-9. The whole\ntransaction was a formal recognition of the Gibeonites as a separate\npeople. There is no intimation that they served families, or individuals\nof the Israelites, but only the \"house of God,\" or the Tabernacle. This\nwas established first at Gilgal, a day's journey from the cities of the\nGibeonites; and then at Shiloh, nearly two days' journey from them;\nwhere it continued about 350 years. During all this period, the\nGibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and territory. Only a few,\ncomparatively, could have been absent from their cities at any one time\nin attendance on the tabernacle.\n\n(1.) Whenever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body are\nspoken of as _at home_.\n\n(2.) It is preposterous to suppose that their tabernacle services could\nhave furnished employment for all the inhabitants of these four cities.\nOne of them \"was a great city, as one of the royal cities;\" so large,\nthat a confederacy of five kings, apparently the most powerful in the\nland, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that the\nmen were divided into classes, and thus ministered at the tabernacle in\nrotation--each class a few days or weeks at a time. This service was\ntheir _national tribute_ to the Israelites, rendered for the privilege\nof residence and protection under their government. No service seems to\nhave been required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were\nCanaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by\nimpudent imposition, hypocrisy, and lying, we might assuredly expect\nthat they would reduce _them_ to the condition of chattels and property,\nif there was _any_ case in which God permitted them to do so.\n\n7. _Because, throughout the Mosaic system, God warns them against\nholding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the\nEgyptians_. How often are the Israelites pointed back to the grindings\nof their prison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice and\nkindness towards their servants, are held out to their fears in\nthreatened judgements; to their hopes in promised good; and to all\nwithin them that could feel, by those oft repeated words of tenderness\nand terror! \"For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt\"--waking anew the\nmemory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them.\n\nThat the argument derived from the condition of the Israelites in Egypt,\nand God's condemnation of it, may be appreciated, it is important that\nthe Egyptian bondage should be analyzed. We shall then be able to\nascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what they\nretained.\n\n\n\nEGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) _The Israelites were not dispersed among\nthe families of Egypt, the property of individual owners_[A]. They\nformed a _separate_ community. See Gen. xlvi. 35. Ex. viii. 22, 24, and\nix. 26, and x. 23, and xi. 7, and ii. 9, and xvi. 22, and xvii. 5.\n\n[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living in\ntheir families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in\nExodus ix. 14, 20, 21. But none of the Israelites were included in this\nclass.]\n\n(2.) _They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen_[B], _one\nof the richest and most productive parts of Egypt_. Gen. xlv. 18, and\nxlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27.\n\n[Footnote B: The land of Goshen was a large tract of country, east of\nthe Pelusian arm of the Nile, and between it and the head of the Red\nSea, and the lower border of Palestine. The probable centre of that\nportion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly, have been less than\n60 miles from the city. From the best authorities it would seem that the\nextreme western boundary of Goshen must have been many miles distant\nfrom Egypt. See \"Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt,\" an able article\nby Professor Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1832.]\n\n(3.) _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were _houses_, not\n_tents_. In Ex. xii. 6, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_\nof the houses are mentioned, and in the 22d, the two side posts and the\nlintel. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_--Acts\nvii. 20, Ex. xii. 4--and from the regulation about the eating of the\nPassover, they could hardly have been small ones--Ex. xii. 4--and\nprobably contained separate apartments, and places for seclusion. Ex.\nii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex.\nxii. 11. To have had their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv.\n11.\n\n(4.) _They owned \"a mixed multitude of flocks and herds_,\" and \"_very\nmuch cattle_.\" Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38.\n\n(5.) They had their own form of government, and preserved their tribe\nand family divisions, and their internal organization throughout, though\nstill a province of Egypt, and _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1, and xii.\n19, 21, and vi. 14, 25, and v. 19, and iii. 16, 18.\n\n(6.) _They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of\ntheir own time_,--Ex. xxiii. 4, and iii. 16, 18, and xii. 6, and ii. 9,\nand iv. 27, 29-31. Also to have practised the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. 4,\nand xxxv. 32-35.\n\n(7.) _They were all armed_. Ex. xxxii. 27.\n\n(8.) _All the females seem to have known something of domestic\nrefinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled\nin the working of fine fabrics_. Ex. xv. 20, and 35, 36.\n\n(9.) _They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem\nto have regarded them as inviolable_. This we infer from the fact that\nthere is no intimation that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their\nhabitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or\nimplements of agriculture, or any article of property.\n\n(10.) _Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_.\nNothing is said from which the bond service of females could be\ninferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the\npayment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a\nsupposition. Ex. ii. 29.\n\n(11.) So far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was\nabundant, and had great variety. \"They sat by the flesh-pots,\" and \"did\neat bread to the full.\" Ex. xvi. 3, and xxiv. 1, and xvii. 5, and iv.\n29, and vi. 14. Also, \"they did eat fish freely, and cucumbers, and\nmelons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic.\" Num. xi. 4, 5, and x. 18,\nand xx. 5.\n\n(12.) _That the great body of the people were not in the service of the\nEgyptians, we infer_ (1) from the fact, that the extent and variety of\ntheir own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops\nas would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks\nand herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have\nfurnished constant employment for the main body of the nation.\n\n(2.) During the plague of darkness, God informs us that \"ALL the\nchildren of Israel had light in their dwellings.\" We infer that they\nwere _there_ to enjoy it.\n\n(3.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service\nnamed during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have\nfurnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex.\niv. 29-31.\n\nBesides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was, as now, in\nthe use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted\noff periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of the\nnation would be absent _at any one time_.\n\nProbably there was the same requisition upon the Israelites for\none-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor, that was laid upon the\nEgyptians. See Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it out of their\n_crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_ than crops) they exacted\nit of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that only the\n_poorer_ Israelites were required to work for the Egyptians at all, the\nwealthier being able to pay their tribute, in money. See Exod. iv.\n27-31.\n\nThis was the bondage in Egypt. Contrast it with American slavery. Have\nour slaves \"very much cattle,\" and \"a mixed multitude of flocks and\nherds?\" Do they live in commodious houses of their own? Do they \"_sit by\nthe flesh-pots_,\" \"_eat fish freely_,\" and \"_eat bread to the full_?\" Do\nthey live in a separate community, at a distance from their masters, in\ntheir distinct tribes, under their own rulers and officers? Have they\nthe exclusive occupation of an extensive and fertile tract of country\nfor the culture of their own crops, and for rearing immense herds of\n_their own_ cattle--and all these held independently of their masters,\nand regarded by them as inviolable? Are our female slaves free from all\nexactions of labor and liabilities of outrage?--and whenever employed,\nare they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman, when employed by the\nking's daughter? Exod. ii. 9. Have the females entirely, and the males\nto a considerable extent, the disposal of their own time? Have they the\nmeans for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts,\nand for intellectual and moral improvement?\n\nTHE ISRAELITES, UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND\nPRIVILEGES. True, \"_their lives were made bitter, and all the service\nwherein they made them serve was with rigor_.\" But what was that, when\ncompared with the incessant toil of American slaves, the robbery of all\ntheir time and earnings, and even the \"power to own any thing, or\nacquire any thing\"--the \"quart of corn a day,\" the legal allowance of\nfood[A]!--their _only_ clothing for one half the year, \"_one_ shirt and\n_one_ pair of pantaloons[B]!\"--the _two hours and a half_ only for rest\nand refreshment in the twenty-four[C]!--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit\nfor human residence, commonly with but one apartment, where both sexes\nand all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field.\nAdd to this, the mental ignorance, and moral degradation; the daily\nseparations of kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations and\nbaptisms of blood, sanctioned by the laws of the South, and patronized\nby its pubic sentiment. What, we ask, was the bondage of Egypt when\ncompared with this? And yet for _her_ oppression of the poor, God smote\nher with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she passed away in\nhis wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no more.\nAh! \"_I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard their\ngroanings, and am come down to deliver them_.\" HE DID COME, and Egypt\nsank, a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her.\n\n[Footnote A: The law of North Carolina. See Haywood's Manual, 524-5]\n\n\n[Footnote B: The law of Louisiana. See Martin's Digest, 610.]\n\n\n[Footnote C: The whole amount of time secured by the law of Louisiana.\nSee Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12]\n\nIf such was God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of\nhow much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy,\nwho cloak with religion, a system, in comparison with which the bondage\nof Egypt dwindles to nothing?\n\nLet those believe who can, that God gave his people permission to hold\nhuman beings, robbed of _all_ their rights, while he threatened them\nwith wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_\noppression of Egypt--which robbed its victims of only the _least_ and\n_cheapest_ of their rights, and left the _females_ unplundered even of\nthese. What! _Is God divided against himself_? When he had just turned\nEgypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied\ndead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of\nher torment went upwards because she had \"ROBBED THE POOR,\" did He\nlicense the VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_,\ndid he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that, for which he\nhad just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and cloven down his princes, and\noverwhelmed his hosts, and blasted them with His thunder, till \"hell was\nmoved to meet them at their coming?\"\n\nHaving touched upon the general topics which we design to include in\nthis inquiry, we proceed to examine various Scripture facts and\npassages, which will doubtless be set in array against the foregoing\nconclusions.\n\n\n\nOBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\n\nThe advocates of slavery are always at their wits end when they try to\npress the Bible into their service. Every movement shows that they are\nhard-pushed. Their odd conceits and ever varying shifts, their forced\nconstructions, lacking even plausibility, their bold assumptions, and\nblind guesswork, not only proclaim their _cause_ desperate, but\nthemselves. Some of the Bible defences thrown around slavery by\nministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and\nhistorical fact, that it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity,\nignorance, or blasphemy, predominates, in compound. Each strives so\nlustily for the mastery, it may be set down a drawn battle.\n\nHow often has it been set up in type, that the color of the negro is the\n_Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Doubtless Cain's posterity started an\nopposition to the ark, and rode out the flood with flying streamers! Why\nshould not a miracle be wrought to point such an argument, and fill out\nfor slaveholders a Divine title-deed, vindicating the ways of God to\nmen?\n\n\n\nOBJECTION 1. \"_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto\nhis brethren_.\" Gen. i. 25.\n\nThis prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ of slaveholders, and they\nnever venture abroad without it. It is a pocket-piece for sudden\noccasion--a keepsake to dote over--a charm to spell-bind opposition, and\na magnet to attract \"whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie.\"\nBut closely as they cling to it, \"cursed be Canaan\" is a poor drug to\nstupify a throbbing conscience--a mocking lullaby, vainly wooing slumber\nto unquiet tossings, and crying \"Peace, be still,\" where God wakes war,\nand breaks his thunders.\n\nThose who plead the curse on Canaan to justify negro slavery, _assume_\nall the points in debate.\n\n1. That the condition prophesied was _slavery_, rather than the mere\n_rendering of service_ to others, and that it was the bondage of\n_individuals_ rather than the condition of a _nation tributary_ to\nanother, and in _that_ sense its _servant_.\n\n2. That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_ it; that it grants\nabsolution to those whose crimes fulfil it, if it does not transform the\ncrimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharaohs might have quoted God's\nprophecy to Abraham, \"_Thy seed shall be in bondage, and they shall\nafflict them for four hundred years_.\" And then, what _saints_ were\nthose that crucified the Lord of glory!\n\n3. That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa was\npeopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and Mizraim settled Egypt, and Cush,\nEthiopia. See Gen. x. 15-19, for the location and boundaries of Canaan's\nposterity. So on the assumption that African slavery fulfils the\nprophecy, a curse pronounced upon one people, is quoted to justify its\ninfliction upon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes\nall Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy has not been fulfilled. The\nother sons of Ham settled the Egyptian and Assyrian empires, and\nconjointly with Shem the Persian, and afterward, to some extent, the\nGrecian and Roman. The history of these nations gives no verification of\nthe prophecy. Whereas the history of Canaan's descendants, for more than\nthree thousand years, is a record of its fulfilment. First, they were\nmade tributaries by the Israelites. Then Canaan was the servant of Shem.\nAfterward, by the Medes and Persians. Then Canaan was the servant of\nShem, and in part of the other sons of Ham. Afterward, by the\nMacedonians, Grecians, and Romans, successively. Then Canaan was the\nservant of Japhet, mainly, and secondarily of the other sons of Ham.\nFinally, they were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet\nremain. Thus Canaan is _now_ the servant of Shem and Japhet and the\nother sons of Ham.\n\nBut it may still be objected, that though Canaan is the only one _named_\nin the curse, yet the 22d and 23d verses show that it was pronounced\nupon the posterity of Ham in general. \"_And Ham, the father of Canaan,\nsaw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren\nwithout_.\"--Verse 22. In verse 23, Shem and Japhet cover their father\nwith a garment. Verse 24, \"_And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what\nhis YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said_,\" &c.\n\nIt is argued that this younger son cannot be _Canaan_, as he was not the\n_son_, but the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham_. We\nanswer, whoever that \"_younger son_\" was, or whatever he did, _Canaan_\nalone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies\nson, grandson, great-grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an\nindividual. Gen. xxix. 5, \"_And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the_\nSON _of Nahor_?\" Yet Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxiv. 15,\n29. In 2 Sam. xix. 24, it is said, \"_Mephibosheth, the_ SON _of Saul,\ncame down to meet the king_.\" But Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan,\nand the _grandson_ of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. So Ruth iv. 17. \"_There is a_\nSON _born to Naomi_.\" This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of\nNaomi. Ruth iv. 13, 15. So 2 Sam. xxi. 6. \"_Let seven men of his\n(Saul's)_ SONS _be delivered unto us_,\" &c. Seven of Saul's _grandsons_\nwere delivered up. 2 Sam. xxi. 8, 9. So Gen. xxi. 28, \"_And hast not\nsuffered me to kiss my_ SONS _and my daughters_;\" and in the 55th verse,\n\"_And early in the morning Laban rose up and kissed his_ SONS,\" &c.\nThese were his _grandsons_. So 2 Kings ix. 20, \"_The driving of Jehu,\nthe_ SON _of Nimshi_.\" So 1 Kings xix. 16. But Jehu was the _grandson_\nof Nimshi. 2 Kings ix. 2, 14. Who will forbid the inspired writer to use\nthe _same_ word when speaking of _Noah's_ grandson?\n\nFurther, if Ham were meant what propriety in calling him the _younger_\nson? The order in which Noah's sons are always mentioned, makes Ham the\n_second_, and not the _younger_ son. If it be said that Bible usage is\nvariable, and that the order of birth is not always preserved in\nenumerations; the reply is, that, enumeration in the order of birth, is\nthe _rule_, in any other order the _exception_. Besides, if the younger\nmember of a family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record,\nit is a mark of pre-eminence, either in original endowments, or\nprovidential instrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger than\nhis eldest brother, and probably the youngest of Terah's sons, stands\nfirst in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history warrants the\nidea of his pre-eminence; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkaton_, rendered\n_younger_, means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isaiah\nxl. 22. \"A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_.\" Also in Isaiah xxii.\n24. \"_All vessels of_ SMALL _quantity_.\" So Psalms cxv. 13. \"_He will\nbless them that fear the Lord, both_ SMALL _and great_.\" Also Exodus\nxviii. 22. \"_But every_ SMALL _matter they shall judge_.\" It would be a\nperfectly literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus,\n\"when Noah knew what his little son[A], or grandson (_Beno hakkaton_)\nhad done unto him, he said, cursed be Canaan,\" &c.\n\n[Footnote A: The French language in this respect follows the same\nanalogy. Our word _grandson_ being in French, _petit fils_, (little\nson.)]\n\nEven if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the assumption that\ntheir enslavement is a fulfilment of this prophecy, lacks even\nplausibility, for, only a mere _fraction_ of the inhabitants of Africa\nhave at any one time been the slaves of other nations. If the objector\nsay in reply, that a large majority of the Africans have always been\nslaves at _home_, we answer, 1st. _It is false in point of fact_, though\nzealously bruited often to serve a turn. 2d. _If it were true_, how does\nit help the argument? The prophecy was, \"Cursed be Canaan; a servant of\nservants shall he be unto his brethren\" not unto _himself_!\n\n\n\nOBJECTION II.--\"_If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and\nhe die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if\nhe continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his\nmoney_.\" Exodus xxi. 20, 21.\n\nArguments drawn from the Mosaic system in support of slavery, originate\nin a misconception both of its genius, _as a whole_, and of the design\nand scope of its most simple provisions. The verses quoted above, afford\nan illustration in point.\n\nWhat was the design of this regulation? Was it to grant masters an\nindulgence to beat servants with impunity? and an assurance, that if\nthey beat them to death, the offence would not be _capital_? This is\nsubstantially what some modern Doctors tell us. What Deity do such men\nworship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, and\nsnuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered out from Sinai's\nflames, \"THOU SHALT NOT KILL,\" offer a bounty on _murder_? Whoever\nanalyzes the Mosaic system--the condition of the people for whom it was\nmade--their inexperience in government--ignorance of judicial\nproceedings--laws of evidence, &c., will find a moot court in session,\ntrying law points--setting definitions, or laying down rules of\nevidence, in almost every chapter. Numbers xxxv. 10-22; Deuteronomy xi.\n11, and xix. 4-6; Leviticus xxiv. 19-22; Exodus, xxi. 18, 19, are a few,\nout of many cases stated, with tests furnished by which to detect _the\nintent_, in actions brought before them. The detail gone into, in the\nverses quoted, is manifestly to enable the judges to get at the _motive_\nof the action, and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill.\n\n1. \"If a man smite his servant with a _rod_.\"--The instrument used,\ngives a clue to the _intent_. See Numbers xxxv. 16, 18. It was a _rod_,\nnot an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other\ndeath-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_\nwould be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_\nfor its weapon. But if the servant dies _under his hand_, then the\nunfitness of the instrument, instead of being evidence in his favor, is\npoint blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_ until he\n_dies_, argues a _great many_ blows laid on with _great_ violence, and\nthis kept up to the death-gasp, establishes the point of _intent to\nkill_. Hence the sentence, \"He shall _surely_ be punished.\" The case is\nplain and strong. But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length of\ntime that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and\nthe fact that the master had a pecuniary interest in his _life_, (\"he is\nhis _money_,\") all, made out a strong case of circumstantial evidence,\nshowing that the master did not _design_ to kill; and required a\ncorresponding decision and sentence. A single remark on the word\n\"punished:\" in Exodus xxi. 20, 21, the Hebrew word here rendered\n_punished_, (_Nakum_,) is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it\noccurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament--in almost every instance,\nit is translated _avenge_--in a few, \"_to take vengeance_,\" or \"_to\nrevenge_,\" and in this instance ALONE, \"_punish_.\" As it stands in our\ntranslation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_--the\n_master_ in the 21st verse, is to be _punished_, and in the 22d _not_ to\nbe punished; whereas the preceding pronoun refers neither to the\n_master_ nor to the _servant_, but to the _crime_, and the word rendered\n_punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: If\na man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his\nhand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avenging\nit shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be\n_avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse--\"If he\ncontinues a day or two,\" his death shall not be avenged by the _death_\nof the _master_, for in that case the crime was to be adjudged\n_manslaughter_, and not _murder_, as in the first instance. In the\nfollowing verse, another case of personal injury is stated, not\nintentional, nor extending to life or limb, a mere accidental hurt, for\nwhich the injurer is to pay _a sum of money_; and yet our translators\nemploy the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance of\ndeliberate, wanton, _killing by piecemeal_. The other and _accidental_,\nand comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they\nsay the same thing! \"_He shall surely be punished_.\" Now, just the\ndifference which common sense would expect to find in such cases, where\nGOD legislates, is strongly marked in the original. In the case of the\nservant wilfully murdered, God says, \"It (the death) shall surely be\n_avenged_,\" (_Nakum_,) that is, _the life of the wrong doer shall\nexpiate the crime_. The same word is used in the Old Testament, when the\ngreatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators, whether\nindividuals or communities, to _destruction_. In the case of the\n_unintentional_ injury, in the following verse, God says, \"He shall\nsurely be\" _fined_, (_Aunash_.) \"He shall _pay_ as the judges\ndetermine.\" The simple meaning of the word _Aunash_, is to lay a fine.\nIt is used in Deut. xxii. 19. They shall _amerce_ him in one hundred\nshekels,\" and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3--\"He condemned (_mulcted_) the land\nin a hundred talents of gold.--This is the general use of the word, and\nits primary signification. That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was\nneither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor amercing the master in damages,\nbut that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer.\n\n1. From the _Bible usage_ of the word Nakam. See Genesis iv. 24; Joshua\nx. 13; Judges xv. 7-xvi. 28; 1 Samuel xiv. 24-xviii. 25-xxv. 31; 2\nSamuel iv. 8; Judges v. 2; 1 Samuel xxv. 26-33, &c. &c.\n\n2. From the express statute in such case provided. Leviticus xxiv. 17.\n\"_He that killeth_ ANY _man_ shall surely be put to death.\" Also Numbers\nxxxv. 30, 31. \"_Whoso killeth_ ANY _person_, the murderer shall be put\nto death. _Moreover ye shall take_ NO SATISFACTION _for the life of a\nmurderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to\ndeath_.\"\n\n3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, \"Death by the sword\nshall assuredly be adjudged.\" The Targum of Jerusalem thus, \"Vengeance\nshall be taken for him to the _uttermost_.\" Jarchi gives the same\nrendering. The Samaritan version thus, \"He shall die the death.\"\n\nAgain, the last clause in the 21st verse (\"for he is his money\") is\noften quoted to prove that the servant is his master's _property_, and\n_therefore_, if he died, the master was not _to be punished_. _Because_,\n1st. A man may dispose of his _property_ as he pleases. 2d. If the\nservant died of the injury, the master's _loss_ was a sufficient\npunishment. A word about the premises, before we notice the inferences.\nThe assumption is, that the phrase, \"HE IS HIS MONEY,\" proves not only\nthat the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an\n_article of property_. If the advocates of slavery will take this\nprinciple of interpretation into the Bible, and turn it loose, let them\neither give bonds for its behavior, or else stand and draw in\nself-defence, \"lest it turn again and rend\" them. If they endorse for it\nat one point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be\ntoo late to cry for quarter when they find its stroke clearing the whole\ntable, and tilting them among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds\nwith such expressions as the following: \"This (bread) _is_ my body;\"\n\"this (wine) _is_ my blood;\" \"all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass, and\ntin, and iron, and lead;\" \"this _is_ life eternal, that they might know\nthee;\" \"this (the water of the well of Bethlehem) _is_ the blood of the\nmen who went in jeopardy of their lives;\" \"I _am_ the lily of the\nvalleys;\" \"a garden enclosed _is_ my sister;\" \"my tears _have been_ my\nmeat;\" \"the Lord God _is_ a sun and a shield;\" \"God _is_ love;\" \"the\nLord _is_ my rock;\" \"the seven good ears _are_ seven years, and the\nseven good kine _are_ seven years;\" \"the seven thin and ill-favored kine\n_are_ seven years, and the seven empty ears blasted by the east wind\n_shall be_ seven years of famine;\" \"he _shall be_ head, and thou _shall_\nbe tail;\" \"the Lord _will_ be a wall of fire;\" \"they _shall_ be one\nflesh;\" \"the tree of the field _is_ man's life;\" \"God _is_ a consuming\nfire;\" \"he _is_ his money,\" &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_\nof Bible language is so amiable, it were hard not to gratify it in this\ncase. The words in the original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) \"his _silver_ is he.\"\nThe objector's principle of interpretation is, a philosopher's stone!\nIts miracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones\ninto _solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with\nall--reasoning against \"_forever_,\" is forestalled henceforth, and,\nDeut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted.\n\nWho in his senses believes that in the expression, \"_He is his money_,\"\nthe object was to inculcate the doctrine that the servant was a\n_chattel_? The obvious meaning is, he is _worth money_ to his master,\nand since, if the master killed him, it would take money out of his\npocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the\nfact of his living some time after the injury_, (as, if the master\n_meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all\ntogether make out a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the\nmaster of _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's\ninferences. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_\nas he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Answer.\nWhether the servant died under the master's hand, or continued a day or\ntwo, he was _equally_ his master's property, and the objector admits\nthat in the _first_ case the master is to be \"surely punished\" for\ndestroying _his own property_! The other inference is, that since the\ncontinuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, the\nloss of the slave would be a sufficient punishment for inflicting the\ninjury which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law false\nto its own principles. A _pecuniary loss_, constituted no part of the\nclaims of the law, where a person took the _life_ of another. In such\ncase, the law utterly spurned money, however large the sum. God would\nnot so cheapen human life, as to balance it with such a weight. \"_Ye\nshall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, but he shall\nsurely be put to death_.\" See Numb. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable\nhomicide, a case of death purely accidental, as where an axe slipped\nfrom the helve and killed a man, no sum of money availed to release from\nconfinement in the city of refuge, until the death of the High Priest.\nNumbers xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be a\npenalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits the master's\n_guilt_--his desert of _some_ punishment, and it prescribes a _kind_ of\npunishment, rejected by the law, in all cases where man took the life of\nman, whether with or without _intent_ to kill. In short, the objector\nannuls an integral part of the system--resolves himself into a\nlegislature, with power in the premises, makes a _new_ law, and coolly\nmetes out such penalty as he thinks fit, both in kind and quantity.\nMosaic statutes amended, and Divine legislation revised and improved!\n\nThe master who struck out the tooth of a servant, whether intentionally\nor not, was required to set him free for his tooth's sake. The\n_pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though the servant had\n_died_. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so severely,\nthat after a day or two he dies of his wounds; another master\naccidentally strikes out his servant's tooth, and his servant is\nfree--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same._ The objector\ncontends that the loss of the slave's services in the first case is\npunishment sufficient for the crime of killing him; yet God commands the\n_same_ punishment for even the _accidental_ knocking out of a _tooth_!\nIndeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_, the loss of the\nservant's services is only a _part_ of the punishment--mere reparation\nto the _individual_ for injury done; the _main_ punishment, that\nstrictly _judicial_, was, reparation to the _community_ for injury to\none of its members. To set the servant _free_, and thus proclaim his\ninjury, his right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the\nends of public justice. The law made an example of the offender, \"those\nthat remain might hear and fear.\" _\"If a man cause a blemish in his\nneighbour, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for\nbreach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a\nman, so shall it be done to him again. You have one manner of law as\nwell for the_ STRANGER _as for one of your own country_.\" Lev. xxiv. 19,\n20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out the tooth of a servant, the law\nsmote out _his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it\ncancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some\ncompensation for the injury done, and exempting him from perilous\nliabilities in future.\n\n\n\nOBJECTION III. _Both the bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have,\nshall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy\nbondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do\nsojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are\nwith you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your\npossession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children\nafter you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen\nforever_. Lev. xxv. 44-46.\n\nThe _points_ in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system\nsanctioned slavery, are 1. The word \"BONDMEN.\" 2. \"BUY.\" 3. \"INHERITANCE\nAND POSSESSION.\" 4. \"FOREVER.\"\n\nThe _second_ point, the _buying_ of servants, has been already\ndiscussed, see page 15. And a part of the _third_ (holding servants as a\n\"possession.\" See p. 36.) We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery\nis derivable from the terms \"bondmen,\" \"inheritance,\" and \"forever.\"\n\nI. BONDMEN. The fact that servants, from the heathen are called\n\"_bondmen_,\" while others are called \"servants,\" is quoted as proof that\nthe former were slaves. As the _caprices_ of King James' translators\nwere not divinely inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The\nword rendered _bondmen_, in this passage, is the same word uniformly\nrendered _servants_ elsewhere. To infer from this that the Gentile\nservants were slaves, is absurd. Look at the use of the Hebrew word\n\"_Ebed_,\" the plural of which is here translated \"_bondmen_.\" In Isaiah\nxlii. 1, the _same word_ is applied to Christ. \"Behold my _servant_\n(bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my soul\ndelighteth.\" So Isaiah lii. 13. \"Behold my _servant_ (Christ) shall deal\nprudently.\" In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to _King Rehoboam_. \"And\nthey (the old men) spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_\n(_Ebed_) unto this people this day, and will serve them and answer them,\nand wilt speak good words to them, then they will be thy _servants_\nforever.\" In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, it is applied to the king and\nall the nation. In fine, the word is applied to _all_ persons doing\nservice to others--to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to\ntributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to younger\nsons--defining their relation to the first born, who is called _Lord_\nand _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful\naddresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old Testament.\n\nIf the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why had\ntheir language _no word_ that _meant slave_? If Abraham had thousands,\nand if they _abounded_ under the Mosaic system, why had they no such\n_word_ as slave or slavery? That language must be wofully poverty\nstricken, which has _no signs_ to represent the most _common_ and\n_familiar_ objects and conditions. To represent by the same word, and\nwithout figure, _property_, and the _owner_ of that property, is a\nsolecism. Ziba was an \"_Ebed_,\" yet he _\"owned_\" (!) twenty _Ebeds_. In\n_English_, we have both the words _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we\nhave both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a\nsheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but\nour dictionaries give us none. Why? because there is no such _thing_.\nBut the objector asks, \"Would not the Israelites use their word _Ebed_\nif they spoke of the slave of a heathen?\" Answer. The servants of\nindividuals among the heathen are scarcely ever alluded to. _National_\nservants or _tributaries_, are spoken of frequently, but so rarely are\ntheir _domestic_ servants alluded to, no necessity existed, even if they\nwere slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being\ndomestics, under _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their\n_liabilities_; their locality told their condition; so that in applying\nto them the word _Ebed_, there would be no danger of being\nmisunderstood. But if the Israelites had not only _servants_, but\nbesides these, a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning slave_, would\nhave been indispensable for purposes of every day convenience. Further,\nthe laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on every side, to\nwarn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was quarantine\nground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse between the _without_\nand the _within_, not of _persons_, but of _usages_. The fact that the\nHebrew language had no words corresponding to _slave_ and _slavery_,\nthough not a conclusive argument, is no slight corroborative.\n\n\n\nII. \"FOREVER.\"--\"They shall be your bondmen _forever_.\" This is quoted\nto prove that servants were to serve during their life time, and their\nposterity, from generation to generation.\n\nNo such idea is contained in the passage. The word _forever_, instead of\ndefining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the _permanence_\nof the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that\ntheir _permanent domestics_ should be of the _Strangers_, and not of the\nIsraelites; and it declares the duration of that general provision. As\nif God had said, \"You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers from\nthe nations round about you--your _servants_ shall always be of _that_\nclass of persons.\" As it stands in the original, it is plain--\"_Forever\nof them shall ye serve yourselves_.\" This is the literal rendering of\nthe Hebrew words, which, in our version, are translated, \"_They shall be\nyour bondmen forever_.\"\n\nThis construction is in keeping with the whole of the passage. \"Both thy\nbondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the\n_heathen_ (the nations) that are round about you. OF THEM shall ye buy\nbondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do\nsojourn among you, OF THEM shall ye buy,\" &c. The design of this passage\nis manifest from its structure. It was to point out the _class_ of\npersons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the\n_way_ in which they were to get them. That \"_forever_\" refers to the\npermanent relations of a _community_, rather than to the services of\n_individuals_, is a fair inference from the form of the expression,\n\"THEY shall be your possession. Ye shall take _them_ as an inheritance\nfor your children to inherit them for a possession.\" To say nothing of\nthe uncertainty of _these individuals_ surviving those _after_ whom they\nare to live, the language used, applies more naturally to a _body_ of\npeople, than to _individual_ servants.\n\nBut suppose it otherwise; still _perpetual_ service could not be argued\nfrom the term _forever_. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter,\nlimit it absolutely by the jubilee. \"_Then shall thou cause the trumpet\nof the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month: in the\nday of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout_ ALL _your\nland.\" \"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty\nthroughout all the land unto_ ALL _the inhabitants thereof_.\"\n\nIt may be objected that \"inhabitants\" here means _Israelitish_\ninhabitants alone. The command is, \"Proclaim liberty throughout all the\nland unto ALL _the inhabitants thereof_.\" Besides, in the sixth verse,\nthere is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in\nwhich servants and strangers are included. \"_And the Sabbath of the land\nshall be meet for_ YOU--[For whom? For you _Israelites_ only?]--_for\nthee, and for thy_ SERVANT, _and for thy maid, and for thy hired\nservant, and for thy_ STRANGER _that sojourneth with thee_.\"\n\nFurther, in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year,\nthe strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promised\nblessings. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in, by the day of\natonement. What was the design of these institutions? The day of\natonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of jubilee,\nthe gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a jubilee to\n_Jews_ only? Were they the types of sins remitted, and of salvation,\nproclaimed to the nation of _Israel_ alone? Is there no redemption for\nus Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and\nimpiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock, that made earth\nquake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple\nvail? And did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition\nfrom its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of OUR\nsalvation lives. \"Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people.\"\n_One_ shout shall swell from _all_ the ransomed, \"Thou hast redeemed us\nunto God by thy blood out of EVERY kindred, and tongue, and people, and\nnation.\" To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the\nservants from the _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. It not only\neclipses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusal\nto release servants at the sound of the jubilee trumpet, falsified and\ndisannulled a grand leading type of the atonement, and thus libelled the\ndoctrine of Christ's redemption.\n\nFinally, even if _forever_ did refer to the length of _individual_\nservice, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee.\nThe same word is used to define the length of time for which those\n_Jewish_ servants were held, who refused to go out in the _seventh_\nyear. And all admit that their term of service did not go beyond the\njubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17.\n\nThe 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to prove that \"_forever_\" in\nthe 46th verse, extends beyond the jubilee. \"_The land shall not be\nsold_ FOREVER, _for the land is mine_\"--as it would hardly be used in\ndifferent senses in the same general connection. In reply, we repeat\nthat _forever_ respects the duration of the _general arrangement_, and\nnot that of _individual service_. Consequently, it is not affected by\nthe jubilee; so the objection does not touch the argument. But it may\nnot be amiss to show that it is equally harmless against any other\nargument drawn from the use of forever in the 46th verse,--for the word\nthere used, is _Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that\nmay be. Whereas in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning _cutting\noff_, or _to be cut off_.\n\n\n\nIII. \"INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION.\"--\"_Ye shall take them as an_\nINHERITANCE _for your children after you to inherit them for a\npossession_.\" This refers to the _nations_, and not to the _individual_\nservants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that\nservants could not be held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance;\nthat they became servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages;\nthat they were released by law from their regular labor nearly _half the\ndays in each year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were\n_protected_ in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally\nwith their masters, &c. Now, truly, all remaining, after these ample\nreservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or\nof lucre. What a profitable \"possession\" and \"inheritance!\" What if our\nAmerican slaves were all placed in _just such a condition_! Alas, for\nthat soft, melodious circumlocution, \"Our PECULIAR species of property!\"\nTruly, emphasis is cadence, and euphony and irony have met together!\n\nWhat eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of\nconnection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of\nmeaning by other passages--and all to eke out such a sense as accords\nwith existing usages and sanctifies them, thus making God pander for\ntheir lusts. Little matter whether the meaning of the word be primary or\nsecondary, literal or figurative, _provided_ it sustains their\npractices.\n\nBut let us inquire whether the words rendered \"inherit\" and\n\"inheritance,\" when used in the Old Testament, necessarily point out the\nthings inherited and possessed as _articles of property_. _Nahal_ and\n_Nahala_--_inherit_ and _inheritance_. See 2 Chronicles x. 16. \"The\npeople answered the king and said, What portion have we in David, and we\nhave none _inheritance_ in the son of Jesse.\" Did they mean gravely to\ndisclaim the holding of their king as an article of _property?_ Psalms\ncxxvii. 3--\"Lo, children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord.\"\nExodus xxxiv. 9--\"Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine\n_inheritance_.\" When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as his\nchildren, does he make them _articles of property?_ Are forgiveness, and\nchattel-making, synonymes? Psalms cxix. 111--\"Thy testimonies have I\ntaken as a _heritage_ (inheritance) forever.\" Ezekiel xliv. 27, 28--\"And\nin the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court to\nminister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering, saith the\nLord God. And it shall be unto them for an _inheritance_; _I_ am their\n_inheritance_.\" Psalms ii. 8--\"Ask of me, and I will give thee the\nheathen for thine _inheritance_.\" Psalms xciv. 14--\"For the Lord will\nnot cast off his people, neither will he forsake his _inheritance_.\" See\nalso Deuteronomy iv. 20; Joshua xiii. 33; Chronicles x. 16; Psalms\nlxxxii. 8, and lxxviii. 62, 71; Proverbs xiv. 8.\n\nThe question whether the servants were a PROPERTY--\"_possession_,\" has\nbeen already discussed--(See p. 36)--we need add in this place but a\nword. _Ahusa_ rendered \"_possession_.\" Genesis xlii. 11--\"And Joseph\nplaced his father and his brethren, and gave them a _possession_ in the\nland of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as\nPharaoh had commanded.\"\n\nIn what sense was the land of Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites?\nAnswer, In the sense of, _having it to live in_. In what sense were the\nIsraelites to _possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an\n_inheritance for their children?_ We answer, They possessed them as _a\npermanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this\nrelation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing\nregulation--a national usage respecting them, having the certainty and\nregularity of a descent by inheritance_. The sense of the whole\nregulation may be given thus: \"Thy permanent domestics, both male and\nfemale, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round\nabout you, of _them_ shall ye get male and female domestics.\" \"Moreover\nof the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_\nshall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat\nin your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent resource,\" (for\nhousehold servants.) \"And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ provision\nfor your children after you, to hold as a _constant source of supply_.\nALWAYS _of them_ shall ye serve yourselves.\"\n\n\n\nOBJECTION IV. \"_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and\nbe sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a_\nBOND-SERVANT, _but as an_ HIRED-SERVANT, _and as a sojourner shall he be\nwith thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee_.\" Lev. xxv.\n39, 40.\n\nFrom the fact that only _one_ class of the servants is called _hired_,\nit is sagely inferred that servants of the _other_ class were _not paid_\nfor their labor. That is, that while God thundered anathemas against\nthose who \"used their neighbor's service _without wages_,\" he granted a\nspecial indulgence to his chosen people to seize persons, force them to\nwork, and rob them of earnings, provided always, in selecting their\nvictims, they spared \"the gentlemen of property and standing,\" and\npounced only upon the _strangers_ and the _common_ people. The inference\nthat \"_hired_\" is synonimous with _paid_, and that those servants not\n_called_ \"hired\" were _not paid_ for their labor, is a _mere\nassumption_.\n\nThe meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is, as every one knows, to\nprocure for a temporary use at a curtain price--to engage a person to\n_temporary_ service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew\nword \"_Saukar_.\" _Temporary_ service, and generally for a _specific_\nobject, is inseparable from its meaning. It is never used when the\nprocurement of _permanent_ service, for a long period, is spoken of.\nNow, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who constituted an\nintegral and stationary part of the family, have been designated by the\nsame term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinctions\nmade on this subject, are as familiar as table-talk. In many families,\nthe domestics perform only such labor, as every day brings along with\nit--the _regular_ work. Whatever is _occasional_ merely, as the washing\nof a family, is done by persons _hired expressly for the purpose_. In\nsuch families, the familiar distinction between the two classes, is\n\"servants,\" or \"domestics,\" and \"hired help,\" (not _paid_ help.) _Both_\nclasses are _paid_. One is permanent, the other occasional and\ntemporary, and therefore in this case called \"_hired_.\" To suppose a\nservant robbed of his earnings, because when spoken of, he is not called\na _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man at twelve\ndollars a month to work my farm, he is my _\"hired\"_ man, but if, instead\nof giving him so much a month, I _give him such a portion of the crop_,\nor in other words, if he works my farm _\"on shares,\"_ he is no longer my\n_hired_ man. Every farmer knows that _that_ designation is not applied\nto him. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same times,\nand with the same teams and tools; and does the same amount of work in\nthe year, and perhaps clears twenty dollars a month, instead of the\ntwelve, paid him while he was my _hired_ laborer. Now, as the technic\n_\"hired\"_ is no longer used to designate him, and as he still labors on\nmy farm, suppose my neighbors gather in conclave, and from such ample\npremises sagely infer, that since he is no longer my _\"hired\"_ laborer,\nI _rob_ him of his earnings, and with all the gravity of owls, they\nrecord their decision, and adjourn to hoot it abroad. My neighbors are\ndeep divers!--like some theological professors, they not only go to the\nbottom, but come up covered with the tokens.\n\n\n\nA variety of particulars are recorded in the Bible, distinguishing\n_hired_ from _bought_ servants. (1.) Hired servants were paid daily at\nthe close of their work. Lev. xix 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. 2;\nMatt. xx. 8. _\"Bought\"_ servants were paid in advance, (a reason for\ntheir being called, _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh\nyear received a _gratuity_ at the close of their period of service.\nDeut. xv. 12-13. (2.) The hired servant was paid _in money_, the bought\nservant received his _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the\nproduct of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The _hired_ servant _lived\nby himself_, in his own family. The _bought_ servant was a part of his\nmaster's family. (4.) The _hired_ servant supported his family out of\nhis wages; the _bought_ servant and his family, were supported by the\nmaster _besides_ his wages.\n\n\n\nA careful investigation of the condition of \"_hired_\" and of \"_bought_\"\nservants, shows that the latter were, _as a class, superior to the\nformer_--were more trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied in\nevery respect (_other_ things being equal) a higher station in society.\n(1.) _They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master_.\nThey were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which\nhired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Exod. xii. 43, 45. (2)\n_Their interests were far more identified with the general interests of\ntheir masters' family._ Bought servants were often actually, or\nprospectively, heirs of their master's estate. Witness the case of\nEliezer, of Ziba, of the sons of Bilhah, and Zilpah, and others. When\nthere were no sons to inherit the estate, or when, by unworthiness, they\nhad forfeited their title, bought servants were made heirs. Proverbs\nxvii. 2. We find traces of this usage in the New Testament. \"But when\nthe husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, this is\nthe _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours_.\"\nLuke xx. 14; also Mark xii. 7. In no instance on Bible record, does a\n_hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.) _Marriages took place\nbetween servants and their master's daughters_. \"Now Sheshan had no\nsons, but daughters: and Sheshan had a _servant_, an Egyptian, whose\nname was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to\nwife.\" 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a _hired_ servant\nforming such an alliance.\n\n(4.) _Bought servants and their descendants seem to have been regarded\nwith the same affection and respect as the other members of the\nfamily[A]._ The treatment of Eliezer, and the other servants in the\nfamily of Abraham, Gen. chap. 25--the intercourse between Gideon and his\nservant Phurah, Judges vii. 10, 11. and Saul and his servant, in their\ninterview with Samuel, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; and Jonathan and his servant, 1\nSam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and his servant Gehazi, are illustrations. No\nsuch tie seems to have existed between _hired_ servants and their\nmasters. Their untrustworthiness seems to have been proverbial. See John\nix. 12, 13.\n\nNone but the _lowest class_ seem to have engaged as hired servants. No\ninstance occurs in which they are assigned to business demanding much\nknowledge or skill. Various passages show the low repute and trifling\ncharacter of the class from which they were hired. Judges ix. 4; 1 Sam.\nii. 5.\n\nThe superior condition and privileges of bought servants, are manifested\nin the high trusts confided to them, and in the dignity and authority\nwith which they were clothed in their master's household. But in no\ninstance is a _hired_ servant thus distinguished. In some cases, the\n_bought_ servant is manifestly the master's representative in the\nfamily--with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even\nnegotiating marriage for them. Abraham besought Eliezer his servant, to\ntake a solemn oath, that HE would not take a wife for Isaac of the\ndaughters of the Canaanites, but from Abraham's kindred. The servant\nwent accordingly, and _himself_ selected the individual. Servants also\nexercised discretionary power in the management of their master's\nestate, \"And the servant took ten camels, of the camels of his master,\n_for all the goods of his master were under his hand_.\" Gen. xxiv. 10.\nThe reason assigned for taking them, is not that such was Abraham's\ndirection, but that the servant had discretionary control. Servants had\nalso discretionary power in the _disposal of property_. See Gen. xxiv.\n22, 23, 53. The condition of Ziba in the house of Mephiboseth, is a case\nin point. So is Prov. xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to\nbe found in the New Testament, Math. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44. So in\nthe parable of the talents; the master seems to have set up each of his\nservants in trade with considerable capital. One of them could not have\nhad less than eight thousand dollars. The parable of the unjust steward\nis another illustration. Luke xvi. 4, 8. He evidently was entrusted with\nlarge _discretionary_ power, was \"accused of wasting his master's\ngoods.\" and manifestly regulated with his master's debtors, the _terms_\nof settlement. Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.\n\nThe inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is illustrated in the\nparable of the prodigal son. When the prodigal, perishing with hunger\namong the swine and husks, came to himself, his proud heart broke; \"I\nwill arise,\" he cried, \"and go to my father.\" And then to assure his\nfather of the depth of his humility, resolved to add imploringly, \"Make\nme as one of thy _hired_ servants.\" It need not be remarked, that if\n_hired_ servants were the _superior_ class; to apply for the situation,\nand press the suit, savored little of that sense of unworthiness that\nseeks the dust with hidden face, and cries \"unclean.\" Unhumbled nature\n_climbs_; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may. Humility\nsinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower. The design\nof the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy of God, as he\nbeholds afar off, the returning sinner \"seeking an injured father's\nface\" who runs to clasp and bless him with an unchiding welcome; and on\nthe other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with tears,\nfrom his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert,\nhe sobs aloud, \"The lowest place, _the lowest place_, I can abide no\nother.\" Or in those inimitable words, \"_Father, I have sinned against\nHeaven, and in thy sight, and no more worthy to be called thy son; make\nme as one of thy_ HIRED _servants_.\" The supposition that _hired_\nservants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of\nwinning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of\nthe Bible, that _one_ class of servants, was on terms of equality with\nthe children and other members of the family. (Hence the force of Paul's\ndeclaration, Gal. iv. 1, _\"Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as\nhe is a child,_ DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, _though he be lord of\nall.\"_) If this were the _hired_ class, the prodigal was a sorry\nspecimen of humility. Would our Lord have put such language, into the\nlips of one held up by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to\nillustrate its lowliness, its conscious destitution of all merit, and\ndeep sense of all ill desert? If this is _humility_, put it on stilts,\nand set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in\napeing it.\n\nHere let it be observed, that both Israelites and Strangers, belonged\nindiscriminately to _each_ class of the servants, the _bought_ and the\n_hired_. That those in the former class, whether Jews or Strangers, were\nin higher estimation, and rose to honors and authority in the family\ncircle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been already\nshown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,\nmerely _political_ and _national_, the hired servants from the\n_Israelites_, were more favored than either the hired, or the bought\nservants from the _Strangers_. No one from the Strangers, however\nwealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the highest office, nor could\nhe own the soil. This last disability seems to have been one reason for\nthe different periods of service required of the two classes of bought\nservants--the Israelites and the Strangers. The Israelite was to serve\nsix years--the Stranger until the jubilee[A].\n\n[Footnote A: Both classes may with propriety be called _permanent_\nservants; even the bought Israelite, when his six-years' service is\ncontrasted with the brief term of the hired servant.]\n\nAs the Strangers could not own the soil, nor even houses, except within\nwalled towns, most of them would choose to attach themselves permanently\nto Israelitish families. Those Strangers who were wealthy, or skilled in\nmanufactures, instead of becoming servants themselves, would need\nservants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to\nbecome servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their\nown nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would\nnaturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. See Levit. xxv.\n47. In a word, such was the political condition of the Strangers, the\nJewish polity furnished a strong motive to them, to become servants,\nthus incorporating themselves with the nation, and procuring those\nsocial and religious privileges already enumerated, and for their\nchildren in the second generation, a permanent inheritance. (This last\nwas a regulation of later date. Ezekiel xlvii. 21-23.) Indeed, the\nstructure of the whole Mosaic polity, was a virtual bounty offered to\nthose who would become permanent servants, and merge in the Jewish\nsystem their distinct nationality. None but the monied aristocracy among\nthem, would be likely to decline such offers.\n\nFor various reasons, this class, (the servants bought from the\nStrangers,) would prefer a _long_ service. They would thus more\neffectually become absorbed into the national circulation, and identify\ntheir interests with those in whose gift were all things desirable for\nthemselves, and brighter prospects for their children. On the other\nhand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land\nbeing a sort of sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance, was,\nwith every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and\npersonal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the _possession_ of\none's inheritance, _after_ the division of the paternal domain, or to be\nrestrained from its _control_, after having acceded to it, was a burden\ngrievous to be borne. To mitigate, as much as possible, such a calamity,\nthe law, instead of requiring the Israelite to continue a servant until\nthe jubilee, released him at the end six years[A], as, during that\ntime--if, of the first class--the partition of the patrimonial land\nmight have taken place; or, if of the second, enough money might have\nbeen earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he might assume his\nstation as a lord of the soil. If these contingencies had not occurred,\nthen, at the end of another six years, the opportunity was again\noffered, and in the same manner until the jubilee. So while strong\nmotives urged the Israelite, to discontinue his service as soon as the\nexigency had passed, which induced him to become a servant, every\nconsideration impelled the _Stranger_ to _prolong_ his term of service;\nand the same kindness which dictated the law of six years' service for\nthe Israelite, assigned as the general rule, a much longer period to the\nGentile servant, who, instead of being tempted to a brief service, had\nevery inducement to protract the term.\n\n[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until the\nseventh year, seems to have been, its coincidence with other\narrangements, and provisions, inseparable from the Jewish economy. That\nperiod was a favorite one in the Mosaic system. Its pecuniary\nresponsibilities, social relations and general internal structure, if\nnot _graduated_ upon a septennial scale, were variously modified by the\nlapse of the period. Another reason doubtless was, that as those\nIsraelites who became servants through poverty, would not sell\nthemselves, except as a last resort when other expedients to recruit\ntheir finances had failed--(See Lev. xxv. 35)--their _becoming servants_\nproclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor of _a\ncourse of years_ fully to reinstate them.]\n\nIt is important to a clear understanding of the whole subject, to keep\nin mind that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary\nexpedient to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to be\nsuch when that object was effected. The poverty that forced them to it\nwas a calamity, and their service was either a means of relief, or a\nmeasure of prevention. It was not pursued as a _permanent business_, but\nresorted to on emergencies--a sort of episode in the main scope of their\nlives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a _permanent employment_,\npursued not merely as a _means_ of bettering their own condition, and\nprospectively that of their posterity, but also, as an _end_ for its own\nsake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not\notherwise attainable.\n\nWe see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are\ncalled by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_, as our\ntranslators have it.) (1.) They followed it as a _permanent business_.\n(2.) Their term of service was _much longer_ than that of the other\nclass. (3.) As a class, they doubtless greatly outnumbered the\nIsraelitish servants. (4.) All the Strangers that dwelt in the land,\nwere _tributaries_ to the Israelites--required to pay an annual tribute\nto the government, either in money, or in public service, which was\ncalled a \"_tribute of bond-service_;\" in other words, all the Strangers\nwere _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word\nwhich is used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates\n_national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14. 2 Chron.\nviii. 7-9. Deut. xx. 11. 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. 1 Kings iv.\n21. Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when\nthey paid tribute to other nations. See 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judges iii. 8,\n14. Gen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile\nbought servants, claims notice. It was in the _kinds_ of service\nassigned to each class. The servants from the Strangers, were properly\nthe _domestics_, or household servants, employed in all family work, in\noffices of personal attendance, and in such mechanical labor, as was\nconstantly required in every family, by increasing wants, and needed\nrepairs. On the other hand, the Jewish bought servants seem to have been\nalmost exclusively _agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for this\nby previous habits--agriculture, and the tending of cattle, were\nregarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations;\nkings engaged in them. After Saul was elected king, and escorted to\nGibeah, the next report of him is, \"_And behold Saul came after the herd\nout of the field_.\"--1 Sam. xi. 7.\n\nElisha \"was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen\" when Elijah threw his\nmantle upon him. 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah \"loved husbandry.\" 2\nChron. xxvi. 10. Gideon, the deliverer of Israel, _was \"threshing wheat_\nby the wine press\" when called to lead the host against the Midianites.\nJudges vi. 11. The superior honorableness of agriculture, is shown by\nthe fact, that it was _protected and supported by the fundamental law_\nof the theocracy--God thus indicating it as the chief prop of the\ngovernment, and putting upon it peculiar honor. An inheritance of land\nseems to have filled out an Israelite's idea of worldly furnishment.\nThey were like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they cling to\nit. To be agriculturalists on their own inheritances, was, in their\nnotions, the basis of family consequence, and the grand claim to\nhonorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a _Jewish_\nemployment, to assign a native Israelite to _other_ employments as a\n_business_, was to break up his habits, do violence to cherished\npredilections, and put him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill,\nand which he deemed degrading. In short, it was, in the earlier ages of\nthe Mosaic system, practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigor\ngrievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between\nthe descendants of Abraham and the Strangers--a distinction vital to the\nsystem, and gloried in by every Jew.\n\n_To guard this and another fundamental distinction_, God instituted the\nregulation contained in Leviticus xxv. 39, which stands at the head of\nthis branch of our inquiry, \"_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be\nwaxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as\na bond-servant._\" In other words, thou shalt not put him to _servants'\nwork_--to the _business_, and into the _condition_ of _domestics_.\n\nIn the Persian version it is translated thus, \"Thou shalt not assign to\nhim the work of _servitude_,\" (or _menial_ labor.) In the Septuagint\nthus, \"He shall not serve thee with the service of a _domestic or\nhousehold servant_.\" In the Syriac thus, \"Thou shalt not employ him\nafter the manner of servants.\" In the Samaritan thus, \"Thou shalt not\nrequire him to serve in the service of a servant.\" In the Targum of\nOnkelos thus, \"He shall not serve thee with the service of a household\nservant.\" In the Targum of Jonathan thus, \"Thou shalt not cause him to\nserve according to the usages of the servitude of servants[A].\" In fine,\n\"thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant,\" means, _thou\nshalt not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same\nservices, with permanent domestics._\n\n[Footnote A: Jarchi's comment on \"Thou shalt not compel him to serve as\na bond-servant\" is, \"the Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any\nthing which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personal\nattendance, as loosing his master's shoe latchet, bringing him water to\nwash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying\nthings to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his\nmaster as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor,\nuntil his legal release.\"]\n\nWe pass to the remainder of the regulation in the 40th verse:--\n\n\"_But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee_.\"\nHired servants were not incorporated into the families of their masters;\nthey still retained their own family organization, without the surrender\nof any domestic privilege, honor, or authority; and this, even though\nthey resided under the same roof with their master. While\nbought-servants were associated with their master's families at meals,\nat the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired servants and\nsojourners were not. Exodus xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Not being\nmerged in the family of his master, the hired servant was not subject to\nhis authority, (except in directions about his labor) in any such sense\nas the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence the only form\nof oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures as practicable\nto masters, is that of _keeping back their wages_.\n\nTo have taken away these privileges in the case stated in the passage\nunder consideration, would have been preeminent _rigor_; for the case\ndescribed, is not that of a servant born in the house of a master, nor\nthat of a minor, whose unexpired minority had been sold by the father,\nneither was it the case of an Israelite, who though of age, had not yet\nacceded to his inheritance; nor, finally, was it that of one who had\nreceived the _assignment_ of his inheritance, but was, as a servant,\nworking off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its possession\nand control[A]. But it was that of _the head of a family_, who had lived\nindependently on his own inheritance, and long known better days, now\nreduced to poverty, forced to relinquish the loved inheritance of his\nfathers, with the competence and respectful consideration its possession\nsecured to him, and to be indebted to a neighbor for shelter,\nsustenance, and employment, both for himself and his family. Surely so\nsad a reverse, might well claim sympathy; but there remaineth to him one\nconsolation, and it cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage. He is an\n_Israelite--Abraham is his father_, and now in his calamity he clings\ncloser than ever, to the distinction conferred by the immunities of his\nbirthright. To rob him of this, were \"the unkindest cut of all.\" To have\nassigned him to a _grade_ of service filled only by those whose\npermanent business was _serving_, would have been to _rule over him with\npeculiar rigor_.\n\n[Footnote A: These two latter classes are evidently referred to in Exod.\nxxi. 1-6, and Deut. xv. 12]\n\nFinally, the former part of the regulation, \"Thou shalt not compel him\nto serve as a bond-servant,\" or more literally, _thou shall not serve\nthyself with him, with the service of a servant_, guaranties his\npolitical privileges, and secures to him a kind and grade of service,\ncomporting with his character and relations as a son of Israel. And the\nremainder of the verse, \"But as a _hired_ servant, and as a sojourner\nshall he be with thee,\" continues and secures to him his separate family\norganization, the respect and authority due to his head, and the general\nconsideration in society resulting from such a station. Though this\nindividual was a Jewish _bought_ servant, the case is peculiar, and\nforms an exception to the general class of Jewish bought servants. Being\nalready in possession of his inheritance, and the head of a household,\nthe law so arranged his relations, as a servant, as to _alleviate_ as\nmuch as possible the calamity which had reduced him from independence\nand authority, to penury and subjection.\n\nHaving gone so much into detail on this point, comment on the command\nwhich concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, would be\nsuperfluous. \"_Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear\nthy God_.\" As if it had been said, \"In your administration you shall not\ndisregard those differences in previous habits, station, authority, and\nnational and political privileges, upon which this regulation is based;\nfor to exercise authority over this class of servants, _irrespective_ of\nthese distinctions, and annihilating them, is _to__rule with rigor_.\"\nThe same command is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to\nthe distinction between the servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile\nextraction, and forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish\npeculiarities, so vital to an Israelite as to make the violation of\nthem, _rigorous_ in the extreme; while to the servants from the\nStrangers, whose previous habits and associations differed so widely\nfrom those of the Israelite, these same things would be deemed slight\ndisabilities.\n\nIt may be remarked here, that the political and other disabilities of\nthe Strangers, which were the distinctions growing out of a different\nnational descent, and important to the preservation of national\ncharacteristics, and to the purity of national worship, do not seem to\nhave effected at all the _social_ estimation, in which this class of\nservants was held. They were regarded according to their character and\nworth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments,\nand political condition.\n\nThe common construction put upon the expression, \"_rule with rigor_,\"\nand an inference drawn from it, have an air so oracular, as quite to\novercharge risibles of ordinary calibre, if such an effect were not\nforestalled by its impiety. It is interpreted to mean, \"you shall not\nmake him an article of property, you shall not force him to work, and\nrob him of his earnings, you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him\nof legal protection.\" So much for the interpretation. The inference is\nlike unto it, viz. Since the command forbade such outrages upon the\n_Israelites, it permitted and commissioned_ the infliction of them upon\nthe _Strangers_. Such impious and shallow smattering, captivates two\nclasses of minds, the one by its flippancy, the other by its blasphemy,\nand both, by the strong scent of its unbridled license. What boots it to\nreason against such rampant affinities!\n\nIn Exodus, chap. i. 13, 14, it is said that the Egyptians \"made the\nchildren of Israel to _serve_ with rigor,\" \"and all their _service_\nwherein they made them _serve_, was with rigor.\" The rigor here spoken\nof, is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted from them, and the\n_mode_ of the exaction. This form of expression, \"_serve with rigor_,\"\nis never applied to the service of servants either under the\nPatriarchal, or the Mosaic systems. Nor is any other form of expression\never used, either equivalent to it, or at all similar. The phrase, \"thou\nshalt not RULE over him with rigor,\" used in Leviticus xxv. 43, 46, does\nnot prohibit unreasonable exactions of labor, nor inflictions of\npersonal cruelty. _Such were provided against otherwise_. But it\nforbids, confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a Stranger, by\nassigning the former to the same grade of service, for the same term of\ntime, and under the same national and political disabilities as the\nlatter.\n\n\n\nWe are now prepared to survey at a glance, the general condition of the\ndifferent classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each\nclass. I. In the possession of _all fundamental rights, all classes of\nservants were on an absolute equality_, all were _equally protected_ by\nlaw in their persons, character, property and social relations. All were\n_voluntary_, all were _compensated_ for their labor. All were released\nfrom their regular labor nearly _one half of the days in each year_, all\nwere furnished with stated _instruction_; none in either class were in\nany sense articles of _property_, all were regarded as _men_, with the\nrights, interests, hopes, and destinies of _men_. In these respects the\ncircumstances of _all_ classes of servants among the Israelites, were\nnot only similar but _identical_, and so far forth, they formed but ONE\nCLASS.\n\nII. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF SERVANTS.\n\n1. _Hired Servants_.--This class consisted both of Israelites and\nStrangers. Their employments were different. The _Israelite_, was an\nagricultural servant. The Stranger was a _domestic_ and _personal_\nservant, and in some instances _mechanical_; both were _occasional_,\nprocured _temporally_ to serve an emergency. Both lived in their own\nfamilies, their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work\nwas done. As a _class of servants_, the hired were less loved, trusted,\nhonored and promoted than any other.\n\n2. _Bought Servants, (including those \"born in the house.\")_--This class\nalso, was composed both of Israelites and Strangers, the same general\ndifference obtaining in their kinds of employment as was noticed before.\nBoth were paid in advance[A], and neither was temporary.\n\n[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, doubtless lessened considerably\nthe price of the purchase; the servant thus having the use of the money\nfrom the beginning, and the master assuming all the risks of life, and\nhealth for labor; at the expiration of the six years' contract, the\nmaster having experienced no loss from the risk incurred at the making\nof it, was obliged by law to release the servant with a liberal\ngratuity. The reason assigned for this is, \"he hath been worth a double\nhired servant unto thee in serving thee six years,\" as if it had been\nsaid, he has now served out his time, and as you have experienced no\nloss from the risks of life, and ability to labor which you incurred in\nthe purchase, and which lessened the price, and as, by being your\npermanent servant for six years, he has saved you all the time and\ntrouble of looking up and hiring laborers on emergencies, therefore,\n\"thou shalt furnish him liberally,\" &c.]\n\nThe Israelitish servant, in most instances, was released after six\nyears. (The _freeholder_ continued until the jubilee.) The Stranger, was\na _permanent_ servant, continuing until the jubilee. Besides these\ndistinctions between Jewish and Gentile bought servants, a marked\ndistinction obtained between different classes of Jewish bought\nservants. Ordinarily, during their term of service, they were merged in\ntheir master's family, and, like the wife and children of the master,\nsubject to his authority; (and of course, like them, protected by law\nfrom its abuse.) But _one_ class of the Jewish bought servants was a\nmarked exception. The _freeholder_, obliged by poverty to leave his\npossession, and sell himself as a servant, did not thereby affect his\nfamily relations, or authority, nor subject himself as an inferior to\nthe control of his master, though dependent upon him for employment. In\nthis respect, his condition differed from that of the main body of\nJewish bought servants, which seems to have consisted of those, who had\nnot yet come into possession of their inheritance, or of those who were\ndislodging from it an incumbrance.\n\nHaving dwelt so much at length on this part of the subject, the reader's\npatience may well be spared further details. We close it with a\nsuggestion or two, which may serve as a solvent of some minor\ndifficulties, if such remain.\n\nI. It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the\nIsraelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and\nreligious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed\nby those of their own people, who were _not_ servants. If Israelites,\nall rights belonging to Israelites were theirs. If from the Strangers,\nthe same political privileges enjoyed by those wealthy Strangers, who\nbought and held _Israelitish_ servants, _were theirs_. They also shared\n_in common with them_, the political disabilities which appertained to\n_all_ Strangers, whether the servants of Jewish masters, or the masters\nof Jewish servants.\n\n\n\nII. The disabilities of the servants from the Strangers, were\nexclusively _political_ and _national_.\n\n1. They, in common with all Strangers, _could not own the soil_.\n\n2. They were _ineligible to civil offices_.\n\n3. They were assigned to _employments_ less honorable than those in\nwhich Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture being regarded as\nfundamental to the prosperity and even to the existence of the state,\nother employments were in far less repute, and deemed _unjewish_.\n\nFinally, the condition of the Strangers, whether servants or masters,\nwas, as it respected political privileges, much like that of\nunnaturalized foreigners in the United States; no matter how great their\nwealth or intelligence, or moral principle, or love for our\ninstitutions, they can neither go to the ballot-box, nor own the soil,\nnor be eligible to office. Let a native American, who has always enjoyed\nthese privileges, be suddenly bereft of them, and loaded with the\ndisabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light\nmatter, to _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_.\n\nThe recent condition of the Jews and Catholics in England, is a still\nbetter illustration of the political condition of the Strangers in\nIsrael. Rothschild, the late English banker, though the richest private\ncitizen in the world, and perhaps master of scores of English servants,\nwho sued for the smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the\ngovernment, inferior to the veriest scavenger among them. Suppose an\nEnglishman, of the Established Church, were by law deprived of power to\nown the soil, made ineligible to office, and deprived unconditionally of\nthe electoral franchise, would Englishmen think it a misapplication of\nlanguage, if it were said, \"The government rules over that man with\nrigor?\" And yet his life, limbs, property, reputation, conscience, all\nhis social relations, the disposal of his time, the right of locomotion\nat pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects, are just as much\nprotected by law as the Lord Chancellor's. The same was true of all \"the\nstrangers within the gates\" among the Israelites: Whether these\nStrangers were the servants of Israelitish masters, or the masters of\nIsraelitish servants, whether sojourners, or bought servants, or born in\nthe house, or hired, or neither--_all were protected equally with the\ndescendants of Abraham._\n\n\n\nFinally--As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, made up of\ninnumerable fractional ones, each rife with meaning in doctrine and\nduty; the practical power of the whole, depended upon the exact\nobservance of those distinctions and relations which constituted its\nsignificancy. Hence, the care everywhere shown to preserve inviolate the\ndistinction between a _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, even\nwhen the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the initiatory\nordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated with the\nIsraelites by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Exodus xxi.\n2-6, is an illustration, _\"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years\nshall he serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If\nhe came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married,\nthen, his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a\nwife, and she have borne him sons or daughters; the wife and her\nchildren shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if\nthe servant should plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my\nchildren, I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto\nthe judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post;\nand his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall\nserve him forever.\"_ In this case, the Israelitish servant, whose term\nexpired in six years, married one of his master's _permanent female\ndomestics_; but the fact of her marriage, did not release her master\nfrom _his_ part of the contract for her whole term of service, nor\nabsolve him from his legal obligation to support and educate her\nchildren. Nor could it do away that distinction, which marked her\nnational descent by a specific _grade_ and _term_ of service. Her\nmarriage did not impair her obligation to fulfil _her_ part of the\ncontract. Her relations as a permanent domestic grew out of a\ndistinction guarded with great care throughout the Mosaic system. To\npermit this to be rendered void, would have been to divide the system\nagainst itself. This God would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand,\nwould he permit the master, to throw off the responsibility of\ninstructing her children, nor the care and expense of their helpless\ninfancy and rearing. He was bound to support and educate them, and all\nher children born afterwards during her term of service. The whole\narrangement beautifully illustrates that wise and tender regard for the\ninterests of all the parties concerned, which arrays the Mosaic system\nin robes of glory, and causes it to shine as the sun in the kingdom of\nour Father. By this law, the children had secured to them a mother's\ntender care. If the husband loved his wife and children, he could compel\nhis master to keep him, whether he had any occasion for his services or\nnot, and with such remuneration as was provided by the statute. If he\ndid not love them, to be rid of him was a blessing; and in that case,\nthe regulation would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted family.\nIt is not by any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant\nfrom his service in the seventh year, either absolved him from the\nobligations of marriage, or shut him out from the society of his family.\nHe could doubtless procure a service at no great distance from them, and\nmight often do it, to get higher wages, or a kind of employment better\nsuited to his taste and skill, or because his master might not have\nsufficient work to occupy him. Whether he lived near his family, or at a\nconsiderable distance, the great number of days on which the law\nreleased servants from regular labor, would enable him to spend much\nmore time with them than can be spent by most of the agents of our\nbenevolent societies with _their_ families, or by many merchants,\neditors, artists, &c., whose daily business is in New York, while their\nfamilies reside from ten to one hundred miles in the country.\n\n\n\nWe conclude this Inquiry by touching briefly upon an objection, which,\nthough not formally stated, has been already set aside by the whole\ntenor of the foregoing argument. It is this,--\n\n_\"The slavery of the Canaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by God\nas a commutation of the punishment of death denounced against them for\ntheir sins.\"_--If the absurdity of a sentence consigning persons to\n_death_, and at the same time to perpetual _slavery_, did not\nsufficiently laugh in its own face, it would be small self-denial, in a\ncase so tempting, to make up the deficiency by a general contribution.\nFor, _be it remembered_, the Mosaic law was given, while Israel was _in\nthe wilderness_, and only _one_ statute was ever given respecting _the\ndisposition to be made of the inhabitants of the land._ If the sentence\nof death was first pronounced against them, and afterwards _commuted_,\nwhen? where? by whom? and in what terms was the commutation? And where\nis it recorded? Grant, for argument's sake, that all the Canaanites were\nsentenced to unconditional extermination; as there was no reversal of\nthe sentence, how can a right to _enslave_ them, be drawn from such\npremises? The punishment of death is one of the highest recognitions of\nman's moral nature possible. It proclaims him _man_--intelligent\naccountable, guilty _man,_ deserving death for having done his utmost to\ncheapen human life, and make it worthless, when the proof of its\npriceless value, lives in his own nature. But to make him a _slave,_\ncheapens to nothing _universal human nature,_ and instead of healing a\nwound, gives a death stab. What! repair an injury done to rational being\nin the robbery of _one_ of its rights, not merely by robbing it of\n_all,_ but by annihilating the very _foundation_ of them--that\neverlasting distinction between men and things? To make a man a chattel,\nis not the _punishment,_ but the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and,\nso far as it goes, of _all_ human beings. This commutation of the\npunishment of death, into perpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery!\nAlas! for the honor of Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn\nhope, and rushed to the rescue of the Divine character at the very\ncrisis of its fate, and, by a timely movement, covered its retreat from\nthe perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left it! Here\na question arises of sufficient importance for a separate dissertation;\nbut must for the present be disposed of in a few paragraphs. WERE THE\nCANAANITES SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL AND UNCONDITIONAL\nEXTERMINATION? That the views generally prevalent on this subject, are\nwrong, we have no doubt; but as the limits of this Inquiry forbid our\ngoing into the merits of the question, so as to give all the grounds of\ndissent from the commonly received opinions, the suggestions made, will\nbe thrown out merely as QUERIES, and not as a formal laying down of\n_doctrines_.\n\nThe leading directions as to the disposal of the Canaanites, are mainly\nin the following passages, Exod. xxiii. 23-33, and 33-51, and 34,\n11--Deut. vii. 16-25, and ix. 3, and xxxi. 3, 1, 2. In these verses, the\nIsraelites are commanded to \"destroy the Canaanites\"--to \"drive\nout,\"--\"consume,\"--\"utterly overthrow,\"--\"put out,\"--\"dispossess them,\"\n&c. Quest. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal\ndestruction of the _individuals,_ or merely of the _body politic?_ Ans.\nThe Hebrew word _Haram,_ to destroy, signifies _national,_ as well as\nindividual destruction; _political_ existence, equally with _personal;_\nthe destruction of governmental organization, equally with the lives of\nthe subjects. Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume,\noverthrow, &c., to mean _personal_ destruction, what meaning shall we\ngive to the expressions, \"drive out before thee;\" \"cast out before\nthee;\" \"expel,\" \"put out,\" \"dispossess,\" &c., which are used in the same\npassages?\n\nFor a clue to the sense in which the word _\"destroy\"_ is used, see\nExodus xxiii. 27. \"I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt\ncome, and I will make all thine enemies _turn their backs unto thee_.\"\nHere \"_all their enemies_\" were to _turn their backs_, and \"_all the\npeople_\" to be \"_destroyed_\". Does this mean that God would let all\ntheir _enemies_ escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would\n_first_ kill \"all the people\" and THEN make them turn their backs in\nflight, an army of runaway corpses?\n\nThe word rendered _backs_, is in the original, _necks_, and the passage\n_may_ mean, I will make all your enemies turn their necks unto you; that\nis, be _subject to you as tributaries_, become _denationalized_, their\ncivil polity, state organization, political existence,\n_destroyed_--their idolatrous temples, altars, images, groves, and all\nheathen rites _destroyed_; in a word, their whole system, national,\npolitical, civil, and religious, subverted, and the whole people _put\nunder tribute_. Again; if these commands required the unconditional\ndestruction of all the _individuals_ of the Canaanites, the Mosaic law\nwas at war with itself, for the directions relative to the treatment of\nnative residents and sojourners, form a large part of it. \"The stranger\nthat dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou\nshalt love him as thyself.\" \"If thy brother be waxen poor, thou shalt\nrelieve him, yea, though he be a _stranger or a sojourner_, that he may\nlive with thee.\" \"Thou shalt not oppress a _stranger_.\" \"Thou shalt not\nvex a _stranger_.\" \"Judge righteously between every, man and his\nbrother, and the _stranger_ that is with him.\" \"Ye shall not respect\npersons in judgement.\" \"Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the\n_stranger_, as for him of your own country.\" We find, also, that\nprovision was made for them in the cities of refuge. Num. xxxv. 15--the\ngleanings of the harvest and vintage were assigned to them, Lev. xix. 9,\n10, and xxiii. 22, and 25, 6;--the blessings of the Sabbath, theirs, Ex.\nxx. 10;--the privilege of offering sacrifices secured, Lev. 22. 18; and\nstated religious instruction provided for them. Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. Now,\ndoes this _same law_ authorize and appoint the _individual\nextermination_ of those very persons, whose lives and general interests\nit so solicitously protects? These laws were given to the Israelites,\nlong _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must of necessity have\ninferred from them, that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land\nwould _continue in it_, under their government.\n\n3. _We argue that these commands did not require the_ INDIVIDUAL\n_destruction of the Canaanites unconditionally, from the fact that the\nmost pious Israelites never seem to have so regarded them._ Joshua was\nselected as the leader of Israel to execute God's threatenings upon\nCanaan. He had no _discretionary_ power. God's commands were his\n_official instructions._ Going _beyond_ them would have been usurpation;\nrefusing _to carry them out,_ rebellion and treason. For not obeying, in\n_every particular,_ and in a _single_ instance, God's command respecting\nthe Amalekites, Saul was rejected from being king.\n\nNow, if God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanitish\nnations, Joshua _disobeyed him in every instance._ For at his death, the\nIsraelites still _\"dwelt among them,\"_ and each nation is mentioned by\nname. See Judges i. 5, and yet we are told that \"Joshua was full of the\nspirit of the Lord and of WISDOM,\" Deut. xxxiv. 9. (of course, he could\nnot have been ignorant of the meaning of those commands,)--that \"the\nLord was with him,\" Josh. vi. 27; and that he \"left nothing undone of\nall that the Lord commanded Moses;\" and further, that he \"took all that\nland.\" Joshua xi, 15-23. Also, that \"the Lord gave unto Israel all the\nland which he swore to give unto their fathers, and they possessed it\nand dwelt therein, and there _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies\nbefore them.\" \"The Lord delivered _all their_ enemies into their hand,\"\n&c.\n\nHow can this testimony be reconciled with itself, if we suppose that the\ncommand to _destroy_ enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the\ncommand to _drive out_, enjoined the unconditional expulsion of\nindividuals from the country, rather than their expulsion from the\n_possession_ or _ownership_ of it, as the lords of the soil? It is true,\nmultitudes of the Canaanites were slain, but in every case it was in\nconsequence of their refusing to surrender their land to the possession\nof the Israelites. Not a solitary case can be found in which a Canaanite\nwas either killed or driven out of the country, who acquiesced in the\ntransfer of the territory of Canaan, and its sovereignty, from the\ninhabitants of the land to the Israelites. Witness the case of Rahab and\nall her kindred, and the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and\nKirjathjearim[A]. The Canaanites knew of the miracles in Egypt, at the\nRed Sea, in the wilderness, and at the passage of Jordan. They knew that\ntheir land had been transferred to the Israelites, as a judgment upon\nthem for their sins.--See Joshua ii. 9-11, and ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of\nthem were awed by these wonders, and made no resistance to the\nconfiscation of their territory. Others fiercely resisted, defied the\nGod of the armies of Israel, and came out to battle. These occupied the\n_fortified cities_, were the most _inveterate_ heathen--the\n_aristocracy_ of idolatry, the _kings_, the _nobility_ and _gentry_, the\n_priests_, with their crowds of satellites, and retainers that aided in\nthe performance of idolatrous rites, the _military forces_, with the\nchief profligates and lust-panders of both sexes. Every Bible student\nwill recall many facts corroborating this supposition. Such as the\nmultitudes of _tributaries_ in the midst of Israel, and that too, when\nthe Israelites had \"waxed strong,\" and the uttermost nations quaked at\nthe terror of their name. The large numbers of the Canaanites, as well\nas the Philistines and others, who became proselytes, and joined\nthemselves to the Hebrews--as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite, one of\nDavid's memorable \"thirty seven\"--Rahab, who married one of the princes\nof Judah--Ittai--The six hundred Gitites--David's bodyguard, \"faithful\namong the faithless.\"--2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gittite, who was\nadopted into the tribe of Levi.--Compare 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1\nChron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron xxvi. 45. The cases of Jaziz, and Obil,--1\nChron. xxvi. 30, 31, 33. Jephunneh, the father of Caleb--the Kenite,\nregistered in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, and the one hundred\nand fifty thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of\nthe Temple[B]. Add to these, the fact that the most memorable miracle on\nrecord, was wrought for the salvation of a portion of those very\nCanaanites, and for the destruction of those who would exterminate\nthem.--Joshua x. 12-14. Further--the terms used in the directions of God\nto the Israelites, regulating their disposal of the Canaanites, such as,\n\"drive out,\" \"put out,\" \"cast out,\" \"expel,\" \"dispossess,\" &c. seem used\ninterchangeably with \"consume,\" \"destroy,\" \"overthrow,\" &c., and thus\nindicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an\nillustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar\nterms, when applied to the Canaanites in Scripture, we refer the reader\nto the history of the Amalekites. In Ex. xxvii. 14, God says, \"I will\nutterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven,\"--In Deut.\nxxv. 19, \"Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under\nheaven; thou shalt not forget it.\"--In 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. \"Smite Amalek\nand _utterly destroy_ all that they have, and spare them not, but slay\nboth man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep.\" In the seventh\nand eighth verses of the same chapter, we are told, \"Saul smote the\nAmalekites, and took Agag the king of the Amalekites, alive, and UTTERLY\nDESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword.\" In verse 20, Saul\nsays, \"I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have brought Agag, the\nking of Amalek, and have _utterly destroyed_ the Amalekites.\"\n\n[Footnote A: Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the\nGibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command\nof God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation.\nIf God had straitly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites,_\ntheir pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of the statute,\nnor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ was\nthe import of the command, would God have permitted such an act to pass\nwithout severe rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when\nIsrael had hardly passed the threshhold of Canaan, and was then striking\nthe first blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ passed their\nword to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding upon them than\nGod's command? So Saul seems to have passed _his_ word to Agag; yet\nSamuel hewed him in pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had\nviolated God's command. This same Saul appears to have put the same\nconstruction on the command to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, that\nis generally put upon it now. We are told that he sought to slay the\nGibeonites \"in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah.\" God sent\nupon Israel a three years' famine for it. In assigning the reason, he\nsays, \"It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he slew the\nGibeonites.\" When David inquired of them what atonement he should make,\nthey say, \"The man that consumed us, and that devised against us, that\nwe should the destroyed from _remaining in any of the coasts of Israel_\nlet seven of his sons be delivered,\" &c. 2 Samuel xxii. 1-6.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to individual and\nunconditional extermination, to have employed them in the erection of\nthe temple,--what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they\npollute its altars with swine's flesh, or make their sons pass through\nthe fire to Moloch.]\n\nIn 1 Sam. 30th chapter, we find the Amalekites at war again, marching an\narmy into Israel, and sweeping every thing before them--and all this in\nhardly more than twenty years after they had _all been_ UTTERLY\nDESTROYED!\n\nDeut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against the preceding view.\n\"_But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give\nthee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:\nbut thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the\nAmorites, the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the\nJebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee_.\" We argue that this\ncommand to exterminate, did not include all the individuals of the\nCanaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even\nthose conditionally,) for the following reasons.\n\nI. Only the inhabitants of _cities_ are specified,--\"of the _cities_ of\nthese people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.\" The reasons\nfor this wise discrimination were, no doubt, (1.) Cities then, as now,\nwere pest-houses of vice--they reeked with abominations little practiced\nin the country. On this account, their influence would be far more\nperilous to the Israelites than that of the country. (2.) These cities\nwere the centres of idolatry--the residences of the priests, with their\nretinues of the baser sort. There were their temples and altars, and\nidols, without number. Even their buildings, streets, and public walks\nwere so many visibilities of idolatry. The reason assigned in the 18th\nverse for exterminating them, strengthens the idea,--\"_that they teach\nyou not to do after all the abominations which they have done unto their\ngods_.\" This would be a reason for exterminating _all_ the nations and\nindividuals _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God permitted, and\neven commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact\nwith _any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the\n_cities_ peculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ cities preeminently so.\n\nIt will be seen from the 10th and 11th verses, that those cities which\naccepted the offer of peace were to be spared. \"_When thou comest nigh\nunto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it\nshall be, if it make thee answer of peace and open unto thee, then it\nshall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be_\nTRIBUTARIES _unto thee, and they shall_ SERVE thee.\"--Deuteronomy xx.\n10, 11. These verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in\nwhich cities were to be summoned to surrender.\n\n1. The offer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became\n_tributaries_--if it was rejected, and they came out against Israel in\nbattle, the _men_ were to be killed, and the women and little ones saved\nalive. See Deuteronomy xx. 12, 13, 14. The 15th verse restricts their\nlenient treatment in saving the wives and little ones of those who\nfought them, to the inhabitants of the cities _afar off_. The 16th verse\ngives directions for the disposal of the inhabitants of Canaanitish\ncities, after they had taken them. Instead of sparing the women and\nchildren, they were to save alive nothing that breathed. The common\nmistake has been, in taking it for granted, that the command in the 15th\nverse, \"Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities,\" &c. refers to the\n_whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with the 10th verse,\nwhereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the\nverses immediately preceding, viz. the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and thus\nmake a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and\nthe cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying the males and\nfemales, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the\n_conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_\ncities as to others. Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated\n_unless they came out against Israel in battle_. But let us settle this\nquestion by the \"_law and the testimony_.\" Joshua xix. 19, 20.--\"_There\nwas not a city that made peace with the children of Israel save, the\nHivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all others they took in battle. For\nit was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should_ COME OUT\nAGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, _that he might destroy them utterly, and that\nthey might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord\ncommanded Moses_.\" That is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in\nbattle, they would have had \"favor\" shown them, and would not have been\n\"_destroyed utterly_\"\n\nThe great design of God seems to have been to _transfer the territory_\nof the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute\nsovereignty in every respect_; to annihilate their political\norganizations, civil polity, jurisprudence, and their system of\nreligion, with all its rights and appendages; and to substitute\ntherefor, a pure theocracy, administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites\nas His representatives and agents. Those who resisted the execution of\nJehovah's purpose were to be killed, while those who quietly submitted\nto it were to be spared. All had the choice of these alternatives,\neither free egress out of the land[A]; or acquiescence in the decree,\nwith life and residence as tributaries, under the protection of the\ngovernment; or resistance to the execution of the decree, with death.\n\"_And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of\nmy people, to swear by my name, the Lord liveth, as they taught my\npeople to swear by Baal;_ THEN SHALL THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY\nPEOPLE.\"\n\n[Footnote A: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their\nterritory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require\nthe Israelites to chase them to the ends of the earth, and hunt them\ndown, until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for\nbelief, and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which\ninterprets the terms \"consume,\" \"destroy,\" \"destroy utterly,\" &c. to\nmean unconditional individual extermination.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n[The preceding Inquiry is merely an _outline_. Whoever _reads_ it, needs\nno such information. Its original design embraced a much wider range of\ngeneral topics, and subordinate heads, besides an Inquiry into the\nteachings of the New Testament on the same subject. To have filled up\nthe outline, in conformity with the plan upon which it was sketched,\nwould have swelled it to a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore\nbeen thrown into the form of a mere skeleton of heads, or rather a\nseries of _indices_, to trains of thought and classes of proof, which,\nhowever limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some facilities to\nthose who have little leisure for minute and protracted investigation.]\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNo. 4.\n\n\n\nTHE\n\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n\nTHE\n\n\nBIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.\n\n\n\nAN INQUIRY INTO THE\n\n\n\nPATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS\n\n\nON THE SUBJECT OF\n\nHUMAN RIGHTS.\n\nThird Edition--Revised.\n\n\nNEW YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.\n\n1838.\n\nThis periodical contains 5 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 7 1-2 cts;\nover 100 miles, 12 1-2 cts.\n\n_Please read and circulate._\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n    DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,\n\n\n        Negative,\n\n        Affirmative,\n\n        Legal,\n\n\n    THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY\n\n\n        \"Thou shalt not steal,\"\n\n        \"Thou shalt not covet,\"\n\n\n    MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,\n\n\n        Separation of man from brutes and things,\n\n\n    IMPORT OF \"BUY\" AND \"BOUGHT WITH MONEY,\"\n\n\n        Servants sold themselves,\n\n\n    RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,\n\n    SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,\n\n\n        Runaway Servants not to be delivered to their Masters,\n\n\n    SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,\n\n    MASTERS NOT \"OWNERS,\"\n\n\n        Servants not subjected to the uses of property,\n\n        Servants expressly distinguished from property,\n\n        Examination of Gen. xii. 5.--\"The souls that they had\n        gotten,\" &c.\n\n        Social equality of Servants and Masters,\n\n        Condition of the Gibeonites as subjects of the Hebrew\n        Commonwealth,\n\n        Egyptian Bondage analyzed,\n\n\n    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\n\n    \"CURSED BE CANAAN,\" &c.--EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,\n\n    \"FOR HE IS HIS MONEY,\" &c.--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,\n\n    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,\n\n\n        \"Both thy BONDMEN, &c., shall be of the heathen,\"\n\n        \"They shall be your bondmen FOREVER,\"\n\n        \"Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE,\" &c.\n\n\n    EXAMINATION OF LEV. XXV. 39, 40.--THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO \"SERVE\n    AS A BOND SERVANT,\"\n\n\n        Difference between Hired and Bought Servants,\n\n        Bought Servants the most favored and honored class,\n\n        Israelites and Strangers belonged to both classes,\n\n        Israelites servants to the Strangers,\n\n        Reasons for the release of the Israelitish Servants in\n        the seventh year,\n\n        Reasons for assigning the Strangers to a longer service,\n\n        Reasons for calling them _the_ Servants,\n\n        Different kinds of service assigned to the Israelites\n        and Strangers,\n\n\n    REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF\n    EACH,\n\n\n        Political disabilities of the Strangers,\n\n\n    EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.--\"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,\"\n\n    THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.\n\n\n\nThe spirit of slavery never seeks shelter in the Bible, of its own\naccord. It grasps the horns of the altar only in desperation--rushing\nfrom the terror of the avenger's arm. Like other unclean spirits, it\n\"hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest its deeds should be\nreproved.\" Goaded to phrenzy in its conflicts with conscience and common\nsense, denied all quarter, and hunted from every covert, it vaults over\nthe sacred inclosure and courses up and down the Bible, \"seeking rest,\nand finding none.\" THE LAW OF LOVE, glowing on every page, flashes\naround it an omnipresent anguish and despair. It shrinks from the hated\nlight, and howls under the consuming touch, as demons quailed before the\nSon of God, and shrieked, \"Torment us not.\" At last, it slinks away\nunder the types of the Mosaic system, and seeks to burrow out of sight\namong their shadows. Vain hope! Its asylum is its sepulchre; its city of\nrefuge, the city of destruction. It flies from light into the sun; from\nheat, into devouring fire; and from the voice of God into the thickest\nof His thunders.\n\n\n\nDEFINITION OF SLAVERY.\n\nIf we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine\n_what slavery is_. A constituent element, is one thing; a relation,\nanother; an appendage, another. Relations and appendages presuppose\n_other_ things to which they belong. To regard them as _the things\nthemselves_, or as constituent parts of them, leads to endless\nfallacies. A great variety of conditions, relations, and tenures,\nindispensable to the social state, are confounded with slavery; and thus\nslaveholding becomes quite harmless, if not virtuous. We will specify\nsome of these.\n\n1. _Privation of suffrage._ Then minors are slaves.\n\n2. _Ineligibility to office._ Then females are slaves.\n\n3. _Taxation without representation._ Then slaveholders in the District\nof Columbia are slaves.\n\n4. _Privation of one's oath in law._ Then disbelievers in a future\nretribution are slaves.\n\n5. _Privation of trial by jury._ Then all in France and Germany are\nslaves.\n\n6. _Being required to support a particular religion._ Then the people of\nEngland are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other\ndisabilities, merely _political_.]\n\n7. _Cruelty and oppression._ Wives, children, and hired domestics are\noften oppressed; but these forms of cruelty are not slavery.\n\n8. _Apprenticeship._ The rights and duties of master and apprentice are\ncorrelative and reciprocal. The claim of each upon the other results\nfrom his _obligation_ to the other. Apprenticeship is based on the\nprinciple of equivalent for value received. The rights of the apprentice\nare secured, equally with those of the master. Indeed, while the law is\n_just_ to the master, it is _benevolent_ to the apprentice. Its main\ndesign is rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. It promotes\nthe interests of the former, while in doing it, it guards from injury\nthose of the latter. To the master it secures a mere legal\ncompensation--to the apprentice, both a legal compensation and a virtual\ngratuity in addition, he being of the two the greatest gainer. The law\nnot only recognizes the _right_ of the apprentice to a reward for his\nlabor, but appoints the wages, and enforces the payment. The master's\nclaim covers only the services of the apprentice. The apprentice's claim\ncovers _equally_ the services of the master. Neither can hold the other\nas property; but each holds property in the services of the other, and\nBOTH EQUALLY. Is this slavery?\n\n9. _Filial subordination and parental claims._ Both are nature's\ndictates and intrinsic elements of the social state; the natural\naffections which blend parent and child in one, excite each to discharge\nthose offices incidental to the relation, and constitute a shield for\nmutual protection. The parent's legal claim to the child's services,\nwhile a minor, is a slight return for the care and toil of his rearing,\nto say nothing of outlays for support and education. This provision is,\nwith the mass of mankind, indispensable to the preservation of the\nfamily state. The child, in helping his parents, helps\nhimself--increases a common stock, in which he has a share; while his\nmost faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that money cannot\ncancel.\n\n10. _Bondage for crime._ Must innocence be punished because guilt\nsuffers penalties? True, the criminal works for the government without\npay; and well he may. He owes the government. A century's work would not\npay its drafts on him. He is a public defaulter, and will die so.\nBecause laws make men pay their debts, shall those be forced to pay who\nowe nothing? The law makes no criminal, PROPERTY. It restrains his\nliberty, and makes him pay something, a mere penny in the pound, of his\ndebt to the government; but it does not make him a chattel. Test it. To\nown property, is to own its product. Are children born of convicts,\ngovernment property? Besides, can _property_ be guilty? Are chattels\npunished?\n\n11. _Restraints upon freedom._ Children are restrained by\nparents--pupils, by teachers--patients, by physicians--corporations, by\ncharters--and legislatures, by constitutions. Embargoes, tariffs,\nquarantine, and all other laws, keep men from doing as they please.\nRestraints are the web of society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? then\ncivilized society is a giant slave--a government of LAW, _the climax of\nslavery,_ and its executive, a king among slaveholders.\n\n12. _Compulsory service._ A juryman is empannelled against his will, and\nsit he must. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders _must_ turn in. Men\nare _compelled_ to remove nuisances, pay fines and taxes, support their\nfamilies, and \"turn to the right as the law directs,\" however much\nagainst their wills. Are they therefore slaves? To confound slavery with\ninvoluntary service is absurd. Slavery is a _condition_. The slave's\n_feelings_ toward it, are one thing; the condition itself, is another\nthing; his feelings cannot alter the nature of that condition. Whether\nhe desires or detests it, the condition remains the same. The slave's\nwillingness to be a slave is no palliation of the slaveholder's guilt.\nSuppose the slave should think himself a chattel, and consent to be so\nregarded by others, does that _make_ him a chattel, or make those\nguiltless who _hold_ him as such? I may be sick of life, and I tell the\nassassin so that stabs me; is he any the less a murderer? Does my\n_consent_ to his crime, atone for it? my partnership in his guilt, blot\nout his part of it? The slave's willingness to be a slave, so far from\nlessening the guilt of the \"owner,\" aggravates it. If slavery has so\npalsied his mind that he looks upon himself as a chattel, and consents\nto be one, actually to hold him as such, falls in with his delusion, and\nconfirms the impious falsehood. These very feelings and convictions of\nthe slave, (if such were possible) increase a hundred fold the guilt of\nthe master, and call upon him in thunder, immediately to recognize him\nas a man and thus break the sorcery that cheats him out of his\nbirthright--the consciousness of his worth and destiny.\n\nMany of the foregoing conditions are _appendages_ of slavery. But no\none, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging\nelement.\n\nWe proceed to state affirmatively that, ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM\nTO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY--making free agents, chattels--converting\n_persons_ into _things_--sinking immortality, into _merchandize_. A\n_slave_ is one held in this condition. In law, \"he owns nothing, and can\nacquire nothing.\" His right to himself is abrogated. If he say _my_\nhands, _my_ feet, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY _self_, they are figures of\nspeech. To use _himself_ for his own good, is a CRIME. To keep what he\n_earns_, is stealing. To take his body into his own keeping, is\n_insurrection_. In a word, the _profit_ of his master is made the END of\nhis being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end--a _mere means_ to an end\ninto which his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no\nportion[A]. MAN, sunk to a _thing!_ the intrinsic element, the\n_principle_ of slavery; MEN, bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed,\ninvoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on executions, and\nknocked off at public outcry! Their _rights_, another's conveniences;\ntheir interests, wares on sale; their happiness, a household utensil;\ntheir personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable article, or a\nplaything, as best suits the humor of the hour; their deathless nature,\nconscience, social affections, sympathies, hopes--marketable\ncommodities! We repeat it, _the reduction of persons to things;_ not\nrobbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading with burdens,\nbut making him a _beast of burden_; not _restraining_ liberty, but\nsubverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them; not\ninflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not\nexacting involuntary labor, but sinking him into an _implement_ of\nlabor; not abridging human comforts, but abrogating human nature; not\ndepriving an animal of immunities, but despoiling a rational being of\nattributes--uncreating a MAN, to make room for a _thing_!\n\n[Footnote A: Whatever system sinks men from an END to a mere _means_,\njust so far makes him a _slave_. Hence West India apprenticeship retains\nthe cardinal principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three fourths\nof his time, is still forced to labor, and robbed of his earnings; just\nso far forth he is a _mere means_, a _slave_. True, in other respects\nslavery is abolished in the British West Indies. Its bloodiest features\nare blotted out--but the meanest and most despicable of all--forcing the\npoor to work for the rich without pay three fourths of their time, with\na legal officer to flog them if they demur at the outrage, is one of the\nprovisions of the \"Emancipation Act!\" For the glories of that luminary,\nabolitionists thank God, while they mourn that it rose behind clouds,\nand shines through an eclipse.]\n\nThat this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states.\nJudge Stroud, in his \"Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery,\" says,\n\"The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked\namong sentient beings, but among _things_--obtains as undoubted law in\nall of these [the slave] states.\" The law of South Carolina thus lays\ndown the principle, \"Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and\nadjudged in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and\npossessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to ALL\nINTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER.\"--Brevard's Digest,\n229. In Louisiana, \"A slave is one who is in the power of a master to\nwhom he belongs; the master may sell him, dispose of his person, his\nindustry, and his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire\nany thing, but what must belong to his master.\"--Civ. Code of Louisiana,\nArt. 35.\n\nThis is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person and a\nthing, trampled under foot--the crowning distinction of all\nothers--alike the source, the test, and the measure of their value--the\nrational, immortal principle, consecrated by God to universal homage, in\na baptism of glory and honor by the gift of His Son, His Spirit, His\nword, His presence, providence, and power; His shield, and staff, and\nsheltering wing; His opening heavens, and angels ministering, and\nchariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a great voice in\nheaven, proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming the word with\nsigns following.\n\n\n\nHaving stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE\nBIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A] \"To the _law_ and the _testimony_?\"\nFirst, the moral law. Just after the Israelites were emancipated from\ntheir bondage in Egypt, while they stood before Sinai to receive the\nlaw, as the trumpet waxed louder, and the mount quaked and blazed, God\nspake the ten commandments from the midst of clouds and thunderings.\n_Two_ of those commandments deal death to slavery. \"THOU SHALT NOT\nSTEAL,\" or, \"thou shalt not take from another what belongs to him.\" All\nman's powers are God's gift to _him_. That they are _his own_, is proved\nfrom the fact that God has given them to _him alone_,--that each of them\nis a part of himself, and all of them together constitute himself. All\nelse that belongs to man, is acquired by the _use_ of these powers. The\ninterest belongs to him, because the principal does; the product is his,\nbecause he is the producer. Ownership of any thing, is ownership of its\n_use_. The right to use according to will, is _itself_ ownership. The\neighth commandment presupposes and assumes the right of every man to his\npowers, and their product. Slavery robs of both. A man's right to\nhimself, is the only right absolutely original and intrinsic--his right\nto whatever else that belongs to him is merely _relative_ to this, is\nderived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the\n_foundation right_--the _post is the middle_, to which all other rights\nare fastened. Slaveholders, when talking about their RIGHT to their\nslaves, always assume their own right to themselves. What slaveholder\never undertook to prove his right to himself? He knows it to be a\nself-evident proposition, that _a man belongs to himself_--that the\nright is intrinsic and absolute. In making out his own title, he makes\nout the title of every human being. As the fact of being a _man_ is\nitself the title, the whole human family have one common title deed. If\none man's title is valid, all are valid. If one is worthless, all are.\nTo deny the validity of the _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of\n_his own_; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the slaveholder\n_asserts_ the validity of his own title, while he seizes him as his\nproperty who has the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he\ndoes not merely disfranchise the humanity of _one_ individual, but of\nUNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates _all rights_.\nHe attacks not only the human race, but _universal being_, and rushes\nupon JEHOVAH. For rights are _rights_; God's are no more--man's are no\nless.\n\n[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral\ncharacter. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records\nwithout rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob\nand his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and\nconcubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent\nentry_ God's _endorsement_? Because the Bible in its catalogue of human\nactions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write\nagainst it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach\ninto a virtue?]\n\nThe eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any part_ of that which\nbelongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which\nprohibits the taking of _any_ thing from him, sanction the taking of\n_every_ thing? Does it thunder wrath against him who robs his neighbor\nof a _cent_, yet bid God speed to him who robs his neighbor of\n_himself_? Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eighth\ncommandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the\n_earner_, is a compound, life-long theft--supreme robbery, that vaults\nup the climax at a leap--the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers\namong other robberies a solitary horror, monarch of the realm. The\neighth commandment forbids the taking away, and the _tenth_ adds, \"THOU\nSHALT NOT COVET ANY THING THAT IS THY NEIGHBOR'S;\" thus guarding every\nman's right to himself and his property, by making not only the actual\ntaking away a sin, but even that state of mind which would _tempt_ to\nit. Who ever made human beings slaves, without _coveting_ them? Why take\nfrom them their time, labor, liberty, right of self-preservation and\nimprovement, their right to acquire property, to worship according to\nconscience; to search the Scriptures, to live with their families, and\ntheir right to their own bodies, if they do not _desire_ them? They\ncovet them for purposes of gain, convenience, lust of dominion, of\nsensual gratification of pride and ostentation. THEY BREAK THE TENTH\nCOMMANDMENT, and pluck down upon their heads the plagues that are\nwritten in the book.--_Ten_ commandments constitute the brief compend of\nhuman duty.--_Two_ of these brand slavery as sin.\n\n\n\nThe giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation of\nthat body of laws called the \"Mosaic system.\" Over the gateway of that\nsystem, fearful words were written by the finger of God--\"HE THAT\nSTEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF HE BE FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL\nSURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.\" Ex. xxi. 16.\n\nThe oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought for\ntheir deliverance, proclaim the reason for _such_ a law at _such_ a\ntime--when the body politic became a theocracy, and reverently waited\nfor the will of God. They had just been emancipated. The tragedies of\ntheir house of bondage were the realities of yesterday, and peopled\ntheir memories with thronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's\ntestimony against oppression in the plagues of Egypt--the burning blains\non man and beast--the dust quickened into loathsome life, and swarming\nupon every living thing--the streets, the palaces, the temples, and\nevery house heaped up with the carcases of things abhorred--the kneading\ntroughs and ovens, the secret chambers and the couches; reeking and\ndissolving with the putrid death--the pestilence walking in darkness at\nnoonday, the devouring locusts, and hail mingled with fire, the\nfirst-born death-struck, and the waters blood, and last of all, that\ndread high hand and stretched-out arm, that whelmed the monarch and his\nhosts, and strewed their corpses on the sea. All this their eyes had\nlooked upon,--earth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying\nin desolation, and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the\nhand writing of God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood--a\nblackened monument of wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of\nmen. No wonder that God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at\nsuch a time, should light up on its threshold a blazing beacon to flash\nterror on slaveholders. _\"He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if\nhe be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.\"_ Ex. xxi. 16.\nDeut. xxiv. 7[A]. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance\nto the Mosaic system!\n\n[Footnote A:  Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish Commentators, who\nwrote seven hundred years ago, in his commentary on this stealing and\nmaking merchandize of men, gives the meaning thus:--\"Using a man against\nhis will, as a servant lawfully purchased; yea, though he should use his\nservices ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, or use but his\narm to lean on to support him, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_,\nthe person compelling him but once to do so shall die as a thief,\nwhether he has sold him or not.\"]\n\nThe word _Ganabh_ here rendered _stealeth_, means the taking what\n_belongs_ to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word is\nused in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both _robbery_ and theft.\n\nThe crime specified is that of depriving SOMEBODY of the ownership of a\nman. Is this somebody a master? and is the crime that of depriving a\nmaster of his servant? Then it would have been \"he that stealeth\" a\n_servant, not_ \"he that stealeth a _man_.\" If the crime had been the\ntaking an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have\nbeen expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the\nrelation of property and _proprietor_!\n\nThe crime is stated in a three-fold form--man _stealing_, _selling_, and\n_holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one penalty--DEATH.\nThis _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of a man, is the _man\nhimself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, \"Indeed I was\n_stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews.\" Gen. xl. 15. How\n_stolen?_ His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast\nthis penalty for _man_-stealing with that for _property_-stealing, Ex.\nxxii. If a man had stolen an _ox_ and killed or sold it, he was to\nrestore five oxen; if he had neither sold nor killed it, two oxen. But\nin the case of stealing a _man_, the _first_ act drew down the utmost\npower of punishment; however often repeated, or aggravated the crime,\nhuman penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for\n_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-stealing, the\nmere restoration of double, shows that the two cases were adjudicated on\ntotally different principles. The man stolen might be past labor, and\nhis support a burden, yet death was the penalty, though not a cent's\nworth of _property value_ was taken. The penalty for stealing property\nwas a mere property penalty. However large the theft, the payment of\ndouble wiped out the score. It might have a greater _money_ value than a\nthousand men, yet death was not the penalty, nor maiming, nor branding,\nnor even _stripes_, but double of _the same kind._ Why was not the rule\nuniform? When a _man_ was stolen why was not the thief required to\nrestore double of the same kind--two men, or if he had sold him, five\nmen? Do you say that the man-thief might not _have_ them? So the\nox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But if\nGod permitted men to hold _men_ as property, equally with _oxen_, the\nman-thief could get men with whom to pay the penalty, as well as the\nox-thief, oxen. Further, when _property_ was stolen, the legal penalty\nwas a compensation to the person injured. But when a _man_ was stolen,\nno property compensation was offered. To tender money as an equivalent,\nwould have been to repeat the outrage with intolerable aggravations.\nCompute the value of a MAN in _money!_ Throw dust into the scale against\nimmortality! The law recoiled from such supreme insult and impiety. To\nhave permitted the man-thief to expiate his crime by restoring double,\nwould have been making the repetition of crime its atonement. But the\ninfliction of death for _man-stealing_ exacted the utmost possibility of\nreparation. It wrung from the guilty wretch as he gave up the ghost, a\ntestimony in blood, and death-groans, to the infinite dignity and worth\nof man,--a proclamation to the universe, voiced in mortal agony, \"MAN IS\nINVIOLABLE\"--a confession shrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth--\"I\ndie accursed, and God is just.\"\n\nIf God permitted man to hold man as property, why did he punish for\nstealing that kind of property infinitely more than for stealing any\nother kind of property? Why did he punish with death for stealing a very\nlittle of _that_ sort of property, and make a mere fine, the penalty for\nstealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of\nproperty--especially if God did by his own act annihilate the difference\nbetween man and _property,_ by putting him on a level with it?\n\nThe atrociousness of a crime, depends much upon the nature, character,\nand condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the thief, or\nwhatever the plunder. To steal bread from a full man, is theft; to steal\nfrom a starving man, is both theft and murder. If I steal my neighbor's\nproperty, the crime consists not in altering the _nature_ of the article\nbut in shifting its relation from him to me. But when I take my neighbor\nhimself, and first make him _property_, and then _my_ property, the\nlatter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, dwindles to\nnothing. The sin in stealing a man, is not the transfer from its owner\nto another of that which is _already property,_ but the turning of\n_personality_ into _property_. True, the attributes of man remain, but\nthe rights and immunities which grow out of them are attributed. It is\nthe first law both of reason and revelation to regard things and beings\nas they are; and the sum of religion, to feel and act towards them\naccording to their value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise is sin; and\nthe degree of violence done to their nature, religions, and value,\nmeasures its guilt. When things are sundered which God has indissolubly\njoined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite\nextremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnished\nwith glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, sin reddens to\nits \"scarlet dye.\" The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing\nviolence to the _nature_ of a man--to his intrinsic value as a rational\nbeing, and blotting out the exalted distinction stamped upon him by his\nMaker. In the verse preceding, and in that which follows, the same\nprinciple is laid down. Verse 15, \"He that smiteth his father or his\nmother shall surely be put to death.\" V. 17, \"He that curseth his father\nor his mother, shall surely be put to death.\" If a Jew smote his\nneighbor, the law merely smote him in return; but if the blow was given\nto a _parent,_ it struck the smiter dead. The parental relation is the\n_centre_ of human society. God guards it with peculiar care. To violate\nthat, is to violate all. Whoever trampled on that, showed that _no_\nrelation had any sacredness in his eyes--that he was unfit to move among\nhuman relations who had violated one so sacred and tender. Therefore,\nthe Mosaic law uplifted his bleeding corpse, and brandished the ghastly\nterror around the parental relation to guard it from impious inroads.\n\nWhy such a difference in penalties, for the same act? Answer. (1.) The\nrelation violated was obvious--the distinction between parents and\nothers manifest, dictated by natural affection--a law of the\nconstitution. (2.) The act was violence to nature--a suicide on\nconstitutional susceptibilities. (3.) The parental relation then, as\nnow, was the focal point of the social system, and required powerful\nsafeguards. \"_Honor thy father and thy mother_,\" stands at the head of\nthose commands which prescribe the duties of man to man; and, throughout\nthe Bible, the parental state is God's favorite illustration of his own\nrelations to the whole human family. In this case death was to be\ninflicted not for smiting a _man_, but a _parent_--a _distinction_\ncherished by God, and around which, He threw up a bulwark of defence. In\nthe next verse, \"He that stealeth a man,\" &c., the SAME PRINCIPLE is\nwrought out in still stronger relief. The crime to be punished with\ndeath was not the taking of property from its owner, but the doing\nviolence to an _immortal nature,_ blotting out a sacred _distinction_,\nmaking MEN \"chattels.\" The incessant pains taken in the Old Testament to\nseparate human beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard for his\nown distinction.\n\n\"In the beginning\" it was uttered in heaven, and proclaimed to the\nuniverse as it rose into being. Creation was arrayed at the instant of\nits birth, to do it homage. It paused in adoration while God ushered\nforth its crowning work. Why that dread pause and that creating arm held\nback in mid career and that high conference in the godhead? \"Let us make\nman in OUR IMAGE after OUR LIKENESS, AND LET HIM HAVE DOMINION over the\nfish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and\nover all the earth.\" Then while every living thing, with land, and sea,\nand firmament, and marshalled worlds, waited to swell the shout of\nmorning stars--then \"GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE; IN THE IMAGE OF\nGOD CREATED HE HIM.\" This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD,\nCREATED HE HIM. Well might the sons of God shout, \"Amen, alleluia\"--For\nthou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him\nwith glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of\nthy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.\" Ps. viii. 5, 6. The\nrepetition of this distinction is frequent and solemn. In Gen. i. 26-28,\nit is repeated in various forms. In Gen. v. 1, we find it again, \"IN THE\nLIKENESS OF GOD MADE HE MAN.\" In Gen. ix. 6, again. After giving license\nto shed the blood of \"every moving thing that liveth,\" it is added,\n\"_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for_ IN\nTHE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN.\" As though it had been said, \"All these\ncreatures are your property, designed for your use--they have the\nlikeness of earth, they perish with the using, and their spirits go\ndownward; but this other being, MAN, has my own likeness: \"IN THE IMAGE\nOF GOD made I man;\" \"an intelligent, moral, immortal agent, invited to\nall that I can give and he can be.\" So in Lev. xxiv. 17, 18, 21, \"He\nthat killeth any MAN shall surely be put to death; and he that killeth a\nbeast shall make it good, beast for beast; and he that killeth a man\nshall be put to death.\" So in Ps. viii. 5, 6, what an enumeration of\nparticulars, each separating infinitely MEN from brutes and things! (1.)\n\"_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels._\" Slavery drags him\ndown among _brutes_. (2.) \"_And hast crowned him with glory and honor._\"\nSlavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_. (3.) \"_Thou madest\nhim to have dominion_ OVER _the works of thy hands._\" Slavery breaks the\nsceptre, and casts him down _among_ those works--yea _beneath them_.\n(4.) \"_Thou hast put all things under his feet._\" Slavery puts HIM under\nthe feet of an \"owner.\" Who, but an impious scorner, dares thus strive\nwith his Maker, and mutilate HIS IMAGE, and blaspheme the Holy One, who\nsaith, \"_Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it\nunto_ ME.\"\n\nIn further presenting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems\nwill be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, and\nas many regulations of the latter are mere _legal_ forms of Divine\ninstitutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of\nDivine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs, God has\nnot made them our exemplars[A].\n\n[Footnote A: Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit\nwith such delight under their shadow, hymning the praises of \"those good\nold patriarchs and slaveholders,\" might at small cost greatly augment\ntheir numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal _concubinage_,\nwinding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, would\nbe a trumpet call, summoning from bush and brake, highway and hedge, and\nsheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred affinities, each claiming\nAbraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, \"My name is legion.\"\nWhat a myriad choir and thunderous song.]\n\nBefore entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under\nthese two states of society, we will consider the import of certain\nterms which describe the mode of procuring them.\n\n\n\nIMPORT OF \"BUY,\" AND \"BOUGHT WITH MONEY.\"\n\nAs the Israelites were commanded to \"buy\" their servants, and as Abraham\nhad servants \"bought with money,\" it is argued that servants were\narticles of _property_. The sole ground for this belief is the terms\nthemselves. How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be\nproved were always _assumed_. To beg the question in debate, would be\nvast economy of midnight oil! and a great forestaller of wrinkles and\ngrey hairs! Instead of protracted investigation into Scripture usage,\nwith painful collating of passages, to find the meaning of terms, let\nevery man interpret the oldest book in the world by the usages of his\nown time and place, and the work is done. And then instead of one\nrevelation, they might be multiplied as the drops of the morning, and\nevery man have an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, if he only\nunderstood the dialect of his own neighborhood! What a Babel-jargon it\nwould make of the Bible to take it for granted that the sense in which\nwords are _now_ used is the _inspired_ sense, David says, \"I prevented\nthe dawning of the morning, and cried.\" What, stop the earth in its\nrevolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its strict\nLatin sense to _come before_, or _anticipate_. It is always used in this\nsense in the Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English\nof the nineteenth century, would be \"Before the dawning of the morning I\ncried.\" In almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used in a sense\nnow nearly or quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense totally\n_opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: \"I purposed\nto come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto.\" \"And the four\n_beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshipped God,\"--\"Whosoever shall\n_offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,\"--\"Go out into the\nhighways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,\"--\"Only let your\n_conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,\"--\"They\nthat seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,\"--\"So when tribulation\nor persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (immediately) they are offended.\"\nNothing is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are always\nthrowing off some particles and absorbing others. So long as they are\nmere _representatives_, elected by the whims of universal suffrage,\ntheir meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for the next\ncentury is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak within bounds) for\na modern Bible Dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit\nthan that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by\nshowing what it means _now_. Pity that fashionable mantuamakers were not\na little quicker at taking hints from some Doctors of Divinity. How\neasily they might save their pious customers all qualms of conscience\nabout the weekly shiftings of fashion, by proving that the last\nimportation of Parisian indecency now flaunting on promenade, was the\nvery style of dress in which the pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the\nangels, and the modest Rebecca drew water for the camels of Abraham's\nservants. Since such fashions are rife in Broadway _now_, they _must_\nhave been in Canaan and Padanaram four thousand years ago!\n\nThe inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of\nservants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the\nfallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or\nwhoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of\nyour paying for it _proves_ it property. The children of Israel were\nrequired to purchase their first-born from under the obligations of the\npriesthood, Num. xviii. 15, 16; Ex. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20. This custom\nstill exists among the Jews, and the word _buy_ is still used to\ndescribe the transaction. Does this prove that their first-born were, or\nare, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were _servants_.\n(2.) The Israelites were required to pay money for their own souls. This\nis called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an atonement. Were their souls\ntherefore marketable commodities? (3.) Bible saints _bought_ their\nwives. Boaz bought Ruth. \"So Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon,\nhave I _purchased_ to be my wife.\" Ruth iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife.\n\"So I _bought_ her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer\nof barley, and an half homer of barley.\" Hosea iii. 2. Jacob bought his\nwives Rachael and Leah, and not having money, paid for them in\nlabor--seven years a piece. Gen. xxix. 15-29. Moses probably bought his\nwife in the same way, and paid for her by his labor, as the servant of\nher father. Exod. ii. 21. Shechem, when negotiating with Jacob and his\nsons for Dinah, says, \"Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will\ngive according as ye shall say unto me.\" Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David\npurchased Michal, and Othniel, Achsah, by performing perilous services\nfor their fathers. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judg. i. 12, 13. That the\npurchase of wives, either with money or by service, was the general\npractice, is plain from such passages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii.\n25. Among the modern Jews this usage exists, though now a mere form,\nthere being no _real_ purchase. Yet among their marriage ceremonies, is\none called \"marrying by the penny.\" The coincidences in the methods of\nprocuring wives and servants, in the terms employed in describing the\ntransactions, and in the prices paid for each, are worthy of notice. The\nhighest price of wives (virgins) and servants was the same. Comp. Deut.\nxxii. 28, 29, and Ex. xxii. 17, with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The _medium_ price\nof wives and servants was the same. Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32.\nHosea seems to have paid one half in money and the other half in grain.\nFurther, the Israelitish female bought servants were _wives_, their\nhusbands and masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3,\n27. If _buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves them\nproperty. Why not contend that the _wives_ of the ancient fathers of the\nfaithful were their \"chattels,\" and used as ready change at a pinch; and\nthence deduce the rights of modern husbands? Alas! Patriarchs and\nprophets are followed afar off! When will pious husbands live up to\ntheir Bible privileges, and become partakers with Old Testament worthies\nin the blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities! Refusing so to\ndo, is questioning the morality of those \"good old patriarchs and\nslaveholders, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.\"\n\nThis use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac,\nthe common expression for \"the espoused,\" is \"the bought.\" Even so late\nas the 16th century, the common record of _marriages_ in the old German\nChronicles was, \"A BOUGHT B.\"\n\nThe word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature\nof the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, \"I have _gotten_\n(bought) a man of the Lord.\" She named him Cain, that is _bought_. \"He\nthat heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding,\" Prov. xv. 32. So\nin Isa. xi. 11. \"The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to _buy_)\nthe remnant of his people.\" So Ps. lxxviii. 54. \"He brought them to this\nmountain which his right hand had _purchased_,\" (gotten.) Jer. xiii. 4.\n\"Take the girdle that thou hast got\" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. \"We of our\nability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the\nheathen.\" Here \"_bought_\" is not applied to persons reduced to\nservitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. 8. 22. \"The Lord\npossessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way.\" Prov. xix. 8. \"He\nthat _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul.\" Finally, to _buy_\nis a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _Kana_.\n\nEven at this day the word _buy_ is used to describe the procuring of\nservants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, where\nslaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still \"bought.\" This is the\ncurrent word in West India newspapers. Ten years since servants were\n\"_bought_\" in New-York, as really as in Virginia, yet the different\nsenses in which the word was used in the two states, put no man in a\nquandary. Under the system of legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants\nnow are \"_bought._\"[A] Until recently immigrants to this country were\n\"bought\" in great numbers. By voluntary contract they engaged to work a\ngiven time to pay for their passage. This class of persons called\n\"redemptioners,\" consisted at one time of thousands. Multitudes are\n\"bought\" _out_ of slavery by themselves or others. Under the same roof\nwith the writer is a \"servant bought with money.\" A few weeks since, she\nwas a slave; when \"bought\" she was a slave no longer. Alas! for our\nleading politicians if \"buying\" men makes them \"chattels.\" The Whigs say\nthat Benton and Rives are \"bought\" by the administration; and the other\nparty, that Clay and Webster are \"bought\" by the Bank. The histories of\nthe revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold was \"bought\" by British\ngold. When a northern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country\ngossip thus hits off the indecency, \"The cotton bags _bought_ him.\" Sir\nRobert Walpole said, \"Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it,\ncan _buy_ him,\" and John Randolph said, \"The northern delegation is in\nthe market, give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them;\" both meant just\nwhat they said. The temperance publications tell us that candidates for\noffice _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street tattle that the\ncourt, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial of Robinson were\n_bought_, yet we have no floating visions of \"chattels personal,\" man\nauctions, or coffles.\n\n[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of\nIllinois--No negro, mulatto, or Indian shall at any time _purchase_ any\nservant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the persons\naforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such servant\nshall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and taken.]\n\nThe transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the use\nof \"buy\" and \"bought with money.\" Gen, xlvii. 18-26. The Egyptians\nproposed to Joseph to become servants. When the bargain was closed,\nJoseph said, \"Behold I have _bought you_ this day,\" and yet it is plain\nthat neither party regarded the persons _bought_ as articles of\nproperty, but merely as bound to labor on certain conditions, to pay for\ntheir support during the famine. The idea attached by both parties to\n\"buy us,\" and \"behold I have bought you,\" was merely that of service\nvoluntarily offered, and secured by contract, in return for _value\nreceived_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their\npersonal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of\n_services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in\nScripture usage, _buying the persons_. This case claims special notice,\nas it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is\ndetailed--the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and\nthe permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the\n_mere fact_ is stated without particulars. In this case, the whole\nprocess is laid open. (1.) The persons \"bought,\" _sold themselves_, and\nof their own accord. (2.) Obtaining permanently the _services_ of\npersons, or even a portion of them, is called \"buying\" those persons.\nThe objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were\nbought of _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of\nproperty. Both the alleged fact and the inference are sheer\n_assumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in\nwhich a _master sold his servant_. That servants who were \"bought\" _sold\nthemselves_ is a fair inference from various passages of Scripture.\n\nIn Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of the Israelite, who became the servant\nof the stranger, the words are, \"If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger.\"\nThe _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in verse 47, is\nrendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered\n_be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is rendered \"be sold.\"\n\"And there ye shall BE SOLD unto your enemies for bond-men and\nbond-women and NO MAN SHALL BUY YOU.\" How could they \"_be sold_\" without\n_being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The word _Makar_\nrendered \"be sold\" is used here in the Hithpael conjugation, which is\ngenerally reflexive in its force, and, like the middle voice in Greek,\nrepresents what an individual does for himself, and should manifestly\nhave been rendered, \"ye shall _offer yourselves_ for sale, and there\nshall be no purchaser.\" For a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see\n1 Kings xxi. 20, 25--\"Thou hast _sold thyself_ to work evil.\" \"There was\nnone like to Ahab that _sold himself_ to work wickedness.\"--2 Kings\nxvii. 17. \"They used divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_\nto do evil.\"--Isa. l. 1. \"For your iniquities have ye _sold\nyourselves_.\" Isa. lii. 3, \"Ye have _sold yourselves_ FOR NOUGHT, and ye\nshall be redeemed without money.\" See also, Jer. xxxiv. 14--Romans vii.\n14, vi. 16--John viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians,\nalready quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is\ngenerally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons. If _servants_\nwere bought of third persons, it is strange that no _instance_ of it is\non record.\n\n\n\nII.--THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE LAWS RELATING TO SERVANTS, WITH THE\nRIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO THEM.\n\nThe general object of the laws defining the relations of master and\nservant, was the good of both parties--more especially the good of the\n_servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those\nof the servants were _promoted_. These laws made a merciful provision\nfor the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and Strangers, not laying\non burdens, but lightening them--they were a grant of _privileges_ and\n_favors_.\n\nI. No servant from the Strangers, could remain in the family of an\nIsraelite without becoming a proselyte. Compliance with this condition\nwas the _price of the privilege_.--Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27.\n\nII. Excommunication from the family was a PUNISHMENT.--Gen. xxi. 14.\nLuke xvi. 2-4.\n\nIII. Every Hebrew servant could COMPEL his master to keep him after the\nsix years contract had expired. This shows that the system was framed to\nadvance the interests and gratify the wishes of the servant quite as\nmuch as those of the master. If the servant _demanded_ it, the law\n_obliged_ the master to retain him, however little he might need his\nservices. Deut. xv. 12-17. Ex. xxi. 2-6.\n\nIV. The rights and privileges guarantied by law to all servants.\n\n1. _They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.\n\n2. _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals._\nEx. xii. 43-44; Deut. xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.\n\n3. _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut. xxxi.\n10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9.\n\n4. _They were released from their regular labor nearly_ ONE HALF OF THE\nWHOLE TIME. During which they had their entire support, and the same\ninstruction that was provided for the other members of the Hebrew\ncommunity.\n\n(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year;_ Lev.\nxxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were servants during the entire\nperiod between the jubilees, _eight whole years,_ including the jubilee\nyear, of unbroken rest.\n\n(b.) _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being\nsubtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years._\n\n(c.) _The three annual festivals._ The _Passover_, which commenced on\nthe 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The\nPentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the 6th day of the 3d\nmonth, and lasted seven days. Lev. xvi. 10, 11. The Feast of\nTabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the 7th month, and lasted\neight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. As all met in one\nplace, much time would be spent on the journey. Cumbered caravans move\nslowly. After their arrival, a day or two would be requisite for divers\npreparations before the celebration, besides some time at the close of\nit, in preparations for return. If we assign three weeks to each\nfestival--including the time spent on the journeys, and the delays\nbefore and after the celebration, together with the _festival week_, it\nwill be a small allowance for the cessation of their regular labor. As\nthere were three festivals in the year, the main body of the servants\nwould be absent from their stated employments at least _nine weeks\nannually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the\nSabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.\n\n(d.) _The new moons._ The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the\nJews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the Jewish\nCalendar, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx. 18, 19, 27. This in\nforty-two years, would be two years 280 days.\n\n(e.) _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and\nof the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.\n\n(f.) _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev. xxiii.\n27.\n\nThese two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not\nreckoned above.\n\nThus it appears that those who continued servants during the period\nbetween the jubilees, were by law released from their labor,\nTWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those\nwho remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In this\ncalculation, besides making a donation of all the _fractions_ to the\nobjector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which\nfrequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; I Sam. ix. etc., and the\nvarious _family_ festivals, such as at the weaning of children; at\nmarriages; at sheep shearings; at circumcisions; at the making of\ncovenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in 1 Sam. xx. 28,\n29. Neither have we included the festivals instituted at a later period\nof the Jewish history. The feast of Purim, Esth. ix. 28, 29; and of the\nDedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59.\n\nFinally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time which,\nif distributed, would be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN EACH YEAR.\nMeanwhile, they were supported, and furnished with opportunities of\ninstruction. If this time were distributed over _every day_, the\nservants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.\n\nTHIS IS A REGULATION OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY\nSLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.\n\nV. The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of\nthe community.\n\nProof.--\"Judge righteously between every man and his neighbor, and THE\nSTRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM.\" \"Ye shall not RESPECT PERSONS in judgement,\nbut ye shall hear the SMALL as well as the great.\" Deut. i. 16, 17. Also\nLev. xxiv. 22. \"Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the\nSTRANGER, as for one of your own country.\" So Numb. xv. 29. \"Ye shall\nhave ONE LAW for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that\nis born among the children of Israel and for the STRANGER that\nsojourneth among them.\" Deut. xxvii. 19. \"Cursed be he that PERVERTETH\nTHE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER.\"\n\nVI. The Mosaic system enjoined the greatest affection and kindness\ntoward servants, foreign as well as Jewish.\n\nLev. xix. 34. \"The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as\none born among you, and thou shall love him as thyself.\" Also Deut. x.\n17, 19. \"For the Lord your God * * REGARDETH NOT PERSONS. He doth\nexecute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and LOVETH THE\nSTRANGER, in giving him food and raiment, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE\nSTRANGER.\" So Ex. xxii. 21. \"Thou shalt neither vex a STRANGER nor\noppress him.\" Ex. xxiii. 9. \"Thou shalt not oppress a STRANGER, for ye\nknow the heart of a stranger.\" Lev. xxv. 35, 36. \"If thy brother be\nwaxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a STRANGER or a\nsojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no usury of him or\nincrease, but fear thy God.\" Could this same stranger be taken by one\nthat feared his God, and held as a slave, and robbed of time, earnings,\nand all his rights?\n\nVII. Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil\nand religious rights. Num. xv. 15, 16, 29; ix. 14. Deut. i. 16, 17. Lev.\nxxiv. 22.\n\n\n\nIII.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE\nSERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?\n\nWe argue that they became servants _of their own accord_.\n\nI. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to\nabjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[A], be circumcised in\ntoken of it, bound to keep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, and\nthe Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and\nceremonial law. Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes?\nWas the renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into\ncovenant with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_?\nWere they _compelled_ mechanically to chew, and swallow the flesh of the\nPaschal lamb, while they abhorred the institution, spurned the laws that\nenjoined it, detested its author and its executors, and instead of\nrejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, bewailed it as a\ncalamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they _driven_\nfrom all parts of the land three times in the year to the annual\nfestivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated?\nGoaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and disgusting\nmummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with loathed\nabominations? We repeat it, to became a _servant_, was to become a\n_proselyte_. And did God authorize his people to make proselytes, at the\npoint of the sword? by the terror of pains and penalties? by converting\nmen into _merchandise_? Were _proselyte and chattel_ synonymes, in the\nDivine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into\ncovenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and\nthe sole passport to the communion of the saints?\n\n[Footnote A: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred years\nago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of\nJewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: \"Whether a\nservant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased\nfrom the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant.\"\n\n\"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that\nis bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him,\nunless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown\nslave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to\nwin him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year.\nAfter which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him\nlonger than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers\nfrom whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than\nthe worship of a willing heart\"--Mamon, Hilcoth Mileth, Chap. 1st, Sec.\n8th.\n\nThe ancient Jewish Doctors assert that the servant from the Strangers\nwho at the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish\nreligion and was on that account sent back to his own people, received a\n_full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his\nexpenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign\nservant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of\nan Israelite), of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a\nmere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic\nsystem. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_.\nWhether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes\nnot within the scope of this inquiry. ]\n\nII. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,\n\"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped\nfrom his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in\nthat place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh\nhim best; thou shalt not oppress him.\"\n\nAs though God had said, \"To deliver him up would be to recognize the\n_right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his\n_choice_--proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall\nnot force him back and thus recognize the _right_ of the master to hold\nhim in such a condition as induces him to flee to others for\nprotection.\" It may be said that this command referred only to the\nservants of _heathen_ masters in the surrounding nations. We answer, the\nterms of the command are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would\nmerely shift the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Did God\nrequire them to protect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the\nheathen, and yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice\nof _thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_\nservant flees to the Israelites; God says, \"He shall dwell with thee, in\nthat place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it _liketh\nhim_ best.\" Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming into\nIsrael of his own accord, had been _dragged_ in by some kidnapper who\n_bought_ him of his master, and _forced_ him into a condition against\nhis will; would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who\n_voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the _same_ treatment of the\n_same person_, provided in _addition_ to this last outrage, the\n_previous_ one had been committed of forcing him into the nation against\nhis will? To commit violence on the free choice of a _foreign_ servant\nis forsooth a horrible enormity, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence\n_after_ he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_ on the\n_other side of the line_; if you begin the outrage by buying him from a\nthird person against his will, and then tear him from home, drag him\nacross the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah!\nthat alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with\nimpunity! Would _greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer than\nto the old residents--those who had been servants in Jewish families\nperhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise\ntoward _him_, uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and\nkindness denied to the multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_\nthe covenant? But, the objector finds small gain to his argument on the\nsupposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the\nsurrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a\ncondition against their wills. In that case, the surrounding nations\nwould adopt retaliatory measures, and become so many asylums for Jewish\nfugitives. As these nations were not only on every side of them, but in\ntheir midst, such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to\nmen whose condition was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the\nsame command which protected the servant from the power of his foreign\n_master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was\nnot, \"Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_,\" but \"he shall dwell\nwith thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of thy gates\nwhere it liketh _him_ best.\" Every Israelite was forbidden to put him in\nany condition _against his will_. What was this but a proclamation, that\nall who _chose_ to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to\ntheir own free will, to dispose of their services at such a rate, to\nsuch persons and in such places as they pleased? Besides, grant that\nthis command prohibited the sending back of _foreign_ servants merely,\nthere was no law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from\nthe _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, they were\nrequired to return, but not escaped servants. These verses contain 1st,\na command, \"Thou shall not deliver,\" &c., 2d, a declaration of the\nfugitive's right of _free choice_, and of God's will that he should\nexercise it at his own discretion; and 3d, a command guarding this\nright, namely, \"Thou shalt not oppress him,\" as though God had said, \"If\nyou restrain him from exercising his _own choice_, as to the place and\ncondition of his residence, it is _oppression_.\"\n\nIII. We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar\nopportunities and facilities for escape. Three times every year, all the\nmales over twelve years, were required to attend the national feasts.\nThey were thus absent from their homes not less than three weeks at each\ntime, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans moved over the\ncountry, were there military scouts lining the way, to intercept\ndeserters?--a corporal's guard at each pass of the mountains, sentinels\npacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the defiles? The\nIsraelites must have had some safe contrivance for taking their\n\"_slaves_\" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of\nslaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are hand-cuffed and\nchained together, to keep them from running away, or beating their\ndrivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement\nintroduced by Samuel, or was it left for the wisdom of Solomon? The\nusage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical!\nPerhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or\ncaged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City,\n\"lodged in jail for safe keeping,\" the Sanhedrim appointing special\nreligious services for their benefit, and their \"drivers\" officiating at\n\"ORAL instruction.\" Mean while, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_\nleft at home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps\nthe Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens,\nwhile the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, picking\nup stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets, keeping a sharp\nlook-out at night.\n\nIV. Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance\nof various rites necessarily VOLUNTARY.\n\nSuppose the servants from the heathen had upon entering Jewish families,\nrefused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of\nemancipation! Their _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose they had refused\nto attend the annual feasts, or had eaten unleavened bread during the\nPassover, or compounded the ingredients of the anointing oil, they would\nhave been \"cut off from the people;\" _excommunicated_.\n\nV. We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from the\nimpossibility of their having been held against their wills. Abraham's\nservants are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and\neighteen _young men_ \"born in his house,\" and many more _not_ born in\nhis house. His servants of all ages, were probably MANY THOUSANDS. How\nAbraham and Sarah contrived to hold fast so many thousand servants\nagainst their wills, we are left quite in the dark. The most natural\nsupposition is that the Patriarch and his wife _took turns_ in\nsurrounding them! The neighboring tribes, instead of constituting a\npicket guard to hem in his servants, would have been far more likely to\nsweep them and him into captivity, as they did Lot and his household.\nBesides, there was neither \"Constitution\" nor \"compact,\" to send back\nAbraham's fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon them, nor\ngentleman-kidnappers, suing for his patronage, volunteering to howl on\ntheir track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their\n\"honor\" to hunt down and \"deliver up,\" _provided_ they had a description\nof the \"flesh-marks,\" and were suitably stimulated by _pieces of\nsilver_. Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in all the\nauxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs,\nfoot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these\npatriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully\ntrained \"his household to do justice and judgment,\" though so deplorably\ndestitute of the needful aids.\n\nVI. We infer that servants were voluntary, as there is no instance of an\nIsraelitish master SELLING a servant. Abraham had thousands of servants,\nbut seems never to have sold one. Isaac \"grew until he became very\ngreat,\" and had \"great store of servants.\" Jacob's youth was spent in\nthe family of Laban, where he lived a servant twenty-one years.\nAfterward he had a large number of servants. Joseph sent for Jacob to\ncome into Egypt, \"thou and thy children, and thy children's children,\nand thy flocks and thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST.\" Jacob took his\nflocks and herds but _no servants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 16. They\ndoubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into\nEgypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country. The government might\nsell _thieves_, if they had no property, until their services had made\ngood the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. xxii. 3. But _masters_\nseem to have had no power to sell their _servants_. To give the master a\n_right_ to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's right of\nchoice in his own disposal; but says the objector, \"to give the master a\nright to _buy_ a servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of\nchoice_.\" Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a\ndifferent thing to have a right to buy him of _another_ man[A].\n\n[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose\neven the _services_ of their servants, as men hire out their laborers\nwhom they employ by the year; but whether they had or not, affects not\nthe argument.]\n\nThough servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were\nbought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their\nbetrothal as wives. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. \"If a man sell his daughter to be a\nmaid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please\nnot her master WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, he shall let her be\nredeemed.\"[B]\n\n[Footnote B: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows: \"A\nHebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under\nobligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit\nto be betrothed.\"--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV. Sec. XI.\nJarchi, on the same passage, says, \"He is bound to espouse her and take\nher to be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her\nespousal.\"]\n\nVII. We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in COMMENCING his\nservice, because he was pre-eminently so IN CONTINUING it. If, at the\nyear of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his\nmaster, law required his ear to be bored by the judges of the land, thus\nmaking it impossible for him to be held against his will. Yea more, his\nmaster was _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to get\nrid of him.\n\nVIII. The method prescribed for procuring servants, was an appeal to\ntheir choice. The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable\ninducement, and then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them\nby _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false\npretences, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to\nbuy them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the\nindividuals to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to\n_refuse all offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their\nown work_. Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become\nservants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency?\nNONE.\n\n[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they\nhad earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay\nthe legal penalty, _stands by itself,_ and has nothing to do with the\ncondition of servants.]\n\nIX. Various incidental expressions corroborate the idea that servants\nbecame such by their own contract. Job xli. 4, is an illustration, \"Will\nhe (Leviathan) make a COVENANT with thee? wilt thou take him for a\nSERVANT forever?\"\n\nX. The transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF PHARAOH was\nvoluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord they\ncame to Joseph and said, \"We have not aught left but our _bodies_ and\nour lands; _buy us_;\" then in the 25th verse, \"we will be servants to\nPharaoh.\"\n\nXI. We infer the voluntariness of servants, from the fact that RICH\nStrangers did not become servants. Indeed, so far were they from\nbecoming servants themselves, that they bought and held Jewish servants.\nLev. xxv. 47.\n\nXII. The sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to present,\nwere to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.\n\nXIII. Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they were\nmanifestly and pre-eminently VOLUNTARY. As the Prophet Elisha. 1 Kings\nxix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. The word, translated\nmaster, is the same that is so rendered in almost every instance where\nmasters are spoken of under the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. Moses\nwas the servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1. Joshua was the servant of Moses.\nNum. xi. 28. Jacob was the servant of Laban. Gen. xxix. 18-27.\n\n\n\nIV.--WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?\n\nAs the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it\nwould be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their\nbecoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they\n_were paid_ for their labor, we argue,\n\nI. Because God rebuked in thunder, the sin of using the labor of others\nwithout wages. \"Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness,\nand his chambers by wrong; THAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S SERVICE WITHOUT\nWAGES, and giveth him not for his work.\" Jer. xxii. 13. God here\ntestifies that to use the service of others without wages is\n\"unrighteousness\" and pronounces his \"wo\" against the doer of the\n\"wrong.\" The Hebrew word _Rea_, translated _neighbor_, does not mean one\nman, or class of men, in distinction from others, but any one with whom\nwe have to do--all descriptions of persons, even those who prosecute us\nin lawsuits and enemies while in the act of fighting us--\"As when a man\nriseth against his NEIGHBOR and slayeth him.\" Deut. xxii. 26. \"Go not\nforth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end\nthereof, when thy NEIGHBOR hath put thee to shame.\" Prov. xxv. 8. \"Thou\nshalt not bear false witness against thy NEIGHBOR.\" Ex. xx. 16. \"If any\nman come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile.\" Ex.\nxxi. 14, &c.\n\nII. God testifies that in our duty to our fellow men, ALL THE LAW AND\nTHE PROPHETS hang upon this command, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as\nthyself.\" Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted _verbatim_ one of\nthe laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the\nsame chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of Strangers, \"The\nstranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you,\nand THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF.\" If it be loving others _as_\nourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and\nclothing also, would be a stronger illustration still of the law of\nlove! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others\nas we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good\nalone, Paul should be called to order for his hard saying against human\nnature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, \"No man ever\nyet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it.\"\n\nIII. As persons became servants FROM POVERTY, we argue that they were\ncompensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large\namount. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a princely\npresent, \"An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins,\nand an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine.\" 2 Sam. xvi. 1.\nThe extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though\nthe father of fifteen sons, he had twenty servants. In Lev. xxv. 57-59,\nwhere a servant, reduced to poverty, sold himself, it is declared that\nhe may be _redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been\nforced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable\nproperty _after_ he became a servant. If it had not been common for\nservants to acquire property over which they had the control, the\nservant of Elisha would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of\nmoney, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23. As it was\nprocured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it;\nbut if servants, could \"own nothing, nor acquire any thing,\" to embark\nin such an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of\nhaving in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict\nhim of theft[B]. But since it was common for servants to own property he\nmight have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special\nattention, and that consideration alone would have been a strong motive\nto the act. His master, while rebuking him for using such means to get\nthe money, not only does not take it from him; but seems to expect that\nhe would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure\nservants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the servant of Saul having\nmoney, and relieving his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the\nservant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_. That it was somewhat\nmagnificent, would be a natural inference from it's being a resort of\nthe king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of the Gibeonites, who after becoming\nservants, still occupied their cities, and remained in many respects, a\ndistinct people for centuries; and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the\n_servants_ of Solomon, who worked out their \"tribute of bond-service\" in\nlevies, periodically relieving each other, are additional illustrations\nof independence in the acquisition and ownership of property.\n\n[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the\n_relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have enough to\nwarrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value\n_then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing\na large amount of money? They \"_know how to take care of themselves_\"\nquite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on\nsuch a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make\ndetection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then a little, and a\ngaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in\nthe footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if,\nafter so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the\nbusiness by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their\nbetters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at\na practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried\non around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high\nimpulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern set before them in the\ndaily vocation of \"Honorables\" and \"Excellences,\" and to emulate the\nillustrious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and _Right_ and _Very\nReverends_! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on\nVirginia, pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, \"That disposition to\ntheft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their\n_situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is\na problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious\nprecepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as\nwell as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take\na _little_ from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who\nwould slay him?\"]\n\nIV. Heirship.--Servants frequently inherited their master's property;\nespecially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family.\nEliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth,\nJarha the servant of Sheshan, and the _husbandmen_ who said of their\nmaster's son, \"this is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the INHERITANCE\nWILL BE OURS,\" are illustrations; also Prov. xvii. 2--\"A wise servant\nshall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and SHALL HAVE PART OF\nTHE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN.\" This passage gives servants\nprecedence as heirs, even over the wives and daughters of their masters.\nDid masters hold by force, and plunder of earnings, a class of persons,\nfrom which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs for\ntheir property, and husbands for their daughters?\n\nV. ALL were required to present offerings and sacrifices. Deut. xvi. 15,\n17, 2 Chron. xv. 9-11. Numb. ix. 13. Servants must have had permanently,\nthe means of _acquiring_ property to meet these expenditures.\n\nVI. Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, were\nprovided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle. Deut. xv.\n11-14. \"Thou shall furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of\nthy flour, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy God\nhath blessed thee, thou shall give him[A].\" If it be said that the\nservants from the Strangers did not receive a like bountiful supply, we\nanswer, neither did the most honorable class of _Israelitish_ servants,\nthe free-holders; and for the same reason, _they did not go out in the\nseventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that the\nGentile servants did not receive such a _gratuity_ proves that they were\nrobbed of their _earnings_, it proves that the most valued class of\n_Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too stubborn\nfor even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.\n\n[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as\nfollows--\"Thou shalt furnish him liberally,\" &c. \"That is to say,\n'_Loading, ye shall load him_,' likewise every one of his family, with\nas much as he can take with him--abundant benefits. And if it be\navariciously asked, \"How much must I give him?\" I say unto _you, not\nless than thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as\ndeclared in Ex. xxi. 32.\"--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3]\n\nVII. The servants were BOUGHT. In other words, they received\ncompensation in advance. Having shown, under a previous head, that\nservants _sold themselves_, and of course received the compensation for\nthemselves, except in cases where parents hired out the time of their\nchildren till they became of age[B], a mere reference to the fact is all\nthat is required for the purposes of this argument.\n\n[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and\nboys at thirteen years.]\n\nVIII. We find masters at one time having a large number of servants, and\nafterwards none, without any intimation that they were sold. The wages\nof servants would enable them to set up in business for themselves.\nJacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one years, became thus an\nindependent herdsman, and was the master of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43,\nxxxii. 15. But all these servants had left him before he went down into\nEgypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for\nthemselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, 32.\n\nIX. God's testimony to the character of Abraham. Gen. xviii. 19. \"For I\nknow him that he will command his children and his household after him,\nand they shall keep, THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND JUDGEMENT.\"\nGod here testifies that Abraham taught his servants \"the way of the\nLord.\" What was the \"way of the Lord\" respecting the payment of wages\nwhere service was rendered? \"Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's\nservice WITHOUT WAGES!\" Jer. xxii. 13. \"Masters, give unto your servants\nthat which is JUST AND EQUAL.\" Col. iv. 1. \"Render unto all their DUES.\"\nRom. xiii. 7. \"The laborer is WORTHY OF HIS HIRE.\" Luke x. 7. How did\nAbraham teach his servants to \"_do justice_\" to others? By doing\ninjustice to them? Did he exhort them to \"render to all their dues\" by\nkeeping back _their own_? Did he teach them that \"the laborer was worthy\nof his hire\" by robbing them of _theirs_? Did he beget in them a\nreverence for honesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he\nteach them \"not to defraud\" others \"in any matter\" by denying them \"what\nwas just and equal?\" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism\ndid not become a very _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples,\npatriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway\nagainst human perverseness!\n\nX. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles_.\nOut of many, we select the following: (1.) \"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox\nthat treadeth out the corn,\" or literally, while he thresheth. Deut.\nxxv. 4. Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox\nrepresenting all domestic animals. Isa. xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of\nservice, _all_ kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the\nwants of an animal ministering to man in a _certain_ way,--a general\nprinciple of treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities\nof service. The object of the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness\ntowards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of rewarding those who serve\nus; and if such care be enjoined, by God, both for the ample sustenance\nand present enjoyment _of a brute_, what would be a meet return for the\nservices of _man_?--MAN with his varied wants, exalted nature and\nimmortal destiny! Paul says expressly, that this principle lies at the\nbottom of the statute. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, \"For it is written in the law\nof Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out\nthe corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR\nSAKES? that he that ploweth should plow in HOPE, and that he that\nthresheth in hope should be PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE,\" (2.) \"If thy brother\nbe waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve\nhim, YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a SOJOURNER that he may live with\nthee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy God. Thou\nshalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for\nincrease.\" Lev. xxv. 35-37. Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery\nlegerdemain, this regulation can be made to harmonize with the doctrine\nof WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to\nRELIEF, and in the same breath, authorize them to \"use his services\nwithout wages;\" force him to work and ROB HIM OF HIS EARNINGS?\n\n\nV.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?\n\nThe discussion of this topic has already been somewhat anticipated, but\na variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed.\n\n1. Servants were not subjected to the uses nor liable to the\ncontingencies of property. (1.) They were never taken in payment for\ntheir masters' debts, though children were sometimes taken (without\nlegal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9;\nIsa. l., 1; Matt. xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of all\nkinds, to satisfy their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov.\nxxii. 27, household furniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of the\nsoil; Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26-29, Deut. xxiv. 10-13, Matt,\nv. 40, clothing; but _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. (2.)\nServants were never given as pledges. Property of all sorts was given in\npledge. We find household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets,\nand personal ornaments, with divers other articles of property, used as\npledges for value received; but no servants. (3.) All lost PROPERTY was\nto be restored. Oxen, asses, sheep, raiment, and \"whatsoever lost\nthings,\" are specified--servants _not_. Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the\nIsraelites were forbidden to return the runaway servant. Deut. xxiii.\n15. (4.) The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents. They\nmade costly presents, of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of\nanimals, merchandise, family utensils, precious metals, grain, armor,\n&c. are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents to superiors and\npersons of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2\nChron. xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy\nof Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv.\n22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pilezer,\n2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 13; Jeroboam to\nAhijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no\nservants were given as presents--though it was a prevailing fashion in\nthe surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen. xx. 14. It may be objected\nthat Laban GAVE handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives. Without\nenlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent suffice it to say\nthat the handmaids of wives were regarded as wives, though of inferior\ndignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved\nby his curse upon Reuben, Gen. xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1; also by the\nequality of their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it\nbeen otherwise--had Laban given them as _articles of property_, then,\nindeed, the example of this \"good old patriarch and slaveholder,\" Saint\nLaban, would have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we remember his\njealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when he found that his\n\"GODS\" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the\ndesert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced marches; how he ransacked a\nwhole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such\nsmall matters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal\nof his \"IMAGES\" had eaten him up! No wonder that slavery, in its\nBible-navigation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud\nunder the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit: invoking his\nprotection, and the benediction of his \"GODS!\" \"Again, it may be\nobjected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If\nthat proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. \"Thou shalt\nnot covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's\nWIFE, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his\nass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.\" Ex. xx. 17. In inventories\nof _mere property_ if servants are included, it is in such a way, as to\nshow that they are not regarded as _property_. See Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But\nwhen the design is to show not merely the wealth, but the _greatness_ of\nany personage, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word,\nif _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if\n_greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. \"And Abraham was very\nrich in cattle, in silver and in gold.\" So in the fifth verse, \"And Lot\nalso had flocks, and herds, and tents.\" In the seventh verse servants\nare mentioned, \"And there was a strife between the HERDMEN of Abraham's\ncattle and the HERDMEN of Lot's cattle.\" See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen.\nxxxiv. 23; Job xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job i. 3-5;\nDeut. viii. 12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, xxvi. 13, xxx. 43. Jacobs's wives say\nto him, \"All the _riches_ which thou hast taken from our father that is\nours and our children's.\" Then follows an inventory of property. \"All\nhis cattle,\" \"all his goods,\" \"the cattle of his getting.\" He had a\nlarge number of servants at the time but they are not included with his\nproperty. Comp. Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18. When he sent\nmessengers to Esau, wishing to impress him with an idea of his state and\nsway, he bade them tell him not only of his RICHES, but of his\nGREATNESS; that Jacob had \"oxen, and asses, and flocks, and\nmen-servants, and maid-servants.\" Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present\nwhich he sent, there were no servants; though he seems to have sought as\nmuch variety as possible. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7;\nGen. xxxiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples of wealth, a large\nnumber of servants presupposed large possessions of cattle, which would\nrequire many herdsmen. When servants are spoken of in connection with\n_mere property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the\nformer. The Hebrew word _Mikne_, is an illustration. It is derived from\n_Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, _a possession, wealth,\nriches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, and is\napplied always to _mere property_, generally to domestic animals, but\nnever to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in\ndistinction from the _Mikne_.  And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot\nhis brother's son, and all their SUBSTANCE that they had gathered; and\nthe souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into\nthe land of Canaan.\"--Gen. xii. 5. Many will have it, that these _souls_\nwere a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here\ntaken to separate them from it)--that they were slaves taken with him in\nhis migration as a part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders,\neither actually or in heart, would torture into the principle and\npractice of slavery, such a harmless phrase as \"_the souls that they had\ngotten_?\" Until the slave trade breathed its haze upon the vision of the\nchurch, and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery\nin, \"The souls that they had gotten.\" In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is\nrendered, \"The souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran.\" In\nthe Targum of Jonathan, \"The souls whom they had made proselytes in\nHaran.\" In the Targum of Jerusalem, \"The souls proselyted in Haran.\"\nJarchi, the prince of Jewish commentators, \"The souls whom they had\nbrought under the Divine wings.\" Jerome, one of the most learned of the\nChristian fathers, \"The persons whom they had proselyted.\" The Persian\nversion, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Samaritan all\nrender it, \"All the wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which\nthey had made in Haran.\" Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our\npresent translation of the Bible, renders it, \"Quas de idolatraria\nconverterant.\" \"Those whom they had converted from idolatry.\"--Paulus\nFagius[B]. \"Quas instituerant in religione.\" \"Those whom they had\nestablished in religion.\" Luke Francke, a German commentator who lived\ntwo centuries ago. \"Quas legi subjicerant\"--\"Those whom they had brought\nto obey the law.\"\n\n[Footnote A: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old\nTestament. The Targum of Onkelas is, for the most part, a very accurate\nand faithful translation of the original, and was probably made at about\nthe commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben\nUzziel, bears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably\nabout five hundred years later. The Israelites, during their captivity\nin Babylon, lost, as a body, their own language. These translations into\nthe Chaldee, the language which they acquired in Babylon, were thus\ncalled for by the necessity of the case.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England to\nsuperintend the translation of the Bible into English, under the\npatronage of Henry the Eighth. He had hardly commenced the work when he\ndied. This was nearly a century before the date of our present\ntranslation.]\n\nII. The condition and treatment of servants make the doctrine that they\nwere mere COMMODITIES, an absurdity. St. Paul's testimony in Gal. iv. 1,\nshows the condition of servants: \"Now I say unto you, that the heir, so\nlong as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be\nlord of all.\" That Abraham's servants were voluntary, that their\ninterests were identified with those of their master's family, and that\nthe utmost confidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being\narmed.--Gen. xiv. 14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the\nyoung Princess Rebecca did not disdain to say to him, \"Drink, MY LORD,\"\nas \"she hasted and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him\ndrink.\" Laban, the brother of Rebecca, \"ungirded his camels, and brought\nhim water to wash his feet and the men's feet that were with him!\" In 1\nSam. ix. is an account of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which\nSamuel presided. None but those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only\n\"about thirty persons\" were invited. Quite a select party!--the elite of\nthe city. Saul and his servant had just arrived at Zuph, and _both_ of\nthem, at Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. \"And\nSamuel took Saul and his SERVANT, and brought THEM into the PARLOR(!)\nand made THEM sit in the CHIEFEST SEATS among those that were bidden.\" A\n_servant_ invited by the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to\ndine publicly with a select party, in company with his master, who was\nat the same time anointed King of Israel! and this servant introduced by\nSamuel into the PARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the _chiefest\nseat_ at the table! This was \"_one_ of the servants\" of Kish, Saul's\nfather; not the steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man,\nbut \"_one_ of the servants;\" _any_ one that could be most easily spared,\nas no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking\nafter asses. Again: we find Elah, the King of Israel, at a festive\nentertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with\nwhom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity.--1 Kings xvi. 8, 9.\nSee also the intercourse between Gideon and his servant.--Judg. vii. 10,\n11. Jonathan and his servant.--1 Sam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his\nservant.--2 Kings iv. v. vi.\n\nIII. The case of the Gibeonites. The condition of the inhabitants of\nGibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew\ncommonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and\ntruly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from\nit. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned to\nashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting\ngnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or\neven to _mock_ them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the\nGibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron, could not\nextract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to\nthe question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the\nIsraelites? (1.) _It was voluntary_. Their own proposition to Joshua was\nto become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of\nservice which they should perform, was not specified until their gross\nimposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial offices in\nthe Tabernacle. (2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of\nthe Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated\ntheir own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the\nfunctions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were\nsubject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So far from being\ndistributed among the Israelites, and their internal organization as a\ndistinct people abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some\nrespects, an independent community for many centuries. When attacked by\nthe Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it\nwas rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in\ntheir cities. Josh. x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them,\nand God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of\nthe Gibeonites, \"What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the\natonement?\" At their demand, he delivered up to them, seven of Saul's\ndescendants. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal\nrecognition of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no\nintimation that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites,\nbut only the \"house of God,\" or the Tabernacle. This was established\nfirst at Gilgal, a day's journey from their cities; and then at Shiloh,\nnearly two day's journey from them; where it continued about 350 years.\nDuring this period, the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and\nterritory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent at any one\ntime in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is made to them\nin the history, the main body are spoken of as _at home_. It is\npreposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four cities\ncould find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them \"was a great city,\nas one of the royal cities;\" so large, that a confederacy of five kings,\napparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary for its\ndestruction. It is probable that the men were divided into classes,\nministering in rotation--each class a few days or weeks at a time. This\nservice was their _national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the\nprivilege of residence and protection under their government. No service\nseems to have been required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were\nCanaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by\nimpudent imposition, and lying, we might assuredly expect that they\nwould reduce _them_ to the condition of chattels if there was _any_ case\nin which God permitted them to do so.\n\nIV. Throughout the Mosaic system, God warns the Israelites against\nholding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the\nEgyptians. How often are they pointed back to the grindings of their\nprison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice and kindness\ntowards their servants, are held out to their fears in threatened\njudgments; to their hopes in promised good; and to all within them that\ncould feel; by those oft repeated words of tenderness and terror! \"For\nye were bondmen in the land of Egypt\"--waking anew the memory of tears\nand anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them.\n\nGod's denunciations against the bondage of Egypt make it incumbent on us\nto ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what\nthey retained.\n\nEGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) The Israelites were not dispersed among\nthe families of Egypt[A], but formed a separate community. Gen. xlvi.\n35. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi. 7; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5.\n(2.) They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen[B]. Gen.\nxlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27. (3.) They lived\nin permanent dwellings. These were _houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 6,\n22, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_, and the lintel of\nthe houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by\nitself_,--Acts vii. 20. Ex. xii. 4--and judging from the regulation\nabout the eating of the Passover, they could hardly have been small\nones, Ex. xii. 4, probably contained separate apartments, and places for\nconcealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well\napparelled. Ex. xii. 11. To have their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19,\nand xiv. 11. (4.) They owned \"a mixed multitude of flocks and herds,\"\nand \"very much cattle.\" Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38. (5.) They had their own\nform of government, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, and\ntheir internal organization throughout, though still a province of\nEgypt, and _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19;\niii. 16, 18. (6.) They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the\ndisposal of their own time,--Ex. xxiii. 4; iii. 16, 18, xii. 6; ii. 9;\nand iv. 27, 29-31. And to have practiced the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. 4;\nxxxv. 22-35. (7.) They were all armed. Ex. xxxii. 27. (8.) They held\ntheir possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded\nthem as inviolable. No intimation is given that the Egyptians\ndispossessed them of their habitations, or took away their flocks, or\nherds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or any article of\nproperty. (9.) All the females seem to have known something of domestic\nrefinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled\nin the working of fine fabrics. Ex. xv. 20; xxxv. 25, 26. (10.) Service\nseems to have been exacted from none but adult males. Nothing is said\nfrom which the bond service of females could he inferred; the hiding of\nMoses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by\nPharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29. (11.) So\nfar from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was abundant, and\nof great variety. \"They sat by the flesh-pots,\" and \"did eat bread to\nthe full.\" Ex. xvi. 3; xxiv. 1; xvii. 5; iv. 29; vi. 14; \"they did eat\nfish freely, and cucumbers, and melons, and leeks, and onions, and\ngarlic.\" Num. xi. 4, 5; x. 18; xx. 5. (12.) The great body of the people\nwere not in the service of the Egyptians. (a.) The extent and variety of\ntheir own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops\nas would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks\nand herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have\nfurnished constant employment for the main body of the nation. (b.)\nDuring the plague of darkness, God informs us that \"ALL the children of\nIsrael had light in their dwellings.\" We infer that they were _there_ to\nenjoy it. (c.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only\nservice named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could\nhave furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also\nEx. iv. 29-31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it\nwas as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given\nquota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a small\nportion of the nation would be absent _at any one time_. Probably\none-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the\nIsraelites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of\ntaking it from their _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they\nexacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that labor\nwas exacted only from the _poorer_ Israelites, the wealthy being able to\npay their tribute in money. Ex. iv. 27-31. Contrast this bondage of\nEgypt with American slavery. Have our slaves \"very much cattle,\" and \"a\nmixed multitude of flocks and herds?\" Do they live in commodious houses\nof their own, \"sit by the flesh-pots,\" \"eat fish freely,\" and \"eat bread\nto the full?\" Do they live in a separate community, in their distinct\ntribes, under their own rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an\nextensive tract of country for the culture of their crops, and for\nrearing immense herds of their own cattle--and all these held inviolable\nby their masters? Are our female slaves free from exactions of labor and\nliabilities of outrage? or when employed, are they paid wages, as was\nthe Israelitish woman by the king's daughter? Have they the disposal of\ntheir own time and the means for cultivating social refinements, for\npractising the fine arts, and for personal improvement? THE ISRAELITES\nUNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.\nTrue, \"all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor.\" But\nwhat was this when compared with the incessant toil of American slaves,\nthe robbery of all their time and earnings, and even the power to \"own\nany thing, or acquire any thing?\" a \"quart of corn a-day,\" the legal\nallowance of food[C]! their _only_ clothing for one half the year,\n\"_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of pantaloons[D]!\" _two hours and a half\nonly_, for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four[E]!--their dwellings,\n_hovels_, unfit for human residence, with but one apartment, where both\nsexes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the\nfield. Add to this, the ignorance, and degradation; the daily sundering\nof kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of\nblood, sanctioned by law, and patronized by public sentiment. What was\nthe bondage of Egypt when compared with this? And yet for her oppression\nof the poor, God smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire,\ntill she passed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her\npride, knew her no more. Ah! \"I have seen the afflictions of my people,\nand I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them.\" HE\nDID COME, and Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her.\nIf such was God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of\nhow much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy,\nwho cloak with religion a system, in comparison with which the bondage\nof Egypt dwindles to nothing? Let those believe who can that God\ncommissioned his people to rob others of _all_ their rights, while he\ndenounced against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the\n_far lighter_ oppression of Egypt--which robbed it's victims of only the\nleast and cheapest of their rights, and left the females unplundered\neven of these. What! Is God divided against himself? When He had just\nturned Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her\nunburied dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the\nsmoke of her torment went upwards because she had \"ROBBED THE POOR,\" did\nHe license the victims of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_\ndid he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that for which he\nhad just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and overwhelmed his princes, and his\nhosts, till \"hell was moved to meet them at their coming?\"\n\n[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living in\ntheir families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in\nEx. ix. 14, 20, 21.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: The land of Goshen was a large tract of country, east of\nthe Pelusian arm of the Nile, and between it and the head of the Red\nSea, and the lower border of Palestine. The probable centre of that\nportion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly have been less than\nsixty miles from the city. The border of Goshen nearest to Egypt must\nhave been many miles distant. See \"Exodus of the Israelites out of\nEgypt,\" an able article by Professor Robinson, in the Biblical\nRepository for October, 1832.]\n\n\n[Footnote C: Law of N.C. Haywood's Manual 524-5.]\n\n\n[Footnote D: Law of La. Martin's Digest, 610.]\n\n\n[Footnote E: Law of La. Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12.]\n\nWe now proceed to examine various objections which will doubtless be set\nin array against all the foregoing conclusions.\n\n\nOBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\n\nThe advocates of slavery find themselves at their wits end in pressing\nthe Bible into their service. Every movement shows them hard-pushed.\nTheir ever-varying shifts, their forced constructions, and blind\nguesswork, proclaim both their _cause_ desperate, and themselves. The\nBible defences thrown around slavery by professed ministers of the\nGospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical facts it\nwere hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy,\npredominates in the compound; each strives so lustily for the mastery it\nmay be set down a drawn battle. How often has it been bruited that the\ncolor of the negro is the _Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Cain's\nposterity started an opposition to the ark, forsooth, and rode out the\nflood with flying streamers! Why should not a miracle be wrought to\npoint such an argument, and fill out for slaveholders a Divine\ntitle-deed, vindicating the ways of God to man?\n\n\n\nOBJECTION 1. \"Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto\nhis brethren.\" Gen. ix. 25.\n\nThis prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ of slaveholders, and they\nnever venture abroad without it; it is a pocket-piece for sudden\noccasion, a keepsake to dote over, a charm to spell-bind opposition, and\na magnet to draw around their standard \"whatsoever worketh abomination\nor maketh a lie.\" But \"cursed be Canaan\" is a poor drug to ease a\nthrobbing conscience--a mocking lullaby, to unquiet tossings, and vainly\ncrying \"Peace be still,\" where God wakes war, and breaks his thunders.\nThose who justify negro slavery by the curse of Canaan, _assume_ all the\npoints in debate. (1.) That _slavery_ was prophesied rather than mere\n_service_ to others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_\nsubjection and tribute. (2.) That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_\nit; at least absolving those whose crimes fulfill it, if not\ntransforming the crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharoahs might\nhave quoted the prophecy _\"Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that\nis not theirs, and they shall afflict there four hundred years.\"_ And\nthen, what _saints_ were those that crucified the Lord of glory! (3.)\nThat the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa was peopled\nfrom Egypt and Ethiopia, and they were settled by Mizraim and Cush. For\nthe location and boundaries of Canaan's posterity, see Gen. x. 15-19. So\na prophecy of evil to one people, is quoted to justify its infliction\nupon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes all Ham's\nposterity. If so, the prophecy is yet unfulfilled. The other sons of Ham\nsettled Egypt and Assyria, and, conjointly with Shem, Persia, and\nafterward, to some extent, the Grecian and Roman empires. The history of\nthese nations gives no verification of the prophecy. Whereas, the\nhistory of Canaan's descendants for more than three thousand years,\nrecords its fulfilment. First, they were put to tribute by the\nIsraelites; then by the Medes and Persians; then by the Macedonians,\nGrecians and Romans, successively; and finally, were subjected by the\nOttoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan has been for ages\nthe servant mainly of Shem and Japhet, and secondarily of the other sons\nof Ham. It may still be objected, that though Canaan alone is _named_ in\nthe curse, yet the 23d and 24th verses show the posterity of Ham in\ngeneral to be meant. \"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness\nof his father, and told his two brethren without.\" \"And Noah awoke from\nhis wine, and knew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said,\"\n&c. It is argued that this \"_younger_ son\" can not be _Canaan_, as he\nwas the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham._ We answer,\nwhoever that \"_younger son_\" was, _Canaan_ alone was named in the curse.\nBesides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any_ of\n_one_ the posterity of an individual. \"_Know ye Laban the SON of\nNahor?_\" Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxix. 5. \"_Mephibosheth\nthe SON of Saul_.\" 2 Sam. xix. 24. Mephibosheth was the _grandson_ of\nSaul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. \"_There is a SON born to Naomi._\" Ruth iv. 17. This\nwas the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. \"_Let seven men of\nhis (Saul's) SONS be delivered unto us._\" 2 Sam. xxi. 6. Seven of Saul's\n_grandsons_ were delivered up. \"_Laban rose up and kissed his SONS._\"\nGen. xxi. 55. These were his _grandsons_. \"_The driving of Jehu the SON\nof Nimshi._\" 2 Kings ix. 20. Jehu was the _grandson_ of Nimshi. Shall we\nforbid the inspired writer to use the _same_ word when speaking of\n_Noah's_ grandson? Further; Ham was not the \"_younger_\" son. The order\nof enumeration makes him the _second_ son. If it be said that Bible\nusage varies, the order of birth not always being observed in\nenumerations, the reply is, that, enumeration in that order is the\n_rule_, in any other order the _exception_. Besides, if a younger member\nof a family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is\na mark of pre-eminence, either in endowments, or providential\ninstrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest\nbrother, stands first in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history\nshows him pre-eminent; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkatan_ rendered \"the\n_younger_,\" means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. xl.\n22. \"_A LITTLE ONE shall become a thousand_.\" Isa. xxii. 24. \"_All\nvessels of SMALL quantity_.\" Ps. cxv. 13. \"_He will bless them that fear\nthe Lord both SMALL and great_.\" Ex. xviii. 22. \"_But every SMALL matter\nthey shall judge_.\" It would be a literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if\nit were translated thus. \"When Noah knew what his little son[A], or\ngrandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) had done unto him, he said cursed be Canaan,\"\n&c. Further, even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the\nassumption that their enslavement fulfils this prophecy, lacks even\nplausibility, for, only a _fraction_ of the Africans have at any time\nbeen the slaves of other nations. If the objector say in reply, that a\nlarge majority of the Africans have always been slaves _at home_, we\nanswer: _It is false in point of fact_, though zealously bruited often\nto serve a turn; and _if it were true_, how does it help the argument?\nThe prophecy was, \"Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be\n_unto his_ BRETHREN,\" not unto _himself_!\n\n[Footnote A: The French follows the same analogy; _grandson_ being\n_petit fils_ (little son.)]\n\n\n\nOBJECTION II.--\"If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and\nhe die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if\nhe continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his\nmoney.\" Ex. xxi. 20, 21. What was the design of this regulation? Was it\nto grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity, and an\nassurance, that if they beat them to death, the offense shall not be\n_capital_? This is substantially what commentators tell us. What Deity\ndo such men worship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human\nhecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered from\nSinai's flames, \"THOU SHALT NOT KILL,\" offer a bounty on _murder_?\nWhoever analyzes the Mosaic system, will find a moot court in session,\ntrying law points--settling definitions, or laying down rules of\nevidence, in almost every chapter. Num. xxxv. 10-22; Deut. xi. 11, and\nxix. 4-6; Lev. xxiv. 19-22; Ex. xxi. 18, 19, are a few, out of many\ncases stated, with tests furnished the judges by which to detect _the\nintent_, in actions brought before them. Their ignorance of judicial\nproceedings, laws of evidence, &c., made such instructions necessary.\nThe detail gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable them\nto get at the _motive_ and find out whether the master _designed_ to\nkill. (1.) \"If a man smite his servant with a _rod_.\"--The instrument\nused, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num. xxxv. 16, 18. A _rod_, not\nan axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon--hence,\nfrom the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_ would be inferred;\nfor _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_ for its weapon. But\nif the servant die _under his hand_, then the unfitness of the\ninstrument, is point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_\nuntil he _dies_, argues a great many blows and great violence, and this\nkept up to the death-gasp, showed an _intent to kill_. Hence \"He shall\n_surely_ be punished.\" But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length\nof time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and\nthe master's pecuniary interest in his _life_, (\"he is his _money_,\")\nall made a strong case of circumstantial evidence, showing that the\nmaster did not design to kill. Further, the word _nakam_, here rendered\n_punished_, is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it occurs\nthirty-five times in the Old Testament, and in almost every place is\ntranslated \"_avenge_,\" in a few, \"_to take vengeance_,\" or \"_to\nrevenge_,\" and in this instance ALONE, \"_punish_.\" As it stands in our\ntranslation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_, whereas\nit should refer to the _crime_, and the word rendered _punished_, should\nhave been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: If a man smite his\nservant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, IT (the\ndeath) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avenging it shall be\navenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be _avenged_ by the\n_death_ of the master. So in the next verse, \"If he continue a day or\ntwo,\" his death is not to be avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as\nin that case the crime was to be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not\n_murder_. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is\nstated, for which the injurer is to pay a _sum of money_; and yet our\ntranslators employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance\nof deliberate, wanton, killing by piecemeal. The other, an accidental,\nand comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they\nsay the same thing! \"He shall surely be punished.\" Now, just the\ndiscrimination to be looked for where God legislates, is marked in the\noriginal. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, He says, \"It\n(the death) shall surely be _avenged_,\" that is, the life of the wrong\ndoer shall expiate the crime. The same word is used in the Old\nTestament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the\nperpetrators to _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury,\nin the following verse, God says, \"He shall surely be _fined_,\"\n(_Aunash_.) \"He shall _pay_ as the judges determine.\" The simple meaning\nof the word _anash_, is to lay a fine. It is used in Deut. xxii. 19:\n\"They shall amerce him in one hundred shekels,\" and in 2 Chron. xxxvi.\n3: \"He condemned (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of gold.\"\nThat _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor\nstripes, nor a fine, but that it was _taking the master's life_ we\ninfer, (1.) From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. See Gen. iv. 24; Josh.\nx. 13; Judg. xiv. 7; xvi. 28; I Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25; xxv. 31; 2 Sam.\niv. 8; Judg. v. 2: I Sam. xxv. 26-33. (2.) From the express statute,\nLev. xxiv. 17; \"He that killeth ANY man shall surely be put to death.\"\nAlso Num. xxxv. 30, 31: \"Whoso killeth ANY person, the murderer shall be\nput to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a\nmurderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.\"\n(3.) The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, \"Death by the sword\nshall surely be adjudged.\" The Targum of Jerusalem. \"Vengeance shall be\ntaken for him to the _uttermost_.\" Jarchi, the same. The Samaritan\nversion: \"He shall die the death,\" Again the clause \"for he is his\nmoney,\" is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's property,\nand therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished. The\nassumption is, that the phrase, \"HE IS HIS MONEY.\" proves not only that\nthe servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an _article\nof property_. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking the\nprinciple of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose, let\nthem stand and draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one\npoint, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be too\nlate to cry for quarter when its stroke clears the table, and tilts them\namong the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as\nthe following: \"This (bread) is my body;\" \"this (wine) _is_ my blood;\"\n\"all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass and tin;\" \"this (water) _is_ the\nblood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;\" \"the Lord God\n_is_ a sun and a shield;\" \"God _is_ love;\" \"the seven good ears _are_\nseven years, and the seven good kine _are_ seven years;\" \"the tree of\nthe field _is_ man's life;\" \"God _is_ a consuming fire;\" \"he _is_ his\nmoney,\" &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_ of the Bible is so\namiable, it were hard not to gratify it in this case. The words in the\noriginal are (_Kaspo-hu_,) \"his _silver_ is he.\" The objector's\nprinciple of interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its miracle touch\ntransmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into _solid\nsilver!_ Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with\nall--reasoning against \"_forever_,\" is forestalled henceforth, and,\nDeut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase,\n\"_He is his money_,\" is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since,\nif the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his\npocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the\nfact of his living some time after the injury_, (if the master _meant_\nto kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all together\nmake a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master of\n_intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One\nis, that as the master might dispose of his _property_ as he pleased, he\nwas not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died\nunder the master's hand, or after a day or two, he was _equally_ his\nproperty, and the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is\nto be \"surely punished\" for destroying _his own property!_ The other\ninference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the\nmaster of _intent to kill_, the loss of the slave would be a sufficient\npunishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This\ninference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A _pecuniary\nloss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ of\nanother. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum. God\nwould not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. \"Ye\nshall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he shall\nsurely be put to death.\" Num. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable homicide,\nwhere an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money\navailed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until the\ndeath of the High Priest. Numb. xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of\nthe servant would be a penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master,\nadmits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ punishment, and it\nprescribes a kind of punishment, rejected by the law in all cases where\nman took the life of man, whether with or without the intent to kill. In\nshort, the objector annuls an integral part of the system--makes a _new_\nlaw, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine\nlegislation revised and improved! The master who struck out his\nservant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him\nfree. The _pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though he had\nkilled him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so that he\ndies of his wounds; another accidentally strikes out his servant's\ntooth,--_the pecuniary loss of both cases is the same_. If the loss of\nthe slave's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing\nhim, would _God_ command the _same_ punishment for the _accidental_\nknocking out of a _tooth?_ Indeed, unless the injury was done\n_inadvertantly_, the loss of the servant's services was only a _part_ of\nthe punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the\n_main_ punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the\n_community_. To set the servant free, and thus proclaim his injury, his\nright to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the ends of\n_public_ justice. The law made an example of the offender. That \"those\nthat remain might hear and fear.\" \"If a man cause a blemish in his\nneighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for\nbreach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as\nwell for the STRANGER as for one of your own country.\" Lev xxiv. 19, 20,\n22. Finally, if a master smote out his servant's tooth the law smote out\n_his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it cancelled the\nservant's obligation to the master, thus giving some compensation for\nthe injury done, and exempting him form perilous liabilities in future.\n\n\n\nOBJECTION III. \"Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have\nshall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy\nbondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the stranger that do\nsojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are\nwith you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your\npossessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance of your children\nfrom you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen\nforever.\" Lev, xxv. 44-46.\n\nThe _points_ in these verses urged as proof, that the Mosaic system\nsanctioned slavery, are 1. The word \"BONDMEN.\" 2. \"BUY.\" 3. \"INHERITANCE\nAND POSSESSION.\" and 4. \"FOREVER.\"\n\nThe _buying_ of servants was discussed, pp. 17-22, and holding them as a\n\"possession.\" pp. 37-46. We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery\nis derivable from the terms \"bondmen,\" \"inheritance,\" and \"forever.\"\n\n1. \"BONDMEN.\" The fact that servants from the heathen are called\n\"_bondmen_,\" while others are called \"_servants_,\" is quoted as proof\nthat the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' translators\nwere not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The word\nhere rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere. The\nHebrew word \"_ebedh_,\" the plural of which is here translated \"bondmen,\"\nis in Isa. xlii. 1, applied to Christ. \"Behold my _servant_ (bondman,\nslave?) whom I have chosen.\" So Isa. lii. 13. \"Behold my _servant_\n(Christ) shall deal prudently.\" In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, to _King\nRehoboam_. \"And they spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_\nunto this people, then they will be thy _servants_ forever.\" In 2 Chron.\nxii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation. In fine, the word is\napplied to _all_ persons doing service for others--to magistrates, to\nall governmental officers, to tributaries, to all the subjects of\ngovernments, to younger sons--defining their relation to the first born,\nwho is called _Lord_ and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah,\nand in respectful addresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old\nTestament.\n\nIf the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if\nAbraham had thousands and if they _abounded_ under the Mosaic system,\nwhy had their language _no word_ that _meant slave_? That language must\nbe wofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the most\ncommon and familiar objects and conditions. To represent by the same\nword, and without figure, property, and the owner of that property, is a\nsolecism. Ziba was an \"_ebedh_,\" yet he \"_owned_\" (!) twenty _ebedhs_!\nIn our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we\nhave both the _things_ and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a\nsheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but\nour dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_.\nBut the objector asks, \"Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_\nif they spoke of the slave of a heathen?\" Answer. Their _national_\nservants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently, but domestic servants\nso rarely that no necessity existed, even if they were slaves, for\ncoining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics, under\n_heathen laws and usages_ proclaimed their _liabilities_, their\n_locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had\nnot only _servants_, but a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning\nslave_, would have been indispensable for every day convenience.\nFurther, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on the\noutposts to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was\nquarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in usages\nbetween the without and the within.\n\n2. \"FOREVER.\" This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during\ntheir life time, and their posterity from generation to generation. No\nsuch idea is contained in the passage. The word \"forever,\" instead of\ndefining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of\nthe regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their\n_permanent domestics_ should be of the Strangers, and not of the\nIsraelites: it declares the duration of that general provision. As if\nGod had said, \"You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers from the\nnations round about you--your servants shall always be of that class of\npersons.\" As it stands in the original it is plain--\"Forever of them\nshall ye serve yourselves.\" This is the literal rendering.\n\nThat \"_forever_\" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_,\nrather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from\nthe form of the expression, \"Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the\n_heathen_. Of THEM shall ye buy,\" &c. \"THEY shall be your possession.\"\nTo say nothing of the uncertainty of _those individuals_ surviving those\n_after_ whom they are to live, the language used, applies more naturally\nto a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants. Besides\n_perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_. The ninth\nand tenth verses of the same chapter, limit it absolutely by the\njubilee. \"Then thou shalt cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound * *\nthroughout ALL your land.\" \"And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout all\nthe land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof.\" It may be objected that\n\"inhabitants\" here means _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command\nis, \"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants\nthereof_.\" Besides, in the sixth verse, there is an enumeration of the\ndifferent classes of the inhabitants, in which servants and Strangers\nare included; and in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the\nsabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the precepts,\nprohibitions, and promises. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in,\nby the day of atonement. What did these institutions show forth? The day\nof atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of\njubilee, the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a\njubilee to Jews only? Were they types of sins remitted, and of salvation\nproclaimed to the nation of Israel alone? Is there no redemption for us\nGentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and\nimpiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock, that made earth\nquake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple\nveil? and did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition\nfrom its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of our\nsalvation lives \"Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people.\" One\nshout shall swell from all the ransomed, \"Thou hast redeemed us unto God\nby thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.\"\nTo deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants from\nthe _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. It not only eclipses the\nglory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusal to release\nservants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a grand leading type\nof the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of Christ's\nredemption. Finally, even if _forever_ did refer to _individual_\nservice, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee.\nThe same word defines the length of time which _Jewish_ servants served\nwho did not go out in the _seventh_ year. And all admit that they went\nout at the jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17. The 23d verse of the\nsame chapter is quoted to prove that \"_forever_\" in the 46th verse,\nextends beyond the jubilee. \"The land shall not be sold FOREVER, for the\nland is mine\"--since it would hardly be used in different senses in the\nsame general connection. As _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the\n_general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does\nnot touch the argument. Besides in the 46th verse, the word used, is\n_Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas\nin the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_.\n\n3. \"INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION,\" \"Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE\nfor your children after you to inherit them for a possession.\" This\nrefers to the _nations_, and not to the _individual_ servants, procured\nfrom these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be\nheld as a _property_-possession, and inheritance; that they became\nservants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages; that they were\nreleased by law from their regular labor nearly _half the days in each\nyear_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were _protected_\nin all their personal, social and religious rights, equally with their\nmasters &c. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be\nsmall temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable\n\"possession\" and \"inheritance,\" truly! What if our American slaves were\nall placed in _just such a condition_ Alas, for that soft, melodious\ncircumlocution, \"Our PECULIAR species of property!\" Verily, emphasis\nwould be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together!  What eager\nsnatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection,\nprinciples of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by\nother passages--and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing\nusages, thus making God pander for lust. The words _nahal_ and _nahala_,\ninherit and inheritance by no means necessarily signify _articles of\nproperty_. \"The people answered the king and said, we have none\n_inheritance_ in the son of Jesse.\" 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they moan\ngravely to disclaim the holding of their kin; as an article of\n_property_? \"Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord.\" Ps.\ncxxvii. 3. \"Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_.\"\nEx. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children,\ndoes he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and\nchattel-making, synonymes? \"Thy testimonies have I taken as a\n_heritage_\" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. \"_I_ am their _inheritance_.\"\nEzek. xliv. 28. \"I will give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_.\"\nPs. ii. 8. \"For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he\nforsake his _inheritance_.\" Ps. xciv 14. see also Deut. iv. 20; Josh.\nxiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question\nwhether the servants were a PROPERTY-\"_possession_,\" has been already\ndiscussed--pp. 37-46--we need add in this place but a word, _ahuzza_\nrendered \"_possession_.\" \"And Joseph placed his father and his brethren,\nand gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt.\" Gen. xlii. 11. In\nwhat sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the\nsense of _having it to live in_. In what sense were the Israelites to\n_possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their\nchildren_? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply\nfor domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations\nwas to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the\ncertainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the\nwhole regulation may be given thus: \"Thy permanent domestics, which thou\nshalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of _them_\nshall ye get male and female domestics.\" \"Moreover of the children of\nthe foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_ shall ye get, and of\ntheir families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and\n_they_ shall be your permanent resource.\" \"And ye shall take them as a\n_perpetual_ provision for your children after you, to hold as a\n_constant source of supply_. Always _of them_ shall ye serve\nyourselves.\" The design of the passage is manifest from its structure.\nIt was to point out the _class_ of persons from which they were to get\ntheir supply of servants, and the _way_ in which they were to get them.\n\n\n\nOBJECTION IV. \"If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and\nbe sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a BOND-SERVANT,\nbut as an HIRED-SERVANT, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee, and\nshall serve thee unto the year of jubilee.\" Lev. xxv. 39, 40.\n\nAs only _one_ class is called \"_hired_,\" it is inferred that servants of\nthe _other_ class were _not paid_ for their labor. That God, with\nthundering anathemas against those who \"used their neighbor's service\nwithout wages,\" granted a special indulgence to his chosen people to\nforce others to work, and rob them of earnings, provided always, in\nselecting their victims, they spared \"the gentlemen of property and\nstanding,\" and pounced only upon the strangers and the common people.\nThe inference that \"_hired_\" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those\nservants not _called_ \"hired\" were not _paid_ for their labor, is a mere\nassumption. The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is to procure for\na _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to temporary\nservice for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word\n\"_saukar_.\" It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service\nis spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who\nconstituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the\nsame term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinction on\nthis subject, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics\nperform only the _regular_ work. Whatever is occasional merely, as the\nwashing of a family, is done by persons hired expressly for the purpose.\nThe familiar distinction between the two classes, is \"servants,\" and\n\"hired help,\" (not _paid_ help.) _Both classes are paid_. One is\npermanent, the other occasional and temporary, and therefore in this\ncase called \"_hired_[A].\"\n\n[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is\nnot called a _hired_ servant is profound induction! If I employ a man at\ntwelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my \"_hired_\" man, but if\n_I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he works\nmy farm \"_on shares_,\" every farmer knows that he is no longer called my\n\"_hired_\" man. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same\ntime, and with the same teams and tools; and does the same amount of\nwork in the year, and perhaps earns twenty dollars a month, instead of\ntwelve. Now as he is no longer called \"_hired_,\" and as he still works\nmy farm, suppose my neighbours sagely infer, that since he is not my\n\"_hired_\" laborer, I _rob_ him of his earnings and with all the gravity\nof owls, pronounce the oracular decision, and hoot it abroad. My\nneighbors are deep divers!--like some theological professors, they not\nonly go to the bottom but come up covered with the tokens.]\n\nA variety of particulars are recorded distinguishing _hired_ from\n_bought_ servants. (1.) Hired servants were paid daily at the close of\ntheir work. Lev. xix 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. 2; Matt. xx. 8.\n\"_Bought_\" servants were paid in advance, (a reason for their being\ncalled _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh year received a\n_gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. (2.) The \"hired\" were paid _in money_, the\n\"bought\" received their _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the\nproduct of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The \"hired\" _lived_ in their\nown families, the \"bought\" were part of their masters' families. (4.)\nThe \"hired\" supported their families out of their wages: the \"bought\"\nand their families were supported by the master _besides_ their wages.\nThe \"bought\" servants were, _as a class, superior to the hired_--were\nmore trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied a higher station\nin society. (1.) They were intimately incorporated with the family of\nthe masters, were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities,\nfrom which hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Ex. xii, 43, 45.\n(2.) Their interests were far more identified with those of their\nmasters' family. They were often, actually or prospectively, heirs of\ntheir masters' estates, as in the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, and the sons\nof Bilhah and Zilpah. When there were no sons, or when they were\nunworthy, bought servants were made heirs. Prov. xvii. 2. We find traces\nof this usage in the New Testament. \"But when the husbandmen saw him,\nthey reasoned among themselves, saying, this is the _heir_, come let us\nkill him, _that the inheritance may be ours._\" Luke xx. 14. In no\ninstance does a _hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.)\nMarriages took place between servants and their master's daughters.\nSheshan had a _servant_, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan\ngave his daughter to Jarha his servant to wife. 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35.\nThere is no instance of a _hired_ servant forming such an alliance. (4.)\nBought servants and their descendants were treated with the same\naffection and respect as the other members of the family.[A]. The\ntreatment of Abraham's servants, Gen. xxv.--the intercourse between\nGideon and his servant, Judg. vii. 10, 11; Saul and his servant, 1 Sam.\niv. 5, 22; Jonathan and his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and\nhis servant, are illustrations. No such tie seems to have existed\nbetween _hired_ servants and their masters. Their untrustworthiness was\nproverbial. John ix. 12, 13. None but the _lowest class_ engaged as\nhired servants, and the kinds of labor assigned to them required little\nknowledge and skill. Various passages show the low repute and trifling\ncharacter of the class from which they were hired. Judg. ix. 4; 1 Sam.\nii. 5. The superior condition of bought servants is manifest in the high\ntrusts confided to them, and in their dignity and authority in the\nhousehold. In no instance is a _hired_ servant thus distinguished. The\n_bought_ servant is manifestly the master's representative in the\nfamily--with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even\nnegotiating marriage for them. Abraham adjured his servant not to take a\nwife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites. The servant himself\nselected the individual. Servants also exercised discretionary power in\nthe management of their masters' estates, \"And the servant took ten\ncamels of the camels of his master, _for all the goods of his master\nwere under his hand_.\" Gen. xxiv. 10. The reason assigned for taking\nthem, is not that such was Abraham's direction, but that the servant had\ndiscretionary control. Servants had also discretionary power in the\n_disposal of property_. See Gen. xxiv. 22, 23, 53. The condition of Ziba\nin the house of Mephibosheth, is a case in point. So in Prov. xvii. 2.\nDistinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New Testament,\nMatt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii, 42, 44. So in the parable of the talents; the\nmaster seems to have set up each of his servants in trade with a large\ncapital. The unjust steward had large _discretionary_ power, was\n\"accused of wasting his master's goods,\" and manifestly regulated with\nhis debtors, the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8. Such trusts were\nnever reposed in _hired_ servants.\n\n[Footnote A: \"For the _purchased servant_ who is an Israelite, or\nproselyte, shall fare as his master. The master shall not eat fine\nbread, and his servant bread of bran. Nor yet drink old wine, and give\nhis servant new; nor sleep on soft pillows, and bedding, and his servant\non straw. I say unto you, that he that gets a _purchased_ servant does\nwell to make him as his friend, or he will prove to his employer as if\nhe got himself a master.\"--Maimonides, in Mishna Kiddushim. Chap. 1,\nSec. 2.]\n\nThe inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is illustrated in the\nparable of the prodigal son. When the prodigal, perishing with hunger\namong the swine and husks, came to himself, his proud heart broke; \"I\nwill arise,\" he cried, \"and go to my father.\" And then to assure his\nfather of the depth of his humility, resolved to add, \"Make me as one of\nthy _hired_ servants.\" If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ class--to\napply for the situation, savored little of that sense of unworthiness\nthat seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries \"unclean.\" Unhumbled\nnature _climbs_; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may.\nHumility sinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower.\nThe design of the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy of\nGod, as he beholds afar off, the returning sinner \"seeking an injured\nfather's face\" who runs to clasp and bless him with unchiding welcome;\nand on the other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with\ntears from his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its\nill-desert he sobs aloud. \"The lowest place, _the lowest place_, I can\nabide no other.\" Or in those inimitable words, \"Father I have sinned\nagainst Heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy\nson; make me as one of thy HIRED servants.\" The supposition that _hired_\nservants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of\nwinning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of\nthe Bible, that _one_ class of servants, was on terms of equality with\nthe children and other members of the family. (Hence the force of Paul's\ndeclaration, Gal. iv. 1, \"Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as\nhe is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be lord of\nall.\") If this were the _hired_ class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen\nof humility. Would our Lord have put such language upon the lips of one\nheld up by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its\ndeep sense of an ill-desert? If this is _humility_, put it on stilts,\nand set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in\napeing it.\n\nIsraelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of\nthe servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former\nclass, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the\nfamily circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been\nshown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,\nmerely _political_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more\nfavored than even the bought servants from the _Strangers_. No one from\nthe Strangers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the\nhighest office, nor could he own the soil. This last disability seems to\nhave been one reason for the different periods of service required of\nthe two classes of bought servants--the Israelites and the Strangers.\nThe Israelite was to serve six years--the Stranger until the jubilee. As\nthe Strangers could not own the soil, nor even houses, except within\nwalled towns, most would attach themselves to Israelitish families.\nThose who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming\nservants would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for\nthe Stranger's to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than\npersons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy\nStrangers would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants.\nLev. xxv. 47. In a word, such was the political condition of the\nStrangers, that the Jewish polity offered a virtual bounty, to such as\nwould become permanent servants, and thus secure those privileges\nalready enumerated, and for their children in the second generation a\npermanent inheritance. Ezek. xlvii. 21-23. None but the monied\naristocracy would be likely to decline such offers. On the other hand,\nthe Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land being a\nsacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance was with every\nIsraelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and personal\ncharacter. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the control of one's\ninheritance, after the division of the paternal domain, or to be kept\nout of it after having acceded to it, was a burden grievous to be borne.\nTo mitigate as much as possible such a calamity, the law released the\nIsraelitish servant at the end of six years[A]; as, during that time--if\nof the first class--the partition of the patrimonial land might have\ntaken place; or, if of the second, enough money might have been earned\nto disencumber his estate, and thus he might assume his station as a\nlord of the soil. If neither contingency had occurred, then after\nanother six years the opportunity was again offered, and so on, until\nthe jubilee. So while strong motives urged the Israelite to discontinue\nhis service as soon as the exigency had passed which made him a servant,\nevery consideration impelled the _Stranger_ to _prolong_ his term of\nservice; and the same kindness which dictated the law of six years'\nservice for the Israelite, assigned as a general rule, a much longer\nperiod to the Gentile servant, who had every inducement to protract the\nterm. It should be borne in mind, that adult Jews ordinarily became\nservants, only as a temporary expedient to relieve themselves from\nembarrassment, and ceased to be such when that object was effected. The\npoverty that forced them to it was a calamity, and their service was\neither a means of relief, or a measure of prevention; not pursued as a\npermanent business, but resorted to on emergencies--a sort of episode in\nthe main scope of their lives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a\n_permanent employment_, pursued both as a _means_ of bettering their own\ncondition, and that of their posterity, and as an _end_ for its own\nsake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not\notherwise attainable.\n\n[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until the\nseventh year, seems to have been the coincidence of that period with\nother arrangements, in the Jewish economy. Its pecuniary\nresponsibilities, social relations, and general internal structure, were\n_graduated_ upon a septennial scale. Besides as those Israelites who\nbecame servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, till other\nexpedients to recruit their finances had failed--(Lev. xxv. 35)--their\n_becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as\ndemanded the labor of a _course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]\n\nWe see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are\ncalled by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_,) (1.) They\nfollowed it as a _permanent business_. (2.) Their term of service was\n_much longer_ than that of the other class. (3.) As a class they\ndoubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. (4.) All the\nStrangers that dwelt in the land were _tributaries_, required to pay an\nannual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service,\n(called a \"_tribute of land-service_;\") in other words, all the\nStrangers were _national servants_ to the Israelites, and the same\nHebrew word used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates\n_national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14. 2 Chron.\nviii. 7-9. Deut xx. 11. 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. 1 Kings iv.\n21. Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when\nthey paid tribute to other nations. 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judg. iii. 8, 14.\nGen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought\nservants, was in their _kinds_ of service. The servants from the\nStrangers were properly the _domestics_, or household servants, employed\nin all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and in such\nmechanical labor, as was required by increasing wants, and needed\nrepairs. The Jewish bought servants seem almost exclusively\n_agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for it by previous\nhabits--agriculture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the\nIsraelites as the most honorable of all occupations. After Saul was\nelected king, and escorted to Gibeah, the next report of him is, \"_And\nbehold Saul came after the herd out of the field_.\" 1 Sam. xi. 7. Elisha\n\"was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen.\" 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah\n\"loved husbandry.\" 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon _was \"threshing wheat_\"\nwhen called to lead the host against the Midianites. Judg. vi. 11. The\nsuperior honorableness of agriculture, is shown, in that it was\nprotected and supported by the fundamental law of the theocracy--God\nindicating it as the chief prop of the government. The Israelites were\nlike permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they cling to it. To be\nagriculturalists on their own inheritances, was with them the grand\nclaim to honorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a\n_Jewish_ employment, to assign a native Israelite to other employments\nas a business, was to break up his habits, do violence to cherished\npredilections, and put him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill,\nand which he deemed degrading. In short, it was in the earlier ages of\nthe Mosaic system, practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigor\ngrievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between\nthe descendants of Abraham and the Strangers.--_To guard this and\nanother fundamental distinction_, God instituted the regulation which\nstands at the head of this branch of our inquiry, \"If thy brother that\ndwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not\ncompel him to serve as a bond-servant.\" In other words, thou shalt not\nput him to servant's work--to the business, and into the condition of\ndomestics. In the Persian version it is translated thus, \"Thou shalt not\nassign to him the work of _servitude_.\" In the Septuagint, \"He shall not\nserve thee with the service of a _domestic_.\" In the Syriac, \"Thou shalt\nnot employ him after the manner of servants.\" In the Samaritan, \"Thou\nshalt not require him to serve in the service of a servant.\" In the\nTargum of Onkelos, \"He shall not serve thee with the service of a\nhousehold servant.\" In the Targum of Jonathan, \"Thou shalt not cause him\nto serve according to the usages of the servitude of servants.\"[A] The\nmeaning of the passage is, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade,\nnor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics._ The\nremainder of the regulation is,--\"_But as an hired servant and as a\nsojourner shall he be with thee._\" Hired servants were not incorporated\ninto the families of their masters: they still retained their own family\norganization, without the surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or\nauthority; and this even though they resided under the same roof with\ntheir master. While bought servants were associated with their master's\nfamilies at meals, at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired\nservants and sojourners were not. Ex. xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11.\nHired servants were not subject to the authority of their masters in any\nsuch sense as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence\nthe only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures\nas practicable to masters, is that _of keeping back their wages_. To\nhave taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, would\nhave been pre-eminent \"_rigor_,\" for it was not a servant born in the\nhouse of a master, not a minor, whose minority had been sold by the\nfather, neither was it one who had not yet acceded to his inheritance:\nnor finally, one who had received the _assignment_ of his inheritance,\nbut was working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its\npossession and control. But it was that of _the head of a family_, who\nhad known better days, now reduced to poverty, forced to relinquish the\nloved inheritance of his fathers, with the competence and respectful\nconsideration its possession secured to him, and to be indebted to a\nneighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment. So sad a reverse,\nmight well claim sympathy; but one consolation cheers him in the house\nof his pilgrimage; he is an _Israelite--Abraham is his father_, and now\nin his calamity he clings closer than ever, to the distinction conferred\nby his birth-right. To rob him of this, were \"the unkindest cut of all.\"\nTo have assigned him to a grade of service filled only by those whose\npermanent business was serving, would have been to \"rule over him with\"\npeculiar \"rigor.\" \"Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a\nbond-servant,\" or literally, _thou shalt not serve thyself with him,\nwith the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and\na kind and grade of service, comporting with his character and relations\nas an Israelite. And \"as a _hired_ servant, and as a sojourner shall he\nbe with thee,\" secures to him his family organization, the respect and\nauthority due to its head, and the general consideration resulting from\nsuch a station. Being already in possession of his inheritance, and the\nhead of a household, the law so arranged the conditions of his service\nas to _alleviate_ as much as possible the calamity, which had reduced\nhim from independence and authority, to penury and subjection. The\nimport of the command which concludes this topic in the forty-third\nverse, (\"Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor,\") is manifestly this,\nyou shall not disregard those differences in previous associations,\nstation, authority, and political privileges, upon which this regulation\nis based; for to hold this class of servants _irrespective_ of these\ndistinctions, and annihilating them, is to \"rule with rigor.\" The same\ncommand is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the\ndistinction between servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction,\nand forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, the\ndisregard of which would be _rigorous_ in the extreme[B]. The\nconstruction commonly put upon the phrase \"rule with rigor,\" and the\ninference drawn from it, have an air vastly oracular. It is interpreted\nto mean, \"you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him of legal\nprotection, nor force him to work without pay.\" The inference is like\nunto it, viz., since the command forbade such outrages upon the\nIsraelites, it permitted and commissioned their infliction upon the\nStrangers. Such impious and shallow smattering captivates scoffers and\nlibertines; its flippancy and blasphemy, and the strong scent of its\nloose-reined license works like a charm upon them. What boots it to\nreason against such rampant affinities! In Ex. i. 13, it is said that\nthe Egyptians \"made the children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor.\" This\nrigor is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted and the _mode_ of\nthe exaction. The expression, \"serve with rigor,\" is never applied to\nthe service of servants under the Mosaic system. The phrase, \"thou shalt\nnot RULE over him with rigor,\" does not prohibit unreasonable exactions\nof labor, nor inflictions of cruelty. Such were provided against\notherwise. But it forbids confounding the distinctions between a Jew and\na Stranger, by assigning the former to the same grade of service, for\nthe same term of time, and under the same political disabilities as the\nlatter.\n\n[Footnote A:  Jarchi's comment on \"Thou shall not compel him to serve as\na bond-servant\" is, \"The Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any\nthing which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personal\nattendance, as loosing his master's shoe-latchet, bringing him water to\nwash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying\nthings to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his\nmaster as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor,\nuntil his legal release.\"]\n\n\n[Footnote B: The disabilities of the Strangers, which were distinctions,\nbased on a different national descent, and important to the preservation\nof national characteristics, and a national worship, did not at all\naffect their _social_ estimation. They were regarded according to their\ncharacter, and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin,\nemployments, and political condition.]\n\n\n\nWe are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the\ndifferent classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each\nclass. In the possession of all fundamental rights, all classes of\nservants were on an absolute equality, all were equally protected by law\nin their persons, character, property and social relations; all were\nvoluntary, all were compensated for their labor, and released from it\nnearly half of the days in each year; all were furnished with stated\ninstruction: none in either class were in any sense articles of\nproperty, all were regarded as _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes\nand destinies of _men_. In all these respects, _all_ classes of servants\namong the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS. The _different_ classes and\nthe differences in _each_ class, were, (1.) _Hired Servants._ This class\nconsisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were\ndifferent. The _Israelite_ was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was\na _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_;\nboth were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own families,\ntheir wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done.\n(2.) _Bought Servants_, (including those \"born in the house.\") This\nclass also, consisted of Israelites and Strangers, the same difference\nin their kinds of employments noticed before. Both were paid in\nadvance[A], and neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the\nexception of the _freeholders_ was released after six years. The\nstranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. A marked\ndistinction obtained also between different classes of _Jewish_ bought\nservants. Ordinarily, they were merged in their master's family, and,\nlike his wife and children, subject to his authority; (and, like them,\nprotected by law from its abuse.) But the _freeholder_ was a marked\nexception: his family relations, and authority remained unaffected, nor\nwas he subjected as an inferior to the control of his master, though\ndependent upon him for employment.\n\n[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, doubtless lessened the price of\nthe purchase; the servant thus having the use of the money, and the\nmaster assuming all the risks of life and health for labor: at the\nexpiration of the six year's contract, the master having suffered no\nloss from the risk incurred at the making of it, was obliged by law to\nrelease the servant with a liberal gratuity. The reason assigned for\nthis is, \"he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in serving\nthee six years,\" as if it had been said, as you have experienced no loss\nfrom the risks of life, and ability to labor, incurred in the purchase,\nand which lessened the price, and as, by being your servant for six\nyears, he has saved you the time and trouble of looking up and hiring\nlaborers on emergencies, therefore, \"thou shalt furnish him liberally,\"\n&c.]\n\nIt should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the\nIsraelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and\nreligious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed\nby those of their own people who were _not_ servants. They also shared\nin common with them the political disabilities which appertained to all\nStrangers, whether the servants of Jewish masters, or the masters of\nJewish servants. Further, the disabilities of the servants from the\nStrangers were exclusively _political_ and _national._ (1.) They, in\ncommon with all Strangers, could not own the soil. (2.) They were\nineligible to civil offices. (3.) They were assigned to employments less\nhonorable than those in which Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture\nbeing regarded as fundamental to the existence of the state, other\nemployments were in less repute, and deemed _unjewish._\n\nFinally, the Strangers, whether servants or masters, were all protected\nequally with the descendants of Abraham. In respect to political\nprivileges, their condition was much like that of naturalized foreigners\nin the United States; whatever their wealth or intelligence, or moral\nprinciple, or love for our institutions, they can neither go to the\nballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let a native\nAmerican, be suddenly bereft of these privilege, and loaded with the\ndisabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light\nmatter, to _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_. The recent condition\nof the Jews and Catholics in England, is another illustration.\nRothschild, the late banker, though the richest private citizen in the\nworld, and perhaps master of scores of English servants, who sued for\nthe smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the government,\ninferior to the lowest among them. Suppose an Englishman of the\nEstablished Church, were by law deprived of power to own the soil, of\neligibility to office and of the electoral franchise, would Englishmen\nthink it a misapplication of language, if it were said, the government\n\"rules over him with rigor?\" And yet his person, property, reputation,\nconscience, all his social relations, the disposal of his time, the\nright of locomotion at pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects,\nare just as much protected by law as the Lord Chancellor's.\n\n\n\nFINALLY,--As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, rife with\nmeaning in doctrine and duty; the practical power of the whole, depended\nupon the exact observance of those distinctions and relations which\nconstituted its significancy. Hence, the care to preserve serve\ninviolate the distinction between a _descendant of Abraham_ and a\n_Stranger_, even when the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the\ninitiatory ordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated\nwith the Israelites by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Ex.\nxxi. 2-6, is an illustration. In this case, the Israelitish servant,\nwhose term expired in six years, married one of his master's _permanent\nfemale domestics_; but her marriage, did not release her master from\n_his_ part of the contract for her whole term of service, nor from his\nlegal obligation to support and educate her children. Neither did it do\naway that distinction, which marked her national descent by a specific\n_grade_ and _term_ of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfill\n_her_ part of the contract. Her relations as a permanent domestic grew\nout of a distinction guarded with great care throughout the Mosaic\nsystem. To render it void, would have been to divide the system against\nitself. This God would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand, would he\npermit the master, to throw off the responsibility of instructing her\nchildren, nor the care and expense of their helpless infancy and\nrearing. He was bound to support and educate them, and all her children\nborn afterwards during her term of service. The whole arrangement\nbeautifully illustrates that wise and tender regard for the interests of\nall the parties concerned, which arrays the Mosaic system in robes of\nglory, and causes it to shine as the sun in the kingdom of our Father.\nBy this law, the children had secured to them a mother's tender care. If\nthe husband loved his wife and children, he could compel his master to\nkeep him, whether he had any occasion for his services or not. If he did\nnot love them, to be rid of him was a blessing; and in that case, the\nregulation would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted family. It\nis not by any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant in\nthe seventh year, either absolved him from the obligations of marriage,\nor shut him out from the society of his family. He could doubtless\nprocure a service at no great distance from them, and might often do it,\nto get higher wages, or a kind of employment better suited to his taste\nand skill. The great number of days on which the law released servants\nfrom regular labor, would enable him to spend much more time with his\nfamily, than can be spent by most of the agents of our benevolent\nsocieties with _their_ families, or by many merchants, editors, artists\n&c., whose daily business is in New York, while their families reside\nfrom ten to one hundred miles in the country.\n\n\n\nWe conclude this Inquiry by touching briefly upon an objection, which,\nthough not formally stated, has been already set aside by the whole\ntenor of the foregoing argument. It is this,--\"The slavery of the\nCanaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by God as a commutation of\nthe punishment of death denounced against them for their sins.\" If the\nabsurdity of a sentence consigning persons to _death_, and at the same\ntime to perpetual _slavery_, did not sufficiently laugh at itself, it\nwould be small self-denial, in a case so tempting, to make up the\ndeficiency by a general contribution. For, _be it remembered_, only\n_one_ statute was ever given respecting the disposition to be made of\nthe inhabitants of Canaan. If the sentence of death was pronounced\nagainst them, and afterwards _commuted_, when? where? by whom? and in\nwhat terms was the commutation, and where is it recorded? Grant, for\nargument's sake, that all the Canaanites were sentenced to unconditional\nextermination; as there was no reversal of the sentence, how can a right\nto _enslave_ them, be drawn from such premises? The punishment of death\nis one of the highest recognitions of man's moral nature possible. It\nproclaims him _man_--rational, accountable, guilty, deserving death for\nhaving done his utmost to cheapen human life, when the proof of its\npriceless worth lived in his own nature. But to make him a _slave_,\ncheapens to nothing _universal human nature_, and instead of healing a\nwound, gives a death-stab. What! repair an injury to rational being in\nthe robbery of _one_ of its rights, by robbing it of _all_, and\nannihilating their _foundation_--the everlasting distinction between\npersons and things? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment_,\nbut the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of\n_all_ human beings. This commutation of the punishment of death, into\nperpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery! Alas! for the honor of\nDeity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and by a timely\nmovement rescued the Divine character, at the very crisis of its fate,\nfrom the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left it!\nHere a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate\ndissertation; but must for the present be disposed of in a few\nparagraphs. WERE THE CANAANITES SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL AND\nUNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? As the limits of this inquiry forbid our\ngiving all the grounds of dissent from commonly received opinions, the\nsuggestions made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, rather than laid\ndown as _doctrines_. The directions as to the disposal of the\nCanaanites, are mainly in the following passages: Ex. xxiii. 23-33;\nxxxiv. 11; Deut. vii. 16-25; ix. 3; xxxi. 3-5. In these verses, the\nIsraelites are commanded to \"destroy the Canaanites,\" \"drive out,\"\n\"consume,\" \"utterly overthrow,\" \"put out,\" \"dispossess them,\" &c. Did\nthese commands enjoin the unconditional and universal destruction of the\n_inhabitants_ or merely of the _body politic?_ The word _haram_, to\ndestroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction, the\ndestruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of\ngovernmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects.\nBesides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to\nmean _personal_ destruction, what meaning shall we give to the\nexpressions, \"throw out before thee;\" \"cast out before thee;\" \"expel,\"\n\"put out,\" \"dispossess,\" &c., which are used in the same passages? \"I\nwill destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all\nthine enemies _turn their backs unto thee_\" Ex. xxiii. 27. Here \"_all\nthine enemies_\" were to _turn their backs_ and \"_all the people_\" to be\n\"_destroyed_.\" Does this mean that God would let all their _enemies_\nescape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would _first_ kill \"all\nthe people\" and THEN make them \"turn their backs,\" an army of runaway\ncorpses? If these commands required the destruction of all the\ninhabitants, the Mosaic law was at war with itself, for directions as to\nthe treatment of native residents form a large part of it. See Lev. xix.\n34; xxv. 35, 36; xx. 22. Ex. xxiii. 9; xxii. 21; Deut. i. 16, 17; x. 17,\n19, xxvii. 19. We find, also that provision was made for them in the\ncities of refuge. Num. xxxv. 15;--the gleanings of the harvest and\nvintage were theirs, Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 22;--the blessings of the\nSabbath, Ex. xx. 10;--the privilege of offering sacrifices secured, Lev.\nxxii. 18; and stated religious instruction provided for them, Deut.\nxxxi. 9, 12. Now does this same law require the _individual\nextermination_ of those whose lives and interests it thus protects?\nThese laws were given to the Israelites, long _before_ they entered\nCanaan; and they must have inferred from them that a multitude of the\ninhabitants of the land were to _continue_ in it, under their\ngovernment. Again Joshua was selected as the leader of Israel to execute\nGod's threatenings upon Canaan. He had no _discretionary_ power. God's\ncommands were his _official instructions_. Going beyond them would have\nbeen usurpation; refusing to carry them out rebellion and treason. Saul\nwas rejected from being king for disobeying god's commands in a _single_\ninstance. Now, if God commanded the individual destruction of all the\nCanaanites. Joshua _disobeyed him in every instance_. For at his death,\nthe Israelites still \"_dwelt among them_,\" and each nation is mentioned\nby name. Judg. i. 5, and yet we are told that Joshua \"left nothing\nundone of all that the Lord commanded Moses;\" and that he \"took all that\nland.\" Josh. xi. 15-22. Also, that \"there _stood not a man_ of _all_\ntheir enemies before them.\" How can this be, if the command to _destroy_\nenjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to _drive out_,\nunconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion\nfrom the _possession_ or _ownership_ of it, as the lords of the soil?\nTrue, multitudes of the Canaanites were slain, but not a case can be\nfound in which one was either killed or expelled who _acquiesced_ in the\ntransfer of the territory, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of\nthe land to the Israelites. Witness the case of Rahab and her kindred,\nand the Gibeonites[A]. The Canaanites knew of the miracles wrought for\nthe Israelites; and that their land had been transferred to them as a\njudgment for their sins. Josh. ii. 9-11; ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them\nwere awed by these wonders, and made no resistance. Others defied God\nand came out to battle. These occupied the fortified cities, were the\nmost inveterate heathen--the aristocracy of idolatry, the kings, the\nnobility and gentry, the priests, with their crowds of satellite, and\nretainers that aided in idolatrous rites, and the military forces, with\nthe chief profligates of both sexes. Many facts corroborate the general\nposition. Such as the multitude of _tributaries_ in the midst of Israel,\nand that too, after they had \"waxed strong,\" and the uttermost nations\nquaked at the terror of their name--the Canaanites, Philistines, and\nothers, who became proselytes--as the Nethenims, Uriah the\nHittite--Rahab, who married one of the princes of Judah--Ittai--the six\nhundred Gitites--David's body guard. 2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the\nGittite, adopted into the tribe of Levi. Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1\nChron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron. xxvi. 45--Jaziz, and Obil. 1 Chron. xxvi.\n30, 31, 33. Jephunneh the father of Caleb, the Kenite, registered in the\ngenealogies of the tribe of Judah, and the one hundred and fifty\nthousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of the\nTemple[B]. Besides, the greatest miracle on record, was wrought to save\na portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those who\nwould exterminate them. Josh. x. 12-14. Further--the terms employed in\nthe directions regulating the disposal of the Canaanites, such as \"drive\nout,\" \"put out,\" \"cast out,\" \"expel,\" \"dispossess,\" &c. seem used\ninterchangeably with \"consume,\" \"destroy,\" \"overthrow,\" &c., and thus\nindicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an\nillustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar\nterms, we refer to the history of the Amelekites. \"I will utterly put\nout the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven.\" Ex. xxvii. 14. \"Thou\nshalt blot out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven; thou shalt\nnot forget it.\" Deut. xxv. 19. \"Smite Amelek and _utterly destroy_ all\nthat they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant\nand suckling, ox and sheep.\" 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. \"Saul smote the\nAmelekites, and took Agag the king of the Amelekites, alive and UTTERLY\nDESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword.\" Verses 7, 8. In\nverse 20, Saul says, \"I have brought Agag, the king of Amelek, and have\n_utterly destroyed_ the Amelekites.\" In 1 Sam. xxx. we find the\nAmelekites marching an army into Israel, and sweeping everything before\nthem--and this in about eighteen years after they had _all been_\n\"UTTERLY DESTROYED!\" Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against\nthe preceding view. We argue that the command in these verses, did not\ninclude all the individuals of the Canaanitish nations, but only the\ninhabitants of the _cities_, (and even those conditionally,) because,\nonly the inhabitants of the _cities_ are specified,--\"of the _cities_ of\nthese people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.\" Cities then,\nas now, were pest-houses of vice--they reeked with abominations little\npracticed in the country. On this account their influence would be far\nmore perilous to the Israelites than that of the country. Besides, they\nwere the centres of idolatry--there were the temples and altars, and\nidols, and priests, without number. Even their buildings, streets, and\npublic walks were so many visibilities of idolatry. The reason assigned\nin the 18th verse for exterminating them, strengthens the idea,--\"that\nthey teach you not to do after all the abominations which they have done\nunto their gods.\" This would be a reason for exterminating _all_ the\nnations and individuals _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God\ncommanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with\n_any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_\npeculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ cities pre-eminently so. The 10th\nand 11th verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in which\ncities were to be summoned to surrender. They were first to receive the\noffer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became\n_tributaries_--but if they came out against Israel in battle, the _men_\nwere to be killed, and the women and little ones saved alive. The 15th\nverse restricts this lenient treatment to the inhabitants of the cities\n_afar off_. The 16th directs as to the disposal of the inhabitants of\nCanaanitish cities. They were to save alive \"nothing that breathed.\" The\ncommon mistake has been, in supposing that the command in the 15th verse\nrefers to the _whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with\nthe 10th, whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_\nspecified in the 12th, 13th, and 14th, making a distinction between\nthose _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that\nfought--in one case destroying the males and females, and in the other,\nthe _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the _conditional\npreservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_ cities as to\nothers. Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated unless they came\nout against Israel in battle. But let us settle this question by the\n\"law and the testimony.\" \"There was not a city that made peace with the\nchildren of Israel save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all\nothers they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their\nhearts, that they should COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, that he\nmight destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that\nhe might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses.\" Josh. xix. 19, 20.\nThat is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they would\nhave had \"favor\" shown them, and would not have been \"_destroyed\nutterly._\" The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the\nCanaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty\nin every respect_; to annihilate their political organizations, civil\npolity, and jurisprudence and their system of religion, with all its\nrights and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy,\nadministered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and\nagents. In a word the people were to be _denationalized_, their\npolitical existence annihilated, their idol temples, altars, images\ngroves and heathen rites destroyed, and themselves put under tribute.\nThose who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to be killed,\nwhile those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared. All had the\nchoice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the land[C]; or\nacquiescence in the decree, with life and residence as tributaries,\nunder the protection of the government; or resistance to the execution\nof the decree, with death. \"_And it shall come to pass, if they will\ndiligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the Lord\nliveth as they taught my people to swear by Baal_; THEN SHALL THEY BE\nBUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE.\"\n\n[Footnote A: Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the\nGibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command\nof God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation.\nIf God had strictly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites_,\ntheir pledge to save themselves was neither a repeal of the statute, nor\nabsolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ was the\nimport of the command, would God have permitted such an act to pass\nwithout rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when Israel\nhad hardly passed the threshold of Canaan, and was then striking the\nfirst blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ passed their word\nto Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command?\nSo Saul seems to have passed _his_ word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in\npieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated God's command.\nWhen Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in \"his zeal for the children of\nIsrael and Judah,\" God sent upon Israel three years famine for it. When\nDavid inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say, \"The man\nthat devised against us, that we should be destroyed from _remaining in\nany of the coasts of Israel_, let seven of his sons be delivered,\" &c. 2\nSam. xxii. 1-6.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to unconditional\nextermination, to have employed them in the erection of the\ntemple,--what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they\npollute its altars with swine's flesh, or make their sons pass through\nthe fire to Moloch.]\n\n\n[Footnote C: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their\nterritory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require\nthe Israelites to chase them to the ends of the earth and hunt them out,\nuntil every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for belief\nand yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which interprets\nthe terms \"consume,\" \"destroy,\" \"destroy utterly,\" &c. to mean\nunconditional, individual extermination.]\n\n[The original design of the preceding Inquiry embraced a much wider\nrange of topics. It was soon found, however, that to fill up the outline\nwould be to make a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been\nthrown into a mere series of _indices_, to trains of thought and classes\nof proof which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some\nfacilities to those who have little leisure for protracted\ninvestigation.]\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER  NO 4.\n\n\nTHE\n\n\nBIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.\n\n\nAN INQUIRY INTO THE\n\n\nPATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS\n\n\nON THE SUBJECT OF\n\n\nHUMAN RIGHTS.\n\n\nFourth Edition--Enlarged.\n\n\n\nNEW YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\n\nNO. 143 NASSAU STREET.\n\n1838.\n\nThis No. contains 7 sheets:--Postage, under 100 miles, 10 1/2 cents;\nover 100 miles, 14 cents.\n\nPlease read and Circulate.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n    DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,\n\n\n        NEGATIVE,\n\n        AFFIRMATIVE,\n\n        LEGAL,\n\n\n    THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY\n\n\n        \"THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,\"\n\n        \"THOU SHALT NOT COVET,\"\n\n\n    MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,\n\n\n        SEPARATION OF MAN FROM BRUTES AND THINGS,\n\n\n    IMPORT OF \"BUY\" AND \"BOUGHT WITH MONEY,\"\n\n\n        SERVANTS SOLD THEMSELVES,\n\n\n    RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,\n\n    SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,\n\n\n        RUNAWAY SERVANTS NOT TO BE DELIVERED TO THEIR MASTERS,\n\n\n    SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,\n\n    MASTERS NOT \"OWNERS,\"\n\n\n        SERVANTS NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES OF PROPERTY,\n\n        SERVANTS EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED FROM PROPERTY,\n\n        EXAMINATION OF GEN. xii. 5.--\"THE SOULS THAT THEY HAD\n        GOTTEN,\" &c.\n\n        SOCIAL EQUALITY OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS,\n\n        CONDITION OF THE GIBEONITES AS SUBJECTS OF THE HEBREW\n        COMMONWEALTH,\n\n        EGYPTIAN BONDAGE CONTRASTED WITH AMERICAN SLAVERY,\n\n        CONDITION OF AMERICAN SLAVES,\n\n        ILL FED,\n\n        ILL CLOTHED,\n\n        OVER-WORKED,\n\n        THEIR DWELLING UNFIT FOR HUMAN BEINGS,\n\n        MORAL CONDITION--\"HEATHENS,\"\n\n\n    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\n\n    \"CURSED BE CANAAN,\" &c.--EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,\n\n    \"FOR HE IS HIS MONEY,\" &c.--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,\n\n    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,\n\n\n        \"BOTH THY BONDMEN, &c., SHALL BE OF THE HEATHEN,\"\n\n        \"OF THEM SHALL YE BUY,\"\n\n        \"THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOREVER,\"\n\n        \"YE SHALL TAKE THEM AS AN INHERITANCE,\" &c.\n\n\n    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 39, 40.--THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO \"SERVE\n    AS A BOND SERVANT,\"\n\n\n        DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRED AND BOUGHT SERVANTS,\n\n        BOUGHT SERVANTS THE MOST FAVORED AND HONORED CLASS,\n\n        ISRAELITES AND STRANGERS BELONGED TO BOTH CLASSES,\n\n        ISRAELITES SERVANTS TO THE STRANGERS,\n\n        REASONS FOR THE RELEASE OF THE ISRAELITISH SERVANTS IN\n        THE SEVENTH YEAR,\n\n        REASONS FOR ASSIGNING THE STRANGERS TO A LONGER SERVICE,\n\n        REASONS FOR CALLING THEM THE SERVANTS,\n\n        DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVICE ASSIGNED TO THE ISRAELITES\n        AND STRANGERS,\n\n\n    REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF\n    EACH,\n\n\n        POLITICAL DISABILITIES OF THE STRANGERS,\n\n\n    EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.--\"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,\"\n\n    THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.\n\n\n\nThe spirit of slavery never seeks refuge in the Bible of its own accord.\nThe horns of the altar are its last resort--seized only in desperation,\nas it rushes from the terror of the avenger's arm. Like other unclean\nspirits, it \"hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest its\ndeeds should be reproved.\" Goaded to phrenzy in its conflicts with\nconscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and hunted from every\ncovert, it vaults over the sacred inclosure and courses up and down the\nBible, \"seeking rest, and finding none.\" THE LAW OF LOVE, glowing on\nevery page, flashes around it an omnipresent anguish and despair. It\nshrinks from the hated light, and howls under the consuming touch, as\ndemons quailed before the Son of God, and shrieked, \"Torment us not.\" At\nlast, it slinks away under the types of the Mosaic system, and seeks to\nburrow out of sight among their shadows. Vain hope! Its asylum is its\nsepulchre; its city of refuge, the city of destruction. It flies from\nlight into the sun; from heat, into devouring fire; and from the voice\nof God into the thickest of His thunders.\n\n\n\nDEFINITION OF SLAVERY.\n\nIf we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine\n_what slavery is_. An element, is one thing; a relation, another; an\nappendage, another. Relations and appendages presuppose other things to\nwhich they belong. To regard them as the things themselves, or as\nconstituent parts of them, leads to endless fallacies. Mere political\ndisabilities are often confounded with slavery; so are many relations,\nand tenures, indispensible to the social state. We will specify some of\nthese.\n\n1. PRIVATION OF SUFFRAGE. Then minors are slaves.\n\n2. INELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE. Then females are slaves.\n\n3. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Then slaveholders in the District of\nColumbia are slaves.\n\n4. PRIVATION OF ONE'S OATH IN LAW. Then atheists are slaves.\n\n5. PRIVATION OF TRIAL BY JURY. Then all in France are slaves.\n\n6. BEING REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A PARTICULAR RELIGION. Then the people of\nEngland are slaves.\n\n7. APPRENTICESHIP. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are\ncorrelative. The _claim_ of each upon the other results from his\n_obligation_ to the other. Apprenticeship is based on the principle of\nequivalent for value received. The rights of the apprentice are secured,\nequally with those of the master. Indeed while the law is _just_ to the\nformer it is _benevolent_ to the latter; its main design being rather to\nbenefit the apprentice than the master. To the master it secures a mere\ncompensation--to the apprentice, both a compensation and a virtual\ngratuity in addition, he being of the two the greatest gainer. The law\nnot only recognizes the _right_ of the apprentice to a reward for his\nlabor, but appoints the wages, and enforces the payment. The master's\nclaim covers only the _services_ of the apprentice. The apprentice's\nclaim covers _equally_ the services of the master. Neither can hold the\nother as property; but each holds property in the services of the other,\nand BOTH EQUALLY. Is this slavery?\n\n8. FILIAL SUBORDINATION AND PARENTAL CLAIMS. Both are nature's dictates,\nand intrinsic elements of the social state; the natural affections which\nblend parent and child in one, excite each to discharge those offices\nincidental to the relation, and are a shield for mutual protection. The\nparent's legal claim to the child's services, is a slight return for the\ncare and toil of his rearing, exclusively of outlays for support and\neducation. This provision is, with the mass of mankind, indispensable to\nthe preservation of the family state. The child, in helping his parents,\nhelps himself--increases a common stock, in which he has a share; while\nhis most faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that money cannot\ncancel.\n\n9. CLAIMS OF GOVERNMENT ON SUBJECTS. Governments owe their subjects\nprotection; subjects owe just governments allegiance and support. The\nobligations of both are reciprocal, and the benefits received by both\nare mutual, equal, and voluntarily rendered.\n\n10. BONDAGE FOR CRIME. Must innocence be punished because guilt suffers\npenalties? True, the criminal works for the government without pay; and\nwell he may. He owes the government. A century's work would not pay its\ndrafts on him. He will die a public defaulter. Because laws make men pay\ntheir debts, shall those be forced to pay who owe nothing? The law makes\nno criminal, PROPERTY. It restrains his liberty, and makes him pay\nsomething, a mere penny in the pound, of his debt to the government; but\nit does not make him a chattel. Test it. To own property, is to own its\nproduct. Are children born of convicts, government property? Besides,\ncan _property_ be guilty? Can _chattels_ deserve punishment?\n\n11. RESTRAINTS UPON FREEDOM. Children are restrained by parents, pupils,\nby teachers, patients, by physicians, corporations, by charters, and\nlegislatures, by constitutions. Embargoes, tariffs, quarantine, and all\nother laws, keep men from doing as they please. Restraints are the web\nof civilized society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? then a government\nof LAW, is the climax of slavery!\n\n12. INVOLUNTARY OR COMPULSORY SERVICE. A juryman is empannelled against\nhis will, and sit he _must_. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders\n_must_ turn in. Men are _compelled_ to remove nuisances, pay fines and\ntaxes, support their families, and \"turn to the right as the law\ndirects,\" however much against their wills. Are they therefore slaves?\nTo confound slavery with involuntary service is absurd. Slavery is a\n_condition_. The slave's _feelings_ toward it cannot alter its nature.\nWhether he desires or detests it, the condition remains the same. The\nslave's willingness to be a slave is no palliation of the slaveholder's\nguilt. Suppose he should really believe himself a chattel, and consent\nto be so regarded by others, would that _make_ him a chattel, or make\nthose guiltless who _hold_ him as such? I may be sick of life, and I\ntell the assassin so that stabs me; is he any the less a murderer? Does\nmy _consent_ to his crime, atone for it? my partnership in his guilt,\nblot out his part of it? The slave's willingness to be a slave, so far\nfrom lessening the guilt of his \"owner,\" aggravates it. If slavery has\nso palsied his mind that he looks upon himself as a chattel, and\nconsents to be one, actually to hold him as such, falls in with his\ndelusion, and confirms the impious falsehood. These very feelings and\nconvictions of the slave, (if such were possible) increase a hundred\nfold the guilt of the master, and call upon him in thunder, immediately\nto recognize him as a MAN, and thus break the sorcery that cheats him\nout of his birthright--the consciousness of his worth and destiny.\n\nMany of the foregoing conditions are _appendages_ of slavery, but no\none, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging\nelement.\n\nENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY--making free\nagents, chattels--converting _persons_ into _things_--sinking\nimmortality into _merchandize_. A _slave_ is one held in this condition.\nIn law, \"he owns nothing, and can acquire nothing.\" His right to himself\nis abrogated. If he say _my_ hands, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY_self_, they\nare figures of speech. To _use himself_ for his own good, is a _crime_.\nTo keep what he earns, is _stealing_. To take his body into his own\nkeeping, is _insurrection_. In a word, the profit of his master is made\nthe END of his being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end--a mere means\nto an end into which his interests do not enter, of which they\nconstitute no portion[A]. MAN, sunk to a _thing!_ the intrinsic element,\nthe _principle_ of slavery; MEN, bartered, leased, mortgaged,\nbequeathed, invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on\nexecutions, and knocked off at a public outcry! Their _rights_,\nanother's conveniences; their interests, wares on sale; their happiness,\na household utensil; their personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable\narticle or a plaything, as best suits the humour of the hour; their\ndeathless nature, conscience, social affections, sympathies,\nhopes--marketable commodities! We repeat it, THE REDUCTION OF PERSONS TO\nTHINGS! Not robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading\nhim with burdens, but making him a _beast of burden_; not restraining\nliberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them;\nnot inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not\nexacting involuntary labor, but sinking man into an _implement_ of\nlabor; not abridging human comforts, but abrogating human _nature_; not\ndepriving an animal of immunities, but despoiling a rational being of\nattributes--uncreating a MAN, to make room for a _thing_!\n\n[Footnote A: To deprive human nature of _any_ of its rights is\n_oppression_; to take away the _foundation_ of its rights is slavery. In\nother words, whatever sinks man from an END to a mere _means_, just so\nfar makes him a slave. Hence West-India apprenticeship retained the\ncardinal principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three-fourths of\nhis time, was forced to labor, and robbed of his earnings; just so far\nforth he was a _mere means_, a slave. True in other respects slavery was\nabolished in the British West Indies August, 1834. Its bloodiest\nfeatures were blotted _out_--but the meanest and most despicable of\nall--forcing the poor to work for the rich without pay three fourths of\ntheir time, with a legal officer to flog them if they demurred at the\noutrage, was one of the provisions of the \"Emancipation Act!\" For the\nglories of that luminary, abolitionists thanked God, while they mourned\nthat it rose behind clouds and shone through an eclipse. [West India\napprenticeship is now (August 1838) abolished. On the first of the\npresent month, every slave in every British island and colony stood up a\nfreeman!--Note to fourth edition.] ]\n\nThat this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states.\nJudge Stroud, in his \"Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery,\" says,\n\"The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked\namong sentient beings, but among _things_--obtains as undoubted law in\nall of these [the slave] states.\" The law of South Carolina says,\n\"Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be\nchattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their\nexecutors, administrators, and assigns, to ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS,\nAND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER.\" _Brev. Dig._, 229. In Louisiana, \"A slave is\none who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs; the master may\nsell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor; he can do\nnothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing, but what must belong to\nhis master.\"--_Civ. Code_, Art. 35.\n\nThis is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person and a\nthing, trampled under foot--the crowning distinction of all\nothers--alike the source, the test, and the measure of their value--the\nrational, immortal principle, consecrated by God to universal homage in\na baptism of glory and honor, by the gift of his Son, his Spirit, his\nword, his presence, providence, and power; his shield, and staff, and\nsheltering wing; his opening heavens, and angels ministering, and\nchariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a great voice in\nheaven proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming the word with signs\nfollowing.\n\nHaving stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE\nBIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A] \"To the _law_ and the testimony?\"\n\n[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral\ncharacter. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records\nwithout rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob\nand his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and\nconcubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent\nentry_ God's _endorsement?_ Because the Bible in its catalogue of human\nactions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write\nagainst it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach\nit into a virtue?]\n\n\n\nTHE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY.\n\nJust after the Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in Egypt,\nwhile they stood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet waxed\nlouder, and the mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments\nfrom the midst of clouds and thunderings. Two of those commandments deal\ndeath to slavery. \"THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,\" or, \"thou shalt not take from\nanother what _belongs_ to him.\" All man's powers are God's gift to HIM.\nEach of them is a part of himself, and all of them together constitute\nhimself. All else that belongs to man, is acquired by the _use_ of these\npowers. The interest belongs to him, because the principal does; the\nproduct is his, because he is the producer. Ownership of any thing, is\nownership of its _use_. The right to use according to will, is _itself_\nownership. The eighth commandment presupposes and assumes the right of\nevery man to his powers, and their product. Slavery robs of both. A\nman's right to himself, is the only right absolutely original and\nintrinsic--his right to anything else is merely _relative_ to this, is\nderived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the\n_foundation right_--the _post in the middle_, to which all other rights\nare fastened. Slaveholders, when talking about their RIGHT to their\nslaves, always assume their own right to themselves. What slave-holder\never undertook to prove his right to himself? He knows it to be a\nself-evident proposition, that _a man belongs to himself_--that the\nright is intrinsic and absolute. In making out his own title, he makes\nout the title of every human being. As the fact of being _a man_ is\nitself the title, the whole human family have one common title deed. If\none man's title is valid, all are valid. If one is worthless, all are.\nTo deny the validity of the _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of\n_his own_; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the slaveholder\n_asserts_ the validity of his own title, while he seizes him as his\nproperty who has the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he\ndoes not merely disfranchise of humanity _one_ individual, but UNIVERSAL\nMAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates _all rights_. He\nattacks not only the human race, but _universal being_, and rushes upon\nJEHOVAH. For rights are _rights_; God's are no more--man's are no less.\n\nThe eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any part_ of that which\nbelongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which\nprohibits the taking of _any_ thing from him, sanction the taking of\n_every_ thing! Does it thunder wrath against the man who robs his\nneighbor of a _cent_, yet commission him to rob his neighbour of\n_himself?_ Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eight\ncommandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the\n_earner_, is a compound, life-long theft--supreme robbery that vaults up\nthe climax at a leap--the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers\namong other robberies a solitary horror. The eight commandment forbids\nthe taking away, and the  tenth adds, \"Thou shalt not _covet_ any thing\nthat is thy neighbor's;\" thus guarding every man's right to himself and\nproperty, by making not only the actual taking away a sin, but even that\nstate of mind which would _tempt_ to it. Who ever made human beings\nslaves, without _coveting_ them? Why take from them their time, labor,\nliberty, right of self-preservation and improvement, their right to\nacquire property, to worship according to conscience, to search the\nScriptures, to live with their families, and their right to their own\nbodies, if they do not _desire_ them? They COVET them for purposes of\ngain, convenience, lust of dominion, of sensual gratification, of pride\nand ostentation. THEY BREAK THE TENTH COMMANDMENT, and pluck down upon\ntheir heads the plagues that are written in the book. _Ten_ commandments\nconstitute the brief compend of human duty. _Two_ of these brand slavery\nas sin.\n\n\n\nMANSTEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. XXI. 16.\n\nThe giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation of\nthat body of laws called the \"Mosaic system.\" Over the gateway of that\nsystem, fearful words were written by the finger of God--\"HE THAT\nSTEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF HE BE FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL\nSURELY BE PUT TO DEATH[A].\" Ex. xxi. 16.\n\n[Footnote A: A writer in the American Quarterly Review, commenting on\nthis passage, thus blasphemes. \"On this passage an impression has gone\nabroad that slave-owners are necessarily menstealers; how hastily, any\none will perceive who consults the passage in its connection. Being\nfound in the chapter which authorizes this species of property among the\nHebrews, it must of course relate to _its full protection from the\ndanger of being enticed away from its rightful owner.\"_--Am. Quart.\nReview for June, 1833. Article \"Negro slavery.\"]\n\nThe oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought for\ntheir deliverance, proclaim the reason for such a law at such a time.\nThey had just been emancipated. The tragedies of their house of bondage\nwere the realities of yesterday, and peopled their memories with\nthronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's testimony against\noppression in the plagues of Egypt--the burning blains on man and beast;\nthe dust quickened into loathsome life, and swarming upon every living\nthing; the streets, the palaces, the temples, and every house heaped up\nwith the carcases of things abhorred; the kneading troughs and ovens,\nthe secret chambers and the couches, reeking and dissolving with the\nputrid death; the pestilence walking in darkness at noonday, the\ndevouring locusts, and hail mingled with fire, the first-born\ndeath-struck, and the waters blood; and last of all, that dread high\nhand and stretched-out arm, that whelmed the monarch and his hosts, and\nstrewed their corpses on the sea. All this their eyes had looked upon;\nearth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying in desolation,\nand the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the hand-writing of\nGod, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood--a blackened monument\nof wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of men. No wonder that\nGod, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at such a time, should\nuprear on its foreground a blazing beacon to flash terror on\nslaveholders. \"_He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be\nfound in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.\"_ Ex. xxi. 16. Deut.\nxxiv, 7[A]. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to\nthe Mosaic system!\n\n[Footnote A: Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish Commentators, who\nwrote seven hundred years ago, in his comment on this stealing and\nmaking merchandize of men, gives the meaning thus:--\"Using a man against\nhis will, as a servant lawfully purchased; yea, though he should use his\nservices ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, or use but his\narm to lean on to support him, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_,\nthe person compelling him but once to do so, shall die as a thief,\nwhether he has sold him or not.\"]\n\nThe word _Ganabh_ here rendered _stealeth,_ means, the taking of what\nbelongs to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word is used\nin the eight commandment, and prohibits both robbery and theft.\n\nThe crime specified, is that of depriving SOMEBODY of the ownership of a\nman. Is this somebody a master? and is the crime that of depriving a\nmaster of his servant? Then it would have been \"he that stealeth\" a\n_servant_, not \"he that stealeth a _man_.\" If the crime had been the\ntaking of an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have\nbeen expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the\nrelation of property and _proprietor!_\n\nThe crime is stated in a three-fold form--man _stealing_, _selling_, and\n_holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one\npenalty--DEATH[A]. This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of a man,\nis the _man himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, \"Indeed\nI was _stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews.\" Gen. xl. 15. How\n_stolen?_ His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast\nthis penalty for _man_-stealing with that for _property_-stealing, Ex.\nxxii. 14. If a man had stolen an _ox_ and killed or sold it, he was to\nrestore five oxen; if he had neither sold nor killed it, two oxen. But\nin the case of stealing a _man_, the _first_ act drew down the utmost\npower of punishment; however often repeated or aggravated the crime,\nhuman penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for\n_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-stealing, the\nmere restoration of double, shows that the two cases were adjudicated on\ntotally different principles. The man stolen might be diseased or\ntotally past labor, consequently instead of being profitable to the\nthief, he would be a tax upon him, yet death was still the penalty,\nthough not a cent's worth of _property-value_ was taken. The penalty for\nstealing property was a mere property-penalty. However large the theft,\nthe payment of double wiped out the score. It might have a greater money\nvalue than a thousand men, yet death was not the penalty, nor maiming,\nnor braiding, nor even stripes, but double _of the same kind_. Why was\nnot the rule uniform? When a _man_ was stolen why was not the thief\nrequired to restore double of the same kind--two men, or if he had sold\nhim, five men? Do you say that the man-thief might not _have_ them? So\nthe ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But\nif God permitted men to hold _men_ as property, equally with oxen, the\nman-thief, could get men with whom to pay the penalty, as well as the\nox-thief, oxen. Further, when property was stolen, the legal penalty was\na compensation to the person injured. But when a _man_ was stolen, no\nproperty compensation was offered. To tender money as an equivalent,\nwould have been to repeat the outrage with intolerable aggravations.\nCompute the value of a MAN in _money!_ Throw dust into the scale against\nimmortality! The law recoiled from such supreme insult and impiety. To\nhave permitted the man-thief to expiate his crime by restoring double,\nwould have been making the repetition of crime its atonement. But the\ninfliction of death for man-stealing exacted the utmost possibility of\nreparation. It wrung from the guilty wretch as he gave up the ghost, the\ntestimony of blood, and death-groans, to the infinite dignity and worth\nof man,--a proclamation to the universe, voiced in mortal agony, \"MAN IS\nINVIOLABLE.\"--a confession shrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth--\"I\ndie accursed, and God is just.\"\n\n[Footnote A: \"Those are _men-stealers_ who abduct, _keep_, sell, or buy\nslaves or freemen.\" GROTIUS.]\n\nIf God permitted man to hold man as property, why did he punish for\nstealing that kind of property infinitely more than for stealing any\nother kind of property? Why punish with death for stealing a very little\nof _that_ sort of property, and make a mere fine the penalty for\nstealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of\nproperty--especially if by his own act, God had annihilated the\ndifference between man and _property_, by putting him on a level with\nit?\n\nThe guilt of a crime, depends much upon the nature, character, and\ncondition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the thief, or\nwhatever the plunder. To steal bread from a full man, is theft; to steal\nit from a starving man, is both theft and murder. If I steal my\nneighbor's property, the crime consists not in altering the _nature_ of\nthe article, but in taking as _mine_ what is _his_. But when I take my\nneighbor himself, and first make him _property_, and then _my_ property,\nthe latter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, dwindles to\nnothing. The sin in stealing a man, is not the transfer from its owner\nto another of that which is already property, but the turning of\n_personality_ into _property_. True, the attributes of man remain, but\nthe rights and immunities which grow out of them are annihilated. It is\nthe first law both of reason and revelation, to regard things and beings\nas they are; and the sum of religion, to feel and act toward them\naccording to their value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise is sin; and\nthe degree of violence done to their nature, relations, and value,\nmeasures its guilt. When things are sundered which God has indissolubly\njoined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite\nextremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnished\nwith glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, sin reddens to\nits \"scarlet dye.\" The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing\nviolence to the _nature_ of a _man_--to his intrinsic value as a\nrational being. In the verse preceding the one under consideration, and\nin that which follows, the same principle is laid down. Verse 15, \"He\nthat smiteth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.\"\nVerse. 17, \"He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be\nput to death.\" If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law merely smote him in\nreturn; but if the blow was given to a _parent_, it struck the smiter\ndead. The parental relation is the _centre_ of human society. God guards\nit with peculiar care. To violate that, is to violate all. Whoever\ntramples on that, shows that _no_ relation has any sacredness in his\neyes--that he is unfit to move among human relations who violates one so\nsacred and tender. Therefore, the Mosaic law uplifted his bleeding\ncorpse, and brandished the ghastly terror around the parental relation\nto guard it from impious inroads.\n\nWhy such a difference in penalties, for the same act? Answer. 1. The\nrelation violated was obvious--the distinction between parents and\nothers self-evident, dictated by a law of nature. 2. The act was\nviolence to nature--a suicide on constitutional susceptibilities. 3. The\nparental relation then, as now, was the focal point of the social\nsystem, and required powerful safe-guards. \"_Honor thy father and thy\nmother_,\" stands at the head of those commands which prescribe the\nduties of man to man; and throughout the Bible, the parental state is\nGod's favorite illustration of his own relations to the human family. In\nthis case, death was to be inflicted not for smiting a _man,_ but a\n_parent_--_a distinction_ made sacred by God, and fortified by a bulwark\nof defence. In the next verse, \"He that stealeth a man,\" &c., the SAME\nPRINCIPLE is wrought out in still stronger relief. The crime to be\npunished with death was not the taking of property from its owner, but\nviolence to an _immortal nature_, the blotting out of a sacred\n_distinction_--making MEN \"chattels.\"\n\nThe incessant pains taken in the Old Testament to separate human beings\nfrom brutes and things, shows God's regard for this, his own\ndistinction. \"In the beginning\" he proclaimed it to the universe as it\nrose into being. Creation stood up at the instant of its birth, to do it\nhomage. It paused in adoration while God ushered forth its crowning\nwork. Why that dread pause and that creating arm held back in mid career\nand that high conference in the godhead? \"Let us make man in OUR IMAGE\nafter OUR LIKENESS, and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea,\nand over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the\nearth.\" Then while every living thing, with land, and sea, and\nfirmament, and marshalled worlds, waited to swell the shout of morning\nstars--then God created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE; IN THE IMAGE OF GOD\ncreated he him.\" This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, CREATED\nHE HIM. This distinction is often repeated and always with great\nsolemnity. In Gen. i. 26-28, it is expressed in various forms. In Gen.\nv. 1, we find it again, \"IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD MADE HE HIM.\" In Gen.\nix. 6, again. After giving license to shed the blood of \"every moving\nthing that liveth,\" it is added, \"_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man\nshall his blood be shed, for_ IN THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN.\" As\nthough it had been said, \"All these creatures are your property,\ndesigned for your use--they have the likeness of earth, and their\nspirits go downward; but this other being, MAN, has my own likeness: IN\nTHE IMAGE OF GOD made I man; an intelligent, moral, immortal agent,\ninvited to all that I can give and he can be. So in Lev. xxiv. 17, 18,\n21, \"He that killeth any MAN shall surely be put to death; and he that\nkilleth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast; and he that killeth\na MAN he shall be put to death.\" So in Ps. viii. 5, 6, we have an\nenumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely MEN from brutes\nand things! 1. \"_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.\"_\nSlavery drags him down among _brutes._ 2. _\"And hast crowned him with\nglory and honor.\"_ Slavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_. 3.\n_\"Thou madest him to have dominion_[A] OVER _the works of thy hands.\"_\nSlavery breaks his sceptre, and cast him down _among_ those works--yea,\n_beneath them_. 4. _\"Thou hast put all things under his feet_.\" Slavery\nputs HIM under the feet of an \"owner.\" Who, but an impious scorner, dare\nthus strive with his Maker, and mutilate HIS IMAGE, and blaspheme the\nHoly One, who saith, _\"Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of\nthese, ye did it unto ME._\"\n\n[Footnote A: \"Thou madest him to have dominion.\" In Gen. i. 28, God says\nto man, _\"Have dominion_ over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of\nthe air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth,\" thus\nvesting in _every_ human being the right of ownership over the earth,\nits products and animal life, and in _each_ human being the _same_\nright. By so doing God prohibited the exercise of ownership by man over\n_man_; for the grant to _all_ men of _equal_ ownership, for ever _shut_\nout the possibility of their exercising ownership over _each other_, as\nwhoever is the owner of a _man_, is the owner of his _right of\nproperty_--in other words, when one man becomes the property of another\nhis rights become such too, his _right of property_ is transferred to\nhis \"owner,\" and thus as far as _himself_ is concerned, is annihilated.\nFinally, by originally vesting _all_ men with dominion or ownership over\nproperty, God proclaimed the _right of all_ to exercise it, and\npronounced every man who takes it away a robber of the highest grade.\nSuch is every slaveholder.]\n\nIn further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems\nwill be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, and\nas many regulations of the latter are mere _legal_ forms of Divine\ninstitutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of\nDivine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs God has not\nmade them our exemplars.[B] The question to be settled by us, is not\nwhat were Jewish _customs_, but what were the rules that God gave for\nthe regulation of those customs.\n\n[Footnote B: Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit\nwith such delight under their shadow, hymning the praises of \"those good\nold slaveholders and patriarchs,\" might at small cost greatly augment\ntheir numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal _concubinage_,\nwinding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, would\nbe a trumpet-call, summoning from brothels, bush and brake, highway and\nhedge, and sheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred affinities, each\nclaiming Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, \"My name is\nlegion.\" A myriad choir and thunderous song!]\n\nBefore entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under\nthese two states of society, we will consider the import of certain\nterms which describe the mode of procuring them.\n\n\n\nIMPORT OF \"BUY,\" AND \"BOUGHT WITH MONEY.\"\n\nAs the Israelites were commanded to \"buy\" their servants, and as Abraham\nhad servants \"bought with money,\" it is argued that servants were\narticles of property! The sole ground for this belief is _the terms\nthemselves!_ How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be\nproved were always _assumed_! To beg the question in debate, is vast\neconomy of midnight oil, and a wholesale forestaller of wrinkles and\ngray hairs. Instead of protracted investigation into Scripture usage,\npainfully collating passages, to settle the meaning of terms, let every\nman interpret the oldest book in the world by the usages of his own time\nand place, and the work is done. And then instead of one revelation,\nthey might be multiplied as the drops of the morning, and every man have\nan infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, in the dialect of his own\nneighborhood! What a Babel-jargon, to take it for granted that the sense\nin which words are _now_ used, is the _inspired_ sense. David says, \"I\nprevented the dawning of the morning, and cried.\" What, stop the earth\nin its revolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its\nstrict Latin sense, to _come before_, or _anticipate_. It is always used\nin this sense in the Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the\nEnglish of the nineteenth century, would be \"Before the dawning of the\nmorning I cried.\" In almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used\nin a sense now nearly, or quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense\ntotally _opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: \"I\npurposed to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto.\" \"And the\nfour _beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshiped God,\"--\"Whosoever\nshall _offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,\"--Go out into\nthe highways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,\"--Only let your\n_conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,\"--\"The Lord\nJesus Christ who shall judge the _quick_ (living) and the dead,\"--They\nthat seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,\" So when tribulation or\npersecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (immediately) they are offended.\"\nNothing is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are always\nthrowing off some particles and absorbing others. So long as they are\nmere representatives, elected by the whims of universal suffrage, their\nmeaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for the next\ncentury is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak within bounds) for\na modern Bible-Dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit\nthan that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by\nshowing what it means _now_. Pity that fashionable mantuamakers were not\na little quicker at taking hints from some Doctors of Divinity. How\neasily they might save their pious customers all qualms of conscience\nabout the weekly shiftings of fashion, by proving that the last\nimportation of Parisian indecency now \"showing off\" on promenade, was\nthe very style of dress in which the modest and pious Sarah kneaded\ncakes for the angels. Since such a fashion flaunts along Broadway _now_,\nit _must_ have trailed over Canaan four thousand years ago!\n\nThe inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of\nservants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the\nfallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or\nwhoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of\nyour paying for it, _proves_ it property. 1. The children of Israel were\nrequired to purchase their firstborn from under the obligations of the\npriesthood, Num. xviii. 15, 16; iii. 45-51; Ex. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20.\nThis custom still exists among the Jews, and the word _buy_ is still\nused to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their firstborn\nwere or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were\n_servants_. 2. The Israelites were required to pay money for their own\nsouls. This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an atonement. Were\ntheir souls therefore marketable commodities? 3. When the Israelites set\napart themselves or their children to the Lord by vow, for the\nperformance of some service, an express statute provided that a _price_\nshould be set upon the \"_persons_,\" and it prescribed the manner and\n_terms_ of the \"estimation\" or valuation, by the payment of which, the\npersons might be _bought off_ from the service vowed. The _price_ for\nmales from one month old to five years, was five shekels, for females,\nthree; from five years old to twenty, for males, twenty shekels, for\nfemales, ten; from twenty years old to sixty, for males, fifty shekels,\nfor females, thirty; above sixty years old, for males, fifteen shekels,\nfor females, ten, Lev. xxvii. 2-8. What egregious folly to contend that\nall these descriptions of persons were goods and chattels because they\nwere _bought_ and their _prices_ regulated by law! 4. Bible saints\n_bought_ their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. \"Moreover Ruth the Moabitess,\nthe wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ (bought) to be my wife.\" Ruth iv.\n10.[A] Hosea bought his wife. \"So I _bought_ her to me for fifteen\npieces of silver, and for an homer of Barley, and an half homer of\nbarley.\" Hosea iii. 2. Jacob bought his wives Rachael and Leah, and not\nhaving money, paid for them in labor--seven years a piece. Gen. xxix.\n15-23. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, and paid for her\nby his labor, as the servant of her father.[B] Exod. ii. 21. Shechem,\nwhen negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, says, \"Ask me never\nso much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto\nme.\" Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David purchased Michael, and Othniel, Achsah,\nby performing perilous services for the fathers of the damsels. 1 Sam.\nxviii. 25-27; Judg. i. 12, 13. That the purchase of wives, either with\nmoney or by service, was the general practice, is plain from such\npassages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among the modern Jews\nthis usage exists, though now a mere form, there being no _real_\npurchase. Yet among their marriage ceremonies, is one called \"marrying\nby the penny.\" The similarity in the methods of procuring wives and\nservants, in the terms employed in describing the transactions, and in\nthe prices paid for each, are worthy of notice. The highest price of\nwives (virgins) and servants was the same. Comp. Deut, xxii. 28, 29, and\nEx. xxii. 17, with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The _medium_ price of wives and\nservants was the same. Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32. Hosea seems\nto have paid one half in money and the other half in grain. Further, the\nIsraelitish female bought-servants were _wives_, their husbands and\nmasters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3, 27. If\n_buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves _them_\nproperty. Why not contend that the _wives_ of the ancient fathers of the\nfaithful were their \"chattels,\" and used as ready change at a pinch; and\nthence deduce the rights of modern husbands? Alas! Patriarchs and\nprophets are followed afar off! When will pious husbands live up to\ntheir Bible privileges, and become partakers with Old Testament worthies\nin the blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities! Refusing so to\ndo, is questioning the morality of those \"good old slaveholders and\npatriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.\"\n\n[Footnote A: In the verse preceding, Boaz says, \"I have _bought_ all\nthat was Elimelech's * * * of the hand of Naomi.\" In the original, the\nsame word (_kana_) is used in both verses. In the 9th, \"a parcel of\nland\" is \"bought,\" in the 10th a \"wife\" is \"bought.\" If the Israelites\nhad been as profound at inferences as our modern Commentators, they\nwould have put such a fact as this to the rack till they had tortured\nout of it a divine warrant for holding their wives as property and\nspeculating in the article whenever it happened to be scarce.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: This custom still prevails in some eastern countries. The\nCrim Tartars, who are poor, serve an apprenticeship for their wives,\nduring which they live under the same roof with them and at the close of\nit are adopted into the family.]\n\nThis use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac,\nthe common expression for \"the espoused,\" is \"the bought.\" Even so late\nas the 16th century, the common record of _marriages_ in the old German\nChronicles was, \"A BOUGHT B.\"\n\nThe word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature\nof the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, \"I have _gotten_\n(bought) a man from the Lord.\" She named him Cain, that is _bought_. \"He\nthat heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding,\" Prov. xv. 32. So\nin Isa. xi. 11. \"The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to _buy_)\nthe remnant of his people.\" So Ps. lxxviii. 54. \"He brought them to his\nmountain which his right hand had _purchased_,\" (gotten.) Neh. v. 8. \"We\nof our ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren the Jews, that were\nsold unto the heathen.\" Here \"_bought_\" is not applied to persons\nreduced to servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. viii. 22.\n\"The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way.\" Prov. xix.\n8. \"He that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul.\" Finally, to\n_buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _kana_.\n\nEven at this day the word _buy_ is used to describe the procuring of\nservants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, where\nslaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still, (1837,) \"bought.\"\nThis is the current word in West India newspapers. Ten years since\nservants were \"_bought_\" in New York, and still are in New Jersey, as\nreally as in Virginia, yet the different senses in which the word is\nused in those states, puts no man in a quandary. Under the system of\nlegal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are \"_bought_.\"[A] Until\nrecently immigrants to this country were \"bought\" in great numbers. By\nvoluntary contract they engaged to work a given time to pay for their\npassage. This class of persons, called \"redemptioners,\" consisted at one\ntime of thousands. Multitudes are \"bought\" _out_ of slavery by\nthemselves or others. Under the same roof with the writer is a \"servant\nbought with money.\" A few weeks since, she was a slave; when \"bought,\"\nshe was a slave no longer. Alas! for our leading politicians if \"buying\"\nmen makes them \"chattels.\" The Whigs say, that Calhoun has been \"bought\"\nby the administration; and the other party, that Clay and Webster have\nbeen \"bought\" by the Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us that\nBenedict Arnold was \"bought\" by British gold, and that Williams,\nPaulding, and Van Wert, could not be \"bought\" by Major Andre. When a\nnorthern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country gossip thus\nhits off the indecency, \"The cotton bags _bought_ him.\" Sir Robert\nWalpole said, \"Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it, can\n_buy_ him,\" and John Randolph said, \"The northern delegation is in the\nmarket; give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them.\" The temperance\npublications tell us that candidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey;\nand the oracles of street tattle, that the court, district attorney, and\njury, in the late trial of Robinson were _bought_, yet we have no\nfloating visions of \"chattels personal,\" man-auctions, or coffles.\n\n[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of\nIllinois--\"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_\nany servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the\npersons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such\nservant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and\ntaken.\"]\n\nIn Connecticut, town paupers are \"bought\" by individuals, who, for a\nstipulated sum become responsible to the town for their comfortable\nsupport for one year. If these \"bought\" persons perform any labor for\nthose who \"buy\" them, it is wholly _voluntary_. It is hardly necessary\nto add that they are in no sense the \"property\" of their purchasers.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: \"The select-men\" of each town annually give notice, that at\nsuch a time and place, they will proceed to _sell_ the poor of said\ntown. The persons thus \"sold\" are \"bought\" by such persons, approved by\nthe \"select-men,\" as engage to furnish them with sufficient wholesome\nfood, adequate clothing, shelter, medicine, &c., for such a sum as the\nparties may agree upon. The Connecticut papers frequently contain\nadvertisements like the following: \"NOTICE--The poor of the town of\nChatham will be SOLD on the first Monday in April, 1837, at the house of\nF. Penfield, Esq., at 9 o'clock in the forenoon,\"--[Middletown Sentinel,\nFeb. 3, 1837.] ]\n\nThe transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the use\nof \"buy\" and \"bought with money.\" Gen. xlvii. 18-26. The Egyptians\nproposed to Joseph to become servants. When the bargain was closed,\nJoseph said, \"Behold I have _bought you_ this day,\" and yet it is plain\nthat neither party regarded the persons _bought_ as articles of\nproperty, but merely as bound to labor on certain conditions, to pay for\ntheir support during the famine. The idea attached by both parties to\n\"buy us,\" and \"behold I have bought you,\" was merely that of service\nvoluntarily offered, and secured by contract, in return, for _value\nreceived_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their\npersonal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of\n_services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in\nScripture usage, _buying the persons_. This case claims special notice,\nas it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is\ndetailed--the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and\nthe permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the\nmere fact is stated without particulars. In this case, the whole process\nis laid open. 1. The persons \"bought,\" _sold themselves_, and of their\nown accord. 2. Paying for the permanent _service_ of persons, or even a\nportion of it, is called \"buying\" those persons; just as paying for the\n_use_ of land or houses for a number of years in succession is called in\nScripture usage _buying_ them. See Lev. xxv. 28, 33, and xxvii. 24. The\nobjector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were bought\nof _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of\nproperty. Both the alleged fact and the inference are _sheer\nassumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in which\na _master sold his servant_.\n\nThat servants who were \"bought,\" _sold themselves_, is a fair inference\nfrom various passages of Scripture.[A] In Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of\nthe Israelite, who became the servant of the stranger, the words are,\n\"If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger.\" Yet the 51st verse informs us\nthat this servant was \"BOUGHT\" and that the price of his purchase was\npaid to _himself_. The _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word,\nwhich, in verse 47, is rendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the\nsame chapter, rendered _be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is\nrendered \"be sold.\" \"And there ye shall BE SOLD unto your enemies for\nbond-men and bond-women and NO MAN SHALL BUY YOU.\" How could they \"_be\nsold_\" without _being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The\nword _Makar_ rendered \"_be sold_\" is used here in Hithpael conjugation,\nwhich is generally reflexive in its force, and like the middle voice in\nGreek, represents what an individual does for himself, and should\nmanifestly have been rendered \"ye shall _offer yourselves_ for sale, and\nthere shall be no purchaser.\" For a clue to Scripture usage on this\npoint, see 1 Kings xxi. 20. 25.--\"Thou hast _sold thyself_ to work\nevil.\" \"There was none like unto Ahab which did sell _himself_ to work\nwickedness.\"--2 Kings xvii. 17. \"They used divination and enchantments,\nand _sold themselves_ to do evil.\"--Isa. l. 1. \"For your iniquities have\nye _sold yourselves.\"_ Isa. lii. 3, \"Ye have _sold yourselves_ FOR\nNOUGHT, and ye shall be redeemed without money.\" See also, Jer. xxxiv.\n14; Rom. vii. 14, vi. 16; John, viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the\nEgyptians, already quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of\nrarely, it is generally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons.\nIf _servants_ were bought of third persons, it is strange that no\n_instance_ of it is on record.\n\n[Footnote A: Those who insist that the servants which the Israelites\nwere commanded to buy of \"the heathen which were round about\" them, were\nto be bought of _third persons_, virtually charge God with the\ninconsistency of recognizing and affirming the right of those very\npersons to freedom, upon whom, say they, he pronounced the doom of\nslavery. For they tell us, that the sentence of death uttered against\nthose heathen was commuted into slavery, which punishment God denounced\nagainst them. Now if \"the heathen round about\" were doomed to slavery,\nthe _sellers_ were doomed as well as the _sold_. Where, we ask, did the\nsellers get their right to sell? God by commanding the Israelites to\nBUY, affirmed the right of _somebody_ to _sell_, and that the\n_ownership_ of what was sold existed _somewhere_; which _right_ and\nownership he commanded them to _recognize_ and _respect_. We repeat the\nquestion, where did the heathen _sellers_ get their right to sell, since\n_they_ were dispossessed of their right to _themselves_ and doomed to\nslavery equally with those whom they sold. Did God's decree vest in them\na right to _others_ while it annulled their right to _themselves_? If,\nas the objector's argument assumes, one part of \"the heathen round\nabout\" were _already_ held as slaves by the other part, _such_ of course\nwere not _doomed_ to slavery, for they were already slaves. So also, if\nthose heathen who held them as slaves had a _right_ to hold them, which\nright God commanded the Israelites to _buy out_, thus requiring them to\nrecognize _it_ as a _right_, and on no account to procure its transfer\nto themselves without paying to the holders an equivalent, surely, these\n_slaveholders_ were not doomed by God to be slaves, for according to the\nobjector, God had himself affirmed their right _to hold others as\nslaves_, and commanded his people to respect it.]\n\nWe now proceed to inquire into the _condition_ of servants under the\npatriarchal and Mosaic systems.\n\n\n\nI. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF SERVANTS.\n\nThe leading design of the laws defining the relations of master and\nservant, was the good of both parties--more especially the good of the\n_servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those\nof the servants were _promoted_. These laws made a merciful provision\nfor the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and Strangers, not laying\non burdens, but lightening them--they were a grant of _privileges_ and\n_favors_.\n\nI. BUYING SERVANTS WAS REGARDED AS A KINDNESS TO THE PERSONS BOUGHT, and\nas establishing between them and their purchasers a bond of affection\nand confidence. This is plain from the frequent use of it to illustrate\nthe love and care of God for his chosen people. Deut. xxxii. 6; Ex. xv.\n16; Ps. lxxiv. 2; Prov. viii. 22.\n\nII. NO STRANGER COULD JOIN THE FAMILY OF AN ISRAELITE WITHOUT BECOMING A\nPROSELYTE. Compliance with this condition was the _price of the\nprivilege_. Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27. In other words, to become a servant\nwas virtually to become an Israelite.[A] In the light of this fact, look\nat the relation sustained by a proselyted servant to his master. Was it\na sentence consigning to _punishment_, or a ticket of admission to\n_privileges_?\n\n[Footnote A: The rites by which a stranger became a proselyte\ntransformed him into a Jew. Compare 1 Chron. ii. 17, with 2 Sam. xvii.\n25. In Esther viii. 17, it is said \"Many of the people of the land\n_became Jews_.\" In the Septuagint, the passage is thus rendered, \"Many\nof the heathen were circumcised and became Jews.\" The intimate union and\nincorporation of the proselytes with the Hebrews is shown by such\npassages as Isa. lvi. 6, 7, 8; Eph. ii. 11, 22; Num. x. 29-32. Calmet,\nArt. Proselyte, says \"They were admitted to all the prerogatives of the\npeople of the Lord.\" Mahommed doubtless borrowed from the laws and\nusages of the Jews, his well known regulation for admitting to all civil\nand religious privileges, all proselytes of whatever nation or\nreligion.]\n\nIII. EXPULSION FROM THE FAMILY WAS THE DEPRIVATION OF A PRIVILEGE IF NOT\nA PUNISHMENT. When Sarah took umbrage at the conduct of Hagar and\nIshmael, her servants, \"She said unto Abraham _cast out_ this bond-woman\nand her son.\" * * And Abraham rose up early in the morning and took\nbread and a bottle of water and gave it unto Hagar and the child, and\n_sent her away_. Gen. xxi. 10, 14; in Luke xvi. 1-8, our Lord tells us\nof the steward or head-servant of a rich man who defrauded his master,\nand was, in consequence, excluded from his household. The servant\nanticipating such a punishment, says, \"I am resolved what to do, that\nwhen I am _put out_ of the stewardship, they may receive me into their\nhouses.\" The case of Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, appears to be a\nsimilar one. He was guilty of fraud in procuring a large sum of money\nfrom Naaman, and of deliberate lying to his master, on account of which\nElisha seems to have discarded him. 2 Kings v. 20-27. In this connection\nwe may add that if a servant neglected the observance of any ceremonial\nrite, and was on that account excommunicated from the congregation of\nIsrael, such excommunication excluded him also from the _family_ of an\nIsraelite. In other words he could be a _servant_ no longer than he was\nan _Israelite_. To forfeit the latter _distinction_ involved the\nforfeiture of the former _privilege_--which proves that it _was_ a\nprivilege.\n\nIV. THE HEBREW SERVANT COULD COMPEL HIS MASTER TO KEEP HIM.\n\nWhen the six years' contract had expired, if the servant _demanded_ it,\nthe law _obliged_ the master to retain him permanently, however little\nhe might need his services. Deut. xv. 12-17; Ex. xxi. 2-6. This shows\nthat the system was framed to advance the interest and gratify the\nwishes of the servant quite as much as those of the master.\n\nV. SERVANTS WERE ADMITTED INTO COVENANT WITH GOD. Deut. xxix. 10-13.\n\nVI. THEY WERE GUESTS AT ALL NATIONAL AND FAMILY FESTIVALS Ex. xii.\n43-44; Deut xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.\n\nVII. THEY WERE STATEDLY INSTRUCTED IN MORALITY AND RELIGION. Deut. xxxi.\n10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9, xxxv. 3, and xxxiv. 30.\nNeh. viii. 7, 8.\n\nVIII. THEY WERE RELEASED FROM THEIR REGULAR LABOR NEARLY ONE HALF OF THE\nWHOLE TIME. During which they had their entire support, and the same\ninstruction that was provided for the other members of the Hebrew\ncommunity. The Law secured to them,\n\n1. _Every seventh year;_ Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were\nservants during the entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole\nyears_, (including the jubilee year,) of unbroken rest.\n\n2. _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being\nsubtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years_.\n\n3. _The three annual festivals._ Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23. The\n_Passover_, which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted\nseven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which\nbegan on the 6th day of the 3d month, and lasted seven days. Deut. xvi.\n10, 11. The Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the 7th\nmonth, and lasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. As\nall met in one place, much time would be spent on the journey. Cumbered\ncaravans move slowly. After their arrival, a day or two would be\nrequisite for divers preparations before the celebration, besides some\ntime at the close of it, in preparations for return. If we assign three\nweeks to each festival--including the time spent on the journeys, and\nthe delays before and after the celebration, together with the _festival\nweek_, it will be a small allowance for the cessation of their regular\nlabor. As there were three festivals in the year, the main body of the\nservants would be absent from their stated employments at least _nine\nweeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the\nsabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.\n\n4. _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the\nJews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the Jewish\nCalendar, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, 18, 19, 27. This, in\nforty-two years, would be two years 280 days.\n\n5. _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and\nof the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.\n\n6. _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month Lev. xxiii.\n27.\n\nThese two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not\nreckoned above.\n\nThus it appears that those who continued servants during the period\nbetween the jubilees, were by law released from their labor,\nTWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those\nwho remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In this\ncalculation, besides making a donation of all the _fractions_ to the\nobjector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which\nfrequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; 1 Sam. ix. 12. 22. etc., and\nthe various _family_ festivals, such as at the weaning of children; at\nmarriages; at sheep shearings; at circumcisions; at the making of\ncovenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in 1 Sam, xx. 6.\n28, 29. Neither have we included the festivals instituted at a later\nperiod of the Jewish history--the feast of Purim, Esth. ix. 28, 29; and\nof the Dedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59.\n\nFinally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time which,\nif distributed, would be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN EACH YEAR.\nMeanwhile, they were supported, and furnished with opportunities of\ninstruction. If this time were distributed over _every day_, the\nservants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.\n\nThe service of those Strangers who were _national_ servants or\ntributaries, was regulated upon the same benevolent principle, and\nsecured to them TWO-THIRDS of the whole year. \"A month they were in\nLebanon, and two months they were at home.\" 1 Kings, v. 13-15. Compared\nwith 2 Chron. 11. 17-19, viii. 7-9; 1 Kings, ix 20. 22. The regulations\nunder which the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth and\nKirjath-jearim, (afterwards called _Nethinims_) performed service for\nthe Israelites, must have secured to them nearly the whole of their\ntime. If, as is probable, they served in courses corresponding to those\nof their priests whom they assisted, they were in actual service less\nthan one month annually.\n\nIX. THE SERVANT WAS PROTECTED BY LAW EQUALLY WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF\nTHE COMMUNITY\n\nProof.--\"Judge righteously between every man and his brother and THE\nSTRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM.\" \"Ye shall not RESPECT PERSONS in judgment,\nbut ye shall hear the SMALL as well as the great.\" Deut. i. 16, 19. Also\nLev. xix. 15. xxiv. 22. \"Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the\nSTRANGER, as for one of your own country.\" So Num. xv. 29. \"Ye shall\nhave ONE LAW for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that\nis born among the children of Israel and for the STRANGER that\nsojourneth among them.\" Deut. xxvii. 19. \"Cursed be he that PERVERTETH\nTHE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER.\"[A] Deut. xxvii. 19.\n\n[Footnote A: In a work entitled, \"Instruction in the Mosaic Religion\" by\nProfessor Jholson, of the Jewish seminary at Frankfort-on-the-Main,\ntranslated into English by Rabbi Leeser, we find the following.--Sec.\n165. \"Question. Does holy writ any where make a difference between the\nIsraelite and the other who is no Israelite, in those laws and\nprohibitions which forbid us the _committal of any thing against our\nfellow men?_\"\n\n\"Answer. No where we do find a trace of such a difference. See Lev. xix.\n33-36.\"\n\n\"God says thou shalt not murder, _steal_, cheat, &c. In every place the\naction _itself_ is prohibited as being an abomination to God _without\nrespect to the PERSONS against whom it is committed_.\" ]\n\nX. THE MOSAIC SYSTEM ENJOINED THE GREATEST AFFECTION AND KINDNESS\nTOWARDS SERVANTS, FOREIGN AS WELL AS JEWISH.\n\n\"The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among\nyou, and thou shalt love him as thyself.\" Lev. xix. 34. \"For the Lord\nyour God * * REGARDETH NOT PERSONS. He doth execute the judgment of the\nfatherless and widow, and LOVETH THE STRANGER, in giving him food and\nraiment, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE STRANGER.\" Deut. x. 17, 19. \"Thou shalt\nneither vex a STRANGER nor oppress him.\" Ex. xxii. 21. \"Thou shalt not\noppress a STRANGER, for ye know the heart of a stranger.\" Ex. xxiii. 9.\n\"If thy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be\na STRANGER or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no\nusury of him or increase, but fear thy God.\" Lev. xxv. 35, 36. Could\nthis same stranger be taken by one that feared his God, and held as a\nslave, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights?\n\nXI. SERVANTS WERE PLACED UPON A LEVEL WITH THEIR MASTERS IN ALL CIVIL\nAND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. Num. xv. 15, 16, 29; ix. 14; Deut. i. 16, 17; Lev.\nxxiv. 22. To these may be added that numerous class of passages which\nrepresents God as regarding _alike_ the natural rights of _all_ men, and\nmaking for all an _equal_ provision. Such as, 2 Chron. xix. 7; Prov.\nxxiv. 23, xxviii. 21; Job. xxxiv. 19, 2 Sam. xiv. 14; Acts x. 35; Eph.\nvi. 9.\n\nFinally--With such watchful jealousy did the Mosaic Institutes guard the\n_rights_ of servants, as to make the mere fact of a servant's escape\nfrom his master presumptive evidence that his master had _oppressed_\nhim; and on that presumption, annulled his master's authority over him,\ngave him license to go wherever he pleased, and commanded all to protect\nhim. Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. As this regulation will be examined under a\nsubsequent head, where its full discussion more appropriately belongs,\nwe notice it here merely to point out its bearings on the topic under\nconsideration.\n\nTHESE ARE REGULATIONS OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY\nSLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.\n\n\n\nII. WERE PERSONS MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?\n\nWe argue that they became servants of _their own accord,_ because,\n\nI. TO BECOME A SERVANT WAS TO BECOME A PROSELYTE. Whoever of the\nstrangers became a servant, he was required to abjure idolatry, to enter\ninto covenant with God[A], be circumcised in token of it, be bound to\nkeep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of\nTabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and ceremonial law.\nWere the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the\nrenunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant\nwith God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they\n_compelled_ mechanically to chew and swallow the flesh of the Paschal\nlamb, while they abhorred the institution, spurned the laws that\nenjoined it, detested its author and its executors, and instead of\nrejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, bewailed it as a\ncalamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they _driven_\nfrom all parts of the land three times in the year to the annual\nfestivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated? Were\nthey goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and\ndisgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with\nloathed abominations? We repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become\na _proselyte_. Did God authorize his people to make proselytes at the\npoint of the bayonet? by the terror of pains and penalties? by\nconverting men into _merchandise?_ Were _proselyte and chattel_\nsynonymes in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_\nbefore taken into covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition\nof adoption? the sure and sacred passport to the communion of the\nsaints?\n\n[Footnote A: Maimonides, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with\nhim at the head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this\npoint: \"Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or\nwhether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them\nboth into the covenant.\n\n\"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that\nis bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him,\nunless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown\nslave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to\nwin him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year.\nAfter which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him\nlonger than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers\nfrom whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than\nthe worship of a _willing_ heart.\"--Maimon, Hilcoth Miloth, Chap. 1,\nSec. 8.\n\nThe ancient Jewish Doctors assert that the servant from the Strangers\nwho at the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish\nreligion and was on that account sent back to his own people, received a\n_full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his\nexpenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign\nservant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of\nan Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a\nmere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic\nsystem. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_.\nWhether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes\nnot within the scope of this inquiry. ]\n\nII. THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVE SERVANTS TO THEIR MASTERS WAS PROHIBITED.\n\"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped\nfrom his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in\nthat place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh\nhim best; thou shalt not oppress him.\" Deut. xxiii. 15, 16.\n\nAs though God had said, \"To deliver him up would be to recognize the\n_right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his _choice_,\nproclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall not force\nhim back and thus recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him in\nsuch a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection.\" It\nmay be said that this command referred only to the servants of _heathen_\nmasters in the surrounding nations. We answer: the terms of the command\nare unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would merely shift the\npressure of the difficulty to another point. Did God require them to\nprotect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and\nyet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of\n_thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_\nservant escapes to the Israelites; God says, \"He shall dwell with thee,\nin that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it\n_liketh him_ best.\" Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming\ninto Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ in by some kidnapper,\nwho bought him of his master, and forced him into a condition against\nhis will; would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who\n_voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the same treatment of the\n_same person_, provided in addition to this last outrage, the previous\none had been committed of forcing him into the nation against his will?\nTo commit violence on the free choice of a foreign servant is forsooth a\nhorrible enormity, provided you _begin_ the violence _after_ he has come\namong you. But if you commit the first act on the _other side of the\nline_; if you begin the outrage by buying him from a third person\nagainst his will, and then tear him from home, drag him across the line\ninto the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah! that alters the\ncase, and you may perpetrate the violence now with impunity! Would\n_greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer than to the old\nresidents--those who had been servants in Jewish families perhaps for a\ngeneration? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise towards _him_,\nuncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to\nthe multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_ the covenant? But,\nthe objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that\nthe covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding\nnations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition\nagainst their wills. In that case, the surrounding nations would adopt\nretaliatory measures, and become so many asylums for Jewish fugitives.\nAs these nations were not only on every side of them, but in their\nmidst, such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men\nwhose condition was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the same\ncommand which protected the servant from the power of his foreign\n_master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was\nnot, merely \"Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_,\" but \"he\nshall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of\nthy gates where it liketh _him_ best.\" Every Israelite was forbidden to\nput him in any condition _against his will_. What was this but a\nproclamation, that all who _chose_ to live in the land and obey the\nlaws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their services at\nsuch a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased?\nBesides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of\n_foreign_ servants only, there was no law requiring the return of\nservants who had escaped from the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and\n_cattle_ escaped, they were required to return, but not escaped\n_servants_. These verses contain, 1st, a command, \"Thou shalt not\ndeliver,\" &c., 2d. a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free\nchoice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own\ndiscretion; and 3d, a command guarding this right, namely, \"Thou shalt\nnot oppress him,\" as though God had said, \"If you restrain him from\nexercising his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his\nresidence, it is _oppression_, and shall not be tolerated.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Perhaps it may be objected that this view of Deut. xxiii.\n15, 16, makes nonsense of Ex. xxi. 27, which provides that if a man\nstrikes out his servant's tooth he shall let him go free. Small favor\nindeed if the servant might set himself free whenever he pleased!\nAnswer--The former passage might remove the servant from the master's\n_authority_, without annulling the master's legal claims upon the\nservant, if he had paid him in advance and had not received from him an\nequivalent, and this equally, whether his master were a Jew or a\nGentile. The latter passage, \"He shall let him go free _for his tooth's\nsake,\"_ not only freed the servant from the master's authority, but also\nfrom any pecuniary claim which the master might have on account of\nhaving paid his wages in advance; and this _as a compensation_, for the\nloss of a tooth.]\n\nIII. THE SERVANTS HAD PECULIAR OPPORTUNITIES AND FACILITIES FOR ESCAPE.\nThree times every year, all the males over twelve years, were required\nto attend the national feasts. They were thus absent from their homes\nnot less than three weeks at each time, making nine weeks annually. As\nthese caravans moved over the country, were there military scouts lining\nthe way, to intercept deserters?--a corporal's guard at each pass of the\nmountains, sentinels pacing the hilltops, and light-horse scouring the\ndefiles? The Israelites must have had some safe contrivance for taking\ntheir \"_slaves_\" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a\nbody of slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are\nhandcuffed and chained together, to keep them from running away, or\nbeating their drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an\nimprovement introduced by Samuel, or was it left for the wisdom of\nSolomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and\nbiblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in\nbundles, or caged up and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the\nHoly City, \"lodged in jail for safe keeping,\" the Sanhedrim appointing\nspecial religious services for their benefit, and their \"drivers\"\nofficiating at \"ORAL instruction.\" Meanwhile, what became of the sturdy\n_handmaids_ left at home? What hindered them from stalking off in a\nbody? Perhaps the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the\nkitchens, while the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted\nrangers, picking up stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets,\nkeeping a sharp look-out at night!\n\nIV. WILFUL NEGLECT OF CEREMONIAL RITES DISSOLVED THE RELATION.\n\nSuppose the servants from the heathen had, upon entering Jewish\nfamilies, refused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of\nemancipation! Their _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose they had refused\nto attend the annual feasts, or had eaten leavened bread during the\nPassover, or compounded the ingredients of the anointing oil, or had\ntouched a dead body, a bone, or a grave, or in any way had contracted\nceremonial uncleanness, and refused to be cleansed with the \"water of\nseparation,\" they would have been \"cut off from the people;\"\n_excommunicated_. Ex. xii. 19; xxx. 33; Num. xix. 16.\n\nV. SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS NECESSARILY VOLUNTARY.\n\nAbraham's servants are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred\nand eighteen _young men_ \"born in his house,\" and many more _not_ born\nin his house. His servants of all ages were probably MANY THOUSANDS. How\ndid Abraham and Sarah contrive to hold fast so many thousand servants\nagainst their wills? The most natural supposition is that the Patriarch\nand his wife \"took turns\" in surrounding them! The neighboring tribes,\ninstead of constituting a picket guard to hem in his servants, would\nhave been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, as they\ndid Lot and his household. Besides, there was neither \"constitution\" nor\n\"compact,\" to send back Abraham's fugitives, nor a truckling police to\npounce upon them, nor gentlemen-kidnappers, suing for his patronage,\nvolunteering to howl on their track, boasting their blood-hound scent,\nand pledging their honour to hunt down and deliver up, provided they had\na description of the \"flesh-marks,\" and were suitably stimulated by\npieces of silver.[A] Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in\nall the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs,\nfoot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these\npatriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully\ntrained \"his household to do justice and judgment,\" though so deplorably\ndestitute of the needful aids.\n\n[Footnote A: The following is a standing newspaper advertisement of one\nof these professional man-catchers, a member of the New York bar, who\ncoolly plies his trade in the commercial emporium, sustained by the\ncomplacent greetings and courtesies of \"HONORABLE MEN!\" \"IMPORTANT TO\nTHE SOUTH.--F.H. Pettis, native of Orange County, Va., being located in\nthe city of New York, in the practice of law, announces to his friends\nand the public in general, that he has been engaged as Counsel and\nAdviser in General for a party whose business it is in the northern\ncities to arrest and secure runaway slaves. He has been thus engaged for\nseveral years, and as the act of Congress alone governs now in this\ncity, in business of this sort, which renders it easy for the recovery\nof such property, he invites post paid communications to him, inclosing\na fee of $20 in each case, and a power of Attorney minutely descriptive\nof the party absconded, and if in the northern region, he, or she will\nsoon be had.\n\n\"Mr. Pettis will attend promptly to all law business confided to him.\n\n\"N.B. New York City is estimated to contain 5,000 Runaway Slaves.\n\n\"PETTIS.\" ]\n\nProbably Job had even more servants than Abraham. See Job. i. 3, 14-19,\nand xlii. 12. That his thousands of servants staid with him entirely of\ntheir own accord, is proved by the _fact_ of their staying with him.\nSuppose they had wished to quit his service, and so the whole army had\nfiled off before him in full retreat, how could the patriarch have\nbrought them to halt? Doubtless with his wife, seven sons, and three\ndaughters for allies, he would have soon out-flanked the fugitive host\nand dragged each of them back to his wonted chain and staple.\n\nBut the impossibility of Job's servants being held against their wills,\nis not the only proof of their voluntary condition. We have his own\nexplicit testimony that he had not \"withheld from the poor their\n_desire_.\" Job. xxxi. 16. Of course he could hardly have made them live\nwith him, and forced them to work for him against _their desire_.\n\nWhen Isaac sojourned in the country of the Philistines he \"had _great\nstore_ of servants.\" And we have his testimony that the Philistines\nhated him, added to that of inspiration that they \"envied\" him. Of\ncourse they would hardly volunteer to organize patroles and committees\nof vigilance to keep his servants from running away, and to drive back\nall who were found beyond the limits of his plantation without a \"pass!\"\nIf the thousands of Isaac's servants were held against their wills, who\nheld them?\n\nThe servants of the Jews, during the building of the wall of Jerusalem,\nunder Nehemiah, may be included under this head. That they remained with\ntheir masters of their own accord, we argue from the fact, that the\ncircumstances of the Jews made it impossible for them to _compel_ their\nresidence and service. They were few in number, without resources,\ndefensive fortifications, or munitions of war, and surrounded withal by\na host of foes, scoffing at their feebleness and inviting desertion from\ntheir ranks. Yet so far from the Jews attempting in any way to restrain\ntheir servants, or resorting to precautions to prevent escape, they put\narms into their hands, and enrolled them as a night-guard, for the\ndefence of the city. By cheerfully engaging in this service and in labor\nby day, when with entire ease they might all have left their masters,\nmarched over to the enemy, and been received with shoutings, the\nservants testified that their condition was one of _their own choice_,\nand that they regarded their own interests as inseparably identified\nwith those of their masters. Neh. iv. 23.\n\nVI. NO INSTANCES OF ISRAELITISH MASTERS SELLING SERVANTS. Neither\nAbraham nor Isaac seem ever to have sold one, though they had \"great\nstore of servants.\" Jacob was himself a servant in the family of Laban\ntwenty-one years. He had afterward a large number of servants. Joseph\ninvited him to come into Egypt, and to bring all that he had with\nhim--\"thou and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks\nand thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST.\" Gen. xlv. 10. Jacob took his\nflocks and herds but _no servants_. Yet we are told that Jacob \"took his\njourney with _all that he had_.\" Gen. xlvi. 1. And after his arrival in\nEgypt, Joseph said to Pharaoh \"my father, and my brethren, and their\nflocks, and their herds and _all that they have_, are come.\" Gen. xlvii.\n1. The servants doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when\nJacob went into Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country.\n\nThe government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until\ntheir services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.\nxxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their\n_servants_. To give the master a _right_ to sell his servant, would\nannihilate the servant's right of choice in his own disposal; but says\nthe objector, \"to give the master a right to _buy_ a servant, equally\nannihilates the servant's _right of choice_.\" Answer. It is one thing to\nhave a right to buy a man, and a quite another thing to have a right to\nbuy him of _another_ man.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose\nof even the _services_ of their servants, as men hire out their laborers\nwhom they employ by the year; but whether they had or not, affects not\nthe argument.]\n\nThough servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were\nbought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their\nbetrothal as WIVES. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. \"If a man sell his daughter to be a\nmaid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please\nnot her master WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, he shall let her be\nredeemed.\"[B]\n\n[Footnote B: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as\nfollows:--\"A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid\nhimself under obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when\nshe was fit to be betrothed.\"--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV.\nSec. XI. Jarchi, on the same passage, says, \"He is bound to espouse her\nto be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her\n_espousal_.\"]\n\nVII. VOLUNTARY SERVANTS FROM THE STRANGERS.\n\nWe infer that _all_ the servants from the Strangers were voluntary in\nbecoming such, since we have direct testimony that some of them were so.\n\"Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether\nhe be of thy brethren, OR OF THY STRANGERS that are in thy land within\nthy gates.\" Deut. xxiv. 14. We learn from this that some of the\nservants, which the Israelites obtained from the strangers were procured\nby presenting the inducement of _wages_ to their _free choice_, thus\nrecognizing their right to sell their services to others, or not, at\ntheir own pleasure. Did the Israelites, when they went among the heathen\nto procure servants, take money in one hand and ropes in the other? Did\nthey _ask_ one man to engage in their service, and _drag_ along with\nthem the next that they met, in spite of his struggles. Did they knock\nfor admission at one door and break down the next? Did they go through\none village with friendly salutations and respectful demeanor, and with\nthe air of those soliciting favors, offer wages to the inhabitants as an\ninducement to engage in their service--while they sent on their agents\nto prowl through the next, with a kidnapping posse at their heels, to\ntear from their homes as many as they could get within their clutches?\n\nVIII. HEBREW SERVANTS VOLUNTARY.\n\nWe infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in COMMENCING his\nservice, because he was preeminently so IN CONTINUING it. If, at the\nyear of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his\nmaster, the law required his ear to be bored by the judges of the land,\nthus making it impossible for him to be held against his will. Yea more,\nhis master was _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to\nget rid of him.\n\nIX. THE MANNER OF PROCURING SERVANTS, AN APPEAL TO CHOICE.\n\nThe Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, and\nthen leave them to decide. They might neither seize them by _force_, nor\nfrighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false pretences, nor\n_borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to BUY\nthem[A]--that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the individuals\nto _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to _refuse all\noffers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their own work_.\nSuppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become servants, what\nprovision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE.\n\n[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they\nhad earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay\nthe legal penalty, _stands by itself_, and has nothing to do with the\ncondition of servants.]\n\nX. INCIDENTAL CORROBORATIVES. Various incidental expressions corroborate\nthe idea that servants became such by their own contract. Job. xli. 4,\nis an illustration, \"Will he (Leviathan) make a COVENANT with thee? wilt\nthou take him for a SERVANT forever?\" Isa. xiv. 1, 2 is also an\nillustration. \"The strangers shall be joined with them (the Israelites)\nand _they shall_ CLEAVE to the house of Jacob, and the house of Israel\nshall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants and handmaids.\"\n\nThe transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF PHARAOH was\nvoluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord they\ncame to Joseph and said, \"There is not aught left but our _bodies_ and\nour lands; _buy_ us;\" then in the 25th verse, \"We will be Pharaoh's\nservants.\" To these it may be added, that the sacrifices and offerings\nwhich ALL were required to present, were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i.\n2. 3.\n\nThe pertinence and point of our Lord's declaration in Luke xvi. 13, is\ndestroyed on the supposition that servants did not become such by _their\nown choice_. \"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate\nthe one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise\nthe other.\" Let it be kept in mind, that our Lord was a _Jew_. The lost\nsheep of the house of Israel were his flock. Wherever he went, they were\naround him: whenever he spake, they were his auditors. His public\npreaching and his private teaching and conversation, were full of\nreferences to their own institutions, laws and usages, and of\nillustrations drawn from them. In the verse quoted, he illustrates the\nimpossibility of their making choice of God as their portion, and\nbecoming his servants, while they chose the world, and were _its_\nservants. To make this clear, he refers to one of their own\ninstitutions, that of _domestic service_, with which, in all its\nrelations, incidents and usages, they were perfectly familiar. He\nreminds them of the well-known impossibility of any person being the\nservant of two masters, and declares the sole ground of that\nimpossibility to be, the fact that the servant _chooses_ the service of\nthe one, and _spurns_ that of the other. \"He shall _hold to_ the one and\n_despise_ (reject) the other.\" As though our Lord had said, \"No one can\nbecome the servant of another, when his will revolts from his service,\nand when the conditions of it tend to make him hate the man.\" Since the\nfact that the servant _spurns_ one of two masters, makes it impossible\nfor him to serve _that one_, if he spurned _both_ it would make it\nimpossible for him to serve _either_. So, also, if the fact that an\nindividual did not \"hold to\" or choose the service of another, proves\nthat he could not become his servant, then the question, whether or not\nhe should become the servant of another was suspended on _his own will_.\nFurther, the phraseology of the passage shows that the _choice_ of the\nservant decided the question. \"He will HOLD TO the one,\"--hence there is\nno difficulty in the way of his serving _him_; but \"no servant can\nserve\" a master whom he does not \"_hold to_,\" or _cleave_ to, whose\nservice he does not _choose_. This is the sole ground of the\nimpossibility asserted by our Lord.\n\nThe last clause of the verse furnishes an application of the principle\nasserted in the former part, \"Ye cannot serve God and mammon.\" Now in\nwhat does the impossibility of serving both God and the world consist?\nSolely in the fact that the will which chooses the one refuses the\nother, and the affections which \"hold to\" the one, reject the other.\nThus the question, Which of the two is to be served, is suspended alone\nupon the _choice_ of the individual.\n\nXI. RICH STRANGERS DID NOT BECOME SERVANTS. Indeed, so far were they\nfrom becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held Jewish\nservants. Lev. xxv. 47. Since _rich_ strangers did not become servants\nto the Israelites, we infer that those who _did_, became such not\nbecause they were _strangers_, but because they were _poor_,--not\nbecause, on account of their being heathen, they were _compelled by\nforce_ to become servants, but because, on account of their _poverty_,\nthey _chose_ to become servants to better their condition.\n\nXII. INSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SERVANTS. Mention is often made of persons\nbecoming servants who were manifestly VOLUNTARY. As the Prophet Elisha.\n1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. 2 Kings ii.\n5. The word translated master, is the same that is so rendered in almost\nevery instance where masters are spoken of under the Mosaic and\npatriarchal systems. Moses was the servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1; iv.\n10. Joshua was the servant of Moses. Ex. xxxiii. 11. Num. xi. 28. Jacob\nwas the servant of Laban. Gen. xxix. 18-27. See also the case of the\nGibeonites who _voluntarily_ became servants to the Israelites and\nafterwards performed service for the \"house of God\" throughout the\nsubsequent Jewish history, were incorporate with the Israelites,\nregistered in the genealogies, and manifestly of their own accord\nremained with them, and \"_clave_\" to them. Neh. x. 28, 29; xi. 3; Ez.\nvii. 7.\n\nFinally, in all the regulations respecting servants and their service,\nno form of expression is employed from which it could be inferred, that\nservants were made such, and held in that condition by force. Add to\nthis the entire absence of all the machinery, appurtenances and\nincidents of _compulsion_.\n\nVoluntary service on the part of servants would have been in keeping\nwith regulations which abounded in the Mosaic system and sustained by a\nmultitude of analogies. Compulsory service on the other hand, could have\nharmonized with nothing, and would have been the solitary disturbing\nforce, marring its design, counteracting its tendencies, and confusing\nand falsifying its types. The directions given to regulate the\nperformance of service for the _public_, lay great stress on the\n_willingness_ of those employed to perform it. For the spirit and usages\nthat obtained under the Mosaic system in this respect, see 1 Chron.\nxxviii. 21; Ex. xxxv. 5, 21, 22, 29; 1 Chron. xxix. 5, 6, 9, 14, 17; Ex.\nxxv. 2; Judges v. 2; Lev. xxii. 29; 2 Chron. xxxv. 8; Ezra i. 6; Ex.\nxxxv; Neh. xi. 2.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: We should naturally infer that the directions which\nregulated the rendering of service to individuals, would proceed upon\nthe same principle in this respect with those which regulated the\nrendering of service to the _public_. Otherwise the Mosaic system,\ninstead of constituting in its different parts a harmonious _whole_,\nwould be divided against itself; its principles counteracting and\nnullifying each other.]\n\nAgain, the voluntariness of servants is a natural inference from the\nfact that the Hebrew word _ebedh,_ uniformly rendered _servant_, is\napplied to a great variety of classes and descriptions of persons under\nthe patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, _all of whom_ were voluntary\nand most of them eminently so. For instance, it is applied to persons\nrendering acts of _worship_ about seventy times, whereas it is applied\nto _servants_ not more than half that number of times.\n\nTo this we may add, that the illustrations drawn from the condition and\nservice of _servants_ and the ideas which the term servant is employed\nto convey when applied figuratively to moral subjects would, in most\ninstances, lose all their force, and often become absurdities if the\nwill of the servant _resisted_ his service, and he performed it only by\n_compulsion_. Many passages will at once occur to those who are familiar\nwith the Bible. We give a single example. \"_To whom YE YIELD YOURSELVES\nservants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey._\" Rom. vi. 16. It\nwould hardly be possible to assert the voluntariness of servants more\nstrongly in a direct proposition than it is here asserted by\nimplication.\n\n\n\nIII. WERE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY\n\nAs the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it\nwould be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their\nbecoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they\n_were paid_ for their labor, we argue.\n\n1. BECAUSE GOD REBUKED THE USING OF SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES. \"Wo unto him\nthat buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong;\nTHAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES, AND GIVETH HIM NOT FOR\nHIS WORK.\" Jer. xxii. 13. The Hebrew word _rea_, translated _neighbor_,\nmeans any one with whom we have to do--all descriptions of persons, even\nthose who prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of\nfighting us--\"As when a man riseth against his NEIGHBOR and slayeth\nhim.\" Deut. xxii. 26. \"Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know\nnot what to do in the end thereof, when thy NEIGHBOR hath put thee to\nshame.\" Prov. xxv. 8. \"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy\nNEIGHBOR.\" Ex. xx. 16. \"If a man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR\nto slay him with guile.\" Ex. xxi. 14, &c. The doctrine plainly\ninculcated in this passage is, that every man's labor, or \"service,\"\nbeing his own property, he is entitled to the profit of it, and that for\nanother to \"use\" it without paying him the value of it, is\n\"unrighteousness.\" The last clause of the verse \"and giveth him not for\nhis work,\" reaffirms the same principle, that every man is to be _paid_\nfor \"his work.\" In the context, the prophet contrasts the\nunrighteousness of those who used the labor of others without pay, with\nthe justice and equity practiced by their patriarchal ancestor toward\nthe poor. \"Did not thy father eat and drink and _do judgment and\njustice_, and then it was well with him. He _judged the cause of the\npoor and needy_; then it was well with him. But thine eyes and thine\nheart are not but for thy _covetousness_, and for to shed innocent\nblood, and for _oppression_, and for violence to do it.\" Jer. xxii. 15,\n16. 17.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Paul lays down the same principle in the form of a precept\n\"Masters give unto your servants that which is JUST and EQUAL.\" Col. iv.\n1. Thus not only asserting the _right_ of the servant to an equivalent\nfor his labor, and the duty of the master to render it, but condemning\nall those relations between master and servant which were not founded\nupon justice and equality of rights. The apostle James enforces the same\nprinciple. \"Behold, the hire of the laborers, who have reaped down your\nfields, which is of you kept back _by fraud_, crieth.\" James v. 4. As\nthough he had said, \"wages are the _right_ of laborers; those who work\nfor you have a just claim on you for _pay_; this you refuse to render,\nand thus _defraud_ them by keeping from them what _belongs_ to them.\"\nSee also Mal. iii 5.]\n\nII. GOD TESTIFIES THAT IN OUR DUTY TO OUR FELLOW MEN, ALL THE LAW AND\nTHE PROPHETS HANG UPON THIS COMMAND, \"THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS\nTHYSELF.\" Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted _verbatim_ one of\nthe laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the\nsame chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of strangers, \"The\nstranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you,\nand THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF.\" If it be loving others as\nourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and\nclothing also, would be a stronger illustration still of the law of\nlove! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others\nas we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good\nalone, Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human\nnature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, \"No man ever\nyet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it.\"\n\nIII. SERVANTS WERE OFTEN WEALTHY. As persons became servants FROM\nPOVERTY, we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently\nowned property, and sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the servant of\nMephibosheth, gave David \"Two hundred loaves of bread, and a hundred\nbunches of raisins, and a hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of\nwine.\" 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can be inferred from\nthe fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he had twenty\nservants. In Lev. xxv. 47-49, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sold\nhimself, it is declared that he may be _redeemed,_ either by his\nkindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself from poverty,\nhe must have acquired considerable property _after_ he became a servant.\nIf it had not been common for servants to acquire property over which\nthey had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly have ventured\nto take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v.\n22, 23. As it was procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means\nused in getting it; but if servants could \"own nothing, nor acquire\nanything,\" to embark in such an enterprise would have been consummate\nstupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver,\nwould of itself convict him of theft.[B] But since it was common for\nservants to own property, he might have it, and invest or use it,\nwithout attracting special attention, and that consideration alone would\nhave been a strong motive to the act. His master, though he rebuked him\nfor using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from\nhim, but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and\ncattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the\nservant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency.\n1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_.\nThat it was somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from its\nbeing a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. When Jacob became the\nservant of Laban, it was evidently from poverty, yet Laban said to him,\nTell me \"what shall thy _wages_ be?\" After Jacob had been his servant\nfor ten years, he proposed to set up for himself, but Laban said\n\"Appoint me thy wages and I will give it,\" and he paid him his price.\nDuring the twenty years that Jacob was a servant, he always worked for\nwages and at his own price. Gen. xxix. 15, 18; xxx. 28-33. The case of\nthe Gibeonites, who, after becoming servants, still occupied their\ncities, and remained in many respects, a distinct people for\ncenturies;[C] and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of\nSolomon, who worked out their \"tribute of bond-service\" in levies,\nperiodically relieving each other, are additional illustrations of\nindependence in the acquisition and ownership of property.\n\n[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the\n_relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and now, yet we have enough to\nwarrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value\n_then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing\na large amount of money? They _\"know how to take care of themselves\"_\nquite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on\nsuch a small scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make\ndetection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then, and a gaping\nmarvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in the\nfootsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if,\nafter so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the\nbusiness by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their\nbetters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at\na practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried\non around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high\nimpulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern set before them in the\ndaily vocation of \"Honorables\" and \"Excellencies,\" and to emulate the\nillustrious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and _Right_ and _Very\nReverends!_ Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on\nVirginia, pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, \"That disposition to\ntheft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their\n_situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is\na problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious\nprecepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as\nwell as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take\na _little_ from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who\nwould slay him?\"]\n\n\n[Footnote C: The Nethinims, which name was afterwards given to the\nGibeonites on account of their being _set apart_ for the service of the\ntabernacle, had their own houses and cities and \"dwelt every one in his\nown possession.\" Neh. xi. 3. 21; Ezra ii. 70; 1 Chron. ix. 2.]\n\nAgain. The Israelites often _hired_ servants from the strangers. Deut.\nxxiv. 17.\n\nSince then it is certain that they gave wages to a part of their\nCanaanitish servants, thus recognizing their _right_ to a reward for\ntheir labor, we infer that they did not rob the rest of their earnings.\n\nIf God gave them a license to make the strangers work for them without\npay--if this was good and acceptable in His sight, and _right and just\nin itself_, they must have been great fools to have wasted their money\nby paying wages when they could have saved it, by making the strangers\ndo all their work for nothing! Besides, by refusing to avail themselves\nof this \"Divine license,\" they despised the blessing and cast contempt\non the giver! But far be it from us to do the Israelites injustice;\nperhaps they seized all the Canaanites they could lay their hands on,\nand forced them to work without pay, but not being able to catch enough\nto do their work, were obliged to offer wages in order to eke out the\nsupply!\n\nThe parable of our Lord, contained in Mat. xviii. 23-34, not only\nderives its significance from the fact, that servants can both _own_ and\n_owe_ and _earn_ property, over which they had the control, but would be\nmade a medley of contradictions on any other supposition.--1. Their lord\nat a set time proceeded to \"take account\" and \"reckon\" with his\nservants; the phraseology itself showing that the relations between the\nparties, were those of debt and credit. 2. As the reckoning went on, one\nof his servants was found to _owe_ him ten thousand talents. From the\nfact that the servant _owed_ this to his master, we naturally infer,\nthat he must have been at some time, and in some way, the responsible\n_owner_ of that amount, or of its substantial equivalent. Not that he\nhad had that amount put into his hands to invest, or disburse, in his\nmaster's name, merely as his _agent_, for in that case no claim of\n_debt_ for value received would lie, but, that having sustained the\nresponsibilities of legal _proprietorship_, he was under the liabilities\nresulting therefrom. 3. Not having on hand wherewith to pay, he says to\nhis master \"have patience with me _and I will pay thee all_.\" If the\nservant had been his master's _property_, his time and earnings belonged\nto the master as a matter of course, hence the promise to earn and pay\nover that amount, was virtually saying to his master, \"I will take money\nout of your pocket with which to pay my debt to you,\" thus adding insult\nto injury. The promise of the servant to pay the debt on condition that\nthe time for payment should be postponed, not only proceeds upon the\nfact that his time was his own, that he was constantly earning property\nor in circumstances that enabled him to earn it, and that he was the\n_proprietor_ of his earnings, but that his master had _full knowledge_\nof that fact.--In a word, the supposition that the master was the\n_owner_ of the servant, would annihilate all legal claim upon him for\nvalue received, and that the servant was the _property_ of the master,\nwould absolve him from all obligations of debt, or rather would always\n_forestall_ such obligations--for the relations of owner and creditor in\nsuch case, would annihilate each other, as would those of _property_ and\n_debtor_. The fact that the same servant was the creditor of one of his\nfellow servants, who owed him a considerable sum, and that at last he\nwas imprisoned until he should pay all that was due to his master, are\nadditional corroborations of the same point.\n\nIV. HEIRSHIP.--Servants frequently inherited their master's property;\nespecially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family.\nEliezer, the servant of Abraham, Gen. xv. 23; Ziba, the servant of\nMephibosheth; Jarha, the servant of Sheshan, who married his daughter,\nand thus became his heir, he having no sons, and the _husbandmen_ who\nsaid of their master's son, \"this is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the\nINHERITANCE WILL BE OURS,\" are illustrations; also Prov. xxx. 23, an\n_handmaid_ (or _maid-servant_,) that is _heir_ to her mistress; also\nProv. xvii. 2--\"A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth\nshame, and SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN.\" This\npassage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the wives and\ndaughters of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and plunder of\nearnings, a class of persons, from which, in frequent contingencies,\nthey selected both heirs for their property, and husbands for their\ndaughters?\n\nV. ALL WERE REQUIRED TO PRESENT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES. Deut. xvi. 16,\n17; 2 Chron. xv. 9-11; Numb. ix. 13, 14. Beside this, \"every man\" from\ntwenty years old and above, was required to pay a tax of half a shekel\nat the taking of the census; this is called \"an offering unto the Lord\nto make an atonement for their souls.\" Ex. xxx. 12-16. See also Ex.\nxxxiv. 20. Servants must have had permanently the means of _acquiring_\nproperty to meet these expenditures.\n\nVI. SERVANTS WHO WENT OUT AT THE SEVENTH YEAR, WERE \"FURNISHED\nLIBERALLY.\" Deut. xv. 10-14. \"Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of\nthy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that\nwherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give him.\"[A]\nIf it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a\nlike bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class\nof _Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason,\n_they did not go out in the seventh year,_ but continued until the\njubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a\n_gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_, it proves\nthat the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs\nalso; a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators,\nhowever unscrupulous.\n\n[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as\nfollows--\"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say,\n_'Loading, ye shall load him,'_ likewise every one of his family with as\nmuch as he can take with him--abundant benefits. And if it be\navariciously asked, 'How much must I give him?' I say unto _you, not\nless than thirty shekels,_ which is the valuation of a servant, as\ndeclared in Ex. xxi. 32.\"--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec.\n3.]\n\nVII. SERVANTS WERE BOUGHT. In other words, they received compensation in\nadvance.[A] Having shown, under a previous head, that servants _sold\nthemselves_, and of course received the compensation for themselves,\nexcept in cases where parents hired out the time of their children till\nthey became of age,[B] a mere reference to the fact is all that is\nrequired for the purposes of this argument. As all the strangers in the\nland were required to pay an annual tribute to the government, the\nIsraelites might often \"buy\" them as family servants, by stipulating\nwith them to pay their annual tribute. This assumption of their\nobligations to the government might cover the whole of the servant's\ntime of service, or a part of it, at the pleasure of the parties.\n\n[Footnote A: But, says the objector, if servants received their pay in\nadvance, and if the Israelites were forbidden to surrender the fugitive\nto his master, it would operate practically as a bounty offered to all\nservants who would leave their master's service encouraging them to make\ncontracts, get their pay in advance and then run away, thus cheating\ntheir masters out of their money as well as their own services.--We\nanswer, the prohibition, Deut xxiii. 15. 16, \"Thou shalt not deliver\nunto his master,\" &c., sets the servant free from his _authority_ and of\ncourse, from all those liabilities of injury, to which _as his servant_,\nhe was subjected, but not from the obligation of legal contracts. If the\nservant had received pay in advance, and had not rendered an equivalent\nfor this \"value received,\" he was not absolved from his obligation to do\nso, but he was absolved from all obligations to pay his master in _that\nparticular way_, that is, _by working for him as his servant_.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and\nboys at thirteen years.]\n\nVIII. THE RIGHT OF SERVANTS TO COMPENSATION IS RECOGNISED IN Ex. xxi.\n27. \"And if he smite out his man-servant's, or his maid-servant's tooth,\nhe shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.\" This regulation is\nmanifestly based upon the _right_ of the servant to the _use_ of himself\nand all this powers, faculties and personal conveniences, and\nconsequently his just claim for remuneration, upon him, who should\nhowever _unintentionally_, deprive him of the use even of the least of\nthem. If the servant had a right to his _tooth_ and the use _of_ it,\nupon the same principle, he had a right to the rest of his body and the\nuse of it. If he had a right to the _fraction_, and if it was his to\nhold, to use, and to have pay for; he had a right to the _sum total_,\nand it was his to hold, to use, and to have pay for.\n\nIX. WE FIND MASTERS AT ONE TIME HAVING A LARGE NUMBER OF SERVANTS, AND\nAFTERWARDS NONE, WITH NO INTIMATION IN ANY CASE THAT THEY WERE SOLD. The\nwages of servants would enable them to set up in business for\nthemselves. Jacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one years,\nbecame thus an independent herdsman, and had many servants. Gen. xxx.\n43; xxxii. 16. But all these servants had left him before he went down\ninto Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for\nthemselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, 32. The case of Ziba, the\nservant of Mephibosheth, who had twenty servants, has been already\nmentioned.\n\nX. GOD'S TESTIMONY TO THE CHARACTER OF ABRAHAM. Gen. xviii. 19. \"For I\nknow him that he will command his children and his household after him,\nand they shall keep THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT.\" God\nhere testifies that Abraham taught his servants \"the way of the Lord.\"\nWhat was the \"way of the Lord\" respecting the payment of wages where\nservice was rendered? \"Wo unto him that useth this neighbor's service\nWITHOUT WAGES!\" Jer. xxii. 13. \"Masters, give unto your servants that\nwhich is JUST AND EQUAL.\" Col. iv. 1. \"Render unto all their DUES.\" Rom.\nxiii. 7. \"The laborer is WORTHY of HIS HIRE.\" Luke x. 7. How did Abraham\nteach his servants to \"_do justice_\" to others? By doing injustice to\n_them_? Did he exhort them to \"render to all their dues\" by keeping back\n_their own_? Did he teach them that \"the laborer was worthy of his hire\"\nby robbing them of _theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for\nhonesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them \"not to\ndefraud\" others \"in any matter\" by denying _them_ \"what was just and\nequal?\" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not\nbecome a very _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples,\npatriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway\nagainst human perverseness!\n\nXI. SPECIFIC PRECEPTS OF THE MOSAIC LAW ENFORCING GENERAL PRINCIPLES.\nOut of many, we select the following: (1.) \"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox\nwhen he treadeth out the corn.\" Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general\nprinciple applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic\nanimals. Isa. xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service, _all_ kinds; and\na law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal\nministering to man in a _certain_ way,--a general principle of treatment\ncovering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service. The object\nof the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to\ninculcate the duty of rewarding those who serve us; and if such care be\nenjoined, by God, both for the ample sustenance and present enjoyment of\n_a brute_, what would be a meet return for the services of _man?_--MAN\nwith his varied wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul says\nexpressly, that this principle lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor.\nix. 9, 10, \"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle\nthe mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for\noxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR sakes? that he that ploweth\nshould plow in HOPE, and that he that thresheth in hope should be\nPARTAKER OF HIS HOPE.\" In the context, Paul innumerates the four grand\ndivisions of labor among the Jews in illustration of the principle that\nthe laborer, whatever may be the service he performs, is entitled to a\n_reward_. The priests, Levites and all engaged in sacred things--the\nmilitary, those who tended flocks and herds, and those who cultivated\nthe soil. As the latter employment engaged the great body of the\nIsraelites, the Apostle amplifies his illustration under that head by\nmuch detail--and enumerates the five great departments of agricultural\nlabor among the Jews--vine-dressing, plowing, sowing, reaping and\nthreshing, as the representatives of universal labor. In his epistle to\nTimothy. 1 Tim. v. 18. Paul quotes again this precept of the Mosaic law,\nand connects with it the declaration of our Lord. Luke x. 7. \"The\nlaborer is worthy of his hire,\"--as both inculcating the _same_\ndoctrine, that he who labors, whatever the employment, or whoever the\nlaborer, is entitled to a reward. The Apostle thus declares the\nprinciple of right respecting the performance of service for others, and\nthe rule of duty towards those who perform it, to be the same under both\ndispensations. (2.) \"If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay\nwith thee, then thou shalt relieve him, YEA THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a\nSOJOURNER that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or\nincrease, but fear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon\nusury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.\" Lev. xxv. 35-37. Now, we\nask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regulation can be\nmade to harmonize with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did God declare\nthe poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in the same breath, authorize\nthem to \"use his service without wages;\" force him to work and ROB HIM\nOF HIS EARNINGS?\n\n\n\nIV.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?\n\nThis topic has been unavoidably somewhat anticipated, in the foregoing\ndiscussion, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be\nnoticed.\n\nI. SERVANTS WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES NOR LIABLE TO THE\nCONTINGENCIES OF PROPERTY. 1 _They were never taken in payment for their\nmasters' debts_. Children were sometimes taken (without legal authority)\nfor the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isa. l. 1; Matt.\nxviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of all kinds, to satisfy\ntheir demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov. xxii. 27, household\nfurniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of the soil; Lev. xxv.\n27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26, 27; Deut. xxiv. 10-13; Matt. v. 40,\nclothing; but _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. 2. _Servants were\nnever given as pledges_. _Property_ of all sorts was pledged for value\nreceived; household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets,\npersonal ornaments, &c., but no servants. 3. _Servants were not put into\nthe hands of others, or consigned to their keeping_. The precept giving\ndirections how to proceed in a case where property that has life is\ndelivered to another \"to keep,\" and \"it die or be hurt or driven away,\"\nenumerates oxen, asses, sheep or \"any _beast_,\" but not \"_servants_.\"\nEx. xxii. 10. 4. _All lost property was to be restored_. Oxen, asses,\nsheep, raiment, and \"all lost things,\" are specified--servants _not_.\nDeut. xxii 1-3. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the\nrunaway servant. Deut. xxiii, 15. 5. _Servants were not sold_. When by\nflagrant misconduct, unfaithfulness or from whatever cause, they had\njustly forfeited their privilege of membership in an Israelitish family,\nthey were not sold, but _expelled_ from the household. Luke xvi. 2-4; 2\nKings v. 20, 27; Gen. xxi. 14. 6 _The Israelites never received servants\nas tribute_. At different times all the nations round about them were\ntheir tributaries and paid them annually large amounts. They received\nproperty of all kinds in payment of tribute. Gold, silver, brass, iron,\nprecious stone, and vessels, armor, spices, raiment, harness, horses,\nmules, sheep, goats, &c., are in various places enumerated, but\n_servants_, never. 7. _The Israelites never gave away their servants as\npresents_. They made costly presents, of great variety. Lands, houses,\nall kinds of domestic animals, beds, merchandize, family utensils,\nprecious metals, grain, honey, butter, cheese, fruits, oil, wine,\nraiment, armor, &c., are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents\nto superiors and persons of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27;\nxvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to\nthe viceroy of Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father,\nGen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to\nTiglath Pilezer, 2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings\nx. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv.\n18, 19. Abigail the wife of Nabal to David, 1 Sam. xxv. 18. David to the\nelders of Judah, 1 Sam. xxx. 26. Jehoshaphat to his sons, 2. Chron. xxi.\n3. The Israelites to David, 1. Chron. xii. 39, 40. Shobi Machir and\nBarzillai to David, 2 Sam. xvii. 28, 29. But no servants were given as\npresents, though it was a prevailing fashion in the surrounding nations.\nGen. xii. 16, xx. 14. In the last passage we are told that Abimelech\nking of the Philistines \"took sheep and oxen and men servants and women\nservants and gave them unto Abraham.\" Not long after this Abraham made\nAbimelech a present, the same kind with that which he had received from\nhim except that he gave him _no servants_. \"And Abraham took sheep and\noxen and gave them unto Abimelech.\" Gen. xxi. 27. It may be objected\nthat Laban \"GAVE\" handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives. Without\nenlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent, suffice it to\nsay that the handmaids of wives were regarded as wives, though of\ninferior dignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is\nproved by his curse upon Reuben, Gen. xlix. 4, and 1 Chron. v. 1; also\nby the equality of their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had\nit been otherwise--had Laban given them as _articles of property_, then,\nindeed, the example of this \"good old slaveholder and patriarch,\" Saint\nLaban, would have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we remember his\njealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when he found that his\n\"GODS\" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the\ndesert in hot pursuit seven days by forced marches; how he ransacked a\nwhole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such\nsmall matters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal\nof his \"IMAGES\" had eaten him up! No wonder that slavery, in its\nBible-navigation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud\nunder the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit; invoking his\nprotection, and the benediction, of his \"GODS!\" Again, it may be\nobjected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If\nthat proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. \"Thou shall\nnot covet thy neighbor's house, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's\nWIFE, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his\nass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.\" Ex. xx. 17. In inventories\nof mere property, if servants are included, it is in such a way as to\nshow that they are not regarded as property. Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when\nthe design is to show, not merely the wealth, but the _greatness_ and\n_power_ of any one, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a\nword, if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants;\nif _greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2, 5. \"And Abraham was\nvery rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.\" Yet we are told, in the\nverse preceding, that he came up out of Egypt \"with _all_ that he had.\"\n\"And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents.\" In the seventh verse\nservants are mentioned, \"And there was a strife between the HERDMEN of\nAbraham's cattle and the HERDMEN of Lot's cattle.\" It is said of Isaac.\n\"And the man waxed _great_, and went forward, and grew until he became\n_very great_. For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds,\nand _great store of servants_.\" In immediate connection with this we\nfind Abimelech the king of the Philistines saying to him. \"Thou art much\n_mightier_ than we.\" Shortly after this avowal, Isaac is waited upon by\na deputation consisting of Abimelech, Phicol the chief captain of his\narmy, and Ahuzzath, who says to him \"Let there be now an oath betwixt us\nand thee, and let us make a covenant with thee, that thou wilt _do us no\nhurt_.\" Gen. xxvi. 13, 14, 16, 26, 28, 29.--A plain concession of the\n_power_ which Isaac had both for aggression and defence in his \"great\nstore of _servants_;\" that is, of willing and affectionate adherents to\nhim as a just and benevolent prince. When Hamor and Shechem speak to the\nHivites of the _riches_ of Abraham and his sons, they say, \"Shall not\ntheir _cattle_ and their _substance_ and _every beast of theirs_ be\nours?\" Gen. xxxiv. 23. See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23; Job.\nxlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job. i. 3-5; Deut. viii. 12-17;\nGen. xxiv. 35; xxvi. 13; xxx. 43. Jacob's wives say to him, \"All the\n_riches_ which God has taken from our father that is ours and our\nchildren's.\" Then follows an inventory of property--\"All his cattle,\"\n\"all his goods,\" \"the cattle of his getting.\" His numerous servants are\nnot included with his property. Comp. Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi.\n16-18. When Jacob sent messengers to Esau, wishing to impress him with\nan idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of his\nRICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that he had \"oxen, and asses, and flocks,\nand men-servants, and maid-servants.\" Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the\npresent which he sent, there were no servants; though he manifestly\nselected the _most valuable_ kinds of property. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see\nalso Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; xxxiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples\nof wealth, a large number of servants presupposed large possessions of\ncattle, which would require many herdsmen. When Jacob and his sons went\ndown into Egypt it is repeatedly asserted that they took _all that they\nhad_. \"Their cattle and their goods which they had gotten in the land of\nCanaan,\" \"Their flocks and their herds\" are mentioned, but no\n_servants_. And as we have besides a full catalogue of the _household_,\nwe know that he took with him no servants. That Jacob _had_ many\nservants before his migration into Egypt, we learn from Gen, xxx. 43;\nxxxii. 5, 16, 19. That he was not the _proprietor_ of these servants as\nhis property is a probable inference from the fact that he did not take\nthem with him, since we are expressly told that he did take all his\n_property_. Gen. xlv. 10; xlvi. 1, 32; xlvii. 1. When servants are\nspoken of in connection with _mere property_, the terms used to express\nthe latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word _mikne_, is an\nillustration. It is derived from _kana_, to procure, to buy, and its\nmeaning is, a _possession, wealth, riches_. It occurs more than forty\ntimes in the Old Testament, and is applied always to _mere property_,\ngenerally to domestic animals, but never to servants. In some instances,\nservants are mentioned in distinction from the _mikne_. \"And Abraham\ntook Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their SUBSTANCE\nthat they had gathered; and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and\nthey went forth to go into the land of Canaan.\" Gen. xii. 5. Many will\nhave it, that these _souls_ were a part of Abraham's _substance_\n(notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them from it)--that\nthey were slaves taken with him in his migration as a part of his family\neffects. Who but slaveholders, either actually or in heart, would\ntorture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless\nphrase as \"_the souls that they had gotten?_\" Until the African slave\ntrade breathed its haze into the eyes of the church and smote her with\npalsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, \"The souls that they\nhad gotten.\" In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is rendered, \"The souls whom\nthey had brought to obey the law in Haran.\" In the Targum of Jonathan,\n\"The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran.\" In the Targum of\nJerusalem, \"The souls proselyted in Haran.\" Jarchi, the prince of Jewish\ncommentators, \"The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings.\"\nJerome, one of the most learned of the Christian fathers, \"The persons\nwhom they had proselyted.\" The Persian version, the Vulgate, the Syriac,\nthe Arabic, and the Samaritan all render it, \"All the wealth which they\nhad gathered, and the souls which they had made in Haran.\" Menochius, a\ncommentator who wrote before our present translation of the Bible,\nrenders it, \"Quas de idolatraria converterant.\" \"Those whom they had\nconverted from idolatry.\" Paulus Fagius,[B] \"Quas instituerant in\nreligione.\" \"Those whom they had established in religion.\" Luke Francke,\na German commentator who lived two centuries ago, \"Quas legi\nsubjicerant.\"--\"Those whom they had brought to obey the law.\" The same\ndistinction is made between _persons_ and property, in the enumeration\nof Esau's household and the inventory of his effects. \"And Esau took his\nwives and his sons and his daughters, and all the _persons_ of his\nhouse, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his _substance_ which\nhe had got in the land of Canaan, and went into the country from the\nface of his brother Jacob. For their _riches_ were more than that they\nmight dwell together; and the land could not bear them because of their\n_cattle_.\" Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7.\n\n[Footnote A: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old\nTestament. The Targum of Onkelos is, for the most part, a very accurate\nand faithful translation of the original, and was probably made at about\nthe commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben\nUzziel, bears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably\nabout five hundred years later. The Israelites, during their captivity\nin Babylon, lost, as a body, their own language. These translations into\nthe Chaldee, the language which they acquired in Babylon, were thus\ncalled for by the necessity of the case.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England to\nsuperintend the translation of the Bible into English, under the\npatronage of Henry the Eighth. He had hardly commenced the work when he\ndied. This was nearly a century before the date of our present\ntranslation.]\n\nII. THE CONDITION AND SOCIAL ESTIMATION OF SERVANTS MAKE THE DOCTRINE\nTHAT THEY WERE COMMODITIES, AN ABSURDITY. As the head of a Jewish family\npossessed the same power over his wife, children, and grandchildren (if\nthey were in his family) as over his servants, if the latter were\narticles of property, the former were equally such. If there were\nnothing else in the Mosaic Institutes or history establishing the social\nequality of the servants with their masters and their master's wives and\nchildren, those precepts which required that they should be guests at\nall the public feasts, and equal participants in the family and social\nrejoicings, would be quite sufficient to settle the question. Deut. xii.\n12, 18; xvi. 10, 11, 13, 14. Ex. xii. 43, 44. St. Paul's testimony in\nGal. iv. 1, shows the condition of servants: \"Now I say unto you, that\nthe heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT,\nthough he be lord of all.\" That the interests of Abraham's servants were\nidentified with those of their master's family, and that the utmost\nconfidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being armed. Gen. xiv.\n14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess\nRebecca did not disdain to say to him. \"Drink, MY LORD,\" as \"she hasted\nand let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink.\" Laban, the\nbrother of Rebecca, \"ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash\nhis feet, and the men's feet that were with him!\" In the arrangements of\nJacob's household on his journey from Padanaram to Canaan, we find his\ntwo maid servants treated in the same manner and provided with the same\naccommodations as Rachel and Leah. Each of them had a separate tent\nappropriated to her use. Gen. xxxi. 33. The social equality of servants\nwith their masters and other members of their master's families, is an\nobvious deduction from Ex. xxi. 7, 10, from which we learn that the sale\nof a young Jewish female as a servant, was also _betrothed as a wife_,\neither to her master, or to one of his sons. In 1 Sam. ix. is an account\nof a festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel presided. None but\nthose bidden, sat down at the feast, and only \"about thirty persons\"\nwere invited. Quite a select party!--the elite of the city. Saul and his\nservant had just arrived at Zuph, and _both_ of them, at Samuel's\nsolicitation, accompany him as invited guests. \"And Samuel took Saul and\nhis SERVANT, and brought THEM into the PARLOR (!) and made THEM sit in\nthe CHIEFEST SEATS among those that were bidden.\" A _servant_ invited by\nthe chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with a\nselect party, in company with his master, who was at the same time\nanointed King of Israel! and this servant introduced by Samuel into the\nPARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the _chiefest seat_ at the\ntable! This was \"_one_ of the servants\" of Kish, Saul's father; not the\nsteward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but \"_one_ of\nthe servants;\" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as no\nendowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking after\nasses. David seems to have been for a time in all respects a servant in\nSaul's family. He \"_stood before him_.\" \"And Saul sent to Jesse, saying,\nlet David, I pray thee, _stand before me_.\" He was Saul's personal\nservant, went on his errands, played on the harp for his amusement, bore\nhis armor for him, and when he wished to visit his parents, asked\npermission of Jonathan, Saul's son. Saul also calls him \"my servant.\" 1\nSam. xvi. 21-23; xviii. 5; xx. 5, 6; xxii. 8. Yet David sat with the\nking at meat, married his daughter, and lived on terms of the closest\nintimacy with the heir apparent of the throne. Abimelech, who was first\nelected king of Shechem, and afterwards reigned over all Israel, _was\nthe son of a_ MAID-SERVANT. His mother's family seems to have been of\nmuch note in the city of Shechem, where her brothers manifestly held\ngreat sway. Judg. ix. 1-6, 18. Jarha, an Egyptian, the servant of\nSheshan, married his daughter. Tobiah, \"the servant\" and an Ammonite\nmarried the daughter of Shecaniah one of the chief men among the Jews in\nJerusalem and was the intimate associate of Sanballat the governor of\nthe Samaritans. We find Elah, the King of Israel, at a festive\nentertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with\nwhom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9.\nSee also the intercourse between Gideon and his servants. Judg. vi. 27,\nand vii. 10, 11. The Levite of Mount Ephraim and his servant. Judg. xx.\n3, 9, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22. King Saul and his servant Doeg, one of his\nherdmen. 1 Sam. xx. 1, 7; xxii. 9, 18, 22. King David and Ziba, the\nservant of Mephibosheth. 2 Sam. xvi. 1-4. Jonathan and his servant. 1\nSam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his servant, Gehazi. 2 Kings iv. v. vi. Also\nbetween Joram king of Israel and the servant of Elisha. 2 Kings viii. 4,\n5, and between Naaman \"the Captain of the host of the king of Syria\" and\nthe same person. 2 Kings v. 21-23. The fact stated under a previous head\nthat servants were always invited guests at public and social festivals,\nis in perfect keeping with the foregoing exemplifications of the\nprevalent estimation in which servants were held by the Israelites.\n\nProbably no one of the Old Testament patriarchs had more servants than\nJob; \"This man was the greatest man of all the men of the east.\" Job, i.\n3. We are not left in the dark as to the condition of his servants.\nAfter asserting his integrity, his strict justice, honesty, and equity,\nin his dealings with his fellow men, and declaring \"I delivered the\npoor,\" \"I was eyes to the blind and feet was I to the lame,\" \"I was a\nfather to the poor, and the cause which I knew not I searched out,\" * *\n* he says \"If I did despise the cause of my man-servant or my\nmaid-servant when they CONTENDED with me * * * then let mine arm fall\nfrom the shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone.\" Job.\nxxix. 12, 15, 16; xxxi. 13, 22. The language employed in this passage is\nthe phraseology applied in judicial proceedings to those who implead one\nanother, and whether it be understood literally or figuratively, shows\nthat whatever difference existed between Job and his servants in other\nrespects, so far as _rights_ are concerned, they were on equal ground\nwith him, and that in the matter of daily intercourse, there was not the\nleast restraint on their _free speech_ in calling in question all his\ntransactions with them, and that the relations and claims of both\nparties were adjudicated on the principles of equity and reciprocal\nright. \"If I _despised_ the cause of my man-servant,\" &c. In other\nwords, if I treated it lightly, as though servants were not men, had not\nrights, and had not a claim for just dues and just estimation as human\nbeings. \"When they _contended_ with me,\" that is, when they plead their\nrights, claimed what was due to them, or questioned the justice of any\nof my dealings with them.\n\nIn the context Job virtually affirms as the ground of his just and\nequitable treatment of his servants, that they had the same rights as he\nhad, and were, as human beings, entitled to equal consideration with\nhimself. By what language could he more forcibly utter his conviction of\nthe oneness of their common origin and of the identity of their common\nnature, necessities, attribute and rights? As soon as he has said, \"If I\ndid despise the cause of my man-servant,\" &c., he follows it up with\n\"What then shall I do when God raiseth up? and when he visiteth, what\nshall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make _him_? and\ndid not one fashion us in the womb.\" In the next verse Job glories in\nthe fact that he has not \"_withheld from the poor their desire_.\" Is it\nthe \"desire\" of the poor to be _compelled_ by the rich to work for them,\nand without _pay_?\n\nIII. THE CASE OF THE GIBEONITES. The condition of the inhabitants of\nGibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew\ncommonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and\ntruly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from\nit. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned to\nashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting\ngnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or\neven to mock them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the\nGibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron could not\nextract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to\nthe question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the\nIsraelites? 1. _It was voluntary_. Their own proposition to Joshua was\nto become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of\nservice which they should perform, was not specified until their gross\nimposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial offices in\nthe Tabernacle. 2. _They were not domestic servants in the families of\nthe Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated\ntheir own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the\nfunctions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were\nsubject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So far from being\ndistributed among the Israelites and their internal organization as a\ndistinct people abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some\nrespects, an independent community for many centuries. When attacked by\nthe Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it\nwas rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in\ntheir cities. Josh. x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them,\nand God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of\nthe Gibeonites, \"What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the\natonement?\" At their demand, he delivered up to them seven of Saul's\ndescendants. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal\nrecognition of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no\nintimation that they served either families or individuals of the\nIsraelites, but only the \"house of God,\" or the Tabernacle. This was\nestablished first at Gilgal, a days' journey from their cities; and then\nat Shiloh, nearly two days' journey from them; where it continued about\n350 years. During this period the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient\ncities and territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent\nat any one time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is\nmade to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as _at home_.\nIt is preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four\ncities could find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them \"was a great\ncity, as one of the royal cities;\" so large, that a confederacy of five\nkings, apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary\nfor its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into\nclasses, ministering in rotation--each class a few days or weeks at a\ntime. As the priests whose assistants they were, served by courses in\nrotation a week at a time; it is not improbable that their periods of\nservice were so arranged as to correspond. This service was their\n_national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and\nprotection under their government. No service seems to have been\nrequired of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as\nthey had greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition and\nlying, we might assuredly expect that they would reduce _them_ to the\ncondition of chattels, if there was _any_ case in which God permitted\nthem to do so.\n\nIV. EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. Throughout the Mosaic system, God warns\nthe Israelites against holding their servants in such a condition as\nthey were held in by the Egyptians. How often are they pointed back to\nthe grindings of their prison-house! What motives to the exercise of\njustice and kindness towards their servants, are held out to their fears\nin threatened judgments; to their hopes in promised good; and to all\nwithin them that could feel, by those oft repeated words of tenderness\nand terror! \"For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt\"--waking anew the\nmemory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them. But\nwhat was the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt? Of what rights were\nthey plundered and what did they retain?\n\n1. _They were not dispersed among the families of Egypt,[A] but formed a\nseparate community_. Gen. xlvi. 34. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi.\n7; iv. 29; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5; vi. 14. 2. _They had the exclusive\npossession of the land of Goshen,[B] \"the best part of the land\" of\nEgypt_. Gen. xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27; Ex. viii. 22; ix. 26; xii. 4.\nGoshen must have been at a considerable distance from those parts of\nEgypt inhabited by the Egyptians; so far at least as to prevent their\ncontact with the Israelites, since the reason assigned for locating them\nin Goshen was, that shepherds were \"an abomination to the Egyptians;\"\nbesides, their employments would naturally lead them out of the settled\nparts of Egypt to find a free range of pasturage for their immense\nflocks and herds. 3. _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were\n_houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 7, 22, the two side _posts_, and the\nupper door _posts_, and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. Each\nfamily seems to have occupied a house _by itself_. Acts vii. 20. Ex.\nxii. 4--and judging from the regulation about the eating of the\nPassover, they could hardly have been small ones, Ex. xii. 4; probably\ncontained separate apartments, as the entertainment of sojourners seems\nto have been a common usage. Ex. iii. 23; and also places for\nconcealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well\napparelled. Ex. xii. 11. 4. _They owned \"flocks and herds,\" and \"very\nmuch cattle_.\" Ex. xii. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38. From the fact that \"_every\nman_\" was commanded to kill either a lamb or a kid, one year old, for\nthe Passover, before the people left Egypt, we infer that even the\npoorest of the Israelites owned a flock either of sheep or goats.\nFurther, the immense multitude of their flocks and herds may be judged\nof from the expostulation of Moses with Jehovah. Num. xii. 21, 22. \"The\npeople among whom I am are six hundred thousand footmen, and thou hast\nsaid I will give them flesh that they may eat a whole month; shall the\nflocks and the herds be slain for them to _suffice_ them.\" As these six\nhundred thousand were only the _men_ \"from twenty years old and upward,\nthat were able to go forth to war,\" Ex. i. 45, 46; the whole number of\nthe Israelites could not have been less than three millions and a half.\nFlocks and herds to \"suffice\" all these for food, might surely be called\n\"very much cattle.\" 5. _They had their own form of government_, and\npreserved their tribe and family divisions, and their internal\norganization throughout, though still a province of Egypt, and\n_tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16,\n18. 6. _They had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own\ntime._ Ex. iii. 16, 18; xii. 6; ii. 9; and iv. 27, 29-31. _They seem to\nhave practised the fine arts_. Ex. xxxii. 4; xxxv. 22, 35. 7. _They were\nall armed_. Ex. xxxii. 27. 8. _They held their possessions\nindependently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded them as\ninviolable_. No intimation is given that the Egyptians dispossessed them\nof their habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or\nimplements of agriculture, or any article of property. 9. _All the\nfemales seem to have known something of domestic refinements_. They were\nfamiliar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine\nfabrics. Ex. xv. 20; xxxv. 25, 26; and both males and females were able\nto read and write. Deut. xi. 18-20; xvii. 19; xxvii. 3. 10. _Service\nseems to have been exacted from none but adult males_. Nothing is said\nfrom which the bond service of females could be inferred; the hiding of\nMoses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by\nPharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29. 11.\n_Their food was abundant and of great variety_. So far from being fed\nupon a fixed allowance of a single article, and hastily prepared, \"they\nsat by the flesh-pots,\" and \"did eat bread to the full.\" Ex. xvi. 3; and\ntheir bread was prepared with leaven. Ex. xii. 15, 39. They ate \"the\nfish freely, the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the\nonions, and the garlic.\" Num. xi. 4, 5; xx. 5. Probably but a small\nportion of the people were in the service of the Egyptians at any one\ntime. The extent and variety of their own possessions, together with\nsuch a cultivation of their crops as would provide them with bread, and\nsuch care of their immense flocks and herds, as would secure their\nprofitable increase, must have kept at home the main body of the nation.\nDuring the plague of darkness, God informs us that \"ALL the children of\nIsrael had light in their dwellings.\" We infer that they were _there_ to\nenjoy it. See also Ex. ix. 26. It seems improbable that the making of\nbrick, the only service named during the latter part of their sojourn in\nEgypt, could have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the\nnation. See also Ex. iv. 29-31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed\ntributaries, it was as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to\nfurnish a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively\nbut a small portion of the nation would be absent _at any one time_. The\nadult males of the Israelites were probably divided into companies,\nwhich relieved each other at stated intervals of weeks or months. It\nmight have been during one of these periodical furloughs from service\nthat Aaron performed the journey to Horeb. Ex. iv. 27. At the least\ncalculation this journey must have consumed _eight weeks_. Probably\none-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the\nIsraelites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of\ntaking it from their _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they\nexacted it of them in brick making; and labor might have been exacted\nonly from the _poorer_ Israelites, the wealthy being able to pay their\ntribute in money. The fact that all the elders of Israel seem to have\ncontrolled their own time, (See Ex. iv. 29; iii. 16; v. 20,) favors the\nsupposition. Ex. iv. 27, 31. Contrast this bondage of Egypt with\nAmerican slavery. Have our slaves \"flocks and herds even very much\ncattle?\" Do they live in commodious houses of their own, \"sit by the\nflesh-pots,\" \"eat fish freely,\" and \"eat bread to the full\"? Do they\nlive in a separate community, in their distinct tribes, under their own\nrulers, in the exclusive occupation of an extensive tract of country for\nthe culture of their crops, and for rearing immense herds of their own\ncattle--and all these held inviolable by their masters? Are our female\nslaves free from exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage? or when\nemployed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman by the\nking's daughter? Have they the disposal of their own time, and the means\nfor cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts, and\nfor personal improvement? THE ISRAELITES UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT,\nENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. True, \"all the service wherein\nthey made them serve was with rigor.\" But what was this when compared\nwith the incessant toil of American slaves; the robbery of all their\ntime and earnings, and even the \"power to own any thing, or acquire any\nthing?\" a \"quart of corn a-day,\" the legal allowance of food![C] their\n_only_ clothing for one half the year, \"_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of\npantaloons!\"[D]_two hours and a half_ only, for rest and refreshment in\nthe twenty-four![E]--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit for human\nresidence, with but one apartment, where both sexes and all ages herd\npromiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field.[F] Add to this,\nthe ignorance, and degradation;[G] the daily sunderings of kindred, the\nrevelries of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by\nlaw, and patronized by public sentiment. What was the bondage of Egypt\nwhen compared with this? And yet for her oppression of the poor, God\nsmote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she passed\naway in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no\nmore. Ah! \"I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard\ntheir groanings, and am come down to deliver them.\" HE DID COME, and\nEgypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her. If such was\nGod's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of how much sorer\npunishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy, who cloak with\nreligion a system, in comparison with which the bondage of Egypt\ndwindles to nothing? Let those believe who can, that God commissioned\nhis people to rob others of _all_ their rights, while he denounced\nagainst them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_\noppression of Egypt--which robbed its victims of only the least and\ncheapest of their rights, and left the females unplundered even of\nthese. What! Is God divided against himself? When He had just turned\nEgypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied\ndead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of\nher torment went upwards because she had \"ROBBED THE POOR,\" did He\nlicense the VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_,\ndid he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that for which he\nhad just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and overwhelmed his princes and his\nhosts, till \"hell was moved to meet them at their coming?\"\n\n[Footnote C: See law of North Carolina, Haywood's Manual 524-5. To show\nthat slaveholders are not better than their laws. We give a few\ntestimonies. Rev. Thomas Clay, of Georgia, (a slaveholder,) in an\naddress before the Georgia presbytery, in 1834, speaking of the slave's\nallowance of food, says:--\"The quantity allowed by custom is a _peck of\ncorn a week._\" The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser of May 30,\n1788, says, \"a _single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of\nrice_, is the ordinary quantity of provision for a _hard-working_ slave;\nto which a small quantity of meat is occasionally, though _rarely_,\nadded.\"\n\nThe Gradual Emancipation Society of North Carolina, in their Report for\n1836, signed Moses Swaim, President, and William Swaim, Secretary, says,\nin describing the condition of slaves in the Eastern part of that State,\n\"The master puts the unfortunate wretches upon short allowances,\nscarcely sufficient for their sustenance, so that a _great part_ of them\ngo _half naked_ and _half starved_ much of the time.\" See Minutes of the\nAmerican Convention, convened in Baltimore, Oct. 25, 1826.\n\nRev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, and for many years a preacher\nin slave states, says of the food of slaves, \"It _often_ happens that\nwhat will _barely keep them alive_, is all that a cruel avarice will\nallow them. Hence, in some instances, their allowance has been reduced\nto a _single pint of corn each_, during the day and night. And some have\nno better allowance than a small portion of cotton seed; while perhaps\nthey are not permitted to taste meat so much as once in the course of\nseven years. _Thousands of them are pressed with the gnawings of cruel\nhunger during their whole lives._\" Rankin's Letters on Slavery, pp. 57,\n58.\n\nHon. Robert J. Turnbull, of Charleston, S.C., a slaveholder, says, \"The\nsubsistence of the slaves consists, from March until August, of corn\nground into grits, or meal, made into what is called _hominy_, or baked\ninto corn bread. The other six months, they are fed upon the sweet\npotatoe. Meat, when given, is only by way of _indulgence or favor_.\"\n_See \"Refutation of the Calumnies circulated against the Southern and\nWestern States,\" by a South Carolinian. Charleston_, 1822.\n\nAsa A. Stone, a theological student, residing at Natchez, Mississippi,\nwrote a letter to the editor of the New York Evangelist in 1835, in\nwhich he says, \"On almost every plantation, the hands suffer more or\nless from hunger at some seasons of almost every year. There is always a\n_good deal of suffering_ from hunger. On many plantations, and\nparticularly in Louisiana, the slaves are in a condition of _almost\nutter famishment_ during a great portion of the year.\"\n\nAt the commencement of his letter, Mr. S. says, \"Intending, as I do,\nthat my statements shall be relied on, and knowing that, should you\nthink fit to publish this communication, they will come to this country,\nwhere their correctness may be tested by comparison with real life, I\nmake them with the utmost care and precaution.\"\n\nPresident Edwards, the younger, in a sermon preached half a century ago,\nat New Haven, Conn., says, speaking of the allowance of food given to\nslaves--\"They are supplied with barely enough to keep them from\nstarving.\"\n\nIn the debate on the Missouri question in the U.S. Congress, 1819-20,\nthe admission of Missouri to the Union, as a slave state, was urged,\namong other grounds as a measure of humanity to the slaves of the south.\nMr. Smyth, a member of Congress, from Virginia, and a large slaveholder,\nsaid, \"The plan of our opponents seems to be to confine the slave\npopulation to the southern states, to the countries where sugar, cotton,\nand tobacco are cultivated. But, sir, by confining the slaves to a part\nof the country where crops are raised for exportation, and the bread and\nmeat are purchased, _you doom them to scarcity and hunger_. Is it not\nobvious that the way to render their situation more comfortable is to\nallow them to be taken where there is not the same motive to force the\nslave to INCESSANT TOIL that there is in the country where cotton,\nsugar, and tobacco are raised for exportation. It is proposed to hem in\nthe blacks _where they are_ HARD WORKED and ILL FED, that they may be\nrendered unproductive and the race be prevented from increasing.  *  *\n*  The proposed measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the blacks.  *  *  *\nYou would  *  *  * doom them to SCARCITY and HARD LABOR.\"--[Speech of\nMr. Smyth, of Va., Jan. 28, 1820.]--See National Intelligencer. ]\n\n\n[Footnote D: See law of Louisiana, Martin's Digest, 6, 10. Mr. Bouldin,\na Virginia slaveholder, in a speech in Congress, Feb. 16, 1835, (see\nNational Intelligencer of that date,) said \"_he knew_ that many negroes\nhad died from exposure to weather.\" Mr. B. adds, \"they are clad in a\nflimsy fabric that will turn neither wind nor water.\" Rev. John Rankin\nsays, in his Letters on slavery, page 57, \"In every slaveholding state,\n_many slaves suffer extremely_, both while they labor and while they\nsleep, _for want of clothing_ to keep them warm. Often they are driven\nthrough frost and snow without either stocking or shoe, until the path\nthey tread is died with their blood. And when they return to their\nmiserable huts at night, they find not there the means of comfortable\nrest; but _on the cold ground they must lie without covering, and shiver\nwhile they slumber_.\" ]\n\n\n[Footnote E: See law of Louisiana, act of July 7, 1806, Martin's Digest,\n6, 10-12. The law of South Carolina permits the master to _compel_ his\nslaves to work fifteen hours in the twenty-four, in summer, and fourteen\nin the winter--which would be in winter, from daybreak in the morning\nuntil _four hours_ after sunset!--See 2 Brevard's Digest, 243. The\npreamble of this law commences thus: \"Whereas, _many_ owners of slaves\n_do confine them so closely to hard labor that they have not sufficient\ntime for natural rest:_ be it therefore enacted,\" &c. In a work entitled\n\"Travels in Louisiana in 1802,\" translated from the French, by John\nDavis, is the following testimony under this head:--\n\n\"The labor of Slaves in Louisiana is _not_ severe, unless it be at the\nrolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months, then they\nwork _both night and day_. Abridged of their sleep, they scarce retire\nto rest during the whole period.\" See page 81. On the 87th page of the\nsame work, the writer says, _\"Both in summer and winter_ the slaves must\nbe _in the field_ by the _first dawn of day.\"_ And yet he says, \"the\nlabor of the slave is _not severe_, except at the rolling of sugars!\"\nThe work abounds in eulogies of slavery.\n\nIn the \"History of South Carolina and Georgia,\" vol. 1, p. 120, is the\nfollowing: \"_So laborious_ is the task of raising, beating, and cleaning\nrice, that had it been possible to obtain European servants in\nsufficient numbers, _thousands and tens of thousands_ MUST HAVE\nPERISHED.\"\n\nIn an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, published in the second\nnumber of the \"Western Review\" is the following:--\"The work is admitted\nto be severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the process of\nmaking sugar is commenced, TO BE PRESSED NIGHT AND DAY.\"\n\nMr. Philemon Bliss, of Ohio, in his letters from Florida, in 1835, says,\n\"The negroes commence labor by daylight in the morning, and excepting\nthe plowboys, who must feed and rest their horses, do not leave the\nfield till dark in the evening.\"\n\nMr. Stone, in his letter from Natchez, an extract of which was given\nabove, says, \"It is a general rule on all regular plantations, that the\nslaves rise in season in the morning, to _be in the field as soon as it\nis light enough for them to see to work_, and remain there until it is\n_so dark that they cannot see_. This is the case at all seasons of the\nyear.\"\n\nPresident Edwards, in the sermon already extracted from, says, \"The\nslaves are kept at hard labor from _five o'clock in the morning till\nnine at night_, excepting time to eat twice during the day.\"\n\nHon. R.J. Turnbull, a South Carolina slaveholder, already quoted,\nspeaking of the harvesting of cotton, says: _\"All the pregnant women_\neven, on the plantation, and weak and _sickly_ negroes incapable of\nother labor, are then _in requisition_.\" * * * See \"Refutation of the\nCalumnies circulated against the Southern and Western States,\" by a\nSouth Carolinian. ]\n\n\n[Footnote F: A late number of the \"Western Medical Reformer\" contains a\ndissertation by a Kentucky physician, on _Cachexia Africana_, or African\nconsumption, in which the writer says--\n\n\"This form of disease deserves more attention from the medical\nprofession than it has heretofore elicited. Among the causes may be\nnamed the mode and manner in which the negroes live. They are _crowded_\ntogether in a _small hut_, sometimes having an imperfect, and sometimes\nno floor--and seldom raised from the ground, illy ventilated, and\nsurrounded with filth. Their diet and clothing, are also causes which\nmight be enumerated as exciting agents. They live on a coarse, crude and\nunwholesome diet, and are imperfectly clothed, both summer and winter;\nsleeping upon filthy and frequently damp beds.\"\n\nHon. R.J. Turnbull, of South Carolina, whose testimony on another point\nhas been given above, says of the slaves, that they live in \"_clay\ncabins_, with clay chimneys,\" &c. Mr. Clay, a Georgia slaveholder, from\nwhom an extract has been given already, says, speaking of the dwellings\nof the slaves, \"Too many individuals of both sexes are crowded into one\nhouse, and the proper separation of apartments _cannot_ be observed.\nThat the slaves are insensible to the evils arising from it, does not in\nthe least lessen the unhappy consequences.\" Clay's Address before the\nPresbytery of Georgia.--P. 13. ]\n\n\n[Footnote G: Rev. C.C. Jones, late of Georgia, now Professor in the\nTheological Seminary at Columbia, South Carolina, made a report before\nthe presbytery of Georgia, in 1833, on the moral condition of the slave\npopulation, which report was published under the direction of the\npresbytery. In that report Mr. Jones says, \"They, the slaves, are shut\nout from our sympathies and efforts as immortal beings, and are educated\nand disciplined as creatures of profit, and of profit only, for this\nworld.\" In a sermon preached by Mr. Jones, before two associations of\nplanters, in Georgia, in 1831, speaking of the slaves he says, \"They are\na nation of HEATHEN in our very midst.\" \"What have we done for our poor\nnegroes? With shame we must confess that we have done NOTHING!\" \"How can\nyou pray for Christ's kingdom to come while you are neglecting a people\nperishing for lack of vision around your very doors.\" \"We withhold the\nBible from our servants and keep them in ignorance of it, while we\n_will_ not use the means to have it read and explained to them.\" Jones'\nSermon, pp. 7, 9.\n\nAn official report of the Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina and\nGeorgia, adopted at its session in Columbia, S.C., and published in the\nCharleston Observer of March 22, 1834, speaking of the slaves, says,\n\"There are over _two millions_ of _human beings_, in the condition of\nHEATHEN, and, in some respects, _in a worse condition_!\" * * * \"From\nlong continued and close observation, we believe that their moral and\nreligious condition is such, as that they may justly be considered the\n_heathen_ of this Christian country, and will _bear comparison with\nheathen in any country in the world_.\" * * * \"The negroes are destitute\nof the privileges of the gospel, and _ever will be under the present\nstate of things.\"_ Report, &c., p. 4.\n\nA writer in the Church Advocate, published in Lexington, Ky., says, \"The\npoor negroes are left in the ways of spiritual darkness, no efforts are\nbeing made for their enlightenment, no seed is being sown, nothing but a\nmoral wilderness is seen, over which the soul sickens--the heart of\nChristian sympathy bleeds. Here nothing is presented but a moral waste,\nas _extensive as our influence_, as appalling as the valley of death.\"\n\nThe following is an extract of a letter from Bishop Andrew of the\nMethodist Episcopal Church, to Messrs. Garrit and Maffit, editors of the\n\"Western Methodist,\" then published at Nashville, Tennessee.\n\n\"_Augusta, Jan. 29, 1835._\n\n\"The Christians of the South owe a heavy debt to slaves on their\nplantations, and the ministers of Christ especially are debtors to the\nwhole slave population. I fear a cry goes up to heaven on this subject\nagainst us; and how, I ask, shall the scores who have left the ministry\nof the Word, that they may make corn and cotton, and buy and sell, and\nget gain, meet this cry at the bar of God? and what shall the hundreds\nof money-making and money-loving masters, who have grown rich by the\ntoil and sweat of their slaves, and _left their souls to perish_, say\nwhen they go with them to the judgment of the great day?\"\n\n\"The Kentucky Union for the moral and religious improvement of the\ncolored race,\"--an association composed of some of the most influential\nministers and laymen of Kentucky, says in a general circular to the\nreligious public, \"To the female character among the black population,\nwe cannot allude but with feelings of the bitterest shame. A similar\ncondition of moral pollution, and utter disregard of a pure and virtuous\nreputation, is to be found only _without the pale of Christendom_. That\nsuch a state of society should exist in a Christian nation, without\ncalling forth any particular attention to its existence, though ever\nbefore our eyes and in our families, is a moral phenomenon at once\nunaccountable and disgraceful.\"\n\nRev. James A. Thome, a native of Kentucky, and still residing there,\nsaid in a speech in New York, May 1834, speaking of licentiousness among\nthe slaves, \"I would not have you fail to understand that this is a\n_general_ evil. Sir, what I now say, I say from deliberate conviction of\nits truth; that the slave states are Sodoms, and almost every village\nfamily is a brothel. (In this, I refer to the inmates of the kitchen,\nand not to the whites.)\"\n\nA writer in the \"Western Luminary,\" published in Lexington, Ky., made\nthe following declaration to the same point in the number of that paper\nfor May 7, 1835: \"There is one topic to which I will allude, which will\nserve to establish the heathenism of this population. I allude to the\nUNIVERSAL LICENTIOUSNESS which prevails. _Chastity is no virtue among\nthem_--its violation neither injures female character in their own\nestimation, or that of their master or mistress--no instruction is ever\ngiven, _no censure pronounced_. I speak not of the world. I SPEAK OF\nCHRISTIAN FAMILIES GENERALLY.\"\n\nRev. Mr. Converse, long a resident of Virginia, and agent of the\nColonization Society, said, in a sermon before the Vt. C.S.--\"Almost\nnothing is done to instruct the slaves in the principles and duties of\nthe Christian religion. * * * The majority are emphatically _heathens_.\n* * Pious masters (with some honorable exceptions) are criminally\nnegligent of giving religious instruction to their slaves. *  *  *  They\ncan and do instruct their own children, and _perhaps_ their house\nservants; while those called \"field hands\" live, and labor, and die,\nwithout being told by their _pious_ masters (?) that Jesus Christ died\nto save sinners.\"\n\nThe page is already so loaded with references that we forbear. For\ntestimony from the mouths of slaveholders to the terrible lacerations\nand other nameless outrages inflicted on the slaves, the reader is\nreferred to the number of the Anti-Slavery Record for Jan. 1837. ]\n\nWe now proceed to examine the various objections which will doubtless be\nset in array against all the foregoing conclusions.\n\n\n\nOBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\n\nThe advocates of slavery find themselves at their wit's end in pressing\nthe Bible into their service. Every movement shows them hard pushed.\nTheir ever-varying shifts, their forced constructions and blind\nguesswork, proclaim both their _cause_ desperate, and themselves.\nMeanwhile their invocations for help to \"those good old slaveholders and\npatriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\"[A] sent up without ceasing from\nthe midst of their convulsions, avail as little as did the screams and\nlacerations of the prophets of Baal to bring an answer of fire. The\nBible defences thrown around slavery by the professed ministers of the\nGospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical facts it\nwere hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy,\npredominates, in the compound; each strives so lustily for the mastery,\nit may be set down a drawn battle. How often has it been bruited that\nthe color of the negro is the _Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Cain's\nposterity started an opposition to the ark, forsooth, and rode out the\nflood with flying streamers! How could miracle be more worthily\nemployed, or better vindicate the ways of God to man than by pointing\nsuch an argument, and filling out for slaveholders a Divine title-deed!\n\n[Footnote A: The Presbytery of Harmony, South Carolina, at their meeting\nin Wainsborough, S.C., Oct. 28, 1836, appointed a special committee to\nreport on slavery. The following resolution is a part of the report\nadopted by the Presbytery. \"Resolved, That slavery has existed from the\ndays of those GOOD OLD SLAVEHOLDERS AND PATRIARCHS, Abraham, Isaac and\nJacob, who are now in the kingdom of Heaven.\"\n\nAbraham receives abundant honor at the hands of slave-holding divines.\nNot because he was the \"father of the faithful,\" forsook home and\ncountry for the truth's sake, was the most eminent preacher and\npractiser of righteousness in his day; nay, verily, for all this he gets\nfaint praise; but then he had \"SERVANTS BOUGHT WITH MONEY!!!\" This is\nthe finishing touch of his character, and its effect on slaveholders is\nelectrical. Prose fledges into poetry, cold compliments warm into\npraise, eulogy rarifies into panegyric and goes off in rhapsody. In\ntheir ecstasies over Abraham, Isaac's paramount claims to their homage\nare lamentably lost sight of. It is quite unaccountable, that in their\nmanifold oglings over Abraham's \"servants bought with money,\" no\nslaveholder is ever caught casting loving side-glances at Gen. xxvii.\n29, 37, where Isaac, addressing Jacob, says, \"Be _lord_ over thy\nbrethren and let thy mother's sons _bow down_ to thee.\" And afterwards,\naddressing Esau, he says, speaking of the birth-right immunities\nconfirmed to Jacob, \"Behold I have made him thy _Lord_ and all his\nbrethren have I GIVEN TO HIM FOR SERVANTS!\"\n\nHere is a charter for slaveholding, under the sign manual of that \"good\nold slaveholder and patriarch, Isaac.\" Yea, more--a \"Divine Warrant\" for\na father holding his _children_ as slaves and bequeathing them as\nproperty to his heirs! Better still, it proves that the favorite\npractice amongst our slaveholders of bequeathing their _colored_\nchildren to those of a different hue, was a \"Divine institution,\" for\nIsaac \"_gave_\" Esau, who was \"_red_ all over,\" to Jacob, \"_as a\nservant_.\" Now gentlemen, \"honor to whom honor.\" Let Isaac no longer be\nstinted of the glory that is his due as the great prototype of that\n\"peculiar domestic institution,\" of which you are eminent patrons, that\nnice discrimination, by which a father, in his will, makes part of his\nchildren _property_, and the rest, their _proprietors_, whenever the\npropriety of such a disposition is indicated, as in the case of Jacob\nand Esau, by the decisive tokens of COLOR and HAIR, (for, to show that\nEsau was Jacob's _rightful_ property after he was \"given to him\" by\nIsaac \"for a servant,\" the difference in _hair_ as well as color, is\nexpressly stated by inspiration!)\n\nOne prominent feature of patriarchal example has been quite overlooked\nby slaveholders. We mean the special care of Isaac to inform Jacob that\nthose \"given to him as servants\" were \"HIS BRETHREN,\" (twice repeated.)\nThe deep veneration of slaveholders for every thing patriarchal, clears\nthem from all suspicion of _designedly_ neglecting this authoritative\nprecedent, and their admirable zeal to perpetuate patriarchal fashions,\nproves this seeming neglect, a mere _oversight_: and is an\nall-sufficient guarantee that henceforward they will religiously\nillustrate in their own practice, the beauty of this hitherto neglected\npatriarchal usage. True, it would be an odd codicil to a will, for a\nslaveholder, after bequeathing to _some_ of his children, all his\nslaves, to add a supplement, informing them that such and such and such\nof them were their _brothers and sisters_. Doubtless it would be at\nfirst a sore trial also, but what _pious_ slaveholder would not be\nsustained under it by the reflection that he was humbly following in the\nfootsteps of his illustrious patriarchal predecessors!\n\nGreat reformers must make great sacrifices, and if the world is to be\nbrought back to the purity of patriarchal times, upon whom will the ends\nof the earth come, to whom will all trembling hearts and failing eyes\nspontaneously turn as leaders to conduct the forlorn hope through the\nwilderness to that promised land, if not to slaveholders, those\ndisinterested pioneers whose self-denying labors have founded far and\nwide the \"patriarchal institution\" of _concubinage_, and through evil\nreport and good report, have faithfully stamped their own image and\nsuperscription, in variegated hues, upon the faces of a swarming progeny\nfrom generation to generation. ]\n\nOBJECTION I. \"_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto\nhis brethren._\" Gen. ix. 25.\n\nThis prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ of slaveholders, and they\nnever venture abroad without it; it is a pocket-piece for sudden\noccasion, a keepsake to dote over, a charm to spell-bind opposition, and\na magnet to draw to their standard \"whatsoever worketh abomination or\nmaketh a lie.\" But \"cursed be Canaan\" is a poor drug to ease a throbbing\nconscience--a mocking lullaby to unquiet tossings. Those who justify\nnegro slavery by the curse on Canaan, _assume_ as usual all the points\nin debate. 1. That _slavery_ was prophesied, rather than mere _service_\nto others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_ subjection\nand tribute. 2. That the _prediction_ of crime justifies it; or at least\nabsolves those whose crimes fulfil it. How piously the Pharaohs might\nhave quoted the prophecy, \"_Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that\nis not theirs, and they shall afflict them four hundred years._\" And\nthen, what saints were those that crucified the Lord of glory! 3. That\nthe Africans are descended from Canaan. Africa was peopled from Egypt\nand Ethiopia, which countries were settled by Mizraim and Cush. For the\nlocation and boundaries of Canaan's posterity, see Gen. x. 15-19. So a\nprophecy of evil to one people, is quoted to justify its infliction upon\nanother. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes all Ham's\nposterity. If so, the prophecy is yet unfulfilled. The other sons of Ham\nsettled Egypt and Assyria, and, conjointly with Shem, Persia, and\nafterward, to some extent, the Grecian and Roman empires. The history of\nthese nations gives no verification of the prophecy. Whereas, the\nhistory of Canaan's descendants for more than three thousand years, is a\nrecord of its fulfillment. First, they were put to tribute by the\nIsraelites; then by the Medes and Persians; then by the Macedonians,\nGrecians and Romans, successively; and finally, were subjected by the\nOttoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan has been for ages\nthe servant mainly of Shem and Japhet, and secondarily of the other sons\nof Ham. It may still be objected, that though Canaan alone is _named_,\nyet the 22d and 24th verses show the posterity of Ham in general to be\nmeant. \"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father,\nand told his two brethren without.\" \"And Noah awoke from his wine, and\nknew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said,\" &c. It is argued\nthat this \"_younger_ son\" cannot be Canaan, as he was the _grandson_ of\nNoah, and therefore it must be Ham. We answer, whoever that \"_younger\nson_\" was, Canaan alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word\n_Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an\nindividual.[A] \"_Know ye Laban, the_ SON (grandson) _of Nahor_?\" Gen.\nxxix. 5. \"_Mephibosheth the_ SON (grandson) _of Saul_.\" 2 Sam. xix. 24;\n2 Sam. ix. 6. \"_The driving of Jehu the_ SON (grandson) _of Nimshi_.\" 2\nKings ix. 20. See also Ruth iv. 17; 2 Sam. xxi. 6; Gen. xxxi. 55. Shall\nwe forbid the inspired writer to use the same word when speaking of\nNoah's grandson? Further, Ham was not the \"_younger_ son.\" The order of\nenumeration makes him the _second_ son. If it be said that Bible usage\nvaries, the order of birth not always being observed in enumerations;\nthe reply is, that, enumeration in that order, is the _rule_, in any\nother order the _exception_. Besides, if a younger member of a family\ntakes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark of\npre-eminence, either in endowments, or providential instrumentality.\nAbraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest brother, stands\nfirst in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history shows him\npre-eminent; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkatan_ rendered \"the\n_younger_,\" means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. lx.\n22. \"A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_.\" Isa. xxii. 24. \"_All\nvessels of_ SMALL _quantity_.\" Ps. cxv. 13. \"_He will bless them that\nfear the Lord both_ SMALL _and great_.\" Ex. xviii, 22. \"_But every_\nSMALL _matter they shall judge_.\" It would be a literal rendering of\nGen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus, \"when Noah knew what his little\nson,\"[B] or grandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) \"had done unto him, he said\ncursed be Canaan,\" &c. Further, even if the Africans were the\ndescendants of Canaan, the assumption that their enslavement fulfils\nthis prophecy, lacks even plausibility, for, only a _fraction_ of the\ninhabitants of Africa have at any time been the slaves of other nations.\nIf the objector say in reply, that a large majority of the Africans have\nalways been slaves _at home_, we answer: _It is false in point of fact_,\nthough zealously bruited often to serve a turn; and _if it were true_,\nhow does it help the argument? The prophecy was, \"Cursed be Canaan, a\nservant of servants shall he be _unto his_ BRETHREN.,\" not unto\n_himself!_\n\n[Footnote A: So _av_, the Hebrew word for father, signifies any\nancestor, however remote. 2 Chron. xvii. 3; xxviii. 1; xxxiv. 2; Dan. v.\n2.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: The French follows the same analogy; _grandson_ being\n_petit fils_ (little son.)]\n\nOBJECTION II.--\"_If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and\nhe die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if\nhe continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his\nmoney._\" Ex. xxi. 20, 21. What was the design of this regulation? Was it\nto grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity, and an\nassurance, that if they beat them to death, the offence should not be\n_capital_? This is substantially what commentators tell us. What Deity\ndo such men worship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human\nhecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered from\nSinai's flames, \"THOU SHALT NOT KILL,\" offer a bounty on _murder_?\nWhoever analyzes the Mosaic system, will often find a moot court in\nsession, trying law points, settling definitions, or laying down rules\nof evidence. Num. xxxv. 10-22; Deut. xix. 4-6; Lev. xxiv. 19-22; Ex.\nxxi. 18, 19, are some of the cases stated, with tests furnished the\njudges by which to detect _the intent_, in actions brought before them.\nTheir ignorance of judicial proceedings, laws of evidence, &c., made\nsuch instructions necessary. The detail gone into, in the verses quoted,\nis manifestly to enable them to get at the _motive_ and find out whether\nthe master _designed_ to kill. 1. \"If a man smite his servant with a\n_rod_.\"--The instrument used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num.\nxxxv. 16-18. A _rod_, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any\nother death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to\n_kill_ would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a\n_rod_ for its weapon. But if the servant \"_die under his hand_,\" then\nthe unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; for,\nstriking with a _rod_ so as to cause death, presupposed very many blows\nand great violence, and this kept up till the death-gasp, showed an\n_intent to kill_. Hence \"He shall _surely_ be punished.\" But if he\ncontinued a day or two, the _length of time that he lived_, the _kind_\nof instrument used, and the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_,\n(\"he is his _money_,\") all made a strong case of presumptive evidence,\nshowing that the master did not _design_ to kill. Further, the word\n_nakam_, here rendered _punished_, occurs thirty-five times in the Old\nTestament, and in almost every place is translated \"_avenge_,\" in a few,\n\"_to take vengeance_,\" or \"_to revenge_,\" and in this instance ALONE,\n\"_punish_.\" As it stands in our translation, the pronoun preceding it,\nrefers to the _master_, whereas it should refer to the _crime_, and the\nword rendered _punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The\nmeaning is this: If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and\nhe die under his hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or\nliterally, _by avenging it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of\nthe servant shall be _avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the\nnext verse, \"If he continue a day or two,\" his death is not to be\navenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as in that case the crime was to\nbe adjudged _manslaughter_, and not _murder_. In the following verse,\nanother case of personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to\npay _a sum of money_; and yet our translators employ the same\nphraseology in both places! One, an instance of deliberate, wanton,\nkilling by piecemeal; the other, an accidental, and comparatively slight\ninjury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they say the same thing! Now,\njust the discrimination to be looked for where GOD legislates, is marked\nin the original. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, He says,\n\"It (the death) shall surely be _avenged_,\" that is, the life of the\nwrong doer shall expiate the crime. The same word is used in the Old\nTestament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the\nperpetrators to _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury,\nin the following verse, God says, \"He shall surely be _fined_,\n(_anash_.) \"He shall _pay_ as the judges determine.\" The simple meaning\nof the word _anash_, is to lay a fine. It is used in Deut. xxii. 19:\n\"They shall _amerce_ him in one hundred shekels,\" and in 2 Chron. xxxvi.\n3: \"He condemned (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of silver and\na talent of gold.\" That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither\nimprisonment, nor stripes, nor a fine but that it was _taking the\nmaster's life_ we infer, 1. From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. See Gen.\niv. 24; Josh. x. 13; Judg. xv. 7; xvi. 28; 1 Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25;\nxxv. 31; 2 Sam. iv. 8; Judg. v. 2; 1 Sam. xxv. 26-33. 2. From the\nexpress statute, Lev. xxiv. 17: \"He that killeth ANY man shall surely be\nput to death.\" Also, Num. xxxv. 30, 31: \"Whoso killeth ANY person, the\nmurderer shall be put to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION\nfor the life of a murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely\nbe put to death.\" 3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, \"Death\nby the sword shall surely be adjudged.\" The Targum of Jerusalem,\n\"Vengeance shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_.\" Jarchi, the same.\nThe Samaritan version: \"He shall die the death.\" Again, the clause \"for\nhe is his money,\" is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's\nproperty, and therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished.\nThe assumption is, that the phrase, \"HE IS HIS MONEY,\" proves not only\nthat the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an\n_article of property_. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking\nthis principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose,\nlet them stand and draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one\npoint, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be too\nlate to cry for quarter when its stroke clears the table, and tilts them\namong the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as\nthe following: \"This (bread) _is_ my body;\" \"all they (the Israelites)\n_are_ brass and tin;\" this (water) _is_ the blood of the men who went in\njeopardy of their lives;\" \"the Lord God _is_ a sun;\" \"the seven good\nears _are_ seven years;\" \"the tree of the field _is_ man's life;\" \"God\n_is_ a consuming fire;\" \"he _is_ his money,\" &c. A passion for the exact\n_literalities_ of the Bible is too amiable, not to be gratified in this\ncase. The words in the original are (_K\u00e1spo-hu_,) \"his _silver_ is he.\"\nThe objector's principle of interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its\nmiracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into\n_solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble\nwithal--reasoning against _\"forever_,\" is forestalled henceforth, and,\nDeut. xxiii. 15, quite outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase,\n\"_He is his money_,\" is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since,\nif the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his\npocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the\nfact of his living sometime after the injury_, (if the master _meant_ to\nkill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it.) all together make a\nstrong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master from _intent to\nkill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One is, that as\nthe master might dispose of his _property_ as he pleased, he was not to\nbe punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died under the\nmaster's hand, or after a day or two, he was _equally_ his property, and\nthe objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is to be \"surely\npunished\" for destroying _his own property_! The other inference is,\nthat since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of\n_intent to kill_, the loss of the servant would be a sufficient\npunishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This\ninference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A _pecuniary\nloss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ of\nanother. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum. God\nwould not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. \"Ye\nshall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he shall\nsurely be put to death.\" Num. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable homicide,\nwhere an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money\navailed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until the\ndeath of the High Priest. Num. xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of\nthe servant would be a penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master,\nadmits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ punishment, and it\nprescribes a kind of punishment, rejected by the law, in all cases where\nman took the life of man, whether with or without intent to kill. In\nshort, the objector annuls an integral part of the system--makes a _new_\nlaw, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine\nlegislation revised and improved! The master who struck out his\nservant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him\nfree. The _pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though he had\nkilled him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so that he\ndies of his wounds; another accidentally strikes out his servant's\ntooth,--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same_. If the loss of\nthe servant's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing\nhim, would God command the same punishment for the accidental knocking\nout of a _tooth_? Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_,\nthe loss of the servant's services was only a part of the\npunishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the\nmain punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the\n_community_. To set the servant _free_, and thus proclaim his injury,\nhis right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the ends of\n_public_ justice. The law made an example of the offender, that \"those\nthat remain might hear and fear.\" \"If a man cause a blemish in his\nneighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for\nbreach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as\nwell for the STRANGER as for one of your own country.\" Lev. xxiv. 19,\n20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out _his_ servant's tooth, the law\nsmote out his tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it\ncancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some\ncompensation for the injury done, and exempting him from perilous\nliabilities in future.\n\n\n\nOBJECTION III. \"_Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have,\nshall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy\nbondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do\nsojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are\nwith you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your\npossession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children\nafter you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen\nforever._\" Lev. xxv. 44-46.\n\nThe _points_ in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system\nsanctioned slavery, are 1. The word \"BONDMEN.\" 2. \"BUY.\" 3. \"INHERITANCE\nAND POSSESSION.\" 4. \"FOREVER.\"\n\nWe will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from these\nterms.\n\n1. \"BONDMEN.\" The fact that servants from the heathen are called\n\"_bondmen_,\" while others are called \"_servants_,\" is quoted as proof\nthat the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' translators\nwere not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The word\nhere rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere. The\nHebrew word \"_ebedh_,\" the plural of which is here translated\n\"_bondmen_,\" is often applied to Christ. \"Behold my _servant_ (bondman,\nslave?) whom I uphold.\" Isa. xlii. 1. \"Behold my _servant_ (Christ)\nshall deal prudently.\" Isa. lii. 13. \"And he said it is a light thing\nthat thou (Christ) shouldst be my _servant_.\" Isa. xlix. 6. \"To a\n_servant_ of rulers.\" Isa. xlix. 7. \"By his knowledge shall my righteous\n_servant_ (Christ) justify many.\" Is. liii. 11. \"Behold I will bring\nforth my _servant_ the BRANCH.\" Zech. iii. 8. In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it\nis applied to King Rehoboam. \"And they spake unto him, saying if thou\nwilt be a _servant_ unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_\nforever.\" In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation.\nThe word is used to designate those who perform service for _individuals\nor families_, about thirty-five times in the Old Testament. To designate\n_tributaries_ about twenty-five times. To designate the _subjects of\ngovernment_, about thirty-three times. To designate the worshippers both\nof the true God, and of false gods, about seventy times. It is also used\nin salutations and courteous addresses nearly one hundred times. In\nfine, the word is applied to all persons doing service for others, and\nthat _merely to designate them as the performers of such service_,\nwhatever it might be, or whatever the ground on which it might be\nrendered. To argue from the fact, of this word being used to designate\ndomestic servants, that they were made servants by _force_, worked\nwithout pay, and held as articles of property, is such a gross\nassumption and absurdity as to make formal refutation ridiculous. We\nrepeat what has been shown above, that the word rendered bondmen in Lev.\nxxv. 44, is used to point out persons rendering service for others,\ntotally irrespective of the principle on which that service was\nrendered; as is manifest from the fact that it is applied\nindiscriminately to tributaries, to domestics, to all the subjects of\ngovernments, to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to younger\nsons--defining their relation to the first born, who is called _lord_\nand _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, and to the Messiah. To argue from\nthe meaning of the word _ebedh_ as used in the Old Testament, that those\nto whom it was applied rendered service against their will, and without\npay, does violence to the scripture use of the term, sets at nought all\nrules of interpretation, and outrages common sense. If _any_ inference\nas to the meaning of the term is to be drawn from the condition and\nrelations of the various classes of persons, to whom it is applied, the\nonly legitimate one would seem to be, that the term designates a person\nwho renders service to another in return for something of value received\nfrom him. The same remark applies to the Hebrew verb _abadh_, to serve,\nanswering to the noun _ebedh_ (servant). It is used in the Old Testament\nto describe the _serving_ of tributaries, of worshippers, of domestics,\nof Levites, of sons to a father, of younger brothers to the elder, of\nsubjects to a ruler, of hirelings, of soldiers, of public officers to\nthe government, of a host to his guests, &c. Of these it is used to\ndescribe the serving of _worshippers_ more than forty times, of\n_tributaries_, about thirty five, and of servants or domestics, about\n_ten_.\n\nIf the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if\nAbraham had thousands, and if they abounded under the Mosaic system, why\nhad their language no word that _meant slave_? That language must be\nwofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the most\ncommon and familiar objects and conditions. To represent by the same\nword, and without figure, property, and the owner of that property, is a\nsolecism. Ziba was an \"_ebedh_,\" yet he \"_owned_\" (!) twenty _ebedhs_!\nIn our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we\nhave both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a\nsheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but\nour dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_.\nBut the objector asks, \"Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_\nif they spoke of the slave of a heathen?\" Answer. Their _national_\nservants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently, but domestics\nservants so rarely, that no necessity existed, even if they were slaves,\nfor coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics,\nunder _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their liabilities; their\n_locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had\nnot only _servants_, but a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning\nslave_, would have been indispensible for every day convenience.\nFurther, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on the\noutposts to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was\nquarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in usages\nbetween the without and the within.\n\n2. \"BUY.\" The _buying_ of servants, is discussed at length. pp. 17-23.\nTo that discussion the reader is referred. We will add in this place but\na single consideration. This regulation requiring the Israelites to\n_\"buy\"_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their taking them without\nbuying. _Buying_ supposes two parties: a _price_ demanded by one and\npaid by the other, and consequently, the _consent_ of both buyer and\nseller, to the transaction. Of course the command to the Israelites to\n_buy_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their getting them unless they\nfirst got _somebody's_ consent to the transaction, and paid to\n_somebody_ a fair equivalent. Now, who were these _somebodies_? This at\nleast is plain, they were not _Israelites_, but heathen. \"Of _them_\nshall ye buy.\" Who then were these _somebodies_, whose right was so\nparamount, that _their_ consent must be got and the price paid must go\ninto _their_ pockets? Were they the persons themselves who became\nservants, or some _other_ persons. \"Some _other_ persons to be sure,\"\nsays the objector, \"the countrymen or the neighbors of those who become\nservants.\" Ah! this then is the import of the Divine command to the\nIsraelites.\n\n\"When you go among the heathen round about to get a man to work for you,\nI straightly charge you to go first to his _neighbors_, get _their_\nconsent that you may have him, settle the terms with _them_, and pay to\nthem a fair equivalent. If it is not _their_ choice to let him go, I\ncharge you not to take him on your peril. If _they_ consent, and you pay\n_them_ the full value of his labor, then you may go and catch the man\nand drag him home with you, and make him work for you, and I will bless\nyou in the work of your hands and you shall eat of the fat of the land.\nAs to the man himself, his choice is nothing, and you need give him\nnothing for his work: but take care and pay his _neighbors_ well for\nhim, and respect _their_ free choice in taking him, for to deprive a\nheathen man by force and without pay of the _use of himself_ is well\npleasing in my sight, but to deprive his heathen neighbors of the use of\nhim is that abominable thing which my soul hateth.\"\n\n3. \"FOREVER.\" This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during\ntheir life time, and their posterity from generation to generation.[A]\nNo such idea is contained in the passage. The word \"forever,\" instead of\ndefining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of\nthe regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their\n_permanent domestics_ should be of the _Strangers_, and not of the\nIsraelites; it declares the duration of that general provision. As if\nGod had said, \"You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers from the\nnations round about you; your servants shall _always_ be of that class\nof persons.\" As it stands in the original, it is plain--\"_Forever of\nthem shall ye serve yourselves_.\" This is the literal rendering.\n\n[Footnote A: One would think that the explicit testimony of our Lord\nshould for ever forestall all cavil on this point. \"_The servant abideth\nnot in the house_ FOR EVER, but the Son, abideth ever.\" John viii. 35.]\n\nThat \"_forever_\" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_,\nrather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from\nthe form of the expression, \"Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the\n_heathen_. OF THEM shall ye buy.\" \"They shall be your possession.\" \"THEY\nshall be your bondmen forever.\" \"But over your brethren the CHILDREN OF\nISRAEL,\" &c. To say nothing of the uncertainty of _these individuals_\nsurviving those _after_ whom they are to live, the language used applies\nmore naturally to a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants.\nBesides _perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_.\nThe ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter limit it absolutely by\nthe jubilee. \"Then thou shalt cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound\n* * throughout ALL your land.\" \"And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout\nall the land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof.\" It may be objected that\n\"inhabitants\" here means _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command\nis, \"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants\nthereof_.\" Besides, in the sixth verse, there is an enumeration of the\ndifferent classes of the inhabitants, in which servants and Strangers\nare included; and in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the\nsabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the precepts,\nprohibitions, and promises. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in by\nthe day of atonement. What did these institutions show forth? The day of\natonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of jubilee,\nthe gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a jubilee to\n_Jews_ only? Were they types of sins remitted, and of salvation\nproclaimed to the nation of Israel alone? Is there no redemption for us\nGentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and\nimpiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock that made earth\nquake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple\nveil? and did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition\nfrom its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of OUR\nsalvation lives. \"Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people.\" One\nshout shall swell from all the ransomed, \"Thou hast redeemed us unto God\nby thy blood out of EVERY kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.\"\n\nTo deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants from\nthe _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_.[A] It not only eclipses\nthe glory of the Gospel, but strikes out its sun. The refusal to release\nservants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a grand leading type\nof the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of Christ's\nredemption. But even if _forever_ did refer to _individual_ service, we\nhave ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same\nword defines the length of time which _Jewish_ servants served who did\nnot go out at the end of their six years' term. And all admit that they\nwent out at the jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17. The 23d verse of\nthe same chapter is quoted to prove that \"_forever_\" in the 46th verse\nextends beyond the jubilee. \"The land shall not be sold FOREVER, for the\nland is mine\"--since it would hardly be used in different senses in the\nsame general connection. As _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the\n_general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does\nnot touch the argument. Besides, in the 46th verse, the word used is\n_Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas\nin the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_, or _to\nbe cut off_; and the import of it is, that the owner of an inheritance\nshall not forfeit his _proprietorship_ of it; though it may for a time\npass from his control into the hands of his creditors or others, yet the\nowner shall be permitted to _redeem_ it, and even if that be not done,\nit shall not be \"_cut off_,\" but shall revert to him at the jubilee.\n\n[Footnote A: So far from the Strangers not being released by the\nproclamation of liberty on the morning of the jubilee, they were the\nonly persons who were, as a body, released by it. The rule regulating\nthe service of Hebrew servants was, \"Six years shall he serve, and in\nthe seventh year he shall go out free.\" The _free holders_ who had\n\"fallen into decay,\" and had in consequence mortgaged their inheritances\nto their more prosperous neighbors, and become in some sort their\nservants, were released by the jubilee, and again resumed their\ninheritances. This was the only class of Jewish servants (and it could\nnot have been numerous,) which was released by the jubilee; all others\nwent out at the close of their six years' term.]\n\n3. \"INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION.\" \"Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE\nfor your children after you to inherit them for a POSSESSION. This, as\nhas been already remarked refers to the _nations_, and not to the\n_individual_ servants procured from the senations. The holding of\nservants as a _possession_ is discussed at large pp. 47-64. To what is\nthere advanced we here subjoin a few brief considerations. We have\nalready shown, that servants could not he held as a _property_\npossession, and inheritance; that they became such of their _own\naccord_, were paid wages, released from their regular labor nearly _half\nthe days in each year_, thoroughly _instructed_ and _protected_ in all\ntheir personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their\nmasters. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small\ntemptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable\n\"possession\" and \"inheritance,\" truly! What if our American slaves were\nall placed in _just such a condition_! Alas, for that soft, melodious\ncircumlocution, \"OUR PECULIAR species of property!\" Verily, emphasis\nwould be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together! What eager\nsnatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection,\nprinciples of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by\nother passages--and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing\nusages, thus making God pander for lust. The words _nahal_ and _nahala_,\ninherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify _articles of\nproperty_. \"The people answered the king and said, \"we have none\n_inheritance_ in the son of Jesse.\" 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean\ngravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of\n_property_? \"Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord.\" Ps.\ncxxvii. 3. \"Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_.\"\nEx. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children,\ndoes he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and\nchattel-making, synonymes? \"_I_ am their _inheritance_.\" Ezek. xliv. 28.\n\"I shall give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_.\" Ps. ii. 18. See\nalso Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov.\nxiv. 18.\n\nThe question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-\"_possession_,\" has\nbeen already discussed, pp. 47-64, we need add in this place but a word.\nAs an illustration of the condition of servants from the heathen that\nwere the \"possession\" of Israelitish families, and of the way in which\nthey became servants, the reader is referred to Isa. xiv. 1, 2. \"For the\nLord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them\nin their own land; and the strangers will be _joined_ with them, and\n_they shall CLEAVE to the house of Jacob_. And the people shall take\nthem and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel shall\n_possess_ them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids; and\nthey shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall\nrule over the oppressors.\"\n\nWe learn from these verses, 1st. That these servants which were to be\n\"_possessed_\" by the Israelites, were to be \"joined with them,\" i.e.,\nbecome proselytes to their religion. 2d. That they should \"CLEAVE to the\nhouse of Jacob,\" i.e., that they would forsake their own people\nvoluntarily, attach themselves to the Israelites as servants, and of\ntheir own free choice leave home and friends, to accompany them on their\nreturn, and to take up their permanent abode with them, in the same\nmanner that Ruth accompanied Naomi from Moab to the land of Israel, and\nthat the \"souls gotten\" by Abraham in Padanaram, accompanied him when he\nleft it and went to Canaan. \"And the house of Israel shall _possess_\nthem for servants,\" i.e. shall _have_ them for servants.\n\nIn the passage under consideration, \"they shall be your _possession_,\"\nthe original word translated \"possession\" is _ahuzza_. The same word is\nused in Gen. xlvii. 11. \"And Joseph placed his father and his brethren,\nand gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt.\" Gen. xlvii. 11. In\nwhat sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the\nsense of _having it to live in_, not in the sense of having it as\n_owners_. In what sense were the Israelites to _possess_ these nations,\nand _take them_ as an _inheritance for their children_? Answer, they\npossessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household\nservants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity\nas a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a\ndescent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given\nthus: \"Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the\nnations that are round about you, of _them_ shall ye buy male and female\ndomestics.\" \"Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn\namong you, of _them_ shall ye buy, and of their families that are with\nyou, which they begat in your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent\nresource.\" \"And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ source of supply to\nwhom your children after you shall resort for servants. ALWAYS, _of\nthem_ shall ye serve yourselves.\" The design of the passage is manifest\nfrom its structure. So far from being a permission to purchase slaves,\nit was a prohibition to employ Israelites for a certain term and in a\ncertain grade of service, and to point out the _class_ of persons from\nwhich they were to get their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which\nthey were to get them.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Rabbi Leeser, who translated from the German the work\nentitled \"Instruction in the Mosaic Religion\" by Professor Jholson of\nthe Jewish seminary at Frankfort-on-the-Main, in his comment on these\nverses, says, \"It must be observed that it was prohibited to SUBJECT _a\nStranger to slavery_. The _buying_ of slaves _alone_ is permitted, but\nnot stealing them.\"\n\nNow whatever we call that condition in which servants were, whether\nservitude or slavery, and whatever we call the persons in that\ncondition, whether servants or _slaves_, we have at all events, the\ntestimony that the Israelites were prohibited to _subject_ a Stranger to\nthat condition, or in other words, the free choice of the servant was\nnot to be compelled. ]\n\n\n\nOBJECTION IV. \"_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and\nbe sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a BOND-SERVANT\nbut as an HIRED-SERVANT, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee, and\nshall serve thee unto the year of jubilee_.\" Lev. xxv. 39, 40.\n\nAs only _one_ class is called \"_hired_,\" it is inferred that servants of\nthe other class were _not paid_ for their labor. That God, while\nthundering anathemas against those who \"used their neighbor's service\nwithout wages,\" granted a special indulgence to his chosen people to\nforce others to work, and rob them of earnings, provided always, in\nselecting their victims, they spared \"the gentlemen of property and\nstanding,\" and pounced only upon the strangers and the common people.\nThe inference that \"_hired_\" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those\nservants not _called_ \"hired,\" were _not paid_ for their labor, is a\nmere assumption. The meaning of the English verb to _hire_, is to\nprocure for a _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to\ntemporary service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word\n\"_saukar_.\" It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service\nis spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who\nconstituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the\nsame term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinctions in\nthis matter, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics\nperform only the _regular_ work. Whatever is occasional merely, as the\nwashing of a family, is done by persons hired expressly for the purpose.\nThe familiar distinction between the two classes, is \"servants,\" and\n\"hired help,\" (not _paid_ help.) _Both_ classes are _paid_. One is\npermanent, and the other occasional and temporary, and _therefore_ in\nthis case called \"hired.\"[A] A variety of particulars are recorded\ndistinguishing, _hired_ from _bought_ servants. 1. Hired servants were\npaid daily at the close of their work. Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15;\nJob. vii. 2; Matt. xx. 8. \"_Bought_\" servants were paid in advance, (a\nreason for their being called _bought_,) and those that went out at the\nseventh year received a _gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. 2. The \"hired\"\nwere paid _in money_, the \"bought\" received their _gratuity_, at least,\nin grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. xv. 14. 3. The\n\"hired\" _lived_ in their own families, the \"bought\" were a part of their\nmasters' families. 4. The \"hired\" supported their families out of their\nwages; the \"bought\" and their families were supported by the master\n_beside_ their wages. 5. Hired servants were expected to work more\n_constantly_, and to have more _working hours_ in the day than the\nbought servants. This we infer from the fact, that \"a hireling's day,\"\nwas a sort of proverbial phrase, meaning a _full_ day. No subtraction of\ntime being made from it. So _a hireling's year_ signifies an entire year\nwithout abatement. Job. vii. 1; xiv. 6; Isa. xvi. 14; xxi. 16.\n\n[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is\nnot called a _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man\nat twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my \"_hired_\" man, but\nif _I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he\nworks my farm \"_on shares_,\" every farmer knows that he is no longer\ncalled a \"_hired_\" man. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at\nthe same times, and with the same teams and tools; and does the same\namount of work in the year, and perhaps clears twenty dollars a month,\ninstead of twelve. Now as he is no longer called \"hired,\" and as he\nstill works my farm, suppose my neighbors sagely infer, that since he is\nnot my \"_hired_\" laborer, I _rob_ him of his earnings, and with all the\ngravity of owls, pronounce their oracular decision, and hoot it abroad.\nMy neighbors are deep divers! like some theological professors, they go\nnot only to the bottom but come up covered with the tokens.]\n\nThe \"bought\" servants, were, _as a class, superior to the hired_--were\nmore trust-worthy, were held in higher estimation, had greater\nprivileges, and occupied a more elevated station in society. 1. They\nwere intimately incorporated with the family of the master, were guests\nat family festivals, and social solemnities, from which hired servants\nwere excluded. Lev. xxii. 10, 11; Ex. xii. 43, 45. 2. Their interests\nwere far more identified with those of their masters' family. They were\noften, actually or prospectively, heirs of their masters' estates, as in\nthe case of Eliezer, of Ziba, and the sons of Bilhah, and Zilpah. When\nthere were no sons, or when they were unworthy, bought servants were\nmade heirs. Prov. xvii. 2. We find traces of this usage in the New\nTestament. \"But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among\nthemselves saying, this is the _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the\ninheritance may be ours_.\" Luke xx. 14. In no instance does a _hired_\nservant inherit his master's estate. 3. Marriages took place between\nservants and their master's daughters. \"Sheshan had a _servant_, an\nEgyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha\nhis servant to wife.\" 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a\n_hired_ servant forming such an alliance. 4. Bought servants and their\ndescendants were treated with the same affection and respect as the\nother members of the family.[A] The treatment of Abraham's servants.\nGen. xxiv. and xviii. 1-7; the intercourse between Gideon and Phurah\nJudg. vii. 10, 11; Saul and his servant, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; Jonathan and\nhis servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and Gehazi are illustrations.\nThe tenderness exercised towards home-born servants or the children of\n_handmaids_, and the strength of the tie that bound them to the family,\nare employed by the Psalmist to illustrate the regard of God for him,\nhis care over him, and his own endearing relation to him, when in the\nlast extremity he prays, \"Save the son of thy _handmaid_.\" Ps. lxxxvi.\n16. So also in Ps. cxvi. 16. Oh Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy\nservant, and the son of thy _handmaid_. Also, Jer. ii. 14. Is Israel a\nservant? Is he a _home-born_?[B] WHY IS HE SPOILED? No such tie seems to\nhave existed between _hired_ servants and their masters. Their\nuntrustworthiness was proverbial. John x. 12, 13. They were reckoned at\nbut half the value of bought servants. Deut. xv. 18. None but the\n_lowest class_ of the people engaged as hired servants, and the kinds of\nlabor assigned to them required little knowledge and skill. No persons\nseem to have become hired servants except such as were forced to it from\nextreme poverty. The hired servant is called \"poor and needy,\" and the\nreason assigned by God why he should be paid as soon as he had finished\nhis work is, \"For _he is poor_, and setteth his heart upon it.\" Deut.\nxxiv. 14, 15. See also, 1 Sam. ii. 5. Various passages show the low\nrepute and trifling character of the class from which they were hired.\nJudg. ix. 4; 1 Sam. ii. 5. The superior condition of bought servants is\nmanifest in the high trust confided to them, and in their dignity and\nauthority in the household. In no instance is a _hired_ servant thus\ndistinguished. The _bought_ servant is manifestly the master's\nrepresentative in the family, sometimes with plenipotentiary powers over\nadult children, even negotiating marriage for them. Abraham adjured his\nservant, not to take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the\nCanaanites. The servant himself selected the individual. Servants\nexercised discretionary power in the management of their masters'\nestates, \"And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master,\n_for all the goods of his master were in his hand_.\" Gen. xxiv. 10. The\nreason assigned is not that such was Abraham's direction, but that the\nservant had discretionary control. Servants had also discretionary power\nin the _disposal of property_. Gen. xxiv. 22, 30, 53. The condition of\nZiba in the house of Mephibosheth, is a case in point. So is Prov. xvii.\n2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New\nTestament, Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44. So in the parable of the\ntalents, the master seems to have set up each of his servants in trade\nwith a large capital. The unjust steward had large _discretionary_\npower, was \"accused of wasting his master's goods,\" and manifestly\nregulated with his debtors the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8.\nSuch trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.\n\n[Footnote A: \"For the _purchased servant_ who is an Israelite, or\nproselyte, shall fare as his master. The master shall not eat fine\nbread, and his servant bread of bran. Nor yet drink old wine, and give\nhis servant new: nor sleep on soft pillows, and bedding, and his servant\non straw. I say unto you, that he that gets a _purchased_ servant does\nwell to make him as his friend, or he will prove to his employer as if\nhe got himself a master.\"--Maimonides, in Mishna Kiddushim. Chap. 1,\nSec. 2.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: Our translators in rendering it \"Is he a home-born SLAVE,\"\nwere wise beyond what is written.]\n\nThe inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is illustrated in the\nparable of the prodigal son. When he came to himself, the memory of his\nhome, and of the abundance enjoyed by even the _lowest_ class of\nservants in his father's household, while he was perishing with hunger\namong the swine and husks, so filled him with anguish at the contrast,\nthat he exclaimed, \"How many _hired_ servants of my father, have bread\nenough and to spare, and I perish with hunger.\" His proud heart broke.\n\"I will arise,\" he cried, \"and go to my father;\" and then to assure his\nfather of the depth of his humility, resolved to add; \"Make me as one of\nthy _hired_ servants.\" If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ class--to\nbespeak the situation, savored little of that sense of unworthiness that\nseeks the dust with hidden face, and cries \"unclean.\" Unhumbled nature\n_climbs_; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may. Humility\nsinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower. The design\nof the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy of God, as he\nbeholds afar off, the returning sinner \"seeking an injured father's\nface,\" who runs to clasp and bless him with an unchiding welcome; and on\nthe other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with tears\nfrom his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert he\nsobs aloud, \"The lowest place, _the lowest place_, I can abide no\nother.\" Or in those inimitable words, \"Father I have sinned against\nHeaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son;\nmake me as one of thy HIRED servants.\" The supposition that _hired_\nservants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of\nwinning beauty and pathos.\n\nIt is manifest to every careful student of the Bible, that _one_ class\nof servants, was on terms of equality with the children and other\nmembers of the family. Hence the force of Paul's declaration, Gal. iv.\n1, \"Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child,\nDIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be lord of all.\" If this\nwere the _hired_ class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen of humility.\nWould our Lord have put such language upon the lips of one held up by\nhimself, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its deep sense of\nall ill-desert? If this is _humility_, put it on stilts, and set it a\nstrutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in aping it.\n\nIsraelites and Strangers belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of\nthe servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former\nclass, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the\nfamily circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been\nshown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,\nmerely _political_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more\nfavored than even the bought servants from the _Strangers_. No one from\nthe Strangers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the\nhighest office, nor could he own the soil. This last disability seems to\nhave been one reason for the different periods of service required of\nthe two classes of bought servants. The Israelite was to serve six\nyears--the Stranger until the jubilee. As the Strangers could not own\nthe soil, nor houses, except within walled towns, they would naturally\nattach themselves to Israelitish families. Those who were wealthy, or\nskilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants would need\nservants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to\nbecome servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their\nown nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would\nnaturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. Lev. xxv. 47. In a\nword, such was the political condition of the Strangers, that the Jewish\npolity offered a virtual bounty, to such as would become permanent\nservants, and thus secure those privileges already enumerated, and for\ntheir children in the second generation a permanent inheritance. Ezek.\nxlvii. 21-23. None but the monied aristocracy would be likely to decline\nsuch offers. On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and\nan inheritance of land being a sacred possession, to hold it free of\nincumbrance was with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family\nhonor and personal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the\ncontrol of one's inheritance, after the division of the paternal domain,\nor to be kept out of it after having acceded to it, was a burden\ngrievous to be borne. To mitigate as much as possible such a calamity,\nthe law released the Israelitish servant at the end of six[A] years; as,\nduring that time--if of the first class--the partition of the\npatrimonial land might have taken place or, if of the second, enough\nmoney might have been earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he\nmight assume his station as a lord of the soil. If neither contingency\nhad occurred, then after another six years the opportunity was again\noffered, and so on, until the jubilee. So while strong motives urged the\nIsraelite to discontinue his service as soon as the exigency had passed\nwhich made him a servant, every consideration impelled the _Stranger_ to\n_prolong_ his term of service;[B] and the same kindness which dictated\nthe law of six years' service for the Israelite, assigned as the general\nrule, a much longer period to the Gentile servant, who had every\ninducement to protract the term. It should be borne in mind, that adult\nJews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary expedient to\nrelieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to be such when that\nobject was effected. The poverty that forced them to it was a calamity,\nand their service was either a means of relief, or a measure of\nprevention; not pursued as a permanent business, but resorted to on\nemergencies--a sort of episode in the main scope of their lives. Whereas\nwith the Stranger, it was a _permanent employment_, pursued both as a\n_means_ of bettering their own condition, and that of their posterity,\nand as an _end_ for its own sake, conferring on them privileges, and a\nsocial estimation not otherwise attainable.\n\n[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until the\nseventh year, seems to have been the coincidence of that period with\nother arrangements, in the Jewish economy. Its pecuniary\nresponsibilities, social relations, and general internal structure, were\n_graduated_ upon a septennial scale. Besides, as those Israelites who\nhad become servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, till\nother expedients to recruit their finances had failed--(Lev. xxv.\n35)--their _becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs,\nas demanded the labor of a _course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: The Stranger had the same inducements to prefer a long term\nof service that those have who cannot own land, to prefer a long\n_lease_.]\n\nWe see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are\ncalled by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_,) 1. They\nfollowed it as a _permanent business_. 2. Their term of service was\n_much longer_ than that of the other class. 3. As a class, they\ndoubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. 4. All the\nStrangers that dwelt in the land were _tributaries_, required to pay an\nannual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service,\n(called a _\"tribute of bond-service;\"_) in other words, all the\nStrangers were _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same\nHebrew word used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates\n_national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14; 2 Chron.\nviii. 7-9; Deut, xx. 11; 2 Sam. x. 19; 1 Kings ix. 21, 22; 1 Kings iv.\n21; Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when\nthey paid tribute to other nations. 2 Kings xvii. 3.; Judg. iii. 8, 14;\nGen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought\nservants, was in their _kinds_ of service. The servants from the\nStrangers were properly the _domestics_, or household servants, employed\nin all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and in such\nmechanical labor, as was required by increasing wants and needed\nrepairs. The Jewish bought servants seem almost exclusively\n_agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for it by previous habits,\nagriculture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites\nas the most honorable of all occupations. After Saul was elected king,\nand escorted to Gibeah, the next report of him is, \"_And behold Saul\ncame after the herd out of the field_.\" 1 Sam. xi. 5. Elisha \"was\nplowing with twelve yoke of oxen.\" 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah \"loved\nhusbandry.\" 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon _was \"threshing wheat\"_ when\ncalled to lead the host against the Midianites. Judg. vi. 11. The\nsuperior honorableness of agriculture is shown, in that it was protected\nand supported by the fundamental law of the theocracy--God indicating it\nas the chief prop of the government. The Israelites were like permanent\nfixtures on their soil, so did they cling to it. To be agriculturists on\ntheir own patrimonial inheritances, was with them the grand claim to\nhonorable estimation. When Ahab proposed to Naboth that he should sell\nhim his vineyard, king though he was, he might well have anticipated\nfrom an Israelitish freeholder, just such an indignant burst as that\nwhich his proposal drew forth, \"And Naboth said to Ahab, the Lord forbid\nit me that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.\" 1\nKings xxi. 2, 3. Agriculture being pre-eminently a _Jewish_ employment,\nto assign a native Israelite to other employments as a business, was to\nbreak up his habits, do violence to cherished predilections, and put him\nto a kind of labor in which he had no skill, and which he deemed\ndegrading.[C] In short, it was in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system,\npractically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and a rigor grievous to be borne,\nas it annihilated a visible distinction between the descendants of\nAbraham and the Strangers. _To guard this and another fundamental\ndistinction_, God instituted the regulation, \"If thy brother that\ndwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not\ncompel him to serve as a bond-servant.\" In other words, thou shalt not\nput him to servant's work--to the business, and into the condition of\ndomestics. In the Persian version it is translated, \"Thou shalt not\nassign to him the work of _servitude_.\" In the Septuagint, \"He shall not\nserve thee with the service of a _domestic_.\" In the Syriac, \"Thou shalt\nnot employ him after the manner of servants.\" In the Samaritan, \"Thou\nshalt not require him to serve in the service of a servant.\" In the\nTargum of Onkelos, \"He shall not serve thee with the service of a\nhousehold servant.\" In the Targum of Jonathan, \"Thou shalt not cause him\nto serve according to the usages of the servitude of servants.\"[D] The\nmeaning of the passage is, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade,\nnor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics._ The\nremainder of the regulation is--_\"But as an hired servant and as a\nsojourner shall he be with thee.\"_ Hired servants were not incorporated\ninto the families of their masters; they still retained their own family\norganization, without the surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or\nauthority; and this, even though they resided under the same roof with\ntheir master. The same substantially may be said of the sojourner though\nhe was not the owner of the land which he cultivated, and of course had\nnot the control of an inheritance, yet he was not in a condition that\nimplied subjection to him whose land he tilled, or that demanded the\nsurrender of any _right_, or exacted from him any homage, or stamped him\nwith any inferiority; unless, it be supposed that a degree of\ninferiority would naturally attach to a state of _dependence_ however\nqualified. While bought servants were associated with their master's\nfamilies at meals, at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired\nservants and sojourners were not. Ex. xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11.\nHired servants were not subject to the authority of their masters in any\nsuch sense as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence\nthe only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures\nas practicable to masters, is that of _keeping back their wages._ To\nhave taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, would\nhave been pre-eminent \"_rigor_;\" for it was not a servant born in the\nhouse of a master, nor a minor, whose minority had been sold by the\nfather, neither was it one who had not yet acceded to his inheritance,\nnor finally, one who had received the _assignment_ of his inheritance,\nbut was working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its\npossession and control. But it was that of _the head of a family_, who\nhad known better days, now reduced to poverty, forced to relinquish the\nloved inheritance of his fathers, with the competence and respectful\nconsideration its possession secured to him, and to be indebted to a\nneighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment. So sad a reverse,\nmight well claim sympathy; but one consolation cheers him in the house\nof his pilgrimage; he is an _Israelite--Abraham is his father_ and now\nin his calamity he clings closer than ever, to the distinction conferred\nby his birth-right. To rob him of this, were \"the unkindest cut of all.\"\nTo have assigned him to a grade of service filled only by those whose\npermanent business was serving, would have been to \"rule over him with\"\npeculiar \"rigor.\" \"Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a\nbond-servant,\" or literally, _thou shalt not serve thyself with him,\nwith the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and\na kind and grade of service comporting with his character and relations\nas an Israelite. And \"as a _hired_ servant, and as a sojourner shall he\nbe with thee,\" secures to him his family organization, the respect and\nauthority due to its head, and the general consideration resulting from\nsuch a station. Being already in possession of his inheritance, and the\nhead of a household, the law so arranged the conditions of his service\nas to _alleviate_ as much as possible the calamity which had reduced him\nfrom independence and authority, to penury and subjection. The import of\nthe command which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, (\"Thou\nshalt not rule over him with rigor,\") is manifestly this, you shall not\ndisregard those differences in previous associations, station,\nauthority, and political privileges, upon which this regulation is\nbased; for to hold this class of servants _irrespective_ of these\ndistinctions, and annihilating them, is to \"rule with rigor.\" The same\ncommand is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the\ndistinction between servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction,\nand forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, the\ndisregard of which would be _rigorous_ in the extreme.[E] The\nconstruction commonly put upon the phrase \"rule with rigor,\" and the\ninference drawn from it, have an air vastly oracular. It is interpreted\nto mean, \"you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him of legal\nprotection, nor force him to work without pay.\" The inference is like\nunto it, viz., since the command forbade such outrages upon the\nIsraelites, it permitted and commissioned their infliction upon the\nStrangers. Such impious and shallow smattering captivates scoffers and\nlibertines; its flippancy and blasphemy, and the strong scent of its\nloose-reined license works like a charm upon them. What boots it to\nreason against such rampant affinities! In Ex. i. 13, it is said that\nthe Egyptians, \"made the children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor.\" This\nrigor is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted and the _mode_ of\nthe exaction. The expression \"serve with rigor,\" is never applied to the\nservice of servants under the Mosaic system. The phrase, \"thou shall not\nRULE over him with rigor,\" does not prohibit unreasonable exactions of\nlabor, nor inflictions of cruelty. Such were provided against otherwise.\nBut it forbids confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a\nStranger, by assigning the former to the same grade of service, for the\nsame term of time and under the same political disabilities as the\nlatter.\n\n[Footnote C: The Babylonish captivity seems to have greatly modified\nJewish usage in this respect. Before that event, their cities were\ncomparatively small, and few were engaged in mechanical or mercantile\nemployments. Afterward their cities enlarged apace and trades\nmultiplied.]\n\n\n[Footnote D: Jarchi's comment on \"Thou shalt not compel him to serve as\na bond-servant\" is, \"The Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any\nthing which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personal\nattendance, as loosing his master's shoe-latchet, bringing him water to\nwash his hands and feet, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying\nthings to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his\nmaster as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor,\nuntil his legal release.\"]\n\n\n[Footnote E: The disabilities of the Strangers, which were distinctions,\nbased on a different national descent, and important to the preservation\nof nation characteristics, and a national worship, did not at all affect\ntheir _social_ estimation. They were regarded according to their\ncharacter and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin,\nemployments and political condition.]\n\n\n\nWe are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the\ndifferent classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each.\n\nIn the possession of all fundamental rights, all classes of servants\nwere on an absolute equality, all were equally protected by law in their\npersons, character, property and social relations; all were voluntary,\nall were compensated for their labor, and released from it nearly one\nhalf of the days in each year; all were furnished with stated\ninstruction; none in either class were in any sense articles of\nproperty, all were regarded as _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes\nand destinies of _men_. In all these respects, _all_ classes of servants\namong the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS. The _different_ classes, and\nthe differences in _each_ class, were, 1. _Hired Servants_. This class\nconsisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were\ndifferent. The _Israelite_ was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was\na _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_;\nboth were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own families,\ntheir wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done.\n2. _Bought Servants_, (including those \"born in the house.\") This class\nalso, consisted of Israelites and Strangers, the same difference in\ntheir kinds of employment as noticed before. Both were paid in\nadvance,[A] and neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the\nexception of the _freeholder_, completed his term in six years. The\nStranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. A marked\ndistinction obtained also between different classes of _Jewish_ bought\nservants. Ordinarily, they were merged in their master's family, and,\nlike his wife and children, subject to his authority; (and, like them,\nprotected by law from its abuse.) But the _freeholder_ was an exception;\nhis family relations and authority remained unaffected, nor was he\nsubjected as an inferior to the control of his master, though dependent\non him for employment.\n\n[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, doubtless lessened the price of\nthe purchase; the servant thus having the use of the money, and the\nmaster assuming all the risks of life, and health for labor; at the\nexpiration of the six years' contract, the master having suffered no\nloss from the risk incurred at the making of it, was obliged by law to\nrelease the servant with a liberal gratuity. The reason assigned for\nthis is, \"he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in serving\nthee six years,\" as if it had been said, as you have experienced no loss\nfrom the risks of life, and ability to labor, incurred in the purchase,\nand which lessened the price, and as, by being your servant for six\nyears, he has saved you the time and trouble of looking up and hiring\nlaborers on emergencies, therefore, \"thou shalt furnish him liberally,\"\n&c. This gratuity at the close of the service shews the _principle_ of\nthe relation; _equivalent_ for value received. ]\n\nIt should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the\nIsraelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal, natural and\nreligious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed\nby those of their own people who were _not_ servants. They also shared\nin common with them the political disabilities which appertained to all\nStrangers, whether servants of Jewish masters, or masters of Jewish\nservants. Further, the disabilities of the servants from the Strangers\nwere exclusively _political_ and _national_. 1. They, in common with all\nStrangers, could not own the soil. 2. They were ineligible to civil\noffices. 3. They were assigned to employments less honorable than those\nin which Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture being regarded as\nfundamental to the existence of the state, other employments were in\nless repute, and deemed _unjewish_.\n\nFinally, the Strangers, whether servants or masters, were all protected\nequally with the descendants of Abraham. In respect to political\nprivileges, their condition was much like that of unnaturalized\nforeigners in the United States; whatever their wealth or intelligence,\nor moral principle, or love for our institutions, they can neither go to\nthe ballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let a\nnative American, be suddenly bereft of these privileges, and loaded with\nthe disabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light\nmatter, to _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_. The recent condition\nof the Jews and Catholics in England, is another illustration.\nRothschild, the late banker, though the richest private citizen in the\nworld, and perhaps master of scores of English servants, who sued for\nthe smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the government,\ninferior to the lowest among them. Suppose an Englishman of the\nEstablished Church, were by law deprived of power to own the soil, of\neligibility to office and of the electoral franchise, would Englishmen\nthink it a misapplication of language, if it were said, the government\n\"rules over him with rigor?\" And yet his person, property, reputation,\nconscience, all his social relations, the disposal of his time, the\nright of locomotion at pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects,\nare just as much protected by law as the Lord Chancellor's.\n\n\n\nFINALLY.--As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, rife with\nmeaning in doctrine and duty; the practical power of the whole, depended\nupon the exact observance of those distinctions and relations which\nconstituted its significancy. Hence, the care to preserve inviolate the\ndistinction between a _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, even\nwhen the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the initiatory\nordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated with the\nIsraelites by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Ex. xxi. 2-6,\nis an illustration. In this case, the Israelitish servant, whose term\nexpired in six years, married one of his master's _permanent female\ndomestics_; but her marriage did not release her master from _his_ part\nof the contract for her whole term of service, nor from his legal\nobligation to support and educate her children. Neither did it do away\nthat distinction, which marked her national descent by a specific\n_grade_ and _term_ of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfil _her_\npart of the contract. Her relations as a permanent domestic grew out of\na distinction guarded with great care throughout the Mosaic system. To\nrender it void, would have been to divide the system against itself.\nThis God would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand, would he permit the\nmaster to throw off the responsibility of instructing her children, nor\nthe care and expense of their helpless infancy and rearing. He was bound\nto support and educate them, and all her children born afterwards during\nher term of service. The whole arrangement beautifully illustrates that\nwise and tender regard for the interests of all the parties concerned,\nwhich arrays the Mosaic system in robes of glory, and causes it to shine\nas the sun in the kingdom of our Father.[B] By this law, the children\nhad secured to them a mother's tender care. If the husband loved his\nwife and children, he could compel his master to keep him, whether he\nhad any occasion for his services or not. If he did not love them, to be\nrid of him was a blessing; and in that case, the regulation would prove\nan act for the relief of an afflicted family. It is not by any means to\nbe inferred, that the release of the servant in the seventh year, either\nabsolved him from the obligations of marriage, or shut him out from the\nsociety of his family. He could doubtless procure a service at no great\ndistance from them, and might often do it, to get higher wages, or a\nkind of employment better suited to his taste and skill. The great\nnumber of days on which the law released servants from regular labor,\nwould enable him to spend much more time with his family, than can be\nspent by most of the agents of our benevolent societies with _their_\nfamilies, or by many merchants, editors, artists, &c., whose daily\nbusiness is in New York, while their families reside from ten to one\nhundred miles in the country.\n\n[Footnote B: Whoever profoundly studies the Mosaic Institutes with a\nteachable and reverential spirit, will feel the truth and power of that\nsolemn appeal and interrogatory of God to his people Israel, when he had\nmade an end of setting before them all his statutes and ordinances.\n\"What nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments SO\nRIGHTEOUS, as _all_ this law which I set before you this day.\" Deut. iv.\n8.]\n\n\n\nWe conclude this inquiry by touching upon an objection, which, though\nnot formally stated, has been already set aside by the tenor of the\nforegoing argument. It is this,--\"The slavery of the Canaanites by the\nIsraelites, was appointed by God as a commutation of the punishment of\ndeath denounced against them for their sins.\"[A] If the absurdity of a\nsentence consigning persons to death, and at the same time to perpetual\nslavery, did not sufficiently laugh at itself; it would be small\nself-denial, in a case so tempting, to make up the deficiency by a\ngeneral contribution. Only _one_ statute was ever given respecting the\ndisposition to be made of the inhabitants of Canaan. If the sentence of\ndeath was pronounced against them, and afterwards _commuted_, when?\nwhere? by whom? and in what terms was the commutation, and where is it\nrecorded? Grant, for argument's sake, that all the Canaanites were\nsentenced to unconditional extermination; how can a right to _enslave_\nthem, be drawn from such premises? The punishment of death is one of the\nhighest recognitions of man's moral nature possible. It proclaims him\nrational, accountable, guilty, deserving death for having done his\nutmost to cheapen human life, when the proof of its priceless worth\nlived in his own nature. But to make him a _slave_, cheapens to nothing\n_universal human nature_, and instead of healing a wound, gives a\ndeath-stab. What! repair an injury to rational being in the robbery of\none of its rights, not only by robbing it of all, but by annihilating\ntheir _foundation_, the everlasting distinction between persons and\nthings? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment_, but the\n_annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of _all_\nhuman beings. This commutation of the punishment of death, into\nperpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery! Alas! for the honor of\nDeity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and by a timely\nmovement rescued the Divine character, at the very crisis of its fate,\nfrom the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left it!\nHere a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate\ndissertation; but must for the present be disposed of in a few\nparagraphs. WERE THE CANAANITES SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL AND\nUNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? As the limits of this inquiry forbid our\ngiving all the grounds of dissent from commonly received opinions, the\nsuggestions made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, rather than laid\ndown as _doctrines_. The directions as to the disposal of the\nCanaanites, are mainly in the following passages, Ex. xxiii. 23-33;\nxxxiv. 11; Deut. vii. 16-24; ix. 3; xxxi. 3-5. In these verses, the\nIsraelites are commanded to \"destroy the Canaanites,\" to \"drive out,\"\n\"consume,\" \"utterly overthrow,\" \"put out,\" \"dispossess them,\" &c. Did\nthese commands enjoin the unconditional and universal destruction of the\n_individuals_, or merely of the _body politic_? The word _haram_, to\ndestroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction; the\ndestruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of\ngovernmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects.\nBesides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to\nmean _personal_ destruction, what meaning shall we give to the\nexpressions, \"drive out before thee,\" \"cast out before thee,\" \"expel,\"\n\"put out,\" \"dispossess,\" &c., which are used in the same and in parallel\npassages? In addition to those quoted above, see Josh. iii. 10; xvii.\n18; xxiii. 5; xxiv. 18; Judg. i. 20, 29-35; vi. 9. \"I will _destroy_ all\nthe people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies\n_turn their backs unto thee_.\" Ex. xxiii. 27. Here \"_all their enemies_\"\nwere to _turn their backs_, and \"_all the people_\" to be \"_destroyed_.\"\nDoes this mean that God would let all their _enemies_ escape, but kill\ntheir _friends_, or that he would _first_ kill \"all the people\" and THEN\nmake them \"turn their backs,\" an army of runaway corpses? In Josh. xxiv.\n8, God says, speaking of the Amorites, \"I _destroyed_ them from before\nyou.\" In the 18th verse of the same chapter, it is said, \"The Lord\n_drave out_ from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt\nin the land.\" In Num. xxxii. 39, we are told that \"the children of\nMachir the son of Manasseh, went to Gilead, and took it, and\n_dispossessed_ the Amorite which was in it.\" If these commands required\nthe destruction of all the _individuals,_ the Mosaic law was at war with\nitself, for directions as to the treatment of native residents form a\nlarge part of it. See Lev. xix. 34; xxv. 35, 36; xxiv. 22.; Ex. xxiii.\n9; xxii. 21; Deut. i. 16, 17; x. 17, 19; xxvii. 19. We find, also, that\nprovision was made for them in the cities of refuge, Num. xxxv. 15,--the\ngleanings of the harvest and vintage were theirs, Lev. xix. 9, 10;\nxxiii. 22;--the blessings of the Sabbath, Ex. xx. 10;--the privilege of\noffering sacrifices secured, Lev. xxii. 18; and stated religious\ninstruction provided for them. Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. Now does this same law\nrequire the _individual extermination_ of those whose lives and\ninterests it thus protects? These laws were given to the Israelites,\nlong _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must have inferred from\nthem, that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land were to _continue\nin it_, under their government. Again Joshua was selected as the leader\nof Israel to execute God's threatenings upon Canaan. He had no\ndiscretionary power. God's commands were his official instructions.\nGoing beyond them would have been usurpation; refusing to carry them\nout, rebellion and treason. Saul was rejected from being king for\ndisobeying God's commands in a single instance. Now if God commanded the\nindividual destruction of all the Canaanites Joshua disobeyed him in\nevery instance. For at his death, the Israelites still \"_dwelt among\nthem_,\" and each nation is mentioned by name. Judg. i. 27-36, and yet we\nare told that Joshua \"left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded\nMoses;\" and that he \"took all that land.\" Josh. xi. 15-22. Also, that\n\"there _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies before them.\" Josh. xxi.\n44. How can this be if the command to destroy, destroy utterly, &c.,\nenjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to drive out,\nunconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion\nfrom the _possession_ or _ownership_ of it, as the lords of the soil?\nThat the latter is the true sense to be attached to those terms, we\nargue, further from the fact that the same terms are employed by God to\ndescribe the punishment which he would inflict upon the Israelites if\nthey served other Gods. \"Ye shall utterly perish,\" \"be utterly\ndestroyed,\" \"consumed,\" &c., are some of them.--See Deut. iv. 20; viii.\n19, 20.[B] Josh. xxiii. 12, 13-16; 1. Sam. xii. 25. The Israelites _did_\nserve other Gods, and Jehovah _did_ execute upon them his\nthreatenings--and thus himself _interpreted_ these threatenings. He\nsubverted their _government_, dispossessed them of their land, divested\nthem of national power, and made them _tributaries_, but did not\n_exterminate_ them. He \"destroyed them utterly\" as an independent body\npolitic, but not as individuals. Multitudes of the Canaanites were\nslain, but not a case can be found in which one was either killed or\nexpelled who _acquiesced_ in the transfer of the territory, and its\nsovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to the Israelites. Witness\nthe case of Rahab and her kindred, and that of the Gibeonites.[C] The\nCanaanites knew of the miracles wrought for the Israelites; and that\ntheir land had been transferred to them as a judgment for their sins.\nJosh. ii. 9-11; ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them were awed by these wonders,\nand made no resistance. Others defied God and came out to battle. These\nlast occupied the fortified cities, were the most inveterate\nheathen--the aristocracy of idolatry, the kings, the nobility and\ngentry, the priests, with their crowds of satellites, and retainers that\naided in idolatrous rites, and the military forces, with the chief\nprofligates of both sexes. Many facts corroborate the general position.\nWitness that command (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,) which, not only prohibited\nthe surrender of the fugitive servant to his master, but required the\nIsraelites to receive him with kindness, permit him to dwell where he\npleased, and to protect and cherish him. Whenever any servant, even a\nCanaanite, fled from his master to the Israelites, Jehovah, so far from\ncommanding them to _kill_ him, straitly charged them, \"He shall dwell\nwith thee, even among you, in that place which _he_ shall choose--in one\nof thy gates where it liketh _him_ best--thou shalt not oppress him.\"\nDeut. xxiii. 16. The Canaanitish servant by thus fleeing to the\nIsraelites, submitted himself as a dutiful subject to their national\ngovernment, and pledged his allegiance. Suppose _all_ the Canaanites had\nthus submitted themselves to the Jewish theocracy, and conformed to the\nrequirements of the Mosaic institutes, would not _all_ have been spared\nupon the same principle that _one_ was? Again, look at the multitude of\n_tributaries_ in the midst of Israel, and that too, after they had\n\"waxed strong,\" and the uttermost nations quaked at the terror of their\nname--the Canaanites, Philistines and others, who became proselytes--as\nthe Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite--Rahab, who married one of the princes\nof Judah--Jether, an Ishmaelite, who married Abigail the sister of David\nand was the father of Amasa, the captain of the host of Israel. Comp. 1\nChron. ii. 17, with 2 Sam. xvii. 25.--Ittai--the six hundred Gittites,\nDavid's body guard. 2. Sam xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gittite, adopted\ninto the tribe of Levi. Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18,\nand xxvi. 4, 5--Jaziz, and Obil. 1 Chron, xxvii. 30, 31. Jephunneh the\nKenezite, Josh. xiv. 6, and father of Caleb a ruler of the tribe of\nJudah. Numb. xiii. 2, 6--the Kenites registered in the genealogies of\nthe tribe of Judah, Judg. i. 16; 1 Chron. ii. 55, and the one hundred\nand fifty thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of\nthe Temple.[D] Besides, the greatest miracle on record, was wrought to\nsave a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of\nthose who would exterminate them. Josh. x. 12-14. Further--the terms\nemployed in the directions regulating the disposal of the Canaanites,\nsuch as \"drive out,\" \"put out,\" \"cast out,\" \"expel,\" \"dispossess,\" &c.,\nseem used interchangeably with \"consume,\" \"destroy,\" \"overthrow,\" &c.,\nand thus indicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an\nillustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar\nterms, we refer to the history of the Amalekites. \"I will utterly put\nout the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.\" Ex. xvii. 14. \"Thou\nshalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt\nnot forget it.\" Deut. xxv. 19. \"Smite Amalek and _utterly destroy_ all\nthat they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant\nand suckling, ox and sheep.\" 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. \"Saul smote the\nAmalekites, and he took Agag the king of the Amalekites, alive and\nUTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword.\" Verses 7,\n8. In verse 20, Saul says, \"I have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, and\nhave _utterly destroyed_ the Amalekites.\" In 1 Sam. xxx. 1, 2, we find\nthe Amalekites marching an army into Israel, and sweeping everything\nbefore them--and this in about eighteen years after they had all been\n\"UTTERLY DESTROYED!\" In 1 Kings ii. 15-17, is another illustration. We\nare informed that Joab remained in Edom six months with all Israel,\n\"until he had _cut off every male_\" in Edom. In the next verse we learn\nthat Hadad and \"certain Edomites\" were not slain. Deut. xx. 16, 17, will\nprobably be quoted against the preceding view. We argue that the command\nin these verses, did not include all the individuals of the Canaanitish\nnations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even those\nconditionally,) because, only the inhabitants of _cities_ are\nspecified--\"of the _cities_ of these people thou shalt save alive\nnothing that breatheth.\" Cities then, as now, were pest-houses of vice,\nthey reeked with abominations little practised in the country. On this\naccount, their influence would be far more perilous to the Israelites\nthan that of the country. Besides, they were the centres of\nidolatry--there were the temples and altars, and idols, and priests,\nwithout number. Even their buildings, streets, and public walks were so\nmany visibilities of idolatry. The reason assigned in the 18th verse for\nexterminating them, strengthens the idea--\"that they teach you not to do\nafter all the abominations which they have done unto their gods.\" This\nwould be a reason for exterminating all the nations and individuals\n_around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God commanded them, in certain\ncases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with _any_ of them would be\nperilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_ peculiarly, and of the\n_Canaanitish_ cities pre-eminently so. The 10th and 11th verses contain\nthe general rule prescribing the method in which cities were to be\nsummoned to surrender. They were first to receive the offer of peace--if\nit was accepted, the inhabitants became _tributaries_--but if they came\nout against Israel in battle, the _men_ were to be killed, and the woman\nand little ones saved alive. The 15th verse restricts this lenient\ntreatment to the inhabitants of the cities _afar off_. The 16th directs\nas to the disposal of the inhabitants of the Canaanitish cities. They\nwere to save alive \"nothing that breathed.\" The common mistake has been,\nin supposing that the command in the 15th verse refers to the _whole\nsystem of directions preceding,_ commencing with the 10th, whereas it\nmanifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the 12th, 13th,\nand, 14th, making a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that\n_fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying\nthe males and females, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of\npeace, and the _conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to\n_Canaanitish_ cities as to others. Their inhabitants were not to be\nexterminated unless they came out against Israel in battle. Whatever be\nthe import of the commands respecting the disposition to be made of the\nCanaanites, all admit the fact that the Israelites did _not_ utterly\nexterminate them. Now, if entire and unconditional extermination was the\ncommand of God, it was _never_ obeyed by the Israelites, consequently\nthe truth of God stood pledged to consign _them_ to the same doom which\nhe had pronounced upon the Canaanites, but which they had refused to\nvisit upon them. \"If ye will not drive out all the inhabitants of the\nland from before you, then it shall come to pass that * * _I shall do\nunto you as I thought to do unto them_.\" Num. xxxiii. 55, 56. As the\nIsraelites were not exterminated, we infer that God did not pronounce\n_that_ doom upon them; and as he _did_ pronounce upon them the _same_\ndoom, whatever it was, which they should _refuse_ to visit upon the\nCanaanites, it follows that the doom of unconditional _extermination_\nwas _not_ pronounced against the Canaanites. But let us settle this\nquestion by the \"law and the testimony.\" \"There was not a city that made\npeace with the children of Israel save the Hivites, the inhabitants of\nGibeon; all others they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden\ntheir hearts, that they should COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, that\nhe might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but\nthat he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses.\" Josh. xi. 19.\n20. That is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they\nwould have had \"favor\" shown them, and would not have been \"_destroyed\nutterly_.\" The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the\nCanaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty\nin every respect_; to annihilate their political organizations, civil\npolity, and jurisprudence, and their system of religion, with all its\nrights and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy,\nadministered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and\nagents. In a word the people were to be _denationalized,_ their\npolitical existence annihilated, their idol temples, altars, groves,\nimages, pictures, and heathen rites destroyed, and themselves put under\ntribute. Those who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to\nbe killed, while those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared.\nAll had the choice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the\nland;[E] or acquiescence in the decree, with life and residence as\ntributaries, under the protection of the government; or resistance to\nthe execution of the decree, with death. \"_And it shall come to pass, if\nthey will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name,\nthe Lord liveth, as they taught my people to swear by Baal;_ THEN SHALL\nTHEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE.\"\n\n[Footnote A: In the prophecy, Gen. ix. 25, the subjection of the\nCanaanites as a conquered people rendering tribute to other nations, is\nforetold by inspiration. The fulfilment of this prediction, seems to\nhave commenced in the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites as\ntributaries. If the Israelites had exterminated them, as the objector\nasserts they were commanded to do; the prediction would have been\n_falsified_.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: These two verses are so explicit we quote them entire--\"And\nit shall be if thou do at all forget the Lord they God and walk after\nother Gods and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this\nday that ye shall surely _perish_, as the nations which the Lord\ndestroyed before your face, _so_ shall ye perish.\" The following\npassages are, if possible still more explicit--\"The Lord shall send upon\nthee cursing, vexation and rebuke in all that thou settest thine hand\nunto for to do, until thou be _destroyed_, and until thou perish\nquickly.\" \"The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee until he\nhave _consumed_ thee.\" \"They (the 'sword,' 'blasting,' &c.) shall pursue\nthee until thou _perish_.\" \"From heaven shall it come down upon thee\nuntil thou be _destroyed_.\" \"All these curses shall come upon thee till\nthou be _destroyed_.\" \"He shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck until\nhe have _destroyed_ thee.\" \"The Lord shall bring a nation against thee,\na nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the\nold, nor show favor to the young, * * until he have _destroyed_ thee.\"\nAll these, with other similar threatenings of _destruction_, are\ncontained in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deut. See verses 20-25, 45,\n48, 51. In the _same_ chapter God declares that as a punishment for the\nsame transgressions, the Israelites shall \"be _removed_ into all the\nkingdoms of the earth,\" thus showing that the terms employed in the\nother verses, \"destroy,\" \"perish,\" \"perish quickly,\" \"consume,\" &c.,\ninstead of signifying utter, personal destruction doubtless meant their\ndestruction as an independent nation. In Josh. xxiv. 8, 18, \"destroyed\"\nand \"drave out,\" are used synonymously.]\n\n\n[Footnote C: Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the\nGibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command\nof God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation.\nIf God had straitly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites_,\ntheir pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of the statute,\nnor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ was\nthe import of the command, would God have permitted such an act to pass\nwithout rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when Israel\nhad hardly passed the threshold of Canaan, and was then striking the\nfirst blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ passed their word\nto Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command?\nSo Saul seems to have passed _his_ word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in\npieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated God's command.\nWhen Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in \"his zeal for the children of\nIsrael and Judah,\" God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it.\nWhen David inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say,\n\"The man that devised against us, that we should be destroyed from\n_remaining in any of the coast of Israel_, let seven of his sons be\ndelivered,\" &c. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-6.]\n\n\n[Footnote D: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to unconditional\nextermination, to have employed them in the erection of the\ntemple,--what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they\npollute its altars with swine's flesh or make their sons pass through\nthe fire to Moloch.]\n\n\n[Footnote E: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their\nterritory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require\nthe Israelites to chase them to ends of the earth, and hunt them out,\nuntil every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for belief,\nand yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which interprets\nthe terms \"consume,\" \"destroy,\" \"destroy utterly,\" &c. to mean\nunconditional, individual extermination.]\n\n[The original design of the preceding Inquiry embraced a much wider\nrange of topics. It was soon found, however, that to fill up the outline\nwould be to make a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been\nthrown into a mere series of _indices_, to trains of thought and classes\nof proof, which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some\nfacilities to those who have little leisure for protracted\ninvestigation.]\n\n\n\n\n\nNO. 5.\n\n\n\nTHE\n\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n\nTHE\n\n\nPOWER OF CONGRESS\n\n\nOVER THE\n\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nREPRINTED FROM THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nNEW-YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\n\nNO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.\n\n1838.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThis periodical contains 3 1/2 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts.;\nover 100, 10 cts.\n\n\n\nPOWER OF CONGRESS\n\n\nOVER THE\n\n\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.\n\n\n\nA civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that\ngovernment be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well\nas the _subjects_ of its power. Its constitution is their bill of\ndirections to their own agents--a grant authorizing the exercise of\ncertain powers, and prohibiting that of others. In the Constitution of\nthe United States, whatever else may be obscure, the clause granting\npower to Congress over the Federal District may well defy\nmisconstruction. Art. 1, Sec. 6, Clause 18: \"The Congress shall have\npower to exercise exclusive legislation, _in all cases whatsoever_, over\nsuch District.\" Congress may make laws for the District \"in all\n_cases_,\" not of all _kinds_; not all _laws_ whatsoever, but laws \"in\nall _cases_ whatsoever.\" The grant respects the _subjects_ of\nlegislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power\nevery where is subject to _moral_ restrictions, whether limited by\nconstitutions or not. No legislature can authorize murder, nor make\nhonesty penal, nor virtue a crime, nor exact impossibilities. In these\nand similar respects, the power of Congress is held in check by\nprinciples, existing in the nature of things, not imposed by the\nConstitution, but presupposed and assumed by it. The power of Congress\nover the District is restricted only by those principles that limit\nordinary legislation, and, in some respects, it has even wider scope.\n\nIn common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot\nconstitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend\nthe writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the\nfreedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people\nto be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact\nlaws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general\nlimitations. Congress cannot do these things _any where_. The exact\nimport, therefore, of the clause \"in all cases whatsoever,\" is, _on all\nsubjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. Some\nlegislatures are restrained by constitutions, from the exercise of\npowers strictly within the proper sphere of legislation. Congressional\npower over the District has no such restraint. It traverses the whole\nfield of legitimate legislation. All the power which any legislature has\nwithin its own jurisdiction, Congress holds over the District of\nColumbia.\n\nIt has been objected that the clause in question respects merely police\nregulations, and that its sole design was to enable Congress to protect\nitself against popular tumults. But if the convention that framed the\nConstitution aimed to provide for a _single_ case only, why did they\nprovide for \"_all_ cases whatsoever?\" Besides, this clause was opposed\nin many of the state conventions, because the grant of power was\nextended to \"_all_ cases whatsoever,\" instead of being restricted to\npolice regulations _alone_. In the Virginia Convention, George Mason,\nthe father of the Virginia Constitution, Patrick Henry, Mr. Grayson, and\nothers, assailed it on that ground. Mr. Mason said, \"This clause gives\nan unlimited authority in every possible case within the District. He\nwould willingly give them exclusive power as far as respected the police\nand good government of the place, but he would give them no more.\" Mr.\nGrayson exclaimed against so large a grant of power--said that control\nover the _police_ was all-sufficient, and \"that the Continental Congress\nnever had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases.\" Patrick Henry\nsaid: \"Shall we be told, when about to grant such illimitable authority,\nthat it will never be exercised? Is it consistent with any principle of\nprudence or good policy, to grant _unlimited, unbounded authority_?\" Mr.\nMadison said in reply: \"I did conceive that the clause under\nconsideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. I\ncannot comprehend that the power of legislation over a small District,\nwill involve the dangers which he apprehends. When any power is given,\nit's delegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute\nit. * * * * The powers which are found necessary to be given, are\ntherefore delegated _generally_, and particular and minute specification\nis left to the Legislature. * * * It is not within the limits of human\ncapacity to delineate on paper all those particular cases and\ncircumstances, in which legislation by the general legislature, would be\nnecessary.\" Governor Randolph said: \"Holland has no ten miles square,\nbut she has the Hague where the deputies of the States assemble. But the\ninfluence which it has given the province of Holland, to have the seat\nof government within its territory, subject in some respects to its\ncontrol, has been injurious to the other provinces. The wisdom of the\nconvention is therefore manifest in granting to Congress exclusive\njurisdiction over the place of their session.\" (_See debates in the\nVirginia Convention_, p. 320.) In the forty-third number of the\n\"Federalist,\" Mr. Madison says: \"The indispensable necessity of\n_complete_ authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence\nwith it.\"\n\nFinally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to\nthe obvious import of its _terms_, and not in such a way as to restrict\nit to _police_ regulations, is proved by the fact, that the State of\nVirginia proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution at the\ntime of its adoption, providing that this clause \"should be so construed\nas to give power only over the _police and good government_ of said\nDistrict,\" _which amendment was rejected_. Fourteen other amendments,\nproposed at the same time by Virginia, were _adopted_.\n\nThe former part, of the clause under consideration, \"Congress shall have\npower to exercise _exclusive_ legislation,\" gives sole jurisdiction, and\nthe latter part, \"in all cases whatsoever,\" defines the _extent_ of it.\nSince, then, Congress is the _sole_ legislature within the District, and\nsince its power is limited only by the checks common to all\nlegislatures, it follows that what the law-making power is intrinsically\ncompetent to do _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District\nof Columbia.\n\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.\n\nHaving disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to argue the _real\nquestion_ at issue. Is the law-making power competent to abolish slavery\nwhen not restricted in that particular by constitutional provisions--or,\n_Is the abolition of slavery within the appropriate sphere of\nlegislation?_\n\nIn every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the\nUnited States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_\nsovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the\nlegislature possesses a _representative_ sovereignty, delegated by the\npeople through the Constitution--the people thus committing to the\nlegislature a portion of their sovereignty, and specifying in their\nconstitutions the amount and the conditions of the grant. That the\n_people_ in any state where slavery exists, have the power to abolish\nit, none will deny. If the legislature have not the power, it is because\n_the people_ have reserved it to themselves. Had they lodged with the\nlegislature \"power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases\nwhatsoever,\" they would have parted with their sovereignty over the\nlegislation of the State, and so far forth the legislature would have\nbecome _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such\ncompetent, _during the continuance of the grant_, to do whatever the\npeople might have done before the surrender of their power:\nconsequently, they would have the power to abolish slavery. The\nsovereignty of the District of Columbia exists _somewhere_--where is it\nlodged? The citizens of the District have no legislature of their own,\nno representation in Congress, and no political power whatever. Maryland\nand Virginia have surrendered to the United States their \"full and\nabsolute right and entire sovereignty,\" and the people of the United\nStates have committed to Congress by the Constitution, the power to\n\"exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such\nDistrict.\"\n\nThus, the sovereignty of the District of Columbia, is shown to reside\nsolely in the Congress of the United States; and since the power of the\npeople of a state to abolish slavery within their own limits, results\nfrom their entire sovereignty within the state, so the power of Congress\nto abolish slavery in the District, results from its entire\n_sovereignty_ within the District. If it be objected that Congress can\nhave no more power over the District, than was held by the legislatures\nof Maryland and Virginia, we ask what clause in the constitution\ngraduates the power of Congress by the standard of a state legislature?\nWas the United States constitution worked into its present shape under\nthe measuring line and square of Virginia and Maryland? and is its power\nto be bevelled down till it can run in the grooves of state legislation?\nThere is a deal of prating about constitutional power over the District,\nas though Congress were indebted for it to Maryland and Virginia. The\npowers of those states, whether few or many, prodigies or nullities,\nhave nothing to do with the question. As well thrust in the powers of\nthe Grand Lama to join issue upon, or twist papal bulls into\nconstitutional tether, with which to curb congressional action. The\nConstitution of the United States gives power to Congress, and takes it\naway, and _it alone_. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution\n_before_ they ceded to the united States the territory of the District.\nBy their acts of cession, they abdicated their own sovereignty over the\nDistrict, and thus made room for that provided by the United States\nconstitution, which sovereignty was to commence as soon as a cession of\nterritory by states, and its acceptance by Congress furnished a sphere\nfor its exercise.\n\nThat the abolition of slavery is within the sphere of legislation, I\nargue, _secondly_, from the fact, that _slavery as a legal system, is\nthe creature of legislation_. The law by _creating_ slavery, not only\naffirmed its _existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control\nof legislation, but equally, the _conditions_ and _terms_ of its\nexistence, and the _question_ whether or not it _should_ exist. Of\ncourse legislation would not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing\nwhat is _within_ it, and what was recognised to be within it, by its own\nact. Cannot legislatures repeal their own laws? If law can take from a\nman his rights, it can give them back again. If it can say, \"your body\nbelongs to your neighbor,\" it can say, \"it belongs to _yourself_, and I\nwill sustain your right.\" If it can annul a man's right to himself, held\nby express grant from his Maker, and can create for another an\nartificial title to him, can it not annul the artificial title, and\nleave the original owner to hold himself by his original title?\n\n3. _The abolition of slavery has always been considered within the\nappropriate sphere of legislation_. Almost every civilized nation has\nabolished slavery by law. The history of legislation since the revival\nof letters, is a record crowded with testimony to the universally\nadmitted competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery. It is so\nmanifestly an attribute not merely of absolute sovereignty, but even of\nordinary legislation, that the competency of a legislature to exercise\nit, may well nigh be reckoned among the legal axioms of the civilized\nworld. Even the night of the dark ages was not dark enough to make this\ninvisible.\n\nThe Abolition decree of the great council of England was passed in 1102.\nThe memorable Irish decree, \"that all the English slaves in the whole of\nIreland, be immediately emancipated and restored to their former\nliberty,\" was issued in 1171. Slavery in England was abolished by a\ngeneral charter of emancipation in 1381. Passing over many instances of\nthe abolition of slavery by law, both during the middle ages and since\nthe reformation, we find them multiplying as we approach our own times.\nIn 1776 slavery was abolished in Prussia by special edict. In St.\nDomingo, Cayenne, Guadaloupe and Martinique, in 1794, where more than\n600,000 slaves were emancipated by the French government. In Java, 1811;\nin Ceylon, 1815; in Buenos Ayres, 1816; in St. Helena, 1819; in\nColombia, 1821; by the Congress of Chili in 1821; in Cape Colony, 1823;\nin Malacca, 1825; in the southern provinces of Birmah, in 1826; in\nBolivia, 1826; in Peru, Guatemala, and Monte Video, 1828, in Jamaica,\nBarbadoes, Bermudas, Bahamas, the Mauritius, St. Christopher's, Nevis,\nthe Virgin Islands, Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Vincents,\nGrenada, Berbice, Tobago, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Honduras, Demarara, and\nthe Cape of Good Hope, on the 1st of August, 1834. But waving details,\nsuffice it to say, that England, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden,\nDenmark, Austria, Prussia, and Germany, have all and often given their\ntestimony to the competency of the law to abolish slavery. In our own\ncountry, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act of abolition in\n1780, Connecticut, in 1784; Rhode Island, 1784; New-York, 1799;\nNew-Jersey, in 1804; Vermont, by Constitution, in 1777; Massachusetts,\nin 1780; and New Hampshire, in 1784.\n\nWhen the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, has thus\nbeen recognised every where and for ages, when it has been embodied in\nthe highest precedents, and celebrated in the thousand jubilees of\nregenerated liberty, is it forsooth an achievement of modern discovery,\nthat such a power is a nullity?--that all these acts of abolition are\nvoid, and that the millions disenthralled by them, are, either\nthemselves or their posterity, still legally in bondage?\n\n4. _Legislative power has abolished slavery in its parts_. The law of\nSouth Carolina prohibits the working of slaves more than fifteen hours\nin the twenty-four. [_See__Brevard's Digest_, 253.] In other words, it\ntakes from the slaveholder his power over nine hours of the slave's time\ndaily; and if it can take nine hours it may take twenty-four--if\ntwo-fifths, then five-fifths. The laws of Georgia prohibit the working\nof slaves on the first day of the week; and if they can do it for the\nfirst, they can for the six following. Laws embodying the same principle\nhave existed for ages in nearly all governments that have tolerated\nslavery.\n\nThe law of North Carolina prohibits the \"immoderate\" correction of\nslaves. If it has power to prohibit _immoderate_ correction, it can\nprohibit _moderate_ correction--_all_ correction, which would be virtual\nemancipation; for, take from the master the power to inflict pain, and\nhe is master no longer. Cease to ply the slave with the stimulus of\nfear, and he is free. Laws similar to this exist in slaveholding\ngovernments generally.\n\nThe Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make\nlaws \"to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_.\" The\nConstitution of Missouri has the same clause, and an additional one\nmaking it the DUTY of the legislature to pass such laws as may be\nnecessary to secure the _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant of\npower to those legislatures empowers them to decide what _is_ and what\nis _not_ \"humane treatment.\" Otherwise it gives no \"power\"--the clause\nis mere waste paper, and flouts in the face of a mocked and befooled\nlegislature. A clause giving power to require \"humane treatment\" covers\nall the _particulars_ of such treatment--gives power to exact it in all\n_respects--requiring_ certain acts, and _prohibiting_ others--maiming,\nbranding, chaining together, allowing each but a quart of corn a day,[A]\nand but \"one shirt and one pair of pantaloons\" in six\nmonths[B]--separating families, destroying marriages, floggings for\nlearning the alphabet and reading the Bible--robbing them of their oath,\nof jury trial, and of the right to worship God according to\nconscience--the legislature has power to specify each of these\nacts--declare that it is not \"_humane_ treatment,\" and PROHIBIT it.--The\nlegislature may also believe that driving men and women into the field,\nand forcing them to work without pay as long as they live, is not\n\"humane treatment,\" and being constitutionally bound \"to _oblige_\"\nmasters to practise \"humane treatment\"--they have the _power_ to\n_prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.\n\n[Footnote A: Law of North Carolina, Haywood's Manual, 524-5.]\n\n\n[Footnote B: Law of Louisiana, Martin's Digest, 610.]\n\nThe law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,\nif he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[C] If it\nhas power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the\nsale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can\nprohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,\nSpanish, and Portuguese colonies.\n\n[Footnote C: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.\n(_Beverly's Hist. of Va._, p. 98.) I do not find the precise time when\nthis law was repealed, probably when Virginia became the chief slave\nbreeder for the cotton-growing and sugar-planting country, and made\nyoung men and women \"from fifteen to twenty-five\" the main staple\nproduction of the State.]\n\nThe law of Louisiana requires the master to give his slaves a certain\namount of food and clothing, (_Martin's Digest_, 610.) If it can oblige\nthe master to give the slave _one_ thing, it can oblige him to give him\nanother: if food and clothing, then wages, liberty, his own body. Such\nlaws exist in most slaveholding governments.\n\nBy the slave laws of Connecticut, under which slaves are now held, (for\neven Connecticut is still a slave State,) slaves might receive and hold\nproperty, and prosecute suits in their own name as plaintiffs: [This\nlast was also the law of Virginia in 1795. See Tucker's \"Dissertation on\nSlavery,\" p. 73.] There were also laws making marriage contracts legal,\nin certain contingencies, and punishing infringements of them,\n[\"_Reeve's Law of Baron and Femme_,\" p. 310-1.] Each of the laws\nenumerated above, does, _in principle_, abolish slavery; and all of them\ntogether abolish it _in fact_. True, not as a _whole_, and at a\n_stroke_, nor all in one place; but in its _parts_, by piecemeal, at\ndivers times and places; thus showing that the abolition of slavery is\nwithin the boundary of _legislation_.\n\n5._The competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery has been\nrecognized by all the slaveholding States, either directly or by\nimplication_. Some States recognize it in their _Constitutions_, by\ngiving the legislature power to emancipate such slaves as may \"have\nrendered the state some distinguished service,\" and others by express\nprohibitory restrictions. The Constitutions of Mississippi, Arkansas,\nand other States, restrict the power of the legislature in this respect.\nWhy this express prohibition, if the law-making power cannot abolish\nslavery? A stately farce, indeed, formally to construct a special\nclause, and with appropriate rites induct it into the Constitution, for\nthe express purpose of restricting a nonentity!--to take from the\nlawmaking power what it _never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it!\nThe legislatures of those States have no power to abolish slavery,\nsimply because their Constitutions have expressly _taken away_ that\npower. The people of Arkansas, Mississippi, &c., well knew the\ncompetency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, and hence their\nzeal to _restrict_ it. The fact that these and other States have\ninhibited their legislatures from the exercise of this power, shows that\nthe abolition of slavery is acknowledged to be a proper subject of\nlegislation, when Constitutions impose no restrictions.\n\nThe slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_. The\nVirginia Legislature passed a law in 1786 to prevent the further\nimportation of Slaves, of which the following is an extract: \"And be it\nfurther enacted that every slave imported into this commonwealth\ncontrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall upon such\nimportation become _free_.\" By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792,\na slave brought into the state and kept _there a year_, was _free_. The\nMaryland Court of Appeals at the December term 1813 (see case of Stewart\n_vs._ Oakes,) decided that a slave owned in Maryland, and sent by his\nmaster into Virginia to work at different periods, making one year in\nthe whole, became _free_, being _emancipated_ by the law of Virginia\nquoted above. North Carolina and Georgia in their acts of cession,\ntransferring to the United States the territory now constituting the\nStates of Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, made it a condition of the\ngrant, that the provisions of the ordinance of '87, should be secured to\nthe inhabitants _with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits\nslavery_; thus conceding, both the competency of law to abolish slavery,\nand the power of Congress to do it, within its jurisdiction. Besides,\nthese acts show the prevalent belief at that time, in the slaveholding\nStates, that the general government had adopted a line of policy aiming\nat the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of the United\nStates, not included within the original States, and that this policy\nwould be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal stipulation.\n\nSlaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial\ndecisions._ In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if\nthe legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has\nbeen abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal\nemancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery.\nThis principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of\nLouisiana, in the case of Lunsford _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La.\nReps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter\n_vs._ Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172. The same doctrine was laid down by\nJudge Washington, of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of\nButler _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This\nprinciple was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of\nRankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._\nIsbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps.\n566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise\n_vs._ Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried in 1836,\nthe slave had been taken by her master to France and brought back; Judge\nMathews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that \"residence for\none moment\" under the laws of France emancipated her.\n\n6. _Eminent statesmen, themselves slaveholders, have conceded this\npower_. Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786,\nsays: \"There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do,\nto see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only\none proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that\nis by _legislative_ authority.\" In a letter to Lafayette, dated May 10,\n1786, he says: \"It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and\nassuredly ought to be effected, and that too by _legislative_\nauthority.\" In a letter to John Fenton Mercer, dated Sept. 9, 1786, he\nsays: \"It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which\nslavery in this country may be abolished by _law_.\" In a letter to Sir\nJohn Sinclair, he says: \"There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the\ngradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland nor Virginia have\nat present, but which nothing is more certain that that they _must\nhave_, and at a period not remote.\" Speaking of movements in the\nVirginia Legislature in 1777, for the passage of a law emancipating the\nslaves, Mr. Jefferson says: \"The principles of the amendment were agreed\non, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day; but it\nwas found that the public mind would not bear the proposition, yet the\nday is not far distant, when _it must bear and adopt it_.\"--Jefferson's\nMemoirs, v. 1, p. 35. It is well known that Jefferson, Pendleton, Mason,\nWythe and Lee, while acting as a committee of the Virginia House of\nDelegates to revise the State Laws, prepared a plan for the gradual\nemancipation of the slaves by law. These men were the great lights of\nVirginia. Mason, the author of the Virginia Constitution; Pendleton, the\nPresident of the memorable Virginia Convention in 1787, and President of\nthe Virginia Court of Appeals; Wythe was the Blackstone of the Virginia\nbench, for a quarter of a century Chancellor of the State, the professor\nof law in the University of William and Mary, and the preceptor of\nJefferson, Madison, and Chief Justice Marshall. He was author of the\ncelebrated remonstrance to the English House of Commons on the subject\nof the stamp act. As to Jefferson, his _name_ is his biography.\n\nEvery slaveholding member of Congress from the States of Maryland,\nVirginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, voted for the\ncelebrated ordinance of 1787, which _abolished_ the slavery then\nexisting in the Northwest Territory. Patrick Henry, in his well known\nletter to Robert Pleasants, of Virginia, January 18, 1773, says: \"I\nbelieve a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to\n_abolish_ this lamentable evil.\" William Pinkney, of Maryland, advocated\nthe abolition of slavery by law, in the legislature of that State, in\n1789. Luther Martin urged the same measure both in the Federal\nConvention, and in his report to the Legislature of Maryland. In 1796,\nSt. George Tucker, professor of law in the University of William and\nMary, and Judge of the General Court, published an elaborate\ndissertation on slavery, addressed to the General Assembly of the State,\nand urging upon them the abolition of slavery by _law_.\n\nJohn Jay, while New-York was yet a slave State, and himself in law a\nslaveholder, said in a letter from Spain, in 1786, \"An excellent law\nmight be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual abolition of\nslavery. Were I in your legislature, I would present a bill for the\npurpose, drawn up with great care, and I would never cease moving it\ntill it became a law, or I ceased to be a member.\"\n\nDaniel D. Tompkins, in a message to the Legislature of New-York, January\n8, 1812, said: \"To devise the means for the gradual and ultimate\n_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is work worthy the\nrepresentatives of a polished and enlightened nation.\"\n\nThe Virginia Legislature asserted this power in 1832. At the close of a\nmonth's debate, the following proceedings were had. I extract from an\neditorial article of the Richmond Whig, of January 26, 1832.\n\n\"The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on the\nsubject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, as the opinion of\nthis Committee, that it is INEXPEDIENT FOR THE PRESENT, to make any\nlegislative enactments for the abolition of Slavery.\" This Report Mr.\nPreston moved to reverse, and thus to declare that it _was_ expedient,\n_now_ to make Legislative enactments for the abolition of slavery. This\nwas meeting the question in its strongest form. It demanded action, and\nimmediate action. On this proposition the vote was 58 to 73. Many of the\nmost decided friends of abolition voted against the amendment; because\nthey thought public opinion not sufficiently prepared for it, and that\nit might prejudice the cause to move too rapidly. The vote on Mr.\nWitcher's motion to postpone the whole subject indefinitely, indicates\nthe true state of opinion in the House.--That was the test question, and\nwas so intended and proclaimed by its mover. That motion was\n_negatived_, 71 to 60; showing a majority of 11, who by that vote,\ndeclared their belief that \"at the proper time, and in the proper mode,\nVirginia ought to commence a system of gradual abolition.\"\n\n8. _The Congress of the United States have asserted this power_. The\nordinance of '87, declaring that there should be \"neither slavery nor\ninvoluntary servitude,\" in the North Western territory, abolished the\nslavery then existing there. The Supreme Court of Mississippi, in its\ndecision in the case of Harvey _vs._ Decker, Walker's Mi. Reps. 36,\ndeclared that the ordinance emancipated the slaves then held there. In\nthis decision the question is argued ably and at great length. The\nSupreme Court of Louisiana made the same decision in the case of Forsyth\n_vs._ Nash, 4 Martin's La. Reps 385. The same doctrine was laid down by\nJudge Porter, (late United States Senator from Louisiana,) in his\ndecision at the March term of the La. Supreme Court, 1830, in the case\nof Merry _vs._ Chexnaider, 20 Martin's Reps. 699.\n\nThat the ordinance abolished the slavery then existing, is also shown by\nthe fact, that persons holding slaves in the territory petitioned for\nthe repeal of the article abolishing slavery, assigning that as a\nreason. \"The petition of the citizens of Randolph and St. Clair counties\nin the Illinois country, stating that they were in possession of slaves,\nand praying the repeal of that act (the 6th article of the ordinance of\n'87) and the passage of a law legalizing slavery there.\" [Am. State\npapers, Public Lands, v. 1. p. 69,] Congress passed this ordinance\nbefore the United States Constitution was adopted, when it derived all\nits authority from the articles of Confederation, which conferred powers\nof legislation far more restricted than those conferred on Congress over\nthe District and Territories by the United States Constitution. Now, we\nask, how does the Constitution _abridge_ the powers which Congress\npossessed under the articles of confederation?\n\nThe abolition of the slave trade by Congress, in 1808, is another\nillustration of the competency of legislative power to abolish slavery.\nThe African slave trade has become such a mere _technic_, in common\nparlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The\nbuying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle\npassage, were mere _incidents_ of the slavery in which the victims were\nheld. Let things be called by their own names. When Congress abolished\nthe African slave trade, it abolished SLAVERY--supreme slavery--power\nfrantic with license, trampling a whole hemisphere scathed with its\nfires, and running down with blood. True, Congress did not, in the\nabolition of the slave trade, abolish _all_ the slavery within its\njurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in _one part_ of its\njurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in\n_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has\n\"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?\"\n\n9. _The Constitution of the United States recognizes this power by the\nmost conclusive implication_. In Art. 1, sec. 3, clause 1, it prohibits\nthe abolition of the slave trade previous to 1808: thus implying the\npower of Congress to do it at once, but for the restriction; and its\npower to do it _unconditionally_, when that restriction ceased. Again:\nIn Art. 4, sec. 2, \"No person held to service or labor in one state\nunder the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of\nany law or regulation therein, be discharged from said service or\nlabor.\" This clause was inserted, as all admit, to prevent the runaway\nslave from being emancipated by the _laws_ of the free states. If these\nlaws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to\nprevent it?\n\nThe insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists\nthat framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, and their\npublic proclamation, that the abolition of slavery was within the\nappropriate sphere of legislation. The right of the owner to that which\nis rightfully property, is founded on a principle of _universal law_,\nand is recognised and protected by all civilized nations; property in\nslaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders\ninsisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States\nConstitution that they might secure by an _express provision_, that from\nwhich protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of\nuniversal law.[A] By demanding this provision, slaveholders consented\nthat their slaves should not be recognised as property by the United\nStates Constitution, and hence they found their claim, on the fact of\ntheir being \"_persons_, and _held_ to service.\"\n\n[Footnote A: The fact, that under the articles of Confederation,\nslaveholders, whose slaves had escaped into free states, had no legal\npower to force them back,--that _now_ they have no power to recover, by\nprocess of law, their slaves who escape to Canada, the South American\nStates, or to Europe--the case already cited in which the Supreme Court\nof Louisiana decided, that residence \"_for one moment_,\" under the laws\nof France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton, _vs._\nLewis, 3 Har. and John's Reps., 56, where the slave of a St. Domingo\nslaveholder, who brought him to Maryland in '93, was pronounced free by\nthe Maryland Court of Appeals--these, with other facts and cases \"too\nnumerous to mention,\" are illustrations of the acknowledged truth here\nasserted, that by the consent of the civilized world, and on the\nprinciples of universal law, slaves are not \"_property_,\" but\n_self-proprietors_, and that whenever held as property under _law_, it\nis only by _positive legislative acts_, forcibly setting aside the law\nof nature, the common law, and the principles of universal justice and\nright between man and man,--principles paramount to all law, and from\nwhich alone law derives its intrinsic authoritative sanction.]\n\nBut waiving all concessions, whether of constitutions, laws, judicial\ndecisions, or common consent, I take the position that the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District, follows from the fact, that\nas the sole legislature there, it has unquestionable power _to adopt the\nCommon Law, as the legal system within its exclusive jurisdiction_. This\nhas been done, with certain restrictions, in most of the States, either\nby legislative acts or by constitutional implication. THE COMMON LAW\nKNOWS NO SLAVES. Its principles annihilate slavery wherever they touch\nit. It is a universal, unconditional, abolition act. Wherever slavery is\na legal system, it is so only by _statute_ law, and in violation of\ncommon law. The declaration of Lord Chief Justice Holt, that \"by the\ncommon law, no man can have property in another,\" is an acknowledged\naxiom, and based upon the well known common law definition of property.\n\"The subjects of dominion or property are _things_, as\ncontra-distinguished from _persons_.\" Let Congress adopt the common law\nin the District of Columbia, and slavery there is at once abolished.\nCongress may well be at home in common law legislation, for the common\nlaw is the grand element of the United States Constitution. All its\n_fundamental_ provisions are instinct with its spirit; and its\nexistence, principles and paramount authority, are presupposed and\nassumed throughout the whole. The preamble of the Constitution plants\nthe standard of the Common Law immovably in its foreground. \"We, the\npeople of the United States, in order to ESTABLISH JUSTICE, &c., do\nordain and establish this Constitution;\" thus proclaiming _devotion to\njustice_, as the controlling motive in the organization of the\nGovernment, and its secure establishment the chief object of its aims.\nBy this most solemn recognition, the common law, that grand legal\nembodiment of \"_justice_\" and fundamental right was made the groundwork\nof the Constitution, and intrenched behind its strongest munitions. The\nsecond clause of Sec. 9, Art. 1; Sec. 4, Art. 2, and the last clause of\nSec. 2, Art. 3, with Articles 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the Amendments, are\nalso express recognitions of the common law as the presiding Genius of\nthe Constitution.\n\nBy adopting the common law within its exclusive jurisdiction Congress\nwould carry out the principles of our glorious Declaration, and follow\nthe highest precedents in our national history and jurisprudence. It is\na political maxim as old as civil legislation, that laws should be\nstrictly homogeneous with the principles of the government whose will\nthey express, embodying and carrying them out--being indeed the\n_principles themselves_, in preceptive form--representatives alike of\nthe nature and the power of the Government--standing illustrations of\nits genius and spirit, while they proclaim and enforce its authority.\nWho needs be told that slavery is in antagonism to the principles of the\nDeclaration, and the spirit of the Constitution, and that these and the\nprinciples of the common law gravitate toward each other with\nirrepressible affinities, and mingle into one? The common law came\nhither with our pilgrim fathers; it was their birthright, their panoply,\ntheir glory, and their song of rejoicing in the house of their\npilgrimage. It covered them in the day of their calamity, and their\ntrust was under the shadow of its wings. From the first settlement of\nthe country, the genius of our institutions and our national spirit have\nclaimed it as a common possession, and exulted in it with a common\npride. A century ago, Governor Pownall, one of the most eminent\nconstitutional jurists of colonial times, said of the common law, \"In\nall the colonies the common law is received as the foundation and main\nbody of their law.\" In the Declaration of Rights, made by the\nContinental Congress at its first session in '74, there was the\nfollowing resolution: \"Resolved, That the respective colonies are\nentitled to the common law of England, and especially to the great and\ninestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage\naccording to the course of that law.\" Soon after the organization of the\ngeneral government, Chief Justice Ellsworth, in one of his decisions on\nthe bench of the United States Supreme Court, said: \"The common law of\nthis country remains the same as it was before the revolution.\" Chief\nJustice Marshall, in his decision in the case of Livingston _vs._\nJefferson, said: \"When our ancestors migrated to America, they brought\nwith them the common law of their native country, so far as it was\napplicable to their new situation and I do not conceive that the\nrevolution in any degree changed the relations of man to man, or the law\nwhich regulates them. In breaking our political connection with the\nparent state, we did not break our connection with each other.\"\n[_See__Hall's Law Journal, new series._] Mr. Duponceau, in his\n\"Dissertation on the Jurisdiction of Courts in the United States,\" says,\n\"I consider the common law of England the _jus commune_ of the United\nStates. I think I can lay it down as a correct principle, that the\ncommon law of England, as it was at the time of the declaration of\nIndependence, still continues to be the national law of this country, so\nfar as it is applicable to our present state, and subject to the\nmodifications it has received here in the course of nearly half a\ncentury.\" Chief Justice Taylor of North Carolina, in his decision in the\ncase of the State _vs._ Reed, in 1823, Hawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, \"a\nlaw of _paramount obligation to the statute_ was violated by the\noffence--COMMON LAW, founded upon the law of nature, and confirmed by\nrevelation.\" The legislation of the United States abounds in\nrecognitions of the principles of the common law, asserting their\nparamount binding power. Sparing details, of which our national state\npapers are full, we illustrate by a single instance. It was made a\ncondition of the admission of Louisiana into the Union, that the right\nof trial by jury should be secured to all her citizens,--the United\nStates government thus employing its power to enlarge the jurisdiction\nof the common law in this its great representative.\n\nHaving shown that the abolition of slavery is within the competency of\nthe law-making power, when unrestricted by constitutional provisions,\nand that the legislation of Congress over the District _is_ thus\nunrestricted, its power to abolish slavery there is established.\n\nBesides this general ground, the power of Congress to abolish slavery in\nthe District may be based upon another equally tenable. We argue it from\nthe fact, that slavery exists there _now_ by an act of Congress. In the\nact of 16th July, 1790, Congress accepted portions of territory offered\nby the states of Maryland and Virginia, and enacted that the laws, as\nthey then were, should continue in force, \"until Congress shall\notherwise by law provide;\" thus making the slave codes of Maryland and\nVirginia its own. Under these laws, adopted by Congress, and in effect\nre-enacted and made laws of the District, the slaves there are now held.\n\nIs Congress so impotent in its own \"exclusive jurisdiction\" that it\n_cannot_ \"otherwise by law provide?\" If it can say, what _shall_ be\nconsidered property, it can say what shall _not_ be considered property.\nSuppose a legislature enacts, that marriage contracts shall be mere\nbills of sale, making a husband the proprietor of his wife, as his _bona\nfide_ property; and suppose husbands should herd their wives in droves\nfor the market as beasts of burden, or for the brothel as victims of\nlust, and then prate about their inviolable legal property, and deny the\npower of the legislature, which stamped them property, to undo its own\nwrong, and secure to wives by law the rights of human beings. Would such\ncant about \"legal rights\" be heeded where reason and justice held sway,\nand where law, based upon fundamental morality, received homage? If a\nfrantic legislature pronounces woman a chattel, has it no power, with\nreturning reason, to take back the blasphemy? Is the impious edict\nirrepealable? Be it, that with legal forms it has stamped wives \"wares.\"\nCan no legislation blot out the brand? Must the handwriting of Deity on\nhuman nature be expunged for ever? Has law no power to stay the erasing\npen, and tear off the scrawled label that covers up the IMAGE OF GOD? We\nnow proceed to show that\n\n\n\nTHE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN, TILL\nRECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.\n\n1. It has been assumed by Congress itself. The following record stands\non the journals of the House of Representatives for 1804, p. 225: \"On\nmotion made and seconded that the House do come to the following\nresolution: 'Resolved, That from and after the 4th day of July, 1805,\nall blacks and people of color that shall be born within the District of\nColumbia, or whose mothers shall be the property of any person residing\nwithin said District, shall be free, the males at the age of ----, and\nthe females at the age of ----. The main question being taken that the\nHouse do agree to said motion as originally proposed, it was negatived\nby a majority of 46.'\" Though the motion was lost, it was on the ground\nof its alleged _inexpediency_ alone, and not because Congress lacked the\nconstitutional power. In the debate which preceded the vote, the _power_\nof Congress was conceded. In March, 1816, the House of Representatives\npassed the following resolution:--\"Resolved, That a committee be\nappointed to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and illegal\ntraffic in slaves, carried on in and through the District of Columbia,\nand to report whether any and what measures are necessary for _putting a\nstop to the same_.\"\n\nOn the 9th of January, 1829, the House of Representatives passed the\nfollowing resolution by a vote of 114 to 66: \"Resolved, That the\nCommittee on the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the\n_expediency_ of providing by _law_ for the gradual abolition of slavery\nwithin the District, in such manner that the interests of no individual\nshall be injured thereby.\" Among those who voted in the affirmative were\nMessrs. Barney of Md., Armstrong of Va., A.H. Shepperd of N.C., Blair of\nTenn., Chilton and Lyon of Ky., Johns of Delaware, and others from slave\nstates.\n\n2. It has been conceded directly, or impliedly, by all the committees on\nthe District of Columbia that have reported on the subject. In a report\nof the committee on the District, Jan. 11, 1837, by their chairman, Mr.\nPowell of Virginia, there is the following declaration \"The Congress of\nthe United States, has by the constitution exclusive jurisdiction over\nthe District, and has power upon this subject, (_slavery_) as upon all\nother subjects of legislation, to exercise _unlimited discretion_.\"\nReps. of Comms. 2d Session, 19th Cong. v. I. No. 43. In February, 1829,\nthe committee on the District, Mr. Alexander of Virginia, Chairman, in\ntheir report pursuant to Mr. Miner's resolutions, recognize a contingent\nabolition proceeding upon the consent of the people. In December, 1831,\nthe committee on the District, Mr. Doddridge of Virginia, Chairman,\nreported, \"That until the adjoining states act on the subject (slavery)\nit would be (not _unconstitutional_ but) unwise and impolitic, if not\nunjust, for Congress to interfere.\" In April, 1836, a special committee\non abolition memorials reported the following resolutions by their\nChairman, Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina: \"Resolved, that Congress\npossesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the\ninstitution of slavery in any of the states of this confederacy.\"\n\n\"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ in any way with\nslavery in the District of Columbia.\" \"Ought not to interfere,\"\ncarefully avoiding the phraseology of the first resolution, and thus in\neffect conceding the constitutional power. In a widely circulated\n\"Address to the electors of the Charleston District,\" Mr. Pinckney is\nthus denounced by his own constituents: \"He has proposed a resolution\nwhich is received by the plain common sense of the whole country as a\nconcession that Congress has authority to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia.\"\n\n3. It has been conceded by the _citizens of the District_. A petition\nfor the gradual abolition of slavery in the District, signed by nearly\neleven hundred of its citizens, was presented to Congress, March 24,\n1837. Among the signers to this petition, were Chief Justice Cranch,\nJudge Van Ness, Judge Morsel, Prof. J.M. Staughton, Rev. Dr. Balch, Rev.\nDr. Keith, John M. Munroe, and a large number of the most influential\ninhabitants of the District. Mr. Dickson, of New York, asserted on the\nfloor of Congress in 1835, that the signers of this petition owned more\nthan half of the property in the District. The accuracy of this\nstatement has never been questioned.\n\nThis power has been conceded by _grand juries of the District_. The\ngrand jury of the county of Alexandria, at the March term 1802,\npresented the domestic slave trade as a grievance, and said, \"We\nconsider these grievances demanding _legislative_ redress.\" Jan. 19,\n1829, Mr. Alexander, of Virginia, presented a representation of the\ngrand jury in the city of Washington, remonstrating against \"any measure\nfor the abolition of slavery within said District, unless accompanied by\nmeasures for the removal of the emancipated from the same;\" thus, not\nonly conceding the power to emancipate slaves, but affirming an\nadditional power, that of _excluding them when free_. See Journal H.R.\n1828-9, p. 174.\n\n4. This power has been conceded _by State Legislatures_. In 1828 the\nLegislature of Pennsylvania instructed their Senators in Congress \"to\nprocure, if practicable, the passage of a law to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia.\" Jan. 28, 1829, the House of Assembly of New York\npassed a resolution, that their \"Senators in Congress be instructed to\nmake every possible exertion to effect the passage of a law for the\nabolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia.\" In February, 1837,\nthe Senate of Massachusetts \"Resolved, That Congress having exclusive\nlegislation in the District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish\nslavery and the slave trade therein, and that the early exercise of such\nright is demanded by the enlightened sentiment of the civilized world,\nby the principles of the revolution, and by humanity.\" The House of\nRepresentatives passed the following resolution at the same session:\n\"Resolved, That Congress having exclusive legislation in the District of\nColumbia, possess the right to abolish slavery in said District, and\nthat its exercise should only be restrained by a regard to the public\ngood.\"\n\nNovember 1, 1837, the Legislature of Vermont, \"Resolved, that Congress\nhave the full power by the constitution to abolish slavery and the slave\ntrade in the District of Columbia, and in the territories.\" The\nLegislature of Vermont passed in substance the same resolution, at its\nsession in 1836.\n\nMay 30, 1836, a committee of the Pennsylvania Legislature reported the\nfollowing resolution: \"Resolved, That Congress does possess the\nconstitutional power, and it is expedient to abolish slavery and the\nslave trade within the District of Columbia.\"\n\nIn January, 1836, the Legislature of South Carolina \"Resolved, That we\nshould consider the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia as\na violation of the rights of the citizens of that District derived from\nthe _implied_ conditions on which that territory was ceded to the\nGeneral Government.\" Instead of denying the constitutional power, they\nvirtually admit its existence, by striving to smother it under an\n_implication_. In February, 1836, the Legislature of North Carolina\n\"Resolved, That, although by the Constitution all legislative power over\nthe District of Columbia is vested in the Congress of the United States,\nyet we would deprecate any legislative action on the part of that body\ntowards liberating the slaves of that District, as a breach of faith\ntowards those States by whom the territory was originally ceded, and\nwill regard such interference as the first step towards a general\nemancipation of the slaves of the South.\" Here is a full concession of\nthe _power_, February 2, 1836, the Virginia Legislature passed\nunanimously the following resolution: \"Resolved, by the General Assembly\nof Virginia, that the following article be proposed to the several\nstates of this Union, and to Congress, as an amendment of the\nConstitution of the United States: 'The powers of Congress shall not be\nso construed as to authorize the passage of any law for the emancipation\nof slaves in the District of Columbia, without the consent of the\nindividual proprietors thereof, unless by the sanction of the\nLegislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and under such conditions as they\nshall by law prescribe.'\"\n\nFifty years after the formation of the United States constitution the\nstates are solemnly called upon by the Virginia Legislature, to amend\nthat instrument by a clause asserting that, in the grant to Congress of\n\"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever\" over the District, the\n\"case\" of slavery is not included!! What could have dictated such a\nresolution but the conviction that the power to abolish slavery is an\nirresistible interference from the constitution _as it is_. The fact\nthat the same legislature passed afterward a resolution, though by no\nmeans unanimously, that Congress does not possess the power, abates not\na tittle of the testimony in the first resolution. March 23d, 1824, \"Mr.\nBrown presented the resolutions of the General Assembly of Ohio,\nrecommending to Congress the consideration of a system for the gradual\nemancipation of persons of color held in servitude in the United\nStates.\" On the same day, \"Mr. Noble, of Indiana, communicated a\nresolution from the legislature of that state, respecting the gradual\nemancipation of slaves within the United States.\" Journal of the United\nStates Senate, for 1824-5, p. 231.\n\nThe Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_\npower of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its\n_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.\n\n5. The power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, has been\nconceded by bodies of citizens in the slave states. The petition of\neleven hundred citizens of the District of Columbia, in 1827, has been\nalready mentioned. \"March 5, 1830, Mr. Washington presented a memorial\nof inhabitants of the county of Frederick, in the state of Maryland,\npraying that provision may be made for the gradual abolition of slavery\nin the District of Columbia.\" Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 358.\n\nMarch 30, 1828. Mr. A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, presented a\nmemorial of citizens of that state, \"praying Congress to take measures\nfur the entire abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.\"\nJournal H.R. 1829-30, p. 379.\n\nJanuary 14, 1822. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, presented a memorial of\ncitizens of that state, praying \"that provision may be made, whereby all\nslaves which may hereafter be born in the District of Columbia, shall be\nfree at a certain period of their lives.\" Journal H.R. 1821-22, p. 142.\n\nDecember 13, 1824. Mr. Saunders of North Carolina, presented a memorial\nof citizens of that state, praying \"that measures may be taken for the\ngradual abolition of slavery in the United States.\" Journal H.R.\n1824-25, p. 27.\n\nDecember 16, 1828. \"Mr. Barnard presented the memorial of the American\nConvention for promoting the abolition of slavery, held in Baltimore,\npraying that slavery may be abolished in the District of Columbia.\"\nJournal U.S. Senate, 1828-29, p. 24.\n\n6. Distinguished statesmen and jurists in the slaveholding states, have\nconceded the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District. The\ntestimony of Messrs. Doddridge, Powell, and Alexander, of Virginia,\nChief Justice Cranch, and Judges Morsell and Van Ness, of the District,\nhas already been given. In the debate in Congress on the memorial of the\nSociety of Friends, in 1790, Mr. Madison, in speaking of the territories\nof the United States, explicitly declared, from his own knowledge of the\nviews of the members of the convention that framed the constitution, as\nwell as from the obvious import of its terms, that in the territories\n\"Congress have certainly the power to regulate the subject of slavery.\"\nCongress can have no more power over the territories than that of\n\"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,\" consequently, according\nto Mr. Madison, \"it has certainly the power to regulate the subject of\nslavery in the\" _District_. In March, 1816, John Randolph introduced a\nresolution for putting a stop to the domestic slave trade within the\nDistrict. December 12, 1827, Mr. Barney, of Maryland, presented a\nmemorial for abolition in the District, and moved that it be printed.\nMr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, objected to the printing, but\n\"expressly admitted the right of Congress to grant to the people of the\nDistrict any measures which they might deem necessary to free themselves\nfrom the deplorable evil.\"--(See letter of Mr. Claiborne, of\nMississippi, to his constituents, published in the Washington Globe, May\n9, 1836.) The sentiments of Henry Clay on the subject are well known. In\na speech before the U.S. Senate, in 1836, he declared the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District \"unquestionable.\" Messrs.\nBlair, of Tennessee, Chilton, Lyon, and Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky,\nA.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, Messrs. Armstrong and Smyth, of\nVirginia, Messrs. Dorsey, Archer, and Barney, of Maryland, and Johns, of\nDelaware, with numerous others from slave states, have asserted the\npower of Congress to abolish slavery in the District. In the speech of\nMr. Smyth, of Virginia, on the Missouri question, January 28, 1820, he\nsays on this point: \"If the future freedom of the blacks is your real\nobject, and not a mere pretence, why do you not begin _here_? Within the\nten miles square, you have _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive\nlegislation. _Produce a bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of\nColumbia_, or, if you prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter.\"\n\nTo this may be added the testimony of the present Vice President of the\nUnited States, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. In a speech before\nthe United States' Senate, February 1, 1820, (National Intelligencer,\nApril 29, 1820,) he says: \"Congress has the express power stipulated by\nthe Constitution, to exercise exclusive legislation over this District\nof ten miles square. Here slavery is sanctioned by law. In the District\nof Columbia, containing a population of 30,000 souls, and probably as\nmany slaves as the whole territory of Missouri, THE POWER OF PROVIDING\nFOR THEIR EMANCIPATION RESTS WITH CONGRESS ALONE. Why, then, let me ask,\nMr. President, why all this sensibility--this commiseration--this\nheart-rending sympathy for the slaves of Missouri, and this cold\ninsensibility, this eternal apathy, towards the slaves in the District\nof Columbia?\"\n\nIt is quite unnecessary to add, that the most distinguished northern\nstatesmen of both political parties, have always affirmed the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District. President Van Buren in his\nletter of March 6, 1836, to a committee of gentlemen in North Carolina,\nsays, \"I would not, from the light now before me, feel myself safe in\npronouncing that Congress does not possess the power of abolishing\nslavery in the District of Columbia.\" This declaration of the President\nis consistent with his avowed sentiments touching the Missouri question,\non which he coincided with such men as Daniel D. Tompkins, De Witt\nClinton, and others, whose names are a host.[A] It is consistent also,\nwith his recommendation in his late message on the 5th of last month, in\nwhich, speaking of the District, he strongly urges upon Congress \"a\nthorough and careful revision of its local government,\" speaks of the\n\"entire dependence\" of the people of the District \"upon Congress,\"\nrecommends that a \"uniform system of local government\" be adopted, and\nadds, that \"although it was selected as the seat of the General\nGovernment, the site of its public edifices, the depository of its\narchives, and the residence of officers intrusted with large amounts of\npublic property, and the management of public business, yet it never has\nbeen subjected to, or received, that _special_ and _comprehensive_\nlegislation which these circumstances peculiarly demanded.\"\n\n[Footnote A: Mr. Van Buren, when a member of the Senate of New-York,\nvoted for the following preamble and resolutions, which passed\nunanimously:--Jan. 28th, 1820. \"Whereas, the inhibiting the further\nextension of slavery in the United States, is a subject of deep concern\nto the people of this state: and whereas, we consider slavery as an evil\nmuch to be deplored, and that _every constitutional barrier should be\ninterposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution\nof the United States _clearly gives congress the right_ to require new\nstates, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,\nto _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into\nthe Union: Therefore,\n\n\"Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our members of Congress\nbe requested, to oppose the admission as a state into the Union, of any\nterritory not comprised as aforesaid, without making _the prohibition of\nslavery_ therein an indispensable condition of admission.\" ]\n\nThe tenor of Senator Tallmadge's speech on the right of petition, in the\nlast Congress, and of Mr. Webster's on the reception of abolition\nmemorials, may be taken as universal exponents of the sentiments of\nnorthern statesmen as to the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia.\n\nAfter presenting this array of evidence, _direct testimony_ to show that\nthe power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, has always\ntill recently been _universally conceded_, is perhaps quite superfluous.\nWe subjoin; however, the following:\n\nThe Vice-President of the United States in his speech on the Missouri\nquestion, quoted above, after contending that the restriction of slavery\nin Missouri would be unconstitutional, adds, \"But I am at a loss to\nconceive why gentlemen should arouse all their sympathies upon this\noccasion, when they permit them to lie dormant upon the same subject, in\nrelation to other sections of country, in which THEIR POWER COULD NOT BE\nQUESTIONED.\" Then follows immediately the assertion of congressional\npower to abolish slavery in the District, as already quoted. In the\nspeech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., also quoted above, he declares the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District to be \"UNDOUBTED.\"\n\nMr. Sutherland, of Pennsylvania, in a speech in the House of\nRepresentatives, on the motion to print Mr. Pinckney's Report, is thus\nreported in the Washington Globe, of May 9th, '36. \"He replied to the\nremark that the report conceded that Congress had a right to legislate\nupon the subject in the District of Columbia, and said that SUCH A RIGHT\nHAD NEVER BEEN, TILL RECENTLY, DENIED.\"\n\nThe American Quarterly Review, published at Philadelphia, with a large\ncirculation and list of contributors in the slave states, holds the\nfollowing language in the September No. 1833, p. 55: \"Under this\n'exclusive jurisdiction,' granted by the constitution, Congress has\npower to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of\nColumbia. It would hardly be necessary to state this as a distinct\nproposition, had it not been occasionally questioned. The truth of the\nassertion, however, is too obvious to admit of argument--and we believe\nHAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE\nCONSTITUTION.\"\n\nFinally--an explicit, and unexpected admission, that an \"_over-whelming\nmajority_\" of the _present_ Congress concede the power to abolish\nslavery in the District, has just been made by a member of Congress from\nSouth Carolina, in a letter published in the Charleston Mercury of Dec.\n27, well known as the mouth-piece of Mr. Calhoun. The following is an\nextract:\n\n\"The time has arrived when we must have new guarantees under the\nconstitution, or the union must be dissolved. _Our views of the\nconstitution are not those of the majority. An overwhelming majority\nthink that by the constitution, Congress may abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia--may abolish the slave trade between the States;\nthat is, it may prohibit their being carried out of the State in which\nthey are--and prohibit it in all the territories, Florida among them.\nThey think_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG REASONS, _that the power of Congress\nextends to all of these subjects_.\"\n\nIn another letter, the same correspondent says:\n\n\"_The fact is, it is vain to attempt_, AS THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW, _to\nkeep the question of slavery out of the halls of Congress_,--until, by\nsome decisive action, WE COMPEL SILENCE, or _alter the constitution_,\nagitation and insult is our eternal fate in the confederacy.\"\n\n\n\nOBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.\n\nWe now proceed to notice briefly the main arguments that have been\nemployed in Congress and elsewhere against the power of Congress to\nabolish slavery in the District. One of the most plausible, is that \"the\nconditions on which Maryland and Virginia ceded the District to the\nUnited States, would be violated, if Congress should abolish slavery\nthere.\" The reply to this is, that Congress had no power to _accept_ a\ncession coupled with conditions restricting the power given it by the\nconstitution. Nothing short of a convention of the states, and an\nalteration of the constitution, abridging its grant of power, could have\nempowered Congress to accept a territory on any other conditions than\nthat of exercising \"exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever,\"\nover it.\n\nTo show the futility of the objection, here follow the acts of cession.\nThe cession of Maryland was made in November, 1788, and is as follows:\n\"An act to cede to Congress a district of ten miles square in this state\nfor the seat of the government of the United States.\"\n\n\"Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the\nrepresentatives of this state in the House of Representatives of the\nCongress of the United States, appointed to assemble at New-York, on the\nfirst Wednesday of March next, be, and they are hereby authorized and\nrequired on the behalf of this state, to cede to the Congress of the\nUnited States, any district in this state, not exceeding ten miles\nsquare, which the Congress may fix upon, and accept for the seat of\ngovernment of the United States.\" Laws of Maryland, vol. 2, chap. 46.\n\nThe cession from Virginia was made by act of the Legislature of that\nState on the 3d of December, 1788, in the following words:\n\n\"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That a tract of country, not\nexceeding ten miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located within\nthe limits of the State, and in any part thereof, as Congress may, by\nlaw, direct, shall be, and the same is hereby for ever ceded and\nrelinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, in\nfull and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, as\nof persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and\neffect of the eighth section of the first article of the government of\nthe constitution of the United States.\"\n\nBut were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.\nThat part of the District therefore, which includes the cities of\nWashington and Georgetown, can lay claim to nothing with which to ward\noff the power of Congress. The Virginia act had this proviso: \"Sect. 2.\nProvided, that nothing herein contained, shall be construed to vest in\nthe United States any right of property in the _soil_, or to affect the\nrights of individuals _therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be\ntransferred by such individuals to the United States.\"\n\nThis specification touching the soil was merely definitive and\nexplanatory of that clause in the act of cession, \"_full and absolute\nright._\" Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and\nother subjects, it even gives it wider scope; for exceptions to _parts_\nof a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the\nexceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict\ncongressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil\nalone_ specified? As legal instruments are not paragons of economy in\nwords, might not \"John Doe,\" out of his abundance, and without spoiling\nhis style, have afforded an additional word--at least a hint--that\nslavery was _meant_, though nothing was _said_ about it? The subject\nmust have been too \"delicate,\" even for the most distant allusion! The\nmystery of silence is solved!!\n\nBut again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare them\nto be \"in pursuance of\" that clause of the constitution which gives to\nCongress \"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over\" the ten\nmiles square--thus, instead of _restricting_ that clause, both States\ngave an express and decided confirmation of it. Now, their acts of\ncession either accorded with that clause of the constitution, or they\nconflicted with it. If they conflicted with it, _accepting_ the cessions\nwas a violation of the constitution. If they accorded, the objector has\nalready had his answer. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions,\nproves that in its view their _terms_ did not conflict with the\nconstitutional grant of \"power to exercise exclusive legislation in all\ncases whatsoever over such District.\" The inquiry whether these acts of\ncession were consistent or inconsistent with the United States\nconstitution, is totally irrelevant to the question at issue. What saith\nthe CONSTITUTION? That is the question. Not, what saith Virginia, or\nMaryland, or--equally to the point--John Bull! If Maryland and Virginia\nhad been the authorized interpreters of the constitution for the Union,\nthese acts of cession could hardly have been magnified more than they\nwere by Messrs. Garland and Wise in the last Congress. A true\nunderstanding of the constitution can be had, forsooth, only by holding\nit up in the light of Maryland and Virginia legislation!\n\nWe are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the District\nif they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power to abolish\nslavery in it.\n\nThis comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ the\nconstitution. They were parties to it. They had sifted it, clause by\nclause, in their State conventions. They had weighed its words in the\nbalance--they had tested them as by fire; and finally, after long\npondering, they _adopted_ the constitution. And _afterward_, self-moved,\nthey ceded the ten miles square, and declared the cession made \"in\npursuance of\" that oft-cited clause, \"Congress shall have power to\nexercise exclusive legalisation in all cases whatsoever over such\nDistrict,\" &c. And now verily \"they would not have ceded if they had\n_supposed_!\" &c. Cede it they _did_, and \"in full and absolute right\nboth of soil and persons.\" Congress accepted the cession--state power\nover the District ceased, and congressional power over it commenced--and\nnow, the sole question to be settled is, _the amount of power over the\nDistrict, lodged in Congress by the constitution_. The constitution--the\nCONSTITUTION--that is the point. Maryland and Virginia \"suppositions\"\nmust be potent suppositions, to abrogate a clause in the United States\nConstitution! That clause either gives Congress power to abolish slavery\nin the District, or it does _not_--and that point is to be settled, not\nby state \"suppositions,\" nor state usages, nor state legislation, but\n_by the terms of the clause themselves_.\n\nSouthern members of Congress, in the recent discussions, have conceded\nthe power of a contingent abolition in the District, by suspending it\nupon the consent of the people. Such a doctrine from _declaimers_ like\nMessrs. Alford, of Georgia, and Walker, of Mississippi, would excite no\nsurprise; but that it should be honored with the endorsement of such men\nas Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun, is quite unaccountable. Are attributes of\n_sovereignty_ mere creatures of _contingency_? Is delegated _authority_\nmere conditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be\nexercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance_? Must it\nlie helpless at the pool of public sentiment, waiting the gracious\ntroubling of its waters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save only when popular\n\"consent\" deigns to put breath into its nostrils? Besides, if the\nconsent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of the\n_whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large.\nMajorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--and a legal majority\nwithout legislative power, right of representation, or even the\nelectoral franchise, would be an anomaly. In the District of Columbia,\nsuch a thing as a majority in a legal sense is unknown to law. To talk\nof the power of a majority, or the will of a majority there, is mere\nmouthing. A majority? Then it has an authoritative will--and an organ to\nmake it known--and an executive to carry it into effect--Where are they?\nWe repeat it--if the consent of the people of the District be necessary,\nthe consent of _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_ consent will\ncome only with the Greek Kalends and a \"perpetual motion.\" A single\nindividual might thus perpetuate slavery in defiance of the expressed\nwill of a whole people. The most common form of this fallacy is given by\nMr. Wise, of Virginia, in his speech, February 16, 1835, in which he\ndenied the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, unless\nthe inhabitants owning slaves petitioned for it!! Southern members of\nCongress at the present session ring changes almost daily upon the same\nfallacy. What! pray Congress _to use_ a power which it _has not_? \"It is\nrequired of a man according to what he _hath_,\" saith the Scripture. I\ncommend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he had got his\n_logic_ of him! If Congress does not possess the power, why taunt it\nwith its weakness, by asking its exercise? Why mock it by demanding\nimpossibilities? Petitioning, according to Mr. Wise, is, in matters of\nlegislation, omnipotence itself; the very source of all constitutional\npower; for, _asking_ Congress to do what it _cannot_ do, gives it the\npower--to pray the exercise of a power that is _not, creates_ it. A\nbeautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to petition for the\nexercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to petition against the\nexercise of a power that _is_, annihilates it. As southern gentlemen are\npartial to summary processes, pray, sirs, try the virtue of your own\nrecipe on \"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever;\" a better\nsubject for experiment and test of the prescription could not be had.\nBut if the petitions of the citizens of the District give Congress the\n_right_ to abolish slavery, they impose the _duty_; if they confer\nconstitutional authority, they create constitutional obligation. If\nCongress _may_ abolish because of an expression of their will, it _must_\nabolish at the bidding of that will. If the people of the District are a\n_source of power_ to Congress, their _expressed will_ has the force of a\nconstitutional provision, and has the same binding power upon the\nNational Legislature. To make Congress dependent on the District for\nauthority, is to make it a _subject_ of its authority, restraining the\nexercise of its own discretion, and sinking it into a mere organ of the\nDistrict's will. We proceed to another objection.\n\n\"The southern states would not have ratified the constitution, if they\nhad supposed that it gave this power.\" It is a sufficient answer to this\nobjection, that the northern states would not have ratified it, if they\nhad supposed that it _withheld_ the power. If \"suppositions\" are to take\nthe place of the constitution--coming from both sides, they neutralize\neach other. To argue a constitutional question by _guessing_ at the\n\"suppositions\" that might have been made by the parties to it, would\nfind small favor in a court of law. But even a desperate shift is some\neasement when sorely pushed. If this question is to be settled by\n\"suppositions,\" suppositions shall be forth coming, and that without\nstint.\n\nFirst, then, I affirm that the North ratified the constitution,\n\"supposing\" that slavery had begun to wax old, and would speedily vanish\naway, and especially that the abolition of the slave trade, which by the\nconstitution was to be surrendered to Congress after twenty years, would\ncast it headlong.\n\nWould the North have adopted the constitution, giving three-fifths of\nthe \"slave property\" a representation, if it has \"supposed\" that the\nslaves would have increased from half a million to two millions and a\nhalf by 1838--and that the census of 1840 would give to the slave\nstates, 30 representatives of \"slave property?\"\n\nIf they had \"supposed\" that this representation would have controlled\nthe legislation of the government, and carried against the North every\nquestion vital to its interests, would Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin\nFranklin, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, William Livingston, John\nLangdon, and Rufus King have been such madmen, as to sign the\nconstitution, and the Northern States such suicides as to ratify it?\nEvery self-preserving instinct would have shrieked at such an infatuate\nimmolation. At the adoption of the United States constitution, slavery\nwas regarded as a fast waning system. This conviction was universal.\nWashington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Grayson, St. George Tucker,\nMadison, Wythe, Pendleton, Lee, Blair, Mason, Page, Parker, Edmund\nRandolph, Iredell, Spaight, Ramsey, William Pinckney, Luther Martin,\nJames McHenry, Samuel Chase, and nearly all the illustrious names south\nof the Potomac, proclaimed it before the sun, that the days of slavery\nwere beginning to be numbered. A reason urged in the convention that\nformed the United States constitution, why the word slave should not be\nused in it, was, that _when slavery should cease_ there might remain\nupon the National Charter no record that it had even been. (See speech\nof Mr. Burrill, of R.I., on the Missouri question.)\n\nI now proceed to show by testimony, that at the date of the United\nStates constitution, and for several years before and after that period,\nslavery was rapidly on the wane; that the American Revolution with the\ngreat events preceding accompanying, and following it, had wrought an\nimmense and almost universal change in the public sentiment of the\nnation of the subject, powerfully impelling it toward the entire\nabolition of the system--and that it was the _general belief_ that\nmeasures for its abolition throughout the Union, would be commenced by\nthe individual States generally before the lapse of many years. A great\nmass of testimony establishing this position is at hand and might be\npresented, but narrow space, little time, the patience of readers, and\nthe importance of speedy publication, counsel brevity. Let the following\nproofs suffice. First, a few dates as points of observation.\n\nThe first _general_ Congress met in 1774. The revolutionary war\ncommenced in '75. Independence was declared in '76. The articles of\nconfederacy were adopted by the thirteen states in '78. Independence\nacknowledged in '83. The convention for forming the U.S. constitution\nwas held in '87, the state conventions for considering it in '87, and\n'88. The first Congress under the constitution in '89.\n\nDr. Rush, of Pennsylvania, one of the signers of the Declaration of\nIndependence, in a letter to the celebrated Granville Sharpe, May 1,\n1773, says: \"A spirit of humanity and religion begins to awaken in\nseveral of the colonies in favor of the poor negroes. The clergy begin\nto bear a public testimony against this violation of the laws of nature\nand christianity. Great events have been brought about by small\nbeginnings. _Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago in opposing\nnegro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS OF THE PROVINCE AS\nWELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT.\"--(Stuart's Life of Sharpe, p.\n21.)\n\nIn the preamble to the act prohibiting the importation of slaves into\nRhode Island, June 1774, is the following: \"Whereas, the inhabitants of\nAmerica are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights\nand liberties, among which that of personal freedom must be considered\nthe greatest, and as those who are desirous of enjoying all the\nadvantages of liberty themselves, _should be willing to extend personal\nliberty to others_, therefore,\" &c.\n\nOctober 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: \"We,\nfor ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we\nrepresent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,\nhonor, and love of our country_, as follows:\n\n\"2d Article. _We will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_\nafter the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly\ndiscontinue_ the slave trade, and we will neither be concerned in it\nourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or\nmanufactures to those who are concerned in it.\"\n\nThe Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the\nnecessity for taking up arms, say: \"_If it were possible_ for men who\nexercise their reason to believe that the Divine Author of our existence\nintended a part of the human race _to hold an absolute property in_, and\n_unbounded power over others_, marked out by infinite goodness and\nwisdom as objects of a legal domination, never rightfully resistible,\nhowever severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might\nat least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that\nthis dreadful authority over them has been granted to that body.\"\n\nIn 1776, the celebrated Dr. Hopkins, then at the head of New England\ndivines, published a pamphlet entitled, \"An Address to the owners of\nnegro slaves in the American colonies,\" from which the following is an\nextract: \"The conviction of the unjustifiableness of this practice\n(slavery) has been _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and\n_many_ who have had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify\ntheir own conduct in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set\nthem at liberty_. May this conviction soon reach every owner of slaves\nin _North America!_ Slavery is, _in every instance_, wrong, unrighteous,\nand oppressive--a very great and crying sin--_there being nothing of the\nkind equal to it on the face of the earth._\"\n\nThe same year the American Congress issued a solemn MANIFESTO to the\nworld. These were its first words: \"We hold these truths to be\nself-evident, that _all_ men are created equal, that they are endowed by\ntheir Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are\nlife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\" _Once_, these were words\nof power; _now_, \"a rhetorical flourish.\"\n\nThe celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia, in a letter, of Jan. 18, 1773,\nto Robert Pleasants, afterwards president of the Virginia Abolition\nSociety, says: \"Believe me, I shall honor the Quakers for their noble\nefforts to abolish slavery. It is a debt we owe to the purity of our\nreligion to show that it is at variance with that law that warrants\nslavery. I exhort you to persevere in so worthy a resolution.\"\n\nIn 1779, the Continental Congress ordered a pamphlet to be published,\nentitled, \"Observations on the American Revolution,\" from which the\nfollowing is an extract: \"The great principle (of government) is and\never will remain in force, _that men are by nature free_; as accountable\nto him that made them, they must be so; and so long as we have any idea\nof divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human freedom_. Whether\nmen can part with their liberty, is among the questions which have\nexercised the ablest writers; but it is _conceded on all hands, that the\nright to be free_ CAN NEVER BE ALIENATED--still less is it practicable\nfor one generation to mortgage the privileges of another.\"\n\nExtract from the Pennsylvania act for the Abolition of Slavery, passed\nMarch 1, 1780:  *  *  *  \"We conceive that it is our duty, and we\nrejoice that it is in our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to\nothers which has been extended to us. Weaned by a long course of\nexperience from those narrow prejudices and partialities we have\nimbibed, we find our hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence\ntowards men of all conditions and nations:  *  *  *  Therefore be it\nenacted, that no child born hereafter be a slave,\" &c.\n\nJefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, written just before the close of\nthe Revolutionary War, says: \"I think a change already perceptible since\nthe origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is\nabating, that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition\nmollifying, _the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven_, FOR\nA TOTAL EMANCIPATION, and that this is disposed, in the order of events,\nto be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their\nextirpation.\"\n\nIn a letter to Dr. Price, of London, who had just published a pamphlet\nin favor of the abolition of slavery, Mr. Jefferson, then Minister at\nParis, (August 7, 1785,) says: \"From the mouth to the head of the\nChesapeake, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in\ntheory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in\npractice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,\n_preponderates against the greater number_.\" Speaking of Virginia, he\nsays: \"This is the next state to which we may turn our eyes for the\ninteresting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and\noppression,--a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY\nRECRUITS. Be not, therefore discouraged--what you have written will do a\n_great deal of good_; and could you still trouble yourself with our\nwelfare, no man is more able to give aid to the laboring side. The\nCollege of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, since the remodelling of\nits plan, is the place where are collected together all the young men of\nVirginia, under preparation for public life. They are there under the\ndirection (most of them) of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most virtuous of\ncharacters, and _whose sentiments on the subject of slavery are\nunequivocal_. I am satisfied, if you could resolve to address an\nexhortation to those young men with all the eloquence of which you are\nmaster that _its influence on the future decision of this important\nquestion would be great, perhaps decisive_. Thus, you see, that so far\nfrom thinking you have cause to repent of what you have done, _I wish\nyou to do more, and wish it on an assurance of its\neffect_.\"--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1, p. 268.\n\nIn 1786, John jay, afterward Chief Justice of the United States, drafted\nand signed a petition to the Legislature of New York, on the subject of\nslavery, beginning with these words:\n\n\"Your memorialists being deeply affected by the situation of those, who,\nalthough FREE BY THE LAWS OF GOD, are held in slavery by the laws of the\nState,\" &c.\n\nThis memorial bore also the signature of the celebrated Alexander\nHamilton; Robert R. Livingston, afterward Secretary of Foreign Affairs\nof the United States, and Chancellor of the State of New York; James\nDuane, Mayor of the City of New York, and many others of the most\neminent individuals in the State.\n\nIn the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave\nin 1784, is the following passage:\n\n\"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,\nwithout injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery.\"\n\nIn his letter while Minister at Spain, in 1786, he says, speaking of the\nabolition of slavery: \"Till America comes into this measure, her prayers\nto heaven will be IMPIOUS. This is a strong expression, but it is just.\nI believe God governs the world; and I believe it to be a maxim in his,\nas in our court, that those who ask for equity _ought to do it_.\"\n\nIn 1785, the New York Manumission Society was formed. John Jay was\nchosen its first President, and held the office five years. Alexander\nHamilton was its second President, and after holding the office one\nyear, resigned upon his removal to Philadelphia as Secretary of the\nUnited States' Treasury. In 1787, the Pennsylvania Abolition Society was\nformed. Benjamin Franklin, warm from the discussions of the convention\nthat formed the United States constitution, was chosen President, and\nBenjamin Rush, Secretary--both signers of the Declaration of\nIndependence. In 1789, the Maryland Abolition Society was formed. Among\nits officers were Samuel Chace, Judge of the United States Supreme\nCourt, and Luther Martin, a member of the convention that formed the\nUnited States constitution. In 1790, the Connecticut Abolition Society\nwas formed. The first President was Rev. Dr. Stiles, President of Yale\nCollege, and the Secretary, Simeon Baldwin, (the late Judge Baldwin of\nNew Haven.) In 1791, this Society sent a memorial to Congress, from\nwhich the following is an extract:\n\n\"From a sober conviction of the unrighteousness of slavery, your\npetitioners have long beheld, with grief, our fellow men doomed to\nperpetual bondage, in a country which boasts of her freedom. Your\npetitioners are fully of opinion, that calm reflection will at last\nconvince the world, that the whole system of African slavery is unjust\nin its nature--impolitic in its principles--and, in its consequences,\nruinous to the industry and enterprise of the citizens of these States.\nFrom a conviction of these truths, your petitioners were led, by\nmotives, we conceive, of general philanthropy, to associate ourselves\nfor the protection and assistance of this unfortunate part of our fellow\nmen; and, though this Society has been _lately_ established, it has now\nbecome _generally extensive_ through this state, and, we fully believe,\n_embraces, on this subject, the sentiments of a large majority of its\ncitizens_.\"\n\nThe same year the Virginia Abolition Society was formed. This Society,\nand the Maryland Society, had auxiliaries in different parts of those\nStates. Both societies sent up memorials to Congress. The memorial of\nthe Virginia Society is headed--\"The memorial of the _Virginia Society_,\nfor promoting the Abolition of Slavery, &c.\" The following is an\nextract:\n\n\"Your memorialists, fully believing that 'righteousness exalteth a\nnation,' and that slavery is not only an odious degradation, but an\n_outrageous violation of one of the most essential rights of human\nnature, and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the gospel_, which\nbreathes 'peace on earth, good will to men;' lament that a practice, so\ninconsistent with true policy and the inalienable rights of men, should\nsubsist in so enlightened an age, and among a people professing, that\nall mankind are, by nature, equally entitled to freedom.\"\n\nAbout the same time a Society was formed in New-Jersey. It had an acting\ncommittee of five members in each county in the State. The following is\nan extract from the preamble to its constitution:\n\n\"It is our boast, that we live under a government founded on principles\nof justice and reason, wherein _life, liberty_, and the _pursuit of\nhappiness_, are recognised as the universal rights of men; and whilst we\nare anxious to preserve these rights to ourselves, and transmit them\ninviolate, to our posterity, we _abhor that inconsistent, illiberal, and\ninterested policy, which withholds those rights, from an unfortunate and\ndegraded class of our fellow creatures_.\"\n\nAmong other distinguished individuals who were efficient officers of\nthese Abolition Societies, and delegates from their respective state\nsocieties, at the annual meetings of the American convention for\npromoting the abolition of slavery, were Hon. Uriah Tracy, United\nStates' Senator, from Connecticut; Hon. Zephaniah Swift, Chief Justice\nof the same State; Hon. Cesar A. Rodney, Attorney General of the United\nStates; Hon. James A. Bayard, United States Senator, from Delaware;\nGovernor Bloomfield, of New Jersey; Hon. Wm. Rawle, the late venerable\nhead of the Philadelphia bar; Dr. Casper Wistar, of Philadelphia;\nMessrs. Foster and Tillinghast, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Ridgeley,\nBuchanan, and Wilkinson, of Maryland; and Messrs. Pleasants, McLean, and\nAnthony, of Virginia.\n\nIn July, 1787, the old Congress passed the celebrated ordinance,\nabolishing slavery in the northwestern territory, and declaring that it\nshould never thereafter exist there. This ordinance was passed while the\nconvention that formed the United States constitution was in session. At\nthe first session of Congress under the constitution, this ordinance was\nratified by a special act. Washington, fresh from the discussions of the\nconvention, in which _more than forty days had been spent in adjusting\nthe question of slavery, gave it his approval._ The act passed with only\none dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New-York,) _the South\nequally with the North avowing the fitness and expediency of the measure\nof general considerations, and indicating thus early the line of\nnational policy, to be pursued by the United States Government on the\nsubject of slavery_.\n\nIn the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward\na Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, \"_When the entire\nabolition of slavery takes place_, it will be an event which must be\npleasing to every generous mind and every friend of human nature.\" Mr.\nGalloway said, \"I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to. I\napprehend the clause (touching the slave trade) means to _bring forward\nmanumission.\"_ Luther Martin, of Md., a member of the convention that\nformed the United States constitution, said, \"We ought to authorize the\nGeneral Government to make such regulations as shall be thought most\nadvantageous for _the gradual abolition of slavery,_ and the\n_emancipation of the slaves_ which are already in the States.\" Judge\nWilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the framers of the constitution, said,\nin the Pennsylvania convention of '87, Deb. Pa. Con. p. 303, 156: \"I\nconsider this (the clause relative to the slave trade) as laying the\nfoundation for _banishing slavery out of this country_. It will produce\nthe same kind of gradual change which was produced in Pennsylvania; the\nnew states which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress\nin this particular, and _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It\npresents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will\nbe acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of\na few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_\nwithin our borders.\" In the Virginia convention of '87, Mr. Mason,\nauthor of the Virginia constitution, said, \"The augmentation of slaves\nweakens the States, and such a trade is _diabolical_ in itself, and\ndisgraceful to mankind. As much as I value a union of all the states, I\nwould not admit the southern states, (i.e., South Carolina and Georgia,)\ninto the union, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this\ndisgraceful trade._\" Mr. Tyler opposed with great power the clause\nprohibiting the abolition of the slave trade till 1808, and said, \"My\nearnest desire is, that it shall he handed down to posterity that I\noppose this wicked clause.\" Mr. Johnson said, \"The principle of\nemancipation _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it\nwill come round._\"--[_Deb. Va. Con._ p. 463.] Patrick Henry, arguing the\npower of Congress under the United States constitution to abolish\nslavery in the States, said, in the same convention, \"Another thing will\ncontribute to bring this event (the abolition of slavery) about. Slavery\nis _detested._ We feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the\npity of humanity.\"--[_Deb. Va. Con._ p. 431.] In the Mass. Con. of '88,\nJudge Dawes said, \"Although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet\n_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption.\"--[_Deb.\nMass. Con._ p. 60.] General Heath said that, \"Slavery was confined to\nthe States _now existing, it could not be extended_. By their ordinance,\nCongress had declared that the new States should be republican States,\nand _have no slavery._\"--p. 147.\n\nIn the debate in the first Congress, February 11th and 12th, 1789, on\nthe petitions of the Society of Friends, and the Pennsylvania Abolition\nSociety, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, \"I hope, Mr. Speaker, the\npetition of these respectable people will be attended to _with all the\nreadiness the importance of its object demands_; and I cannot help\nexpressing the pleasure I feel in finding _so considerable a part_ of\nthe community attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the\n_future prosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it\nmy duty, as a citizen of the Union, _to espouse their cause_.\"\n\nMr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)--\"Was _in favor_ of the\ncommitment; he hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists\nwould not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a fair\ndiscussion of the prayer of the memorial. With respect to the alarm that\nwas apprehended, he conjectured there was none; but there might be just\ncause, if the memorial was _not_ taken into consideration. He placed\nhimself in the case of a slave, and said, that on hearing that Congress\nhad refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of\nthe community, he should infer, that the general government, _from which\nwas expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, had\nshut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair of\nany alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect; if\nany thing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this,\nimpressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if he was told,\nthat application was made in his behalf, and that Congress were willing\nto hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of\nimporting his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and\nhumanity, and _wait the decision patiently_.\"\n\nMr. Scott, of Pennsylvania: \"I cannot, for my part, conceive how any\nperson _can be said to acquire a property in another_; but enough of\nthose who reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or use them\nlike beasts of burden, who deliver them up as the property or patrimony\nof another man. Let us argue on principles countenanced by reason, and\nbecoming humanity. _I do not know how far I might go, if I was one of\nthe judges of the United States, and those people were to come before me\nand claim their emancipation, but I am sure I would go as far as I\ncould_.\"\n\nMr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, \"He _saw the disposition of the\nHouse_, and he feared it would be referred to a committee, maugre all\ntheir opposition.\"\n\nMr. Smith, of South Carolina, said, \"That on entering into this\ngovernment, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other\nstates, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the Southern states\nwere under to hold this species of property, _would, from motives of\nhumanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation_;\nand had they not seen, that the constitution provided against the effect\nof such a disposition, I may be bold to say, they never would have\nadopted it.\"\n\nIn the debate, at the same session, May 13th, 1789, on the petition of\nthe Society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, of\nVirginia, said, \"He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power\nto _restore to human nature its inherent privileges_, and if possible,\nwipe off the stigma, which America labored under. The inconsistency in\nour principles, with which we are justly charged _should be done away_,\nthat we may show by our actions the pure beneficence of the doctrine we\nheld out to the world in our Declaration of Independence.\"\n\nMr. Jackson of Georgia, said, \"IT WAS THE FASHION OF THE DAY TO FAVOR\nTHE LIBERTY OF THE SLAVES.  *  *  *  *  *  What is to be done for\ncompensation? Will Virginia set all her negroes free? Will they give up\nthe money they have cost them; and to whom? _When this practice comes to\nbe tried, then the sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it\ngrateful to the ravished ear_.\"\n\nMr. Madison of Virginia,--\"The dictates of humanity, the principles of\nthe people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy,\nrequire it of us. The constitution has particularly called our attention\nto it.  *  *  *  *  *  I conceive the constitution in this particular\nwas formed in order that the Government, whilst it was restrained from\nhaving a total prohibition, might be able to _give some testimony of the\nsense of America_, with respect to the African trade.  *  *  *  *  *  It\nis to be hoped, that by expressing a national disapprobation of this\ntrade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves from reproaches, AND OUR\nPOSTERITY THE IMBECILITY EVER ATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES.\nI do not wish to say any thing harsh to the hearing of gentlemen who\nentertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments from\nthose I represent. But if there is any one point in which it is clearly\nthe policy of this nation, so far as we constitutionally can, _to vary\nthe practice_ obtaining under some of the state governments, it is this.\nBut it is _certain_ a majority of the states are _opposed to this\npractice_.\"--[Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.]\n\nA writer in the \"Gazette of the United States,\" Feb. 20th, 1790, (then\nthe government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, and avows\nhimself a _slaveholder_, says, \"I have seen in the papers accounts of\n_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition\nof slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free\npeople, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_.  SUCH\nMOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW.\"\n\nIt is well known, that in the convention that formed the constitution of\nKentucky in 1780, the effort to prohibit slavery was nearly successful.\nThe writer has frequently heard it asserted in Kentucky, and has had it\nfrom some who were members of that convention, that a decided majority\nof that body would have voted for its exclusion but for the great\nefforts and influence of two large slaveholders--men of commanding\ntalents and sway--Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas. The following\nextract from a speech made in that convention by a member of it, Mr.\nRice, a native Virginian, is a specimen of the _free discussion_ that\nprevailed on that \"delicate subject.\" Said Mr. Rice: \"I do a man greater\ninjury, when I deprive him of his liberty, than when I deprive him of\nhis property. It is vain for me to plead that I have the sanction of\nlaw; for this makes the injury the greater--it arms the community\nagainst him, and makes his case desperate. The owners of such slaves\nthen are _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they\nclaim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it\nto the right owner_. In America, a slave is a standing monument of the\ntyranny and inconsistency of human governments. The master is the enemy\nof the slave; he _has made open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT\nON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is\nindebted to his master, and _bound to serve him_? Whence can the\nobligation arise? What is it founded upon? What is my duty to an enemy\nthat is carrying on war against me? I do not deny, but in some\ncircumstances, it is the duty of the slave to serve; but it is a duty he\nowes himself, and not his master.\"\n\nPresident Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before the\nConnecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791: \"Thirty years ago,\nscarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or the\nslavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able advocates in\nprivate life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have appeared, and have\nopenly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of humanity in this as well\nas other instances? And if we judge of the future by the past, _within\nfifty years from this time, it will be as shameful for a man to hold a\nnegro slave, as to be guilty of common robbery or theft_.\"\n\nIn 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its\n\"Scripture proofs,\" notes, comments, &c. Among these was the following:\n\n\n    \"1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime among\n    the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment.\n    Exodus xxi. 16. And the apostle here classes them with _sinners\n    of the first rank_. The word he uses, in its original import\n    comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human\n    race into slavery, or in _retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of\n    men_ are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and _keep_,\n    sell, or buy them.\"\n\n\nIn 1794, Dr. Rush declared: \"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the\nprinciples of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just\nprinciple of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the\nauthority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and\nefficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the\nprerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly\nclaimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.\"\n\nIn 1795, Mr. Fiske, then an officer of Dartmouth College, afterward a\nJudge in Tennessee, said, in an oration published that year, speaking of\nslaves: \"I steadfastly maintain, that we must bring them to _an equal\nstanding, in point of privileges, with the whites_! They must enjoy all\nthe rights belonging to human nature.\"\n\nWhen the petition on the abolition of the slave trade was under\ndiscussion in the Congress of '89, Mr. Brown. of North Carolina, said,\n\"The emancipation of the slaves _will be effected_ in time; it ought to\nbe a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not\n_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States.\" Mr.\nHartley, of Pennsylvania said, in the sane debate, \"_He was not a little\nsurprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house._\"\nWASHINGTON, in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, says, \"There are, in\nPennsylvania, laws for the gradual abolition of slavery which neither\nMaryland nor Virginia have at present, but which _nothing is more\ncertain_ than that they _must have_, and at a period NOT REMOTE.\" In\n1782, Virginia passed her celebrated manumission act. Within nine years\nfrom that time nearly eleven thousand slaves were voluntarily\nemancipated by their masters. Judge Tucker's \"Dissertation on Slavery,\"\np. 72. In 1787, Maryland passed an act legalizing manumission. Mr.\nDorsey, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, December 27th, 1826,\nspeaking of manumissions under that act, said, that \"_The progress of\nemancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free\nblack population.\"\n\nThe celebrated William Pinkney, in a speech before the Maryland House of\nDelegates, in 1789, on the emancipation of slaves, said, \"Sir, by the\neternal principles of natural justice, _no master in the state has a\nright to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour_. I would as soon\nbelieve the incoherent tale of a schoolboy, who should tell me he had\nbeen frightened by a ghost, as that the grant of this permission (to\nemancipate) ought in any degree to alarm us. Are we apprehensive that\nthese men will become more dangerous by becoming freemen? Are we\nalarmed, lest by being admitted into the enjoyment of civil rights, they\nwill be inspired with a deadly enmity against the rights of others?\nStrange, unaccountable paradox! How much more rational would it be, to\nargue that the natural enemy of the privileges of a freeman, is he who\nis robbed of them himself! Dishonorable to the species is the idea that\nthey would ever prove injurious to our interests--released from the\nshackles of slavery, by the justice of government and the bounty of\nindividuals--the want of fidelity and attachment would be next to\nimpossible.\"\n\nHon. James Campbell, in an address before the Pennsylvania Society of\nthe Cincinnati, July 4, 1787, said, \"Our separation from Great Britain\nhas extended the empire of _humanity_. The time _is not far distant_\nwhen our sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their\nvassals into freemen._\" The Convention that formed the United States'\nconstitution being then in session, attended at the delivery of this\noration with General Washington at their head.\n\nA Baltimore paper of September 8th, 1780, contains the following notice\nof Major General Gates: \"A few days ago passed through this town the\nHon. General Gates and lady. The General, previous to leaving Virginia,\nsummoned his numerous family of slaves about him, and amidst their tears\nof affection and gratitude, gave them their FREEDOM.\"\n\nIn 1791 the university of William and Mary, in Virginia, conferred upon\nGranville Sharpe the degree of Doctor of Laws. Sharpe was at that time\nthe acknowledged head of British abolitionists. His indefatigable\nexertions, prosecuted for years in the case of Somerset, procured that\nmemorable decision in the Court of King's Bench, which settled the\nprinciple that no slave could be held in England. He was most\nuncompromising in his opposition to slavery, and for twenty years\nprevious he had spoken, written, and accomplished more against it than\nany man living.\n\nIn the \"Memoirs of the Revolutionary War in the Southern Department,\" by\nGen. Lee, of Va., Commandant of the Partizan Legion, is the following:\n\"The Constitution of the United States, adopted lately with so much\ndifficulty, has effectually provided against this evil, (by importation)\nafter a few years. It is much to be lamented that having done so much in\nthis way, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of\nslavery_.\"--p. 233, 4.\n\nMr. Tucker, of Virginia, Judge of the Supreme Court of that state, and\nprofessor of law in the University of William and Mary, addressed a\nletter to the General Assembly of that state, in 1796, urging the\nabolition of slavery; from which the following is an extract. Speaking\nof the slaves in Virginia, he says: \"Should we not, at the time of the\nrevolution, have loosed their chains and broken their fetters; or if the\ndifficulties and dangers of such an experiment prohibited the attempt,\nduring the convulsions of a revolution, is it not our duty, _to embrace\nthe first moment_ of constitutional health and vigor to effectuate so\ndesirable an object, and to remove from us a stigma with which our\nenemies will never fail to upbraid us, nor consciences to reproach us?\"\n\nMr. Faulkner, in a speech before the Virginia Legislature, Jan. 20,\n1832, said:--\"The idea of a gradual emancipation and removal of the\nslaves from this commonwealth, is coeval with the declaration of our\nindependence from the British yoke. It sprung into existence during the\nfirst session of the General Assembly, subsequent to the formation of\nyour republican government. When Virginia stood sustained in her\nlegislation by the pure and philosophic intellect of Pendleton--by the\npatriotism of Mason and Lee--by the searching vigor and sagacity of\nWythe, and by the all-embracing, all-comprehensive genius of Thomas\nJefferson! Sir, it was a committee composed of those five illustrious\nmen, who, in 1777, submitted to the general assembly of this state, then\nin session, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this\ncommonwealth_.\"\n\nHon. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, late United States' senator from Virginia,\nin his letters to the people of Virginia, in 1832, signed Appomattox, p.\n43, says: \"I thought, till very lately, that it was known to every body\nthat during the Revolution, _and for many years after, the abolition of\nslavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, who\nentertained, with respect, all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity\ncould suggest for accomplishing the object. Mr. Wythe, to the day of his\ndeath, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color\nas founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were\nabandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these\nprojects revived.\"\n\nGovernor Barbour, of Virginia, in his speech in the U.S. Senate, on the\nMissouri question, Jan. 1820, said:--\"We are asked why has Virginia\n_changed her policy_ in reference to slavery? That the sentiments _of\nour most distinguished men_, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_\nwith the course which the friends of the restriction (of slavery in\nMissouri) now advocated; and that the Virginia delegation, one of which\nwas the late President of the United Stance, voted for the restriction,\n(of slavery) in the northwestern territory, and that Mr. Jefferson has\ndelineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects of slavery. When it\nis recollected that the Notes of Mr. Jefferson were written during the\nprogress of the revolution, it is no matter of surprise that the writer\nshould have imbibed a large portion of that enthusiasm which such an\noccasion was so well calculated to produce. As to the consent of the\nVirginia delegation to the restriction in question, whether the result\nof a disposition to restrain the slave trade indirectly, or the\ninfluence of that _enthusiasm_ to which I have just alluded,  *  *  *  *\nit is not now important to decide. We have witnessed its effects. The\nliberality of Virginia, or, as the result may prove, her folly, which\nsubmitted to, or, if you will, PROPOSED _this measure_, (abolition of\nslavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects which speak a\nmonitory lesson. _How is the representation from this quarter on the\npresent question?_\"\n\nMr. Imlay, in his early history of Kentucky, p. 185, says: \"We have\ndisgraced the fair face of humanity, and trampled upon the sacred\nprivileges of man, at the very moment that we were exclaiming against\nthe tyranny of your (the English) ministry. But in contending for the\nbirthright of freedom, we have learned to feel _for the bondage of\nothers_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we\n_contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as\nhonorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us.\"\n\nIn the debate in Congress, Jan. 20, 1806, on Mr. Sloan's motion to lay a\ntax on the importation of slaves, Mr. Clark of Va. said: \"He was no\nadvocate for a system of slavery.\" Mr. Marion, of S. Carolina, said: \"He\nnever had purchased, nor should he ever purchase a slave.\" Mr. Southard\nsaid: \"Not revenue, but an expression of the _national sentiment_ is the\nprincipal object.\" Mr. Smilie--\"I rejoice that the word (slave) is not\nin the Constitution; its not being there does honor to the worthies who\nwould not suffer it to become a _part_ of it.\" Mr. Alston, of N.\nCarolina--\"In two years we shall have the power to prohibit the trade\naltogether. Then this House will be UNANIMOUS. No one will object to our\nexercising our full constitutional powers.\" National Intelligencer,\nJany. 24, 1806.\n\nThese witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit--nor their\ntestimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their\n_endorsers_ and their strong words their own interpreters. We wave all\ncomments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, let him\nHEAR. And whosoever will not hear the fathers of the revolution, the\nfounders of the government, its chief magistrates, judges, legislators\nand sages, who dared and periled all under the burdens, and in the heat\nof the day that tried men's souls--then \"neither will he be persuaded\nthough THEY rose from the dead.\"\n\nSome of the points established by the testimony are--The universal\nexpectation that the _moral_ influence of Congress, of state\nlegislatures, of seminaries of learning, of churches, of the ministers\nof religion, and of public sentiment widely embodied in abolition\nsocieties, would be exerted against slavery, calling forth by argument\nand appeal the moral sense of the nation, and creating a power of\nopinion that would abolish the system throughout the union. In a word,\nthat free speech and a free press would be wielded against slavery\nwithout ceasing and without restriction. Full well did the south know,\nnot only that the national government would probably legislate against\nslavery wherever the constitution placed it within its reach, but she\nknew also that Congress had already marked out the line of national\npolicy to be pursued on the subject--had committed itself before the\nworld to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move\nupon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction--that the nation\nhad established by solemn ordinance memorable precedent for subsequent\naction, by abolishing slavery in the northwest territory, and by\ndeclaring that it should never thenceforward exist there; and this too,\nas soon as by cession of Virginia and other states, the territory came\nunder Congressional control. The south knew also that the sixth article\nin the ordinance prohibiting slavery was first proposed by the largest\nslaveholding state in the confederacy--that the chairman of the\ncommittee that reported the ordinance was a slaveholder--that the\nordinance was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention\nthat formed the United States Constitution--that the provisions of the\nordinance were, both while in prospect, and when under discussion,\nmatters of universal notoriety and _approval_ with all parties, and when\nfinally passed, received the vote _of every member of Congress from each\nof the slaveholding states_. The south also had every reason for\nbelieving that the first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_\nthat ordinance--as it _did_ unanimously.\n\nA crowd of reflections, suggest by the preceding testimony, press for\nutterance. The right of petition ravished and trampled by its\nconstitutional guardians, and insult and defiance hurled in the faces of\nthe SOVEREIGN PEOPLE while calmly remonstrating _with their_ SERVANTS\nfor violence committed on the nation's charter and their own dearest\nrights! Add to this \"the right of peaceably assembling\" violently\nwrested--the rights of minorities, _rights_ no longer--free speech\nstruck dumb--free _men_ outlawed and murdered--free presses cast into\nthe streets and their fragments strewed with shoutings, or flourished in\ntriumph before the gaze of approving crowds as proud members of\nprostrate law!\n\nThe spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep homage\nalways and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its _inseparable\nsigns--free speech and a free press_--their reverence for justice,\nliberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?\n\nBut we turn from these considerations--though the times on which we have\nfallen, and those towards which we are borne with headlong haste, call\nfor their discussion as with the voices of departing life--and proceed\nto topics relevant to the argument before us.\n\nThe seventh article of the amendments to the constitution is alleged to\nwithhold from Congress the power to abolish slavery in the District. \"No\nperson shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due\nprocess of law.\" All the slaves in the District have been \"deprived of\nliberty\" by legislative acts. Now, these legislative acts \"depriving\"\nthem \"of liberty,\" were either \"due process of law,\" or they were _not_.\nIf they _were_, then a legislative act, taking from the master that\n\"property\" which is the identical \"liberty\" previously taken from the\nslave, would be \"due process of law\" _also_, and of course a\n_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts \"depriving\" them of\n\"liberty\" were _not_ \"due process of law,\" then the slaves were deprived\nof liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case\nthe _constitution emancipates them_.\n\nIf the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase \"due\nprocess of law,\" is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that\nfact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ been deprived\nof his liberty by \"a judicial process,\" or, in other words, by \"due\nprocess of law;\" consequently, upon the objector's own admission, every\nslave in the District has been deprived of liberty _unconstitutionally_,\nand is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of\nthe slaves under the \"exclusive legislation\" of Congress.\n\nThe last clause of the article under consideration is quoted for the\nsame purpose: \"Nor shall private property be taken for public use\nwithout just compensation.\" Each of the state constitutions has a clause\nof similar purport. The abolition of slavery in the District by\nCongress, would not, as we shall presently show, violate this clause\neither directly or by implication. Granting for argument's sake, that\nslaves are \"private property,\" and that to emancipate them, would be to\n\"take private property\" for \"public use,\" the objector admits the power\nof Congress to do _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,\n_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying _the power_, the objector not\nonly admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that\ncompensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of\n_one_ power, the objector asserts the existence of _two_--one, the power\nto take the slaves from their masters, the other, the power to take the\nproperty of the United States to pay for them.\n\nIf Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private\nproperty, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,\n_legalize_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_\nthose who commit them. Does the power to rob a man of his earnings, rob\nthe earner of his _right_ to them? Who has a better right to the\n_product_ than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the\n_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they\nswing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they _are_? Congress not\nonly impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it\nwithholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.\nWhat! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it\ncan make inviolable the right to a _dog_? But, waving this, I deny that\nthe abolition of slavery in the District would violate this clause. What\ndoes the clause prohibit? The \"taking\" of \"private property\" for \"public\nuse.\" Suppose Congress should emancipate the slaves in the District,\nwhat would it \"_take_?\" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What\nwould it put to \"public use?\" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ \"private\nproperty,\" Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say \"private property\nshall not _be_ taken; and those who have been robbed of it already,\nshall be kept out of it no longer; and since every man's right to his\nown body is _paramount_, he shall be protected in it.\" True, Congress\nmay not arbitrarily take property, _as_ property, from one man and give\nit to another--and in the abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A\nlegislative act changes the _condition_ of the slave--makes him his own\n_proprietor_ instead of the property of another. It determines a\nquestion of _original right_ between two classes of persons--doing an\nact of justice to one, and restraining the other from acts of injustice;\nor, in other words, preventing one from robbing the other, by granting\nto the injured party the protection of just and equitable laws.\n\nCongress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of seven\nthousand \"persons\" in the District, but would \"take\" nothing. To\nconstrue this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District to\nhold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to hold it\nas property in all circumstances--all necessity, public welfare, and the\nwill and power of the government to the contrary notwithstanding--is a\ntotal perversion of its whole _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,\nwas to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right\nto \"take property\" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to\nadjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his\nown secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of\nlegislation. Besides, if Congress were to \"take\" the slaves in the\nDistrict, it would be _adopting_, not abolishing slavery--becoming a\nslaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer.\nThe clause in question, prohibits the \"taking\" of individual property\nfor public uses, to be employed or disposed of _as_ property for\ngovernmental purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District,\nwould do no such thing. It would merely change the _condition_ of that\nwhich has been recognised as a qualified property by congressional acts,\nthough previously declared \"persons\" by the constitution. More than this\nis done continually by Congress and every other Legislature. Property\nthe most absolute and unqualified, is annihilated by legislative acts.\nThe embargo and non-intercourse act, prostrated at a stroke, a forest of\nshipping, and sank millions of capital. To say nothing of the power of\nCongress to take hundreds of millions from the people by direct\ntaxation, who doubts its power to abolish at once the whole tariff\nsystem, change the seat of Government, arrest the progress of national\nworks, prohibit any branch of commerce with the Indian tribes or with\nforeign nations, change the locality of forts, arsenals, magazines, dock\nyards, &c., to abolish the Post Office system, the privilege of patents\nand copyrights, &c. By such acts Congress might, in the exercise of its\nacknowledged powers, annihilate property to an incalculable amount, and\nthat without becoming liable to claims for compensation.\n\nFinally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of\n\"_property_.\" The constitution of the United States does not recognise\nslaves as \"PROPERTY\" any where, and it does not recognise them in _any\nsense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the\nconstitution recognise them as \"persons.\" Every reference to them points\n_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest\nimplication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as\n\"persons,\" and _will_ not recognise them in any other light. If they\nescape into free States, the constitution authorizes their being taken\nback. But how? Not as the property of an \"owner,\" but as \"persons;\" and\nthe peculiarity of the expression is a marked recognition of their\n_personality_--a refusal to recognise them as chattels--\"persons _held_\nto service.\" Are _oxen \"held_ to service?\" That can be affirmed only of\n_persons_. Again, slaves give political power as \"persons.\" The\nconstitution, in settling the principle of representation, requires\ntheir enumeration in the census. How? As property? Then why not include\nrace horses and game cocks? Slaves, like other inhabitants, are\nenumerated as \"persons.\" So by the constitution, the government was\npledged to non-interference with \"the migration or importation of such\n_persons_\" as the States might think proper to admit until 1808, and\nauthorized the laying of a tax on each \"person\" so admitted. Further,\nslaves are recognized as \"persons\" by the exaction of their _allegiance_\nto the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried\nas _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,\nto the rules of evidence, and to \"due process of the law,\" and as\n_persons_ they are punished. True, they are loaded with cruel\ndisabilities in courts of law, such as greatly obstruct and often\ninevitably defeat the ends of justice, yet they are still recognised as\n_persons_. Even in the legislation of Congress, and in the diplomacy of\nthe general government, notwithstanding the frequent and wide departures\nfrom the integrity of the constitution on this subject, slaves are not\nrecognised as _property_ without qualification. Congress has always\nrefused to grant compensation for slaves killed or taken by the enemy,\neven when these slaves had been impressed into the United States'\nservice. In half a score of cases since the last war, Congress has\nrejected such applications for compensation. Besides, both in\nCongressional acts, and in our national diplomacy, slaves and property\nare not used as convertible terms. When mentioned in treaties and state\npapers it is in such a way as to distinguish them from mere property,\nand generally by a recognition of their _personality_. In the invariable\nrecognition of slaves as _persons_, the United States' constitution\ncaught the mantle of the glorious Declaration, and most worthily wears\nit.--It recognizes all human beings as \"men,\" \"persons,\" and thus as\n\"equals.\" In the original draft of the Declaration, as it came from the\nhead of Jefferson, it is alleged that Great Britain had \"waged a cruel\nwar against _human_ nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of\nlife and liberty in the persons of a distant people, carrying them into\nslavery, * * determined to keep up a market where MEN should be bought\nand sold,\"--thus disdaining to make the charter of freedom a warrant for\nthe arrest of _men_, that they might be shorn both of liberty and\nhumanity.\n\nThe celebrated Roger Sherman, one of the committee of five appointed to\ndraft the Declaration of Independence, and also a member of the\nConvention that formed the United States' Constitution, said, in the\nfirst Congress after its adoption: \"The constitution _does not consider\nthese persons_, (slaves,) _as a species of property_.\"--[Lloyd's Cong.\nReg. v. 1, p. 313.] That the United States' Constitution does not make\nslaves \"property,\" is shown in the fact, that no person, either as a\ncitizen of the United States, or by having his domicile within the\nUnited States' government, can hold slaves. He can hold them only by\nderiving his power from _state_ laws, or from the law of Congress, if he\nhold slaves within the District. But no person resident within the\nUnited States' jurisdiction, and _not_ within the District, nor within a\nstate whose laws support slavery, nor \"held to service\" under the laws\nof such state or district, having escaped therefrom, _can be held as a\nslave_.\n\nMen can hold _property_ under the United States' government though\nresiding beyond the bounds of any state, district, or territory. An\ninhabitant of the Wisconsin Territory can hold property there under the\nlaws of the United States, but he cannot hold _slaves_ there under the\nUnited States' laws, nor by virtue of the United States' Constitution,\nnor upon the ground of his United States citizenship, nor by having his\ndomicile within the United States jurisdiction. The constitution no\nwhere recognizes the right to \"slave property,\" _but merely the fact\nthat the states have jurisdiction each in its own limits, and that there\nare certain \"persons\" within their jurisdictions \"held to service\" by\ntheir own laws_.\n\nFinally, in the clause under consideration, \"private property\" is not to\nbe taken \"without _just_ compensation.\" \"JUST!\" If justice is to be\nappealed to in determining the amount of compensation, let her determine\nthe _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_ compensation\nis \"just,\" it is hers to say whether _any_ is \"just,\"--whether the slave\nis \"just\" property _at all_, rather than a \"_person_.\" Then, if justice\nadjudges the slave to be \"private property,\" it adjudges him to be _his\nown_ property, since the right to one's _self_ is the first right--the\nsource of all others--the original stock by which they are\naccumulated--the principal, of which they are the interest. And since\nthe slave's \"private property\" has been \"taken,\" and since\n\"compensation\" is impossible--there being no _equivalent_ for one's\nself--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original\nprivate property.\n\nHaving shown that in abolishing slavery, \"property\" would not be \"taken\nfor public use,\" it may be added that, in those states where slavery has\nbeen abolished by law, no claim for compensation has been allowed.\nIndeed the manifest absurdity of demanding it, seems to have quite\nforestalled the _setting up_ of such a claim.\n\nThe abolition of slavery in the District, instead of being a legislative\nanomaly, would proceed upon the principles of every day legislation. It\nhas been shown already, that the United States' Constitution does not\nrecognize slaves as \"property.\" Yet ordinary legislation is full of\nprecedents, showing that even _absolute_ property is in many respects\nwholly subject to legislation. The repeal of the law of entailments--all\nthose acts that control the alienation of property, its disposal by\nwill, its passing to heirs by descent, with the question, who shall be\nheirs, and what shall be the rule of distribution among them, or whether\nproperty shall be transmitted at all by descent, rather than escheat to\nthe state--these, with statutes of limitation, and various other classes\nof legislative acts, serve to illustrate the acknowledged scope of the\nlaw-making power, even where property _is in every sense absolute_.\nPersons whose property is thus affected by public laws, receive from the\ngovernment no compensation for their losses, unless the state has been\nput into possession of the property taken from them.\n\nThe preamble of the United States' Constitution declares it to be a\nfundamental object of the organization of the government \"to ESTABLISH\nJUSTICE.\" Has Congress _no power_ to do that for which it was made the\n_depository of power_? CANNOT the United States Government fulfil the\npurpose _for which it was brought into being_?\n\nTo abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but\nto \"_establish justice_\" between two parties. To emancipate the slave,\nis to \"_establish justice_\" between him and his master--to throw around\nthe person, character, conscience, liberty, and domestic relations of\nthe one, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other\nwords, to prevent by _legal restraints_ one class of men from seizing\nupon another class, and robbing them at pleasure of their earnings,\ntheir time, their liberty, their kindred, and the very use and ownership\nof their own persons. Finally, to abolish slavery is to proclaim and\n_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are\nentitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall\nno longer gorge upon their spoils under the license, and by the\nministrations of _law_! Congress, by possessing \"exclusive legislation\nin all cases whatsoever,\" has a _general protective power_ for ALL the\ninhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man, it\nhas none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and if it _can_\nprotect _one_ man and is _bound_ to protect him, it _can_ protect\n_every_ man--all men--and is _bound_ to do it. All admit the power of\nCongress to protect the masters in the District against their slaves.\nWhat part of the constitution gives the power? The clause so often\nquoted,--\"power of legislation in all cases whatsoever,\" equally in the\n\"_case_\" of defending the blacks against the whites, as in that of\ndefending the whites against the blacks. The power is given also by Art.\n1, Sec. 8, clause 15--\"Congress shall have power to suppress\ninsurrections\"--a power to protect, as well blacks against whites, as\nwhites against blacks. If the constitution gives power to protect _one_\nclass against the other, it gives power to protect _either_ against the\nother. Suppose the blacks in the District should seize the whites, drive\nthem into the fields and kitchens, force them to work without pay, flog\nthem, imprison them, and sell them at their pleasure, where would\nCongress find power to restrain such acts? Answer; a _general_ power in\nthe clause so often cited, and an _express_ one in that cited\nabove--\"Congress shall have power, to suppress insurrections.\" So much\nfor a _supposed_ case. Here follows a _real_ one. The whites in the\nDistrict are _perpetrating these identical acts_ upon seven thousand\nblacks daily. That Congress has power to restrain these acts in one\ncase, all assert, and in so doing they assert the power \"in _all_ cases\nwhatsoever.\" For the grant of power to suppress insurrections, is an\n_unconditional_ grant, not hampered by provisos as to the color, shape,\nsize, sex, language, creed, or condition of the insurgents. Congress\nderives its power to suppress this _actual_ insurrection, from the same\nsource whence it derived its power to suppress the _same_ acts in the\ncase _supposed_. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The\n_acts_ in both are the same; the _actors_ only are different. In the one\ncase, ignorant and degraded--goaded by the memory of the past, stung by\nthe present, and driven to desperation by the fearful looking for of\nwrongs for ever to come. In the other, enlightened into the nature of\n_rights_, the principles of justice, and the dictates of the law of\nlove, unprovoked by wrongs, with cool deliberation, and by system, they\nperpetrate these acts upon those to whom they owe unnumbered obligations\nfor _whole lives_ of unrequited service. On which side may palliation be\npleaded, and which party may most reasonably claim an abatement of the\nrigors of law? If Congress has power to suppress such acts _at all_, it\nhas power to suppress them _in_ all.\n\nIt has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is\nthe government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where\nit exacts _allegiance_? It is an axiom of the civilized world, and a\nmaxim even with savages, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal\nand correlative. Are principles powerless with us which exact homage of\nbarbarians? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human\nbeing under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited\nit by crime_.\n\nIn conclusion, I argue the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict, froth Art. 1, sec. 8, clause 1, of the constitution: \"Congress\nshall have power to provide for the common defence and the general\nwelfare of the United States.\" Has the government of the United States\nno power under this grant, to legislate within its own exclusive\njurisdiction on subjects that vitally affect its interests? Suppose the\nslaves in the District should rise upon their masters, and the United\nStates' government, in quelling the insurrection, should kill any number\nof them. Could their masters claim compensation of the government?\nManifestly not; even though no proof existed that the particular slaves\nkilled were insurgents. This was precisely the point at issue between\nthose masters, whose slaves were killed by the State troops at the time\nof the Southampton insurrection, and the Virginia Legislature; no\nevidence was brought to show that the slaves killed by the troops were\ninsurgents; yet the Virginia Legislature decided that their masters were\n_not entitled to compensation_. They proceeded on the sound principle,\nthat a government may in self protection destroy the claim of its\nsubjects even to that which has been recognised as property by its own\nacts. If in providing for the common defence the United States\ngovernment, in the case supposed, would have power to destroy slaves\nboth as _property and persons_, it surely might stop half-way, destroy\nthem as _property_ while it legalized their existence as _persons_, and\nthus provided for the common defence by giving them a personal and\npowerful interest in the government, and securing their strength for its\ndefence.\n\nLike other Legislatures, Congress has power to abate nuisances--to\nremove or tear down unsafe buildings--to destroy infected cargoes--to\nlay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public health--and\nthus to \"provide for the common defence and general welfare\" by\ndestroying individual property, when it puts in jeopardy the public\nweal.\n\nGranting, for argument's sake, that slaves are \"property\" in the\nDistrict of Columbia--if Congress has a right to annihilate property in\nthe District when the public safety requires it, it may surely\nannihilate its existence _as_ property when public safety requires it,\nespecially if it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that which\nas _property_ periled the public interests. In the District of Columbia\nthere are, besides the United States' Capitol, the President's house,\nthe national offices, &c. of the Departments of State, Treasury, War,\nand Navy, the General Post-office, and Patent Office. It is also the\nresidence of the President, all the highest officers of the government,\nboth houses of Congress, and all the foreign ambassadors. In this same\nDistrict there are also _seven thousand slaves_. Jefferson, in his Notes\non Va. p. 241, says of slavery, that \"the State permitting one half of\nits citizens to trample on the rights of the other, _transforms them\ninto enemies_;\" and Richard Henry Lee, in the Va. House of Burgesses in\n1758, declared that to those who held them, \"_slaves must be natural\nenemies._\" Is Congress so _impotent_ that it _cannot_ exercise that\nright pronounced both by municipal and national law, the most sacred and\nuniversal--the right of self-preservation and defence? Is it shut up to\nthe _necessity_ of keeping seven thousand \"enemies\" in the heart of the\nnation's citadel? Does the iron fiat of the constitution doom it to such\nimbecility that it _cannot_ arrest the process that _made_ them\n\"enemies,\" and still goads to deadlier hate by fiery trials, and day by\nday adds others to their number? Is _this_ providing for the common\ndefence and general welfare? If to rob men of rights excites their hate,\nfreely to restore them and make amends, will win their love.\n\nBy emancipating the slaves in the District, the government of the United\nStates would disband an army of \"enemies,\" and enlist \"for the common\ndefence and general welfare,\" a body guard of _friends_ seven thousand\nstrong. In the last war, a handful of British soldiers sacked Washington\ncity, burned the capitol, the President's house, and the national\noffices and archives; and no marvel, for thousands of the inhabitants of\nthe District had been \"TRANSFORMED INTO ENEMIES.\" Would _they_ beat back\ninvasion? If the national government had exercised its constitutional\n\"power to provide for the common defence and to promote the general\nwelfare,\" by turning those \"enemies\" into friends, then, instead of a\nhostile ambush lurking in every thicket inviting assault, and secret\nfoes in every house paralyzing defence, an army of allies would have\nrallied in the hour of her calamity, and shouted defiance from their\nmunitions of rocks; whilst the banner of the republic, then trampled in\ndust, would have floated securely over FREEMEN exulting amidst bulwarks\nof strength.\n\nTo show that Congress can abolish slavery in the District, under the\ngrant of power \"to provide for the common defence and to promote the\ngeneral welfare,\" I quote an extract from a speech of Mr. Madison, of\nVa., in the first Congress under the constitution, May 13, 1789.\nSpeaking of the abolition of the slave trade, Mr. Madison says: \"I\nshould venture to say it is as much for the interests of Georgia and\nSouth Carolina, as of any state in the union. Every addition they\nreceive to their number of slaves tends to _weaken_ them, and renders\nthem less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign\nnations, they will be the means of _inviting_ attack instead of\nrepelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general government to\nprotect every part of the empire against danger, as well _internal_ as\nexternal. _Every thing, therefore, which tends to increase this danger,\nthough it may be a local affair, yet if it involves national expense or\nsafety, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, and is a\nproper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general\nadministration of the government._\" See Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310-11.\n\n\nWYTHE.\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT\n\nMy apology for adding a _postscript_, to a discussion already perhaps\ntoo protracted, is the fact that the preceding sheets were in the hands\nof the printer, and all but the concluding pages had gone through the\npress, before the passage of Mr. Calhoun's late resolutions in the\nSenate of the United States. A proceeding so extraordinary,--if indeed\nthe time has not passed when _any_ acts of Congress in derogation of\nfreedom and in deference to slavery, can be deemed\nextraordinary,--should not be suffered to pass in silence at such a\ncrisis as the present; especially as the passage of one of the\nresolutions by a vote of 36 to 8, exhibits a shift of position on the\npart of the South, as sudden as it is unaccountable, being nothing less\nthan the surrender of a fortress which until then they had defended with\nthe pertinacity of a blind and almost infuriated fatuity. Upon the\ndiscussions during the pendency of the resolutions, and upon the vote,\nby which they were carried, I make no comment, save only to record my\nexultation in the fact there exhibited, that great emergencies are _true\ntouchstones_, and that henceforward, until this question is settled,\nwhoever holds a seat in Congress will find upon, and all around him, a\npressure strong enough to TEST him--a focal blaze that will find its way\nthrough the carefully adjusted cloak of fair pretension, and the\nsevenfold brass of two-faced political intrigue, and _no_-faced\n_non-committalism_, piercing to the dividing asunder of joints and\nmarrow. Be it known to every northern man who aspires to a seat in\nCongress, that hereafter it is the destiny of congressional action on\nthis subject, to be a MIGHTY REVELATOR--making secret thoughts public\nproperty, and proclaiming on the house-tops what is whispered in the\near--smiting off masks, and bursting open sepulchres beautiful\noutwardly, and heaving up to the sun their dead men's bones. To such we\nsay,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then\nsold the North, and their own birthright!_\n\nPassing by the resolutions generally without remark--the attention of\nthe reader is specially solicited to Mr. Clay's substitute for Mr.\nCalhoun's fifth resolution.\n\n\"Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the states of\nVirginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic slavery existed in\nboth of these states, including the ceded territory, and that, as it\nstill continues in both of them, it could not be abolished within the\nDistrict without a violation of that good faith, which was implied in\nthe cession and in the acceptance of the territory; nor, unless\ncompensation were made to the proprietors of slaves, without a manifest\ninfringement of an amendment to the constitution of the United States;\nnor without exciting a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the\nstates recognising slavery, far transcending in mischievous tendency,\nany possible benefit which could be accomplished by the abolition.\"\n\nBy voting for this resolution, the south by a simultaneous movement,\nshifted its mode of defence, not so much by taking a position entirely\nnew, as by attempting to refortify an old one--never much trusted in,\nand abandoned mainly long ago, as being unable to hold out against\nassault however unskilfully directed. In the debate on this resolution,\nthough the southern members of Congress did not _professedly_ retreat\nfrom the ground hitherto maintained by them--that Congress has no power\nby the constitution to abolish slavery in the District--yet in the main\nthey silently drew off from it.\n\nThe passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,\nforms a new era in the discussion of this question.\n\nWe cannot join in the lamentations of those who bewail it. We hail it,\nand rejoice in it. It was as we would have had it--offered by a southern\nsenator, advocated by southern senators, and on the ground that it \"was\nno compromise\"--that it embodied the true southern principle--that \"this\nresolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's.\"--(Mr.\nPreston)--\"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr.\nCalhoun's\"--(Mr. Rives)--that \"the resolution he (Mr. Calhoun) now\nrefused to support, was as strong as his own, and that in supporting it,\nthere was no abandonment of principle by the south.\"--(Mr. Walker, of\nMi.)--further, that it was advocated by the southern senators generally\nas an expression of their views, and as setting the question of slavery\nin the District on its _true_ ground--that finally when the question was\ntaken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself, voted\nfor the resolution.\n\nBy passing this resolution, and with such avowals, the south has\nsurrendered irrevocably the whole question at issue between them and the\npetitioners for abolition in the District. It has, unwittingly but\nexplicitly, conceded the main question argued in the preceding pages.\n\nThe _only_ ground taken against the right of Congress to abolish slavery\nin the District is, that slavery existed in Maryland and Virginia when\nthe cession was made, and \"_as it still continues in both of them_, it\ncould not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was\nimplied in the cession,\" &c. The _sole argument_ is _not_ that exclusive\n_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,\n_nor_ that the powers of even _ordinary legislation_ cannot do it,--nor\nthat the clause granting Congress \"exclusive legislation in all cases\nwhatsoever over such District,\" gives no power to do it; but that the\n_unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other would not\n\"in _all_ cases\" use the power which said party had consented _might be\nused \"in all cases,\" prohibits_ the use of it. The only cardinal point\nin the discussion, is here not only _yielded_, but formally laid down by\nthe South as the leading article in their creed on the question of\nCongressional jurisdiction over slavery in the District. The _sole\nreason_ given why Congress should not abolish, and the sole evidence\nthat if it did, such abolition would be a violation of \"good faith,\" is\nthat \"_slavery still continues in those states_,\"--thus explicitly\nadmitting, that if slavery did _not_ \"still continue\" in those States,\nCongress _could_ abolish it in the District. The same admission is made\nalso in the _premises_, which state that slavery existed in those states\n_at the time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that if it had _not_ existed\nthere then, but had grown up in the District under _United States'\nlaws_, Congress might constitutionally abolish it. Or that if the ceded\nparts of those states had been the _only_ parts in which slaves were\nheld under their laws, Congress might have abolished in such a\ncontingency also. The cession in that case leaving no slaves in those\nstates,--no \"good faith,\" would be \"implied\" in it, nor any \"violated,\"\nby an act of abolition. The principle of the resolution makes this\nfurther admission, that if Maryland and Virginia should at once abolish\ntheir slavery, Congress might at once abolish it in the District. The\nprinciple goes even further than this, and _requires_ Congress in such\ncase to abolish slavery in the District \"by the _good faith implied_ in\nthe cession and acceptance of the territory.\" Since according to the\nspirit and scope of the resolution, this \"implied good faith\" of\nMaryland and Virginia in making the cession, was that Congress would do\nnothing within the District which should go to counteract the policy, or\nbring into disrepute the \"institutions,\" or call in question the usages,\nor even in any way ruffle the prejudices of those states, or do what\n_they_ might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests;\n_themselves_ of course being the judges.\n\nBut let us dissect another limb of the resolution. What is to be\nunderstood by \"that good faith which was IMPLIED?\" It is of course an\nadmission that such a condition was not _expressed_ in the acts of\ncession--that in their _terms_ there is nothing restricting the power of\nCongress on the subject of slavery in the District--not a _word_\nalluding to it, nor one inserted with such an _intent_. This \"implied\nfaith,\" then, rests on no clause or word in the United States'\nConstitution, or in the acts of cession, or in the acts of Congress\naccepting the cession, nor does it rest on any declarations of the\nlegislatures of Maryland and Virginia made at the time, or in that\ngeneration, nor on any _act_ of theirs, nor on any declaration of the\n_people_ of those states, nor on the testimony of the Washingtons,\nJeffersons, Madisons, Chaces, Martins, and Jennifers, of those states\nand times. The assertion rests _on itself alone!_ Mr. Clay and the other\nsenators who voted for the resolution, _guess_ that Maryland and\nVirginia _supposed_ that Congress would by no means _use_ the power\ngiven them by the constitution, except in such ways as would be well\npleasing in the eyes of those states; especially as one of them was the\n\"Ancient Dominion!\" And now after the lapse of half a century, this\n_assumed expectation_ of Maryland and Virginia, the existence of which\nis mere matter of conjecture with the 36 senators, is conjured up and\nduly installed upon the judgment-seat of final appeal, before whose nod\nconstitutions are to flee away, and with whom, solemn grants of power\nand explicit guaranties are when weighed in the balance, altogether\nlighter than vanity!\n\nBut let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia\nleave so much to be \"_implied_?\" Why did they not in some way _express_\nwhat lay so near their hearts? Had their vocabulary run so low that a\nsingle word could not be eked out for the occasion? Or were those states\nso bashful of a sudden that they dare not speak out and tell what they\nwanted? Or did they take it for granted that Congress would always act\nin the premises according to their wishes, and that too, without their\n_making known_ their wishes? If, as honorable senators tell us, Maryland\nand Virginia did verily travail with such abounding _faith_, why brought\nthey forth no _works_?\n\nIt is as true in _legislation_ as in religion, that the only _evidence_\nof \"faith\" is _works_, and that \"faith\" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e.\nhas no power. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing\n_expressed_, an \"implied\" _faith_ without works, is _omnipotent_. Mr.\nClay is lawyer enough to know that even a _senatorial hypothesis_ as to\n_what must have been the understanding_ of Maryland and Virginia about\ncongressional exercise of constitutional power, _abrogates no grant_,\nand that to plead it in a court of law, would be of small service except\nto jostle \"their honors'\" gravity! He need not be told that the\nconstitution gives Congress \"power to exercise exclusive legislation in\nall cases whatsoever over such District.\" Nor that the legislatures of\nMaryland and Virginia constructed their acts of cession with this clause\n_before their eyes_, and that both of them declared those acts made \"in\n_pursuance_\" of said clause. Those states were aware that the United\nStates in their constitution had left nothing to be \"_implied_\" as to\nthe power of Congress over the District;--an admonition quite sufficient\none would think to put them on their guard, and induce them to eschew\nvague implications and resort to _stipulations_. Full well did they know\nalso that these were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_\nwas left to be \"implied.\" The colonies were then panting from a twenty\nyears' conflict with the mother country, about bills of rights,\ncharters, treaties, constitutions, grants, limitations, and _acts of\ncession_. The severities of a long and terrible discipline had taught\nthem to guard at all points _legislative grants_, that their exact\nimport and limit might be self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind\n\"faith,\" that _somehow_ in the lottery of chances there would be no\nblanks, but making all sure by the use of explicit terms, and wisely\nchosen words, and _just enough_ of them. The Constitution of the United\nStates with its amendments, those of the individual states, the national\ntreaties, the public documents of the general and state governments at\nthat period, show the universal conviction of legislative bodies, that\nwhen great public interests were at stake, nothing should be left to be\n\"implied.\"\n\nFurther: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their \"implied\nfaith\" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a\nproviso, declaring that Congress should not \"exercise exclusive\nlegislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District,\" but that the\n\"case\" of _slavery_ should be an exception: who does not know that\nCongress, if it had accepted the cession on those terms, would have\nviolated the Constitution; and who that has ever studied the free mood\nof those times in its bearings on slavery--proofs of which are given in\nscores on the preceding pages--can for an instant believe that the\npeople of the United States would have altered their Constitution for\nthe purpose of providing for slavery an inviolable sanctuary; that when\ndriven in from its outposts, and everywhere retreating discomfited\nbefore the march of freedom, it might be received into everlasting\nhabitations on the common homestead and hearth-stone of this free\nrepublic? Besides, who can believe that Virginia made such a condition,\nor cherished such a purpose, when at that very moment, Washington,\nJefferson, Wythe, Patrick Henry St. George Tucker, and almost all her\nillustrious men, were advocating the abolition of slavery by law. When\nWashington had said, two years before, Maryland and Virginia \"must have\nlaws for the gradual abolition of slavery and at a period _not remote_;\"\nand when Jefferson in his letter to Price, three years before the\ncession, had said, speaking of Virginia, \"This is the next state to\nwhich we may turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in\nconflict with avarice and oppression--a conflict in which THE SACRED\nSIDE IS GAINING DAILY RECRUITS;\" when voluntary emancipations on the\nsoil were then progressing at the rate of between one and two thousand\nannually, (See Judge Tucker's \"Dissertation on Slavery,\" p. 73;) when\nthe public sentiment of Virginia had undergone, and was undergoing so\nmighty a revolution that the idea of the continuance of slavery as a\npermanent system could not be _tolerated_, though she then contained\nabout half the slaves in the Union. Was this the time to stipulate for\nthe _perpetuity_ of slavery under the exclusive legislation of Congress?\nand that too at the _same_ session of Congress when _every one_ of her\ndelegation voted for the abolition of slavery in the North West\nTerritory; a territory which she had herself ceded to Congress, and\nalong with it had surrendered her jurisdiction over many of her\ncitizens, inhabitants of that territory, who held slaves there--and\nwhose slaves were emancipated by that act of Congress, in which all her\ndelegation with one accord participated?\n\nNow in view of the universal belief then prevalent, that slavery in this\ncountry was doomed to short life, and especially that in Maryland and\nVirginia it would be _speedily_ abolished--are we to be told that these\nstates _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to terminate it? Are we to\nadopt the monstrous conclusion that this was the _intent_ of the Ancient\nDominion--thus to _bind_ the United States by an \"implied faith,\" and\nthat when the United States _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly\nthus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it?\nVerily one would think that honorable senators supposed themselves\ndeputed to do our _thinking_ as well as our legislation, or rather, that\nthey themselves were absolved from such drudgery by virtue of their\noffice!\n\nAnother absurdity of this dogma about \"implied faith\" is, that where\nthere was no power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to\ndemand an _implied_ one, and where there was no power to _give_ the one,\nthere was none to give the _other_. We have shown already that Congress\ncould not have accepted the cession with such a condition. To have\nsigned away a part of its constitutional grant of power would have been\na _breach_ of the Constitution. Further, the Congress which accepted the\ncession was competent to pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use\nall_ the power over the District committed to it by the Constitution.\nBut here its power ended. Its resolution would only bind _itself_. Could\nit bind the _next_ Congress by its authority? Could the members of one\nCongress say to the members of another, because we do not choose to\nexercise all the authority vested in us by the Constitution, therefore\nyou _shall_ not? This would have been a prohibition to do what the\nConstitution gives power to do. Each successive Congress would still\nhave gone to the Constitution for its power, brushing away in its course\nthe cobwebs stretched across its path by the officiousness of an\nimpertinent predecessor. Again, the legislatures of Virginia and\nMaryland, had no power to bind Congress, either by an express or an\nimplied pledge, never to abolish slavery in the District. Those\nlegislatures had no power to bind _themselves_ never to abolish slavery\nwithin their own territories--the ceded parts included. Where then would\nthey get power to bind _another_ not to do what they had no power to\nbind themselves not to do? If a legislature could not in this respect\ncontrol the successive legislatures of its own State, could it control\nthe successive Congresses of the United States?\n\nBut perhaps we shall be told, that the \"implied faith\" in the acts of\ncession of Maryland and Virginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_\nabolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do it until\n_they_ had done it within their bounds! Verily this \"faith\" comes little\nshort of the faith of miracles! \"A good rule that works both ways.\"\nFirst, Maryland and Virginia have \"good faith\" that Congress will _not_\nabolish until _they_ do; and then just as \"good faith\" that Congress\n_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those\nStates suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,\nthe common jurisdiction of _all_, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And\nwho, did they suppose, would be judges in the matter?--themselves\nmerely? or the whole Union?\n\nThis \"good faith implied in the cession\" is no longer of doubtful\ninterpretation. The principle at the bottom of it, when fairly stated,\nis this:--That the Government of the United States are bound in \"good\nfaith\" to do in the District of Columbia, without demurring, just what\nand when, Maryland and Virginia do in their own States. In short, that\nthe general government is eased of all the burdens of legislation within\nits exclusive jurisdiction, save that of hiring a scrivener to copy off\nthe acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures as fast as they are\npassed, and engross them, under the title of \"Laws of the United States,\nfor the District of Columbia!\" A slight additional expense would also be\nincurred in keeping up an express between the capitols of those States\nand Washington city, bringing Congress from time to time its\n\"_instructions_\" from head quarters--instructions not to be disregarded\nwithout a violation of that, \"good faith implied in the cession,\" &c.\n\nThis sets in strong light the advantages of \"our glorious Union,\" if the\ndoctrine of Mr. Clay and the thirty-six Senators be orthodox. The people\nof the United States have been permitted to set up at their own expense,\nand on their own territory, two great _sounding boards_ called \"Senate\nChamber\" and \"Representatives' Hall,\" for the purpose of sending abroad\n\"by authority\" _national echoes_ of _state_ legislation!--permitted also\nto keep in their pay a corps of pliant _national_ musicians, with\nperemptory instructions to sound on any line of the staff according as\nVirginia and Maryland may give the _sovereign_ key note!\n\nThough this may have the seeming of mere raillery, yet an analysis of\nthe resolution and of the discussions upon it, will convince every fair\nmind that it is but the legitimate carrying out of the _principle_\npervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will\nand pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are _paramount_ to those of the\n_Union_. If the main design of setting apart a federal district had been\noriginally the accommodation of Maryland, Virginia, and the south, with\nthe United States as an _agent_ to consummate the object, there could\nhardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. The sole object\nof _having_ such a District was in effect totally perverted in the\nresolution of Mr. Clay, and in the discussions of the entire southern\ndelegation, upon its passage. Instead of taking the ground, that the\nbenefit of the whole Union was the sole _object_ of a federal district,\nthat it was designed to guard and promote the interests of _all_ the\nstates, and that it was to be legislated over _for this end_--the\nresolution proceeds upon an hypothesis _totally the reverse_. It takes a\nsingle point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL interests,\nutterly overshadowing them; abrogating national _rights_; making void a\nclause of the Constitution; humbling the general government into a\nsubject--crouching for favors to a superior, and that too _on its own\nexclusive jurisdiction_. All the attributes of sovereignty vested in\nCongress by the Constitution it impales upon the point of an alleged\n_implication_. And this is Mr. Clay's peace-offering, to appease the\nlust of power and the ravenings of state encroachment! A \"_compromise_,\"\nforsooth! that sinks the general government on _its own territory_ into\na mere colony, with Virginia and Maryland for its \"mother country!\" It\nis refreshing to turn from these shallow, distorted constructions and\nservile cringings, to the high bearing of other southern men in other\ntimes; men, who in their character of legislators and lawyers, disdained\nto accommodate their interpretations of constitutions and charters to\ngeographical lines, or to bend them to the purposes of a political\ncanvass. In the celebrated case of Cohens vs. the State of Virginia,\nHon. William Pinkney, late of Baltimore, and Hon. Walter Jones, of\nWashington city, with other eminent constitutional lawyers, prepared an\nelaborate written opinion, from which the following is an extract: \"Nor\nis there any danger to be apprehended from allowing to Congressional\nlegislation with regard to the District of Columbia, its FULLEST EFFECT.\nCongress is responsible to the States, and to the people for that\nlegislation. It is in truth the legislation of the states over a\ndistrict placed under their control for _their own benefit_, not for\nthat of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is\ninvolved, and necessary to the _general advantage_.\"--[Life of Pinkney,\np.  612.]\n\nThe profound legal opinion, from which this is an extract, was\nelaborated at great length many years since, by a number of the most\ndistinguished lawyers in the United States, whose signatures are\nappended to it. It is specific and to the point. It asserts, 1st, that\nCongressional legislation over the District, is \"the legislation of the\n_States_ and the _people_,\" (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_\nof the people.) 2d, \"Over a District placed under _their_ control,\" i.e.\nunder the control of the _whole_ of the States, not under the control of\n_two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d, That it was thus put under their\ncontrol \"_for_ THEIR OWN _benefit_,\" the benefit of _all_ the States\n_equally_; not to secure special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or\nwhat it might be _conjectured_ they would regard as benefits.) 4th, It\nconcludes by asserting that the design of this exclusive control of\nCongress over the District was \"not for the benefit of the _District_,\"\nexcept as that is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the\n_general_ advantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is\n_directly_ concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia,\nwho are but _indirectly_ interested, and would be but remotely affected\nby it. The argument of Mr. Madison in the Congress of '89, an extract\nfrom which has been given on a preceding page, lays down the same\nprinciple; that though any matter \"_may be a local affair, yet if it\ninvolves national_ EXPENSE OR SAFETY, _it becomes of concern to every\npart of the union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of\nthose charged with the general administration of the government_.\" Cong.\nReg. vol. 1. p. 310, 11.\n\nBut these are only the initiatory absurdities of this \"good faith\n_implied_.\" The thirty-six senators aptly illustrate the principle, that\nerror not only conflicts with truth, but is generally at issue with\nitself. For if it would be a violation of \"good faith\" to Maryland and\nVirginia, for Congress to abolish slavery in the District, it would be\n_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, or even\nat the earnest and unanimous petition of the people of the District: yet\nfor years it has been the southern doctrine, that if the people of the\nDistrict demand of Congress relief in this respect, it has power, as\ntheir local legislature, to grant it, and by abolishing slavery there,\ncarry out the will of the citizens. But now new light has broken in! The\noptics of the thirty-six have pierced the millstone with a deeper\ninsight, and discoveries thicken faster than they can be telegraphed!\nCongress has no power, O no, not a modicum, to help the slaveholders of\nthe District, however loudly they may clamor for it. The southern\ndoctrine, that Congress is to the District a mere local Legislature to\ndo its pleasure, is tumbled from the genitive into the vocative! Hard\nfate--and that too at the hands of those who begat it! The reasonings of\nMessrs. Pinckney, Wise, and Leigh, are now found to be wholly at fault,\nand the chanticleer rhetoric of Messrs. Glascock and Garland stalks\nfeatherless and crest-fallen. For, Mr. Clay's resolution sweeps by the\nboard all those stereotyped common-places, as \"Congress a local\nLegislature,\" \"consent of the District,\" \"bound to consult the wishes of\nthe District,\" &c. &c., which for the last two sessions of Congress have\nserved to eke out scanty supplies. It declares, that _as slavery existed\nin Maryland and Virginia at the time of the cession, and as it still\ncontinues in both those states, it could not be abolished in the\nDistrict without a violation of 'that good faith'_, &c.\n\nBut let us see where this principle of the _thirty-six_ will lead us. If\n\"implied faith\" to Maryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the\nabolition of slavery in the District, it _requires_ Congress to do in\nthe District what those states have done within their bounds, i.e.,\nrestrain _others_ from abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress\nis _bound_, by the doctrine of Mr. Clay's resolution, to _prohibit\nemancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this\nplighted \"faith.\" Congress must not only refrain from laying violent\nhands on slavery, _itself_, and see to it that the slaveholders\nthemselves do not, but it is bound to keep the system up to the Maryland\nand Virginia standard of vigor!\n\nAgain, if the good faith of Congress to Virginia and Maryland requires\nthat slavery should exist in the District, while it exists in those\nstates, it requires that it should exist there _as_ it exists in those\nstates. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would\nviolate good faith, to abolish _the_ form existing in those states, and\nto substitute a totally different one, would also violate it. The\nCongressional \"good faith\" is to be kept not only with _slavery_, but\nwith the _Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those\nstates not being in the preservation of _a_ system, but of _their_\nsystem; otherwise Congress, instead of _sustaining_, would counteract\ntheir policy--principles would be brought into action there conflicting\nwith their system, and thus the true spirit of the \"implied\" pledge\nwould be violated. On this principle, so long as slaves are \"chattels\npersonal\" in Virginia and Maryland, Congress could not make them _real\nestate_, inseparable from the soil, as in Louisiana; nor could it permit\nslaves to read, nor to worship God according to conscience; nor could it\ngrant them trial by jury, nor legalize marriage; nor require the master\nto give sufficient food and clothing; nor prohibit the violent sundering\nof families--because such provisions would conflict with the existing\nslave laws of Virginia and Maryland, and thus violate the \"good faith\nimplied,\" &c. So the principle of the resolution binds Congress in all\nthese particulars: 1st. Not to abolish slavery in the District _until_\nVirginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that\nexists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of\nit still existing in those states. 4th. _To abolish_ when they do. 5th.\nTo increase or abate its rigor _when, how_, and _as_ the same are\nmodified by those states. In a word, Congressional action in the\nDistrict is to float passively in the wake of legislative action on the\nsubject in those states.\n\nBut here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should\nsteer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress\nfloat in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its\nobsequiousness equals its \"power of legislation in _all_ cases\nwhatsoever.\" It can float _up_ on the Virginia tide, and ebb down on the\nMaryland at the same time. What Maryland does, Congress will do in the\nMaryland part. What Virginia does, Congress will do in the Virginia\npart. Though Congress might not always be able to run at the bidding of\nboth _at once_, especially in different directions, yet if it obeyed\norders cheerfully, and \"kept in its place,\" according to its \"good faith\nimplied,\" impossibilities might not be rigidly exacted. True, we have\nthe highest sanction for the maxim that no _man_ can serve two\nmasters--but if \"corporations have _no_ souls,\" analogy would absolve\nCongress on that score, or at most give it only _a very small soul_--not\nlarge enough to be at all in the way, as an _exception_ to the universal\nrule laid down to the maxim!\n\nIn following out the absurdities of this \"_implied_ good faith,\" it will\nbe seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to\n_all the subjects_ of _legislation_ existing in Maryland and Virginia,\nwhich exist also within the District. Every system, \"institution,\" law,\nand established usage there, is placed beyond Congressional control\nequally with slavery, and by the same \"implied faith.\" The abolition of\nthe lottery system in the District as an _immorality_, was a flagrant\nbreach of this \"good faith\" to Maryland and Virginia, as the system\n\"still continued in those states.\" So to abolish imprisonment for debt,\nand capital punishment, to remodel the bank system, the power of\ncorporations, the militia law, laws of limitation, &c., in the District,\n_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead_, would violate the \"good\nfaith implied in the cession,\" &c.\n\nThat in the acts of cession no such \"good faith\" was \"implied by\nVirginia and Maryland\" as is claimed in the Resolution, we argue from\nthe fact, that in 1781 Virginia ceded to the United States all her\nnorthwest territory, with the special proviso that her citizens\ninhabiting that territory should \"have their _possessions_ and _titles_\nconfirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_\nand liberties.\" (See Journals of Congress vol. 9, p. 63.) The cession\nwas made in the form of a deed, and signed by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel\nHardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe. Many of these inhabitants _held\nslaves_. Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in\nCongress _proposed_ the passage of an ordinance which should abolish\nslavery, in that territory, and declare that it should never thereafter\nexist there. All the members of Congress from Virginia and Maryland\nvoted for this ordinance. Suppose some member of Congress had during the\npassage of the ordinance introduced the following resolution: \"Resolved,\nThat when the northwest territory was ceded by Virginia to the United\nStates, domestic slavery existed in that State, including the ceded\nterritory, and as it still continues in that State, it could not be\nabolished within the territory without a violation of that good faith,\nwhich was implied in the cession and in the acceptance of the\nterritory.\" What would have been the indignant response of Grayson,\nGriffin, Madison, and the Lees, in the Congress of '87, to such a\nresolution, and of Carrington, Chairman of the Committee, who reported\nthe ratification of the ordinance in the Congress of '89, and of Page\nand Parker, who with every other member of the Virginia delegation\nsupported it?\n\nBut to enumerate all the absurdities into which the thirty-six Senators\nhave plunged themselves, would be to make a quarto inventory. We decline\nthe task; and in conclusion, merely add that Mr. Clay in presenting this\nresolution, and each of the thirty-six Senators who voted for it,\nentered on the records of the Senate, and proclaimed to the world, a\nmost unworthy accusation against the MILLIONS of American citizens who\nhave during nearly half a century petitioned the national legislature to\nabolish slavery in the District of Colombia,--charging them either with\nthe ignorance or the impiety of praying the nation to violate its\n\"PLIGHTED FAITH.\" The resolution virtually indicts at the bar of public\nopinion, and brands with odium, all the Manumission Societies, the\n_first_ petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District, and\nfor a long time the only ones, petitioning from year to year through\nevil report and good report, still petitioning, by individual societies\nand in their national conventions.\n\nBut as if it were not enough to table the charge against such men as\nBenjamin Rush, William Rawle, John Sergeant, Robert Vaux, Cadwallader\nColden, and Peter A. Jay,--to whom we may add Rufus King, James\nHillhouse, William Pinkney, Thomas Addis Emmett, Daniel D. Tompkins, De\nWitt Clinton, James Kent, and Daniel Webster, besides eleven hundred\ncitizens of the District itself; headed by their Chief Justice and\njudges--even the sovereign States of Pennsylvania, New-York,\nMassachusetts, and Vermont, whose legislatures have either memorialized\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District, or instructed their\nSenators to move such a measure, must be gravely informed by Messrs.\nClay, Norvell, Niles, Smith, Pierce, Benton, Black, Tipton, and other\nhonorable Senators, either that their perception is so dull, they know\nnot whereof they affirm, or that their moral sense is so blunted they\ncan demand without compunction a violation of the nation's faith!\n\nWe have spoken already of the concessions unwittingly made in this\nresolution to the true doctrine of Congressional power over the\nDistrict. For that concession, important as it is, we have small thanks\nto render. That such a resolution, passed with such an _intent_, and\npressing at a thousand points on relations and interests vital to the\nfree states, should be hailed, as it has been, by a portion of the\nnorthern press as a \"compromise\" originating in deference to northern\ninterests, and to be received by us as a free-will offering of\ndisinterested benevolence, demanding our gratitude to the mover,--may\nwell cover us with shame. We deserve the humiliation and have well\nearned the mockery. Let it come!\n\nIf, after having been set up at auction in the public sales-room of the\nnation, and for thirty years, and by each of a score of \"compromises,\"\ntreacherously knocked off to the lowest bidder, and that without money\nand without price, the North, plundered and betrayed, _will not_, in\nthis her accepted time, consider the things that belong to her peace\nbefore they are hidden from her eyes, then let her eat of the fruit of\nher own way, and be filled with her own devices! Let the shorn and\nblinded giant grind in the prison-house of the Philistines, till taught\nthe folly of intrusting to Delilahs the secret and the custody of his\nstrength.\n\nHave the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the\nlessons of experience? If lost to _reason_, are they dead to _instinct_\nalso? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And\nshall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?\n\nA \"COMPROMISE!\" Bitter irony! Is the plucked and hood-winked North to be\nwheedled by the sorcery of another Missouri compromise? A compromise in\nwhich the South gained all, and the North lost all, and lost it for\never. A compromise which embargoed the free laborer of the North and\nWest, and clutched at the staff he leaned upon, to turn it into a\nbludgeon and fell him with its stroke. A compromise which wrested from\nliberty her boundless birthright domain, stretching westward to the\nsunset, while it gave to slavery loose reins and a free course, from the\nMississippi to the Pacific.\n\nThe resolution, as it finally passed, is here inserted. The original\nResolution, as moved by Mr. Clay, was inserted at the head of this\npostscript with the impression that it was the _amended_ form. It will\nbe seen however, that it underwent no material modification.\n\n\"Resolved, That the interference by the citizens of any of the states,\nwith the view to the abolition of slavery in the District, is\nendangering the rights and security of the people of the District; and\nthat any act or measure of Congress designed to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict, would be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by\nthe states of Virginia and Maryland, a just cause of alarm to the people\nof the slaveholding states, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to\ndisturb and endanger the Union.\"\n\nThe vote upon the Resolution stood as follows:\n\n_Yeas_.--Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Black, Buchanan, Brown, Calhoun,\nClay, of Alabama, Clay, of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert,\nFulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell,\nPierce, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith, of Connecticut,\nStrange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, Young.\n\n_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,\nSMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER\n\nNo. 5\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nTHE\n\n\nPOWER OF CONGRESS\n\n\nOVER THE\n\n\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, UNDER THE SIGNATURE\nOF \"WYTHE.\"\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nWITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nNEW-YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY\n\nNO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.\n\n1838.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThis periodical contains 3-1/2 sheets--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts.,\nover 100, 10 cts.\n\n\n\nPOWER OF CONGRESS\n\nOVER THE\n\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.\n\nA civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that\ngovernment be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well\nas the _subjects_ of its power. Its constitution is their bill of\ndirections to their own agents--a grant authorizing the exercise of\ncertain powers, and prohibiting that of others. In the Constitution of\nthe United States, whatever else may be obscure, the clause granting\npower to Congress over the Federal District may well defy\nmisconstruction. Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18: \"The Congress shall have\npower to exercise exclusive legislation, _in all cases whatsoever_, over\nsuch District.\" Congress may make laws for the District \"in all\n_cases_,\" not of all _kinds_; not all _laws_ whatsoever, but laws \"in\nall _cases_ whatsoever.\" The grant respects the _subjects_ of\nlegislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power\nevery where is subject to _moral_ restrictions, whether limited by\nconstitutions or not. No legislature can authorize murder, nor make\nhonesty penal, nor virtue a crime, nor exact impossibilities. In these\nand similar respects, the power of Congress is held in check by\nprinciples, existing in the nature of things, not imposed by the\nConstitution, but presupposed and assumed by it. The power of Congress\nover the District is restricted only by those principles that limit\nordinary legislation, and, in some respects, it has even wider scope.\n\nIn common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot\nconstitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend\nthe writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the\nfreedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people\nto be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact\nlaws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general\nlimitations. Congress cannot do these things _any where_. The exact\nimport, therefore, of the clause \"in all cases whatsoever,\" is, _on all\nsubjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. Some\nlegislatures are restrained by constitutions, from the exercise of\npowers strictly within the proper sphere of legislation. Congressional\npower over the District has no such restraint. It traverses the whole\nfield of legitimate legislation. All the power which any legislature has\nwithin its own jurisdiction, Congress holds over the District of\nColumbia.\n\nIt has been objected that the clause in question respects merely police\nregulations, and that its sole design was to enable Congress to protect\nitself against popular tumults. But if the convention that framed the\nConstitution aimed to provide for a _single_ case only, why did they\nprovide for \"_all_ cases whatsoever?\" Besides, this clause was opposed\nin many of the state conventions, because the grant of power was not\nrestricted to police regulations _alone_. In the Virginia Convention,\nGeorge Mason, the father of the Virginia Constitution, Patrick Henry,\nMr. Grayson, and others, assailed it on that ground. Mr. Mason said,\n\"This clause gives an unlimited authority in every possible case within\nthe District. He would willingly give them exclusive power as far as\nrespected the police and good government of the place, but he would give\nthem no more.\" Mr. Grayson said, that control over the _police_ was\nall-sufficient, and \"that the Continental Congress never had an idea of\nexclusive legislation in all cases.\" Patrick Henry said, \"Is it\nconsistent with any principle of prudence or good policy, to grant\n_unlimited, unbounded authority?_\" Mr. Madison said in reply: \"I did\nconceive that the clause under consideration was one of those parts\nwhich would speak its own praise. When any power is given, its\ndelegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it....\nThe powers which are found necessary to be given, are therefore\ndelegated _generally_, and particular and minute specification is left\nto the Legislature.... It is not within the limits of human capacity to\ndelineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances, in\nwhich legislation by the general legislature, would be necessary.\"\nGovernor Randolph said: \"Holland has no ten miles square, but she has\nthe Hague where the deputies of the States assemble. But the influence\nwhich it has given the province of Holland, to have the seat of\ngovernment within its territory, subject in some respects to its\ncontrol, has been injurious to the other provinces.\" The wisdom of the\nconvention is therefore manifest in granting to Congress exclusive\njurisdiction over the place of their session. [_Deb. Va. Con._, p. 320.]\nIn the forty-third number of the \"Federalist,\" Mr. Madison says: \"The\nindispensable necessity of _complete_ authority at the seat of\ngovernment, carries its own evidence with it.\"\n\nFinally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to\nthe obvious import of its _terms_, is proved by the fact, that Virginia\nproposed an amendment to the United States' Constitution at the time of\nits adoption, providing that this clause \"should be so construed as to\ngive power only over the _police and good government_ of said District,\"\n_which amendment was rejected._\n\nThe former part of the clause under consideration, \"Congress shall have\npower to exercise _exclusive_ legislation,\" gives _sole_ jurisdiction,\nand the latter part, \"in all cases whatsoever,\" defines the _extent_ of\nit. Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ legislature within the District,\nand since its power is limited only by the checks common to all\nlegislatures, it follows that what the law-making power is intrinsically\ncompetent to do _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District\nof Columbia. Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to state and\nargue the _real question_ at issue.\n\n\n\nIS THE LAW-MAKING POWER COMPETENT TO ABOLISH SLAVERY WHEN NOT RESTRICTED\nIN THAT PARTICULAR BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS--or, IS THE ABOLITION OF\nSLAVERY WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION?\n\nIn every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the\nUnited States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_\nsovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the\nlegislature possesses a _representative_ sovereignty, delegated by the\npeople through the Constitution--the people thus committing to the\nlegislature a portion of their sovereignty, and specifying in their\nconstitutions the amount and the conditions of the grant. That the\n_people_ in any state where slavery exists, have the power to abolish\nit, none will deny. If the legislature have not the power, it is because\n_the people_ have reserved it to themselves. Had they lodged with the\nlegislature \"power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases\nwhatsoever,\" they would have parted with their sovereignty over the\nlegislation of the State, and so far forth the legislature would have\nbecome _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such\ncompetent, _during the continuance of the grant_, to do whatever the\npeople might have done before the surrender of their power:\nconsequently, they would have the power to abolish slavery. The\nsovereignty of the District of Columbia exists _somewhere_--where is it\nlodged? The citizens of the District have no legislature of their own,\nno representation in Congress, and no political power whatever. Maryland\nand Virginia have surrendered to the United States their \"full and\nabsolute right and entire sovereignty,\" and the people of the United\nStates have committed to Congress by the Constitution, the power to\n\"exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such\nDistrict.\"\n\nThus, the sovereignty of the District of Columbia, is shown to reside\nsolely in the Congress of the United States; and since the power of the\npeople of a state to abolish slavery within their own limits, results\nfrom their entire sovereignty within that state, so the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District, results from its entire\n_sovereignty_ within the District. If it be objected that Congress can\nhave no more power over the District, than was held by the legislatures\nof Maryland and Virginia, we ask what clause in the constitution\ngraduates the power of Congress by the standard of a state legislature?\nWas the United States' constitution worked into its present shape under\nthe measuring line and square of Virginia and Maryland? and is its power\nto be bevelled down till it can run in the grooves of state legislation?\nThere is a deal of prating about constitutional power over the District,\nas though Congress were indebted for it to Maryland and Virginia. The\npowers of those states, whether few or many, prodigies or nullities,\nhave nothing to do with the question. As well thrust in the powers of\nthe Grand Lama to join issue upon, or twist papal bulls into\nconstitutional tether, with which to curb congressional action. The\nConstitution of the United States gives power to Congress, and takes it\naway, and _it alone_. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution\n_before_ they ceded to the United States the territory of the District.\nBy their acts of cession, they abdicated their own sovereignty over the\nDistrict, and thus made room for that provided by the United States'\nconstitution, which sovereignty was to commence as soon as a cession of\nterritory by states, and its acceptance by Congress, furnished a sphere\nfor its exercise. That the abolition of slavery is within the sphere of\nlegislation, I argue,\n\n2. FROM THE FACT, THAT SLAVERY, AS A LEGAL SYSTEM, IS THE CREATURE OF\nLEGISLATION. The law, by _creating_ slavery, not only affirmed its\n_existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control of\nlegislation, but equally, the _conditions_ and _terms_ of its existence,\nand the _question_ whether or not it _should_ exist. Of course\nlegislation would not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing what is\n_within_ it, and what was recognised to be within it, by its own act.\nCannot legislatures repeal their own laws? If law can take from a man\nhis rights, it can give them back again. If it can say, \"your body\nbelongs to your neighbor,\" it can say, \"it belongs to _yourself_.\" If it\ncan annul a man's right to himself, held by express grant from his\nMaker, and can create for another an _artificial_ title to him, can it\nnot annul the artificial title, and leave the original owner to hold\nhimself by his original title?\n\n3. THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED WITHIN THE\nAPPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION. Almost every civilized nation has\nabolished slavery by law. The history of legislation since the revival\nof letters, is a record crowded with testimony to the universally\nadmitted competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery. It is so\nmanifestly an attribute not merely of absolute sovereignty, but even of\nordinary legislation, that the competency of a legislature to exercise\nit, may well nigh be reckoned among the legal axioms of the civilized\nworld. Even the night of the dark ages was not dark enough to make this\ninvisible.\n\nThe Abolition decree of the great council of England was passed in 1102.\nThe memorable Irish decree, \"that all the English slaves in the whole of\nIreland, be immediately emancipated and restored to their former\nliberty,\" was issued in 1171. Slavery in England was abolished by a\ngeneral charter of emancipation in 1381. Passing over many instances of\nthe abolition of slavery by law, both during the middle ages and since\nthe reformation, we find them multiplying as we approach our own times.\nIn 1776 slavery was abolished in Prussia by special edict. In St.\nDomingo, Cayenne, Guadeloupe, and Martinique, in 1794, where more than\n690,000 slaves were emancipated by the French government. In Java, 1811;\nin Ceylon, 1815; in Buenos Ayres, 1816; in St. Helena, 1819; in\nColombia, 1821; by the Congress of Chili in 1821; in Cape Colony, 1823;\nin Malacca, 1825; in the southern provinces of Birmah, 1826; in Bolivia,\n1826; in Peru, Guatemala, and Monte Video, 1828, in Jamaica, Barbadoes,\nBermudas, Bahamas, the Mauritius, St. Christophers, Nevis, the Virgin\nIslands, Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Vincents, Grenada, Berbice,\nTobago, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Honduras, Demarara, and the Cape of Good\nHope, on the 1st of August, 1834. But waving details, suffice it to say,\nthat England, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Austria,\nPrussia, and Germany, have all and often given their testimony to the\ncompetency of the legislative power to abolish slavery. In our own\ncountry, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act of abolition in\n1780, Connecticut, in 1784; Rhode Island, 1784; New-York, 1799;\nNew-Jersey, in 1804; Vermont, by Constitution, in 1777; Massachusetts,\nin 1780; and New Hampshire, in 1784.\n\nWhen the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, has thus\nbeen recognised every where and for ages, when it has been embodied in\nthe highest precedents, and celebrated in the thousand jubilees of\nregenerated liberty, is it an achievement of modern discovery, that such\na power is a nullity?--that all these acts of abolition are void, and\nthat the millions disenthralled by them, are, either themselves or their\nposterity, still legally in bondage?\n\n4. LEGISLATIVE POWER HAS ABOLISHED SLAVERY IN ITS PARTS. The law of\nSouth Carolina prohibits the working of slaves more than fifteen hours\nin the twenty-four. In other words, it takes from the slaveholder his\npower over nine hours of the slave's time daily; and if it can take nine\nhours it may take twenty-four. The laws of Georgia prohibit the working\nof slaves on the first day of the week; and if they can do it for the\nfirst, they can for the six following.\n\nThe law of North Carolina prohibits the \"immoderate\" correction of\nslaves. If it has power to prohibit immoderate correction, it can\nprohibit _moderate_ correction--_all_ correction, which would be virtual\nemancipation; for, take from the master the power to inflict pain, and\nhe is master no longer. Cease to ply the slave with the stimulus of\nfear; and he is free.\n\nThe Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make\nlaws \"to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_.\" The\nConstitution of Missouri has the same clause, and an additional one\nmaking it the DUTY of the legislature to pass such laws as may be\nnecessary to secure the _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant to\nthose legislatures, empowers them to decide what _is_ and what is _not_\n\"humane treatment.\" Otherwise it gives no \"power\"--the clause is mere\nwaste paper, and flouts in the face of a befooled legislature. A clause\ngiving power to require \"humane treatment\" covers all the _particulars_\nof such treatment--gives power to exact it in _all respects--requiring_\ncertain acts, and _prohibiting_ others--maiming, branding, chaining\ntogether, separating families, floggings for learning the alphabet, for\nreading the Bible, for worshiping God according to conscience--the\nlegislature has power to specify each of these acts--declare that it is\nnot \"_humane_ treatment,\" and PROHIBIT it.--The legislature may also\nbelieve that driving men and women into the field, and forcing them to\nwork without pay, is not \"humane treatment,\" and being Constitutionally\nbound \"to _oblige_\" masters to practise \"humane treatment\"--they have\nthe power to _prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.\n\nThe law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,\nif he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[A] If it\nhas power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the\nsale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can\nprohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,\nSpanish, and Portuguese colonies.\n\n[Footnote A: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.\n(_Beverly's Hist. of Va_., p. 98.) I do not find the precise time when\nthis law was repealed, probably when Virginia became the chief slave\nbreeder for the cotton-growing and sugar-planting country, and made\nyoung men and women \"from fifteen to twenty-five\" the main staple\nproduction of the State.]\n\nThe law of Louisiana requires the master to give his slaves a certain\namount of food and clothing. If it can oblige the master to give the\nslave _one_ thing, it can oblige him to give him another: if food and\nclothing, then wages, liberty, his own body.\n\nBy the laws of Connecticut, slaves may receive and hold property, and\nprosecute suits in their own name as plaintiffs: [This last was also the\nlaw of Virginia in 1795. See Tucker's \"Dissertation on Slavery,\" p. 73.]\nThere were also laws making marriage contracts legal, in certain\ncontingencies, and punishing infringements of them, [\"_Reeve's Law of\nBaron and Femme_,\" p. 340-1.] Each of the laws enumerated above, does,\n_in principle_, abolish slavery; and all of them together abolish it in\nfact. True, not as a _whole_, and at a _stroke_, nor all in one place;\nbut in its _parts_, by piecemeal, at divers times and places; thus\nshowing that the abolition of slavery is within the boundary of\nlegislation.\n\n5. THE COMPETENCY OF THE LAW-MAKING POWER TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, HAS BEEN\nRECOGNIZED BY ALL THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY\nIMPLICATION. Some States recognize it in their _Constitutions_, by\ngiving the legislature power to emancipate such slaves as may \"have\nrendered the state some distinguished service, \"and others by express\nprohibitory restrictions. The Constitution of Mississippi, Arkansas, and\nother States, restrict the power of the legislature in this respect. Why\nthis express prohibition, if the law-making power _cannot_ abolish\nslavery? A stately farce, indeed, to construct a special clause, and\nwith appropriate rites induct it into the Constitution, for the express\npurpose of restricting a nonentity!--to take from the law-making power\nwhat it _never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it! The legislatures\nof those States have no power to abolish slavery, simply because their\nConstitutions have expressly _taken away_ that power. The people of\nArkansas, Mississippi, &c., well knew the competency of the law-making\npower to abolish slavery, and hence their zeal to _restrict_ it.\n\nThe slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_. The\nVirginia Legislature passed a law in 1786 to prevent the further\nimportation of Slaves, of which the following is an extract: \"And be it\nfurther enacted that every slave imported into this commonwealth\ncontrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall upon such\nimportation become _free_.\" By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792,\na slave brought into the state and kept _there a year_, was _free_. The\nMaryland Court of Appeals at the December term 1813 [case of Stewart\n_vs._ Oakes,] decided that a slave owned in Maryland, and sent by his\nmaster into Virginia to work at different periods, making one year in\nthe whole, became _free_, being _emancipated_ by the law of Virginia\nquoted above. North Carolina and Georgia in their acts of cession,\ntransferring to the United States the territory now constituting the\nStates of Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, made it a condition of the\ngrant, that the provisions of the ordinance of '87, should be secured to\nthe inhabitants _with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits\nslavery_; thus conceding, both the competency of law to abolish slavery,\nand the power of Congress to do it, within its jurisdiction. (These acts\nshow the prevalent belief at that time, in the slaveholding States, that\nthe general government had adopted a line of policy aiming at the\nexclusion of slavery from the entire territory of the United States, not\nincluded within the original States, and that this policy would be\npursued unless prevented by specific and formal stipulation.)\n\nSlaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial\ndecisions_. In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if\nthe legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has\nbeen abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal\nemancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery.\nThis principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of\nLouisiana, in the case of Lunsford _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La.\nReps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter\n_vs._ Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172. The same doctrine was laid down by\nJudge Washington, of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of\nButler _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This\nprinciple was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of\nRankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._\nIsbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps.\n566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise\n_vs._ Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried in 1836,\nthe slave had been taken by her master to France and brought back; Judge\nMathews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that \"residence for\none moment\" under the laws of France emancipated her.\n\n6. EMINENT STATESMEN, THEMSELVES SLAVEHOLDERS, HAVE CONCEDED THIS POWER.\nWashington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786, says:\n\"There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see\na plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only one\nproper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is\nby _legislative_ authority.\" In a letter to Lafayette, dated May 10,\n1786, he says: \"It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and\nassuredly ought to be effected, and that too by _legislative_\nauthority.\" In a letter to John Fenton Mercer, dated Sept. 9, 1786, he\nsays: \"It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which\nslavery in this country may be abolished by _law_.\" In a letter to Sir\nJohn Sinclair, he says: \"There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the\ngradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland nor Virginia have\nat present, but which nothing is more certain than that they _must\nhave_, and at a period not remote.\" Speaking of movements in the\nVirginia Legislature in 1777, for the passage of a law emancipating the\nslaves, Mr. Jefferson says: \"The principles of the amendment were agreed\non, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day; but it\nwas found that the public mind would not bear the proposition, yet the\nday is not far distant, when _it must bear and adopt it_.\"--Jefferson's\nMemoirs, v. 1, p. 35. It is well known that Jefferson, Pendleton, Mason,\nWythe and Lee, while acting as a committee of the Virginia House of\nDelegates to revise the State Laws, prepared a plan for the gradual\nemancipation of the slaves by law. These men were the great lights of\nVirginia. Mason, the author of the Virginia Constitution; Pendleton, the\nPresident of the memorable Virginia Convention in 1787, and President of\nthe Virginia Court of Appeals; Wythe was the Blackstone of the Virginia\nbench, for a quarter of a century Chancellor of the State, the professor\nof law in the University of William and Mary, and the preceptor of\nJefferson, Madison, and Chief Justice Marshall. He was author of the\ncelebrated remonstrance to the English House of Commons on the subject\nof the stamp act. As to Jefferson, his _name_ is his biography.\n\nEvery slaveholding member of Congress from the States of Maryland,\nVirginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, voted for the\ncelebrated ordinance of 1787, which _abolished_ the slavery then\nexisting in the Northwest Territory. Patrick Henry, in his well known\nletter to Robert Pleasants, of Virginia, January 18, 1773, says: \"I\nbelieve a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to\n_abolish_ this lamentable evil.\" William Pinkney, of Maryland, advocated\nthe abolition of slavery by law, in the legislature of that State, in\n1789. Luther Martin urged the same measure both in the Federal\nConvention, and in his report to the Legislature of Maryland. In 1796,\nSt. George Tucker, of Virginia, professor of law in the University of\nWilliam and Mary, and Judge of the General Court, published an elaborate\ndissertation on slavery, addressed to the General Assembly of the State,\nand urging upon them the abolition of slavery by _law_.\n\nJohn Jay, while New York was yet a slave State, and himself in law a\nslaveholder, said in a letter from Spain, in 1786, \"An excellent law\nmight be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual abolition of\nslavery. Were I in your legislature, I would present a bill for the\npurpose, drawn up with great care, and I would never cease moving it\ntill it became a law, or I ceased to be a member.\"\n\nDaniel D. Tompkins, in a message to the Legislature of New-York January\n8, 1812, said: \"To devise the means for the gradual and ultimate\n_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is a work worthy the\nrepresentatives of a polished and enlightened nation.\"\n\nThe Virginia Legislature asserted this power in 1832. At the close of a\nmonth's debate, the following proceedings were had. I extract from an\neditorial article of the Richmond Whig, of January 26, 1832.\n\n\n    \"The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on\n    the subject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, as the\n    opinion of this Committee, that it is INEXPEDIENT FOR THE\n    PRESENT, to make any _legislative enactments for the abolition\n    of Slavery_.\" This Report Mr. Preston moved to reverse, and thus\n    to declare that it _was_ expedient, _now_ to make legislative\n    enactments for the abolition of slavery. This was meeting the\n    question in its strongest form. It demanded action, and\n    immediate action. On this proposition the vote was 58 to 73.\n    Many of the most decided friends of abolition voted against the\n    amendment; because they thought public opinion not sufficiently\n    prepared for it, and that it might prejudice the cause to move\n    too rapidly. The vote on Mr. Witcher's motion to postpone the\n    whole subject indefinitely, indicates the true state of opinion\n    in the House.--That was the test question, and was so intended\n    and proclaimed by its mover. That motion was _negatived_, 71 to\n    60; showing a majority of 11, who by that vote, declared their\n    belief that \"at the proper time, and in the proper mode,\n    Virginia ought to commence a system of gradual abolition.\"\n\n\n7. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE ASSERTED THIS POWER. The\nordinance of '87, declaring that there should be \"neither slavery nor\ninvoluntary servitude,\" in the North Western territory, abolished the\nslavery then existing there. The Supreme Court of Mississippi, in its\ndecision in the case of Harvey vs. Decker, Walker's Mi. Reps. 36,\ndeclared that the ordinance emancipated the slaves then held there. In\nthis decision the question is argued ably and at great length. The\nSupreme Court of La. made the same decision in the case of Forsyth vs.\nNash, 4 Martin's La. Reps. 395. The same doctrine was laid down by Judge\nPorter, (late United States Senator from La.,) in his decision at the\nMarch term of the La. Supreme Court, 1830, in the case of Merry vs.\nChexnaider, 20 Martin's Reps. 699.\n\nThat the ordinance abolished the slavery then existing there is also\nshown by the fact, that persons holding slaves in the territory\npetitioned for the repeal of the article abolishing slavery, assigning\n_that_ as a reason. \"The petition of the citizens of Randolph and St.\nClair counties in the Illinois country, stating that they were in\npossession of slaves, and praying the repeal of that act (the 6th\narticle of the ordinance of '87) and the passage of a law legalizing\nslavery there.\" [Am. State papers, Public Lands, v. 1. p. 69.] Congress\npassed this ordinance before the United States Constitution was adopted,\nwhen it derived all its authority from the articles of Confederation,\nwhich conferred powers of legislation far more restricted than those\nconferred on Congress over the District and Territories by the United\nStates Constitution. Now, we ask, how does the Constitution _abridge_\nthe powers which Congress possessed under the articles of confederation?\n\nThe abolition of the slave trade by Congress, in 1808, is another\nillustration of the competency of legislative power to abolish slavery.\nThe African slave trade has become such a mere _technic_, in common\nparlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The\nbuying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle\npassage, were mere _incidents_ of the slavery in which the victims were\nheld. Let things be called by their own names. When Congress abolished\nthe African slave trade, it abolished SLAVERY--supreme slavery--power\nfrantic with license, trampling a whole hemisphere scathed with its\nfires, and running down with blood. True, Congress did not, in the\nabolition of the slave trade, abolish _all_ the slavery within its\njurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in _one_ part of its\njurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in\n_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has\n\"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?\"\n\n8. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNISES THIS POWER BY THE\nMOST CONCLUSIVE IMPLICATION. In Art. 1, sec. 3, clause 1, it prohibits\nthe abolition of the slave trade previous to 1808: thus implying the\npower of Congress to do it at once, but for the restriction; and its\npower to do it _unconditionally_, when that restriction ceased. Again;\nIn Art. 4, sec. 2, \"No person held to service or labor in one state\nunder the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of\nany law or regulation therein, be discharged from said service or\nlabor.\" This clause was inserted, as all admit, to prevent the runaway\nslave from being emancipated by the _laws_ of the free states. If these\nlaws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to\nprevent it?\n\nThe insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists\nthat framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, and their\npublic proclamation, that the abolition of slavery was within the\nappropriate sphere of legislation. The right of the owner to that which\nis rightfully property, is founded on a principle of _universal law_,\nand is recognised and protected by all civilized nations; property in\nslaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders\ninsisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States\nConstitution, that they might secure by an _express provision_, that\nfrom which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of\nuniversal law.[A] By demanding this provision, slaveholders consented\nthat their slaves should not be recognised as property by the United\nStates Constitution, and hence they found their claim, on the fact of\ntheir being \"_persons_, and _held_ to service.\"\n\n[Footnote A: The fact, that under the articles of Confederation,\nslaveholders, whose slaves had escaped into free states, had no legal\npower to force them back,--that _now_ they have no power to recover, by\nprocess of law, their slaves who escape to Canada, the South American\nStates, or to Europe--the case already cited, in which the Supreme Court\nof Louisiana decided, that residence \"_for one moment_,\" under the laws\nof France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton _vs._.\nLewis, 3 Har. and John's Reps., 56, where the slave of a St. Domingo\nslaveholder, who brought him to Maryland in '93, was pronounced free by\nthe Maryland Court of Appeals--are illustrations of the acknowledged\ntruth here asserted, that by the consent of the civilized world, and on\nthe principles of universal law, slaves are not \"_property_,\" and that\nwhenever held as property under _law_, it is only by _positive\nlegislative acts_, forcibly setting aside the law of nature, the common\nlaw, and the principles of universal justice and right between man and\nman,--principles paramount to all law, and from which alone law, derives\nits intrinsic authoritative sanction.]\n\n9. CONGRESS HAS UNQUESTIONABLE POWER TO ADOPT THE COMMON LAW, AS THE\nLEGAL SYSTEM, WITHIN ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.--This has been done,\nwith certain restrictions, in most of the States, either by legislative\nacts or by constitutional implication. THE COMMON LAW KNOWS NO SLAVES.\nIts principles annihilate slavery wherever they touch it. It is a\nuniversal, unconditional, abolition act. Wherever slavery is a legal\nsystem, it is so only by _statute_ law, and in violation of the common\nlaw. The declaration of Lord Chief Justice Holt, that, \"by the common\nlaw, no man can have property in another,\" is an acknowledged axiom, and\nbased upon the well known common law definition of property. \"The\nsubjects of dominion or property are _things_, as contra-distinguished\nfrom _persons_.\" Let Congress adopt the common law in the District of\nColumbia, and slavery there is at once abolished. Congress may well be\nat home in common law legislation, for the common law is the grand\nelement of the United States Constitution. All its _fundamental_\nprovisions are instinct with its spirit; and its existence, principles,\nand paramount authority, are presupposed and assumed throughout the\nwhole. The preamble of the Constitution plants the standard of the\nCommon Law immovably in its foreground. \"We, the people of the United\nStates, in order to ESTABLISH JUSTICE, &c., do ordain and establish this\nConstitution;\" thus proclaiming _devotion to_ JUSTICE, as the\ncontrolling motive in the organization of the Government, and its secure\nestablishment the chief object of its aims. By this most solemn\nrecognition, the common law, that grand legal embodyment of \"_justice_\"\nand fundamental right--was made the Groundwork of the Constitution, and\nintrenched behind its strongest munitions. The second clause of Sec. 9,\nArt. 1; Sec. 4, Art. 2, and the last clause of Sec. 2, Art. 3, with\nArticles 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the Amendments, are also express\nrecognitions of the common law as the presiding Genius of the\nConstitution.\n\nBy adopting the common law within its exclusive jurisdiction Congress\nwould carry out the principles of our glorious Declaration, and follow\nthe highest precedents in our national history and jurisprudence. It is\na political maxim as old as civil legislation, that laws should be\nstrictly homogeneous with the principles of the government whose will\nthey express, embodying and carrying them out--being indeed the\n_principles themselves_, in preceptive form--representatives alike of\nthe nature and the power of the Government--standing illustrations of\nits genius and spirit, while they proclaim and enforce its authority.\nWho needs be told that slavery makes war upon the principles of the\nDeclaration, and the spirit of the Constitution, and that these and the\nprinciples of the common law gravitate toward each other with\nirrepressible affinities, and mingle into one? The common law came\nhither with our pilgrim fathers; it was their birthright, their panoply,\ntheir glory, and their song of rejoicing in the house of their\npilgrimage. It covered them in the day of their calamity, and their\ntrust was under the shadow of its wings. From the first settlement of\nthe country, the genius of our institutions and our national spirit have\nclaimed it as a common possession, and exulted in it with a common\npride. A century ago, Governor Pownall, one of the most eminent\nconstitutional jurists of colonial times, said of the common law, \"In\nall the colonies the common law is received as the foundation and main\nbody of their law.\" In the Declaration of Rights, made by the\nContinental Congress at its first session in '74, there was the\nfollowing resolution: \"Resolved, That the respective colonies are\nentitled to the common law of England, and especially to the great and\ninestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage\naccording to the course of that law.\" Soon after the organization of the\ngeneral government, Chief Justice Ellsworth, in one of his decisions on\nthe bench of the United States Supreme Court, said: \"The common law of\nthis country remains the same as it was before the revolution.\" Chief\nJustice Marshall, in his decision in the case of Livingston _vs._\nJefferson, said: \"When our ancestors migrated to America, they brought\nwith them the common law of their native country, so far as it was\napplicable to their new situation, and I do not conceive that the\nrevolution in any degree changed the relations of man to man, or the law\nwhich regulates them. In breaking our political connection with the\nparent state, we did not break our connection with each other.\" [_Hall's\nLaw Journal, new series._] Mr. Duponceau, in his \"Dissertation on the\nJurisdiction of Courts in the United States,\" says, \"I consider the\ncommon law of England the _jus commune_ of the United States. I think I\ncan lay it down as a correct principle, that the common law of England,\nas it was at the time of the Declaration of Independence, still\ncontinues to be the national law of this country, so far as it is\napplicable to our present state, and subject to the modifications it has\nreceived here in the course of nearly half a century.\" Chief Justice\nTaylor of North Carolina, in his decision in the case of the State _vs._\nReed, in 1823, Hawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, \"a law of _paramount\nobligation to the statute_, was violated by the offence--COMMON LAW\nfounded upon the law of nature, and confirmed by revelation.\" The\nlegislation of the United States abounds in recognitions of the\nprinciples of the common law, asserting their paramount binding power.\nSparing details, of which our national state papers are full, we\nillustrate by a single instance. It was made a condition of the\nadmission of Louisiana into the Union, that the right of trial by jury\nshould be secured to all her citizens,--the United States government\nthus employing its power to enlarge the jurisdiction of the common law\nin this its great representative.\n\nHaving shown that the abolition of slavery is within the competency of\nthe law-making power, when unrestricted by constitutional provisions,\nand that the legislation of Congress over the District is thus\nunrestricted, its power to abolish slavery there is established.\n\nWe argue it further, from the fact, that slavery exists there _now_ by\nan act of Congress. In the act of 16th July, 1790, Congress accepted\nportions of territory offered by the states of Maryland and Virginia,\nand enacted that the laws, as they then were, should continue in force,\n\"until Congress shall otherwise by law provide.\" Under these laws,\nadopted by Congress, and in effect re-enacted and made laws of the\nDistrict, the slaves there are now held.\n\nIs Congress so impotent in its own \"exclusive jurisdiction\" that it\n_cannot_ \"otherwise by law provide?\" If it can say, what _shall_ be\nconsidered property, it can say what shall _not_ be considered property.\nSuppose a legislature should enact that marriage contracts shall be mere\nbills of sale, making a husband the proprietor of his wife, as his _bona\nfide_ property; and suppose husbands should herd their wives in droves\nfor the market as beasts of burden, or for the brothel as victims of\nlust, and then prate about their inviolable legal property, and deny the\npower of the legislature, which stamped them \"property,\" to undo its own\nwrong, and secure to wives by law the rights of human beings. Would such\ncant about \"legal rights\" be heeded where reason and justice held sway,\nand where law, based upon fundamental morality, received homage? If a\nfrantic legislature pronounces woman a chattel, has it no power, with\nreturning reason, to take back the blasphemy? Is the impious edict\nirrepealable? Be it, that with legal forms it has stamped wives \"wares.\"\nCan no legislation blot out the brand? Must the handwriting of Deity on\nhuman nature be expunged for ever? Has law no power to stay the erasing\npen, and tear off the scrawled label that covers up the IMAGE OF GOD?\n\n\n\nII. THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN,\nTILL RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.\n\n1. IT HAS BEEN ASSUMED BY CONGRESS ITSELF. The following record stands\non the journals of the House of Representatives for 1804, p. 225: \"On\nmotion made and seconded that the House do come to the following\nresolution: 'Resolved, That from and after the 4th day of July, 1805,\nall blacks and people of color that shall be born within the District of\nColumbia, or whose mothers shall be the property of any person residing\nwithin said District, shall be free, the males at the age of ----, and\nthe females at the age of ----. The main question being taken that the\nhouse do agree to said motion as originally proposed, it was negatived\nby a majority of 46.'\" Though the motion was lost, it was on the ground\nof its alleged _inexpediency_ alone. In the debate which preceded the\nvote, the _power_ of Congress was conceded. In March, 1816, the House of\nRepresentatives passed the following resolution:--\"Resolved, That a\ncommittee be appointed to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and\nillegal traffic in slaves, carried on in and through the District of\nColumbia, and to report whether any and what measures are necessary for\n_putting a stop to the same_.\"\n\nOn the 9th of January, 1829, the House of Representatives passed the\nfollowing resolution by a vote of 114 to 66: \"Resolved, That the\nCommittee on the District of Columbia, be instructed to inquire into the\n_expediency_ of providing by _law_ for the gradual abolition of slavery\nwithin the District, in such manner that the interests of no individual\nshall be injured thereby.\" Among those who voted in the affirmative were\nMessrs. Barney of Md., Armstrong of Va., A.H. Shepperd of N.C., Blair of\nTenn., Chilton and Lyon of Ky., Johns of Del., and others from slave\nstates.\n\n2. IT HAS BEES CONCEDED BY COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS, OF THE DISTRICT of\nCOLUMBIA.--In a report of the committee on the District, Jan. 11, 1837,\nby their chairman, Mr. Powell of Va., there is the following\ndeclaration:--\"The Congress of the United States, has by the\nconstitution exclusive jurisdiction over the District, and has power\nupon this subject, (_slavery_,) as upon all other subjects of\nlegislation, to exercise _unlimited discretion_.\" Reps. of Comms. 2d\nSess. 19th Cong. v. iv. No. 43. In December, 1831, the committee on the\nDistrict, Dr. Doddridge of Va., Chairman, reported, \"That until the\nadjoining states act on the subject, (slavery) it would be (not\n_unconstitutional_ but) unwise and impolitic, if not unjust, for\nCongress to interfere.\" In April, 1836, a special committee on abolition\nmemorials reported the following resolutions by their Chairman, Mr.\nPinckney of South Carolina: \"Resolved, That Congress possesses no\nconstitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of\nslavery in any of the states of this confederacy.\"\n\n\"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ in any way with\nslavery in the District of Columbia.\" \"Ought not to interfere,\"\ncarefully avoiding the phraseology of the first resolution, and thus in\neffect conceding the constitutional power. In a widely circulated\n\"Address to the electors of the Charleston District,\" Mr. Pinkney is\nthus denounced by his own constituents: \"He has proposed a resolution\nwhich is received by the plain common sense of the whole country as a\nconcession that Congress has authority to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia.\"\n\n3. IT HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY THE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT. A petition for\nthe gradual abolition of slavery in the District, signed by nearly\neleven hundred of its citizens, was presented to Congress, March 24,\n1827. Among the signers to this petition, were Chief Justice Cranch,\nJudge Van Ness, Judge Morsel, Prof. J.M. Staughton, and a large number\nof the most influential inhabitants of the District. Mr. Dickson, of New\nYork, asserted on the floor of Congress in 1835, that the signers of\nthis petition owned more than half of the property in the District. The\naccuracy of this statement has never been questioned.\n\nTHIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY GRAND JURIES OF THE DISTRICT. The Grand\njury of the county of Alexandria, at the March term, 1802, presented the\ndomestic slave trade as a grievance, and said, \"We consider these\ngrievances demanding _legislative_ redress.\" Jan. 19, 1829, Mr.\nAlexander, of Virginia, presented a representation of the grand jury in\nthe city of Washington, remonstrating against \"any measure for the\nabolition of slavery within said District, unless accompanied by\nmeasures for the removal of the emancipated from the same;\" thus, not\nonly conceding the power to emancipate slaves, but affirming an\nadditional power, that of _excluding them when free_. Journal H.R.\n1828-9, p. 174.\n\n4. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY STATE LEGISLATURES. In 1828 the\nLegislature of Pennsylvania instructed their Senators in Congress \"to\nprocure, if practicable, the passage of a law to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia.\" Jan. 28, 1829, the House of Assembly of New-York\npassed a resolution, that their \"Senators in Congress be instructed to\nmake every possible exertion to effect the passage of a law for the\nabolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia.\" In February, 1837,\nthe Senate of Massachusetts \"Resolved, That Congress having exclusive\nlegislation in the District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish\nslavery and the slave trade therein.\" The House of Representatives\npassed the following resolution at the same session: \"Resolved, That\nCongress having exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia,\npossess the right to abolish slavery in said District.\"\n\nNovember 1, 1837, the Legislature of Vermont, \"Resolved, that Congress\nhave the full power by the constitution to abolish slavery and the slave\ntrade in the District of Columbia, and in the territories.\"\n\nMay 30, 1836, a committee of the Pennsylvania Legislature reported the\nfollowing resolution: \"Resolved, That Congress does possess the\nconstitutional power, and it is expedient to abolish slavery and the\nslave trade within the District of Columbia.\"\n\nIn January, 1836, the Legislature of South Carolina \"Resolved, That we\nshould consider the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia as\na violation of the rights of the citizens of that District derived from\nthe _implied_ conditions on which that territory was ceded to the\nGeneral Government.\" Instead of denying the constitutional power, they\nvirtually admit its existence, by striving to smother it under an\n_implication_. In February, 1836, the Legislature of North Carolina\n\"Resolved, That, although by the Constitution _all legislative power_\nover the District of Columbia is vested in the Congress of the United\nStates, yet we would deprecate any legislative action on the part of\nthat body towards liberating the slaves of that District, as a breach of\nfaith towards those States by whom the territory was originally ceded.\nHere is a full concession of the _power_. February 2, 1836, the Virginia\nLegislature passed unanimously the following resolution: \"Resolved, by\nthe General Assembly of Virginia, that the following article be proposed\nto the several states of this Union, and to Congress, as an amendment of\nthe Constitution of the United States: \"The powers of Congress shall not\nbe so construed as to authorize the passage of any law for the\nemancipation of slaves in the District of Columbia, without the consent\nof the individual proprietors thereof, unless by the sanction of the\nLegislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and under such conditions as they\nshall by law prescribe.\"\n\nFifty years after the formation of the United States' constitution the\nstates are solemnly called upon by the Virginia Legislature, to amend\nthat instrument by a clause asserting that, in the grant to Congress of\n\"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever\" over the District, the\n\"case\" of slavery is not included!! What could have dictated such a\nresolution but the conviction that the power to abolish slavery is an\nirresistible inference from the constitution _as it is_. The fact that\nthe same legislature passed afterward a resolution, though by no means\nunanimously, that Congress does not possess the power, abates not a\ntittle of the testimony in the first resolution. March 23d, 1824, \"Mr.\nBrown presented the resolutions of the General Assembly of Ohio,\nrecommending to Congress the consideration of a system for the gradual\nemancipation of persons of color held in servitude in the United\nStates.\" On the same day, \"Mr. Noble, of Indiana, communicated a\nresolution from the legislature of that state, respecting the gradual\nemancipation of slaves within the United States.\" Journal of the United\nStates Senate, for 1824-5, p. 231.\n\nThe Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_\npower of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its\n_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.\n\n5. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY BODIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SLAVE\nSTATES. The petition of eleven hundred citizens of the District, has\nbeen already mentioned. \"March 5, 1830, Mr. Washington presented a\nmemorial of inhabitants of the county of Frederick, in the state of\nMaryland, praying that provision be made for the gradual abolition of\nslavery in the District of Columbia.\" Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 358.\n\nMarch 30, 1828. Mr. A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, presented a\nmemorial of citizens of that state, \"praying Congress to take measures\nfor the entire abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.\"\nJournal H.R. 1829-30, p. 379.\n\nJanuary 14, 1822. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, presented a memorial of\ncitizens of that state, praying \"that provision may be made, whereby all\nslaves which may hereafter be born in the District of Columbia, shall be\nfree at a certain period of their lives.\" Journal H.R. 1821-22, p. 142.\n\nDecember 13, 1824. Mr. Saunders of North Carolina, presented a memorial\nof citizens of that state, praying \"that measures may be taken for the\ngradual abolition of slavery in the United States.\" Journal H.R.\n1824-25, p. 27.\n\nDecember 16, 1828. \"Mr. Barnard presented the memorial of the American\nConvention for promoting the abolition of slavery, held in Baltimore,\npraying that slavery may be abolished in the District of Columbia.\"\nJournal U.S. Senate, 1828-29, p. 24.\n\n6. DISTINGUISHED STATESMEN AND JURISTS IN THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, HAVE\nCONCEDED THIS POWER. The testimony of Messrs. Doddridge, and Powell, of\nVirginia, Chief Justice Cranch, and Judges Morsel and Van Ness, of the\nDistrict, has already been given. In the debate in Congress on the\nmemorial of the Society of Friends, in 1790, Mr. Madison, in speaking of\nthe territories of the United States, explicitly declared, from his own\nknowledge of the views of the members of the convention that framed the\nconstitution, as well as from the obvious import of its terms, that in\nthe territories, \"Congress have certainly the power to regulate the\nsubject of slavery.\" Congress can have no more power over the\nterritories than that of \"exclusive legislation in all cases\nwhatsoever,\" consequently, according to Mr. Madison, \"it has certainly\nthe power to regulate the subject of slavery in the\" _District_. In\nMarch, 1816, Mr. Randolph of Va. introduced a resolution for putting a\nstop to the domestic slave trade within the District. December 12, 1827,\nMr. Barney, of Md. presented a memorial for abolition in the District,\nand moved that it be printed. Mr. McDuffie, of S.C., objected to the\nprinting, but \"expressly admitted the right of Congress to grant to the\npeople of the District any measures which they might deem necessary to\nfree themselves from the deplorable evil.\"--[See letter of Mr. Claiborne\nof Miss. to his constituents, published in the Washington Globe, May 9,\n1836.] The sentiments of Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, on the subject are well\nknown. In a speech before the U.S. Senate, in 1836, he declared the\npower of Congress to abolish slavery in the District \"unquestionable.\"\nMessrs. Blair, of Tenn., and Chilton, Lyon, and R.M. Johnson, of Ky.,\nA.H. Shepperd, of N.C., Messrs. Armstrong and Smyth, of Va., Messrs.\nDorsey, Archer, and Barney, of Md., and Johns, of Del., with numerous\nothers from slave states, have asserted the power of Congress to abolish\nslavery in the District. In the speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., on the\nMissouri question, January 28, 1820, he says on this point: \"If the\nfuture freedom of the blacks is your real object, and not a mere\npretence, why do you not begin _here_? Within the ten miles square, you\nhave _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive legislation. _Produce a\nbill to emancipate the slaves in the District of Columbia_, or, if you\nprefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter.\"\n\nTo this may be added the testimony of the present Vice President of the\nUnited States, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. In a speech before\nthe U.S. Senate, Feb. 1, 1820, (National Intelligencer, April 20, 1820)\nhe says: \"In the District of Columbia, containing a population of 30,000\nsouls, and probably as many slaves as the whole territory of Missouri,\nTHE POWER OF PROVIDING FOR THEIR EMANCIPATION RESTS WITH CONGRESS ALONE.\nWhy, then, this heart-rending sympathy for the slaves of Missouri, and\nthis cold insensibility, this eternal apathy, towards the slaves in the\nDistrict of Columbia?\"\n\nIt is quite unnecessary to add, that the most distinguished northern\nstatesmen of both political parties, have always affirmed the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District: President Van Buren in his\nletter of March 6, 1836, to a committee of gentlemen in North Carolina,\nsays, \"I would not, from the light now before me, feel myself safe in\npronouncing that Congress does not possess the power of abolishing\nslavery in the District of Columbia.\" This declaration of the President\nis consistent with his avowed sentiments touching the Missouri question,\non which he coincided with such men as Daniel D. Tompkins, De Witt\nClinton, and others, whose names are a host.[A] It is consistent, also,\nwith his recommendation in his late message, in which, speaking of the\nDistrict, he strongly urges upon Congress \"a thorough and careful\nrevision of its local government,\" speaks of the \"entire dependence\" of\nthe people of the District \"upon Congress,\" recommends that a \"uniform\nsystem of local government\" be adopted, and adds, that \"although it was\nselected as the seat of the General Government, the site of its public\nedifices, the depository of its archives, and the residence of officers\nentrusted with large amounts of public property, and the management of\npublic business, yet it never has been subjected to, or received, that\n_special_ and _comprehensive_ legislation which these circumstances\npeculiarly demanded.\"\n\n[Footnote A: Mr. Van Buren, when a member of the Senate of New-York,\nvoted for the following preamble and resolutions, which passed\nunanimously:--Jan 28th, 1820. \"Whereas the inhibiting the further\nextension of slavery in the United States, is a subject of deep concern\nto the people of this state: and whereas, we consider slavery as an evil\nmuch to be deplored, and that _every constitutional barrier should be\ninterposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution\nof the United States _clearly gives congress the right_ to require new\nstates, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,\nto _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into\nthe Union: Therefore,\n\n\"Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our members of Congress\nbe requested, to oppose the admission as a state into the Union, of an\nterritory not comprised as aforesaid, without making _the prohibition of\nslavery_ therein an indispensable condition of admission.\" ]\n\nThe tenor of Mr. Tallmadge's speech on the right of petition, and of Mr.\nWebster's on the reception of abolition memorials, may be taken as\nuniversal exponents of the sentiments of northern statesmen as to the\npower of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.\n\nAn explicit declaration, that an \"_overwhelming majority_\" of the\n_present_ Congress concede the power to abolish slavery in the District,\nhas just been made by Hon. Robert Barnwell Rhett, a member of Congress\nfrom South Carolina, in a letter published in the Charleston Mercury of\nDec. 27, 1837. The following is an extract:\n\n\n    \"The time has arrived when we must have new guaranties under the\n    constitution, or the Union must be dissolved. _Our views of the\n    constitution are not those of the majority_. AN OVERWHELMING\n    MAJORITY _think that by the constitution, Congress may abolish\n    slavery in the District of Columbia--may abolish the slave trade\n    between the States; that is, it may prohibit their being carried\n    out of the State in which they are--and prohibit it in all the\n    territories, Florida among them. They think_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG\n    REASONS, _that the power of Congress extends to all of these\n    subjects_.\"\n\n\n_Direct testimony_ to show that the power of Congress to abolish slavery\nin the District, has always till recently been _universally conceded_,\nis perhaps quite superfluous. We subjoin, however, the following:\n\nThe Vice-President of the United States in his speech on the Missouri\nquestion, quoted above, after contending that the restriction of slavery\nin Missouri would be unconstitutional, declares, that the power of\nCongress over slavery in the District \"COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED.\" In the\nspeech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., also quoted above, he declares the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District to be \"UNDOUBTED.\"\n\nMr. Sutherland, of Penn., in a speech in the House of Representatives,\non the motion to print Mr. Pinckney's Report, is thus reported in the\nWashington Globe, of May 9th, '36. \"He replied to the remark that the\nreport conceded that Congress had a right to legislate upon the subject\nin the District of Columbia, and said that SUCH A RIGHT HAD NEVER BEEN,\nTILL RECENTLY, DENIED.\"\n\nThe American Quarterly Review, published at Philadelphia, with a large\ncirculation and list of contributors in the slave states, holds the\nfollowing language in the September No. 1833, p. 55: \"Under this\n'exclusive jurisdiction,' granted by the constitution, Congress has\npower to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of\nColumbia. It would hardly be necessary to state this as a distinct\nproposition, had it not been occasionally questioned. The truth of the\nassertion, however, is too obvious to admit of argument--and we believe\nHAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE\nCONSTITUTION.\"\n\n\n\nOBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.\n\nWe now proceed to notice briefly the main arguments that have been\nemployed in Congress, and elsewhere against the power of Congress to\nabolish slavery in the District. One of the most plausible is; that \"the\nconditions on which Maryland and Virginia ceded the District to the\nUnited States, would be violated, if Congress should abolish slavery\nthere.\" The reply to this is, that Congress had no power to _accept_ a\ncession coupled with conditions restricting that \"power of exclusive\nlegislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District,\" which was\ngiven it by the constitution.\n\nTo show the futility of the objection, we insert here the acts of\ncession. The cession of Maryland was made in November, 1788, and is as\nfollows: \"An act to cede to Congress a district of ten miles square in\nthis state for the seat of the government of the United States.\"\n\n\"Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the\nrepresentatives of this state in the House of Representatives of the\nCongress of the United States, appointed to assemble at New-York, on the\nfirst Wednesday of March next, be, and they are hereby authorized and\nrequired on the behalf of this state, to cede to the Congress of the\nUnited States, any district in this state, not exceeding ten miles\nsquare, which the Congress may fix upon, and accept for the seat of\ngovernment of the United States.\" Laws of Md., v. 2., c. 46.\n\nThe cession of Virginia was made on the 3d of December, 1788, in the\nfollowing words:\n\n\"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That a tract of country, not\nexceeding ten miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located within\nthe limits of the State, and in any part thereof, as Congress may, by\nlaw, direct, shall be, and the same is hereby forever ceded and\nrelinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, in\nfull and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, as\nof persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and\neffect of the eighth section of the first article of the government of\nthe constitution of the United States.\"\n\nBut were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.\nThe Virginia act had this proviso: \"Sect. 2. Provided, that nothing\nherein contained, shall be construed to vest in the United States any\nright of property in the soil, or to affect the rights of individuals\n_therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such\nindividuals to the United States.\"\n\nThis specification touching the soil was merely definitive and\nexplanatory of that clause in the act of cession, \"_full and absolute\nright_.\" Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and\nother subjects, it even gives it freer course; for exceptions to _parts_\nof a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the\nexceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict\ncongressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil\nalone_ specified? As legal instruments are not paragons of economy in\nwords, might not \"John Doe,\" out of his abundance, and without spoiling\nhis style, have afforded an additional word--at least a hint--that\nslavery was _meant_, though nothing was _said_ about it?\n\nBut again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare them\nto be \"in pursuance of\" that clause of the constitution which gives to\nCongress \"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over\" the ten\nmiles square--thus, instead of _restricting_ that clause, both States\n_confirm_ it. Now, their acts of cession either accorded with that\nclause of the constitution, or they conflicted with it. If they\nconflicted with it, _accepting_ the cessions was a violation of the\nconstitution. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions, proves that\nin its view their _terms_ did not conflict with its constitutional grant\nof power. The inquiry whether these acts of cession were consistent or\ninconsistent with the United States' constitution, is totally irrelevant\nto the question at issue. What saith the CONSTITUTION? That is the\nquestion. Not, what saith Virginia, or Maryland, or--equally to the\npoint--John Bull! If Maryland and Virginia had been the authorized\ninterpreters of the constitution for the Union, these acts of cession\ncould hardly have been magnified more than they have been recently by\nthe southern delegation in Congress. A true understanding of the\nconstitution can be had, forsooth, only by holding it up in the light of\nMaryland and Virginia legislation!\n\nWe are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the District\nif they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power to abolish\nslavery in it.\n\nThis comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ the\nconstitution. They were parties to it. They had sifted it clause by\nclause, in their State conventions. They had weighed its words in the\nbalance--they had tested them as by fire; and finally, after long\npondering, they _adopted_ the constitution. And _afterward_, self-moved,\nthey ceded the ten miles square, and declared the cession made \"in\npursuance of\" that oft-cited clause, \"Congress shall have power to\nexercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such\nDistrict.\" And now verily \"they would not have ceded if they had\n_supposed_!\" &c. Cede it they _did_, and in \"full and absolute right\nboth of soil and persons.\" Congress accepted the cession--state power\nover the District ceased, and congressional power over it commenced--and\nnow, the sole question to be settled is, _the amount of power over the\nDistrict, lodged in Congress by the constitution_. The constitution--THE\nCONSTITUTION--that is the point. Maryland and Virginia \"suppositions\"\nmust be potent suppositions to abrogate a clause of the United States'\nConstitution! That clause either gives Congress power to abolish slavery\nin the District, or it does _not_--and that point is to be settled, not\nby state \"suppositions,\" nor state usages, nor state legislation, but\n_by the terms of the clause themselves_.\n\nSouthern members of Congress, in the recent discussions, have conceded\nthe power of a contingent abolition in the District, by suspending it\nupon the _consent_ of the people. Such a doctrine from _declaimers_ like\nMessrs. Alford, of Georgia, and Walker, of Mississippi, would excite no\nsurprise; but that it should be honored with the endorsement of such men\nas Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun, is quite unaccountable. Are attributes of\n_sovereignty_ mere creatures of _contingency_? Is delegated _authority_\nmere conditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be\nexercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance?_ Must it\nlie helpless at the pool of public sentiment, waiting the gracious\ntroubling of its waters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save only when popular\n\"consent\" deigns to puff breath into its nostrils? Besides, if the\nconsent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of the\n_whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large.\nMajorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--and a legal majority\nwithout legislative power, or right of representation, or even the\nelectoral franchise, would be truly an anomaly! In the District of\nColumbia, such a thing as a majority in a legal sense is unknown to law.\nTo talk of the power of a majority, or the will of a majority there, is\nmere mouthing. A majority? Then it has an authoritative will--and an\norgan to make it known--and an executive to carry it into effect--Where\nare they? We repeat it--if the consent of the people of the District be\nnecessary, the consent of _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_\nconsent will come only with the Greek Kalends and a \"perpetual motion.\"\nA single individual might thus _perpetuate_ slavery in defiance of the\nexpressed will of a whole people. The most common form of this fallacy\nis given by Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in his speech, February 16, 1835, in\nwhich he denied the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict, unless the inhabitants owning slaves petitioned for it!!\nSouthern members of Congress at the present session ring changes almost\ndaily upon the same fallacy. What! pray Congress _to use_ a power which\nit _has not_? \"It is required of a man according to what he _hath_,\"\nsaith the Scripture. I commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would\nthat he had got his _logic_ of him! If Congress does not possess the\npower, why taunt it with its weakness, by asking its exercise? Why mock\nit by demanding impossibilities? Petitioning, according to Mr. Wise, is,\nin matters of legislation, omnipotence itself; the very _source_ of all\nconstitutional power; for, _asking_ Congress to do what it _cannot_ do,\ngives it the power--to pray the exercise of a power that is _not,\ncreates_ it. A beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to\npetition for the exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to\npetition against the exercise of a power that _is_, annihilates it. As\nsouthern gentlemen are partial to summary processes, pray, sirs, try the\nvirtue of your own recipe on \"exclusive legislation in all cases\nwhatsoever;\" a better subject for experiment and test of the\nprescription could not be had. But if the petitions of the citizens of\nthe District give Congress the _right_ to abolish slavery, they impose\nthe _duty_; if they confer constitutional _authority_, they create\nconstitutional _obligation_. If Congress _may_ abolish because of an\nexpression of their will, it _must_ abolish at the bidding of that will.\nIf the people of the District are a _source of power_ to Congress, their\n_expressed_ will has the force of a constitutional provision, and has\nthe same binding power upon the National Legislature. To make Congress\ndependent on the District for authority, is to make it a _subject_ of\nits authority, restraining the exercise of its own discretion, and\nsinking it into a mere organ of the District's will. We proceed to\nanother objection.\n\n\"_The southern states would not have ratified the constitution, if they\nhad supposed that it gave this power._\" It is a sufficient answer to\nthis objection, that the northern states would not have ratified it, if\nthey had supposed that it _withheld_ the power. If \"suppositions\" are to\ntake the place of the constitution--coming from both sides, they\nneutralize each other. To argue a constitutional question by _guessing_\nat the \"suppositions\" that might have been made by the parties to it,\nwould find small favor in a court of law. But even a desperate shift is\nsome easement when sorely pushed. If this question is to be settled by\n\"suppositions\" suppositions shall be forthcoming, and that without\nstint.\n\nFirst, then, I affirm that the North ratified the constitution,\n\"supposing\" that slavery had begun to wax old, and would speedily vanish\naway, and especially that the abolition of the slave trade, which by the\nconstitution was to be surrendered to Congress after twenty years, would\ncast it headlong.\n\nWould the North have adopted the constitution, giving three-fifths of\nthe \"slave property\" a representation, if it had \"supposed\" that the\nslaves would have increased from half a million to two millions and a\nhalf by 1838--and that the census of 1840 would give to the slave states\nthirty representatives of \"slave property?\"\n\nIf they had \"supposed\" that this representation would have controlled\nthe legislation of the government, and carried against the North every\nquestion vital to its interests, would Hamilton, Franklin, Sherman,\nGerry, Livingston, Langdon, and Rufus King have been such madmen, as to\nsign the constitution, and the Northern States such suicides as to\nratify it? Every self-preserving instinct would have shrieked at such an\ninfatuate immolation. At the adoption of the United States constitution,\nslavery was regarded as a fast waning system. This conviction was\nuniversal. Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Grayson, Tucker, Madison,\nWythe, Pendleton, Lee, Blair, Mason, Page, Parker, Randolph, Iredell,\nSpaight, Ramsey, Pinkney, Martin, McHenry, Chase, and nearly all the\nillustrious names south of the Potomac, proclaimed it before the sun. A\nreason urged in the convention that formed the United States\nconstitution, why the word slave should not be used in it, was, that\n_when slavery should cease_, there might remain upon the National\nCharter no record that it had ever been. (See speech of Mr. Burrill, of\nR.I., on the Missouri question.)\n\nI now proceed to show by testimony, that at the date of the United\nStates constitution, and for several years before and after that period,\nslavery was rapidly on the wane; that the American Revolution with the\ngreat events preceding, accompanying, and following it, had wrought an\nimmense and almost universal change in the public sentiment of the\nnation on the subject, powerfully impelling it toward the entire\nabolition of the system--and that it was the _general belief_ that\nmeasures for its abolition throughout the Union, would be commenced by\nthe individual States generally before the lapse of many years. A great\nmass of testimony establishing this position might be presented, but\nnarrow space, and the importance of speedy publication, counsel brevity.\nLet the following proofs suffice. First, a few dates as points of\nobservation.\n\nThe first _general_ Congress met in 1774. The revolutionary war\ncommenced in '75. Independence was declared in '76. The articles of\nconfederation were adopted by the thirteen states in '78. Independence\nacknowledged in '83. The convention for forming the U.S. constitution\nwas held in '87, the state conventions for considering it in '87, and\n'88. The first Congress under the constitution in '89.\n\nDr. Rush, of Pennsylvania, one of the signers of the Declaration of\nIndependence, in a letter to Granville Sharpe, May 1, 1773, says \"A\nspirit of humanity and religion begins to awaken in several of the\ncolonies in favor of the poor negroes. Great events have been brought\nabout by small beginnings. _Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago\nin opposing negro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS OF THE\nPROVINCE AS WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT.\"--[Stuart's Life of\nSharpe, p. 21.]\n\nIn the preamble to the act prohibiting the importation of slaves into\nRhode Island, June, 1774, is the following: \"Whereas the inhabitants of\nAmerica are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights\nand liberties, among which that of personal freedom must be considered\nthe greatest, and as those who are desirous of enjoying all the\nadvantages of liberty themselves, _should be willing to extend personal\nliberty to others_, therefore,\" &c.\n\nOctober 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: \"We,\nfor ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we\nrepresent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,\nhonor, and love of our country_, as follows:\n\n\"2d Article. We _will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_\nafter the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly\ndiscontinue_ the slave trade, and we will neither be concerned in it\nourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or\nmanufactures to those who are concerned in it.\"\n\nThe Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the\nnecessity for taking up arms, say: \"_If it were possible_ for men who\nexercise their reason to believe that the divine Author of our existence\nintended a part of the human race to _hold an absolute property in, and\nunbounded power over others_,\" &c.\n\nIn 1776, Dr. Hopkins, then at the head of New England divines, in \"An\nAddress to the owners of negro slaves in the American colonies,\" says:\n\"The conviction of the unjustifiableness of this practice (slavery) has\nbeen _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and _many_ who have\nhad slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify their own conduct\nin holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set them at liberty_. *\n*     *     *     Slavery is, _in every instance_, wrong, unrighteous,\nand oppressive--a very great and crying sin--_there being nothing of the\nkind equal to it on the face of the earth._\"\n\nThe same year the American Congress issued a solemn MANIFESTO to the\nworld. These were its first words: \"We hold these truths to be\nself-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by\ntheir Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are\nlife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\" _Once_, these were words\nof power; _now_, \"a rhetorical flourish.\"\n\nThe celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia, in a letter, of Jan. 18, 1773,\nto Robert Pleasants, afterwards president of the Virginia Abolition\nSociety, says: \"Believe me, I shall honor the Quakers for their noble\nefforts to abolish slavery. It is a debt we owe to the purity of our\nreligion to show that it is at variance with that law that warrants\nslavery. I exhort you to persevere in so worthy a resolution.\"\n\nIn 1779, the Continental Congress ordered a pamphlet to be published,\nentitled, \"Observations on the American Revolution,\" from which the\nfollowing is an extract: \"The great principle (of government) is and\never will remain in force, _that men are by nature free_; and so long as\nwe have any idea of divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human\nfreedom_. It is _conceded on all hands, that the right to be free_ CAN\nNEVER BE ALIENATED.\"\n\nExtract from the Pennsylvania act for the abolition of slavery, passed\nMarch 1, 1780: *     *  \"We conceive that it is our duty, and we rejoice\nthat it is in our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to others\nwhich has been extended to us. Weaned by a long course of experience\nfrom those narrow prejudices and partialities we had imbibed, we find\nour hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards men of all\nconditions and nations: *     *     * Therefore be it enacted, that no\nchild born hereafter be a slave,\" &c.\n\nJefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, written just before the close of\nthe Revolutionary War, says: \"I think a change already perceptible since\nthe origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is\nabating, that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition\nmollifying, _the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven_, FOR\nA TOTAL EMANCIPATION.\"\n\nIn a letter to Dr. Price, of London, who had just published a pamphlet\nin favor of the abolition of slavery, Mr. Jefferson, then minister at\nParis, (August 7, 1785,) says: \"From the mouth to the head of the\nChesapeake, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in\ntheory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in\npractice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,\n_preponderates against the greater number_.\" Speaking of Virginia, he\nsays: \"This is the next state to which we may turn our eyes for the\ninteresting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and\noppression,--a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY\nRECRUITS. Be not, therefore, discouraged--what you have written will do\na _great deal of good_; and could you still trouble yourself with our\nwelfare, no man is more able to give aid to the laboring side. The\nCollege of William and Mary, since the remodelling of its plan, is the\nplace where are collected together all the young men of Virginia, under\npreparation for public life. They are there under the direction (most of\nthem) of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most virtuous of characters, and _whose\nsentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal._ I am satisfied,\nif you could resolve to address an exhortation to those young men with\nall that eloquence of which you are master, that _its influence on the\nfuture decision of this important question would be great, perhaps\ndecisive._ Thus, you see, that so far from thinking you have cause to\nrepent of what you have done, _I wish you to do more, and wish it on an\nassurance of its effect._\"--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1, p.\n268.\n\nIn 1786, John Jay drafted and signed a petition to the Legislature of\nNew York, on the subject of slavery, beginning with these words: \"Your\nmemorialists being deeply affected by the situation of those, who,\nalthough FREE BY THE LAW OF GOD, are held in slavery by the laws of the\nState,\" &c. This memorial bore also the signatures of the celebrated\nAlexander Hamilton; Robert R. Livingston, afterward Secretary of Foreign\nAffairs of the United States, and Chancellor of the State of New-York;\nJames Duane, Major of the City of New-York, and many others of the most\neminent individuals in the State.\n\nIn the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave\nin 1784, is the following passage:\n\n\"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,\nwithout injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery.\"\n\nIn his letter while Minister at Spain, in 1786, he says, speaking of the\nabolition of slavery: \"Till America comes into this measure, her prayers\nto heaven will be IMPIOUS. I believe God governs the world; and I\nbelieve it to be a maxim in his, as in our court, that those who ask for\nequity _ought to do it._\"\n\nIn 1785, the New-York Manumission Society was formed. John Jay was\nchosen its first President, and held the office for five years.\nAlexander Hamilton was its second President, and after holding the\noffice one year, resigned upon his removal to Philadelphia as Secretary\nof the United States' Treasury. In 1787, the Pennsylvania Abolition\nSociety was formed. Benjamin Franklin, warm from the discussions of the\nconvention that formed the U.S. constitution, was chosen President, and\nBenjamin Rush, Secretary--both signers of the Declaration of\nIndependence. In 1789, the Maryland Abolition Society was formed. Among\nits officers were Samuel Chace, Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, and\nLuther Martin, a member of the convention that formed the U.S.\nconstitution. In 1790, the Connecticut Abolition Society was formed. The\nfirst President was Rev. Dr. Stiles, President of Yale College, and the\nSecretary, Simeon Baldwin, (the late Judge Baldwin of New Haven.) In\n1791, this Society sent a memorial to Congress, from which the following\nis an extract:\n\n\n    \"From a sober conviction of the unrighteousness of slavery, your\n    petitioners have long beheld, with grief, our fellow men doomed\n    to perpetual bondage, in a country which boasts of her freedom.\n    Your petitioners are fully of opinion; that calm reflection will\n    at last convince the world, that the whole system of African\n    slavery IS unjust in its nature--impolitic in its\n    principles--and, in its consequences, ruinous to the industry\n    and enterprise of the citizens of these States. From a\n    conviction of those truths, your petitioners were led, by\n    motives, we conceive, of general philanthropy, to associate\n    ourselves for the protection and assistance of this unfortunate\n    part of our fellow men; and, though this Society has been\n    _lately_ established, it has now become _generally extensive_\n    through this state, and, we fully believe, _embraces, on this\n    subject, the sentiments of a large majority of its citizens._\"\n\n\nThe same year the Virginia Abolition Society was formed. This Society,\nand the Maryland Society, had auxiliaries in different parts of those\nStates. Both societies sent up memorials to Congress. The memorial of\nthe Virginia Society is headed--\"The memorial of the _Virginia Society_,\nfor promoting the Abolition of Slavery, &c.\" The following is an\nextract:\n\n\n    \"Your memorialists, fully believing that slavery is not only an\n    odious degradation, but an _outrageous violation of one of the\n    most essential rights of human nature, and utterly repugnant to\n    the precepts of the gospel_, lament that a practice so\n    inconsistent with true policy and the inalienable rights of men,\n    should subsist in so enlightened an age, and among a people\n    professing, that all mankind are, by nature, equally entitled to\n    freedom.\"\n\n\nAbout the same time a Society was formed in New Jersey. It had an acting\ncommittee of five members in each county in the State. The following is\nan extract from the preamble to its constitution:\n\n\n    \"It is our boast, that we live under a government wherein\n    _life_, _liberty_, and the _pursuit of happiness_, are\n    recognized as the universal rights of men; and whilst we are\n    anxious to preserve these rights to ourselves, and transmit them\n    inviolate, to our posterity, we _abhor that inconsistent,\n    illiberal, and interested policy, which withholds those rights\n    from an unfortunate and degraded class of our fellow\n    creatures._\"\n\n\nAmong other distinguished individuals who were efficient officers of\nthese Abolition Societies, and delegates from their respective state\nsocieties, at the annual meetings of the American convention for\npromoting the abolition of slavery, were Hon. Uriah Tracy, United\nStates' Senator, from Connecticut; Hon. Zephaniah Swift, Chief Justice\nof the same State; Hon. Cesar A. Rodney, Attorney General of the United\nStates; Hon. James A. Bayard, United States' Senator, from Delaware;\nGovernor Bloomfield, of New-Jersey; Hon. Wm. Rawle, the late venerable\nhead of the Philadelphia bar; Dr. Caspar Wistar, of Philadelphia;\nMessrs. Foster and Tillinghast, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Ridgely,\nBuchanan, and Wilkinson, of Maryland; and Messrs. Pleasants, McLean, and\nAnthony, of Virginia.\n\nIn July, 1787, the old Congress passed the celebrated ordinance\nabolishing slavery in the northwestern territory, and declaring that it\nshould never thereafter exist there. This ordinance was passed while the\nconvention that formed the United States' constitution was in session.\nAt the first session of Congress under the constitution, this ordinance\nwas ratified by a special act. Washington, fresh from the discussions of\nthe convention, in which _more than forty days had been spent in\nadjusting the question of slavery, gave it his approval._ The act passed\nwith only one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New York,) _the\nSouth equally with the North avowing the fitness and expediency of the\nmeasure on general considerations, and indicating thus early the line of\nnational policy, to be pursued by the United States' Government on the\nsubject of slavery_.\n\nIn the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward\na Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, \"_When the entire\nabolition of slavery takes place_, it will be an event which must be\npleasing to every generous mind and every friend of human nature.\" Mr.\nGalloway said, \"I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to. I\napprehend the clause (touching the slave trade) means _to bring forward\nmanumission_.\" Luther Martin, of Maryland, a member of the convention\nthat formed the United States Constitution, said, \"We ought to authorize\nthe General Government to make such regulations as shall be thought most\nadvantageous for _the gradual abolition of slavery_, and the\n_emancipation of the slaves_ which are already in the States.\" Judge\nWilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the framers of the constitution, said,\nin the Pennsylvania convention of '87, [Deb. Pa. Con. p. 303, 156:] \"I\nconsider this (the clause relative to the slave trade) as laying the\nfoundation for _banishing slavery out of this country_. It will produce\nthe same kind of gradual change which was produced in Pennsylvania; the\nnew states which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress\nin this particular, and _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It\npresents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will\nbe acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of\na few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_\nwithin our borders.\" In the Virginia convention of '87, Mr. Mason,\nauthor of the Virginia constitution, said, \"The augmentation of slaves\nweakens the States, and such a trade is _diabolical_ in itself, and\ndisgraceful to mankind. As much as I value a union of all the states, I\nwould not admit the southern states, (i.e., South Carolina and Georgia,)\ninto the union, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this\ndisgraceful trade_.\" Mr. Tyler opposed with great power the clause\nprohibiting the abolition of the slave trade till 1808, and said, \"My\nearnest desire is, that it shall be handed down to posterity that I\noppose this wicked clause.\" Mr. Johnson said, \"The principle of\nemancipation _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it\nwill come round_.\"--[Deb. Va. Con. p. 463.] Patrick Henry, arguing the\npower of Congress under the United States' constitution to abolish\nslavery in the States, said, in the same convention, \"Another thing will\ncontribute to bring this event (the abolition of slavery) about. Slavery\nis _detested_. We feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the\npity of humanity.\"--[Deb. Va. Con. p. 431.] In the Mass. Con. of '88,\nJudge Dawes said, \"Although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet\n_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption.\"--[Deb.\nMass. Con. p. 60.] General Heath said that, \"Slavery was confined to the\nStates _now existing_, it _could not be extended_. By their ordinance,\nCongress had declared that the new States should be republican States,\n_and have no slavery_.\"--p. 147.\n\nIn the debate, in the first Congress, February 11th and 12th, 1789, on\nthe petitions of the Society of Friends, and the Pennsylvania Abolition\nSociety, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, \"I cannot help expressing the\npleasure I feel in finding _so considerable a part_ of the community\nattending to matters of such a momentous concern to the _future\nprosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,\nas a citizen of the Union, _to espouse their cause_.\"\n\nMr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)--\"Was _in favor_ of the\ncommitment; he hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists\nwould not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a fair\ndiscussion of the prayer of the memorial. With respect to the alarm that\nwas apprehended, he conjectured there was none; but there might be just\ncause, if the memorial was _not_ taken into consideration. He placed\nhimself in the case of a slave, and said, that on hearing that Congress\nhad refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of\nthe community, he should infer, that the general government, _from which\nwas expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, had\nshut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair of\nany alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect; if\nany thing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this,\nimpressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if he was told,\nthat application was made in his behalf, and that Congress were willing\nto hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of\nimporting his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and\nhumanity, and _wait the decision patiently_.\"\n\nMr. Scott of Pennsylvania: \"I cannot, for my part, conceive how any\nperson _can be said to acquire a property in another_. Let us argue on\nprinciples countenanced by reason, and becoming humanity. _I do not know\nhow far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United States, and\nthose people were to came before me and claim their emancipation, but I\nam sure I would go as far as I could_.\"\n\nMr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, \"He _saw the disposition of the\nHouse_, and he feared it would he referred to a committee, maugre all\ntheir opposition.\"\n\nMr. Smith of South Carolina, said, \"That on entering into this\ngovernment, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other\nstates,  *     *     _would, from motives of humanity and benevolence,\nbe led to vote for a general emancipation_.\"\n\nIn the debate, at the same session, May 13th, 1789, on the petition of\nthe Society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, of\nVirginia, said, \"He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power\n_to restore to human nature its inherent privileges_. The inconsistency\nin our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be done\naway_.\"\n\nMr. Jackson, of Georgia, said, \"IT WAS THE FASHION OF THE DAY TO FAVOR\nTHE LIBERTY OF THE SLAVES.     *     *     *     *      Will Virginia\nset her negroes free? _When this practice comes to be tried, then the\nsound of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the\nravished ear_.\"\n\nMr. Madison, of Virginia,--\"The dictates of humanity, the principles of\nthe people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy,\nrequire it of us.     *     *     *     *     I conceive the\nconstitution in this particular was formed in order that the Government,\nwhilst it was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able\nto _give some testimony of the sense of America_, with respect to the\nAfrican trade.     *     *     *     *     It is to be hoped, that by\nexpressing a national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it,\nand save ourselves from reproaches, AND OUR POSTERITY THE IMBECILITY\nEVER ATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES. If there is any one\npoint in which it is clearly the policy of this nation, so far as we\nconstitutionally can, _to vary the practice_ obtaining under some of the\nstate governments, it is this. But it is _certain_ a majority of the\nstates are _opposed to this practice_.\"--Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.\n\nA writer in the \"Gazette of the United States,\" Feb. 20th, 1790, (then\nthe government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, and avows\nhimself a _slaveholder_, says, \"I have seen in the papers accounts of\n_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition\nof slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free\npeople, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_. SUCH\nMOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW.\"\n\nIn the convention that formed the constitution of Kentucky in 1790, the\neffort to prohibit slavery was nearly successful. A decided majority of\nthat body would undoubtedly have voted for its exclusion, but for the\ngreat efforts and influence of two large slaveholders--men of commanding\ntalents and sway--Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas. The following\nextract from a speech made in that convention by a member of it, Mr.\nRice a native Virginian, is a specimen of the _free discussion_ that\nprevailed on that \"delicate subject.\" Said Mr. Rice: \"I do a man greater\ninjury, when I deprive him of his liberty, than when I deprive him of\nhis property. It is vain for me to plead that I have the sanction of\nlaw; for this makes the injury the greater--it arms the community\nagainst him, and makes his case desperate. The owners of such slaves\nthen are _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they\nclaim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it\nto the right owner_. In America, a slave is a standing monument of the\ntyranny and inconsistency of human governments. The master is the enemy\nof the slave; he _has made open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT\nON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is\nindebted to his master, and _bound to serve him_? Whence can the\nobligation arise? What is it founded upon? What is my duty to an enemy\nthat is carrying on war against me? I do not deny, but in some\ncircumstances, it is the duty of the slave to serve; but it is a duty he\nowes himself, and not his master.\"\n\nPresident Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before the\nConnecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791: \"Thirty years ago,\nscarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or the\nslavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able advocates in\nprivate life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have appeared, and have\nopenly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of humanity in this as well\nas other instances? And if we judge of the future by the past, _within\nfifty years from this time, it will be as shameful for a man to hold a\nnegro slave, as to be guilty of common robbery or theft_.\"\n\nIn 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its\n\"Scripture proofs,\" notes, comments, &c. Among these was the following:\n\n\n    \"1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime among\n    the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment.\n    Exodus xxi. 16. And the apostle here classes them with _sinners\n    of the first rank_. The word he uses, in its original import\n    comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human\n    race into slavery, or in _retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of\n    men_ are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and _keep_,\n    sell, or buy them.\"\n\n\nIn 1794, Dr. Rush declared: \"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the\nprinciples of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just\nprinciple of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the\nauthority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and\nefficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the\nprerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly\nclaimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.\"\n\nIn 1790, Mr. Fiske, then an officer of Dartmouth College, afterward a\nJudge in Tennessee, said, in an oration published that year, speaking of\nslaves: \"I steadfastly maintain, that we must bring them to _an equal\nstanding, in point of privileges, with the whites_! They must enjoy all\nthe rights belonging to human nature.\"\n\nWhen the petition on the abolition of the slave trade was under\ndiscussion in the Congress of '89, Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, said,\n\"The emancipation of the slaves _will be effected_ in time; it ought to\nbe a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not\n_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States.\" Mr.\nHartley, of Pennsylvania, said, in the same debate, \"_He was not a\nlittle surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house._\"\nWASHINGTON, in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, says, \"There are, in\nPennsylvania, laws for the gradual abolition of slavery which neither\nMaryland nor Virginia have at present, but which _nothing is more\ncertain_ than that they _must have_, and at a period NOT REMOTE.\" In\n1782, Virginia passed her celebrated manumission act. Within nine years\nfrom that time nearly eleven thousand slaves were voluntarily\nemancipated by their masters. Judge Tucker's \"Dissertation on Slavery,\"\np. 72. In 1787, Maryland passed an act legalizing manumission. Mr.\nDorsey, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, December 27th, 1826,\nspeaking of manumissions under that act, said, that \"_The progress of\nemancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free\nblack population.\"\n\nThe celebrated William Pinkney, in a speech before the Maryland House of\nDelegates, in 1789, on the emancipation of slaves, said, \"Sir, by the\neternal principles of natural justice, _no master in the state has a\nright to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour_.... I would as\nsoon believe the incoherent tale of a schoolboy, who should tell me he\nhad been frightened by a ghost, as that the grant of this permission (to\nemancipate) ought in any degree to alarm us. Are we apprehensive that\nthese men will become more dangerous by becoming freemen? Are we\nalarmed, lest by being admitted into the enjoyment of civil rights, they\nwill be inspired with a deadly enmity against the rights of others?\nStrange, unaccountable paradox! How much more rational would it be, to\nargue that the natural enemy of the privileges of a freeman, is he who\nis robbed of them himself! Dishonorable to the species is the idea that\nthey would ever prove injurious to our interests--released from the\nshackles of slavery, by the justice of government and the bounty of\nindividuals--the want of fidelity and attachment would be next to\nimpossible.\"\n\nHon. James Campbell, in an address before the Pennsylvania Society of\nthe Cincinnati, July 4, 1787, said, \"Our separation from Great Britain\nhas extended the empire of humanity. The time _is not far distant_ when\nour sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their\nvassals into freemen_.\" The Convention that formed the United States'\nConstitution being then in session, attended at the delivery of this\noration with General Washington at their head.\n\nA Baltimore paper of September 8th, 1780, contains the following notice\nof Major General Gates: \"A few days ago passed through this town the\nHon. General Gates and lady. The General, previous to leaving Virginia,\nsummoned his numerous family of slaves about him, and amidst their tears\nof affection and gratitude, gave them their FREEDOM.\"\n\nIn 1791 the university of William and Mary, in Virginia, conferred upon\nGranville Sharpe the degree of Doctor of Laws. Sharpe was at that time\nthe acknowledged head of British abolitionists. His indefatigable\nexertions, prosecuted for years in the case of Somerset, procured that\nmemorable decision in the Court of King's Bench, which settled the\nprinciple that no slave could be held in England. He was most\nuncompromising in his opposition to slavery, and for twenty years\nprevious he had spoken, written, and accomplished more against it than\nany man living.\n\nIn the \"Memoirs of the Revolutionary War in the Southern Department,\" by\nGen. Lee, of Va., Commandant of the Partizan Legion, is the following:\n\"The Constitution of the United States, adopted lately with so much\ndifficulty, has effectually provided against this evil, (by importation)\nafter a few years. It is much to be lamented that having done so much in\nthis way, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of\nslavery_.\"--p. 233, 4.\n\nMr. Tucker, of Virginia, Judge of the Supreme Court of that state, and\nprofessor of law in the University of William and Mary, addressed a\nletter to the General Assembly of that state, in 1796, urging the\nabolition of slavery; from which the following is an extract. Speaking\nof the slaves in Virginia, he says: \"Should we not, at the time of the\nrevolution, have loosed their chains and broken their fetters; or if the\ndifficulties and dangers of such an experiment prohibited the attempt,\nduring the convulsions of a revolution, is it not our duty, _to embrace\nthe first moment_ of constitutional health and vigor to effectuate so\ndesirable an object, and to remove from us a stigma with which our\nenemies will never fail to upbraid us, nor our consciences to reproach\nus?\"\n\nMr. Faulkner, in a speech before the Virginia Legislature, Jan. 20,\n1832, said--\"The idea of a gradual emancipation and removal of the\nslaves from this commonwealth, is coeval with the declaration of our\nindependence from the British yoke. It sprung into existence during the\nfirst session of the General Assembly, subsequent to the formation of\nyour republican government. When Virginia stood sustained in her\nlegislation by the pure and philosophic intellect of Pendleton--by the\npatriotism of Mason and Lee--by the searching vigor and sagacity of\nWythe, and by the all-embracing, all-comprehensive genius of Thomas\nJefferson! Sir, it was a committee composed of those five illustrious\nmen, who, in 1777, submitted to the general assembly of this state, then\nin session, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this\ncommonwealth_.\"\n\nHon. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, late United States' senator from Virginia,\nin his letters to the people of Virginia, in 1832, signed Appomattox, p.\n43, says: \"I thought, till very lately, that it was known to every body\nthat during the Revolution, _and for many years after, the abolition of\nslavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, who\nentertained, with respect, all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity\ncould suggest for accomplishing the object. Mr. Wythe, to the day of his\ndeath, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color\nas founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were\nabandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these\nprojects revived.\"\n\nGovernor Barbour, of Virginia, in his speech in the U.S. Senate, on the\nMissouri question, Jan. 1820, said:--\"We are asked why has Virginia\n_changed her policy_ in reference to slavery? That the sentiments of\n_our most distinguished men_, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_\nwith the course which the friends of the restriction (of slavery in\nMissouri) now advocated; and that the Virginia delegation, one of whom\nwas the late President of the United States, voted for the restriction,\n(of slavery) in the northwestern territory, and that Mr. Jefferson has\ndelineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects of slavery. When it\nis recollected that the Notes of Mr. Jefferson were written during the\nprogress of the revolution, it is no matter of surprise that the writer\nshould have imbibed a large portion of that enthusiasm which such an\noccasion was so well calculated to produce. As to the consent of the\nVirginia delegation to the restriction in question, whether the result\nof a disposition to restrain the slave trade indirectly, or the\ninfluence of that enthusiasm to which I have just alluded,     *     *\n*     * it is not now important to decide. We have witnessed its\neffects. The liberality of Virginia, or, as the result may prove, her\nfolly, which submitted to, or, if you will, PROPOSED _this measure_,\n(abolition of slavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects\nwhich speak a monitory lesson. _How is the representation from this\nquarter on the present question?_\"\n\nMr. Imlay, in his early history of Kentucky, p. 185, says: \"We have\ndisgraced the fair face of humanity, and trampled upon the sacred\nprivileges of man, at the very moment that we were exclaiming against\nthe tyranny of your (the English) ministry. But in contending for the\nbirthright of freedom, we have learned to feel _for the bondage of\nothers_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we\n_contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as\nhonorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us.\"\n\nIn the debate in Congress, Jan, 20, 1806, on Mr. Sloan's motion to lay a\ntax on the importation of slaves, Mr. Clark of Va. said: \"He was no\nadvocate for a system of slavery.\" Mr. Marion, of S. Carolina, said: \"He\nnever had purchased, nor should he ever purchase a slave.\" Mr. Southard\nsaid: \"Not revenue, but an expression of the _national sentiment_ is the\nprincipal object.\" Mr. Smilie--\"I rejoice that the word (slave) is not\nin the constitution; its not being there does honor to the worthies who\nwould not suffer it to become a _part_ of it.\" Mr. Alston, of N.\nCarolina--\"In two years we shall have the power to prohibit the trade\naltogether. Then this House will be UNANIMOUS. No one will object to our\nexercising our full constitutional powers.\" National Intelligencer, Jan.\n24, 1806.\n\nThese witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit; nor their\ntestimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their\n_endorsers_ and their strong words their own interpreters. We wave all\ncomments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, let him\nHEAR. And whosoever will not hear the fathers of the revolution, the\nfounders of the government, its chief magistrates, judges, legislators\nand sages, who dared and periled all under the burdens, and in the heat\nof the day that tried men's souls--then \"neither will he be persuaded\nthough THEY rose from the dead.\"\n\nSome of the points established by the testimony are--The universal\nexpectation that the _moral_ influence of Congress, of state\nlegislatures, of seminaries of learning, of churches, of the ministers\nof religion, and of public sentiment widely embodied in abolition\nsocieties, would be exerted against slavery, calling forth by argument\nand appeal the moral sense of the nation, and creating a power of\nopinion that would abolish the system throughout the union. In a word,\nthat free speech and a free press would be wielded against slavery\nwithout ceasing and without restriction. Full well did the south know,\nnot only that the national government would probably legislate against\nslavery wherever the constitution placed it within its reach, but she\nknew also that Congress had already marked out the line of national\npolicy to be pursued on the subject--had committed itself before the\nworld to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move\nupon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction--that the nation\nhad established by solemn ordinance memorable precedent for subsequent\naction, by abolishing slavery in the northwest territory, and by\ndeclaring that it should never thenceforward exist there; and this too,\nas soon as by cession of Virginia and other states, the territory came\nunder Congressional control. The south knew also that the sixth article\nin the ordinance prohibiting slavery was first proposed by the largest\nslaveholding state in the confederacy--that the chairman of the\ncommittee that reported the ordinance was a slaveholder--that the\nordinance was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention\nthat formed the United States Constitution--that the provisions of the\nordinance were, both while in prospect, and when under discussion,\nmatters of universal notoriety and _approval_ with all parties, and when\nfinally passed, received the vote _of every member of Congress from each\nof the slaveholding states_. The south also had every reason for\nbelieving that the first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_\nthat ordinance--as it _did_ unanimously.\n\nA crowd of reflections, suggested by the preceding testimony, press for\nutterance. The right of petition ravished and trampled by its\nconstitutional guardians, and insult and defiance hurled in the faces of\nthe SOVEREIGN PEOPLE while calmly remonstrating _with their_ SERVANTS\nfor violence committed on the nation's charter and their own dearest\nrights! Add to this \"the right of peaceably assembling\" violently\nwrested--the rights of minorities, _rights_ no longer--free speech\nstruck dumb--free _men_ outlawed and murdered--free presses cast into\nthe streets and their fragments strewed with shoutings, or flourished in\ntriumph before the gaze of approving crowds as proud members of\nprostrate law!\n\nThe spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep homage\nalways and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its _inseparable\nsigns--free speech and a free press_--their reverence for justice,\nliberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?\n\nBut we turn from these considerations--though the times on which we have\nfallen, and those towards which we are borne with headlong haste, call\nfor their discussion as with the voices of departing life--and proceed\nto topics relevant to the argument before us.\n\nThe seventh article of the amendments to the constitution is alleged to\nwithhold from Congress the power to abolish slavery in the District. \"No\nperson shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due\nprocess of law.\" All the slaves in the District have been \"deprived of\nliberty\" by legislative acts. Now, these legislative acts \"depriving\"\nthem \"of liberty,\" were either \"due process of law,\" or they were _not_.\nIf they _were_, then a legislative act, taking from the master that\n\"property\" which is the identical \"liberty\" previously taken from the\nslave, would be \"due process of law\" _also_, and of course a\n_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts \"depriving\" them of\n\"liberty\" were _not_ \"due process of law,\" then the slaves were deprived\nof liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case\nthe _constitution emancipates them_.\n\nIf the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase \"due\nprocess of law,\" is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that\nfact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ been deprived\nof his liberty by \"a judicial process,\" or, in other words, by \"due\nprocess of law;\" consequently, upon the objector's own admission, every\nslave in the District has been deprived of liberty _unconstitutionally_,\nand is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of\nthe slaves under the \"exclusive legislation\" of Congress.\n\nThe last clause of the article under consideration is quoted for the\nsame purpose: \"Nor shall private property be taken for public use\nwithout just compensation.\" Each of the state constitutions has a clause\nof similar purport. The abolition of slavery in the District by\nCongress, would not, as we shall presently show, violate this clause\neither directly or by implication. Granting for argument's sake, that\nslaves are \"private property,\" and that to emancipate them, would be to\n\"take private property\" for \"public use,\" the objector admits the power\nof Congress to do _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,\n_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying the _power_, the objector not\nonly admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that\ncompensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of\n_one_ power, the objector asserts the existence of _two_--one, the power\nto take the slaves from their masters, the other, the power to take the\nproperty of the United States to pay for them.\n\nIf Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private\nproperty, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,\n_legalise_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_\nthose who commit them. Does the power to rob a man of his earnings, rob\nthe earner of his right to them? Who has a better right to the _product_\nthan the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the\n_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they\nswing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they _are_? Congress not\nonly impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it\nwithholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.\nWhat! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it\ncan make inviolable the right to a _dog_! But, waving this, I deny that\nthe abolition of slavery in the District would violate this clause. What\ndoes the clause prohibit? The \"taking\" of \"private property\" for \"public\nuse.\" Suppose Congress should emancipate the slaves in the District,\nwhat would it \"_take_?\" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What\nwould it put to \"public use?\" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ \"private\nproperty,\" Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say \"_private\nproperty_ shall not _be_ taken; and those who have been robbed of it\nalready, shall be kept out of it no longer; and since every man's right\nto his own body is _paramount_, he shall be protected in it.\" True,\nCongress may not arbitrarily take property, _as_ property, from one man\nand give it to another--and in the abolition of slavery no such thing is\ndone. A legislative act changes the _condition_ of the slave--makes him\nhis own _proprietor_ instead of the property of another. It determines a\nquestion of _original right_ between two classes of persons--doing an\nact of justice to one, and restraining the other from acts of injustice;\nor, in other words, preventing one from robbing the other, by granting\nto the injured party the protection of just and equitable laws.\n\nCongress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of seven\nthousand \"persons\" in the District, but would \"take\" nothing. To\nconstrue this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District to\nhold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to hold it\nas property in all circumstances--all necessity, public welfare, and the\nwill and power of the government to the contrary notwithstanding--is a\ntotal perversion of its whole _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,\nwas to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right\nto \"take property\" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to\nadjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his\nown secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of\nlegislation. Besides, if Congress were to \"take\" the slaves in the\nDistrict, it would be _adopting_, not abolishing slavery--becoming a\nslaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer.\nThe clause in question, prohibits the \"taking\" of individual property\nfor public uses, to be employed or disposed of as property for\ngovernmental purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District,\nwould do no such thing. It would merely change the _condition_ of that\nwhich has been recognised as a qualified property by congressional acts,\nthough previously declared \"persons\" by the constitution. More than this\nis done continually by Congress and every other Legislature. Property\nthe most absolute and unqualified, is annihilated by legislative acts.\nThe embargo and non-intercourse act, prostrated at a stroke, a forest of\nshipping, and sunk millions of capital. To say nothing of the power of\nCongress to take hundreds of millions from the people by direct\ntaxation, who doubts its power to abolish at once the whole tariff\nsystem, change the seat of Government, arrest the progress of national\nworks, prohibit any branch of commerce with the Indian tribes or with\nforeign nations, change the locality of forts, arsenals, magazines, dock\nyards, &c., to abolish the Post Office system, the privilege of patents\nand copyrights, &c. By such acts Congress might, in the exercise of its\nacknowledged powers, annihilate property to an incalculable amount, and\nthat without becoming liable to claims for compensation.\n\nFinally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of\n\"_property_.\" The constitution of the United States does not recognise\nslaves as \"PROPERTY\" any where, and it does not recognise them in _any\nsense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the\nconstitution recognise them as \"persons.\" Every reference to them points\n_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest\nimplication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as\n\"persons,\" and _will_ not recognise them in any other light. If they\nescape into free States, the constitution authorizes their being taken\nback. But how? Not as the property of an \"owner,\" but as \"persons;\" and\nthe peculiarity of the expression is a marked recognition of their\n_personality_--a refusal to recognise them as chattels--\"persons _held_\nto service.\" Are _oxen_ \"_held_ to service?\" That can be affirmed only\nof _persons_. Again, slaves give political power as \"persons.\" The\nconstitution, in settling the principle of representation, requires\ntheir enumeration in the census. How? As property? Then why not include\nrace horses and game cocks? Slaves, like other inhabitants, are\nenumerated as \"persons.\" So by the constitution, the government was\npledged to non-interference with \"the migration or importation of such\npersons\" as the States might think proper to admit until 1808, and\nauthorized the laying of a tax on each \"person\" so admitted. Further,\nslaves are recognised as _persons_ by the exaction of their _allegiance_\nto the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried\nas _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,\nto the rules of evidence, and to \"due process of law,\" and as _persons_\nthey are punished. True, they are loaded with cruel disabilities in\ncourts of law, such as greatly obstruct and often inevitably defeat the\nends of justice, yet they are still recognised as _persons_. Even in the\nlegislation of Congress, and in the diplomacy of the general government,\nnotwithstanding the frequent and wide departures from the integrity of\nthe constitution on this subject, slaves are not recognised as\n_property_ without qualification. Congress has always refused to grant\ncompensation for slaves killed or taken by the enemy, even when these\nslaves had been impressed into the United States' service. In half a\nscore of cases since the last war, Congress has rejected such\napplications for compensation. Besides, both in Congressional acts, and\nin our national diplomacy, slaves and property are not used as\nconvertible terms. When mentioned in treaties and state papers it is in\nsuch a way as to distinguish them from mere property, and generally by a\nrecognition of their _personality_. In the invariable recognition of\nslaves as _persons_, the United States' constitution caught the mantle\nof the glorious Declaration, and most worthily wears it.--It recognizes\nall human beings as \"men,\" \"persons,\" and thus as \"equals.\" In the\noriginal draft of the Declaration, as it came from the hand of\nJefferson, it is alleged that Great Britain had \"waged a cruel war\nagainst _human_ nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life\nand liberty in the persons of a distant people, carrying them into\nslavery,     *     * determined to keep up a market where MEN should be\nbought and sold,\"--thus disdaining to make the charter of freedom a\nwarrant for the arrest of _men_, that they might be shorn both of\nliberty and humanity.\n\nThe celebrated Roger Sherman, one of the committee of five appointed to\ndraft the Declaration of Independence, and also a member of the\nconvention that formed the United States' constitution, said, in the\nfirst Congress after its adoption: \"The constitution _does not consider\nthese persons,_ (slaves,) _as a species of property._\"--[Lloyd's Cong.\nReg. v. 1, p. 313.] That the United States' Constitution does not make\nslaves \"property,\" is shown in the fact that no person, either as a\ncitizen of the United States, or by having his domicile within the\nUnited States' government, can hold slaves. He can hold them only by\nderiving his power from _state_ laws, or from the laws of Congress, if\nhe hold slaves within the District. But no person resident within the\nUnited States' jurisdiction, and not within the District, nor within a\nstate whose laws support slavery, nor \"held to service\" under the laws\nof such state or district, having escaped therefrom, _can be held as a\nslave_.\n\nMen can hold _property_ under the United States' government though\nresiding beyond the bounds of any state, district, or territory. An\ninhabitant of the Wisconsin Territory can hold property there under the\nlaws of the United States, but he cannot hold _slaves_ there under the\nUnited States' laws, nor by virtue of the United States' Constitution,\nnor upon the ground of his United States citizenship, nor by having his\ndomicile within the United States' jurisdiction. The constitution no\nwhere recognizes the right to \"slave property,\" _but merely the fact\nthat the states have jurisdiction each in its own limits, and that there\nare certain \"persons\" within their jurisdictions \"held to service\" by\ntheir own laws._\n\nFinally, in the clause under consideration, \"private property\" is not to\nbe taken \"without _just_ compensation.\" \"JUST!\" If justice is to be\nappealed to in determining the amount of compensation, let her determine\nthe _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_ compensation\nis \"just,\" it is hers to say whether _any_ is \"just,\"--whether the slave\nis \"just\" property _at all_, rather than a \"_person_.\" Then, if justice\nadjudges the slave to be \"private property,\" it adjudges him to be _his\nown_ property, since the right to one's _self_ is the first right--the\nsource of all others--the original stock by which they are\naccumulated--the principal, of which they are the interest. And since\nthe slave's \"private property\" has been \"taken,\" and since\n\"compensation\" is impossible--there being no _equivalent_ for one's\nself--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original\nprivate property.\n\nHaving shown that in abolishing slavery, \"property\" would not be \"taken\nfor public use,\" it may be added that, in those states where slavery has\nbeen abolished by law, no claim for compensation has been allowed.\nIndeed the manifest absurdity of demanding it, seems to have quite\nforstalled the _setting up_ of such a claim.\n\nThe abolition of slavery in the District, instead of being a legislative\nanomaly, would proceed upon the principles of every day legislation. It\nhas been shown already, that the United States' Constitution does not\nrecognize slaves as \"property.\" Yet ordinary legislation is full of\nprecedents, showing that even _absolute_ property is in many respects\nwholly subject to legislation. The repeal of the law of entailments--all\nthose acts that control the alienation of property, its disposal by\nwill, its passing to heirs by descent, with the question, who shall be\nheirs, and what shall be the rule of distribution among them, or whether\nproperty shall be transmitted at all by descent, rather than escheat to\nthe state--these, with statutes of limitation, and various other classes\nof legislative acts, serve to illustrate the acknowledged scope of the\nlaw-making power, even where property _is in every sense absolute_.\nPersons whose property is thus affected by public laws, receive from the\ngovernment no compensation for their losses, unless the state has been\nput in possession of the property taken from them.\n\nThe preamble of the United States' Constitution declares it to be a\nfundamental object of the organization of the government \"to ESTABLISH\nJUSTICE.\" Has Congress _no power_ to do that for which it was made the\n_depository of power_? CANNOT the United States' Government fulfil the\npurpose _for which it was brought into being_?\n\nTo abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but\nto \"_establish justice_\" between two parties. To emancipate the slave,\nis to \"_establish justice_\" between him and his master--to throw around\nthe person, character, conscience, liberty, and domestic relations of\nthe one, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other\nwords, to prevent by _legal restraints_ one class of men from seizing\nupon another class, and robbing them at pleasure of their earnings,\ntheir time, their liberty, their kindred, and the very use and ownership\nof their own persons. Finally, to abolish slavery is to proclaim and\n_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are\nentitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall\nno longer gorge upon their spoils under the license, and by the\nministrations of _law_! Congress, by possessing \"exclusive legislation\nin all cases whatsoever,\" has a _general protective power_ for ALL the\ninhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man, it\nhas none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and if it _can_\nprotect _one_ man and is _bound_ to protect him, it _can_ protect\n_every_ man--all men--and is _bound_ to do it. All admit the power of\nCongress to protect the masters in the District against their slaves.\nWhat part of the constitution gives the power? The clause so often\nquoted,--\"power of legislation in all cases whatsoever,\" equally in the\n\"_case_\" of defending the blacks against the whites, as in that of\ndefending the whites against the blacks. The power is given also by Art.\n1, Sec. 8, clause 15--\"Congress shall have power to suppress\ninsurrections\"--a power to protect, as well blacks against whites, as\nwhites against blacks. If the constitution gives power to protect _one_\nclass against the other, it gives power to protect _either_ against the\nother. Suppose the blacks in the District should seize the whites, drive\nthem into the fields and kitchens, force them to work without pay, flog\nthem, imprison them, and sell them at their pleasure, where would\nCongress find power to restrain such acts? Answer; a _general_ power in\nthe clause so often cited, and an _express_ one in that cited\nabove--\"Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections.\" So much\nfor a _supposed_ case. Here follows a _real_ one. The whites in the\nDistrict _are perpetrating these identical acts_ upon seven thousand\nblacks daily. That Congress has power to restrain these acts in _one_\ncase, all assert, and in so doing they assert the power \"in _all_ cases\nwhatsoever.\" For the grant of power to suppress insurrections, is an\n_unconditional_ grant, not hampered by provisos as to the color, shape,\nsize, sex, language, creed, or condition of the insurgents. Congress\nderives its power to suppress this _actual_ insurrection, from the same\nsource whence it derived its power to suppress the _same_ acts in the\ncase _supposed_. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The\n_acts_ in both are the same; the _actors_ only are different. In the one\ncase, ignorant and degraded--goaded by the memory of the past, stung by\nthe present, and driven to desperation by the fearful looking for of\nwrongs for ever to come. In the other, enlightened into the nature of\n_rights_, the principles of justice, and the dictates of the law of\nlove, unprovoked by wrongs, with cool deliberation, and by system, they\nperpetrate these acts upon those to whom they owe unnumbered obligations\nfor _whole lives_ of unrequited service. On which side may palliation be\npleaded, and which party may most reasonably claim an abatement of the\nrigors of law? If Congress has power to suppress such acts _at all_, it\nhas power to suppress them _in_ all.\n\nIt has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is\nthe government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where\nit exacts _allegiance_? It is an axiom of the civilized world, and a\nmaxim even with savages, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal\nand correlative. Are principles powerless with us which exact homage of\nbarbarians? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human\nbeing under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited\nit by crime._\n\nIn conclusion, I argue the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict, from Art. 1, sec, 8, clause 1, of the constitution; \"Congress\nshall have power to provide for the common defence and the general\nwelfare of the United States.\" Has the government of the United States\nno power under this grant, to legislate within its own exclusive\njurisdiction on subjects that vitally affect its interests? Suppose the\nslaves in the district should rise upon their masters, and the United\nStates' government, in quelling the insurrection, should kill any number\nof them. Could their masters claim compensation of the government?\nManifestly not; even though no proof existed that the particular slaves\nkilled were insurgents. This was precisely the point at issue between\nthose masters, whose slaves were killed by the State troops at the time\nof the Southampton insurrection, and the Virginia Legislature: no\nevidence was brought to show that the slaves killed by the troops were\ninsurgents; yet the Virginia Legislature decided that their masters were\n_not entitled to compensation_. They proceeded on the sound principle,\nthat a government may in self-protection destroy the claim of its\nsubjects even to that which has been recognized as property by its own\nacts. If in providing for the common defence, the United States'\ngovernment, in the case supposed, would have power to destroy slaves\nboth as _property_ and _persons_, it surely might stop _half-way_,\ndestroy them _as property_ while it legalized their existence as\n_persons_, and thus provided for the common defence by giving them a\npersonal and powerful interest in the government, and securing their\nstrength for its defence.\n\nLike other Legislatures, Congress has power to abate nuisances--to\nremove or tear down unsafe buildings--to destroy infected cargoes--to\nlay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public health--and\nthus to \"provide for the common defence and general welfare\" by\ndestroying individual property, when such property puts in jeopardy the\npublic weal.\n\nGranting, for argument's sake, that slaves are \"property\" in the\nDistrict of Columbia--if Congress has a right to annihilate property in\nthe District when the public safety requires it, it may surely\nannihilate its existence _as_ property when the public safety requires\nit, especially if it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that\nwhich as _property_ perilled the public interests. In the District of\nColumbia there are, besides the United States' Capitol, the President's\nhouse, the national offices, &c. of the Departments of State, Treasury,\nWar, and Navy, the General Post-office, and Patent Office. It is also\nthe residence of the President, all the highest officers of the\ngovernment, both houses of Congress, and all the foreign ambassadors. In\nthis same District there are also _seven thousand slaves_. Jefferson, in\nhis Notes on Va. p. 241, says of slavery, that \"the State permitting one\nhalf of its citizens to trample on the rights of the other, _transforms\nthem into enemies_;\" and Richard Henry Lee, in the Va. house of\nBurgesses in 1758, declared that to those who held them, \"_slaves must\nbe natural enemies_.\" Is Congress so _impotent_ that it _cannot_\nexercise that right pronounced both by municipal and national law, the\nmost sacred and universal--the right of self-preservation and defence?\nIs it shut up to the _necessity_ of keeping seven thousand \"enemies\" in\nthe heart of the nation's citadel? Does the iron fiat of the\nconstitution doom it to such imbecility that it _cannot_ arrest the\nprocess that _made_ them \"enemies,\" and still goads to deadlier hate by\nfiery trials, and day by day adds others to their number? Is _this_\nproviding for the common defence and general welfare? If to rob men of\nrights excites their hate, freely to restore them and make amends, will\nwin their love.\n\nBy emancipating the slaves in the District, the government of the United\nStates would disband an army of \"enemies,\" and enlist \"for the common\ndefence and general welfare,\" a body guard of _friends_ seven thousand\nstrong. In the last year, a handful of British soldiers sacked\nWashington city, burned the capitol, the President's house, and the\nnational offices and archives; and no marvel, for thousands of the\ninhabitants of the District had been \"TRANSFORMED INTO ENEMIES.\" Would\n_they_ beat back invasion? If the national government had exercised its\nconstitutional \"power to provide for the common defence and to promote\nthe general welfare,\" by turning those \"enemies\" into friends, then,\ninstead of a hostile ambush lurking in every thicket inviting assault,\nand secret foes in every house paralyzing defence, an army of allies\nwould have rallied in the hour of her calamity, and shouted defiance\nfrom their munitions of rocks; whilst the banner of the republic, then\ntrampled in dust, would have floated securely over FREEMEN exulting\namidst bulwarks of strength.\n\nTo show that Congress can abolish slavery in the District, under the\ngrant of power \"to provide for the common defence and to promote the\ngeneral welfare,\" I quote an extract from a speech of Mr. Madison, of\nVa., in the first Congress under the constitution, May 13, 1789.\nSpeaking of the abolition of the slave trade, Mr. Madison says: \"I\nshould venture to say it is as much for the interests of Georgia and\nSouth Carolina, as of any state in the union. Every addition they\nreceive to their number of slaves tends to _weaken_ them, and renders\nthem less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign\nnations, they will be the means of _inviting_ attack instead of\nrepelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general government to\nprotect every part of the empire against danger, as well _internal_ as\nexternal. _Every thing, therefore, which tends to increase this danger,\nthough it may be a local affair, yet if it involves national expense or\nsafety, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, and is a\nproper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general\nadministration of the government._\" See Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310, 11.\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT\n\nMy apology for adding a _postscript_, to a discussion already perhaps\ntoo protracted, is the fact that the preceding sheets were in the hands\nof the printer, and all but the concluding pages had gone through the\npress, before the passage of Mr. Calhoun's late resolutions in the\nSenate of the United States. A proceeding so extraordinary,--if indeed\nthe time has not passed when _any_ acts of Congress in derogation of\nfreedom and in deference to slavery, can be deemed\nextraordinary,--should not be suffered to pass in silence at such a\ncrisis as the present; especially as the passage of one of the\nresolutions by a vote of 36 to 9, exhibits a shift of position on the\npart of the South, as sudden as it is unaccountable, being nothing less\nthan the surrender of a fortress which until then they had defended with\nthe pertinacity of a blind and almost infuriated fatuity. Upon the\ndiscussions during the pendency of the resolutions, and upon the vote,\nby which they were carried, I make no comment, save only to record my\nexultation in the fact there exhibited, that great emergencies are _true\ntouchstones_, and that henceforward, until this question is settled,\nwhoever holds a seat in Congress will find upon, and all around him, a\npressure strong enough to TEST him--a focal blaze that will find its way\nthrough the carefully adjusted cloak of fair pretension, and the\nsevenfold brass of two-faced political intrigue, and _no_-faced\n_non-committalism_, piercing to the dividing asunder of joints and\nmarrow. Be it known to every northern man who aspires to a seat in\nCongress, that hereafter it is the destiny of congressional action on\nthis subject, to be a MIGHTY REVELATOR--making secret thoughts public\nproperty, and proclaiming on the house-tops what is whispered in the\near--smiting off masks, and bursting open sepulchres beautiful\noutwardly, and heaving up to the sun their dead men's bones. To such we\nsay,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then\nsold the North, and their own birthright_!\n\nPassing by the resolutions generally without remark--the attention of\nthe reader is specially solicited to Mr. Clay's substitute for Mr.\nCalhoun's fifth resolution.\n\n\n    \"Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the\n    states of Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic\n    slavery existed in both of these states, including the ceded\n    territory, and that, as it still continues in both of them, it\n    could not be abolished within the District without a violation\n    of that good faith, which was implied in the cession and in the\n    acceptance of the territory; nor, unless compensation were made\n    to the proprietors of slaves, without a manifest infringement of\n    an amendment to the constitution of the United States; nor\n    without exciting a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the\n    states recognizing slavery, far transcending in mischievous\n    tendency, any possible benefit which could be accomplished by\n    the abolition.\"\n\n\nBy voting for this resolution, the south, by a simultaneous movement,\nshifted its mode of defense, not so much by taking a position entirely\nnew, as by attempting to refortify an old one--never much trusted in,\nand abandoned mainly long ago, as being unable to hold out against\nassault however unskilfully directed. In the debate on this resolution,\nthough the southern members of Congress did not _professedly_ retreat\nfrom the ground hitherto maintained by them--that Congress has no power\nby the constitution to abolish slavery in the District--yet in the main\nthey silently drew off from it.\n\nThe passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,\nforms a new era in the discussion of this question.\n\nWe cannot join in the lamentations of those who bewail it. We hail it,\nand rejoice in it. It was as we would have had it--offered by a southern\nsenator, advocated by southern senators, and on the ground that it \"was\nno compromise\"--that it embodied the true southern principle--that \"this\nresolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's\"--(Mr.\nPreston)--\"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr.\nCalhoun's\"--(Mr.  Rives)--that \"the resolution he (Mr. Calhoun) now\nrefused to support, was as strong as his own, and that in supporting it,\nthere was no abandonment of principle by the south.\"--(Mr. Walker, of\nMi.)--further, that it was advocated by the southern senators generally\nas an expression of their views, and as setting the question of slavery\nin the District on its _true_ ground--that finally when the question was\ntaken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself, voted\nfor the resolution.\n\nBy passing this resolution, and with such avowals, the south has\nsurrendered irrevocably the whole question at issue between them and the\npetitioners for abolition in the District. It has, unwittingly but\nexplicitly, conceded the main question argued in the preceding pages.\n\nThe _only_ ground taken against the right of Congress to abolish slavery\nin the District is, that it existed in Maryland and Virginia when the\ncession was made, and \"_as it still continues in both of them_, it could\nnot be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was\nimplied in the cession.\" &c. The _sole argument_ is _not_ that exclusive\n_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,\n_nor_ that the powers of even _ordinary legislation_ cannot do\nit,--_nor_ that the clause granting Congress \"exclusive legislation in\nall cases whatsoever over such District,\" gives no power to do it; but\nthat the _unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other\nwould not \"in _all_ cases\" _use_ the power which said party had\nconsented _might be used_ \"_in all cases_,\" _prohibits_ the use of it.\nThe only cardinal point in the discussion, is here not only _yielded_,\nbut formally laid down by the South as the leading article in their\ncreed on the question of Congressional jurisdiction over slavery in the\nDistrict. The _sole reason_ given why Congress should not abolish, and\nthe sole evidence that if it did, such abolition would be a violation of\n\"good faith,\" is that \"_slavery still continues in those states_,\"--thus\nexplicitly admitting, that if slavery did _not_ \"still continue\" in\nthose States, Congress _could_ abolish it in the District. The same\nadmission is made also in the _premises_, which state that slavery\nexisted in those states _at the time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that\nif it had _not_ existed there then, but had grown up in the District\nunder _United States' laws_, Congress might constitutionally abolish it.\nOr that if the ceded parts of those states had been the _only_ parts in\nwhich slaves were held under their laws, Congress might have abolished\nin such a contingency also. The cession in that case leaving no slaves\nin those states,--no \"good faith,\" would be \"implied\" in it, nor any\n\"violated,\" by an act of abolition. The principle of the resolution\nmakes this further admission, that if Maryland and Virginia should at\nonce abolish their slavery, Congress might at once abolish it in the\nDistrict. The principle goes even further than this, and _requires_\nCongress in such case to abolish slavery in the District \"by the _good\nfaith implied_ in the cession and acceptance of the territory.\" Since,\naccording to the spirit and scope of the resolution, this \"implied good\nfaith\" of Maryland and Virginia in making the cession, was that Congress\nwould do nothing within the District which should go to counteract the\npolicy, or bring into disrepute the \"institutions,\" or call in question\nthe usages, or even in any way ruffle the prejudices of those states, or\ndo what _they_ might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests;\n_themselves_ of course being the judges.\n\nBut let us dissect another limb of the resolution. What is to be\nunderstood by \"that good faith which was IMPLIED?\" It is of course an\nadmission that such a condition was not _expressed_ in the acts of\ncession--that in their _terms_ there is nothing restricting the power of\nCongress on the subject of slavery in the District--not a word alluding\nto it, nor one inserted with such an _intent_. This \"implied faith,\"\nthen, rests on no clause or word in the United States' Constitution, or\nin the acts of cession, or in the acts of Congress accepting the\ncession, nor does it rest on any declarations of the legislatures of\nMaryland and Virginia made at the time, or in that generation, nor on\nany _act_ of theirs, nor on any declaration of the people of those\nstates, nor on the testimony of the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Madisons,\nChaces, Martins, and Jennifers, of those states and times. The assertion\nrests _on itself alone_! Mr. Clay and the other senators who voted for\nthe resolution, _guess_ that Maryland and Virginia supposed that\nCongress would by no means _use_ the power given them by the\nconstitution, except in such ways as would be well pleasing in the eyes\nof those states; especially as one of them was the \"Ancient Dominion!\"\nAnd now after the lapse of half a century, this _assumed expectation_ of\nMaryland and Virginia, the existence of which is mere matter of\nconjecture with the 36 senators, is conjured up and duly installed upon\nthe judgment-seat of final appeal, before whose nod constitutions are to\nflee away, and with whom, solemn grants of power and explicit guaranties\nare, when weighed in the balance, altogether lighter than vanity!\n\nBut let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia\nleave so much to be \"_implied_?\" Why did they not in some way express\nwhat lay so near their hearts? Had their vocabulary run so low that a\nsingle word could not be eked out for the occasion? Or were those states\nso bashful of a sudden that they dare not speak out and tell what they\nwanted? Or did they take it for granted that Congress would always act\nin the premises according to their wishes, and that too, without their\n_making known_ their wishes? If, as honorable senators tell us, Maryland\nand Virginia did verily travail with such abounding _faith_, why brought\nthey forth no _works_?\n\nIt is as true in _legislation_ as in religion, that the only _evidence_\nof \"faith\" is _works_, and that \"faith\" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e.\nhas no _power_. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing\n_expressed_, an \"implied\" _faith_ without works, is _omnipotent_. Mr.\nClay is lawyer enough to know that even a _senatorial hypothesis_ as to\nwhat must have been the _understanding_ of Maryland and Virginia about\ncongressional exercise of constitutional power, _abrogates no grant_,\nand that to plead it in a court of law, would be of small service except\nto jostle \"their Honors'\" gravity! He need not be told that the\nconstitution gives Congress \"power to exercise exclusive legislation in\nall cases whatsoever over such District.\" Nor that the legislatures of\nMaryland and Virginia constructed their acts of cession with this clause\n_before their eyes_, and that both of them declared those acts made \"in\n_pursuance_\" of said clause. Those states were aware that the United\nStates in their constitution had left nothing to be \"_implied_\" as to\nthe power of Congress over the District;--an admonition quite sufficient\none would think to put them on their guard, and induce them to eschew\nvague implications and resort to _stipulations_. Full well did they know\nalso that those were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_\nwas left to be \"implied.\" The colonies were then panting from a twenty\nyears' conflict with the mother country, about bills of rights,\ncharters, treaties, constitutions, grants, limitations, and _acts of\ncession_. The severities of a long and terrible discipline had taught\nthem to guard at all points _legislative grants_, that their exact\nimport and limit might be self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind\n\"faith,\" that _somehow_ in the lottery of chances there would be no\nblanks, but making all sure by the use of explicit terms, and wisely\nchosen words, and _just enough_ of them. The Constitution of the United\nStates with its amendments, those of the individual states, the national\ntreaties, the public documents of the general and state governments at\nthat period, show the universal conviction of legislative bodies, that\nwhen great public interest were at stake, nothing should be left to be\n\"implied.\"\n\nFurther: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their \"implied\nfaith\" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a\nproviso, declaring that Congress should not \"exercise exclusive\nlegislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District,\" but that the\n\"case\" of _slavery_ should be an exception: who does not know that\nCongress, if it had accepted the cession on those terms, would have\nviolated the Constitution; and who that has ever studied the free mood\nof those times in its bearings on slavery--proofs of which are given in\nscores on the preceding pages--can for an instant believe that the\npeople of the United States would have altered their Constitution for\nthe purpose of providing for slavery an inviolable sanctuary; that when\ndriven in from its outposts, and everywhere retreating discomfited\nbefore the march of freedom, it might be received into everlasting\nhabitations on the common homestead and hearth-stone of this free\nrepublic? Besides, who can believe that Virginia made such a condition,\nor cherished such a purpose, when at that very moment, Washington,\nJefferson, Wythe, Patrick Henry, St. George Tucker, and almost all her\nillustrious men, were advocating the abolition of slavery by law. When\nWashington had said, two years before, Maryland and Virginia \"must have\nlaws for the gradual abolition of slavery and at a period _not remote_;\"\nand when Jefferson in his letter to Price, three years before the\ncession, had said, speaking of Virginia, \"This is the next state to\nwhich we may turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in\nconflict with avarice and oppression--a conflict in which THE SACRED\nSIDE IS GAINING DAILY RECRUITS;\" when voluntary emancipations on the\nsoil were then progressing at the rate of between one and two thousand\nannually, (See Judge Tucker's \"Dissertation on Slavery,\" p. 73;) when\nthe public sentiment of Virginia had undergone, and was undergoing so\nmighty a revolution that the idea of the continuance of slavery as a\npermanent system could not be _tolerated_, though she then contained\nabout half the slaves in the Union. Was this the time to stipulated for\nthe _perpetuity_ of slavery under the exclusive legislation of Congress?\nand that too at the _same_ session of Congress when _every one_ of her\ndelegation voted for the abolition of slavery in the North West\nTerritory; a territory which she had herself ceded to Congress, and\nalong with it had surrendered her jurisdiction over many of her\ncitizens, inhabitants of that territory, who held slaves there--and\nwhose slaves were emancipated by that act of Congress, in which all her\ndelegation with one accord participated?\n\nNow in view of the universal belief then prevalent, that slavery in this\ncountry was doomed to short life, and especially that in Maryland and\nVirginia it would be _speedily_ abolished--are we to be told that those\nstates _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to terminate it? Are we to\nadopt the monstrous conclusion that this was the intent of the Ancient\nDominion--thus to _bind_ the United States by an \"implied faith,\" and\nthat when the United States _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly\nthus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it?\nVerily one would think that honorable senators supposed themselves\ndeputed to do our _thinking_ as well as our legislation, or rather, that\nthey themselves were absolved from such drudgery by virtue of their\noffice!\n\nAnother absurdity of this dogma about \"implied faith\" is, that where\nthere was no power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to\ndemand an _implied_ one, and where there was no power to _give_ the one,\nthere was none to give the _other_. We have shown already that Congress\ncould not have accepted the cession with such a condition. To have\nsigned away a part of its constitutional grant of power would have been\na _breach_ of the Constitution. Further, the Congress which accepted the\ncession was competent to pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use\nall_ the power over the District committed to it by the Constitution.\nBut here its power ended. Its resolution would only bind _itself_. Could\nit bind the _next_ Congress by its authority? Could the members of one\nCongress say to the members of another, because we do not choose to\nexercise all the authority vested in us by the Constitution, therefore\nyou _shall_ not? This would have been a prohibition to do what the\nConstitution gives power to do. Each successive Congress would still\nhave gone to the Constitution for its power, brushing away in its course\nthe cobwebs stretched across its path by the officiousness of an\nimpertinent predecessor. Again, the legislatures of Virginia and\nMaryland, had no power to bind Congress, either by an express or an\nimplied pledge, never to abolish slavery in the District. Those\nlegislatures had no power to bind _themselves_ never to abolish slavery\nwithin their own territories--the ceded parts included. Where then would\nthey get power to bind _another_ not to do what they had no power to\nbind themselves not to do? If a legislature could not in this respect\ncontrol the successive legislatures of its own State, could it control\nthe successive Congresses of the United States?\n\nBut perhaps we shall be told, that the \"implied faith\" in the acts of\ncession of Maryland and Virginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_\nabolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do it until\n_they_ had done it within their bounds! Verily this \"faith\" comes little\nshort of the faith of miracles! \"A good rule that works both ways.\"\nFirst, Maryland and Virginia have \"good faith\" that Congress will _not_\nabolish until _they_ do; and then just as \"good faith\" that Congress\n_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those\nStates suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,\nthe common jurisdiction of _all_, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And\nwho, did they suppose, would be judges in the matter?--themselves\nmerely? or the whole Union?\n\nThis \"good faith implied in the cession\" is no longer of doubtful\ninterpretation. The principle at the bottom of it, when fairly stated,\nis this:--That the Government of the United States are bound in \"good\nfaith\" to do in the District of Columbia, without demurring, just what\nand when, Maryland and Virginia do in their own States. In short, that\nthe general government is eased of all the burdens of legislation within\nits exclusive jurisdiction, save that of hiring a scrivener to copy off\nthe acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures as fast as they are\npassed, and engross them, under the title of \"Laws of the United States,\nfor the District of Columbia!\" A slight additional expense would also be\nincurred in keeping up an express between the capitols of those States\nand Washington city, bringing Congress from time to time its\n\"_instructions_\" from head quarters--instructions not to be disregarded\nwithout a violation of that \"good faith implied in the cession,\" &c.\n\nThis sets in strong light the advantages of \"our glorious Union,\" if the\ndoctrine of Mr. Clay and the thirty-six Senators be orthodox. The people\nof the United States have been permitted to set up at their own expense,\nand on their own territory, two great _sounding boards_ called \"Senate\nChamber\" and \"Representatives' Hall,\" for the purpose of sending abroad\n\"by authority\" _national_ echoes of _state_ legislation!--permitted also\nto keep in their pay a corps of pliant _national_ musicians, with\nperemptory instructions to sound on any line of the staff according as\nVirginia and Maryland may give the _sovereign_ key note!\n\nThough this may have the seeming of mere raillery, yet an analysis of\nthe resolution and of the discussions upon it, will convince every fair\nmind that it is but the legitimate carrying out of the _principle_\npervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will\nand pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are _paramount_ to those of the\n_Union_. If the main design of setting apart a federal district had been\noriginally the accommodation of Maryland, Virginia, and the south, with\nthe United States as an _agent_ to consummate the object, there could\nhardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. The sole object\nof _having_ such a District was in effect totally perverted in the\nresolution of Mr. Clay, and in the discussions of the entire southern\ndelegation, upon its passage. Instead of taking the ground, that the\nbenefit of the whole Union was the sole _object_ of a federal district,\nthat it was designed to guard and promote the interests of _all_ the\nstates, and that it was to be legislated over _for this end_--the\nresolution proceeds upon an hypothesis _totally the reverse_. It takes a\nsingle point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL interests,\nutterly overshadowing them; abrogating national _rights_; making void a\nclause of the Constitution; humbling the general government into a\nsubject--crouching for favors to a superior, and that too _on its own\nexclusive jurisdiction_. All the attributes of sovereignty vested in\nCongress by the Constitution it impales upon the point of an alleged\n_implication_. And this is Mr. Clay's peace-offering, to appease the\nlust of power and the ravenings of state encroachment! A \"compromise,\"\nforsooth! that sinks the general Government on _its own territory_ into\na mere colony, with Virginia and Maryland for its \"mother country!\" It\nis refreshing to turn from these shallow, distorted constructions and\nservile cringings, to the high bearing of other southern men in other\ntimes; men, who in their character of legislators and lawyers, disdained\nto accommodate their interpretations of constitutions and charters to\ngeographical lines, or to bend them to the purposes of a political\ncanvass. In the celebrated case of Cohens vs. the State of Virginia,\nHon. William Pinkney, late of Baltimore, and Hon. Walter Jones, of\nWashington city, with other eminent constitutional lawyers, prepared an\nelaborate written opinion, from which the following is an extract: \"Nor\nis there any danger to be apprehended from allowing to Congressional\nlegislation with regard to the District of Columbia, its FULLEST EFFECT.\nCongress is responsible to the States, and to the people for that\nlegislation. It is in truth the legislation of the states over a\ndistrict placed under their control for _their own benefit_, not for\nthat of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is\ninvolved, and necessary to the _general advantage_.\"--[Life of Pinkney,\np.  612.]\n\nThe profound legal opinion, from which this is an extract, was\nelaborated at great length many years since, by a number of the most\ndistinguished lawyers in the United States, whose signatures are\nappended to it. It is specific and to the point. It asserts, 1st, that\nCongressional legislation over the District, is \"the legislation of the\n_States_ and the _people_,\" (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_\nof the people;) 2d. \"Over a District placed under _their_ control,\" i.e.\nunder the control of the _whole_ of the States, not under the control of\n_two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d. That it was thus put under their\nControl \"_for THEIR OWN benefit_,\" the benefit of all the States\n_equally_; not to secure special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or\nwhat it might be _conjectured_ they would regard as benefits.) 4th. It\nconcludes by asserting that the design of this exclusive control of\nCongress over the District was \"not for the benefit of the _District_,\"\nexcept as that is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the\n_general_ advantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is\n_directly_ concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia,\nwho are but _indirectly_ interested, and would be but remotely affected\nby it. The argument of Mr. Madison in the Congress of '89, an extract\nfrom which has been given on a preceding page, lays down the same\nprinciple; that though any matter \"_may be a local affair, yet if it\ninvolves national EXPENSE OR SAFETY, it becomes of concern to every part\nof the union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those\ncharged with the general administration of the government_.\" Cong. Reg.\nvol. 1. p. 310, 11.\n\nBut these are only the initiatory absurdities of this \"good faith\n_implied_.\" The thirty-six senators aptly illustrate the principle, that\nerror not only conflicts with truth, but is generally at issue with\nitself. For if it would be a violation of \"good faith\" to Maryland and\nVirginia, for Congress to abolish slavery in the District, it would be\n_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, or even\nat the earnest and unanimous petition of the people of the District: yet\nfor years it has been the southern doctrine, that if the people of the\nDistrict demand of Congress relief in this respect, it has power, as\ntheir local legislature, to grant it, and by abolishing slavery there,\ncarry out the will of the citizens. But now new light has broken in! The\noptics of the thirty-six have pierced the millstone with a deeper\ninsight, and discoveries thicken faster than they can be telegraphed!\nCongress has no power, O no, not a modicum, to help the slaveholders of\nthe District, however loudly they may clamor for it. The southern\ndoctrine, that Congress is to the District a mere local Legislature to\ndo its pleasure, is tumbled from the genitive into the vocative! Hard\nfate--and that too at the hands of those who begat it! The reasonings of\nMessrs. Pinckney, Wise, and Leigh, are now found to be wholly at fault,\nand the chanticleer rhetoric of Messrs. Glascock and Garland stalks\nfeatherless and crest-fallen. For, Mr. Clay's resolution sweeps by the\nboard all those stereotyped common-places, as \"Congress a local\nLegislature,\" \"consent of the District,\" \"bound to consult the wishes of\nthe District,\" &c. &c., which for the last two sessions of Congress have\nserved to eke out scanty supplies. It declares, that _as slavery existed\nin Maryland and Virginia at the time of the cession, and as it still\ncontinues in both those states, it could not be abolished in the\nDistrict without a violation of 'that good faith_,' &c.\n\nBut let us see where this principle of the _thirty-six_ will lead us. If\n\"implied faith\" to Maryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the\nabolition of slavery in the District, it _requires_ Congress to do in\nthe District what those states have done within their bounds, i.e.,\nrestrain _others_ from abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress\nis _bound_, by the doctrine of Mr. Clay's resolution, to _prohibit\nemancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this\nplighted \"faith.\" Congress must not only refrain from laying violent\nhands on slavery, _itself_, and see to it that the slaveholders\nthemselves do not, but it is bound to keep the system up to the Maryland\nand Virginia standard of vigor!\n\nAgain, if the good faith of Congress to Virginia and Maryland requires\nthat slavery should exist in the District, while it exists in those\nstates, it requires that it should exist there _as_ it exists in those\nstates. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would\nviolate good faith, to abolish _the_ form existing in those states, and\nto substitute a totally different one, would also violate it. The\nCongressional \"good faith\" is to be kept not only with _slavery_, but\nwith the _Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those\nstates not being in the preservation of _a_ system, but of _their_\nsystem; otherwise Congress, instead of _sustaining_, would counteract\ntheir policy--principles would be brought into action there conflicting\nwith their system, and thus the true spirit of the \"implied\" pledge\nwould be violated. On this principle, so long as slaves are \"chattels\npersonal\" in Virginia and Maryland, Congress could not make them _real\nestate_, inseparable from the soil, as in Louisiana; nor could it permit\nslaves to read, nor to worship God according to conscience; nor could it\ngrant them trial by jury, nor legalize marriage; nor require the master\nto give sufficient food and clothing; nor prohibit the violent sundering\nof families--because such provisions would conflict with the existing\nslave laws of Virginia and Maryland, and thus violate the \"good faith\nimplied,\" &c. So the principle of the resolution binds Congress in all\nthese particulars: 1st. Not to abolish slavery in the District _until_\nVirginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that\nexists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of\nit still existing in those states. 4th. _To abolish_ when they do. 5th.\nTo increase or abate its rigors _when, how_, and _as_ the same are\nmodified by those states. In a word, Congressional action in the\nDistrict is to float passively in the wake of legislative action on the\nsubject in those states.\n\nBut here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should\nsteer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress\nfloat in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its\nobsequiousness equals its \"power of legislation in _all_ cases\nwhatsoever.\" It can float _up_ on the Virginia tide, and ebb down on the\nMaryland at the same time. What Maryland does, Congress will do in the\nMaryland part. What Virginia does, Congress will do in the Virginia\npart. Though Congress might not always be able to run at the bidding of\nboth _at once_, especially in different directions, yet if it obeyed\norders cheerfully, and \"kept in its place,\" according to its \"good faith\nimplied,\" impossibilities might not be rigidly exacted. True, we have\nthe highest sanction for the maxim that no _man_ can serve two\nmasters--but if \"corporations have _no_ souls,\" analogy would absolve\nCongress on that score, or at most give it only _a very small soul_--not\nlarge enough to be at all in the way, as an _exception_ to the universal\nrule laid down in the maxim!\n\nIn following out the absurdities of this \"_implied_ good faith,\" it will\nbe seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to\n_all the subjects_ of _legislation_ existing in Maryland and Virginia,\nwhich exist also within the District. Every system, \"institution,\" law,\nand established usage there, is placed beyond Congressional control\nequally with slavery, and by the same \"implied faith.\" The abolition of\nthe lottery system in the District as an _immorality_, was a flagrant\nbreach of this \"good faith\" to Maryland and Virginia, as the system\n\"still continued in those states.\" So to abolish imprisonment for debt,\nand capital punishment, to remodel the bank system, the power of\ncorporations, the militia law, laws of limitation, &c., in the District,\n_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead_, would violate the \"good\nfaith implied in the cession,\" &c.\n\nThat in the acts of cession no such \"good faith\" was \"implied by\nVirginia and Maryland\" as is claimed in the Resolution, we argue from\nthe fact, that in 1784 Virginia ceded to the United States all her\nnorthwest territory, with the special proviso that her citizens\ninhabiting that territory should \"have their _possessions_ and _titles_\nconfirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_\nand liberties.\" (See Journals of Congress, vol. 9, p. 63.) The cession\nwas made in the form of a deed, and signed by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel\nHardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe. Many of these inhabitants _held\nslaves_. Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in\nCongress _proposed_ the passage of an ordinance which should abolish\nslavery, in that territory, and declare that it should never thereafter\nexist there. All the members of Congress from Virginia and Maryland\nvoted for this ordinance. Suppose some member of Congress had during the\npassage of the ordinance introduced the following resolution: \"Resolved,\nThat when the northwest territory was ceded by Virginia to the United\nStates, domestic slavery existed in that State, including the ceded\nterritory, and as it still continues in that State, it could not be\nabolished within the territory without a violation of that good faith,\nwhich was implied in the cession and in the acceptance of the\nterritory.\" What would have been the indignant response of Grayson,\nGriffin, Madison, and the Lees, in the Congress of '87, to such a\nresolution, and of Carrington, Chairman of the Committee, who reported\nthe ratification of the ordinance in the Congress of '89, and of Page\nand Parker, who with every other member of the Virginia delegation\nsupported it!\n\nBut to enumerate all the absurdities into which the thirty-six Senators\nhave plunged themselves, would be to make a quarto inventory. We decline\nthe task; and in conclusion, merely add that Mr. Clay, in presenting\nthis resolution, and each of the thirty-six Senators who voted for it,\nentered on the records of the Senate, and proclaimed to the world, a\nmost unworthy accusation against the MILLIONS of American citizens who\nhave during nearly half a century petitioned the national legislature to\nabolish slavery in the District of Columbia,--charging them either with\nthe ignorance or the impiety of praying the nation to violate its\n\"PLIGHTED FAITH.\" The resolution virtually indicts at the bar of public\nopinion, and brands with odium, all the Manumission Societies, the\n_first_ petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District, and\nfor a long time the only ones, petitioning from year to year through\nevil report and good report, still petitioning, by individual societies\nand in their national conventions.\n\nBut as if it were not enough to table the charge against such men as\nBenjamin Rush, William Rawle, John Sergeant, Robert Vaux, Cadwallader\nColden, and Peter A. Jay,--to whom we may add Rufus King, James\nHillhouse, William Pinkney, Thomas Addis Emmett, Daniel D. Tompkins, De\nWitt Clinton, James Kent, and Daniel Webster, besides eleven hundred\ncitizens of the District itself, headed by their Chief Justice and\njudges--even the sovereign States of Pennsylvania, New-York,\nMassachusetts, and Vermont, whose legislatures have either memorialized\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District, or instructed their\nSenators to move such a measure, must be gravely informed by Messrs.\nClay, Norvell, Niles, Smith, Pierce, Benton, Black, Tipton, and other\nhonorable Senators, either that their perception is so dull, they know\nnot what of they affirm, or that their moral sense is so blunted they\ncan demand without compunction a violation of the nation's faith!\n\nWe have spoken already of the concessions unwittingly made in this\nresolution to the true doctrine of Congressional power over the\nDistrict. For that concession, important as it is, we have small thanks\nto render. That such a resolution, passed with such an _intent_, and\npressing at a thousand points on relations and interests vital to the\nfree states, should be hailed, as it has been, by a portion of the\nnorthern press as a \"compromise\" originating in deference to northern\ninterests, and to be received by us as a free-will offering of\ndisinterested benevolence, demanding our gratitude to the mover,--may\nwell cover us with shame. We deserve the humiliation and have well\nearned the mockery. Let it come!\n\nIf, after having been set up at auction in the public sales-room of the\nnation, and for thirty years, and by each of a score of \"compromises,\"\ntreacherously knocked off to the lowest bidder, and that without money\nand without price, the North, plundered and betrayed, _will not_, in\nthis her accepted time, consider the things that belong to her peace\nbefore they are hidden from her eyes, then let her eat of the fruit of\nher own way, and be filled with her own devices! Let the shorn and\nblinded giant grind in the prison-house of the Philistines, till taught\nthe folly of intrusting to Delilahs the secret and the custody of his\nstrength.\n\nHave the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the\nlessons of experience? If lost to _reason_, are they dead to _instinct_\nalso? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And\nshall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?\n\nA \"COMPROMISE!\" Bitter irony! Is the plucked and hood-winked North to be\nwheedled by the sorcery of another Missouri compromise? A compromise in\nwhich the South gained all, and the North lost all, and lost it for\never. A compromise which embargoed the free laborer of the North and\nWest, and clutched at the staff he leaned upon, to turn it into a\nbludgeon and fell him with its stroke. A compromise which wrested from\nliberty her boundless birthright domain, stretching westward to the\nsunset, while it gave to slavery loose reins and a free course, from the\nMississippi to the Pacific.\n\nThe resolution, as it finally passed, is here inserted. The original\nResolution, as moved by Mr. Clay, was inserted at the head of this\npostscript with the impression that it was the _amended_ form. It will\nbe seen however, that it underwent no material modification.\n\n\"Resolved, That the interference by the citizens of any of the states,\nwith the view to the abolition of slavery in the District, is\nendangering the rights and security of the people of the District; and\nthat any act or measure of Congress designed to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict, would be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by\nthe states of Virginia and Maryland, a just cause of alarm to the people\nof the slaveholding states, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to\ndisturb and endanger the Union.\"\n\nThe vote upon the Resolution stood as follows:\n\n_Yeas_.--Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Black, Buchanan, Brown, Calhoun,\nClay, of Alabama, Clay, of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert,\nFulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell,\nPierce, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith, of Connecticut,\nStrange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, Young.\n\n_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,\nSMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNO. 5\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nPOWER OF CONGRESS\n\nOVER THE\n\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, UNDER THE SIGNATURE\nOF \"WYTHE.\"\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.\n\nFOURTH EDITION.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nNEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, No. 143 NASSAU\nSTREET. 1838.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis No. contains 3-1/2 sheets.--Postage, under 100 miles, 6 cts. over\n100, 10 cts.\n\n\n\nPOWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.\n\nA civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that\ngovernment be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well\nas the _subjects_ of its power. Its constitution is their bill of\ndirections to their own agents--a grant authorizing the exercise of\ncertain powers, and prohibiting that of others. In the Constitution of\nthe United States, whatever else may be obscure, the clause granting\npower to Congress over the Federal District may well defy\nmisconstruction. Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18: \"The Congress shall have\npower to exercise exclusive legislation, _in all cases whatsoever_, over\nsuch District.\" Congress may make laws for the District \"in all\n_cases_,\" not of all _kinds_. The grant respects the _subjects_ of\nlegislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power\nevery where, is subject to _moral_ restrictions, whether limited by\nconstitutions or not. No legislature can authorize murder, nor make\nhonesty penal, nor virtue a crime, nor exact impossibilities. In these\nand similar respects, the power of Congress is held in check by\nprinciples existing in the nature of things, not imposed by the\nConstitution, but presupposed and assumed by it. The power of Congress\nover the District is restricted only by those principles that limit\nordinary legislation, and, in some respects, it has even wider scope.\n\nIn common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot\nconstitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend\nthe writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the\nfreedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people\nto be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact\nlaws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general\nlimitations. Congress cannot do these things _any where_. The exact\nimport, therefore, of the clause \"in all cases whatsoever,\" is, _on all\nsubjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. Some\nlegislatures are restrained by constitutions from the exercise of powers\nstrictly within the proper sphere of legislation. Congressional power\nover the District has no such restraint. It traverses the whole field of\nlegitimate legislation. All the power which any legislature has within\nits own jurisdiction, Congress holds over the District of Columbia.\n\nIt has been asserted that the clause in question respects merely police\nregulations, and that its sole design was to enable Congress to protect\nitself against popular tumults. But if the framers of the Constitution\naimed to provide for a _single_ case only, why did they provide for\n\"_all_ cases whatsoever?\" Besides, this clause was opposed in many of\nthe state conventions, because the grant of power was not restricted to\npolice regulations _alone_. In the Virginia Convention, George Mason,\nthe father of the Virginia Constitution, said, \"This clause gives an\nunlimited authority in every possible case within the District. He would\nwillingly give them exclusive power as far as respected the police and\ngood government of the place, but he would give them no more.\" Mr.\nGrayson said, that control over the _police_ was all-sufficient, and\nthat the \"Continental Congress never had an idea of exclusive\nlegislation in all cases.\" Patrick Henry said. \"Is it consistent with\nany principle of prudence or good policy, to grant _unlimited, unbounded\nauthority?_\" Mr. Madison said in reply: \"I did conceive that the clause\nunder consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own\npraise. When any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves\nauthority to make laws to execute it. * * * * The powers which are found\nnecessary to be given, are therefore delegated _generally_, and\nparticular and minute specification is left to the legislature. * * * It\nis not within the limits of human capacity to delineate on paper all\nthose particular cases and circumstances, in which legislation by the\ngeneral legislature would be necessary.\" Governor Randolph said:\n\"Holland has no ten miles square, but she has the Hague where the\ndeputies of the States assemble. But the influence which it has given\nthe province of Holland, to have the seat of government within its\nterritory, subject in some respects to its control, has been injurious\nto the other provinces. The wisdom of the Convention is therefore\nmanifest in granting to Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the place\nof their session.\" [_Deb. Va. Con._, p. 320.] In the forty-third number\nof the \"Federalist,\" Mr. Madison says: \"The indispensable necessity of\n_complete_ authority at the seat of government, carries its own\nevidence with it.\"\n\nFinally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to\nthe obvious import of its _terms_, is proved by the fact, that Virginia\nproposed an amendment to the United States' Constitution at the time of\nits adoption, providing that this clause \"should be so construed as to\ngive power only over the _police and good government_ of said District,\"\n_which amendment was rejected_.\n\nThe former part of the clause under consideration, \"Congress shall have\npower to exercise _exclusive_ legislation,\" gives _sole_ jurisdiction,\nand the latter part, \"in all cases whatsoever,\" defines the _extent_ of\nit. Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ legislature within the District,\nand since its power is limited only by the checks common to all\nlegislatures, it follows that what the law-making power is intrinsically\ncompetent to do _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District\nof Columbia. Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to state and\nargue the _real_ question at issue.\n\nIS THE LAW-MAKING POWER COMPETENT TO ABOLISH SLAVERY WHEN NOT RESTRICTED\nIN THAT PARTICULAR BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS--or, IS THE ABOLITION OF\nSLAVERY WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION?\n\n1. In every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the\nUnited States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_\nsovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the\nlegislature possesses a _representative_ sovereignty, delegated by the\npeople through the Constitution--the people thus committing to the\nlegislature a portion of their sovereignty, and specifying in their\nconstitutions the amount of the grant and its conditions. That the\n_people_ in any state where slavery exists, have the power to abolish\nit, none will deny. If the legislature have not the power, it is because\n_the people_ have reserved it to themselves. Had they lodged with the\nlegislature \"power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases\nwhatsoever,\" they would have parted with their sovereignty over the\nlegislation of the State, and so far forth, the legislature would have\nbecome _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such\ncompetent, _during the continuance of the grant_, to do whatever the\npeople might have done before the surrender of their power:\nconsequently, they would have the power to abolish slavery. The\nsovereignty of the District of Columbia exists _somewhere_--where is it\nlodged? The citizens of the District have no legislature of their own,\nno representation in Congress, and no political power whatever. Maryland\nand Virginia have surrendered to the United States their \"full and\nabsolute right and entire sovereignty,\" and the people of the United\nStates have committed to Congress by the Constitution, the power to\n\"exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such\nDistrict.\"\n\nThus, the sovereignty of the District of Columbia, is shown to reside\nsolely in the Congress of the United States; and since the power of the\npeople of a state to abolish slavery within their own limits, results\nfrom their entire sovereignty within that state, so the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District, results from its entire\nsovereignty within the District. If it be objected that Congress can\nhave no more power over the District, than was held by the legislatures\nof Maryland and Virginia, we ask what clause of the constitution\ngraduates the power of Congress by the standard of those legislatures?\nWas the United States' constitution worked into its present shape under\nthe measuring line and square of Virginia and Maryland? and is its power\nto be bevelled down till it can run in the grooves of state legislation?\nThere is a deal of prating about constitutional power over the District,\nas though Congress were indebted for it to Maryland and Virginia. The\npowers of those states, whether prodigies or nullities, have nothing to\ndo with the question. As well thrust in the powers of the Grand Lama to\njoin issue upon, or twist papal bulls into constitutional tether, with\nwhich to curb congressional action. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED\nSTATES gives power to Congress, and takes it away, and _it alone_.\nMaryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution _before_ they ceded to\nthe United States the territory of the District. By their acts of\ncession, they abdicated their own sovereignty over the District, and\nthus made room for that provided by the United States' constitution,\nwhich sovereignty was to commence as soon as a cession of territory by\nstates, and its acceptance by Congress, furnished a sphere for its\nexercise. That the abolition of slavery is within the sphere of\nlegislation, I argue.\n\n2. FROM THE FACT, THAT SLAVERY, AS A LEGAL SYSTEM, IS THE CREATURE OF\nLEGISLATION. The law, by _creating_ slavery, not only affirmed its\n_existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control of\nlegislation, but also, the conditions and terms of its existence, and\nthe _question_ whether or not it should exist. Of course legislation\nwould not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing what is _within_ it,\nand what had been recognized to be within it, by its own act. Cannot\nlegislatures repeal their own laws? If law can take from a man his\nrights, it can give them back again. If it can say, \"your body belongs\nto your neighbor,\" it can say, \"it belongs to _yourself_.\" If it can\nannul a man's right to himself, held by express grant from his Maker,\nand can create for another an _artificial_ title to him, can it not\nannul the artificial title, and leave the original owner to hold himself\nby his original title?\n\n3. THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED WITHIN THE\nAPPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION. Almost every civilized nation has\nabolished slavery by law. The history of legislation since the revival\nof letters, is a record crowded with testimony to the universally\nadmitted competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery. It is so\nmanifestly an attribute not merely of absolute sovereignty, but even of\nordinary legislation, that the competency of a legislature to exercise\nit, may well nigh be reckoned among the legal axioms of the civilized\nworld. Even the night of the dark ages was not dark enough to make this\ninvisible.\n\nThe Abolition decree of the great council of England was passed in 1102.\nThe memorable Irish decree, \"that all the English slaves in the whole of\nIreland, be immediately emancipated and restored to their former\nliberty,\" was issued in 1171. Slavery in England was abolished by a\ngeneral charter of emancipation in 1381. Passing over many instances of\nthe abolition of slavery by law, both during the middle ages and since\nthe reformation, we find them multiplying as we approach our own times.\nIn 1776 slavery was abolished in Prussia by special edict. In St.\nDomingo, Cayenne, Guadaloupe, and Martinique, in 1794, where more than\n600,000 slaves were emancipated by the French government. In Java, 1811;\nin Ceylon, 1815; in Buenos Ayres, 1816; in St. Helena, 1819; in\nColombia, 1821; by the Congress of Chili in 1821; in Cape Colony, 1823;\nin Malacca, 1825; in the southern provinces of Birmah, 1826; in Bolivia,\n1826; in Peru, Guatemala, and Monte Video, 1828; in Jamaica, Barbados,\nthe Bermudas, the Bahamas, Anguilla, Mauritius, St. Christopers, Nevis,\nthe Virgin Islands, (British), Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St.\nVincents, Grenada, Berbice, Tobago, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Honduras,\nDemerara, Essequibo and the Cape of Good Hope, on the 1st of August,\n1834. But waving details, suffice it to say, that England, France,\nSpain, Portugal, Denmark, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and Germany, have\nall and often given their testimony to the competency of the legislative\npower to abolish slavery. In our own country, the Legislature of\nPennsylvania passed an act of abolition in 1780, Connecticut in 1784;\nRhode Island, 1784; New-York, 1799; New-Jersey, in 1804; Vermont, by\nConstitution, in 1777; Massachusetts, in 1780; and New-Hampshire,\nin 1784.\n\nWhen the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery has thus\nbeen recognized every where and for ages, when it has been embodied in\nthe highest precedents, and celebrated in the thousand jubilees of\nregenerated liberty, is it an achievement of modern discovery, that such\na power is a nullity?--that all these acts of abolition are void, and\nthat the millions disenthralled by them, are, either themselves or their\nposterity, still legally in bondage?\n\n4. LEGISLATIVE POWER HAS ABOLISHED SLAVERS IN ITS PARTS. The law of\nSouth Carolina prohibits the working of slaves more than fifteen hours\nin the twenty-four. In other words, it takes from the slaveholder his\npower over nine hours of the slave's time daily; and if it can take nine\nhours it may take twenty-four. The laws of Georgia prohibit the working\nof slaves on the first day of the week; and if they can do it for the\nfirst, they can for the six following. The law of North Carolina\nprohibits the \"immoderate\" correction of slaves. If it has power to\nprohibit _immoderate_ correction, it can prohibit _moderate_\ncorrection--_all_ correction, which would be virtual emancipation; for,\ntake from the master the power to inflict pain, and he is master no\nlonger. Cease to ply the slave with the stimulus of fear, and he\nis free.\n\nThe Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make\nlaws \"to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_.\" The\nConstitution of Missouri has the same clause, and an additional one\nmaking it the DUTY of the legislature to pass such laws as may be\nnecessary to secure the _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant to\nthose legislatures, empowers them to decide what _is_ and what is _not_\n\"humane treatment.\" Otherwise it gives no \"power\"--the clause is mere\nwaste paper, and flouts in the face of a befooled legislature. A clause\ngiving power to require \"humane treatment\" covers all the _particulars_\nof such treatment--gives power to exact it in _all respects--requiring_\ncertain acts, and _prohibiting_ others--maiming, branding, chaining\ntogether, separating families, floggings for learning the alphabet, for\nreading the Bible, for worshiping God according to conscience--the\nlegislature has power to specify each of these acts--declare that it is\nnot \"_humane_ treatment,\" and PROHIBIT it.--The legislature may also\nbelieve that driving men and women into the field, and forcing them to\nwork without pay, is not \"humane treatment,\" and being constitutionally\nbound \"to _oblige_\" masters to practise \"humane treatment\"--they have\nthe _power_ to _prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.\n\nThe law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,\nif he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[A] If it\nhas power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the\nsale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can\nprohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,\nSpanish, and Portuguese colonies. The law of Louisiana requires the\nmaster to give his slaves a certain amount of food and clothing. If it\ncan oblige the master to give the slave _one_ thing, it can oblige him\nto give him another: if food and clothing, then wages, liberty, his own\nbody. By the laws of Connecticut, slaves may receive and hold property,\nand prosecute suits in their own name as plaintiffs: [This last was also\nthe law of Virginia in 1795. See Tucker's \"Dissertation on Slavery,\" p.\n73.] There were also laws making marriage contracts legal, in certain\ncontingencies, and punishing infringements of them, [\"_Reeve's Law of\nBaron and Femme_,\" p. 340-1.]\n\n[Footnote A: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.\n(_Beverly's Hist. of Va._, p. 98.) I do not find the precise time when\nthis law was repealed, probably when Virginia became the chief slave\nbreeder for the cotton-growing and sugar-planting country, and made\nyoung men and women \"from fifteen to twenty-five\" the main staple\nproduction of the State.]\n\nEach of the laws enumerated above, does, _in principle_, abolish\nslavery; and all of them together abolish it _in fact_. True, not as a\n_whole_, and at a _stroke_, nor all in one place; but in its _parts_, by\npiecemeal, at divers times and places; thus showing that the abolition\nof slavery is within the boundary of legislation.\n\nIn the \"Washington (D.C.) City Laws,\" page 138, is \"AN ACT to prevent\nhorses from being cruelly beaten or abused.\" Similar laws have been\npassed by corporations in many of the slave states, and throughout the\ncivilized world, such acts are punishable either as violations of common\nlaw or of legislative enactments. If a legislature can pass laws \"to\nprevent _horses_ from being cruelly abused,\" it can pass laws to prevent\n_men_ from being cruelly abused, and if it can _prevent_ cruel abuse, it\ncan define _what it is_. It can declare that to make men _work without\npay_ is cruel abuse, and can PROHIBIT it.\n\n5. THE COMPETENCY OF THE LAW-MAKING POWER TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, HAS BEEN\nRECOGNIZED BY ALL THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY\nIMPLICATION. Some States recognize it in their _Constitutions_, by\ngiving the legislature power to emancipate such slaves as may \"have\nrendered the state some distinguished service,\" and others by express\nprohibitory restrictions. The Constitution of Mississippi, Arkansas, and\nother States, restrict the power of the legislature in this respect. Why\nthis express prohibition, if the law-making power _cannot_ abolish\nslavery? A stately farce indeed, with appropriate rites to induct into\nthe Constitution a special clause, for the express purpose of\nrestricting a nonentity!--to take from the law-making power what it\n_never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it! The legislatures of those\nStates have no power to abolish slavery, simply because their\nConstitutions have expressly _taken away_ that power. The people of\nArkansas, Mississippi, &c. well knew the competency of the law-making\npower to abolish slavery, and hence their zeal to _restrict_ it.\n\nThe slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_.\nVirginia passed a law in 1786 to prevent the importation of Slaves, of\nwhich the following is an extract: \"And be it further enacted that every\nslave imported into this commonwealth contrary to the true intent and\nmeaning of this act, shall upon such importation become _free_.\" By a\nlaw of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792, a slave brought into the state\nand kept _there a year_, was _free_. The Maryland Court of Appeals,\nDec., 1813 [case of Stewart vs. Oakes,] decided that a slave owned in\nMaryland, and sent by his master into Virginia to work at different\nperiods, making one year in the whole, became _free_, being\n_emancipated_ by the above law. North Carolina and Georgia in their acts\nof cession, transferring to the United States the territory now\nconstituting the States of Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, made it a\ncondition of the grant, that the provisions of the ordinance of '87\nshould be secured to the inhabitants, _with the exception of the sixth\narticle which prohibits slavery_; thus conceding, both the competency of\nlaw to abolish slavery, and the power of Congress to do it, within its\njurisdiction. (These acts show the prevalent belief at that time, in the\nslaveholding States, that the general government had adopted a line of\npolicy aiming at the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of\nthe United States, not included within the original States, and that\nthis policy would be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal\nstipulation.)\n\nSlaveholding States have asserted this power _in their judicial\ndecisions_. In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if\nthe legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has\nbeen abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal\nemancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery.\nThis principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of\nLouisiana, Lunsford vs. Coquillon, 14 Martin's La. Reps. 401. Also by\nthe Supreme Court of Virginia, Hunter vs. Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172.\nThe same doctrine was laid down by Judge Washington, of the U. S. Sup.\nCourt, Butler vs. Hopper, Washington's C. C. Reps. 508; also, by the\nCourt of Appeals in Kentucky, Rankin vs. Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407;\nsee also, Wilson vs. Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts vs. Gillespie, 6\nRandolph's Reps. 566. The State vs. Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60,\nMarie Louise vs. Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried\nin 1836, the slave had been taken by her master to France and brought\nback; Judge Matthews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that\n\"residence for one moment\" under the laws of France emancipated her.\n\n6. EMINENT STATESMEN, THEMSELVES SLAVEHOLDERS, HAVE CONCEDED THIS POWER.\nWashington, in a letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, says: \"There\nis not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan\nadopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only one proper and\neffectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by\n_legislative_ authority.\" In a letter to Lafayette, May 10, 1786, he\nsays: \"It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and assuredly\nought to be effected, and that too by _legislative_ authority.\" In a\nletter to John Fenton Mercer, Sept. 9, 1786, he says: \"It is among my\nfirst wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country\nmay be abolished by _law_.\" In a letter to Sir John Sinclair, he says:\n\"There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the gradual abolition of slavery,\nwhich neither Maryland nor Virginia have at present, but which nothing\nis more certain than that they _must have_, and at a period not remote.\"\nJefferson, speaking of movements in the Virginia Legislature in 1777,\nfor the passage of a law emancipating the slaves, says: \"The principles\nof the amendment were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born\nafter a certain day; but it was found that the public mind would not\nbear the proposition, yet the day is not far distant when _it must bear\nand adopt it_.\"--Jefferson's Memoirs, v. i. p. 35. It is well known that\nJefferson, Pendleton, Mason, Wythe and Lee, while acting as a committee\nof the Virginia House of Delegates to revise the State Laws, prepared a\nplan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves by law. These men were\nthe great lights of Virginia. Mason, the author of the Virginia\nConstitution; Pendleton, the President of the memorable Virginia\nConvention in 1787, and President of the Virginia Court of Appeals;\nWythe was the Blackstone of the Virginia bench, for a quarter of a\ncentury Chancellor of the State, the professor of law in the University\nof William and Mary, and the preceptor of Jefferson, Madison, and Chief\nJustice Marshall. He was the author of the celebrated remonstrance to\nthe English House of Commons on the subject of the stamp act. As to\nJefferson, his _name_ is his biography.\n\nEvery slaveholding member of Congress from the States of Maryland,\nVirginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, voted for the\ncelebrated ordinance of 1787, which abolished the slavery then existing\nin the Northwest Territory. Patrick Henry, in his well known letter to\nRobert Pleasants, of Virginia, January 18, 1773, says: \"I believe a time\nwill come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable\nevil.\" William Pinkney, of Maryland, advocated the abolition of slavery\nby law, in the legislature of that State, in 1789. Luther Martin urged\nthe same measure both in the Federal Convention, and in his report to\nthe Legislature of Maryland. In 1796, St. George Tucker, of Virginia,\nprofessor of law in the University of William and Mary, and Judge of the\nGeneral Court, published a dissertation on slavery, urging the abolition\nof slavery by _law_.\n\nJohn Jay, while New-York was yet a slave State, and himself in law a\nslaveholder, said in a letter from Spain, in 1786, \"An excellent law\nmight be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual abolition of\nslavery. Were I in your legislature, I would present a bill for the\npurpose, and I would never cease moving it till it became a law, or I\nceased to be a member.\"\n\nGovernor Tompkins, in a message to the Legislature of New-York, January\n8, 1812, said: \"To devise the means for the gradual and ultimate\n_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is a work worthy the\n_representatives_ of a polished and enlightened nation.\"\n\nThe Virginia Legislature asserted this power in 1832. At the close of a\nmonth's debate, the following proceedings were had. I extract from an\neditorial article in the Richmond Whig, Jan. 26, 1832.\n\n\"The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on the\nsubject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, as the opinion of\nthis Committee, that it is INEXPEDIENT FOR THE PRESENT, to make any\n_legislative enactments for the abolition of slavery_.\" This Report Mr.\nPreston moved to reverse, and thus to declare that it _was_ expedient,\n_now_ to make legislative enactments for the abolition of slavery. This\nwas meeting the question in its strongest form. It demanded action, and\nimmediate action. On this proposition the vote was 58 to 73. Many of the\nmost decided friends of abolition voted against the amendment, because\nthey thought public opinion not sufficiently prepared for it, and that\nit might prejudice the cause to move too rapidly. The vote on Mr.\nWitcher's motion to postpone the whole subject indefinitely, indicates\nthe true state of opinion in the House. That was the test question, and\nwas so intended and proclaimed by its mover. That motion was\n_negatived_, 71 to 60; showing a majority of 11, who by that vote,\ndeclared their belief that at the proper time, and in the proper mode,\nVirginia ought to commence a system of gradual abolition.\n\n7. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE ASSERTED THIS POWER. The\nordinance of '87, declaring that there should be \"neither slavery nor\ninvoluntary servitude,\" in the North Western Territory, abolished the\nslavery then existing there. The Sup. Court of Mississippi, [Harvey vs.\nDecker, Walker's Mi. Reps. 36,] declared that the ordinance of '87\nemancipated the slaves then held there. In this decision the question is\nargued ably and at great length. The Supreme Court of La. made the same\ndecision in the case of Forsyth vs. Nash, 4 Martin's La. Reps. 385. The\nsame doctrine was laid down by Judge Porter, (late United States Senator\nfrom La.,) in his decision at the March term of the La. Supreme Court,\n1830, Merry vs. Chexnaider, 20 Martin's Reps. 699.\n\nThat the ordinance abolished the slavery then existing there is also\nshown by the fact, that persons holding slaves in the territory\npetitioned for the repeal of the article abolishing slavery, assigning\n_that_ as a reason. \"The petition of the citizens of Randolph and St.\nClair counties in the Illinois country, stating that they were in\npossession of slaves, and praying the repeal of that act (the 6th\narticle of the ordinance of '87) and the passage of a law legalizing\nslavery there.\" [Am. State papers, Public Lands, v. 1. p. 69.] Congress\npassed this ordinance before the United States' Constitution was\nadopted, when it derived all its authority from the articles of\nConfederation, which conferred powers of legislation far more restricted\nthan those committed to Congress over the District and Territories by\nthe United States' Constitution. Now, we ask, how does the Constitution\n_abridge_ the powers which Congress possessed under the articles of\nconfederation?\n\nThe abolition of the slave trade by Congress, in 1808, is another\nillustration of the competency of legislative power to abolish slavery.\nThe African slave trade has become such a mere _technic_, in common\nparlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The\nbuying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle\npassage, were mere _incidents_ of the slavery in which the victims were\nheld. Let things be called by their own names. When Congress abolished\nthe African slave trade, it abolished SLAVERY--supreme slavery--power\nfrantic with license, trampling a whole hemisphere scathed with its\nfires, and running down with blood. True, Congress did not, in the\nabolition of the slave trade, abolish all the slavery within its\njurisdiction, but it did abolish _all_ the slavery _in one_ part of its\njurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in\n_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has\n\"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?\"\n\n8. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES THIS POWER BY THE\nMOST CONCLUSIVE IMPLICATION. In Art. 1, sec. 3, clause 1, it prohibits\nthe abolition of the slave trade previous to 1808: thus implying the\npower of Congress to do it at once, but for the restriction; and its\npower to do it _unconditionally_, when that restriction ceased. Again;\nIn Art. 4, sec. 2, \"No person held to service or labor in one state\nunder the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of\nany law or regulation therein, be discharged from said service or\nlabor.\" This clause was inserted, as all admit, to prevent the runaway\nslave from being emancipated by the _laws_ of the free states. If these\nlaws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to\nprevent it?\n\nThe insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists\nthat framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, and their\npublic proclamation, that the abolition of slavery was within the\nappropriate sphere of legislation. The right of the owner to that which\nis rightfully property, is founded on a principle of _universal law_,\nand is recognized and protected by all civilized nations; property in\nslaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders\ninsisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States'\nConstitution, that they might secure by an _express provision_, that\nfrom which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of\nuniversal law.[A] By demanding this provision, slaveholders consented\nthat their slaves should not be recognized as property by the United\nStates' Constitution, and hence they found their claim, on the fact of\ntheir being \"_persons_, and _held_ to service.\"\n\n[Footnote A: The fact, that under the articles of Confederation,\nslaveholders, whose slaves had escaped into free states, had no legal\npower to force them back,--that _now_ they have no power to recover, by\nprocess of law, their slaves who escape to Canada, the South American\nStates, or to Europe--the case already cited, in which the Supreme Court\nof Louisiana decided, that residence \"_for one moment_,\" under the laws\nof France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton, _vs._\nLewis, 3 Har. and John's Reps., 56, where the slave of a St. Domingo\nslaveholder, who brought him to Maryland in '93, was pronounced free by\nthe Maryland Court of Appeals--are illustrations of the acknowledged\ntruth here asserted, that by the consent of the civilized world, and on\nthe principles of universal law, slaves are not \"_property_,\" and that\nwhenever held as property under _law_, it is only by _positive\nlegislative acts_, forcibly setting aside the law of nature, the common\nlaw, and the principles of universal justice and right between man and\nman,--principles paramount to all law, and from which alone, law derives\nits intrinsic authoritative sanction.]\n\n9. CONGRESS HAS UNQUESTIONABLE POWER TO ADOPT THE COMMON LAW, AS THE\nLEGAL SYSTEM, WITHIN ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.--This has been done,\nwith certain restrictions, in most of the States, either by legislative\nacts or by constitutional implication. THE COMMON LAW KNOWS NO SLAVES.\nIts principles annihilate slavery wherever they touch it. It is a\nuniversal, unconditional, abolition act. Wherever slavery is a legal\nsystem, it is so only by _statute_ law, and in violation of the common\nlaw. The declaration of Lord Chief Justice Holt, that, \"by the common\nlaw, no man can have property in another,\" is an acknowledged axiom, and\nbased upon the well known common law definition of property. \"The\nsubjects of dominion or property are _things_, as contra-distinguished\nfrom _persons_.\" Let Congress adopt the common law in the District of\nColumbia, and slavery there is abolished. Congress may well be at home\nin common law legislation, for the common law is the grand element of\nthe United States' Constitution. All its _fundamental_ provisions are\ninstinct with its spirit; and its existence, principles, and paramount\nauthority, are presupposed and assumed throughout the whole. The\npreamble of the Constitution plants the standard of the Common Law\nimmovably in its foreground. \"We, the people of the United States, in\norder to ESTABLISH JUSTICE, &c., do ordain and establish this\nConstitution;\" thus proclaiming _devotion_ to JUSTICE, as the\ncontrolling motive in the organization of the Government, and its secure\nestablishment the chief object of its aims. By this most solemn\nrecognition, the common law, that grand legal embodyment of \"justice\"\nand fundamental right--was made the groundwork of the Constitution, and\nintrenched behind its strongest munitions. The second clause of Sec. 9,\nArt. 1; Sec. 4, Art. 2, and the last clause of Sec. 2, Art. 3, with\nArticles 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the Amendments, are also express\nrecognitions of the common law as the presiding Genius of the\nConstitution.\n\nBy adopting the common law within its exclusive jurisdiction Congress\nwould carry out the principles of our glorious Declaration, and follow\nthe highest precedents in our national history and jurisprudence. It is\na political maxim as old as civil legislation, that laws should be\nstrictly homogeneous with the principles of the government whose will\nthey express, embodying and carrying them out--being indeed the\n_principles themselves_, in preceptive form--representatives alike of\nthe nature and power of the Government--standing illustrations of its\ngenius and spirit, while they proclaim and enforce its authority. Who\nneeds be told that slavery makes war upon the principles of the\nDeclaration, and the spirit of the Constitution, and that these and the\nprinciples of the common law gravitate towards each other with\nirrepressible affinities, and mingle into one? The common law came\nhither with our pilgrim fathers; it was their birthright, their panoply,\ntheir glory, and their song of rejoicing in the house of their\npilgrimage. It covered them in the day of their calamity, and their\ntrust was under the shadow of its wings. From the first settlement of\nthe country, the genius of our institutions and our national spirit have\nclaimed it as a common possession, and exulted in it with a common\npride. A century ago, Governor Pownall, one of the most eminent\nconstitutional jurists of colonial times, said of the common law, \"In\nall the colonies the common law is received as the foundation and main\nbody of their law.\" In the Declaration of Rights, made by the\nContinental Congress at its first session in '74, there was the\nfollowing resolution: \"Resolved, That the respective colonies are\nentitled to the common law of England, and especially to the great and\ninestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage\naccording to the course of that law.\" Soon after the organization of the\ngeneral government, Chief Justice Ellsworth, in one of his decisions on\nthe bench of the U. S. Sup. Court, said: \"The common law of this country\nremains the same as it was before the revolution.\" Chief Justice\nMarshall, in his decision in the case of Livingston _vs._ Jefferson,\nsaid: \"When our ancestors migrated to America, they brought with them\nthe common law of their native country, so far as it was applicable to\ntheir new situation, and I do not conceive that the revolution in any\ndegree changed the relations of man to man, or the law which regulates\nthem. In breaking our political connection with the parent state, we did\nnot break our connection with each other.\" [_Hall's Law Journal, new\nseries_.] Mr. Duponceau, in his \"Dissertation on the Jurisdiction of\nCourts in the United States,\" says, \"I consider the common law of\nEngland the _jus commune_ of the United States. I think I can lay it\ndown as a correct principle, that the common law of England, as it was\nat the time of the Declaration of Independence, still continues to be\nthe national law of this country, so far as it is applicable to our\npresent state, and subject to the modifications it has received here in\nthe course of nearly half a century.\" Chief Justice Taylor of North\nCarolina, in his decision in the case of the State _vs._ Reed, in 1823,\nHawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, \"a law of _paramount, obligation to the\nstatute_, was violated by the offence--COMMON LAW, founded upon the law\nof nature, and confirmed by revelation.\" The legislation of the United\nStates abounds in recognitions of the principles of the common law,\nasserting their paramount binding power. Sparing details, of which our\nnational state papers are full, we illustrate by a single instance. It\nwas made a condition of the admission of Louisiana into the Union, that\nthe right of trial by jury should be secured to all her citizens,--the\nUnited States government thus employing its power to enlarge the\njurisdiction of the common law in this its great representative.\n\nHaving shown that the abolition of slavery is within the competency of\nthe law-making power, when unrestricted by constitutional provisions,\nand that the legislation of Congress over the District is thus\nunrestricted, its power to abolish slavery there is established. We\nargue it further, from the fact that,\n\n10. SLAVERY NOW EXISTS IN THE DISTRICT BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS. In the act\nof 16th July, 1790, Congress accepted portions of territory offered by\nthe states of Maryland and Virginia, and enacted that the laws, as they\nthen were, should continue in force, \"until Congress shall otherwise by\nlaw provide.\" Under these laws, adopted by Congress, and in effect\nre-enacted and made laws of the District, the slaves there are now held.\n\nIs Congress so impotent in its own \"exclusive jurisdiction\" that it\ncannot \"otherwise by law provide?\" If it can say, what _shall_ be\nconsidered property, it can say what shall _not_ be considered property.\nSuppose a legislature should enact that marriage contracts should be\nmere bills of sale, making a husband the proprietor of his wife, as his\n_bona fide_ property; and suppose husbands should herd their wives in\ndroves for the market as beasts of burden, or for the brothel as victims\nof lust, and then prate about their inviolable legal property, and deny\nthe power of the legislature, which stamped them \"property,\" to undo its\nown wrong, and secure to wives by law the rights of human beings. Would\nsuch cant about \"legal rights\" be heeded where reason and justice held\nsway, and where law, based upon fundamental morality, received homage?\nIf a frantic legislature pronounces woman a chattel, has it no power,\nwith returning reason, to take back the blasphemy? Is the impious edict\nirrepealable? Be it, that with legal forms it has stamped wives \"wares.\"\nCan no legislation blot out the brand? Must the handwriting of Deity on\nhuman nature be expunged for ever? Has LAW no power to stay the erasing\npen, and tear off the scrawled label that covers up the IMAGE OF GOD?\n\nII. THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN,\nTILL RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.\n\n1. It has been assumed by Congress itself. The following record stands\non the journals of the House of Representatives for 1804, p. 225: \"On\nmotion made and seconded that the House do come to the following\nresolution: 'Resolved, That from and after the 4th day of July, 1805,\nall blacks and people of color that shall be born within the District of\nColumbia, or whose mothers shall be the property of any person residing\nwithin the said District, shall be free, the males at the age of ----,\nand the females at the age of ----. The main question being taken that\nthe House do agree to said motions as originally proposed, it was\nnegatived by a majority of 46.'\" Though the motion was lost, it was on\nthe ground of its alleged _inexpediency_ alone. In the debate which\npreceded the vote, the power of Congress was conceded. In March, 1816,\nthe House of Representatives passed the following resolution: \"Resolved,\nThat a committee be appointed to inquire into the existence of an\ninhuman and illegal traffic in slaves, carried on in and through the\nDistrict of Columbia, and to report whether any and what measures are\nnecessary for _putting a stop to the same_.\"\n\nOn the 9th of January, 1829, the House of Representatives passed the\nfollowing resolution by a vote of 114 to 66: \"Resolved, That the\nCommittee on the District of Columbia, be instructed to inquire into the\n_expediency_ of providing by _law_ for the gradual abolition of slavery\nwithin the District, in such a manner that the interests of no\nindividual shall be injured thereby.\" Among those who voted in the\naffirmative were Messrs. Barney of Md., Armstrong of Va., A.H. Shepperd\nof N.C., Blair of Tenn., Chilton and Lyon of Ky., Johns of Del., and\nothers from slave states.\n\n2. IT HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS, ON THE DISTRICT OF\nCOLUMBIA.--In a report of the committee on the District, Jan. 11, 1837,\nby their chairman, Mr. Powell of Va., there is the following\ndeclaration: \"The Congress of the United States, has by the constitution\nexclusive jurisdiction over the District, and has power upon this\nsubject (_slavery_,) as upon all other subjects of legislation, to\nexercise _unlimited discretion_.\" Reports of Comms. 2d Sess. 19th Cong.\nv. iv. No. 43. In December, 1831, the committee on the District, Mr.\nDoddridge of Va., Chairman, reported, \"That until the adjoining states\nact on the subject, (_slavery_) it would be (not _unconstitutional_ but)\nunwise and impolitic, if not unjust, for Congress to interfere.\" In\nApril, 1836, a special committee on abolition memorials reported the\nfollowing resolutions by their Chairman, Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina:\n\"Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to\ninterfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the\nstates of this confederacy.\"\n\n\"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ in any way with\nslavery in the District of Columbia.\" \"Ought not to interfere,\"\ncarefully avoiding the phraseology of the first resolution, and thus in\neffect conceding the constitutional power. In a widely circulated\n\"Address to the electors of the Charleston District,\" Mr. Pinkney is\nthus denounced by his own constituents: \"He has proposed a resolution\nwhich is received by the plain common sense of the whole country as a\nconcession that Congress has authority to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia.\"\n\n3. IT HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY THE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT. A petition for\nthe gradual abolition of slavery in the District, signed by nearly\neleven hundred of its citizens, was presented to Congress, March 24,\n1827. Among the signers to this petition, were Chief Justice Cranch,\nJudge Van Ness, Judge Morsel, Prof. J.M. Staughton, and a large number\nof the most influential inhabitants of the District. Mr. Dickson, of New\nYork, asserted on the floor of Congress in 1835, that the signers to\nthis petition owned more than half the property in the District. The\naccuracy of this statement has never been questioned.\n\nTHIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY GRAND JURIES OF THE DISTRICT. The grand\njury of the county of Alexandria, at the March term, 1802, presented the\ndomestic slaves trade as a grievance, and said, \"We consider these\ngrievances demanding _legislative_ redress.\" Jan. 19, 1829, Mr.\nAlexander, of Virginia, presented a representation of the grand jury in\nthe city of Washington, remonstrating against \"any measure for the\nabolition of slavery within said District, unless accompanied by\nmeasures for the removal of the emancipated from the same;\" thus, not\nonly conceding the power to emancipate slaves, but affirming an\nadditional power, that of _excluding them when free_. Journal H. R.\n1828-9, p. 174.\n\n4. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY STATE LEGISLATURES. In 1828 the\nLegislature of Pennsylvania instructed their Senators in Congress \"to\nprocure, if practicable, the passage of a law to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia.\" Jan. 28, 1829, the House of Assembly of New York\npassed a resolution, that their \"Senators in Congress be instructed to\nmake every possible exertion to effect the passage of a law for the\nabolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia.\" In February, 1837,\nthe Senate of Massachusetts \"Resolved, That Congress having exclusive\nlegislation in the District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish\nslavery and the slave trade therein.\" The House of Representatives\npassed the following resolution at the same session: \"Resolved, That\nCongress having exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia,\npossess the right to abolish slavery in said District.\" November 1,\n1837, the Legislature of Vermont, \"Resolved that Congress have the full\npower by the constitution to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the\nDistrict of Columbia, and in the territories.\"\n\nIn May, 1838, the Legislature of Connecticut passed a resolution\nasserting the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District\nof Columbia.\n\nIn January, 1836, the Legislature of South Carolina \"Resolved, That we\nshould consider the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia as\na violation of the rights of the citizens of that District derived from\nthe _implied_ conditions on which that territory was ceded to the\nGeneral Government.\" Instead of denying the constitutional power, they\nvirtually admit its existence, by striving to smother it under an\n_implication_. In February, 1836, the Legislature of North Carolina\n\"Resolved, That, although by the Constitution _all legislative power_\nover the District of Columbia is vested in the Congress of the United\nStates, yet we would deprecate any legislative action on the part of\nthat body towards liberating the slaves of that District, as a breach of\nfaith towards those States by whom the territory was originally ceded.\nHere is a full concession of the _power_. February 2, 1836, the Virginia\nLegislature passed unanimously the following resolution: \"Resolved, by\nthe General Assembly of Virginia, that the following article be proposed\nto the several states of this Union, and to Congress, as an amendment of\nthe Constitution of the United States:\" \"The powers of Congress shall not\nbe so construed as to authorize the passage of any law for the\nemancipation of slaves in the District of Columbia, without the consent\nof the individual proprietors thereof, unless by the sanction of the\nLegislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and under such conditions as they\nshall by law prescribe.\"\n\nFifty years after the formation of the United States' constitution the\nstates are solemnly called upon by the Virginia Legislature, to amend\nthat instrument by a clause asserting that, in the grant to Congress of\n\"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever\" over the District, the\n\"case\" of slavery is not included!! What could have dictated such a\nresolution but the conviction that the power to abolish slavery is an\nirresistible inference from the constitution _as it is?_ The fact that\nthe same legislature, passed afterward a resolution, though by no means\nunanimously, that Congress does not possess the power, abates not a\ntitle of the testimony in the first resolution. March 23d, 1824, \"Mr.\nBrown presented the resolutions of the General Assembly of Ohio,\nrecommending to Congress the consideration of a system for the gradual\nemancipation of persons of color held in servitude in the United\nStates.\" On the same day, \"Mr. Noble, of Indiana, communicated a\nresolution from the legislature of that state, respecting the gradual\nemancipation of slaves within the United States.\" Journal of the United\nStates' Senate, for 1824-5, p.231.\n\nThe Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_\npower of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its\n_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.\n\n5. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY BODIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SLAVE\nSTATES. The petition of eleven hundred citizens of the District, has\nbeen already mentioned. \"March 5,1830, Mr. Washington presented a\nmemorial of inhabitants of the county of Frederick, in the state of\nMaryland, praying that provision be made for the gradual abolition of\nslavery in the District of Columbia.\" Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 358.\n\nMarch 30, 1828. Mr. A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, presented a\nmemorial of citizens of that state, \"praying Congress to take measures\nfor the entire abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.\"\nJournal H.R. 1829-30, p. 379.\n\nJanuary 14, 1822. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, presented a memorial of\ncitizens of that state, praying that \"provision may be made, whereby all\nslaves that may hereafter be born in the District of Columbia, shall be\nfree at a certain period of their lives.\" Journal H.R. 1821-22, p.142.\n\nDecember 13, 1824. Mr. Saunders of North Carolina, presented a memorial\nof the citizens of that state, praying \"that measures may be taken for\nthe gradual abolition of slavery in the United States.\" Journal H.R.\n1824-25, p.27.\n\nDecember 16, 1828. \"Mr. Barnard presented the memorial of the American\nConvention for promoting the abolition of slavery, held in Baltimore,\npraying that slavery may be abolished in the District of Columbia.\"\nJournal U.S. Senate, 1828-29, p.24.\n\n6. DISTINGUISHED STATESMEN AND JURISTS IN THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, HAVE\nCONCEDED THIS POWER. The testimony Of Messrs. Doddridge, and Powell, of\nVirginia, Chief Justice Cranch, and Judges Morsel and Van Ness, of the\nDistrict, has already been given. In the debate in Congress on the\nmemorial of the Society of Friends, in 1790, Mr. Madison, in speaking of\nthe territories of the United States, explicitly declared, from his own\nknowledge of the views of the members of the convention that framed the\nconstitution, as well as from the obvious import of its terms, that in\nthe territories, \"Congress have certainly the power to regulate the\nsubject of slavery.\" Congress can have no more power over the\nterritories than that of \"exclusive legislation in all cases\nwhatsoever,\" consequently, according to Mr. Madison, \"it has certainly\nthe power to regulate the subject of slavery in the\" _District_. In\nMarch, 1816, Mr. Randolph of Virginia, introduced a resolution for\nputting a stop to the domestic slave trade within the District. December\n12, 1827, Mr. Barney, of Maryland, presented a memorial for abolition in\nthe District, and moved that it be printed. Mr. McDuffie, of S.C.,\nobjected to the printing, but \"expressly admitted the right of Congress\nto grant to the people of the District any measure which they might deem\nnecessary to free themselves from the deplorable evil.\"--[See letter of\nMr. Claiborne of Miss. to his constituents published in the Washington\nGlobe, May 9, 1836.] The sentiments of Mr. Clay of Kentucky, on the\nsubject are well known. In a speech before the U.S. Senate, in 1836, he\ndeclared the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District\n\"unquestionable.\" Messrs. Blair, of Tennessee, and Chilton, Lyon, and\nR.M. Johnson, of Kentucky, A.H. Shepperd, of N.C., Messrs. Armstrong and\nSmyth of Va., Messrs. Dorsey, Archer, and Barney, of Md., and Johns, of\nDel., with numerous others from slave states have asserted the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District. In the speech of Mr. Smyth,\nof Virginia, on the Missouri question, January 28, 1820, he says on this\npoint: \"If the future freedom of the blacks is your real object, and not\na mere pretence, why do you begin _here_? Within the ten miles square,\nyou have _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive legislation. _Produce a\nbill to emancipate the slaves in the District of Columbia_, or, if you\nprefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter.\"\n\nTo this may be added the testimony of the present Vice President of the\nUnited States, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. In a speech before\nthe U.S. Senate, February 1, 1820, (National Intelligencer, April 29,\n1829,) he says: \"In the District of Columbia, containing a population of\n30,000 souls, and probably as many slaves as the whole territory of\nMissouri, THE POWER OF PROVIDING FOR THEIR EMANCIPATION RESTS WITH\nCONGRESS ALONE. Why then, this heart-rending sympathy for the slaves of\nMissouri, and this cold insensibility, this eternal apathy, towards the\nslaves in the District of Columbia?\"\n\nIt is quite unnecessary to add, that the most distinguished northern\nstatesmen of both political parties, have always affirmed the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District. President Van Buren in his\nletter of March 6, 1836, to a committee of Gentlemen in North Carolina,\nsays, \"I would not, from the light now before me, feel myself safe in\npronouncing that Congress does not possess the power of abolishing\nslavery in the District of Columbia.\" This declaration of the President\nis consistent with his avowed sentiments touching the Missouri question,\non which he coincided with such men as Daniel D. Thompkins, De Witt\nClinton, and others, whose names are a host.[A] It is consistent, also\nwith his recommendation in his last message, in which speaking of the\nDistrict, he strongly urges upon Congress \"a thorough and careful\nrevision of its local government,\" speaks of the \"entire independence\"\nof the people of the District \"upon Congress,\" recommends that a\n\"uniform system of local government\" be adopted, and adds, that\n\"although it was selected as the seat of the General Government, the\nsite of its public edifices, the depository of its archives, and the\nresidences of officers intrusted with large amounts of public property,\nand the management of public business, yet it never has been subjected\nto, or received, that _special_ and _comprehensive_ legislation which\nthese circumstances peculiarly demanded.\"\n\n[Footnote A: Mr. Van Buren, when a member of the Senate of New-York,\nvoted for the following preamble and resolutions, which passed\nunanimously:--Jan. 28th, 1820. \"Whereas the inhibiting the further\nextension of slavery in the United States, is a subject of deep concern\nto the people of this state: and whereas, we consider slavery as an evil\nmuch to be deplored, and that _every constitutional barrier should be\ninterposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution\nof the United States _clearly gives Congress the right_ to require new\nstates, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,\nto _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into\nthe Union: Therefore,\n\n    Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our members of\n    Congress be requested, to oppose the admission as a state into the\n    Union, of any territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making\n    _the prohibition of slavery_ therein an indispensible condition of\n    admission.\"\n]\n\nThe tenor of Mr. Tallmadge's speech on the right of petition, and of Mr.\nWebster's on the reception of abolition memorials, may be taken as\nuniversal exponents of the sentiments of northern statesmen as to the\npower of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.\n\nAn explicit declaration, that an \"_overwhelming majority_\" of the\n_present_ Congress concede the power to abolish slavery in the District\nhas just been made by Robert Barnwell Rhett, a member of Congress from\nSouth Carolina, in a letter published in the Charleston Mercury of Dec.\n27, 1837. The following is an extract:\n\n\"The time has arrived when we must have new guaranties under the\nconstitution, or the Union must be dissolved. _Our views of the\nconstitution are not those of the majority_. AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY\n_think that by the constitution, Congress may abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia--may abolish the slave trade between the States;\nthat is, it may prohibit their being carried out of the State in which\nthey are--and prohibit it in all the territories, Florida among them.\nThey think_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG REASONS, _that the power of Congress\nextends to all of these subjects_.\"\n\n_Direct testimony_ to show that the power of Congress to abolish slavery\nin the District, has always till recently been _universally conceded_,\nis perhaps quite superfluous. We subjoin, however, the following:\n\nThe Vice-President of the United States in his speech on the Missouri\nquestion, quoted above, after contending that the restriction of slavery\nin Missouri would be unconstitutional, declares, that the power of\nCongress over slavery in the District \"COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED.\" In the\nspeech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., also quoted above, he declares the power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District to be \"UNDOUBTED.\"\n\nMr. Sutherland, of Penn., in a speech in the House of Representatives,\non the motion to print Mr. Pinckney's Report, is thus reported in the\nWashington Globe, of May 9th, '36. \"He replied to the remark that the\nreport conceded that Congress had a right to legislate upon the subject\nin the District of Columbia, and said that SUCH A RIGHT HAD NEVER BEEN,\nTILL RECENTLY, DENIED.\"\n\nThe American Quarterly Review, published at Philadelphia, with a large\ncirculation and list of contributors in the slave states, holds the\nfollowing language in the September No. 1833, p. 55: \"Under this\n'exclusive jurisdiction,' granted by the constitution, Congress has\npower to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of\nColumbia. It would hardly be necessary to state this as a distinct\nproposition, had it not been occasionally questioned. The truth of the\nassertion, however, is too obvious to admit of argument--and we believe\nhas NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE\nCONSTITUTION.\"\n\nOBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.\n\nWe now proceed to notice briefly the main arguments that have been\nemployed in Congress and elsewhere against the power of Congress to\nabolish slavery in the District. One of the most plausible is, that \"the\nconditions on which Maryland and Virginia ceded the District to the\nUnited States, would be violated, if Congress should abolish slavery\nthere.\" The reply to this is, that Congress had no power to _accept_ a\ncession coupled with conditions restricting that \"power of exclusive\nlegislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District,\" which was\ngiven it by the constitution.\n\nTo show the futility of the objection, we insert here the acts of\ncession. The cession of Maryland was made in November, 1788, and is as\nfollows: \"An act to cede to Congress a district of ten miles square in\nthis state for the seat of the government of the United States.\"\n\n\"Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the\nrepresentatives of this state in the House of Representatives of the\nCongress of the United States, appointed to assemble at New-York, on the\nfirst Wednesday of March next, be, and they are; hereby authorized and\nrequired on the behalf of this state, to cede to the Congress of the\nUnited States, any district in this state, not exceeding ten miles\nsquare, which the Congress may fix upon, and accept for the seat of\ngovernment of the United States.\" Laws of Md., v. 2., c. 46.\n\nThe cession of Virginia was made on the 3d of December, 1788, in the\nfollowing words:\n\n\"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That a tract of country, not\nexceeding ten miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located within\nthe limits of the State, and in any part thereof; as Congress may, by\nlaw, direct, shall be, and the same is hereby forever ceded and\nrelinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, in\nfull and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, as\nof persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and\neffect of the eighth section of the first article of the government of\nthe constitution of the United States.\"\n\nBut were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.\nThe Virginia act had this proviso: \"Sect. 2. Provided, that nothing\nherein contained, shall be construed to vest in the United States any\nright of property in the soil, or to affect the rights of individuals\n_therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such\nindividuals to the United States.\"\n\nThis specification touching the soil was merely definitive and\nexplanatory of that clause in the act of cession, \"_full and absolute\nright_.\" Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and\nother subjects, it even gives it freer course; for exceptions to _parts_\nof a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the\nexceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict\ncongressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil\nalone_ specified? As legal instruments are not paragons of economy in\nwords, might not \"John Doe,\" out of his abundance, and without spoiling\nhis style, have afforded an additional word--at least a hint--that\nslavery was _meant_, though nothing was said about it?\n\nBut again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare them\nto be made \"in pursuance of\" that clause of the constitution which gives\nto Congress \"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever\" over the ten\nmiles square--thus, instead of _restricting_ that clause, both States\n_confirm_ it. Now, their acts of cession either accorded with that\nclause of the constitution, or they conflicted with it. If they\nconflicted with it, _accepting_ the cessions was a violation of the\nconstitution. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions, proves that\nin its views their _terms_ did not conflict with its constitutional\ngrant of power. The inquiry whether these acts of cession were\nconsistent or inconsistent with the United Status' constitution, is\ntotally irrelevant to the question at issue. What with the CONSTITUTION?\nThat is the question. Not, what with Virginia, or Maryland, or--equally\nto the point--John Bull! If Maryland and Virginia had been the\nauthorized interpreters of the constitution for the Union, these acts of\ncession could hardly have been more magnified than they have been\nrecently by the southern delegation in Congress. A true understanding of\nthe constitution can be had, forsooth, only by holding it up in the\nlight of Maryland and Virginia legislation!\n\nWe are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the District\nif they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power to abolish\nslavery in it.\n\nThis comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ the\nconstitution. They were parties to it. They had sifted it, clause by\nclause, in their State conventions. They had weighed its words in the\nbalance--they had tested them as by fire; and, finally, after long\npondering, they adopted the constitution. And _afterward_, self-moved,\nthey ceded the ten miles square, and declared the cession made \"in\npursuance of\" that oft-cited clause, \"Congress shall have power to\nexercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such\nDistrict.\" And now verily \"they would not have ceded if they had\n_supposed_!\" &c. Cede it they _did_, and in \"full and absolute right\nboth of soil and persons.\" Congress accepted the cession--state power\nover the District ceased, and congressional power over it\ncommenced,--and now, the sole question to be settled is, the _amount of\npower over the District lodged in Congress by the constitution_. The\nconstitution--THE CONSTITUTION--that is the point. Maryland and Virginia\n\"suppositions\" must be potent suppositions to abrogate a clause of the\nUnited States' Constitution! That clause either gives Congress power to\nabolish slavery in the District, or it does _not_--and that point is to\nbe settled, not by state \"suppositions,\" nor state usages, nor state\nlegislation, but _by the terms of the clause themselves_.\n\nSouthern members of Congress, in the recent discussions, have conceded\nthe power of a contingent abolition in the District, by suspending it\nupon the _consent_ of the people. Such a doctrine from _declaimers_ like\nMessrs. Alford, of Georgia, and Walker, of Mississippi, would excite no\nsurprise; but that it should be honored with the endorsement of such men\nas Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun, is quite unaccountable. Are attributes of\nsovereignty mere creatures of contingency? Is delegated authority mere\nconditional permission? Is a constitutional power to be exercised by\nthose who hold it, only by popular sufferance? Must it lie helpless at\nthe pool of public sentiment, waiting the gracious troubling of its\nwaters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save only when popular \"consent\" deigns\nto puff breath into its nostrils? Besides, if the consent of the people\nof the District be necessary, the consent of the _whole_ people must be\nhad--not that of a majority, however large. Majorities, to be\nauthoritative, must be _legal_--and a legal majority without legislative\npower, or right of representation, or even the electoral franchise,\nwould be truly an anomaly! In the District of Columbia, such a thing as\na majority in a legal sense is unknown to law. To talk of the power of a\nmajority, or the will of a majority there, is mere mouthing. A majority?\nThen it has an authoritative will, and an organ to make it known, and an\nexecutive to carry it into effect--Where are they? We repeat it--if the\nconsent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of\n_every one_ is necessary--and _universal_ consent will come only with\nthe Greek Kalends and a \"perpetual motion.\" A single individual might\nthus perpetuate slavery in defiance of the expressed will of a whole\npeople. The most common form of this fallacy is given by Mr. Wise, of\nVirginia, in his speech, February 16, 1835, in which he denied the power\nof Congress to abolish slavery in the District, unless the inhabitants\nowning slaves petitioned for it!! Southern members of Congress at the\npresent session (1837-8) ring changes almost daily upon the same\nfallacy. What! pray Congress _to use_ a power which it _has not_? \"It is\nrequired of a man according to what he _hath_,\" saith the Scripture. I\ncommend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he had got his\n_logic_ of him! If Congress does not possess the power, why taunt it\nwith its weakness, by asking its exercise? Petitioning, according to Mr.\nWise, is, in matters of legislation, omnipotence itself; the very\n_source_ of all constitutional power; for, _asking_ Congress to do what\nit _cannot_ do, gives it the power!--to pray the exercise of a power\nthat is _not, creates_ it! A beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways.\nIf to petition for the exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to\npetition against the exercise of a power that _is_, annihilates it. As\nsouthern gentlemen are partial to summary processes, pray, sirs, try the\nvirtue of your own recipe on \"exclusive legislation in all cases\nwhatsoever;\" a better subject for experiment and test of the\nprescription could not be had. But if the petitions of the citizens of\nthe District give Congress the _right_ to abolish slavery, they impose\nthe _duty_; if they confer constitutional _authority_, they create\nconstitutional _obligation_. If Congress _may_ abolish because of an\nexpression of their will, it _must_ abolish at the bidding of that will.\nIf the people of the District are a _source of power_ to Congress, their\n_expressed will_ has the force of a constitutional provision, and has\nthe same binding power upon the National Legislature. To make Congress\ndependent on the District for authority, is to make it a _subject_ of\nits authority, restraining the exercise of its own discretion, and\nsinking it into a mere organ of the District's will. We proceed to\nanother objection.\n\n\"_The southern states would not have ratified the constitution, if they\nhad supposed that it gave this power_.\" It is a sufficient answer to\nthis objection, that the northern states would not have ratified it, if\nthey had supposed that it _withheld_ the power. If \"suppositions\" are to\ntake the place of the constitution--coming from both sides, they\nneutralize each other. To argue a constitutional question by _guessing_\nat the \"suppositions\" that might have been made by the parties to it\nwould find small favor in a court of law. But even a desperate shift is\nsome easement when sorely pushed. If this question is to be settled by\n\"suppositions,\" suppositions shall be forthcoming, and that\nwithout stint.\n\nFirst, then, I affirm that the North ratified the constitution,\n\"supposing\" that slavery had begun to wax old, and would speedily vanish\naway, and especially that the abolition of the slave trade, which by the\nconstitution was to be surrendered to Congress after twenty years, would\nplunge it headlong.\n\nWould the North have adopted the constitution, giving three-fifths of\nthe \"slave property\" a representation, if it had \"supposed\" that the\nslaves would have increased from half a million to two millions and a\nhalf by 1838--and that the census of 1840 would give to the slave states\nthirty representatives of \"slave property?\"\n\nIf they had \"supposed\" that this representation would have controlled\nthe legislation of the government, and carried against the North every\nquestion vital to its interests, would Hamilton, Franklin, Sherman,\nGerry, Livingston, Langdon, and Rufus King have been such madmen, as to\nsign the constitution, and the Northern States such suicides as to\nratify it? Every self-preserving instinct would have shrieked at such an\ninfatuate immolation. At the adoption of the United States constitution,\nslavery was regarded as a fast waning system. This conviction was\nuniversal. Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Grayson, Tucker, Madison,\nWythe, Pendleton, Lee, Blair, Mason, Page, Parker, Randolph, Iredell,\nSpaight, Ramsey, Pinkney, Martin, McHenry, Chase, and nearly all the\nillustrious names south of the Potomac, proclaimed it before the sun. A\nreason urged in the convention that formed the United States'\nconstitution, why the word slave should not be used in it, was, _that\nwhen slavery should cease_ there might remain upon the National Charter\nno record that it had ever been. (See speech of Mr. Burrill, of R.I., on\nthe Missouri question.)\n\nI now proceed to show by testimony, that at the date of the United\nStates' constitution, and for several years before and after that\nperiod, slavery was rapidly on the wane; that the American Revolution\nwith the great events preceding, accompanying, and following it, had\nwrought an immense and almost universal change in the public sentiment\nof the nation on the subject, powerfully impelling it toward the entire\nabolition of the system--and that it was the _general belief_ that\nmeasures for its abolition throughout the Union, would be commenced by\nthe States generally before the lapse of many years. A great mass of\ntestimony establishing this position might be presented, but narrow\nspace, and the importance of speedy publication, counsel brevity. Let\nthe following proofs suffice. First, a few dates as points of\nobservation.\n\nIn 1757, Commissioners from seven colonies met at Albany, resolved upon\na Union and proposed a plan of general government. In 1765, delegates\nfrom nine colonies met at New York and sent forth a bill of rights. The\nfirst _general_ Congress met in 1774. The first Congress of the\n_thirteen_ colonies met in 1775. The revolutionary war commenced in '75.\nIndependence was declared in '76. The articles of confederation were\nadopted by the thirteen states in '77 and '78. Independence acknowledged\nin '83. The convention for forming the U.S. constitution was held in\n'87, the state conventions for considering it in '87 and '88. The first\nCongress under the constitution in '89.\n\nDr. Rush, of Pennsylvania, one of the signers of the Declaration of\nIndependence, in a letter to Granville Sharpe, May 1, 1773, says: \"A\nspirit of humanity and religion begins to awaken in several of the\ncolonies in favor of the poor negroes. Great events have been brought\nabout by small beginnings. _Anthony B\u00e8n\u00e8zet stood alone a few years_\n_ago in opposing negro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS\nOF THE PROVINCE AS WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT.\"--[Stuart's\nLife of Granville Sharpe, p. 21.]\n\nIn the preamble to the act prohibiting the importation of slaves into\nRhode Island, June, 1774, is the following: \"Whereas the inhabitants of\nAmerica are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights\nand liberties, among which that of personal freedom must be considered\nthe greatest, and as those who are desirous of enjoying all the\nadvantages of liberty themselves, _should be willing to extend personal\nliberty to others_, therefore,\" &c.\n\nOctober 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: \"We,\nfor ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we\nrepresent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,\nhonor, and love of our country_, as follows:\"\n\n\"2d Article. _We will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_\nafter the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly\ndiscontinue_ the slave trade, and we will neither be concerned in it\nourselves, nor will we hire our vessels nor _sell our commodities or\nmanufactures_ to those who are concerned in it.\"\n\nThe Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the\nnecessity for taking up arms, say: \"_If it were possible_ for men who\nexercise their reason to believe that the divine Author of our existence\nintended a part of the human race _to hold an absolute property in_, and\n_unbounded power over others_,\" &c.\n\nIn 1776, Dr. Hopkins, then at the head of New England divines,\nin \"An Address to the owners of negro slaves in the American colonies,\"\nsays: \"The conviction of the unjustifiableness of this practice (slavery)\nhas been _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and _many_\nwho have had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify their\nown conduct in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set them\nat liberty_.       *       *       *       *       *      Slavery is _in\nevery instance_, wrong, unrighteous, and oppressive--a very great and\ncrying sin--_there being nothing of the kind equal to it on the face of\nthe earth_.\"\n\nThe same year the American Congress issued a solemn MANIFESTO to the\nworld. These were its first words: \"We hold these truths to be\nself-evident, that _all_ men are created equal, that they are endowed by\ntheir Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are\nlife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\" _Once_, these were words\nof power; _now_, \"a rhetorical flourish.\"\n\nThe Virginia Gazette of March 19, 1767, in an essay on slavery says:\n\"_There cannot be in nature, there is not in all history, an instance in\nwhich every right of man is more flagrantly violated_. Enough I hope has\nbeen effected to prove that slavery is a violation of justice and\nreligion.\"\n\nThe celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia, in a letter, Jan. 18, 1773, to\nRobert Pleasants, afterwards president of the Virginia Abolition\nSociety, says: \"Believe me, I shall honor the Quakers for their noble\nefforts to abolish slavery. It is a debt we owe to the purity of our\nreligion to show that it is at variance with that law that warrants\nslavery. I exhort you to persevere in so worthy a resolution.\"\n\nThe Pennsylvania Chronicle of Nov. 21, 1768, says: \"Let every black that\nshall henceforth be born amongst us be deemed free. One step farther\nwould be to emancipate the whole race, restoring that liberty we have so\nlong unjustly detained from them. Till some step of this kind be taken\nwe shall justly be the derision of the whole world.\"\n\nIn 1779, the Continental Congress ordered a pamphlet to be published,\nentitled, \"Observations on the American Revolution,\" from which the\nfollowing is an extract: \"The great principle (of government) is and\never will remain in force, _that men are by Nature free_; and so long as\nwe have any idea of divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human\nfreedom_. It is _conceded on all hands, that the right to be free_ CAN\nNEVER BE ALIENATED.\"\n\nExtract from the Pennsylvania act for the abolition of slavery, passed\nMarch 1, 1780: * * * \"We conceive that it is our duty, and we rejoice\nthat it is in our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to others\nwhich has been extended to us. Weaned by a long course of experience\nfrom those narrow prejudices and partialities we had imbibed, we find\nour hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards men of all\nconditions and nations: * * * Therefore be it enacted, that no child\nborn hereafter be a slave,\" &c.\n\nJefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, written just before the close of\nthe Revolutionary War, says: \"I think a change already perceptible since\nthe origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is\nabating, that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition\nmollifying, _and the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of\nheaven_, FOR A TOTAL EMANCIPATION.\"\n\nIn a letter to Dr. Price, of London, who had just published a pamphlet\nin favor of the abolition of slavery, Mr. Jefferson, then minister at\nParis, (August 7, 1785,) says: \"From the mouth to the head of the\nChesapeake, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in\ntheory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in\npractice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,\n_preponderates against the greater number_.\" Speaking of Virginia, he\nsays: \"This is the next state to which we may turn our eyes for the\ninteresting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and\noppression,--a conflict in which the SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY\nRECRUITS. Be not, therefore, discouraged--what you have written will do\na _great deal of good_; and could you still trouble yourself with our\nwelfare, no man is more able to give aid to the laboring side. The\nCollege of William and Mary, since the remodelling of its plan, is the\nplace where are collected together all the young men of Virginia, under\npreparation for public life. They are there under the direction (most of\nthem) of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most virtuous of characters, and _whose\nsentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal_. I am satisfied,\nif you could resolve to address an exhortation to those young men with\nall that eloquence of which you are master, that _its influence on the\nfuture decision of this important question would be great, perhaps\ndecisive_. Thus. you see, that so far from thinking you have cause to\nrepent of what you have done, _I wish you to do more, and I wish it on\nan assurance of its effect_.\"--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1,\np. 268.\n\nIn 1786, John Jay drafted and signed a petition to the Legislature of\nNew York, on the subject of slavery, beginning with these words: \"Your\nmemorialists being deeply affected by the situation of those, who,\nalthough, FREE BY THE LAWS OF GOD, are held in slavery by the laws of\nthe State,\" &c. This memorial bore also the signatures of the celebrated\nAlexander Hamilton; Robert R. Livingston, afterwards Secretary of\nForeign Affairs of the United States, and Chancellor of the State of New\nYork; James Duane, Mayor of the City of New York, and many others of the\nmost eminent individuals in the State.\n\nIn the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave\nin 1784, is the following passage:\n\n\"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,\nwithout injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery.\"\n\nIn his letter while Minister at Spain, in 1786, he says, speaking of the\nabolition of slavery: \"Till America comes into this measure, her prayers\nto heaven will be IMPIOUS. I believe God governs the world; and I\nbelieve it to be a maxim in his, as in our court, that those who ask for\nequity _ought to do it_.\"\n\nIn 1785, the New York Manumission Society was formed. John Jay was\nchosen its first President, and held the office five years. Alexander\nHamilton was its second President, and after holding the office one\nyear, resigned upon his removal to Philadelphia as Secretary of the\nUnited States' Treasury. In 1787, the Pennsylvania Abolition Society was\nformed. Benjamin Franklin, warm from the discussions of the convention\nthat formed the U.S. constitution, was chosen President, and Benjamin\nRush Secretary--both signers of the Declaration of Independence. In\n1789, the Maryland Abolition Society was formed. Among its officers were\nSamuel Chase, Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Luther Martin, a\nmember of the convention that formed the U.S. constitution. In 1790, the\nConnecticut Abolition Society was formed. The first President was Rev.\nDr. Stiles, President of Yale College, and the Secretary, Simeon\nBaldwin, (late Judge Baldwin of New Haven.) In 1791, this Society sent a\nmemorial to Congress, from which the following is an extract:\n\n\"From a sober conviction of the unrighteousness of slavery, your\npetitioners have long beheld, with grief, our fellow men doomed to\nperpetual bondage, in a country which boasts of her freedom. Your\npetitioners were led, by motives, we conceive, of general philanthropy,\nto associate ourselves for the protection and assistance of this\nunfortunate part of our fellow men; and, though this Society has been\n_lately_ established, it has now become _generally extensive_ through\nthis state, and, we fully believe, _embraces, on this subject, the\nsentiments of a large majority of its citizens_.\"\n\nThe same year the Virginia Abolition Society was formed. This Society,\nand the Maryland Society, had auxiliaries in different parts of those\nStates. Both societies sent up memorials to Congress. The memorial of\nthe Virginia Society is headed--\"The memorial of the _Virginia Society_,\nfor promoting the Abolition of Slavery,\" &c. The following is\nan extract:\n\n\"Your memorialists, fully believing that slavery is not only an odious\ndegradation, but an _outrageous violation of one of the most essential\nrights of human nature, and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the\ngospel_,\" &c.\n\nAbout the same time a Society was formed in New-Jersey. It had an acting\ncommittee of five members in each county in the State. The following is\nan extract from the preamble to its constitution:\n\n\"It is our boast, that we live under a government, wherein _life,\nliberty_, and the _pursuit of happiness_, are recognized as the\nuniversal rights of men. We _abhor that inconsistent, illiberal, and\ninterested policy, which withholds those rights from an unfortunate and\ndegraded class of our fellow creatures_.\"\n\nAmong other distinguished individuals who were efficient officers of\nthese Abolition Societies, and delegates from their respective state\nsocieties, at the annual meetings of the American convention for\npromoting the abolition of slavery, were Hon. Uriah Tracy, United\nStates' Senator, from Connecticut; Hon. Zephaniah Swift, Chief Justice\nof the same State; Hon. Cesar A. Rodney, Attorney General of the United\nStates; Hon. James A. Bayard, United States' Senator, from Delaware;\nGovernor Bloomfield, of New-Jersey; Hon. Wm. Rawle, the late venerable\nhead of the Philadelphia bar; Dr. Caspar Wistar, of Philadelphia;\nMessrs. Foster and Tillinghast, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Ridgely,\nBuchanan, and Wilkinson, of Maryland; and Messrs. Pleasants, McLean, and\nAnthony, of Virginia.\n\nIn July, 1787, the old Congress passed the celebrated ordinance\nabolishing slavery in the northwestern territory, and declaring that it\nshould never thereafter exist there. This ordinance was passed while the\nconvention that formed the United States' constitution was in session.\nAt the first session of Congress under the constitution, this ordinance\nwas ratified by a special act. Washington, fresh from the discussions of\nthe convention, in which _more than forty days had been spent in\nadjusting the question of slavery, gave it his approval_. The act passed\nwith only one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New York,) _the\nSouth equally with the North avowing the fitness and expediency of the\nmeasure on general considerations, and indicating thus early the line of\nnational policy, to be pursued by the United States' Government on the\nsubject of slavery_.\n\nIn the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward\na Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, \"_When the entire\nabolition of slavery takes place_, it will be an event which must be\npleasing to every generous mind and every friend of human nature.\" Mr.\nGalloway said, \"I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to. I\napprehend the clause (touching the slave trade) means _to bring forward\nmanumission_.\" Luther Martin, of Maryland, a member of the convention\nthat formed the United States' Constitution, said, \"We ought to\nauthorize the General Government to make such regulations as shall be\nthought most advantageous for _the gradual abolition of slavery_, and\nthe _emancipation of the slaves_ which are already in the States.\" Judge\nWilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the framers of the constitution, said,\nin the Pennsylvania convention of '87, [Deb. Pa. Con. p. 303, 156:] \"I\nconsider this (the clause relative to the slave trade) as laying the\nfoundation for _banishing slavery out of this country_. It will produce\nthe same kind of gradual change which was produced in Pennsylvania; the\nnew States which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress\nin this particular, and _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It\npresents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will\nbe acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of\na few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_\nwithin our borders.\" In the Virginia convention of '87, Mr. Mason,\nauthor of the Virginia constitution, said, \"The augmentation of slaves\nweakens the States, and such a trade is _diabolical_ in itself, and\ndisgraceful to mankind. As much as I value a union of all the States, I\nwould not admit the Southern States, (i.e., South Carolina and Georgia,)\ninto the union, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this\ndisgraceful trade_.\" Mr. Tyler opposed with great power the clause\nprohibiting the abolition of the slave trade till 1808, and said, \"My\nearnest desire is, that it shall be handed down to posterity that I\noppose this wicked clause.\" Mr. Johnson said, \"The principle of\nemancipation _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it\nwill come round_.\"--[Deb. Va. Con. p. 463.] Patrick Henry, arguing the\npower of Congress under the United States' constitution to abolish\nslavery in the States, said, in the same convention, \"Another thing will\ncontribute to bring this event (the abolition of slavery) about. Slavery\nis _detested_. We feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the\npity of humanity.\" Governor Randolph said: \"They insist that the\n_abolition of slavery will result from this Constitution_. I hope that\nthere is no one here, who will advance _an objection so dishonorable_ to\nVirginia--I hope that at the moment they are securing the rights of\ntheir citizens, an objection will not be started, that those unfortunate\nmen now held in bondage, _by the operation of the general government_\nmay be made free!\" [_Deb. Va. Con._ p. 421.] In the Mass. Con. of '88,\nJudge Dawes said, \"Although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet\n_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption.\"--[_Deb.\nMass. Con._ p. 60.] General Heath said that, \"Slavery was confined to\nthe States _now existing_, it _could not be extended_. By their\nordinance, Congress had declared that the new States should be\nrepublican States, _and have no slavery_.\"--p. 147.\n\nIn the debate, in the first Congress, February 11th and 12th, 1789, on\nthe petitions of the Society of Friends, and the Pennsylvania Abolition\nSociety, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, \"I cannot help expressing the\npleasure I feel in finding _so considerable a part_ of the community\nattending to matters of such a momentous concern to the _future\nprosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,\nas a citizen of the Union, to _espouse their cause_.\"\n\nMr. Page, of Virginia, (afterwards Governor)--\"Was _in favor_ of the\ncommitment: he hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists\nwould not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a fair\ndiscussion of the prayer of the memorial. He placed himself in the case\nof a slave, and said, that on hearing that Congress had refused to\nlisten to the decent suggestions of the respectable part of the\ncommunity, he should infer, that the general government, _from which was\nexpected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, had shut\ntheir ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair of any\nalleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect; if any\nthing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this,\nimpressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if he was told,\nthat application was made in his behalf, and that Congress were willing\nto hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of\nimporting his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and\nhumanity, and _wait the decision patiently_.\"\n\nMr. Scott of Pennsylvania: \"I cannot, for my part, conceive how any\nperson _can be said to acquire a property in another. I do not know how\nfar I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United States, and\nthose people were to come before me and claim their emancipation, but I\nam sure I would go as far as I could_.\"\n\nMr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, \"He _saw the disposition of the\nHouse_, and he feared it would be referred to a committee, maugre all\ntheir opposition.\"\n\nMr. Baldwin of Georgia said that the clause in the U.S. Constitution\nrelating to direct taxes \"was intended to prevent Congress from laying\nany special tax upon negro slaves, _as they might, in this way, so\nburthen the possessors of them, as to induce a_ GENERAL EMANCIPATION.\"\n\nMr. Smith of South Carolina, said, \"That on entering into this\ngovernment, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other\nstates, * * * _would, from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led\nto vote for a general emancipation_.\"\n\nIn the debate, at the same session, May 13th, 1789, on the petition of\nthe society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, of\nVirginia, said, \"He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power\n_to restore to human nature its inherent privileges_. The inconsistency\nin our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be\ndone away_.\"\n\nMr. Jackson, of Georgia, said, \"IT WAS THE FASHION OF THE DAY\nTO FAVOR THE LIBERTY OF THE SLAVES. * * * * * Will Virginia\nset her negroes free? _When this practice comes to be tried, then\nthe sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the\nravished ear_.\"\n\nMr. Madison of Virginia,--\"The dictates of humanity, the principles\nof the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy,\nrequire it of us. * * * * * * * I conceive the constitution\nin this particular was formed in order that the Government, whilst it\nwas restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able to _give\nsome testimony of the sense of America_, with respect to the African\ntrade. * * * * * * It is to be hoped, that by expressing a\nnational disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save\nourselves from reproaches, AND OUR PROSPERITY THE IMBECILITY EVER\nATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES.\"\n\nMr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, said, \"he highly commended the part the\nSociety of Friends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had\ninterested themselves in.\"--Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.\n\nA writer in the \"Gazette of the Unites States,\" Feb. 20th, 1790, (then\nthe government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, and avows\nhimself a _slaveholder_, says, \"I have seen in the papers accounts of\n_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition\nof slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free\npeople, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_. SUCH\nMOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW.\"\n\nIn the convention that formed the constitution of Kentucky in 1790, the\neffort to prohibit slavery was nearly successful. A decided majority of\nthat body would undoubtedly have voted for its exclusion, but for the\ngreat efforts and influence of two large slaveholders--men of commanding\ntalents and sway--Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas. The following\nextract from a speech made in that convention by a member of it, Mr.\nRice a native Virginian, is a specimen of the _free discussion_ that\nprevailed on that \"delicate subject.\" Said Mr. Rice: \"I do a man greater\ninjury, when I deprive him of his liberty, than when I deprive him of\nhis property. It is vain for me to plead that I have the sanction of\nlaw; for this makes the injury the greater--it arms the community\nagainst him, and makes his case desperate. The owners of such slaves\nthen are _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they\nclaim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it\nto the right owner_. The master is the enemy of the slave; he _has made\nopen war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT ON in unremitted efforts.\nCan any one imagine, then, that the slave is indebted to his master, and\n_bound to serve him?_ Whence can the obligation arise? What is it\nfounded upon? What is my duty to an enemy that is carrying on war\nagainst me? I do not deny, but in some circumstances, it is the duty of\nthe slave to serve; but it is a duty he owes himself, and not\nhis master.\"\n\nPresident Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before the\nConnecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791: \"Thirty years ago,\nscarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or the\nslavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able advocates in\nprivate life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have appeared, and have\nopenly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of humanity in this as well\nas other instances? And if we judge of the future by the past, _within\nfifty years from this time, it will be as shameful for a man to hold a\nnegro slave, as to be guilty of common robbery or theft_.\"\n\nIn 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its\n\"Scripture proofs,\" notes, and comments. Among these was the following:\n\n\"1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime among the\nJews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment. Exodus xxi.\n16. And the apostle here classes them with _sinners of the first rank_.\nThe word he uses, in its original import comprehends all who are\nconcerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, or in\n_retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of men_ are all those who bring off\nslaves or freemen, and _keep_, sell, or buy them.\"\n\nIn 1794, Dr. Rush declared: \"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the\nprinciples of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just\nprinciple of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the\nauthority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and\nefficacy of the death of a common Saviour. It is an usurpation of the\nprerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly\nclaimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.\"\n\nIn 1795, Mr. Fiske, then an officer of Dartmouth College, afterward a\nJudge in Tennessee, said, in an oration published that year, speaking of\nslaves: \"I steadfastly maintain, that we must bring them to _an equal\nstanding, in point of privileges, with the whites!_ They must enjoy all\nthe rights belonging to human nature.\"\n\nWhen the petition on the abolition of the slave trade was under\ndiscussion in the Congress of '89, Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, said,\n\"The emancipation of the slaves _will be effected_ in time; it ought to\nbe a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not\n_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States.\" Mr.\nHartley, of Pennsylvania, said, in the same debate, \"_He was not a\nlittle surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house_.\"\nWASHINGTON, in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, says, \"There are, in\nPennsylvania, laws for the gradual abolition of slavery which neither\nMaryland nor Virginia have at present, but which _nothing is more\ncertain_ than that they _must have_, and at a period NOT REMOTE.\" In\n1782, Virginia passed her celebrated manumission act. Within nine years\nfrom that time nearly eleven thousand slaves were voluntarily\nemancipated by their masters. [Judge Tucker's \"Dissertation on Slavery,\"\np. 72.] In 1787, Maryland passed an act legalizing manumission. Mr.\nDorsey, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, December 27th, 1826,\nspeaking of manumissions under that act, said, that \"_The progress of\nemancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free\nblack population.\"\n\nThe celebrated William Pinkney, in a speech before the Maryland House of\nDelegates, in 1789, on the emancipation of slaves, said, \"Sir, by the\neternal principles of natural justice, _no master in the state has a\nright to hold his slave in bandage for a single hour_... Are we\napprehensive that these men will become more dangerous by becoming\nfreemen? Are we alarmed, lest by being admitted into the enjoyment of\ncivil rights, they will be inspired with a deadly enmity against the\nrights of others? Strange, unaccountable paradox! How much more rational\nwould it be, to argue that the natural enemy of the privileges of a\nfreeman, is he who is robbed of them himself!\"\n\nHon. James Campbell, in an address before the Pennsylvania Society of\nCincinnati, July 4, 1787, said, \"Our separation from Great Britain has\nextended the empire of _humanity_. The time _is not far distant_ when\nour sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their\nvassals into freemen_.\" The Convention that formed the United States'\nconstitution being then in session, attended on the delivery of this\noration with General Washington at their head.\n\nA Baltimore paper of September 8th, 1780, contains the following notice\nof Major General Gates: \"A few days ago passed through this town the\nHon. General Gates and lady. The General, previous to leaving Virginia,\nsummoned his numerous family of slaves about him, and amidst their tears\nof affection and gratitude, gave them their FREEDOM.\"\n\nIn 1791, the university of William and Mary, in Virginia, conferred upon\nGranville Sharpe the degree of Doctor of Laws. Sharpe was at that time\nthe acknowledged head of British abolitionists. His indefatigable\nexertions, prosecuted for years in the case of Somerset, procured that\nmemorable decision in the Court of King's Bench, which settled the\nprinciple that no slave could be held in England. He was most\nuncompromising in his opposition to slavery, and for twenty years\nprevious he had spoken, written, and accomplished more against it than\nany man living.\n\nIn the \"Memoirs of the Revolutionary War in the Southern Department,\" by\nGen. Lee, of Va., Commandant of the Partizan Legion, is the following:\n\"The Constitution of the United States, adopted lately with so much\ndifficulty, has effectually provided against this evil (by importation)\nafter a few years. It is much to be lamented that having done so much in\nthis way, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of\nslavery_.\"--pp. 233, 4.\n\nMr. Tucker, of Virginia, Judge of the Supreme Court of that state, and\nprofessor of law in the University of William and Mary, addressed a\nletter to the General Assembly of that state, in 1796, urging the\nabolition of slavery, from which the following is an extract. Speaking\nof the slaves in Virginia, he says: \"Should we not, at the time of the\nrevolution, have broken their fetters? Is it not our duty _to embrace\nthe first moment_ of constitutional health and vigor to effectuate so\ndesirable an object, and to remove from us a stigma with which our\nenemies will never fail to upbraid us, nor our consciences to\nreproach us?\"\n\nMr. Faulkner, in a speech before the Virginia House of Delegates, Jan.\n20, 1832, said: \"The idea of a gradual emancipation and removal of the\nslaves from this commonwealth, is coeval with the declaration of our\nindependence from the British yoke. When Virginia stood sustained in her\nlegislation by the pure and philosophic intellect of Pendleton, by the\npatriotism of Mason and Lee, by the searching vigor and sagacity of\nWythe, and by the all-embracing, all-comprehensive genius of Thomas\nJefferson! Sir, it was a committee composed of those five illustrious\nmen, who, in 1777, submitted to the general assembly of this state, then\nin session, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this\ncommonwealth_.\"\n\nHon. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, late United States' senator from Virginia,\nin his letters to the people of Virginia, in 1832, signed Appomattox, p.\n43, says: \"I thought, till very lately, that it was known to every body\nthat during the revolution, _and for many years after, the abolition of\nslavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, who\nentertained, with respect, all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity\ncould suggest for accomplishing the object. Mr. Wythe, to the day of his\ndeath, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color\nas founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were\nabandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these\nprojects revived.\"\n\nGovernor Barbour, of Virginia, in his speech in the U.S. Senate, on the\nMissouri question, Jan. 1820, said: \"We are asked why has Virginia\nchanged her policy in reference to slavery? That the sentiments of our\nmost distinguished men, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_ with\nthe course which the friends of the restriction (of slavery in Missouri)\nnow advocated; and that the Virginia delegation, one of whom was the\nlate President of the United States, voted for the restriction (of\nslavery) in the northwestern territory, and that Mr. Jefferson has\ndelineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects of slavery. When it\nis recollected that the Notes of Mr. Jefferson were written during the\nprogress of the revolution, it is no matter of surprise that the writer\nshould have imbibed a large portion of that enthusiasm which such an\noccasion was so well calculated to produce. As to the consent of the\nVirginia delegation to the restriction in question, whether the result\nof a disposition to restrain the slave-trade indirectly, or the\ninfluence of that enthusiasm to which I have just alluded, * * * * it is\nnot now important to decide. We have witnessed its effects. The\nliberality of Virginia, or, as the result may prove, her folly, which\nsubmitted to, or, if you will, PROPOSED _this measure_ (abolition of\nslavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects which speak a\nmonitory lesson. _How is the representation from this quarter on the\npresent question_?\"\n\nMr. Imlay, in his early history of Kentucky, p. 185, says: \"We have\ndisgraced the fair face of humanity, and trampled upon the sacred\nprivileges of man, at the very moment that we were exclaiming against\nthe tyranny of your (the English) ministry. But in contending for the\nbirthright of freedom, we have learned to feel _for the bondage of\nothers_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we\ncontemplate an _emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as\nhonorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us.\"\n\nIn the debate in Congress, Jan. 20, 1806, on Mr. Sloan's motion to lay a\ntax on the importation of slaves, Mr. Clark of Va. said: \"He was no\nadvocate for a system of slavery.\" Mr. Marion, of S. Carolina, said: \"He\nnever had purchased, nor should he ever purchase a slave.\" Mr. Southard\nsaid: \"Not revenue, but an expression of the _national sentiment_ is the\nprincipal object.\" Mr. Smilie--\"I rejoice that the word (slave) is not\nin the constitution; its not being there does honor to the worthies who\nwould not suffer it to become a _part_ of it.\" Mr. Alston, of N.\nCarolina--\"In two years we shall have the power to prohibit the trade\naltogether. Then this House will be unanimous. No one will object to our\nexercising our full constitutional powers.\" National Intelligencer,\nJan. 24, 1806.\n\nThese witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit; nor their\ntestimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their\n_endorsers_, and their strong words their own interpreters. We waive all\ncomments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, let him\nHEAR. And whosoever will not hear the fathers of the revolution, the\nfounders of the government, its chief magistrates, judges, legislators\nand sages, who dared and perilled all under the burdens, and in the heat\nof the day that tried men's souls--then \"neither will he be persuaded\nthough THEY rose from the dead.\"\n\nSome of the points established by this testimony are--The universal\nexpectation that Congress, state legislatures, seminaries of learning,\nchurches, ministers of religion, and public sentiment widely embodied in\nabolition societies, would act against slavery, calling forth the moral\nsense of the nation, and creating a power of opinion that would abolish\nthe system throughout the Union. In a word, that free speech and a free\npress would be wielded against it without ceasing and without\nrestriction. Full well did the South know, not only that the national\ngovernment would probably legislate against slavery wherever the\nconstitution placed it within its reach, but she knew also that Congress\nhad already marked out the line of national policy to be pursued on the\nsubject--had committed itself before the world to a course of action\nagainst slavery, wherever she could move upon it without encountering a\nconflicting jurisdiction--that the nation had established by solemn\nordinance a memorable precedent for subsequent action, by abolishing\nslavery in the northwest territory, and by declaring that it should\nnever thenceforward exist there; and this too, as soon as by cession of\nVirginia and other states, the territory came under congressional\ncontrol. The South knew also that the sixth article in the ordinance\nprohibiting slavery, was first proposed by the largest slaveholding\nstate in the confederacy--that in the Congress of '84, Mr. Jefferson, as\nchairman of the committee on the N.W. territory, reported a resolution\nabolishing slavery there--that the chairman of the committee that\nreported the ordinance of '87 was also a slaveholder--that the ordinance\nwas enacted by Congress during the session of the convention that formed\nthe United States' Constitution--that the provisions of the ordinance\nwere, both while in prospect and when under discussion, matters of\nuniversal notoriety and _approval_ with all parties, and when finally\npassed, received the vote of _every member of Congress from each of the\nslaveholding states_. The South also had every reason for believing that\nthe first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_ that\nordinance--as it did unanimously.\n\nA crowd of reflections, suggested by the preceding testimony, presses\nfor utterance. The right of petition ravished and trampled by its\nconstitutional guardians, and insult and defiance hurled in the faces of\nthe SOVEREIGN PEOPLE while calmly remonstrating _with their_ SERVANTS\nfor violence committed on the nation's charter and their own dearest\nrights! Added to this \"the right of peaceably assembling\" violently\nwrested--the rights of minorities, _rights_ no longer--free speech\nstruck dumb--free _men_ outlawed and murdered--free presses cast into\nthe streets and their fragments strewed with shoutings, or flourished in\ntriumph before the gaze of approving crowds as proud mementos of\nprostrate law! The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they?\nTheir deep homage always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with\nits _inseparable signs--free speech and a free press_--their reverence\nfor justice, liberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?\n\nBut we turn from these considerations--though the times on which we have\nfallen, and those toward which we are borne with headlong haste, call\nfor their discussion as with the voices of departing life--and proceed\nto topics relevant to the argument before us.\n\nThe seventh article of the amendments to the constitution is alleged to\nwithhold from Congress the power to abolish slavery in the District. \"No\nperson shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due\nprocess of law.\" All the slaves in the District have been \"deprived of\nliberty\" by legislative acts. Now, these legislative acts \"depriving\"\nthem \"of liberty,\" were either \"due process of law,\" or they were _not_.\nIf they _were_, then a legislative act, taking from the master that\n\"property\" which is the identical \"liberty\" previously taken from the\nslave, would be \"due process of law\" _also_, and of course a\n_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts \"depriving\" them of\n\"liberty\" were _not_ \"due process of law,\" then the slaves were deprived\nof liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case\nthe _constitution emancipates them_.\n\nIf the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase \"due\nprocess of law,\" is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that\nfact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ been deprived\nof his liberty by \"a judicial process,\" or, in other words, by \"due\nprocess of law;\" consequently, upon the objector's own admission, every\nslave in the District has been deprived of liberty _unconstitutionally_,\nand is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of\nthe slaves under the \"exclusive legislation\" of Congress.\n\nThe last clause of the article under consideration is quoted for the\nsame purpose: \"Nor shall private property he taken for public use\nwithout just compensation.\" Each of the state constitutions has a clause\nof similar purport. The abolition of slavery in the District by\nCongress, would not, as we shall presently show; violate this clause\neither directly or by implication. Granting for argument's sake, that\nslaves are \"private property,\" and that to emancipate them, would be to\n\"take private property\" for \"public use,\" the objector admits the power\nof Congress to do _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,\n_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying the _power_, the objector not\nonly admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that\ncompensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of\n_one_ power, he asserts the existence of _two_--one, the power to take\nthe slaves from their masters, the other, the power to take the property\nof the United States to pay for them.\n\nIf Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private\nproperty, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,\n_legalize_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_\nthose who commit them. Does the power to rob a man of his earnings, rob\nthe earner of his _right_ to them? Who has a better right to the\n_product_ than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the\n_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they\nswing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they are? Congress not only\nimpairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it\nwithholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.\nWhat! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it\ncan make inviolable the right to a _dog_! But, waiving this, I deny that\nthe abolition of slavery in the District would violate this clause. What\ndoes the clause prohibit? The \"taking\" of \"private property\" for \"public\nuse.\" Suppose Congress should emancipate the slaves in the District,\nwhat would it \"_take_?\" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What\nwould it put to \"public use?\" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ \"private\nproperty,\" Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say \"_private\nproperty_ shall not be taken; and those who have been robbed of it\nalready, shall be kept out of it no longer; and every man's right to his\nown body shall be protected.\" True, Congress may not arbitrarily take\nproperty, _as_ property, from one man and give it to another--and in the\nabolition of slavery no such thing is done. A legislative act changes\nthe _condition_ of the slave--makes him his own _proprietor_, instead of\nthe property of another. It determines a question of _original right_\nbetween two classes of persons--doing an act of justice to one, and\nrestraining the other from acts of injustice; or, in other words,\npreventing one from robbing the other, by granting to the injured party\nthe protection of just and equitable laws.\n\nCongress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of seven\nthousand \"persons\" in the District, but would \"take\" nothing. To\nconstrue this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District to\nhold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to hold it\nas property in all circumstances--all necessity, public welfare, and the\nwill and power of the government to the contrary notwithstanding--is a\ntotal perversion of its whole _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,\nwas to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right\nto \"take property\" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to\nadjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his\nown secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of\nlegislation. Besides, if Congress were to \"take\" the slaves in the\nDistrict, it would be _adopting_, not abolishing slavery--becoming a\nslaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer.\nThe clause in question, prohibits the \"taking\" of individual property\nfor public use, to be employed or disposed of _as_ property for\ngovernmental purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District,\nwould do no such thing. It would merely change the _condition_ of that\nwhich has been recognized as a qualified property by congressional acts,\nthough previously declared \"persons\" by the constitution. More than this\nis done continually by Congress and every other Legislature. Property\nthe most absolute and unqualified, is annihilated by legislative acts.\nThe embargo and non-intercourse act, levelled at a stroke a forest of\nshipping, and sunk millions of capital. To say nothing of the power of\nCongress to take hundreds of millions from the people by direct\ntaxation, who doubts its power to abolish at once the whole tariff\nsystem, change the seat of Government, arrest the progress of national\nworks, prohibit any branch of commerce with the Indian tribes or with\nforeign nations, change the locality of forts, arsenals, magazines and\ndock yards; abolish the Post Office system, and the privilege of patents\nand copyrights? By such acts Congress might, in the exercise of its\nacknowledged powers, annihilate property to an incalculable amount, and\nthat without becoming liable to claims for compensation.\n\nFinally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of\n\"_property_.\" The constitution of the United States does not recognize\nslaves as \"PROPERTY\" any where, and it does not recognize them in _any\nsense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the\nconstitution recognize them as \"persons.\" Every reference to them points\n_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest\nimplication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as\n\"persons,\" and _will_ not recognize them in any other light. If they\nescape into free States, the constitution authorizes their being taken\nback. But how? Not as the property of an \"owner,\" but as \"persons;\" and\nthe peculiarity of the expression is a marked recognition of their\n_personality_--a refusal to recognize them as chattels--\"persons _held_\nto service.\" Are _oxen \"held_ to service?\" That can be affirmed only of\n_persons_. Again, slaves give political power as \"persons.\" The\nconstitution, in settling the principle of representation, requires\ntheir enumeration in the census. How? As property? Then why not include\nrace horses and game cocks? Slaves, like other inhabitants, are\nenumerated as \"persons.\" So by the constitution, the government was\npledged to non-interference with \"the migration or importation of such\n_persons_\" as the States might think proper to admit until 1808, and\nauthorized the laying of a tax on each \"person\" so admitted. Further,\nslaves are recognized as _persons_ by the exaction of their _allegiance_\nto the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried\nas _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,\nto the rules of evidence, and to \"due process of law,\" and as _persons_\nthey are punished. True, they are loaded with cruel disabilities in\ncourts of law, such as greatly obstruct and often inevitably defeat the\nends of justice, yet they are still recognized as _persons_. Even in the\nlegislation of Congress, and in the diplomacy of the general government,\nnotwithstanding the frequent and wide departures from the integrity of\nthe constitution on this subject, slaves are not recognized as\n_property_ without qualification. Congress has always refused to grant\ncompensation for slaves killed or taken by the enemy, even when these\nslaves had been impressed into the United States' service. In half a\nscore of cases since the last war, Congress has rejected such\napplications for compensation. Besides, both in Congressional acts, and\nin our national diplomacy, slaves and property are not used as\nconvertible terms. When mentioned in treaties and state papers it is in\nsuch a way as to distinguish them from mere property, and generally by a\nrecognition of their _personality_. In the invariable recognition of\nslaves as _persons_, the United States' constitution caught the mantle\nof the glorious Declaration, and most worthily wears it. It recognizes\nall human beings as \"men,\" \"persons,\" and thus as \"equals.\" In the\noriginal draft of the Declaration, as it came from the hand of\nJefferson, it is alleged that Great Britain had \"waged a cruel war\nagainst _human_ nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life\nand liberty in the persons of a distant people, carrying them into\nslavery, * * determined to keep up a market where MEN should be bought\nand sold,\"--thus disdaining to make the charter of freedom a warrant for\nthe arrest of _men_, that they might be shorn both of liberty\nand humanity.\n\nThe celebrated Roger Sherman, one of the committee of five appointed to\ndraft the Declaration of Independence, and a member of the convention\nthat formed the United States' constitution, said, in the first Congress\nafter its adoption: \"The constitution _does not consider these persons,\n(slaves,) as a species of property_.\"--[Lloyd's Cong. Reg. v. 1, p.\n313.] That the United States' Constitution does not make slaves\n\"property,\" is shown in the fact, that no person, either as a citizen of\nthe United States, or by having his domicile within the United States'\ngovernment, can hold slaves. He can hold them only by deriving his power\nfrom _state_ laws, or from the laws of Congress, if he hold slaves\nwithin the District. But no person resident within the United States'\njurisdiction, and _not_ within the District, nor within a state whose\nlaws support slavery, nor \"held to service\" under the laws of such a\nstate or district, having escaped therefrom, _can be held as a slave_.\n\nMen can hold _property_ under the United States' government though\nresiding beyond the bounds of any state, district, or territory. An\ninhabitant of the Iowa Territory can hold property there under the laws\nof the United States, but he cannot hold _slaves_ there under the United\nStates' laws, nor by virtue of the United States' Constitution, nor upon\nthe ground of his United States' citizenship, nor by having his domicile\nwithin the United States' jurisdiction. The constitution no where\nrecognizes the right to \"slave property,\" _but merely the fact that the\nstates have jurisdiction each in its own limits, and that there are\ncertain \"persons\" within their jurisdictions \"held to service\" by their\nown laws_.\n\nFinally, in the clause under consideration \"private property\" is not to\nbe taken \"without just compensation.\" \"JUST!\" If justice is to be\nappealed to in determining the _amount_ of compensation, let her\ndetermine the _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_\ncompensation is \"just,\" it is hers to say whether _any_ is\n\"just,\"--whether the slave is \"just\" property _at all_, rather than a\n\"_person_\". Then, if justice adjudges the slave to be \"private\nproperty,\" it adjudges him to be _his own_ property, since the right to\none's self is the first right--the source of all others--the original\nstock by which they are accumulated--the principal, of which they are\nthe interest. And since the slave's \"private property\" has been \"taken,\"\nand since \"compensation\" is impossible--there being no _equivalent_ for\none's self--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original\nprivate property.\n\nHaving shown that in abolishing slavery, \"property\" would not be \"taken\nfor public use,\" it may be added that, in those states where slavery has\nbeen abolished by law, no claim for compensation has been allowed.\nIndeed the manifest absurdity of demanding it seems to have quite\nforestalled the _setting up_ of such a claim.\n\nThe abolition of slavery in the District instead of being a legislative\nanomaly, would proceed upon the principles of every day legislation. It\nhas been shown already, that the United States' Constitution does not\nrecognize slaves as \"property.\" Yet ordinary legislation is full of\nprecedents, showing that even _absolute_ property is in many respects\nwholly subject to legislation. The repeal of the law of entailments--all\nthose acts that control the alienation of property, its disposal by\nwill, its passing to heirs by descent, with the question, who shall be\nheirs, and what shall be the rule of distribution among them, or whether\nproperty shall be transmitted at all by descent, rather than escheat to\nthe estate--these, with statutes of limitation, and various other\nclasses of legislative acts, serve to illustrate the acknowledged scope\nof the law-making power, even where property _is in every sense\nabsolute_. Persons whose property is thus affected by public laws,\nreceive from the government no compensation for their losses; unless the\nstate has been put in possession of the property taken from them.\n\nThe preamble of the United States' Constitution declares it to be a\nfundamental object of the organization of the government \"to ESTABLISH\nJUSTICE.\" Has Congress _no power_ to do that for which it was made the\ndepository of power? CANNOT the United States' Government fulfil the\npurpose for which it was brought into being?\n\nTo abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but\nto \"establish justice\" between two parties. To emancipate the slave, is\nto \"establish justice\" between him and his master--to throw around the\nperson, character, conscience; liberty, and domestic relations of the\none, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other words,\nto prevent by legal restraints one class of men from seizing upon\nanother class, and robbing them at pleasure of their earnings, their\ntime, their liberty, their kindred, and the very use and ownership of\ntheir own persons. Finally, to abolish slavery is to proclaim and\n_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are\nentitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall\nno longer revel upon their spoils under the license, and by the\nministration of _law_! Congress, by possessing \"exclusive legislation in\nall cases whatsoever,\" has a _general protective power for_ ALL the\ninhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man in\nthe District it has none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and\nif it _can_ protect one man and is _bound_ to do it, it _can_ protect\n_every_ man--and is _bound_ to do it. All admit the power of Congress to\nprotect the masters in the District against their slaves. What part of\nthe constitution gives the power? The clause so often quoted,--\"power of\nlegislation in all cases whatsoever,\" equally in the \"_case_\" of\ndefending blacks against whites, as in that of defending whites against\nblacks. The power is also conferred by Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause\n15--\"Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections\"--a power to\nprotect, as well blacks against whites, as whites against blacks. If the\nconstitution gives power to protect _one_ class against the other, it\ngives power to protect _either_ against the other. Suppose the blacks in\nthe District should seize the whites, drive them into the fields and\nkitchens, force them to work without pay, flog them, imprison them, and\nsell them at their pleasure, where would Congress find power to restrain\nsuch acts? Answer; a _general_ power in the clause so often cited, and\nan _express_ one in that cited above--\"Congress shall have power to\nsuppress insurrections.\" So much for a supposed case. Here follows a\nreal one. The whites in the District are _perpetrating these identical\nacts_ upon seven thousand blacks daily. That Congress has power to\nrestrain these acts in _one_ case, all assert, and in so doing they\nassert the power \"in _all_ cases whatsoever.\" For the grant of power to\nsuppress insurrections, is an _unconditional_ grant, not hampered by\nprovisos as to the color, shape, size, sex, language, creed, or\ncondition of the insurgents. Congress derives its power to suppress this\n_actual_ insurrection, from the same source whence it derived its power\nto suppress the _same_ acts in the case supposed. If one case is an\ninsurrection, the other is. The _acts_ in both are the same; the\n_actors_ only are different. In the one case, ignorant and\ndegraded--goaded by the memory of the past, stung by the present, and\ndriven to desperation by the fearful looking for of wrongs for ever to\ncome. In the other, enlightened into the nature of _rights_, the\nprinciples of justice, and the dictates of the law of love, unprovoked\nby wrongs, with cool deliberation, and by system, they perpetrate these\nacts upon those to whom they owe unnumbered obligations for _whole\nlives_ of unrequited service. On which side may palliation be pleaded,\nand which party may most reasonably claim an abatement of the rigors of\nlaw? If Congress has power to suppress such acts _at all_, it has power\nto suppress them _in_ all.\n\nIt has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is\nthe government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where\nit exacts _allegiance_? It is an axiom of the civilized world, and a\nmaxim even with savages, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal\nand correlative. Are principles powerless with us which exact homage of\nbarbarians? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human.\nbeing under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited\nit by crime_.\n\nIn conclusion, I argue the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict, from Art. 1, sec. 8, clause 1, of the constitution; \"Congress\nshall have power to provide for the common defence and the general\nwelfare of the United States.\" Has the government of the United States\nno power under this grant to legislate within its own exclusive\njurisdiction on subjects that vitally affect its interest? Suppose the\nslaves in the district should rise upon their masters, and the United\nStates' government, in quelling the insurrection, should kill any number\nof them. Could their masters claim compensation of the government?\nManifestly not; even though no proof existed that the particular slaves\nkilled were insurgents. This was precisely the point at issue between\nthose masters, whose slaves were killed by the State troops at the time\nof the Southampton insurrection, and the Virginia Legislature: no\nevidence was brought to show that the slaves killed by the troops were\ninsurgents; yet the Virginia Legislature decided that their masters were\n_not entitled to compensation._ They proceeded on the sound principle,\nthat the government may in self-protection destroy the claim of its\nsubjects even to that which has been recognized as property by its own\nacts. If in providing for the common defence, the United States'\ngovernment, in the case supposed, would have power to destroy slaves\nboth as _property_ and _persons_, it surely might stop _half-way_,\ndestroy them _as property_ while it legalized their existence as\n_persons_, and thus provided for the common defence by giving them a\npersonal and powerful interest in the government, and securing their\nstrength for its defence.\n\nLike other Legislatures, Congress has power to abate nuisances--to\nremove or tear down unsafe buildings--to destroy infected cargoes--to\nlay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public health--and\nthus to \"provide for the common defence and general welfare\" by\ndestroying individual property, when such property puts in jeopardy the\npublic weal.\n\nGranting, for argument's sake, that slaves are \"property\" in the\nDistrict of Columbia--if Congress has a right to annihilate property\nthere when the public safety requires it, it may annihilate its\nexistence _as_ property when the public safety requires it, especially\nif it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that which as\n_property_ perilled the public interests. In the District of Columbia\nthere are, besides the United States' Capitol, the President's house,\nthe national offices, and archives of the Departments of State,\nTreasury, War, and Navy, the General Post-office, and Patent office. It\nis also the residence of the President, of all the highest officers of\nthe government, of both houses of Congress, and of all the foreign\nambassadors. In this same District there are also seven thousand slaves.\nJefferson, in his Notes on Va. p. 241, says of slavery, that \"the State\npermitting one half of its citizens to trample on the rights of the\nother, transforms them into _enemies_;\" and Richard Henry Lee, in the\nVa. House of Burgesses in 1758, declared that to those who held them,\n\"_slaves must be natural enemies_.\" Is Congress so impotent that it\n_cannot_ exercise that right pronounced both by municipal and national\nlaw, the most sacred and universal--the right of self-preservation and\ndefence? Is it shut up to the _necessity_ of keeping seven thousand\n\"enemies\" in the heart of the nation's citadel? Does the iron fiat of\nthe constitution doom it to such imbecility that it _cannot_ arrest the\nprocess that _made_ them \"enemies,\" and still goads to deadlier hate by\nfiery trials, and day by day adds others to their number? Is _this_\nproviding for the common defence and general welfare? If to rob men of\nrights excites their hate, freely to restore them and make amends, will\nwin their love.\n\nBy emancipating the slaves in the District, the government of the United\nStates would disband an army of \"enemies,\" and enlist \"for the common\ndefence and general welfare,\" a body guard of _friends_ seven thousand\nstrong. In the last war, a handful of British soldiers sacked Washington\ncity, burned the capitol, the President's house, and the national\noffices and archives; and no marvel, for thousands of the inhabitants of\nthe District had been \"TRANSFORMED INTO ENEMIES.\" Would _they_ beat back\ninvasion? If the national government had exercised its constitutional\n\"power to provide for the common defence and to promote the general\nwelfare,\" by turning those \"enemies\" into friends, then, instead of a\nhostile ambush lurking in every thicket inviting assault, and secret\nfoes in every house paralyzing defence, an army of allies would have\nrallied in the hour of her calamity, and shouted defiance from their\nmunitions of rocks; whilst the banner of the republic, then trampled in\ndust, would have floated securely over FREEMEN exulting amidst bulwarks\nof strength.\n\nTo show that Congress can abolish slavery in the District, under the\ngrant of power \"to provide for the common defence and to promote the\ngeneral welfare,\" I quote an extract from a speech of Mr. Madison, of\nVa., in the first Congress under the constitution, May 13, 1789.\nSpeaking of the abolition of the slave trade, Mr. Madison says: \"I\nshould venture to say it is as much for the interests of Georgia and\nSouth Carolina, as of any state in the union. Every addition they\nreceive to their number of slaves tends to _weaken_ them, and renders\nthem less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign\nnations, they will be the means of _inviting_ attack instead of\nrepelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general government to\nprotect every part of the empire against danger, as well _internal_ as\nexternal. _Every thing, therefore, which tends to increase this danger,\nthough it may be a local affair, yet if it involves national expense or\nsafety, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, and is a\nproper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general\nadministration of the government._\" Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310, 11.\n\nWYTHE.\n\nPOSTSCRIPT\n\nMy apology for adding a _postscript_, to a discussion already perhaps\ntoo protracted, is the fact that the preceding sheets were in the hands\nof the printer, and all but the concluding pages had gone through the\npress, before the passage of Mr. Calhoun's late resolutions in the\nSenate of the United States. A proceeding so extraordinary,--if indeed\nhenceforward _any_ act of Congress in derogation of freedom and in\ndeference to slavery, can be deemed extraordinary,--should not be passed\nin silence at such a crisis as the present; especially as the passage of\none of the resolutions by a vote of 36 to 9, exhibits a shift of\nposition on the part of the South, as sudden as it is unaccountable,\nbeing nothing less than the surrender of a fortress which until then,\nthey had defended with the pertinacity of a blind and almost infuriated\nfatuity. Upon the discussions during the pendency of the resolutions,\nand upon the vote, by which they were carried, I make no comment, save\nonly to record my exultation in the fact there exhibited, that great\nemergencies are _true touchstones_, and that henceforward, until this\nquestion is settled, whoever holds a seat in Congress will find upon,\nand around him, a pressure strong enough to test him--a focal blaze that\nwill find its way through the carefully adjusted cloak of fair\npretension, and the sevenfold brass of two faced political intrigue, and\n_no_-faced _non-committalism_, piercing to the dividing asunder of\njoints and marrow. Be it known to every northern man who aspires to a\nseat in our national councils, that hereafter congressional action on\nthis subject will be a MIGHTY REVELATOR--making secret thoughts public\nproperty, and proclaiming on the house-tops what is whispered in the\near--smiting off masks, and bursting open sepulchres beautiful\noutwardly, and up-heaving to the sun their dead men's bones. To such we\nsay,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then\nsold the free states and their own birthright!_\n\nPassing by the resolutions generally without remark--the attention of\nthe reader is specially solicited to Mr. Clay's substitute for Mr.\nCalhoun's fifth resolution.\n\n\"Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the states of\nVirginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic slavery existed in\nboth of these states, including the ceded territory, and that, as it\nstill continues in both of them, it could not be abolished within the\nDistrict without a violation of that good faith, which was implied in\nthe cession and in the acceptance of the territory; nor, unless\ncompensation were made to the proprietors of slaves, without a manifest\ninfringement of an amendment to the constitution of the United States;\nnor without exciting a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the\nstates recognizing slavery, far transcending in mischievous tendency,\nany possible benefit which could be accomplished by the abolition.\"\n\nBy advocating this resolution, the south shifted its mode of defence,\nnot by taking a position entirely new, but by attempting to refortify an\nold one--abandoned mainly long ago, as being unable to hold out against\nassault however unskillfully directed. In the debate on this resolution,\nthe southern members of Congress silently drew off from the ground\nhitherto maintained by them, viz.--that Congress has no power by the\nconstitution to abolish slavery in the District.\n\nThe passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,\nforms a new era in the discussion of this question. We cannot join in\nthe lamentations of those who bewail it. We hail it, and rejoice in it.\nIt was as we would have had it--offered by a southern senator, advocated\nby southern senators, and on the ground that it \"was no\ncompromise\"--that it embodied the true southern principle--that \"this\nresolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's.\"--(Mr.\nPreston)--\"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr.\nCalhoun's\"--(Mr. Rives)--that \"the resolution he (Mr. Calhoun) now\nrefused to support, was as strong as his own, and that in supporting it,\nthere was no abandonment of principle by the south.\"--(Mr. Walker, of\nMi.)--further, that it was advocated by the southern senators generally\nas an expression of their views, and as setting the question of slavery\nin the District on its _true_ ground--that finally, when the question\nwas taken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself,\nvoted for the resolution.\n\nBy passing this resolution, and with such avowals, the south has\nunwittingly but explicitly, conceded the main point argued in the\npreceding pages, and surrendered the whole question at issue between\nthem and the petitioners for abolition in the District.\n\nThe _only_ ground taken against the right of Congress to abolish slavery\nin the District is, that it existed in Maryland and Virginia when the\ncession was made, and \"_as it still continues in both of them_, it could\nnot be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was\nimplied in the cession,\" &c. The argument is not that exclusive\n_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,\nnor that the powers of even ordinary legislation cannot do it, nor that\nthe clause granting Congress \"exclusive legislation in all cases what\nsoever over such District,\" gives no power to do it; but that the\n_unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other would not\n\"in all cases\" use the power which said party had consented might be\nused \"_in all cases,\" prohibits_ the use of it. The only cardinal point\nin the discussion, is here not only yielded, but formally laid down by\nthe South as the leading article in their creed on the question of\nCongressional jurisdiction over slavery in the District. The reason\ngiven why Congress should not abolish, and the sole evidence that if it\ndid, such abolition would be a violation of \"good faith,\" is that\n\"_slavery still continues in those states_,\"--thus admitting, that if\nslavery did _not_ \"still continue\" in those States, Congress could\nabolish it in the District. The same admission is made also in the\n_premises_, which state that slavery existed in those states _at the\ntime of the cession_, &c. Admitting that if it had not existed there\nthen, but had grown up in the District under United States' laws,\nCongress might constitutionally abolish it. Or that if the ceded parts\nof those states had been the _only_ parts in which slaves were held\nunder their laws, Congress might have abolished in such a contingency\nalso. The cession in that case leaving no slaves in those states,--no\n\"good faith\" would be \"implied\" in it, nor any \"violated\" by an act of\nabolition. The resolution makes virtually this further admission, that\nif Maryland and Virginia should at once abolish their slavery, Congress\nmight at once abolish it in the District. The principle goes even\nfurther than this, and _requires_ Congress in such case to abolish\nslavery in the District \"by the _good faith implied_ in the cession and\nacceptance of the territory.\" Since, according to the spirit and scope\nof the resolution, this \"implied good faith\" of Maryland and Virginia\nin making the cession, was, that Congress would do nothing within the\nDistrict which should counteract the policy, or discredit the\n\"institutions,\" or call in question the usages, or even in any way\nruffle the prejudices of those states, or do what _they_ might think\nwould unfavorably bear upon their interests; _themselves_ of course\nbeing the judges.\n\nBut let us dissect another limb of the resolution. What is to be\nunderstood by \"that good faith which was IMPLIED?\" It is of course an\nadmission that such a condition was not _expressed_ in the acts of\ncession--that in their terms there is nothing restricting the power of\nCongress on the subject of slavery in the District. This \"implied\nfaith,\" then, rests on no clause or word in the United States'\nConstitution, or in the acts of cession, or in the acts of Congress\naccepting the cession, nor on any declarations of the legislatures of\nMaryland and Virginia, nor on any _act_ of theirs, nor on any\ndeclaration of the _people_ of those states, nor on the testimony of the\nWashingtons, Jeffersons, Madisons, Chases, Martins, and Jennifers, of\nthose states and times. The assertion rests _on itself alone!_ Mr. Clay\n_guesses_ that Maryland and Virginia _supposed_ that Congress would by\nno means _use_ the power given them by the Constitution, except in such\nways as would be well pleasing in the eyes of those states; especially\nas one of them was the \"Ancient Dominion!\" And now after half a century,\nthis _assumed expectation_ of Maryland and Virginia, the existence of\nwhich is mere matter of conjecture with the 36 senators, is conjured up\nand duly installed upon the judgment-seat of final appeal, before whose\nnod constitutions are to flee away, and with whom, solemn grants of\npower and explicit guaranties are, when weighed in the balance,\naltogether lighter than vanity!\n\nBut survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia leave so\nmuch to be \"_implied?_?\" Why did they not in some way _express_ what lay\nso near their hearts? Had their vocabulary run so low that a single word\ncould not be eked out for the occasion? Or were those states so bashful\nof a sudden that they dare not speak out and tell what they wanted? Or\ndid they take it for granted that Congress would always know their\nwishes by intuition, and always take them for law? If, as honorable\nsenators tell us, Maryland and Virginia did verily travail with such\nabounding _faith_, why brought they forth no _works_?\n\nIt is as true in legislation as in religion, that the only evidence of\n\"faith\" is works, and that \"faith\" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e. has\nno _power_. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing\n_expressed_, an \"implied\" faith without works, is omnipotent! Mr. Clay\nis lawyer enough to know that Maryland and Virginia notions of\nconstitutional power, _abrogate no grant_, and that to plead them in a\ncourt of law, would be of small service, except to jostle \"their\nHonors'\" gravity! He need not be told that the Constitution gives\nCongress \"power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases\nwhatsoever over such District;\" nor that Maryland and Virginia\nconstructed their acts of cession with this clause _before their eyes_,\nand declared those acts made \"in _pursuance_\" of it. Those states knew\nthat the U.S. Constitution had left nothing to be \"_implied_\" as to the\npower of Congress over the District; an admonition quite sufficient, one\nwould think, to put them on their guard, and lead them to eschew vague\nimplications, and to resort to _stipulations_. They knew, moreover, that\nthose were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_ was left to\nbe \"implied.\" The colonies were then panting from a twenty years'\nconflict with the mother country, about bills of rights, charters,\ntreaties, constitutions, grants, limitations, and _acts of cession_. The\nseverities of a long and terrible discipline had taught them to guard at\nall points _legislative grants_, that their exact import and limit might\nbe self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind \"faith\" that _somehow_ in\nthe lottery of chances, every ticket would turn up a prize. Toil,\nsuffering, blood, and treasure outpoured like water over a whole\ngeneration, counselled them to make all sure by the use of explicit\nterms, and well chosen words, and just enough of them. The Constitution\nof the United States, with its amendments, those of the individual\nstates, the national treaties, and the public documents of the general\nand state governments at that period, show the universal conviction of\nlegislative bodies, that nothing should be left to be \"implied,\" when\ngreat public interests were at stake.\n\nFurther: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their \"implied\nfaith\" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a\nproviso, declaring that Congress should not \"exercise exclusive\nlegislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District,\" but that the\n\"case\" of _slavery_ should be an exception: who does not know that\nCongress, if it had accepted the cession on those terms, would have\nviolated the Constitution; and who that has studied the free mood of\nthose times in its bearings on slavery--proofs of which are given in\nscores on the preceding pages--[See pp. 25-37.] can be made to believe\nthat the people of the United States would have re-modelled their\nConstitution for the purpose of providing for slavery an inviolable\nsanctuary; that when driven in from its outposts, and everywhere\nretreating discomfited before the march of freedom, it might be received\ninto everlasting habitations on the common homestead and hearth-stone of\nthe republic? Who can believe that Virginia made such a condition, or\ncherished such a purpose, when Washington, Jefferson, Wythe, Patrick\nHenry, St. George Tucker, and all her most illustrious men, were at that\nmoment advocating the abolition of slavery by law; when Washington had\nsaid, two years before, that Maryland and Virginia \"must have laws for\nthe gradual abolition of slavery, and at a period _not remote_;\" and when\nJefferson in his letter to Dr. Price, three years before the cession,\nhad said, speaking of Virginia, \"This is the next state to which we may\nturn our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with\navarice and oppression--a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING\nDAILY RECRUITS;\" when voluntary emancipations on the soil were then\nprogressing at the rate of between one and two thousand annually, (See\nJudge Tucker's \"Dissertation on Slavery,\" p. 73;) when the public\nsentiment of Virginia had undergone, so mighty a revolution that the\nidea of the continuance of slavery as a permanent system could not be\ntolerated, though she then contained about half the slaves in the Union.\nWas this the time to stipulate for the _perpetuity_ of slavery under the\nexclusive legislation of Congress? and that too when at the _same_\nsession _every one_ of her delegation voted for the abolition of slavery\nin the North West Territory; a territory which she herself had ceded to\nthe Union, and surrendered along with it her jurisdiction over her\ncitizens, inhabitants of that territory, who held slaves there--and\nwhose slaves were emancipated by that act of Congress, in which all her\ndelegation with one accord participated?\n\nNow in view of the universal belief then prevalent, that slavery in this\ncountry was doomed to short life, and especially that in Maryland and\nVirginia it would be _speedily_ abolished--must we adopt the monstrous\nconclusion that those states _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to\nterminate it?--that it was the _intent_ of the Ancient Dominion thus to\n_bind_ the United States by an \"implied faith,\" and that when the\nnational government _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly thus plight\nher troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it? Verily,\nhonorable senators must suppose themselves deputed to do our _thinking_\nfor us as well as our legislation, or rather, that they are themselves\nabsolved from such drudgery by virtue of their office!\n\nAnother absurdity of this \"implied faith\" dogma is, that where there was\nno power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to demand an\n_implied_ one, and where there was no power to give the one, there was\nnone to give the other. We have shown already that Congress could not\nhave accepted the cession with such a condition. To have signed away a\npart of its constitutional grant of power would have been a _breach_ of\nthe Constitution. The Congress which accepted the cession was competent\nto pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use all_ the power over the\nDistrict committed to it by the Constitution. But here its power ended.\nIts resolution could only bind _itself_. It had no authority to bind a\nsubsequent Congress. Could the members of one Congress say to those of\nanother, because we do not choose to exercise all the authority vested\nin us by the Constitution, therefore you _shall_ not? This would, have\nbeen a prohibition to do what the Constitution gives power to do. Each\nsuccessive Congress would still have gone to THE CONSTITUTION for its\npower, brushing away in its course the cobwebs stretched across its path\nby the officiousness of an impertinent predecessor. Again, the\nlegislatures of Virginia and Maryland, had no power to bind Congress,\neither by an express or an implied pledge, never to abolish slavery in\nthe District. Those legislatures had no power to bind _themselves_ never\nto abolish slavery within their own territories--the ceded parts\nincluded. Where then would they get power to bind _another_ not to do\nwhat they had no power to bind _themselves_ not to do? If a legislature\ncould not in this respect control the successive legislatures of its own\nState, could it control the successive Congresses of the United States?\n\nBut perhaps we shall be told, that the \"implied faith\" of Maryland and\nVirginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_ abolish slavery in the\nDistrict, but that it should not do it until _they_ had done it within\ntheir bounds! Verily this \"faith\" comes little short of the faith of\nmiracles! Maryland and Virginia have \"good faith\" that Congress will not\nabolish until _they_ do; and then just as \"good faith\" that Congress\n_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those\nstates suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,\nfor Maryland and Virginia alone? And who, did they suppose, would be\njudges in the matter?--themselves merely? or the whole Union?\n\nThis \"good faith implied in the cession\" is no longer of doubtful\ninterpretation. The principle at the bottom of it, when fairly stated,\nis this:--That the Government of the United States are bound in \"good\nfaith\" to do in the District of Columbia, without demurring, just what\nand when, Maryland and Virginia do within their own bounds. In short,\nthat the general government is eased of all the burdens of legislation\nwithin its exclusive jurisdiction, save that of hiring a scrivener to\ncopy off the acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures as fast as\nthey are passed, and engross them, under the title of \"Laws of the\nUnited States for the District of Columbia!\" A slight additional expense\nwould also be incurred in keeping up an express between the capitols of\nthose States and Washington city, bringing Congress from time to time\nits \"_instructions_\" from head quarters!\n\nWhat a \"glorious Union\" this doctrine of Mr. Clay bequeaths to the\npeople of the United States! We have been permitted to set up at our own\nexpense, and on our own territory, two great _sounding-boards_ called\n\"Senate Chamber\" and \"Representatives' Hall,\" for the purpose of sending\nabroad \"by authority\" _national_ echoes of _state_ legislation!\n--permitted also to keep in our pay a corps of pliant _national_\nmusicians, with peremptory instructions to sound on any line of the\nstaff according as Virginia and Maryland may give the sovereign\nkey note!\n\nA careful analysis of Mr. Clay's resolution and of the discussions upon\nit, will convince every fair mind that this is but the legitimate\ncarrying out of the _principle_ pervading both. They proceed virtually\nupon the hypothesis that the will and pleasure of Virginia and Maryland\nare paramount to those of the Union. If the original design of setting\napart a federal district had been for the sole accommodation of the\nsouth, there could hardly have been higher assumption or louder\nvaunting. The only object of _having_ such a District was in effect\ntotally perverted in the resolution of Mr. Clay, and in the discussions\nof the entire southern delegation, upon its passage. Instead of taking\nthe ground, that the benefit of the whole Union was the sole _object_ of\na federal district, and that it was to be legislated over _for this\nend_--the resolution proceeds upon an hypothesis totally the reverse. It\ntakes a single point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL\ninterests, utterly overshadowing them; abrogating national rights;\nmaking void a clause of the Constitution; humbling the general\ngovernment into a subject crouching for favors to a superior, and that\ntoo within its own exclusive jurisdiction. All the attributes of\nsovereignty vested in Congress by the Constitution, it impales upon the\npoint of an alleged _implication_. And this is Mr. Clay's\npeace-offering, to the lust of power and the ravenings of state\nencroachment! A \"compromise,\" forsooth! that sinks the general\ngovernment on _its own territory_, into a mere colony, with Virginia and\nMaryland for its \"mother country!\" It is refreshing to turn from these\nshallow, distorted constructions and servile cringings, to the high\nbearing of other southern men in other times; men, who as legislators\nand lawyers, scorned to accommodate their interpretations of\nconstitutions and charters to geographical lines, or to bend them to the\npurposes of a political canvass. In the celebrated case of Cohens _vs._\nthe State of Virginia, Hon. William Pinkney, late of Baltimore, and Hon.\nWalter Jones, of Washington city, with other eminent constitutional\nlawyers, prepared an elaborate opinion, from which the following is an\nextract: \"Nor is there any danger to be apprehended from allowing to\nCongressional legislation with regard to the District of Columbia, its\nFULLEST EFFECT. Congress is responsible to the States, and to the people\nfor that legislation. It is in truth the legislation of the states over\na district placed under their control FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT, not for\nthat of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is\ninvolved, and _necessary to the general advantage_.\"--[Life of\nPinkney, p. 612.]\n\nThis profound legal opinion asserts, 1st, that Congressional legislation\nover the District, is \"the legislation of the _states_ and the\n_people_.\" (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_ of the people;)\n2d. \"Over a District placed under _their_ control,\" i.e. under the\ncontrol of _all_ the States, not of _two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d.\nThat it was thus put under their control \"_for_ THEIR OWN _benefit_.\"\n4th. It asserts that the design of this exclusive control of Congress\nover the District was \"not for the benefit of the _District_,\" except as\nthat is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the _general_\nadvantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is _directly_\nconcerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia, which are\nbut _indirectly_ interested. The argument of Mr. Madison in the Congress\nof '89, an extract from which has been given on a preceding page, lays\ndown the same principle; that though any matter \"_may be a local affair,\nyet if it involves national_ EXPENSE or SAFETY, _it becomes of concern\nto every part of the union, and is a proper subject for the\nconsideration of those charged with the general administration of the\ngovernment_.\"--Cong. Reg. vol. 1. p. 310.\n\nBut these are only the initiatory absurdities of this \"good faith\n_implied_.\" Mr. Clay's resolution aptly illustrates the principle, that\nerror not only conflicts with truth, but is generally at issue with\nitself: For if it would be a violation of \"good faith\" to Maryland and\nVirginia, for Congress to abolish slavery in the District, it would be\n_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, or even\nat the unanimous petition of the people of the District: yet for years\nit has been the southern doctrine, that if the people of the District\ndemand of Congress relief in this respect, it has power, as their local\nlegislature, to grant it, and by abolishing slavery there, carry out the\nwill of the citizens. But now new light has broken in! The optics of Mr.\nClay have pierced the millstone with a deeper insight, and discoveries\nthicken faster than they can be telegraphed! Congress has no power, O\nno, not a modicum! to help the slaveholders of the District, however\nloudly they may clamor for it. The southern doctrine, that Congress is\nto the District a mere local Legislature to do its pleasure, is tumbled\nfrom the genitive into the vocative! Hard fate--and that too at the\nhands of those who begat it! The reasonings of Messrs. Pinckney and\nWise, are now found to be wholly at fault, and the chanticleer rhetoric\nof Messrs. Glascock and Garland stalks featherless and crest-fallen. For\nthe resolution sweeps by the board all those stereotyped common-places,\nsuch as \"Congress a local Legislature,\" \"consent of the District,\"\n\"bound to consult the wishes of the District,\" with other catch phrases,\nwhich for the last two sessions of Congress have served to eke out\nscanty supplies. It declares, that as slavery existed in _Maryland and\nVirginia at the time of the cession, and as_ it still continues _in both\nthose states_, it could not be abolished in the District without a\nviolation of \"that good faith,\" &c.\n\nBut let us see where this principle will lead us. If \"implied faith\" to\nMaryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the abolition of slavery\nin the District, because those states have not abolished _their_\nslavery, it _requires_ Congress to do in the District what those states\nhave done within their own limits, i.e., restrain _others_ from\nabolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress is _bound_ to _prohibit\nemancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this\nplighted \"faith.\" Congress must not only refrain from laying violent\nhands on slavery, and see to it that the slaveholders themselves do not,\nbut it is bound to keep the system up to the Maryland and Virginia\nstandard of vigor!\n\nAgain, if the good faith of Congress to Virginia and Maryland requires\nthat slavery should exist in the District, while it exists in those\nstates, it requires that it should exist there as it exists in those\nstates. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would\nviolate good faith, to abolish _the_ form existing in those states, and\nto substitute a different one, would also violate it. The Congressional\n\"good faith\" is to be kept not only with _slavery_, but with the\n_Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those states\nbeing not that Congress would maintain a system, but _their_ system;\notherwise instead of _sustaining_, Congress would counteract their\npolicy--principles would be brought into action there conflicting with\ntheir system, and thus the true sprit of the \"implied\" pledge would be\nviolated. On this principle, so long as slaves are \"chattels personal\"\nin Virginia and Maryland, Congress could not make them _real estate_ in\nthe District, as they are in Louisiana; nor could it permit slaves to\nread, nor to worship God according to conscience; nor could it grant\nthem trial by jury, nor legalize marriage; nor require the master to\ngive sufficient food and clothing; nor prohibit the violent sundering of\nfamilies--because such provisions would conflict with the existing\nslave laws of Virginia and Maryland, and thus violate the \"good faith\nimplied,\" &c. So the principle of the resolution binds Congress in all\nthese particulars: 1st. Not to abolish slavery in the District _until_\nVirginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that\nexists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of\nit still existing in those states. 4th. To _abolish_ when they do. 5th.\nTo increase or abate its rigors _when, how,_ and _as_ the same are\nmodified by those states. In a word, Congressional action in the\nDistrict is to float passively in the wake of legislative action on the\nsubject in those states.\n\nBut here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should\nsteer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress\nfloat in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its\nobsequiousness equals its \"power of legislation in _all_ cases\nwhatsoever.\" It can float _up_ on the Virginia tide, and ebb down on the\nMaryland. What Maryland does, Congress will do in the Maryland part.\nWhat Virginia does, Congress will do in the Virginia part. Though it\nmight not always be able to run at the bidding of both _at once_,\nespecially in different directions, yet if it obeyed orders cheerfully,\nand \"kept in its place,\" according to its \"good faith implied,\"\nimpossibilities might not be rigidly exacted. True, we have the highest\nsanction for the maxim that no _man_ can serve two masters--but if\n\"corporations have no souls,\" analogy would absolve Congress on that\nscore, or at most give it only a _very small soul_--not large enough to\nbe at all in the way, as an exception to the universal rule laid down in\nthe maxim!\n\nIn following out the absurdities of this \"implied good faith,\" it will\nbe seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to\n_all the subjects of legislation_ existing in Maryland and Virginia,\nwhich exist also within the District. Every system, \"institution,\" law,\nand established usage there, is placed beyond Congressional control\nequally with slavery, and by the same \"implied faith.\" The abolition of\nthe lottery system in the District as an immorality, was a flagrant\nbreach of this \"good faith\" to Maryland and Virginia, as the system\n\"still continued in those states.\" So to abolish imprisonment for debt,\nor capital punishment, to remodel the bank system, the power of\ncorporations, the militia law, laws of limitation, &c., in the District,\n_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead,_ would violate the \"good\nfaith implied in the cession.\"\n\nThat in the acts of cession no such \"good faith\" was \"implied\" by\nVirginia and Maryland as is claimed in the Resolution, we argue from the\nfact, that in 1784 Virginia ceded to the United States all her\nnorth-west territory, with the special proviso that her citizens\ninhabiting that territory should \"have their _possessions_ and _titles_\nconfirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_\nand liberties.\" (See Journals of Congress, vol. 9, p. 63.) The cession\nwas made in the form of a deed, and signed by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel\nHardy, Arthur Lee, and James Munroe. Many of these inhabitants _held\nslaves._ Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in\nCongress _proposed_ the passage of an ordinance which should abolish\nslavery, in that territory, and declare that it should never thereafter\nexist there. All the members of Congress from Virginia and Maryland\nvoted for this ordinance. Suppose some member of Congress had during the\npassage of the ordinance introduced the following resolution: \"Resolved,\nthat when the northwest territory was ceded by Virginia to the United\nStates, domestic slavery existed in that State, including the ceded\nterritory, and as it still continues in that State, it could not be\nabolished within the territory without a violation of that good faith,\nwhich was implied in the cession and in the acceptance of the\nterritory.\" What would have been the indignant response of Grayson,\nGriffin, Madison, and the Lees, in the Congress of '87, to such a\nresolution, and of Carrington, Chairman of the Committee, who reported\nthe ratification of the ordinance in the Congress of '89, and of Page\nand Parker, who with every other member of the Virginia delegation\nsupported it?\n\nBut to enumerate all the absurdities into which those interested for\nthis resolution have plunged themselves, would be to make a quarto\ninventory. We decline the task; and in conclusion merely add, that Mr.\nClay, in presenting it, and each of the thirty-six Senators who voted\nfor it, entered on the records of the Senate, and proclaimed to the\nworld, a most unworthy accusation against the millions of American\ncitizens who have during nearly half a century petitioned the national\nlegislature to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,--charging\nthem either with the ignorance or the impiety of praying the nation to\nviolate its \"Plighted Faith.\" The resolution virtually indicts at the\nbar of public opinion, and brands with odium, all the early Manumission\nSocieties, the _first_ petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the\nDistrict, and for a long time the only ones, petitioning from year to\nyear through evil report and good report, still petitioning, by\nindividual societies and in their national conventions.\n\nBut as if it were not enough to table the charge against such men as\nBenjamin Rush, William Rawle, John Sergeant, Roberts Vaux, Cadwallader\nColden, and Peter A. Jay,--to whom we may add Rufus King, James\nHillhouse, William Pinkney, Thomas Addis Emmett, Daniel D. Tompkins, De\nWitt Clinton, James Kent, and Daniel Webster, besides eleven hundred\ncitizens of the District itself, headed by their Chief Justice and\nJudges--even the sovereign States of Pennsylvania, New-York,\nMassachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut, whose legislatures have either\nmemorialized Congress to abolish slavery in the District, or instructed\ntheir Senators to move such a measure, must be gravely informed by\nMessrs. Clay, Norvell, Niles, Smith, Pierce, Benton, Black, Tipton, and\nother honorable Senators, either that their perception is so dull, they\nknow not whereof they affirm, or that their moral sense is so blunted\nthey can demand without compunction a violation of the nation's faith!\n\nWe have spoken already of the concessions unwittingly made in this\nresolution to the true doctrine of Congressional power over the\nDistrict. For that concession, important as it is; we have small thanks\nto render. That such a resolution, passed with such an _intent_, and\npressing at a thousand points on relations and interests vital to the\nfree states, should be hailed, as it has been, by a portion of the\nnorthern press as a \"compromise\" originating in deference to northern\ninterests, and to be received by us as a free-will offering of\ndisinterested benevolence, demanding our gratitude to the mover,--may\nwell cover us with shame. We deserve the humiliation and have well\nearned the mockery. Let it come!\n\nIf, after having been set up at auction in the public sales-room of the\nnation, and for thirty years, and by each of a score of \"compromises,\"\ntreacherously knocked off to the lowest bidder, and that without money\nand without price, the North, plundered and betrayed, _will not_, in\nthis her accepted time, consider the things that belong to her peace\nbefore they are hidden from her eyes, then let her eat of the fruit of\nher own way, and be filled with her own devices! Let the shorn and\nblinded giant grind in the prison-house of the Philistines, till taught\nby weariness and pain the folly of entrusting to Delilahs the secret and\nthe custody of his strength.\n\nHave the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the\nlessons of experience? If lost to reason, are they dead to _instinct_\nalso? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And\nshall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?\n\nA \"COMPROMISE!\" Bitter irony! Is the plucked and hoodwinked North to be\nwheedled by the sorcery of another Missouri compromise? A compromise in\nwhich the South gained all, and the North lost all, and lost it forever.\nA compromise which embargoed the free laborer of the North and West,\nand, clutched at the staff he leaned upon, to turn it into a bludgeon\nand fell him with its stroke. A compromise which wrested from liberty\nher boundless birthright domain, stretching westward to the sunset,\nwhile it gave to slavery loose reins and a free coarse, from the\nMississippi to the Pacific.\n\nThe resolution, as it finally passed, is here inserted.\n\n\"Resolved, That the interference by the citizens of any of the states,\nwith the view to the abolition of slavery in the District, is\nendangering the rights and security of the people of the District; and\nthat any act or measure of Congress designed to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict, would be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by\nthe states of Virginia and Maryland, a just cause of alarm to the people\nof the slaveholding states, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to\ndisturb and endanger the Union.\"\n\nThe vote upon the resolution stood as follows:\n\n_Yeas_.--Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Black, Buchanan, Brown, Calhoun,\nClay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert,\nFulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas. Niles, Norvell,\nPierce, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith, of Connecticut,\nStrange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, Young--36.\n\n_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,\nSMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER--9.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. NO. 6.\n\nNARRATIVE OF JAMES WILLIAMS, AN AMERICAN SLAVE.\n\nONE DOLLAR PER 100] [143 NASSAU ST. N.Y.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\"American Slavery,\" said the celebrated John Wesley, \"is the _vilest_\nbeneath the sun!\" Of the truth of this emphatic remark, no other proof\nis required, than an examination of the statute books of the American\nslave states. Tested by its own laws, in all that facilitates and\nprotects the hateful process of converting a man into a \"_chattel\npersonal_;\" in all that stamps the law-maker, and law-upholder with\nmeanness and hypocrisy, it certainly has no present rival of its \"bad\neminence,\" and we may search in vain the history of a world's despotism\nfor a parallel. The civil code of Justinian never acknowledged, with\nthat of our democratic despotisms, the essential equality of man. The\ndreamer in the gardens of Epicurus recognized neither in himself, nor in\nthe slave who ministered to his luxury, the immortality of the spiritual\nnature. Neither Solon nor Lycurgus taught the inalienability of human\nrights. The Barons of the Feudal System, whose maxim was emphatically\nthat of Wordsworth's robber,\n\n   \"That he should take who had the power,\n   And he should keep who can.\"\n\nwhile trampling on the necks of their vassals, and counting the life of\na man as of less value than that of a wild beast, never appealed to God\nfor the sincerity of their belief, that all men were created equal. It\nwas reserved for American slave-holders to present to the world the\nhideous anomaly of a code of laws, beginning with the emphatic\ndeclaration of the inalienable rights of all men to life, liberty, and\nthe pursuit of happiness, and closing with a deliberate and systematic\ndenial of those rights, in respect to a large portion of their\ncountrymen; engrossing on the same parchment the antagonist laws of\nliberty and tyranny. The very nature of this unnatural combination has\nrendered it necessary that American slavery, in law and in practice,\nshould exceed every other in severity and cool atrocity. The masters of\nGreece and Rome permitted their slaves to read and write and worship the\ngods of paganism in peace and security, for there was nothing in the\nlaws, literature, or religion of the age to awaken in the soul of the\nbondman a just sense of his rights as a man. But the American\nslaveholder cannot be thus lenient. In the excess of his benevolence, as\na political propagandist, he has kindled a fire for the oppressed of the\nold world to gaze at with hope, and for crowned heads and dynasties to\ntremble at; but a due regard to the safety of his \"peculiar\ninstitution,\" compels him to put out the eyes of his own people, lest\nthey too should see it. Calling on all the world to shake off the\nfetters of oppression, and wade through the blood of tyrants to freedom,\nhe has been compelled to smother, in darkness and silence, the minds of\nhis own bondmen, lest they too should hear and obey the summons, by\nputting the knife to his own throat.--Proclaiming the truths of Divine\nRevelation, and sending the Scriptures to the four quarters of the\nearth, he has found it necessary to maintain heathenism at home by\nspecial enactments; and to make the second offence of teaching his\nslaves the message of salvation punishable with _death_!\n\nWhat marvel then that American slavery even on the _statute book_\nassumes the right to transform moral beings into brutes:[A] that it\nlegalizes man's usurpation of Divine authority; the substitution of the\nwill of the master, for the moral government of God: that it annihilates\nthe rights of conscience; debars from the enjoyment of religious rights\nand privileges by specific enactments; and enjoins disobedience to the\nDivine lawgiver: that it discourages purity and chastity, encourages\ncrime, legalizes concubinage; and, while it places the slave entirely in\nthe hands of his master, provides no real protection for his life or\nhis person.\n\n[Footnote A: The _cardinal principle_ of slavery, that a slave is not to\nbe ranked among sentient beings, but among things, as an article of\nproperty, a chattel personal, obtains as undoubted law, in all the slave\nstates. (Judge Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws, p. 22.)]\n\nBut it may be said, that these laws afford no certain evidence of the\nactual condition of the slaves: that, in judging the system by its code,\nno allowance is made for the humanity of individual masters. It was a\njust remark of the celebrated Priestley, that \"_no people ever were\nfound to be better than their laws, though many have been known to be\nworse._\" All history and common experience confirm this. Besides,\nadmitting that the legal severity of a system may be softened in the\npractice of the humane, may it not also be aggravated by that of the\navaricious and cruel?\n\nBut what are the testimony and admissions of slaveholders themselves on\nthis point? In an Essay published in Charleston, S.C., in 1822, and\nentitled \"A Refutation of the Calumnies circulated against the Southern\nand Western States,\" by the late Edwin C. Holland, Esq., it is stated,\nthat \"all slaveholders have laid down non-resistance, and perfect and\nuniform _obedience_ to their orders as fundamental principles in the\ngovernment of their slaves:\" that this is \"a _necessary_ result of the\nrelation,\" and \"_unavoidable_.\" Robert J. Turnbull, Esq., of South\nCarolina, in remarking upon the management of slaves, says, \"The only\nprinciple upon which may authority over them, (the slaves,) can be\nmaintained is _fear_, and he who denies this has little knowledge of\nthem.\" To this may be added the testimony of Judge Ruffin, of North\nCarolina, as quoted in Wheeler's Law of Slavery, p. 217. \"The slave, to\nremain a slave, must feel that there is _no appeal from his master_. No\nman can anticipate the provocations which the slave would give, nor the\nconsequent wrath of the master, prompting him to BLOODY VENGEANCE on the\nturbulent traitor, a vengeance _generally_ practised with impunity by\nreason of its _privacy_.\"\n\nIn an Essay on the \"improvement of negroes on plantations,\" by Rev.\nThomas S. Clay, a slaveholder of Bryan county, Georgia, and Printed at\nthe request of the Georgia Presbytery, in 1833, we are told \"that the\npresent economy of the slave system is _to get all you can_ from the\nslave, and give him in return _as little as will barely support him in a\nworking condition_!\" Here, in a few words, the whole enormity of slavery\nis exposed to view: \"to _get all you can_ from the slave\"--by means of\nwhips and forks and irons--by every device for torturing the body,\nwithout destroying its capability of labor; and in return give him as\nlittle of his coarse fare as will keep him, like a mere beast of burden,\nin a \"_working condition_;\" this is slavery, as explained by the\nslaveholder himself. Mr. Clay further says: \"_Offences against the\nmaster_ are more severely punished than violations of the law of God, a\nfault which affects the slave's personal character a good deal. As\nexamples we may notice, that _running away_ is more severely punished\nthan adultery.\" \"He (the slave) only knows his master as lawgiver and\nexecutioner, and the _sole object of punishment_ held up to his view, is\nto make him _a more obedient and profitable slave_.\"\n\nHon. W.B. Seabrook, in an address before the Agricultural Society of St.\nJohn's, Colleton, published by order of the Society, at Charleston, in\n1834, after stating that \"as Slavery exists in South Carolina, the\naction of the citizens should rigidly conform to that state of things:\"\nand, that \"no _abstract opinions of the rights of man_ should be allowed\nin any instance to modify the _police system of a plantation_,\" proceeds\nas follows. \"_He_ (the slave) _should be practically treated as a\nslave_; and thoroughly taught the true cardinal principle on which our\npeculiar institutions are founded, viz.; that to his owner he is bound\nby the law of God and man; and that no human authority can sever the\nlink which unites them. The great aim of the slaveholder, then, should\nbe to keep his people in strict _subordination_. In this, it may in\ntruth be said, lies his _entire duty_.\" Again, in speaking of the\npunishments of slaves, he remarks: \"If to our army the disuse of THE\nLASH has been prejudicial, to the slaveholder it would operate to\ndeprive him of the MAIN SUPPORT of his authority. For the first class of\noffences, I consider imprisonment in THE STOCKS[A] at night, with or\nwithout hard labor by day, as a powerful auxiliary in the cause of\n_good_ government.\" \"_Experience_ has convinced me that there is no\npunishment to which the slave looks with more horror, than that upon\nwhich I am commenting, (the stocks,) and none which has been attended\nwith happier results.\"\n\n[Footnote A: Of the nature of this punishment in the stocks, something\nmay be learned by the following extract of a letter from a gentleman in\nTallahassee, Florida, to the editor of the Ohio Atlas, dated June 9,\n1835: \"A planter, a professer of religion, in conversing upon the\nuniversality of whipping, remarked, that a planter in G____, who had\nwhipped a great deal, at length got tired of it, and invented the\nfollowing _excellent_ method of punishment, which I saw practised while\nI was paying him a visit. The negro was placed in a sitting position,\nwith his hands made fast above his head, and his feet in the stocks, so\nthat he could not move any part of the body. The master retired,\nintending to leave him till morning, but we were awakened in the night\nby the groans of the negro, which were so doleful that we feared he was\ndying. We went to him, and found him covered with a cold sweat, and\nalmost gone. He could not have lived an hour longer. Mr. ---- found the\n'stocks' such an effective punishment, that it almost superseded\nthe whip.\"]\n\nThere is yet another class of testimony quite as pertinent as the\nforegoing, which may at any time be gleaned from the newspapers of the\nslave states--the advertisements of masters for their runaway slaves,\nand casual paragraphs coldly relating cruelties, which would disgrace a\nland of Heathenism. Let the following suffice for a specimen:\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo the Editors of the Constitutionalist.\n\n_Aiken, S.C., Dec._ 20, 1836.\n\nI have just returned from an inquest I held over the dead body of a\nnegro man, a runaway, that was shot near the South Edisto, in this\ndistrict, (Barnwell,) on Saturday morning last. He came to his death by\nhis own recklessness. He refused to be taken alive; and said that other\nattempts to take him had been made, and he was determined that he would\nnot be taken. When taken he was nearly naked--had a large dirk or knife\nand a heavy club. He was at first, (when those who were in pursuit of\nhim found it absolutely necessary,) shot at with small shot, with the\nintention of merely crippling him. He was shot at several times, and at\nlast he was so disabled as to be compelled to surrender. He kept in the\nrun of a creek in a very dense swamp all the time that the neighbors\nwere in pursuit of him. As soon as the negro was taken, the best medical\naid was procured, but he died on the same evening. One of the witnesses\nat the inquisition stated that the negro boy said that he was from\nMississippi, and belonged to so many persons he did not know who his\nmaster was; but again he said his master's name was _Brown_. He said his\nown name was Sam; and when asked by another witness who his master was,\nhe muttered something like Augusta or Augustine. The boy was apparently\nabove 35 or 40 years of age--about six feet high--slightly yellow in the\nface--very long beard or whiskers--and very stout built, and a stern\ncountenance; and appeared to have been run away a long time.\n\nWILLIAM H. PRITCHARD,\n\n_Coroner, (ex officio,) Barnwell Dist., S.C._\n\nThe Mississippi and other papers will please copy the above.--_Georgia\nConstitutionalist_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n$100 REWARD.--Ran away from the subscriber, living on Herring Bay, Ann\nArundel county, Md., on Saturday, 28th January, negro man Elijah, who\ncalls himself Elijah Cook, is about 21 years of age, well made, of a\nvery dark complexion has an impediment in his speech, and _a scar on his\nleft cheek bone, apparently occasioned by a shot_.\n\nJ. SCRIVENER. Annapolis (Md.) Rep., Feb., 1837.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n$40 REWARD.--Ran away from my residence near Mobile, two negro men,\nIsaac and Tim. Isaac is from 25 to 30 years old, dark complexion, scar\non the right side of the head, and also one on the right side of the\nbody, occasioned by BUCK SHOT. Tim is 22 years old, dark complexion,\nscar on the right cheek, as also another on the back of the neck.\nCaptains and owners of steamboats, vessels, and water crafts of every\ndescription, are cautioned against taking them on board under the\npenalty of the law; and all other persons against harboring or in any\nmanner favoring the escape of said negroes under like penalty.\n\n_Mobile, Sept_. 1. SARAH WALSH. Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser, Sept. 29,\n1837.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n$200 REWARD.--Ran away from the subscriber, about three years ago, a\ncertain negro man named Ben, (commonly known by the name of Ben Fox.) He\nis about five feet five or six inches high, chunky made, yellow\ncomplexion, and has but one eye. Also, one other negro, by the name of\nRigdon, who ran away on the 8th of this month. He is stout made, tall,\nand very black, with large lips.\n\nI will give the reward of one hundred dollars for each of the above\nnegroes, to be delivered to me or confined in the jail of Lenoir or\nJones county, or _for the killing of them so that I can see them_.\nMasters of vessels and all others are cautioned against harboring,\nemploying, or carrying them away, under the penalty of the law.\n\nW.D. COBB. _Lenoir county, N.C., Nov_. 12, 1836.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"A negro who had absconded from his master, and for who a reward was\noffered of $100, has been apprehended and committed to prison in\nSavannah, Georgia. The Editor who states the fact, adds, with as much\ncoolness as though there was no barbarity in the matter, that he did not\nsurrender until he was considerably _maimed by the dogs_[A] that had\nbeen set on him,--desperately fighting them, one of which he cut badly\nwith a sword.\"\n\n_New-York Commercial Advertiser, June_, 8, 1827.\n\n[Footnote A: In regard to the use of bloodhounds, for the recapture of\nrunaway slaves, we insert the following from the New-York Evangelist,\nbeing an extract of a letter from Natchez (Miss.) under date of January\n31, 1835: \"An instance was related to me in Claiborne County, in\nMississippi. A runaway was heard about the house in the night. The hound\nwas put upon his track, and in the morning was found watching the dead\nbody of the negro. The dogs are trained to this service when young. A\nnegro is directed to go into the woods and secure himself upon a tree.\nWhen sufficient time has elapsed for doing this, the hound is put upon\nhis track. The blacks are compelled to worry them until they make them\ntheir implacable enemies: and it is common to meet with dogs which will\ntake no notice of whites, though entire strangers, but will suffer no\nblacks beside the house servants to enter the yard.\"]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom the foregoing evidence on the part of slaveholders themselves, we\ngather the following facts:\n\n1. That perfect obedience is required of the slave--that he is made to\nfeel that there is no appeal from his master.\n\n2. That the authority of the master is only maintained by fear--a\n\"_reign of terror_.\"\n\n3. That \"the economy of slavery is to _get all you can_ from the slave,\nand give him in return as little as will barely support him in a working\ncondition.\"\n\n4. That runaway slaves may be shot down with impunity by any white\nperson.\n\n5. That masters offer rewards for \"_killing_\" their slaves, \"_so that\nthey may see them_!\"\n\n6. That slaves are branded with hot irons, and very much scarred with\nthe whip.\n\n7. That _iron collars_, with projecting prongs, rendering it almost\nimpossible for the wearer to lie down, are fastened upon the _necks\nof women_.\n\n8. That the LASH is the MAIN SUPPORT of the slaveholder's authority:\nbut, that the _stocks_ are \"a powerful auxiliary\" to his government.\n\n9. That runaway slaves are chased with dogs--men hunted like beasts of\nprey.\n\nSuch is American Slavery in practice.\n\nThe testimony thus far adduced is only that of the slaveholder and\nwrong-doer himself: the admission of men who have a direct interest in\nkeeping out of sight the horrors of their system. It is besides no\nvoluntary admission. Having \"framed iniquity by law,\" it is out of their\npower to hide it. For the recovery of their runaway property, they are\ncompelled to advertise in the public journals, and that it may be\nidentified, they are under the necessity of describing the marks of the\nwhip on the backs of women, the iron collars about the neck--the\ngun-shot wounds, and the traces of the branding-iron. Such testimony\nmust, in the nature of things, be partial and incomplete. But for a full\nrevelation of the secrets of the prison-house, we must look to the slave\nhimself. The Inquisitors of Goa and Madrid never disclosed the peculiar\natrocities of their \"hall of horrors.\" It was the escaping heretic, with\nhis swollen and disjointed limbs, and bearing about him the scars of\nrack and fire, who exposed them to the gaze and abhorrence of\nChristendom.\n\nThe following pages contain the simple and unvarnished story of an\nAMERICAN SLAVE,--of one, whose situation, in the first place, as a\nfavorite servant in an aristocratic family in Virginia; and afterwards\nas the sole and confidential driver on a large plantation in Alabama,\nafforded him rare and peculiar advantages for accurate observation of\nthe practical workings of the system. His intelligence, evident candor,\nand grateful remembrance of those kindnesses, which in a land of\nSlavery, made his cup of suffering less bitter; the perfect accordance\nof his statements, (made at different times, and to different\nindividuals),[B] one with another, as well as those statements\nthemselves, all afford strong confirmation of the truth and accuracy of\nhis story. There seems to have been no effort, on his part to make his\npicture of Slavery one of entire darkness--he details every thing of a\nmitigating character which fell under his observation; and even the\ncruel deception of his master has not rendered him unmindful of his\nearly kindness.\n\n[Footnote B: The reader is referred to JOHN G. WHITTIER, of\nPhiladelphia, or to the following gentlemen, who have heard the whole,\nor a part of his story, from his own lips: Emmor Kimber, of Kimberton,\nPa., Lindley Coates, of Lancaster Co., do.; James Mott, of Philadelphia,\nLewis Tappan, Elizur Wright Jun., Rev. Dr. Follen, and James G. Birney,\nof New York. The latter gentleman, who was a few years ago, a citizen of\nAlabama, assures us that the statements made to him by James Williams,\nwere such as he had every reason to believe, from his own knowledge of\nslavery in that State.]\n\nThe editor is fully aware that he has not been able to present this\naffecting narrative in the simplicity and vivid freshness with which it\nfell from the lips of the narrator. He has, however, as closely as\npossible, copied his manner, and in many instances his precise language.\nTHE SLAVE HAS SPOKEN FOR HIMSELF. Acting merely as his amanuensis, he\nhas carefully abstained from comments of his own.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: As the narrator was unable to read or write, it is quite\npossible that the orthography of some of the names of individuals\nmentioned in his story may not be entirely correct. For instance, the\nname of his master may have been either Larrimer, or Larrrimore.]\n\nThe picture here presented to the people of the free states, is, in many\nrespects, a novel one. We all know something of Virginia and Kentucky\nSlavery. We have heard of the internal slave trade--the pangs of\nseparation--the slave ship with its \"cargo of despair\" bound for the\nNew-Orleans market--the weary journey of the chained Coffle to the\ncotton country. But here, in a great measure, we have lost sight of the\nvictims of avarice and lust. We have not studied the dreadful economy of\nthe cotton plantation, and know but little of the secrets of its\nunlimited despotism.\n\nBut in this narrative the scenes of the plantation rise before us, with\na distinctness which approaches reality. We hear the sound of the horn\nat daybreak, calling the sick and the weary to toil unrequited. Woman,\nin her appealing delicacy and suffering, about to become a mother, is\nfainting under the lash, or sinking exhausted beside her cotton row. We\nhear the prayer for mercy answered with sneers and curses. We look on\nthe instruments of torture, and the corpses of murdered men. We see the\ndogs, reeking hot from the chase, with their jaws foul with human blood.\nWe see the meek and aged Christian scarred with the lash, and bowed down\nwith toil, offering the supplication of a broken heart to his Father in\nHeaven, for the forgiveness of his brutal enemy. We hear, and from our\ninmost hearts repeat the affecting interrogatory of the aged slave,\n_\"How long, Oh Lord! how long!\"_\n\nThe editor has written out the details of this painful narrative with\nfeelings of sorrow. If there be any who feel a morbid satisfaction in\ndwelling upon the history of outrage and cruelty, he at least is not one\nof them. His taste and habits incline him rather to look to the pure and\nbeautiful in our nature--the sunniest side of humanity--its kindly\nsympathies--its holy affections--its charities and its love. But, it is\nbecause he has seen that all which is thus beautiful and excellent in\nmind and heart, perishes in the atmosphere of slavery: it is because\nhumanity in the slave sinks down to a level with the brute and in the\nmaster gives place to the attributes of a fiend--that he has not felt at\nliberty to decline the task. He cannot sympathize with that abstract and\ndelicate philanthropy, which hesitates to bring itself in contact with\nthe sufferer, and which shrinks from the effort of searching out the\nextent of his afflictions. The emblem of Practical Philanthropy is the\nSamaritan stooping over the wounded Jew. It must be no fastidious hand\nwhich administers the oil and the wine, and binds up the\nunsightly gashes.\n\nBelieving, as he does, that this narrative is one of truth; that it\npresents an unexaggerated picture of Slavery as it exists on the cotton\nplantations of the South and West, he would particularly invite to its\nperusal, those individuals, and especially those professing Christians\nat the North, who have ventured to claim for such a system, the sanction\nand approval of the Religion of Jesus Christ. In view of the facts here\npresented, let these men seriously inquire of themselves, whether in\nadvancing such a claim, they are not uttering a higher and more\naudacious blasphemy than any which ever fell from the pens of Voltaire\nand Paine. As if to cover them with confusion, and leave them utterly\nwithout excuse for thus libelling the character of a just God, these\ndevelopments are making, and the veil rising, which for long years of\nsinful apathy has rested upon the abominations of American Slavery.\nLight is breaking into it's dungeons, disclosing the wreck of buried\nintellect--of hearts broken--of human affections outraged--of souls\nruined. The world will see it as God has always seen it; and when He\nshall at length make inquisition for blood, and His vengeance kindle\nover the habitations of cruelty, with a destruction more terrible than\nthat of Sodom and Gomorrah, His righteous dealing will be justified of\nman, and His name glorified among the nations, and there will be a voice\nof rejoicing in Earth and in Heaven. ALLELUIA!--THE PROMISE IS\nFULFILLED!--FOR THE SIGHING OF THE POOR AND THE OPPRESSION OF THE NEEDY,\nGOD HATH RISEN!\n\nIt is the earnest desire of the Editor, that this narrative may be the\nmeans, under God, of awakening in the hearts of all who read it, a\nsympathy for the oppressed which shall manifest itself in immediate,\nactive, self-sacrificing exertion for their deliverance; and, while it\nexcites abhorrence of his crimes, call forth pity for the oppressor. May\nit have the effect to prevent the avowed and associated friends of the\nslave, from giving such an undue importance to their own trials and\ngrievances, as to forget in a great measure the sorrows of the slave.\nLet its cry of wo, coming up from the plantations of the South, suppress\nevery feeling of selfishness in our hearts. Let our regret and\nindignation at the denial of the right of petition, be felt only because\nwe are thereby prevented from pleading in the Halls of Congress for the\n\"suffering and the dumb.\" And let the fact, that we are shut out from\nhalf the territory of our country, be lamented only because it prevents\nus from bearing personally to the land of Slavery, the messages of hope\nfor the slave, and of rebuke and warning for the oppressor.\n\n_New-York, 24th 1st mo._, 1838.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nNARRATIVE\n\nI was born in Powhatan County, Virginia, on the plantation of George\nLarrimore. Sen., at a place called Mount Pleasant, on the 16th of May\n1805. May father was the slave of an orphan family whose name I have\nforgotten, and was under the care of a Mr. Brooks, guardian of the\nfamily. He was a native of Africa, and was brought over when a mere\nchild, with his mother. My mother was the slave of George Larrimore,\nSen. She was nearly white, and is well known to have been the daughter\nof Mr. Larrimore himself. She died when myself and my twin brother\nMeshech were five years of age--I can scarcely remember her. She had in\nall eight children, of whom only five are now living. One, a brother,\nbelongs to the heirs of the late Mr. Brockenbrough of Charlottesville;\nof whom he hires his time, and pays annually $120 for it. He is a member\nof the Baptist church, and used to preach occasionally. His wife is a\nfree woman from Philadelphia, and being able to read and write, taught\nher husband. The whites do not know that he can write, and have often\nwondered that he could preach so well without learning. It is the\npractice when a church is crowded, to turn the blacks out of their\nseats. My brother did not like this, and on one occasion preached a\nsermon from a text, showing that all are of one blood. Some of the\nwhites who heard it, said that such preaching would raise an\ninsurrection among the negroes. Two of them told him that if he would\nprove his doctrine by Scripture, they would let him go, but if he did\nnot, he should have nine and thirty lashes. He accordingly preached\nanother sermon and spoke with a great deal of boldness. The two men who\nwere in favor of having him whipped, left before the sermon was over;\nthose who remained, acknowledged that he had proved his doctrine, and\npreached a good sermon, and many of them came up and shook hands with\nhim. The two opposers, Scott and Brockley, forbid my brother, after\nthis, to come upon their estates. They were both Baptists, and my\nbrother had before preached to their people. During the cholera at\nRichmond, my brother preached a sermon, in which he compared the\npestilence to the plagues, which afflicted the Egyptian slaveholders,\nbecause they would not let the people go. After the sermon some of the\nwhites threatened to whip him. Mr. Valentine, a merchant on Shocko Hill\nprevented them; and a young lawyer named Brooks said it was wrong to\nthreaten a man for preaching the truth. Since the insurrection of Nat.\nTurner he has not been allowed to preach much.\n\nMy twin brother was for some time the property of Mr. John Griggs, of\nRichmond, who sold him about three years since, to an Alabama Cotton\nPlanter, with whom he staid one year, and then ran away and in all\nprobability escaped into the free states or Canada, as he was seen near\nthe Maryland line. My other brother lives in Fredericksburg, and belongs\nto a Mr. Scott, a merchant formerly of Richmond. He was sold from Mr.\nLarrimore's plantation because his wife was a slave of Mr. Scott. My\nonly sister is the slave of John Smith, of King William. Her husband was\nthe slave of Mr. Smith, when the latter lived in Powhatan county, and\nwhen he removed to King William, she was taken with her husband.\n\nMy old master, George Larrimore, married Jane Roane, the sister of a\ngentleman named John Roane, one of the most distinguished men in\nVirginia, who in turn married a sister of my master. One of his sisters\nmarried a Judge Scott, and another married Mr. Brockenbrough of\nCharlottesville. Mr. Larrimore had three children; George, Jane, and\nElizabeth. The former was just ten days older than myself; and I was his\nplaymate and constant associate in childhood. I used to go with him to\nhis school, and carry his books for him as far as the door, and meet him\nthere when the school was dismissed. We were very fond of each other,\nand frequently slept together. He taught me the letters of the alphabet,\nand I should soon have acquired a knowledge of reading, had not George's\nmother discovered her son in the act of teaching me. She took him aside\nand severely reprimanded him. When I asked him, not long after, to tell\nme more of what he had learned at school, he said that his mother had\nforbidden him to do so any more, as her father had a slave, who was\ninstructed in reading and writing, and on that account proved very\ntroublesome. He could, they said, imitate the hand-writing of the\nneighboring planters, and used to write passes and certificates of\nfreedom for the slaves, and finally wrote one for himself, and went off\nto Philadelphia, from whence her father received from him a saucy\nletter, thanking him for his education.\n\nThe early years of my life went by pleasantly. The bitterness of my lot\nI had not yet realized. Comfortably clothed and fed, kindly treated by\nmy old master and mistress and the young ladies, and the playmate and\nconfidant of my young master, I did not dream of the dark reality of\nevil before me.\n\nWhen he was fourteen years of age, master George went to his uncle\nBrockenbrough's at Charlottesville, as a student of the University.\nAfter his return from College, he went to Paris and other parts of\nEurope, and spent three or four years in study and travelling. In the\nmean time I was a waiter in the house, dining-room servant, &c. My old\nmaster visited and received visits from a great number of the principal\nfamilies in Virginia. Each summer, with his family, he visited the\nSulphur Springs and the mountains. While George was absent, I went with\nhim to New-Orleans, in the winter season, on account of his failing\nhealth. We spent three days in Charleston, at Mr. McDuffie's, with whom\nmy master was on intimate terms. Mr. McDuffie spent several days on one\noccasion at Mt. Pleasant. He took a fancy to me, and offered my master\nthe servant whom he brought with him and $500 beside, for me. My master\nconsidered it almost an insult, and said after he was gone, that Mr.\nMcDuffie needed money to say the least, as much as he did.\n\nHe had a fine house in Richmond, and used to spend his winters there\nwith his family, taking me with him. He was not there much at other\ntimes, except when the Convention of 1829 for amending the State\nConstitution, was held in that city. He had a quarrel with Mr. Neal of\nRichmond Co., in consequence of some remarks upon the subject of\nSlavery. It came near terminating in a duel. I recollect that during the\nsitting of the Convention, my master asked me before several other\ngentlemen, if I wished to be free and go back to my own country. I\nlooked at him with surprise, and inquired what country?\n\n\"Africa, to be sure,\" said he, laughing.\n\nI told him that was not my country--that I was born in Virginia.\n\n\"Oh yes,\" said he, \"but your father was born in Africa.\" He then said\nthat there was a place on the African coast called Liberia where a great\nmany free blacks were going; and asked me to tell him honestly, whether\nI would prefer to be set free on condition of going to Africa, or live\nwith him and remain a slave. I replied that I had rather be as I was.\n\nI have frequently heard him speak against slavery to his visitors. I\nheard him say on one occasion, when some gentlemen were arguing in favor\nof sending the free colored people to Africa, that this was as really\nthe black man's country as the white's, and that it would be as humane\nto knock the free negroes, at once, on the head, as to send them to\nLiberia. He was a kind man to his slaves. He was proud of them, and of\nthe reputation he enjoyed of feeding and clothing them well. They were\nas near as I can judge about 300 in number. He never to my knowledge\nsold a slave, unless to go with a wife or husband, and at the slave's\nown request. But all except the very wealthiest planters in his\nneighborhood sold them frequently. John Smoot of Powhatan Co. has sold a\ngreat number. Bacon Tait[A] used to be one of the principal purchasers.\nHe had a jail at Richmond where he kept them. There were many others who\nmade a business of buying and selling slaves. I saw on one occasion\nwhile travelling with my master, a gang of nearly two hundred men\nfastened with chains. The women followed unchained and the children in\nwagons. It was a sorrowful sight. Some were praying, some crying, and\nthey all had a look of extreme wretchedness. It is an awful thing to a\nVirginia slave to be sold for the Alabama and Mississippi country. I\nhave known some of them to die of grief, and others to commit suicide,\non account of it.\n\n[Footnote A: Bacon Tait's advertisement of \"new and commodious\nbuildings\" for the keeping of negroes, situated at the corner of 15th\nand Carey streets, appears in the Richmond Whig of Sept. 1896.--EDITOR.]\n\nIn my seventeenth year, I was married to a girl named Harriet, belonging\nto John Gatewood, a planter living about four miles from Mr. Pleasant.\nShe was about a year younger than myself--was a tailoress, and used to\ncut out clothes for the hands.\n\nWe were married by a white clergyman named Jones; and were allowed to or\nthree weeks to ourselves, which we spent in visiting and other\namusements.\n\nThe field hands are seldom married by a clergyman. They simply invite\ntheir friends together, and have a wedding party.\n\nOur two eldest children died in their infancy: two are now living. The\nyoungest was only two months old when I saw him for the last time. I\nused to visit my wife on Saturday and Sunday evenings.\n\nMy young master came back from Europe in delicate health. He was advised\nby his physicians to spend the winter in New-Orleans, whither he\naccordingly went, taking me with him. Here he became acquainted with a\nFrench lady of one of the first families in the city. The next winter he\nalso spent in New-Orleans, and on his third visit, three years after his\nreturn from Europe, he was married to the lady above mentioned. In May\nhe returned to Mt. Pleasant, and found the elder Larrimore on his sick\nbed, from which he never rose again. He died on the 14th of July. There\nwas a great and splendid funeral, as his relatives and friends\nwere numerous.\n\nHis large property was left principally in the hands of his widow until\nher decease, after which it was to be divided among the three children.\nIn February Mrs. Larrimore also died. The administrators upon the estate\nwere John Green, Esq., and Benjamin Temple. My young master came back\nfrom Europe in delicate health. He way advised by his physicians to\nspend the winter in New-Orleans, whither he accordingly went, taking me\nwith him. Here he became acquainted with a French lady of one of the\nfirst families in the city. The next winter he also spent in\nNew-Orleans, and on his third visit, three years after his return from\nEurope, he was married to the lady above mentioned. In May he returned\nto Mt. Pleasant, and found the elder Larrimore on his sick bed, from\nwhich he never rose again. He died on the 14th of July. There was a\ngreat and splendid funeral, as his relatives and friends were numerous.\n\nHis large property was left principally in the hands of his widow until\nher decease, after which it was to be divided among the three children.\nIn February Mrs. Larrimore also died. The administrators upon the estate\nwere John Green, Esq., and Benjamin Temple.\n\nMy young mistresses, Jane and Elizabeth, were very kind to the servants.\nThey seemed to feel under obligations to afford them every comfort and\ngratification, consistent with the dreadful relation of ownership which\nthey sustained towards them. Whipping was scarcely known on the estate;\nand, whenever it did take place, it was invariably against the wishes of\nthe young ladies.\n\nBut the wife of master George was of a disposition entirely the reverse.\nFeeble, languid, and inert, sitting motionless for hours at her window,\nor moving her small fingers over the strings of her guitar, to some soft\nand languishing air, she would have seemed to a stranger incapable of\nrousing herself from that indolent repose, in which mind as well as body\nparticipated. But, the slightest disregard of her commands--and\nsometimes even the neglect to anticipate her wishes, on the part of the\nservants; was sufficient to awake her. The inanimate and delicate beauty\nthen changed into a stormy virago. Her black eyes flawed and sparkled\nwith a snaky fierceness, her full lips compressed, and her brows bent\nand darkened. Her very voice, soft and sweet when speaking to her\nhusband, and exquisitely fine and melodious, when accompanying her\nguitar, was at such times, shrill, keen, and loud. She would order the\nservants of my young mistresses upon her errands, and if they pleaded\ntheir prior duty to obey the calls of another, would demand that they\nshould be forthwith whipped for their insolence. If the young ladies\nremonstrated with her, she met them with a perfect torrent of invective\nand abuse. In these paroxysms of fury she always spoke in French, with a\nvehemence and volubility, which strongly contrasted with the calmness\nand firmness of the young ladies. She would boast of what she had done\nin New-Orleans, and of the excellent discipline of her father's slaves.\nShe said she had gone down in the night to the cell under her father's\nhouse, and whipped the slaves confined there with her own hands. I had\nheard the same thing from her father's servants at New-Orleans, when I\nwas there with my master. She brought with her from New-Orleans a girl\nnamed Frances. I have seen her take her by the ear, lead her up to the\nside of the room, and beat her head against it. At other times she would\nsnatch off her slipper and strike the girl on her face and head with it.\n\nShe seldom manifested her evil temper before master George. When she\ndid, he was greatly troubled, and he used to speak to his sisters about\nit. Her manner towards him was almost invariably that of extreme\nfondness. She was dark complexioned, but very beautiful; and the smile\nof welcome with which she used to meet him was peculiarly fascinating. I\ndid not marvel that _he_ loved her; while at the same time, in common\nwith all the house servants, I regarded her as a being possessed with an\nevil spirit,--half woman, and half fiend.\n\nSoon after the settlement of the estate, I heard my master speak of\ngoing out to Alabama. His wife had 1500 acres of wild land in Greene\nCounty in that State: and he had been negociating for 500 more. Early in\nthe summer of 1833, he commenced making preparations for removing to\nthat place a sufficient number of hands to cultivate it. He took great\npains to buy up the wives and husbands of those of his own slaves who\nhad married out of the estate, in order, as he said, that his hands\nmight be contented in Alabama, and not need chaining together while on\ntheir journey. It is always found necessary by the regular\nslave-traders, in travelling with their slaves to the far South, to\nhandcuff and chain their wretched victims, who have been bought up as\nthe interest of the trader, and the luxury or necessities of the planter\nmay chance to require, without regard to the ties sundered or the\naffections made desolate, by these infernal bargains. About the 1st of\nSeptember, after the slaves destined for Alabama had taken a final\nfarewell of their old home, and of the friends they were leaving behind,\nour party started on their long journey. There were in all 214 slaves,\nmen, women and children. The men and women travelled on foot--the small\nchildren in the wagons, containing the baggage, &c. Previous to my\ndeparture, I visited my wife and children at Mr. Gatewood's. I took\nleave of them with the belief that I should return with my master, as\nsoon as he had seen his hands established on his new plantation. I took\nmy children in my arms and embraced them; my wife, who was a member of\nthe Methodist church, implored the blessing of God upon me, during my\nabsence, and I turned away to follow my master.\n\nOur journey was a long and tedious one, especially to those who were\ncompelled to walk the whole distance. My master rode in a sulky, and I,\nas his body servant, on horseback: When we crossed over the Roanoke, and\nwere entering upon North Carolina, I remember with what sorrowful\ncountenances and language the poor slaves looked back for the last time\nupon the land of their nativity. It was their last farewell to Old\nVirginia. We passed through Georgia, and crossing the Chattahoochee,\nentered Alabama. Our way for many days was through a sandy tract of\ncountry, covered with pine woods, with here and there the plantation of\nan Indian or a half-breed. After crossing what is called Line Creek, we\nfound large plantations along the road, at intervals of four or five\nmiles. The aspect of the whole country was wild and forbidding, save to\nthe eye of a cotton-planter. The clearings were all new, and the houses\nrudely constructed of logs. The cotton fields, were skirted with an\nenormous growth of oak, pine, and other wood. Charred stumps stood\nthickly in the clearings, with here and there a large tree girdled by\nthe axe and left to decay. We reached at last the place of our\ndestination. It was a fine tract of land with a deep rich soil. We\nhalted on a small knoll, where the tents were pitched, and the wagons\nunladen. I spent the night with my master at a neighboring plantation,\nwhich was under the care of an overseer named Flincher.\n\nThe next morning my master received a visit from a man named Huckstep,\nwho had undertaken the management of his plantation as an overseer. He\nhad been an overseer on cotton plantations many years in Georgia and\nNorth Carolina. He was apparently about forty years of age, with a\nsunburnt and sallow countenance. His thick shock of black hair was\nmarked in several places with streaks of white, occasioned as he\nafterwards told me by blows received from slaves whom he was chastising.\n\nAfter remaining in the vicinity for about a week, my master took me\naside one morning--told me he was going to Selma in Dallas County, and\nwished me to be in readiness on his return the next day, to start for\nVirginia. This was to me cheering news. I spent that day and the next\namong my old fellow servants who had lived with me in Virginia. Some of\nthem had messages to send by me to their friends and acquaintances. In\nthe afternoon of the second day after my master's departure, I\ndistributed, among them all the money which I had about me, viz.,\nfifteen dollars. I noticed that the overseer Huckstep laughed at this\nand called me a fool: and that whenever I spoke of going home with my\nmaster, his countenance indicated something between a smile and a sneer.\n\nNight came; but contrary to his promise, my master did not come. I still\nhowever expected him the next day. But another night came, and he had\nnot returned. I grew uneasy, and inquired of Huckstep where be thought\nmy master was.\n\n\"On his way to Old Virginia,\" said he, with a malicious laugh.\n\n\"But,\" said I. \"Master George told me that he should come back and take\nme with him to Virginia.\"\n\n\"Well, boy,\" said the overseer, \"I'll now tell ye what master George, as\nyou call him, told me. You are to stay here and act as driver of the\nfield hands. That was the order. So you may as well submit to it\nat once.\"\n\nI stood silent and horror-struck. Could it be that the man whom I had\nserved faithfully from our mutual boyhood, whose slightest wish had been\nmy law, to serve whom I would have laid down my life, while I had\nconfidence in his integrity--could it be that he had so cruelly and\nwickedly deceived me? I looked at the overseer. He stood laughing at me\nin my agony.\n\n\"Master George gave you no such orders,\" I exclaimed, maddened by the\noverseer's look and manner.\n\nThe overseer looked at me with a fiendish grin. \"None of your\ninsolence,\" said he, with a dreadful oath. \"I never saw a Virginia\nnigger that I couldn't manage, proud as they are. Your master has left\nyou in my hands, and you must obey my orders. If you don't, why I shall\nhave to make you '_hug the widow there_,'\" pointing to a tree, to which I\nafterwards found the slaves were tied when they were whipped.\n\nThat night was one of sleepless agony. Virginia--the hills and the\nstreams of my birth-place; the kind and hospitable home; the\ngentle-hearted sisters, sweetening with their sympathy the sorrows of\nthe slave--my wife--my children--all that had thus far made up my\nhappiness, rose in contrast with my present condition. Deeply as he has\nwronged me, may my master himself never endure such a night of misery!\n\nAt daybreak, Huckstep told me to dress myself, and attend to his\ndirections. I rose, subdued and wretched, and at his orders handed the\nhorn to the headmen of the gang, who summoned the hands to the field.\nThey were employed in clearing land for cultivation, cutting trees and\nburning. I was with them through the day, and at night returned once\nmore to my lodgings to be laughed at by the overseer. He told me that I\nshould do well, he did not doubt, by and by, but that a Virginia driver\ngenerally had to be whipped a few times himself before he could be\ntaught to do justice to the slaves under his charge. They were not equal\nto those raised in North Carolina, for keeping the lazy hell-hounds, as\nhe called the slaves, at work.\n\nAnd this was my condition!--a driver set over more than one hundred and\nsixty of my kindred and friends, wish orders to apply the whip\nunsparingly to every one, whether man or woman, who faltered in the\ntask, or was careless in the execution of it, myself subject at any\nmoment to feel the accursed lash upon my own back, if feelings of\nhumanity should perchance overcome the selfishness of misery, and induce\nme to spare and pity.\n\nI lived in the same house with Huckstep,--a large log house, roughly\nfinished; where we were waited upon by an old woman, whom we used to\ncall aunt Polly. Huckstep was, I soon found, inordinately fond of peach\nbrandy; and once or twice in the course of a month he had a drunken\ndebauch, which usually lasted from two to four days. He was then full of\ntalk, laughed immoderately at his own nonsense and would keep me up\nuntil late at night listening to him. He was at these periods terribly\nsevere to his hands, and would order me to use up the cracker of my whip\nevery day upon the poor creatures, who were toiling in the field, and in\norder to satisfy him, I used to tear it off when returning home at\nnight. He would then praise me for a good fellow, and invite me to\ndrink with him.\n\nHe used to tell me at such times, that if I would only drink as he did,\nI should be worth a thousand dollars more for it. He would sit hours\nwith his peach brandy, cursing and swearing, laughing and telling\nstories full of obscenity and blasphemy. He would sometimes start up,\ntake my whip, and rush out to the slave quarters, flourish it about and\nfrighten the inmates and often cruelly beat them. He would order the\nwomen to pull up their clothes, in Alabama style, as he called it, and\nthen whip them for not complying. He would then come back roaring and\nshouting to the house, and tell me what he had done; if I did not laugh\nwith him, he would get angry and demand what the matter was. Oh! how\noften I have laughed, at such times, when my heart ached within me; and\nhow often, when permitted to retire to my bed, have I found relief\nin tears!\n\nHe had no wife, but kept a colored mistress in a house situated on a\ngore of land between the plantation and that of Mr. Goldsby. He brought\nher with him from North Carolina, and had three children by her.\n\nSometimes in his fits of intoxication, he would come riding into the\nfield, swinging his whip, and crying out to the hands to strip off their\nshirts, and be ready to take a whipping: and this too when they were all\nbusily at work. At another time, he would gather the hands around him\nand fall to cursing and swearing about the neighboring overseers. They\nwere, he said, cruel to their hands, whipped them unmercifully, and in\naddition starved them. As for himself, he was the kindest and best\nfellow within forty miles; and the hands ought to be thankful that they\nhad such a good man for their overseer.\n\nHe would frequently be very familiar with me, and call me his child; he\nwould tell me that our people were going to get Texas, a fine cotton\ncountry, and that he meant to go out there and have a plantation of his\nown, and I should go with him and be his overseer.\n\nThe houses in the \"_negro quarters_\" were constructed of logs, and from\ntwelve to fifteen feet square; they had no glass, but there were holes\nto let in the light and air. The furniture consisted of a table, a few\nstools, and dishes made of wood, and an iron pot, and some other cooking\nutensils. The houses were placed about three or four rods apart, with a\npiece of ground attached to each of them for a garden, where the\noccupant could raise a few vegetables. The \"quarters\" were about three\nhundred yards from the dwelling of the overseer.\n\nThe hands were occupied in clearing land and burning brush, and in\nconstructing their houses, through the winter. In March we commenced\nploughing: and on the first of April began planting seed for cotton. The\nhoeing season commenced about the last of May. At the earliest dawn of\nday, and frequently before that time, the laborers were roused from\ntheir sleep by the blowing of the horn. It was blown by the headman of\nthe gang who led the rest in the work and acted under my direction, as\nmy assistant.\n\nPrevious to the blowing of the horn the hands generally rose and eat\nwhat was called the \"morning's bit,\" consisting of ham and bread. If\nexhaustion and fatigue prevented their rising before the dreaded sound\nof the horn broke upon their slumbers, they had no time to snatch a\nmouthful, but were harried out at once.\n\nIt was my business to give over to each of the hands his or her\nappropriate implement of labor, from the toolhouse where they were\ndeposited at night. After all had been supplied, they were taken to the\nfield, and set at work as soon as it was sufficiently light to\ndistinguish the plants from the grass and weeds. I was employed in\npassing from row to row, in order to see that the work was well done,\nand to urge forward the laborers. At 12 o'clock, the horn was blown from\nthe overseer's house, calling the hands to dinner, each to his own\ncabin. The intermission of labor was one hour and a half to hoers and\npickers, and two hours to the ploughmen. At the expiration of this\ninterval, the horn again summoned them to thus labor. They were kept in\nthe field until dark, when they were called home to supper.\n\nThere was little leisure for any of the hands on the plantation. In the\nevenings, after it was too dark for work in the field, the men were\nfrequently employed in burning brush and in other labors until late at\nnight. The women after toiling in the field by day, were compelled to\ncard, spin, and weave cotton for their clothing, in the evening. Even on\nSundays there was little or no respite from toil. Those who had not been\nable to work out all their tasks during the week were allowed by the\noverseer to finish it on the Sabbath, and thus save themselves from a\nwhipping on Monday morning. Those whose tasks were finished frequently\nemployed most of that day in cultivating their gardens.\n\nMany of the female hands were delicate young women, who in Virginia had\nnever been accustomed to field labor. They suffered greatly from the\nextreme heat and the severity of the toil. Oh! how often have I seen\nthem dragging their weary limbs from the cotton field at nightfall,\nfaint and exhausted. The overseer used to laugh at their sufferings.\nThey were, he said, Virginia ladies, and altogether too delicate for\nAlabama use: but they must be made to do their tasks notwithstanding.\nThe recollection of these things even now is dreadful. I used to tell\nthe poor creatures, when compelled by the overseer to urge them forward\nwith the whip, that I would much rather take their places, and endure\nthe stripes than inflict them.\n\nWhen but three months old, the children born on the estate were given up\nto the care of the old women who were not able to work out of doors.\nTheir mothers were kept at work in the field.\n\nIt was the object of the overseer to separate me in feeling and interest\nas widely as possible from my suffering brethren and sisters. I had\nrelations among the field hands, and used to call them my cousins. He\nforbid my doing so; and told me if I acknowledged relationship with any\nof the hands I should be flogged for it. He used to speak of them as\ndevils and hell-hounds, and ridicule them in every possible way; and\nendeavoured to make me speak of them and regard them in the same manner.\nHe would tell long stories about hunting and shooting \"runaway niggers,\"\nand detail with great apparent satisfaction the cruel and horrid\npunishments which he had inflicted. One thing he said troubled him. He\nhad once whipped a slave so severely that he died in consequence of it,\nand it was soon after ascertained that he was wholly innocent of the\noffence charged against him. That slave, he said, had haunted him\never since.\n\nSoon after we commenced weeding our cotton, some of the hands who were\nthreatened with a whipping for not finishing their tasks, ran away. The\noverseer and myself went out after them, taking with us five\nbloodhounds, which were kept on the Estate for the sole purpose of\ncatching runaways. There were no other hounds in the vicinity, and the\noverseers of the neighboring plantations used to borrow them to hunt\ntheir runaways. A Mr. Crop, who lived about ten miles distant, had two\npacks, and made it his sole business to catch slaves with them. We used\nto set the dogs upon the track of the fugitives, and they would follow\nthem until, to save themselves from being torn in pieces, they would\nclimb into a tree, where the dogs kept them until we came up and\nsecured them.\n\nThese hounds, when young, are taught to run after the negro boys; and\nbeing always kept confined except when let out in pursuit of runaways,\nthey seldom fail of overtaking the fugitive, and seem to enjoy the sport\nof hunting men as much as other dogs do that of chasing a fox or a deer.\nMy master gave a large sum for his five dogs,--a slut and her\nfour puppies.\n\nWhile going over our cotton picking for the last time, one of our hands\nnamed Little John, ran away. The next evening the dogs were started on\nhis track. We followed them awhile, until we knew by their ceasing to\nbark that they had found him. We soon met the dogs returning. Their\njaws, heads, and feet, were bloody. The overseer looked at them and\nsaid, \"he was afraid the dogs had killed the nigger.\" It being dark, we\ncould not find him that night. Early the next morning, we started off\nwith our neighbors, Sturtivant and Flincher; and after searching about\nfor some time, we found the body of Little John lying in the midst of a\nthicket of cane. It was nearly naked, and dreadfully mangled and gashed\nby the teeth of the dogs. They had evidently dragged it some yards\nthrough the thicket: blood, tatters of clothes, and even the entrails of\nthe unfortunate man, were clinging to the stubs of the old and broken\ncane. Huckstep stooped over his saddle, looked at the body, and muttered\nan oath. Sturtivant swore it was no more than the fellow deserved. We\ndug a hole in the cane-brake, where he lay, buried him, and\nreturned home.\n\nThe murdered young man had a mother and two sisters on the plantation,\nby whom he was dearly loved. When I told the old woman of what had\nbefallen her son, she only said that it was better for poor John than to\nlive in slavery.\n\nLate in the fall of this year, a young man, who had already run away\nseveral times, was missing from his task. It was four days before we\nfound him. The dogs drove him at last up a tree, where he was caught,\nand brought home. He was then fastened down to the ground by means of\nforked sticks of wood selected for the purpose, the longest fork being\ndriven into the ground until the other closed down upon the neck,\nancles, and wrists. The overseer then sent for two large cats belonging\nto the house. These he placed upon the naked shoulders of his victim,\nand dragged them suddenly by their tails downward. At first they did not\nscratch deeply. He then ordered me to strike them with a small stick\nafter he had placed them once more upon the back of the sufferer. I did\nso; and the enraged animals extended their claws, and tore his back\ndeeply and cruelly as they were dragged along it. He was then whipped\nand placed in the stocks, where he was kept for three days. On the third\nmorning as I passed the stocks, I stopped to look at him. His head hung\ndown over the chain which supported his neck. I spoke, but he did not\nanswer. _He was dead in the stocks_! The overseer on seeing him seemed\nsurprised, and, I thought, manifested some remorse. Four of the field\nhands took him out of the stocks and buried him: and every thing went\non as usual.\n\nIt is not in my power to give a narrative of the daily occurrences on\nthe plantation. The history of one day was that of all. The gloomy\nmonotony of our slavery, was only broken by the overseer's periodical\nfits of drunkenness, at which times neither life nor limb on the estate\nwere secure from his caprice or violence.\n\nIn the spring of 1835, the overseer brought me a letter from my wife,\nwritten for her by her young mistress, Mr. Gateweed's daughter. He read\nit to me: it stated that herself and children were well--spoke of her\nsad and heavy disappointment in consequence of my not returning with my\nmaster; and of her having been told by him that I should come back the\nnext fall.\n\nHope for a moment lightened my heart; and I indulged the idea of once\nmore returning to the bosom of my family. But I recollected that my\nmaster had already cruelly deceived me; and despair again took hold\non me.\n\nAmong our hands was one whom we used to call Big Harry. He was a stout,\nathletic man--very intelligent, and an excellent workman; but he was of\na high and proud spirit, which the weary and crushing weight of a life\nof slavery had not been able to subdue. On almost every plantation at\nthe South you may find one or more individuals, whose look and air show\nthat they have preserved their self-respect as _men_;--that with them\nthe power of the tyrant ends with the coercion of the body--that the\nsoul is free, and the inner man retaining the original uprightness of\nthe image of God. You may know them by the stern sobriety of their\ncountenances, and the contempt with which they regard the jests and\npastimes of their miserable and degraded companions, who, like Samson,\nmake sport for the keepers of their prison-house. These men are always\nfeared as well as hated by their task-masters. Harry had never been\nwhipped, and had always said that he would die rather than submit to it.\nHe made no secret of his detestation of the overseer. While most of the\nslaves took off their hats, with cowering submission, in his presence,\nHarry always refused to do so. He never spoke to him except in a brief\nanswer to his questions. Master George, who knew, and dreaded the\nindomitable spirit of the man, told the overseer, before he left the\nplantation, to beware how he attempted to punish him. But, the habits of\ntyranny in which Huckstep had so long indulged, had accustomed him to\nabject submission, on the part of his subjects; and he could not endure\nthis upright and unbroken manliness. He used frequently to curse and\nswear about him, and devise plans for punishing him on account of his\nimpudence as he called it.\n\nA pretext was at last afforded him. Sometime in August of this year,\nthere was a large quantity of yellow unpicked cotton lying in the gin\nhouse. Harry was employed at night in removing the cotton see, which has\nbeen thrown out by the gin. The rest of the male hands were engaged\nduring the day in weeding the cotton for the last time, and in the nigh,\nin burning brush on the new lands clearing for the next year's crop.\nHarry was told one evening to go with the others and assist in burning\nthe brush. He accordingly went and the next night a double quantity of\nseed had accumulated in the gin house: and although he worked until\nnearly 2 o'clock in the morning, he could not remove it all.\n\nThe next morning the overseer came into the field, and demanded of me\nwhy I had not whipped Harry for not removing all the cotton seed. He\nthen called aloud to Harry to come forward and be whipped. Harry\nanswered somewhat sternly that he would neither be struck by overseer\nnor driver; that he had worked nearly all night, and had scarcely fallen\nasleep when the horn blew to summon him to his toil in the field. The\noverseer raved and threatened, but Harry paid no farther attention to\nhim. He then turned to me and asked me for my pistols, with a pair of\nwhich he had furnished me. I told him they were not with me. He growled\nan oath, threw himself on his horse and left us. In the evening I found\nhim half drunk and raving like a madman. He said he would no longer bear\nwith that nigger's insolence; but would whip him if it cost him his\nlife. He at length fixed upon a plan for seizing him; and told me that\nhe would go out in the morning, ride along by the side of Harry and talk\npleasantly to him, and then, while Harry was attending to him, I was to\nsteal upon him and knock him down, by a blow on the head, from the\nloaded and heavy handle of my whip. I was compelled to promise to obey\nhis directions.\n\nThe next morning when we got to the field I told Harry of the overseer's\nplan, and advised him by all means to be on his guard and watch my\nmotions. His eye glistened with gratitude. \"Thank you James\", said he,\n\"I'll take care that you don't touch me.\"\n\nHuckstep came into the field about 10 o'clock. He rode along by the side\nof Harry talking and laughing. I was walking on the other side. When I\nsaw that Harry's eye was upon me I aimed a blow at him intending however\nto miss him. He evaded the blow and turned fiercely round with his hoe\nuplifted, threatening to cut down any one who again attempted to strike\nhim. Huckstep cursed my awkwardness, and told Harry to put down his hoe\nand came to him. He refused to do so and swore he would kill the first\nman who tried to lay hands on him. The cowardly tyrant shrank away from\nhis enraged bondman, and for two weeks Harry was not again molested.\n\nAbout the first of September, the overseer had one of his drunken fits.\nHe made the house literally an earthly hell. He urged me to drink,\nquarrelled and swore at me for declining, and chased the old woman round\nthe house, with his bottle of peach brandy. He then told me that Harry\nhad forgotten the attempt to seize him, and that is the morning we must\ntry our old game over again.\n\nOn the following morning, as I was handing to each of the hands their\nhoes from the tool house, I caught Harry's eye. \"Look out,\" said I to\nhim. \"Huckstep will be after you again to day.\" He uttered a deep curse\nagainst the overseer and passed on to his work. After breakfast Huckstep\ncame riding out to the cotton field. He tied his horse to a tree, and\ncame towards us. His sallow and haggard countenance was flushed, and his\nstep unsteady. He came up by the side of Harry and began talking about\nthe crops and the weather; I came at the same time on the other side,\nand in striking at him, beat off his hat. He sprang aside and stepped\nbackwards. Huckstep with a dreadful oath commanded him to stop, saying\nthat he had determined to whip him, and neither earth nor hell should\nprevent him. Harry defied him: and said he had always done the work\nallotted to him and that was enough: he would sooner die than have the\naccursed lash touch him. The overseer staggered to his horse, mounted\nhim and rode furiously to the house, and soon made his appearance,\nreturning, with his gun in his hand.\n\n\"Yonder comes the devil!\" said one of the women whose row was near\nHarry's.\n\n\"Yes,\" said another, \"He's trying to scare Harry with his gun.\"\n\n\"Let him try as he pleases,\" said Harry, in his low, deep, determined\ntones, \"He may shoot me, but he can't whip me.\"\n\nHuckstep came swearing on: when within a few yards of Harry he stopped,\nlooked at him with a stare of mingled rage and drunken imbecility; and\nbid him throw down his hoe and come forward. The undaunted slave refused\nto comply, and continuing his work told the drunken demon to shoot if he\npleased. Huckstep advanced within a few steps of him when Harry raised\nhis hoe and told him to stand back. He stepped back a few paces, leveled\nhis gun and fired. Harry received the charge in his breast, and fell\ninstantly across a cotton row. He threw up his hands wildly, and\ngroaned, \"Oh, Lord!\"\n\nThe hands instantly dropped their hoes. The women shrieked aloud. For my\nown part I stood silent with horror. The cries of the women enraged the\noverseer, he dropped his gun, and snatching the whip from my hand, with\nhorrid oaths, and imprecations fell to whipping them, laying about him\nlike a maniac. Upon Harry's sister he bestowed his blows without mercy,\ncommanding her to quit her screaming and go to work. The poor girl,\nwhose brother had thus been murdered before her eyes, could not wrestle\ndown the awful agony of her feelings, and the brutal tormentor left her\nwithout effecting his object. He then, without going to look of his\nvictim, told four of the hands to carry him to the house, and taking up\nhis gun left the field. When we got to the poor fellow, he was alive,\nand groaning faintly. The hands took him up, but before they reached the\nhouse he was dead. Huckstep came out, and looked at him, and finding him\ndead, ordered the hands to bury him. The burial of a slave in Alabama is\nthat of a brute. No coffin--no decent shroud--no prayer. A hole is dug,\nand the body (sometimes enclosed in a rude box,) is thrown in without\nfurther ceremony.\n\nFrom this time the overseer was regarded by the whole gang with\ndetestation and fear--as a being to whose rage and cruelty there were no\nlimits. Yet he was constantly telling us that he was the kindest of\noverseers--that he was formerly somewhat severe in managing his hands,\nbut that now he was, if any thing, too indulgent. Indeed he had the\nreputation of being a good overseer, and an excellent manager, when\nsober. The slaves on some of the neighboring plantations were certainly\nworse clothed and fed, and more frequently and cruelly whipped than\nours. Whenever the saw them they complained of over working and short\nfeeding. One of Flincher's, and one of Sturtivant's hands ran away,\nwhile I was in Alabama: and after remaining in the woods awhile, and\ndespairing of being able to effect their escape, resolved to put an end\nto their existence and their slavery together. Each twisted himself a\nvine of the muscadine grape, and fastened one end around the limb of an\noak, and made a noose in the other. Jacob, Flincher's man, swung himself\noff first, and expired after a long struggle. The other, horrified by\nthe contortions and agony of his comrade, dropped his noose, and was\nretaken. When discovered, two or three days afterwards, the body of\nJacob was dreadfully torn and mangled, by the buzzards, those winged\nhyenas and goules of the Southwest.\n\nAmong the slaves who were brought from Virginia, were two young and\nbright mulatto women, who were always understood throughout the\nplantation to have been the daughters of the elder Larrimore, by one of\nhis slaves. One was named Sarah and the other Hannah. Sarah, being in a\nstate of pregnancy, failed of executing her daily allotted task of\nhoeing cotton. I was ordered to whip her, and on my remonstrating with\nthe overseer, and representing the condition of the woman, I was told\nthat my business was to obey orders, and that if I was told \"to whip a\ndead nigger I must do it.\" I accordingly gave her fifty lashes. This was\non Thursday evening. On Friday she also failed through weakness, and was\ncompelled to lie down in the field. That night the overseer himself\nwhipped her. On Saturday the wretched woman dragged herself once more to\nthe cotton field. In the burning sun, and in a situation which would\nhave called forth pity in the bosom of any one save a cotton-growing\noverseer, she struggled to finish her task. She failed--nature could do\nno more--and sick and despairing, she sought her cabin. There the\noverseer met her and inflicted fifty more lashes upon her already\nlacerated back.\n\nThe next morning was the Sabbath. It brought no joy to that suffering\nwoman. Instead of the tones of the church bell summoning to the house of\nprayer, she heard the dreadful sound of the lash falling upon the backs\nof her brethren and sisters in bondage. For the voice of prayer she\nheard curses. For the songs of Zion obscene and hateful blasphemies. No\nbible was there with its consolations for the sick of heart. Faint and\nfevered, scarred and smarting from the effects of her cruel punishment,\nshe lay upon her pallet of moss--dreading the coming of her relentless\npersecutor,--who, in the madness of one of his periodical fits of\ndrunkenness, was now swearing and cursing through the quarters.\n\nSome of the poor woman's friends on the evening before, had attempted to\nrelieve her of the task which had been assigned her, but exhausted\nnature, and the selfishness induced by their own miserable situation,\ndid not permit them to finish it and the overseer, on examination, found\nthat the week's work of the woman, was still deficient. After breakfast,\nhe ordered her to be tied up to the limb of a tree, by means of a rope\nfastened round her wrists, so as to leave her feet about six inches from\nthe ground. She begged him to let her down for she was very sick.\n\n\"Very well!\" he exclaimed with a sneer and a laugh,--\"I shall bleed you\nthen, and take out some of your Virginia blood. You are too proud a miss\nfor Alabama.\"\n\nHe struck her a few blows. Swinging thus by her arms, she succeeded in\nplacing one of her feet against the body of the tree, and thus partly\nsupported herself, and relieved in some degree the painful weight upon\nher wrists. He threw down his whip--took a rail from the garden fence,\nordered her feet to be tied together, and thrust the rail between them.\nHe then ordered one of the hands to sit upon it. Her back at this time\nwas bare, but the strings of the only garment which she wore passed over\nher shoulders and prevented the full force of the whip from acting on\nher flesh. These he cut off with his pen-knife, and thus left her\nentirely naked. He struck her only two blows, for the second one cut\nopen her side and abdomen with a frightful gash. Unable to look on any\nlonger in silence, I entreated him to stop, as I feared he had killed\nher. The overseer looked at the wound--dropped his whip, and ordered her\nto be untied. She was carried into the house in a state of\ninsensibility, and died in three days after.\n\nDuring the whole season of picking cotton, the whip was frequently and\nseverely plied. In his seasons of intoxication, the overseer made no\ndistinction between the stout man and the feeble and delicate woman--the\nsick and the well. Women in a far advanced state of pregnancy were\ndriven out to the cotton field. At other times he seemed to have some\nconsideration; and to manifest something like humanity. Our hands did\nnot suffer for food--they had a good supply of ham and corn-meal, while\non Flincher's plantation the slaves had meat but once a year, at\nChristmas.\n\nNear the commencement of the weeding season of 1835, I was ordered to\nwhip a young woman, a light mustee, for not performing her task. I told\nthe overseer that she was sick. He said he did not care for that, she\nshould be made to work. A day or two afterwards, I found him in the\nhouse half intoxicated. He demanded of me why I had not whipped the\ngirl; and I gave the same reason as before. He flew into a dreadful\nrage, but his miserable situation made him an object of contempt rather\nthan fear. He sat shaking his fist at me, and swearing for nearly half\nan hour. He said he would teach the Virginia lady to sham sickness; and\nthat the only reason I did not whip her was, that she was a white woman,\nand I did not like to cut up her delicate skin. Some time after I was\nordered to give two of our women, named Hannah and big Sarah, 150 lashes\neach, for not performing their tasks. The overseer stood by until he saw\nHannah whipped, and until Sarah had been tied up to the tree. As soon as\nhis back was turned I struck the tree instead of the woman, who\nunderstanding my object, shrieked as if the whip at every blow was\ncutting into her flesh. The overseer heard the blows and the woman's\ncries, and supposing that all was going on according to his mind, left\nthe field. Unfortunately the husband of Hannah stood looking on; and\nindignant that his wife should be whipped and Sarah spared, determined\nto revenge himself by informing against me.\n\nNext morning Huckstep demanded of me whether I had whipped Sarah the day\nbefore; I replied in the affirmative. Upon this he called Sarah forward\nand made her show her back, which bore no traces of recent whipping. He\nthen turned upon me and told me that the blows intended for Sarah should\nbe laid on my back. That night the overseer, with the help of three of\nthe hands, tied me up to a large tree--my arms and legs being clasped\nround it, and my body drawn up hard against it by two men pulling at my\narms and one pushing against my back. The agony occasioned by this alone\nwas almost intolerable. I felt a sense of painful suffocation, and could\nscarcely catch my breath.\n\nA moment after I felt the first blow of the overseer's whip across my\nshoulders. It seemed to cut into my very heart. I felt the blood gush,\nand run down my back. I fainted at length under the torture, and on\nbeing taken down, my shoes contained blood which ran from the gashes in\nmy back. The skin was worn off from by breast, arms, and thighs, against\nthe rough bark of the tree. I was sick and feverish, and in great pain\nfor three weeks afterwards; most of which time I was obliged to lie with\nmy face downwards, in consequence of the extreme soreness of my sides\nand back, Huckstep himself seemed concerned about me, and would come\nfrequently to see me, and tell me that he should not have touched me had\nit not been for \"the cursed peach brandy.\"\n\nAlmost the first person that I was compelled to whip after I recovered,\nwas the man who pushed at my back when I was tied up to the tree. The\nhands who were looking on at that time, all thought he pushed me much\nharder than was necessary: and they expected that I would retaliate upon\nhim the injury I had received. After he was tied up, the overseer told\nme to give him a severe flogging, and left me. I struck the tree instead\nof the man. His wife, who was looking on, almost overwhelmed me with her\ngratitude.\n\nAt length one morning, late in the fall of 1835, I saw Huckstep, and a\ngentleman ride out to the field. As they approached, I saw the latter\nwas my master. The hands all ceased their labor, and crowded around him,\ninquiring about old Virginia. For my own part, I could not hasten to\ngreet him. He had too cruelly deceived me. He at length came towards me,\nand seemed somewhat embarrassed. \"Well James,\" said he, \"how do you\nstand it here?\" \"Badly enough,\" I replied. \"I had no thought that you\ncould be so cruel as to go away and leave me as you did.\" \"Well, well,\nit was too bad, but it could not be helped--you must blame Huckstep for\nit.\" \"But,\" said I, \"I was not his servant; I belonged to you, and you\ncould do as you pleased.\" \"Well,\" said he, \"we will talk about that by\nand by.\" He then inquired of Huckstep where big Sarah was. \"She was sick\nand died,\" was the answer. He looked round amoung the slaves again, and\ninquired for Harry. The overseer told him that Harry undertook to kill\nhim, and that, to save his life, he was obliged to fire upon him, and\nthat he died of the wound. After some further inquiries, he requested me\nto go into the house with him. He then asked me to tell him how things\nhad been managed during his absence. I gave him a full account of the\noverseer's cruelty. When he heard of the manner of Harry's death, he\nseemed much affected and shed tears. He was a favorite servant of his\nfather's. I showed him the deep scars on my back occasioned by the\nwhipping I had received. He was, or professed to be, highly indignant\nwith Huckstep; and said he would see to it that he did not lay hands on\nme again. He told me he should be glad to take me with him to Virginia,\nbut he did not know where he should find a driver who would be so kind\nto the hands as I was. If I would stay ten years, he would give me a\nthousand dollars, and a piece of land to plant on my own account. \"But,\"\nsaid I, \"my wife and children.\" \"Well,\" said he, \"I will do my best to\npurchase them, and send them on to you.\" I now saw that my destiny was\nfixed: and that I was to spend my days in Alabama, and I retired to my\nbed that evening with a heavy heart.\n\nMy master staid only three or four days on the plantation. Before he\nleft, he cautioned Huckstep to be careful and not strike me again, as he\nwould on no account permit it. He told him to give the hands food\nenough, and not over-work them, and, having thus satisfied his\nconscience, left us to our fate.\n\nOut of the two hundred and fourteen slaves who were brought out from\nVirginia, at least one-third of them were members of the Methodist and\nBaptist churches in that State. Of this number five or six could read.\nThen had been torn away from the care and discipline of their respective\nchurches, and from the means of instruction, but they retained their\nlove for the exercises of religion; and felt a mournful pleasure in\nspeaking of the privileges and spiritual blessings which they enjoyed in\nOld Virginia. Three of them had been preachers, or exhorters, viz.\nSolomon, usually called Uncle Solomon, Richard and David. Uncle Solomon\nwas a grave, elderly man, mild and forgiving in his temper, and greatly\nesteemed among the more serious portion of our hands. He used to snatch\nevery occasion to talk to the lewd and vicious about the concerns of\ntheir souls, and to advise them to fix their minds upon the Savior, as\ntheir only helper. Some I have heard curse and swear in answer, and\nothers would say that they could not keep their minds upon God and the\ndevil (meaning Huckstep) at the same time: that it was of no use to try\nto be religious--they had no time--that the overseer wouldn't let them\nmeet to pray--and that even Uncle Solomon, when he prayed, had to keep\none eye open all the time, to see if Huckstep was coming. Uncle Solomon\ncould both read and write, and had brought out with him from Virginia a\nBible, a hymn-book, and some other religious books, which he carefully\nconcealed from the overseer, Huckstep was himself an open infidel as\nwell as blasphemer. He used to tell the hands that there was no hell\nhereafter for white people, but that they had their punishment on earth\nin being obliged to take care of the negroes. As for the blacks, he was\nsure there was a hell for them. He used frequently to sit with his\nbottle by his side, and a Bible in his hand; and read passages and\ncomment on them, and pronounce them lies. Any thing like religious\nfeeling among the slaves irritated him. He said that so much praying and\nsinging prevented the people from doing their tasks, as it kept them up\nnights, when they should be asleep. He used to mock, and in every\npossible way interrupt the poor slaves, who after the toil of the day,\nknelt in their lowly cabins to offer their prayers and supplications to\nHim whose ear is open to the sorrowful sighing of the prisoner, and who\nhath promised in His own time to come down and deliver. In his drunken\nseasons he would make excursions at night through the slave-quarters,\nenter the cabins, and frighten the inmates, especially if engaged in\nprayer or singing. On one of these occasions he came back rubbing his\nhands and laughing. He said he had found Uncle Solomon in his garden,\ndown on his knees, praying like an old owl, and had tipped him over, and\nfrightened him half out of his wits. At another time he found Uncle\nDavid sitting on his stool with his face thrust up the chimney, in order\nthat his voice might not be heard by his brutal persecutor. He was\npraying, giving utterance to these words, probably in reference to his\nbondage:--\"_How long, oh, Lord, how long_?\" \"As long as my whip!\" cried\nthe overseer, who had stolen behind him, giving him a blow. It was the\nsport of a demon.\n\nNot long after my master had left us, the overseer ascertained for the\nfirst time that some of the hands could read, and that they had brought\nbooks with them from Virginia. He compelled them to give up the keys of\ntheir chests, and on searching found several Bibles and hymn-books.\nUncle Solomon's chest contained quite a library, which he could read at\nnight by the light of knots of the pitchpine. These books he collected\ntogether, and in the evening called Uncle Solomon into the house. After\njeering him for some time, he gave him one of the Bibles and told him to\nname his text and preach him a sermon. The old man was silent. He then\nmade him get up on the table, and ordered him to pray. Uncle Solomon\nmeekly replied, that \"forced prayer was not good for soul or body.\" The\noverseer then knelt down himself, and in a blasphemous manner, prayed\nthat the Lord would send his spirit into Uncle Solomon; or else let the\nold man fall from the table and break his neck, and so have an end of\n\"nigger preaching.\" On getting up from his knees he went to the\ncupboard, poured out a glass of brandy for himself, and brought another\nto the table. \"James,\" said he, addressing me, \"Uncle Solomon stands\nthere, for all the world, like a Hickory Quaker. His spirit don't move.\nI'll see if another spirit wont move it.\" He compelled the old preacher\nto swallow the brandy; and then told him to preach and exhort, for the\nspirit was in him. He set one of the Bibles on fire, and after it was\nconsumed, mixed up the ashes of it in a glass of water, and compelled\nthe old man to drink it, telling him that as the spirit and the word\nwere now both in him, there was no longer any excuse for not preaching.\nAfter tormenting the wearied old man in this way until nearly midnight\nhe permitted him to go to his quarters.\n\nThe next day I saw Uncle Solomon, and talked with him about his\ntreatment. He said it would not always be so--that slavery was to come\nto an end, for the Bible said so--that there would then be no more\nwhippings and fightings, but the lion the lamb would lie down together,\nand all would be love. He said he prayed for Huckstep--that it was not\nhe but the devil in him who behaved so. At his request, I found means to\nget him a Bible and a hymn-book from the overseer's room; and the old\nman ever afterwards kept them concealed in the hen-house.\n\nThe weeding season of 1836, was marked by repeated acts of cruelty on\nthe part of Huckstep. One of the hands, Priscilla, was, owing to her\ndelicate situation, unable to perform her daily task. He ordered her to\nbe tied up against a tree, in the same manner that I had been. In this\nsituation she was whipped until _she was delivered of a dead infant, at\nthe foot of the tree_! Our men took her upon a sheet, and carried her to\nthe house, where she lay sick for several months, but finally recovered.\nI have heard him repeatedly laugh at the circumstance.\n\nNot long after this, we were surprised, one morning about ten o'clock,\nby hearing the horn blown at the house. Presently Aunt Polly came\nscreaming into the field. \"What is the matter, Aunty?\" I inquired. \"Oh\nLor!\" said she, \"Old Huckstep's pitched off his horse and broke his\nhead, and is e'en about dead.\"\n\n\"Thank God!\" said little Simon, \"The devil will have him at last.\"\n\n\"God-a-mighty be praised!\" exclaimed half a dozen others.\n\nThe hands, with one accord dropped their hoes; and crowded round the old\nwoman, asking questions. \"Is he dead?\"--\"Will he die?\" \"Did you feel of\nhim--was he cold?\"\n\nAunt Polly explained as well as she could, that Huckstep, in a state of\npartial intoxication, had attempted to leap his horse over a fence, had\nfallen and cut a deep gash in his head, and that he was now lying\ninsensible.\n\nIt is impossible to describe the effect produced by this news among the\nhands. Men, women and children shouted, clapped their hands, and laughed\naloud. Some cursed the overseer, and others thanked the Lord for taking\nhim away. Little Simon got down on his knees, and called loudly upon God\nto finish his work, and never let the overseer again enter a cotton\nfield. \"Let him die, Lord,\" said he, \"let him. He's killed enough of us:\nOh, good Lord, let him die and not live.\"\n\n\"Peace, peace! it is a bad spirit,\" said Uncle Solomon, \"God himself\nwilleth not the death of a sinner.\"\n\nI followed the old woman to the house; and found Huckstep at the foot of\none of those trees, so common at the South, called the Pride of China.\nHis face was black, and there was a frightful contusion on the side of\nhis head. He was carried into the house, where, on my bleeding him, he\nrevived. He lay in great pain for several days, and it was nearly three\nweeks before he was able to come out to the cotton fields.\n\nOn returning to the field after Huckstep had revived, I found the hands\nsadly disappointed to hear that he was still living. Some of them fell\nto cursing and swearing, and were enraged with me for trying to save his\nlife. Little Simon said I was a fool; if he had bled him he would have\ndone it to some purpose. He would at least, have so disable his arm that\nhe would never again try to swing a whip. Uncle Solomon remonstrated\nwith Simon, and told that I had done right.\n\nThe neighbouring overseers used frequently to visit Huckstep, and he, in\nturn, visited them. I was sometimes present during their interviews, and\nheard them tell each other stories of horse-racing, negro-huntings, &c.\nSome time during this season, Ludlow, who was overseer of a plantation\nabout eight miles from ours, told of a slave of his named Thornton, who\nhad twice attempted to escape with his wife and one child. The first\ntime he was caught without much difficulty, chained to the overseer's\nhorse, and in that way brought back. The poor man, to save his wife from\na beating, laid all the blame upon himself; and said that his wife had\nno wish to escape, and tried to prevent him from attempting it. He was\nseverely whipped; but soon ran away again, and was again arrested. The\noverseer, Ludlow, said he was determined to put a stop to the runaway,\nand accordingly had resort to a somewhat unusual method of punishment.\n\nThere is a great scarcity of good water in that section of Alabama; and\nyou will generally see a large cistern attached to the corners of the\nhouses to catch water for washing &c. Underneath this cistern is\nfrequently a tank from eight to ten feet deep, into which, when the\nformer is full the water is permitted to run. From this tank the water\nis pumped out for use. Into one of these tanks the unfortunate slave was\nplaced, and confined by one of his ancles to the bottom of it; and the\nwater was suffered to flow in from above. He was compelled to pump out\nthe water as fast as it came in, by means of a long rod or handle\nconnected with the pump above ground. He was not allowed to begin until\nthe water had risen to his middle. Any pause or delay after this, from\nweakness and exhaustion, would have been fatal, as the water would have\nrisen above his head. In this horrible dungeon, toiling for his life, he\nwas kept for twenty-four hours without any sustenance. Even Huckstep\nsaid that this was too bad--that he had himself formerly punished\nrunaways in that way--but should not do it again.\n\nI rejoice to be able to say that this sufferer has at last escaped with\nhis wife and child, into a free state. He was assisted by some white\nmen, but I do not know all the particulars of his escape.\n\nOur overseer had not been long able to ride about the plantation after\nhis accident, before his life was again endangered. He found two of the\nhands, Little Jarret and Simon, fighting with each other, and attempted\nto chastise both of them. Jarret bore it patiently, but Simon turned\nupon him, seized a stake or pin from a cart near by, and felled him to\nthe ground. The overseer got up--went to the house, and told aunt Polly\nthat he had nearly been killed by the 'niggers,' and requested her to\ntie up his head, from which the blood was streaming. As soon as this was\ndone, he took down his gun, and went out in pursuit of Simon, who had\nfled to his cabin, to get some things which he supposed necessary\nprevious to attempting his escape from the plantation. He was just\nstepping out of the door when he met the enraged overseer with his gun\nin his hand. Not a word was spoken by either. Huckstep raised his gun\nand fired. The man fell without a groan across the door-sill. He rose up\ntwice on his hands and knees, but died in a few minutes. He was dragged\noff and buried. The overseer told me that there was no other way to deal\nwith such a fellow. It was Alabama law, if a slave resisted to shoot him\nat once. He told me of a case which occurred in 1834, on a plantation\nabout ten miles distant, and adjoining that where Crop, the negro\nhunter, boarded with his hounds. The overseer had bought some slaves at\nSelma, from a drove or coffle passing through the place. They proved\nvery refractory. He whipped three of them, and undertook to whip a\nfourth who was from Maryland. The man raised his hoe in a threatening\nmanner, and the overseer fired upon him. The slave fell, but instantly\nrose up on his hands and knees, and was beaten down again by the stock\nof the overseer's gun. The wounded wretch raised himself once more, drew\na knife from the waistband of his pantaloons, and catching hold of the\noverseer's coat, raised himself high enough to inflict a fatal wound\nupon the latter. Both fell together, and died immediately after.\n\nNothing more of special importance occurred until July, of last year,\nwhen one of our men named John, was whipped three times for not\nperforming his task. On the last day of the month, after his third\nwhipping, he ran away. On the following morning, I found that he was\nmissing at his row. The overseer said we must hunt him up; and he blew\nthe \"nigger horn,\" as it is called, for the dogs. This horn was only\nused when we went out in pursuit of fugitives. It is a cow's horn, and\nmakes a short, loud sound. We crossed Flincher's and Goldsby's\nplantations, as the dogs had got upon John's track, and went of barking\nin that direction, and the two overseers joined us in the chase. The\ndogs soon caught sight of the runaway, and compelled him to climb a\ntree. We came up; Huckstep ordered him down, and secured him upon my\nhorse by tying him to my back. On reaching home he was stripped entirely\nnaked and lashed up to a tree. Flincher then volunteered to whip him on\none side of his legs, and Goldsby on the other. I had, in the meantime,\nbeen ordered to prepare a wash of salt and pepper, and wash his wounds\nwith it. The poor fellow groaned, and his flesh shrunk and quivered as\nthe burning solution was applied to it. This wash, while it adds to the\nimmediate torment of the sufferer, facilitates the cure of the wounded\nparts. Huckstep then whipped him from his neck down to his thighs,\nmaking the cuts lengthwise of his back. He was very expert with the\nwhip, and could strike, at any time, within an inch of his mark. He then\ngave the whip to me and told me to strike directly across his back. When\nI had finished, the miserable sufferer, from his neck to his heel, was\ncovered with blood and bruises. Goldsby and Flincher now turned to\nHuckstep, and told him, that I deserved a whipping as much as John did:\nthat they had known me frequently disobey his orders, and that I was\npartial to the \"Virginia ladies,\" and didn't whip them as I did the men.\nThey said if I was a driver of theirs they would know what to do with\nme. Huckstep agreed with them; and after directing me to go to the house\nand prepare more of the wash for John's back, he called after me with an\noath, to see to it that I had some for myself, for he meant to give me,\nat least, two hundred and fifty lashes. I returned to the house, and\nscarcely conscious of what I was doing, filled an iron vessel with\nwater, put in the salt and pepper; and placed it over the embers.\n\nAs I stood by the fire watching the boiling of the mixture, and\nreflecting upon the dreadful torture to which I was about to he\nsubjected, the thought of _escape_ flashed upon my mind. The chance was\na desperate one; but I resolved to attempt it. I ran up stairs, tied my\nshirt in a handkerchief, and stepped out of the back door of the house,\ntelling Aunt Polly to take care of the wash at the fire until I\nreturned. The sun was about one hour high, but luckily for me the hands\nas well as the three overseers, were on the other side of the house. I\nkept the house between them and myself, and ran as fast as I could for\nthe woods. On reaching them I found myself obliged to proceed slowly as\nthere was a thick undergrowth of cane and reeds. Night came on. I\nstraggled forward by a dim star-light, amidst vines and reed beds. About\nmidnight the horizon began to be overcast; and the darkness increased\nuntil in the thick forest, I could scarcely see a yard before me.\nFearing that I might lose my way and wander towards the plantation,\ninstead of from it, I resolved to wait until day. I laid down upon a\nlittle hillock, and fell asleep.\n\nWhen I awoke it was broad day. The clouds had vanished, and the hot\nsunshine fell through the trees upon my face. I started up, realizing my\nsituation, and darted onward. My object was to reach the great road by\nwhich we had travelled when we came out from Virginia. I had, however,\nvery little hope of escape. I knew that a hot pursuit would be made\nafter me, and what I most dreaded was, that the overseer would procure\nCrop's bloodhounds to follow my track. If only the hounds of our\nplantation were sent after me, I had hopes of being able to make friends\nof them, as they were always good-natured and obedient to me. I\ntravelled until, as near as I could judge, about ten o'clock, when a\ndistant sound startled me. I stopped and listened. It was the deep bay\nof the bloodhound, apparently at a great distance. I hurried on until I\ncame to a creek about fifteen yards wide, skirted by an almost\nimpenetrable growth of reeds and cane. Plunging into it, I swam across\nand ran down by the side of it a short distance, and, in order to baffle\nthe dogs, swam back to the other side again. I stopped in the reed-bed\nand listened. The dogs seemed close at hand, and by the loud barking I\nfelt persuaded that Crop's hounds were with them. I thought of the fate\nof Little John, who had been torn in pieces by the hounds, and of the\nscarcely less dreadful condition of those who had escaped the dogs only\nto fall into the hands of the overseer. The yell of the dogs grew\nlouder. Escape seemed impossible. I ran down to the creek with a\ndetermination to drown myself. I plunged into the water and went down to\nthe bottom; but the dreadful strangling sensation compelled me to\nstruggle up to the surface. Again I heard the yell of the bloodhounds;\nand again desperately plunged down into the water. As I went down I\nopened my mouth, and, choked and gasping, I found myself once more\nstruggling upward. As I rose to the top of the water and caught a\nglimpse of the sunshine and the trees, the love of life revived in me. I\nswam to the other side of the creek, and forced my way through the reeds\nto a large tree, and stood under one of its lowest limbs, ready in case\nof necessity, to spring up into it. Here panting and exhausted, I stood\nwaiting for the dogs. The woods seemed full of them. I heard a bell\ntinkle, and, a moment after, our old hound Venus came bounding through\nthe cane, dripping wet from the creek. As the old hound came towards me,\nI called to her as I used to do when out hunting with her. She stopped\nsuddenly, looked up at me, and then came wagging her tail and fawning\naround me. A moment after the other dog came up hot in the chase, and\nwith their noses to the ground. I called to them, but they did not look\nup, but came yelling on. I was just about to spring into the tree to\navoid them when Venus the old hound met them, and stopped them. They\nthen all came fawning and playing and jumping about me. The very\ncreatures whom a moment before I had feared would tear me limb from\nlimb, were now leaping and licking my hands, and rolling on the leaves\naround me. I listened awhile in the fear of hearing the voices of men\nfollowing the dogs, but there was no sound in the forest save the\ngurgling of the sluggish waters of the creek, and the chirp of black\nsquirrels in the trees. I took courage and started onward once more,\ntaking the dogs with me. The bell on the neck of the old dog, I feared\nmight betray me, and, unable to get it off her neck, I twisted some of\nthe long moss of the trees around it, so as to prevent its ringing. At\nnight I halted once more with the dogs by my side. Harassed with fear,\nand tormented with hunger, I laid down and tried to sleep. But the dogs\nwere uneasy, and would start up and bark at the cries or the footsteps\nof wild animals, and I was obliged, to use my utmost exertions to keep\nthem quiet, fearing that their barking would draw my pursuers upon me. I\nslept but little; and as soon as daylight, started forward again. The\nnext day towards evening, I reached a great road which, I rejoiced to\nfind, was the same which my master and myself had travelled on our way\nto Greene county. I now thought it best to get rid of the dogs, and\naccordingly started them in pursuit of a deer. They went off, yelling on\nthe track, and I never saw them again. I remembered that my master told\nme, near this place, that we were in the Creek country, and that there\nwere some Indian settlements not far distant. In the course of the\nevening I crossed the road, and striking into a path through the woods,\nsoon came to a number of Indian cabins. I went into one of them and\nbegged for some food. The Indian women received me with a great deal of\nkindness, and gave me a good supper of venison, corn bread, and stewed\npumpkin. I remained with them till the evening of the next day, when I\nstarted afresh on my journey. I kept on the road leading to Georgia. In\nthe latter part of the night I entered into a long low bottom, heavily\ntimbered--sometimes called Wolf Valley. It was a dreary and frightful\nplace. As I walked on, I heard on all sides the howling of the wolves,\nand the quick patter of their feet on the leaves and sticks, as they ran\nthrough the woods. At daylight I laid down, but had scarcely closed my\neyes when I was roused up by the wolves snarling and howling around me.\nI started on my feet, and saw several of them running by me. I did not\nagain close my eyes during the whole day. In the afternoon, a bear with\nher two cubs came to a large chestnut tree near where I lay. She crept\nup the tree, went out on one of the limbs, and broke off several twigs\nin trying to shake down the nuts. They were not ripe enough to fall,\nand, after several vain attempts to procure some of them, she crawled\ndown the tree again and went off with her young.\n\nThe day was long and tedious. As soon as it was dark, I once more\nresumed my journey. But fatigue and the want of food and sleep rendered\nme almost incapable of further effort. It was not long before I fell\nasleep, while walking, and wandered out of the road. I was awakened by a\nbunch of moss which hung down from the limb of a tree and met my face. I\nlooked up and saw, as I thought, a large man standing just before me. My\nfirst idea was that some one had struck me over the face, and that I had\nbeen at last overtaken by Huckstep. Rubbing my eyes once more, I saw the\nfigure before me sink down upon its hands and knees. Another glance\nassured me that it was a bear and not a man. He passed across the road\nand disappeared. This adventure kept me awake for the remainder of the\nnight. Towards morning I passed by a plantation, on which was a fine\ngrowth of peach trees, full of ripe fruit. I took as many of them as I\ncould conveniently carry in my hands and pockets, and retiring a little\ndistance into the woods, laid down and slept till evening, when I again\nwent forward.\n\nSleeping thus by day and travelling by night, in a direction towards the\nNorth Star, I entered Georgia. As I only travelled in the night time, I\nwas unable to recognize rivers and places which I had seen before until\nI reached Columbus, where I recollected I had been with my master. From\nthis place I took the road leading to Washington, and passed directly\nthrough that village. On leaving the village, I found myself contrary to\nmy expectation, in an open country with no woods in view. I walked on\nuntil day broke in the east. At a considerable distance ahead, I saw a\ngroup of trees, and hurried on towards it. Large and beautiful\nplantations were on each side of me, from which I could hear dogs bark,\nand the driver's horn sounding. On reaching the trees, I found that they\nafforded but a poor place of concealment. On either hand, through its\nopenings, I could see the men turning out to the cotton fields. I found\na place to lie down between two oak stumps, around which the new shoots\nhad sprung up thickly, forming a comparatively close shelter. After\neating some peaches, which since leaving the Indian settlement had\nconstituted my sole food, I fell asleep. I was waked by the barking of a\ndog. Raising my head and looking through the bushes, I found that the\ndog was barking at a black squirrel who was chattering on a limb almost\ndirectly above me. A moment after, I heard a voice speaking to the dog,\nand soon saw a man with a gun in his hand, stealing through the wood. He\npassed close to the stumps, where I lay trembling with terror lest he\nshould discover me. He kept his eye however upon the tree, and raising\nhis gun, fired. The squirrel dropped dead close by my side. I saw that\nany further attempt at concealment would be in vain, and sprang upon my\nfeet. The man started forward on seeing me, struck at me with his gun\nand beat my hat off. I leaped into the road; and he followed after,\nswearing he would shoot me if I didn't stop. Knowing that his gun was\nnot loaded, I paid no attention to him, but ran across the road into a\ncotton field where there was a great gang of slaves working. The man\nwith the gun followed, and called to the two colored drivers who were on\nhorseback, to ride after me and stop me. I saw a large piece of woodland\nat some distance ahead, and directed my course towards it. Just as I\nreached it, I looked back, and saw my pursuer far behind me; and found,\nto my great joy, that the two drivers had not followed me. I got behind\na tree, and soon heard the man enter the woods and pass me. After all\nhad been still for more than an hour, I crept into a low place in the\ndepth of the woods and laid down amidst a bed of reeds, where I again\nfell asleep. Towards evening, on awaking, I found the sky beginning to\nbe cloudy, and before night set in it was completely overcast. Having\nlost my hat, I tied an old handkerchief over my head, and prepared to\nresume my journey. It was foggy and very dark, and involved as I was in\nthe mazes of the forest, I did not know in what direction I was going. I\nwandered on until I reached a road, which I supposed to be the same one\nwhich I had left. The next day the weather was still dark and rainy, and\ncontinued so for several days. During this time I slept only by leaning\nagainst the body of a tree, as the ground was soaked with rain. On the\nfifth night after my adventure near Washington, the clouds broke away,\nand the clear moonlight and the stars shone down upon me.\n\nI looked up to see the North Star, which I supposed still before me. But\nI sought it in vain in all that quarter of the heavens. A dreadful\nthought came over me that I had been travelling out of my way. I turned\nround and saw the North Star, which had been shining directly upon my\nback. I then knew that I had been travelling away from freedom, and\ntowards the place of my captivity ever since I left the woods into which\nI had been pursued on the 21st, five days before. Oh, the keen and\nbitter agony of that moment! I sat down on the decaying trunk of a\nfallen tree, and wept like a child. Exhausted in mind and body, nature\ncame at last to my relief, and I fell asleep upon the log. When I awoke\nit was still dark. I rose and nerved myself for another effort for\nfreedom. Taking the North Star for my guide, I turned upon my track, and\nleft once more the dreaded frontiers of Alabama behind me. The next\nnight, after crossing the one on which I travelled, and which seemed to\nlead more directly towards the North. I took this road, and the next\nnight after, I came to a large village. Passing through the main street,\nI saw a large hotel which I at once recollected. I was in Augusta, and\nthis was the hotel at which my master had spent several days when I was\nwith him, on one of his southern visits. I heard the guards patrolling\nthe town cry the hour of twelve; and fearful of being taken up, I turned\nout of the main street, and got upon the road leading to Petersburg. On\nreaching the latter place, I swam over the Savannah river into South\nCarolina, and from thence passed into North Carolina.\n\nHitherto I had lived mainly upon peaches, which were plenty on almost\nall the plantations in Alabama and Georgia; but the season was now too\nfar advanced for them, and I was obliged to resort to apples. These I\nobtained without much difficulty until within two or three days journey\nof the Virginia line. At this time I had had nothing to eat but two or\nthree small and sour apples for twenty-four hours, and I waited\nimpatiently for night, in the hope of obtaining fruit from the orchards\nalong the road. I passed by several plantations, but found no apples.\nAfter midnight, I passed near a large house, with fruit trees around it.\nI searched under, and climbed up and shook several of them to no\npurpose. At last I found a tree on which there were a few apples. On\nshaking it, half a dozen fell. I got down, and went groping and feeling\nabout for them in the grass, but could find only two, the rest were\ndevoured by several hogs who were there on the same errand with myself.\nI pursued my way until day was about breaking, when I passed another\nhouse. The feeling of extreme hunger was here so intense, that it\nrequired all the resolution I was master of to keep myself from going,\nup to the house and breaking into it in search of food. But the thought\nof being again made a slave, and of suffering the horrible punishment of\na runaway restrained me. I lay in the worlds all that day without food.\nThe next evening, I soon found a large pile of excellent apples, from\nwhich I supplied myself.\n\nThe next evening I reached Halifax Court House, and I then knew that I\nwas near Virginia. On the 7th of October, I came to the Roanoke, and\ncrossed it in the midst of a violent storm of rain and thunder. The\ncurrent ran so furiously that I was carried down with it, and with great\ndifficulty, and in a state of complete exhaustion, reached the\nopposite shore.\n\nAt about 2 o'clock, on the night of the 15th, I approached Richmond, but\nnot daring to go into the city at that hour, on account of the patrols,\nI lay in the woods near Manchester, until the next evening, when I\nstarted in the twilight, in order to enter before the setting of the\nwatch. I passed over the bridge unmolested, although in great fear, as\nmy tattered clothes and naked head were well calculated to excite\nsuspicion; and being well acquainted with the localities of the city,\nmade my way to the house of a friend. I was received with the utmost\nkindness, and welcomed as one risen from the dead. Oh, how inexpressibly\nsweet were the tones of human sympathy, after the dreadful trials to\nwhich I had been subjected--the wrongs and outrages which I witnessed\nand suffered! For between two and three months I had not spoken with a\nhuman being, and the sound even of my own voice now seemed strange to my\nears. During this time, save in two or three instances I had tasted of\nno food except peaches and apples. I was supplied with some dried meat\nand coffee, but the first mouthful occasioned nausea and faintness. I\nwas compelled to take my bed, and lay sick for several days. By the\nassiduous attention and kindness of my friends, I was supplied with\nevery thing which was necessary during my sickness. I was detained in\nRichmond nearly a month. As soon as I had sufficiently recovered to be\nable to proceed on my journey, I bade my kind host and his wife an\naffectionate farewell, and set forward once more towards a land of\nfreedom. I longed to visit my wife and children in Powhatan county, but\nthe dread of being discovered prevented me from attempting it. I had\nlearned from my friends in Richmond that they were living and in good\nhealth, but greatly distressed on my account.\n\nMy friends had provided me with a fur cap, and with as much lean ham,\ncake and biscuit, as I could conveniently carry. I proceeded in the same\nway as before, travelling by night and lying close and sleeping by day.\nAbout the last of November I reached the Shenandoah river. It was very\ncold; ice had already formed along the margin, and in swimming the river\nI was chilled through; and my clothes froze about me soon after I had\nreached the opposite side. I passed into Maryland, and on the 5th of\nDecember, stepped across the line which divided the free state of\nPennsylvania from the land of slavery.\n\nI had a few shillings in money which were given me at Richmond, and\nafter travelling nearly twenty-four hours from the time I crossed the\nline, I ventured to call at a tavern, and buy a dinner. On reaching\nCarlisle, I enquired of the ostler in a stable if he knew of any one who\nwished to hire a house servant or coachman. He said he did not. Some\nmore colored people came in, and taking me aside told me that they knew\nthat I was from Virginia, by my pronunciation of certain words--that I\nwas probably a runaway slave--but that I need not be alarmed, as they\nwere friends, and would do all in their power to protect me. I was taken\nhome by one of them, and treated with the utmost kindness; and at night\nhe took me in a wagon, and carried me some distance on my way to\nHarrisburg, where he said I should meet with friends.\n\nHe told me that I had better go directly to Philadelphia, as there would\nbe less danger of my being discovered and retaken there than in the\ncountry, and there were a great many persons there who would exert\nthemselves to secure me from the slaveholders. In parting he cautioned\nme against conversing or stopping with any man on the road, unless he\nwore a plain, straight collar on a round coat, and said, \"thee,\" and\n\"thou.\" By following his directions I arrived safely in Philadelphia,\nhaving been kindly entertained and assisted on my journey, by several\nbenevolent gentlemen and ladies, whose compassion for the wayworn and\nhunted stranger I shall never forget, and whose names will always be\ndear to me. On reaching Philadelphia, I was visited by a large number of\nthe Abolitionists, and friends of the colored people, who, after hearing\nmy story, thought it would not be safe for me to remain in any part of\nthe United States. I remained in Philadelphia a few days; and then a\ngentleman came on to New-York with me, I being considered on board the\nsteam-boat, and in the cars, as his servant. I arrived at New-York, on\nthe 1st of January. The sympathy and kindness which I have every where\nmet with since leaving the slave states, has been the more grateful to\nme because it was in a great measure unexpected. The slaves are always\ntold that if they escape into a free state, they will be seized and put\nin prison, until their masters send for them. I had heard Huckstep and\nthe other overseers occasionally speak of the Abolitionists, but I did\nnot know or dream that they were the friends of the slave. Oh, if the\nmiserable men and women, now toiling on the plantations of Alabama,\ncould know that thousands in the free states are praying and striving\nfor their deliverance, how would the glad tidings be whispered from\ncabin to cabin, and how would the slave-mother as she watches over her\ninfant, bless God, on her knees, for the hope that this child of her day\nof sorrow, might never realize in stripes, and toil, and grief\nunspeakable, what it is to be a slave?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis Narrative can he had at the Depository of the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety, No 143 Nassau Street, New York, in a neat volume, 108 pp.\n12mo., embellished with an elegant and accurate steel engraved likeness\nof James Williams, price 25 cts. single copy, $17 per hundred.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nNO. 7\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n\n\nEMANCIPATION IN THE WEST INDIES.\n\nA SIX MONTHS' TOUR IN ANTIGUA, BARBADOES, AND JAMAICA IN THE YEAR 1837.\n\nBY JAS. A. THOME, AND J. HORACE KIMBALL.\n\nNEW YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, No. 143 NASSAU-STREET.\n1838.\n\nThis periodical contains 4 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cents;\nover 100 miles, 10 cents.\n\n\n   ENTERED,\n   according to the act of Congress, in the year 1838, by\n   JOHN RANKIN,\n   Treasurer, of the American, Anti-Slavery Society,\n   in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States,\n   for the Southern District of New York.\n\nPrice $12 50 per hundred copies, 18-3/4 cents single copy, _in sheets_:\n$13 25 per hundred, and 20 cents single, _if stitched_.\n\nNOTE.--This work is published in this cheap form, to give it a wide\ncirculation. Please, _after perusal_, to send it to some friend.\n\nThis work, as originally published, can be had at the Depository of the\nAmerican Anti-Slavery Society, No. 143, Nassau Street, New York, on fine\npaper, handsomely bound, in a volume of 489 pages, price one dollar per\ncopy, $75 per hundred.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nANTIGUA.--CHAPTER I.\n\n    Geography and Statistics of the Island,--Reflections on\n    arrival,--Interview with Clergymen,--with the Governor,--with a\n    member of Assembly,--Sabbath,--Service at the Moravian\n    Chapel,--Sabbath School,--Service at the Episcopal Church,--Service\n    at the Wesleyan Chapel,--Millar's Estate,--Cane-holing,--Colored\n    planter,--Fitch's Creek Estate,--Free Villages,--Dinner at the\n    Governor's,--Donovan's Estate,--Breakfast at Mr. Watkins,--Dr.\n    Ferguson,--Market,--Lockup house,--Christmas Holidays,--Colored\n    Population,--Thibou Jarvis's Estate,--Testimony of the\n    Manager,--Anniversary of the Friendly Society,--A negro\n    patriarch,--Green Castle Estate,--Testimony of the\n    Manager,--Anniversary of the Juvenile Association,--Wetherill\n    Estate,--Testimony of the Manager,--Conversation with a\n    boatman,--Moravian station at Newfield,--Testimony of the\n    Missionaries,--School for Adults,--Interview with the Speaker of the\n    Assembly,--Moravian \"Speaking,\"--Conversation with Emancipated\n    Slaves,--The Rector of St. Philip's,--Frey's Estate,--Interview with\n    the American Consul,--Sabbath at Millar's,--Breakfast at the Villa\n    Estate,--A Fair,--Breakfast at Mr. Cranstoun's,--His\n    Testimony,--Moravian Station at Cedar Hall,--Conversation with\n    Emancipated Slaves,--Moravian Station at Grace Bay,--Testimony of\n    the Missionaries,--Grandfather Jacob,--Mr. Scotland's Estate.--A day\n    at Fitch's Creek,--Views of the Manager,--A call from the\n    Archdeacon,--from Rev. Edward Fraser,--Wesleyan District\n    Meeting,--Social interviews with the Missionaries,--Their Views and\n    Testimony,--Religious Anniversaries,--Temperance Society,--Bible\n    Society,--Wesleyan Missionary Society.--Resolution of the\n    Meeting,--Laying the Corner Stone of a Wesleyan Chapel,--Resolutions\n    of the Missionaries.\n\n\nANTIGUA.--CHAPTER II.\n\nGENERAL RESULTS.\n\n    Religion,--Statistics of Denominations,--Morality,--Reverence for\n    the Lord's Day,--Marriage,--Conjugal faithfulness,--Concubinage\n    decreasing,--Temperance,--Profane Language rare,--Statistics of the\n    Bible Society,--Missionary Associations,--Temperance\n    Societies,--Friendly Societies,--Daily Meal Society,--Distressed\n    Females' Friend Society,--Education,--Annual Examination of the\n    Parochial School,--Infant Schools in the Country,--Examination at\n    Parham,--at Willoughby Bay,--Mr. Thwaite's Replies to Queries on\n    Education,--Great Ignorance before Emancipation,--Aptness of the\n    Negroes to learn,--Civil and Political Condition of the Emancipated.\n\n\nANTIGUA.--CHAPTER III.\n\nFACTS AND TESTIMONY.\n\n    IMMEDIATE ABOLITION--an immense change to the condition of the\n    Slave,--Adopted from Political and Pecuniary Considerations,--Went\n    into operation peaceably,--gave additional security to Persons and\n    Property,--Is regarded by all as a great blessing to the\n    Island,--Free, cheaper than Slave labor,--More work done, and better\n    done, since Emancipation,--Freemen more easily managed than\n    Slaves,--The Emancipated more Trustworthy than when Slaves,--They\n    appreciate and reverence Law,--They stay at home and mind their own\n    business,--Are less \"insolent\" than when Slaves,--Gratitude a strong\n    trait of their character,--Emancipation has elevated them,--It has\n    raised the price of Real Estate, given new life to Trade, and to all\n    kinds of business,--Wrought a total change in the views of the\n    Planters,--Weakened Prejudice against Color,--The Discussions\n    preceding Emancipation restrained Masters from\n    Cruelties,--Concluding Remarks.\n\n\nBARBADOES.\n\n    Passage to Barbadoes,--Bridgetown,--Visit to the Governor,--To the\n    Archdeacon,--Lear's Estate,--Testimony of the Manager,--Dinner Party\n    at Lear's,--Ride to Scotland,--The Red Shanks,--Sabbath at Lear's;\n    Religious Service,--Tour to the Windward,--Breakfast Party at the\n    Colliton Estate,--Testimony to the Working of the\n    Apprenticeship,--The Working of it in Demerara,--The Codrington\n    Estate,--Codrington College,--The \"Horse,\"--An Estate on Fire,--The\n    Ridge Estate; Dinner with a Company of Planters,--A Day at Colonel\n    Ashby's; his Testimony to the Working of the\n    Apprenticeship,--Interviews with Planters; their Testimony,--The\n    Belle Estate,--Edgecombe Estate; Colonel Barrow,--Horton\n    Estate,--Drax Hall Estate,--Dinner Party at the\n    Governor's,--Testimony concerning the Apprenticeship,--Market\n    People,--Interview with Special Justice Hamilton; his\n    Testimony,--Station House, District A; Trials of Apprentices before\n    Special Magistrate Colthurst,--Testimony of the Superintendent of\n    the Rural Police,--Communication from Special Justice\n    Colthurst,--Communication from Special Justice Hamilton,--Testimony\n    of Clergymen and Missionaries,--Curate of St. Paul's,--A FREE\n    Church,--A Sabbath School Annual Examination,--Interview with\n    Episcopal Clergymen; their Testimony,--Visit to Schools,--Interview\n    with the Superintendent of the Wesleyan Mission,--Persecution of the\n    Methodists by Slaveholders,--The Moravian Mission,--Colored\n    Population,--Dinner Party at Mr. Harris's,--Testimony concerning the\n    objects of our Mission,--A New Englander,--History of an Emancipated\n    Slave,--Breakfast Party at Mr. Thorne's,--Facts and Testimony\n    concerning Slavery and the Apprenticeship,--History of an\n    Emancipated Slave,--Breakfast Party at Mr. Prescod's,--Character and\n    History of the late Editor of the New Times,--Breakfast Party at Mr.\n    Bourne's,--Prejudice,--History and Character of an Emancipated\n    Slave,--Prejudice, vincible,--Concubinage,--Barbadoes as it was;\n    \"Reign of Terror;\"--Testimony; Cruelties,--Insurrection of\n    1816,--Licentiousness,--Prejudice--Indolence and Inefficiency of the\n    Whites,--Hostility to Emancipation,--Barbadoes as it is,--The\n    Apprenticeship System; Provisions respecting the Special\n    Magistrates,--Provisions respecting the Master,--Provisions\n    respecting the Apprentice,--The Design of the\n    Apprenticeship,--Practical Operation of the\n    Apprenticeship,--Sympathy of the Special Magistrates with the\n    Masters,--Apprenticeship, modified Slavery,--Vexatious to the\n    Master,--No Preparation for Freedom,--Begets hostility between\n    Master and Apprentice,--Has illustrated the Forbearance of the\n    Negroes,--Its tendency to exasperate them,--Testimony to the Working\n    of the Apprenticeship in the Windward Islands generally.\n\n\nJAMAICA.\n\n    Sketch of its Scenery,--Interview with the Attorney General,--The\n    Solicitor General; his Testimony,--The American Consul; his\n    Testimony,--The Superintendent of the Wesleyan Missions,--The\n    Baptist Missionaries; Sabbath; Service in a Baptist\n    Chapel,--Moravians; Episcopalians; Scotch Presbyterians,--Schools in\n    Kingston,--Communication from the Teacher of the Wolmer Free School;\n    Education; Statistics,--The Union School,--\"Prejudice\n    Vincible,\"--Disabilities and Persecutions of Colored People,--Edward\n    Jordan, Esq.,--Colored Members of Assembly,--Richard Hill,\n    Esq.,--Colored Artisans and Merchants in Kingston,--Police Court of\n    Kingston,--American Prejudice in the \"limbos,\"--\"Amalgamation!\"--St.\n    Andrew's House of Correction; Tread-mill,--Tour through \"St. Thomas\n    in the East,\"--Morant Bay; Local Magistrate; his lachrymal\n    forebodings,--Proprietor of Green Wall Estate; his\n    Testimony,--Testimony of a Wesleyan Missionary,--Belvidere Estate;\n    Testimony of the Manager,--Chapel built by Apprentices,--House of\n    Correction,--Chain-Gang,--A call from Special Justice Baines; his\n    Testimony,--Bath,--Special Justice's Office; his\n    Testimony,--\"Alarming Rebellion,\"--Testimony of a Wesleyan\n    Missionary,--Principal of the Mico Charity School; his\n    Testimony,--Noble instance of Filial Affection in a Negro\n    Girl,--Plantain Garden River Valley; Alexander Barclay,\n    Esq.,--Golden Grove Estate; Testimony of the Manager,--The Custos of\n    the Parish; his Testimony,--Amity Hall Estate; Testimony of the\n    Manager,--Lord Belmore's Prophecy,--Manchioneal; Special Magistrate\n    Chamberlain; his Testimony,--his Weekly Court,--Pro slavery\n    gnashings,--Visit with the Special Magistrate to the Williamsfield\n    Estate; Testimony of the Manager,--Oppression of\n    Book-keepers,--Sabbath; Service at a Baptist Chapel,--Interview with\n    Apprentices; their Testimony,--Tour through St. Andrew's and Port\n    Royal,--Visit to Estates in company with Special Justice\n    Bourne,--White Emigrants to Jamaica,--Dublin Castle Estate; Special\n    Justice Court,--A Despot in convulsions; arbitrary power dies\n    hard,--Encounter with Mules in a mountain pass,--Silver Hill Estate;\n    cases tried; Appraisement of an Apprentice,--Peter's Rock\n    Estate,--Hall's Prospect Estate,--Female Traveling Merchant,--Negro\n    Provision Grounds,--Apprentices eager to work for Money,--Jury of\n    Inquest,--Character of Overseers,--Conversation with Special Justice\n    Hamilton,--With a Proprietor of Estates and Local Magistrate;\n    Testimony,--Spanishtown,--Richard Hill, Esq., Secretary of the\n    Special Magistracy,--Testimony of Lord Sligo concerning him,--Lord\n    Sligo's Administration; its independence and\n    impartiality,--Statements of Mr. Hill,--Statements of Special\n    Justice Ramsey,--Special Justice's Court,--Baptist Missionary at\n    Spanishtown; his Testimony,--Actual Working of the Apprenticeship;\n    no Insurrection; no fear of it; no Increase of Crime; Negroes\n    improving; Marriage increased; Sabbath better kept; Religious\n    Worship better attended; Law obeyed,--Apprenticeship vexatious to\n    both parties,--Atrocities perpetrated by Masters and\n    Magistrates,--Causes of the ill-working of the\n    Apprenticeship--Provisions of the Emancipation Act defeated by\n    Planters and Magistrates,--The present Governor a favorite with the\n    Planters,--Special Justice Palmer suspended by him,--Persecution of\n    Special Justice Bourne,--Character of the Special\n    Magistrates,--Official Cruelty; Correspondence between a Missionary\n    and Special Magistrate,--Sir Lionel Smith's Message to the House of\n    Assembly,--Causes of the Diminished Crops since\n    Emancipation,--Anticipated Consequences of full Emancipation in\n    1840,--Examination of the grounds of such anticipations,--Views of\n    Missionaries and Colored People, Magistrates and\n    Planters;--Concluding Remarks.\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n    Official Communication from Special Justice Lyon,--Communication\n    from the Solicitor General of Jamaica,--Communication from Special\n    Justice Colthurst,--Official Returns of the Imports and Exports of\n    Barbadoes,--Valuations of Apprentices in Jamaica,--Tabular View of\n    the Crops in Jamaica for fifty-three years preceding 1836; Comments\n    of the Jamaica Watchman on the foregoing Table,--Comments of the\n    Spanishtown Telegraph,--Brougham's Speech in Parliament.\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nIt is hardly possible that the success of British West India\nEmancipation should be more conclusively proved, than it has been by the\nabsence among us of the exultation which awaited its failure. So many\nthousands of the citizens of the United States, without counting\nslaveholders, would not have suffered their prophesyings to be\nfalsified, if they could have found whereof to manufacture fulfilment.\nBut it is remarkable that, even since the first of August, 1834, the\nevils of West India emancipation on the lips of the advocates of\nslavery, or, as the most of them nicely prefer to be termed, the\nopponents of abolition, have remained in the future tense. The bad\nreports of the newspapers, spiritless as they have been compared with\nthe predictions, have been traceable, on the slightest inspection, not\nto emancipation, but to the illegal continuance of slavery, under the\ncover of its legal substitute. Not the slightest reference to the rash\nact, whereby the thirty thousand slaves of Antigua were immediately\n\"turned loose,\" now mingles with the croaking which strives to defend\nour republican slavery against argument and common sense.\n\nThe Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society, deemed it\nimportant that the silence which the pro-slavery press of the United\nStates has seemed so desirous to maintain in regard to what is strangely\nenough termed the \"great experiment of freedom,\" should be thoroughly\nbroken up by a publication of facts and testimony collected on the spot.\nTo this end, REV. JAMES A. THOME, and JOSEPH H. KIMBALL, ESQ., were\ndeputed to the West Indies to make the proper investigations. Of their\nqualifications for the task, the subsequent pages will furnish the best\nevidence: it is proper, however, to remark, that Mr. Thome is thoroughly\nacquainted with our own system of slavery, being a native and still a\nresident of Kentucky, and the son of a slaveholder, (happily no longer\nso,) and that Mr. Kimball is well known as the able editor of the Herald\nof Freedom, published at Concord, New Hampshire.\n\nThey sailed from New York, the last of November, 1836, and returned\nearly in June, 1837. They improved a short stay at the Danish island of\nSt. Thomas, to give a description of slavery as it exists there, which,\nas it appeared for the most part in the anti-slavery papers, and as it\nis not directly connected with the great question at issue, has not been\ninserted in the present volume. Hastily touching at some of the other\nBritish islands, they made Antigua, Barbadoes, and Jamaica, successively\nthe objects of their deliberate and laborious study--as fairly\npresenting the three grand phases of the \"experiment\"--Antigua,\nexemplifying immediate unrestricted abolition; Barbadoes, the best\nworking of the apprenticeship, and Jamaica the worst. Nine weeks were\nspent in Antigua, and the remainder of their time was divided between\nthe other two islands.\n\nThe reception of the delegates was in the highest degree favorable to\nthe promotion of their object, and their work will show how well they\nhave used the extraordinary facilities afforded them. The committee\nhave, in some instances, restored testimonials which their modesty led\nthem to suppress, showing in what estimation they themselves, as well as\nthe object of their mission, were held by some of the most distinguished\npersons in the islands which they visited.\n\nSo wide was the field before them, and so rich and various the fruit to\nbe gathered, that they were tempted to go far beyond the strength\nsupplied by the failing health they carried with them. Most nobly did\nthey postpone every personal consideration to the interests of the\ncause, and the reader will, we think, agree with us, that they have\nachieved a result which undiminished energies could not have been\nexpected to exceed--a result sufficient, if any thing could be, to\njustify the sacrifice it cost them. We regret to add that the labors and\nexposures of Mr. Kimball, so far prevented his recovery from the\ndisease[A] which obliged him to resort to a milder climate, or perhaps\nwe should say aggravated it, that he has been compelled to leave to his\ncolleague, aided by a friend, nearly the whole burden of preparing for\nthe press--which, together with the great labor of condensing from the\nimmense amount of collected materials, accounts for the delay of the\npublication. As neither Mr. Thome nor Mr. Kimball were here while the\nwork was in the press, it is not improbable that trivial errors have\noccurred, especially in the names of individuals.\n\n[Footnote A: We learn that Mr. Kimball closed his mortal career at\nPembroke, N.H. April 12th, in the 25th year of his age. Very few men in\nthe Anti-Slavery cause have been more distinguished, than this lamented\nbrother, for the zeal, discretion and ability with which he has\nadvocated the cause of the oppressed. \"Peace to the memory of a man\nof worth!\"]\n\nIt will be perceived that the delegates rest nothing of importance on\ntheir own unattested observation. At every point they are fortified by\nthe statements of a multitude of responsible persons in the islands,\nwhose names, when not forbidden, they leave taken the liberty to use in\nbehalf of humanity. Many of these statements were given in the\nhandwriting of the parties, and are in the possession of the Executive\nCommittee. Most of these island authorities are as unchallengeable on\nthe score of previous leaning towards abolitionism, as Mr. McDuffie of\nMr. Calhoun would be two years hence, if slavery were to be abolished\nthroughout the United States tomorrow.\n\nAmong the points established in this work, beyond the power of dispute\nor cavil, are the following:\n\n1. That the act of IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION in Antigua, was not attended\nwith any disorder whatever.\n\n2. That the emancipated slaves have readily, faithfully, and efficiently\nworked for wages from the first.\n\n3. That wherever there has been any disturbance in the working of the\napprenticeship, it has been invariably by the fault of the masters, or\nof the officers charged with the execution of the \"Abolition Act.\"\n\n4. That the prejudice of caste is fast disappearing in the emancipated\nislands.\n\n5. That the apprenticeship was not sought for by the planters as a\n_preparation for freedom_.\n\n6. That no such preparation was needed.\n\n7. That the planters who have fairly made the \"experiment,\" now greatly\nprefer the new system to the old.\n\n8. That the emancipated people are perceptibly rising in the scale of\ncivilization, morals, and religion.\n\nFrom these established facts, reason cannot fail to make its inferences\nin favor of the two and a half millions of slaves in our republic. We\npresent the work to our countrymen who yet hold slaves, with the utmost\nconfidence that its perusal will not leave in their minds a doubt,\neither of the duty or perfect safety of _immediate emancipation_,\nhowever it may fail to persuade their hearts--which God grant it\nmay not!\n\nBy order of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety.\n\nNew York, April 28th, 1838.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN THE NARRATIVE.\n\n1. The words 'Clergy' and 'Missionary' are used to distinguish between\nthe ministers of the English or Scotch church, and those of all other\ndenominations.\n\n2. The terms 'church' and 'chapel' denote a corresponding distinction in\nthe places of worship, though the English Church have what are\ntechnically called 'chapels of ease!'\n\n3. 'Manager' and 'overseer' are terms designating in different islands\nthe same station. In Antigua and Barbadoes, _manager_ is the word in\ngeneral use, in Jamaica it is _overseer_--both meaning the practical\nconductor or immediate superintendent of an estate. In our own country,\na peculiar odium is attached to the latter term. In the West Indies, the\nstation of manager or overseer is an honorable one; proprietors of\nestates, and even men of rank, do not hesitate to occupy it.\n\n4. The terms 'colored' and 'black' or 'negro' indicate a distinction\nlong kept up in the West Indies between the mixed blood and the pure\nnegro. The former as a body were few previous to the abolition act; and\nfor this reason chiefly we presume the term of distinction was\noriginally applied to them. To have used these terms interchangeably in\naccordance with the usage in the United States, would have occasioned\nendless confusion in the narrative.\n\n5. 'Praedial' and 'non-praedial' are terms used in the apprenticeship\ncolonies to mark the difference between the agricultural class and the\ndomestic; the former are called _praedials_, the latter _non-praedials_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPOPULATION OF THE BRITISH (FORMERLY SLAVE) COLONIES.\n\n(_Compiled from recent authentic documents._)\n\nBritish Colonies.          White.   Slave.   F. Col'd.   Total.\nAnguilla                     365    2,388       357      3,110\nAntigua[A]                 1,980   29,839     3,895     35,714\nBahamas                    4,240    9,268     2,991     16,499\nBarbadoes                 15,000   82,000     5,100    102,100\nBerbicel                     550   21,300     1,150     23,000\nBermuda[A]                 3,900    4,600       740      9,240\nCape of Good Hope[B]      43,000   35,500    29,000    107,500\nDemerara[B]                3,000   70,000     6,400     79,400\nDominica                     850   15,400     3,600     19,850\nGrenada                      800   24,000     2,800     27,600\nHonduras[B]                  250    2,100     2,300      4,650\nJamaica                   37,000  323,000    55,000    415,000\nMauritius[B]               8,000   76,000    15,000     99,000\nMontserrat                   330    6,200       800      7,330\nNevis                        700    6,600     2,000      9,300\nSt. Christophers,St. Kitts 1,612   19,310     3,000     23,922\nSt. Lucia[B]                 980   13,600     3,700     18,280\nSt. Vincent                1,300   23,500     2,800     27,600\nTobago                       320   12,500     1,200     14,020\nTortola                      480    5,400     1,300      7,180\nTrinidad[B]                4,200   24,000    16,000     44,200\nVirgin Isles                 800    5,400       600      6,800\n\nTotal                    131,257  831,105   162,733  1,125,095\n\n[Footnote A: These islands adopted immediate emancipation, Aug 1, 1834.]\n\n[Footnote B: These are crown colonies, and have no local legislature.]\n\n\n\nANTIGUA.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nAntigua is about eighteen miles long and fifteen broad; the interior is\nlow and undulating, the coast mountainous. From the heights on the coast\nthe whole island may be taken in at one view, and in a clear day the\nocean can be seen entirely around the land, with the exception of a few\nmiles of cliff in one quarter. The population of Antigua is about\n37,000, of whom 30,000 are negroes--lately slaves--4500 are free people\nof color, and 2500 are whites.\n\nThe cultivation of the island is principally in sugar, of which the\naverage annual crop is 15,000 hogsheads. Antigua is one of the oldest of\nthe British West India colonies, and ranks high in importance and\ninfluence. Owing to the proportion of proprietors resident in the\nIsland, there is an accumulation of talent, intelligence and refinement,\ngreater, perhaps, than in any English colony, excepting Jamaica.\n\nOur solicitude on entering the Island of Antigua was intense. Charged\nwith a mission so nearly concerning the political and domestic\ninstitutions of the colony, we might well be doubtful as to the manner\nof our reception. We knew indeed that slavery was abolished, that\nAntigua had rejected the apprenticeship, and adopted entire\nemancipation. We knew also, that the free system had surpassed the hopes\nof its advocates. But we were in the midst of those whose habits and\nsentiments had been formed under the influences of slavery, whose\nprejudices still clinging to it might lead them to regard our visit with\nindifference at least, if not with jealousy. We dared not hope for aid\nfrom men who, not three years before, were slaveholders, and who, as a\nbody, strenuously resisted the abolition measure, finally yielding to it\nonly because they found resistance vain.\n\nMingled with the depressing anxieties already referred to, were emotions\nof pleasure and exultation, when we stepped upon the shores of an\nunfettered isle. We trod a soil from which the last vestige of slavery\nhad been swept away! To us, accustomed as we were to infer the existence\nof slavery from the presence of a particular hue, the numbers of negroes\npassing to and fro, engaged in their several employments, denoted a land\nof oppression; but the erect forms, the active movements, and the\nsprightly countenances, bespoke that spirit of disinthrallment which had\ngone abroad through Antigua.\n\nOn the day of our arrival we had an interview with the Rev. James Cox,\nthe superintendent of the Wesleyan mission in the island. He assured us\nthat we need apprehend no difficulty in procuring information, adding,\n\"We are all free here now; every man can speak his sentiments unawed. We\nhave nothing to conceal in our present system; had you come here as the\n_advocates of slavery_ you might have met with a very different\nreception.\"\n\nAt the same time we met the Rev. N. Gilbert, a clergyman of the English\nChurch, and proprietor of an estate. Mr. G. expressed the hope that we\nmight gather such facts during our stay in the island, as would tend\neffectually to remove the curse of slavery from the United States. He\nsaid that the failure of the crops, from the extraordinary drought which\nwas still prevailing, would, he feared, be charged by persons abroad to\nthe new system. \"The enemies of freedom,\" said he, \"will not ascribe the\nfailure to the proper cause. It will be in vain that we solemnly\ndeclare, that for more than thirty years the island has not experienced\nsuch a drought. Our enemies will persist in laying all to the charge of\nour free system; men will look only at the amount of sugar exported,\nwhich will be less than half the average. They will run away with this\nfact, and triumph over it as the disastrous consequence of abolition.\"\n\nOn the same day we were introduced to the Rev. Bennet Harvey, the\nprincipal of the Moravian mission, to a merchant, an agent for several\nestates, and to an intelligent manager. Each of these gentlemen gave us\nthe most cordial welcome, and expressed a warm sympathy in the objects\nof our visit. On the following day we dined, by invitation, with the\nsuperintendent of the Wesleyan mission, in company with several\nmissionaries. _Freedom in Antigua_ was the engrossing and delightful\ntopic. They rejoiced in the change, not merely from sympathy with the\ndisinthralled negroes, but because it had emancipated them from a\ndisheartening surveillance, and opened new fields of usefulness. They\nhailed the star of freedom \"with exceeding great joy,\" because it\nheralded the speedy dawning of the Sun of Righteousness.\n\nWe took an early opportunity to call on the Governor, whom we found\naffable and courteous. On learning that we were from the United States,\nhe remarked, that he entertained a high respect for our country, but its\nslavery was a stain upon the whole nation. He expressed his conviction\nthat the instigators of northern mobs must be implicated in some way,\npecuniary or otherwise, with slavery. The Governor stated various\nparticulars in which Antigua had been greatly improved by the abolition\nof slavery. He said, the planters all conceded that emancipation had\nbeen a great blessing to the island, and he did not know of a single\nindividual who wished to return to the old system.\n\nHis excellency proffered us every assistance in his power, and requested\nhis secretary--_a colored gentleman_--to furnish us with certain\ndocuments which he thought would be of service to us. When we rose to\nleave, the Governor followed us to the door, repeating the advice that\nwe should \"see with our own eyes, and hear with our own ears.\" The\ninterest which his Excellency manifested in our enterprise, satisfied us\nthat the prevalent feeling in the island was opposed to slavery, since\nit was a matter well understood that the Governor's partialities, if he\nhad any, were on the side of the planters rather than the people.\n\nOn the same day we were introduced to a barrister, a member of the\nassembly and proprietor of an estate. He was in the assembly at the time\nthe abolition act was under discussion. He said that it was violently\nopposed, until it was seen to be inevitable. Many were the predictions\nmade respecting the ruin which would be brought upon the colony; but\nthese predictions had failed, and abolition was now regarded as the\nsalvation of the island.\n\nSABBATH.\n\nThe morning of our first Sabbath in Antigua came with that hushed\nstillness which marks the Sabbath dawn in the retired villages of New\nEngland. The arrangements of the family were conducted with a studied\nsilence that indicated habitual respect for the Lord's day. At 10\no'clock the streets were filled with the church-going throng. The rich\nrolled along in their splendid vehicles with liveried outriders and\npostillions. The poor moved in lowlier procession, yet in neat attire,\nand with the serious air of Christian worshippers. We attended the\nMoravian service. In going to the chapel, which is situated on the\nborder of the town, we passed through and across the most frequented\nstreets. No persons were to be seen, excepting those whose course was\ntoward some place of worship. The shops were all shut, and the voices of\nbusiness and amusement were hushed. The market place, which yesterday\nwas full of swarming life, and sent forth a confused uproar, was\ndeserted and dumb--not a straggler was to be seen of all the multitude.\n\nOn approaching the Moravian chapel we observed the negroes, wending\ntheir way churchward, from the surrounding estates, along the roads\nleading into town.\n\nWhen we entered the chapel the service had begun, and the people were\nstanding, and repeating their liturgy. The house, which was capable of\nholding about a thousand persons, was filled. The audience were all\nblack and colored, mostly of the deepest Ethiopian hue, and had come up\nthither from the estates, where once they toiled as slaves, but now as\nfreemen, to present their thank-offerings unto Him whose truth and\nSpirit had made them free. In the simplicity and tidiness of their\nattire, in its uniformity and freedom from ornament, it resembled the\ndress of the Friends. The females were clad in plain white gowns, with\nneat turbans of cambric or muslin on their heads. The males were dressed\nin spencers, vests, and pantaloons, all of white. All were serious in\ntheir demeanor, and although the services continued more than two hours,\nthey gave a wakeful attention to the end. Their responses in the litany\nwere solemn and regular.\n\nGreat respect was paid to the aged and infirm. A poor blind man came\ngroping his way, and was kindly conducted to a seat in an airy place. A\nlame man came wearily up to the door, when one within the house rose and\nled him to the seat he himself had just occupied. As we sat facing the\ncongregation, we looked around upon the multitude to find the marks of\nthose demoniac passions which are to strew carnage through our own\ncountry when its bondmen shall be made free. The countenances gathered\nthere, bore the traces of benevolence, of humility, of meekness, of\ndocility, and reverence; and we felt, while looking on them, that the\ndoers of justice to a wronged people \"shall surely dwell in safety and\nbe quiet from fear of evil.\"\n\nAfter the service, we visited the Sabbath school. The superintendent was\nan interesting young colored man. We attended the recitation of a\nTestament class of children of both sexes from eight to twelve. They\nread, and answered numerous questions with great sprightliness.\n\nIn the afternoon we attended the Episcopal church, of which the Rev.\nRobert Holberton is rector. We here saw a specimen of the aristocracy of\nthe island. A considerable number present were whites,--rich proprietors\nwith their families, managers of estates, officers of government, and\nmerchants. The greater proportion of the auditory, however, were colored\npeople and blacks. It might be expected that distinctions of color would\nbe found here, if any where;--however, the actual distinction, even in\nthis the most fashionable church in Antigua, amounted only to this, that\nthe body pews on each side of the broad aisle were occupied by the\nwhites, the side pews by the colored people, and the broad aisle in the\nmiddle by the negroes. The gallery, on one side, was also appropriated\nto the colored people, and on the other to the blacks. The finery of the\nnegroes was in sad contrast with the simplicity we had just seen at the\nMoravian chapel. Their dresses were of every color and style; their hats\nwere of all shapes and sizes, and fillagreed with the most tawdry\nsuperfluity of ribbons. Beneath these gaudy bonnets were glossy\nringlets, false and real, clustering in tropical luxuriance. This\nfantastic display was evidently a rude attempt to follow the example set\nthem by the white aristocracy.\n\nThe choir was composed chiefly of colored boys, who were placed on the\nright side of the organ, and about an equal number of colored girls on\nthe left. In front of the organ were eight or ten white children. The\nmusic of this colored, or rather \"amalgamated\" choir, directed by a\ncolored chorister, and accompanied by a colored organist, was in\ngood taste.\n\nIn the evening, we accompanied a friend to the Wesleyan chapel, of which\nthe Rev. James Cox is pastor. The minister invited us to a seat within\nthe altar, where we could have a full view of the congregation. The\nchapel was crowded. Nearly twelve hundred persons were present. All sat\npromiscuously in respect of color. In one pew was a family of whites,\nnext a family of colored persons, and behind that perhaps might be seen,\nside by side, the ebon hue of the negro, the mixed tint of the mulatto,\nand the unblended whiteness of the European. Thus they sat in crowded\ncontact, seemingly unconscious that they were outraging good taste,\nviolating natural laws, and \"confounding distinctions of divine\nappointment!\" In whatever direction we turned, there was the same\ncommixture of colors. What to one of our own countrymen whose contempt\nfor the oppressed has defended itself with the plea of _prejudice\nagainst color_, would have been a combination absolutely shocking, was\nto us a scene as gratifying as it was new.\n\nOn both sides, the gallery presented the same unconscious blending of\ncolors. The choir was composed of a large number, mostly colored, of all\nages. The front seats were filled by children of various ages--the rear,\nof adults, rising above these tiny choristers, and softening the\nshrillness of their notes by the deeper tones of mature age.\n\nThe style of the preaching which we heard on the different occasions\nabove described, so far as it is any index to the intelligence of the\nseveral congregations, is certainly a high commendation. The language\nused, would not offend the taste of any congregation, however refined.\n\nOn the other hand, the fixed attention of the people showed that the\ntruths delivered were understood and appreciated.\n\nWe observed, that in the last two services the subject of the present\ndrought was particularly noticed in prayer.\n\nThe account here given is but a fair specimen of the solemnity and\ndecorum of an Antigua sabbath.\n\nVISIT TO MILLAR'S ESTATE.\n\nEarly in the week after our arrival, by the special invitation of the\nmanager, we visited this estate. It is situated about four miles from\nthe town of St. John's.\n\nThe smooth MacAdamized road extending across the rolling plains and\ngently sloping hill sides, covered with waving cane, and interspersed\nwith provision grounds, contributed with the fresh bracing air of the\nmorning to make the drive pleasant and animating.\n\nAt short intervals were seen the buildings of the different estates\nthrown together in small groups, consisting of the manager's mansion and\nout-houses, negro huts, boiling house, cooling houses, distillery, and\nwindmill. The mansion is generally on an elevated spot, commanding a\nview of the estate and surrounding country. The cane fields presented a\nnovel appearance--being without fences of any description. Even those\nfields which lie bordering on the highways, are wholly unprotected by\nhedge, ditch, or rails. This is from necessity. Wooden fences they\ncannot have, for lack of timber. Hedges are not used, because they are\nfound to withdraw the moisture from the canes. To prevent depredations,\nthere are watchmen on every estate employed both day and night. There\nare also stock keepers employed by day in keeping the cattle within\nproper grazing limits. As each estate guards its own stock by day and\nfolds them by night, the fields are in little danger.\n\nWe passed great numbers of negroes on the road, loaded with every kind\nof commodity for the town market. _The head is the beast of burthen_\namong the negroes throughout the West Indies. Whatever the load, whether\nit be trifling or valuable, strong or frail, it is consigned to the\nhead, both for safe keeping and for transportation. While the head is\nthus taxed, the hands hang useless by the side, or are busied in\ngesticulating, as the people chat together along the way. The negroes we\npassed were all decently clad. They uniformly stopped as they came\nopposite to us, to pay the usual civilities. This the men did by\ntouching their hats and bowing, and the women, by making a low courtesy,\nand adding, sometimes, \"howdy, massa,\" or \"mornin', massa.\" We passed\nseveral loaded wagons, drawn by three, four, or five yoke of oxen, and\nin every instance the driver, so far from manifesting any disposition\n\"insolently\" to crowd us off the road, or to contend for his part of it,\nturned his team aside, leaving us double room to go by, and sometimes\nstopping until we had passed.\n\nWe were kindly received at Millar's by Mr. Bourne, the manager. Millar's\nis one of the first estates in Antigua. The last year it made the\nlargest sugar crop on the island. Mr. B. took us before breakfast to\nview the estate. On the way, he remarked that we had visited the island\nat a very unfavorable time for seeing the cultivation of it, as every\nthing was suffering greatly from the drought. There had not been a\nsingle copious rain, such as would \"make the water run,\" since the first\nof March previous. As we approached the laborers, the manager pointed\nout one company of ten, who were at work with their hoes by the side of\nthe road, while a larger one of thirty were in the middle of the field.\nThey greeted us in the most friendly manner. The manager spoke kindly to\nthem, encouraging them to be industrious He stopped a moment to explain\nto us the process of cane-holing. The field is first ploughed[A] in one\ndirection, and the ground thrown up in ridges of about a foot high. Then\nsimilar ridges are formed crosswise, with the hoe, making regular\nsquares of two-feet-sides over the field. By raising the soil, a clear\nspace of six inches square is left at the bottom. In this space the\n_plant_ is placed horizontally, and slightly covered with earth. The\nridges are left about it, for the purpose of conducting the rain to the\nroots, and also to retain the moisture. When we came up to the large\ncompany, they paused a moment, and with a hearty salutation, which ran\nall along the line, bade us \"good mornin',\" and immediately resumed\ntheir labor. The men and women were intermingled; the latter kept pace\nwith the former, wielding their hoes with energy and effect. The manager\naddressed them for a few moments, telling them who we were, and the\nobject of our visit. He told them of the great number of slaves in\nAmerica, and appealed to them to know whether they would not be sober,\nindustrious, and diligent, so as to prove to American slaveholders the\nbenefit of freeing all their slaves. At the close of each sentence, they\nall responded, \"Yes, massa,\" or \"God bless de massas,\" and at the\nconclusion, they answered the appeal, with much feeling, \"Yes, massa;\nplease God massa, we will all do so.\" When we turned to leave, they\nwished to know what we thought of their industry. We assured them that\nwe were much pleased, for which they returned their \"thankee, massa.\"\nThey were working at a _job_. The manager had given them a piece of\nground \"to hole,\" engaging to pay them sixteen dollars when they had\nfinished it. He remarked that he had found it a good plan to give\n_jobs_. He obtained more work in this way than he did by giving the\nordinary wages, which is about eleven cents per day. It looked very much\nlike slavery to see the females working in the field; but the manager\nsaid they chose it generally \"_for the sake of the wages_.\" Mr. B.\nreturned with us to the house, leaving the gangs in the field, with only\nan aged negro in charge of the work, as _superintendent._ Such now is\nthe name of the overseer. The very _terms_, _driver_ and _overseer_, are\nbanished from Antigua; and the _whip_ is buried beneath the soil\nof freedom.\n\n[Footnote A: In those cases where the plough is used at all. It is not\nyet generally introduced throughout the West Indies. Where the plough is\nnot used, the whole process of holing is done with the hoe, and is\nextremely laborious]\n\nWhen we reached the house we were introduced to Mr. Watkins, a _colored_\nplanter, whom Mr. B. had invited to breakfast with us. Mr. Watkins was\nvery communicative, and from him and Mr. B., who was equally free, we\nobtained information on a great variety of points, which we reserve for\nthe different heads to which they appropriately belong.\n\nFITCH'S CREEK ESTATE.\n\nFrom Millar's we proceeded to Fitch's Creek Estate, where we had been\ninvited to dine by the intelligent manager, Mr. H. Armstrong. We three\nmet several Wesleyan missionaries. Mr. A. is himself a local preacher in\nthe Wesleyan connection. When a stranger visits an estate in the West\nIndies, almost the first thing is an offer from the manager to accompany\nhim through the sugar works. Mr. A. conducted us first to a new boiling\nhouse, which he was building after a plan of his own devising. The house\nis of brick, on a very extensive scale. It has been built entirely by\nnegroes--chiefly those belonging to the estate who were emancipated in\n1834. Fitch's Creek Estate is one of the largest on the Island,\nconsisting of 500 acres, of which 300 are under cultivation. The number\nof people employed and living on the property is 260. This estate\nindicates any thing else than an apprehension of approaching ruin. It\npresents the appearance, far more, of a _resurrection_, from the grave.\nIn addition to his improved sugar and boiling establishment, he has\nprojected a plan for a new village, (as the collection of negro houses\nis called,) and has already selected the ground and begun to build. The\nhouses are to be larger than those at present in use, they are to be\nbuilt of stone instead of mud and sticks, and to be neatly roofed.\nInstead of being huddled together in a bye place, as has mostly been the\ncase, they are to be built on an elevated site, and ranged at regular\nintervals around three sides of a large square, in the centre of which a\nbuilding for a chapel and school house is to be erected. Each house is\nto have a garden. This and similar improvements are now in progress,\nwith the view of adding to the comforts of the laborers, and attaching\nthem to the estate. It has become the interest of the planter to make it\nfor the _interest of the people_ to remain on his estate. This _mutual\ninterest_ is the only sure basis of prosperity on the one hand and of\nindustry on the other.\n\nThe whole company heartily joined in assuring us that a knowledge of the\nactual working of abolition in Antigua, would be altogether favorable to\nthe cause of freedom, _and that the more thorough our knowledge of the\nfacts in the case, the more perfect would be our confidence in the\nsafety of_ IMMEDIATE _emancipation_.\n\nMr. A. said that the spirit of enterprise, before dormant, had been\nroused since emancipation, and planters were now beginning to inquire as\nto the best modes of cultivation, and to propose measures of general\nimprovement. One of these measures was the establishing of _free\nvillages_, in which the laborers might dwell by paying a small rent.\nWhen the adjacent planters needed help they could here find a supply for\nthe occasion. This plan would relieve the laborers from some of that\ndependence which they must feel so long as they live on the estate and\nin the houses of the planters. Many advantages of such a system were\nspecified. We allude to it here only as an illustration of that spirit\nof inquiry, which freedom has kindled in the minds of the planters.\n\nNo little desire was manifested by the company to know the state of the\nslavery question in this country. They all, planters and missionaries,\nspoke in terms of abhorrence of our slavery, our snobs, our prejudice,\nand our Christianity. One of the missionaries said it would never do for\nhim to go to America, for he should certainly be excommunicated by his\nMethodist brethren, and Lynched by the advocates of slaver. He insisted\nthat slaveholding professors and ministers should be cut off from the\ncommunion of the Church.\n\nAs we were about to take leave, the _proprietor_ of the estate rode up,\naccompanied by the governor, who he had brought to see the new\nboiling-house, and the other improvements which were in progress. The\nproprietor reside in St. John's, is a gentleman of large fortune, and a\nmember of the assembly. He said he would be happy to aid us in any\nway--but added, that in all details of a practical kind, and in all\nmatters of fact, the planters were the best witnesses, for they were the\nconductors of the present system. We were glad to obtain the endorsement\nof an influential proprietor to the testimony of practical planters.\n\nDINNER AT THE GOVERNOR'S.\n\nOn the following day having received a very courteous invitation[A] from\nthe governor, to dine at the government house, we made our arrangements\nto do so. The Hon. Paul Horsford, a member of the council, called during\nthe day, to say, that he expected to dine with us at the government\nhouse and that he would be happy to call for us at the appointed hour,\nand conduct us thither. At six o'clock Mr. H.'s carriage drove up to our\ndoor, and we accompanied him to the governor's, where we were introduced\nto Col. Jarvis, a member of the privy council, and proprietor of several\nestates in the island, Col. Edwards, a member of the assembly and a\nbarrister, Dr. Musgrave, a member of the assembly, and Mr. Shiel,\nattorney general. A dinner of state, at a Governor's house, attended by\na company of high-toned politicians, professional gentlemen, and\nproprietors, could hardly be expected to furnish large accessions to our\nstock of information, relating to the object of our visit. Dinner being\nannounced, we were hardly seated at the table when his excellency\npolitely offered to drink a glass of Madeira with us. We begged leave to\ndecline the honor. In a short time he proposed a glass of\nChampaign--again we declined. \"Why, surely, gentlemen,\" exclaimed the\nGovernor, \"you must belong to the temperance society.\" \"Yes, sir, we\ndo.\" \"Is it possible? but you will surely take a glass of liqueur?\"\n\"Your excellency must pardon us if we again decline the honor; we drink\nno wines.\" This announcement of ultra temperance principles excited no\nlittle surprise. Finding that our allegiance to cold water was not to be\nshaken, the governor condescended at last to meet us on middle ground,\nand drink his wine to our water.\n\n[Footnote A: We venture to publish the note in which the governor\nconveyed his invitation, simply because, though a trifle in itself, it\nwill serve to show the estimation in which our mission was held.\n\n    \"If Messrs. Kimball and Thome are not engaged Tuesday next, the\n    Lieut. Governor will be happy to see them at dinner, at six o'clock,\n    when he will endeavor to facilitate their philanthropic inquiries,\n    by inviting two or three proprietors to met them.\"\n\n    \"_Government House, St. John's, Dec. 18th_, 1836.\"\n]\n\nThe conversation on the subject of emancipation served to show that the\nprevailing sentiment was decidedly favorable to the free system. Col.\nJarvis, who is the proprietor of three estates, said that he was in\nEngland at the time the bill for immediate emancipation passed the\nlegislature. Had he been in the island he should have opposed it; but\n_now_ he was glad it had prevailed. The evil consequences which he\napprehended had not been realized, and he was now confident that they\nnever would be.\n\nAs to prejudice against the black and colored people, all thought it was\nrapidly decreasing--indeed, they could scarcely say there was now any\nsuch thing. To be sure, there was an aversion among the higher classes\nof the whites, and especially among _females_, to associating in parties\nwith colored people; but it was not on account of their _color_, but\nchiefly because of their _illegitimacy_. This was to us a new _source_\nof prejudice: but subsequent information fully explained its bearings.\nThe whites of the West Indies are themselves the authors of that\n_illegitimacy_, out of which their aversion springs. It is not to be\nwondered at that they should be unwilling to invite the colored people\nto their social parties, seeing they might not unfrequently be subjected\nto the embarrassment of introducing to their white wives a colored\nmistress or an _illegitimate_ daughter. This also explains the special\nprejudice which the _ladies_ of the higher classes feel toward those\namong whom are their guilty rivals in a husband's affections, and those\nwhose every feature tells the story of a husband's unfaithfulness!\n\nA few days after our dinner with the governor and his friends, we took\nbreakfast, by invitation, with Mr. Watkins, the _colored_ planter whom\nwe had the pleasure of meeting at Millar's, on a previous occasion. Mr.\nW. politely sent in his chaise for us, a distance of five miles, At an\nearly hour we reached Donovan's, the estate of which he is manager. We\nfound the sugar works in active operation: the broad wings of the\nwindmill were wheeling their stately revolutions, and the smoke was\nissuing in dense volumes from the chimney of the boiling house. Some of\nthe negroes were employed in carrying cane to the mill, others in\ncarrying away the _trash_ or _megass_, as the cane is called after the\njuice is expressed from it. Others, chiefly the old men and women, were\ntearing the megass apart, and strewing it on the ground to dry. It is\nthe only fuel used for boiling the sugar.\n\nOn entering the house we found three planters whom Mr. W. had invited to\nbreakfast with us. The meeting of a number of intelligent practical\nplanters afforded a good opportunity for comparing their views. On all\nthe main points, touching the working of freedom, there was a strong\ncoincidence.\n\nWhen breakfast was ready, Mrs. W. entered the room, and after our\nintroduction to her, took her place at the head of the table. Her\nconversation was intelligent, her manners highly polished, and she\npresided at the table with admirable grace and dignity.\n\nOn the following day, Dr. Ferguson, of St. John's, called on us. Dr.\nFerguson is a member of the assembly, and one of the first physicians in\nthe island. The Doctor said that freedom had wrought like a magician,\nand had it not been for the unprecedented drought, the island would now\nbe in a state of prosperity unequalled in any period of its history. Dr.\nF. remarked that a general spirit of improvement was pervading the\nisland. The moral condition of the whites was rapidly brightening;\nformerly concubinage was _respectable_; it had been customary for\nmarried men--those of the highest standing--to keep one or two colored\nmistresses. This practice was now becoming disreputable. There had been\na great alteration as to the observance of the Sabbath; formerly more\nbusiness was done in St. John's on Sunday, by the merchants, than on all\nthe other days of the week together. The mercantile business of the town\nhad increased astonishingly; he thought that the stores and shops had\nmultiplied in a _ratio of ten to one_. Mechanical pursuits were likewise\nin a flourishing condition. Dr. F. said that a greater number of\nbuildings had been erected since emancipation, than had been put up for\ntwenty years before. Great improvements had also been made in the\nstreets and roads in town and country.\n\nMARKET.\n\nSATURDAY.--This is the regular market-day here. The negroes come from all\nparts of the island; walking sometimes ten or fifteen miles to attend\nthe St. John's market. We pressed our way through the dense mass of all\nhues, which crowded the market. The ground was covered with wooden trays\nfilled with all kinds of fruits, grain, vegetables, fowls, fish, and\nflesh. Each one, as we passed, called attention to his or her little\nstock. We passed up to the head of the avenue, where men and women were\nemployed in cutting up the light fire-wood which they had brought from\nthe country on their heads, and in binding it into small bundles for\nsale. Here we paused a moment and looked down upon the busy multitude\nbelow. The whole street was a moving mass. There were broad Panama hats,\nand gaudy turbans, and uncovered heads, and heads laden with water pots,\nand boxes, and baskets, and trays--all moving and mingling in seemingly\ninextricable confusion. There could not have been less than fifteen\nhundred people congregated in that street--all, or nearly all,\nemancipated slaves. Yet, amidst all the excitements and competitions of\ntrade, their conduct toward each other was polite and kind. Not a word,\nor look, or gesture of insolence or indecency did we observe. Smiling\ncountenances and friendly voices greeted us on every side, and we felt\nno fears either of having our pockets picked or our throats cut!\n\nAt the other end of the market-place stood the _Lock-up House_, the\n_Cage_, and the _Whipping Post_, with stocks for feet and wrists. These\nare almost the sole relics of slavery which still linger in the town.\nThe Lock-up House is a sort of jail, built of stone--about fifteen feet\nsquare, and originally designed as a place of confinement for slaves\ntaken up by the patrol. The Cage is a smaller building, adjoining the\nformer, the sides of which are composed of strong iron bars--fitly\ncalled a _cage!_ The prisoner was exposed to the gaze and insult of\nevery passer by, without the possibility of concealment. The Whipping\nPost is hard by, but its occupation is gone. Indeed, all these\nappendages of slavery have gone into entire disuse, and Time is doing\nhis work of dilapidation upon them. We fancied we could see in the\nmarketers, as they walked in and out at the doorless entrance of the\nLock-up House, or leaned against the Whipping Post, in careless chat,\nthat harmless defiance which would prompt one to beard the dead lion.\n\nReturning from the market we observed a negro woman passing through the\nstreet, with several large hat boxes strung on her arm. She accidentally\nlet one of them fall. The box had hardly reached the ground, when a\nlittle boy sprang from the back of a carriage rolling by, handed the\nwoman the box, and hastened to remount the carriage.\n\nCHRISTMAS.\n\nDuring the reign of slavery, the Christmas holidays brought with them\ngeneral alarm. To prevent insurrections, the militia was uniformly\ncalled out, and an array made of all that was formidable in military\nenginery. This custom was dispensed with at once, after emancipation. As\nChristmas came on the Sabbath, it tested the respect for that day. The\nmorning was similar, in all respects, to the morning of the Sabbath\ndescribed above; the same serenity reigning everywhere--the same quiet\nin the household movements, and the same tranquillity prevailing through\nthe streets. We attended morning service at the Moravian chapel.\nNotwithstanding the descriptions we had heard of the great change which\nemancipation had wrought in the observance of Christmas, we were quite\nunprepared for the delightful reality around us. Though thirty thousand\nslaves had but lately been \"turned loose\" upon a white population of\nless than three thousand! instead of meeting with scenes of disorder,\nwhat were the sights which greeted our eyes? The neat attire, the\nserious demeanor, and the thronged procession to the place of worship.\nIn every direction the roads leading into town were lined with happy\nbeings--attired for the house of God. When groups coming from different\nquarters met at the corners, they stopped a moment to exchange\nsalutations and shake hands, and then proceeded on together.\n\nThe Moravian chapel was slightly decorated with green branches. They\nwere the only adorning which marked the plain sanctuary of a plain\npeople. It was crowded with black and colored people, and very many\nstood without, who could not get in. After the close of the service in\nthe chapel, the minister proceeded to the adjacent school room, and\npreached to another crowded audience. In the evening the Wesleyan chapel\nwas crowded to overflowing. The aisles and communion place were full. On\nall festivals and holidays, which occur on the Sabbath, the churches and\nchapels are more thronged than on any other Lord's day.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to state that there was no instance of a dance or\ndrunken riot, nor wild shouts of mirth during the day. The Christmas,\ninstead of breaking in upon the repose of the Sabbath, seemed only to\nenhance the usual solemnity of the day.\n\nThe holidays continued until the next Wednesday morning, and the same\norder prevailed to the close of them. On Monday there were religious\nservices in most of the churches and chapels, where sabbath-school\naddresses, discourses on the relative duties of husband and wife, and on\nkindred subjects, were delivered.\n\nAn intelligent gentleman informed us that the negroes, while slaves,\nused to spend during the Christmas holidays, the extra money which they\ngot during the year. Now they save it--_to buy small tracts of land for\ntheir own cultivation_.\n\nThe Governor informed us that the police returns did not report a single\ncase of arrest during the holidays. He said he had been well acquainted\nwith the country districts of England, he had also travelled extensively\nin Europe, yet he had never found such a _peaceable, orderly, and\nlaw-abiding people as those of Antigua_.\n\nAn acquaintance of nine weeks with the colored population of St. John's,\nmeeting them by the wayside, in their shops, in their parlors, and\nelsewhere, enables us to pronounce them a people of general\nintelligence, refinement of manners, personal accomplishments, and true\npoliteness. As to their style of dress and mode of living, were we\ndisposed to make any criticism, we should say that they were\nextravagant. In refined and elevated conversation, they would certainly\nbear a comparison with the white families of the island.\n\nVISIT TO THIBOU JARVIS'S ESTATE.\n\nAfter the Christmas holidays were over, we resumed our visits to the\ncountry. Being provided with a letter to the manager of Thibou Jarvis's\nestate, Mr. James Howell, we embraced the earliest opportunity to call\non him. Mr. H. has been in Antigua for thirty-six years, and has been a\npractical planter during the whole of that time. He has the management\nof two estates, on which there are more than five hundred people. The\nprincipal items of Mr. Howell's testimony will be found in another\nplace. In this connection we shall record only miscellaneous statements\nof a local nature.\n\n1. The severity of the drought. He had been in Antigua since the year\n1800, and he had never known so long a continuance of dry weather,\nalthough the island is subject to severe droughts. He stated that a\nfield of yams, which in ordinary seasons yielded ten cart-loads to the\nacre, would not produce this year more than _three_. The failure in the\ncrops was not in the least degree chargeable upon the laborers, for in\nthe first place, the cane plants for the present crop were put in\nearlier and in greater quantities than usual, and _until_ the drought\ncommenced, the fields promised a large return.\n\n2. _The religious condition_ of the negroes, during slavery, was\nextremely low. It seemed almost impossible to teach them any higher\n_religion_ than _obedience to their masters_. Their highest notion of\nGod was that he was a _little above_ their owner. He mentioned, by way\nof illustration, that the slaves of a certain large proprietor used to\nhave this saying, \"Massa only want he little finger to touch God!\" that\nis, _their master was lower than God only by the length of his little\nfinger_. But now the religious and moral condition of the people was\nfast improving.\n\n3. A great change in the use of _rum_ had been effected on the estates\nunder his management since emancipation. He formerly, in accordance with\nthe prevalent custom, gave his people a weekly allowance of rum, and\nthis was regarded as essential to their health and effectiveness. But he\nhas lately discontinued this altogether, and his people had not suffered\nany inconvenience from it. He gave them in lieu of the rum, an allowance\nof molasses, with which they appeared to be entirely satisfied. When Mr.\nH. informed the people of his intention to discontinue the spirits, he\ntold them that he should _set them the example_ of total abstinence, by\nabandoning wine and malt liquor also, which he accordingly did.\n\n4. There had been much less _pretended sickness_ among the negroes since\nfreedom. They had now a strong aversion to going to the sick house[A],\nso much so that on many estates it had been put to some other use.\n\n[Footnote A: The _estate hospital_, in which, during slavery, all sick\npersons were placed for medical attendance and nursing. There was one on\nevery estate.]\n\nWe were taken through the negro village, and shown the interior of\nseveral houses. One of the finest looking huts was decorated with\npictures, printed cards, and booksellers' advertisements in large\nletters. Amongst many ornaments of this kind, was an advertisement not\nunfamiliar to our eyes--\"THE GIRL'S OWN BOOK. BY MRS. CHILD.\"\n\nWe generally found the women at home. Some of them had been informed of\nour intention to visit them, and took pains to have every thing in the\nbest order for our reception. The negro village on this estate contains\none hundred houses, each of which is occupied by a separate family. Mr.\nH. next conducted us to a neighboring field, where the _great gang_[B]\nwere at work. There were about fifty persons in the gang--the majority\nfemales--under two inspectors or superintendents, men who take the place\nof the _quondam drivers_, though their province is totally different.\nThey merely direct the laborers in their work, employing with the\nloiterers the stimulus of persuasion, or at farthest, no more than the\nviolence of the tongue.\n\n[Footnote B: The people on most estates are divided into three gangs;\nfirst, the great gang, composed of the principal effective men and\nwomen; second, the weeding gang, consisting of younger and weekly\npersons; and third, the grass gang, which embraces all the children\nable to work.]\n\nMr. H. requested them to stop their work, and told them who we were, and\nas we bowed, the men took off their hats and the women made a low\ncourtesy. Mr. Howell then informed them that we had come from America,\nwhere there were a great many slaves: that we had visited Antigua to see\nhow freedom was working, and whether the people who were made free on\nthe first of August were doing well--and added, that he \"hoped these\ngentlemen might be able to carry back such a report as would induce the\nmasters in America to set their slaves free.\" They unanimously replied,\n\"Yes, massa, we hope dem will gib um free.\" We spoke a few words: told\nthem of the condition of the slaves in America, urged them to pray for\nthem that they might be patient under their sufferings, and that they\nmight soon be made free. They repeatedly promised to pray for the poor\nslaves in America. We then received their hearty \"Good bye, massa,\" and\nreturned to the house, while they resumed their work.\n\nWe took leave of Mr. Howell, grateful for his kind offices in\nfurtherance of the objects of our mission.\n\nWe had not been long in Antigua before we perceived the distress of the\npoor from the scarcity of water. As there are but few springs in the\nisland, the sole reliance is upon rain water. Wealthy families have\ncisterns or tanks in their yards, to receive the rain from the roofs.\nThere are also a few public cisterns in St. John's. These ordinarily\nsupply the whole population. During the present season many of these\ncisterns have been dry, and the supply of water has been entirely\ninadequate to the wants of the people. There are several large open\nponds in the vicinity of St. John's, which are commonly used to water\n\"stock.\" There are one or more on every estate, for the same purpose.\nThe poor people were obliged to use the water from these ponds both for\ndrinking and cooking while we were in Antigua. In taking our morning\nwalks, we uniformly met the negroes either going to, or returning from\nthe ponds, with their large pails balanced on their heads, happy\napparently in being able to get even such foul water.\n\nAttended the anniversary of the \"Friendly Society,\" connected with the\nchurch in St. John's. Many of the most respectable citizens, including\nthe Governor, were present. After the services in the church, the\nsociety moved in procession to the Rectory school-room. We counted one\nhundred males and two hundred and sixty females in the procession.\nHaving been kindly invited by the Rector to attend at the school-room,\nwe followed the procession. We found the house crowded with women, many\nothers, besides those in the procession, having convened. The men were\nseated without under a canvass, extended along one side of the house.\nThe whole number present was supposed to be nine hundred. Short\naddresses were made by the Rector, the Archdeacon, and the Governor.\n\nThe Seventh Annual Report of the Society, drawn up by the secretary, a\ncolored man, was read. It was creditable to the author. The Rector in\nhis address affectionally warned the society, especially the female\nmembers, against extravagance in dress.\n\nThe Archdeacon exhorted them to domestic and conjugal faithfulness. He\nalluded to the prevalence of inconstancy during past years, and to the\ngreat improvement in this particular lately; and concluded by wishing\nthem all \"a happy new-year and _many_ of them, and a blessed immortality\nin the end.\" For this kind wish they returned a loud and general\n\"thankee, massa.\"\n\nThe Governor then said, that he rose merely to remark, that this society\nmight aid in the emancipation of millions of slaves, now in bondage in\nother countries. A people who are capable of forming such societies as\nthis among themselves, deserve to be free, and ought no longer to be\nheld in bondage. You, said he, are showing to the world what the negro\nrace are capable of doing. The Governor's remarks were received with\napplause. After the addresses the audience were served with\nrefreshments, previous to which the Rector read the following lines,\nwhich were sung to the tune of Old Hundred, the whole congregation\nstanding.\n\n   \"Lord at our table now appear\n     And bless us here, as every where;\n   Let manna to our souls be given,\n     The bread of life sent down from heaven.\"\n\nThe simple refreshment was then handed round. It consisted merely of\nbuns and lemonade. The Governor and the Rector, each drank to the health\nand happiness of the members. The loud response came up from all within\nand all around the house--\"thankee--thankee--thankee--massa--thankee\n_good_ massa.\" A scene of animation ensued. The whole concourse of\nblack, colored and white, from the humblest to the highest, from the\nunlettered apprentice to the Archdeacon and the Governor of the island,\njoined in a common festivity.\n\nAfter the repast was concluded, thanks were returned in the following\nverse, also sung to Old Hundred.\n\n   \"We thank thee, Lord, for this our food,\n     But bless thee more for Jesus' blood;\n   Let manna to our souls be given,\n     The bread of life sent down from heaven.\"\n\nThe benediction was pronounced, and the assembly retired.\n\nThere was an aged negro man present, who was noticed with marked\nattention by the Archdeacon, the Rector and other clergymen. He is\nsometimes called the African Bishop. He was evidently used to\nfamiliarity with the clergy, and laid his hand on their shoulders as he\nspoke to them. The old patriarch was highly delighted with the scene. He\nsaid, when he was young he \"never saw nothing, but sin and Satan. _Now I\njust begin to live_.\"\n\nOn the same occasion the Governor remarked to us that the first thing to\nbe done in our country, toward the removal of slavery, was to discard\nthe absurd notion that _color_ made any difference, intellectually or\nmorally, among men. \"All distinctions,\" said he, \"founded in color, must\nbe abolished everywhere. We should learn to talk of men not as _colored_\nmen, but as MEN _as fellow citizens and fellow subjects_.\" His\nExcellency certainly showed on this occasion a disposition to put in\npractice his doctrine. He spoke affectionately to the children, and\nconversed freely with the adults.\n\nVISIT TO GREEN CASTLE.\n\nAccording to a previous engagement, a member of the assembly called and\ntook us in his carriage to Green Castle estate.\n\nGreen Castle lies about three miles south-east from St. John's, and\ncontains 940 acres. The mansion stands on a rocky cliff; overlooking the\nestate, and commanding a wide view of the island. In one direction\nspreads a valley, interspersed with fields of sugar-cane and provisions.\nIn another stretches a range of hills, with their sides clad in culture,\nand their tops covered with clouds. At the base of the rock are the\nsugar Houses. On a neighboring upland lies the negro village, in the\nrear of which are the provision grounds. Samuel Bernard, Esq., the\nmanager, received us kindly. He said, he had been on the island\nforty-four years, most of the time engaged in the management of estates.\nHe is now the manager of two estates, and the attorney for six, and has\nlately purchased an estate himself. Mr. B. is now an aged man, grown old\nin the practice of slave holding. He has survived the wreck of slavery,\nand now stripped of a tyrant's power, he still lives among the people,\nwho were lately his slaves, and manages an estate which was once his\nempire. The testimony of such a man is invaluable. Hear him.\n\n1. Mr. B. said, that the negroes throughout the island were very\npeaceable when they received their freedom.\n\n2. He said he had found no difficulty in getting his people to work\nafter they had received their freedom. Some estates had suffered for a\nshort time; there was a pretty general fluctuation for a month or two,\nthe people leaving one estate and going to another. But this, said Mr.\nB., was chargeable to the _folly_ of the planters, who _overbid_ each\nother in order to secure the best hands and enough of them. The negroes\nhad a _strong attachment to their homes_, and they would rarely abandon\nthem unless harshly treated.\n\n3. He thought that the assembly acted very wisely in rejecting the\napprenticeship. He considered it absurd. It took the chains partly from\noff the slave, and fastened them on the master, _and enslaved them\nboth_. It withdrew from the latter the power of compelling labor, and it\nsupplied to the former no incentive to industry.\n\nHe was opposed to the measures which many had adopted for further\nsecuring the benefits of emancipation.--He referred particularly to the\nsystem of education which now prevailed. He thought that the education\nof the emancipated negroes should combine industry with study even in\nchildhood, so as not to disqualify the taught for cultivating the\nground. It will be readily seen that this prejudice against education,\nevidently the remains of his attachment to slavery, gives additional\nweight to his testimony.\n\nThe Mansion on the Rock (which from its elevated and almost inaccessible\nposition, and from the rich shrubbery in perpetual foliage surrounding\nit, very fitly takes the name of Green Castle) is memorable as the scene\nof the murder of the present proprietor's grandfather. He refused to\ngive his slaves holiday on a particular occasion. They came several\ntimes in a body and asked for the holiday, but he obstinately refused to\ngrant it. They rushed into his bedroom, fell upon him with their hoes,\nand killed him.\n\nOn our return to St. John's, we received a polite note from a colored\nlady, inviting us to attend the anniversary of the \"Juvenile\nAssociation,\" at eleven o'clock. We found about forty children\nassembled, the greater part of them colored girls, but some were white.\nThe ages of these juvenile philanthropists varied from four to fourteen.\nAfter singing and prayer, the object of the association was stated,\nwhich was to raise money by sewing, soliciting contributions, and\notherwise, for charitable purposes.\n\nFrom the annual report it appeared that this was the _twenty-first\nanniversary_ of the society. The treasurer reported nearly \u00a360 currency\n(or about $150) received and disbursed during the year. More than one\nhundred dollars had been given towards the erection of the new Wesleyan\nchapel in St. John's. Several resolutions were presented by little\nmisses, expressive of gratitude to God for continued blessings, which\nwere adopted unanimously--every child holding up its right hand in token\nof assent.\n\nAfter the resolutions and other business were despatched, the children\nlistened to several addresses from the gentlemen present. The last\nspeaker was a member of the assembly. He said that his presence there\nwas quite accidental; but that he had been amply repaid for coming by\nwitnessing the goodly work to which this juvenile society was engaged.\nAs there was a male branch association about to be organized, he begged\nthe privilege of enrolling his name as an honorary member, and promised\nto be a constant contributor to its funds. He concluded by saying, that\nthough he had not before enjoyed the happiness of attending their\nanniversaries, he should never again fail to be present (with the\npermission of their worthy patroness) at the future meetings of this\nmost interesting society. We give the substance of this address, as one\nof the signs of the times. The speaker was a wealthy merchant of\nSt. John's.\n\nThis society was organized in 1815. The _first proposal_ came from a few\n_little colored girls_, who, after hearing a sermon on the blessedness\nof doing good, wanted to know whether they might not have a society for\nraising money to give to the poor.\n\nThis Juvenile Association has, since its organization, raised the sum of\n_fourteen hundred dollars_! Even this little association has experienced\na great impulse from the free system. From a table of the annual\nreceipts since 1815, we found that the amount raised the two last years,\nis nearly equal to that received during any three years before.\n\nDR. DANIELL--WEATHERILL ESTATE.\n\nOn our return from Thibou Jarvis's estate, we called at Weatherill's;\nbut the manager, Dr. Daniell, not being at home, we left our names, with\nan intimation of the object of our visit. Dr. D. called soon after at\nour lodgings. As authority, he is unquestionable. Before retiring from\nthe practice of medicine, he stood at the head of his profession in the\nisland. He is now a member of the council, is proprietor of an estate,\nmanager of another, and attorney for six.\n\nThe fact that such men as Dr. D., but yesterday large slaveholders, and\nstill holding high civil and political stations, should most cheerfully\nfacilitate our anti-slavery investigations, manifesting a solicitude to\nfurnish us with all the information in their power, is of itself the\nhighest eulogy of the new system. The testimony of Dr. D. will be found\nmainly in a subsequent part of the work. We state, in passing, a few\nincidentals. He was satisfied that immediate emancipation was better\npolicy than a temporary apprenticeship. The apprenticeship was a middle\nstate--kept the negroes in suspense--vexed and harrassed them--_fed them\non a starved hope_; and therefore they would not be so likely, when they\nultimately obtained freedom, to feel grateful, and conduct themselves\nproperly. The reflection that they had been cheated out of their liberty\nfor six years would _sour their minds_. The planters in Antigua, by\ngiving immediate freedom, had secured the attachment of their people.\n\nThe Doctor said he did not expect to make more than two thirds of his\naverage crop; but he assured us that this was owing solely to the want\nof rain. There had been no deficiency of labor. The crops were _in_, in\nseason, throughout the island, and the estates were never under better\ncultivation than at the present time. Nothing was wanting but\nRAIN--RAIN.\n\nHe said that the West India planters were very anxious to _retain_ the\nservices of the negro population.\n\nDr. D. made some inquiries as to the extent of slavery in the United\nStates, and what was doing for its abolition. He thought that\nemancipation in our country would not be the result of a slow process.\nThe anti-slavery feeling of the civilized world had become too strong to\nwait for a long course of \"preparations\" and \"ameliorations.\" And\nbesides, continued he, \"the arbitrary control of a master can never be a\npreparation for freedom;--_sound and wholesome legal restraints are the\nonly preparative_.\"\n\nThe Doctor also spoke of the absurdity and wickedness of the caste of\ncolor which prevailed in the United States. It was the offspring of\nslavery, and it must disappear when slavery is abolished.\n\nCONVERSATION WITH A NEGRO.\n\nWe had a conversation one morning with a boatman, while he was rowing us\nacross the harbor of St. John's. He was a young negro man. Said he was a\nslave until emancipation. We inquired whether he heard any thing about\nemancipation before it took place. He said, yes--the slaves heard of it,\nbut it was talked about so long that many of them lost all _believement_\nin it, got tired waiting, and bought their freedom; but he had more\npatience, and got his for nothing. We inquired of him, what the negroes\ndid on the first of August, 1834. He said they all went to church and\nchapel. \"Dare was more _religious_ on dat day dan you could tire of.\"\nSpeaking of the _law_, he said it was his _friend_. If there was no law\nto take his part, a man, who was stronger than he, might step up and\nknock him down. But now no one dare do so; all were afraid of the\n_law_,--the law would never hurt any body who behaved well; but a master\nwould _slash a fellow, let him do his best_.\n\nVISIT TO NEWFIELD.\n\nDrove out to Newfield, a Moravian station, about eight miles from St.\nJohn's. The Rev. Mr. Morrish, the missionary at that station, has under\nhis charge two thousand people. Connected with the station is a day\nschool for children, and a night school for adults twice in each week.\n\nWe looked in upon the day school, and found one hundred and fifteen\nchildren. The teacher and assistant were colored persons. Mr. M.\nsuperintends. He was just dismissing the school, by singing and prayer,\nand the children marched out to the music of one of their little songs.\nDuring the afternoon, Mr. Favey, manager of a neighboring estate,\n(Lavicount's,) called on us.\n\nHe spoke of the tranquillity of the late Christmas holidays. They ended\nTuesday evening, and his people were all in the field at work on\nWednesday morning--there were no stragglers. Being asked to specify the\nchief advantages of the new system over slavery, he stated at once the\nfollowing things: 1st. It (free labor) is less _expensive_. 2d. It costs\na planter far less _trouble_ to manage free laborers, than it did to\nmanage slaves. 3d. It had _removed all danger of insurrection,\nconflagration, and conspiracies_.\n\nADULT SCHOOL.\n\nIn the evening, Mr. Morrish's adult school for women was held. About\nthirty women assembled from different estates--some walking several\nmiles. Most of them were just beginning to read. They had just begun to\nlearn something about figures, and it was no small effort to add 4 and 2\ntogether. They were incredibly ignorant about the simplest matters. When\nthey first came to the school, they could not tell which was their right\narm or their right side, and they had scarcely mastered that secret,\nafter repeated showing. We were astonished to observe that when Mr. M.\nasked them to point to their cheeks, they laid their finger upon their\nchins. They were much pleased with the evolutions of a dumb clock, which\nMr. M. exhibited, but none of them could tell the time of day by it.\nSuch is a specimen of the intelligence of the Antigua negroes. Mr. M.\ntold us that they were a pretty fair sample of the country negroes\ngenerally. It surely cannot be said that they were uncommonly well\nprepared for freedom; yet with all their ignorance, and with the merest\ninfantile state of intellect, they prove the peaceable subjects of law.\nThat they have a great desire to learn, is manifest from their coming\nsuch distances, after working in the field all day. The school which\nthey attend has been established since the abolition of slavery.\n\nThe next morning, we visited the day school. It was opened with singing\nand prayer. The children knelt and repeated the Lord's Prayer after Mr.\nM. They then formed into a line and marched around the room, singing and\nkeeping the step. A tiny little one, just beginning to walk,\noccasionally straggled out of the line. The next child, not a little\ndispleased with such disorderly movements, repeatedly seized the\nstraggler by the frock, and pulled her into the ranks; but finally\ndespaired of reducing her to subordination. When the children had taken\ntheir seats, Mr. M., at our request, asked all those who were free\nbefore August, 1834, to rise. Only one girl arose, and she was in no way\ndistinguishable from a white child. The first exercise, was an\nexamination of a passage of scripture. The children were then questioned\non the simple rules of addition and subtraction, and their answers were\nprompt and accurate.\n\nDR. NUGENT.\n\nThe hour having arrived when we were to visit a neighboring estate, Mr.\nM. kindly accompanied us to Lyon's, the estate upon which Dr. Nugent\nresides. In respect to general intelligence, scientific acquirements,\nand agricultural knowledge, no man in Antigua stands higher than Dr.\nNugent. He has long been speaker of the house of assembly, and is\nfavorably known in Europe as a geologist and man of science. He is\nmanager of the estate on which he resides, and proprietor of another.\n\nThe Doctor informed us that the crop on his estate had almost totally\nfailed, on account of the drought--being reduced from one hundred and\nfifty hogsheads, the average crop, to _fifteen_! His provision grounds\nhad yielded almost nothing. The same soil which ordinarily produced ten\ncart-loads of yams to the acre--the present season barely averaged _one\nload to ten acres_! Yams were reduced from the dimensions of a man's\nhead, to the size of a radish. The _cattle were dying_ from want of\nwater and grass. He had himself lost _five oxen_ within the past week.\n\nPrevious to emancipation, said the Doctor, no man in the island dared to\navow anti-slavery sentiments, if he wished to maintain a respectable\nstanding. Planters might have their hopes and aspirations; but they\ncould not make them public without incurring general odium, and being\ndenounced as the enemies of their country.\n\nIn allusion to the motives which prompted the legislature to reject the\napprenticeship and adopt immediate emancipation, Dr. N. said, \"When we\nsaw that abolition was _inevitable_, we began, to inquire what would be\nthe safest course for getting rid of slavery. _We wished to let\nourselves down in the easiest manner possible_--THEREFORE WE CHOSE\nIMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION!\" These were his words.\n\nOn returning to the hospitable mansion of Mr. Morrish, we had an\nopportunity of witnessing a custom peculiar to the Moravians. It is\ncalled 'speaking.' All the members of the church are required to call on\nthe missionary once a month, and particular days are appropriated to it.\nThey come singly or in small companies, and the minister converses with\neach individual.\n\nMr. M. manifested great faithfulness in this duty. He was affectionate\nin manner--entered into all the minutiae of individual and family\naffairs, and advised with them as a father with his children. We had an\nopportunity of conversing with some of those who came. We asked one old\nman what he did on the \"First of August?\"[A] His reply was, \"Massa, we\nwent to church, and tank de Lord for make a we all free.\"\n\n[Footnote A: By this phrase the freed people always understand the 1st\nof August, 1834, when slavery was abolished.]\n\nAn aged infirm woman said to us, among other things, \"Since de _free_\ncome de massa give me no--no, nothing to eat--gets all from my\ncousins.\" We next conversed with two men, who were masons on an estate.\nBeing asked how they liked liberty, they replied, \"O, it very\ncomfortable, Sir--very comfortable indeed.\" They said, \"that on the day\nwhen freedom came, they were as happy, as though they had just been\ngoing to heaven.\" They said, now they had got free, they never would be\nslaves again. They were asked if they would not be willing to sell\nthemselves to a man who would treat them well. They replied immediately\nthat they would be very willing to _serve_ such a man, but they would\nnot _sell themselves_ to the best person in the world! What fine\nlogicians a slave's experience had made these men! Without any effort\nthey struck out a distinction, which has puzzled learned men in church\nand state, the difference between _serving_ a man and _being his\nproperty_.\n\nBeing asked how they conducted themselves on the 1st of August they said\nthey had no frolicking, but they all went to church to \"_tank God for\nmake a we free_.\" They said, they were very desirous to have their\nchildren learn all they could while they were young. We asked them if\nthey did not fear that their children would become lazy if they went to\nschool all the time. One said, shrewdly, \"Eh! nebber mind--dey _come to_\nby'm by--_belly 'blige 'em_ to work.\"\n\nIn the evening Mr. M. held a religious meeting in the chapel; the weekly\nmeeting for exhortation. He stated to the people the object of our\nvisit, and requested one of us to say a few words. Accordingly, a short\ntime was occupied in stating the number of slaves in America, and in\nexplaining their condition, physical, moral, and spiritual; and the\ncongregation were urged to pray for the deliverance of the millions of\nour bondmen. They manifested much sympathy, and promised repeatedly to\npray that they might be \"free like we.\" At the close of the meeting they\npressed around us to say \"howdy, massa;\" and when we left the chapel,\nthey showered a thousand blessings upon us. Several of them, men and\nwomen, gathered about Mr. M.'s door after we went in, and wished to talk\nwith us. The men were mechanics, foremen, and watchmen; the women were\nnurses. During our interview, which lasted nearly an hour, these persons\nremained standing.\n\nWhen we asked them how they liked freedom, and whether it was better\nthan slavery, they answered with a significant _umph_ and a shrug of the\nshoulders, as though they would say, \"Why you ask dat question, massa?\"\n\nThey said, \"all the people went to chapel on the first of August, to\ntank God for make such poor undeserving sinners as we free; we no nebber\nexpect to hab it. But it please de Lord to gib we free, and we tank him\ngood Lord for it.\"\n\nWe asked them if they thought the wages they got (a shilling per day, or\nabout eleven cents,) was enough for them. They said it seemed to be very\nsmall, and it was as much as they could do to get along with it; but\nthey could not get any more, and they had to be \"satify and conten.\"\n\nAs it grew late and the good people had far to walk, we shook hands with\nthem, and bade them good bye, telling them we hoped to meet them again\nin a world where all would be free. The next morning Mr. M. accompanied\nus to the residence of the Rev. Mr. Jones, the rector of St. Phillip's.\n\nMr. J. informed us that the planters in that part of the island were\ngratified with the working of the new system. He alluded to the\nprejudices of some against having the children educated, lest it should\nfoster indolence. But, said Mr. J., the planters have always been\nopposed to improvements, until they were effected, and their good\nresults began to be manifest. They first insisted that the abolition of\nthe slave-trade would ruin the colonies--next the _abolition of slavery_\nwas to be the certain destruction of the islands--and now the education\nof children is deprecated as fraught with disastrous consequences.\n\nFREY'S ESTATE--MR. HATLEY.\n\nMr. Morrish accompanied us to a neighboring estate called Frey's, which\nlies on the road from Newfield to English Harbor. Mr. Hatley, the\nmanager, showed an enthusiastic admiration of the new system. Most of\nhis testimony will be found in Chapter III. He said, that owing to the\ndry weather he should not make one third of his average crop. Yet his\npeople had acted their part well. He had been encouraged by their\nimproved industry and efficiency, to bring into cultivation lands that\nhad never before been tilled.\n\nIt was delightful to witness the change which had been wrought in this\nplanter by the abolition of slavery. Although accustomed for years to\ncommand a hundred human beings with absolute authority, he could rejoice\nin the fact that his power was wrested from him, and when asked to\nspecify the advantages of freedom over slavery, he named emphatically\nand above all others _the abolition of flogging_. Formerly, he said, it\nwas \"_whip--whip--whip--incessantly_, but now we are relieved from this\ndisagreeable task.\"\n\nTHE AMERICAN CONSUL\n\nWe called on the American Consul, Mr. Higginbotham, at his country\nresidence, about four miles from St. John's. Shortly after we reached\nhis elevated and picturesque seat, we were joined by Mr. Cranstoun, a\nplanter, who had been invited to dine with us. Mr. C. is a _colored\ngentleman_. The Consul received him in such a manner as plainly showed\nthat they were on terms of intimacy. Mr. C. is a gentleman of\nintelligence and respectability, and occupies a station of trust and\nhonor in the island. On taking leave of us, he politely requested our\ncompany at breakfast on a following morning, saying, he would send his\ngig for us.\n\nAt the urgent request of Mr. Bourne, of Miller's, we consented to\naddress the people of his estate, on Sabbath evening. He sent in his gig\nfor us in the afternoon, and we drove out.\n\nAt the appointed hour we went to the place of meeting. The chapel was\ncrowded with attentive listeners. Whenever allusions were made to the\ngrout blessings which God had conferred upon them in delivering them\nfrom bondage, the audience heartily responded in their rough but earnest\nway to the sentiments expressed. At the conclusion of the meeting, they\ngradually withdrew, bowing or courtesying as they passed us, and\ndropping upon our ear their gentle \"good bye, massa.\" During slavery\nevery estate had its _dungeon_ for refractory slaves. Just as we were\nleaving Miller's, me asked Mr. B. what had become of these dungeons. He\ninstantly replied, \"I'll show you one,\" In a few moments we stood at the\ndoor of the old prison, a small stone building, strongly built, with two\ncells. It was a dismal looking den, surrounded by stables, pig-styes,\nand cattlepens. The door was off its hinges, and the entrance partly\nfilled up with mason work. The sheep and goats went in and out\nat pleasure.\n\nWe breakfasted one morning at the Villa estate, which lies within half a\nmile of St. John's. The manager was less sanguine in his views of\nemancipation than the planters generally. We were disposed to think\nthat, were it not for the force of public sentiment, he might declare\nhimself against it. His feelings are easily accounted for. The estate is\nsituated so near the town; that his people are assailed by a variety of\ntemptations to leave their work; from which those on other estates are\nexempt. The manager admitted that the danger of insurrection was\nremoved--crime was lessened--and the moral condition of society was\nrapidly improving.\n\nA few days after, we went by invitation to a bazaar, or fair, which was\nheld in the court-house in St. John's. The avails were to be\nappropriated to the building of a new Wesleyan chapel in the town. The\ncouncil chamber and the assembly's call were given for the purpose. The\nformer spacious room was crowded with people of every class and\ncomplexion. The fair was got up by the _colored_ members of the Wesleyan\nchurch; nevertheless, some of the first ladies and gentlemen in town\nattended it, and mingled promiscuously in the throng. Wealthy\nproprietors, lawyers legislators, military officers in their uniform,\nmerchants, etc. swelled the crowd. We recognised a number of ladies whom\nwe had previously met at a fashionable dinner in St. John's. Colored\nladies presided at the tables, and before them was spread a profusion of\nrich fancy articles. Among a small number of books exhibited for sale\nwere several copies of a work entitled \"COMMEMORATIVE WREATH,\" being a\ncollection of poetical pieces relating to the abolition of slavery in\nthe West Indies.\n\nVISIT TO MR. CRANSTOUN'S.\n\nOn the following morning Mr. C.'s gig came for us, and we drove out to\nhis residence. We were met at the door by the American Consul, who\nbreakfasted with us. When he had taken leave, Mr. C. proposed that we\nshould go over his grounds. To reach the estate, which lies in a\nbeautiful valley far below Mr. C.'s mountainous residence, we were\nobliged to go on foot by a narrow path that wound along the sides of the\nprecipitous hills. This estate is the property of Mr. Athill, a colored\ngentleman now residing in England. Mr. A. is post-master general of\nAntigua, one of the first merchants in St. John's, and was a member of\nthe assembly until the close of 1836, when, on account of his continued\nabsence, he resigned his seat. A high-born white man, the Attorney\nGeneral, now occupies the same chair which this colored member vacated.\nMr. C. was formerly attorney for several estates, is now agent for a\nnumber of them, and also a magistrate.\n\nHe remarked, that since emancipation the nocturnal disorders and\nquarrels in the negro villages, which were incessant during slavery, had\nnearly ceased. The people were ready and willing to work. He had\nfrequently given his gang jobs, instead of paying them by the day. This\nhad proved a gear stimulant to industry, and the work of the estate was\nperformed so much quicker by this plan that it was less expensive than\ndaily wages. When they had jobs given them, they would sometimes go to\nwork by three o'clock in the morning, and work by moonlight. When the\nmoon was not shining, he had known them to kindle fires among the trash\nor dry cane leaves to work by. They would then continue working all day\nuntil four o clock, stopping only for breakfast, and dispensing with the\nusual intermission from twelve to two.\n\nWe requested him to state briefly what were in his estimation the\nadvantages of the free system over slavery. He replied thus: 1st. The\ndiminished expense of free labor. 2d. _The absence of coercion_. 3d. The\ngreater facility in managing an estate. Managers had not half the\nperplexity and trouble in watching, driving, &c. They could leave the\naffairs of the estate in the hands of the people with safety. 4th. _The\nfreedom from danger_. They had now put away all fears of insurrections,\nrobbery, and incendiarism.\n\nThere are two reflections which the perusal of these items will probably\nsuggest to most minds: 1st. The coincidence in the replies of different\nplanters to the question--What are the advantages of freedom over\nslavery? These replies are almost identically the same in every case,\nthough given by men who reside in different parts of the island, and\nhave little communication with each other. 2d. They all speak\nexclusively of the advantages to the _master_, and say nothing of the\nbenefit accruing to the emancipated. We are at some loss to decide\nwhether this arose from indifference to the interests of the\nemancipated, or from a conviction that the blessings of freedom to them\nwere self-evident and needed no specification.\n\nWhile we were in the boiling-house we witnessed a scene which\nillustrated one of the benefits of freedom to the slave; it came quite\nopportunely, and supplied the deficiency in the manager's enumeration of\nadvantages. The head boiler was performing the work of 'striking off;'\ni.e. of removing the liquor, after it had been sufficiently boiled, from\nthe copper to the coolers. The liquor had been taken out of the boiler\nby the skipper, and thence was being conducted to the coolers by a long\nopen spout. By some means the spout became choaked, and the liquor began\nto run over. Mr. C. ordered the man to let down the valve, but he became\nconfused, and instead of letting go the string which lifted the valve,\nhe pulled on it the more. The consequence was that the liquor poured\nover the sides of the spout in a torrent. The manager screamed at the\ntop of his voice--\"_let down the valve, let it down_!\" But the poor man,\nmore and more frightened, hoisted it still higher,--and the precious\nliquid--pure sugar--spread in a thick sheet over the earthen floor. The\nmanager at last sprang forward, thrust aside the man, and stopped the\nmischief, but not until many gallons of sugar were lost. Such an\naccident as this, occurring during slavery, would have cost the negro a\nsevere flogging. As it was, however, in the present case, although Mr.\nC. 'looked daggers,' and exclaimed by the workings of his countenance,\n'a kingdom for a _cat_,'[A] yet the severest thing which he could say\nwas, \"You bungling fellow--if you can't manage better than this, I shall\nput some other person in your place--that's all.\" '_That_'s ALL' indeed,\nbut it would not have been all, three years ago. The negro replied to\nhis chidings in a humble way, saying 'I couldn't help it, sir, I\ncouldn't help it' Mr. C. finally turned to us, and said in a calmer\ntone, \"The poor fellow got confused, and was frightened half to death.\"\n\n[Footnote A: A species of whip, well know in the West Indies.]\n\nVISIT TO GRACE BAY.\n\nWe made a visit to the Moravian settlement at Grace Bay, which is on the\nopposite side of the island. We called, in passing, at Cedar Hall, a\nMoravian establishment four miles from town. Mr. Newby, one of the\nmissionaries stationed at this place, is the oldest preacher of the\nGospel in the island. He has been in Antigua for twenty-seven years. He\nis quite of the _old way of thinking_ on all subjects, especially the\ndivine right of kings, and the scriptural sanction of slavery.\nNevertheless, he was persuaded that emancipation had been a great\nblessing to the island and to all parties concerned. When he first came\nto Antigua in 1809, he was not suffered to teach the slaves. After some\ntime he ventured to keep an evening school _in a secret way_. Now there\nis a day school of one hundred and twenty children connected with the\nstation. It has been formed since emancipation.\n\nFrom Cedar Hail we proceeded to Grace Bay. On the way we met some negro\nmen at work on the road, and stopped our chaise to chat with them. They\ntold us that they lived on Harvey's estate, which they pointed out to\nus. Before emancipation that estate had four hundred slaves on it, but a\ngreat number had since left because of ill usage during slavery. They\nwould not live on the estate, because the same manager remained, and\nthey could not trust him.\n\nThey told us they were Moravians, and that on the first of August they\nall went to the Moravian chapel at Grace Bay, 'to tank and praise de\ngood Savior for make a we free.' We asked them if they still liked\nliberty; they said, \"Yes, massa, we all quite _proud_ to be free.\" The\nnegroes use the word _proud_ to express a strong feeling of delight. One\nman said, \"One morning as I was walking along the road all alone, I\nprayed that the Savior would make me free, for then I could be so happy.\nI don't know what made me pray so, for I wasn't looking for de free; but\nplease massa, _in one month de free come_.\"\n\nThey declared that they worked a great deal better since emancipation,\nbecause they were _paid for it_. To be sure, said they, we get very\nlittle wages, but it is better than none. They repeated it again and\nagain, that men could not be made to work well by _flogging_ them, \"_it\nwas no use to try it_.\"\n\nWe asked one of the men, whether he would not be willing to be a slave\nagain provided he was _sure_ of having a kind master. \"Heigh! me massa,\"\nsaid he, \"me neber slave no more. A good massa a very good ting, _but\nfreedom till better_.\" They said that it was a great blessing to them to\nhave their children go to school. After getting them to show us the way\nto Grace Bay, we bade them good bye.\n\nWe were welcomed at Grace Bay by the missionary, and his wife, Mr. and\nMrs. M\u00f6hne.[B] The place where these missionaries reside is a beautiful\nspot. Their dwelling-house and the chapel are situated on a high\npromontory, almost surrounded by the sea. A range of tall hills in the\nrear cuts off the view of the island, giving to the missionary station\nan air of loneliness and seclusion truly impressive. In this sequestered\nspot, the found Mr. and Mrs. M. living alone. They informed us that they\nrarely have white visiters, but their house is the constant resort of\nthe negroes, who gather there after the toil of the day to 'speak' about\ntheir souls. Mr. and Mrs. M. are wholly engrossed in their labors of\nlove. They find their happiness in leading their numerous flock \"by the\nstill waters and the green pastures\" of salvation. Occupied in this\ndelightful work, they covet not other employments, nor other company,\nand desire no other earthly abode than their own little hill-embosomed,\nsea-girt missionary home.\n\n[Footnote B: Pronounced Maynuh.]\n\nThere are a thousand people belonging to the church at this station,\neach of whom, the missionaries see once every month. A day school has\nbeen lately established, and one hundred children are already in\nattendance. After dinner we walked out accompanied by the missionaries\nto enjoy the beautiful sunset. It is one of the few _harmless_ luxuries\nof a West India climate, to go forth after the heat of the day is spent\nand the sun is sinking in the sea, and enjoy the refreshing coolness of\nthe air. The ocean stretched before us, motionless after the turmoil of\nthe day, like a child which has rocked itself asleep, yet indicating by\nits mighty breathings as it heaved along the beach, that it only\nslumbered. As the sun went down, the full moon arose, only less\nluminous, and gradually the stars began to light up their beaming fires.\nThe work of the day now being over, the weary laborers were seen coming\nfrom different directions to have a 'speak' with the missionaries. Mr.\nM. stated a fact illustrative of the influence of the missionaries over\nthe negroes. Some time ago, the laborers on a certain estate became\ndissatisfied with the wages they were receiving, and refused to work\nunless they were increased. The manager tried in vain to reconcile his\npeople to the grievance of which they complained, and then sent to Mr.\nM., requesting him to visit the estate, and use his influence to\npersuade the negroes, most of whom belonged to his church, to work at\nthe usual terms. Mr. M. sent word to the manager that it was not his\nprovince, as minister, to interfere with the affairs of any estate; but\nhe would talk with the people about it individually, when they came to\n'speak.' Accordingly he spoke to each one, as he came, in a kind manner,\nadvising him to return to his work, and live as formerly. In a short\ntime peace and confidence were restored, and the whole gang to a man\nwere in the field.\n\nMr. and Mrs. M. stated that notwithstanding the very low rate of wages,\nwhich was scarcely sufficient to support life, they had never seen a\nsingle individual who desired to return to the condition of a slave.\nEven the old and infirm, who were sometimes really in a suffering state\nfrom neglect of the planters and from inability of their relatives\nadequately to provide for them, expressed the liveliest gratitude for\nthe great blessing which the Savior had given them. They would often say\nto Mrs. M. \"Why, Missus, old sinner just sinkin in de grave, but God let\nme old eyes see dis blessed sun.\"\n\nThe missionaries affirmed that the negroes were an affectionate\npeople--remarkably so. Any kindness shown them by a white person, was\ntreasured up and never forgotten. On the other hand, the slightest\nneglect or contempt from a white person, was keenly felt. They are very\nfond of saying '_howdy_' to white people; but if the salutation is not\nreturned, or noticed kindly, they are not likely to repeat it to the\nsame individual. To shake hands with a white person is a gratification\nwhich they highly prize. Mrs. M. pleasantly remarked, that after service\non Sabbath, she was usually wearied out with saying _howdy_, and\n_shaking hands_.\n\nDuring the evening we had some conversation with two men who came to\n'speak.' They spoke about the blessings of liberty, and their gratitude\nto God for making them free. They spoke also, with deep feeling, of the\nstill greater importance of being free from _sin_. That, they said, was\nbetter. _Heaven was the first best, and freedom was the next best_.\n\nThey gave us some account, in the course of the evening, of an aged\nsaint called Grandfather Jacob, who lived on a neighboring estate. He\nhad been a _helper_[A] in the Moravian church, until he became too\ninfirm to discharge the duties connected with that station. Being for\nthe same reason discharged from labor on the estate, he now occupied\nhimself in giving religious instruction to the other superannuated\npeople on the estate.\n\n[Footnote A: An office somewhat similar to that of deacon]\n\nMrs. M. said it would constitute an era in the life of the old man, if\nhe could have an interview with two strangers from a distant land;\naccordingly, she sent a servant to ask him to come to the mission-house\nearly the next morning. The old man was prompt to obey the call. He left\nhome, as he said, 'before the gun fire'--about five o'clock--and came\nnearly three miles on foot. He was of a slender form, and had been tall,\nbut age and slavery had bowed him down. He shook us by the hand very\nwarmly, exclaiming, \"God bless you, God bless you--me bery glad to see\nyou.\" He immediately commenced giving us an account of his conversion.\nSaid he, putting his hand on his breast, \"You see old Jacob? de old\n_sinner_ use to go on _drinkin', swearin', dancin', fightin'!_ No God--\nno Savior--no soul! _When old England and de Merica fall out de first\ntime_, old Jacob was a man--a wicked sinner!--drink rum, fight--love to\nfight! Carry coffin to de grabe on me head; put dead body under\nground--dance over it--den fight and knock man down--go 'way, drink rum,\nden take de fiddle. And so me went on, just so, till me get sick and\ngoing to die--thought when me die, dat be de end of me;--_den de Savior\ncome to me!_ Jacob love de Savior, and been followin' de good Savior\never since.\" He continued his story, describing the opposition he had to\ncontend with, and the sacrifices he made to go to church. After working\non the estate till six o'clock at night, he and several others would\neach take a large stone on his head and start for St. John's; nine miles\nover the hills. They carried the stones to aid is building the Moravian\nchapel at Spring Garden, St. John's. After he had finished this account,\nhe read to us, in a highly animated style, some of the hymns which he\ntaught to the old people, and then sung one of them. These exercises\ncaused the old man's heart to burn within him, and again he ran over his\npast life, his early wickedness, and the grace that snatched him from\nruin, while the mingled tides of gratitude burst forth from heart, and\neyes, and tongue.\n\nWhen we turned his attention to the temporal freedom he had received, he\ninstantly caught the word FREE, and exclaimed vehemently, \"O yes, me\nMassa--dat is anoder kind blessin from de Savior! Him make we all\n_free_. Can never praise him too much for dat.\" We inquired whether he\nwas now provided for by the manager. He said he was not--never received\nany thing from him--his _children_ supported him. We then asked him\nwhether it was not better to be a slave if he could get food and\nclothing, than to be free and not have enough. He darted his quick eye\nat us and said 'rader be free _still_.' He had been severely flogged\ntwice since his conversion, for leaving his post as watchman to bury the\ndead. The minister was sick, and he was applied to, in his capacity of\n_helper_, to perform funeral rites, and he left his watch to do it. He\nsaid, his heavenly Master called him, and he _would_ go though he\nexpected a flogging. He must serve his Savior whatever come. \"Can't put\nwe in dungeon _now_,\" said Grandfather Jacob with a triumphant look.\n\nWhen told that there were slaves in America, and that they were not yet\nemancipated, he exclaimed, \"Ah, de Savior make we free, and he will make\ndem free too. He come to Antigo first--he'll be in Merica soon.\"\n\nWhen the time had come for him to leave, he came and pressed our hands,\nand fervently gave us his patriarchal blessing. Our interview with\nGrandfather Jacob can never be forgotten. Our hearts, we trust, will\nlong cherish his heavenly savor--well assured that if allowed a part in\nthe resurrection of the just, we shall behold his tall form, erect in\nthe vigor of immortal youth, amidst the patriarchs of past generations.\n\nAfter breakfast we took leave of the kind-hearted missionaries, whose\nsingular devotedness and delightful spirit won greatly upon our\naffections, and bent our way homeward by another route.\n\nMR. SCOTLAND'S ESTATE.\n\nWe called at the estate of Mr. J. Scotland, Jr., barrister, and member\nof the assembly. We expected to meet with the proprietor, but the\nmanager informed us that pressing business at court had called him to\nSt. John's on the preceding day. The testimony of the manager concerning\nthe dry weather, the consequent failure in the crop, the industry of the\nlaborers, and so forth, was similar to that which we had heard before.\nHe remarked that he had not been able to introduce job-work among his\npeople. It was a new thing with them, and they did not understand it. He\nhad lately made a proposal to give the gang four dollars per acre for\nholding a certain field. They asked a little time to consider upon so\nnovel a proposition. He gave them half a day, and at the end of that\ntime asked them what their conclusion was. One, acting as spokesman for\nthe rest, said, \"We rada hab de shilling wages.\" That was _certain_; the\njob might yield them more, and it might fall short--quite a common sense\ntransaction!\n\nAt the pressing request of Mr. Armstrong we spent a day with him at\nFitch's Creek. Mr. A. received us with the most cordial hospitality,\nremarking that he was glad to have another opportunity to state some\nthings which he regarded as obstacles to the complete success of the\nexperiment in Antigua. One was the entire want of concert among the\nplanters. There was no disposition to meet and compare views respecting\ndifferent modes of agriculture, treatment of laborers, and employment of\nmachinery. Another evil was, allowing people to live on the estates who\ntook no part in the regular labor of cultivation. Some planters had\nadapted the foolish policy of encouraging such persons to remain on the\nestates, in order that they might have help at hand in cases of\nemergency. Mr. A. strongly condemned this policy. It withheld laborers\nfrom the estates which needed them; it was calculated to make the\nregular field hands discontented, and it offered a direct encouragement\nto the negroes to follow irregular modes of living. A third obstacle to\nthe successful operation of free labor, was the absence of the most\ninfluential proprietors. The consequences of absenteeism were very\nserious. The proprietors were of all men the most deeply interested in\nthe soil; and no attorneys, agents, or managers, whom they could employ,\nwould feel an equal interest in it, nor make the same efforts to secure\nthe prosperous workings of the new system.\n\nIn the year 1833, when the abolition excitement was at its height in\nEngland, and the people were thundering at the doors of parliament for\nemancipation, Mr. A. visited that country for his health. To use his own\nexpressive words, he \"got a terrible scraping wherever he went.\" He said\nhe could not travel in a stage-coach, or go into a party, or attend a\nreligious meeting, without being attacked. No one the most remotely\nconnected with the system could have peace there. He said it was\nastonishing to see what a feeling was abroad, how mightily the mind of\nthe whole country, peer and priest and peasant, was wrought up. The\nnational heart seemed on fire.\n\nMr. A. said, he became a religious man whilst the manager of a slave\nestate, and when he became a Christian, he became an abolitionist. Yet\nthis man, while his conscience was accusing him--while he was longing\nand praying for abolition--did not dare open his mouth in public to\nurge it on! How many such men are there in our southern states--men who\nare inwardly cheering on the abolitionist in his devoted work, and yet\nsend up no voice to encourage him, but perhaps are traducing and\ndenouncing him!\n\nWe received a call at our lodgings in St. John's from the Archdeacon. He\nmade interesting statements respecting the improvement of the negroes in\ndress, morals, education and religion, since emancipation. He had\nresided in the island some years previous to the abolition of slavery,\nand spoke from personal observation.\n\nAmong many other gentlemen who honored us with a call about the same\ntime, was the Rev. Edward Fraser, Wesleyan missionary, and a colored\ngentleman. He is a native of Bermuda, and ten years ago was a _slave_.\nHe received a mercantile education, and was for several years the\nconfidential clerk of his master. He was treated with much regard and\ngeneral kindness. He said he was another Joseph--every thing which his\nmaster had was in his hands. The account books and money were all\ncommitted to him. He had servants under him, and did almost as he\npleased--except becoming free. Yet he must say, as respected himself,\nkindly as he was treated, that slavery was a _grievous wrong, most\nunjust and sinful_. The very thought--and it often came over him--that\nhe was a slave, brought with it a terrible sense of degradation. It came\nover the soul like a frost. His sense of degradation grew more intense\nin proportion as his mind became more cultivated. He said, _education\nwas a disagreeable companion for a slave_. But while he said this, Mr.\nF. spoke very respectfully and tenderly of his master. He would not\nwillingly utter a word which would savor of unkindness towards him. Such\nwas the spirit of one whose best days had been spent under the exactions\nof slavery. He was a local preacher in the Wesleyan connection while he\nwas a slave, and was liberated by his master, without remuneration, at\nthe request of the British Conference, who wished to employ him as an\nitinerant. He is highly esteemed both for his natural talents and\ngeneral literary acquisitions and moral worth. The Conference have\nrecently called him to England to act as an agent in that country, to\nprocure funds for educational and religious purposes in these islands.\n\nMEETING OF WESLEYAN MISSIONARIES.\n\nAs we were present at the annual meeting of the Wesleyan missionaries\nfor this district, we gained much information concerning the object of\nour mission, as there were about twenty missionaries, mostly from\nDominica, Montserrat, Nevis, St. Christophers, Anguilla, and Tortola.\n\nNot a few of them were men of superior acquirements, who had sacrificed\nease and popular applause at home, to minister to the outcast and\noppressed. They are the devoted friends of the black man. It was\nsoul-cheering to hear them rejoice over the abolition of slavery. It was\nas though their own limbs had been of a sudden unshackled, and a high\nwall had fallen from around them. Liberty had broken upon them like the\nbursting forth of the sun to the watchman on his midnight tower.\n\nDuring the session, the mission-house was thrown open to us, and we\nfrequently dined with the numerous company of missionaries, who there\nate at a common table. Mrs. F., wife of the colored clergyman mentioned\nabove, presided at the social board. The missionaries and their wives\nassociated with Mr. and Mrs. F. as unreservedly as though they wore the\nmost delicate European tint. The first time we took supper with them, at\none side of a large table, around which were about twenty missionaries\nwith their wives, sat Mrs. F., with the furniture of a tea table before\nher. On the other side, with the coffee urn and its accompaniments, sat\nthe wife of a missionary, with a skin as lily-hued as the fairest\nCaucasian. Nearly opposite to her, between two white preachers, sat a\ncolored missionary. Farther down, with the chairman of the district on\nhis right, sat another colored gentleman, a merchant and local preacher\nin Antigua. Such was the uniform appearance of the table, excepting that\nthe numbers were occasionally swelled by the addition of several other\ncolored gentlemen and ladies. On another occasion, at dinner, we had an\ninteresting conversation, in which the whole company of missionaries\nparticipated. The Rev. M. Banks, of St. Bartholomews, remarked, that one\nof the grossest of all absurdities was that of _preparing men for\nfreedom_. Some, said he, pretend that immediate emancipation is unsafe,\nbut it was evident to him that if men _are peaceable while they are\nslaves_, they might be trusted in any other condition, for they could\nnot possibly be placed in one more aggravating. If _slavery_ is a safe\nsystem, _freedom_ surely will be. There can be no better evidence that a\npeople are prepared for liberty, _than their patient endurance of\nslavery_. He expressed the greatest regret at the conduct of the\nAmerican churches, particularly that of the Methodist church. \"Tell\nthem,\" said he, \"on your return, that the missionaries in these islands\nare cast down and grieved when they think of their brethren in America.\nWe feel persuaded that they are holding back the car of freedom; they\nare holding up the gospel.\" Rev. Mr. Cheesbrough, of St. Christopher's,\nsaid, \"Tell them that much as we desire to visit the United States, we\ncannot go so long as we are prohibited from speaking against slavery, or\nwhile that _abominable prejudice_ is encouraged in the churches. _We\ncould not administer the sacrament to a church in which the distinction\nof colors was maintained._\" \"Tell our brethren of the Wesleyan\nconnection,\" said Mr. B. again, \"that slavery must be abolished by\n_Christians_, and the church ought to take her stand at once against\nit.\" We told him that a large number of Methodists and other Christians\nhad engaged already in the work, and that the number was daily\nincreasing. \"That's right,\" he exclaimed, \"agitate, _agitate_, AGITATE!\n_You must succeed_: the Lord is with you.\" He dwelt particularly on the\nobligations resting upon Christians in the free states. He said, \"Men\nmust be at a distance from slavery to judge of its real character.\nPersons living in the midst of it, gradually become familiarized with\nits horrors and woes, so that they can view calmly, exhibitions from\nwhich they would once have shrunk in dismay.\"\n\nWe had some conversation with Rev. Mr. Walton, of Montserrat. After\nmaking a number of statements in reference to the apprenticeship there,\nMr. W. stated that there had been repeated instances of planters\n_emancipating all their apprentices_. He thought there had been a case\nof this kind every month for a year past. The planters were becoming\ntired of the apprenticeship, and from mere considerations of interest\nand comfort, were adopting free labor.\n\nA new impulse had been given to education in Montserrat, and schools\nwere springing up in all parts of the island. Mr. W. thought there was\nno island in which education was so extensive. Religious influences were\nspreading among the people of all classes. Marriages were occurring\nevery week.\n\nWe had an interview with the Rev. Mr. H., an aged colored minister. He\nhas a high standing among his brethren, for talents, piety, and\nusefulness. There are few ministers in the West Indies who have\naccomplished more _for the cause of Christ_ than has Mr. H.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: It is a fact well known in Antigua and Barbadoes, that this\ncolored missionary has been instrumental in the conversion of several\nclergymen of the Episcopal Church in those islands, who are now\ncurrently devoted men.]\n\nHe said he had at different periods been stationed in Antigua, Anguilla,\nTortola, and some other islands. He said that the negroes in the other\nislands in which he had preached, were as intelligent as those in\nAntigua, and in every respect as well prepared for freedom. He was in\nAnguilla when emancipation took place. The negroes there were kept at\nwork on the very _day that freedom came!_ They worked as orderly as on\nany other day. The Sabbath following, he preached to them on their new\nstate, explaining the apprenticeship to them. He said the whole\ncongregation were in a state of high excitement, weeping and shouting.\nOne man sprang to his feet, and exclaimed, 'Me never forget God and King\nWilliam.' This same man was so full that he went out of the chapel, and\nburst into loud weeping.\n\nThe preaching of the missionaries, during their stay in Antigua, was\nfull of allusions to the abolition of slavery in the West Indies, and\nespecially to the entire emancipation in Antigua. Indeed, we rarely\nattended a meeting in Antigua, of any kind, in which the late\nemancipation was not in some way alluded to with feelings of gratitude\nand exultation. In the ordinary services of the Sabbath, this subject\nwas almost uniformly introduced, either in the prayer or sermon.\nWhenever thanksgiving was rendered to God for favors, _freedom_ was\namong the number.\n\nThe meeting of the district afforded an opportunity for holding a number\nof anniversary meetings. We notice them here, believing that they will\npresent the most accurate view that can be given of the religious and\nmoral condition of Antigua.\n\nOn the evening of the 1st of February, the first anniversary of the\nAntigua Temperance Society was held in the Wesleyan chapel. We had been\ninvited to attend and take a part in the exercises. The chapel was\ncrowded with a congregation of all grades and complexions. Colored and\nwhite gentlemen appeared together on the platform. We intimated to a\nmember of the committee, that we could not conscientiously speak without\nadvocating _total abstinence_, which doctrine, we concluded from the\nnature of the pledge, (which only included ardent spirits,) would not be\nwell received. We were assured that we might use the most perfect\nfreedom in avowing our sentiments.\n\nThe speakers on this occasion were two planters, a Wesleyan missionary,\nand ourselves. All advocated the doctrine of total abstinence. The first\nspeaker, a planter, concluded by saying, that it was commonly believed\nthat wine and malt were rendered absolutely indispensable in the West\nIndies, by the exhausting nature of the climate. But facts disprove the\ntruth of this notion. \"I am happy to say that I can now present this\nlarge assembly with ocular demonstration of the fallacy of the popular\nopinion. I need only point you to the worthy occupants of this platform.\nWho are the healthiest among them? _The cold water drinkers--the\nteetotallers_! We can assure you that we have not lost a pound of flesh,\nby abandoning our cups. We have tried the cold water experiment\nfaithfully, and we can testify that since we became cold water men, _we\nwork better, we eat better, we sleep better, and we do every thing\nbetter than before_.\" The next speaker, a planter also, dwelt on the\ninconsistency of using wine and malt, and at the same time calling upon\nthe poor to give up ardent spirits. He said this inconsistency had been\ncast in his teeth by his negroes. He never could prevail upon them to\nstop drinking rum, until he threw away his wine and porter. Now he and\nall his people were teetotallists. There were two other planters who had\ntaken the same course. He stated, as the result of a careful calculation\nwhich he had made, that he and the two planters referred to, had been in\nthe habit of giving to their people not less than _one thousand gallons\nof rum annually_. The whole of this was now withheld, and molasses and\nsugar were given instead. The missionary who followed them was not a\nwhit behind in boldness and zeal, and between them, they left us little\nto say in our turn on the subject of total abstinence.\n\nOn the following evening the anniversary of the Bible Society was held\nin the Moravian school-room. During the day we received a note from the\nSecretary of the Society, politely requesting us to be present. The\nspacious school-room was filled, and the broad platform crowded with\nchurch clergymen, Moravian ministers, and Wesleyan missionaries, colored\nand white. The Secretary, a Moravian minister, read the twenty-first\nannual report. It spoke emphatically of 'the joyful event of\nemancipation', and in allusion to an individual in England, of whom it\nspoke in terms of high commendation, it designated him, as one \"who was\ndistinguished for his efforts in the abolition of slavery.\" The adoption\nof the report was moved by one of the Wesleyan missionaries, who spoke\nat some length. He commenced by speaking of \"the peculiar emotions with\nwhich he always arose to address an assembly of the free people of\nAntigua.\" It had been his lot for a year past to labor in a colony[A]\nwhere slavery still reigned, and he could not but thank God for the\nhappiness of setting his foot once more on the free soil of an\nemancipated island.\n\n[Footnote A: St. Martin's]\n\nPerhaps the most interesting meeting in the series, was the anniversary\nof the Wesleyan Missionary Society of Antigua. Both parts of the day\nwere devoted to this anniversary. The meetings were held in the Wesleyan\nchapel, which was filled above and below, with the usual commixture of\nwhite, colored, and black. We saw, as on former occasions, several\ncolored gentlemen seated among the ministers. After the usual\nintroductory exercises of singing and prayer, the annual report was read\nby the Secretary, Rev. E. Fraser, the colored minister already\nmentioned. It was terse, direct, and business like. The meeting was then\naddressed by a Moravian missionary. He dwelt upon the decrease of the\nsectarian spirit, and hailed the coming of Christian charity and\nbrotherly communion. He opened his Bible, and read about the middle wall\nof partition being broken down. \"Yes, brother,\" said Mr. Horne, \"and\nevery other wall.\" \"The rest are but paper walls,\" responded the\nspeaker, \"and when once the middle wall is removed, these will soon be\nburned up by the fire of Christian love.\"\n\nThe next speaker was a Wesleyan missionary of Nevis. He spoke of the\nvarious instrumentalities which were now employed for the conversion of\nthe world. \"We welcome,\" said he, \"the co-operation of America, and with\nall our hearts do we rejoice that she is now beginning to put away from\nher that vile system of oppression which has hitherto crippled her moral\nenergy and her religious enterprise.\" Then turning and addressing\nhimself to us, he said, \"We hail you, dear brethren, as co-workers with\nus. Go forward in your blessed undertaking. Be not dismayed with the\nhuge dimensions of that vice which you are laboring to overthrow! Be not\ndisheartened by the violence and menaces of your enemies! Go forward.\nProclaim to the church and to your countrymen the sinfulness of slavery,\nand be assured that soon the fire of truth will melt down the massy\nchains of oppression.\" He then urged upon the people of Antigua _their_\npeculiar obligations to extend the gospel to other lands. It was the\n_Bible_ that made them free, and he begged them to bear in mind that\nthere were millions of their countrymen _still in the chains of\nslavery_. This appeal was received with great enthusiasm.\n\nWe then spoke on a resolution which had been handed us by the Secretary,\nand which affirmed \"that the increasing and acknowledged usefulness of\nChristian missions was a subject of congratulation.\" We spoke of the\nincrease of missionary operations in our own country, and of the spirit\nof self-denial which was widely spreading, particularly among young\nChristians. We spoke of that accursed thing in our midst, which not only\ntended greatly to kill the spirit of missions in the church, but which\ndirectly withheld _many_ young men from foreign missionary fields. It\nhad made more than two millions of heathen in our country; and so long\nas the cries of these _heathen at home_ entered the ears of our young\nmen and young women, they could not, dare not, go abroad. How could they\ngo to Ceylon, to Burmah, or to Hindostan, with the cry of their\n_country's heathen_ ringing their ears! How could they tear themselves\naway from famished millions kneeling at their feet in chains and begging\nfor the bread of life, and roam afar to China or the South Sea Islands!\nIncreasing numbers filed with a missionary spirit felt that their\nobligations were at home, and they were resolved that if they could not\ncarry the gospel _forthwith_ to the slaves, they would labor for the\noverthrow of that system which made it a crime punishable with death to\npreach salvation to the poor. In conclusion, the hope was expressed that\nthe people of Antigua--so highly favored with freedom, education, and\nreligion, would never forget that in the nation whence we came, there\nwere _two millions and a half of heathen_, who, instead of bread,\nreceived stones and scorpions; instead of the Bible, bolts and bars;\ninstead of the gospel, chains and scourgings; instead of the hope of\nsalvation thick darkness and despair. They were entreated to remember\nthat in the gloomy dungeon, from which they had lately escaped there\nwere deeper and more dismal cells, _yet filled_ with millions of their\ncountrymen. The state of feeling produced by this reference to slavery,\nwas such as might be anticipated in an audience, a portion of which were\nonce slaves, and still remembered freshly the horrors of their late\ncondition.\n\nThe meeting was concluded after a sitting of more than four hours. The\nattendance in the evening was larger than on any former occasion. Many\nwere unable to get within the chapel. We were again favored with an\nopportunity of urging a variety of considerations touching the general\ncause, as well as those drawn from the condition of our own country, and\nthe special objects of our mission.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Horne spoke very pointedly on the subject of slavery. He\nbegan by saying that he had been _so long accustomed_ to speak\ncautiously about slavery that he was even now almost afraid of his own\nvoice when he alluded to it. [General laughter.] But he would remember\nthat he was in a _free island_, and that he spoke to _freemen_, and\ntherefore he had nothing to fear.\n\nHe said the peace and prosperity of these colonies is a matter of great\nmoment in itself considered, but it was only when viewed as an example\nto the rest of the slaveholding world that its real magnitude and\nimportance was perceived. The influence of abolition, and especially of\nentire emancipation in Antigua, must be very great. The eyes of the\nworld were fixed upon her. The great nation of America must now soon\n_toll the knell_ of slavery, and this event will be hastened by the\nhappy operation of freedom here.\n\nMr. H. proceeded to say, that during the agitation of the slavery\nquestion at home, he had been suspected of not being a friend to\nemancipation; and it would probably be remembered by some present that\nhis name appeared in the report of the committee of the House of\nCommons, where it stood in _no enviable society_. But whatever might be\nthought of his course at that time, he felt assumed that the day was not\nfar distant when he should be able to clear up every thing connected\nwith it. It was not a little gratifying to us to see that the time had\ncome in the West Indies, when the suspicion of having been opposed to\nemancipation is a stain upon the memory from which a public man is glad\nto vindicate himself.\n\nRESOLUTION OF THE MEETING.\n\nAfter a few other addresses were delivered, and just previous to the\ndismission of the assembly, Rev. Mr. Cox, Chairman of the District,\narose and said, that as this was the last of the anniversary meetings,\nhe begged to move a resolution which he had no doubt would meet with the\nhearty and unanimous approval of that large assembly. He then read the\nfollowing resolution, which we insert here as an illustration of the\nuniversal sympathy in the objects of our mission. As the resolution is\nnot easily divisible, we insert the whole of it, making no ado on the\nscore of modesty.\n\n\"Resolved, that this meeting is deeply impressed with the importance of\nthe services rendered this day to the cause of missions by the\nacceptable addresses of Mr. ----, from America, and begs especially to\nexpress to him and his friend Mr. ----, the assurance of their sincere\nsympathy in the object of their visit to Antigua.\"\n\nMr. C. said he would make no remarks in support of the resolution he had\njust read for he did not deem them necessary. He would therefore propose\nat once that the vote be taken by rising. The Chairman read the\nresolution accordingly, and requested those who were in favor of\nadopting it, to rise. Not an individual in the crowded congregation kept\nhis seat. The masters and the slaves of yesterday--all rose together--a\nphalanx of freemen, to testify \"their sincere sympathy\" in the efforts\nand objects of American abolitionists.\n\nAfter the congregation had resumed their seats, the worthy Chairman\naddressed us briefly in behalf of the congregation, saying, that it was\nincumbent on him to convey to us the unanimous expression of sympathy on\nthe part of this numerous assembly in the object of our visit to the\nisland. We might regard it as an unfeigned assurance that we were\nwelcomed among them, and that the cause which we were laboring to\npromote was dear to the hearts of the people of Antigua.\n\nThis was the testimonial of an assembly, many of whom, only three years\nbefore, were themselves slaveholders. It was not given at a meeting\nspecially concerted and called for the purpose, but grew up unexpectedly\nand spontaneously out of the feelings of the occasion, a free-will\noffering, the cheerful impulsive gush of _free_ sympathies. We returned\nour acknowledgments in the best manner that our excited emotions\npermitted.\n\nLAYING THE CORNER STONE OF A WESLEYAN CHAPEL.\n\nThe corner stone of a new Wesleyan Chapel was laid in St. John's, during\nthe district meeting. The concourse of spectators was immense. At eleven\no'clock religious exercises were held in the old chapel. At the close of\nthe service a procession was formed, composed of Wesleyan missionaries,\nMoravian ministers, clergymen of the church, members of the council and\nof the assembly, planters, merchants, and other gentlemen, and the\nchildren of the Sunday and infant schools, connected with the\nWesleyan Chapel.\n\nAs the procession moved to the new site, a hymn was sung, in which the\nwhole procession united. Our position in the procession, to which we\nwere assigned by the marshal, and much to our satisfaction, was at\neither side of two colored gentlemen, with whom we walked, four abreast.\n\nOn one side of the foundation a gallery had been raised, which was\ncovered with an awning, and was occupied by a dense mass of white and\ncolored ladies. On another side the gentlemen of the procession stood.\nThe other sides were thronged with a promiscuous multitude of all\ncolors. After singing and prayer, the Hon. Nicholas Nugent, speaker of\nthe house of assembly, descended from the platform by a flight of stairs\ninto the cellar, escorted by two missionaries. The sealed phial was then\nplaced in his hand, and Mr. P., a Wesleyan missionary, read from a paper\nthe inscription written on the parchment within the phial. The closing\nwords of the inscription alluded to the present condition of the island,\nthus: \"The demand for a new and larger place of worship was pressing,\nand the progress of public liberality advancing on a scale highly\ncreditable to this FREE, enlightened, and evangelized colony.\" The\nSpeaker then placed the phial in the cavity of the rock. When it was\nproperly secured, and the corner stone lowered down by pullies to its\nplace, he struck three blows upon it with a mallet, and then returned to\nthe platform. The most eager curiosity was exhibited on every side to\nwitness the ceremony.\n\nAt the conclusion of it, several addresses were delivered. The speakers\nwere, Rev. Messrs. Horne and Harvey, and D.B. Garling, Esq. Mr. Horne,\nafter enumerating several things which were deserving of praise, and\nworthy of imitation, exclaimed, \"The grand crowning glory of all--that\nwhich places Antigua above all her sister colonies--was the magnanimous\nmeasure of the legislature in entirely abolishing slavery.\" It was\nestimated that there were more than two thousand persons assembled on\nthis occasion. The _order_ which prevailed among such a concourse was\nhighly creditable to the island. It was pleasing to see the perfect\nintermixture of colors and conditions; not less so to observe the kindly\nbearing of the high toward the low.[A] After the exercises were\nfinished, the numerous assembly dispersed quietly. Not an instance of\ndrunkenness, quarrelling, or anger, fell under our notice during\nthe day.\n\n[Footnote A: During Mr. Home's address, we observed Mr. A., a planter,\nsend his umbrella to a negro man who stood at the corner-stone, exposed\nto the sun.]\n\nRESOLUTIONS OF THE MISSIONARIES.\n\nToward the close of the district meeting, we received a kind note from\nthe chairman, inviting us to attend the meeting, and receive in person,\na set of resolutions which had been drawn up at our request, and signed\nby all the missionaries. At the hour appointed, we repaired to the\nchapel. The missionaries all arose as we entered, and gave us a\nbrotherly salutation. We were invited to take our seats at the right\nhand of the chairman. He then, in the presence of the meeting, read to\nus the subjoined resolutions; we briefly expressed, in behalf of\nourselves and our cause, the high sense we had of the value of the\ntestimony, which the meeting had been pleased to give us. The venerable\nfather Horne then prayed with us, commending our cause to the blessing\nof the Head of the church, and ourselves to the protection and guidance\nof our heavenly Father. After which we shook hands with the brethren,\nseverally, receiving their warmest assurances of affectionate regard,\nand withdrew.\n\n_\"Resolutions passed at the meeting of the Wesleyan Missionaries of the\nAntigua District, assembled at St. John's, Antigua, February 7th, 1837._\n\n    1. That the emancipation of the slaves of the West Indies, while it\n    was an act of undoubted justice to that oppressed people, has\n    operated most favorably in furthering the triumphs of the gospel, by\n    removing one prolific source of unmerited suspicion of religious\n    teachers, and thus opening a door to their more extensive labors and\n    usefulness--by furnishing a greater portion of time for the service\n    of the negro, and thus preventing the continuance of unavoidable\n    Sabbath desecrations, in labor and neglect of the means of\n    grace--and in its operation as a stimulus to proprietors and other\n    influential gentlemen, to encourage religious education, and the\n    wide dissemination of the Scriptures, as an incentive to industry\n    and good order.\n\n    2. That while the above statements are true with reference to all\n    the islands, even where the system of apprenticeship prevails, they\n    are especially applicable to Antigua, where the results of the great\n    measure, of entire freedom, so humanely and judiciously granted by\n    the legislature, cannot be contemplated without the most devout\n    thanks givings to Almighty God.\n\n    3. That we regard with much gratification, the great diminution\n    among all classes in these islands, of the most unchristian\n    prejudice of color the total absence of it in the government and\n    ordinances of the churches of God, with which we are connected, and\n    the prospect of its complete removal, by the abolition of slavery,\n    by the increased diffusion of general knowledge, and of that\n    religion which teaches to \"honor _all_ men,\" and to love our\n    neighbor as ourselves.\n\n    4. That we cannot but contemplate with much humiliation and\n    distress, the existence, among professing Christians in America, of\n    this partial, unseemly, and unchristian system of _caste_, so\n    distinctly prohibited in the word of God, and so utterly\n    irreconcileable with Christian charity.\n\n    5. That regarding slavery as a most unjustifiable infringement of\n    the rational and inalienable rights of men, and in its moral\n    consequences, (from our own personal observation as well as other\n    sources,) as one of the greatest curses with which the great\n    Governor of the nations ever suffered this world to be blighted: we\n    cannot but deeply regret the connection which so intimately exists\n    between the various churches of Christ in the United States of\n    America, and this unchristian system. With much sorrow do we learn\n    that the _principle_ of the lawfulness of slavery has been defended\n    by some who are ministers of Christ, that so large a proportion of\n    that body in America, are exerting their influence in favor of the\n    continuance of so indefensible and monstrous a system--and that\n    these emotions of sorrow are especially occasioned with reference to\n    our own denomination.\n\n    6. That while we should deprecate and condemn any recourse on the\n    part of the slaves, to measures of rebellion, as an unjustifiable\n    mode of obtaining their freedom, we would most solemnly, and\n    affectionately, and imploringly, adjure our respected fathers and\n    brethren in America, to endeavor, in every legitimate way, to wipe\n    away this reproach from their body, and thus act in perfect\n    accordance with the deliberate and recorded sentiments of our\n    venerated founder on this subject, and in harmony with the feelings\n    and proceedings of their brethren in the United Kingdom, who have\n    had the honor to take a distinguished part in awakening such a\n    determined and resistless public feeling in that country, as issued\n    in the abolition of slavery among 800,000 of our fellow subjects.\n\n    7. That we hail with the most lively satisfaction the progress in\n    America of anti-slavery principles, the multiplication of\n    anti-slavery societies, and the diffusion of correct views on this\n    subject. We offer to the noble band of truly patriotic, and\n    enlightened, and philanthropic men, who are combating in that\n    country with such a fearful evil, the assurance of our most cordial\n    and fraternal sympathy, and our earnest prayers for their complete\n    success. We view with pity and sorrow the vile calumnies with which\n    they have been assailed. We welcome with Christian joyfulness, in\n    the success which has already attended their efforts, the dawn of a\n    cloudless day of light and glory, which shall presently shine upon\n    that vast continent, when the song of universal freedom shall sound\n    in its length and breadth.\n\n    8. That these sentiments have been increased and confirmed by the\n    intercourse, which some of our body Have enjoyed with our beloved\n    brethren, the Rev. James A. Thome, and Joseph Horace Kimball, Esq.,\n    the deputation to these islands, front the Anti-Slavery Society in\n    America. We regard this appointment, and the nomination of such men\n    to fulfil it, as most judicious. We trust we can appreciate the\n    spirit of entire devotedness to this cause, which animates our\n    respected brethren, and breathes throughout their whole deportment,\n    and rejoice in such a manifestation of the fruits of that divine\n    charity, which flow from the constraining love of Christ, and which\n    many waters cannot quench.\n\n    9. That the assurance of the affectionate sympathy of the\n    twenty-five brethren who compose this district meeting, and our\n    devout wishes for their success in the objects of their mission, are\n    hereby presented, in our collective and individual capacity, to our\n    endeared and Christian friends from America.\n\n    (Signed) JAMES COX, chairman of the district, and resident in\n    Antigua.\n\n    Jonathan Cadman, St. Martin's. James Horne, St. Kitts. Matthew\n    Banks, St. Bartholomew's. E. Frazer, Antigua. Charles Bates, do.\n    John Keightley, do. Jesse Pilcher, do. Benjamin Tregaskiss, do.\n    Thomas Edwards, St. Kitts. Robert Hawkins, Tortola. Thomas Pearson,\n    Nevis. George Craft, do. W.S. Wamouth, St. Kitts. John Hodge,\n    Tortola. William Satchel, Dominica. John Cullingford, Dominica. J.\n    Cameron, Nevis. B. Gartside, St. Kitts. John Parker, do. Hilton\n    Cheeseborough, do. Thomas Jeffery, do. William Rigglesworth,\n    Tortola. Daniel Stepney, Nevis. James Walton, Montserrat.\"\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nGENERAL RESULTS.\n\nHaving given a general outline of our sojourn in Antigua, we proceed to\na mere minute account of the results of our investigations. We arrange\nthe testimony in two general divisions, placing that which relates to\nthe past and present condition of the colony in one, and that which\nbears directly upon the question of slavery in America in another.\n\nRELIGION.\n\nThere are three denominations of Christians in Antigua: the Established\nChurch; the Moravians, and Wesleyans. The Moravians number fifteen\nthousand--almost exclusively negroes. The Wesleyans embrace three\nthousand members, and about as many more attendants. Of the three\nthousand members, says a Wesleyan missionary, \"not fifty are whites--a\nlarger number are colored; but the greater part black.\" \"The attendance\nof the negro population at the churches and chapels,\" (of the\nestablished order,) says the Rector of St. John's, \"amounts to four\nthousand six hundred and thirty-six.\" The whole number of blacks\nreceiving religious instruction from these Christian bodies, making\nallowance for the proportion of white and colored included in the three\nthousand Wesleyans, is about twenty-two thousand--leaving a population\nof eight thousand negroes in Antigua who are unsupplied with religious\ninstruction.\n\nThe Established Church has six parish churches, as many \"chapels of\nease,\" and nine clergymen. The Moravians have five settlements and\nthirteen missionaries. The Wesleyans have seven chapels, with as many\nmore small preaching places on estates, and twelve ministers; half of\nwhom are itinerant missionaries, and the other half, local preachers,\nemployed as planters, or in mercantile, and other pursuits, and\npreaching only occasionally. From the limited number of chapels and\nmissionaries, it may be inferred that only a portion of the twenty-two\nthousand can enjoy stated weekly instruction. The superintendent of the\nMoravian mission stated that their chapels could not accommodate more\nthan _one third_ of their members.\n\nEach of the denominations complains of the lack of men and houses. The\nWesleyans are now building a large chapel in St. John's. It will\naccommodate two thousand persons. \"Besides free sittings, there will be\nnearly two hundred pews, every one of which is now in demand.\"\n\nHowever much disposed the churches of different denominations might have\nbeen during slavery to maintain a strict discipline, they found it\nexceedingly difficult to do so. It seems impossible to elevate a body of\nslaves, _remaining such,_ to honesty and purity. The reekings of slavery\nwill almost inevitably taint the institutions of religion, and degrade\nthe standard of piety. Accordingly the ministers of every denomination\nin Antigua, feel that in the abolition of slavery their greatest enemy\nhas been vanquished, and they now evince a determination to assume\nhigher ground than they ever aspired to during the reign of slavery. The\nmotto of all creeds is, \"_We expect great things of freemen_.\" A report\nwhich we obtained from the Wesleyan brethren, states, \"Our own brethren\npreach almost daily.\" \"We think the negroes are uncommonly punctual and\nregular in their attendance upon divine worship, particularly on the\nSabbath.\" \"They always show a readiness to contribute to the support of\nthe gospel. With the present low wages, and the entire charge of\nself-maintenance, they have little to spare.\" Parham and Sion Hill (taken\nas specimens) have societies almost entirely composed of rural\nblacks--about thirteen hundred and fifty in number. These have\ncontributed this year above \u00a3330 sterling, or sixteen hundred and fifty\ndollars, in little weekly subscriptions; besides giving to special\nobjects occasionally, and contributing for the support of schools.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: The superintendent of the Wesleyan mission informed us that\nthe collection in the several Wesleyan chapels last year, independent of\noccasional contributions to Sunday schools, Missionary objects, &c.,\namounted to \u00a3850 sterling, or more than $4000!]\n\nIn a letter dated December 2d, 1834, but four months after emancipation,\nand addressed to the missionary board in England, the Rev. B. Harvey\nthus speaks of the Moravian missions: \"With respect to our people, I\nbelieve; I may say that in all our places here, they attend the meetings\nof the church more numerously than ever, and that many are now in\nfrequent attendance who _could very seldom appear amongst us during\nslavery_.\" The same statements substantially were made to us by Mr. H.,\nshowing that instead of any falling off the attendance was still on\nthe increase.\n\nIn a statement drawn up at our request by the Rector of St. John's, is\nthe following: \"Cases of discipline are more frequent than is usual in\nEnglish congregations, but at the same time it should be observed, that\na _closer oversight_ is maintained by the ministers, and a _greater\nreadiness to submit themselves_ (to discipline) is manifested by the\nlate slaves here than by those who have always been a free people.\" \"I\nam able to speak very favorably of the attendance at church--it is\nregular and crowded.\" \"The negroes on some estates have been known to\ncontribute willingly to the Bible Society, since 1832. They are now\nbeginning to pay a penny and a half currency per week for their\nchildren's instruction.\"\n\nMORALITY.\n\nThe condition of Antigua, but a very few years previous to emancipation,\nis represented to have been truly revolting. It has already been stated\nthat the Sabbath was the market day up to 1832, and this is evidence\nenough that the Lord's day was utterly desecrated by the mass of the\npopulation. Now there are few parts of our own country, equal in\npopulation, which can vie with Antigua in the solemn and respectful\nobservance of the Sabbath. Christians in St. John's spoke with joy and\ngratitude of the tranquillity of the Sabbath. They had long been shocked\nwith its open and abounding profanation--until they had well-nigh forgot\nthe aspect of a Christian Sabbath. At length the full-orbed blessing\nbeamed upon them, and they rejoiced in its brightness, and thanked God\nfor its holy repose.\n\nAll persons of all professions testify to the fact that _marriages_ are\nrapidly increasing. In truth, there was scarcely such a thing as\nmarriage before the abolition of slavery. Promiscuous intercourse of the\nsexes was almost universal. In a report of the Antigua Branch\nAssociation of the Society for advancing the Christian Faith in the\nBritish West Indies, (for 1836,) the following statements are made:\n\n\"The number of marriages in the six parishes of the island, in the year\n1835, the first entire year of freedom, was 476; all of which, excepting\nabout 50, were between persons formerly slaves. The total number of\nmarriages between slaves solemnized in the Church during the nine years\nending December 31, 1832, was 157; in 1833, the last entire year of\nslavery, it was 61.\"\n\nThus it appears that the whole number of marriages during _ten years_\nprevious to emancipation (by far the most favorable ten years that could\nhave been selected) was but _half_ as great as the number for a single\nyear following emancipation!\n\nThe Governor, in one of our earliest interviews with him, said, \"the\ngreat crime of this island, as indeed of all the West India Colonies,\nhas been licentiousness, but we are certainly fast improving in this\nparticular.\" An aged Christian, who has spent many years in the island,\nand is now actively engaged in superintending several day schools for\nthe negro children, informed us that there was not _one third_ as much\nconcubinage as formerly. This he said was owing mainly to the greater\nfrequency of marriages, and the cessation of late night work on the\nestates, and in the boiling houses, by which the females were constantly\nexposed during slavery. Now they may all be in their houses by dark.\nFormerly the mothers were the betrayers of their daughters, encouraging\nthem to form unhallowed connections, and even _selling_ them to\nlicentious white and colored men, for their own gain. Now they were\nusing great strictness to preserve the chastity of their daughters.\n\nA worthy planter, who has been in the island since 1800, stated, that it\nused to be a common practice for mothers to _sell their daughters_ to\nthe highest bidder!--generally a manager or overseer. \"But now;\" said he,\n\"the mothers _hold their daughters up for marriage_, and take pains to\nlet every body know that their virtue is not to be bought and sold any\nlonger.\" He also stated that those who live unmarried now are uniformly\nneglected and suffer great deprivations. Faithfulness after marriage,\nexists also to a greater extent than could have been expected from the\nutter looseness to which they had been previously accustomed, and with\ntheir ignorance of the nature and obligations of the marriage relation.\nWe were informed both by the missionaries and the planters, that every\nyear and month they are becoming more constant, as husband and wife,\nmore faithful as parents, and more dutiful as children. One planter said\nthat out of a number who left his employ after 1834, nearly all had\ncompanions on other estates, and left for the purpose of being with\nthem. He was also of the opinion that the greater proportion of changes\nof residence among the emancipated which took place at that time, were\nowing to the same cause.[A] In an address before the Friendly Society in\nSt. John's, the Archdeacon stated that during the previous year (1835)\nseveral individuals had been expelled from that society for domestic\nunfaithfulness; but he was happy to say that he had not heard of a\nsingle instance of expulsion for this cause during the year then ended.\nMuch inconvenience is felt on account of the Moravian and Wesleyan\nmissionaries being prohibited from performing the marriage service, even\nfor their own people. Efforts are now making to obtain the repeal of the\nlaw which makes marriages performed by sectarians (as all save the\nestablished church are called) void.\n\n[Footnote A: What a resurrection to domestic life was that, when long\nsevered families flocked from the four corners of the island to meet\ntheir kindred members! And what a glorious resurrection will that be in\nour own country, when the millions of emancipated beings scattered over\nthe west and south, shall seek the embraces of parental and fraternal\nand conjugal love.]\n\nThat form of licentiousness which appears among the higher classes in\nevery slaveholding country, abounded in Antigua during the reign of\nslavery. It has yielded its redundant fruits in a population of four\nthousand colored people; double the number of whites. The planters, with\nbut few exceptions, were unmarried and licentious. Nor was this vice\nconfined to the unmarried. Men with large families, kept one or more\nmistresses without any effort at concealment. We were told of an\n\"Honorable\" gentleman, who had his English wife and two concubines, a\ncolored and a black one. The governor himself stated as an apology for\nthe prevalence of licentiousness among the slaves, that the example was\nset them constantly by their masters, and it was not to be wondered at\nif they copied after their superiors. But it is now plain that\nconcubinage among the whites is nearly at an end. An unguarded statement\nof a public man revealed the conviction which exists among his class\nthat concubinage must soon cease. He said that the present race of\ncolored people could not be received into the society of the whites,\n_because of illegitimacy_; but the next generation would be fit\nassociates for the whites, _because they would be chiefly born\nin wedlock_.\n\nThe uniform testimony respecting _intemperance_ was, that it _never had\nbeen one of the vices of the negroes_. Several planters declared that\nthey had rarely seen a black person intoxicated. The report of the\nWesleyan missionaries already referred to, says, \"Intemperance is most\nuncommon among the rural negroes. Many have joined the Temperance\nSociety, and many act on tee-total principles.\" The only _colored_\nperson (either black or brown) whom we saw drunk during a residence of\nnine weeks in Antigua, was a carpenter in St. John's, who as he reeled\nby, stared in our faces and mumbled out his sentence of condemnation\nagainst wine bibbers, \"--Gemmen--you sees I'se a little bit drunk, but\n'pon honor I only took th--th-ree bottles of wine--that's all.\" It was\n\"Christmas times,\" and doubtless the poor man thought he would venture\nfor once in the year to copy the example of the whites.\n\nIn conclusion, on the subject of morals in Antigua, we are warranted in\nstating, 1st., That during the continuance of slavery, immoralities\nwere rife.\n\n2d. That the repeated efforts of the home Government and the local\nLegislature, for several successive years previous to 1834, to\n_ameliorate_ the system of slavery, seconded by the labors of clergymen\nand missionaries, teachers and catechists, to improve the character of\nthe slaves, failed to arrest the current of vice and profligacy. What\nfew reformations were effected were very partial, leaving the more\nenormous immoralities as shameless and defiant as ever, up to the very\nday of abolition; demonstrating the utter impotence of all attempts to\npurify the _streams_ while the _fountain_ is poison.\n\n3d. That the abolition of slavery gave the death blow to open vice,\novergrown and emboldened as it had become. Immediate emancipation,\ninstead of lifting the flood-gates, was the only power strong enough to\nshut them down! It restored the proper restraints upon vice, and\nsupplied the incentives to virtue. Those great controllers of moral\naction, _self-respect, attachment to law, and veneration for God_, which\nslavery annihilated, _freedom has resuscitated_, and now they stand\nround about the emancipated with flaming swords deterring from evil, and\nwith cheering voices exhorting to good. It is explicitly affirmed that\nthe grosser forms of immorality, which in every country attend upon\nslavery, have in Antigua either shrunk into concealment or\nbecome extinct.\n\nBENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.\n\nWe insert here a brief account of the benevolent institutions of\nAntigua. Our design in giving it, is to show the effect of freedom in\nbringing into play those charities of social life, which slavery\nuniformly stifles. Antigua abounds in benevolent societies, all of which\nhave been _materially revived_ since emancipation, and some of them have\nbeen formed since that event.\n\nTHE BIBLE SOCIETY.\n\nThis is the oldest society in the island. It was organized in 1815. All\ndenominations in the island cordially unite in this cause. The principal\ndesign of this society is to promote the Circulation of the Scriptures\namong the laboring population of the island. To secure this object\nnumerous branch associations--amounting to nearly fifty--have been\norganized throughout the island _among the negroes themselves._ The\nsociety has been enabled not only to circulate the Scriptures among the\npeople of Antigua, but to send them extensively to the neighboring\nislands.\n\nThe following table, drawn up at our request by the Secretary of the\nSociety, will show the extent of foreign operations:\n\nYears.     Colonies Supplied. Bibles. Test's.\n1822       Anguilla             94      156\n  23       Demerara             18       18\n  24       Dominica             89      204\n  25       Montserrat           57      149\n  27       Nevis                79      117\n  32       Saba                  6       12\n  33       St. Bart's          111       65\n  34       St. Eustatius        97      148\n  35       St. Kitts           227      487\n           St. Martins          48       37\n  36       Tortola              69      136\nTo\n1837       Trinidad             25       67\n                              ____     ____\n                   Total       920     1596\n\nFrom the last annual report we quote the following cheering account,\ntouching the events of 1834:\n\n\"The next event of importance in or annals is the magnificent grant of\nthe parent society, on occasion of the emancipation of the slaves, and\nthe perpetual banishment of slavery from the shores of Antigua, on the\nfirst of August, 1834; by which a choice portion of the Holy Scriptures\nwas gratuitously circulated to about one third of the inhabitants of\nthis colony. Nine thousand seven hundred copies of the New Testament,\nbound together with the book of Psalms, were thus placed at the disposal\nof your committee.\"\n\n* * * \"Following hard upon this joyful event another gratifying\ncircumstance occurred among us. The attention of the people was roused,\nand their gratitude excited towards the Bible Society, and they who had\nfreely received, now freely gave, and thus a considerable sum of money\nwas presented to the parent society in acknowledgment of its\nbeneficent grant.\"\n\nWe here add an extract from the annual report for 1826. Its sentiments\ncontrast strongly with the congratulations of the last report upon 'the\njoyful event' of emancipation.\n\n\"Another question of considerable delicacy and importance still remains\nto be discussed. Is it advisable, under all the circumstances of the\ncase, to circulate the Holy Scriptures, without note of comment, among\nthe slave population of these islands? Your Committee can feel no\nhesitation in affirming that such a measure is not merely expedient, but\none of almost indispensable necessity. The Sacred Volume is in many\nrespects peculiarly adapted to the slave. It enjoins upon him precepts\nso plain, that the most ignorant cannot fail to understand them:\n'Slaves, obey in all things your masters, not with eye service, as men\npleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God.' It furnishes him\nwith motives the most impressive and consoling: 'Ye serve,' says the\nApostle, 'the Lord Christ.' It promises him rewards sufficient to\nstimulate the most indolent to exertion: 'Whatsoever good thing any man\ndoeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or\nfree.' And it holds forth to him an example so glorious, that it would\nennoble even angels to imitate it: 'Let this mind be in you which was\nalso in Christ Jesus, who made himself of no reputation, and took upon\nhim the form of a _slave_!'\"\n\n\"It may here be proper to observe, that the precise import of the word,\nwhich in general throughout the English Bible is translated _servant_,\nis strictly that which has been assigned it in the foregoing quotations;\n(!) and so understood, the Sacred Volume will be found to hold out to\nour slaves, both by precept and example the most persuasive and the most\ncompelling motives to industry, obedience, and submission.\"\n\nNothing could more plainly show the corrupting influences of slavery,\nupon all within its reach, than this spectacle of a noble, religious\ninstitution, prostituted to the vile work of defending oppression, and,\nin the zeal of its advocacy, blasphemously degrading the Savior into a\nself-made slave!\n\nThe receipts of the Antigua Branch Society have greatly increased since\nemancipation. From receipts for the year 1836, in each of the British\nislands, it appears that the contributions from Antigua and Bermuda, the\nonly two islands which adopted entire emancipation, are about _double_\nthose from any other two islands.\n\nMISSIONARY ASSOCIATIONS.\n\nThese associations are connected with the Wesleyan mission, and have\nbeen in existence since 1820. Their object is to raise funds for the\nparent society in England. Although it has been in existence for several\nyears, yet it was mostly confined to the whites and free people of\ncolor, during slavery. The calling together assemblies of rural negroes,\nand addressing them on the subject of missions, and soliciting\ncontributions in aid of the cause, is a new feature in the missionary\noperations to which nothing but freedom could give birth.\n\nTEMPERANCE SOCIETIES.\n\nThe first temperance society in Antigua was formed at the beginning of\n1836. We give an extract from the first annual report: \"Temperance\nsocieties have been formed in each town, and on many of the estates. A\nlarge number of persons who once used spirituous liquors moderately,\nhave entirely relinquished the use. Some who were once intemperate have\nbeen reclaimed, and in some instances an adoption of the principles of\nthe temperance society, has been followed by the pursuit and enjoyment\nof vital religion. Domestic peace and quietness have superseded discord\nand strife, and a very general sense of astonishment at the gross\ndelusion which these drinks have long produced on the human species\nis manifest.\"\n\n\"The numbers on the various books of the society amount to about 1700.\nOne pleasing feature in their history, is the very small number of those\nwho have violated their pledge.\"\n\n\"On several estates, the usual allowance of spirits has been\ndiscontinued, and sugar or molasses substituted.\"\n\nThe temperance society in Antigua may be specially regarded as a result\nof emancipation. It is one of the guardian angels which hastened to the\nisland as soon as the demon of slavery was cast out.\n\nFRIENDLY SOCIETIES.\n\nThe friendly societies are designed exclusively for the benefit of the\nnegro population. The general object is thus stated in the constitution\nof one of these societies: \"The object of this society is to assist in\nthe purchase of articles of mourning for the dead; to give relief in\ncases of unlooked for distress; to help those who through age or\ninfirmities are incapable of helping themselves by marketing, or working\ntheir grounds; _to encourage sobriety and industry, and to check\ndisorderly and immoral conduct.\"_\n\nThese societies obtain their funds by laying a tax of one shilling per\nmonth on every member above eighteen years of age, and of six pence per\nmonth on all members under that age and above twelve, which is the\nminimum of membership. The aged members are required to pay no more than\nthe sum last mentioned.\n\nThe first society of this kind was established in St. John's by the\npresent rector, in 1829. Subsequently the Moravians and Wesleyans formed\nsimilar societies among their own people. Independent of the pecuniary\nassistance which these societies bestow, they encourage in a variety of\nways the good order of the community. For example, no one is allowed to\nreceive assistance who is \"disabled by drunkenness, debauchery, or\ndisorderly living;\" also, \"if any member of the society, male or female,\nis guilty of adultery or fornication, the offending member shall be\nsuspended for so long a time as the members shall see fit, and shall\nlose all claim on the society for any benefit during the suspension, and\nshall not be readmitted until clear and satisfactory evidence is given\nof penitence.\" Furthermore, \"If any member of the society shall be\nexpelled from the church to which he or she belongs, or shall commit any\noffence punishable by a magistrate, that member forfeits his membership\nin the society.\" Again, the society directly encourages marriage, by\n\"making a present of a young pig to every child born in wedlock, and\naccording as their funds will admit of it, giving rewards to those\nmarried persons living faithfully, or single persons living virtuously,\nwho take a pride in keeping their houses neat and tidy, and their\ngardens flourishing.\"\n\nThese societies have been more than doubled, both in the number of\nmembers and in the annual receipts, since emancipation.\n\nOf the societies connected with the established church, the rector of\nSt. John's thus speaks: \"At the beginning of 1834 there were eleven\nsocieties, embracing 1602 members. At the beginning of 1835 they\nnumbered 4197; and in 1836 there were 4560 members,\" _almost quadrupled\nin two years!_\n\nThe societies connected with the Moravian church, have more than\ndoubled, both in members and funds, since emancipation. The funds now\namount to $10,000 per year.\n\nThe Wesleyans have four Friendly societies. The largest society, which\ncontained six hundred and fifty members, was organized in the _month of\nAugust_, 1834. The last year it had expended \u00a3700 currency, and had then\nin its treasury \u00a3600 currency.\n\nNow, be it remembered that the Friendly societies exist solely among the\nfreed negroes, _and that the moneys are raised exclusively among them._\nAmong whom? A people who are said to be so proverbially improvident,\nthat to emancipate them, would be to abandon them to beggary, nakedness,\nand starvation;--a people who \"cannot take care of themselves;\" who\n\"will not work when freed from the fear of the lash;\" who \"would\nsquander the earnings of the day in debaucheries at night;\" who \"would\nnever provide for to-morrow for the wants of a family, or for the\ninfirmities of old age.\" Yea, among _negroes_ these things are done; and\nthat, too, where the wages are but one shilling per day--less than\nsufficient, one would reasonably suppose, to provide daily food.\n\nDAILY MEAL SOCIETY.\n\nThe main object of this society is denoted by its name. It supplies a\ndaily meal to those who are otherwise unprovided for. A commodious house\nhad just been completed in the suburbs of the town, capable of lodging a\nconsiderable number of beneficiaries. It is designed to shelter those\nwho are diseased, and cannot walk to and fro for their meals. The number\nnow fed at this house is from eighty to a hundred. The diseased, who\nlive at the dispensary, are mostly those who are afflicted with the\nelephantiasis, by which they are rendered entirely helpless. Medical aid\nis supplied free of expense. It is worthy of remark, that there is no\n_public poor-house_ in Antigua,--a proof of the industry and prosperity\nof the emancipated people.\n\nDISTRESSED FEMALES' FRIEND SOCIETY.\n\nThis is a society in St. John's: there is also a similar one, called the\nFemale Refuge Society, at English Harbor. Both these societies were\nestablished and are conducted by colored ladies. They are designed to\npromote two objects: the support of destitute aged females of color, and\nthe rescue of poor young colored females from vice. The necessity for\nspecial efforts for the first object, arose out of the fact, that the\ncolored people were allowed no parochial aid whatever, though they were\nrequired to pay their parochial taxes; hence, the support of their own\npoor devolved upon themselves. The demand for vigorous action in behalf\nof the young, grew out of the prevailing licentiousness of slave-holding\ntimes. The society in St. John's has been in existence since 1815. It\nhas a large and commodious asylum, and an annual income, by\nsubscriptions, of \u00a3350, currency. This society, and the Female Refuge\nSociety established at English Harbor, have been instrumental in\neffecting a great reform in the morals of females, and particularly in\nexciting reprobation against that horrid traffic--the sale of girls by\ntheir mothers for purposes of lust. We were told of a number of cases in\nwhich the society in St. John's had rescued young females from impending\nruin. Many members of the society itself, look to it as the guardian of\ntheir orphanage. Among other cases related to us, was that of a lovely\ngirl of fifteen, who was bartered away to a planter by her mother, a\ndissolute woman. The planter was to give her a quantity of cloth to the\nvalue of \u00a380 currency, and two young slaves; he was also to give the\ngrandmother, for her interest in the girl, _one gallon of rum_! The\nnight was appointed, and a gig in waiting to take away the victim, when\na female friend was made acquainted with the plot, just in time to save\nthe girl by removing her to her own house. The mother was infuriated,\nand endeavored to get her back, but the girl had occasionally attended a\nSabbath school, where she imbibed principles which forbade her to yield\neven to her mother for such an unhallowed purpose. She was taken before\na magistrate, and indentured herself to a milliner for two years. The\nmother made an attempt to regain her, and was assisted by some whites\nwith money to commence a suit for that purpose. The lady who defended\nher was accordingly prosecuted, and the whole case became notorious. The\nprosecutors were foiled. At the close of her apprenticeship, the young\nwoman was married to a highly respectable colored gentleman, now\nresident in St. John's. The notoriety which was given to the above case\nhad a happy effect. It brought the society and its object more fully\nbefore the public, and the contributions for its support greatly\nincreased. Those for whose benefit the asylum was opened, heard of it,\nand came begging to be received.\n\nThis society is a signal evidence that the colored people neither lack\nthe ability to devise, nor the hearts to cherish, nor the zeal to\nexecute plans of enlarged benevolence and mercy.\n\nThe Juvenile Association, too, of which we gave some account in\ndescribing its anniversary, originated with the colored people, and\nfurnishes additional evidence of the talents and charities of that class\nof the community. Besides the societies already enumerated, there are\ntwo associations connected with the Established Church, called the\n\"Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge,\" and the \"Branch\nAssociation of the Society for Advancing the Christian Faith in the\nBritish West Indies, &c.\" These societies are also designed chiefly for\nthe benefit of the negro population.\n\nEDUCATION.\n\nOur inquiries under this head were directed to three principal\npoints--first, The extent to which education prevailed previous to\nemancipation; second, The improvements introduced since; and third, The\ncomparative capacity of negroes for receiving instruction.\n\nBeing providentially in the island at the season of the year when all\nthe schools have their annual examinations, we enjoyed the most\nfavorable opportunities for procuring intelligence on the subject of\neducation. From various quarters we received invitations to attend\nschool examinations. We visited the schools at Parham, Willoughby Bay,\nNewfield; Cedar Hall, Grace Bay, Fitch's Creek, and others: besides\nvisiting the parochial school, the rectory school, the Moravian and\nWesleyan schools, in St. John's. All the schools, save those in St.\nJohn's, were almost exclusively composed of emancipated children from\nthe estates.\n\nVISIT TO THE PAROCHIAL SCHOOL.\n\nAt the invitation of the Governor, we accompanied him to the annual\nexamination of the parochial school, in St. John's, under the\nsuperintendance of the Episcopal church. It has increased greatly, both\nin scholars and efficiency, since emancipation, and contributions are\nmade to its support by the parents whose children receive its benefits.\nWe found one hundred and fifty children, of both sexes, assembled in the\nsociety's rooms. There was every color present, from the deepest hue of\nthe Ethiopian, to the faintest shadowing of brown.\n\nThe boys constituting the first class, to the number of fifty, were\ncalled up. They read with much fluency and distinctness, equalling white\nboys of the same age anywhere. After reading, various questions were put\nto them by the Archdeacon, which they answered with promptness and\naccuracy. Words were promiscuously selected from the chapter they had\nread, and every one was promptly spelled. The catechism was the next\nexercise, and they manifested a thorough acquaintance with its contents.\n\nOur attention was particularly called to the examination in arithmetic.\nMany of the children solved questions readily in the compound rules, and\nseveral of them in Practice, giving the different parts of the pound,\nshilling, and penny, used in that rule, and all the whys and wherefores\nof the thing, with great promptness. One lad, only ten years of age,\nwhose attendance had been very irregular on account of being employed in\nlearning a trade, performed intricate examples in Practice, with a\nfacility worthy the counting-house desk. We put several inquiries on\ndifferent parts of the process, in order to test their real knowledge,\nto which we always received clear answers.\n\nThe girls were then examined in the same studies and exercises, except\narithmetic, and displayed the same gratifying proficiency. They also\npresented specimens of needlework and strawbraiding, which the ladies,\non whose better judgment we depend, pronounced very creditable. We\nnoticed several girls much older than the others, who had made much less\nadvance in their studies, and on inquiry learned, that they had been\nmembers of the school but a short time, having formerly been employed to\nwield the heavy hoe in the cane field. The parents are very desirous to\ngive their children education, and make many sacrifices for that\npurpose. Many who are field-laborers in the country, receiving their\nshilling a day, have sent their children to reside with some relations\nor friends in town, for the purpose of giving them the benefits of this\nschool. Several such children were pointed out to us. The increase of\nfemale scholars during the first year of emancipation, was in this\nschool alone, about eighty.\n\nFor our gratification, the Governor requested that all the children\nemancipated on the _first of August_, might be called up and placed on\nour side of the room. Nearly one hundred children, of both sexes, who\ntwo years ago were _slaves_, now stood up before us FREE. We noticed one\nlittle girl among the rest, about ten years old, who bore not the least\ntinge of color. Her hair was straight and light, and her face had that\nmingling of vermilion and white, which Americans seem to consider, not\nonly the nonpareil standard of beauty, but the immaculate test of human\nrights. At her side was another with the deepest hue of the native\nAfrican. There were high emotions on the countenances of those redeemed\nones, when we spoke to them of emancipation. The undying principle of\nfreedom living and burning in the soul of the most degraded slave, like\nlamps amid the darkness of eastern sepulchres, was kindling up\nbrilliantly within them, young as they were, and flashing in smiles upon\ntheir ebon faces.\n\nThe Governor made a few remarks, in which he gave some good advice, and\nexpressed himself highly pleased with the appearance and proficiency of\nthe school.\n\nHis excellency remarked to us in a tone of pleasantry, \"You see,\ngentlemen, these children have _souls_.\"\n\nDuring the progress of the examination; he said to us, \"You perceive\nthat it is our policy to give these children every chance to make _men_\nof themselves. We look upon them as our _future citizens_.\" He had no\ndoubt that the rising generation would assume a position in society\nabove the contempt or opposition of the whites.\n\nINFANT SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTRY.\n\nWe had the pleasure of attending one of the infant schools in the\nvicinity of Parham, on the east side of the island. Having been invited\nby a planter, who kindly sent his horse and carriage for our conveyance,\nto call and take breakfast with him on our way, we drove out early in\nthe morning.\n\nWhile we were walking about the estate, our attention was arrested by\ndistant singing. As we cast our eyes up a road crossing the estate, we\ndiscovered a party of children! They were about twenty in number, and\nwere marching hand in hand to the music of their infant voices. They\nwere children from a neighboring estate, on their way to the examination\nat Parham, and were singing the hymns which they had learned at school.\nAll had their Testaments in their hands, and seemed right merry-hearted.\n\nWe were received at the gate of the chapel by the Wesleyan missionary\nlocated in this distinct, a highly respectable and intelligent colored\nman, who was ten years since a _slave_. He gave us a cordial welcome,\nand conducted us to the chapel, where we found the children, to the\nnumber of _four hundred_, assembled, and the examination already\ncommenced. There were six schools present, representing about twenty\nestates, and arranged under their respective teachers. The ages of the\npupils were from three to ten or twelve. They were all, with the\nexception of two or three, the children of emancipated slaves.\n\nThey came up by classes to the superintendent's desk, where they read\nand were examined. They read correctly; some of them too, who had been\nin school only a few mouths, in any portion of the New Testament\nselected for them. By request of the superintendent, we put several\ninquiries to them, which they answered in a way which showed that they\n_thought_. They manifested an acquaintance with the Bible and the use of\nlanguage which was truly surprising. It was delightful to see so many\ntiny beings stand around you, dressed in their tidy gowns and frocks,\nwith their bright morning faces, and read with the self-composure of\nmanhood, any passage chosen for them. They all, large and small, bore in\ntheir hands the charter of their freedom, the book by the influence of\nwhich they received all the privileges they were enjoying. On the cover\nof each was stamped in large capitals--\"PRESENTED BY THE BRITISH AND\nFOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, IN COMMEMORATION OF THE FIRST OF AUGUST, 1834.\"\n\nAt the close of the examination, the rewards, consisting of books,\nwork-bags, &c. &c., chiefly sent by a society of females in England,\nwere distributed. It was impossible to repress the effervescence of the\nlittle expectants. As a little one four years old came up for her\nreward, the superintendent said to her--\"Well, little Becky, what do you\nwant?\" \"Me wants a bag,\" said Becky, \"and me wants a pin-cushion, and me\nwants a little book.\" Becky's desires were large, but being a good girl,\nshe was gratified. Occasionally the girls were left to choose between a\nbook and a work-bag, and although the bag might be gaudy and tempting,\nthey invariably took the book.\n\nThe teachers were all but one blacks, and were formerly slaves. They are\nvery devoted and faithful, but are ill-qualified for their duties,\nhaving obtained all the learning they possess in the Sabbath school.\nThey are all pious, and exert a harpy influence on the morals of\ntheir pupils.\n\nThe number of scholars has very greatly increased since emancipation,\nand their morals have essentially improved. Instances of falsehood and\ntheft, which at first were fearfully frequent and bold, have much\nlessened. They begin to have a regard for _character_. Their sense of\nright and wrong is enlightened, and their power of resisting temptation,\nand adhering to right, manifestly increased.\n\nOn the whole, we know not where we have looked on a more delightful\nscene. To stand in front of the pulpit and look around on a multitude of\nnegro children, gathered from the sordid huts into which slavery had\ncarried ignorance and misery--to see them coming up, with their teachers\nof the same proscribed hue, to hear them read the Bible, answer with\nreadiness the questions of their superintendent, and lift up together\ntheir songs of infant praise, and then to remember that two years ago\nthese four hundred children were _slaves_, and still more to remember\nthat in our own country, boasting its republicanism and Christian\ninstitutions, there are thousands of just such children under the yoke\nand scourge, in utter heathenism, the victims of tyrannic _law_ or of\nmore tyrannic public opinion--caused the heart to swell with emotions\nunutterable. There were as many intelligent countenances, and as much\nactivity and sprightliness, as we ever saw among an equal number of\nchildren anywhere. The correctness of their reading, the pertinence of\ntheir replies, the general proofs of talent which they showed through\nall the exercises, evinced that they are none inferior to the children\nof their white oppressors.\n\nAfter singing a hymn they all kneeled down, and the school closed with a\nprayer and benediction. They continued singing as they retired from the\nhouse, and long after they had parted on their different ways home,\ntheir voices swelled on the breeze at a distance as the little parties\nfrom the estates chanted on their way the songs of the school room.\n\nWILLOUGHBY BAY EXAMINATION.\n\nWhen we entered the school house at Willoughby Bay, which is capable of\ncontaining a thousand persons, a low murmur, like the notes of\npreparation, ran over the multitude. One school came in after we\narrived, marching in regular file, with their teacher, a negro man, at\ntheir head, and their _standard bearer_ following; next, a sable girl\nwith a box of Testaments on her head. The whole number of children was\nthree hundred and fifty. The male division was first called out, and\nmarched several times around the room, singing and keeping a regular\nstep. After several rounds, they came to a halt, filing off and forming\ninto ranks four rows deep--in quarter-circle shape. The music still\ncontinuing, the girls sallied forth, went through the same evolutions,\nand finally formed in rows corresponding with those of the boys, so as\nto compose with the latter a semicircle.\n\nThe schools were successively examined in spelling, reading, writing,\ncyphering, &c., after the manner already detailed. In most respects they\nshowed equal proficiency with the children of Parham; and in reading the\nTestament, their accuracy was even greater. In looking over the writing,\nseveral \"incendiary\" copies caught our eyes. One was, \"_Masters, give\nunto your servants that which is just and equal_.\" Another, \"_If I\nneglect the cause of my servant, what shall I do when I appear before my\nMaster_!\" A few years ago, _had children been permitted to write at\nall_, one such copy as the above would have exploded the school, and\nperchance sent the teacher to jail for sedition. But now, thanks to God!\nthe Negro children of Antigua are taught liberty from their Bibles, from\ntheir song books, and from their _copy books_ too; they read of liberty,\nthey sing of it, and they write of it; they chant to liberty in their\nschool rooms, and they resume the strains on their homeward way, till\nevery rustling lime-grove, and waving cane-field, is alive with their\nnotes, and every hillock and dell rings with \"free\" echoes.\n\nThe girls, in their turn, pressed around us with the liveliest eagerness\nto display their little pieces of needle-work. Some had samplers marked\nwith letters and devices in vari-colored silk. Others showed specimens\nof stitching; while the little ones held up their rude attempts at\nhemming handkerchiefs, aprons, and so on.\n\nDuring the exercises we spoke to several elderly women, who were present\nto witness the scene. They were laborers on the estates, but having\nchildren in the school, they had put on their Sunday dresses, and \"come\nto see.\" We spoke to one, of the privileges which the children were\nenjoying, since freedom. Her eyes filled, and she exclaimed, \"Yes,\nmassa, we do tank de good Lord for bring de free--never can be too\ntankful.\" She said she had seven children present, and it made her feel\nhappy to know that they were learning to read. Another woman said, when\nshe heard the children reading so finely, she wanted to \"take de word's\nout of da mouts and put em in her own.\" In the morning, when she first\nentered the school house, she felt quite sick, but all the pleasant\nthings she saw and heard, had made her well, and she added, \"I tell you,\nme massa, it do my old heart good to come here.\" Another aged woman, who\nhad grand-children in the school, said, when she saw what advantages the\nchildren enjoyed, she almost cried to think she was not a child too.\nBesides these there were a number of adult men and women, whom curiosity\nor parental solicitude had brought together, and they were thronging\nabout the windows and doors witnessing the various exercises with the\ndeepest interest. Among the rest was one old patriarch, who, anxious to\nbear some part however humble in the exercises of the occasion, walked\nto and fro among the children, with a six feet pole in his hand, to\nkeep order.\n\nThese schools, and those examined at Parham, are under the general\nsupervision of Mr. Charles Thwaites, an indefatigable and long tried\nfriend of the negroes.\n\nWe here insert a valuable communication which we received from Mr. T. in\nreply to several queries addressed to him. It will give further\ninformation relative to the schools.\n\n_Mr. Charles Thwaites' Replies to Queries on Education in Antigua._\n\n1. What has been your business for some years past in Antigua?\n\nA superintendent of schools, and catechist to the negroes.\n\n2. How long have you been engaged in this business?\n\nTwenty-four years. The first four years engaged gratuitously, ten years\nemployed by the Church Missionary Society, and since, by the Wesleyan\nMissionary Society.\n\n3. How many schools have you under your charge?\n\nSunday schools, (including all belonging to the Wesleyan Missionary\nSociety,) eight, with 1850 scholars; day schools, seventeen with 1250\nscholars; night schools on twenty-six estates, 336 scholars. The total\nnumber of scholars under instruction is about 3500.\n\n4. Are the scholars principally the children who were emancipated in\nAugust, 1834?\n\nYes, except the children in St. John's, most of whom were free before.\n\n5. Are the teachers negroes, colored, or white?\n\nOne white, four colored, and sixteen black.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: This number includes only salaried teachers, and not the\ngratuitous.]\n\n6. How many of the teachers were slaves prior to the first of August,\n1834?\n\nThirteen.\n\n7. What were their opportunities for learning?\n\nThe Sunday and night schools; and they have much improved themselves\nsince they have been in their present employment.\n\n8. What are their qualifications for teaching, as to education,\nreligion, zeal, perseverance, &c.?\n\nThe white and two of the colored teachers, I presume, are well\ncalculated, in all respects, to carry on a school in the ablest manner.\nThe others are deficient in education, but are zealous, and very\npersevering.\n\n9. What are the wages of these teachers?\n\nThe teachers' pay is, some four, and some three dollars per month. This\nsum is far too small, and would be greater if the funds were sufficient.\n\n10. How and by whom are the expenses of superintendent, teachers, and\nschools defrayed?\n\nThe superintendent's salary, &c., is paid by the Wesleyan Missionary\nSociety. The expenses of teachers and schools are defrayed by charitable\nsocieties and friends in England, particularly the Negro Education\nSociety, which grants 50l. sterling per annum towards this object, and\npays the rent of the Church Missionary Society's premises in Willoughby\nBay for use of the schools. About 46l. sterling per annum is also raised\nfrom the children; each child taught writing and needle-work, pays\n1-1/2d. sterling per week.\n\n11. Is it your opinion that the negro children are as ready to receive\ninstruction as white children?\n\nYes, perfectly so.\n\n12. Do parents manifest interest in the education of their children?\n\nThey do. Some of the parents are, however, still very ignorant, and are\nnot aware how much their children lose by irregular attendance at\nthe schools.\n\n13. Have there been many instances of _theft_ among the scholars?\n\nNot more than among any other class of children.\n\nRESULTS.\n\nBesides an attendance upon the various schools, we procured specific\ninformation from teachers, missionaries, planters, and others, with\nregard to the past and present state of education, and the weight of\ntestimony was to the following effect:\n\nFirst, That education was by no means extensive previous to\nemancipation. The testimony of one planter was, that not a _tenth part_\nof the present adult population knew the letters of the alphabet. Other\nplanters, and some missionaries, thought the proportion might be\nsomewhat larger; but all agreed that it was very small. The testimony of\nthe venerable Mr. Newby, the oldest Moravian missionary in the island,\nwas, that such was the opposition among the planters, it was impossible\nto teach the slaves, excepting by night, secretly. Mr. Thwaites informed\nus that the children were not allowed to attend day school after they\nwere six years old. All the instruction they obtained after that age,\nwas got at night--a very unsuitable time to study, for those who worked\nall day under an exhausting sun. It is manifest that the instruction\nreceived under six years of age, would soon be effaced by the incessant\ntoil of subsequent life. The account given in a former connection of the\nadult school under the charge of Mr. Morrish, at Newfield, shows most\nclearly the past inattention to education. And yet Mr. M. stated that\nhis school was a _fair specimen of the intelligence of the negroes\ngenerally_. One more evidence in point is the acknowledged ignorance of\nMr. Thwaites' teachers. After searching through the whole freed\npopulation for a dozen suitable teachers of children. Mr. T. could not\nfind even that number who could _read well_. Many children in the\nschools of six years old read better than their teachers.\n\nWe must not be understood to intimate that up to the period of the\nEmancipation, the planters utterly prohibited the education of their\nslaves. Public sentiment had undergone some change previous to that\nevent. When the public opinion of England began to be awakened against\nslavery, the planters were indured, for peace sake, to _tolerate_\neducation to some extent; though they cannot be said to have\n_encouraged_ it until after Emancipation. This is the substance of the\nstatements made to us. Hence it appears that when the active opposition\nof the planters to education ceased, it was succeeded by a general\nindifference, but little less discouraging. We of course speak of the\nplanters as a body; there were some honorable exceptions.\n\nSecond, Education has become very extensive _since_ emancipation. There\nare probably not less than _six thousand_ children who now enjoy daily\ninstruction. These are of all ages under twelve. All classes feel an\ninterest in _knowledge_. While the schools previously established are\nflourishing in newness of life, additional ones are springing up in\nevery quarter. Sabbath schools, adult and infant schools, day and\nevening schools, are all crowded. A teacher in a Sabbath school in St.\nJohn's informed us, that the increase in that school immediately after\nemancipation was so sudden and great, that he could compare it to\nnothing but the rising of the mercury when the thermometer is removed\n_out of the shade into the sun_.\n\nWe learned that the Bible was the principal book taught in all the\nschools throughout the island. As soon as the children have learned to\nread, the Bible is put into their hands. They not only read it, but\ncommit to memory portions of it every day:--the first lesson in the\nmorning is an examination on some passage of scripture. We have never\nseen, even among Sabbath school children, a better acquaintance with the\ncharacters and events recorded in the Old and New Testaments, than among\nthe negro children in Antigua. Those passages which inculcate _obedience\nto law_ are strongly enforced; and the prohibitions against stealing,\nlying, cheating, idleness, &c., are reiterated day and night.\n\nGreat attention is paid to _singing_ in all the schools.\n\nThe songs which they usually sung, embraced such topics as Love to\nGod--the presence of God--obedience to parents--friendship for brothers\nand sisters and schoolmates--love of school--the sinfulness of sloth, of\nlying, and of stealing. We quote the following hymn as a specimen of the\nsubjects which are introduced into their songs: often were we greeted\nwith this sweet hymn, while visiting the different schools throughout\nthe island.\n\nBROTHERLY LOVE.\n\n   CHORUS.\n\n   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers,\n   We're sisters and brothers,\n\n   And heaven is our home.\n   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers,\n   We're sisters and brothers,\n   And heaven is our home.\n\n   The God of heaven is pleased to see\n   That little children all agree;\n   And will not slight the praise they bring,\n   When loving children join to sing:\n   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers, &c.\n\n   For love and kindness please him more\n   Than if we gave him all our store;\n   And children here, who dwell in love,\n   Are like his happy ones above.\n   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers, &c.\n\n   The gentle child that tries to please,\n   That hates to quarrel, fret, and teaze,\n   And would not say an angry word--\n   That child is pleasing to the Lord.\n   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers, &c.\n\n   O God! forgive, whenever we\n   Forget thy will, and disagree;\n   And grant that each of us, may find\n   The sweet delight of being kind.\n   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers, &c.\n\nWe were convinced that the negroes were as capable of receiving\ninstruction as any people in the world. The testimony of teachers,\nmissionaries, clergymen, and planters, was uniform on this point.\n\nSaid one planter of age and long experience on the island, \"The negroes\nare as capable of culture as any people on earth. _Color makes no\ndifference in minds_. It is slavery alone that has degraded the negro.\"\n\nAnother planter, by way of replying to our inquiry on this subject, sent\nfor a negro child of five years, who read with great fluency in any part\nof the Testament to which we turned her. \"Now,\" said the gentleman, \"I\nshould be ashamed to let you hear my own son, of the same age with that\nlittle girl, read after her.\" We put the following questions to the\nWesleyan missionaries: \"Are the negroes as _apt to learn_, as other\npeople in similar circumstances?\" Their written reply was this: \"We\nthink they are; the same diversified qualities of intellect appear among\nthem, as among other people.\" We put the same question to the Moravian\nmissionaries, to the clergymen, and to the teachers of each\ndenomination, some of whom, having taught schools in England, were well\nqualified to judge between the European children and the negro children;\nand we uniformly received substantially the same answer. Such, however,\nwas the air of surprise with which our question was often received, that\nit required some courage to repeat it. Sometimes it excited a smile, as\nthough we could not be serious in the inquiry. And indeed we seldom got\na direct and explicit answer, without previously stating by way of\nexplanation that we had no doubts of our own, but wished to remove those\nextensively entertained among our countrymen. After all, we were\nscarcely credited in Antigua. Such cases as the following were common in\nevery school: children of four and five years old reading the Bible;\nchildren beginning in their A, B, C's, and learning to read in four\nmonths; children of five and six, answering a variety of questions on\nthe historical parts of the Old Testament; children but a little older,\ndisplaying fine specimens of penmanship, performing sums in the compound\nrules, and running over the multiplication table, and the pound,\nshilling, and pence table, without mistake.\n\nWe were grieved to find that most of the teachers employed in the\ninstruction of the children, were exceedingly unfit for the work. They\nare very ignorant themselves, and have but little skill in the\nmanagement of children. This however is a necessary evil. The\nemancipated negroes feel a great anxiety for the education of their\nchildren. They encourage them to go to school, and they labor to support\nthem, while they have strong temptation to detain them at home to work.\nThey also pay a small sum every week for the maintenance of the schools.\n\nIn conclusion, we would observe, that one of the prominent features of\n_regenerated_ Antigua, is its _education_. An intelligent religion, and\na religious education, are the twin glories of this emancipated colony.\nIt is comment enough upon the difference between slavery and freedom,\nthat the same agents which are deprecated as the destroyers of the one,\nare cherished as the defenders of the other.\n\nBefore entering upon a detail of the testimony which bears more directly\nupon slavery in America, we deem it proper to consider the inquiry.\n\n\"What is the amount of freedom in Antigua, as regulated by law?\"\n\n1st. The people are entirely free from the whip, and from all compulsory\ncontrol of the master.\n\n2d. They can change employers whenever they become dissatisfied with\ntheir situation, by previously giving a month's notice.\n\n3d. They have the right of trial by jury in all cases of a serious\nnature, while for small offences, the magistrate's court is open. They\nmay have legal redress for any wrong or violence inflicted by their\nemployers.\n\n4th. Parents have the entire control of their children. The planter\ncannot in any way interfere with them. The parents have the whole charge\nof their support.\n\n5th. By an express provision of the legislature, it was made obligatory\nupon every planter to support all the superannuated, infirm, or diseased\non the estate, _who were such at this time of emancipation_. Those who\nhave become so since 1834, fall upon the hands of their relatives for\nmaintenance.\n\n6th. The amount of wages is not determined by law. By a general\nunderstanding among the planters, the rate is at present fixed at a\nshilling per day, or a little more than fifty cents per week, counting\nfive working days. This matter is wisely left to be regulated by the\ncharacter of the seasons, and the mutual agreement of the parties\nconcerned. As the island is suffering rather from a paucity of laborers,\nthan otherwise, labor must in good seasons command good wages. The\npresent rate of wages is extremely low, though it is made barely\ntolerable by the additional perquisites which the people enjoy. They\nhave them houses rent free, and in connection with them small premises\nforty feet square, suitable for gardens, and for raising poultry, and\npigs, &c.; for which they always find a ready market. Moreover, they are\nburthened with no taxes whatever; and added to this, they are supplied\nwith medical attendance at the expense of the estates.\n\n7th. The master is authorized in case of neglect of work, or turning out\nlate in the morning, or entire absence from labor, to reduce the wages,\nor withhold them for a time, not exceeding a week.\n\n8th. The agricultural laborers may leave the field whenever they choose,\n(provided they give a month's previous notice,) and engage in any other\nbusiness; or they may purchase land and become cultivators themselves,\nthough in either case they are of course liable to forfeit their houses\non the estates.\n\n9th. They may leave the island, if they choose, and seek their fortunes\nin any other part of the world, by making provision for their near\nrelatives left behind. This privilege has been lately tested by the\nemigration of some of the negroes to Demerara. The authorities of the\nisland became alarmed lest they should lose too many of the laboring\npopulation, and the question was under discussion, at the time we were\nin Antigua, whether it would not be lawful to prohibit the emigration.\nIt was settled, however, that such a measure would be illegal, and the\nplanters were left to the alternative of either being abandoned by their\nnegroes, or of securing their continuance by adding to their comforts\nand treating them kindly.\n\n10. The right of suffrage, and eligibility to office are subject to no\nrestrictions, save the single one of property, which is the same with\nall colors. The property qualification, however, is so great, as\neffectually to exclude the whole agricultural negro population for\nmany years.\n\n11th. _The main constabulary force is composed of emancipated negroes,\nliving on the estates_. One or two trust-worthy men on each estate are\nempowered with the authority of constables in relation to the people on\nthe same estate, and much reliance is placed upon these men, to preserve\norder and to bring offenders to trial.\n\n12th. A body of police has been established, whose duty it is to arrest\nall disorderly or riotous persons, to repair to the estates in case of\ntrouble, and co-operate with the constables, in arraigning all persons\ncharged with the violation of law.\n\n13th. The punishment for slight offences, such as stealing sugar-canes\nfrom the field, is confinement in the house of correction, or being\nsentenced to the tread-mill, for any period from three days to three\nmonths. The punishment for burglary, and other high offences, is\nsolitary confinement in chains, or transportation for life to\nBotany Bay.\n\nSuch are the main features in the statutes, regulating the freedom of\nthe emancipated population of Antigua. It will be seen that there is no\nenactment which materially modifies, or unduly restrains, the liberty of\nthe subject. There are no secret reservations or postscript provisoes,\nwhich nullify the boon of freedom. Not only is slavery utterly\nabolished, but all its appendages are scattered to the winds; and a\nsystem of impartial laws secures justice to all, of every color and\ncondition.\n\nThe measure of success which has crowned the experiment of emancipation\nin Antigua--an experiment tried under so many adverse circumstances, and\nwith comparatively few local advantages--is highly encouraging to\nslaveholders in our country. It must be evident that the balance of\nadvantages between the situation of Antigua and that of the South, _is\ndecidedly in favor of the latter_. The South has her resident\nproprietors, her resources of wealth, talent, and enterprise, and her\npreponderance of white population; she also enjoys a regularity of\nseasons, but rarely disturbed by desolating droughts, a bracing climate,\nwhich imparts energy and activity to her laboring population, and\ncomparatively numerous wants to stimulate and press the laborer up to\nthe _working mark_; she has close by her side the example of a free\ncountry, whose superior progress in internal improvements, wealth, the\narts and sciences, morals and religion, all ocular demonstration to her\nof her own wretched policy, and a moving appeal in favor of abolition;\nand above all, site has the opportunity of choosing her own mode, and of\nensuring all the blessings of a _voluntary and peaceable manumission_,\nwhile the energies, the resources, the sympathies, and the prayers of\nthe North, stand pledged to her assistance.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nFACTS AND TESTIMONY.\n\nWe have reserved the mass of facts and testimony, bearing immediately\nupon slavery in America, in order that we might present them together in\na condensed furor, under distinct heads. These heads, it will be\nperceived, consist chiefly of propositions which are warmly contested in\nour country. Will the reader examine these principles in the light of\nfacts? Will the candid of our countrymen--whatever opinions they may\nhitherto hate entertained on this subject--hear the concurrent testimony\nof numerous planters, legislators, lawyers, physicians, and merchants,\nwho have until three years past been wedded to slavery by birth,\neducation, prejudice, associations, and supposed interest, but who have\nsince been divorced from all connection with the system?\n\nIn most cases we shall give the names, the stations, and business of our\nwitnesses; in a few instances, in which we were requested to withhold\nthe name, we shall state such circumstances as will serve to show the\nstanding and competency of the individuals. If the reader should find in\nwhat follows, very little testimony unfavorable to emancipation, he may\nknow the reason to be, that little was to be gleaned from any part of\nAntigua. Indeed, we may say that, with very few exceptions, the\nsentiments here recorded as coming from individuals, are really the\nsentiments of the whole community. There is no such thing known in\nAntigua as an _opposing, disaffected party_. So complete and thorough\nhas been the change in public opinion, that it would be now\n_disreputable_ to speak against emancipation.\n\nFIRST PROPOSITION.--The transition from slavery to freedom is\nrepresented as a greet revolution, by which a prodigious change was\neffected in _the condition of the negroes_.\n\nIn conversation with us, the planters often spoke of the greatness and\nsuddenness of the change. Said Mr. Barnard, of Green Castle estate, \"The\ntransition from slavery to freedom, was like passing suddenly out of a\ndark dungeon into the light of the sun.\"\n\nR.B. Eldridge, Esq., a member of the assembly, remarked, that, \"There\nnever had been in the history of the world so great and instantaneous a\nchange in the condition of so large a body of people.\"\n\nThe Honorable Nicholas Nugent, speaker of the house of assembly, and\nproprietor, said, \"There never was so sudden a transition from one state\nto another, by so large a body of people. When the clock began to strike\nthe hour of twelve on the last night of July, 1834, the negroes of\nAntigua were _slaves_--when it ceased they were all _freemen!_ It was a\nstupendous change,\" he said, \"and it was one of the sublimest spectacles\never witnessed, to see the subjects of the change engaged at the very\nmoment it occurred, in worshipping God.\"\n\nThese, and very many similar ones, were the spontaneous expressions of\nmen _who had long contended against the change_ of which they spoke.\n\nIt is exceedingly difficult to make slaveholders see that there is any\nmaterial difference between slavery and freedom; but when they have once\nrenounced slavery, they _will magnify this distinction_ more than any\nother class of men.\n\nSECOND PROPOSITION.--Emancipation in Antigua was the result of political\nand pecuniary considerations merely.\n\nAbolition was seen to be inevitable, and there were but two courses left\nto the colonists--to adopt the apprenticeship system, or immediate\nemancipation. Motives of convenience led them to choose the latter.\nConsiderations of general philanthropy, of human rights, and of the\nsinfulness of slavery, were scarcely so much as thought of.\n\nSome time previous to the abolition of slavery, a meeting of the\ninfluential men of the island was called in St. John's, to memorialize\nparliament against the measure of abolition. When the meeting convened,\nthe Hon. Samuel O. Baijer, who had been the champion of the opposition,\nwas called upon to propose a plan of procedure. To the consternation of\nthe pro-slavery meeting, their leader arose and spoke to the following\neffect:--\"Gentlemen, my previous sentiments on this subject are well\nknown to you all; be not surprised to learn that they have undergone an\nentire change, I have not altered my views without mature deliberation.\nI have been making calculations with regard to the probable results of\nemancipation, and _I have ascertained beyond a doubt, that I can\ncultivate my estate at least one third cheaper by free labor than by\nslave labor_.\" After Mr. B. had finished his remarks, Mr. S. Shands,\nmember of assembly, and a wealthy proprietor, observed that he\nentertained precisely the same views with those just expressed; but he\nthought that the honorable gentleman had been unwise in uttering them in\nso public a manner; \"for,\" said he, \"should these sentiments reach the\near of parliament, as coming from us, _it might induce them to withhold\nthe compensation_.\"\n\nCol. Edwards, member of the assembly, then arose and said, that he had\nlong been opposed to slavery, but he had not _dared to avow his\nsentiments_.\n\nAs might be supposed, the meeting adjourned without effecting the object\nfor which it was convened.\n\nWhen the question came before the colonial assembly, similar discussions\nensued, and finally the bill for immediate emancipation passed both\nbodies _unanimously_. It was an evidence of the spirit of selfish\nexpediency, which prompted the whole procedure, that they clogged the\nemancipation bill with the proviso that a certain governmental tax on\nexports, called the four and a half per cent tax[A], should be repealed.\nThus clogged, the bill was sent home for sanction, but it was rejected\nby parliament, and sent back with instructions, that before it could\nreceive his majesty's seal, it must appear wholly unencumbered with\nextraneous provisoes. This was a great disappointment to the\nlegislature, and it so chagrined them that very many actually withdrew\ntheir support from the bill for emancipation, which passed finally in\nthe assembly only by the casting vote of the speaker.\n\n[Footnote A: We subjoin the following brief history of the four and a\nhalf per cent. tax, which we procured from the speaker of the assembly.\nIn the rein of Charles II., Antigua was conquered by the French, and the\ninhabitants were forced to swear allegiance to the French government. In\na very short time the French were driven off the island and the English\nagain took possession of it. It was then declared, by order of the king,\nthat as the people had, by swearing allegiance to another government,\nforfeited the protection of the British government, and all title to\ntheir lands, they should not again receive either, except on condition\nof paying to the king a duty of four and a half per cent on every\narticle exported from the island--and that they were to do in\n_perpetuity_. To this hard condition they were obliged to submit, and\nthey have groaned under the onerous duty ever since. On every occasion,\nwhich offered any hope, they have sought the repeal of the tax, but have\nuniformly been defeated. When they saw that the abolition question was\ncoming to a crisis, they resolved to make a last effort for the repeal\nof the four and a half percent duty. They therefore adopted immediate\nemancipation, and then, covered as they were, with the laurels of so\nmagnanimous an act, they presented to parliament their cherished object.\nThe defeat was a humiliating one, and it produced such a reaction in the\nisland, as well nigh led to the rescinding of the abolition bill.]\n\nThe verbal and written statements of numerous planters also confirm the\ndeclaration that emancipation was a measure solely of selfish policy.\n\nSaid Mr. Bernard, of Green Castle estate \"Emancipation was preferred to\napprenticeship, because it was attended with less trouble, and left the\nplanters independent, instead of being saddled with a legion of\nstipendiary magistrates.\"\n\nSaid Dr. Daniell, member of the council, and proprietor--\"The\napprenticeship was rejected by us solely from motives of policy. We did\nnot wish to be annoyed with stipendiary magistrates.\"\n\nSaid Hon. N. Nugent--\"We wished to let ourselves down in the easiest\nmanner possible; _therefore_ we chose immediate freedom in preference to\nthe apprenticeship.\"\n\n\"Emancipation was preferred to apprenticeship, because of the inevitable\nand endless perplexities connected with the latter system.\"--_David\nCranstoun, Esq., colonial magistrate and planter_.\n\n\"It is not pretended that emancipation was produced by the influence of\nreligious considerations. It was a measure of mere convenience and\ninterest.\"--_A Moravian Missionary_.\n\nThe following testimony is extracted from a letter addressed to us by a\nhighly respectable merchant of St. John's--a gentleman of long\nexperience on the island, and now agent for several estates.\n\"Emancipation was an act of mere policy, adopted as _the safest and most\neconomic_ measure.\"\n\nOur last item of testimony under this head is from a written statement\nby the Hon. N. Nugent, speaker of the assembly, at the time of\nemancipation. His remarks on this subject, although long, we are sure\nwill be read with interest. Alluding to the adoption of immediate\nemancipation in preference to the apprenticeship, he observes:--\n\n\"The reasons and considerations which led to this step were various, of\ncourse impressing the minds of different individuals in different\ndegrees. As slave emancipation could not be averted, and must inevitably\ntake place very shortly, it was better to meet the crisis at once, than\nto have it hanging over our heads for six years, with all its harassing\ndoubts and anxieties; better to give an air of grace to that which would\nbe ultimately unavoidable; the slaves should rather have a motive of\ngratitude and kind reciprocation, than to feel, on being declared free,\nthat their emancipation could neither be withheld nor retarded by their\nowners. The projected apprenticeship, while it destroyed the means of an\ninstant coercion in a state of involuntary labor, equally withdrew or\nneutralized all those urgent motives which constrain to industrious\nexertion in the case of freemen. It abstracted from the master, in a\nstate of things then barely remunerative, one fourth of the time and\nlabor required in cultivation, and gave it to the servant, while it\ncompelled the master to supply the same allowances as before. With many\nirksome restraints, conditions, and responsibilities imposed on the\nmaster, it had no equivalent advantages. There appeared no reason, in\nshort, why general emancipation would not do as well in 1834 as in 1840.\nFinally, a strong conviction existed that from peculiarity of climate\nand soil, the physical wants and necessities of the peasantry would\ncompel them to labor for their subsistence, to seek employment and wages\nfrom the proprietors of the soil; and if the _transformation_ could be\nsafely and quietly brought about, that the _free_ system might be\ncheaper and more profitable than the other.\"\n\nThe general testimony of planters, missionaries, clergymen, merchants,\nand others, was in confirmation of the same truth.\n\nThere is little reason to believe that the views of the colonists on\nthis subject have subsequently undergone much change. We did not hear,\nexcepting occasionally among the missionaries and clergy, the slightest\ninsinuation thrown out that _slavery was sinful_; that the slaves had a\nright to freedom, or that it would have been wrong to have continued\nthem in bondage. The _politics_ of anti-slavery the Antiguans are\nexceedingly well versed in, but of its _religion_, they seem to feel but\nlittle. They seem never to have examined slavery in its moral relations;\nnever to have perceived its monstrous violations of right and its\nimpious tramplings upon God and man. The Antigua planters, it would\nappear, have _yet_ to repent of the sin of slaveholding.\n\nIf the results of an emancipation so destitute of _principle_, so purely\nselfish, could produce such general satisfaction, and be followed by\nsuch happy results, it warrants us in anticipating still more decided\nand unmingled blessings in the train of a voluntary, conscientious, and\nreligious abolition.\n\nTHIRD PROPOSITION.--The _event_ of emancipation passed PEACEFULLY. The\nfirst of August, 1834, is universally regarded in Antigua, as having\npresented a most imposing and sublime moral spectacle. It is almost\nimpossible to be in the company of a missionary, a planter, or an\nemancipated negro, for ten minutes, without hearing some allusion to\nthat occasion. Even at the time of our visit to Antigua, after the lapse\nof nearly three years, they spoke of the event with an admiration\napparently unabated.\n\nFor some time previous to the first of August, forebodings of disaster\nlowered over the island. The day was fixed! Thirty thousand degraded\nhuman beings were to be brought forth from the dungeon of slavery and\n\"turned loose on the community!\" and this was to be done \"in a moment,\nin the twinkling of an eye.\"\n\nGloomy apprehensions were entertained by many of the planters. Some\ntimorous families did not go to bed on the night of the 31st of July;\nfear drove sleep from their eyes, and they awaited with fluttering pulse\nthe hour of midnight, fearing lest the same bell which sounded the\njubilee of the slaves might toll the death knell of the masters.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: We were informed by a merchant of St. John's, that several\nAmerican vessels which had lain for weeks in the harbor, weighed anchor\non the 31st of July, and made their escape, through actual fear, that\nthe island would be destroyed on the following day. Ere they set sail\nthey earnestly besought our informant to escape from the island, as he\nvalued his life.]\n\nThe more intelligent, who understood the disposition of the negroes, and\ncontemplated the natural tendencies of emancipation, through\nphilosophical principles, and to the light of human nature and history,\nwere free from alarm.\n\nTo convey to the reader some idea of the manner in which the great\ncrisis passed, we give the substance of several accounts which were\nrelated to us in different parts of the island, by those who\nwitnessed them.\n\nThe Wesleyans kept \"watch-night\" in all their chapels on the night of\nthe 31st July. One of the Wesleyan missionaries gave us an account of\nthe watch meeting at the chapel in St. John's. The spacious house was\nfilled with the candidates for liberty. All was animation and eagerness.\nA mighty chorus of voices swelled the song of expectation and joy, and\nas they united in prayer, the voice of the leader was drowned in the\nuniversal acclamations of thanksgiving and praise, and blessing, and\nhonor, and glory, to God, who had come down for their deliverance. In\nsuch exercises the evening was spent until the hour of twelve\napproached. The missionary then proposed that when the clock on the\ncathedral should begin to strike, the whole congregation should fall\nupon their knees and receive the boon of freedom in silence.\nAccordingly, as the loud bell tolled its first note, the immense\nassembly fell prostrate on their knees. All was silence, save the\nquivering half-stifled breath of the struggling spirit. The slow notes\nof the clock fell upon the multitude; peal on peal, peal on peal, rolled\nover the prostrate throng, in tones of angels' voices, thrilling among\nthe desolate chords and weary heart strings. Scarce had the clock\nsounded its last note, when the lightning flashed vividly around, and a\nloud peal of thunder roared along the sky--God's pillar of fire, and\ntrump of jubilee! A moment of profoundest silence passed--then came the\n_burst_--they broke forth in prayer; they shouted, they sung, \"Glory,\"\n\"alleluia;\" they clapped their hands, leaped up, fell down, clasped each\nother in their free arms, cried, laughed, and went to and fro, tossing\nupward their unfettered hands; but high above the whole there was a\nmighty sound which ever and anon swelled up; it was the utterings in\nbroken negro dialect of gratitude to God.\n\nAfter this gush of excitement had spent itself; and the congregation\nbecame calm, the religious exercises were resumed, and the remainder of\nthe night was occupied in singing and prayer, in reading the Bible, and\nin addresses from the missionaries explaining the nature of the freedom\njust received, and exhorting the freed people to be industrious, steady,\nobedient to the laws, and to show themselves in all things worthy of the\nhigh boon which God had conferred upon them.\n\nThe first of August came on Friday, and a release was proclaimed from\nall work until the next Monday. The day was chiefly spent by the great\nmass of the negroes in the churches and chapels. Thither they flocked\n\"as clouds, and as doves to their windows.\" The clergy and missionaries\nthroughout the island were actively engaged, seizing the opportunity in\norder to enlighten the people on all the duties and responsibilities of\ntheir new relation, and above all, urging them to the attainment of that\nhigher liberty with which Christ maketh his children free. In every\nquarter we were assured that the day was like a Sabbath. Work had\nceased; the hum of business was still, and noise and tumult were unheard\non the streets. Tranquillity pervaded the towns and country. A Sabbath\nindeed! when the wicked ceased from troubling, and the weary were at\nrest, and the slave was free from his master! The planters informed us\nthat they went to the chapels where their own people were assembled,\ngreeted them, shook hands with them, and exchanged the most hearty\ngood wishes.\n\nThe churches and chapels were thronged all over the island. At Cedar\nHall, a Moravian station, the crowd was so great that the minister was\nobliged to remove the meeting from the chapel to a neighboring grove.\n\nAt Grace Hill, another Moravian station, the negroes went to the\nMissionary on the day before the first of August, and begged that they\nmight be allowed to have a meeting in the chapel at sunrise. It is the\nusual practice among the Moravians to hold but one sunrise meeting\nduring the year, and that is on the morning of Easter: but as the people\nbesought very earnestly for this special favor on the Easter morning of\ntheir freedom, it was granted to them.\n\nEarly in the morning they assembled at the chapel. For some time they\nsat in perfect silence. The missionary then proposed that they should\nkneel down and sing. The whole audience fell upon their knees, and sung\na hymn commencing with the following verse:\n\n   \"Now let us praise the Lord,\n   With body, soul and spirit,\n   Who doth such wondrous things,\n   Beyond our sense and merit.\"\n\nThe singing was frequently interrupted with the tears and sobbings of\nthe melted people, until finally it was wholly arrested, and a tumult of\nemotion overwhelmed the congregation.\n\nDuring the day, repeated meetings were held. At eleven o'clock, the\npeople assembled in vast numbers. There were at least a _thousand_\npersons around the chapel, who could not get in. For once the house of\nGod suffered violence, and the violent took it by force. After all the\nservices of the day, the people went again to the missionaries in a\nbody, and petitioned to have a meeting in the evening.\n\nAt Grace Bay, the people, all dressed in white, assembled in a spacious\ncourt in front of the Moravian chapel. They formed a procession and\nwalked arm in arm into the chapel. Similar scenes occurred at all the\nchapels and at the churches also. We were told by the missionaries that\nthe dress of the negroes on that occasion was uncommonly simple and\nmodest. There was not the least disposition of gaiety.\n\nWe were also informed by planters and missionaries in every part of the\nisland, that there was not a single dance known of, either day or night,\nnor so much as a fiddle played. There were no riotous assemblies, no\ndrunken carousals. It was not in such channels that the excitement of\nthe emancipated flowed. They were as far from dissipation and\ndebauchery, as they were from violence and carnage. GRATITUDE was the\nabsorbing emotion. From the hill-tops, and the valleys, the cry of a\ndisenthralled people went upward like the sound of many waters, \"Glory\nto God, glory to God.\"\n\nThe testimony of the planters corresponds fully with that of the\nmissionaries.\n\nSaid R.B. Eldridge, Esq., after speaking of the number emancipated, \"Yet\nthis vast body, (30,000,) _glided_ out of slavery into freedom with the\nutmost tranquillity.\"\n\nDr. Daniell observed, that after so prodigious a revolution in the\ncondition of the negroes, he expected that some irregularities would\nensue; but he had been entirely disappointed. He also said that he\nanticipated some relaxation from labour during the week following\nemancipation. But he found his hands in the field early on Monday\nmorning, and not one missing. The same day he received word from another\nestate, of which he was proprietor,[A] that the negroes had to a man\nrefused to go to the field. He immediately rode to the estate and found\nthe people standing with their hoes in their hands doing nothing. He\naccosted them in a friendly manner: \"What does this mean, my fellows,\nthat you are not at work this morning?\" They immediately replied, \"It's\nnot because we don't want to work, massa, but we wanted to see you first\nand foremost to _know what the bargain would be_.\" As soon as that\nmatter was settled, the whole body of negroes turned out cheerfully,\nwithout a moment's cavil.\n\n[Footnote A: It is not unusual in the West Indies for proprietors to\ncommit their own estates into the hands of managers; and be themselves,\nthe managers of other men's estates.]\n\nMr. Bourne, of Millar's, informed us that the largest gang he had ever\nseen in the field on his property, turned out the _week after\nemancipation_.\n\nSaid Hon. N. Nugent, \"Nothing could surpass the universal propriety of\nthe negroes' conduct on the first of August, 1834! Never was there a\nmore beautiful and interesting spectacle exhibited, than on that\noccasion.\"\n\nFOURTH PROPOSITION.--There has been _since_ emancipation, not only _no\nrebellion in fact_, but NO FEAR OF IT in Antigua.\n\nProof 1st. The militia were not called out during Christmas holidays.\n_Before_ emancipation, martial law invariably prevailed on the holidays,\nbut the very first Christmas after emancipation, the Governor made a\nproclamation stating that _in consequence of the abolition of slavery_\nit was no longer necessary to resort to such a precaution. There has not\nbeen a parade of soldiery on any subsequent Christmas.[B]\n\n[Footnote B: This has been followed by a measure on the part of the\nLegislature, which is further proof of the same thing. It is \"an Act for\namending and further continuing the several Acts at present in force for\nbetter organizing and ordering the militia.\"\n\nThe preamble reads thus:\n\n    \"WHEREAS the abolition of slavery in this island renders it\n    expedient to provide against an unnecessary augmentation of the\n    militia, and the existing laws for better organizing and ordering\n    that local force require amendment.\"\n\nThe following military advertisement also shows the increasing\nconfidence which is felt in the freed men:\n\n    \"RECRUITS WANTED.--The free men of Antigua are now called on to show\n    their gratitude and loyalty to King WILLIAM, for the benefits he has\n    conferred on them and their families, by volunteering their services\n    as soldiers in his First West India Regiment; in doing which they\n    will acquire a still higher rank in society, by being placed on a\n    footing of perfect equality with the other troops in his Majesty's\n    service, and receive the same bounty, pay, clothing, rations and\n    allowances.\n\n    None but young men of good character can be received, and all such\n    will meet with every encouragement by applying at St. John's\n    Barracks, to\n\n    H. DOWNIE, _Capt. 1st W.I. Regt_. _September 15th_, 1836.\"\n]\n\n2d. The uniform declaration of planters and others:\n\n\"Previous to emancipation, many persons apprehended violence and\nbloodshed as the consequence of turning the slaves all loose. But when\nemancipation took place, all these apprehensions vanished. The sense of\npersonal security is universal. We know not of a single instance in\nwhich the negroes have exhibited a _revengeful spirit_.\"\n\n_S. Bourne, Esq., of Millar's.--Watkins, Esq., of Donovan's._\n\n\"It has always appeared to me self-evident, that if a man is peaceable\nwhile a _slave_, he will be so when a _free man_.\"\n\n_Dr. Ferguson._\n\n\"There is no possible danger of personal violence from the slaves;\nshould a foreign power invade our island, I have no doubt that the\nnegroes would, to a man, fight for the planters. I have the utmost\nconfidence in all the people who are under my management; they are my\nfriends, and they consider me their friend.\"\n\n_H. Armstrong, Esq., of Fitch's Creek._\n\nThe same gentleman informed us that during slavery, he used frequently\nto lie sleepless on his bed, thinking about his dangerous situation--a\nlone white person far away from help, and surrounded by hundreds of\nsavage slaves; and he had spent hours thus, in devising plans of\nself-defence in case the house should be attacked by the negroes. \"If\nthey come,\" he would say to himself, \"and break down the door, and fill\nmy bedroom, what shall I do? It will be useless to fire at them; my only\nhope is to frighten the superstitious fellows by covering myself with a\nwhite sheet, and rushing into the midst of them, crying,\n'ghost, ghost.'\"\n\nNow Mr. A. sleeps in peace and safety, without conjuring up a ghost to\nkeep guard at his bedside. His bodyguard is a battalion of substantial\nflesh and blood, made up of those who were once the objects of his\nnightly terror!\n\n\"There has been no instance of personal violence since freedom. Some\npersons pretended, prior to emancipation, to apprehend disastrous\nresults; but for my part I cannot say that I ever entertained such\nfears. I could not see any thing which was to instigate negroes to\nrebellion, _after_ they had obtained their liberty. I have not heard of\na single case of even _meditated_ revenge.\"\n\n_Dr. Daniell, Proprietor, Member of Council, Attorney of six estates,\nand Manager of Weatherill's._\n\n\"One of the blessings of emancipation has been, that it has banished the\n_fear_ of insurrections, incendiarism, &c.\"\n\n_Mr. Favey, Manager of Lavicount's._\n\n\"In my extensive intercourse with the people, as missionary, I have\nnever heard of an instance of violence or revenge on the part of the\nnegroes, even where they had been ill-treated during slavery.\"\n\n_Rev. Mr. Morrish, Moravian Missionary._\n\n\"Insurrection or revenge is in no case dreaded, not even by those\nplanters who were most cruel in the time of slavery. My family go to\nsleep every night with the doors unlocked, and we fear neither violence\nnor robbery.\"\n\n_Hon. N. Nugent._\n\nAgain, in a written communication, the same gentleman remarks:--\"There\nis not the slightest feeling of insecurity--quite the contrary. Property\nis more secure, _for all idea of insurrection is abolished forever_.\"\n\n\"We have no cause now to fear insurrections; emancipation has freed us\nfrom all danger on this score.\"\n\n_David Cranstoun, Esq._\n\nExtract of a letter from a merchant of St. John's who has resided in\nAntigua more than thirty years:\n\n\"There is no sense of personal danger arising from insurrections or\nconspiracies among the blacks. Serious apprehensions of this nature were\nformerly entertained; but they gradually died away _during the first\nyear of freedom_.\"\n\nWe quote the following from a communication addressed to us by a\ngentleman of long experience in Antigua--now a merchant in St.\nJohn's--_James Scotland, Sen., Esq._\n\n\"Disturbances, insubordinations, and revelry, have greatly decreased\nsince emancipation; and it is a remarkable fact, that on the day of\nabolition, which was observed with the solemnity and services of the\nSabbath, not an instance of common insolence was experienced from any\nfreed man.\"\n\n\"There is no feeling of insecurity. A stronger proof of this cannot be\ngiven than the dispensing, within five months after emancipation, with\nthe Christmas guards, which had been regularly and uninterruptedly kept,\nfor nearly one hundred years--during the whole time of slavery.\"\n\n\"The military has never been called out, but on one occasion, since the\nabolition, and that was when a certain planter, the most violent enemy\nof freedom, reported to the Governor that there were strong symptoms of\ninsurrection among his negroes. The story was generally laughed at, and\nthe reporter of it was quite ashamed of his weakness and fears.\"\n\n\"My former occupation, as editor of a newspaper, rendered it necessary\nfor me to make incessant inquiries into the conduct as well as the\ntreatment of the emancipated, and I have _never heard any instance of\nrevenge_ for former injuries. The negroes have _quitted_ managers who\nwere _harsh or cruel_ to them in their bondage, but they removed in a\npeaceable and orderly manner.\"\n\n\"Our negroes, and I presume other negroes too, are very little less\nsensible to the force of those motives which lead to the peace, order,\nand welfare of society, than any other set of people.\"\n\n\"The general conduct of the negroes has been worthy of much praise,\nespecially considering the sudden transition from slavery to\nunrestricted freedom. Their demeanor is peaceable and orderly.\"\n\n_Ralph Higinbothom, U. S. Consul._\n\nAs we mingled with the missionaries, both in town and country, they all\nbore witness to the security of their persons and families. They,\nequally with the planters, were surprised that we should make any\ninquiries about insurrections. A question on this subject generally\nexcited a smile, a look of astonishment, or some exclamation, such as\n\"_Insurrection_! my dear sirs, we do not think of such a thing;\" or,\n\"Rebellion indeed! why, what should they rebel for _now_, since they\nhave got their liberty!\"\n\nPhysicians informed us that they were in the habit of riding into the\ncountry at all hours of the night, and though they were constantly\npassing negroes, both singly and in companies, they never had\nexperienced any rudeness, nor even so much as an insolent word. They\ncould go by night or day, into any part of the island where their\nprofessional duties called them, without the slightest sense of danger.\n\nA residence of nine weeks in the island gave us no small opportunity of\ntesting the reality of its boasted security. The hospitality of planters\nand missionaries, of which we have recorded so many instances in a\nprevious part of this work, gave us free access to their houses in every\npart of the island. In many cases we were constrained to spend the night\nwith them, and thus enjoyed, in the intimacies of the domestic circle,\nand in the unguarded moments of social intercourse, every opportunity of\ndetecting any lurking fears of violence, if such there had been; but we\nsaw no evidence of it, either in the arrangements of the houses or in\nthe conduct of the inmates[A].\n\n[Footnote A: In addition to the evidence derived from Antigua, we\nwould mention the following fact:\n\nA planter, who is also an attorney, informed us that on the neighboring\nlittle island of Barbuda, (which is leased from the English government\nby Sir Christopher Coddrington,) there are five hundred negroes and only\n_three white men_. The negroes are entirely free, yet the whites\ncontinue to live among them without any fear of having their throats\ncut. The island is cultivated in sugar.--Barbuda is under the\ngovernment of Antigua, and accordingly the act of entire emancipation\nextended to that island.]\n\nFIFTH PROPOSITION.--There has been no fear of house breaking, highway\nrobberies, and like misdemeanors, since emancipation. Statements,\nsimilar to those adduced under the last head, from planters, and other\ngentlemen, might be introduced here; but as this proposition is so\nintimately involved in the foregoing, separate proof is not necessary.\nThe same causes which excite apprehensions of insurrection, produce\nfears of robberies and other acts of violence; so also the same state of\nsociety which establishes security of person, insures the safety of\nproperty. Both in town and country we heard gentlemen repeatedly speak\nof the slight fastenings to their houses. A mere lock, or bolt, was all\nthat secured the outside doors, and they might be burst open with ease,\nby a single man. In some cases, as has already been intimated, the\nplanters habitually neglect to fasten their doors--so strong is their\nconfidence of safety. We were not a little struck with the remark of a\ngentleman in St. John's. He said he had long been desirous to remove to\nEngland, his native country, and had slavery continued much longer in\nAntigua, he certainly should have gone; but _now_ the _security of\nproperty was so much greater in Antigua than it was in England_, that he\nthought it doubtful whether he should ever _venture_ to take his\nfamily thither.\n\nSIXTH PROPOSITION.--Emancipation is regarded by all classes as a great\nblessing to the island.\n\nThere is not a class, or party, or sect, who do not esteem the abolition\nof slavery as a _special blessing to them_. The rich, because it\nrelieved them of \"property\" which was fast becoming a disgrace, as it\nhad always been a vexation and a tax, and because it has emancipated\nthem from the terrors of insurrection, which kept them all their life\ntime subject to bondage. The poor whites--because it lifted from off\nthem the yoke of civil oppression. The free colored population--because\nit gave the death blow to the prejudice that crushed them, and opened\nthe prospect of social, civil, and political equality with the whites.\nThe _slaves_--because it broke open their dungeon, led them out to\nliberty, and gave them, in one munificent donation, their wives, their\nchildren, their bodies, their souls--every thing!\n\nThe following extracts from the journals of the legislature, show the\nstate of feeling existing shortly after emancipation. The first is dated\nOctober 30, 1834:\n\n\"The Speaker said, that he looked with exultation at the prospect before\nus. The hand of the Most High was evidently working for us. Could we\nregard the universal tranquillity, the respectful demeanor of the lower\nclasses, as less than an interposition of Providence? The agricultural\nand commercial prosperity of the island were absolutely on the advance;\nand for his part he would not hesitate to purchase estates to-morrow.\"\n\nThe following remark was made in the course of a speech by a member of\nthe council, November 12, 1834:\n\n\"Colonel Brown stated, that since emancipation he had never been without\na sufficient number of laborers, and he was certain he could obtain as\nmany more to-morrow as he should wish.\"\n\nThe general confidence in the beneficial results of emancipation, has\ngrown stronger with every succeeding year and month. It has been seen\nthat freedom will bear trial; that it will endure, and continue to bring\nforth fruits of increasing value.\n\nThe Governor informed us that \"it was _universally admitted_, that\nemancipation had been a great blessing to the island.\"\n\nIn a company of proprietors and planters, who met us on a certain\noccasion, among whom were lawyers, magistrates, and members of the\ncouncil, and of the assembly, the sentiment was distinctly avowed, that\nemancipation was highly beneficial to the island, and there was not a\ndissenting opinion.\n\n\"Emancipation is working most admirably, especially for the planters. It\nis infinitely better policy than slavery or the apprenticeship either.\"\n--_Dr. Ferguson_.\n\n\"Our planters find that freedom answers a far better purpose than\nslavery ever did. A gentleman, who is attorney for eight estates,\nassured me that there was no comparison between the benefits and\nadvantages of the two systems.\"--_Archdeacon Parry_.\n\n\"All the planters in my neighborhood (St. Philip's parish) are highly\npleased with the operation of the new system.\"--_Rev. Mr. Jones, Rector\nof St. Philip's_.\n\n\"I do not know of more than one or two planters in the whole island, who\ndo not consider emancipation as a decided advantage to all parties.\"\n--_Dr. Daniell_.\n\nThat emancipation should be universally regarded as a blessing, is\nremarkable, when we consider that combination of untoward circumstances\nwhich it has been called to encounter--a combination wholly\nunprecedented in the history of the island. In 1835, the first year of\nthe new system, the colony was visited by one of the most desolating\nhurricanes which has occurred for many years. In the same year,\ncultivation was arrested, and the crops greatly reduced, by drought.\nAbout the same time, the yellow fever prevailed with fearful mortality.\nThe next year the drought returned, and brooded in terror from March\nuntil January, and from January until June: not only blasting the\nharvest of '36, but extending its blight over the crops of '37.\n\nNothing could be better calculated to try the confidence in the new\nsystem. Yet we find all classes zealously exonerating emancipation, and\nin despite of tornado, plague, and wasting, still affirming the\nblessings and advantages of freedom!\n\nSEVENTH PROPOSITION.--_Free labor_ is decidedly LESS EXPENSIVE than\n_slave labor_. It costs the planter actually less to pay his free\nlaborers daily wages, than it did to maintain his slaves. It will be\nobserved in the testimony which follows, that there is some difference\nof opinion as to the _precise amount_ of reduction in the expenses,\nwhich is owing to the various modes of management on different estates,\nand more particularly, to the fact that some estates raise all their\nprovisions, while others raise none. But as to the fact itself, there\ncan scarcely be said to be any dispute among the planters. There was one\nclass of planters whose expenses seemed to be somewhat increased, viz.\nthose who raised all their provisions before emancipation, and ceased to\nraise any _after_ that event. But in the opinion of the most intelligent\nplanters, even these did not really sustain any loss, for originally it\nwas bad policy to raise provisions, since it engrossed that labor which\nwould have been more profitably directed to the cultivation of sugar;\nand hence they would ultimately be gainers by the change.\n\nS. Bourne, Esq. stated that the expenses on Millar's estate, of which he\nis manager, had diminished about _one third_.\n\nMr. Barnard, of Green Castle, thought his expenses were about the same\nthat they were formerly.\n\nMr. Favey, of Lavicount's estate, enumerated, among the advantages of\nfreedom over slavery, \"the diminished expense.\"\n\nDr. Nugent also stated, that \"the expenses of cultivation were greatly\ndiminished.\"\n\nMr. Hatley, manager of Fry's estate, said that the expenses on his\nestate had been greatly reduced since emancipation. He showed us the\naccount of his expenditures for the last year of slavery, and the first\nfull year of freedom, 1835. The expenses during the last year of slavery\nwere 1371_l._ 2_s._ 4-1/2_d._; the expenses for 1835 were 821_l._ 16_s._\n7-1/2_d._: showing a reduction of more than one third.\n\nD. Cranstoun, Esq., informed us that his weekly expenses during slavery,\non the estate which he managed, were, on an average, 45_l._; the average\nexpenses now do not exceed 20_l._\n\nExtract of a letter from Hon. N. Nugent:\n\n\"The expenses of cultivating sugar estates have in no instance, I\nbelieve, been found _greater_ than before. As far as my experience goes,\nthey are certainly less, particularly as regards those properties which\nwere overhanded before, when proprietors were compelled to support more\ndependents than they required. In some cases, the present cost is less\nby _one third_. I have not time to furnish you with any detailed\nstatements, but the elements of the calculation are simple enough.\"\n\nIt is not difficult to account for the diminution in the cost of\ncultivation. In the first place, for those estates that bought their\nprovision previous to emancipation, it cost more money to purchase their\nstores than they now pay out in wages. This was especially true in dry\nseasons, when home provisions failed, and the island was mainly\ndependent upon foreign supplies.\n\nBut the chief source of the diminution lies in the reduced number of\npeople to be supported by the planter. During slavery, the planter was\nrequired by law to maintain _all_ the slaves belonging to the estate;\nthe superannuated, the infirm, the pregnant, the nurses, the young\nchildren, and the infants, as well as the working slaves. Now it is only\nthe latter class, the effective laborers, (with the addition of such as\nwere superannuated or infirm at the period of emancipation,) who are\ndependent upon the planter. These are generally not more than one half,\nfrequently less than a third, of the whole number of negroes resident on\nthe estate; consequently a very considerable burthen has been removed\nfrom the planter.\n\nThe reader may form some estimate of the reduced expense to the planter,\nresulting from these causes combined, by considering the statement made\nto us by Hon. N. Nugent, and repeatedly by proprietors and managers,\nthat had slavery been in existence during the present drought, many of\nthe smaller estates _must have been inevitably ruined_; on account of\nthe high price of imported provisions, (home provisions having fallen\nshort) and the number of slaves to be fed.\n\nEIGHTH PROPOSITION.--The negroes work _more cheerfully_, and _do their\nwork better_ than they did during slavery. Wages are found to be an\nample substitute for the lash--they never fail to secure the amount of\nlabor desired. This is particularly true where task work is tried, which\nis done occasionally in cases of a pressing nature, when considerable\neffort is required. We heard of no complaints on the score of idleness,\nbut on the contrary, the negroes were highly commended for the\npunctuality and cheerfulness with which they performed the work\nassigned them.\n\nThe Governor stated, that \"he was assured by planters, from every part\nof the island, that the negroes were very industriously disposed.\"\n\n\"My people have become much more industrious since they were\nemancipated. I have been induced to extend the sugar cultivation over a\nnumber of acres more than have ever been cultivated before.\"--_Mr.\nWatkins, of Donovan's_.\n\n\"Fearing the consequences of emancipation, I reduced my cultivation in\nthe year '34; but soon finding that my people would work as well as\never, I brought up the cultivation the next year to the customary\nextent, and this year ('36) I have added fifteen acres of new\nland.\"--_S. Bourne, of Millar's_.\n\n\"Throughout the island the estates were never in a more advanced state\nthan they now are. The failure in the crops is not in the slightest\ndegree chargeable to a deficiency of labor. I have frequently adopted\nthe job system for short periods; the results have always been\ngratifying--the negroes accomplished twice as much as when they worked\nfor daily wages, because they made more money. On some days they would\nmake three shillings--three times the ordinary wages.\"--_Dr. Daniell_.\n\n\"They are as a body _more_ industrious than when slaves, for the obvious\nreason that they are _working for themselves_.\"--_Ralph Higinbothom,\nU.S. Consul_.\n\n\"I have no hesitation in saying that on my estate cultivation is more\nforward than ever it has been at the same season. The failure of the\ncrops is not in the least degree the fault of the laborers. They have\ndone well.\"--_Mr. Favey, of Lavicount's estate_.\n\n\"The most general apprehension prior to emancipation was, that the\nnegroes would not work after they were made free--that they would be\nindolent, buy small parcels of land, and '_squat_' on them to the\nneglect of sugar cultivation. Time, however, has proved that there was\nno foundation for this apprehension. The estates were never in better\norder than they are at present. If you are interrogated on your return\nhome concerning the cultivation of Antigua, you can say that every thing\ndepends upon the _weather_. If we have _sufficient rain_, you may be\ncertain that we shall realize abundant crops. If we have no rain, the\ncrops _must inevitably_ fail. _But we always depend upon the laborers_.\nOn account of the stimulus to industry which wages afford, there is far\nless feigned sickness than there was during slavery. When slaves, the\nnegroes were glad to find any excuse for deserting their labor, and they\nwere incessantly feigning sickness. The sick-house was thronged with\nreal and pretended invalids. After '34, it was wholly deserted. The\nnegroes would not go near it; and, in truth, I have lately used it for a\nstable.\"--_Hon. N. Nugent_.\n\n\"Though the laborers on both the estates under my management have been\nconsiderably reduced since freedom, yet the grounds have never been in a\nfiner state of cultivation, than they are at present. When my work is\nbackward, I give it out in jobs, and it is always done in half the\nusual time.\"\n\n\"Emancipation has almost wholly put an end to the practice of\n_skulking_, or pretending to be sick. That was a thing which caused the\nplanter a vast deal of trouble during slavery. Every Monday morning\nregularly, when I awoke, I found ten or a dozen, or perhaps twenty men\nand women, standing around my door, waiting for me to make my first\nappearance, and begging that I would let them off from work that day on\naccount of sickness. It was seldom the case that one fourth of the\napplicants were really unwell; but every one would maintain that he was\nvery sick, and as it was hard to contend with them about it, they were\nall sent off to the sick-house. Now this is entirely done away, and my\nsick-house is converted into a chapel for religious worship.\"--_James\nHowell, Esq._\n\n\"I find my people much more disposed to work than they formerly were.\nThe habit of feigning sickness to get rid of going to the field, is\ncompletely broken up. This practice was very common during slavery. It\nwas often amusing to hear their complaints. One would come carrying an\narm in one hand, and declaring that it had a mighty pain in it, and he\ncould not use the hoe no way; another would make his appearance with\nboth hands on his breast, and with a rueful look complain of a great\npain in the stomach; a third came limping along, with a _dreadful\nrheumatiz_ in his knees; and so on for a dozen or more. It was vain to\ndispute with them, although it was often manifest that nothing earthly\nwas ailing them. They would say, 'Ah! me massa, you no tink how bad me\nfeel--it's _deep in_, massa.' But all this trouble is passed. We have no\nsick-house now; no feigned sickness, and really much less actual illness\nthan formerly. My people say, '_they have not time to be sick now_.' My\ncultivation has never been so far advanced at the same season, or in\nfiner order than it is at the present time. I have been encouraged by\nthe increasing industry of my people to bring several additional acres\nunder cultivation.\"--_Mr. Hatley, Fry's estate_.\n\n\"I get my work done better than formerly, and with incomparably more\ncheerfulness. My estate was never in a finer state of cultivation than\nit is now, though I employ _fewer_ laborers than during slavery. I have\noccasionally used job, or task work, and with great success. When I give\nout a job, it is accomplished in about half the time that it would have\nrequired by giving the customary wages. The people will do as much in\none week at job work, as they will in two, working for a shilling a day.\nI have known them, when they had a job to do, turn out before three\no'clock in the morning, and work by moonlight.\"--_D. Cranstoun, Esq._\n\n\"My people work very well for the ordinary wages; I have no fault to\nfind with them in this respect.\"--_Manager of Scotland's estate_.\n\n_Extract from the Superintendent's Report to the Commander in Chief_.\n\nSUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE, _June 6th_. 1836.\n\n    \"During the last month I have visited the country in almost every\n    direction, with the express object of paying a strict attention to\n    all branches of agricultural operations at that period progressing.\n\n    The result of my observations is decidedly favorable, as regards\n    proprietors and laborers. The manufacture of sugar has advanced as\n    far as the long and continued want of rain will admit; the lands,\n    generally, appear to be in a forward state of preparation for the\n    ensuing crop, and the laborers seem to work with more steadiness and\n    satisfaction to themselves and their employers, than they have\n    manifested for some length of time past, and their work is much more\n    correctly performed.\n\n    Complaints are, for the most part, adduced by the employers against\n    the laborers, and principally consist, (as hitherto,) of breaches of\n    contract; but I am happy to observe, that a diminution of\n    dissatisfaction on this head even, has taken place, as will be seen\n    by the accompanying general return of offences reported.\n\n    Your honor's most obedient, humble servant,\n\n    _Richard S. Wickham, Superintendent of police_.\"\n\nNINTH PROPOSITION.--The negroes are _more easily managed_ as freemen\nthan they were when slaves.\n\nOn this point as well as on every other connected with the system of\nslavery, public opinion in Antigua has undergone an entire revolution,\nsince 1834. It was then a common maxim that the peculiar characteristics\nof the negro absolutely required a government of terror and brute force.\n\nThe Governor said, \"The negroes are as a race remarkable for _docility_;\nthey are very easily controlled by kind influence. It is only necessary\nto gain their confidence, and you can sway them as you please.\"\n\n\"Before emancipation took place, I dreaded the consequence of abolishing\nthe power of compelling labor, but I have since found by experience that\nforbearance and kindness are sufficient for all purposes of authority. I\nhave seldom had any trouble in managing my people. They consider me\ntheir friend, and the expression of my wish is enough for them. Those\nplanters who have retained their _harsh manner_ do not succeed under the\nnew system. The people will not bear it.\"--_Mr. J. Howell_.\n\n\"I find it remarkably easy to manage my people. I govern them entirely\nby mildness. In every instance in which managers have persisted in their\nhabits of arbitrary command, they have failed. I have lately been\nobliged to discharge a manager from one of the estates under my\ndirection, on account of his overbearing disposition. If I had not\ndismissed him, the people would have abandoned the estate _en\nmasse_.\"--_Dr. Daniell_.\n\n\"The management of an estate under the free system is a much lighter\nbusiness than it used to be. We do not have the trouble to get the\npeople to work, or to keep them in order.\"--_Mr. Favey_.\n\n\"Before the abolition of slavery, I thought it would be utterly\nimpossible to manage my people without tyrannizing over them as usual,\nand that it would be giving up the reins of government entirely, to\nabandon the whip; but I am now satisfied that I was mistaken. I have\nlost all desire to exercise arbitrary power. I have known of several\ninstances in which unpleasant disturbances have been occasioned by\nmanagers giving way to their anger, and domineering over the laborers.\nThe people became disobedient and disorderly, and remained so until the\nestates went into other hands, and a good management immediately\nrestored confidence and peace.\"--_Mr. Watkins_.\n\n\"Among the advantages belonging to the free system, may he enumerated\nthe greater facility in managing estates. We are freed from a world of\ntrouble and perplexity.\"--_David Cranstoun, Esq._\n\n\"I have no hesitation in saying, that if I have a supply of cash, I can\ntake off any crop it may please God to send. Having already, since\nemancipation, taken off one fully sixty hogsheads above the average of\nthe last twenty years. I can speak with confidence.\"--_Letter from S.\nBourne, Esq._\n\nMr. Bourne stated a fact which illustrates the ease with which the\nnegroes are governed by gentle means. He said that it was a prevailing\npractice during slavery for the slaves to have a dance soon after they\nhad finished gathering in the crop. At the completion of his crop in\n'35, the people made arrangements for having the customary dance. They\nwere particularly elated because the crop which they had first taken off\nwas the largest one that had ever been produced by the estate, and it\nwas also the largest crop on the island for that year. With these\nextraordinary stimulants and excitements, operating in connection with\nthe influence of habit, the people were strongly inclined to have a\ndance. Mr. B. told them that dancing was a bad practice--and a very\nchildish, barbarous amusement, and he thought it was wholly unbecoming\n_freemen_. He hoped therefore that they would dispense with it. The\nnegroes could not exactly agree with their manager--and said they did\nnot like to be disappointed in their expected sport. Mr. B. finally\nproposed to them that he would get the Moravian minister, Rev. Mr.\nHarvey, to ride out and preach to them on the appointed evening. The\npeople all agreed to this. Accordingly, Mr. Harvey preached, and they\nsaid no more about the dance--nor have they ever attempted to get up a\ndance since.\n\nWe had repeated opportunities of witnessing the management of the\nlaborers on the estates, and were always struck with the absence of\nevery thing like coercion.\n\nBy the kind invitation of Mr. Bourne, we accompanied him once on a\nmorning circuit around his estate. After riding some distance, we came\nto the 'great gang' cutting canes. Mr. B. saluted the people in a\nfriendly manner, and they all responded with a hearty 'good mornin,\nmassa.' There were more than fifty persons, male and female, on the\nspot. The most of them were employed in cutting canes[A], which they did\nwith a heavy knife called a _bill_. Mr. B. beckoned to the\nsuperintendent, a black man, to come to him, and gave him some\ndirections for the forenoon's work, and then, after saying a few\nencouraging words to the people, took us to another part of the estate,\nremarking as we rode off, \"I have entire confidence that those laborers\nwill do their work just as I want to have it done.\" We next came upon\nsome men, who were hoeing in a field of corn. We found that there had\nbeen a slight altercation between two of the men. Peter, who was a\nforeman, came to Mr. B., and complained that George would not leave the\ncornfield and go to another kind of work as he had bid him. Mr. B.\ncalled George, and asked for an explanation. George had a long story to\ntell, and he made an earnest defence, accompanied with impassioned\ngesticulation; but his dialect was of such outlandish description, that\nwe could not understand him. Mr. B. told us that the main ground of his\ndefence was that Peter's direction was _altogether unreasonable_. Peter\nwas then called upon to sustain his complaint; he spoke with equal\nearnestness and equal unintelligibility. Mr. B. then gave his decision,\nwith great kindness of manner, which quite pacified both parties.\n\n[Footnote A: The process of cutting canes is this:--The leafy part, at\ntop is first cut off down as low as the saccharine matter A few of the\nlowest joints of the part thus cut off, are then stripped of the leaves,\nand cut off for _plants_, for the next crop. The stalk is then cut off\nclose to the ground--and it is that which furnishes the juice for\nsugar. It is from three to twelve feet long, and from one to two inches\nin diameter, according to the quality of the soil, the seasonableness of\nthe weather, &c. The cutters are followed by _gatherers_, who bind up\nthe plants and stalks, as the cutters cast them behind them, in\ndifferent bundles. The carts follow in the train, and take up the\nbundles--carrying the stalks to the mill to be ground, and the plants in\nanother direction.]\n\nAs we rode on, Mr. B. informed us that George was himself the foreman of\na small weeding gang, and felt it derogatory to his dignity to be\nordered by Peter.\n\nWe observed on all the estates which we visited, that the planters, when\nthey wish to influence their people, are in the habit of appealing to\nthem as _freemen_, and that now better things are expected of them. This\nappeal to their self-respect seldom fails of carrying the point.\n\nIt is evident from the foregoing testimony, that if the negroes do not\nwork well on any estate, it is generally speaking the _fault of the\nmanager_. We were informed of many instances in which arbitrary men were\ndischarged from the management of estates, and the result has been the\nrestoration of order and industry among the people.\n\nOn this point we quote the testimony of James Scotland, Sen., Esq., an\nintelligent and aged merchant of St. John's:\n\n\"In this colony, the evils and troubles attending emancipation have\nresulted almost entirely from the perseverance of the planters in their\nold habits of domination. The planters very frequently, indeed, _in the\nearly stage of freedom_, used their power as employers to the annoyance\nand injury of their laborers. For the slightest misconduct, and\nsometimes without any reason whatever, the poor negroes were dragged\nbefore the magistrates, (planters or their friends,) and mulcted in\ntheir wages, fined otherwise, and committed to jail or the house of\ncorrection. And yet those harassed people remained patient, orderly and\nsubmissive. _Their treatment now is much improved. The planters have\nhappily discovered, that as long as they kept the cultivators of their\nlands in agitations and sufferings, their own interests were\nsacrificed._\"\n\nTENTH PROPOSITION.--The negroes are _more trust-worthy, and take a\ndeeper interest in their employers' affairs_, since emancipation.\n\n\"My laborers manifest an increasing attachment to the estate. In all\ntheir habits they are becoming more settled, and they begin to feel that\nthey have a personal interest in the success of the property on which\nthey live.\"--_Mr. Favey_.\n\n\"As long as the negroes felt uncertain whether they would remain in one\nplace, or be dismissed and compelled to seek a home elsewhere, they\nmanifested very little concern for the advancement of their employers'\ninterest; but in proportion as they become permanently established on an\nestate, they seem to identify themselves with its prosperity. The\nconfidence between master and servant is mutually increasing.\"--_Mr.\nJames Howell_.\n\nThe Hon. Mr. Nugent, Dr. Daniell, D. Cranstoun, Esq., and other\nplanters, enumerated among the advantages of freedom, the planters being\nreleased from the perplexities growing out of want of confidence in the\nsympathy and honesty of the slaves.\n\nS. Bourne, Esq., of Millar's, remarked as we were going towards his mill\nand boiling-house, which had been in operation about a week, \"I have not\nbeen near my works for several days; yet I have no fears but that I\nshall find every thing going on properly.\"\n\nThe planters have been too deeply experienced in the nature of slavery,\nnot to know that mutual jealousy, distrust, and alienation of feeling\nand interest, are its legitimate offspring; and they have already seen\nenough of the operation of freedom, to entertain the confident\nexpectation, that fair wages, kind treatment, and comfortable homes,\nwill attach the laborers to the estates, and identify the interests of\nthe employer and the employed.\n\nELEVENTH PROPOSITION.--The experiment in Antigua proves that emancipated\nslaves can _appreciate law_. It is a prevailing opinion that those who\nhave long been slaves, cannot at once be safely subjected to the\ncontrol of law.\n\nIt will now be seen how far this theory is supported by facts. Let it be\nremembered that the negroes of Antigua passed, \"by a single _jump_, from\nabsolute slavery to unqualified freedom.\"[A] In proof of _their\nsubordination to law_, we give the testimony of planters, and quote also\nfrom the police reports sent in monthly to the Governor, with copies of\nwhich we were kindly furnished by order of His Excellency.\n\n[Footnote A: Dr. Daniell.]\n\n\"I have found that the negroes are readily controlled by law; more so\nperhaps than the laboring classes in other countries.\"--_David\nCranstoun, Esq._\n\n\"The conduct of the negro population generally, has surpassed all\nexpectation. They are as pliant to the hand of legislation, as any\npeople; perhaps more so than some.\" _Wesleyan Missionary_.\n\nSimilar sentiments were expressed by the Governor, the Hon. N. Nugent,\nR.B. Eldridge, Esq., Dr. Ferguson, Dr. Daniell, and James Scotland, Jr.,\nEsq., and numerous other planters, managers, &c. This testimony is\ncorroborated by the police reports, exhibiting, as they do,\ncomparatively few crimes, and those for the most part minor ones. We\nhave in our possession the police reports for every month from\nSeptember, 1835, to January, 1837. We give such specimens as will serve\nto show the general tenor of the reports.\n\n    _Police-Office, St. John's, Sept_. 3, 1835.\n\n    \"From the information which I have been able to collect by my own\n    personal exertions, and from the reports of the assistant\n    inspectors, at the out stations, I am induced to believe that, in\n    general, a far better feeling and good understanding at present\n    prevails between the laborers and their employers, than hitherto.\n\n    Capital offences have much decreased in number, as well as all minor\n    ones, and the principal crimes lately submitted for the\n    investigation of the magistrates, seem to consist chiefly in\n    trifling offences and breaches of contract.\n\n    _Signed, Richard S. Wickham,\n\n    Superintendent of Police_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    \"To his excellency,\n\n    _Sir C.I. Murray McGregor, Governor, &c_.\n\n    _St. John's, Antigua, Oct_. 2, 1835.\n\n    Sir--The general state of regularity and tranquillity which prevails\n    throughout the island, admits of my making but a concise report to\n    your Excellency, for the last month.\n\n    The autumnal agricultural labors continue to progress favorably, and\n    I have every reason to believe, that the agriculturalists,\n    generally, are far more satisfied with the internal state of the\n    island affairs, than could possibly have been anticipated a short\n    period since.\n\n    From conversations which I have had with several gentlemen of\n    extensive interest and practical experience, united with my own\n    observations, I do not hesitate in making a favorable report of the\n    general easy and quietly progressing state of contentedness,\n    evidently showing itself among the laboring class; and I may add,\n    that with few exceptions, a reciprocity of kind and friendly feeling\n    at present is maintained between the planters and their laborers.\n\n    Although instances do occur of breach of contract, they are not very\n    frequent, and in many cases I have been induced to believe, that the\n    crime has originated more from the want of a proper understanding of\n    the time, intent, and meaning of the contract into which the\n    laborers have entered, than from the actual existence of any\n    dissatisfaction on their part.\"\n\n    _Signed, &c._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    _St. John's, Antigua, Dec. 2d_, 1835.\n\n    \"Sir--I have the honor to report that a continued uninterrupted\n    state of peace and good order has happily prevailed throughout the\n    island, during the last month.\n\n    The calendar of offences for trial at the ensuing sessions, bears\n    little comparison with those of former periods, and I am happy to\n    state, that the crimes generally, are of a trifling nature, and\n    principally petty thefts.\n\n    By a comparison of the two last lists of offences submitted for\n    investigation, it will be found that a decrease has taken place in\n    that for November.\"\n\n    _Signed, &c_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    St. John's, January 2d, 1836.\n\n    \"Sir--I have great satisfaction in reporting to your Honor the\n    peaceable termination of the last year, and of the\n    Christmas vacation.\n\n    At this period of the year, which has for ages been celebrated for\n    scenes of gaiety and amusement among the laboring, as well as all\n    other classes of society, and when several successive days of\n    idleness occur, I cannot but congratulate your Honor, on the quiet\n    demeanor and general good order, which has happily been maintained\n    throughout the island.\n\n    It may not be improper here to remark, that during the holidays, I\n    had only one prisoner committed to my charge, and that even his\n    offence was of a minor nature.\"\n\n    _Signed, &c_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Extract of Report for February, 1836._\n\n    \"The operation of the late Contract Acts, caused some trifling\n    inconvenience at the commencement, but now that they are clearly\n    understood, even by the young and ignorant, I am of opinion, that\n    the most beneficial effects have resulted from these salutary Acts,\n    equally to master and servant, and that a permanent understanding is\n    fully established.\n\n    A return of crimes reported during the month of January, I beg leave\n    to enclose, and at the same time, to congratulate your Honor on the\n    vast diminution of all minor misdemeanors, and of the continued\n    total absence of capital offences.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    _Superintendent's office_, _Antigua, April 4th_, 1836.\n\n    \"SIR--I am happy to remark, for the information of your Honor, that\n    the Easter holidays have passed off, without the occurrence of any\n    violation of the existing laws sufficiently serious to merit\n    particular observation.\"[A]\n\n    _Signed, &c_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Footnote A: This and the other reports concern, not St. John's merely,\nbut the entire population of the island.]\n\n_Extract from the Report for May, 1836._\n\n    \"It affords me great satisfaction in being able to report that the\n    continued tranquillity prevailing throughout the island, prevents\n    the necessity of my calling the particular attention of your Honor\n    to the existence of any serious or flagrant offence.\n\n    The crop season having far advanced, I have much pleasure in\n    remarking the continued steady and settled disposition, which on\n    most properties appear to be reciprocally established between the\n    proprietors and their agricultural laborers; and I do also venture\n    to offer as my opinion, that a considerable improvement has taken\n    place, in the behavior of domestic, as well as other laborers, not\n    immediately employed in husbandry.\"\n\nWe quote the following table of offences as a specimen of the monthly\nreports:\n\n_Police Office, St. John's, 1836._\n\nRETURN OF OFFENCES REPORTED AT THE POLICE STATIONS FROM 1ST TO 31ST MAY.\n\nNATURE OF   St.      E.     Par-  John-    Total.  More    Less\nOFFENSES.  John's.  Har-    ham.  ston's           than    than\n                    bour.         Point.           last    last\n                                                  month.  month.\n\nAssaults.    2       2                       4               5\n  Do. and\n  Batteries. 2       3       5              10               8\n\nBreach of\nContract.    4      11      59              74              16\n\nBurglaries.  2               3               5       2\n\nCommitments\n  under\n  Vagrant\n  Act.       4       1                       5              10\n  Do. for\n  Fines.     5                               5       2\n  Do under\n  amended\n  Porter's\n  and\n  Jobber's\n  Act.                                                       7\n\nFelonies.    2                               2       2\n\nInjury to\nproperty.    4       9       7              20               5\n\nLarcenies.   4                               4       4\n\nMisdemeanors.3      12                      15      15\n\nMurders.\n\nPetty\nThefts.              1                       1              10\n\nTrespasses.  1       2       2               5\n\nRiding\nimproperly\nthro' the\nstreets.\n\nTotal       33      41      76             150      25      61\n\n_Signed_,     Richard S. Wickham,\n_Superintendent of Police_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n     _Superintendent's office_,\n     _Antigua, July 6th_, 1836.\n\n    \"SIR,--I have the honor to submit for your information, a general\n    return of all offences reported during the last month, by which your\n    Honor will perceive, that no increase of 'breach of contract' has\n    been recorded.\n\n    While I congratulate your Honor on the successful maintenance of\n    general peace, and a reciprocal good feeling among all classes of\n    society, I beg to assure you, that the opinion which I have been\n    able to form in relation to the behavior of the laboring population,\n    differs but little from my late observations.\n\n    At a crisis like this, when all hopes of the ultimate success of so\n    grand and bold an experiment, depends, almost entirely, on a cordial\n    co-operation of the community, I sincerely hope, that no obstacles\n    or interruptions will now present themselves, to disturb that\n    general good understanding so happily established, since the\n    adoption of unrestricted freedom.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    _Superintendent's office_,\n    _St. John's, Sept. 4th_, 1836.\n\n    \"SIR--I have the honor to enclose, for the information of your\n    Excellency, the usual monthly return of offences reported for\n    punishment.\n\n    It affords me very great satisfaction to report, that the internal\n    peace and tranquillity of the island has remained uninterrupted\n    during the last month; the conduct of all classes of the community\n    has been orderly and peaceable, and strictly obedient to the laws of\n    their country.\n\n    The agricultural laborers continue a steady and uniform line of\n    conduct, and with some few exceptions, afford a general satisfaction\n    to their several employers.\n\n    Every friend to this country, and to the liberties of the world,\n    must view with satisfaction the gradual improvement in the character\n    and behavior of this class of the community, under the constant\n    operation of the local enactments.\n\n    The change must naturally be slow, but I feel sure that, in due\n    time, a general amelioration in the habits and industry of the\n    laborers will be sensibly experienced by all grades of society in\n    this island, and will prove the benign effects and propitious\n    results of the co-operated exertions of all, for their general\n    benefit and future advancement.\n\n    Complaints have been made in the public prints of the robberies\n    committed in this town, as well as the neglect of duty of the police\n    force, and as these statements must eventually come under the\n    observation of your Excellency, I deem it my duty to make a few\n    observations on this point.\n\n    The town of St. John's occupies a space of one hundred and sixty\n    acres of land, divided into fourteen main, and nine cross streets,\n    exclusive of lanes and alleys--with a population of about three\n    thousand four hundred persons.\n\n    The numerical strength of the police force in this district, is\n    eleven sergeants and two officers; five of these sergeants are on\n    duty every twenty-four hours. One remains in charge of the premises,\n    arms, and stores; the other four patrole by day and night, and have\n    also to attend to the daily duties of the magistrates, and the\n    eleventh is employed by me (being an old one) in general patrole\n    duties, pointing out nuisances and irregularities.\n\n    One burglary and one felony alone were reported throughout the\n    island population of 37,000 souls in the month of July; and no\n    burglary, and three felonies, were last month reported.\n\n    The cases of robbery complained of, have been effected without any\n    violence or noise, and have principally been by concealment in\n    stores, which, added to the great want of a single lamp, or other\n    light, in any one street at night, must reasonably facilitate the\n    design of the robber, and defy the detection of the most active and\n    vigilant body of police.\"\n\n    _Signed, &c._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    _Superintendent's office,_\n    _Antigua, January 4th, 1837._\n\n    \"SIR--It is with feelings of the most lively gratification that I\n    report, for your notice the quiet and peaceable termination of\n    Christmas vacation, and the last year, which were concluded without\n    a single serious violation of the governing laws.\n\n    I cannot refrain from cordially congratulating your Excellency on\n    the regular and steady behavior, maintained by all ranks of society,\n    at this particular period of the year.\n\n    Not one species of crime which can be considered of an heinous\n    nature, has yet been discovered; and I proudly venture to declare my\n    opinion, that in no part of his Majesty's dominions, has a\n    population of thirty thousand conducted themselves with more strict\n    propriety, at this annual festivity, or been more peaceably obedient\n    to the laws of their country.\"\n\n    _Signed, &c._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn connection with the above quotation from the monthly reports, we\npresent an extract of a letter from the superintendent of the police,\naddressed to us.\n\n    _St. John's, 9th February, 1837._\n\n    \"MY DEAR SIRS--In compliance with your request, I have not any\n    hesitation in affording you any information on the subject of the\n    free system adopted in this island, which my public situation has\n    naturally provided me with.\n\n    The opinion which I have formed has been, and yet remains, in favor\n    of the emancipation; and I feel very confident that the system has\n    and continues to work well, in almost all instances. The laborers\n    have conducted themselves generally in a highly satisfactory manner\n    to all the authorities, and strikingly so when we reflect that the\n    greater portion of the population of the island were at once removed\n    from a state of long existing slavery, to one of unrestricted\n    freedom. Unacquainted as they are with the laws newly enacted for\n    their future government and guidance, and having been led in their\n    ignorance to expect incalculable wonders and benefits arising from\n    freedom, I cannot but reflect with amazement on the peace and good\n    order which have been so fortunately maintained throughout the\n    island population of thirty thousand subjects.\n\n    Some trifling difficulties sprang up on the commencement of the new\n    system among the laborers, but even these, on strict investigation,\n    proved to originate more from _an ignorance of their actual\n    position_, than from any bad feeling, or improper motives, and\n    consequently _were of short duration_. In general the laborers are\n    peaceable orderly, and civil, not only to those who move in higher\n    spheres of life than themselves, but also to each other.\n\n    The crimes they are generally guilty of, are petty thefts, and other\n    minor offences against the local acts; but crimes of an heinous\n    nature are very rare among them; and I may venture to say, that\n    petty thefts, _breaking sugar-canes to eat_, and offences of the\n    like description, _principally_ swell the calendars of our quarterly\n    courts of sessions. _Murder_ has been a stranger to this island for\n    many years; no execution has occurred among the island population\n    for a very long period; the only two instances were two\n    _Irish_ soldiers.\n\n    The lower class having become more acquainted with their governing\n    laws, have also become infinitely more obedient to them, and I have\n    observed _that particular care is taken among most of them to\n    explain to each other the nature of the laws_, and to point out in\n    their usual style the ill consequences attending any violation of\n    them. ==> _A due fear of, and a prompt obedience to, the\n    authority of the magistrates, is a prominent feature of the lower\n    orders_, and to this I mainly attribute the successful maintenance\n    of rural tranquillity.\n\n    Since emancipation, the agricultural laborer has had to contend with\n    two of the most obstinate droughts experienced for many years in the\n    island, which has decreased the supply of his accustomed vegetables\n    and ground provisions, and consequently subjected him and family to\n    very great privations; but this even, I think, has been submitted to\n    with becoming resignation.\n\n    To judge of the past and present state of society throughout the\n    island, I presume that _the lives and properties of all classes are\n    as secure in this, as in any other portion of his Majesty's\n    dominions_; and I sincerely hope that the future behavior of all,\n    will more clearly manifest the correctness of my views of this\n    highly important subject.\n\n    I remain, dear sirs, yours faithfully, RICHARD S. WICKHAM,\n    _Superintendent of police_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis testimony is pointed and emphatic; and it comes from one whose\n_official business it is to know_ the things whereof he here affirms. We\nhave presented not merely the opinions of Mr. W., relative to the\nsubordination of the emancipated negroes in Antigua, but likewise the\n_facts_ upon which be founded his opinion.\n\nOn a point of such paramount importance we cannot be too explicit. We\ntherefore add the testimony of planters as to the actual state of crime\ncompared with that previous to emancipation.\n\nSaid J. Howell, Esq., of T. Jarvis's estate, \"I do not think that\naggressions on property, and crime in general, have increased since\nemancipation, but rather decreased. They _appear_ to be more frequent,\nbecause they are made _more public_. During slavery, all petty thefts,\ninsubordination, insolence, neglect of work, and so forth, were punished\nsummarily on the estate, by order of the manager, and not even so much\nas the rumor of them ever reached beyond the confines of the property.\nNow all offences, whether great or trifling, are to be taken cognizance\nof by the magistrate or jury, and hence they become notorious. Formerly\neach planter knew only of those crimes which occurred on his own\nproperty; now every one knows something about the crimes committed on\nevery other estate, as well as his own.\"\n\nIt will be remembered that Mr. H. is a man of thorough and long\nexperience in the condition of the island, having lived in it since the\nyear 1800, and being most of that time engaged directly is the\nmanagement of estates.\n\n\"Aggression on private property, such as breaking into houses, cutting\ncanes, &c., are decidedly fewer than formerly. It is true that crime is\nmade more _public_ now, than during slavery, when the master was his own\nmagistrate.\"--_Dr. Daniell_.\n\n\"I am of the opinion that crime in the island has diminished rather than\nincreased since the abolition of slavery. There is an _apparent_\nincrease of crime, because every misdemeanor, however petty, floats to\nthe surface.\"--_Hon. N. Nugent_.\n\nWe might multiply testimony on this point; but suffice it to say that\nwith very few exceptions, the planters, many of whom are also civil\nmagistrates, concur in these two statements; that the amount of crime is\nactually less than it was during slavery; and that it _appears_ to _be\ngreater_ because of the publicity which is necessarily given by legal\nprocesses to offences which were formerly punished and forgotten on the\nspot where they occurred.\n\nSome of the prominent points established by the foregoing evidence are,\n\n1st. That most of the crimes committed are petty misdemeanors such as\nturning out to work late in the morning, cutting canes to eat, &c. _High\npenal offences_ are exceedingly rare.\n\n2d. That where offences of a serious nature do occur, or any open\ninsubordination takes place, they are founded in ignorance or\nmisapprehension of the law, and are seldom repeated a second time, if\nthe law be properly explained and fully understood.\n\n3d. That the above statements apply to no particular part of the island,\nwhere the negroes are peculiarly favored with intelligence and religion,\nbut are made with reference to tire island generally. Now it happens\nthat in one quarter of the island the negro population are remarkably\nignorant and degraded. We were credibly informed by various\nmissionaries, who had labored in Antigua and in a number of the other\nEnglish islands, that they had not found in any colony so much\ndebasement among the people, as prevailed in the part of Antigua just\nalluded to. Yet they testified that the negroes in that quarter were as\npeaceable, orderly, and obedient to law, as in any other part of the\ncolony. We make this statement here particularly for the purpose of\nremarking that in the testimony of the planters, and in the police\nreports; there is not a single allusion to this portion of the island as\nforming an exception to the prevailing state of order and subordination.\n\nAfter the foregoing facts and evidences, we ask, what becomes of the\ndogma, that slaves cannot be immediately placed under the government of\n_equitable laws_ with safety to themselves and the community?\n\nTwelfth proposition.--The emancipated negroes have shown _no disposition\nto roam from place to place._ A tendency to rove about, is thought by\nmany to be a characteristic of the negro; he is not allowed even an\nordinary share of local attachment, but must leave the chain and staple\nof slavery to hold him amidst the graves of his fathers and the society\nof his children. The experiment in Antigua shows that such sentiments\nare groundless prejudices. There a large body of slaves were \"_turned\nloose_;\" they had full liberty to leave their old homes and settle on\nother properties--or if they preferred a continuous course of roving,\nthey might change employers every six weeks, and pass from one estate to\nanother until they had accomplished the circuit of the island. But, what\nare the facts? \"The negroes are not disposed to leave the estates on\nwhich they have formerly lived, unless they are forced away by bad\ntreatment. I have witnessed many facts which illustrate this remark. Not\nunfrequently one of the laborers will get dissatisfied about something,\nand in the excitement of the moment will notify me that he intends to\nleave my employ at the end of a month. But in nine cases out of ten such\npersons, before the month has expired, beg to be allowed to remain on\nthe estate. The strength of their _local attachment_ soon overcomes\ntheir resentment and even drives them to make the most humiliating\nconfessions in order to be restored to the favor of their employer, and\nthus be permitted to remain in their old homes.\"--_H. Armstrong, Esq._\n\n\"Nothing but bad treatment on the part of the planters has ever caused\nthe negroes to leave the estates on which they were accustomed to live,\nand in such cases a _change of management_ has almost uniformly been\nsufficient to induce them to return. We have known several instances of\nthis kind.\"--_S. Bourne, Esq., of Millar's, and Mr. Watkins, of\nDonavan's_.\n\n\"The negroes are remarkably attached to their homes. In the year 1828,\nforty-three slaves were sold from the estate under my management, and\nremoved to another estate ten miles distant. After emancipation, the\nwhole of these came back, and plead with me to employ them, that they\nmight live in their former houses.\"--_James Howell, Esq._\n\n\"Very few of my people have left me. The negroes are peculiar for their\nattachment to their homes.\"--_Samuel Barnard, Esq., of Green Castle_.\n\n\"Love of home is very remarkable in the negroes. It is a passion with\nthem. On one of the estates of which I am attorney, a part of the\nlaborers were hired from other proprietors. They had been for a great\nmany years living on the estate, and they became so strongly attached to\nit, that they all continued to work on it after emancipation, and they\nstill remain on the same property. The negroes are loth to leave their\nhomes, and they very seldom do so unless forced away by ill\ntreatment.\"--_Dr. Daniell_.\n\nOn a certain occasion we were in the company of four planters, and among\nother topics this subject was much spoken of. They all accorded\nperfectly in the sentiment that the negroes were peculiarly sensible to\nthe influence of local attachments. One of the gentlemen observed that\nit was a very common saying with them--\"_Me nebber leave my bornin'\nground_,\"--i.e., birth-place.\n\nAn aged gentleman in St. John's, who was formerly a planter, remarked,\n\"The negroes have very strong local attachments. They love their little\nhut, where the calabash tree, planted at the birth of a son, waves over\nthe bones of their parents. They will endure almost any hardship and\nsuffer repeated wrongs before they will desert that spot.\"\n\nSuch are the sentiments of West India planters; expressed, in the\nmajority of cases, spontaneously, and mostly in illustration of other\nstatements. We did not hear a word that implied an opposite sentiment.\nIt is true, much was said about the emigration to Demerara, but the\nfacts in this case only serve to confirm the testimony already quoted.\nIn the first place, nothing but the inducement of very high wages[A]\ncould influence any to go, and in the next place, after they got there\nthey sighed to return, (but were not permitted,) and sent back word to\ntheir relatives and friends not to leave Antigua.\n\n[Footnote A: From fifty cents to a dollar per day.]\n\nFacts clearly prove, that the negroes, instead of being indifferent to\nlocal attachments, are peculiarly alive to them. That nothing short of\ncruelty can drive them from their homes--that they will endure even\nthat, as long as it can be borne, rather than leave; and that as soon as\nthe instrument of cruelty is removed, they will hasten back to their\n\"_bornin' ground._\"\n\nTHIRTEENTH PROPOSITION.--\"The gift of unrestricted freedom, though so\nsuddenly bestowed, has not made the negroes more insolent than they were\nwhile slaves, but has rendered them _less so_.\"--_Dr. Daniell_.\n\nSaid James Howell, Esq.--\"A short time after emancipation, the negroes\nshowed some disposition to assume airs and affect a degree of\nindependence; but this soon disappeared, and they are now respectful and\ncivil. There has been a mutual improvement in this particular. The\nplanters treat the laborers more like fellow men, and this leads the\nlatter to be respectful in their turn.\"\n\nR.B. Eldridge, Esq., asked us if we had not observed the civility of the\nlower classes as we passed them on the streets, both in town and in the\ncountry. He said it was their uniform custom to bow or touch their hat\nwhen they passed a white person. They did so during slavery, and he had\nnot discovered any change in this respect since emancipation.\n\nSaid Mr. Bourne--\"The negroes are decidedly less insolent now than they\nwere during slavery.\"\n\nSaid Mr. Watkins, of Donovan's--\"The negroes are now all _cap in hand_;\nas they know that it is for their interest to be respectful to their\nemployers.\"\n\nSaid Dr. Nugent--\"Emancipation has not produced insolence among the\nnegroes.\"\n\nDuring our stay in Antigua, we saw no indications whatsoever of\ninsolence. We spoke in a former part of this work of the uncommon\ncivility manifested in a variety of ways on the road-sides.\n\nA trifling incident occurred one day in St. John's, which at first\nseemed to be no small rudeness. As one of us was standing in the\nverandah of our lodging house, in the dusk of the evening, a brawny\nnegro man who was walking down the middle of the street, stopped\nopposite us, and squaring himself, called out. \"Heigh! What for you\nstand dare wid your arms so?\" placing his arms akimbo, in imitation of\nours. Seeing we made no answer, he repeated the question, still standing\nin the same posture. We took no notice of him, seeing that his supposed\ninsolence was at most good-humored and innocent. Our hostess, a colored\nlady, happened to step out at the moment, and told us that the man had\nmistaken us for her son, with whom he was well acquainted, at the same\ntime calling to the man, and telling him of his mistake. The negro\ninstantly dropped his arms, took off his hat, begged pardon, and walked\naway apparently quite ashamed.\n\nFOURTEENTH PROPOSITION.--Emancipation in Antigua has demonstrated that\nGRATITUDE _is a prominent trait of the negro character_. The conduct of\nthe negroes on the first of August, 1834, is ample proof of this; and\ntheir uniform conduct since that event manifests an _habitual_ feeling\nof gratitude. Said one, \"The liberty we received from the king, we can\nnever sufficiently thank God for; whenever we think of it, our hearts go\nout in gratitude to God.\" Similar expressions we heard repeatedly from\nthe negroes.--We observed that the slightest allusion to the first of\nAugust in a company of freed persons, would awaken powerful emotions,\naccompanied with exclamations of \"tank de good Lord,\" \"bless de Savior,\"\n\"praise de blessed Savior,\" and such like.\n\nIt was the remark of Mr. James Howell, manager of Thibou Jarvis's--\"That\nthe negroes evinced very little gratitude to their _masters_ for\nfreedom. Their gratitude all flowed toward God and the king, whom they\nregarded as the sole authors of their liberty.\"\n\nMr. Watkins observed that \"the negroes' motto was God and the king. This\nfeeling existed particularly at the time of emancipation, and shortly\nafter it. They have since become more attached to their former masters.\"\n\nIt is by no means strange that the negroes should feel little gratitude\ntoward their late masters, since they knew their opposition to the\nbenevolent intentions of the English government. We were informed by Dr.\nDaniell and many others, that for several months before emancipation\ntook place, the negroes had an idea that the king had sent them 'their\nfree papers,' and that _their masters were keeping them back._ Besides,\nit was but two years before that period, that they had come into fierce\nand open hostility with the planters for abolishing the Sunday market,\nand giving them no market-day instead thereof. In this thing their\nmasters had shown themselves to be their enemies.\n\nThat any good thing could come from such persons the slaves were\ndoubtless slow to believe. However, it is an undeniable fact, that since\nemancipation, kind treatment on the part of the masters, has never\nfailed to excite gratitude in the negroes. The planters understand fully\nhow they may secure the attachment and confidence of their people. A\n_grateful_ and _contented_ spirit certainly characterizes the negroes of\nAntigua. They do not lightly esteem what they have got, and murmur\nbecause they have no more. They do not complain of small wages, and\nstrike for higher. They do not grumble about their simple food and their\ncoarse clothes, and flaunt about, saying '_freemen ought to live\nbetter_.' They do not become dissatisfied with their lowly,\ncane-thatched huts, and say we ought to have as good houses as massa.\nThey do not look with an evil eye upon the political privileges of the\nwhites, and say we have the majority, and we'll rule. It is the common\nsaying with them, when speaking of the inconveniences which they\nsometimes suffer, \"Well, we must be satify and conten.\"\n\nFIFTEENTH PROPOSITION.--The freed negroes of Antigua have proved that\n_they are able to take care of themselves_. It is affirmed by the\nopponents of emancipation in the United States, that if the slaves were\nliberated, they could not take care of themselves. Some of the reasons\nassigned for entertaining this view are--1st, \"The negro is naturally\nimprovident.\" 2d, \"He is constitutionally indolent.\" 3d, \"Being of an\ninferior race, he is deficient in that shrewdness and management\nnecessary to prevent his being imposed upon, and which are indispensable\nto enable him to conduct any business with success.\" 4th, \"All these\nnatural defects have been aggravated by slavery. The slave never\nprovides for himself, but looks to his master for everything he needs.\nSo likewise he becomes increasingly averse to labor, by being driven to\nit daily, and flogged for neglecting it. Furthermore, whatever of mind\nhe had originally has been extinguished by slavery.\" Thus by nature and\nby habit the negro is utterly unqualified to take care of himself. So\nmuch for theory; now for testimony. First, what is the evidence with\nregard to the _improvidence_ of the negroes?\n\n\"During slavery, the negroes squandered every cent of money they got,\nbecause they were sure of food and clothing. Since their freedom, they\nhave begun to cultivate habits of carefulness and economy\".--_Mr.\nJames Howell_.\n\nFacts--1st. The low wages of the laborers is proof of their providence.\nDid they not observe the strictest economy, they could not live on fifty\ncents per week.\n\n2d. That they buy small parcels of land to cultivate, is proof of\neconomy and foresight. The planters have to resort to every means in\ntheir power to induce their laborers not to purchase land.\n\n3d. The Friendly Societies are an evidence of the same thing. How can we\naccount for the number of these societies, and for the large sums of\nmoney annually contributed in them? And how is it that these societies\nhave trebled, both in members and means since emancipation, if it be\ntrue that the negroes are thus improvident, and that freedom brings\nstarvation?\n\n4th. The weekly and monthly contributions to the churches, to benevolent\nsocieties, and to the schools, demonstrate the economy of the negroes;\nand the _great increase_ of these contributions since August, 1834,\nproves that emancipation has not made them less economical.\n\n5th. The increasing attention paid to the cultivation of their private\nprovision grounds is further proof of their foresight. For some time\nsubsequent to emancipation, as long as the people were in an unsettled\nstate, they partially neglected their grounds. The reason was, they did\nnot know whether they should remain on the same estate long enough to\nreap their provisions, should they plant any. This state of uncertainty\nvery naturally paralyzed all industry and enterprise; and their\nneglecting the cultivation of their provision grounds, _under such\ncircumstances_, evinced foresight rather than improvidence. Since they\nhave become more permanently established on the estates, they are\nresuming the cultivation of their grounds with renewed vigor.\n\nSaid Dr. Daniell--\"There is an increasing attention paid by the negroes\nto cultivating their private lands, since they have become more\npermanently settled.\"\n\n6th. The fact that the parents take care of the wages which their\nchildren earn, shows their provident disposition. We were informed that\nthe mothers usually take charge of the money paid to their children,\nespecially their daughters, and this, in order to teach them proper\nsubordination, and to provide against casualties, sickness, and the\ninfirmities of age.\n\n7th. The fact that the negroes are able to support their aged parents,\nis further proof.\n\nAs it regards the second specification, viz., _constitutional\nindolence_, we may refer generally to the evidence on this subject under\na former proposition. We will merely state here two facts.\n\n1st. Although the negroes are not obliged to work on Saturday, yet they\nare in the habit of going to estates that are weak-handed, and hiring\nthemselves out on that day.\n\n2d. It is customary throughout the island to give two hours (from 12 to\n2) recess from labor. We were told that in many cases this time is spent\nin working on their private provision grounds, or in some active\nemployment by which a pittance may be added to their scanty earnings.\n\nWhat are the facts respecting the natural _inferiority_ of the negro\nrace, and their incompetency to manage their own affairs?\n\nSaid Mr. Armstrong--\"The negroes are exceedingly quick _to turn a\nthought_. They show a great deal of shrewdness in every thing which\nconcerns their own interests. To a stranger it must be utterly\nincredible how they can manage to live on such small wages. They are\nvery exact in keeping their accounts with the manager.\"\n\n\"The negroes are very acute in making bargains. A difficulty once arose\non an estate under my charge, between the manager and the people, in\nsettling for a job which the laborers had done. The latter complained\nthat the manager did not give them as much as was stipulated in the\noriginal agreement. The manager contended that he had paid the whole\namount. The people brought their complaint before me, as attorney, and\nmaintained that there was one shilling and six-pence (about nineteen\ncents) due each of them. I examined the accounts and found that they\nwere right, and that the manager had really made a mistake to the very\namount specified.\"--_Dr. Daniell_.\n\n\"The emancipated people manifest as much cunning and address in\nbusiness, as any class of persons.\"--_Mr. J. Howell_.\n\n\"The capabilities of the blacks for education are conspicuous; so also\nas to mental acquirements and trades.\"--_Hon. N. Nugent_.\n\nIt is a little remarkable that while Americans fear that the negroes, if\nemancipated, could not take care of themselves, the West Indians fear\nlest they _should_ take care of themselves; hence they discourage them\nfrom buying lands, from learning trades, and from all employments which\nmight render them independent of sugar cultivation.\n\nSIXTEENTH PROPOSITION.--Emancipation has operated at once to elevate and\nimprove the negroes. It introduced them into the midst of all relations,\nhuman and divine. It was the first formal acknowledgment that they were\nMEN--personally interested in the operations of law, and the\nrequirements of God. It laid the corner-stone in the fabric of their\nmoral and intellectual improvement.\n\n\"The negroes have a growing self-respect and regard for character. This\nwas a feeling which was scarcely known by them during slavery.\"--_Mr.\nJ. Howell_.\n\n\"The negroes pay a great deal more attention to their personal\nappearance, than they were accustomed to while slaves. The _women_ in\nparticular have improved astonishingly in their dress and\nmanners.\"--_Dr. Daniell_.\n\nAbundant proof of this proposition may be found in the statements\nalready made respecting the decrease of licentiousness, the increased\nattention paid to marriage, the abandonment by the mothers of the\nhorrible practice of selling their daughters to vile white men, the\nreverence for the Sabbath, the attendance upon divine worship, the\nexemplary subordination to law, the avoidance of riotous conduct,\ninsolence, and intemperance.\n\nSEVENTEENTH PROPOSITION--Emancipation promises a vast improvement in the\ncondition of woman. What could more effectually force woman from her\nsphere, than slavery has done by dragging her to the field, subjecting\nher to the obscene remarks, and to the vile abominations of licentious\ndrivers and overseers; by compelling her to wield the heavy hoe, until\nadvancing pregnancy rendered her useless then at the earliest possible\nperiod driving her back to the field with her infant swung at her back,\nor torn from her and committed to a stranger. Some of these evils still\nexist in Antigua, but there has already been a great abatement of them,\nand the humane planters look forward to their complete removal, and to\nthe ultimate restoration of woman to the quiet and purity of\ndomestic life.\n\nSamuel Bourne, Esq., stated, that there had been a great improvement in\nthe treatment of mothers on his estate. \"Under the old system, mothers\nwere required to work half the time after their children were six weeks\nold; but now we do not call them out for _nine months_ after their\nconfinement, until their children are entirely weaned.\"\n\n\"In those cases where women have husbands in the field, they do not turn\nout while they are nursing their children. In many instances the\nhusbands prefer to have their wives engaged in other work, and I do not\nrequire them to go to the field.\"--_Mr. J Howell_.\n\nMuch is already beginning to be said of the probability that the women\nwill withdraw from agricultural labor. A conviction of the impropriety\nof females engaging in such employments is gradually forming in the\nminds of enlightened and influential planters.\n\nA short time previous to emancipation, the Hon. N. Nugent, speaker of\nthe assembly, made the following remarks before the house:--\"At the\nclose of the debate, he uttered his fervent hope, that the day would\ncome when the principal part of the agriculture of the island would be\nperformed by males, and that the women would be occupied in keeping\ntheir cottages in order, and in increasing their domestic comforts. The\ndesire of improvement is strong among them; they are looking anxiously\nforward to the instruction and advancement of their children, and even\nof themselves.\"--_Antigua Herald, of March_, 1834.\n\nIn a written communication to us, dated January 17, 1837, the Speaker\nsays: \"Emancipation will, I doubt not, improve the condition of the\nfemales. There can be no doubt that they will ultimately leave the\nfield, (except in times of emergency,) and confine themselves to their\nappropriate domestic employments.\"\n\nEIGHTEENTH PROPOSITION.--Real estate has risen in value since\nemancipation; mercantile and mechanical occupations have received a\nfresh impulse; and the general condition of the colony is decidedly more\nflourishing than at any former period.\n\n\"The credit of the island has decidedly improved. The internal\nprosperity of the island is advancing in an increased ratio. More\nbuildings have been erected since emancipation, than for twenty years\nbefore. Stores and shops have multiplied astonishingly; I can safely say\nthat their number has more than quintupled since the abolition of\nslavery.\"--_Dr. Ferguson_.\n\n\"Emancipation has very greatly increased the value of, and consequently\nthe demand for, real estate. That which three years ago was a drug\naltogether unsaleable by private bargain; has now many inquirers after\nit, and ready purchasers at good prices. The importation of British\nmanufactured goods has been considerably augmented, probably one fourth.\"\n\n\"The credit of the planters who have been chiefly affected by the\nchange, has been much improved. And _the great reduction of expense in\nmanaging the estates_, has made them men of more real wealth, and\nconsequently raised their credit both with the English merchants and our\nown.\"--_James Scotland, Sen., Esq._\n\n\"The effect of emancipation upon the commerce of the island _must needs_\nhave been beneficial, as the laborers indulge in more wheaten flour,\nrice, mackerel, dry fish, and salt-pork, than formerly. More lumber is\nused in the superior cottages now built for their habitations. More dry\ngoods--manufactures of wool, cotton, linen, silk, leather, &c., are also\nused, now that the laborers can better afford to indulge their\npropensity for gay clothing.\"--_Statement of a merchant and agent\nfor estates_.\n\n\"Real estate has risen in value, and mercantile business has greatly\nimproved.\"--_H. Armstrong, Esq._\n\nA merchant of St. John's informed us, that real estate had increased in\nvalue at least fifty per cent. He mentioned the fact, that an estate\nwhich previous to emancipation could not be sold for \u00a3600 current,\nlately brought \u00a32000 current.\n\nNINETEENTH PROPOSITION--Emancipation has been followed by the\nintroduction of labor-saving machinery.\n\n\"Various expedients for saving manual labor have already been\nintroduced, and we anticipate still greater improvements. Very little\nwas thought of this subject previous to emancipation.\"--_S.\nBourne, Esq._\n\n\"Planters are beginning to cast about for improvements in labor. My own\nmind has been greatly turned to this subject since emancipation.\"--_H.\nArmstrong, Esq._\n\n\"The plough is beginning to be very extensively used.\"--_Mr. Hatley_.\n\n\"There has been considerable simplification in agricultural labor\nalready, which would have been more conspicuous, had it not been for\nthe excessive drought which has prevailed since 1834. The plough is\nmore used, and the expedients for manuring land are less\nlaborious.\"--_Extract of a letter from Hon. N. Nugent_.\n\n\n\nTWENTIETH PROPOSITION.--Emancipation has produced the most decided\nchange in the views of the _planters_.\n\n\"Before emancipation took place, there was the bitterest opposition to\nit among the planters. But after freedom came, they were delighted with\nthe change. I felt strong opposition myself, being exceedingly unwilling\nto give up my power of command. But I shall never forget how differently\nI felt when freedom took place I arose from my bed on the first of\nAugust, exclaiming with joy, 'I am free, I am free; I _was the greatest\nslave on the estate_, but now I am free.'\"--_Mr. J. Howell_.\n\n\"We all resisted violently the measure of abolition, when it first began\nto be agitated in England. We regarded it as an outrageous interference\nwith our rights, with our property. But we are now rejoiced that slavery\nis abolished.\"--_Dr. Daniell_.\n\n\"I have already seen such decided benefits growing out of the free labor\nsystem, that for my part I wish never to see the face of slavery again.\"\n--_Mr. Hatley_.\n\n\"I do not know of a single planter who would be willing to return to\nslavery. We all feel that it was a great curse.\"--_D. Cranstoun, Esq._\n\nThe speaker of the assembly was requested to state especially the\nadvantages of freedom both to the master and the slave; and he kindly\ncommunicated the following reply:\n\n    \"The benefits to the master are conspicuous--he has got rid of the\n    cark and care, the anxiety and incessant worry of managing slaves;\n    all the trouble and responsibility of rearing them from infancy, of\n    their proper maintenance in health, and sickness, and decrepitude,\n    of coercing them to labor, restraining, correcting, and punishing\n    their faults and crimes--settling all their grievances and disputes.\n    He is now entirely free from all apprehension of injury, revenge, or\n    insurrection, however transient and momentary such impression may\n    have formerly been. He has no longer the reproach of being a\n    _slaveholder_; his property has lost all the _taint_ of slavery, and\n    is placed on as secure a footing, in a moral and political point of\n    view, as that in any other part of the British dominions.\n\n    As regards the _other_ party, it seems almost unnecessary to point\n    out the advantages of being a free man rather than a slave. He is no\n    longer liable to personal trespass of any sort; he has a right of\n    self-control, and all the immunities enjoyed by other classes of his\n    fellow subjects--he is enabled to better his condition as he thinks\n    proper--he can make what arrangements he likes best, as regards his\n    kindred, and all his domestic relations--he takes to his _own_ use\n    and behoof, all the wages and profits of his own labor; he receives\n    money wages instead of weekly allowances, and can purchase such\n    particular food and necessaries as he prefers--_and so on_! IT WOULD\n    BE ENDLESS TO ATTEMPT TO ENUMERATE ALL THE SUPERIOR ADVANTAGES OF A\n    STATE OF FREEDOM TO ONE OF SLAVERY!\"\n\nThe writer says, at the close of his invaluable letter, \"I was born in\nAntigua, and have resided here with little interruption since 1809.\nSince 1814, I have taken an active concern in plantation affairs.\" He\nwas born heir to a large slave property, and retained it up to the hour\nof emancipation. He is now the proprietor of an estate.\n\nWe have, another witness to introduce to the reader, Ralph Higinbothom,\nEsq., the UNITED STATES CONSUL!--_Hear him_!--\n\n\"Whatever may have been the dissatisfaction as regards emancipation\namong the planters at its commencement, there are few, indeed, if any,\nwho are not _now_ well satisfied that under the present system, their\nproperties are better worked, and their laborers more contented and\ncheerful, than in the time of slavery.\"\n\nIn order that the reader may see the _revolution_ that has taken place\nsince emancipation in the views of the highest class of society in\nAntigua, we make a few extracts.\n\n\"There was the most violent opposition in the legislature, and\nthroughout the island, to the anti-slavery proceedings in Parliament.\nThe anti-slavery party in England were detested here for their\n_fanatical and reckless course_. Such was the state of feeling previous\nto emancipation, that it would have been certain disgrace for any\nplanter to have avowed the least sympathy with anti-slavery sentiments.\nThe humane might have their hopes and aspirations, and they might\nsecretly long to see slavery ultimately terminated; but they did not\ndare to make such feelings public. _They would at once have been branded\nas the enemies of their country!\"--Hon. N. Nugent_.\n\n\"There cannot be said to have been any _anti-slavery party_ in the\nisland before emancipation. There were some individuals in St. John's,\nand a very few planters, who favored the anti-slavery views, but they\ndared not open their mouths, because of the bitter hostility which\nprevailed.\"--_S. Bourne, Esq._\n\n\"The opinions of the clergymen and missionaries, with the exception of,\nI believe, a few clergymen, were favorable to emancipation; but neither\nin their conduct, preaching, or prayers, did they declare themselves\nopenly, until the measure of abolition was determined on. The\nmissionaries felt restrained by their instructions from home, and the\nclergymen thought that it did not comport with their order 'to take part\nin politics!' I never heard of a single _planter_ who was favorable,\nuntil about three months before the emancipation took place; when some\nfew of them began to perceive that it would be advantageous to their\n_interests_. Whoever was known or suspected of being an advocate for\nfreedom, became the object of vengeance, and was sure to suffer, if in\nno other way, by a loss of part of his business. My son-in-law[A], my\nson[B], and myself, were perhaps the chief marks for calumny and\nresentment. The first was twice elected a member of the Assembly, and as\noften put out by scrutinies conducted by the House, in the most\nflagrantly dishonest manner. Every attempt was made to deprive the\nsecond of his business, as a lawyer. With regard to myself, I was thrown\ninto prison, without any semblance of justice, without any form of\ntrial, but in the most summary manner, simply upon the complaint of one\nof the justices, and without any opportunity being allowed me of saying\none word in my defence. I remained in jail until discharged by a\nperemptory order from the Colonial Secretary, to whom I\nappealed.\"--_James Scotland, Sen., Esq._\n\n[Footnote A: Dr. Ferguson, physician in St. John's.]\n\n[Footnote B: James Scotland, Jun., Esq., barrister, proprietor, and\nmember of Assembly.]\n\nAnother gentleman, a white man, was arrested on the charge of being in\nthe interest of the English Anti-Slavery party, and in a manner equally\nsummary and illegal, was cast into prison, and confined there for\none year.\n\nFrom the foregoing statements we obtain the following comparative view\nof the past and present state of sentiment in Antigua.\n\nViews and conduct of the planters previous to emancipation:\n\n1st. They regarded the negroes as an inferior race, fit only for slaves.\n\n2d. They regarded them as their rightful property.\n\n3d. They took it for granted that negroes could never be made to work\nwithout the use of the whip; hence,\n\n4th. They supposed that emancipation would annihilate sugar cultivation;\nand,\n\n5th. That it would lead to bloodshed and general rebellion.\n\n6th. Those therefore who favored it, were considered the \"_enemies of\ntheir country_\"--\"TRAITORS\"--and were accordingly persecuted in various\nways, not excepting imprisonment in the common jail.\n\n7th. So popular was slavery among the higher classes, that its morality\nor justice could not be questioned by a missionary--an editor--or a\n_planter_ even, without endangering the safety of the individual.\n\n8th. The anti-slavery people in England were considered detestable men,\nintermeddling with matters which they did not understand, and which at\nany rate did not concern them. They were accused of being influenced by\nselfish motives, and of designing to further their own interests by the\nruin of the planters. They were denounced as _fanatics, incendiaries,\nknaves, religious enthusiasts_.\n\n9th The abolition measures of the English Government were considered a\ngross outrage on the rights of private property, a violation their\nmultiplied pledges of countenance and support, and a flagrant usurpation\nof power over the weak.\n\nViews and conduct of the planters subsequent to emancipation:\n\n1st. The negroes are retarded as _men_--equals standing on the same\nfooting as fellow-citizens.\n\n2d. Slavery is considered a foolish, impolitic, and wicked system.\n\n3d. Slaves are regarded as an _unsafe_ species of property, and to hold\nthem disgraceful.\n\n4th. The planters have become the _decided enemies_ of slavery. The\nworst thing they could say against the apprenticeship, was, that \"it was\nonly another name for _slavery_.\"\n\n5th. The abolition of slavery is applauded by the planters as one of the\nmost noble and magnanimous triumphs ever achieved by the British\ngovernment.\n\n6th. Distinguished abolitionists are spoken of in terms of respect and\nadmiration. The English Anti-slavery Delegation[A] spent a fortnight in\nthe island, and left it the same day we arrived. Wherever we went we\nheard of them as \"the respectable gentlemen from England,\" \"the worthy\nand intelligent members of the Society of Friends,\" &c. A distinguished\nagent of the English anti-slavery society now resides in St. John's, and\nkeeps a bookstore, well stocked with anti-slavery books and pamphlets.\nThe bust of GEORGE THOMPSON stands conspicuously upon the counter of the\nbookstore, looking forth upon the public street.\n\n[Footnote A: Messrs. Sturge and Harvey.]\n\n7th. The planters affirm that the abolition of slavery put an end to all\ndanger from insurrection, rebellion, privy conspiracy, and sedition, on\nthe part of the slaves.\n\n8th. Emancipation is deemed an incalculable blessing, because it\nreleased the planters from an endless complication of responsibilities,\nperplexities, temptations and anxieties, and because it _emancipated\nthem from the bondage of the whip_.\n\n9th. _Slavery--emancipation--freedom_--are the universal topics of\nconversation in Antigua. Anti-slavery is the popular doctrine among all\nclasses. He is considered an enemy to his country who opposes the\nprinciples of liberty. The planters look with astonishment on the\ncontinuance of slavery in the United States, and express their strong\nbelief that it must soon terminate here and throughout the world. They\nhailed the arrival of French and American visitors on tours of inquiry\nas a bright omen. In publishing our arrival, one of the St. John's\npapers remarks, \"We regard this as a pleasing indication that the\nAmerican public have their eyes turned upon our experiment, with a view,\nwe may hope, of ultimately following our excellent example.\" (!) All\nclasses showed the same readiness to aid us in what the Governor was\npleased to call \"the objects of our philanthropic mission.\"\n\nSuch are the views now entertained among the planters of Antigua. What a\ncomplete change[B]--and all in less than three years, and effected by\nthe abolition of slavery and a trial of freedom! Most certainly, if the\nformer views of the Antigua planters resemble those held by pro-slavery\nmen in this country, their present sentiments are a _fac simile_ of\nthose entertained by the immediate abolitionists.\n\n[Footnote B: The following little story will further illustrate the\nwonderful revolution which has taken place in the public sentiment of\nthis colony. The facts here stated all occurred while we were in\nAntigua, and we procured them from a variety of authentic sources. They\nwere indeed publicly known and talked of, and produced no little\nexcitement throughout the island. Mr. Corbett was a respectable and\nintelligent planter residing on an estate near Johnson's Point. Several\nmonths previous to the time of which we now speak, a few colored\nfamilies (emancipated negroes) bought of a white man some small parcels\nof land lying adjacent to Mr. C.'s estate. They planted their lands in\nprovisions, and also built them houses thereon, and moved into them.\nAfter they had become actively engaged in cultivating their provisions,\nMr. Corbett laid claim to the lands, and ordered the negroes to leave\nthem forthwith.\n\nThey of course refused to do so. Mr. C. then flew into a violent rage,\nand stormed and swore, and threatened to burn their houses down over\ntheir heads. The terrified negroes forsook their property and fled. Mr.\nC. then ordered his negroes to tear down their huts and burn up the\nmaterials--which was accordingly done. He also turned in his cattle upon\nthe provision grounds, and destroyed them. The negroes made a complaint\nagainst Mr. C., and he was arrested and committed to jail in St. John's\nfor trial on the charge of _arson_.\n\nWe heard of this circumstance on the day of Mr. C.'s commitment, and we\nwere told that it would probably go very hard with him on his trial, and\nthat he would be very fortunate if he escaped the _gallows_ or\n_transportation_. A few days after this we were surprised to hear that\nMr. C. had died in prison. Upon inquiry, we learned that he died\nliterally from _rage and mortification_. His case defied the, skill and\npower of the physicians. They could detect the presence of no disease\nwhatever, even on a minute post-mortem examination. They pronounced it\nas their opinion that he had died from the violence of his\npassions--excited by being imprisoned, together with his apprehensions\nof the fatal issue of the trial.\n\nNot long before emancipation, Mr. Scotland was imprisoned for\n_befriending_ the negroes. After emancipation, Mr. Corbett was\nimprisoned for wronging them.\n\nMr. Corbett was a respectable planter, of good family and moved in the\nfirst circles in the island]\n\nTWENTY-FIRST PROPOSITION.--Emancipation has been followed by a manifest\ndiminution of \"_prejudice against color_,\" and has opened the prospect\noff its speedy extirpation.\n\nSome thirty years ago, the president of the island, Sir Edward Byam,\nissued an order forbidding the great bell in the cathedral of St. John's\nbeing tolled at the funeral of a colored person; and directing a\n_smaller_ bell to be hung up in the same belfry, and used on such\noccasions. For twenty years this distinction was strictly maintained.\nWhen a white person, however _vile_, was buried, the great bell was\ntolled; when a colored person, whatever his moral worth, intelligence,\nor station, was carried to his grave, the little bell was tinkled. It\nwas not until the arrival of the present excellent Rector, that this\n\"prejudice bell\" was silenced. The Rev. Mr. Cox informed us that\nprejudice had greatly decreased since emancipation. It was very common\nfor white and colored gentlemen to be seen walking arm in arm an the\nstreets of St. John's.\n\n\"Prejudice against color is fast disappearing. The colored people have\nthemselves contributed to prolong this feeling, _by keeping aloof from\nthe society of the whites_.\"--_James Howell, of T. Jarvis's_.\n\nHow utterly at variance is this with the commonly received opinion, that\nthe colored people are disposed to _thrust_ themselves into the society\nof the whites!\n\n\"_Prejudice against color_ exists in this community only to a limited\nextent, and that chiefly among those who could never bring themselves to\nbelieve that emancipation would really take place. Policy dictates to\nthem the propriety of confining any expression of their feelings to\nthose of the same opinions. Nothing is shown of this prejudice in their\nintercourse with the colored class--it is '_kept behind the\nscenes_.'\"--_Ralph Higginbotham, U. S. Consul._\n\nMr. H. was not the only individual standing in \"high places\" who\ninsinuated that the whites that still entertained prejudice were ashamed\nof it. His excellency the Governor intimated as much, by his repeated\nassurances for himself and his compeers of the first circles, that there\nwas no such feeling in the island as prejudice against _color_. The\nreasons for excluding the colored people from their society, he said,\nwere wholly different from that. It was chiefly because of their\n_illegitimacy_, and also because they were not sufficiently refined, and\nbecause their _occupations_ were of an inferior kind, such as mechanical\ntrades, small shop keeping, &c. Said he, \"You would not wish to ask your\ntailor, or your shoemaker, to dine with you?\" However, we were too\nunsophisticated to coincide in his Excellency's notions of social\npropriety.\n\nTWENTY-SECOND PROPOSITION.--The progress of the anti-slavery discussions\nin England did not cause the masters to treat their slaves worse, but on\nthe contrary restrained them from outrage.\n\n\"The treatment of the slaves during the discussions in England, was\nmanifestly milder than before.\"--_Dr. Daniell._\n\n\"The effect of the proceedings in parliament was to make the planters\ntreat their slaves better. Milder laws were passed by the assembly, and\nthe general condition of the slave was greatly ameliorated.\"--_H.\nArmstrong, Esq._\n\n\"The planters did not increase the rigor of their discipline because of\nthe anti-slavery discussions; but as a general thing, were more lenient\nthan formerly.\"--_S. Bourne. Esq._\n\n\"We pursued a much milder policy toward our slaves after the agitation\nbegan in England.\"--_Mr. Jas. Hawoil_.\n\n\"The planters did not treat their slaves worse on account of the\ndiscussions; but were more lenient and circumspect.\"--_Letter of Hon.\nN. Nugent._\n\n\"There was far less cruelty exercised by the planters during the\nanti-slavery excitement in gland. They were always on their guard to\nescape the notice of the abolitionists. _They did not wish to have their\nnames published abroad, and to be exposed as monsters of\ncruelty!_\"--_David Cranstoun, Esq._\n\nWe have now completed our observations upon Antigua. It has been our\nsingle object in the foregoing account to give an accurate statement of\nthe results of IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION. We have not taken a single step\nbeyond the limits of testimony, and we are persuaded that testimony\nmaterially conflicting with this, cannot be procured from respectable\nsources in Antigua. We now leave it to our readers to decide, whether\nemancipation in Antigua has been to all classes in that island a\n_blessing_ or a _curse_.\n\nWe cannot pass from this part of our report without recording the\nkindness and hospitality which we everywhere experienced during our\nsojourn in Antigua. Whatever may have been our apprehensions of a cool\nreception from a community of ex-slaveholders, none of our forebodings\nwere realized. It rarely Falls to the lot of strangers visiting a\ndistant land, with none of the contingencies of birth, fortune, or fame,\nto herald their arrival, and without the imposing circumstance of a\npopular mission to recommend them, to meet with a warmer reception, or\nto enjoy a more hearty confidence, than that with which we were honored\nin the interesting island of Antigua. The very _object_ of our visit,\nhumble, and even odious as it may appear in the eyes of many of our own\ncountrymen, was our passport to the consideration and attention of the\nhigher classes in that free colony. We hold in grateful remembrance the\ninterest which all--not excepting those most deeply implicated in the\nlate system of slavery--manifested in our investigations. To his\nexcellency the Governor, to officers both civil and military, to\nlegislators and judges, to proprietors and planters, to physicians,\nbarristers, and merchants, to clergymen, missionaries, and teachers, we\nare indebted for their uniform readiness in furthering our objects, and\nfor the mass of information with which they were pleased to furnish us.\nTo the free colored population, also, we are lasting debtors for their\nhearty co-operation and assistance. To the emancipated, we recognise our\nobligations as the friends of the slave, for their simple-hearted and\nreiterated assurances that they should remember the oppressed of our\nland in their prayers to God. In the name of the multiplying hosts of\nfreedom's friends, and in behalf of the millions of speechless but\ngrateful-hearted slaves, we render to our acquaintances of every class\nin Antigua our warmest thanks for their cordial sympathy with the cause\nof emancipation in America. We left Antigua with regret. The natural\nadvantages of that lovely island; its climate, situation, and scenery;\nthe intelligence and hospitality of the higher orders, and the\nsimplicity and sobriety of the poor; the prevalence of education,\nmorality, and religion; its solemn Sabbaths and thronged sanctuaries;\nand above _all_, its rising institutions of liberty--flourishing so\nvigorously,--conspire to make Antigua one of the fairest portions of the\nearth. Formerly it was in our eyes but a speck on the world's map, and\nlittle had we checked if an earthquake had sunk, or the ocean had\noverwhelmed it; but now, the minute circumstances in its condition, or\nlittle incidents in its history, are to our minds invested with\ngrave interest.\n\nNone, who are alive to the cause of religious freedom in the world, can\nbe indifferent to the movements and destiny of this little colony.\nHenceforth, Antigua is the morning star of our nation, and though it\nglimmers faintly through a lurid sky, yet we hail it, and catch at every\nray as the token of a bright sun which may yet burst gloriously upon us.\n\n\n\nBARBADOES\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPASSAGE\n\nBarbadoes was the next island which we visited. Having failed of a\npassage in the steamer,[A] (on account of her leaving Antigua on the\nSabbath,) we were reduced to the necessity of sailing in a small\nschooner, a vessel of only seventeen tons burthen, with no cabin but a\nmere _hole_, scarcely large enough to receive our baggage. The berths,\nfor there were two, had but one mattress between them; however, a\nforesail folded made up the complement.\n\n[Footnote A: There are several English steamers which ply between\nBarbadoes and Jamaica, touching at several of the intermediate and\nsurrounding islands, and carrying the mails.]\n\nThe being for the most part directly against us, we were seven days in\nreaching Barbadoes. Our aversion to the sepulchre-like cabin obliged us\nto spend, not the days only, but the nights mostly on the open deck.\nWrapping our cloaks about us, and drawing our fur caps over our faces,\nwe slept securely in the soft air of a tropical clime, undisturbed save\nby the hoarse voice of the black captain crying \"ready, bout\" and the\nflapping of the sails, and the creaking of the cordage, in the frequent\ntackings of our staunch little sea-boat. On our way we passed under the\nlee of Guadaloupe and to the windward of Dominica, Martinique and St.\nLucia. In passing Guadaloupe, we were obliged to keep at a league's\ndistance from the land, in obedience to an express regulation of that\ncolony prohibiting small English vessels from approaching any nearer.\nThis is a precautionary measure against the escape of slaves to the\nEnglish islands. Numerous small vessels, called _guarda costas_, are\nstationed around the coast to warn off vessels and seize upon all slaves\nattempting to make their escape. We were informed that the eagerness of\nthe French negroes to taste the sweets of liberty, which they hear to\nexist in the surrounding English islands, is so great, that\nnotwithstanding all the vigilance by land and sea, they are escaping in\nvast numbers. They steal to the shores by night, and seizing upon any\nsort of vessel within their reach, launch forth and make for Dominica,\nMontserrat, or Antigua. They have been known to venture out in skiffs,\ncanoes, and such like hazardous conveyances, and make a voyage of fifty\nor sixty miles; and it is not without reason supposed, that very many\nhave been lost in these eager darings for freedom.\n\nSuch is their defiance of dangers when liberty is to be won, that old\nocean, with its wild storms, and fierce monsters, and its yawning deep,\nand even the superadded terrors of armed vessels ever hovering around\nthe island, are barriers altogether ineffectual to prevent escape. The\nwestern side of Guadaloupe, along which we passed, is hilly and little\ncultivated. It is mostly occupied in pasturage. The sugar estates are on\nthe opposite side of the island, which stretches out eastward in a low\nsloping country, beautifully situated for sugar cultivation. The hills\nwere covered with trees, with here and there small patches of cultivated\ngrounds where the negroes raise provisions. A deep rich verdure covered\nall that portion of the island which we saw. We were a day and night in\npassing the long island of Guadaloupe. Another day and night were spent\nin beating through the channel between Gaudaloupe and Dominica: another\nday in passing the latter island, and then we stood or Martinique. This\nis the queen island of the French West Indies. It is fertile and\nhealthful, and though not so large as Guadaloupe, produces a larger\nrevenue. It has large streams of water, and many of the sugar mills are\nworked by them. Martinique and Dominica are both very mountainous. Their\nhighest peaks are constantly covered with clouds, which in their varied\nsiftings, now wheeling around, then rising or falling, give the hills\nthe appearance of smoking volcanoes. It was not until the eighth day of\nthe voyage, that we landed at Barbadoes. The passage from Barbadoes to\nAntigua seldom occupies more than three days, the wind being mostly in\nthat direction.\n\nIn approaching Barbadoes, it presented an entirely difference appearance\nfrom that of the islands we had passed on the way. It is low and level,\nalmost wholly destitute of trees. As we drew nearer we discovered in\nevery direction the marks of its extraordinary cultivation. The cane\nfields and provision grounds in alternate patches cover the island with\none continuous mantle of green. The mansions of the planters, and the\nclusters of negro houses, appear at shore intervals dotting the face of\nthe island, and giving to it the appearance of a vast village\ninterspersed with verdant gardens.\n\nWe \"rounded up\" in the bay, off Bridgetown, the principal place in\nBarbadoes, where we underwent a searching examination by the health\nofficer; who, after some demurring, concluded that we might pass muster.\nWe took lodgings in Bridgetown with Mrs. M., a colored lady.\n\nThe houses are mostly built of brick or stone, or wood plastered. They\nare seldom more than two stories high, with flat roofs, and huge window\nshutters and doors--the structures of a hurricane country. The streets\nare narrow and crooked, and formed of white marle, which reflects the\nsun with a brilliancy half blinding to the eyes. Most of the buildings\nare occupied as stores below and dwelling houses above, with piazzas to\nthe upper story, which jut over the narrow streets, and afford a shade\nfor the side walks. The population of Bridgetown is about 30,000. The\npopulation of the island is about 140,000, of whom nearly 90,000 are\napprentices, the remainder are free colored and white in the proportion\nof 30,000 free colored and 20,000 whites. The large population exists on\nan island not more than twenty miles long, by fifteen broad. The whole\nisland is under the most vigorous and systematic culture. There is\nscarcely a foot of productive land that is not brought into requisition.\nThere is no such thing as a forest of any extent in the island. It is\nthus that, notwithstanding the insignificance of its size, Barbadoes\nranks among the British islands next to Jamaica in value and importance.\nIt was on account of its conspicuous standing among the English\ncolonies, that we were induced to visit it, and there investigate the\noperations of the apprenticeship system.\n\nOur principal object in the following tales is to give an account of the\nworking of the apprenticeship system, and to present it in contrast with\nthat of entire freedom, which has been described minutely in our account\nof Antigua. The apprenticeship was designed as a sort of preparation for\nfreedom. A statement of its results will, therefore, afford no small\ndata for deciding upon the general principle of _gradualism_!\n\nWe shall pursue a plan less labored and prolix than that which it seemed\nnecessary to adopt in treating of Antigua. As that part of the testimony\nwhich respects the abolition of slavery, and the sentiments of the\nplanters is substantially the same with what is recorded in the\nforegoing pages, we shall be content with presenting it in the sketch of\nour travels throughout the island, and our interviews with various\nclasses of men. The testimony respecting the nature and operations of\nthe apprenticeship system, will be embodied in a more regular form.\n\nVISIT TO THE GOVERNOR.\n\nAt an early day after our arrival we called on the Governor, in\npursuance of the etiquette of the island, and in order to obtain the\nassistance of his Excellency in our inquiries. The present Governor is\nSir Evan John Murray McGregor, a Scotchman of Irish reputation. He is\nthe present chieftain of the McGregor clan, which figures so\nillustriously in the history of Scotland. Sir Evan has been\ndistinguished for his victory in war, and he now bears the title of\nKnight, for his achievements in the British service. He is\nGovernor-General of the windward islands, which include Barbadoes,\nGrenada, St. Vincent's, and Tobago. The government house, at which he\nresides, is about two miles from town. The road leading to it is a\ndelightful one, lined with cane fields, and pasture grounds, all verdant\nwith the luxuriance of midsummer. It passes by the cathedral, the king's\nhouse, the noble residence of the Archdeacon, and many other fine\nmansions. The government house is situated in a pleasant eminence, and\nsurrounded with a large garden, park, and entrance yard. At the large\nouter gate, which gives admittance to the avenue leading to the house,\nstood a _black_ sentinel in his military dress, and with a gun on his\nshoulder, pacing to and fro. At the door of the house we found another\nblack soldier on guard. We were ushered into the dining hall, which\nseems to serve as ante-chamber when not otherwise used. It is a spacious\nairy room, overhung with chandeliers and lamps in profusion, and bears\nthe marks of many scenes of mirth and wassail. The eastern windows,\nwhich extend from the ceiling to the floor, look out upon a garden\nfilled with shrubs and flowers, among which we recognised a rare variety\nof the floral family in full bloom. Every thing around--the extent of\nthe buildings, the garden, the park, with deer browsing amid the tangled\nshrubbery--all bespoke the old English style and dignity.\n\nAfter waiting a few minutes, we were introduced to his Excellency, who\nreceived us very kindly. He conversed freely on the subject of\nemancipation, and gave his opinion decidedly in favor of unconditional\nfreedom. He has been in the West Indies five years, and resided at\nAntigua and Dominica before he received his present appointment; he has\nvisited several other islands besides. In no island that he has visited\nhave affairs gone on so quietly and satisfactorily to all parties as in\nAntigua. He remarked that he was ignorant of the character of the black\npopulation of the United States, but from what he knew of their\ncharacter in the West Indies, he could not avoid the conclusion that\nimmediate emancipation was entirely safe. He expressed his views of the\napprenticeship system with great freedom. He said it was vexatious to\nall parties.\n\nHe remarked that he was so well satisfied that emancipation was safe and\nproper, and that unconditional freedom was better than apprenticeship,\nthat had he the power, he would emancipate every apprentice to-morrow.\nIt would be better both for the planter and the laborer.\n\n_He thought the negroes in Barbadoes, and in the windward islands\ngenerally, now as well prepared for freedom as the slaves of Antigua._\n\nThe Governor is a dignified but plain man, of sound sense and judgement,\nand of remarkable liberality. He promised to give us every assistance,\nand said, as we arose to leave him, that he would mention the object of\nour visit to a number of influential gentlemen, and that we should\nshortly hear from him again.\n\nA few days after our visit to the Governor's, we called on the Rev.\nEdward Elliott, the Archdeacon at Barbadoes, to whom we had been\npreviously introduced at the house of a friend in Bridgetown. He is a\nliberal-minded man. In 1812, he delivered a series of lectures in the\ncathedral on the subject of slavery. The planters became\nalarmed--declared that such discourses would lead to insurrection, and\ndemanded that they should lie abandoned. He received anonymous letters\nthreatening him with violence unless he discontinued them. Nothing\ndaunted, however, he went through the course, and afterwards published\nthe lectures in a volume.\n\nThe Archdeacon informed us that the number of churches and clergymen had\nincreased since emancipation; religious meetings were more fully\nattended, and the instructions given had manifestly a greater influence.\nIncreased attention was paid to _education_ also. Before emancipation\nthe planters opposed education, and as far as possible, prevented the\nteachers from coming to the estates. Now they encouraged it in many\ninstances, and where they do not directly encourage, they make no\nopposition. He said that the number of marriages had very much increased\nsince the abolition of slavery. He had resided in Barbados for twelve\nyears, during which time he had repeatedly visited many of the\nneighboring islands. He thought the negroes of Barbadoes _were as well\nprepared for freedom in 1834, as those of Antigua_, and that there would\nhave been no bad results had entire emancipation been granted at that\ntime. He did not think there was the least danger of insurrection. On\nthis subject he spoke the sentiments of the inhabitants generally. He\ndid not suppose there were five planters on the island, who entertained\nany fears on this score _now_.\n\nOn one other point the Archdeacon expressed himself substantially thus:\nThe planters undoubtedly treated their slaves better during the\nanti-slavery discussions in England.\n\nThe condition of the slaves was very much mitigated by the efforts which\nwere made for their entire freedom. The planters softened down, the\nsystem of slavery as much as possible. _They were exceedingly anxious to\nput a stop to discussion and investigation._\n\nHaving obtained a letter of introduction from an American merchant here\nto a planter residing about four miles from town, we drove out to his\nestate. His mansion is pleasantly situated on a small eminence, in one\nof the coolest and most inviting retreats which is to be seen in this\nclime, and we were received by its master with all the cordiality and\nfrankness for which Barbados is famed. He introduced us to his family,\nconsisting of three daughters and two sons, and invited us to stop to\ndinner. One of his daughters, now here on a visit, is married to an\nAmerican, a native of New York, but now a merchant in one of the\nsouthern states, and our connection as fellow countrymen with one dear\nto them, was an additional claim to their kindness and hospitality.\n\nHe conducted us through all the works and out-buildings, the mill,\nboiling-house, caring-house, hospital, store-houses, &c. The people were\nat work in the mill and boiling-house, and as we passed, bowed and bade\nus \"good mornin', massa,\" with the utmost respect and cheerfulness. A\nwhite overseer was regulating the work, but wanted the insignia of\nslaveholding authority, which he had borne for many years, the _whip_.\nAs we came out, we saw in a neighboring field a gang of seventy\napprentices, of both sexes, engaged in cutting up the cane, while others\nwere throwing it into carts to be carried to the mill. They were all as\nquietly and industriously at work as any body of our own farmers or\nmechanics. As we were looking at them, Mr. C., the planter, remarked,\n\"those people give me more work than when slaves. This estate was never\nunder so good cultivation as at the present time.\"\n\nHe took us to the building used as the mechanics' shop. Several of the\napprentices were at work in it, some setting up the casks for sugar,\nothers repairing utensils. Mr. C. says all the work of the estate is\ndone by the apprentices. His carts are made, his mill kept in order, his\ncoopering and blacksmithing are all done by them. \"All these buildings,\"\nsaid he, \"even to the dwelling-house, were built after the great storm\nof 1831, by the slaves.\"\n\nAs we were passing through the hospital, or sick-house, as it is called\nby the blacks, Mr. C. told us he had very little use for it now. There\nis no skulking to it as there was under the old system.\n\nJust as we were entering the door of the house, on our return, there was\nan outcry among a small party of the apprentices who were working near\nby. Mr. C. went to them and inquired the cause. It appeared that the\noverseer had struck one of the lads with a stick. Mr. C. reproved him\nseverely for the act, and assured him if he did such a thing again he\nwould take him before a magistrate.\n\nDuring the day we gathered the following information:--\n\nMr. C. had been a planter for thirty-six years. He has had charge of the\nestate on which he now resides ten years. He is the attorney for two\nother large estates a few miles from this, and has under his\nsuperintendence, in all, more than a thousand apprenticed laborers. This\nestate consists of six hundred and sixty-six acres of land, most of\nwhich is under cultivation either in cane or provisions, and has on it\nthree hundred apprentices and ninety-two free children. The average\namount of sugar raised on it is two hundred hogsheads of a ton each, but\nthis year it will amount to at least two hundred and fifty\nhogsheads--the largest crop ever taken off since he has been connected\nwith it. He has planted thirty acres additional this year. The island\nhas never been under so good cultivation, and is becoming better\nevery year.\n\nDuring our walk round the works, and during the day, he spoke several\ntimes in general terms of the great blessings of emancipation.\n\nEmancipation is as great a blessing to the master as to the slave.\n\"Why,\" exclaimed Mr. C., \"it was emancipation to me. I assure you the\nfirst of August brought a great, _great_ relief to me. I felt myself,\nfor the first time, a freeman on that day. You cannot imagine the\nresponsibilities and anxieties which were swept away with the extinction\nof slavery.\"\n\nThere were many unpleasant and annoying circumstances attending slavery,\nwhich had a most pernicious effect on the master. There was continual\njealousy and suspicion between him and those under him. They looked on\neach other as sworn enemies, and there was kept up a continual system of\nplotting and counterplotting. Then there was the flogging, which was a\nmatter of course through the island. To strike a slave was as common as\nto strike a horse--then the punishments were inflicted so unjustly, in\ninnumerable instances, that the poor victims knew no more why they were\npunished than the dead in their graves. The master would be a little\nill--he had taken a cold, perhaps, and felt irritable--something were\nwrong--his passion was up, and away went some poor fellow to the\nwhipping post. The slightest offence at such a moment, though it might\nhave passed unnoticed at another time, would meet with the severest\npunishment. He said he himself had more than once ordered his slaves to\nbe flogged in a passion, and after he became cool he would have given\nguineas not to have done it. Many a night had he been kept awake in\nthinking of some poor fellow whom he had shut up in the dungeon, and had\nrejoiced when daylight came. He feared lest the slave might die before\nmorning; either cut his throat or dash his head against the wall in his\ndesperation. He has known such cases to occur.\n\nThe apprenticeship will not have so beneficial an effect as he hoped it\nwould, on account of an indisposition on the part of many of the\nplanters to abide by its regulations. The planters generally are doing\nvery little to prepare the apprentices for freedom; but some are doing\nvery much to unprepare them. They are driving the people from them by\ntheir conduct.\n\nMr. C. said he often wished for emancipation. There were several other\nplanters among his acquaintance who had the same feelings, but did not\ndare express them. Most of the planters, however, were violently\nopposed. Many of them declared that emancipation could not and should\nnot take place. So obstinate were they, that they would have sworn on\nthe 31st of July, 1831, that emancipation could not happen. _These very\nmen now see and acknowledge the benefits which have resulted from the\nnew system_.\n\nThe first of August passed off very quietly. The people labored on that\nday as usual, and had a stranger gone over the island, he would not have\nsuspected any change had taken place. Mr. C. did not expect his people\nwould go to work that day. He told them what the conditions of the new\nsystem were, and that after the first of August, they would be required\nto turn out to work at six o'clock instead of five o'clock as before. At\nthe appointed hour every man was at his post in the field. Not one\nindividual was missing.\n\nThe apprentices do more work in the nine hours required by law, than in\ntwelve hours during slavery.\n\nHis apprentices are perfectly willing to work for him during their own\ntime. He pays them at the rate of twenty-five cents a day. The people\nare less quarrelsome than when they were slaves.\n\nAbout eight o'clock in the evening, Mr. C. invited us to step out into\nthe piazza. Pointing to the houses of the laborers, which were crowded\nthickly together, and almost concealed by the cocoa-nut and calabash\ntrees around them, he said, \"there are probably more than four hundred\npeople in that village. All my own laborers, with their free children,\nare retired for the night, and with them are many from the neighboring\nestates.\" We listened, but all was still, save here and there a low\nwhistle from some of the watchmen. He said that night was a specimen of\nevery night now. But it had not always been so. During slavery these\nvillages were oftentimes a scene of bickering, revelry, and contention.\nOne might hear the inmates reveling and shouting till midnight.\nSometimes it would be kept up till morning. Such scenes have much\ndecreased, and instead of the obscene and heathen songs which they used\nto sing, they are learning hymns from the lips of their children.\n\nThe apprentices are more trusty. They are more faithful in work which is\ngiven them to do. They take more interest in the prosperity of the\nestate generally, in seeing that things are kept in order, and that the\nproperty is not destroyed.\n\nThey are more open-hearted. Formerly they used to shrink before the eyes\nof the master, and appear afraid to meet him. They would go out of their\nway to avoid him, and never were willing to talk with him. They never\nliked to have him visit their houses; they looked on him as a spy, and\nalways expected a reprimand, or perhaps a flogging. Now they look up\ncheerfully when they meet him, and a visit to their homes is esteemed a\nfavor. Mr. C. has more confidence in his people than he ever had before.\n\nThere is less theft than during slavery. This is caused by greater\nrespect for character, and the protection afforded to property by law.\nFor a slave to steal from his master was never considered wrong, but\nrather a meritorious act. He who could rob the most without being\ndetected was the best fellow. The blacks in several of the islands have\na proverb, that for a thief to steal from a thief makes God laugh.\n\nThe blacks have a great respect for, and even fear of law. Mr. C.\nbelieves no people on earth are more influenced by it. They regard the\nsame punishment, inflicted by a magistrate, much more than when\ninflicted by their master. Law is a kind of deity to them, and they\nregard it with great reverence and awe.\n\nThere is no insecurity now. Before emancipation there was a continual\nfear of insurrection. Mr. C. said he had lain down in bed many a night\nfearing that his throat would be cut before morning. He has started up\noften from a dream in which he thought his room was filled with armed\nslaves. But when the abolition bill passed, his fears all passed away.\nHe felt assured there would be no trouble then. The motive to\ninsurrection was taken away. As for the cutting of throats, or insult\nand violence in any way, he never suspects it. He never thinks of\nfastening his door at night now. As we were retiring to bed he looked\nround the room in which we had been sitting, where every thing spoke of\nserenity and confidence--doors and windows open, and books and plate\nscattered about on the tables and sideboards. \"You see things now,\" he\nsaid, \"just as we leave them every night, but you would have seen quite\na different scene had you come here a few years ago.\"\n\n_Mr. C. thinks the slaves of Barbadoes might have been entirely and\nimmediately emancipated as well as those of Antigua._ The results, he\ndoubts not, would have been the same.\n\nHe has no fear of disturbance or insubordination in 1840. He has no\ndoubt that the people will work. That there may be a little unsettled,\nexcited, _experimenting_ feeling for a short time, he thinks\nprobable--but feels confident that things generally will move on\npeaceably and prosperously. He looks with much more anxiety to the\nemancipation of the non-praedials in 1838.\n\nThere is no disposition among the apprentices to revenge their wrongs.\nMr. C. feels the utmost security both of person and property.\n\nThe slaves were very much excited by the discussions in England. They\nwere well acquainted, with them, and looked and longed for the result.\nThey watched every arrival of the packet with great anxiety. The people\non his estate often knew its arrival before he did. One of his daughters\nremarked, that she could see their hopes flashing from their eyes. They\nmanifested, however, no disposition to rebel, waiting in anxious but\nquiet hope for their release. Yet Mr. C. had no doubt, that if\nparliament had thrown out the emancipation bill, and all measures had\nceased for their relief, there would have been a general\ninsurrection.--While there was hope they remained peaceable, but had\nhope been destroyed it would have been buried in blood.\n\nThere was some dissatisfaction among the blacks with the apprenticeship.\nThey thought they ought to be entirely free, and that their masters were\ndeceiving them. They could not at first understand the conditions of the\nnew system--there was some murmuring among them, but they thought it\nbetter, however, to wait six years for the boon, than to run the risk of\nlosing it altogether by revolt.\n\nThe expenses of the apprenticeship are about the same as during slavery.\nBut under the free system, Mr. C. has no doubt they will be much less.\nHe has made a calculation of the expenses of cultivating the estate on\nwhich he resides for one year during slavery, and what they will\nprobably be for one year under the free system. He finds the latter are\nless by about $3,000.\n\nReal estate has increased in value more than thirty per rent. There is\ngreater confidence in the security of property. Instances were related\nto us of estates that could not be sold at any price before\nemancipation, that within the last two years have been disposed of at\ngreat prices.\n\nThe complaints to the magistrates, on the part of the planters, were\nvery numerous at first, but have greatly diminished. They are of the\nmost trivial and even ludicrous character. One of the magistrates says\nthe greater part of the cases that come before him are from old women\nwho cannot get their coffee early enough in the morning! and for\noffences of equal importance.\n\nPrejudice has much diminished since emancipation. The discussions in\nEngland prior to that period had done much to soften it down, but the\nabolition of slavery has given it its death blow.\n\nSuch is a rapid sketch of the various topics touched upon during our\ninterview with Mr. C. and his family.\n\nBefore we left the hospitable mansion of Lear's, we had the pleasure of\nmeeting a company of gentlemen at dinner. With the exception of one, who\nwas provost-marshal, they were merchants of Bridgetown. These gentlemen\nexpressed their full concurrence in the statements of Mr. C., and gave\nadditional testimony equally valuable.\n\nMr. W., the provost-marshal, stated that he had the supervision of the\npublic jail, and enjoyed the best opportunity of knowing the state of\ncrime, and he was confident that there was a less amount of crime since\nemancipation than before. He also spoke of the increasing attention\nwhich the negroes paid to neatness of dress and personal appearance.\n\nThe company broke up about nine o'clock, but not until we had seen ample\nevidence of the friendly feelings of all the gentlemen toward our\nobject. There was not a single dissenting voice to any of the statements\nmade, or any of the sentiments expressed. This fact shows that the\nprevailing feeling is in favor of freedom, and that too on the score of\npolicy and self-interest.\n\nDinner parties are in one sense a very safe pulse in all matters of\ngeneral interest. They rarely beat faster than the heart of the\ncommunity. No subject is likely to be introduced amid the festivities of\na fashionable circle, until it is fully endorsed by public sentiment.\n\nThrough the urgency of Mr. C., we were induced to remain all night.\nEarly the next morning, he proposed a ride before breakfast to Scotland.\nScotland is the name given to an abrupt, hilly section, in the north of\nthe island. It is about five miles from Mr. C.'s, and nine from\nBridgetown. In approaching, the prospect bursts suddenly upon the eye,\nextorting an involuntary exclamation of surprise. After riding for\nmiles, through a country which gradually swells into slight elevations,\nor sweeps away in rolling plains, covered with cane, yams, potatoes,\neddoes, corn, and grass, alternately, and laid out with the regularity\nof a garden; after admiring the cultivation, beauty, and skill exhibited\non every hand, until almost wearied with viewing the creations of art;\nthe eye at once falls upon a scene in which is crowded all the wildness\nand abruptness of nature in one of her most freakish moods--a scene\nwhich seems to defy the hand of cultivation and the graces of art. We\nascended a hill on the border of this section, which afforded us a\ncomplete view. To describe it in one sentence, it is an immense basin,\nfrom two to three miles in diameter at the top, the edges of which are\ncomposed of ragged hills, and the sides and bottom of which are\ndiversified with myriads of little hillocks and corresponding\nindentations. Here and there is a small sugar estate in the bottom, and\ncultivation extends some distance up the sides, though this is at\nconsiderable risk, for not infrequently, large tracts of soil, covered\nwith cane or provisions, slide down, over-spreading the crops below, and\ndestroying those which they carry with them.\n\nMr. C. pointed to the opposite side of the basin to a small group of\nstunted trees, which he said were the last remains of the Barbadoes\nforests. In the midst of them there is a boiling spring of considerable\nnotoriety.\n\nIn another direction, amid the rugged precipices, Mr. C. pointed out the\nresidences of a number of poor white families, whom he described as the\nmost degraded, vicious, and abandoned people in the island--\"very far\nbelow the negroes.\" They live promiscuously, are drunken, licentious,\nand poverty-stricken,--a body of most squalid and miserable\nhuman beings.\n\nFrom the height on which we stood, we could see the ocean nearly around\nthe island, and on our right and left, overlooking the basin below us,\nrose the two highest points of land of which Barbadoes can boast. The\nwhite marl about their naked tops gives them a bleak and desolate\nappearance, which contrasts gloomily with the verdure of the surrounding\ncultivation.\n\nAfter we had fully gratified ourselves with viewing the miniature\nrepresentation of old Scotia, we descended again into the road, and\nreturned to Lear's. We passed numbers of men and women going towards\ntown with loads of various kinds of provisions on their heads. Some were\nblack, and others were white--of the same class whose huts had just been\nshown us amid the hills and ravines of Scotland. We observed that the\nlatter were barefoot, and carried their loads on their heads precisely\nlike the former. As we passed these busy pedestrians, the blacks almost\nuniformly courtesied or spoke; but the whites did not appear to notice\nus. Mr. C inquired whether we were not struck with this difference in\nthe conduct of the two people, remarking that he had always observed it.\nIt is very seldom, said he, that I meet a negro who does not speak to me\npolitely; but this class of whites either pass along without looking up,\nor cast a half-vacant, rude stare into one's face, without opening their\nmouths. Yet this people, he added, veriest raggamuffins that they are,\ndespise the negroes, and consider it quite degrading to put themselves\non term of equity with them. They will beg of blacks more provident and\nindustrious than themselves, or they will steal their poultry and rob\ntheir provision grounds at night; but they would disdain to associate\nwith them. Doubtless these _sans culottes_ swell in their dangling rags\nwith the haughty consciousness that they possess _white skins_. What\nproud reflections they must have, as they pursue their barefoot way,\nthinking on their high lineage, and running back through the long list\nof their illustrious ancestry whose notable badge was a _white skin_! No\nwonder they cannot stop to bow to the passing stranger. These sprouts of\nthe Caucasian race are known among the Barbadians by the rather\nungracious name of _Red Shanks_. They are considered the pest of the\nisland, and are far more troublesome to the police, in proportion to\ntheir members, than the apprentices. They are estimated at about\neight thousand.\n\nThe origin of this population we learned was the following: It has long\nbeen a law in Barbadoes, that each proprietor should provide a white man\nfor every sixty slaves in his possession, and give him an acre of land,\na house, and arms requisite for defence of the island in case of\ninsurrection. This caused an importation of poor whites from Ireland and\nEngland, and their number has been gradually increasing until the\npresent time.\n\nDuring our stay of nearly two days with Mr. C., there was nothing to\nwhich he so often alluded as to the security from danger which was now\nenjoyed by the planters. As he sat in his parlor, surrounded by his\naffectionate family, the sense of personal and domestic security\nappeared to be a luxury to him. He repeatedly expressed himself\nsubstantially thus: \"During the existence of slavery, how often have I\nretired to bed _fearing_ _that I should have my throat cut before\nmorning_, but _now_ the danger is all over.\"\n\nWe took leave of Lear's, after a protracted visit, not without a\npressing invitation from Mr. C. to call again.\n\nSECOND VISIT TO LEAR'S.\n\nThe following week, on Saturday afternoon, we received a note from Mr.\nC., inviting us to spend the Sabbath at Lear's, where we might attend\nservice at a neighboring chapel, and see a congregation composed chiefly\nof apprentices. On our arrival, we received a welcome from the\nresidents, which reassured us of their sympathy in our object. We joined\nthe family circle around the centre table, and spent the evening in free\nconversation on the subject of slavery.\n\nDuring the evening Mr. C. stated, that he had lately met with a planter\nwho, for some years previous to emancipation, and indeed up to the very\nevent, maintained that it was utterly impossible for such a thing ever\nto take place. The mother country, he said, could not be so mad as to\ntake a step which must inevitably ruin the colonies. _Now_, said Mr. C.,\nthis planter would be one of the last in the island to vote for a\nrestoration of slavery; nay, he even wishes to have the apprenticeship\nterminated at once, and entire freedom given to the people. Such changes\nas this were very common.\n\nMr. C. remarked that during slavery, if the negro ventured to express an\nopinion about any point of management, he was met at once with a\nreprimand. If one should say, \"I think such a course would he best,\" or,\n\"Such a field of cane is fit for cutting,\" the reply would be, \"_Think_!\nyou have no right to think any thing about it. _Do as I bid you_.\" Mr.\nC. confessed frankly, that he had often used such language himself. Yet\nat the same time that he affected such contempt for the opinions of the\nslaves, he used to go around secretly among the negro houses at night to\noverhear their conversation, and ascertain their views. Sometimes he\nreceived very valuable suggestions from them, which he was glad to avail\nhimself of, though he was careful not to acknowledge their origin.\n\nSoon after supper, Miss E., one of Mr. C.'s daughters, retired for the\npurpose of teaching a class of colored children which came to her on\nWednesday and Saturday nights. A sister of Miss E. has a class on the\nsame days at noon.\n\nDuring the evening we requested the favor of seeing Miss E.'s school. We\nwere conducted by a flight of stairs into the basement story, where we\nfound her sitting in a small recess, and surrounded by a dozen negro\ngirls; from the ages of eight to fifteen. She was instructing them from\nthe Testament, which most of them could read fluently. She afterwards\nheard them recite some passages which they had committed to memory, and\ninterspersed the recitations with appropriate remarks of advice and\nexhortation.\n\nIt is to be remarked that Miss E. commenced instructing after the\nabolition; before that event the idea of such an employment would have\nbeen rejected as degrading.\n\nAt ten o'clock on Sabbath morning, we drove to the chapel of the parish,\nwhich is a mile and a half from Lear's. It contains seats for five\nhundred persons. The body of the house is appropriated to the\napprentices. There were upwards of four hundred persons, mostly\napprentices, present, and a more quiet and attentive congregation we\nhave seldom seen. The people were neatly dressed. A great number of the\nmen wore black or blue cloth. The females were generally dressed in\nwhite. The choir was composed entirely of blacks, and sung with\ncharacteristic excellence.\n\nThere was so much intelligence in the countenances of the people, that\nwe could scarcely believe we were looking on a congregation of lately\nemancipated slaves.\n\nWe returned to Lear's. Mr. C. noticed the change which has taken place\nin the observance of the Sabbath since emancipation. Formerly the smoke\nwould be often seen at this time of day pouring from the chimneys of the\nboiling-houses; but such a sight has not been seen since slavery\ndisappeared.\n\nSunday used to be the day for the negroes to work on their grounds; now\nit is a rare thing for them to do so. Sunday markets also prevailed\nthroughout the island, until the abolition of slavery.\n\nMr. C. continued to speak of slavery. \"I sometimes wonder,\" said he, \"at\nmyself, when I think how long I was connected with slavery; but\nself-interest and custom blinded me to its enormities.\" Taking a short\nwalk towards sunset, we found ourselves on the margin of a beautiful\npond, in which myriads of small gold fishes were disporting--now\ncircling about in rapid evolutions, and anon leaping above the surface,\nand displaying their brilliant sides in the rays of the setting sun.\nWhen we had watched for some moments their happy gambols, Mr. C. turned\naround and broke a twig from a bush that stood behind us; \"_there is a\nbush_,\" said he, \"_which has committed many a murder_.\" On requesting\nhim to explain, he said, that the root of it was a most deadly poison,\nand that the slave women used to make a decoction of it and give to\ntheir infants to destroy them; many a child had been murdered in this\nway. Mothers would kill their children, rather than see them _grow up to\nbe slaves_. \"Ah,\" he continued, in a solemn tone, pausing a moment and\nlooking at us in a most earnest manner, \"I could write a book about the\nevils of slavery. I could write a book about these things.\"\n\nWhat a volume of blackness and blood![A]\n\n[Footnote A: We are here reminded of a fact stated by Mr. C. on another\noccasion. He said, that he once attended at the death of a planter who\nhad been noted for his severity to his slaves. It was the most horrid\nscene he ever witnessed. For hours before his death he was in the\nextremest agony, and the only words which he uttered were, \"Africa. O\nAfrica!\" These words he repeated every few minutes, till he died. And\nsuch a ghastly countenance, such distortions of the muscles, such a\nhellish glare of the eye, and such convulsions of the body--it made him\nshudder to think of them.]\n\nWhen we arose on Monday morning, the daylight has scarcely broken. On\nlooking out of the window, we saw the mill slowly moving in the wind,\nand the field gang were going out to their daily work. Surely, we\nthought, this does not look much like the laziness and insubordination\nof freed negroes. After dressing, we walked down to the mill, to have\nsome conversation with the people. They all bade us a cordial \"good\nmornin'.\" The _tender_ of the mill was an old man, whose despised locks\nwere gray and thin, and on whose brow the hands of time and sorrow had\nwritten many effaceless lines. He appeared hale and cheerful, and\nanswered our questions in distinct intelligible language. We asked him\nhow they were all getting along under the new system. \"Very well,\nmassa,\" said he, \"very well, thank God. All peaceable and good.\" \"Do you\nlike the apprenticeship better then slavery?\" \"Great deal better, massa;\nwe is doing well now.\" \"You like the apprenticeship as well as freedom,\ndon't you?\" \"O _no_ me massa, freedom _till better_.\"\n\n\"What will you do when you are entirely free?\"\n\n\"We must work; all have to work when de free come, white and black.\"\n\"You are old, and will not enjoy freedom long; why do you wish for\nfreedom, then?\" \"Me want to _die_ free, massa--good ting to die free,\nand me want to see _children_ free too.\"\n\nWe continued at Lear's during Monday, to be in readiness for a tour to\nthe windward of the island, which Mr. C. had projected for us, and on\nwhich we were to set out early the next morning. In the course of the\nday we had opportunities of seeing the apprentices in almost every\nsituation--in the field, at the mill, in the boiling-house, moving to\nand from work, and at rest. In every aspect in which we viewed them,\nthey appeared cheerful, amiable, and easy of control. It was admirable\nto see with what ease and regularity every thing moved. An estate of\nnearly seven hundred acres, with extensive agriculture, and a large\nmanufactory and distillery, employing three hundred apprentices, and\nsupporting twenty-five horses, one hundred and thirty head of horned\ncattle, and hogs, sheep; and poultry in proportion, is manifestly a most\ncomplicated machinery. No wonder it should have been difficult to manage\nduring slavery, when the main spring was absent, and every wheel out\nof gear.\n\nWe saw the apprentices assemble after twelve o'clock, to receive their\nallowances of yams. These provisions are distributed to them twice every\nweek--on Monday and Thursday. They were strewed along the yard in heaps\nof fifteen pounds each. The apprentices came with baskets to get their\nallowances. It resembled a market scene, much chattering and talking,\nbut no anger. Each man, woman, and child, as they got their baskets\nfilled, placed them of their heads, and marched off to their\nseveral huts.\n\nOn Tuesday morning, at an early hour, Mr. C. took us in his phaeton on\nour projected excursion. It was a beautiful morning. There was a full\nbreeze from the east, which had already started the ponderous wings of\nthe wind-mills, in every direction. The sun was shaded by light clouds,\nwhich rendered the air quite cool. Crossing the rich valley in which the\nBell estate and other noble properties are situated, we ascended the\ncliffs of St. John's--a ridge extending through the parish of that name\nand as we rode along its top, eastward, we had a delightful view of sea\nand land. Below us on either hand lay vast estates glowing in the,\nverdure of summer, and on three sides in the distance stretched the\nocean. Rich swells of land, cultivated and blooming like a vast garden,\nextended to the north as far as the eye could reach, and on every other\nside down to the water's edge. One who has been accustomed to the\nwildness of American scenery, and to the imperfect cultivation,\nintercepted with woodland, which yet characterizes the even the oldest\nportions of the United States, might revel for a time amid the sunny\nmeadows. The waving cane fields, the verdant provision grounds, the\nacres of rich black soil without a blade of grass, and divided into beds\ntwo feet square for the cane plants with the precision almost of the\ncells of a honey comb; and withal he might be charmed with the luxurious\nmansions--more luxurious than superb--surrounded with the white cedar,\nthe cocoa-nut tree, and the tall, rich mountain cabbage--the most\nbeautiful of all tropical trees; but perchance it would not require a\nvery long excursion to weary him with the artificiality of the scenery,\nand cause him to sigh for the \"woods and wilds,\" the \"banks and braes,\"\nof his own majestic country.\n\nAfter an hour and a half's drive, we reached Colliton estate, where we\nwere engaged to breakfast. We met a hearty welcome from the manager,\nSamuel Hinkston, Esq. we were soon joined by several gentlemen whom Mr.\nH. had invited to take breakfast with us; these were the Rev. Mr.\nGittens, rector of St. Philip's parish, (in which Colliton estate is\nsituated,) and member of the colonial council; Mr. Thomas, an extensive\nattorney of Barbadoes; and Dr. Bell, a planter of Demerara--then on a\nvisit to the island. We conversed with each of the gentlemen separately,\nand obtained their individual views respecting emancipation.\n\nMr. Hinkston has been a planter for thirty-six years, and is highly\nesteemed throughout the island. The estate which he manages, ranks among\nthe first in the island. It comprises six hundred acres of superior\nland, has a population of two hundred apprentices, and yields an average\ncrop of one hundred and eighty hogsheads. Together with his long\nexperience and standing as a planter, Mr. H. has been for many years\nlocal magistrate for the parish in which he resides. From these\ncircumstances combined, we are induced to give his opinions on a variety\nof points.\n\n1. He remarked that the planters were getting along _infinitely_ better\nunder the new system than they ever did under the old. Instead of\nregretting that the change had taken place, he is looking forward with\npleasure to a better change in 1840, and he only regrets that it is not\nto come sooner.\n\n2. Mr. H. said it was generally conceded that the island was never under\nbetter cultivation than at the present time. The crops for this year\nwill exceed the average by several thousand hogsheads. The canes were\nplanted in good season, and well attended to afterwards.\n\n3. Real estate has risen very much since emancipation. Mr. H. stated\nthat he had lately purchased a small sugar estate, for which he was\nobliged to give several hundred pounds more than it would have cost him\nbefore 1834.\n\n4. There is not the least sense of insecurity now. Before emancipation\nthere was much fear of insurrection, but that fear passed away\nwith slavery.\n\n5. The prospect for 1840 is good. That people have no fear of ruin after\nemancipation, is proved by the building of sugar works on estates which\nnever had any before, and which were obliged to cart their canes to\nneighbouring estates to have them ground and manufactured. There are\nalso numerous improvements making on the larger estates. Mr. H. is\npreparing to make a new mill and boiling-house on Colliton, and other\nplanters are doing the same. Arrangements are making too in various\ndirections to build new negro villages on a more commodious plan.\n\n6. Mr. H. says he finds his apprentices perfectly ready to work for\nwages during their own time. Whenever he needs their labor on Saturday,\nhe has only to ask them, and they are ready to go to the mill, or field\nat once. There has not been an instance on Colliton estate in which the\napprentices have refused to work, either during the hours required by\nlaw, or during their own time. When he does not need their services on\nSaturday, they either hire themselves to other estates or work on their\nown grounds.\n\n7. Mr. H. was ready to say, both as a planter and a magistrate, that\nvice and crime generally had decreased, and were still on the decrease.\nPetty thefts are the principal offences. He has not had occasion to send\na single apprentice to the court of sessions for the last six months.\n\n8. He has no difficulty in managing his people--far less than he did\nwhen they were slaves. It is very seldom that he finds it necessary to\ncall in the aid of the special magistrate. Conciliatory treatment is\ngenerally sufficient to maintain order and industry among the\napprentices.\n\n9. He affirms that the negroes have no disposition to be revengeful. He\nhas never seen any thing like revenge.\n\n10. His people are as far removed from insolence as from vindictiveness.\nThey have been uniformly civil.\n\n11. His apprentices have more interest in the affairs of the estate, and\nhe puts more confidence in them than he ever did before.\n\n12. He declares that the working of the apprenticeship, as also that of\nentire freedom, depends entirely on the _planters_. If they act with\ncommon humanity and reason, there is no fear but that the apprentices\nwill be peaceable.\n\nMr. Thomas is attorney for fifteen estates, on which there are upwards\nof two thousand five hundred apprentices. We were informed that he had\nbeen distinguished as a _severe disciplinarian_ under the old reign, or\nin plain terms, had been a _cruel man and a hard driver_; but he was one\nof those who, since emancipation, have turned about and conformed their\nmode of treatment to the new system. In reply to our inquiry how the\npresent system was working, he said, \"infinitely better (such was his\nlanguage) than slavery. I succeed better on all the estates under my\ncharge than I did formerly. I have far less difficulty with the people.\nI have no reason to complain of their conduct. However, I think they\nwill do still better after 1840.\"\n\nWe made some inquiries of Dr. Bell concerning the results of abolition\nin Demerara. He gave a decidedly flattering account of the working of\nthe apprenticeship system. No fears are entertained that Demerara will\nbe ruined after 1840. On the contrary it will be greatly benefited by\nemancipation. It is now suffering from a want of laborers, and after\n1840 there will be an increased emigration to that colony from the older\nand less productive colonies. The planters of Demerara are making\narrangements for cultivating sugar on a larger scale than ever before.\nEstates are selling at very high prices. Every thing indicates the\nfullest confidence on the part of the planters that the prosperity of\nthe colony will not only be permanent, but progressive.\n\nAfter breakfast we proceeded to the Society's estate. We were glad to\nsee this estate, as its history is peculiar. In 1726 it was bequeathed\nby General Coddington to a society in England, called \"The Society for\nthe promotion of Christian Knowledge.\" The proceeds of the estate were\nto be applied to the support of an institution in Barbadoes, for\neducating missionaries of the established order. Some of the provisions\nof the will were that the estate should always have three hundred slaves\nupon it; that it should support a school for the education of the negro\nchildren who were to be taught a portion of every day until they were\ntwelve years old, when they were to go into the field; and that there\nshould be a chapel built upon it. The negroes belonging to the estate\nhave for upwards of a hundred years been under this kind of instruction.\nThey have all been taught to read, though in many instances they have\nforgotten all they learned, having no opportunity to improve after they\nleft school. They enjoy some other comforts peculiar to the Society's\nestate. They have neat cottages built apart--each on a half-acre lot,\nwhich belongs to the apprentice and for the cultivation of which he is a\nallowed one day out of the five working days. Another peculiarity is,\nthat the men and women work in separate gangs.\n\nAt this estate we procured horses to ride to the College. We rode by the\nchapel and school-house belonging to the Society's estate which are\nsituated on the row of a high hill. From the same hill we caught a view\nof Coddrington college, which is situated on a low bottom extending from\nthe foot of the rocky cliff on which we stood to the sea shore, a space\nof quarter of a mile. It is a long, narrow, ill-constructed edifice.\n\nWe called on the principal, Rev. Mr. Jones, who received us very\ncordially, and conducted us over the buildings and the grounds connected\nwith them. The college is large enough to accommodate a hundred\nstudents. It is fitted out with lodging rooms, various professors'\ndepartments, dining hall, chapel, library, and all the appurtenances of\na university. The number of student at the close of the last term was\n_fifteen_.\n\nThe professors, two in number, are supported by a fund, consisting of\n\u00a340,000 sterling, which has in part accumulated from the revenue of\nthe estate.\n\nThe principal spoke favorably of the operation of the apprenticeship in\nBarbadoes, and gave the negroes a decided superiority over the lower\nclass of whites. He had seen only one colored beggar since he came to\nthe island, but he was infested with multitudes of white ones.\n\nIt is intended to improve the college buildings as soon as the toil of\napprentices on the Society's estate furnishes the requisite means. This\nrobbing of God's image to promote education is horrible enough, taking\nthe wages of slavery to spread the kingdom of Christ!\n\nOn re-ascending the hill, we called at the Society's school. There are\nusually in attendance about one hundred children, since the abolition of\nslavery. Near the school-house is the chapel of the estate, a neat\nbuilding, capable of holding three or four hundred people. Adjacent to\nthe chapel is the burial ground for the negroes belonging to the\nSociety's estate. We noticed several neat tombs, which appeared to have\nbeen erected only a short time previous. They were built of brick, and\ncovered over with lime, so as to resemble white marble slabs. On being\ntold that these were erected by the negroes themselves over the bodies\nof their friends, we could not fail to note so beautiful an evidence of\ntheir civilization and humanity. We returned to the Society's estate,\nwhere we exchanged our saddles for the phaeton, and proceeded on our\neastward tour.\n\nMr. C. took us out of the way a few miles to show us one of the few\ncuriosities of which Barbadoes can boast. It is called the \"Horse.\" The\nshore for some distance is a high and precipitous ledge of rocks, which\noverhangs the sea in broken cliffs. In one place a huge mass has been\nriven from the main body of rock and fallen into the sea. Other huge\nfragments have been broken off in the same manner. In the midst of\nthese, a number of steps have been cut in the rock for the purpose of\ndescending to the sea. At the bottom of these steps, there is a broad\nplatform of solid rock, where one may stand securely, and hear the waves\nbreaking around him like heavy thunders. Through the fissures we could\nsee the foam and spray mingling with the blue of the ocean, and flashing\nin the sunshine. To the right, between the largest rock and the main\nland, there is a chamber of about ten feet wide, and twenty feet long.\nThe fragment, which forms one of its sides, leans towards the main rock,\nand touches it at top, forming a roof, with here and there a fissure,\nthrough which the light enters. At the bottom of the room there is a\nclear bed of water, which communicates with the sea by a small aperture\nunder the rock. It is as placid as a summer pond, and is fitted with\nsteps for a bathing place. Bathe, truly! with the sea ever dashing\nagainst the side, and roaring and reverberating with deafening echo.\n\nOn a granite slab, fixed in the side of the rock at the bottom of the\nfirst descent is an inscription. Time has very much effaced the letters,\nbut by the aid of Mr. C.'s memory, we succeeded in deciphering them.\nThey will serve as the hundred and first exemplification of the\nBonapartean maxim--\"There is but one step from the sublime to the\nridiculous.\"\n\n  \"In this remote, and hoarse resounding place,\n   Which billows clash, and craggy cliffs embrace,\n   These babbling springs amid such horrors rise,\n   But armed with virtue, horrors we despise.\n   Bathe undismayed, nor dread the impending rock,\n   'Tis virtue shields us from each adverse shock.\n\n   GENIO LOCI SACRUM POSUIT\n   J.R.\n   MARTIS MENSE\n   1769\"\n\nFrom the \"Crane,\" which is the name given to that section of the country\nin which the \"Horse\" is situated, we bent our way in a southerly\ndirection to the Ridge estate, which was about eight miles distant,\nwhere we had engaged to dine. On the way we passed an estate which had\njust been on fire. The apprentices, fearing lest their houses should be\nburnt, had carried away all the moveables from them, and deposited them\nin separate heaps, on a newly ploughed field. The very doors and window\nshutters had been torn off and carried into the field, several acres of\nwhich were strewed over with piles of such furniture. Mr. C. was\nscarcely less struck with this scene than we were, and he assured us\nthat he had never known such providence manifested on a similar occasion\nduring slavery.\n\nAt the Ridge estate we met Mr. Clarke, manager at Staple Grove estate,\nMr. Applewhitte of Carton, and a brother of Mr. C. The manager, Mr.\nCecil, received us with the customary cordiality.\n\nMr. Clarke is the manager of an estate on which there are two hundred\napprentices. His testimony was, that the estate was better cultivated\nsince abolition than before, and that it is far easier to control the\nlaborers, and secure uniformity of labor under the present system. He\nqualified this remark, by saying, that if harsh or violent measures were\nused, there would be more difficulty now than during slavery; but kind\ntreatment and a conciliatory spirit never failed to secure peace and\nindustry. At the time of abolition, Mr. C. owned ten slaves, whom he\nentirely emancipated. Some of these still remain with him as domestics;\nothers are hired on an adjoining estate. One of those who left him to\nwork on another estate, said to him, \"Massa, whenever you want anybody\nto help you, send to me, and I'll come. It makes no odds when it\nis--I'll be ready at any time--day or night.\" Mr. C. declared himself\nthoroughly convinced of the propriety of immediate emancipation; though\nhe was once a violent opposer of abolition. He said, that if he had the\npower, be would emancipate every apprentice on his estate to-morrow. As\nwe were in the sugar-house examining the quality of the sugar, Mr. C.\nturned to one of us, and putting his hand on a hogshead, said, \"You do\nnot raise this article in your state, (Kentucky,) I believe.\" On being\nanswered in the negative, he continued, \"Well, we will excuse you, then,\nsomewhat in your state--you can't treat your slaves so cruelly there.\n_This, this_ is the dreadful thing! Wherever sugar is cultivated by\nslaves, there is extreme suffering.\"\n\nMr. Applewhitte said emphatically, that there was no danger in entire\nemancipation. He was the proprietor of more than a hundred apprentices\nand he would like to see them all free at once.\n\nDuring a long sitting at the dinner table, emancipation was the topic,\nand we were gratified with the perfect unanimity of sentiment among\nthese planters. After the cloth was removed, and we were about leaving\nthe table, Mr. Clarke begged leave to propose a toast. Accordingly, the\nglasses of the planters were once more filled, and Mr. C., bowing to us,\ngave our health, and \"success to our laudable undertaking,\"--\"_most_\nlaudable undertaking,\" added Mr. Applewhitte, and the glasses were\nemptied. Had the glasses contained water instead of wine, our\ngratification would have been complete. It was a thing altogether beyond\nour most sanguine expectations, that a company of planters, all of whom\nwere but three years previous the actual oppressors of the slave, should\nbe found wishing success to the cause of emancipation.\n\nAt half past eight o'clock, we resumed our seats in Mr. C.'s phaeton,\nand by the nearest route across the country, returned to Lear's. Mr. C.\nentertained us by the way with eulogies upon the industry and\nfaithfulness of his apprentices. It was, he said, one of the greatest\npleasures he experienced, to visit the different estates under his\ncharge, and witness the respect and affection which the apprentices\nentertained towards him. Their joyful welcome, their kind attentions\nduring his stay with them, and their hearty 'good-bye, massa,' when he\nleft, delighted him.\n\nVISIT TO COLONEL ASHBY'S.\n\nWe were kindly invited to spend a day at the mansion of Colonel Ashby,\nan aged and experienced planter, who is the proprietor of the estate on\nwhich he resides. Colonel A.'s estate is situated in the parish of\nChrist Church, and is almost on the extreme point of a promontory, which\nforms the southernmost part of the island. An early and pleasant drive\nof nine miles from Bridgetown, along the southeastern coast of the\nisland, brought us to his residence. Colonel A. is a native of\nBarbadoes, has been a practical planter since 1795, and for a long time\na colonial magistrate, and commander of the parish troops. His present\nestate contains three hundred and fifty acres, and has upon it two\nhundred and thirty apprentices, with a large number of free children.\nHis average crop is eighty large hogsheads. Colonel A. remarked to us,\nthat he had witnessed many cruelties and enormities under \"the reign of\nterror.\" He said, that the abolition of slavery had been an incalculable\nblessing, but added, that he had not always entertained the same views\nrespecting emancipation. Before it took place, he was a violent opposer\nof any measure tending to abolition. He regarded the English\nabolitionists, and the anti-slavery members in parliament, with\nunmingled hatred. He had often cursed Wilberforce most bitterly, and\nthought that no doom either in this life, or in the life to come, was\ntoo bad for him. \"But,\" he exclaimed, \"how mistaken I was about that\nman--I am convinced of it now--O he was a good man--_a noble\nphilanthropist_!--_if there is a chair in heaven, Wilberforce is in\nit_!\" Colonel A. is somewhat sceptical, which will account for his\nhypothetical manner of speaking about heaven.\n\nHe said that he found no trouble in managing his apprentices. As local\nor colonial magistrate, in which capacity he still continued to act he\nhad no cases of serious crime to adjudicate, and very few cases of petty\nmisdemeanor. Colonel A. stated emphatically, that the negroes were not\ndisposed to leave their employment, unless the master was intolerably\npassionate and hard with them; as for himself, he did not fear losing a\nsingle laborer after 1840.\n\nHe dwelt much on the trustiness and strong attachment of the negroes,\nwhere they are well treated. There were no people in the world that he\nwould trust his property or life with sooner than negroes, provided he\nhad the previous management of them long enough to secure their\nconfidence. He stated the following fact in confirmation of this\nsentiment. During the memorable insurrection of 1816, by which the\nneighboring parishes were dreadfully ravaged, he was suddenly called\nfrom home on military duty. After he had proceeded some distance, he\nrecollected that he had left five thousand dollars in an open desk at\nhome. He immediately told the fact to his slave who was with him, and\nsent him back to take care of it. He knew nothing more of his money\nuntil the rebellion was quelled, and peace restored. On returning home,\nthe slave led him to a cocoa-nut tree near by the house, and dug up the\nmoney, which he had buried under its roots. He found the whole sum\nsecure. The negro, he said, might have taken the money, and he would\nnever have suspected him, but would have concluded that it had been, in\ncommon with other larger sums, seized upon by the insurgents. Colonel A.\nsaid that it was impossible for him to mistrust the negroes as a body.\nHe spoke in terms of praise also of the _conjugal attachment_ of the\nnegroes. His son, a merchant, stated a fact on this subject. The wife of\na negro man whom he knew, became afflicted with that loathsome disease,\nthe leprosy. The man continued to live with her, notwithstanding the\ndisease was universally considered contagious and was peculiarly dreaded\nby the negroes. The man on being asked why he lived with his wife under\nsuch circumstances, said, that he had lived with her when she was well,\nand he could not bear to forsake her when she was in distress.\n\nColonel A. made numerous inquiries respecting slavery in America. He\nsaid there certainly be insurrections in the slaveholding states, unless\nslavery was abolished. Nothing but abolition could put an end to\ninsurrections.\n\nMr. Thomas, a neighboring planter, dined with us. He had not carried a\ncomplaint to the special magistrate against his apprentices for six\nmonths. He remarked particularly that emancipation had been a great\nblessing to the master; it brought freedom to him as well as to\nthe slave.\n\nA few days subsequent to our visit to Colonel A.'s, the Reverend Mr.\nPacker, of the Established Church, called at our lodgings, and\nintroduced a planter from the parish of St. Thomas. The planter is\nproprietor of an estate, and has eighty apprentices. His apprentices\nconduct themselves very satisfactorily, and he had not carried a half\ndozen complaints to the special magistrate since 1831. He said that\ncases of crime were very rare, as he had opportunity of knowing, being\nlocal magistrate. There were almost no penal offences brought before\nhim. Many of the apprentices of St. Thomas parish were buying their\nfreedom, and there were several cases of appraisement[A] every week. The\nMonday previous, six cases came before him, in four of which the\napprentices paid the money on the spot.\n\n[Footnote A: When an apprentice signifies his wish to purchase his\nfreedom, he applies to the magistrate for an appraisement. The\nappraisement is made by one special and two local magistrates.]\n\nBefore this gentleman left, the Rev. Mr. C. called in with Mr. Pigeot,\nanother planter, with whom we had a long conversation. Mr. P. has been a\nmanager for many years. We had heard of him previously as the only\nplanter in the island who had made an experiment in task work prior to\nabolition. He tried it for twenty months before that period on an estate\nof four hundred acres and two hundred people. His plan was simply to\ngive each slave an ordinary day's work for a task; and after that was\nperformed, the remainder of the time, if any, belonged to the slave. _No\nwages were allowed_. The gang were expected to accomplish just as much\nas they did before, and to do it as well, however long a time it might\nrequire; and if they could finish in half a day, the other half was\ntheir own, and they might employ it as they saw fit. Mr. P. said, he was\nvery soon convinced of the good policy of the system; though he had one\nof the most unruly gangs of negroes to manage in the whole island. The\nresults of the experiment he stated to be these:\n\n1. The usual day's work was done generally before the middle of the\nafternoon. Sometimes it was completed in five hours.\n\n2. The work was done as well as it was ever done under the old system.\nIndeed, the estate continued to improve in cultivation, and presented a\nfar better appearance at the close of the twenty months than when he\ntook the charge of it.\n\n3. The trouble of management was greatly diminished. Mr. P. was almost\nentirely released from the care of overseeing the work: he could trust\nit to the slaves.\n\n4. The whip was entirely laid aside. The idea of having a part of the\nday which they could call their own and employ for their own interests,\nwas stimulus enough for the slaves without resorting to the whip.\n\n5. The time gained was not spent (as many feared and prophecied it would\nbe) either in mischief or indolence. It was diligently improved in\ncultivating their provision grounds, or working for wages on neighboring\nestates. Frequently a man and his wife would commence early and work\ntogether until they got the work of both so far advanced that the man\ncould finish it alone before night; and then the woman would gather on a\nload of yams and start for the market.\n\n6. The condition of the people improved astonishingly. They became one\nof the most industrious and orderly gangs in the parish. Under the\nformer system they were considered inadequate to do the work of the\nestate, and the manager was obliged to hire additional hands every year,\nto take off the crop; but Mr. P. never hired any, though he made as\nlarge crops as were made formerly.\n\n7. After the abolition of slavery, his people chose to continue on the\nsame system of task work.\n\nMr. P. stated that the planters were universally opposed to his\nexperiment. They laughed at the idea of making negroes work without\nusing the whip; and they all prophesied that it would prove an utter\nfailure. After some months' successful trial, he asked some of his\nneighbor planters what they thought of it then, and he appealed to than\nto say whether he did not get his work done as thoroughly and seasonably\nas they did theirs. They were compelled to admit it; but still they were\nopposed to his system, even more than ever. They called it an\n_innovation_--it was setting a bad example; and they honestly declared\nthat they did not wish the slaves to _have any time of their own_. Mr.\nP. said, he was first induced to try the system of task work from a\nconsideration that the negroes were men as well as himself, and deserved\nto he dealt with as liberally as their relation would allow. He soon\nfound that what was intended as a favor to the slaves was really a\nbenefit to the master. Mr. P. was persuaded that entire freedom would be\nbetter for all parties than apprenticeship. He had heard some fears\nexpressed concerning the fate of the island after 1840; but he\nconsidered them very absurd.\n\nAlthough this planter looked forward with sanguine hopes to 1840, yet he\nwould freely say that he did not think the apprenticeship would be any\npreparation for entire freedom. The single object with the great\nmajority of the planters seemed to be to _get as much out_ of the\napprentices as they possibly could during the term. No attention had\nbeen paid to preparing the apprentices for freedom.\n\nWe were introduced to a planter who was notorious during the reign of\nslavery for the _strictness of his discipline_, to use the Barbadian\nphrase, or, in plain English, for his rigorous treatment and\nhis cruelty.\n\nHe is the proprietor of three sugar estates and one cotton plantation in\nBarbadoes, on all of which there are seven hundred apprentices. He was a\nluxurious looking personage, bottle-cheeked and huge i' the midst, and\nhad grown fat on slaveholding indulgences. He mingled with every\nsentence he uttered some profane expression, or solemn appeal to his\n\"honor,\" and seemed to be greatly delighted with hearing himself talk.\nHe displayed all those prejudices which might naturally be looked for in\na mind educated and trained as his had been. As to the conduct of the\napprentices, he said they were peaceable and industrious, and mostly\nwell disposed. But after all, the negroes were a perverse race of\npeople. It was a singular fact, he said, that the severer the master,\nthe better the apprentices. When the master was mild and indulgent, they\nwere sure to be lazy, insolent, and unfaithful. _He knew this by\nexperience; this was the case with_ his _apprentices_. His house-servants\nespecially were very bad. But there was one complaint he had against\nthem all, domestics and praedials--they always hold him to the letter of\nthe law, and are ready to arraign him before the special magistrate for\nevery infraction of it on his part, however trifling. How ungrateful,\ntruly! After being provided for with parental care from earliest\ninfancy, and supplied yearly with two suits of clothes, and as many yams\nis they could eat and only having to work thirteen or fifteen hours per\nday in return; and now when they are no longer slaves, and new\nprivileges are conferred to exact them to the full extent of the law\nwhich secures them--what ingratitude! How soon are the kindnesses of the\npast, and the hand that bestowed them, forgotten! Had these people\npossessed the sentiments of human beings, they would have been willing\nto take the boon of freedom and lay it at their master's feet,\ndedicating the remainder of their days to his discretionary service!\n\nBut with all his violent prejudices, this planter stated some facts\nwhich are highly favorable to the apprentices.\n\n1. He frankly acknowledged that his estates were never under better\ncultivation than at the present time: and he could say the same of the\nestates throughout the island. The largest crops that have ever been\nmade, will he realized this year.\n\n2. The apprentices are generally willing to work on the estates on\nSaturday whenever their labor is needed.\n\n3. The females are very much disposed to abandon field labor. He has\ngreat difficulty sometimes in inducing them to take their hoes and go\nout to the field along with the men; it was the case particularly _with\nthe mothers!_ This he regarded as a sore evil!\n\n4. The free children he represented as being in a wretched condition.\nTheir parents have the entire management of them, an they are utterly\nopposed to having them employed on the estates. He condemned severely\nthe course taken in a particular instance by the late Governor, Sir\nLionel Smith. He took it upon himself to go around the island and advise\nthe parents never to bind their children in any kind of apprenticeship\nto the planters. He told them that sooner than involve their free\nchildren in any way, they ought to \"work their own fingers to the\nstubs.\" The consequence of this imprudent measure, said our informant,\nis that the planters have no control over the children born on their\nestates; and in many instances their parents have sent them away lest\ntheir _residence_ on the property should, by some chance, give the\nplanter a claim upon their services. Under the good old system the young\nchildren were placed together under the charge of some superannuated\nwomen, who were fit for nothing else, and the mothers went into the\nfield to work; now the nursery is broken up, and the mothers spend half\nof their time \"_in taking care of their brats_.\"\n\n5. As to the management of the working people, there need not he any\nmore difficulty now then during slavery. If the magistrates, instead of\nencouraging the apprentices to complain and be insolent, would join\ntheir influence to support the authority of the planters, things might\ngo on nearly as smoothly as before.\n\nIn company with Rev. Mr. Packer, late Rector of St. Thomas, we rode out\nto the Belle estate, which is considered one of the finest in the\nisland. Mr. Marshall, the manager, received us cordially. He was\nselected, with two others, by Sir Lionel Smith, to draw up a scale of\nlabor for general use in the island. There are five hundred acres in the\nestate, and two hundred and thirty-five apprenticed laborers. The\nmanager stated that every thing was working well on his property. He\ncorroborated the statements made by other planters with retard to the\nconduct of the apprentices. On one point he said the planters had found\nthemselves greatly disappointed. It was feared that after emancipation\nthe negroes would be very much verse to cultivating cane, as it was\nsupposed that nothing but the whip could induce them to perform that\nspecies of labor. But the truth is, they now not only cultivate the\nestate lands better than they did when under the lash, but also\ncultivate a third of their half-acre allotments in cane on their own\naccounts. They would plant the whole in cane if they were not\ndiscouraged by the planter, whose principal objection to their doing so\nis that it would lead to the entire neglect of _provision cultivation_.\nThe apprentices on Belle estate will make little short of one thousand\ndollars the present season by their sugar.\n\nMr. M. stated that he was extensively acquainted with the cultivation of\nthe island, and he knew that it was in a better condition than it had\nbeen for many years. There were twenty-four estates under the same\nattorneyship with the Belle, and they were all in the same prosperous\ncondition.\n\nA short time before we left Barbadoes we received an invitation from\nCol. Barrow, to breakfast with him at his residence on Edgecome\nestate--about eight miles from town. Mr. Cummins, a colored gentleman, a\nmerchant of Bridgetown, and agent of Col. B., accompanied us.\n\nThe proprietor of Edgecome is a native of Barbadoes, of polished manners\nand very liberal views. He has travelled extensively, has held many\nimportant offices, and is generally considered the _cleverest_ man in\nthe island. He is now a member of the council, and acting attorney for\nabout twenty estates. He remarked that he had always desired\nemancipation, and had prepared himself for it; but that it had proved a\ngreater blessing than he had expected. His apprentices did as much work\nas before, and it was done without the application of the whip. He had\nnot had any cases of insubordination, and it was very seldom that he\nhad any complaints to make to the special magistrate. \"The apprentices.\"\nsaid he, \"understand the meaning of law, and they regard its authority.\"\nHe thought there was no such thing in the island as a _sense of\ninsecurity_, either as respected person or property. Real estate had\nrisen in value.\n\nCol. B. alluded to the expensiveness of slavery, remarking that after\nall that was expended in purchasing the slaves, it cost the proprietor\nas much to maintain them, as it would to hire free men. He spoke of the\nhabit of exercising arbitrary power, which being in continual play up to\nthe time of abolition, had become so strong that managers even yet gave\nway to it, and frequently punished their apprentices, in spite of all\npenalties. The fines inflicted throughout the island in 1836, upon\nplanters, overseers, and others, for punishing apprentices, amounted to\none thousand two hundred dollars. Col. B. said that he found the legal\npenalty so inadequate, that in his own practice he was obliged to resort\nto other means to deter his book-keepers and overseers from violence;\nhence he discharged every man under his control who was known to strike\nan apprentice. He does not think that the apprenticeship will be a means\nof preparing the negroes for freedom, nor does he believe that they\n_need_ any preparation. He should have apprehended no danger, had\nemancipation taken place in 1834.\n\nAt nine o'clock we sat down to breakfast. Our places were assigned at\nopposite sides of the table, between Col. B. and Mr. C. To an American\neye, we presented a singular spectacle. A wealthy planter, a member of\nthe legislative council, sitting at the breakfast table with a colored\nman, whose mother was a negress of the most unmitigated hue, and who\nhimself showed a head of hair as curly as his mother's! But this colored\nguest was treated with all that courtesy and attention to which his\nintelligence, worth and accomplished manners so justly entitle him.\n\nAbout noon, we left Edgecome, and drove two miles farther, to Horton--an\nestate owned by Foster Clarke, Esq., an attorney for twenty-two estates,\nwho is now temporarily residing in England. The intelligent manager of\nHorton received us and our colored companion, with characteristic\nhospitality. Like every one else, he told us that the apprenticeship was\nfar better than slavery, though he was looking forward to the still\nbetter system, entire freedom.\n\nAfter we had taken a lunch, Mr. Cummins invited our host to take a seat,\nwith us in his carriage, and we drove across the country to Drax Hall.\nDrax Hall is the largest estate in the island--consisting of eight\nhundred acres. The manager of this estate confirmed the testimony of the\nBarbadian planters in every important particular.\n\nFrom Drax Hall we returned to Bridgetown, accompanied by our friend\nCummins.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTESTIMONY OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATES, POLICE OFFICERS, CLERGYMEN, AND\nMISSIONARIES.\n\nNext in weight to the testimony of the planters is that of the special\nmagistrates. Being officially connected with the administration of the\napprenticeship system, and tire adjudicators in all difficulties between\nmaster and servant, their views of the system and of the conduct of the\ndifferent parties are entitled to special consideration. Our interviews\nwith this class of men were frequent during our stay in the island. We\nfound them uniformly ready to communicate information, and free to\nexpress their sentiments.\n\nIn Barbadoes there are seven special magistrates, presiding over as many\ndistricts, marked A, B, C, &c., which include the whole of the\napprentice population, praedial and non-praedial. These districts\nembrace an average of twelve thousand apprentices--some more and some\nless. All the complaints and difficulties which arise among that number\nof apprentices and their masters, overseers and book-keepers, are\nbrought before the single magistrate presiding in the district in which\nthey occur. From the statement of this fact it will appear in the outset\neither that the special magistrates have an incalculable amount of\nbusiness to transact, or that the conduct of the apprentices is\nwonderfully peaceable. But more of this again.\n\nAbout a week following our first interview with his excellency, Sir Evan\nMcCregor, we received an invitation to dine at Government House with a\ncompany of gentlemen. On our arrival at six o'clock, we were conducted\ninto a large antechamber above the dining hall, where we were soon\njoined by the Solicitor-General, Hon. R.B. Clarke. Dr. Clarke, a\nphysician, Maj. Colthurst, Capt. Hamilton, and Mr. Galloway, special\nmagistrates. The appearance of the Governor about an hour afterwards,\nwas the signal for an adjournment to dinner.\n\nSlavery and emancipation were the engrossing topics during the evening.\nAs our conversation was for the most part general, we were enabled to\ngather at the same time the opinions of all the persons present. There\nwas, for aught we heard or could see to the contrary, an entire\nunanimity of sentiment. In the course of the evening we gathered the\nfollowing facts and testimony:\n\n1. All the company testified to the benefits of abolition. It was\naffirmed that the island was never in so prosperous a condition as\nat present.\n\n2. The estates generally are better cultivated than they were during\nslavery. Said one of the magistrates:\n\n\"If, gentlemen, you would see for yourselves the evidences of our\nsuccessful cultivation, you need but to travel in any part of the\ncountry, and view the superabundant crops which are now being taken off;\nand if you would satisfy yourselves that emancipation has not been\nruinous to Barbadoes, only cast your eyes over the land in any\ndirection, and see the flourishing condition both of houses and fields:\nevery thing is starting into new life.\"\n\nIt as also stated that more work was done during the nine hours required\nby law, than was done during slavery in twelve or fifteen hours, with\nall the driving and goading which were then practised.\n\n3. Offences have not increased, but rather lessened. The\nSolicitor-General remarked, that the comparative state of crime could\nnot be ascertained by a mere reference to statistical records, since\nprevious to emancipation all offences were summarily punished by the\nplanter. Each estate was a little despotism, and the manager took\ncognizance of all the misdemeanors committed among his slaves\n--inflicting such punishment as he thought proper. The public knew\nnothing about the offences of the slaves, unless something very\natrocious was committed. But since emancipation has taken place, all\noffences, however trivial, come to the light and are recorded. He could\nonly give a judgment founded on observation. It was his opinion, that\nthere were fewer petty offences, such as thefts, larcenies, &c., than\nduring slavery. As for serious crime, it was hardly known in the island.\nThe whites enjoy far greater safety of person and property than they\ndid formerly.\n\nMaj. Colthurst, who is an Irishman, remarked, that he had long been a\nmagistrate or justice of the peace in Ireland, and he was certain that\nat the present ratio of crime in Barbadoes, there would not be as much\nperpetrated in six years to come, as there is in Ireland among an equal\npopulation in six months. For his part, he had never found in any part\nof the world so peaceable and inoffensive a community.\n\n4. It was the unanimous testimony that there was no disposition among\nthe apprentices to revenge injuries committed against them. _They are\nnot a revengeful people_, but on the contrary are remarkable for\nforgetting wrongs, particularly when the are succeeded by kindness.\n\n5. The apprentices were described as being generally civil and\nrespectful toward their employers. They were said to manifest more\nindependence of feeling and action than they did when slaves; but were\nseldom known to be insolent unless grossly insulted or very\nharshly used.\n\n6. Ample testimony was given to the law-abiding character of the\nnegroes. When the apprenticeship system was first introduced, they did\nnot fully comprehend its provisions, and as they had anticipated entire\nfreedom, they were disappointed and dissatisfied. But in a little while\nthey became reconciled to the operations of the new system, and have\nsince manifested a due subordination to the laws and authorities.\n\n7. There is great desire manifested among them to purchase their\nfreedom. Not a week passes without a number of appraisements. Those who\nhave purchased their freedom have generally conducted well, and in many\ninstances are laboring on the same estates on which they were slaves.\n\n8. There is no difficulty in inducing the apprentices to work on\nSaturday. They are usually willing to work if proper wages are given\nthem. If they are not needed on the estates, they either work on their\nown grounds, or on some neighboring estate.\n\n9. The special magistrates were all of the opinion that it would have\nbeen entirely safe to have emancipated the slaves of Barbadoes in 1834.\nThey did not believe that any preparation was needed; but that entire\nemancipation would have been decidedly better than the apprenticeship.\n\n10. The magistrates also stated that the number of complaints brought\nbefore them was comparatively small, and it was gradually diminishing.\nThe offences were of a very trivial nature, mostly cases of slight\ninsubordination, such as impertinent replies and disobedience of orders.\n\n11. They stated that they had more trouble with petty overseers and\nmanagers and small proprietors than with the entire black population.\n\n12. The special magistrates further testified that wherever the planters\nhave exercised common kindness and humanity, the apprentices have\ngenerally conducted peaceably. Whenever there are many complaints from\none estate, it is presumable that the manager is a bad man.\n\n13. Real estate is much higher throughout the island than it has been\nfor many years. A magistrate said that he had heard of an estate which\nhad been in market for ten years before abolition and could not find a\npurchaser. In 1835, the year following abolition, it was sold for one\nthird more than was asked for it two years before.\n\n14. It was stated that there was not a proprietor in the island, whose\nopinion was of any worth, who would wish to have slavery restored. Those\nwho were mostly bitterly opposed to abolition, have become reconciled,\nand are satisfied that the change has been beneficial. The\nSolicitor-General was candid enough to own that he himself was openly\nopposed to emancipation. He had declared publicly and repeatedly while\nthe measure was pending in Parliament, that abolition would ruin the\ncolonies. But the results had proved so different that he was ashamed of\nhis former forebodings. He had no desire ever to see slavery\nre-established.\n\n15. The first of August, 1834, was described as a day of remarkable\nquiet and tranquillity. The Solicitor-General remarked, that there were\nmany fears for the results of that first day of abolition. He said he\narose early that morning, and before eight o'clock rode through the most\npopulous part of the island, over an extent of twelve miles. The negroes\nwere all engaged in their work as on other days. A stranger riding\nthrough the island, and ignorant of the event which had taken place that\nmorning, would have observed no indications of so extraordinary a\nchange. He returned home satisfied that all would work well.\n\n16. The change in 1840 was spoken of as being associated with the most\nsanguine expectations. It was thought that there was more danger to be\napprehended from the change in 1834. It was stated that there were about\nfifteen thousand non-praedials, who would then be emancipated in\nBarbadoes. This will most likely prove the occasion of much excitement\nand uneasiness, though it is not supposed that any thing serious will\narise. The hope was expressed that the legislature would effect the\nemancipation of the whole population at that time. One of the\nmagistrates informed us that he knew quite a number of planters in his\ndistrict who were willing to liberate their apprentices immediately, but\nthey were waiting for a general movement. It was thought that this state\nof feeling was somewhat extensive.\n\n17. The magistrates represented the negroes as naturally confiding and\ndocile, yielding readily to the authority of those who are placed over\nthem. Maj. Colthurst presides over a district of 9,000 apprentices;\nCapt. Hamilton over a district of 13,000, and Mr. Galloway over the same\nnumber. There are but three days in the week devoted to hearing and\nsettling complaints. It is very evident that in so short a time it would\nbe utterly impossible for one man to control and keep in order such a\nnumber, unless the subjects were of themselves disposed to be peaceable\nand submissive. The magistrates informed us that, notwithstanding the\nextent of their districts, they often did not have more than from a\ndozen to fifteen complaints in a week.\n\nWe were highly gratified with the liberal spirit and the intelligence of\nthe special magistrates. Major Colthurst is a gentleman of far more than\nordinary pretensions to refinement and general information. He was in\nearly life a justice of the peace in Ireland, he was afterwards a juror\nin his Majesty's service, and withal, has been an extensive traveller.\nFifteen years ago he travelled in the United States, and passed through\nseveral of the slaveholding states, where he was shocked with the\nabominations of slavery. He was persuaded that slavery was worse in our\ncountry, than it has been for many years in the West Indies. Captain\nHamilton was formerly an officer in the British navy. He seems quite\ndevoted to his business, and attached to the interests of the\napprentices. Mr. Galloway is a _colored_ gentleman, highly respected for\nhis talents. Mr. G. informed us that _prejudice_ against color was\nrapidly diminishing--and that the present Governor was doing all in his\npower to discountenance it.\n\nThe company spoke repeatedly of the _noble act of abolition, by which\nGreat Britain had immortalized her name more than by all the\nachievements of her armies and navies._\n\nThe warmest wishes were expressed for the abolition of slavery in the\nUnited States. All said they should rejoice when the descendants of\nGreat Britain should adopt the noble example of their mother country.\nThey hailed the present anti-slavery movements. Said the\nSolicitor-General, \"We were once strangely opposed to the English\nanti-slavery party, but now we sympathize with you. Since slavery is\nabolished to our own colonies, and we see the good which results from\nthe measure, we go for abolition throughout the world. Go on, gentlemen,\nwe are with you; _we are all sailing in the same vessel._\"\n\nBeing kindly invited by Captain Hamilton, during our interview with him\nat the government house, to call on him and attend his court, we availed\nourselves of his invitation a few days afterwards. We left Bridgetown\nafter breakfast, and as it chanced to be Saturday, we had a fine\nopportunity of seeing the people coming into market. They were strung\nall along the road for six miles, so closely, that there was scarcely a\nminute at any time in which we did not pass them. As far as the eye\ncould reach there were files of men and women, moving peaceably forward.\nFrom the cross paths leading through the estates, the busy marketers\nwere pouring into the highway. To their heads as usual was committed the\nsafe conveyance of the various commodities. It was amusing to observe\nthe almost infinite diversity of products which loaded them. There were\nsweet potatoes, yams, eddoes, Guinea and Indian corn, various fruits and\nberries, vegetables, nuts, cakes, bottled beer and empty bottles,\nbundles of sugar cane, bundles of fire wood, &c. &c. Here was one woman\n(the majority were females, as usual with the marketers in these\nislands) with a small black pig doubled up under her arm. Another girl\nhad a brood of young chickens, with nest, coop, and all, on her head.\nFurther along the road we were specially attracted by a woman who was\ntrudging with an immense turkey elevated on her head. He quite filled\nthe tray; head and tail projecting beyond its bounds. He advanced, as\nwas very proper, head foremost, and it was irresistibly laughable to see\nhim ever and anon stretch out his neck and peep under the tray, as\nthough he would discover by what manner of locomotive it was that he got\nalong so fast while his own legs were tied together.\n\nOf the hundreds whom we past, there were very few who were not well\ndressed, healthy, and apparently in good spirits. We saw nothing\nindecorous, heard no vile language, and witnessed no violence.\n\nAbout four miles from town, we observed on the side of the road a small\ngrove of shade trees. Numbers of the marketers were seated there, or\nlying in the cool shade with their trays beside them. It seemed to be a\nsort of rendezvous place, where those going to, and those returning from\ntown, occasionally halt for a time for the purpose of resting, and to\ntell and hear news concerning the state of the market. And why should\nnot these travelling merchants have an exchange as well as the\nstationary ones of Bridgetown?\n\nOn reaching the station-house, which is about six miles from town, we\nlearned that Saturday was not one of the court days. We accordingly\ndrove to Captain Hamilton's residence. _He stated that during the week\nhe had only six cases of complaint among the thirteen thousand\napprentices embraced in his district._ Saturday is the day set apart for\nthe apprentices to visit him at his house for advice on any points\nconnected with their duties. He had several calls while we were with\nhim. One was from the mother of an apprentice girl who had been\ncommitted for injuring the master's son. She came to inform Captain H.\nthat the girl had been whipped twice contrary to law, before her\ncommitment. Captain H. stated that the girl had said nothing about this\nat the time of her trial; if she had, she would in all probability have\nbeen _set free_, instead of being _committed to prison_. He remarked\nthat he had no question but there were numerous cases of flogging on the\nestates which never came to light. The sufferers were afraid to inform\nagainst their masters, lest they should be treated still worse. The\nopportunity which he gave them of coming, to him one day in the week for\nprivate advice, was the means of exposing many outrages which would\notherwise he unheard of: He observed that there were not a few whom he\nhad liberated on account of the cruelty of their masters.\n\nCaptain H. stated that the apprentices were much disposed to purchase\ntheir freedom. To obtain money to pay for themselves they practice the\nmost severe economy and self-denial in the very few indulgences which\nthe law grants them. They sometimes resort to deception to depreciate\ntheir value with the appraisers. He mentioned an instance of a man who\nlead for many years been an overseer on a large estate. Wishing to\npurchase himself, and knowing that his master valued him very highly, he\npermitted his beard to grow; gave his face a wrinkled and haggard\nappearance, and bound a handkerchief about his head. His clothes were\nsuffered to become ragged and dirty, and he began to feign great\nweakness in his limbs, and to complain of a \"misery all down his back.\"\nHe soon appeared marked with all the signs of old age and decrepitude.\nIn this plight, and leaning on a stick, he hobbled up to the\nstation-house one day, and requested to be appraised. He was appraised\nat \u00a310, which he immediately paid. A short time afterwards, he engaged\nhimself to a proprietor to manage a small estate for \u00a330 per year in\ncash and his own maintenance, all at once grew vigorous again; and is\nprospering finely. Many of the masters in turn practice deception to\nprevent the apprentices from buying themselves, or to make them pay the\nvery highest sum for their freedom. They extol their virtues--they are\nevery thing that is excellent and valuable--their services on the estate\nare indispensable no one can fill their places. By such\nmisrepresentations they often get an exorbitant price for the remainder\nof the term--more, sometimes, than they could have obtained for them for\nlife while they were slaves.\n\nFrom Captain H.'s we returned to the station-house, the keeper of which\nconducted us over the buildings, and showed us the cells of the prison.\nThe house contains the office and private room of the magistrate, and\nthe guard-room, below, and chambers for the police men above. There are\nsixteen solitary cells, and two large rooms for those condemned to hard\nlabour--one for females and the other for males. There were at that time\nseven in the solitary cells, and twenty-four employed in labor on the\nroads. This is more than usual. The average number is twenty in all.\nWhen it is considered that most of the commitments are for trivial\noffences, and that the district contains thirteen thousand apprentices,\ncertainly we have grounds to conclude that the state of morals in\nBarbadoes is decidedly superior to that in our own country.\n\nThe whole police force for this district is composed of seventeen\nhorsemen, four footmen, a sergeant, and the keeper. It was formerly\ngreater but has been reduced within the past year.\n\nThe keeper informed us that he found the apprentices, placed under his\ncare, very easily controlled. They sometimes attempt to escape; but\nthere has been no instance of revolt or insubordination. The island, he\nsaid, was peaceable, and were it not for the petty complaints of the\noverseers, nearly the whole police force might be disbanded. As for\ninsurrection, he laughed at the idea of it. It was feared before\nabolition, but now no one thought of it. All but two or three of the\npolicemen at this station are black and colored men.\n\n\n\nSTATION-HOUSE AT DISTRICT A.\n\nBeing disappointed in our expectations of witnessing some trials at the\nstation-house in Captain Hamilton's district (B,) we visited the court\nin district A, where Major Colthurst presides. Major C. was in the midst\nof a trial when we entered, and we did not learn fully the nature of the\ncase then pending. We were immediately invited within the bar, whence we\nhad a fair view of all that passed.\n\nThere were several complaints made and tried, during our stay. We give a\nbrief account of them, as they will serve as specimens of the cases\nusually brought before the special magistrates.\n\nI. The first was a complaint made by a colored lady, apparently not more\nthan twenty, against a colored girl--her domestic apprentice. The charge\nwas insolence, and disobedience of orders. The complainant said that the\ngirl was exceedingly insolent--no one could imagine how insolent she had\nbeen--it was beyond endurance. She seemed wholly unable to find words\nenough to express the superlative insolence of her servant. The justice\nrequested her to particularize. Upon this, she brought out several\nspecific charges such as, first, That the girl brought a candle to her\none evening, and wiped her greasy fingers on her (the girl's) gown:\nsecond, That one morning she refused to bring some warm water, as\ncommanded, to pour on a piece of flannel, until she had finished some\nother work that she was doing at the time; third, That the same morning\nshe delayed coming into her chamber as usual to dress her, and when she\ndid come, she sung, and on being told to shut her mouth, she replied\nthat her mouth was her own, and that she would sing when she pleased;\nand fourth, That she had said in her mistress's hearing that she would\nbe glad when she was freed. These several charges being sworn to, the\ngirl was sentenced to four days' solitary confinement, but at the\nrequest of her mistress, she was discharged on promise of amendment.\n\nII. The second complaint was against an apprentice-man by his master,\nfor absence from work. He had leave to go to the funeral of his mother,\nand he did not return until after the time allowed him by his master.\nThe man was sentence to imprisonment.\n\nIII. The third complaint was against a woman for singing and making a\ndisturbance in the field. Sentenced to six days' solitary confinement.\n\nIV. An apprentice was brought up for not doing his work well. He was a\nmason, and was employed in erecting an arch on one of the public roads.\nThis case excited considerable interest. The apprentice was represented\nby his master to be a praedial--the master testified on oath that he was\nregistered as a praedial; but in the course of the examination it was\nproved that he had always been a mason; that he had labored at that\ntrade from his boyhood, and that he knew 'nothing about the hoe,' having\nnever worked an hour in the field. This was sufficient to prove that he\nwas a non-praedial, and of course entitled to liberty two years sooner\nthan he would have been as a praedial. As this matter came up\nincidentally, it enraged the master exceedingly. He fiercely reiterated\nhis charge against the apprentice, who, on his part, averred that he did\nhis work as well as he could. The master manifested the greatest\nexcitement and fury during the trial. At one time, because the\napprentice disputed one of his assertions, he raised his clenched fist\nover him, and threatened, with an oath, to knock him down. The\nmagistrate was obliged to threaten him severely before he would\nkeep quiet.\n\nThe defendant was ordered to prison to be tried the next day, time being\ngiven to make further inquiries about his being a praedial.\n\nV. The next case was a complaint against an apprentice, for leaving his\nplace in the boiling house without asking permission. It appeared that\nhe had been unwell during the evening, _and at half past ten o'clock at\nnight_, being attacked more severely, he left for a few moments,\nexpecting to return. He, however, was soon taken so ill that the could\nnot go back, but was obliged to lie down on the ground, where he\nremained until twelve o'clock, when he recovered sufficiently to creep\nhome. His sickness was proved by a fellow apprentice, and indeed his\nappearance at the bar clearly evinced it. He was punished by several\ndays imprisonment. With no little astonishment in view of such a\ndecision, we inquired of Maj. C. whether the planters had the power to\nrequire their people to work as late as half past ten at night. He\nreplied, \"Certainly, _the crops must be secured at any rate, and if they\nare suffering, the people must be pressed the harder_.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: We learned subsequently from various authentic sources,\nthat the master has _not_ the power to compel his apprentices to labor\nmore than nine hours per day on any condition, except in case of a fire,\nor some similar emergency. If the call for labor in crop-time was to be\nset down as an emergency similar to a \"fire,\" and if in official\ndecisions he took equal latitude, alas for the poor apprentices!]\n\nVI. The last case was a complaint against a man for not keeping up good\nfires under the boilers. He stoutly denied the charge; said he built as\ngood fires as he could. He kept stuffing in the trash, and if it would\nnot burn he could not help it. He was sentenced to imprisonment.\n\nMaj. C. said that these complaints were a fair specimen of the cases\nthat came up daily, save that there were many more frivolous and\nridiculous. By the trials which we witnessed we were painfully impressed\nwith two things:\n\n1st. That the magistrate, with all his regard for the rights and welfare\nof the apprentices, showed a great and inexcusable partiality for the\nmasters. The patience and consideration with which he heard the\ncomplaints of the latter, the levity with which he regarded the defence\nof the former, the summary manner in which he despatched the cases, and\nthe character of some of his decisions, manifested no small degree of\nfavoritism.\n\n2d That the whole proceedings of the special magistrates' courts are\neminently calculated to perpetuate bad feeling between the masters and\napprentices. The court-room is a constant scene of angry dispute between\nthese parties. The master exhausts his store of abuse and violence upon\nthe apprentice, and the apprentice, emboldened by the place, and\nprovoked by the abuse, retorts in language which he would never think of\nusing on the estate, and thus, whatever may be the decision of the\nmagistrate, the parties return home with feelings more embittered\nthan ever.\n\nThere were twenty-six persons imprisoned at the station-house,\ntwenty-four were at hard labor, and two were in solitary confinement.\nThe keeper of the prison said, he had no difficulty in managing the\nprisoners. The keeper is a colored man, and so also is the sergeant and\nmost of the policemen.\n\nWe visited one other station-house, in a distant part of the island,\nsituated in the district over which Captain Cuppage presides. We\nwitnessed several trials there which were similar in frivolity and\nmeanness to those detailed above. We were shocked with the mockery of\njustice, and the indifference to the interests of the negro apparent in\nthe course of the magistrate. It seemed that little more was necessary\nthan for the manager or overseer to make his complaint and swear to it,\nand the apprentice was forthwith condemned to punishment.\n\nWe never saw a set of men in whose countenances fierce passions of every\nname were so strongly marked as in the overseers and managers who were\nassembled at the station-houses. Trained up to use the whip and to\ntyrannize over the slaves, their grim and evil expression accorded with\ntheir hateful occupation.\n\nThrough the kindness of a friend in Bridgetown we were favored with an\ninterview with Mr. Jones, the superintendent of the rural police--the\nwhole body of police excepting those stationed in the town. Mr. J. has\nbeen connected with the police since its first establishment in 1834. He\nassured us that there was nothing in the local peculiarities of the\nisland, nor in the character of its population, which forbade immediate\nemancipation in August, 1834. He had no doubt it would be perfectly safe\nand decidedly profitable to the colony.\n\n2. The good or bad working of the apprenticeship depends mainly on the\nconduct of the masters. He was well acquainted with the character and\ndisposition of the negroes throughout the island, and he was ready to\nsay, that if disturbances should arise either before or after 1840, it\nwould be because the people were goaded on to desperation by the\nplanters, and not because they sought disturbance themselves.\n\n3. Mr. J. declared unhesitatingly that crime had not increased since\nabolition, but rather the contrary.\n\n4. He represented the special magistrates as the friends of the\nplanters. They loved the _dinners_ which they got at the planters'\nhouses. The apprentices had no sumptuous dinners to give them. The\nmagistrates felt under very little obligation of any kind to assert the\ncause of the apprentice and secure him justice, while they were under\nvery strong temptations to favor the master.\n\n5. Real estate had increased in value nearly fifty per cent since\nabolition. There is such entire security of property, and the crops\nsince 1834 have been so flattering, that capitalists from abroad are\ndesirous of investing their funds in estates or merchandise. All are\nmaking high calculations for the future.\n\n6. Mr. J. testified that marriages had greatly increased since\nabolition. He had seen a dozen couples standing at one time on the\nchurch floor. There had, he believed, been more marriages within the\nlast three years among the negro population, than have occurred before\nsince the settlement of the island.\n\nWe conclude this chapter by subjoining two highly interesting documents\nfrom special magistrates. They were kindly furnished us by the authors\nin pursuance of an order from his excellency the Governor, authorizing\nthe special magistrates to give us any official statements which we\nmight desire. Being made acquainted with these instructions from the\nGovernor, we addressed written queries to Major Colthurst and Captain\nHamilton. We insert their replies at length.\n\nCOMMUNICATION FROM MAJOR COLTHURST, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.\n\nThe following fourteen questions on the working of the apprenticeship\nsystem in this colony were submitted to me on the 30th of March, 1837,\nrequesting answers thereto.\n\n1. What is the number of apprenticed laborers in your district, and what\nis their character compared with other districts?\n\nThe number of apprenticed laborers, of all ages, in my district, in nine\nthousand four hundred and eighty, spread over two hundred and\nninety-seven estates of various descriptions--some very large, and\nothers again very small--much the greater number consisting of small\nlots in the near neighborhood of Bridgetown. Perhaps my district, in\nconsequence of this minute subdivision of property, and its contact with\nthe town, is the most troublesome district in the island; and the\ncharacter of the apprentices differs consequently from that in the more\nrural districts, where not above half the complaints are made. I\nattribute this to their almost daily intercourse with Bridgetown.\n\n2. What is the state of agriculture in the island?\n\nWhen the _planters themselves_ admit that general cultivation was\n_never_ in a better state, and the plantations extremely clean, _it is\nmore than presumptive_ proof that agriculture generally is in a most\nprosperous condition. The vast crop of canes grown this year proves this\nfact. Other crops are also luxuriant.\n\n3. Is there any difficulty occasioned by the apprentices refusing to\nwork?\n\nNo difficulty whatever has been experienced by the refusal of the\napprentices to work. This is done manfully and cheerfully, when they are\ntreated with humanity and consideration by the masters or managers. I\nhave never known an instance to the contrary.\n\n4. Are the apprentices willing to work in their own time?\n\nThe apprentices are most willing to work in their own time.\n\n5. What is the number and character of the complaints brought before\nyou--are they increasing or otherwise?\n\nThe number of complaints brought before me, during the last quarter, are\nmuch fewer than during the corresponding quarter of the last year. Their\ncharacter is also greatly improved. Nine complaints out of ten made\nlately to me are for small impertinences or saucy answers, which,\nconsidering the former and present position of the parties, is naturally\nto be expected. The number of such complaints is much diminished.\n\n6. What is the state of crime among the apprentices?\n\nWhat is usually denominated crime in the old countries, is by no means\nfrequent among the blacks or colored persons. It is amazing how few\nmaterial breaches of the law occur in so extraordinary a community. Some\nfew cases of crime do occasionally arise;--but when it is considered\nthat the population of this island is nearly as dense as that of any\npart of China, and wholly uneducated, either by precept or example, this\nabsence of frequent crime excites our wonder, and is highly creditable\nto the negroes. I sincerely believe there is no such person, of that\nclass called at home an accomplished villain, to be found in the whole\nisland.--Having discharged the duties of a general justice of the peace\nin Ireland, for above twenty-four years, where crimes of a very\naggravated nature were perpetrated almost daily. I cannot help\ncontrasting the situation of that country with this colony, where I do\nnot hesitate to say perfect tranquillity exists.\n\n7. Have the apprentices much respect for law?\n\nIt is perhaps, difficult to answer this question satisfactorily, as it\nhas been so short a time since they enjoyed the blessing of equal laws.\nTo appreciate just laws, time, and the experience of the benefit arising\nfrom them must be felt. That the apprentices do not, to any material\nextent, _outrage_ the law, is certain; and hence it may be inferred that\nthey respect it.\n\n8. Do you find a spirit of revenge among the negroes?\n\nFrom my general knowledge of the negro character in other countries, as\nwell as the study of it here, I do not consider them by any means a\nrevengeful people. Petty dislikes are frequent, but any thing like a\ndeep spirit of revenge for former injuries does not exist, nor is it for\none moment to be dreaded.\n\n9. Is there any sense of insecurity arising from emancipation?\n\nNot the most remote feeling of insecurity exists arising from\nemancipation; far the contrary. All sensible and reasonable men think\nthe prospects before them most cheering, and would not go back to the\nold system on any account whatever. There are some, however, who croak\nand forebode evil; but they are few in number, and of no\nintelligence,--such as are to be found in every community.\n\n10. What is the prospect for 1840?--for 1838?\n\nThis question is answered I hope satisfactorily above. On the\ntermination of the two periods no evil is to be reasonably anticipated,\nwith the exception of a few days' idleness.\n\n11. Are the planters generally satisfied with the apprenticeship, or\nwould they return back to the old system?\n\nThe whole body of respectable planters are fully satisfied with the\napprenticeship, and would not go back to the old system on any account\nwhatever. A few young managers, whose opinions are utterly worthless,\nwould perhaps have no objection to be put again into their puny\nauthority.\n\n12. Do you think it would have been dangerous for the slaves in this\nisland to have been entirely emancipated in 1834?\n\nI do not think it would have been productive of danger, had the slaves\nof this island been fully emancipated in 1834; which is proved by what\nhas taken place in another colony.\n\n13. Has emancipation been a decided blessing to this island, or has it\nbeen otherwise?\n\nEmancipation has been, under God, the greatest blessing ever conferred\nupon this island. All good and respectable men fully admit it. This is\nmanifest throughout the whole progress of this mighty change. Whatever\nmay be said of the vast benefit conferred upon the slaves, in right\njudgment the slave owner was the greatest gainer after all.\n\n14. Are the apprentices disposed to purchase their freedom? How have\nthose conducted themselves who have purchased it?\n\nThe apprentices are inclined to purchase their discharge, particularly\nwhen misunderstandings occur with their masters. When they obtain their\ndischarge they generally labor in the trades and occupations they were\npreviously accustomed to, and conduct themselves well. The discharged\napprentices seldom take to drinking. Indeed the negro and colored\npopulation are the most temperate persons I ever knew of their class.\nThe experience of nearly forty years in various public situations,\nconfirms me in this very important fact.\n\nThe answers I have had the honor to give to the questions submitted to\nme, have been given most conscientiously, and to the best of my judgment\nare a faithful picture of the working of the apprenticeship in this\nisland, as far as relates to the inquiries made.--_John B. Colthurst,\nSpecial Justice of the Peace, District A. Rural Division_.\n\nCOMMUNICATION FROM CAPT. HAMILTON.\n\nBarbadoes, April 4th, 1837.\n\nGentlemen,\n\nPresuming that you have kept a copy of the questions[A] you sent me, I\nshall therefore only send the answers.\n\n[Footnote A: The same interrogatories were propounded to Capt. Hamilton\nwhich have been already inserted in Major Colthurst's communication.]\n\n1. There are at present five thousand nine hundred and thirty male, and\nsix thousand six hundred and eighty-nine female apprentices in my\ndistrict, (B,) which comprises a part of the parishes of Christ Church\nand St. George. Their conduct, compared with the neighboring\ndistricts, is good.\n\n2. The state of agriculture is very flourishing. Experienced planters\nacknowledge that it is generally far superior to what it was\nduring slavery.\n\n3. Where the managers are kind and temperate, they have not any trouble\nwith the laborers.\n\n4. The apprentices are generally willing to work for wages in their own\ntime.\n\n5. The average number of complaints tried by me, last year, ending\nDecember, was one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two. The average\nnumber of apprentices in the district during that time was twelve\nthousand seven hundred. Offences, generally speaking, are not of any\nmagnitude. They do not increase, but fluctuate according to the season\nof the year.\n\n6. The state of crime is not so bad by any means as we might have\nexpected among the negroes--just released from such a degrading bondage.\nConsidering the state of ignorance in which they have been kept, and the\nimmoral examples set them by the lower class of whites, it is matter of\nastonishment that they should behave so well.\n\n7. The apprentices would have a great respect for law, were it not for\nthe erroneous proceedings of the managers, overseers, &c., in taking\nthem before the magistrates for every petty offence, and often abusing\nthe magistrate in the presence of the apprentices, when his decision\ndoes not please them. The consequence is, that the apprentices too often\nget indifferent to law, and have been known to say that they cared not\nabout going to prison, and that they would do just as they did before as\nsoon as they were released.\n\n8. The apprentices in this colony are generally considered a peaceable\nrace. All acts of revenge committed by them originate in jealousy, as,\nfor instance, between husband and wife.\n\n9. Not the slightest sense of insecurity. As a proof of this, property\nhas, since the commencement of the apprenticeship, increased in value\nconsiderably--at least one third.\n\n10. The change which will take place in 1838, in my opinion, will\noccasion a great deal of discontent among those called praedials--which\nwill not subside for some months. They ought to have been all\nemancipated at the same period. I cannot foresee any bad effects that\nwill ensue from the change in 1840, except those mentioned hereafter.\n\n11. The most prejudiced planters would not return to the old system if\nthey possibly could. They admit that they get more work from the\nlaborers than they formerly did, and they are relieved from a great\nresponsibility.\n\n12. It is my opinion that if entire emancipation had taken place in\n1834, no more difficulty would have followed beyond what we may\nnaturally expect in 1810. It will then take two or three months before\nthe emancipated people finally settle themselves. I do not consider the\napprentice more fit or better prepared for entire freedom now than he\nwas in 1834.\n\n13. I consider, most undoubtedly, that emancipation has been a decided\nblessing to the colony.\n\n14. They are much disposed to purchase the remainder of the\napprenticeship term. Their conduct after they become free is good.\n\nI hope the foregoing answers and information may be of service to you in\nyour laudable pursuits, for which I wish you every success.\n\nI am, gentlemen, your ob't serv't,\n\n_Jos. Hamilton, Special Justice_.\n\nTESTIMONY OF CLERGYMEN AND MISSIONARIES.\n\nThere are three religious denominations at the present time in\nBarbadoes--Episcopalians, Wesleyans, and Moravians. The former have\nabout twenty clergymen, including the bishop and archdeacon. The bishop\nwas absent during our visit, and we did not see him; but as far as we\ncould learn, while in some of his political measures, as a member of the\ncouncil, he has benefited the colored population, his general influence\nhas been unfavorable to their moral and spiritual welfare. He has\ndiscountenanced and defeated several attempts made by his rectors and\ncurates to abolish the odious distinctions of color in their churches.\n\nWe were led to form an unfavorable opinion of the Bishop's course, from\nobserving among the intelligent and well-disposed classes of colored\npeople, the current use of the phrase, \"bishop's man,\" and \"no bishop's\nman,\" applied to different rectors and curates. Those that they were\naverse to, either as pro-slavery or pro-prejudice characters, they\nusually branded as \"bishop's men,\" while those whom they esteemed their\nfriends, they designated as \"no bishop's men.\"\n\nThe archdeacon has already been introduced to the reader. We enjoyed\nseveral interviews with him, and were constrained to admire him for his\nintegrity, independence and piety. He spoke in terms of strong\ncondemnation of slavery, and of the apprenticeship system. He was a\ndetermined advocate of entire and immediate emancipation, both from\nprinciple and policy. He also discountenanced prejudice, both in the\nchurch and in the social circle. The first time we had the pleasure of\nmeeting him was at the house of a colored gentleman in Bridgetown where\nwe were breakfasting. He called in incidentally, while we were sitting\nat table, and exhibited all the familiarity of a frequent visitant.\n\nOne of the most worthy and devoted men whom we met in Barbadoes was the\nRev. Mr. Cummins, curate of St. Paul's church, in Bridgetown. The first\nSabbath after our arrival at the island we attended his church. It is\nemphatically a free church. Distinctions of color are nowhere\nrecognized. There is the most complete intermingling of colors\nthroughout the house. In one pew were seen a family of whites, in the\nnext a family of colored people, and in the next perhaps a family of\nblacks. In the same pews white and colored persons sat side by side. The\nfloor and gallery presented the same promiscuous blending of hues and\nshades. We sat in a pew with white and colored people. In the pew before\nand in that behind us the sitting was equally indiscriminate. The\naudience was kneeling in their morning devotions when we entered, and we\nwere struck with the different colors bowing side by side as we passed\ndown the aisles. There is probably no clergyman in the island who has\nsecured so perfectly the affections of his people as Mr. C. He is of\ncourse \"no bishop's man.\" He is constantly employed in promoting the\nspiritual and moral good of his people, of whatever complexion. The\nannual examination of the Sabbath school connected with St. Paul's\noccurred while we were in the island, and we were favored with the\nprivilege of attending it. There were about three hundred pupils\npresent, of all ages, from fifty down to three years. There were all\ncolors--white, tawny, and ebon black. The white children were classed\nwith the colored and black, in utter violation of those principles of\nclassification in vogue throughout the Sabbath schools of our own\ncountry. The examination was chiefly conducted by Mr. Cummins. At the\nclose of the examination about fifty of the girls, and among them the\ndaughter of Mr. Cummins, were arranged in front of the altar, with the\nfemale teachers in the rear of them, and all united in singing a hymn\nwritten for the occasion. Part of the teachers were colored and part\nwhite, as were also the scholars, and they stood side by side, mingled\npromiscuously together. This is altogether the best Sabbath school in\nthe island.\n\nAfter the exercises were closed, we were introduced, by a colored\ngentleman who accompanied us to the examination, to Mr. Cummins, the\nRev. Mr. Packer, and the Rev. Mr. Rowe, master of the public school in\nBridgetown. By request of Mr. C., we accompanied him to his house, where\nwe enjoyed an interview with him and the other gentlemen, just\nmentioned. Mr. C. informed us that his Sabbath school was commenced in\n1833; but was quite small and inefficient until after 1834. It now\nnumbers more than four hundred scholars. Mr. C. spoke of prejudice. It\nhad wonderfully decreased within the last three years. He said he could\nscarcely credit the testimony of his own senses, when he looked around\non the change which had taken place. Many now associate with colored\npersons, and sit with them in the church, who once would have scorned to\nbe found near them. Mr. C. and the other clergymen stated, that there\nhad been an increase of places of worship and of clergymen since\nabolition. All the churches are now crowded, and there is a growing\ndemand for more. The negroes manifest an increasing desire for religious\ninstruction. In respect to morals, they represent the people as being\ngreatly improved. They spoke of the general respect which was now paid\nto the institution of marriage among the negroes, Mr. C. said, he was\nconvinced that the blacks had as much natural talent and capacity for\nlearning as the whites. He does not know any difference. Mr. Pocker, who\nwas formerly rector of St. Thomas' parish, and has been a public teacher\nof children of all colors, expressed the same opinion. Mr. Rowe said,\nthat before he took charge of the white school, he was the teacher of\none of the free schools for blacks, and he testified that the latter has\njust as much capacity for acquiring any kind of knowledge, as much\ninquisitiveness, and ingenuity, as the former.\n\nAccompanied by an intelligent gentleman of Bridgetown, we visited two\nflourishing schools for colored children, connected with the Episcopal\nchurch, and under the care of the Bishop. In the male school, there were\none hundred and ninety-five scholars, under the superintendence of one\nmaster, who is himself a black man, and was educated and trained up in\nthe same school. He is assisted by several of his scholars, as monitors\nand teachers. It was, altogether, the best specimen of a well-regulated\nschool which we saw in the West Indies.\n\nThe present instructor has had charge of the school two years. It has\nincreased considerably since abolition. Before the first of August,\n1834, the whole number of names on the catalogue was a little above one\nhundred, and the average attendance was seventy-five. The number\nimmediately increased, and new the average attendance is above two\nhundred. Of this number at least sixty are the children of apprentices.\n\nWe visited also the infant school, established but two weeks previous.\nMr. S. the teacher, who has been for many years an instructor, says he\nfinds them as apt to learn as any children he ever taught. He said he\nwas surprised to see how soon the instructions of the school-room were\ncarried to the homes of the children, and caught up by their parents.\n\nThe very first night after the school closed, in passing through the\nstreets, he heard the children repeating what they had been taught, and\nthe parents learning the songs from their children's lips Mr. S. has a\nhundred children already in his school, and additions were making daily.\nHe found among the negro parents much interest in the school.\n\nWESLEYAN MISSIONARIES.\n\nWe called on the Rev. Mr. Fidler, the superintendent of the Wesleyan\nmissions in Barbadoes. Mr. F. resides in Bridgetown, and preaches mostly\nin the chapel in town. He has been in the West Indies twelve years, and\nin Barbadoes about two years. Mr. F. informed us that there were three\nWesleyan missionaries in the island, besides four or five local\npreachers, one of whom is a black man. There are about one thousand\nmembers belonging to their body, the greater part of whom live in town.\nTwo hundred and thirty-five were added during the year 1836, being by\nfar the largest number added in any one year since they began their\noperations in the island.\n\nA brief review of the history of the Wesleyan Methodists in Barbadoes,\nwill serve to show the great change which has been taking place in\npublic sentiment respecting the labors of missionaries. In the year\n1823, not long after the establishment of the Wesleyan church in the\nisland, the chapel in Bridgetown was destroyed by a mob. Not one stone\nwas left upon another. They carried the fragments for miles away from\nthe site, and scattered them about in every direction, so that the\nchapel might never be rebuilt. Some of the instigators and chief actors\nin this outrage, were \"gentlemen of property and standing,\" residents of\nBridgetown. The first morning after the outrage began, the mob sought\nfor the Rev. Mr. Shrewsbury, the missionary, threatening his life, and\nhe was obliged to flee precipitately from the island, with his wife. He\nwas hunted like a wild beast, and it is thought that he would have been\ntorn in pieces if he had been found. Not an effort or a movement was\nmade to quell the mob, during their assault upon the chapel. The first\nmen of the island connived at the violence--secretly rejoicing in what\nthey supposed would be the extermination of Methodism from the country.\nThe governor, Sir Henry Ward, utterly refused to interfere, and would\nnot suffer the militia to repair to the spot, though a mere handful of\nsoldiers could have instantaneously routed the whole assemblage.\n\nThe occasion of this riot was partly the efforts made by the Wesleyans\nto instruct the negroes, and still more the circumstance of a letter\nbeing written by Mr. Shrewsbury, and published in an English paper,\nwhich contained some severe strictures on the morals of the Barbadians.\nA planter informed us that the riot grew out of a suspicion that Mr. S.\nwas \"leagued with the Wilberforce party in England.\"\n\nSince the re-establishment of Wesleyanism in this island, it has\ncontinued to struggle against the opposition of the Bishop, and most of\nthe clergy, and against the inveterate prejudices of nearly the whole of\nthe white community. The missionaries have been discouraged, and in many\ninstances absolutely prohibited from preaching on the estates. These\ncircumstances have greatly retarded the progress of religious\ninstruction through their means. But this state of things had been very\nmuch altered since the abolition of slavery. There are several estates\nnow open to the missionaries. Mr. F. mentioned several places in the\ncountry, where he was then purchasing land, and erecting chapels. He\nalso stated, that one man, who aided in pulling down the chapel in 1823,\nhad offered ground for a new chapel, and proffered the free use of a\nbuilding near by, for religious meetings and a school, till it could\nbe erected.\n\nThe Wesleyan chapel in Bridgetown is a spacious building, well filled\nwith worshippers every Sabbath. We attended service there frequently,\nand observed the same indiscriminate sitting of the various colors,\nwhich is described in the account of St. Paul's church.\n\nThe Wesleyan missionaries have stimulated the clergy to greater\ndiligence and faithfulness, and have especially induced them to turn\ntheir attention to the negro population more than they did formerly.\n\nThere are several local preachers connected with the Wesleyan mission in\nBarbadoes, who have been actively laboring to promote religion among the\napprentices. Two of these are converted soldiers in his Majesty's\nservice--acting sergeants of the troops stationed in the island. While\nwe were in Barbadoes, these pious men applied for a discharge from the\narmy, intending to devote themselves exclusively to the work of teaching\nand preaching. Another of the local preachers is a negro man, of\nconsiderable talent and exalted piety, highly esteemed among his\nmissionary brethren for his labors of love.\n\nTHE MORAVIAN MISSION.\n\nOf the Moravians, we learned but little. Circumstances unavoidably\nprevented us from visiting any of the stations, and also from calling on\nany of the missionaries. We were informed that there were three stations\nin the island, one in Bridgetown, and two in the country, and we learned\nin general terms, that the few missionaries there were laboring with\ntheir characteristic devotedness, assiduity, and self-denial, for the\nspiritual welfare of the negro population.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nCOLORED POPULATION.\n\nThe colored, or as they were termed previous to abolition, by way of\ndistinction, the free colored population, amount in Barbadoes to nearly\nthirty thousand. They are composed chiefly of the mixed race, whose\npaternal connection, though illegitimate, secured to them freedom at\ntheir birth, and subsequently the advantages of an education more or\nless extensive. There are some blacks among them, however, who were free\nborn, or obtained their freedom at an early period, and have since, by\ngreat assiduity, attained an honorable standing.\n\nDuring our stay in Barbadoes, we had many invitations to the houses of\ncolored gentlemen, of which we were glad to avail ourselves whenever it\nwas possible. At an early period after our arrival, we were invited to\ndine with Thomas Harris, Esq. He politely sent his chaise for us, as he\nresided about a mile from our residence. At his table, we met two other\ncolored gentlemen, Mr. Thorne of Bridgetown, and Mr. Prescod, a young\ngentleman of much intelligence and ability. There was also at the table\na niece of Mr. Harris, a modest and highly interesting young lady. All\nthe luxuries and delicacies of a tropical clime loaded the board--an\nepicurean variety of meats, flesh, fowl, and fish--of vegetables,\npastries, fruits, and nuts, and that invariable accompaniment of a West\nIndia dinner, wine.\n\nThe dinner was enlivened by an interesting and well sustained\nconversation respecting the abolition of slavery, the present state of\nthe colony, and its prospects for the future. Lively discussions were\nmaintained on points where there chanced to be a difference of opinion,\nand we admired the liberality of the views which were thus elicited. We\nare certainly prepared to say, and that too without feeling that we draw\nany invidious distinctions, that in style of conversation, in ingenuity\nand ability of argument, this company would compare with any company of\nwhite gentlemen that we met in the island. In that circle of colored\ngentlemen, were the keen sallies of wit, the admirable repartee, the\nsatire now severe, now playful, upon the measures of the colonial\ngovernment, the able exposure of aristocratic intolerance, of\nplantership chicanery, of plottings and counterplottings in high\nplaces--the strictures on the intrigues of the special magistrates and\nmanagers, and withal, the just and indignant reprobation of the uniform\noppressions which have disabled and crushed the colored people.\n\nThe views of these gentlemen with regard to the present state of the\nisland, we found to differ in some respects from those of the planters\nand special magistrates. They seemed to regard both those classes of men\nwith suspicion. The planters they represented as being still, at least\nthe mass of them, under the influence of the strong habits of\ntyrannizing and cruelty which they formed during slavery. The\nprohibitions and penalties of the law are not sufficient to prevent\noccasional and even frequent outbreakings of violence, so that the\nnegroes even yet suffer much of the rigor of slavery. In regard to the\nspecial magistrates, they allege that they are greatly controlled by the\nplanters. They associate with the planters, dine with the planters,\nlounge on the planters' sofas, and marry the planters daughters. Such\nintimacies as these, the gentlemen very plausibly argued, could not\nexist without strongly biasing the magistrate towards the planters, and\nrendering it almost impossible for them to administer equal justice to\nthe poor apprentice, who, unfortunately, had no sumptuous dinners to\ngive them, no luxurious sofas to offer them, nor dowered daughters to\npresent in marriage.\n\nThe gentlemen testified to the industry and subordination of the\napprentices. They had improved the general cultivation of the island,\nand they were reaping for their masters greater crops than they did\nwhile slaves. The whole company united in saying that many blessings had\nalready resulted from the abolition of slavery--imperfect as that\nabolition was. Real estate had advanced in value at least one third. The\nfear of insurrection had been removed; invasions of property, such as\noccurred during slavery, the firing of cane-fields, the demolition of\nhouses, &c., were no longer apprehended. Marriage was spreading among\nthe apprentices, and the general morals of the whole community, high and\nlow, white, colored, and black, were rapidly improving.\n\nAt ten o'clock we took leave of Mr. Harris and his interesting friends.\nWe retired with feelings of pride and gratification that we had been\nprivileged to join a company which, though wearing the badge of a\nproscribed race, displayed in happy combination, the treasures of\ngenuine intelligence, and the graces of accomplished manners. We were\nhappy to meet in that social circle a son of New England, and a graduate\nof one of her universities. Mr. H. went to the West Indies a few months\nafter the abolition of slavery. He took with him all the prejudices\ncommon to our country, as well as a determined hostility to abolition\nprinciples and measures. A brief observation of the astonishing results\nof abolition in those islands, effectually disarmed him of the latter,\nand made him the decided and zealous advocate of immediate emancipation.\nHe established himself in business in Barbados, where he has been living\nthe greater part of the time since he left his native country. His\n_prejudices_ did not long survive his abandonment of anti-abolition\nsentiments. We rejoiced to find him on the occasion above referred to,\nmoving in the circle of colored society, with all the freedom of a\nfamiliar guest, and prepared most cordially to unite with us in the wish\nthat all our prejudiced countrymen could witness similar exhibitions.\nThe gentleman at whose table we had the pleasure to dine, was _born a\nslave_, and remained such until he was seventeen years of age. After\nobtaining his freedom, he engaged as a clerk in a mercantile\nestablishment, and soon attracted attention by his business talents.\nAbout the same period he warmly espoused the cause of the free colored\npeople, who were doubly crushed under a load of civil and political\nimpositions, and a still heavier one of prejudice. He soon made himself\nconspicuous by his manly defence of the rights of his brethren against\nthe encroachments of the public authorities, and incurred the marked\ndispleasure of several influential characters. After a protracted\nstruggle for the civil immunities of the colored people, during which he\nrepeatedly came into collision with public men, and was often arraigned\nbefore the public tribunals; finding his labors ineffectual, he left the\nisland and went to England. He spent some time there and in France,\nmoving on a footing of honorable equality among the distinguished\nabolitionists of those countries. There, amid the free influences and\nthe generous sympathies which welcomed and surrounded him,--his whole\ncharacter ripened in those manly graces and accomplishments which now so\neminently distinguish him.\n\nSince his return to Barbadoes, Mr. H. has not taken so public a part in\npolitical controversies as he did formerly, but is by no means\nindifferent to passing events. There is not, we venture to say, within\nthe colony, a keener or more sagacious observer of its institutions, its\npublic men and their measures.\n\nWhen witnessing the exhibitions of his manly spirit, and listening to\nhis eloquent and glowing narratives of his struggles against the\npolitical oppressions which ground to the dust himself and his brethren,\nwe could scarcely credit the fact that he was himself born and reared to\nmanhood--A SLAVE.\n\nBREAKFAST AT MR. THORNE'S.\n\nBy invitation we took breakfast with Mr. Joseph Thorne, whom we met at\nMr. Harris's. Mr. T. resides in Bridgetown. In the parlor, we met two\ncolored gentlemen--the Rev. Mr. Hamilton, a local Wesleyan preacher, and\nMr. Cummins, a merchant of Bridgetown, mentioned in a previous chapter.\nWe were struck with the scientific appearance of Mr. Thorne's parlor. On\none side was a large library of religious, historical and literary\nworks, the selection of which displayed no small taste and judgment. On\nthe opposite side of the room was a fine cabinet of minerals and shells.\nIn one corner stood a number of curious relics of the aboriginal Caribs,\nsuch as bows and arrows, etc., together with interesting fossil remains.\nOn the tops of the book-cases and mineral stand, were birds of rare\nspecies, procured from the South American Continent. The centre table\nwas ornamented with shells, specimens of petrifactions, and elegantly\nbound books. The remainder of the furniture of the room was costly and\nelegant. Before breakfast two of Mr. Thorne's children, little boys of\nsix and four, stepped in to salute the company. They were of a bright\nyellow, with slightly curled hair. When they had shaken hands with each\nof the company, they withdrew from the parlor and were seen no more.\nTheir manners and demeanor indicated the teachings of an admirable\nmother, and we were not a little curious to see the lady of whose taste\nand delicate sense of propriety we had witnessed so attractive a\nspecimen in her children. At the breakfast table we were introduced to\nMrs. Thorne, and we soon discovered from her dignified air, from the\nchaste and elevated style of her conversation, from her intelligence,\nmodesty and refinement, that we were in the presence of a highly\naccomplished lady. The conversation was chiefly on subjects connected\nwith our mission. All spoke with great gratitude of the downfall of\nslavery. It was not the slaves alone that were interested in that event.\nPolitical oppression, prejudice, and licentiousness had combined greatly\nto degrade the colored community, but these evils were now gradually\nlessening, and would soon wholly disappear after the final extinction of\nslavery--the parent of them all.\n\nSeveral facts were stated to show the great rise in the value of real\nestate since 1834. In one instance a gentleman bought a sugar estate for\nnineteen thousand pounds sterling, and the very next year, after taking\noff a crop from which he realized a profit of three thousand pounds\nsterling, he sold the estate for thirty thousand pounds sterling. It has\nfrequently happened within two years that persons wishing to purchase\nestates would inquire the price of particular properties, and would\nhesitate to give what was demanded. Probably soon after they would\nreturn to close the bargain, and find that the price was increased by\nseveral hundreds of pounds; they would go away again, reluctant to\npurchase, and return a third time, when they would find the price again\nraised, and would finally be glad to buy at almost any price. It was\nvery difficult to purchase sugar estates now, whereas previous to the\nabolition of slavery, they were, like the slaves, a drug in the market.\n\nMr. Joseph Thorne is a gentleman of forty-five, of a dark mulatto\ncomplexion, with the negro features and hair. _He was born a slave_, and\nremained so until about twenty years of age. This fact we learned from\nthe manager of the Belle estate, on which Mr. T. was born and raised a\nslave. It was an interesting coincidence, that on the occasion of our\nvisit to the Belle estate we were indebted to Mr. Thorne, the former\n_property_ of that estate, for his horse and chaise, which he politely\nproffered to us. Mr. T. employs much of his time in laboring among the\ncolored people in town, and among the apprentices on the estates, in the\ncapacity of _lay-preacher_. In this way he renders himself very useful.\nBeing very competent, both by piety and talents, for the work, and\npossessing more perhaps than any missionary, the confidence of the\nplanters, he is admitted to many estates, to lecture the apprentices on\nreligious and moral duties. Mr. T. is a member of the Episcopal church.\n\nBREAKFAST AT MR. PRESCOD'S\n\nWe next had the pleasure of breakfasting with Mr. Prescod. Our esteemed\nfriend, Mr. Harris, was of the company. Mr. P. is a young man, but\nlately married. His wife and himself were both liberally educated in\nEngland. He was the late editor of the New Times, a weekly paper\nestablished since the abolition of slavery and devoted chiefly to the\ninterests of the colored community. It was the first periodical and the\nonly one which advocated the rights of the colored people, and this it\ndid with the utmost fearlessness and independence. It boldly exposed\noppression, whether emanating from the government house or originating\nin the colonial assembly. The measures of all parties, and the conduct\nof every public man, were subject to its scrutiny, and when occasion\nrequired, to its stern rebuke. Mr. P. exhibits a thorough acquaintance\nwith the politics of the country, and with the position of the various\nparties. He is familiar with the spirit and operations of the white\ngentry--far more so, it would seem; than many of his brethren who have\nbeen repeatedly deceived by their professions of increasing liberality,\nand their show of extending civil immunities, which after all proved to\nbe practical nullities, and as such were denounced by Mr. P. at the\noutset. A few years ago the colored people mildly petitioned the\nlegislature for a removal of their disabilities. Their remonstrance was\ntoo reasonable to be wholly disregarded. Something must he done which\nwould at least bear the semblance of favoring the object of the\npetitioners. Accordingly the obnoxious clauses were repealed, and the\ncolored people were admitted to the polls. But the qualification was\nmade three times greater than that required of white citizens. This\nvirtually nullified the extension of privilege, and actually confirmed\nthe disabilities of which it was a pretended abrogation. The colored\npeople, in their credulity, hailed the apparent enfranchisement, and had\na public rejoicing in the occasion. But the delusion could not escape\nthe discrimination of Mr. P. He detected it at once, and exposed it, and\nincurred the displeasure of the credulous people of color by refusing to\nparticipate in their premature rejoicings. He soon succeeded however in\nconvincing his brethren that the new provision was a mockery of their\nwrongs, and that the assembly had only added insult to past injuries.\nMr. P. now urged the colored people to be patient, as the great changes\nwhich were working in the colony must bring to them all the rights of\nwhich they had been so cruelly deprived. On the subject of prejudice he\nspoke just as a man of keen sensibilities and manly spirit might be\nexpected to speak, who had himself been its victim. He was accustomed to\nbeing flouted, scorned and condemned by those whom he could not but\nregard as his interiors both in native talents and education. He had\nsubmitted to be forever debarred from offices which were filled by men\nfar less worthy except in the single qualification of a _white skin_,\nwhich however was paramount to all other virtues and acquirements! He\nhad seen himself and his accomplished wife excluded from the society of\nwhites, though keenly conscious of their capacity to move and shine in\nthe most elevated social circles. After all this, it may readily be\nconceived how Mr. P. would speak of prejudice. But while he spoke\nbitterly of the past, he was inspired with buoyancy of hope as he cast\nhis eye to the future. He was confident that prejudice would disappear.\nIt had already diminished very much, and it would ere long be wholly\nexterminated.\n\nMr. P. gave a sprightly picture of the industry of the negroes. It was\ncommon, he said, to hear them called lazy, but this was not true. That\nthey often appeared to be indolent, especially those about the town, was\ntrue; but it was either because they had no work to do, or were asked to\nwork without reasonable wages. He had often been amused at their\nconduct, when solicited to do small jobs--such as carrying baggage,\nloading of unloading a vessel, or the like. If offered a very small\ncompensation, as was generally the case at first, they would stretch\nthemselves on the ground, and with a sleepy look, and lazy tone, would\nsay, \"O, I can't do it, sir.\" Sometimes the applicants would turn away\nat once, thinking that they were unwilling to work, and cursing \"the\nlazy devils;\" but occasionally they would try the efficacy of offering a\nlarger compensation, when instantly the negroes would spring to their\nfeet, and the lounging inert mass would appear all activity.\n\nWe are very willing to hold up Mr. P as a specimen of what colored\npeople generally may become with proper cultivation, or to use the\nlanguage of one of their own number,[A] \"with free minds and space\nto rise.\"\n\n[Footnote A: Thomas C. Brown, who renounced colonization, returned from\na disastrous and almost fatal expedition to Liberia, and afterwards went\nto the West Indies, in quest of a free country.]\n\nWe have purposely refrained from speaking of Mrs. P., lest any thing we\nshould be willing to say respecting her, might seem to be adulation.\nHowever, having alluded to her, we will say that it has seldom fallen to\nour lot to meet with her superior.\n\nBREAKFAST AT MR. LONDON BOURNE'S.\n\nAfter what has been said in this chapter to try the patience and\nirritate the nerves of the prejudiced, if there should be such among our\nreaders, they will doubtless deem it quite intolerable to be introduced,\nnot as hitherto to a family in whose faces the lineaments and the\ncomplexion of the white man are discernible, relieving the ebon hue, but\nto a household of genuine unadulterated negroes. We cordially accepted\nan invitation to breakfast with Mr. London Bourne. If the reader's\nhorror of amalgamation does not allow him to join us at the table,\nperhaps he will consent to retire to the parlor, whence, without fear of\ncontamination, he may safely view us through the folding doors, and note\ndown our several positions around the board. At the head of the table\npresides, with much dignity, Mrs. Bourne; at the end opposite, sits Mr.\nBourne--both of the glossiest jet; the thick matted hair of Mr. B.\nslightly frosted with age. He has an affable, open countenance, in which\nthe radiance of an amiable spirit, and the lustre of a sprightly\nintellect, happily commingle, and illuminate the sable covering. On\neither hand of Mr. B. _we_ sit, occupying the posts of honor. On the\nright and left of Mrs. B., and at the opposite corners from us, sit two\nother guests, one a colored merchant, and the other a young son-in-law\nof Mr. B., whose face is the very double extract of blackness; for which\nhis intelligence, the splendor of his dress, and the elegance of his\nmanners, can make to be sure but slight atonement! The middle seats are\nfilled on the one side by an unmarried daughter of Mr. B., and on the\nother side by a promising son of eleven, who is to start on the morrow\nfor Edinburgh, where he is to remain until he has received the honors of\nScotland's far famed university.\n\nWe shall doubtless be thought by some of our readers to glory in our\nshame. Be it so. We _did_ glory in joining the company which we have\njust described. On the present occasion we had a fair opportunity of\ntesting the merits of an unmixed negro party, and of determining how far\nthe various excellences of the gentlemen and ladies previously noticed\nwere attributable to the admixture of English blood. We are compelled in\ncandor to say; that the company of blacks did not fall a whit below\nthose of the colored race in any respect. We conversed on the same\ngeneral topics, which, of course, were introduced where-ever we went. The\ngentlemen showed an intimate acquaintance with the state of the colony,\nwith the merits of the apprenticeship system, and with the movements of\nthe colonial government. As for Mrs. B., she presided at the table with\ngreat ease, dignity, self-possession, and grace. Her occasional remarks,\nmade with genuine modesty, indicated good sense and discrimination.\nAmong other topics of conversation, prejudice was not forgotten. The\ncompany were inquisitive as to the extent of it in the United States. We\ninformed them that it appeared to be strongest in those states which\nheld no slaves, that it prevailed among professing Christians, and that\nit was most manifestly seen in the house of God. We also intimated, in\nas delicate a manner as possible, that in almost any part of the United\nStates such a table-scene as we then presented would be reprobated and\ndenounced, if indeed it escaped the summary vengeance of the mob. We\nwere highly gratified with their views of the proper way for the colored\npeople to act in respect to prejudice. They said they were persuaded\nthat their policy was to wait patiently for the operation of those\ninfluences which were now at work for the removal of prejudice. \"_Social\nintercourse_,\" they said, \"was not a thing to be gained by _pushing_.\"\n\"They could not go to it, but it would come to them.\" It was for them\nhowever, to maintain an upright, dignified course, to be uniformly\ncourteous, to seek the cultivation of their minds, and strive zealously\nfor substantial worth, and by such means, and such alone, they could aid\nin overcoming prejudice.\n\nMr. Bourne was a slave until he was twenty-three years old. He was\npurchased by his father, a free negro, who gave five hundred dollars for\nhim. His mother and four brothers were bought at the same time for the\nsum of two thousand five hundred dollars. He spoke very kindly of his\nformer master. By industry, honesty, and close attention to business,\nMr. B. has now become a wealthy merchant. He owns three stores in\nBridgetown, lives in very genteel style in his own house, and is worth\nfrom twenty to thirty thousand dollars. He is highly respected by the\nmerchants of Bridgetown for his integrity and business talents. By what\nmeans Mr. B. has acquired so much general information, we are at a loss\nto conjecture. Although we did not ourselves need the evidence of his\npossessing extraordinary talents, industry, and perseverance, yet we are\nhappy to present our readers with such tangible proofs--proofs which are\nread in every language, and which pass current in every nation.\n\nThe foregoing sketches are sufficient to give a general idea of the\ncolored people of Barbadoes. Perchance we may have taken too great\nliberties with those whose hospitalities we enjoyed; should this ever\nfall under their notice, we doubt not they will fully appreciate the\nmotives which have actuated us in making them public. We are only sorry,\nfor their sakes, and especially for that of our cause, that the\ndelineations are so imperfect. That the above specimens are an exact\nlikeness of the mass of colored people we do not pretend; but we do\naffirm, that they are as true an index to the whole community, as the\nmerchants, physicians, and mechanics of any of our villages are to the\nentire population. We must say, also, that families of equal merit are\nby no means rare among the same people. We might mention many names\nwhich deservedly rank as high as those we have specified. One of the\nwealthiest merchants in Bridgetown is a colored gentleman. He has his\nmercantile agents in England, English clerks in his employ, a branch\nestablishment in the city, and superintends the concerns of an extensive\nand complicated business with distinguished ability and success. A large\nportion, of not a majority of the merchants of Bridgetown are colored.\nSome of the most popular instructors are colored men and ladies, and one\nof these ranks high as a teacher of the ancient and modern languages.\nThe most efficient and enterprising mechanics of the city, are colored\nand black men. There is scarcely any line of business which is not\neither shared or engrossed by colored persons, if we except that of\n_barber_. _The only barber in Bridgetown is a white man._\n\nThat so many of the colored people should have obtained wealth and\neducation is matter of astonishment, when we consider the numerous\ndiscouragements with which they have ever been doomed to struggle. The\npaths of political distinction have been barred against them by an\narbitrary denial of the right of suffrage, and consequent ineligibility\nto office. Thus a large and powerful class of incitements to mental\neffort, which have been operating continually upon the whites, have\nnever once stirred the sensibilities nor waked the ambition of the\ncolored community. Parents, however wealthy, had no inducement to\neducate their sons for the learned professions, since no force of talent\nnor extent of acquirement could hope to break down the granite walls and\niron bars which prejudice had erected round the pulpit, the bar, and the\nbench. From the same cause there was very little encouragement to\nacquire property, to seek education, to labor for the graces of\ncultivated manners, or even to aspire to ordinary respectability, since\nnot even the poor favor of social intercourse with the whites, of\nparticipating in the civilities and courtesies of every day life, was\ngranted them.\n\nThe crushing power of a prevailing licentiousness, has also been added\nto the other discouragements of the colored people. Why should parents\nlabor to amass wealth enough, and much of course it required, to send\ntheir daughters to Europe to receive their educations, if they were to\nreturn only to become the victims of an all-whelming concubinism! It is\na fact, that in many cases young ladies, who have been sent to England\nto receive education, have, after accomplishing themselves in all the\ngraces of womanhood, returned to the island to become the concubines of\nwhite men. Hitherto this vice has swept over the colored community,\ngathering its repeated conscriptions of beauty and innocence from the\nhighest as well as the lowest families. Colored ladies have been taught\nto believe that it was more honorable, and quite as virtuous, to be the\nkept mistresses of _white gentlemen_, than the lawfully wedded wives of\n_colored men_. We repeat the remark, that the actual progress which the\ncolored people of Barbadoes have made, while laboring under so many\ndepressing influences, should excite our astonishment, and, we add, our\nadmiration too. Our acquaintance with this people was at a very\ninteresting period--just when they were beginning to be relieved from\nthese discouragements, and to feel the regenerating spirit of a new era.\nIt was to us like walking through a garden in the early spring. We could\nsee the young buds of hope, the first bursts of ambition, the early\nup-shoots of confident aspiration, and occasionally the opening bloom of\nassurance. The star of hope had risen upon the colored people, and they\nwere beginning to realize that _their_ day had come. The long winter of\ntheir woes was melting into \"glorious summer.\" Civil immunities and\npolitical privileges were just before them, the learned professions were\nopening to them, social equality and honorable domestic connections\nwould soon be theirs. Parents were making fresh efforts to establish\nschools for the children, and to send the choicest of their sons and\ndaughters to England. They rejoiced in the privileges they were\nsecuring, and they anticipated with virtuous pride the free access of\ntheir children to all the fields of enterprise, all the paths of honest\nemulation, and all the eminences of distinction.\n\nWe remark in conclusion, that the forbearance of the colored people of\nBarbadoes under their complicated wrongs is worthy of all admiration.\nAllied, as many of them are, to the first families of the island, and\ngifted as they are with every susceptibility to feel disgrace, it is a\nmarvel that they have not indignantly cast off the yoke and demanded\ntheir political rights. Their wrongs have been unprovoked on their part,\nand unnatural on the part of those who have inflicted them--in many\ncases the guilty authors of their being. The patience and endurance of\nthe sufferers under such circumstances are unexampled, except by the\nconduct of the slaves, who, though still more wronged, were, if\npossible, still more patient.\n\nWe regret to add, that until lately, the colored people of Barbadoes\nhate been far in the background in the cause of abolition, and even now,\nthe majority of them are either indifferent, or actually hostile to\nemancipation. They have no fellow feeling with the slave. In fact; they\nhave had prejudices against the negroes no less bitter than those which\nthe whites have exercised toward them. There are many honorable\nexceptions to this, as has already been shown; but such, we are assured,\nis the general fact.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: We are here reminded, by the force of contrast, of the\nnoble spirit manifested by the free colored people of our own country.\nAs early as 1817, a numerous body of them in Philadelphia, with the\nvenerable James Forten at their head, pledged themselves to the cause of\nthe slave in the following sublime sentiment, which deserves to be\nengraver to their glory on the granite of our \"everlasting\nhills\"--\"Resolved, That we never will separate ourselves voluntarily\nfrom the slave population in this country; they are our brethren by the\nties of consanguinity, of suffering, and of wrong; and we feel that\nthere is more virtue in suffering privations with them, than enjoying\n_fancied_ advantages for a season.\"\n\nWe believe that this resolution embodies the feelings and determinations\nof the free colored people generally in the free states.]\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nBARBADOES AS IT WAS, AND IS.\n\nAccording to the declaration of one of the special magistrates,\n\"Barbadoes has long been distinguished for its devotion to slavery.\"\nThere is probably no portion of the globe where slave-holding, slave\ndriving, and slave labor, have been reduced to a more perfect system.\n\nThe records of slavery in Barbadoes are stained with bloody atrocities.\nThe planters uniformly spoke of slavery as a system of cruelties; but\nthey expressed themselves in general terms. From colored gentlemen we\nlearned some particulars, a few of which we give. To most of the\nfollowing facts the narrators were themselves eye witnesses, and all of\nthem happened in their day and were fresh in their memories.\n\nThe slaves were not unfrequently worked in the streets of Bridgetown\nwith chains on their wrists and ankles. Flogging on the estates and in\nthe town, were no less public than frequent, and there was an utter\nshamelessness often in the manner of its infliction. Even women were\nstripped naked on the sides of the streets, and their backs lacerated\nwith the whip. It was a common practice, when a slave offended a white\nman, for the master to send for a public whipper, and order him to take\nthe slave before the door of the person offended, and flog him till the\nlatter was satisfied. White females would order their male slaves to be\nstripped naked in their presence and flogged, while they would look on\nto see that their orders were faithfully executed. Mr. Prescod mentioned\nan instance which he himself witnessed near Bridgetown. He had seen an\naged female slave, stripped and whipped by her own son, a child of\ntwelve, at the command of the mistress. As the boy was small, the mother\nwas obliged to get down upon her hands and knees, so that the child\ncould inflict the blows on her naked person with a rod. This was done on\nthe public highway, before the mistress's door. Mr. T. well remembered\nwhen it was lawful for any man to shoot down his slave, under no greater\npenalty than twenty-five pounds currency; and he knew of cases in which\nthis had been done. Just after the insurrection in 1816, white men made\na regular sport of shooting negroes. Mr. T. mentioned one case. A young\nman had sworn that he would kill ten negroes before a certain time. When\nhe had shot nine he went to take breakfast with a neighbor, and carried\nhis gun along. The first slave he met on the estate, he accused of being\nconcerned in the rebellion. The negro protested that he was innocent,\nand begged for mercy. The man told him to be gone, and as he turned to\ngo away, he shot him dead. Having fulfilled his bloody pledge, the young\nknight ate his breakfast with a relish. Mr. H. said that a planter once,\nin a time of perfect peace, went to his door and called one of his\nslaves. The negro made some reply which the master construed into\ninsolence, and in a great rage he swore if he did not come to him\nimmediately he would shoot him. The man replied he hoped massa wan't in\nearnest. 'I'll show you whether I am in earnest,' said the master, and\nwith that he levelled his rifle, took deliberate aim, and shot the negro\non the spot. He died immediately. Though great efforts were made by a\nfew colored men to bring the murderer to punishment, they were all\nineffectual. The evidence against him was clear enough, but the\ninfluence in his favor was so strong that he finally escaped.\n\nDungeons were built on all the estates, and they were often abominably\nfilthy, and infested with loathsome and venomous vermin. For slight\noffences the slaves were thrust into these prisons for several\nsuccessive nights--being dragged out every morning to work during the\nday. Various modes of torture were employed upon those who were\nconsigned to the dungeon. There were stocks for their feet, and there\nwere staples in the floor for the ankles and wrists, placed in such a\nposition as to keep the victim stretched out and lying on his face. Mr.\nH. described one mode which was called the _cabin_. A narrow board, only\nwide enough for a man to lie upon, was fixed in an inclined position,\nand elevated considerably above the ground. The offending slave was made\nto lay upon this board, and a strong rope or chain, was tied about his\nneck and fastened to the ceiling. It was so arranged, that if he should\nfall from the plank, he would inevitably hang by his neck. Lying in this\nposition all night, he was more likely than not to fall asleep, and then\nthere were ninety-nine chances to one that he would roll off his narrow\nbed and be killed before he could awake, or have time to extricate\nhimself. Peradventure this is the explanation of the anxiety Mr. ---- of\n----, used to feel, when he had confined one of his slaves in the\ndungeon. He stated that he would frequently wake up in the night, was\nrestless, and couldn't sleep, from fear that the prisoner would _kill\nhimself_ before morning.\n\nIt was common for the planters of Barbadoes, like those of Antigua, to\ndeclare that the greatest blessing of abolition to them, was that it\nrelieved them from the disagreeable work of flogging the negroes. We had\nthe unsolicited testimony of a planter, that slave mothers frequently\npoisoned, and otherwise murdered, their young infants, to rid them of a\nlife of slavery. What a horrible comment this upon the cruelties of\nslavery! Scarce has the mother given birth to her child, when she\nbecomes its murderer. The slave-mother's joy begins, not like that of\nother mothers, when \"a man is born into the world,\" but when her infant\nis hurried out of existence, and its first faint cry is hushed in the\nsilence of death! Why this perversion of nature? Ah, that mother knows\nthe agonies, the torments, the wasting woes, of a life of slavery, and\nby the bowels of a mother's love, and the yearnings of a mother's pity,\nshe resolves that her babe shall never know the same. O, estimate who\ncan, how many groans have gone up from the cane field, from the\nboiling-house, from around the wind mill, from the bye paths, from the\nshade of every tree, from the recesses of every dungeon!\n\nColonel Barrow, of Edgecome estate, declared, that the habit of flogging\nwas so strong among the overseers and book-keepers, that even now they\nfrequently indulge it in the face of penalties and at the risk of\nforfeiting their place.\n\nThe descriptions which the special magistrates give of the lower class\nof overseers and the managers of the petty estates, furnish data enough\nfor judging of the manner in which they would be likely to act when\nclothed with arbitrary power. They are \"a low order of men,\" \"without\neducation,\" \"trained up to use the whip,\" \"knowing nothing else save the\nart of flogging,\" \"ready at any time to perjure themselves in any matter\nwhere a negro is concerned,\" &c. Now, may we not ask what but cruelty,\nthe most monstrous, could be expected under a system where _such men_\nwere constituted law makers, judges, and executioners?\n\nFrom the foregoing facts, and the still stronger circumstantial\nevidence, we leave the reader to judge for himself as to the amount of\ncruelty attendant upon \"the reign of terror,\" in Barbadoes. We must,\nhowever, mention one qualification, without which a wrong impression may\nbe made. It has already been remarked that Barbadoes has, more than any\nother island, reduced slave labor and sugar cultivation to a regular\nsystem. This the planters have been compelled to do from the denseness\nof their population, the smallness of their territory, the fact that the\nland was all occupied, and still more, because the island, from long\ncontinued cultivation, was partly worn out. A prominent feature in their\nsystem was, theoretically at least, good bodily treatment of the slaves,\ngood feeding, attention to mothers, to pregnant women, and to children,\nin order that the estates might always be kept _well stocked with\ngood-conditioned negroes_. They were considered the best managers, who\nincreased the population of the estates most rapidly, and often premiums\nwere given by the attorneys to such managers. Another feature in the\nBarbadoes system was to raise sufficient provisions in the island to\nmaintain the slaves, or, in planter's phrase, to _feed the stock_,\nwithout being dependent upon foreign countries. This made the supplies\nof the slaves more certain and more abundant. From several circumstances\nin the condition of Barbadoes, it is manifest, that there were fewer\nmotives to cruelty there than existed in other islands. First, the slave\npopulation was abundant, then the whole of the island was under\ncultivation, and again the lands were old and becoming exhausted. Now,\nif either one of these things had not been true, if the number of slaves\nhad been inadequate to the cultivation, or if vast tracts of land, as in\nJamaica, Trinidad, and Demerara, had been uncultivated, or were being\nbrought into cultivation; or, again, if the lands under cultivation had\nbeen fresh and fertile, so as to bear _pushing_, then it is plain that\nthere would have been inducements to hard driving, which, as the case\nwas, did not exist.\n\nSuch is a partial view of Barbadoes as it _was_, touching the matter of\ncruelty. We say partial, for we have omitted to mention the selling of\nslaves from one estate to another, whereby families were separated,\nalmost as effectually as though an ocean intervened. We have omitted to\nnotice the transportation of slaves to Trinidad, Berbice, and Demerara,\nwhich was made an open traffic until prohibited in 1827, and was\nafterwards continued with but little abatement by evasions of the law.\n\nFrom the painful contemplation of all this outrage and wrong, the mind\nis relieved by turning to the present state of the colony. It cannot be\ndenied that much oppression grows out of the apprenticeship system, both\nfrom its essential nature, and from the want of virtuous principle and\nindependence in the men who administer it. Yet it is certainly true that\nthere has been a very great diminution in the amount of actual cruelty.\nThe total abolition of flogging on the estates, the prohibition to use\nthe dungeons, and depriving the masters, managers, overseers and\ndrivers, of the right to punish in any case, or in any way whatever,\nleave no room for doubt on this subject. It is true, that the laws are\noften violated, but this can only take place in cases of excessive\npassion, and it is not likely to be a very frequent occurrence. The\npenalty of the law is so heavy,[A] and the chances of detection[B] are\nso great, that in all ordinary circumstances they will be a sufficient\nsecurity against the violence of the master. On the other hand, the\nspecial magistrates themselves seldom use the whip, but resort to other\nmodes of punishment less cruel and degrading. Besides, it is manifest\nthat if they did use the whip and were ever so cruelly disposed, it\nwould be physically impossible for them to inflict as much suffering as\nthe drivers could during slavery; on account of the vast numbers over\nwhom they preside. We learned from the apprentices themselves, by\nconversing with them, that their condition, in respect to treatment, is\nincomparably better than it was during slavery. We were satisfied from\nour observations and inquiries, that the planters, at least the more\nextensive and enlightened ones, conduct their estates on different\nprinciples from those formerly followed. Before the abolition of\nslavery, they regarded the _whip_ as absolutely necessary to the\ncultivation of sugar, and hence they uniformly used it, and loudly\ndeprecated its abolition as being _their_ certain ruin. But since the\nwhip has been abolished, and the planters have found that the negroes\ncontinue, nevertheless, industrious and subordinate, they have changed\ntheir measures, partly from necessity, and partly from policy, have\nadopted a conciliatory course.\n\n[Footnote A: A fine of sixteen dollars for the first assault, and the\nliberation of the apprentice after a second.]\n\n[Footnote B: Through the complaint of the apprentice to the special\nmagistrate]\n\nBarbadoes was not without its insurrections during slavery. Although not\nvery frequent, they left upon the minds of the white colonists this\nconviction, (repeatedly expressed to us by planters and others,) that\n_slavery and rebellions are inseparable_. The last widely extended\ninsurrection occurred in 1816, in the eastern part of the island. Some\nof the particulars were given us by a planter who resided to that\nregion, and suffered by it great loss of property. The plot was so\ncautiously laid, and kept so secret, that no one suspected it. The\nplanter observed that if any one had told him that such a thing was\nbrewing _ten minutes_ before it burst forth, he would not have credited\nthe statement. It began with firing the cane-fields. A signal was given\nby a man setting fire to a pile of trash on an elevated spot, when\ninstantly the fires broke out in every direction, and in less than a\nhalf hour, more than one hundred estates were in flames. The planters\nand their families, in the utmost alarm, either fled into other parts of\nthe island, or seized their arms and hurriedly mustered in self-defence.\nMeanwhile the negroes, who had banded themselves in numerous companies,\ntook advantage of the general consternation, proceeded to the deserted\nmansions of the planters, broke down the doors, battered in the windows,\ndestroyed all the furniture, and carried away the provision stores to\ntheir own houses.\n\nThese ravages continued for three days, during which, the slaves flocked\ntogether in increasing numbers; in one place there were several\nthousands assembled. Above five hundred of the insurgents were shot down\nby the militia, before they could be arrested. The destruction of\nproperty during the rebellion was loosely estimated at many hundred\nthousand pounds. The canes on many estates were almost wholly burned; so\nthat extensive properties, which ordinarily yielded from two to three\nhundred hogsheads, did not make more than fifteen or twenty.\n\nOur informant mentioned two circumstances which he considered\nremarkable. One was, that the insurgents never touched the property of\nthe estates to which they severally belonged; but went to the\nneighboring or more distant estates. The other was, that during the\nwhole insurrection the negroes did not make a single attempt to destroy\nlife. On the other hand, the sacrifice of negroes during the rebellion,\nand subsequent to it, was appalling. It was a long time before the white\nman's thirst for blood could be satiated.\n\nNo general insurrection occurred after this one. However, as late as\n1823, the proprietor of Mount Wilton--the noblest estate in the\nisland--was murdered by his slaves in a most horrid manner. A number of\nmen entered his bed-chamber at night. He awoke ere they reached him, and\ngrasped his sword, which always hung by his bed, but it was wrested from\nhis hand, and he was mangled and killed. His death was caused by his\n_cruelties_, and especially by his _extreme licentiousness_. All the\nfemales on this estate were made successively the victims of his lust.\nThis, together with his cruelties, so incensed the men, that they\ndetermined to murder the wretch. Several of them were publicly executed.\n\nNext to the actual occurrence of rebellions, _the fear of them_ deserves\nto be enumerated among the evils which slavery entailed upon Barbadoes.\nThe dread of hurricanes to the people of Barbadoes is tolerable in\ncomparison with the irrepressible apprehensions of bloody rebellions. A\nplanter told us that he seldom went to bed without thinking he might be\nmurdered before morning.\n\nBut now the whites are satisfied that slavery was the sole instigator of\nrebellions, and since its removal they have no fear on this score.\n\n_Licentiousness_ was another of the fruits of slavery. It will be\ndifficult to give to the reader a proper conception of the prevalence of\nthis vice in Barbadoes, and of the consequent demoralization. A numerous\ncolored population were both the offspring and the victims of it. On a\nvery moderate calculation, nineteen-twentieths of the present adult\ncolored race are illegitimate. Concubinage was practised among the\nhighest classes. Young merchants and others who were unmarried, on first\ngoing to the island, regularly engaged colored females to live with them\nas housekeepers and mistresses, and it was not unusual for a man to have\nmore than one. The children of these connections usually sat with the\nmothers at the father's table, though when the gentlemen had company,\nneither mothers nor children made their appearance. To such conduct no\ndisgrace was attached, nor was any shame felt by either party. We were\nassured that there are in Bridgetown, colored ladies of\n\"respectability,\" who, though never married, have large families of\nchildren whose different surnames indicate their difference of\nparentage, but who probably do not know their fathers by any other\ntoken. These remarks apply to the towns. The morals of the estates were\nstill more deplorable. The managers and overseers, commonly unmarried,\nleft no female virtue unattempted. Rewards sometimes, but oftener the\nwhip, or the dungeon, gave them the mastery in point of fact, which the\nlaws allowed in theory. To the slaves marriage was scarcely known. They\nfollowed the example of the master, and were ready to minister to his\nlust. The mass of mulatto population grew paler as it multiplied, and\ncatching the refinement along with the tint of civilization, waged a war\nupon marriage which had well nigh expelled it from the island. Such was\nBarbadoes under the auspices of slavery.\n\nAlthough these evils still exist, yet, since the abolition of slavery,\nthere is one symptom of returning purity, the _sense of shame_.\nConcubinage is becoming disreputable. The colored females are growing in\nself-respect, and are beginning to seek regular connections with colored\nmen. They begin to feel (to use the language of one of them) that the\n_light is come_, and that they can no longer have the apology of\nignorance to plead for their sin. It is the prevailing impression among\nwhites, colored, and blacks, that open licentiousness cannot long\nsurvive slavery.\n\n_Prejudice_ was another of the concomitants of slavery. Barbadoes was\nproverbial for it. As far as was practicable, the colored people were\nexcluded from all business connections; though merchants were compelled\nto make clerks of them for want of better, that is, _whiter_, ones.\nColored merchants of wealth were shut out of the merchants' exchange,\nthough possessed of untarnished integrity, while white men were admitted\nas subscribers without regard to character. It was not a little\nremarkable that the rooms occupied as the merchants' exchange were\nrented from a colored gentleman, or more properly, a _negro_;[A] who,\nthough himself a merchant of extensive business at home and abroad, and\noccupying the floor below with a store, was not suffered to set his foot\nwithin them. This merchant, it will be remembered, is educating a son\nfor a learned profession at the university of Edinburgh. Colored\ngentlemen were not allowed to become members of literary associations,\nnor subscribers to the town libraries. Social intercourse was utterly\ninterdicted. To visit the houses of such men as we have already\nmentioned in a previous chapter, and especially to sit down at their\ntables, would have been a loss of caste; although the gentry were at the\nsame time living with colored concubines. But most of all did this\nwicked prejudice delight to display itself in the churches. Originally,\nwe believe, the despised color was confined to the galleries, afterwards\nit was admitted to the seats under the galleries, and ultimately it was\nallowed to extend to the body pews below the cross aisle. If perchance\none of the proscribed class should ignorantly stray beyond these\nprecincts, and take a seat above the cross aisle, he was instantly, if\nnot forcibly, removed. Every opportunity was maliciously seized to taunt\nthe colored people with their complexion. A gentleman of the highest\nworth stated that several years ago he applied to the proper officer for\na license to be married. The license was accordingly made out and handed\nto him. It was expressed in the following insulting style: \"T---- H----,\nF.M., is licensed to marry H---- L----, F.C.W.\" The initials F.M. stood\nfor _free mulatto_, and F.C.W. for _free colored woman_! The gentleman\ntook his knife and cut out the initials; and was then threatened with a\nprosecution for forging his license.\n\n[Footnote A: Mr. London Bourne, the merchant mentioned in the previous\nchapter.]\n\nIt must be admitted that this cruel feeling still exists in Barbadoes.\nPrejudice is the last viper of the slavery-gendered brood that dies. But\nit is evidently growing weaker. This the reader will infer from several\nfacts already stated. The colored people themselves are indulging\nsanguine hopes that prejudice will shortly die away. They could discover\na bending on the part of the whites, and an apparent readiness to\nconcede much of the ground hitherto withheld. They informed us that they\nhad received intimations that they might be admitted as subscribers to\nthe merchants' exchange if they would apply; but they were in no hurry\nto make the advances themselves. They felt assured that not only\nbusiness equality, but social equality, would soon be theirs, and were\nwaiting patiently for the course of events to bring them. They have too\nmuch self-respect to sue for the consideration of their white neighbors,\nor to accept it as a condescension and favor, when by a little patience\nthey might obtain it on more honorable terms. It will doubtless be found\nin Barbadoes, as it has been in other countries--and perchance to the\nmortification of some lordlings--that freedom is a mighty leveller of\nhuman distinctions. The pyramid of pride and prejudice which slavery had\nupreared there, must soon crumble in the dust.\n\n_Indolence and inefficiency among the whites_, was another prominent\nfeature in slaveholding Barbadoes. Enterprise, public and personal, has\nlong been a stranger to the island. Internal improvements, such as the\nlaying and repairing of roads, the erection of bridges, building\nwharves, piers, &c., were either wholly neglected, or conducted in such\na listless manner as to be a burlesque on the name of business. It was a\nstanding task, requiring the combined energy of the island, to repair\nthe damages of one hurricane before another came. The following\ncircumstance was told us, by one of the shrewdest observers of men and\nthings with whom we met in Barbadoes. On the southeastern coast of the\nisland there is a low point running far out into the sea, endangering\nall vessels navigated by persons not well acquainted with the island.\nMany vessels have been wrecked upon it in the attempt to make Bridgetown\nfrom the windward. From time immemorial, it has been in contemplation to\nerect a light-house on that point. Every time a vessel has been wrecked,\nthe whole island has been agog for a light-house. Public meetings were\ncalled, and eloquent speeches made, and resolutions passed, to proceed\nto the work forthwith. Bills were introduced into the assembly, long\nspeeches made, and appropriations voted commensurate with the stupendous\nundertaking. There the matter ended, and the excitement died away, only\nto be revived by another wreck, when a similar scene would ensue. The\nlight-house is not built to this day. In personal activity, the\nBarbadians are as sadly deficient as in public spirit. London is said to\nhave scores of wealthy merchants who have never been beyond its limits,\nnor once snuffed the country air. Bridgetown, we should think, is in\nthis respect as deserving of the name _Little London_ as Barbadoes is of\nthe title \"Little England,\" which it proudly assumes. We were credibly\ninformed that there were merchants in Bridgetown who had never been off\nthe island in their lives, nor more than five or six miles into the\ncountry. The sum total of their locomotion might be said to be, turning\nsoftly to one side of their chairs, and then softly to the other. Having\nno personal cares to harass them, and no political questions to agitate\nthem--having no extended speculations to push, and no public enterprises\nto prosecute, (save occasionally when a wreck on the southern point\nthrows them into a ferment,) the lives of the higher classes seem a\nperfect blank, as it regards every thing manly. Their thoughts are\nchiefly occupied with sensual pleasure, anticipated or enjoyed. The\ncentre of existence to them is the _dinner-table_.\n\n  \"They eat and drink and sleep, and then--\n   Eat and drink and sleep again.\"\n\nThat the abolition of slavery has laid the foundation for a reform in\nthis respect, there can be no doubt. The indolence and inefficiency of\nthe white community has grown out of slavery. It is the legitimate\noffspring of oppression everywhere--one of the burning curses which it\nnever fails to visit upon its supporters. It may be seriously doubted,\nhowever, whether in Barbadoes this evil will terminate with its cause.\nThere is there such a superabundance of the laboring population, that\nfor a long time to come, labor must be very cheap, and the habitually\nindolent will doubtless prefer employing others to work for them, than\nto work themselves. If, therefore, we should not see an active spirit of\nenterprise at once kindling among the Barbadians, _if the light-house\nshould not be build for a quarter of a century to come_, it need not\nexcite our astonishment.\n\nWe heard not a little concerning the expected distress of those white\nfamilies whose property consisted chiefly of slaves. There were many\nsuch families, who have hitherto lived respectably and independently by\nhiring out their slaves. After 1840, these will be deprived of all their\nproperty, and will have no means of support whatever. As they will\nconsider it degrading to work, and still more so to beg, they will be\nthrown into extremely embarrassing circumstances. It is thought that\nmany of this class will leave the country, and seek a home where they\nwill not be ashamed to work for their subsistence. We were forcibly\nreminded of the oft alleged objection to emancipation in the United\nStates, that it would impoverish many excellent families in the South,\nand drive delicate females to the distaff and the wash-tub, whose hands\nhave never been used to any thing--_rougher than the cowhide_. Much\nsympathy has been awakened in the North by such appeals, and vast\nnumbers have been led by them to conclude that it is better for millions\nof slaves to famish in eternal bondage, than that a few white families,\nhere and there scattered over the South, should be reduced to the\nhumiliation of _working_.\n\n_Hostility to emancipation_ prevailed in Barbadoes. That island has\nalways been peculiarly attached to slavery. From the beginning of the\nanti-slavery agitations in England, the Barbadians distinguished\nthemselves by their inveterate opposition. As the grand result\napproximated they increased their resistance. They appealed,\nremonstrated, begged, threatened, deprecated, and imprecated. They\ncontinually protested that abolition would ruin the colony--that the\nnegroes could never be brought to work--especially to raise\nsugar--without the whip. They both besought and demanded of the English\nthat they should cease their interference with their private affairs and\npersonal property.\n\nAgain and again they informed them that they were wholly disqualified,\nby their distance from the colonies, and their ignorance of the subject,\nto do any thing respecting it, and they were entreated to leave the\nwhole matter with the colonies, who alone could judge as to the best\ntime and manner of moving, or whether it was proper to move at all.\n\nWe were assured that there was not a single planter in Barbadoes who was\nknown to be in favor of abolition, before it took place; if, however,\nthere had been one such, he would not have dared to avow his sentiments.\nThe anti-slavery party in England were detested; no epithets were too\nvile for them--no curses too bitter. It was a Barbadian lady who once\nexclaimed in a public company in England, \"O, I wish we had Wilberforce\nin the West Indies, I would be one of the very first to tear his heart\nout!\" If such a felon wish could escape the lips of a female, and that\ntoo amid the awing influence of English society, what may we conclude\nwere the feelings of planters and drivers on the island!\n\nThe opposition was maintained even after the abolition of slavery; and\nthere was no colony, save Jamaica, with which the English government had\nso much trouble in arranging the provisions and conditions under which\nabolition was to take place.\n\nFrom statements already made, the reader will see how great a change has\ncome over the feelings of the planters.\n\nHe has followed us through this and the preceding chapters, he has seen\ntranquillity taking the place of insurrections, a sense of security\nsucceeding to gloomy forbodings, and public order supplanting mob law;\nhe has seen subordination to authority, peacefulness, industry, and\nincreasing morality, characterizing the negro population; he has seen\nproperty rising in value, crime lessening, expenses of labor\ndiminishing, the whole island blooming with unexampled cultivation, and\nwaving with crops unprecedented in the memory of its inhabitants; above\nall, he has seen licentiousness decreasing, prejudice fading away,\nmarriage extending, education spreading, and religion preparing to\nmultiply her churches and missionaries over the land.\n\n_These_ are the blessing of abolition--_begun_ only, and but partially\nrealized as yet, but promising a rich maturity in time to come, after\nthe work of freedom shall have been completed.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE APPRENTICESHIP SYSTEM.\n\nThe nature of the apprenticeship system may be learned form the\nfollowing abstract of its provisions, relative to the three parties\nchiefly concerned in its operation--the special magistrate, the master,\nand the apprentice.\n\nPROVISIONS RESPECTING THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES.\n\n1. They must be disconnected with planters and plantership, that they\nmay be independent of all colonial parties and interests whatever.\n\n2. The special magistrates adjudicate only in cases where the master and\napprentice are parties. Offences committed by apprentices against any\nperson not connected with the estates on which they live, come under the\ncognizance of the local magistrates or of higher courts.\n\n3. The special justices sit three days in the week at their offices,\nwhere all complaints are carried, both by the master and apprentice. The\nmagistrates do not go the estate, either to try or to punish offenders.\nBesides, the three days the magistrates are required to be at home every\nSaturday, (that being the day on which the apprentices are disengaged,)\nto give friendly advice and instruction on points of law and personal\nrights to all apprentices who may call.\n\nPROVISIONS RESPECTING THE MASTER.\n\n1. The master is allowed the gratuitous labor of the apprentice for\nforty-five hours each week. The several islands were permitted by the\nEnglish government to make such a division of this time as local\ncircumstances might seem to require. In some islands, as for instance in\nSt. Christopher's and Tortola, it is spread over six days of the week in\nproportions of seven and a half hours per day, thus leaving the\napprentice mere shreds of time in which he can accomplish nothing for\nhimself. In Barbadoes, the forty-five hours is confined within five\ndays, in portions of nine hours per day.\n\n2. The allowances of food continue the same as during slavery, excepting\nthat now the master may give, instead of the allowance, a third of an\nacre to each apprentice, but then he must also grant an additional day\nevery week for the cultivation of this land.\n\n3. The master has no power whatever to punish. A planter observed, \"if I\ncommand my butler to stand for half an hour on the parlor floor, and it\ncan be proved that I designed it as a punishment, I may be fined for\nit.\" The penalty for the first offence (punishing an apprentice) is a\nfine of five pounds currency, or sixteen dollars, and imprisonment if\nthe punishment was cruel. For a second offence the apprentice is\nset free.\n\nMasters frequently do punish their apprentices _in despite of all\npenalties_. A case in point occurred not long since, in Bridgetown. A\nlady owned a handsome young mulatto woman, who had a beautiful head of\nhair of which she was very proud. The servant did something displeasing\nto her mistress, and the latter in a rage shaved off her hair close to\nher head. The girl complained to the special magistrate, and procured an\nimmediate release from her mistress's service.\n\n4. It is the duty of the master to make complaint to the special\nmagistrate. When the master chooses to take the punishment into his own\nhand, the apprentice has a right to complain.\n\n5. The master is obliged to sell the remainder of the apprentice's term,\nwhenever the apprentice signifies a wish to buy it. If the parties\ncannot agree about the price, the special magistrate, in connection with\ntwo local magistrates, appraises the latter, and the master is bound to\ntake the amount of the appraisement, whatever that is. Instances of\napprentices purchasing themselves are quite frequent, not withstanding\nthe term of service is now so short, extending only to August, 1840. The\nvalue of an apprentice varies from thirty to one hundred dollars.\n\nPROVISIONS RESPECTING THE APPRENTICE.\n\n1. He has the whole of Saturday, and the remnants of the other five\ndays, after giving nine hours to the master.\n\n2. The labor does not begin so early, nor continue so late as during\nslavery. Instead of half past four or five o'clock the apprentices are\ncalled out at six o'clock in the morning. They then work till seven,\nhave an hour for breakfast, again work from eight to twelve, have a\nrespite of two hours, and then work till six o'clock.\n\n3. If an apprentice hires his time from his master as is not\nunfrequently the case, especially among the non-praedials, he pays a\ndollar a week, which is two thirds, or at least one half of\nhis earnings.\n\n4. If the apprentice has a complaint to make against his master, he must\neither make it during his own time, or if he prefers to go to the\nmagistrate during work hours, he must ask his master for a pass. If his\nmaster refuse to give him one, he can then go without it.\n\n5. There is an _unjustifiable inequality_ in the apprentice laws, which\nwas pointed out by one of the special magistrates. The master is\npunishable only for cruelty or corporeal inflictions, whereas the\napprentice is punishable for a variety of offences, such as idleness,\nstealing, insubordination, insolence, &c. The master may be as insolent\nand abusive as he chooses to be, and the slave can have no redress.\n\n6. Hard labor, solitary confinement, and the treadmill, are the\nprincipal modes of punishment. Shaving the head is sometimes resorted\nto. A very sever punishment frequently adopted, is requiring the\napprentice to make up for the time during which he is confined. If he is\ncommitted for ten working days, he must give the master ten successive\nSaturdays.\n\nThis last regulation is particularly oppressive and palpably unjust. It\nmatters not how slight the offence may have been, it is discretionary\nwith the special magistrate to mulct the apprentice of his Saturdays.\nThis provision really would appear to have been made expressly for the\npurpose of depriving the apprentices of their own time. It is a direct\ninducement to the master to complain. If the apprentice has been absent\nfrom his work but an hour, the magistrate may sentence him to give a\nwhole day in return; consequently the master is encouraged to mark the\nslightest omission, and to complain of it whether it was unavoidable\nor not.\n\nTHE DESIGN OF THE APPRENTICESHIP.--It is a serious question with a\nportion of the colonists, whether or not the apprenticeship was\noriginally designed as a preparation for freedom. This however was the\nprofessed object with its advocates, and it was on the strength of this\nplausible pretension, doubtless, that the measure was carried through.\nWe believe it is pretty well understood, both in England and the\ncolonies; that it was mainly intended _as an additional compensation to\nthe planters_. The latter complained that the twenty millions of pounds\nwas but a pittance of the value of their slaves, and to drown their\ncries about robbery and oppression this system of modified slavery was\ngranted to them, that they might, for a term of years, enjoy the toil of\nthe negro without compensation. As a mockery to the hopes of the slaves\nthis system was called an apprenticeship, and it was held out to them as\na needful preparatory stage for them to pass through, ere they could\nrightly appreciate the blessings of entire freedom. It was not wonderful\nthat they should be slow to apprehend the necessity of serving a six\nyears' apprenticeship, at a business which they had been all their lives\nemployed in. It is not too much to say that it was a grand cheat--a\nnational imposture at the expense of the poor victims of oppression,\nwhom, with benevolent pretences, it offered up a sacrifice to cupidity\nand power.\n\nPRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE APPRENTICESHIP.--It cannot be denied that\nthis system is in some respects far better than slavery. Many restraints\nare imposed upon the master, and many important privileges are secured\nto the apprentice. Being released from the arbitrary power of the\nmaster, is regarded by the latter as a vast stride towards entire\nliberty. We once asked an apprentice; if he thought apprenticeship was\nbetter than slavery. \"O yes,\" said he, \"great deal better, sir; when we\nwas slaves, our masters git mad wid us, and give us _plenty of licks_;\nbut now, thank God, they can't touch us.\" But the actual enjoyment of\nthese advantages by the apprentices depends upon so many contingencies,\nsuch as the disposition of the master, and the faithfulness of the\nspecial magistrate, that it is left after all exceedingly precarious. A\nvery few observations respecting the special magistrates, will serve to\nshow how liable the apprentice is to suffer wrong without the\npossibility of obtaining redress. It is evident that this will be the\ncase unless the special magistrates are _entirely independent_. This was\nforeseen by the English government, and they pretended to provide for it\nby paying the magistrates' salaries at home. But how inadequate was\ntheir provision! The salaries scarcely answer for pocket money in the\nWest Indies. Thus situated, the magistrates are continually exposed to\nthose temptations, which the planters can so artfully present in the\nshape of sumptuous dinners. They doubtless find it very convenient, when\ntheir stinted purses run low, and mutton and wines run high, to do as\nthe New England school master does, \"_board round_;\" and consequently\nthe dependence of the magistrate upon the planter is of all things the\nmost deprecated by the apprentice.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: The feelings of apprentices on this point are well\nillustrated by the following anecdote, which was related to us while in\nthe West Indies. The governor of one of the islands, shortly after his\narrival, dined with one of the wealthiest proprietors. The next day one\nof the negroes of the estate said to another, \"De new gubner been\n_poison'd_.\" \"What dat you say?\" inquired the other in astonishment, \"De\ngubner been _poison'd_.\" \"Dah, now!--How him poisoned!\" \"_Him eat massa\nturtle soup last night_,\" said the shrewd negro. The other took his\nmeaning at once; and his sympathy for the governor was turned into\nconcern for himself, when he perceived that the poison was one from\nwhich _he_ was likely to suffer more than his excellency.]\n\nCongeniality of feeling, habits, views, style and rank--identity of\ncountry and color--these powerful influences bias the magistrate toward\nthe master, at the same time that the absence of them all, estrange and\neven repel him from the apprentice. There is still an additional\nconsideration which operates against the unfortunate apprentice. The men\nselected for magistrates, are mostly officers of the army and navy. To\nthose who are acquainted with the arbitrary habits of military and naval\nofficers, and with the iron despotism which they exercise among the\nsoldiers and sailors,[B] the bare mention of this fact is sufficient to\nconvince them of the unenviable situation of the apprentice. It is at\nbest but a gloomy transfer from the mercies of a slave driver, to the\njustice of a military magistrate.\n\n[Footnote B: We had a specimen of the stuff special magistrates are made\nof in sailing from Barbadoes to Jamaica. The vessel was originally an\nEnglish man-of-war brig, which had been converted into a steamer, and\nwas employed by the English government, in conveying the island mails\nfrom Barbadoes to Jamaica--to and fro. She was still under the strict\ndiscipline of a man-of-war. The senior officer on board was a\nlieutenant. This man was one of the veriest savages on earth. His\npassions were in a perpetual storm, at some times higher than at others,\noccasionally they blew a hurricane. He quarrelled with his officers, and\nhis orders to his men were always uttered in oaths. Scarcely a day\npassed that he did not have some one of his sailors flogged. One night,\nthe cabin boy left the water-can sitting on the cabin floor, instead of\nputting it on the sideboard, where it usually stood. For this offence\nthe commander ordered him up on deck after midnight, and made the\nquarter-master flog him. The instrument used in this case, (the regular\nflogging stick having been _used up_ by previous service,) was the\ncommander's cane--_a heavy knotted club_. The boy held out one hand and\nreceived the blows. He howled most piteously, and it was some seconds\nbefore he recovered sufficiently from the pain to extend the other.\n\"_Lay on_,\" stormed the commander. Down went the cane a second time. We\nthought it must have broken every bone in the boy's hand. This was\nrepeated several times, the boy extending each hand alternately, and\nrecoiling at every blow. \"Now lay on to his back,\" sternly vociferated\nthe commander--\"give it to him--_hard_--_lay on harder_.\" The old\nseaman, who had some mercy in his heart, seemed very loth to lay out his\nstrength on the boy with such a club. The commander became\nfurious--cursed and swore--and again yelled, \"_Give it to him harder,\nmore_--MORE--MORE--there, stop.\" \"you infernal villain\"--speaking to the\nquarter-master and using the most horrid oaths--\"You infernal villain,\nif you do not _lay on harder_ the next time I command you, I'll have you\nput in irons.\" The boy limped away, writhing in every joint, and crying\npiteously, when the commander called at him, \"Silence there, you imp--or\nI'll give you a second edition.\" One of the first things the commander\ndid after we left Barbadoes, was to have a man flogged, and the last\norder we heard him give as we left the steamer at Kingston, was to put\ntwo of the men _in irons_.]\n\nIt is not a little remarkable that the apprenticeship should be regarded\nby the planters themselves, as well as by other persons generally\nthroughout the colony, as merely a modified form of slavery. It is\ncommon to hear it called 'slavery under a different form,' 'another name\nfor slavery,'--'modified slavery,' 'but little better than slavery.'\n\nNor is the practical operation of the system upon the _master_ much less\nexceptionable. It takes out of his hand the power of coercing labor, and\nprovides no other stimulus. Thus it subjects him to the necessity either\nof resorting to empty threats, which must result only in incessant\ndisputes, or of condescending to persuade and entreat, against which his\nhabits at once rebel, or of complaining to a third party--an alternative\nmore revolting if possible, than the former, since it involves the\nacknowledgment of a higher power than his own. It sets up over his\nactions a foreign judge, at whose bar he is alike amenable (in theory)\nwith his apprentice, before whose tribunal he may be dragged at any\nmoment by his apprentice, and from whose lips he may receive the\nhumiliating sentence of punishment in the presence of his apprentice. It\nintroduces between him and his laborers, mutual repellancies and\nestrangement; it encourages the former to exercise an authority which he\nwould not venture to assume under a system of perfect freedom; it\nemboldens the latter to display an insolence which he would not have\ndreamed of in a state of slavery, and thus begetting in the one, the\nimperiousness of the slaveholder _without his power_, and in the other,\nthe independence of the freeman _without his immunities_, it perpetuates\na scene of angry collision, jealousy and hatred.\n\nIt does not even serve for the master the unworthy purpose for which it\nwas mainly devised, viz., that of an additional compensation. The\napprenticeship is estimated to be more expensive than a system of free\nlabor would be. It is but little less expensive than slavery, and\nfreedom it is confidently expected will be considerably less. So it\nwould seem that this system burthens the master with much of the\nperplexity, the ignominy and the expensiveness of slavery, while it\ndenies him its power. Such is the apprenticeship system. A splendid\nimposition!--which cheats the planter of his gains, cheats the British\nnation of its money, and robs the world of what else might have been a\nglorious example of immediate and entire emancipation.\n\nTHE APPRENTICESHIP IS NO PREPARATION FOR FREEDOM.--Indeed, as far as it\ncan be, it is an actual _disqualification_. The testimony on this\nsubject is ample. We rarely met a planter, who was disposed to maintain\nthat the apprenticeship was preparing the negroes for freedom. They\ngenerally admitted that the people were no better prepared for freedom\nnow, than they were in 1834; and some of them did not hesitate to say\nthat the sole use to which they and their brother planters turned the\nsystem, was to get _as much work out of the apprentices while it lasted,\nas possible_. Clergymen and missionaries, declared that the\napprenticeship was no preparation for freedom. If it were a preparation\nat all, it would most probably be so in a religious and educational\npoint of view. We should expect to find the masters, if laboring at all\nto prepare their apprentices for freedom, doing so chiefly by\nencouraging missionaries and teachers to come to their estates, and by\naiding in the erection of chapels and school-houses. But the\nmissionaries declare that they meet with little more direct\nencouragement now, than they did during slavery.\n\nThe special magistrates also testify that the apprenticeship is no\npreparation for freedom. On this subject they are very explicit.\n\nThe colored people bear the same testimony. Not a few, too, affirm, that\nthe tendency of the apprenticeship is to unfit the negroes for freedom,\nand avow it as their firm persuasion, that the people will be less\nprepared for liberty at the end of the apprenticeship, than they were at\nits commencement. And it is not without reason that they thus speak.\nThey say, first, that the bickerings and disputes to which the system\ngives rise between the master and the apprentice, and the arraigning of\neach other before the special magistrate, are directly calculated to\nalienate the parties. The effect of these contentions, kept up for six\nyears, will be to implant _deep mutual hostility_; and the parties will\nbe a hundred fold more irreconcilable than they were on the abolition of\nslavery. Again, they argue that the apprenticeship system is calculated\nto make the negroes regard _law as their foe_, and thus it unfits them\nfor freedom. They reason thus--the apprentice looks to the magistrate as\nhis judge, his avenger, his protector; he knows nothing of either law or\njustice except as he sees them exemplified in the decisions of the\nmagistrate. When, therefore, the magistrate sentences him to punishment,\nwhen he knows he was the injured party, he will become disgusted with\nthe very name of justice, and esteem law his greatest enemy.\n\nThe neglect of the planters to use the apprenticeship as a preparation\nfor freedom, warrants us in the conclusion, that they do not think any\npreparation necessary. But we are not confined to doubtful inferences on\nthis point. They testify positively--and not only planters, but all\nother classes of men likewise--that the slaves of Barbadoes were fit for\nentire freedom in 1834, and that they might have been emancipated then\nwith perfect safety. Whatever may have been the sentiment of the\nBarbadians relative to the necessity of preparation before the\nexperiment was made, it is clear that now they have no confidence either\nin the necessity or the practicability of preparatory schemes.\n\nBut we cannot close our remarks upon the apprenticeship system without\nnoticing one good end which it has undesignedly accomplished, i.e., _the\nillustration of the good disposition of the colored people_. We firmly\nbelieve that if the friends of emancipation had wished to disprove all\nthat has ever been said about the ferocity and revengefulness of the\nnegroes, and at the same time to demonstrate that they possess, in a\npre-eminent degree, those other qualities which render them the fit\nsubjects of liberty and law, they could not have done it more\ntriumphantly than it has been done by the apprenticeship. _How_ this has\nbeen done may be shown by pointing out several respects in which the\napprenticeship has been calculated to try the negro character most\nseverely, and to develop all that was fiery and rebellious in it.\n\n1. The apprenticeship removed that strong arm of slavery and substituted\nno adequate force. The arbitrary power of the master, which awed the\nslave into submission, was annihilated. The whip which was held over the\nslave, and compelled a kind of subordination--brutal, indeed, but\neffectual--was abolished. Here in the outset the reins were given to the\nlong-oppressed, but now aspiring mass. No adequate force was\nsubstituted, because it was the intent of the new system to govern by\nmilder means. This was well, but what were the milder means which were\nto take the place of brute force?\n\n2. Was the stimulus of wages substituted? No! That was expressly denied.\nWas the liberty of locomotion granted? No. Was the privilege of gaining\na personal interest in the soil extended to them? No. Were the\nimmunities and rights of citizenship secured to them? No. Was the poor\nfavor allowed them of selecting their own business, or of choosing their\nemployer? Not even this? Thus far, then, we see nothing of the milder\nmeasures of the apprenticeship. It has indeed opened the prison doors\nand knocked off the prisoners' chains--but it still keeps them grinding\nthere, as before, and refuses to let them come forth, except\noccasionally, and then only to be thrust back again. Is it not thus\ndirectly calculated to encourage indolence and insubordination?\n\n3. In the next place, this system introduces a third party, to whom the\napprentice is encouraged to look for justice, redress, and counsel. Thus\nhe is led to regard his master as his enemy, and all confidence in him\nis for ever destroyed. But this is not the end of the difficulty. The\napprentice carries up complaints against his master. If they gain a\nfavorable hearing he triumphs over him--if they are disregarded, he\nconcludes that the magistrate also is his enemy, and he goes away with a\nrankling grudge against his master. Thus he is gradually led to assert\nhis own cause, and he learns to contend with his master, to reply\ninsolently, to dispute, quarrel, and--it is well that we cannot add, to\n_fight_. At least one thing is the result--a permanent state of\nalienation, contempt of authority, and hatred. _All these are the fruits\nof the apprenticeship system_. They are caused by transferring the power\nof the master, while the _relation_ continues the same. Nor is this\ncontempt for the master, this alienation and hatred, all the mischief.\nThe unjust decisions of the magistrate, of which the apprentices have\nsuch abundant reasons to complain, excite their abhorrence of him, and\nthus their confidence in the protection of law is weakened or destroyed.\nHere, then, is contempt for the master, abhorrence of the magistrate,\nand mistrust of the law--the apprentice regarding all three as leagued\ntogether to rob him of his rights. What a combination of circumstances\nto drive the apprentices to desperation and madness! What a marvel that\nthe outraged negroes have been restrained from bloody rebellions!\n\nAnother insurrectionary feature peculiar to the apprenticeship is its\nmaking the apprentices _free a portion of the time_. One fourth of the\ntime is given them every week--just enough to afford them a taste of the\nsweets of liberty, and render them dissatisfied with their condition.\nThen the manner in which this time is divided is calculated to irritate.\nAfter being a slave nine hours, the apprentice is made a freeman for the\nremainder of the day; early the next morning the halter is again put on,\nand he treads the wheel another day. Thus the week wears away until\nSaturday; which is an entire day of freedom. The negro goes out and\nworks for his master, or any one else, as he pleases, and at night he\nreceives his quarter of a dollar. This is something like freedom, and he\nbegins to have the feelings of a freeman--a lighter heart and more\nactive limbs. He puts his money carefully away at night, and lays\nhimself down to rest his toil-worn body. He awakes on Sabbath morning,\nand _is still free_. He puts on his best clothes, goes to church,\nworships a free God, contemplates a free heaven, sees his free children\nabout him, and his wedded wife; and ere the night again returns, the\nconsciousness that he is a slave is quite lost in the thoughts of\nliberty which fill his breast, and the associations of freedom which\ncluster around him. He sleeps again. _Monday morning he is startled from\nhis dreams by the old \"shell-blow\" of slavery_, and he arises to endure\nanother week of toil, alternated by the same tantalizing mockeries of\nfreedom. Is not this applying the _hot iron to the nerve_?\n\n5. But, lastly, the apprenticeship system, as if it would apply the\nmatch to this magazine of combustibles, holds out the reward of liberty\nto every apprentice who shall by any means provoke his master to punish\nhim a second time.\n\n[NOTE.--In a former part of this work--the report of Antigua--we\nmentioned having received information respecting a number of the\napprenticeship islands, viz., Dominica, St. Christopher's, Nevis,\nMontserrat, Anguilla, and Tortola, from the Wesleyan Missionaries whom\nwe providentially met with at the annual district meeting in Antigua. We\ndesigned to give the statements of these men at some length in this\nconnection, but we find that it would swell our report to too great a\nsize. It only remains to say, therefore, in a word, that the same things\nare generally true of those colonies which have been detailed in the\naccount of Barbadoes. There is the same peaceableness, subordination,\nindustry, and patient suffering on the part of the apprentices, the same\ninefficiency of the apprenticeship as a preparation for freedom, and the\nsame conviction in the community that the people will, if at all\naffected by it, be _less_ fit for emancipation in 1840 than they were in\n1834. A short call at St. Christopher's confirmed these views in our\nminds, so far as that island is concerned.\n\nWhile in Barbadoes, we had repeated interviews with gentlemen who were\nwell acquainted with the adjacent islands, St. Lucia, St. Vincent's,\nGrenada, &c.; one of whom was a proprietor of a sugar estate in St.\nVincent's; and they assured us that there was the same tranquillity\nreigning in those islands which we saw in Barbadoes. Sir Evan McGregor,\nwho is the governor-general of the windward colonies, and of course\nthoroughly informed respecting their internal state, gave us the same\nassurances. From Mr. H., an American gentleman, a merchant of Barbadoes,\nand formerly of Trinidad, we gathered similar information touching that\nlarge and (compared with Barbadoes or Antigua) semi-barbarous island.\n\nWe learned enough from these authentic sources to satisfy ourselves that\nthe various degrees of intelligence in the several islands makes very\nlittle difference in the actual results of abolition; but that in all\nthe colonies, conciliatory and equitable management has never failed to\nsecure industry and tranquillity.]\n\n\n\nJAMAICA.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nKINGSTON.\n\nHaving drawn out in detail the results of abolition, and the working of\nthe apprenticeship system in Barbadoes, we shall spare the reader a\nprotracted account of Jamaica; but the importance of that colony, and\nthe fact that greater dissatisfaction on account of the abolition of\nslavery has prevailed there than in all the other colonies together,\ndemand a careful statement of facts.\n\nOn landing in Jamaica, we pushed onward in our appropriate inquiries,\nscarcely stopping to cast a glance at the towering mountains, with their\ncloud-wreathed tops, and the valleys where sunshine and shade sleep side\nby side--at the frowning precipices, made more awful by the impenetrable\nforest-foliage which shrouds the abysses below, leaving the impression\nof an ocean depth--at the broad lawns and magnificent savannahs glowing\nin verdure and sunlight--at the princely estates and palace mansions--at\nthe luxuriant cultivation, and the sublime solitude of primeval forests,\nwhere trees of every name, the mahogany, the boxwood, the rosewood, the\ncedar, the palm, the fern, the bamboo, the cocoa, the breadfruit, the\nmango, the almond, all grow in wild confusion, interwoven with a dense\ntangled undergrowth.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: It is less necessary for us to dwell long on Jamaica, than\nit would otherwise be, since the English gentlemen, Messrs. Sturge and\nHarvey, spent most of their time in that island, and will, doubtless,\npublish their investigations, which will, ere long, be accessible to our\nreaders. We had the pleasure of meeting these intelligent philanthropic\nand pious men in the West Indies, and from the great length of time, and\nthe superior facilities which they enjoyed over us, of gathering a mass\nof facts in Jamaica, we feel assured that their report will be highly\ninteresting and useful, as well among us as on the other side of\nthe water.]\n\nWe were one month in Jamaica. For about a week we remained in\nKingston,[B] and called on some of the principal gentlemen, both white\nand colored. We visited the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General,\nsome of the editors, the Baptist and Wesleyan missionaries, and several\nmerchants. We likewise visited the public schools, the house of\ncorrection, penitentiary, hospital, and other public institutions. We\nshall speak briefly of several individuals whom we saw in Kingston, and\ngive some of their statements.\n\n[Footnote B: The chief town of the island, with about forty thousand\ninhabitants.]\n\nThe Hon. Dowel O'Reily; the Attorney-General; is an Irishman, and of one\nof the influential families. In his own country he was a prominent\npolitician, and a bold advocate of Catholic Emancipation. He is\ndecidedly one of the ablest men in the island, distinguished for that\nsimplicity of manners, and flow of natural benevolence, which are the\ncharacteristics of the Irishman. He received his present appointment\nfrom the English government about six years ago, and is, by virtue of\nhis office, a member of the council. He declared that the apprenticeship\nwas in no manner preparing the negroes for freedom, but was operating in\na contrary way, especially in Jamaica, where it had been made the\ninstrument of greater cruelties in some cases, than slavery itself. Mr.\nO'Reily is entirely free from prejudice; with all his family rank and\nofficial standing, he identifies himself with the colored people as far\nas his extensive professional engagements will allow. Having early\nlearned this, we were surprised to find him so highly respected by the\nwhites. In our subsequent excursions to the country, the letters of\nintroduction with which he kindly furnished us, to planters and others,\nwere uniformly received with avowals of the profoundest respect for him.\nIt should be observed, that Mr. O'Reily's attachment to the cause of\nfreedom in the colonies, is not a mere partizan feeling assumed in order\nto be in keeping with the government under which he holds his office.\nThe fact of his being a Roman Catholic must, of itself, acquit him of\nthe suspicion of any strong partiality for the English government. On\nthe other hand, his decided hostility to the apprenticeship--the\nfavorite offspring of British legislation--demonstrates equally his\nsincerity and independence.\n\nWe were introduced to the Solicitor-General, William Henry Anderson,\nEsq., of Kingston. Mr. A. is a Scotchman, and has resided to Jamaica for\nmore than six years. We found him the fearless advocate of negro\nemancipation. He exposed the corruptions and abominations of the\napprenticeship without reserve. Mr. A. furnished us with a written\nstatement of his views, respecting the state of the island, the\ncondition of the apprentices, &c., from which we here make a\nfew extracts.\n\n\"1. A very material change for the better has taken place in the\nsentiments of the community since slavery was abolished. Religion and\neducation were formerly opposed as subversive of the security of\nproperty; now they are in the most direct manner encouraged as its best\nsupport. The value of all kinds of property has risen considerably, and\na general sense of security appears to be rapidly pervading the public\nmind. I have not heard one man assert that it would be an advantage to\nreturn to slavery, even were it practicable; and I believe that the\npublic is beginning to see that slave labor is not the cheapest.\"\n\n\"2. The prejudices against color are _rapidly vanishing_. I do not think\nthere is a respectable man, I mean one who would be regarded as\nrespectable on account of his good sense and weight of character, who\nwould impugn another's conduct for associating with persons of color. So\nfar as my observation goes, those who would formerly have acted on these\nprejudices, will be ashamed to own that they had entertained them. The\ndistinction of superior acquirements still belongs to the whites, as a\nbody; but that, and character, will shortly be the only distinguishing\nmark recognized among us.\"\n\n\"3. The apprentices are improving, _not, however, in consequence of the\napprenticeship, but in spite of it, and in consequence of the great act\nof abolition_!\"\n\n\"4. I think the negroes might have been emancipated as safely in 1834,\nas in 1840; and had the emancipation then taken place, they would be\nfound much further in advance in 1840, than they can be after the\nexpiration of the present period of apprenticeship, _through which all,\nboth apprentices and masters, are_ LABORING HEAVILY.\"\n\n\"5. That the negroes will work if moderately compensated, no candid man\ncan doubt. Their _endurance_ for the sake of a very little gain is quite\namazing, and they are most desirous to procure for themselves and\nfamilies as large a share as possible of the comforts and decencies of\nlife. They appear peculiarly to reverence and desire intellectual\nattainments. They employ, occasionally, children who have been taught in\nthe schools to teach them in their leisure time to read.\"\n\n\"6. I think the partial modifications of slavery have been attended by\nso much improvement in all that constitutes the welfare and\nrespectability of society, that I cannot doubt the increase of the\nbenefit were a total abolition accomplished of every restriction that\nhas arisen out of the former state of things.\"\n\nDuring our stay in Kingston, we called on the American consul, to whom\nwe had a letter from the consul at Antigua. We found him an elderly\ngentleman, and a true hearted Virginian, both in his generosity and his\nprejudices in favor of slavery. The consul, Colonel Harrison, is a near\nrelation of General W.H. Harrison, of Ohio. Things, he said, were going\nruinously in Jamaica. The English government were mad for abolishing\nslavery. The negroes of Jamaica were the most degraded and ignorant of\nall negroes he had ever seen. He had travelled in all our Southern\nStates, and the American negroes, even those of South Carolina and\nGeorgia, were as much superior to the negroes of Jamaica, as Henry Clay\nwas superior to him. He said they were the most ungrateful, faithless\nset he ever saw; no confidence could be placed in them, and kindness was\nalways requited by insult. He proceeded to relate a fact from which it\nappeared that the ground on which his grave charges against the negro\ncharacter rested, was the ill-conduct of one negro woman whom he had\nhired some time ago to assist his family. The town negroes, he said,\nwere too lazy to work; they loitered and lounged about on the sidewalks\nall day, jabbering with one another, and keeping up an incessant noise;\nand they would not suffer a white man to order them in the least. They\nwere rearing their children in perfect idleness and for his part he\ncould not tell what would become of the rising population of blacks.\nTheir parents were too proud to let them work, and they sent them to\nschool all the time. Every afternoon, he said, the streets are thronged\nwith the half-naked little black devils, just broke from the schools,\nand all singing some noisy tune learned in the infant schools; the\n_burthen of_ their songs seems to be, \"_O that will be joyful_.\" These\nwords, said he, are ringing in your ears wherever you go. How\naggravating truly such words must be, bursting cheerily from the lips of\nthe little free songsters! \"O that will be joyful, _joyful_,\nJOYFUL\"--and so they ring the changes day after day, ceaseless and\nuntiring. A new song this, well befitting the times and the prospects,\nbut provoking enough to oppressors. The consul denounced he special\nmagistrates; they were an insolent set of fellows, they would fine a\nwhite man as quick as they would flog a _nigger_.[A] If a master called\nhis apprentice \"you scoundrel,\" or, \"you huzzy,\" the magistrate would\neither fine him for it or reprove him sharply in the presence of the\napprentice. This, in the eyes of the veteran Virginian, was intolerable.\nOutrageous, not to allow a _gentleman_ to call his servant what names he\nchooses! We were very much edified by the Colonel's _expos\u00e9_ of Jamaica\nmanners. We must say, however, that his opinions had much less weight\nwith us after we learned (as we did from the best authority) that he had\nnever been a half dozen miles into the country during a ten year's\nresidence in Kingston.\n\n[Footnote A: We fear there is too little truth in this representation.]\n\nWe called on the Rev. Jonathan Edmonson, the superintendent of the\nWesleyan missions in Jamaica. Mr. E. has been for many years laboring as\na missionary in the West Indies, first in Barbadoes, then in St.\nVincent's, Grenada, Trinidad, and Demerara, and lastly in Jamaica. He\nstated that the planters were doing comparatively nothing to prepare the\nnegroes for freedom. \"_Their whole object was to get as much sugar out\nof them as they possibly could_.\"\n\nWe received a call from the Rev. Mr. Wooldridge, one of the Independent\nmissionaries. He thinks the conduct of the planters is tending to make\nthe apprentices their bitter enemies. He mentioned one effect of the\napprenticeship which had not been pointed out to us before. The system\nof appraisement, he said, was a _premium upon all the bad qualities of\nthe negroes and a tax upon all the good ones_. When a person is to be\nappraised, his virtues and his vices are always inquired into, and they\nmaterially influence the estimate of his value. For example, the usual\nrate of appraisement is a dollar per week for the remainder of the term;\nbut if the apprentice is particularly sober, honest, and industrious,\nmore particularly if he be a _pious man_, he is valued at the rate of\ntwo or three dollars per week. It was consequently for the interest of\nthe master, when an apprentice applied for an appraisement, to portray\nhis virtues, while on the other hand there was an inducement for the\napprentice to conceal or actually to renounce his good qualities, and\nfoster the worst vices. Some instances of this kind had fallen under his\npersonal observation.\n\nWe called on the Rev. Mr. Gardiner, and on the Rev. Mr. Tinson, two\nBaptist missionaries in Kingston. On Sabbath we attended service at the\nchurch of which Mr. G. is the pastor. It is a very large building,\ncapable of seating two thousand persons. The great mass of the\ncongregation were apprentices. At the time we were present, the chapel\nwas well filled, and the broad surface of black faces was scarcely at\nall diversified with lighter colors. It was gratifying to witness the\nneatness of dress, the sobriety of demeanor, the devotional aspect of\ncountenance, the quiet and wakeful attention to the preacher which\nprevailed. They were mostly rural negroes from the estates adjacent\nto Kingston.\n\nThe Baptists are the most numerous body of Christians in the island. The\nnumber of their missionaries now in Jamaica is sixteen, the number of\nChapels is thirty-one, and the number of members thirty-two thousand\nnine hundred and sixty. The increase of members during the year 1836 was\nthree thousand three hundred and forty-four.\n\nAt present the missionary field is mostly engrossed by the Baptists and\nWesleyans. The Moravians are the next most numerous body. Besides these,\nthere are the clergy of the English Church, with a Bishop, and a few\nScotch clergymen. The Baptist missionaries, as a body, have been most\ndistinguished for their opposition to slavery. Their boldness in the\nmidst of suffering and persecutions, their denunciations of oppression,\nthough they did for a time arouse the wrath of oppressors, and cause\ntheir chapels to be torn down and themselves to be hunted, imprisoned,\nand banished, did more probably than any other cause, to hasten the\nabolition of slavery.\n\n_Schools in Kingston_.--We visited the Wolmer free school--the largest\nand oldest school in the island. The whole number of scholars is five\nhundred. It is under the charge of Mr. Reid, a venerable Scotchman, of\nscholarship and piety. All colors are mingled in it promiscuously. We\nsaw the infant school department examined by Mr. R. There were nearly\none hundred and fifty children, of every hue, from the jettiest black to\nthe fairest white; they were thoroughly intermingled, and the ready\nanswers ran along the ranks from black to white, from white to brown,\nfrom brown to pale, with undistinguished vivacity and accuracy. We were\nafterwards conducted into the higher department, where lads and misses\nfrom nine to fifteen, were instructed in the various branches of\nacademic education. A class of lads, mostly colored, were examined in\narithmetic. They wrought several sums in pounds, shillings and pence\ncurrency, with wonderful celerity.\n\nAmong other things which we witnessed in that school, we shall not soon\nforget having seen a curly headed negro lad of twelve, examining a class\nof white young ladies in scientific history.\n\nSome written statements and statistical tables were furnished us by Mr.\nReid, which we subjoin..\n\n_Kingston, May 13th, 1837_\n\nDEAR SIR,--I delayed answering your queries in hopes of being able to\ngive you an accurate list of the number of schools in Kingston, and\npupils under tuition, but have not been able completely to accomplish my\nintention. I shall now answer your queries in the order you propose\nthem. 1st Quest. How long have you been teaching in Jamaica? Ans.\nThirty-eight years in Kingston. 2d Q. How long have you been master of\nWolmer's free school? A. Twenty-three years. 3d Q. What is the number of\ncolored children now in the school? A. Four hundred and thirty. 4th Q.\nWas there any opposition to their admission at first? A. Considerable\nopposition the first year, but none afterwards. 5th Q. Do they learn as\nreadily us the white children? A. As they are more regular in their\nattendance, they learn better. 6th Q. Are they as easily governed? A.\nMuch easier. 7th Q. What proportion of the school are the children of\napprentices? A. Fifty. 8th Q. Do their parents manifest a desire to have\nthem educated? A. In general they do. 9th Q. At what age do the children\nleave your school? A. Generally between twelve and fourteen. 10th Q What\nemployments do they chiefly engage in upon leaving you? A. The boys go\nto various mechanic trades, to counting-houses, attorney's offices,\nclerks to planting attorneys, and others become planters. The, girls\nseamstresses, mantuamakers, and a considerable proportion tailoresses,\nin Kingston and throughout Jamaica, as situations offer.\n\nI am, dear sirs, yours respectfully,\n\nE. REID.\n\nThe following table will show the average numbers of the respective\nclasses, white and colored, who have attended Wolmer's free school in\neach year, from 1814 to the present time.\n\n                                   White    | Colored | Total.\n                                   Children.|Children.|\nAverage number in 1814                87                  87\n   \"      \"       1815               111         3       114\n   \"      \"       1816               129        25       154\n   \"      \"       1817               146        36       182\n   \"      \"       1818               155        38       193\n   \"      \"       1819               136        57       193\n   \"      \"       1820               116        78       194\n   \"      \"       1821               118       122       240\n   \"      \"       1822                93       167       260\n   \"      \"       1823                97       187       280\n   \"      \"       1824                94       196       290\n   \"      \"       1825                89       185       274\n   \"      \"       1826                93       176       269\n   \"      \"       1827                92       156       248\n   \"      \"       1828                88       152       240\n   \"      \"       1829                79       192       271\n   \"      \"       1830                88       194       282\n   \"      \"       1831                88       315       403\n   \"      \"       1832                90       360       450\n   \"      \"       1833                93       411       504\n   \"      \"       1834                81       420       501\n   \"      \"       1835                85       425       510\n   \"      \"       1836                78       428       506\n   \"      \"       1837                72       430       502\n\nWith regard to the _comparative intellect_ of white and colored\nchildren, Mr. Reid gives the following valuable statement:\n\n\"For the last thirty-eight years I have been employed in this city in\nthe tuition of children of all classes and colors, and have no\nhesitation in saying that the children of color are equal both in\nconduct and ability to the white. They have always carried off more than\ntheir proportion of prizes, and at one examination, out of seventy\nprizes awarded, sixty-four were obtained by children of color.\"\n\nMr. R. afterwards sent to us the table of the number of schools in\nKingston, alluded to in the foregoing communication. We insert it here,\nas it affords a view of the increase of schools and scholars since the\nabolition of slavery.\n\n\n                1831.\n    Schools.                                Scholars.\n2   Wolmer's,                                  403\n1   National,                                  270\n34  Gentlemen's private,                      1368\n40  Ladies' do.                               1005\n8   Sunday,                                   1042\n----                                          ----\n85                           Total,           4088\n\n                1832.\n\n    Schools.                                Scholars.\n2   Wolmer's,                                  472\n1   National,                                  260\n31  Gentlemen's private,                      1169\n41  Ladies' do.                                856\n8   Sunday,                                    981\n----                                          ----\n83                           Total,           3738\n\n                1836.\n\n    Schools.                                Scholars.\n2   Wolmer's,                                  527\n3   National,                                 1136\n3   Mico,                                      590\n1   Baptist,                                   250\n1   Jamaica Union,                             120\n31  Gentlemen's private,                      1137\n59  Ladies' do.                               1339\n9   Sunday,                                   1108\n    By itinerant teachers and children.       1500\n----                                          ----\n109                        Total,             7707\n\n                1837.\n    Schools.                                Scholars.\n 2  Wolmer's,                                  502\n 3  National,                                 1238\n 4  Mico,                                      611\n 1  Baptist                                    260\n 1  Jamaica Union,                             200\n34  Gentlemen's private,                      1476\n63  Ladies' do.                               1525\n10  Sunday,                                   1316\n    By itinerant teachers and children,       1625\n----                                          ----\n118                        Total,             8753\n\nWe also visited the Union school, which has been established for some\nyears in Kingston. All the children connected with it, about one hundred\nand fifty, are, with two exceptions, black or colored. The school is\nconducted generally on the Lancasterian plan. We examined several of the\nboys in arithmetic. We put a variety of questions to them, to be worked\nout on the slate, and the reasons of the process to be explained as they\nwent along; all which they executed with great expertness. There was a\njet black boy, whom we selected for a special trial. We commenced with\nthe simple rules, and went through them one by one, together with the\ncompound rules and Reduction, to Practice, propounding questions and\nexamples in each of them, which were entirely new to him, and to all of\nthem he gave prompt and correct replies. He was only thirteen years old,\nand we can aver we never saw a boy of that age in any of our common\nschools, that exhibited a fuller and clearer knowledge of the science\nof numbers.\n\nIn general, our opinion of this school was similar to that already\nexpressed concerning the others. It is supported by the pupils, aided by\nsix hundred dollars granted by the assembly.\n\nIn connection with this subject, there is one fact of much interest.\nHowever strong and exclusive was the prejudice of color a few years\nsince in the schools of Jamaica, we could not, during our stay in that\nisland, learn of more than two or three places of education, and those\nprivate ones, from which colored children were excluded, and among the\nnumerous schools in Kingston, there is not one of this kind.\n\nWe called on several colored gentlemen of Kingston, from whom we\nreceived much valuable information. The colored population are opposed\nto the apprenticeship, and all the influence which they have, both in\nthe colony and with the home government, (which is not small,) is\nexerted against it. They are a festering thorn in the sides of the\nplanters, among whom they maintain a fearless espionage, exposing by pen\nand tongue their iniquitous proceedings. It is to be regretted that\ntheir influence in this respect is so sadly weakened by their _holding\napprentices themselves_.\n\nWe had repeated invitations to breakfast and dine with colored\ngentlemen, which we accepted as often as our engagements would permit.\nOn such occasions we generally met a company of gentlemen and ladies of\nsuperior social and intellectual accomplishments. We must say, that it\nis a great self-denial to refrain from a description of some of the\nanimated, and we must add splendid, parties of colored people which we\nattended. The conversation on these occasions mostly turned on the\npolitical and civil disabilities under which the colored population\nformerly labored, and the various straggles by which they ultimately\nobtained their rights. The following are a few items of their history.\nThe colored people of Jamaica, though very numerous, and to some extent\nwealthy and intelligent, were long kept by the white colonists in a\nstate of abject political bondage. Not only were offices withheld from\nthem, and the right of suffrage denied, but they were not even allowed\nthe privilege of an oath in court, in defense of their property or their\npersons. They might be violently assaulted, their limbs broken, their\nwives and daughters might be outraged before their eyes by villains\nhaving white skins; yet they had no legal redress unless another white\nman chanced to see the deed. It was not until 1824 that this oppressive\nenactment was repealed, and the protection of an oath extended to the\ncolored people; nor was it then effected without a long struggle on\ntheir part.\n\nAnother law, equally worthy of a slaveholding legislature, prohibited\nany white man, however wealthy, bequeathing, or in any manner giving his\ncolored son or daughter more than \u00a32000 currency, or six thousand\ndollars. The design of this law was to keep the colored people poor and\ndependent upon the whites. Further to secure the same object, every\neffort, both legislative and private, was made to debar them from\nschools, and sink them in the lowest ignorance. Their young men of\ntalent were glad to get situations as clerks in the stores of white\nmerchants. Their young ladies of beauty and accomplishments were\nfortune-made if they got a place in the white man's harem. These were\nthe highest stations to which the flower of their youth aspired. The\nrest sank beneath the discouragements, and grovelled in vice and\ndebasement. If a colored person had any business with a white gentleman,\nand should call at his house, \"he must take off his hat, and wait at the\ndoor, and be _as polite as a dog_.\"\n\nThese insults and oppressions the colored people in Jamaica bore, until\nthey could bear them no longer. By secret correspondence they formed a\nunion throughout the island, for the purpose of resistance. This,\nhowever, was not effected for a long time, and while in process, the\ncorrespondence was detected, and the most vigorous means were used by\nthe whites to crush the growing conspiracy--for such it was virtually.\nPersuasions and intimations were used privately, and when these failed,\npublic persecutions were resorted to, under the form of judicial\nprocedures. Among the milder means was the dismission of clerks, agents,\n&c., from the employ of a white men. As soon as a merchant discovered\nthat his clerk was implicated in the correspondence, he first threatened\nto discharge him unless he would promise to desert his brethren: if he\ncould not extort this promise, he immediately put his threat in\nexecution. Edward Jordon, Esq., the talented editor of the Watchman,\nthen first clerk in the store of a Mr. Briden, was prominently concerned\nin the correspondence, and was summarily dismissed.\n\nWhite men drove their colored sons from their houses, and subjected them\nto every indignity and suffering, in order to deter them from\nprosecuting an enterprise which was seen by the terrified oppressors to\nbe fraught with danger to themselves. Then followed more violent\nmeasures. Persons suspected of being the projectors of the disaffection,\nwere dragged before incensed judges, and after mock trials, were\nsentenced to imprisonment in the city jail. Messrs. Jordon and Osborne,\n(after they had established the Watchman paper,) were both imprisoned;\nthe former twice, for five months each time. At the close of the second\nterm of imprisonment, Mr. Jordon was _tried for his life_, on the charge\nof having published _seditious matter_ in the Watchman.\n\nThe paragraph which was denominated '_seditious matter_' was this--\n\n\"Now that the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Beaumont) has come over to\nour side, we will, by a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull altogether,\nbring down the system by the run, knock off the fetters, and let the\noppressed go free.\"\n\nOn the day of Mr. J.'s trial, the court-room was thronged with colored\nmen, who had armed themselves, and were determined, if the sentence of\ndeath were pronounced upon Mr. Jordon, to rescue him at whatever hazard.\nIt is supposed that their purpose was conjectured by the judges--at any\nrate, they saw fit to acquit Mr. J. and give him his enlargement. The\nWatchman continued as fearless and _seditious_ as ever, until the\nAssembly were ultimately provoked to threaten some extreme measure which\nshould effectually silence the agitators. _Then_ Mr. Jordon issued a\nspirited circular, in which he stated the extent of the coalition among\nthe colored people, and in a tone of defiance demanded the instant\nrepeal of every restrictive law, the removal of every disability, and\nthe extension of complete political equality; declaring, that if the\ndemand were not complied with, the whole colored population would rise\nin arms, would proclaim freedom to their own slaves, instigate the\nslaves generally to rebellion, and then shout war and wage it, until\n_the streets of Kingston should run blood_. This bold piece of\ngeneralship succeeded. The terrified legislators huddled together in\ntheir Assembly-room, and swept away, at one blow, all restrictions, and\ngave the colored people entire enfranchisement. These occurrences took\nplace in 1831; since which time the colored class have been politically\nfree, and have been marching forward with rapid step in every species of\nimprovement, and are now on a higher footing than in any other colony.\nAll offices are open to them; they are aldermen of the city, justices of\nthe peace, inspectors of public institutions, trustees of schools, etc.\nThere are, at least, then colored special magistrates, natives of the\nisland. There are four colored members of the Assembly, including\nMessrs. Jordon and Osborne. Mr. Jordon now sits in the same Assembly,\nside by side, with the man who, a few years ago, ejected him\ndisdainfully from his clerkship. He is a member of the Assembly for the\ncity of Kingston, where not long since he was imprisoned, and tried for\nhis life. He is also alderman of the city, and one of its local\nmagistrates. He is now inspector of the same prison in which he was\nformerly immured as a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition.\n\nThe secretary of the special magistrate department, Richard Hill, Esq.,\nis a colored gentleman, and is one of the first men in the island,[A]\nfor integrity, independence, superior abilities, and extensive\nacquirements. It has seldom been our happiness to meet with a man more\nillustrious for true nobility of soul, or in whose countenance there\nwere deeper traces of intellectual and moral greatness. We are confident\nthat no man can _see_ him without being impressed with his rare\ncombination of excellences.\n\n[Footnote A: We learn from the Jamaica papers, since our return to this\ncountry, that Mr. Hill has been elected a member of the Assembly.]\n\nHaving said thus much respecting the political advancement of the\ncolored people, it is proper to remark, that they have by no means\nevinced a determination to claim more than their share of office and\ninfluence. On the contrary, they stop very far short of what they are\nentitled to. Having an extent of suffrage but little less than the\nwhites, they might fill one third of the seats in the Assembly, whereas\nthey now return but four members out of forty-five. The same may be said\nof other offices, particularly those in the city of Kingston, and the\nlarger towns, where they are equal to, or more numerous, than the\nwhites. It is a fact, that a portion of the colored people continue at\nthis time to return white members to the Assembly, and to vote for white\naldermen and other city officers. The influential men among them, have\nalways urged them to take up white men, unless they could find\n_competent_ men of their own color. As they remarked to us, if they were\nobliged to send an _ass_ to the Assembly, it was far better for _them_\nto send a _white_ ass than a _black_ one.\n\nIn company with a friend, we visited the principal streets and places of\nbusiness in Kingston, for the purpose of seeing for ourselves the\ngeneral employments of the people of color; and those who engage in the\nlowest offices, such as porters, watermen, draymen, and servants of all\ngrades, from him who flaunts in livery, to him who polishes shoes, are\nof course from this class. So with the fruiterers, fishmongers, and the\nalmost innumerable tribe of petty hucksters which swarm throughout the\ncity, and is collected in a dense mass in its suburbs. The market, which\nis the largest and best in the West Indies, is almost entirely supplied\nand attended by colored persons, mostly females. The great body of\nartisans is composed mostly of colored persons.\n\nThere are two large furniture and cabinet manufactories in Kingston, one\nowned by two colored men, and the other by a white man. The operatives,\nof which one contains eighty, and the other nearly as many, are all\nblack and colored. A large number of them are what the British law terms\n_apprentices_, and are still bound in unremunerated servitude, though\nsome of them for thrice seven years have been adepts in their trades,\nand not a few are earning their masters twenty or thirty dollars each\nmonth, clear of all expenses. Some of these _apprentices_ are\nhoary-headed and wrinkle-browned men, with their children, and\ngrand-children, apprentices also, around them, and who, after having\nused the plane and the chisel for half a century, with faithfulness for\n_others_, are now spending the few hours and the failing strength of old\nagain in _preparing_ to use the plane and the chisel for _themselves_.\nThe work on which they were engaged evinced no lack of mechanical skill\nand ingenuity, but on the contrary we were shown some of the most\nelegant specimens of mechanical skill, which we ever saw. The rich woods\nof the West Indies were put into almost every form and combination which\ntaste could designate or luxury desire.\n\nThe owners of these establishments informed us that their business had\nmuch _increased within the last two years_, and was still extending.\nNeither of them had any fears for the results of complete emancipation,\nbut both were laying their plans for the future as broadly and\nconfidently as ever.\n\nIn our walk we accidentally met a colored man, whom we had heard\nmentioned on several occasions as a superior architect. From the\nconversation we had with him, then and subsequently, he appeared to\npossess a fine mechanical genius, and to have made acquirements which\nwould be honorable in any man, but which were truly admirable in one who\nhad been shut up all his life by the disabilities which in Jamaica have,\nuntil recently, attached to color. He superintended the erection of the\nWesleyan chapel in Kingston, the largest building of the kind in the\nisland, and esteemed by many as the most elegant. The plan was his own,\nand the work was executed under his own eye. This man is using his means\nand influence to encourage the study of his favorite art, and of the\narts and sciences generally, among those of his own hue.\n\nOne of the largest bookstores in the island is owned by two colored men.\n(Messrs. Jordon and Osborne, already referred to.) Connected with it is\nan extensive printing-office, from which a newspaper is issued twice a\nweek. Another paper, under the control of colored men, is published at\nSpanishtown. These are the two principal liberal presses in Jamaica, and\nare conducted with spirit and ability. Their influence in the political\nand civil affairs of the island is very great. They are the organs of\nthe colored people, bond and free, and through them any violation of law\nor humanity is exposed to the public, and redress demanded, and\ngenerally obtained. In literary merit and correctness of moral\nsentiment, they are not excelled by any press there, while some of their\nwhite contemporaries fall far below them in both. Besides the workmen\nemployed in these two offices, there is a large number of colored\nprinters in the other printing offices, of which there are several.\n\nWe called at two large establishment for making jellies, comfits,\npickles, and all the varieties of tropic _preserves_. In each of them\nthirty or more persons are constantly employed, and a capital of some\nthousands of dollars invested. Several large rooms were occupied by\nboxes, jars, and canisters, with the apparatus necessary to the process,\nthrough which the fruit passes. We saw every species of fruits and\nvegetables which the island produces, some fresh from the trees and\nvines, and others ready to be transported to the four quarters of the\nglobe, in almost every state which the invalid or epicure could desire.\nThese articles, with the different preparations of arrow-root and\ncassada, form a lucrative branch of trade, which is mostly in the hands\nof the colored people.\n\nWe were introduced to a large number of colored merchants, dealers in\ndry goods, crockery and glass ware, ironmongers, booksellers, druggists,\ngrocers, and general importers and were conducted by them through their\nstores; many of which were on an extensive scale, and managed,\napparently, with much order and regularity. One of the largest\ncommercial houses in Kingston has a colored man as a partner, the other\ntwo being white. Of a large auction and commission firm, the most active\nand leading partner is a colored man. Besides these, there is hardly a\nrespectable house among the white merchants, in which some important\noffice, oftentimes the head clerkship, is not filled by a person of\ncolor. They are as much respected in business transactions, and their\nmercantile talents, their acquaintance with the generalities and details\nof commerce, and sagacity and judgment in making bargains, are as highly\nesteemed by the white merchants, as though they wore an European hue.\nThe commercial room is open to them, where they resort unrestrainedly to\nascertain the news; and a visitor may not unfrequently see sitting\ntogether at a table of newspapers, or conversing together in the\nparlance of trade, persons as dissimilar in complexion as white and\nblack can make them. In the streets the same intercourse is seen.\n\nThe general trade of the island is gradually and quietly passing into\nthe hands of the colored people. Before emancipation, they seldom\nreached a higher grade in mercantile life than a clerkship, or, if they\ncommenced business for themselves, they were shackled and confined in\ntheir operations by the overgrown and monopolizing establishments which\nslavery had built up. Though the civil and political rights of one class\nof them were acknowledged three years previous, yet they found they\ncould not, even if they desired it, disconnect themselves from the\nslaves. They could not transact business--form credits and agencies, and\nreceive the confidence of the commercial public--like free men. Strange\nor not, their fate was inseparably linked with that of the bondman,\ntheir interests were considered as involved with his. However honest\nthey might be, it was not safe to trust them; and any attempt to rise\nabove a clerkship, to become the employer instead of the employed, was\nregarded as a kind of insurrection, and strongly disapproved and\nopposed. Since emancipation, they have been unshackling them selves from\nwhite domination in matters of trade; extending their connections, and\nbecoming every day more and more independent. They have formed credits\nwith commercial houses abroad, and now import directly for themselves,\nat wholesale prices, what they were formerly obliged to receive from\nwhite importers, or rather speculators, at such prices as they, in their\ntender mercies, saw fit to impose.\n\nTrade is now equalizing itself among all classes. A spirit of\ncompetition is awakened, banks have been established, steam navigation\nintroduced, railroads projected, old highways repaired, and new ones\nopened. The descendants of the slaves are rapidly supplying the places\nwhich were formerly filled by whites from abroad.\n\nWe had the pleasure of being present one day at the sitting of the\npolice court of Kingston. Mr. Jordon, the editor of the Watchman, in his\nturn as a member of the common council, was presiding justice, with an\nalderman of the city, a black man, as his associate. At a table below\nthem sat the superintendent of police, a white man, and two white\nattorneys, with their huge law books and green bags before them. The bar\nwas surrounded by a motley assemblage of black, colored, and white\nfaces, intermingled without any regard to hue in the order of\nsuperiority and precedence. There were about a dozen cases adjudged\nwhile we were present. The court was conducted with order and dignity,\nand the justices were treated with great respect and deference both by\nwhite and black.\n\nAfter the adjournment of the court, we had some conversation with the\npresiding justice. He informed us that whites were not unfrequently\nbrought before him for trial, and, in spite of his color, sometimes even\nour own countrymen. He mentioned several instances of the latter, in\nsome of which American prejudice assumed very amusing and ludicrous\nforms. In one case, he was obliged to threaten the party, a captain from\none of our southern ports, with imprisonment for contempt, before he\ncould induce him to behave himself with proper decorum. The captain,\nunaccustomed to obey injunctions from men of such a complexion, curled\nhis lip in scorn, and showed a spirit of defiance, but on the approach\nof two police officers, whom the court had ordered to arrest him, he\nsubmitted himself. We were gratified with the spirit of good humor and\npleasantry with which Mr. J. described the astonishment and gaping\ncuriosity which Americans manifest on seeing colored men in offices of\nauthority, particularly on the judicial bench, and their evident\nembarrassment and uneasiness whenever obliged to transact business with\nthem as magistrates. He seemed to regard it as a subject well worthy of\nridicule; and we remarked, in our intercourse with the colored people,\nthat they were generally more disposed to make themselves merry with\nAmerican sensitiveness on this point, than to bring serious complaints\nagainst it, though they feel deeply the wrongs which they have suffered\nfrom it, and speak of them occasionally with solemnity and earnestness.\nStill the feeling is so absurd and ludicrous in itself, and is exhibited\nin so many grotesque positions, even when oppressive, that the sufferer\ncannot help laughing at it. Mr. Jordon has held his present office since\n1832. He has had an extensive opportunity, both as a justice of the\npolice court, and as a member of the jail committee, and in other\nofficial stations, to become well acquainted with the state of crime in\nthe island at different periods. He informed us that the number of\ncomplaints brought before him had much diminished since 1834, and he had\nno hesitation in saying, that crime had decreased throughout the island\ngenerally more than one third.\n\nDuring one of our excursions into the country, we witnessed another\ninstance of the amicability with which the different colors associated\nin the civil affairs of the island. It was a meeting of one of the\nparish vestries, a kind of local legislature, which possesses\nconsiderable power over its own territory. There were fifteen members\npresent, and nearly as many different shades of complexion. There was\nthe planter of aristocratic blood, and at his side was a deep mulatto,\nborn in the same parish a slave. There was the quadroon, and the\nunmitigated hue and unmodified features of the negro. They sat together\naround a circular table, and conversed as freely as though they had been\nall of one color. There was no restraint, no uneasiness, as though the\nparties felt themselves out of place, no assumption nor disrespect, but\nall the proceedings manifested the most perfect harmony, confidence, and\ngood feeling.\n\nAt the same time there was a meeting of the parish committee on roads,\nat which there was the same intermixture of colors, the same freedom and\nkindness of demeanor, and the same unanimity of action. Thus it is with\nall the political and civil bodies in the island, from the House of\nAssembly, to committees on jails and houses of correction. Into all of\nthem, the colored people are gradually making their way, and\nparticipating in public debates and public measures, and dividing with\nthe whites legislative and judicial power, and in many cases they\nexhibit a superiority, and in all cases a respectability, of talents and\nattainments, and a courtesy and general propriety of conduct, which gain\nfor them the respect of the intelligent and candid among their white\nassociates.\n\nWe visited the house of correction for the parish of St. Andrews. The\nsuperintendent received us with the iron-hearted courtesy of a Newgate\nturnkey. Our company was evidently unwelcome, but as the friend who\naccompanied us was a man in authority, he was constrained to admit us.\nThe first sound that greeted us was a piercing outcry from the\ntreadmill. On going to it, we saw a youth of about eighteen hanging in\nthe air by a strap bound to his wrist, and dangling against the wheel in\nsuch a manner that every revolution of it scraped the body from the\nbreast to the ankles. He had fallen off from weakness and fatigue, and\nwas struggling and crying in the greatest distress, while the strap,\nwhich extended to a pole above and stretched his arm high above his\nhead, held him fast. The superintendent, in a harsh voice, ordered him\nto be lifted up, and his feet again placed on the wheel. But before he\nhad taken five steps, he again fell off, and was suspended as before. At\nthe same instant, a woman also fell off, and without a sigh or the\nmotion of a muscle, for she was too much exhausted for either, but with\na shocking wildness of the eye, hung by her half-dislocated arms against\nthe wheel. As the allotted time (fifteen minutes) had expired, the\npersons on the wheel were released, and permitted to rest. The boy could\nhardly stand on the ground. He had a large ulcer on one of his feet,\nwhich was much swollen and inflamed, and his legs and body were greatly\nbruised and peeled by the revolving of the wheel. The gentleman who was\nwith us reproved the superintendent severely for his conduct, and told\nhim to remove the boy from the treadmill gang, and see that proper care\nwas taken of him. The poor woman who fell off, seemed completely\nexhausted; she tottered to the wall near by, and took up a little babe\nwhich we had not observed before. It appeared to be not more than two or\nthree months old, and the little thing stretched out its arms and\nwelcomed its mother. On inquiry, we ascertained that this woman's\noffence was absence from the field an hour after the required time (six\no'clock) in the morning. Besides the infant with her, she had two or\nthree other children. Whether the care of them was any excuse for her,\nwe leave American mothers to judge. There were two other women on the\ntreadmill--one was sentenced there for stealing cane from her master's\nfield, and the other, we believe, for running away.\n\nThe superintendent next took us to the solitary cells. They were dirty,\nand badly ventilated, and unfit to keep beasts in. On opening the doors,\nsuch a stench rushed forth, that we could not remain. There was a poor\nwoman in one of them, who appeared, as the light of day and the fresh\nair burst in upon her, like a despairing maniac.\n\nWe went through the other buildings, all of which were old and dirty,\nnay, worse, _filthy_ in the extreme. The whole establishment was a\ndisgrace to the island. The prisoners were poorly clad, and had the\nappearance of harsh usage. Our suspicions of ill treatment were\nstrengthened by noticing a large whip in the treadmill, and sundry iron\ncollars and handcuffs hanging about in the several rooms through which\nwe passed.\n\nThe number of inmates in this house at our visit, was\nforty-eight--eighteen of whom were females. Twenty of these were in the\ntreadmill and in solitary confinement--the remainder were working on\nthe public road at a little distance--many of them _in irons_--iron\ncollars about their necks, and chains passing between, connecting them\ntogether two and two.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTOUR TO THE COUNTRY.\n\nWishing to accomplish the most that our limited time would allow; we\nseparated at Kingston;--the one taking a northwesterly route among the\nmountainous coffee districts of Port Royal and St. Andrews, and the\nother going into the parish of St. Thomas in the East.\n\nSt. Thomas in the East is said to present the apprenticeship in its most\nfavorable aspects. There is probably no other parish in the island which\nincludes so many fine estates, or has so many liberal-minded\nplanters.[A] A day's easy drive from Kingston, brought us to Morant Bay,\nwhere we spent two days, and called on several influential gentlemen,\nbesides visiting the neighboring estate of Belvidere. One gentleman whom\nwe met was Thomas Thomson, Esq., the senior local magistrate of the\nParish, next in civil influence to the Custos. His standing may be\ninferred from the circumstance, (not trifling in Jamaica,) that the\nGovernor, during his tour of the island, spent a night at his house. We\nbreakfasted with Mr. Thomson, and at that time, and subsequently, he\nshowed the utmost readiness in furnishing us with information. He is a\nScotchman, has been in the island for thirty-eight years, and has served\nas a local magistrate for thirty-four. Until very lately, he has been a\nproprietor of estates; he informed us that he had sold out, but did not\nmention the reasons. We strongly suspected, from the drift of his\nconversation, that he sold about the time of abolition, through alarm\nfor the consequences. We early discovered that he was one of the old\nschool tyrants, hostile to the change which _had_ taken place, and\ndreadfully alarmed in view of that which was yet to come. Although full\nof the prejudices of an old slaveholder, yet we found him a man of\nstrong native sense and considerable intelligence. He declared it most\nunreservedly as his opinion, that the negroes would not work after\n1810--they were _naturally so indolent_, that they would prefer\ngaining a livelihood in some easier way than by digging cane holes. He\nhad all the results of the emancipation of 1840 as clearly before his\nmind, as though he saw them in prophetic vision; he knew the whole\nprocess. One portion of the negroes, too lazy to provide food by their\nown labor, will rob the provision grounds of the few who will remain at\nwork. The latter will endure the wrong as long as they well can, and\nthen they will procure arms and fire upon the marauders; this will give\nrise to incessant petty conflicts between the lazy and the industrious,\nand a great destruction of life will ensue. Others will die in vast\nnumbers from starvation; among these will be the superannuated and the\nyoung, who cannot support themselves, and whom the planters will not be\nable to support. Others numerous will perish from disease, chiefly for\nwant of medical attendance, which it will be wholly out of their power\nto provide. Such is the dismal picture drawn by a late slaveholder, of\nthe consequences of removing the negroes from the tender mercies of\noppressors. Happily for all parties, Mr. Thomson is not very likely to\nestablish his claim to the character of a prophet. We were not at all\nsurprised to hear him wind up his prophecies against freedom with a\n_denunciation of slavery_. He declared that slavery was a wretched\nsystem. Man was _naturally a tyrant_. Mr. T. said he had one good\nthing to say of the negroes, viz., that they were an _exceedingly\ntemperate people_. It was a very unusual thing to see one of them drunk.\nSlavery, he said, was a system of _horrid cruelties_. He had lately\nread, in the history of Jamaica, of a planter, in 1763, having a slave's\n_leg_ cut off, to keep him from running away. He said that dreadful\ncruelties were perpetrated until the close of slavery, and they were\ninseparable from slavery. He also spoke of the fears which haunted the\nslaveholders. He never would live on an estate; and whenever he chanced\nto stay over night in the country, he always took care to secure his\ndoor by bolting and barricading it. At Mr. Thomson's we met Andrew\nWright, Esq., the proprietor of a sugar estate called Green Wall,\nsituated some six miles from the bay. He is an intelligent gentleman, of\nan amiable disposition--has on his estate one hundred and sixty\napprentices. He described his people as being in a very peaceable state,\nand as industrious as he could wish. He said he had no trouble with\nthem, and it was his opinion, that where there is trouble, it must be\n_owing to bad management_. He anticipated no difficulty after 1840, and\nwas confident that his people would not leave him. He believed that the\nnegroes would not to any great extent abandon the cultivation of sugar\nafter 1840. Mr. T. stated two facts respecting this enlightened planter,\nwhich amply account for the good conduct of his apprentices. One was,\nthat he was an exceedingly kind and amiable man. _He had never been\nknown to have a falling out with any man in his life_. Another fact was,\nthat Mr. Wright was the only resident sugar proprietor in all that\nregion of country. He superintends his own estate, while the other large\nestates are generally left in the hands of unprincipled, mercenary men.\n\n[Footnote A: We have the following testimony of Sir Lionel Smith to the\nsuperiority of St. Thomas in the East. It is taken from the Royal\nGazette, (Kingston.) May 6, 1837. \"His Excellency has said, that in all\nhis tour he was not more highly gratified with any parish than he was\nwith St. Thomas in the East.\"]\n\nWe called on the Wesleyan missionary at Morant Bay, Rev. Mr. Crookes,\nwho has been in Jamaica fifteen years. Mr. C. said, that in many\nrespects there had been a great improvement since the abolition of\nslavery, but, said he, \"I abominate the apprenticeship system. At best,\nit is only _improved slavery_.\" The obstacles to religious efforts\nhave been considerably diminished, but the masters were not to be\nthanked for this; it was owing chiefly to the protection of British law.\nThe apprenticeship, Mr. C. thought, could not be any material\npreparation for freedom. He was persuaded that it would have been far\nbetter policy to have granted entire emancipation at once.\n\nIn company with Mr. Howell, an Independent, and teacher of a school of\neighty negro children in Morant Bay, we drove out to Belvidere estate,\nwhich is situated about four miles from the bay, in a rich district\ncalled the Blue Mountain Valley. The Belvidere is one of the finest\nestates in the valley. It contains two thousand acres, only four hundred\nof which are cultivated in sugar; the most of it is woodland. This\nestate belongs to Count Freeman, an absentee proprietor. We took\nbreakfast with the overseer, or manager, Mr. Briant. Mr. B. stated that\nthere was not so much work done now as there was during slavery. Thinks\nthere is _as much done for the length of time that the apprentices are\nat work_; but a day and a half every week is lost; neither _are they\ncalled out as early in the morning, nor do they work as late at night_.\nThe apprentices work at night very cheerfully for money: but they will\nnot work on Saturday for the common wages--quarter of a dollar. On\ninquiry of Mr. B. we ascertained that the reason the apprentices did not\nwork on Saturdays was, that they could _make twice or three times as\nmuch_ by cultivating their provision grounds, and carrying their produce\nto market. At _night_ they cannot cultivate their grounds, then they\nwork for their masters \"very cheerfully.\"\n\nThe manager stated, that there had been no disturbance with the people\nof Belvidere since the change. They work well, and conduct themselves\npeaceably; and he had no fear but that the great body of the negroes\nwould remain on the estate after 1840, and labor as usual. This he\nthought would be the case on every estate where there _is mild\nmanagement_. Some, indeed, might leave even such estates to _try their\nfortunes_ elsewhere, but they would soon discover that they could get no\nbetter treatment abroad, and they would then return to their old homes.\n\nWhile we were at Belvidere, Mr. Howell took us to see a new chapel which\nthe apprentices of that estate have erected since 1834, by their own\nlabor, and at their own expense. The house is thirty feet by forty;\ncomposed of the same materials of which the negro huts are built. We\nwere told that the building of this chapel was first suggested by the\napprentices, and as soon as permission was obtained, they commenced the\npreparations for its erection. We record this as a delightful _sign of\nthe times_.\n\nOn our return to Morant Bay, we visited the house of correction,\nsituated near the village. This is the only \"institution,\" as a Kingston\npaper gravely terms it, of the kind in the parish. It is a small,\nill-constructed establishment, horribly filthy, more like a receptacle\nfor wild beasts than human beings. There is a treadmill connected with\nit, made to _accommodate_ fifteen persons at a time. Alternate companies\nascend the wheel every fifteen minutes. It was unoccupied when we went\nin; most of the prisoners being at work on the public roads. Two or\nthree, who happened to be near by, were called in by the keeper, and\nordered to mount the wheel, to show us how it worked. It made our blood\nrun cold as we thought of the dreadful suffering that inevitably ensues,\nwhen the foot loses the step, and the body hangs against the\nrevolving cylinder.\n\nLeaving the house of correction, we proceeded to the village. In a small\nopen square in the centre of it, we saw a number of the unhappy inmates\nof the house of correction at work under the direction, we are sorry to\nsay, of our friend Thomas Thomson, Esq. They were chained two and two by\nheavy chains fastened to iron bands around their necks. On another\noccasion, we saw the same gang at work in the yard attached to the\nIndependent chapel.\n\nWe received a visit, at our lodgings, from the special justice of this\ndistrict, Major Baines. He was accompanied by Mr. Thomson, who came to\nintroduce him as his friend. We were not left to this recommendation\nalone, suspicious as it was, to infer the character of this magistrate,\nfor we were advertised previously that he was a \"planter's man\"--unjust\nand cruel to the apprentices. Major B. appeared to have been looking\nthrough his friend Thomson's prophetic telescope. There was certainly a\nwonderful coincidence of vision--the same abandonment of labor, the same\npreying upon provision grounds; the same violence, bloodshed and great\nloss of life among the negroes themselves! However, the special\nmagistrate appeared to see a little further than the local magistrate,\neven to the _end_ of the carnage, and to the re-establishment of\nindustry, peace and prosperity. The evil, he was confident, would soon\ncure itself.\n\nOne remark of the special magistrate was worthy a prophet. When asked if\nhe thought there would be any serious disaffection produced among the\npraedials by the emancipation of the non-praedials in 1838, he said, he\nthought there would not be, and assigned as the reason, that the\npraedials knew all about the arrangement, and did not _expect to be\nfree_. That is, the field apprentices knew that the domestics were to be\nliberated two years sooner than they, and, without inquiring into the\ngrounds, or justice of the arrangement, _they would promptly\nacquiesce in it_!\n\nWhat a fine compliment to the patience and forbearance of the mass of\nthe negroes. The majority see the minority emancipated two years before\nthem, and that, too, upon the ground of an odious distinction which\nmakes the domestic more worthy than they who \"bear the heat and burthen\nof the day,\" in the open field; and yet they submit patiently, because\nthey are told that it is the pleasure of government that it should\nbe so!\n\nThe _non-praedials_, too, have their noble traits, as well as the less\nfavored agriculturalists. The special magistrate said that he was then\nengaged in classifying the apprentices of the different estates in his\ndistrict. The object of this classification was, to ascertain all those\nwho were non-praedials, that they might be recorded as the subjects of\nemancipation in 1838. To his astonishment he found numbers of this class\nwho expressed a wish to remain apprentices until 1840. On one estate,\nsix out of eight took this course, on another, twelve out of fourteen,\nand in some instances, _all_ the non-praedials determined to suffer it\nout with the rest of their brethren, refusing to accept freedom until\nwith the whole body they could rise up and shout the jubilee of\nuniversal disinthrallment. Here is a nobility worthy to compare with the\npatience of the praedials. In connection with the conduct of the\nnon-praedials, he mentioned the following instance of white brutality\nand negro magnanimity. A planter, whose negroes he was classifying,\nbrought forward a woman whom he claimed as a praedial. The woman\ndeclared that she was a non-praedial, and on investigation it was\nclearly proved that she had always been a domestic; and consequently\nentitled to freedom in 1838. After the planter's claim was set aside,\nthe woman said, \"_Now_ I will stay with massa, and be his 'prentice for\nde udder two year.\"\n\nShortly before we left the Bay, our landlady, a colored woman,\nintroduced one of her neighbors, whose conversation afforded us a rare\ntreat. She was a colored lady of good appearance and lady like manners.\nSupposing from her color that she had been prompted by strong sympathy\nin our objects to seek an interview with us, we immediately introduced\nthe subject of slavery, stating that as we had a vast number of slaves\nin our country, we had visited Jamaica to see how the freed people\nbehaved, with the hope that our countrymen might be encouraged to adopt\nemancipation. \"Alack a day!\" The tawny madam shook her head, and, with\nthat peculiar creole whine, so expressive of contempt, said, \"Can't say\nany thing for you, sir--they not doing no good now, sir--the negroes\nan't!\"--and on she went abusing the apprentices, and denouncing\nabolition. No American white lady could speak more disparagingly of the\nniggers, than did this recreant descendant of the negro race. They did\nno work, they stole, were insolent, insubordinate, and what not.\n\nShe concluded in the following elegiac strain, which did not fail to\ntouch our sympathies. \"I can't tell what will become of us after 1840.\nOur negroes will be taken away from us--we shall find no work to do\nourselves--we shall all have to beg, and who shall we beg from? _All\nwill be beggars, and we must starve_!\"\n\nPoor Miss L. is one of that unfortunate class who have hitherto gained a\nmeagre support from the stolen hire of a few slaves, and who, after\nentire emancipation, will be stripped of every thing. This is the class\nupon whom emancipation will fall most heavily; it will at once cast many\nout of a situation of ease, into the humiliating dilemma of _laboring or\nbegging_--to the _latter_ of which alternatives, Miss L. seems inclined.\nLet Miss L. be comforted! It is better to beg than to _steal_.\n\nWe proceeded from Morant Bay to Bath, a distance of fourteen miles,\nwhere we put up at a neat cottage lodging-house, kept by Miss P., a\ncolored lady. Bath is a picturesque little village, embowered in\nperpetual green, and lying at the foot of a mountain on one side, and on\nthe other by the margin of a rambling little river. It seems to have\naccumulated around it and within it, all the verdure and foliage of a\ntropical clime.\n\nHaving a letter of introduction, we called on the special magistrate for\nthat district--George Willis, Esq. As we entered his office, an\napprentice was led up in irons by a policeman, and at the same time\nanother man rode up with a letter from the master of the apprentice,\ndirecting the magistrate to release him instantly. The facts of this\ncase, as Mr. W. himself explained them to us, will illustrate the\ncareless manner in which the magistrates administer the law. The master\nhad sent his apprentice to a neighboring estate, where there had been\nsome disturbance, to get his clothes, which had been left there. The\noverseer of the estate finding an intruder on his property, had him\nhandcuffed forthwith, notwithstanding his repeated declarations that his\nmaster had sent him. Having handcuffed him, he ordered him to be taken\nbefore the special magistrate, Mr. W., who had him confined in the\nstation-house all night. Mr. W., in pursuance of the direction received\nfrom the master, ordered the man to be released, but at the same time\nrepeatedly declared to him that the _overseer was not to blame for\narresting him_.\n\nAfter this case was disposed of, Mr. W, turned to us. He said he had a\ndistrict of thirty miles in extent, including five thousand apprentices;\nthese he visited thrice every month. He stated that there had been a\ngradual decrease of crime since he came to the district, which was early\nin 1835. For example, in March, 1837, there were but twenty-four persons\npunished, and in March, 1835, there were as many punished in a single\nweek. He explained this by saying that the apprentices had become\n_better acquainted with the requirements of the law_. The chief offence\nat present was _absconding from labor_.\n\nThis magistrate gave us an account of an alarming rebellion which had\nlately occurred in his district, which we will venture to notice, since\nit is the only serious disturbance on the part of the negroes, which has\ntaken place in the island, from the beginning of the apprenticeship.\nAbout two weeks before, the apprentices on Thornton estate, amounting to\nabout ninety, had refused to work, and fled in a body to the woods,\nwhere they still remained. Their complaint, according to our informant,\nwas, that their master had turned the cattle upon their provision\ngrounds, and all their provisions were destroyed, so that they could not\nlive. They, therefore, determined that they would not continue at work,\nseeing they would be obliged to starve. Mr. W. stated that he had\nvisited the provision grounds, in company with two _disinterested\nplanters_, and he could affirm that the apprentices had _no just cause\nof complaint_. It was true their fences had been broken down, and their\nprovisions had been somewhat injured, but the fence could be very easily\nrepaired, and there was an _abundance of yams left_ to furnish food for\nthe whole gang for some time to come--those that were destroyed being\nchiefly young roots which would not have come to maturity for several\nmonths. These statements were the substance of a formal report which he\nhad just prepared for the eye of Sir Lionel Smith, and which he was kind\nenough to read to us. This was a fine report, truly, to come from a\nspecial justice. To say nothing of the short time in which the fence\nmight be repaired, those were surely very dainty-mouthed cattle that\nwould consume those roots only which were so small that several months\nwould be requisite for their maturity. The report concluded with a\nrecommendation to his Excellency to take seminary vengeance upon a few\nof the gang as soon as they could be arrested, since they had set such\nan example to the surrounding apprentices. He could not see how order\nand subordination could be preserved in his district unless such a\npunishment was inflicted as would be a warning to all evil doers. He\nfurther suggested the propriety of sending the maroons[A] after them, to\nhunt them out of their hiding places and bring them to justice.\n\n[Footnote A: The maroons are free negroes, inhabiting the mountains of\nthe interior, who were formerly hired by the authorities, or by\nplanters, to hunt up runaway slaves, and return them to their masters.\nUnfortunately our own country is not without _its_ maroons.]\n\nWe chanced to obtain a different version of this affair, which, as it\nwas confirmed by different persons in Bath, both white and colored, who\nhad no connection with each other, we cannot help thinking it the\ntrue one.\n\nThe apprentices on Thornton, are what is termed a jobbing gang, that is,\nthey are hired out by their master to any planter who may want their\nservices. Jobbing is universally regarded by the negroes as the worst\nkind of service, for many reasons--principally because it often takes\nthem many miles from their homes, and they are still required to supply\nthemselves with food from their own provision grounds. They are allowed\nto return home every Friday evening or Saturday, and stay till Monday\nmorning. The owner of the gang in question lately died--to whom it is\nsaid they were greatly attached--and they passed into the hands of a Mr.\nJocken, the present overseer. Jocken is a notoriously cruel man. It was\nscarcely a twelvemonth ago, that he was fined one hundred pounds\ncurrency, and sentenced to imprisonment for three months in the Kingston\njail, _for tying one of his apprentices to a dead ox_, because the\nanimal died while in the care of the apprentice. He also confined a\nwoman in the same pen with a dead sheep, because she suffered the sheep\nto die. Repeated acts of cruelty have caused Jocken to be regarded as a\nmonster in the community. From a knowledge of his character, the\napprentices of Thornton had a strong prejudice against him. One of the\nearliest acts after he went among them, was to break down their fences,\nand turn his cattle into their provision grounds. He then ordered them\nto go to a distant estate to work. This they refused to do, and when he\nattempted to compel them to go, they left the estate in a body, and went\nto the woods. This is what is called a _state of open rebellion_, and\nfor this they were to be hunted like beasts, and to suffer such a\nterrible punishment as would deter all other apprentices from taking a\nsimilar step.\n\nThis Jocken is the same wretch who wantonly handcuffed the apprentice,\nwho went on to his estate by the direction of his master.\n\nMr. Willis showed us a letter which he had received that morning from a\nplanter in his district, who had just been trying an experiment in job\nwork, (i.e., paying his people so much for a certain amount of work.) He\nhad made a proposition to one of the head men on the estate, that he\nwould give him a doubloon an acre if he would get ten acres of cane land\nholed. The man employed a large number of apprentices, and accomplished\nthe job on three successive Saturdays. They worked at the rate of nearly\none hundred holes per day for each man, whereas the usual day's work is\nonly seventy-five holes.\n\nMr. W. bore testimony that the great body of the negroes in his district\nwere very peaceable. There were but a few _incorrigible fellows_, that\ndid all the mischief. When any disturbance took place on an estate, he\ncould generally tell who the individual offenders were. He did not think\nthere would be any serious difficulty after 1840. However, the result he\nthought would _greatly depend on the conduct of the managers!_\n\nWe met in Bath with the proprietor of a coffee estate situated a few\nmiles in the country. He gave a very favorable account of the people on\nhis estate; stating that they were as peaceable and industrious as he\ncould desire, that he had their confidence, and fully expected to retain\nit after entire emancipation. He anticipated no trouble whatever, and he\nfelt assured, too, that if _the planters would conduct in a proper\nmanner_, emancipation would be a blessing to the whole colony.\n\nWe called on the Wesleyan missionary, whom we found the decided friend\nand advocate of freedom. He scrupled not to declare his sentiments\nrespecting the special magistrate, whom he declared to be a cruel and\ndishonest man. He seemed to take delight in flogging the apprentices. He\nhad got a whipping machine made and erected in front of the Episcopal\nchurch in the village of Bath. It was a frame of a triangular shape, the\nbase of which rested firmly on the ground, and having a perpendicular\nbeam from the base to the apex or angle. To this beam the apprentice's\nbody was lashed, with his face towards the machine, and his arms\nextended at right angles, and tied by the wrists. The missionary had\nwitnessed the floggings at this machine repeatedly, as it stood but a\nfew steps from his house. Before we reached Bath, the machine had been\nremoved from its conspicuous place and _concealed in the bushes, that\nthe governor might not see it when he visited the village_.\n\nAs this missionary had been for several years laboring in the island,\nand had enjoyed the best opportunities to become extensively acquainted\nwith the negroes, we solicited from him a written answer to a number of\ninquiries. We make some extracts from his communication.\n\n1. Have the facilities for missionary effort greatly increased since the\nabolition of slavery?\n\nThe opportunities of the apprentices to attend the means of grace are\ngreater than during absolute slavery. They have now one day and a half\nevery week to work for their support, leaving the Sabbath free to\nworship God.\n\n2. Do you anticipate that these facilities will increase still more\nafter entire freedom?\n\nYes. The people will then have _six days of their own to labor for their\nbread_, and will be at liberty to go to the house of God every Sabbath.\nUnder the present system, the magistrate often takes away the Saturday,\nas a punishment, and then they must either work on the Sabbath\nor starve.\n\n3. Are the negroes likely to revenge by violence the wrongs which they\nhave suffered, after they obtain their freedom?\n\n_I never heard the idea suggested, nor should I have thought of it had\nyou not made the inquiry._\n\nWe called on Mr. Rogers, the teacher of a Mico charity infant school in\nBath. Mr. R., his wife and daughter, are all engaged in this work. They\nhave a day school, and evening school three evenings in the week, and\nSabbath school twice each Sabbath. The evening schools are for the\nbenefit of the adult apprentices, who manifest the greatest eagerness to\nlearn to read. After working all day, they will come several miles to\nschool, and stay cheerfully till nine o'clock.\n\nMr. R. furnished us with a written communication, from which we extract\nthe following.\n\n_Quest._ Are the apprentices desirous of being instructed?\n\n_Ans._ Most assuredly they are; in proof of which I would observe that\nsince our establishment in Bath, the people not only attend the schools\nregularly, but if they obtain a leaf of a book with letters upon it,\nthat is their _constant companion_. We have found mothers with their\nsucking babes in their arms, standing night after night in their classes\nlearning the alphabet.\n\n_Q._ Are the negroes grateful for attentions and favors?\n\n_A._ They are; I have met some who have been so much affected by acts of\nkindness, that they have burst into tears, exclaiming, 'Massa so\nkind--my heart full.' Their affection to their teachers is very\nremarkable. On my return lately from Kingston, after a temporary\nabsence, the negroes flocked to our residence and surrounded the chaise,\nsaying, 'We glad to see massa again; we glad to see school massa.' On my\nway through an estate some time ago, some of the children observed me,\nand in a transport of joy cried, 'Thank God, massa come again! Bless God\nde Savior, massa come again!'\n\nMr. R., said he, casually met with an apprentice whose master had lately\ndied. The man was in the habit of visiting his master's grave every\nSaturday. He said to Mr. R., \"Me go to massa grave, and de water come\ninto me yeye; but me can't help it, massa, _de water will come into\nme yeye_.\"\n\nThe Wesleyan missionary told us, that two apprentices, an aged man and\nhis daughter, a young woman, had been brought up by their master before\nthe special magistrate who sentenced them to several days confinement in\nthe house of correction at Morant Bay and to dance the treadmill. When\nthe sentence was passed the daughter entreated that she might be allowed\nto _do her father's part_, as well as her own, on the treadmill, for he\nwas too old to dance the wheel--it would kill him.\n\nFrom Bath we went into the Plantain Garden River Valley, one of the\nrichest and most beautiful savannahs in the island. It is an extensive\nplain, from one to three miles wide, and about six miles long. The\nPlantain Garden River, a small stream, winds through the midst of the\nvalley lengthwise, emptying into the sea. Passing through the valley, we\nwent a few miles south of it to call on Alexander Barclay, Esq., to whom\nwe had a letter of introduction. Mr. Barclay is a prominent member of\nthe assembly, and an attorney for eight estates. He made himself\nsomewhat distinguished a few years ago by writing an octavo volume of\nfive hundred pages in defence of the colonies, i.e., in defence of\ncolonial slavery. It was a reply to Stephen's masterly work against West\nIndia slavery, and was considered by the Jamaicans a triumphant\nvindication of their \"peculiar institutions.\" We went several miles out\nof our route expressly to have an interview with so zealous and\ncelebrated a champion of slavery. We were received with marked courtesy\nby Mr. B., who constrained us to spend a day and night with him at his\nseat at Fairfield. One of the first objects that met our eye in Mr. B.'s\ndining hall was a splendid piece of silver plate, which was presented to\nhim by the planters of St. Thomas in the East, in consideration of his\nable defence of colonial slavery. We were favorably impressed with Mr.\nB.'s intelligence, and somewhat so with his present sentiments\nrespecting slavery. We gathered from him that he had resisted with all\nhis might the anti-slavery measures of the English government, and\nexerted every power to prevent the introduction of the apprenticeship\nsystem. After he saw that slavery would inevitably be abolished, he drew\nup at length a plan of emancipation according to which the condition of\nthe slave was to be commuted into that of the old English _villein_--he\nwas to be made an appendage to _the soil_ instead of the \"chattel\npersonal\" of the master, the whip was to be partially abolished, a\nmodicum of wages was to be allowed the slave, and so on. There was to be\nno fixed period when this system would terminate, but it was to fade\ngradually and imperceptibly into entire freedom. He presented a copy of\nhis scheme to the then governor, the Earl of Mulgrave, requesting that\nit might be forwarded to the home government. Mr. B. said that the\nanti-slavery party in England had acted from the blind impulses of\nreligious fanaticism, and had precipitated to its issue a work which\nrequired many years of silent preparation in order to its safe\naccomplishment. He intimated that the management of abolition ought to\nhave been left with the colonists; they had been the long experienced\nmanagers of slavery, and they were the only men qualified to superintend\nits burial, and give it a decent interment.\n\nHe did not think that the apprenticeship afforded any clue to the dark\nmystery of 1840. Apprenticeship was so inconsiderably different from\nslavery, that it furnished no more satisfactory data for judging of the\nresults of entire freedom than slavery itself. Neither would he consent\nto be comforted by the actual results of emancipation in Antigua.\n\nTaking leave of Mr. Barclay, we returned to the Plantain Garden River\nValley, and called at the Golden Grove, one of the most splendid estates\nin that magnificent district. This is an estate of two thousand acres;\nit has five hundred apprentices and one hundred free children. The\naverage annual crop is six hundred hogsheads of sugar. Thomas McCornock,\nEsq., the attorney of this estate, is the custos, or chief magistrate of\nthe parish, and colonel of the parish militia. There is no man in all\nthe parish of greater consequence, either in fact or in seeming\nself-estimation, than Thomas McCornock, Esq. He is a Scotchman, as is\nalso Mr. Barclay. The custos received us with as much freedom as the\ndignity of his numerous offices would admit of. The overseer, (manager,)\nMr. Duncan, is an intelligent, active, business man, and on any other\nestate than Golden Grove, would doubtless be a personage of considerable\ndistinction. He conducted us through the numerous buildings, from the\nboiling-house to the pig-stye. The principal complaint of the overseer,\nwas that he could not make the people work to any good purpose. They\nwere not at all refractory or disobedient; there was no difficulty in\ngetting them on to the field; but when they were there, they moved\nwithout any life or energy. They took no interest in their work, and he\nwas obliged to be watching and scolding them all the time, or else they\nwould do nothing. We had not gone many steps after this observation,\nbefore we met with a practical illustration of it. A number of the\napprentices had been ordered that morning to cart away some dirt to a\nparticular place. When we approached them, Mr. D. found that one of the\n\"wains\" was standing idle. He inquired of the driver why he was keeping\nthe team idle. The reply was, that there was nothing there for it to do;\nthere were enough other wains to carry away all the dirt. \"Then,\" inquired\nthe overseer with an ill-concealed irritation, \"why did not go to some\nother work?\" The overseer then turned to us and said, \"You see, sir,\nwhat lazy dogs the apprentices are--this is the way they do every day,\nif they are not closely watched.\" It was not long after this little\nincident, before the overseer remarked that the apprentices worked very\nwell during their own time, _when they were paid for it_. When we went\ninto the hospital, Mr. D. directed out attention to one fact, which to\nhim was very provoking. A great portion of the patients that come in\nduring the week, unable to work, are in the habit of getting well on\nFriday evening, so that they can go out on Saturday and Sunday; but on\nMonday morning they are sure to be sick again, then they return to the\nhospital and remain very poorly till Friday evening, when they get well\nall at once, and ask permission to go out. The overseer saw into the\ntrick; but he could find no medicine that could cure the negroes of that\nintermittent sickness. The Antigua planters discovered the remedy for\nit, and doubtless Mr. D. will make the grand discovery in 1840.\n\nOn returning to the \"great house,\" we found the custos sitting in state,\nready to communicate any official information which might be called for.\nHe expressed similar sentiments in the main, with those of Mr. Barclay.\nHe feared for the consequences of complete emancipation; the negroes\nwould to a great extent abandon the sugar cultivation and retire to the\nwoods, there to live in idleness, planting merely yams enough to keep\nthem alive, and in the process of time, retrograding into African\nbarbarism. The attorney did not see how it was possible to prevent this.\nWhen asked whether he expected that such would be the case with the\nnegroes on Golden Grove, he replied that he did not think it would,\nexcept with a very few persons. His people had been _so well treated_,\nand had _so many comforts_, that they would not be at all likely to\nabandon the estate! [Mark that!] Whose are the people that will desert\nafter 1840? Not Thomas McCornock's, Esq.! _They are too well situated.\nWhose_ then will desert? _Mr. Jocken's_, or in other words, those who\nare ill-treated, who are cruelly driven, whose fences are broken down,\nand whose provision grounds are exposed to the cattle. They, and they\nalone, will retire to the woods who can't get food any where else!\n\nThe custos thought the apprentices were behaving very ill. On being\nasked if he had any trouble with his, he said, O, no! his apprentices\ndid quite well, and so did the apprentices generally, in the Plantain\nGarden River Valley. But in _far off parishes_, he _heard_ that they\nwere very refractory and troublesome.\n\nThe custos testified that the negroes were very easily managed. He said\nhe had often thought that he would rather have the charge of six hundred\nnegroes, than of two hundred English sailors. He spoke also of the\ntemperate habits of the negroes. He had been in the island twenty-two\nyears, and he had never seen a negro woman drunk, on the estate. It was\nvery seldom that the men got drunk. There were not more than ten men on\nGolden Grove, out of a population of five hundred, who were in the habit\nof occasionally getting intoxicated. He also remarked that the negroes\nwere a remarkable people for their attention to the old and infirm among\nthem; they seldom suffered them to want, if it was in their power to\nsupply them. Among other remarks of the custos, was this sweeping\ndeclaration--\"_No man in his senses can pretend to defend slavery._\"\n\nAfter spending a day at Golden Grove, we proceeded to the adjacent\nestate of Amity Hall. On entering the residence of the manager, Mr.\nKirkland, we were most gratefully surprised to find him engaged in\nfamily prayers. It was the first time and the last that we heard the\nvoice of prayer in a Jamaican planter's house. We were no less\ngratefully surprised to see a white lady, to whom we were introduced as\nMrs. Kirkland, and several modest and lovely little children. It was the\nfirst and the last _family circle_ that we were permitted to see among\nthe planters of that licentious colony. The motley group of colored\nchildren--of every age from tender infancy--which we found on other\nestates, revealed the state of domestic manners among the planters.\n\nMr. K. regarded the abolition of slavery as a great blessing to the\ncolony; it was true that the apprenticeship was a wretchedly bad system,\nbut notwithstanding, things moved smoothly on his estate. He informed us\nthat the negroes on Amity Hall had formerly borne the character of being\nthe _worst gang in the parish_; and when he first came to the estate, he\nfound that half the truth had not been told of them; but they had become\nremarkably peaceable and subordinate. It was his policy to give them\nevery comfort that he possibly could. Mr. K. made the same declaration,\nwhich has been so often repeated in the course of this narrative, i.e.,\nthat if any of the estates were abandoned, it would be owing to the\nharsh treatment of the people. He knew many overseers and book-keepers\nwho were cruel driving men, and he should not be surprised if _they_\nlost a part, or all, of their laborers. He made one remark which we had\nnot heard before. There were some estates, he said, which would probably\nbe abandoned, for the same reason that they ought never to have been\ncultivated, because they require _almost double labor_;--such are the\nmountainous estates and barren, worn-out properties, which nothing but a\nsystem of forced labor could possibly retain in cultivation. But the\nidea that the negroes generally would leave their comfortable homes, and\nvarious privileges on the estates, and retire to the wild woods, he\nridiculed as preposterous in the extreme. Mr. K. declared repeatedly\nthat he could not look forward to 1840, but with the most sanguine\nhopes; he confidently believed that the introduction of complete freedom\nwould be the _regeneration of the island_. He alluded to the memorable\ndeclaration of Lord Belmore, (made memorable by the excitement which it\ncaused among the colonists,) in his valedictory address to the assembly,\non the eve of his departure for England.[A] \"Gentlemen,\" said he, \"the\nresources of this noble island will never be fully developed until\nslavery is abolished!\" For this manly avowal the assembly ignobly\nrefused him the usual marks of respect and honor at his departure. Mr.\nK. expected to see Jamaica become a new world under the enterprise and\nenergies of freedom. There were a few disaffected planters, who would\nprobably remain so, and leave the islands after emancipation. It would\nbe a blessing to the country if such men left it, for as long as they\nwere disaffected, they were the enemies of its prosperity.\n\n[Footnote A: Lord Belmore left the government of Jamaica, a short time\nbefore the abolition act passed in parliament.]\n\nMr. K. conducted us through the negro quarters, which are situated on\nthe hill side, nearly a mile from his residence. We went into several of\nthe houses; which were of a better style somewhat than the huts in\nAntigua and Barbadoes--larger, better finished and furnished. Some few\nof them had verandahs or porches on one or more sides, after the West\nIndia fashion, closed in with _jalousies_. In each of the houses to\nwhich we were admitted, there was one apartment fitted up in a very neat\nmanner, with waxed floor, a good bedstead, and snow white coverings, a\nfew good chairs, a mahogany sideboard, ornamented with dishes,\ndecanters, etc.\n\nFrom Amity Hall, we drove to Manchioneal, a small village ten miles\nnorth of the Plantain Garden River Valley. We had a letter to the\nspecial magistrate for that district, R. Chamberlain, Esq., a colored\ngentleman, and the first magistrate we found in the parish of St. Thomas\nin the East, who was faithful to the interests of the apprentices. He\nwas a boarder at the public house, where we were directed for lodgings,\nand as we spent a few days in the village, we had opportunities of\nobtaining much information from him, as well as of attending some of his\ncourts. Mr. C. had been only five months in the district of Manchioneal,\nhaving been removed thither from a distant district. Being a friend of\nthe apprentices, he is hated and persecuted by the planters. He gave us\na gloomy picture of the oppressions and cruelties of the planters. Their\ncomplaints brought before him are often of the most trivial kind; yet\nbecause he does not condemn the apprentices to receive a punishment\nwhich the most serious offences alone could justify him in inflicting,\nthey revile and denounce him as unfit for his station. He represents the\nplanters as not having the most distant idea that it is the province of\nthe special magistrate to secure justice to the apprentice; but they\nregard it as his sole duty to _help them_ in getting from the laborers\nas much work as whips, and chains, and tread-wheels can extort. His\npredecessor, in the Manchioneal district, answered perfectly to the\nplanters' _beau ideal_. He ordered a _cat_ to be kept on every estate in\nhis district, to be ready for use as he went around on his weekly\nvisits. Every week he inspected the cats, and when they became too much\nworn to do good execution, he _condemned_ them, and ordered new ones\nto be made.\n\nMr. C. said the most frequent complaints made by the planters are for\n_insolence_. He gave a few specimens of what were regarded by the\nplanters as serious offences. An overseer will say to his apprentice,\n\"Work along there faster, you lazy villain, or I'll strike you;\" the\napprentice will reply, \"You _can't_ strike me now,\" and for this he is\ntaken before the magistrate on the complaint of _insolence_. An\noverseer, in passing the gang on the field, will hear them singing; he\nwill order them, in a peremptory tone to stop instantly, and if they\ncontinue singing, they are complained of for _insubordination_. An\napprentice has been confined to the hospital with disease,--when he gets\nable to walk, tired of the filthy sick house, he hobbles to his hut,\nwhere he may have the attentions of his wife until he gets well. That is\ncalled _absconding from labor_! Where the magistrate does not happen to\nbe an independent man, the complaint is sustained, and the poor invalid\nis sentenced to the treadmill for absenting himself from work. It is\neasy to conjecture the dreadful consequence. The apprentice, debilitated\nby sickness, dragged off twenty-five miles on foot to Morant Bay,\nmounted on the wheel, is unable to keep the step with the stronger ones,\nslips off and hangs by the wrists, and his flesh is mangled and torn by\nthe wheel.\n\nThe apprentices frequently called at our lodgings to complain to Mr. C.\nof the hard treatment of their masters. Among the numerous distressing\ncases which we witnessed, we shall never forget that of a poor little\nnegro boy, of about twelve, who presented himself one afternoon before\nMr. C., with a complaint against his master for violently beating him. A\ngash was cut in his head, and the blood had flowed freely. He fled from\nhis master, and came to Mr. C. for refuge. He belonged to A. Ross, Esq.,\nof Mulatto Run estate. We remembered that we had a letter of\nintroduction to that planter, and we had designed visiting him, but\nafter witnessing this scene, we resolved not to go near a monster who\ncould inflict such a wound, with his own hand, upon a child. We were\nhighly gratified with the kind and sympathizing manner in which Mr. C.\nspoke with the unfortunate beings who, in the extremity of their wrongs,\nventured to his door.\n\nAt the request of the magistrate we accompanied him, on one occasion, to\nthe station-house, where he held a weekly court. We had there a good\nopportunity to observe the hostile feelings of the planters towards this\nfaithful officer--\"faithful among the faithless,\" (though we are glad\nthat we cannot quite add, \"_only he_.\")\n\nA number of managers, overseers, and book-keepers, assembled; some with\ncomplaints, and some to have their apprentices classified. They all set\nupon the magistrate like bloodhounds upon a lone stag. They strove\ntogether with one accord, to subdue his independent spirit by taunts,\njeers, insults, intimidations and bullyings. He was obliged to threaten\none of the overseers with arrest, on account of his abusive conduct. We\nwere actually amazed at the intrepidity of the magistrate. We were\nconvinced from what we saw that day, that only the most fearless and\nconscientious men could be _faithful magistrates_ in Jamaica. Mr. C.\nassured us that he met with similar indignities every time he held his\ncourts, and on most of the estates that he visited. It was in his power\nto punish them severely, but he chose to use all possible forbearance,\nso as not to give the planters any grounds of complaint.\n\nOn a subsequent day we accompanied Mr. C. in one of his estate visits.\nAs it was late in the afternoon, he called at but one estate, the name\nof which was Williamsfield. Mr. Gordon, the overseer of Williamsfield,\nis among the fairest specimens of planters. He has naturally a generous\ndisposition, which, like that of Mr. Kirkland, has out-lived the\nwitherings of slavery.\n\nHe informed us that his people worked as well under the apprenticeship\nsystem, as ever they did during slavery; and he had every encouragement\nthat they would do still better after they were completely free. He was\nsatisfied that he should be able to conduct his estate at much less\nexpense after 1840; he thought that fifty men would do as much then as a\nhundred do now. We may add here a similar remark of Mr. Kirkland--that\nforty freemen would accomplish as much as eighty slaves. Mr. Gordon\nhires his people on Saturdays, and he expressed his astonishment at the\nincreased vigor with which they worked when they were to receive wages.\nHe pointedly condemned the driving system which was resorted to by many\nof the planters. They foolishly endeavored to keep up the coercion of\nslavery, _and they had the special magistrates incessantly flogging the\napprentices_. The planters also not unfrequently take away the provision\ngrounds from their apprentices, and in every way oppress and\nharass them.\n\nIn the course of the conversation Mr. G. accidentally struck upon a\nfresh vein of facts, respecting the SLAVERY OF BOOK-KEEPERS,[A] _under\nthe old system_. The book-keepers, said Mr. G., were the complete slaves\nof the overseers, who acted like despots on the estates. They were\nmostly young men from England, and not unfrequently had considerable\nrefinement; but ignorant of the treatment which book-keepers had to\nsubmit to, and allured by the prospect of becoming wealthy by\nplantership, they came to Jamaica and entered as candidates. They soon\ndiscovered the cruel bondage in which they were involved. The overseers\ndomineered over them, and stormed at them as violently as though they\nwere the most abject slaves. They were allowed no privileges such as\ntheir former habits impelled them to seek. If they played a flute in the\nhearing of the overseer, they were commanded to be silent instantly. If\nthey dared to put a gold ring on their finger, even that trifling\npretension to gentility was detected and disallowed by the jealous\noverseer. (These things were specified by Mr. G. himself.) They were\nseldom permitted to associate with the overseers as equals. The only\nthing which reconciled the book-keepers to this abject state, was the\nreflection that they might one day _possibly_ become overseers\nthemselves, and then they could exercise the same authority over others.\nIn addition to this degradation, the book-keepers suffered great\nhardships. Every morning (during slavery) they were obliged to be in the\nfield before day; they had to be there as soon as the slaves, in order\nto call the roll, and mark absentees, if any. Often Mr. G. and the other\ngentleman had gone to the field, when it was so dark that they could not\nsee to call the roll, and the negroes have all lain down on their hoes,\nand slept till the light broke. Sometimes there would be a thick dew on\nthe ground, and the air was so cold and damp, that they would be\ncompletely chilled. When they were shivering on the ground, the negroes\nwould often lend them their blankets, saying, \"Poor _busha pickaninny_\nsent out here from England to die.\" Mr. Gordon said that his\nconstitution had been permanently injured by such exposure. Many young\nmen, he said, had doubtless been killed by it. During crop time, the\nbook-keepers had to be up every night till twelve o'clock, and every\nother night _all night_, superintending the work in the boiling-house,\nand at the mill. They did not have rest even on the Sabbath; they must\nhave the mill put about (set to the wind so as to grind) by sunset every\nSabbath. Often the mills were in the wind before four o'clock, on\nSabbath afternoon. They knew of slaves being flogged for not being on\nthe spot by sunset, though it was known that they had been to meeting.\nMr. G. said that he had a young friend who came from England with him,\nand acted as book-keeper. His labors and exposures were so intolerable,\nthat he had often said to Mr. G., confidentially, _that if the slaves\nshould rise in rebellion, he would most cheerfully join them_! Said Mr.\nG., _there was great rejoicing_ among the book-keepers in August 1834!\n_The abolition of slavery was_ EMANCIPATION TO THE BOOK-KEEPERS.\n\n[Footnote A: The book-keepers are subordinate overseers and drivers;\nthey are generally young white men, who after serving a course of years\nin a sort of apprenticeship, are promoted to managers of estates.]\n\nNo complaints were brought before Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Gordon pleasantly\nremarked when we arrived, that he had some cases which he should have\npresented if the magistrate had come a little earlier, but he presumed\nhe should forget them before his next visit. When we left Williamsfield,\nMr. C. informed us that during five months there had been but two cases\nof complaint on that estate--and but _a single instance of punishment._\nSuch are the results where there is a good manager and a good special\nmagistrate.\n\nOn Sabbath we attended service in the Baptist chapel, of which Rev. Mr.\nKingdon is pastor. The chapel, which is a part of Mr. K.'s\ndwelling-house, is situated on the summit of a high mountain which\noverlooks the sea. As seen from the valley below, it appears to topple\non the very brink of a frightful precipice. It is reached by a winding\ntedious road, too rugged to admit of a chaise, and in some places so\nsteep as to try the activity of a horse. As we approached nearer, we\nobserved the people climbing up in throngs by various footpaths, and\nhalting in the thick woods which skirted the chapel, the men to put on\ntheir shoes, which they had carried in their hands up the mountain, and\nthe women to draw on their white stockings and shoes. On entering the\nplace of worship, we found it well filled with the apprentices, who came\nfrom many miles around in every direction. The services had commenced\nwhen we arrived. We heard an excellent sermon from the devoted and pious\nmissionary, Mr. Kingdon, whose praise is among all the good throughout\nthe island, and who is eminently known as the negro's friend. After the\nsermon, we were invited to make a few remarks; and the minister briefly\nstated to the congregation whence we had come, and what was the object\nof our visit. We cannot soon forget the scene which followed. We begun\nby expressing, in simple terms, the interest which we felt in the\ntemporal and spiritual concerns of the people present, and scarcely had\nwe uttered a sentence when the whole congregation were filled with\nemotion. Soon they burst into tears--some sobbed, others cried aloud;\ninsomuch that for a time we were unable to proceed. We were, indeed, not\na little astonished at so unusual a scene; it was a thing which we were\nby no means expecting to see. Being at a loss to account for it, we\ninquired of Mr. K. afterwards, who told us that it was occasioned by our\nexpressions of sympathy and regard. They were so unaccustomed to hear\nsuch language from the lips of white people, that it fell upon them like\nrain upon the parched earth. The idea that one who was a stranger and a\nforeigner should feel an interest in their welfare, was to them, in such\ncircumstances, peculiarly affecting, and stirred the deep fountains of\ntheir hearts.\n\nAfter the services, the missionary, anxious to further our objects,\nproposed that we should hold an interview with a number of the\napprentices; and he accordingly invited fifteen of them into his study,\nand introduced them to us by name, stating also the estates to which\nthey severally belonged. We had thus an opportunity of seeing the\n_representatives of twelve different estates_, men of trust on their\nrespective estates, mostly constables and head boilers. For nearly two\nhours we conversed with these men, making inquiries on all points\nconnected with slavery, the apprenticeship, and the expected\nemancipation.\n\nFrom no interview, during our stay in the colonies, did we derive so\nmuch information respecting the real workings of the apprenticeship;\nfrom none did we gain such an insight into the character and disposition\nof the negroes. The company was composed of intelligent and pious\nmen;--so manly and dignified were they in appearance, and so elevated in\ntheir sentiments, that we could with difficulty realize that they were\n_slaves_. They were wholly unreserved in their communications, though\nthey deeply implicated their masters, the special magistrates, and\nothers in authority. It is not improbable that they would have shrunk\nfrom some of the disclosures which they made, had they known that they\nwould be published. Nevertheless we feel assured that in making them\npublic, we shall not betray the informants, concealing as we do their\nnames and the estates to which they belong.\n\nWith regard to the wrongs and hardships of the apprenticeship much as\nsaid; we can only give a small part.\n\nTheir masters were often very harsh with them, more so than when they\nwere slaves. They could not flog them, but they would scold them, and\nswear at them, and call them hard names, which hurt their feelings\nalmost as much as it would if they were to flog them. They would not\nallow them as many privileges as they did formerly. Sometimes they would\ntake their provision grounds away, and sometimes they would go on their\ngrounds and carry away provisions for their own use without paying for\nthem, or as much as asking their leave. They had to bear this, for it\nwas useless to complain--they could get no justice; there was no law in\nManchioneal. The special magistrate would only hear the master, and\nwould not allow the apprentices to say any thing for themselves[A]. The\nmagistrate would do just as the busha (master) said. If he say flog him,\nhe flog him; if he say, send him to Morant Bay, (to the treadmill,) de\nmagistrate send him. If we happen to laugh before de busha, he complain\nto de magistrate, and we get licked. If we go to a friend's house, when\nwe hungry, to get something to eat, and happen to get lost in de woods\nbetween, we are called runaways, and are punished severely. Our half\nFriday is taken away from us; we must give that time to busha for a\nlittle salt-fish, which was always allowed us during slavery. If we lay\nin bed after six o'clock, they take away our Saturday too. If we lose a\nlittle time from work, they make us pay a great deal more time. They\nstated, and so did several of the missionaries, that the loss of the\nhalf Friday was very serious to them; as it often rendered it impossible\nfor them to get to meeting on Sunday. The whole work of cultivating\ntheir grounds, preparing their produce for sale, carrying it to the\ndistant market, (Morant Bay, and sometimes further,) and returning, all\nthis was, by the loss of the Friday afternoon, crowded into Saturday,\nand it was often impossible for them to get back from market before\nSabbath morning; then they had to dress and go six or ten miles further\nto chapel, or stay away altogether, which, from weariness and worldly\ncares, they would be strongly tempted to do. This they represented as\nbeing a grievous thing to them. Said one of the men; in a peculiarly\nsolemn and earnest manner, while the tears stood in his eyes, \"I declare\nto you, massa, if de Lord spare we to be free, we be much more\n'ligiours--_we be wise to many more tings_; we be better Christians;\nbecause den we have all de Sunday for go to meeting. But now de holy\ntime taken up in work for we food.\" These words were deeply impressed\nupon us by the intense earnestness with which they were spoken. They\nrevealed \"the heart's own bitterness.\" There was also a lighting up of\njoy and hope in the countenance of that child of God, as he looked\nforward to the time when he might become _wise to many more tings_.\n\n[Footnote A: We would observe, that they did not refer to Mr.\nChamberlain, but to another magistrate, whose name they mentioned.]\n\nThey gave a heart-sickening account of the cruelties of the treadmill.\nThey spoke of the apprentices having their wrists tied to the handboard,\nand said it was very common for them to fall and hang against the wheel.\nSome who had been sent to the treadmill, had actually died from the\ninjuries they there received. They were often obliged to see their wives\ndragged off to Morant Bay, and tied to the treadmill, even when they\nwere in a state of pregnancy. They suffered a great deal of misery from\n_that; but they could not help it_.\n\nSometimes it was a wonder to themselves how they could endure all the\nprovocations and sufferings of the apprenticeship; _it was only \"by de\nmercy of God_!\"\n\nThey were asked why they did not complain to the special magistrates.\nThey replied, that it did no good, for the magistrates would not take\nany notice of their complaints, besides, it made the masters treat them\nstill worse. Said one, \"We go to de magistrate to complain, and den when\nwe come back de busha do all him can to vex us. He _wingle_ (tease) us,\nand _wingle_ us; de book-keeper curse us and treaten us; de constable he\nscold us, and call hard names, and dey all strive to make we mad, so we\nsay someting wrong, and den dey take we to de magistrate for insolence.\"\nSuch was the final consequence of complaining to the magistrate. We\nasked them why they did not complain, when they had a good magistrate\nwho would do them justice. Their answer revealed a new fact. They were\nafraid to complain to a magistrate, who they knew was their friend,\n_because their masters told them that the magistrate would soon be\nchanged, and another would come who would flog them; and that for every\ntime they dared to complain to the GOOD magistrate, they would be\nflogged when the BAD one came_. They said their masters had explained it\nall to them long ago.\n\nWe inquired of them particularly what course they intended to take when\nthey should become free. We requested them to speak, not only with\nreference to themselves, but of the apprentices generally, as far as\nthey knew their views. They said the apprentices expected to work on the\nestates, if they were allowed to do so. They had no intention of leaving\nwork. Nothing would cause them to leave their estates but bad treatment;\nif their masters were harsh, they would go to another estate, where they\nwould get better treatment. They would be _obliged_ to work when they\nwere free; even more than now, for _then_ they would have no other\ndependence.\n\nOne tried to prove to us by reasoning, that the people would work\nwhen they were free. Said he, \"In slavery time we work _even_ wid de\nwhip, now we work 'till better--_what tink we will do when we free?\nWon't_ we work den, _when we get paid_?\" He appealed to us so earnestly,\nthat we could not help acknowledging we were fully convinced. However,\nin order to establish the point still more clearly, he stated some\nfacts, such as the following:\n\nDuring slavery, it took six men to tend the coppers in boiling sugar,\nand it was thought that fewer could not possibly do the work; but now,\nsince the boilers are paid for their extra time, the work is monopolized\nby _three_ men. They _would not have any help_; they did all the work\n\"_dat dey might get all de pay_.\"\n\nWe sounded them thoroughly on their views of law and freedom. We\ninquired whether they expected to be allowed to do as they pleased when\nthey were free. On this subject they spoke very rationally. Said one,\n\"We could never live widout de law; (we use, his very expressions) we\nmust have some law when we free. In other countries, where dey are free,\n_don't_ dey have law? Wouldn't dey shoot one another if they did not\nhave law?\" Thus they reasoned about freedom. Their chief complaint\nagainst the apprenticeship was, that it did not allow them _justice_.\n\"_There was no law now_.\" They had been told by the governor, that there\nwas the same law for all the island; but they knew better, for there was\nmore justice done them in some districts than in others.\n\nSome of their expressions indicated very strongly the characteristic\nkindness of the negro. They would say, we work now as well as we can\n_for the sake of peace; any thing for peace_. Don't want to be\ncomplained of to the magistrate; don't like to be called hard names--do\nany thing to keep peace. Such expressions were repeatedly made. We asked\nthem what they thought of the domestics being emancipated in 1838, while\nthey had to remain apprentices two years longer? They said, \"it bad\nenough--but we know de law make it so, and _for peace sake_, we will be\nsatisfy. _But we murmur in we minds_.\"\n\nWe asked what they expected to do with the old and infirm, after\nfreedom? They said, \"we will support dem--as how dey brought us up when\nwe was pickaninny, and now we come trong, must care for dem.\" In such a\nspirit did these apprentices discourse for two hours. They won greatly\nupon our sympathy and respect. The touching story of their wrongs, the\nartless unbosoming of their hopes, their forgiving spirit toward their\nmasters, their distinct views of their own rights, their amiable bearing\nunder provocation, their just notions of law, and of a state of\nfreedom--these things were well calculated to excite our admiration for\nthem, and their companions in suffering. Having prayed with the company,\nand commended them to the grace of God, and the salvation of Jesus\nChrist, we shook hands with them individually, and separated from them,\nnever more to see them, until we meet at the bar of God.\n\nWhile one of us was prosecuting the foregoing inquiries in St. Thomas in\nthe East, the other was performing a horse-back tour among the mountains\nof St. Andrews and Port Royal. We had been invited by Stephen Bourne,\nEsq., special magistrate for one of the rural districts in those\nparishes, to spend a week in his family, and accompany him in his\nofficial visits to the plantations embraced in his commission--an\ninvitation we were very glad to accept, as it laid open to us at the\nsame time three important sources of information,--the magistrate, the\nplanter, and the apprentice.\n\nThe sun was just rising as we left Kingston, and entered the high road.\nThe air, which the day before had been painfully hot and stived, was\ncool and fresh, and from flowers and spice-trees, on which the dew still\nlay, went forth a thousand fragrant exhalations. Our course for about\nsix miles, lay over the broad, low plain, which spreads around Kingston,\nwestward to the highlands of St. Andrews, and southward beyond\nSpanishtown. All along the road, and in various directions in the\ndistance, were seen the residences--uncouthly termed 'pens'--of\nmerchants and gentlemen of wealth, whose business frequently calls them\nto town. Unlike Barbadoes, the fields here were protected by walls and\nhedges, with broad gateways and avenues leading to the house. We soon\nbegan to meet here and there, at intervals, person going to the market\nwith fruits and provisions. The number continually increased, and at the\nend of an hour, they could be seen trudging over the fields, and along\nthe by-paths and roads, on every hand. Some had a couple of stunted\ndonkeys yoked to a ricketty cart,--others had mules with\npack-saddles--but the many loaded their own heads, instead of the\ndonkeys and mules. Most of them were well dressed, and all civil and\nrespectful in their conduct.\n\nInvigorated by the mountain air, and animated by the novelty and\ngrandeur of the mountain scenery, through which we had passed, we\narrived at 'Grecian Regale' in season for an early West Indian\nbreakfast, (8 o'clock.) Mr. Bourne's district is entirely composed of\ncoffee plantations, and embraces three thousand apprentices. The people\non coffee plantations are not worked so hard as those employed on sugar\nestates; but they are more liable to suffer from insufficient food\nand clothing.\n\nAfter breakfast we accompanied Mr. Bourne on a visit to the plantations,\nbut there were no complaints either from the master or apprentice,\nexcept on one. Here Mr. B. was hailed by a hoary-headed man, sitting at\nthe side of his house. He said that he was lame and sick, and could not\nwork, and complained that his master did not give him any food. All he\nhad to eat was given him by a relative. As the master was not at home,\nMr. B. could not attend to the complaint at that time, but promised to\nwrite the master about it in the course of the day. He informed us that\nthe aged and disabled were very much neglected under the apprenticeship.\nWhen the working days are over, the profit days are over, and how few in\nany country are willing to support an animal which is past labor? If\nthese complaints are numerous under the new system, when magistrates are\nall abroad to remedy them, what must it have been during slavery, when\nmaster and magistrate were the same!\n\nOn one of the plantations we called at the house of an emigrant, of\nwhich some hundreds have been imported from different parts of Europe,\nsince emancipation. He had been in the island eighteen months, and was\nmuch dissatisfied with his situation. The experiment of importing whites\nto Jamaica as laborers, has proved disastrous--an unfortunate\nspeculation to all parties, and all parties wish them back again.\n\nWe had some conversation with several apprentices, who called on Mr.\nBourne for advice and aid. They all thought the apprenticeship very\nhard, but still, on the whole, liked it better than slavery. They \"were\nkilled too bad,\"--that was their expression--during slavery--were worked\nhard and terribly flogged. They were up ever so early and late--went out\nin the mountains to work, when so cold busha would have to cover himself\nup on the ground. Had little time to eat, or go to meeting. 'Twas all\nslash, slash! Now they couldn't be flogged, unless the magistrate said\nso. Still the busha was very hard to them, and many of the apprentices\nrun away to the woods, they are so badly used.\n\nThe next plantation which we visited was Dublin Castle. It lies in a\ndeep valley, quite enclosed by mountains. The present attorney has been\nin the island nine years, and is attorney for several other properties.\nIn England he was a religious man, and intimately acquainted with the\neccentric Irving. For a while after he came out he preached to the\nslaves, but having taken a black concubine, and treating those under his\ncharge oppressively, he soon obtained a bad character among the blacks,\nand his meetings were deserted. He is now a most passionate and wicked\nman, having cast off even the show of religion.\n\nMr. B. visited Dublin Castle a few weeks since, and spent two days in\nhearing complaints brought against the manager and book-keeper by the\napprentices. He fined the manager, for different acts of oppression, one\nhundred and eight dollars. The attorney was present during the whole\ntime. Near the close of the second day he requested permission to say a\nfew words, which was granted. He raised his hands and eyes in the most\nagonized manner, as though passion was writhing within, and burst\nforth--\"O, my God! my God! has it indeed come to this! Am I to be\narraigned in this way? Is my conduct to be questioned by these people?\nIs my authority to be destroyed by the interference of stranger? O, my\nGod!\" And he fell back into the arms of his book-keeper, and was carried\nout of the room in convulsions.\n\nThe next morning we started on another excursion, for the purpose of\nattending the appraisement of an apprentice belonging to Silver Hill, a\nplantation about ten miles distant from Grecian Regale. We rode but a\nshort distance in the town road, when we struck off into a narrow defile\nby a mule-path, and pushed into the very heart of the mountains.\n\nWe felt somewhat timid at the commencement of our excursion among these\nminor Andes, but we gained confidence as we proceeded, and finding our\nhorse sure-footed and quite familiar with mountain paths, we soon\nlearned to gallop, without fear, along the highest cliffs, and through\nthe most dangerous passes. We were once put in some jeopardy by a drove\nof mules, laden with coffee. We fortunately saw them, as they came round\nthe point of a hill, at some distance, in season to secure ourselves in\na little recess where the path widened. On they came, cheered by the\nloud cries of their drivers, and passed rapidly forward, one after\nanother, with the headlong stupidity which animals, claiming more wisdom\nthan quadrupeds, not unfrequently manifest. When they came up to us,\nhowever, they showed that they were not unaccustomed to such encounters,\nand, although the space between us and the brow of the precipice, was\nnot three feet wide, they all contrived to sway their bodies and heavy\nsacks in such a manner as to pass us safely, except one. He, more stupid\nor more unlucky than the rest, struck us a full broad-side as he went by\njolting us hard against the hill, and well-nigh jolting himself down the\ncraggy descent into the abyss below. One leg hung a moment over the\nprecipice, but the poor beast suddenly threw his whole weight forward,\nand by a desperate leap, obtained sure foothold in the path, and again\ntrudged along with his coffee-bags.\n\nOn our way we called at two plantations, but found no complaints. At one\nof them we had some conversation with the overseer. He has on it one\nhundred and thirty apprentices, and produces annually thirty thousand\npounds of coffee. He informed us that he was getting along well. His\npeople are industrious and obedient, as much so, to say the least, as\nunder the old system. The crop this year is not so great as usual, on\naccount of the severe drought. His plantation was never better\ncultivated. Besides the one hundred and thirty apprentices, there are\nforty free children, who are supported by their parents. None of them\nwill work for hire, or in any way put themselves under his control, as\nthe parents fear there is some plot laid for making them apprentices,\nand through that process reducing them to slavery. He thinks this\nfeeling will continue till the apprenticeship is entirely broken up, and\nthe people begin to feel assured of complete freedom, when it will\ndisappear.\n\nWe reached Silver Hill about noon. This plantation contains one hundred\nand ten apprentices, and is under the management of a colored man, who\nhas had charge of it seven years. He informed us that it was under as\ngood cultivation now as it was before emancipation. His people are\neasily controlled. Very much depends on the conduct of the overseer. If\nhe is disposed to be just and kind, the apprentices are sure to behave\nwell; if he is harsh and severe, and attempts to _drive_ them, they will\ntake no pains to please him, but on the contrary, will be sulky and\nobstinate.\n\nThere were three overseers from other estates present. One of them had\nbeen an overseer for forty years, and he possessed the looks and\nfeelings which we suppose a man who has been thus long in a school of\ndespotism, must possess. He had a giant form, which seemed to be\nbreaking down with luxury and sensualism. His ordinary voice was hoarse\nand gusty, and his smile diabolical. Emancipation had swept away his\npower while it left the love of it ravaging his heart. He could not\nspeak of the new system with composure. His contempt and hatred of the\nnegro was unadulterated. He spoke of the apprentices with great\nbitterness. They were excessively lazy and impudent, and were becoming\nmore and more so every day. They did not do half the work now that they\ndid before emancipation. It was the character of the negro never to work\nunless compelled. His people would not labor for him an hour in their\nown time, although he had offered to pay them for it. They have not the\nleast gratitude. They will leave him in the midst of his crop, and help\nothers, because they can get a little more. They spend all their half\nFridays and their Saturdays on other plantations where they receive\nforty cents a day. Twenty-five cents is enough for them, and is as much\nas he will give.\n\nMr. B. requested the overseer to bring forward his complaints. He had\nonly two. One was against a boy of ten for stealing a gill of goat's\nmilk. The charge was disproved. The other was against a boy of twelve\nfor neglecting the cattle, and permitting them to trespass on the lands\nof a neighbor. He was sentenced to receive a good switching--that is, to\nbe beaten with a small stick by the constable of the plantation.\n\nSeveral apprentices then appeared and made a few trivial complaints\nagainst 'busha.' They were quickly adjusted. These were all the\ncomplaints that had accumulated in five weeks.\n\nThe principal business which called Mr. Bourne to the plantation, as we\nhave already remarked, was the appraisement of an apprentice. The\nappraisers were himself and a local magistrate. The apprentice was a\nnative born African, and was stolen from his country when a boy. He had\nalways resided on this plantation, and had always been a faithful\nlaborer. He was now the constable, or driver, as the office was called\nin slavery times, of the second gang. The overseer testified to his\nhonesty and industry, and said he regretted much to have him leave. He\nwas, as appeared by the plantation books, fifty-four years old, but was\nevidently above sixty. After examining several witnesses as to the old\nman's ability and general health, and making calculations by the rule of\nthree, with the cold accuracy of a yankee horse-bargain, it was decided\nthat his services were worth to the plantation forty-eight dollars a\nyears, and for the remaining time of the apprenticeship, consequently,\nat that rate, one hundred and fifty-six dollars. One third of this was\ndeducted as an allowance for the probabilities of death, and sickness,\nleaving one hundred and four dollars as the price of his redemption. The\nold man objected strongly and earnestly to the price; he said, it was\ntoo much; he had not money enough to pay it; and begged them, with tears\nin his eyes, not to make him pay so much \"for his old bones;\" but they\nwould not remit a cent. They could not. They were the stern ministers of\nthe British emancipation law, the praises of which have been shouted\nthrough the earth!\n\nOf the three overseers who were present, not one could be called a\nrespectable man. Their countenances were the mirrors of all lustful and\ndesperate passions. They were continually drinking rum and water, and\none of them was half drunk.\n\nOur next visit was to an elevated plantation called Peter's Rock. The\npath to it was, in one place, so steep, that we had to dismount and\npermit our horses to work their way up as they could, while we followed\non foot. We then wound along among provision grounds and coffee fields,\nthrough forests where hardly a track was to be seen, and over hedges,\nwhich the horses were obliged to leap, till we issued on the great path\nwhich leads from the plantation to Kingston.\n\nPeter's Rock has one hundred apprentices, and is under the management,\nas Mr. Bourne informed us, of a very humane man. During the two years\nand a half of the apprenticeship, there had been _only six complaints_.\nAs we approached the plantation we saw the apprentices at the side of\nthe road, eating their breakfast. They had been at work some distance\nfrom their houses, and could not spend time to go home. They saluted us\nwith great civility, most of them rising and uncovering their heads. In\nanswer to our questions, they said they were getting along very well.\nThey said their master was kind to them, and they appeared in\nfine spirits.\n\nThe overseer met us as we rode up to the door, and received us very\ncourteously. He had no complaints. He informed us that the plantation\nwas as well cultivated as it had been for many years, and the people\nwere perfectly obedient and industrious.\n\nFrom Peter's Rock we rode to \"Hall's Prospect,\" a plantation on which\nthere are sixty apprentices under the charge of a black overseer, who,\ntwo years ago, was a slave. It was five weeks since Mr. B. had been\nthere, and yet he had only one complaint, and that against a woman for\nbeing late at work on Monday morning. The reason she gave for this was,\nthat she went to an estate some miles distant to spend the Sabbath with\nher husband.\n\nMr. Bourne, by the aid of funds left in his hands by Mr. Sturge, is\nabout to establish a school on this plantation. Mr. B., at a previous\nvisit, had informed the people of what he intended to do, and asked\ntheir co-operation. As soon as they saw him to-day, several of them\nimmediately inquired about the school, when it would begin, &c. They\nshowed the greatest eagerness and thankfulness. Mr. B. told them he\nshould send a teacher as soon as a house was prepared. He had been\ntalking with their master (the attorney of the plantation) about fixing\none, who had offered them the old \"lock-up house,\" if they would put it\nin order. There was a murmur among them at this annunciation. At length\none of the men said, they did not want the school to be held in the\n\"lock-up house.\" It was not a good place for their \"pickaninnies\" to go\nto. They had much rather have some other building, and would be glad to\nhave it close to their houses. Mr. B. told them if they would put up a\nsmall house near their own, he would furnish it with desks and benches.\nTo this they all assented with great joy.\n\nOn our way home we saw, as we did on various other occasions, many of\nthe apprentices with hoes, baskets, &c., going to their provision\ngrounds. We had some conversation with them as we rode along. They said\nthey had been in the fields picking coffee since half past five o'clock.\nThey were now going, as they always did after \"horn-blow\" in the\nafternoon, (four o'clock,) to their grounds, where they should stay till\ndark. Some of their grounds were four, others six miles from home. They\nall liked the apprenticeship better than slavery. They were not flogged\nso much now, and had more time to themselves. But they should like\nfreedom much better, and should be glad when it came.\n\nWe met a brown young woman driving an ass laden with a great variety of\narticles. She said she had been to Kingston (fifteen miles off) with a\nload of provisions, and had purchased some things to sell to the\napprentices. We asked her what she did with her money. \"Give it to my\nhusband,\" said she. \"Do you keep none for yourself?\" She smiled and\nreplied: \"What for him for me.\"\n\nAfter we had passed, Mr. B. informed us that she had been an apprentice,\nbut purchased her freedom a few months previous, and was now engaged as\na kind of country merchant. She purchases provisions of the negroes, and\ncarries them to Kingston, where she exchanges them for pins, needles,\nthread, dry goods, and such articles as the apprentices need, which she\nagain exchanges for provisions and money.\n\nMr. Bourne informed us that real estate is much higher than before\nemancipation. He mentioned one \"pen\" which was purchased for eighteen\nhundred dollars a few years since. The owner had received nine hundred\ndollars as 'compensation' for freedom. It has lately been leased for\nseven years by the owner, for nine hundred dollars per year.\n\nA gentleman who owns a plantation in Mr. B.'s district, sold parcels of\nland to the negroes before emancipation at five shillings per acre. He\nnow obtains twenty-seven shillings per acre.\n\nThe house in which Mr. B. resides was rented in 1833 for one hundred and\nfifty dollars. Mr. B. engaged it on his arrival for three years, at two\nhundred and forty dollars per year. His landlord informed him a few days\nsince, that on the expiration of his present lease, he should raise the\nrent to three hundred and thirty dollars.\n\nMr. B. is acquainted with a gentleman of wealth, who has been\nendeavoring for the last twelve months to purchase an estate in this\nisland. He has offered high prices, but has as yet been unable to obtain\none. Landholders have so much confidence in the value and security of\nreal estate, that they do not wish to part with it.\n\nAfter our visit to Silver Hill, our attention was particularly turned to\nthe condition of the negro grounds. Most of them were very clean and\nflourishing. Large plats of the onion, of cocoa, plantain, banana, yam,\npotatoe, and other tropic vegetables, were scattered all around within\nfive or six miles of a plantation. We were much pleased with the\nappearance of them during a ride on a Friday. In the forenoon, they had\nall been vacant; not a person was to be seen in them; but after one\no'clock, they began gradually to be occupied, till, at the end of an\nhour, where-ever we went, we saw men, women, and children laboring\nindustriously in their little gardens. In some places, the hills to\ntheir very summits were spotted with cultivation. Till Monday morning\nthe apprentices were free, and they certainly manifested a strong\ndisposition to spend that time in taking care of themselves. The\ntestimony of the numerous apprentices with whom we conversed, was to the\nsame effect as our observation. They all testified that they were paying\nas much attention to their grounds as they ever did, but that their\nprovisions had been cut short by the drought. They had their land all\nprepared for a new crop, and were only waiting for rain to put in the\nseed. Mr. Bourne corroborated their statement, and remarked, that he\nnever found the least difficulty in procuring laborers. Could he have\nthe possession of the largest plantation in the island to-day, he had no\ndoubt that, within a week, he could procure free laborers enough to\ncultivate every acre.\n\nOn one occasion, while among the mountains, we were impressed on a jury\nto sit in inquest on the body of a negro woman found dead on the high\nroad. She was, as appeared in evidence, on her return from the house of\ncorrection, at Half-Way-Tree, where she had been sentenced for fourteen\ndays, and been put on the treadmill. She had complained to some of her\nacquaintances of harsh treatment there, and said they had killed her,\nand that if she ever lived to reach home, she should tell all her\nmassa's negroes never to cross the threshold of Half-Way-Tree, as it\nwould kill them. The evidence, however, was not clear that she died in\nconsequence of such treatment, and the jury, accordingly, decided that\nshe came to her death by some cause unknown to them.\n\nNine of the jury were overseers, and if they, collected together\nindiscriminately on this occasion, were a specimen of those who have\ncharge of the apprentices in this island, they must be most degraded and\nbrutal men. They appeared more under the influence of low passions, more\ndegraded by sensuality, and but little more intelligent, than the\nnegroes themselves. Instead of possessing irresponsible power over their\nfellows, they ought themselves to be under the power of the most strict\nand energetic laws. Our visits to the plantations, and inquiries on this\npoint, confirmed this opinion. They are the 'feculum' of European\nsociety--ignorant, passionate, licentious. We do them no injustice when\nwe say this, nor when we further add, that the apprentices suffer in a\nhundred ways which the law cannot reach, gross insults and oppression\nfrom their excessive rapaciousness and lust. What must it have been\nduring slavery?\n\nWe had some conversation with Cheny Hamilton, Esq., one of the special\nmagistrates for Port Royal. He is a colored man, and has held his office\nabout eighteen months. There are three thousand apprentices in his\ndistrict, which embraces sugar and coffee estates. The complaints are\nfew and of a very trivial nature. They mostly originate with the\nplanters. Most of the cases brought before him are for petty theft and\nabsence from work.\n\nIn his district, cultivation was never better. The negroes are willing\nto work during their own time. His father-in-law is clearing up some\nmountain land for a coffee plantation, by the labor of apprentices from\nneighboring estates. The seasons since emancipation have been bad. The\nblacks cultivate their own grounds on their half Fridays and Saturdays,\nunless they can obtain employment from others.\n\nNothing is doing by the planters for the education of the apprentices.\nTheir only object is to get as much work out of them as possible.\n\nThe blacks, so far as he has had opportunity to observe, are in every\nrespect as quiet and industrious as they were before freedom. He said if\nwe would compare the character of the complaints brought by the\noverseers and apprentices against each other, we should see for\nourselves which party was the most peaceable and law-abiding.\n\nTo these views we may here add those of another gentleman, with whom we\nhad considerable conversation about the same time. He is a proprietor\nand local magistrate, and was represented to us as a kind and humane\nman. Mr. Bourne stated to us that he had not had six cases of complaint\non his plantation for the last twelve months. We give his most important\nstatements in the following brief items:\n\n1. He has had charge of estates in Jamaica since 1804. At one time he\nhad twelve hundred negroes under his control. He now owns a coffee\nplantation, on which there are one hundred and ten apprentices, and is\nalso attorney for several others, the owners of which reside out of\nthe island.\n\n2. His plantation is well cultivated and clean, and his people are as\nindustrious and civil as they ever were. He employs them during their\nown time, and always finds them willing to work for him, unless their\nown grounds require their attendance. Cultivation generally, through the\nisland, is as good as it ever was. Many of the planters, at the\ncommencement of the apprenticeship, reduced the quantity of land\ncultivated; he did not do so, but on the contrary is extending his\nplantation.\n\n3. The crops this year are not so good as usual. This is no fault of the\napprentices, but is owing to the bad season.\n\n4. The conduct of the apprentices depends very much on the conduct of\nthose who have charge of them. If you find a plantation on which the\noverseer is kind, and does common justice to the laborer, you will find\nthings going on well--if otherwise, the reverse. Those estates and\nplantations on which the proprietor himself resides, are most peaceable\nand prosperous.\n\n5. Real estate is more valuable than before emancipation. Property is\nmore secure, and capitalists are more ready to invest their funds.\n\n6. The result of 1840 is as yet doubtful. For his part, he has no fears.\nHe doubts not he can cultivate his plantation as easily after that\nperiod as before. He is confident he can do it cheaper. He thinks it not\nonly likely, but certain, that many of the plantations on which the\npeople have been ill used, while slaves and apprentices, will be\nabandoned by the present laborers, and that they will never be worked\nuntil overseers are put over them who, instead of doing all they can to\nharass them, will soothe and conciliate them. The apprenticeship has\ndone much harm instead of good in the way of preparing the blacks to\nwork after 1840.\n\nA few days after our return from the mountains, we rode to Spanishtown,\nwhich is about twelve miles west of Kingston. Spanishtown is the seat of\ngovernment, containing the various buildings for the residence of the\ngovernor, the meeting of the legislature, the session of the courts, and\nrooms for the several officers of the crown. They are all strong and\nmassive structures, but display little architectural magnificence\nor beauty.\n\nWe spent nearly a day with Richard Hill, Esq., the secretary of the\nspecial magistrates' department, of whom we have already spoken. He is a\ncolored gentleman, and in every respect the noblest man, white or black,\nwhom we met in the West Indies. He is highly intelligent, and of fine\nmoral feelings. His manners are free and unassuming, and his language in\nconversation fluent and well chosen. He is intimately acquainted with\nEnglish and French authors, and has studied thoroughly the history and\ncharacter of the people with whom the tie of color has connected him. He\ntravelled two years in Hayti, and his letters, written in a flowing and\nluxuriant style, as a son of the tropics should write, giving an account\nof his observations and inquiries in that interesting island, were\npublished extensively in England; and have been copied into the\nanti-slavery journals in this country. His journal will be given to the\npublic as soon as his official duties will permit him to prepare it. He\nis at the head of the special magistrates, (of which there are sixty in\nthe island,) and all the correspondence between them and the governor is\ncarried on through him. The station he holds is a very important one,\nand the business connected with it is of a character and an extent that,\nwere he not a man of superior abilities, he could not sustain. He is\nhighly respected by the government in the island, and at home, and\npossesses the esteem of his fellow-citizens of all colors. He associates\nwith persons of the highest rank, dining and attending parties at the\ngovernment-house with all the aristocracy of Jamaica. We had the\npleasure of spending an evening with him at the solicitor-general's.\nThough an African sun has burnt a deep tinge on him, he is truly one of\nnature's noblemen. His demeanor is such, so dignified, yet bland and\namiable, that no one can help respecting him.\n\nHe spoke in the warmest terms of Lord Sligo,[A] the predecessor of Sir\nLionel Smith, who was driven from the island by the machinations of the\nplanters and the enemies of the blacks. Lord Sligo was remarkable for\nhis statistical accuracy. Reports were made to him by the special\nmagistrates every week. No act of injustice or oppression could escape\nhis indefatigable inquiries. He was accessible, and lent an open ear to\nthe lowest person in the island. The planters left no means untried to\nremove him, and unhappily succeeded.\n\n[Footnote A: When Lord Sligo visited the United States in the summer of\n1836, he spoke with great respect of Mr. Hill to Elizur Wright, Esq.,\nCorresponding Secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Mr. Wright\nhas furnished us with the following statement:--\"Just before his\nlordship left this city for England, he bore testimony to us\nsubstantially as follows:--'When I went to Jamaica, Mr. Hill was a\nspecial magistrate. In a certain case he refused to comply with my\ndirections, differing from me in his interpretation of the law. I\ninformed him that his continued non-compliance must result in his\nremoval from office. He replied that his mind was made up as to the law,\nand he would not violate his reason to save his bread. Being satisfied\nof the correctness of my own interpretation, I was obliged, of course,\nto remove him; but I was so forcibly struck with his manly independence,\nthat I applied to the government for power to employ him as my\nsecretary, which was granted. And having had him as an _intimate of my\nfamily_ for several months, I can most cordially bear my testimony to\nhis trustworthiness, ability, and gentlemanly deportment.' Lord Sligo\nalso added, that Mr. Hill was treated in his family in all respects as\nif he had not been colored, and that with no gentleman in the West\nIndies was he, in social life, on terms of more intimate friendship.\"]\n\nThe following items contain the principal information received from Mr.\nHill:\n\n1. The apprenticeship is a most vicious system, full of blunders and\nabsurdities, and directly calculated to set master and slave at war.\n\n2. The complaints against the apprentices are decreasing every month,\n_except, perhaps, complaints against mothers for absence from work,\nwhich he thinks are increasing_. The apprenticeship _law_ makes no\nprovision for the free children, and on most of the plantations and\nestates no allowance is given them, but they are thrown entirely for\nsupport on their parents, who are obliged to work the most and best part\nof their time for their masters unrewarded. The nurseries are broken up,\nand frequently the mothers are obliged to work in the fields with their\ninfants at their backs, or else to leave them at some distance under the\nshade of a hedge or tree. Every year is making their condition worse and\nworse. The number of children is increasing, and yet the mothers are\nrequired, after their youngest child has attained the age of a few\nweeks, to be at work the same number of hours as the men. Very little\ntime is given them to take care of their household. When they are tardy\nthey are brought before the magistrate.\n\nA woman was brought before Mr. Hill a few days before we were there,\ncharged with not being in the field till one hour after the rest of the\ngang. She had twins, and appeared before him with a child hanging on\neach arm. What an eloquent defence! He dismissed the complaint.\n\nHe mentioned another case, of a woman whose master resided in\nSpanishtown, but who was hired out by him to some person in the country.\nHer child became sick, but her employer refused any assistance. With it\nin her arms, she entreated aid of her master. The monster drove her and\nher dying little one into the street at night, and she sought shelter\nwith Mr. Hill, where her child expired before morning. For such horrid\ncruelty as this, the apprenticeship law provides no remedy. The woman\nhad no claim for the support of her child, on the man who was receiving\nthe wages of her daily toil. That child was not worth a farthing to him,\nbecause it was no longer his _chattel_; and while the law gives him\npower to rob the mother, it has no compulsion to make him support\nthe child.\n\n3. The complaints are generally of the most trivial and frivolous\nnature. They are mostly against mothers for neglect of duty, and vague\ncharges of insolence. There is no provision in the law to prevent the\nmaster from using abusive language to the apprentice; any insult short\nof a blow, he is free to commit; but the slightest word of incivility, a\nlook, smile, or grin, is punished in the apprentice, even though it\nwere provoked.\n\n4. There is still much flogging by the overseers. Last week a girl came\nto Mr. H. terribly scarred and \"slashed,\" and complained that her master\nhad beaten her. It appeared that this was the _seventh offence_, for\nneither of which she could obtain a hearing from the special magistrate\nin her district. While Mr. H. was relating to me this fact, a girl came\nin with a little babe in her arms. He called my attention to a large\nbruise near her eye. He said her master knocked her down a few days\nsince, and made that wound by kicking her.\n\nFrequently when complaints of insolence are made, on investigation, it\nis found that the offence was the result of a quarrel commenced by the\nmaster, during which he either cuffed or kicked the offender.\n\nThe special magistrates also frequently resort to flogging. Many of\nthem, as has been mentioned already, have been connected with the army\nor navy, where corporal punishment is practised and flogging is not only\nin consonance with their feelings and habits, but is a punishment more\nbriefly inflicted and more grateful to the planters, as it does not\ndeprive them of the apprentice's time.\n\n5. Mr. H. says that the apprentices who have purchased their freedom\nbehave well. He has not known one of them to be brought before\nthe police.\n\n6. Many of the special magistrates require much looking after. Their\nsalaries are not sufficient to support them independently. Some of them\nleave their homes on Monday morning, and make the whole circuit of their\ndistrict before returning, living and lodging meanwhile, _free of\nexpense_, with the planters. If they are not inclined to listen to the\ncomplaints of the apprentices, they soon find that the apprentices are\nnot inclined to make complaints to them, and that they consequently have\nmuch more leisure time, and get through their district much easier. Of\nthe sixty magistrates in Jamaica, but few can be said to discharge their\nduties faithfully. The governor is often required to interfere. A few\nweeks since he discharged two magistrates for putting iron collars on\ntwo women, in direct violation of the law, and then sending him\nfalse reports.\n\n7. The negro grounds are often at a great distance, five or six miles,\nand some of them fifteen miles, from the plantation. Of course much\ntime, which would otherwise be spent in cultivating them, is necessarily\nconsumed in going to them and returning. Yet for all that, and though in\nmany cases the planters have withdrawn the watchmen who used to protect\nthem, and have left them entirely exposed to thieves and cattle, they\nare generally well cultivated--on the whole, better than during slavery.\nWhen there is inattention to them, it is caused either by some planters\nhiring them during their own time, or because their master permits his\ncattle to trespass on them, and the people feel an insecurity. When you\nfind a kind planter, in whom the apprentices have confidence, there you\nwill find beautiful gardens. In not a few instances, where the overseer\nis particularly harsh and cruel, the negroes have thrown up their old\ngrounds, and taken new ones on other plantations, where the overseer is\nbetter liked, or gone into the depths of the mountain forests, where no\nhuman foot has been before them, and there cleared up small plats. This\nwas also done to some extent during slavery. Many of the people, against\nwhom the planters are declaiming as lazy and worthless, have rich\ngrounds of which those planters little dream.\n\n8. There is no feeling of insecurity, either of life or property. One\nmay travel through the whole island without the least fear of violence.\nIf there is any danger, it is from the _emigrants_, who have been guilty\nof several outrages. So far from the planters fearing violence from the\napprentices, when an assault or theft is committed, they refer it,\nalmost as a matter of course, to some one else. A few weeks ago one of\nthe island mails was robbed. As soon as it became known, it was at once\nsaid, \"Some of those villanous emigrants did it,\" and so indeed\nit proved.\n\nPeople in the country, in the midst of the mountains, where the whites\nare few and isolated, sleep with their doors and windows open, without a\nthought of being molested. In the towns there are no watchmen, and but a\nsmall police, and yet the streets are quiet and property safe.\n\n9. The apprentices understand the great provisions of the new system,\nsuch as the number of hours they must work for their master, and that\ntheir masters have no right to flog them, &c., but its details are\ninexplicable mysteries. The masters have done much injury by deceiving\nthem on points of which they were ignorant.\n\n10. The apprentices almost to a man are ready to work for wages during\ntheir own time. When the overseer is severe towards them, they prefer\nworking on other plantations, even for less wages, as is very natural.\n\n11. Almost all the evils of the apprenticeship arise from the obstinacy\nand oppressive conduct of the overseers. They are constantly taking\nadvantage of the defects of the system, which are many, and while they\ndemand to the last grain's weight \"the pound of flesh,\" they are utterly\nunwilling to yield the requirements which the law makes of them. Where\nyou find an overseer endeavoring in every way to overreach the\napprentices, taking away the privileges which they enjoyed during\nslavery, and exacting from them the utmost minute and mite of labor,\nthere you will find abundant complaints both against the master and the\napprentice. And the reverse. The cruel overseers are complaining of\nidleness, insubordination, and ruin, while the kind master is moving on\npeaceably and prosperously.\n\n12. The domestic apprentices have either one day, or fifty cents cash,\neach week, as an allowance for food and clothing. This is quite\ninsufficient. Many of the females seem obliged to resort to theft or to\nprostitution to obtain a support. Two girls were brought before Mr. Hill\nwhile we were with him, charged with neglect of duty and night-walking.\nOne of them said her allowance was too small, and she must get food in\nsome other way or starve.\n\n13. The apprentices on many plantations have been deprived of several\nprivileges which they enjoyed under the old system. Nurseries have been\nabolished, water-carriers have been taken away, keeping stock is\nrestricted, if not entirely forbidden, watchmen are no longer provided\nto guard the negro grounds, &c.--petty aggressions in our eyes, perhaps,\nbut severe to them. Another instance is still more hard. By the custom\nof slavery, women who had reared up seven children were permitted to\n\"sit down,\" as it was termed; that is, were not obliged to go into the\nfield to work. Now no such distinction is made, but all are driven into\nthe field.\n\n14. One reason why the crops were smaller in 1835 and 1836 than in\nformer years, was, that the planters in the preceding seasons, either\nfearful that the negroes would not take off the crops after\nemancipation, and acting on their baseless predictions instead of facts,\nor determined to make the results of emancipation appear as disastrous\nas possible, neglected to put in the usual amount of cane, and to clean\nthe coffee fields. As they refused to sow, of course they could\nnot reap.\n\n15. The complaints against the apprentices generally are becoming fewer\nevery week, but the complaints against the masters are increasing both\nin number and severity. One reason of this is, that the apprentices, on\nthe one hand, are becoming better acquainted with the new system, and\ntherefore better able to avoid a violation of its provisions, and are\nalso learning that they cannot violate these provisions with impunity;\nand, on the other hand, they are gaining courage to complain against\ntheir masters, to whom they have hitherto been subjected by a fear\ncreated by the whips and dungeons, and nameless tortures of slavery.\nAnother reason is, that the masters, as the term of the apprenticeship\nshortens, and the end of their authority approaches nearer, are pressing\ntheir poor victims harder and harder, determined to extort from them all\nthey can, before complete emancipation rescues them for ever from\ntheir grasp.\n\nWhile we were in conversation with Mr. Hill, Mr. Ramsay, one of the\nspecial magistrates for this parish, called in. He is a native of\nJamaica, and has been educated under all the influences of West India\nsociety, but has held fast his integrity, and is considered the firm\nfriend of the apprentices. He confirmed every fact and opinion which Mr.\nHill had given. He was even stronger than Mr. H. in his expressions of\ndisapprobation of the apprenticeship.\n\nThe day which we spent with Mr. Hill was one of those on which he holds\na special justice's court. There were only three cases of complaint\nbrought before him.\n\nThe first was brought by a woman, attended by her husband, against her\nservant girl, for \"impertinence and insubordination.\" She took the oath\nand commenced her testimony with an abundance of vague charges. \"She is\nthe most insolent girl I ever saw. She'll do nothing that she is told to\ndo--she never thinks of minding what is said to her--she is sulky and\nsaucy,\" etc. Mr. H. told her she must be specific--he could not convict\nthe girl on such general charges--some particular acts must be proved.\n\nShe became specific. Her charges were as follows:\n\n1. On the previous Thursday the defendant was plaiting a shirt. The\ncomplainant went up to her and asked her why she did not plait it as she\nought, and not hold it in her hand as she did. Defendant replied, that\nit was easier, and she preferred that way to the other. The complainant\nremonstrated, but, despite all she could say, the obstinate girl\npersisted, and did it as she chose. The complainant granted that the\nwork was done well, only it was not done in the way she desired.\n\n2. The same day she ordered the defendant to wipe up some tracks in the\nhall. She did so. While she was doing it, the mistress told her the room\nwas very dusty, and reproved her for it. The girl replied, \"Is it\nmorning?\" (It is customary to clean the rooms early in the morning, and\nthe girl made this reply late in the afternoon, when sufficient time had\nelapsed for the room to become dusty again.)\n\n3. The girl did not wash a cloth clean which the complainant gave her,\nand the complainant was obliged to wash it herself.\n\n4. Several times when the complainant and her daughter have been\nconversing together, this girl had burst into laughter--whether at them\nor their conversation, complainant did not know.\n\n5. When the complainant has reproved the defendant for not doing her\nwork well, she has replied, \"Can't you let me alone to my work, and not\nworry my life out.\"\n\nA black man, a constable on the same property, was brought up to confirm\nthe charges. He knew nothing about the case, only that he often heard\nthe parties quarrelling, and sometimes had told the girl not to say any\nthing, as she knew what her mistress was.\n\nIt appeared in the course of the evidence, that the complainant and her\nhusband had both been in the habit of speaking disrespectfully of the\nspecial magistrate, stationed in their district, and that many of the\ncontentions arose out of that, as the girl sometimes defended him.\n\nWhile the accused was making her defence, which she did in a modest way,\nher mistress was highly enraged, and interrupted her several times, by\ncalling her a liar and a jade. The magistrate was two or three times\nobliged to reprove her, and command her to be silent, and, so passionate\ndid she become, that her husband, ashamed of her, put his hand on her\nshoulder, and entreated her to be calm.\n\nMr. Hill dismissed the complaint by giving some good advice to both\nparties, much to the annoyance of the mistress.\n\nThe second complaint was brought by a man against a servant girl, for\ndisobedience of orders, and insolence. It appears that she was ordered,\nat ten o'clock at night, to do some work. She was just leaving the house\nto call on some friends, as she said, and refused. On being told by her\nmistress that she only wanted to go out for bad purposes, she replied,\nthat \"It was no matter--the allowance they gave her was not sufficient\nto support her, and if they would not give her more, she must get a\nliving any way she could, so she did not steal.\" She was sentenced to\nthe house of correction for one week.\n\nThe third case was a complaint against a boy for taking every alternate\nFriday and Saturday, instead of every Saturday, for allowance. He was\nordered to take every Saturday, or to receive in lieu of it half\na dollar.\n\nMr. Hill said these were a fair specimen of the character of the\ncomplaints that came before him. We were much pleased with the manner in\nwhich he presided in his court, the ease, dignity, and impartiality\nwhich he exhibited, and the respect which was shown him by all parties.\n\nIn company with Mr. Hill, we called on Rev. Mr. Phillips, the Baptist\nmissionary, stationed at Spanishtown. Mr. P. has been in the island\nthirteen years. He regards the apprenticeship as a great amelioration of\nthe old system of slavery, but as coming far short of the full\nprivileges and rights of freedom, and of what it was expected to be. It\nis beneficial to the missionaries, as it gives them access to the\nplantations, while before, in many instances, they were entirely\nexcluded from them, and in all cases were much shackled in their\noperations.\n\nMr. P. has enlarged his chapel within the last fifteen months, so that\nit admits several hundreds more than formerly. But it is now too small.\nThe apprentices are much more anxious to receive religious instruction,\nand much more open to conviction, than when slaves. He finds a great\ndifference now on different plantations. Where severity is used, as it\nstill is on many estates, and the new system is moulded as nearly as\npossible on the old, the minds of the apprentices are apparently closed\nagainst all impressions,--but where they are treated with kindness, they\nare warm in their affections, and solicitous to be taught.\n\nIn connection with his church, Mr. P. has charge of a large school. The\nnumber present, when we visited it, was about two hundred. There was, to\nsay the least, as much manifestation of intellect and sprightliness as\nwe ever saw in white pupils of the same age. Most of the children were\nslaves previous to 1834, and their parents are still apprentices.\nSeveral were pointed out to us who were not yet free, and attend only by\npermission, sometimes purchased, of their master. The greater part live\nfrom three to five miles distant. Mr. P. says he finds no lack of\ninterest among the apprentices about education. He can find scholars for\nas many schools as he can establish, if he keeps himself unconnected\nwith the planters. The apprentices are opposed to all schools\nestablished by, or in any way allied to, their masters.\n\nMr. P. says the planters are doing nothing to prepare the apprentices\nfor freedom in 1840. They do not regard the apprenticeship as\nintermediate time for preparation, but as part of the _compensation_.\nEvery day is counted, not as worth so much for education and moral\ninstruction, but as worth so much for digging cane-holes, and clearing\ncoffee fields.\n\nMr. P.'s church escaped destruction during the persecution of the\nBaptists. The wives and connections of many of the colored soldiers had\ntaken refuge in it, and had given out word that they would defend it\neven against their own husbands and brothers, who in turn informed their\nofficers that if ordered to destroy it, they should refuse at all peril.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nRESULTS OF ABOLITION.\n\nThe actual working of the apprenticeship in Jamaica, was the specific\nobject of our investigations in that island. That it had not operated so\nhappily as in Barbadoes, and in most of the other colonies, was admitted\nby all parties. As to the _degree_ of its failure, we were satisfied it\nwas not so great as had been represented. There has been nothing of an\n_insurrectionary_ character since the abolition of slavery. The affair\non Thornton's estate, of which an account is given in the preceding\nchapter, is the most serious disturbance which has occurred during the\napprenticeship. The _fear_ of insurrection is as effectually dead in\nJamaica, as in Barbadoes--so long as the apprenticeship lasts. There has\nbeen no _increase of crime_. The character of the negro population has\nbeen gradually improving in morals and intelligence. Marriage has\nincreased, the Sabbath is more generally observed, and religious worship\nis better attended. Again, the apprentices of Jamaica have not\nmanifested any peculiar _defiance of law_. The most illiberal\nmagistrates testified that the people respected the law, when they\nunderstood it. As it respects the _industry_ of the apprentices, there\nare different opinions among the _planters_ themselves. Some admitted\nthat they were as industrious as before, and did as much work _in\nproportion to the time they were employed_. Others complained that they\n_lacked the power_ to compel industry, and that hence there was a\nfalling off of work. The prominent evils complained of in Jamaica are,\nabsconding from work, and insolence to masters. From the statements in\nthe preceding chapter, it may be inferred that many things are called by\nthese names, and severely punished, which are really innocent or\nunavoidable; however, it would not be wonderful if there were numerous\ninstances of both. Insolence is the legitimate fruit of the\napprenticeship, which holds out to the apprentice, that he possesses the\nrights of a man, and still authorizes the master to treat him as though\nhe were little better than a dog. The result must often be that the\napprentice will repay insult with insolence. This will continue to exist\nuntil either the former system of _absolute force_ is restored, or a\nsystem of free compensated labor, with its powerful checks and balances\non both parties, is substituted. The prevalence and causes of the other\noffence--absconding from labor--will be noticed hereafter.\n\nThe atrocities which are practised by the masters and magistrates, are\nappalling enough. It is probable that the actual condition of the\nnegroes in Jamaica, is but little if any better than it was during\nslavery. The amount of punishment inflicted by the special magistrates,\ncannot fall much short of that usually perpetrated by the drivers. In\naddition to this, the apprentices are robbed of the _time_ allowed them\nby law, at the will of the magistrate, who often deprives them of it on\nthe slightest complaint of the overseer. The situation of the _free\nchildren_[A] is often very deplorable. The master feels none of that\ninterest in them which he formerly felt in the children that were his\nproperty, and consequently, makes no provision for them. They are thrown\nentirely upon their parents, who are _unable_ to take proper care of\nthem, from the almost constant demands which the master makes upon their\ntime. The condition of pregnant women, and nursing mothers, is\n_decidedly worse_ than it was during slavery. The privileges which the\nplanter felt it for his interest to grant these formerly, for _the sake\nof their children_, are now withheld. The former are exposed to the\ninclemencies of the weather, and the hardships of toil--the latter are\ncruelly dragged away from their infants, that the master may not lose\nthe smallest portion of time,--and _both_ are liable at any moment to be\nincarcerated in the dungeon, or strung up on the treadwheel. In\nconsequence of the cruelties which are practised, the apprentices are in\na _disaffected state_ throughout the island.\n\n[Footnote A: All children under _six years_ of age at the time of\nabolition, were made entirely free.]\n\nIn assigning the causes of the ill-working of the apprenticeship in\nJamaica, we would say in the commencement, that nearly all of them are\nembodied in the intrinsic defects of the system itself. These defects\nhave been exposed in a former chapter, and we need not repeat them here.\nThe reason why the system has not produced as much mischief in all the\ncolonies as it has in Jamaica, is that the local circumstances in the\nother islands were not so adapted to develop its legitimate results.\n\nIt is not without the most careful investigation of facts, that we have\nallowed ourselves to entertain the views which we are now about to\nexpress, respecting the conduct of the planters and special\njustices--for it is to _them_ that we must ascribe the evils which exist\nin Jamaica. We cheerfully accede to them all of palliation which may be\nfound in the provocations incident to the wretched system of\napprenticeship.\n\nThe causes of the difficulties rest chiefly with the _planters_. They\nwere _originally_ implicated, and by their wily schemes they soon\ninvolved the special magistrates. The Jamaica planters, as a body,\nalways violently opposed the abolition of slavery. Unlike the planters\nin most of the colonies, they cherished their hostility _after the act\nof abolition_. It would seem that they had agreed with one accord, never\nto become reconciled to the measures of the English government, and had\nsworn eternal hostility to every scheme of emancipation. Whether this\nresulted most from love for slavery or hatred of English interference,\nit is difficult to determine. If we were to believe the planters\nthemselves, who are of the opposition, we should conclude that they were\nfar from being in favor of slavery--that they were \"as much opposed to\nslavery, as any one can be[A].\" Notwithstanding this avowal, the\ntenacity with which the planters cling to the remnant of their power,\nshows an affection for it, of the strength of which they are not\nprobably themselves aware.\n\n[Footnote A: It seems to be the order of the day, with the opposition\nparty in Jamaica, to disclaim all friendship with slavery. We noticed\nseveral instances of this in the island papers, which have been most\nhostile to abolition. We quote the following sample from the Royal\nGazette, (Kingston) for May 6, 1837. The editor, in an article\nrespecting Cuba, says:\n\n    \"In writing this, one chief object is to arouse the attention of our\n    own fellow-subjects, in this colony, to the situation--the dangerous\n    situation--in which they stand, and to implore them to lend all\n    their energies to avert the ruin that is likely to visit them,\n    should America get the domination of Cuba.\n\n    The negroes of this and of all the British W.I. colonies have been\n    '_emancipated_.' Cuba on the other hand is still a _slave country_.\n    (Let not our readers imagine for one moment that we advocate the\n    _continuance of slavery_,\") &c.\n]\n\nWhen public men have endeavored to be faithful and upright, they have\nuniformly been abused, and even persecuted, by the planters. The\nfollowing facts will show that the latter have not scrupled to resort to\nthe most dishonest and unmanly intrigues to effect the removal or to\ncircumvent the influence of such men. Neglect, ridicule, vulgar abuse,\nslander, threats, intimidation, misrepresentation, and legal\nprosecutions, have been the mildest weapons employed against those who\nin the discharge of their sworn duties dared to befriend the oppressed.\n\nThe shameful treatment of the late governor, Lord Sligo, illustrates\nthis. His Lordship was appointed to the government about the period of\nabolition. Being himself a proprietor of estates in the island, and\nformerly chairman of the West India Body, he was received at first with\nthe greatest cordiality; but it was soon perceived that he was disposed\nto secure justice to the apprentices. From the accounts we received, we\nhave been led to entertain an exalted opinion of his integrity and\nfriendship for the poor. It was his custom (unprecedented in the West\nIndies,) to give a patient hearing to the poorest negro who might carry\nhis grievances to the government-house. After hearing the complaint, he\nwould despatch an order to the special magistrate of the district in\nwhich the complainant lived, directing him to inquire into the case. By\nthis means he kept the magistrates employed, and secured redress to the\napprentices to many cases where they would otherwise have bean\nneglected.\n\nThe governor soon rendered himself exceedingly obnoxious to the\nplanters, and they began to manoeuvre for his removal, which, in a short\ntime, was effected by a most flagitious procedure. The home government,\ndisposed to humor their unruly colony, sent them a governor in whom they\nare not likely to find any fault. The present governor, Sir Lionel\nSmith, is the antipode of his predecessor in every worthy respect. When\nthe apprentices come to him with their complaints, he sends them back\nunheard, with curses on their heads. A distinguished gentleman in the\ncolony remarked of him that he _was a heartless military chieftain, who\nruled without regard to mercy_. Of course the planters are full of his\npraise. His late tour of the island was a _triumphal procession_, amid\nthe sycophantic greetings of oppressors.\n\nSeveral special magistrates have been suspended because of the faithful\ndischarge of their duties. Among these was Dr. Palmer, an independent\nand courageous man. Repeated complaints were urged against him by the\nplanters, until finally Sir Lionel Smith appointed a commission to\ninquire into the grounds of the difficulty.\n\n\"This commission consisted of two local magistrates, both of them\nplanters or managers of estates, and two stipendiary magistrates, the\nbias of one of whom, at least, was believed to be against Dr. Palmer. At\nthe conclusion of their inquiry they summed up their report by saying\nthat Dr. Palmer had administered the abolition law in the spirit of the\nEnglish abolition act, and in his administration of the law he had\nadapted it more to the comprehension of freemen than to the\nunderstandings of apprenticed laborers. Not only did Sir Lionel Smith\nsuspend Dr. Palmer on this report, but the colonial office at home have\ndismissed him from his situation.\"\n\nThe following facts respecting the persecution of Special Justice\nBourne, illustrate the same thing.\n\n    \"A book-keeper of the name of Maclean, on the estate of the Rev. M.\n    Hamilton, an Irish clergyman, committed a brutal assault upon an old\n    African. The attorney on the property refused to hear the complaint\n    of the negro, who went to Stephen Bourne, a special magistrate. When\n    Maclean was brought before him, he did not deny the fact; but said\n    as the old man was not a Christian, his oath could not be taken! The\n    magistrate not being able to ascertain the amount of injury\n    inflicted upon the negro (whose head was dreadfully cut,) but\n    feeling that it was a case which required a greater penalty than\n    three pounds sterling, the amount of punishment to which he was\n    limited by the local acts, detained Maclean, and afterwards\n    committed him to jail, and wrote the next day to the chief justice\n    upon the subject. He was discharged as soon as a doctor's\n    certificate was procured of the state of the wounded man, and bail\n    was given for his appearance at the assizes. Maclean's trial came on\n    at the assizes, and he was found guilty by a Jamaica Jury; he was\n    severely reprimanded for his inhuman conduct and fined thirty\n    pounds. The poor apprentice however got no remuneration for the\n    severe injury inflicted upon him, and the special justice was\n    prosecuted for false imprisonment, dragged from court to court,\n    represented as an oppressor and a tyrant, subjected to four hundred\n    pounds expenses in defending himself, and actually had judgment\n    given against him for one hundred and fifty pounds damages.\n\n    Thus have the planters succeeded in pulling down every magistrate\n    who ventures to do more than fine them three pounds sterling for any\n    act of cruelty of which they may be guilty. On the other hand, there\n    were two magistrates who were lately dismissed, through, I believe,\n    the representation of Lord Sligo, for flagrant violations of the law\n    in inflicting punishment; and in order to evince their sympathy for\n    those men, the planters gave them a farewell dinner, and had\n    actually set on foot a subscription, as a tribute of gratitude for\n    their \"Impartial\" conduct in administering the laws, as special\n    justices. Thus were two men, notoriously guilty of violations of law\n    and humanity, publicly encouraged and protected, while Stephen\n    Bourne, who according to the testimony of the present and late\n    attorney-general had acted not only justly but _legally_, was\n    suffering every species of persecution and indignity for so doing.\"\n\nProbably nothing could demonstrate the meanness of the artifices to\nwhich the planters resort to get rid of troublesome magistrates better\nthan the following fact. When the present governor, in making his tour\nof the island, came into St. Thomas in the East, some of the planters of\nManchioneal district hired a negro constable on one of the estates to go\nto the governor and complain to him that Mr. Chamberlain encouraged the\napprentices to be disorderly and idle. The negro went accordingly, but\nlike another Balaam, he prophesied _against his employers_. He stated to\nthe governor that the apprentices on the estate where he lived were lazy\nand wouldn't do right, _but he declared that it was not Mr. C.'s fault,\nfor that he was not allowed to come on the estate!_\n\nHaving given such an unfavorable description of the mass of planters, it\nis but just to add that there are a few honorable exceptions. There are\nsome attorneys and overseers, who if they dared to face the allied\npowers of oppression, would act a noble part. But they are trammelled by\nan overpowering public sentiment, and are induced to fall in very much\nwith the prevailing practices. One of this class, an attorney of\nconsiderable influence, declined giving us his views in writing, stating\nthat his situation and the state of public sentiment must be his\napology. An overseer who was disposed to manifest the most liberal\nbearing towards his apprentices, and who had directions from the\nabsentee proprietor to that effect, was yet effectually prevented by his\nattorney, who having several other estates under his charge, was fearful\nof losing them, if he did not maintain the same severe discipline\non all.\n\nThe special magistrates are also deeply implicated in causing the\ndifficulties existing under the apprenticeship. They are incessantly\nexposed to multiplied and powerful temptations. The persecution which\nthey are sure to incur by a faithful discharge of their duties, has\nalready been noticed. It would require men of unusual sternness of\nprinciple to face so fierce an array. Instead of being _independent_ of\nthe planters, their situation is in every respect totally the reverse.\nInstead of having a central office or station-house to hold their courts\nat, as is the case in Barbadoes, they are required to visit each estate\nin their districts. They have a circuit from forty to sixty miles to\ncompass every fortnight, or in some cases three times every month. On\nthese tours they are absolutely dependent upon the hospitality of the\nplanters. None but men of the \"sterner stuff\" could escape, (to use the\nnegro's phrase) _being poisoned by massa's turtle soup._ The _character_\nof the men who are acting as magistrates is thus described by a colonial\nmagistrate of high standing and experience.\n\n\"The special magistracy department is filled with the most worthless\nmen, both domestic and imported. It was a necessary qualification of the\nformer to possess no property; hence the most worthless vagabonds on the\nisland were appointed. The latter were worn out officers and dissipated\nrakes, whom the English government sent off here in order to get rid of\nthem.\" As a specimen of the latter kind, this gentleman mentioned one\n(special Justice Light) who died lately from excessive dissipation. He\nwas constantly drunk, and the only way in which to get him to do any\nbusiness was to take him on to an estate in the evening so that he might\nsleep off his intoxication, and then the business was brought before him\nearly the next morning, before he had time to get to his cups.\n\nIt is well known that many of the special magistrates are totally\nunprincipled men, monsters of cruelty, lust, and despotism. As a result\nof natural character in many cases, and of dependence upon planters in\nmany more, the great mass of the special justices are a disgrace to\ntheir office, and to the government which commissioned them. Out of\nsixty, the number of special justices in Jamaica, there are not more\nthan fifteen, or twenty at farthest, who are not the merest tools of the\nattorneys and overseers. Their servility was graphically hit off by the\napprentice. \"If busha say flog em, he flog em; if busha say send them to\nthe treadmill, he send em.\" If an apprentice laughs or sings, and the\nbusha represents it to the magistrate as insolence, he _feels it his\nduty_ to make an example of the offender!\n\nThe following fact will illustrate the injustice of the magistrates. It\nwas stated in writing by a missionary. We conceal all names, in\ncompliance with the request of the writer. \"An apprentice belonging to\n---- in the ---- was sent to the treadmill by special justice G. He was\nordered to go out and count the sheep, as he was able to count higher\nthan some of the field people, although a house servant from his\nyouth--I may say childhood. Instead of bringing in the tally cut upon a\npiece of board, as usual, he wrote the number eighty upon a piece of\npaper. When the overseer saw it, he would scarcely believe that any of\nhis people could write, and ordered a piece of coal to be brought and\nmade him write it over again; the next day he turned him into the field,\nbut unable to perform the task (to hoe and weed one hundred coffee roots\ndaily) with those who had been accustomed to field work all their lives,\nhe was tried for neglect of duty, and sentenced to fourteen days on the\ntreadmill!\"\n\nWe quote the following heart-rending account from the Telegraph,\n(Spanishtown,) April 28, 1837. It is from a Baptist missionary.\n\n    \"I see something is doing in England to shorten the apprenticeship\n    system. I pray God it may soon follow its predecessor--slavery, for\n    it is indeed slavery under a less disgusting name. Business lately\n    (December 23) called me to Rodney Hall; and while I was there, a\n    poor old negro was brought in for punishment. I heard the fearful\n    vociferation, 'twenty stripes.' 'Very well; here ----, put this man\n    down.' I felt as I cannot describe; yet I thought, as the supervisor\n    was disposed to be civil, my presence might tend to make the\n    punishment less severe than it usually is--but I was disappointed. I\n    inquired into the crime for which such an old man could be so\n    severely punished, and heard various accounts. I wrote to the\n    magistrate who sentenced him to receive it; and after many days I\n    got the following reply.\"\n\n    \"_Logan Castle, Jan. 9, 1836._\n\n    Sir--In answer to your note of the 4th instant, I beg leave to\n    state, that ---- ----, an apprentice belonging to ---- ----, was\n    brought before me by Mr. ----, his late overseer, charged upon oath\n    with continual neglect of duty and disobedience of orders as\n    cattle-man, and also for stealing milk--was convicted, and sentenced\n    to receive twenty stripes. So far from the punishment of the\n    offender being severe, he was not ordered one half the number of\n    stripes provided for such cases by the abolition act--if he received\n    more than that number, or if those were inflicted with undue\n    severity, I shall feel happy in making every inquiry amongst the\n    authorities at Rodney Hall institution.\n\n    I remain, sir, yours, truly,\n\n    T.W. JONES, S.M.\"\n\n'Rev. J. Clarke, &c., &c.'\n\nFrom Mr. Clarke's reply, we make the following extract:\n\n    \"_Jericho, January 19, 1836._\n\n    Sir--I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th\n    instant.\n\n    Respecting the punishment of ---- ----, I still adhere to the\n    opinion I before expressed, that, for an old man of about sixty\n    years of age, the punishment was severe. To see a venerable old man\n    tied as if to be broken on the wheel, and cut to the bone by the\n    lash of an athletic driver--writhing and yelling under the most\n    exquisite torture, were certainly circumstances sufficiently strong\n    to touch the heart of any one possessed of the smallest degree of\n    common humanity. The usual preparations being made, the old man\n    quietly stripped off his upper garments, and lay down upon the\n    board--he was then tied by his legs, middle, above the elbows, and\n    at each wrist. Mr. ---- then called out to the driver, 'I hope you\n    will do your duty--he is not sent here for nothing.' At the first\n    lash the skin started up; and at the third, the blood began to flow;\n    ere the driver had given ten, the cat was covered with gore; and he\n    stopped to change it for a dry one, which appeared to me somewhat\n    longer than the first. When the poor tortured creature had received\n    sixteen, his violent struggles enabled him to get one of his hands\n    loose, which he put instantly to his back--the driver stopped to\n    retie him, and then proceeded to give the remaining four. The\n    struggles of the poor old man from the first lash bespoke the most\n    extreme torture; and his cries were to me most distressing. 'Oh! oh!\n    mercy! mercy! mercy! oh! massa! massa! dat enough--enough! oh,\n    enough! O, massa, have pity! O, massa! massa! dat enough--enough!\n    Oh, never do de like again--only pity me--forgive me dis once! oh!\n    pity! mercy! mercy! oh! oh!' were the cries he perpetually uttered.\n    I shall remember them while I live; and would not for ten thousand\n    worlds have been the cause of producing them. It was some minutes\n    after he was loosed ere he could rise to his feet, and as he\n    attempted to rise, he continued calling out, 'My back! oh! my back!\n    my back is broken.' A long time he remained half-doubled, the blood\n    flowing round his body; 'I serve my master,' said the aged sufferer,\n    'at all times; get no Saturday, no Sunday; yet this is de way\n    dem use me.'\n\n    With such planters, and such magistrates to play into their hands,\n    is it to be wondered at that the apprentices do badly? Enough has\n    been said, we think, to satisfy any candid person as to the _causes\n    of the evils in Jamaica_. If any thing further were needed, we might\n    speak of the peculiar facilities which these men have for\n    perpetrating acts of cruelty and injustice. The major part of the\n    island is exceedingly mountainous, and a large portion of the sugar\n    estates, and most of the coffee plantations, are among the\n    mountains. These estates are scattered over a wide extent of\n    country, and separated by dense forests and mountains, which conceal\n    each plantation from the public view almost as effectually as though\n    it were the only property on the island. The only mode of access to\n    many of the estates in the mountainous districts, is by mule paths\n    winding about, amid fastnesses, precipices, and frightful solitudes.\n    In those lone retirements, on the mountain top, or in the deep glen\n    by the side of the rocky rivers, the traveller occasionally meets\n    with an estate. Strangers but rarely intrude upon those little\n    domains. They are left to the solitary sway of the overseers\n    dwelling amid their \"gangs,\" and undisturbed, save by the weekly\n    visitations of the special magistrates. While the traveller is\n    struck with the facilities for the perpetration of those enormities\n    which must have existed there during slavery; he is painfully\n    impressed also with the numerous opportunities which are still\n    afforded for oppressing the apprentices, particularly where the\n    special magistrates are not honest men.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: From the nature of the case, it must be impossible to know\nhow much actual flogging is perpetrated by the overseers. We might\nsafely conjecture that there must be a vast deal of it that never comes\nto the light. Such is the decided belief of many of the first men in the\nisland. The planters, say they, flog their apprentices, and then, to\nprevent their complaining to the magistrate, threaten them with severe\npunishment, or bribe them to silence by giving them a few shillings. The\nattorney-general mentioned an instance of the latter policy. A planter\ngot angry with one of his head men, who was a constable, and knocked him\ndown. The man started off to complain to the special magistrate. The\nmaster called him back, and told him he need not go to the\nmagistrate--that he was constable, and had a right to fine him himself.\n\"Well, massa,\" said the negro, \"I fine you five shillings on de spot.\"\nThe master was glad to get off with that--the magistrate would probably\nhave fined him \u00a35 currency.]\n\n    In view of the local situation of Jamaica--the violent character of\n    its planters--and the inevitable dependency of the magistrates, it\n    is very manifest _that immediate emancipation was imperatively\n    demanded there_. In no other colony did the negroes require to be\n    more _entirely released from the tyranny of the overseers, or more\n    thoroughly shielded by the power of equal law_. This is a principle\n    which must hold good always--that where slavery has been most\n    rigorous and absolute, there emancipation, needs to be most\n    unqualified; and where the sway of the master has been _most\n    despotic, cruel, and_ LONG CONTINUED, there the protection of law\n    should be most SPEEDILY _extended and most impartially applied_.\"[B]\n\n[Footnote B: Since the above was written we have seen a copy of a\nmessage sent by Sir Lionel Smith, to the house of assembly of Jamaica,\non the 3d November, 1837, in which a statement of the deprivations of\nthe apprentices, is officially laid before the house. We make the\nfollowing extract from it, which contains, to use his Excellency's\nlanguage, \"the principal causes, as has been found by the records of the\nspecial magistrates, of complaints among the apprentices; and of\nconsequent collisions between the planters and magistrates.\"\n\n    \"Prudent and humane planters have already adopted what is\n    recommended, and their properties present the good working of this\n    system in peace and industry, without their resorting to the\n    authority of the special magistrates; but there are other properties\n    where neither the law of the apprenticeship nor the usages of\n    slavery have been found sufficient to guard the rights of the\n    apprentices.\n\n    First, the magistrates' reports show that on some estates the\n    apprentices have been deprived of cooks and water-carriers while at\n    work in the field--thus, the time allowed for breakfast, instead of\n    being a period of rest, is one of continual labor, as they have to\n    seek for fuel and to cook. The depriving them of water-carriers is\n    still more injurious, as the workmen are not allowed to quit their\n    rows to obtain it. Both these privations are detrimental to the\n    planter's work. Second, a law seems wanting to supply the estates'\n    hospitals with sufficient attendants on the sick apprentices, as\n    well as for the supply of proper food, as they cannot depend on\n    their own grounds, whilst unable to leave the hospitals. The first\n    clause of the abolition law has not been found strong enough to\n    secure these necessary attentions to the sick. Third, in regard to\n    jobbers, more exposed to hardships than any other class. A law is\n    greatly required allowing them the distance they may have to walk to\n    their work, at the rate of three miles an hour, and for compelling\n    the parties hiring them to supply them with salt food and meal;\n    their grounds are oftentimes so many miles distant, it is impossible\n    for them to supply themselves. Hence constant complaints and\n    irregularities. Fourth, that mothers of six children and upwards,\n    pregnant women, and the aged of both sexes, would be greatly\n    benefited by a law enforcing the kind treatment which they received\n    in slavery, but which is now considered optional, or is altogether\n    avoided on many properties. Fifth, nothing would tend more to effect\n    general contentment and repress the evils of comparative treatment,\n    than the issue of fish as a right by law. It was an indulgence in\n    slavery seldom denied, but on many properties is now withheld, or\n    given for extra labor instead of wages. Sixth, his Excellency during\n    the last sessions had the honor to address a message to the house\n    for a stronger definition of working time. The clause of the act in\n    aid expressed that it was the intention of the legislature to\n    regulate 'uniformity' of labor, but in practice there is still a\n    great diversity of system. The legal adviser of the crown considers\n    the clause active and binding; the special magistrate cannot,\n    therefore, adjudicate on disputes of labor under the eight hour\n    system, and the consequences have been continual complaints and\n    bickerings between the magistrates and managers, and discontent\n    among the apprentices by comparison of the advantages which one\n    system presents over the other. Seventh, if your honorable house\n    would adopt some equitable fixed principle for the value of\n    apprentices desirous of purchasing their discharge, either by\n    ascertained rates of weekly labor, or by fixed sums according to\n    their trade or occupation, which should not be exceeded, and\n    allowing the deduction of one third from the extreme value for the\n    contingencies of maintenance, clothing, medical aid, risk of life,\n    and health, it would greatly tend to set at rest one cause of\n    constant disappointment. In proportion as the term of apprenticeship\n    draws to a close, THE DEMANDS FOR THE SALE OF SERVICES HAVE GREATLY\n    INCREASED. It is in the hope that the honorable house will be\n    disposed to enforce a more general system of equal treatment, that\n    his Excellency now circumstantially represents what have been the\n    most common causes of complaint among the apprentices, and why the\n    island is subject to the reproach that the negroes, in some\n    respects, are now in a worse condition than they were in slavery.\"\n]\n\nWe heard frequent complaints in Jamaica respecting the falling off of\nthe crops since abolition. In order that the reader may know the extent\nof the failure in the aggregate island crops, we have inserted in the\nappendix a table showing the \"exports for fifty-three years, ending 31st\nDecember, 1836, condensed from the journals of the House.\"\n\nBy the disaffected planters, the diminished crops were hailed as \"an\nevident token of perdition.\" They had foretold that abolition would be\nthe ruin of cultivation, they had maintained that sugar, coffee, rum,\n&c., could not be produced extensively without the _whip of slavery_,\nand now they exultingly point to the short crops and say, \"See the\nresults of abolition!\" We say exultingly, for a portion of the planters\ndo really seem to rejoice in any indication of ruin. Having staked their\nreputation as prophets against their credit as colonists and their\ninterests as men, they seem happy in the establishment of the former,\neven though it be by the sacrifice of the latter. Said an intelligent\ngentleman in St. Thomas in the East, \"The planters have _set their\nhearts upon_ ruin, and they will be sorely disappointed if it should\nnot come.\"\n\nHearing so much said concerning the diminution of the crops, we spared\nno pains to ascertain the _true causes_. We satisfied ourselves that the\ncauses were mainly two.\n\nFirst. The prevailing impression that the negroes would not _work well_\nafter the abolition of slavery, led many planters to throw a part of\ntheir land out of cultivation, in 1834. This is a fact which was\npublished by Lord Sligo, in an official account which he gave shortly\nbefore leaving Jamaica, of the working of the apprenticeship. The\noverseer of Belvidere estate declared that he knew of many cases in\nwhich part of the land usually planted in canes was thrown up, owing to\nthe general expectation that _much less work_ would be done after\nabolition. He also mentioned one attorney _who ordered all the estates\nunder his charge to be thrown out of cultivation_ in 1834, so confident\nwas he that the negroes would not work. The name of this attorney was\nWhite. Mr. Gordon, of Williamsfield, stated, that the quantity of land\nplanted in cane, in 1834, was considerably less than the usual amount:\non some estates it was less by twenty, and on others by forty acres. Now\nif such were the fact in the Parish of St. Thomas in the East, where\ngreater confidence was felt probably than in any other parish, we have a\nclue by which we may conjecture (if indeed we were left to conjecture)\nto what extent the cultivation was diminished in the island generally.\nThis of itself would satisfactorily account for the falling off in the\ncrops--which at most is not above one third. Nor would this explain the\ndecrease in '34 _only_, for it is well known among sugar planters that a\nneglect of planting, either total or partial, for one year, will affect\nthe crops for two or three successive years.\n\nThe other cause of short crops has been the _diminished amount of time\nfor labor_. One fourth of the time now belongs to the laborers, and they\noften prefer to employ it in cultivating their provision grounds and\ncarrying their produce to market. Thus the estate cultivation is\nnecessarily impeded. This cause operates very extensively, particularly\non two classes of estates: those which lie convenient to market places,\nwhere the apprentices have strong inducements to cultivate their\ngrounds, and those (more numerous still) which _have harsh overseers_,\nto whom the apprentices are averse to hire their time--in which cases\nthey will choose to work for neighboring planters, who are better men.\nWe should not omit to add here, that owing to a singular fact, the\nfalling off of the crops _appears_ greater than it really has been. We\nlearned from the most credible sources that _the size of the hogsheads_\nhad been considerably enlarged since abolition. Formerly they contained,\non an average, eighteen hundred weight, now they vary from a ton to\ntwenty-two hundred! As the crops are estimated by the number of\nhogsheads, this will make a material difference. There were two reasons\nfor enlarging in the hogsheads,--one was, to lessen the amount of\ncertain port charges in exportation, which were made _by the hogshead_;\nthe other, and perhaps the principal, was to create some foundation in\nappearance for the complaint that the crops had failed because of\nabolition.\n\nWhile we feel fully warranted in stating these as the chief causes of\nthe diminished crops, we are at the same time disposed to admit that the\napprenticeship is in itself exceedingly ill calculated either to\nencourage or to compel industry. We must confess that we have no special\nzeal to vindicate this system from its full share of blame; but we are\nrather inclined to award to it every jot and tittle of the dishonored\ninstrumentality which it has had in working mischief to the colony.\nHowever, in all candor, we must say, that we can scarcely check the\nrisings of exultation when we perceive that this party-fangled\nmeasure--this offspring of old Slavery in her dying throes, _which was\nexpressly designed as a compensation to the proprietor_, HAS ACTUALLY\nDIMINISHED HIS ANNUAL RETURNS BY ONE THIRD! So may it ever be with\nlegislation which is based on _iniquity and robbery!_\n\nBut the subject which excites the deepest interest in Jamaica _is the\nprobable consequences of entire emancipation in 1840_. The most common\nopinion among the prognosticators of evil is, that the emancipated\nnegroes will abandon the cultivation of all the staple products, retire\nto the woods, and live in a state of semi-barbarism; and as a\nconsequence, the splendid sugar and coffee estates must be \"thrown up,\"\nand the beautiful and fertile island of Jamaica become a waste howling\nwilderness.\n\nThe _reasons_ for this opinion consist in part of naked assumptions, and\nin part of inferences from _supposed_ facts. The assumed reasons are\nsuch as these. The negroes will not cultivate the cane _without the\nwhip_. How is this known? Simply because _they never have_, to any great\nextent, in Jamaica. Such, it has been shown, was the opinion formerly in\nBarbadoes, but it has been forever exploded there by experiment. Again,\nthe negroes are _naturally improvident_, and will never have enough\nforesight to work steadily. What is the evidence of _natural_\nimprovidence in the negroes? Barely this--their carelessness in a state\nof slavery. But that furnishes no ground at all for judging of _natural_\ncharacter, or of the developments of character under a _totally\ndifferent system_. If it testifies any thing, it is only this, that the\nnatural disposition of the negroes is not always _proof_ against the\ndegenerating influences of slavery.[A] Again, the actual wants of the\nnegroes are very few and easily supplied, and they will undoubtedly\nprefer going into the woods where they can live almost without labor, to\ntoiling in the hot cane fields or climbing the coffee mountains. But\nthey who urge this, lose sight of the fact that the negroes are\nconsiderably civilized, and that, like other civilized people, they will\nseek for more than supply for the necessities of the rudest state of\nnature. Their wants are already many, even in the degraded condition of\nslaves; is it probable that they will be satisfied with _fewer of the\ncomforts and luxuries of civilized life_, when they are elevated to the\nsphere, and feel the self-respect and dignity of freemen? But let us\nnotice some of the reasons which profess to be _founded on fact_. They\nmay all be resolved into two, _the laziness of negroes, and their\ntendency to barbarism_.\n\n[Footnote A: Probably in more instances than the one recorded in the\nforegoing chapter, the improvidence of the negroes is inferred from\ntheir otherwise unaccountable preference in walking six or ten miles to\nchapel, rather than to work for a maccaroni a day.]\n\ni. They _now_ refuse to work on Saturdays, even with wages. On this\nassertion we have several remarks to make.\n\n1.) It is true only to a partial extent. The apprentices on many\nestates--whether a majority or not it is impossible to say--do work for\ntheir masters on Saturdays, when their services are called for.\n\n2.) They often refuse to work on the estates, because they can earn\nthree or four times as much by cultivating their provision grounds and\ncarrying their produce to market. The ordinary day's wages on an estate\nis a quarter of a dollar, and where the apprentices are conveniently\nsituated to market, they can make from seventy-five cents to a dollar a\nday with their provisions.\n\n3.) The overseers are often such overbearing and detestable men, that\nthe apprentices doubtless feel it a great relief to be freed from their\ncommand on Saturday, after submitting to it compulsorily for five days\nof the week.\n\n2. Another fact from which the laziness of the negroes is inferred, is\ntheir _neglecting their provision grounds_. It is said that they have\nfallen off greatly to their attention to their grounds, since the\nabolition of slavery. This fact does not comport very well with the\ncomplaint, that the apprentices cultivate their provision grounds to the\nneglect of the estates. But both assertions may be true under opposite\ncircumstances. On those estates which are situated near the market,\nprovisions will be cultivated; on those which are remote from the\nmarket, provisions will of course be partially neglected, and it will be\nmore profitable to the apprentices to work on the estates at a quarter\nof a dollar per day, raising only enough provisions for their own use.\nBut we ascertained another circumstance which throws light on this\npoint. The negroes expect, after emancipation, to _lose their provision\ngrounds_; many expect certainly to be turned off by their masters, and\nmany who have harsh masters, intend to leave, and seek homes on other\nestates, and _all_ feel a great uncertainty about their situation after\n1840; and consequently they can have but little encouragement to\nvigorous and extended cultivation of their grounds. Besides this, there\nare very many cases in which the apprentices of one estate cultivate\nprovision grounds on another estate, where the manager is a man in whom\nthey have more confidence than they have in their own \"busha.\" They, of\ncourse, in such cases, abandon their former grounds, and consequently\nare charged with neglecting them through laziness.\n\n3. Another alleged fact is, that _actually less work_ is done now than\nwas done during slavery. The argument founded on this fact is this:\nthere is less work done under the apprenticeship than was done during\nslavery: therefore _no work at all_ will be done after entire freedom!\nBut the apprenticeship allows _one fourth less time_ for labor than\nslavery did, and presents no inducement, either compulsory or\npersuasive, to continued industry. Will it be replied that emancipation\nwill take away _all_ the time from labor, and offer no encouragement\n_but to idleness_? How is it now? Do the apprentices work better or\nworse during their own time when they are paid? Better, unquestionably.\nWhat does this prove? That freedom will supply both the time and the\ninducement to the most vigorous industry.\n\nThe _other reason_ for believing that the negroes will abandon\nestate-labor after entire emancipation, is their _strong tendency to\nbarbarism!_ And what are the facts in proof of this? We know but one.\n\nWe heard it said repeatedly that the apprentices were not willing to\nhave their free children educated--that they had pertinaciously declined\nevery offer of the _bushas_ to educate their children, and _this_, it\nwas alleged, evinced a determination on the part of the negroes to\nperpetuate ignorance and barbarism among their posterity. We heard from\nno less than four persons of distinction in St. Thomas in the East, the\nfollowing curious fact. It was stated each time for the double purpose\nof proving that the apprentices did not wish to have their children\n_learn to work_, and that they were opposed to their _receiving\neducation_. A company of the first-gentlemen of that parish, consisting\nof the rector of the parish, the custos, the special magistrate, an\nattorney, and member of the assembly, etc., had mustered in imposing\narray, and proceeded to one of the large estates in the Plantain Garden\nRiver Valley, and there having called the apprentices together, made the\nfollowing proposals to them respecting their free children, the rector\nacting as spokesman. The attorney would provide a teacher for the\nestate, and would give the children four hours' instruction daily, if\nthe parents would _bind them to work_ four hours every day; the attorney\nfurther offered to pay for all medical attendance the children should\nrequire. The apprentices, after due deliberation among themselves,\nunanimously declined this proposition. It was repeatedly urged upon\nthem, and the advantages it promised were held up to them; but they\npersisted in declining it wholly. This was a great marvel to the\nplanters; and they could not account for it in any other way than by\nsupposing that the apprentices were opposed both to labor and education,\nand were determined that their free children should grow up in ignorance\nand indolence! Now the true reason why the apprentices rejected this\nproposal was, _because it came from the planters_, in whom they have no\nconfidence. They suspected that some evil scheme was hid under the fair\npretence of benevolence; the design of the planters, as they firmly\nbelieved, was to get their _free children bound to them_, so that they\nmight continue to keep them in a species of apprenticeship. This was\nstated to us, as the real ground of the rejection, by several\nmissionaries, who gave the best evidence that it was so; viz. that at\nthe same time that the apprentices declined the offer, they would send\ntheir free children _six or eight miles to a school taught by a\nmissionary_. We inquired particularly of some of the apprentices, to\nwhom this offer was made, why they did not accept it. They said that\nthey could not trust their masters; the whole design of it was to get\nthem to give up their children, and if they should give them up _but for\na single month_, it would be the same as acknowledging that they (the\nparents) were not able to take care of them themselves. The busha would\nthen send word to the Governor that the people had given up their\nchildren, not being able to support them, and the Governor would have\nthe children bound to the busha, \"and _then_,\" said they, \"_we might\nwhistle for our children_!\" In this manner the apprentices, the\n_parents_, reasoned. They professed the greatest anxiety to have their\nchildren educated, but they said they could have no confidence in the\nhonest intentions of their busha.\n\nThe views given above, touching the results of entire emancipation in\n1840, are not unanimously entertained even among the planters, and they\nare far from prevailing to any great extent among other classes of the\ncommunity. The missionaries, as a body, a portion of the special\nmagistrates, and most of the intelligent free colored people, anticipate\nglorious consequences; they hail the approach of 1840, as a deliverance\nfrom the oppressions of the apprenticeship, and its train of\ndisaffections, complaints and incessant disputes. They say they have\nnothing to fear--nor has the island any thing to fear, but every thing\nto hope, from entire emancipation. We subjoin a specimen of the\nreasoning of the minority of the planters. They represent the idea that\nthe negroes will abandon the estates, and retire to the woods, as wild\nand absurd in the extreme. They say the negroes have a great regard for\nthe comforts which they enjoy on the estates; they are strongly attached\nto their houses and little furniture, and their provision grounds. These\nare as much to them as the 'great house' and the estate are to their\nmaster. Besides, they have very _strong local attachments_, and these\nwould bind them to the properties. These planters also argue, from _the\ngreat willingness_ of the apprentices now to work for money, during\ntheir own time, that they will not be likely to relinquish labor when\nthey are to get wages for the whole time. There was no doubt much truth\nin the remark of a planter in St. Thomas in the East, that if _any_\nestates were abandoned by the negroes after 1840, it would be those\nwhich had harsh managers, and those which are so mountainous and\ninaccessible, or barren, that they _ought_ to be abandoned. It was the\ndeclaration of a _planter_, that entire emancipation would _regenerate_\nthe island of Jamaica.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe now submit to the candid examination of the American, especially the\nChristian public, the results of our inquiries in Antigua, Barbadoes,\nand Jamaica. The deficiency of the narrative in ability and interest, we\nare sure is neither the fault of the subject nor of the materials. Could\nwe have thrown into vivid forms a few only of the numberless incidents\nof rare beauty which thronged our path--could we have imparted to pages\nthat freshness and glow, which invested the institutions of freedom,\njust bursting into bloom over the late wastes of slavery--could we, in\nfine, have carried our readers amid the scenes which we witnessed, and\nthe sounds which we heard, and the things which we handled, we should\nnot doubt the power and permanence of the impression produced. It is due\nto the cause, and to the society under whose commission we acted,\nfrankly to state, that we were not selected on account of any peculiar\nqualifications for the work. As both of us were invalids, and compelled\nto fly from the rigors of an American winter, it was believed that we\nmight combine the improvement of health, with the prosecution of\nimportant investigations, while abler men could thus be retained in the\nfield at home; but we found that the unexpected abundance of materials\nrequires the strongest health and powers of endurance. We regret to add,\nthat the continued ill health of both of us, since our return, so\nserious in the case of one, as to deprive him almost wholly of\nparticipation in the preparation of the work, has necessarily, delayed\nits appearance, and rendered its execution more imperfect.\n\nWe lay no claim to literary merit. To present as simple narrative of\nfacts, has been our sole aim. We have not given the results of our\npersonal observations merely, or chiefly, nor have we made a record of\nprivate impressions or idle speculations. _Well authenticated facts_,\naccompanied with the testimony, verbal and documentary, of public men,\nplanters, and other responsible individuals, make up the body of the\nvolume, as almost every page will show. That no statements, if\nerroneous, might escape detection and exposure, we have, in nearly every\ncase, given the _names_ of our authorities. By so doing we may have\nsubjected ourselves to the censure of those respected gentlemen, with\nwhose names we have taken such liberty. We are assured, however, that\ntheir interest in the cause of freedom will quite reconcile them to what\notherwise might be an unpleasant personal publicity.\n\nCommending our narrative to the blessing of the God of truth, and the\nRedeemer of the oppressed, we send it forth to do its part, however\nhumble, toward the removal of slavery from our beloved but\nguilty country.\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nWe have in our possession a number of official documents from gentlemen,\nofficers of the government, and variously connected with its\nadministration, in the different islands which we visited: some of\nthese--such as could not be conveniently incorporated into the body of\nthe work--we insert in the form of an appendix. To insert them _all_,\nwould unduly increase the size of the present volume. Those not embodied\nin this appendix, will be published in the periodicals of the American\nAnti-Slavery Society.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOFFICIAL COMMUNICATION FROM E.B. LYON, ESQ., SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.\n\n_Jamaica, Hillingdon, near Falmouth, Trelawney, May 15, 1837_.\n\nTO J.H. KIMBALL., ESQ., and J.A. THOME, ESQ.\n\nDEAR SIRS,--Of the operation of the apprenticeship system in this\ndistrict, from the slight opportunity I have had of observing the\nconduct of managers and apprentices, I could only speak conjecturally,\nand my opinions, wanting the authority of experience, would be of little\nservice to you; I shall therefore confine the remarks I have to make, to\nthe operation of the system in the district from which I have\nlately removed.\n\nI commenced my duties in August, 1834, and from the paucity of special\nmagistrates at that eventful era, I had the superintendence of a most\nextensive district, comprising nearly one half of the populous parish of\nSt. Thomas in the East, and the whole of the parish of St. David,\nembracing an apprentice population of nearly eighteen thousand,--in\ncharge of which I continued until December, when I was relieved of St.\nDavid, and in March, 1835, my surveillance was confined to that portion\nof St. Thomas in the East, consisting of the coffee plantations in the\nBlue Mountains, and the sugar estates of Blue Mountain Valley, over\nwhich I continued to preside until last March, a district containing a\npopulation of four thousand two hundred and twenty-seven apprentices, of\nwhich two thousand eighty-seven were males, and two thousand one hundred\nand forty, females. The apprentices of the Blue Mountain Valley were, at\nthe period of my assumption of the duties of a special magistrate, the\nmost disorderly in the island. They were greatly excited, and almost\ndesperate from disappointment, in finding their trammels under the new\nlaw, nearly as burdensome as under the old, and their condition, in many\nrespects, much more intolerable. They were also extremely irritated at\nwhat they deemed an attempt upon the part of their masters to rob them\nof one of the greatest advantages they had been led to believe the new\nlaw secured to them--this was the half of Friday. Special Justice\nEverard, who went through the district during the first two weeks of\nAugust, 1834, and who was the first special justice to read and explain\nthe new law to them, had told them that the law gave to them the extra\nfour and a half hours on the Friday, and some of the proprietors and\nmanagers, who were desirous of preparing their people for the coming\nchange, had likewise explained it so; but, most unfortunately, the\ngovernor issued a proclamation, justifying the masters in withholding\nthe four and a half hours on that day, and substituting any other half\nday, or by working them eight hours per day, they might deprive them\naltogether of the advantage to be derived from the extra time, which, by\nthe abolition of Sunday marketing, was almost indispensable to people\nwhose grounds, in some instances, were many miles from their\nhabitations, and who were above thirty miles from Kingston market, where\nprices were fifty per cent. more than the country markets in their favor\nfor the articles they had to dispose of, and correspondingly lower for\nthose they had to purchase. To be in time for which market, it was\nnecessary to walk all Friday night, so that without the use of the\nprevious half day, they could not procure their provisions, or prepare\nthemselves for it. The deprivation of the half of Friday was therefore a\nserious hardship to them, and this, coupled to the previous assurance of\ntheir masters, and Special Justice Everard, that they were entitled to\nit, made them to suspect a fraud was about being practised on them,\nwhich, if they did not resist, would lead to the destruction of the\nremaining few privileges they possessed. The resistance was very\ngeneral, but without violence; whole gangs leaving the fields on the\nafternoon of Friday; refusing to take any other afternoon, and sometimes\nleaving the estates for two or three days together. They fortunately had\nconfidence in me--and I succeeded in restoring order, and all would have\nbeen well,--but the managers, no longer alarmed by the fear of rebellion\nor violence, began a system of retaliation and revenge, by withdrawing\ncooks, water-carriers, and nurses, from the field, by refusing medicine\nand admittance to the hospital to the apprentice children, and by\ncompelling old and infirm people, who had been allowed to withdraw from\nlabor, and mothers of six children, who were exempt by the slave law\nfrom hard labor, to come out and work in the field. All this had a\nnatural tendency to create irritation, and did do so; though, to the\ngreat credit of the people, in many instances, they submitted with the\nmost extraordinary patience, to evils which were the more onerous,\nbecause inflicted under the affected sanction of a law, whose advent, as\nthe herald of liberty, they had expected would have been attended with a\ntrain of blessings. I effected a change in this miserable state of\nthings; and mutual contract for labor, in crop and out of it, were made\non twenty-five estates in my district, before, I believe, any\narrangement had been made in other parts of the island, between the\nmanagers and the apprentices; so that from being in a more unsettled\nstate than others, we were soon happily in a more prosperous one, and so\ncontinued.\n\nNo peasantry in the most favored country on the globe, can have been\nmore irreproachable in morals and conduct than the majority of\napprentices in that district, since the beginning of 1835. I have, month\nafter month, in my despatches to the governor, had to record instances\nof excess of labor, compared with the quantity performed during slavery\nin some kinds of work; and while I have with pleasure reported the\nimproving condition, habits, manners, and the industry which\ncharacterized the labors of the peasantry, I have not been an\nindifferent or uninterested witness of the improvement in the condition\nof many estates, the result of the judicious application of labor, and\nof the confidence in the future and sanguine expectations of the\nproprietors, evinced in the enlargements of the works, and expensive and\npermanent repair of the buildings on various estates, and in the high\nprices given for properties and land since the apprenticeship system,\nwhich would scarcely have commanded a purchaser, at any price, during\nthe existence of slavery.\n\nI have invariably found the apprentice willing to work for an equitable\nhire, and on all the sugar estates, and several of the plantations, in\nthe district I speak of, they worked a considerable portion of their own\ntime during crop, about the works, for money, or an equivalent in\nherrings, sugar, etc., to so great a degree, that less than the time\nallotted to them during slavery, was left for appropriation to the\ncultivation of their grounds, and for marketing, as the majority, very\nmuch to their credit, scrupulously avoided working on the Sabbath day.\n\nIn no community in the world is crime less prevalent. At the quarter\nsessions, in January last, for the precinct of St. Thomas in the East,\nand St. David, which contains an apprentice population of about thirty\nthousand, there was only one apprentice tried. And the offences that\nhave, in general, for the last eighteen months, been brought before me\non estates, have been of the most trivial description, such as an\nindividual occasionally turning out late, or some one of an irritable\ntemper answering impatiently, or for some trifling act of disobedience;\nin fact, the majority of apprentices on estates have been untainted with\noffence, and have steadily and quietly performed their duty, and\nrespected the law. The apprentices of St. Thomas in the East, I do not\nhesitate to say, are much superior in manners and morals to those who\ninhabit the towns.\n\nDuring the first six or eight months, while the planters were in doubt\nhow far the endurance of their laborers might be taxed, the utmost\ndeference and respect was paid by them to the special magistrates; their\nsuggestions or recommendations were adopted without cavil, and opinions\ntaken without reference to the letter of the law; but when the obedience\nof the apprentice, and his strict deference to the law and its\nadministrators, had inspired them with a consciousness of perfect\nsecurity, I observed with much regret, a great alteration in the\ndeportment of many of the managers towards myself and the people;\ntrivial and insignificant complaints were astonishingly increased, and\nassaults on apprentices became more frequent, so that in the degree that\nthe conduct of one party was more in accordance with the obligations\nimposed on him by the apprenticeship, was that of the other in\nopposition to it; again with the hold and infirm harassed; again were\nmothers of six living children attempted to be forced to perform field\nlabor; and again were mothers with sucking children complained of, and\nsome attempts made to deprive them of the usual nurses.\n\nSuch treatment was not calculated to promote cordiality between master\nand apprentice, and the effect will, I fear, have a very unfavorable\ninfluence upon the working of many estates, at the termination of the\nsystem; in fact, when that period arrives, if the feeling of\nestrangement be no worse, I am convinced it will be no better than it is\nat the present moment, as I have witnessed no pains taking on the part\nof the attorneys generally to attach the apprentices to the properties,\nor to prepare them in a beneficial manner for the coming change. It was\na very common practice in the district, when an apprentice was about to\npurchase his discharge, to attempt to intimidate him by threats of\nimmediate ejectment from the property, and if in the face of this\nthreatened separation from family and connections, he persevered and\nprocured his release, then the sincerity of the previous intimations was\nevinced by a peremptory order, to instantly quit the property, under the\npenalty of having the trespass act enforced against him; and if my\ninterference prevented any outrageous violation of law, so many\nobstructions and annoyances were placed in the way of his communication\nwith his family, or enjoyment of his domestic rights, that he would be\ncompelled for their peace, and his own personal convenience, to submit\nto privations, which, as a slave, he would not have been subject to. The\nconsequence is, that those released from the obligations of the\napprenticeship by purchase, instead of being located, and laboring for\nhire upon the estate to which they were attached, and forming a nucleus\naround which others would have gathered and settled themselves, they\nhave been principally driven to find other homes, and in the majority of\ninstances have purchased land, and become settlers on their own account.\nIf complete emancipation had taken place in 1834, there would have been\nno more excitement, and no more trouble to allay it, than that which was\nthe consequence of the introduction of the present system of coerced and\nuncompensated labor. The relations of society would have been fixed upon\na permanent basis, and the two orders would not have been placed in that\nsituation of jealousy and suspicion which their present anomalous\ncondition has been the baneful means of creating.\n\nI am convinced there never was any serious alarm about the consequences\nof immediate emancipation among those who were acquainted with the\npeasantry of Jamaica. The fears of the morbidly humane were purposely\nexcited to increase the amount of compensation, or to lengthen the\nduration of the apprenticeship; and the daily ridiculous and untruthful\nstatements that are made by the vitiated portion of the Jamaica press,\nof the indolence of the apprentices, their disinclination to work in\ntheir own time, and the great increase of crime, are purposely and\ninsidiously put forward to prevent the fact of the industry, and\ndecorum, and deference to the law, of the people, and the prosperous\ncondition of the estates, appearing in too prominent a light, lest the\nfriends of humanity, and the advocates for the equal rights of men,\nshould be encouraged to agitate for the destruction of a system which,\nin its general operation, has retained many of the worst features of\nslavery, perpetuated many gross infringements of the social and domestic\nrights of the working classes; and which, instead of working out the\nbenevolent intention of the imperial legislature, by aiding and\nencouraging the expansion of intellect, and supplying motives for the\npermanent good conduct of the apprentices, in its termination, has, I\nfear, retarded the rapidity with which civilization would have advanced,\nand sown the seeds of a feeling more bitter than that which slavery,\nwith all its abominations, had engendered.\n\nI am, dear sirs, your very faithful servant,\n\nEDMUND B. LYON, _Special Justice._\n\n\nExtract from a communication which we received from Wm. Henry Anderson,\nEsq., of Kingston, the Solicitor-General for Jamaica.\n\nThe staples of the island must be cultivated after 1840 as now, because\nif not, the negroes could not obtain the comforts or luxuries, of which\nthey are undoubtedly very desirous, from cultivation of their grounds.\nThe fruits and roots necessary for the public markets are already\nsupplied in profusion at tolerably moderate prices: if the supply were\ngreatly increased, the prices could not be remunerative. There is no way\nin which they can so readily as by labor for wages, _obtain money_, and\ntherefore I hold that there must ever be an adequate supply of labor in\nthe market.\n\nThe negroes are in my opinion very acute in their perceptions of right\nand wrong, justice and injustice, and appreciate fully the benefits of\nequitable legislation, and would unreservedly submit to it where they\nfelt confidence in the purity of its administration.\n\nThere is not the slightest likelihood of rebellion on the part of the\nnegroes after 1840, unless some unrighteous attempts be made to keep up\nthe helotism of the class by enactments of partial laws. _They_ could\nhave no interest in rebellion, they could gain nothing by it; and might\nlose every thing; nor do I think they dream of such a thing. They are\nardently attached to the British government, and would be so to the\ncolonial government, were it to indicate by its enactments any purposes\nof kindness or protection towards them. Hitherto the scope of its\nlegislation has been, in reference to them, almost exclusively coercive;\ncertainly there have been no enactments of a tendency to conciliate\ntheir good will or attachment.\n\nThe negroes are much desirous of education and religious instruction: no\none who has attended to the matter can gainsay that. Formerly marriage\nwas unknown amongst them; they were in fact only regarded by their\nmasters, and I fear by themselves too, as so many brutes for labor, and\nfor increase. Now they seek the benefits of the social institution of\nmarriage and its train of hallowed relationships: concubinage is\nbecoming quite disreputable; many are seeking to repair their conduct by\nmarriage to their former partners, and no one in any rank of life would\nbe hardy enough to express disapprobation of those who have done or\nmay do so.\n\nWM. HENRY ANDERSON.\n\n_Kingston, Jamaica, 24th April, 1837_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe following communication is the monthly report for March, 1837, of\nMajor J.B. Colthurst, special justice for District A., Rural Division,\nBarbadoes.\n\nThe general conduct of the apprentices since my last report has been\nexcellent, considering that greater demands have been made upon their\nlabor at this moment to save perhaps the finest crop of canes ever grown\nin the island.\n\nUpon the large estates generally the best feeling exists, because they\nare in three cases out of four conducted by either the proprietors\nthemselves, or attorneys and managers of sense and consideration. Here\nall things go on well; the people are well provided and comfortable, and\ntherefore the best possible understanding prevails.\n\nThe apprentices in my district _perform their work most willingly_,\nwhenever the immediate manager is a man of sense and humanity. If this\nis not the case, the effect is soon seen, and complaints begin to be\nmade. Misunderstandings are usually confined to the smaller estates,\nparticularly in the neighborhood of Bridgetown, where the lots are very\nsmall, and the apprentice population of a less rural description, and\nmore or less also corrupted by daily intercourse with the town.\n\nThe working hours most generally in use in my district are as follows:\nOn most estates, the apprentices work from six to nine, breakfast; from\nten to one, dinner--rest; from three to six, work.\n\nIt is almost the constant practice of the apprentices, particularly the\npraedials or rural portion, to work in their own time for money wages,\nat the rate of a quarter dollar a day. They sometimes work also during\nthose periods in their little gardens round their negro houses, and\nwhich they most generally enjoy without charge, or in the land they\nobtain in lieu of allowance, they seem ALWAYS well pleased to be fully\nemployed at _free_ labor, and work, when so employed, exceedingly well.\nI know a small estate, worked exclusively on this system. It is in\nexcellent order, and the proprietor tells me his profits are greater\nthan they would be under the apprenticeship. He is a sensible and\ncorrect man, and I therefore rely upon his information. During the hurry\nalways attendant on the saving of the crop, the apprentices are\ngenerally hired in their own time upon their respective estates at the\nabove rate, and which they seldom refuse. No hesitation generally occurs\nin this or any other matter, whenever the employer discharges his duty\nby them in a steady and considerate manner.\n\nThe attendance at church throughout my district is most respectable; but\nthe accommodation, either in this respect or as regards schools, is by\nno means adequate to the wants of the people. The apprentices conduct\nthemselves during divine service in the most correct manner, and it is\nmost gratifying to perceive, that only very little exertion, indeed,\nwould be required to render them excellent members of society. This fact\nis fully proved by the orderly situation of a few estates in my\ndistrict, that have had the opportunity of receiving some moral and\nreligious instruction. There are sixty-four estates in my district over\ntwenty-five acres. Upon four of those plantations where the apprentices\nhave been thus taught, there are a greater number of _married_ couples\n(which may be considered a fair test) than upon the remaining sixty. I\nscarcely ever have a complaint from these four estates, and they are\ngenerally reported to be in a most orderly state.\n\nIn the memory of the oldest inhabitant, the island has never produced a\nfiner crop of canes than that now in the course of manufacture. All\nother crops are luxuriant, and the plantations in a high state of\nagricultural cleanliness. The season has been very favorable.\n\nUnder the head of general inquiry, I beg leave to offer a few remarks. I\nhave now great pleasure in having it in my power to state, that a\nmanifest change for the better has taken place _gradually_ in my\ndistrict within the last few months. Asperities seem to be giving way to\ncalm discussion, and the laws are better understood and obeyed.\n\nIt is said in other colonies as well as here, that there has been, and\nstill continues to be, a great want of natural affection among the negro\nparents for their children, and that great mortality among the free\nchildren has occurred in consequence. This opinion, I understand, has\nbeen lately expressed in confident terms by the legislature of St.\nVincent's, which has been fully and satisfactorily contradicted by the\nreports of the special justices to the lieutenant-governor. The same\nassertion has been made by individuals to myself. As regards Barbadoes,\nI have spared no pains to discover whether such statements were facts,\nand I now am happy to say, that not a _single instance_ of unnatural\nconduct on the part of the negro parents to their children has come to\nmy knowledge--far, perhaps too far, the contrary is the case; _over\nindulgence_ and _petting_ them seems in my judgment to be the only\nmatter the parents can be, with any justice, accused of. They exhibit\ntheir fondness in a thousand ways. Contrasting the actual conduct of the\nnegro parents with the assertions of the planters, it is impossible not\nto infer that _some bitterness is felt by the latter on the score of\ntheir lost authority_. When this is the case, reaction is the natural\nconsequence, and thus misunderstandings and complaints ensue. The like\nassertions are made with respect to the disinclination of the parents to\nsend their children to school. This certainly does exist to a certain\nextent, particularly to schools where the under classes of whites are\ntaught, who often treat the negro children in a most imperious and\nhostile manner. As some proof that no decided objection exists in the\nnegro to educate his children, a vast number of the apprentices of my\ndistrict send them to school, and take pride in paying a bit a week each\nfor them--a quarter dollar entrance and a quarter dollar for each\nvacation. Those schools are almost always conducted by a black man and\nhis _married_ wife. However, they are well attended, but are very few\nin number.\n\nTo show that the apprentices fully estimate the blessings of education,\nmany females _hire their apprentice_ children at a quarter dollar a week\nfrom their masters, for the express purpose of sending them to school.\nThis proves the possibility of a _voluntary_ system of education\nsucceeding, provided it was preceded by full and satisfactory\nexplanation to the parties concerned. I have also little doubt that\nlabor to the extent I speak of, may be successfully introduced when the\napprentices become assured that nothing but the ultimate welfare of\nthemselves and children is intended; but so suspicious are they from\nhabit, and, as I said before, so profoundly ignorant of what may in\ntruth and sincerity be meant only for their benefit, that it will\nrequire great caution and delicacy on the occasion. Those suspicions\nhave not been matured in the negroes mind without cause--the whole\nhistory of slavery proves it. Such suspicions are even _now_ only\nrelinquished under doubts and apprehensions; therefore, all new and\nmaterial points, to be carried successfully with them, should be\nproposed to them upon the most liberal and open grounds.\n\nJ.B. COLTHURST, _Special Justice Peace, District A, Rural Division_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_General return of the imports and exports of the island of Barbadoes,\nduring a series of years--furnished by the Custom-house officer at\nBridgetown_.\n\n                    \u00a3.     s,    d.\n1832             481,610   6     3\n1833             462,132  14     4\n1834             449,169  12     4\n1835             595,961  13     2\n1836             622,128  19    11\n\n\nIMPORTS OF LUMBER.\n\n                   Feet.       Shingles.\n1833            5,290,086      5,598,958\n1834            5,708,494      5,506,646\n1835            5,794,596      4,289,025\n1836            7,196,189      7,037,462\n\n\nIMPORTS OF PROVISIONS.\n\n     |      Flour.      |  Corn Meal.  |\nY'rs.| bbls.  |1/2 bbls.|  bush.| bbls.|\n-----+--------+---------+-------+------+\n1833 | 21,535 |    397  |   629 |  265 |\n1834 | 34,191 |    865  |  1675 | 1580 |\n1835 | 32,393 |    828  |   160 |  809 |\n1836 | 41,975 |    433  |   823 | 1123 |\n-----+--------+---------+-------+------+\n\n     |       Bread and  Biscuits.       |Oats & Corn.|\nY'rs.| hds.| bbls.|1/2 bbls.|kegs.|bags.| bags.| qrs.|\n-----+-----+------+---------+-----+-----+------+-----+\n1833 |   49|  2146|     30  |   \" |   \" |   430|   50|\n1834 |  401|  8561|     99  |  57 |   \" |   100| 1025|\n1835 | 2024| 10762|      \"  |   \" |   \" |  2913| 3134|\n1836 |    4|  4048|      \"  |   \" | 1058|  8168| 3119|\n-----+-----+------+---------+-----+-----+------+-----+\n\nIMPORTS OF CATTLE, ETC.\n       Cattle.   Horses.   Mules.\n1833     649       462      65\n1834     549       728      24\n1835     569      1047      43\n1836    1013      1345     104\n\n\nRETURN OF EXPORTS--SUGAR.\n\n        hhds.     trcs.    bbls.\n1832   18,804     1278     838\n1833   27,015     1505     651\n1834   27,593     1464    1083\n1835   24,309     1417     938\n1836   25,060     1796     804\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nVALUATIONS OF APPRENTICES IN JAMAICA.\n\n\"From the 1st of August, 1834, to 31st of May, 1836, 998 apprentices\npurchased their freedom by valuation, and paid \u00a333,998. From 31st May,\n1836, to 1st November, in the same year, 582 apprentices purchased\nthemselves, and paid \u00a318,217--making, in all, \u00a352,216--a prodigious sum\nto be furnished by the negroes in two years. From the above statement it\nappears that the desire to be free is daily becoming more general and\nmore intense, and that the price of liberty remains the same, although\nthe term of apprenticeship is decreasing. The amount paid by the\napprentices is a proof of the extent of the exertions and sacrifices\nthey are willing to make for freedom, which can scarcely be appreciated\nby those who are unacquainted with the disadvantages of their previous\ncondition. The negroes frequently raise the money by loans to purchase\ntheir freedom, and they are scrupulous in repaying money lent them for\nthat purpose.\"\n\nThe above is extracted from the \"West Indies in 1837,\" an English work\nby Messrs. Sturge and Harvey, page 86, Appendix.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe insert the following tabular view of the crops in Jamaica for a\nseries of years preceding 1837.--As the table and \"Remarks\" appended\nwere first published in the St. Jago Gazette, a decided \"pro-slavery\"\npaper, we insert, in connection with them, the remarks of the Jamaica\nWatchman, published at Kingston, and an article on the present condition\nof slavery, from the Telegraph, published at Spanishtown, the seat of\nthe colonial government.\n\nA GENERAL RETURN OF EXPORTS _From the island of Jamaica, for 53 years,\nending 31st December, 1836--copied from the Journals of the House._\n\n\n___________________________________________________________________\n .  |                    |                       |   |            |\n d  |                    |                       |MO-|            |\n e  |        SUGAR       |          RUM          |LAS|   GINGER   |\n t  |                    |                       |SES|            |\n r  |____________________|_______________________|___|____________|\n o  |   s   |      |     |   s  |  s  |    |     |   |     |      |\n p  |   d   |      |     |   n  |  d  |    |     |   |     |      |\n x  |   a   |   s  |   s |   o  |  a  |    |  s  |   |     |      |\n E  |   e   |   e  |   l |   e  |  e  |    |  l  |   |     |      |\n    |   h   |   c  |   e |   h  |  h  | s  |  e  | s |  s  |      |\n r  |   s   |   r  |   r |   c  |  s  | k  |  r  | k |  k  |   s  |\n a  |   g   |   e  |   r |   n  |  g  | s  |  r  | s |  s  |   g  |\n e  |   o   |   i  |   a |   u  |  o  | a  |  a  | a |  a  |   a  |\n Y  |   H   |   T  |   B |   P  |  H  | C  |  B  | C |  C  |   B  |\n___________________________________________________________________\n1772| 69,451| 9,936|  270|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1773| 72,996|11,453|  849|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1774| 69,579| 9,250|  278|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1775| 75,291| 9,090|  425|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1776|       |      |     |      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1788| 83,036| 9,256|1,063|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1789| 84,167|10,078|1,077|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1790| 84,741| 9,284|1,599|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1791| 85,447| 8,037|1,718|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1792|       |      |     |      |     |    |     |   |     |      |\n1793| 77,575| 6,722|  642|34,755|  879|    |     |   |   62| 8,605|\n1794| 89,532|11,158|1,224|39,843|1,570|    |     |   |  121|10,305|\n1795| 88,851| 9,537|1,225|37,684|1,475|    |     |   |  426|14,861|\n1796| 89,219|10,700|  858|40,810|1,364|    |     |   |  690|20,275|\n1797| 78,373| 9,963|  753|28,014|1,463|    |     |   |  259|29,098|\n1798| 87,896|11,725|1,163|40,823|2,234|    |     |   |  119|18,454|\n1799|101,457|13,538|1,321|37,022|1,981|    |     |   |  221|10,358|\n1800| 96,347|13,549|1,631|37,166|1,350|    |     |   |  444| 3,586|\n1801|123,251|18,704|2,692|48,879|1,514|    |     |   |   12|   239|\n1802|129,544|15,403|2,403|45,632|2,073| 473|  205|366|   23| 2,079|\n1803|107,387|11,825|1,797|43,298|1,416|    |     |461|   51| 3,287|\n1804|103,352|12,802|2,207|42,207|  913|    |     |429|1,094| 1,854|\n1805|137,906|17,977|3,689|53,211|1,328| 133|  167|471|  315| 2,128|\n1806|133,996|18,237|3,579|58,191|1,178|    |     |499|  485| 1,818|\n1807|123,175|17,344|3,716|51,812|1,998|    |     |699|  512| 1,411|\n1808|121,444|15,836|2,625|52,409|2,196|    |     |379|  436| 1,470|\n1809|104,457|14,596|3,534|43,492|2,717|    |     |230|2,321|   572|\n1810|108,703| 4,560|3,719|42,353|1,964|    |     |293|  520| 1,881|\n1811|127,751|15,235|3,046|54,093|2,011|    |     |446|1,110| 2,072|\n1812|105,283|11,357|2,558|43,346|1,531|    |     |151|  804| 1,235|\n1813| 97,548|10,029|2,304|44,618|1,345| 382|  874|208|  816| 1,428|\n1814|101,846|10,485|2,575|43,486|1,551| 202|1,146|145|  884| 1,668|\n1815|118,767|12,224|2,817|52,996|1,465| 574|1,398|242|1,493| 1,667|\n1816| 93,881| 9,332|2,236|35,736|  769| 281|  903|166|2,354| 1,118|\n1817|116,012|11,094|2,868|47,949|1,094| 203|  916|254|3,361| 1,195|\n1818|113,818|11,388|2,786|50,195|1,108| 121|  191|407|2,526| 1,067|\n1819|108,305|11,450|3,244|43,946|1,695| 602|1,558|253|1,714|   718|\n1820|115,065|11,322|2,474|45,361|1,783| 106|  460|252|1,159|   316|\n1821|111,512|11,703|1,972|46,802|1,793| 153|  534|167|  984|   274|\n1822| 88,551| 8,705|1,292|28,728|1,124|   9|  442|144|  891|    72|\n1823| 94,905| 9,179|1,947|35,242|1,935|  20|  118|614|1,041|    60|\n1824| 99,225| 9,651|2,791|37,121|3,261|   5|   64|910|2,230|    52|\n1825| 73,813| 7,380|2,858|27,630|2,077| 101|  215|894|3,947|   348|\n1826| 99,978| 9,514|3,126|35,610|3,098|1,852|    |549|5,724|   517|\n1827| 82,096| 7,435|2,770|31,840|2,672|1,573|    |204|4,871|   240|\n1828| 94,912| 9,428|3,024|36,585|2,793|1,013|    |189|5,382|   279|\n1829| 91,364| 9,193|3,204|36,285|2,009|  563|    | 66|4,101|   168|\n1830| 93,882| 8,739|3,645|33,355|2,657|1,367|    |154|3,494|    15|\n1831| 88,409| 9,053|3,492|34,743|2,846|  982|    |230|3,224|    22|\n1832| 91,453| 9,987|4,600|32,060|2,570|1,362|    |799|4,702|    38|\n1833| 78,375| 9,325|4,074|33,215|3,034|  977|    |755|4,818|    23|\n1834| 77,801| 9,860|3,055|30,495|2,588|1,288|    |486|5,925|   116|\n1835| 71,017| 8,840|8,455|26,433|1,820|  747|    |300|3,985|   486|\n1836| 61,644| 7,707|2,497|19,938|  874|  646|    |182|5,224|    69|\n\n .  |             |          |\n d  |             |          |\n e  |   PIMENTO   |  COFFEE  |\n t  |             |          |\n r  |_____________|__________|\n o  |      |      |          |\n p  |      |      |          |\n x  |      |      |          |          REMARKS\n E  |      |      |     s    |\n    |   s  |      |     d    |\n r  |   k  |   s  |     n    |\n a  |   s  |   g  |     u    |\n e  |   a  |   a  |     o    |\n Y  |   C  |   B  |     P    |\n________________________________________________________________\n1772|      |      |   841,558|\n1773|      |      |   779,303|\n1774|      |      |   739,039|\n1775|      |      |   493,981|\n1776|      |      |          |\n1788|      |      | 1,035,368|\n1789|      |      | 1,493,282|\n1790|      |      | 1,783,740|\n1791|      |      | 2,299,874| August--Destruction of\n1792|      |      |          |    Santo Domingo.\n1793|   420| 9,108| 3,983,576|\n1794|   554|22,153| 4,911,549|\n1795|   957|20,451| 6,318,812|\n1796|   136| 9,820| 7,203,539|\n1797|   328| 2,935| 7,869,133|\n1798| 1,181| 8,961| 7,894,306|\n1799| 1,766|28,273|11,745,425| Bourbon cane introduced.\n1800|   610|12,759|11,116,474|\n1801|   648|14,084|13,401,468|\n1802|   591| 7,793|17,961,923|\n1803|   867|14,875|15,866,291|\n1804| 1,417|19,572|22,063,980|\n1805|   288| 7,157|21,137,393| Largest sugar crop.\n1806| 1,094|19,534|29,298,036|\n1807|   525|19,224|26,761,188| March 25th, abolition of\n1808|   225| 6,529|29,528,273|    African slave trade.\n1809|21,022| 1,177|25,586,668|\n1810| 4,276|21,163|25,885,285|\n1811|   638|22,074|17,460,068|\n1812|   598| 7,778|18,481,986|\n1813| 1,124|14,361|24,623,572| Storm in October, 1812\n1814|   394|10,711|34,045,585| Largest coffee crop.\n1815|   844|27,386|27,362,742|\n1816|   851|28,047|17,289,393| Storm in October, 1815\n1817|   946|15,817|14,793,706|\n1818|   941|21,071|25,329,456|\n1819|   882|24,500|14,091,983|\n1820|   673|12,880|22,127,444|\n1821| 1,224|24,827|16,819,761|\n1822|   699|18,672|19,773,912| Extreme drought.\n1823| 1,894|21,481|20,326,445| Mr. Canning's resolutions\n1824|   599|33,306|27,667,239|    relative to slavery.\n1825|   537|20,979|21,254,656|\n1826|   522|16,433|20,352,886| Severe drought in 1824, the previous year.\n1827| 3,236|26,691|25,741,520|\n1828| 4,003|25,352|22,216,780|\n1829| 3,733|48,933|22,234,640|\n1830| 5,609|37,925|22,256,950|\n1831| 2,844|22,170|14,055,350|\n1832| 3,736|27,936|19,815,010|\n1833| 7,741|58,581| 9,866,060| Emancipation act passed.\n1834|   496|29,301|17,725,731| Seasons favorable.\n1835| 1,115|59,033|10,593,018|    do.\n1836|   227|46,779|13,446,053|    do.\n\nThe following are the remarks of the editor of the Jamaica Watchman, on\nthe foregoing, in his paper of April 8, 1837:--\n\nA general return of exports from the island for fifty-three years,\nending the 31st December last, and purporting to be extracted from the\njournals of the assembly, has been published, and as usual, the decrease\nin the crops of the respective years has been attributed to the\nresolutions passed by the British House of Commons in 1823, and the\nabolition of slavery in 1833. It is remarkable that in preparing this\ntable, a manifest disposition is evinced to account for the falling off\nof the crops in certain years anterior, and subsequent to the passing of\nMr. Canning's memorable resolution, whilst opposite to the years 1834\nand 1835, is written \"seasons favorable.\" In 1813, the sugar crop fell\noff 8,000 hhds. compared with the previous year, and we are told in\nreference to this circumstance, that there was a storm in October, 1812.\nThis remark is evidently made to account for the decrease, and perhaps\nthe storm at the close of the previous year was the cause of it. But it\nis astonishing, and the circumstance is worthy of notice, that whilst\nthe sugar crop fell off nearly 8,000 hhds. the coffee crop increased\nnearly six millions of pounds. We should have supposed that the coffee\ntrees would have suffered more from the effects of a storm, than the\ncanes. However, the effect was as we have stated it, whatever might have\nbeen the cause. In 1814, the largest coffee crop was made. Again, in\n1816, there was a decrease in the sugar crop compared with the year\nimmediately preceding it of nearly 25,000 hhds. And here we have the\nstorm of October, 1815, assigned as a reason. The coffee crop in this\ninstance also fell off nearly ten millions of pounds. In 1822, the sugar\ncrop was reduced 23,000 hhds., and the coffee crop increased three\nmillions of pounds. The reason now assigned is an \"extreme drought.\" The\ncelebrated resolutions relative to slavery now appear to begin to\nexercise their baneful influence on the _seasons_ and the _soil_ of our\nisland. In the year in which they were passed, 1823, 94,900 hogsheads of\nsugar were made, and twenty millions of pounds of coffee gathered. 1824\ncame, and the crop, instead of being reduced, was increased from nearly\n95,000 hogsheads to upwards of 99,000 hogsheads. The coffee crop was\nalso greater by seven millions of pounds. In 1825, they fall off to\n73,860 hogsheads and twenty-one millions. In 1826, the sugar crop rather\nexceeded that of 1824, but the coffee crop was seven millions less. In\n1827, from causes not known to us, for none were assigned, there was a\ndifference of 16,000 hhds. of sugar, and an increase of five millions of\npounds of coffee. 1828, 29, and 30, were pretty nearly alike in sugar\nand coffee crops, and about equal to 1823. The crops of 1831 fell off\nfrom 93 to 88,000 hogsheads of sugar, and from 22 to 14 millions of\npounds of coffee. No reason is assigned for this reduction. It was\nduring the continuance of the driving system, and therefore no blame can\nattach to the managers. In 1832, the crop rose to 91,000 hogsheads of\nsugar, and nearly twenty millions of pounds of coffee. But 1833 comes,\nand, with it, fresh troubles for the planters. In that ill-fated year,\nthere was a decrease of 13,000 hogsheads sugar, and of ten millions of\npounds of coffee. Its sugar crop was the smallest made, with the\nexception of that of 1825, since 1793, and its coffee crop since that of\n1798. But if this determination be alarming, what must be that of the\nsucceeding years. Can we be blamed, if, in a strain truly lachrymal, we\nallude to the deductions which have annually been made from the\nmiserable return which 1833 gave to the unfortunate proprietors of\nestates? What boots it to tell us that we have fingered thousands of\npounds sterling, in the shape of compensation: and what consolation is\nit to know, that a hogshead of sugar will now bring thirty pounds,\nwhich, a short time ago, was only worth twelve. Let any _unprejudiced_\nindividual look at the return now before us, and say whether our\nprospects are not deplorably dull and obscure. If we take the four years\nimmediately preceding the passing of Mr. Canning's resolutions, say\n1819, 20, 21, and 22; we will find the average to be 105,858 hogsheads,\nand if from this we even deduct one fourth for the time now lost, there\nwill be an average crop of 79,394 hhds., being 7,185 hogsheads mere than\nthe average of 1833, 34, 35, and 36; and no one will deny that this\nfalling off of one tenth, (supposing that the hogsheads made during the\nlast four years are _not larger_ than those of 1819 to 1822) is\n_nearly_, if not _quite equal_ to the increase of price, from twelve to\nthirty pounds, or one hundred and fifty per cent.\n\nIt is true some persons may be disposed to take the four years\nsubsequent to the passing of Mr. Canning's resolutions, say 1823, 4, 5,\nand 6, and compare them with the four years ending 31st December last.\nShould this be done, it will be found that the average crop of the\nprevious four years is 91,980 hhds., and if from it is deducted one\nfourth, there will remain 68,985 hhds., whilst the average of the other\nfour years is 72,200 hhds. Such a mode of comparison must, however, be\nobviously incorrect; because, in the first place, Mr. Canning's\nresolutions had reduced the crops of those years considerably below the\naverage of the years immediately preceding them, and next, because it\nwould show the advantage to be on the side of freedom in the ratio of\nseventy-two to sixty-nine, which cannot be correct. Besides, in 1824,\nthere was a severe drought, whereas in 1834 and 35 the seasons are\nreported as being favorable. Again, it is necessary, in instituting such\nan inquiry, to go back more than fourteen years; nor is it a valid\nobjection to this to say, that even during that period a number of\nestates have been thrown out of cultivation, in consequence of being\nworn out and unprofitable. \"Deplorable,\" however, as is the \"falling off\nin the yearly amounts of our staple productions, which have decreased,\"\ngentle reader, according to the despatch, \"in an accelerated ratio\nwithin the last few years, till in the year 1836, when they do not\naverage one half the returns of former years preceding that of 1823, the\nyear that Mr. Canning's resolutions for the ultimate abolition of\nslavery in the British colonies passed the House of Commons,\" still it\nis a matter of sincere gratification to know, that the sugar planters\nare better off now than they have been for the last fourteen or fifteen\nyears. With the compensation money a great many of them have been\nenabled to pay off their English debts, and the remainder very\nconsiderably to reduce them, whilst the reduction in the quantity of\nsugar produced, has occasioned such a rise in the price of that article\nas will place the former in easy circumstances, and enable the latter\nentirely to free themselves from the trammels of English mortgagees, and\nthe tender mercies of English mortgagees before the 1st August, 1840,\narrives. And ought these parties not to be thankful? Unquestionably they\nought. Ingratitude, we are told, is as the sin of witchcraft, and\nalthough the table of exports exhibits our fair island as hastening to a\nstate of ruin, and the despatch tells us that \"by the united influence\nof mock philanthropy, religious cant, and humbug,\" a reformed parliament\nwas _forced_ \"to precipitate the _slavery spoliation_ act under the\nspecious pretext of promoting the industry and improving the condition\nof the manumitted slaves,\" still we maintain, and the reasonable will\nagree with us, that we are much better off now than we have been for a\nlong time, and that Jamaica's brightest and happiest days have not yet\ndawned. Let the croakers remember the remarkable words of the Tory Lord,\nBelmore, the planter's friend, and be silent--\"The resources of this\nfine island will never be fully developed until slavery ceases.\" The\nhappiness and prosperity of the inhabitants of Jamaica are not\ncontingent, nor need they be, upon the number of hogsheads of sugar\nannually exported from her shores.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo the foregoing we add the remarks of the editor of the \"Spanishtown\nTelegraph,\" on the present state of the colony, made in his paper of May\n9, 1837:--\n\n    \"When it was understood that the island of Jamaica and the other\n    British West Indian colonies were to undergo the blessed transition\n    from slavery to freedom, it was the hourly cry of the pro-slavery\n    party and press, that the ruin of Jamaica would, as a natural\n    consequence, follow liberty! Commerce, said they, will cease; hordes\n    of barbarians will come upon us and drive us from our own\n    properties; agriculture will be completely paralyzed; and Jamaica,\n    in the space of a few short months, will be seen buried in\n    ashes--irretrievably ruined. Such were the awful predictions of an\n    unjust, illiberal faction!! Such the first fruits that were to\n    follow the incomparable blessings of liberty! The staple productions\n    of the island, it was vainly surmised, could never be cultivated\n    without the name of slavery; rebellions, massacres, starvation,\n    rapine and bloodshed, danced through the columns of the\n    liberty-hating papers, in mazes of metaphorical confusion. In short,\n    the name of freedom was, according to their assertions, directly\n    calculated to overthrow our beautiful island, and involve it in one\n    mass of ruin, unequalled in the annals of history!! But what has\n    been the result? All their fearful forebodings and horrible\n    predictions have been entirely disproved, and instead of liberty\n    proving a curse, she has, on the contrary, unfolded her banners,\n    and, ere long, is likely to reign triumphant in our land. _Banks,\n    steam companies, railroads, charity schools, etc._, seem all to have\n    remained dormant until the time arrived when Jamaica was to be\n    _enveloped in smoke_! No man thought of hazarding his capital in an\n    extensive _banking establishment_ until _Jamaica's ruin_, by the\n    introduction of _freedom, had been accomplished_!! No person was\n    found possessed of sufficient energy to speak of navigation\n    companies in Jamaica's brightest days of slavery; but now that ruin\n    stares every one in the face--now that we have no longer the power\n    to treat out peasantry as we please, they have taken it into their\n    heads to establish so excellent an undertaking. Railroads were not\n    dreamt of until _darling_ slavery had (_in a great measure_)\n    departed, and now, when we thought of throwing up our estates, and\n    flying from the _dangers of emancipation_, the best projects are\n    being set on foot, and what is _worst_, are likely to _succeed_!\n    This is the way that our Jamaica folks, no doubt, reason with\n    themselves. But the reasons for the delay which have taken place in\n    the establishment of all these valuable undertakings, are too\n    evident to require elucidation. We behold the _Despatch_ and\n    _Chronicle_, asserting the ruin of our island; the overthrow of all\n    order and society; and with the knowledge of all this, they speak of\n    the profits likely to result from steam navigation, banking\n    establishments, and railroads! What in the name of conscience, can\n    be the use of steam-vessels when Jamaica's ruin is so fast\n    approaching? What are the planters and merchants to ship in steamers\n    when the apprentices will not work, and there is nothing doing? How\n    is the bank expected to advance money to the planters, when their\n    total destruction has been accomplished by the abolition of slavery?\n    What, in the name of reason, can be the use of railroads, when\n    commerce and agriculture have been nipped in the bud, by that\n    _baneful weed, Freedom_? Let the unjust panderers of discord, the\n    haters of liberty, answer. Let them consider what has all this time\n    retarded the development of Jamaica's resources, and they will find\n    that it was _slavery_; yes, it was its very name which prevented the\n    idea of undertakings such as are being brought about. Had it not\n    been for the introduction of freedom in our land; had the cruel\n    monster, Slavery, not partially disappeared, when would we have seen\n    banks, steamers, or railroads? No man thought of hazarding his\n    capital in the days of slavery, but now that a new era has burst\n    upon us, a complete change has taken possession of the hearts of all\n    just men, and they think of improving the blessing of freedom by the\n    introduction of other things which must ever prove beneficial to\n    the country.\n\n    The vast improvements that are every day being effected in this\n    island, and throughout the other colonies, stamp the assertions of\n    the pro-slavery party as the vilest falsehoods. They glory in the\n    introduction of banks, steam-vessels, and railroads; with the\n    knowledge (as they would have us believe) that the island is fast\n    verging into destruction. They speak of the utility and success of\n    railroads, when, according to their showing, there is no produce to\n    be sent to market, when agriculture has been paralyzed, and Jamaica\n    swept to destruction.\"\n\n*       *       *       *       *\n\nThe following copious extracts from a speech of Lord Brougham, on the\nworkings of the apprenticeship, and on the immediate emancipation\nsubstituted therefor in Antigua and the Bermudas, are specially\ncommended to the notice of the reader. The speech was delivered in the\nHouse of Lords, Feb. 20, 1838. We take it from the published report of\nthe speech in the London Times, of Feb. 25:--\n\n    I now must approach that subject which has some time excited almost\n    universal anxiety. Allow me, however, first to remind your\n    lordships--because that goes to the root of the evil--allow me first\n    to remind you of the anxiety that existed previous to the\n    Emancipation Act which was passed in January, 1833, coming into\n    operation in August, 1834. My lords, there was much to apprehend\n    from the character of the masters of the slaves. I know the nature\n    of man. * * * * I know that he who has abused power clings to it\n    with a yet more convulsive grasp. I know his revenge against those\n    who have been rescued from his tyrannous fangs; I know that he never\n    forgives those whom he has injured, whether white or black. I have\n    never yet met with an unforgiving enemy, except in the person of one\n    of whose injustice I had a right to complain. On the part of the\n    slaves, my lords, I was not without anxiety; for I know the corrupt\n    nature of the degrading system under which they groaned. * * * * It\n    was, therefore, I confess, my lords, with some anxiety that I looked\n    forward to the 1st of August, 1834; and I yielded, though\n    reluctantly, to the plan of an intermediate state before what was\n    called the full enjoyment of freedom--the transition condition of\n    indentured apprenticeship.\n\n    The first of August arrived--that day so confidently and joyously\n    anticipated by the poor slaves, and so sorely dreaded by their hard\n    taskmasters--and if ever there was a picture interesting to look\n    upon--if ever there was a passage in the history of a people\n    redounding to their eternal honor--if ever there was a complete\n    refutation of all the scandalous calumnies which had been heaped\n    upon them for ages, as if in justification of the wrongs which we\n    had done them--(Hear, hear)--that picture and that passage are to be\n    found in the uniform and unvarying history of that people throughout\n    the whole of the West India islands. Instead of the fires of\n    rebellion, lit by a feeling of lawless revenge and resistance to\n    oppression, the whole of those islands were, like an Arabian scene,\n    illuminated by the light of contentment, joy, peace, and good-will\n    towards all men. No civilized people, after gaining an unexpected\n    victory, could have shown more delicacy and forbearance than was\n    exhibited by the slaves at the great moral consummation which they\n    had attained. There was not a look or a gesture which could gall the\n    eyes of their masters. Not a sound escaped from negro lips which\n    could wound the ears of the most feverish planter in the islands.\n    All was joy, mutual congratulation, and hope.\n\n    This peaceful joy, this delicacy towards the feelings of others, was\n    all that was to be seen, heard, or felt, on that occasion,\n    throughout the West India islands.\n\n    It was held that the day of emancipation would be one of riot and\n    debauchery, and that even the lives of the planters would be\n    endangered. So far from this proving the case, the whole of the\n    negro population kept it as a most sacred festival, and in this\n    light I am convinced it will ever be viewed.\n\n    In one island, where the bounty of nature seems to provoke the\n    appetite to indulgence, and to scatter with a profuse hand all the\n    means of excitement, I state the fact when I say not one drunken\n    negro was found during the whole of the day. No less than 800,000\n    slaves were liberated in that one day, and their peaceful festivity\n    was disturbed only on one estate, in one parish, by an irregularity\n    which three or four persons sufficed to put down.\n\n    Well, my lords, baffled in their expectations that the first of\n    August would prove a day of disturbance--baffled also in the\n    expectation that no voluntary labor would be done--we were then told\n    by the \"practical men,\" to look forward to a later period. We have\n    done so, and what have we seen? Why, that from the time voluntary\n    labor began, there was no want of men to work for hire, and that\n    there was no difficulty in getting those who as apprentices had to\n    give the planters certain hours of work, to extend, upon emergency,\n    their period of labor, by hiring out their services for wages to\n    strangers. I have the authority of my noble friend behind me, (the\n    Marquis of Sligo,) who very particularly, inquired into the matter,\n    when I state that on nine estates out of ten there was no difficulty\n    in obtaining as much work as the owners had occasion for, on the\n    payment of wages. How does all this contrast with the predictions of\n    the \"practical men?\" \"Oh,\" said they, in 1833, \"it is idle talking;\n    the cart-whip must be used--without that stimulant no negro will\n    work--the nature of the negro is idle and indolent, and without the\n    thought of the cartwhip is before his eyes he falls asleep--put the\n    cartwhip aside and no labor will be done.\" Has this proved the case?\n    No, my lords, it has not; and while every abundance of voluntary\n    labor has been found, in no one instance has the stimulus of the\n    cartwhip been found wanting. The apprentices work well without the\n    whip, and wages have been found quite as good a stimulus as the\n    scourge even to negro industry. \"Oh, but\" it is said, \"this may do\n    in cotton planting and cotton picking, and indigo making; but the\n    cane will cease to grow, the operation of hoeing will be known no\n    more, boiling will cease to be practised, and sugar-making will\n    terminate entirely.\" Many, I know, were appalled by these\n    reasonings, and the hopes of many were dissipated by these confident\n    predictions of these so-deemed experienced men. But how stands the\n    case now? My lords, let these experienced men, come forth with their\n    experience. I will plant mine against it, and you will find he will\n    talk no more of his experience when I tell him--tell him, too,\n    without fear of contradiction--that during the year which followed\n    the first of August, 1834, twice as much sugar per hour, and of a\n    better quality as compared with the preceding years, was stored\n    throughout the sugar districts; and that one man, a large planter,\n    has expressly avowed, that with twenty freemen he could do more work\n    than with a hundred slaves or fifty indentured apprentices. (Hear,\n    hear.) But Antigua!--what has happened there? There has not been\n    even the system of indentured apprentices. In Antigua and the\n    Bermudas, as would have been the case at Montserrat if the upper\n    house had not thrown out the bill which was prepared by the planters\n    themselves, there had been no preparatory step. In Antigua and the\n    Bermudas, since the first of August, 1834, not a slave or indentured\n    apprentice was to be found. Well, had idleness reigned there--had\n    indolence supplanted work--had there been any deficiency of crop?\n    No. On the contrary, there had been an increase, and not a\n    diminution of crop. (Hear.) But, then, it was said that quiet could\n    not be expected after slavery in its most complete and abject form\n    had so long reigned paramount, and that any sudden emancipation must\n    endanger the peace of the islands. The experience of the first of\n    August at once scattered to the winds that most fallacious prophecy.\n    Then it was said, only wait till Christmas, for that is a period\n    when, by all who have any practical knowledge of the negro\n    character, a rebellion on their part is most to be apprehended. We\n    did wait for this dreaded Christmas; and what was the result? I will\n    go for it to Antigua, for it is the strongest case, there being\n    there no indentured apprentices--no preparatory state--no\n    transition--the chains being at once knocked off, and the negroes\n    made at once free. For the first time within the last thirty years,\n    at the Christmas of the year 1834, martial law was not proclaimed in\n    the island of Antigua. You talk of facts--here is one. You talk of\n    experience--here it is. And with these facts and this experience\n    before us, I call on those _soi-disant_ men of experience--those men\n    who scoffed at us--who laughed to scorn at what they called our\n    visionary, theoretical schemes--schemes that never could be carried\n    into effect without rebellion and the loss of the colonies--I say,\n    my lords, I call on these experienced men to come forward, and, if\n    they can, deny one single iota of the statement I am now making. Let\n    those who thought that with the use of those phrases, \"a planter of\n    Jamaica\" \"the West India interest,\" \"residence in Jamaica and its\n    experience,\" they could make our balance kick the beam--let them, I\n    say, hear what I tell, for it is but the fact--that when the chains\n    were knocked off there was not a single breach of the peace\n    committed either on the day itself, or on the Christmas festival\n    which followed.\n\n    Well, my lords, beaten from these two positions, where did the\n    experienced men retreat to under what flimsy pretext did they next\n    undertake to disparage the poor negro race? Had I not seen it in\n    print, and been otherwise informed of the fact, I could not have\n    believed it possible that from any reasonable man any such absurdity\n    could issue. They actually held out this last fear, which, like the\n    others, was fated to be dissipated by the fact. \"Wait only,\" said\n    they, \"till the anniversary of the first of August, and then you\n    will see what the negro character is, and how little these\n    indentured apprentices are fit to be entrusted with freedom.\" Was\n    there ever such an absurdity uttered, as if my lords, the man who\n    could meet with firm tranquillity and peaceful thankfulness the\n    event itself, was likely to be raised to rebellion and rioting by\n    the recollection of it a year afterwards. My lords, in considering\n    this matter, I ask you, then, to be guided by your own experience,\n    and nothing else; profit by it, my lords, and turn it to your own\n    account; for it, according to that book which all of us must revere,\n    teaches even the most foolish of a foolish race. I do not ask you to\n    adopt as your own the experience of others; you have as much as you\n    can desire of your own, and by no other test do I wish or desire to\n    be judged. But I think my task may be said to be done. I think I\n    have proved my case, for I have shown that the negro can work\n    without the stimulant of the whip; I have shown that he can labor\n    for hire without any other motive than that of industry to inspire\n    him. I have demonstrated that all over the West Indies, even when\n    fatigued with working the allotted hours for the profit of his\n    master, he can work again for wages for him who chooses to hire him\n    and has wherewithal to pay him; I have also most distinctly shown\n    that the experience of Antigua and the Bermudas is demonstrative to\n    show that without any state of preparation, without any indenture of\n    apprenticeship at all, he is fit to be intrusted with his freedom,\n    and will work voluntarily as a free laborer for hire. But I have\n    also demonstrated from the same experience, and by reference to the\n    same state of facts, that a more quiet, inoffensive, peaceable,\n    innocent people, is not to be found on the face of this earth than\n    the negro--not in their own unhappy country, but after they have\n    been removed from it and enslaved in your Christian land, made the\n    victim of the barbarizing demon of civilized powers, and has all\n    this character, if it were possible to corrupt it, and his feelings,\n    if it were possible to pervert them, attempted to be corrupted and\n    perverted by Christian and civilized men, and that in this state,\n    with all incentives to misdemeanor poured around him, and all the\n    temptation to misconduct which the arts and artifices and examples\n    of civilized man can give hovering over him--that after this\n    transition is made from slavery to apprenticeship, and from slavery\n    to absolute freedom, a negro's spirit has been found to rival the\n    unbroken tranquillity of the Caribbean Seas. (Cheers.) This was not\n    the state of things we expected, my lords; and in proof that it was\n    not so, I have but to refer you to the statute book itself. On what\n    ground did you enact the intermediate state of indenture\n    apprenticeship, and on what arguments did you justify it? You felt\n    and acknowledged that the negro had a right to be free, and that you\n    had no right to detain him in bondage. Every one admitted this, but\n    in the prevailing ignorance of their character it was apprehended\n    that they could not be made free at once, and that time was\n    requisite to train the negro to receive the boon it was intended\n    bestowing upon him.\n\n    This was the delusion which prevailed, and which was stated in the\n    preamble of the statute--the same delusion which had made the men on\n    one side state and the other to believe that it was necessary to pay\n    the slave-owners for the loss it was supposed they would sustain.\n    But it was found to be a baseless fear, and the only result of the\n    phantom so conjured up was a payment of twenty millions to the\n    conjurors. (Hear, and a laugh.) Now, I maintain that had we known\n    what we now know of the character of the negroes, neither would this\n    compensation have been given to the slave-owners, nor we have been\n    guilty of proposing to keep the negro in slavery five years, after we\n    were decided that he had a right to his freedom. The noble and\n    learned lord here proceeded to contend that up to the present time\n    the slave-owners, so far from being sufferers, had been gainers by\n    the abolition of slavery and the enactment of the system of\n    apprenticeship, and that consequently up to the present moment\n    nothing had occurred to entitle them to a claim upon the\n    compensation allotted by parliament. The slave-owners might be said\n    to have pocketed the seven millions without having the least claim\n    to them, and therefore, in considering the proposition he was about\n    to make, parliament should bear in mind that the slave proprietors\n    were, if anything, the debtors to the nation. The money had, in\n    fact, been paid to them by mistake, and, were the transaction one\n    between man and man, an action for its recovery might lie. But the\n    slave-owners alleged that if the apprenticeship were now done away\n    there would be a loss, and that to meet that loss they had a right\n    to the money. For argument's sake he would suppose this to be true,\n    and that there would be loss; but would it not be fair that the\n    money should be lodged in the hands of a third party, with authority\n    to pay back at the expiration of the two years whatever rateable sum\n    the master could prove himself to have lost? His firm belief was,\n    that no loss could arise; but, desirous to meet the planter at every\n    point, he should have no objection to make terms with him. Let him,\n    then, pay the money into court, as it were, and at the end of two\n    years he should be fully indemnified for any loss he might prove. He\n    called upon their lordships to look to Antigua and the Bermudas for\n    proof that the free negro worked well, and that no loss was\n    occasioned to the planters or their property by the granting of\n    emancipation. But it was said that there was a difference between\n    the cases of Antigua and other colonies, such as Jamaica, and it was\n    urged that while the negroes of the former, from the smallness and\n    barrenness of the place, would be forced into work, that in the\n    latter they would run away, and take refuge in the woods. Now, he\n    asked, why should the negro run away from his work, on being made\n    free, more than during the continuance of his apprenticeship? Why,\n    again, should it be supposed that on the 1st of August, 1840, the\n    emancipated negroes should have less inclination to betake\n    themselves to the woods than in 1838? If there was a risk of the\n    slaves running to the woods in 1838, that risk would be increased\n    and not diminished during the intermediate period up to 1840, by the\n    treatment they were receiving from their masters, and the deferring\n    of their hopes.\n\n    My lords, (continued the noble lord,) I have now to say a few words\n    upon the treatment which the slaves have received during the past\n    three years of their apprenticeship, and which, it is alleged,\n    during the next two years is to make them fitted for absolute\n    emancipation. My lords, I am prepared to show that in most respects\n    the treatment the slaves have received since 1834 is no better, and\n    in many others more unjust and worse, than it ever was in the time\n    of absolute slavery. It is true that the use of the cartwhip as a\n    stimulus to labor has been abolished. This, I admit, is a great and\n    most satisfactory improvement; but, in every other particular, the\n    state of the slave, I am prepared to show, is not improved, and, in\n    many respects, it is materially worse. First, with regard to the\n    article of food, I will compare the Jamaica prison allowance with\n    that allotted to the apprenticed negroes in other colonies. In the\n    Jamaica prison the allowance of rice is 14 pints a week to each\n    person. I have no return of the allowance to the indentured\n    apprentice in Jamaica, but I believe it is little over this; but in\n    Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands, it is much under. In Barbadoes,\n    instead of receiving the Jamaica prison allowance of 14 pints a\n    week, the apprenticed negro received but 10 pints: while in the\n    Leeward Islands he had but 8 pints. In the crown colonies, before\n    1834, the slave received 21 pints of rice, now the apprentice gets\n    but 10; so that in the material article, food, no improvement in the\n    condition of the negro was observable. Then, with regard to time, it\n    is obviously of the utmost importance that the apprentice should\n    have at least two holidays and a half a week--the Sabbath for\n    religious worship and instruction, the Saturday to attend the\n    markets, and half of Friday to work in his own garden. The act of\n    emancipation specified 45 hours a week as the period the apprentice\n    was to work for his master, but the master so contrived matters as\n    in most instances to make the 45 hours the law allotted him run into\n    the apprentice's half of Friday, and even in some cases into the\n    Saturday. The planter invariably counted the time from the moment\n    that the slave commenced his work; and as it often occurs that his\n    residence was on the border of the estate, he may have to walk five\n    or six miles to get to the place he has to work. This was a point\n    which he was sure their lordships would agree with him in thinking\n    required alteration.\n\n    The next topic to which I shall advert relates to the administration\n    of justice; and this large and important subject I cannot pass over\n    without a word to remind your lordships how little safe it is, how\n    little deserving the name of just, or any thing like just, that\n    where you have two classes you should separate them into conflicting\n    parties, until they became so exasperated in their resentment as\n    scarcely to regard each other as brethren of the same species; and\n    that you should place all the administration of justice in the hands\n    of one dominant class, whose principles, whose passions whose\n    interests, are all likely to be preferred by the judges when they\n    presume to sit where you have placed them on the judgment seat. The\n    chief and puisne judges are raised to their situations from amongst\n    the class which includes the white men and planters. But, worse than\n    that, the jurors are taken from the same privileged body: jurors,\n    who are to assess civil damages in actions for injuries done to the\n    negroes--jurors, who are to try bills of indictment against the\n    whites for the maltreatment of the blacks--jurors who are to convict\n    or acquit on those bills--jurors who are to try the slaves\n    themselves--nay, magistrates, jailors, turnkeys, the whole apparatus\n    of justice, both administrative and executive, exclusively in the\n    hands of one race! What is the consequence? Why, it is proverbial\n    that no bills are found for the blacks. (Hear, hear.) Six bills of\n    indictment were preferred, some for murder and some for bad\n    manslaughter, and at one assizes every one of these six indictments\n    was thrown out. Assizes after assizes the same thing happened, until\n    at length wagers were held that no such bill would be found, and no\n    one was found to accept them. Well was it for them that they\n    declined, for every one of the bills preferred was ignored. Now,\n    observe that in proceedings, as your lordships know; before grand\n    jurors, not a tittle of evidence is heard for the prisoners; every\n    witness is in favor of the indictment, or finding of the bill; but\n    in all these instances the bills were flung out on the examination\n    of evidence solely against the prisoner. Even in the worst cases of\n    murder, as certainly and plainly committed as the sun shines at noon\n    day, monstrous to all, the bills were thrown out when half the\n    witnesses for the prosecution remained to be examined. (Hear, hear.)\n    Some individuals swore against the prisoners, and though others\n    tendered their evidence, the jury refused to hear them. (Hear,\n    hear.) Besides, the punishments inflicted are monstrous; thirty-nine\n    lashes are inflicted for the vague, indefinite--because incapable to\n    be defined--offence of insolence. Thirty-nine lashes for the grave\n    and the more definite, I admit, offence of an attempt to carry a\n    small knife. Three months imprisonment, or fifty lashes for the\n    equally grave offence of cutting off the shoot of a cane plant!\n    There seems to have prevailed at all times amongst the governors of\n    our colonies a feeling, of which, I grieve to say, the governors at\n    home have ever and anon largely partaken, that there is something in\n    the nature of a slave--something in the habits of the African\n    negro--something in the disposition of the unfortunate hapless\n    victims of our own crimes and cruelties, which makes what is mercy\n    and justice to other men cruelty to society and injustice to the law\n    in the case of the negro, and which condemns offences slightly\n    visited, if visited at all, with punishment, when committed by other\n    men, to the sentence that for his obdurate nature none can be too\n    severe. (Hear, hear.) As if we had any one to blame but\n    ourselves--as if we had any right to visit on him that character if\n    it were obdurate, those habits if they were insubordinate, that\n    dishonest disposition if it did corrupt his character, all of which\n    I deny, and which experience proves to be contrary to the fact and\n    truth; but even if these statements were all truth instead of being\n    foully slanderous and absolutely false, we, of all men, have\n    ourselves to blame, ourselves to tax, and ourselves to punish, at\n    least for the self abasement, for we have been the very causes of\n    corrupting the negro character. (Cheers.)\n\n    If some capricious despot, in his career of ordinary tyranny, were\n    to tax his imagination to produce something more monstrous and\n    unnatural than himself, and were to place a dove amongst vultures,\n    or engraft a thorn on the olive tree, much as we should marvel at\n    the caprice, we should be still more astounded at the expectation,\n    which exceeds even a tyrant's proverbial unreasonableness, that he\n    should gather grapes from the thorn, or that the dove should be\n    habituated to a thirst for blood. Yet that is the caprice, that is\n    the unreasonable, the foul, the gross, the monstrous, the\n    outrageous, incredible injustice of which we are hourly guilty\n    towards the whole unhappy race of negroes. (Cheers.) My lords, we\n    fill up the incasare of injustice by severely executing laws badly\n    conceived in a still more atrocious and cruel spirit. The whole\n    punishments smell of blood. (Hear, Hear.) If the treadmill stop in\n    consequence of the languid limbs and exhausted frames of the\n    victims, within a minute the lash resounds through the building--if\n    the stones which they are set to break be not broken by limbs\n    scarred, and marred, and whaled, they are summoned by the crack of\n    the whip to their toilsome task! I myself have heard within the last\n    three hours, from a person, who was an eye-witness of the appalling\n    and disgusting fact, that a leper was introduced amongst the\n    negroes; and in passing let me remark, that in private houses or\n    hospitals no more care has been taken to separate those who are\n    stricken with infectious diseases from the sound portion, any more\n    than to furnish food to those in prison who are compelled, from the\n    unheard-of, the paltry, the miserable disposition to treat with\n    cruelty the victims of a prison, to go out and gather their own\n    food,--a thing which I believe even the tyrant of Siberia does not\n    commit. Yet in that prison, where blood flows profusely, and the\n    limbs of those human beings are subjected to perpetual torture, the\n    frightful, the nauseous, the disgusting--except that all other\n    feelings are lost in pity towards the victim and indignation against\n    the oppressor--sight was presented of a leper, scarred from the\n    eruptions of disease on his legs and previous mistreatment, whaled\n    again and again, and his blood again made to flow from the jailer's\n    lash. I have told your lordships how bills have been thrown out for\n    murdering the negroes. But a man had a bill presented for this\n    offence: a petition was preferred, and by a white man. Yes, a white\n    man who had dared, under feelings of excited indignation, to\n    complain to the regularly constituted authorities, instead of\n    receiving for his gallant conduct the thanks of the community, had a\n    bill found which was presented against him as a nuisance. I have,\n    within the last two hours, amid the new mass of papers laid before\n    your lordships within the last forty-eight hours, culled a sample\n    which, I believe, represents the whole odious mass.\n\n    Eleven females have been flogged, starved, lashed, attached to the\n    treadmill, and compelled to work until nature could no longer endure\n    their sufferings. At the moment when the wretched victims were about\n    to fall off--when they could no longer bring down the mechanism and\n    continue the movement, they were suspended by their arms, and at\n    each revolution of the wheel received new wounds on their members,\n    until, in the language of that law so grossly outraged in their\n    persons, they \"languished and died.\" Ask you if a cringe of this\n    murderous nature went unvisited, and if no inquiry was made\n    respecting its circumstances? The forms of justice were observed;\n    the handmaid was present, but the sacred mistress was far away. A\n    coroner's inquest was called; for the laws decreed that no such\n    injuries should take place without having an inquiry instituted.\n    Eleven inquisitions were held, eleven inquiries were made, eleven\n    verdicts were returned. For murder? Manslaughter? Misconduct? No;\n    but that \"they died by the visitation of God.\" A lie--a perjury--a\n    blasphemy! The visitation of God! Yes, for of the visitations of the\n    Divine being by which the inscrutable purposes of his will are\n    mysteriously worked out, one of the most mysterious is the power\n    which, from time to time, is allowed by him to be exercised by the\n    wicked for the torment of the innocent. (Cheers.) But of those\n    visitations prescribed by Divine Providence there is one yet more\n    inscrutable, for which it is still more difficult to affix a reason,\n    and that is, when heaven rolls down on this earth the judgment, not\n    of scorpions, or the plague of pestilence, or famine, or war--but\n    incomparably the worse plague, the worser judgment, of the injustice\n    of judges who become betrayers of the law--perjured, wicked men who\n    abuse the law which they are sworn to administer, in order to\n    gratify their own foul passions, to take the part of the wrong-doer\n    against his victim, and to forswear themselves on God's gospel, in\n    order that justice may not be done. * * * * My lords, I entirely\n    concur in what was formerly said by Mr. Burke, and afterwards\n    repeated by Mr. Canning, that while the making of laws was confined\n    to the owners of slaves, nothing they did was ever found real or\n    effectual. And when, perchance, any thing was accomplished, it had\n    not, as Mr. Burke said, \"an executive principle.\" But, when they\n    find you determined to do your duty, it is proved, by the example\n    which they have given in passing the Apprenticeship Amendment Act,\n    that they will even outstrip you to prevent your interference with\n    them. * * * * Place the negroes on the same footing with other men,\n    and give them the uncontrolled power over their time and labor, and\n    it will become the interest of the planter, as well as the rest of\n    the community, to treat the negro well, for their comfort and\n    happiness depend on his industry and good behavior. It is a\n    consequence perfectly clear, notwithstanding former distinctions,\n    notwithstanding the difference of color and the variety of race in\n    that population, the negro and the West Indian will in a very few\n    generations--when the clank of his chain is no longer heard, when\n    the oppression of the master can vex no more, when equal rights are\n    enjoyed by all, and all have a common interest in the general\n    prosperity--be impressed with a sense of their having an equal share\n    in the promotion of the public welfare; nay, that social\n    improvement, the progress of knowledge, civility, and even\n    refinement itself, will proceed as rapidly and diffuse itself as\n    universally in the islands of the Western Ocean as in any part of\n    her Majesty's dominions. * * * *\n\n    I see no danger in the immediate emancipation of the negro; I see no\n    possible injury in terminating the apprenticeship, (which we now\n    have found should never have been adopted,) and in causing it to\n    cease for slaves previous to August, 1838, at that date, as those\n    subsequent to that date must in that case be exempt. * * * * I\n    regard the freedom of the negro as accomplished and sure. Why?\n    Because it is his right--because he has shown himself fit for\n    it--because a pretext or a shadow of a pretext can no longer be\n    devised for withholding that right from its possessor. I know that\n    all men now take a part in the question, and that they will no\n    longer bear to be imposed upon now they are well informed. My\n    reliance is firm and unflinching upon the great change which I have\n    witnessed--the education of the people unfettered by party or by\n    sect--from the beginning of its progress, I may say from the hour of\n    its birth. Yes; it was not for a humble man like me to assist at\n    royal births with the illustrious prince who condescended to grace\n    the pageant of this opening session, or the great captain and\n    statesman in whose presence I now am proud to speak. But with that\n    illustrious prince, and with the father of the Queen I assisted at\n    that other birth, more conspicuous still. With them and with the\n    lord of the house of Russel I watched over its cradle--I marked its\n    growth--I rejoiced in its strength--I witnessed its maturity--I have\n    been spared to see it ascend the very height of supreme\n    power--directing the councils of the state--accelerating every great\n    improvement--uniting itself with every good work--propping honorable\n    and useful institutions--extirpating abuses in all our\n    institutions--passing the bounds of our dominion, and in the new\n    world, as in the old, proclaiming that freedom is the birthright of\n    man--that distinction of color gives no title to oppression--that\n    the chains now loosened must be struck off, and even the marks they\n    have left effaced by the same eternal law of our nature which makes\n    nations the masters of their own destiny, and which in Europe has\n    caused every tyrant's throne to quake. But they need to feel no\n    alarm at the progress of right who defend a limited monarchy and\n    support their popular institutions--who place their chiefest pride\n    not in ruling over slaves, be they white or be they black--not in\n    protecting the oppressor, but in wearing a constitutional crown, in\n    holding the sword of justice with the hand of mercy, in being the\n    first citizen of a country whose air is too pure for slavery to\n    breathe, and on whose shores, if the captive's foot but touch, his\n    fetters of themselves fall off. (Cheers.) To the resistless progress\n    of this great principle I look with a confidence which nothing can\n    shake; it makes all improvement certain--it makes all change safe\n    which it produces; for none can be brought about, unless all has\n    been accomplished in a cautious and salutary spirit. So now the\n    fulness of time is come; for our duty being at length discharged to\n    the African captive, I have demonstrated to you that every thing is\n    ordered--every previous step taken--all safe, by experience shown to\n    be safe, for the long-desired consummation. The time has come--the\n    trial has been made--the hour is striking: you have no longer a\n    pretext for hesitation, or faltering, or delay. The slave has shown,\n    by four years' blameless behavior and devotion, unsurpassed by any\n    English peasant, to the pursuit of peaceful industry, that he is as\n    fit for his freedom as any lord whom I now address. I demand his\n    rights--I demand his liberty without stint, in the names of justice\n    and of law--in the name of reason--in the name of God, who has given\n    you no right to work injustice. I demand that your brother be no\n    longer trampled upon as your slave. (Hear, hear.) I make my appeal\n    to the Commons, who represent the free people of England; and I\n    require at their hands the performance of that condition for which\n    they paid so enormous a price--that condition which all their\n    constituents are in breathless anxiety to see fulfilled! I appeal to\n    his house--the hereditary judges of the first tribunal in the\n    world--to you I appeal for justice. Patrons of all the arts that\n    humanize mankind, under your protection I place humanity herself! To\n    the merciful Sovereign of a free people I call aloud for mercy to\n    the hundreds of thousands in whose behalf half a million of her\n    Christian sisters have cried aloud, that their cry may not have\n    risen in vain. But first I turn my eye to the throne of all justice,\n    and devoutly humbling myself before Him who is of purer eyes than to\n    behold any longer such vast iniquities--I implore that the curse\n    over our heads of unjust oppression be averted from us--that your\n    hearts may be turned to mercy--and that over all the earth His will\n    may at length be done!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX.\n\nABSCONDING from labor,\nAccident in a boiling house,\nAged negro,\nAllowance to Apprentices,\n\"Amalgamation,\"\nAmerican Consul, (_See Consul_.)\nAmerican Prejudice,\nAmity Hall Estate,\nAnderson, Wm. II. Esq.,\nAnguilla,\nAnnual Meeting of Missionaries,\nAntigua, Dimensions of,\n  \"      Sugar Crop of,\nApplewhitte, Mr.\nAppraisement of Apprentices,\nApprentice, provisions respecting the,\nApprenticeship compared with slavery,\nApprenticeship System,\n      \"        Design of,\n      \"        Good effect of,\n      \"        No preparation for freedom,\nApprenticeship, Operation of,\nApprenticeship, Opinion of, in Antigua;--in Barbadoes;--in Jamaica,\nApprentices liberated,\nApprentices' work compared with slaves\nArchdeacon of Antigua,\n     \"     of Barbadoes,\nAristocracy of Antigua,\nArmstrong, Mr. H.,\nAshby, Colonel,\nAthill, Mr.,\nAttachment to home,\nAttorney General of Jamaica,\nAttendance on Church\nAugust, First of\n\nBaijer, Hon. Samuel O.,\nBaines, Major,\nBanks, Rev. Mr.,\nBaptist Chapel\nBaptists in Jamaica,\nBarbadoes,\nBarbuda,\nBarber in Bridgetown,\nBarclay, Alexander, Esq.,\nBarnard, Samuel, Esq.,\nBarrow, Colonel,\nBath,\nBazaar,\nBell, Dr.,\nBelle Estate,\nBell not tolled for colored person,\n\"_Belly, 'blige_ 'em to work,\"\nBelmore, Lord,\nBelvidere Estate,\nBenevolent institutions of Antigua,\nBible Society,\nBishop of Barbadoes,\nBlessings of Abolition, (See _Morals_, &c.)\nBlind man,\nBoiling House,\nBookkeepers, Slaver of,\n\"Bornin' Ground,\"\nBourne, Mr. London,\nBourne, Mr. S., (of Antigua,)\nBourne, Stephen, Esq., (of Jamaica,)\nBreakfast at Mr. Bourne's,\n    \"     at Mr. Prescod's,\n    \"     at Mr. Thorne's,\nBriant, Mr.,\nBridgetown,\nBrown, Colonel,\nBrown, Thomas C.,\n\nC., Mr., of Barbadoes,\n\"Cage,\"\nCane cultivated by apprentices on their own ground,\nCane-cutting,\nCane-holing,\nCecil, Mr.,\nCedar Hall,\nChamberlain, R., Esq.,\nChange of opinion in regard to slavery,\nChapel erected by apprentices,\nCharacter of colored people,\nCheesborough, Rev. Mr.,\nChildren, care of, (See _Free_.)\nChristmas,\nChurch, Established,\nCivility of negroes,\nClarke, Dr.,\nClarke, Hon. R.B.,\nClarke, Mr.,\nClassification of apprentices,\nCodrington Estate,\nCoddrington, Sir Christopher.\nCoffee Estates.\nCollege, Coddrington.\nColliton Estate.\nColored Architect.\n  \"     Editors.\n  \"     Lady.\n  \"     Legislators.\n  \"     Magistrates.\n  \"     Merchants.\n  \"     Policemen.\n  \"     Population.\n  \"     Proprietor.\n  \"     Teachers.\nColthurst, Major.\nComplaints to Special Magistrates.\nConcubinage.\nCondition of the negroes, changed.\nConduct of the Emancipated on the first of August.\nConfidence increased.\nConjugal attachment.\nConsul, American at Antigua.\n  \"        \"     at Jamaica.\nConstabulary force, colored.\nContributions for religious purposes.\nConversation with a negro boatman.\nConversation with negroes on Harvey's estate.\nConversation with apprentices.\nCorbett, Mr. Trial of.\nCorner stone laid.\nCourts in Barbadoes.\nCourts in Jamaica.\nCox, Rev. James.\nCranstoun, Mr.\nCrimes, Diminution of.\nCrimes in Jamaica.\nCrookes, Rev. Mr.\nCrops in Barbadoes.\nCrops in Jamaica.\nCruelty of slavery.\n  \"     to apprentices.\nCultivation in Barbadoes, (See _Crops_.)\nCultivation in Jamaica.\nCummins, Mr.\nCummins, Rev. Mr.\nCuppage, Captain.\nCustom House returns, Barbadoes.\n\nDaily meal Society.\nDangers of slavery.\nDaniell, Dr.\nDeath-bed of a planter.\nDeception.\nDefect of law.\nDemerara, Apprenticeship in.\nDesire for instruction.\nDinner at Mr. Harris's.\n  \"    at the Governor's.\nDisabilities of colored people.\nDiscussion, Effect of.\nDistinction between _serving_ and being _property_.\nDistressed Females' Friend Society.\nDisturbances, Reason of.\nDocility of the negroes.\nDomestic Apprentices.\nDonovan's Estate.\nDrax Hall.\nDress in Antigua.\n\"Driver and overseer.\"\nDrought in Antigua.\nDublin Castle Estate.\nDuncan, Mr.\nDungeons in Antigua.\n  \"      in Barbadoes.\n\nEconomy of the negroes.\nEdgecomb Estate.\nEdmonson, Rev. Jonathan.\nEducation of Apprentices.\n  \"       in Antigua.\n  \"       in Barbadoes. (See _Schools_.)\nEducation, Queries on, replied to.\n  \"        Results, in regard to.\nEdwards, Colonel.\nEldridge, R. B. Esq..\nElliot, Rev. Edward.\nEmancipation, Immediate. (See _Preparation, &c._)\nEmancipation, Motives of, in Antigua.\nEmigrants from Europe.\nEmployments of the colored.\nEnglish Delegation.\nEnrolment of colored militia.\nEscape of slaves from French islands.\nExpectations in regard to 1838 and 1840.\nExpense of free compared with slave labor.\nExpense of Apprenticeship compared with slavery.\nExplanation of terms.\nExports of Jamaica for 53 years.\n\nFair of St. John's.\nFavey, Mr.\nFeeding in Barbadoes.\nFeeling, intense, of the negroes.\nFemales in the field.\nFences wanting in Antigua.\nFerguson, Dr.\nFines upon the planters.\nFire in the canes.\nFitch's Creek Estate.\nFlogging.\n  \"      machine.\nForten, James.\nFour and a half per cent tax.\nFraser, Rev. Edward.\n  \"     Mrs., ----\nFree children.\nFreedom in Antigua.\nFree labor less expensive.\nFreeman, Count.\nFrey's Estate.\nFriendly Societies.\nFright of American vessels.\n\nGalloway, Mr.\nGangs, Division of.\nGardiner, Rev. Mr.\nGilbert, Rev. N.\nGirl sold by her mother.\nGitters, Rev. Mr.\nGolden Grove Estate.\nGordon, Mr.\nGovernor of Antigua.\n  \"      of Barbadoes.\nGrace Bay.\nGrenada.\n\"Grandfather Jacob.\"\nGratitude of the Negroes.\n\"Grecian Regale.\"\nGreen Castle Estate.\nGreen Wall Estate.\nGuadaloupe.\nGuarda Costas.\n\"Gubner poisoned.\"\n\nH., Mr., an American.\nHamilton, Capt.\nHamilton, Cheny, Esq.\nHamilton, Rev. Mr.\nHarrison, Colonel.\nHarris, Thomas, Esq.\nHarvey, Rev. B.\nHatley, Mr.\nHeroism of colored women.\nHigginbothom, Ralph, Esq.\nHill, Richard, Esq.\nHinkston, Samuel, Esq.\nHolberton, Rev. Robert.\nHolidays in Antigua.\nHorne, Rev. Mr.\n\"Horse.\"\nHorton Estate.\nHorsford, Hon. Paul.\nHostility to Emancipation. (See also, _Change, &c._)\nHouse of Correction.\nHowell, Mr., (of Jamaica).\nHowell, James Esq.\nHurricane.\n\nImports and Exports of Barbadoes.\nImprovement since Emancipation. (See _Morals_.)\nIndolence of Apprentices.\n  \"       of Whites.\nIndustry of Emancipated Slaves.\nIndustry of Apprentices.\nInfanticide.\nInsolence.\nInsubordination. (See _Subordination_.)\nInsurrection in Barbadoes in 1816.\nInsurrection not feared in Antigua;\n    nor in Barbadoes;\n    nor in Jamaica.\nIntelligence of blacks, as compared with whites.\nIntemperance in Antigua. (See _Temperance_.)\nIntermixture. (See also _Amalgamation_.)\nInternal Improvement.\n\nJamaica.\nJarvis, Colonel.\nJobs.\nJocken, Mr.\nJones, Mr.\nJones, Rev. Mr.\nJones, T. Watkins, S. M.\nJordon, Edward, Esq.\nJury on the body of a negro woman.\n\"Juvenile Association.\"\n\nKingdon, Rev. Mr.\nKingston.\nKirkland, Mr.\n\nLaw, respect for.\nLear's Estate.\nLegislature of Antigua.\nLetter to a Special Magistrate.\nLicense to marry.\nLicentiousness.\nLighthouse.\nLock-up house at St. John's.\nLyon, E.B., Esq.\nLyon's Estate.\n\nMachinery, Labor-saving.\nManagers, Testimony of.\nManchioneal.\nMarket in St. John's.\nMarket people.\nMaroons.\nMarriage.\nMarshall, Mr.\nMartinique.\nMaster's power over the apprentice.\nMcCornock, Thomas, Esq.\nMcGregor, Sir Evan, J. M.\nMegass.\nMerchants, Testimony of.\nMessages of Sir Lionel Smith.\nMico Charity Infant School.\nMiller's Estate.\nMissionaries, Wesleyan.\nMissionary associations.\n  \"        Society, Wesleyan.\nMob, Pro-Slavery, in Barbadoes.\nM\u00f6hne, Mr. and Mrs.\nMontserrat.\nMorals, improvement of.\nMorant Bay.\nMoravian Chapel.\n    \"    Missionary.\nMoravians.\nMorrish, Rev. Mr.\nMule-traveling.\nMurder of a planter.\nMusgrave, Dr.\n\nNegro Grounds.\nNegro Quarters.\nNevis.\nNewby, Mr.\nNewfield, visit to.\nNoble trait in the apprentices.\nNugent, Hon. Nicholas.\n\nObstacles to free labor in Antigua.\nOld school tyrant.\nOpinions in Antigua in regard to Emancipation.\nOpinions of the United States.\nOpposition to slavery in Jamaica.\nO'Reily, Hon. Dowel.\nOsburne, Mr.\nOverseers.\n\nPacker, Rev. Mr.\nParry, Archdeacon.\nPartiality of the Special Magistrates.\nPeaceableness of negro villages.\nPeaceableness of the change from slavery to freedom.\nPeaceableness of the negro character.\nPersecution of a Special Justice.\nPeter's Rock.\nPhillips, Rev. Mr.\nPhysician, Testimony of.\nPigeot, Mr.\nPlantain Garden River Valley.\nPlanter, a severe one.\nPlanters, cruelty of.\n  \"       in Barbadoes.\nPlough.\nPolice Court.\n   \"   of Antigua.\n   \"   Officers, Testimony of.\n   \"   Reports.\nPolicy of colored people in regard to prejudice.\nPort Royal.\nPrejudice against color.\n\"Prejudice Bell.\"\nPreparation for freedom.\nPrescod, Mr.\nPromiscuous seating in church (See _\"Amalgamation,\" &c._)\nProprietor, testimony of.\nPro-slavery pretences.\nProvidence of the emancipated, the.\nProvost Marshal, Testimony of.\nPunishment, cruel.\nPunishment in Antigua.\n\nRamsay, Mr.\nReal Estate.\nRebellion, so called.\nRector of St. John's.\n\"Red Shanks.\"\nReid, Mr. E.\nReligion in Antigua;\n  in Barbadoes;\n  in Jamaica.\nReligious condition of slaves in Antigua.\nReligious instruction desired.\nReport of a Special Magistrate.\nResolution in regard to Messrs. Thome and Kimball.\nResolutions of Wesleyan Missionaries.\nRespect for the aged.\nResults in Antigua.\nRevengefulness.\nRidge Estate.\nRight of suffrage.\nRogers, Mr.\nRoss, A., Esq.\nRowe, Rev. Mr.\nRum, use of in Antigua.\n\nSabbath in Antigua;\n  in Barbadoes;\n  in Jamaica.\nSabbath school in Bridgetown.\nSafety of immediate emancipation. (See _Insurrections_.)\nSchool, adult;\n  at Lear's;\n  Parochial;\n  Wolmer Free.\nSchools in Antigua;\n  in Bridgetown;\n  infant;\n  in Kingston;\n  in Spanishtown.\nScotland in Barbadoes.\nScotland, James, Esq.\nScotland, J., Jr. Esq.\nSecurity restored.\nSelf-emancipation.\nSelf-respect.\nShands, Mr. S.\nShiel, Mr.\nShrewsbury, Rev. Mr.\nSickness, pretended.\nSilver Hill.\nSligo, Lord.\nSmith, Sir Lionel.\nSocial intercourse.\nSocieties, benevolent.\nSociety among colored people.\n  \"     for promotion of Christian knowledge.\nSoldiers, black.\nSolicitor General of Barbadoes.\n  \"               of Jamaica.\nSong sung in the schools.\nSpanishtown.\n\"Speaking,\" a Moravian custom.\nSpecial Magistrates. (See also _Partiality_.)\nSpecial Magistrates, Testimony of.\nSt. Andrews.\nStation House, A.\nSt. Christopher's.\nSt. Lucia.\nStock Keepers.\nSt. Thomas in the East.\nSturge & Harvey, Messrs.\nSt. Vincent's.\nSubordination.\nSugar Crop.\n  \"   cultivation hard for the slave.\nSugar Mill.\nSunday Markets.\nSuperintendent of Police.\nSuspension of faithful magistrates.\n\nTask-work.\nTeacher, Black.\nTeachers.\n\"Telegraph,\" Remarks of the.\nTemperance in Antigua.\n  \"        of negroes.\n  \"        Society.\nTestimony of Managers.\nTestimony of clergymen and missionaries.\nTestimony of Governors.\n  \"       of magistrates.\n  \"       of physicians.\nTheft, decrease of.\nThibou Jarvis's estate.\nThomas, Mr.\nThompson, George, Bust of.\nThompson, Thomas, Esq.\nThorne, Mr.\nThwaites, Mr. Charles.\nTinson, Rev. Mr.\nToast to Immediate Emancipation.\nTortala.\nTraffic in Slaves.\nTransition from slavery to freedom.\nTreatment of slaves ameliorated by discussion.\nTreadmill.\nTrinidad.\nTrustworthiness.\n\nUnwilling witness.\n\nVagrancy.\nValue of an apprentice. (See _Appraisement_.)\nVilla Estate.\n\nWages.\nWalton, Rev. Mr.\nWatchman, Jamaica.\n  \"       Remarks of the.\nWatkins, Mr.\nWard, Sir Henry.\nWeatherill's Estate.\nWesleyan Chapel, Antigua.\n  \"        \"     New, \".\n  \"       Missionary Society.\nWesleyans in Antigua.\n  \"       in Barbadoes.\n  \"       in Jamaica.\nWhip banished.\nWhipping Post.\nWhite lady.\nWilberforce, opinion of.\nWickham, Richard S.\nWillis, George, Esq.\nWilloughby Bay Examination.\nWolmer Free School.\nWomen abandon the field.\n  \"   condition of.\nWoolridge, Rev. Mr.\nWright, Andrew, Esq.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER--EXTRA.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEMANCIPATION\n\nIn The\n\nWEST INDIES, IN 1838.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES.\n\nFalse prophets were never stiller about their time-detected impostures\nthan are the pro-slavery presses of the United States about the results\nof West India Emancipation. Now and then, for the sake of appearances,\nthey obscurely copy into their immense sheets an inch or two of\ncomplaints, from some snarling West India paper, that the emancipated\nare lazy and won't work. But they make no parade. They are more taciturn\nthan grave-stones.\n\nIn the following closely printed columns, those who wish to know will\nfind out precisely how the \"_great experiment_\" has worked. They\nwill find,\n\n1. The _safety_ of abolition demonstrated--its safety in the worst\npossible case.\n\n2. That the colonies are prospering in their _agriculture_.\n\n3. That the planters conferred freedom because they were _obliged to_ by\npublic opinion abroad.\n\n4. That freedom, even thus unwillingly conferred, was accepted as a\nprecious boon by the slaves--they were grateful to God, and ready to\nwork for their masters for fair pay.\n\n5. That the mass of the planters have endeavoured, from the first, to\nget work out of the free laborers for as small wages as possible.\n\n6. That many of the attorneys and managers have refused fair wages and\npracticed extortion, _to depreciate the price of property_, that they\nmight profit thereby.\n\n7. That all the indisposition to labor which has yet been exhibited is\nfully accounted for by these causes.\n\n8. That in spite of all, the abolition is working well for the _honest_\nof all parties.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWEST INDIA EMANCIPATION, IN 1838.\n\nThe immediate abolitionists hold that the change from slavery to freedom\ncannot be too sudden. They say that the first step in raising the slave\nfrom his degradation should be that of making him a proper subject of\nlaw, by putting him in possession of himself. This position they rest on\nthe ground both of justice and expediency, which indeed they believe to\nbe inseparable. With exceptions too trifling to affect the question,\nthey believe the laborer who feels no stimulus but that of wages and no\nrestraint but that of law, is the most _profitable_, not only to himself\nand society at large, but to any employer other than a brutal tyrant.\nThe benefit of this role they claim for every man and woman living\nwithin this republic, till on fair trial the proper tribunal shall have\njudged them unworthy of it. They deny both the justice and expediency of\npermitting any degree of ignorance or debasement to work the forfeiture\nof self-ownership, and pronounce slavery continued for such a cause the\nworst of all, inasmuch as it is the _robbery of the poor because he\nis poor_.\n\nWhat light was thrown upon this doctrine by the process of abolition in\nthe British West Indies from the 1st of August 1834 to the 1st of June\n1837, may be seen in the work of Messrs. Thome and Kimball entitled,\n\"Emancipation in the West Indies.\" That light continues to shine.\nBermuda and Antigua, in which the slaves passed instantaneously out of\nabsolute slavery into full freedom, are living witnesses of the blessing\nof heaven upon immediate emancipation. In Antigua, one of the old sugar\ncolonies, where slavery had had its full sway there has been especially\na fair test of immediatism, and the increasing prosperity of the island\ndoes the utmost honor to the principle. After the fullest inquiry on the\npoint, Messrs. Thome and Kimball say of this island:--\n\n\"There is not a class, or party, or sect, who do not esteem the\nabolition of slavery as a _special blessing to them_. The rich, because\nit relieved them of \"property\" which was fast becoming a disgrace, as it\nhad always been a vexation and a tax, and because it has emancipated\nthem from the terrors of insurrection, which kept them all their\nlife-time subject to bondage. The poor whites--because it lifted from\noff them the yoke of civil oppression. The free colored\npopulation--because it gave the death blow to the prejudice that crushed\nthem, and opened the prospect of social, civil, and political equality\nwith the whites. The _slaves_--because it broke open their dungeons, led\nthem out to liberty, and gave them, in one munificent donation, their\nwives, their children, their bodies, their souls--everything.\"\n\nIn the emphatic language of the Governor, \"It was _universally admitted_\nthat emancipation had been a great blessing to the island.\"\n\nIn November 1837, Lord Brougham thus summed up the results of the\nAntigua experiment in a speech in the House of Lords:--\n\n\"It might be known to their lordships that in one most important colony\nthe experiment of instant and entire emancipation had been tried.\nInfinitely to the honor of the island of Antigua was it, that it did not\nwait for the period fixed by the Legislature, but had at once converted\nthe state of slavery into one of perfect liberty. On the 1st of August,\n1834, the day fixed by act of Parliament for the commencement of a ten\nyears' apprenticeship, the Legislature of that colony, to the immortal\nhonor of their wisdom, their justice, and their humanity, had abolished\nthe system of apprenticeship, and had absolutely and entirely struck the\nfetters off from 30,000 slaves. Their lordships would naturally ask\nwhether the experiment had succeeded; and whether this sudden\nemancipation had been wisely and politically done. He should move for\nsome returns which he would venture to say would prove that the\nexperiment had entirely succeeded. He would give their lordships some\nproofs: First, property in that island had risen in value; secondly,\nwith a very few exceptions, and those of not greater importance than\noccurred in England during harvest, there was no deficiency in the\nnumber of laborers to be obtained when laborers were wanted; thirdly,\noffences of all sorts, from capital offences downwards, had decreased;\nand this appeared from returns sent by the inspector of slaves to the\ngovernor of that colony, and by him transmitted to the proper authority\nhere; and, fourthly, the exports of sugar had increased: during the\nthree years ending 1834, the average yearly export was 165,000 cwts.,\nand for the three subsequent years this average had increased to 189,000\ncwts., being an increase of 21,000 cwts, or one clear seventh, produced\nby free labor. Nor were the last three years productive seasons; for in\n1835 there was a very severe and destructive hurricane, and in the year\n1836 there was such a drought that water was obliged to be imported from\nBarbados.\"\n\nOf such sort, with regard to both the colonies that adopted the\nprinciple of immediate emancipation, have been the facts--and all the\nfacts--up to the latest intelligence.\n\nThe rest of the colonies adopted the plan proposed by the British\ngovernment, which contrary to the wishes of the great body of British\nabolitionists, made the slaves but partially free under the name of\napprentices. In this mongrel condition they were to remain, the house\nservants four, and the field laborers six years. This apprenticeship was\nthe darling child of that expediency, which, holding the transaction\nfrom wrong to right to be dangerous and difficult, illustrates its\nwisdom by lingering on the dividing line. Therefore any mischance that\nmight have occurred in any part of this tardy process would have been\njustly attributable to _gradualism_ and not to _immediatism_. The force\nof this remark will be better seen by referring to the nature and\nworking of the apprenticeship as described in the book of Messrs. Thome\nand Kimball. We have only room to say that the masters universally\nregarded the system as a part of the compensation or bonus to the\nslaveholder and not as a preparatory school for the slave. By law they\nwere granted a property in the uncompensated _labor_ of the slaves for\nsix years; but the same law, by taking away the sole means of enforcing\nthis labor, in fact threw the masters and slaves into a six years'\nquarrel in which they stood on something like equal terms. It was surely\nnot to be wondered if the parties should come out of this contest too\nhostile ever to maintain to each other the relation of employer and\nemployed. This six years of vexatious swinging like a pendulum over the\nline between bondage and liberty was well calculated to spoil all the\ngratitude and glory of getting across.\n\nIt was early discovered that the masters generally were disposed to\nabuse their power and get from their apprentices all that could by any\nmeans be extorted. The friends of humanity in Great Britain were\naroused, Mr. Sturge, a distinguished philanthropist of Birmingham,\naccompanied by Messrs. Scohle, Harvey, and Lloyd, proceeded to the West\nIndies on a mission of inquiry, and prosecuted their investigation\ncontemporaneously with Messrs. Thome and Kimball. Their Report produced\na general conviction in England, that the planters had forfeited all\nclaim to retain their authority over the apprentices, and the government\nwas accordingly petitioned immediately to abolish the system. This it\nwas loth to do. It caused inquiries to be instituted in the colonies,\nespecially in Jamaica, with the evident hope of overthrowing the charges\nof Mr. Sturge. The result more than confirmed those charges. The\ngovernment still plead for delay, and brought in a bill for the\n_improvement_ of the apprenticeship. In the progress of these\nproceedings, urged on as they were by the heaven-high enthusiasm of the\nBritish nation, many of the planters clearly perceived that their chance\nof power during the remaining two years of the apprenticeship had become\nworth less to them than the good will which they might get by\nvoluntarily giving it up. Whether it was this motive operating in good\nfaith, or a hope to escape philanthropic interference for the future by\nyielding to its full claim, and thus gain a clear field to oppress under\nthe new system of wages, one thing is certain the chartered colonies,\nsuddenly, and to the surprise of many, put the finishing stroke to the\nsystem and made their apprentices free from the 1st of August, 1838. The\ncrown colonies have mostly imitated their example.\n\nThe following table exhibits the extent and population of these\ncolonies.\n\n\nPossessions.       Date of    Extent.          Population\n                   acquisit.  sq. m.      White Slaves  F. Col.\nAnguilla[B],        1650      . . .        365   2,388    327\nAntigua[A],         1632       108       1,980  29,537  3,895\nBahamas[B],         1629     4,400       4,240   9,268  2,991\nBarbados[B],        1625       166      14,959  82,807  5,146\nBermudas[A],        1611        22       3,905   4,608    738\nDominica[B],        1783       275         840  15,392  3,606\nGrenada[B],         1783       125         801  24,145  3,786\nJamaica[B],         1655     6,400      37,000 311,692 55,000\nMontserrat[B],      1632        47         330   6,262    814\nNevis[B],           1628        20         700   9,259  2,000\nSt. Christophers[B],1632        68       1,612  19,310  3,000\nSt. Lucia[B],       1803        58         972  13,661  3,718\nSt. Vincent[B],     1783       130       1,301  23,589  2,824\nTobago[B],          1763       187         322  12,556  1,164\nTrinidad[B],        1797     2,460       4,201  24,006 15,956\nTortola, or\nVirgin Isles[B],    1666      . . .        800   5,399    607\n\nTotal, B.W.I       . . .    14,466      74,328 593,879 105,572\nCape of Good Hope, . . .     . . .      43,000  35,500  29,000\n       Berbice[B]  . . .     . . .         523  20,645   1,161\nGuiana Demarara[B]  1803     . . .      3,006  65,556   6,360\n       Essequibo[B], . .     . . .      . . . .  . . .   . . .\nHonduras,           1650    62,750         250   2,100   2,300\nMauritius,         . . .     . . .       8,000  76,000  15,000\nTotal.             . . .     . . .     129,107 793,680 159,393\n\n[Footnote A: Emancipated entirely on the 1st. of August, 1834.]\n\n[Footnote B: Emancipated entirely on the 1st. of August, 1838, by vote\nof the local legislatures in the chartered Colonies; and by Governor and\nCouncil, in the Crown Colonies.]\n\nThe _unanimity_ with which the apprenticeship was given up is a most\nremarkable and instructive fact. In the Council and Assembly of\nMontserrat, there was an unanimous decision in favor of Emancipation as\nearly as February 1838. In the legislature of Tortola, which passed the\nbill in April 1838, the opposing party was small. In that of Barbados\nthe bill was passed on the 15th of May with but _one_ dissenting voice.\nIn that of Jamaica, the bill seems to have been passed on the 8th of\nJune, and the _Jamaica Times_ remarks:--\"No dissentient voice was heard\nwithin the walls of the Assembly, all joined in the wish so often\nexpressed, that the remaining term of the apprenticeship should be\ncancelled, that the excitement produced by a law which has done\ninconceivable harm in Jamaica, in alienating the affections of her\npeople, and creating discord and disaffection, should at once cease.\nThank God! it is now nearly at an end, and we trust that Jamaica will\nenjoy that repose, so eagerly and anxiously sought after, by all who\nwish the Island well.\"\n\nThese facts come down upon the question of the safety of an _immediate_\nemancipation with an _a fortiori_, a _much more then_. For it is\nadmitted on all hands that the apprenticeship had \"alienated the\naffections of the people;\" they were in a state less favorable to a\nquiet sequel, than they were before the first of August, 1834, yet the\ndanger was not thought of. The _safety_ was an argument _in favor_ of\nemancipation, not _against_ it. The raw head and bloody bones had\nvanished. The following is a fair exhibition of the feeling of the most\ninfluential planters, in regard to the _safety_ of the step.\n\nFrom the Barbadian, May 9, 1838.\n\nAT A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, IN THE NEW COURT\nHOUSE, APRIL 24TH, 1838.\n\nThe Lord Bishop rose and spoke as follows:\n\n\"_Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Council_,\n\n'I was informed yesterday that, during my absence from this island, the\nmembers recorded their opinion as to the expediency of absolutely\nabolishing the apprenticeship in August, 1838. I am most anxious to\nrecord my entire concurrence in this resolution, but I wish it to be\nunderstood that I do not consider the measure as called for by any\nhardships, under which the laborers in this island are suffering--nor\nfrom the want of any essential comfort--nor from the deprivation of any\nthing, which a laborer can fairly claim from his master; still I do\nexpress my concurrence in the resolution of the board, and I do so on\nthese grounds: that I am satisfied the measure can be safely carried in\nthis island, and if safely, then I feel justly; for I consider the very\nimportant interests which are involved in the measure. I must confess,\ntoo, that I am unwilling the Barbados should be behind any other island,\nespecially in a measure which may be carried both safely and justly, and\nwhere its example may be of such beneficial consequence. I am just\nreturned from visiting the Northern Islands of the Diocese. I have gone\nover every part of Tortola, and though it is far more fertile than the\nOff Islands, yet even these are sufficiently productive for the laborer\nto raise the lesser and necessary provision of life,--and yet with these\nislands in their very face, the Legislature of Tortola has passed the\nact of abolition. Some of the proprietors were opposed to it, but they\nhave now given up their opposition; and I heard, whilst in Antigua, not\nonly that the act had passed, but that on the day of its passing, or the\nfollowing day, some of the leading proprietors rode through the island,\nand were met by the people with expressions of the utmost gratitude,\nregarding the act as a boon granted to them by their masters. At Nevis\nthe act has passed. At St. Christopher's the council are in favor of its\npassing, and with Nevis emancipated in its vicinity, there is little\ndoubt but the Act must pass. At Montserrat also it has passed. At\nAntigua, which I visited last year, I found that every thing was\nproceeding quietly and regularly. I found too, the planters in high\nspirits, and some estates, which had been given up, restored; and the\nsmall patches and tenements of the free people, commencing last year,\nnow in a very satisfactory state of cultivation. It is possible, indeed,\nthat these last mentioned, unless the population is proportionably\nincreased, may affect the cultivation of the larger estates, but there\nthey are, and flourishing, as I have described, whilst I was in the\nisland. A contiguous, though abandoned estate was purchased by Sir Henry\nMartin for about 9,500 _l._ currency, being 3,000 _l._ more than he had\noffered a few years previously. To compare Barbados with any other\nisland, either as to population, wealth, or state of agriculture, is\nunnecessary. I have seen nothing like the commercial activity which I\nsaw in the streets yesterday, except at St. Thomas; and I feel,\ntherefore, on all these grounds, that the act may be passed safely and\njustly. At the same time I am not unmindful or insensible to the state\nof public opinion in the mother country, nor to the many new and\nharassing annoyances to which the proprietors may be exposed during a\nprotracted continuance of the apprenticeship. I request that my full\nconcurrence in the resolution of the council, may be accorded on the\nminutes of this day's proceedings.'\"\n\nSuch is the testimony of a witness in no wise warped by prejudice in\nfavor of the anti-slavery party.\n\nThe debates which took place in the legislatures of both Barbados and\nJamaica, are full of similar testimony, uttered by men every way\nqualified to bear witness, and under influences which relieve their\ntestimony from every taint of suspicion.\n\nIn the legislature of Jamaica, on the question of a Committee to bring\nin a Bill, Mr. GOOD remarked, \"He could say that the negroes from their\ngeneral good conduct were deserving of the boon. Then why not give in\nwith a good heart? why exhibit any bad feelings about the matter? There\nwere many honorable gentlemen who had benefitted by the pressure from\nwithout, who owed their rank in society and their seats in that house to\nthe industry of the negroes. Why should they now show a bad heart in the\nmatter?--Nine tenths of the proprietors of this island had determined\nupon giving up the apprenticeship. Hundreds of thousands were to be\nbenefited--were to take their stations as men of society, and he hoped\nthe boon would not be retarded by a handful of men who owed their all\nto slavery.\"\n\nMr. Dallas said,--\"_The abolition of the remaining term of\napprenticeship must take place; let them then join hand and heart in\ndoing it well, and with such grace as we now could. Let it have the\nappearance of a boon from ourselves, and not in downright submission to\nthe coercive measures adopted by the British Parliament_.\"\n\nAfter a committee had been appointed to prepare and bring in a Bill for\nthe abolition of the apprenticeship, a member rose and proposed that the\n28th of June should be its termination. We give his speech as reported\nin the Jamaica papers, to show how fanatical even a slaveholder\nmay become.\n\n\"On the members resuming their seats, Mr. HART proposed that it be an\ninstruction to the committee appointed to bring in the bill or\nabolishing the remainder of the apprenticeship, to insert a clause in\nit, that the operation of that bill should commence on the 28th of June,\nthat being the day appointed for the coronation of the Queen. _He felt\nproud in telling the house that he was the representative of the black\npopulation. He was sent there by the blacks and his other friends_. The\nwhite Christians had their representatives, the people of color had\ntheir representatives, and _he hoped shortly to see the day when the\nblacks would send in their own representatives_. He wanted the thing\ndone at once, Sir, said the honorable member waxing warm. It was\nnonsense to delay it. It could be done in three lines as he said before,\ndele 1840 and put in 1838. That was all that they had to do. If it were\npossible, let the thing be done in two words. He went there to do his\nduty to his constituents, and he was determined to do so. His black\nfriends looked up to him to protect them--and he would press his motion\nthat all the apprentices in the island should be _crowned_ on the 28th\nof June. (Thundering roars of laughter.) He was as independent as any\nhonorable member, and would deliver his sentiment, without caring who\nwere and who were not pleased. He was possessed of property in\napprentices--_he had an estate with nearly two hundred negroes, that he\nwas determined to crown on the 28th of June_. (Increased roars of\nlaughter in the house, and at the bar.) He would not be laughed down.\nHis properties were not encumbered. He would not owe anything on them\nafter they were paid for, and that he could do. (Loud laughter.) He was\ndetermined to have his opinion. As he had said before, the 28th day of\nJune being fixed for the coronation of all the negroes in the island,\nthat is the day they ought to be released from the apprenticeship.\n(Thundering and deafening roars of laughter). (Here the honorable member\nwas told that the Queen was to be crowned on that day.) Ah, well, he had\nmade a mistake, but he would tell the house the truth, _he had made up\nhis mind to give his apprentices freedom on that day, but he did not\nwish to do it without his neighbors doing the same, lest they should say\nhe was setting a bad example_. He would press his motion to a division.\nIt had been seconded by his honorable friend on his right.--(Aside,\n\"Good, didn't you promise to second it?\") The honorable member then read\nhis motion, and handed it up to the clerk.\"\n\nThe \"mistake\" of this liberal descendant of Israel, which excited so\nmuch merriment was, after all, not a very unfortunate one, _if_ the\n\"crown\" of manhood is more important than that of monarchy. The members\nobjected to so near an approach to _immediatism_, not, however, be it\nremarked, on account of the unfitness of the apprentices, (slaves) but\ntheir own convenience. Among those who replied to Mr. Hart, was Mr.\nOsborn, of unmingled African blood, born a slave, and who, we are\ninformed, was a successful competitor for the seat he now occupies\nagainst the very man who formerly claimed him as property. Mr. Osborn\nand his partner Mr. Jordon were editors of the Jamaica Watchman, and had\ncontended manfully for liberty when it was a dangerous word. Mr. Osborn\nsaid:--\"He was astonished at the galloping liberality which seemed to\nhave seized some honorable members, now there was nothing to contend\nfor. Their liberality seemed to have outrun all prudence. Where were\nthey and their liberality when it was almost death to breach the\nquestion of slavery? What had become of their philanthropy? But no, it\nwas not convenient then. The stream was too strong for them to resist.\nNow, however, when the question was finally settled, when nothing\nremained for them to do, it was the time that some honorable gentlemen\nbegan to clamor their liberality, and began a race who should be the\nfirst, or who should have the honor of first terminating the\napprenticeship. He hoped the motion would be withdrawn, and the\ndiscussion put an end to.\"\n\nWhat had become of the visions of blood and slaughter? Could there be\nmore impressive testimony to the safety of Emancipation in all, even the\nworst cases?\n\nWe might add to this testimony that of the universal newspaper press of\nthe British West India colonies. We have room, however, to select only\nfrom a few of the well known opponents of freedom.\n\n\"We seriously call upon our representatives to consider well all the\nbearings of the question, and if they cannot resist effectually these\nencroachments of the Imperial Government, adopt the remaining\nalternative of saving themselves from an infliction, by giving up at\nonce and entirely, the bone of contention between us. Thus only shall we\ndisarm, if anything in reason or in nature can, our enemies of their\nslanderous weapons of offence, and secure in as far as possible, a\nspeedy and safe return of peace and prosperity to the \"distracted\"\ncolony.--Without this sacrifice on our parts, we see no shelter from our\nsufferings--no amelioration of present wrongs--no hope for the future;\nbut on the contrary, a systematic and remorseless train laid for the\nultimate ruin of every proprietor in the country. With this sacrifice\nwhich can only be to any extent to a few and which the wisdom of our\nlegislature may possibly find out some means or other of compensation,\nwe have the hope that the sunshine of Jamaica's prosperity shall not\nreceive any farther diminution; but shall rather dawn again with renewed\nvigor; when all shall be alike free under the protection of the same\nlaw, and the same law-givers; and all shall be alike amenable to the\npowers that punish without favor and without affection.\"--_Jamaica\nStandard_.\n\n\"There is great reason to expect that many Jamaica proprietors will\nanticipate the period established by the Slavery Abolition Act for the\ntermination of the apprenticeship. They will, as an act of grace, and\nwith a view to their future arrangements with their negroes, terminate\nthe apprenticeship either of all at once, or by giving immediate freedom\nto the most deserving; try the effect of this gift, and of the example\nafforded to the apprentices when they see those who have been discharged\nfrom the apprenticeship working on the estates for wages. If such a\ncourse is adopted, it will afford an additional motive for inducing the\nLegislature to consider whether the good feeling of the laboring\npopulation, and their future connection with their former employers, may\nnot be promoted by permitting them to owe to the grace of their own\nLegislature the termination of the apprenticeship as soon as the\nrequisite legislation for the new state of things has been\nadopted.\"--_Jamaica Despatch_.\n\nOf such sort as this is the testimony from all the Colonies, most\nabundantly published in the Emancipator and other abolition papers, to\nthe point of the _safety_ of entire Emancipation. At the time when the\nstep was taken, it was universally concluded that so far from being\ndangerous it promised the greatest safety. It would not only put an end\nto the danger apprehended from the foreign interference of the\nabolitionists, but it would _conciliate the negroes_! And we are not\nable to find any one who professes to be disappointed with the result\nthus far. The only evil now complained of, is the new freemen do not in\nsome instances choose _to work_ on the _terms_ offered by the planters.\nThey have shed no man's blood. They have committed no depredation. They\npeaceably obey the laws. All this, up to the latest date, is universally\nadmitted. Neither does any one _now_ presume to prophesy anything\ndifferent for the future.\n\nINDUSTRY.\n\nOn the one topic of the industry of the Emancipated people, the West\nIndian papers give the most conflicting accounts. Some represent them as\nlaboring with alacrity, diligence and effect wherever anything like an\nadequate compensation is offered. It is asserted by some, and not denied\nby any authorities that we have seen, that the emancipated are\nindustriously at work on those estates where the masters voluntarily\nrelinquished the apprenticeship before the first of August and met their\nfreed people in good faith. But most of the papers, especially in\nJamaica, complain grievously that the freed people will work on no\nreasonable terms. We give a fair specimen from one of the Jamaica\npapers, on which our political editors choose most to rely for their\ninformation:--\n\n\"In referring to the state of the country this week, we have still the\nsame tale to tell of little work, and that little indifferently done,\nbut exorbitantly charged for; and wherever resisted, a general \"strike\"\nis the consequence. Now this, whatever more favourable complexion the\ninterested and sinister motives of others may attempt to throw around\nit, is the real state of matters upon nine-tenths of the properties\nsituated in St. James's, Westmoreland, and Hanover. In Trelawny they\n_appear_ to be doing a little better; but that only arises, we are\nconfident from the longer purses, and patience of endurance under\nexorbitant wages, exhibited by the generality of the managers of that\nparish. Let them wait till they find they can no longer continue making\nsugar at its present expensive rate, and they will then find whether\nTrelawny is substantially in a better condition than either of the other\nparties.\"--_Standard, quoted in the Morning Journal of Nov. 2_.\n\nThis is the \"tale\" indeed, of a great part of the West India papers,\nsung to the same hum drum tune ever since the first of August; and so\nfaithfully echoed by our own pro slavery press that many of our\nestimable fellow citizens have given it up that the great \"experiment\"\nhas turned out unfavorably, and that the colored population of the West\nIndies are rapidly _sinking_ from the condition of _slaves_ to that of\nidle freemen. Were we all in a position perfectly disinterested and\nabove the peculiar influence of slavery, we might perhaps consider these\ncomplaints as asking for, rather than against, the character of the\nEmancipated and the cause of freedom, inasmuch as they prove the former\nslaves to have both the discretion and the spirit which should\ncharacterise freemen. But to the peculiar optics which abound in these\nUnited States it may be necessary to show the entire picture.\n\nTo prove in the first place the general falsehood of the complaints\nthemselves it is only necessary to advert to recent official documents.\nFor our present purpose it will be sufficient to refer to Jamaica. The\nlegislature was convened on the 30th of October and addressed by the\nGovernor Sir Lionel Smith in a speech of which the following extract\npertains to our subject:--\n\n    _\"Gentlemen of the Council, Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House\n    of Assembly,_\n\n    The most important event in the annals of colonial history has taken\n    place since last I had the pleasure of meeting the legislature of\n    this Island; and I am happy in being able to declare that the\n    conduct of the laboring population, who were then the objects of\n    your liberal and enlightened policy, _entitles them to the highest\n    praise, and amply proves how_ WELL THEY HAVE DESERVED _the boon\n    of freedom._\n\n    It was not to be expected that the total extinction of the\n    apprenticeship law would be followed by an instantaneous return to\n    active labor, but feeling as I do the deepest interest in the\n    successful result of the great measurement now in progress, I\n    sincerely congratulate you and the country at large, on the\n    improvement which is daily taking place on the resumption of\n    industrious habits, and I TRUST THERE IS EVERY PROSPECT OF\n    AGRICULTURAL PROSPERITY.\"\n\nSuch is the testimony of a Governor who is no stranger in the West\nIndies and who was put in the place of Lord Sligo as more acceptable to\nthe planters. But what said the House of Assembly in reply?--a House\nmade up chiefly of attornies who had more interest than any other men in\nthe continuance of the old system and who, as will presently be shown,\nwere not unwilling to have the \"experiment\" fail? They speak as\nfollows:--\n\n    _\"May it Please your Excellency,_\n\n    We, her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Assembly of\n    Jamaica, thank your Excellency for your speech at the opening of\n    the session.\n\n    The House join your Excellency in bearing testimony TO THE\n    PEACEABLE MANNER in which the laboring population have conducted\n    themselves in a state of FREEDOM.\n\n    It certainly was not to be expected that so great a change in the\n    condition of the people would be followed by an immediate return to\n    active labor. The House, however, are willing to believe that some\n    degree of improvement is taking place, and they sincerely join in\n    the HOPE expressed by your Excellency, that the agricultural\n    interests of the Island may ultimately prosper, by a resumption of\n    industrious habits on the part of the peasantry in their new\n    condition.\"\n\nThis settles the question. Those who will not be convinced by such\ndocuments as these that the mass of the Emancipated in Jamaica are ready\n_to do their part_ in the system of free labor, would not be convinced\nif one rose from the deed to prove it.\n\nWe are now prepared to investigate the causes of the complaints, and\ninquire why in numerous cases the negros have refused to work. Let us\nfirst go back to the debates Jamaica Legislature on the passage of the\nEmancipation bill in June, and see whether we can discover the _temper_\nin which it was passed, and the prospect of good faith in its execution.\nWe can hardly doubt that some members, and some especially from whose\nspeeches on that occasion we have already quoted, designed really to\nconfer the \"boon of freedom.\" But others spoke very differently. To\nunderstand their language we must commence with the Governor's speech at\nthe opening of the session:--\n\n    _\"Gentlemen of the Council,\n\n    Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the Assembly,_\n\n    I have called you together, at an unusual season, to take it to your\n    consideration the state of the Island under the Laws of\n    Apprenticeship, for the labouring population.\n\n    I need not refer you to the agitation on this subject throughout the\n    British Empire, or to the discussions upon it in Parliament, _where\n    the honourable efforts of the ministry_ were barely found sufficient\n    to preserve the original duration of the Laws, as an obligation of\n    the National faith.\n\n    I shall lay before you some despatches on this subject.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    _\"Gentlemen,_\n\n    _General agitation and Parliamentary interference have not, I am\n    afraid, yet terminated._\n\n    _A corresponding excitement has been long going on among the\n    apprentices themselves,_ but still they have rested in sober and\n    quiet hopes, relying on your generosity, that you will extend to\n    them that boon which has been granted to their class in\n    other Colonies.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    _\"Gentlemen of the Council,\n\n    Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen of the Assembly,_\n\n    In this posture of affairs, it is my duty to declare my sentiments,\n    and distinctly to _recommend to you the early and equal abolition of\n    the apprenticeship for all classes._ I do so in confidence that the\n    apprentices will be found worthy of freedom, and that it will\n    operate as a double blessing, by securing also the future interests\n    of the planters.\n\n    I am commanded, however, to inform you that her Majesty's ministers\n    will not entertain any question of further compensation. But should\n    your views be opposed to the policy I recommend, I would entreat you\n    to consider well _how impracticable it will become to carry on\n    coercive labor_--always difficult, it would in future be in peril of\n    constant comparisons with other colonies made free, and with those\n    estates in this island made free by individual proprietors.\n\n    As Governor, under these circumstances, and I never shrink from any\n    of my responsibilities, _I pronounce it physically impossible to\n    maintain the apprenticeship with any hope of successful agriculture._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    \"_Gentlemen of the Council,\n\n    Mr. Speaker, and gentlemen of the Assembly._\n\n    Jamaica, is in your hands--she requires repose, by the removal of a\n    law which has _equally tormented the laborer, and disappointed the\n    planter_--a law by which man still constrains man in unnatural\n    servitude. This is her first exigency. For her future welfare she\n    appeals to your wisdom to legislate in the spirit of the times, with\n    liberality and benevolence towards all classes.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen such a man as Sir Lionel Smith pronounced it no longer practicable\nto carry on coercive labor, he must have been a bold as well as a rash\nplanter who would venture to hold on to the old system under Lord\nGlenelg's improvement Act. Accordingly we find some of the staunchest\nadvocates of slavery, men who had been fattening on the oppression of\nthe apprentices up to that moment the first, and the most precipitate,\nis their proposals of abolition. Mr. Hyslop, Mr. Gay and others were for\nacting at once on the Governor's speech without referring it to a\ncommittee. The former said: \"He believed that a proposition would be\nmade to abandon the apprenticeship from the 1st of August, _but he would\nsay let it be abandoned from Sunday next_. He would therefore move that\nthe speech be made the order of the day for tomorrow.\"\n\nMr. Guy said:--\n\n\"The Governor's speech contained nothing more than what every Gentlemen\nexpected, _and what every Gentlemen, he believed, was prepared to do. In\nshort he_ would state that _a bill had already been prepared by him,\nwhich he intended to introduce tomorrow, for the abolition of the\napprenticeship on the 1st of August next_.\"\n\nBoth these gentlemen are well known by the readers of Jamaica papers as\nobstinate defenders slavery. The latter was so passionately devoted to\nthe abuses of the apprenticeship that Lord Sligo was obliged to dismiss\nhim from the post of Adjutant General of militia. In the ardor of his\nattachment to the \"peculiar institution\" of getting work without pay, he\nis reported to have declared on a public occasion, that the British\nministry were a \"parcel of reptiles\" and that the \"English nation was\nfast going to the dogs.\" In another part of the debate:--\n\n\"Mr. Guy hoped the house would not _go into a discussion of the nature of\nthe apprenticeship_, or the terms upon which it was forced us by the\ngovernment. All that he knew about the matter was, that it was a part\nand parcel of the compensation. Government had so declared it. In short\nit was made law. He could not help believing that the Hon. member for\nTrelawny, was arguing against the dictates of his own honest heart--that\nhe came there cut and dry with a speech prepared to _defend the\ngovernment_.\"\n\nMr. Barclay, to whom, some years ago, the planters gave a _splendid\nservice of plate_ for his ingenious defence of slavery against the\nterrible pen of JAMES STEPHEN, said \"it appeared to be the general\nfeeling of the house that the apprenticeship should be done away with.\nBe that as it may, he was free to say that in that part of the island he\nwas from, and certainly it was a large and wealthy district, the\napprenticeship system _had worked well_, and all parties _appeared_\nsatisfied with it. He denied that there existed any necessity to disturb\nthe working of the system, it would have _gradually_ slided into\n_absolute freedom if they were permitted to regulate their own affairs_,\nbut the government, or rather, _the people of England, had forced on the\npredicament in which they were placed_. The ministry could not help\nthemselves--They were driven to violate the national compact, not in\nexpress words, it is true, but in fact. It was, however, the _force of\npublic opinion that operated_ in producing the change. They were placed\nin a situation from which they could hardly extricate themselves.--\n_They had no alternative, he was afraid, but to go along with\nthe stream_.\"\n\nMr. Hamilton Brown, who at the commencement of the apprenticeship came\ninto a Special Magistrate's court and publicly told him that unless he\nand his colleagues \"_did their duty by having recourse to a frequent and\nvigorous application of the lash, there would he rebellion in the Parish\n(of St. Ann's!) in less than a month, and all the responsibility of such\na calamity would rest on their shoulders_\"! discoursed in the following\nmanner. \"It was always understood, for the apprenticeship _had become\nmarketable_. Properties had been bought and sold with them, their time\nhad been bought by others, and by themselves.\"\n\n\"He had no hesitation in saying, that the statements which had been made\nin England against the planters _were as false as hell_--they had been\nconcocted here, and sent home by a parcel of spies in the island. They\nwere represented as a cruel set of men, as having outraged the feelings\nof humanity towards the negroes, or in matters in which they were\nconcerned. This was false. He did not mean to deny that there were a\n_few instances_ of cruelty to the apprentices, but then those were\n_isolated cases_, and was it not hard that a hue and cry should be\nraised against the whole body of planters, and all made to suffer on\naccount of those _few_. He would say that there was a greater\ndisposition to be cruel to the negroes evinced _by young men arriving in\nthis island from England, than by the planters. There was, indeed, a\ngreat deal of difficulty in restraining them from doing so, but the\nlonger they lived in the country, the more kind and humane they became_.\nThe negroes _were better off here than many of the people of Great\nBritain_, and they would have been contented, had it not been for the\ninjudicious _interference of some of the Special Justices_. Who had ever\nheard of negroes being starved to death? Had they not read accounts in\nthe English papers of men destroying their wives, their children, _and\nafterwards themselves_, because they could not obtain food. They had\nbeen grossly defrauded of their property; and after doing that, it was\nnow sought to destroy their constitutional rights. He would repeat, they\nhad been grossly defrauded of their property.\" [Here is the true\nslaveholder, logic, chivalry and all.]\n\nMr. Frater said, among other things, \"He knew that it might be said the\nbill (Lord Glenelg's) did not go to the extent of freeing the\nnegroes--_that we are about to do ourselves_, but he would ask whether\nwe were not _driven into the difficulty_ by which we are now surrounded!\nHad we not been brought into this _alarming position_, into this\n_exigency_, by the conduct of the British Government. _Why do we not\ntell the English nation frankly and candidly, that they agreed to give\nthe planter six years' services of their apprentices, as a part of the\ncompensation, and if they desired to do away with it, that we must be\npaid for it_, otherwise we will NOT ANSWER FOR ANY CHANGE, FOR ANY EVILS\nWHICH ARE LIKELY TO ENSUE. Why did the government force such an\nobnoxious bill upon us? They had in substance done this, they refused to\nannul the apprenticeship themselves, it is true, but said, we will place\nthem in a situation that will compel them to do it themselves. He must\nsay that the Government had acted _cowardly and unjustly_, they had in\nsubstance deprived them of the further two years' services of their\napprentices, agreeably to the compact entered into, upon a pretext that\nwe had not kept faith with them, and now tell us they will give us no\ncompensation. He hoped the allusion to it in the address would be\nretained.\"\n\nWe beg the patient attention of the reader to still more of these\nextracts. The present state of things in Jamaica renders them very\nimportant. It is indispensable to a correct judgment of the results of\nthe experiment to understand in what temper it was entered upon by the\nparties. Nothing can show this more clearly or authoritatively than the\nquotations we are making. We find another little torrent of eloquence\nfrom the same Mr. Hamilton Brown above quoted. He and several other\ngentlemen rose to reply to the statements of Richard Hill, a friend of\nfreedom, and Secretary of the Special Magistracy.\n\nMr. Brown--\"Mr. Chairman, I am on my legs, Sir. I say that we have to\nthank the Special Justices, and the _private instructions_ which they\nhave acted upon, _for all the evils that have occurred in the country_.\nHad they taken _the law_ for their guide, had they acted upon that, Sir,\nand not upon their private instructions, _every thing would have gone on\nsplendidly_, and we should have done well. But they had _destroyed the\nnegroes with their instructions_, they had _given them bad advice_, and\n_encouraged them in disobedience to their masters_. I say it, Sir, in\nthe face of this committee--I would say it on my death-bed tomorrow,\nthat if the Stipendiary Magistrates had _done their duty_ all would have\ngone on well, _and I told his Excellency that he might then have slept\non a bed of roses_.\"\n\nHere was one of the abolishers of the apprenticeship who held that more\nflogging would have made it work more \"splendidly.\" Mr. Hugh Fraser\nLeslie, who the February before had, in his place in the Assembly,\ndenominated the anti-slavery delegates assembled in London, as \"a set of\ncrawling wretches;\" \"the scum and refuse of society.\" \"The washings and\nscrapings of the manufacturing districts,\" &c. &c. now delivered himself\nof the following:--\n\n\"_He would ask any man in the house, nay, in the country, whether the\nhouse had any discretion left to them in the steps they were about to\ntake_? Could it be denied, that they were driven to the present\nalternative? Could they any longer say they were an independent\nlegislature? It would be preposterous--absolutely absurd to entertain\nany such idea. The apprenticeship had been _forced upon the country_ as\na part and parcel of the planters' compensation--it had been working\nwell, and would insensibly _have slided into a state of absolute\nfreedom, had the masters been left alone to themselves. It is now\nutterly impracticable to continue it_. A most obnoxious measure had been\npassed by the British parliament, and sent out to this country to be\npromulgated by the Governor as the law of the land. The functions of the\nlegislature were put in abeyance, and a British act _crammed down their\nthroats_. It could not be denied that they were now under a military\nGovernment. _He was only sorry that the thing had not been more honestly\ndone_; in his opinion, it would have been better for all classes, for\nthen the government would have taken all the responsibilities which\nmight attend the sudden change they had driven the house to make, and\nfind the means of conducting the affairs of the country into a peaceable\nand successful state. _Let any person look to the excitement which at\npresent prevailed throughout the country, couple that with the speech\nwhich had been delivered by the Governor, and say if it was any longer\npracticable to carry one the system of apprenticeship_. With respect to\nthe doctrine which had been broached, that the apprenticeship was not a\npart and parcel of the compact between the government and the planters;\nthat they (the planters) did not possess an absolute but an incidental\nright to the services of their apprentices, _he confessed he was at a\nloss to understand it_, he was incapable of drawing so nice a\ndistinction. He repeated, the government and nation had made the\napprenticeship a part of the consideration of the abolition of slavery,\nand having placed us in a situation to render its continuance\nimpracticable they were bound in honor and common honesty _to compensate\nus_ for the two years.\"\n\nOnce more, and we have done. Mr. Berry said,\n\n\"He did not think that because the Governor said they were not entitled\nto compensation, that therefore they should give up the claim which they\nunquestionably had upon the British nation for further compensation. He\nwould contend also, that the apprenticeship was one part of the\nconsideration for the abolition of slavery. He had heard it remarked\nthat the apprenticeship must cease, but it ought to be added that they\nwere compelled--they were driven to put an end to it by the Government,\nthough they were convinced that neither party was at this moment\nprepared for immediate abandonment. The Governor, in his opening speech,\nhad told the house that from the agitation at home, and the\ncorresponding agitation which at the present moment prevailed here, it\nwas physically impossible to carry one the apprenticeship with advantage\nto masters and labourers. He would take leave to remark, that the\napprenticeship _was working very well_--in some of the parishes had\nworked extremely well. Where this was not the case, it was attributable\n_to the improper conduct of the Special Justices_. He did not mean to\nreflect upon them all; there were some honorable exceptions, but he\nwould say that a great deal of the ill-feeling which had arisen in the\ncountry between the masters and their apprentices, was to be traced to\nthe _injudicious advice_ and conduct of the special Justices.\"\n\nSuch were the sentiments of by far the majority of those who spoke in\nthe Assembly. Such, doubtless, were the sentiments of more than\nnine-tenths of the persons invested with the management of estates in\nJamaica. What, then if we had heard that nine-tenths of the emancipated\nhad refused to be employed? Could that have been counted a failure of\nthe experiment? Was there any reason to believe that the planters would\nnot resort to every species of oppression compatible with a system\nof wages?\n\nBefore proceeding to the question of wages, however, we invite the\nreader to scan the temper and disposition of the parties of the other\npart, viz., the laboring population. Let us observe more carefully how\n_they_ behaved at the important period of\n\nTRANSITION\n\nTwo of the sturdiest advocates of slavery, the _Jamaica Standard_ and\nthe _Cornwall Courier_, speak as follows:--\n\nThe _Standard_ says--\"On Tuesday evening, (July 31), the Wesleyan, and we\nbelieve, Baptist Chapels, (St. James') were opened for service--the\nformer being tastefully decorated with branches of the palm, sage, and\nother trees, with a variety of appropriate devices, having a portrait of\nher Majesty in the center, and a crown above. When we visited the\nChapel, about 10 o'clock, it was completely full, but not crowded, the\ngenerality of the audience well dressed; and all evidently of the better\nclass of the colored and negro population. Shortly after, we understand,\na very excellent and modern sermon, in all political points, was\ndelivered by the Rev. Mr. Kerr, the highly respected pastor. The\ncongregation was dismissed shortly after 12 o'clock; at which hour the\nchurch bell commenced its solemn peal, and a few noisy spirits welcomed\nin the morning of Freedom with loud cheers, and planted a huge branch,\nwhich they termed the \"Tree of Liberty,\" in the center of the two roads\ncrossing the market square.\"\n\nAgain the _Standard_ observes, \"The long, and somewhat anxiously\nexpected jubilee of Emancipation has arrived, and now nearly passed\nover, with a remarkable degree of quiet and circumspection. Of St.\nJames's of course, we speak more particularly,--St. James's, hitherto the\nmost reviled, and most unwarrantably calumniated parish, of all the\nparishes in this unfortunate and distracted colony!\"\n\nThe _Cornwall Courier_ says, \"The first of August, the most important\nday ever witnessed in Jamaica, has passed quietly as far as actual\ndisturbance is concerned.\"\n\nThe _Jamaica Morning Journal_, of whose recent course the planters\nshould be the last to complain, gives more particular information of the\ntransition in all parts of the island. We give copious extracts, for to\ndwell upon such a scene must soften the heart. It is good sometimes to\nbehold the joy of mere brute freedom--the boundings of the noble horse\nfreed from his stable and his halter--the glad homeward flight of the\nbird from its cage--but here was besides the rational joy of a\nheaven-born nature. Here were 300,000 souls set free; and on wings of\ngratitude flying upwards to the throne of God. There were the gatherings\nin the public squares, there were the fireworks, the transparencies, the\ntrees of liberty and the shouts of the jubilee, but the churches and the\nschools were the chief scenes, and hymns and prayer the chief language\nof this great ovation. There was no giving up to drunken revelry, but a\nsolemn recognition of God, even by those who had not been wont to\nworship him. His temples were never so crowded. His ministers never so\nmuch honored. We give the picture in all its parts, faithfully, and as\ncompletely as our information will enable us to do.\n\nAugust 2.\n\n\"In this city, the day has passed off in the way in which such a day\nought to pass off. With glad hearts and joyful lips, the people have\ncrowded the temples of the living God, and poured out their praises and\nthanksgivings for the great benefits they had received at the hands of a\nbeneficent Providence. That they will continue to deport themselves as\ndutiful subjects, and good men and women, we have no doubt. From the\ncountry we wait with anxious hopes to hear that everything has gone off\nwith the same peace, and quiet, and order, and regularity which have\nprevailed here, and especially that the people have returned to their\nlabor, and are giving general satisfaction.\"\n\nFrom the same.\n\nAmong the various ways of interesting the minds of our newly\nenfranchised peasantry on the 1st of August, was that of planting a Palm\ntree emblematical of liberty, and commemorative of its commencement in\nthis island. Both in Kingston and in Liguanca, we understand, this\nceremony was performed by the schools and congregations of the \"London\nMissionary Society.\" The following hymn, composed by Mr. Wooldridge, for\nthe purpose, and committed to memory by many of the children, who were\ntreated with cakes and lemonade.\n\nAppropriate sermons were preached, both morning and evening, by the Rev.\nMessrs. Woodbridge and Ingraham, and in the evening a Temperance Society\nwas formed for the district of Liguanca, when several signed the pledge.\n\n    The thorny bush we'll clear away\n    The emblem of old slavery--\n    Let every fibre of it die,\n    And all its vices cease to be.\n\n    Let indolence, deceit, and theft,\n    Be of their nourishment bereft,\n    Let cruel wrong now disappear,\n    And decent order crown each year.\n\nPROCEEDINGS AT TRELAWNEY.--A correspondent in Trelawney writes. The\nfirst of August was observed by the people so decently and devoutly, and\nwith such manifestations of subdued, yet grateful feeling, that they\nappeared more like a select class of Christians celebrating some holy\nday of their church, than a race but recently converted from idolatry,\nand who were just emerging from the pollutions and degradation\nof slavery.\n\nTREAT TO THE CHILDREN.--The most interesting and truly exciting scene of\nall in Trelawny, was the spectacle of some hundreds of happy children\ndining. This feast for them, and for all who had hearts that could\nsympathise with the happiness of others, was provided by the Rev. Mr.\nKnibb. Similar scenes were enacted in the rural districts. The Rev. Mr.\nBlyth had, I believe, a meeting of his scholars, and a treat provided\nfor them. The Rev. Mr. Anderson had a large assemblage of his scholars\nat the school-house, who were regaled with meat, bread, and beverage,\nand also a large meeting of the adult members of his Church, to every\none of whom, who could, or was attempting to learn to read, he gave a\nbook.--[HE GAVE A BOOK.]\n\nAT ST. ELIZABETH.--At the hour of 10, A.M., there was about 3000 persons\nassembled at Crosmond, when the clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Hylton, proposed\nan adjournment from the Chapel to the shade of some wide-spreading trees\nin the common pasture, whither the happy multitude immediately\nadjourned. The morning service of the church having ended, the Rev.\nGentleman preached a most impressive sermon from the 4th chapter of\nZech. 6th verse--\"Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith\nthe Lord of Hosts\"--In his application, he took a brief review of the\nhistory of the island--the conquest by the Spanish--the extermination by\nthe Indians--and the consequent introduction of the negroes from Africa.\nHe then adverted to the several insurrections that had taken place\nduring the period since the conquest by the British, to the last general\nrebellion in 1832, in which both himself and many present were deeply\ninterested. Having shown that all these insurrections had been\nsuppressed, and had come to nought, he proceeded to point out how\nthrough Divine providence Mr. Wilberforce was raised up to advocate the\ncause of the oppressed African, and since that period, step by step,\nvarious privileges had been quietly conceded to the colored race, until\nthe final consummation by the Legislature, in abolishing the last\nvestiges of slavery on the 1st of August, 1838.\n\nThe Rev. Gentleman's honorable mention of Mr. Wilberforce appeared to be\ndeeply felt and acknowledged by all around. After the service was\nconcluded, the assembled multitude gave three hearty cheers for Queen\nVictoria, and three for Lord Mulgrave, the first _free Governor_ that\never came to Jamaica.\n\nA more decent, orderly, and well-behaved assemblage could not be seen in\nany part of the world. The people have indeed proved themselves worthy\nof the \"_great boon_\" conferred upon them.\n\nAT PORT MARIA.--The first of August passed off happily and peaceably.\nThe people felt deeply the great blessing that had been conferred on\nthem, and behaved uncommonly well. All the places of worship were\ncrowded; indeed, thrice the number would not have contained those who\nattended, and many of whom could not be accommodated.\n\nFrom the Cornwall Chronicle of Aug. 4.\n\nNothing could give a fairer and fuller confidence in the character of\nthe negroes than their conduct on so joyous and trying an occasion, as\nwhat they have exhibited during the brief period of their political\nregeneration. It may be considered as an earnest of their future\npeaceable demeanor; the disbelief of the sceptic will thus be put to the\nblush, and the apprehensions of the timid allayed. The first of August\nhas passed, and with it the conduct of the people has been such as to\nconvince the most jealous, as well as the most sanguine of the evil\nprognosticators, that they are a good and trust-worthy people. There is\nno doubt but that this day will be held for ever as a sacred\nanniversary--a new Pentecost--upon which they will render thanks for the\nquiet \"possession of their Canaan\"--free from all political oppressions,\nand that they can suffer only from the acts of their own indiscretion.\nIf ever they were placed in a favorable situation which they could\nimprove, it could not have been equal to the present.--The exercise of\nmoderation, however, is now most required, and will be greatly\nappreciated to themselves at a future time.\n\nCUMBERLAND PEN., ST. CATHERINE.--The\nconduct of the people in this district generally,\nis such as to entitle them to the highest commendation.\nWell knowing the inconvenience to\nwhich their masters' customers would be otherwise\nreduced from a want of food for their horses\nand cattle, they voluntarily went out to work on\nthe second day, and in some instances on the following,\nand supplied the usual demand of the\nmarket, presenting their labor thus voluntarily\ngiven as a free-will offering to their employers.\nComment on such conduct world be superfluous.\nThe late apprentices of Jamaica have hitherto\nacquired honors,\n\n    Above all Greek,\n    Above all Roman fame.\n\nSo far as they are concerned, the highest expectations\nof their friends have been more than\nrealized. Let the higher classes universally but\nexhibit the same dispositions and conduct, and\nthe peace and prosperity of Jamaica are for ever\nsecured.\n\nMorning Journal of August 4.\n\nSAINT THOMAS IN THE EAST.\n\nUp to the moment when the post left Morant Bay, the utmost tranquillity\nprevailed. In fact, from the quiet of the day and the circumstance of\ndroves of well-dressed persons going to and from the Church and Chapels,\nI was occasionally deluded, says a correspondent, into the belief of the\nday being Sunday. The parish Church was crowded, and the Rector\ndelivered a very able and appropriate address. The Methodist and\nIndependent Chapels were also filled. At both places suitable sermons\nwere preached. At the latter, the resident minister provided an ample\nsecond breakfast, which was faithfully discussed under the shade of a\nlarge tent purposely erected for the occasion. The Rev. Mr. Atkins,\nWesleyan Minister, has proceeded from this place to lay the foundation\nstone of a chapel this afternoon, (1st August) at Port Morant, in which\nimportant service he will be assisted by Thomas Thomson, Esq., Church\nwarden, and Alexander Barclay, Esq., Member for the parish. It is\nexpected that many thousand spectators will be present at the\ninteresting ceremony. From all I have been able to learn the changes\namong the labourers on the estates in this quarter, will be very\nlimited, these people being apparently satisfied with the arrangement\nfor their continued domicile on the respective properties.\n\nAnother correspondent writes--\"we are very quiet here. The day has\narrived and nearly passed off, and thank God the predictions of the\nalarmists are not fulfilled. The Chapels were quite full with a great\nmany persons in the yards. The Independents are just sitting down to a\nfeast. The Rector delivered a sermon or rather a string of advices and\nopinions to the labouring population, the most intolerant I have heard\nfor a long time. This parish will, I am quite certain, enjoy in peace\nand quietness this happy jubilee.\"\n\nMANCHESTER.\n\nWe learn from this parish that the Churches and Chapels were crowded\nmany hours before the usual time for beginning service. Several thousand\npersons remained outside the respective places, which were much too\nsmall to afford the accommodation. Every thing was quiet and orderly\nwhen the post left.\n\nSays the Jamaica Gazette of Aug. 4th, a paper of the Old School--\"In\nspite of all the endeavours of a _clique_ of self-interested agitators,\nclerical humbug and radical rabble, to excite the bad passions of the\nsable populace against those who have been the true friends of Colonial\nfreedom, and the conservators of the public peace and prosperity of the\ncountry, the bonfire, bull-roast, and malignant effigy exhibited to\nrouse the rancor of the savage, failed to produce the effect anticipated\nby the projectors of the _Saturnalia_, and the negro multitude fully\nsatisfied with the boon so generously conceded by the Island\nLegislature, were in no humor to wreak their wrath on individual\nbenefactors, whom the envy of party spirit had marked out as the victims\nof truth and independence.\n\nWe are happy to give our meed of praise to the decent and orderly\nconduct of the sable multitude, and to record that it far excelled the\nLoco Foco group of bullies and boasters in decency of propriety of\ndemeanor. A kind of spree or scuffle took place between donkey-driver\nQuallo and another. We don't know if they came to close fisti-cuffs, but\nit was, we are assured, the most serious affray on the Course.\"\n\nThe following is the testimony borne in regard to Barbados.\n\n_From the Barbados Liberal, Aug. 4th._\n\nFIRST OF AUGUST.\n\n\"It gives us great pleasure to state that, so far as our information\nfrom the country extends, this day was observed in a manner highly\ncreditable to our brethren. We never ourselves anticipated any riotings\nor disorder on the part of the emancipated. A little exhilaration\nbegetting a shout or two, would not have surprised us; but even this, we\nare happy to say, made no part of their manifestation of joy. The day\nwas spent in quiet piety! In heartfelt, soul overflowing gratitude to\ntheir heavenly Father, whose divine agency had raised up friends in\ntheir necessity, and brought their great tribulation to an end, they\ncrowded at an early hour to the several churches and chapels, in which\ntheir numbers could scarcely find turning room, and then quietly and\ndevoutly poured forth their souls in prayer and praise and thanksgiving!\nNo revellings, no riotings, no drunkenness, desecrated this day. We have\nheard from five parishes, and in none of the five have we heard of a\nsingle convivial meeting. From church and chapel they went to their\nhomes, and eat their first free dinner with their families, putting to\nshame the intolerant prejudices which had prepared powder and balls, and\nheld the Riot Act in readiness to correct their insubordinate notions\nof liberty!\"\n\nFrom the New Haven, Ct., Herald.\n\n    _\"Barbados, Aug. 2, 1838_\n\n    Yesterday's sun rose upon eight hundred thousand freemen, on whom\n    and their ancestors the badge of slavery had rested for two hundred\n    years. It was a solemn, delightful, most memorable day. I look upon\n    it as a matter of exceeding thankfulness, that I have been permitted\n    to be a witness to it, and to be able to speak from experience and\n    from observation, of the happiness to which that day has given\n    birth. The day had previously been set apart by proclamation of the\n    Governor, \"as a day of devout thanksgiving and praise to Almighty\n    God for the happy termination of slavery.\" The thanksgiving and\n    praise were most truly sincere, heartfelt and general. It was an\n    emancipation not merely of the slave but of the proprietor. It was\n    felt as such; openly acknowledged and rejoiced in as such. Never\n    have I witnessed more apparently unfeigned expressions of\n    satisfaction than were made on that day by the former owners of\n    slaves, at the load of which they had been relieved.\n\n    I do not wish to be understood as asserting that previous to the\n    working of emancipation, the slave proprietors wished the abolition\n    of slavery. Far from it. But having, though unwillingly, been made\n    witnesses of the operations of freedom; and having themselves tasted\n    of the previously unknown satisfaction of employing voluntary and\n    contented, because _free_ laborers; their minds became enlightened,\n    softened, changed: and from being the determined opposers, they\n    became themselves the _authors_ of complete emancipation. I know not\n    in what terms to describe to you the emotions excited by passing\n    through the streets of this populous town on that memorable morning.\n    There was a stillness and solemnity that might be felt. It was\n    caused by no display of force, for none was to be seen. Here and\n    there a policeman going his usual rounds, but not a soldier, nor the\n    slightest warlike preparation of any kind to strike the eye, or\n    overawe the spirit of disorder.\n\n    The spirit that seemed to fill the entire population was eminently\n    the spirit of peace, good will, thankfulness and joy too deep, too\n    solemn, to allow of any loud or noisy demonstration of it. Of\n    course, all stores, shops and offices of every kind were closed. So\n    also were all places of amusement. No sound of revelry, no evidences\n    of nightly excess were to be heard or seen. I do not say too much\n    when I assert that the reign of order, peace, and sobriety,\n    was complete.\n\n    To give eclat to an event of such importance, the Governor had\n    ordered one company of militia to attend with him at the cathedral.\n    It is an immense building, and was crowded in every part of its\n    spacious area, galleries and aisles, with a most attentive\n    assemblage of people, of all colors and conditions. Several\n    clergymen officiated, and one of them at the opening of the services\n    read most appropriately the 58th chapter of Isaiah. Imagine for a\n    moment the effect in such an audience, on such an occasion, where\n    were many hundreds of emancipated slaves, of words like these:--\"Is\n    not this the fast that I have chosen, to loose the bonds of\n    wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go\n    free, and that ye break every yoke?\" The sermon by the Bishop was,\n    as might have been expected on such an occasion, interesting and\n    impressive. He spoke with great effect of the unexpected progress of\n    freedom, from island to island, from colony to colony, until, with a\n    solitary exception, upon that day the stain of slavery was\n    obliterated forever from every British possession. The progress of\n    education, the gradual reformation of morals, and the increasing\n    thirst for religious instruction, were all dwelt upon with great\n    force, and the glory of all ascribed, as was most fit, to the Great\n    Giver of every good and perfect gift. It was an occasion rich with\n    happy emotions, and long to be remembered as a bright and beautiful\n    spot in the pathway of our earthly pilgrimage.\n\n    The close of the day was not less auspicious than its commencement.\n    In company with Mrs. H., I drove through several of the principal\n    streets, and thence through the most public thoroughfare into the\n    country; and no where could aught be seen to mar the decent and\n    truly impressive solemnity of the day. There were no dances, no\n    merry-making of any sort; not a solitary drunkard, not a gun fired,\n    nor even was a shout heard to welcome in the newborn liberty. The\n    only groups we saw were going to or returning from the different\n    chapels and churches: except in a few instances, where families\n    might be seen reading or singing hymns at their own dwellings.\n\n    And now, sir, having arrived at the long looked for consummation of\n    all the labors and prayers of the friends of the slave for so many\n    years, as I cast my eye around this _land of liberty_, how many\n    thoughts crowd my mind? I ask myself--is it indeed finished? And are\n    there none to lament the downfall of time-honored, hoary-headed\n    slavery? Where are the mourners? Where are the prognosticators of\n    ruin, desolation, and woe? Where are the riots and disorders, the\n    bloodshed and the burnings? The prophets and their prophecies are\n    alike empty, vain, and unfounded, and are alike buried in oblivion.\n\n    And why, in the name of humanity, was not this glorious consummation\n    brought about ages ago?--Is it because the slaves of 1838 are better\n    fitted for freedom than those of fifty or a hundred years since? No\n    one believes it. The only preparation for freedom required in this\n    island, or any where else, in order to put a peaceful end to\n    slavery, is the preparation of heart in the slaveholder to grant\n    deliverance to the captive.\n\n    Yours truly,\n\n    WM. R. HAYES\n\n    P.S. August 9th.--All is quiet, and the utmost good order every\n    where prevails.\"\n\nTo complete the picture we will give two extracts of letters from\neminent Jamaica Attornies to their employers in England, with regard to\nthe turning out to work. It is remarked by the English papers that the\nAttornies generally in writing to their employers adopt the same strain.\nThey are all doing well on _their_ estates, but hear that the rest of\nthe island is in a woful condition.--These are the men who are the\ngreatest, if not the only, losers by emancipation; hence their testimony\nis doubly valuable.\n\nFrom the British Emancipator, Nov. 14.\n\nLETTERS FROM ATTORNIES.\n\n_Extract of a Letter from an eminent Estate Attorney, in St. Mary's,\nJamaica, dated August_ 24, 1838.\n\n    \"There was nothing whatever done in this parish, or throughout the\n    island, for the first two weeks of the month. In this quarter some\n    estates did a little last week, and have been making more progress\n    since, but the far greater number have not yet done any work; the\n    minds of the people are very unsettled, and full of all sorts of\n    foolish notions, which will continue more or less till we hear of\n    the home government having accepted and approved of our abolition\n    bill, and their views with regard to us.\n\n    On several of the estates which have wrought, the people have struck\n    once or twice. We have in this parish ministers of every\n    denomination, and they are all acting very properly; but they do not\n    seem to have as much influence as expected; we must _be as\n    considerate and liberal as possible to secure their confidence_\n    ourselves. We are in St. Mary's paying the highest rate of wages in\n    the island; 1s. 8d. currency per day nett, with allowances, are\n    generally offered; I am giving here, from sheer necessity, 2s. 6d.\n    currency per day, without charging any rent in the mean time. In the\n    present state of things when so few estates are doing anything at\n    all, I have much satisfaction in saying that the people here, on\n    ----, a good proportion of them were at work last week, and I have\n    now the mill about making sugar, with every probability, I think of\n    going on satisfactorily; and looking dispassionately at the great\n    change which has so suddenly taken place, our present difficulties\n    are not much to be wondered at.\n\n    Sunday night, 8th Sept.--The foregoing was written, but too late,\n    for the last packet; but as another sails to-morrow, I write you a\n    few lines more. There is, up to this moment, but little material\n    alteration in the state of affairs generally, certainly none for the\n    worse. I have made here twenty hogsheads of sugar since the 1st ult.\n    We are altogether in an uncertain state, but there are more mills\n    about, and more work doing _in this district than in any other in\n    the island_, which might and ought to be a feather in the cap of\n    Maitter, our late stipe. I have no time to say more now, excepting\n    that, although I am in great hopes that things will soon generally\n    improve, and am of opinion that our present difficulties are not to\n    be wondered at, yet our situation is still so critical, that I dare\n    not venture to hazard an opinion as to the success of the great\n    experiment, I repeat, however, again, that we have not seen anything\n    to disappoint or surprise us, bad as many things are.\"\n\n_Extract of a Letter from an Attorney in St. Mary's, Jamaica, 24th\nAugust_, 1838\n\n\"The services of the stipes are much wanting here; I am paying 10s. a\nweek for first class, 6s. 8d. for second, and 4s. 2d. for third, for\nfive days work; they say they will not work on Fridays. However, I have\ngot people at ---- to work today; they are behaving better than most\nothers. I hope things will now improve; and it is my opinion that good\nestates will do, and others will fall to the ground. Old Mr. Tytte is\ndead, and his son Alexander made stipe for the district. The Governor's\nspeech respecting women has done a great deal of harm. None of the women\nwant to work. If Lord Glenelg had made such a mistake, he would have\nheard enough of it. I wish the Government would take it on themselves to\nsettle the rate of wages, otherwise two-thirds of the estates will be\nthrown up before next year; of course I can stand this as well as any.\nThe ---- people have behaved well: they did every thing I told them;\nthey are working on piece-work, which is the best plan.\"\n\nPrecisely similar is the testimony of private correspondents and of the\npublic press so far as we have been able to learn, in all the other\ncolonies where emancipation has taken place. There is certainly nothing\nin all this that indicates a disposition on the part of the emancipated\nto throw off the employment of their former masters, but much the\nreverse. We may safely challenge contradiction to the assertion, that at\nthe expiration of the jubilee there were not a set of free laborers on\nearth from whom the West India planters could have got more work for the\nsame money. It may be proper in these days, when the maxims of slavery\nhave so fearfully overshadowed the rights of man, to say that a man has\na _right_ to forbear laboring when he can live honestly without it--or,\nat all events, he has a right to choose whether he will employ himself\nor be employed by another. Hence it _may_ turn out that the refusal to\nlabor, so far as there has been any, only serves to prove the more\nclearly the fitness of the laborers of freedom.\n\nWAGES\n\nIt must have been obvious to every man of reflection that in a change so\nvast, involving so many laborers, and in circumstances so various, there\nwould arise almost infinite disputes about the rate of wages. The\ncolonies differ widely as to the real value of labor. Some have a rich,\nunexhausted, and, perhaps, inexhaustible soil, and a scanty supply of\nlaborers. Others are more populous and less fertile. The former would of\ncourse offer higher wages than the latter, for so sudden was the step\nthere could be no common understanding on the point. Again, as we have\nseen, the planters came into the measure with different views. Some\nanticipated the general change, and either from motives of humanity or\npolicy, or more probably of both, adopted a course calculated to gain\nthe gratitude and good will of the laborer.--These would offer wages\nwhich the less liberal would call ruinous. Many, and it would seem the\ngreat body of them in Jamaica, yielded unwillingly to superior power.\nThey saw the sceptre of despotic authority was to be wrested from their\ngrasp. They threw it down, as one may easily believe, resolved to seize\nthe best substitute they could. They would infallibly fall upon the plan\nof getting the greatest possible amount of work for the least possible\namount of pay. When we consider that even in the oldest, most civilized,\nand most Christianized free-labor communities, employers are wont to\ncombine to keep down the rate of wages, while on the other hand the\nlaborers throw up work to raise it, we shall not be surprised that there\nshould be things of this sort in Jamaica, liberty being in the gristle.\nThe only help for such an evil is, that there is always a rate of wages\nwhich is advantageous to both parties, and things being left to\nthemselves, it will at last be found.\n\nTo the planters and freed-men in settling the question what wages they\nshould offer and receive, two standards or guides presented\nthemselves,--1. The rate of wages which had been given in Antigua since\n1834. 2. The compensation that had been demanded by the Jamaica planters\nthemselves, and adjudged by the magistrates, in case of apprentices\nbuying their own time. Hundreds of planters had declared upon oath what\nthe time of the apprentice was worth to them. Possibly as sellers, in\nthe elasticity of their consciences, they may have set a higher price\nthan they would be willing to give as buyers. In strict honesty,\nhowever, it is difficult to see why labor should not be worth to them as\nmuch in the one case as the other. The rate of wages fixed upon in\nAntigua may be seen by a reference to the Journal of Thome and Kimball\nto be very inadequate to the wants of the laborer. Free labor is there\nscrewed down to the lowest possible point. The wonder is that the\nlaborers should have submitted to such a scale for a moment. But they\nhad no precedent to guide them, no advisers free from the yoke of the\nproprietary, no valuations given by their own masters, and there was\nevery facility for successful combination on the part of the masters.\nThey must work for such wages as the masters pleased to offer,\nor starve.\n\nSay Messrs. Thome and Kimball--\"_By a general understanding among the\nplanters_, the rate is at present fixed at a _shilling_ per day, or a\nlittle more than fifty cents per week, counting five working days.\" This\nAntigua scale, and not the one they themselves had sold labor by during\nthe apprenticeship, became at once the favorite with a great part of the\nJamaica and Barbados planters. If they in any cases offered higher\nwages, they made it up by charging higher rent for the houses and\ngrounds, which the negroes had built and brought under culture on their\nproperties. It was before the first of August that this procedure was\nresolved upon by the planters, as we gather from numerous communications\nin the papers recommending a variety of modes of getting labor for less\nthan its natural market value. We select a single one of these as a\nspecimen, by the application to which of a little arithmetic, it will be\nperceived that the employer would _bring the laborer in debt_ to him at\nthe end of the year, though not a moment should be lost by sickness or\nother casualty. The humanity of the document is perfectly of a piece\nwith that of the system which would civilize mankind by making\nmerchandize of them.\n\nTo the Editor of the Morning journal.\n\nSIR,--Let meetings be held, not only in every parish, but in every\ndistrict of a parish, and let all land-owners, &c., agree not to rent\nland under \u00a38[A] per acre, and not to sell it for less than double that\nsum. Should a few be found regardless of the _general weal_, let the\nproprietary, &c. join and purchase such lands, and if otherwise, it is\npresumed the dissentients to the measure would be so small as not to\naffect in any material degree the _general_ interest, inasmuch as those\nwho dissented, from the consequent scarcity of land arising from the\nmeasure, would demand a high rental for their land. The _maximum_ system\nappears to be preferable to the _minimum_. I have therefore made choice\nof it as a stimulus to the laborers to work _at least_ four days or\nthirty-six hours in the week to pay for their rent, &c. &c., _or pay 2s.\n1d. for every day's absence_; or, if sick, pay up the labor by working\non the Friday, &c., _and Saturday, if needful_. Weekly settlements with\nboth parties, or _immediate summary ejectment_, if deemed necessary.\n\n[Footnote A: The sums are in the currency of the islands when not\notherwise specified, that is 7s 6d to the dollar.]\n\n                                                \u00a3   s.  d.\nRent of 2 acres of land as a ground for\n    each able adult, at \u00a35 per acre            10   0   0\nDo. of house and garden, from \u00a34 to\n    \u00a310 per annum, say                          6   0   0\n_Medical attendance, medicine, &c. &c.,\n    worth \u00a34 per annum_                         4   0   0\nClothing and Christmas allowance per\n    annum                                       1  13   4\n                                               ----------\n                                               21  13   4\n                                               ----------\n\nFour days' or 36 hours' labor in each\n    week, at 2s. 1d. per day, or 208\n    days, at 2s. 1d.                           21  13   4\nIf task-work were adopted, or the day's\n    labor prolonged to 10-1/2 or 12 hours'\n    labor, 3 days' or 3-1/2 days' labor\n    _would suffice_, consequently, the\n    laborer would have 2 or 3 days\n    in each week to work for extra\n    wages.\nIn addition to the above, say pasturage\n    for a horse, at 4s. 2d. per week per\n    annum                                      10  16   8\nPasturage for an ass, at 2s. 1d. per week\n    per annum                                   5   6   4\n_Run of pasturage and fruit, for a sow,\n    barrow, or sholt_; IF RUNG IN THE\n    NOSE, 10_d. per week_; IF NOT RUNG,\n    1_s._ 8_d. per week; per annum, at\n    10d. per week_                              2   3   4\n\nThe above charges for pasturage might be paid for either _by additional\nlabor_ or in money, and to a good head-man they might be granted as a\ngratuity, and perhaps an additional acre of land allowed him to\ncultivate. It would be desirable that the negroes should, when quite\nfree, work 11 hours per day in the short days, and 12 hours in the\nlonger ones. I believe the shortest day's labor in England in the winter\nmonths in 10 hours' actual labor, and 12 hours' in the summer, for which\n2 hours they are paid extra wages.\n\n_St. Mary's, 8th June, 1838_. S.R.\n\nThe date should not escape notice. By this plan, for a few petty\nindulgences, _all of which were professedly granted in the time of\nslavery itself_, the master could get the entire labor of the negro, and\n_seven or eight pounds per annum besides_! Some may be disposed to\nregard this as a mere joke, but we can assure them it was a serious\nproposal, and not more monstrous than many things that the planters are\nnow attempting to put in practice. The idea of actually paying money\nwages was horrifying and intolerable to many of the planters; they seem\nto have exercised their utmost ingenuity to provide against so dreadful\na result. One who signed himself an \"Old Planter\" in the _Despatch_,\nbefore the abolition of the apprenticeship, in view of the emancipation\nof the non-praedials which was to take place on the first of August,\ngravely wrote as follows:--\n\n\"It is my intention, therefore, when the period arrives for any\narrangement with them, to offer them in return for such services, _the\nsame time as the praedials now have_, with of course the same allowances\ngenerally, putting out of the question, however, any relaxation from\nlabor during the day, usually allowed field laborers, and understood as\nshell-blow--house people being considered at all times capable of\nenjoying that indulgence at their pleasure, besides the impossibility of\ntheir master submitting to such an inconvenience.--This appears to me to\nbe the only mode of arrangement that would be feasible, unless we resort\nto money wages, and I should regret to find that such a precedent was\nestablished in this instance, for it would only be a forerunner to\nsimilar demands at the coming period, when the praedials became free.\"\n\nThere were more reasons than one why \"money wages\" were feared by the\nJamaica planters. A great many estates are managed by attorneys for\nabsentee proprietors. These gentlemen pocket certain commissions, for\nwhich reason they keep in cultivation estates which cannot possibly\nyield a profit under a system of paid labor. They deem it for their\ninterest to retain their occupation even at the expense of their\nemployers. Not a few conceive it for their interest to depreciate the\nvalue of property that they may purchase low, hence they deem it good\npolicy to refuse wages, let the crops perish, and get up a panic. The\ndocuments we shall furnish will be clear on these points. The great\ndiversity of practice in the planters in regard to wages, as well as the\nreasonable disposition of the laborers, is shown by the following\nparagraphs culled from the _Morning Journal_ of August 10:--\n\n\"ST. DAVIDS.--A gentleman in the management of a property in this parish,\nwrites in the following strain to his employer--\"I have an accession of\nstrength this morning. The people are civil and industrious. I have\nreceived letters assuring me that the example of the Cocoa Walt estate\npeople, has been the means of inducing those on other estates to enter\ninto the terms proposed\"--that is 5s. per week, with houses, grounds,\nmedicines, &c, &c.\"\n\n\"St. Thomas in the East.--The apprentices on Golden Grove Estate, turned\nout to work on Monday, but we have not learnt on what terms. At Mount\nVernon, the property of Kenneth McPherson Esq., they turned out on\nTuesday morning to work for five days in the week, at 10d. per day with\nhouses, grounds, &c.\"\n\n\"Trelawny--A correspondent writes, every thing is quiet, and the people\nwould go to work if any bargains were made, but I believe throughout the\nparish the people were directed to go to work on Monday morning, without\nany previous arrangement, or being even told how much they would be\npaid, or asked what they expected. On one estate 1s. 8d. with houses and\ngrounds was offered and refused. Some of the masters are determined, it\nis said, to hold out, and will not consent to give more than 1s. 3d. or\n1s. 8d. per day.\"\n\n\"St. Johns.--The people in this parish are at work on most of the\nestates without any agreement. They refuse the offer of 1s. 01-2d. per\nday, but continue to labor, relying on the honor and liberality of the\nplanters for fair and reasonable pay. If they do not get these in two\nweeks, our correspondent writes, there will be a dead stop. The laborers\nfix the quantity of work to be done in a day, agreeable to the scale of\nlabor approved of by the Governor during the apprenticeship. For any\nthing beyond that, they demand extra pay, as was usual under\nthat system.\"\n\n\"St. Thomas in the Vale--No work, we understand, is being done in this\nparish as yet. A correspondent states that some of the overseers and\nattorneys wish the people to turn out to work without entering into any\narrangements, which they refuse to do. The attorney for Rose Hall,\nKnollis, New Works, and Wallace Estates has offered 1s. 3d. per day, out\nof which \u00a35 per annum is to be deducted for houses and grounds. The\noffer has been refused. The overseer of Byndloss estate required his\npeople to work without agreeing as to the rate of wages they were to\nreceive, but they refused to do any thing without a proper agreement.\"\n\n\"St. Mary's--On some estates in this parish we are informed, and\nparticularly those under the charge of Richard Lewis, Esq. such as\nBallard's Valley, Timperon's estates, Ellis' estates, &c. and of Charles\nStewart, Esq. Trinity, Royal, Roslin Bremer Hall, &c., and also of James\nGeddes, Esq., the laborers are getting from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 4d. per day.\nThe same rates are paid upon many outer properties. On many estates the\npeople have refused to labor, and urge objections against the managers,\nas a reason for so acting. They remain and will engage to labor,\nprovided the obnoxious parties are removed.\"\n\nHow could the people be blamed for refusing 10d. per day, while on \"many\nproperties\" they were getting from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 4d.? Such being also\nthe valuation which the masters had uniformly placed upon their time\nduring the apprenticeship?\n\nWhen the planters found that the free laborers could neither be\nprevailed upon to labor for half-price nor be driven to excesses by such\npaltry persecution, they turned their wrath, as had been long their\ncustom, upon the Baptist Missionaries. Upon Mr. Knibb especially they\nlaid the blame of giving mischievous advice to the peasantry. And for\nthe obvious purpose of exciting the thousands of people warmly devoted\nto him, to acts of violence, they attempted to burn him in effigy and\nactually circulated the report that he had been murdered. Thousands of\nhis people flocked into Spanish Town, threatening to destroy the town if\nthe report proved true. But on learning its falsity were easily\npersuaded to retire, and did so without being guilty of any excess\nwhatever. Unmeasured and unceasing have been the attacks of the Jamaica\npress upon the missionaries. Upon their shoulders has been laid \"the\nruin of that fine island.\"--They have corrupted the peasantry and put it\nin their heads to ask more wages than the estate can possibly give. To\ndetermine the value of the testimony of the missionaries in this case it\nis important to know the nature of their influence upon the laborers\ntouching the question of wages. We are happily furnished with the\nrequired information from their own lips and pens in the Jamaica papers.\n\n_From the Falmouth Post._\n\nREV. W. KNIBB'S ADVICE TO THE NEGROES.\n\nMEETING AT THE \"SUFFIELD SCHOOL-ROOM.\"\n\nOn Friday evening last we attended the suffield School-room, in this\ntown, which, at an early hour was crowded with apprentices and head\npeople, from upwards of twenty properties, who had met for the purpose\nof receiving advice from the Rev. Wm. Knibb, and Special Justice Lyon,\nrespecting the course of conduct it will be necessary for them to adopt,\non taking their stand in society as freemen. Several gentlemen connected\nwith the commercial and agricultural interests of the parish were\npresent on the occasion.\n\nThe Rev. W. Knibb commenced by saying, that he attended a meeting of a\nsimilar nature at Wilberforce Chapel, on the preceding evening. He had\nthought it better to request the attendance this evening of the head\npeople, who being the more intelligent would be able to explain to\nothers, the advice which they would now receive themselves. \"I am glad,\"\nsaid the Rev. Gentleman, \"to see so many persons present, among whom I\nnotice a few gentlemen who are not connected with my church: I am glad\nof the attendance of these gentlemen, for what I do, I do openly, and\nany one is at liberty to express his opinion at this meeting if he\ndesires to do so.\n\nYou will shortly, my friends, be released from your present state of\nbondage; in the course of a very few weeks you will receive the boon of\nfreedom, and I would therefore impress deeply on your minds the\nnecessity of your continuing the cultivation of the soil on the receipt\nof fair and equitable wages. I am not aware myself of any complete scale\nof wages having been drawn up, but I have been on 10 or 12 different\nproperties, I have conversed with several proprietors, and I am glad to\nsay that with some of them there appears to be a disposition to meet the\ncharge fairly and honorably. Those who are more conversant with figures\nthan I am, will be enabled to show what the owner can afford to give for\nthe cultivation of his property. In the mean time I would say to you, do\nnot make any hasty bargain: take time and consider the subject, for it\nis one of vital interest and importance to all! If you demand too high a\nrate of wages, the proprietors will be ruined; if you consent to take\ntoo low a sum, you will not be able to provide for the wants of\nyourselves and families. In making your arrangement, if there be an\nattempt to grind you down, resist the attempt by all legal means; for\nyou must consider that you are not acting for yourselves alone, but for\nposterity. I desire to see every vestige of slavery completely rooted\nout. You must work for money; you must pay money to your employers for\nall you receive at their hands: a fair scale of wages must be\nestablished, and you must be entirely independent of any one. If you\ncontinue to receive those allowances which have been given during\nslavery and apprenticeship, it will go abroad that you are not able to\ntake care of yourselves; that your employers are obliged to provide you\nwith these allowances to keep you from starvation; in such a case you\nwill be nothing more than slaves.--To be free, you must be independent;\nyou must receive money for your work; come to market with money;\npurchase from whom you please, and be accountable to no one but that\nBeing above, who I hope will watch over and protect you!--I sincerely\ntrust that proper arrangements will be made before the 1st of August.--I\nhave spoken to nearly four thousand persons connected with my church,\nand I have not yet learnt that there is any disposition among them to\nleave their present employers, provided they receive equitable wages.\nYour employer will expect from you good crops of sugar and rum; and\nwhile you labour to give him these, he must pay you such wages as will\nenable you to provide yourselves with wholesome food, good clothing,\ncomfortable houses, and every other necessity of life. Your wages must\nbe such as to enable you to do this; to contribute to the support of\nyour church; the relief of the distressed; the education of your\nchildren, and to put by something for sickness and old age. I hail the\ncoming of the 1st August with feelings of joy and gratitude. Oh, it will\nbe a blessed day; a day which gives liberty to all; and my friends, I\nhope that the liberty which it will bring to you will by duly\nappreciated. I trust I may live to see the black man in the full\nenjoyment of every privilege with his white brethren, and that you may\nall so conduct yourselves as to give the lie direct to those who have\naffirmed that the only idea you have of liberty is that it will enable\nyou to indulge in idle habits and licentious pursuits. When liberty\ncasts her benignant smiles on this beautiful island, I trust that the\nemployer and the laborer will endeavour to live on terms of friendship\nand good will with one another.--When the labourer receives a proper\nremuneration for his services--when the employer contemplates the\nluxuriance of his well-cultivated fields, may they both return thanks to\na merciful God, for permitting the sun of liberty to shine with bright\neffulgence! I need scarcely assure you, my friends, that I will be at\nall times ready to protect your rights. I care not about the abuse with\nwhich I may probably be assailed; I am ready to meet all the obloquy and\nscorn of those who have been accustomed to place the most unfavourable\nconstructions on my actions. I am willing to meet the proprietors in a\nspirit of candour and conciliation. I desire to see you fairly\ncompensated for your labor; I desire also to you performing your work\nwith cheerful industry: but I would warn you _not to be too hasty in\nentering into contracts_. Think seriously before you act, and remember,\nas I have already old you, that you have now to act not only for\nyourselves, but for posterity.\"\n\nWe give numerous documents from these gentlemen, as among the best if\nnot the greatest part of our fellow citizens; we trust their testimony\nwill be deemed the best that could be offered.\n\nLETTER OF EIGHT BAPTIST MISSIONARIES.\n\n_To the Right Hon. Lord_ GLENELG, &c.\n\nMy Lord--We feel assured that no apology is necessary, in requesting\nyour attention to the subject of this letter. The official connection\nwhich you hold with the colony, together with the peculiar circumstances\nin which its newly-emancipated population are placed, render it an\nimperative duty we owe to ourselves to lay before you our sentiments.\n\nHaving labored in the island for many years, and having been in daily\nintercourse with the objects of our solicitude, we do feel devoutly\nthankful to ALMIGHTY GOD, that he has spared us to see the\ndisenthralment of our beloved flocks; while it gives us increased\npleasure to assure your lordship that they received the boon with holy\njoy, and that the hour which made them men beheld them in thousands\nhumbly prostrate at the footstool of mercy, imploring the blessing of\nHEAVEN upon themselves and their country, while, during the night and\njoyful day, not a single case of intoxication was seen.\n\nTo us, as their pastors, they naturally looked for advice, both as to\nthe labor they should perform and the wages they should receive. The\nimportance of this subject was deeply felt by us, and we were prepared\nto meet it with a full sense of the responsibility it involved, and\nhappily succeeded in inducing them to accept of a sum lower than that\nwhich the representatives of the landowners had formerly asserted was\nfair and just.\n\nWe regret to state, that a deep combination was formed by many of these\n_middlemen_ to grind the peasantry to the dust, and to induce, if\npossible, the acceptance of remuneration which, by affording no\ninducement to the peasant cheerfully to labor, would have entailed\npauperism on him and his family, and ruin on the absentee proprietor. It\nwas to this circumstance, and not in the least to any unwillingness in\nthe free negro to work, or to demand more for his labor than it was\nfairly worth, that for one or two weeks, in some places, the cultivation\nof the soil was not resumed. Upon the planting attorneys, so long\naccustomed to tyranny and oppression, and armed with a power over the\nland which must prove inimical to the full development of the resources\nof this valuable colony, the blame entirely rests.\n\nWe suppose that your lordship is fully aware, that the laws under which\nthe laborer is now placed are tyrannical and unjust in the extreme;\nlaws, we hesitate not to affirm, which are a disgrace to those who\nframed them, and which, if acted upon by a local magistracy, will entail\nupon the oft-cheated, over-patient negro some of the worst features of\nthat degrading state of vassalage from which he has just escaped. We\nparticularly refer to \"An Act to enlarge the Powers of Justices in\ndetermining complaints between Masters and Servants, and between\nMasters, and Apprentices, Artificers, and others,\" which passed the\nAssembly the 3rd day of July, 1834, while by police acts, especially one\nregulating the town of Falmouth, our people will be daily harassed\nand annoyed.\n\nWe think it right to inform your lordship, that the greater part of\nthose who hold the commission of magistrates are the very persons who,\nby their connection with the soil, are the most unfit, because the most\ninterested, honestly to discharge their important duties; while their\nignorance of the law is, in too many cases, equalled only by their love\nof tyranny and misrule. Time must work a mighty change in the views of\nnumbers who hold this office, ere they believe there is any dereliction\nof duty in daily defrauding the humble African. We cannot but entreat\nyour lordship to use those means which are in your power to obtain for\nthe laborer, who imploringly looks to the Queen for protection, justice\nat the hands of those by whom the law is administered. We must, indeed,\nbe blind to all passing events, did we not see that, without the\nwatchful care of the home government, the country district courts, held\nsometimes in the very habitations of those who will have to make the\ncomplaints, will be dens of injustice and cruelty, and that our hearts\nwill again be lacerated by the oppressions under which our beloved\npeople will groan.\n\nWe beg to apprise your lordship, that we have every reason to believe\nthat an early attempt will be made to deprive the peasantry of their\nprovision grounds--that they will not be permitted, even to rent them;\nso that, by producing starvation and rendering the population entirely\ndependent upon foreign-supplies for the daily necessaries of life, a\nlower rate of wages may be enforced. Cruel as this may appear to your\nlordship, and unlikely as it may seem, long experience has taught us\nthat there is no possible baseness of which a slave-owner will not be\nguilty, and no means of accomplishing his purposes, however fraught with\nruin to those around him, which he will not employ.\n\nShould the peasantry be thus treated, we shall feel it our duty humbly\nto implore that the lands belonging to the crown may be made available\nfor their use. Your lordship will remember that these ill-treated people\nbecame not the subjects of her Majesty by choice, though they are now\ndevotedly attached to her government. Their fathers were stolen and\nbrought hither. On their native shores they had lands and possessions\ncapable of supplying all their wants. If, then, after having toiled\nwithout remuneration, they are prevented even renting a portion of land\nwhich has hitherto been esteemed as their own, we shall ask, and shall\nfeel assured that the boon will not be withheld, that her Most Gracious\nMajesty will throw open the lands belonging to the crown, where we may\nretire from the tyranny of man, and with our people find a peaceful and\nquiet home.\n\nThough still surrounded by obloquy and reproach, though the most abusive\nepithets and language disgracefully vulgar has been employed to assail\nus, especially by a newspaper known to be under the patronage of a\nbishop, and in which all official accounts of his diocese are given to\nthe world, yet we assure your lordship that, in endeavouring to promote\nthe general interests and welfare of this colony, we shall still pursue\nthat line of conduct which is the result of our judgment, and in\naccordance with the dictates of our conscience.\n\nIn no part of the island are arrangements made so fully or so fairly, as\nin those districts where our congregations reside, and in no part are\nthe laborers more faithfully performing their duty. We deeply feel our\nresponsibility at the present crisis, and pledging ourselves to your\nlordship and the British Government by the sacred office we hold, we\nassure you that ceaseless efforts shall still be exerted, as they have\never been, to promote the peace and happiness of those around us.\n\nIn the name and on the behalf of our churches, for the sacred cause of\nfreedom throughout the world, we unitedly implore your lordship to throw\nthe shield of Britain's protection over those who are just made her\nloyal subjects. All they want, and all they ask, is, that, as they are\nraised to the dignity, so they may receive all the rights of man, and\nthat the nation who purchased them from bondage may fully secure to them\nthat civil and religious liberty, to which both their unparalleled\nsufferings and their unexampled patience so richly entitle them.\n\nWe cannot conclude this letter, without expressing the high sense we\nentertain of the noble and disinterested conduct pursued by his\nexcellency Sir Lionel Smith, the Governor of this colony. But for his\nfirmness, Jamaica would have presented all the horrors of a civil war.\n\nFeeling assured that your lordship will give that attention to this\nletter which the subject demands, and with earnest prayer that this\ncolony, now blest with liberty, may exhibit increasing prosperity, we\nare, my lord, your most obedient servants, Signed by\n\nTHOMAS BURCHELL\nWILLIAM KNIBB\nTHOMAS ABBOTT\nWALTER DENDY\nJOHN CLARK\nB.B. DEXTER\nSAMUEL OUGHTON\nJ. HUTCHINS\n\nBaptist Missionaries, North Side Union.\n\n[On the foregoing letter the _London Sun_ has the following\nobservations.]\n\n\"Every arrival from the West Indies but strengthens our conviction, that\nthere never will be happiness, security, or peace for the emancipated\nnegroes, so long as the administration of the laws, and the management\nof the plantations, are continued in the hands of those white officials\nwhose occupation, previous to the passing of the emancipation act,\nconsisted in torturing and tormenting them with impunity. They cannot\nendure to witness the elevation to the rank of free, intelligent, and\nwell-behaved fellow-citizens, of a class of beings whom they were\naccustomed to treat a myriad of times worse than they did the \"beasts\nthat perish.\" Having pronounced them incapable of civilization, and\nstrangers to all the better feelings of our nature, they deem it a sort\nof duty to themselves to employ every artifice to neutralize or retard\nevery measure calculated to ameliorate the moral and social condition of\nthe negro race. Several of the colonial agents have powerful inducements\nto the provocation of some insurrectionary outbreak, on the part of the\ncolored population. In the first place, such an _emute_ would fulfil\ntheir predictions with regard to the passing the Emancipation Act, and\nso establish their reputation as seers; and in the next, it would lead\nto the sale of many of the plantations at one-sixth their real value,\nand so transform them from agents to principles, as they would not fail\nto be the purchasers. That such is their policy cannot, we think, be\ndoubted for a moment by those who will take the trouble to peruse a\nletter addressed by eight Baptist missionaries, long resident in\nJamaica, to Lord Glenelg, which will be found in another part of _The\nSun_. These missionaries, we are assured, are men of irreproachable\nlives, of indefatigable Christian zeal, and of conversation becoming\npersons whose sacred office it is to preach the gospel of peace. That\ntheir representation will produce a powerful effect upon the minds of\nthe people of this country, we feel as confident as we do that our\ngracious Queen will concede any boon in her royal gift, necessary to the\nwelfare of her colored subjects.\"\n\nThe following are a series of letters to Mr. Sturge, published in the\nBritish Emancipator for Nov. 28, 1838. The one from a Special Justice\nclearly developes the principal causes of the backwardness of the\nlaborers. The testimony of this letter to some important facts will be\nfully confirmed by that of the Governor of Jamaica. The evidence of\nextortion submitted by the missionaries is so explicit, that we beg the\nattention of the reader to all the details. Remember the experiment\ninvolves the claims of millions to that without which life is little\nbetter than a curse. Every thing hangs on the inquiry whether the\nemancipated or their former masters are chargeable with whatever there\nis of _ruin_ in the \"fine island\" of Jamaica. Says Mr. Sturge, in laying\nthese letters before the public, \"it should be clearly understood that\nthe fee simple of all negro houses in Jamaica is not worth \u00a310 each on\nan average, and that their provision grounds have been brought into\ncultivation by the negroes themselves in their _own_ time.\"\n\nExtract of a letter from a Missionary:--\n\nSavannah-la-Mar, Sept. 8, 1838.\n\nMY DEAR SIR,--You are probably aware that the following question has\nbeen submitted by the Governor to the Attorney-General for his opinion:\n\n(copy.)\n\n(No. 844.) King' House, Aug. 27, 1838.\n\nSIR,--I am desired by the Governor to request you will give your opinion\nfor general publication. 1st. Whether in instances of notices to quit\ntheir houses and grounds, having been served upon the late apprentices,\nthey are liable to be made to pay rent for the occupation of such house,\nduring the three months allowed by law?\n\n(OPINION.)\n\nThey are.\n\n(Signed,)\n\nD O'REILL.\n\nWe shall soon see the evil effects of this opinion, it being generally\npreviously understood that the late apprenticed population would not be\nliable for rent until the three months had expired, after receiving\nnotice to quit.\n\nAs a specimen of this being made an instrument of great oppression in\nthe hands of managers of estates, I would state that two notices were\nyesterday brought to brother Hutchins for his inspection; one was served\nupon David Clarke, a labourer, on King's Valley estate, in this parish.\nOn the back of the notice to quit was written as under;--\n\n\"The rent of your house and grounds is twenty-one pounds six shillings\nand eight pence, per annum, commencing 1st of August, 1838, if legal.\"\n\n(Signed) J. H. JONES.\n\nMr. Sturge appends the following West India accounts, which be says are\nin his possession by which it is evident that the planters are bringing\ntheir laborers in debt to them, by a spirit of shameless extortion.\n\nCharles Duncan to John Dixon, Dr.\n1838. Sept. 15. To rent of house\nand ground, from 1st of August to\ndate, 6s. 8d. per week.                   2  3  9-1/2\nCr. By balance, five days, 1s.8d. per day 0  8  4\n                                         -------------\n                                          1 15  5-1/2\nCharles Brown, to John Dixon, Dr.\n1838. Sept. 13. To rent of house\nand ground, 6s. 8d. per week,\nfrom 1st Aug, to date.                    2  1 10\nCharge for running a sow and pigs,\nfrom 1st Aug. to date, 2s. 6d. per\nweek                                      0 15  8-1/2\n                                         -------------\n                                          2 17  6-1/2\n\nJohn Alfred Bullock to John Dixon, Dr.\n1838. Sept. 15. To rent of house\nand garden, from 1st of Aug.\nto date, 6s. 8d. per week,                2  3  9-1/2\nRent of provision ground, 5s. per\nweek,                                     1 12  6\nPasturage, two weeks, for an ass,\n6s. 3d, per month,                        0  3  4\nTwo hogs, 1s. 8d. per week,               1  1 10-3/4\n                                         -------------\n                                          5  1  6-1/4\nCr. By two days' labour, 1s.\n8d. per day                               0  3  4\n                                         -------------\n                                          4 18  2-1/3\n\nLETTER TO MR. STURGE, FROM A SPECIAL JUSTICE.\n\n_Jamaica, Oct. 12th, 1838._\n\nFreedom has brought with it the blessings we anticipated; and as we\nprogress in civilization we shall all be happier. I have ever been\nsanguine as to its beneficial results, and I am not in the least\ndisappointed. I cannot find language sufficiently strong to express the\ncommendation due to the negroes for their steady and good conduct since\nthe 1st of August. Amidst the most trying circumstance, they have\nexhibited the greatest forbearance, and placed their whole reliance on\nthe laws for protection. I am satisfied that no other nation of free men\ncould conduct themselves so temperately and well, under similar\ncircumstances; and in my opinion, they have proved themselves infinitely\nsuperior to many of those who so lately exercised almost unlimited\ncontrol over them. I declare to you, to see such a mass of persons,\nwhose morals have been little regarded by those who held them in\nslavery, and without education, rise all at once, and express and\nconduct themselves so admirably, is wonderful. When seeking redress\nbefore the magistrates for wrongs committed by there former owners they\nhave maintained more coolness and temper than their more fortunate\nbrethren, when maters are decided against them. There is a hard struggle\non the part of the pro-slavery faction to compel the negro to work for\nlittle or nothing, in order that the attorneys and overseers may keep\ntheir places as before; and I am informed, by a gentleman whose veracity\nis not to be doubted, and who is himself an attorney, that he can still\nkeep his overseer and merchant as in former days, draw his own\ncommissions, and send home to his employer a very handsome surplus.\nUnder such circumstances, well may the friends of freedom cry shame at\nthe opposition which has for so long a time been thrown in the way of\nliberty, by these West Indians of practical knowledge. The facts are,\nthat the absent proprietors have been led by the advice they have\nreceived from their attorneys; and these have had so many ways of making\nmore than an honest commission, and have so speedily made their\nfortunes, that as long as they could continue slavery, they have exerted\nevery influence. The overseer was paid, housed, fed, and waited upon,\nall at the expense of master and slave, beside; keeping a fine stud of\nhorses, and as many brood mares at pasture on the property as would\nenable him to dispose of seven or eight prime mules annually; and so\nlong as he drove and tormented the poor negro, and made good crops for\nthe attorney's commissions, and supplied his horses with corn, these\n_little perquisites_ were never discovered. Now the proprietor will\nhardly pay for more labor than is absolutely necessary to grow and\nmanufacture the produce of his estate; and these gentlemen must\nhenceforth look to their own resources, for the payment of servants to\nattend and take care of their own interests and comforts. An overseer's\nsituation on an estate making 300 hogsheads, was calculated in slavery\nto be equal to 2000l. a year. Indeed no man in any town could have lived\nin such luxury for that sum. If the proprietor would only come out, and\nlive prudently, he would save all this by residing on his property,\nwhich he could easily manage by employing, for extra wages, his former\nsteady head people. _They_, from long residence, know the best manner of\nworking the land; and, as to the manufacture of sugar, they are the\npersons who have _all their lives_ been working at it. The most\nimportant part of an overseer and book-keeper's business was to make use\nof their _eyes_. The negro had to make use of his legs, arms and\nstrength; and, in nine cases out of ten, his brains kept the white\npeople in their situations, by preventing matters from going wrong.\n\nI perfectly coincide with you, as to the propriety of the negro speedily\nbecoming possessed of the elective franchise. In Antigua there is very\nlittle more land than is in cultivation for the estates, but here it is\nwidely different; and they are beginning to settle themselves by\npurchasing small lots very fast. At Sligoville there are nearly fifty\nnew freeholders. The negroes are taught to do this by the perpetual\nworry of their employers, threatening to oust them on every trifling\noccasion, and withholding part of their wages on the plea of\nnon-performance of work.--The root of all evil is the Assembly and the\nJuries. Nothing requires greater alteration; and I shall never rest,\nuntil I see the black man stand the same chance at the bar of his\ncountry as the white man.--The negroes will not work under their former\nhard task-masters. They determinedly resist all solicitations to labor\nwith those who treated them ill. They say that the pain is gone, but the\nmark remains, and I respect them for this proud feeling.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have come under his displeasure for taking the opinion of Middleton\nand McDougal, as to the legality of charging the negro hire for his\nhouse and grounds, for the three months during which the notices to quit\nare running.--Had we not taken these opinions, what a fearful state\nthings might we have been brought to in this country! I am quite\nsatisfied that no rent could be recovered until the expiration of the\nthree months, from which time it would commence to run, and the\nplaintiff would in law be considered in possession of his lands again,\nwhich, in slavery, he was compelled to give to his slave for his support\nand maintenance. He must re-enter before he could demand rent, for it is\nimpossible for him to prove a contract, or imply one. The negro did not\nwillingly come from Africa, and occupy his land; he was torn from his\nnative land, and compelled by his owner, under laws that took his life,\nnot to quit the land; how therefore can he be considered to have made a\ncontract, or consented to one?\n\nFROM THE REV. J. KINGDON\n\n_Manchioneal, Oct. 9, 1838._\n\nIn passing through Hector's River great house yard, in my way to my\npreaching spot, I have the most sensible demonstration of the reality of\nthe political change happily brought about; for that hot-house, in which\nI have seen one of my own members in irons for having a bad sore leg,\nand in which I have been grossly insulted for daring to go to see my\npoor people--that house is _shut up_! Delightful, I assure you, are my\nfeelings, whenever I go by that place, attached to which, too, was the\nold-time prison, a perfect charnel-house.\n\nFROM THE REV. S. OUGHTON.\n\n_Lucea, October 2, 1838._\n\nUnused to acts of justice and humanity, the Planters, in a moment of mad\nexcitement passed an act to abolish the accursed system of Slavery. The\ndebates on that occasion proved with what an ill grace they performed\nthat scanty act of justice, and all experience since that period proves\nhow bitterly they repent it. It is true, we are not now, as before,\ndistressed by hearing recitals of barbarous corporeal punishments, and\nwe are no longer pained by seeing human beings chained to each other by\nthe neck; but, although cruelty has, to a certain extent, ceased,\noppression has become ten thousand times more rampant than ever. Every\nact which ingenuity or malice can invent, is employed to harass the poor\nnegroes. Prior to August 1st, the planter studiously avoided every thing\nlike an arrangement with the laborer, and when, on the following Monday,\nthey turned out to work, the paltry pittance of 12-1/2d. (7-1/2d.\nsterl.) was all that in the majority of cases was offered for the\nservices of an able-bodied negro, although 2s. 6d. per day (currency),\nhad before been invariably exacted from them, when they were desirous of\npurchasing the remaining term of their apprenticeship. Of course, the\npeople refused to receive so paltry a remuneration for their labour, and\nthis has laid the foundation for a course of systematic oppression\nscarcely conceivable. Notices to quit were served indiscriminately on\nevery one, old and young, sick and healthy. Medical attendance was\nrefused, and even a dose of physic from the Estates' hospitals. Cattle\nwere turned into the provision-grounds of the negroes, thus destroying\ntheir only means of support; and assaults of the most wanton and brutal\ndescription were committed on many of the peasantry. On one estate the\nproprietor and his brother assaulted a young man in the most unprovoked\nmanner. One presented a pistol to his breast, and threatened to shoot\nhim; while the other levelled a gun at his head for the same purpose.\nThey were bound over to take their trial at the Quarter Sessions; but\nwhat hope is there in such a tribunal as that, composed principally of\nmen engaged in the same reckless course, and banded together by mutual\ninterests? On another estate (_Content_), the attorney ordered the\ncattle of a poor man (a member of my Chapel) to be taken up and\nimpounded. It was done, and the man was obliged to pay 6l. to redeem\nthem; when, as soon as he carried them back, they were again taken and\nimpounded. The man has been to my house with his case of oppression, on\nmy return from Kingston. He states that he exhausted his last farthing\nto redeem the cattle the first time, and was also obliged to borrow of\nhis friends; they have now been impounded five weeks, and unless he can\nraise the money to redeem them (upwards of 10l.), they will be sold to\npay the expenses. Thus is an honest and worthy man, in a few weeks,\nstripped of every thing which, by years of industry and care, he had\naccumulated for the comfort of his old age, or the benefit of his\nfamily. Yesterday a negro came and informed me that the owner of a\nproperty had told him last year, that he must cultivate more ground, so\nas to be able to continue possession as a tenant; and now that he has\ndone so, another person, saying that he had purchased the property, came\na few days ago, and told him that in three weeks he would drive him from\nthe place. He then ordered a man whom he had with him to climb a\nbread-fruit tree, and pull the fruit, which he forcibly carried away to\ngive to his hogs. But I must forbear: were I to state half the cases of\noppression which have occurred in Hanover since August 1st; I should\nrequire a volume instead of a sheet. I think, however, I have said\nenough to prove the bitter and rancorous spirit which at present\nanimates the planters. Enclosed I send a specimen of another artifice\nadopted to harass and distress the negroes. They have adopted the notion\n(sanctioned by the opinion of the old Planters' Jackall, Batty, and the\nAttorney General), that the people are liable to pay rent for houses and\ngrounds during the three months' possession to which the Abolition Act\nentitled them, and notices have been served on the people, demanding the\nmost extravagant amounts for the miserable sheds which the people\ninhabited. You will perceive that in once case 21l. 6s. 9d. has been\ndemanded. This conscientious demand was made by John Houghton James,\nExecutor and Attorney for Sir Simon Clark. Another is from a Mr. Bowen,\nof _Orchard_ Estate; and the third from Mr. Brockett, of _Hopewell_ and\n_Content_ Estates, the property of Mr. Miles, M.P. for Bristol. Let it\nbe borne in mind that these shameful and exorbitant demands are not\nmade, as in England, on the head of the family only, but on _every\nmember who is able to do the least work_, and even little children have\npapers demanding 2s. 4d. per week for ground, although unable to do the\nleast thing: one of these I also enclose.\n\nJamaica, ss. Notice is hereby Given, That the sum of eight shillings and\nfour pence, weekly, will be exacted from you and each of you\nrespectively, for the houses and grounds at Orchard Estate, in the\nparish of Hanover, from August of the present year, until the expiration\nof the three months' notice, from its period of service to quit; or to\nthe period of surrendering to me the peaceable possession of the\naforesaid house and provision grounds.\n\nJ. R. BOWEN.\n\nDated this 17th day of Sep. 1838.\n\nTO JAMES DARLING and SARAH DARLING, of the parish of HANOVER.\n\nHere then, my dear Sir, you may perceive something of the atrocious\nproceedings in the island of Jamaica. Pray insert these documents in the\n_Emancipator_. Let the Anti-slavery friends know the state of things,\nand urge them to redoubled diligence. The House of Assembly will meet on\nthe 30th instant, and then, I fear, dreadful measures will be taken. A\nletter from Mr. Harker, of the Jamaica Royal Gazette, about a fortnight\nsince, addressed to Mr. Abbott, shows what absolute and cruel statutes\nthey would wish either to act upon, or to make the models of new laws.\nEvery act must be watched with the most jealous scrutiny. Experience\nshows that the planters possess an ingenuity truly diabolical, in\ntwisting and distorting the laws to suit their own selfish purpose. Our\nhope is in British Christians; and we confidently hope every one of them\nwill feel the importance of increased diligence, lest the great, and\nlong prayed-for boon of freedom, should become a curse, instead of a\nblessing. The papers will inform you of the odium I have drawn on myself\nin defending the people's rights. That contained in the great mass, only\nprovokes a smile. I know that every friend in England will interpret it\ninversely. I did feel Mr. ----'s letter in the Falmouth Post, but he\nknows his error, and is sorry for it. I could have answered it, but did\nnot choose to cause a division amongst the few friends of the negro,\nwhen they had quite enough to do to withstand the attacks of\ntheir enemies.\n\nFROM THE REV. J. M. PHILIPPO.\n\n_Spanish Town, Oct. 13, 1838._\n\nThe following is one of the seven of the same tenor now in my\npossession, which will, in addition to those I forwarded by last mail,\ninform you of the cause of the late disinclination of the people in some\ndistricts to labour--which, with so much effrontery, has been proclaimed\nthrough the public Journals here:--\n\nCharles Michael Kelly and Wife, to J.S. Benbow, Dr.\n\n   1830: July 14th to Sept. 9th.\n1. To the rent of house and\n   ground on Castle Kelly\n   plantation, for eight weeks,\n   at 6s. 8d. per week.         3l. 13 4\n2. Richard Kelly and Wife. Same.\n3. Elenor Mercer. Same.\n4. John Ried and Wife. Same.\n5. Mary Ann Christie. Same.\n6. Venus Owen (or such like name). Same.\n\n\nFROM THE REV. J. HUTCHINS.\n\n_Savanna-la-Mar, Sept. 17, 1838._\n\nI now, according to promise in my last, send you a few out of the many\ncases I am almost hourly troubled with. Some of our would-be great men\nare, I am sorry to say, harassing the poor free labourers shamefully;\nand should it prove, as I think in some cases it must, of serious injury\nto the absentee proprietors, I shall publish the cases of grievance\nbrought me, together with the names of the estates, owners, attorneys,\noverseers, &c., and leave all parties to form their own opinion on\nthe subject.\n\n   Amelia Martin, to Retrieve Estate, Dr.\n      1838: August 29.\nTo house and ground, rent at\n  5s. per week, from 1st August\n  to date                   4_l._  0    0\n[A]Alliac Davis, ground\n  rent at\n  10d. per week                    3    0\n[A]William Davis; ditto\n   ditto                    0      3    4\n                            -------------\n                            4_l._  6    4\n                            -------------\n\nThos. Tats, Esq. is Attorney, and Mr. Comry\n        Overseer,\n\n[Footnote A: Boys from 9 to 11, her sons.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n   Louisa Patter, to Retrieve Estate, Dr.\n      1838: Aug. 28.\nTo house and ground from 1st\n  Aug. to date              1_l._  0    0\n\nShe states she has been sickly so long, that she has no ground in\ncultivation, and cannot help herself, and has only what yams her\nfriends give her.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n   Susan James, to Albany Estate, Dr.\n      1838: Aug. 28.\nTo house and ground rent at\n  5s. per week, from 1st August,\n  to date                   1l.    0    0\nThos. Hewett, ground rent   0     13    4\nElizabeth James, ditto      0     13    4\nMary Dunn, ditto            0     10    0\nLetitia, ditto[A]           0      6    8\n                            -------------\n                            3l.    3    4\n                            -------------\n\n[Footnote A: These are a mother and four children in\none house, and with but one ground, they tell\nme.]\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nRichard Warren, to Albany Estate, Dr.\n1838: Aug. 28.\nTo house and ground rent to\n   date                     1l.    0    0\n   Wife                     0     15    4\n   Child[B]                 0     10    0\n                            -------------\n                            2l.    5    4\n                            -------------\n\n[Footnote B: The child is quite young, and in daily attendance\nat one of my schools.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOn this property, under the same managers as Retrieve, the people state\nthat they are going on shamefully. \"The last Sabbath but one, when we\nwere at service, Stephen Campbell, the book-keeper, and Edward Pulsey,\nold-time constable, come round and mark all for we house, and charge for\nebery one of we family. We don't know what kind of fee dis we hab at\nall; for we attorney, Mr. Tate, neber come on we property, leave all to\nMr. Comeoy. We peak to him for make bargain, him say him can't make law,\nand him no make bargain till him heare what law come out in packet. Him\nsay dem who make bargain are fools; beside him no call up a parcel of\nniggers to hold service wid me; should only get laughed at. So we know\nnot what for do. You are for we minister, and for we only friend; and if\nyou did not advise we to go on work till things settle down, we no lift\nanother hoe. We would left the property.\" Unless an arrangement is soon\nentered into, I shall advise them to do so.\n\nJames Greenheld, to New Galloway Estate, Dr.\nTo one week's rent of house, garden, and\n   ground, and to 5 ditto for his wife, Margaret\n   Greenfield, at 5s. per week.           \u00a31 10 0\n\nJ.G. states, \"I come for massa. When we make bargain with Mr. McNeal, it\nwas a maccaroni (1s. 8d.) a day, and for we house and ground. Me is able\nand willing for work, so let my wife stop home; so him charge me de same\nsum for my wife, as for me own house and ground. And den last week me\nsick and get no money, and they charge me over again, (as above) one\nweek me sick. Me no able for say what to call dat massa, me sure.\"\n\nI leave with you to make your own comments, and to do what you please\nwith the above. Although my chapel is \u00a3700 in debt, and my schools, one\nof 180 and one of 160 scholars, are heavy, very heavy on me, I cannot do\nother than advise my people to save every mite, buy an acre of land, and\nby that means be independent, and job about wherever they may be wanted.\n\nFROM THE REV. T. BURCHELL.\n\n_Montego Bay, October_ 2, 1838.\n\nThe reason why I have not written to you so long, is the intensely\nanxious time we have had. I feel, however, that it is high time now to\naddress you; for, if our friends in England relax their efforts, my\nconviction is, that freedom will be more in name than in reality, in\nthis slave-holding Island. There is nothing to be feared, if the noble\nband of friends who have so long and so successfully struggled, will but\ncontinue their assistance a short time longer. The planters have made a\ndesperate struggle, and so, I have no doubt, will the House of Assembly,\nagainst the emancipated negroes. My firm conviction has been, and still\nis, that the planters have endeavored, by the offer of the most paltry\nwages, to reduce the condition of the laborer, and make him as badly off\nas he was when an apprentice or a slave, that he may curse the day that\nmade him free.\n\nThough unable to conduct the usual services on Sunday the 5th August, at\nthe close I addressed the congregation, urging upon them the necessity\nof commencing their work on the following day, whether arrangements were\nmade between themselves and their masters or not; as by so doing they\nwould put it out of the power of their opponents to say anything evil of\nthem. They assembled, and on Monday the 6th thousands turned out to\nwork, and continued to labor, unless prevented by the Manager, until\narrangements were made.\n\nYou will remember, that prior to the 1st of August, a white man who\nhired out a gang of apprentices to an estate was paid at the rate of 1s.\n6d. sterling per diem for each able laborer. The apprentice received the\nsame when he worked for the estate on his own days, Friday and Saturday;\nand whenever they were valued for the purpose of purchasing the\nremaining time of their apprenticeship, the planter upon oath stated\nthat their services were worth at least 1s. 6. per diem to the estate,\nand the apprentice had to redeem himself at that rate.\n\nAfter the 1st of August, the planters discovered, that, whilst the\nproperties would well afford to continue the lavish and extravagant\nexpenditure in managing the estates, \"it would be certain ruin to the\nproperties, if the labourer was paid more than 71/2d. per diem. for the\n1st class of labourers, 6d. the 2nd class, and 41/2d. for the 3rd\nclass:\" and why? I know not why, unless it was because the long\noppressed negro was to put the money into his own pocket, and not his\nwhite oppressors. This seems to have made all the difference. The above\nwages were accordingly offered, and rejected with scorn; the people\nfeeling the greatest indignation at the atrocious attempt of their old\noppressors to grind them down now they are free, and keep them in a\nstate of degradation. The greatest confusion and disorder ensued; the\nlabourers indignant at the conduct of their masters, and the planters\nenraged against the people, for presuming to think and act for\nthemselves. As a matter of course, the fury of the planters was directed\nagainst half a dozen Baptist missionaries, and as many more friends and\nstipendiary Magistrates; and I can assure you that the Jamaica press\nequalled its most vituperative days, and came forth worthy of itself.\nThe Despatch, or the Old Jamaica Courant, so well known in 1832 for\nadvocating the burning of chapels, and the hanging of missionaries; was\nquite in the shade. The pious Polypheme, the Bishop's paper, with the\nJamaica Standard of infamy and falsehood, published in this town, took\nthe lead, and a pretty standard it is. Let foreigners judge of Jamaica\nby the Jamaica Standard of August last, and they must suppose it is an\nisland of savages, or a little hell. The press teemed with abuse of the\nmost savage nature against us, and published the most barefaced lies.\nThat, however, you who know the generality of the Jamaica Press, will\nsay is nothing new or strange; well, it is not, nor do we regard any\nstatements they make; for no one believes what they publish, and it is a\nsource of gratification to us that we have never forfeited our character\nor principles in the estimation of the reflecting, the philanthropist,\nor the Christian public, by meriting their approbation.\n\nIn the mulct of this seemingly general conspiracy to defraud the laborer\nof his wages by exorbitant rents, &c. Sir Lionel Smith, the Governor,\nproceeds from district to district, giving advice to both of the\ncontending parties, and striving to promote a mutual understanding. His\ntestimony to the designs of the planters given to their faces, and not\ndenied, is very important; we give therefore one of his meetings, as the\nfind it reported in the Jamaica papers. Here is a rather familiar\nconversation among some of the chief men of that island--where can we\nexpect to find more authoritative testimony?\n\nSIR LIONEL SMITH'S VISIT TO DUNSINANE.\n\nHis Excellency, Sir Lionel Smith, visited Dunsinane on Thursday last,\nagreeably to arrangements previously entered into, for the purpose of\naddressing the late apprenticed population in that neighborhood, on the\npropriety of resuming the cultivation of the soil. About two miles from\nDunsinane, his Excellency was met by a cavalcade composed of the late\napprentices, who were preceded by Messrs. Bourne, Hamilton, and Kent,\nlate Special Justices. On the arrival of his Excellency at Dunsinane, he\nwas met by the Hon. Joseph Gordon, Custos, the Lord Bishop attended by\nhis Secretary, and the Rev. Alexander Campbell; the Hon. Hector Mitchel,\nMayor of Kingston, and a large number of highly respectable planters,\nproprietors, and attorneys. His Excellency, on being seated in the\ndwelling, said, that from information which he had received from other\nparishes, and facts gathered from personal observation, he believed that\nthe same bone of contention existed there as elsewhere--a source of\ndiscontent brought about by the planters serving the people with notices\nto quit their houses and grounds. He did not question their right to do\nso, or the legality of such a proceeding, but he questioned the prudence\nof the step. The great change from slavery to unrestricted freedom\nsurely deserved some consideration. Things cannot so soon be quiet and\ncalm. Depend upon it, nothing will be done by force. Much may be by\nconciliation and prudence. Do away with every emblem of slavery; throw\noff the Kilmarnock cap, and adopt in its stead, like rational men,\nBritannia's cap of liberty. He (Sir Lionel) doubted not the right of the\nplanters to rent their houses and grounds; in order to be more certain\non that head, he had procured the opinion of the Attorney General; but\nthe exercise of the right by the planter, and getting the people to\nwork, were very different matters. Much difficulty must be felt in\ngetting rid of slavery. Even in the little island of Antigua, it had\ntaken six months to get matters into a quiet state; but here, in a large\ncountry like Jamaica, could it be expected to be done in a day, and was\nit because it was not done, that the planters were to be opposed to him?\nYou are all in arms against me (said his Excellency,) but all I ask of\nyou is to exercise patience, and all will be right. I have done, and am\ndoing all in my power for the good of my country. If you have served the\npeople with notices to quit, with a view to compel them to work, or\nthinking to force them to work for a certain rate of wages, you have\ndone wrong. Coercive measures will never succeed. In Vere, which I\nlately visited, the planters have agreed to give the people 1s. 8d. per\nday, and to let them have their houses and grounds for three months free\nof charge. His Excellency, on seeing some symptoms of disapprobation\nmanifested, said, Well, if you cannot afford to pay so much, pay what\nyou can afford; but above all, use conciliatory measures, and I have not\na doubt on my mind but that the people will go to their work. Seeing so\nmany planters present, he should be happy if they would come to an\narrangement among themselves, before he addressed the people outside.\n\nMr. WELLWOOD HYSLOP remarked, that Vere and other rich sugar parishes\nmight be able to pay high rates of wages, because the land yielded\nprofitable crops, but in this district it was impossible to follow the\nexample of those parishes. He thought that two bits a day might do very\nwell, but that was as much as could be afforded.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY said that in Manchester, where he believed he had more\nenemies than in any other parish, he had advised them to work by the\npiece, and it had been found to answer well.\n\nMr. HINTON EAST said that he would submit a measure which he thought\nwould be approved of. He proposed that the people should be paid 5s. for\nfour days' labor; that if they cleaned more than 130 trees per day,\neither themselves or by bringing out their wives and children, they\nshould be paid extra wages in the same proportion.\n\nMr. ANDREW SIMPSON said that he could not afford to pay the rates named\nby his Excellency. It was entirely out of the question; that a good deal\ndepended upon the state the fields are in--that his people, for\ninstance, could, with much ease, if they chose, clean 170 trees by\nhalf-past three o'clock.\n\nMr. MASON, of St. George's, said he was willing to pay his people 1s.\n8d. per day, if they would but work; but the fact was that they refused\nto do so, on account of the stories that had been told them by Special\nJustice Fishbourne; willingly too would I have given them their houses\nand grounds for three months, free of charge, had they shown a desire to\nlabor; but what was the lamentable fact? the people would not work,\nbecause Mr. Fishbourne had influenced them not to do so, and he (Mr.\nMason) had been a loser of one thousand pounds in consequence. He had\nbeen compelled in self-defence to issue summonses against two of his\npeople. He had purchased his property--it was his all--he had sacrificed\ntwenty of the best years of his life as a planter, he had a wife and\nfamily to support, and what was the prospect before him and them? He\nadmitted having served notices on his people to quit their houses--in\ntruth he did not now care whether they were or were not located on the\nproperty--he was willing to pay fair, nay, high wages, but the demand\nwas exorbitant. He had a servant, a trustworthy white man, who laboured\nfrom day-dawn to sunset for 2s. 1d. per day, and he was quite satisfied.\nAll the mischief in his district had been owing to the poisonous stories\npoured into the ears of the people by Special Justice Fishbourne. If he\nwere removed, the parish might probably assume a healthy state; if\nallowed to remain, no improvement could possibly take place.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY said that the Assembly had passed a law preventing the\nspecial magistrates from going on the estates; they could not, however,\nprevent the people from going to them, and taking their advice if they\nwished it. He had understood that the people had gone to the special\nmagistrates, informing them that the planters demanded 3s. 4d. per week\nrent for the houses and grounds, and that they had been advised, if such\nwere the case, that they ought to be paid higher wages. He understood\nthat to be a fact.\n\nMr. ANDREW SIMPSON said that the people would, he had no doubt, have\nworked, but for the pernicious advice of Mr. Fishbourne. He had heard\nthat the people had been told that the Governor did not wish them to\nwork, and that he would be vexed with them if they did.\n\nSir LIONEL replied that he was aware that white men were going about the\ncountry disguised as policemen, pretending to have his (Sir Lionel's)\nauthority, telling the people not to work. He knew well their intention\nand design, he understood the trick. You are anxious (said his\nExcellency) to produce a panic, to reduce the value of property, to\ncreate dismay, in order that you may speculate, by reducing the present\nvalue of property; but you will be disappointed, notwithstanding a press\nsends forth daily abuse against me, and black-guard and contemptible\nremarks against my acts. I assure you I am up to your tricks.\n\nMr. ANDREW SIMPSON would be glad if his Excellency would speak\nindividually. There was a paper called the West Indian, and another the\nColonial Freeman. He wished to know whether his Excellency meant either\nof those papers. [Some slight interruption here took place, several\ngentlemen speaking at the same time.]\n\nHis EXCELLENCY said he had not come to discuss politics, but to\nendeavour to get the people to work, and it would be well for them to\nturn their attention to that subject.\n\nMr. SIMPSON said he had a gang who had jobbed by the acre, and had done\nwell, but it was unfortunate in other respects to observe the\ndisinclination shown by the laborers to work. He wished them to know\nthat they must work, and trusted that his Excellency would endeavour to\nforce them to labor.\n\nSir LIONEL--I can't compel them to do as you would wish, nor have I the\npower of forcing them to labor. The people will not suffer themselves to\nbe driven by means of the cart-whip. It is the policy of every man to\nmake the best bargain he can. I can say nothing to the people about\nhouses and grounds, and price of wages. I can only ask them to work.\n\nMr. WILES said that the planters were anxious to come to amicable\narrangements with the people, but they were unreasonable in their\ndemands. The planters could not consent to be injured--they must profit\nby their properties.\n\nMr. MASON said, that the only bone of contention was the subject of\nrent. His people were outside waiting to be satisfied on that head. He\nhesitated not to say, that the proprietors were entitled to rent in\nevery instance where the laborer was unwilling to labor, and unless that\nsubject was at once settled, it would involve both parties in endless\ndisagreement. He was not one of those persons alluded to by his\nExcellency, who circulated misrepresentations for private benefit, nor\nwas he aware that any one in the parish in which he lived had done so.\nAll that he desired was the good of the country, with which his\ninterests were identified.\n\nSir LIONEL--I could not possibly be personal towards any gentleman\npresent, for I have not the honour of knowing most of you. My\nobservations were not confined to any particular parish, but to the\nIsland of Jamaica, in which the occurrences named have taken place.\n\nDr. RAPKY, of St. George's--If your Excellency will only do away with a\ncurtain magistrate, things will go on smoothly in the parish of St.\nGeorge. This gentleman has told the people that they are entitled to the\nlands occupied by them, in consequence of which the parish is now in an\nunsettled state.\n\nSir LIONEL--Who is the magistrate!\n\nDr. RAPKY--Mr. Fishbourne.\n\nSir LIONEL--I am afraid I cannot please you. The question of possession\nof lands and houses has for the present been settled by the opinion of\nthe Attorney-General, but it is still an undetermined question at law.\nThere are many persons in the island who are of opinion that the\nlegislature had not so intended; he (Sir Lionel) was at a loss to know\nwhat they meant; seeing, however, some members of the assembly present,\nperhaps they would be disposed to give some information.\n\nMr. S.J. DALLAS said, that it was the intention of the legislature that\nrent should be paid. He thought it fair that 1s. 8d. per day should be\noffered the people to work five days in the week, they returning one\nday's labor for the houses and grounds.\n\nMr. SPECIAL JUSTICE HAMILTON said that complaints had been made to him,\nthat in many instances where the husband and wife lived in the same\nhouse, rent had been demanded of both. The laborers had, in consequence,\nbeen thrown into a state of consternation and alarm, which accounted for\nthe unsettled state of several properties--a serious bone of contention\nhad in consequence been produced. He held a notice in his hand demanding\nof a laborer the enormous sum of 10s. per week for house and ground. He\nhad seen other notices in which 6s, 8d. and 5s. had been demanded for\nthe same. He did not consider that the parties issuing those notices had\nacted with prudence.\n\nMr. HYSLOP explained--He admitted the charge, but said that the sum was\nnever intended to be exacted.\n\nSir LIONEL said he was aware of what was going on; he had heard of it.\n\"It was a policy which ought no longer to be pursued.\"\n\nWe have given the foregoing documents, full and ungarbled, that our\nreaders might fairly judge for themselves. We have not picked here a\nsentence and there a sentence, but let the Governor, the Assembly, the\nMissionaries, and the press tell their whole story. Let them be read,\ncompared, and weighed.\n\nWe might indefinitely prolong our extracts from the West India papers to\nshow, not only in regard to the important island of Jamaica, but\nBarbados and several other colonies, that the former masters are alone\nguilty of the non-working of the emancipated, so far as they refuse to\nwork. But we think we have already produced proof enough to establish\nthe following points:--\n\n1. That there was a strong predisposition on the part of the Jamaica\nplanters to defraud their labourers of their wages. They hoped that by\nyielding, before they were driven quite to the last extremity, by the\ntide of public sentiment in England, they should escape from all\nphilanthropic interference and surveillance, and be able to bring the\nfaces of their unyoked peasantry to the grindstone of inadequate wages.\n\n2. That the emancipated were not only peaceful in their new freedom, but\nready to grant an amnesty of all post abuses, and enter cheerfully into\nthe employ of their former masters for reasonable wages. That in cases\nwhere disagreement has arisen as to the rate of daily or weekly wages,\nthe labourers have been ready to engage in task work, to be paid by the\npiece, and have laboured so efficiently and profitably--proving a strong\ndisposition for industry and the acquisition of property.\n\n3. That in the face of this good disposition of the laborers, the\nplanters have, in many cases, refused to give adequate wages.\n\n4. That in still more numerous cases, including many in which the wages\nhave been apparently liberal, enormous extortion has been practiced upon\nthe laborer, in the form of rent demanded for his hovel and provision\npatch--\u00a320 per annum being demanded for a shanty not worth half that\nmoney, and rent being frequently demanded from _every member_ of a\nfamily more than should have been taken from the whole.\n\n5. That the negroes are able to look out for their own interest, and\nhave very distinct ideas of their own about the value of money and the\nworth of their labour, as well as the best methods of bringing their\nemployers to reasonable terms. On this point we might have made a still\nstronger case by quoting from the Despatch and Standard, which assert\nnumerous instances in which the labourers have refused to work for wages\nrecommended to them by the Governor, Special Magistrates, or\nMissionaries, though they offered to work for 3s. 4d., 5s., or a dollar\na day. They are shown to be rare bargain-makers and not easily trapped.\n\n6. That the attorneys and managers have deliberately endeavoured to\nraise a panic, whereby property might be depreciated to their own\nadvantage; showing clearly thereby, that they consider Jamaica property,\neven with the laborers, irreclaimably free, a desirable investment.\n\n7. That in spite of all their efforts, the great body of the laborers\ncontinue industrious, doing more work in the same time than in slavery.\n_The testimony to his very important point, of the Governor and House of\nAssembly, is perfectly conclusive_, as we have already said. A house\nthat represents the very men who, in 1832, burnt the missionary chapels,\nand defied the British Parliament with the threat, that in case it\nproceeded to legislate Abolition, Jamaica would attach herself to the\nUnited States, now HOPES for the agricultural prosperity of the island!\nIndeed no one in Jamaica expresses a doubt on this subject, who does not\nobviously do so _for the sake of buying land to better advantage_! Were\nthe colony a shade _worse_ off than before Emancipation, either in fact\nor in the opinion of its landholders, or of any considerable portion of\npersons acquainted with it, the inevitable consequence would be a\ndepreciation of _real estate_. But what is the fact? said Rev. John\nClark, a Jamaica Baptist Missionary, who has visited this country since\nthe first of August, in a letter published in the Journal of Commerce:--\n\n\"The Island of Jamaica is not in the deplorable state set forth by your\ncorrespondent.--Land is rising in value so rapidly, that what was\nbought five years ago at 3 dollars per acre, is now selling for 15\ndollars; and this in the interior of the Island, in a parish not\nreckoned the most healthy, and sixteen miles distant from the nearest\ntown. Crops are better than in the days of slavery--extra labour is\neasily obtained where kindness and justice are exercised towards the\npeople. The hopes of proprietors are great, and larger sums are being\noffered for estates than were offered previous to August, 1834, when\nestates, and negroes upon them, were disposed of together.\"\n\nAgain, as in Jamaica commerce rests wholly upon agriculture, _its_\ninstitutions can only flourish in a flourishing condition of the\nlatter.--What then are we to infer from an imposing prospectus which\nappears in the island papers, commencing thus:--\n\n   \"Kingston, October 26, 1838\n\n    Jamaica Marine, Fire, and Life Assurance Company.\n\n    Capital \u00a3100,000,\n\n    In 5000 shares of \u00a320 each.\n\n    It has been long a matter of astonishment that, in a community so\n    essentially mercantile as Jamaica, no Company should have been\n    formed for the purpose of effecting Insurance on Life and Property;\n    although it cannot be doubted for an instant, that not only would\n    such an establishment be highly useful to all classes of the\n    community, but that it must yield a handsome return to such persons\n    as may be inclined to invest their money in it,\" &c.\n\nFarther down in the prospectus we are told--\"It may here be stated,\nthat the scheme for the formation of this Company has been mentioned to\nsome of the principal Merchants and _Gentlemen of the Country_, and has\nmet with decidedly favourable notice: and it is expected that the\nshares, a large number of which have been already taken, will be rapidly\ndisposed of.\"\n\nThe same paper, the Morning Journal, from which we make this extract,\ninforms us: Nov. 2d--\n\n\"The shares subscribed for yesterday, in the Marine Fire and Life\nInsurance Company, we understand, amount to the almost unprecedented\nnumber of One Thousand Six Hundred, with a number of applicants whose\nnames have not been added to the list.\"\n\nThe Morning Journal of October 20th in remarking upon this project\nsays:--\n\n\"Jamaica is now happily a free country; she contains within herself the\nmeans of becoming prosperous. Let her sons develope those resources\nwhich Lord Belmore with so much truth declared never would be developed\n_until slavery had ceased_. She has her Banks.--Give her, in addition,\nher Loan Society, her Marine, Fire, and life Assurance Company, and some\nothers that will shortly be proposed, and capital will flow in from\nother countries--property will acquire a value in the market, that will\nincrease with the increase of wealth, and she will yet be a flourishing\nisland, and her inhabitants a happy and contented people.\"\n\nNow men desperately in debt _might_ invite in foreign capital for\ntemporary relief, but, since the _compensation_, this is understood not\nto be the case with the Jamaica planters; and if they are rushing into\nspeculation, it must be because they have strong _hope_ of the safety\nand prosperity of their country--in other words, because they confide in\nthe system of free labor. This one prospectus, coupled with its prompt\nsuccess, is sufficient to prove the falsehood of all the stories so\nindustriously retailed among us from the Standard and the Despatch. But\nspeculators and large capitalists are not the only men who confide in\nthe success of the \"great experiment.\"\n\nThe following editorial notice in the Morning Journal of a recent date\nspeaks volumes:--\n\nSAVINGS BANK.\n\n\"We were asked not many days ago how the Savings Bank in this City was\ngetting on. We answered well, very well indeed. By a notification\npublished in our paper of Saturday, it will be seen that \u00a31600 has been\nplaced in the hands of the Receiver-General. By the establishment of\nthese Banks, a great deal of the money now locked up, and which yields\nno return whatever to the possessors, and is liable to be stolen, will\nbe brought into circulation. This circumstance of itself ought to\noperate as a powerful inducement to those parishes in which no Banks are\nyet established to be up and doing. We have got some _five_ or _six_ of\nthem fairly underweigh, as Jack would say, and hope the remainder will\nspeedily trip their anchors and follow.\"\n\nWe believe banks were not known in the West Indies before the 1st of\nAugust 1834. Says the Spanishtown Telegraph of May 1st, 1837, \"_Banks,\nSteam-Companies, Rail-Roads, Charity Schools_, etc., seem all to have\nremained dormant until the time arrived when Jamaica was to be\n_enveloped in smoke_! No man thought of hazarding his capital in an\nextensive banking establishment until Jamaica's ruin, by the\nintroduction of freedom, had been accomplished!\" And it was not till\nafter the 1st of August, 1838, that Jamaica had either savings banks or\nsavings. These institutions for the industrious classes came only with\ntheir manhood. But why came they at all, if Emancipated industry is, or\nis likely to be, unsuccessful?--In Barbados we notice the same\nforwardness in founding monied institutions. A Bank is there proposed,\nwith a capital of \u00a3200,000. More than this, the all absorbing subject in\nall the West India papers at the present moment is that of the\n_currency_. Why such anxiety to provide the means of paying for labor\nwhich is to become valueless? Why such keenness for a good circulating\nmedium if they are to have nothing to sell? The complaints about the old\nfashioned coinage we venture to assort have since the first of August\noccupied five times as much space in the colonial papers, we might\nprobably say in each and every one of them, as those of the non-working\nof the freemen. The inference is irresistible. _The white colonists take\nit for granted that industry is to thrive_.\n\nIt may be proper to remark that the late refusal of the Jamaica\nlegislature to fulfil its appropriate functions has no connection with\nthe working of freedom, any further than it may have been a struggle to\nget rid in some measure of the surveillance of the mother country in\norder to coerce the labourer so far as possible by vagrant laws, &c. The\nimmediate pretext was the passing of a law by the imperial Parliament\nfor the regulation of prisons, which the House of Assembly declared a\nviolation of that principle of their charter which forbids the\nmother-country to lay a tax on them without their consent, in as much as\nit authorized a crown officer to impose a fine, in a certain case, of\n\u00a320. A large majority considered this an infringement of their\nprerogatives, and among them were some members who have nobly stood up\nfor the slave in times of danger. The remarks of Mr. Osborn especially,\non this subject, (he is the full blooded, slave-born, African man to\nwhom we have already referred) are worthy of consideration in several\npoints of view. Although he had always been a staunch advocate of the\nhome government on the floor of the Assembly are now contended for the\nrights of the Jamaica legislature with arguments which to us republicans\nare certainly quite forcible. In a speech of some length, which appears\nvery creditable to him throughout, he said--\n\n\"Government could not be acting fair towards them to assume that the\nmass of the people of this island would remain in the state of political\nindifference to which poverty and slavery had reduced them. They were\nnow free, every man to rise as rapidly as he could; and the day was not\nvery distant when it would be demonstrated by the change of\nrepresentatives that would be seen in that house. It did appear to him,\nthat under the pretext of extending the privileges of freemen to the\nmass of the people of this country, the government was about to deprive\nthem of those privileges, by curtailing the power of the representative\nAssembly of those very people. He could not bring himself to admit, with\nany regard for truth, that the late apprentices could now be oppressed;\nthey were quite alive to their own interests, and were now capable of\ntaking care of themselves. So long as labor was marketable, so long they\ncould resist oppression, while on the other hand, the proprietor, for\nhis own interest's sake, would be compelled to deal fairly with them.\"\n\nThough it is evidently all important that the same public opinion which\nhas wrested the whip from the master should continue to watch his\nproceedings as an employer of freemen, there is much truth in the speech\nof this black representative and alderman of Kingston. The brutalized\nand reckless attorneys and managers, _may_ possibly succeed in driving\nthe negroes from the estates by exorbitant rent and low wages. They\n_may_ succeed in their effort to buy in property at half its value. But\nwhen they have effected that, they will be totally dependent for the\nprofits of their ill-gotten gains upon the _free laboring people_. They\nmay produce what they call idleness now, and a great deal of vexation\nand suffering. But land is plenty, and the laborers, if thrust from the\nestates, will take it up, and become still more independent. Reasonable\nwages they will be able to command, and for such they are willing to\nlabor. The few thousand whites of Jamaica will never be able to\nestablish slavery, or any thing like it, over its 300,000 blacks.\n\nAlready they are fain to swallow their prejudice against color. Mr.\nJordon, member for Kingston and \"free nigger,\" was listened to with\nrespect. Nay more, his argument was copied into the \"Protest\" which the\nlegislature proudly flung back in the face of Parliament, along with the\nabolition of the apprenticeship, in return for Lord Glenelg's Bill. Let\nall in the United States read and ponder it who assert that \"the two\nraces cannot live together on term of equality.\"\n\nLegislative independence of Jamaica has ever been the pride of her\nEnglish conquerors. They have received with joy the colored fellow\ncolonists into an equal participation of their valued liberty, and they\nwere prepared to rejoice at the extension of the constitution to the\nemancipated blacks. But the British Government, by a great fault, if not\na crime, has, at the moment when all should have been free, torn from\nthe lately ascendant class, the privileges which were their birthright,\nanother class, now the equals of the former, the rights they had long\nand fortunately struggled for, and from the emancipated blacks the\nrights which they fondly expected to enjoy with their personal freedom.\nThe boon of earlier freedom will not compensate this most numerous part\nof our population for the injustice and wrong done to the whole\nJamaica people.\n\nThe documents already adduced are confined almost exclusively to\nJamaica. We will refer briefly to one of the other colonies. The next in\nimportance is\n\nBARBADOS\n\nHere has been played nearly the same game in regard to wages, and with\nthe same results. We are now furnished with advices from the island down\nto the 19th of December 1838. At the latter date the panic making papers\nhad tapered down their complainings to a very faint whisper, and withal\nexpressing more hope than fears. As the fruit of what they had already\ndone we are told by one of them, _the Barbadian_, that the unfavourable\nnews carried home by the packets after the emancipation had served to\nraise the price of sugar in England, which object being accomplished, it\nis hoped that they will intermit the manufacture of such news. The first\nand most important document, and indeed of itself sufficient to save the\ntrouble of giving more, is the comparison of crime during two and a half\nmonths of freedom, and the corresponding two and a half months of\nslavery or apprenticeship last year, submitted to the legislature at the\nopening of its session in the latter part of October. Here it is. We\nhope it will be held up before every slave holder.\n\nFrom the Barbadian of Dec. 1.\n\nBarbados.--Comparative Table, exhibiting the number of Complaints\npreferred against the Apprentice population of this Colony, in the\nmonths of August, September and to the 15th of October, 1838; together\nwith the Complaints charged against Free Labourers of the same Colony,\nduring the months of August, September and to the 15th of October, 1838.\nThe former compiled from the Monthly Journals of the Special Justice of\nthe Peace and the latter from the Returns of the Local Magistracy\ntransmitted to his excellency the Governor\n\n    APPRENTICESHIP.\n\n    Total of Complaints vs. Apprentices from the\n    1st to 31st August 1837.                  1708\n    Ditto from the 1st to 30th September      1464\n    Ditto from the 1st to 15th October         574\n\n    Grand Total                               3746\n\n    Total number of Apprentices punished from the\n    1st to 31st August                        1608\n    Ditto from 1st to 31st September          1321\n    Ditto from the 1st to 15th October         561\n\n    Grand Total                               3490\n\n    Total compromised, admonished and dismissed\n    from 1st to 31st August                    105\n    Ditto from the 1st to 30th September       113\n    Ditto from 1st to 15th October              38\n\n    Total                                      256\n\n    Deficiency in compromised cases in 1837 comparatively\n    with those of 1838                         158\n\n    Grand Total                                414\n\n    FREEDOM.\n\n    Total of Complaints vs. Labourers from the\n    1st to the 31st August 1838                582\n    Ditto from the 1st to the 30th September   386\n    Ditto from the 1st to the 15th October     103\n\n    Total                                     1071\n\n    Comparative Surplus of Complaints in 1838 2675\n\n    Grand Total                               3746\n\n    Total of Laborers punished from the 1st to\n    the 31st August, 1838,                     334\n    Ditto from the 1st to 30th September       270\n    Ditto from the 1st to 15th October          53\n\n    Total                                      657\n\n    Comparative surplus of punishment in 1837 2833\n\n    Grand total                               3490\n\n    Total compromised, admonished and dismissed\n    from the 1st to the 31st August            248\n    Ditto from the 1st to 30th September       116\n    Ditto from the 1st to 15th October          50\n\n    Grand Total                                414\n\n\n    NOTE.\n\n    It may be proper to remark that the accompanying General Abstract\n    for August, September, and to the 15th October, 1837, does not\n    include complaints preferred and heard before the Local Magistrates\n    during those months for such offences--viz. for misdemeanors, petty\n    debts, assaults and petty thefts--as were not cognizable by the\n    Special Justices; so that estimating these offences--the number of\n    which does not appear in the Abstract for 1837--at a similar number\n    as that enumerated in the Abstract for 1838, the actual relative\n    difference of punishments between the two and a half months in 1837\n    and these in 1838, would thus appear:\n\n\n    Surplus of Apprentices punished in 1837, as\n    above                                          2833\n\n    Offences in August, September, and to the\n    15th, October, 1837 heard before the General\n    Justices of the Peace, and estimated as follows:\n\n    Petty thefts                                75\n    Assaults                                   143\n    Misdemeanors                                98\n    Petty Debts                                 19--835\n\n    Actual surplus of punishment in 1837,     3168\n\n\nFrom the Journal of Commerce.\n\n_Letter from W.R. Hays, Esq. Barbados, W.I. to Rev. H.G. Ludlow, of New\nHaven_.\n\n    BARBADOS, Dec. 26, 1838.\n\n    I gave you in my last, some account of the manner in which the first\n    day of emancipation came and went in this island. We very soon\n    afterwards received similar accounts from all the neighboring\n    islands. In all of them the day was celebrated as an occasion \"of\n    devout thanksgiving and praise to God, for the happy termination of\n    slavery.\" In all of them, the change took place in a manner highly\n    creditable to the emancipated, and intensely gratifying to the\n    friends of liberty. The quiet, good order, and solemnity of the day,\n    were every where remarkable. Indeed, is it not a fact worth\n    remembering, that whereas in former years, a single day's relaxation\n    from labor was met by the slaves with shouting and revelry, and\n    merry-making, yet now, when the last link of slavery was broken\n    forever, sobriety and decorum were especially the order of the day.\n    The perfect order and subordination to the laws, which marked the\n    first day of August, are yet unbroken. We have now nearly five\n    months' experience of entire emancipation; and I venture to say,\n    that a period of more profound peace never existed in the West\n    Indies. There have been disputes about wages, as in New England and\n    in other free countries; but no concert, no combination even, here;\n    and the only attempt at a combination was among the planters, to\n    keep down wages--and that but for a short time only. I will not\n    enter particularly into the questions, whether or not the people\n    will continue to work for wages, whether they will remain quiet,--or\n    on the other hand, whether the Island will be suffered to become\n    desolate, and the freed slaves relapse into barbarism, &c. These\n    things have been speculated about, and gloomy predictions have had\n    their day; the time has now come for the proof. People do not buy\n    land and houses, and rent property for long terms of years, in\n    countries where life is insecure, or where labor cannot be had, and\n    the tendency of things is to ruin and decay. In short, men, in their\n    senses, do not embark on board a sinking ship. Confidence is the\n    very soul of prosperity; of the existence of this confidence in this\n    Island, the immense operations in real estate, since the first of\n    August, are abundant proof. There are multitudes of instances in\n    which estates have sold for $20,000 _more_ than was asked for them\n    six months ago; and yet at the time they were considered very\n    high. A proprietor who was persuaded a few weeks since to part with\n    his estate for a very large sum of money, went and bought _it back\n    again_ at an _advance_ of $9600. A great many long leases of\n    property have been entered into. An estate called \"Edgecombe,\"\n    mentioned by Thome and Kimball, has been rented for 21 years at\n    $7500 per annum. Another called the \"hope\" has been rented for 10\n    years at \u00a32000 sterling, equal to $9600 per annum. Another, after\n    being rented at a high price, was relet, by the lessee, who became\n    entirely absolved from the contract, and took $16,000 for his\n    bargain. If required, I could give you a host of similar cases, with\n    the names of the parties. But it seems unnecessary. The mere impulse\n    given to the value of property in this island by emancipation, is a\n    thing as notorious _here_, as the _fact_ of emancipation.\n\n    But, are not crimes more frequent than before? I have now before me\n    a Barbados newspaper, printed two weeks since, in which the fact is\n    stated, that in _all_ the county prisons, among a population of\n    80,000, only _two_ prisoners were confined for any cause whatever!\n\n    \"But,\" says a believer in the necessity of Colonization, \"how will\n    you _get rid_ of the negroes?\" I answer by adverting to the\n    spectacle which is now witnessed in _all_ the Islands of the former\n    proprietors of slaves, now _employers_ of _free_ laborers, using\n    every endeavor to _prevent_ emigration. Trinidad, Demerara, and\n    Berbice, _want_ laborers. The former has passed a law to pay the\n    passage money of any laborer who comes to the Island, leaving him\n    free to choose him employment. Demerara and Berbize have sent\n    Emigration agents to this and other islands, to induce the laborers\n    to join those colonies, offering high wages, good treatment, &c. On\n    the other hand, Barbados, Grenada, St. Vincent, and all the old and\n    populous islands, individually and collectively, by legislative\n    resolves, legal enactments, &c. &c.--loudly protest that they have\n    _not a man to spare_! What is still better, the old island\n    proprietors are on every hand building new houses for the peasantry,\n    and with great forethought adding to their comfort; knowing that\n    they will thereby secure their contentment on their native soil. As\n    a pleasing instance of the good understanding which now exists\n    between proprietors and laborers, I will mention, that great numbers\n    of the former were in town on the 24th, buying up pork, hams, rice,\n    &c. as presents for their people on the ensuing Christmas; a day\n    which has this year passed by amid scenes of quiet Sabbath\n    devotions, a striking contrast to the tumult and drunkenness of\n    former times. I cannot close this subject, without beating my\n    testimony to the correctness of the statements made by our\n    countrymen, Thome and Kimball. They were highly esteemed here by all\n    classes, and had free access to every source of valuable\n    information. If they have not done justice to the subject of their\n    book, it is because the manifold blessings of a deliverance from\n    slavery are beyond the powers of language to represent. When I\n    attempt, as I have done in this letter, to enumerate a few of the, I\n    know not where to begin, or where to end. One must _see_, in order\n    to know and feel how unspeakable a boon these islands have\n    received,--a boon, which is by no means confined to the emancipated\n    slaves; but, like the dew and rains of heaven, it fell upon all the\n    inhabitants of the land, bond and free, rich and poor, together.\n\n    It is a common thing here, when you hear one speak of the benefits\n    of emancipation--the remark--that it ought to have taken place long\n    ago. Some say fifty years ago, some twenty, and some, that at any\n    rate it ought to have taken place all at once, without any\n    apprenticeship. The noon-day sun is not clearer than the fact, that\n    no preparation was required on the part of the slaves. It was the\n    dictate of an accusing conscience, that foretold of bloodshed, and\n    burning, and devastation. Can it be supposed to be an accidental\n    circumstance, that peace and good-will have _uniformly_, in _all_\n    the colonies, followed the steps of emancipation. Is it not rather\n    the broad seal of attestation to that heaven born principle, \"It is\n    safe to do right.\" Dear brother, if you or any other friend to down\n    trodden humanity, have any lingering fear that the blaze of light\n    which is now going forth from the islands will ever be quenched,\n    even for a moment, dismiss that fear. The light, instead of growing\n    dim, will continue to brighten. Your prayers for the safe and happy\n    introduction of freedom, upon a soil long trodden by the foot of\n    slavery, may be turned into praises--for the event has come to pass.\n    When shall we be able to rejoice in such a consummation in our\n    beloved America? How I long to see a deputation of slaveholders\n    making the tour of these islands. It would only be necessary for\n    them to use their eyes and ears. Argument would be quite out of\n    place. Even an appeal to principle--to compassion--to the fear of\n    God--would not be needed. Self-interest alone would decide them in\n    favor of immediate emancipation.\n\n    Ever yours,\n\n    W.R. HAYES.\n\nDEMERARA.\n\nSPEECH OF THE GOVERNOR, ON OPENING THE SESSION OF THE COURT OF POLICY,\nSEPT. 17, 1838.\n\nFrom the Guiana Royal Gazette.\n\n    \"I should fail in my duty to the public, and perhaps no respond to\n    the expectations of yourselves, Gentlemen of the Colonial Section of\n    this Honorable Court, did I not say a few words on the state of the\n    Colony, at this our first meeting after the memorable first\n    of August.\n\n    We are now approaching the close of the second month since that\n    date--a sufficient time to enable us to judge of the good\n    disposition of the new race of Freemen, but not perhaps of the\n    prosperity of the Colony. It is a proud thing for the\n    Colonist--Proprietors and Employers--that nothing has occurred to\n    indicate a want of good feeling in the great body of the laborers.\n    It is creditable to them, satisfactory to their employers, and\n    confounding to those who anticipated a contrary state of affairs.\n\n    That partial changes of location should have taken place, cannot\n    surprise any reasonable mind--that men who have all their lives been\n    subject to compulsory labor should, on having this labor left to\n    their discretion, be disposed at first to relax, and, in some\n    instances, totally abstain from it, was equally to be expected. But\n    we have no reason to despond, nor to imagine that, because such has\n    occurred in some districts, it will continue.\n\n    It is sufficient that the ignorant have been undeceived in their\n    exaggerated notions of their rights as Freemen: it was the first\n    step towards resumption of labor in every part of the Colony. The\n    patient forbearance of the Employers has produced great changes. If\n    some Estates have been disappointed in the amount of labor\n    performed, others again, and I have reason to believe a great\n    number, are doing well. It is well known that the Peasantry have not\n    taken to a wandering life: they are not lost to the cultivated parts\n    of the Colony: for the reports hitherto received from the\n    Superintendents of Rivers and Creeks make no mention of an augmented\n    population in the distant parts of their respective districts.\n\n    I hear of few commitments, except in this town, where, of course,\n    many of the idle have flocked from the country. On the East Coast,\n    there has been only one case brought before the High Sheriff's Court\n    since the 1st of August. In the last Circuit, not one!\n\n    With these facts before us, we may, I trust, anticipate the\n    continued prosperity of the Colony; and though it be possible there\n    may be a diminution in the exports of the staple commodities in this\n    and the succeeding quarter, yet we must take into consideration that\n    the season had been unfavorable, in some districts, previous to the\n    1st August, therefore a larger proportion of the crops remained\n    uncut; and we may ask, whether a continuance of compulsory labor\n    would have produced a more favorable result? Our united efforts\n    will, I trust, not be wanting to base individual prosperity on the\n    welfare of all.\"\n\nThe Governor of Demerara is HENRY LIGHT, Esq., a gentlemen who seems\nstrongly inclined to court the old slavery party and determined to shew\nhis want of affinity to the abolitionists. In another speech delivered\non a similar occasion, he says:\n\n\"Many of the new freemen may still be said to be in their infancy of\nfreedom, and like children are wayward. On _many of the estates_ they\nhave repaid the kindness and forbearance of their masters; on others\nthey have continued to take advantage of (what? the kindness and\nforbearance of their masters? No.) their new condition, are idle or\nirregular in their work. The good sense of the mass gives me reason to\nhope that idleness will be the exception, not the rule.\"\n\nThe Barbadian of NOV. 28, remarks, that of six districts in Demerara\nwhose condition had been reported, _five_ were working favorably. In the\nsixth the laborers were standing out for higher wages.\n\nTRINIDAD.\n\nIn the _Jamaica Morning Journal_ of Oct. 2d and 15th, we find the\nfollowing paragraphs in relation to this colony:\n\n\"Trinidad.--The reports from the various districts as to the conduct of\nour laboring population, are as various and opposite, the Standard says,\nto each other as it is possible for them to be. There are many of the\nEstates on which the laborers had at first gone on steadily to work\nwhich now have scarcely a hand upon them, whilst upon others they muster\na greater force than they could before command. We hear also that the\npeople have already in many instances exhibited that propensity common\nto the habits of common life, which we call squatting, and to which we\nhave always looked forward as one of the evils likely to accompany their\nemancipation, and calling for the earliest and most serious attention of\nour Legislature. We must confess, however, that it is a subject not easy\nto deal with safely and effectually.\"\n\nTRINIDAD,--The Standard says: \"The state of the cultivation at present\nis said to be as far advanced as could have been anticipated under the\nnew circumstances in which the Island stands. The weather throughout the\nmonth has been more than usually favorable to weeding, whilst there has\nalso been sufficient rain to bring out the plants; and many planters\nhaving, before the 1st of Augus, pushed on their weeding by free labor\nand (paid) extra tasks, the derangement in their customary labor which\nhas been experienced since that period, does not leave them much below\nan average progress.\"\n\n\"Of the laborers, although they are far from being settled, we believe\nwe may say, that they are not working badly; indeed, compared with those\nof the sister colonies, they are both more industrious and more disposed\nto be on good terms with their late masters. Some few estates continue\nshort of their usual compliment of hands; but many of the laborers who\nhad left the proprietors, have returned to them, whilst many others have\nchanged their locality either to join their relations, or to return to\ntheir haunts of former days. So far as we can learn, nothing like\ninsubordination or combination exists. We are also happy to say, that on\nsome estates, the laborers have turned their attention to their\nprovision grounds. There is one point, however, which few seem to\ncomprehend, which is, that although free, they cannot work one day and\nbe idle the next, _ad libitum_.\"\n\nLater accounts mention that some thousands more of laborers were wanted\nto take off the crop, and that a committee of immigration had been\nappointed to obtain them. [See Amos Townsend's letter on the last page.]\nSo it seems the free laborers are so good they want more of them. The\nsame is notoriously true of Demerara, and Berbice. Instead of a\ncolonization spirit to get rid of the free blacks, the quarrel among the\ncolonies is, which shall get the most. It is no wonder that the poor\nnegroes in Trinidad should betake themselves to squatting. The island is\nthinly peopled and the administration or justice is horribly corrupt,\nunder the governorship and judgeship of Sir George Hill, the well known\ndefaulter as Vice Treasurer of Ireland, on whose appointment Mr.\nO'Connell remarked that \"delinquents might excuse themselves by\nreferring to the case of their judge.\"\n\nGRENADA.\n\n\"GRENADA--The Gazette expresses its gratification at being able to\nrecord, that the accounts which have been received from several parts of\nthe country, are of a satisfactory nature. On many of the properties the\npeasantry have, during the week, evinced a disposition to resume their\nseveral accustomed avocations, at the rates, and on the terms proposed\nby the directors of the respective estates, to which they were formerly\nbelonging; and very little desire to change their residence has been\nmanifested. One of our correspondents writes, that 'already, by a\nconciliatory method, and holding out the stimulus of extra pay, in\nproportion to the quantity of work performed beyond that allowed to\nthem, he had, 'succeeded in obtaining, for three days, double the former\naverage of work, rendered by the labors during the days of slavery; and\nthis, too, by four o'clock, at which hour it seems, they are now wishful\nof ceasing to work, and to enable them to do so, they work continuously\nfrom the time they return from their breakfast.'\"\n\n\"It is one decided opinion, the paper named says, that in a very short\ntime the cultivation of the cane still be generally resumed, and all\nthings continue to progress to the mutual satisfaction of both employer\nand laborer. We shall feel indebted to our friends for such information,\nas it may be in their power to afford us on this important subject, as\nit will tend to their advantage equally with that of their laborers,\nfrom the same being made public. We would wish also that permission be\ngiven as to mention the names of the properties on which matters have\nassumed a favorable aspect.\"\n\n_Jamaica Morning Journal of Oct. 2_.\n\nGRENADA.--According to the _Free Press_, it would appear that 'the\nproprietors and managers of several estates in Duquesne Valley, and\nelsewhere, their patience being worn out, and seeing the cultivation of\ntheir estates going to ruin, determined to put the law into operation,\nby compelling, after allowing twenty-three or twenty-four days of\nidleness, the people either to work or to leave the estates. They\nresisted; the aid of the magistrates and of the constabulary force was\ncalled in, but without effect, and actual violence was, we learn, used\ntowards those who came to enforce the law. Advices were immediately sent\ndown to the Executive, despatched by a gentleman of the Troop, who\nreached town about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning last. We\nbelieve a Privy Council was summoned, and during the day, Capt. Clarke\nof the 1st West-India Regiment, and Government Secretary, Lieut. Mould\nof the Royal Engineers, and Lieut. Costabodie of the 70th, together with\ntwenty men of the 70th, and 20 of the 1st West India, embarked, to be\nconveyed by water to the scene of insubordination.'\n\n\"'We have not learnt the reception this force met with, from the\nlaborers, but the results of the visit paid them were, that yesterday,\nthere were at work, on four estates, none: on eleven others, 287 in all,\nand on another all except three, who are in the hands of the\nmagistrates. On one of the above properties, the great gang was, on\nFriday last, represented in the cane-piece by one old woman!'\"\n\n\"'The presence of the soldiers has had, it will be seen, some effect,\nyet still the prospects are far from encouraging; a system of stock\nplundering, &c. is prevalent to a fearful degree, some gentlemen and the\nindustrious laborers having had their fowls, &c. entirely carried off by\nthe worthless criminals; it is consolatory, however, to be able to quote\nthe following written, to us by a gentleman: \"Although there are a good\nmany people on the different estates, still obstinate and resisting\neither to work or to leave the properties, yet I hope that if the\nmilitary are posted at Samaritan for some time longer, they will come\nround, several of the very obstinate having done so already.\" Two\nnegroes were sent down to goal on Monday last, to have their trial for\nassaulting the magistrates.'\"\n\n\"'Such are the facts, as far as we have been able to ascertain them,\nwhich have attended a rebellious demonstration among a portion of the\nlaboring population, calculated to excite well-founded apprehension in\nthe whole community. Had earlier preventive measures been adopted, this\nopen manifestation of a spirit of resistance to, and defiance of the\nlaw, might have been avoided. On this point, we have, in contempt of the\ntime-serving reflections it has drawn upon us, freely and fearlessly\nexpressed our opinion, and we shall now only remark, that matters having\ncome to the pass we have stated, the Executive has adopted the only\neffective means to bring affairs again to a healthy state; fortunate is\nit for the colony, that this has been done, and we trust that the\neffects will be most beneficial.'\"\n\nTOBAGO.\n\nThe following testifies well for the ability of the emancipated to take\ncare of themselves.\n\n\"'Tobago.--The Gazette of this Island informs us that up to the period\nof its going to press, the accounts from the country, as to the\ndisinclination of the laborers to turn out to work are much the same as\nwe have given of last week. Early this morning parties of them were seen\npassing through town in various directions, accompanied by their\nchildren, and carrying along with them their ground provisions, stock,\n&c. indicating a change of location. Whilst on many estates where\nperemptory demands have been made that work be resumed, or the laborers\nshould leave the estate, downright refusal to do either the one or the\nother has been the reply; and that reply has been accompanied by threat\nand menace of personal violence against any attempts to turn them out of\ntheir houses and grounds. In the transition of the laborers from a state\nof bondage to freedom, much that in their manners and deportment would\nhave brought them summarily under the coercion of the stipendiary\nmagistrate, formerly, may now be practised with impunity; and the fear\nis lest that nice discrimination betwixt restraints just terminated and\nrights newly acquired, will not be clouded for some time, even in the\nminds of the authorities, before whom laborers are likely to be brought\nfor their transgression. Thus, although it may appear like an alarming\nconfederacy, the system of sending delegates, or head men, around the\nestates, which the laborers have adopted, as advisers, or agents, to\npromote general unanimity; it must be borne in mind that this is\nperfectly justifiable; and it is only where actual violence has been\nthreatened by those delegates against those who choose to work at under\nwages, that the authorities can merely assure them of their protection\nfrom violence.'--_Morning Jour., Oct. 2._\"\n\nThe _Barbadian_ of November 21, says, \"An agricultural report has been\nlately made of the windward district of the Island, which is favorable\nas to the general working of the negroes.\" The same paper of November\n28, says, \"It is satisfactory to learn that _many_ laborers in Tobago\nare engaging more readily in agricultural operations.\"\n\nST. VINCENT.\n\n\"Saint Vincent.--Our intelligence this week, observes the Gazette of\n25th August, from the country districts, is considerably more favorable\nthan for the previous fortnight. In most of the leeward quarter, the\npeople have, more or less, returned to work, with the exception of very\nfew estates, which we decline naming, as we trust that on these also\nthey will resume their labor in a few days. The same may be said\ngenerally of the properties in St. George's parish; and in the more\nextensive district of Charlotte, there is every prospect that the same\nexample will be followed next week particularly in the Caraib country,\nwhere a few laborers on some properties have been at work during the\npresent week, and the explanation and advice given them by Mr. Special\nJustice Ross has been attended with the best effect, and we doubt not\nwill so continue. In the Biabou quarter the laborers have resumed work\nin greater numbers than in other parts of the parish, and the exceptions\nin this, as in ether districts, we hope will continue but a short time.\"\n\nThe Barbadian of November 21, speaks of a \"megass house\" set on fire in\nthis island which the peasantry refused to extinguish, and adds that but\nhalf work is performed by the laborer in that parish. \"Those of the\nadjoining parish,\" its says, \"are said to be working satisfactorily.\" In\na subsequent paper we notice a report from the Chief of Police to the\nLieutenant Governor, which speaks favorably of the general working of\nthe negroes, as far as he had been able to ascertain by inquiry into a\ndistrict comprising one-third of the laborers.\n\nThe New York Commercial Advertiser of February 25, has a communication\nfrom Amos Townsend, Esq., Cashier of the New Haven Bank; dated New\nHaven, February 21, 1839, from which we make the following extract. He\nsays he obtained his information from one of the most extensive shipping\nhouses in that city connected with the West India trade.\n\n    \"A Mr. Jackson, a planter from St. Vincents, has been in this city\n    within a few day, and says that the emancipation of the slaves on\n    that island works extremely well; and that his plantation produces\n    more and yields a larger profit than it has ever done before. The\n    emancipated slaves now do in eight hours what was before considered\n    a two-days' task, and he pays the laborers a dollar a day.\n\n    Mr. Jackson further states that he, and Mr. Nelson, of Trinidad,\n    with another gentleman from the same islands, have been to\n    Washington, and conferred with Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay, _to\n    endeavour to concert some plan to get colored laborers from this\n    country to emigrate to these islands, as there is a great want of\n    hands._ They offer one dollar a day for able bodied hands. The\n    gentlemen at Washington were pleased with the idea of thus disposing\n    of the free blacks at the South, and would encourage their efforts\n    to induce that class of the colored people to emigrate. Mr. Calhoun\n    remarked that it was the most feasible plan of colonizing the free\n    blacks that had ever been suggested.\n\n    This is the amount of my information, and comes in so direct a\n    channel as leaves no room to doubt its correctness. What our\n    southern champions will now say to this direct testimony from their\n    brother planters of the West Indies, of the practicability and\n    safety of immediate emancipation, remains to be seen. Truly yours.\"\n    AMOS TOWNSEND, JUN.\n\nST. LUCIA.\n\nSaint Lucia.--The Palladium states that affairs are becoming worse every\nday with the planters. Their properties are left without labourers to\nwork them; their buildings broken into, stores and produce stolen,\nground provisions destroyed, stock robbed, and they themselves insulted\nand laughed at.\n\nOn Saturday night, the Commissary of Police arrived in town from the\nthird and fourth districts, with some twenty or thirty prisoners, who\nhad been convicted before the Chief Justice of having assaulted the\npolice in the execution of their duty, and sent to gaol.\n\n\"It has been deemed necessary to call for military aid with a view of\nhumbling the high and extravagant ideas entertained by the\nex-apprentices upon the independence of their present condition;\nthirty-six men of the first West India regiment, and twelve of the\nseventy-fourth have been accordingly despatched; the detachment embarked\nyesterday on board Mr. Muter's schooner, the Louisa, to land at\nSoufriere, and march into the interior.\"\n\nIn both the above cases where the military was called out, the\nprovocation was given by the white. And in both cases it was afterwards\ngranted to be needless. Indeed, in the quelling of one of these\nfactitious rebellions, the prisoners taken were two white men, and one\nof them a manager.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTHE\nCHATTEL PRINCIPLE\n\nTHE ABHORRENCE OF\nJESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES;\nOR\nNO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY\n\nIN\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nNEW YORK\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.\nNO. 143 NASSAU STREET.\n1839\n\n_Please read and circulate._\n\nThe\n\nNEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\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 JEFFERSON,\nsupported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by the American\npeople, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration: \"We hold these\ntruths to be SELF-EVIDENT, _that all men are created equal; that they\nare endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among\nthese are life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness._\" And from the\ninmost heart of the multitudes around, and in a strong and clear voice,\nbroke forth the unanimous and decisive answer: Amen--such truths we do\nindeed hold to be self-evident. And animated and sustained by a\ndeclaration, so inspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the\nresult of agonizing efforts and dreadful sufferings, achieved under God\nthe independence 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_, must\nwe prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict \"the truths\"\nwhich He Himself, as their Creator, had made self-evident to mankind?\n\nIs Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, according to those\nlaws which make it what it is, is American slavery? In the Statute-Book\nof South Carolina thus it is written:[A] \"Slaves shall be deemed, sold,\ntaken, reputed and adjudged in law to be _chattels personal_ in the\nhands of their owners and possessors, and their executors,\nadministrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes\nwhatever.\" The very root of American slavery consists in the assumption,\nthat _law has reduced men to chattels_. But this assumption is, and must\nbe, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are separated from each other by\nthe Creator, immutably, eternally, and by an impassable gulf. To\nconfound or identify men and cattle must be to _lie_ most wantonly,\nimpudently, and maliciously. And must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not\nin favor of palpable, monstrous falsehood?\n\n[Footnote A: Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23.]\n\nIs Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? How can a system, built\nupon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth--a system of\ntreating men like cattle--operate? Thomas Jefferson shall answer. Hear\nhim.[B] \"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual\nexercise of the most boisterous passions; the most unremitting despotism\non the one part, and degrading submission on the other. The parent\nstorms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the\nsame airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives loose to his worst\npassions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, can\nnot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a\nprodigy, who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such\ncircumstances.\" Such is the practical operation of a system, which puts\nmen and cattle into the same family and treats them alike. And must we\nprove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of a school where the worst\nvices in their most hateful forms are systematically and efficiently\ntaught and practiced?\n\n[Footnote B: Notes on Virginia.]\n\nIs Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, in 1818, did the\nGeneral Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm respecting its nature\nand operation?[C] \"Slavery creates a paradox in the moral system--it\nexhibits rational, accountable, and immortal beings, in such\ncircumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of moral action. It\nexhibits them as dependent on the will of others, whether they shall\nreceive religious instruction; whether they shall know and worship the\ntrue God; whether they shall enjoy the ordinances of the gospel; whether\nthey shall perform the duties and cherish the endearments of husbands\nand wives, parents and children, neighbors and friends; whether they\nshall preserve their chastity and purity, or regard the dictates of\njustice and humanity. Such are some of the consequences of slavery;\nconsequences not imaginary, but which connect themselves with its very\nexistence. The evils to which the slave is _always_ exposed, _often take\nplace_ in their very worst degree and form; and where all of them do not\ntake place, still the slave is deprived of his natural rights, degraded\nas a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of\na master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and injuries which\ninhumanity and avarice may suggest.\" Must we prove, that Jesus Christ is\nnot in favor of such things?\n\n[Footnote C: Minutes of the General Assembly for 1818, p. 29.]\n\nIs Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? It is already widely felt\nand openly acknowledged at the South, that they can not support slavery\nwithout sustaining the opposition of universal christendom. And Thomas\nJefferson declared, that \"he trembled for his country when he reflected,\nthat God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever; that\nconsidering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the\nwheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events;\nthat it may become practicable by supernatural influences! The Almighty\nhas no attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest.\"[A] And\nmust we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of what universal\nchristendom is impelled to abhor, denounce, and oppose;--is not in favor\nof what every attribute of Almighty God is armed against?\n\n[Footnote A: Notes on Virginia]\n\n\"YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR.\"\n\nIt is no man of straw, with whom in making out such proof we are called\nto contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist! Would to God that\nour labor of love could be regarded as a work of supererogation! But we\nmay well be ashamed and grieved; to find it necessary to \"stop the\nmouths\" of grave and learned ecclesiastics, who from the heights of Zion\nhave undertaken to defend the institution of slavery. We speak not now\nof those, who amidst the monuments of oppression are engaged in the\nsacred vocation; who as ministers of the Gospel can \"prophesy smooth\nthings\" to such as pollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices;\nnay, who themselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That\n_they_ should put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips\nsomething in favor of slavery, is not to be wondered at. They consent to\nthe murder of the children; can they respect the rights of the Father?\nBut what shall we say of theological professors at the North--professors\nof sacred literature at our oldest divinity schools--who stand up to\ndefend, both by argument and authority, southern slavery! And from the\nBible! Who, Balaam-like, try a thousand expedients to force from the\nmouth of Jehovah a sentence which they know the heart of Jehovah abhors!\nSurely we have here something more mischievous and formidable than a man\nof straw. More than two years ago, and just before the meeting of the\nGeneral Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an article in the\nBiblical Repertory,[A] understood to be from the pen of the Professor of\nSacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is made to show, that\nslavery, whatever may be said of _any abuses_ of it, is _not a violation\nof the precepts of the Gospel_. This article, we are informed, was\nindustriously and extensively distributed among the members of the\nGeneral Assembly--a body of men, who by a frightful majority seemed\nalready too much disposed to wink at the horrors of slavery. The effect\nof the Princeton Apology on the southern mind, we have high authority\nfor saying, has been most decisive and injurious. It has contributed\ngreatly to turn the public eye off from the sin--from the inherent and\nnecessary _evils of slavery_ to incidental evils, which the _abuse_ of\nit might be expected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit,\nthat whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such\nthing is chargeable upon them! Thus our Princeton prophet has done what\nhe could to lay the southern conscience asleep upon ingenious\nperversions of the sacred volume!\n\n[Footnote A: For April, 1836. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian\nChurch met in the following May, at Pittsburgh, where, in pamphlet form,\nthis article was distributed. The following appeared upon the\ntitle page:\n\n           PITTSBURGH:\n              1836.\n_For gratuitous distribution_.\n]\n\nAbout a year after this, an effort in the same direction was jointly\nmade by Dr. Fisk and Prof. Stuart. In a letter to a Methodist clergyman,\nMr. Merritt, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives utterance to\nsuch things as the following:--\"But that you and the public may see and\n_feel_, that you have the ablest and those who are among the honestest\nmen of this age, arrayed against you, be pleased to notice the following\nletter from Prof. Stuart.\" I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity\nof purpose, 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 is\nthe relation expressed or implied between \"they\" (servants) and\n\"_believing masters_?\" And what are your reasons for the construction of\nthe passage?\n\n3. What was the character of ancient and eastern slavery?--Especially\nwhat (legal) power did this relation give the master over the slave?\n\nPROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY.\n\n    ANDOVER, 10th April, 1837.\n\n    REV. AND DEAR SIR,--Yours is before me. A sickness of three months'\n    standing (typhus fever,) in which I have just escaped death, and\n    which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me to\n    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,\"\n    so 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\n    once. He could not lawfully and properly temporize with a _malum in\n    se_, (\"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. Not\n    that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No; \"Love thy\n    neighbor as thyself,\" \"Do unto others that which ye would that\n    others should do unto you,\" decide against this. But the relation\n    once constituted and continued, is not such a _malum in se_ as calls\n    for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did\n    not 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\n    treat of.\n\n    3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin\n    antiquities, that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more\n    unqualified and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves\n    were _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\n    been 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 too,\n    that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth; for\n    it is fundamentally a doctrine of _true liberty and equality_. Yet\n    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\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. Respectfully yours,\n\n    W. FISK\n\n\"SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP.\"\n\nWhat are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations which\ngrew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted as a\nrelation, that did not violate the Christian faith; that the relation\nmay now in like manner exist; that \"the abuse of it is the essential and\nfundamental wrong;\" and, of course, that American Christians may hold\ntheir own brethren in slavery without incurring guilt or inflicting\ninjury. Thus according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus Christ has not a word to\nsay against \"the peculiar institutions\" of the South. If our brethren\nthere do not \"abuse\" the privilege of exacting unpaid labor, they may\nmultiply their slaves to their hearts' content, without exposing\nthemselves to the frown of the Savior or laying their Christian\ncharacter open to the least suspicion. Could any trafficker in human\nflesh ask for greater latitude? And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly\naid earnestly subscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention\nof his brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to\nembrace. According to him, it is \"_Bible doctrine_,\" showing, that \"the\nabolitionists are on a wrong course,\" and must, \"if they would succeed,\ntake a different position.\"\n\nWe now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting to\nprove that Jeans Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we contend\nwith something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task, which a\nparticular examination of Prof. Stuart's letter lays upon us, we hope\nfairly to dispose of in due season.--Enough has now been said, to make\nit clear and certain, that American slavery has its apologists and\nadvocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and apologists, who fall\nbehind few if any of their brethren in the reputation they have\nacquired, the stations they occupy, and the general influence they are\nsupposed to exert.\n\nIs it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its worst\nform, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves, they\nmust have done so in open and flagrant violation of the letter and the\nspirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of this may\nwell resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument entitled \"The Bible\nagainst Slavery.\" If, after a careful and thorough examination of that\narticle, he can believe that slaveholding prevailed during the ministry\nof Jesus Christ among the Jews and in accordance with the authority of\nMoses, he would do the reading public an important service to record the\ngrounds of his belief--especially in a fair and full refutation of that\nArgument. Till that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting\nto prove 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 the 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 law\nwhich their office and their profession required them to honor and\nenforce, without exposing and condemning it.\n\nIn its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole world,\nnot excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as Stuart,\nHodge, and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term \"_worst_\"\ncould be applied only to \"_abuses_\" of this innocent relation. Slavery\naccordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and disgraced by the\n\"worst abuses\" to which it is liable. These abuses in the ancient world,\nProf. Stuart describes as \"horrible cruelties.\" And in our own country,\nsuch abuses have grown so rank, as to lead a distinguished\neye-witness--no less a philosopher and statesman than Thomas\nJefferson--to say, that they had armed against us every attribute of the\nAlmighty. With these things the Savior every where came in contact,\namong the people to whose improvement and salvation he devoted his\nliving powers, and yet not a word, not a syllable, in exposure and\ncondemnation of such \"horrible cruelties,\" escaped his lips! He\nsaw--among the \"covenant people\" of Jehovah he saw, the babe plucked\nfrom the bosom of its mother; the wife torn from the embrace of her\nhusband; the daughter driven to the market by the scourge of her own\nfather;--he saw the word of God sealed up from those who, of all men,\nwere especially entitled to its enlightening, quickening\ninfluence;--nay, he saw men beaten for kneeling before the throne of\nheavenly mercy;--such things he saw without a word of admonition or\nreproof! No sympathy with them who suffered wrong--no indignation at\nthem who inflicted wrong, moved his heart!\n\nFrom the alledged 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; that\nis, he witnessed what Prof. Stuart ventures to call \"horrible\ncruelties.\" But what right have these interpreters of the sacred volume\nto regard any form of slavery which the Savior found, as \"worst,\" or\neven bad? According to their inference--which they would thrust gag-wise\ninto the mouths of abolitionists--his silence should seal up their lips.\nThey ought to hold their tongues. They have no right to call any form of\nslavery bad--an abuse; much less, horribly cruel! Their inference is\nbroad enough to protect the most brutal driver amidst his deadliest\ninflictions!\n\n\"THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; I AM NOT\nCOME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFILL.\"\n\nAnd did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind the\nprophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for suffering\nhumanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed, excited their\ncompassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the most pointed and\npowerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They could not endure the\ncreatures, who \"used their neighbors' service without wages, and gave\nhim not for his work;\"[A] who imposed \"heavy burdens\"[B] upon their\nfellows, and loaded them with \"the bands of wickedness;\" who, \"hiding\nthemselves from their own flesh,\" disowned their own mothers' children.\nProfessions of piety, joined with the oppression of the poor, they held\nup to universal scorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They\nwarned the creature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath\nof Jehovah only by heartfelt repentance. And yet, according to the\necclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets passed\nby in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to expose and\ndenounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in its worst\nforms--\"horrible cruelties\" forced themselves upon his notice; but not a\nword of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw \"a boy given for a\nharlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might drink,\"[C] without the\nslightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark of disapprobation! To such\ndisgusting and horrible conclusions, do the arguings which, from the\nhaunts of sacred literature, are inflictcd on our churches, lead us!\nAccording to them, Jesus Christ, instead of shining as the light of the\nworld, extinguished the torches which his own prophets had kindled, and\nplunged mankind into the palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O\nSavior, in pity to thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer\nused as a \"den of thieves!\"\n\n[Footnote A: Jeremiah xxii. 13.]\n\n[Footnote B: Isaiah lviii. 6,7.]\n\n[Footnote C: Joel iii. 3.]\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 came\nin contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been inconsistent with\nhimself. He was commissioned to preach glad tidings to the poor; to heal\nthe broken-hearted; to preach deliverance to the captives; to set at\nliberty them that are bruised; to preach the year of Jubilee. In\naccordance with this commission, he bound himself, from the earliest\ndate of his incarnation, to the poor, by the strongest ties; himself\n\"had not where to lay his head;\" he exposed himself to misrepresentation\nand abuse for his affectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society;\nhe stood up as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the\nheartless ecclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain;\nand in describing 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 wretched;\nto the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open. They had his\ntenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His heart's blood he\npoured out upon the ground for the human family, reduced to the deepest\ndegradation, and exposed to the heaviest inflictions, as the slaves of\nthe grand usurper. And yet, according to our ecclesiastics, that class\nof sufferers who had been reduced immeasurably below every other shape\nand form of degradation and distress; who had been most rudely thrust\nout of the family of Adam, and forced to herd with swine; who, without\nthe slightest offense, had been made the foot-stool of the worst\ncriminals; whose \"tears were their meat night and day,\" while, under\nnameless insults and killing injuries, they were continually crying, O\nLord, O Lord:--this class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical\nexpositors, occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make\nus believe the compassionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion of\npity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his\ngracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces damnation\nupon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster, whose trade it\nis to make widows and devour them and their babes, he can calmly endure!\nO Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such blasphemers!\n\nIT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH.\n\nIt seems, that though, according to our Princeton professor, \"the\nsubject\" of slavery \"is hardly alluded to by Christ in any of his\npersonal instructions[A],\" he had a way of \"treating it.\" What was that?\nWhy, \"he taught the true nature, DIGNITY, EQUALITY, and destiny of men,\"\nand \"inculcated the principles of justice and love.\"[B] And according to\nProfessor Stuart, the maxims which our Savior furnished, \"decide\nagainst\" \"the theory of slavery.\" All, then, that these ecclesiastical\napologists for slavery can make of the Savior's alledged silence is,\nthat he did not, in his personal instructions, \"_apply his own principles\nto this particular form of wickedness_.\" For wicked that must be, which\nthe maxims of the Savior decide against, and which our Princeton\nprofessor assures us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would\nspeedily extinguish[C]. How remarkable it is, that a teacher should\n\"hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions,\" and\nyet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing upon\nit!--should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that \"slaveholding\nis not a crime[D],\" and at the same time lend his authority for its\n\"speedy extinction!\"\n\n[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, (already alluded to,)p.9.]\n\n[Footnote B: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.9.]\n\n[Footnote C: The same, p.34.]\n\n[Footnote D: The same, p.13.]\n\nHigher authority than sustains _self-evident truths_ there can not be.\nAs forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah. Not only are\ntheir presence and power self-manifested, but they also shed a strong\nand clear light around them. In this light, other truths are visible.\nLuminaries themselves, it is their office to enlighten. To their\nauthority, in every department of thought, the sane mind bows promptly,\ngratefully, fully. And by their authority, he explains, proves, and\ndisposes of whatever engages his attention and engrosses his powers as a\nreasonable and reasoning creature. For what, when thus employed and when\nmost successful, is the utmost he can accomplish? Why, to make the\nconclusions which he would establish and commend, _clear in the light of\nreason_;--in other words, to evince that _they are reasonable_. He\nexpects, that those with whom he has to do, will acknowledge the\nauthority of principle--will see whatever is exhibited in the light of\nreason. If they require him to go further, and, in order to convince\nthem, to do something more that show that the doctrines he maintains,\nand the methods he proposes, are accordant with reason--are illustrated\nand supported by \"self-evident truths\"--they are plainly \"beside\nthemselves.\" They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be argued\nwith. They belong to the mad-house.\n\n\"COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD.\"\n\nAre we to honor the Bible, which Prof. Stuart quaintly calls \"the good\nold book,\" by turning away from \"self-evident truths\" to receive its\ninstructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied there? Do we\nsearch for something there to obscure their clearness, or break their\nforce, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find something there, in\nthe form of premises or conclusions, of arguing or of inference, in\nbroad statements or blind hints, creed-wise or fact-wise, which may set\nus free from the light and power of first principles? And what if we\nwere to discover what we were thus in search of?--something directly or\nindirectly, expressly or impliedly prejudicial to the principles, which\nreason, placing us under the authority of, makes self-evident? In what\nestimation, in that case, should we be constrained to hold the Bible?\nCould we longer honor it, as the book of God? _The book of God opposed\nto the authority of_ REASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of\nthe claims of the sacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of\nreason. _This every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on\nthe subject_. And what must reason do with a book, which reduced the\nauthority of its own principles--broke the force of self-evident truths?\nIs he not, 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 the\nBible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such piety\nprevail, 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 DESPOTISM,\nthere have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED _and good men_, who _honestly_\nbelieve it to be of all forms of government the best and most acceptable\nto God.\"[A] Now, these \"good men\" must have been thus warmly in favor of\ndespotism, in consequence of, or in opposition to, their being\n\"enlightened.\" In other words, the light, which in such abundance they\nenjoyed, conducted them to the position in favor of despotism, where the\nPrinceton professor so heartily shook hands with them, or they must have\nforced their way there in despite of its hallowed influence. Either in\naccordance with, or in resistance to the light, they became what he\nfound them--the advocates of despotism. If in resistance to the\nlight--and he says they were \"enlightened men\"--what, so far as the\nsubject with which alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their\n\"honesty\" and \"goodness?\" Good and honest resisters of the light, which\nwas freely poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's\n\"good old Book?\" Their authority, where \"general principles\" command the\nleast respect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the\nlight, they 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 which\nthey breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why did not\nthe Princeton professor place this \"general principle\" as a shield,\nheaven-wrought and reason-approved, over that cherished form of\ndespotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and leave the\n\"peculiar institutions\" he is so forward to defend, under its\nprotection?\n\n[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.12.]\n\nWhat is the \"general principle\" to which, whatever may become of\ndespotism with its \"honest\" admirers and \"enlightened\" supporters, human\ngovernments should be universally and carefully adjusted? Clearly\nthis--_that as capable of, man is entitled to, self-government_. And\nthis is a specific form of a still more general principle, which may\nwell be pronounced self-evident--_that every thing should be treated\naccording to its nature_. The mind that can doubt of this, must be\nincapable of rational conviction. Man, then,--it is the dictate of\nreason, it is the voice of Jehovah--must be treated _as a man_. What is\nhe? What are his distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own\nimage on him. In this were found the grand peculiarities of his\ncharacter. Here shone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here\nthe WILL puts forth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why\nsuch endowments? Thus furnished--the image of Jehovah--is he not capable\nof self-government? And is he not to be so treated? _Within the sphere\nwhere the laws of reason place him_, may he not act according to his\nchoice--carry out his own volitions?--may he not enjoy life, exult in\nfreedom and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If not, why was\nhe so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful attribute of will?\nTo be a source, profound as the depths of hell, of exquisite misery, of\nkeen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man formed \"according to the\nimage of Jehovah,\" to be crossed, thwarted, counteracted; to be forced\nin upon himself; to be the sport of endless contradictions; to be driven\nback and forth forever between mutually repellant forces; and all, all\n\"_at the discretion of another!\"_[A] How can men be treated according to\nhis nature, as endowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers\nand privileges 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?\" If\n\"thousands of enlightened and good men\" can so easily be found, who are\nforward to support \"despotism\" as \"of all governments the best and most\nacceptable to God,\" we need not wonder at the testimony of universal\nhistory, that \"the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain\ntogether until now.\" Groans and travail-pangs must continue to be the\norder of the day throughout \"the whole creation,\" till the rod of\ndespotism be broken, and man be treated as man--as capable of, and\nentitled to, self-government.\n\n[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.12]\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, and\ntransforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to things!\n\"Slaves,\" with Prof. Stuart, \"were _property_ in Greece and Rome. That\ndecides all questions about their _relation_.\" Yes, truly. And slaves in\nrepublican America are _property_; and as that easily, clearly, and\ndefinitely settles \"all questions about their _relation_,\" why should\nthe Princeton professor have put himself to the trouble of weaving a\ndefinition equally ingenious and inadequate--at once subtle and\ndeceitful? Ah, why? Was he willing thus to conceal the wrongs of his\nmother's children even from himself? If among the figments of his brain,\nhe could fashion slaves, and make them something else than property, he\nknew full well that a very different pattern was in use among the\nsouthern patriarchs. Why did he not, in plain words, and sober earnest,\nand good faith, describe the thing as it was, instead of employing\nhonied words and courtly phrases, to set forth with all becoming\nvagueness and ambiguity what might possibly be supposed to exist in the\nregions of fancy.\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 overlook\nthe unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our fellow-men with\nwhom we may be connected?--or the strong passions, vicious propensities,\nor criminal pursuit of others? Certainly not. But in providing for their\nwelfare, we are to exert influences and impose restraints suited to\ntheir character. In wielding those prerogatives which the social of our\nnature authorizes us to employ for their benefit, we are to regard them\nas they are in truth, not things, not cattle, not articles of\nmerchandize, but men, our fellow-men--reflecting, from however battered\nand broken a surface, reflecting with us the image of a common Father.\nAnd the great principle of self-government is to be the basis, to which\nthe whole structure of discipline under which they may be placed, should\nbe adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house and\nstate-prison, this principle is over and in all things to be before the\neyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart. Otherwise, God is\ninsulted, while his image is despised and abused. Yes, indeed, we\nremember that in carrying out the principle of self-government,\nmultiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out of wickedness on the\none hand and passion on the other. Such difficulties and obstacles we\nare far enough from overlooking. But where are they to be found? Are\nimbecility and wickedness, bad hearts and bad heads, confined to the\nbottom of society? Alas, the weakest of the weak, and the desperately\nwicked, often occupy the high places of the earth, reducing every thing\nwithin their reach to subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the\nvery power they have usurped, has often been the chief instrument of\nturning their heads, inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts.\nAll the world knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong\ntendency to make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous.\nAnd this, whether the vassals over whom they domineer, be few or many.\nIf you can not trust man with himself, will you put his fellows under\nhis control?--and flee from the inconveniences incident to\nself-government, to the horrors of despotism?\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, to\nbe intrusted with the discipline of the injured men whom he himself has\nreduced to cattle?--with the discipline by which they are to be prepared\nto wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of freemen? Alas, of such\ndiscipline as he can furnish, in the relation of owner to property, they\nhave had enough. From this sprang the vary ignorance and vice, which in\nthe view of many lie in the way of their immediate enfranchisement. He\nit is, who has darkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are\nthey to look to him for illumination and renewed vigor!--and expect\n\"grapes from thorns and figs from thistles!\" Heaven forbid! When,\naccording to arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he\nconsented to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims\nto the esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers\nthemselves, but also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder,\nhe became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war\nupon human man 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 whom\nhe 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, what\nhave our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have they not\nbeen constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of education?\n--training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas Jefferson shall\nanswer. \"The whole commerce between master and slave, is a perpetual\nexercise of the most boisterous passions; the most unremitting despotism\non the one part, and degrading submission on the other.\" Is this the way\nto fit the unprepared for the duties and privileges of American\ncitizens? Will the evils of the dreadful process be diminished by adding\nto it length? What, in 1818, was the unanimous testimony of the General\nAssembly of the Presbyterian church? Why, after describing a variety of\ninfluences growing out of slavery, most fatal to mental and moral\nimprovement, the General Assembly assure us, that such \"consequences are\nnot imaginary, but connect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE of\nslavery. The evils to which the slave is _always_ exposed, often take\nplace in fact, and IN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM[A]; and where all\nof them do not take place,\" \"still the slave is deprived of his natural\nright, degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing\ninto the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships\nand injuries, which inhumanity and avarice may suggest.\" Is this the\ncondition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least a\nlittle longer, to fit him to be restored to himself?\n\n[Footnote A: The words here marked as emphasis were so distinguished by\nourselves.]\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 wrath,\nforbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in the\nassurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they give\nus 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 speedy\nand deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant? Surely, not\nthat the methods which they employ are happy and worthy of universal\napplication. If so, why do they not take the praise, and give us the\nbenefit, of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who, that has nothing\nto hide, practices concealment?--\"He that doeth truth cometh to the\nlight, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in God.\" Is\nthis the way of slaveholders? Darkness they court--they will have\ndarkness. Doubtless \"because their deeds are evil.\" Can we confide in\nmethods for the benefit of our enslaved brethren, which it is death for\nus to examine? Whet good ever came, what good can we expect, from deeds\nof darkness?\n\nDid the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West\nIndies; to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily. All\nthe world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back the tide\nof blessings, which through emancipation was pouring in upon the\nfamishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in England now\nthoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification, can be a\nschool for freedom?\n\nWe say such things to the many who alledge, that slaves can not at once\nbe entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. However\nthis may be, they can not be better qualified under _the influence of\nslavery_. _That must be broken up_ from which their ignorance, and\nviciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which can only do what it\nhas always done, pollute and degrade, must not be employed to purify and\nelevate. _The lower their character and condition, the louder, clearer,\nsterner, the just demand for immediate emancipation_. The plague-smitten\nsufferer can derive no benefit from breathing a little longer an\ninfected atmosphere.\n\nIn thus referring to elemental principles--in thus availing ourselves of\nthe light of self-evident truths--we bow to the authority and tread in\nthe 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, as\nstanding in the presence of the Messiah. \"Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES,\" he\ndemands of them, \"judge ye not what is _right_?\"[A] How could they,\nunless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard _within them_,\nwhereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests they had\nto provide for, they might discriminate between truth and falsehood,\nright and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they ought to\neschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, it is clear\nand certain, that in human consciousness may be found self-evident\ntruths, self-manifested principles; that every man, studying his own\nconsciousness, is bound to recognize their presence and authority, and\nin sober earnest and good faith to apply them to the highest practical\nconcerns of \"life and godliness.\" It is in obedience to the Bible, that\nwe apply self-evident truths, and walk in the light of general\nprinciples. When our fathers proclaimed these truths, and at the hazard\nof their property, reputation, and life, stood up in their defense, they\ndid homage to the sacred Scriptures--they honored the Bible. In that\nvolume, not a syllable can be found to justify that form of infidelity,\nwhich in the abused name of piety, reproaches us for practicing the\nlessons which \"nature teacheth.\"[B] These lessons, the Bible requires us\nreverently to listen to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently\nand faithfully to act upon in every direction and on all occasions.\n\n[Footnote A: Luke xii. 67.]\n\n[Footnote B: 1 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. \"If\nany man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be\nof God, or whether I speak of myself.\"[C] Natural religion--the\nprinciples which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature\nteaches--he thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed\nreligion. So far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest\nand most piercing rays of reason--from calling off the attention of\nthose around him from the import, bearings, and practical application of\ngeneral principle. And those who would have us escape from the pressure\nof self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and\nprecepts of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do\nfoul dishonor to the Savior of mankind.\n\n[Footnote C: 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 would\nthat men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law\nand the prophets.\"\n\nAccording to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be\nfound, 1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circumstances\nof life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us. 2. The\njust application of this standard, is practicable for, and obligatory\nupon, every child of Adam. 3. The qualification requisite to a just\napplication of this rule to all the cases in which we can be concerned,\nis simply this--_to regard all the members of the human family as our\nbrethren, our equals_.\n\nIn other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles and\nlaws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations and\ncircumstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following this guide,\nbut the bias of _selfishness_; and that the moment, in deciding any\nmoral question, we place _ourselves in the room of our brother_, before\nthe bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought to be pronounced.\nDoes this, in the Savior, look like fleeing self-evident truths!--like\ndecrying the authority of general principles!--like exalting himself at\nthe expense of reason!--like opening a refuge in the Gospel for those\nwhose practice is at variance with the dictates of humanity!\n\nWhat then is the just application of the Golden Rule--that fundamental\nmaxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding light upon, all\nits precepts and arrangements--to the subject of slavery?--_that we must\n\"do to\" slaves as we would be done by_, AS SLAVES, _the_ RELATION\n_itself being justified and continued_? Surely not. A little reflection\nwill enable us to see, that the Golden Rule reaches farther in its\ndemands, and strikes deeper in its influences and operations. The\n_natural equality_ of mankind lies at the very basis of this great\nprecept. It obviously requires _every man to acknowledge another self in\nevery other man_. With my powers and resources, and in my appropriate\ncircumstances, I am to recognize in any child of Adam who may address\nme, another self in his appropriate circumstances and with his powers\nand resources. This is the natural equality of mankind; and this the\nGolden Rule requires us to admit, defend, and maintain.\n\n\"WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH; EVEN BECAUSE YE CAN NOT HEAR MY\nWORD.\"\n\nThey strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine, who\ncharge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which _any \"levelling\nsystem\"_ can not but produce. In all its bearings, tendencies, and\neffects, it is directly contrary and powerfully hostile to any such\nsystem. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine asserts; and this necessarily\nopens the way for _variety of condition_. In other words, every child of\nAdam has, from the Creator, the inalienable right of wielding, within\nreasonable limits, his own powers, and employing his own resources,\naccording to his own choice; while he respects his social relations, to\npromote as he will his own welfare. But mark--HIS OWN powers and\nresources, and NOT ANOTHER'S, are thus inalienably put under his\ncontrol. The Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to\nexert HIMSELF, and not _another_. Here no man may lawfully cripple or\nembarrass another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the\nstrong crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself; in his\nown proper 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 to\nhis own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less than\ninfinite. 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 of\ntheir nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While each is\ninalienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality as a man,\neach sustains to all and all to each, various relations. While each owns\nand honors the individual, all are to own and honor the social of their\nnature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly recognizes, lays its\nrequisitions upon, and extends its obligations to, the whole nature of\nman, in his individual capacities and social relations. What higher\nhonor could it do to man, as _an individual_, than to constitute him the\njudge, by whose decision, when fairly rendered, all the claims of his\nfellows should be authoritatively and definitely disposed of?\n\"Whatsoever YE WOULD\" have done to you, so do ye to others. Every member\nof the family of Adam, placing himself in the position here pointed out,\nis competent and authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in social\nlife in which he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or\ngreater confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are\ntheir _claims upon each other_ herein magnified! What inherent worth and\nsolid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every man\nwith whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of _another\nself_, whose case I am to make _my own_. And thus I am to dispose of\nwhatever claims he may urge upon me.\n\nThus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally brought,\nin the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to promote each\nother's welfare. As his contribution to this great object, it is the\ninalienable birth-right of every child of Adam, to consecrate whatever\nhe may possess. With exalted powers and large resources, he has a\nnatural claim to a correspondent field of effort. If his \"abilities\" are\nsmall, his task must be easy and his burden light. Thus the Golden Rule\nrequires mankind mutually to serve each other. In this service, each is\nto exert _himself_--employ _his own_ powers, lay out his own resources,\nimprove his own opportunities. A division of labor is the natural\nresult. One is remarkable for his intellectual endowments and\nacquisitions; another, for his wealth; and a third, for power and skill\nin using his muscles. Such attributes, endlessly varied and diversified,\nproceed from the basis of a _common character_, by virtue of which all\nmen and each--one as truly as another--are entitled, as a birth-right,\nto \"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\" Each and all, one as\nwell as another, may choose his own modes of contributing his share to\nthe general welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under\none great 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 with\nhis hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields the axe\nfor James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, and Caleb,\nemploy their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the service of the\ncommunity, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, in\nfurnishing them with food and raiment, and making them partakers of the\ngeneral prosperity. And all this by mutual understanding and voluntary\narrangement. And all this according to the Golden Rule.\n\nWhat then becomes of _slavery_--a system of arrangements, in which one\nman treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing--a\nchattel--an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in any\ndisposition which may be made of it;--a system which is built on the\nannihilation of the attributes of our common nature--in which man doth\nto others, what he would sooner die than have done to himself? The\nGolden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If one\nstands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of the\nother. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION ITSELF, in\nwhich slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every thing within the\nscope of _human action_. To \"whatever MEN DO,\" it extends its authority.\nAnd the relation itself, in which slavery consists, is the work of human\nhands. It is what men have done to each other--contrary to nature and\nmost injurious to the general welfare. THIS RELATION, therefore, the\nGolden Rule condemns. Wherever its authority prevails, this relation\nmust be annihilated. Mutual service and slavery--like light and\ndarkness, life and death--are directly opposed to, and subversive of,\neach other. The one the Golden Rule can not endure; the other it\nrequires, honors, and blesses.\n\n\"LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR.\"\n\nLike unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment--\"_Thou shalt\nlove thy neighbor as thyself_.\" \"A certain lawyer,\" who seems to have\nbeen fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human obligations,\nonce demanded of the Savior, within what limits the meshing of the word\n\"neighbor\" ought to be confined. \"And who is my neighbor?\" The parable\nof the good Samaritan set that matter in the clearest light, and made it\nmanifest and certain, that _every man_ whom we could reach with our\nsympathy and assistance, was our neighbor, entitled to the same regard\nwhich we cherished for ourselves. Consistently with such obligations,\ncan _slavery_, as a RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a _labor of\nlove_--such love as we cherish for ourselves--to strip a child of Adam\nof all the prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable\nbirth-right?--To obscure 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 dispose\nof him as a chattel--as a thing in the hands of an owner, a beast under\nthe lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing incidental and\nextraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which slavery, as such,\nconsists. All this--well fed or ill fed, underwrought or overwrought,\nclothed or naked, caressed or kicked, whether idle songs break from his\nthoughtless tongue or \"tears be his meat night and day,\" fondly\ncherished or cruelly murdered;--_all this_ ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE\nRELATION ITSELF, _by which every slave_, AS A SLAVE, _is set apart from\nthe rest of the human family_. Is it an exercise of love, to place our\n\"neighbor\" under the crushing weight, the killing power, of such a\nrelation?--to apply the murderous steel to the very vitals of\nhis humanity?\n\n\"YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS; FOR THEY\nKILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES.\"[A]\n\nThe slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is\nchargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly alledge, that he\nis 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 why\nwill he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and\nrapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and religion\nare laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to catch him with\ntheir wretched sophistries?--and devour him, body, soul, and substance?\nLet him know, as he must one day with shame and terror own, that whoever\nholds slaves is himself responsible for _the relation_, into which,\nwhether reluctantly or willingly, he thus enters. _The relation can not\nbe forced upon him_. What though Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in\nstealing the natives of Africa?--what though James, and Charles, and\nGeorge, opened a market for them in the English colonies?--what though\nmodern Dracos have \"framed mischief by law,\" in legalizing man-stealing\nand slaveholding?--what though your ancestors, in preparing to go \"to\ntheir own place,\" constituted you the owner of the \"neighbors\" whom they\nhad used as cattle?--what of all this, and as much more like this, as\ncan be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by which men \"are\ndeemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be _chattels\npersonal_?\" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the climax--to\nclinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in the work of\nslave-making would be attempted? _The slaveholder is the soul of the\nwhole system_. Without him, the chattel principle is a lifeless\nabstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws, and\ntestaments, are empty names. And does _he_ think to escape\nresponsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers, are\nnothing but his _agents_. He is the guilty _principal_. Let him look\nto it.\n\n[Footnote A: You join with them in their bloody work. They murder, and\nyou bury the victims.]\n\nBut what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his \"neighbor's\" throat. Let\nhim 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 its\nbony 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 of\nHeaven! \"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from\nthee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members should\nperish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.\"\n\nProf. Stuart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great\ncommandment \"decide against the theory of slavery as being in itself\nright.\" What, then, is their relation to the particular precepts,\ninstitutions, and usages, which are authorized and enjoined in the New\nTestament? Of all these, they are the summary expression--the\ncomprehensive description. No precept in the Bible enforcing our mutual\nobligations, can be more or less than _the application of these\ninjunctions to specific relations or particular occasions and\nconditions_. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, do prophets teach\nor laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule and the second great\ncommand do not contain. Whatever they forbid, no other precept can\nrequire; and whatever they require, no other precept can forbid. What,\nthen, does he attempt, who turns over the sacred pages to find something\nin the way of permission or command, which may set him free from the\nobligations of the Golden Rule? What must his objects, methods, spirit\nbe, to force him to enter upon such inquiries?--to compel him to search\nthe Bible for such a purpose? Can he have good intentions, or be well\nemployed? Is his frame of mind adapted to the study of the Bible?--to\nmake its meaning plain and welcome? What must he think of God, to search\nhis word in quest of gross inconsistencies and grave contradictions!\nInconsistent legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions\nat war with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with\nparticular arrangements!\n\nWhat must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden\nRule decides against?--which the second great command condemns? _It can\nnot but be wicked_, whether newly established or long maintained.\nHowever it may be shaped, turned, colored--under every modification and\nat all times--_wickedness must be its proper character_. _It must be_,\nIN ITSELF, _apart from its circumstances_, IN ITS ESSENCE, _apart from\nits incidents_, SINFUL.\n\n\"THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER.\"\n\nIn disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a specific\nbearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, nay,\nabsolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects around us,\nfrom the right post of observation. Our stand we must take at some\ncentral point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental precepts, the\nknown circumstances and characteristic arrangements, of primitive\nChristianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false conclusions will be the\nresult of our studies. We can not, therefore, be too earnest in trying\nto catch the general features and prevalent spirit of the New Testament\ninstitutions and arrangements. For to what conclusions must we come, if\nwe unwittingly pursue our inquires under the bias of the prejudice, that\nthe general maxims of social life which now prevail in this country,\nwere current, on the authority of the Savior, among the primitive\nChristians! That, for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the\nstandard by which our claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be\nmodified?--That those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease,\ntasked in menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of\nthe artificial 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 as\nhigh a position and as extensive an influence in politics and\nliterature?--having directly or indirectly, the control over the high\nplaces of learning and of power?\n\nIf we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments--if we should\nexplain words and interpret language--under such a bias, what must\ninevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our conclusions?\nWhat confidence could be reposed in any instruction we might undertake\nto furnish? And is not this the way in which the advocates and\napologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which primitive\nChristianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly perhaps, to\nthe primitive churches, the character, relations, and condition, of\nAmerican Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and strange\nconfusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language and\nexplaining the usages of the New Testament!\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 the\n_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 clearest\nlight. \"Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over the\nGentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise\nauthority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever\nwill be great among you, shall be your minister; _and whosoever of you\nwill be chiefest, shall be servant of all_.\" In other words, through the\nselfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim widely prevails in the\nworld, that it is the privilege, prerogative, and mark of greatness, TO\nEXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to others, while it authorizes us to\nrelax the exertion of our own powers, gives us a fair title to the use\nof theirs; that \"might,\" while it exempts us from serving, \"gives the\nright\" to be served. The instructions of the Savior open the way to\ngreatness for us in the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in\nwhatever it may consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion,\nand demands of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we\n_are useful_. And \"might gives right\" to bless our fellow men, by\nimproving every opportunity and employing every faculty, affectionately,\nearnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus the greater the man,\nthe more active, faithful, and useful the servant.\n\nThe Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied. He\nbids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even, through\nthe most menial services, in blessing the human family. And to make this\nlesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts, he embodied it\nin a most instructive and attractive example. On a memorable occasion,\nand just before his crucifixion, he discharged for his disciples the\nmost menial of all offices--taking, _in washing their feet_, the place\nof the lowest servant. He took great pains to make them understand, that\nonly by imitating this example could they honor their relations to him\nas their Master; that thus only would they find themselves blessed. By\nwhat possibility could slavery exist under the influence of such a\nlesson, set home by such an example? _Was it while washing the\ndisciples' feet, that our Savior authorized one man to make a chattel\nof 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 exertions\nhe had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls their\nattention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical\nauthority, \"that if any would not work, neither should he eat.\" In the\nmost earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord Jesus\nChrist, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful labor,\n\"_with quietness to work and eat their own bread_.\" What must be the\nbearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained where\nevery man eat the bread which himself had earned?--where idleness was\nesteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of starvation as a\npunishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted, or used, or needed?\nMust not every one in such a community contribute his share to the\ngeneral welfare?--and mutual service and mutual support be the\nnatural 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 that\nstole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands\nthe thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.\"\nLet this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed throughout\nthe length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be universally welcomed\nand reduced to practice. Let thieves give up what they had stolen to the\nlawful proprietors, cease stealing, and begin at once to \"labor, working\nwith their hands,\" for necessary and charitable purposes. Could slavery,\nin such a case, continue to exist? Surely not! Instead of exacting\nunpaid services from others, every man would be busy, exerting himself\nnot only to provide for his own wants, but also to accumulate funds,\n\"that he might have to give to\" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root\nand branch, at once and forever.\n\nIn describing the source whence his ministers should expect their\nsupport, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an obvious\nand powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would have them\nremember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of their fellow men,\nthat \"the laborer is worthy of his hire.\" He has thus united wages with\nwork. Whoever renders the one is entitled to the other. And this\nmanifestly according to a mutual understanding and a voluntary\narrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you to work for me for\nwhatever consideration I may please to fix upon, fairly opens the way\nfor the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force me to render you whatever\nwages you may choose to exact for any services you may see fit to\nrender. Thus slavery, even as involuntary servitude, is cut up by the\nroot. Even the Princeton professor seems to regard it as a violation of\nthe principle which unites 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 the injured\nlaborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts, and that, as a\nresult of their oppression, their riches were corrupted, and their\ngarments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were cankered; that the rest\nof them should be a witness against them, and should eat their flesh as\nit were fire; that, in one word, they had heaped treasure together for\nthe last days, when \"miseries were coming upon them,\" the prospect of\nwhich might well drench them in tears and fill them with terror. If\nthese admonition and warnings were heeded there, would not \"the South\"\nbreak forth into \"weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?\" What else\nare its rich men about, but withholding by a system of fraud, his wages\nfrom the laborer, who is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear,\nin cultivating their fields and producing their luxuries? Encouragement\nand support do they derive from James, in maintaining the \"peculiar\ninstitution\" whence they derived their wealth, which they call\npatriarchal, and boast of as the \"corner-stone\" of the republic?\n\nIn the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction, \"_Honor\nall men_.\" Under this broad precept, every form of humanity may justly\nclaim protection and respect. The invasion of any human right must do\ndishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this command. How then,\nin the light of such obligations, must slavery be regarded? Are those\nmen honored, who are rudely excluded from a place in the human family,\nand shut up to the deep degradation and nameless horrors of chattelship?\n_Can they be held as slaves, and at the same time be honored as men_?\n\nHow far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from the\nadmonitions and instructions which James applies to the arrangements and\nusages of religious assemblies. Into these he can not allow \"respect of\npersons\" to enter. \"My brethren,\" he exclaims, \"have not the faith of\nour Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For\nif there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly\napparel; and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have\nrespect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou\nhere in a good place; and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here\nunder my footstool; are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are\nbecome judges of evil thoughts? _If ye have respect to persons, ye\ncommit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors_.\" On this\ngeneral principle, then, religious assemblies ought to be\nregulated--that every man is to be estimated, not according to his\n_circumstances_--not according to any thing incidental to his\n_condition_; but according to his _moral worth_--according to the\nessential features and vital elements of his _character_. Gold rings and\ngay clothing, as they qualify no man for, can entitle no man to, a \"good\nplace\" in the church. Nor can the \"vile raiment of the poor man,\" fairly\nexclude him from any sphere, however exalted, which his heart and head\nmay fit him to fill. To deny this, in theory or practice, is to degrade\na man below a thing; for what are gold rings, or gay clothing, or vile\nraiment, but things, \"which perish with the using?\" And this must be \"to\ncommit sin, and be convinced of the law as transgressors.\"\n\nIn slavery, we have \"respect of persons,\" strongly marked, and reduced\nto system. Here men are despised not merely for \"the vile raiment,\"\nwhich may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough. But the\ndeepest contempt for humanity here grows out of birth or complexion.\nVile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, or improvidence,\nor extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of character. But how can\nI be responsible for the incidents of my birth?--how for my complexion?\nTo despise or honor me for these, is to be guilty of \"respect of\npersons\" in its grossest form, and with its worst effects. It is to\nreward or punish me for what I had nothing to do with; for which,\ntherefore, I can not, without the greatest injustice, be held\nresponsible. It is to poison the very fountains of justice, by\nconfounding all moral distinctions. It is with a worse temper, and in\nthe way of inflicting infinitely greater injuries, to copy the kingly\nfolly of Xerxes, in chaining and scourging the Hellespont. What, then,\nso far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of\nslavery, which can not 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 worshipers of a\ndark complexion are to be shut up to the negro pew?[A]\n\n[Footnote A: In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we have the\nfollowing anecdote, illustrative of the character of a \"grandmother\" of\nthe Count. \"Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately towards the church\nfont; another dame striking in to take precedence of her; the dame\nMirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the ear, and these words,\n'_Here, as in the army_, THE BAGGAGE _goes last_!'\" Let those who\njustify the negro-pew-arrangement, throw a stone at this proud woman--if\nthey dare.]\n\nNor are we permitted to confine this principle to _religious_\nassemblies. It is to pervade social life every where. Even where plenty,\nintelligence, and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays, the poor are\nto be welcomed with especial favor. \"Then said he to him that bade him,\nwhen thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy\nbrethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors, lest they also\nbid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a\nfeast, call the poor and the maimed, the lame and the blind, and thou\nshalt be blessed; for they can not recompense thee, but thou shalt be\nrecompensed at the resurrection of the just.\"\n\nIn the high places of social life then--in the parlor, the drawing-room,\nthe saloon--special reference should be had, in every arrangement, to\nthe comfort and improvement of those who are least able to provide for\nthe cheapest rites of hospitality. For these, ample accommodations must\nbe made, whatever may become of our kinsmen and rich neighbors. And for\nthis good reason, that while such occasions signify little to the\nlatter, to the former they are pregnant with good--raising their\ndrooping spirits, cheering their desponding hearts, inspiring them with\nlife, and hope, and joy. The rich and the poor thus meeting joyfully\ntogether, can not but mutually contribute to each other's benefit; the\nrich will be led to moderation, sobriety, and circumspection, and the\npoor to industry, providence, and contentment. The recompense must be\nrich and sure.\n\nA most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which these\nthings are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He freely\nmingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of society. At\nthe tables of the outcasts of society, he did not hesitate to be a\ncheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners. And when flouted\nand reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics, as an ultraist and\nleveler, he explained and justified himself by observing, that he had\nonly done what his office demanded. It was his to seek the lost, to heal\nthe sick, to pity the wretched;--in a word, to bestow just such benefits\nas the various necessities of mankind made appropriate and welcome. In\nhis great heart, there was room enough for those who had been excluded\nfrom the sympathy of little souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel\noverlooked none--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 life,\nto exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our warmest\nsympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor of\nthe 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 the\nGolden Rule--as one of the many forms to which its obligations are\nreducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard as we\nwould covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were fastened\nupon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved have a natural\nclaim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they suffer, spring from a\npersecution which can hardly be surpassed in malignancy. Their birth and\ncomplexion are the occasion of the insults and injuries which they can\nneither endure nor escape. It is for the _work of God_, and not them own\ndeserts, that they are loaded 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 keep\nhim in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally subversive of\nevery system and every form of slavery?\n\nThe _general descriptions_ of the church which are found here and there\nin the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing on the\nsubject of slavery. In one connection, the following words meet the eye:\n\"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there\nis neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.\"[A] Here\nwe have--1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of _human\nequality_. \"Ye are all ONE;\"--so much alike, so truly placed on common\nground, all wielding each his own powers with such freedom, _that one is\nthe same as another_.\n\n[Footnote A: Gal. iii. 23.]\n\n2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on\ndivine authority. \"IN CHRIST JESUS, _ye are all one_.\" The natural\nequality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For--\n\n3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether men or\nwomen, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all are alike\nentitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Wherever Christianity\nprevails, the _artificial_ distinctions which grow out of birth,\ncondition, sex, are done away. _Natural_ distinctions are not destroyed.\n_They_ are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The gospel does not abolish\nthe sexes, forbid a division of labor, or extinguish patriotism. It\ntakes woman from beneath the feet, and places her by the side of man;\ndelivers the manual laborer from \"the yoke,\" and gives him wages for his\nwork; and brings the Jew and Gentile to embrace each other with\nfraternal love and confidence. Thus it raises all to a common level,\ngives to each the free use of his own powers and resources, binds all\ntogether in one dear and loving brotherhood. Such, according to the\ndescription of the apostle, was the influence, and such the effect of\nprimitive Christianity. \"Behold the picture!\" Is it like American\nslavery, which, in all its tendencies and effects, is destructive of all\noneness among brethren?\n\n\"Where the spirit of the Lord is,\" exclaims the same apostle, with his\neye upon the condition and relations of the church, \"_where the spirit\nof the Lord is_, THERE IS LIBERTY.\" Where, then, may we reverently\nrecognize the presence, and bow before the manifested power, of this\nspirit? _There_, where the laborer may not choose how he shall be\nemployed!--in what way his wants shall he supplied!--with whom he shall\nassociate!--who shall have the fruit of his exertions! _There_, where he\nis not free to enjoy his wife and children! _There_, where his body and\nhis soul, his very \"destiny,\"[A] are placed altogether beyond his\ncontrol! _There_, where every power is crippled, every energy blasted,\nevery hope crushed! _There_, where in all the relations and concerns of\nlife, he is legally treated as if he had nothing to do with the laws of\nreason, the light of immortality, or the exercise of will! Is the spirit\nof the Lord _there_, where liberty is decried and denounced, mocked at\nand spit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church which\njustified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which carried\non its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle have found the\nfruits of the Spirit of the Lord! Let that Spirit exert his influences,\nand assert his authority, and wield his power, and slavery must vanish\nat once and forever.\n\n[Footnote A: \"The Legislature [of South Carolina] from time to time, has\npassed many restricted and penal acts, with a view to bring under direct\ncontrol and subjection the DESTINY _of the black population_.\" See the\nRemonstrance of James S. Pope and 352 others, against home missionary\nefforts for the benefit of the enslaved--a most instructive paper.]\n\nIn more than one connection, the apostle James describes Christianity as\n\"_the law of liberty_.\" It is in other words the law under which liberty\ncan not but live and flourish--the law in which liberty is clearly\ndefined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law of liberty,\nhow can it be consistent with the law of slavery? The presence and the\npower of this law are felt wherever the light of reason shines. They are\nfelt in the uneasiness and conscious degradation of the slave, and in\nthe shame and remorse which the master betrays in his reluctant and\ndesperate efforts to defend himself. This law it is which has armed\nhuman nature against the oppressor. Wherever it is obeyed, \"every yoke\nis broken.\"\n\nIn these references to the New Testament we have a _general description_\nof the primitive church, and the _principles_ on which it was founded\nand fashioned. These principles bear the same relation to Christian\n_history_ as to Christian _character_, since the former is occupied with\nthe development of the latter. What then is Christian character but\nChristian principle _realized_, acted out, bodied forth, and animated?\nChristian principle is the soul, of which Christian character is the\nexpression--the manifestation. It comprehends in itself, as a living\nseed, such Christian character, under every form, modification, and\ncomplexion. The former is, therefore, the test and interpreter of the\nlatter. In the light of Christian principle, and in that light only, we\ncan judge of and explain Christian character. Christian history is\noccupied with the forms, modifications, and various aspects of Christian\ncharacter. The facts which are there recorded serve to show, how\nChristian principle has fared in this world--how it has appeared, what\nit has done, how it has been treated. In these facts we have the various\ninstitutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church of\nChrist. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to\nChristian principle. They are the production of its power. Through them,\nit is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be studied,\nexplained, and understood. Without it they must be as unintelligible and\ninsignificant as the letters of a book, scattered on 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 he\napproves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony. Otherwise\nwe impute to God what we must abhor in man--practice at war with\nprinciple. Does the Savior, then, lay down the _principle_ that our\nstanding in the church must depend upon the habits, formed within us, of\nreadily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and permit us _in\npractice_ to invade the rights and trample on the happiness of our\nfellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he, _in principle_ and by\nexample, require us to go all lengths in rendering mutual service,\ncomprehending offices the most menial, as well as the most honorable;\nand permit us _in practice_ to EXACT service of our brethren, as if they\nwere nothing better than \"articles of merchandize?\" Does he require us\n_in principle_ \"to work with quietness and eat our own bread;\" and\npermit us _in practice_ to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their\nunrequited toil? Does he in principle require us, abstaining from every\nform of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only to provide\nfor ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others; and permit us\n_in practice_, abstaining from every form of labor, to enrich and\naggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing? Does he require us\n_in principle_ to regard \"the laborer as worthy of his hire;\" and permit\nus _in practice_ to defraud him of his wages? Does he require us _in\nprinciple_ \"to honor ALL men;\" and permit us _in practice_ to treat\nmultitudes like cattle? Does he _in principle_ prohibit \"respect of\npersons;\" and permit us _in practice_ to place the feet of the rich upon\nthe necks of the poor? Does he _in principle_ require us to sympathize\nwith the bondman as another self; and permit us _in practice_ to leave\nhim unpitied and unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? _In principle_,\n\"where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;\" _in practice_, is\n_slavery_ the fruit of the Spirit? _In principle_, Christianity is the\nlaw of liberty; _in practice_, is it the law of slavery? Bring practice\nin these various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes\nof slavery? And if, where the divine government is concerned, practice\nis the expression of principle, and principle the standard and\ninterpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained and must\nbe asserted. In studying, therefore, fragments of history and sketches\nof biography--in disposing of references to institutions, usages, and\nfacts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony between principle and\npractice in the government, should be continually present to the\nthoughts of the interpreter. Principles assert what practice must be.\nWhatever principle condemns, God condemns. It belongs to those weeds of\nthe dunghill which, planted by \"an enemy,\" his hand will assuredly \"root\nup.\" It is most certain, then, that if slavery prevailed in the first\nages of Christianity, it could nowhere have prevailed under its\ninfluence and with its sanction.\n\nThe _condition_ in which, in its efforts to bless mankind, the primitive\nchurch was placed, must have greatly assisted the early Christians in\nunderstanding and applying the principles of the gospel.--Their _Master_\nwas born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest poverty, and died the\nmost ignominious death. The place of his residence, his familiarity with\nthe outcasts of society, his welcoming assistance and support from\nfemale hands, his casting his beloved mother, when he hung upon the\ncross, upon the charity of a disciple--such things evince the depth of\nhis poverty, and show to what derision and contempt he must have been\nexposed. Could such an one, \"despised and rejected of men--a man of\nsorrows and acquainted with grief,\" play the oppressor, or smile on\nthose who made merchandize of the poor!\n\nAnd what was the history of the _apostles_, but an illustration of the\ndoctrine, that \"it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his\nMaster?\" Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth, shining\nwith splendor, bloated with luxury! Were they ambitious of distinction,\nfleecing, and trampling, and devouring \"the flocks,\" that they\nthemselves might \"have the pre-eminence!\" Were they slaveholding\nbishops! Or did they derive their support from the wages of iniquity and\nthe price of blood! Can such inferences be drawn from the account of\ntheir condition, which the most gifted and enterprising of their number\nhas put upon record? \"Even unto this present hour, we both hunger, and\nthirst, and are naked, and _are buffetted_, and have _no certain\ndwelling place, and labor working with our own hands_. Being reviled, we\nbless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are\nmade as _the filth of the world_, and are THE OFFSCOURING OF ALL THINGS\nunto this day[A].\" Are these the men who practiced or countenanced\nslavery? _With such a temper, they WOULD NOT; in such circumstances,\nthey COULD NOT_. Exposed to \"tribulation, distress, and persecution;\"\nsubject to famine and nakedness, to peril and the sword; \"killed all the\nday long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter[B],\" they would have made\nbut a sorry figure at the great-house or slave-market!\n\n[Footnote A: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.]\n\n[Footnote B: 1 Rom. viii. 35, 36.]\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 share\nin the trials and sufferings of their leaders; as to suppose that while\nthe leaders submitted to manual labor, to buffeting, to be reckoned the\nfilth of the world, to be accounted as sheep for the slaughter, his\nbrethren lived in affluence, ease, and honor! despising manual labor!\nand living upon the sweat of unrequited toil! But on this point we are\nnot left to mere inference and conjecture. The apostle Paul in the\nplainest language explains the ordination of Heaven. \"But _God hath_\nCHOSEN the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God\nhath CHOSEN the weak things of the world to confound the things which\nare mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised\nhath God CHOSEN, yea, and THINGS WHICH ARE NOT, to bring to nought\nthings that are.\"[A] Here we may well notice,\n\n[Footnote A: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.]\n\n1. That it was not by _accident_, that the primitive churches were made\nup of such elements, but the result of the DIVINE CHOICE--an arrangement\nof His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is natural, that this\nordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of Christianity. It was\nnothing new or strange, that Jehovah had concealed his glory \"from the\nwise and prudent, and had revealed it unto babes,\" or that \"the common\npeople heard him gladly,\" while \"not many wise men after the flesh, not\nmany mighty, not many noble, had been called.\"\n\n2. The description of character which the apostle records, could be\nadapted only to what are reckoned the _very dregs of humanity_. The\nfoolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the estimation\nof worldly pride and wisdom--these were they whose broken hearts were\nreached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel; these were they whom\nthe apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren.\n\nThat _slaves_ abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. _They_ have a\nplace in the enumeration of elements of which, according to the apostle,\nthe church there was composed. The most remarkable class found there,\nconsisted of \"THINGS WHICH ARE NOT\"--mere nobodies, not admitted to the\nprivileges of men, but degraded to a level with \"goods and chattels;\" of\nwhom _no account_ was made in such arrangements of society as subserved\nthe improvement, and dignity, and happiness of MANKIND. How accurately\nthis description applies to those who are crushed under the chattel\nprinciple!\n\nThe reference which the apostle makes to the \"deep poverty of the\nchurches of Macedonia,\"[B] and this to stir up the sluggish liberality\nof his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the impression, that the\nlatter were by no means inferior to the former in the gifts of\nProvidence. But, pressed with want and pinched by poverty as were the\nbelievers in \"Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased them to make a certain\ncontribution for the poor saints which were at Jerusalem.\"[C] Thus it\nappears, that Christians every where were familiar with contempt and\nindigence, so much so, that the apostle would dissuade such as had no\nfamilies from assuming the responsibilities of the conjugal relation[D]!\n\n[Footnote B: 2 Cor. viii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote C: Rom. xv. 26.]\n\n[Footnote D: 1 Cor. vi 26,27]\n\nNow, how did these good people treat each other? Did the few among them,\nwho were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their influence and\nemploy their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing of the \"things\nthat are not,\" as marketable commodities!--kneeling with them in prayer\nin the evening, and putting them up at auction the next morning! Did the\nchurch sell any of the members to swell the \"certain contribution far\nthe poor saints at Jerusalem!\" Far otherwise--as far as possible! In\nthose Christian communities where the influence of the apostles was most\npowerful, and where the arrangements drew forth their highest\ncommendations, believers treated each other as brethren, in the\nstrongest sense of that sweet word. So warm was their mutual love, so\nstrong the public spirit, so open-handed and abundant the general\nliberality, that they are set forth as \"_having all things common._\" [E]\nSlaves and their holders here? Neither the one nor the other could in\nthat relation to each other have breathed such an atmosphere. The appeal\nof the kneeling bondman, \"Am I not a man and a brother,\" must here have\nmet with a prompt and powerful response.\n\n[Footnote E: Acts iv. 32]\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[F], an inquirer demands of the Savior, \"What good thing shall\nI do that I may have eternal life?\" After being reminded of the\nobligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured, while\nclaiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to demand,\n\"what lack I yet?\" The radical deficiency under which his character\nlabored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out. If thou\nwilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and\nthou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. On this\npassage it is natural to suggest--\n\n[Footnote F: Luke xvii 18-24]\n\n1. That we have here a _test of universal application._ The rectitude\nand benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to suppose that he\nwould subject this inquirer, especially as he was highly amiable, to a\ntrial, where eternal life was at stake, _peculiarly_ severe. Indeed, the\ntest seems to have been only a fair exposition of the second great\ncommand, and of course it must be applicable to all who are placed under\nthe obligations of that precept. Those who can not stand this test, as\ntheir character is radically imperfect and unsound, must, with the\ninquirer to whom our Lord applied it, be pronounced unfit for the\nkingdom of heaven.\n\n2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood to demand\nis, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to the welfare\nof mankind, \"the poor\" especially. We are to put ourselves on a level\nwith _them_, as we must do \"in selling that we have\" for their\nbenefit--in other words, in employing our powers and resources to\nelevate their character, condition, and prospects. This our Savior did;\nand if we refuse to enter into sympathy and cooperation with him, how\ncan we be his _followers_? Apply this test to the slaveholder. Instead\nof \"selling that he hath\" for the benefit of the poor, he BUYS THE POOR,\nand exacts their sweat with stripes, to enable him to \"clothe himself in\npurple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously every day;\" or, HE SELLS THE\nPOOR to support the gospel and convert the heathen!\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 be\nselected--a \"stranger\" in the hands of the oppressor, naked, hungry,\nsickly; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the assembled\nuniverse, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be openly\nacknowledged as his representative. \"Glory, honor, and immortality,\"\nwill be the reward of those who had recognized and cheered their Lord\nthrough his outraged poor. And tribulation, anguish, and despair, will\nseize on \"every soul of man,\" who had neglected or despised them. But\nwhom, within the limits of our country, are we to regard especially as\nthe representatives of our final Judge? Every feature of the Savior's\npicture finds its appropriate original in our enslaved countrymen.\n\n1. They are the LEAST of his brethren.\n\n2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to command a cup of\nwater or a crumb of bread.\n\n3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to procure\na nurse or employ a physician.\n\n4. They are emphatically \"in prison,\" restrained by chains, goaded with\nwhips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any cell of the\nprisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement so rigorous and\nheart-breaking as the law allows theirs to be continually and\npermanently.\n\n5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively,\nSTRANGERS--_strangers_ in the land which gave them birth. Whom else do\nwe constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free institutions? The\nWelch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even? Alas, it is the _negro_\nonly, who may not strike his roots into our soil. Every where we have\nconspired to treat him as a stranger--every where he is forced to feel\nhimself a stranger. In the stage and steamboat, in the parlor and at our\ntables, in the scenes of business and in the scenes of amusement--even\nin the church of God and at the communion table, he is regarded as a\nstranger. The intelligent and religious are generally disgusted and\nhorror-struck at the thought of his becoming identified with the\ncitizens of our republic--so much so, that thousands of them have\nentered into a conspiracy to send him off \"out of sight,\" to find a home\non a foreign shore!--And justify themselves by openly alledging, that a\n\"single drop\" of his blood, in the veins of any human creature, must\nmake him hateful to his fellow citizens!--That nothing but banishment\nfrom \"our coasts,\" can redeem him from the scorn and contempt to which\nhis \"stranger\" 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 the\nsmallest 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 procuring\nmedicine or sending for a physician?\n\nWho \"in prison,\" but the man who, all his life is under the control of\nmerciless 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 particular\nattention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the Judge, are not\ncharged with inflicting _positive injuries_ on their helpless, needy,\nand oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often called _negative_\ncharacter. What they _had done_ is not described in the indictment.\nTheir _neglect_ of duty, what they _had_ NOT _done_, was the ground of\ntheir \"everlasting punishment.\" The representative of their Judge, they\nhad seen a hungered and they gave him no meat, thirsty and they have him\nno drink, a stranger and they took him not in, naked and they clothed\nhim not, sick and in prison and they visited him not. In as much as they\ndid NOT yield to the claims of suffering humanity--did NOT exert\nthemselves to bless the meanest of the human family, they were driven\naway in their wickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was\na hungered and ye snatched away the crust which might have saved me from\nstarvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the \"cup of cold\nwater,\" which might have moistened my parched lips; I was a stranger and\nye drove me from the hovel which might have sheltered me from the\npiercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me to my task; in prison and\nyou sold me for my jail-fees--to what depths of hell must not those who\nwere convicted under such charges be consigned! And what is the history\nof American slavery but one long indictment, describing under\never-varying forms and hues just such injuries!\n\nNor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure of\ntheir Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past history.\nThe charges which he brought against them, they heard with great\nsurprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away from his\nnecessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to poverty,\ninsult, and oppression! Never. And as to that poor friendless creature\nwhom they left unpitied and unhelped in the hands of the oppressor, and\nwhom their Judge now presented as his own representative, they never\nonce supposed, that _he_ had any claims on their compassion and\nassistance. Had they known, that he was destined to so prominent a place\nat the final judgment, they would have treated him as a human being, in\ndespite of any social, pecuniary, or political considerations. But\nneither their _negative virtue_ nor their _voluntary ignorance_ could\nshield them from the penal 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 and\nauthorized tests of Christian character, we should take our position in\ndisposing of any particular allusions to such forms and usages of the\nprimitive churches as are supposed by divine authority. The latter must\nbe interpreted and understood in the light of the former. But how do the\napologists and defenders of slavery proceed? Placing themselves amidst\nthe arrangements and usages which grew out of the _corruptions_ of\nChristianity, they make these the standard by which the gospel is to be\nexplained and understood! Some Recorder or Justice, without the light of\ninquiry or the aid of a jury, consigns the negro whom the kidnapper has\ndragged into his presence to the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch\nshrieks and faints, Humanity shudders and demands why such atrocities\nare endured? Some \"priest\" or \"Levite,\" \"passing by on the other side,\"\nquite self-possessed and all complacent reads in reply from his bread\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 with\nnoise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen this of\nthe manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the sacred\nScriptures?\n\nOf the particular passages in the New Testament on which the apologists\nfor slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon first demands our\nattention.\n\n1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a \"prisoner of\nJesus Christ\" at Rome.\n\n2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at\nColosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their assemblies,\nand who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indirectly to the\nministry of Paul.\n\n3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it is\ndifficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition, though\nservile, could not have been like that of an American slave; as, in that\ncase, however he might have \"wronged\" Philemon, he could not also have\n\"_owed him ought_.\"[A] The American slave is, according to law, as much\nthe property of his master as any other chattel; and can no more \"owe\"\nhis master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis of all pecuniary\nobligations lies in some \"value received.\" How can \"an article of\nmerchandise\" stand on this basis and sustain commercial relations to its\nowner? There is no _person_ to offer or promise. _Personality is\nswallowed up in American slavery_!\n\n[Footnote A: Phil. 18.]\n\n4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine. He\nand Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms. The\ngeneral character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to Philemon,\nhad been far from attractive, and he seems to have left him without\nrepairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts which he owed\nhim. At Rome, by the blessing of God upon the exertions of the apostle,\nhe was brought to reflection and repentance.\n\n5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he became\npainfully aware of the injuries, he had inflicted on Philemon. He longed\nfor an opportunity for frank confession and full restitution. Having,\nhowever, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he knew not how to appear in\nhis presence. Under such embarrassments, he naturally sought sympathy\nand advice of Paul. _His_ influence upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be\npowerful, especially as an apostle.\n\n6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the apostle\nto Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and thanks giving as\nthe good character and useful life of Philemon naturally drew from the\nheart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of the letter. He admits that\nOnesimus had behaved ill in the service of Philemon; not in running\naway, for how they had parted with each other is not explained, but in\nbeing unprofitable and in refusing to pay the debts[B] which he had\ncontracted. But his character had undergone a radical change.\nThenceforward fidelity and usefulness would be his aim and mark his\ncourse. And as to any pecuniary obligations which he had violated, the\napostle authorized Philemon to put them on _his_ account.[C] Thus a way\nwas fairly opened to the heart of Philemon. And now what does the\napostles ask?\n\n[Footnote B: Verse 11,18.]\n\n[Footnote C: Verse 18.]\n\n7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus. How? \"Not as a\n_servant_, but _above_ a servant.\"[A] How much above? Philemon was to\nreceive him as \"a son\" of the apostle--\"as a brother beloved\"--nay, if\nhe counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to receive Onesimus as he\nwould receive _the apostle himself[B]. So much_ above a servant was he\nto receive him!\n\n[Footnote A: Verse 16.]\n\n[Footnote B: Verse 10, 16, 17.]\n\n8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with as to\nput Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as \"an article of merchandise,\"\nCARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a \"brother beloved,\"\nSPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon consistently with the\nrequest of Paul, have reduced Onesimus to a chattel, AS A MAN, while he\nadmitted him fraternally to his bosom, as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in\nan apostolic epistle! Never. As if, however, to guard against such\nfolly, the natural product of mist and moonshine, the apostle would have\nOnesimus raised above a servant to the dignity of a brother beloved,\n\"BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE LORD;\"[C] as a man and Christian, in all\nthe relations, circumstances, and responsibilities of life.\n\n[Footnote C: 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_. It\nis \"NOT\" the relation of a \"SERVANT.\" It elevates its subject \"above\"\nthe servile condition. It raises him to full equality with the master,\nto the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood side by side as\nbrothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined, spiritual sense,\naffecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, but in every way,\n\"both in the FLESH and in the Lord.\" This matter deserves particular and\nearnest attention. It sheds a strong light on other lessons of apostolic\ninstruction.\n\n9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the apostle\nclearly defines the _moral character_ of his request. It was fit,\nproper, right, suited to the nature and relations of things--a thing\nwhich _ought_ to be done.[D] On this account, he might have urged it\nupon Philemon in the form of an _injunction_, on apostolic authority and\nwith great boldness.[E] _The very nature_ of the request made it\nobligatory on Philemon. He was sacredly bound, out of regard to the\nfitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full equality with himself--to\ntreat him as a brother both in the Lord and as having flesh--as a fellow\nman. Thus were the inalienable rights and birth-right privileges of\nOnesimus, as a member of the human family, defined and protected by\napostolic authority.\n\n[Footnote D: Verse 8. To [Greek: anaekon]. See Robinson's New Testament\nLexicon; \"_it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought_.\" In what sense King\nJames' translators used the word \"convenient\" any one may see who will\nread Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.]\n\n[Footnote E: Verse 8.]\n\n10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, on\nthe ground of CHARITY.[A] He would give Philemon an opportunity of\ndischarging his obligations under the impulse of love. To this impulse,\nhe was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield. How could he\ndo otherwise? The thing itself was right. The request respecting it came\nfrom a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was under the highest\nobligations.[B] That benefactor, now an old man and in the hands of\npersecutors, manifested a deep and tender interest in the matter, and\nhad the strongest persuasion that Philemon was more ready to grant than\nhimself to entreat. The result, as he was soon to visit Colosse, and had\ncommissioned Philemon to prepare a lodging for him, must come under the\neye of the apostle. The request was so manifestly reasonable and\nobligatory, that the apostle, after all, described a compliance with it,\nby the strong word \"_obedience_.\"[C]\n\n[Footnote A: Verse 9 [Greek: dia taen agapaen].]\n\n[Footnote B: Verse 19.]\n\n[Footnote C: Verse 21.]\n\nNow how must all this have been understood by the church at Colosse?--a\nchurch, doubtless, made up of such materials as the church at Corinth,\nthat is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks of life. Many of\nthem had probably felt the degradation and tasted the bitterness of the\nservile condition. Would they have been likely to interpret the\napostle's letter under the bias of feelings friendly to slavery!--And\nput the slaveholder's construction on its contents! Would their past\nexperience or present sufferings--for doubtless some of them were still\n\"under the yoke\"--have suggested to their thoughts such glosses as some\nof our theological professors venture to put upon the words of the\napostle! Far otherwise. The Spirit of the Lord was there, and the\nepistle was read in the light of \"_liberty_.\" It contained the\nprinciples of holy freedom, faithfully and affectionately applied. This\nmust have made it precious in the eyes of such men \"of low degree\" as\nwere most of the believers, and welcome to a place in the sacred canon.\nThere let it remain as a luminous and powerful defense of the cause of\nemancipation!\n\nBut what with Prof. Stuart? \"If any one doubts, let him take the case of\nPaul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology for his\nrunning away, and sending him back to be his servant for life.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 8.]\n\n\"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon.\" By what process? Did the apostle,\na prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him before some\nheartless and perfidious \"Judge,\" for authority to send him back to\nColosse? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence of the fat and\nsupple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the lash to the field\nof unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had the apostle been like\nsome teachers in the American churches, he might, as a professor of\nsacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a preacher of the gospel\nto the rich in some of our cities, have consented thus to subserve the\n\"peculiar\" interests of a dear slaveholding brother. But the venerable\nchampion of truth and freedom was himself under bonds in the imperial\ncity, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He wrote a letter to the\nchurch at Colosse, which was accustomed to meet at the house of\nPhilemon, and another letter to that magnanimous disciple, and sent them\nby the hand of Onesimus. So much for _the way_ in which Onesimus was\nsent back to his master.\n\nA slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in the\nparish of the Connecticut doctor, who once gave public notice that he\nsaw no reason for caring for the servitude of his fellow men.[B] Under\nhis influence, Caesar becomes a Christian convert. Burning with love for\nthe son whom he hath begotten in the gospel, our doctor resolves to send\nhim back to his master. Accordingly, he writes a letter, gives it to\nCaesar, and bids him return, staff in hand, to the \"corner-stone of our\nrepublican institutions.\" Now, what would any Caesar do, who had ever\nfelt a link of slavery's chain? As he left his _spiritual father_,\nshould we be surprized to hear him say to himself, What, return of my\nown accord 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 of\nunrequited toil!--whose violence so often cut my flesh and scarred my\nlimbs!--who shut out every ray of light from my mind!--who laid claim to\nthose honors to which my Creator and Redeemer only are entitled! And for\nwhat am I to return? To be cursed, and smitten, and sold! To be tempted,\nand torn, and destroyed! I can not thus throw myself away--thus rush\nupon my own destruction.\n\n[Footnote B: \"Why should I care?\"]\n\nWho ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American\noppression? Do you think that the doctor and his friends could persuade\none to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had escaped? And\nmust we believe this of Onesimus!\n\n\"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon.\" On what occasion?--\"If,\" writes\nthe apostle, \"he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on my\naccount.\" Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus would \"restore\" whatever\nhe \"had taken away.\" He would honestly pay his debts. This resolution,\nthe apostle warmly approved. He was ready, at whatever expense, to help\nhis young disciple in carrying it into full effect. Of this he assured\nPhilemon, in language the most explicit and emphatic. Here we find one\nreason for the conduct of Paul in sending Onesimus to Philemon.\n\nIf a fugitive slave of the Rev. Mr. 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 dispose\nof it? What, he exclaims, have we here? \"If Cato has not been upright in\nhis pecuniary intercourse with you--if he owes you any thing--put that\non my account.\" What ignorance of southern institutions! What mockery,\nto talk of pecuniary intercourse between a slave and his master! _The\nslave himself, with all he is and has, is an article of merchandise_.\nWhat can _he_ owe his master?--A rustic may lay a wager with his mule,\nand give the creature the peck of oats which he had permitted it to win.\nBut who in sober earnest would call this a pecuniary transaction?\n\n\"TO BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE!\" From what part of the epistle could the\nexpositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants--so revolting to\nevery man who loves his own nature? From this? \"For perhaps he therefore\ndeparted for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever.\"\nReceive him how? _As a servant_, exclaims our commentator. But what\nwrote the apostle? \"NOT _now as a servant, but above a servant_, a\nbrother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in\nthe flesh and in the Lord.\" Who authorized the professor to bereave the\nword '_not_' of its negative influence? According to Paul, Philemon was\nto receive Onesimus '_not_ as a servant;'--according to Stuart, he was\nto receive him \"_as a servant!_\" If the professor will apply the same\nrules of exposition to the writings of the abolitionists, all difference\nbetween him and them must in his view presently vanish away. The\nharmonizing process would be equally simple and effectual. He has only\nto understand them as affirming what they deny, and as denying what\nthey affirm.\n\nSuppose that Prof. Stuart had a son residing at the South. His slave,\nhaving stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He fled to\nAndover, to find a refuge among the \"sons of the prophets.\" There he\nfinds his way to Prof. Stuart's house, and offers to render any service\nwhich the professor, dangerously ill \"of a typhus fever,\" might require.\nHe is soon found to be a most active, skillful, faithful nurse. He\nspares no pains, night and day, to make himself useful to the venerable\nsufferer. He anticipates every want. In the most delicate and tender\nmanner, he tries to sooth every pain. He fastens himself strongly on the\nheart of the reverend object of his care. Touched with the heavenly\nspirit, the meek demeanor, the submissive frame, which the sick bed\nexhibits, Archy becomes a Christian. A new bond now ties him and his\nconvalescent teacher together. As soon as he is able to write, the\nprofessor sends by Archy the following letter to the South, to Isaac\nStuart, 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 subject\nwhich lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge, which my\nacquaintance with you, and your strong obligations to me, will, I can\nnot doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a request, though the\nthing I ask is, in its very nature and on the principles of the gospel,\nobligatory upon you. I might, therefore, boldly demand, what I earnestly\nentreat. But I know how generous, magnanimous, and Christ-like you are,\nand how readily you will \"do even more than I say\"--I, your own father,\nan old man, almost exhausted with multiplied exertions for the benefit\nof my family and my country, and now just rising, emaciated and broken,\nfrom the brink of the grave. I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard\nwith the affection of a father, and whom, indeed, 'I have begotten in my\nsickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be an _Isaac_ to me; for\nhow often did not his soothing voice, and skillful hand, and unwearied\nattention to my wants, remind me of you! But I chose to give you an\nopportunity of manifesting, voluntarily, the goodness of your heart; as,\nif I had retained him with me, you might seem to have been forced to\ngrant what you will gratefully bestow. His temporary absence from you\nmay have opened the way for his permanent continuance with you. Not now\nas a slave. Heaven forbid! But superior to a slave. Superior, did I say?\nTake him to your bosom, as a beloved brother; for I own him as a son,\nand regard him as such, in all the relations of life, both as a man and\na Christian.--'Receive him as myself.' And that nothing may hinder you\nfrom complying 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 comfort\nwith you may require, you will make without much delay, when you learn,\nthat I intend, as soon as I shall be able 'to perform the journey,' to\nmake you a visit.\"\n\nAnd what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should\npublicly declare that Prof. Stuart of Andover regarded slaveholding as\nlawful; for that \"he had sent Archy back to his son Isaac, with an\napology for his running away\" to be held in perpetual slavery? With what\npropriety might not the professor exclaim: False, every syllable false.\nI sent him back, NOT TO BE HELD AS A SLAVE, _but recognized as a dear\nbrother, in all respects, under every relation, civil and\necclesiastical_. I bade my son receive _Archy as myself_. If this was\nnot equivalent to a requisition to set him fully and most honorably\nfree, and that, too, on the ground of natural obligation and Christian\nprinciple, then I know not how to frame such a requisition.\n\nI am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough fully\nto illustrate the case to which it is applied. Prof. Stuart lacks\napostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of a church\nconsisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of what the world\nregard as the dregs of society--\"the offscouring of all things.\" Nor was\nslavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such barbarous usages, such\nhorrid laws as disgrace the South.\n\nBut it is time to turn to another passage which, in its bearing on the\nsubject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of Dr. Fisk and\nProf. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and instructive. \"Let\nas many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of\nall honor, that the name of God and his doctrines be not blasphemed. And\nthey that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they\nare brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and\nbeloved, partakers of the benefit.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2.]\n\n1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes of servants, with\ninstructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one class and\nthe other, in Prof. Stuart's eye, were _slaves_. This he assumes, and\nthus begs the very question in dispute. The term servant is _generic_,\nas used by the sacred writers. It comprehends all the various offices\nwhich men discharge for the benefit of each other, however honorable, or\nhowever menial; from that of an apostle[B] opening the path to heaven,\nto that of washing \"one another's feet.\"[C] A general term it is,\ncomprehending every office which belongs to human relations and\nChristian character.[D]\n\n[Footnote B: Cor. iv. 5.]\n\n[Footnote C: John xiii. 14.]\n\n[Footnote D: Mat. xx. 26-28.]\n\nA leading signification gives us the _manual laborer_, to whom, in the\ndivision of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his exertions\nthe bodily powers are especially employed--such powers as belong to man\nin common with mere animals--his sphere has generally been considered\nlow and humble. And as intellectual power is superior to bodily, the\nmanual laborer has always been exposed in very numerous ways and in\nvarious degrees to oppression. Cunning, intrigue, the oily tongue, have,\nthrough extended and powerful conspiracies, brought the resources of\nsociety under the control of the few, who stood aloof from his homely\ntoil. Hence his dependence upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries\nwhich have fallen so heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages\nfrom one degree to another, till at length, in the case of millions,\nfraud and violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record\nof _mankind_, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away to toil\namong the cattle. _Here you find the slave._ To reduce the servant to\nhis condition, requires abuses altogether monstrous--injuries reaching\nthe very vitals of man--stabs upon the very heart of humanity. Now, what\nright has Prof. Stuart to make the word \"_servants_,\" comprehending,\neven as manual laborers, so many and such various meanings, signify\n\"_slaves_,\" especially where different classes are concerned? Such a\nright he could never have derived from humanity, or philosophy, or\nhermeneutics. Is it his by sympathy with the oppressor?\n\nYes, different classes. This is implied in the term \"_as many_,\"[A]\nwhich sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he proceeds\nto others, who are introduced by a particle,[B] whose natural meaning\nindicates the presence of another and a different subject.\n\n[Footnote A: [Greek: Osoi.] See Passow's Schneider.]\n\n[Footnote B: [Greek: De.] See Passow.]\n\n2. The first class are described as \"_under the yoke_\"--a yoke from\nwhich they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if\npossible.[C] If not, they must in every way regard the master with\nrespect--bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his\ninterests so far as might be consistent with Christian character.[D] And\nthis, to prevent blasphemy--to prevent the pagan master from heaping\nprofane reproaches upon the name of God and the doctrines of the gospel.\nThey should beware of rousing his passions, which, as his helpless\nvictims, they might be unable to allay or withstand.\n\n[Footnote C: See 1 Cor. vii. 21--[Greek: All ei kai d u n a s a i\neleutheros genesthai.]]\n\n[Footnote D: 1 Cor. vii. 23--[Greek: Mae ginesthe douloi anthropon.]]\n\nBut all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not \"_under the\nyoke_\"[E]--an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These he\ndistinguishes from another class, who instead of a \"yoke\"--the badge of\na slave--had \"_believing masters_.\" _To have a \"believing master,\" then,\nwas equivalent to freedom from \"the yoke.\"_ These servants were exhorted\nnot _to despise_ their masters. What need of such an exhortation, if\ntheir masters had been slaveholders, holding them as property, wielding\nthem as mere instruments, disposing of them as \"articles of\nmerchandise?\" But this was not consistent with believing. Faith,\n\"breaking every yoke,\" united master and servants in the bonds of\nbrotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a relation which, excluding\nthe yoke,[F] placed them side by side on the ground of equality, where,\neach in his appropriate sphere, they might exert themselves freely and\nusefully, to the mutual benefit of each other. Here, servants might need\nto be cautioned against getting above their appropriate business,\nputting on airs, despising their masters, and thus declining or\nneglecting their service.[G] Instead of this, they should be, as\nemancipated slaves often have been,[H] models of enterprise, fidelity,\nactivity, and usefulness--especially as their masters were \"worthy of\ntheir confidence and love,\" their helpers in this well-doing.[I]\n\n[Footnote E: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa. lviii. 6, 9.]\n\n[Footnote F: Supra p. 47.]\n\n[Footnote G: See Matt. vi. 24.]\n\n[Footnote H: Those, for instance, set free by that \"believing master\"\nJames G. Birney.]\n\n[Footnote I: The following exposition is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT,\nJR.:--\"This word [Greek: antilambanesthai,] in our humble opinion, has\nbeen so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to\ntake its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause\n'partakers of the benefit,' evidently lost sight of the component\npreposition, which expresses the _opposition of reciprocity_, rather\nthan the _connection of participation_. They have given it exactly the\nsense of [Greek: metalambanein,] (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle\nintended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of the\nmore common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonountes], &c. (See Heb. iii.\n1, 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 been\nused, it might have been rendered, 'neither be the _part-taker_ of other\nmen's sins.') The primary sense of [Greek: antilambano] is _to take in\nreturn--to take instead of, &c_. Hence, in the middle with the genitive,\nit signifies _assist_, or _do one's part towards_ the person or thing\nexpressed by that genitive. In this sense only is the word used in the\nNew Testament.--(See Luke i. 54, and Acts xx. 35.) If this be true, the\nword [Greek: euergesai] can not signify the benefit conferred by the\ngospel, as our common version would make it, but the _well-doing_ of the\nservants, who should continue to serve their believing masters, while\nthey were no longer under the _yoke_ of compulsion. This word is used\nelsewhere in the New Testament but once, (Acts iv. 3.) in relation to\nthe '_good deed_' done to the impotent man. The plain import of the\nclause, unmystified by the commentators, is, that believing masters\nwould not fail to _do their part towards_, or encourage by suitable\nreturns, the _free_ service of those who had once been under\nthe _yoke_.\"]\n\nSuch, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of Prof.\nStuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves[A]--the relation of\n\"brethren,\" which, excluding \"the yoke,\" and of course conferring\nfreedom, placed them side by side on the common ground of mutual\nservice, both retaining, for convenience's sake, the one while giving\nand the other while receiving employment, the correlative name, _as is\nusual in such cases_, under which they had been known. Such was the\ninstruction which Timothy was required, as a Christian minister, to\ngive. Was it friendly to slaveholding?\n\n[Footnote A: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.]\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_.\"[A] 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 as\ntheir master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range and as\nfree an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, and as\nhigh results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant to his\nmaster imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, occasioned\nno injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in \"_perfect\nreligious equality_,\" which the Princeton professor accords to servants\nin relation to their master. Might the _master_, then, in order more\nfully to attain the great ends for which he was created and redeemed,\nfreely exert himself to increase his acquaintance with his own powers,\nand relations, and resources--with his prospects, opportunities, and\nadvantages? So might his _servants_. Was _he_ at liberty to \"study to\napprove himself to God,\" to submit to his will and bow to his authority,\nas the sole standard of affection and exertion? So were _they_. Was _he_\nat liberty to sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the \"solemn assembly?\"\nSo were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal,\nand paternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and\nthat source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So were\n_they_. In every department of interest and exertion, they might use\ntheir capacities, and wield their powers, and improve their\nopportunities, 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. Such\nequality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the last link\nof the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit of slavery,\nhave given so wide and active a circulation do the Pittsburgh pamphlet,\nmake the experiment?\n\n[Footnote A: Pittsburgh Pamphlet, p. 9.]\n\nIn the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves earnest\nattention:--\"Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the\nflesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of\nheart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the\nLord, and not unto men; knowing, that of the Lord ye shall receive the\nreward of the inheritance; for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that\ndoeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is\nno respect of persons.--Masters, give unto your servants that which is\njust and equal; knowing that ye have a Master in heaven.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.]\n\nHere it is natural to remark--\n\n1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them, both\nmasters and servants were to act in conformity with the principles of\nthe divine government. Whatever _they_ did, servants were to do in\nhearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they were to be\ncontrolled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To the same Lord,\nand according to the same law, was the _master_ to hold himself\nresponsible. _Both the one and the other were of course equally at\nliberty and alike required to study and apply the standard, by which\nthey were to be governed and judged._\n\n2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed, was\n_righteousness_--strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias or\nantipathy. Birth, wealth, station,--the dust of the balance not so\nlight! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal, where\nnothing of \"respect of persons\" could be feared or hoped for. There the\nwrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top or bottom of\nsociety, must be dealt with according to his deservings.\n\n3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and heartily\nobedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master, faithfully\nto discharge their obligations. The master on his part, in his relations\nto the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY the _standard of his\nconduct_. Under the authority of such instructions, slavery falls\ndiscountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It is flagrantly at war with the\ngovernment of God, consists in \"respect of persons\" the most shameless\nand outrageous, treads justice and equality under foot, and in its\nnatural tendency and practical effects is nothing else than a system of\nwrong-doing. What have _they_ to do with the just and the equal who in\ntheir \"respect of persons\" proceed to such a pitch as to treat one\nbrother as a thing because he is a servant, and place him, without the\nleast regard to his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely\nat the disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in the\nrelation of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one hand, and\nthe chattel principle on the other, are naturally subversive of each\nother--proof clear and decisive that the correlates, masters and\nservants, cannot here be rendered slaves and owners, without the\ngrossest absurdity and the greatest violence.\n\n\"The relation of slavery,\" according to Prof. Stuart, is recognized in\n\"the precepts of the New Testament,\" as one which \"may still exist\nwithout violating the Christian faith or the church.\"[A] Slavery and the\nchattel principle! So our professor thinks; otherwise his reference has\nnothing to do with the subject--with the slavery which the abolitionist,\nwhom he derides, stands opposed to. How gross and hurtful is the mistake\ninto which he allows himself to fall. The relation recognized in the\nprecepts of the New Testament had its basis and support in \"justice and\nequality;\" the very opposite of the chattel principle; a relation which\nmay exist as long as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the\ndestruction to which, in the view of Prof. Stuart, slavery is doomed.\nThe description of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery,\nraising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his rights\nunder the protection of justice; yet the eye of Prof. Stuart can see\nnothing in his master and servant but a slave and his owner. With this\nrelation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like an evil angel, it\nhaunts him even when he enters the temple of justice!\n\n[Footnote A: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.]\n\n\"It is remarkable,\" with the Princeton professor, \"that there is not\neven an exhortation\" in the writings of the apostles \"to masters to\nliberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and\nimmediate duty.\"[B] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were\nchargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have nothing\nto say upon the subject? _That_ not even the Princeton professor has the\nassurance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY, AND JUSTICE, were\nenjoined with a _distinct reference to the government of God_.[C]\n\"Without respect of persons,\" they were to be God-like in doing justice.\nThey were to act the part of kind and merciful \"brethren.\" And whither\nwould this lead them? Could they stop short of restoring to every man\nhis natural, inalienable rights?--of doing what they could to redress\nthe wrongs, soothe the sorrows, improve the character, and raise the\ncondition of the degraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and\ndegraded by any agency of theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to\nkeep the chains of slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would\nthis be to honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of\n\"their Master in heaven?\" Could the apostles have subserved the cause of\nfreedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than _to enjoin\nthe principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which freedom\nconsists--constituting its living root and fruitful germ_?\n\n[Footnote B: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote C: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p. 10.]\n\nThe Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South has\nso warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural defense of\n\"the peculiar institution,\" maintains, that the \"GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF\nTHE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout out the greater part of\nChristendom\"_[A]--\"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED BOTH POLITICAL AND\nDOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE SCOPE--_that it_ ENJOINS _a\nfair compensation for labor; insists on the mental and intellectual\nimprovement of_ ALL _classes of men; condemns_ ALL _infractions of\nmarital or parental rights; requires in short not only that_ FREE SCOPE\n_should be allowed to human improvement, but that _ALL SUITABLE MEANS_\n_should be employed for the attainment of that end._\"[B] It is indeed\n\"remarkable,\" that while neither Christ nor his apostles ever gave \"an\nexhortation to masters to liberate their slaves,\" they enjoined such\n\"general principles as have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the\ngreater part of Christendom;\" that while Christianity forbears \"to urge\"\nemancipation \"as an imperative and immediate duty,\" it throws a barrier,\nheaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the rights of\nthe husband and the fathers; gives every laborer a fair compensation;\nand makes the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes, with\nfree scope and all suitable means, the object of its tender solicitude\nand high authority. This is not only \"remarkable,\" but inexplicable. Yes\nand no--hot and cold, in one and the same breath! And yet these things\nstand prominent in what is reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective\ndefense of slavery!\n\n[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 18. 19.]\n\n[Footnote B: The same, p. 31.]\n\nIn his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes\nanother lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings on\nthe subject of slavery. \"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein\nhe was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if\nthou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the\nLord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is\ncalled, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be\nnot ye the servants of men.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.]\n\nIn explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest,\n\n1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind the\nCorinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the Gospel\nfound them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, from\ntheir present condition. In the servile state, \"under the yoke,\" they\nought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity. \"If thou canst\nbe free, use it rather.\" If they ought to prefer freedom to bondage and\nto exert themselves to escape from the latter for the sake of the\nformer, could their master consistently with the claims and spirit of\nthe Gospel have hindered or discouraged them in so doing? Their\n\"brother\" could _he_ be, who kept \"the yoke\" upon their neck, which the\napostle would have them shake off if possible? And had such masters been\nmembers of the Corinthian church, what inferences must they have drawn\nfrom this exhortation to their servants? That the apostle regarded\nslavery as a Christian institution?--or could look complacently on any\nefforts to introduce or maintain it in the church? Could they have\nexpected less from him than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert\nthemselves in the cause of freedom?\n\n2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it,\nthey should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to ceaseless\nanxiety. \"The Lord was no respecter of persons.\" They need not fear,\nthat the \"low estate,\" to which they had been wickedly reduced, would\nprevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or the light of his\ncountenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth their sorrows, and\npour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the spirit of liberty. \"For\nhe that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman.\"\nIn _him_, therefore, should they cheerfully confide.\n\n3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile\nrelation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations. To\ntheir Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased. It\nshould be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty and\neffective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, to\nthrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. \"_Ye are bought with\na price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN.\"\n\nWith his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the Princeton\nprofessor asserts that \"Paul represents this relation\"--the relation of\nslavery--\"as of comparatively little account.\"[A] And this he\napplies--otherwise it is nothing to his purpose--to _American_ slavery.\nDoes he then regard it as a small matter, a mere trifle, to be thrown\nunder the slave-laws of this republic, grimly and fiercely excluding\ntheir victim from almost every means of improvement, and field of\nusefulness, and source of comfort; and making him, body and substance,\nwith his wife and babes, \"the servant of men?\" Could such a relation be\nacquiesced in consistently with the instructions of the apostle?\n\n[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 10.]\n\nTo the Princeton professor the commend a practical trial of the bearing\nof the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for the unity\nand prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which in various\nforms and under different names unite the southern with the northern\nchurches, will make the experiment grateful to his feelings. Let him,\nthen, as soon as his convenience will permit, proceed to Georgia. No\nreligious teacher[B] from any free state, can be likely to receive so\ngeneral and so warm a welcome there. To allay the heat, which the\ndoctrines and movements of the abolitionists have occasioned in the\nsouthern mind, let him with as much despatch as possible collect, as he\ngoes from place to place, masters and their slaves. Now let all men,\nwhom it may concern, see and own that slavery is a Christian\ninstitution! With his Bible in his hand and his eye upon the passage in\nquestion, he addresses himself to the task of instructing the slaves\naround him. Let not your hearts, my brethren, be overcharged with\nsorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your servile condition cannot deprive\nyou of the fatherly regards of Him \"who is no respecter of persons.\"\nFreedom you ought, indeed, to prefer. If you can escape from \"the yoke,\"\nthrow it off. In the mean time rejoice that \"where the Spirit of the\nLord is, there is liberty;\" that the Gospel places slaves \"on a perfect\nreligious equality\" with their master; so that every Christian is \"the\nLord's freeman.\" And, for your encouragement, remember that\n\"Christianity has abolished both political and domestic servitude\nwhenever it has had free scope. It enjoins a fair compensation for\nlabor; it insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all\nclasses of men; it condemns all infractions of marital or parental\nrights; in short it requires not only that free scope be allowed to\nhuman improvement, but that all suitable means should be employed for\nthe attainment of that end.\"[C] Let your lives, then, be honorable to\nyour relations to your Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is\nentitled to your warmest love and most effective service. \"Be not ye the\nservants of men.\" Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of\nthe kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and\nopportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, allay\nexcitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, every day\nrising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of the republic,\nand cement \"the Union?\"\n\n[Footnote B: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very long\nago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in the\nliterary and religious world from a slaveholding state, where the\n\"peculiar institution\" is cherished with great warmth and maintained\nwith iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the Princeton\nprofessor had, through the Pittsburgh pamphlet, contributed most\npowerfully and effectually to bring the \"whole South\" under the\npersuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_--a system _to which\nthe Bible gives countenance and support_.\n\nIn an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a new\nPresbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, and\ninserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find the\nfollowing paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and according to\nMr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor. \"There is scarcely\nany diversity of sentiment at the North upon this subject. The great\nmass of the people believing slavery to be sinful, are clearly of the\nopinion that as a system, it should be abolished throughout this land\nand throughout the world. They differ as to the time and mode of\nabolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, that whatever is\nsinful, should be instantly abandoned. The others, _by a strange sort of\nreasoning for Christian men_, contend that though slavery is sinful,\n_yet it may be allowed to exist until it shall be expedient to abolish\nit_; or if, in many cases, this reasoning might be translated into plain\nEnglish, the sense would be, both in church and State, _slavery, though\nsinful, may be allowed to exist until our interest will suffer us to say\nthat it must be abolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain\nway of stating a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man\nto become an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the\nBible allows no tampering with sin.\"\n\n\"To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions to be found in both\nparties in the church. _The South owes a debt of gratitude to the\nBiblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the position,\nthat slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of that article\nis said, without contradiction, to be _Prof. Hodge of Princeton--HIS\nNAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, my brethren, for in a land\nof anti-slavery men, he is the ONLY ONE who has dared to vindicate your\ncharacter from the serious charge of living in the habitual\ntransgression of God's holy law_.\"]\n\n[Footnote C: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 31.]\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 worst\nforms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it around him_\nin JUDEA.\"[A] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to speak\nambiguously. Many things were to be found \"_in_ Judea,\" which neither\nbelonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is not denied\nthat _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have had slaves; _but\nof the Jews this is denied_. How could the professor take that as\ngranted, the proof of which entered vitally into the argument and was\nessential to the soundness of the conclusions to which he would conduct\nus? How could he take advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct\nhis confiding readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open,\nhe must have known they could not hold in the light of open day?\n\n[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 9.]\n\nWe do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or\ncourage,[B] 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, impart\ninstruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on extraordinary\noccasions, he might have done so. But his business then was with \"the\nlost sheep of the house of Israel.\"[C] The propriety of this arrangement\nis not the matter of dispute between the Princeton professor and\nourselves.\n\n[Footnote B: The same, p. 10.]\n\n[Footnote C: Matt. xv. 24.]\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\n1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the proof\nof this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more or less\nappropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded to.[A] In all the\nexternal relations and visible arrangements of life, the Jews, during\nour Savior's ministry among them, seem to have been scrupulously\nobservant of the institutions and usages of the \"Old Dispensation.\" They\nstood far aloof from whatever was characteristic of Samaritans and\nGentiles. From idolatry and slaveholding--those twin-vices which had\nalways so greatly prevailed among the heathen--they seem at length, as\nthe result of a most painful discipline, to have been effectually\ndivorced.\n\n[Footnote A: \"The Bible against Slavery.\"]\n\n2. While, therefore, John the Baptist, with marked fidelity and great\npower, acted among the Jews the part of a _reprover_, he found no\noccasion to repeat and apply the language of his predecessors,[B] in\nexposing and rebuking idolatry and slaveholding. Could he, the greatest\nof the prophets, have been less effectually aroused by the presence of\n\"the yoke,\" than was Isaiah?--or less intrepid and decisive in exposing\nand denouncing the sin of oppression under its most hateful and\ninjurious forms?\n\n[Footnote B: Psalm lxxxii; Isa. lviii. 1-12; Jer. xxii. 13-16.]\n\n3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly\nand pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews.\nThese principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the Princeton\nprofessor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had this prevailed\nwithin the sphere of our Savior's ministry, he could not, consistently\nwith his general character, have failed to expose and condemn it. The\noppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics, of parents by their\nselfish children, of widows by their ghostly counsellors, drew from his\nlips scorching rebukes and terrible denunciations.[C] How, then, must he\nhave felt and spoke in the presence of such tyranny, if _such tyranny\nhad been within his official sphere_, as should _have made widows_, by\ndriving their husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not\norphans, _but cattle_?\n\n[Footnote C: Matt. xxiii; Mark vii. 1-13.]\n\n4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the _industry_,\nwhich, _in the form of manual labor_, so generally prevailed among the\nJews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are informed,\nthat, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul \"found a certain Jew named\nAquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla;\n(because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome;) and\ncame unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them\nand wrought: (for by their occupation they were tent-makers.\")[A] This\npassage has opened the way for different commentators to refer us to the\npublic sentiment and general practice of the Jews respecting useful\nindustry and manual labor. According to _Lightfoot_, \"it was their\ncustom to bring up their children to some trade, yea, though they gave\nthem learning or estates.\" According to Rabbi Judah, \"He that teaches\nnot his son a trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief.\"[B] It was,\n_Kuinoel_ affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor\n(opificium) with the study of the law. This he confirms by the highest\nRabbinical authority.[C] _Heinrichs_ quotes a Rabbi as teaching, that no\nman should by any means neglect to train his son to honest industry.[D]\nAccordingly, the apostle Paul, though brought up at the \"feet of\nGamaliel,\" the distinguished disciple of a most illustrious teacher,\npracticed the art of tent-making. His own hands ministered to his\nnecessities; and his example in so doing, he commends to his Gentile\nbrethren for their imitation.[E] That Zebedee, the father of John the\nEvangelist, had wealth, various hints in the New Testament render\nprobable.[F] Yet how do we find him and his sons, while prosecuting\ntheir appropriate business? In the midst of the hired servants, \"in the\nship mending their nets.\"[G]\n\n[Footnote A: Acts xviii. 1-3.]\n\n[Footnote B: Henry on Acts xviii, 1-3.]\n\n[Footnote C: Kuinoel on Acts.]\n\n[Footnote D: Heinrichs on Acts.]\n\n[Footnote E: Acts xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11]\n\n[Footnote F: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.]\n\n[Footnote G: Mark i. 19, 20.]\n\nSlavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were used to\nmanual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could it be\nmaintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people generally\ninured to useful industry. With such, especially if men of learning,\nwealth, and station \"labor, working with their hands,\" such labor must\nbe honorable. On this subject, let Jewish maxims and Jewish habits be\nadopted at the South, and the \"peculiar institution\" would vanish like a\nghost at daybreak.\n\n5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished in\nthe allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most servile\nemployments among the Jews. With profligates, _publicans_ were joined as\ndepraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society were described, not\nas fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a place among Samaritans\nand publicans. They were \"_hired servants_,\" whom Zebedee employed. In\nthe parable of the prodigal son we have a wealthy Jewish family. Here\nservants seem to have abounded. The prodigal, bitterly bewailing his\nwretchedness and folly, described their condition as greatly superior to\nhis own. How happy the change which should place him by their side! His\nremorse, and shame, and penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of\nthe lowest of them all. But these--what was their condition? They were\nHIRED SERVANTS. \"Make me as one of thy hired servants.\" Such he refers\nto as the 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; that\nJohn the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no reference\n\"to the yoke\" which, had it been before him, he would, like Isaiah, have\ncondemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of the poor and\nsympathized with the oppressed; was evidently spared the pain of\nwitnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence of the\nchattel principle; that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever they might\nbe, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, \"to labor, working with\ntheir hands;\" and that where reference was had to the most menial\nemployments, in families, they were described as carried on by hired\nservants; and the question of slavery \"in Judea,\" so far as the seed of\nAbraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of. With every phase and\nform of society among them slavery was inconsistent.\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 slaveholders.\nThe present welfare and future happiness of myriads of the human family\nwere at stake in this contest. In the heat of the battle, he throws\nhimself between the belligerent powers. He gives the abolitionists to\nunderstand, that they are quite mistaken in the character of the object\nthey have set themselves so openly and sternly against. Slaveholding is\nnot, as they suppose, contrary to the law of God. It was witnessed by\nthe Savior \"in its worst form,\"[A] without extorting from his lips a\nsyllable of rebuke. \"The sacred writers did not condemn it.\"[B] And why\nshould they? By a definition[C] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he\nundertakes to set forth a form of slavery which he looks upon as\nconsistent with the law of Righteousness. From this definition he infers\nthat the abolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that\nAmerican slavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting\nthat it ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the\nslaveholding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, as\nif a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[D]\n\n[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote B: The same p. 13.]\n\n[Footnote C: The same p. 12.]\n\n[Footnote D: Supra p. 61.]\n\nA few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate.\n\n1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent _the\nform_ witnessed by our Savior \"in Judea?\" That, _he_ will by no means\nadmit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the \"worst\" kind. _How then\ndoes he account for the alledged silence of the Savior?--a silence\ncovering the essence and the form--the institution and its\n\"worst\" abuses?_\n\n2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor,\nChristianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so\nearnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see.\n\n_Christianity in supporting             _The American system for\nSlavery, according to Prof.             supporting Slavery,_\nHodge,_\n\n\"Enjoins a fair compensation            Makes compensation impossible\nfor labor.\"                             by reducing the laborer to a\n                                        chattel.\n\n\"It insists on the moral                It sternly forbids its victim\nand intellectual improvement            to learn to read even the\nof all classes of men.\"                 name of his Creator and\n                                        Redeemer.\n\n\"It condemns all infractions            It outlaws the conjugal and\nof marital or parental rights.\"         parental relations.\n\n\"It requires that free scope            It forbids any effort, on the\nshould be allowed to human              part of myriads of the human\nimprovement.\"                           family, to improve their\n                                        character, condition, and\n                                        prospects.\n\n\"It requires that all suitable          It inflicts heavy penalties\nmeans should be employed to improve     for teaching letters to the\nmankind.\"                               to the poorest of the poor.\n\n\"Wherever it has had free scope, it     Wherever it has free scope,\nhas abolished domestic bondage.\"        it perpetuates domestic\n                                        bondage.\n\n_Now it is slavery according to the American system_ that the\nabolitionists are set against. _Of the existence of any_ such form of\nslavery as is consistent with Prof. Hodge's account of the requisitions\nof Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met their notice, and\nof course, has never roused their feelings, or called forth their\nexertions. What, then, have _they_ to do with the censures and\nreproaches which the Princeton professor deals around? Let those who\nhave leisure and good nature protect the _man of straw_ he is so hot\nagainst. The abolitionists have other business. It is not the figment of\nsome sickly brain; but that system of oppression which in theory is\ncorrupting, and in practice destroying both Church and State;--it is\nthis that they feel pledged to do battle upon, till by the just judgment\nof Almighty God it is thrown, dead and damned, into the\nbottomless abyss.\n\n3. _How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may be\nthrown over SUCH SLAVERY, as may be consistent with what the Princeton\nprofessor describes as the requisitions of Christianity?_ Is _this?_\nTHE _slavery_ which their laws describe, and their hands maintain? \"Fair\ncompensation for labor\"--\"marital and parental rights\"--\"free scope\"\nand \"all suitable means\" for the \"improvement, moral and intellectual,\nof all classes of men;\"--are these, according to the statutes of the\nSouth, among the objects of slaveholding legislation? Every body knows\nthat any such requisition and American slavery are flatly opposed to and\ndirectly subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton\nprofessor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the\n\"peculiar institution?\" Their gratitude must be of a stamp and\ncomplexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their\n\"domestic system\" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as\nmust at once crush its snaky head \"and grind it to powder.\"\n\nAnd what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions which\nProf. Hodge quotes, upon _the definition of slavery_ which he has\nelaborated? \"All the ideas which necessarily enter into the definition\nof slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of service\nat the discretion of another, and the transferable character of the\nauthority and claim of service of the master[A].\"\n\n[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 12]\n\n\n_According to Prof. Hodge's            According to Prof. Hodge's\naccount of the requisitions of           account of Slavery,\nChristianity,_\n\nThe spring of effort in the labor       The laborer must serve at the\nis a fair compensation.                 discretion of another.\n\nFree scope must be given for his moral  He is deprived of personal\nand intellectual improvement.           liberty--the necessary\n                                        condition, and living soul\n                                        of improvement, without which\n                                        he has no control of either\n                                        intellect or morals.\n\nHis rights as a husband and a father    The authority and claims of\nare to be protected.                    the master may throw an ocean\n                                        between him and his family,\n                                        and separate them from each\n                                        other's presence at any moment\n                                        and forever.\n\nChristianity, then, requires such slavery as Prof. Hodge so cunningly\ndefines, to be abolished. It was well provided, for the peace of the\nrespective parties, that he placed _his definition_ so far from _the\nrequisitions of Christianity_. Had he brought them into each other's\npresence, their natural and invincible antipathy to each other would\nhave broken out into open and exterminating warfare. But why should we\ndelay longer upon an argument which is based on gross and monstrous\nsophistry? It can mislead only such as _wish_ to be misled. The lovers\nof sunlight are in little danger of rushing into the professor's\ndungeon. Those who, having something to conceal, covet darkness, can\nfind it there, to their hearts' content. The hour can not be far away,\nwhen upright and reflective minds at the South will be astonished at the\nblindness which could welcome such protection as the Princeton argument\noffers to the slaveholder.\n\nBut _Prof. Stuart_ must not be forgotten. In his celebrated letter to\nDr. Fisk, he affirms that \"_Paul did not expect slavery to be ousted in\na day_[A].\" _Did not_ EXPECT! What then? Are the _requisitions_ of\nChristianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which in any quarter and on any\nground might have risen to human consciousness? And are we to interpret\nthe _precepts_ of the Gospel by the expectations of Paul? The Savior\ncommanded all men every where to repent, and this, though \"Paul did not\nexpect\" that human wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any\ncommunity \"be ousted in a day.\" Expectations are one thing; requisitions\nquite another.\n\n[Footnote A: Supra, p.8.]\n\nIn the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds,\n\"gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor.\" _That_ he did.\nOf what character were these precepts? Must they not have been in\nharmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Prof. Stuart,\n\"decides against the righteousness of slavery\" even as a \"theory.\"\nAccordingly, Christians were required, _without_ _respect of persons_,\nto do each other justice--to maintain equality as common ground for all\nto stand upon--to cherish and express in all their intercourse that\ntender love and disinterested charity which one _brother_ naturally\nfeels for another. These were the \"ad interim precepts,\"[A] which can\nnot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, \"root and branch,\" at once\nand forever.\n\n[Footnote A: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 8.]\n\nProf. Stuart comforts us with the assurance that \"_Christianity will\nultimately certainly destroy slavery_.\" Of this _we_ have not the\nfeeblest doubt. But how could _he_ admit a persuasion and utter a\nprediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that \"_slavery\nmay exist without_ VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE CHURCH?\"[B]\nWhat, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient and cherished\ninstitution which hurts neither her character nor condition![C] Why not\ncorrect its abuses and purify its spirit; and shedding upon it her own\nbeauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of her reformatory power? Whence\nthe discovery that, in her onward progress, she would trample down and\ndestroy what was no way hurtful to her? This is to be _aggressive_ with\na witness. Far be it from the Judge of all the earth to whelm the\ninnocent and guilty in the same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart,\nin the rude and scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we\nmaintain that Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of\nits inherent wickedness--its malignant temper--its deadly effects--its\nconstitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the authority of\nGod and the welfare of man.\n\n[Footnote B: The same, p. 7.]\n\n[Footnote C: Prof. Stuart applies here the words, _salva fide et salva\necclesia_.]\n\n\"Christianity will _ultimately_ destroy slavery.\" \"ULTIMATELY!\" What\nmeaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time, concealed\nin the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O watchman, on the\nhill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have rolled over this world\nof wrong and outrage--and yet we tremble in the presence of a form of\nslavery whose breath is poison, whose fang is death! If any one of the\nincidents of slavery should fall, but for a single day, upon the head of\nthe prophet who dipped his pen, in such cold blood, to write that word\n\"ultimately,\" how, under the sufferings of the first tedious hour, would\nhe break out in the lamentable cry, \"How _long_, O Lord, HOW LONG!\" In\nthe agony of beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the\nauctioneer, while every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of\ndespair, small comfort would he find in the dull assurance of some\nheartless prophet, quite at \"ease in Zion,\" that \"ULTIMATELY\n_Christianity would destroy slavery_.\" As the hammer falls and the\nbeloved of his soul, all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to\nthe haunts of _legalized_ debauchery, his heart turns to stone, while\nthe cry dies upon his lips, \"_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG?\"\n\n\"_Ultimately!_\" In _what circumstances_ does Prof. Stuart assure himself\nthat Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as American citizens,\nunder the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts of this\nrepublic--as living members of this community, did we forfeit the\nprerogatives of _freemen_? Have we not the right to speak and act as\nwielding the powers which the principle of self-government has put in\nour possession? And without asking leave of priest or statesman, of the\nNorth or the South, may we not make the most of the freedom which we\nenjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven and the\nConstitution of our country? Can we expect to see Christianity on higher\nvantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In the midst of a\nrepublic based on the principle of the equality of mankind, where every\nChristian, as vitally connected with the state, freely wields the\nhighest political rights and enjoys the richest political privileges;\nwhere the unanimous demand of one-half of the members of the churches\nwould be promptly met in the abolition of slavery, what \"_ultimately_\"\nmust Christianity here wait for before she crushes the chattel principle\nbeneath her heel? Her triumph over slavery is retarded by nothing but\nthe corruption and defection so widely spread through the \"sacramental\nhost\" beneath her banners! Let her voice be heard and her energies\nexerted, and the _ultimately_ of the \"dark spirit of slavery\" would at\nonce give place to the _immediately_ of the Avenger of the Poor.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nNO 8.\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCORRESPONDENCE,\n\nBETWEEN THE\n\nHON. F.H. ELMORE,\n\nONE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DELEGATION IN CONGRESS,\n\nAND\n\nJAMES G. BIRNEY,\n\nONE OF THE SECRETARIES OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNEW-YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\n\nNo. 143 NASSAU STREET.\n\n1838.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis periodical contains 5 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 7-1/2 cts.;\nover 100 miles, 12-1/2 cts.\n\n_Please read and circulate_.\n\n\n\nREMARKS IN EXPLANATION.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nANTI-SLAVERY OFFICE, _New York, May 24, 1838_.\n\nIn January, a tract entitled \"WHY WORK FOR THE SLAVE?\" was issued from\nthis office by the agent for the _Cent-a-week Societies_. A copy of it\nwas transmitted to the Hon. John C. Calhoun;--to _him_, because he has\nseemed, from the first, more solicitous than the generality of Southern\npoliticians, to possess himself of accurate information about the\nAnti-Slavery movement. A note written by me accompanied the tract,\ninforming Mr. Calhoun, why it was sent to him.\n\nNot long afterward, the following letter was received from the Hon. F.H.\nElmore, of the House of Representatives in Congress. From this and\nanother of his letters just now received, it seems, that the\nSlaveholding Representatives in Congress, after conferring together,\nappointed a committee, of their own number, to obtain authentic\ninformation of the intentions and progress of the Anti-Slavery\nassociations,--and that Mr. Elmore was selected, as the _South Carolina_\nmember of the Committee.\n\nSeveral other communications have passed between Mr. Elmore and me. They\nrelate, chiefly, however, to the transmission and reception of\nAnti-slavery publications, which he requested to be sent to him,--and to\nother matters not having any connection with the merits of the main\nsubject. It is, therefore, thought unnecessary to publish them. It may\nbe sufficient to remark of all the communications received from Mr.\nElmore--that they are characterized by exemplary courtesy and good\ntemper, and that they bear the impress of an educated, refined, and\nliberal mind.\n\nIt is intended to circulate this correspondence throughout the _whole\ncountry_. If the information it communicates be important for southern\nRepresentatives in Congress, it is not less so for their Constituents.\nThe Anti-slavery movement has become so important in a National point of\nview, that no statesman can innocently remain ignorant of its progress\nand tendencies. The facts stated in my answer may be relied on, in\nproportion to the degree of accuracy to which they lay claim;--the\narguments will, of course, be estimated according to their worth.\n\nJAMES G. BIRNEY.\n\n\n\nCORRESPONDENCE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWASHINGTON CITY, FEB. 16, 1838\n\nTo Jas. G. Birney, Esq., _Cor. Sec. A.A.S. Soc._\n\nSir:--A letter from you to the Hon. John C. Calhoun, dated 29th January\nlast, has been given to me, by him, in which you say, (in reference to\nthe abolitionists or Anti-Slavery Societies,) \"we have nothing to\nconceal--and should you desire any information as to our procedure, it\nwill be cheerfully communicated on [my] being apprised of your wishes.\"\nThe frankness of this unsolicited offer indicates a fairness and honesty\nof purpose, which has caused the present communication, and which\ndemands the same full and frank disclosure of the views with which the\nsubjoined inquiries are proposed.\n\nYour letter was handed to me, in consequence of a duty assigned me by my\ndelegation, and which requires me to procure all the authentic\ninformation I can, as to the nature and intentions of yours and similar\nassociations, in order that we may, if we deem it advisable, lay the\ninformation before our people, so that they may be prepared to decide\nunderstandingly, as to the course it becomes them to pursue on this all\nimportant question. If you \"have nothing to conceal,\" and it is not\nimposing too much on, what may have been, an unguarded proffer, I will\nesteem your compliance as a courtesy to an opponent, and be pleased to\nhave an opportunity to make a suitable return. And if, on the other\nhand, you have the least difficulty or objection, I trust you will not\nhesitate to withhold the information sought for, as I would not have it,\nunless as freely given, as it will, if deemed expedient, be freely used.\n\nI am, Sir,\n\nYour ob'd't serv't,\n\nF.H. ELMORE, of S.C.\n\nQUESTIONS for J.G. Birney, Esq., Cor. Sec. A.A.S. Society.\n\n1. How many societies, affiliated with that of which you are the\nCorresponding Secretary, are there in the United States? And how many\nmembers belong to them _in the aggregate_?\n\n2. Are there any other societies similar to yours, and not affiliated\nwith it, in the United States? and how many, and what is the aggregate\ntheir members?\n\n3. Have you affiliation, intercourse or connection with any similar\nsocieties out of the United States, and in what countries?\n\n4. Do your or similar societies exist in the Colleges and other Literary\ninstitutions of the non-slaveholding States, and to what extent?\n\n5. What do you estimate the numbers of those who co-operate in this\nmatter at? What proportion do they bear in the population of the\nNorthern states, and what in the Middle non-slaveholding states? Are\nthey increasing, and at what rate?\n\n6. What is the object your associations aim at? does it extend to the\nabolition of slavery only in the District of Columbia, or in the whole\nslave country?\n\n7. By what means, and under what power, do you propose to carry your\nviews into effect?\n\n8. What has been for three years past, the annual income of your\nsocieties? and how is it raised?\n\n9. In what way, and to what purposes, do you apply these funds?\n\n10. How many priming presses and periodical publications have you?\n\n11. To what classes of persons do you address your publications, and are\nthey addressed to the judgment, the imagination, or the feelings?\n\n12. Do you propagate your doctrines by any other means than oral and\nwritten discussions,--for instance, by prints and pictures in\nmanufactures--say pocket handkerchiefs, &c. Pray, state the\nvarious modes?\n\n13. Are your hopes and expectations increased or lessened by the events\nof the last year, and, especially, by the action of this Congress? And\nwill your exertions be relaxed or increased?\n\n14. Have you any permanent fund, and how much?\n\nANTI-SLAVERY OFFICE, _New York, March 8, 1838_\n\nHon. F.H. ELMORE,\n\nMember of Congress from S. Carolina:\n\nSIR,--I take pleasure in furnishing the information you have so politely\nasked for, in your letter of the 16th ult., in relation to the American\nAnti-Slavery Society;--and trust, that this correspondence, by\npresenting in a sober light, the objects and measures of the society,\nmay contribute to dispel, not only from your own mind, but--if it be\ndiffused throughout the South--from the minds of our fellow-citizens\nthere generally, a great deal of undeserved prejudice and groundless\nalarm. I cannot hesitate to believe, that such as enter on the\nexamination of its claims to public favour, without bias, will find that\nit aims intelligently, not only at the promotion of the interests of the\nslave, but of the master,--not only at the re-animation of the\nRepublican principles of our Constitution, but at the establishment of\nthe Union on an enduring basis.\n\nI shall proceed to state the several questions submitted in your letter,\nand answer them, in the order in which they are proposed. You ask,--\n\n\"1. _How many societies, affiliated with that of which you are\ncorresponding secretary, are there in the United States? And how many\nmembers belong to them_ IN THE AGGREGATE?\"\n\nANSWER.--Our anniversary is held on the Tuesday immediately preceding\nthe second Thursday in May. Returns of societies are made only a short\ntime before. In May, 1835, there were 225 auxiliaries reported. In May,\n1836, 527. In May, 1837, 1006. Returns for the anniversary in May next\nhave not come in yet. It may, however, be safely said, that the\nincrease, since last May, is not less than 400.[A] Of late, the\nmultiplication of societies has not kept pace with the progress of our\nprinciples. Where these are well received, our agents are not so careful\nto organize societies as in former times, when our numbers were few;\n_societies, now_, being not deemed so necessary for the advancement of\nour cause. The auxiliaries average not less than 80 members each; making\nan aggregate of 112,480. Others estimate the auxiliaries at 1500, and\nthe average of members at 100. I give you, what I believe to be the\nlowest numbers.\n\n[Footnote A: The number reported for May was three hundred and forty,\nmaking, in the aggregate, 1346.--_Report for May_, 1838.]\n\n\"2. _Are there any other societies similar to yours, and not affiliated\nwith it in the United States? And how many, and what is the aggregate of\ntheir members_?\"\n\nANSWER.--Several societies have been formed in the Methodist connection\nwithin the last two years,--although most of the Methodists who are\nabolitionists, are members of societies auxiliary to the American. These\nsocieties have been originated by Ministers, and others of weight and\ninfluence, who think that their brethren can be more easily persuaded,\nas a religious body, to aid in the anti-slavery movement by this twofold\naction. None of the large religious denominations bid fairer soon to be\non the side of emancipation than the Methodist. Of the number of the\nMethodist societies that are not auxiliary, I am not informed.--The\nILLINOIS SOCIETY comes under the same class. The REV. ELIJAH P. LOVEJOY,\nthe corresponding secretary, was slain by a mob, a few days after its\norganization. It has not held a meeting since; and I have no data for\nstating the number of its members. It is supposed not to be\nlarge.--Neither is the DELAWARE SOCIETY, organized, a few weeks ago, at\nWilmington, auxiliary to the American. I have no information as to its\nnumbers.--The MANUMISSION SOCIETY in this city, formed in 1785, with\nJOHN JAY its first, and ALEXANDER HAMILTON its second president, might,\nfrom its name, be supposed to be affiliated with the American.\nOriginally, its object, so far as regarded the slaves, and those\nillegally held in bondage _in this state_, was, in a great measure,\nsimilar. Slavery being extinguished in New-York in 1827, as a state\nsystem, the efforts of the Manumission Society are limited now to the\nrescue, from kidnappers and others, of such persons as are really free\nby the laws, but who have been reduced to slavery. Of the old Abolition\nsocieties, organized in the time, and under the influence of Franklin\nand Rush and Jay, and the most active of their coadjutors, but few\nremain. Their declension may be ascribed to this defect,--they did not\ninflexibly ask for _immediate_ emancipation.--The PENNSYLVANIA ABOLITION\nSOCIETY, formed in 1789, with DR. FRANKLIN, president, and DR. RUSH,\nsecretary, is still in existence--but unconnected with the American\nSociety. Some of the most active and benevolent members of both the\nassociations last named, are members of the American Society. Besides\nthe societies already mentioned, there may be in the country a few\nothers of anti-slavery name; but they are of small note and efficiency,\nand are unconnected with this.\n\n\"3. _Have you affiliation, intercourse, or connection with any similar\nsocieties out of the United States, and in what countries_?\"\n\nANSWER.--A few societies have spontaneously sprung up in Canada. Two\nhave declared themselves auxiliary to the American. We have an agent--a\nnative of the United States--in Upper Canada; not with a view to the\norganization of societies, but to the moral and intellectual elevation\nof the Ten thousand colored people there; most of whom have escaped from\nslavery in this Republic, to enjoy freedom under the protection of a\nMonarchy. In Great Britain there are numerous Anti-slavery Societies,\nwhose particular object, of late, has been, to bring about the abolition\nof the Apprentice-system, as established by the emancipation act in her\nslaveholding colonies. In England, there is a society whose professed\nobject is, to abolish slavery _throughout the world_. Of the existence\nof the British societies, you are, doubtless, fully aware; as also of\nthe fact, that, in Britain, the great mass of the people are opposed to\nslavery as it existed, a little while ago, in their own colonies, and as\nit exists now in the United States.--In France, the \"FRENCH SOCIETY FOR\nTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY\" was founded in 1834. I shall have the pleasure\nof transmitting to you two pamphlets, containing an account of some of\nits proceedings; from which you will learn, that, the DUC DE BROGLIE is\nits presiding officer, and many of the most distinguished and\ninfluential of the public men of that country are members.--In Hayti,\nalso, \"The HAYTIAN ABOLITION SOCIETY\" was formed in May, 1836.\n\nThese are all the foreign societies of which I have knowledge. They are\nconnected with the American by no formal affiliation. The only\nintercourse between them and it, is, that which springs up spontaneously\namong those of every land who sympathize with Humanity in her conflicts\nwith Slavery.\n\n\"4. _Do your or similar societies exist in the Colleges and other\nLiterary institutions of the non-slaveholding states, and to\nwhat extent_?\"\n\nANSWER.--Strenuous efforts have been made, and they are still being\nmade, by those who have the direction of most of the literary and\ntheological institutions in the free states, to bar out our principles\nand doctrines, and prevent the formation of societies among the\nstudents. To this course they have been prompted by various, and\npossibly, in their view, good motives. One of them, I think it not\nuncharitable to say, is, to conciliate the wealthy of the south, that\nthey may send their sons to the north, to swell the college catalogues.\nNeither do I think it uncharitable to say, that in this we have a\nmanifestation of that Aristocratic pride, which, feeling itself honored\nby having entrusted to its charge the sons of distant, opulent, and\ndistinguished planters, fails not to dull everything like sympathy for\nthose whose unpaid toil supplies the means so lavishly expended in\neducating southern youth at northern colleges. These efforts at\nsuppression or restraint, on the part of Faculties and Boards of\nTrustees, have heretofore succeeded to a considerable extent.\nAnti-Slavery Societies, notwithstanding, have been formed in a few of\nour most distinguished colleges and theological seminaries. Public\nopinion is beginning to call for a relaxation of restraints and\nimpositions; they are yielding to its demands; and _now_, for the most\npart, sympathy for the slave may be manifested by our generous college\nyouth, in the institution of Anti-Slavery Societies, without any\ndownright prohibition by their more politic teachers. College societies\nwill probably increase more rapidly hereafter; as, in addition to the\nremoval or relaxation of former restraints, just referred to, the murder\nof Mr. Lovejoy, the assaults on the Freedom of speech and of the press,\nthe prostration of the Right of petition in Congress, &c, &c, all\nbelieved to have been perpetrated to secure slavery from the scrutiny\nthat the intelligent world is demanding, have greatly augmented the\nnumber of college abolitionists. They are, for the most part, the\ndiligent, the intellectual, the religious of the students. United in\nsocieties, their influence is generally extensively felt in the\nsurrounding region; _dispersed_, it seems scarcely less effective. An\ninstance of the latter deserves particular notice.\n\nThe Trustees and Faculty of one of our theological and literary\ninstitutions united for the suppression of anti-slavery action among the\nstudents. The latter refused to cease pleading for the slave, as he\ncould not plead for himself. They left the institution; were\nprovidentially dispersed over various parts of the country, and made\nuseful, in a remarkable manner, in advancing the cause of humanity and\nliberty. One of these dismissed students, the son of a slaveholder,\nbrought up in the midst of slavery, and well acquainted with its\npeculiarities, succeeded in persuading a pious father to emancipate his\nfourteen slaves. After lecturing a long time with signal success--having\ncontracted a disease of the throat, which prevented him from further\nprosecuting his labors in this way--he visited the West Indies, eighteen\nmonths ago, in company with another gentleman of the most ample\nqualifications, to note the operation of the British emancipation act.\nTogether, they collected a mass of facts--now in a course of\npublication--that will astonish, as it ought to delight, the whole\nsouth; for it shows, conclusively, that IMMEDIATE emancipation is the\nbest, the safest, the most profitable, as it is the most just and\nhonorable, of all emancipations.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: See Appendix, A.]\n\nAnother of these dismissed students is one of the secretaries of this\nsociety. He has, for a long time, discharged its arduous and responsible\nduties with singular ability. To his qualifications as secretary, he\nadds those of an able and successful lecturer. He was heard, several\ntimes, before the joint committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, a\nyear ago, prior to the report of that committee, and to the adoption, by\nthe Senate and House of Representatives, of their memorable resolutions\nin favor of the Power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of\nColumbia, and of the Right of petition.\n\n\"5. _What do you estimate the number of those who co-operate in the\nmatter at? What proportion do they bear in the population of the\nnorthern states, and what in the middle non-slaveholding states? Are\nthey increasing, and at what rate_?\"\n\nANSWER.--Those who stand _ready to join_ our societies on the first\nsuitable occasion, may be set down as equal in number to those who are\nnow _actually members_. Those who are ready _fully to co-operate with\nus_ in supporting the freedom of speech and the press, the right of\npetition, &c, may be estimated at _double_, if not _treble_, the joint\nnumbers of those who _already are members_, and those who are _ready to\nbecome members_. The Recording secretary of the MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY\nstated, a few weeks ago, that the abolitionists in the various minor\nsocieties in that state were one in thirty of the whole population. The\nproportion of abolitionists to the whole population is greater in\nMassachusetts than in any other of the free states, except\nVERMONT,--where the spirit of liberty has almost entirely escaped the\ncorruptions which slavery has infused into it in most of her sister\nstates, by means of commercial and other intercourse with them.\n\nIn MAINE, not much of systematic effort has, as yet, been put forth to\nenlighten her population as to our principles and proceedings. I\nattended the anniversary of the State Society on the 31st of January, at\nAugusta, the seat of government. The Ministers of the large religious\ndenominations were beginning, as I was told, to unite with us--and\nPoliticians, to descry the ultimate prevalence of our principles. The\nimpression I received was, that much could, and that much would,\nspeedily be done.\n\nIn NEW HAMPSHIRE, more labor has been expended, and a greater effect\nproduced. Public functionaries, who have been pleased to speak in\ncontemptuous terms of the progress of abolitionism, both in Maine and\nNew Hampshire, will, it is thought, soon be made to see, through a\nmedium not at all deceptive, the grossness of their error.\n\nIn RHODE ISLAND, our principles are fast pervading the great body of the\npeople. This, it is thought, is the only one of the free states, in\nwhich the subject of abolition has been fully introduced, which has not\nbeen disgraced by a mob, triumphant, for the time being, over the right\nof the people to discuss any, and every, matter in which they feel\ninterested. A short time previous to the last election of members of\nCongress, questions, embodying our views as to certain political\nmeasures were propounded to the several candidates. Respectful answers\nand, in the main, conformable with our views, were returned. I shall\ntransmit you a newspaper containing both the questions and the\nanswers.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Since the above was written, at the last election in this\nstate for governor and lieutenant governor, the abolitionists\n_interrogated_ the gentlemen who stood candidates for these offices. Two\nof them answered respectfully, and conformably to the views of the\nabolitionists. Their opponents neglected to answer at all. The first\nwere elected.--See Appendix, B.]\n\nIn CONNECTICUT, there has not been, as yet, a great expenditure of\nabolition effort. Although the moral tone of this state, so far as\nslavery is concerned, has been a good deal weakened by the influence of\nher multiform connexions with the south, yet the energies that have been\nput forth to reanimate her ancient and lofty feelings, so far from\nproving fruitless, have been followed by the most encouraging results.\nEvidence of this is found in the faithful administration of the laws by\njudges and juries. In May last, a slave, who had been brought from\nGeorgia to Hartford, successfully asserted her freedom under the laws of\nConnecticut. The cause was elaborately argued before the Supreme court.\nThe most eminent counsel were employed on both sides. And it is but a\nfew days, since two anti-abolition rioters (the only ones on trial) were\nconvicted before the Superior court in New Haven, and sentenced to pay a\nfine of twenty dollars each, and to be imprisoned six months, the\nlongest term authorized by the law. A convention, for the organization\nof a State Society, was held in the city of Hartford on the last day of\nFebruary. It was continued three days. The _call_ for it (which I send\nyou) was signed by nearly EIGHTEEN HUNDRED of the citizens of that\nstate. SEVENTEEN HUNDRED, as I was informed, are legal voters. The\nproceedings of the convention were of the most harmonious and animating\ncharacter.[B]\n\n[Footnote B: See Appendix, C.]\n\nIn NEW YORK, our cause is evidently advancing. The state is rapidly\ncoming up to the high ground of principle, so far as universal liberty\nis concerned, on which the abolitionists would place her. Several large\nAnti-Slavery conventions have lately been held in the western counties.\nTheir reports are of the most encouraging character. Nor is the change\nmore remarkable in the state than in this city. Less than five years\nago, a few of the citizens advertised a meeting, to be held in Clinton\nHall, to form a City Anti-Slavery Society. A mob prevented their\nassembling at the place appointed. They repaired, privately, to one of\nthe churches. To this they were pursued by the mob, and routed from it,\nthough not before they had completed, in a hasty manner, the form of\norganization. In the summer of 1834, some of the leading political and\ncommercial journals of the city were enabled to stir up the mob against\nthe persons and property of the abolitionists, and several of the most\nprominent were compelled to leave the city for safety; their houses were\nattacked, broken into, and, in one instance, the furniture publicly\nburnt in the street. _Now_, things are much changed. Many of the\nmerchants and mechanics are favorable to our cause; gentlemen of the\nbar, especially the younger and more growing ones, are directing their\nattention to it; twenty-one of our city ministers are professed\nabolitionists; the churches are beginning to be more accessible to us;\nour meetings are held in them openly, attract large numbers, are\nunmolested; and the abolitionists sometimes hear themselves commended in\nother assemblies, not only for their honest _intentions_, but for their\n_respectability_ and _intelligence_.\n\nNEW JERSEY has, as yet, no State Society, and the number of avowed\nabolitionists is small. In some of the most populous and influential\nparts of the state, great solicitude exists on the subject; and the call\nfor lecturers is beginning to be earnest, if not importunate.\n\nPENNSYLVANIA has advanced to our principles just in proportion to the\nlabor that has been bestowed, by means of lectures and publications in\nenlightening her population as to our objects, and the evils and dangers\nimpending over the whole country, from southern slavery. The act of her\nlate Convention, in depriving a large number of their own constituents\n(the colored people) of the elective franchise, heretofore possessed by\nthem without any allegation of its abuse on their part, would seem to\nprove an unpropitious state of public sentiment. We would neither deny,\nnor elude, the force of such evidence. But when this measure of the\nconvention is brought out and unfolded in its true light--shown to be a\nparty measure to bring succor from the south--a mere following in the\nwake of North Carolina and Tennessee, who led the way, in their _new_\nconstitutions, to this violation of the rights of their colored\ncitizens, that they might the more firmly compact the wrongs of the\nenslaved--a pernicious, a profitless violation of great principles--a\nvulgar defiance of the advancing spirit of humanity and justice--a\nrelapse into the by-gone darkness of a barbarous age--we apprehend from\nit no serious detriment to our cause.\n\nOHIO has been well advanced. In a short time, she will be found among\nthe most prominent of the states on the right side in the contest now\ngoing on between the spirit of liberty embodied in the free institutions\nof the north, and the spirit of slavery pervading the south. Her\nConstitution publishes the most honorable reprobation of slavery of any\nother in the Union. In providing for its own revision or amendment, it\ndeclares, that _no alteration of it shall ever take place, so as to\nintroduce slavery or involuntary servitude into the state_. Her Supreme\ncourt is intelligent and firm. It has lately decided, virtually, against\nthe constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, made, in effect, to\nfavor southern slavery by the persecution of the colored people within\nher bounds. She has, already, abolitionists enough to turn the scale in\nher elections, and an abundance of excellent material for augmenting\nthe number.\n\nIn INDIANA but little has been done, except by the diffusion of our\npublications. But even with these appliances, several auxiliary\nsocieties have been organized.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: The first Legislative movement against the annexation of\nTexas to the Union, was made, it is believed, in Indiana. So early as\nDecember, 1836, a joint resolution passed its second reading in one or\nboth branches of the Legislature. How it was ultimately disposed of, is\nnot known.]\n\nIn MICHIGAN, the leaven of abolitionists pervades the whole population.\nThe cause is well sustained by a high order of talent; and we trust soon\nto see the influence of it in all her public acts.\n\nIn ILLINOIS, the murder of Mr. Lovejoy has multiplied and confirmed\nabolitionists, and led to the formation of many societies, which, in all\nprobability, would not have been formed so soon, had not that event\ntaken place.\n\nI am not possessed of sufficient data for stating, with precision, what\nproportion the abolitionists bear in the population of the Northern and\nMiddle non-slaveholding states respectively. Within the last ten months,\nI have travelled extensively in both these geographical divisions. I\nhave had whatever advantage this, assisted by a strong interest in the\ngeneral cause, and abundant conversations with the best informed\nabolitionists, could give, for making a fair estimate of their numbers.\nIn the Northern states I should say, _they are one in ten_--in New York,\nNew Jersey, and Pennsylvania, _one in twenty_--of the whole adult\npopulation. That the abolitionists have multiplied, and that they are\nstill multiplying rapidly, no one acquainted with the smallness of their\nnumbers at their first organization a few years ago, and who has kept\nhis eyes about him since, need ask. That they have not, thus far, been\nmore successful, is owing to the vastness of the undertaking, and the\ndifficulties with which they have had to contend, from comparatively\nlimited means, for presenting their measures and objects, with the\nproper developments and explanations, to the great mass of the popular\nmind. The progress of their principles, under the same amount of\nintelligence in presenting them, and where no peculiar causes of\nprejudice exist in the minds of the hearers, is generally proportioned\nto the degree of religious and intellectual worth prevailing in the\ndifferent sections of the country where the subject is introduced. I\nknow no instance, in which any one notoriously profane or intemperate,\nor licentious, or of openly irreligious _practice_, has professed,\ncordially to have received our principles.\n\n\"6. _What is the object your associations aim at? Does it extend to\nabolition of slavery only in the District of Columbia, or in the whole\nslave country_?\"\n\nANSWER.--This question is fully answered in the second Article of the\nConstitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, which is in\nthese words:--\n\n\"The object of this society is the entire abolition of slavery in the\nUnited States. While it admits that each state, in which slavery exists,\nhas, by the Constitution of the United States, the exclusive right to\n_legislate_ in regard to its abolition in said state, it shall aim to\nconvince all our fellow-citizens, by arguments addressed to their\nunderstandings and consciences, that slaveholding is a heinous crime in\nthe sight of God, and that the duty, safety, and best interests of all\nconcerned require its immediate abandonment, without expatriation. The\nsociety will also endeavor, in a constitutional way, to influence\nCongress to put an end to the domestic slave-trade, and to abolish\nslavery in all those portions of our common country which come under its\ncontrol, especially in the District of Columbia; and likewise to prevent\nthe extension of it to any state that may hereafter be admitted to\nthe Union.\"\n\nOther objects, accompanied by a pledge of peace, are stated in the third\narticle of the Constitution,--\n\n\"This Society shall aim to elevate the character and condition of the\npeople of color, by encouraging their intellectual, moral, and religious\nimprovement, and by removing public prejudice,--that thus they may,\naccording to their intellectual and moral worth, share an equality with\nthe whites of civil and religious privileges; but this Society will\nnever in any way, countenance the oppressed in vindicating their rights\nby resorting to physical force.\"\n\n\"7. _By what means and by what power do you propose to carry your views\ninto effect_?\"\n\nANSWER.--Our \"means\" are the Truth,--the \"Power\" under whose guidance we\npropose to carry our views into effect, is, the Almighty. Confiding in\nthese means, when directed by the spirit and wisdom of Him, who has so\nmade them as to act on the hearts of men, and so constituted the hearts\nof then as to be affected by them, we expect, 1. To bring the CHURCH of\nthis country to repentance for the sin of OPPRESSION. Not only the\nSouthern portion of it that has been the oppressor--but the Northern,\nthat has stood by, consenting, for half a century, to the wrong. 2. To\nbring our countrymen to see, that for a nation to persist in injustice\nis, but to rush on its own ruin; that to do justice is the highest\nexpediency--to love mercy its noblest ornament. In other countries,\nslavery has sometimes yielded to fortuitous circumstances, or been\nextinguished by physical force. _We_ strive to win for truth the victory\nover error, and on the broken fragments of slavery to rear for her a\ntemple, that shall reach to the heavens, and toward which all nations\nshall worship. It has been said, that the slaveholders of the South will\nnot yield, nor hearken to the influence of the truth on this subject. We\nbelieve it not--nor give we entertainment to the slander that such an\nunworthy defence of them implies. We believe them _men_,--that they have\nunderstandings that arguments will convince--consciences to which the\nappeals of justice and mercy will not be made in vain. If our principles\nbe true--our arguments right--if slaveholders be men--and God have not\ndelivered over our guilty country to the retributions of the oppressor,\nnot only of the STRANGER but of the NATIVE--our success is certain.\n\n\"8. _What has been for three years past, the annual income of your\nsocieties? And how has it been raised?_\"\n\nANSWER.--The annual income of the societies at large, it would be\nimpossible to ascertain. The total receipts of this society, for the\nyear ending 9th of May, 1835--leaving out odd numbers--was $10,000; for\nthe year ending 9th of May, 1837, $25,000; and for the year ending 11th\nof May, 1836, $38,000. From the last date, up to this--not quite ten\nmonths--there has been paid into the treasury the sum of $36,000.[A]\nThese sums are independent of what is raised by state and auxiliary\nsocieties, for expenditure within their own particular bounds, and for\ntheir own particular exigencies. Also, of the sums paid in subscriptions\nfor the support of newspapers, and for the printing (by auxiliaries,) of\nperiodicals, pamphlets, and essays, either for sale at low prices, or\nfor gratuitous distribution. The moneys contributed in these various\nmodes would make an aggregate greater, perhaps, than is paid into the\ntreasury of any one of the Benevolent societies of the country. Most of\nthe wealthy contributors of former years suffered so severely in the\nmoney-pressure of this, that they have been unable to contribute much to\nour funds. This has made it necessary to call for aid on the great body\nof abolitionists--persons, generally, in moderate circumstances. They\nhave well responded to the call, considering the hardness of the times.\nTo show you the extremes that meet at our treasury,--General Sewall, of\nMaine, a revolutionary officer, eighty-five years old--William\nPhilbrick, a little boy near Boston, not four years old--and a colored\nwoman, who makes her subsistence by selling apples in the streets in\nthis city, lately sent in their respective sums to assist in promoting\nthe emancipation of the \"poor slave.\"\n\n[Footnote A: The report for May states the sum received during the\nprevious year at $44,000.]\n\nAll contributions of whatever kind are _voluntary_.\n\n\"9. _In what way, and to what purposes do you apply these funds!_\"\n\nANSWER.--They are used in sustaining the society's office in this\ncity--in paying lecturers and agents of various kinds--in upholding the\npress--in printing books, pamphlets, tracts, &c, containing expositions\nof our principles--accounts of our progress--refutations of\nobjections--and disquisitions on points, scriptural, constitutional,\npolitical, legal, economical, as they chance to arise and become\nimportant. In this office three secretaries are employed in different\ndepartments of duty; one editor; one publishing agent, with an\nassistant, and two or three young men and boys, for folding, directing,\nand despatching papers, executing errands, &c. The business of the\nsociety has increased so much of late, as to make it necessary, in order\nto ensure the proper despatch of it, to employ additional clerks for the\nparticular exigency. Last year, the society had in its service about\nsixty \"permanent agents.\" This year, the number is considerably\ndiminished. The deficiency has been more than made up by creating a\nlarge number of \"Local\" agents--so called, from the fact, that being\ngenerally Professional men, lawyers or physicians in good practice, or\nMinisters with congregations, they are confined, for the most part, to\ntheir respective neighborhoods. Some of the best minds in our country\nare thus engaged. Their labors have not only been eminently successful,\nbut have been rendered at but small charge to the society; they\nreceiving only their travelling expenses, whilst employed in lecturing\nand forming societies. In the case of a minister, there is the\nadditional expense of supplying his pulpit while absent on the business\nof his agency, However, in many instances, these agents, being in easy\ncircumstances, make no charge, even for their expenses.\n\nIn making appointments, the executive committee have no regard to party\ndiscrimination. This will be fully understood, when it is stated, that\non a late occasion, two of our local agents were the candidates of their\nrespective political parties for the office of Secretary of State for\nthe state of Vermont.\n\nIt ought to be stated here, that two of the most effective advocates of\nthe anti-slavery cause are females--the Misses Grimk\u00e9--natives of South\nCarolina--brought up in the midst of the usages of slavery--most\nintelligently acquainted with the merits of the system, and qualified,\nin an eminent degree, to communicate their views to others in public\naddresses. They are not only the advocates of the slave at their own\ncharge, but they actually contribute to the funds of the societies. So\nsuccessfully have they recommended the cause of emancipation to the\ncrowds that attended their lectures during the last year, that they were\npermitted on three several occasions publicly to address the joint\ncommittee (on slavery) of the Massachusetts Legislature, now in session,\non the interesting matters that occupy their attention.\n\n\"10. _How many printing presses and periodical publications have you?_\"\n\nANSWER.--We own no press. Our publications are all printed by contract.\nThe EMANCIPATOR and HUMAN RIGHTS are the organs of the Executive\nCommittee. The first (which you have seen,) is a large sheet, is\npublished weekly, and employs almost exclusively the time of the\ngentleman who edits it. Human Rights is a monthly sheet of smaller size,\nand is edited by one of the secretaries. The increasing interest that is\nfast manifesting itself in the cause of emancipation and its kindred\nsubjects will, in all probability, before long, call for the more\nfrequent publication of one or both of these papers.--The ANTI-SLAVERY\nMAGAZINE, a quarterly, was commenced in October, 1835, and continued\nthrough two years. It has been intermitted, only to make the necessary\narrangements for issuing it on a more extended scale.--It is proposed to\ngive it size enough to admit the amplest discussions that we or our\nopponents may desire, and to give _them_ a full share of its room--in\nfine, to make it, in form and merit, what the importance of the subject\ncalls for. I send you a copy of the Prospectus for the new series.--The\nANTI-SLAVERY RECORD, published for three years as a monthly, has been\ndiscontinued _as such_, and it will be issued hereafter, only as\noccasion may require:--THE SLAVE'S FRIEND, a small monthly tract, of\nneat appearance, intended principally for children and young persons,\nhas been issued for several years. It is replete with facts relating to\nslavery, and with accounts of the hair-breadth escapes of slaves from\ntheir masters and pursuers that rarely fail to impart the most thrilling\ninterest to its little readers.--Besides these, there is the\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, in which are published, as the times call for\nthem, our larger essays partaking of a controversial character, such as\nSmith's reply to the Rev. Mr. Smylie--Grimk\u00e9's letter and \"Wythe.\" By\nturning to page 32 of our Fourth Report (included in your order for\nbooks, &c,) you will find, that in the year ending 11th May, the issues\nfrom the press were--bound volumes, 7,877--Tracts and Pamphlets,\n47,250--Circulars, &c, 4,100--Prints, 10,490--Anti-Slavery Magazine,\n9000--Slave's Friend, 131,050--Human Rights, 189,400--Emancipator,\n217,000. These are the issues of the American Anti-Slavery Society, from\ntheir office in this city. Other publications of similar character are\nissued by State Societies or individuals--the LIBERATOR, in Boston;\nHERALD OF FREEDOM, in Concord, N.H.; ZION'S WATCHMAN and the COLORED\nAMERICAN in this city. The latter is conducted in the editorial, and\nother departments, by colored citizens. You can judge of its character,\nby a few numbers that I send to you. Then, there is the FRIEND of MAN,\nin Utica, in this state. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, in Philadelphia;[A] the\nCHRISTIAN WITNESS, in Pittsburgh; the PHILANTHROPIST, in\nCincinnati.--All these are sustained by the friends, and devoted almost\nexclusively to the cause, of emancipation. Many of the Religious\njournals that do not make emancipation their main object have adopted\nthe sentiments of abolitionists, and aid in promoting them. The Alton\nObserver, edited by the late Mr. Lovejoy, was one of these.\n\n[Footnote A: The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, edited by Benjamin Lundy, has been\nconverted into the PENNSYLVANIA FREEMAN, edited by John G. Whittier. Mr.\nLundy proposes to issue the GENIUS OF UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION, in\nIllinois.]\n\nFrom the data I have, I set down the newspapers, as classed above, at\nupwards of one hundred. Here it may also be stated, that the presses\nwhich print the abolition journals above named, throw off besides, a\ngreat variety of other anti-slavery matter, in the form of books,\npamphlets, single sheets, &c, &c, and that, at many of the principal\ncommercial points throughout the free states, DEPOSITORIES are\nestablished, at which our publications of every sort are kept for sale.\nA large and fast increasing number of the Political journals of the\ncountry have become, within the last two years, if not the avowed\nsupporters of our cause, well inclined to it. Formerly, it was a common\nthing for most of the leading _party_-papers, especially in the large\ncities, to speak of the abolitionists in terms signally disrespectful\nand offensive. Except in rare instances, and these, it is thought, only\nwhere they are largely subsidized by southern patronage, it is not so\nnow. The desertions that are taking place from their ranks will, in a\nshort time, render their position undesirable for any, who aspire to\ngain, or influence, or reputation in the North.\n\n\"11. _To what class of persons do you address your publications--and are\nthey addressed to the judgment, the imagination, or the feelings_?\"\n\nANSWER.--They are intended for the great mass of intelligent mind, both\nin the free and in the slave states. They partake, of course, of the\nintellectual peculiarities of the different authors. Jay's \"INQUIRY\" and\nMrs. Child's \"APPEAL\" abound in facts--are dispassionate, ingenious,\nargumentative. The \"BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY,\" by the most careful and\nlaborious research, has struck from slavery the prop, which careless\nAnnotators, (writing, unconscious of the influence, the prevailing\nsystem of slavery throughout the Christian world exercised on their own\nminds,) have admitted was furnished for it in the Scriptures. \"Wythe\" by\na pains-taking and lucid adjustment of facts in the history of the\nGovernment, both before and after the adoption of the Constitution, and\nwith a rigor of logic, that cannot, it is thought, be successfully\nencountered, has put to flight forever with unbiased minds, every doubt\nas to the \"Power of Congress over the District of Columbia.\"\n\nThere are among the abolitionists, Poets, and by the acknowledgment of\ntheir opponents, poets of no mean name too--who, as the use of poets is,\ndo address themselves often--as John G. Whittier does _always_\n--powerfully to the imagination and feelings of their readers.\n\nOur publications cannot be classed according to any particular style or\nquality of composition. They may characterized generally, as well suited\nto affect the public mind--to rouse into healthful activity the\nconscience of this nation, stupified, torpid, almost dead, in relation\nto HUMAN RIGHTS, the high theme of which they treat!\n\nIt has often been alleged, that our writings appeal to the worst\npassions of the slaves, and that they are placed in their hands with a\nview to stir them to revolt. Neither charge has any foundation in truth\nto rest upon. The first finds no support in the tenor of the writings\nthemselves; the last ought forever to be abandoned, in the absence of\nany single well authenticated instance of their having been conveyed by\nabolitionists to slaves, or of their having been even found in their\npossession. To instigate the slaves to revolt, as the means of obtaining\ntheir liberty, would prove a lack of wisdom and honesty that none would\nimpute to abolitionists, except such as are unacquainted with their\ncharacter. Revolt would be followed by the sure destruction, not only of\nall the slaves who might be concerned in it, but of multitudes of the\ninnocent. Moreover, the abolitionists, as a class, are religious--they\nfavor peace, and stand pledged in their constitution, before the country\nand heaven, to abide in peace, so far as a forcible vindication of the\nright of the slaves to their freedom is concerned. Further still, no\nsmall number of them deny the right of defence, either to individuals or\nnations, even when forcibly and wrongfully attacked. This disagreement\namong ourselves on this single point--of which our adversaries are by no\nmeans ignorant, as they often throw it reproachfully in our teeth--would\nforever prevent concert in any scheme that looked to instigating servile\nrevolt. If there be, in all our ranks, one, who--personal danger out of\nthe question--would excite the slaves to insurrection and massacre, or\nwho would not be swift to repeat the earliest attempt to concoct such an\niniquity--I say, on my obligations as a man, he is unknown to me.\n\nYet it ought not to be matter of surprise to abolitionists, that the\nSouth should consider them \"fanatics,\" \"incendiaries,\" \"cut-throats,\"\nand call them so too. The South has had their character reported to them\nby the North, by those who are their neighbors, who, it was supposed,\nknew, and would speak the truth, and the truth only, concerning them. It\nwould, I apprehend, be unavailing for abolitionists now to enter on any\nformal vindication of their character from charges that can be so easily\nrepeated after every refutation. False and fraudulent as they knew them\nto be, they must be content to live under them till the consummation of\nthe work of Freedom shall prove to the master that they have been _his_\nfriends, as well as the friends of the slave. The mischief of these\ncharges has fallen on the South--the malice is to be placed to the\ncredit of the North.\n\n\"12. _Do you propagate your doctrines by any other means than oral and\nwritten discussions--for instance, by prints and pictures in\nmanufactures--say of pocket-handkerchiefs, calicoes, &c? Pray, state the\nvarious modes?_\"\n\nANSWER.--Two or three years ago, an abolitionist of this city procured\nto be manufactured, at his own charge, a small lot of children's\npocket-handkerchiefs, impressed with anti-slavery pictures and mottoes.\nI have no recollection of having seen any of them but once. None such, I\nbelieve, are now to be found, or I would send you a sample. If any\nmanufactures of the kinds mentioned, or others similar to theta, are in\nexistence, they have been produced independently of the agency of this\nsociety. It is thought that none such exist, unless the following should\nbe supposed to fall within the terms of the inquiry. Female\nabolitionists often unite in sewing societies. They meet together,\nusually once a week or fortnight, and labor through the afternoon, with\ntheir own hands, to furnish means for advancing the cause of the slave.\nOne of the company reads passages from the Bible, or some religious\nbook, whilst the others are engaged at their work. The articles they\nprepare, especially if they be of the \"fancy\" kind, are often ornamented\nwith handsomely executed emblems, underwritten with appropriate mottoes.\nThe picture of a slave kneeling (such as you will see impressed on one\nof the sheets of this letter) and supplicating in the words, \"AM I NOT A\nMAN AND A BROTHER,\" is an example. The mottoes or sentences are,\nhowever, most generally selected from the Scriptures; either appealing\nto human sympathy in behalf of human suffering, or breathing forth God's\ntender compassion for the oppressed, or proclaiming, in thunder tones,\nhis avenging justice on the oppressor. A few quotations will show their\ngeneral character:--\n\n\"Blessed is he that considereth the poor.\"\n\n\"Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy.\nDeliver the poor and the needy; rid him out of the hand of the wicked.\"\n\n\"Open thy mouth for the dumb, plead the cause of the poor and needy.\"\n\n\"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.\"\n\n\"First, be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.\"\n\n\"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\"\n\n\"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so\nto them.\"\n\nAgain:--\n\n\"For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him\nthat hath no helper.\"\n\n\"The Lord looseth the prisoners; the Lord raiseth them that are bowed\ndown; the Lord preserveth the strangers.\"\n\n\"He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to\nthe captives, to set at liberty them that are bruised.\"'\n\n\"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will\nI arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that\npuffeth at him.\"\n\nAgain:--\n\n\"The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are\noppressed.\"\n\n\"Rob not the poor because he is poor, neither oppress the afflicted in\nthe gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of\nthose that spoiled them.\"\n\n\"And I will come near to you to judgment, and I will be a swift witness\nagainst those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the\nfatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear\nnot me, saith the Lord of hosts.\"\n\n\"Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his\nchambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and\ngiveth him not for his work.\"\n\nFairs, for the sale of articles fabricated by the hands of female\nabolitionists, and recommended by such pictures and sentences as those\nquoted above, are held in many of our cities and large towns. Crowds\nfrequent them to purchase; hundreds of dollars are thus realized, to be\nappropriated to the anti-slavery cause; and, from the cheap rate at\nwhich the articles are sold, vast numbers of them are scattered far and\nwide over the country. Besides these, if we except various drawings or\npictures on _paper_, (samples of which were put up in the packages you\nordered a few days ago,) such as the Slave-market in the District of\nColumbia, with Members of congress attending it--views of slavery in the\nSouth--a Lynch court in the slave-states--the scourging of Mr. Dresser\nby a vigilance committee in the public square of Nashville--the\nplundering of the post-office in Charleston, S.C., and the conflagration\nof part of its contents, &c, &c, I am apprised of no other means of\npropagating our doctrines than by oral and written discussions.\n\n\"13. _Are your hopes and expectations of success increased or lessened\nby the events of the last year, and especially by the action of this\nCongress? And will your exertions be relaxed or increased?_\"\n\nANSWER.--The events of the last year, including the action of the\npresent Congress, are of the same character with the events of the\neighteen months which immediately preceded it. In the question before\nus, they may be regarded as one series. I would say, answering your\ninterrogatory generally, that none of them, however unpropitious to the\ncause of the abolitionists they may appear, to those who look at the\nsubject from an opposite point to the one _they_ occupy, seem, thus far,\nin any degree to have lessened their hopes and expectations. The events\nalluded to have not come altogether unexpected. They are regarded as the\nlegitimate manifestations of slavery--necessary, perhaps, in the present\ndull and unapprehensive state of the public mind as to human rights, to\nbe brought out and spread before the people, before they will\nsufficiently revolt against slavery itself.\n\n1. They are seen in the CHURCH, and in the practice of its individual\nmembers. The southern portion of the American church may now be regarded\nas having admitted the dogma, that _slavery is a Divine institution_.\nShe has been forced by the anti-slavery discussion into this\nposition--either to cease from slaveholding, or formally to adopt the\nonly alternative, that slaveholding is right. She has chosen the\nalternative--reluctantly, to be sure, but substantially, and, within the\nlast year, almost unequivocally. In defending what was dear to her, she\nhas been forced to cast away her garments, and thus to reveal a\ndeformity, of which she herself, before, was scarcely aware, and the\nexistence of which others did not credit. So much for the action of the\nsouthern church as a body.--On the part of her MEMBERS, the revelation\nof a time-serving spirit, that not only yielded to the ferocity of the\nmultitude, but fell in with it, may be reckoned among the events of the\nlast three years. Instances of this may be found in the attendance of\nthe \"clergy of all denominations,\" at a tumultuous meeting of the\ncitizens of Charleston, S.C., held in August, 1835, for the purpose of\nreducing to _system_ their unlawful surveillance and control of the\npost-office and mail; and in the alacrity with which they obeyed the\npopular call to dissolve the Sunday-schools for the instruction of the\ncolored people. Also in the fact, that, throughout the whole South,\nchurch members are not only found on the Vigilance Committees,\n(tribunals organized in opposition to the laws of the states where they\nexist,) but uniting with the merciless and the profligate in passing\nsentence consigning to infamous and excruciating, if not extreme\npunishment, persons, by their own acknowledgment, innocent of any\nunlawful act. Out of sixty persons that composed the vigilance committee\nwhich condemned Mr. Dresser to be scourged in the public square of\nNashville, TWENTY-SEVEN were members of churches, and one of them a\nprofessed Teachers of Christianity. A member of the committee stated\nafterward, in a newspaper of which he was the editor, that Mr. D. _had\nnot laid himself liable to any punishment known to the laws_. Another\ninstance is to be found in the conduct of the Rev. Wm. S. Plumer, of\nVirginia. Having been absent from Richmond, when the ministers of the\ngospel assembled together formally to testify their abhorrence of the\nabolitionists, he addressed the chairman of the committee of\ncorrespondence a note, in which he uses this language:--\"If\nabolitionists will set the country in a blaze, it is but fair that they\nshould have the first warming at the fire.\"--\"Let them understand, that\nthey will be caught, if they come among us, and they will take good heed\nto keep out of our way.\" Mr. P. has no doubtful standing in the\nPresbyterian church with which he is connected. He has been regarded as\none of its brightest ornaments.[A] To drive the slaveholding church and\nits members from the equivocal, the neutral position, from which they\nhad so long successfully defended slavery--to compel them to elevate\ntheir practice to an even height with their avowed principles, or to\ndegrade their principles to the level of their known practice, was a\npreliminary, necessary in the view of abolitionists, either for bringing\nthat part of the church into the common action against slavery, or as a\nground for treating it as confederate with oppressors. So far, then, as\nthe action of the church, or of its individual members, is to be\nreckoned among the events of the last two or three years, the\nabolitionists find in it nothing to lessen their hopes or expectations.\n\n[Footnote A: In the division of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian\nchurch, that has just taken place, Mr. Plumer has been elected Moderator\nof the \"Old School\" portion.]\n\n2. The abolitionists believed, from the beginning, that the slaves of\nthe South were (as slaves are everywhere) unhappy, _because of their\ncondition_. Their adversaries denied it, averring that, as a class, they\nwere \"contented and happy.\" The abolitionists thought that the argument\nagainst slavery could be made good, so far as this point was concerned,\nby either _admitting_ or _denying_ the assertion.\n\n_Admitting_ it, they insisted, that, nothing could demonstrate the\nturpitude of any system more surely than the fact, that MAN--made in the\nimage of God--but a little lower than the angels--crowned with glory and\nhonor, and set over the works of God's hands--his mind sweeping in an\ninstant from planet to planet, from the sun of one system to the sun of\nanother, even to the great centre sun of them all--contemplating the\nmachinery of the universe \"wheeling unshaken\" in the awful and\nmysterious grandeur of its movements \"through the void immense\"--with a\nspirit delighting in upward aspiration--bounding from earth to\nheaven--that seats itself fast by the throne of God, to drink in the\ninstructions of Infinite Wisdom, or flies to execute the commands of\nInfinite Goodness;--that such a being could be made \"contented and\nhappy\" with \"enough to eat, and drink, and wear,\" and shelter from the\nweather--with the base provision that satisfies the brutes, is (say the\nabolitionists) enough to render superfluous all other arguments for the\n_instant_ abandonment of a system whose appropriate work is such\ninfinite wrong.\n\n_Denying_ that \"the slaves are contented and happy,\" the abolitionists\nhave argued, that, from the structure of his moral nature--the laws of\nhis mind--man cannot be happy in the fact, that he is _enslaved_. True,\nhe may be happy in slavery, but it is not slavery that makes him so--it\nis virtue and faith, elevating him above the afflictions of his lot. The\nslave has a will, leading him to seek those things which the Author of\nhis nature has made conducive to its happiness. In these things, the\nwill of the master comes in collision with his will. The slave desires\nto receive the rewards of his own labor; the power of the master wrests\nthem from him. The slave desires to possess his wife, to whom God has\njoined him, in affection, to have the superintendence, and enjoy the\nservices, of the children whom God has confided to him as a parent to\ntrain them, by the habits of the filial relation, for the yet higher\nrelation that they may sustain to him as their heavenly Father. But here\nhe is met by the opposing will of the master, pressing _his_ claims with\nirresistible power. The ties that heaven has sanctioned and blessed--of\nhusband and wife, of parent and child--are all sundered in a moment by\nthe master, at the prompting of avarice or luxury or lust; and there is\nnone that can stay his ruthless hand, or say unto him, \"What doest\nthou?\" The slave thirsts for the pleasures of refined and elevated\nintellect--the master denies to him the humblest literary acquisition.\nThe slave pants to know something of that still higher nature that he\nfeels burning within him--of his present state, his future destiny, of\nthe Being who made him, to whose judgment-seat he is going. The master's\ninterests cry, \"No!\" \"Such knowledge is too wonderful for you; it is\nhigh, you cannot attain unto it.\" To predicate _happiness_ of a class of\nbeings, placed in circumstances where their will is everlastingly\ndefeated by an irresistible power--the abolitionists say, is to prove\nthem destitute of the sympathies of _our_ nature--not _human_. It is to\ndeclare with the Atheist, that man is independent of the goodness of his\nCreator for his enjoyments--that human happiness calls not for any of\nthe appliances of his bounty--that God's throne is a nullity, himself a\nsuperfluity.\n\nBut, independently of any abstract reasoning drawn from the nature of\nmoral and intelligent beings, FACTS have been elicited in the discussion\nof the point before us, proving slavery everywhere (especially Southern\nslavery, maintained by enlightened Protestants of the nineteenth\ncentury) replete with torments and horrors--the direst form of\noppression that upheaves itself before the sun. These facts have been so\nsuccessfully impressed on a large portion of the intelligent mind of the\ncountry, that the slaves of the South are beginning to be considered as\nthose whom God emphatically regards as the \"poor,\" the \"needy,\" the\n\"afflicted,\" the \"oppressed,\" the \"bowed down;\" and for whose\nconsolation he has said, \"Now will I arise--I will set him in safety\nfrom him that puffeth at him.\"\n\nThis state of the public mind has been brought about within the last two\nor three years; and it is an event which, so far from lessening, greatly\nanimates, the hopes and expectations of abolitionists.\n\n3. The abolitionists believed from the first, that the tendency of\nslavery is to produce, on the part of the whites, looseness of morals,\ndisdain of the wholesome restraints of law, and a ferocity of temper,\nfound, only in solitary instances, in those countries where slavery is\nunknown. They were not ignorant of the fact, that this was disputed; nor\nthat the \"CHIVALRY OF THE SOUTH\" had become a cant phrase, including,\nall that is high-minded and honorable among men; nor, that it had been\nformally asserted in our National legislature, that slavery, as it\nexists in the South, \"produces the highest toned, the purest, best\norganization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth.\"\nNor were the abolitionists unaware, that these pretensions, proving\nanything else but their own solidity, had been echoed and re-echoed so\nlong by the unthinking and the interested of the North, that the\ncharacter of the South had been injuriously affected by them--till she\nbegan boldly to attribute her _peculiar_ superiority to her _peculiar_\ninstitution, and thus to strengthen it. All this the abolitionists saw\nand knew. But few others saw and understood it as they did. The\nrevelations of the last three years are fast dissipating the old notion,\nand bringing multitudes in the North to see the subject as the\nabolitionists see it. When \"Southern Chivalry\" and the _purity_ of\nsouthern society are spoken of now, it is at once replied, that a large\nnumber of the slaves show, by their _color_, their indisputable claim to\nwhite paternity; and that, notwithstanding their near consanguineous\nrelation to the whites, they are still held and treated, in all\nrespects, _as slaves_. Nor is it forgotten now, when the claims of the\nSouth to \"hospitality\" are pressed, to object, because they are grounded\non the unpaid wages of the laborer--on the robbery of the poor. When\n\"Southern generosity\" is mentioned, the old adage, \"be just before you\nare generous,\" furnishes the reply. It is no proof of generosity (say\nthe objectors) to take the bread of the laborer, to lavish it in\nbanquetings on the rich. When \"Southern Chivalry\" is the theme of its\nadmirers, the hard-handed, but intelligent, working man of the North\nasks, if the espionage of southern hotels, and of ships and steamboats\non their arrival at southern ports; if the prowl, by day and by night,\nfor the solitary stranger suspected of sympathizing with the enslaved,\nthat he may be delivered over to the mercies of a vigilance committee,\nfurnishes the proof of its existence; if the unlawful importation of\nslaves from Africa[A] furnishes the proof; if the abuse, the scourging,\nthe hanging on suspicion, without law, of friendless strangers, furnish\nthe proof; if the summary execution of slaves and of colored freemen,\nalmost by the score, without legal trial, furnishes the proof; if the\ncruelties and tortures to which _citizens_ have been exposed, and the\nburning to death of slaves by slow fires,[B] furnish the proof. All\nthese things, says he, furnish any thing but proof of _true_\nhospitality, or generosity, or gallantry, or purity, or chivalry.\n\n[Footnote A: Mr. Mercer, of Virginia, some years ago, asserted in\nCongress, that \"CARGOES\" of African slaves were smuggled into the\nsouthern states to a deplorable extent. Mr. Middleton, of South\nCarolina, declared it to be his belief, that THIRTEEN THOUSAND Africans\nwere annually smuggled into the southern states. Mr. Wright, of\nMaryland, estimated the number at FIFTEEN THOUSAND. Miss Martineau was\ntold in 1835, by a wealthy slaveholder of Louisiana, (who probably spoke\nof that state alone,) that the annual importation of native Africans was\nfrom THIRTEEN THOUSAND to FIFTEEN THOUSAND. The President of the United\nStates, in his last Annual Message, speaking of the Navy, says, \"The\nlarge force under Commodore Dallas [on the West India station] has been\nmost actively and efficiently employed in protecting our commerce, IN\nPREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF SLAVES, &c.\"]\n\n[Footnote B: Within the last few years, four slaves, and one citizen of\ncolor, have been put to death in this manner, in Alabama, Mississippi,\nMissouri, and Arkansas.]\n\nCertain it is, that the time when southern slavery derived countenance\nat the North, from its supposed connection with \"chivalry,\" is rapidly\npassing away. \"Southern Chivalry\" will soon be regarded as one of the\nby-gone fooleries of a less intelligent and less virtuous age. It will\nsoon be cast out--giving place to the more reasonable idea, that the\ndenial of wages to the laborer, the selling of men and women, the\nwhipping of husbands and wives in each others presence, to compel them\nto unrequited toil, the deliberate attempt to extinguish mind, and,\nconsequently, to destroy the soul--is among the highest offences against\nGod and man--unspeakably mean and ungentlemanly.\n\nThe impression made on the minds of the people as to this matter, is one\nof the events of the last two or three years that does not contribute to\nlessen the hopes or expectations of abolitionists.\n\n4. The ascendency that Slavery has acquired, and exercises, in the\nadministration of the government, and the apprehension now prevailing\namong the sober and intelligent, irrespective of party, that it will\nsoon overmaster the Constitution itself, may be ranked among the events\nof the last two or three years that affect the course of abolitionists.\nThe abolitionists regard the Constitution with unabated affection. They\nhold in no common veneration the memory of those who made it. They would\nbe the last to brand Franklin and King and Morris and Wilson and Sherman\nand Hamilton with the ineffaceable infamy of attempting to ingraft on\nthe Constitution, and therefore to _perpetuate_, a system of oppression\nin absolute antagonism to its high and professed objects, one which\ntheir own practice condemned,--and this, too, when they had scarcely\nwiped away the dust and sweat of the Revolution from their brows! Whilst\nabolitionists feel and speak thus of our Constitutional fathers, they do\nnot justify the dereliction of principle into which they were betrayed,\nwhen they imparted to the work of their hands _any_ power to contribute\nto the continuance of such a system. They can only palliate it, by\nsupposing, that they thought, slavery was already a waning institution,\ndestined soon to pass away. In their time, (1787) slaves were\ncomparatively of little value--there being then no great slave-labor\nstaple (as cotton is now) to make them profitable to their holders.[A]\nHad the circumstances of the country remained as they then were,\nslave-labor, always and every where the most expensive--would have\ndisappeared before the competition of free labour. They had seen, too,\nthe principle of universal liberty, on which the Revolution was\njustified, recognised and embodied in most of the State Constitutions;\nthey had seen slavery utterly forbidden in that of Vermont\n--instantaneously abolished in that of Massachusetts--and laws\nenacted in the New-England States and in Pennsylvania, for its gradual\nabolition. Well might they have anticipated, that Justice and Humanity,\nnow starting forth with fresh vigor, would, in their march, sweep away\nthe whole system; more especially, as freedom of speech and of the\npress--the legitimate abolisher not only of the acknowledged vice of\nslavery, but of every other that time should reveal in our institutions\nor practices--had been fully secured to the people. Again; power was\nconferred on Congress to put a stop to the African slave-trade, without\nwhich it was thought, at that time, to be impossible to maintain\nslavery, as a system, on this continent,--so great was the havoc it\ncommitted on human life. Authority was also granted to Congress to\nprevent the transfer of slaves, as articles of commerce, from one State\nto another; and the introduction of slavery into the territories. All\nthis was crowned by the power of refusing admission into the Union, to\nany new state, whose form of government was repugnant to the principles\nof liberty set forth in that of the United States. The faithful\nexecution, by Congress, of these powers, it was reasonably enough\nsupposed, would, at least, prevent the growth of slavery, if it did not\nentirely remove it. Congress did, at the set time, execute _one_ of\nthem--deemed, then, the most effectual of the whole; but, as it has\nturned out, the least so.\n\n[Footnote A: The cultivation of cotton was almost unknown in the United\nStates before 1787. It was not till two years afterward that it began to\nbe raised or exported. (See Report of the Secretary of the Treasury,\nFeb. 29, 1836.)--See Appendix, D.]\n\nThe effect of the interdiction of the African slave-trade was, not to\ndiminish the trade itself, or greatly to mitigate its horrors; it only\nchanged its name from African to American--transferred the seat of\ncommerce from Africa to America--its profits from African princes to\nAmerican farmers. Indeed, it is almost certain, if the African\nslave-trade had been left unrestrained, that slavery would not have\ncovered so large a portion of our country as it does now. The cheap rate\nat which slaves might have been imported by the planters of the south,\nwould have prevented the rearing of them for sale, by the farmers of\nMaryland, Virginia, and the other slave-selling states. If these states\ncould be restrained from the _commerce_ in slaves, slavery could not be\nsupported by them for any length of time, or to any considerable extent.\nThey could not maintain it, as an economical system, under the\ncompetition of free labor. It is owing to the _non-user_ by Congress, or\nrather to their unfaithful application of their power to the other\npoints, on which it was expected to act for the limitation or\nextermination of slavery, that the hopes of our fathers have not been\nrealized; and that slavery has, at length, become so audacious, as\nopenly to challenge the principles of 1776--to trample on the most\nprecious rights secured to the citizen--to menace the integrity of the\nUnion and the very existence of the government itself.\n\nSlavery has advanced to its present position by steps that were, at\nfirst, gradual, and, for a long time, almost unnoticed; afterward, it\nmade its way by intimidating or corrupting those who ought to have been\nforward to resist its pretensions. Up to the time of the \"Missouri\nCompromise,\" by which the nation was wheedled out of its honor, slavery\nwas looked on as an evil that was finally to yield to the expanding and\nripening influences of our Constitutional principles and regulations.\nWhy it has not yielded, we may easily see, by even a slight glance at\nsome of the incidents in our history.\n\nIt has already been said, that we have been brought into our present\ncondition by the unfaithfulness of Congress, in not _exerting_ the power\nvested in it, to stop the domestic slave-trade, and in the _abuse_ of\nthe power of admitting \"_new_ states\" into the Union. Kentucky made\napplication in 1792, with a slave-holding Constitution in her\nhand.--With what a mere _technicality_ Congress suffered itself to be\ndrugged into torpor:--_She was part of one of the \"Original States\"--and\ntherefore entitled to all their privileges._\n\nOne precedent established, it was easy to make another. Tennessee was\nadmitted in 1796, without scruple, on the same ground.\n\nThe next triumph of slavery was in 1803, in the purchase of Louisiana,\nacknowledged afterward, even by Mr. Jefferson who made it, to be\nunauthorized by the Constitution--and in the establishment of slavery\nthroughout its vast limits, actually and substantially under the\nauspices of that instrument which declares its only objects to be--\"to\nform a more perfect union, establish JUSTICE, insure DOMESTIC\nTRANQUILITY, provide for the common defence, promote the general\nwelfare, and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our\nposterity.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: It may be replied, The colored people were held as\n_property_ by the laws of Louisiana previously to the cession, and that\nCongress had no right to divest the newly acquired citizens of their\nproperty. This statement is evasive. It does not include, nor touch the\nquestion, which is this:--Had Congress, or the treaty-making power, a\nright to recognise, and, by recognising, to establish, in a territory\nthat had no claim of privilege, on the ground of being part of one of\nthe \"Original States,\" a condition of things that it could not establish\n_directly_, because there was no grant in the constitution of power,\ndirect or incidental, to do so--and because, _to do so_, was in\ndownright oppugnancy to the principles of the Constitution itself? The\nquestion may be easily answered by stating the following case:--Suppose\na law had existed in Louisiana, previous to the cession, by which the\nchildren--male and female--of all such parents as were not owners of\nreal estate of the yearly value of $500, had been--no matter how\nlong--held in slavery by their more wealthy land-holding\nneighbors:--would Congress, under the Constitution, have a right (by\nrecognising) to establish, for ever, such a relation as one white\nperson, under such a law, might hold to another? Surely not. And yet no\nsubstantial difference between the two cases can be pointed out.]\n\nIn this case, the violation of the Constitution was suffered to pass\nwith but little opposition, except from Massachusetts, because we were\ncontent to receive in exchange, multiplied commercial benefits and\nenlarged territorial limits.\n\nThe next stride that slavery made over the Constitution was in the\nadmission of the State of Louisiana into the Union. _She_ could claim no\nfavor as part of an \"Original State.\" At this point, it might have been\nsupposed, the friends of Freedom and of the Constitution according to\nits original intent, would have made a stand. But no: with the exception\nof Massachusetts, they hesitated and were persuaded to acquiesce,\nbecause the country was just about entering into a war with England, and\nthe crisis was unpropitious for discussing questions that would create\ndivisions between different sections of the Union. We must wait till the\ncountry was at peace. Thus it was that Louisiana was admitted without a\ncontroversy.\n\nNext followed, in 1817 and 1820, Mississippi and Alabama--admitted after\nthe example of Kentucky and Tennessee, without any contest.\n\nMeantime, Florida had given some uneasiness to the slaveholders of the\nneighboring states; and for their accommodation chiefly, a negociation\nwas set on foot by the government to purchase it.\n\nMissouri was next in order in 1821. She could plead no privilege, on the\nscore of being part of one of the original states; the country too, was\nrelieved from the pressure of her late conflict with England; it was\nprosperous and quiet; every thing seemed propitious to a calm and\ndispassionate consideration of the claims of slaveholders to add props\nto their system, by admitting indefinitely, new slave states to the\nUnion. Up to this time, the \"EVIL\" of slavery had been almost\nuniversally acknowledged and deplored by the South, and its termination\n(apparently) sincerely hoped for.[A] By this management its friends\nsucceeded in blinding the confiding people of the North. They thought\nfor the most part, that the slaveholders were acting in good faith. It\nis not intended by this remark, to make the impression, that the South\nhad all along pressed the admission of new slave states, simply with a\nview to the increase of its own relative power. By no means: slavery had\ninsinuated itself into favor because of its being mixed up with (other)\nsupposed benefits--and because its ultimate influence on the government\nwas neither suspected nor dreaded. But, on the Missouri question, there\nwas a fair trial of strength between the friends of Slavery and the\nfriends of the Constitution. The former triumphed, and by the prime\nagency of one whose raiment, the remainder of his days, ought to be\nsackcloth and ashes,--because of the disgrace he has continued on the\nname of his country, and the consequent injury that he has inflicted on\nthe cause of Freedom throughout the world. Although all the different\nAdministrations, from the first organization of the government, had, in\nthe indirect manner already mentioned, favored slavery,--there had not\nbeen on any previous occasion, a direct struggle between its pretensions\nand the principles of liberty ingrafted on the Constitution. The friends\nof the latter were induced to believe, whenever they should be arrayed\nagainst each other, that _theirs_ would be the triumph. Tremendous\nerror! Mistake almost fatal! The battle was fought. Slavery emerged from\nit unhurt--her hands made gory--her bloody plume still floating in the\nair--exultingly brandishing her dripping sword over her prostrate and\nvanquished enemy. She had won all for which she fought. Her victory was\ncomplete--THE SANCTION OF THE NATION WAS GIVEN TO SLAVERY![B]\n\n[Footnote A: Mr. Clay, in conducting the Missouri compromise, found it\nnecessary to argue, that the admission of Missouri, as a slaveholding\nstate, would aid in bringing about the termination of slavery. His\nargument is thus stated by Mr. Sergeant, who replied to him:--\"In this\nlong view of remote and distant consequences, the gentleman from\nKentucky (Mr. Clay) thinks he sees how slavery, when thus spread, is at\nlast to find its end. It is to be brought about by the combined\noperation of the laws which regulate the price of labor, and the laws\nwhich govern population. When the country shall be filled with\ninhabitants, and the price of labor shall have reached a minimum, (a\ncomparative minimum I suppose is meant,) free labor will be found\ncheaper than slave labor. Slaves will then be without employment, and,\nof course, without the means of comfortable subsistence, which will\nreduce their numbers, and finally extirpate them. This is the argument\nas I understand it,\" says Mr. Sergeant; and, certainly, one more\nchimerical or more inhuman could not have been urged.]\n\n[Footnote B: See Appendix, E.]\n\nImmediately after this achievement, the slaveholding interest was still\nmore strongly fortified by the acquisition of Florida, and the\nestablishment of slavery there, as it had already been in the territory\nof Louisiana. The Missouri triumph, however, seems to have extinguished\nevery thing like a systematic or spirited opposition, on the part of the\nfree states, to the pretensions of the slaveholding South.\n\nArkansas was admitted but the other day, with nothing that deserves to\nbe called an effort to prevent it--although her Constitution attempts to\n_perpetuate_ slavery, by forbidding the master to emancipate his bondmen\nwithout the consent of the Legislature, and the Legislature without the\nconsent of the master. Emboldened, but not satisfied, with their success\nin every political contest with the people of the free states, the\nslaveholders are beginning now to throw off their disguise--to brand\ntheir former notions about the \"_evil_, political and moral\" of slavery,\nas \"folly and delusion,\"[A]--and as if to \"make assurance double sure,\"\nand defend themselves forever, by territorial power, against the\nprogress of Free principles and the renovation of the Constitution, they\nnow demand openly--scorning to conceal that their object is, to _advance\nand establish their political power in the country_,--that Texas, a\nforeign state, five or six times as large as all New England, with a\nConstitution dyed as deep in slavery, as that of Arkansas, shall be\nadded to the Union.\n\n[Footnote A: Mr. Calhoun is reported, in the National Intelligencer, as\nhaving used these words in a speech delivered in the Senate, the 10th\nday of January:--\n\n\"Many in the South once believed that it [slavery] was a moral and\npolitical evil; that folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its\ntrue light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free\ninstitutions in the world.\"\n\nMr. Hammond, formerly a Representative in Congress from South Carolina,\ndelivered a speech (Feb. 1, 1836) on the question of receiving petitions\nfor the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In answering\nthose who objected to a slaveholding country, that it was \"assimilated\nto an aristocracy,\" he says--\"In this they are right. I accept the\nterms. _It is a government of the best._ Combining all the advantages,\nand possessing but few of the disadvantages, of the aristocracy of the\nold world--without fostering, to an unwarrantable extent, the pride, the\nexclusiveness, the selfishness, the thirst for sway, the contempt for\nthe rights of others, which distinguish the nobility of Europe--it gives\nus their education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor,\ntheir undaunted spirit. Slavery does indeed create an aristocracy--an\naristocracy of talents, of virtue, of generosity, of courage. In a slave\ncountry, every freeman is an aristocrat. Be he rich or poor, if he does\nnot possess a single slave, he has been born to all the natural\nadvantages of the society in which he is placed; and all its honors lie\nopen before him, inviting his genius and industry. Sir, I do firmly\nbelieve, that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the\nhighest toned, the purest, best organization of society, that has ever\nexisted on the face of the earth.\"\n\nThat this _retraxit_ of former _follies and delusions_ is not confined\nto the mere politician, we have the following proofs:--\n\nThe CHARLESTON (S.C.) UNION PRESBYTERY--\"Resolved. That in the opinion\nof this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far from being a sin in\nthe sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word; that it is in\naccordance with the example, or consistent with the precepts, of\npatriarchs, prophets, and apostles; and that it is compatible with the\nmost fraternal regard to the good of the servants whom God has committed\nto our charge.\"--Within the last few months, as we learn from a late No.\nof the Charleston Courier, the late Synod of the Presbyterian Church, in\nAugusta, (Ga.) passed resolutions declaring \"That slavery is a CIVIL\nINSTITUTION, with which the General Assembly [the highest ecclesiastical\ntribunal] has NOTHING TO DO.\"\n\nAgain:--The CHARLESTON BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, in a memorial to the\nLegislature of South Carolina, say--\"The undersigned would further\nrepresent, that the said Association does not consider that the Holy\nScriptures have made the FACT of slavery a question of morals at all.\"\nAnd further,--\"The right of masters to dispose of the time of their\nslaves, has been distinctly recognised by the Creator of all things.\"\n\nAgain:--The EDGEFIELD (S.C.) ASSOCIATION--\"Resolved, That the practical\nquestion of slavery, in a country where the system has obtained as a\npart of its stated policy, is settled in the Scriptures by Jesus Christ\nand his apostles.\" \"Resolved, That these uniformly recognised the\nrelation of master and slave, and enjoined on both their respective\nduties, under a system of servitude more degrading and absolute than\nthat which obtains in our country.\"\n\nAgain we find, in a late No. of the Charleston Courier, the following:--\n\n\"THE SOUTHERN CHURCH.--The Georgia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal\nChurch, at a recent meeting in Athens, passed resolutions, declaring\nthat slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil,\nand is a civil and domestic institution, with which Christian ministers\nhave nothing to do, further than to meliorate the condition of the\nslave, by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign\ninfluence of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way\nto heaven.\"]\n\nThe abolitionists feel a deep regard for the integrity and union of the\ngovernment, _on the principles of the Constitution_. Therefore it is,\nthat they look with earnest concern on the attempt now making by the\nSouth, to do, what, in the view of multitudes of our citizens, would\namount to good cause for the separation of the free from the slave\nstates. Their concern is not mingled with any feelings of despair. The\nalarm they sounded on the \"annexation\" question has penetrated the free\nstates; it will, in all probability, be favorably responded to by every\none of them; thus giving encouragement to our faith, that the admission\nof Texas will be successfully resisted,--that this additional stain will\nnot be impressed on our national escutcheon, nor this additional peril\nbrought upon the South.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: See Appendix, F.]\n\nThis, the present condition of the country, induced by a long train of\nusurpations on the part of the South, and by unworthy concessions to it\nby the North, may justly be regarded as one of the events of the last\nfew years affecting in some way, the measures of the abolitionists. It\nhas certainly done so. And whilst it is not to be denied, that many\nabolitionists feel painful apprehensions for the result, it has only\nroused them up to make more strenuous efforts for the preservation of\nthe country.\n\nIt may be replied--if the abolitionists are such firm friends of the\nUnion, why do they persist in what must end in its rupture and\ndissolution? The abolitionists, let it be repeated _are_ friends of\n_the_ Union that was intended by the Constitution; but not of a Union\nfrom which is eviscerated, to be trodden under foot, the right to\nSPEAK,--to PRINT--to PETITION,--the rights of CONSCIENCE; not of a Union\nwhose ligaments are whips, where the interest of the oppressor is the\n_great_ interest, the right to oppress the _paramount_ right. It is\nagainst the distortion of the glorious Union our fathers left us into\none bound with despotic bands that the abolitionists are contending. In\nthe political aspect of the question, they have nothing to ask, except\nwhat the Constitution authorizes--no change to desire, but that the\nConstitution may be restored to its pristine republican purity.\n\nBut they have well considered the \"dissolution of the Union.\" There is\nno just ground for apprehending that such a measure will ever be\nresorted to by the _South_. It is by no means intended by this, to\naffirm, that the South, like a spoiled child, for the first time denied\nsome favourite object, may not fall into sudden frenzy and do herself\nsome great harm. But knowing as I do, the intelligence and forecast of\nthe leading men of the South--and believing that they will, if ever such\na crisis should come, be judiciously influenced by the _existing_ state\nof the case, and by the _consequences_ that would inevitably flow from\nan act of dissolution--they would not, I am sure, deem it desirable or\npolitic. They would be brought, in their calmer moments, to coincide\nwith one who has facetiously, but not the less truly remarked, that it\nwould be as indiscreet in the slave South to separate from the free\nNorth, as for the poor, to separate from the parish that supported them.\nIn support of this opinion, I would say:\n\nFirst--A dissolution of the Union by the South would, in no manner,\nsecure to her the object she has in view.--The _leaders_ at the South,\nboth in the church and in the state, must, by this time, be too well\ninformed as to the nature of the anti-slavery movement, and the\ncharacter of those engaged in it, to entertain fears that, violence of\nany kind will be resorted to, directly or indirectly.[A] The whole\ncomplaint of the South is neither more nor less than this--THE NORTH\nTALKS ABOUT SLAVERY. Now, of all the means or appliances that could be\ndevised, to give greater life and publicity to the discussion of\nslavery, none could be half so effectual as the dissolution of the Union\n_because of the discussion_. It would astonish the civilized world--they\nwould inquire into the cause of such a remarkable event in its\nhistory;--the result would be not only enlarged _discussion_ of the\nwhole subject, but it would bring such a measure of contempt on the\nguilty movers of the deed, that even with all the advantages of \"their\neducation, their polish, their munificence, their high honor, their\nundaunted spirit,\" so eloquently set forth by the Hon. Mr. Hammond, they\nwould find it hard to withstand its influence. It is difficult for men\nin a _good_ cause, to maintain their steadfastness in opposition to an\nextensively corrupt public sentiment; in a _bad_ one, against public\nsentiment purified and enlightened, next to impossible, if not quite so.\n\n[Footnote A: \"It is not,\" says Mr. Calhoun, \"that we expect the\nabolitionists will resort to arms--will commence a crusade to deliver\nour slaves by force.\"--\"Let me tell our friends of the South, who differ\nfrom us, that the war which the abolitionists wage against us is of a\nvery different character, and _far more effective_. It is waged, not\nagainst our lives, but our character.\" More correctly, Mr. C. might have\nsaid against a _system_, with which the slaveholders have chosen to\ninvolve their characters, and which they have determined to defend, at\nthe hazard of losing them.]\n\nAnother result would follow the dissolution:--_Now_, the abolitionists\nfind it difficult, by reason of the odium which the principal\nslaveholders and their friends have succeeded in attaching to their\n_name_, to introduce a knowledge of their principles and measures into\nthe great mass of southern mind. There are multitudes at the South who\nwould co-operate with us, if they could be informed of our aim.[A] Now,\nwe cannot reach them--then, it would be otherwise. The united power of\nthe large slaveholders would not be able longer to keep them in\nignorance. If the Union were dissolved, they _would_ know the cause, and\ndiscuss it, and condemn it.\n\n[Footnote A: There is abundant evidence of this. Our limits confine us\nto the following, from the first No. of the Southern Literary Journal,\n(Charleston, S.C.):--\"There are _many good men even among us_, who have\nbegun to grow _timid_. They think, that what the virtuous and\nhigh-minded men of the North look upon as a crime and a plague-spot,\ncannot be perfectly innocent or quite harmless in a slaveholding\ncommunity.\"\n\nThis, also, from the North Carolina Watchman:--\n\n\"It (the abolition party) is the growing party at the North. We are\ninclined to believe that there is even more of it at the South than\nprudence will permit to be openly avowed.\"\n\n\"It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that there is a LARGE, RESPECTABLE and\nINTELLIGENT PARTY in Kentucky, who will exert every nerve and spare no\nefforts to dislodge the subsisting rights to our Slave population, or\nalter in some manner, and to some extent, at least, the tenure by which\nthat species of property is held.\"--_Speech of the Hon. James T.\nMorehead in the Kentucky Legislature, last winter_.]\n\nA second reason why the South will not dissolve the Union is, that she\nwould be exposed to the visitation of _real_ incendiaries, exciting her\nslaves to revolt. Now, it would cover any one with infamy, who would\nstir them up to vindicate their rights by the massacre of their masters.\nDissolve the Union, and the candidates for \"GLORY\" would find in the\nplains of Carolina and Louisiana as inviting a theatre for their\nenterprise, as their prototypes, the Houstons, the Van Rennsselaers, and\nthe Sutherlands did, in the prairies of Texas or the forests of Canada.\n\nA third reason why the South will not dissolve is, that the slaves would\nleave their masters and take refuge in the free states. The South would\nnot be able to establish a _cordon_ along her wide frontier sufficiently\nstrong to prevent it. Then, the slaves could not be reclaimed, as they\nnow are, under the Constitution. Some may say, the free states would not\npermit them to come in and dwell among them.--Believe it not. The fact\nof separation on the ground supposed, would abolitionize the whole\nNorth. Beside this, in an economical point of view, the _demand for\nlabor_ in the Western States would make their presence welcome. At all\nevents, a passage through the Northern States to Canada would not be\ndenied them.\n\nA fourth reason why the South will not dissolve is, that a large number\nof her most steady and effective population would emigrate to the free\nstates. In the slave-_selling_ states especially, there has always been\na class who have consented to remain there with their families, only in\nthe hope that slavery would, in some way or other, be terminated. I do\nnot say they are abolitionists, for many of them are slaveholders. It\nmay be, too, that such would expect compensation for their slaves,\nshould they be emancipated, and also that they should be sent out of the\ncountry. The particular mode of emancipation, however crude it may be,\nthat has occupied their minds, has nothing to do with the point before\nus. _They look for emancipation--in this hope they have remained, and\nnow remain, where they are_. Take away this hope, by making slavery the\n_distinctive bond of union_ of a new government, and you drive them to\nthe North. These persons are not among the rich, the voluptuous, the\neffeminate; nor are they the despised, the indigent, the\nthriftless--they are men of moderate property, of intelligence, of\nconscience--in every way the \"bone and sinew\" of the South.\n\nA fifth reason why the South will not dissolve, is her _weakness_. It is\na remarkable fact, that in modern times, and in the Christian world, all\nslaveholding countries have been united with countries that are free.\nThus, the West Indian and Mexican and South American slaveholding\ncolonies were united to England, France, Spain, Portugal, and other\nstates of Europe. If England (before her Emancipation Act) and the\nothers had at any time withdrawn the protection of their _power_ from\ntheir colonies, slavery would have been extinguished almost\nsimultaneously with the knowledge of the fact. In the West Indies there\ncould have been no doubt of this, from the disparity in numbers between\nthe whites and the slaves, from the multiplied attempts made from time\nto time by the latter to vindicate their rights by insurrection, and\nfrom the fact, that all their insurrections had to be suppressed by the\n_force_ of the mother country. As soon as Mexico and the South American\ncolonies dissolved their connexion with Spain, slavery was abolished in\nevery one of them. This may, I know, be attributed to the necessity\nimposed on these states, by the wars in which they engaged to establish\ntheir independence. However this may be--the _fact_ still remains. The\nfree states of this Union are to the slave, so far as the maintenance of\nslavery is concerned, substantially, in the relation of the European\nstates to their slaveholding colonies. Slavery, in all probability,\ncould not be maintained by the South disjoined from the North, a single\nyear. So far from there existing any reason for making the South an\nexception, in this particular, to other slave countries, there are\ncircumstances in her condition that seem to make her dependence more\ncomplete. Two of them are, the superior intelligence of her slaves on\nthe subject of human rights, and the geographical connexion of the slave\nregion in the United States. In the West Indies, in Mexico and South\nAmerica the great body of the slaves were far below the slaves of this\ncountry in their intellectual and moral condition--and, in the former,\ntheir power to act in concert was weakened by the insular fragments into\nwhich they were divided.\n\nAgain, the depopulation of the South of large numbers of its white\ninhabitants, from the cause mentioned under the fourth head, would, it\nis apprehended, bring the two classes to something like a numerical\nequality. Now, consider the present state of the moral sentiment of the\nChristianized and commercial world in relation to slavery; add to it the\nimpulse that this sentiment, acknowledged by the South already to be\nwholly opposed to her, would naturally acquire by an act of separation\non her part, with a single view to the perpetuation of slavery; bring\nthis sentiment in all its accumulation and intensity to act upon a\nnation where one half are enslavers, the other the enslaved--and what\nmust be the effect? From the nature of mind; from the laws of moral\ninfluence, (which are as sure in their operation, if not so well\nunderstood, as the laws of physical influence,) the party \"whose\nconscience with injustice is oppressed,\" must become dispirited,\nweakened in courage, and in the end unnerved and contemptible. On the\nother hand, the sympathy that would be felt for the oppressed--the\ncomfort they would receive--the encouragement that would be given them\nto assert their rights, would make it an impossibility, to keep them in\nslavish peace and submission.\n\nThis state of things would be greatly aggravated by the peculiarly\nmorbid sensitiveness of the South to every thing that is supposed to\ntouch her _character_. Her highest distinction would then become her\nmost troublesome one. How, for instance, could her chivalrous sons bear\nto be taunted, wherever they went, on business or for pleasure, out of\ntheir own limits, with the cry \"the knights of the lash!\" \"Go home and\npay your laborers!\" \"Cease from the scourging of husbands and wives in\neach others presence--from attending the shambles, to sell or buy as\nslaves those whom God has made of the same blood with yourselves--your\nbrethren--your sisters! Cease, high minded sons of the 'ANCIENT\nDOMINION,' from estimating your revenue by the number of children you\nrear, to sell in the flesh market!\" \"Go home and pay your laborers!\" \"Go\nhome and pay your laborers!\" This would be a trial to which \"southern\nchivalry\" could not patiently submit. Their \"high honor,\" their\n\"undaunted spirit\" would impel them to the field--only to prove that the\n\"last resort\" requires something more substantial than mere \"honor\" and\n\"spirit\" to maintain it. Suppose there should be a disagreement--as in\nall likelihood there soon would, leading to war between the North and\nthe South? The North would scarcely have occasion to march a squadron to\nthe field. She would have an army that could be raised up by the\nmillion, at the fireside of her enemy. It has been said, that during the\nlate war with England, it was proposed to her cabinet, by some\nenterprising officers, to land five thousand men on the coast of South\nCarolina and proclaim liberty to the slates. The success of the scheme\nwas well thought of. But then the example! England herself held nearly a\nmillion of slaves at no greater distance from the scene of action than\nthe West Indies. _Now_, a restraint of this kind on such a scheme does\nnot exist.\n\nIt seems plain beyond the power of argument to make it plainer, that a\nslaveholding nation--one under the circumstances in which the South\nseparated from the North would be placed--must be at the mercy of every\nfree people having neither power to vindicate a right nor avenge\na wrong.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Governor Hayne, of South Carolina, spoke in high terms, a\nfew years ago, of the ability that the South would possess, in a\nmilitary point of view, because her great wealth would enable her, at\nall times, to command the services of mercenary troops. Without stopping\nto dispute with him, as to her comparative wealth, I would remark, that\nhe seemed entirely to have overlooked this truth--that whenever a\ngovernment is under the necessity of calling in foreign troops, to keep\nin subjection one half of the people, the power of the government has\nalready passed into the hands of the _Protectors_. They can and will, of\ncourse, act with whichever party will best subserve their purpose.]\n\nA sixth reason why the South will not dissolve the Union, is found in\nthe difficulty of bringing about an _actual_ separation. Preparatory to\nsuch a movement, it would seem indispensable, that _Union_ among the\nseceding states themselves should be secured. A General Convention would\nbe necessary to adjust its terms. This would, of course, be preceded by\n_particular_ conventions in the several states. To this procedure the\nsame objection applies, that has been made, for the last two or three\nyears, to holding an anti-abolition convention in the South:--It would\ngive to the _question_ such notoriety, that the object of holding the\nconvention could not be concealed from the slaves. The more sagacious in\nthe South have been opposed to a convention; nor have they been\ninfluenced solely by the consideration just mentioned--which, in my\nview, is but of little moment--but by the apprehension, that the\ndiversity of sentiment which exists among the slave states, themselves,\nin relation to the _system_, would be disclosed to the country; and that\nthe slaveholding interest would be found deficient in that harmony\nwhich, from its perfectness heretofore, has made the slaveholders so\nsuccessful in their action on the North.\n\nThe slaveholding region may be divided into the _farming_ and the\n_planting_--or the slave-_selling_ and the slave-_buying_ districts.\nMaryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and East Tennessee constitute the\nfirst. West Tennessee is somewhat equivocal. All the states south of\nTennessee belong to the slave-_buying_ district. The first, with but few\nexceptions, have from the earliest times, felt slavery a reproach to\ntheir good name--an encumbrance on their advancement--at some period, to\nbe cast off. This sentiment, had it been at all encouraged by the action\nof the General Government, in accordance with the views of the\nconvention that formed the Constitution, would, in all probability, by\nthis time, have brought slavery in Maryland and Virginia to an end.\nNotwithstanding the easy admission of slave states into the Union, and\nthe _yielding_ of the free states whenever they were brought in\ncollision with the South, have had a strong tendency to persuade the\n_farming_ slave states to continue their system, yet the sentiment in\nfavor of emancipation in some form, still exists among them. Proof,\nencouraging proof of this, is found in the present attitude of Kentucky.\nHer legislature has just passed a law, proposing to the people, to hold\na convention to alter the constitution. In the discussion of the bill,\nslavery as connected with some form of emancipation, seems to have\nconstituted the most important element. The public journals too, that\nare _opposed_ to touching the subject at all, declare that the main\nobject for recommending a convention was, to act on slavery in\nsome way.\n\nNow, it would be in vain for the _planting_ South to expect, that\nKentucky or any other of the _farming_ slave states would unite with\nher, in making slavery the _perpetual bond_ of a new political\norganization. If they feel the inconveniences of slavery _in their\npresent condition_, they could not be expected to enter on another,\nwhere these inconveniences would be inconceivably multiplied and\naggravated, and, by the very terms of their new contract, _perpetuated_.\n\nThis letter is already so protracted, that I cannot stop here to develop\nmore at large this part of the subject. To one acquainted with the state\nof public sentiment, in what I have called, the _farming_ district, it\nneeds no further development. There is not one of these states embraced\nin it, that would not, when brought to the test, prefer the privileges\nof the Union to the privilege of perpetual slaveholding. And if there\nshould turn out to be a single _desertion_ in this matter, the whole\nproject of secession must come to nought.\n\nBut laying aside all the obstacles to union among the seceding states,\nhow is it possible to take the first step to _actual_ separation! The\nseparation, at the worst, can only be _political_. There will be no\nchasm--no rent made in the earth between the two sections. The natural\nand ideal boundaries will remain unaltered. Mason and Dixon's line will\nnot become a wall of adamant that can neither be undermined nor\nsurmounted. The Ohio river will not be converted into flame, or into\nanother Styx, denying a passage to every living thing.\n\nBesides this stability of natural things, the multiform interests of the\ntwo sections would, in the main, continue as they are. The complicate\nties of commerce could not be suddenly unloosed. The breadstuffs, the\nbeef, the pork, the turkies, the chickens, the woollen and cotton\nfabrics, the hats, the shoes, the socks, the \"_horn flints and bark\nnutmegs_,\"[A] the machinery, the sugar-kettles, the cotton-gins, the\naxes, the hoes, the drawing-chains of the North, would be as much needed\nby the South, the day after the separation as the day before. The\nnewspapers of the North--its Magazines, its Quarterlies, its Monthlies,\nwould be more sought after by the readers of the South than they now\nare; and the Southern journals would become doubly interesting to us.\nThere would be the same lust for our northern summers and your southern\nwinters, with all their health-giving influences; and last, though not\nleast, the same desire of marrying and of being given in marriage that\nnow exists between the North and South. Really it is difficult to say\n_where_ this long threatened separation is to _begin_; and if the place\nof beginning could be found, it would seem like a poor exchange for the\nSouth, to give up all these pleasant and profitable relations and\nconnections for the privilege of enslaving an equal number of their\nfellow-creatures.\n\n[Footnote A: Senator Preston's Railroad Speech, delivered at Colombia,\nS.C., in 1836.]\n\nThus much for the menace, that the \"UNION WILL BE DISSOLVED\" unless the\ndiscussion of the slavery question be stopped.\n\nBut you may reply, \"Do you think the South is not in earnest in her\nthreat of dissolving the Union?\" I rejoin, by no means;--yet she pursues\na perfectly reasonable course (leaving out of view the justice or\nmorality of it)--just such a course as I should expect she would pursue,\nemboldened as she must be by her multiplied triumphs over the North by\nthe use of the same weapon. \"We'll dissolve the Union!\" was the cry,\n\"unless Missouri be admitted!!\" The North were frightened, and Missouri\nwas admitted with SLAVERY engraved on her forehead. \"We'll dissolve the\nUnion!\" unless the Indians be driven out of the South!! The North forgot\nher treaties, parted with humanity, and it is done--the defenceless\nIndians are forced to \"consent\" to be driven out, or they are left,\nundefended, to the mercies of southern land-jobbers and gold-hunters.\n\"We'll dissolve the Union! If the Tariff\" [established at her own\nsuggestion] \"be not repealed or modified so that our slave-labor may\ncompete with your free-labor.\" The Tariff is accordingly modified to\nsuit the South. \"We'll dissolve the Union!\" unless the freedom of speech\nand the press be put down in the North!!--With the promptness of\ncommission-merchants, the alternative is adopted. Public assemblies met\nfor deliberation are assailed and broken up at the North; her citizens\nare stoned and beaten and dragged through the streets of her cities; her\npresses are attacked by mobs, instigated and led on by men of influence\nand character; whilst those concerned in conducting them are compelled\nto fly from their homes, pursued as if they were noxious wild beasts;\nor, if they remain to defend, they are sacrificed to appease the\nsouthern divinity. \"We'll dissolve the Union\" if slavery be abolished in\nthe District of Columbia! The North, frightened from her propriety,\ndeclares that slavery ought not to be abolished there NOW.--\"We'll\ndissolve the Union!\" if you read petitions from your constituents for\nits abolition, or for stopping the slave-trade at the Capital, or\nbetween the states. FIFTY NORTHERN REPRESENTATIVES respond to the cry,\n\"down, then, with the RIGHT OF PETITION!!\" All these assaults have\nsucceeded because the North has been frightened by the war-cry, \"WE'LL\nDISSOLVE THE UNION!\"\n\nAfter achieving so much by a process so simple, why should not the South\npersist in it when striving for further conquests? No other course ought\nto be expected from her, till this has failed. And it is not at all\nimprobable, that she will persist, till she almost persuades herself\nthat she is serious in her menace to dissolve the Union. She may in her\neagerness, even approach so near the verge of dissolution, that the\nearth may give way under her feet and she be dashed in ruins in the\ngulf below.\n\nNothing will more surely arrest her fury, than the firm array of the\nNorth, setting up anew the almost forgotten principles of our fathers,\nand saying to the \"dark spirit of slavery,\"--\"thus far shalt thou go,\nand no farther.\" This is the best--the only--means of saving the South\nfrom the fruits of her own folly--folly that has been so long, and so\nstrangely encouraged by the North, that it has grown into intolerable\narrogance--down right presumption.\n\nThere are many other \"events\" of the last two or three years which have,\ndoubtless, had their influence on the course of the abolitionists--and\nwhich might properly be dwelt upon at considerable length, were it not\nthat this communication is already greatly protracted beyond its\nintended limits. I shall, therefore, in mentioning the remaining topics,\ndo little more than enumerate them.\n\nThe Legislature of Vermont has taken a decided stand in favor of\nanti-slavery principles and action. In the Autumn of 1836, the following\nresolutions were passed by an almost unanimous vote in both houses:--\n\n\"Resolved, By the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, That neither\nCongress nor the State Governments have any constitutional right to\nabridge the free expressions of opinions, or the transmission of them\nthrough the medium of the public mails.\"\n\n\"Resolved, That Congress do possess the power to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia.\"\n\n\"Resolved, That His Excellency, the Governor, be requested to transmit a\ncopy of the foregoing resolutions to the Executive of each of the\nStates, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress.\"\n\nAt the session held in November last, the following joint resolutions,\npreceded by a decisive memorial against the admission of Texas, were\npassed by both branches--with the exception of the _fifth_ which was\npassed only by the House of Representatives:--\n\n1. Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives, That our\nSenators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested,\nto use their influence in that body to prevent the annexation of Texas\nto the Union.\n\n2. Resolved, That, representing, as we do, the people of Vermont, we do\nhereby, in their name, SOLEMNLY PROTEST against such annexation in\nany form.\n\n3. Resolved, That, as the Representatives of the people of Vermont, we\ndo solemnly protest against the admission, into this Union, of any state\nwhose constitution tolerates domestic slavery.\n\n4. Resolved, That Congress have full power, by the Constitution, to\nabolish slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia and in\nthe territories of the United States.\n\n[5. Resolved, That Congress has the constitutional power to prohibit the\nslave-trade between the several states of this Union, and to make such\nlaws as shall effectually prohibit such trade.]\n\n6. Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our\nRepresentatives requested, to present the foregoing Report and\nResolutions to their respective Houses in Congress, and use their\ninfluence to carry the same speedily into effect.\n\n7. Resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a\ncopy of the foregoing Report and Resolutions to the President of the\nUnited States, and to each of our Senators and Representatives\nin Congress.\n\nThe influence of anti-slavery principles in Massachusetts has become\ndecisive, if we are to judge from the change of sentiment in the\nlegislative body. The governor of that commonwealth saw fit to introduce\ninto his inaugural speech, delivered in January, 1836, a severe censure\nof the abolitionists, and to intimate that they were guilty of an\noffence punishable at common law. This part of the speech was referred\nto a joint committee of five, of which a member of the senate was\nchairman. To the same committee were also referred communications which\nhad been received by the governor from several of the legislatures of\nthe slaveholding states, requesting the Legislature of Massachusetts to\nenact laws, making it PENAL for citizens of that state to form societies\nfor the abolition of slavery, or to speak or publish sentiments such as\nhad been uttered in anti-slavery meetings and published in anti-slavery\ntracts and papers. The managers of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery\nSociety, in a note addressed to the chairman of the committee, requested\npermission, as a party whose rights were drawn in question, to appear\nbefore it. This was granted. The gentlemen selected by them to appear on\ntheir behalf were of unimpeachable character, and distinguished for\nprofessional merit and general literary and scientific intelligence.\nSuch was _then_ the unpopularity of abolitionism, that notwithstanding\nthe personal influence of these gentlemen, they were ill--not to say\nrudely--treated, especially by the chairman of the committee; so much\nso, that respect for themselves, and the cause they were deputed to\ndefend, persuaded them to desist before they had completed their\nremarks. A Report, including Resolutions unfavorable to the\nabolitionists was made, of which the following is a copy:--\n\nThe Joint Special Committee, to whom was referred so much of the\ngovernor's message as related to the abolition of slavery, together with\ncertain documents upon the same subject, communicated to the Executive\nby the several Legislatures of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, and Alabama, transmitted by his Excellency to the Legislature,\nand hereunto annexed, have considered the same, and ask leave,\nrespectfully, to submit the following:--\n\nResolved, That this Legislature distinctly disavow any right whatever in\nitself, or in the citizens of this commonwealth, to interfere in the\ninstitution of domestic slavery in the southern states: it having\nexisted therein before the establishment of the Constitution; it having\nbeen recognised by that instrument; and it being strictly within their\nown keeping.\n\nResolved, That this Legislature, regarding the agitation of the question\nof domestic slavery as having already interrupted the friendly relations\nwhich ought to exist between the several states of this Union, and as\ntending permanently to injure, if not altogether to subvert, the\nprinciples of the Union itself; and believing that the good effected by\nthose who excite its discussion in the non-slaveholding states is, under\nthe circumstances of the case, altogether visionary, while the immediate\nand future evil is great and certain; does hereby express its entire\ndisapprobation of the doctrine upon this subject avowed, and the general\nmeasures pursued by such as agitate the question; and does earnestly\nrecommend to them carefully to abstain from all such discussion, and all\nsuch measures, as may tend to disturb and irritate the public mind.\n\nThe report was laid on the table, whence it was not taken up during the\nsession--its friends being afraid of a lean majority on its passage; for\nthe _alarm_ had already been taken by many of the members who otherwise\nwould have favored it. From this time till the election in the\nsucceeding autumn, the subject was much agitated in Massachusetts. The\nabolitionists again petitioned the Legislature at its session begun in\nJanuary, 1837; especially, that it should remonstrate against the\nresolution of Mr. Hawes, adopted by the House of Representatives in\nCongress, by which all memorials, &c, in relation to slavery were laid,\nand to be laid, on the table, without further action on them. The\nabolitionists were again heard, in behalf of their petitions, before the\nproper committee.[A] The result was, the passage of the following\nresolutions with only 16 dissenting voices to 378, in the House of\nRepresentatives, and in the Senate with not more than one or two\ndissentients on any one of them:--\n\n[Footnote A: The gentleman who had been chairman of the committee the\npreceding year, was supposed, in consequence of the change in public\nopinion in relation to abolitionists, to have injured his political\nstanding too much, even to be nominated as a candidate for re-election.]\n\n    \"Whereas, The House of Representatives of the United States, in the\n    month of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred\n    and thirty-seven, did adopt a resolution, whereby it was ordered\n    that all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers,\n    relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the subject of\n    slavery, or the abolition of slavery, without being either printed\n    or referred, should be laid upon the table, and that no further\n    action whatever should be had thereon; and whereas such a\n    disposition of petitions, then or thereafter to be received, is a\n    virtual denial of the right itself; and whereas, by the resolution\n    aforesaid, which is adopted as a standing rule in the present House\n    of Representatives, the petitions of a large number of the people of\n    this commonwealth, praying for the removal of a great social, moral,\n    and political evil, have been slighted and contemned: therefore,--\n\n    Resolved, That the resolution above named is an assumption of power\n    and authority at variance with the spirit and intent of the\n    Constitution of the United States, and injurious to the cause of\n    freedom and free institutions; that it does violence to the\n    inherent, absolute, and inalienable rights of man; and that it\n    tends, essentially, to impair those fundamental principles of\n    natural justice and natural law which are antecedent to any written\n    constitutions of government, independent of them all, and essential\n    to the security of freedom in a state.\n\n    Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress, in\n    maintaining and advocating the right of petition, have entitled\n    themselves to the cordial approbation of the people of this\n    commonwealth.\n\n    Resolved, That Congress, having exclusive legislation in the\n    District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish slavery in said\n    district, and that its exercise should only be restrained by a\n    regard to the public good.\"\n\nThat you may yourself, judge what influence the abolition question\nexercised in the elections in Massachusetts _last_ autumn, I send you\nthree numbers of the Liberator containing copies of letters addressed to\nmany of the candidates, and their respective answers.\n\nThe Legislature have passed, _unanimously_, at its present session,\nresolutions (preceded by a report of great ability) protesting\n\"_earnestly and solemnly against the annexation of Texas to this\nUnion_;\" and declaring that, \"_no act done, or compact made, for such\npurpose, by the government of the United States, will be binding on the\nstates or the people_.\"\n\nTwo years ago, Governor Marcy, of this state, showed himself willing, at\nthe dictation of the South, to aid in passing laws for restraining and\npunishing the abolitionists, whenever the extremity of the case might\ncall for it. Two weeks ago, at the request of the Young Men's\nAnti-Slavery Society of Albany, the Assembly-chamber, by a vote of the\nHouse (only two dissentient) was granted to Alvan Stewart, Esq., a\ndistinguished lawyer, to lecture on the subject of abolition.\n\nKentucky is assuming an attitude of great interest to the friends of\nLiberty and the Constitution. The blessings of \"them that are ready to\nperish\" throughout the land, the applause of the good throughout the\nworld will be hers, if she should show moral energy enough to break\nevery yoke that she has hitherto imposed on the \"poor,\" and by which her\nown prosperity and true power have been hindered.\n\nIn view of the late action in the Senate and House of Representatives in\nCongress--adverse as they may seem, to those who think more highly of\nthe branches of the Legislature than of the SOURCE of their power--the\nabolitionists see nothing that is cause for discouragement. They find\nthe PEOPLE sound; they know that they still cherish, as their fathers\ndid, the right of petition--the freedom of the press--the freedom of\nspeech--the rights of conscience; that they love the liberty of the\nNorth more than they love the slavery of the South. What care they for\n_Resolutions_ in the House, or Resolutions in the Senate, when the House\nand the Senate are but their ministers, their servants, and they know\nthat they can discharge them at their pleasure? It may be, that Congress\nhas yet to learn, that the people have but slight regard for their\nrestraining resolutions. They ought to have known this from the history\nof such resolutions for the last two years. THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND\npetitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia had\ntheir petitions laid on the table by the resolution of the House of\nRepresentatives in May, 1836. At the succeeding session, they had\nincreased to ONE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND.--The resolution of Jan. 18,\n1837, laid all _their_ petitions in the same way on the table. At the\n_called_, and at the present session, these 110,000 had multiplied to\nFIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND[A]. Soon, Senators and Representatives will be\nsent from the free states who will need no petitions--they will know\nthe prayer of their constituents _before they leave their homes_.\n\n[Footnote A: See Appendix, G.]\n\nIn concluding this, my answer to your 13th interrogatory, I will say\nthat I know of no event, that has transpired, either in or out of\nCongress, for the last two or three years, that has had any other\ninfluence on the efforts of abolitionists than to increase and stimulate\nthem. Indeed, every thing that has taken place within that period, ought\nto excite to their utmost efforts all who are not despairing dastards.\nThe Demon of oppression in this land is tenfold more fierce and rampant\nand relentless than he was supposed to be before roused from the quiet\nof his lair. To every thing that is precious the abolitionists have seen\nhim lay claim. The religion of the Bible must be adulterated--the claims\nof Humanity must be smothered--the demands of justice must be\nnullified--a part of our Race must be shut out from the common sympathy\nof a common nature. Nor is this all: they see their _own_ rights and\nthose of the people; the right to SPEAK--to WRITE--to PRINT--to\nPUBLISH--to ASSEMBLE TOGETHER--to PETITION THEIR OWN SERVANTS--all\nbrought in peril. They feel that the final conflict between Popular\nliberty and Aristocratic slavery has come; that one or the other must\nfall; and they have made up their minds, with the blessing of God on\ntheir efforts, that their adversary shall die.\n\n\"14. _Have you any permanent fund, and how much?_\"\n\nANSWER.--We have none. The contributions are anticipated. We are always\nin debt, and always getting out of debt.\n\nI have now, Sir, completed my answers to the questions proposed in your\nletter of the 16th ult. It gives me pleasure to have had such an\nauspicious opportunity of doing so. I cannot but hope for good to both\nthe parties concerned, where candor and civility have characterized\ntheir representatives.\n\nPart of the answer to your 13th question may seem to wander from the\nstrict terms of the question proposed. Let it be set down to a desire,\non my part, to give you all the information I can, at all germain to the\ninquiry. The \"proffer,\" made in my note to Mr. Calhoun, was not\n\"unguarded;\"--nor was it _singular_. The information I have furnished\nhas been always accessible to our adversaries--even though the\napplication for it might not have been clothed in the polite and\ngentlemanly terms which have so strongly recommended yours to the most\nrespectful consideration of\n\nYour very obedient servant,\n\nJAMES G. BIRNEY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[In the Explanatory Remarks placed at the beginning of this\nCorrespondence, reasons were given, that were deemed sufficient, for not\npublishing more of the letters that passed between Mr. Elmore and myself\nthan the two above. Since they were in type, I have received from Mr.\nElmore a communication, in reply to one from me, informing him that I\nproposed limiting the publication to the two letters just mentioned. It\nis dated May 19. The following extract shows that he entertains a\ndifferent opinion from mine, and thinks that justice to him requires\nthat _another_ of his letters should be included in the\nCorrespondence:--\n\n\"The order you propose in the publication is proper enough; the omission\nof business and immaterial letters being perfectly proper, as they can\ninterest nobody. I had supposed my last letter would have formed an\nexception to the rule, which excluded immaterial papers. It explained,\nmore fully than my first, my reasons for this correspondence, defined\nthe limits to _which I had prescribed myself_, and was a proper\naccompaniment to _a publication_ of what _I_ had not written for\npublication. Allow me, Sir, to say, that it will be but bare justice to\nme that it should be printed with the other papers. I only suggest this\nfor your own consideration, for--adhering to my former opinions and\ndecision--I ask nothing and complain of nothing.\"\n\nIt is still thought that the publication of the letter alluded to is\nunnecessary to the purpose of enlightening the public, as to the state,\nprospects, &c, of the anti-slavery cause. It contains no denial of the\nfacts, nor impeachment of the statements, nor answer to the arguments,\npresented in my communication. But as Mr. Elmore is personally\ninterested in this matter, and as it is intended to maintain the\nconsistent liberality which has characterized the Executive Committee in\nall their intercourse with their opponents, the suggestion made by Mr.\nElmore is cheerfully complied with. The following is a copy of the\nletter alluded to.--J.G.B.]\n\n    \"WASHINGTON, May 5, 1838.\n\n    To JAMES G. BIRNEY, Esq., Cor. Sec. A.A.S.S.\n\n    SIR,--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st\n    instant, in which you again refer to the publication of the\n    Correspondence between us, in relation to the measures and designs\n    of the abolitionists. I would have certainly answered yours of the\n    2d ult., on the same subject, more fully before this, had it not\n    escaped my recollection, in consequence [of] having been more\n    engaged than usual in the business before the House. I hope the\n    delay has been productive of no inconvenience.\n\n    If I correctly understand your letters above referred to, the\n    control of these papers, and the decision as to their publication,\n    have passed into the 'Executive Committee of the American\n    Anti-Slavery Society;' and, from their tenor, I infer that their\n    determination is so far made, that nothing I could object would\n    prevent it, if I desired to do so. I was certainly not apprised,\n    when I entered into this Correspondence, that its disposition was to\n    depend on any other will than yours and mine,--but that matters\n    nothing now,--you had the power, and I am not disposed to question\n    the right or propriety of its exercise. I heard of you as a man of\n    intelligence, sincerity, and truth,--who, although laboring in a bad\n    cause, did it with ability, and from a mistaken conviction of its\n    justice. As one of the Representatives of a slave-holding\n    constituency, and one of a committee raised by the Representatives\n    of the slave-holding States, to ascertain the intentions and\n    progress of your associations, I availed myself of the opportunity\n    offered by your character and situation, to propose to you inquiries\n    _as to facts_, which would make those _developments so important to\n    be known by our people_. My inquiries were framed to draw out _full\n    and authentic details_ of the organization, numbers, resources, and\n    designs of the abolitionists, of the means they resorted to for the\n    accomplishment of their ends, and the progress made, and making, in\n    their dangerous work, that all such information might be laid before\n    the _four millions and a half of white inhabitants in the slave\n    States, whose lives and property are menaced and endangered_ by this\n    ill-considered, misnamed, and disorganizing philanthropy. They\n    should be informed of the full length and breadth and depth of this\n    storm which is gathering over their heads, before it breaks in its\n    desolating fury. Christians and civilized, they are _now_\n    industrious, prosperous, and happy; but should your schemes of\n    abolition prevail, it will bring upon them overwhelming ruin, and\n    misery unutterable. The two races cannot exist together upon terms\n    of equality--the extirpation of one and the ruin of the other _would\n    be inevitable_. This humanity, conceived in wrong and born in civil\n    strife, would be baptized in a people's blood. It was, that our\n    people might know, in time to guard against the mad onset, the full\n    extent of this gigantic conspiracy and crusade against their\n    institutions; and of necessity upon their lives with which they must\n    sustain them; and their fortunes and prosperity, which _exist only\n    while these institutions exist_, that I was induced to enter into a\n    correspondence with you, who by your official station and\n    intelligence were known to be well informed on these points, and\n    from your well established character for candor and fairness, would\n    make no statements of facts which were not known or believed by you\n    to be true. To a great extent, my end has been accomplished by your\n    replies to my inquiries. How far, or whether at all, your answers\n    have run, beyond _the facts inquired for_, into theories, arguments,\n    and dissertations, as erroneous as mischievous, is not a matter of\n    present consideration. We differed no wider than I expected, but\n    that difference has been exhibited courteously, and has nothing to\n    do with the question of publication. Your object, or rather the\n    object of your Committee, is to publish; and I, having no reason to\n    desire it, as you have put me in possession of the facts I wished,\n    and no reason not to desire it, as there is nothing to conceal, will\n    leave yourself and the Committee to take your own course, neither\n    assenting nor dissenting, in what you may finally decide to do.\n\n    Very respectfully,\n\n    Your obedient servant,\n\n    F.H. Elmore.\"\n\n[This letter of Mr. Elmore contains but little more than a reiteration\nof alarming cries on the part of the slaveholder;--cries that are as old\nas the earliest attempts of philanthropy to break the fetters of the\nenslaved, and that have been repeated up to the present day, with a\nboldness that seems to increase, as instances of emancipation multiply\nto prove them groundless. Those who utter them seem, in their panic, not\nonly to overlook the most obvious laws of the human mind, and the lights\nof experience, but to be almost unconscious of the great events\nconnected with slavery, that are now passing around them in the world,\nand conspiring to bring about its early abrogation among all civilized\nand commercial nations.\n\nHowever _Christian, and civilized, industrious, prosperous and happy_,\nthe SLAVEHOLDERS of the South may be, this cannot be said of the SLAVES.\nA large religious denomination of the state in which Mr. Elmore resides,\nhas deliberately pronounced them to be \"HEATHEN.\" _Their_ \"industry\" is\nseen at the end of the lash--of \"prosperity\" they have none, for they\ncannot possess any thing that is an element of prosperity--their\n\"happiness\" they prove, by running away from their masters, whenever\nthey think they can effect their escape. This is the condition of a\nlarge _majority_ of the people in South Carolina, Mississippi and\nLouisiana.\n\nThe \"two races\" exist in peace in Mexico,--in all the former South\nAmerican dependencies of Spain, in Antigua, in the Bermudas, in Canada,\nin Massachusetts, in Vermont, in fine, in every country where they enjoy\n_legal equality_. It is the _denial_ of this that produces discontent.\nMEN will never be satisfied without it. Let the slaveholders consult the\nirreversible laws of the human mind--make a full concession of right to\nthose from whom they have withheld it, and they will be blessed with a\npeace, political, social, moral, beyond their present conceptions;\nwithout such concessions they never can possess it.\n\nA system that cannot withstand the assaults of truth--that replies to\narguments with threats--that cannot be \"talked about\"--that flourishes\nin secrecy and darkness, and dies when brought forth into the light and\nexamined, must in this time of inexorable scrutiny and relentless\nagitation, be a dangerous one. If _justice_ be done, all necessity for\nthe extirpation of any part of the people will at once be removed.\nBaptisms _of blood_ are seen only when humanity has failed in her\noffices, and the suffering discern hope only in the brute efforts\nof despair.\n\nMr. Elmore is doubtless well versed in general history. To his vigorous\ndeclamation, I reply by asking, if he can produce from the history of\nour race a single instance, where emancipation, full and immediate, has\nbeen followed, as a legitimate consequence, by insurrection or\nbloodshed. I may go further, and ask him for a well authenticated\ninstance, where an emancipated slave, singly has imbrued his hands in\nhis master's blood. The first record of such an act in modern times, is\nyet to be made.\n\nMr. Elmore says \"the white inhabitants in the slave states should be\ninformed of the full length and breadth and depth of this storm which is\ngathering over their heads, before it breaks in its desolating fury.\" In\nthis sentiment there is not a reasonable man in the country, be he\nabolitionist or not, who will not coincide with him. We rejoice at the\nevidence we here have, in a gentleman of the influence and intelligence\nof Mr. Elmore, of the returning sanity of the South. How wildly and\nmischievously has she been heretofore misled! Whilst the Governors of\nVirginia, Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas, have been repelling offers,\nmade in respectful terms, of the fullest and most authentic accounts of\nour movements; and whilst Governor Butler of South Carolina, has not\nonly followed the example of his gubernatorial brethren just named, but\nis found corresponding with an obscure culprit in Massachusetts--bribing\nhim with a few dollars, the sum he demanded for his fraudulent promise\nto aid in thwarting the abolitionists[A]; whilst too, Mr. Calhoun has\nbeen willing to pass laws to shut out from his constituents and the\nSouth generally information that concerned them more nearly than all\nothers--we now have it from the highest source, from one selected by a\nstate delegation as its _representative_ in a general committee of the\nwhole slaveholding delegations, that the South ought to be \"_informed of\nthe full length and breadth and depth_\" of the measures, intentions, &c,\nof the abolitionists. At this there is not an abolitionist who will not\nrejoice. We ask for nothing but access to the popular mind of the South.\nWe feel full confidence in the eternal rectitude of our principles, and\nof their reception at the South, when once they are understood. Let the\nconflict come, let the truth of liberty fairly enter the lists with the\nerror of slavery, and we have not a doubt of a glorious triumph.\n\n[Footnote A: Appendix H.]\n\nMay we not, after this, expect the aid of Mr. Elmore and others of equal\ndistinction in the South, in giving to their fellow-citizens the\ninformation that we have always believed, and that they now acknowledge,\nto be so, important to them?\n\n_May 24, 1838_.\n\nJAMES G. BIRNEY.]\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAPPENDIX A.\n\nExtract from an article addressed to the editor of the Christian\nRegister and Observer, signed W.E.C.--attributed to the Rev.\nDr. Channing.\n\n    \"Speaking of slavery, I wish to recommend to your readers a book\n    just from the press, entitled 'Emancipation in the West Indies,' and\n    written by J. A. Thome and J.H. Kimball, who had visited those\n    islands to inquire into the great experiment now going on there. I\n    regard it as the most important work which has appeared among us for\n    years. No man, without reading it, should undertake to pass judgment\n    on Emancipation. It is something more than a report of the\n    observation and opinions of the writers. It consists, chiefly, of\n    the opinions, conversations, letters, and other documents of the\n    very inhabitants of the islands whose judgments are most\n    trust-worthy; of the governors, special magistrates, police\n    officers, managers, attorneys, physicians, &c; and, in most cases,\n    the names of these individuals are given, so that we have the\n    strongest evidence of the correctness of the work.\n\n    The results of this great experiment surpass what the most sanguine\n    could have hoped. It is hardly possible that the trial could have\n    been made under more unfavorable circumstances. The planters on all\n    the islands were opposed to the Act of Emancipation, and, in most,\n    exceedingly and fiercely hostile to it, and utterly indisposed to\n    give it the best chance of success. The disproportion of the colored\n    race to the whites was fearfully great, being that of seven or eight\n    to one; whilst, in our slaveholding states, the whites outnumber the\n    colored people. The slaves of the West Indies were less civilized\n    than ours, and less fit to be trusted with their own support.\n    Another great evil was, that the proprietors, to a considerable\n    extent, were absentees; residing in England, and leaving the care of\n    their estates and slaves to managers and owners; the last people for\n    such a trust, and utterly unfit to carry the wretched victims of\n    their tyranny through the solemn transition from slavery to freedom.\n    To complete the unhappy circumstances under which the experiment\n    began, the Act of Emancipation was passed by a distant government,\n    having no intimate knowledge of the subject; and the consequence\n    was, that a system of 'Apprenticeship,' as it was called, was\n    adopted, so absurd, and betraying such ignorance of the principles\n    of human nature, that, did we not know otherwise, we might suspect\n    its author of intending to produce a failure. It was to witness the\n    results of an experiment promising so little good, that our authors\n    visited three islands, particularly worthy of examination--Antigua,\n    Barbadoes, and Jamaica.\n\n    Our authors went first to Antigua, an island which had been wise\n    enough to foresee the mischiefs of the proposed apprenticeship, and\n    had substituted for it immediate and unqualified emancipation. The\n    report given of this island is most cheering. It is, indeed, one of\n    the brightest records in history. The account, beginning page 143,\n    of the transition from slavery to freedom, can hardly be read by a\n    man of ordinary sensibility without a thrill of tender and holy joy.\n    Why is it not published in all our newspapers as among the most\n    interesting events of our age? From the accounts of Antigua, it\n    appears that immediate emancipation has produced only good. Its\n    fruits are, greater security, the removal of the fears which\n    accompany slavery, better and cheaper cultivation of the soil,\n    increased value of real estate, improved morals, more frequent\n    marriages, and fewer crimes. _The people proclaim, with one voice,\n    that emancipation is a blessing, and that nothing would tempt than\n    to revert to slavery._\n\n    Our authors proceeded next to Barbadoes, where the apprenticeship\n    system is in operation; and if any proof were needed of the docility\n    and good dispositions of the negroes, it would be found in their\n    acquiescence to so wonderful a degree in this unhappy arrangement.\n    The planters on this island have been more disposed, than could have\n    been anticipated, to make the best of this system, and here,\n    accordingly, the same fruits of the Act of Emancipation are found as\n    in Antigua, though less abundant; and a very general and strong\n    conviction prevails of the happiness of the change.\n\n    In Jamaica, apprenticeship manifests its worst tendencies. The\n    planters of this island were, from first to last, furious in their\n    hostility to the act of emancipation; and the effort seems to have\n    been, to make the apprenticeship bear as heavily as possible on the\n    colored people; so that, instead of preparing them for complete\n    emancipation, it has rather unfitted them for this boon. Still,\n    under all these disadvantages, there is strong reason for expecting,\n    that emancipation, when it shall come, will prove a great good. At\n    any rate, it is hardly possible for the slaves to fall into a more\n    deplorable condition, than that in which this interposition of\n    parliament found them.\n\n    The degree of success which has attended this experiment in the\n    West Indies, under such unfavorable auspices, makes us sure, that\n    emancipation in this country, accorded by the good will of the\n    masters, would be attended with the happiest effects. One thing is\n    plain, that it would be perfectly _safe_. Never were the West Indies\n    so peaceful and secure as since emancipation. So far from general\n    massacre and insurrection, not an instance is recorded or intimated\n    of violence of any kind being offered to a white man. Our authors\n    were continually met by assurances of security on the part of the\n    planters, so that, in this respect at least, emancipation has been\n    unspeakable gain. The only obstacle to emancipation is, therefore,\n    removed; for nothing but well grounded fears of violence and crime\n    can authorize a man to encroach one moment on another's freedom.\n\n    The subject of this book is of great interest at the present\n    moment. Slavery, in the abstract, has been thoroughly discussed\n    among us. We all agree that it is a great wrong. Not a voice is here\n    lifted up in defence of the system, when viewed in a general light.\n    We only differ when we come to apply our principles to a particular\n    case. The only question is, whether the Southern states can abolish\n    slavery consistently with the public safety, order, and peace? Many,\n    very many well disposed people, both at the North and South, are\n    possessed with vague fears of massacre and universal misrule, as the\n    consequences of emancipation. Such ought to inquire into the ground\n    of their alarm. They are bound to listen to the voice of _facts_,\n    and such are given in this book. None of us have a right to make up\n    our minds without inquiry, or to rest in opinions adopted indolently\n    and without thought. It is a great crime to doom millions of our\n    race to brutal degradation, on the ground of unreasonable fears. The\n    power of public opinion is here irresistible, and to this power\n    every man contributes something; so that every man, by his spirit\n    and language, helps to loosen or rivet the chains of the slave.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe following sentiments are expressed by GOVERNOR EVERETT, of\nMassachusetts, in a letter to EDMUND QUINCY, Esq., dated\n\n    \"Boston, April 29, 1838.\n\n    DEAR SIR,--I have your favor of the 21st, accompanied with the\n    volume containing the account of the tour of Messrs. Thome and\n    Kimball in the West Indies, for which you will be pleased to accept\n    my thanks. I have perused this highly interesting narrative with the\n    greatest satisfaction. From the moment of the passage of the law,\n    making provision for the immediate or prospective abolition of\n    slavery in the British colonial possessions, I have looked with the\n    deepest solicitude for tidings of its operation. The success of the\n    measure, as it seemed to me, would afford a better hope than had\n    before existed, that a like blessing might be enjoyed by those\n    portions of the United States where slavery prevails. The only\n    ground on which I had been accustomed to hear the continuance of\n    slavery defended at the South, was that of necessity, and the\n    impossibility of abolishing it without producing consequences of the\n    most disastrous character to both parties. The passage of a law\n    providing for the emancipation of nearly a million of slaves in the\n    British colonies, seemed to afford full opportunity of bringing this\n    momentous question to the decisive test of experience. _If the\n    result proved satisfactory, I have never doubted that it would seal\n    the fate of slavery throughout the civilised world_. As far as the\n    observations of Messrs. Thome and Kimball extended, the result is of\n    the most gratifying character. It appears to place beyond a doubt,\n    that the experiment of immediate emancipation, adopted by the\n    colonial Legislature of Antigua, has fully succeeded in that island;\n    and the plan of apprenticeship in other portions of the West Indies,\n    as well as could have been expected from the obvious inherent vices\n    of that measure. _It has given me new views of the practicability of\n    emancipation_. It has been effected in Antigua, as appears from\n    unquestionable authorities contained in the work of Messrs. Thome\n    and Kimball, not merely _without danger_ to the master, but without\n    any sacrifice of his _interest_. I cannot but think that the\n    information collected in the volume will have a powerful effect on\n    public opinion, not only in the northern states, but in the\n    slaveholding states.\"\n\nGOVERNOR ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, writes thus to A.F. WILLIAMS, Esq.,\nof this city:--\n\n    \"NEW HAVEN, _May_ 19, 1838.\n\n    MY DEAR SIR,--Just before I left home, I received from you the\n    Journal of Thome and Kimball, for which token of friendship I\n    intended to have made you my acknowledgments before this; but I\n    wished first to read the book. As far as time would permit, I have\n    gone over most of its pages; and let me assure you, it is justly\n    calculated to produce great effects, provided you can once get it\n    into the hands of the planters. Convince _them_ that their\n    interests, as well as their security, will be advanced by employing\n    free blacks, and emancipation will be accomplished without\n    difficulty or delay.\n\n    I have looked with great interest at the startling measure of\n    emancipation in Antigua; but if this book is correct, the question\n    is settled as to that island beyond a doubt, since there is such\n    accumulated testimony from all classes, that the business and real\n    estate of the island have advanced, by reason of the emancipation,\n    one fourth, at least, in value; while personal security, without\n    military force, is felt by the former masters, and contentment,\n    industry, and gratitude, are seen in those who were slaves.\n\n    The great moral example of England, in abolishing slavery in the\n    West Indies, will produce a revolution on this subject throughout\n    the world, and put down slavery in every Christian country.\n\n    With sentiments of high esteem, &c,\n\n    W. W. ELLSWORTH.\"\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAPPENDIX B.\n\nA short time previous to the late election in Rhode Island for governor\nand lieutenant-governor, a letter was addressed to each of the\ncandidates for those offices by Mr. Johnson, Corresponding Secretary of\nthe Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Society, embodying the views of the\nabolitionists on the several subjects it embraced, in a series of\nqueries. Their purport will appear from the answer of Mr. Sprague, (who\nwas elected governor,) given below. The answer of Mr. Childs (elected\nlieutenant-governor) is fully as direct as that of governor Sprague.\n\n    \"WARWICK, _March 28, 1838_.\n\n    DEAR SIR,--Your favor of the 19th inst. requesting of me, in\n    conformity to a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Rhode\n    Island Anti-Slavery Society, an expression of my opinions on certain\n    topics, was duly received. I have no motive whatever for withholding\n    my opinions on any subject which is interesting to any portion of my\n    fellow-citizens. I will, therefore, cheerfully proceed to reply to\n    the interrogatories proposed, and in the order in which they are\n    submitted.\n\n    1. Among the powers vested by the Constitution in Congress, is the\n    power to exercise exclusive legislation, 'in all cases whatsoever,'\n    over the District of Columbia? 'All cases' must, of course, include\n    the _case_ of slavery and the slave-trade. I am, therefore, clearly\n    of opinion, that the Constitution does confer upon Congress the\n    power to abolish slavery and the slave-trade in that District; and,\n    as they are great moral and political evils, the principles of\n    justice and humanity demand the exercise of that power.\n\n    2. The traffic in slaves, whether foreign or domestic, is equally\n    obnoxious to every principle of justice and humanity; and, as\n    Congress has exercised its powers to suppress the slave-trade\n    between this country and foreign nations, it ought, as a matter of\n    consistency and justice, to exercise the same powers to suppress the\n    slave-trade between the states of this Union. The slave-trade within\n    the states is, undoubtedly, beyond the control of Congress; as the\n    'sovereignty of each state, to legislate exclusively on the subject\n    of slavery, which is tolerated within its limits,' is, I believe,\n    universally conceded. The Constitution unquestionably recognises the\n    sovereign power of each state to legislate on the subject within its\n    limits; but it imposes on us no obligation to add to the evils of\n    the system by countenancing the traffic between the states. That\n    which our laws have solemnly pronounced to be piracy in our foreign\n    intercourse, no sophistry can make honorable or justifiable in a\n    domestic form. For a proof of the feelings which this traffic\n    naturally inspires, we need but refer to the universal execration in\n    which the slave-dealer is held in those portions of the country\n    where the institution of slavery is guarded with the most jealous\n    vigilance.\n\n    3. Congress has no power to abridge the right of petition. The\n    right of the people of the non-slaveholding states to petition\n    Congress for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade in the\n    District of Columbia, and the traffic of human beings among the\n    states, is as undoubted as any right guarantied by the Constitution;\n    and I regard the Resolution which was adopted by the House of\n    Representatives on the 21st of December last as a virtual denial of\n    that right, inasmuch as it disposed of all such petitions, as might\n    be presented thereafter, in advance of presentation and reception.\n    If it was right thus to dispose of petitions on _one_ subject, it\n    would be equally right to dispose of them in the same manner on\n    _all_ subjects, and thus cut of all communication, by petition\n    between the people and their representatives. Nothing can be more\n    clearly a violation of the spirit of the Constitution, as it\n    rendered utterly nugatory a right which was considered of such vast\n    importance as to be specially guarantied in that sacred instrument.\n    A similar Resolution passed the House of Representatives at the\n    first session of the last Congress, and as I then entertained the\n    same views which I have now expressed, I recorded my vote\n    against it.\n\n    4. I fully concur in the sentiment, that 'every principle of\n    justice and humanity requires, that every human being, when personal\n    freedom is at stake, should have the benefit of a jury trial;' and I\n    have no hesitation in saying, that the laws of this state ought to\n    secure that benefit, so far as they can, to persons claimed as\n    fugitives from 'service or labor,' without interfering with the laws\n    of the United States. The course pursued in relation to this subject\n    by the Legislature of Massachusetts meets my approbation.\n\n    5. I am opposed to all attempts to abridge or restrain the freedom\n    of speech and the press, or to forbid any portion of the people\n    peaceably to assemble to discuss any subject--moral, political, or\n    religious.\n\n    6. I am opposed to the annexation of Texas to the United States.\n\n    7. It is undoubtedly inconsistent with the principles of a free\n    state, professing to be governed in its legislation by the\n    principles of freedom, to sanction slavery, in any form, within its\n    jurisdiction. If we have laws in this state which bear this\n    construction, they ought to be repealed. We should extend to our\n    southern brethren, whenever they may have occasion to come among us,\n    all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by our own citizens, and\n    all the rights and privileges guarantied to them by the Constitution\n    of the United States; but they cannot expect of us to depart from\n    the fundamental principles of civil liberty for the purpose of\n    obviating any temporal inconvenience which they may experience.\n\n    These are my views upon the topics proposed for my consideration.\n    They are the views which I have always entertained, (at least ever\n    since I have been awakened to their vast importance,) and which I\n    have always supported, so far as I could, by my vote in Congress;\n    and if, in any respect, my answers have not been sufficiently\n    explicit, it will afford me pleasure to reply to any other questions\n    which you may think proper to propose.\n\n    I am, Sir, very respectfully,\n\n    Your friend and fellow citizen,\n\n    WILLIAM SPRAGUE.\"\n\nOliver Johnson, Esq., Cor. Sec. R.I.A.S. Society.\n\nAPPENDIX C.\n\nThe abolitionists in Connecticut petitioned the Legislature of that\nstate at its late session on several subjects deemed by them proper for\nlegislative action. In answer to these petitions--\n\n1. The law known as the \"Black Act\" or the \"Canterbury law\"--under which\nMiss Crandall was indicted and tried--was repealed, except a single\nprovision, which is not considered objectionable.\n\n2. The right to _trial by jury_ was secured to persons who are claimed\nas slaves.\n\n3. Resolutions were passed asserting the power of Congress to abolish\nslavery in the District of Columbia, and recommending that it be done as\nsoon as it can be, \"consistently with the _best good_ of the _whole\ncountry_.\"(!)\n\n4. Resolutions were passed protesting against the annexation of Texas to\nthe Union.\n\n5. Resolutions were passed asserting the right of petition as\ninalienable--condemning Mr. Patton's resolution of Dec. 21, 1837 as an\ninvasion of the rights of the people, and calling on the Connecticut\ndelegation in Congress to use their efforts to have the same rescinded.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAPPENDIX D.\n\nIn the year 1793 there were but 5,000,000 pounds of cotton produced in\nthe United States, and but 500,000 exported. Cotton never could have\nbecome an article of much commercial importance under the old method of\npreparing it for market. By hand-picking, or by a process strictly\n_manual_, a cultivator could not prepare for market, during the year,\nmore than from 200 to 300 pounds; being only about one-tenth of what he\ncould cultivate to maturity in the field. In '93 Mr. Whitney invented\nthe Cotton-gin now in use, by which the labor of at least _one thousand_\nhands under the old system, is performed by _one_, in preparing the crop\nfor market. Seven years after the invention (1800) 35,000,000 pounds\nwere raised, and 17,800,000 exported. In 1834, 460,000,000 were\nraised--384,750,000 exported. Such was the effect of Mr. Whitney's\ninvention. It gave, at once, extraordinary value to the _land_ in that\npart of the country where alone cotton could be raised; and to _slaves_,\nbecause it was the general, the almost universal, impression that the\ncultivation of the South could be carried on only by slaves. There being\nno _free_ state in the South, competition between free and slave labor\nnever could exist on a scale sufficiently extensive to prove the\nsuperiority of the former in the production of cotton, and in the\npreparation of it for market.\n\nThus, it has happened that Mr. Whitney has been the innocent occasion of\ngiving to slavery in this country its present importance--of magnifying\nit into the great interest to which all others must yield. How he was\nrewarded by the South--especially by the planters of Georgia--the reader\nmay see by consulting Silliman's Journal for January, 1832, and the\nEncyclopedia Americana, article, WHITNEY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAPPENDIX E.\n\nIt is impossible, of course, to pronounce with precision, how great\nwould have been the effect in favor of emancipation, if the effort to\nresist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding state had been\nsuccessful. We can only conjecture what it would have been, by the\neffect its admission has had in fostering slavery up to its present huge\ngrowth and pretensions. If the American people had shown, through their\nNational legislature, a _sincere_ opposition to slavery by the rejection\nof Missouri, it is probable at least--late as it was--that the early\nexpiration of the 'system' would, by this time, have been discerned\nby all men.\n\nWhen the Constitution was formed, the state of public sentiment even in\nthe South--with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia, was\nfavorable to emancipation. Under the influence of this public sentiment\nwas the Constitution formed. No person at all versed in constitutional\nor legal interpretation--with his judgment unaffected by interest or any\nof the prejudices to which the existing controversy has given\nbirth--could, it is thought, construe the Constitution, _in its letter_,\nas intending to perpetuate slavery. To come to such a conclusion with a\nfull knowledge of what was the mind of this nation in regard to slavery,\nwhen that instrument was made, demonstrates a moral or intellectual flaw\nthat makes all reasoning useless.\n\nAlthough it is a fact beyond controversy in our history, that the power\nconferred by the Constitution on Congress to \"regulate commerce with\nforeign nations\" was known to include the power of abolishing the\nAfrican slave-trade--and that it was expected that Congress, at the end\nof the period for which the exercise of that power on this particular\nsubject was restrained, would use it (as it did) _with a view to the\ninfluence that the cutting off of that traffic would have on the\n\"system\" in this country_--yet, such has been the influence of the action\nof Congress on all matters with which slavery has been mingled--more\nespecially on the Missouri question, in which slavery was the sole\ninterest--that an impression has been produced on the popular mind, that\nthe Constitution of the United States _guaranties_, and consequently\n_perpetuates_, slavery to the South. Most artfully, incessantly, and\npowerfully, has this lamentable error been harped on by the\nslaveholders, and by their advocates in the free states. The impression\nof _constitutional favor_ to the slaveholders would, of itself,\nnaturally create for them an undue and disproportionate influence in the\ncontrol of the government; but when to this is added the arrogance that\nthe possession of irresponsible power almost invariably engenders in its\npossessors--their overreaching assumptions--the contempt that the\nslaveholders entertain for the great body of the _people_ of the North,\nit has almost delivered over the government, bound neck and heels, into\nthe hands of slaveholding politicians--to be bound still more\nrigorously, or unloosed, as may seem well in their discretion.\n\nWho can doubt that, as a nation, we should have been more honorable and\ninfluential abroad--more prosperous and united at home--if Kentucky, at\nthe very outset of this matter, had been refused admission to the Union\nuntil she had expunged from her Constitution the covenant with\noppression? She would not have remained out of the Union a single year\non that account. If the worship of Liberty had not been exchanged for\nthat of Power--if her principles had been successfully maintained in\nthis first assault, their triumph in every other would have been easy.\nWe should not have had a state less in the confederacy, and slavery\nwould have been seen, at this time, shrunk up to the most contemptible\ndimensions, if it had not vanished entirely away. But we have furnished\nanother instance to be added to the long and melancholy list already\nexisting, to prove that,--\n\n                       \"facilis descensus Averni,\n       Sed revocare gradum\n       Hoc opus hic labor est,\"\n\nif _poetry_ is not _fiction_.\n\nSuccess in the Missouri struggle--late as it was--would have placed the\ncause of freedom in our country out of the reach of danger from its\ninexorable foe. The principles of liberty would have struck deeper root\nin the free states, and have derived fresh vigor from such a triumph. If\nthese principles had been honored by the government from that period to\nthe present, (as they would have been, had the free states, even then,\nassumed their just preponderance in its administration,) we should now\nhave, in Missouri herself, a healthful and vigorous ally in the cause of\nfreedom; and, in Arkansas, a free people--_twice_ her present\nnumbers--pressing on the confines of slavery, and summoning the keepers\nof the southern charnel-house to open its doors, that its inmates might\nwalk forth, in a glorious resurrection to liberty and life. Although\nyoung, as a people, we should be, among the nations, venerable for our\nvirtue; and we should exercise an influence on the civilized and\ncommercial world that we most despair of possessing, as long as we\nremain vulnerable to every shaft that malice, or satire, or philanthropy\nmay find it convenient to hurl against us.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: A comic piece--the production of one of the most popular of\nthe French writers in his way--had possession of the Paris stage last\nwinter. When one of the personages SEPARATES HUSBAND AND WIFE, he cries\nout, \"BRAVO! THIS IS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED\nSTATES!\" [Bravo! C'est la Declaration d'Independence des Etats Unis.]\n\nOne of our distinguished College-professors, lately on a tour in Europe,\nhad his attention called, while passing along the street of a German\ncity, to the pictorial representation of a WHITE MAN SCOURGING A\nSUPPLICATING COLORED FEMALE, with this allusion underwritten:--\"A\nSPECIMEN OF EQUALITY--FROM REPUBLICAN AMERICA.\"\n\nTruly might our countryman have exclaimed in the language, if not with\nthe generous emotions of the Trojan hero, when he beheld the noble deeds\nof his countrymen pencilled in a strange land--\n\n--\"Quis jam locus--\nQuae regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?\"\n]\n\nInstead of being thus seated on a \"heaven-kissing hill,\" and seen of all\nin its pure radiance; instead of enjoying its delightful airs, and\nimparting to them the healthful savor of justice, truth, mercy,\nmagnanimity, see what a picture we present;--our cannibal burnings of\nhuman beings--our Lynch courts--our lawless scourgings and capital\nexecutions, not only of slaves, but of freemen--our demoniac mobs raging\nthrough the streets of our cities and large towns at midday as well as\nat midnight, shedding innocent blood, devastating property, and applying\nthe incendiaries' torch to edifices erected and dedicated to FREE\nDISCUSSION--the known friends of order, of law, of liberty, of the\nConstitution--citizens, distinguished for their worth at home, and\nreflecting honor on their country abroad, shut out from more than half\nour territory, or visiting it at the hazard of their lives, or of the\nmost degrading and painful personal inflictions--freedom of speech and\nof the press overthrown and hooted at--the right of petition struck down\nin Congress, where, above all places, it ought to have been maintained\nto the last--the people mocked at, and attempted to be gagged by their\nown servants--the time the office-honored veteran, who fearlessly\ncontended for the _right_, publicly menaced for words spoken in his\nplace as a representative of the people, with an indictment by a\nslaveholding grand jury--in fine, the great principles of government\nasserted by our fathers in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied\nin our Constitution, with which they won for us the sympathy, the\nadmiration of the world--all forgotten, dishonoured, despised, trodden\nunder foot! And this for slavery!!\n\nHorrible catalogue!--yet by no means a complete one--for so young a\nnation, boasting itself, too, to be the freest on earth! It is the ripe\nfruit of that _chef d'oeuvre_ of political skill and patriotic\nachievement--the MISSOURI COMPROMISE.\n\nAnother such compromise--or any compromise now with slavery--and the\nnation is undone.\n\nAPPENDIX F.\n\nThe following is believed to be a correct exhibit of the legislative\nresolutions against the annexation of Texas--of the times at which they\nwere passed, and of the _votes_ by which they were passed:--\n\n1. VERMONT.\n\n    \"1. _Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives_, That our\n    Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives\n    requested, to use their influence in that body to prevent the\n    annexation of Texas to the Union.\n\n    2. _Resolved_, That representing, as we do, the people of Vermont,\n    we do hereby, in their name, SOLEMNLY PROTEST against such\n    annexation in any form.\"\n\n[Passed unanimously, Nov. 1, 1837.]\n\n2. RHODE ISLAND.\n\n(_In General Assembly, October Session, A. D. 1837_.)\n\n    \"Whereas the compact of the Union between these states was entered\n    into by the people thereof in their respective states, 'in order to\n    form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic\n    tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general\n    welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their\n    posterity;' and, therefore, a Representative Government was\n    instituted by them, with certain limited powers, clearly specified\n    and defined in the Constitution--all other powers, not therein\n    expressly relinquished, being 'reserved to the states respectively,\n    or to the people.'\n\n    And whereas this limited government possesses no power to extend\n    its jurisdiction over any foreign nation, and no foreign nation,\n    country, or people, can be admitted into this Union but by the\n    sovereign will and act of the free people of all and each of these\n    United States, nor without the formation of a new compact of\n    Union--and another frame of government radically different, in\n    objects, principles, and powers, from that which was framed for our\n    own self-government, and deemed to be adequate to all the exigencies\n    of our own free republic:--\n\n    Therefore, Resolved, That we have witnessed, with deep concern, the\n    indications of a disposition to bring into this Union, as a\n    constituent member thereof, the foreign province or territory\n    of Texas.\n\n    Resolved, That, although we are fully aware of the consequences\n    which must follow the accomplishment of such a project, could it be\n    accomplished--aware that it would lead speedily to the conquest and\n    annexation of Mexico itself, and its fourteen remaining provinces or\n    intendencies--which, together with the revolted province of Texas,\n    would furnish foreign territories and foreign people for at least\n    twenty members of the new Union; that the government of a nation so\n    extended and so constructed would soon become radically [changed] in\n    character, if not in form--would unavoidably become a military\n    government; and, under the plea of necessity, would free itself from\n    the restraints of the Constitution and from its accountability to\n    the people. That the ties of kindred, common origin and common\n    interests, which have so long bound this people together, and would\n    still continue to bind them: these ties, which ought to be held\n    sacred by all true Americans, would be angrily dissolved, and\n    sectional political combinations would be formed with the newly\n    admitted foreign states, unnatural and adverse to the peace and\n    prosperity of the country. The civil government, with all the\n    arbitrary powers it might assume, would be unable to control the\n    storm. The usurper would find himself in his proper element; and,\n    after acting the patriot and the hero for a due season, as the only\n    means of rescuing the country from the ruin which he had chiefly\n    contributed to bring upon it, would reluctantly and modestly allow\n    himself to be declared 'Protector of the Commonwealth.'\n\n    We are now fully aware of the deep degradation into which the\n    republic would sink itself in the eyes of the whole world, should it\n    annex to its own vast territories other and foreign territories of\n    immense though unknown extent, for the purpose of encouraging the\n    propagation of slavery, and giving aid to the raising of slaves\n    within its own bosom, the very bosom of freedom, to be esported and\n    sold in those unhallowed regions. Although we are fully aware of\n    these fearful evils, and numberless others which would come in their\n    train, yet we do not here dwell upon them; because we are here\n    firmly convinced that the free people of most, and we trust of all\n    these states, will never suffer the admission of the foreign\n    territory of Texas into this Union as a constituent member\n    thereof--will never suffer the integrity of this Republic to be\n    violated, either by the introduction and addition to it of foreign\n    nations or territories, one or many, or by dismemberment of it by\n    the transfer of any one or more of its members to a foreign nation.\n    The people will be aware, that should one foreign state or country\n    be introduced, another and another may be, without end, whether\n    situated in South America, in the West India islands, or in any\n    other part of the world; and that a single foreign state, thus\n    admitted, might have in its power, by holding the balance between\n    contending parties, to wrest their own government from the hands and\n    control of the people, by whom it was established for their own\n    benefit and self-government. We are firmly convinced, that the free\n    people of these states will look upon any attempt to introduce the\n    foreign territory of Texas, or any other foreign territory or nation\n    into this Union, as a constituent member or members thereof, as\n    manifesting a willingness to prostrate the Constitution and dissolve\n    the Union.\n\n    Resolved, That His Excellency, the Governor, be requested to\n    forward a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of our Senators\n    and Representatives in Congress, and to each of the Executives of\n    the several states, with a request that the same may be laid before\n    the respective Legislatures of said states.\"\n\n[The Preamble and Resolutions were unanimously adopted, Nov. 3, 1837.]\n\n3. OHIO.\n\n    \"_Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio_, That in\n    the name, and on behalf of the people of the State of Ohio, we do\n    hereby SOLEMNLY PROTEST against the annexation of Texas to the Union\n    of these United States.\n\n    _And be it further resolved_, That the Governor be requested to\n    transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress,\n    and to the Governors of each of the States, a copy of the foregoing\n    resolution, with a statement of the votes by which it was passed in\n    each branch of the Legislature.\"\n\n[Passed by 64 out of 72, the whole number in the House of\nRepresentatives--unanomously in the Senate. Feb. 24, 1838.]\n\n4. MASSACHUSETTS.\n\n    \"Resolves against the annexation of Texas to the United States.\n\n    Whereas a proposition to admit into the United States as a\n    constituent member thereof, the foreign nation of Texas, has been\n    recommended by the legislative resolutions of several States, and\n    brought before Congress for its approval and sanction; and whereas\n    such a measure would involve great wrong to Mexico, and otherwise be\n    of evil precedent, injurious to the interests and dishonorable to\n    the character of this country; and whereas its avowed objects are\n    doubly fraught with peril to the prosperity and permanence of this\n    Union, as tending to disturb and destroy the conditions of those\n    compromises and concessions, entered into at the formation of the\n    Constitution, by which the relative weights of different sections\n    and interests were adjusted, and to strengthen and extend the evils\n    of a system which is unjust in itself, in striking contrast with the\n    theory of our institutions, and condemned by the moral sentiment of\n    mankind; and whereas the people of these United States have not\n    granted to any or all of the departments of their Government, but\n    have retained in themselves, the only power adequate to the\n    admission of a foreign nation into this confederacy; therefore,\n\n    _Resolved_, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives, in\n    General Court assembled, do in the name of the people of\n    Massachusetts, earnestly and solemnly protest against the\n    incorporation of Texas into this Union, and declare, that no act\n    done or compact made, for such purpose by the government of the\n    United States, will be binding on the States or the People.\n\n    _Resolved_, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to\n    forward a copy of these resolutions and the accompanying report to\n    the Executive of the United States, and the Executive of each State\n    and also to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress,\n    with a request that they present the resolves to both Houses of\n    Congress.\"\n\n[Passed MARCH 16, 1838, UNANIMOUSLY, in both Houses.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n5. MICHIGAN.\n\nWhereas, propositions have been made for the annexation of Texas to the\nUnited States, with a view to its ultimate incorporation into the Union:\n\n    \"And whereas, the extension of this General Government over so large\n    a country on the south-west, between which and that of the original\n    states, there is little affinity, and less identity of interest,\n    would tend, in the opinion of this Legislature, greatly to disturb\n    the safe and harmonious operations of the Government of the United\n    States, and put in imminent danger the continuance of this happy\n    Union: Therefore,\n\n    _Be it resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\n    State of Michigan_, That in behalf, and in the name of the State of\n    Michigan, this Legislature doth hereby dissent from, and solemnly\n    protest against the annexation, for any purpose, to this Union, of\n    Texas, or of any other territory or district of country, heretofore\n    constituting a part of the dominions of Spain in America, lying west\n    or south-west of Louisiana.\n\n    And be it further Resolved, by the Authority aforesaid, That the\n    Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the\n    foregoing preamble and resolve, under the great seal of this state,\n    to the President of the United States; also, that he transmit one\n    copy thereof, authenticated in manner aforesaid, to the President of\n    the Senate of the United States, with the respectful request of this\n    Legislature, that the same may be laid before the Senate; also, that\n    he transmit one copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of\n    Representatives of the United States, authenticated in like manner,\n    with the respectful request of this Legislature, that the same may\n    be laid before the House of Representatives; and also, that he\n    transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress,\n    one copy thereof, together with the Report adopted by this\n    Legislature, and which accompanies said preamble and resolves.\"\n\n[Passed nearly if not quite unanimously, April 2, 1838].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n6. CONNECTICUT.\n\n    \"_Resolved_, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives in\n    General Assembly convened, do, in the name of the people of this\n    State, solemnly _protest_ against the annexation of Texas to\n    this Union.\"\n\n[Passed, it is believed, unanimously in both houses.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n(Those which follow were passed by but one branch of the respective\nLegislatures in which they were introduced.)\n\n7. PENNSYLVANIA.\n\n    _Resolutions relative to the admission of Texas into the Union._\n\n    \"_Whereas_ the annexation of Texas to the United States has been\n    advocated and strongly urged by many of our fellow-citizens,\n    particularly in the southern part of our country, and the president\n    of Texas has received authority to open a correspondence with, and\n    appoint, a commissioner to our government to accomplish the\n    object;--_And whereas_ such a measure would bring to us a dangerous\n    extension of territory, with a population generally not desirable,\n    and would probably involve us in war;--_And whereas_ the subject is\n    now pressed upon and agitated in Congress; therefore,\n\n    _Resolved_, &c, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and\n    our Representatives requested, to use their influence and vote\n    against the annexation of Texas to the territory of the\n    united States.\n\n    _Resolved_, That the Governor transmit to each of our Senators and\n    Representatives a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions.\"\n\n[Passed the Senate March 9, 1835, by 22 to 6. Postponed indefinitely in\nthe House of Representatives, April 13, by 41 to 39.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n8. MAINE.\n\n    \"_Resolved_, That the Legislature of the State of Maine, on behalf\n    of the people of said state, do earnestly and solemnly protest\n    against the annexation of the Republic of Texas to these United\n    States; and that our Senators and Representatives in Congress be,\n    and they hereby are, requested to exert their utmost influence to\n    prevent the adoption of a measure at once so clearly\n    unconstitutional, and so directly calculated to disturb our foreign\n    relations, to destroy our domestic peace, and to dismember our\n    blessed Union.\"\n\n[Passed in the House of Representatives, March 22, 1838, by 85 to 30.\nSenate (same day) refused to concur by 11 to 10.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n9. NEW-YORK.\n\n    \"_Resolved_, (if the Senate concur,) That the admission of the\n    Republic of Texas into this Union would be entirely repugnant to the\n    will of the people of this state, and would endanger the union of\n    these United States.\n\n    _Resolved_, (if the Senate concur,) That this Legislature do, in\n    the name of the people of the State of New York, solemnly protest\n    against the admission of the Republic of Texas into this Union.\n\n    _Resolved_, (if the Senate concur.) That his Excellency the Governor\n    be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each\n    of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and also to the\n    governors of each of the United States, with a request that the same\n    be laid before their respective Legislatures.\"\n\n[These resolutions passed the House of Representatives in April, by a\nlarge majority--the newspapers say, 83 to 13. They were indefinitely\npostponed in the Senate, by a vote of 21 to 9.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAPPENDIX G.\n\nThe number of petitioners for abolition in the District of Columbia, and\non other subjects allied to it, have been ascertained (in the House of\nRepresentatives) to be as follows:--\n\n                                        Men.     Women.     Total.\nFor abolition in the District,         51,366    78,882    130,248\nAgainst the annexation of Texas,      104,973    77,419    182,392\nRescinding the gag resolution,         21,015    10,821     31,836\nAgainst admitting any new slave state, 11,770    10,391     22,161\nFor abolition of the slave-trade\n  between the states,                  11,864    11,541     23,405\nFor abolition of slavery in the\n  territories,                          9,129    12,083     21,212\nAt the extra session for rescinding\nthe gag resolution of Jan. 21, 1837,    3,377                3,377\n                                      ----------------------------\nTotal,                                213,494   201,137    414,631\n\nThe number in the Senate, where some difficulty was interposed that\nprevented its being taken, is estimated to have been about two-thirds as\ngreat as that in the House.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAPPENDIX H.\n\n[On the 1st of December, one of the secretaries of the American\nAnti-Slavery Society addressed a note to each of the Governors of the\nslave states, in which he informed them, in courteous and respectful\nterms, that he had directed the Publishing Agent of this society,\nthereafter regularly to transmit to them, free of charge, the periodical\npublications issued from the office of the society. To this offer the\nfollowing replies were received:--]\n\nGOVERNOR CAMPBELL'S LETTER.\n\n    JAMES G. BIRNEY, Esq., _New York_\n\n    \"RICHMOND, _Dec. 4, 1837_.\n\n    SIR,--I received, by yesterday's mail, your letter of the 1st\n    instant, in which you state that you had directed the publishing\n    agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, hereafter, regularly to\n    transmit, free of charge, by mail, to all the governors of the slave\n    states, the periodical publications issued from that office.\n\n    Regarding your society as highly mischievous, I decline receiving\n    any communications from it, and must request that no publications\n    from your office be transmitted to me.\n\n    I am, &c,\n\n    DAVID CAMPBELL.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGOVERNOR BAGBY'S LETTER.\n\n    \"TUSCALOOSA, _Jan. 6, 1838_\n\n    SIR,--I received, by due course of mail, your favor of the 1st of\n    December, informing me that you had directed the publishing agent of\n    the American Anti-Slavery Society to forward to the governors of the\n    slaveholding states the periodicals issued from that office. Taking\n    it for granted, that the only object which the society or yourself\n    could have in view, in adopting this course, is, the dissemination\n    of the opinions and principles of the society--having made up my own\n    opinion, unalterably, in relation to the whole question of slavery,\n    as it exists in a portion of the United States, and feeling\n    confident that, in the correctness of this opinion, I am sustained\n    by the entire free white population of Alabama, as well as the great\n    body of the people of this Union, I must, with the greatest respect\n    for yourself, personally but not for the opinions or principles\n    advocated by the society--positively decline receiving said\n    publications, or any others of a similar character, either\n    personally or officially. Indeed, it is presuming a little too much,\n    to expect that the chief magistrate of a free people, elected by\n    themselves, would hold correspondence or give currency to the\n    publications of an organized society, openly engaged in a scheme\n    fraught with more mischievous consequences to their interest and\n    repose, than any that the wit or folly of mankind has\n    heretofore devised.\n\n    I am, very respectfully,\n\n    Your ob't servant,\n\n    A.P. BAGBY\"\n\nJAMES G. BIRNEY, _Esq., New York_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGOVERNOR CANNON'S LETTER.\n\n[This letter required so many alterations to bring it up to the ordinary\nstandard of epistolary, grammatical, and orthographical accuracy, that\nit is thought best to give it in _word_ and _letter_, precisely as it\nwas received at the office.]\n\n    \"EXECUTIVE DEPT.--\n\n    NASHVILLE. _Dec. 12th, 1837_.\n\n    Sir\n\n    I have rec'd yours of the 1st Inst notifying me, that you had\n    directed, your periodical publications, on the subject of Slavery to\n    be sent to me free of charge &c--and you are correct, if sincere, in\n    your views, in supposing that we widely differ, on this subject, we\n    do indeed widely differ, on it, if the publications said to have\n    emanated from you, are honest and sincere, which, I admit,\n    is possible.\n\n    My opinions are fix'd and settled, and I seldom Look into or\n    examine, the, different vague notions of others who write and\n    theorise on that subject. Hence I trust you will not expect me to\n    examine, what you have printed on this subject, or cause to have\n    printed. If you or any other man are influenced by feelings of\n    humanity, and are laboring to relieve the sufferings, of the human\n    race, you may find objects enough immediately around you, where you\n    are, in any nonslaveholding State, to engage your, attention, and\n    all your exertions, in that good cause.\n\n    But if your aim is to make a flourish on the subject, before the\n    world, and to gain yourself some notoriety, or distinction, without,\n    doing good to any, and evil to many, of the human race, you are,\n    pursuing the course calculated to effect. Such an object, in which\n    no honest man need envy. Your honours, thus gaind, I know there are\n    many such in our country, but would fain hope, you are not one of\n    them. If you have Lived, as you state forty years in a Slave holding\n    State, you know that, that class of its population, are not the\n    most, miserable, degraded, or unhappy, either in their feelings or\n    habits, You know they are generally governd, and provided for by men\n    of information and understanding sufficient to guard them against\n    the most, odious vices, and hibets of the country, from which, you\n    know the slaves are in a far greater degree, exempt than, are other\n    portions of the population. That the slaves are the most happy,\n    moral and contented generally, and free from suffering of any kind,\n    having, each full confidence, in his masters, skill means and\n    disposition to provide well for him, knowing also at the same time\n    that _it is his interest to do it_. Hence in this State of Society\n    more than any other, Superior intelligence has the ascendency, in\n    governing and provideing, for the wants of those inferior, also in\n    giveing direction to their Labour, and industry, as should be the\n    case, superior intelligence Should govern, when united with Virtue,\n    and interest, that great predominating principle in all human\n    affairs. It is my rule of Life, when I see any man labouring to\n    produce effects, at a distance from him, while neglecting the\n    objects immediately around him, (in doing good) to suspect his\n    sincerity, to suspect him for some selfish, or sinister motive, all\n    is not gold that glitters, and every man is not what he, endeavours\n    to appear to be, is too well known. It is the duty of masters to\n    take care of there slaves and provide for them, and this duty I\n    believe is as generally and as fully complyd with as any other duty\n    enjoind on the human family, for next to their children their own\n    offspring, their slaves stand next foremost in their care and\n    attention, there are indeed very few instances of a contrary\n    character.\n\n    You can find around you, I doubt not a large number of persons\n    intemix'd, in your society, who are entirely destitute of that care,\n    and attention, towards them that is enjoyed by our slaves, and who\n    are destitute of that deep feeling of interest, in guarding their\n    morals and habits, and directing them through Life in all things,\n    which is here enjoyd by our slaves, to those let your efforts be\n    directed immediately around you and do not trouble with your vague\n    speculations those who are contented and happy, at a distance\n    from you.\n\n    Very respectfully yours,\n\n    N. CANNON.\"\n\nMr. JAS. G. BIRNEY, _Cor. Sec._ &c.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[The letter of the Secretary to the governor of South Carolina was not\n_answered_, but was so inverted and folded as to present the\n_subscribed_ name of the secretary, as the _superscription_ of the same\nletter to be returned. The addition of _New York_ to the address brought\nit back to this office.\n\nWhilst governor Butler was thus refusing the information that was\nproffered to him in the most respectful terms from this office, he was\nengaged in another affair, having connection with the anti-slavery\nmovement, as indiscreet, as it was unbecoming the dignity of the office\nhe holds. The following account of it is from one of the Boston\npapers:--]\n\n    \"_Hoaxing a Governor_.--The National Aegis says, that Hollis Parker,\n    who was sentenced to the state prison at the late term of the\n    criminal court for Worcester county, for endeavoring to extort money\n    from governor Everett, had opened an extensive correspondence,\n    previous to his arrest, with similar intent, with other\n    distinguished men of the country. Besides several individuals in New\n    York, governor Butler, of South Carolina, was honored with his\n    notice. A letter from that gentleman, directed to Parker, was lately\n    received at the post office in a town near Worcester, enclosing a\n    check for fifty dollars. So far as the character of Parker's letter\n    can be inferred from the reply of governor Butler, it would appear,\n    that Parker informed the governor, that the design was entertained\n    by some of our citizens, of transmitting to South Carolina a\n    quantity of 'incendiary publications,' and that with the aid of a\n    little money, he (Parker) would be able to unravel the plot, and\n    furnish full information concerning it to his excellency. The bait\n    took, and the money was forwarded, with earnest appeals to Parker to\n    be vigilant and active in thoroughly investigating the supposed\n    conspiracy against the peace and happiness of the South.\n\n    The Aegis has the following very just remarks touching this\n    case:--'Governor Butler belongs to a state loud in its professions\n    of regard for state rights and state sovereignty. We, also, are\n    sincere advocates of that good old republican doctrine. It strikes\n    us, that it would have comported better with the spirit of that\n    doctrine, the dignity, of his own station and character, the respect\n    and courtesy due to a sovereign and independent state, if governor\n    Butler had made the proper representation, if the subject was\n    deserving of such notice, to the acknowledged head and constituted\n    authorities of that state, instead of holding official\n    correspondence with a citizen of a foreign jurisdiction, and\n    employing a secret agent and informer, whose very offer of such\n    service was proof of the base and irresponsible character of him who\n    made it.'\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    GOVERNOR CONWAY'S LETTER.\n\n    EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, _March_ 1, 1838.\n\n    Sir--A newspaper, headed '_The Emancipator_,' in which you are\n    announced the 'publishing agent,' has, for some weeks past, arrived\n    at the post office in this city, to my address. Not having\n    subscribed, or authorized any individual to give my name as a\n    subscriber, for that or any such paper, it is entirely _gratuitous_\n    on the part of its publishers to send me a copy; and not having a\n    favorable opinion of the _intentions_ of the _authors and founders_\n    of the '_American Anti-Slavery Society_;' I have to request a\n    discontinuance of '_The Emancipator_.'\n\n    Your ob't servant, \"J.S. CONWAY.\"\n\nR. G. WILLIAMS, Esq., New York.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[NOTE.--The following extract of a letter, from the late Chief Justice\nJay to the late venerable Elias Boudinot, dated Nov. 17, 1819, might\nwell have formed part of Appendix E. Its existence, however, was not\nknown till it was too late to insert it in its most appropriate place.\nIt shows the view taken of some of the _constitutional_ questions by a\ndistinguished jurist,--one of the purest patriots too, by whom our early\nhistory was illustrated.]\n\n    \"Little can be added to what has been said and written on the\n    subject of slavery. I concur in the opinion, that it ought not to be\n    _introduced, nor permitted_ in any of the _new_ states; and that it\n    ought to be gradually diminished, and finally, abolished, in all\n    of them.\n\n    To me, the _constitutional authority_ of the Congress to prohibit\n    the _migration_ and _importation_ of slaves into any of the states,\n    does not appear questionable.\n\n    The first article of the Constitution specifics the legislative\n    powers committed to Congress. The ninth section of that article has\n    these words:--'The _migration_ or _importation_ of such persons as\n    any of the _now existing_ states shall think proper to admit, shall\n    not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808--but a tax\n    or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding _ten\n    dollars_ for each person.'\n\n    I understand the sense and meaning of this clause to be, That the\n    power of the Congress, although _competent to prohibit such\n    migration and importation_, was not to be exercised with respect to\n    the THEN existing states, and _them only_, until the year 1808; but\n    that Congress were at liberty to make such prohibition as to any\n    _new state_ which might in the _meantime_ be established. And\n    further, that from and after _that_ period, they were authorized to\n    make such prohibition as to _all the states, whether new or old_.\n\n    Slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, on\n    account of the existing toleration of slavery, and its discordancy\n    with the principles of the Revolution; and from a consciousness of\n    its being repugnant to those propositions to the Declaration of\n    Independence:--'We hold these truths to be self-evident--that all\n    men are created equal--that they are endowed by their Creator with\n    certain inalienable rights--and that, among these, are life,\n    liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nNO. 9.\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER\n\nOF\n\nGERRIT SMITH,\n\nTO\n\nHON. HENRY CLAY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNEW YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.\n----- 1839.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\nThis No. contains 3-1/2 sheets.--Postage, under 100 miles, 6 cts. over\n100, 10 cts.\n\n_Please Read and circulate_.\n\n\n\nLETTER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPETERBORO, MARCH 21, 1839.\n\nHON. HENRY CLAY:\n\nDEAR SIR,\n\nIn the Annual Meeting of the American Colonization Society, held in the\nCapitol in the city of Washington, December, 1835, you commented on a\nspeech made by myself, the previous autumn. Your objections to that\nspeech formed the principal subject matter of your remarks. Does not\nthis fact somewhat mitigate the great presumption of which I feel myself\nguilty, in undertaking, all unhonored and humble as I am, to review the\nproduction of one of the most distinguished statesmen of the age?\n\nUntil the appearance of your celebrated speech on the subject of\nslavery, I had supposed that you cherished a sacred regard for the right\nof petition. I now find, that you value it no more highly than they do,\nwho make open war upon it. Indeed, you admit, that, in relation to this\nright, \"there is no substantial difference between\" them and yourself.\nInstead of rebuking, you compliment them; and, in saying that \"the\nmajority of the Senate\" would not \"violate the right of petition in any\ncase, in which, according to its judgment, the object of the petition\ncould be safely or properly granted,\" you show to what destructive\nconditions you subject this absolute right. Your doctrine is, that in\nthose cases, where the object of the petition is such, as the\nsupplicated party can approve, previously to any discussion of its\nmerits--there, and there only, exists the right of petition. For aught I\nsee, you are no more to be regarded as the friend of this right, than is\nthe conspicuous gentleman[A] who framed the Report on that subject,\nwhich was presented to the Senate of my state the last month. That\ngentleman admits the sacredness of \"the right to petition on any\nsubject;\" and yet, in the same breath, he insists on the equal\nsacredness of the right to refuse to attend to a petition. He manifestly\nfailed to bear in mind, that a right to petition implies the correlative\nright to be heard. How different are the statesmen, who insist \"on the\nright to refuse to attend to a petition,\" from Him, who says, \"Whoso\nstoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but\nshall not be heard.\" And who are poor, if it be not those for whom the\nabolitionists cry? They must even cry by proxy. For, in the language of\nJohn Quincy Adams, the champion of the right of petition, \"The slave is\nnot permitted to cry for mercy--to plead for pardon--to utter the shriek\nof perishing nature for relief.\" It may be well to remark, that the\nerror, which I have pointed out in the Report in question, lies in the\npremises of the principal argument of that paper; and that the\ncorrection of this error is necessarily attended with the destruction of\nthe premises, and with the overthrow of the argument, which is built\nupon them.\n\n[Footnote A: Colonel Young.]\n\nI surely need not stop to vindicate the right of petition. It is a\nnatural right--one that human laws can guarantee, but can neither create\nnor destroy. It is an interesting fact, that the Amendment to the\nFederal Constitution, which guarantees the right of petition, was\nopposed in the Congress of 1789 as superfluous. It was argued, that this\nis \"a self-evident, inalienable right, which the people possess,\" and\nthat \"it would never be called in question.\" What a change in\nfifty years!\n\nYou deny the power of Congress to abolish the inter-state traffic in\nhuman beings; and, inasmuch as you say, that the right \"to regulate\ncommerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,\" does not\ninclude the right to prohibit and destroy commerce; and, inasmuch as it\nis understood, that it was in virtue of the right to regulate commerce,\nthat Congress enacted laws to restrain our participation in the \"African\nslave trade,\" you perhaps also deny, that Congress had the power to\nenact such laws. The history of the times in which the Federal\nConstitution was framed and adopted, justifies the belief, that the\nclause of that instrument under consideration conveys the power, which\nCongress exercised. For instance, Governor Randolph, when speaking in\nthe Virginia Convention of 1788, of the clause which declares, that \"the\nmigration or importation of such persons as any of the states now\nexisting shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by\nCongress prior to the year 1808,\" said, \"This is an exception from the\npower of regulating commerce, and the restriction is to continue only\ntill 1808. Then Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent\nfuture importations.\"\n\nWere I, however, to admit that the right \"to regulate commerce,\" does\nnot include the right to prohibit and destroy commerce, it nevertheless\nwould not follow, that Congress might not prohibit or destroy certain\nbranches of commerce. It might need to do so, in order to preserve our\ngeneral commerce with a state or nation. So large a proportion of the\ncloths of Turkey might be fraught with the contagion of the plague, as\nto make it necessary for our Government to forbid the importation of all\ncloths from that country, and thus totally destroy one branch of our\ncommerce with it, to the end that the other branches might be preserved.\nNo inconsiderable evidence that Congress has the right to prohibit or\ndestroy a branch of commerce, is to be found in the fact, that it has\ndone so. From March, 1794, to May, 1820, it enacted several laws, which\nwent to prohibit or destroy, and, in the end, did prohibit or destroy\nthe trade of this country with Africa in human beings. And, if Congress\nhas the power to pass embargo laws, has it not the power to prohibit or\ndestroy commerce altogether?\n\nIt is, however, wholly immaterial, whether Congress could prohibit our\nparticipation in the \"African slave trade,\" in virtue of the clause\nwhich empowers it \"to regulate commerce.\" That the Constitution does, in\nsome one or more of its passages, convey the power, is manifest from the\ntestimony of the Constitution itself. The first clause of the ninth\nsection says: \"The migration or importation of such persons, as any of\nthe states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be\nprohibited by the Congress prior to they year 1808.\" Now the implication\nin this clause of the existence of the power in question, is as\nconclusive, as would be the express and positive grant of it. You will\nobserve, too, that the power of Congress over \"migration or\nimportation,\" which this clause implies, is a power not merely to\n\"regulate,\" as you define the word, but to \"prohibit.\"\n\nIt is clear, then, that Congress had the power to interdict our trade in\nhuman beings with Africa. But, in view of what has been said on that\npoint--in view of the language of the Federal Constitution--of the\nproceedings of the Convention, which framed it--and of the cotemporary\npublic sentiment--is it any less clear, that Congress has the power to\ninterdict the inter-state traffic in human beings?\n\nThere are some, who assert that the words \"migration\" and \"importation,\"\ninstead of referring, as I maintain they do--the former to the removal\nof slaves from state to state, and the latter to their introduction from\nAfrica--are used in the Constitution as synonyms, and refer exclusively\nto the \"African slave trade.\" But there is surely no ground for the\nimputation of such utter tautology, if we recollect that the\nConstitution was written by scholars, and that remarkable pains were\ntaken to clear it of all superfluous words--a Committee having been\nappointed for that special purpose. But, it may be asked, Why, in\nreference to the taking of slaves from one state to another, use the\nword \"migration,\" which denotes voluntary removal? One answer is--that\nit can be used with as much propriety in that case, as in the removal of\nslaves from Africa--the removal in the one case being no less\ninvoluntary than in the other. Another answer is--that the framers of\nthe Constitution selected the word \"migration,\" because of its congruity\nwith that of \"persons,\" under which their virtuous shame sought to\nconceal from posterity the existence of seven hundred thousand slaves\namongst a people, who had but recently entered upon their national\ncareer, with the solemn declaration, that \"all men are created equal.\"\n\nJohn Jay, whose great celebrity is partly owing to his very able\nexpositions of the Constitution, says: \"To me, the constitutional\nauthority of the Congress to prohibit the migration _and_ importation of\nslaves into any of the states, does not appear questionable.\" If the\ndisjunctive between \"migration\" and \"importation\" in the Constitution,\nargues their reference to the same thing, Mr. Jay's copulative argues\nmore strongly, that, in his judgment, they refer to different things.\n\nThe law of Congress constituting the \"Territory of Orleans,\" was enacted\nin 1804. It fully recognizes the power of that body to prohibit the\ntrade in slaves between a territory and the states. But, if Congress had\nthis power, why had it not as clear a power to prohibit, at that time,\nthe trade in slaves between any two of the states? It might have\nprohibited it, but for the constitutional suspension of the exercise of\nthe power. The term of that suspension closed, however, in 1808; and,\nsince that year, Congress has had as full power to abolish the whole\nslave trade between the states, as it had in 1804 to abolish the like\ntrade between the Territory of Orleans and the states.\n\nBut, notwithstanding the conclusive evidence, that the Constitution\nempowers Congress to abolish the inter-state slave trade, it is\nincomprehensible to many, that such states as Virginia and Maryland\nshould have consented to deprive themselves of the benefit of selling\ntheir slaves into other states. It is incomprehensible, only because\nthey look upon such states in the light of their present character and\npresent interests. It will no longer be so, if they will bear in mind,\nthat slave labor was then, as it is now, unprofitable for ordinary\nagriculture, and that Whitney's cotton-gin, which gave great value to\nsuch labor, was not yet invented, and that the purchase of Louisiana,\nwhich has had so great an effect to extend and perpetuate the dominion\nof slavery, was not yet made. It will no longer be incomprehensible to\nthem, if they will recollect, that, at the period in question, American\nslavery was regarded as a rapidly decaying, if not already expiring\ninstitution. It will no longer be so, if they will recollect, how small\nwas the price of slaves then, compared with their present value; and\nthat, during the ten years, which followed the passage of the Act of\nVirginia in 1782, legalizing manumissions, her citizens emancipated\nslaves to the number of nearly one-twentieth of the whole amount of her\nslaves in that year. To learn whether your native Virginia clung in the\nyear 1787 to the inter-state traffic in human flesh, we must take our\npost of observation, not amongst her degenerate sons, who, in 1836, sold\nmen, women, and children, to the amount of twenty-four millions of\ndollars--not amongst her President Dews, who write books in favor of\nbreeding human stock for exportation--but amongst her Washingtons, and\nJeffersons, and Henrys, and Masons, who, at the period when the\nConstitution was framed, freely expressed their abhorrence of slavery.\n\nBut, however confident you may be, that Congress has not the lawful\npower to abolish the branch of commerce in question; nevertheless, would\nthe abolition of it be so clearly and grossly unconstitutional, as to\njustify the contempt with which the numerous petitions for the measure\nare treated, and the impeachment of their fidelity to the Constitution,\nand of their patriotism and purity, which the petitioners are made\nto endure?\n\nI was about to take it for granted, that, although you deny the power of\nCongress to abolish the inter-state traffic in human beings, you do not\njustify the traffic--when I recollected the intimation in your speech,\nthat there is no such traffic. For, when you speak of \"the slave trade\nbetween the states,\" and add--\"or, as it is described in abolition\npetitions, the traffic in human beings between the states\"--do you not\nintimate there is no such traffic? Whence this language? Do you not\nbelieve slaves are human beings? And do you not believe that they suffer\nunder the disruption of the dearest earthly ties, as human beings\nsuffer? I will not detain you to hear what we of the North think of this\ninternal slave trade. But I will call your attention to what is thought\nof it in your own Kentucky and in your native Virginia. Says the\n\"Address of the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky to the Churches in\n1835:\"--\"Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives,\nare torn asunder, and permitted to see each other no more. Those acts\nare daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and the agony often\nwitnessed on such occasions, proclaim with a trumpet tongue the iniquity\nand cruelty of the system. There is not a neighborhood where these\nheart-rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a village or road\nthat does not behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts, whose\nchains and mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by force from\nall that their hearts hold dear.\" Says Thomas Jefferson Randolph, in the\nVirginia Legislature in 1832, when speaking of this trade: \"It is a\npractice, and an increasing practice, in parts of Virginia, to rear\nslaves for market. How can an honourable mind, a patriot, and a lover of\nhis country, bear to see this ancient dominion, rendered illustrious by\nthe noble devotion and patriotism of her sons in the cause of liberty,\nconverted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared for the\nmarket like oxen for the shambles. Is it better--is it not worse than\nthe (foreign) slave trade--that trade which enlisted the labor of the\ngood and wise of every creed and every clime to abolish? The (foreign)\ntrader receives the slave, a stranger in language, aspect, and manner,\nfrom the merchant who has brought him from the interior. The ties of\nfather, mother, husband, and child, have already been rent in twain;\nbefore he receives him, his soul has become callous. But here, sir,\nindividuals whom the master has known from infancy, whom he has seen\nsporting in the innocent gambols of childhood--who have been accustomed\nto look to him for protection, he tears from the mother's arms, and\nsells into a strange country--among strange people, subject to cruel\ntaskmasters.\"\n\nYou are in favor of increasing the number of slave states. The terms of\nthe celebrated \"Missouri compromise\" warrant, in your judgment, the\nincrease. But, notwithstanding you admit, that this unholy compromise,\nin which tranquillity was purchased at the expense of humanity and\nrighteousness, does not \"in terms embrace the case,\" and \"is not\nabsolutely binding and obligatory;\" you, nevertheless, make no attempt\nwhatever to do away any one of the conclusive objections, which are\nurged against such increase. You do not attempt to show how the\nmultiplication of slave states can consist with the constitutional duty\nof the \"United States to guarantee to every state in the Union a\nrepublican form of government,\" any more than if it were perfectly\nclear, that a government is republican under which one half of the\npeople are lawfully engaged in buying and selling the other half; or\nthan if the doctrine that \"all men are created equal\" were not the\nfundamental and distinctive doctrine of a republican government. You no\nmore vindicate the proposition to enlarge the realm of slavery, than if\nthe proposition were as obviously in harmony with, as it is opposed to\nthe anti-slavery tenor and policy of the Constitution--the rights of\nman--and the laws of God.\n\nYou are perhaps of the number of those, who, believing, that a state can\nchange its Constitution as it pleases, deem it futile in Congress to\nrequire, that States, on entering the Union, shall have anti-slavery\nConstitutions. The Framers of the Federal Constitution doubtless foresaw\nthe possibility of treachery, on the part of the new States, in the\nmatter of slavery: and the restriction in that instrument to the old\nStates--\"the States now existing\"--of the right to participate in the\ninternal and \"African slave trade\" may be ascribed to the motive of\ndiminishing, if not indeed of entirely preventing, temptation to such\ntreachery. The Ordinance concerning the North-west Territory, passed by\nthe Congress of 1787, and ratified by the Congress of 1790, shows, so\nfar as those bodies can be regarded as correct interpreters of the\nConstitution which was framed in 1787, and adopted in 1789, that slavery\nwas not to have a constitutional existence in the new States. The\nOrdinance continues the privilege of recapturing fugitive slaves in the\nNorth-west Territory to the \"existing States.\" Slaves in that territory,\nto be the subjects of lawful recapture, must in the language of the\nOrdinance, owe \"labour or service in one of the _original_ States.\"\n\nI close what I have to say on this topic, with the remark, that were it\nadmitted, that the reasons for the increase of the number of slave\nStates are sound and satisfactory, it nevertheless would not follow,\nthat the moral and constitutional wrong of preventing that increase is\nso palpable, as to justify the scorn and insult, which are heaped by\nCongress upon this hundred thousand petitioners for this measure.\n\nIt has hitherto been supposed, that you distinctly and fully admitted\nthe Constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District\nof Columbia. But, on this point, as on that of the right of petition,\nyou have for reasons known to yourself, suddenly and greatly changed\nyour tone. Whilst your speech argues, at no small length, that Congress\nhas not the right to abolish slavery in the District, all that it says\nin favor of the Constitutional power to abolish it, is that \"the\nlanguage (of the Constitution) may _possibly_ be sufficiently\ncomprehensive to include a power of abolition.\" \"Faint praise dams;\" and\nyour very reluctant and qualified concession of the Constitutional power\nunder consideration, is to be construed, rather as a denial than a\nconcession.\n\nUntil I acquire the skill of making white whiter, and black blacker, I\nshall have nothing to say in proof of the Constitutional power of\nCongress over slavery in the District of Columbia, beyond referring to\nthe terms, in which the Constitution so plainly conveys this power. That\ninstrument authorises Congress \"to exercise exclusive legislation in all\ncases whatsoever over such District.\" If these words do not confer the\npower, it is manifest that no words could confer it. I will add that,\nnever, until the last few years, had doubts been expressed, that these\nwords do fully confer that power.\n\nYou will, perhaps, say, that Virginia and Maryland made their cessions\nof the territory, which constitutes the District of Columbia, with\nreservations on the subject of slavery. We answer, that none were\nexpressed;[A] and that if there had been, Congress would not, and in\nview of the language of the Constitution, could not, have accepted the\ncessions. You may then say, that they would not have ceded the\nterritory, had it occurred to them, that Congress would have cleared it\nof slavery; and that, this being the fact, Congress could not thus clear\nit, without being guilty of bad faith, and of an ungenerous and\nunjustifiable surprise on those States. There are several reasons for\nbelieving, that those States, not only did not, at the period in\nquestion, cherish a dread of the abolition of slavery; but that the\npublic sentiment within them was decidedly in favor of its speedy\nabolition. At that period, their most distinguished statesmen were\ntrumpet-tongued against slavery. At that period, there was both a\nVirginia and a Maryland society \"for promoting the abolition of\nslavery;\" and, it was then, that, with the entire consent of Virginia\nand Maryland, effectual measures were adopted to preclude slavery from\nthat large territory, which has since given Ohio and several other\nStates to the Union. On this subject, as on that of the inter-state\nslave trade, we misinterpret Virginia and Maryland, by not considering,\nhow unlike was their temper in relation to slavery, amidst the decays\nand dying throes of that institution half a century ago, to what it is\nnow, when slavery is not only revivified, but has become the predominant\ninterest and giant power of the nation. We forget, that our whole\ncountry was, at that time, smitten with love for the holy cause of\nimpartial and universal liberty. To judge correctly of the view, which\nour Revolutionary fathers took of oppression, we must go back and stand\nby their side, in their struggles against it,--we must survey them\nthrough the medium of the anti-slavery sentiment of their own times, and\nnot impute to them the pro-slavery spirit so rampant in ours.\n\n[Footnote A: There is a proviso in the Act of Virginia. It was on this,\nthat three years ago, in the Senate of the United States, Benjamin\nWatkins Leigh built his argument against the constitutional power of\nCongress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. I well remember\nthat you then denied the soundness of his argument. This superfluous\nproviso virtually forbids Congress to pass laws, which shall \"affect the\nrights of individuals\" in the ceded territory. Amongst the inviolable\n\"rights\" was that of holding slaves, as Mr. Leigh contended. I regret,\nthat, in replying to him, you did not make use of the fact, that all the\nmembers of Congress from Virginia voted in favor of the Ordinance, which\nabolished slavery in the North-West Territory; and this too,\nnotwithstanding, that, in the Act of 1784, by which she ceded the\nNorth-West Territory to the Confederacy, she provided, that the\n\"citizens of Virginia\" in the said Territory, many of whom held slaves,\nshould \"be protected in the enjoyment of their rights.\" This fact\nfurnishes striking evidence that at, or about, the time of the cession\nby Virginia of her portion of the District of Columbia, her statesmen\nbelieved, that the right to hold slaves in those portions of our country\nunder the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, was not beyond the reach\nof the controlling power of Congress.]\n\nI will, however, suppose it true, that Virginia and Maryland would not\nhave made the cessions in question, had they foreseen, that Congress\nwould abolish slavery in the District of Columbia:--and yet, I affirm,\nthat it would be the duty of Congress to abolish it. Had there been\nState Prisons in the territory, at the time Congress acquired\njurisdiction over it, and had Congress immediately opened their doors,\nand turned loose hundreds of depraved and bloody criminals, there would\nindeed have been abundant occasion for complaint. But, had the exercise\nof its power in the premises extended no farther than to the liberation\nof such convicts, as, on a re-examination of their cases, were found to\nbe clearly guiltless of the crimes charged upon them; the sternest\njustice could not have objected to such an occasion for the rejoicing of\nmercy. And are not the thousands in the District, for whose liberation\nCongress is besought, unjustly deprived of their liberty? Not only are\nthey guiltless, but they are even unaccused of such crimes, as in the\njudgment of any, justly work a forfeiture of liberty. And what do\nVirginia and Maryland ask? Is it, that Congress shall resubject to their\ncontrol those thousands of deeply wronged men? No--for this Congress\ncannot do. They ask, that Congress shall fulfil the tyrant wishes of\nthese States. They ask, that the whole people of the United\nStates--those who hate, as well as those who love slavery, shall, by\ntheir representatives, assume the guilty and awful responsibility of\nperpetuating the enslavement of their innocent fellow men:--of chaining\nthe bodies and crushing the wills, and blotting out the minds of such,\nas have neither transgressed, nor even been accused of having\ntransgressed, a single human law. And the crime, which Virginia and\nMaryland, and they, who sympathise with them, would have the nation\nperpetrate, is, not simply that of prolonging the captivity of those,\nwho were slaves before the cession--for but a handful of them are now\nremaining in the District. Most of the present number became slaves\nunder the authority of this guilty nation. Their wrongs originated with\nCongress: and Congress is asked, not only to perpetuate their\noppression, but to fasten the yoke of slavery on generations yet unborn.\n\nThere are those, who advocate the recession of the District of Columbia.\nIf the nation were to consent to this, without having previously\nexercised her power to \"break every yoke\" of slavery in the District,\nthe blood of those so cruelly left there in \"the house of bondage,\"\nwould remain indelible and damning upon her skirts:--and this too,\nwhether Virginia and Maryland did or did not intend to vest Congress\nwith any power over slavery. It is enough, that the nation has the power\n\"to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to\nbe slain,\" to make her fearfully guilty before God, if she \"forbear\" to\nexercise it.\n\nSuppose, I were to obtain a lease of my neighbor's barn for the single\nand express purpose of securing my crops; and that I should find,\nchained up in one of its dark corners, an innocent fellow man, whom that\nneighbor was subjecting to the process of a lingering death; ought I to\npause and recall President Wayland's, \"Limitations of Human\nResponsibility,\" and finally let the poor sufferer remain in his chains;\nor ought I not rather, promptly to respond to the laws of my nature and\nmy nature's God, and let him go free? But, to make this case analogous\nto that we have been considering--to that, which imposes its claims on\nCongress--we must strike out entirely the condition of the lease, and\nwith it all possible doubts of my right to release the victim of my\nneighbor's murderous hate.\n\nI am entirely willing to yield, for the sake of argument, that Virginia\nand Maryland, when ceding the territory which constitutes the District\nof Columbia, did not anticipate, and did not choose the abolition of\nslavery in it. To make the admission stronger, I will allow, that these\nStates were, at the time of the cession, as warmly opposed to the\nabolition of slavery in the District as they are said to be now: and to\nmake it stronger still, I will allow, that the abolition of slavery in\nthe District would prove deeply injurious, not only to Virginia and\nMaryland but to the nation at large. And, after all these admissions, I\nmust still insist, that Congress is under perfectly plain moral\nobligation to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.\n\nThey, who are deterred from favoring the abolition of slavery in the\nDistrict by the apprehension, that Virginia and Maryland, if not,\nindeed, the nation at large, might suffer injurious consequences from\nthe measure, overlook the fact, that there is a third party in the case.\nIt is common to regard the nation as constituting one of the\nparties--Virginia and Maryland another, and the only other. But in point\nof fact, there is a third party. Of what does it consist? Of horses,\noxen, and other brutes? Then we need not be greatly concerned about\nit--since its rights in that case, would be obviously subordinate to\nthose of the other parties. Again, if such be the composition of this\nthird party, we are not to be greatly troubled, that President Wayland\nand thousands of others entirely overlook its rights and interests;\nthough they ought to be somewhat mindful even of brutes. But, this third\nparty is composed, not of brutes--but of men--of the seven thousand men\nin the District, who have fallen under the iron hoofs of slavery--and\nwho, because they are men, have rights equal to, and as sacred as the\nrights of any other men--rights, moreover, which cannot be innocently\nencroached on, even to the breadth of one hair, whether under the plea\nof \"state necessity\"--of the perils of emancipation--or under any other\nplea, which conscience-smitten and cowardly tyranny can suggest.\n\nIf these lines shall ever be so favored, as to fall under the eye of the\nvenerable and beloved John Quincy Adams, I beg, that, when he shall have\nread them, he will solemnly inquire of his heart, whether, if he should\never be left to vote against the abolition of slavery in the District of\nColumbia, and thus stab deeply the cause of civil liberty, of humanity,\nand of God; the guilty act would not result from overlooking the rights\nand interests, and even the existence itself, of a third party in the\ncase--and from considering the claims of the nation and those of\nVirginia and Maryland, as the only claims on which he was called to\npass, because they were the claims of the only parties, of which he\nwas aware.\n\nYou admit that \"the first duty of Congress in relation to the District,\nof Columbia, is to render it available, comfortable, and convenient as a\nseat of the government of the whole Union.\" I thank you for an\nadmission, which can be used, with great effect, against the many, who\nmaintain, that Congress is as much bound to consult the interests and\nwishes of the inhabitants of the District, and be governed by them, as a\nState Legislature is to study and serve the interests and wishes of its\nconstituents. The inhabitants of the District have taken up their\nresidence in it, aware, that the paramount object of Congressional\nlegislation is not their, but the nation's advantage. They judge, that\ntheir disfranchisement and the other disadvantages attending their\nresidence are more than balanced by their favorable position for\nparticipating in Governmental patronage and other benefits. They know,\nthat they have no better right to complain, that the legislation of\nCongress is not dictated by a primary regard to their interests, than\nhas the Colonization Society, of which you are President, to complain,\nthat the Capitol, in which it holds its annual meetings, is not\nconstructed and fitted up in the best possible manner for such\noccasions. They know, that to sacrifice the design and main object of\nthat building to its occasional and incidental uses, would be an\nabsurdity no greater than would Congress be guilty of in shaping its\nlegislation to the views of the thirty thousand white inhabitants of the\nDistrict of Columbia, at the expense of neglecting the will and\ninterests of the nation.\n\nYou feel, that there is no hazard in your admission, that the paramount\nobject in relation to the District of Columbia, is its suitableness for\na seat of Government, since you accompany that admission with the\ndenial, that the presence of slavery interferes with such suitableness.\nBut is it not a matter of deep regret, that the place, in which our\nnational laws are made--that the place from which the sentiment and\nfashion of the whole country derive so much of their tone and\ndirection--should cherish a system, which you have often admitted, is at\nwar with the first principles of our religion and civil polity;[A] and\nthe influences of which are no less pervading and controlling than\ncorrupting? Is it not a matter of deep regret, that they, whom other\ngovernments send to our own, and to whom, on account of their superior\nintellect and influence, it is our desire, as it is our duty, to commend\nour free institutions, should be obliged to learn their lessons of\npractical republicanism amidst the monuments and abominations of\nslavery? Is it no objection to the District of Columbia, as the seat of\nour Government, that slavery, which concerns the political and moral\ninterests of the nation, more than any other subject coming within the\nrange of legislation, is not allowed to be discussed there--either\nwithin or without the Halls of Congress? It is one of the doctrines of\nslavery, that slavery shall not be discussed. Some of its advocates are\nfrank enough to avow, as the reason for this prohibition, that slavery\ncannot bear to be discussed. In your speech before the American\nColonization Society in 1835, to which I have referred, you distinctly\ntake the ground, that slavery is a subject not open to general\ndiscussion. Very far am I from believing, that you would employ, or\nintentionally countenance violence, to prevent such discussion.\nNevertheless, it is to this doctrine of non-discussion, which you and\nothers put forth, that the North is indebted for her pro-slavery mobs,\nand the South for her pro-slavery Lynchings. The declarations of such\nmen as Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, that slavery is a question not to\nbe discussed, are a license to mobs to burn up halls and break up\nabolition meetings, and destroy abolition presses, and murder abolition\neditors. Had such men held the opposite doctrine, and admitted, yea, and\ninsisted, as it was their duty to do, that every question in morals and\npolitics is a legitimate subject of free discussion--the District of\nColumbia would be far less objectionable, as the seat of our Government.\nIn that case the lamented Dr. Crandall would not have been seized in the\ncity of Washington on the suspicion of being an abolitionist, and thrown\ninto prison, and subjected to distresses of mind and body, which\nresulted in his premature death. Had there been no slavery in the\nDistrict, this outrage would not have been committed; and the murders,\nchargeable on the bloodiest of all bloody institutions, would have been\none less than they now are. Talk of the slaveholding District of\nColumbia being a suitable locality for the seat of our Government! Why,\nSir, a distinguished member of Congress was threatened there with an\nindictment for the _crime_ of presenting, or rather of proposing to\npresent, a petition to the body with which he was connected! Indeed the\noccasion of the speech, on which I am now commenting, was the _impudent_\nprotest of inhabitants of that District against the right of the\nAmerican people to petition their own Congress, in relation to matters\nof vital importance to the seat of their own Government! I take occasion\nhere to admit, that I have seen but references to this protest--not the\nprotest itself. I presume, that it is not dissimilar, in its spirit, to\nthe petition presented about the same time by Mr. Moore in the other\nHouse of Congress--his speech on which, he complains was ungenerously\nanticipated by yours on the petition presented by yourself. As the\npetition presented by Mr. Moore is short, I will copy it, that I may say\nto you with the more effect--how unfit is the spirit of a slaveholding\npeople, as illustrated in this petition, to be the spirit of the people\nat the seat of a free Government!\n\n[Footnote A: \"It (slavery) is a sin and a curse both to the master and\nthe slave:\"--_Henry Clay_.]\n\n\"_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:\n\nThe petition of the undersigned, citizens of the District of Columbia\nrepresents--That they have witnessed with deep regret the attempts which\nare making _to disturb the integrity_ of the Union by a BAND OF\nFANATICS, embracing men, women, and children, who cease not day and\nnight to crowd the tables of your halls with SEDITIOUS MEMORIALS--and\nsolicit your honorable bodies that you will, in your wisdom, henceforth\ngive neither support nor countenance to such UNHALLOWED ATTEMPTS, but\nthat you will, in the most emphatic manner, set the seal of your\ndisapprobation upon all such FOUL AND UNNATURAL EFFORTS, by refusing not\nonly to READ and REFER, but also to RECEIVE any papers which either\ndirectly or indirectly, or by implication, aim at any interference with\nthe rights of your petitioners, or of those of any citizen of any of the\nStates or Territories of the United States, or of this District of which\nwe are inhabitants.\"\n\nA Legislature should be imbued with a free, independent, fearless\nspirit. But it cannot be, where discussion is overawed and interdicted,\nor its boundaries at all contracted. Wherever slavery reigns, the\nfreedom of discussion is not tolerated: and whenever slavery exists,\nthere slavery reigns;--reigns too with that exclusive spirit of Turkish\ndespotism, that, \"bears no brother near the throne.\"\n\nYou agree with President Wayland, that it is as improper for Congress to\nabolish slavery in the District of Columbia, as to create it in some\nplace in the free States, over which it has jurisdiction. As improper,\nin the judgment of an eminent statesman, and of a no less eminent\ndivine, to destroy what they both admit to be a system of\nunrighteousness, as to establish it! As improper to restrain as to\npractice, a violation of God's law! What will other countries and coming\nages think of the politics of our statesmen and the ethics of\nour divines?\n\nBut, besides its immorality, Congress has no Constitutional right to\ncreate slavery. You have not yet presumed to deny positively, that\nCongress has the right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia;\nand, notwithstanding the intimation in your speech, you will not presume\nto affirm, that Congress has the Constitutional right to enact laws\nreducing to, or holding in slavery, the inhabitants of West Point, or\nany other locality in the free States, over which it has exclusive\njurisdiction. I would here remark, that the law of Congress, which\nrevived the operation of the laws of Virginia and Maryland in the\nDistrict of Columbia, being, so far as it respects the slave laws of\nthose States, a violation of the Federal Constitution, should be held of\nno avail towards legalizing slavery in the District--and the subjects of\nthat slavery, should, consequently, be declared by our Courts\nunconditionally free.\n\nYou will admit that slavery is a system of surpassing injustice:--but\nan avowed object of the Constitution is to \"establish justice.\" You will\nadmit that it utterly annihilates the liberty of its victims:--but\nanother of the avowed objects of the Constitution is to \"secure the\nblessings of liberty.\" You will admit, that slavery does, and\nnecessarily must, regard its victims as _chattels_. The Constitution, on\nthe contrary, speaks of them as nothing short of _persons_. Roger\nSherman, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a framer of the\nFederal Constitution, and a member of the first Congress under it,\ndenied that this instrument considers slaves \"as a species of property.\"\nMr. Madison, in the 54th No. of the Federalist admits, that the\nConstitution \"regards them as inhabitants.\" Many cases might be cited,\nin which Congress has, in consonance with the Constitution, refused to\nrecognize slaves as property. It was the expectation, as well as the\ndesire of the framers of the Constitution, that slavery should soon\ncease to exist is our country; and, but for the laws, which both\nCongress and the slave States, have, in flagrant violation of the letter\nand spirit and obvious policy of the Constitution, enacted in behalf of\nslavery, that vice would, ere this, have disappeared from our land.\nLook, for instance, at the laws enacted in the fact of the clause: \"The\ncitizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and\nimmunities of citizens in the several States\"--laws too, which the\nStates that enacted them, will not consent to repeal, until they consent\nto abandon slavery. It is by these laws, that they shut out the colored\npeople of the North, the presence of a single individual of whom so\nalarms them with the prospect of a servile insurrection, that they\nimmediately imprison him. Such was the view of the Federal Constitution\ntaken by James Wilson one of its framers, that, without, as I presume,\nclaiming for Congress any direct power over slavery in the slave States,\nhe declared that it possessed \"power to exterminate slavery from within\nour borders.\" It was probably under a like view, that Benjamin Franklin,\nanother of its framers, and Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration\nof Independence, and other men of glorious and blessed memory,\npetitioned the first Congress under the Constitution to \"countenance the\nrestoration to liberty of those unhappy men,\" (the slaves of our\ncountry). And in what light that same Congress viewed the Constitution\nmay be inferred from the fact, that, by a special act, it ratified the\ncelebrated Ordinance, by the terms of which slavery was forbidden for\never in the North West Territory. It is worthy of note, that the avowed\nobject of the Ordinance harmonizes with that of the Constitution: and\nthat the Ordinance was passed the same year that the Constitution was\ndrafted, is a fact, on which we can strongly rely to justify a reference\nto the spirit of the one instrument for illustrating the spirit of the\nother. What the spirit of the Ordinance is, and in what light they who\npassed it, regarded \"republics, their laws and constitutions,\" may be\ninferred from the following declaration in the Ordinance of its grand\nobject: \"For extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious\nliberty, which form the basis wherever these Republics, their laws and\nconstitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the\nbasis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever\nhereafter shall be formed in the said territory, &c.; it is hereby\nordained and declared that the following articles, &c.\" One of these\narticles is that, which has been referred to, and which declares that\n\"there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said\nTerritory.\"\n\nYou will perhaps make light of my reference to James Wilson and Benjamin\nFranklin, for I recollect you say, that, \"When the Constitution was\nabout going into operation, its powers were not well understood by the\ncommunity at large, and remained to be accurately interpreted and\ndefined.\" Nevertheless, I think it wise to repose more confidence in the\nviews, which the framers of the Constitution took of the spirit and\nprinciples of that instrument, than in the definitions and\ninterpretations of the pro-slavery generation, which has succeeded them.\n\nIt should be regarded as no inconsiderable evidence of the anti-slavery\ngenius and policy of the Constitution, that Congress promptly\ninterdicted slavery in the first portion of territory, and that, too, a\nterritory of vast extent, over which it acquired jurisdiction. And is it\nnot a perfectly reasonable supposition, that the seat of our Government\nwould not have been polluted by the presence of slavery, had Congress\nacted on that subject by itself, instead of losing sight of it in the\nwholesale legislation, by which the laws of Virginia and Maryland were\nrevived in the District?\n\nIf the Federal Constitution be not anti-slavery in its general scope and\ncharacter; if it be not impregnated with the principles of universal\nliberty; why was it necessary, in order to restrain Congress, for a\nlimited period, from acting against the slave trade, which is but a\nbranch or incident of slavery, to have a clause to that end in the\nConstitution? The fact that the framers of the Constitution refused to\nblot its pages with the word \"slave\" or \"slavery;\" and that, by\nperiphrase and the substitution of \"persons\" for \"slaves,\" they sought\nto conceal from posterity and the world the mortifying fact, that\nslavery existed under a government based on the principle, that\ngovernments derive \"their just powers from the consent of the governed,\"\ncontains volumes of proof, that they looked upon American slavery as a\ndecaying institution; and that they would naturally shape the\nConstitution to the abridgment and the extinction, rather than the\nextension and perpetuity of the giant vice of the country.\n\nIt is not to be denied, that the Constitution tolerates a limited\nmeasure of slavery: but it tolerates this measure only as the exception\nto its rule of impartial and universal liberty. Were it otherwise, the\nprinciples of that instrument could be pleaded to justify the holding of\nmen as property, in cases, other than those specifically provided for in\nit. Were it otherwise, these principles might be appealed to, as well to\nsanction the enslavement of men, as the capture of wild beasts. Were it\notherwise, the American people might be Constitutionally realizing the\nprophet's declaration: \"they all lie in wait for blood: they hunt every\nman his brother with a net.\" But mere principles, whether in or out of\nthe Constitution, do not avail to justify and uphold slavery. Says Lord\nMansfield in the famous Somerset case: \"The state of slavery is of such\na nature, that it is incapable of being now introduced by courts of\njustice upon mere reasoning or inferences from any principles, natural\nor political; it must take its rise from _positive law_; the origin of\nit can in no country or age be traced back to any other source. A case\nso odious as the condition of slaves, must be taken strictly.\" Grotius\nsays, that \"slavery places man in an unnatural relation to man--a\nrelation which nothing but positive law can sustain.\" All are aware,\nthat, by the common law, man cannot have property in man; and that\nwherever that law is not counteracted on this point by positive law,\n\"slaves cannot breathe,\" and their \"shackles fall.\" I scarcely need add,\nthat the Federal Constitution does, in the main, accord with the common\nlaw. In the words of a very able writer: \"The common law is the grand\nelement of the United States Constitution. All its fundamental\nprovisions are instinct with its spirit; and its existence, principles,\nand paramount authority, are presupposed and assumed throughout\nthe whole.\"\n\nTo argue the anti-slavery character of the Federal Constitution, it is\nnot necessary to take the high ground of some, that whatever in the\nConstitution favors slavery is void, because opposed to the principles\nand general tenor of that instrument. Much less is it necessary to take\nthe still higher ground, that every law in favor of slavery, in whatever\ncode or connection it may be found, is utterly invalid because of its\nplain contravention of the law of nature. To maintain my position, that\nthe Constitution is anti-slavery in its general character, and that\nconstitutional slavery is, at the most, but an exception to that general\ncharacter, it was not necessary to take either of these grounds; though,\nhad I been disposed to take even the higher of them, I should not have\nlacked the countenance of the most weighty authorities. \"The law of\nnature,\" says Blackstone, \"being coeval with mankind, and dictated by\nGod himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is\nbinding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human\nlaws are of any validity if contrary to this.\" The same writer says,\nthat \"The law of nature requires, that man should pursue his own true\nand substantial happiness.\" But that slavery allows this pursuit to its\nvictims, no one will pretend. \"There is a law,\" says Henry Brougham,\n\"above all the enactments of human codes. It is the law written by the\nfinger of God on the heart of man; and by that law, unchangeable and\neternal, while men despise fraud, and loathe rapine, and abhor blood,\nthey shall reject with indignation the wild and guilty phantasy, that\nman can hold property in man.\"\n\nI add no more to what I have said on the subject of slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia, than to ask, as I have done in relation to the\ninter-state slave trade and the annexation of slave states, whether\npetitions for its abolition argue so great a contempt of the\nConstitution, and so entire a recklessness of propriety, as to merit the\ntreatment which they receive at the hands of Congress. Admitting that\nCongress has not the constitutional power to abolish slavery in the\nDistrict--admitting that it has not the constitutional power to destroy\nwhat itself has established--admitting, too, that if it has the power,\nit ought not to exercise it;--nevertheless, is the case so perfectly\nclear, that the petitioners for the measure deserve all the abuse and\nodium which their representatives in Congress heap upon them? In a word,\ndo not the three classes of petitions to which you refer, merit, at the\nhands of those representatives, the candid and patient consideration\nwhich, until I read your acknowledgment, that, in relation to these\npetitions, \"there is no substantial difference between\" yourself and\nthose, who are in favor of thrusting them aside undebated, unconsidered,\nand even unread, I always supposed you were willing to have bestowed\non them?\n\nI pass to the examination of your charges against the abolitionists.\n\n_They contemn the \"rights of property.\"_\n\nThis charge you prefer against the abolitionists, not because they\nbelieve that a Legislature has the right to abolish slavery, nor because\nthey deny that slaves are legally property; for this obvious truth they\ndo not deny. But you prefer it, because they believe that man cannot\nrightfully be a subject of property.\n\nAbolitionists believe, to use words, which I have already quoted, that\nit is \"a wild and guilty phantasy, that man can hold property in man.\"\nThey believe, that to claim property in the exalted being, whom God has\nmade in His own image, and but \"a little lower than the angels,\" is\nscarcely less absurd than to claim it in the Creator himself. You take\nthe position, that human laws can rightfully reduce a race of men to\nproperty; and that the outrage, to use your own language, is \"sanctioned\nand sanctified\" by \"two hundred years\" continuance of it. Abolitionists,\non the contrary, trace back man's inalienable self-ownership to\nenactments of the Divine Legislator, and to the bright morning of time,\nwhen he came forth from the hand of his Maker, \"crowned with glory and\nhonor,\" invested with self-control, and with dominion over the brute and\ninanimate creation. You soothe the conscience of the slaveholder, by\nreminding him, that the relation, which he has assumed towards his\ndown-trodden fellow-man, is lawful. The abolitionist protests, that the\nwickedness of the relation is none the less, because it is legalized. In\ncharging abolitionists with condemning \"the rights of property,\" you\nmistake the innocent for the guilty party. Were you to be so unhappy as\nto fall into the hands of a kidnapper, and be reduced to a slave, and\nwere I to remonstrate, though in vain, with your oppressor, who would\nyou think was the despiser of \"the rights of property\"--myself, or the\noppressor? As you would judge in that case, so judges every slave in his\nsimilar case.\n\nThe man-stealer's complaint, that his \"rights of property\" in his stolen\nfellow men are not adequately respected by the abolitionist, recalls to\nmy mind a very similar, and but little more ludicrous case of\nconscientious regard for the \"rights of property.\" A traveler was\nplundered of the whole of his large sum of money. He pleaded\nsuccessfully with the robber for a little of it to enable him to reach\nhis home. But, putting his hand rather deeper into the bag of stolen\ncoins than comported with the views of the robber, he was arrested with\nthe cry, \"Why, man, have you no conscience?\" You will perhaps inquire,\nwhether abolitionists regard all the slaves of the South as stolen--as\nwell those born at the South, as those, who were confessedly stolen from\nAfrica? I answer, that we do--that every helpless new-born infant, on\nwhich the chivalry of the South pounces, is, in our judgment, the owner\nof itself--that we consider, that the crime of man-stealing which is so\nterribly denounced in the Bible, does not consist, as is alleged, in\nstealing a slave from a third person, but in stealing him from\nhimself--in depriving him of self control, and subjecting him, as\nproperty, to the absolute control of another. Joseph's declaration, that\nhe \"was stolen,\" favors this definition of man-stealing. Jewish\nCommentators authorise it. Money, as it does not own itself, cannot be\nstolen from itself But when we reflect, that man is the owner of\nhimself, it does not surprise us, that wresting away his inalienable\nrights--his very manhood--should have been called man-stealing.\n\nWhilst on this subject of \"the rights of property,\" I am reminded of\nyour \"third impediment to abolition.\" This \"impediment\" consists in the\nfact of the great value of the southern slaves--which, according to your\nestimation, is not less than \"twelve hundred millions of dollars.\" I\nwill adopt your estimate, and thus spare myself from going into the\nabhorrent calculation of the worth in dollars and cents of immortal\nman--of the worth of \"the image of God.\" I thank you for your virtual\nadmission, that this wealth is grasped with a tenacity proportioned to\nits vast amount. Many of the wisest and best men of the North have been\nled into the belief that the slaveholders of the South are too humane\nand generous to hold their slaves fur the sake of gain. Even Dr.\nChanning was a subject of this delusion; and it is well remembered, that\nhis too favorable opinions of his fellow men, made it difficult to\ndisabuse him of it. Northern Christians have been ready to believe, that\nthe South would give up her slaves, because of her conscious lack of\ntitle to them. But in what age of the world have impenitent men failed\nto cling as closely to that, which they had obtained by fraud, as to\ntheir honest acquisitions? Indeed, it is demonstrable on philosophical\nprinciples, that the more stupendous the fraud, the more tenacious is\nthe hold upon that, which is gotten by it. I trust, that your admission\nto which I have just referred, will have no small effect to prevent the\nNorthern apologist for slavery from repeating the remark that the South\nwould gladly liberate her slaves, if she saw any prospect of bettering\nthe condition of the objects of her tender and solicitous benevolence. I\ntrust, too, that this admission will go far to prove the emptiness of\nyour declaration, that the abolitionists \"have thrown back for half a\ncentury the prospect of any species of emancipation of the African race,\ngradual or immediate, in any of the states,\" and the emptiness of your\ndeclaration, that, \"prior to the agitation of this subject of abolition,\nthere was a progressive melioration in the condition of slaves\nthroughout all the slave states,\" and that \"in some of them, schools of\ninstruction were opened,\" &c.; and I further trust, that this admission\nwill render harmless your intimation, that this \"melioration\" and these\n\"schools\" were intended to prepare the slaves for freedom. After what\nyou have said of the great value of the slaves, and of the obstacle it\npresents to emancipation, you will meet with little success in your\nendeavors to convince the world, that the South was preparing to give up\nthe \"twelve hundred millions of dollars,\" and that the naughty\nabolitionists have postponed her gratification \"for half a century.\" If\nyour views of the immense value of the slaves, and of the consequent\nopposition to their freedom, be correct, then the hatred of the South\ntowards the abolitionists must be, not because their movements tend to\nlengthen, but because they tend to shorten the period of her possession\nof the \"twelve hundred millions of dollars.\" May I ask you, whether,\nwhilst the South clings to these \"twelve hundred millions of dollars,\"\nit is not somewhat hypocritical in her to be complaining, that the\nabolitionists are fastening the \"twelve hundred millions of dollars\" to\nher? And may I ask you, whether there is not a little inconsistency\nbetween your own lamentations over this work of the abolitionists, and\nyour intimation that the South will never consent to give up her slaves,\nuntil the impossibility, of paying her \"twelve hundred millions of\ndollars\" for them, shall have been accomplished? Puerile and insulting\nas is your proposition to the abolitionists to raise \"twelve hundred\nmillions of dollars\" for the purchase of the slaves, it is nevertheless\ninstructive; inasmuch as it shows, that, in your judgment, the South is\nas little willing to give up her slaves, as the abolitionists are able\nto pay \"twelve hundred millions of dollars\" for them; and how unable the\nabolitionists are to pay a sum of money far greater than the whole\namount of money in the world, I need not explain.\n\nBut if the South must have \"twelve hundred millions of dollars\" to\ninduce her to liberate her present number of slaves, how can you expect\nsuccess fur your scheme of ridding her of several times the present\nnumber, \"in the progress of some one hundred and fifty, or two hundred\nyears?\" Do you reply, that, although she must have \"four hundred\ndollars\" a-piece for them, if she sell them to the abolitionists, she\nis, nevertheless, willing to let the Colonization Society have them\nwithout charge? There is abundant proof, that she is not. During the\ntwenty-two years of the existence of that Society, not so many slaves\nhave been emancipated and given to it for expatriation, as are born in a\nsingle week. As a proof that the sympathies of the South are all with\nthe slaveholding and _real_ character of this two-faced institution, and\nnot at all with the abolition purposes and tendencies, which it\nprofesses at the North, none of its Presidents, (and slave-holders only\nare deemed worthy to preside over it,) has ever contributed from his\nstock of slaves to swell those bands of emigrants, who, leaving our\nshores in the character of \"nuisances,\" are instantly transformed, to\nuse your own language, into \"missionaries, carrying with them\ncredentials in the holy cause of Christianity, civilization, and free\ninstitutions.\" But you were not in earnest, when you held up the idea in\nyour recent speech, that the rapidly multiplying millions of our colored\ncountrymen would be expatriated. What you said on that point was but to\nindulge in declamation, and to round off a paragraph. It is in that part\nof your speech where you say that \"no practical scheme for their removal\nor separation from us has yet been devised or proposed,\" that you\nexhibit your real sentiments on this subject, and impliedly admit the\ndeceitfulness of the pretensions of the American Colonization Society.\n\nBefore closing my remarks on the topic of \"the rights of property,\" I\nwill admit the truth of your charge, that _Abolitionists deny, that the\nslaveholder is entitled to \"compensation\" for his slaves_.\n\nAbolitionists do not know, why he, who steals men is, any more than he,\nwho steals horses, entitled to \"compensation\" for releasing his plunder.\nThey do not know, why he, who has exacted thirty years' unrequited toil\nfrom the sinews of his poor oppressed brother, should be paid for\nletting that poor oppressed brother labor for himself the remaining ten\nor twenty years of his life. But, it is said, that the South bought her\nslaves of the North, and that we of the North ought therefore to\ncompensate the South for liberating them. If there are individuals at\nthe North, who have sold slaves, I am free to admit, that they should\npromptly surrender their ill-gotten gains; and no less promptly should\nthe inheritors of such gains surrender them. But, however this may be,\nand whatever debt may be due on this score, from the North to the South,\ncertain it is, that on no principle of sound ethics, can the South hold\nto the persons of the innocent slaves, as security for the payment of\nthe debt. Your state and mine, and I would it were so with all others,\nno longer allow the imprisonment of the debtor as a means of coercing\npayment from him. How much less, then, should they allow the creditor to\npromote the security of his debt by imprisoning a third person--and one\nwho is wholly innocent of contracting the debt? But who is imprisoned,\nif it be not he, who is shut up in \"the house of bondage?\" And who is\nmore entirely innocent than he, of the guilty transactions between his\nseller and buyer?\n\nAnother of your charges against abolitionists is, _that, although\n\"utterly destitute of Constitutional or other rightful power--living in\ntotally distinct communities--as alien to the communities in which the\nsubject on which they would operate resides, so far as concerns\npolitical power over that subject, as if they lived in Africa or Asia;\nthey nevertheless promulgate to the world their purpose to be, to\nmanumit forthwith, and without compensation, and without moral\npreparation, three millions of negro slaves, under jurisdictions\naltogether separated from those under which they live.\"_\n\nI will group with this charge several others of the same class.\n\n_1._ _Abolitionists neglect the fact, that \"the slavery which exists\namongst us (southern people) is our affair--not theirs--and that they\nhave no more just concern with it, than they have with slavery as it\nexists throughout the world.\"_\n\n_2._ _They are regardless of the \"deficiency of the powers of the\nGeneral Government, and of the acknowledged and incontestable powers of\nthe States.\"_\n\n_3._ \"Superficial men (meaning no doubt abolitionists) confound the\ntotally different cases together of the powers of the British Parliament\nand those of the Congress of the United States in the matter of\nslavery.\"_\n\nAre these charges any thing more than the imagery of your own fancy, or\nselections from the numberless slanders of a time-serving and corrupt\npress? If they are founded on facts, it is in your power to state the\nfacts. For my own part, I am utterly ignorant of any, even the least,\njustification for them. I am utterly ignorant that the abolitionists\nhold any peculiar views in relation to the powers of the General or\nState Governments. I do not believe, that one in a hundred of them\nsupposes, that slavery in the states is a legitimate subject of federal\nlegislation. I believe, that a majority of the intelligent men amongst\nthem accord much more to the claims of \"state sovereignty,\" and approach\nfar more nearly to the character of \"strict constructionists,\" than does\nthe distinguished statesman, who charges them with such latitudinarian\nnotions. There may be persons in our country, who believe that Congress\nhas the absolute power over all American slavery, which the British\nParliament had over all British slavery; and that Congress can abolish\nslavery in the slave states, because Great Britain abolished it in her\nWest India Islands; but, I do not know them; and were I to look for\nthem, I certainly should not confine my search to abolitionists--for\nabolitionists, as it is very natural they should be, are far better\ninstructed in the subject of slavery and its connections with civil\ngovernment, than are the community in general.\n\nIt is passing strange, that you, or any other man, who is not playing a\ndesperate game, should, in the face of the Constitution of the American\nAnti-Slavery Society, which \"admits, that each state, in which slavery\nexists, has, by the Constitution of the United States, the exclusive\nright to legislate in regard to the abolition of slavery in said state;\"\nmake such charges, as you have done.\n\nIn an Address \"To the Public,\" dated September 3, 1835, and subscribed\nby the President, Treasurer, the three Secretaries, and the other five\nmembers of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society,\nwe find the following language. 1. \"We hold that Congress has no more\nright to abolish slavery in the Southern states than in the French West\nIndia Islands. Of course we desire no national legislation on the\nsubject. 2. We hold that slavery can only be lawfully abolished by the\nlegislatures of the several states in which it prevails, and that the\nexercise of any other than moral influence to induce such abolition is\nunconstitutional.\"\n\nBut what slavery is it that the abolitionists call on Congress to\nabolish? Is it that in the slave states? No--it is that in the District\nof Columbia and in the territories--none other. And is it not a fair\nimplication of their petitions, that this is the only slavery, which, in\nthe judgment of the petitioners, Congress has power to abolish?\nNevertheless, it is in the face of this implication, that you make your\narray of charges.\n\nIs it true, however, that the North has nothing more to do with slavery\nin the states, than with slavery in a foreign country? Does it not\nconcern the North, that, whilst it takes many thousands of her voters to\nbe entitled to a representative in Congress, there are districts at the\nSouth, where, by means of slavery, a few hundred voters enjoy this\nbenefit. Again, since the North regards herself as responsible in common\nwith the South, for the continuance of slavery in the District of\nColumbia and in the Territories, and for the continuance of the\ninterstate traffic in human beings; and since she believes slavery in\nthe slave states to be the occasion of these crimes, and that they will\nall of necessity immediately cease when slavery ceases--is it not right,\nthat she should feel that she has a \"just concern with slavery?\" Again,\nis it nothing to the people of the North, that they may be called on, in\nobedience to a requirement of the federal constitution, to shoulder\ntheir muskets to quell \"domestic violence?\" But, who does not know, that\nthis requirement owes its existence solely to the apprehension of\nservile insurrections?--or, in other words, to the existence of slavery\nin the slave states? Again, when our guiltless brothers escape from the\nsouthern prison-house, and come among us, we are under constitutional\nobligation to deliver them up to their stony-hearted pursuers. And is\nnot slavery in the slave states, which is the occasion of our obligation\nto commit this outrage on humanity and on the law of God, a matter of\n\"just concern to us?\" To what too, but slavery, in the slave states, is\nto be ascribed the long standing insult of our government towards that\nof Hayti? To what but that, our national disadvantages and losses from\nthe want of diplomatic relations between the two governments? To what so\nmuch, as to slavery in the slave states, are owing the corruption in our\nnational councils, and the worst of our legislation? But scarcely any\nthing should go farther to inspire the North with a sense of her \"just\nconcern\" in the subject of slavery in the slave states, than the fact,\nthat slavery is the parent of the cruel and murderous prejudice, which\ncrushes and kills her colored people; and, that it is but too probable,\nthat the child will live as long as its parent. And has the North no\n\"just concern\" with the slavery of the slave states, when there is so\nmuch reason to fear that our whole blood-guilty nation is threatened\nwith God's destroying wrath on account of it?\n\nThere is another respect in which we of the North have a \"just concern\"\nwith the slavery of the slave states. We see nearly three millions of\nour fellow men in those states robbed of body, mind, will, and\nsoul--denied marriage and the reading of the Bible, and marketed as\nbeasts. We see them in a word crushed in the iron folds of slavery. Our\nnature--the laws written upon its very foundations--the Bible, with its\ninjunctions \"to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them,\" and\nto \"open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are\nappointed to destruction\"--all require us to feel and to express what we\nfeel for these wretched millions. I said, that we see this misery. There\nare many amongst us--they are anti-abolitionists--who do not see it; and\nto them God says; \"but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.\"\n\nI add, that we of the North must feel concerned about slavery in the\nslave states, because of our obligation to pity the deluded,\nhard-hearted, and bloody oppressors in those states: and to manifest our\nlove for them by rebuking their unsurpassed sin. And, notwithstanding\npro-slavery statesmen at the North, who wink at the iniquity of slave\nholding, and pro-slavery clergymen at the North, who cry, \"peace, peace\"\nto the slaveholder, and sew \"pillows to armholes,\" tell us, that by our\nhonest and open rebuke of the slaveholder, we shall incur his enduring\nhatred; we, nevertheless, believe that \"open rebuke is better than\nsecret love,\" and that, in the end, we shall enjoy more Southern favor\nthan they, whose secret love is too prudent and spurious to deal\nfaithfully with the objects of its regard. \"He that rebuketh a man,\nafterward shall find more favor than he that flattereth with the\ntongue.\" The command, \"thou shall in any wise rebuke thy neighbor and\nnot suffer sin upon him,\" is one, which the abolitionist feels, that he\nis bound to obey, as well in the case of the slaveholder, as in that of\nany other sinner. And the question: \"who is my neighbor,\" is so answered\nby the Savior, as to show, that not he of our vicinity, nor even he of\nour country, is alone our \"neighbor.\"\n\nThe abolitionists of the North hold, that they have certainly as much\n\"just concern\" with slavery in the slave states, as the temperance men\nof the North have with \"intemperance\" at the South. And I would here\nremark, that the weapons with which the abolitionists of the North\nattack slavery in the slave states are the same, and no other than the\nsame, with those, which the North employs against the vice of\nintemperance at the South. I add too, that were you to say, that\nnorthern temperance men disregard \"the deficiency of the powers of the\nGeneral Government,\" and also \"the acknowledged and incontestable powers\nof the states;\" your charge would be as suitable as when it is applied\nto northern abolitionists.\n\nYou ascribe to us \"the purpose to manumit the three millions of negro\nslaves.\" Here again you greatly misrepresent us, by holding us up as\nemploying coercive, instead of persuasive, means for the accomplishment\nof our object. Our \"purpose\" is to persuade others to \"manumit.\" The\nslaveholders themselves are to \"manumit.\" It is evident, that others\ncannot \"manumit\" for them. If the North were endeavoring to persuade the\nSouth to give up the growing of cotton, you would not say, it is the\npurpose of the North to give it up. But, as well might you, as to say,\nthat it is the \"purpose\" of the abolitionists to \"manumit.\" It is very\nmuch by such misrepresentations, that the prejudices against\nabolitionists are fed and sustained. How soon they would die of atrophy,\nif they, who influence the public mind and mould public opinion, would\ntell but the simple truth about abolitionists.\n\nYou say, that the abolitionists would have the slaves manumitted\n\"without compensation and without moral preparation.\" I have already\nsaid enough on the point of \"compensation.\" It is true, that they would\nhave them manumitted immediately:--for they believe slavery is sin, and\nthat therefore the slaveholder has no right to protract the bondage of\nhis slaves for a single year, or for a single day or hour;--not even,\nwere he to do so to afford them \"a moral preparation\" for freedom, or to\naccomplish any other of the kindest and best purposes. They believe,\nthat the relation of slaveholder, as it essentially and indispensably\ninvolves the reduction of men to chattelship, cannot, under any plea\nwhatever, be continued with innocence, for a single moment. If it can\nbe--if the plain laws of God, in respect to marriage and religious\ninstruction and many other blessings, of which chattelized man is\nplundered, can be innocently violated--why credit any longer the\nassertion of the Bible, that \"sin is the transgression of the law?\"--why\nnot get a new definition of sin?\n\nAnother reason with abolitionists in favor of immediate manumission, is,\nthat the slaves do not, as a body, acquire, whilst in slavery, any\n\"moral preparation\" for freedom. To learn to swim we must be allowed the\nuse of water. To learn the exercises of a freeman, we must enjoy he\nelement of liberty. I will not say, that slaves cannot be taught, to\nsome extent, the duties of freemen. Some knowledge of the art of\nswimming may be acquired before entering the water. I have not forgotten\nwhat you affirm about the \"progressive melioration in the condition of\nslaves,\" and the opening of \"schools of instruction\" for them \"prior to\nthe agitation of the subject of abolition;\" nor, have I forgotten, that\nI could not read it without feeling, that the creations of your fancy,\nrather than the facts of history, supplied this information. Instances,\nrare instances, of such \"melioration\" and of such \"schools of\ninstruction,\" I doubt not there have been: but, I am confident, that the\nSouthern slaves have been sunk in depths of ignorance proportioned to\nthe profits of their labor. I have not the least belief, that the\nproportion of readers amongst them is one half so great, as it was\nbefore the invention of Whitney's cotton gin.\n\nPermit me to call your attention to a few of the numberless evidences,\nthat slavery is a poor school for \"moral preparation\" for freedom. 1st.\nSlavery turns its victims into thieves. \"Who should be astonished,\" says\nThomas S. Clay, a very distinguished slaveholder of Georgia, \"if the\nnegro takes from the field or corn-house the supplies necessary for his\ncraving appetite and then justifies his act, and denies that it is\nstealing?\" What debasement in the slave does the same gentleman's remedy\nfor theft indicate? \"If,\" says he, \"the negro is informed, that if he\ndoes not steal, he shall receive rice as an allowance; and if he does\nsteal, he shall not, a motive is held out which will counteract the\ntemptation to pilfer.\" 2nd. Slavery reeks with licentiousness. Another\nson of the South says, that the slaveholder's kitchen is a brothel, and\na southern village a Sodom. The elaborate defence of slavery by\nChancellor Harper of South Carolina justifies the heaviest accusations,\nthat have been brought against it on the score of licentiousness. How\ncould you blame us for deeply abhorring slavery, even were we to view it\nin no other light than that in which the Dews and Harpers and its other\nadvocates present it? 3rd. Slavery puts the master in the place of God,\nand the master's law in the place of God's law! \"The negro,\" says Thomas\nS. Clay, \"is seldom taught to feel, that he is punished for breaking\nGod's law! He only knows his master as law-giver and executioner, and\nthe sole object held up to his view is to make him a more obedient and\nprofitable slave. He oftener hears that he shall be punished if he\nsteals, than if he breaks the Sabbath or swears; and thus he sees the\nvery threatenings of God brought to bear on his master's interests. It\nis very manifest to him, that his own good is very far from forming the\nprimary reason for his chastisement: his master's interests are to be\nsecured at all events;--God's claims are secondary, or enforced merely\nfor the purpose of advancing those of his owner. His own benefit is the\nresiduum after this double distillation of moral motive--a mere\naccident.\" 4th. The laws of nearly all the slave-states forbid the\nteaching of the slaves to read. The abundant declarations, that those\nlaws are without exception, a consequence of the present agitation of\nthe question of slavery are glaringly false. Many of these laws were\nenacted long before this agitation; and some of them long before you and\nI were born. Say the three hundred and fifty-three gentlemen of the\nDistrict of Abbeville and Edgefield in South Carolina, who, the last\nyear, broke up a system of oral religious instruction, which the\nMethodist Conference of that State had established amongst their slaves:\n\"Intelligence and slavery have no affinity for each other.\" And when\nthose same gentlemen declare, that \"verbal and lecturing instruction\nwill increase a desire with the black population to learn\"--that \"the\nprogress and diffusion of knowledge will be a consequence\"--and that \"a\nprogressive system of improvement will be introduced, that will\nultimately revolutionize our civil institutions,\" they admit, that the\nprohibition of \"intelligence\" to the slaves is the settled and necessary\npolicy of slavery, and not, as you would have us believe, a temporary\nexpedient occasioned by the present \"agitation of this subject of\nabolition.\" 5th. Slavery--the system, which forbids marriage and the\nreading of the Bible--does of necessity turn its subjects into heathens.\nA Report of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, made five years\nago, says: \"Who could credit it, that in these years of revival and\nbenevolent effort--that, in this Christian Republic, there are over two\nmillions of human beings in the condition of heathen, and in some\nrespects in a worse condition? They may be justly considered the heathen\nof this Christian country, and will bear comparison with heathen in any\ncountry in the world.\" I will finish what I have to say on this point of\n\"moral preparation\" for freedom, with the remark, that the history of\nslavery in no country warrants your implication, that slaves acquire\nsuch \"moral preparation.\" The British Parliament substituted an\napprenticeship for slavery with the express design, that it should\nafford a \"moral preparation\" for freedom. And yet, if you will read the\nreports of late visitors to the British West Indies, you will find, that\nthe planters admit, that they made no use of the advantages of the\napprenticeship to prepare their servants for liberty. Their own\ngain--not the slaves'--was their ruling motive, during the term of the\napprenticeship, as well as preceding it.\n\nAnother of your charges is, _that the abolitionists \"have increased the\nrigors of legislation against slaves in most if not all the\nslave States_.\"\n\nAnd suppose, that our principles and measures have occasioned this\nevil--are they therefore wrong?--and are we, therefore, involved in sin?\nThe principles and measures of Moses and Aaron were the occasion of a\nsimilar evil. Does it follow, that those principles and measures were\nwrong, and that Moses and Aaron were responsible for the sin of\nPharaoh's increased oppressiveness? The truth, which Jesus Christ\npreached on the earth, is emphatically peace: but its power on the\ndepravity of the human heart made it the occasion of division and\nviolence. That depravity was the guilty cause of the division and\nviolence. The truth was but the innocent occasion of them. To make it\nresponsible for the effects of that depravity would be as unreasonable,\nas it is to make the holy principles of the anti-slavery cause\nresponsible for the wickedness which they occasion: and to make the\ngreat Preacher Himself responsible for the division and violence, would\nbe but to carry out the absurdity, of which the public are guilty, in\nholding abolitionists responsible for the mobs, which are got up against\nthem. These mobs, by the way, are called \"abolition mobs.\" A similar\nmisnomer would pronounce the mob, that should tear down your house and\nshoot your wife, \"Henry Clay's mob.\" Harriet Martineau, in stating the\nfact, that the mobs of 1834, in the city of New York, were set down to\nthe wrong account, says, that the abolitionists were told, that \"they\nhad no business to scare the city with the sight of their burning\nproperty and demolished churches!\"\n\nNo doubt the light of truth, which the abolitionists are pouring into\nthe dark den of slavery, greatly excites the monster's wrath: and it may\nbe, that he vents a measure of it on the helpless and innocent victims\nwithin his grasp. Be it so;--it is nevertheless, not the Ithuriel spear\nof truth, that is to be held guilty of the harm:--it is the monster's\nown depravity, which cannot\n\n\n                              \"endure\nTouch of celestial temper, but returns\nOf force to its own likeness.\"[A]\n\n\n[Footnote A: This is a reference to a passage in Milton's Paradise Lost,\nin which Satan in disguise is touched by the spear of the archangel\nIthuriel and is thereby forced to return to his own form.]\n\nI am, however, far from believing, that the treatment of the slaves is\nrendered any more rigorous and cruel by the agitation of the subject of\nslavery. I am very far from believing, that it is any harsher now than\nit was before the organization of the American Anti-Slavery Society.\nFugitive slaves tell us, it is not: and, inasmuch as the slaveholders\nare, and, by both words and actions, abundantly show, that they feel\nthat they are, arraigned by the abolitionists before the bar of the\ncivilized world, to answer to the charges of perpetrating cruelties on\ntheir slaves, it would, unless indeed, they are of the number of those\n\"whose glory is in their shame,\" be most unphilosophical to conclude,\nthat they are multiplying proofs of the truth of those charges, more\nrapidly than at any former stage of their barbarities. That slaveholders\nare not insensible to public opinion and to the value of a good\ncharacter was strikingly exhibited by Mr. Calhoun, in his place in the\nSenate of the United States, when he followed his frank disclaimer of\nall suspicion, that the abolitionists are meditating a war against the\nslaveholder's person, with remarks evincive of his sensitiveness under\nthe war, which they are waging against the slaveholder's character.\n\nA fact occurs to me, which goes to show, that the slaveholders feel\nthemselves to be put upon their good behavior by the abolitionists.\nAlthough slaves are murdered every day at the South, yet never, until\nvery recently, if at all, has the case occurred, in which a white man\nhas been executed at the South for the murder of a slave. A few months\nago, the Southern newspapers brought us copies of the document,\ncontaining the refusal of Governor Butler of South Carolina to pardon a\nman, who had been convicted of the murder of a slave. This document\ndwells on the protection due to the slave; and, if I fully recollect its\ncharacter, an abolitionist himself could hardly have prepared a more\nappropriate paper for the occasion. Whence such a document--whence, in\nthe editorial captions to this document, the exultation over its\ntriumphant refutations of the slanders of the abolitionists against the\nSouth--but, that Governor Butler feels--but, that the writes of those\ncaptions feel--that the abolitionists have put the South upon her\ngood behavior.\n\nAnother of your charges is, _that the abolitionists oppose \"the project\nof colonisation.\"_\n\nHaving, under another head, made some remarks on this \"project,\" I will\nonly add, that we must oppose the American Colonization Society, because\nit denies the sinfulness of slavery, and the duty of immediate,\nunqualified emancipation. Its avowed doctrine is, that, unless\nemancipation he accompanied by expatriation, perpetual slavery is to be\npreferred to it. Not to oppose that Society, would be the guiltiest\ntreachery to our holy religion, which requires immediate and\nunconditional repentance of sin. Not to oppose it, would be to uphold\nslavery. Not to oppose it, would be to abandon the Anti-Slavery Society.\nDo you ask, why, if this be the character of the American Colonization\nSociety, many, who are now abolitionists, continued in it so long? I\nanswer for myself, that, until near the period of my withdrawal from it,\nI had very inadequate conceptions of the wickedness, both of that\nSociety, and of slavery. For having felt the unequalled sin of slavery\nno more deeply--for feeling it now no more deeply, I confess myself to\nbe altogether without excuse. The great criminality of my long\ncontinuance in the Colonization Society is perhaps somewhat palliated by\nthe fact, that the strongest proofs of the wicked character and\ntendencies of the Society were not exhibited, until it spread out its\nwing over slavery to shelter the monster from the earnest and effective\nblows of the American Anti-Slavery Society.\n\nAnother of your charges is, that the abolitionists, in declaring \"that\ntheir object is not to stimulate the action of the General Government,\n_but to operate upon the States themselves, in which the institution of\ndomestic slavery exists,\" are evidently insincere, since the \"abolition\nsocieties and movements are all confined to the free Slates_.\"\n\nI readily admit, that our object is the abolition of slavery, as well in\nthe slave States, as in other portions of the Nation, where it exists.\nBut, does it follow, because only an insignificant share of our\n\"abolition societies and movements\" is in those States, that we\ntherefore depend for the abolition of slavery in them on the General\nGovernment, rather than on moral influence? I need not repeat, that the\ncharge of our looking to the General Government for such abolition is\nrefuted by the language of the Constitution of the Anti-Slavery Society.\nYou may, however, ask--\"why, if you do not look to the General\nGovernment for it, is not the great proportion of your means of moral\ninfluence in the slave States, where is the great body of the slaves?\" I\nanswer that, in the first place, the South does not permit us to have\nthem there; and that, in the words of one of your fellow Senators, and\nin the very similar words of another--both uttered on the floor of the\nSenate--\"if the abolitionists come to the South, the South will hang\nthem.\" Pardon the remark, that it seems very disingenuous in you to draw\nconclusions unfavorable to the sincerity of the abolitionists from\npremises so notoriously false, as are those which imply, that it is\nentirely at their own option, whether the abolitionists shall have their\n\"societies and movements\" in the free or slave States. I continue to\nanswer your question, by saying, in the second place, that, had the\nabolitionists full liberty to multiply their \"societies and movements\"\nin the slave States, they would probably think it best to have the great\nproportion of them yet awhile in the free States. To rectify public\nopinion on the subject of slavery is a leading object with\nabolitionists. This object is already realized to the extent of a\nthorough anti-slavery sentiment in Great Britain, as poor Andrew\nStevenson, for whom you apologise, can testify. Indeed, the great power\nand pressure of that sentiment are the only apology left to this\ndisgraced and miserable man for uttering a bald falsehood in vindication\nof Virginia morals. He above all other men, must feel the truth of the\ndistinguished Thomas Fowel Buxton's declaration, that \"England is turned\ninto one great Anti-Slavery Society.\" Now, Sir, it is such a change, as\nabolitionists have been the instruments of producing in Great Britain,\nthat we hope to see produced in the free States. We hope to see public\nsentiment in these States so altered, that such of their laws, as uphold\nand countenance slavery, will be repealed--so altered, that the present\nbrutal treatment of the colored population in them will give place to a\ntreatment dictated by justice, humanity, and brotherly and Christian\nlove;--so altered, that there will be thousands, where now there are not\nhundreds, to class the products of slave labor with other stolen goods,\nand to refuse to eat and to wear that, which is wet with the tears, and\nred with the blood of \"the poor innocents,\" whose bondage is continued,\nbecause men are more concerned to buy what is cheap, than what is\nhonestly acquired;--so altered, that our Missionary and other religious\nSocieties will remember, that God says: \"I hate robbery for\nburnt-offering,\" and will forbear to send their agents after that\nplunder, which, as it is obtained at the sacrifice of the body and soul\nof the plundered, is infinitely more unfit, than the products of\nordinary theft, to come into the Lord's treasury. And, when the warm\ndesires of our hearts, on these points, shall be realized, the fifty\nthousand Southerners, who annually visit the North, for purposes of\nbusiness and pleasure, will not all return to their homes,\nself-complacent and exulting, as now, when they carry with them the\nsuffrages of the North in favor of slavery: but numbers of them will\nreturn to pursue the thoughts inspired by their travels amongst the\nenemies of oppression--and, in the sequel, they will let their\n\"oppressed go free.\"\n\nIt were almost as easy for the sun to call up vegetation by the side of\nan iceberg, as for the abolitionists to move the South extensively,\nwhilst their influence is counteracted by a pro-slavery spirit at the\nNorth. How vain would be the attempt to reform the drunkards of your\ntown of Lexington, whilst the sober in it continue to drink intoxicating\nliquors! The first step in the reformation is to induce the sober to\nchange their habits, and create that total abstinence-atmosphere, in the\nbreathing of which, the drunkard lives,--and, for the want of which, he\ndies. The first step, in the merciful work of delivering the slaveholder\nfrom his sin, is similar. It is to bring him under the influence of a\ncorrected public opinion--of an anti-slavery sentiment:--and they, who\nare to be depended on to contribute to this public opinion--to make up\nthis anti-slavery sentiment--are those, who are not bound up in the iron\nhabits, and blinded by the mighty interests of the slaveholder. To\ndepend on slaveholders to give the lead to public opinion in the\nanti-slavery enterprise, would be no less absurd, than to begin the\ntemperance reformation with drunkards, and to look to them to produce\nthe influences, which are indispensable to their own redemption.\n\nYou say of the abolitionists, _that \"they are in favor of\namalgamation.\"_\n\nThe Anti-Slavery Society is, as its name imports, a society to oppose\nslavery--not to \"make matches.\" Whether abolitionists are inclined to\namalgamation more than anti-abolitionists are, I will not here take upon\nmyself to decide. So far, as you and I may be regarded as\nrepresentatives of these two parties, and so far as our marriages argue\nour tastes in this matter, the abolitionists and anti-abolitionists may\nbe set down, as equally disposed to couple white with white and black\nwith black--for our wives, as you are aware, are both white. I will here\nmention, as it may further argue the similarity in the matrimonial\ntastes of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, the fact so grateful to\nus in the days, when we were \"workers together\" in promoting the \"scheme\nof Colonization,\" that our wives are natives of the same town.\n\nI have a somewhat extensive acquaintance at the North; and I can truly\nsay, that I do not know a white abolitionist, who is the reputed father\nof a colored child. At the South there are several hundred thousand\npersons, whose yellow skins testify, that the white man's blood courses\nthrough their veins. Whether the honorable portion of their parentage is\nto be ascribed exclusively to the few abolitionists scattered over the\nSouth--and who, under such supposition, must, indeed, be prodigies of\nindustry and prolificness--or whether anti-abolitionists there have,\nnotwithstanding all their pious horror of \"amalgamation,\" been\ncontributing to it, you can better judge than myself.\n\nThat slavery is a great amalgamator, no one acquainted with the blended\ncolors of the South will, for a moment, deny. But, that an increasing\namalgamation would attend the liberation of the slaves, is quite\nimprobable, when we reflect, that the extensive occasions of the present\nmixture are the extreme debasement of the blacks and their entire\nsubjection to the will of the whites; and that even should the\ndebasement continue under a state of freedom, the subjection would not.\nIt is true, that the colored population of our country might in a state\nof freedom, attain to an equality with the whites; and that a\nmultiplication of instances of matrimonial union between the two races\nmight be a consequence of this equality: but, beside, that this would be\na lawful and sinless union, instead of the adulterous and wicked one,\nwhich is the fruit of slavery, would not the improved condition of our\ndown-trodden brethren be a blessing infinitely overbalancing all the\nviolations of our taste, which it might occasion? I say violations of\n_our_ taste;--for we must bear in mind that, offensive as the\nintermixture of different races may be to us, the country or age, which\npractices it, has no sympathy whatever with our feeling on this point.\n\nHow strongly and painfully it argues the immorality and irreligion of\nthe American people, that they should look so complacently on the\n\"amalgamation,\" which tramples the seventh commandment under foot, and\nyet be so offended at that, which has the sanction of lawful wedlock!\nWhen the Vice President of this Nation was in nomination for his present\noffice, it was objected to him, that he had a family of colored\nchildren. The defence, set up by his partisans, was, that, although he\nhad such a family, he nevertheless was not married to their mother! The\ndefence was successful; and the charge lost all its odiousness; and the\nVice President's popularity was retrieved, when, it turned out, that he\nwas only the adulterous, and not the married father of his children!\n\nI am aware, that many take the ground, that we must keep the slaves in\nslavery to prevent the matrimonial \"amalgamation,\" which, they\napprehend, would be a fruit of freedom. But, however great a good,\nabolitionists might deem the separation of the white and black races,\nand however deeply they might be impressed with the power of slavery to\npromote this separation, they nevertheless, dare not \"do evil, that good\nmay come:\"--they dare not seek to promote this separation, at the\nfearful expense of upholding, or in anywise, countenancing a\nhumanity-crushing and God-defying system of oppression.\n\nAnother charge against the abolitionists is implied in the inquiry you\nmake, _whether since they do not \"furnish in their own families or\npersons examples of intermarriage, they intend to contaminate the\nindustrious and laborious classes of society of the North by a revolting\nadmixture of the black element.\"_\n\nThis inquiry shows how difficult it is for southern minds, accustomed as\nthey have ever been to identify labor with slavery, to conceive the true\ncharacter and position of such \"classes\" at the North; and also how\nignorant they are of the composition of our Anti-Slavery societies. To\ncorrect your misapprehensions on these points, I will briefly say, in\nthe first place, that the laborers of the North are freemen and not\nslaves;--that they marry whom they please, and are neither paired nor\nunpaired to suit the interests of the breeder, or seller, or buyer, of\nhuman stock:--and, in the second place, that the abolitionists, instead\nof being a body of persons distinct from \"the industrious and laborious\nclasses,\" do, more than nineteen twentieths of them, belong to those\n\"classes.\" You have fallen into great error in supposing, that\n_abolitionists_ generally belong to the wealthy and aristocratic\nclasses. This, to a great extent, is true of _anti-abolitionists_. Have\nyou never heard the boast, that there have been anti-abolition mobs,\nwhich consisted of \"gentlemen of property and standing?\"\n\nYou charge upon abolitionists \"_the purpose to create a pinching\ncompetition between black labor and white labor;\" and add, that \"on the\nsupposition of abolition the black class, migrating into the free\nstates, would enter into competition with the white class, diminishing\nthe wages of their labor_.\"\n\nIn making this charge, as well as in making that which immediately\nprecedes it, you have fallen into the error, that abolitionists do not\nbelong to \"the industrious and laborious classes.\" In point of fact, the\nabolitionists belong so generally to these classes, that if your charge\nbe true, they must have the strange \"purpose\" of \"pinching\" themselves.\n\nWhether \"the black class\" would, or would not migrate, I am much more\npleased to have you say what you do on this point, though it be at the\nexpense of your consistency, than to have you say, as you do in another\npart of your speech, that abolition \"would end in the extermination or\nsubjugation of the one race or the other.\"\n\nIt appears to me highly improbable, that emancipation would be followed\nby the migration of the emancipated. Emancipation, which has already\nadded fifty per cent. to the value of estates in the British West\nIndies, would immediately add as much to the value of the soil of the\nSouth. Much more of it would be brought into use; and, notwithstanding\nthe undoubted truth, that the freedman performs twice as much labor as\nwhen a slave, the South would require, instead of any diminution, a very\ngreat increase of the number of her laborers. The laboring population of\nthe British West India Islands, is one-third as large as that of the\nsouthern states; and yet, since these islands have got rid of slavery,\nand have entered on their career of enterprize and industry, they find\nthis population, great as it is, insufficient to meet the increased\ndemand for labor. As you are aware, they are already inviting laborers\nof this and other countries to supply the deficiency. But what is the\namount of cultivable land in those islands, compared with that in all\nthe southern states? It is not so extensive as the like land in your\nsingle state.\n\nBut you may suppose, that, in the event of the emancipation of her\nslaves, the South would prefer white laborers. I know not why she\nshould. Such are, for the most part, unaccustomed to her kinds of labor,\nand they would exact, because they would need, far greater wages than\nthose, who had never been indulged beyond the gratification of their\nsimplest wants. There is another point of view, in which it is still\nmore improbable, that the black laborers of the South would be displaced\nby immigrations of white laborers. The proverbial attachment of the\nslave to his \"bornin-ground,\" (the place of his nativity,) would greatly\ncontribute to his contentment with low wages, at the hands of his old\nmaster. As an evidence of the strong attachment of our southern colored\nbrethren to their birth-places, I remark, that, whilst the free colored\npopulation of the free states increased from 1820 to 1830 but nineteen\nper cent., the like population in the slave states increased, in the\nsame period, thirty five per cent;--and this, too, notwithstanding the\noperation of those oppressive and cruel laws, whose enactment was\ndictated by the settled policy of expelling the free blacks from\nthe South.\n\nThat, in the event of the abolition of southern slavery, the emancipated\nslaves would migrate to the North, rather than elsewhere, is very\nimprobable. Whilst our climate would be unfriendly to them, and whilst\nthey would be strangers to our modes of agriculture, the sugar and\ncotton fields of Texas, the West Indies, and other portions of the\nearth, would invite them to congenial employments beneath congenial\nskies. That, in case southern slavery is abolished, the colored\npopulation of the North would be drawn off to unite with their race at\nthe South, is, for reasons too obvious to mention, far more probable\nthan the reverse.\n\nIt will be difficult for you to persuade the North, that she would\nsuffer in a pecuniary point of view by the extirpation of slavery. The\nconsumption of the laborers at the South would keep pace with the\nimprovement and elevation of their condition, and would very soon impart\na powerful impulse to many branches of Northern industry.\n\nAnother of your charges is in the following words: \"The subject of\nslavery within the District of Florida,\" and that \"of the right of\nCongress to prohibit the removal of slaves from one state to another,\"\nare, with abolitionists, \"but so many masked batteries, concealing the\nreal and ultimate point of attack. That point of attack is the\ninstitution of domestic slavery, as it exists in those states.\"\n\nIf you mean by this charge, that abolitionists think that the abolition\nof slavery in the District of Columbia and in Florida, and the\nsuppression of the interstate traffic in human beings are, in\nthemselves, of but little moment, you mistake. If you mean, that they\nthink them of less importance than the abolition of slavery in the slave\nstates, you are right; and if you further mean, that they prize those\nobjects more highly, and pursue them more zealously, because they think,\nthat success in them will set in motion very powerful, if not indeed\nresistless influences against slavery in the slave states, you are right\nin this also. I am aware, that the latter concession brings\nabolitionists under the condemnation of that celebrated book, written by\na _modern_ limiter of \"human responsibility\"--not by the _ancient_ one,\nwho exclaimed, \"Am I my brother's keeper?\" In that book, to which, by\nthe way, the infamous Atherton Resolutions are indebted for their\nkeynote, and grand pervading idea, we find the doctrine, that even if it\nwere the duty of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of\nColumbia, the North nevertheless should not seek for such abolition,\nunless the object of it be \"ultimate within itself.\" If it be \"for the\nsake of something ulterior\" also--if for the sake of inducing the\nslaveholders of the slave states to emancipate their slaves--then we\nshould not seek for it. Let us try this doctrine in another\napplication--in one, where its distinguished author will not feel so\nmuch delicacy, and so much fear of giving offence. His reason why we\nshould not go for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,\nunless our object in it be \"ultimate within itself,\" and unaccompanied\nby the object of producing an influence against slavery in the slave\nstates, is, that the Federal Constitution has left the matter of slavery\nin the slave states to those states themselves. But will President\nWayland say, that it has done so to any greater extent, than it has left\nthe matter of gambling-houses and brothels in those states to those\nstates themselves? He will not, if he consider the subject:--though, I\ndoubt not, that when he wrote his bad book, he was under the prevailing\nerror, that the Federal Constitution tied up the hands and limited the\npower of the American people in respect to slavery, more than to any\nother vice.\n\nBut to the other application. We will suppose, that Great Britain has\nput down the gambling-houses and brothels in her wide dominions--that\nMexico has done likewise; and that the George Thompsons, and Charles\nStuarts, and other men of God, have come from England to beseech the\npeople of the northern states to do likewise within their respective\njurisdictions;--and we will further suppose, that those foreign\nmissionaries, knowing the obstinate and infatuated attachment of the\npeople of the southern states to their gambling-houses and brothels,\nshould attempt, and successfully, too, to blend with the motive of the\npeople of the northern states to get rid of their own gambling houses\nand brothels, the motive of influencing the people of the southern\nstates to get rid of theirs--what, we ask, would this eminent divine\nadvise in such a case? Would he have the people of the northern states\ngo on in their good work, and rejoice in the prospect, not only that\nthese polluting and ruinous establishments would soon cease to exist\nwithin all their limits, but that the influence of their overthrow would\nbe fatal to the like establishments in the southern states? To be\nconsistent with himself--with the doctrine in question--he must reply in\nthe negative. To be consistent with himself, he must advise the people\nof the northern states to let their own gambling-houses and brothels\nstand, until they can make the object of their abolishment \"ultimate\nwithin itself;\"--until they can expel from their hearts the cherished\nhope, that the purification of their own states of these haunts of\nwickedness would exert an influence to induce the people of their sister\nstates to enter upon a similar work of purity and righteousness. But I\ntrust, that President Wayland would not desire to be consistent with\nhimself on this point. I trust that he would have the magnanimity to\nthrow away this perhaps most pernicious doctrine of a pernicious book,\nwhich every reader of it must see was written to flatter and please the\nslaveholder and arrest the progress of the anti-slavery cause. How great\nthe sin of seizing on this very time, when special efforts are being\nmade to enlist the world's sympathies in behalf of the millions of our\nrobbed, outraged, crushed countrymen--how great the sin, of seizing on\nsuch a time to attempt to neutralize those efforts, by ascribing to the\noppressors of these millions a characteristic \"nobleness\"--\"enthusiastic\nattachment to personal right\"--\"disinterestedness which has always\nmarked the southern character\"--and a superiority to all others \"in\nmaking any sacrifice for the public good!\" It is this sin--this heinous\nsin--of which President Wayland has to repent. If he pities the slave,\nit is because he knows, that the qualities, which he ascribes to the\nslaveholder, do not, in fact, belong to him. On the other hand, if he\nbelieves the slaveholder to be, what he represents him to be, he does\nnot--in the very nature of things, he cannot--pity the slave. He must\nrather rejoice, that the slave has fallen into the hands of one, who,\nthough he has the name, cannot have the heart, and cannot continue in\nthe relation of a slaveholder. If John Hook, for having mingled his\ndiscordant and selfish cries with the acclamations of victory and then\ngeneral joy, deserved Patrick Henry's memorable rebuke, what does he not\ndeserve, who finds it in his heart to arrest the swelling tide of pity\nfor the oppressed by praises of the oppressor, and to drown the public\nlament over the slave's subjection to absolute power, in the\ncongratulation, that the slaveholder who exercises that power, is a\nbeing of characteristic \"nobleness,\" \"disinterestedness,\" and\n\"sacrifice\" of self-interest?\n\nPresident Wayland may perhaps say, that the moral influence, which he is\nunwilling to have exerted over the slaveholder, is not that, which is\nsimply persuasive, but that, which is constraining--not that, which is\nsimply inducing, but that, which is compelling. I cheerfully admit, that\nit is infinitely better to induce men to do right from their own\napprobation of the right, than it is to shame them, or in any other wise\nconstrain them, to do so; but I can never admit, that I am not at\nliberty to effect the release of my colored brother from the fangs of\nhis murderous oppressor, when I can do so by bringing public opinion to\nbear upon that oppressor, and to fill him with uneasiness and shame.\n\nI have not, overlooked the distinction taken by the reverend gentleman;\nthough, I confess that, to a mind no less obtuse than my own, it is very\nlittle better than \"a distinction without a difference.\" Whilst he\ndenies, that I can, as an American citizen, rightfully labor for the\nabolition of slavery in the slave states, or even in the District of\nColumbia; he would perhaps, admit that, as a man, I might do so. But am\nI not interested, as an American citizen, to have every part of my\ncountry cleared of vice, and of whatever perils its free institutions?\nAm I not interested, as such, to promote the overthrow of gambling and\nrum drinking establishments in South Carolina?--but why any more than to\npromote the overthrow of slavery? In fine, am I not interested, as an\nAmerican citizen, to have my country, and my whole country, \"right in\nthe sight of God?\" If not, I had better not be an American citizen.\n\nI say no more on the subject of the sophistries of President Wayland's\nbook on, \"The limitations of human responsibility;\" nor would I have\nsaid what I have, were it not that it is in reply to the like\nsophistries couched in that objection of yours, which I have now been\nconsidering.\n\nAnother of your charges against the abolitionists is, _that they seek to\n\"stimulate the rage of the people of the free states against the people\nof the slave states. Advertisements of fugitive slaves and of slaves to\nbe sold are carefully collected and blazoned forth to infuse a spirit of\ndetestation and hatred against one entire and the largest section of\nthe Union.\"_\n\nThe slaveholders of the South represent slavery as a heaven-born\ninstitution--themselves as patriarchs and patterns of benevolence--and\ntheir slaves, as their tenderly treated and happy dependents. The\nabolitionists, on the contrary, think that slavery is from hell--that\nslaveholders are the worst of robbers--and that their slaves are the\nwretched victims of unsurpassed cruelties. Now, how do abolitionists\npropose to settle the points at issue?--by fanciful pictures of the\nabominations of slavery to countervail the like pictures of its\nblessedness?--by mere assertions against slavery, to balance mere\nassertions in its favor? No--but by the perfectly reasonable and fair\nmeans of examining slavery in the light of its own code--of judging of\nthe character of the slaveholder in the light of his own conduct--and of\narguing the condition of the slave from unequivocal evidences of the\nlight in which the slave himself views it. To this end we publish\nextracts from the southern slave code, which go to show that slavery\nsubjects its victims to the absolute control of their erring fellow\nmen--that it withholds from them marriage and the Bible--that it classes\nthem with brutes and things--and annihilates the distinctions between\nmind and matter. To this end we republish in part, or entirely,\npamphlets and books, in which southern men exhibit, with their own pens,\nsome of the horrid features of slavery. To this end we also republish\nsuch advertisements as you refer to--advertisements in which immortal\nbeings, made in the image of God, and redeemed by a Savior's blood, and\nbreathed upon by the Holy Spirit, are offered to be sold, at public\nauction, or sheriff's sale, in connection with cows, and horses, and\nploughs: and, sometimes we call special attention to the common fact,\nthat the husband and wife, the parent and infant child, are advertised\nto be sold together or separately, as shall best suit purchasers. It is\nto this end also, that we often republish specimens of the other class\nof advertisements to which you refer. Some of the advertisements of this\nclass identify the fugitive slave by the scars, which the whip, or the\nmanacles and fetters, or the rifle had made on his person. Some of them\noffer a reward for his head!--and it is to this same end, that we often\nrefer to the ten thousands, who have fled from southern slavery, and the\nfifty fold that number, who have unsuccessfully attempted to fly from\nit. How unutterable must be the horrors of the southern prison house,\nand how strong and undying the inherent love of liberty to induce these\nwretched fellow beings to brave the perils which cluster so thickly and\nfrightfully around their attempted escape? That love is indeed\n_undying_. The three hundred and fifty-three South Carolina gentlemen,\nto whom I have referred, admit, that even \"the old negro man, whose head\nis white with age, raises his thoughts to look through the vista which\nwill terminate his bondage.\"\n\nI put it to your candor--can you object to the reasonableness and\nfairness of these modes, which abolitionists have adopted for\nestablishing the truth on the points at issue between themselves and\nslaveholders? But, you may say that our republication of your own\nrepresentations of slavery proceeds from unkind motives, and serves to\nstir up the \"hatred,\" and \"rage of the people of the free states against\nthe people of the slave states.\" If such be an effect of the\nrepublication, although not at all responsible for it, we deeply regret\nit; and, as to our motives, we can only meet the affirmation of their\nunkindness with a simple denial. Were we, however, to admit the\nunkindness of our motives, and that we do not always adhere to the\napostolic motto, of \"speaking the truth in love\"--would the admission\nchange the features of slavery, or make it any the less a system of\npollution and blood? Is the accused any the less a murderer, because of\nthe improper motives with which his accuser brings forward the\nconclusive proof of his blood-guiltiness?\n\nWe often see, in the speeches and writings of the South, that\nslaveholders claim as absolute and as rightful a property in their\nslaves, as in their cattle. Whence then their sensitiveness under our\nrepublication of the advertisements, is which they offer to sell their\nhuman stock? If the south will republish the advertisements of our\nproperty, we will only not be displeased, but will thank her; and any\nrebukes she may see fit to pour upon us, for offering particular kinds\nof property, will be very patiently borne, in view of the benefit we\nshall reap from her copies of our advertisements.\n\nA further charge in your speech is, _that the abolitionists pursue their\nobject \"reckless of all consequences, however calamitous they may be;\"\nthat they have no horror of a \"civil war,\" or \"a dissolution of the\nUnion;\" that theirs is \"a bloody road,\" and \"their purpose is abolition,\nuniversal abolition, peaceably if it can, forcibly if it must.\"_\n\nIt is true that, the abolitionists pursue their object, undisturbed by\napprehensions of consequences; but it is not true, that they pursue it\n\"reckless of consequences.\" We believe that they, who unflinchingly\npress the claims of God's truth, deserve to be considered as far less\n\"reckless of consequences,\" than they, who, suffering themselves to be\nthrown into a panic by apprehensions of some mischievous results, local\nor general, immediate or remote, are guilty of compromising the truth,\nand substituting corrupt expediency for it. We believe that the\nconsequences of obeying the truth and following God are good--only\ngood--and that too, not only in eternity, but in time also. We believe,\nthat had the confidently anticipated deluge of blood followed the\nabolition of slavery in the British West Indies, the calamity would have\nbeen the consequence, not of abolition, but of resistance to it. The\ninsanity, which has been known to follow the exhibition of the claims of\nChristianity, is to be charged on the refusal to fall in with those\nclaims, and not on our holy religion.\n\nBut, notwithstanding, we deem it our duty and privilege to confine\nourselves to the word of the Lord, and to make that word suffice to\nprevent all fears of consequences; we, nevertheless, employ additional\nmeans to dispel the alarms of those, who insist on walking \"by sight;\"\nand, in thus accommodating ourselves to their want of faith, we are\njustified by the example of Him, who, though he said, \"blessed are they\nthat have not seen and yet have believed,\" nevertheless permitted an\nunbelieving disciple, both to see and to touch the prints of the nails\nand the spear. When dealing with such unbelievers, we do not confine\nourselves to the \"thus saith the Lord\"--to the Divine command, to \"let\nthe oppressed go free and break every yoke\"--to the fact, that God is an\nabolitionist: but we also show how contrary to all sound philosophy is\nthe fear, that the slave, on whom have been heaped all imaginable\noutrages, will, when those outrages are exchanged for justice and mercy,\nturn and rend his penitent master. When dealing with such unbelievers,\nwe advert to the fact, that the insurrections at the South have been the\nwork of slaves--not one of them of persons discharged from slavery: we\nshow how happy were the fruits of emancipation in St. Domingo: and that\nthe \"horrors of St. Domingo,\" by the parading of which so many have been\ndeterred from espousing our righteous cause, were the result of the\nattempt to re-establish slavery. When dealing with them, we ask\nattention to the present peaceful, prosperous, and happy condition of\nthe British West India Islands, which so triumphantly falsifies the\npredictions, that bankruptcy, violence, bloodshed, and utter ruin would\nfollow the liberation of their slaves. We point these fearful and\nunbelieving ones to the fact of the very favorable influence of the\nabolition of slavery on the price of real estate in those islands; to\nthat of the present rapid multiplication of schools and churches in\nthem; to the fact, that since the abolition of slavery, on the first day\nof August 1834, not a white man in all those islands has been struck\ndown by the arm of a colored man; and then we ask them whether in view\nof such facts, they are not prepared to believe, that God connects\nsafety with obedience, and that it is best to \"trust in the Lord with\nall thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding.\"\n\nOn the subject of \"a dissolution of the Union,\" I have only to say,\nthat, on the one hand, there is nothing in my judgment, which, under\nGod, would tend so much to preserve our Republic, as the carrying out\ninto all our social, political and religious institutions of its great\nfoundation principle, that \"all men are created equal;\" and that, on the\nother hand, the flagrant violation of that principle in the system of\nslavery, is doing more than all thing, else to hasten the destruction of\nthe Republic. I am aware, that one of the doctrines of the South is,\nthat \"slavery is the corner-stone of the republican edifice.\" But, if it\nbe true, that our political institutions harmonize with, and are\nsustained by slavery, then the sooner we exchange them for others the\nbetter. I am aware, that it is said, both at the North and at the South,\nthat it is essential to the preservation of the Union. But, greatly as I\nlove the Union, and much as I would sacrifice for its righteous\ncontinuance, I cannot hesitate to say, that if slavery be an\nindispensable cement, the sooner it is dissolved the better.\n\nI am not displeased, that you call ours \"a bloody road\"--for this\nlanguage does not necessarily implicate our motives; but I am greatly\nsurprised that you charge upon us the wicked and murderous \"purpose\" of\na forcible abolition. In reply to this imputation, I need only refer you\nto the Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society--to the\nDeclaration of the Convention which framed it--and to our characters,\nfor pledges, that we design no force, and are not likely to stain our\nsouls with the crime of murder. That Constitution says: \"This society\nwill never, in any way, countenance the oppressed in vindicating their\nrights by resorting to physical force.\" The Declaration says \"Our\nprinciples forbid the doing of evil that good may come, and lead us to\nreject, and to entreat the oppressed to reject, the use of all carnal\nweapons for deliverance from bondage. Our measures shall be such only,\nas the opposition of moral purity to moral corruption--the destruction\nof error by the potency of truth--the overthrow of prejudice by the\npower of love--and the abolition of slavery by the spirit of\nrepentance.\" As to our characters they are before the world. You would\nprobably look in vain through our ranks for a horse-racer, a gambler, a\nprofane person, a rum-drinker, or a duellist. More than nine-tenths of\nus deny the rightfulness of offensive, and a large majority, even that\nof defensive national wars. A still larger majority believe, that deadly\nweapons should not be used in cases of individual strife. And, if you\nshould ask, \"where in the free States are the increasing numbers of men\nand women, who believe, that the religion of the unresisting 'Lamb of\nGod' forbids recourse to such weapons, in all circumstances, either by\nnations or individuals?\"--the answer is, \"to a man, to a woman, in the\nranks of the abolitionists.\" You and others will judge for yourselves,\nhow probable it is, that the persons, whom I have described, will prove\nworthy of being held up as murderers.\n\nThe last of your charges against the abolitionists, which I shall\nexamine, is the following: _Having begun \"their operations by professing\nto employ only persuasive means,\" they \"have ceased to employ the\ninstruments of reason and persuasion,\" and \"they now propose to\nsubstitute the powers of the ballot box;\" and \"the inevitable tendency\nof their proceedings is if these should be found insufficient, to invoke\nfinally the more potent powers of the bayonet.\"_\n\nIf the slaveholders would but let us draw on them for the six or eight\nthousand dollars, which we expend monthly to sustain our presses and\nlecturers, they would then know, from an experience too painful to be\nforgotten, how truthless is your declaration, that we \"have ceased to\nemploy the instruments of reason and persuasion.\"\n\nYou and your friends, at first, employed \"persuasive means\" against \"the\nsub-treasury system.\" Afterwards, you rallied voters against it. Now, if\nthis fail, will you resort to \"the more potent powers of the bayonet?\"\nYou promptly and indignantly answer, \"No.\" But, why will you not? Is it\nbecause the prominent opposers of that system have more moral\nworth--more religious horror of blood--than Arthur Tappan, William Jay,\nand their prominent abolition friends? Were such to be your answer, the\npublic would judge, whether the men of peace and purity, who compose the\nmass of abolitionists, would be more likely than the Clays and Wises and\nthe great body of the followers of these Congressional leaders to betake\nthemselves from a disappointment at \"the ballot-box\" to \"the more potent\npowers of the bayonet?\"\n\nYou say, that we \"_now_ propose to substitute the powers of the\nballot-box,\" as if it were only of late, that we had proposed to do so.\nWhat then means the following language in our Constitution: \"The society\nwill also endeavor in a Constitutional way to influence Congress to put\nan end to the domestic slave-trade, and to abolish slavery in all those\nportions of our common country, which come under its control--especially\nin the District of Columbia--and likewise to prevent the extension of it\nto any State, that may be hereafter admitted to the Union?\" What then\nmeans the following language in the \"Declaration\" of the Convention,\nwhich framed our Constitution: \"We also maintain, that there are at the\npresent time the highest obligations resting upon the people of the Free\nStates to remove slavery by moral and political action, as prescribed in\nthe Constitution of the United States?\" If it be for the first time,\nthat we \"_now_ propose\" \"political action,\" what means it, that\nanti-slavery presses have, from year to year, called on abolitionists to\nremember the slave at the polls?\n\nYou are deceived on this point; and the rapid growth of our cause has\nbeen the occasion of your deception. You suppose, because it is only\nwithin the last few months, that you have heard of abolitionists in this\ncountry carrying their cause to \"the ballot box,\" that it is only within\nthe last few months that they have done so. But, in point of fact, some\nof them have done so for several years. It was not, however, until the\nlast year or two, when the number of abolitionists had become\nconsiderable, and their hope of producing an impression on the Elections\nproportionately strong, that many of them were seen bringing their\nabolition principles to the \"ballot-box.\" Nor was it until the Elections\nof the last Autumn, that abolition action at \"the ballot-box\" had become\nso extensive, as to apprise the Nation, that it is a principle with\nabolitionists to \"remember\" in one place as well as in another--at the\npolls as well as in the closet--\"them that are in bonds.\" The fact that,\nat the last State Election, there were three or four hundred abolition\nvotes given in the County in which I reside, is no more real because of\nits wide spread interest, than the comparatively unheard of fact, that\nabout one hundred such votes were given the year before. By the way,\nwhen I hear complaints of abolition action at the \"ballot-box,\" I can\nhardly refrain from believing, that they are made ironically. When I\nhear complaints, that the abolitionists of this State rallied, as such,\nat the last State Election, I cannot easily avoid suspecting, that the\npurpose of such complaints is the malicious one of reviving in our\nbreasts the truly stinging and shame-filling recollection, that some\nfive-sixths of the voters in our ranks, either openly apostatized from\nour principles, or took it into their heads, that the better way to vote\nfor the slave and the anti-slavery cause was to vote for their\nrespective political parties. You would be less afraid of the\nabolitionists, if I should tell you that more than ten thousand of them\nin this State voted at the last State Election, for candidates for law\nmakers, who were openly in favor of the law of this State, which creates\nslavery, and of other laws, which countenance and uphold it. And you\nwould owe me for one of your heartiest laughs, were I to tell you, that\nthere are abolitionists--professed abolitionists--yes, actual members of\nthe Anti-Slavery Society--who, carrying out this delusion of helping the\nslave by helping their \"party,\" say, that they would vote even for a\nslaveholder, if their party should nominate him. Let me remark, however,\nthat I am happy to be able to inform you, that this delusion--at least\nin my own State--is fast passing away; and that thousands of the\nabolitionists who, in voting last Autumn for Gov. Marey or Gov. Seward,\ntook the first step in the way, that leads to voting for the slaveholder\nhimself, are now not only refusing to take another step in that\ninconsistent and wicked way, but are repenting deeply of that, which\nthey have already taken in it.\n\nMuch as you dislike, not to say _dread_, abolition action at \"the\nballot-box,\" I presume, that I need not spend any time in explaining to\nyou the inconsistency of which an abolitionist is guilty, who votes for\nan upholder of slavery. A wholesome citizen would not vote fur a\ncandidate for a law maker, who is in favor of laws, which authorize\ngaming-houses or _groggeries_. But, in the eye of one, who his attempted\nto take the \"guage and dimensions\" of the hell of slavery, the laws,\nwhich authorize slaveholding, far transcend in wickedness, those, which\nauthorize gaming-houses or _groggeries_. You would not vote for a\ncandidate for a law-maker, who is in favor of \"the sub-treasury system.\"\nBut compared with the evil of slavery, what is that of the most\npernicious currency scheme ever devised? It is to be \"counted as the\nsmall dust of the balance.\" If you would withhold your vote in the case\nsupposed--how gross in your eyes must be the inconsistency of the\nabolitionist, who casts his vote on the side of the system of\nfathomless iniquity!\n\nI have already remarked on \"the third\" of the \"impediments\" or\n\"obstacles\" to emancipation, which you bring to view. _\"The first\nimpediment,\" you say, \"is the utter and absolute want of all power on\nthe part of the General Government to effect the purpose.\"_\n\nBut because there is this want on the part of the General Government, it\ndoes not follow, that it also exists on the part of the States: nor does\nit follow, that it also exists on the part of the slaveholders\nthemselves. It is a poor plea of your neighbor for continuing to hold\nhis fellow man in slavery, that neither the Federal Government nor the\nState of Kentucky has power to emancipate them. Such a plea is about as\nvalid, as that of the girl for not having performed the task, which her\nmistress had assigned to her. \"I was tied to the table.\" \"Who tied you\nthere?\" \"I tied myself there.\"\n\n_\"The next obstacle,\" you say, \"in the way of abolition arises out of\nthe fact of the presence in the slave states of three millions\nof slaves.\"_\n\nThis is, indeed a formidable \"obstacle:\" and I admit, that it is as much\nmore difficult for the impenitent slaveholder to surmount it, than it\nwould be if there were but one million of slaves, as it is for the\nimpenitent thief to restore the money he has stolen, than it would be,\nif the sum were one third as great. But, be not discouraged, dear sir,\nwith this view of the case. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the\nobstacle, the warmest desires of your heart for the abolition of\nslavery, may yet be realized. Be thankful, that repentance can avail in\nevery case of iniquity; that it can loosen the grasp of the man-thief,\nas well as that of the money-thief: of the oppressors of thousands as\nwell as of hundreds:--of \"three millions,\" as well as of one million.\n\nBut, were I to allow, that the obstacle in question, is as great, as you\nregard it--nevertheless will it not increase with the lapse of years,\nand become less superable the longer the work of abolition is postponed?\nI suppose, however, that it is not to be disguised, that,\nnotwithstanding the occasional attempts in the course of your speech to\ncreate a different impression, you are in favor of perpetual slavery;\nand that all you say about \"ultra abolitionists\" in distinction from\n\"abolitionists,\" and about \"gradual emancipation,\" in distinction from\n\"immediate emancipation,\" is said, but to please those, who sincerely\nmake, and are gulled by, such distinctions. I do not forget, that you\nsay, that the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania was proper. But, most\nobviously, you say it, to win favor with the anti-slavery portion of the\nNorth, and to sustain the world's opinion of your devotion to the cause\nof universal liberty;--for, having made this small concession to that\nholy cause--small indeed, since Pennsylvania never at any one time, had\nfive thousand slaves--you, straightway, renew your claims to the\nconfidence of slaveholders, by assuring them, that you are opposed to\n\"any scheme whatever of emancipation, gradual or immediate,\" in States\nwhere the slave population is extensive;--and, for proof of the\nsincerity of your declaration, you refer them to the fact of your recent\nopen and effective opposition to the overthrow of slavery in your\nown State.\n\nThe South is opposed to gradual, as well as to immediate emancipation:\nand, were she, indeed, to enter upon a scheme of gradual emancipation,\nshe would speedily abandon it. The objections to swelling the number of\nher free colored population, whilst she continued to hold their brethren\nof the same race in bondage, would be found too real and alarming to\njustify her perseverance in the scheme. How strange, that men at the\nNorth, who think soundly on other subjects, should deduce the\nfeasibility of gradual emancipation in the slave states--in some of\nwhich the slaves outnumber the free--from the fact of the like\nemancipation of the comparative handful of slaves in New York and\nPennsylvania!\n\nYou say, \"_It is frequently asked, what will become of the African race\namong us? Are they forever to remain in bondage? That question was asked\nmore than half a century ago. It has been answered by fifty years of\nprosperity_.\"\n\nThe wicked man, \"spreading himself like the green bay tree,\" would\nanswer this question, as you have. They, who \"walk after their own\nlusts, saying, where is the promise of his coming--for since the fathers\nfell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the\ncreation?\" would answer it, as you have. They, whose \"heart is fully set\nin them to do evil, because sentence against an evil work is not\nexecuted speedily,\" would answer it, as you have. But, however you or\nthey may answer it, and although God may delay his \"coming\" and the\nexecution of his \"sentence,\" it, nevertheless, remains true, that \"it\nshall be well with them that fear God, but it shall not be well with\nthe wicked.\"\n\n\"Fifty years of prosperity!\" On whose testimony do we learn, that the\nlast \"fifty years\" have been \"years of prosperity\" to the South?--on the\ntestimony of oppressors or on that of the oppressed?--on that of her two\nhundred and fifty thousand slaveholders--for this is the sum total of\nthe tyrants, who rule the South and rule this nation--or on that of her\ntwo millions and three quarters of bleeding and crushed slaves? It may\nwell be, that those of the South, who \"have lived in pleasure on the\nearth and been wanton and have nourished their hearts as in a day of\nslaughter,\" should speak of \"prosperity:\" but, before we admit, that the\n\"prosperity,\" of which they speak, is that of the South, instead of\nthemselves merely, we must turn our weeping eyes to the \"laborers, who\nhave reaped down\" their oppressors' \"fields without wages,\" and the\n\"cries\" of whom \"are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth;\" and\nwe must also take into the account the tears, and sweat, and groans, and\nblood, of the millions of similar laborers, whom, during the last \"fifty\nyears,\" death has mercifully released from Southern bondage. Talks the\nslaveholder of the \"prosperity\" of the South? It is but his own\n\"prosperity\"--and a \"prosperity,\" such as the wolf may boast, when\ngorging on the flock.\n\nYou say, _that the people of the North would not think it \"neighborly\nand friendly\" if \"the people of the slave states were to form societies,\nsubsidize presses, make large pecuniary contributions, &c. to burn the\nbeautiful capitals, destroy the productive manufactories, and sink the\ngallant ships of the northern states_.\"\n\nIndeed, they would not! But, if you were to go to such pains, and\nexpense for the purpose of relieving our poor, doubling our wealth, and\npromoting the spiritual interests of both rich and poor--then we should\nbless you for practising a benevolence towards us, so like that, which\nabolitionists practise towards you; and then our children, and\nchildren's children, would bless your memories, even as your children\nand children's children will, if southern slavery be peacefully\nabolished, bless our memories, and lament that their ancestors had been\nguilty of construing our love into hatred, and our purpose of naught but\ngood into a purpose of unmingled evil.\n\nNear the close of your speech is the remark: \"_I prefer the liberty of\nmy own country to that of any other people_.\"\n\nAnother distinguished American statesman uttered the applauded\nsentiment: \"My country--my whole country--and nothing but my\ncountry;\"--and a scarcely less distinguished countryman of ours\ncommanded the public praise, by saying: \"My country right--but my\ncountry, right or wrong.\" Such are the expressions of _patriotism_ of\nthat idolized compound of selfish and base affections!\n\nWere I writing for the favor, instead of the welfare of my fellow-men, I\nshould praise rather than denounce patriotism. Were I writing in\naccordance with the maxims of a corrupt world, instead of the truth of\nJesus Christ, I should defend and extol, rather than rebuke the\ndoctrine, that we may prefer the interests of one section of the human\nfamily to those of another. If patriotism, in the ordinary acceptation\nof the word, be right, then the Bible is wrong--for that blessed book\nrequires us to love all men, even as we love ourselves. How contrary to\nits spirit and precepts, that,\n\n  \"Lands intersected by a narrow frith,\n  Abhor each other, Mountains interposed\n  Make enemies of nations, who had else,\n  Like kindred drops, been mingled into one.\"\n\nThere are many, who consider that the doctrine of loving all our fellow\nmen as ourselves, belongs, to use your words, \"to a sublime but\nimpracticable philosophy.\" Let them, however, but devoutly ask Him, who\nenjoins it, to warm and expand their selfish and contracted hearts with\nits influences; and they will know, by sweet experience, that under the\ngrace of God, the doctrine is no less \"practicable\" than \"sublime.\" Not\na few seem to suppose, that he, who has come to regard the whole world\nas his country, and all mankind as his countrymen, will have less love\nof home and country than the patriot has, who makes his own nation, and\nno other, the cherished object of his affections. But did the Saviour,\nwhen on earth, love any individual the less, because the love of His\ngreat heart was poured out, in equal tides, over the whole human family?\nAnd would He not, even in the eyes of the patriot himself, be stamped\nwith imperfection, were it, to appear, that one nation shares less than\nanother in His \"loving-kindness\" and that \"His tender mercies are (not)\nover all his works?\" Blessed be His holy name, that He was cast down the\n\"middle wall of partition\" between the Jew and Gentile!--that there is\nno respect of persons with Him!--that \"Greek\" and \"Jew, circumcision and\nuncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond\" and \"free,\" are equal\nbefore Him!\n\nHaving said, \"_I prefer the liberty of my own country to that of any\nother people_,\" you add--\"_and the liberty of my own race to that of any\nother race.\"_\n\nHow perfectly natural, that the one sentiment should follow the other!\nHow perfectly natural, that he who can limit his love by state or\nnational lines, should be also capable of confining it to certain\nvarieties of the human complexion! How perfectly natural, that, he who\nis guilty of the insane and wicked prejudice against his fellow men,\nbecause they happen to be born a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand\nmiles from the place of his nativity, should foster the no less insane\nand wicked prejudice against the \"skin not colored like his own!\" How\ndifferent is man from God! \"He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on\nthe good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.\" But were man\ninvested with supreme control, he would not distribute blessings\nimpartially even amongst the \"good\" and the \"just.\"\n\nYou close your speech with advice and an appeal to abolitionists. Are\nyou sure that an appeal, to exert the most winning influence upon our\nhearts, would not have come from some other source better than from one\nwho, not content with endeavoring to show the pernicious tendency of our\nprinciples and measures, freely imputes to us bloody and murderous\nmotives? Are you sure, that you, who ascribe to us designs more\ndiabolical than those of burning \"beautiful capitals,\" and destroying\n\"productive manufactories,\" and sinking \"gallant ships,\" are our most\nsuitable adviser? We have, however, waved all exception on this score to\nyour appeal and advice, and exposed our minds and hearts to the whole\npower and influence of your speech. And now we ask, that you, in turn,\nwill hear us. Presuming that you are too generous to refuse the\nreciprocation, we proceed to call on you to stay your efforts at\nquenching the world's sympathy for the slave--at arresting the progress\nof liberal, humane, and Christian sentiments--at upholding slavery\nagainst that Almighty arm, which now, \"after so long a time,\" is\nrevealed for its destruction. We urge you to worthier and more hopeful\nemployments. Exert your great powers for the repeal of the matchlessly\nwicked laws enacted to crush the Saviour's poor. Set a happy and an\ninfluential example to your fellow slaveholders, by a righteous\ntreatment of those, whom you unrighteously hold in bondage. Set them\nthis example, by humbling yourself before God and your assembled slaves,\nin unfeigned penitence for the deep and measureless wrongs you have done\nthe guiltless victims of your oppression--by paying those _men_, (speak\nof them, think of them, no longer, as _brutes_ and _things_)--by paying\nthese, who are my brother men and your brother men, the \"hire\" you have\nso long withheld from them, and \"which crieth\" to Heaven, because it \"is\nof you kept back\"--by breaking the galling yoke from their necks, and\nletting them \"go free.\"\n\nDo you shrink from our advice--and say, that obedience to its just\nrequirements would impoverish you? Infinitely better, that you be\nhonestly poor than dishonestly rich. Infinitely better to \"do justly,\"\nand be a Lazarus; than to become a Croesus, by clinging to and\naccumulating ill-gotten gains. Do you add to the fear of poverty, that\nof losing your honors--those which are anticipated, as well as those,\nwhich already deck your brow? Allow us to assure you, that it will be\nimpossible for you to redeem \"Henry Clay, the statesman,\" and \"Henry\nClay, the orator,\" or even \"Henry Clay, the President of the United\nStates,\" from the contempt of a slavery-loathing posterity, otherwise\nthan by coupling with those designations the inexpressibly more\nhonorable distinction of \"HENRY CLAY, THE EMANCIPATOR.\"\n\nI remain,\n\nYour friend,\n\nGERRIT SMITH.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNo. 10 THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nAMERICAN SLAVERY\n\nAS IT IS:\n\nTESTIMONY of A THOUSAND WITNESSES.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n\"Behold the wicked abominations that they do!\"--Ezekial, viii, 2.\n\n\"The righteous considereth the cause of the poor; but the wicked\nregardeth not to know it.\"--Prov. 29, 7.\n\n\"True humanity consists not in a squeamish ear, but in listening to\nthe story of human suffering and endeavoring to relieve it.\"--Charles\nJames Fox.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nNEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, OFFICE, No.\n143 NASSAU STREET. 1839.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nThis periodical contains 7 sheets--postage, under 100 miles, 10-1/2\ncts; over 100 miles, 17-1/2 cents.\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER. A majority of the facts and testimony\ncontained in this work rests upon the authority of slaveholders, whose\nnames and residences are given to the public, as vouchers for the\ntruth of their statements. That they should utter falsehoods, for the\nsake of proclaiming their own infamy, is not probable.\n\nTheir testimony is taken, mainly, from recent newspapers, published in\nthe slave states. Most of those papers will be deposited at the office\nof the American Anti-Slavery Society, 143 Nassau street, New York\nCity. Those who think the atrocities, which they describe, incredible,\nare invited to call and read for themselves. We regret that _all_ of\nthe original papers are not in our possession. The idea of preserving\nthem on file for the inspection of the incredulous, and the curious,\ndid not occur to us until after the preparation of the work was in a\nstate of forwardness, in consequence of this, some of the papers\ncannot be recovered. _Nearly all_ of them, however have been\npreserved. In all cases the _name_ of the paper is given, and, with\nvery few exceptions, the place and time, (year, month, and day) of\npublication. Some of the extracts, however not being made with\nreference to this work, and before its publication was contemplated,\nare without date; but this class of extracts is exceedingly small,\nprobably not a thirtieth of the whole.\n\nThe statements, not derived from the papers and other periodicals,\nletters, books, &c., published by slaveholders, have been furnished by\nindividuals who have resided in slave states, many of whom are natives\nof those states, and have been slaveholders. The names, residences,\n&c. of the witnesses generally are given. A number of them, however,\nstill reside in slave states;--to publish their names would be, in most\ncases, to make them the victims of popular fury.\n\nNew York, May 4, 1839.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nThe Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society, while\ntendering their grateful acknowledgments, in the name of American\nAbolitionists, and in behalf of the slave, to those who have furnished\nfor this publication the result of their residence and travel in the\nslave states of this Union, announce their determination to publish,\nfrom time to time, as they may have the materials and the funds,\nTRACTS, containing well authenticated facts, testimony, personal\nnarratives, &c. fully setting forth the _condition_ of American\nslaves. In order that they may be furnished with the requisite\nmaterials, they invite all who have had personal knowledge of the\ncondition of slaves in any of the states of this Union, to forward\ntheir testimony with their names and residences. To prevent\nimposition, it is indispensable that persons forwarding testimony, who\nare not personally known to any of the Executive Committee, or to the\nSecretaries or Editors of the American Anti-Slavery Society, should\nfurnish references to some person or persons of respectability, with\nwhom, if necessary, the Committee may communicate respecting the\nwriter.\n\nFacts and testimony respecting the condition of slaves, in _all\nrespects_, are desired; their food, (kinds, quality, and quantity,)\nclothing, lodging, dwellings, hours of labor and rest, kinds of labor,\nwith the mode of exaction, supervision, &c.--the number and time of\nmeals each day, treatment when sick, regulations inspecting their\nsocial intercourse, marriage and domestic ties, the system of torture\nto which they are subjected, with its various modes; and _in detail_,\ntheir _intellectual_ and _moral_ condition. Great care should be\nobserved in the statement of facts. Well-weighed testimony and\nwell-authenticated facts; with a responsible name, the Committee\nearnestly desire and call for. Thousands of persons in the free states\nhave ample knowledge on this subject, derived from their own\nobservation in the midst of slavery. Will such hold their peace? That\nwhich maketh manifest is _light_; he who keepeth his candle under a\nbushel at such a time and in such a cause as this, _forges fetters for\nhimself_, as well as for the slave. Let no one withhold his testimony\nbecause others have already testified to similar facts. The value of\ntestimony is by no means to be measured by the _novelty_ of the\nhorrors which it describes. _Corroborative_ testimony,--facts, similar\nto those established by the testimony of others,--is highly valuable.\nWho that can give it and has a heart of flesh, will refuse to the\nslave so small a boon?\n\nCommunications may be addressed to Theodore D. Weld, 143\nNassau-street, New York. New York, May, 1839.\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n  Twenty-seven hundred thousand free born citizens of the U.S. in\n    slavery;\n  Tender mercies of slaveholders;\n  Abominations of slavery;\n  Character of the testimony.\n\n\n\nPERSONAL NARRATIVES--PART I.\n\nNARRATIVE of NEHEMIAH CAULKINS;\n  North Carolina Slavery;\n  Methodist preaching slavedriver, Galloway;\n  Women at child-birth;\n  Slaves at labor;\n  Clothing of slaves;\n  Allowance of provisions;\n  Slave-fetters;\n  Cruelties to slaves;\n  Burying a slave alive;\n  Licentiousness of Slave-holders;\n  Rev. Thomas P. Hunt, with his \"hands tied\";\n  Preachers cringe to slavery;\n  Nakedness of slaves;\n  Slave-huts;\n  Means of subsistence for slaves;\n  Slaves' prayer.\n\nNARRATIVE of REV. HORACE MOULTON;\n  Labor of the slaves;\n  Tasks;\n  Whipping posts;\n  Food;\n  Houses;\n  Clothing;\n  Punishments;\n  Scenes of horror;\n  Constables, savage and brutal;\n  Patrols;\n  Cruelties at night;\n  _Paddle-torturing_;\n  _Cat-hauling_;\n  Branding with hot iron;\n  Murder with impunity;\n  Iron collars, yokes, clogs, and bells.\n\nNARRATIVE of SARAH M. GRIMK\u00c9;\n  Barbarous Treatment of slaves;\n  Converted slave;\n  Professor of religion, near death, tortured his slave for visiting\n    his companion;\n  Counterpart of James Williams' description of Larrimore's wife;\n  Head of runaway slave on a pole;\n  Governor of North Carolina left his sick slave to perish;\n  Cruelty to Women slaves;\n  Christian slave a martyr for Jesus.\n\nTESTIMONY of REV. JOHN GRAHAM;\n  Twenty-seven slaves whipped.\n\nTESTIMONY of WILLIAM POE;\n  Harris whipped a girl to death;\n  Captain of the U.S. Navy murdered his boy, was tried and acquitted;\n  Overseer burnt a slave;\n  Cruelties to slaves.\n\n\n\nPRIVATIONS OF THE SLAVES.\n\nFOOD;\n  Suffering from hunger;\n  Rations in the U.S. Army, &c;\n  Prison rations;\n  Testimony.\nLABOR;\n  Slaves are overworked;\n  Witnesses;\n  Henry Clay;\n  Child-bearing prevented;\n  Dr. Channing;\n  Sacrifice of a set of hands every seven years;\n  Testimony;\n  Laws of Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia.\nCLOTHING;\n  Witnesses;\n  Advertisements;\n  Testimony;\n  Field-hands;\n  Nudity of slaves;\n  John Randolph's legacy to Essex and Hetty.\nDWELLINGS;\n  Witnesses;\n  Slaves are wretchedly sheltered and lodged.\nTREATMENT OF THE SICK.\n\n\n\nPERSONAL NARRATIVES, PART II.\n\nTESTIMONY of the REV. WILLIAM T. ALLAN;\n  Woman delivered of a dead child, being whipped;\n  Slaves shot by Hilton;\n  Cruelties to slaves;\n  Whipping post;\n  Assaults, and maimings;\n  Murders;\n  Puryear, \"the Devil,\";\n  Overseers always armed;\n  Licentiousness of Overseers;\n  \"Bend your backs\";\n  Mrs. H., a Presbyterian, desirous to cut Arthur Tappan's throat;\n  Clothing, Huts, and Herding of slaves;\n  Iron yokes with prongs;\n  Marriage unknown among slaves;\n  Presbyterian minister at Huntsville;\n  Concubinage in Preacher's house;\n  Slavery, the great wrong.\n\nNARRATIVE of WILLIAM LEFTWICH;\n  Slave's life.\n\nTESTIMONY of LEMUEL SAPINGTON;\n  Nakedness of slaves;\n  Traffic in slaves.\n\nTESTIMONY of MRS. LOWRY;\n  Long, a professor of religion killed three men;\n  Salt water applied to wounds to keep them from putrefaction.\n\nTESTIMONY of WILLIAM C. GILDERSLEEVE;\n  Acts of cruelty.\n\nTESTIMONY of HIRAM WHITE;\n  Woman with a child chained to her neck;\n  Amalgamation, and mulatto children.\n\nTESTIMONY of JOHN M. NELSON;\n  Rev. Conrad Speece influenced Alexander Nelson when dying not to\n    emancipate his slaves;\n  George Bourne opposed Slavery in 1810.\n\nTESTIMONY of ANGELINA GRIMK\u00c9 WELD;\n  House-servants;\n  Slave-driving female professors of religion at Charleston, S.C.;\n  Whipping women and prayer in the same room;\n  Tread-mills;\n  _Slaveholding religion_;\n  Slave-driving mistress prayed for the divine blessing upon her\n    whipping of an aged woman;\n  Girl killed with impunity;\n  Jewish law;\n  Barbarities;\n  Medical attendance upon slaves;\n  Young man beaten to epilepsy and insanity;\n  Mistresses flog their slaves;\n  Blood-bought luxuries;\n  Borrowing of slaves;\n  Meals of slaves;\n  All comfort of slaves disregarded;\n  Severance of companion lovers;\n  Separation of parents and children;\n  Slave espionage;\n  Sufferings of slaves;\n  Horrors of slavery indescribable.\n\nTESTIMONY of CRUELTY INFLICTED UPON SLAVES;\n  Colonization Society;\n  Emancipation Society of North Carolina;\n  Kentucky.\n\nPUNISHMENTS;\n  Floggings;\n  Witnesses and Testimony.\n\nSLAVE DRIVING;\n  Droves of slaves.\n\nCRUELTY TO SLAVES;\n  Slaves like Stock without a shelter;\n  \"Six pound paddle.\"\n\nTORTURES OF SLAVES.\n  Iron collars, chains, fetters, and hand-cuffs;\n  Advertisements for fugitive slaves;\n  Testimony;\n  Iron head-frame;\n  Chain coffles;\n  Droves of 'human cattle';\n  Washington, the National slave market;\n  Testimony of James K. Paulding, Secretary of the Navy;\n  _Literary fraud and pretended prophecy_ by Mr. Paulding;\n  Brandings, Maimings, and Gun-shot wounds;\n  Witnesses and Testimony;\n  Mr. Sevier, senator of the U.S.;\n  Judge Hitchcock, of Mobile;\n  Commendable fidelity to truth in the advertisements of slaveholders;\n  Thomas Aylethorpe cut off a slave's ear, and sent it to Lewis Tappan;\n  Advertisements for runaway slaves with their teeth mutilated;\n  Excessive cruelty to slaves;\n  Slaves burned alive;\n  Mr. Turner, a slave-butcher;\n  Slaves roasted and flogged;\n  Cruelties common;\n  Fugitive slaves;\n  Slaves forced to eat tobacco worms;\n  Baptist Christians escaping from slavery;\n  Christian whipped for praying;\n  James K. Paulding's testimony;\n  Slave driven to death;\n  Coroner's inquest on Harney's murdered female slave;\n  Man-stealing encouraged by law;\n  Trial for a murdered slave;\n  Female slave whipped to death, and during the torture delivered of\n    a dead infant;\n  Slaves murdered;\n  Slave driven to death;\n  Slaves killed with impunity;\n  George, a slave, chopped piece-meal, and burnt by Lilburn Lewis;\n  Retributive justice in the awful death of Lilburn Lewis;\n  Trial of Isham Lewis, a slave murderer.\n\n\nPERSONAL NARRATIVES.--PART III.\n\nNARRATIVE OF REV. FRANCIS HAWLEY;\n  Plantations;\n  Overseers;\n  No appeal from Overseers to Masters.\n\nCLOTHING;\n  Nudity of slaves.\n\nWORK;\n  Cotton-picking;\n  Mothers of slaves;\n  Presbyterian minister killed his slave;\n  Methodist colored preacher hung;\n  Licentiousness;\n  Slave-traffic;\n  Night in a Slaveholder's house;\n  Twelve slaves murdered;\n  Slave driving Baptist preachers;\n  Hunting of runaways slaves;\n  Amalgamation.\n\nTESTIMONY OF REUBEN C. MACY, AND RICHARD MACY.\n  Whipping of slaves.\n  Testimony of Eleazer Powel;\n  Overseer of Hinds Stuart, shot a slave for opposing the torture of\n    his female companion.\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. WILLIAM SCALES.\n  Three slaves murdered with impunity;\n  Separation of lovers, parents, and children.\n\nTESTIMONY OF JOS. IDE. Mrs. T.\n  a Presbyterian kind woman-killer;\n  Female slave whipped to death;\n  Food;\n  Nakedness of slaves;\n  Old man flogged after praying for his tyrant;\n  Slave-huts not as comfortable as pig-sties.\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. PHINEAS SMITH.\n  Texas;\n  Suit for the value of slave 'property';\n  Anson Jones, Ambassador from Texas;\n  No trial or punishment for the murder of slaves;\n  Slave-hunting in Texas;\n  Suffering drives the slaves to despair and suicide.\n\nTESTIMONY OF PHIL'N BLISS.\n  Ignorance of northern citizens respecting slavery;\n  Betting upon crops;\n  Extent and cruelty of the punishment of slaves;\n  Slaveholders excuse their cruelties by the example of Preachers, and\n    professors of religion, and Northern citizens;\n  Novel torture, eulogized by a professor of religion;\n  Whips as common as the plough;\n  _Ladies_ use cowhides, with shovel and tongs.\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. WM. A. CHAPIN.\n  Slave-labor;\n  Starvation of slaves;\n  Slaves lacerated, without clothing, and without food.\n\nTESTIMONY OF T.M. MACY.\n  Cotton plantations on St. Simon's Island;\n  Cultivation of rice;\n  No time for relaxation;\n  Sabbath a nominal rest;\n  Clothing;\n  Flogging.\n\nTESTIMONY OF F.C. MACY.\n  Slave cabins;\n  Food;\n  Whipping every day;\n  Treatment of slaves as brutes;\n  Slave-boys fight for slaveholder's amusement;\n  Amalgamation common.\n\nTESTIMONY OF A CLERGYMAN.\n  Natchez;\n  'Lie down,' for whipping;\n  Slave-hunting;\n  'Ball and chain' men;\n  Whipping at the same time, on three plantations;\n  Hours of Labor;\n  _Christians_ slave-hunting;\n  Many runaway slaves annually shot;\n  Slaves in the stocks;\n  Slave branding.\n\nCONDITION OF SLAVES.\n  Slavery is unmixed cruelty;\n  Fear the only motive of slaves;\n  Pain is the means, not the end of slave-driving;\n  Characters of Slave drivers and Overseers, brutal, sensual, and\n    violent;\n  Ownership of human beings utterly destroys _their_ comfort.\n\n\nOBJECTIONS CONSIDERED:\n\nI. Such cruelties are incredible.\n  Slaves deemed to be working animals, or merchandize; and called\n    'Stock,' 'Increase,' 'Breeders,' 'Drivers,' 'Property,' 'Human\n    cattle';\n  Testimony of Thomas Jefferson;\n  Slaves worse treated than quadrupeds;\n  Contrast between the usage of slaves and animals;\n  Testimony;\n  Northern incredulity discreditable to consistency;\n  Religious persecutions;\n  Recent 'Lynchings,' and Riots, in the United States;\n  Many outrageous Felonies perpetrated with impunity;\n  Large faith of the objectors who 'can't believe';\n  'Doe faces,' and 'Dough faces';\n  Slave-drivers acknowledge their own enormities;\n  Slave plantations in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi 'second only\n    to hell';\n  Legislature of North Carolina;\n  Incredulity discreditable to intelligence;\n  Abuse of power in the state, and churches;\n  Legal restraints;\n  American slaveholders possess absolute power;\n  Slaves deprived of the safe guards of law;\n  Mutual aversion between the oppressor and the slave;\n  Cruelty the product of arbitrary power;\n  Testimony of Thomas Jefferson;\n  Judge Tucker;\n  Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina, and Georgia;\n  General William H. Harrison;\n  President Edwards;\n  Montesquieu;\n  Wilberforce;\n  Whitbread;\n  Characters.\n\nOBJECTION II.--\"Slaveholders protest that they treat their slaves well.\"\n  Not testimony but opinion;\n  'Good treatment' of slaves;\n  Novel form of cruelty.\n\nOBJECTION III.--\"Slaveholders are proverbial for their kindness, and\n generosity.\"\n  Hospitality and benevolence contrasted;\n  Slaveholders in Congress, respecting Texas and Hayti;\n  'Fictitious kindness and hospitality.'\n\nOBJECTION IV.--\"Northern visitors at the south testify that the slaves\n are not cruelly treated.\"\n  Testimony;\n  'Gubner poisened';\n  Field-hands;\n  Parlor slaves;\n  Chief Justice Durell.\n\nOBJECTION V.--\"It is for the interest of the masters to treat their\n slaves well.\"\n  Testimony;\n  Rev. J.N. Maffitt;\n  Masters interest to treat cruelly the great body of the slaves;\n  Various classes of slaves;\n  Hired slaves;\n  Advertisements.\n\nOBJECTION VI.--\"Slaves multiply; a proof that they are not inhumanly\n treated, and are in a comfortable condition.\"\n  Testimony;\n  Martin Van Buren;\n  Foreign slave trade;\n  'Beware of Kidnappers';\n  'Citizens sold as slaves';\n  Kidnapping at New Orleans;\n  Slave breeders.\n\nOBJECTION VII.--\"Public opinion is a protection to the slave.\"\n  Decision of the Supreme Court of North and South Carolina;\n  'Protection of slaves';\n  Mischievous effects of 'public opinion' concerning slavery;\n  Laws of different states;\n  Heart of slaveholders;\n  Reasons for enacting the laws concerning cruelties to slaves;\n  'Moderate correction';\n  Hypocrisy and malignity of slave laws;\n  Testimony of slaves excluded;\n  Capital crimes for slaves;\n  'Slaveholding brutality,' worse than that of Caligula;\n  Public opinion destroys fundamental rights;\n  Character of slaveholders' advertisements;\n  Public opinion is diabolical;\n  Brutal indecency;\n  Murder of slaves by law;\n  Judge Lawless;\n  Slave-hunting;\n  Health of slaves;\n  Acclimation of slaves;\n  Liberty of Slaves;\n  Kidnapping of free citizens;\n  Law of Louisiana;\n  FRIENDS', memorial;\n  Domestic slavery;\n  Advertisements;\n  Childhood, old age;\n  Inhumanity;\n  Butchering dead slaves;\n  South Carolina Medical college;\n  Charleston Medical Infirmary;\n  Advertisements;\n  Slave murders;\n   John Randolph;\n  Charleston slave auctions;\n  'Never lose a day's work';\n  Stocks;\n  Slave-breeding;\n  Lynch law;\n  Slaves murdered;\n  Slavery among Christians;\n  Licentiousness encouraged by preachers;\n  'Fine old preacher who dealt in slaves';\n  Cruelty to slaves by professors of religion;\n  Slave-breeding;\n  Daniel O'Connel, and Andrew Stevenson;\n  Virginia a negro raising menagerie;\n  Legislature of Virginia;\n  Colonization Society;\n  Inter-state slave traffic;\n  Battles in Congress;\n  Duelling;\n  Cock-fighting;\n  Horse-racing;\n  Ignorance of slaveholders;\n  'Slaveholding civilization, and morality';\n  Arkansas;\n  Slave driving ruffians;\n  Missouri;\n  Alabama;\n  Butcheries in Mississippi;\n  Louisiana;\n  Tennessee;\n  Fatal Affray in Columbia;\n  Presentment of the Grand Jury of Shelby County;\n  Testimony of Bishop Smith of Kentucky.\n\nATLANTIC SLAVEHOLDING REGION.\n  Georgia;\n  North Carolina;\n  Trading with Negroes;\n  Conclusion.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nReader, you are empannelled as a juror to try a plain case and bring\nin an honest verdict. The question at issue is not one of law, but of\nfacts--\"What is the actual condition of the slaves in the United\nStates?\" A plainer case never went to a jury. Look at it. TWENTY-SEVEN\nHUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS in this country, men, women, and children,\nare in SLAVERY. Is slavery, as a condition for human beings, good,\nbad, or indifferent? We submit the question without argument. You have\ncommon sense, and conscience, and a human heart;--pronounce upon it.\nYou have a wife, or a husband, a child, a father, a mother, a brother\nor a sister--make the case your own, make it theirs, and bring in your\nverdict. The case of Human Rights against Slavery has been adjudicated\nin the court of conscience times innumerable. The same verdict has\nalways been rendered--\"Guilty;\" the same sentence has always been\npronounced, \"Let it be accursed;\" and human nature, with her million\nechoes, has rung it round the world in every language under heaven,\n\"Let it be accursed. Let it be accursed.\" His heart is false to human\nnature, who will not say \"Amen.\" There is not a man on earth who does\nnot believe that slavery is a curse. Human beings may be inconsistent,\nbut human _nature_ is true to herself. She has uttered her testimony\nagainst slavery with a shriek ever since the monster was begotten; and\ntill it perishes amidst the execrations of the universe, she will\ntraverse the world on its track, dealing her bolts upon its head, and\ndashing against it her condemning brand. We repeat it, every man knows\nthat slavery is a curse. Whoever denies this, his lips libel his\nheart. Try him; clank the chains in his ears, and tell him they are\nfor _him_; give him an hour to prepare his wife and children for a\nlife of slavery; bid him make haste and get ready their necks for the\nyoke, and their wrists for the coffle chains, then look at his pale\nlips and trembling knees, and you have _nature's_ testimony against\nslavery.\n\nTwo millions seven hundred thousand persons in these States are in\nthis condition. They were made slaves and are held each by force, and\nby being put in fear, and this for no crime! Reader, what have you to\nsay of such treatment? Is it right, just, benevolent? Suppose I should\nseize you, rob you of your liberty, drive you into the field, and make\nyou work without pay as long as you live, would that be justice and\nkindness, or monstrous injustice and cruelty? Now, every body knows\nthat the slaveholders do these things to the slaves every day, and yet\nit is stoutly affirmed that they treat them well and kindly, and that\ntheir tender regard for their slaves restrains the masters from\ninflicting cruelties upon them. We shall go into no metaphysics to\nshow the absurdity of this pretence. The man who _robs_ you every day,\nis, forsooth, quite too tender-hearted ever to cuff or kick you! True,\nhe can snatch your money, but he does it gently lest he should hurt\nyou. He can empty your pockets without qualms, but if your _stomach_\nis empty, it cuts him to the quick. He can make you work a life time\nwithout pay, but loves you too well to let you go hungry. He fleeces\nyou of your _rights_ with a relish, but is shocked if you work\nbareheaded in summer, or in winter without warm stockings. He can make\nyou go without your _liberty_, but never without a shirt. He can\ncrush, in you, all hope of bettering your condition, by vowing that\nyou shall die his slave, but though he can coolly torture your\nfeelings, he is too compassionate to lacerate your back--he can break\nyour heart, but he is very tender of your skin. He can strip you of\nall protection and thus expose you to all outrages, but if you are\nexposed to the _weather_, half clad and half sheltered, how yearn his\ntender bowels! What! slaveholders talk of treating men well, and yet\nnot only rob them of all they get, and as fast as they get it, but rob\nthem of _themselves_, also; their very hands and feet, all their\nmuscles, and limbs, and senses, their bodies and minds, their time and\nliberty and earnings, their free speech and rights of conscience,\ntheir right to acquire knowledge, and property, and reputation;--and\nyet they, who plunder them of all these, would fain make us believe\nthat their soft hearts ooze out so lovingly toward their slaves that\nthey always keep them well housed and well clad, never push them too\nhard in the field, never make their dear backs smart, nor let their\ndear stomachs get empty.\n\nBut there is no end to these absurdities. Are slaveholders dunces, or\ndo they take all the rest of the world to be, that they think to\nbandage our eyes with such thin gauzes? Protesting their kind regard\nfor those whom they hourly plunder of all they have and all they get!\nWhat! when they have seized their victims, and annihilated all their\n_rights_, still claim to be the special guardians of their\n_happiness_! Plunderers of their liberty, yet the careful suppliers of\ntheir wants? Robbers of their earnings, yet watchful sentinels round\ntheir interests, and kind providers for their comfort? Filching all\ntheir time, yet granting generous donations for rest and sleep?\nStealing the use of their muscles, yet thoughtful of their ease?\nPutting them under _drivers_, yet careful that they are not\nhard-pushed? Too humane forsooth to stint the stomachs of their\nslaves, yet force their _minds_ to starve, and brandish over them\npains and penalties, if they dare to reach forth for the smallest\ncrumb of knowledge, even a letter of the alphabet!\n\nIt is no marvel that slaveholders are always talking of their _kind\ntreatment_ of their slaves. The only marvel is, that men of sense can\nbe gulled by such professions. Despots always insist that they are\nmerciful. The greatest tyrants that ever dripped with blood have\nassumed the titles of \"most gracious,\" \"most clement,\" \"most\nmerciful,\" &c., and have ordered their crouching vassals to accost\nthem thus. When did not vice lay claim to those virtues which are the\nopposites of its habitual crimes? The guilty, according to their own\nshowing, are always innocent, and cowards brave, and drunkards sober,\nand harlots chaste, and pickpockets honest to a fault. Every body\nunderstands this. When a man's tongue grows thick, and he begins to\nhiccough and walk cross-legged, we expect him, as a matter of course,\nto protest that he is not drunk; so when a man is always singing the\npraises of his own honesty, we instinctively watch his movements and\nlook out for our pocket-books. Whoever is simple enough to be hoaxed\nby such professions, should never be trusted in the streets without\nsomebody to take care of him. Human nature works out in slaveholders\njust as it does to other men, and in American slaveholders just as in\nEnglish, French, Turkish, Algerine, Roman and Grecian. The Spartans\nboasted of their kindness to their slaves, while they whipped them to\ndeath by thousands at the altars of their gods. The Romans lauded\ntheir own mild treatment of their bondmen, while they branded their\nnames on their flesh with hot irons, and when old, threw them into\ntheir fish ponds, or like Cato \"the Just,\" starved them to death. It\nis the boast of the Turks that they treat their slaves as though they\nwere their children, yet their common name for them is \"dogs,\" and for\nthe merest trifles, their feet are bastinadoed to a jelly, or their\nheads clipped off with the scimetar. The Portuguese pride themselves\non their gentle bearing toward their slaves, yet the streets of Rio\nJaneiro are filled with naked men and women yoked in pairs to carts\nand wagons, and whipped by drivers like beasts of burden.\n\nSlaveholders, the world over, have sung the praises of their tender\nmercies towards their slaves. Even the wretches that plied the African\nslave trade, tried to rebut Clarkson's proofs of their cruelties, by\nspeeches, affidavits, and published pamphlets, setting forth the\naccommodations of the \"middle passage,\" and their kind attentions to\nthe comfort of those whom they had stolen from their homes, and kept\nstowed away under hatches, during a voyage of four thousand miles. So,\naccording to the testimony of the autocrat of the Russias, he\nexercises great clemency towards the Poles, though he exiles them by\nthousands to the snows of Siberia, and tramples them down by millions,\nat home. Who discredits the atrocities perpetrated by Ovando in\nHispaniola, Pizarro in Peru, and Cortez in Mexico,--because they\nfilled the ears of the Spanish Court with protestations of their\nbenignant rule? While they were yoking the enslaved natives like\nbeasts to the draught, working them to death by thousands in their\nmines, hunting them with bloodhounds, torturing them on racks, and\nbroiling them on beds of coals, their representations to the mother\ncountry teemed with eulogies of their parental sway! The bloody\natrocities of Philip II, in the expulsion of his Moorish subjects, are\nmatters of imperishable history. Who disbelieves or doubts them? And\nyet his courtiers magnified his virtues and chanted his clemency and\nhis mercy, while the wail of a million victims, smitten down by a\ntempest of fire and slaughter let loose at his bidding, rose above the\n_Te Deums_ that thundered from all Spain's cathedrals. When Louis XIV.\nrevoked the edict of Nantz, and proclaimed two millions of his\nsubjects free plunder for persecution,--when from the English channel\nto the Pyrennees the mangled bodies of the Protestants were dragged on\nreeking hurdles by a shouting populace, he claimed to be \"the father\nof his people,\" and wrote himself \"His most _Christian_ Majesty.\"\n\nBut we will not anticipate topics, the full discussion of which more\nnaturally follows than precedes the inquiry into the actual condition\nand treatment of slaves in the United States.\n\nAs slaveholders and their apologists are volunteer witnesses in their\nown cause, and are flooding the world with testimony that their slaves\nare kindly treated; that they are well fed, well clothed, well housed,\nwell lodged, moderately worked, and bountifully provided with all\nthings needful for their comfort, we propose--first, to disprove their\nassertions by the testimony of a multitude of impartial witnesses, and\nthen to put slaveholders themselves through a course of\ncross-questioning which shall draw their condemnation out of their own\nmouths. We will prove that the slaves in the United States are treated\nwith barbarous inhumanity; that they are overworked, underfed,\nwretchedly clad and lodged, and have insufficient sleep; that they are\noften made to wear round their necks iron collars armed with prongs,\nto drag heavy chains and weights at their feet while working in the\nfield, and to wear yokes, and bells, and iron horns; that they are\noften kept confined in the stocks day and night for weeks together,\nmade to wear gags in their mouths for hours or days, have some of\ntheir front teeth torn out or broken off, that they may be easily\ndetected when they run away; that they are frequently flogged with\nterrible severity, have red pepper rubbed into their lacerated flesh,\nand hot brine, spirits of turpentine, &c., poured over the gashes to\nincrease the torture; that they are often stripped naked, their backs\nand limbs cut with knives, bruised and mangled by scores and hundreds\nof blows with the paddle, and terribly torn by the claws of cats,\ndrawn over them by their tormentors; that they are often hunted with\nbloodhounds and shot down like beasts, or torn in pieces by dogs; that\nthey are often suspended by the arms and whipped and beaten till they\nfaint, and when revived by restoratives, beaten again till they faint,\nand sometimes till they die; that their ears are often cut off, their\neyes knocked out, their bones broken, their flesh branded with red hot\nirons; that they are maimed, mutilated and burned to death over slow\nfires. All these things, and more, and worse, we shall _prove_.\nReader, we know whereof we affirm, we have weighed it well; _more and\nworse_ WE WILL PROVE. Mark these words, and read on; we will establish\nall these facts by the testimony of scores and hundreds of eye\nwitnesses, by the testimony of _slaveholders_ in all parts of the\nslave states, by slaveholding members of Congress and of state\nlegislatures, by ambassadors to foreign courts, by judges, by doctors\nof divinity, and clergymen of all denominations, by merchants,\nmechanics, lawyers and physicians, by presidents and professors in\ncolleges and _professional_ seminaries, by planters, overseers and\ndrivers. We shall show, not merely that such deeds are committed, but\nthat they are frequent; not done in corners, but before the sun; not\nin one of the slave states, but in all of them; not perpetrated by\nbrutal overseers and drivers merely, but by magistrates, by\nlegislators, by professors of religion, by preachers of the gospel, by\ngovernors of states, by \"gentlemen of property and standing,\" and by\ndelicate females moving in the \"highest circles of society.\" We know,\nfull well, the outcry that will be made by multitudes, at these\ndeclarations; the multiform cavils, the flat denials, the charges of\n\"exaggeration\" and \"falsehood\" so often bandied, the sneers of\naffected contempt at the credulity that can believe such things, and\nthe rage and imprecations against those who give them currency. We\nknow, too, the threadbare sophistries by which slaveholders and their\napologists seek to evade such testimony. If they admit that such deeds\nare committed, they tell us that they are exceedingly rare, and\ntherefore furnish no grounds for judging of the general treatment of\nslaves; that occasionally a brutal wretch in the _free_ states\nbarbarously butchers his wife, but that no one thinks of inferring\nfrom that, the general treatment of wives at the North and West.\n\nThey tell us, also, that the slaveholders of the South are\nproverbially hospitable, kind, and generous, and it is incredible that\nthey can perpetrate such enormities upon human beings; further, that\nit is absurd to suppose that they would thus injure their own\nproperty, that self-interest would prompt them to treat their slaves\nwith kindness, as none but fools and madmen wantonly destroy their own\nproperty; further, that Northern visitors at the South come back\ntestifying to the kind treatment of the slaves, and that the slaves\nthemselves corroborate such representations. All these pleas, and\nscores of others, are bruited in every corner of the free States; and\nwho that hath eyes to see, has not sickened at the blindness that saw\nnot, at the palsy of heart that felt not, or at the cowardice and\nsycophancy that dared not expose such shallow fallacies. We are not to\nbe turned from our purpose by such vapid babblings. In their\nappropriate places, we propose to consider these objections and\nvarious others, and to show their emptiness and folly.\n\nThe foregoing declarations touching the inflictions upon slaves, are\nnot hap-hazard assertions, nor the exaggerations of fiction conjured\nup to carry a point; nor are they the rhapsodies of enthusiasm, nor\ncrude conclusions, jumped at by hasty and imperfect investigation, nor\nthe aimless outpourings either of sympathy or poetry; but they are\nproclamations of deliberate, well-weighed convictions, produced by\naccumulations of proof, by affirmations and affidavits, by written\ntestimonies and statements of a cloud of witnesses who speak what they\nknow and testify what they have seen, and all these impregnably\nfortified by proofs innumerable, in the relation of the slaveholder to\nhis slave, the nature of arbitrary power, and the nature and history\nof man.\n\nOf the witnesses whose testimony is embodied in the following pages, a\nmajority are slaveholders, many of the remainder have been\nslaveholders, but now reside in free States.\n\nAnother class whose testimony will be given, consists of those who\nhave furnished the results of their own observation during periods of\nresidence and travel in the slave States.\n\nWe will first present the reader with a few PERSONAL NARRATIVES\nfurnished by individuals, natives of slave states and others,\nembodying, in the main, the results of their own observation in the\nmidst of slavery--facts and scenes of which they were eye-witnesses.\n\nIn the next place, to give the reader as clear and definite a view of\nthe actual condition of slaves as possible, we propose to make\nspecific points; to pass in review the various particulars in the\nslave's condition, simply presenting sufficient testimony under each\nhead to settle the question in every candid mind. The examination will\nbe conducted by stating distinct propositions, and in the following\norder of topics.\n\n1. THE FOOD OF THE SLAVES, THE KINDS, QUALITY AND QUANTITY, ALSO, THE\nNUMBER AND TIME OF MEALS EACH DAY, &c.\n\n2. THEIR HOURS OF LABOR AND REST.\n\n3. THEIR CLOTHING.\n\n4. THEIR DWELLINGS.\n\n5. THEIR PRIVATIONS AND INFLICTIONS.\n\n6. _In conclusion,_ a variety of OBJECTIONS and ARGUMENTS will be\nconsidered which are used by the advocates of slavery to set\naside the force of testimony, and to show that the slaves are kindly\ntreated.\n\nBetween the larger divisions of the work, brief personal narratives\nwill be inserted, containing a mass of facts and testimony, both\ngeneral and specific.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n\n\nPERSONAL NARRATIVES.\n\nMR. NEHEMIAH CAULKINS, of Waterford, New London Co., Connecticut, has\nfurnished the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety, with the following statements relative to the condition and\ntreatment of slaves, in the south eastern part of North Carolina. Most\nof the facts related by Mr. Caulkins fell under his personal\nobservation. The air of candor and honesty that pervades the\nnarrative, the manner in which Mr. C. has drawn it up, the good sense,\njust views, conscience and heart which it exhibits, are sufficient of\nthemselves to commend it to all who have ears to hear.\n\nThe Committee have no personal acquaintance with Mr. Caulkins, but\nthey have ample testimonials from the most respectable sources, all of\nwhich represent him to be a man whose long established character for\nsterling integrity, sound moral principle and piety, have secured for\nhim the uniform respect and confidence of those who know him.\n\nWithout further preface the following testimonials are submitted to\nthe reader.\n\n\nThis may certify, that we the subscribers have lived for a number of\nyears past in the neighborhood with Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, and have no\nhesitation in stating that we consider him a man of high\nrespectability and that his character for truth and veracity is\nunimpeachable. PETER COMSTOCK. A.F. PERKINS, M.D. ISAAC BEEBE.\nLODOWICK BEEBE. D. G. OTIS. PHILIP MORGAN. JAMES ROGERS, M.D.\n_Waterford, Ct., Jan. 16th, 1839._\n\n\nMr. Comstock is a Justice of the Peace. Mr. L. Beebe is the Town Clerk\nof Waterford. Mr. J. Beebe is a member of the Baptist Church. Mr. Otis\nis a member of the Congregational Church. Mr. Morgan is a Justice of\nthe Peace, and Messrs. Perkins and Rogers are designated by their\ntitles. All those gentlemen are citizens of Waterford, Connecticut.\n\n\nTo whom it may concern. This may certify that Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins,\nof Waterford, in New London County, is a near neighbor to the\nsubscriber, and has been for many years. I do consider him a man of\n_unquestionable veracity_ and certify that he is so considered by\npeople to whom he is personally known. EDWARD R. WARREN. _Jan. 15th,\n1839._\n\n\nMr. Warren is a Commissioner (Associate Judge) of the County Court,\nfor New London County.\n\n\nThis may certify that Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, of the town of Waterford,\nCounty of New London, and State of Connecticut, is a member of the\nfirst Baptist Church in said Waterford, is in good standing, and is\nesteemed by us a man of truth and veracity. FRANCIS DARROW, Pastor of\nsaid Church. _Waterford, Jan. 16th, 1839._\n\n\n\nThis may certify that Nehemiah Caulkins, of Waterford, lives near me,\nand I always esteemed him, and believe him to be a man of truth and\nveracity. ELISHA BECKWITH. _Jan. 16th, 1839._\n\n\nMr. Beckwith is a Justice of the Peace, a Post Master, and a Deacon of\nthe Baptist Church.\n\nMr. Dwight P. Jones, a member of the Second Congregational Church in\nthe city of New London, in a recent letter, says;\n\n\"Mr. Caulkins is a member of the Baptist Church in Waterford, and in\nevery respect a very worthy citizen. I have labored with him in the\nSabbath School, and know him to be a man of active piety. The most\n_entire confidence_ may be placed in the truth of his statements.\nWhere he is known, no one will call them in question.\"\n\nWe close these testimonials with an extract, of a letter from William\nBolles, Esq., a well known and respected citizen of New London, Ct.\n\n\"Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins resides in the town of Waterford, about six\nmiles from this City. His opportunities to acquire exact knowledge in\nrelation to Slavery, in that section of our country, to which his\nnarrative is confined, have been very great. He is a carpenter, and\nwas employed principally on the plantations, working at his trade,\nbeing thus almost constantly in the company of the slaves as well as\nof their masters. His full heart readily responded to the call, [for\ninformation relative to slavery,] for, as he expressed it, he had long\ndesired that others might know what he had seen, being confident that\na general knowledge of facts as they exist, would greatly promote the\noverthrow of the system. He is a man of undoubted character; and where\nknown, his statements need no corroboration.\n\nYours, &c. WILLIAM BOLLES.\"\n\n\n\n\nNARRATIVE OF MR. CAULKINS.\n\nI feel it my duty to tell some things that I know about slavery, in\norder, if possible, to awaken more feeling at the North in behalf of\nthe slave. The treatment of the slaves on the plantations where I had\nthe greatest opportunity of getting knowledge, _was not so bad_ as\nthat on some neighboring estates, where the owners were noted for\ntheir cruelty. There were, however, other estates in the vicinity,\nwhere the treatment was better; the slaves were better clothed and\nfed, were not worked so hard, and more attention was paid to their\nquarters.\n\nThe scenes that I have witnessed are enough to harrow up the soul; but\ncould the slave be permitted to tell the story of his sufferings,\nwhich no white man, not linked with slavery, _is allowed to know,_ the\nland would vomit out the horrible system, slaveholders and all, if\nthey would not unclinch their grasp upon their defenceless victims.\n\nI spent eleven winters, between the years 1824 and 1835, in the state\nof North Carolina, mostly in the vicinity of Wilmington; and four out\nof the eleven on the estate of Mr. John Swan, five or six miles from\nthat place. There were on his plantation about seventy slaves, male\nand female: some were married, and others lived together as man and\nwife, without even a mock ceremony. With their owners generally, it is\na matter of indifference; the marriage of slaves not being recognized\nby the slave code. The slaves, however, think much of being married by\na clergyman.\n\nThe cabins or huts of the slaves were small, and were built\nprincipally by the slaves themselves, as they could find time on\nSundays and moonlight nights; they went into the swamps, cut the logs,\nbacked or hauled them to the quarters, and put up their cabins.\n\nWhen I first knew Mr. Swan's plantation, his overseer was a man who\nhad been a Methodist minister. He treated the slaves with great\ncruelty. His reason for leaving the ministry and becoming an overseer,\nas I was informed, was this: his wife died, at which providence he was\nso enraged, that he swore he would not preach for the Lord another\nday. This man continued on the plantation about three years; at the\nclose of which, on settlement of accounts, Mr. Swan owed him about\n$400, for which he turned him out a negro woman, and about twenty\nacres of land. He built a log hut, and took the woman to live with\nhim; since which, I have been at his hut, and seen four or five\nmulatto children. He has been appointed _justice of the peace_, and\nhis place as overseer was afterwards occupied by a Mr. Galloway.\n\nIt is customary in that part of the country, to let the hogs run in\nthe woods. On one occasion a slave caught a pig about two months old,\nwhich he carried to his quarters. The overseer, getting information of\nthe fact, went to the field where he was at work, and ordered him to\ncome to him. The slave at once suspected it was something about the\npig, and fearing punishment, dropped his hoe and ran for the woods. He\nhad got but a few rods, when the overseer raised his gun, loaded with\nduck shot, and brought him down. It is a common practice for overseers\nto go into the field armed with a gun or pistols, and sometimes both.\nHe was taken up by the slaves and carried to the plantation hospital,\nand the physician sent for. A physician was employed by the year to\ntake care of the sick or wounded slaves. In about six weeks this slave\ngot better, and was able to come out of the hospital. He came to the\nmill where I was at work, and asked me to examine his body, which I\ndid, and counted twenty-six duck shot still remaining in his flesh,\nthough the doctor had removed a number while he was laid up.\n\nThere was a slave on Mr. Swan's plantation, by the name of Harry, who,\nduring the absence of his master, ran away and secreted himself is the\nwoods. This the slaves sometimes do, when the master is absent for\nseveral weeks, to escape the cruel treatment of the overseer. It is\ncommon for them to make preparations, by secreting a mortar, a\nhatchet, some cooking utensils, and whatever things they can get that\nwill enable them to live while they are in the woods or swamps. Harry\nstaid about three months, and lived by robbing the rice grounds, and\nby such other means as came in his way. The slaves generally know\nwhere the runaway is secreted, and visit him at night and on Sundays.\nOn the return of his master, some of the slaves were sent for Harry.\nWhen he came home, he was seized and confined in the stocks. The\nstocks were built in the barn, and consisted of two heavy pieces of\ntimber, ten or more feet in length, and about seven inches wide; the\nlower one, on the floor, has a number of holes or places cut in it,\nfor the ancles; the upper piece, being of the same dimensions, is\nfastened at one end by a hinge, and is brought down after the ancles\nare placed in the holes, and secured by a clasp and padlock at the\nother end. In this manner the person is left to sit on the floor.\nBarry was kept in the stocks _day and night for a week_, and flogged\n_every morning_. After this, he was taken out one morning, a log chain\nfastened around his neck, the two ends dragging on the ground, and he\nsent to the field, to do his task with the other slaves. At night he\nwas again put in the stocks, in the morning he was sent to the field\nin the same manner, and thus dragged out another week.\n\nThe overseer was a very miserly fellow, and restricted his wife in\nwhat are considered the comforts of life--such as tea, sugar, &c. To\nmake up for this, she set her wits to work, and, by the help of a\nslave, named Joe, used to take from the plantation whatever she could\nconveniently, and watch her opportunity during her husband's absence,\nand send Joe to sell them and buy for her such things as she directed.\nOnce when her husband was away, she told Joe to kill and dress one of\nthe pigs, sell it, and get her some tea, sugar, &c. Joe did as he was\nbid, and she gave him the offal for his services. When Galloway\nreturned, not suspecting his wife, he asked her if she knew what had\nbecome of his pig. She told him she suspected one of the slaves,\nnaming him, had stolen it, for she had heard a pig squeal the evening\nbefore. The overseer called the slave up, and charged him with the\ntheft. He denied it, and said he knew nothing about it. The overseer\nstill charged him with it, and told him he would give him one week to\nthink of it, and if he did not confess the theft, or find out who did\nsteal the pig, he would flog every negro on the plantation; before the\nweek was up it was ascertained that Joe had killed the pig. He was\ncalled up and questioned, and admitted that he had done so, and told\nthe overseer that he did it by the order of Mrs. Galloway, and that\nshe directed him to buy some sugar, &c. with the money. Mrs. Galloway\ngave Joe the lie; and he was terribly flogged. Joe told me he had been\nseveral times to the smoke-house with Mrs. G, and taken hams and sold\nthem, which her husband told me he supposed were stolen by the negroes\non a neighboring plantation. Mr. Swan, hearing of the circumstance,\ntold me he believed Joe's story, but that his statement would not be\ntaken as proof; and if every slave on the plantation told the same\nstory it could not be received as evidence against a white person.\n\nTo show the manner in which old and worn-out slaves are sometimes\ntreated, I will state a fact. Galloway owned a man about seventy years\nof age. The old man was sick and went to his hut; laid himself down on\nsome straw with his feet to the fire, covered by a piece of an old\nblanket, and there lay four or five days, groaning in great distress,\nwithout any attention being paid him by his master, until death ended\nhis miseries; he was then taken out and buried with as little ceremony\nand respect as would be paid to a brute.\n\nThere is a practice prevalent among the planters, of letting a negro\noff from severe and long-continued punishment on account of the\nintercession of some white person, who pleads in his behalf, that he\nbelieves the negro will behave better, that he promises well, and he\nbelieves he will keep his promise, &c. The planters sometimes get\ntired of punishing a negro, and, wanting his services in the field,\nthey get some white person to come, and, in the presence of the slave,\nintercede for him. At one time a negro, named Charles, was confined in\nthe stocks in the building where I was at work, and had been severely\nwhipped several times. He begged me to intercede for him and try to\nget him released. I told him I would; and when his master came in to\nwhip him again, I went up to him and told him I had been talking with\nCharles, and he had promised to behave better, &c., and requested him\nnot to punish him any more, but to let him go. He then said to\nCharles, \"As Mr. Caulkins has been pleading for you, I will let you go\non his account;\" and accordingly released him.\n\nWomen are generally shown some little indulgence for three or four\nweeks previous to childbirth; they are at such times not often\npunished if they do not finish the task assigned them; it is, in some\ncases, passed over with a severe reprimand, and sometimes without any\nnotice being taken of it. They ate generally allowed four weeks after\nthe birth of a child, before they are compelled to go into the field,\nthey then take the child with them, attended sometimes by a little\ngirl or boy, from the age of four to six, to take care of it while the\nmother is at work. When there is no child that can be spared, or not\nyoung enough for this service, the mother, after nursing, lays it\nunder a tree, or by the side of a fence, and goes to her task,\nreturning at stated intervals to nurse it. While I was on this\nplantation, a little negro girl, six years of age, destroyed the life\nof a child about two months old, which was left in her care. It seems\nthis little nurse, so called, got tired of her charge and the labor of\ncarrying it to the quarters at night, the mother being obliged to work\nas long as she could see. One evening she nursed the infant at sunset\nas usual, and sent it to the quarters. The little girl, on her way\nhome, had to cross a run or brook, which led down into the swamp; when\nshe came to the brook she followed it into the swamp, then took the\ninfant and plunged it head foremost into the water and mud, where it\nstuck fast; she there left it and went to the negro quarters. When the\nmother came in from the field, she asked the girl where the child was;\nshe told her she had brought it home, but did not know where it was;\nthe overseer was immediately informed, search was made, and it was\nfound as above stated, and dead. The little girl was shut up in the\nbarn, and confined there two or three weeks, when a speculator came\nalong and bought her for two hundred dollars.\n\nThe slaves are obliged to work from daylight till dark, as long as\nthey can see. When they have tasks assigned, which is often the case,\na few of the strongest and most expert, sometimes finish them before\nsunset; others will be obliged to work till eight or nine o'clock in\nthe evening. All must finish their tasks or take a flogging. The whip\nand gun, or pistol, are companions of the overseer; the former he uses\nvery frequently upon the negroes, during their hours of labor, without\nregard to age or sex. Scarcely a day passed while I was on the\nplantation, in which some of the slaves were not whipped; I do not\nmean that they were _struck a few blows_ merely, but had a _set\nflogging_. The same labor is commonly assigned to men and women,--such\nas digging ditches in the rice marshes, clearing up land, chopping\ncord-wood, threshing, &c. I have known the women go into the barn as\nsoon as they could see in the morning, and work as late as they could\nsee at night, threshing rice with the flail, (they now have a\nthreshing machine,) and when they could see to thresh no longer, they\nhad to gather up the rice, carry it up stairs, and deposit it in the\ngranary.\n\nThe allowance of clothing on this plantation to each slave, was given\nout at Christmas for the year, and consisted of one pair of coarse\nshoes, and enough coarse cloth to make a jacket and trowsers. If the\nman has a wife she makes it up; if not, it is made up in the house.\nThe slaves on this plantation, being near Wilmington, procured\nthemselves extra clothing by working Sundays and moonlight nights,\ncutting cordwood in the swamps, which they had to back about a quarter\nof a mile to the ricer; they would then get a permit from their\nmaster, and taking the wood in their canoes, carry it to Wilmington,\nand sell it to the vessels, or dispose of it as they best could, and\nwith the money buy an old jacket of the sailors, some coarse cloth for\na shirt, &c. They sometimes gather the moss from the trees, which they\ncleanse and take to market. The women receive their allowance of the\nsame kind of cloth which the men have. This they make into a frock; if\nthey have any under garments _they must procure them for themselves_.\nWhen the slaves get a permit to leave the plantation, they sometimes\nmake all ring again by singing the following significant ditty, which\nshows that after all there is a flow of spirits in the human breast\nwhich for a while, at least, enables them to forget their\nwretchedness.[1]\n\n\nHurra, for good ole Massa,\n    He giv me de pass to go to de city\nHurra, for good ole Missis,\n    She bile de pot, and giv me de licker.\n                        Hurra, I'm goin to de city.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Slaves sometimes sing, and so do convicts in jails under\nsentence, and both for the same reason. Their singing proves that they\n_want_ to be happy not that they _are_ so. It is the _means_ that they\nuse to make themselves happy, not the evidence that they are so\nalready. Sometimes, doubtless, the excitement of song whelms their\nmisery in momentary oblivion. He who argues from this that they have\nno conscious misery to forget, knows as little of human nature as of\nslavery.--EDITOR.]\n\nEvery Saturday night the slaves receive their allowance of provisions,\nwhich must last them till the next Saturday night. \"Potatoe time,\" as\nit is called, begins about the middle of July. The slave may measure\nfor himself, the overseer being present, half a bushel of sweet\npotatoes, and heap the measure as long as they will lie on; I have,\nhowever, seen the overseer, if he think the negro is getting too many,\nkick the measure; and if any fall off tell him he has got his measure.\nNo salt is furnished them to eat with their potatoes. When rice or\ncorn is given, they give them a little salt; sometimes half a pint of\nmolasses is given, but not often. The quantity of rice, which is of\nthe small, broken, unsaleable kind, is one peck. When corn is given\nthem, their allowance is the same, and if they get it ground, (Mr.\nSwan had a mill on his plantation,) they must give one quart for\ngrinding, thus reducing their weekly allowance to seven quarts. When\nfish (mullet) were plenty, they were allowed, in addition, one fish.\nAs to meat, they seldom had any. I do not think they had an allowance\nof meat oftener than once in two or three months, and then the\nquantity was very small. When they went into the field to work, they\ntook some of the meal or rice and a pot with them; the pots were given\nto an old woman, who placed two poles parallel, set the pots on them,\nand kindled a fire underneath for cooking; she took salt with her and\nseasoned the messes as she thought proper. When their breakfast was\nready, which was generally about ten or eleven o'clock, they were\ncalled from labor, ate, and returned to work; in the afternoon, dinner\nwas prepared in the same way. They had but two meals a day while in\nthe field; if they wanted more, they cooked for themselves after they\nreturned to their quarters at night. At the time of killing hogs on\nthe plantation, the pluck, entrails, and blood were given to the\nslaves.\n\nWhen I first went upon Mr. Swan's plantation, I saw a slave in\nshackles or fetters, which were fastened around each ankle and firmly\nriveted, connected together by a chain. To the middle of this chain he\nhad fastened a string, so as in a manner to suspend them and keep them\nfrom galling his ankles. This slave, whose name was Frank, was an\nintelligent, good looking man, and a very good mechanic. There was\nnothing vicious in his character, but he was one of those\nhigh-spirited and daring men, that whips, chains, fetters, and all the\nmeans of cruelty in the power of slavery, could not subdue. Mr. S. had\nemployed a Mr. Beckwith to repair a boat, and told him Frank was a\ngood mechanic, and he might have his services. Frank was sent for, his\n_shackles still on_. Mr. Beckwith set him to work making _trundels_,\n&c. I was employed in putting up a building, and after Mr. Beckwith\nhad done with Frank, he was sent for to assist me. Mr. Swan sent him\nto a blacksmith's shop and had his shackles cut off with a cold\nchisel. Frank was afterwards sold to a cotton planter.\n\nI will relate one circumstance, which shows the little regard that is\npaid to the feelings of the slave. During the time that Mr. Isaiah\nRogers was superintending the building of a rice machine, one of the\nslaves complained of a severe toothache. Swan asked Mr. Rogers to take\nhis hammer and _knock out the tooth_.\n\nThere was a slave on the plantation named Ben, a waiting man. I\noccupied a room in the same hut, and had frequent conversations with\nhim. Ben was a kind-hearted man, and, I believe, a Christian; he would\nalways ask a blessing before he sat down to eat, and was in the\nconstant practice of praying morning and night.--One day when I was at\nthe hut, Ben was sent for to go to the house. Ben sighed deeply and\nwent. He soon returned with a girl about seventeen years of age, whom\none of Mr. Swan's daughters had ordered him to flog. He brought her\ninto the room where I was, and told her to stand there while he went\ninto the next room: I heard him groan again as he went. While there I\nheard his voice, and he was engaged in prayer. After a few minutes he\nreturned with a large cowhide, and stood before the girl, without\nsaying a word. I concluded he wished me to leave the hut, which I did;\nand immediately after I heard the girl scream. At every blow she would\nshriek, \"Do, Ben! oh do, Ben!\" This is a common expression of the\nslaves to the person whipping them: \"Do, Massa!\" or, \"Do, Missus!\"\n\nAfter she had gone, I asked Ben what she was whipped for: he told me\nshe had done something to displease her young missus; and in boxing\nher ears, and otherwise beating her, she had scratched her finger by a\npin in the girl's dress, for which she sent her to be flogged. I asked\nhim if he stripped her before flogging; he said, yes; he did not like\nto do this, but was _obliged_ to: he said he was once ordered to whip\na woman, which he did without stripping her: on her return to the\nhouse, her mistress examined her back; and not seeing any marks, he\nwas sent for, and asked why he had not whipped her: he replied that he\nhad; she said she saw no marks, and asked him if he had made her pull\nher clothes off; he said, No. She then told him, that when he whipped\nany more of the women, he must make them strip off their clothes, as\nwell as the men, and flog them on their bare backs, or he should be\nflogged himself.\n\nBen often appeared very gloomy and sad: I have frequently heard him,\nwhen in his room, mourning over his condition, and exclaim, \"Poor\nAfrican slave! Poor African slave!\" Whipping was so common an\noccurrence on this plantation, that it would be too great a repetition\nto state the _many_ and _severe_ floggings I have seen inflicted on\nthe slaves. They were flogged for not performing their tasks, for\nbeing careless, slow, or not in time, for going to the fire to warm,\n&c. &c.; and it often seemed as if occasions were sought as an excuse\nfor punishing them.\n\nOn one occasion, I heard the overseer charge the hands to be at a\ncertain place the next morning at sun-rise. I was present in the\nmorning, in company with my brother, when the hands arrived. Joe, the\nslave already spoken of, came running, all out of breath, about five\nminutes behind the time, when, without asking any questions, the\noverseer told him to take off his jacket. Joe took off his jacket. He\nhad on a piece of a shirt; he told him to take it off: Joe took it\noff: he then whipped him with a heavy cowhide full six feet long. At\nevery stroke Joe would spring from the ground, and scream, \"O my God!\nDo, Massa Galloway!\" My brother was so exasperated; that he turned to\nme and said, \"If I were Joe, I would kill the overseer if I knew I\nshould be shot the next minute.\"\n\nIn the winter the horn blew at about four in the morning, and all the\nthreshers were required to be at the threshing floor in fifteen\nminutes after. They had to go about a quarter of a mile from their\nquarters. Galloway would stand near the entrance, and all who did not\ncome in time would get a blow over the back or head as heavy as he\ncould strike. I have seen him, at such times, follow after them,\nstriking furiously a number of blows, and every one followed by their\nscreams. I have seen the women go to their work after such a flogging,\ncrying and taking on most piteously.\n\nIt is almost impossible to believe that human nature can endure such\nhardships and sufferings as the slaves have to go through: I have seen\nthem driven into a ditch in a rice swamp to bail out the water, in\norder to put down a flood-gate, when they had to break the ice, and\nthere stand in the water among the ice until it was bailed out. I have\n_often_ known the hands to be taken from the field, sent down the\nriver in flats or boats to Wilmington, absent from twenty-four to\nthirty hours, _without any thing to eat,_ no provision being made for\nthese occasions.\n\nGalloway kept medicine on hand, that in case any of the slaves were\nsick, he could give it to them without sending for the physician; but\nhe always kept a good look out that they did not sham sickness. When\nany of them excited his suspicions, he would make them take the\nmedicine in his presence, and would give them a rap on the top of the\nhead, to make them swallow it. A man once came to him, of whom he said\nhe was suspicious: he gave him two potions of salts, and fastened him\nin the stocks for the night. His medicine soon began to operate; and\n_there he lay in all his filth till he was taken out the next day._\n\nOne day, Mr. Swan beat a slave severely, for alleged carelessness in\nletting a boat get adrift. The slave was told to secure the boat:\nwhether he took sufficient means for this purpose I do not know; he\nwas not allowed to make any defence. Mr. Swan called him up, and asked\nwhy he did not secure the boat: he pulled off his hat and began to\ntell his story. Swan told him he was a damned liar, and commenced\nbeating him over the head with a hickory cane, and the slave retreated\nbackwards; Swan followed him about two rods, threshing him over the\nhead with the hickory as he went.\n\nAs I was one day standing near some slaves who were threshing, the\ndriver, thinking one of the women did not use her flail quick enough,\nstruck her over the head: the end of the whip hit her in the eye. I\nthought at the time he had put it out; but, after poulticing and\ndoctoring for some days, she recovered. Speaking to him about it, he\nsaid that he once struck a slave so as to put one of her eyes entirely\nout.\n\nA patrol is kept upon each estate, and every slave found off the\nplantation without a pass is whipped on the spot. I knew a slave who\nstarted without a pass, one night, for a neighboring plantation, to\nsee his wife: he was caught, tied to a tree, and flogged. He stated\nhis business to the patrol, who was well acquainted with him but all\nto no purpose. I spoke to the patrol about it afterwards: he said he\nknew the negro, that he was a very clever fellow, but he had to whip\nhim; for, if he let him pass, he must another, &c. He stated that he\nhad sometimes caught and flogged four in a night.\n\nIn conversation with Mr. Swan about runaway slaves, he stated to me\nthe following fact:--A slave, by the name of Luke, was owned in\nWilmington; he was sold to a speculator and carried to Georgia. After\nan absence of about two months the slave returned; he watched an\nopportunity to enter his old master's house when the family were\nabsent, no one being at home but a young waiting man. Luke went to the\nroom where his master kept his arms; took his gun, with some\nammunition, and went into the woods. On the return of his master, the\nwaiting man told him what had been done: this threw him into a violent\npassion; he swore he would kill Luke, or lose his own life. He loaded\nanother gun, took two men, and made search, but could not find him: he\nthen advertised him, offering a large reward if delivered to him or\nlodged in jail. His neighbors, however, advised him to offer a reward\nof two hundred dollars for him _dead or alive_, which he did. Nothing\nhowever was heard of him for some months. Mr. Swan said, one of his\nslaves ran away, and was gone eight or ten weeks; on his return he\nsaid he had found Luke, and that he had a rifle, two pistols, and a\nsword.\n\nI left the plantation in the spring, and returned to the north; when I\nwent out again, the next fall, I asked Mr. Swan if any thing had been\nheard of Luke; he said he was _shot_, and related to me the manner of\nhis death, as follows:--Luke went to one of the plantations, and\nentered a hut for something to eat. Being fatigued, he sat down and\nfell asleep. There was only a woman in the hut at the time: as soon as\nshe found he was asleep, she ran and told her master, who took his\nrifle, and called two white men on another plantation: the three, with\ntheir rifles, then went to the hut, and posted themselves in different\npositions, so that they could watch the door. When Luke waked up he\nwent to the door to look out, and saw them with their rifles, he\nstepped back and raised his gun to his face. They called to him to\nsurrender; and stated that they had him in their power, and said he\nhad better give up. He said he would not: and if they tried to take\nhim, he would kill one of them; for, if he gave up, he knew they would\nkill him, and he was determined to sell his life as dear as he could.\nThey told him, if he should shoot one of them, the other two would\ncertainly kill him: he replied, he was determined not to give up, and\nkept his gun moving from one to the other; and while his rifle was\nturned toward one, another, standing in a different direction, shot\nhim through the head, and he fell lifeless to the ground.\n\nThere was another slave shot while I was there; this man had run away,\nand had been living in the woods a long time, and it was not known\nwhere he was, till one day he was discovered by two men, who went on\nthe large island near Belvidere to hunt turkeys; they shot him and\ncarried his head home.\n\nIt is common to keep dogs on the plantations, to pursue and catch\nrunaway slaves. I was once bitten by one of them. I went to the\noverseer's house, the dog lay in the piazza, as soon as I put my foot\nupon the floor, he sprang and bit me just above the knee, but not\nseverely; he tore my pantaloons badly. The overseer apologized for his\ndog, saying he never knew him to bite a _white_ man before. He said he\nonce had a dog, when he lived on another plantation, that was very\nuseful to him in hunting runaway negroes. He said that a slave on the\nplantation once ran away; as soon as he found the course he took, he\nput the dog on the track, and he soon came so close upon him that the\nman had to climb a tree, he followed with his gun, and brought the\nslave home.\n\nThe slaves have a great dread of being sold and carried south. It is\ngenerally said, and I have no doubt of its truth, that they are much\nworse treated farther south.\n\nThe following are a few among the many facts related to me while I\nlived among the slaveholder. The names of the planters and\nplantations, I shall not give, _as they did not come under my own\nobservation_. I however place the fullest confidence in their truth.\n\nA planter not far from Mr. Swan's employed an overseer to whom he paid\n$400 a year; he became dissatisfied with him, because he did not drive\nthe slaves hard enough, and get more work out of them. He therefore\nsent to South Carolina, or Georgia, and got a man to whom he paid I\nbelieve $800 a year. He proved to be a cruel fellow, and drove the\nslaves almost to death. There was a slave on this plantation, who had\nrepeatedly run away, and had been severely flogged every time. The\nlast time he was caught, a hole was dug in the ground, and he buried\nup to the chin, his arms being secured down by his sides. He was kept\nin this situation four or five days.\n\nThe following was told me by an intimate friend; it took place on a\nplantation containing about one hundred slaves. One day the owner\nordered the women into the barn, he then went in among them, whip in\nhand, and told them he meant to flog them all to death; they began\nimmediately to cry out \"What have I done Massa? What have I done\nMassa?\" He replied; \"D--n you, I will let you know what you have done,\nyou don't breed, I haven't had a young one from one of you for several\nmonths.\" They told him they could not breed while they had to work in\nthe rice ditches. (The rice grounds are low and marshy, and have to be\ndrained, and while digging or clearing the ditches, the women had to\nwork in mud and water from one to two feet in depth; they were obliged\nto draw up and secure their frocks about their waist, to keep them out\nof the water, in this manner they frequently had to work from daylight\nin the morning till it was so dark they could see no longer.) After\nswearing and threatening for some time, he told them to tell the\noverseer's wife, when they got in that way, and he would put them upon\nthe land to work.\n\nThis same planter had a female slave who was a member of the Methodist\nChurch; for a slave she was intelligent and conscientious. He proposed\na criminal intercourse with her. She would not comply. He left her and\nsent for the overseer, and told him to have her flogged. It was done.\nNot long after, he renewed his proposal. She again refused. She was\nagain whipped. He then told her why she had been twice flogged, and\ntold her he intended to whip her till she should yield. The girl,\nseeing that her case was hopeless, her back smarting with the\nscourging she had received, and dreading a repetition, gave herself up\nto be the victim of his brutal lusts.\n\nOne of the slaves on another plantation, gave birth to a child which\nlived but two or three weeks. After its death the planter called the\nwoman to him, and asked her how she came to let the child die; said it\nwas all owing to her carelessness, and that he meant to flog her for\nit. She told, him with all the feeling of a mother, the circumstances\nof its death. But her story availed her nothing against the savage\nbrutality of her master. She was severely whipped. A healthy child\nfour months old was then considered worth $100 in North Carolina.\n\nThe foregoing facts were related to me by white persons of character\nand respectability. The following fact was related to me on a\nplantation where I have spent considerable time and where the\npunishment was inflicted. I have no doubt of its truth. A slave ran\naway from his master, and got as far as Newbern. He took provisions\nthat lasted him a week; but having eaten all, he went to a house to\nget something to satisfy his hunger. A white man suspecting him to be\na runaway, demanded his pass; as he had none he was seized and put in\nNewbern jail. He was there advertised, his description given, &c. His\nmaster saw the advertisement and sent for him; when he was brought\nback, his wrists were tied together and drawn over his knees. A stick\nwas then passed over his arms and under his knees, and he secured in\nthis manner, his trowsers were then stripped down, and he turned over\non his side, and severely beaten with the paddle, then turned over and\nseverely beaten on the other side, and then turned back again, and\ntortured by another bruising and beating. He was afterwards kept in\nthe stocks a week, and whipped every morning.\n\nTo show the disgusting pollutions of slavery, and how it covers with\nmoral filth every thing it touches, I will state two or three facts,\nwhich I have on such evidence I cannot doubt their truth. A planter\noffered a white man of my acquaintance twenty dollars for every one of\nhis female slaves, whom he would get in the family way. This offer was\nno doubt made for the purpose of improving the stock, on the same\nprinciple that farmers endeavour to improve their cattle by crossing\nthe breed.\n\nSlaves belonging to merchants and others in the city, often hire their\nown time, for which they pay various prices per week or month,\naccording to the capacity of the slave. The females who thus hire\ntheir time, pursue various modes to procure the money; their masters\nmaking no inquiry how they get it, provided the money comes. If it is\nnot regularly paid they are flogged. Some take in washing, some cook\non board vessels, pick oakum, sell peanuts, &c., while others, younger\nand more comely, often resort to the vilest pursuits. I knew a man\nfrom the north who, though married to a respectable southern woman,\nkept two of these mulatto girls in an upper room at his store; his\nwife told some of her friends that he had not lodged at home for two\nweeks together, I have seen these two _kept misses_, as they are there\ncalled, at his store; he was afterwards stabbed in an attempt to\narrest a runaway slave, and died in about ten days.\n\nThe clergy at the north cringe beneath the corrupting influence of\nslavery, and their moral courage is borne down by it. Not the\nhypocritical and unprincipled alone, but even such as can hardly be\nsupposed to be destitute of sincerity.\n\nGoing one morning to the Baptist Sunday School, in Wilmington, in\nwhich I was engaged, I fell in with the Rev. Thomas P. Hunt, who was\ngoing to the Presbyterian school. I asked him how he could bear to see\nthe little negro children beating their hoops, hallooing, and running\nabout the streets, as we then saw them, their moral condition entirely\nneglected, while the whites were so carefully gathered into the\nschools. His reply was substantially this:--\"I can't bear it, Mr.\nCaulkins. I feel as deeply as any one can on this subject, but what\ncan I do? MY HANDS ARE TIED.\"\n\nNow, if Mr. Hunt was guilty of neglecting his duty, as a servant of\nHIM who never failed to rebuke sin in high places, what shall be said\nof those clergymen at the north, where the power that closed his mouth\nis comparatively unfelt, who refuse to tell their people how God\nabhors oppression, and who seldom open their mouth on this subject,\nbut to denounce the friends of emancipation, thus giving the strongest\nsupport to the accursed system of slavery. I believe Mr. Hunt has\nsince become an agent of the Temperance Society.\n\nIn stating the foregoing facts, my object has been to show the\npractical workings of the system of slavery, and if possible to\ncorrect the misapprehension on this subject, so common at the north.\nIn doing this I am not at war with slave-holders. No, my soul is moved\nfor them as well as for the poor slaves. May God send them repentance\nto the acknowledgment of the truth! Principle, on a subject of this\nnature, is dearer to me than the applause of men, and should not be\nsacrificed on any subject, even though the ties of friendship may be\nbroken. We have too long been silent on this subject, the slave has\nbeen too much considered, by our northern states, as being kept by\nnecessity in his present condition.--Were we to ask, in the language\nof Pilate, \"what evil have they done\"--we may search their history, we\ncannot find that they have taken up arms against our government, nor\ninsulted us as a nation--that they are thus compelled to drag out a\nlife in chains! subjected to the most terrible inflictions if in any\nway they manifest a wish to be released.--Let us reverse the question.\nWhat evil has been done to them by those who call themselves masters?\nFirst let us look at their persons, \"neither clothed nor naked\"--I\nhave seen instances where this phrase would not apply to boys and\ngirls, and that too in winter. I knew one young man seventeen years of\nage, by the name of Dave, on Mr. J. Swan's plantation, worked day\nafter day in the rice machine as naked as when he was born. The reason\nof his being so, his master said in my hearing, was, that he could not\nkeep clothes on him--he would get into the fire and burn them off.\n\nFollow them next to their huts; some with and some without floors:--Go\nat night, view their means of lodging, see them lying on benches, some\non the floor or ground, some sitting on stools, dozing away the\nnight:--others, of younger age, with a bare blanket wrapped about\nthem; and one or two lying in the ashes. These things _I have often\nseen with my own eyes._\n\nExamine their means of subsistence, which consists generally of seven\nquarts of meal or eight quarts of small rice for one week; then follow\nthem to their work, with driver and overseer pushing them to the\nutmost of their strength, by threatening and whipping.\n\nIf they are sick from fatigue and exposure, go to their huts, as I\nhave often been, and see them groaning under a burning fever or\npleurisy, lying on some straw, their feet to the fire with barely a\nblanket to cover them; or on some boards nailed together in form of a\nbedstead.\n\nAnd after seeing all this, and hearing them tell of their sufferings,\nneed I ask, is there any evil connected with their condition? and if\nso; upon whom is it to be charged? I answer for myself, and the reader\ncan do the same. Our government stands first chargeable for allowing\nslavery to exist, under its own jurisdiction. Second, the states for\nenacting laws to secure their victim. Third, the slaveholder for\ncarrying out such enactments, in horrid form enough to chill the\nblood. Fourth, every person who knows what slavery is, and does not\nraise his voice against this crying sin, but by silence gives consent\nto its continuance, is chargeable with guilt in the sight of God. \"The\nblood of Zacharias who was slain between the temple and altar,\" says\nChrist, \"WILL I REQUIRE OF THIS GENERATION.\"\n\nLook at the slave, his condition but little, if at all, better than\nthat of the brute; chained down by the law, and the will of his\nmaster; and every avenue closed against relief; and the names of those\nwho plead for him, cast out as evil;--must not humanity let its voice\nbe heard, and tell Israel their transgressions and Judah their sins?\n\nMay God look upon their afflictions, and deliver them from their cruel\ntask-masters! I verily believe he will, if there be any efficacy in\nprayer. I have been to their prayer meetings and with them offered\nprayer in their behalf. I have heard some of them in their huts before\nday-light praying in their simple broken language, telling their\nheavenly Father of their trials in the following and similar language.\n\n\"Fader in heaven, look upon de poor slave, dat have to work all de day\nlong, dat cant have de time to pray only in de night, and den massa\nmus not know it.[2] Fader, have mercy on massa and missus. Fader, when\nshall poor slave get through de world! when will death come, and de\npoor slave go to heaven;\" and in their meetings they frequently add,\n\"Fader, bless de white man dat come to hear de slave pray, bless his\nfamily,\" and so on. They uniformly begin their meetings by singing the\nfollowing--\n\n\n\"And are we yet alive\n To see each other's face,\" &c.\n\n[Footnote 2: At this time there was some fear of insurrection and the\nslaves were forbidden to hold meetings.]\n\nIs the ear of the Most High deaf to the prayer of the slave? I do\nfirmly believe that their deliverance will come, and that the prayer\nof this poor afflicted people will be answered.\n\nEmancipation would be safe. I have had eleven winters to learn the\ndisposition of the slaves, and am satisfied that they would peaceably\nand cheerfully work for pay. Give them education, equal and just laws,\nand they will become a most interesting people. Oh, let a cry be\nraised which shall awaken the conscience of this guilty nation, to\ndemand for the slaves immediate and unconditional emancipation.\n                                   NEHEMIAH CAULKINS.\n\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n\n\n\nNARRATIVE AND TESTIMONY OF REV. HORACE MOULTON.\n\nMr. Moulton is an esteemed minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church,\nin Marlborough, Mass. He spent five years in Georgia, between 1817 and\n1824. The following communication has been recently received from him.\n\nMARLBOROUGH, MASS., Feb. 18, 1839.\n\nDEAR BROTHER--\n\nYours of Feb. 2d, requesting me to write out a few facts on the\nsubject of slavery, as it exists at the south, has come to hand. I\nhasten to comply with your request. Were it not, however, for the\nclaims of those \"who are drawn unto death,\" and the responsibility\nresting upon me, in consequence of this request, I should forever hold\nmy peace. For I well know that I shall bring upon myself a flood of\npersecution, for attempting to speak out for the dumb. But I am\nwilling to be set at nought by men, if I can be the means of promoting\nthe welfare of the oppressed of our land. I shall not relate many\nparticular cases of cruelty, though I might a great number; but shall\ngive some general information as to their mode of treatment, their\nfood, clothing, dwellings, deprivations, &c.\n\nLet me say, in the first place, that I spent nearly five years in\nSavannah, Georgia, and in its vicinity, between the years 1817 and\n1824. My object in going to the south, was to engage in making and\nburning brick; but not immediately succeeding, I engaged in no\nbusiness of much profit until late in the winter, when I took charge\nof a set of hands and went to work. During my leisure, however, I was\nan observer, at the auctions, upon the plantations, and in almost\nevery department of business. The next year, during the cold months, I\nhad several two-horse teams under my care, with which we used to haul\nbrick, boards, and other articles from the wharf into the city, and\ncotton, rice, corn, and wood from the country. This gave me an\nextensive acquaintance with merchants, mechanics and planters. I had\nslaves under my control some portions of every year when at the south.\nAll the brick-yards, except one, on which I was engaged, were\nconnected either with a corn field, potatoe patch, rice field, cotton\nfield, tan-works, or with a wood lot. My business, usually, was to\ntake charge of the brick-making department. At those jobs I have\nsometimes taken in charge both the field and brick-yard hands. I have\nbeen on the plantations in South Carolina, but have never been an\noverseer of slaves in that state, as has been said in the public\npapers.\n\nI think the above facts and explanations are necessary to be connected\nwith the account I may give of slavery, that the reader may have some\nknowledge of my acquaintance with _practical_ slavery: for many\nmechanics and merchants who go to the South, and stay there for years,\nknow but little of the dark side of slavery. My account of slavery\nwill apply to _field hands_, who compose much the largest portion of\nthe black population, (probably nine-tenths,) and not to those who are\nkept for kitchen maids, nurses, waiters, &c., about the houses of the\nplanters and public hotels, where persons from the north obtain most\nof their knowledge of the evils of slavery. I will now proceed to take\nup specific points.\n\nTHE LABOR OF THE SLAVES\n\nMales and females work together promiscuously on all the plantations.\nOn many plantations _tasks_ are given them. The best working hands can\nhave some leisure time; but the feeble and unskilful ones, together\nwith slender females, have indeed a hard time of it, and very often\nanswer for non-performance of tasks at the _whipping-posts_. None who\nworked with me had tasks at any time. The rule was to work them from\nsun to sun. But when I was burning brick, they were obliged to take\nturns, and _sit up all night_ about every other night, and work all\nday. On one plantation, where I spent a few weeks, the slaves were\ncalled up to work long before daylight, when business pressed, and\nworked until late at night; and sometimes some of them _all night_. A\nlarge portion of the slaves are owned by masters who keep them on\npurpose to hire out--and they usually let them to those who will give\nthe highest wages for them, irrespective of their mode of treatment;\nand those who hire them, will of course try to get the greatest\npossible amount of work performed, with the least possible expense.\nWomen are seen bringing their infants into the field to their work,\nand leading others who are not old enough to stay at the cabins with\nsafety. When they get there, they must set them down in the dirt and\ngo to work. Sometimes they are left to cry until they fall asleep.\nOthers are left at home, shut up in their huts. Now, is it not\nbarbarous, that the mother, with her child of children around her,\nhalf starved, must be whipped at night if she does not perform her\ntask? But so it is. Some who have very young ones, fix a little sack,\nand place the infants on their backs, and work. One reason, I presume\nis, that they will not cry so much when they can hear their mother's\nvoice. Another is, the mothers fear that the poisonous vipers and\nsnakes will bite them. Truly, I never knew any place where the land is\nso infested with all kinds of the most venomous snakes, as in the low\nlands round about Savannah. The moccasin snakes, so called, and water\nrattle-snakes--the bites of both of which are as poisonous as our\nupland rattlesnakes at the north,--are found in myriads about the\nstagnant waters and swamps of the South. The females, in order to\nsecure their infants from these poisonous snakes, do, as I have said,\noften work with their infants on their backs. Females are sometimes\ncalled to take the hardest part of the work. On some brick yards where\nI have been, the women have been selected as the _moulders_ of brick,\ninstead of the men.\n\nII. THE FOOD OF THE SLAVES.\n\nIt was a general custom, wherever I have been, for the masters to give\neach of his slaves, male and female, _one peck of corn per week_ for\ntheir food. This at fifty cents per bushel, which was all that it was\nworth when I was there, would amount to twelve and a half cents per\nweek for board per head.\n\nIt cost me upon an average, when at the south, one dollar per day for\nboard. The price of fourteen bushels of corn per week. This would make\nmy board equal in amount to the board of _forty-six slaves!_ This is\nall that good or bad masters allow their slaves round about Savannah\non the plantations. One peck of gourd-seed corn is to be measured out\nto each slave once every week. One man with whom I labored, however,\nbeing desirous to get all the work out of his hands he could, before I\nleft, (about fifty in number,) bought for them every week, or twice a\nweek, a beef's head from market. With this, they made a soup in a\nlarge iron kettle, around which the hands came at meal-time, and\ndipping out the soup, would mix it with their hommony, and eat it as\nthough it were a feast. This man permitted his slaves to eat twice a\nday while I was doing a job for him. He promised me a beaver hat and\nas good a suit of clothes as could be bought in the city, if I would\naccomplish so much for him before I returned to the north; giving me\nthe entire control over his slaves. Thus you may see the temptations\noverseers sometimes have, to get all the work they can out of the poor\nslaves. The above is an exception to the general rule of feeding. For\nin all other places where I worked and visited; the slaves had\n_nothing from their masters but the corn_, or its equivalent in\npotatoes or rice, and to this, they were not permitted to come but\n_once a day_. The custom was to blow the horn early in the morning,\nas a signal for the hands to rise and go to work, when commenced; they\ncontinued work until about eleven o'clock, A.M., when, at the signal,\nall hands left off and went into their huts, made their fires, made\ntheir corn-meal into hommony or cake, ate it, and went to work again\nat the signal of the horn, and worked until night, or until their\ntasks were done. Some cooked their breakfast in the field while at\nwork. Each slave must grind his own corn in a hand-mill after he has\ndone his work at night. There is generally one hand-mill on every\nplantation for the use of the slaves.\n\nSome of the planters have no corn, others often get out. The\nsubstitute for it is, the equivalent of one peek of corn either in\nrice or sweet potatoes; neither of which is as good for the slaves as\ncorn. They complain more of being faint, when fed on rice or potatoes,\nthan when fed on corn. I was with one man a few weeks who gave me his\nhands to do a job of work, and to save time one cooked for all the\nrest. The following course was taken,--Two crotched sticks were driven\ndown at one end of the yard, and a small pole being laid on the\ncrotches, they swung a large iron kettle on the middle of the pole;\nthen made up a fire under the kettle and boiled the hommony; when\nready, the hands were called around this kettle with their wooden\nplates and spoons. They dipped out and ate standing around the kettle,\nor sitting upon the ground, as best suited their convenience. When\nthey had potatoes they took them out with their hands, and ate them.\nAs soon as it was thought they had had sufficient time to swallow\ntheir food they were called to their work again. _This was the only\nmeal they ate through the day._ now think of the little, almost naked\nand half starved children, nibbling upon a piece of cold Indian cake,\nor a potato! Think of the poor female, just ready to be confined,\nwithout any thing that can be called convenient or comfortable! Think\nof the old toil-worn father and mother, without anything to eat but\nthe coarsest of food, and not half enough of that! then think of\n_home_. When sick, their physicians are their masters and overseers,\nin most cases, whose skill consists in bleeding and in administering\nlarge potions of Epsom salts, when the whip and _cursing_ will not\nstart them from their cabins.\n\nIII. HOUSES.\n\nThe huts of the slaves are mostly of the poorest kind. They are not as\ngood as those temporary shanties which are thrown up beside railroads.\nThey are erected with posts and crotches, with but little or no\nframe-work about them. They have no stoves or chimneys; some of them\nhave something like a fireplace at one end, and a board or two off at\nthat side, or on the roof, to let off the smoke. Others have nothing\nlike a fireplace in them; in these the fire is sometimes made in the\nmiddle of the hut. These buildings have but one apartment in them; the\nplaces where they pass in and out, serve both for doors and windows;\nthe sides and roofs are covered with coarse, and in many instances\nwith refuse boards. In warm weather, especially in the spring, the\nslaves keep up a smoke, or fire and smoke, all night, to drive away\nthe gnats and musketoes, which are very troublesome in all the low\ncountry of the south; so much so that the whites sleep under frames\nwith nets over them, knit so fine that the musketoes cannot fly\nthrough them.\n\nSome of the slaves have rugs to cover them in the coldest weather, but\nI should think _more have not_. During driving storms they frequently\nhave to run from one hut to another for shelter. In the coldest\nweather, where they can get wood or stumps, they keep up fires all\nnight in their huts, and lay around them, with their feet towards the\nblaze. Men, women and children all lie down together, in most\ninstances. There may be exceptions to the above statements in regard\nto their houses, but so far as my observations have extended, I have\ngiven a fair description, and I have been on a large number of\nplantations in Georgia and South Carolina up and down the Savannah\nriver. Their huts are generally built compactly on the plantations,\nforming villages of huts, their size proportioned to the number of\nslaves on them. In these miserable huts the poor blacks are herded at\nnight like swine, _without any conveniences of beadsteads, tables or\nchairs._ O Misery to the full! to see the aged sire beating off the\nswarms of gnats and musketoes in the warm weather, and shivering in\nthe straw, or bending over a few coals in the winter, clothed in rags.\nI should think males and females, both lie down at night with their\nworking clothes on them. God alone knows how much the poor slaves\nsuffer for the want of convenient houses to secure them from the\npiercing winds and howling storms of winter, almost as much in Georgia\nas I do in Massachusetts.\n\nIV. CLOTHING.\n\nThe masters [in Georgia] make a practice of getting two suits of\nclothes for each slave per year, a thick suit for winter, and a thin\none for summer. They provide also one pair of northern made sale shoes\nfor each slave in _winter_. These shoes usually begin to rip in a few\nweeks. The negroes' mode of mending them is, to _wire_ them together,\nin many instances. Do our northern shoemakers know that they are\naugmenting the sufferings of the poor slaves with their almost good\nfor nothing sale shoes? Inasmuch as it is done unto one of those poor\nsufferers it is done unto our Saviour. The above practice of clothing\nthe slave is customary to some extent. How many, however, fail of\nthis, God only knows. The children and old slaves are, I should think,\n_exceptions_ to the above rule. The males and females have their suits\nfrom the same cloth for their winter dresses. These winter garments\nappear to be made of a mixture of cotton and wool, very coarse and\n_sleazy_. The whole suit for the men consists of a pair of pantaloons\nand a short sailor-jacket, _without shirt, vest, hat, stockings, or\nany kind of loose garments!_ These, if worn steadily when at work,\nwould not probably last more than one or two months; therefore, for\nthe sake of saving them, many of them work, especially in the summer,\nwith no clothing on them except a cloth tied round their waist, and\n_almost all_ with nothing more on them than pantaloons, and these\nfrequently so torn that they do not serve the purposes of common\ndecency. The women have for clothing a short petticoat, and a short\nloose gown, something like the male's sailor-jacket, _without any\nunder garment, stockings, bonnets, hoods, caps, or any kind of\nover-clothes._ When at work in the warm weather, they usually strip\noff the loose gown, and have nothing on but a short petticoat with\nsome kind of covering over their breasts. Many children may be seen in\nthe summer months _as naked as they came into the world_. I think, as\na whole, they suffer more for the want of comfortable bed clothes,\nthan they do for wearing apparel. It is true, that some by begging or\nbuying have more clothes than above described, but the _masters\nprovide them with no more_. They are miserable objects of pity. It may\nbe said of many of them, \"I was _naked_ and ye clothed me not.\" It is\nenough to melt the hardest heart to see the ragged mothers nursing\ntheir almost naked children, with but a morsel of the coarsest food to\neat. The Southern horses and dogs have enough to eat and good care\ntaken of them, but Southern negroes, who can describe their misery?\n\nV. PUNISHMENTS.\n\nThe ordinary mode of punishing the slaves is both cruel and barbarous.\nThe masters seldom, if ever, try to govern their slaves by moral\ninfluence, but by whipping, kicking, beating, starving, branding,\n_cat-hauling_, loading with irons, imprisoning, or by some other cruel\nmode of torturing. They often boast of having invented some new mode\nof torture, by which they have \"tamed the rascals,\" What is called a\nmoderate flogging at the south is horribly cruel. Should we whip our\nhorses for any offence as they whip their slaves for small offences,\nwe should expose ourselves to the penalty of the law. The masters whip\nfor the smallest offences, such as not performing their tasks, being\ncaught by the guard or patrol by night, or for taking any thing from\nthe master's yard without leave. For these, and the like crimes, the\nslaves are whipped thirty-nine lashes, and sometimes seventy or a\nhundred, on the bare back. One slave, who was under my care, was\nwhipped, I think one hundred lashes, for getting a small handful of\nwood from his master's yard without leave. I heard an overseer\nboasting to this same master that he gave one of the boys seventy\nlashes, for not doing a job of work just as he thought it ought to be\ndone. The owner of the slave appeared to be pleased that the overseer\nhad been so faithful. The apology they make for whipping so cruelly\nis, that it is to frighten the rest of the gang. The masters say, that\nwhat we call an ordinary flogging will not subdue the slaves; hence\nthe most cruel and barbarous scourgings ever witnessed by man are\ndaily and _hourly_ inflicted upon the naked bodies of these miserable\nbondmen; not by masters and negro-drivers only, but by the constables\nin the common markets and jailors in their yards.\n\nWhen the slaves are whipped, either in public or private, they have\ntheir hands fastened by the wrists, with a rope or cord prepared for\nthe purpose: this being thrown over a beam, a limb of a tree, or\nsomething else, the culprit is drawn up and stretched by the arms as\nhigh as possible, without raising his feet from the ground or floor:\nand sometimes they are made to stand on tip-toe; then the feet are\nmade fast to something prepared for them. In this distorted posture\nthe monster flies at them, sometimes in great rage, with his\nimplements of torture, and cuts on with all his might, over the\nshoulders, under the arms, and sometimes over the head and ears, or on\nparts of the body where he can inflict the greatest torment.\nOccasionally the whipper, especially if his victim does not beg enough\nto suit him, while under the lash, will fly into a passion, uttering\nthe most horrid oaths; while the victim of his rage is crying, at\nevery stroke, \"Lord have mercy! Lord have mercy!\" The scenes exhibited\nat the whipping post are awfully terrific and frightful to one whose\nheart has not turned to stone; I never could look on but a moment.\nWhile under the lash, the bleeding victim writhes in agony, convulsed\nwith torture. Thirty-nine lashes on the bare back, which tear the skin\nat almost every stroke, is what the South calls a very _moderate\npunishment!_ Many masters whip until they are tired--until the back is\na gore of blood--then rest upon it: after a short cessation, get up\nand go at it again; and after having satiated their revenge in the\nblood of their victims, they sometimes _leave them tied, for hours\ntogether, bleeding at every wound_.--Sometimes, after being whipped,\nthey are bathed with a brine of salt and water. Now and then a master,\nbut more frequently a mistress who has no husband, will send them to\njail a few days, giving orders to have them whipped, so many lashes,\nonce or twice a day. Sometimes, after being whipped, some have been\nshut up in a dark place and deprived of food, in order to increase\ntheir torments: and I have heard of some who have, in such\ncircumstances, died of their wounds and starvation.\n\nSuch scenes of horror as above described are so common in Georgia that\nthey attract no attention. To threaten them with death, with breaking\nin their teeth or jaws, or cracking their heads, is _common talk_,\nwhen scolding at the slaves.--Those who run away from their masters\nand are caught again generally fare the worst. They are generally\nlodged in jail, with instructions from the owner to have them cruelly\nwhipped. Some order the constables to whip them publicly in the\nmarket. Constables at the south are generally savage, brutal men. They\nhave become so accustomed to catching and whipping negroes, that they\nare as fierce as tigers. Slaves who are absent from their yards, or\nplantations, after eight o'clock P.M., and are taken by the guard in\nthe cities, or by the patrols in the country, are, if not called for\nbefore nine o'clock A.M. the next day, secured in prisons; and hardly\never escape, until their backs are torn up by the cowhide. On\nplantations, the _evenings_ usually present scenes of horror. Those\nslaves against whom charges are preferred for not having performed\ntheir tasks, and for various faults, must, after work-hours at night,\nundergo their torments. I have often heard the sound of the lash, the\ncurses of the whipper, and the cries of the poor negro rending the\nair, late in the evening, and long before day-light in the morning.\n\nIt is very common for masters to say to the overseers or drivers, \"put\nit on to them,\" \"don't spare that fellow,\" \"give that scoundrel one\nhundred lashes,\" &c. Whipping the women when in delicate\ncircumstances, as they sometimes do, without any regard to their\nentreaties or the entreaties of their nearest friends, is truly\nbarbarous. If negroes could testify, they would tell you of instances\nof women being whipped until they have miscarried at the\nwhipping-post. I heard of such things at the south--they are\nundoubtedly facts. Children are whipped unmercifully for the smallest\noffences, and that before their mothers. A large proportion of the\nblacks have their shoulders, backs, and arms all scarred up, and not a\nfew of them have had their heads laid open with clubs, stones, and\nbrick-bats, and with the butt-end of whips and canes--some have had\ntheir jaws broken, others their teeth knocked in or out; while others\nhave had their ears cropped and the sides of their cheeks gashed out.\nSome of the poor creatures have lost the sight of one of their eyes by\nthe careless blows of the whipper, or by some other violence.\n\nBut punishing of slaves as above described, is not the only mode of\ntorture. Some tie them up in a very uneasy posture, where they must\nstand _all night_, and they will then work them hard all day--that is,\nwork them hard all day and torment them all night. Others punish by\nfastening them down on a log, or something else, and strike them on\nthe bare skin with a board paddle full of holes. This breaks the skin,\nI should presume, at every hole where it comes in contact with it.\nOthers, when other modes of punishment will not subdue them,\n_cat-haul_ them--that is, take a cat by the nape of the neck and tail,\nor by the hind legs, and drag the claws across the back until\nsatisfied. This kind of punishment poisons the flesh much worse than\nthe whip, and is more dreaded by the slave. Some are branded by a hot\niron, others have their flesh cut out in large gashes, to mark them.\nSome who are prone to run away, have iron fetters riveted around their\nancles, sometimes they are put only on one foot, and are dragged on\nthe ground. Others have on large iron collars or yokes upon their\nnecks, or clogs riveted upon their wrists or ancles. Some have bells\nput upon them, hung upon a sort of frame to an iron collar. Some\nmasters fly into a rage at trifles and knock down their negroes with\ntheir fists, or with the first thing that they can get hold of. The\nwhiplash-knots, or rawhide, have sometimes by a reckless stroke\nreached round to the front of the body and cut through to the bowels.\nOne slaveholder with whom I lived, whipped one of his slaves one day,\nas many, I should think, as one hundred lashes, and then turned the\n_butt-end_ and went to beating him over the head and ears, and truly I\nwas amazed that the slave was not killed on the spot. Not a few\nslaveholders whip their slaves to death, and then say that they died\nunder a \"moderate correction.\" I wonder that ten are not killed where\none is! Were they not much hardier than the whites many more of them\nmust die than do. One young mulatto man, with whom I was well\nacquainted, was killed by his master in his yard with _impunity_. I\nboarded at the same time near the place where this glaring murder was\ncommitted, and knew the master well. He had a plantation, on which he\nenacted, almost daily, cruel barbarities, some of them, I was\ninformed, more terrific, if possible, than death itself. Little notice\nwas taken of this murder, and it all passed off without any action\nbeing taken against the murderer. The masters used to try to make me\nwhip their negroes. They said I could not get along with them without\nflogging them--but I found I could get along better with them by\ncoaxing and encouraging them than by beating and flogging them. I had\nnot a heart to beat and kick about those beings; although I had not\ngrace in my heart the three first years I was there, yet I sympathised\nwith the slaves. I never was guilty of having but one whipped, and he\nwas whipped but eight or nine blows. The circumstances were as\nfollows: Several negroes were put under my care, one spring, _who were\nfresh from Congo and Guinea_. I could not understand them, neither\ncould they me, in one word I spoke. I therefore pointed to them to go\nto work; all obeyed me willingly but one--he refused. I told the\ndriver that he must tie him up and whip him. After he had tied him, by\nthe help of some others, we struck him eight or nine blows, and he\nyielded. I told the driver not to strike him another blow. We untied\nhim, and he went to work, and continued faithful all the time he was\nwith me. This one was not a sample, however--many of them have such\nexalted views of freedom that it is hard work for the masters to whip\nthem into brutes, that is to subdue their noble spirits. The negroes\nbeing put under my care, did not prevent the masters from whipping\nthem when they pleased. But they never whipped much in my presence.\nThis work was usually left until I had dismissed the hands. On the\nplantations, the masters chose to have the slaves whipped in the\npresence of all the hands, to strike them with terror.\n\nVI. RUNAWAYS\n\nNumbers of poor slaves run away from their masters; some of whom\ndoubtless perish in the swamps and other secret places, rather than\nreturn back again to their masters; others stay away until they almost\nfamish with hunger, and then return home rather than die, while others\nwho abscond are caught by the negro-hunters, in various ways.\nSometimes the master will hire some of his most trusty negroes to\nsecure any stray negroes, who come on to their plantations, for many\ncome at night to beg food of their friends on the plantations. The\nslaves assist one another usually when they can, and not be found out\nin it. The master can now and then, however, get some of his hands to\nbetray the runaways. Some obtain their living in hunting after lost\nslaves. The most common way is to train up young dogs to follow them.\nThis can easily be done by obliging a slave to go out into the woods,\nand climb a tree, and then put the young dog on his track, and with a\nlittle assistance he can be taught to follow him to the tree, and when\nfound, of course the dog would bark at such game as a poor negro on a\ntree. There was a man living in Savannah when I was there, who kept a\nlarge number of dogs for no other purpose than to hunt runaway\nnegroes. And he always had enough of this work to do, for hundreds of\nrunaways are never found, but could he get news soon after one had\nfled, he was almost sure to catch him. And this fear of the dogs\nrestrains multitudes from running off.\n\nWhen he went out on a hunting excursion, to be gone several days, he\ntook several persons with him, armed generally with rifles and\nfollowed by the dogs. The dogs were as true to the track of a negro,\nif one had passed recently, as a hound is to the track of a fox when\nhe has found it. When the dogs draw near to their game, the slave must\nturn and fight them or climb a tree. If the latter, the dogs will stay\nand bark until the pursuer come. The blacks frequently deceive the\ndogs by crossing and recrossing the creeks. Should the hunters who\nhave no dogs, start a slave from his hiding place, and the slave not\nstop at the hunter's call, he will shoot at him, as soon as he would\nat a deer. Some masters advertise so much for a runaway slave, dead or\nalive. It undoubtedly gives such more satisfaction to know that their\nproperty is dead, than to know that it is alive without being able to\nget it. Some slaves run away who never mean to be taken alive. I will\nmention one. He run off and was pursued by the dogs, but having a\nweapon with him he succeeded in killing two or three of the dogs; but\nwas afterwards shot. He had declared, that he never would be taken\nalive. The people rejoiced at the death of the slave, but lamented the\ndeath of the dogs, they were such ravenous hunters. Poor fellow, he\nfought for life and liberty like a hero; but the bullets brought him\ndown. A negro can hardly walk unmolested at the south.--Every colored\nstranger that walks the streets is suspected of being a runaway slave,\nhence he must be interrogated by every negro hater whom he meets, and\nshould he not have a pass, he must be arrested and hurried off to\njail. Some masters boast that their slaves would not be free if they\ncould. How little they know of their slaves! They are all sighing and\ngroaning for freedom. May God hasten the time!\n\nVII. CONFINEMENT AT NIGHT.\n\nWhen the slaves have done their day's work, they must be herded\ntogether like sheep in their yards, or on their plantations. They have\nnot as much liberty as northern men have, who are sent to jail for\ndebt, for they have liberty to walk a larger yard than the slaves\nhave. The slaves must all be at their homes precisely at eight\no'clock, P.M. At this hour the drums beat in the cities, as a signal\nfor every slave to be in his den. In the country, the signal is given\nby firing guns, or some other way by which they may know the hour when\nto be at home. After this hour, the guard in the cities, and patrols\nin the country, being well armed, are on duty until daylight in the\nmorning. If they catch any negroes during the night without a pass,\nthey are immediately seized and hurried away to the guard-house, or if\nin the country to some place of confinement, where they are kept until\nnine o'clock, A.M., the next day, if not called for by that time, they\nare hurried off to jail, and there remain until called for by their\nmaster and his jail and guard house fees paid. The guards and patrols\nreceive one dollar extra for every one they can catch, who has not a\npass from his master, or overseer, but few masters will give their\nslaves passes to be out at night unless on some special business:\nnotwithstanding, many venture out, watching every step they take for\nthe guard or patrol, the consequence is, some are caught almost every\nnight, and some nights many are taken; some, fleeing after being\nhailed by the watch, are shot down in attempting their escape, others\nare crippled for life. I find I shall not be able to write out more at\npresent. My ministerial duties are pressing, and if I delay this till\nthe next mail, I fear it will not be in season. Your brother for those\nwho are in bonds,\n\nHORACE MOULTON\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n\n\nNARRATIVE AND TESTIMONY OF SARAH M. GRIMK\u00c9.\n\nMiss Grimk\u00e9 is a daughter of the late Judge Grimk\u00e9, of the Supreme\nCourt of South Carolina, and sister of the late Hon. Thomas S. Grimk\u00e9.\n\nAs I left my native state on account of slavery, and deserted the home\nof my fathers to escape the sound of the lash and the shrieks of\ntortured victims, I would gladly bury in oblivion the recollection of\nthose scenes with which I have been familiar; but this may not, cannot\nbe; they come over my memory like gory spectres, and implore me with\nresistless power, in the name of a God of mercy, in the name of a\ncrucified Savior, in the name of humanity; for the sake of the\nslaveholder, as well as the slave, to bear witness to the horrors of\nthe southern prison house. I feel impelled by a sacred sense of duty,\nby my obligations to my country, by sympathy for the bleeding victims\nof tyranny and lust, to give my testimony respecting the system of\nAmerican slavery,--to detail a few facts, most of which came under my\n_personal observation_. And here I may premise, that the actors in\nthese tragedies were all men and women of the highest respectability,\nand of the first families in South Carolina, and, with one exception,\ncitizens of Charleston; and that their cruelties did not in the\nslightest degree affect their standing in society.\n\nA handsome mulatto woman, about 18 or 20 years of age, whose\nindependent spirit could not brook the degradation of slavery, was in\nthe habit of running away: for this offence she had been repeatedly\nsent by her master and mistress to be whipped by the keeper of the\nCharleston work-house. This had been done with such inhuman severity,\nas to lacerate her back in a most shocking manner; a finger could not\nbe laid between the cuts. But the love of liberty was too strong to be\nannihilated by torture; and, as a last resort, she was whipped at\nseveral different times, and kept a close prisoner. A heavy iron\ncollar, with three long prongs projecting from it, was placed round\nher neck, and a strong and sound front tooth was extracted, to serve\nas a mark to describe her, in case of escape. Her sufferings at this\ntime were agonizing; she could lie in no position but on her back,\nwhich was sore from scourgings, as I can testify, from personal\ninspection, and her only place of rest was the floor, on a blanket.\nThese outrages were committed in a family where the mistress daily\nread the scriptures, and assembled her children for family worship.\nShe was accounted, and was really, so far as almsgiving was concerned,\na charitable woman, and tender hearted to the poor; and yet this\nsuffering slave, who was the seamstress of the family, was continually\nin her presence, sitting in her chamber to sew, or engaged in her\nother household work, with her lacerated and bleeding back, her\nmutilated mouth, and heavy iron collar, without, so far as appeared,\nexciting any feelings of compassion.\n\nA highly intelligent slave, who panted after freedom with ceaseless\nlongings, made many attempts to get possession of himself. For every\noffence he was punished with extreme severity. At one time he was tied\nup by his hands to a tree, and whipped until his back was one gore of\nblood. To this terrible infliction he was subjected at intervals for\nseveral weeks, and kept heavily ironed while at his work. His master\none day accused him of a fault, in the usual terms dictated by passion\nand arbitrary power; the man protested his innocence, but was not\ncredited. He again repelled the charge with honest indignation. His\nmaster's temper rose almost to frenzy; and seizing a fork, he made a\ndeadly plunge at the breast of the slave. The man being far his\nsuperior in strength, caught the arm, and dashed the weapon on the\nfloor. His master grasped at his throat, but the slave disengaged\nhimself, and rushed from the apartment, having made his escape, he\nfled to the woods; and after wandering about for many months, living\non roots and berries, and enduring every hardship, he was arrested and\ncommitted to jail. Here he lay for a considerable time, allowed\nscarcely food enough to sustain life, whipped in the most shocking\nmanner, and confined in a cell so loathsome, that when his master\nvisited him, he said the stench was enough to knock a man down. The\nfilth had never been removed from the apartment since the poor\ncreature had been immured in it. Although a black man, such had been\nthe effect of starvation and suffering, that his master declared he\nhardly recognized him--his complexion was so yellow, and his hair,\nnaturally thick and black, had become red and scanty; an infallible\nsign of long continued living on bad and insufficient food. Stripes,\nimprisonment, and the gnawings of hunger, had broken his lofty spirit\nfor a season; and, to use his master's own exulting expression, he was\n\"as humble as a dog.\" After a time he made another attempt to escape,\nand was absent so long, that a reward was offered for him, _dead or\nalive_. He eluded every attempt to take him, and his master,\ndespairing of ever getting him again, offered to pardon him if he\nwould return home. It is always understood that such intelligence will\nreach the runaway; and accordingly, at the entreaties of his wife and\nmother, the fugitive once more consented to return to his bitter\nbondage. I believe this was the last effort to obtain his liberty. His\nheart became touched with the power of the gospel; and the spirit\nwhich no inflictions could subdue, bowed at the cross of Jesus, and\nwith the language on his lips--\"the cup that my father hath given me,\nshall I not drink it?\" submitted to the yoke of the oppressor, and\nwore his chains in unmurmuring patience till death released him. The\nmaster who perpetrated these wrongs upon his slave, was one of the\nmost influential and honored citizens of South Carolina, and to his\nequals was bland, and courteous, and benevolent even to a proverb.\n\nA slave who had been separated from his wife, because it best suited\nthe convenience of his owner, ran away. He was taken up on the\nplantation where his wife, to whom he was tenderly attached, then\nlived. His only object in running away was to return to her--no other\nfault was attributed to him. For this offence he was confined in the\nstocks _six weeks_, in a miserable hovel, not weather-tight. He\nreceived fifty lashes weekly during that time, was allowed food barely\nsufficient to sustain him, and when released from confinement, was not\npermitted to return to his wife. His master, although himself a\nhusband and a father, was unmoved by the touching appeals of the\nslave, who entreated that he might only remain with his wife,\npromising to discharge his duties faithfully; his master continued\ninexorable, and he was torn from his wife and family. The owner of\nthis slave was a professing Christian, in full membership with the\nchurch, and this circumstance occurred when he was confined to his\nchamber during his last illness.\n\nA punishment dreaded more by the slaves than whipping, unless it is\nunusually severe, is one which was invented by a female acquaintance\nof mine in Charleston--I heard her say so with much satisfaction. It\nis standing on one foot and holding the other in the hand. Afterwards\nit was improved upon, and a strap was contrived to fasten around the\nankle and pass around the neck; so that the least weight of the foot\nresting on the strap would choke the person. The pain occasioned by\nthis unnatural position was great; and when continued, as it sometimes\nwas, for an hour or more, produced intense agony. I heard this same\nwoman say, that she had the ears of her waiting maid _slit_ for some\npetty theft. This she told me in the presence of the girl, who was\nstanding in the room. She often had the helpless victims of her\ncruelty severely whipped, not scrupling herself to wield the\ninstrument of torture, and with her own hands inflict severe\nchastisement. Her husband was less inhuman than his wife, but he was\noften goaded on by her to acts of great severity. In his last illness\nI was sent for, and watched beside his death couch. The girl on whom\nhe had so often inflicted punishment, haunted his dying hours; and\nwhen at length the king of terrors approached, he shrieked in utter\nagony of spirit, \"Oh, the blackness of darkness, the black imps, I can\nsee them all around me--take them away!\" and amid such exclamations he\nexpired. These persons were of one of the first families in\nCharleston.\n\nA friend of mine, in whose veracity I have entire confidence, told me\nthat about two years ago, a woman in Charleston with whom I was well\nacquainted, had starved a female slave to death. She was confined in a\nsolitary apartment, kept constantly tied, and condemned to the slow\nand horrible death of starvation. This woman was notoriously cruel. To\nthose who have read the narrative of James Williams I need only say,\nthat the character of young Larrimore's wife is an exact description\nof this female tyrant, whose countenance was ever dressed in smiles\nwhen in the presence of strangers, but whose heart was as the nether\nmillstone toward her slaves.\n\nAs I was traveling in the lower country in South Carolina, a number of\nyears since, my attention was suddenly arrested by an exclamation of\nhorror from the coachman, who called out, \"Look there, Miss Sarah,\ndon't you see?\"--I looked in the direction he pointed, and saw a human\nhead stuck up on a high pole. On inquiry, I found that a runaway\nslave, who was outlawed, had been shot there, his head severed from\nhis body, and put upon the public highway, as a terror to deter slaves\nfrom running away.\n\nOn a plantation in North Carolina, where I was visiting, I happened\none day, in my rambles, to step into a negro cabin; my compassion was\ninstantly called forth by the object which presented itself. A slave,\nwhose head was white with age, was lying in one corner of the hovel;\nhe had under his head a few filthy rags but the boards were his only\nbed, it was the depth of winter, and the wind whistled through every\npart of the dilapidated building--he opened his languid eyes when I\nspoke, and in reply to my question, \"What is the matter?\" He said, \"I\nam dying of a cancer in my side.\"--As he removed the rags which\ncovered the sore, I found that it extended half round the body, and\nwas shockingly neglected. I inquired if he had any nurse. \"No,\nmissey,\" was his answer, \"but de people (the slaves) very kind to me,\ndey often steal time to run and see me and fetch me some ting to eat;\nif dey did not, I might starve.\" The master and mistress of this man,\nwho had been worn out in their service, were remarkable for their\nintelligence, and their hospitality knew no bounds towards those who\nwere of their own grade in society: the master had for some time held\nthe highest military office in North Carolina, and not long previous\nto the time of which I speak, was the Governor of the State.\n\nOn a plantation in South Carolina, I witnessed a similar case of\nsuffering--an aged woman suffering under an incurable disease in the\nsame miserably neglected situation. The \"owner\" of this slave was\nproverbially kind to her negroes; so much so, that the planters in the\nneighborhood said she spoiled them, and set a bad example, which might\nproduce discontent among the surrounding slaves; yet I have seen this\nwoman tremble with rage, when her slaves displeased her, and heard her\nuse language to them which could only be expected from an inmate of\nBridewell; and have known her in a gust of passion send a favorite\nslave to the workhouse to be severely whipped.\n\nAnother fact occurs to me. A young woman about eighteen, stated some\ncircumstances relative to her young master, which were thought\nderogatory to his character; whether true or false, I am unable to\nsay; she was threatened with punishment, but persisted in affirming\nthat she had only spoken the truth. Finding her incorrigible, it was\nconcluded to send her to the Charleston workhouse and have her whipt;\nshe pleaded in vain for a commutation of her sentence, not so much\nbecause she dreaded the actual suffering, as because her delicate mind\nshrunk from the shocking exposure of her person to the eyes of brutal\nand licentious men; she declared to me that death would be preferable;\nbut her entreaties were vain, and as there was no means of escaping\nbut by running away, she resorted to it as a desperate remedy, for her\ntimid nature never could have braved the perils necessarily\nencountered by fugitive slaves, had not her mind been thrown into a\nstate of despair.--She was apprehended after a few weeks, by two\nslave-catchers, in a deserted house, and as it was late in the evening\nthey concluded to spend the night there. What inhuman treatment she\nreceived from them has never been revealed. They tied her with cords\nto their bodies, and supposing they had secured their victim, soon\nfell into a deep sleep, probably rendered more profound by\nintoxication and fatigue; but the miserable captive slumbered not; by\nsome means she disengaged herself from her bonds, and again fled\nthrough the lone wilderness. After a few days she was discovered in a\nwretched hut, which seemed to have been long uninhabited; she was\nspeechless; a raging fever consumed her vitals, and when a physician\nsaw her, he said she was dying of a disease brought on by over\nfatigue; her mother was permitted to visit her, but ere she reached\nher, the damps of death stood upon her brow, and she had only the sad\nconsolation of looking on the death-struck form and convulsive agonies\nof her child.\n\nA beloved friend in South Carolina, the wife of a slaveholder, with\nwhom I often mingled my tears, when helpless and hopeless we deplored\ntogether the horrors of slavery, related to me some years since the\nfollowing circumstance.\n\nOn the plantation adjoining her husband's, there was a slave of\npre-eminent piety. His master was not a professor of religion, but the\nsuperior excellence of this disciple of Christ was not unmarked by\nhim, and I believe he was so sensible of the good influence of his\npiety that he did not deprive him of the few religious privileges\nwithin his reach. A planter was one day dining with the owner of this\nslave, and in the course of conversation observed, that all profession\nof religion among slaves was mere hypocrisy. The other asserted a\ncontrary opinion, adding, I have a slave who I believe would rather\ndie than deny his Saviour. This was ridiculed, and the master urged to\nprove the assertion. He accordingly sent for this man of God, and\nperemptorily ordered him to deny his belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.\nThe slave pleaded to be excused, constantly affirming that he would\nrather die than deny the Redeemer, whose blood was shed for him. His\nmaster, after vainly trying to induce obedience by threats, had him\nterribly whipped. The fortitude of the sufferer was not to be shaken;\nhe nobly rejected the offer of exemption from further chastisement at\nthe expense of destroying his soul, and this blessed martyr _died in\nconsequence of this severe infliction_. Oh, how bright a gem will this\nvictim of irresponsible power be, in that crown which sparkles on the\nRedeemer's brow; and that many such will cluster there, I have not the\nshadow of a doubt.\n\n\nSARAH M. GRIMK\u00c9. _Fort Lee, Bergen County, New Jersey, 3rd Month,\n26th_, 1830.\n\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE LATE REV. JOHN GRAHAM of Townsend, Mass., who resided\nin S. Carolina, from 1831, to the latter part of 1833. Mr. Graham\ngraduated at Amherst College in 1829, spent some time at the\nTheological Seminary, in New Haven, Ct., and went to South Carolina,\nfor his health in 1830. He resided principally on the island of St.\nHelena, S.C., and most of the time in the family of James Tripp, Esq.,\na wealthy slave holding planter. During his residence at St. Helena,\nhe was engaged as an instructer, and was most of the time the stated\npreacher on the island. Mr. G. was extensively known in Massachusetts;\nand his fellow students and instructers, at Amherst College, and at\nYale Theological Seminary, can bear testimony to his integrity and\nmoral worth. The following are extracts of letters, which he wrote\nwhile in South Carolina, to an intimate friend in Concord,\nMassachusetts, who has kindly furnished them for publication.\n\nEXTRACTS.\n\n_Springfield, St. Helena Isl., S.C., Oct. 22, 1832._\n\n\"Last night, about one o'clock, I was awakened by the report of a\nmusket. I was out of bed almost instantly. On opening my window, I\nfound the report proceeded from my host's chamber. He had let off his\npistol, which he usually keeps by him night and day, at a slave, who\nhad come into the yard, and as it appears, had been with one of his\nhouse servants. He did not hit him. The ball, taken from a pine tree\nthe next morning, I will show you, should I be spared by Providence\never to return to you. The house servant was called to the master's\nchamber, where he received 75 lashes, very severe too; and I could not\nonly hear every lash, but each groan which succeeded very distinctly\nas I lay in my bed. What was then done with the servant I know not.\nNothing was said of this to me in the morning and I presume it will\never be kept from me with care, if I may judge of kindred acts. I\nshall make no comment.\"\n\nIn the same letter, Mr. Graham says:--\n\n\"You ask me of my hostess\"--then after giving an idea of her character\nsays: \"To day, she has I verily believe laid, in a very severe manner\ntoo, more than 300 _stripes_, upon the house servants,\" (17 in\nnumber.)\n\n_Darlington, Court Moons. S.C. March, 28th, 1838._\n\n\"I walked up to the Court House to day, where I heard one of the most\ninteresting cases I ever heard. I say interesting, on account of its\nnovelty to me, though it had no novelty for the people, as such cases\nare of frequent occurrence. The case was this: To know whether two\nladies, present in court, were _white_ or _black_. The ladies were\ndressed well, seemed modest, and were retiring and neat in their look,\nhaving blue eyes, black hair, and appeared to understand much of the\netiquette of southern behaviour.\n\n\"A man, more avaricious than humane, as is the case with most of the\nrich planters, laid a remote claim to those two modest, unassuming,\ninnocent and free young ladies as his property, with the design of\nputting them into the field, and thus increasing his STOCK! As well as\nthe people of Concord are known to be of a peaceful disposition, and\nfor their love of good order, I verily believe if a similar trial\nshould be brought forward there and conducted as this was, the good\npeople would drive the lawyers out of the house. Such would be their\nindignation at their language, and at the mean under-handed manner of\ntrying to ruin those young ladies, as to their standing in society in\nthis district, if they could not succeed in dooming them for life to\nthe degraded condition of slavery, and all its intolerable cruelties.\nOh slavery! if statues of marble could curse you, they would speak. If\nbricks could speak, they would all surely thunder out their anathemas\nagainst you, accursed thing! How many white sons and daughters have\nbled and groaned under the lash in this sultry climate,\" &c.\n\nUnder date of March, 1832, Mr. G. writes, \"I have been doing what I\nhope never to be called to do again, and what I fear I have badly\ndone, though performed to the best of my ability, namely, sewing up a\nvery bad wound made by a wild hog. The slave was hunting wild hogs,\nwhen one, being closely pursued, turned upon his pursuer, who turning\nto run, was caught by the animal, thrown down, and badly wounded in\nthe thigh. The wound is about five inches long and very deep. It was\nmade by the tusk of the animal. The slaves brought him to one of the\nhuts on Mr. Tripp's plantation and made every exertion to stop the\nblood by filling the wound with ashes, (their remedy for stopping\nblood) but finding this to fail they came to me (there being no other\nwhite person on the plantation, as it is now holidays) to know if I\ncould stop the blood. I went and found that the poor creature must\nbleed to death unless it could be stopped soon. I called for a needle\nand succeeded in sewing it up as well as I could, and in stopping the\nblood. In a short time his master, who had been sent for came; and\noh, you would have shuddered if you had heard the awful oaths that\nfell from his lips, threatening in the same breath \"_to pay him for\nthat_!\" I left him as soon as decency would permit, with his hearty\nthanks that I had saved him $500! Oh, may heaven protect the poor,\nsuffering, fainting slave, and show his master his wanton cruelty--oh\nslavery! slavery!\"\n\nUnder date of July, 1832, Mr. G. writes, \"I wish you could have been\nat the breakfast table with me this morning to have seen and heard\nwhat I saw and heard, not that I wish your ear and heart and soul\npained as mine is, with every day's observation 'of wrong and outrage'\nwith which this place is filled, but that you might have auricular and\nocular evidence of the cruelty of slavery, of cruelties that mortal\nlanguage can never describe--that you might see the tender mercies of\na hardened slaveholder, one who bears the name of being _one of the\nmildest and most merciful masters of which this island can boast_. Oh,\nmy friend, another is screaming under the lash, in the shed-room, but\nfor what I know not. The scene this morning was truly distressing to\nme. It was this:--_After the blessing was asked_ at the breakfast\ntable, one of the servants, a woman grown, in giving one of the\nchildren some molasses, happened to pour out a little more than usual,\nthough not more than the child usually eats. Her master was angry at\nthe petty and indifferent mistake, or slip of the hand. He rose from\nthe table, took both of her hands in one of his, and with the other\nbegan to beat her, first on one side of her head and then on the\nother, and repeating this, till, as he said on sitting down at table,\nit hurt his hand too much to continue it longer. He then took off his\n_shoe_, and with the heel began in the same manner as with his hand,\ntill the poor creature could no longer endure it without screeches and\nraising her elbow as it is natural to ward off the blows. He then\ncalled a great overgrown negro _to hold her hands behind her_ while he\nshould wreak his vengeance upon the poor servant. In this position he\nbegan again to beat the poor suffering wretch. It now became\nintolerable to bear; she _fell, screaming to me for help_. After she\nfell, he beat her until I thought she would have died in his hands.\nShe got up, however, went out and washed off the blood and came in\nbefore we rose from table, one of the most pitiable objects I ever saw\ntill I came to the South. Her ears were almost as thick as my hand,\nher eyes awfully blood-shotten, her lips, nose, cheeks, chin, and\nwhole head swollen so that no one would have known it was Etta--and\nfor all this, she had to turn round as she was going out and _thank\nher master!_ Now, all this was done while I was sitting at breakfast\nwith the rest of the family. Think you not I wished myself sitting\nwith the peaceful and happy circle around your table? Think of my\nfeelings, but pity the poor negro slave, who not only fans his cruel\nmaster when he eats and sleeps, but bears the stripes his caprice may\ninflict. Think of this, and let heaven hear your prayers.\"\n\nIn a letter dated St. Helena Island, S.C., Dec. 3, 1832, Mr. G.\nwrites, \"If a slave here complains to his master, that his task is too\ngreat, his master at once calls him a scoundrel and tells him it is\nonly because he has not enough to do, and orders the driver to\nincrease his task, however unable he may be for the performance of it.\nI saw TWENTY-SEVEN _whipped at one time_ just because they did not do\nmore, when the poor creatures were so tired that they could scarcely\ndrag one foot after the other.\"\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM POE\n\n\nMr. Poe is a native of Richmond, Virginia, and was formerly a\nslaveholder. He was for several years a merchant in Richmond, and\nsubsequently in Lynchburg, Virginia. A few years since, he emancipated\nhis slaves, and removed to Hamilton County, Ohio, near Cincinnati;\nwhere he is a highly respected ruling elder in the Presbyterian\nchurch. He says,--\n\n\"I am pained exceedingly, and nothing but my duty to God, to the\noppressors, and to the poor down-trodden slaves, who go mourning all\ntheir days, could move me to say a word. I will state to you a _few_\ncases of the abuse of the slaves, but time would fail, if I had\nlanguage to tell how many and great are the inflictions of slavery,\neven in its mildest form.\n\nBenjamin James Harris, a wealthy tobacconist of Richmond, Virginia,\nwhipped a slave girl fifteen years old to death. While he was whipping\nher, his wife heated a smoothing iron, put it on her body in various\nplaces, and burned her severely. The verdict of the coroner's inquest\nwas, \"Died of excessive whipping.\" He was tried in Richmond, and\nacquitted. I attended the trial. Some years after, this same Harris\nwhipped another slave to death. The man had not done so much work as\nwas required of him. After a number of protracted and violent\nscourgings, with short intervals between, the slave died under the\nlash. Harris was tried, and again acquitted, because none but blacks\nsaw it done. The same man afterwards whipped another slave severely,\nfor not doing work to please him. After repeated and severe floggings\nin quick succession, for the same cause, the slave, in despair of\npleasing him, cut off his own hand. Harris soon after became a\nbankrupt, went to New Orleans to recruit his finances, failed, removed\nto Kentucky, became a maniac, and died.\n\nA captain in the United States' Navy, who married a daughter of the\ncollector of the port of Richmond, and resided there, became offended\nwith his negro boy, took him into the meat house, put him upon a\nstool, crossed his hands before him, tied a rope to them, threw it\nover a joist in the building, drew the boy up so that he could just\nstand on the stool with his toes, and kept him in that position,\nflogging him severely at intervals, until the boy became so exhausted\nthat he reeled off the stool, and swung by his hands until he died.\nThe master was tried and acquitted.\n\nIn Goochland County, Virginia, an overseer tied a slave to a tree,\nflogged him again and again with great severity, then piled brush\naround him, set it on fire, and burned him to death. The overseer was\ntried and imprisoned. The whole transaction may be found on the\nrecords of the court.\n\nIn traveling, one day, from Petersburg to Richmond, Virginia, I heard\ncries of distress at a distance, on the road. I rode up, and found two\nwhite men, beating a slave. One of them had hold of a rope, which was\npassed under the bottom of a fence; the other end was fastened around\nthe neck of the slave, who was thrown flat on the ground, on his face,\nwith his back bared. The other was beating him furiously with a large\nhickory.\n\nA slaveholder in Henrico County, Virginia, had a slave who used\nfrequently to work for my father. One morning he came into the field\nwith his back completely _cut up_, and mangled from his head to his\nheels. The man was so stiff and sore he could scarcely walk. This same\nperson got offended with another of his slaves, knocked him down, and\nstruck out one of his eyes with a maul. The eyes of several of his\nslaves were injured by similar violence.\n\nIn Richmond, Virginia, a company occupied as a dwelling a large\nwarehouse. They got angry with a negro lad, one of their slaves, took\nhim into the cellar, tied his hands with a rope, bored a hole though\nthe floor, and passed the rope up through it. Some of the family drew\nup the boy, while others whipped. This they continued until the boy\ndied. The warehouse was owned by a Mr. Whitlock, on the scite of one\nformerly owned by a Mr. Philpot.\n\nJoseph Chilton, a resident of Campbell County, Virginia, purchased a\nquart of tanners' oil, for the purpose, as he said, of putting it on\none of his negro's heads, that he had sometime previous pitched or\ntarred over, for running away.\n\nIn the town of Lynchburg, Virginia, there was a negro man put in\nprison, charged with having pillaged some packages of goods, which he,\nas head man of a boat, received at Richmond, to be delivered at\nLynchburg. The goods belonged to A.B. Nichols, of Liberty, Bedford\nCounty, Virginia. He came to Lynchburg, and desired the jailor to\npermit him to whip the negro, to make him confess, as there was _no\nproof against him_. Mr. Williams, (I think that is his name,) a pious\nMethodist man, a great stickler for law and good order, professedly a\ngreat friend to the black man, delivered the negro into the hands of\nNichols. Nichols told me that he took the slave, tied his wrists\ntogether, then drew his arms down so far below his knees as to permit\na staff to pass above the arms under the knees, thereby placing the\nslave in a situation that he could not move hand or foot. He then\ncommenced his bloody work, and continued, at intervals, until 500\nblows were inflicted. I received this statement from Nichols himself,\nwho was, by the way, a _son of the land of \"steady habits_,\" where\nthere are many like him, if we may judge from their writings, sayings,\nand doings.\"\n\n\nPRIVATIONS OF THE SLAVES.\n\n\nI. FOOD.\n\nWe begin with the _food_ of the slaves, because if they are ill\ntreated in this respect we may be sure that they will be ill treated\nin other respects, and generally in a greater degree. For a man\nhabitually to stint his dependents in their food, is the extreme of\nmeanness and cruelty, and the greatest evidence he can give of utter\nindifference to their comfort. The father who stints his children or\ndomestics, or the master his apprentices, or the employer his\nlaborers, or the officer his soldiers, or the captain his crew, when\nable to furnish them with sufficient food, is every where looked upon\nas unfeeling and cruel. All mankind agree to call such a character\ninhuman. If any thing can move a hard heart, it is the appeal of\nhunger. The Arab robber whose whole life is a prowl for plunder, will\nfreely divide his camel's milk with the hungry stranger who halts at\nhis tent door, though he may have just waylaid him and stripped him of\nhis money. Even savages take pity on hunger. Who ever went famishing\nfrom an Indian's wigwam? As much as hunger craves, is the Indian's\nfree gift even to an enemy. The necessity for food is such a universal\nwant, so constant, manifest and imperative, that the heart is more\ntouched with pity by the plea of hunger, and more ready to supply that\nwant than any other. He who can habitually inflict on others the pain\nof hunger by giving them insufficient food, can habitually inflict on\nthem any other pain. He can kick and cuff and flog and brand them, put\nthem in irons or the stocks, can overwork them, deprive them of sleep,\nlacerate their backs, make them work without clothing, and sleep\nwithout covering.\n\nOther cruelties may be perpetrated in hot blood and the acts regretted\nas soon as done--the feeling that prompts them is not a permanent\nstate of mind, but a violent impulse stung up by sudden provocation.\nBut he who habitually withholds from his dependents sufficient\nsustenance, can plead no such palliation. The fact itself shows, that\nhis permanent state of mind toward them is a brutal indifference to\ntheir wants and sufferings--A state of mind which will naturally,\nnecessarily, show itself in innumerable privations and inflictions\nupon them, when it can be done with impunity.\n\nIf, therefore, we find upon examination, that the slaveholders do not\nfurnish their slaves with sufficient food, and do thus habitually\ninflict upon them the pain of hunger, we have a clue furnished to\ntheir treatment in other respects, and may fairly infer habitual and\nsevere privations and inflictions; not merely from the fact that men\nare quick to feel for those who suffer from hunger, and perhaps more\nready to relieve that want than any other; but also, because it is\nmore for the interest of the slaveholder to supply that want than any\nother; consequently, if the slave suffer in this respect, he must as\nthe general rule, suffer _more_ in other respects.\n\nWe now proceed to show that the slaves have insufficient food. This\nwill be shown first from the express declarations of slaveholders, and\nother competent witnesses who are, or have been residents of slave\nstates, that the slaves generally are _under-fed._ And then, by the\nlaws of slave states, and by the testimony of slaveholders and others,\nthe _kind, quantity_, and _quality,_ of their allowance will be given,\nand the reader left to judge for himself whether the slave _must_ not\nbe a sufferer.\n\n\nTHE SLAVES SUFFER FROM HUNGER--DECLARATIONS OF SLAVE-HOLDERS AND\nOTHERS\n\n\n\nHon. Alexander Smyth, a slave holder, and for ten years, Member of\nCongress from Virginia, in his speech on the Missouri question. Jan\n28th, 1820.\n\n\"By confining the slaves to the Southern states, where crops are\nraised for exportation, and bread and meat are purchased, you _doom\nthem to scarcity and hunger._ It is proposed to hem in the blacks\nwhere they are ILL FED.\"\n\n\nRev. George Whitefield, in his letter, to the slave holders of Md. Va.\nN.C. S.C. and Ga. published in Georgia, just one hundred years ago,\n1739.\n\n\"My blood has frequently run cold within me, to think how many of your\nslaves _have not sufficient food to eat;_ they are scarcely permitted\nto _pick up the crumbs,_ that fall from their master's table.\"\n\n\nRev. John Rankin, of Ripley, Ohio, a native of Tennessee, and for same\nyears a preacher in slave states.\n\n\"Thousands of the slaves are pressed with the gnawings of cruel hunger\nduring their whole lives.\"\n\n\nReport of the Gradual Emancipation Society, of North Carolina, 1826.\nSigned Moses Swain, President, and William Swain, Secretary.\n\nSpeaking of the condition of slaves, in the eastern part of that\nstate, the report says,--\"The master puts the unfortunate wretches\nupon short allowances, scarcely sufficient for their sustenance, so\nthat a _great part_ of them go _half starved_ much of the time.\"\n\n\nMr. Asa A. Stone, a Theological Student, who resided near Natchez,\nMiss., in 1834-5.\n\n\"On almost every plantation, the hands suffer more or less from hunger\nat some seasons of almost every year. There is always a _good deal of\nsuffering_ from hunger. On many plantations, and particularly in\nLouisiana, the slaves are in a condition of _almost utter famishment,_\nduring a great portion of the year.\"\n\n\nThomas Clay, Esq., of Georgia, a Slaveholder.\n\n\"From various causes this [the slave's allowance of food] is _often_\nnot adequate to the support of a laboring man.\"\n\n\nMr. Tobias Boudinot, St Albans, Ohio, a member of the Methodist\nChurch. Mr. B. for some years navigated the Mississippi.\n\n\"The slaves down the Mississippi, are _half-starved,_ the boats, when\nthey stop at night, are constantly boarded by slaves, begging for\nsomething to eat.\"\n\n\nPresident Edwards, the younger, in a sermon before the Conn. Abolition\nSociety, 1791.\n\n\"The slaves are supplied with barely enough to keep them from\n_starving._\"\n\n\nRev. Horace Moulton, a Methodist Clergyman of Marlboro' Mass., who\nlived five years in Georgia.\n\n\"As a general thing on the plantations, the slaves suffer extremely\nfor the want of food.\"\n\n\nRev. George Bourne, late editor of the Protestant Vindicator, N.Y.,\nwho was seven years pastor of a church in Virginia.\n\n\"The slaves are deprived of _needful_ sustenance.\"\n\n\n2. KINDS OF FOOD.\n\nHon. Robert Turnbull, a slaveholder of Charleston, South Carolina.\n\n\"The subsistence of the slaves consists, from March until August, of\ncorn ground into grits, or meal, made into what is called _hominy_, or\nbaked into corn bread. The other six months, they are fed upon the\nsweet potatoe. Meat, when given, is only by way of _indulgence or\nfavor._\"\n\n\nMr. Eleazar Powell, Chippewa, Beaver Co., Penn., who resided in\nMississippi, in 1836-7.\n\n\"The food of the slaves was generally corn bread, and _sometimes_ meat\nor molasses.\"\n\n\nReuben G. Macy, a member of the Society of Friends, Hudson, N.Y., who\nresided in South Carolina.\n\n\"The slaves had no food allowed them besides _corn,_ excepting at\nChristmas, when they had beef.\"\n\n\nMr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia, and recently of Madison\nCo., Alabama, now member, of the Presbyterian Church, Delhi, Ohio.\n\n\"On my uncle's plantation, the food of the slaves, was corn-pone and a\nsmall allowance of meat.\"\n\n\nWILLIAM LADD, Esq., of Minot, Me., president of the American Peace\nSociety, and formerly a slaveholder of Florida, gives the following\ntestimony as to the allowance of food to slaves.\n\n\"The usual food of the slaves was _corn_, with a modicum of salt. In\nsome cases the master allowed no salt, but the slaves boiled the sea\nwater for salt in their little pots. For about eight days near\nChristmas, i.e., from the Saturday evening before, to the Sunday\nevening after Christmas day, they were allowed some _meat_. They\nalways with one single exception ground their corn in a hand-mill, and\ncooked their food themselves.\"\n\n\nExtract of a letter from Rev. D.C. EASTMAN, a preacher of the\nMethodist Episcopal church, in Fayette county, Ohio.\n\n\"In March, 1838, Mr. Thomas Larrimer, a deacon of the Presbyterian\nchurch in Bloomingbury, Fayette county, Ohio, Mr. G.S. Fullerton,\nmerchant, and member of the same church, and Mr. William A. Ustick, an\nelder of the same church, spent a night with a Mr. Shepherd, about 30\nmiles North of Charleston, S.C., on the Monk's corner road. He owned\nfive families of negroes, who, he said, were fed from the same meal\nand meat tubs as himself, but that 90 out of a 100 of all the slaves\nin that county _saw meat but once a year_, which was on Christmas\nholidays.\"\n\nAs an illustration of the inhuman experiments sometimes tried upon\nslaves, in respect to the _kind_ as well as the quality and quantity\nof their food, we solicit the attention of the reader to the testimony\nof the late General Wade Hampton, of South Carolina. General Hampton\nwas for some time commander in chief of the army on the Canada\nfrontier during the last war, and at the time of his death, about\nthree years since, was the largest slaveholder in the United States.\nThe General's testimony is contained in the following extract of a\nletter, just received from a distinguished clergyman in the west,\nextensively known both as a preacher and a writer. His name is with\nthe executive committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.\n\n\"You refer in your letter to a statement made to you while in this\nplace, respecting the late General Wade Hampton, of South Carolina,\nand task me to write out for you the circumstances of the\ncase--considering them well calculated to illustrate two points in the\nhistory of slavery: 1st, That the habit of slaveholding dreadfully\nblunts the feelings toward the slave, producing such insensibility\nthat his sufferings and death are regarded with indifference. 2d, That\nthe slave often has insufficient food, both in quantity and quality.\n\n\"I received my information from a lady in the west of high\nrespectability and great moral worth,--but think it best to withhold\nher name, although the statement was not made in confidence.\n\n\"My informant stated that she sat at dinner once in company with\nGeneral Wade Hampton, and several others; that the conversation turned\nupon the treatment of their servants, &c.; when the General undertook\nto entertain the company with the relation of an experiment he had\nmade in the feeding of his slaves on cotton seed. He said that he\nfirst mingled one-fourth cotton seed with three-fourths corn, on which\nthey seemed to thrive tolerably well; that he then had measured out to\nthem equal quantities of each, which did not seem to produce any\nimportant change; afterwards he increased the quantity of cotton seed\nto three-fourths, mingled with one-fourth corn, and then he declared,\nwith an oath, that 'they died like rotten sheep!!' It is but justice\nto the lady to state that she spoke of his conduct with the utmost\nindignation; and she mentioned also that he received no countenance\nfrom the company present, but that all seemed to look at each other\nwith astonishment. I give it to you just as I received it from one who\nwas present, and whose character for veracity is unquestionable.\n\n\"It is proper to add that I had previously formed an acquaintance with\nDr. Witherspoon, now of Alabama, if alive; whose former residence was\nin South Carolina; from whom I received a particular account of the\nmanner of feeding and treating slaves on the plantations of General\nWade Hampton, and others in the same part of the State; and certainly\nno one could listen to the recital without concluding that such\nmasters and overseers as he described must have hearts like the nether\nmillstone. The cotton seed experiment I had heard of before also, as\nhaving been made in other parts of the south; consequently, I was\nprepared to receive as true the above statement, even if I had not\nbeen so well acquainted with the high character of my informant.\"\n\n\n2. QUANTITY OF FOOD\n\nThe legal allowance of food for slaves in North Carolina, is in the\nwords of the law, \"a quart of corn per day.\" See Haywood's Manual,\n525. The legal allowance in Louisiana is more, a barrel [flour barrel]\nof corn, (in the ear,) or its equivalent in other grain, and a pint of\nsalt a month. In the other slave states the amount of food for the\nslaves is left to the option of the master.\n\n\nThos. Clay, Esq., of Georgia, a slave holder, in his address before\nthe Georgia Presbytery, 1833.\n\n\"The quantity allowed by custom is _a peck of corn a week_!\"\n\n\nThe Maryland Journal, and Baltimore Advertiser, May 30, 1788.\n\n\"_A single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of rice_, is the\n_ordinary_ quantity of provision for a _hard-working_ slave; to which\na small quantity of meat is occasionally, though _rarely_, added.\"\n\n\nW.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., a native of Georgia, and Elder in the\nPresbyterian Church, Wilksbarre, Penn.\n\n\"The weekly allowance to grown slaves on this plantation, where I was\nbest acquainted, was _one peck of corn_.\"\n\n\nWm. Ladd, of Minot, Maine, formerly a slaveholder in Florida.\n\n\"The usual allowance of food was _one quart of corn a day_, to a full\ntask hand, with a modicum of salt; kind masters allowed _a peck of\ncorn a week_; some masters allowed no salt.\"\n\n\nMr. Jarvis Brewster, in his \"Exposition of the treatment of slaves in\nthe Southern States,\" published in N. Jersey, 1815.\n\n\"The allowance of provisions for the slaves, is _one peck of corn, in\nthe grain, per week_.\"\n\n\nRev. Horace Moulton, a Methodist Clergyman of Marlboro, Mass., who\nlived five years in Georgia.\n\n\"In Georgia the planters give each slave only _one peck of their gourd\nseed corn per week_, with a small quantity of salt.\"\n\n\nMr. F.C. Macy, Nantucket, Mass., who resided in Georgia in 1820.\n\n\"The food of the slaves was three pecks of potatos a week during the\npotato season, and _one peck of corn_, during the remainder of the\nyear.\"\n\n\nMr. Nehemiah Caulkins, a member of the Baptist Church in Waterford,\nConn., who resided in North Carolina, eleven winters.\n\n\"The subsistence of the slaves, consists of _seven quarts of meal_ or\n_eight quarts of small rice for one week!_\"\n\n\nWilliam Savery, late of Philadelphia, an eminent Minister of the\nSociety of Friends, who travelled extensively in the slave states, on\na Religious Visitation, speaking of the subsistence of the slaves,\nsays, in his published Journal,\n\n\"_A peck of corn_ is their (the slaves,) miserable subsistence _for a\nweek_.\"\n\n\nThe late John Parrish, of Philadelphia, another highly respected\nMinister of the Society of Friends, who traversed the South, on a\nsimilar mission, in 1804 and 5, says in his \"Remarks on the slavery of\nBlacks;\"\n\n\"They allow them but _one peck of meal_, for a whole week, in some of\nthe Southern states.\"\n\nRichard Macy, Hudson, N.Y. a Member of the Society of Friends, who has\nresided in Georgia.\n\n\"Their usual allowance of food was one peck of corn per week, which\nwas dealt out to them every first day of the week. They had nothing\nallowed them besides the corn, except one quarter of beef at\nChristmas.\"\n\n\nRev. C.S. Renshaw, of Quincy, Ill., (the testimony of a Virginian).\n\n\"The slaves are generally allowanced: a pint of corn meal and a salt\nherring is the allowance, or in lieu of the herring a \"dab\" of fat\nmeat of about the same value. I have known the sour milk, and clauber\nto be served out to the hands, when there was an abundance of milk on\nthe plantation. This is a luxury not often afforded.\"\n\n\nTestimony of Mr. George W. Westgate, member of the Congregational\nChurch, of Quincy, Illinois. Mr. W. has been engaged in the low\ncountry trade for twelve years, more than half of each year,\nprincipally on the Mississippi, and its tributary streams in the\nsouth-western slave states.\n\n\"_Feeding is not sufficient_,--let facts speak. On the coast, i.e.\nNatchez and the Gulf of Mexico, the allowance was one barrel of ears\nof corn, and a pint of salt per month. They may cook this in what\nmanner they please, but it must be done after dark; they have no day\nlight to prepare it by. Some few planters, but only a few, let them\nprepare their corn on Saturday afternoon. Planters, overseers, and\nnegroes, have told me, that in _pinching times_, i.e. when corn is\nhigh, they did not get near that quantity. In Miss., I know some\nplanters who allowed their hands three and a half pounds of meat per\nweek, when it was cheap. Many prepare their corn on the Sabbath, when\nthey are not worked on that day, which however is frequently the case\non sugar plantations. There are very many masters on \"the coast\" who\nwill not suffer their slaves to come to the boats, because they steal\nmolasses to barter for meat; indeed they generally trade more or less\nwith stolen property. But it is impossible to find out what and when,\nas their articles of barter are of such trifling importance. They\nwould often come on board our boats to beg a bone, and would tell how\nbadly they were fed, that they were almost starved; many a time I have\nset up all night, to prevent them from stealing something to eat.\"\n\n\n3. QUALITY OF FOOD.\n\nHaving ascertained the kind and quantity of food allowed to the\nslaves, it is important to know something of its _quality_, that we\nmay judge of the amount of sustenance which it contains. For, if their\nprovisions are of an inferior quality, or in a damaged state, their\npower to sustain labor must be greatly diminished.\n\n\nThomas Clay, Esq. of Georgia, from an address to the Georgia\nPresbytery, 1834, speaking of the quality of the corn given to the\nslaves, says,\n\n\"There is _often a defect here_.\"\n\n\nRev. Horace Moulton, a Methodist clergyman at Marlboro, Mass. and\nfive years a resident of Georgia.\n\n\"The food, or 'feed' of slaves is generally of the _poorest_ kind.\"\n\n\nThe \"Western Medical Reformer,\" in an article on the diseases peculiar\nto negroes, by a Kentucky physician, says of the diet of the slaves;\n\n\"They live on a coarse, _crude, unwholesome diet_.\"\n\n\nProfessor A.G. Smith, of the New York Medical College; formerly a\nphysician in Louisville, Kentucky.\n\nI have myself known numerous instances of large families of _badly\nfed_ negroes swept off by a prevailing epidemic; and it is well known\nto many intelligent planters in the south, that the best method of\npreventing that horrible malady, _Chachexia Africana_, is to feed the\nnegroes with _nutritious_ food.\n\n\n4. NUMBER AND TIME OF MEALS EACH DAY.\n\nIn determining whether or not the slaves suffer for want of food, the\nnumber of hours intervening, and the labor performed between their\nmeals, and the number of meals each day, should be taken into\nconsideration.\n\n\nPhilemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer in Elyria, Ohio, and member of the\nPresbyterian church, who lived in Florida, in 1834, and 1835.\n\n\"The slaves go to the field in the morning; they carry with them corn\nmeal wet with water, and at _noon_ build a fire on the ground and bake\nit in the ashes. After the labors of the day are over, they take their\n_second_ meal of ash-cake.\"\n\n\nPresident Edwards, the younger.\n\n\"The slaves eat _twice_ during the day.\"\n\n\nMr. Eleazar Powell, Chippewa, Beaver county, Penn., who resided in\nMississippi in 1836 and 1837.\n\n\"The slaves received _two_ meals during the day. Those who have their\nfood cooked for them get their breakfast about eleven o'clock, and\ntheir other meal _after night_.\"\n\n\nMr. Nehemiah Caulkins, Waterford, Conn., who spent eleven winters in\nNorth Carolina.\n\n\"The _breakfast_ of the slaves was generally about _ten or eleven_\no'clock.\"\n\n\nRev. Phineas Smith, Centreville, N.Y., who has lived at the south some\nyears.\n\n\"The slaves have usually _two_ meals a day, viz: at eleven o'clock\nand at night.\"\n\n\nRev. C.S. Renshaw, Quincy, Illinois--the testimony of a Virginian.\n\n\"The slaves have _two_ meals a day. They breakfast at from ten to\neleven, A.M., and eat their supper at from six to nine or ten at\nnight, as the season and crops may be.\"\n\n\nThe preceding testimony establishes the following points.\n\n1st. That the slaves are allowed, in general, _no meat_. This appears\nfrom the fact, that in the _only_ slave states which regulate the\nslaves' rations _by law_, (North Carolina and Louisiana,) the _legal\nration_ contains _no meat_. Besides, the late Hon. R.J. Turnbull, one\nof the largest planters in South Carolina, says expressly, \"meat, when\ngiven, is only by the way of indulgence or favor.\" It is shown also by\nthe direct testimony recorded above, of slaveholders and others, in\nall parts of the slaveholding south and west, that the general\nallowance on plantations is corn or meal and salt merely. To this\nthere are doubtless many exceptions, but they are _only_ exceptions;\nthe number of slaveholders who furnish meat for their _field-hands_,\nis small, in comparison with the number of those who do not. The\nhouse slaves, that is, the cooks, chambermaids, waiters, &c.,\ngenerally get some meat every day; the remainder bits and bones of\ntheir masters' tables. But that the great body of the slaves, those\nthat compose the field gangs, whose labor and exposure, and consequent\nexhaustion, are vastly greater than those of house slaves, toiling as\nthey do from day light till dark, in the fogs of the early morning,\nunder the scorchings of mid-day, and amid the damps of evening, are\n_in general_ provided with _no meat_, is abundantly established by the\npreceding testimony.\n\nNow we do not say that meat _is necessary_ to sustain men under hard\nand long continued labor, nor that it is _not_. This is not a treatise\non dietetics; but it is a notorious fact, that the medical faculty in\nthis country, with very few exceptions, do most strenuously insist\nthat it is necessary; and that working men in all parts of the country\ndo _believe_ that meat is indispensable to sustain them, even those\nwho work within doors, and only ten hours a day, every one knows.\nFurther, it is notorious, that the slaveholders themselves _believe_\nthe daily use of meat to be absolutely necessary to the comfort, not\nmerely of those who labor, but of those who are idle, as is proved by\nthe fact of meat being a part of the daily ration of food provided for\nconvicts in the prisons, in every one of the slave states, except in\nthose rare cases where meat is expressly prohibited, and the convict\nis, by _way of extra punishment_ confined to bread and water; he is\noccasionally, and for a little time only, confined to bread and water;\nthat is, to the _ordinary diet_ of slaves, with this difference in\nfavor of the convict, his bread is made for him, whereas the slave is\nforced to pound or grind his own corn and make his own bread, when\nexhausted with toil.\n\nThe preceding testimony shows also, that _vegetables_ form generally\nno part of the slaves' allowance. The _sole_ food of the majority is\n_corn_: at every meal--from day to day--from week to week--from month\nto month, _corn_. In South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, the sweet\npotato is, to a considerable extent, substituted for corn during a\npart of the year.\n\n2d. The preceding testimony proves conclusively, that the _quantity of\nfood_ generally allowed to a full-grown field-hand, is a peck of corn\na week, or a fraction over a quart and a gill of corn a day. The legal\nration of North Carolina is _less_--in Louisiana it is _more_. Of the\nslaveholders and other witnesses, who give the fore-going testimony,\nthe reader will perceive that no one testifies to a larger allowance\nof corn than a peck for a week; though a number testify, that within\nthe circle of their knowledge, _seven_ quarts was the usual allowance.\nFrequently a small quantity of meat is added; but this, as has already\nbeen shown, is not the general rule for _field-hands_. We may add,\nalso, that in the season of \"pumpkins,\" \"cimblins,\" \"cabbages,\"\n\"greens,\" &c., the slaves on small plantations are, to some extent,\nfurnished with those articles.\n\nNow, without entering upon the vexed question of how much food is\nnecessary to sustain the human system, under severe toil and exposure,\nand without giving the opinions of physiologists as to the\ninsufficiency or sufficiency of the slaves' allowance, we affirm that\nall civilized nations have, in all ages, and in the most emphatic\nmanner, declared, that _eight quarts of corn a week_, (the usual\nallowance of our slaves,) is utterly insufficient to sustain the human\nbody, under such toil and exposure as that to which the slaves are\nsubjected.\n\nTo show this fully, it will be necessary to make some estimates, and\npresent some statistics. And first, the northern reader must bear in\nmind, that the corn furnished to the slaves at the south, is almost\ninvariably the _white gourd seed_ corn, and that a quart of this kind\nof corn weighs five or six ounces _less_ than a quart of \"flint corn,\"\nthe kind generally raised in the northern and eastern states;\nconsequently a peck of the corn generally given to the slaves, would\nbe only equivalent to a fraction more than six quarts and a pint of\nthe corn commonly raised in the New England States, New York, New\nJersey, &c. Now, what would be said of the northern capitalist, who\nshould allow his laborers but _six quarts and five gills of corn for a\nweek's provisions?_\n\nFurther, it appears in evidence, that the corn given to the slaves is\noften _defective_. This, the reader will recollect, is the voluntary\ntestimony of Thomas Clay, Esq., the Georgia planter, whose testimony\nis given above. When this is the case, the amount of actual nutriment\ncontained in a peck of the \"gourd seed,\" may not be more than in five,\nor four, or even three quarts of \"flint corn.\"\n\nAs a quart of southern corn weighs at least five ounces less than a\nquart of northern corn, it requires little arithmetic to perceive,\nthat the daily allowance of the slave fed upon that kind of corn,\nwould contain about one third of a pound less nutriment than though\nhis daily ration were the same quantity of northern corn, which would\namount, in a year, to more than a hundred and twenty pounds of human\nsustenance! which would furnish the slave with his full allowance of a\npeck of corn a week for two months! It is unnecessary to add, that\nthis difference in the weight of the two kinds of corn, is an item too\nimportant to be overlooked. As one quart of the southern corn weighs\none pound and eleven-sixteenths of a pound, it follows that it would\nbe about one pound and six-eighths of a pound. We now solicit the\nattention of the reader to the following unanimous testimony, of the\ncivilized world, to the utter insufficiency of this amount of food to\nsustain human beings under labor. This testimony is to be found in the\nlaws of all civilized nations, which regulate the rations of soldiers\nand sailors, disbursements made by governments for the support of\ncitizens in times of public calamity, the allowance to convicts in\nprisons, &c. We will begin with the United States.\n\nThe daily ration for each United States soldier, established by act of\nCongress, May 30, 1796. was the following: one pound of beef, one\npound of bread, half a gill of spirits; and at the rate of one quart\nof salt, two quarts of vinegar, two pounds of soap, and one pound of\ncandles to every hundred rations. To those soldiers \"who were on the\nfrontiers,\" (where the labor and exposure were greater,) the ration\nwas one pound two ounces of beef and one pound two ounces of bread.\nLaws U.S. vol. 3d, sec. 10, p. 431.\n\nAfter an experiment of two years, the preceding ration being found\n_insufficient_, it was increased, by act of Congress, July 16, 1798,\nand was as follows: beef one pound and a quarter, bread one pound two\nounces; salt two quarts, vinegar four quarts, soap four pounds, and\ncandles one and a half pounds to the hundred rations. The preceding\nallowance was afterwards still further increased.\n\nThe _present daily ration_ for the United States' soldiers, is, as we\nlearn from an advertisement of Captain Fulton, of the United States'\narmy, in a late number of the Richmond (Va.) Enquirer, as follows: one\nand a quarter pounds of beef, one and three-sixteenths pounds of\nbread; and at the rate of _eight quarts of beans, eight pounds of\nsugar_, four pounds of coffee, two quarts of salt, four pounds of\ncandles, and four pounds of soap, to every hundred rations.\n\nWe have before us the daily rations provided for the emigrating Ottawa\nIndians, two years since, and for the emigrating Cherokees last fall.\nThey were the same--one pound of fresh beef, one pound of flour, &c.\n\nThe daily ration for the United States' navy, is fourteen ounces of\nbread, half a pound of beef, six ounces of pork, three ounces of rice,\nthree ounces of peas, one ounce of cheese, one ounce of sugar, half an\nounce of tea, one-third of a gill molasses.\n\nThe daily ration in the British army is one and a quarter pounds of\nbeef, one pound of bread, &c.\n\nThe daily ration in the French army is one pound of beef, one and a\nhalf pounds of bread, one pint of wine, &c.\n\nThe common daily ration for foot soldiers on the continent, is one\npound of meat, and one and a half pounds of bread.\n\nThe _sea ration_ among the Portuguese, has become the usual ration in\nthe navies of European powers generally. It is as follows: \"one and a\nhalf pounds of biscuit, one pound of salt meat, one pint of wine, with\nsome dried fish and onions.\"\n\nPRISON RATIONS.--Before giving the usual daily rations of food allowed\nto convicts, in the principal prisons in the United States, we will\nquote the testimony of the \"American Prison Discipline Society,\" which\nis as follows:\n\n\"The common allowance of food in the penitentiaries, is equivalent to\nONE POUND OF MEAT, ONE POUND OF BREAD, AND ONE POUND OF VEGETABLES PER\nDAY. It varies a little from this in some of them, but it is generally\nequivalent to it.\" First Report of American Prison Discipline Society,\npage 13.\n\nThe daily ration of food to each convict, in the principal prisons in\nthis country, is as follows:\n\nIn the New Hampshire State Prison, one and a quarter pounds of meal,\nand fourteen ounces of beef, for _breakfast and dinner;_ and for\nsupper, a soup or porridge of potatos and beans, or peas, the\n_quantity not limited_.\n\nIn the Vermont prison, the convicts are allowed to eat _as much as\nthey wish_.\n\nIn the Massachusetts' penitentiary, one and a half pounds of bread,\nfourteen ounces of meat, half a pint of potatos, and one gill of\nmolasses, or one pint of milk.\n\nIn the Connecticut State Prison, one pound of beef, one pound of\nbread, two and a half pounds of potatos, half a gill of molasses, with\nsalt, pepper, and vinegar.\n\nIn the New York State Prison, at Auburn, one pound of beef, twenty-two\nounces of flour and meal, half a gill of molasses; with two quarts of\nrye, four quarts of salt, two quarts of vinegar, one and a half ounces\nof pepper, and two and a half bushels of potatos to every hundred\nrations.\n\nIn the New York State Prison at Sing Sing, one pound of beef, eighteen\nounces of flour and meal, besides potatos, rye coffee, and molasses.\n\nIn the New York City Prison, one pound of beef, one pound of flour;\nand three pecks of potatos to every hundred rations, with other small\narticles.\n\nIn the New Jersey State Prison, one pound of bread, half a pound of\nbeef, with potatos and cabbage, (quantity not specified,) one gill of\nmolasses, and a bowl of mush for supper.\n\nIn the late Walnut Street Prison, Philadelphia, one and a half pounds\nof bread and meal, half a pound of beef, one pint of potatos, one gill\nof molasses, and half a gill of rye, for coffee.\n\nIn the Baltimore prison, we believe the ration is the same with the\npreceding.\n\nIn the Pennsylvania Eastern Penitentiary, one pound of bread and one\npint of coffee for breakfast, one pint of meat soup, with potatos\nwithout limit, for dinner, and mush and molasses for supper.\n\nIn the Penitentiary for the District of Columbia, Washington city, one\npound of beef, twelve ounces of Indian meal, ten ounces of wheat\nflour, half a gill of molasses; with two quarts of rye, four quarts of\nsalt, four quarts of vinegar, and two and a half bushels of potatos to\nevery hundred rations.\n\nRATIONS IN ENGLISH PRISONS.--The daily ration of food in the\nBedfordshire Penitentiary, is _two pounds of bread;_ and if at hard\nlabor, _a quart of soup for dinner._\n\nIn the Cambridge County House of Correction, three pounds of bread,\nand one pint of beer.\n\nIn the Millbank General Penitentiary, one and a half pounds of bread,\none pound of potatos, six ounces of beef, with half a pint of broth\ntherefrom.\n\nIn the Gloucestershire Penitentiary, one and a half pounds of bread,\nthree-fourths of a pint of peas, made into soup, with beef, quantity\nnot stated. Also gruel, made of vegetables, quantity not stated, and\none and a half ounces of oatmeal mixed with it.\n\nIn the Leicestershire House of Correction, two pounds of bread, and\nthree pints of gruel; and when at hard labor, one pint of milk in\naddition, and twice a week a pint of meat soup at dinner, instead of\ngruel.\n\nIn the Buxton House of Correction, one and a half pounds of bread, one\nand a half pints of gruel, one and a half pints of soup, four-fifths\nof a pound of potatos, and two-sevenths of an ounce of beef.\n\nNotwithstanding the preceding daily ration in the Buxton Prison is\nabout double the usual daily allowance of our slaves, yet the visiting\nphysicians decided, that for those prisoners who were required to work\nthe tread-mill, it was _entirely sufficient_. This question was\nconsidered at length, and publicly discussed at the sessions of the\nSurry magistrates, with the benefit of medical advice; which resulted\nin \"large additions\" to the rations of those who worked on the\ntread-mill. See London Morning Chronicle, Jan. 13, 1830.\n\nTo the preceding we add the _ration of the Roman slaves_. The monthly\nallowance of food to slaves in Rome was called \"Dimensum.\" The\n\"Dimensum\" was an allowance of wheat or of other grain, which\nconsisted of five _modii_ a month to each slave. Ainsworth, in his\nLatin Dictionary estimates the _modius_, when used for the measurement\nof grain, at _a peck and a half_ our measure, which would make the\nRoman slave's allowance _two quarts of grain a day_, just double the\nallowance provided for the slave by _law_ in North Carolina, and _six_\nquarts more per week than the ordinary allowance of slaves in the\nslave states generally, as already established by the testimony of\nslaveholders themselves. But it must by no means be overlooked that\nthis \"dimensum,\" or _monthly_ allowance, was far from being the sole\nallowance of food to Roman slaves. In _addition_ to this, they had a\nstated _daily_ allowance (_diarium_) besides a monthly allowance of\n_money_, amounting to about a cent a day.\n\nNow without further trenching on the reader's time, we add, compare\nthe preceding daily allowances of food to soldiers and sailors in this\nand other countries; to convicts in this and other countries; to\nbodies of emigrants rationed at public expense; and finally, with the\nfixed allowance given to Roman slaves, and we find the states of this\nUnion, the _slave_ states as well as the free, the United States'\ngovernment, the different European governments, the old Roman empire,\nin fine, we may add, the _world_, ancient and modern, uniting in the\ntestimony that to furnish men at hard labor from daylight till dark\nwith but 1-1/2 lbs. of _corn_ per day, their sole sustenance, is to\nMURDER THEM BY PIECE-MEAL. The reader will perceive by examining the\npreceding statistics that the _average daily_ ration throughout this\ncountry and Europe exceeds the usual slave's allowance _at least a\npound a day_; also that one-third of this ration for soldiers and\nconvicts in the United States, and for solders and sailors in Europe\nis _meat_, generally beef; whereas the allowance of the mass of our\nslaves is corn, only. Further, the convicts in our prisons are\nsheltered from the heat of the sun, and from the damps of the early\nmorning and evening, from cold, rain, &c.; whereas, the great body of\nthe slaves are exposed to all of these, in their season, from daylight\ntill dark; besides this, they labor more hours in the day than\nconvicts, as will be shown under another head, and are obliged to\nprepare and cook their own food after they have finished the labor of\nthe day, while the convicts have theirs prepared for them. These, with\nother circumstances, necessarily make larger and longer draughts upon\nthe strength of the slave, produce consequently greater exhaustion,\nand demand a larger amount of food to restore and sustain the laborer\nthan is required by the convict in his briefer, less exposed, and less\nexhausting toils.\n\nThat the slaveholders themselves regard the usual allowance of food to\nslaves as insufficient, both in kind and quantity, for hard-working\nmen, is shown by the fact, that in all the slave states, we believe\nwithout exception, _white_ convicts at hard labor, have a much\n_larger_ allowance of food than the usual one of slaves; and generally\nmore than _one third_ of this daily allowance is meat. This conviction\nof slaveholders shows itself in various forms. When persons wish to\nhire slaves to labor on public works, in addition to the inducement of\nhigh wages held out to masters to hire out their slaves, the\ncontractors pledge themselves that a certain amount of food shall be\ngiven the slaves, taking care to specify a _larger_ amount than the\nusual allowance, and a part of it _meat_.\n\nThe following advertisement is an illustration. We copy it from the\n\"Daily Georgian,\" Savannah, Dec. 14, 1838.\n\n\nNEGROES WANTED.\n\nThe Contractors upon the Brunswick and Alatamaha Canal are desirous to\nhire a number of prime Negro Men, from the 1st October next, for\nfifteen months, until the 1st January, 1810. They will pay at the rate\nof eighteen dollars per month for each prime hand.\n\nThese negroes will be employed in the excavation of the Canal. They\nwill be provided with _three and a half pounds of pork or bacon, and\nten quarts of gourd seed corn per week_, lodged in comfortable\nshantees and attended constantly a skilful physician. J.H. COUPER,\nP.M. NIGHTINGALE.\n\n\nBut we have direct testimony to this point. The late Hon. John Taylor,\nof Caroline Co. Virginia, for a long time Senator in Congress, and for\nmany years president of the Agricultural Society of the State, says in\nhis \"Agricultural Essays,\" No. 30, page 97, \"BREAD ALONE OUGHT NEVER\nTO BE CONSIDERED A SUFFICIENT DIET FOR SLAVES EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT.\"\nHe urges upon the planters of Virginia to give their slaves, in\naddition to bread, \"salt meat and vegetables,\" and adds, \"we shall be\nASTONISHED to discover upon trial, that this great comfort to them is\na profit to the master.\"\n\nThe Managers of the American Prison Discipline Society, in their third\nReport, page 58, say, \"In the Penitentiaries generally, in the United\nStates, the animal food is equal to one pound of meat per day for each\nconvict.\"\n\nMost of the actual suffering from hunger on the part of the slaves, is\nin the sugar and cotton-growing region, where the crops are exported\nand the corn generally purchased from the upper country. Where this is\nthe case there cannot but be suffering. The contingencies of bad\ncrops, difficult transportation, high prices, &c. &c., naturally\noccasion short and often precarious allowances. The following extract\nfrom a New Orleans paper of April 26, 1837, affords an illustration.\nThe writer in describing the effects of the money pressure in\nMississippi, says:\n\n\"They, (the planters,) are now left without provisions and the means\nof living and using their industry, for the present year. In this\ndilemma, planters whose crops have been from 100 to 700 bales, find\nthemselves forced to sacrifice many of their slaves in order to get\nthe common necessaries of life for the support of themselves and the\nrest of their negroes. In many places, heavy planters compel their\nslaves to fish for the means of subsistence, rather than sell them at\nsuch ruinous rates. There are at this moment THOUSANDS OF SLAVES in\nMississippi, that KNOW NOT WHERE THE NEXT MORSEL IS TO COME FROM. The\nmaster must be ruined to save the wretches from being STARVED.\"\n\n\nII. LABOR\n\nTHE SLAVES ARE OVERWORKED.\n\nThis is abundantly proved by the number of hours that the slaves are\nobliged to be in the field. But before furnishing testimony as to\ntheir hours of labor and rest, we will present the express\ndeclarations of slaveholders and others, that the slaves are severely\ndriven in the field.\n\n\nThe Senate and House of Representatives of the State of South\nCarolina.\n\n\"Many owners of slaves, and others who have the management of slaves,\n_do confine them so closely at hard labor that they have not\nsufficient time for natural rest_.--See 2 Brevard's Digest of the Laws\nof South Carolina, 243.\"\n\n\nHistory of Carolina.--Vol. I, page 190.\n\n\"So _laborious_ is the task of raising, beating, and cleaning rice,\nthat had it been possible to obtain European servants in sufficient\nnumbers, _thousands and tens of thousands_ MUST HAVE PERISHED.\"\n\n\nHon. Alexander Smyth, a slaveholder, and member of Congress from\nVirginia, in his speech on the \"Missouri question,\" Jan. 28, 1820.\n\n\"Is it not obvious that the way to render their situation _more\ncomfortable_, is to allow them to be taken where there is not the same\nmotive to force the slave to INCESSANT TOIL that there is in the\ncountry where cotton, sugar, and tobacco are raised for exportation.\nIt is proposed to hem in the blacks _where they are_ HARD WORKED,\nthat they may be rendered unproductive and the race be prevented from\nincreasing. * * * The proposed measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the\nblacks. * * * You would * * * doom them to HARD LABOR.\"\n\n\n\"Travels in Louisiana,\" translated from the French by John Davies,\nEsq.--Page 81.\n\n\"At the rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months,\nthey _work both night and day_. Abridged of their sleep, they _scarce\nretire to rest during the whole period_.\"\n\n\nThe Western Review, No. 2,--article \"Agriculture of Louisiana.\"\n\n\"The work is admitted to be severe for the hands, (slaves,) requiring\nwhen the process is commenced to be _pushed night and day_.\"\n\n\nW.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., a native of Georgia, elder of the\nPresbyterian church, Wilkesbarre, Penn.\n\n\"_Overworked_ I know they (the slaves) are.\"\n\n\nMr. Asa A. Stone, a theological student, near Natchez, Miss., in 1834\nand 1835.\n\n\"Every body here knows _overdriving_ to be one of the most common\noccurrences, the planters do not deny it, except, perhaps, to\nnortherners.\"\n\n\nPhilemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer of Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida\nin 1834 and 1835.\n\n\"During the cotton-picking season they usually labor in the field\nduring the whole of the daylight, and then spend a good part of the\nnight in ginning and baling. The labor required is very frequently\nexcessive, and speedily impairs the constitution.\"\n\n\nHon. R.J. Turnbull of South Carolina, a slaveholder, speaking of the\nharvesting of cotton, says:\n\n\"_All the pregnant women_ even, on the plantation, and weak and\n_sickly_ negroes incapable of other labour, are then _in\nrequisition_.\"\n\n\nHOURS OF LABOR AND REST.\n\nAsa A. Stone, theological student, a classical teacher near Natchez,\nMiss., 1835.\n\n\"It is a general rule on all regular plantations, that the slaves be\nin the field as _soon as it is light enough for them to see to work_,\nand remain there until it is _so dark that they cannot see_.\"\n\n\nMr. Cornelius Johnson, of  Farmington, Ohio, who lived in Mississippi\na part of 1837 and 1838.\n\n\"It is the common rule for the slaves to be kept at work _fifteen\nhours in the day_, and in the time of picking cotton a certain number\nof pounds is required of each. If this amount is not brought in at\nnight, the slave is whipped, and the number of pounds lacking is added\nto the next day's job; this course is often repeated from day to day.\"\n\n\nW.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., Wilkesbarre, Penn, a native of Georgia. \"It\nwas customary for the overseers to call out the gangs _long before\nday_, say three o'clock, in the winter, while dressing out the crops;\nsuch work as could be done by fire light (pitch pine was abundant,)\nwas provided.\"\n\n\nMr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia and son of a\nslaveholder--he has recently removed to Delhi, Hamilton County, Ohio.\n\n\"_From dawn till dark_, the slaves are required to bend to their\nwork.\"\n\n\nMr. Nehemiah Caulkins, Waterford, Conn., a resident in North Carolina\neleven winters.\n\n\"The slaves are obliged to work _from daylight till dark_, as long as\nthey can see.\"\n\n\nMr. Eleazar Powel, Chippewa, Beaver county, Penn., who lived in\nMississippi in 1836 and 1837.\n\n\"The slaves had to cook and eat their breakfast and be in the field by\n_daylight, and continue there till dark_.\"\n\n\nPhilemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer in Elyria, Ohio, who resided in Florida\nin 1834 and 1835.\n\n\"The slaves commence labor _by daylight_ in the morning, and do not\nleave the field _till dark_ in the evening.\"\n\n\"Travels in Louisiana,\" page 87.\n\n\"Both in summer and winter the slave must _be in the field by the\nfirst dawning of day_.\"\n\n\nMr. Henry E. Knapp, member of a Christian church in Farmington, Ohio,\nwho lived in Mississippi in 1837 and 1838.\n\n\"The slaves were made to work, from _as soon as they could see_ in the\nmorning, till as late as they could see at night. Sometimes they were\nmade to work till nine o'clock at night, in such work as they could\ndo, as burning cotton stalks, &c.\"\n\n\nA New Orleans paper, dated March 23, 1826, says: \"To judge from the\nactivity reigning in the cotton presses of the suburbs of St. Mary,\nand the _late hours_ during which their slaves work, the cotton trade\nwas never more brisk.\"\n\nMr. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, a member of the Congregational Church at\nQuincy, Illinois, who lived in the south western slaves states a\nnumber of years says, \"the slaves are driven to the field in the\nmorning _about four o'clock_, the general calculation is to get them\nat work by daylight; the time for breakfast is between nine and ten\no'clock, this meal is sometimes eaten '_bite and work_,' others allow\nfifteen minutes, and this is the only rest the slave has while in the\nfield. I have never known a case of stopping for an hour, in\nLouisiana; in Mississippi the rule is milder, though entirely subject\nto the will of the master. On cotton plantations, in cotton picking\ntime, that is from October to Christmas, each hand has a certain\nquantity to pick, and is flogged if his task is not accomplished;\ntheir tasks are such as to keep them all the while busy.\"\n\nThe preceding testimony under this head has sole reference to the\nactual labor of the slaves _in the field_. In order to determine how\nmany hours are left for sleep, we must take into the account, the time\nspent in going to and from the field, which is often at a distance of\none, two and sometimes three miles; also the time necessary for\npounding, or grinding their corn, and preparing, overnight, their food\nfor the next day; also the preparation of tools, getting fuel and\npreparing it, making fires and cooking their suppers, if they have\nany, the occasional mending and washing of their clothes, &c. Besides\nthis, as everyone knows who has lived on a southern plantation, many\nlittle errands and _chores_ are to be done for their masters and\nmistresses, old and young, which have accumulated during the day and\nbeen kept in reserve till the slaves return from the field at night.\nTo this we may add that the slaves are _social_ beings, and that\nduring the day, silence is generally enforced by the whip of the\noverseer or driver.[3] When they return at night, their pent up social\nfeelings will seek vent, it is a law of nature, and though the body\nmay be greatly worn with toil, this law cannot be wholly stifled.\nSharers of the same woes, they are drawn together by strong\naffinities, and seek the society and sympathy of their fellows; even\n\"_tired_ nature\" will joyfully forego for a time needful rest, to\nminister to a want of its being equally permanent and imperative as\nthe want of sleep, and as much more profound, as the yearnings of the\nhigher nature surpass the instincts of its animal appendage.\n\n[Footnote 3: We do not mean that they are not suffered to _speak_, but,\nthat, as conversation would be a hindrance to labour, they are\ngenerally permitted to indulge in it but little.]\n\nAll these things make drafts upon _time_. To show how much of the\nslave's time, which is absolutely indispensable for rest and sleep, is\nnecessarily spent in various labors after his return from the field at\nnight, we subjoin a few testimonies.\n\n\nMr. CORNELIUS JOHNSON, Farmington, Ohio, who lived in Mississippi in\nthe years 1837 and 38, says:\n\n\"On all the plantations where I was acquainted, the slaves were kept\nin the field till dark; after which, those who had to grind their own\ncorn, had that to attend to, get their supper, attend to other family\naffairs of their own and of their master, such as bringing water,\nwashing, clothes, &c. &c., and be in the field as soon as it was\nsufficiently light to commence work in the morning.\"\n\n\nMr. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, of Quincy, Illinois, who has spent several\nyears in the south western slave states, says:\n\n\"Their time, after full dark until four o'clock in the morning is\ntheir own; this fact alone would seem to say they have sufficient\nrest, but there are other things to be considered; much of their\nmaking, mending and washing of clothes, preparing and cooking food,\nhauling and chopping wood, fixing and preparing tools, and a variety\nof little nameless jobs must be done between those hours.\"\n\n\nPHILEMON BLISS, Esq. of Elyria, Ohio, who resided in Florida in 1834\nand 5, gives the following testimony:\n\n\"After having finished their field labors, they are occupied till nine\nor ten o'clock in doing _chores_, such as grinding corn, (as all the\ncorn in the vicinity is ground by hand,) chopping wood, taking care of\nhorses, mules, &c., and a thousand things necessary to be done on a\nlarge plantation. If any extra job is to be done, it must not hinder\nthe 'niggers' from their work, but must be done in the night.\"\n\n\nW.C. GILDERSLEEVE, Esq., a native of Georgia, an elder of the\nPresbyterian Church at Wilkes-barre, Pa. says:\n\n\"The corn is ground in a handmill by the slave _after his task is\ndone_--generally there is but one mill on the plantation, and as but\none can grind at a time, the mill is going sometimes _very late at\nnight_.\"\n\n\nWe now present another class of facts and testimony, showing that the\nslaves engaged in raising the large staples, are _overworked_.\n\nIn September, 1831, the writer of this had an interview with JAMES G.\nBIRNEY, Esq., who then resided in Kentucky, having removed with his\nfamily from Alabama the year before. A few hours before that\ninterview, and on the morning of the same day, Mr. B. had spent a\ncouple of hours with Hon. Henry Clay, at his residence, near\nLexington. Mr. Birney remarked, that Mr. Clay had just told him, he\nhad lately been led to mistrust certain estimates as to the increase\nof the slave population in the far south west--estimates which he had\npresented, I think, in a speech before the Colonization Society. He\nnow believed, that the births among the slaves in that quarter were\n_not equal to the deaths_--and that, of course, the slave population,\nindependent of immigration from the slave-selling states, was _not\nsustaining itself_.\n\nAmong other facts stated by Mr. Clay, was the following, which we copy\n_verbatim_ from the original memorandum, made at the time by Mr.\nBirney, with which he has kindly furnished us.\n\n\"Sept. 16, 1834.--Hon. H. Clay, in a conversation at his own house, on\nthe subject of slavery, informed me, that Hon. Outerbridge Horsey,\nformerly a senator in Congress from the state of Delaware, and the\nowner of a sugar plantation in Louisiana, declared to him, that his\noverseer worked his hands so closely, that one of the women brought\nforth a child whilst engaged in the labors of the field.\n\n\"Also, that a few years since, he was at a brick yard in the environs\nof New Orleans, in which one hundred hands were employed; among them\nwere from _twenty to thirty young women_, in the prime of life. He was\ntold by the proprietor, that there had _not been a child born among\nthem for the last two or three years, although they all had\nhusbands_.\"\n\nThe preceding testimony of Mr. Clay, is strongly corroborated by\nadvertisements of slaves, by Courts of Probate, and by executors\nadministering upon the estates of deceased persons. Some of those\nadvertisements for the sale of slaves, contain the names, ages,\naccustomed employment, &c., of all the slaves upon the plantation of\nthe deceased. These catalogues show large numbers of young men and\nwomen, almost all of them between twenty and thirty-eight years old;\nand yet the number of young children is _astonishingly small_. We have\nlaid aside many lists of this kind, in looking over the newspapers of\nthe slaveholding states; but the two following are all we can lay our\nhands on at present. One is in the \"Planter's Intelligencer,\"\nAlexandria, La., March 22, 1837, containing one hundred and thirty\nslaves; and the other in the New Orleans Bee, a few days later, April\n8, 1837, containing fifty-one slaves. The former is a \"Probate sale\"\nof the slaves belonging to the estate of Mr. Charles S. Lee, deceased,\nand is advertised by G.W. Keeton, Judge of the Parish of Concordia,\nLa. The sex, name, and age of each slave are contained in the\nadvertisement which fills two columns. The following are some of the\nparticulars.\n\nThe whole number of slaves is _one hundred and thirty_. Of these,\n_only three are over forty years old_. There are _thirty-five females_\nbetween the ages of _sixteen and thirty-three_, and yet there are only\nTHIRTEEN children under the age of _thirteen years!_\n\nIt is impossible satisfactorily to account for such a fact, on any\nother supposition, than that these thirty-five females were so\noverworked, or underfed, or both, as to prevent child-bearing.\n\nThe other advertisement is that of a \"Probate sale,\" ordered by the\nCourt of the Parish of Jefferson--including the slaves of Mr. William\nGormley. The whole number of slaves is fifty-one; the sex, age, and\naccustomed labors of each are given. The oldest of these slaves is but\n_thirty-nine years old_: of the females, _thirteen_ are between the\nages of sixteen and thirty-two, and the oldest female is but\n_thirty-eight_--and yet there are but _two children under eight years\nold!_\n\nAnother proof that the slaves in the south-western states are\nover-worked, is the fact, that so few of them live to old age. A large\nmajority of them are _old_ at middle age, and few live beyond\nfifty-five. In one of the preceding advertisements, out of one hundred\nand thirty slaves, only _three_ are over forty years old!  In the\nother, out of fifty-one slaves, only _two_ are over _thirty-five_; the\noldest is but thirty-nine, and the way in which he is designated in\nthe advertisement, is an additional proof, that what to others is\n\"middle age,\" is to the slaves in the south-west \"old age:\" he is\nadvertised as \"_old_ Jeffrey.\"\n\nBut the proof that the slave population of the south-west is so\nover-worked that it cannot _supply its own waste_, does not rest upon\nmere inferential evidence. The Agricultural Society of Baton Rouge,\nLa., in its report, published in 1829, furnishes a labored estimate of\nthe amount of expenditure necessarily incurred in conducting \"a\nwell-regulated sugar estate.\"  In this estimate, the annual net loss\nof slaves, over and above the supply by propagation, is set down at\nTWO AND A HALF PER CENT!  The late Hon. Josiah S. Johnson, a member of\nCongress from Louisiana, addressed a letter to the Secretary of the\nUnited States' Treasury, in 1830, containing a similar estimate,\napparently made with great care, and going into minute details. Many\nitems in this estimate differ from the preceding; but the estimate of\nthe annual _decrease_ of the slaves on a plantation was the same--TWO\nAND A HALF PER CENT!\n\nThe following testimony of Rev. Dr. Channing, of Boston, who resided\nsome time in Virginia, shows that the over-working of slaves, to such\nan extent as to abridge life, and cause a decrease of population, is\nnot confined to the far south and south-west.\n\n\"I heard of an estate managed by an individual who was considered as\nsingularly successful, and who was able to govern the slaves without\nthe use of the whip. I was anxious to see him, and trusted that some\ndiscovery had been made favorable to humanity. I asked him how he was\nable to dispense with corporal punishment. He replied to me, with a\nvery determined look, 'The slaves know that the work _must_ be done,\nand that it is better to do it without punishment than with it.'  In\nother words, the certainty and dread of chastisement were so impressed\non them, that they never incurred it.\n\n\"I then found that the slaves on this well-managed estate, _decreased_\nin number. I asked the cause. He replied, with perfect frankness and\nease, 'The gang is not large enough for the estate.'  In other words,\nthey were not equal to the work of the plantation, and, yet were _made\nto do it_, though with the certainty of abridging life.\n\n\"On this plantation the huts were uncommonly convenient. There was an\nunusual air of neatness. A superficial observer would have called the\nslaves happy. Yet they were living under a severe, subduing\ndiscipline, and were _over-worked_ to a degree that _shortened\nlife_.\"--_Channing on Slavery_, page 162, first edition.\n\nPHILEMON BLISS, Esq., a lawyer of Elyria, Ohio, who spent some time in\nFlorida, gives the following testimony to the over-working of the\nslaves:\n\n\"It is not uncommon for hands, in hurrying times, beside working all\nday, to labor half the night. This is usually the case on sugar\nplantations, during the sugar-boiling season; and on cotton, during\nits gathering. Beside the regular task of picking cotton, averaging of\nthe short staple, when the crop is good, 100 pounds a day to the hand,\nthe ginning (extracting the seed,) and baling was done in the night.\nSaid Mr. ---- to me, while conversing upon the customary labor of\nslaves, 'I work my niggers in a hurrying time till 11 or 12 o'clock at\nnight, and have them up by four in the morning.'\n\n\"Beside the common inducement, the desire of gain, to make a large\ncrop, the desire is increased by that spirit of gambling, so common at\nthe south. It is very common to _bet_ on the issue of a crop. A.\nlays a wager that, from a given number of hands, he will make more\ncotton than B. The wager is accepted, and then begins the contest; and\nwho bears the burden of it?  How many tears, yea, how many broken\nconstitutions, and premature deaths, have been the effect of this\nspirit?  From the desperate energy of purpose with which the gambler\npursues his object, from the passions which the practice calls into\nexercise, we might conjecture many. Such is the fact. In Middle\nFlorida, a _broken-winded_ negro is more common than a _broken-winded_\nhorse; though usually, when they are declared unsound, or when their\nconstitution is so broken that their recovery is despaired of, they\nare exported to New Orleans, to drag out the remainder of their days\nin the cane-field and sugar house. I would not insinuate that all\nplanters gamble upon their crops; but I mention the practice as one of\nthe common inducements to 'push niggers.' Neither would I assert that\nall planters drive the hands to the injury of their health. I give it\nas a _general_ rule in the district of Middle Florida, and I have no\nreason to think that negroes are driven worse there than in other\nfertile sections. People there told me that the situation of the\nslaves was far better than in Mississippi and Louisiana. And from\ncomparing the crops with those made in the latter states, and for\nother reasons, I am convinced of the truth of their statements.\"\n\n\nDR. DEMMING, a gentleman of high respectability, residing in Ashland,\nRichland county, Ohio, stated to Professor Wright, of New York city,\n\n\"That during a recent tour at the south, while ascending the Ohio\nriver, on the steamboat Fame, he had an opportunity of conversing with\na Mr. Dickinson, a resident of Pittsburg, in company with a number of\ncotton-planters and slave-dealers, from Louisiana, Alabama, and\nMississippi, Mr. Dickinson stated as a fact, that the sugar planters\nupon the sugar coast in Louisiana had ascertained, that, as it was\nusually necessary to employ about _twice_ the amount of labor during\nthe boiling season, that was required during the season of raising,\nthey could, by excessive driving, day and night, during the boiling\nseason, accomplish the whole labor _with one set of hands_. By\npursuing this plan, they could afford _to sacrifice a set of hands\nonce in seven years!_ He further stated that this horrible system was\nnow practised to a considerable extent! The correctness of this\nstatement was substantially admitted by the slaveholders then on\nboard.\"\n\nThe late MR. SAMUEL BLACKWELL, a highly respected citizen of Jersey\ncity, opposite the city of New York, and a member of the Presbyterian\nchurch, visited many of the sugar plantations in Louisiana a few years\nsince: and having for many years been the owner of an extensive sugar\nrefinery in England, and subsequently in this country, he had not only\nevery facility afforded him by the planters, for personal inspection\nof all parts of the process of sugar-making, but received from them\nthe most unreserved communications, as to their management of their\nslaves. Mr. B., after his return, frequently made the following\nstatement to gentlemen of his acquaintance,--\"That the planters\ngenerally declared to him, that they were _obliged_ so to over-work\ntheir slaves during the sugar-making season, (from eight to ten\nweeks,) as to use _them up_ in seven or eight years. For, said they,\nafter the process is commenced, it must be pushed without cessation,\nnight and day; and we cannot afford to keep a sufficient number of\nslaves to do the _extra_ work at the time of sugar-making, as we could\nnot profitably employ them the rest of the year.\"\n\nIt is not only true of the sugar planters, but of the slaveholders\ngenerally throughout the far south and south west, that they believe\nit for their interest to wear out the slaves by excessive toil in\neight or ten years after they put them into the field.[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: Alexander Jones. Esq., a large planter in West Feliciana,\nLouisiana, published a communication in the \"North Carolina True\nAmerican,\" Nov. 25, 1838, in which, speaking of the horses employed in\nthe mills on the plantations for ginning cotton, he says, they \"are\nmuch whipped and jaded;\" and adds, \"In fact, this service is so severe\non horses, as to shorten their lives in many instances, if not\nactually kill them in gear.\"\n\nThose who work one kind of their \"live stock\" so as to \"shorten their\nlives,\" or \"kill them in gear\" would not stick at doing the same thing\nto another kind.]\n\n\nREV. DOCTOR REED, of London, who went through Kentucky, Virginia and\nMaryland in the summer of 1834, gives the following testimony:\n\n\"I was told confidently and from _excellent authority_, that recently\nat a meeting of planters in South Carolina, the question was seriously\ndiscussed whether the slave is more profitable to the owner, if well\nfed, well clothed, and worked lightly, or if made the most of _at\nonce_, and exhausted in some eight years. The decision was in favor of\nthe last alternative. That decision will perhaps make many shudder.\nBut to my mind this is not the chief evil. The greater and original\nevil is considering the _slave as property_. If he is only property\nand my property, then I have some right to ask how I may make that\nproperty most available.\"\n\n\"Visit to the American Churches,\" by Rev. Drs. Reed and Mattheson.\nVol. 2 p. 173.\n\nREV. JOHN O. CHOULES, recently pastor of a Baptist Church at New\nBedford, Massachusetts, now of Buffalo, New York, made substantially\nthe following statement in a speech in Boston.\n\n\"While attending the Baptist Triennial Convention at Richmond,\nVirginia, in the spring of 1835, as a delegate from Massachusetts, I\nhad a conversation on slavery, with an officer of the Baptist Church\nin that city, at whose house I was a guest. I asked my host if he did\nnot apprehend that the slaves would eventually rise and exterminate\ntheir masters.\n\n\"Why,\" said the gentleman, \"I used to apprehend such a catastrophe,\nbut God has made a providential opening, a _merciful safety valve_,\nand now I do not feel alarmed in the _prospect_ of what is coming.\n'What do you mean,' said Mr. Choules, 'by providence opening a merciful\nsafety valve?' Why, said the gentleman, I will tell you; the slave\ntraders come from the cotton and sugar plantations of the South and\nare willing to buy up more slaves than we can part with. We must keep\na stock for the purpose of _rearing_ slaves, but we part with the most\nvaluable, and at the same time, the most _dangerous_, and the demand\nis very constant and likely to be so, for when they go to these\nsouthern states, the average existence Is ONLY FIVE YEARS!\"\n\nMonsieur C.C. ROBIN, a highly intelligent French gentleman, who\nresided in Louisiana from 1802 to 1806, and published a volume of\ntravels, gives the following testimony to the over-working of the\nslaves there:\n\n\"I have been a witness, that after the fatigue of the day, their\nlabors have been prolonged several hours by the light of the moon; and\nthen, before they could think of rest, they must pound and cook their\ncorn; and yet, long before day, an implacable scold, whip in hand,\nwould arouse them from their slumbers. Thus, of more than twenty\nnegroes, who in twenty years should have doubled, the number _was\nreduced to four or five_.\"\n\nIn conclusion we add, that slaveholders have in the most public and\nemphatic manner declared themselves guilty of barbarous inhumanity\ntoward their slaves in exacting from them such _long continued daily\nlabor_. The Legislatures of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia, have\npassed laws providing that convicts in their state prisons and\npenitentiaries, \"shall be employed in work each day in the year except\nSundays, not exceeding _eight_ hours, in the months of November,\nDecember, and January; _nine_ hours, in the months of February and\nOctober, and _ten_ hours in the rest of the year.\" Now contrast this\n_legal_ exaction of labor from CONVICTS with the exaction from slaves\nas established by the preceding testimony. The reader perceives that\nthe amount of time, in which by the preceding laws of Maryland,\nVirginia, and Georgia, the _convicts_ in their prisons are required to\nlabor, is on an average during the year but little more than NINE\nHOURS daily. Whereas, the laws of South Carolina permit the master to\n_compel_ his slaves to work FIFTEEN HOURS in the twenty-four, in\nsummer, and FOURTEEN in the winter--which would be in winter, from\ndaybreak in the morning until _four hours_ after sunset!--See 2\nBrevard's Digest, 243.\n\nThe other slave states, except Louisiana, have _no laws_ respecting\nthe labor of slaves, consequently if the master should work his slaves\nday and night without sleep till they drop dead, _he violates no law!_\n\nThe law of Louisiana provides for the slaves but TWO AND A HALF HOURS\nin the twenty-four for \"rest!\" See law of Louisiana, act of July 7\n1806, Martin's Digest 6. 10--12.\n\n\nIII. CLOTHING.\n\nWe propose to show under this head, that the clothing of the slaves by\nday, and their covering by night, are inadequate, either for comfort\nor decency.\n\n\nHon. T.T. Bouldin, a slave-holder, and member of Congress from Virginia\nin a speech in Congress, Feb. 16, 1835.\n\nMr. Bouldin said \"_he knew_ that many negroes had _died_ from exposure\nto weather,\" and added, \"they are clad in a _flimsy fabric, that will\nturn neither wind nor water_.\"\n\n\nGeorge Buchanan, M.D., of Baltimore, member of the American\nPhilosophical Society, in an oration at Baltimore, July 4, 1791.\n\n\"The slaves, _naked_ and starved, _often_ fall victims to the\ninclemencies of the weather.\"\n\n\nWm. Savery of Philadelphia, an eminent Minister of the Society of\nFriends, who went through the Southern states in 1791, on a religious\nvisit; after leaving Savannah, Ga., we find the following entry in his\njournal, 6th, month, 28, 1791.\n\n\"We rode through many rice swamps, where the blacks were very\nnumerous, great droves of these poor slaves, working up to the middle\nin water, men and women nearly _naked_.\"\n\n\nRev. John Rankin, of Ripley, Ohio, a native of Tennessee.\n\n\"In every slave-holding state, _many slaves suffer extremely_, both\nwhile they labor and while they sleep, _for want of clothing_ to keep\nthem warm.\"\n\n\nJohn Parrish, late of Philadelphia, a highly esteemed minister in the\nSociety of Friends, who travelled through the South in 1804.\n\n\"It is shocking to the feelings of humanity, in travelling through\nsome of those states, to see those poor objects, [slaves,] especially\nin the inclement season, in _rags_, and _trembling with the cold_.\"\n\n\"They suffer them, both male and female, _to go without clothing_ at\nthe age of ten and twelve years\"\n\n\nRev. Phineas Smith, Centreville, Allegany, Co., N.Y. Mr. S. has just\nreturned from a residence of several years at the south, chiefly in\nVirginia, Louisiana, and among the American settlers in Texas.\n\n\"The apparel of the slaves, is of the coarsest sort and _exceedingly\ndeficient_ in quantity. I have been on many plantations where\nchildren of eight and ten yeas old, were in a state of _perfect\nnudity_. Slaves are _in general wretchedly clad_.\"\n\n\nWm. Ladd, Esq., of Minot, Maine, recently a slaveholder in Florida.\n\n\"They were allowed two suits of clothes a year, viz. one pair of\ntrowsers with a shirt or frock of osnaburgh for summer; and for\nwinter, one pair of trowsers, and a jacket of negro cloth, with a\nbaize shirt and a pair of shoes. Some allowed hats, and some did not;\nand they were generally, I believe, allowed one blanket in two years.\nGarments of similar materials were allowed the women.\"\n\n\nA Kentucky physician, writing in the Western Medical Reformer, in\n1836, on the diseases peculiar to slaves, says.\n\n\"They are _imperfectly clothed_ both summer and winter.\"\n\n\nMr. Stephen E. Maltby, Inspector of provisions, Skeneateles, N.Y., who\nresided sometime in Alabama.\n\n\"I was at Huntsville, Alabama, in 1818-19, I frequently saw slaves on\nand around the public square, _with hardly a rag of clothing on them_,\nand in a _great many_ instances with but a single garment both in\nsummer and in winter; generally the only bedding of the slaves was a\n_blanket_.\"\n\n\nReuben G. Macy, Hudson, N.Y. member of the Society of Friends, who\nresided in South Carolina, in 1818 and 19.\n\n\"Their clothing consisted of a pair of trowsers and jacket, made of\n'negro cloth.' The women a petticoat, a very short 'short-gown,' and\n_nothing else_, the same kind of cloth; some of the women had an old\npair of shoes, but they _generally went barefoot_.\"\n\n\nMr. Lemuel Sapington, of Lancaster, Pa., a native of Maryland, and\nformerly a slaveholder.\n\n\"Their clothing is often made by themselves after night, though\nsometimes assisted by the old women, who are no longer able to do\nout-door work; consequently it is harsh and uncomfortable. And I have\nvery frequently seen those who had not attained the age of twelve\nyears _go naked_.\"\n\n\nPhilemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer in Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida\nin 1834 and 35.\n\n\"It is very common to see the younger class of slaves up to eight or\nten _without any clothing_, and most generally the laboring men wear\n_no shirts_ in the warm season. The perfect nudity of the younger\nslaves is so familiar to the whites of both sexes, that they seem to\nwitness it with perfect indifference. I may add that the aged and\nfeeble often _suffer from cold_.\"\n\n\nRichard Macy, a member of the Society of Friends, Hudson, N.Y., who\nhas lived in Georgia.\n\n\"For _bedding_ each slave was allowed _one blanket_, in which they\nrolled themselves up. I examined their houses, but could not find any\nthing like _a bed_.\"\n\n\nW.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., Wilkesbarre, Pa., a native of Georgia.\n\n\"It is an every day sight to see women as well as men, with no other\ncovering than a _few filthy rags fastened above the hips_, reaching\nmidway to the ankles. _I never knew any kind of covering for the head_\ngiven. Children of both sexes, from infancy to ten years are seen in\ncompanies on the plantations, _in a state of perfect nudity_. This was\nso common that the most refined and delicate beheld them unmoved.\"\n\n\nMr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia, now a member of the\nPresbyterian Church, in Delhi, Ohio.\n\n\"The only bedding of the slaves generally consists of _two old\nblankets_.\"\n\n\nAdvertisements like the following from the \"New Orleans Bee,\" May 31,\n1837, are common in the southern papers.\n\n\"10 DOLLARS REWARD.--Ranaway, the slave SOLOMON, about 28 years of\nage; BADLY CLOTHED. The above reward will be paid on application to\nFERNANDEZ & WHITING, No. 20, St. Louis St.\"\n\nRANAWAY from the subscriber the negress FANNY, always badly dressed,\nshe is about 25 or 26 years old. JOHN MACOIN, 117 S. Ann st.\n\nThe Darien (Ga.), Telegraph, of Jan. 24, 1837, in an editorial\narticle, hitting off the aristocracy of the planters, incidentally\nlets out some secrets, about the usual _clothing_ of the slaves. The\neditor says,--\"The planter looks down, with the most sovereign\ncontempt, on the merchant and the storekeeper. He deems himself a\nlord, because he gets his two or three RAGGED servants, to row him to\nhis plantation every day, that he may inspect the labor of his hands.\"\n\nThe following is an extract from a letter lately received from Rev.\nC.S. RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois.\n\n\"I am sorry to be obliged to give more testimony without the _name_.\nAn individual in whom I have great confidence, gave me the following\nfacts. That I am not alone in placing confidence in him, I subjoin a\ntestimonial from Dr. Richard Eells, Deacon of the Congregational\nChurch, of Quincy, and Rev. Mr. Fisher, Baptist Minister of Quincy.\n\n\"We have been acquainted with the brother who has communicated to you\nsome facts that fell under his observation, whilst in his native\nstate; he is a professed follower of our Lord, and we have great\nconfidence in him as a man of integrity, discretion, and strict\nChristian principle. RICHARD EELLS. EZRA FISHER.\"\n\nQuincy, Jan. 9th, 1839.\n\n\nTESTIMONY.--\"I lived for thirty years in Virginia, and have travelled\nextensively through Fauquier, Culpepper, Jefferson, Stafford,\nAlbemarle and Charlotte Counties; my remarks apply to these Counties.\n\n\"The negro houses are miserably poor, generally they are a shelter\nfrom neither the wind, the rain, nor the snow, and the earth is the\nfloor. There are exceptions to this rule, but they are only\nexceptions; you may sometimes see puncheon floor, but never, or almost\nnever a plank floor. The slaves are generally without _beds or\nbedsteads_; some few have cribs that they fasten up for themselves in\nthe corner of the hut. Their bed-clothes are a nest of rags thrown\nupon a crib, or in the corner; sometimes there are three or four\nfamilies in one small cabin. Where the slaveholders have more than one\nfamily, they put them in the same quarter till it is filled, then\nbuild another. I have seen exceptions to this, when only one family\nwould occupy a hut, and where were tolerably comfortable bed-clothes.\n\n\"Most of the slaves in these counties are _miserably clad_. I have\nknown slaves who went without shoes all winter, perfectly barefoot.\nThe feet of many of them are frozen. As a general fact the planters do\nnot serve out to their slaves, drawers, or any under clothing, or\nvests, or overcoats. Slaves sometimes, by working at night and on\nSundays, get better things than their masters serve to them.\n\n\"Whilst these things are true of _field-hands_, it is also true that\nmany slaveholders clothe their _waiters_ and coachmen like gentlemen.\nI do not think there is any difference between the slaves of\nprofessing Christians and others; at all events, it is so small as to\nbe scarcely noticeable.\n\n\"I have seen men and women at work in the field more than half naked:\nand more than once in passing, when the overseer was not near, they\nwould stop and draw round them a tattered coat or some ribbons of a\nskirt to hide their nakedness and shame from the stranger's eye.\"\n\nMr. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, a member of the Congregational Church in\nQuincy, Illinois, who has spent the larger part of twelve years\nnavigating the rivers of the south-western slave states with keel\nboats, as a trader, gives the following testimony as to the clothing\nand lodging of the slaves.\n\n\"In lower Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana, the clothing of the\nslaves is wretchedly poor; and grows worse as you go south, in the\norder of the states I have named. The only material is cotton bagging,\ni.e. bagging in which cotton is _baled_, not bagging made of cotton.\nIn Louisiana, especially in the lower country, I have frequently seen\nthem with nothing but a tattered coat, not sufficient to hide their\nnakedness. In winter their clothing seldom serves the purpose of\ncomfort, and frequently not even of decent covering. In Louisiana _the\nplanters never think of serving out shoes to slaves_. In Mississippi\nthey give one pair a year generally. I never saw or heard of an\ninstance of masters allowing them _stockings_. A _small poor blanket\nis generally the only bed-clothing_, and this they frequently wear in\nthe field when they have not sufficient clothing to hide their\nnakedness or to keep them warm. Their manner of sleeping varies with\nthe season. In hot weather they stretch themselves anywhere and sleep.\nAs it becomes cool they roll themselves in their blankets, and lay\nscattered about the cabin. In cold weather they nestle together with\ntheir feet towards the fire, promiscuously. As a general fact the\nearth is their only floor and bed--not one in ten have anything like a\nbedstead, and then it is a mere bunk put up by themselves.\"\n\nMr. GEORGE A. AVERY, an elder in the fourth Congregational Church,\nRochester, N.Y., who spent four years in Virginia, says, \"The slave\nchildren, very commonly of both sexes, up to the ages of eight and ten\nyears, and I think in some instances beyond this age, go in a state of\n_disgusting_ nudity. I have often seen them with their tow shirt\n(their only article of summer clothing) which, to all human\nappearance, had not been taken off from the time it was first put on,\nworn off from the bottom upwards shred by shred, until nothing\nremained but the straps which passed over their shoulders, and the\nless exposed portions extending a very little way below the arms,\nleaving the principal part of the chest, as well as the limbs,\nentirely uncovered.\"\n\nSAMUEL ELLISON, a member of the Society of Friends, formerly of\nSouthampton Co., Virginia, now of Marlborough, Stark Co., Ohio, says,\n\"I knew a Methodist who was the owner of a number of slaves. The\nchildren of both sexes, belonging to him, under twelve years of age,\nwere _entirely_ destitute of clothing. I have seen an old man\ncompelled to labor in the fields, not having rags enough to cover his\nnakedness.\"\n\nRev. H. LYMAN, late pastor of the Free Presbyterian Church, in\nBuffalo, N.Y., in describing a tour down and up the Mississippi river\nin the winter of 1832-3, says, \"At the wood yards where the boats\nstop, it is not uncommon to see female slaves employed in carrying\nwood. Their dress which was quite uniform was provided without any\nreference to comfort. They had no covering for their heads; the stuff\nwhich constituted the outer garment was sackcloth, similar to that in\nwhich brown domestic goods are done up. It was then December, and I\nthought that in such a dress, and being as they were, without\n_stockings_, they must suffer from the cold.\"\n\nMr. Benjamin Clendenon, Colerain, Lancaster Co., Pa., a member of the\nSociety of Friends, in a recent letter describing a short tour through\nthe northern part of Maryland in the winter of 1836, thus speaks of a\nplace a few miles from Chestertown. \"About this place there were a\nnumber of slaves; very few, if any, had _either stockings or shoes_;\nthe weather was intensely cold, and the ground covered with snow.\"\n\nThe late Major Stoddard of the United States' artillery, who took\npossession of Louisiana for the U.S. government, under the cession of\n1804, published a book entitled \"Sketches of Louisiana,\" in which,\nspeaking of the planters of Lower Louisiana, he says, \"_Few of them\nallow any clothing to their slaves_.\"\n\nThe following is an extract from the Will of the late celebrated John\nRandolph of Virginia.\n\n\"To my old and faithful servants, Essex and his wife Hetty, I give and\nbequeath a pair of strong shoes, a suit of clothes and a blanket each,\nto be paid them annually; also an annual hat to Essex.\"\n\nNo Virginia slaveholder has ever had a better name as a \"kind master,\"\nand \"good provider\" for his slaves, than John Randolph. Essex and\nHetty were _favorite_ servants, and the memory of the long\nuncompensated services of those \"old and faithful servants,\" seems to\nhave touched their master's heart. Now as this master was _John\nRandolph_, and as those servants were \"faithful,\" and favorite\nservants, advanced in years, and worn out in his service, and as their\nallowance was, in their master's eyes, of sufficient moment to\nconstitute a paragraph in his last _will and testament_, it is fair to\ninfer that it would be _very liberal_, far better than the ordinary\nallowance for slaves.\n\nNow we leave the reader to judge what must be the _usual_ allowance of\nclothing to common field slaves in the hands of common masters, when\nEssex and Hetty, the \"old\" and \"faithful\" slaves of John Randolph,\nwere provided, in his last will and testament, with but _one_ suit of\nclothes annually, with but _one blanket_ each for bedding, with no\n_stockings_, nor _socks_, nor _cloaks_, nor overcoats, nor\n_handkerchiefs_, nor _towels_, and with no _change_ either of under or\noutside garments!\n\n\n\n\nIV. DWELLINGS.\n\nTHE SLAVES ARE WRETCHEDLY SHELTERED AND LODGED.\n\nMr. Stephen E. Maltby. Inspector of provisions, Skaneateles, N.Y. who\nhas lived in Alabama.\n\n\"The huts where the slaves slept, generally contained but _one_\napartment, and that _without floor_.\"\n\n\nMr. George A. Avery, elder of the 4th Presbyterian Church, Rochester,\nN.Y. who lived four years in Virginia.\n\n\"Amongst all the negro cabins which I saw in Va., _I cannot call to\nmind one_ in which there was any other floor than the _earth_; any\nthing that a northern laborer, or mechanic, white or colored, would\ncall a _bed_, nor a solitary _partition_, to separate the sexes.\"\n\n\nWilliam Ladd, Esq., Minot, Maine. President of the American Peace\nSociety, formerly a slaveholder in Florida.\n\n\"The dwellings of the slaves were palmetto huts, built by themselves\nof stakes and poles, thatched with the palmetto leaf. The door, when\nthey had any, was generally of the same materials, sometimes boards\nfound on the beach. They had _no floors_, no separate apartments,\nexcept the guinea negroes had sometimes a small inclosure for their\n'god house.' These huts the slaves built themselves after task and on\nSundays.\"\n\n\nRev. Joseph M. Sadd, Pastor Pres. Church, Castile, Greene Co., N.Y.,\nwho lived in Missouri five years previous to 1837.\n\n\"The slaves live _generally_ in _miserable huts_, which are _without\nfloors_, and have a single apartment only, where both sexes are herded\npromiscuously together.\"\n\n\nMr. George W. Westgate, member of the Congregational Church in Quincy,\nIllinois, who has spent a number of years in slave states.\n\n\"On old plantations, the negro quarters are of frame and clapboards,\nseldom affording a comfortable shelter from wind or rain; their size\nvaries from 8 by 10, to 10 by 12, feet, and six or eight feet high;\nsometimes there is a hole cut for a window, but I never saw a sash, or\nglass in any. In the new country, and in the woods, the quarters are\ngenerally built of logs, of similar dimensions.\"\n\n\nMr. Cornelius Johnson, a member of a Christian Church in Farmington,\nOhio. Mr. J. lived in Mississippi in 1837-8.\n\n\"Their houses were commonly built of logs, sometimes they were framed,\noften they had no floor, some of them have two apartments, commonly\nbut one; each of those apartments contained a family. Sometimes these\nfamilies consisted of a man and his wife and children, while in other\ninstances persons of both sexes, were thrown together without any\nregard to family relationship.\"\n\n\nThe Western Medical Reformer, in an article on the Cachexia Africana\nby a Kentucky physician, thus speaks of the huts of the slaves.\n\n\"They are _crowded_ together in a _small hut_, and sometimes having an\nimperfect, and sometimes no floor, and seldom raised from the ground,\nill ventilated, and surrounded with filth.\"\n\n\nMr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia, but has resided most of\nhis life in Madison, Co. Alabama.\n\n\"The dwellings of the slaves are log huts, from 10 to 12 feet square,\noften without windows, doors, or floors, they have neither chairs,\ntable, or bedstead.\"\n\n\nReuben L. Macy of Hudson, N.Y. a member of the Religious Society of\nFriends. He lived in South Carolina in 1818-19.\n\n\"The houses for the field slaves were about 14 feet square, built in\nthe coarsest manner, with one room, _without any chimney or flooring,\nwith a hole in the roof to let the smoke out_.\"\n\n\nMr. Lemuel Sapington of Lancaster, Pa. a native of Maryland, formerly\na slaveholder.\n\n\"The descriptions generally given of negro quarters, are correct; the\nquarters are _without floors, and not sufficient to keep off the\ninclemency of the weather_; they are uncomfortable both in summer and\nwinter.\"\n\n\nRev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee.\n\n\"When they return to their miserable huts at night, they find not\nthere the means of comfortable rest; _but on the cold ground they must\nlie without covering, and shiver while they slumber.\"_\n\n\nPhilemon Bliss, Esq. Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida, in 1835.\n\n\"The dwellings of the slaves are usually small _open_ log huts, with\nbut one apartment, and very generally _without floors_.\"\n\n\nMr. W.C. Gildersleeve, Wilkesbarre, Pa., a native of Georgia.\n\n\"Their huts were generally put up without a nail, frequently without\nfloors, and with a single apartment.\"\n\n\nHon. R.J. Turnbull, of South Carolina, a slaveholder.\n\n\"The slaves live in _clay cabins_.\"\n\n\n\nV. TREATMENT OF THE SICK.\n\nTHE SLAVES SUFFER FROM HUMAN NEGLECT WHEN SICK\n\nIn proof of this we subjoin the following testimony:\n\nRev. Dr. CHANNING of Boston, who once resided in Virginia, relates the\nfollowing fact in his work on slavery, page 163, 1st edition.\n\n\"I cannot forget my feelings on visiting a hospital belonging to the\nplantation of a gentleman _highly esteemed for his virtues_, and whose\nmanners and conversation expressed much _benevolence and\nconscientiousness_. When I entered with him the hospital, the first\nobject on which my eye fell was a young woman, very ill, probably\napproaching death. She was stretched on the floor. Her head rested on\nsomething like a pillow; but _her body and limbs were extended on the\nhard boards._ The owner, I doubt not, had at least as much kindness\nas myself; but he was so used to see the slaves living without common\ncomforts, that the idea of unkindness in the present instance did not\nenter his mind.\"\n\nThis _dying_ young woman \"was _stretched on the floor_\"--\"her body and\nlimbs extended upon the hard boards,\"--and yet her master \"was highly\nesteemed for his virtues,\" and his general demeanor produced upon Dr.\nChanning the impression of \"benevolence and conscientiousness\" If the\n_sick and dying female_ slaves of _such_ a master, suffer such\nbarbarous neglect, whose heart does not fail him, at the thought of\nthat inhumanity, exercised by the _majority_ of slaveholders, towards\ntheir aged, sick, and dying victims.\n\nThe following testimony is furnished by SARAH M. GRIMK\u00c9, a sister of\nthe late Hon. Thomas S. Grimk\u00e9, of Charleston, South Carolina.\n\n\"When the Ladies' Benevolent Society in Charleston, S.C., of which I\nwas a visiting commissioner, first went into operation, we were\napplied to for the relief of several sick and aged colored persons;\none case I particularly remember, of an aged woman who was dreadfully\nburnt from having fallen into the fire; she was living with some free\nblacks who had taken her in out of compassion. On inquiry, we found\nthat _nearly all_ the colored persons who had solicited aid, were\n_slaves_, who being no longer able to work for their \"owners,\" were\nthus inhumanly cast out in their sickness and old age, and must have\nperished, but for the kindness of their friends.\n\n\"I was once visiting a sick slave in whose spiritual welfare peculiar\ncircumstances had led me to be deeply interested. I knew that she had\nbeen early seduced from the path of virtue, as nearly all the female\nslaves are. I knew also that her mistress, though a professor of\nreligion, had never taught her a single precept of Christianity, yet\nthat she had had her severely punished for this departure from them,\nand that the poor girl was then ill of an incurable disease,\noccasioned partly by her own misconduct, and partly by the cruel\ntreatment she had received, in a situation that called for tenderness\nand care. Her heart seemed truly touched with repentance for her sins,\nand she was inquiring, \"What shall I do to be saved?\" I was sitting by\nher as she lay on the floor upon a blanket, and was trying to\nestablish her trembling spirit in the fullness of Jesus, when I heard\nthe voice of her mistress in loud and angry tones, as she approached\nthe door. I read in the countenance of the prostrate sufferer, the\nterror which she felt at the prospect of seeing her mistress. I knew\nmy presence would be very unwelcome, but staid hoping that it might\nrestrain, in some measure, the passions of the mistress. In this,\nhowever, I was mistaken; she passed me without apparently observing\nthat I was there, and seated herself on the other side of the sick\nslave. She made no inquiry how she was, but in a tone of anger\ncommenced a tirade of abuse, violently reproaching her with her past\nmisconduct, and telling her in the most unfeeling manner, that eternal\ndestruction awaited her. No word of kindness escaped her. What had\nthen roused her temper I do not know. She continued in this strain\nseveral minutes, when I attempted to soften her by remarking, that\n------ was very ill, and she ought not thus to torment her, and that I\nbelieved Jesus had granted her forgiveness. But I might as well have\ntried to stop the tempest in its career, as to calm the infuriated\npassions nurtured by the exercise of arbitrary power. She looked at me\nwith ineffable scorn, and continued to pour forth a torrent of abuse\nand reproach. Her helpless victim listened in terrified silence, until\nnature could endure no more, when she uttered a wild shriek, and\ncasting on her tormentor a look of unutterable agony, exclaimed, \"Oh,\nmistress, I am dying.\" This appeal arrested her attention, and she soon\nleft the room, but in the same spirit with which she entered it. The\ngirl survived but a few days, and, I believe, saw her mistress _no\nmore_\"\n\nMr. GEORGE A. AVERY, an elder of a Presbyterian church in Rochester,\nN.Y., who lived some years in Virginia, gives the following:\n\n\"The manner of treating the sick slaves, and especially in _chronic_\ncases, was to my mind peculiarly revolting. My opportunities for\nobservation in this department were better than in, perhaps, any\nother, as the friend under whose direction I commenced my medical\nstudies, enjoyed a high reputation as a _surgeon_. I rode considerably\nwith him in his practice, and assisted in the surgical operations and\ndressings from time to time. In confirmed cases of disease, it was\ncommon for the master to place the subject under the care of a\nphysician or surgeon, at whose expense the patient should be kept, and\nif death ensued to the patient, or the disease was not cured, no\ncompensation was to be made, but if cured a bonus of one, two, or\nthree hundred dollars was to be given. No provision was made against\nthe _barbarity_ or _neglect_ of the physician, &c. I have seen\n_fifteen or twenty of these helpless sufferers_ crowded together in\nthe true spirit of slaveholding inhumanity, like the \"brutes that\nperish,\" and driven from time to time _like_ brutes into a common\nyard, where they had to suffer any and every operation and experiment,\nwhich interest, caprice, or professional curiosity might\nprompt,--unrestrained by law, public sentiment, or the claims of\ncommon humanity.\"\n\nRev. WILLIAM T. ALLAN, son of Rev. Dr. Allan, a slaveholder, of\nHuntsville, Alabama, says in a letter now before us:\n\n\"Colonel Robert H. Watkins, of Laurence county, Alabama, who owned\nabout three hundred slaves, after employing a physician among them for\nsome time, ceased to do so, alleging as the reason, that it was\ncheaper to lose a few negroes every year than to pay a physician. This\nColonel Watkins was a Presidential elector in 1836.\"\n\nA.A. GUTHRIE, Esq., elder in the Presbyterian church at Putnam,\nMuskingum county, Ohio, furnishes the testimony which follows.\n\n\"A near female friend of mine in company with another young lady, in\nattempting to visit a sick woman on Washington's Bottom, Wood county,\nVirginia, missed the way, and stopping to ask directions of a group of\ncolored children on the outskirts of the plantation of Francis Keen,\nSen., they were told to ask 'aunty, in the house.'  On entering the\nhut, says my informant, I beheld such a sight as I hope never to see\nagain; its sole occupant was a female slave of the said Keen--her\nwhole wearing apparel consisted of a frock, made of the coarsest tow\ncloth, and so scanty, that it could not have been made more tight\naround her person. In the hut there was neither table, chair, nor\nchest--a stool and a rude fixture in one corner, were all its\nfurniture. On this last were a little straw and a few old remnants of\nwhat had been bedding--all exceedingly filthy.\n\n\"The woman thus situated _had been for more than a day in travail_,\nwithout any assistance, any nurse, or any kind of proper\nprovision--during the night she said some fellow slave woman would\nstay with her, and the aforesaid children through the day. From a\nwoman, who was a slave of Keen's at the same time, my informant\nlearned, that this poor woman suffered for three days, and then\ndied--when too late to save her life her master sent assistance. It\nwas understood to be a rule of his, to neglect his women entirely in\nsuch times of trial, unless they previously came and informed him,\nand asked for aid.\"\n\nRev. PHINEAS SMITH, of Centreville, N.Y, who has resided four years\nat the south, says:\n\n\"Often when the slaves are sick, their accustomed toil is exacted from\nthem. Physicians are rarely called for their benefit.\"\n\nRev. HORACE MOULTON, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal church in\nMarlborough, Mass., who resided a number of years in Georgia, says:\n\n\"Another dark side of slavery is the neglect of the _aged_ and\n_sick_. Many when sick, are suspected by their masters of _feigning_\nsickness, and are therefore whipped out to work after disease has got\nfast hold of them; when the masters learn, that they are really sick,\nthey are in many instances left alone in their cabins during work\nhours; not a few of the slaves are left to die without having one\nfriend to wipe off the sweat of death. When the slaves are sick, the\nmasters do not, as a general thing, employ physicians, but \"doctor\"\nthem themselves, and their mode of practice in almost all cases is to\nbleed and give salts. When women are confined they have no physician,\nbut are committed to the care of slave midwives. Slaves complain very\nlittle when sick, when they die they are frequently buried at night\nwithout much ceremony, and in many instances without any; their\ncoffins are made by nailing together rough boards, frequently with\ntheir feet sticking out at the end, and sometimes they are put into\nthe ground without a coffin or box of any kind.\"\n\n\n\n\nPERSONAL NARRATIVES--PART II.\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE REV. WILLIAM T. ALLAN, LATE OF ALABAMA.\n\nMr. ALLAN is a son of the Rev. Dr. Allan, a slaveholder and pastor of\nthe Presbyterian Church at Huntsville, Alabama. He has recently\nbecome the pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Chatham, Illinois.\n\n\"I was born and have lived most of my life in the slave states, mainly\nin the village of Huntsville, Alabama, where my parents still reside.\nI seldom went to a _plantation_, and as my visits were confined almost\nexclusively to the families of professing Christians, my _personal_\nknowledge of slavery, was consequently a knowledge of its _fairest_\nside, (if fairest may be predicated of foul.)\n\n\"There was one plantation just opposite my father's house in the\nsuburbs of Huntsville, belonging to Judge Smith, formerly a Senator in\nCongress from South Carolina, now of Huntsville. The name of his\noverseer was Tune. I have often seen him flogging the slaves in the\nfield, and have often heard their cries. Sometimes, too, I have met\nthem with the tears streaming down their faces, and the marks of the\nwhip, ('whelks,') on their bare necks and shoulders. Tune was so\nsevere in his treatment, that his employer dismissed him after two or\nthree years, lest, it was said, he should kill off all the slaves. But\nhe was immediately employed by another planter in the neighborhood.\nThe following fact was stated to me by my brother, James M. Allan, now\nresiding at Richmond, Henry county, Illinois, and clerk of the circuit\nand county courts. Tune became displeased with one of the women who\nwas pregnant, he made her lay down over a log, with her face towards\nthe ground, and beat her so unmercifully, that she was soon after\ndelivered of a _dead child_.\n\n\"My brother also stated to me the following, which occurred near my\nfather's house, and within sight and hearing of the academy and public\ngarden. Charles, a fine active negro, who belonged to a bricklayer in\nHuntsville, exchanged the burning sun of the brickyard to enjoy for a\nseason the pleasant shade of an adjacent mountain. When his master got\nhim back, he tied him by his hands so that his feet could just touch\nthe ground--stripped off his clothes, took a paddle, bored full of\nholes, and paddled him leisurely all day long. It was two weeks before\nthey could tell whether he would live or die. Neither of these cases\nattracted any particular notice in Huntsville.\n\n\"While I lived in Huntsville a slave was killed in the mountain near\nby. The circumstances were these. A white man (James Helton) hunting\nin the woods, suddenly came upon a black man, and commanded him to\nstop, the slave kept on running, Helton fired his rifle and the negro\nwas killed.[5]\n\n[Footnote 5: This murder was committed about twelve years since. At\nthat time, James G. Birney, Esq., now Corresponding Secretary of the\nAmerican Anti-Slavery Society was the Solicitor (prosecuting attorney)\nfor that judicial district. His views and feelings upon the subject of\nslavery were, even at that period, in advance of the mass of\nslaveholders, and he determined if possible to bring the murderer to\njustice. He accordingly drew up an indictment and procured the finding\nof a true bill against Helton. Helton, meanwhile, moved over the line\ninto the state of Tennessee, and such was the apathy of the community,\nindividual effort proved unavailing; and though the murderer had gone\nno further than to an adjoining county (where perhaps he still\nresides) he was never brought to trial.--ED.]\n\n\"Mrs. Barr, wife of Rev. H. Barr of Carrollton, Illinois, formerly\nfrom Courtland, Alabama, told me last spring, that she has very often\nstopped her ears that she might not hear the screams of slaves who\nwere under the lash, and that sometimes she has left her house, and\nretired to a place more distant, in order to get away from their\nagonizing cries.\n\n\"I have often seen groups of slaves on the public squares in\nHuntsville, who were to be sold at auction, and I have often seen\ntheir tears gush forth and their countenances distorted with anguish.\nA considerable number were generally sold publicly every month.\n\n\"The following facts I have just taken down from the lips of Mr. L.\nTurner, a regular and respectable member of the Second Presbyterian\nChurch in Springfield, our county town. He was born and brought up in\nCaroline county, Virginia. He says that the slaves are neither\nconsidered nor treated as human beings. One of his neighbors whose\nname was Barr, he says, on one occasion stripped a slave and lacerated\nhis back with a handcard (for cotton or wool) and then washed it with\nsalt and water, with pepper in it. Mr. Turner _saw_ this. He further\nremarked that he believed there were _many_ slaves there in advanced\nlife whose backs had never been well since they began to work.\n\n\"He stated that one of his uncles had killed a woman--broke her skull\nwith an ax helve: she had insulted her mistress! No notice was taken\nof the affair. Mr. T. said, further, that slaves were _frequently\nmurdered_.\n\n\"He mentioned the case of one slaveholder, whom he had seen lay his\nslaves on a large log, which he kept for the purpose, strip them, tie\nthem with the face downward, then have a kettle of hot water\nbrought--take the paddle, made of hard wood, and perforated with\nholes, dip it into the hot water and strike--before every blow dipping\nit into the water--every hole at every blow would raise a 'whelk.'\nThis was the usual punishment fur _running away_.\n\n\"Another slaveholder had a slave who had often run away, and often\nbeen severely whipped. After one of his floggings he burnt his master's\nbarn: this so enraged the man, that when he caught him he took a pair\nof pincers and pulled his toe nails out. The negro then murdered two\nof his master's children. He was taken after a desperate pursuit,\n(having been shot through the shoulder) and hung.\n\n\"One of Mr. Turner's cousins, was employed as overseer on a large\nplantation in Mississippi. On a certain morning he called the slaves\ntogether, to give some orders. While doing it, a slave came running\nout of his cabin, having a knife in his hand and eating his breakfast.\nThe overseer seeing him coming with the knife, was somewhat alarmed,\nand instantly raised his gun and shot him dead. He said afterwards,\nthat he believed the slave was perfectly innocent of any evil\nintentions, he came out hastily to hear the orders whilst eating. _No_\nnotice was taken of the killing.\n\n\"Mr. T. related the whipping habits of one of his uncles in Virginia.\nHe was a wealthy man, had a splendid house and grounds. A tree in his\n_front yard_, was used as a _whipping post_. When a slave was to be\npunished, he would frequently invite some of his friends, have a\ntable, cards and wine set out under the shade; he would then flog his\nslave a little while, and then play cards and drink with his friends,\noccasionally taunting the slave, giving him the privilege of\nconfessing such and such things, at his leisure, after a while flog\nhim again, thus keeping it up for hours or half the day, and sometimes\nall day. This was his _habit_.\n\n\"_February 4th._--Since writing the preceding, I have been to\nCarrollton, on a visit to my uncle, Rev. Hugh Barr, who was originally\nfrom Tennessee, lived 12 or 14 years in Courtland, Lawrence county,\nAlabama, and moved to Illinois in 1835. In conversation with the\nfamily, around the fireside, they stated a multitude of horrid facts,\nthat were perfectly notorious in the neighborhood of Courtland.\n\n\"William P. Barr, an intelligent young man, and member of his father's\nchurch in Carrollton, stated the following. Visiting at a Mr.\nMosely's, near Courtland, William Mosely came in with a bloody knife\nin his hand, having just stabbed a negro man. The negro was sitting\nquietly in a house in the village, keeping a woman company who had\nbeen left in charge of the house,--when Mosely, passing along, went in\nand demanded his business there. Probably his answer was not as civil\nas slaveholding requires, Mosely rushed upon him and stabbed him. The\nwound laid him up for a season. Mosley was called to no account for\nit. When he came in with the bloody knife, he said he wished he had\nkilled him.\n\n\"John Brown, a slaveholder, and a member of the Presbyterian church in\nCourtland, Alabama, stated the following a few weeks since, in\nCarrollton. A man near Courtland, of the name of Thompson, recently\nshot a negro _woman_ through the head; and put the pistol so close\nthat her hair was singed. He did it in consequence of some difficulty\nin his dealings with her as a concubine. He buried her in a log heap;\nshe was discovered by the buzzards gathering around it.\n\n\"William P. Barr stated the following, as facts well known in the\nneighborhood of Courtland, but not witnessed by himself. Two men, by\nthe name of Wilson, found a fine looking negro man at 'Dandridge's\nQuarter,' without a pass; and flogged him so that he died in a short\ntime. They were not punished.\n\n\"Col. Blocker's overseer attempted to flog a negro--he refused to be\nflogged; whereupon the overseer seized an axe, and cleft his skull.\nThe Colonel justified it.\n\n\"One Jones whipped a woman to death for 'grabbling' a potato hill. He\nowned 80 or 100 negroes. His own children could not live with him.\n\n\"A man in the neighborhood of Courtland, Alabama, by the name of\nPuryear, was so proverbially cruel that among the negroes he was\nusually called 'the Devil.' Mrs. Barr, wife of Rev. H. Barr, was at\nPuryear's house, and saw a negro girl about 13 years old, waiting\naround the table, with a single garment--and that in cold weather;\narms and feet bare--feet wretchedly swollen--arms burnt, and full of\nsores from exposure. All the negroes under his care made a wretched\nappearance.\n\n\"Col. Robert H. Watkins had a runaway slave, who was called Jim\nDragon. Before he was caught the last time, he had been out a year,\nwithin a few miles of his master's plantation. He never stole from any\none but his master, except when necessity compelled him. He said he\nhad a right to take from his master; and when taken, that he had,\nwhilst out, seen his master a hundred times. Having been whipped,\nclogged with irons, and yoked, he was set at work in the field. Col.\nWatkins worked about 300 hands--generally had one negro out hunting\nrunaways. After employing a physician for some time among his negroes,\nhe ceased to do so, alleging as the reason, that it was cheaper to\nlose a few negroes every year than to pay a physician. He was a\nPresidential elector in 1836.\n\n\"Col. Ben Sherrod, another large planter in that neighborhood, is\nremarkable for his kindness to his slaves. He said to Rev. Mr. Barr,\nthat he had no doubt he should be rewarded in heaven for his kindness\nto his slaves; and yet his overseer, Walker, had to sleep with loaded\npistols, for fear of assassination. Three of the slaves attempted to\nkill him once, because of his _treatment of their wives_.\n\n\"Old Major Billy Watkins was noted for his severity. I well remember,\nwhen he lived in Madison county, to have often heard him yell at his\nnegroes with the most savage fury. He would stand at his house, and\nwatch the slaves picking cotton; and if any of them straitened their\nbacks for a moment, his savage yell would ring, 'bend your backs.'\n\n\"Mrs. Barr stated, that Mrs. H----, of Courtland, a member of the\nPresbyterian church, sent a little negro girl to jail, suspecting that\nshe had attempted to put poison in the water pail. The fact was, that\nthe child had found a vial, and was playing in the water. This same\nwoman (in high standing too,) told the Rev. Mr. McMillan, that she\ncould 'cut Arthur Tappan's throat from ear to ear.'\n\n\"The clothing of slaves is in many cases comfortable, and in many it\nis far from being so. I have very often seen slaves, whose tattered\nrags were neither comfortable nor decent.\n\n\"Their _huts_ are sometimes comfortable, but generally they are\nmiserable _hovels_, where male and female are herded promiscuously\ntogether.\n\n\"As to the _usual_ allowance of food on the plantations in North\nAlabama, I cannot speak confidently, from _personal_ knowledge. There\nwas a slave named Hadley, who was in the habit of visiting my father's\nslaves occasionally. He had run away several times. His reason was, as\nhe stated, that they would not give him any meat--said he could not\nwork without meat. The last time I saw him, he had quite a heavy iron\nyoke on his neck, the two prongs twelve or fifteen inches long,\nextending out over his shoulders and bending upwards.\n\n\"_Legal_ marriage is unknown among the slaves, they sometimes have a\nmarriage form--generally, however, _none at all_. The pastor of the\nPresbyterian church in Huntsville, had two families of slaves when I\nleft there. One couple were married by a negro preacher--the man was\nrobbed of his wife a number of months afterwards, by her '_owner_.'\nThe other couple just 'took up together,' without any form of\nmarriage. They are both members of churches--the man a Baptist deacon,\nsober and correct in his deportment. They have a large family of\nchildren--all children of concubinage--living in a minister's family.\n\n\"If these statements are deemed of any value by you, in forwarding\nyour glorious enterprize, you are at liberty to use them as you\nplease. The great wrong is _enslaving a man_; all other wrongs are\npigmies, compared with that. Facts might be gathered abundantly, to\nshow that it is _slavery itself_, and not cruelties merely, that make\nslaves unhappy. Even those that are most kindly treated, are generally\nfar from being happy. The slaves in my father's family are almost as\nkindly treated as _slaves_ can be, yet they pant for liberty.\n\n\"May the Lord guide you in this great movement. In behalf of the\nperishing, Your friend and brother, WILLIAM. T. ALLAN\"\n\n\nNARRATIVE OF MR. WILLIAM LEFTWICH, A NATIVE OF VIRGINIA.\n\nMr. Leftwich is a grandson of Gen. Jabez Leftwich, who was for some\nyears a member of Congress from Virginia. Though born in Virginia, he\nhas resided most of his life in Alabama. He now lives in Delhi,\nHamilton county, Ohio, near Cincinnati.\n\nAs an introduction to his letter, the reader is furnished with the\nfollowing testimonial to his character, from the Rev. Horace Bushnell,\npastor of the Presbyterian church in Delhi. Mr. B. says:\n\n\"Mr. Leftwich is a worthy member of this church, and is a young man of\nsterling integrity and veracity.\n\nH. BUSHNELL.\"\n\nThe following is the letter of Mr. Leftwich, dated Dec. 26, 1838.\n\n\"Dear Brother--I am not ranked among the abolitionists, yet I cannot,\nas a friend of humanity, withhold from the public such facts in\nrelation to the condition of the slaves, as have fallen under my own\nobservation. That I am somewhat acquainted with slavery will be seen,\nas I narrate some incidents of my own life. My parents were\nslaveholders, and moved from Virginia to Madison county, Alabama,\nduring my infancy. My mother soon fell a victim to the climate. Being\nthe youngest of the children, I was left in the care of my aged\ngrandfather, who never held a slave, though his sons owned from 90 to\n100 during the time I resided with him. As soon as I could carry a\nhoe, my uncle, by the name of Neely, persuaded my grandfather that I\nshould be placed in his hands, and brought up in habits of industry. I\nwas accordingly placed under his tuition. I left the domestic circle,\nlittle dreaming of the horrors that awaited me. My mother's own\nbrother took me to the cotton field, there to learn habits of\nindustry, and to be benefited by his counsels. But the sequel proved,\nthat I was there to feel in my own person, and witness by experience\nmany of the horrors of slavery. Instead of kind admonition, I was to\nendure the frowns of one, whose sympathies could neither be reached by\nthe prayers and cries of his slaves, nor by the entreaties and\nsufferings of a sister's son. Let those who call slaveholders kind,\nhospitable and humane, mark the course the slaveholder pursues with\none born free, whose ancestors fought and bled for liberty; and then\nsay, if they can without a blush of shame, that he who robs the\nhelpless of every _right_, can be truly kind and hospitable.\n\n\"In a short time after I was put upon the plantation, there was but\nlittle difference between me and the slaves, except being _white_, I\nate at the master's table. The slaves were my companions in misery,\nand I well learned their condition, both in the house and field. Their\ndwellings are log huts, from ten to twelve feet square; often without\nwindows, doors or floors. They have neither chairs, tables or\nbedsteads. These huts are occupied by eight, ten or twelve persons\neach. Their bedding generally consists of two old blankets. Many of\nthem sleep night after night sitting upon their blocks or stools;\nothers sleep in the open air. Our task was appointed, and from dawn\ntill dark all must bend to their work. Their meals were taken without\nknife or plate, dish or spoon. Their food was corn _pone_, prepared in\nthe coarsest manner, with a small allowance of meat. Their meals in\nthe field were taken from the hands of the carrier, wherever he found\nthem, with no more ceremony than in the feeding of swine. My uncle was\nhis own overseer. For punishing in the field, he preferred a large\nhickory stick; and wo to him whose work was not done to please him,\nfor the hickory was used upon our heads as remorselessly as if we had\nbeen mad dogs. I was often the object of his fury, and shall bear the\nmarks of it on my body till I die. Such was my suffering and\ndegradation, that at the end of five years, I hardly dared to say I\nwas _free_. When thinning cotton, we went mostly on our knees. One\nday, while thus engaged, my uncle found my row behind; and, by way of\nadmonition, gave me a few blows with his hickory, the marks of which I\ncarried for weeks. Often I followed the example of the fugitive\nslaves, and betook myself to the mountains; but hunger and fear drove\nme back, to share with the wretched slave his toil and stripes. But I\nhave talked enough about my own bondage; I will now relate a few\nfacts, showing the condition of the slaves _generally_.\n\n\"My uncle wishing to purchase what is called a good 'house wench,' a\n_trader_ in human flesh soon produced a woman, recommending her as\nhighly as ever a jockey did a horse. She was purchased, but on trial\nwas found wanting in the requisite qualifications. She then fell a\nvictim to the disappointed rage of my uncle; innocent or guilty, she\nsuffered greatly from his fury. He used to tie her to a peach tree in\nthe yard, and whip her till there was no sound place to lay another\nstroke, and repeat it so often that her back was kept continually\nsore. Whipping the females around the legs, was a favorite mode of\npunishment with him. They must stand and hold up their clothes, while\nhe plied his hickory. He did not, like some of his neighbors, keep a\npack of hounds for hunting runaway negroes, but be kept one dog for\nthat purpose, and when he came up with a runaway, it would have been\ndeath to attempt to fly, and it was nearly so to stand. Sometimes,\nwhen my uncle attempted to whip the slaves, the dog would rush upon\nthem and relieve them of their rags, if not of their flesh. One object\nof my uncle's special hate was \"Jerry,\" a slave of a proud spirit. He\ndefied all the curses, rage and stripes of his tyrant. Though he was\noften overpowered--for my uncle would frequently wear out his stick\nupon his head--yet be would never submit. As he was not expert in\npicking cotton, he would sometimes run away in the fall, to escape\nabuse. At one time, after an absence of some months, he was arrested\nand brought back. As is customary, he was stripped, tied to a log, and\nthe cow-skin applied to his naked body till his master was exhausted.\nThen a large log chain was fastened around one ankle, passed up his\nback, over his shoulders, then across his breast, and fastened under\nhis arm. In this condition he was forced to perform his daily task.\nAdd to this he was chained each night, and compelled to chop wood\nevery Sabbath, to make up lost time. After being thus manacled for\nsome months, he was released--but his spirit was unsubdued. Soon\nafter, his master, in a paroxysm of rage, fell upon him, wore out his\nstaff upon his head, loaded him again with chains, and after a month,\nsold him farther south. Another slave, by the name of Mince, who was a\nman of great strength, purloined some bacon on a Christmas eve. It was\nmissed in the morning, and he being absent, was of course suspected.\nOn returning home, my uncle commanded him to come to him, but he\nrefused. The master strove in vain to lay hands on him; in vain he\nordered his slaves to seize him--they dared not. At length the master\nhurled a stone at his head sufficient to have felled a bullock--but he\ndid not heed it. At that instant my aunt sprang forward, and\npresenting the gun to my uncle, exclaimed, 'Shoot him! shoot him !' He\nmade the attempt, but the gun missed fire, and Mince fled. He was\ntaken eight or ten months after while crossing the Ohio. When brought\nback, the master, and an overseer on another plantation, took him to\nthe mountain and punished him to their satisfaction in secret; after\nwhich he was loaded with chains and set to his task.\n\n\"I here spent nearly all my life in the midst of slavery. From being\nthe son of a slaveholder, I descended to the condition of a slave, and\nfrom that condition I rose (if you please to call it so,) to the\nstation of a '_driver_.' I have lived in Alabama, Tennessee, and\nKentucky; and I _know_ the condition of the slaves to be that of\nunmixed wretchedness and degradation. And on the part of slaveholders,\nthere is cruelty _untold_. The labor of the slave is constant toil,\nwrung out by fear. Their food is scanty, and taken without comfort.\nTheir clothes answer the purposes neither of comfort nor decency. They\nare not allowed to read or write. Whether they may worship God or not,\ndepends on the will of the master. The young children, until they can\nwork, often go naked during the warm weather. I could spend months in\ndetailing the sufferings, degradation and cruelty inflicted upon\nslaves. But my soul sickens at the remembrance of these things.\"\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MR. LEMUEL SAPINGTON, A NATIVE OF MARYLAND.\n\nMr. Sapington, is a repentant \"soul driver\" or slave trader, now a\ncitizen of Lancaster, Pa. He gives the following testimony in a letter\ndated, Jan. 21, 1839.\n\n\"I was born in Maryland, afterwards moved to Virginia, where I\ncommenced the business of farming and trafficking in slaves. In my\nneighborhood the slaves were 'quartered.' The description generally\ngiven of negro quarters is correct. The quarters are without floors,\nand not sufficient to keep off the inclemency of the weather, they are\nuncomfortable both in summer and winter. The food there consists of\npotatoes, pork, and corn, which were given to them daily, by weight\nand measure. The sexes were huddled together promiscuously. Their\nclothing is made by themselves after night, though sometimes assisted\nby the old women who are no longer able to do out door work,\nconsequently it is harsh and uncomfortable. I have frequently seen\nthose of both sexes who have not attained the age of twelve years go\nnaked. Their punishments are invariably cruel. For the slightest\noffence, such as taking a hen's egg, I have seen them stripped and\nsuspended by their hands, their feet tied together, a fence rail of\nordinary size placed between their ankles, and then most cruelly\nwhipped, until, from head to foot, they were completely lacerated, a\npickle made for the purpose of salt and water, would then be applied\nby a fellow-slave, for the purpose of healing the wounds as well as\ngiving pain. Then taken down and without the least respite sent to\nwork with their hoe.\n\n\"Pursuing my assumed right of driving souls, I went to the Southern\npart of Virginia for the purpose of trafficking in slaves. In that\npart of the state, the cruelties practised upon the slaves, are far\ngreater than where I lived. The punishments there often resulted in\ndeath to the slave. There was no law for the negro, but that of the\noverseer's whip. In that part of the country, the slaves receive\nnothing for food, but corn in the ear, which has to be prepared for\nbaking after working hours, by grinding it with a hand-mill. This they\ntake to the fields with them, and prepare it for eating, by holding it\non their hoes, over a fire made by a stump. Among the gangs, are often\nyoung women, who bring their children to the fields, and lay them in a\nfence corner, while they are at work, only being permitted to nurse\nthem at the option of the overseer. When a child is three weeks old, a\nwoman is considered in working order. I have seen a woman, with her\nyoung child strapped to her back, laboring the whole day, beside a\nman, perhaps the father of the child, and he not being permitted to\ngive her any assistance, himself being under the whip. The uncommon\nhumanity of the driver allowing her the comfort of doing so. I was\nthen selling a drove of slaves, which I had brought by water from\nBaltimore, my conscience not allowing me to drive, as was generally\nthe case uniting the slaves by collars and chains, and thus driving\nthem under the whip. About that time an unaccountable something, which\nI now know was an interposition of Providence, prevented me from\nprosecuting any farther this unholy traffic; but though I had quitted\nit, I still continued to live in a slave state, witnessing every day\nits evil effects upon my fellow beings. Among which was a\nheart-rending scene that took place in my father's house, which led me\nto lease a slave state, as well as all the imaginary comforts arising\nfrom slavery. On preparing for my removal to the state of\nPennsylvania, it became necessary for me to go to Louisville, in\nKentucky, where, if possible, I became more horrified with the\nimpositions practiced upon the negro than before. There a slave was\nsold to go farther south, and was hand-cuffed for the purpose of\nkeeping him secure. But choosing death rather than slavery, he jumped\noverboard and was drowned. When I returned four weeks afterwards his\nbody, that had floated three miles below, was yet unburied. One fact;\nit is impossible for a person to pass through a slave state, if he has\neyes open, without beholding every day cruelties repugnant to\nhumanity.\n\nRespectfully Yours,\n\nLEMUEL SAPINGTON.\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MRS. NANCY LOWRY, A NATIVE OF KENTUCKY.\n\nMrs. Lory, is a member of the non-conformist church in Osnaburg, Stark\nCounty, Ohio, she is a native of Kentucky. We have received from her\nthe following testimony.\n\n\"I resided in the family of Reuben Long, the principal part of the\ntime, from seven to twenty-two years of age. Mr. Long had 16 slaves,\namong whom were three who were treated with severity, although Mr.\nLong was thought to be a very human master. These three, namely John,\nNed, and James, had wives; John and Ned had theirs at some distance,\nbut James had his with him. All three died a premature death, and it\nwas generally believed by his neighbors, that extreme whipping was the\ncause. I believe so too. Ned died about the age of 25 and John 34 or\n35. The cause of their flogging was commonly staying a little over the\ntime, with their wives. Mr. Long would tie them up by the wrist, so\nhigh that their toes would just touch the ground, and then with a\ncow-hide lay the lash upon the naked back, until he was exhausted,\nwhen he would sit down and rest. As soon as he had rested\nsufficiently, he would ply the cow-hide again, thus he would continue\nuntil the whole back of the poor victim was lacerated into one uniform\ncoat of blood. Yet he was a strict professor of the Christian\nreligion, in the southern church. I frequently washed the wounds of\nJohn, with salt water, to prevent putrefaction. This was the usual\ncourse pursued after a severe flogging; their backs would be full of\ngashes, so deep the I could almost lay my finger in them. They were\ngenerally laid up after the flogging for several days. The last\nflogging Ned got, he was confined to the bed, which he never left till\nhe was carried to his grave. During John's confinement in his last\nsickness on one occasion while attending on him, he exclaimed, 'oh,\nNancy, Miss Nancy, I haven't much longer in this world, I feel as if\nmy whole body inside and all my bones were beaten into a jelly.' Soon\nafter he died. John and Ned were both professors of religion.\n\n\"John Ruffner, a slaveholder, had one slave named Pincy, whom he as\nwell as Mrs. Ruffner would often flog very severely. I frequently saw\nMrs. Ruffner flog her with the broom, shovel, or any thing she could\nseize in her rage. She would knock her down and then kick and stamp\nher most unmercifully, until she would be apparently so lifeless, that\nI more than once thought she would never recover. Often Pincy would\ntry to shelter herself from the blows of her mistress, by creeping\nunder the bed, from which Mrs. Ruffner would draw her by the feet, and\nthen stamp and leap on her body, till her breath would be gone. Often\nPincy, would cry, 'Oh Missee, don't kill me!' 'Oh Lord, don't kill\nme!' 'For God's sake don't kill me!' But Mrs. Ruffner would beat and\nstamp away, with all the venom of a demon. The cause of Pincy's\nflogging was, not working enough, or making some mistake in baking,\n&c. &c. Many a night Pincy had to lie on the bare floor, by the side\nof the cradle, rocking the baby of her mistress, and if she would fall\nasleep, and suffer the child to cry, so as to waken Mrs. Ruffner, she\nwould be sure to receive a flogging.\"\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MR. WM. C. GILDERSLEEVE, A NATIVE OF GEORGIA\n\nMR. W.C. GILDERSLEEVE, a native of Georgia, is an elder of the\nPresbyterian Church at Wilkesbarre, Pa.\n\n\"_Acts of cruelty, without number, fell under my observation_ while I\nlived in Georgia. I will mention but one. A slave of a Mr. Pinkney, on\nhis way with a wagon to Savannah, 'camped' for the night by the road\nside. That night, the nearest hen-roost was robbed. On his return, the\nhen-roost was again visited, and the fowl counted one less in the\nmorning. The oldest son, with some attendants made search, and came\nupon the poor fellow, in the act of dressing his spoil. He was too\nnimble for them, and made his retreat good into a dense swamp. When\nmuch effort to start him from his hiding place had proved\nunsuccessful, it was resolved to lay an ambush for him, some distance\nahead. The wagon, meantime, was in charge of a lad, who accompanied\nthe teamster as an assistant. The little boy lay still till nearly\nnight, (in the hope probably that the teamster would return,) when he\nstarted with his wagon. After travelling some distance, the lost one\nmade his appearance, when the ambush sprang upon him. The poor fellow\nwas conducted back to the plantation. He expected little mercy. He\nbegged for himself, in the most suplicating manner, 'pray massa give\nme 100 lashes and let me go.' He was then tied by the hands, to a limb\nof a large mulberry tree, which grew in the yard, so that his feet\nwere raised a few inches from the ground, while a _sharpened stick_\nwas driven underneath that he might rest his weight on it, or swing by\nhis hands. In this condition 100 lashes were laid on his bare body. I\nstood by and witnessed the whole, without as I recollect feeling the\nleast compassion. So hardening is the influence of slavery, that it\nvery much destroys feeling for the slave.\"\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MR. HIRAM WHITE--A NATIVE OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n\nMr. WHITE resided thirty-two years in Chatham county, North Carolina,\nand is now a member of the Baptist Church, at Otter Creek Prairie,\nIllinois.\n\nAbout the 20th December 1830, a report was raised that the slaves in\nChatham county, North Carolina, were going to rise on Christmas day,\nin consequence of which a considerable commotion ensued among the\ninhabitants; orders were given by the Governor to the militia\ncaptains, to appoint patrolling captains in each district, and orders\nwere given for every man subject to military duty to patrol as their\ncaptains should direct. I went two nights in succession, and after\nthat refused to patrol at all. The reason why I refused was this,\norders were given to search every negro house for books or prints of\nany kind, and _Bibles_ and _Hymn books_ were particularly mentioned.\nAnd should we find any, our orders were to inflict punishment by\nwhipping the slave until he _informed who_ gave them to him, or how\nthey came by them.\n\nAs regards the comforts of the slaves in the vicinity of my residence,\nI can say they had nothing that would bear that name. It is true, the\nslaves in general, of a good crop year, were tolerably well fed, but\nof a bad crop year, they were, as a general thing, cut short of their\nallowance. Their houses were pole cabins, without loft or floor. Their\nbeds were made of what is there called \"broom-straw.\" The men more\ncommonly sleep on benches. Their clothing would compare well with\ntheir lodging. Whipping was common. It was hardly possible for a man\nwith a common pair of ears, if he was out of his house but a short\ntime on Monday mornings, to miss of hearing the sound of the lash, and\nthe cries of the sufferers pleading with their masters to desist.\nThese scenes were more common throughout the time of my residence\nthere, from 1799 to 1831.\n\nMr. Hedding of Chatham county, held a slave woman. I traveled past\nHeddings as often as once in two weeks during the winter of 1828, and\nalways saw her clad in a single cotton dress, sleeves came half way to\nthe elbow, and in order to prevent her running away, a child, supposed\nto be about seven years of age, was connected with her by a long chain\nfastened round her neck, and in this situation she was compelled all\nthe day to grub up the roots of shrubs and sapplings to prepare ground\nfor the plough. It is not uncommon for slaves to make up on Sundays\nwhat they are not able to perform through the week of their tasks.\n\nAt the time of the rumored insurrection above named, Chatham jail was\nfilled with slaves who were said to have been concerned in the plot.\nWithout the least evidence of it, they were punished in divers ways;\nsome were whipped, some had their _thumbs screwed in a vice_ to make\nthem confess, but no proof satisfactory was ever obtained that the\nnegroes had ever thought of an insurrection, nor did any so far as I\ncould learn, acknowledge that an insurrection had ever been projected.\nFrom this time forth, the slaves were prohibited from assembling\ntogether for the worship of God, and many of those who had previously\nbeen authorized to preach the gospel were prohibited.\n\nAmalgamation was common. There was scarce a family of slaves that had\nfemales of mature age where there were not some mulatto children.\n\nHIRAM  WHITE\n\n_Otter Creek Prairie, Jan. 22, 1839_.\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN M. NELSON--A NATIVE OF VIRGINIA.\n\nExtract of a letter, dated January 3, 1839, from John M. Nelson, Esq.,\nof Hillsborough. Mr. Nelson removed from Virginia to Highland county,\nOhio, many years since, where he is extensively known and respected.\n\nI was born and raised in Augusta county, Virginia; my father was an\nelder in the Presbyterian Church, and was \"owner\" of about twenty\nslaves; he was what was generally termed a \"good master.\" His slaves\nwere generally tolerably well fed and clothed, and not over worked,\nthey were sometimes permitted to attend church, and called in to\nfamily worship; few of them, however, availed themselves of these\nprivileges. On _some occasions_ I have seen him whip them severely,\nparticularly for the crime of trying to obtain their liberty, or for\nwhat was called, \"running away.\" For _this_ they were scourged more\nseverely than for any thing else. After they have been retaken, I have\nseen them stripped naked and suspended by the hands, sometimes to a\ntree, sometimes to a post, until their toes barely touched the ground,\nand whipped with a cowhide until the blood dripped from their backs. A\nboy named Jack, particularly, I have seen served in this way more than\nonce. When I was quite a child, I recollect it grieved me very much to\nsee one _tied up_ to be whipped, and I used to intercede with tears in\ntheir behalf, and mingle my cries with theirs, and feel almost willing\nto take part of the punishment; I have been severely rebuked by my\nfather for this kind of sympathy. Yet, such is the hardening nature of\nsuch scenes, that from this kind of commiseration for the suffering\nslave, I became so blunted that I could not only witness their stripes\nwith composure, but _myself_ inflict them, and that without remorse.\nOne case I have often looked back to with sorrow and contrition,\nparticularly since I have been convinced that \"negroes are men.\" When\nI was perhaps fourteen or fifteen years of age, I undertook to correct\na young fellow named Ned, for some supposed offence; I think it was\nleaving a bridle out of its proper place; he being larger and stronger\nthan myself took hold of my arms and held me, in order to prevent my\nstriking him; this I considered the height of insolence, and cried for\nhelp, when my father and mother both came running to my rescue. My\nfather stripped and tied him, and took him into the orchard, where\nswitches were plenty, and directed me to whip him; when one switch\nwore out he supplied me with others. After I had whipped him a while,\nhe fell on his knees to implore forgiveness, and I kicked him in the\nface; my father said, \"don't kick him, but whip him;\" this I did until\nhis back was literally covered with _welts_. I know I have repented,\nand trust I have obtained pardon for these things.\n\nMy father owned a woman, (we used to call aunt Grace,) she was\npurchased in Old Virginia. She has told me that her old master, in his\n_will_, gave her her freedom, but at his death, his sons had sold her\nto my father: when he bought her she manifested some unwillingness to\ngo with him, when she was put in irons and taken by force. This was\nbefore I was born; but I remember to have seen the irons, and was told\nthat was what they had been used for. Aunt Grace is still living, and\nmust be between seventy and eighty years of age; she has, for the last\nforty years, been an exemplary Christian. When I was a youth I took\nsome pains to learn her to read; this is now a great consolation to\nher. Since age and infirmity have rendered her of little value to her\n\"owners,\" she is permitted to read as much as she pleases; this she\ncan do, with the aid of glasses, in the old family Bible, which is\nalmost the only book she has ever looked into. This with some little\nmending for the black children, is all she does; she is still held as\na slave. I well remember what a _heart-rending scene_ there was in the\nfamily when _my father sold her husband_; this was, I suppose,\nthirty-five years ago. And yet my father was considered one of the\nbest of masters. I know of few who were better, but of _many_ who were\nworse.\n\nThe last time I saw my father, which was in the fall of 1832, he\npromised me that he would free all his slaves at his death. He died\nhowever without doing it; and I have understood since, that he omitted\nit, through the influence of Rev. Dr. Speece, a Presbyterian minister,\nwho lived in the family, and was a _warm friend of the Colonization\nSociety_.\n\nAbout the year 1809 or 10, I became a student of Rev. George Bourne;\nhe was the first abolitionist I had ever seen, and the first I had\never heard pray or plead for the oppressed, which gave me the first\nmisgivings about the _innocence_ of slaveholding. I received\nimpressions from Mr. Bourne which I could not get rid of,[6] and\ndetermined in my own mind that when I settled in life, it should be in\na free state; this determination I carried into effect in 1813, when I\nremoved to this place, which I supposed at that time, to be all the\nopposition to slavery that was necessary, but the moment I became\nconvinced that all slaveholding was in itself _sinful_, I became an\nabolitionist, which was about four years ago.\n\n[Footnote 6: Mr. Bourne resided seven years in Virginia, \"in perils\namong false brethren; fiercely persecuted for his faithful testimony\nagainst slavery. More than twenty years since he published a work\nentitled 'The Book and Slavery irreconcileable.'\"]\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF ANGELINA GRIMK\u00c9 WELD.\n\nMrs. Weld is the youngest daughter of the late Judge Grimk\u00e9, of the\nSupreme Court of South Carolina, and a sister of the late Hon. Thomas\nS. Grimk\u00e9, of Charleston.\n\nFort Lee, Bergen Co., New Jersey, Fourth month 6th, 1839.\n\nI sit down to comply with thy request, preferred in the name of the\nExecutive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society. The\nresponsibility laid upon me by such a request, leaves me no option.\nWhile I live, and slavery lives, I _must_ testify against it. If I\nshould hold my peace, \"the stone would cry out of the wall, and the\nbeam out of the timber would answer it.\" But though I feel a necessity\nupon me, and \"a woe unto me,\" if I withhold my testimony, I give it\nwith a heavy heart. My flesh crieth out, \"if it be possible, let\n_this_ cup pass from me;\" but, \"Father, _thy_ will be done,\" is, I\ntrust, the breathing of my spirit. Oh, the slain of the daughter of my\npeople! they lie in all the ways; their tears fall as the rain, and\nare their meat day and night; their blood runneth down like water;\ntheir plundered hearths are desolate; they weep for their husbands and\nchildren, because they are not; and the proud waves do continually go\nover them, while no eye pitieth, and no man careth for their souls.\n\nBut it is not alone for the sake of my poor brothers and sisters in\nbonds, or for the cause of truth, and righteousness, and humanity,\nthat I testify; the deep yearnings of affection for the mother that\nbore me, who is still a slaveholder, both in fact and in heart; for my\nbrothers and sisters, (a large family circle,) and for my numerous\nother slaveholding kindred in South Carolina, constrain me to speak:\nfor even were slavery no curse to its victims, the exercise of\narbitrary power works such fearful ruin upon the hearts of\n_slaveholders_, that I should feel impelled to labor and pray for its\noverthrow with my last energies and latest breath.\n\nI think it important to premise, that I have seen almost nothing of\nslavery on _plantations_. My testimony will have respect exclusively\nto the treatment of \"_house-servants_,\" and chiefly those belonging to\nthe first families in the city of Charleston, both in the religious\nand in the fashionable world. And here let me say, that the treatment\nof _plantation_ slaves cannot be fully known, except by the poor\nsufferers themselves, and their drivers and overseers. In a multitude\nof instances, even the master can know very little of the actual\ncondition of his own field-slaves, and his wife and daughters far\nless. A few facts concerning my own family will show this. Our\npermanent residence was in Charleston; our country-seat (Bellemont,)\nwas 200 miles distant, in the north-western part of the state; where,\nfor some years, our family spent a few months annually. Our\n_plantation_ was three miles from this family mansion. There, all the\nfield-slaves lived and worked. Occasionally, once a month, perhaps,\nsome of the family would ride over to the plantation, but I never\nvisited the _fields where the slaves were at work_, and knew almost\nnothing of their condition; but this I do know, that the overseers who\nhad charge of them, were generally unprincipled and intemperate men.\nBut I rejoice to know, that the general treatment of slaves in that\nregion of country, was far milder than on the plantations in the lower\ncountry.\n\nThroughout all the eastern and middle portions of the state, the\nplanters very rarely reside permanently on their plantations. They\nhave almost invariably _two residences_, and spend less than half the\nyear on their estates. Even while spending a few months on them,\npolitics, field-sports, races, speculations, journeys, visits,\ncompany, literary pursuits, &c., absorb so much of their time, that\nthey must, to a considerable extent, take the condition of their\nslaves _on trust_, from the reports of their overseers. I make this\nstatement, because these slaveholders (the wealthier class,) are, I\nbelieve, almost the only ones who visit the north with their\nfamilies;--and northern opinions of slavery are based chiefly on their\ntestimony.\n\nBut not to dwell on preliminaries, I wish to record my testimony to\nthe faithfulness and accuracy with which my beloved sister, Sarah M.\nGrimk\u00e9, has, in her 'narrative and testimony,' on a preceding page,\ndescribed the condition of the slaves, and the effect upon the hearts\nof slaveholders, (even the best,) caused by the exercise of unlimited\npower over moral agents. Of the _particular acts_ which she has\nstated, I have no personal knowledge, as they occurred before my\nremembrance; but of the spirit that prompted them, and that constantly\ndisplays itself in scenes of similar horror, the recollections of my\nchildhood, and the effaceless imprint upon my riper years, with the\nbreaking of my heart-strings, when, finding that I was powerless to\nshield the victims, I tore myself from my home and friends, and became\nan exile among strangers--all these throng around me as witnesses, and\ntheir testimony is graven on my memory with a pen of fire.\n\nWhy I did not become totally hardened, under the daily operation of\nthis system, God only knows; in deep solemnity and gratitude, I say,\nit was the _Lord's_ doing, and marvellous in mine eyes. Even before my\nheart was touched with the love of Christ, I used to say, \"Oh that I\nhad the wings of a dove, that I might flee away and be at rest;\" for I\nfelt that there could be no rest for me in the midst of such outrages\nand pollutions. And yet I saw _nothing_ of slavery in its most vulgar\nand repulsive forms. I saw it in the city, among the fashionable and\nthe honorable, where it was garnished by refinement, and decked out\nfor show. A few _facts_ will unfold the state of society in the circle\nwith which I was familiar far better than any general assertions I can\nmake.\n\nI will first introduce the reader to a woman of the highest\nrespectability--one who was foremost in every benevolent enterprise,\nand stood for many years, I may say, at the _head_ of the fashionable\nElite of the city of Charleston, and afterwards at the head of the\nmoral and religious female society there. It was after she had made a\nprofession of religion, and retired from the fashionable world, that I\nknew her; therefore I will present her in her religious character.\nThis lady used to keep cowhides, or small paddles, (called 'pancake\nsticks,') in four different apartments in her house; so that when she\nwished to punish, or to have punished, any of her slaves, she might\nnot have the trouble of sending for an instrument of torture. For many\nyears, one or other, and _often_ more of her slaves, were flogged\n_every day_; particularly the young slaves about the house, whose\nfaces were slapped, or their hands beat with the 'pancake stick; for\nevery trifling offence--and often for no fault at all. But the\nfloggings were not all; the scolding, and abuse daily heaped upon them\nall, were worse: 'fools' and 'liars,' 'sluts' and 'husseys,'\n'hypocrites' and 'good-for-nothing creatures'; were the common\nepithets with which her mouth was filled, when addressing her slaves,\nadults as well as children. Very often she would take a position at\nher window, in an upper story, and scold at her slaves while working\nin the garden, at some distance from the house, (a large yard\nintervening,) and occasionally order a flogging. I have known her thus\non the watch, scolding for more than an hour at a time, in so loud a\nvoice that the whole neighborhood could hear her; and this without the\nleast apparent feeling of shame. Indeed, it was no disgrace among\nslaveholders, and did not in the least injure her standing, either as\na lady or a Christian, in the aristocratic circle in which she moved.\nAfter the 'revival' in Charleston, in 1825, she opened her house to\nsocial prayer-meetings. The room in which they were held in the\nevening, and where the voice of prayer was heard around the family\naltar, and where she herself retired for private devotion thrice each\nday, was the very place in which, when her slaves were to be whipped\nwith the cowhide, they were taken to receive the infliction; and the\nwail of the sufferer would be heard, where, perhaps only a few hours\nprevious, rose the voices of prayer and praise. This mistress would\noccasionally send her slaves, male and female, to the Charleston\nwork-house to be punished. One poor girl, whom she sent there to be\nflogged, and who was accordingly stripped _naked_ and whipped, showed\nme the deep gashes on her back--I might have laid my whole finger in\nthem--_large pieces of flesh had actually been cut out by the\ntorturing lash_. She sent another female slave there, to be imprisoned\nand worked on the tread-mill. This girl was confined several days, and\nforced to work the mill while in a state of suffering from another\ncause. For ten days or two weeks after her return, she was lame, from\nthe violent exertion necessary to enable her to keep the step on the\nmachine. She spoke to me with intense feeling of this outrage upon\nher, as a _woman_. Her men servants were sometimes flogged there; and\nso exceedingly offensive has been the putrid flesh of their lacerated\nbacks, for days after the infliction, that they would be kept out of\nthe house--the smell arising from their wounds being too horrible to\nbe endured. They were always stiff and sore for some days, and not in\na condition to be seen by visitors.\n\nThis professedly Christian woman was a most awful illustration of the\nruinous influence of arbitrary power upon the temper--her bursts of\npassion upon the heads of her victims were dreaded even by her own\nchildren, and very often, all the pleasure of social intercourse\naround the domestic board, was destroyed by her ordering the cook into\nher presence, and storming at him, when the dinner or breakfast was\nnot prepared to her taste, and in the presence of all her children,\ncommanding the waiter to slap his face. _Fault-finding_, was with her\nthe constant accompaniment of every meal, and banished that peace\nwhich should hover around the social board, and smile on every face.\nIt was common for her to order brothers to whip their own sisters, and\nsisters their own brothers, and yet no woman visited among the poor\nmore than she did, or gave more liberally to relieve their wants.\nThis may seem perfectly unaccountable to a northerner, but these\nseeming contradictions vanish when we consider that over _them_ she\npossessed no arbitrary power, they were always presented to her mind\nas unfortunate sufferers, towards whom her sympathies most freely\nflowed; she was ever ready to wipe the tears from _their_ eyes, and\nopen wide her purse for _their_ relief, but the others were her\n_vassals_, thrust down by public opinion beneath her feet, to be at\nher beck and call, ever ready to serve in all humility, her, whom God\nin his providence had set over them--it was their _duty_ to abide in\nabject submission, and hers to _compel_ them to do so--_it was thus\nthat she reasoned_. Except at family prayers, none were permitted to\n_sit_ in her presence, but the seamstresses and waiting maids, and\nthey, however delicate might be their circumstances, were forced to\nsit upon low stools, without backs, that they might be constantly\nreminded of their inferiority. A slave who waited in the house, was\nguilty on a particular occasion of going to visit his wife, and kept\ndinner waiting a little, (his wife was the slave of a lady who lived\nat a little distance.)  When the family sat down to the table, the\nmistress began to scold the waiter for the offence--he attempted to\nexcuse himself--she ordered him to hold his tongue--he ventured\nanother apology; her son then rose from the table in a rage, and beat\nthe face and ears of the waiter so dreadfully that the blood gushed\nfrom his mouth, and nose, and ears. This mistress was a _professor of\nreligion_; her daughter who related the circumstance, was a _fellow\nmember_ of the Presbyterian church _with the poor outraged\nslave_--instead of feeling indignation at this outrageous abuse of her\nbrother in the church, she justified the deed, and said \"he got just\nwhat he deserved.\"  I solemnly believe this to be a true picture of\n_slaveholding religion_.\n\nThe following is another illustration of it:\n\nA mistress in Charleston sent a grey headed female slave to the\nworkhouse, and had her severely flogged. The poor old woman went to\nan acquaintance of mine and begged her to buy her, and told her how\ncruelly she had been whipped. My friend examined her _lacerated back_,\nand out of compassion did purchase her. The circumstance was\nmentioned to one of the former owner's relatives, who asked her if it\nwere true. The mistress told her it was, and said that she had made\nthe severe whipping of this aged woman a _subject of prayer_, and that\nshe believed she had done right to have it inflicted upon her. The\nlast 'owner' of the poor old slave, said she, had no fault to find\nwith her as a servant.\n\nI remember very well that when I was a child, our next door neighbor\nwhipped a young woman so brutally, that in order to escape his blows\nshe rushed through the drawing-room window in the second story, and\nfell upon the street pavement below and broke her hip. This\ncircumstance produced no excitement or inquiry.\n\nThe following circumstance occurred in Charleston, in 1828:\n\nA slaveholder, after flogging a little girl about thirteen years old,\nset her on a table with her feet fastened in a pair of stocks. He then\nlocked the door and took out the key. When the door was opened she\nwas found dead, having fallen from the table. When I asked a\nprominent lawyer, who belonged to one of the first families in the\nState, whether the murderer of this helpless child could not be\nindicted, he coolly replied, that the slave was Mr. ----'s property,\nand if he chose to suffer the _loss_, no one else had any thing to do\nwith it. The loss of _human life_, the distress of the parents and\nother relatives of the little girl, seemed utterly out of his\nthoughts: it was the loss of _property_ only that presented itself to\nhis mind.\n\nI knew a gentleman of great benevolence and generosity of character,\nso essentially to injure the eye of a little boy, about ten years old,\nas to destroy its sight, by the blow of a cowhide, inflicted whilst he\nwas whipping him.[7]  I have heard the same individual speak of\n\"breaking down the spirit of a slave under the lash\" as perfectly\nright.\n\n[Footnote 7: The Jewish law would have set this servant free, for his\neye's sake, but he was held in slavery and sold from hand to hand,\nalthough, besides this title to his liberty according to Jewish law,\nhe was a _mulatto_, and therefore free under the Constitution of the\nUnited States, in whose preamble our fathers declare that they\nestablished it expressly to \"secure the blessings of _liberty_ to\nthemselves and _their posterity_.\"--Ed.]\n\nI also know that an aged slave of his, (by marriage,) was allowed to\nget a scanty and precarious subsistence, by begging in the streets of\nCharleston--he was too old to work, and therefore _his allowance was\nstopped_, and he was turned out to make his living by begging.\n\nWhen I was about thirteen years old, I attended a seminary, in\nCharleston, which was superintended by a man and his wife of superior\neducation. They had under their instruction the daughters of nearly\nall the aristocracy. Their cruelty to their slaves, both male and\nfemale, I can never forget. I remember one day there was called into\nthe school room to open a window, a boy whose head had been shaved in\norder to disgrace him, and he had been so dreadfully whipped that he\ncould hardly walk. So horrible was the impression produced upon my\nmind by his heart-broken countenance and crippled person that I\nfainted away. The sad and ghastly countenance of one of their female\nmulatto slaves who used to sit on a low stool at her sewing in the\npiazza, is now fresh before me. She often told me, secretly, how\ncruelly she was whipped when they sent her to the work house. I had\nknown so much of the terrible scourgings inflicted in that house of\nblood, that when I was once obliged to pass it, the very sight smote\nme with such horror that my limbs could hardly sustain me. I felt as\nif I was passing the precincts of hell. A friend of mine who lived in\nthe neighborhood, told me she often heard the screams of the slaves\nunder their torture.\n\nI once heard a physician of a high family, and of great respectability\nin his profession, say, that when he sent his slaves to the work-house\nto be flogged, he always went to see it done, that he might be sure\nthey were properly, i.e. _severely_ whipped. He also related the\nfollowing circumstance in my presence. He had sent a youth of about\neighteen to this horrible place to be whipped and _afterwards_ to be\nworked upon the treadmill. From not keeping the step, which probably\nhe COULD NOT do, in consequence of the lacerated state of his body;\nhis arm got terribly torn, from the shoulder to the wrist. This\nphysician said, he went every day to attend to it himself, in order\nthat he might use those restoratives, which _would inflict the\ngreatest possible pain_. This poor boy, after being imprisoned there\nfor some weeks, was then brought home, and compelled to wear iron\nclogs on his ankles for one or two months. I saw him with those irons\non one day when I was at the house. This man was, when young,\nremarkable in the fashionable world for his elegant and fascinating\nmanners, but the exercise of the slaveholder's power has thrown the\nfierce air of tyranny even over these.\n\nI heard another man of equally high standing say, that he believed he\nsuffered far more than his waiter did whenever he flogged him for he\nfelt the _exertion_ for days afterward, but he could not let his\nservant go on in the neglect of his business, it was _his duty_ to\nchastise him. \"His duty\" to flog this boy of seventeen so severely\nthat he felt _the exertion_ for days after! and yet he never felt it\nto be his duty to instruct him, or have him instructed, even in the\ncommon principles of morality. I heard the mother of this man say it\nwould be no surprise to her, if he killed a slave some day, for, that,\nwhen transported with passion he did not seem to care what he did. He\nonce broke a _large_ stick over the back of a slave and at another\ntime the ivory butt-end of a long coach whip over the _head_ of\nanother. This last was attacked with epileptic fits some months after,\nand has ever since been subject to them, and occasionally to violent\nfits of insanity.\n\nSouthern mistresses sometimes flog their slaves themselves though\ngenerally one slave is compelled to flog another. Whilst staying at a\nfriend's house some years ago, I one day saw the mistress with a\ncow-hide in her hand, and heard her scolding in an under tone, her\nwaiting man, who was about twenty-five years old. Whether she actually\ninflicted the blows I do not know, for I hastened out of sight and\nhearing. It was not the first time I had seen a mistress thus engaged.\nI knew she was a cruel mistress, and had heard her daughters\ndisputing, whether their mother did right or wrong, to send the slave\n_children_, (whom she sent out to sweep chimneys) to the work house to\nbe whipped if they did not bring in their wages regularly. This woman\nmoved in the most fashionable circle in Charleston. The income of this\nfamily was derived mostly from the hire of their slaves, about one\nhundred in number. Their luxuries were blood-bought luxuries indeed.\nAnd yet what stranger would ever have inferred their cruelties from\nthe courteous reception and bland manners of the parlor. Every thing\ncruel and revolting is carefully concealed from strangers, especially\nthose from the north. Take an instance. I have known the master and\nmistress of a family send to their friends to _borrow_ servants to\nwait on company, because their own slaves had been so cruelly flogged\nin the work house, that they could not walk without limping at every\nstep, and their putrified flesh emitted such an intolerable smell that\nthey were not fit to be in the presence of company. How can\nnortherners know these things when they are hospitably received at\nsouthern tables and firesides? I repeat it, no one who has not been an\n_integral part_ of a slaveholding community, can have any idea of its\nabominations. It is a whited sepulchre full of dead men's bones and\nall uncleanness. Blessed be God, the Angel of _Truth_ has descended\nand rolled away the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre, and sits\nupon it. The abominations so long hidden are now brought forth before\nall Israel and the sun. Yes, the Angel of Truth _sits upon this\nstone_, and it can never be rolled back again.\n\nThe utter disregard of the comfort of the slaves, in _little_ things,\ncan scarcely be conceived by those who have not been a _component\npart_ of slaveholding communities. Take a few particulars out of\nhundreds that might be named. In South Carolina musketoes swarm in\nmyriads, more than half the year--they are so excessively annoying at\nnight, that no family thinks of sleeping without nets or\n\"musketoe-bars\" hung over their bedsteads, yet slaves are never\nprovided with them, unless it be the favorite old domestics who get\nthe cast-off pavilions; and yet these very masters and mistresses will\nbe so kind to their _horses_ as to provide them with _fly nets_.\nBedsteads and bedding too, are rarely provided for any of the\nslaves--if the waiters and coachmen, waiting maids, cooks, washers,\n&c., have beds at all, they must generally get them for themselves.\nCommonly they lie down at night on the bare floor, with a small\nblanket wrapped round them in winter, and in summer a coarse osnaburg\nsheet, or nothing. Old slaves generally have beds, but it is because\nwhen younger _they have provided them for themselves._\n\nOnly two meals a day are allowed the house slaves--the _first at\ntwelve o'clock_. If they eat before this time, it is by stealth, and I\nam sure there must be a good deal of suffering among them from\n_hunger_, and particularly by children. Besides this, they are often\nkept from their meals by way of punishment. No table is provided for\nthem to eat from. They know nothing of the comfort and pleasure of\ngathering round the social board--each takes his plate or tin pan and\niron spoon and holds it in the hand or on the lap. I _never_ saw\nslaves seated round a _table_ to partake of any meal.\n\nAs the general rule, no lights of any kind, no firewood--no towels,\nbasins, or soap, no tables, chairs, or other furniture, are provided.\nWood for cooking and washing _for the family_ is found, but when the\nmaster's work is done, the slave must find wood for himself if he has\na fire. I have repeatedly known slave children kept the whole winter's\nevening, sitting on the stair-case in a cold entry, just to be at hand\nto snuff candles or hand a tumbler of water from the side-board, or go\non errands from one room to another. It may be asked why they were not\npermitted to stay in the parlor, when they would be still more at\nhand. I answer, because waiters are not allowed to _sit_ in the\npresence of their owners, and as children who were kept running all\nday, would of course get very tired of standing for two or three\nhours, they were allowed to go into the entry and sit on the staircase\nuntil rung for. Another reason is, that even slaveholders at times\nfind the presence of slaves very annoying; they cannot exercise entire\nfreedom of speech before them on all subjects.\n\nI have also known instances where seamstresses were kept in cold\nentries to work by the stair case lamps for one or two hours, every\nevening in winter--they could not see without standing up all the\ntime, though the work was often too large and heavy for them to sew\nupon it in that position without great inconvenience, and yet they\nwere expected to do their work as _well_ with their cold fingers, and\nstanding up, as if they had been sitting by a comfortable fire and\nprovided with the necessary light. House slaves suffer a great deal\nalso from not being allowed to leave the house without permission. If\nthey wish to go even for a draught of water, they must _ask leave_,\nand if they stay longer than the mistress thinks necessary, they are\nliable to be punished, and often are scolded or slapped, or kept from\ngoing down to the next meal.\n\nIt frequently happens that relatives, among slaves, are separated for\nweeks or months, by the husband or brother being taken by the master\non a journey, to attend on his horses and himself.--When they return,\nthe white husband seeks the wife of his love; but the black husband\nmust wait to see _his_ wife, until mistress pleases to let her\nchambermaid leave her room. Yes, such is the despotism of slavery,\nthat wives and sisters dare not run to meet their husbands and\nbrothers after such separations, and hours sometimes elapse before\nthey are allowed to meet; and, at times, a fiendish pleasure is taken\nin keeping them asunder--this furnishes an opportunity to vent\nfeelings of spite for any little neglect of \"duty.\"\n\nThe sufferings to which slaves are subjected by separations of various\nkinds, cannot be imagined by those unacquainted with the working out\nof the system behind the curtain. Take the following instances.\n\nChambermaids and seamstresses often sleep in their mistresses'\napartments, but with no bedding at all. I know an instance of a woman\nwho has been married eleven years, and yet has never been allowed to\nsleep out of her mistress's chamber.--This is a _great_ hardship to\nslaves. When we consider that house slaves are rarely allowed social\nintercourse during _the day_, as their work generally _separates_\nthem; the barbarity of such an arrangement is obvious. It is\npeculiarly a hardship in the above case, as the husband of the woman\ndoes not \"belong\" to her \"owner;\" and because he is subject to\ndreadful attacks of illness, and can have but little attention from\nhis wife in the _day_. And yet her mistress, who is an old lady, gives\nher the highest character as a faithful servant, and told a friend of\nmine, that she was \"entirely dependent upon her for _all_ her\ncomforts; she dressed and undressed her, gave her all her food, and\nwas so _necessary_ to her that she could not do without her.\" I may\nadd, that this couple are tenderly attached to each other.\n\nI also know an instance in which the husband was a slave and the wife\nwas free: during the illness of the former, the latter was _allowed_\nto come and nurse him; she was obliged to leave the work by which she\nhad made a living, and come to stay with her husband, and thus lost\nweeks of her time, or he would have suffered for want of proper\nattention; and yet his \"owner\" made her no compensation for her\nservices. He had long been a faithful and a favorite slave, and his\nowner was a woman very benevolent to the poor whites.--She went a\ngreat deal among these, as a visiting commissioner of the Ladies'\nBenevolent Society, and was in the constant habit of _paying the\nrelatives of the poor whites_ for nursing _their_ husbands, fathers,\nand other relations; because she thought it very hard, when their time\nwas taken up, so that they could not earn their daily bread, that they\nshould be left to suffer. Now, such is the stupifying influence of the\n\"_chattel_ principle\" on the minds of slaveholders, that I do not\nsuppose it ever occurred to her that this poor _colored_ wife ought to\nbe paid for her services, and particularly as she was spending her\ntime and strength in taking care of her \"_property_.\" She no doubt\nonly thought how kind she was, to _allow_ her to come and stay so long\nin her yard; for, let it be kept in mind, that slaveholders have\nunlimited power to separate husbands and wives, parents and children,\nhowever and whenever they please; and if this mistress had chosen to\ndo it, she could have debarred this woman from all intercourse with\nher husband, by forbidding her to enter her premises.\n\nPersons who own plantations and yet live in cities, often take\nchildren from their parents as soon as they are weaned, and send them\ninto the country; because they do not want the time of the mother\ntaken up by attendance upon her own children, it being too valuable to\nthe mistress. As a _favor_, she is, in some cases, permitted to go to\nsee them once a year. So, on the other hand, if field slaves happen to\nhave children of an age suitable to the convenience of the master,\nthey are taken from their parents and brought to the city. Parents are\nalmost never consulted as to the disposition to be made of their\nchildren; they have as little control over them, as have domestic\nanimals over the disposal of their young. Every natural and social\nfeeling and affection are violated with indifference; slaves are\ntreated as though they did not possess them.\n\nAnother way in which the feelings of slaves are trifled with and often\ndeeply wounded, is by changing their names; if, at the time they are\nbrought into a family, there is another slave of the same name; or if\nthe owner happens, for some other reason, not to like the name of the\nnew comer. I have known slaves very much grieved at having the names\nof their children thus changed, when they had been called after a dear\nrelation. Indeed it would be utterly impossible to recount the\nmultitude of ways in which the _heart_ of the slave is continually\nlacerated by the total disregard of his feelings as a social being and\na human creature.\n\nThe slave suffers also greatly from being continually watched. The\nsystem of espionage which is constantly kept up over slaves is the\nmost worrying and intolerable that can be imagined. Many mistresses\nare, in fact, during the absence of their husbands, really their\ndrivers; and the pleasure of returning to their families often, on the\npart of the husband, is entirely destroyed by the complaints preferred\nagainst the slaves when he comes home to his meals.\n\nA mistress of my acquaintance asked her servant boy, one day, what was\nthe reason she could not get him to do his work whilst his master was\naway, and said to him, \"Your master works a great deal harder than you\ndo; he is at his office all day, and often has to study his law cases\nat night.\" \"Master,\" said the boy, \"is working for himself, and for\nyou, ma'am, but I am working for _him_\". The mistress turned and\nremarked to a friend, that she was so struck with the truth of the\nremark, that she could not say a word to him. But I forbear--the\nsufferings of the slaves are not only innumerable, but they are\n_indescribable_. I may paint the agony of kindred torn from each\nother's arms, to meet no more in time; I may depict the inflictions of\nthe blood-stained lash, but I cannot describe the daily, hourly,\nceaseless torture, endured by the heart that is constantly trampled\nunder the foot of despotic power. This is a part of the horrors of\nslavery which, I believe, no one has ever attempted to delineate; I\nwonder not at it, it mocks all power of language. Who can describe the\nanguish of that mind which feels itself impaled upon the iron of\narbitrary power--its living, writhing, helpless victim! every human\nsusceptibility tortured, its sympathies torn, and stung, and\nbleeding--always feeling the death-weapon in its heart, and yet not so\ndeep as to _kill_ that humanity which is made the curse of Its\nexistence.\n\nIn the course of my testimony I have entered somewhat into the\n_minutiae_ of slavery, because this is a part of the subject often\noverlooked, and cannot be appreciated by any but those who have been\nwitnesses, and entered into sympathy with the slaves as human beings.\nSlaveholders think nothing of them, because they regard their slaves\nas _property_, the mere instruments of their convenience and pleasure.\n_One who is a slaveholder at heart never recognises a human being in a\nslave_.\n\nAs thou hast asked me to testify respecting the _physical condition_\nof the slaves merely, I say nothing of the awful neglect of their\n_minds and souls_ and the systematic effort to imbrute them. A wrong\nand an impiety, in comparison with which all the other unutterable\nwrongs of slavery are but as the dust of the balance.\n\nANGELINA G. WELD.\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL TESTIMONY\n\nTO THE CRUELTIES INFLICTED UPON SLAVES.\n\n\nBefore presenting to the reader particular details of the cruelties\ninflicted upon American slaves, we will present in brief the\nwell-weighed declarations of slaveholders and other residents of slave\nstates, testifying that the slaves are treated with barbarous\ninhumanity. All _details_ and particulars will be drawn out under\ntheir appropriate heads. We propose in this place to present testimony\nof a _general character_--the solemn declarations of slaveholders and\nothers, that the slaves are treated with great cruelty.\n\nTo discredit the testimony of witnesses who insist upon convicting\nthemselves, would be an anomalous scepticism.\n\n\nTo show that American slavery has _always_ had one uniform character\nof diabolical cruelty, we will go back one hundred years, and prove it\nby unimpeachable witnesses, who have given their deliberate testimony\nto its horrid barbarity, from 1739 to 1839.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. GEORGE WHITEFIELD.\n\nIn a letter written by him in Georgia, and addressed to the\nslaveholders of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina and\nGeorgia, in 1739.--See Benezet's \"Caution to Great Britain and her\nColonies.\"\n\n\"As I lately passed through your provinces on my way hither, I was\nsensibly touched with a fellow-feeling of the miseries of the poor\nnegroes.\n\n\"Sure I am, it is sinful to use them as bad, nay worse than if they\nwere brutes; and whatever particular _exceptions_ there may be, (as I\nwould charitably hope there are _some_,) I fear the _generality_ of\nyou that own negroes _are liable to such a charge_. Not to mention\nwhat numbers have been given up to the inhuman usage of cruel\n_taskmasters_, who by their unrelenting scourges, have ploughed their\nbacks and made long furrows, and at length brought them to the grave!\n\n\"_The blood of them, spilt for these many years, in your respective\nprovinces, will ascend up to heaven against you!_\" The following is\nthe testimony of the celebrated JOHN WOOLMAN, an eminent minister of\nthe Society of Friends, who traveled extensively in the slave state.\nWe copy it from a \"Memoir of JOHN WOOLMAN, chiefly extracted from a\nJournal of his Life and Travels.\" It was published in Philadelphia, by\nthe \"Society of Friends.\"\n\n\"The following reflections, were written in 1757, while he was\ntraveling on a religious account among slaveholders.\"\n\n\"Many of the white people in these provinces, take little or no care\nof negro marriages; and when negroes marry, after their own way, some\nmake so little account of those marriages, that, with views of outward\ninterest, they often part men from their wives, by selling them far\nasunder; which is common when estates are sold by executors at vendue.\n\n\"Many whose labor is heavy, being followed at their business in the\nfield by a man with a whip, hired for that purpose,--have, in common,\nlittle else allowed them but _one peck_ of Indian corn and some salt\nfor one week, with a few potatoes. (The potatoes they commonly raise\nby their labor on the first day of the week.) The correction ensuing\non their disobedience to overseers, or slothfulness in business, is\noften _very severe_, and sometimes _desperate_. Men and women have\nmany times _scarce clothes enough to hide their nakedness_--and boys\nand girls, ten and twelve years old, are often _quite naked_ among\ntheir masters' children. Some use endeavors to instruct those (negro\nchildren) they have in reading; but in common, this is not only\nneglected, but disapproved.\"--p. 12.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE 'MARYLAND JOURNAL AND BALTIMORE ADVERTISER,' OF MAY\n30, 1788.\n\n\n\"In the ordinary course of the business of the country, the punishment\nof relations frequently happens on the same farm, and in view of each\nother: the father often sees his beloved son--the son his venerable\nsire--the mother her much loved daughter--the daughter her\naffectionate parent--the husband sees the wife of his bosom, and she\nthe husband of her affection, _cruelly bound up_ without delicacy or\nmercy, and without daring to interpose in each other's behalf, and\npunished with all the _extremity of incensed rage, and all the rigor\nof unrelenting severity_. Let us reverse the case, and suppose it ours:\nALL IS SILENT HORROR!\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE HON. WILLIAM PINCKNEY, OF MARYLAND.\n\n\nIn a speech before the Maryland House of Delegates, in 1789, Mr. P.\ncalls slavery in that state, \"a speaking picture of _abominable\noppression_;\" and adds: \"It will not do thus to ... act like\n_unrelenting tyrants_, perpetually sermonizing it with liberty as our\ntext, and actual _oppression_ for our commentary. Is she [Maryland]\nnot ... the foster mother of _petty despots_,--the patron of _wanton\noppression?_\"\n\nExtract from a speech of Mr. RICE, in the Convention for forming the\nConstitution of Kentucky, in 1790:\n\n\"The master may, and _often does, inflict upon him all the severity of\npunishment the human body is capable of bearing.\"_\n\nPresident Edwards, the Younger, in a sermon before the Connecticut\nAbolition Society, 1791, says:\n\n\"From these drivers, for every imagined, as well as real neglect or\nwant of exertion, they receive the lash--the smack of which is all day\nlong in the ears of those who are on the plantation or in the\nvicinity; and it is used with such dexterity and severity, as not only\nto lacerate the skin, but to tear out small portions of the flesh at\nalmost every stroke.\n\n\"This is the general treatment of the slaves. But many individuals\nsuffer still more severely. _Many, many are knocked down; some have\ntheir eyes beaten out: some have an arm or a leg broken, or chopped\noff_; and many, for a very small, or for no crime at all, have been\nbeaten to death, merely to gratify the fury of an enraged master or\noverseer.\"\n\nExtract from an oration, delivered at Baltimore, July 4, 1797, by\nGEORGE BUCHANAN, M.D., member of the American Philosophical Society.\n\nTheir situation (the slaves') is _insupportable_; misery inhabits\ntheir cabins, and pursues them in the field. Inhumanly beaten, they\n_often_ fall sacrifices to the turbulent tempers of their masters! Who\nis there, unless inured to savage cruelties, that can hear of the\ninhuman punishments _daily inflicted_ upon the unfortunate blacks,\nwithout feeling for them? Can a man who calls himself a Christian,\ncoolly and deliberately tie up, _thumb-screw, torture with pincers_,\nand beat unmercifully a poor slave, for perhaps a trifling neglect of\nduty?--p. 14.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN RANDOLPH, OF ROANOKE--A SLAVEHOLDER.\n\n\nIn one of his Congressional speeches, Mr. R. says: \"Avarice alone can\ndrive, as it does drive, this _infernal_ traffic, and the wretched\nvictims of it, like so many post-horses _whipped to death_ in a mail\ncoach. Ambition has its cover-sluts in the pride, pomp, and\ncircumstance of glorious war; but where are the trophies of avarice?\n_The hand-cuff; the manacle, the blood-stained cowhide!_\"\n\nMAJOR STODDARD, of the United States' army, who took possession of\nLouisiana in behalf of the United States, under the cession of 1804,\nin his Sketches of Louisiana, page 332, says:\n\n\"The feelings of humanity are outraged--the most odious tyranny\nexercised in a land of freedom, and hunger and nakedness prevail\namidst plenty. * * * Cruel, and even unusual punishments are daily\ninflicted on these wretched creatures, enfeebled with hunger, labor\nand the lash. The scenes of misery and distress constantly witnessed\nalong the coast of the Delta, [of the Mississippi,] the wounds and\nlacerations occasioned by demoralized masters and overseers, torture\nthe feelings of the passing stranger, and wring blood from the heart.\"\n\nThough only the third of the following series of resolutions is\ndirectly relevant to the subject now under consideration, we insert\nthe other resolutions, both because they are explanatory of the third,\nand also serve to reveal the public sentiment of Indiana, at the date\nof the resolutions. As a large majority of the citizens of Indiana at\nthat time, were _natives of slave states_, they well knew the actual\ncondition of the slaves.\n\n1. \"RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, by the Legislative Council and House of\nRepresentatives of Indiana Territory, that a suspension of the sixth\narticle of compact between the United States and the territories and\nstates north west of the river Ohio, passed the 13th day of January,\n1783, for the term of ten years, would be highly advantageous to the\nterritory, and meet the approbation of at least nine-tenths of the\ngood citizens of the same.\"\n\n2. \"RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, that the abstract question of liberty and\nslavery, is not considered as involved in a suspension of the said\narticle, inasmuch as the number of slaves in the United States would\nnot be augmented by the measure.\"\n\n3. \"RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, that the suspension of the said article\nwould be equally advantageous to the territory, to the states from\nwhence the negroes would be brought, and _to the negroes themselves._\nThe states which are overburthened with negroes which they cannot\ncomfortably support; * * and THE NEGRO HIMSELF WOULD EXCHANGE A SCANTY\nPITTANCE OF THE COARSEST FOOD, for a plentiful and nourishing diet;\nand a situation which admits not the most distant prospect of\nemancipation, for one which presents no considerable obstacle to his\nwishes.\"\n\n4. \"RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, that a copy of these resolutions be\ndelivered to the delegate to Congress from this territory, and that he\nbe, and he hereby is, instructed to use his best endeavors to obtain a\nsuspension of the said article.\"\n\nJ.B. THOMAS, _Speaker of the House of Representatives._\n\nPIERRE MINARD, _President pro tem. of the Legislative Council.\nVincennes, Dec._ 20, 1806.\n\n\"Forwarded to the Speaker the United States' Senate, by WILLIAM HENRY\nHARRISON, Governor\"--_American State Papers_ vol 1. p. 467.\n\n\nMONSIEUR C.C. ROBIN, who resided in Louisiana from 1802 to 1806, and\npublished a volume containing the results of his observations there,\nthus speaks of the condition of the slaves:\n\n\"While they are at labor, the manager, the master, or the driver has\ncommonly the whip in hand to strike the idle. But those of the negroes\nwho are judged guilty of serious faults, are punished twenty,\ntwenty-five, forty, fifty, or one hundred lashes. The manner of this\ncruel execution is as follows: four stakes are driven down, making a\nlong square; the culprit is extended naked between these stakes, face\ndownwards; his hands and his feet are bound separately, with strong\ncords, to each of the stakes, so far apart that his arms and legs,\nstretched in the form of St. Andrew's cross, give the poor wretch no\nchance of stirring. Then the executioner, who is ordinarily a negro,\narmed with the long whip of a coachman, strikes upon the reins and\nthighs. The crack of his whip resounds afar, like that of an angry\ncartman beating his horses. The blood flows, the long wounds cross\neach other, strips of skin are raised without softening either the\nhand of the executioner or the heart of the master, who cries 'sting\nhim harder.'\n\n\"The reader is moved; so am I: my agitated hand refuses to trace the\nbloody picture, to recount how many times the piercing cry of pain has\ninterrupted my silent occupations; how many times I have shuddered at\nthe faces of those barbarous masters, where I saw inscribed the number\nof victims sacrificed to their ferocity.\n\n\"The women are subjected to these punishments as rigorously as the\nmen--not even pregnancy exempts them; in that case, before binding\nthem to the stakes, a hole is made in the ground to accommodate the\nenlarged form of the victim.\n\n\"It is remarkable that the white creole women are ordinarily more\ninexorable than the men. Their slow and languid gait, and the trifling\nservices which they impose, betoken only apathetic indolence; but\nshould the slave not promptly obey, should he even fail to divine the\nmeaning of their gestures, or looks, in an instant they are armed with\na formidable whip; it is no longer the arm which cannot sustain the\nweight of a shawl or a reticule--it is no longer the form which but\nfeebly sustains itself. They themselves order the punishment of one of\nthese poor creatures, and with a dry eye see their victim bound to\nfour stakes; they count the blows, and raise a voice of menace, if the\narm that strikes relaxes, or if the blood does not flow in sufficient\nabundance. Their sensibility changed to fury must needs feed itself\nfor a while on the hideous spectacle; they must, as if to revive\nthemselves, hear the piercing shrieks, and see the flow of fresh\nblood; there are some of them who, in their frantic rage, pinch and\nbite their victims.\n\n\"It is by no means wonderful that the laws designed to protect the\nslave, should be little respected by the generality of such masters. I\nhave seen some masters pay those unfortunate people the miserable\novercoat which is their due; but others give them nothing at all, and\ndo not even leave them the hours and Sundays granted to them by law. I\nhave seen some of those barbarous masters leave them, during the\nwinter, in a state of revolting nudity, even contrary to their own\ntrue interests, for they thus weaken and shorten the lives upon which\nrepose the whole of their own fortunes. I have seen some of those\nnegroes obliged to conceal their nakedness with the long moss of the\ncountry. The sad melancholy of these wretches, depicted upon their\ncountenances, the flight of some, and the death of others, do not\nreclaim their masters; they wreak upon those who remain, the vengeance\nwhich they can no longer exercise upon the others.\"\n\n\nWHITMAN MEAD, Esq. of New York, in his journal, published nearly a\nquarter of a century ago, under date of\n\n\"SAVANNAH, January 28, 1817.\n\n\"To one not accustomed to such scenes as slavery presents, the\ncondition of the slaves is _impressively shocking._ In the course of\nmy walks, I was every where witness to their wretchedness. Like the\nbrute creatures of the north, they are driven about at the pleasure of\nall who meet them: _half naked and half starved_, they drag out a\npitiful existence, apparently almost unconscious of what they suffer.\nA threat accompanies every command, and a bastinado is the usual\nreward of disobedience.\"\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN RANKIN,\n\n_A native of Tennessee, educated there, and for a number of years a\npreacher in slave states--now pastor of a church in Ripley, Ohio._\n\n\"Many poor slaves are stripped naked, stretched and tied across\nbarrels, or large bags, _and tortured with the lash during hours, and\neven whole days, until their flesh is mangled to the very bones_.\nOthers are stripped and hung up by the arms, their feet are tied\ntogether, and the end of a heavy piece of timber is put between their\nlegs in order to stretch their bodies, and so prepare them for the\ntorturing lash--and in this situation they are often whipped until\ntheir bodies are covered _with blood and mangled flesh_--and in order\nto add the greatest keenness to their sufferings, their wounds are\nwashed with _liquid salt_! And some of the miserable creatures are\npermitted to hang in that position until they actually _expire_; some\ndie under the lash, others linger about for a time, and at length die\nof their wounds, and many survive, and endure again similar torture.\nThese bloody scenes are _constantly exhibiting in every slave holding\ncountry--thousands of whips are every day stained in African blood_!\nEven the poor _females_ are not permitted to escape these shocking\ncruelties.\"--_Rankin's Letters._\n\nThese letters were published fifteen years ago.--They were addressed\nto a brother in Virginia, who was a slaveholder.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY.\n\n\"We have heard of slavery as it exists in Asia, and Africa, and\nTurkey--we have heard of the feudal slavery under which the peasantry\nof Europe have groaned from the days of Alaric until now, but\nexcepting only the horrible system of the West India Islands, we have\nnever heard of slavery in any country, ancient or modern, Pagan,\nMohammedan, or _Christian! so terrible in its character_, as the\nslavery which exists in these United States.\"--_Seventh Report\nAmerican Colonization Society,_ 1824.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE GRADUAL EMANCIPATION SOCIETY OF NORTH CAROLINA.\n\n\n_Signed by Moses Swain, President, and William Swain, Secretary._\n\n\"In the eastern part of the state, the slaves considerably outnumber\nthe free population. Their situation is there wretched beyond\ndescription. Impoverished by the mismanagement which we have already\nattempted to describe, the master, unable to support his own grandeur\nand maintain his slaves, puts the unfortunate wretches upon short\nallowances, scarcely sufficient for their sustenance, so that a great\npart of them go half naked and half starved much of the time.\nGenerally, throughout the state, the African is an _abused, a\nmonstrously outraged creature.\"--See Minutes of the American\nConvention, convened in Baltimore, Oct._ 25, 1826.\n\n\n\n\nFROM NILES' BALTIMORE REGISTER FOR 1829, VOL 35, p. 4.\n\n\n\"Dealing in slaves has become a _large business_. Establishments are\nmade at several places in Maryland and Virginia, at which they are\nsold like cattle. These places of deposit are strongly built, and well\nsupplied with _iron thumb-screws and gags_, and ornamented with\n_catskins and other whips--often times bloody_.\"\n\nJudge RUFFIN, of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in one of his\njudicial decisions, says--\"The slave, to remain a slave, must feel\nthat there is NO APPEAL FROM HIS MASTER. No man can anticipate the\nprovocations which the slave would give, nor the consequent wrath of\nthe master, prompting him to BLOODY VENGEANCE on the turbulent\ntraitor, a vengeance _generally_ practiced with impunity, by reason of\nits PRIVACY.\"--See _Wheeler's Law of Slavery_ p. 247.\n\nMR. MOORE, of VIRGINIA, in his speech before the Legislature of that\nstate, Jan. 15, 1832, says: \"It must be confessed, that although the\ntreatment of our slaves is in the general, as mild and humane as it\ncan be, that it must always happen, that there will be found hundreds\nof individuals, who, owing either to the natural ferocity of their\ndispositions, or to the effects of intemperance, will be guilty of\ncruelty and barbarity towards their slaves, which is _almost\nintolerable_, and at which humanity revolts.\"\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF B. SWAIN, ESQ., OF NORTH CAROLINA.\n\n\n\"Let any man of spirit and feeling, for a moment cast his thoughts\nover this land of slavery--think of the _nakedness_ of some, the\n_hungry yearnings_ of others, the _flowing tears and heaving sighs_ of\nparting relations, the _wailings and wo, the bloody cut of the keen\nlash, and the frightful scream that rends the very skies_--and all\nthis to gratify ambition, lust, pride, avarice, vanity, and other\ndepraved feelings of the human heart.... THE WORST IS NOT GENERALLY\nKNOWN. Were all the miseries, the horrors of slavery, to burst at once\ninto view, a peal of seven-fold thunder could scarce strike greater\nalarm.\"--_See \"Swain's Address,\"_ 1830.\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES C. FINLEY,\n\n\n_Son of Dr. Finley, one of the founders of the Colonization Society,\nand brother of R.S. Finley, agent of the American Colonization\nSociety._ Dr. J.C. Finley was formerly one of the editors of the\nWestern Medical Journal, at Cincinnati, and is well known in the west\nas utterly hostile to immediate abolition.\n\n\"In almost the last conversation I had with you before I left\nCincinnati, I promised to give you some account of some scenes of\natrocious cruelty towards slaves, which I witnessed while I lived at\nthe south. I almost regret having made the promise, for not only are\nthey _so atrocious_ that you will with difficulty believe them, but I\nalso fear that they will have the effect of driving you into that\n_abolitionism_, upon the borders of which you have been so long\nhesitating. The people of the north _are ignorant of the horrors of\nslavery_--of the _atrocities_ which it commits upon the unprotected\nslave.   *     *     *\n\n\"I do not know that any thing could be gained by particularizing the\nscenes of _horrible barbarity_, which fell under my observation during\nmy _short_ residence in one of the wealthiest, most intelligent, and\nmost moral parts of Georgia. Their _number_ and _atrocity_ are such,\nthat I am confident they would gain credit with none but\n_abolitionists_. Every thing will be conveyed in the remark, that in a\nstate of society calculated to foster the worst passions of our\nnature, the slave derives _no protection_ either from _law_ or _public\nopinion_, and that ALL the cruelties which the Russians are reported\nto have acted towards the Poles, after their late subjugation, ARE\nSCENES OF EVERY-DAY OCCURRENCE in the southern states. This statement,\nincredible as it may seem, falls short, very far short of the truth.\"\n\nThe foregoing is extracted from a letter written by Dr. Finley to Rev.\nAsa Mahan, his former pastor, then of Cincinnati, now President of\nOberlin Seminary.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. WILLIAM T. ALLAN, OF ILLINOIS, _Son of a\nSlaveholder, Rev. Dr. Allan of Huntsville, Ala._\n\n\"At our house it is so common to hear their (the slaves') screams,\nthat we think nothing of it: and lest any one should think that in\n_general_ the slaves are well treated, let me be distinctly\nunderstood:--_cruelty_ is the _rule_, and _kindness_ the _exception_.\"\n\nExtract of a letter dated July 2d, 1834, from Mr. NATHAN COLE, of St.\nLouis, Missouri, to Arthur Tappan, Esq. of this city:\n\n\"I am not an advocate of the immediate and unconditional emancipation\nof the slaves of our country, yet _no man has ever yet depicted the\nwretchedness of the situation of the slaves in colors as dark for the\ntruth_.... I know that many good people _are not aware of the\ntreatment to which slaves are usually subjected_, nor have they any\njust idea of the extent of the evil.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. JAMES A. THOME, _A native of Kentucky--Son of Arthur\nThome Esq., till recently a Slaveholder._\n\n\"Slavery is the parent of more suffering than has flowed from any one\nsource since the date of its existence. Such sufferings too!\n_Sufferings inconceivable and innumerable--unmingled wretchedness_\nfrom the ties of nature rudely broken and destroyed, the _acutest\nbodily tortures, groans, tears and blood_--lying forever in weariness\nand painfulness, in watchings, in hunger and in thirst, in cold and\nnakedness.\n\n\"Brethren of the North, be not deceived. _These sufferings still\nexist_, and despite the efforts of their cruel authors to hush them\ndown, and confine them within the precincts of their own plantations,\nthey will ever and anon, struggle up and reach the ear of\nhumanity.\"--_Mr. Thome's Speech at New York, May,_ 1834.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE MARYVILLE (TENNESSEE) INTELLIGENCER, OF OCT. 4, 1835.\n\nThe Editor, in speaking of the sufferings of the slaves which are\ntaken by the internal trade to the South West, says:\n\n\"Place yourself in imagination, for a moment, in their condition.\nWith _heavy galling chains_, riveted upon your person; _half-naked,\nhalf-starved_; your back _lacerated_ with the 'knotted Whip;'\ntraveling to a region where your _condition through time will be\nsecond only to the wretched creatures in Hell_.\n\n\"This depicting is not visionary. Would to God that it was.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD OF KENTUCKY; _A large majority of\nwhom are slaveholders._\n\n\"This system licenses and produces _great cruelty_.\n\n\"Mangling, imprisonment, starvation, every species of torture, may be\ninflicted upon him, (the slave,) and he has no redress.\n\n\"There are now in our whole land two millions of human beings,\nexposed, defenceless, to every insult, and every injury short of\nmaiming or death, which their fellow men may choose to inflict. _They\nsuffer all_ that can be inflicted by wanton caprice, by grasping\navarice, by brutal lust, by malignant spite, and by insane anger.\nTheir happiness is the sport of every whim, and the prey of every\npassion that may, occasionally, or habitually, infest the master's\nbosom. If we could calculate the amount of wo endured by ill-treated\nslaves, it would overwhelm every compassionate heart--it would move\neven the obdurate to sympathy. There is also a vast sum of suffering\ninflicted upon the slave by humane masters, as a punishment for that\nidleness and misconduct which slavery naturally produces.\n\n\"_Brutal stripes_ and all the varied kinds of personal indignities,\nare not the only species of cruelty which slavery licenses.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE REV. N.H. HARDING, Pastor of the Presbyterian Church,\nin Oxford, North Carolina, a slaveholder.\n\n\"I am greatly surprised that you should in any form have been the\napologist of a system so full of deadly poison to all holiness and\nbenevolence as slavery, the concocted essence of fraud, selfishness,\nand cold hearted tyranny, and the fruitful parent of unnumbered evils,\nboth to the oppressor and the oppressed, THE ONE THOUSANDTH PART OF\nWHICH HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT.\"\n\nMR. ASA A. STONE, a theological student, who lived near Natchez,\n(Mi.,) in 1834 and 5, sent the following with other testimony, to be\npublished under his own name, in the N.Y. Evangelist, while he was\nstill residing there.\n\n\"Floggings for all offences, including deficiencies in work, are\n_frightfully common_, and _most terribly severe._\n\n\"_Rubbing with salt and red pepper is very common after a severe\nwhipping._\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. PHINEAS SMITH, Centreville, Allegany Co., N.Y. who\nlived four years at the South.\n\n\"They are badly clothed, badly fed, wretchedly lodged, unmercifully\nwhipped, from month to month, from year to year, from childhood to old\nage.\"\n\n\nREV. JOSEPH M. SADD, Castile, Genessee CO. N.Y. who was till recently\na preacher in Missouri, says,\n\n\"It is true that barbarous cruelties are inflicted upon them, such as\nterrible lacerations with the whip, and excruciating tortures are\nsometimes experienced from the thumb screw.\"\n\n\nExtract of a letter from SARAH M. GRIMK\u00c9, dated 4th Month, 2nd, 1839\n\n\"If the following extracts from letters which I have received from\nSouth Carolina, will be of any use thou art at liberty to publish\nthem. I need not say, that the names of the writers are withheld of\nnecessity, because such sentiments if uttered at the south would peril\ntheir lives.\"\n\n\nEXTRACTS\n\n--South Carolina, 4th Month, 5th, 1835. \"With regard to slavery I\nmust confess, though we had heard a great deal on the subject, we\nfound on coming South the _half_, the _worst_ half too, had not been\ntold us; not that we have ourselves seen much oppression, though truly\nwe have felt its deadening influence, but the accounts we have\nreceived from every tongue that nobly dares to speak upon the subject,\nare indeed _deplorable_. To quote the language of a lady, who with\ntrue Southern hospitality, received us at her mansion. \"The _northern_\npeople don't know anything of slavery at all, they think it is\n_perpetual bondage merely_, but of the _depth of degradation_ that\nthat word involves, they have no conception; if they had any just idea\nof it, they would I am sure use every effort until an end was put to\nsuch a shocking system.'\n\n\"Another friend writing from South Carolina, and who sustains herself\nthe legal relation of slaveholder, in a letter dated April 4th, 1838,\nsays--'I have some time since, given you my views on the subject of\nslavery, which so much engrosses your attention. I would most\nwillingly forget what I have seen and heard in my own family, with\nregard to the slaves. _I shudder when I think of it_, and increasingly\nfeel that slavery is a curse since it leads to such _cruelty_.'\"\n\n\n\n\nPUNISHMENTS.\n\n\nI. FLOGGINGS.\n\nThe slaves are terribly lacerated with whips, paddles, &c.; red pepper\nand salt are rubbed into their mangled flesh; hot brine and turpentine\nare poured into their gashes; and innumerable other tortures inflicted\nupon them.\n\nWe will in the first place, prove by a cloud of witnesses, that the\nslaves are whipped with such inhuman severity, as to lacerate and\nmangle their flesh in the most shocking manner, leaving permanent\nscars and ridges; after establishing this, we will present a mass of\ntestimony, concerning a great variety of other tortures. The\ntestimony, for the most part, will be that of the slaveholders\nthemselves, and in their own chosen words. A large portion of it will\nbe taken from the advertisements, which they have published in their\nown newspapers, describing by the scars on their bodies made by the\nwhip, their own runaway slaves. To copy these advertisements _entire_\nwould require a great amount of space, and flood the reader with a\nvast mass of matter irrelevant to the _point_ before us; we shall\ntherefore insert only so much of each, as will intelligibly set forth\nthe precise point under consideration. In the column under the word\n\"witnesses,\" will be found the name of the individual, who signs the\nadvertisement, or for whom it is signed, with his or her place of\nresidence, and the name and date of the paper, in which it appeared,\nand generally the name of the place where it is published. Opposite\nthe name of each witness, will be an extract, from the advertisement,\ncontaining his or her testimony.\n\n\nMr. D. Judd, jailor, Davidson Co., Tennessee, in the \"Nashville\nBanner,\" Dec. 10th, 1838.\n\n\"Committed to jail as a runaway, a negro woman named Martha, 17 or 18\nyears of age, has _numerous scars of the whip on her back_.\"\n\n\nMr. Robert Nicoll, Dauphin st. between Emmanuel and Conception st's,\nMobile, Alabama, in the \"Mobile Commercial Advertiser.\"\n\n\"Ten dollars reward for my woman Siby, _very much scarred about the\nneck and ears by whipping_.\"\n\n\nMr. Bryant Johnson, Fort Valley Houston Co., Georgia, in the \"Standard\nof Union,\" Milledgeville Ga. Oct. 2, 1838. \"Ranaway, a negro woman,\nnamed Maria, _some scars on her back occasioned by the whip_.\"\n\n\nMr. James T. De Jarnett, Vernon, Autauga Co., Alabama, in the\n\"Pensacola Gazette,\" July 14, 1838.\n\n\"Stolen a negro woman, named Celia. On examining her back you will\nfind marks _caused by the whip_.\"\n\n\nMaurice Y. Garcia, Sheriff of the County of Jefferson, La., in the\n\"New Orleans Bee,\"  August, 14, 1838.\n\n\"Lodged in jail, a mulatto boy, _having large marks of the whip,_ on\nhis shoulders and other parts of his body.\"\n\n\nR.J. Bland, Sheriff of Claiborne Co, Miss., in the \"Charleston (S.C.)\nCourier.\" August, 28, 1838.\n\n\"Was committed a negro boy, named Tom, is _much marked with the\nwhip_.\"\n\n\nMr. James Noe, Red River Landing, La., in the \"Sentinel,\" Vicksburg,\nMiss., August 22, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro fellow named Dick--has _many scars on his back from\nbeing whipped.\"_\n\n\nWilliam Craze, jailor, Alexandria, La. in the \"Planter's\nIntelligencer.\" Sept. 26, 1838.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro slave--his back is _very badly scarred.\"_\n\n\nJohn A. Rowland, jailor, Lumberton, North Carolina, in the\n\"Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer,\" June 20, 1838.\n\n\"Committed, a mulatto fellow--his back shows _lasting impressions of\nthe whip,_ and leaves no doubt of his being A SLAVE\"\n\n\nJ.K. Roberts, sheriff, Blount county, Ala., in the \"Huntsville\nDemocrat,\" Dec. 9, 1839.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro man--his back _much marked_ by the whip.\"\n\n\nMr. H. Varillat, No. 23 Girod street, New Orleans--in the \"Commercial\nBulletin,\" August 27, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negro slave named Jupiter--has a _fresh mark_ of a\ncowskin on one of his cheeks.\"\n\n\nMr. Cornelius D. Tolin, Augusta, Ga., in the \"Chronicle and Sentinel,\"\nOct. 18, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man named Johnson--he has a _great many marks of the\nwhip_ on his back.\"\n\n\nW.H. Brasseale, sheriff; Blount county, Ala., in the \"Huntsville\nDemocrat,\" June 9, 1838.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro slave named James--_much scarred_ with a\nwhip on his back.\"\n\n\nMr. Robert Beasley, Macon, Ga., in the \"Georgia Messenger,\" July 27,\n1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, my man Fountain--he is marked _on the back with the whip.\"_\n\n\nMr. John Wotton, Rockville, Montgomery county, Maryland, in the\n\"Baltimore Republican,\" Jan. 13, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, Bill--has _several_ LARGE SCARS on his back from a _severe_\nwhipping in _early life.\"_\n\n\nD.S. Bennett, sheriff, Natchitoches, La., in the \"Herald,\" July 21,\n1838.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro boy who calls himself Joe--said negro\nbears _marks of the whip.\"_\n\n\nMessrs. C.C. Whitehead, and R.A. Evans, Marion, Georgia, in the\nMilledgeville (Ga.) \"Standard of Union,\" June 26, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, negro fellow John--from being whipped, has _scars on his\nback, arms, and thighs.\"_\n\n\nMr. Samuel Stewart, Greensboro', Ala., in the \"Southern Advocate,\"\nHuntsville, Jan. 6, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a boy named Jim--with the marks of the _whip_ on the small\nof the back, reaching round to the flank.\"\n\n\nMr. John Walker, No. 6, Banks' Arcade New Orleans, in the \"Bulletin,\"\nAugust 11, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, the mulatto boy Quash--_considerably marked_ on the back and\nother places with the lash.\"\n\n\nMr. Jesse Beene, Cahawba, Ala., in the \"State Intelligencer,\"\nTuskaloosa, Dec. 25, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, my negro man Billy--he has the _marks of the_ whip.\"\n\n\nMr. John Turner, Thomaston, Upson county, Georgia--in the \"Standard of\nUnion,\" Milledgeville, June 26, 1838.\n\n\"Left, my negro man named George--has _marks of the whip very plain on\nhis thighs.\"_\n\n\nJames Derrah, deputy sheriff; Claiborne county, Mi., in the \"Port\nGibson Correspondent,\" April 15, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to jail, negro man Toy--he has been _badly whipped.\"_\n\n\nS.B. Murphy, sheriff, Wilkinson county, Georgia--in the Milledgeville\n\"Journal,\" May 15, 1838.\n\n\"Brought to jail, a negro man named George--he has a _great many scars\nfrom the lash.\"_\n\n\nMr. L.E. Cooner, Branchville Orangeburgh District, South Carolina--in\nthe Macon \"Messenger,\" May 25, 1837.\n\n\"One hundred dollars reward, for my negro Glasgow, and Kate, his wife.\nGlasgow is 24 years old--has _marks of the whip_ on his back. Kate is\n26--has a _scar_ on her cheek, _and several marks of a whip.\"_\n\n\nJohn H. Hand, jailor, parish of West Feliciana, La., in the St.\n\"Francisville Journal,\" July 6, 1837\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro boy named John, about 17 years old--his\nback _badly marked_ with the _whip_, his upper lip and chin _severely\nbruised.\"_\n\n\nThe preceding are extracts from advertisements published in southern\npapers, mostly in the year 1838. They are the mere _samples_ of\nhundreds of similar ones published during the same period, with which,\nas the preceding are quite sufficient to show the _commonness_ of\ninhuman floggings in the slave states, we need not burden the reader.\n\nThe foregoing testimony is, as the reader perceives, that of the\nslaveholders themselves, voluntarily certifying to the outrages which\ntheir own hands have committed upon defenceless and innocent men and\nwomen, over whom they have assumed authority. We have given to _their_\ntestimony precedence over that of all other witnesses, for the reason\nthat when men testify against _themselves_ they are under no\ntemptation to exaggerate.\n\nWe will now present the testimony of a large number of individuals,\nwith their names and residences,--persons who witnessed the\ninflictions to which they testify. Many of them have been\nslaveholders, and _all_ residents for longer or shorter periods in\nslave states.\n\n\nRev. JOHN H. CURTISS, a native of Deep Creek, Norfolk county,\nVirginia, now a local preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church in\nPortage co., Ohio, testifies as follows:--\n\n\"In 1829 or 30, one of my father's slaves was accused of taking the\nkey to the office and stealing four or five dollars: he denied it. A\nconstable by the name of Hull was called; he took the Negro, very\ndeliberately tied his hands, and whipped him till the blood ran freely\ndown his legs. By this time Hull appeared tired, and stopped; he then\ntook a rope, put a slip noose around his neck, and told the negro he\nwas going to _kill_ him, at the same time drew the rope and began\nwhipping: the Negro fell; his cheeks looked as though they would burst\nwith strangulation. Hull whipped and kicked him, till I really thought\nhe was going to kill him; when he ceased, the negro was in a complete\ngore of blood from head to foot.\"\n\n\nMr. DAVID HAWLEY, a class-leader in the Methodist Church, at St.\nAlban's, Licking county, Ohio, who moved from Kentucky to Ohio in\n1831, testifies as follows:--\n\n\"In the year 1821 or 2, I saw a slave hung for killing his master. The\nmaster had whipped the slave's mother to DEATH, and, locking him in a\nroom, threatened him with the same fate; and, cowhide in hand, had\nbegun the work, when the slave joined battle and slew the master.\"\n\n\nSAMUEL ELLISON, a member of the Society of Friends, formerly of\nSouthampton county, Virginia, now of Marlborough, Stark county, Ohio,\ngives the following testimony:--\n\n\"While a resident of Southampton county, Virginia, I knew two men,\nafter having been severely treated, endeavor to make their escape. In\nthis they failed--were taken, tied to trees, and whipped to _death_ by\ntheir overseer. I lived a mile from the negro quarters, and, at that\ndistance, could frequently hear the screams of the poor creatures when\nbeaten, and could also hear the blows given by the overseer with some\nheavy instrument.\"\n\n\nMajor HORACE NYE, of Putnam, Ohio, gives the following testimony of\nMr. Wm. Armstrong, of that place, a captain and supercargo of boats\ndescending the Mississippi river:--\n\n\"At Bayou Sarah, I saw a slave _staked out,_ with his face to the\nground, and whipped with a large whip, which laid open the flesh for\nabout two and a half inches _every stroke._ I stayed about five\nminutes, but could stand it no longer, and left them whipping.\"\n\n\nMr. STEPHEN E. MALTBY, inspector of provisions, Skeneateles, New York,\nwho has resided in Alabama, speaking of the condition of the slaves,\nsays:--\n\n\"I have seen them cruelly whipped. I will relate one instance. One\nSabbath morning, before I got out of my bed, I heard an outcry, and\ngot up and went to the window, when I saw some six or eight boys, from\neight to twelve years of age, near a rack (made for tying horses) on\nthe public square. A man on horseback rode up, got off his horse, took\na cord from his pocket, _tied one of the boys_ by the _thumbs_ to the\nrack, and with his horsewhip lashed him most severely. He then untied\nhim and rode off without saying a word.\n\n\"It was a general practice, while I was at Huntsville, Alabama, to\nhave a patrol every night; and, to my knowledge, this patrol was in\nthe habit of traversing the streets with cow-skins, and, if they found\nany slaves out after eight o'clock without a pass, to whip them until\nthey were out of reach, or to confine them until morning.\"\n\n\nMr. J.G. BALDWIN, of Middletown, Connecticut, a member of the\nMethodist Episcopal Church, gives the following testimony:--\n\n\"I traveled at the south in 1827: when near Charlotte, N.C. a free\ncolored man fell into the road just ahead of me, and went on\npeaceably.--When passing a public-house, the landlord ran out with a\nlarge cudgel, and applied it to the head and shoulders of the man with\nsuch force as to shatter it in pieces. When the reason of his conduct\nwas asked, he replied, that he owned slaves, and he would not permit\nfree blacks to come into his neighborhood.\n\n\"Not long after, I stopped at a public-house near Halifax, N.C.,\nbetween nine and ten o'clock P.M., to stay over night. A slave sat\nupon a bench in the bar-room asleep. The master came in, seized a\nlarge horsewhip, and, without any warning or apparent provocation,\nlaid it over the face and eyes of the slave. The master cursed, swore,\nand swung his lash--the slave cowered and trembled, but said not a\nword. Upon inquiry the next morning, I ascertained that the only\noffence was falling asleep, and this too in consequence of having been\nup nearly all the previous night, in attendance upon company.\"\n\n\nRev. JOSEPH M. SADD, of Castile, N.Y., who has lately left Missouri,\nwhere he was pastor of a church for some years, says:--\n\n\"In one case, near where we lived, a runaway slave, when brought back,\nwas most cruelly beaten--bathed in the _usual_ liquid--laid in the\nsun, and a physician employed to heal his wounds:--then the same\nprocess of punishment and healing was _repeated_, _and repeated\nagain_, and then the poor creature was sold for the New Orleans\nmarket. This account we had from the _physician himself_.\"\n\n\nMR. ABRAHAM BELL, of Poughkeepsie, New York, a member of the Scotch\nPresbyterian Church, was employed, in 1837 and 38, in levelling and\ngrading for a rail-road in the state of Georgia: he had under his\ndirection, during the whole time, thirty slaves. Mr. B. gives the\nfollowing testimony:--\n\n\"_All_ the slaves had their backs scarred, from the oft-repeated\nwhippings they had received.\"\n\n\nMr. ALONZO BARNARD, of Farmington, Ohio, who was in Mississippi in\n1837 and 8, says:--\n\n\"The slaves were often severely whipped. I saw one _woman_ very\nseverely whipped for accidentally cutting up a stalk of cotton.[8]\nWhen they were whipped they were commonly _held down by four men_: if\nthese could not confine them, they were fastened by stakes driven\nfirmly into the ground, and then lashed often so as to draw blood at\neach blow. I saw one woman who had lately been delivered of a child in\nconsequence of cruel treatment.\"\n\n[Footnote 8: Mr. Cornelius Johnson, of Farmington, Ohio, was also a\nwitness to this inhuman outrage upon an unprotected woman, for the\nunintentional destruction of a stalk of cotton! In his testimony he is\nmore particular, and says, that the number of lashes inflicted upon\nher by the overseer was \"ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY.\"]\n\n\n\nRev. H. LYMAN, late pastor of the Free Presbyterian Church at Buffalo,\nN.Y. says:--\n\n\"There was a steam cotton press, in the vicinity of my boarding-house\nat New Orleans, which was driven night and day, without intermission.\nMy curiosity led me to look at the interior of the establishment.\nThere I saw several slaves engaged in rolling cotton bags, fastening\nropes lading carts, &c.\n\n\"The presiding genius of the place was a driver, who held a rope four\nfeet long in his hand, which he wielded with cruel dexterity. He used\nit in single blows, just as the men were lifting to _tighten_ the bale\ncords. It seemed to me that he was desirous to edify me with a\nspecimen of his authority; at any rate the cruelty was horrible.\"\n\n\nMr. JOHN VANCE, a member of the Baptist Church, in St. Albans, Licking\ncounty, Ohio, who moved from Culpepper county, Va., his native state\nin 1814, testifies as follows:--\n\n\"In 1826, I saw a woman by the name of Mallix, flog her female slave\nwith a horse-whip so horribly that she was washed in salt and water\nseveral days, to keep her bruises from mortifying.\n\n\"In 1811, I was returning from mill, in Shenandoah county, when I\nheard the cry of murder, in the field of a man named Painter. I rode\nto the place to see what was going on. Two men, by the names of John\nMorgan and Michael Siglar, had heard the cry and came running to the\nplace. I saw Painter beating a negro with a tremendous club, or small\nhandspike, swearing he would kill him: but he was rescued by Morgan\nand Siglar. I learned that Painter had commenced flogging the slave\nfor not getting to work soon enough. He had escaped, and taken refuge\nunder a pile of rails that were on some timbers up a little from the\nground. The master had put fire to one end, and stood at the other\nwith his club, to kill him as he came out. The pile was still burning.\nPainter said he was a turbulent fellow and he _would_ kill him. The\napprehension of P. was TALKED ABOUT, but, as a compromise, the negro\nwas sold to another man.\"\n\n\nEXTRACT FROM THE PUBLISHED JOURNAL OF THE LATE WM. SAVER, of\nPhiladelphia, an eminent minister of the Religious Society of\nFriends:--\n\n\"6th mo. 22d, 1791. We passed on to Augusta, Georgia. They can\nscarcely tolerate us, on account of our abhorrence of slavery. On the\n28th we got to Savannah, and lodged at one Blount's, a hard-hearted\nslaveholder. One of his lads, aged about fourteen, was ordered to go\nand milk the cow: and falling asleep, through weariness, the master\ncalled out and ordered him a flogging. I asked him what he meant by a\nflogging. He replied, the way we serve them here is, we cut their\nbacks until they are raw all over, and then salt them. Upon this my\nfeelings were roused; I told him that was too bad, and queried *if it\nwere possible; he replied it was, with many curses upon the blacks. At\nsupper this unfeeling wretch _craved a blessing_!\n\n\"Next morning I heard some one begging for mercy, and also the lash as\nof a whip. Not knowing whence the sound came, I rose, and presently\nfound the poor boy tied up to a post, his toes scarcely touching the\nground, and a negro whipper. He had already cut him in an unmerciful\nmanner, and the blood ran to his heels. I stepped in between them, and\nordered him untied immediately, which, with some reluctance and\nastonishment, was done. Returning to the house I saw the landlord, who\nthen showed himself in his true colors, the most abominably wicked man\nI ever met with, full of horrid execrations and threatenings upon all\nnorthern people; but I did not spare him; which occasioned a bystander\nto say, with an oath, that I should be \"popped over.\" We left them,\nand were in full expectation of their way-laying or coming after us,\nbut the Lord restrained them. The next house we stopped at we found\nthe same wicked spirit.\"\n\n\nCol. ELIJAH ELLSWORTH, of Richfield, Ohio, gives the following\ntestimony:--\n\n\"Eight or ten years ago I was in Putnam county, in the state of\nGeorgia, at a Mr. Slaughter's, the father of my brother's wife. A\nnegro, that belonged to Mr. Walker, (I believe,) was accused of\nstealing a pedlar's trunk. The negro denied, but, without ceremony,\nwas lashed to a tree--the whipping commenced--six or eight men took\nturns--the poor fellow begged for mercy, but without effect, until he\nwas literally _cut to pieces, from his shoulders to his hips_, and\ncovered with a gore of blood. When he said the trunk was in a stack of\nfodder, he was unlashed. They proceeded to the stack, but found no\ntrunk. They asked the poor fellow, what he lied about it for; he said,\n\"Lord, Massa, to keep from being whipped to death; I know nothing\nabout the trunk.\" They commenced the whipping with redoubled vigor,\nuntil I really supposed he would be whipped to death on the spot; and\nsuch shrieks and crying for mercy! Again he acknowledged, and again\nthey were defeated in finding, and the same reason given as before.\nSome were for whipping again, others thought he would not survive\nanother, and they ceased. About two months after, the trunk was found,\nand it was then ascertained who the thief was: and the poor fellow,\nafter being nearly beat to death, and twice made to lie about it, was\nas innocent as I was.\"\n\n\nThe following statements are furnished by Major HORACE NYE, of Putnam,\nMuskingum county, Ohio.\n\n\"In the summer of 1837, Mr. JOHN H. MOOREHEAD, a partner of mine,\ndescended the Mississippi with several boat loads of flour. He told me\nthat floating in a place in the Mississippi, where he could see for\nmiles a head, he perceived a concourse of people on the bank, that for\nat least a mile and a half above he saw them, and heard the screams of\nsome person, and from a great distance, the crack of a whip, he run\nnear the shore, and saw them whipping a black man, who was on the\nground, and at that time nearly unable to scream, but the whip\ncontinued to be applied without intermission, as long as he was in\nsight, say from one mile and a half, to two miles below--he probably\nsaw and heard them for one hour in all. He expressed the opinion that\nthe man could not survive.\n\n\"About four weeks since I had a conversation with Mr. Porter, a\nrespectable citizen of Morgan county of this state, of about fifty\nyears of age. He told me that he formerly traveled about five years in\nthe southern states, and that on one occasion he stopped at a private\nhouse, to stay all night; (I think it was in Virginia,) while he was\nconversing with the man, his wife came in, and complained that the\nwench had broken some article in the kitchen, and that she must be\nwhipped. He took the _woman_ into the door yard, stripped her clothes\ndown to her hips--tied her hands together, and drawing them up to a\nlimb, so that she could just touch the ground, took a very large\ncowskin whip, and commenced flogging; he said that every stroke at\nfirst raised the skin, and immediately the blood came through; this he\ncontinued, until the blood stood in a puddle down at her feet. He then\nturned to my informant and said, 'Well, Yankee, what do you think of\nthat?'\"\n\n\nEXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MR. W. DUSTIN, a member of the Methodist\nEpiscopal Church, and, when the letter was written, 1835, a student of\nMarietta College, Ohio.\n\n\"I find by looking over my journal that the murdering, which I spoke\nof yesterday, took place about the first of June, 1834.\n\n\"Without commenting upon this act of cruelty, or giving vent to my own\nfeelings, I will simply give you a statement of the fact, as known\nfrom _personal_ observation.\n\n\"Dr. K. a man of wealth, and a practising physician in the county of\nYazoo, state of Mississippi, personally known to me, having lived in\nthe same neighborhood more than twelve months, after having scourged\none of his negroes for running away, declared with an oath, that if he\nran away again, he would kill him. The negro, so soon as an\nopportunity offered, ran away again. He was caught and brought back.\nAgain he was scourged, until his flesh, mangled and torn, and thick\nmingled with the clotted blood, rolled from his back. He became\napparently insensible, and beneath the heaviest stroke would scarcely\nutter a groan. The master got tired, laid down his whip and nailed the\nnegro's ear to a tree; in this condition, nailed fast to the rugged\nwood, he remained all night!\n\n\"Suffice it to say, in the conclusion, that the next day he was found\nDEAD!\n\n\"Well, what did they do with the master? The sum total of it is this:\nhe was taken before a magistrate and gave bonds, for his appearance at\nthe next court. Well, to be sure he had plenty of cash, so he paid up\nhis bonds and moved away, and there the matter ended.\n\n\"If the above fact will be of any service to you in exhibiting to the\nworld the condition of the unfortunate negroes, you are at liberty to\nmake use of it in any way you think best.\n\nYours, fraternally, M. DUSTIN.\"\n\n\nMr. ALFRED WILKINSON, a member of the Baptist Church in Skeneateles,\nN.Y. and the assessor of that town, has furnished the following:\n\n\"I went down the Mississippi in December, 1838 and saw twelve of\nfourteen negroes punished on one plantation, by stretching them on a\nladder and tying them to it; then stripping off their clothes, and\nwhipping them on the naked flesh with a heavy whip, the lash seven or\neight feet long: most of the strokes cut the skin. I understood they\nwere whipped for not doing the tasks allotted to them.\"\n\n\nFROM THE PHILANTHROPIST, Cincinnati, Ohio, Feb. 26, 1839.\n\n\"A very intelligent lady the widow of a highly respectable preacher of\nthe gospel of the Presbyterian Church, formerly a resident of a free\nstate, and a colonizationist, and a strong antiabolitionist, who,\nalthough an enemy to slavery, was opposed to abolition on the ground\nthat it was for carrying things too rapidly, and without regard to\ncircumstances, and especially who believed that abolitionists\nexaggerated with regard to the evils of slavery, and used to say that\nsuch men ought to go to slave states and see for themselves, to be\nconvinced that they did the slaveholders injustice, has gone and seen\nfor herself. Hear her testimony.\"\n\n_Kentucky, Dec._ 25, 1835.\n\n\"Dear Mrs. W.--I am still in the land of oppression and cruelty, but\nhope soon to breathe the air of a free state. My soul is sick of\nslavery, and I rejoice that my time is nearly expired: but the scenes\nthat I have witnessed have made an impression that never can be\neffaced, and have inspired me with the determination to unite my\nfeeble efforts with those who are laboring to suppress this horrid\nsystem. I am _now_ an _abolitionist_. You will cease to be surprised\nat this, when I inform you, that I have just seen a poor slave who was\nbeaten by his inhuman master until he could neither walk nor stand. I\nsaw him from my window carried from the barn where he had been\nwhipped to the cabin, by two negro men; and he now lies there, and if\nhe recovers, will be a sufferer for months, and probably for life. You\nwill doubtless suppose that he committed some great crime; but it was\nnot so. He was called upon by a young man (the son of his master,) to\ndo something, and not moving as quickly as his young master wished him\nto do, he drove him to the barn, knocked him down, and jumped upon\nhim, stamped, and then cowhided him until he was almost dead. This is\nnot the first act of cruelty that I have seen, though it is the\n_worst_; and I am convinced that those who have described the\ncruelties of slaveholders, have not exaggerated.\"\n\n\nEXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM GERRIT SMITH, Esq., of Peterboro'. N.Y.\nPeterboro', December 1, 1838.\n\n_To the Editor of the Union Herald_: \"My dear Sir:--You will be happy\nto hear, that the two fugitive slaves, to whom in the brotherly love\nof your heart, you gave the use of your horse, are still making\nundisturbed progress towards the _monarchical_ land whither\n_republican_ slaves escape for the enjoyment of liberty. They had\neaten their breakfast, and were seated in my wagon, before day-dawn,\nthis morning.\n\n\"Fugitive slaves have before taken my house in their way, but never\nany, whose lips and persons made so forcible an appeal to my\nsensibilities, and kindled in me so much abhorrence of the\nhell-concocted system of American slavery.\n\n\"The fugitives exhibited their bare backs to myself and a number of my\nneighbors. Williams' back is comparatively scarred. But, I speak\nwithin bounds, when I say, that one-third to one-half of the whole\nsurface of the back and shoulders of poor Scott, _consists of scars\nand wales resulting from innumerable gashes._ His natural complexion\nbeing yellow and the callous places being nearly black, his back and\nshoulders remind you of a spotted animal.\"\n\nThe LOUISVILLE REPORTER (Kentucky,) Jan. 15, 1839, contains the report\nof a trial for inhuman treatment of a female slave. The following is\nsome of the testimony given in court.\n\n\"Dr. CONSTANT testified that he saw Mrs. Maxwell at the kitchen door,\nwhipping the negro severely, without being particular whether she\nstruck her in the face or not. The negro was lacerated by the whip,\nand the blood flowing. Soon after, on going down the steps, he saw\nquantities of blood on them, and on returning, saw them again. She had\nbeen thinly clad--barefooted in very cold weather. Sometimes she had\nshoes--sometimes not. In the beginning of the winter she had linsey\ndresses, since then, calico ones. During the last four months, had\nnoticed many scars on her person. At one time had one of her eyes tied\nup for a week. During the last three months seemed declining, and had\nbecome stupified. Mr. Winters was passing along the street, heard\ncries, looked up through the window that was hoisted, saw the boy\nwhipping her, as much as forty or fifty licks, while he staid. The\ngirl was stripped down to the hips. The whip seemed to be a cow-hide.\nWhenever she turned her face to him, he would hit her across the face\neither with the butt end or small end of the whip to make her turn her\nback round square to the lash, that he might get a fair blow at her.\n\n\"Mr. Say had noticed several wounds on her person, chiefly bruises.\n\n\"Captain Porter, keeper of the work-house, into which Milly had been\nreceived, thought the injuries on her person very bad--some of them\nappeared to be burns--some bruises or stripes, as of a cow-hide.\"\n\n\nLETTER OF REV. JOHN RANKIN, of Ripley, Ohio, to the Editor of the\nPhilanthropist.\n\nRIPLEY, Feb. 20, 1839.\n\n\"Some time since, a member of the Presbyterian Church of Ebenezer,\nBrown county, Ohio, landed his boat at a point on the Mississippi. He\nsaw some disturbance among the colored people on the bank. He stepped\nup, to see what was the matter. A black man was stretched naked on\nthe ground; his hands were tied to a stake, and one held each foot. He\nwas doomed to receive fifty lashes; but by the time the overseer had\ngiven him twenty-five with his great whip, the blood was standing\nround the wretched victim in little puddles. It appeared just as if it\nhad rained blood.--Another observer stepped up, and advised to defer\nthe other twenty-five to another time, lest the slave might die; and\nhe was released, to receive the balance when he should have so\nrecruited as to be able to bear it and live. The offence was, coming\none hour too late to work.\"\n\n\nMr. RANKIN, who is a native of Tennessee, in his letters on slavery,\npublished fifteen years since, says:\n\n\"A respectable gentleman, who is now a citizen of Flemingsburg,\nFleming county, Kentucky, when in the state of South Carolina, was\ninvited by a slaveholder, to walk with him and take a view of his\nfarm. He complied with the invitation thus given, and in their walk\nthey came to the place where the slaves were at work, and found the\noverseer whipping one of them very severely for not keeping pace with\nhis fellows--in vain the poor fellow alleged that he was sick, and\ncould not work. The master seemed to think all was well enough, hence\nhe and the gentleman passed on. In the space of an hour they returned\nby the same way, and found that the poor slave, who had been whipped\nas they first passed by the field of labor, was actually dead! This I\nhave from unquestionable authority.\"\n\nExtract of a letter from a MEMBER OF CONGRESS, to the Editor of the\nNew York American, dated Washington, Feb. 18, 1839. The name of the\nwriter is with the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety.\n\n\"Three days ago, the inhabitants in the vicinity of the new Patent\nBuilding were alarmed by an outcry in the street, which proved to be\nthat of a slave who had just been knocked down with a brick-bat by his\npursuing master. Prostrate on the ground, with a large gash in his\nhead, the poor slave was receiving the blows of his master on one\nside, and the kicks of his master's son on the other. His cries\nbrought a few individuals to the spot; but no one dared to interfere,\nsave to exclaim--You will kill him--which was met by the response, \"He\nis mine, and I have a right to do what I please with him.\" The\nheart-rending scene was closed from _public_ view by dragging the poor\nbruised and wounded slave from the public street into his master's\nstable. What followed is not known. The outcries were heard by members\nof Congress and others at the distance of near a quarter of a mile\nfrom the scene.\n\n\"And now, perhaps, you will ask, is not the city aroused by this\nflagrant cruelty and breach of the peace? I answer--not at all. Every\nthing is quiet. If the occurrence is mentioned at all, it is spoken of\nin whispers.\"\n\n_From the Mobile Examiner, August_ 1, 1837.\n\n\"POLICE REPORT--MAYOR'S OFFICE.\n_Saturday morning, August_ 12, 1837.\n\n\"His Honor the Mayor presiding.\n\n\"Mr. MILLER, of the foundry, brought to the office this morning a\nsmall negro girl aged about eight or ten years, whom he had taken into\nhis house some time during the previous night. She had crawled under\nthe window of his bed room to screen herself from the night air, and\nto find a warmer shelter than the open canopy of heaven afforded. Of\nall objects of pity that have lately come to our view, this poor\nlittle girl most needs the protection of authority, and the sympathies\nof the charitable. From the cruelty of her master and mistress, she\nhas been whipped, worked and starved, until she is now a breathing\nskeleton, hardly able to stand upon her feet.\n\n\"The back of the poor little sufferer, (which we ourselves saw,) _was\nactually cut into strings, and so perfectly was the flesh worn from\nher limbs,_ by the wretched treatment she had received, that _every\njoint showed distinctly its crevices_ and protuberances through the\nskin. Her little lips clung closely over her teeth--her cheeks were\nsunken and her head narrowed, and when her eyes were closed, the lids\nresembled film more than flesh or skin.\n\n\"We would desire of our northern friends such as choose to publish to\nthe world their own version of the case we have related, not to forget\nto add, in conclusion, that the owner of this little girl is a\nforeigner, speaks against slavery as an institution, and reads his\nBible to his wife, with the view of finding proofs for his opinions.\"\n\n\nRev. WILLIAM SCALES, of Lyndon, Vermont, gives the following testimony\nin a recent letter:\n\n\"I had a class-mate at the Andover Theological Seminary, who spent a\nseason at the south,--in Georgia, I think--who related the following\nfact in an address before the Seminary. It occasioned very deep\nsensation on the part of opponents. The gentleman was Mr. Julius C.\nAnthony, of Taunton, Mass. He graduated at the Seminary in 1835. I do\nnot know where he is now settled. I have no doubt of the fact, as be\nwas an _eye-witness_ of it. The man with whom he resided had a very\nathletic slave--a valuable fellow--a blacksmith. On a certain day a\nsmall strap of leather was missing. The man's little son accused this\nslave of stealing it. He denied the charge, while the boy most\nconfidently asserted it. The slave was brought out into the yard and\nbound--his hands below his knees, and a stick crossing his knees, so\nthat he would lie upon either side in form of the letter S. One of the\noverseers laid on fifty lashes--he still denied the theft--was turned\nover and fifty more put on. Sometimes the master and sometimes the\noverseers whipping--as they relieved each other to take breath. Then\nhe was for a time left to himself, and in the course of the day\nreceived FOUR HUNDRED LASHES--still denying the charge, Next morning\nMr. Anthony walked out--the sun was just rising--he saw the man\ngreatly enfeabled, leaning against a stump. It was time to go to\nwork--he attempted to rise, but fell back--again attempted, and again\nfell back--still making the attempt, and still falling back, Mr.\nAnthony thought, nearly _twenty times_ before he succeeded in\nstanding--he then staggered off to his shop. In course of the morning\nMr. A. went to the door and looked in. Two overseers were standing by.\nThe slave was feverish and sick--his skin and mouth dry and parched.\nHe was very thirsty. One of the overseers, while Mr. A, was looking at\nhim, inquired of the other whether it were not best to give him a\nlittle water. 'No. damn him, he will do well enough,' was the reply\nfrom the other overseer. This was all the relief gained by the poor\nslave. A few days after, the slaveholder's _son confessed that he\nstole the strap himself._\"\n\n\nRev. D.C. EASTMAN, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal church at\nBloomingburg, Fayette county, Ohio, has just forwarded a letter, from\nwhich the following is an extract:\n\n\n\"GEORGE ROEBUCK, an old and respectable farmer, near Bloomingburg,\nFayette county, Ohio, a member of the Methodist Episcopal church,\nsays, that almost forty-three years ago, he saw in Bath county,\nVirginia, a slave girl with a sore between the shoulders of the size\nand shape of a _smoothing iron._ The girl was 'owned' by one M'Neil. A\nslaveholder who boarded at M'Neil's stated that Mrs. M'Neil had placed\nthe aforesaid iron when hot, between the girl's shoulders, and\nproduced the sore.\n\n\"Roebuck was once at this M'Neil's father's, and whilst the old man\nwas at morning prayer, he heard the son plying the whip upon a slave\nout of doors.\n\n\n\"ELI WEST, of Concord township, Fayette county, Ohio, formerly of\nNorth Carolina, a farmer and an exhorter in the Methodist Protestant\nchurch, says, that many years since he went to live with an uncle who\nowned about fifty negroes. Soon after his arrival, his uncle ordered\nhis waiting boy, who was _naked_, to be tied--his hands to horse rack,\nand his feet together, with a rail passed between his legs, and held\ndown by a person at each end. In this position he was whipped, from\nneck to feet, till covered with blood; after which he was _salted._\n\n\"His uncle's slaves received one quart of corn each day, and that\nonly, and were allowed one hour each day to cook and eat it. They had\nno meat but once in the year. Such was the general usage in that\ncountry.\n\n\"West, after this, lived one year with Esquire Starky and mother. They\nhad two hundred slaves, who received the usual treatment of\nstarvation, nakedness, and the cowhide. They had one lively negro\nwoman who bore no children. For this neglect, her mistress had her\nback made naked and a severe whipping inflicted. But as she continued\nbarren, she was sold to the 'negro buyers.'\"\n\n\n\"THOMAS LARRIMER, a deacon in the Presbyterian church at Bloomingburg,\nFayette county, Ohio, and a respectable farmer, says, that in April,\n1837, as he was going down the Mississippi river, about fifty miles\nbelow Natchez, he saw ahead, on the left side of the river, a colored\nperson tied to a post, and a man with a driver's whip, the lash about\neight or ten feet long. With this the man commenced, with much\ndeliberation, to whip, with much apparent force, and continued till he\ngot out of sight.\n\n\"When coming up the river forty or fifty miles below Vicksburg, a\nJudge Owens came on board the steamboat. He was owner of a cotton\nplantation below there, and on being told of the above whipping, he\nsaid that slaves were often whipped to death for great offences, such\nas _stealing,_ &c.--but that when death followed, the overseers were\ngenerally severely _reproved!_\n\n\"About the same time, he spent a night at Mr. Casey's, three miles\nfrom Columbia, South Carolina. Whilst there they heard him giving\norders as to what was to be done, and amongst other things, \"That\nnigger must be buried.\" On inquiry, he learnt that a gentleman\ntraveling with a servant, had a short time previous called there, and\nsaid his servant had just been taken ill, and he should be under the\nnecessity of leaving him. He did so. The slave became worst, and\nCasey called in a physician, who pronounced it an old case, and said\nthat he must shortly die. The slave said, if that was the case he\nwould now tell the truth. He had been attacked, a long time since,\nwith a difficulty in the side--his master swore he would 'have his own\nout of him' and started off to sell him, with a threat to kill him if\nhe told he had been sick, more than a few days. They saw them making\na rough plank box to bury him in.\n\n\"In March, 1833, twenty-five or thirty miles south of Columbia, on the\ngreat road through Sumpterville district, they saw a large company of\nfemale slaves carrying rails and building fence. Three of them were\nfar advanced in pregnancy.\n\n\"In the month of January, 1838, he put up with a drove of mules and\nhorses, at one Adams', on the Drovers' road, near the south border of\nKentucky. His son-in-law, who had lived in the south, was there. In\nconversation about picking cotton, he said, 'some hands cannot get the\nsleight of it. I have a girl who to-day has done as good a day's work\nat grubbing as any _man_, but I could not make her a hand at\ncotton-picking. I whipped her, and if I did it once I did it five\nhundred times, but I found she _could_ not; so I put her to carrying\nrails with the men. After a few days I found her shoulders were so\n_raw_ that every rail was _bloody_ as she laid it down. I asked her if\nshe would not rather pick cotton than carry rails. 'No,' said she, 'I\ndon't get whipped now.'\"\n\n\nWILLIAM A. USTICK, an elder of the Presbyterian church at\nBloomingburg, and Mr. G.S. Fullerton, a merchant and member of the\nsame church, were with Deacon Larrimer on this journey, and are\nwitnesses to the preceding facts.\n\n\nMr. SAMUEL HALL, a teacher in Marietta College, Ohio, and formerly\nsecretary of the Colonization society in that village, has recently\ncommunicated the facts that follow. We quote from his letter.\n\n\n\"The following horrid flagellation was witnessed in part, till his\nsoul was sick, by MR. GLIDDEN, an inhabitant of Marietta, Ohio, who\nwent down the Mississippi river, with a boat load of produce in the\nautumn of 1837; it took place at what is called 'Matthews' or\n'Matheses Bend' in December, 1837. Mr. G. is worthy of credit.\n\n\"A negro was tied up, and flogged until the blood ran down and filled\nhis shoes, so that when he raised either foot and set it down again,\nthe blood would run over their tops. I could not look on any longer,\nbut turned away in horror; the whipping was continued to the number of\n500 lashes, as I understood; a quart of spirits of turpentine was then\napplied to his lacerated body. The same negro came down to my boat, to\nget some apples, and was so weak from his wounds and loss of blood,\nthat he could not get up the bank, but fell to the ground. The crime\nfor which the negro was whipped, was that of telling the other\nnegroes, that _the overseer had lain with his wife.\"_\n\nMr. Hall adds:--\n\n\"The following statement is made by a young man from Western Virginia.\nHe is a member of the Presbyterian Church, and a student in Marietta\nCollege. All that prevents the introduction of his _name,_ is the\nperil to his life, which would probably be the consequence, on his\nreturn to Virginia. His character for integrity and veracity is above\nsuspicion.\n\n\"On the night of the great meteoric shower, in Nov. 1833. I was at\nRemley's tavern, 12 miles west of Lewisburg, Greenbrier Co., Virginia.\nA drove of 50 or 60 negroes stopped at the same place that night.\nThey usually 'camp out,' but as it was excessively muddy, they were\npermitted to come into the house. So far as my knowledge extends,\n'droves,' on their way to the south, eat but twice a day, early in the\nmorning and at night. Their supper was a compound of 'potatoes and\nmeal,' and was, without exception, the _dirtiest, blackest looking\nmess I ever saw._ I remarked at the time that the food was not as\nclean, in appearance, as that which was given to a _drove of hogs_, at\nthe same place the night previous. Such as it was, however, a black\nwoman brought it on her head, in a tray or trough two and a half feet\nlong, where the men and women were promiscuously herded. The slaves\nrushed up and seized it from the trough in handfulls, before the woman\ncould take it off her head. They jumped at it as if half-famished.\n\n\"They slept on the floor of the room which they were permitted to\noccupy, lying in every form imaginable, males and females,\npromiscuously. They were so thick on the floor, that in passing\nthrough the room it was necessary to step over them.\n\n\"There were three drivers, one of whom staid in the room to watch the\ndrove, and the other two slept in an adjoining room. Each of the\nlatter took a female from the drove to lodge with him, as is the\ncommon practice of the drivers generally. There is no doubt about this\nparticular instance, _for they were seen together_. The mud was so\nthick on the floor where this drove slept, that it was necessary to\ntake a shovel, the next morning, and clear it out. Six or eight in\nthis drove were chained; all were for the south.\n\nIn the autumn of the same year I saw a drove of upwards of a hundred,\nbetween 40 and 50 of them were fastened to one chain, the links being\nmade of iron rods, as thick in diameter as a man's little finger. This\ndrove was bound westward to the Ohio river, to be shipped to the\nsouth. I have seen many droves, and more or less in each, almost\nwithout exception, were chained. I never saw but one drove, that went\non their way making merry. In that one they were blowing horns,\nsinging, &c., and appeared as if they had been drinking whisky.\n\n\"They generally appear extremely dejected. I have seen in the course\nof five years, on the road near where I reside, 12 or 15 droves at\nleast, passing to the south. They would average 40 in each drove. Near\nthe first of January, 1834, I started about sunrise to go to\nLewisburg. It was a bitter cold morning. I met a drove of negroes, 30\nor 40 in number, remarkably ragged and destitute of clothing. One\nlittle boy particularly excited my sympathy. He was some distance\nbehind the others, not being able to keep up with the rest. Although\nhe was shivering with cold and crying, the driver was pushing him up\nin a trot to overtake the main gang. All of them looked as if they\nwere half-frozen. There was one remarkable instance of tyranny,\nexhibited by a boy, not more than eight years old, that came under my\nobservation, in a family by the name of D----n, six miles from\nLewisburg. This youngster would swear at the slaves, and exert all the\nstrength he possessed, to flog or beat them, with whatever instrument\nor weapon he could lay hands on, provided they did not obey him\n_instanter_. He was encouraged in this by his father, the master of\nthe slaves. The slaves often fled from this young tyrant in terror.\"\n\nMr. Hall adds:--\n\n\"The following extract is from a letter, to a student in Marietta\nCollege, by his friend in Alabama. With the writer, Mr. Isaac Knapp, I\nam perfectly acquainted. He was a student in the above College, for\nthe space of one year, before going to Alabama, was formerly a\nresident of Dummerston, Vt. He is a professor of religion, and as\nworthy of belief as any member of the community. Mr. K. has returned\nfrom the South, and is now a member of the same college.\n\n\"In Jan. (1838) a negro of a widow Phillips, ranaway, was taken up,\nand confined in Pulaski jail. One Gibbs, overseer for Mrs. P., mounted\non horseback, took him from confinement, compelled him to run back to\nElkton, a distance of fifteen miles, whipping him all the way. When he\nreached home, the negro exhausted and worn out, exclaimed, 'you have\nbroke my heart,' i.e. you have killed me. For this, Gibbs flew into a\nviolent passion, tied the negro to a stake, and, in the language of a\nwitness, '_cut his back to mince-meat_.' But the fiend was not\nsatisfied with this. He burnt his legs to a blister, with hot embers,\nand then chained him _naked_, in the open air, weary with running,\nweak from the loss of blood, and smarting from his burns. It was a\ncold night--and _in the morning the negro was dead_. Yet this monster\nescaped without even _the shadow_ of a trial. 'The negro,' said the\ndoctor, 'died, by--he knew not what; any how, Gibbs did not kill\nhim.'[9]  A short time since, (the letter is dated, April, 1838.)\n'Gibbs whipped another negro unmercifully because the horse, with\nwhich he was ploughing, broke the reins and ran. He then raised his\nwhip against Mr. Bowers, (son of Mrs. P.) who shot him. Since I came\nhere,' (a period of about six months,) there have been eight white men\nand two negroes killed, within 30 miles of me.\"\n\n[Footnote 9: Mr. Knapp, gives me some further verbal particulars about\nthis affair. He says that his informant saw the negro dead the next\nmorning, that his legs were blistered, and that the negroes affirmed\nthat Gibbs compelled them to throw embers upon him. But Gibbs denied\nit, and said the blistering was the effect of frost, as the negro was\nmuch exposed to before being taken up. Mr. Bowers, a son of Mrs.\nPhillips by a former husband, attempted to have Gibbs brought to\njustice, but his mother justified Gibbs, and nothing was therefore\ndone about it. The affair took place in Upper Elkton, Tennessee, near\nthe Alabama line.]\n\nThe following is from Mr. Knapp's own lips, taken down a day or two\nsince.\n\n\"Mr. Buster, with whom I boarded, in Limestone Co., Ala., related to me\nthe following incident: 'George a slave belonging to one of the\nestates in my neighborhood, was lurking about my residence without a\npass. We were making preparations to give him a flogging, but he\nescaped from us. Not long afterwards, meeting a patrol which had just\ntaken a negro in custody without a pass, I inquired, Who have you\nthere? on learning that it was _George_, well, I rejoined, there is a\nsmall matter between him and myself that needs adjustment, so give me\nthe raw hide, which I accordingly took, and laid 60 strokes on his\nback, to the utmost of my strength.' I was speaking of this barbarity,\nafterwards, to Mr. Bradley, an overseer of the Rev. Mr. Donnell, who\nlives in the vicinity of Moresville, Ala., 'Oh,' replied he, 'we\nconsider _that_ a very light whipping here' Mr. Bradley is a professor\nof religion, and is esteemed in that vicinity a very pious, exemplary\nChristian.'\"\n\n\nEXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM REV. C. STEWART RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois,\ndated Jan. 1, 1839.\n\n\"I do not feel at liberty to disclose the name of the brother who has\nfurnished the following facts. He is highly esteemed as a man of\nscrupulous veracity. I will confirm my own testimony by the\ncertificate of Judge Snow and Mr. Keyes, two of the oldest and most\nrespectable settlers in Quincy.\n\nQuincy, Dec. 29, 1838\"\n\n\"Dear Sir,--We have been long acquainted with the Christian brother\nwho has named to you some facts that fell under his observation while\na resident of slave states. He is a member of a Christian church, in\ngood standing; and is a man of strict integrity of character.\n\nHenry H. Snow, Willard Keyes.\nRev. C. Stewart Renshaw.\"\n\n\n\"My informant spent thirty years of his life in Kentucky and Missouri.\nWhilst in Kentucky he resided in Hardin co. I noted down his testimony\nvery nearly in his own words, which will account for their\n_evidence-like_ form. On the general condition of the slaves in\nKentucky, through Hardin co., he said, their houses were very\nuncomfortable, generally without floors, other than the earth: many\nhad puncheon floors, but he never remembers to have seen a plank\nfloor. In regard to clothing they were very badly off. In summer\nthey cared little for clothing; but in winter they almost froze. Their\nrags might hide their nakedness from the sun in summer, but would not\nprotect them from the cold in winter. Their bed-clothes were tattered\nrags, thrown into a corner by day, and drawn before the fire by night.\n'The only thing,' said he, 'to which I can compare them, in winter, is\n_stock without a shelter.'_\n\n\"He made the following comparison between the condition of slaves in\nKentucky and Missouri. So far as he was able to compare them, he said,\nthat in Missouri the slaves had better _quarters_-but are not so well\nclad, and are more severely punished than in Kentucky. In both states,\nthe slaves are huddled together, without distinction of sex, into the\nsame quarter, till it is filled, then another is built; often two or\nthree families in a log hovel, twelve feet square.\n\n\"It is proper to state, that the sphere of my informant's observation\nwas mainly in the region of Hardin co., Kentucky, and the eastern part\nof Missouri, and not through those states generally.\n\n\"Whilst at St. Louis, a number of years ago, as he was going to work\nwith Mr. Henry Males, and another carpenter, they heard groans from a\nbarn by the road-side: they stopped, and looking through the cracks of\nthe barn, saw a negro bound hand and foot to a post, so that his toes\njust touched the ground; and his master, Captain Thorpe, was\ninflicting punishment; he had whipped him till exhausted,--rested\nhimself, and returned again to the punishment. The wretched sufferer\nwas in a most pitiable condition, and the warm blood and dry dust of\nthe barn had formed a mortar up to his instep. Mr. Males jumped the\nfence, and remonstrated so effectually with Capt. Thorpe, that he\nceased the punishment. It was six weeks before that slave could put on\nhis shirt!\n\n\"John Mackey, a rich slaveholder, lived near Clarksville, Pike co.,\nMissouri, some years since. He whipped his slave Billy, a boy fourteen\nyears old, till he was sick and stupid; he then sent him home. Then,\nfor his stupidity, whipped him again, and fractured his skull with an\naxe-helve. He buried him away in the woods; dark words were whispered,\nand the body was disinterred. A coroner's inquest was held, and Mr. R.\nAnderson, the coroner, brought in a verdict of death from fractured\nskull, occasioned by blows from an axe-handle, inflicted by John\nMackey. The case was brought into court, but Mackey was rich, and his\nmurdered victim was his SLAVE; after expending about $500 be walked\nfree.\n\n\"One Mrs. Mann, living near ----, in ---- co., Missouri was known to\nbe very cruel to her slaves. She had a bench made purposely to whip\nthem upon; and what she called her \"six pound paddle,\" an instrument\nof prodigious torture, bored through with holes; this she would wield\nwith both hands as she stood over her prostrate victim.\n\n\"She thus punished a hired slave woman named Fanny, belonging to Mr.\nCharles Trabue, who lives neat Palmyra, Marion co., Missouri; on the\nmorning after the punishment Fanny was a corpse; she was silently and\nquickly buried, but rumor was not so easily stopped. Mr. Trabue heard\nof it, and commenced suit for his _property_. The murdered slave was\ndisinterred, and an inquest held; her back was a mass of jellied\nmuscle; and the coroner brought in a verdict of death by the 'six\npound paddle.'  Mrs. Mann fled for a few months, but returned again,\nand her friends found means to protract the suit.\n\n\"This same Mrs. Mann had another hired slave woman living with her,\ncalled Patterson's Fanny, she belonged to a Mr. Patterson; she had a\nyoung babe with her, just beginning to creep. One day, after washing,\nwhilst a tub of rinsing water yet stood in the kitchen, Mrs. Mann came\nout in haste, and sent Fanny to do something out of doors. Fanny tried\nto beg off--she was afraid to leave her babe, lest it should creep to\nthe tub and get hurt--Mrs. M. said she would watch the babe, and sent\nher off. She went with much reluctance, and heard the child struggle\nas she went out the door. Fearing lest Mrs. M. should leave the babe\nalone, she watched the room, and soon saw her pass out of the opposite\ndoor. Immediately Fanny hurried in, and looked around for her babe,\nshe could not see it, she looked at the tub--there her babe was\nfloating, a strangled corpse. The poor woman gave a dreadful scream;\nand Mrs. M. rushed into the room, with her hands raised, and\nexclaimed, 'Heavens, Fanny! have you drowned your child?' It was vain\nfor the poor bereaved one to attempt to vindicate herself: in vain she\nattempted to convince them that the babe had not been alone a moment,\nand could not have drowned itself; and that she had not been in the\nhouse a moment, before she screamed at discovering her drowned babe.\nAll was false! Mrs. Mann declared it was all pretence--that Fanny had\ndrowned her own babe, and now wanted to lay the blame upon her! and\nMrs. Mann was a white woman--of course her word was more valuable than\nthe oaths of all the slaves of Missouri. No evidence but that of\nslaves could be obtained, or Mr. Patterson would have prosecuted for\nhis 'loss of property.'  As it was, every one believed Mrs. M. guilty,\nthough the affair was soon hushed up.\"\n\n\nExtract of a letter from Col. THOMAS ROGERS, a native of Kentucky, now\nan elder in the Presbyterian Church at New Petersburg, Highland co.,\nOhio.\n\n\"When a boy, in Bourbon co., Kentucky, my father lived near a\nslaveholder of the name of Clay, who had a large number of slaves; I\nremember being often at their quarters; not one of their shanties, or\nhovels, had any floor but the earth. Their clothing was truly neither\nfit for covering nor decency. We could distinctly, of a still morning,\nhear this man whipping his blacks, and hear their screams from my\nfather's farm; this could be heard almost any still morning about the\ndawn of day. It was said to be his usual custom to repair, about the\nbreak of day, to their cabin doors, and, as the blacks passed out, to\ngive them as many strokes of his cowskin as opportunity afforded; and\nhe would proceed in this manner from cabin to cabin until they were\nall out. Occasionally some of his slaves would abscond, and upon being\nretaken they were punished severely; and some of them, it is believed,\ndied in consequence of the cruelty of their usage. I saw one of this\nman's slaves, about seventeen years old, wearing a collar, with long\niron horns extending from his shoulders far above his head.\n\n\"In the winter of 1828-29 I traveled through part of the states of\nMaryland and Virginia to Baltimore. At Frost Town, on the national\nroad, I put up for the night. Soon after, there came in a slaver with\nhis drove of slaves; among them were two young men, chained together.\nThe bar room was assigned to them for their place of lodging--those in\nchains were guarded when they had to go out. I asked the 'owner' why\nhe kept these men chained; he replied, that they were stout young\nfellows, and should they rebel, he and his son would not be able to\nmanage them. I then left the room, and shortly after heard a\n_scream_, and when the landlady inquired the cause, the slaver coolly\ntold her not to trouble herself, he was only chastising one of his\nwomen. It appeared that three days previously her child had died on\nthe road, and been thrown into a hole or crevice in the mountain, and\na few stones thrown over it; and the mother weeping for her child was\nchastised by her master, and told by him, she 'should have something\nto cry for.' The name of this man I can give if called for.\n\n\"When engaged in this journey I spent about one month with my\nrelations in Virginia. It being shortly after new year, _the time of\nhiring_ was over; but I saw the pounds, and the scaffolds which\nremained of the pounds, in which the slaves had been penned up\"\n\nM. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, of Quincy, Illinois, who lived in the\nsouthwestern slave states a number of years, has furnished the\nfollowing statement.\n\n\"The great mass of the slaves are under drivers and overseers. I never\nsaw an overseer without a whip; the whip usually carried is a short\nloaded stock, with a heavy lash from five to six feet long. When they\nwhip a slave they make him pull off his shirt, if he has one, then\nmake him lie down on his face, and taking their stand at the length of\nthe lash, they inflict the punishment. Whippings are so _universal_\nthat a negro that has not been whipped is talked of in all the region\nas a wonder. By whipping I do not mean a few lashes across the\nshoulders, but a set flogging, and generally _lying down._\n\n\"On sugar plantations generally, and on some cotton plantations, they\nhave negro drivers, who are in such a degree responsible for their\ngang, that if they are at fault, the driver is whipped. The result is,\nthe gang are constantly driven by him to the extent of the influence\nof the lash; and it is uniformly the case that gangs dread a negro\ndriver more than a white overseer.\n\n\"I spent a winter on widow Culvert's plantation, near Rodney,\nMississippi, but was not in a situation to see extraordinary\npunishments. Bellows, the overseer, for a trifling offence, took one\nof the slaves, stripped him, and with a piece of burning wood applied\nto his posteriors, burned him cruelly; while the poor wretch screamed\nin the greatest agony. The principal preparation for punishment that\nBellows had, was single handcuffs made of iron, with chains, by which\nthe offender could be chained to four stakes on the ground. These are\nvery common in all the lower country. I noticed one slave on widow\nCalvert's plantation, who was whipped from twenty-five to fifty lashes\nevery fortnight during the whole winter. The expression 'whipped to\ndeath,' as applied to slaves, is common at the south.\n\n\"Several years ago I was going below New Orleans, in what is called\nthe Plaquemine country, and a planter sent down in my boat a runaway\nhe had found in New Orleans, to his plantation at Orange 5 Points. As\nwe came near the Points he told me, with deep feeling, that he\nexpected to be whipped almost to death: pointing to a graveyard, he\nsaid, 'There lie five who were whipped to death.' Overseers generally\nkeep some of the women on the plantation; I scarce know an exception\nto this. Indeed, their intercourse with them is very much\npromiscuous,--they show them not much, if any favor. Masters\nfrequently follow the example of their overseers in this thing.\n\n\"GEORGE W. WESTGATE.\"\n\n\n\nII. TORTURES, BY IRON COLLARS, CHAINS, FETTERS, HANDCUFFS, &c.\n\nThe slaves are often tortured by iron collars, with long prongs or\n\"horns\" and sometimes bells attached to them--they are made to wear\nchains, handcuffs, fetters, iron clogs, bars, rings, and bands of iron\nupon their limbs, iron masks upon their faces, iron gags in their\nmouths, &c.\n\nIn proof of this, we give the testimony of slaveholders themselves,\nunder their own names; it will be mostly in the form of extracts from\ntheir own advertisements, in southern newspapers, in which, describing\ntheir runaway slaves, they specify the iron collars, handcuffs,\nchains, fetters, &c., which they wore upon their necks, wrists,\nankles, and other parts of their bodies. To publish the _whole_ of\neach advertisement, would needlessly occupy space and tax the reader;\nwe shall consequently, as heretofore, give merely the name of the\nadvertiser, the name and date of the newspaper containing the\nadvertisement, with the place of publication, and only so much of the\nadvertisement as will give the particular _fact_, proving the truth of\nthe assertion contained in the _general head_.\n\n\nWilliam Toler, sheriff of Simpson county, Mississippi, in the\n\"Southern Sun,\" Jackson, Mississippi, September 22, 1838.\n\n\"Was committed to jail, a yellow boy named Jim--had on a _large lock\nchain around his neck.\"_\n\n\nMr. James R. Green, in the \"Beacon,\" Greensborough, Alabama, August\n23, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man named Squire--had on a _chain locked with a\nhouse-lock, around his neck.\"_\n\n\nMr. Hazlet Loflano, in the \"Spectator,\" Staunton, Virginia, Sept. 27,\n1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro named David--with some _iron hobbles around each\nankle.\"_\n\n\nMr. T. Enggy, New Orleans, Gallatin street, between Hospital and\nBarracks, N.O. \"Bee,\" Oct. 27, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, negress Caroline--had on a _collar with one prong turned\ndown.\"_\n\n\nMr. John Henderson, Washington, county, Mi., in the \"Grand Gulf\nAdvertiser,\" August 29, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a black woman, Betsey--had an _iron bar on her right leg.\"_\n\n\nWilliam Dyer sheriff, Claiborne, Louisiana, in the \"Herald,\"\nNatchitoches, (La.) July 26, 1837.\n\n\"Was committed to jail, a negro named Ambrose--has a _ring of iron\naround his neck.\"_\n\n\nMr. Owen Cooke, \"Mary street, between Common and Jackson streets,\" New\nOrleans, in the N.O. \"Bee,\" September 12, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, my slave Amos, had a _chain_ attached to one of his legs\"\n\n\nH.W. Rice, sheriff, Colleton district, South Carolina, in the\n\"Charleston Mercury,\" September 1, 1838.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro named Patrick, about forty-five years old,\nand is _handcuffed._\"\n\n\nW.P. Reeves, jailor, Shelby county, Tennessee, in the \"Memphis\nEnquirer, June 17, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro--had on his right leg an _iron band_ with\none link of a chain.\"\n\n\nMr. Francis Durett, Lexington, Lauderdale county, Ala., in the\n\"Huntsville Democrat,\" August 29, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man named Charles--had on a _drawing chain,_\nfastened around his ankle with a house lock.\"\n\n\nMr. A. Murat, Baton Rouge, in the New Orleans \"Bee,\" June 20, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negro Manuel, _much marked with irons.\"_\n\n\nMr. Jordan Abbott, in the \"Huntsville Democrat,\" Nov. 17, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro boy named Daniel, about nineteen years old, and was\n_handcuffed.\"_\n\n\nMr. J. Macoin, No. 177 Ann street, New Orleans, in the \"Bee,\" August\nll, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negress Fanny--had on an _iron band about her neck.\"_\n\n\nMenard Brothers, parish of Bernard, Louisiana, In the N.O. \"Bee,\"\nAugust 18, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro named John--having an _iron around his right foot.\"_\n\n\nMessrs. J.L. and W.H. Bolton, Shelby county, Tennessee, in the\n\"Memphis Enquirer,\" June 7, 1837.\n\n\"Absconded, a colored boy named Peter--had an _iron round his neck_\nwhen he went away.\"\n\n\nH. Gridly, sheriff of Adams county, Mi., in the \"Memphis (Tenn.)\nTimes,\" September, 1834.\n\n\"Was committed to jail, a negro boy--had on a _large neck iron_ with a\n_huge pair of horns and a large bar or band of iron_ on his left leg.\"\n\n\nMr. Lambre, in the \"Natchitoches (La.) Herald,\" March 29, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negro boy Teams--he had on his neck an _iron collar.\"_\n\n\nMr. Ferdinand Lemos, New Orleans, in the \"Bee,\" January 29, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negro George--he had on _his neck an iron collar,_ the\nbranches of which had been taken off\"\n\n\nMr. T.J. De Yampert, merchant, Mobile, Alabama, of the firm of De\nYampert, King & Co., in the \"Mobile Chronicle,\" June 15, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro boy about _twelve_ years old--had round his neck _a\nchain dog-collar_, with 'De Yampert' engraved on it.\"\n\n\nJ.H. Hand, jailor, St. Francisville, La., in the \"Louisiana\nChronicle,\" July 26, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to jail, slave John--has several scars on his wrists,\noccasioned, as he says, by _handcuffs.\"_\n\n\nMr. Charles Curener, New Orleans, in the \"Bee,\" July 2, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negro, Hown--has a ring of iron on his left foot. Also,\nGrise, his _wife,_ having a _ring and chain on the left leg.\"_\n\n\nMr. P.T. Manning, Huntsville, Alabama, in the \"Huntsville Advocate,\"\nOct. 23, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro boy named James--said boy was _ironed_ when he left\nme.\"\n\n\nMr. William L. Lambeth, Lynchburg, Virginia, in the \"Moulton [Ala.]\nWhig,\" January 30, 1836.\n\n\"Ranaway, Jim--had on when he escaped a pair of _chain handcuffs.\"_\n\n\nMr. D.F. Guex, Secretary of the Steam Cotton Press Company, New\nOrleans, in the \"Commercial Bulletin,\" May 27, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Edmund Coleman--it is supposed he must have _iron shackles\non his ankles_.\"\n\n\nMr. Francis Durett, Lexington, Alabama, in the \"Huntsville Democrat,\"\nMarch 8, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway ----, a mulatto--had on when he left, a _pair of handcuffs_\nand a _pair of drawing chains_.\"\n\n\nB.W. Hodges, jailor, Pike county, Alabama, in the \"Montgomery\nAdvertiser,\" Sept. 29, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a man who calls his name John--he has a _clog of\niron on his right foot which will weigh four or five pounds_.\"\n\n\nP. Bayhi captain of police, in the N.O. \"Bee,\" June 9, 1838.\n\n\"Detained at the police jail, the negro wench Myra--has several marks\nof _lashing_, and has _irons on her feet_.\"\n\n\nMr. Charles Kernin, parish of Jefferson, Louisiana, in the N.O. \"Bee,\"\nAugust 11, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Betsey--when she left she had on her _neck an iron collar_.\"\n\n\nThe foregoing advertisements are sufficient for our purpose, scores of\nsimilar ones may be gathered from the newspapers of the slave states\nevery month.\n\nTo the preceding testimony of slaveholders, published by themselves,\nand vouched for by their own signatures, we subjoin the following\ntestimony of other witnesses to the same point.\n\nJOHN M. NELSON, Esq., a native of Virginia, now a highly respected\ncitizen of highland county, Ohio, and member of the Presbyterian\nChurch in Hillsborough, in a recent letter states the following:--\n\n\"In Staunton, Va., at the horse of Mr. Robert M'Dowell, a merchant of\nthat place, I once saw a colored woman, of intelligent and dignified\nappearance, who appeared to be attending to the business of the house,\nwith an _iron collar_ around her neck, with horns or prongs extending\nout on either side, and up, until they met at something like a foot\nabove her head, at which point there was a bell attached. This _yoke_,\nas they called it, I understood was to prevent her from running away,\nor to punish her for having done so. I had frequently seen _men_ with\niron collars, but this was the first instance that I recollect to have\nseen a _female_ thus degraded.\"\n\nMajor HORACE NYE, an elder in the Presbyterian Church at Putnam,\nMuskingum county, Ohio, in a letter, dated Dec. 5, 1838, makes the\nfollowing statement:--\n\n\"Mr. Wm. Armstrong, of this place, who is frequently employed by our\ncitizens as captain and supercargo of descending boats, whose word may\nbe relied on, has just made to me the following statement:--\n\n\"While laying at Alexandria, on Red River, Louisiana, he saw a slave\nbrought to a blacksmith's shop and a collar of iron fastened round his\nneck, with two pieces rivetted to the sides, meeting some distance\nabove his head. At the top of the arch, thus formed, was attached a\nlarge cow-bell, the motion of which, while walking the streets, made\nit necessary for the slave to hold his hand to one of its sides, to\nsteady it.\n\n\"In New Orleans he saw several with iron collars, with horns attached\nto them. The first he saw had three prongs projecting from the collar\nten or twelve inches, with the letter S on the end of each. He says\niron collars are quite frequent there.\"\n\nTo the preceding Major Nye adds:--\n\n\"When I was about twelve years of age I lived at Marietta, in this\nstate: I knew little of slaves, as there were few or none, at that\ntime, in the part of Virginia opposite that place. But I remember\nseeing a slave who had run away from some place beyond my knowledge at\nthat time: he had an iron collar round his neck, to which was a strap\nof iron rivetted to the collar, on each side, passing over the top of\nthe head; and another strap, from the back side to the top of the\nfirst--thus inclosing the head on three sides. I looked on while the\nblacksmith severed the collar with a file, which, I think, took him\nmore than an hour.\"\n\nRev. JOHN DUDLEY, Mount Morris, Michigan, resided as a teacher at the\nmissionary station, among the Choctaws, in Mississippi, during the\nyears 1830 and 31. In a letter just received Mr. Dudley says:--\n\n\"During the time I was on missionary ground, which was in 1830 and 31,\nI was frequently at the residence of the agent, who was a\nslaveholder.--I never knew of his treating his own slaves with\ncruelty; but the poor fellows who were escaping, and lodged with him\nwhen detected, found no clemency. I once saw there a fetter for '_the\nd----d runaways_,' the weight of which can be judged by its size. It\nwas at least three inches wide, half an inch thick, and something over\na foot long. At this time I saw a poor fellow compelled to work in the\nfield, at 'logging,' with such a galling fetter on his ankles. To\nprevent it from wearing his ankles, a string was tied to the centre,\nby which the victim suspended it when he walked, with one hand, and\nwith the other carried his burden. Whenever he lifted, the fetter\nrested on his bare ankles. If he lost his balance and made a misstep,\nwhich must very often occur in lifting and rolling logs, the torture\nof his fetter was severe. Thus he was doomed to work while wearing the\ntorturing iron, day after day, and at night he was confined in the\nrunaways' jail. Some time after this, I saw the same dejected,\nheart-broken creature obliged to wait on the other hands, who were\nhusking corn. The privilege of sitting with the others was too much\nfor him to enjoy; he was made to hobble from house to barn and barn to\nhouse, to carry food and drink for the rest. He passed round the end\nof the house where I was sitting with the agent: he seemed to take no\nnotice of me, but fixed his eyes on his tormentor till he passed quite\nby us.\"\n\n\nMr. ALFRED WILKINSON, member of the Baptist Church in Skeneateles,\nN.Y. and an assessor of that town, testifies as follows :--\n\n\"I stayed in New Orleans three weeks: during that time there used to\npass by where I stayed a number of slaves, each with an iron band\naround his ankle, a chain attached to it, and an eighteen pound ball\nat the end. They were employed in wheeling dirt with a wheelbarrow;\nthey would put the ball into the barrow when they moved.--I recollect\none day, that I counted nineteen of them, sometimes there were not as\nmany; they were driven by a slave, with a long lash, as if they were\nbeasts. These, I learned, were runaway slaves from the plantations\nabove New Orleans.\n\n\"There was also a negro woman, that used daily to come to the market\nwith milk; she had an iron band around her neck, with three rods\nprojecting from it, about sixteen inches long, crooked at the ends.\"\n\nFor the fact which follows we are indebted to Mr. SAMUEL HALL, a\nteacher in Marietta College, Ohio. We quote his letter.\n\n\"Mr. Curtis, a journeyman cabinet-maker, of Marietta, relates the\nfollowing, of which he was an eye witness. Mr. Curtis is every way\nworthy of credit.\n\n\"In September, 1837, at 'Milligan's Bend,' in the Mississippi river, I\nsaw a negro with an iron band around his head, locked behind with a\npadlock. In the front, where it passed the mouth, there was a\nprojection inward of an inch and a half, which entered the mouth.\n\n\"The overseer told me, he was so addicted to running away, it did not\ndo any good to whip him for it. He said he kept this gag constantly on\nhim, and intended to do so as long as he was on the plantation: so\nthat, if he ran away, he could not eat, and would starve to death. The\nslave asked for drink in my presence; and the overseer made him lie\ndown on his back, and turned water on his face two or three feet high,\nin order to torment him, as he could not swallow a drop.--The slave\nthen asked permission to go to the river; which being granted, he\nthrust his face and head entirely under the water, that being the only\nway he could drink with his gag on. The gag was taken off when he took\nhis food, and then replaced afterwards.\"\n\n\nEXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MRS. SOPHIA LITTLE, of Newport, Rhode Island,\ndaughter of Hon. Asher Robbins, senator in Congress for that state.\n\n\"There was lately found, in the hold of a vessel engaged in the\nsouthern trade, by a person who was clearing it out, an iron collar,\nwith three horns projecting from it. It seems that a young female\nslave, on whose slender neck was riveted this fiendish instrument of\ntorture, ran away from her tyrant, and begged the captain to bring her\noff with him. This the captain refused to do; but unriveted the collar\nfrom her neck, and threw it away in the hold of the vessel. The collar\nis now at the anti-slavery office, Providence. To the truth of these\nfacts Mr. William H. Reed, a gentleman of the highest moral character,\nis ready to vouch.\n\n\"Mr. Reed is in possession of many facts of cruelty witnessed by\npersons of veracity; but these witnesses are not willing to give their\nnames. One case in particular he mentioned. Speaking with a certain\ncaptain, of the state of the slaves at the south, the captain\ncontended that their punishments were often very _lenient_; and, as an\ninstance of their excellent clemency, mentioned, that in one instance,\nnot wishing to whip a slave, they sent him to a blacksmith, and had an\niron band fastened around him, with three long projections reaching\nabove his head; and this he wore some time.\"\n\n\nEXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MR. JONATHON F. BALDWIN, of Lorain county,\nOhio. Mr. B. was formerly a merchant in Massillon, Ohio, and an elder\nin the Presbyterian Church there.\n\n\"Dear Brother,--In conversation with Judge Lyman, of Litchfield\ncounty, Connecticut, last June, he stated to me, that several years\nsince he was in Columbia, South Carolina, and observing a colored man\nlying on the floor of a blacksmith's shop, as he was passing it, his\ncuriosity led him in. He learned the man was a slave and rather\nunmanageable. Several men were attempting to detach from his ankle an\niron which had been bent around it.\n\n\"The iron was a piece of a flat bar of the ordinary size from the\nforge hammer, and bent around the ankle, the ends meeting, and forming\na hoop of about the diameter of the leg. There was one or more strings\nattached to the iron and extending up around his neck, evidently so to\nsuspend it as to prevent its galling by its weight when at work, yet\nit had galled or griped till the leg had swollen out beyond the iron\nand inflamed and suppurated, so that the leg for a considerable\ndistance above and below the iron, was a mass of putrefaction, the\nmost loathsome of any wound he had ever witnessed on any living\ncreature. The slave lay on his back on the floor, with his leg on an\nanvil which sat also on the floor, one man had a chisel used for\nsplitting iron, and another struck it with a sledge, to drive it\nbetween the ends of the hoop and separate it so that it might be taken\noff. Mr. Lyman said that the man swung the sledge over his shoulders\nas if splitting iron, and struck many blows before he succeeded in\nparting the ends of the iron at all, the bar was so large and\nstubborn--at length they spread it as far as they could without\ndriving the chisel so low as to ruin the leg. The slave, a man of\ntwenty-five years, perhaps, whose countenance was the index of a mind\nill adapted to the degradations of slavery, never uttered a word or a\ngroan in all the process, but the copious flow of sweat from every\npore, the dreadful contractions and distortions of every muscle in his\nbody, showed clearly the great amount of his sufferings; and all this\nwhile, such was the diseased state of the limb, that at every blow,\nthe bloody, corrupted matter gushed out in all directions several\nfeet, in such profusion as literally to cover a large area around the\nanvil. After various other fruitless attempts to spread the iron, they\nconcluded it was necessary to weaken by filing before it could be got\noff which he left them attempting to do.\"\n\n\nMr. WILLIAM DROWN, a well known citizen of Rhode Island, formerly of\nProvidence, who has traveled in nearly all the slave states, thus\ntestifies in a recent letter:\n\n\"I recollect seeing large gangs of slaves, generally a considerable\nnumber in each gang, being chained, passing westward over the\nmountains from Maryland, Virginia, &c. to the Ohio. On that river I\nhave frequently seen flat boats loaded with them, and their keepers\narmed with pistols and dirks to guard them.\n\n\"At New Orleans I recollect seeing gangs of slaves that were driven\nout every day, the Sabbath not excepted, to work on the streets.\nThese had heavy chains to connect two or more together, and some had\niron collars and yokes, &c. The noise as they walked, or worked in\ntheir chains, was truly dreadful!\"\n\nRev. THOMAS SAVAGE, pastor of the Congregational Church at Bedford,\nNew Hampshire, who was for some years a resident of Mississippi and\nLouisiana, gives the following fact, in a letter dated January 9,\n1839.\n\n\"In 1819, while employed as an instructor at Second Creek, near\nNatchez, Mississippi, I resided on a plantation where I witnessed the\nfollowing circumstance. One of the slaves was in the habit of running\naway. He had been repeatedly taken, and repeatedly whipped, with\ngreat severity, but to no purpose. He would still seize the first\nopportunity to escape from the plantation. At last his owner\ndeclared, I'll fix him, I'll put a stop to his running away. He\naccordingly took him to a blacksmith, and had an _iron head-frame_\nmade for him, which may be called lock-jaw, from the use that was made\nof it. It had a lock and key, and was so constructed, that when on the\nhead and locked, the slave could not open his mouth to take food, and\nthe design was to prevent his running away. But the device proved\nunavailing. He was soon missing, and whether by his own desperate\neffort, or the aid of others, contrived to sustain himself with food;\nbut he was at last taken, and if my memory serves me, his life was\nsoon terminated by the cruel treatment to which he was subjected.\"\n\nThe Western Luminary, a religious paper published at Lexington,\nKentucky, in an editorial article, in the summer of 1833, says:\n\n\"A few weeks since we gave an account of a company of men, women and\nchildren, part of whom were manacled, passing through our streets.\nLast week, a number of slaves were driven through the main street of\nour city, among whom were a number manacled together, two abreast, all\nconnected by, and supporting a _heavy iron chain_, which extended the\nwhole length of the line.\"\n\nTESTIMONY OF A VIRGINIAN.\n\nThe _name_ of this witness cannot be published, as it would put him in\nperil; but his _credibility_ is vouched for by the Rev. Ezra Fisher,\npastor of the Baptist Church, Quincy, Illinois, and Dr. Richard Eels,\nof the same place. These gentlemen say of him, \"We have great\nconfidence in his integrity, discretion, and strict Christian\nprinciple.\"  He says--\n\n\"About five years ago, I remember to have passed, in _a single day_,\nfour droves of slaves for the south west; the largest drove had 350\nslaves in it, and the smallest upwards of 200. I counted 68 or 70 in\na single _coffle_. The '_coffle chain_' is a chain fastened at one\nend to the centre of the bar of a pair of hand cuffs, which are\nfastened to the right wrist of one, and the left wrist of another\nslave, they standing abreast, and the chain between them. These are\nthe head of the coffle. The other end is passed through a ring in the\nbolt of the next handcuffs, and the slaves being manacled thus, two\nand two together, walk up, and the coffle chain is passed, and they go\nup towards the head of the coffle. Of course they are closer or wider\napart in the coffle, according to the number to be coffled, and to the\nlength of the chain. _I have seen HUNDREDS of droves and\nchain-coffles of this description_, and every coffle was a scene of\nmisery and wo, of tears and brokenness of heart.\"\n\n\nMr. SAMUEL HALL a teacher in Marietta College, Ohio, gives, in a late\nletter, the following statement of a fellow student, from Kentucky, of\nwhom he says, \"he is a professor of religion, and worthy of entire\nconfidence.\"\n\n\"I have seen at least _fifteen_ droves of 'human cattle,' passing by\nus on their way to the south; and I do not recollect an exception,\nwhere there were not more or less of them _chained_ together.\"\n\n\nMr. GEORGE P.C. HUSSEY, of Fayetteville, Franklin county,\nPennsylvania, writes thus:\n\n\"I was born and raised in Hagerstown, Washington county, Maryland,\nwhere slavery is perhaps milder than in any other part of the slave\nstates; and yet I have seen _hundreds_ of colored men and women\nchained together, two by two, and driven to the south. I have seen\nslaves tied up and lashed till the blood ran down to their heels.\"\n\n\nMr. GIDDINGS, member of Congress from Ohio, in his speech in the House\nof Representatives, Feb. 13, 1839, made the following statement:\n\n\"On the beautiful avenue in front of the Capitol, members of Congress,\nduring this session, have been compelled to turn aside from their\npath, to permit a coffle of slaves, males and females, _chained to\neach other by their necks_, to pass on their way to this _national\nslave market_.\"\n\n\nTestimony of JAMES K. PAULDING, Esq. the present Secretary of the\nUnited States' Navy.\n\nIn 1817, Mr. Paulding published a work, entitled 'Letters from the\nSouth, written during an excursion in the summer of 1816.'  In the\nfirst volume of that work, page 128, Mr. P. gives the following\ndescription:\n\n\"The sun was shining out very hot--and in turning the angle of the\nroad, we encountered the following group: first, a little cart drawn\nby one horse, in which five or six half naked black children were\ntumbled like pigs together. The cart had no covering, and they seemed\nto have been broiled to sleep. Behind the cart marched three black\nwomen, with head, neck and breasts uncovered, and without shoes or\nstockings: next came three men, bare-headed, and _chained together\nwith an ox-chain_. Last of all, came a white man on horse back,\ncarrying his pistols in his belt, and who, as we passed him, had the\nimpudence to look us in the face without blushing. At a house where we\nstopped a little further on, we learned that he had bought these\nmiserable beings in Maryland, and was marching them in this manner to\none of the more southern states. Shame on the State of Maryland! and I\nsay, shame on the State of Virginia! and every state through which\nthis wretched cavalcade was permitted to pass! I do say, that when\nthey (the slaveholders) permit such flagrant and indecent outrages\nupon humanity as that I have described; when they sanction a villain\nin thus marching half naked women and men, loaded with chains, without\nbeing charged with any crime but that of being _black_ from one\nsection of the United States to another, hundreds of miles in the face\nof day, they disgrace themselves, and the country to which they\nbelong.\"[10]\n\n[Footnote 10: The fact that Mr. Paulding, in the reprint of these\n\"Letters,\" in 1835, struck out this passage with all others\ndisparaging to slavery and its supporters, does not impair the force\nof his testimony, however much it may sink the man. Nor will the next\ngeneration regard with any more reverence, his character as a prophet,\nbecause in the edition of 1835, two years after the American\nAntislavery Society was formed, and when its auxiliaries were numbered\nby hundreds, he inserted a _prediction_ that such movements would be\nmade at the North, with most disastrous results. \"Wot ye not that such\na man as I can certainly divine!\" Mr. Paulding has already been taught\nby Judge Jay, that he who aspires to the fame of an oracle, without\nits inspiration, must resort to other expedients to prevent detection,\nthan the clumsy one of _antedating_ his responses.]\n\n\n\nIII. BRANDINGS, MAIMINGS, GUY-SHOT WOUNDS, &c.\n\nThe slaves are often branded with hot irons, pursued with fire arms\nand _shot_, hunted with dogs and torn by them, shockingly maimed with\nknives, dirks, &c.; have their ears cut off, their eyes knocked out,\ntheir bones dislocated and broken with bludgeons, their fingers and\ntoes cut off, their faces and other parts of their persons disfigured\nwith scars and gashes, _besides_ those made with the lash.\n\nWe shall adopt, under this head, the same course as that pursued under\nprevious ones,--first give the testimony of the slaveholders\nthemselves, to the mutilations, &c. by copying their own graphic\ndescriptions of them, in advertisements published under their own\nnames, and in newspapers published in the slave states, and,\ngenerally, in their own immediate vicinity. We shall, as heretofore,\ninsert only so much of each advertisement as will be necessary to make\nthe point intelligible.\n\n\nMr. Micajah Ricks, Nash County, North Carolina, in the Raleigh\n\"Standard,\" July 18, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro woman and two children; a few days before she went\noff, _I burnt her with a hot iron_, on the left side of her face,_ I\ntried to make the letter M._\"\n\n\nMr. Asa B. Metcalf, Kingston, Adams Co. Mi. in the \"Natchez Courier;'\nJune 15, 1832.\n\n\"Ranaway Mary, a black woman, has a _scar_ on her back and right arm\nnear the shoulder, _caused by a rifle ball._\"\n\n\nMr. William Overstreet, Benton, Yazoo Co. Mi. in the \"Lexington\n(Kentucky) Observer,\" July 22, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway a negro man named Henry, _his left eye out_, some scars from\na _dirk_ on and under his left arm, and _much scarred_ with the whip.\"\n\n\nMr. R.P. Carney, Clark Co. Ala., in the Mobile Register, Dec. 22, 1832\n\nOne hundred dollars reward for a negro fellow Pompey, 40 years old, he\nis _branded_ on the _left jaw_.\n\n\nMr. J. Guyler, Savannah Georgia, in the \"Republican,\" April 12, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway Laman, an old negro man, grey, has _only one eye._\"\n\n\nJ.A. Brown, jailor, Charleston, South Carolina, in the \"Mercury,\" Jan.\n12, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to jail a negro man, has _no toes_ on his left foot.\"\n\n\nMr. J. Scrivener, Herring Bay, Anne Arundel Co. Maryland, in the\nAnnapolis Republican, April 18, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway negro man Elijah, has a scar on his left cheek, apparently\noccasioned by _a shot_.\"\n\n\nMadame Burvant corner of Chartres and Toulouse streets, New Orleans,\nin the \"Bee,\" Dec. 21, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway a negro woman named Rachel, has _lost all her toes_ except\nthe large one.\"\n\n\nMr. O.W. Lains, In the \"Helena, (Ark.) Journal,\" June 1, 1833.\n\n\"Ranaway Sam, he was _shot_ a short time since, through the hand, and\nhas _several shots in his left arm and side_.\"\n\n\nMr. R.W. Sizer, in the \"Grand Gulf, [Mi.] Advertiser,\" July 8, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway my negro man Dennis, said negro has been _shot_ in the left\narm between the shoulders and elbow, which has paralyzed the left\nhand.\"\n\n\nMr. Nicholas Edmunds, in the \"Petersburgh [Va.] Intelligencer,\" May\n22, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway my negro man named Simon, _he has been shot badly_ in his\nback and right arm.\"\n\n\nMr. J. Bishop, Bishopville, Sumpter District, South Carolina, in the\n\"Camden [S.C.] Journal,\" March 4, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway a negro named Arthur, has a considerable _scar_ across his\n_breast and each arm_, made by a knife; loves to talk much of the\ngoodness of God.\"\n\n\nMr. S. Neyle, Little Ogeechee, Georgia, in the \"Savannah Republican,\"\nJuly 3, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway George, he has a _sword cut_ lately received on his left\narm.\"\n\n\nMrs. Sarah Walsh, Mobile, Ala. in the \"Georgia Journal,\" March 27,\n1837.\n\n\"Twenty five dollars reward for my man Isaac, he has a scar on his\nforehead caused by a _blow_, and one on his back made by _a shot from\na pistol_.\"\n\n\nMr. J.P. Ashford, Adams Co. Mi. in the \"Natchez Courier,\" August 24,\n1838.\n\n\"Ranaway a negro girl called Mary, has a small scar over her eye, a\n_good many teeth missing_, the letter A _is branded on her cheek and\nforehead_.\"\n\n\nMr. Ely Townsend, Pike Co. Ala. in the \"Pensacola Gazette,\" Sep. 16,\n1837.\n\n\"Ranaway negro Ben, has a scar on his right hand, his thumb and fore\nfinger being injured by being _shot_ last fall, a part of _the bone\ncame out_, he has also one or two _large scars_ on his back and hips.\"\n\n\nS.B. Murphy, jailer, Irvington, Ga. in the \"Milledgeville Journal,\"\nMay 29, 1838.\n\n\"Committed a negro man, is _very badly shot in the right side_ and\nright hand.\"\n\n\nMr. A. Luminais, Parish of St. John Louisiana, in the New Orleans\n\"Bee,\" March 3, 1838.\n\n\"Detained at the jail, a mulatto named Tom, has a _scar_ on the right\ncheek and appears to have been _burned with powder_ on the face.\"\n\n\nMr. Isaac Johnson, Pulaski Co. Georgia, in the \"Milledgeville\nJournal,\" June 19, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway a negro man named Ned, _three of his fingers_ are drawn into\nthe palm of his hand by a _cut_, has a _scar_ on the back of his neck\nnearly half round, done by a _knife_.\"\n\n\nMr. Thomas Hudnall, Madison Co. Mi. in the \"Vicksburg Register,\"\nSeptember 5, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway a negro named Hambleton, _limps_ on his left foot where he\nwas _shot_ a few weeks ago, while runaway.\"\n\n\nMr. John McMurrain, Columbus, Ga. in the \"Southern Sun,\" August 7,\n1838.\n\n\"Ranaway a negro boy named Mose, he has a _wound_ in the right\nshoulder near the back bone, which was occasioned by a _rifle shot_.\"\n\n\nMr. Moses Orme, Annapolis, Maryland, in the \"Annapolis Republican,\"\nJune 20, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway my negro man Bill, he has a _fresh wound in his head_ above\nhis ear.\"\n\n\nWilliam Strickland, Jailor, Kershaw District, S.C. in the \"Camden\n[S.C.] Courier,\" July 8, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to jail a negro, says his name is Cuffee, he is lame in one\nknee, occasioned _by a shot_.\"\n\n\nThe Editor of the \"Grand Gulf Advertiser,\" Dec. 7, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway Joshua, his thumb is off of his left hand.\"\n\n\nMr. William Bateman, in the \"Grand Gulf Advertiser,\" Dec. 7, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway William, _scar_ over his left eye, one between his eye brows,\none on his breast, and his right leg has been _broken_.\"\n\n\nMr. B.G. Simmons, in the \"Southern Argus,\" May 30, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway Mark, his left arm has been _broken_.\"\n\n\nMr. James Artop, in the \"Macon [Ga.] Messenger, May 25, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Caleb, 50 years old, has an awkward gait occasioned by his\nbeing _shot_ in the thigh.\"\n\n\nJ.L. Jolley, Sheriff of Clinton, Co. Mi. in the \"Clinton Gazette,\"\nJuly 23, 1836.\n\n\"Was committed to jail a negro man, says his name is Josiah, his back\nvery much scarred by the whip, and _branded on the thigh and hips, in\nthree or four places_, thus (J.M.) the _rim of his right ear has been\nbit or cut off_.\"\n\n\nMr. Thomas Ledwith, Jacksonville East Florida, in the \"Charleston\n[S.C.] Courier, Sept. 1, 1838.\n\n\"Fifty dollars reward, for my fellow Edward, he has a _scar_ on the\ncorner of his mouth, two _cuts_ on and under his arm, and the _letter\nE on his arm_.\"\n\n\nMr. Joseph James, Sen., Pleasant Ridge, Paulding Co. Ga., in the\n\"Milledgeville Union,\" Nov. 7, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, negro boy Ellie, has a _scar_ on one of his arms _from the\nbite of a dog_.\"\n\n\nMr. W. Riley, Orangeburg District, South Carolina, in the \"Columbia\n[S.C.] Telescope,\" Nov. 11, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway a negro man, has a _scar_ on the ankle produced by a _burn_,\nand a _mark on his arm_ resembling the letter S.\"\n\n\nMr. Samuel Mason, Warren Co, Mi. in the \"Vicksburg Register,\" July 18,\n1838.\"\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man named Allen, he has a scar on his breast, also a\nscar under the left eye, and has _two buck shot in his right arm_.\"\n\n\nMr. F.L.C. Edwards, in the \"Southern Telegraph\", Sept. 25, 1837\n\n\"Ranaway from the plantation of James Surgette, the following negroes,\nRandal, _has one ear cropped_; Bob, _has lost one eye_, Kentucky Tom,\n_has one jaw broken_.\"\n\n\nMr. Stephen M. Jackson, in the \"Vicksburg Register\", March 10, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Anthony, _one of his ears cut off_, and his left hand cut\nwith an axe.\"\n\n\nPhilip Honerton, deputy sheriff of Halifax Co. Virginia, Jan. 1837.\n\n\"Was committed, a negro man, has a _scar_ on his right side by a burn,\none on his knee, and one on the calf of his leg _by the bite of a\ndog_.\"\n\n\nStearns & Co. No. 28, New Levee, New Orleans, in the \"Bee\", March 22,\n1837.\n\n\"Absconded, the mulatto boy Tom, his fingers _scarred_ on his right\nhand, and has a _scar_ on his right cheek\"\n\n\nMr. John W. Walton, Greensboro, Ala. in the \"Alabama Beacon\", Dec. 13,\n1838.\n\n\"Ranaway my black boy Frazier, with a _scar_ below and one above his\nright ear.\"\n\n\nMr. R. Furman, Charleston, S.C. in the \"Charleston Mercury\" Jan. 12,\n1839.\n\n\"Ranaway, Dick, about 19, has lost the small toe of one foot.\"\n\n\nMr. John Tart, Sen. in the \"Fayetteville [N.C.] Observer\", Dec. 26,\n1838\n\n\"Stolen a mulatto boy, _ten_ years old, he has a _scar_ over his eye\nwhich was made by an axe.\"\n\n\nMr. Richard Overstreet, Brook Neal, Campbell Co. Virginia, in the\n\"Danville [Va.] Reporter\", Dec. 21, 1838.\n\n\"Absconded my negro man Coleman, has a _very large scar_ on one of his\nlegs, also one on _each_ arm, by a burn, and his heels have been\nfrosted.\"\n\n\nThe editor of the New Orleans \"Bee\" in that paper, August 27, 1837.\n\n\"Fifty dollars reward, for the negro Jim Blake--has a _piece cut out\nof each ear_, and the middle finger of the left hand _cut off_ to the\nsecond joint.\"\n\n\nMr. Bryant Jonson, Port Valley, Houston county, Georgia, in the\nMilledgeville \"Union\", Oct. 2, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro woman named Maria--has a scar on one side of her\ncheek, by a _cut_--some scars on her back.\"\n\n\nMr. Leonard Miles, Steen's Creek, Rankin county, Mi. in the \"Southern\nSun\", Sept. 22, 1838\n\n\"Ranaway, Gabriel--has _two or three scars across his neck_ made with\na knife.\"\n\n\nMr. Bezou, New Orleans, in the \"Bee\" May 23, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, the mulatto wench Mary--has a _cut on the left arm, a scar\non the shoulder, and two upper teeth missing_.\"\n\n\nMr. James Kimborough, Memphis, Tenn. in the \"Memphis Enquirer\" July\n13, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro boy, named Jerry--has a _scar_ on his right check\ntwo inches long, from the cut of a knife.\"\n\n\nMr. Robert Beasley, Macon, Georgia, in the \"Georgia Messenger\", July\n27, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, my man Fountain--has _holes in his ears, a scar_ on the\nright side of his forehead--has been _shot in the hind parts of his\nlegs_--is marked on the back with the whip.\"\n\n\nMr. B.G. Barrer, St. Louis, Missouri, in the \"Republican\", Sept. 6,\n1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man named Jarret--_has a scar_ on the under part of\none of his arms, occasioned by a wound from a knife.\"\n\n\nMr. John D. Turner, near Norfolk, Virginia, in the \"Norfolk Herald\",\nJune 27, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro by the name of Joshua--he has a cut across one of\nhis ears, which he will conceal as much as possible--one of his\nankles is _enlarged by an ulcer_.\"\n\n\nMr. William Stansell, Picksville, Ala. in the \"Huntsville Democrat\",\nAugust 29, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, negro boy Harper--has a scar on one of his hips in the form\nof a G.\"\n\n\nHon. Ambrose H. Sevier Senator, in Congress, from Arkansas in the\n\"Vicksburg Register\", of Oct. 18.\n\n\"Ranaway, Bob, a slave--has a _scar across his breast_, another on the\n_right side of his head_--his back is _much scarred_ with the whip.\"\n\n\nMr. R.A. Greene, Milledgeville, Georgia, in the \"Macon Messenger\" July\n27, 1837.\n\n\"Two hundred and fifty dollars reward, for my negro man Jim--he is\nmuch marked with _shot_ in his right thigh,--the shot entered on the\noutside, half way between the hip and knee joints.\"\n\n\nBenjamin Russel, deputy sheriff, Bibb county, Ga. in the \"Macon\nTelegraph\", December 25, 1837.\n\n\"Brought to jail, John--_left ear cropt_.\"\n\n\nHon. H Hitchcock, Mobile, judge of the Supreme Court, in the\n\"Commercial Register\", Oct. 27, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, the slave Ellis--he has _lost one of his ears_.\"\n\n\nMrs. Elizabeth L. Carter, near Groveton, Prince William county,\nVirginia, in the \"National Intelligencer\", Washington, D.C. June 10,\n1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man, Moses--he has _lost a part_ of one of his\nears.\"\n\n\nMr. William D. Buckels, Natchez, Mi. in the \"Natchez Courier,\" July\n28, 1838.\n\n\"Taken up, a negro man--is _very much scarred_ about the face and\nbody, and has the left _ear bit off_.\"\n\n\nMr. Walter R. English, Monroe county, Ala. in the \"Mobile Chronicle,\"\nSept. 2, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, my slave Lewis--he has lost a _piece of one ear_, and a\n_part of one of his fingers_, a _part of one of his toes_ is also\nlost.\"\n\n\nMr. James Saunders, Grany Spring, Hawkins county, Tenn. in the\n\"Knoxville Register,\" June 6, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a black girl named Mary--has a _scar_ on her cheek, and the\nend of one of her toes _cut off_.\"\n\n\nMr. John Jenkins, St Joseph's, Florida, captain of the steamboat\nEllen, \"Apalachicola Gazette,\" June 7, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negro boy Caesar--he has _but one eye_.\"\n\n\nMr. Peter Hanson, Lafayette city, La., in the New Orleans \"Bee,\" July\n28, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negress Martha--she has _lost her right eye_.\"\n\n\nMr. Orren Ellis, Georgeville, Mi. in the \"North Alabamian,\" Sept. 15,\n1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, George--has had the lower part of _one of his ears bit\noff_.\"\n\n\nMr. Zadock Sawyer, Cuthbert, Randolph county, Georgia, in the\n\"Milledgeville Union,\" Oct. 9, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, my negro Tom--has a piece _bit off the top of his right\near_, and his little finger is _stiff_.\"\n\n\nMr. Abraham Gray, Mount Morino, Pike county, Ga. in the \"Milledgeville\nUnion,\" Oct. 9, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, my mulatto woman Judy--she has had her _right arm broke_.\"\n\n\nS.B. Tuston, jailer, Adams county, Mi. in the \"Natchez Courier,\" June\n15, 1838.\n\n\"Was committed to jail, a negro man named Bill--has had the _thumb of\nhis left hand split_.\"\n\nMr. Joshua Antrim, Nineveh, Warren county, Virginia, in the\n\"Winchester Virginian,\" July 11, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, a mulatto man named Joe--his fingers on the left hand are\n_partly amputated_.\"\n\n\nJ.B. Randall, jailor,  Marietta, Cobb county, Ga., in the \"Southern\nRecorder;\" Nov. 6, 1838.\n\n\"Lodged in jail, a negro man named Jupiter--is very _lame in his left\nhip_, so that he can hardly walk--has lost a joint of the middle\nfinger of his left hand.\"\n\n\nMr. John N. Dillahunty, Woodville, Mi., in the \"N.O. Commercial\nBulletin,\" July 21, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Bill--has a scar over one eye, also one on his leg, from\n_the bite of a dog_--has a _burn on his buttock, from a piece of hot\niron in shape of a T_.\"\n\n\nWilliam K. Ratcliffe, sheriff, Franklin county, Mi. in the \"Natchez\nFree Trader,\" August 23, 1838.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro named Mike--_his left ear off_\"\n\n\nMr. Preston Halley, Barnwell, South Carolina, in the \"Augusta [Ga.]\nChronicle,\" July 27, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, my negro man Levi--his left hand has been _burnt_, and I\nthink the end of his fore finger _is off_.\"\n\n\nMr. Welcome H. Robbins, St. Charles county, Mo. in the \"St. Louis\nRepublican,\" June 30, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro named Washington--has _lost a part of his middle\nfinger and the end of his little finger_.\"\n\n\nG. Gourdon & Co. druggists, corner of Rampart and Hospital streets,\nNew Orleans, in the \"Commercial Bulletin,\" Sept. 18, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro named David Drier--has _two toes cut_.\"\n\n\nMr. William Brown, in the \"Grand Gulf Advertiser,\" August 29, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, Edmund--has a _scar_ on his right temple, and under his\nright eye, and _holes in both ears_.\"\n\n\nMr. James McDonnell, Talbot county, Georgia, in the \"Columbus\nEnquirer,\" Jan. 18, 1838.\n\n\"Runaway, a negro boy _twelve or thirteen_ years old--has a scar on\nhis left cheek _from the bite of a dog_.\"\n\n\nMr. John W. Cherry, Marengo county, Ala. in the \"Mobile Register,\"\nJune 15, 1838.\n\n\"Fifty dollars reward, for my negro man John--he has a considerable\nscar on his _throat_, done with a _knife_.\"\n\n\nMr. Thos. Brown, Roane co. Tenn. in the \"Knoxville Register,\" Sept 12,\n1838.\n\n\"Twenty-five dollars reward, for my man John--the _tip_ of his nose is\n_bit off_.\"\n\n\nMessrs. Taylor, Lawton & Co., Charleston, South Carolina, in the\n\"Mercury,\" Nov. 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro fellow called Hover--has a _cut_ above the right\neye.\"\n\n\nMr. Louis Schmidt, Faubourg, Sivaudais, La. in the New Orleans \"Bee,\"\nSept. 5, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negro man Hardy--has a _scar_ on the upper lip, and\nanother made with a _knife_ on his neck.\"\n\n\nW.M. Whitehead, Natchez, in the \"New Orleans Bulletin,\" July 21,\n1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Henry--has half of one _ear bit off_.\"\n\n\nMr. Conrad Salvo, Charleston, South Carolina, in the \"Mercury,\" August\n10, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, my negro man Jacob--he has but _one eye_.\"\n\n\nWilliam Baker, jailer, Shelby county, Ala., in the \"Montgomery (Ala.)\nAdvertiser,\" Oct. 5, 1838.\n\n\"Committed to jail, Ben--his _left thumb off_ at the first joint.\"\n\n\nMr. S.N. Hite, Camp street, New Orleans, in the \"Bee,\" Feb. 19, 1838.\n\n\"Twenty-five dollars reward for the negro slave Sally--walks as though\n_crippled_ in the back.\"\n\n\nMr. Stephen M. Richards, Whitesburg, Madison county, Alabama, in the\n\"Huntsville Democrat,\" Sept 8, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man named Dick--has a _little finger off_ the right\nhand.\"\n\n\nMr. A. Brose, parish of St. Charles, La. in the \"New Orleans Bee,\"\nFeb. 19, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, the negro Patrick--has his little finger of the right hand\n_cut close to the hand_.\"\n\n\nMr. Needham Whitefield, Aberdeen, Mi. in the \"Memphis (Tenn.)\nEnquirer,\" June 15, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, Joe Dennis--has a small _notch_ in one of his ears.\"\n\n\nCol. M.J. Keith, Charleston, South Carolina, in the \"Mercury,\" Nov.\n27, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Dick--has _lost the little toe_ of one of his feet.\"\n\n\nMr. R. Faucette, Haywood, North Carolina, in the \"Raleigh Register,\"\nApril 30, 1838.\n\n\"Escaped, my negro man Eaton--his _little finger_ of the right hand\nhas been _broke_.\"\n\n\nMr. G.C. Richardson, Owen Station, Mo., in the St. Louis \"Republican,\"\nMay 5, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, my negro man named Top--has had one of his _legs broken_.\"\n\n\nMr. E. Han, La Grange, Fayette county, Tenn. in the Gallatin \"Union,\"\nJune 23, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, negro boy Jack--has a small _crop out of his left ear_.\"\n\n\nD. Herring, warden of Baltimore city jail, in the \"Marylander,\" Oct 6,\n1837.\n\n\"Was committed to jail, a negro man--has _two scars_ on his forehead,\nand the _top of his left ear cut off_.\"\n\n\nMr. James Marks, near Natchitoches, La. in the \"Natchitoches Herald,\"\nJuly 21, 1838.\n\n\"Stolen, a negro man named Winter--has a _notch_ cut out of the left\near, and the mark of _four or five buck shot_ on his legs.\"\n\n\nMr. James Barr, Amelia Court House, Virginia, in the \"Norfolk Herald,\"\nSept. 12, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man--_scar back of his left eye_, as if from the\n_cut_ of a knife.\"\n\n\nMr. Isaac Michell, Wilkinson county, Georgia, in the \"Augusta\nChronicle,\" Sept 21, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, negro man Buck--has a very _plain mark_ under his ear on his\njaw, about the size of a dollar, having been _inflicted by a knife._\"\n\n\nMr. P. Bayhi, captain of the police, Suburb Washington, third\nmunicipality, New Orleans, in the \"Bee,\" Oct. 13, 1837.\n\n\"Detained at the jail, the negro boy Hermon--has a scar below his left\near, from the _wound of a knife_.\"\n\n\nMr. Willie Paterson, Clinton, Jones county, Ga. in the \"Darien\nTelegraph,\" Dec. 5, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man by the name of John--he has a _scar_ across his\ncheek, and one on his right arm, apparently done with a _knife_.\"\n\n\nMr. Samuel Ragland, Triana, Madison county, Alabama, in the\n\"Huntsville Advocate,\" Dec. 23, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Isham--has a _scar_ upon the breast and upon the under lip,\nfrom the _bite of a dog_.\"\n\n\nMr. Moses E. Bush, near Clayton, Ala. in the \"Columbus (Ga.)\nEnquirer,\" July 5, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man--has a _scar_ on his hip and on his breast, and\n_two front teeth out_.\"\n\n\nC.W. Wilkins, sheriff Baldwin Co, Ala, is the \"Mobile Advertiser;\"\nSept. 24, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro man, he is _crippled_ in the right leg.\"\n\n\nMr. James H. Taylor, Charleston South Carolina, in the \"Courier,\"\nAugust 7, 1837.\n\n\"Absconded, a colored boy, named Peter, _lame_ in the right leg.\"\n\n\nN.M.C. Robinson, jailer, Columbus, Georgia, in the \"Columbus (Ga.)\nEnquirer,\" August 2, 1838.\n\n\"Brought to jail, a negro man, his left ankle has been _broke_.\"\n\n\nMr. Littlejohn Rynes, Hinds Co. Mi. in the \"Natchez Courier,\" August,\n17, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man named Jerry, has a small piece _cut out of the\ntop of each ear_.\"\n\n\nThe Heirs of J.A. Alston, near Georgetown, South Carolina, in the\n\"Georgetown [S.C.] Union,\" June 17, 1837.\n\n\"Absconded a negro named Cuffee, has _lost one finger_; has an\n_enlarged leg_.\"\n\n\nA.S. Ballinger, Sheriff, Johnston Co, North Carolina, In the \"Raleigh\nStandard,\" Oct. 18, 1838.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro man; has a _very sore leg_.\"\n\n\nMr. Thomas Crutchfield, Atkins, Ten. in the \"Tennessee Journal,\" Oct.\n17, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, my mulatto boy Cy, has but _one hand_, all the fingers of\nhis right hand were _burnt off_ when young.\"\n\n\nJ.A. Brown, jailer, Orangeburg, South Carolina, in the \"Charleston\nMercury,\" July 18, 1838.\n\n\"Was committed to jail, a negro named Bob, appears to be _crippled_ in\nthe right leg.\"\n\n\nS.B. Turton, jailer, Adams Co. Miss. in the \"Natchez Courier,\" Sept.\n29, 1838.\n\n\"Was committed to jail, a negro man, has his _left thigh broke_.\"\n\n\nMr. John H. King,  High street, Georgetown, in the \"National\nIntelligencer,\" August 1, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, my negro man, he has the _end of one_ of his fingers\n_broken_.\"\n\n\nMr. John B. Fox, Vicksburg, Miss. in the \"Register,\" March 29, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, a yellowish negro boy named Tom, has a _notch_ in the back\nof one of his ears.\"\n\n\nMessrs. Fernandez and Whiting, auctioneers, New Orleans, in the \"Bee,\"\nApril 8, 1837.\n\n\"Will be sold Martha, aged nineteen, _has one eye out_.\"\n\n\nMr. Marshall Jett, Farrowsville, Fauquier Co. Virginia, in the\n\"National Intelligencer,\" May 30, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, negro man Ephraim, has a _mark_ over one of his eyes,\noccasioned by a _blow_.\"\n\n\nS.B. Turton, jailer Adams Co. Miss. in the \"Natches Courier,\" Oct. 12,\n1838.\n\n\"Was committed a negro, calls himself Jacob, has been _crippled_ in\nhis right leg.\"\n\n\nJohn Ford, sheriff of Mobile County, in the \"Mississippian,\" Jackson\nMi. Dec. 28, 1838.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a negro man Cary, a _large scar on his forehead_.\"\n\n\nE.W. Morris, sheriff of Warren County, in the \"Vicksburg [Mi.]\nRegister,\" March 28, 1838.\n\n\"Committed as a runaway, a negro man Jack, he has _several scars_ on\nhis face.\"\n\n\nMr. John P. Holcombe, In the \"Charleston Mercury,\" April 17, 1828.\n\n\"Absented himself, his negro man Ben, _has scars_ on his throat,\noccasioned by the _cut of a knife_.\"\n\n\nMr. Geo. Kinlock, in the \"Charleston, S.C. Courier,\" May 1, 1839.\n\n\"Ranaway, negro boy Kitt, 15 or 16 years old, _has a piece taken out\nof one of his ears_.\"\n\n\nWm. Magee, sheriff, Mobile Co. in the \"Mobile Register,\" Dec. 27, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to jail, a runaway slave, Alexander, a _scar_ on his left\ncheck.\"\n\n\nMr. Henry M. McGregor, Prince George County, Maryland, in the\n\"Alexandria [D.C.] Gazette,\" Feb. 6, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, negro Phil, _scar through the right eye brow_ part of the\n_middle toe_ right foot _cut off_.\"\n\n\nGreen B Jourdan, Baldwin County Ga. in the \"Georgia Journal,\" April\n18, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, John, has a _scar_ on one of his hands extending from the\nwrist joint to the little finger, also a _scar_ on one of his legs.\"\n\n\nMessrs. Daniel and Goodman, New Orleans, in the \"N.O. Bee,\" Feb. 2,\n1838.\n\n\"Absconded, mulatto slave Alick, has a _large scar over_ one of his\ncheeks.\"\n\n\nJeremiah Woodward, Gonchland, Co. Va. in the \"Richmond Va. Whig,\" Jan.\n30, 1838.\n\n\"200 DOLLARS REWARD for Nelson, has a _scar_ on his forehead\noccasioned by a _burn_, and one on his lower lip and one about the\nknee.\"\n\n\nSamuel Rawlins, Gwinet Co. Ga. in the \"Columbus Sentinel,\" Nov. 29,\n1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man and his wife, named Nat and Priscilla, he has a\nsmall _scar_ on his left cheek, _two stiff fingers_ on his right hand\nwith a _running sore_ on them; his wife has a _scar_ on her left arm,\nand one _upper tooth out_.\"\n\n\nThe reader perceives that we have under this head, as under previous\nones, given to the testimony of the slaveholders themselves, under\ntheir own names, a precedence over that of all other witnesses. We now\nask the reader's attention to the testimonies which follow. They are\nendorsed by responsible names--men who 'speak what they know, and\ntestify what they have seen'--testimonies which show, that the\nslaveholders who wrote the preceding advertisements, describing the\nwork of their own hands, in branding with hot irons, maiming,\nmutilating, cropping, shooting, knocking out the teeth and eyes of\ntheir slaves, breaking their bones, &c., have manifested, _as far as\nthey have gone_ in the description, a commendable fidelity to truth.\n\nIt is probable that some of the scars and maimings in the preceding\nadvertisements were the result of accidents; and some _may be_ the\nresult of violence inflicted by the slaves upon each other. Without\narguing that point, we say, these are the _facts_; whoever reads and\nponders them, will need no argument to convince him, that the\nproposition which they have been employed to sustain, _cannot be\nshaken_. That any considerable portion of them were _accidental_, is\ntotally improbable, from the nature of the case; and is in most\ninstances disproved by the advertisements themselves. That they have\nnot been produced by assaults of the slaves upon each other, is\nmanifest from the fact, that injuries of that character inflicted by\nthe slaves upon each other, are, as all who are familiar with the\nhabits and condition of slaves well know, exceedingly rare; and of\nnecessity must be so, from the constant action upon them of the\nstrongest dissuasives from such acts that can operate on human nature.\n\nAdvertisements similar to the preceding may at any time be gathered by\nscores from the daily and weekly newspapers of the slave states.\nBefore presenting the reader with further testimony in proof of the\nproposition at the head of this part of our subject, we remark, that\nsome of the tortures enumerated under this and the preceding heads,\nare not in all cases inflicted by slaveholders as _punishments_, but\nsometimes merely as preventives of escape, for the greater security of\ntheir 'property'. Iron collars, chains, &c. are put upon slaves when\nthey are driven or transported from one part of the country to\nanother, in order to keep them from running away. Similar measures are\noften resorted to upon plantations. When the master or owner suspects\na slave of plotting an escape, an iron collar with long 'horns,' or a\nbar of iron, or a ball and chain, are often fastened upon him, for the\ndouble purpose of retarding his flight, should he attempt it, and of\nserving as an easy means of detection.\n\nAnother inhuman method of _marking_ slaves, so that they may be easily\ndescribed and detected when they escape, is called _cropping_. In the\npreceding advertisements, the reader will perceive a number of cases,\nin which the runaway is described as '_cropt_,' or a '_notch cut_ in\nthe ear, or a part or the whole of the ear _cut off_,' &c.\n\nTwo years and a half since, the writer of this saw a letter, then just\nreceived by Mr. Lewis Tappan, of New York, containing a negro's ear\ncut off close to the head. The writer of the letter, who signed\nhimself Thomas Oglethorpe, Montgomery, Alabama, sent it to Mr. Tappan\nas 'a specimen of a negro's ears,' and desired him to add it to his\n'collection.'\n\nAnother method of _marking_ slaves, is by drawing out or breaking off\none or two _front teeth_--commonly the upper ones, as the mark would\nin that case be the more obvious. An instance of this kind the reader\nwill recall in the testimony of Sarah M. Grimk\u00e9, page 30, and of which\nshe had _personal_ knowledge; being well acquainted both with the\ninhuman master, (a distinguished citizen of South Carolina,) by whose\norder the brutal deed was done, and with the poor young girl whose\nmouth was thus barbarously mutilated, to furnish a convenient mark by\nwhich to describe her in case of her elopement, as she had frequently\nrun away.\n\nThe case stated by Miss G. serves to unravel what, to one uninitiated,\nseems quite a mystery: i.e. the frequency with which, in the\nadvertisements of runaway slaves published in southern papers, they\nare described as having _one or two front teeth out_. Scores of such\nadvertisements are in southern papers now on our table. We will\nfurnish the reader with a dozen or two.\n\n\nJesse Debruhl, sheriff, Richland District, \"Columbia (S.C.)\nTelescope,\" Feb. 24, 1839.\n\n\"Committed to jail, Ned, about 25 years of age, has lost his _two\nupper front teeth_.\"\n\n\nMr. John Hunt, Black Water Bay, \"Pensacola (Ga.) Gazette,\" October 14,\n1837.\n\n\"100 DOLLARS REWARD, for Perry, _one under front tooth_ missing, aged\n23 years.\"\n\n\nMr. John Frederick, Branchville, Orangeburgh District, S.C.\n\"Charleston (S.C.) Courier,\" June 12, 1837.\n\n\"10 DOLLARS REWARD, for Mary, _one or two upper teeth_ out, about 25\nyears old.\"\n\n\nMr. Egbert A. Raworth, eight miles west of Nashville on the Charlotte\nroad \"Daily Republican Banner,\" Nashville, Tennessee, April 30, 1938.\n\n\"Ranaway, Myal, 23 years old, one of his _fore teeth out_.\"\n\n\nBenjamin Russel, Deputy sheriff Bibb Co. Ga. \"Macon (Ga.) Telegraph,\"\nDec. 25, 1837.\n\n\"Brought to jail John, 23 years old, _one fore tooth out_.\"\n\n\nF. Wisner, Master of the Work House, \"Charleston (S.C.) Courier.\" Oct.\n17, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to the Charleston Work House Tom, _two of his upper front\nteeth out_, about 30 years of age.\"\n\nMr. S. Neyle, \"Savannah (Ga.) Republican,\" July 3, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway Peter, has lost _two front teeth_ in the upper jaw.\"\n\n\nMr. John McMurrain, near Columbus, \"Georgia Messenger,\" Aug. 2, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a boy named Moses, some of his _front teeth out_.\"\n\n\nMr. John Kennedy, Stewart Co. La. \"New Orleans Bee,\" April 7, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Sally, her _fore teeth out_.\"\n\n\nMr. A.J. Hutchings, near Florence, Ala. \"North Alabamian,\" August 25,\n1838\n\n\"Ranaway, George Winston, two of his _upper fore teeth out_\nimmediately in front.\"\n\n\nMr. James Purdon, 33 Commons street, N.O. \"New Orleans Bee,\" Feb. 13,\n1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, Jackson, has lost _one of his front teeth_.\"\n\n\nMr. Robert Calvert, in the \"Arkansas State Gazette,\" August 22, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, Jack, 25 years old, has lost _one of his fore teeth_.\"\n\n\nMr. A.G.A. Beazley, in the Memphis Gazette, March 18, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, Abraham, 20 or 22 years of age, _his front teeth out_.\"\n\n\nMr. Samuel Townsend, in the \"Huntsville [Ala.] Democrat,\" May 24,\n1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Dick, 18 or 20 years of age, _has one front tooth out_.\"\n\n\nMr. Philip A. Dew, in the \"Virginia Herald,\" of May 24, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Washington, about 25 years of age, has _an upper front tooth\nout_.\"\n\n\nJ.G. Dunlap, \"Georgia Constitutionalist,\" April 24, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, negro woman Abbe, _upper front teeth out_.\"\n\n\nJohn Thomas, \"Southern Argus,\" August 7, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, Lewis, 25 or 26 years old, _one or two of his front teeth\nout_.\"\n\n\nM.E.W. Gilbert, in the \"Columbus [Ga.] Enquirer,\" Oct. 5. 1837.\n\n\"50 DOLLARS REWARD, for Prince, 25 or 26 years old, _one or two teeth\nout_ in front on the upper jaw.\"\n\n\nPublisher of the \"Charleston Mercury,\" Aug. 31, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, Seller Saunders, _one fore tooth out_, about 22 years of\nage.\"\n\n\nMr. Byrd M. Grace, in the \"Macon [Ga.] Telegraph,\" Oct. 16, 1383.\n\n\"Ranaway, Warren, about 25 or 26 years old, has lost _some of his\nfront teeth_.\"\n\n\nMr. George W. Barnes, in the \"Milledgeville [Ga.] Journal,\" May 22,\n1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Henry, about 23 years old, has one of his _upper front teeth\nout_.\"\n\n\nD. Herring, Warden of Baltimore Jail, in \"Baltimore Chronicle,\" Oct.\n6, 1837.\n\n\"Committed to jail Elizabeth Steward, 17 or 18 years old, has _one of\nher front teeth out_.\"\n\n\nMr. J.L. Colborn, in the \"Huntsville [Ala.] Democrat,\" July 4, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway Liley, 26 years of age, _one fore tooth gone_.\"\n\n\nSamuel Harman Jr. in the \"New Orleans Bee,\" Oct. 12, 1838.\n\n\"50 DOLLARS REWARD, for Adolphe, 28 years old, _two of his front\nteeth_ are missing.\"\n\n\nWere it necessary, we might easily add to the preceding list,\n_hundreds_. The reader will remark that all the slaves, whose ages are\ngiven, are _young_--not one has arrived at middle age; consequently it\ncan hardly be supposed that they have lost their teeth either from age\nor decay. The probability that their teeth were taken out by force, is\nincreased by the fact of their being _front teeth_ in almost every\ncase, and from the fact that the loss of no _other_ is mentioned in\nthe advertisements. It is well known that the front teeth are not\ngenerally the first to fail. Further, it is notorious that the teeth\nof the slaves are remarkably sound and serviceable, that they decay\nfar less, and at a much later period of life than the teeth of the\nwhites: owing partly, no doubt, to original constitution; but more\nprobably to their diet, habits, and mode of life.\n\nAs an illustration of the horrible mutilations _sometimes_ suffered by\nthem in the breaking and tearing out of their teeth, we insert the\nfollowing, from the New Orleans Bee of May 31, 1837.\n\n$10 REWARD.--Ranaway, Friday, May 12, JULIA, a negress, EIGHTEEN OR\nTWENTY YEARS OLD. SHE HAS LOST HER UPPER TEETH, and the under ones ARE\nALL BROKEN. Said reward will be paid to whoever will bring her to her\nmaster, No. 172 Barracks-street, or lodge her in the jail.\n\nThe following is contained in the same paper.\n\nRanaway, NELSON, 27 years old,--\"ALL HIS TEETH ARE MISSING.\"\n\nThis advertisement is signed by \"S. ELFER,\" Faubourg Marigny.\n\nWe now call the attention of the reader to a mass of testimony in\nsupport of our general proposition.\n\nGEORGE B. RIPLEY, Esq. of Norwich, Connecticut, has furnished the\nfollowing statement, in a letter dated Dec. 12, 1838.\n\n\"GURDON CHAPMAN, Esq., a respectable merchant of our city, one of our\ncounty commissioners,--last spring a member of our state\nlegislature,--and whose character for veracity is above suspicion,\nabout a year since visited the county of Nansemond, Virginia, for the\npurpose of buying a cargo of corn. He purchased a large quantity of\nMr. ----, with whose family he spent a week or ten days; after he\nreturned, he related to me and several other citizens the following\nfacts. In order to prepare the corn for market by the time agreed\nupon, the slaves were worked as hard as they would bear, from daybreak\nuntil 9 or 10 o'clock at night. They were called directly from their\nbunks in the morning to their work, without a morsel of food until\nnoon, when they took their breakfast and dinner, consisting of bacon\nand corn bread. The quantity of meat was not one tenth of what the\nsame number of northern laborers usually have at a meal. They were\nallowed but fifteen minutes to take this meal, at the expiration of\nthis time the horn was blown. The rigor with which they enforce\npunctuality to its call, may be imagined from the fact, that a little\nboy only nine years old was whipped so severely by the driver, that in\nmany places the whip cut through his clothes (which were of cotton,)\nfor tardiness of not over three minutes. They then worked without\nintermission until 9 or 10 at night; after which they prepared and ate\ntheir second meal, as scanty as the first. An aged slave, who was\nremarkable for his industry and fidelity, was working with all his\nmight on the threshing floor; amidst the clatter of the shelling and\nwinnowing machines the master spoke to him, but he did not hear; he\npresently gave him several severe cuts with the raw hide, saying, at\nthe same time, 'damn you, if you cannot hear I'll see if you can\nfeel.' One morning the master rose from breakfast and whipped most\ncruelly, with a raw hide, a nice girl who was waiting on the table,\nfor not opening a _west_ window when he had told her to open an east\none. The number of slaves was only forty, and yet the lash was in\nconstant use. The bodies of all of them were literally covered with\nold scars.\n\n\"Not one of the slaves attended church on the Sabbath. The social\nrelations were scarcely recognised among them, and they lived in a\nstate of promiscuous concubinage. The master said he took pains to\nbreed from his best stock--the whiter the progeny the higher they\nwould sell for house servants. When asked by Mr. C. if he did not fear\nhis slaves would run away if he whipped them so much, he replied, they\nknow too well what they must suffer if they are taken--and then said,\n'I'll tell you how I treat my runaway niggers. I had a big nigger that\nran away the second time; as soon as I got track of him I took three\ngood fellows and went in pursuit, and found him in the night, some\nmiles distant, in a corn-house; we took him and ironed him hand and\nfoot, and carted him home. The next morning we tied him to a tree, and\nwhipped him until there was not a sound place on his back. I then tied\nhis ankles and hoisted him up to a _limb_--feet up and head down--we\nthen whipped him, until the damned nigger smoked so that I thought he\nwould take fire and burn up. We then took him down; and to make sure\nthat he should not run away the third time, I run my knife in back of\nthe ankles, and _cut off the large cords_,--and then I ought to have\nput some lead into the wounds, but I forgot it'\n\n\"The truth of the above is from unquestionable authority; and you may\npublish or suppress it, as shall best subserve the cause of God and\nhumanity.\"\n\n\nEXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM STEPHAN SEWALL, Esq., Winthrop, Maine, dated\nJan. 12th, 1839. Mr. S. is a member of the Congregational church in\nWinthrop, and late agent of the Winthrop Manufacturing company.\n\n\"Being somewhat acquainted with slavery, by a residence of about five\nyears in Alabama, and having witnessed many acts of slaveholding\ncruelty, I will mention one or two that came under my eye; and one of\nexcessive cruelty mentioned to me at the time, by the gentleman (now\ndead,) that interfered in behalf of the slave.\n\n\"I was witness to such cruelties by an overseer to a slave, that he\ntwice attempted to drown himself, to get out of his power: this was on\na raft of slaves, in the Mobile river. I saw an owner take his runaway\nslave, tie a rope round him, then get on his horse, give the slave and\nhorse a cut the whip, and run the poor creature barefooted, very fast,\nover rough ground, where small black jack oaks had been cut up,\nleaving the sharp stumps, on which the slave would frequently fall;\nthen the master would drag him as long as he could himself hold out;\nthen stop, and whip him up on his feet again--then proceed as before.\nThis continued until he got out of my sight, which was about half a\nmile. But what further cruelties this wretched man, (whose passion was\nso excited that he could scarcely utter a word when he took the slave\ninto his own power,) inflicted upon his poor victim, the day of\njudgment will unfold.\n\n\"I have seen slaves severely whipped on plantations, but this _is an\nevery day occurrence_, and comes under the head of general treatment.\n\n\"I have known the case of a husband compelled to whip his wife. This I\ndid not witness, though not two rods from the cabin at the time.\n\n\"I will now mention the case of cruelty before referred to. In 1820 or\n21, while the public works were going forward on Dauphin Island,\nMobile Bay, a contractor, engaged on the works, beat one of his slaves\nso severely that the poor creature had no longer power to writhe under\nhis suffering: he then took out his knife, and began to _cut his flesh\nin strips, from his hips down_. At this moment, the gentleman referred\nto, who was also a contractor, shocked at such inhumanity, stepped\nforward, between the wretch and his victim, and exclaimed, 'If you\ntouch that slave again you do it at the peril of your life.' The\nslaveholder raved at him for interfering between him and his slave;\nbut he was obliged to drop his victim, fearing the arm of my\nfriend--whose stature and physical powers were extraordinary.\"\n\n\nEXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MRS. MARY COWLES, a member of the\nPresbyterian church at Geneva, Ashtabula county, Ohio, dated 12th, mo.\n18th, 1838. Mrs. Cowles is a daughter of Mr. James Colwell of Brook\ncounty, Virginia, near West Liberty.\n\n\"In the year 1809, I think, when I was twenty-one years old, a man in\nthe vicinity where I resided, in Brooke co. Va. near West Liberty, by\nthe name of Morgan, had a little slave girl about six years old, who\nhad a habit or rather a natural infirmity common to children of that\nage. On this account her master and mistress would pinch her ears with\nhot tongs, and throw hot embers on her legs. Not being able to\naccomplish their object by these means, they at last resorted to a\nmethod too indelicate, and too horrible to describe in detail. Suffice\nit to say, it soon put an end to her life in the most excruciating\nmanner. If further testimony to authenticate what I have stated is\nnecessary, I refer you to Dr. Robert Mitchel who then resided in the\nvicinity, but now lives at Indiana, Pennsylvania, above Pittsburgh.\"\n\nMARY COWLES.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF WILLIAM LADD, Esq., now of Minot, Maine, formerly a\nslaveholder in Florida. Mr. Ladd is now the President of the American\nPeace Society. In a letter dated November 29, 1838, Mr. Ladd says:\n\n\"While I lived in Florida I knew a slaveholder whose name was\nHutchinson, he had been a preacher and a member of the Senate of\nGeorgia. He told me that he dared not keep a gun in his house, because\nhe was so passionate; and that he had _been the death of three or four\nmen_. I understood him to mean _slaves_. One of his slaves, a girl,\nonce came to my house. She had run away from him at Indian river. The\ncords of one of her hands were so much contracted that her hand was\nuseless. It was said that he had thrust her hand into the fire while\nhe was in a fit of passion, and held it there, and this was the\neffect. My wife had hid the girl, when Hutchinson came for her. Out of\ncompassion for the poor slave, I offered him more than she was worth,\nwhich he refused. We afterward let the girl escape, and I do not know\nwhat became of her, but I believe he never got her again. It was\ncurrently reported of Hutchinson, that he once knocked down a _new_\nnegro (one recently from Africa) who was clearing up land, and who\ncomplained of the cold, as it was mid-winter. The slave was stunned\nwith the blow. Hutchinson, supposing he had the 'sulks,' applied fire\nto the side of the slave until it was so roasted that he said the\nslave was not worth curing, and ordered the other slaves to pile on\nbrush, and he was consumed.\n\n\"A murder occurred at the settlement, (Musquito) while I lived there.\nAn overseer from Georgia, who was employed by a Mr. Cormick, in a fit\nof jealousy shot a slave of Samuel Williams, the owner of the next\nplantation. He was apprehended, but afterward suffered to escape. This\nman told me that he had rather whip a negro than sit down to the best\ndinner. This man had, near his house, a contrivance like that which is\nused in armies where soldiers are punished with the picket; by this\nthe slave was drawn up from the earth, by a cord passing round his\nwrists, so that his feet could just touch the ground. It somewhat\nresembled a New England well sweep, and was used when the slaves were\nflogged.\n\n\"The treatment of slaves at Musquito I consider much milder than that\nwhich I have witnessed in the United States. Florida was under the\nSpanish government while I lived there. There were about fifteen or\ntwenty plantations at Musquito. I have an indistinct recollection of\nfour or five slaves dying of the cold in Amelia Island. They belonged\nto Mr. Bunce of musquito. The compensation of the overseers was a\ncertain portion of the crop.\"\n\n\nGERRIT SMITH, Esq. of Peterboro, in a letter, dated Dec. 15, 1838,\nsays:\n\n\"I have just been conversing with an inhabitant of this town, on the\nsubject of the cruelties of slavery. My neighbors inform me that he is\na man of veracity. The candid manner of his communication utterly\nforbade the suspicion that he was attempting to deceive me.\n\n\"My informant says that he resided in Louisiana and Alabama during a\ngreat part of the years 1819 and 1820:--that he frequently saw slaves\nwhipped, never saw any killed; but often heard of their being\nkilled:--that in several instances he had seen a slave receive, in the\nspace of two hours, five hundred lashes--each stroke drawing blood. He\nadds that this severe whipping was always followed by the application\nof strong brine to the lacerated parts.\n\n\"My informant further says, that in the spring of 1819, he steered a\nboat from Louisville to New Orleans. Whilst stopping at a plantation\non the east bank of the Mississippi, between Natchez and New Orleans,\nfor the purpose of making sale of some of the articles with which the\nboat was freighted, he and his fellow boatmen saw a shockingly cruel\npunishment inflicted on a couple of slaves for the repeated offence of\nrunning away. Straw was spread over the whole of their backs, and,\nafter being fastened by a band of the same material, was ignited, and\nleft to burn, until entirely consumed. The agonies and screams of the\nsufferers he can never forget.\"\n\n\nDr. DAVID NELSON, late president of Marion College, Missouri, a native\nof Tennessee, and till forty years old a slaveholder, said in an\nAnti-Slavery address at Northampton, Mass. Jan. 1839--\n\n\"I have not attempted to harrow your feelings with stories of cruelty.\nI will, however, mention one or two among the many incidents that came\nunder my observation as family physician. I was one day dressing a\nblister, and the mistress of the house sent a little black girl into\nthe kitchen to bring me some warm water. She probably mistook her\nmessage; for she returned with a bowl full of boiling water; which her\nmistress no sooner perceived, than she thrust her hand into it, and\nheld it there till it was half cooked.\"\n\n\nMr. HENRY H. LOOMIS, a member of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary\nin the city of New York, says, in a recent letter--\n\n\"The Rev. Mr. Hart, recently my pastor, in Otsego county, New York,\nand who has spent some time at the south as a teacher, stated to me\nthat in the neighborhood in which he resided a slave was set to watch\na turnip patch near an academy, in order to keep off the boys who\noccasionally trespassed on it. Attempting to repeat the trespass in\npresence of the slave, they were told that his 'master forbad it.' At\nthis the boys were enraged, and hurled brickbats at the slave until\nhis face and other parts were much injured and wounded--but nothing\nwas said or done about it as an injury to the slave.\n\n\"He also said, that a slave from the same neighborhood was found out\nin the woods, with his arms and legs burned almost to a cinder, up as\nfar as the elbow and knee joints; and there appeared to be but little\nmore said or thought about it than if he had been a brute. It was\nsupposed that his master was the cause of it--making him an example of\npunishment to the rest of the gang!\"\n\nThe following is an extract of a letter dated March 5, 1839, from Mr.\nJOHN CLARKE, a highly respected citizen of Scriba, Oswego county, New\nYork, and a member of the Presbyterian church.\n\nThe 'Mrs. Turner' spoken of in Mr. C.'s letter, is the wife of Hon.\nFielding S. Turner, who in 1803 resided at Lexington, Kentucky, and\nwas the attorney for the Commonwealth. Soon after that, he removed to\nNew Orleans, and was for many years Judge of the Criminal Court of\nthat city. Having amassed an immense fortune, he returned to Lexington\na few years since, and still resides there. Mr. C. the writer, spent\nthe winter of 1836-7 in Lexington. He says,\n\n\"Yours of the 27th ult. is received, and I hasten to state the facts\nwhich came to my knowledge while in Lexington, respecting the\noccurrences about which you inquire. Mrs. Turner was originally a\nBoston lady. She is from 35 to 40 years of age, and the wife of Judge\nTurner, formerly of New Orleans, and worth a large fortune in slaves\nand plantations. I repeatedly heard, while in Lexington, Kentucky,\nduring the winter of 1836-7, of the wanton cruelty practised by this\nwoman upon her slaves, and that she had caused several to be _whipped\nto death_; but I never heard that she was suspected of being deranged,\notherwise than by the indulgence of an ungoverned temper, until I\nheard that her husband was attempting to incarcerate her in the\nLunatic Asylum. The citizens of Lexington, believing the charge to be\na false one, rose and prevented the accomplishment for a time, until,\nlulled by the fair promises of his friends, they left his domicil, and\nin the dead of night she was taken by force, and conveyed to the\nasylum. This proceeding being judged illegal by her friends, a suit\nwas instituted to liberate her. I heard the testimony on the trial,\nwhich related only to proceedings had in order to getting her admitted\ninto the asylum; and no facts came out relative to her treatment of\nher slaves, other than of a general character.\n\n\"Some days after the above trial, (which by the way did not come to an\nultimate decision, as I believe) I was present in my brother's office,\nwhen Judge Turner, in a long conversation with my brother on the\nsubject of his trials with his wife, said, '_That woman has been the\nimmediate cause of the death of_ six _of my servants, by her\nseverities_!\n\n\"I was repeatedly told, while I was there, that she drove a colored\nboy from the second story window, a distance of 15 to 18 feet, on to\nthe pavement, which made him a cripple for a time.\n\n\"I heard the trial of a man for the murder of his slave, by whipping,\nwhere the evidence was to my mind perfectly conclusive of his guilt;\nbut the jury were two of them for convicting him of manslaughter, and\nthe rest for acquitting him; and as they could not agree were\ndischarged--and on a subsequent trial, as I learned by the papers, the\nculprit was acquitted.\"\n\n\nRev. THOMAS SAVAGE, of Bedford, New Hampshire, in a recent letter,\nstates the following fact:\n\n\"The following circumstance was related to me last summer, by my\nbrother, now residing as a physician, at Rodney, Mississippi; and who,\nthough a pro-slavery man, spoke of it in terms of reprobation, as an\nact of capricious, wanton cruelty. The planter who was the actor in it\nI myself knew; and the whole transaction is so characteristic of the\nman, that, independent of the strong authority I have, I should\nentertain but little doubt of its authenticity. He is a wealthy\nplanter, residing near Natchez, eccentric, capricious and intemperate.\nOn one occasion he invited a number of guests to an elegant\nentertainment, prepared in the true style of southern luxury. From\nsome cause, none of the guests appeared. In a moody humor, and under\nthe influence, probably, of mortified pride, he ordered the overseer\nto call the people (a term by which the field hands are generally\ndesignated,) on to the piazza. The order was obeyed, and the people\ncame. 'Now,' said he, 'have them seated at the table. Accordingly they\nwere seated at the well-furnished, glittering table, while he and his\noverseer waited on them, and helped them to the various dainties of\nthe feast. 'Now,' said he, after awhile, raising his voice, 'take\nthese rascals, and give them twenty lashes a piece. I'll show them how\nto eat at my table.' The overseer, in relating it, said he had to\ncomply, though reluctantly, with this brutal command.\"\n\n\nMr. HENRY P. THOMPSON, a native and still a resident of Nicholasville,\nKentucky, made the following statement at a public meeting in Lane\nSeminary, Ohio, in 1833. He was at that time a slaveholder.\n\n\"_Cruelties_, said he, _are so common_, I hardly know what to relate.\nBut one fact occurs to me just at this time, that happened in the\nvillage where I live. The circumstances are these. A colored man, a\nslave, ran away. As he was crossing Kentucky river, a white man, who\nsuspected him, attempted to stop him. The negro resisted. The white\nman procured help, and finally succeeded in securing him. He then\nwreaked his vengeance on him for resisting--flogging him till he was\nnot able to walk. They then put him on a horse, and came on with him\nten miles to Nicholasville. When they entered the village, it was\nnoticed that he sat upon his horse like a drunken man. It was a very\nhot day; and whilst they were taking some refreshment, the negro sat\ndown upon the ground, under the shade. When they ordered him to go, he\nmade several efforts before he could get up; and when he attempted to\nmount the horse, his strength was entirely insufficient. One of the\nmen struck him, and with an oath ordered him to get on the horse\nwithout any more fuss. The negro staggered back a few steps, fell\ndown, and died. I do not know that any notice was ever taken of it.\"\n\n\nRev. COLEMAN S. HODGES, a native and still a resident of Western\nVirginia, gave the following testimony at the same meeting.\n\n\"I have frequently seen the mistress of a family in Virginia, with\nwhom I was well acquainted, beat the woman who performed the kitchen\nwork, with a stick two feet and a half long, and nearly as thick as my\nwrist; striking her over the head, and across the small of the back,\nas she was bent over at her work, with as much spite as you would a\nsnake, and for what I should consider no offence at all. There lived\nin this same family a young man, a slave, who was in the habit of\nrunning away. He returned one time after a week's absence. The master\ntook him into the barn, stripped him entirely naked, tied him up by\nhis hands so high that he could not reach the floor, tied his feet\ntogether, and put a small rail between his legs, so that he could not\navoid the blows, and commenced whipping him. He told me that he gave\nhim five hundred lashes. At any rate, he was covered with wounds from\nhead to foot. Not a place as big as my hand but what was cut. Such\nthings as these are perfectly common all over Virginia; at least so\nfar as I am acquainted. Generally, planters avoid punishing their\nslaves before strangers.\"\n\n\nMr. CALVIN H. TATE, of Missouri, whose father and brothers were\nslaveholders, related the following at the same meeting. The\nplantation on which it occurred, was in the immediate neighborhood of\nhis father's.\n\n\"A young woman, who was generally very badly treated, after receiving\na more severe whipping than usual, ran away. In a few days she came\nback, and was sent into the field to work. At this time the garment\nnext her skin was stiff like a scab, from the running of the sores\nmade by the whipping. Towards night, she told her master that she was\nsick, and wished to go to the house. She went, and as soon as she\nreached it, laid down on the floor exhausted. The mistress asked her\nwhat the matter was? She made no reply. She asked again; but received\nno answer. 'I'll see,' said she, 'if I can't make you speak.' So\ntaking the tongs, she heated them red hot, and put them upon the\nbottoms of her feet; then upon her legs and body; and, finally, in a\nrage, took hold of her throat. This had the desired effect. The poor\ngirl faintly whispered, 'Oh, misse, don't--I am most gone;' and\nexpired.\"\n\n\nExtract of a letter from Rev. C.S. RENSHAW, pastor of the\nCongregational Church, Quincy, Illinois.\n\n\"Judge Menzies of Boone county, Kentucky, an elder in the Presbyterian\nChurch, and a slaveholder, told me that _he knew_ some overseers in\nthe tobacco growing region of Virginia, who, to make their slaves\ncareful in picking the tobacco, that is taking the worms off; (you\nknow what a loathsome thing the tobacco worm is) would make them _eat_\nsome of the worms, and others who made them eat every worm they missed\nin picking.\"\n\n\n\"Mrs. NANCY JUDD, a member of the Non-Conformist Church in Osnaburg,\nStark county, Ohio, and formerly a resident of Kentucky, testifies\nthat she knew a slaveholder,\n\n\"Mr. Brubecker, who had a number of slaves, among whom was one who\nwould frequently avoid labor by hiding himself; for which he would get\nsevere floggings without the desired effect, and that at last Mr. B.\nwould tie large cats on his naked body and whip them to make them tear\nhis back, in order to break him of his habit of hiding.\"\n\n\nRev. HORACE MOULTON, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church in\nMarlborough, Massachusetts, says:\n\n\"Some, when other modes of punishment will not subdue them, _cat-haul_\nthem; that is, take a cat by the nape of the neck and tail, or by its\nhind legs, and drag the claws across the back until satisfied; this\nkind of punishment, as I have understood, poisons the flesh much worse\nthan the whip, and is more dreaded by the slave.\"\n\n\nRev. ABEL BROWN, Jr. late pastor of the first Baptist Church, Beaver,\nPennsylvania, in a communication to Rev. C.P. Grosvenor, Editor of\nthe Christian Reflector, says:\n\n\"I almost daily see the poor heart-broken slave making his way to a\nland of freedom. A short time since, I saw a noble, pious, distressed,\nspirit-crushed slave, a member of the Baptist church, escaping from a\n(professed Christian) bloodhound, to a land where he could enjoy that\nof which he had been robbed during forty years. His prayers would have\nmade us all feel. I saw a Baptist sister of about the same age, her\nchildren had been torn from her, her head was covered with fresh\nwounds, while her upper lip had scarcely ceased to bleed, in\nconsequence of a blow with the poker, which knocked out her teeth; she\ntoo, was going to a land of freedom. Only a very few days since, I saw\na girl of about eighteen, with a child as white as myself, aged ten\nmonths; a Christian master was raising her child (as well his own\nperhaps) to sell to a southern market. She had heard of the\nintention, and at midnight took her only treasure and traveled twenty\nmiles on foot through a land of strangers--she found friends.\"\n\n\nRev. HENRY T. HOPKINS, pastor of the Primitive Methodist Church in New\nYork City, who resided in Virginia from 1821 to 1826, relates the\nfollowing fact:\n\n\"An old colored man, the slave of Mr. Emerson; of Portsmouth,\nVirginia, being under deep conviction for sin, went into the back part\nof his master's garden to pour out his soul in prayer to God. For this\noffence he was whipped thirty-nine lashes.\"\n\n\nExtract of a letter from DOCTOR F. JULIUS LEMOYNE, of Washington,\nPennsylvania, dated Jan. 9, 1839.\n\n\"Lest you should not have seen the statement to which I am going to\nallude, I subjoin a brief outline of the facts of a transaction which\noccurred in Western Virginia, adjacent to this county, a number of\nyears ago--a full account of which was published in the \"Witness\"\nabout two years since by Dr. Mitchell, who now resides in Indiana\ncounty, Pennsylvania. A slave boy ran away in cold weather, and during\nhis concealment had his legs frozen; he returned, or was retaken.\nAfter some time the flesh decayed and _sloughed_--of course was\noffensive--he was carried out to a field and left there without bed,\nor shelter, _deserted to die_. His only companions were the house dogs\nwhich he called to him. After several days and nights spent in\nsuffering and exposure, he was visited by Drs. McKitchen and Mitchell\nin the field, of their own accord, having heard by report of his\nlamentable condition; they remonstrated with the master; brought the\nboy to the house, amputated both legs, and he finally recovered.\"\n\n\nHon. JAMES K. PAULDING, the Secretary of the Navy of the U. States, in\nhis \"Letters from the South\" published in 1817, relates the following:\n\n\"At one of the taverns along the road we were set down in the same\nroom with an elderly man and a youth who seemed to be well acquainted\nwith him, for they conversed familiarly and with true republican\nindependence--for they did not mind who heard them. From the tenor of\nhis conversation I was induced to look particularly at the elder. He\nwas telling the youth something like the following detested tale. He\nwas going, it seems, to Richmond, to inquire about a draft for seven\nthousand dollars, which he had sent by mail, but which, not having\nbeen acknowledged by his correspondent, he was afraid had been stolen,\nand the money received by the thief. 'I should not like to lose it,'\nsaid he, 'for I worked hard for it, and sold many a poor d----l of a\nblack to Carolina and Georgia, to scrape it together.' He then went on\nto tell many a perfidious tale. All along the road it seems he made it\nhis business to inquire where lived a man who might be tempted to\nbecome a party in this accursed traffic, and when he had got some half\ndozen of these poor creatures, _he tied their hands behind their\nbacks_, and drove them three or four hundred miles or more,\nbare-headed and half naked through the burning southern sun. Fearful\nthat _even southern humanity_ would revolt at such an exhibition of\nhuman misery and human barbarity, he gave out that they were runaway\nslaves he was carrying home to their masters. On one occasion a poor\nblack woman exposed this fallacy, and told the story of her being\n_kidnapped_, and when he got her into a wood out of hearing, he beat\nher, to use his own expression, 'till her back was white.' It seems he\nmarried all the men and women he bought, himself, because they would\nsell better for being man and wife! But, said the youth, were you not\nafraid, in traveling through the wild country and sleeping in lone\nhouses, these slaves would rise and kill you? 'To be sure I was,' said\nthe other, 'but I always fastened my door, put a chair on a table\nbefore it, so that it might wake me in falling, and slept with a\nloaded pistol in each hand. It was a bad life, and I left it off as\nsoon as I could live without it; for many is the time I have separated\nwives from husbands, and husbands from wives, and parents from\nchildren, but then I made them amends by marrying them again as soon\nas I had a chance, that is to say, I made them call each other man and\nwife, and sleep together, which is quite enough for negroes. I made\none bad purchase though,' continued he. 'I bought a young mulatto\ngirl, a lively creature, a great bargain. She had been the favorite of\nher master, who had lately married. The difficulty was to get her to\ngo, for the poor creature loved her master. However, I swore most\nbitterly I was only going to take to take her to her mother's at ----\nand she went with me, though she seemed to doubt me very much. But\nwhen she discovered, at last, that we were out of the state, I thought\nshe would go mad, and in fact, the next night she drowned herself in\nthe river close by. I lost a good five hundred dollars by this foolish\ntrick.'\" Vol. I. p. 121.\n\n\nMr. ---- SPILLMAN, a native, and till recently, a resident of\nVirginia, now a member of the Presbyterian church in Delhi, Hamilton\nco., Ohio, has furnished the two following facts, of which he had\npersonal knowledge.\n\n\"David Stallard, of Shenandoah co., Virginia, had a slave, who run\naway; he was taken up and lodged in Woodstock jail. Stallard went with\nanother man and took him out of the jail--tied him to their\nhorses--and started for home. The day was excessively hot, and they\nrode so fast, dragging the man by the rope behind them, that he became\nperfectly exhausted--fainted--dropped down, and died.\n\n\"Henry Jones, of Culpepper co., Virginia, owned a slave, who ran away.\nJones caught him, tied him up, and for two days, at intervals,\ncontinued to flog him, and rub salt into his mangled flesh, until his\nback was literally cut up. The slave sunk under the torture; and for\nsome days it was supposed he must die. He, however, slowly recovered;\nthough it was some weeks before he could walk.\"\n\n\nMr. NATHAN COLE, of St. Louis, Missouri, in a letter to Mr. Arthur\nTappan, of New-York, dated July 2, 1834, says,--\n\n\"You will find inclosed an account of the proceedings of an inquest\nlately held in this city upon the body of a slave, the details of\nwhich, if published, not one in ten could be induced to believe\ntrue.[11] It appears that the master or mistress, or both, suspected\nthe unfortunate wretch of hiding a bunch of keys which were missing;\nand to extort some explanation, which, it is more than probable, the\nslave was as unable to do as her mistress, or any other person, her\nmaster, Major Harney, an officer of our army, had whipped her for\nthree successive days, and it is supposed by some, that she was kept\ntied during the time, until her flesh was so lacerated and torn that\nit was impossible for the jury to say whether it had been done with a\nwhip or hot iron; some think both--but she was tortured to death. It\nappears also that the husband of the said slave had become suspected\nof telling some neighbor of what was going on, for which Major Harney\ncommenced torturing him, until the man broke from him, and ran into\nthe Mississippi and drowned himself. The man was a pious and very\nindustrious slave, perhaps not surpassed by any in this place. The\nwoman has been in the family of John Shackford, Esq., the present\ndoorkeeper of the Senate of the United States, for many years; was\nconsidered an excellent servant--was the mother of a number of\nchildren--and I believe was sold into the family where she met her\nfate, as matter of conscience, to keep her from being sent below.\"\n\n[Footnote 11: The following is the newspaper notice referred to:--\n\nAn inquest was held at the dwelling house of Major Harney, in this\ncity, on the 27th inst. by the coroner, on the body of Hannah, a\nslave. The jury, on their oaths, and after hearing the testimony of\nphysicians and several other witnesses, found, that said slave \"came\nto her death by wounds inflicted by William S. Harney.\"]\n\n\n\n\nMR. EZEKIEL BIRDSEYE, a highly respected citizen of Cornwall,\nLitchfield co., Connecticut, who resided for many years at the south,\nfurnished to the Rev. E. R. Tyler, editor of the Connecticut Observer,\nthe following personal testimony.\n\n\"While I lived in Limestone co., Alabama, in 1826-7, a tavern-keeper\nof the village of Moresville discovered a negro carrying away a piece\nof old carpet. It was during the Christmas holidays, when the slaves\nare allowed to visit their friends. The negro stated that one of the\nservants of the tavern owed him some twelve and a half or twenty-five\ncents, and that he had taken the carpet in payment. This the servant\ndenied. The innkeeper took the negro to a field near by, and whipped\nhim cruelly. He then struck him with a stake, and punched him in the\nface and mouth, knocking out some of his teeth. After this, he took\nhim back to the house, and committed him to the care of his son, who\nhad just then come home with another young man. This was at evening.\nThey whipped him by turns, with heavy cowskins, and made the _dogs\nshake him_. A Mr. Phillips, who lodged at the house, heard the cruelty\nduring the night. On getting up he found the negro in the bar-room,\nterribly mangled with the whip, and his flesh so torn by the dogs,\nthat the cords were bare. He remarked to the landlord that he was\ndangerously hurt, and needed care. The landlord replied that he\ndeserved none. Mr. Phillips went to a neighboring magistrate, who took\nthe slave home with him, where he soon died. The father and son were\nboth tried, and acquitted!! A suit was brought, however, for damages\nin behalf of the owner of the slave, a young lady by the name of Agnes\nJones. _I was on the jury when these facts were stated on oath_. Two\nmen testified, one that he would have given $1000 for him, the other\n$900 or $950. The jury found the latter sum.\n\n\"At Union Court House, S.C., a tavern-keeper, by the name of Samuel\nDavis, procured the conviction and execution of his own slave, for\nstealing a cake of gingerbread from a grog shop. The slave raised the\nlatch of the back door, and took the cake, doing no other injury. The\nshop keeper, whose name was Charles Gordon, was willing to forgive\nhim, but his master procured his conviction and execution by hanging.\nThe slave had but one arm; and an order on the state treasury by the\ncourt that tried him, which also assessed his value, brought him more\nmoney than he could have obtained for the slave in market.\"\n\n\nMr. ----, an elder of the Presbyterian Church in one of the slave\nstates, lately wrote a letter to an agent of the Anti-Slavery Society,\nin which he states the following fact. The name of the writer is with\nthe Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.\n\n\"I was passing through a piece of timbered land, and on a sudden I\nheard a sound as of murder; I rode in that direction, and at some\ndistance discovered a naked black man, hung to the limb of a tree by\nhis hands, his feet chained together, and a pine rail laid with one\nend on the chain between his legs, and the other upon the ground, to\nsteady him; and in this condition the overseer gave him _four hundred\nlashes_. The miserably lacerated slave was then taken down, and put to\nthe care of a physician. And what do you suppose was the offence for\nwhich all this was done? Simply this; his owner, observing that he\nlaid off corn rows too crooked, he replied, 'Massa, much corn grow on\ncrooked row as on straight one!' This was it--this was enough. His\noverseer, boasting of his skill in managing a _nigger_, he was\nsubmitted to him, and treated as above.\"\n\n\nDAVID L. CHILD, Esq., of Northampton, Massachusetts, Secretary of the\nUnited States' minister at the Court of Lisbon during the\nadministration of President Monroe, stated the following fact in an\noration delivered by him in Boston, in 1831. (See Child's \"Despotism\nof Freedom,\" p. 30.\n\n\"An honorable friend, who stands high in the state and in the nation,\n[12] was _present at the_ burial of a female slave in Mississippi, who\n_had been whipped to death_ at the stake by her master, because she\nwas gone longer of an errand to the neighboring town than her master\nthought necessary. Under the lash she protested tlat she was ill, and\nwas obliged to rest in the fields. To complete the climax of horror,\nshe was delivered of a dead infant while undergoing the punishment.\"\n\n[Footnote 12: \"The narrator of this fact is now absent from the United\nStates, and I do not feel at liberty to mention his name.\"]\n\n\nThe same fact is stated by MRS. CHILD in her \"Appeal.\" In answer to a\nrecent letter, inquiring of Mr. and Mrs. Child if they were now at\nliberty to disclose the name of their informant, Mr. C. says,--\n\n\"The witness who stated to us the fact was John James Appleton, Esq.,\nof Cambridge, Mass. He is now in Europe, and it is not without some\nhesitation that I give his name. He, however, has openly embraced our\ncause, and taken a conspicuous part in some anti-slavery public\nmeetings since the time that I felt a scruple at publishing his name.\nMr. Appleton is a gentleman of high talents and accomplishments. He\nhas been Secretary of Legation at Rio Janeiro, Madrid, and the Hague;\nCommissioner at Naples, and Charge d'Affaires at Stockholm.\"\n\n\nThe two following facts are stated upon the authority of the REV.\nJOSEPH G. WILSON, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Salem,\nWashington co., Indiana.\n\n\"In Bath co., Kentucky, Mr. L., in the year '32 or '33, while\nintoxicated, in a fit of rage whipped a female slave until she fainted\nand fell on the floor. Then he whipped her to get up; then with red\nhot tongs he burned off her ears, and whipped her again! but all in\nvain. He then ordered his negro men to carry her to the cabin. There\nshe was found dead next morning.\n\n\"One Wall, in Chester district, S.C., owned a slave, whom he hired to\nhis brother-in-law, Wm. Beckman, for whom the slave worked eighteen\nmonths, and worked well. Two weeks after returning to his master he\nran away on account of bad treatment. To induce him to return, the\nmaster sold him _nominally_ to his neighbor, to whom the slave gave\nhimself up, and by whom he was returned to his master:--Punishment,\n_stripes_. To prevent escape a bar of iron was fastened with three\nbands, at the waist, knee, and ankle. That night he broke the bands\nand bar, and escaped. Next day he was taken and whipped to death, by\nthree men, the master, Thorn, and the overseer. First, he was whipped\nand driven towards home; on the way he attempted to escape, and was\nshot at by the master,--caught, and knocked down with the butt of the\ngun by Thorn. In attempting to cross a ditch he fell, with his feet\ndown, and face on the bank; they whipped in vain to get him up--he\ndied. His soul ascended to God, to be a swift witness against his\noppressors. This took place at 12 o'clock. Next evening an inquest was\nheld. Of thirteen jurors, summoned by the coroner, nine said it was\nmurder; two said it was manslaughter, and two said it was JUSTIFIABLE!\nHe was bound over to court, tried, and acquitted--not even fined!\"\n\n\nThe following fact is stated on the authority of Mr. WM. WILLIS,  of\nGreen Plains, Clark co. Ohio; formerly of Caroline co. on the eastern\nshore of Maryland.\n\n\"Mr. W. knew a slave called Peter White, who was sold to be taken to\nGeorgia; he escaped, and lived a long time in the woods--was finally\ntaken. When he found himself surrounded, he surrendered himself\nquietly. When his pursuers had him in their possession, they shot him\nin the leg, and broke it, out of mere wantonness. The next day a\nMethodist minister set his leg, and bound it up with splints. The man\nwho took him, then went into his place of confinement, wantonly jumped\nupon his leg and crushed it. His name was William Sparks.\"\n\n\nMost of our readers are familiar with the horrible atrocities\nperpetrated in New Orleans, in 1834, by a certain Madame La Laurie,\nupon her slaves. They were published extensively in northern\nnewspapers at the time. The following are extracts from the accounts\nas published in the New Orleans papers immediately after the\noccurrence. The New Orleans Bee says:--\n\n\"Upon entering one of the apartments, the most appalling spectacle met\ntheir eyes. Seven slaves, more or less horribly mutilated, were seen\nsuspended by the neck, with their limbs apparently stretched and torn,\nfrom one extremity to the other. They had been confined for several\nmonths in the situation from which they had thus providentially been\nrescued; and had been merely kept in existence to prolong their\nsufferings, and to make them taste all that a most refined cruelty\ncould inflict.\"\n\n\nThe New Orleans Mercantile Advertiser says:\n\n\"A negro woman was found chained, covered with bruises and wounds from\nsevere flogging.--All the apartments were then forced open. In a room\non the ground floor, two more were found chained, and in a deplorable\ncondition. Up stairs and in the garret, four more were found chained;\nsome so weak as to be unable to walk, and all covered with wounds and\nsores. One mulatto boy declares himself to have been chained for five\nmonths, being fed daily with only a handful of meal, and receiving\nevery morning the most cruel treatment.\"\n\n\nThe New Orleans Courier says:--\n\n\"We saw one of these miserable beings.--He had a large hole in his\nhead--his body, from head to foot, was covered with scars and filled\nwith worms.\"\n\n\nThe New Orleans Mercantile Advertiser says:\n\n\"Seven poor unfortunate slaves were found--some chained to the floor,\nothers with chains around their necks, fastened to the ceiling; and\none poor old man, upwards of sixty years of age, chained hand and\nfoot, and made fast to the floor, in a _kneeling position_. His head\nbore the appearance of having been beaten until it was broken, and the\nworms were actually to be seen making a feast of his brains!! A woman\nhad her back literally cooked (if the expression may be used) with the\nlash; _the very bones might be seen projecting through the skin!_\"\n\n\nThe New York Sun, of Feb. 21, 1837, contains the following:--\n\n\"Two negroes, runaways from Virginia, were overtaken a few days since\nnear Johnstown, Cambria co. Pa. when the persons in pursuit called out\nfor them to stop or they would shoot them.--One of the negroes turned\naround and said, he would die before he would be taken, and at the\nmoment received a rifle ball through his knee: the other started to\nrun, but was brought to the ground by a ball being shot in his back.\nAfter receiving the above wounds they made battle with their pursuers,\nbut were captured and brought into Johnstown. It is said that the\nyoung men who shot them had orders to take them dead or alive.\"\n\n\nMr. M.M. SHAFTER, of Townsend, Vermont, recently a graduate of the\nWesleyan University at Middletown, Connecticut, makes the following\nstatement:\n\n\"Some of the events of the Southampton, Va. insurrection were narrated\nto me by Mr. Benjamin W. Britt, from Riddicksville, N.C. Mr. Britt\nclaimed the honor of having shot a black on that occasion, for the\ncrime of disobeying Mr. Britt's imperative 'Stop.' And Mr. Ashurst, of\nEdenton, Georgia, told me that a neighbor of his 'fired at a likely\nnegro boy of his mother,' because the said boy encroached upon his\npremises.\"\n\n\nMr. DAVID HAWLEY, a class leader in the Methodist Episcopal Church at\nSt. Albans, Licking county, Ohio, who moved from Kentucky to Ohio in\n1831, certifies as follows:--\n\n\"About the year 1825, a slave had escaped for Canada, but was arrested\nin Hardin county. On his return, I saw him in Hart county--his wrists\ntied together before, his arms tied close to his body, the rope then\npassing behind his body, thence to the neck of a horse on which rode\nthe master, with a club about three feet long, and of the size of a\nhoe handle; which, by the appearance of the slave, had been used on\nhis head, so as to wear off the hair and skin in several places, and\nthe blood was running freely from his mouth and nose; his heels very\nmuch bruised by the horse's feet, as his master had rode on him\nbecause he _would_ not go fast enough. Such was the slave's appearance\nwhen passing through where I resided. Such cases were not unfrequent.\"\n\n\nThe following is furnished by Mr. F.A. HART, of Middletown,\nConnecticut, a manufacturer, and an influential member of the\nMethodist Episcopal Church. It occurred in 1824, about twenty-five\nmiles this side of Baltimore, Maryland.--\n\n\"I had spent the night with a Methodist brother; and while at\nbreakfast, a person came in and called for help. We went out and found\na crowd collected around a carriage. Upon approaching we discovered\nthat a slave-trader was endeavoring to force a woman into his\ncarriage. He had already put in three children, the youngest\napparently about eight years of age. The woman was strong, and\nwhenever he brought her to the side of the carriage, she resisted so\neffectually with her feet that he could not get her in. The woman\nbecoming exhausted, at length, by her frantic efforts, he thrust her\nin with great violence, _stamped her down upon the bottom with his\nfeet_! shouted to the driver to go on; and away they rolled, the\nmiserable captives moaning and shrieking, until their voices were lost\nin the distance.\"\n\n\nMr. SAMUEL HALL, a teacher in Marietta College, Ohio, writes as\nfollows:--\n\n\"Mr. ISAAC C. FULLER is a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church in\nMarietta. He was a fellow student of mine while in college, and now\nresides in this place. He says:--In 1832, as I was descending the Ohio\nwith a flat boat, near the 'French Islands,' so called, below\nCincinnati, I saw two negroes on horseback. The horses apparently took\nfright at something and ran. Both jumped over a rail fence; and one of\nthe horses, in so doing, broke one of his fore-legs, falling at the\nsame time and throwing the negro who was upon his back. A white man\ncame out of a house not over two hundred yards distant, and came to\nthe spot. Seizing a stake from the fence, he knocked the negro down\nfive or six times in succession.\n\n\"In the same year I worked for a Mr. Nowland, eleven miles above Baton\nRouge, La. at a place called 'Thomas' Bend.' He had an overseer who\nwas accustomed to flog more or less of the slaves every morning. I\nheard the blows and screams as regularly as we used to hear the\ncollege bell that summoned us to any duty when we went to school. This\noverseer was a nephew of Nowland, and there were about fifty slaves on\nhis plantation. Nowland himself related the following to me. One of\nhis slaves ran away, and came to the Homo Chitto river, where he found\nno means of crossing. Here he fell in with a white man who knew his\nmaster, being on a journey from that vicinity. He induced the slave to\nreturn to Baton Rouge, under the promise of giving him a pass, by\nwhich he might escape, but, in reality, to betray him to his master.\nThis he did, instead of fulfilling his promise. Nowland said that he\ntook the slave and inflicted five hundred lashes upon him, cutting his\nback all to pieces, and then thew on hot embers. The slave was on the\nplantation at the time, and told me the same story. He also rolled up\nhis sleeves, and showed me the scars on his arms, which, in\nconsequence, appeared in places to be callous to the bone. I was with\nNowland between five and six months.\"\n\n\nRev. JOHN RANKIN, formerly of Tennessee, now pastor of the\nPresbyterian Church of Ripley, Ohio, has furnished the following\nstatement:--\n\n\"The Rev. LUDWELL G. GAINES, now pastor of the Presbyterian Church of\nGoshen, Clermont county, Ohio, stated to me, that while a resident of\na slave state, he was summoned to assist in taking a man who had made\nhis black woman work naked several days, and afterwards murdered her.\nThe murderer armed himself, and threatened to shoot the officer who\nwent to take him; and although there was ample assistance at hand, the\nofficer declined further interference.\"\n\n\nMr. RANKIN adds the following:--\n\n\"A Presbyterian preacher, now resident in a slave state, and therefore\nit is not expedient to give his name, stated, that he saw on board of\na steamboat at Louisville, Kentucky, a woman who had been forced on\nboard, to be carried off from all she counted dear on earth. She ran\nacross the boat and threw herself into the river, in order to end a\nlife of intolerable sorrows. She was drawn back to the boat and taken\nup. The brutal driver beat her severely, and she immediately threw\nherself again into the river. She was hooked up again, chained, and\ncarried off.\"\n\n\nTestimony of M. WILLIAM HANSBOROUGH, of Culpepper county, Virginia,\nthe \"owner\" of sixty slaves.\n\n\"I saw a slave taken out of prison by his master, on a hot summer's\nday, and driven, by said master, on the road before him, till he\ndropped down dead.\"\n\n\nThe above statement was made by Mr. Hansborough to Lindley Coates, of\nLancaster county, Pa. a distinguished member of the Society of\nFriends, and a member of the late Convention in Pa. for altering the\nState Constitution. The letter from Mr. C. containing this testimony\nof Mr. H. is now before us.\n\n\nMr. TOBIAS BOUDINOT, a member of the Methodist Church in St. Albans,\nLicking county, Ohio, says:\n\n\"In Nicholasville, Ky. in the year 1823, he saw a slave fleeing before\nthe patrol, but he was overtaken near where he stood, and a man with a\nknotted cane, as large as his wrist, struck the slave a number of\ntimes on his head, until the club was broken and he made tame; the\nblood was thrown in every direction by the violence of the blows.\"\n\n\nThe Rev. WILLIAM DICKEY, of Bloomingburg, Fayette county, Ohio, wrote\na letter to the Rev. John Rankin, of Ripley, Ohio thirteen years\nsince, containing a description of the cutting up of a slave with a\nbroad axe; beginning at the feet and gradually cutting the legs, arms,\nand body into pieces! This diabolical atrocity was committed in the\nstate of Kentucky, in the year 1807. The perpetrators of the deed were\ntwo brothers, Lilburn and Isham Lewis, NEPHEWS OF PRESIDENT JEFFERSON.\nThe writer of this having been informed by Mr. Dickey, that some of\nthe facts connected with this murder were not contained in his letter\npublished by Mr. Rankin, requested him to write the account _anew_,\nand furnish the additional facts. This he did, and the letter\ncontaining it was published in the \"Human Rights\" for August, 1837. We\ninsert it here, slightly abridged, with the introductory remarks which\nappeared in that paper.\n\n\"Mr. Dickey's first letter has been scattered all over the country,\nsouth and north; and though multitudes have affected to disbelieve its\nstatements, _Kentuckians_ know the truth of them quite too well to\ncall them in question. The story is fiction or fact--if _fiction_, why\nhas it not been nailed to the wall? Hundreds of people around the\nmouth of Cumberland River are personally knowing to these facts.\n_There_ are the records of the court that tried the wretches.--_There_\ntheir acquaintances and kindred still live. All over that region of\ncountry, the brutal butchery of George is a matter of public\nnotoriety. It is quite needless, perhaps, to add, that the Rev. Wm.\nDickey is a Presbyterian clergyman, one of the oldest members of the\nChilicothe Presbytery, and greatly respected and beloved by the\nchurches in Southern Ohio. He was born in South Carolina, and was for\nmany years pastor of a church in Kentucky.\"\n\nREV. WM. DICKEY'S LETTER.\n\n\"In the county of Livingston, KY. near the mouth of Cumberland River,\nlived Lilburn Lewis, a sister's son of the celebrated Jefferson. He\nwas the wealthy owner of a considerable gang of negroes, whom he drove\nconstantly, fed sparingly, and lashed severely. The consequence was,\nthat they would run away. Among the rest was an ill-thrived boy of\nabout seventeen, who, having just returned from a skulking spell, was\nsent to the spring for water, and in returning let fall an elegant\npitcher: it was dashed to shivers upon the rocks. This was made the\noccasion for reckoning with him. It was night, and the slaves were all\nat home. The master had them all collected in the most roomy negro\nhouse, and a rousing fire put on. When the door was secured, that none\nmight escape, either through _fear of him_ or _sympathy with George_,\nhe opened to them the design of the interview, namely, that they might\nbe effectually advised to _stay at home and obey his orders_. All\nthings now in train, he called up George, who approached his master\nwith unreserved submission. He bound him with cords; and by the\nassistance of Isham Lewis, his youngest brother, laid him on a broad\nbench, the _meat-block_. He then proceeded to _hack off George at the\nankles_! It was with the _broad axe_! In vain did the unhappy victim\n_scream and roar_! for he was completely in his master's power; not a\nhand among so many durst interfere; casting the feet into the fire, he\nlectured them at some length.--He next _chopped him off below the\nknees_! George _roaring out_ and praying his master to begin at the\n_other end_! He admonished them again, throwing the legs into the\nfire--then, above the knees, tossing the joints into the fire--the\nnext stroke severed the thighs from the body; these were also\ncommitted to the flames--and so it may be said of the arms, head, and\ntrunk, until all was in the fire! He threatened any of them with\nsimilar punishment who should in future disobey, run away, or disclose\nthe proceedings of that evening. Nothing now remained but to consume\nthe flesh and bones; and for this purpose the fire was brightly\nstirred until two hours after midnight; when a coarse and heavy\nback-wall, composed of rock and clay, covered the fire and the remains\nof George. It was the Sabbath--this put an end to the _amusements_ of\nthe evening. The negroes were now permitted to disperse, with charges\nto keep this matter among themselves, and never to whisper it in the\nneighbourhood, under the penalty of a like punishment.\n\n\"When he returned home and retired, his wife exclaimed, 'Why, Mr.\nLewis, where have you been, and what were you doing?' She had heard a\nstrange _pounding_ and dreadful _screams_, and had smelled something\nlike fresh meat _burning_. The answer he returned was, that he had\nnever enjoyed himself at a ball so well as he had enjoyed himself that\nnight.\n\n\"Next morning he ordered the hands to rebuild the back-wall, and he\nhimself superintended the work, throwing the pieces of flesh that\nstill remained, with the bones, behind, as it went up--thus hoping to\nconceal the matter. But it _could not be hid_--much as the negroes\nseemed to hazard, they did _whisper the horrid deed_. The neighbors\ncame, and in his presence tore down the wall; and finding the\n_remains_ of the boy, they apprehended Lewis and his brother, and\ntestified against them. They were committed to jail, that they might\nanswer at the coming court for this shocking outrage; but finding\nsecurity for their appearance at court, THEY WERE ADMITTED TO BAIL!\n\n\"In the interim, other articles of evidence leaked out. That of Mrs.\nLewis hearing a pounding, and screaming and her smelling fresh meat\nburning, for not till now had this come out. He was offended with her\nfor disclosing these things, alleging that they might have some weight\nagainst him at the pending trial.\n\n\"In connection with this is another item, full of horror. Mr.s. Lewis,\nor her girl, in making her bed one morning after this, found, under\nher bolster, a keen BUTCHER KNIFE! The appalling discovery forced from\nher the confession that she considered her life in jeopardy. Messrs.\nRice and Philips, whose wives were her sisters, went to see her and to\nbring her away if she wished it. Mr. Lewis received them with all the\nexpressions of _Virginia hospitality_. As soon as they were seated\nthey said, 'Well, Letitia, we supposed that you might be unhappy here,\nand afraid for your life; and we have come to-day to take you to your\nfather's, if you desire it.' She said, 'Thank you, kind brothers, I am\nindeed afraid for my life.'--We need not interrupt the story to tell\nhow much surprised he affected to be with this strange procedure of\nhis brothers-in-law, and with this declaration of his wife. But all\nhis professions of fondness for her, to the contrary notwithstanding,\nthey rode off with her before his eyes.--He followed and overtook, and\nwent with them to her father's; but she was locked up from him, with\nher own consent, and he returned home.\n\n\"Now he saw that his character was gone, his respectable friends\nbelieved that he had massacred George; but, worst of all, he saw that\nthey considered the life of the harmless Letitia was in danger from\nhis perfidious hands. It was too much for his chivalry to sustain. The\nproud Virginian sunk under the accumulated load of public odium. He\nproposed to his brother Isham, who had been his accomplice in the\nGeorge affair, that they should finish the play of life with a still\ndeeper tragedy. The plan was, that they should shoot one another.\nHaving made the hot-brained bargain, they repaired with their guns to\nthe grave-yard, which was on an eminence in the midst of his\nplantation. It was inclosed with a railing, say thirty feet square.\nOne was to stand at one railing, and the other over against him at the\nother. They were to make ready, take aim, and count deliberately 1, 2,\n3, and then fire. Lilburn's will was written, and thrown down open\nbeside him. They cocked their guns and raised them to their faces; but\nthe peradventure occurring that one of the guns might miss fire, Isham\nwas sent for a rod, and when it was brought, Lilburn cut it off at\nabout the length of two feet, and was showing his brother how the\nsurvivor might do, provided one of the guns should fail; (for they\nwere determined upon going together;) but forgetting, perhaps, in the\nperturbation of the moment that the gun was cocked, when he touched\ntrigger with the rod the gun fired, and he fell, and died in a few\nminutes--and was with George in the eternal world, where _the slave is\nfree from his master_. But poor Isham was so terrified with this\nunexpected occurrence and so confounded by the awful contortions of\nhis brother's face, that he had not nerve enough to follow up the\nplay, and finish the plan as was intended, but suffered Lilburn to go\nalone. The negroes came running to see what it meant that a gun should\nbe fired in the grave-yard. There lay their master, dead! They ran for\nthe neighbors. Isham still remained on the spot. The neighbors at the\nfirst charged him with the murder of his brother. But he, though as if\nhe had lost more than half his mind, told the whole story; and the\ncourse of range of the ball in the dead man's body agreeing with his\nstatement, Isham was not farther charged with Lilburn's death.\n\n\"The Court sat--Isham was judged to be guilty of a capital crime in\nthe affair of George. He was to be hanged at Salem. The day was set.\nMy good old father visited him in the prison--two or three times\ntalked and prayed with him; I visited him once myself. We fondly hoped\nthat he was a sincere penitent. Before the day of execution came, by\nsome means, I never knew what, Isham was _missing_. About two years\nafter, we learned that he had gone down to Natchez, and had married a\nlady of some refinement and piety. I saw her letters to his sisters,\nwho were worthy members of the church of which I was pastor. The last\nletter told of his death. He was in Jackson's army, and fell in the\nfamous battle of New Orleans.\"\n\n\"I am, sir, your friend,\n\n\"WM. DICKEY.\"\n\n\n\nPERSONAL NARRATIVES-PART III.\n\n\nNARRATIVE AND TESTIMONY OF REV. FRANCIS HAWLEY.\n\nMr. Hawley is the pastor of the Baptist Church in Colebrook,\nLitchfield county, Connecticut. He has resided fourteen years in the\nslave states, North and South Carolina. His character and standing\nwith his own denomination at the south, may be inferred from the\nfact, that the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina appointed\nhim, a few years since, their general agent to visit the Baptist\nchurches within their bounds, and to secure their co-operation in\nthe objects of the Convention. Mr. H. accepted the appointment, and\nfor some time traveled in that capacity.\n\n\"I rejoice that the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety have resolved to publish a volume of facts and testimony\nrelative to the character and workings of American slavery. Having\nresided fourteen years at the south, I cheerfully comply with your\nrequest, to give the result of my observation and experience.\n\n\"And I would here remark, that one may reside at the south for years,\nand not witness extreme cruelties; a northern man, and one who is not\na slaveholder, would be the last to have an opportunity of witnessing\nthe infliction of cruel punishments.\"\n\n\nPLANTATIONS.\n\n\"A majority of the large plantations are on the banks of rivers, far\nfrom the public eye. A great deal of low marshy ground lies in the\nvicinity of most of the rivers at the south; consequently the main\nroads are several miles from the rivers, and generally no _public_\nroad passes the plantations. A stranger traveling on the _ridge_,\nwould think himself in a miserably poor country; but every two or\nthree miles he will see a road turning off and leading into the swamp;\ntaking one of those roads, and traveling from two to six miles, he\nwill come to a large gate; passing which, he will find himself in a\nclearing of several hundred acres of the first quality of land;\npassing on, he will see 30, or 40, or more slaves--men, women, boys\nand girls, at their task, every one with a hoe; or, if in cotton\npicking season, with their baskets. The overseer, with his whip,\neither riding or standing about among them; or if the weather is hot,\nsitting under a shade. At a distance, on a little rising ground, if\nsuch there be, he will see a cluster of huts, with a tolerable house\nin the midst, for the overseer. Those huts are from ten to fifteen\nfeet square, built of logs, and covered, not with shingles, but with\nboards, about four feet long, split out of pine timber with a\n'_frow_'. The floors are very commonly made in this way. Clay is first\nworked until it is soft; it is then spread upon the ground, about four\nor five inches thick; when it dries, it becomes nearly as hard as a\nbrick. The crevices between the logs are sometimes filled with the\nsame. These huts generally cost the master nothing--they are commonly\nbuilt by the negroes at night, and on Sundays. When a slave of a\nneighboring plantation takes a wife, or to use the phrase common at\nthe south, 'takes up' with one of the women, he builds a hut, and it\nis called her house. Upon entering these huts, (not as comfortable in\nmany instances as the horse stable,) generally, you will find no\nchairs, but benches and stools; no table, no bedstead, and no bed,\nexcept a blanket or two, and a few rags or moss; in some instances a\nknife or two, but very rarely a fork. You may also find a pot or\nskillet, and generally a number of gourds, which serve them instead of\nbowls and plates. The cruelties practiced on those secluded\nplantations, the judgment day alone can reveal. Oh, Brother, could I\nsummon ten slaves from ten plantations that I could name, and have\nthem give but one year's history of their bondage, it would thrill the\nland with horror. Those overseers who follow the business of\noverseeing for a livelihood, are generally the most unprincipled and\nabandoned of men. Their wages are regulated according to their skill\nin extorting labor. The one who can make the most bags of cotton, with\na given number of hands, is the one generally sought after; and there\nis a competition among them to see who shall make the largest crop,\naccording to the hands he works. I ask, what must be the condition of\nthe poor slaves, under the unlimited power of such men, in whom, by\nthe long-continued practise of the most heart-rending cruelties, every\nfeeling of humanity has been obliterated? But it may be asked, cannot\nthe slaves have redress by appealing to their masters? In many\ninstances it is impossible, as their masters live hundreds of miles\noff. There are perhaps thousands in the northern slave states, [and\nmany in the free states,] who own plantations in the southern slave\nstates, and many more spend their summers at the north, or at the\nvarious watering places. But what would the slaves gain, if they\nshould appeal to the master? He has placed the overseer over them,\nwith the understanding that he will make as large a crop as possible,\nand that he is to have entire control, and manage them according to\nhis own judgment. Now suppose that in the midst of the season, the\nslaves make complaint of cruel treatment. The master cannot get along\nwithout an overseer--it is perhaps very sickly on the plantation he\ndare not risk his own life there. Overseers are all enraged at that\nseason, and if he takes part with his slave against the overseer, he\nwould destroy his authority, and very likely provoke him to leave his\nservice--which would of course be a very great injury to him. Thus, in\nnineteen cases out of twenty, self-interest would prevent the master\nfrom paying any attention to the complaints of his slaves. And, if any\nshould complain, it would of course come to the ears of the overseer,\nand the complainant would be inhumanly punished for it.\"\n\n\nCLOTHING.\n\n\"The rule, where slaves are hired out, is two suits of clothes per\nyear, one pair of shoes, and one blanket; but as it relates to the\ngreat body of the slaves, this cannot be called a general rule. On\nmany plantations, the children under ten or twelve years old, go\n_entirely naked_--or, it clothed at all, they have nothing more than a\nshirt. The cloth is of the coarsest kind, far from being durable or\nwarm; and their shoes frequently come to pieces in a few weeks. I\nhave never known any provision made, or time allowed for the washing\nof clothes. If they wish to wash, as they have generally but one suit,\nthey go after their day's toil to some stream, build a fire, pull off\ntheir clothes and wash them in the stream, and dry them by the fire;\nand in some instances they wear their clothes until they are worn off;\nwithout washing. I have never known an instance of a slaveholder\nputting himself to any expense, that his slaves might have decent\nclothes for the Sabbath. If by making baskets, brooms, mats, &c. at\nnight or on Sundays, the slaves can get money enough to buy a Sunday\nsuit, very well. I have never known an instance of a slaveholder\nfurnishing his slaves with stockings or mittens. I _know_ that the\nslaves suffer much, and no doubt many die in consequence of not being\nwell clothed.\"\n\n\nFOOD.\n\n\"In the grain-growing part of the south, the slaves, as it relates to\nfood, fare tolerably well; but in the cotton, and rice-growing, and\nsugar-making portion, some of them fare badly. I have been on\nplantations where, from the appearance of the slaves, I should judge\nthey were half-starved. They receive their allowance very commonly on\nSunday morning. They are left to cook it as they please, and when they\nplease. Many slaveholders rarely give their slaves meat, and very few\ngive them more food than will keep them in a working condition. They\nrarely ever have a _change_ of food. I have never known an instance of\nslaves on plantations being furnished either with sugar, butter,\ncheese, or milk.\"\n\n\nWORK.\n\n\"If the slaves on plantations were well fed and clothed, and had the\nstimulus of wages, they could perhaps in general perform their tasks\nwithout injury. The horn is blown soon after the dawn of day, when all\nthe hands destined for the field must be 'on the march!' If the field\nis far from their huts, they take their breakfast with them. They toil\ntill about ten o'clock, when they eat it. They then continue their\ntoil till the sun is set.\n\n\"A neighbor of mine, who has been an overseer in Alabama, informs me,\nthat there they ascertain how much labor a slave can perform in a day,\nin the following manner. When they commence a new cotton field, the\noverseer takes his watch, and marks how long it takes them to hoe one\nrow, and then lays out the task accordingly. My neighbor also informs\nme, that the slaves in Alabama are worked very hard; that the lash is\nalmost universally applied at the close of the day, if they fail to\nperform their task in the cotton-picking season. You will see them,\nwith their baskets of cotton, slowly bending their way to the cotton\nhouse, where each one's basket is weighed. They have no means of\nknowing accurately, in the course of the day, how they make progress;\nso that they are in suspense, until their basket is weighed. Here\ncomes the mother, with her children; she does not know whether\nherself, or children, or all of them, must take the lash; they cannot\nweigh the cotton themselves--the whole must be trusted to the\noverseer. While the weighing goes on, all is still. So many pounds\nshort, cries the overseer, and takes up his whip, exclaiming, 'Step\nthis way, you d--n lazy scoundrel, or bitch.' The poor slave begs, and\npromises, but to no purpose. The lash is applied until the overseer is\nsatisfied. Sometimes the whipping is deferred until the weighing is\nall over. I have said that all must be _trusted_ to the overseer. If\nhe owes any one a grudge, or wishes to enjoy the fiendish pleasure of\nwhipping a little, (for some overseers really delight in it,) they\nhave only to tell a falsehood relative to the weight of their basket;\nthey can then have a pretext to gratify their diabolical disposition;\nand from the character of overseers, I have no doubt that it is\nfrequently done. On all plantations, the male and female slaves fare\npretty much alike; those who are with child are driven to their task\ntill within a few days of the time of their delivery; and when the\nchild is a few weeks old, the mother must again go to the field. If it\nis far from her hut, she must take her babe with her, and leave it in\nthe care of some of the children--perhaps of one not more than four or\nfive years old. If the child cries, she cannot go to its relief; the\neye of the overseer is upon her; and if, when she goes to nurse it,\nshe stays a little longer than the overseer thinks necessary, he\ncommands her back to her task, and perhaps a husband and father must\nhear and witness it all. Brother, you cannot begin to know what the\npoor slave mothers suffer, on thousands of plantations at the south.\n\n\"I will now give a few facts, showing the workings of the system. Some\nyears since, a Presbyterian minister moved from North Carolina to\nGeorgia. He had a negro man of an uncommon mind. For some cause, I\nknow not what, this minister whipped him most unmercifully. He next\nnearly _drowned_ him; he then put him _in the fence_; this is done by\nlifting up the corner of a 'worm' fence, and then putting the feet\nthrough; the rails serve as _stocks_. He kept him there some time, how\nlong I was not informed, but the poor slave _died_ in a few days; and,\nif I was rightly informed, nothing was done about it, either in church\nor state. After some tame, he moved back to North Carolina, and is now\na member of ---- Presbytery. I have heard him preach, and have been in\nthe pulpit with him. May God forgive me!\n\n\"At Laurel Hill, Richmond county, North Carolina, it was reported that\na runaway slave was in the neighborhood. A number of young men took\ntheir guns, and went in pursuit. Some of them took their station near\nthe stage road, and kept on the look-out. It was early in the\nevening--the poor slave came along, when the ambush rushed upon him,\nand ordered him to surrender. He refused, and kept them off with his\nclub. They still pressed upon him with their guns presented to his\nbreast. Without seeming to be daunted, he caught hold of the muzzle of\none of the guns, and came near getting possession of it. At length,\nretreating to a fence on one side of the road, he sprang over into a\ncorn-field, and started to run in one of the rows. One of the young\nmen stepped to the fence, fired, and lodged the whole charge between\nhis shoulders; he fell, and died in a short time. He died without\ntelling who his master was, or whether he had any, or what his own\nname was, or where he was from. A hole was dug by the side of the road\nhis body tumbled into it, and thus ended the whole matter.\n\n\"The Rev, Mr. C. a Methodist minister, held as his slave a negro man,\nwho was a member of his own church. The slave was considered a very\npious man, had the confidence of his master, and all who knew him, and\nif I recollect right, he sometimes attempted to preach. Just before\nthe Nat Turner insurrection, in Southampton county, Virginia, by which\nthe whole south was thrown into a panic, then worthy slave obtained\npermission to visit his relatives, who resided either in Southampton,\nor the county adjoining. This was the only instance that ever came to\nmy knowledge, of a slave being permitted to go so far to visit his\nrelatives. He went and returned according to agreement. A few weeks\nafter his return, the insurrection took place, and the whole country\nwas deeply agitated. Suspicion soon fixed on this slave. Nat Turner\nwas a Baptist minister, and the south became exceedingly jealous of\nall negro preachers. It seemed as if the whole community were\nimpressed with the belief that he knew all about it; that he and Nat\nTurner had concocted an extensive insurrection; and so confident were\nthey in this belief, that they took the poor slave, tried him, and\nhung him. It was all done in a few days. He protested his innocence to\nthe last. After the excitement was over, many were ready to\nacknowledge that they believed him innocent. He was hung upon\n_suspicion_!\n\n\"In R---- county, North Carolina, lived a Mr. B. who had the name of\nbeing a cruel master. Three or four winters since, his slaves were\nengaged in clearing a piece of new land. He had a negro girl, about 14\nyears old, whom he had severely whipped a few days before, for not\nperforming her task. She again failed. The hands left the field for\nhome; she went with them a part of the way, and fell behind; but the\nnegroes thought she would soon be along; the evening passed away, and\nshe did not come. They finally concluded that she had gone back to the\nnew ground, to lie by the log heaps that were on fire. But they were\nmistaken: she had sat down by the foot of a large pine. She was thinly\nclad--the night was cold and rainy. In the morning the poor girl was\nfound, but she was speechless and died in a short time.\n\n\"One of my neighbors sold to a speculator a negro boy, about 14 years\nold. It was more than his poor mother could bear. Her reason fled, and\nshe became a perfect _maniac_, and had to be kept in close\nconfinement. She would occasionally get out and run off to the\nneighbors. On one of these occasions she came to my house. She was\nindeed a pitiable object. With tears rolling down her checks, and her\nframe shaking with agony, she would cry out, _'don't you hear\nhim--they are whipping him now, and he is calling for me!'_ This\nneighbor of mine, who tore the boy away from his poor mother, and thus\nbroke her heart, was a _member of the Presbyterian church._\n\n\"Mr. S----, of Marion District, South Carolina, informed me that a boy\nwas killed by the overseer on Mr. P----'s plantation. The boy was\nengaged in driving the horses in a cotton gin. The driver generally\nsits on the end of the sweep. Not driving to suit the overseer, he\nknocked him off with the butt of his whip. His skull was fractured. He\ndied in a short time.\n\n\"A man of my acquaintance in South Carolina, and of considerable\nwealth, had an only son, whom he educated for the bar; but not\nsucceeding in his profession, he soon returned home. His father having\na small plantation three or four miles off; placed his son on it as an\noverseer. Following the example of his father, as I have good reason\nto believe, he took the wife of one of the negro men. The poor slave\nfelt himself greatly injured, and expostulated with him. The wretch\ntook his gun, and deliberately shot him. Providentially he only\nwounded him badly. When the father came, and undertook to remonstrate\nwith his son about his conduct, he threatened to shoot him also! and\nfinally, took the negro woman, and went to Alabama, where he still\nresided when I left the south.\n\n\"An elder in the Presbyterian church related to me the following.--'A\nspeculator with his drove of negroes was passing my house, and I\nbought a little girl, nine or ten years old. After a few months, I\nconcluded that I would rather have a plough-boy. Another speculator\nwas passing, and I sold the girl. She was much distressed, and was\nvery unwilling to leave.'--She had been with him long enough to become\nattached to his own and his negro children, and he concluded by\nsaying, that in view of the little girl's tears and cries, he had\ndetermined never to do the like again. I would not trust him, for I\nknow him to be a very avaricious man.\n\n\"While traveling in Anson county, North Carolina, I put up for a night\nat a private house. The man of the house was not at home when I\nstopped, but came in the course of the evening, and was noisy and\nprofane, and nearly drunk. I retired to rest, but not to sleep; his\ncursing and swearing were enough to keep a regiment awake. About\nmidnight he went to his kitchen, and called out his two slaves, a man\nand woman. His object, he said, was to whip them. They both begged and\npromised, but to no purpose. The whipping began, and continued for\nsome time. Their cries might have been heard at a distance.\n\n\"I was acquainted with a very wealthy planter, on the Pedee river, in\nSouth Carolina, who has since died in consequence of intemperance. It\nwas said that he had occasioned the death of twelve of his slaves, by\ncompelling them to work in water, opening a ditch in the midst of\nwinter. The disease with which they died was a pleurisy.\n\n\"In crossing Pedee river, at Cashway Ferry, I observed that the\nferryman had no hair on either side of his head, I asked him the\ncause. He informed me that it was caused by his master's cane. I said,\nyou have a very bad master. 'Yes, a very bad master.' I understood\nthat he was once a number of Congress from South Carolina.\n\n\"While traveling as agent for the North Carolina Baptist State\nConvention, I attended a three days' meeting in Gates county, Friday,\nthe first day, passed off. Saturday morning came, and the pastor of\nthe church, who lived a few miles off, did not make his appearance.\nThe day passed off, and no news from the pastor. On Sabbath morning,\nhe came hobbling along, having but little use of one foot. He soon\nexplained: said he had a hired negro man, who, on Saturday morning,\ngave him a 'little _slack jaw.'_ Not having a stick at hand, he fell\nupon him with his fist and foot, and in _kicking_ him, he injured his\nfoot so seriously, that he could not attend meeting on Saturday.\n\n\"Some of the slaveholding ministers at the south, put their slaves\nunder overseers, or hire them out, and then take the pastoral care of\nchurches. The Rev. Mr. B----, formerly of Pennsylvania, had a\nplantation in Marlborough District, South Carolina, and was the pastor\nof a church in Darlington District. The Rev. Mr. T----, of Johnson\ncounty, North Carolina, has a plantation in Alabama.\n\n\"I was present, and saw the Rev. J---- W----, of Mecklenburg county,\nNorth Carolina, hire out four slaves to work in the gold mines is\nBurke county. The Rev. H---- M----, of Orange county, sold for $900, a\nnegro man to a speculator, on a Monday of a camp meeting.\n\n\"Runaway slaves are frequently hunted with guns and dogs. _I was once\nout on such an excursion, with my rifle and two dogs._ I trust the\nLord has forgiven me this heinous wickedness! We did not take the\nrunaways.\n\n\"Slaves are sometimes most unmercifully punished for trifling\noffences, or mere mistakes.\n\n\"As it relates to amalgamation, I can say, that I have been in\nrespectable families, (so called,) where I could distinguish the\nfamily resemblance in the slaves who waited upon the table. I once\nhired a slave who belonged to his own _uncle._ It is so common for the\nfemale slaves to have white children, that little or nothing is ever\nsaid about it. Very few inquiries are made as to who the father is.\n\n\"Thus, brother ----, I have given you very briefly, the result, in\npart, of my observations and experience relative to slavery. You can\nmake what disposition of it you please. I am willing that my name\nshould go to the world with what I have now written.\n\n\"Yours affectionately, for the oppressed,\n\n\"FRANCIS HAWLEY.\"\n\n_Colebrook, Connecticut, March_ 18, 1839.\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REUBEN G. MACY AND RICHARD MACY.\n\n\nThe following is an extract of a letter recently received from CHARLES\nMARRIOTT of Hudson, New York. Mr. Marriott is an elder in the\nReligious Society of Friends, and is extensively known and respected.\n\n\"The two following brief statements, are furnished by Richard Macy and\nReuben G. Macy, brothers, both of Hudson, New York. They are head\ncarpenters by trade, and have been well known to me for more than\nthirty years, as esteemed members of the Religious Society of Friends.\nThey inform me that during their stay in South Carolina, a number more\nsimilar cases to those here related, came under their notice, which to\navoid repetition they omit.\n\nC. MARRIOTT.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REUBEN G. MACY.\n\n\"During the winter of 1818 and 19, I resided on an island near the\nmouth of the Savanna river, on the South Carolina side. Most of the\nslaves that came under my particular notice, belonged to a widow and\nher daughter, in whose family I lived. No white man belonged to the\nplantation. Her slaves were under the care of an overseer who came\nonce a week to give orders, and settled the score laid up against such\nas their mistress thought deserved punishment, which was from\ntwenty-five to thirty lashes on their naked backs, with a whip which\nthe overseer generally brought with him. This whip had a stout handle\nabout two feet long, and a lash about four and a half feet. From two\nto four received the above, I believe nearly every week during the\nwinter, sometimes in my presence, and always in my hearing. I examined\nthe backs and shoulders of a number of the men, which were mostly\nnaked while they were about their labor, and found them covered with\nhard ridges in every direction. One day, while busy in the cotton\nhouse, hearing a noise, I ran to the door and saw a colored woman\npleading with the overseer, who paid no attention to her cries, but\ntied her hands together, and passed the rope over a beam, over head,\nwhere was a platform for spreading cotton, he then drew the rope as\ntight as he could, so as to let her toes touch the ground; then\nstripped her body naked to the waist, and went deliberately to work\nwith his whip, and put on twenty-five or thirty lashes, she pleading\nin vain all the time. I inquired, the cause of such treatment, and was\ninformed it was for answering her mistress rather '_short_.'\"\n\n\"A woman from a neighboring plantation came where I was, on a visit;\nshe came in a boat rowed by six slaves, who, according to the common\npractice, were left to take care of themselves, and having laid them\ndown in the boat and fallen asleep, the tide fell, and the water\nfilling the stern of the boat, wet their mistresses trunk of clothes.\nWhen she discovered it, she called them up near where I was, and\ncompelled them to whip each other, till they all had received a severe\nflogging. She standing by with a whip in her hand to see that they did\nnot spare each other. Their usual allowance of food was one peck of\ncorn per week, which was dealt out to them every first day of the\nweek, and such as were not there to receive their portion at the\nappointed time, had to live as they could during the coming week. Each\none had the privilege of planting a small piece of ground, and raising\npoultry for their own use which they generally sold, that is, such as\ndid improve the privilege which were but few. They had nothing allowed\nthem besides the corn, except one quarter of beef at Christmas which a\nslave brought three miles on his head. They were allowed three days\nrest at Christmas. Their clothing consisted of a pair of trowsers and\njacket, made of whitish woollen cloth called negro cloth. The women\nhad nothing but a petticoat, and a very short short-gown, made of the\nsame king of cloth. Some of the women had an old pair of shoes, but\nthey generally went _barefoot_. The houses for the field slaves were\nabout fourteen feet square, built in the coarsest manner, having but\none room, without any chimney, or flooring, with a hole at the roof at\none end to let the smoke out.\n\n\"Each one was allowed one blanket in which they rolled themselves up.\nI examined their houses but could not discover any thing like a bed. I\nwas informed that when they had a sufficiency of potatoes the slaves\nwere allowed some; but the season that I was there they did not raise\nmore than were wanted for seed. All their corn was ground in one\nhand-mill, every night just as much as was necessary for the family,\nthen each one his daily portion, which took considerable time in the\nnight. I often awoke and heard the sound of the mill. Grinding the\ncorn in the night, and in the dark, after their day's labor, and the\nwant of other food, were great hardships.\n\n\"The traveling in those parts, among the islands, was altogether with\nboats, rowed by from four to ten slaves, which often stopped at our\nplantation, and staid through the night, when the slaves, after rowing\nthrough the day, were left to shift for themselves; and when they went\nto Savannah with a load of cotton the were obliged to sleep in the\nopen boats, as the law did not allow a colored person to be out after\neight o'clock in the evening, without a pass from his master.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF RICHARD MACY.\n\n\"The above account is from my brother, I was at work on Hilton Head\nabout twenty miles north of my brother, during the same winter. The\nsame allowance of one peck of corn for a week, the same kind of houses\nto live in, and the same method of grinding their corn, and always in\nthe night, and in the dark, was practiced there.\n\n\"A number of instances of severe whipping came under my notice. The\nfirst was this:--two men were sent out to saw some blocks out of large\nlive oak timber on which to raise my building. Their saw was in poor\norder, and they sawed them badly, for which their master stripped them\nnaked and flogged them.\n\n\"The next instance was a boy about sixteen years of age. He had crept\ninto the coach to sleep; after two or three nights he was caught by\nthe coach driver, a _northern man_, and stripped _entirely naked_, and\nwhipped without mercy, his master looking on.\n\n\"Another instance. The overseer, a young white man, had ordered\nseveral negroes a boat's crew, to be on the spot at a given time. One\nman did not appear until the boat had gone. The overseer was very\nangry and told him to strip and be flogged; he being slow, was told if\nhe did not instantly strip off his jacket, he, the overseer, would\nwhip it off which he did in shreds, whipping him cruelly.\n\n\"The man ran into the barrens and it was about a month before they\ncaught him. He was newly starved, and at last stole a turkey; then\nanother, and was caught.\n\n\"Having occasion to pass a plantation very early one foggy morning, in\na boat we heard the sound of the whip, before we could see, but as we\ndrew up in front of the plantation, we could see the negroes at work\nin the field. The overseer was going from one to the other causing\nthem to lay down their hoe, strip off their garment, hold up their\nhands and receive their number of lashes. Thus he went on from one to\nthe other until we were out of sight. In the course of the winter a\nfamily came where I was, on a visit from a neighboring island; of\ncourse, in a boat with negroes to row them--one of these a barber,\ntold me that he ran away about two years before, and joined a company\nof negroes who had fled to the swamps. He said they suffered a great\ndeal--were at last discovered by a party of hunters, who fired among\nthem, and caused them to scatter. Himself and one more fled to the\ncoast, took a boat and put off to sea, a storm came on and swamped or\nupset them, and his partner was drowned, he was taken up by a passing\nvessel and returned to his master.\n\nRICHARD MACY.\n\n_Hudson, 12 mo. 29th_, 1838.\"\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MR. ELEAZAR POWELL\n\n\nEXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MR. WILLIAM SCOTT, a highly respectable\ncitizen of Beaver co. Pennsylvania, dated Jan 7, 1839.\n\n_Chippeca Township, Beaver co. Pa. Jan._ 7, 1839.\n\n\"I send you the statement of Mr. Eleazar Powell, who was born, and has\nmostly resided in this township from his birth. His character for\nsobriety and truth stands above impeachment.\n\n\"With sentiments of esteem,\nI am your friend,\nWILLIAM SCOTT.\n\n\"In the month of December, 1836, I went to the State of Mississippi to\nwork at my trade, (masonry and bricklaying,) and continued to work in\nthe counties of Adams and Jefferson, between four and five months. In\nfollowing my business I had an opportunity of seeing the treatment of\nslaves in several places.\n\n\"In Adams county I built a chimney for a man named Joseph Gwatney; he\nhad forty-five field hands of both sexes. The field in which they\nworked at that time, lay about two miles from the house; the hands had\nto cook and eat their breakfast, prepare their dinner, and be in the\nfield at daylight, and continue there till dark. In the evening the\ncotton they had picked was weighed, and if they fell short of their\ntask they were whipped. One night I attended the weighing--two women\nfell short of their task, and the master ordered the black driver to\ntake them to the quarters and flog them; one of them was to receive\ntwenty-five lashes and pick a peck of cotton seed. I have been with\nthe overseer several times through the negro quarters. The huts are\ngenerally built of split timber, some larger than rails, twelve and a\nhalf feet wide and fourteen feet long--some with and some without\nchimneys, and generally without floors; they were generally without\ndaubing, and mostly had split clapboards nailed on the cracks on the\noutside, though some were without even that: in some there was a kind\nof rough bedstead, made from rails, polished with the axe, and put\ntogether in a very rough manner, the bottom covered with clapboards,\nand over that a bundle of worn out clothes. In some huts there was no\nbedstead at all. The above description applies to the places generally\nwith which I was acquainted, and they were mostly _old settlements._\n\n\"In the east part of Jefferson county I built a chimney for a man\nnamed ---- M'Coy; he had forty-seven laboring hands. Near where I was\nat work, M'Coy had ordered one of his slaves to set a post for a gate.\nWhen he came to look at it, he said the slave had not set it in the\nright place; and ordered him to strip, and lie down on his face;\ntelling him that if he struggled, or attempted to get up, two men, who\nhad been called to the spot, should seize and hold him fast. The slave\nagreed to be quiet, and M'Coy commenced flogging him on the bare back,\nwith the wagon whip. After some time the sufferer attempted to get up;\none of the slaves standing by, seized him by the feet and held him\nfast; upon which he yielded, and M'Coy continued to flog him ten or\nfifteen minutes. When he was up, and had put on his trowsers, the\nblood came through them.\n\n\"About half a mile from M'Coy's was a plantation owned by his\nstep-daughter. The overseer's name was James Farr, of whom it appears\nMrs. M'Coy's waiting woman was enamoured. One night, while I lived\nthere, M'Coy came from Natchez, about 10 o'clock at night. He said\nthat Dinah was gone, and wished his overseer to go with him to Farr's\nlodgings. They went accordingly, one to each door, and caught Dinah as\nshe ran out, she was partly dressed in her mistress's clothes; M'Coy\nwhipped her unmercifully, and she afterwards made her escape. On the\nnext day, (Sabbath), M'Coy came to the overseer's, where I lodged, and\nrequested him and me to look for her, as he was afraid that she had\nhanged herself. He then gave me the particulars of the flogging. He\nstated that near Farr's he had made her strip and lie down, and had\nflogged her until he was tired; that before he reached home he had a\nsecond time made her strip, and again flogged her until he was tired;\nthat when he reached home he had tied her to a peach-tree, and after\ngetting a drink had flogged her until he was thirsty again; and while\nhe went to get a drink the woman made her escape. He stated that he\nknew, from the whipping he had given her, there must be in her back\ncuts an inch deep. He showed the place where she had been tied to the\ntree; there appeared to be as much blood as if a hog had been stuck\nthere. The woman was found on Sabbath evening, near the sprang, and\nhad to be carried into the house.\n\n\"While I lived there I heard M'Coy say, if the slaves did not raise\nhim three hundred bales of cotton the ensuing season, he would kill\nevery negro he had.\n\n\"Another case of flogging came under my notice: Philip O. Hughes,\nsheriff of Jefferson county, had hired a slave to a man, whose name I\ndo not recollect. On a Sabbath day the slave had drank somewhat\nfreely; he was ordered by the tavern keeper, (where his present master\nhad left his horse and the negro,) to stay in the kitchen; the negro\nwished to be out. In persisting to go out he was knocked down three\ntimes; and afterwards flogged until another young man and myself ran\nabout half a mile, having been drawn by the cries of the negro and the\nsound of the whip. When we came up, a number of men that had been\nabout the tavern, were whipping him, and at intervals would ask him if\nhe would take off his clothes. At seeing them drive down the stakes\nfor a regular flogging he yielded, and took them off. They then\nflogged him until satisfied. On the next morning I saw him, and his\npantaloons were all in a gore of blood.\n\n\"During my stay in Jefferson county, Philip O. Hughes was out one day\nwith his gun--he saw a negro at some distance, with a club in one hand\nand an ear of corn in the other--Hughes stepped behind a tree, and\nwaited his approach; he supposed the negro to be a runaway, who had\nescaped about nine months before from his master, living not very far\ndistant. The negro discovered Hughes before he came up, and started to\nrun; he refusing to stop, Hughes fired, and shot him through the arm.\nThrough loss of blood the negro was soon taken and put in jail. I saw\nhis wound twice dressed, and heard Hughes make the above statement.\n\n\"When in Jefferson county I boarded six weeks in Fayette, the county\ntown, with a tavern keeper named James Truly. He had a slave named\nLucy, who occupied the station of chamber maid and table waiter. One\nday, just after dinner Mrs. Truly took Lucy and bound her arms round a\npine sapling behind the house, and commenced flogging her with a\nriding-whip; and when tired would take her chair and rest. She\ncontinued thus alternately flogging and resting, for at least an hour\nand a half. I afterwards learned from the bar-keeper, and others, that\nthe woman's offence was that she had bought two candles to set on the\ntable the evening before, not knowing there were yet some in the box.\nI did nor see the act of flogging above related; but it was commenced\nbefore I left the house after dinner, and my work not being more than\ntwenty rods from the house, I distinctly heard the cries of the woman\nall the time, and the manner of tying I had from those who did see it.\n\n\"While I boarded at Truly's, an overseer shot a negro about two miles\nnorthwest of Fayette, belonging to a man named Hinds Stuart. I heard\nStuart himself state the particulars. It appeared that the negro's\nwife fell under the overseer's displeasure, and he went to whip her.\nThe negro said she should not be whipped. The overseer then let her\ngo, and ordered him to be seized. The negro, having been a driver,\nrolled the lash of his whip round his hand, and said he would not be\nwhipped at that time. The overseer repeated his orders. The negro took\nup a hoe, and none dared to take hold of him. The overseer then went\nto his coat, that he had laid off to whip the negro's wife, and took\nout his pistol and shot him dead. His master ordered him to be buried\nin a hole without a coffin. Stuart stated that he would not have taken\ntwo thousand dollars for him. No punishment was inflicted on the\noverseer.\n\nELEAZAR POWELL, Jr.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY ON THE AUTHORITY OF REV. WM. SCALES, LYNDON, VT\n\nThe following is an extract of a letter from two professional\ngentlemen and their wives, who have lived for some years in a small\nvillage in one of the slave states. They are all persons of the\nhighest respectability, and are well known in at least one of the New\nEngland states. Their names are with the Executive Committee of the\nAmerican Anti-Slavery Society; but as the individuals would doubtless\nbe murdered by the slaveholders, if they were published, the Committee\nfeel sacredly bound to withhold them. The letter was addressed to a\nrespected clergyman in New England. The writers say:\n\n\"A man near us owned a valuable slave--his best--most faithful servant.\nIn a gust of passion, he struck him dead with a lever, or stick of\nwood.\n\n\"During the years '36 and '37, the following transpired. A slave in\nour neighborhood ran away and went to a place about thirty miles\ndistant. There he was found by his pursuers on horseback, and\ncompelled by the whip to run the distance of thirty miles. It was an\nexceedingly hot day--and within a few hours after he arrived at the\nend of his journey the slave was dead.\n\n\"Another slave ran away, but concluded to return. He had proceeded\nsome distance on his return, when he was met by a company of two or\nthree drivers who raced, whipped and abused him until he fell down and\nexpired. This took place on the Sabbath.\" The writer after speaking of\nanother murder of a slave in the neighborhood, without giving the\ncircumstances, say--\"There is a powerful New England influence at\n----\" the village where they reside--\"We may therefore suppose that\nthere would he as little of barbarian cruelty practiced there as any\nwhere;--at least we might suppose that the average amount of cruelty\nin that vicinity would be sufficiently favorable to the side of\nslavery.--Describe a circle, the centre of which shall be--, the\nresidence of the writers, and the radius fifteen miles, and in about\none year three, and I think four slaves have been _murdered_, within\nthat circle, under circumstances of horrid cruelty.--What must have\nbeen the amount of murder in the whole slave territory? The whole\nsouth is rife with the crime of separating husbands and wives, parents\nand children.\"\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF JOSEPH IDE, ESQ.\n\nMr. IDE is a respected member of the Baptist Church in Sheffield,\nCaledonia county, Vt.; and recently the Postmaster in that town. He\nspent a few months at the south in the years 1837 and 8. In a letter\nto the Rev. Wm. Scales of Lyndon, Vt. written a few weeks since, Mr.\nIde writes as follows.\n\n\"In answering the proposed inquiries, I will say first, that although\nthere are various other modes resorted to, whipping with the cowskin\nis the usual mode of inflicting punishment on the poor slave. I have\nnever actually witnessed a whipping scene, for they are usually taken\ninto some back place for that purpose; but I have often heard their\ngroans and screams while writhing under the lash; and have seen the\nblood flow from their torn and lacerated skins after the vengeance of\nthe inhuman master or mistress had been glutted. You ask if the woman\nwhere I boarded whipped a slave to death. I can give you the\nparticulars of the transaction as they were related to me. My\ninformant was a gentleman--a member of the Presbyterian church in\nMassachusetts--who the winter before boarded where I did. He said that\nMrs. T---- had a female slave whom she used to whip unmercifully, and on\none occasion, she whipped her as long as she had strength, and after\nthe poor creature was suffered to go, she crawled off into a cellar.\nAs she did not immediately return, search was made, and she was found\ndead in the cellar, and the horrid deed was kept a secret in the\nfamily, and it was reported that she died of sickness. This wretch at\nthe same time was a member of a Presbyterian church. Towards her\nslaves she was certainly the most cruel wretch of any woman with whom\nI was ever acquainted--yet she was nothing more than a slaveholder.\nShe would deplore slavery as much as I did, and often told me she was\nmuch of an abolitionist as I was. She was constant in the declaration\nthat her kind treatment to her slaves was proverbial. Thought I, then\nthe Lord have mercy on the rest. She has often told me of the cruel\ntreatment of the slaves on a plantation adjoining her father's in the\nlow country of South Carolina. She says she has often seen them driven\nto the necessity of eating frogs and lizards to sustain life. As to\nthe mode of living generally, my information is rather limited, being\nwith few exceptions confined to the different families where I have\nboarded. My stopping places at the south have mostly been in cities.\nIn them the slaves are better fed and clothed than on plantations. The\nhouse servants are fed on what the families leave. But they are kept\nshort, and I think are oftener whipped for stealing something to eat\nthan any other crime. On plantations their food is principally\nhommony, as the southerners call it. It is simply cracked corn boiled.\nThis probably constitutes seven-eights of their living. The\nhouse-servants in cities are generally decently clothed, and some\nfavorite ones are richly dressed, but those on the plantations,\nespecially in their dress, if it can be called dress, exhibit the most\nhaggard and squalid appearance. I have frequently seen those of both\nsexes more than two-thirds naked. I have seen from forty to sixty,\nmale and female, at work in a field, many of both sexes with their\nbodies entirely naked--who did not exhibit signs of shame more than\ncattle. As I did not go among them much on the plantations, I have\nhad but few opportunities for examining the backs of slaves--but have\nfrequently passed where they were at work, and been occasionally\npresent with them, and in almost every case there were marks of\nviolence on some parts of them--every age, sex and condition being\nliable to the whip. A son of the gentleman with whom I boarded, a\nyoung man about twenty-one years of age, had a plantation and eight or\nten slaves. He used to boast almost every night of whipping some of\nthem. One day he related to me a case of whipping an old negro--I\nshould judge sixty years of age. He said he called him up to flog him\nfor some real or supposed offence, and the poor old man, being pious,\nasked the privilege of praying before he received his punishment. He\nsaid he granted him the favor, and to use his own expression, 'The old\nnigger knelt down and prayed for me, and then got up and took his\nwhipping.' In relation to negro huts, I will say that planters usually\nown large tracts of land. They have extensive clearings and a\nbeautiful mansion house--and generally some forty or fifty rods from\nthe dwelling are situated the negro cabins, or huts, built of logs in\nthe rudest manner. Some consist of poles rolled up together and\ncovered with mud or clay--many of them not as comfortable as northern\npig-sties.\"\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. PHINEAS SMITH\n\nMR. SMITH is now pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Centreville,\nAllegany county, N.Y. He has recently returned from a residence in the\nslave states, and the American slave holding settlements in Texas. The\nfollowing is an extract of a letter lately received from him.\n\n\"You inquire respecting instances of cruelty that have come within my\nknowledge. I reply. Avarice and cruelty constitute the very gist of\nthe whole slave system. Many of the enormities committed upon the\nplantations will not be described till God brings to light the hidden\nthings of darkness, then the tears and groans and blood of innocent\nmen, women and children will be revealed, and the oppressor's spirit\nmust confront that of his victim.\n\n\"I will relate a case of _torture_ which occurred on the Brassos while\nI resided a few miles distant upon the Chocolate Bayou. The case\nshould be remembered as a true illustration of the nature of slavery,\nas it exists at the south. The facts are these. An overseer by the\nname of Alexander, notorious for his cruelty, was found dead in the\ntimbered lands of the Brassos. It was supposed that he was murdered,\nbut who perpetrated the act was unknown. Two black men were however\nseized, taken into the Prairie and put to the torture. A physician by\nthe name of Parrott from Tennessee, and another from New England by\nthe name of Anson Jones, were present on this occasion. The latter\ngentleman is now the Texan minister plenipotentiary to the United\nStates, and resides at Washington. The unfortunate slaves being\nstripped, and all things arranged, the torture commenced by whipping\nupon their bare backs. Six athletic men were employed in this scene of\ninhumanity, the names of some of whom I well remember. There was one\nof the name of Brown, and one or two of the name of Patton. Those six\nexecutioners were successively employed in cutting up the bodies of\nthese defenceless slaves, who persisted to the last in the avowal of\ntheir innocence. The bloody whip was however kept in motion till\nsavage barbarity itself was glutted. When this was accomplished, the\nbleeding victims were re-conveyed to the inclosure of the mansion\nhouse where they were deposited for a few moments. '_The dying groans\nhowever incommoding the ladies, they were taken to a back shed where\none of them soon expired_.'[13] The life of the other slave was for a\ntime despaired of, but after hanging over the grave for months, he at\nlength so far recovered as to walk about and labor at light work.\nThese facts _cannot be controverted_. They were disclosed under the\nsolemnity of an oath, at Columbia, in a court of justice. I was\npresent, and shall never forget them. The testimony of Drs. Parrott\nand Jones was most appalling. I seem to hear the death-groans of that\nmurdered man. His cries for mercy and protestations of innocence fell\nupon adamantine hearts. The facts above stated, and others in relation\nto this scene of cruelty came to light in the following manner. The\nmaster of the murdered man commenced legal process against the actors\nin this tragedy for the _recovery of the value of the chattel_, as one\nwould institute a suit for a horse or an ox that had been unlawfully\nkilled. It was a suit for the recovery of _damages_ merely. No\n_indictment_ was even dreamed of. Among the witnesses brought upon the\nstand in the progress of this cause were the physicians, Parrott and\nJones above named. The part which they were called to act in this\naffair was, it is said, to examine the pulse of the victims during the\nprocess of _torture_. But they were mistaken as to the quantum of\ntorture which a human being can undergo and not die under it. Can it\nbe believed that one of these physicians was born and educated in the\nland of the pilgrims? Yes, in my own native New England. It is even\nso! The stone-like apathy manifested at the trial of the above cause,\nand the screams and the death-groans of an innocent man, as developed\nby the testimony of the witnesses, can never be obliterated from my\nmemory. They form an era in my life, a point to which I look back with\nhorror.\n\n[Footnote 13: The words of Dr. Parrott, a witness on the trial hereafter\nreferred to.]\n\n\"Another case of cruelty occurred on the San Bernard near Chance\nPrairie, where I resided for some time. The facts were these. A slave\nman fled from his master, (Mr. Sweeny) and being closely _pursued_ by\nthe overseer and a son of the owner, he stepped a few yards in the\nBernard and placed himself upon a root, from which there was no\npossibility of his escape, for he could not swim. In this situation he\nwas fired upon with a blunderbuss loaded heavily with ball and grape\nshot. The overseer who shot the gun was at a distance of a few feet\nonly. The charge entered the body of the negro near the groin. He was\nconveyed to the plantation, lingered in inexpressible agony a few days\nand expired. A physician was called, but medical and surgical skill\nwas unavailing. No notice whatever was taken of this murder by the\npublic authorities, and the murderer was not discharged from the\nservice of his employer.\n\n\"When slaves flee, as they not unfrequently do, to the timbered lands\nof Texas, they are hunted with guns and dogs.\n\n\"The sufferings of the slave not unfrequently drive him to despair and\nsuicide. At a plantation on the San Bernard, where there were but five\nslaves, two during the same year committed suicide by drowning.\"\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF PHILEMON BLISS, ESQ.\n\nMr. Bliss is a highly respectable member of the bar, in Elyria, Lorain\nCo. Ohio, and member of the Presbyterian church, in that place. He\nresided in Florida, during the years 1834 and 5.\n\nThe following extracts are from letters, written by Mr. B. in 1835,\nwhile residing on a plantation near Tallahassee, and published soon\nafter in the Ohio Atlas; also from letters written in 1836 and\npublished in the New York Evangelist.\n\n\"In speaking of slavery as it is, I hardly know where to begin. The\nphysical condition of the slave is far from being accurately known at\nthe north. Gentlemen _traveling_ in the south can know nothing of it.\nThey must make the south their residence; they must live on\nplantations, before they can have any opportunity of judging of the\nslave. I resided in Augustine five months, and had I not made\n_particular_ inquiries, which most northern visitors very seldom or\nnever do, I should have left there with the impression that the slaves\nwere generally very _well_ treated, and were a happy people. Such is\nthe report of many northern travelers who have no more opportunity of\nknowing their real condition than if they had remained at home. What\nconfidence could we place in the reports of the traveler, relative to\nthe condition of the Irish peasantry, who formed his opinion from the\nappearance of the waiters at a Dublin hotel, or the household servants\nof a country gentleman? And it is not often on plantations even, that\n_strangers_ can witness the punishment of the slave. I was conversing\nthe other day with a neighboring planter, upon the brutal treatment of\nthe slaves which I had witnessed: he remarked, that had I been with\nhim I should not have seen this. \"When I whip niggers, I take them out\nof sight and hearing.\" Such being the difficulties in the way of a\nstranger's ascertaining the treatment of the slaves, it is not to be\nwondered at that gentlemen, of undoubted veracity, should give\ndirectly false statements relative to it. But facts cannot lie, and in\ngiving these I confine myself to what has come under my own personal\nobservation.\n\n\"The negroes commence labor by daylight in the morning, and, excepting\nthe plowboys, who must feed and rest their horses, do not leave the\nfield till dark in the evening. There is a good deal of contention\namong planters, who shall make the most cotton to the hand, or, who\nshall drive their negroes the hardest; and I have heard bets made and\nstaked upon the issue of the crops. Col. W. was boasting of his large\ncrops, and swore that 'he made for his force, the largest crops in the\ncountry.' He was disputed of course. On riding home in company with\nMr. C. the conversation turned upon Col. W. My companion remarked,\nthat though Col. W. had the reputation of making a large crop, yet he\ncould beat him himself, and did do it the last year. I remarked that I\nconsidered it no honor to _Col. W_. to drive his slaves to death to\nmake a large crop. I have heard no more about large crops from him\nsince. Drivers or overseers usually drive the slaves worse than\nmasters.--Their reputation for good overseers depends in a great\nmeasure upon the crops they make, and the death of a slave is no loss\nto them.\n\n\"Of the extent and cruelty of the punishment of the slave, the\nnorthern public know nothing. From the nature of the case they can\nknow little, as I have before mentioned.\n\n\"I _have seen_ a woman, a mother, compelled, in the presence of her\nmaster and mistress, _to hold up her clothes_, and endure the whip of\nthe driver on the naked body for more than _twenty minutes_, and while\nher cries would have rent the heart of any one, who had not hardened\nhimself to human suffering. Her master and mistress were conversing\nwith apparent indifference. What was her crime? She had a task given\nher of sewing which she _must finish_ that day. Late at night she\nfinished it; but _the stitches were too long_, and she must be\nwhipped. The same was repeated three or four nights for the same\noffence. _I have seen_ a man tied to a tree, hands and feet, and\nreceive 305 blows with the paddle[14] on the fleshy parts of the body.\nTwo others received the same kind of punishment at the time, though I\ndid not count the blows. One received 230 lashes. Their crime was\nstealing mutton. I have _frequently_ heard the shrieks of the slaves,\nmale and female, accompanied by the strokes of the paddle or whip,\nwhen I have not gone near the scene of horror. I knew not their\ncrimes, excepting of one woman, which was stealing _four potatoes_ to\neat with her bread! The more common number of lashes inflicted was\nfifty or eighty; and this I saw not once or twice, but so frequently\nthat I can not tell the number of times I have seen it. So frequently,\nthat my own heart was becoming so hardened that I could witness with\ncomparative indifference, the female writhe under the lash, and her\nshrieks and cries for mercy ceased to pierce my heart with that\nkeenness, or give me that anguish which they first caused. It was not\nalways that I could learn their crimes; but of those I did learn, the\nmost common was non-performance of tasks. I have seen men strip and\nreceive from one to three hundred strokes of the whip and paddle. My\nstudies and meditations were almost nightly interrupted by the cries\nof the victims of cruelty and avarice. Tom, a slave of Col. N.\nobtained permission of his overseer on Sunday, to visit his son, on a\nneighboring plantation, belonging in part to his master, but neglected\nto take a \"pass.\" Upon its being demanded by the other overseer, he\nreplied that he had permission to come, and that his having a mule was\nsufficient evidence of it, and if he did not consider it as such, he\ncould take him up. The overseer replied he would take him up; giving\nhim at the same time a blow on the arm with a stick he held in his\nhand, sufficient to lame it for some time. The negro collared him, and\nthrew him; and on the overseer's commanding him to submit to be tied\nand whipped, he said he would not be whipped by _him_ but would leave\nit to massa J. They came to massa J.'s. I was there. After the\noverseer had related the case as above, he was blamed for not shooting\nor stabbing him at once.--After dinner the negro was tied, and the\nwhip given to the overseer, and he used it with a severity that was\nshocking. I know not how many lashes were given, but from his\nshoulders to his heels there was not a spot unridged! and at almost\nevery stroke the blood flowed. He could not have received less than\n300, _well laid on_. But his offence was great, almost the greatest\nknown, laying hands on a _white_ man! Had he struck the overseer,\nunder any provocation, he would have been in some way disfigured,\nperhaps by the loss of his ears, in addition to a whipping: or he\nmight have been hung. The most common cause of punishments is, not\nfinishing tasks.\n\n[Footnote 14: A piece of oak timber two and a half feet long, flat and\nwide at one end.]\n\n\n\"But it would be tedious mentioning further particulars. The negro has\nno other inducement to work but the _lash_; and as man never acts\nwithout motive, the lash must be used so long as all other motives are\nwithheld. Hence corporeal punishment is a necessary part of slavery.\n\n\"Punishments for runaways are usually severe. Once whipping is not\nsufficient. I have known runaways to be whipped for six or seven\nnights in succession for one offence. I have known others who, with\npinioned hands, and a chain extending from an iron collar on their\nneck, to the saddle of their master's horse, have been driven at a\nsmart trot, one or two hundred miles, being compelled to ford water\ncourses, their drivers, according to their own confession, not abating\na whit in the rapidity of their journey for the case of the slave. One\ntied a kettle of sand to his slave to render his journey more arduous.\n\n\"Various are the instruments of torture devised to keep the slave in\nsubjection. The stocks are sometimes used. Sometimes blocks are filled\nwith pegs and nails, and the slave compelled to stand upon them.\n\n\"While stopping on the plantation of a Mr. C. I saw a whip with a\nknotted lash lying on the table, and inquired of my companion, who was\nalso an acquaintance of Mr. C's, if he used that to whip his negroes?\n\"Oh,\" says he, \"Mr. C. is not severe with his hands. He never whips\nvery hard. The _knots in the lash are so large_ that he does not\nusually draw blood in whipping them.\"\n\n\"It was principally from hearing the conversation of southern men on\nthe subject, that I judge of the cruelty that is generally practiced\ntoward slaves. They will deny that slaves are generally ill treated;\nbut ask them if they are not whipped for certain offences, which\neither a freeman would have no temptation to commit, or which would\nnot be an offence in any but a slave, and for non-performance of\ntasks, they will answer promptly in the affirmative. And frequently\nhave I heard them excuse their cruelty by citing Mr. A. or Mr. B. who\nis a Christian, or Mr. C. a preacher, or Mr. D. from the _north_, who\n\"drives his hands tighter, and whips them harder, than we ever do.\"\nDriving negroes to the utmost extent of their ability, with\noccasionally a hundred lashes or more, and a few switchings in the\nfield if they hang back in the driving seasons, viz: in the hoing and\npicking months, is perfectly consistent with good treatment!\n\n\"While traveling across the Peninsula in a stage, in company with a\nnorthern gentleman, and southern lady, of great worth and piety, a\ndispute arose respecting the general treatment of slaves, the\ngentleman contending that their treatment was generally good--'O, no!'\ninterrupted the lady, 'you can know nothing of the treatment they\nreceive on the plantations. People here do whip the poor negroes most\ncruelly, and many half starve them. You have neither of you had\nopportunity to know scarcely anything of the cruelties that are\npracticed in this country,' and more to the same effect. I met with\nseveral others, besides this lady, who appeared to feel for the sins\nof the land, but they are few and scattered, and not usually of\nsufficiently stern mould to withstand the popular wave.\n\n\"Masters are not forward to publish their \"domestic regulations,\" and\nas neighbors are usually several miles apart, one's observation must\nbe limited. Hence the few instances of cruelty which break out can be\nbut a fraction of what is practised. A planter, a professor of\nreligion, in conversation upon the universality of whipping, remarked\nthat a planter in G--, who had whipped a great deal, at length got\ntired of it, and invented the following _excellent_ method of\npunishment, which I saw practised while I was paying him a visit. The\nnegro was placed in a sitting position, with his hands made fast above\nhis head, and feet in the stocks, so that he could not move any part\nof the body.\n\n\"The master retired, intending to leave him till morning, but we were\nawakened in the night by the groans of the negro, which were so\ndoleful that we feared he was dying. We went to him, and found him\ncovered with a cold sweat, and almost gone. He could not have lived an\nhour longer. Mr. ---- found the 'stocks' such an effective punishment,\nthat it almost superseded the whip.\"\n\n\"How much do you give your niggers for a task while hoeing cotton,\"\ninquired Mr. C---- of his neighbor Mr. H----.\"\n\nH. \"I give my men an acre and a quarter, and my women an acre.\"[15]\n\n[Footnote 15: Cotton is planted in drills about three feet apart, and\nis hilled like corn.]\n\n\nC. \"Well, that is a fair task. Niggers do a heap better if they are\ndrove pretty tight.\"\n\nH. \"O yes, I have driven mine into complete subordination. When I\nfirst bought them they were discontented and wished me to sell them,\nbut I soon whipped _that_ out of them; and they now work very\ncontentedly!\"\n\nC. \"Does Mary keep up with the rest?\"\n\nH. \"No, she does'nt often finish the task alone, she has to get Sam to\nhelp her out after he has done his, _to save her a whipping_. There's\nno other way but to be severe with them.\"\n\nC. \"No other, sir, if you favor a nigger you spoil him.\"\n\n\"The whip is considered as necessary on a plantation as the plough;\nand its use is almost as common. The negro whip is the common\nteamster's whip with a black leather stock, and a short, fine, knotted\nlash. The paddle is also frequently used, sometimes with holes bored\nin the flattened end. The ladies (!) in chastising their domestic\nservants, generally use the cowhide. I have known some use shovel and\ntongs. It is, however, more common to commit them to the driver to be\nwhipped. The manner of whipping is as follows: The negro is tied by\nhis hands, and sometimes feet, to a post or tree, and stripped to the\nskin. The female slave is not always tied. The number of lashes\ndepends upon the character for severity of the master or overseer.\n\n\"Another instrument of torture is sometimes used, how extensively I\nknow not. The negro, or, in the case which came to my knowledge, the\nnegress was compelled to stand barefoot upon a block filled with sharp\npegs and nails for two or three hours. In case of sickness, if the\nmaster or overseer thinks them seriously ill, they are taken care of,\nbut their complaints are usually not much heeded. A physician told me\nthat he was employed by a planter last winter to go to a plantation of\nhis in the country, as many of the negroes were sick. Says he--\"I\nfound them in a most miserable condition. The weather was cold, and\nthe negroes were barefoot, with hardly enough of _cotton_ clothing to\ncover their nakedness. Those who had huts to shelter them were obliged\nto build them nights and Sundays. Many were sick and some had died. I\nhad the sick taken to an older plantation of their masters, where they\ncould be made comfortable, and they recovered. I directed that they\nshould not go to work till after sunrise, and should not work in the\nrain till their health became established. But the overseer refusing\nto permit it, I declined attending on them farther. I was called,'\ncontinued he, 'by the overseer of another plantation to see one of the\nmen. I found him lying by the side of a log in great pain. I asked him\nhow he did, 'O,' says he, 'I'm most dead, can live but little longer.'\nHow long have you been sick? I've felt for more than six weeks as\nthough I could hardly stir.' Why didn't you tell your master, you was\nsick? 'I couldn't see my master, and the overseer always whips us when\nwe complain, I could not stand a whipping.' I did all I could for the\npoor fellow, but his _lungs were rotten_. He died in three days from\nthe time he left off work.' The cruelty of that overseer is such that\nthe negroes almost tremble at his name. Yet he gets a high salary, for\nhe makes the largest crop of any other man in the neighborhood, though\nnone but the hardiest negroes can stand it under him. \"That man,\" says\nthe Doctor, \"would be hung in my country.\" He was a German.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF REV. WILLIAM A. CHAPIN.\n\nREV. WILLIAM SCALES, of Lyndon, Vermont, has furnished the following\ntestimony, under date of Dec. 15, 1838.\n\n\"I send you an extract from a letter that I have just received, which\nyou may use _ad libitum_. The letter is from Rev. Wm. A. Chapin,\nGreensborough, Vermont. To one who is acquainted with Mr. C. his\nopinion and statements must carry conviction even to the most\nobstinate and incredulous. He observes, 'I resided, as a teacher,\nnearly two years in the family of Carroll Webb, Esq., of Hampstead,\nNew Kent co. about twenty miles from Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Webb had\nthree or four plantations, and was considered one of the two\nwealthiest men in the county: it was supposed he owned about two\nhundred slaves. He was a member of the Presbyterian Church, and was\nelected an elder while I was with him. He was a native of Virginia,\nbut a graduate of a New-England college.\n\n\"The slaves were called in the morning before daylight, I believe at\nall seasons of the year, that they might prepare their food, and be\nready to go to work as soon as it was light enough to see. I know that\nat the season of husking corn, October and November, they were usually\ncompelled to work late--till 12 or 1 o'clock at night. I know this\nfact because they accompanied their work with a loud singing of their\nown sort. I usually retired to rest between 11 and 12 o'clock, and\ngenerally heard them at their work as long as I was awake. The slaves\nlived in wretched log cabins, of one room each, without floors or\nwindows. I believe the slaves sometimes suffer for want of food. One\nevening, as I was sitting in the parlor with Mr. W. one of the most\nresolute of the slaves came to the door, and said, \"Master, I am\nwilling to work for you, but I want something to eat.\" The only reply\nwas, \"Clear yourself.\" I learned that the slaves had been without food\nall day, because the man who was sent to mill could not obtain his\ngrinding. He went again the next day, and obtained his grist, and the\nslaves had no food till he returned. He had to go about five\nmiles.[16]\n\n[Footnote 16: To this, Rev. Mr. Scales adds, \"In familiar language, and\nin more detail, as I have learned it in conversation with Mr. Chapin,\nthe fact is as follows:--\n\n\"Mr. W. kept, what he called a 'boy,' i.e. a _man_, to go to mill. It\nwas his custom not to give his slaves anything to eat while he was\ngone to mill--let him have been gone longer or shorter--for this\nreason, if he was lazy, and delayed, the slaves would become hungry:\nhence indignant, and abuse him--this was his punishment. On that\noccasion he went to mill in the morning. The slaves came up at noon,\nand returned to work without food. At night, after having worked hard\nall day, without food, went to bed without supper. About 10 o'clock\nthe next day, they came up in a company, to their master's door, (that\nmaster an elder in the church), and deputed one more resolute than the\nrest to address him. This he did in the most respectful tones and\nterms. \"We are willing to work for you, master, but we can't work\nwithout food; we want something to eat.\" \"Clear yourself,\" was the\nanswer. The slaves retired; and in the morning were driven away to\nwork without food. At noon, I think, or somewhat after, they were\nfed.\"]\n\n\n\n\"I know the slaves were sometimes severely whipped. I saw the backs of\nseveral which had numerous scars, evidently caused by long and deep\nlacerations of the whip; and I have good reason to believe that the\nslaves were generally in that condition; for I never saw the back of\none exposed that was not thus marked,--and from their tattered and\nscanty clothing their backs were often exposed.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MESSRS. T.D.M. AND F.C. MACY.\n\nThis testimony is communicated in a letter from Mr. Cyrus Pierce, a\nrespectable and well known citizen of Nantucket, Mass. Of the\nwitnesses, Messrs. T.D.M. and F.C. Macy, Mr. Pierce says, \"They are\nboth inhabitants of this island, and have resided at the south; they\nare both worthy men, for whose integrity and intelligence I can vouch\nunqualifiedly; the former has furnished me with the following\nstatement.\n\n\"During the winter of 1832-3, I resided on the island of St. Simon,\nGlynn county, Georgia. There are several extensive cotton plantations\non the island. The overseer of the plantation on that part of the\nisland where I resided was a Georgian--a man of stern character, and\nat times _cruelly abusive_ to his slaves. I have often been witness of\nthe _abuse_ of his power. In South Carolina and Georgia, on the low\nlands, the cultivation is chiefly of rice. The land where it is raised\nis often inundated, and the labor of preparing it, and raising a crop,\nis very arduous. Men and women are in the field from earliest dawn to\ndark--often _without hats_, and up to their arm-pits in mud and water.\nAt St. Simon's, cotton was the staple article. Ocra, the driver,\nusually waited on the overseer to receive orders for the succeeding\nday. If any slave was insolent, or negligent, the driver was\nauthorized to punish him with the whip, with as many blows as the\nmagnitude of the crime justified. He was frequently cautioned, upon\nthe peril of his skin, to see that all the negroes were off to the\nfield in the morning. 'Ocra,' said the overseer, one evening, to the\ndriver, 'if any pretend to be sick, send me word--allow no lazy wench\nor fellow to skulk in the negro house.' Next morning, a few minutes\nafter the departure of the hands to the field, Ocra was seen hastening\nto the house of the overseer. He was soon in his presence. 'Well, Ocra,\nwhat now?' 'Nothing, sir, only Rachel says she sick--can't go to de\nfield to-day.' 'Ah, sick, is she? I'll see to her; you may be off. She\nshall see if I am longer to be fooled with in this way. Here,\nChristmas, mix these salts--bring them to me at the negro house.' And\nseizing his whip, he made off to the negro settlement. Having a strong\ndesire to see what would be the result, I followed him. As I\napproached the negro house, I heard high words. Rachel was stating her\ncomplaint--children were crying from fright--and the overseer\nthreatening. Rachel.--'I can't work to-day--I'm sick!' Overseer.--'But\nyou shall work, if you die for it. Here, take these salts. Now move\noff--quick--let me see your face again before night, and, by G--d,\nyou shall smart for it. Be off--no begging--not a word;'--and he\ndragged her from the house, and followed her 20 or 30 rods,\nthreatening. The woman did not reach the field. Overcome by the\nexertion of walking, and by agitation, she sunk down exhausted by the\nroad side--was taken up, and carried back to the house, where an\n_abortion_ occurred, and her life was greatly jeoparded.\n\n\"It was _no uncommon_ sight to see a whole family, father, mother, and\nfrom two to five children, collected together around their piggin of\nhommony, or pail of potatoes, watched by the overseer. One meal was\nalways eaten in the field. No time was allowed for relaxation.\n\n\"It was not unusual for a child of five or six years to perform the\noffice of nurse--because the mother worked in a remote part of the\nfield, and was not allowed to leave her employment to take care of her\ninfant. Want of proper nutriment induces sickness of the worst type.\n\n\"No matter what the nature of the service, a peck of corn, dealt out\non Sunday, must supply the demands of nature for a week.\n\n\"The Sabbath, on a southern plantation, is a mere nominal holiday. The\nslaves are liable to be called upon at all times, by those who have\nauthority over them.\n\n\"When it rained, the slaves were allowed to collect under a tree until\nthe shower had passed. Seldom, on a week day, were they permitted to\ngo to their huts during rain; and even had this privilege been\ngranted, many of those miserable habitations were in so dilapidated a\ncondition, that they would afford little or no protection. Negro huts\nare built of logs, covered with boards or thatch, having _no\nflooring_, and but one apartment, serving all the purposes of\nsleeping, cooking, &c. Some are furnished with a temporary loft. I\nhave seen a whole family herded together in a loft ten feet by twelve.\nIn cold weather, they gather around the fire, spread their blankets\n_on the ground_, and keep as comfortable as they can. Their supply of\nclothing is scanty--each slave being allowed a Holland coat and\npantaloons, of the coarsest manufacture, and one pair of cowhide\nshoes. The women, enough of the same kind of cloth for one frock. They\nhave also one pair of shoes. Shoes are given to the slaves in the\nwinter only. In summer, their clothing is composed of osnaburgs.\nSlaves on different plantations are not allowed without a written\npermission, to visit their fellow bondsmen, under penalty of severe\nchastisement. I witnessed the chastisement of a young male slave, who\nwas found lurking about the plantation, and could give no other\naccount of himself, than that he wanted to visit some of his\nacquaintance. Fifty lashes was the penalty for this offence. I could\nnot endure the dreadful shrieks of the tortured slave, and rushed away\nfront the scene.\"\n\nThe remainder of this testimony is furnished by Mr. F.C. Macy.\n\n\"I went to Savannah in 1820. Sailing up the river, I had my first view\nof slavery. A large number of men and women, with _a piece of board on\ntheir heads, carrying mud_, for the purpose of dyking, near the river.\nAfter tarrying a while in Savannah, I went down to the sea islands of\nDe Fuskee and Hilton Head, where I spent six months. Negro houses are\nsmall, built of rough materials, _and no floor_. Their clothing, (one\nsuit,) coarse; which they received on Christmas day. Their food was\nthree pecks of potatoes per week, in the potatoe season, and one peck\nof corn the remainder of the year. The slaves carried with them into\nthe field their meal, and a gourd of water. They cooked their hommony\nin the field, and ate it with a wooden paddle. Their treatment was\nlittle better than that of brutes. _Whipping_ was nearly an every-day\npractice. On Mr. M----'s plantation, at the island De Fuskee, I saw an\nold man whipped; he was about 60. He had no clothing on, except a\nshirt. The man that inflicted the blows was Flim, a tall and stout\nman. The whipping was _very severe_. I inquired into the cause. Some\nvegetables had been stolen from his master's garden, of which he could\ngive no account. I saw several women whipped, some of whom were in\nvery _delicate_ circumstances. The case of one I will relate. She had\nbeen purchased in Charleston, and separated from her husband. On her\npassage to Savannah, or rather to the island, she was delivered of a\nchild; and in about three weeks after this, she appeared to be\nderanged. She would leave her work, go into the woods, and sing. Her\nmaster sent for her, and ordered the driver to whip her. I was near\nenough to hear the strokes.\n\n\"I have known negro boys, partly by persuasion, and partly by force,\nmade to strip off their clothing and fight for _the amusement of their\nmasters_. They would fight until both got to crying.\n\n\"One of the planters told me that his boat had been used without\npermission. A number of his negroes were called up, and put in a\nbuilding that was lathed and shingled. The covering could be easily\nremoved from the inside. He called one out for examination. While\nexamining this one, he discovered another negro, coming out of the\nroof. He ordered him back: he obeyed. In a few moments he attempted it\nagain. The master took deliberate aim at his head, but his gun missed\nfire. He told me he should probably have killed him, had his gun gone\noff. The negro jumped and run. The master took aim again, and fired;\nbut he was so far distant, that he received only a few shots in the\ncalf of his leg. After several days he returned, and received a severe\nwhipping.\n\n\"Mr. B----, planter at Hilton Head, freely confessed, that he kept one\nof his slaves as a mistress. She slept in the same room with him.\nThis, I think, is a very common practice.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF A CLERGYMAN.\n\nThe following letter was written to Mr. ARTHUR TAPPAN, of New York, in\nthe summer of 1833. As the name of the writer cannot be published with\nsafety to himself, it is withheld.\n\nThe following testimonials, from Mr. TAPPAN, Professor WRIGHT, and\nTHOMAS RITTER, M.D. of New York, establish the trust-worthiness and\nhigh respectability of the writer.\n\n\"I received the following letters from the south during the year 1833.\nThey were written by a gentleman who had then resided some years in\nthe slave states. Not being at liberty to give the writer's name, I\ncheerfully certify that he is a gentleman of established character, a\ngraduate of Yale College, and a respected minister of the gospel.\n\n\"ARTHUR TAPPAN.\"\n\n\"My acquaintance with the writer of the following letter commenced, I\nbelieve, in 1823, from which time we were fellow students in Yale\nCollege till 1826. I have occasionally seen him since. His character,\nso far as it has come within my knowledge, has been that of an upright\nand remarkably _candid_ man. I place great confidence both in his\nhabits of careful and unprejudiced observation and his veracity.\n\n\"E. WRIGHT, jun. New York, April 13, 1839.\"\n\n\"I have been acquainted with the writer of the following letter about\ntwelve years, and know him to be a gentleman of high respectability,\nintegrity, and piety. We were fellow students in Yale College, and my\nopportunities for judging of his character, both at that time and\nsince our graduation, have been such, that I feel myself fully\nwarranted in making the above unequivocal declaration.\n\n\"THOMAS RITTER. 104, Cherry-street, New York.\"\n\n\"NATCHEZ, 1833.\n\n\"It has been almost four years since I came to the south-west; and\nalthough I have been told, from month to month, that I should soon\nwear off my northern prejudices, and probably have slaves of my own,\nyet my judgment in regard to oppression, or my prejudices, if they are\npleased so to call them, remain with me still. I judge still from\nthose principles which were fixed in my mind at the north; and a\nresidence at the south has not enabled me so to pervert truth, as to\nmake injustice appear justice.\n\n\"I have studied the state of things here, now for years, coolly and\ndeliberately, with the eye of an uninterested looker on; and hence I\nmay not be altogether unprepared to state to you some facts, and to\ndraw conclusions from them.\n\n\"Permit me then to relate what I have seen; and do not imagine that\nthese are all exceptions to the general treatment, but rather believe\nthat thousands of cruelties are practised in this Christian land,\nevery year, which no eye that ever shed a tear of pity could look\nupon.\n\n\"Soon after my arrival I made an excursion into the country, to the\ndistance of some twenty miles. And as I was passing by a cotton field,\nwhere about fifty negroes were at work, I was inclined to stop by the\nroad side to view a scene which was then new to me. While I was, in my\nmind, comparing this mode of labor with that of my own native place, I\nheard the driver, with a rough oath, order one that was near him, who\nseemed to be laboring to the extent of his power, to \"lie down.\" In a\nmoment he was obeyed; and he commenced whipping the offender upon his\nnaked back, and continued, to the amount of about twenty lashes, with\na heavy raw-hide whip, the crack of which might have been heard more\nthan half a mile. Nor did the females escape; for although I stopped\nscarcely fifteen minutes, no less than three were whipped in the same\nmanner, and that so severely, I was strongly inclined to interfere.\n\n\"You may be assured, sir, that I remained not unmoved: I could no\nlonger look on such cruelty, but turned away and rode on, while the\nechoes of the lash were reverberating in the woods around me. Such\nscenes have long since become familiar to me. But then the full effect\nwas not lost; and I shall never forget, to my latest day, the mingled\nfeelings of pity, horror, and indignation that took possession of my\nmind. I involuntarily exclaimed, O God of my fathers, how dost thou\npermit such things to defile our land! Be merciful to us! and visit us\nnot in justice, for all our iniquities and the iniquities of our\nfathers!\n\n\"As I passed on I soon found that I had escaped from one horrible\nscene only to witness another. A planter with whom I was well\nacquainted, had caught a negro without a pass. And at the moment I was\npassing by, he was in the act of fastening his feet and hands to the\ntrees, having previously made him take off all his clothing except his\ntrowsers. When he had sufficiently secured this poor creature, he beat\nhim for several minutes with a green switch more than six feet long;\nwhile he was writhing with anguish, endeavoring in vain to break the\ncords with which he was bound, and incessantly crying out, \"Lord,\nmaster! do pardon me this time! do, master, have mercy!\" These\nexpressions have recurred to me a thousand times since; and although\nthey came from one that is not considered among the sons of men, yet I\nthink they are well worthy of remembrance, as they might lead a wise\nman to consider whether such shall receive mercy from the righteous\nJudge, as never showed mercy to their fellow men.\n\n\"At length I arrived at the dwelling of a planter of my acquaintance,\nwith whom I passed the night. At about eight o'clock in the evening I\nheard the barking of several dogs, mingled with the most agonizing\ncries that I ever heard from any human being. Soon after the gentleman\ncame in, and began to apologize, by saying that two of his runaway\nslaves had just been brought home; and as he had previously tried\nevery species of punishment upon them without effect, he knew not what\nelse to add, except to set his blood hounds upon them. 'And,'\ncontinued he, 'one of them has been so badly bitten that he has been\ntrying to die. I am only sorry that he did not; for then I should not\nhave been further troubled with him. If he lives I intend to send him\nto Natchez or to New Orleans, to work with the ball and chain.'\n\n\"From this last remark I understood that private individuals have the\nright of thus subjecting their unmanageable slaves. I have since seen\nnumbers of these 'ball and chain' men, both in Natchez and New\nOrleans, but I do not know whether there were any among them except\nthe state convicts.\n\n\"As the summer was drawing towards a close, and the yellow fever\nbeginning to prevail in town, I went to reside some months in the\ncountry. This was the cotton picking season, during which, the\nplanters say, there is a greater necessity for flogging than at any\nother time. And I can assure you, that as I have sat in my window\nnight after night, while the cotton was being weighed, I have heard\nthe crack of the whip, without much intermission, for a whole hour,\nfrom no less than three plantations, some of which were a full mile\ndistant.\n\n\"I found that the slaves were kept in the field from daylight until\ndark; and then, if they had not gathered what the master or overseer\nthought sufficient, they were subjected to the lash.\n\n\"Many by such treatment are induced to run away and take up their\nlodging in the woods. I do not say that all who run away are thus\nclosely pressed, but I do know that many are; and I have known no less\nthan a dozen desert at a time from the same plantation, in consequence\nof the overseer's forcing them to work to the extent of their power,\nand then whipping them for not having done more.\n\n\"But suppose that they run away--what is to become of them in the\nforest? If they cannot steal they must perish of hunger--if the nights\nare cold, their feet will be frozen; for if they make a fire they may\nbe discovered, and be shot at. If they attempt to leave the country,\ntheir chance of success is about nothing. They must return, be\nwhipped--if old offenders, wear the collar, perhaps be branded, and\nfare worse than before.\n\n\"Do you believe it, sir, not six months since, I saw a number of my\n_Christian_ neighbors packing up provisions, as I supposed for a deer\nhunt; but as I was about offering myself to the party, I learned that\ntheir powder and balls were destined to a very different purpose: it\nwas, in short, the design of the party to bring home a number of\nrunaway slaves, or to shoot them if they should not be able to get\npossession of them in any other way.\n\n\"You will ask, Is not this murder? Call it, sir, by what name you\nplease, such are the facts:--many are shot every year, and that too\nwhile the masters say they treat their slaves well.\n\n\"But let me turn your attention to another species of cruelty. About a\nyear since I knew a certain slave who had deserted his master, to be\ncaught, and for the first time fastened to the stocks. In those same\nstocks, from which at midnight I have heard cries of distress, while\nthe master slept, and was dreaming, perhaps, of drinking wine and of\ndiscussing the price of cotton. On the next morning he was chained in\nan immovable posture, and branded in both cheeks with red hot stamps\nof iron. Such are the tender mercies of men who love wealth, and are\ndetermined to obtain it at any price.\n\n\"Suffer me to add another to the list of enormities, and I will not\noffend you with more.\n\n\"There was, some time since, brought to trial in this town a planter\nresiding about fifteen miles distant, for whipping his slave to death.\nYou will suppose, of course, that he was punished. No, sir, he was\nacquitted, although there could be no doubt of the fact. I heard the\ntale of murder from a man who was acquainted with all the\ncircumstances. 'I was,' said he, 'passing along the road near the\nburying-ground of the plantation, about nine o'clock at night, when I\nsaw several lights gleaming through the woods; and as I approached, in\norder to see what was doing, I beheld the coroner of Natchez, with a\nnumber of men, standing around the body of a young female, which by\nthe torches seemed almost perfectly white. On inquiry I learned that\nthe master had so unmercifully beaten this girl that she died under\nthe operation: and that also he had so severely punished another of\nhis slaves that he was but just alive.'\"\n\nWe here rest the case for the present, so far as respects the\npresentation of facts showing the condition of the slaves, and proceed\nto consider the main objections which are usually employed to weaken\nsuch testimony, or wholly to set it aside. But before we enter upon\nthe examination of specific objections, and introductory to them, we\nremark,--\n\n1. That the system of slavery must be a system of horrible cruelty,\nfollows of necessity, from the fact that two millions seven hundred\nthousand human beings _are held by force_, and used as articles of\nproperty. Nothing but a heavy yoke, and an iron one, could possibly\nkeep so many necks in the dust. That must be a constant and mighty\npressure which holds so still such a vast army; nothing could do it\nbut the daily experience of severities, and the ceaseless dread and\ncertainty of the most terrible inflictions if they should dare to toss\nin their chains.\n\n2. Were there nothing else to prove it a system of monstrous cruelty,\nthe fact that FEAR is the only motive with which the slave is plied\nduring his whole existence, would be sufficient to brand it with\nexecration as the grand tormentor of man. The slave's _susceptibility\nof pain_ is the sole fulcrum on which slavery works the lever that\nmoves him. In this it plants all its stings; here it sinks its hot\nirons; cuts its deep gashes; flings its burning embers, and dashes its\nboiling brine and liquid fire: into this it strikes its cold flesh\nhooks, grappling irons, and instruments of nameless torture; and by it\ndrags him shrieking to the end of his pilgrimage. The fact that the\nmaster inflicts pain upon the slave not merely as an _end_ to gratify\npassion, but constantly as a _means_ of extorting labor, is enough of\nitself to show that the system of slavery is unmixed cruelty.\n\n3. That the slaves must suffer frequent and terrible inflictions,\nfollows inevitably from the _character of those who direct their\nlabor_. Whatever may be the character of the slaveholders themselves,\nall agree that the overseers are, as a class, most abandoned, brutal,\nand desperate men. This is so well known and believed that any\ntestimony to prove it seems needless. The testimony of Mr. WIRT, late\nAttorney General of the United States, a Virginian and a slaveholder,\nis as follows. In his life of Patrick Henry, p. 36, speaking of the\ndifferent classes of society in Virginia, he says,--\"Last and lowest a\nfeculum, of beings called 'overseers'--_the most abject, degraded,\nunprincipled race_, always cap in hand to the dons who employ them,\nand furnishing materials for the exercise of their _pride, insolence,\nand spirit of domination_.\"\n\nRev. PHINEAS SMITH, of Centreville, New-York, who has resided some\nyears at the south, says of overseers--\n\n\"It need hardly be added that overseers are in general ignorant,\n_unprincipled and cruel_, and in such low repute that they are not\npermitted to come to the tables of their employers; yet they have the\nconstant control of all the human cattle that belong to the master.\n\n\"These men are continually advancing from their low station to the\nhigher one of masters. These changes bring into the possession of\npower a class of men of whose mental and moral qualities I have\nalready spoken.\"\n\nRev. HORACE MOULTON, Marlboro', Massachusetts, who lived in Georgia\nseveral years, says of them,--\n\n\"The overseers are _generally loose in their morals_; it is the object\nof masters to employ those whom they think will get the most work out\nof their hands,--hence those who _whip and torment the slaves the\nmost_ are in many instances called the best overseers. The masters\nthink those whom the slaves fear the most are the best. Quite a\nportion of the masters employ their own slaves as overseers, or rather\nthey are called drivers; these are more subject to the will of the\nmasters than the white overseers are; some of them are as lordly as an\nAustrian prince, and sometimes more cruel even than the whites.\"\n\nThat the overseers are, as a body, sensual, brutal, and violent men is\n_proverbial_. The tender mercies of such men _must be cruel_.\n\n4. The _ownership_ of human beings necessarily presupposes an utter\ndisregard of their happiness. He who assumes it monopolizes their\n_whole capital_, leaves them no stock on which to trade, and out of\nwhich to _make_ happiness. Whatever is the master's gain is the\nslave's loss, a loss wrested from him by the master, for the express\npurpose of making it _his own gain_; this is the master's constant\nemployment--forcing the slave to toil--violently wringing from him\nall he has and all he gets, and using it as his own;--like the vile\nbird that never builds its nest from materials of its own gathering,\nbut either drives other birds from theirs and takes possession of\nthem, or tears them in pieces to get the means of constructing their\nown. This daily practice of forcibly robbing others, and habitually\nliving on the plunder, cannot but beget in the mind the _habit_ of\nregarding the interests and happiness of those whom it robs, as of no\nsort of consequence in comparison with its own; consequently whenever\nthose interests and this happiness are in the way of its own\ngratification, they will be sacrificed without scruple. He who cannot\nsee this would be unable to _feel_ it, if it were seen.\n\n\n\nOBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\n\n\nObjection I--\"SUCH CRUELTIES ARE INCREDIBLE.\"\n\nThe enormities inflicted by slaveholders upon their slaves will never\nbe discredited except by those who overlook the simple fact, that he\nwho holds human beings as his bona fide property, _regards_ them as\nproperty, and not as _persons;_ this is his permanent state of mind\ntoward them. He does not contemplate slaves as human beings,\nconsequently does not _treat_ them as such; and with entire\nindifference sees them suffer privations and writhe under blows,\nwhich, if inflicted upon whites, would fill him with horror and\nindignation. He regards that as good treatment of slaves, which would\nseem to him insufferable abuse if practiced upon others; and would\ndenounce that as a monstrous outrage and horrible cruelty, if\nperpretated upon white men and women, which he sees every day meted\nout to black slaves, without perhaps ever thinking it cruel.\nAccustomed all his life to regard them rather as domestic animals, to\nhear them stormed at, and to see them cuffed and caned; and being\nhimself in the constant habit of treating them thus, such practices\nhave become to him a mere matter of course, and make no impression on\nhis mind. True, it is incredible that men should treat as _chattels_\nthose whom they truly regard as _human beings;_ but that they should\ntreat as chattels and working animals those whom they _regard_ as\nsuch, is no marvel. The common treatment of dogs, when they are in the\nway, is to kick them out of it; we see them every day kicked off the\nsidewalks, and out of shops, and on Sabbaths out of churches,--yet, as\nthey are but _dogs_, these do not strike us as outrages; yet, if we\nwere to see men, women, and children--our neighbors and friends,\nkicked out of stores by merchants, or out of churches by the deacons\nand sexton, we should call the perpetrators inhuman wretches.\n\nWe have said that slaveholders regard their slaves not as human\nbeings, but as mere working animals, or merchandise. The whole\nvocabulary of slaveholders, their laws, their usages, and their entire\ntreatment of their slaves fully establish this. The same terms are\napplied to slaves that are given to cattle. They are called \"stock.\"\nSo when the children of slaves are spoken of prospectively, they are\ncalled their \"increase;\" the same term that is applied to flocks and\nherds. So the female slaves that are mothers, are called \"breeders\"\ntill past child bearing; and often the same terms are applied to the\ndifferent sexes that are applied to the males and females among\ncattle. Those who compel the labor of slaves and cattle have the same\nappellation, \"drivers:\" the names which they call them are the same\nand similar to those given to their horses and oxen. The laws of slave\nstates make them property, equally with goats and swine; they are\nlevied upon for debt in the same way; they are included in the same\nadvertisements of public sales with cattle, swine, and asses; when\nmoved from one part of the country to another, they are herded in\ndroves like cattle, and like them urged on by drivers; their labor is\ncompelled in the same way. They are bought and sold, and separated\nlike cattle: when exposed for sale, their good qualities are described\nas jockies show off the good points of their horses; their strength,\nactivity, skill, power of endurance, &c. are lauded,--and those who\nbid upon them examine their persons, just as purchasers inspect horses\nand oxen; they open their mouths to see if their teeth are sound;\nstrip their backs to see if they are badly scarred, and handle their\nlimbs and muscles to see if they are firmly knit. Like horses, they\nare warranted to be \"sound,\" or to be returned to the owner if\n\"unsound.\" A father gives his son a horse and a _slave_; by his will\nhe distributes among them his race-horses, hounds, game-cocks, and\n_slaves_. We leave the reader to carry out the parallel which we have\nonly begun. Its details would cover many pages.\n\nThat slaveholders do not practically regard slaves as _human beings_\nis abundantly shown by their own voluntary testimony. In a recent work\nentitled, \"The South vindicated from the Treason and Fanaticism of\nNorthern Abolitionists,\" which was written, we are informed, by\nColonel Dayton, late member of Congress from South Carolina; the\nwriter, speaking of the awe with which the slaves regard the whites,\nsays,--\n\n\"The northerner looks upon a band of negroes as upon so many _men_,\nbut the planter or southerner _views them in a very different light._\"\n\n\nExtract from the speech of Mr. SUMMERS, of Virginia, in the\nlegislature of that state, Jan. 26, 1832. See the Richmond Whig.\n\n\"When, in the sublime lessons of Christianity, he (the slaveholder) is\ntaught to 'do unto others as he would have others do unto him,' HE\nNEVER DREAMS THAT THE DEGRADED NEGRO IS WITHIN THE PALE OF THAT HOLY\nCANON.\"\n\n\nPRESIDENT JEFFERSON, in his letter to GOVERNOR COLES, of Illinois,\ndated Aug. 25, 1814, asserts, that slaveholders regard their slaves as\nbrutes, in the following remarkable language.\n\n\"Nursed and educated in the daily habit of seeing the degraded\ncondition, both bodily and mental, of these unfortunate beings [the\nslaves], FEW MINDS HAVE YET DOUBTED BUT THAT THEY WERE AS LEGITIMATE\nSUBJECTS OF PROPERTY AS THEIR HORSES OR CATTLE.\"\n\n\nHaving shown that slaveholders regard their slaves as mere working\nanimals and cattle, we now proceed to show that their actual treatment\nof them, is _worse_ than it would be if they were brutes. We repeat\nit, SLAVEHOLDERS TREAT THEIR SLAVES WORSE THAN THEY DO THEIR BRUTES.\nWhoever heard of cows or sheep being deliberately tied up and beaten\nand lacerated till they died? or horses coolly tortured by the hour,\ntill covered with mangled flesh, or of swine having their legs tied\nand being suspended from a tree and lacerated with thongs for hours,\nor of hounds stretched and made fast at full length, flayed with\nwhips, red pepper rubbed into their bleeding gashes, and hot brine\ndashed on to aggravate the torture? Yet just such forms and degrees of\ntorture are _daily_ perpetrated upon the slaves. Now no man that knows\nhuman nature will marvel at this. Though great cruelties have always\nbeen inflicted by men upon brutes, yet incomparably the most horrid\never perpetrated, have been those of men upon _their own species_. Any\nleaf of history turned over at random has proof enough of this. Every\nreflecting mind perceives that when men hold _human beings_ as\n_property_, they must, from the nature of the case, treat them worse\nthan they treat their horses and oxen. It is impossible for _cattle_\nto excite in men such tempests of fury as men excite in each other.\nMen are often provoked if their horses or hounds refuse to do, or\ntheir pigs refuse to go where they wish to drive them, but the feeling\nis rarely intense and never permanent. It is vexation and impatience,\nrather than settled rage, malignity, or revenge. If horses and dogs\nwere intelligent beings, and still held as property, their opposition\nto the wishes of their owners, would exasperate them immeasurably more\nthan it would be possible for them to do, with the minds of brutes.\nNone but little children and idiots get angry at sticks and stones\nthat lie in their way or hurt them; but put into sticks and stones\nintelligence, and will, and power of feeling and motion, while they\nremain as now, articles of property, and what a towering rage would\nmen be in, if bushes whipped them in the face when they walked among\nthem, or stones rolled over their toes when they climbed hills! and\nwhat exemplary vengeance would be inflicted upon door-steps and\nhearth-stones, if they were to move out of their places, instead of\nlying still where they were put for their owners to tread upon. The\ngreatest provocation to human nature is _opposition to its will_. If a\nman's will be resisted by one far _below_ him, the provocation is\nvastly greater, than when it is resisted by an acknowledged superior.\nIn the former case, it inflames strong passions, which in the latter\nlie dormant. The rage of proud Haman knew no bounds against the poor\nJew who would not do as he wished, and so he built a gallows for him.\nIf the person opposing the will of another, be so far below him as to\nbe on a level with chattels, and be actually held and used as an\narticle of property; pride, scorn, lust of power, rage and revenge\nexplode together upon the hapless victim. The idea of _property_\nhaving a will, and that too in opposition to the will of its _owner_,\nand counteracting it, is a stimulant of terrible power to the most\nrelentless human passions and from the nature of slavery, and the\nconstitution of the human mind, this fierce stimulant must, with\nvarious degrees of strength, act upon slaveholders almost without\nceasing. The slave, however abject and crushed, is an intelligent\nbeing: he has a _will_, and that will cannot be annihilated, _it will\nshow itself_; if for a moment it is smothered, like pent up fires when\nvent is found, it flames the fiercer. Make intelligence _property_,\nand its manager will have his match; he is met at every turn by an\n_opposing will_, not in the form of down-right rebellion and defiance,\nbut yet, visibly, an _ever-opposing will_. He sees it in the\ndissatisfied look, and reluctant air and unwilling movement; the\nconstrained strokes of labor, the drawling tones, the slow hearing,\nthe feigned stupidity, the sham pains and sickness, the short memory;\nand he _feels_ it every hour, in innumerable forms, frustrating his\ndesigns by a ceaseless though perhaps invisible countermining. This\nunceasing opposition to the will of its 'owner,' on the part of his\nrational 'property,' is to the slaveholder as the hot iron to the\nnerve. He raves under it, and storms, and gnashes, and smites; but the\nmore he smites, the hotter it gets, and the more it burns him.\nFurther, this opposition of the slave's will to his owner's, not only\nexcites him to severity, that he may gratify his rage, but makes it\nnecessary for him to use violence in breaking down this\nresistance--thus subjecting the slave to additional tortures. There is\nanother inducement to cruel inflictions upon the slave, and a\nnecessity for it, which does not exist in the case of brutes.\nOffenders must be made an example to others, to strike them with\nterror. If a slave runs away and is caught, his master flogs him with\nterrible severity, not merely to gratify his resentment, and to keep\nhim from running away again, but as a warning to others. So in every\ncase of disobedience, neglect, stubbornness, unfaithfulness,\nindolence, insolence, theft, feigned sickness, when his directions are\nforgotten, or slighted, or supposed to be, or his wishes crossed, or\nhis property injured, or left exposed, or his work ill-executed, the\nmaster is tempted to inflict cruelties, not merely to wreak his own\nvengeance upon him, and to make the slave more circumspect in future,\nbut to sustain his authority over the other slaves, to restrain them\nfrom like practices, and to preserve his own property.\n\nA multitude of facts, illustrating the position that slaveholders\ntreat their slaves _worse_ than they do their cattle, will occur to\nall who are familiar with slavery. When cattle break through their\nowners' inclosures and escape, if found, they are driven back and\nfastened in again; and even slaveholders would execrate as a wretch,\nthe man who should tie them up, and bruise and lacerate them for\nstraying away; but when _slaves_ that have escaped are caught, they\nare flogged with the most terrible severity. When herds of cattle are\ndriven to market, they are suffered to go in the easiest way, each by\nhimself; but when slaves are driven to market, they are fastened\ntogether with handcuffs, galled by iron collars and chains, and thus\nforced to travel on foot hundreds of miles, sleeping at night in their\nchains. Sheep, and sometimes horned cattle are marked with their\nowners' initials--but this is generally done with paint, and of course\nproduces no pain. Slaves, too, are often marked with their owners'\ninitials, but the letters are stamped into their flesh with a hot\niron. Cattle are suffered to graze their pastures without stint; but\nthe slaves are restrained in their food to a fixed allowance. The\nslaveholders' horses are notoriously far better fed, more moderately\nworked, have fewer hours of labor, and longer intervals of rest than\ntheir slaves; and their valuable horses are far more comfortably\nhoused and lodged, and their stables more effectually defended from\nthe weather, than the slaves' huts. We have here merely _begun_ a\ncomparison, which the reader can easily carry out at length, from the\nmaterials furnished in this work.\n\nWe will, however, subjoin a few testimonies of slaveholders, and\nothers who have resided in slave states, expressly asserting that\nslaves are treated _worse than brutes_.\n\n\nThe late Dr. GEORGE BUCHANAN, of Baltimore, Maryland, a member of the\nAmerican Philosophical Society, in an oration delivered in Baltimore,\nJuly 4, 1791, page 10, says:\n\n\"The Africans whom you despise, whom you _more inhumanly treat than\nbrutes_, are equally capable of improvement with yourselves.\"\n\n\nThe Rev. GEORGE WHITEFIELD, in his celebrated letter to the\nslaveholders of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and\nGeorgia, written one hundred years ago, (See Benezet's Caution to\nGreat Britain and her Colonies, page 13), says:\n\n\"Sure I am, it is sinful to use them as bad, nay worse than if they\nwere brutes; and whatever particular _exceptions_ there may be, (as I\nwould charitably hope there are _some_) I fear the _generality_ of you\nthat own negroes, _are liable to such a charge_.\"\n\n\nMr. RICE, of Kentucky in his speech in the Convention that formed the\nConstitution of that state, in 1790, says:\n\n\"He [the slave] is a rational creature, reduced by the power of\nlegislation to the _state of a brute_, and thereby deprived of every\nprivilege of humanity.... The brute may steal or rob, to supply\nhis hunger; but the slave, though in the most starving condition,\n_dare not do either, on penalty of death, or some severe punishment_.\"\n\n\nRev. HORACE MOULTON, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in\nMarlborough, Mass. who lived some years in Georgia, says:\n\n\"The southern horses and dogs have enough to eat, and good care is\ntaken of them; but southern negroes--who can describe their misery and\ntheir wretchedness, their nakedness and their cruel scourgings!  None\nbut God. Should we _whip our horses_ as they whip their slaves, even\nfor small offences, we should expose ourselves to the penalty of the\nlaw.\"\n\n\nRev. PHINEAS SMITH, Centerville, Allegany county, New York, who has\nresided four years in the midst of southern slavery--\n\n\"Avarice and cruelty are twin sisters; and I do not hesitate to\ndeclare before the world, as my deliberate opinion, that there is\n_less compassion_ for working slaves at the south, than for working\noxen at the north.\"\n\n\nSTEVEN SEWALL, Esq. Winthrop, Maine, a member of the Congregational\nChurch, and late agent of the Winthrop Manufacturing Company, who\nresided five years in Alabama, says--\n\n\"I do not think that brutes, not even horses, are treated with _so\nmuch cruelty_ as American slaves.\"\n\nIf the preceding considerations are insufficient to remove incredulity\nrespecting the cruelties suffered by slaves, and if northern objectors\nstill say, 'We might believe such things of savages, but that\ncivilized men, and republicans, in this Christian country, can openly\nand by system perpetrate such enormities, is impossible';--to such we\nreply, that this incredulity of the people of the free states, is not\nonly discreditable to their intelligence, but to their consistency.\n\nWho is so ignorant as not to know, or so incredulous as to disbelieve,\nthat the early Baptists of New England were fined, imprisoned,\nscourged, and finally banished by our puritan forefathers?--and that\nthe Quakers were confined in dungeons, publicly whipped at the\ncart-tail, had their ears cut off, cleft sticks put upon their\ntongues, and that five of them, four men and one woman, were hung on\nBoston Common, for propagating the sentiments of the Society of\nFriends? Who discredits the fact, that the civil authorities in\nMassachusetts, less than a hundred and fifty years ago, confined in\nthe public jail a little girl of four years old, and publicly hung the\nRev. Mr. Burroughs, and eighteen other persons, mostly women, and\nkilled another, (Giles Corey,) by extending him upon his back, and\npiling weights upon his breast till he was crushed to death [17]--and\nthis for no other reason than that these men and women, and this\nlittle child, were accused by others of _bewitching_ them.\n\n[Footnote 17:  Judge Sewall, of Mass. in his diary, describing this\nhorrible scene, says that when the tongue of the poor sufferer had, in\nthe extremity of his dying agony, protruded from his mouth, a person\nin attendance took his cane and thrust it back into his mouth.]\n\n\nEven the children in Connecticut, know that the following was once a\nlaw of that state:\n\n\"No food or lodging shall be allowed to a Quaker. If any person turns\nQuaker, he shall be banished, and not be suffered to return on pain of\ndeath.\"\n\nThese objectors can readily believe the fact, that in the city of New\nYork, less than a hundred years since, thirteen persons were publicly\nburned to death, over a slow fire: and that the legislature of the\nsame State took under its paternal care the African slave-trade, and\ndeclared that \"all encouragement should be given to the _direct_\nimportation of slaves; that all _smuggling_ of slaves should be\ncondemned, as _an eminent discouragement to the fair trader_.\"\n\nThey do not call in question the fact that the African slave-trade was\ncarried on from the ports of the free states till within thirty years;\nthat even members of the Society of Friends were actively engaged in\nit, shortly before the revolutionary war; [18] that as late as 1807,\nno less than fifty-nine of the vessels engaged in that trade, were\nsent out from the little state of Rhode Island, which had then only\nabout seventy thousand inhabitants; that among those most largely\nengaged in these foul crimes, are the men whom the people of Rhode\nIsland delight to honor: that the man who dipped most deeply in that\ntrade of blood (James De Wolf,) and amassed a most princely fortune by\nit, was not long since their senator in Congress; and another, who was\ncaptain of one of his vessels, was recently Lieutenant Governor of the\nstate.\n\n[Footnote 18: See Life and Travels of John Woolman, page 92.]\n\n\nThey can believe, too, all the horrors of the middle passage, the\nchains, suffocation, maimings, stranglings, starvation, drownings, and\ncold blooded murders, atrocities perpetrated on board these\nslave-ships by their own citizens, perhaps by their own townsmen and\nneighbors--possibly by their own _fathers_: but oh! they 'can't\nbelieve that the slaveholders can be so hard-hearted towards their\nslaves as to treat them with great cruelty.' They can believe that his\nHoliness the Pope, with his cardinals, bishops and priests, have\ntortured, broken on the wheel, and burned to death thousands of\nProtestants--that eighty thousand of the Anabaptists were slaughtered\nin Germany--that hundreds of thousands of the blameless Waldenses,\nHuguenots and Lollards, were torn in pieces by the most titled\ndignitaries of church and state, and that _almost every professedly\nChristian sect, has, at some period of its history, persecuted unto\nblood_ those who dissented from their creed. They can believe, also,\nthat in Boston, New York, Utica, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Alton, and\nin scores of other cities and villages of the free states, 'gentlemen\nof property and standing,' led on by civil officers, by members of\nstate legislatures, and of Congress, by judges and attorneys-general,\nby editors of newspapers, and by professed ministers of the gospel,\nhave organized mobs, broken up lawful meetings of peaceable citizens,\ncommitted assault and battery upon their persons, knocked them down\nwith stones, led them about with ropes, dragged them from their beds\nat midnight, gagged and forced them into vehicles, and driven them\ninto unfrequented places, and there tormented and disfigured\nthem--that they have rifled their houses, made bonfires of their\nfurniture in the streets, burned to the ground, or torn in pieces the\nhalls or churches in which they were assembled--attacked them with\ndeadly weapons, stabbed some, shot others, and killed one. They can\nbelieve all this--and further, that a majority of the citizens in the\nplaces where these outrages have been committed, connived at them; and\nby refusing to indict the perpetrators, or, if they were indicted, by\ncombining to secure their acquittal, and rejoicing in it, have\npublicly adopted these felonies as their own. All these things they\ncan believe without hesitation, and that they have even been done by\ntheir own acquaintances, neighbors, relatives; perhaps those with whom\nthey interchange courtesies, those for whom they _vote_, or to whose\n_salaries they contribute_--but yet, oh! they can never believe that\nslaveholders inflict cruelties upon their slaves!\n\nThey can give full credence to the kidnapping, imprisonment, and\ndeliberate murder of WILLIAM MORGAN, and that by men of high standing\nin society; they can believe that this deed was aided and abetted, and\nthe murderers screened from justice, by a large number of influential\npersons, who were virtually accomplices, either before or after the\nfact; and that this combination was so effectual, as successfully to\ndefy and triumph over the combined powers of the government;--yet\nthat those who constantly rob men of their time, liberty, and wages,\nand all their _rights_, should rob them of bits of flesh, and\noccasionally of a tooth, make their backs bleed, and put fetters on\ntheir legs, is too monstrous to be credited! Further these same\npersons, who 'can't believe' that slaveholders are so iron-hearted as\nto ill-treat their slaves, believe that the very _elite_ of these\nslaveholders, those most highly esteemed and honored among them, are\ncontinually daring each other to mortal conflict, and in the presence\nof mutual friends, taking deadly aim at each other's hearts, with\nsettled purpose to _kill_, if possible. That among the most\ndistinguished governors of slave states, among their most celebrated\njudges, senators, and representatives in Congress, there is hardly\n_one_, who has not either killed, or tried to kill, or aided and\nabetted his friends in trying to kill, one or more individuals. That\npistols, dirks, bowie knives, or other instruments of death are\ngenerally carried throughout the slave states--and that deadly affrays\nwith them, in the streets of their cities and villages, are matters of\ndaily occurrence; that the sons of slaveholders in southern colleges,\nbully, threaten, and fire upon their teachers, and their teachers upon\nthem; that during the last summer, in the most celebrated seat of\nscience and literature in the south, the University of Virginia, the\nprofessors were attacked by more than seventy armed students, and, in\nthe words of a Virginia paper, were obliged 'to conceal themselves\nfrom their fury;' also that almost all the riots and violence that\noccur in northern colleges, are produced by the turbulence and lawless\npassions of southern students. That such are the furious passions of\nslaveholders, no considerations of personal respect, none for the\nproprieties of life, none for the honor of our national legislature,\nnone for the character of our country abroad, can restrain the\nslaveholding members of Congress from the most disgraceful personal\nencounters on the floor of our nation's legislature--smiting their\nfists in each other's faces, throttling and even _kicking_ and trying\nto _gouge_ each other--that during the session of the Congress just\nclosed, no less than six slaveholders, taking fire at words spoken in\ndebate, have either rushed at each other's throats, or kicked, or\nstruck, or attempted to knock each other down; and that in all these\ninstances, they would doubtless have killed each other, if their\nfriends had not separated them. Further, they know full well, these\nwere not insignificant, vulgar blackguards, elected because they were\nthe head bullies and bottle-holders in a boxing ring, or because their\nconstituents went drunk to the ballot box; but they were some of the\nmost conspicuous members of the House--one of them a former speaker.\n\nOur newspapers are full of these and similar daily occurrences among\nslaveholders, copied verbatim from their own accounts of them in their\nown papers and all this we fully credit; no man is simpleton enough to\ncry out 'Oh, I can't believe that slaveholders do such things;'--and\nyet when we turn to the treatment which these men mete out to their\n_slaves_, and show that they are in the habitual practice of striking,\nkicking, knocking down and shooting _them_ as well as each other--the\nlook of blank incredulity that comes over northern dough-faces, is a\nstudy for a painter: and then the sentimental outcry, with eyes and\nhands uplifted, 'Oh, indeed, I can't believe the slaveholders are so\ncruel to their slaves.' Most amiable and touching charity! Truly, of\nall Yankee notions and free state products, there is nothing like a\n'_dough face_'--the great northern staple for the southern\nmarket--'made to order,' in any quantity, and _always on hand_. 'Dough\nfaces!' Thanks to a slaveholder's contempt for the name, with its\nimmortality of truth, infamy and scorn.[19]\n\n[Footnote 19: \"_Doe_ face,\" which owes its paternity to John Randolph,\nage has mellowed into \"_dough_ face\"--a cognomen quite as expressive\nand appropriate, if not as classical.]\n\n\nThough the people of the free states affect to disbelieve the\ncruelties perpetrated upon the slaves, yet slaveholders believe _each\nother_ guilty of them, and speak of them with the utmost freedom. If\nslaveholders disbelieve any statement of cruelty inflicted upon a\nslave, it is not on account of its _enormity_. The traveler at the\nsouth will hear in Delaware, and in all parts of Maryland and\nVirginia, from the lips of slaveholders, statements of the most\nhorrible cruelties suffered by the slaves _farther_ south, in the\nCarolinas and Georgia; when he finds himself in those states he will\nhear similar accounts about the treatment of the slaves in _Florida_\nand _Louisiana_; and in Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee he will hear\nof the tragedies enacted on the plantations in Arkansas, Alabama and\nMississippi. Since Anti-Slavery Societies have been in operation, and\nslaveholders have found themselves on trial before the world, and put\nupon their good behavior, northern slaveholders have grown cautious,\nand now often substitute denials and set defences, for the voluntary\ntestimony about cruelty in the far south, which, before that period,\nwas given with entire freedom. Still, however, occasionally the 'truth\nwill out,' as the reader will see by the following testimony of an\nEast Tennessee newspaper, in which, speaking of the droves of slaves\ntaken from the upper country to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.,\nthe editor says, they are 'traveling to a region where their condition\nthrough time WILL BE SECOND ONLY TO THAT OF THE WRETCHED CREATURES IN\nHELL.' See \"Maryville Intelligencer,\" of Oct, 4, 1835. Distant\ncruelties and cruelties _long past_, have been till recently, favorite\ntopics with slaveholders. They have not only been ready to acknowledge\nthat their _fathers_ have exercised great cruelty toward their slaves,\nbut have voluntarily, in their official acts, made proclamation of it\nand entered it on their public records. The Legislature of North\nCarolina, in 1798, branded the successive legislatures of that state\nfor more than thirty years previous, with the infamy of treatment\ntowards their slaves, which they pronounce to be 'disgraceful to\nhumanity, and degrading in the highest degree to the laws and\nprinciples of a free, Christian, and enlightened country.' This\ntreatment was the enactment and perpetuation of a most barbarous and\ncruel law.\n\nBut enough. As the objector can and does believe all the preceeding\nfacts, if he still '_can't_ believe' as to the cruelties of\nslaveholders, it would be barbarous to tantalize his incapacity either\nwith evidence or argument. Let him have the benefit of the act in such\ncase made and provided.\n\nHaving shown that the incredulity of the objector respecting the\ncruelty inflicted upon the slaves, is discreditable to his\nconsistency, we now proceed to show that it is equally so to his\n_intelligence_.\n\nWhoever disbelieves the foregoing statements of cruelties, on the\nground of their enormity, proclaims his own ignorance of the nature\nand history of man. What! incredulous about the atrocities perpetrated\nby those who hold human beings as property, to be used for their\npleasure, when history herself has done little else in recording human\ndeeds, than to dip her blank chart in the blood shed by arbitrary\npower, and unfold to human gaze the great red scroll? That cruelty is\nthe natural effect of arbitrary power, has been the result of all\nexperience, and the voice of universal testimony since the world\nbegan. Shall human nature's axioms, six thousand years old, go for\nnothing? Are the combined product of human experience, and the\nconcurrent records of human character, to be set down as 'old wives'\nfables?' To disbelieve that arbitrary power naturally and habitually\nperpetrates cruelties, where it can do it with impunity, is not only\nignorance of man, but of _things_. It is to be blind to innumerable\nproofs which are before every man's eyes; proofs that are stereotyped\nin the very words and phrases that are on every one's lips. Take for\nexample the words _despot_ and _despotic_. Despot, signifies\netymologically, merely one who _possesses_ arbitrary power, and at\nfirst, it was used to designate those alone who _possessed_ unlimited\npower over human beings, entirely irrespective of the way in which\nthey exercised it, whether mercifully or cruelly. But the fact, that\nthose who possessed such power, made their subjects their _victims_,\nhas wrought a total change in the popular meaning of the word. It now\nsignifies, in common parlance, not one who _possesses_ unlimited power\nover others, but one who exercises the power that he has, whether\nlittle or much, _cruelly_. So _despotic_, instead of meaning what it\nonce did, something pertaining to the _possession_ of unlimited power,\nsignifies something pertaining to the _capricious, unmerciful and\nrelentless exercise_ of such power.\n\nThe word tyrant, is another example--formerly it implied merely a\n_possession_ of arbitrary power, but from the invariable abuse of such\npower by its possessors, the proper and entire meaning of the word is\nlost, and it now signifies merely one who _exercises power to the\ninjury of others_. The words tyrannical and tyranny follow the same\nanalogy. So the word arbitrary; which formerly implied that which\npertains to the will of one, independently of others; but from the\nfact that those who had no restraint upon their wills, were invariably\ncapricious, unreasonable and oppressive, these words convey accurately\nthe present sense of _arbitrary_, when applied to a person.\n\nHow can the objector persist in disbelieving that cruelty is the\nnatural effect of arbitrary power, when the very words of every day,\nrise up on his lips in testimony against him--words which once\nsignified the _mere possession_ of arbitrary power, but have lost\ntheir meaning, and now signify merely its cruel _exercise_; because\nsuch a use of it has been proved by the experience of the world, to be\ninseparable from its _possession_--words now frigid with horror, and\nnever used even by the objector without feeling a cold chill run over\nhim.\n\nArbitrary power is to the mind what alcohol is to the body; it\nintoxicates. Man loves power. It is perhaps the strongest human\npassion; and the more absolute the power, the stronger the desire for\nit; and the more it is desired, the more its exercise is enjoyed: this\nenjoyment is to human nature a fearful temptation,--generally an\novermatch for it. Hence it is true, with hardly an exception, that\narbitrary power is abused in proportion as it is _desired_. The fact\nthat a person intensely desires power over others, _without\nrestraint_, shows the absolute necessity of restraint. What woman\nwould marry a man who made it a condition that he should have the\npower to divorce her whenever he pleased? Oh! he might never wish to\nexercise it, but the _power_ he would have! No woman, not stark mad,\nwould trust her happiness in such hands.\n\nWould a father apprentice his son to a master, who insisted that his\npower over the lad should be _absolute_? The master might perhaps,\nnever wish to commit a battery upon the boy, but if he should, he\ninsists upon having full swing! He who would leave his son in the,\nclutches of such a wretch, would be bled and blistered for a lunatic\nas soon as his friends could get their hands upon him.\n\nThe possession of power, even when greatly restrained, is such a fiery\nstimulant, that its lodgement in human hands is always perilous. Give\nmen the handling of immense sums of money, and all the eyes of Argus\nand the hands of Briarcus can hardly prevent embezzlement.\n\nThe mutual and ceaseless accusations of the two great political\nparties in this country, show the universal belief that this tendency\nof human nature to abuse power, is so strong, that even the most\npowerful legal restraints are insufficient for its safe custody. From\ncongress and state legislatures down to grog-shop caucuses and street\nwranglings, each party keeps up an incessant din about _abuses of\npower_. Hardly an officer, either of the general or state governments,\nfrom the President down to the ten thousand postmasters, and from\ngovernors to the fifty thousand constables, escapes the charge of\n'_abuse of power_.' 'Oppression,' 'Extortion,' 'Venality,' 'Bribery,'\n'Corruption,' 'Perjury,' 'Misrule,' 'Spoils,' 'Defalcation,' stand on\nevery newspaper. Now without any estimate of the lies told in these\nmutual charges, there is truth enough to make each party ready to\nbelieve of the other, and _of their best men too,_ any abuse of power,\nhowever monstrous. As is the State, so is the Church. From General\nConferences to circuit preachers; and from General Assemblies to\nchurch sessions, abuses of power spring up as weeds from the dunghill.\n\nAll legal restraints are framed upon the presumption, that men will\nabuse their power if not hemmed in by them. This lies at the bottom of\nall those checks and balances contrived for keeping governments upon\ntheir centres. If there is among human convictions one that is\ninvariable and universal, it is, that when men possess unrestrained\npower over others, over their time, choice, conscience, persons,\nvotes, or means of subsistence, they are under great temptations to\nabuse it; and that the intensity with which such power is desired,\ngenerally measures the certainty and the degree of its abuse.\n\nThat American slaveholders possess a power over their slaves which is\nvirtually absolute, none will deny.[20] That they _desire_ this\nabsolute power, is shown from the fact of their holding and exercising\nit, and making laws to confirm and enlarge it. That the desire to\npossess this power, every tittle of it, is _intense_, is proved by the\nfact, that slaveholders cling to it with such obstinate tenacity, as\nwell as by all their doings and sayings, their threats, cursings and\ngnashings against all who denounce the exercise of such power as\nusurpation and outrage, and counsel its immediate abrogation.\n\n[Footnote 20: The following extracts from the laws of slave-states are\nproofs sufficient.\n\n\"The slave is ENTIRELY subject to the WILL of his master.\"--Louisiana\nCivil Code, Art. 273.\n\n\"Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to\nbe _chattels personal,_ in the hands of their owner and possessors,\nand their executors, administrators and assigns, TO ALL INTENTS,\nCONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES, WHATSOEVER.\"--Laws of South Carolina, 2\nBrev. Dig. 229; Prince's Digest, 446, &c.]\n\n\nFrom the nature of the case--from the laws of mind, such power, so\nintensely desired, griped with such a death-clutch, and with such\nfierce spurnings of all curtailment or restraint, _cannot but be\nabused._ Privations and inflictions must be its natural, habitual\nproducts, with ever and anon, terror, torture, and despair let loose\nto do their worst upon the helpless victims.\n\nThough power over others is in every case liable to be used to their\ninjury, yet, in almost all cases, the subject individual is shielded\nfrom great outrages by strong safeguards. If he have talents, or\nlearning, or wealth, or office, or personal respectability, or\ninfluential friends, these, with the protection of law and the rights\nof citizenship, stand round him as a body guard: and even if he lacked\nall these, yet, had he the same color, features, form, dialect,\nhabits, and associations with the privileged caste of society, he\nwould find in _them_ a shield from many injuries, which would be\n_invited,_ if in these respects he differed widely from the rest of\nthe community, and was on that account regarded with disgust and\naversion. This is the condition of the slave; not only is he deprived\nof the artificial safeguards of the law, but has none of those\n_natural_ safeguards enumerated above, which are a protection to\nothers. But not only is the slave destitute of those peculiarities,\nhabits, tastes, and acquisitions, which by assimilating the possessor\nto the rest of the community, excite their interest in him, and thus,\nin a measure, secure for him their protection; but he possesses those\npeculiarities of bodily organization which are looked upon with deep\ndisgust, contempt, prejudice, and aversion. Besides this, constant\ncontact with the ignorance and stupidity of the slaves, their filth,\nrags, and nakedness; their cowering air, servile employments,\nrepulsive food, and squalid hovels, their purchase and sale, and use\nas brutes--all these associations, constantly mingling and circulating\nin the minds of slaveholders, and inveterated by the hourly\nirritations which must assail all who use human beings as things,\nproduce in them a permanent state of feeling toward the slave, made up\nof repulsion and settled ill-will. When we add to this the corrosions\nproduced by the petty thefts of slaves, the necessity of constant\nwatching, their reluctant service, and indifference to their master's\ninterests, their ill concealed aversion to him, and spurning of his\nauthority; and finally, that fact, as old as human nature, that men\nalways hate those whom they oppress, and oppress those whom they hate,\nthus oppression and hatred mutually begetting and perpetuating each\nother--and we have a raging compound of fiery elements and disturbing\nforces, so stimulating and inflaming the mind of the slaveholder\nagainst the slave, that _it cannot but break forth upon him with\ndesolating fury._\n\nTo deny that cruelty is the spontaneous and uniform product of\narbitrary power, and that the natural and controlling tendency of such\npower is to make its possessor cruel, oppressive, and revengeful\ntowards those who are subjected to his control, is, we repeat, to set\nat nought the combined experience of the human race, to invalidate its\ntestimony, and to reverse its decisions from time immemorial.\n\nA volume might be filled with the testimony of American slaveholders\nalone, to the truth of the preceding position. We subjoin a few\nillustrations, and first, the memorable declaration of President\nJefferson, who lived and died a slaveholder. It has been published a\nthousand times, and will live forever. In his \"Notes on Virginia,\"\nsixth Philadelphia edition, p. 251, he says,--\n\n\"The WHOLE COMMERCE between master and slave, is a PERPETUAL EXERCISE\nof the most _boisterous passions_, the most unremitting DESPOTISM on\nthe one part, and degrading submission on the other..... The parent\n_storms_, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of _wrath_, puts\non the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, GIVES LOOSE TO THE\nWORST OF PASSIONS; and thus _nursed, educated, and daily exercised in\ntyranny,_ cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities.\"\n\nHon. Lewis Summers, Judge of the General Court of Virginia, and a\nslaveholder, said in a speech before the Virginia legislature in 1832;\n(see Richmond Whig of Jan. 26, 1832,)\n\n\"A slave population exercises _the most pernicious influence_ upon the\nmanners, habits and character, of those among whom it exists. Lisping\ninfancy learns the vocabulary of abusive epithets, and struts the\n_embryo tyrant_ of its little domain. The consciousness of superior\ndestiny takes possession of his mind at its earliest dawning, and love\nof power and rule, 'grows with his growth, and strengthens with his\nstrength.' Unless enabled to rise above the operation of those\npowerful causes, he enters the world with miserable notions of\nself-importance, and under the government of an unbridled temper.\"\n\nThe late JUDGE TUCKER of Virginia, a slaveholder, and Professor of Law\nin the University of William and Mary, in his \"Letter to a Member of\nthe Virginia Legislature,\" 1801, says,--\n\n\"I say nothing of the baneful effects of slavery on our _moral\ncharacter_, because I know you have been long sensible of this point.\"\n\nThe Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, consisting of\nall the clergy of that denomination in those states, with a lay\nrepresentation from the churches, most, if not all of whom are\nslaveholders, published a report on slavery in 1834, from which the\nfollowing is an extract.\n\n\"Those only who have the management of servants, know what the\n_hardening effect_ of it is upon _their own feelings towards them._\nThere is no necessity to dwell on this point, as all _owners_ and\n_managers_ fully understand it. He who commences to manage them with\ntenderness and with a willingness to favor them in every way, must be\nwatchful, otherwise he will settle down in _indifference, if not\nseverity.\"_\n\nGENERAL WILLIAM H. HARRISON, now of Ohio, son of the late Governor\nHarrison of Virginia, a slaveholder, while minister from the United\nStates to the Republic of Colombia, wrote a letter to General Simon\nBolivar, then President of that Republic, just as he was about\nassuming despotic power. The letter is dated Bogota, Sept. 22, 1826.\nThe following is an extract.\n\n\"From a knowledge of your own disposition and present feelings, your\nexcellency will not be willing to believe that you could ever be\nbrought to an act of tyranny, or even to execute justice with\nunnecessary rigor. But trust me, sir, there is nothing more\ncorrupting, nothing more _destructive of the noblest and finest\nfeelings of our nature than the exercise of unlimited power_. The man,\nwho in the beginning of such a career, might shudder at the idea of\ntaking away the life of a fellow-being, might soon have his conscience\nso seared by the repetition of crime, that the agonies of his murdered\nvictims might become music to his soul, and the drippings of the\nscaffold afford blood to swim in. History is full of such excesses.\"\n\nWILLIAM H. FITZHUGH, Esq. of Virginia, a slaveholder, says,--\"Slavery,\nin its mildest form, is cruel and unnatural; _its injurious effects on\nour morals and habits are mutually felt.\"_\n\nHON. SAMUEL S. NICHOLAS, late Judge of the Court of Appeals of\nKentucky, and a slaveholder, in a speech before the legislature of\nthat state, Jan. 1837, says,--\n\n\"The deliberate convictions of the most matured consideration I can\ngive the subject, are, that the institution of slavery is a _most\nserious injury to the habits, manners and morals_ of our white\npopulation--that it leads to sloth, indolence, dissipation, and vice.\"\n\nDr. THOMAS COOPER, late President of the College of South Carolina, in\na note to his edition of the \"Institutes of Justinian\" page 413,\nsays,--\n\n\"All absolute power has a direct tendency, not only to detract from\nthe happiness of the persons who are subject to it, but to DEPRAVE THE\nGOOD QUALITIES of those who possess it..... the whole history of human\nnature, in the present and every former age, will justify me in saying\nthat _such is the tendency of power_ on the one hand and slavery on\nthe other.\"\n\nA South Carolina slaveholder, whose name is with the executive\ncommittee of the Am. A.S. Society, says, in a letter, dated April 4,\n1838:--\n\n\"I think it (slavery) _ruinous to the temper_ and to our spiritual\nlife; it is a thorn in the flesh, for ever and for ever goading us on\nto say and to do what the Eternal God cannot but be displeased with. I\nspeak from experience, and oh! my desire is to be delivered from it.\"\n\n\nMonsieur C.C. ROBIN, who was a resident of Louisiana from 1802 to\n1806, published a work on that country; in which, speaking of the\neffect of slaveholding on masters and their children, he says:--\n\n\"The young creoles make the negroes who surround them the play-things\nof their whims: they flog, for pastime, those of their own age, just\nas their fathers flog others at their will. These young creoles,\narrived at the age in which the passions are impetuous, do not _know\nhow to bear contradiction_; they will have every thing done which they\ncommand, _possible or not_; and in default of this, they avenge their\noffended pride by multiplied punishments.\"\n\n\nDr. GEORGE BUCHANAN, of Baltimore, Maryland, member of the American\nPhilosophical Society, in an oration at Baltimore, July 4, 1791,\nsaid:--\n\n\"For such are the effects of subjecting man to slavery, that it\n_destroys every humane principle_, vitiates the mind, instills ideas\nof unlawful cruelties, and eventually subverts the springs of\ngovernment.\"--_Buchanan's Oration_, p. 12.\n\n\nPresident EDWARDS the younger, in a sermon before the Connecticut\nAbolition Society, in 1791, page 8, says:--\n\n\"Slavery has a most direct tendency to haughtiness, and a _domineering\nspirit_ and conduct in the proprietors of the slaves, in their\nchildren, and in all who have the control of them. A man who has been\nbred up in domineering over negroes, can scarcely avoid contracting\nsuch a habit of haughtiness and domination as will express itself in\nhis general treatment of mankind, whether in his private capacity, or\nin any office, civil or military, with which he may be invested.\"\n\n\nThe celebrated MONTESQUIEU, in his \"Spirit of the Laws,\" thus\ndescribes the effect of slaveholding upon the master:--\n\n\"The master contracts all sorts of bad habits; and becomes _haughty,\npassionate, obdurate, vindictive, voluptuous, and cruel_.\"\n\n\nWILBERFORCE, in his speech at the anniversary of the London\nAnti-Slavery Society, in March, 1828, said:--\n\n\"It is _utterly impossible_ that they who live in the administration\nof the petty despotism of a slave community, whose minds have been\n_warped_ and _polluted_ by that contamination, should not _lose that\nrespect_ for their fellow creatures over whom they tyrannize, which is\nessential in the nature and moral being of man, to rescue them from\nthe abuse of power over their prostrate fellow creatures.\"\n\nIn the great debate, in the British Parliament, on the African\nslave-trade, Mr. WHITBREAD said:\n\n\"Arbitrary power would spoil the hearts of the best.\"\n\nBut we need not multiply proofs to establish our position: it is\nsustained by the concurrent testimony of sages, philosophers, poets,\nstatesmen, and moralists, in every period of the world; and who can\nmarvel that those in all ages who have wisely pondered men and things,\nshould be unanimous in such testimony, when the history of arbitrary\npower has come down to us from the beginning of time, struggling\nthrough heaps of slain, and trailing her parchments in blood.\n\nTime would fail to begin with the first despot and track down the\ncarnage step by step. All nations, all ages, all climes crowd forward\nas witnesses, with their scars, and wounds, and dying agonies.\n\nBut to survey a multitude bewilders; let us look at a single nation.\nWe instance Rome; both because its history is more generally known,\nand because it furnishes a larger proportion of instances, in which\narbitrary power was exercised with comparative mildness, than any\nother nation ancient or modern. And yet, her whole existence was a\ntragedy, every actor was an executioner, the curtain rose amidst\nshrieks and fell upon corpses, and the only shifting of the scenes was\nfrom blood to blood. The whole world stood aghast, as under sentence\nof death, awaiting execution, and all nations and tongues were driven,\nwith her own citizens, as sheep to the slaughter. Of her seven kings,\nher hundreds of consuls, tribunes, decemvirs, and dictators, and her\nfifty emperors, there is hardly one whose name has come down to us\nunstained by horrible abuses of power; and that too, notwithstanding\nwe have mere shreds of the history of many of them, owing to their\nantiquity, or to the perturbed times in which they lived; and these\nshreds gathered from the records of their own partial countrymen, who\nwrote and sung their praises. What does this prove? Not that the\nRomans were worse than other men, nor that their rulers were worse\nthan other Romans, for history does not furnish nobler models of\nnatural character than many of those same rulers, when first invested\nwith arbitrary power. Neither was it mainly because the martial\nenterprise of the earlier Romans and the gross sensuality of the\nlater, hardened their hearts to human suffering. In both periods of\nRoman history, and in both these classes, we find men, the keen\nsympathies, generosity, and benevolence of whose general character\nembalmed their names in the grateful memories of multitudes. _They\nwere human beings, and possessed power without restraint_--this\nunravels the mystery.\n\nWho has not heard of the Emperor Trajan, of his moderation, his\nclemency, his gashing sympathies, his forgiveness of injuries and\nforgetfulness of self, his tearing in pieces his own robe, to furnish\nbandages for the wounded--called by the whole world in his day, \"the\nbest emperor of Rome;\" and so affectionately regarded by his subjects,\nthat, ever afterwards, in blessing his successors upon their accession\nto power, they always said, \"May you have the virtue and goodness of\nTrajan!\" yet the deadly conflicts of gladiators who were trained to\nkill each other, to make sport for the spectators, furnished his chief\npastime. At one time he kept up those spectacles for 123 days in\nsuccession. In the tortures which he inflicted on Christians, fire\nand poison, daggers and dungeons, wild beasts and serpents, and the\nrack, did their worst. He threw into the sea, Clemens, the venerable\nbishop of Rome, with an anchor about his neck; and tossed to the\nfamished lions in the amphitheatre the aged Ignatius.\n\nPliny the younger, who was proconsul under Trajan, may well be\nmentioned in connection with the emperor, as a striking illustration\nof the truth, that goodness and amiableness towards one class of men\nis often turned into cruelty towards another. History can hardly show\na more gentle and lovely character than Pliny. While pleading at the\nbar, he always sought out the grievances of the poorest and most\ndespised persons, entered into their wrongs with his whole soul, and\nnever took a fee. Who can read his admirable letters without being\ntouched by their tenderness and warmed by their benignity and\nphilanthropy: and yet, this tender-hearted Pliny coolly plied with\nexcruciating torture two spotless females, who had served as\ndeaconesses in the Christian church, hoping to extort from them matter\nof accusation against the Christians. He commanded Christians to\nabjure their faith, invoke the gods, pour out libations to the statues\nof the emperor, burn incense to idols, and curse Christ. If they\nrefused, he ordered them to execution.\n\nWho has not heard of the Emperor Titus--so beloved for his mild\nvirtues and compassionate regard for the suffering, that he was named\n\"The Delight of Mankind;\" so tender of the lives of his subjects that\nhe took the office of high priest, that his hands might never be\ndefiled with blood; and was heard to declare, with tears, that he had\nrather die than put another to death. So intent upon making others\nhappy, that when once about to retire to sleep, and not being able to\nrecall any particular act of beneficence performed during the day, he\ncried out in anguish, \"Alas! I have lost a day!\"  And, finally, whom\nthe learned Kennet, in his Roman Antiquities, characterizes as \"the\nonly prince in the world that has the character of _never doing an ill\naction_.\"  Yet, witnessing the mortal combats of the captives taken to\nwar, killing each other in the amphitheatre, amidst the acclamations\nof the populace, was a favorite amusement with Titus. At one time he\nexhibited shows of gladiators, which lasted one hundred days, during\nwhich the amphitheatre was flooded with human blood. At another of\nhis public exhibitions he caused five thousand wild beasts to be\nbaited in the amphitheatre. During the siege of Jerusalem, he set\nambushes to seize the famishing Jews, who stole out of the city by\nnight to glean food in the valleys: these he would first dreadfully\nscourge, then torment them with all conceivable tortures, and, at\nlast, crucify them before the wall of the city. According to\nJosephus, not less than five hundred a day were thus tormented. And\nwhen many of the Jews, frantic with famine, deserted to the Romans,\nTitus cut off their hands and drove them back. After the destruction\nof Jerusalem, he dragged to Rome one hundred thousand captives, sold\nthem as slaves, and scattered them through every province of the\nempire.\n\nThe kindness, condescension, and forbearance of Adrian were\nproverbial; he was one of the most eloquent orators of his age; and\nwhen pleading the cause of injured innocence, would melt and overwhelm\nthe auditors by the pathos of his appeals. It was his constant maxim,\nthat he was an Emperor, not for his own good, but for the benefit of\nhis fellow creatures. He stooped to relieve the wants of the meanest\nof his subjects, and would peril his life by visiting them when sick\nof infectious diseases; he prohibited, by law, masters from killing\ntheir slaves, gave to slaves legal trial, and exempted them from\ntorture; yet towards certain individuals and classes, he showed\nhimself a monster of cruelty. He prided himself on his knowledge of\narchitecture, and ordered to execution the most celebrated architect\nof Rome, because he had criticised one of the Emperor's designs. He\nbanished all the Jews from their native land, and drove them to the\nends of the earth; and unloosed the bloodhounds of persecution to rend\nin pieces his Christian subjects.\n\nThe gentleness and benignity of the Emperor Aurelius, have been\ncelebrated in story and song. History says of him, 'Nothing could\nquench his desire of being a blessing to mankind;' and Pope's eulogy\nof him is in the mouth of every schoolboy--'Like good Aurelius, let\nhim reign;' and yet, '_good_ Aurelius,' lifted the flood gates of the\nfourth, and one of the most terrible persecutions against Christians\nthat ever raged. He sent orders into different parts of his empire,\nto have the Christians murdered who would not deny Christ. The\nblameless Polycarp, trembling under the weight of a hundred years, was\ndragged to the stake and burned to ashes. Pothinus, Bishop of Lyons,\nat the age of ninety, was dragged through the streets, beaten, stoned,\ntrampled upon by the soldiers, and left to perish. Tender virgins\nwere put into nets, and thrown to infuriated wild bulls; others were\nfastened in red hot iron chairs; and venerable matrons were thrown to\nbe devoured by dogs.\n\nConstantine the Great has been the admiration of Christendom for his\nvirtues. The early Christian writers adorn his justice, benevolence\nand piety with the most exalted eulogy. He was baptized, and admitted\nto the Christian church. He abrogated Paganism, and made Christianity\nthe religion of his empire; he attended the councils of the early\nfathers of the church, consulted with the bishops, and devoted himself\nwith the most untiring zeal to the propagation of Christianity, and to\nthe promotion of peace and love among its professors; he convened the\nCouncil of Nice, to settle disputes which had long distracted the\nchurch, appeared in the assembly with admirable modesty and temper,\nmoderated the heats of the contending parties, implored them to\nexercise mutual forbearance, and exhorted them to love unfeigned, to\nforgive one another, as they hoped to be forgiven by Christ. Who would\nnot think it uncharitable to accuse such a man of barbarity in the\nexercise of power?--and yet he drove Arius and his associates into\nbanishment, for opinion's sake, denounced death against all with whom\nhis books should afterwards be found, and prohibited, on pain of\ndeath, the exercise, however peaceably, of the functions of any other\nreligion than Christianity. In a fit of jealousy and rage, he ordered\nhis innocent son, Crispus, to execution, without granting him a\nhearing; and upon finding him innocent, killed his own wife, who had\nfalsely accused him.\n\nTo the preceding maybe added Theodosius the Great, the last Roman\nemperor before the division of the empire. He was a member of the\nChristian church, and in his zeal against paganism, and what he deemed\nheresy, surpassed all who were before him. The Christian writers of\nhis time speak of him as a most illustrious model of justice,\ngenerosity, magnanimity, benevolence, and every virtue. And yet\nTheodosius denounced capital punishments against those who held\n'heretical' opinions, and commanded inter-marriage between cousins to\nbe punished by burning the parties alive. On hearing that the people\nof Antioch had demolished the statues set up in that city, in honor of\nhimself, and had threatened the governor, he flew into a transport of\nfury, ordered the city to be laid in ashes, and all the inhabitants to\nbe slaughtered; and upon hearing of a resistance to his authority in\nThessalonica, in which one of his lieutenants was killed, he instantly\nordered a _general massacre_ of the inhabitants; and in obedience to\nhis command, seven thousand men, women and children were butchered in\nthe space of three hours.\n\nThe foregoing are a few of many instances in the history of Rome, and\nof a countless multitude in the history of the world, illustrating the\ntruth, that the lodgement of arbitrary power, in the best human hands,\nis always a fearfully perilous experiment; that the mildest tempers,\nthe most humane and benevolent dispositions, the most blameless and\nconscientious previous life, with the most rigorous habits of justice,\nare no security, that, in a moment of temptation, the possessors of\nsuch power will not make their subjects their victims; illustrating\nalso the truth, that, while men may exhibit nothing but honor,\nhonesty, mildness, justice, and generosity, in their intercourse with\nthose of their own grade, or language, or nation, or hue, they may\npractice towards others, for whom they have contempt and aversion, the\nmost revolting meanness, perpetrate robbery unceasingly, and inflict\nthe severest privations, and the most barbarous cruelties. But this is\nnot all: history is full of examples, showing not only the effects of\narbitrary power on its victims, but its terrible reaction on those who\nexercise it; blunting their sympathies, and hardening to adamant their\nhearts toward _them_, at least, if not toward the human race\ngenerally. This is shown in the fact, that almost every tyrant in the\nhistory of the world, has entered upon the exercise of absolute power\nwith comparative moderation; multitudes of them with marked\nforbearance and mildness, and not a few with the most signal\ncondescension, magnanimity, gentleness and compassion. Among these\nlast are included those who afterwards became the bloodiest monsters\nthat ever cursed the earth. Of the Roman Emperors, almost every one of\nwhom perpetrated the most barbarous atrocities, Vitellius seems to\nhave been the only one who cruelly exercised his power from the\n_outset_. Most of the other emperors, sprung up into fiends in the\nhot-bed of arbitrary power. If they had not been plied with its fiery\nstimulants, but had lived under the legal restraints of other men,\ninstead of going to the grave under the curses of their generation,\nmultitudes might have called them blessed.\n\nThe moderation which has generally distinguished absolute monarchs at\nthe commencement of their reigns, was doubtless in some cases assumed\nfrom policy; in the greater number, however, as is manifest from their\nhistory, it has been the natural workings of minds held in check by\nprevious associations, and not yet hardened into habits of cruelty, by\nbeing accustomed to the exercise of power without restraint. But as\nthose associations have weakened, and the wielding of uncontrolled\nsway has become a habit, like other evil doers, they have, in the\nexpressive language of Scripture, 'waxed worse and worse.'\n\nFor eighteen hundred years an involuntary shudder has run over the\nhuman race, at the mention of the name of Nero; yet, at the\ncommencement of his reign, he burst into tears when called upon to\nsign the death-warrant of a criminal, and exclaimed, 'Oh, that I had\nnever learned to write!' His mildness and magnanimity won the\naffections of his subjects; and it was not till the poison of absolute\npower had worked within his nature for years, that it swelled him into\na monster.\n\nTiberius, Claudius, and Caligula, began the exercise of their power\nwith singular forbearance, and each grew into a prodigy of cruelty. So\naverse was Caligula to bloodshed, that he refused to look at a list of\nconspirators against his own life, which was handed to him; yet\nafterwards, a more cruel wretch never wielded a sceptre. In his thirst\nfor slaughter, he wished all the necks in Rome _one_, that he might\ncut them off at a blow.\n\nDomitian, at the commencement of his reign, carried his abhorrence of\ncruelty to such lengths, that he forbad the sacrificing of oxen, and\nwould sit whole days on the judgment-seat, reversing the unjust\ndecisions of corrupt judges; yet afterwards, he surpassed even Nero in\ncruelty. The latter was content to torture and kill by proxy, and\nwithout being a spectator; but Domitian could not be denied the luxury\nof seeing his victims writhe, and hearing them shriek; and often with\nhis own hand directed the instrument of torture, especially when some\nillustrious senator or patrician was to be killed by piece-meal.\nCommodus began with gentleness and condescension, but soon became a\nterror and a scourge, outstripping in his atrocities most of his\npredecessors. Maximin too, was just and generous when first invested\nwith power, but afterwards rioted in slaughter with the relish of a\nfiend. History has well said of this monarch, 'the change in his\ndisposition may readily serve to show how dangerous a thing is power,\nthat could transform a person of such rigid virtues into such a\nmonster.'\n\nInstances almost innumerable might be furnished in the history of\nevery age, illustrating the blunting of sympathies, and the total\ntransformation of character wrought in individuals by the exercise of\narbitrary power. Not to detain the reader with long details, let a\nsingle instance suffice.\n\nPerhaps no man has lived in modern times, whose name excites such\nhorror as that of Robespierre. Yet it is notorious that he was\nnaturally of a benevolent disposition, and tender sympathies.\n\n\"Before the revolution, when as a judge in his native city of Arras he\nhad to pronounce judgment on an assassin, he took no food for two days\nafterwards, but was heard frequently exclaiming, 'I am sure he was\nguilty; he is a villain; but yet, to put a human being to death!!' He\ncould not support the idea; and that the same necessity might not\nrecur, he relinquished his judicial office.--(See Laponneray's Life of\nRobespierre, p. 8.) Afterwards, in the Convention of 1791, he urged\nstrongly the abolition of the punishment of death; and yet, for\nsixteen months, in 1793 and 1794, till he perished himself by the same\nguillotine which he had so mercilessly used on others, no one at Paris\nconsigned and caused so many fellow-creatures to be put to death by\nit, with more ruthless insensibility.\"--_Turner's Sacred history of\nthe World_, vol. 2 p. 119.\n\nBut it is time we had done with the objection, \"such cruelties are\nINCREDIBLE.\" If the objector still reiterates it, he shall have the\nlast word without farther molestation.\n\nAn objection kindred to the preceding now claims notice. It is the\nprofound induction that slaves _must_ be well treated because\n_slaveholders say they are!_\n\n\n\nOBJECTION. II.--'SLAVEHOLDERS PROTEST THAT THEY TREAT THEIR SLAVES\nWELL.'\n\nSelf-justification is human nature; self-condemnation is a sublime\ntriumph over it, and as rare as sublime. What culprits would be\nconvicted, if their own testimony were taken by juries as good\nevidence? Slaveholders are on trial, charged with cruel treatment to\ntheir slaves, and though in their own courts they can clear themselves\n_by their own oaths_,[21] they need not think to do it at the bar of\nthe world. The denial of crimes, by men accused of them, goes for\nnothing as evidence in all _civilized_ courts; while the voluntary\nconfession of them, is the best evidence possible, as it is testimony\n_against themselves_, and in the face of the strongest motives to\nconceal the truth. On the preceding pages, are hundreds of just such\ntestimonies; the voluntary and explicit testimony of slaveholders\nagainst themselves, their families and ancestors, their constituents\nand their rulers; against their characters and their memories; against\ntheir justice, their honesty, their honor and their benevolence. Now\nlet candor decide between those two classes of slaveholders, which is\nmost entitled to credit; that which testifies in its own favor, just\nas self-love would dictate, or that which testifies against all\nselfish motives and in spite of them; and though it has nothing to\ngain, but every thing to lose by such testimony, still utters it.\n\nBut if there were no counter testimony, if all slaveholders were\nunanimous in the declaration that the treatment of the slaves is\n_good_, such a declaration would not be entitled to a feather's weight\nas testimony; it is not _testimony_ but _opinion_. Testimony respects\nmatters of _fact_, not matters of opinion: it is the declaration of a\nwitness as to _facts_, not the giving of an opinion as to the nature\nor qualities of actions, or the _character_ of a course of conduct.\nSlaveholders organize themselves into a tribunal to adjudicate upon\ntheir own conduct, and give us in their decisions, their estimate of\ntheir own character; informing us with characteristic modesty, that\nthey have a high opinion of themselves; that in their own judgment\nthey are very mild, kind, and merciful gentlemen! In these conceptions\nof their own merits, and of the eminent propriety of their bearing\ntowards their slaves, slaveholders remind us of the Spaniard, who\nalways took off his hat whenever he spoke of himself, and of the\nGovernor of Schiraz, who, from a sense of justice to his own character\nadded to his other titles, those of, 'Flower of Courtesy,' 'Nutmeg of\nConsolation,' and 'Rose of Delight.'\n\n[Footnote 21: The law of which the following is an extract, exists in\nSouth Carolina. \"If any slave shall suffer in life, limb or member,\nwhen no white person shall be present, or being present, shall refuse\nto give evidence, the owner or other person, who shall have the care\nof such slave, and in whose power such slave shall be, shall be deemed\nguilty of such offence, _unless_ such owner or other person shall make\nthe contrary appear by good and sufficient evidence, or shall BY HIS\nOWN OATH CLEAR AND EXCULPATE HIMSELF. Which oath every court where\nsuch offence shall be tried, is hereby compared to administer, and to\n_acquit the offender_, if clear proof of the offence be not made by\n_two_ witnesses at least.\"--2 Brevard's Digest, 242. The state of\nLouisiana has a similar law.]\n\n\nThe _sincerity_ of those worthies, no one calls in question; their\nreal notions of their own merits doubtless ascended into the sublime:\nbut for aught that appears, they had not the arrogance to demand that\ntheir own notions of their personal excellence, should be taken as the\n_proof_ of it. Not so with our slaveholders. Not content with offering\nincense at the shrine of their own virtues, they have the effrontery\nto demand, that the rest of the world shall offer it, because _they_\ndo; and shall implicitly believe the presiding divinity to be a good\nSpirit rather than a Devil, because _they_ call him so! In other\nwords, since slaveholders profoundly appreciate their own gentle\ndispositions toward their slaves, and their kind treatment of them,\nand everywhere protest that they do truly show forth these rare\nexcellencies, they demand that the rest of the world shall not only\nbelieve that they _think_ so, but that they think _rightly_; that\nthese notions of themselves are _true_, that their taking off their\nhats to themselves proves them worthy of homage, and that their\nassumption of the titles of, 'Flower of Kindness,' and 'Nutmeg of\nConsolation,' is conclusive evidence that they deserve such\nappellations!\n\nWas there ever a more ridiculous doctrine, than that a man's opinion\nof his own actions is the true standard for measuring them, and the\ncertificate of their real qualities!--that his own estimate of his\ntreatment of others; is to be taken as the true one, and such\ntreatment be set down as _good_ treatment upon the strength of his\njudgment. He who argues the good treatment of the slave, from the\nslaveholder's _good opinion_ of such treatment, not only argues\nagainst human nature and all history, his own common sense, and even\nthe testimony of his senses, but refutes his own arguments by his\ndaily practice. Every body acts on the presumption that men's feelings\nwill vary with their _practices_; that the light in which they view\nindividuals and classes, and their feelings towards them, will modify\ntheir opinions of the treatment which they receive. In any case of\ntreatment that affects himself, his church, or his political party, no\nman so stultifies himself as to argue that such treatment must be\ngood, because the _author_ of it thinks so.\n\nWho would argue that the American Colonies were well treated by the\nmother country, because parliament thought so? Or that Poland was well\ntreated by Russia, because Nicholas thought so? Or that the treatment\nof the Cherokees by Georgia is proved good by Georgia notions of it?\nOr that of the Greeks by the Turks, by Turkish opinions of it? Or that\nof the Jews by almost all nations, by the judgment of their\npersecutors? Or that of the victims of the Inquisition, by the\nopinions of the Inquisitor general, or of the Pope and his cardinals?\nOr that of the Quakers and Baptists, at the hands of the Puritans,--to\nbe judged of by the opinions of the legislatures that authorized, and\nthe courts that carried it into effect. All those classes of persons\ndid not, in their own opinion, abuse their victims. If charged with\nperpetrating outrageous cruelty upon them, all those oppressors would\nhave repelled the charge with indignation.\n\nOur slaveholders chime lustily the same song, and no man with human\nnature within him, and human history before him, and with sense enough\nto keep him out of the fire, will be gulled by such professions,\nunless his itch to be humbugged has put on the type of a downright\nchronic incurable. We repeat it--when men speak of the treatment of\nothers as being either good or bad, their declarations are not\ngenerally to be taken as testimony to matters of _fact_, so much as\nexpressions of _their own feelings_ towards those persons or classes\nwho are the subjects of such treatment. If those persons are their\nfellow citizens; if they are in the same class of society with\nthemselves; of the same language, creed, and color; similar in their\nhabits, pursuits, and sympathies; they will keenly feel any wrong done\nto them, and denounce it as base, outrageous treatment; but let the\nsame wrongs be done to persons of a condition in all respects the\nreverse, persons whom they habitually despise, and regard only in the\nlight of mere conveniences, to be used for their pleasure, and the\nidea that such treatment is barbarous will be laughed at as\nridiculous. When we hear slaveholders say that their slaves are _well\ntreated_, we have only to remember that they are not speaking of\n_persons_, but of _property_; not of men and women, but of _chattels_\nand _things_; not of friends but of _vassals_ and _victims_; not of\nthose whom they respect and honor, but of those whom they _scorn_ and\ntrample on; not of those with whom they sympathize, and co-operate,\nand interchange courtesies, but of those whom they regard with\ncontempt and aversion and disdainfully set with the dogs of their\nflock. Reader, keep this fact in your mind, and you will have a clue\nto the slaveholder's definition of \"_good treatment_.\" Remember also,\nthat a part of this \"good treatment\" of which the slaveholders boast,\nis plundering the slaves of all their inalienable rights, of the\nownership of their own bodies, of the use of their own limbs and\nmuscles, of all their time, liberty, and earnings, of the free\nexercise of choice, of the rights of marriage and parental authority,\nof legal protection, of the right to be, to do, to go, to stay, to\nthink, to feel, to work, to rest, to eat, to sleep, to learn, to\nteach, to earn money, and to expend it, to visit, and to be visited,\nto speak, to be silent, to worship according to conscience, in fine,\ntheir right to be protected by just and equal laws, and to be\n_amenable to such only_. Of _all these rights the slaves are\nplundered_; and this is a _part_ of that \"good treatment\" of which\ntheir plunderers boast! What then is the _rest_ of it? The above is\nenough for a sample, at least a specimen-brick from the kiln. Reader,\nwe ask you no questions, but merely tell you what _you know_, when we\nsay that men and women who can habitually do such things to human\nbeings, _can do_ ANY THING _to them_.\n\nThe declarations of slaveholders, that they treat their slaves well,\nwill put no man in a quandary, who keeps in mind this simple\nprinciple, that the state of mind towards others, which leads one to\ninflict cruelties on them _blinds the inflicter to the real nature of\nhis own acts_. To him, they do not _seem_ to be cruelties;\nconsequently, when speaking of such treatment toward such persons, he\nwill protest that it is not cruelty; though if inflicted upon himself\nor his friends, he would indignantly stigmatize it as atrocious\nbarbarity. The objector equally overlooks another every-day fact of\nhuman nature, which is this, that cruelties invariably cease to _seem_\ncruelties when the _habit_ is formed though previously the mind\nregarded them as such, and shrunk from them with horror.\n\nThe following fact, related by the late lamented THOMAS PRINGLE, whose\nLife and Poems have published in England, is an appropriate\nillustration. Mr. Pringle states it on the authority of Captain W. F.\nOwen, of the Royal Navy.\n\n\"When his Majesty's ships, the Leven and the Barracouta, employed in\nsurveying the coast of Africa, were at Mozambique, in 1823, the\nofficers were introduced to the family of Senor Manuel Pedro\nd'Almeydra, a native of Portugal, who was a considerable merchant\nsettled on that coast; and it was an opinion agreed in by all, that\nDonna Sophia d'Almeydra was the most superior woman they had seen\nsince they left England, Captain Owen, the leader of the expedition,\nexpressing to Senor d'Almeydra his detestation of slavery, the Senor\nreplied, 'You will not be long here before you change your sentiments.\nLook at my Sophia there. Before she would marry me, she made me\npromise that I should give up the slave trade. When we first settled\nat Mozambique, she was continually interceding for the slaves, and she\n_constantly wept when I punished them_; and now she is among the\nslaves front morning to night; she regulates the whole of my slave\nestablishment; she inquires into every offence committed by them,\npronounces sentence upon the offender, and _stands by and sees them\npunished_.'\n\n\"To this, Mr. Pringle, who was himself for six years a resident of the\nEnglish settlement at the Cape of Good Hope, adds, 'The writer of this\narticle has seen, in the course of five or six years, as great a\nchange upon English ladies and gentleman of respectability, as that\ndescribed to have taken place in Donna Sophia d'Almeydra; and one of\nthe individuals whom he has in his eye, while he writes this passage,\nlately confessed to him this melancholy change, remarking at the same\ntime, 'how altered I am in my feelings with regard to slavery. I do\nnot appear to myself the same person I was on my arrival in this\ncolony, and if I would give the world for the feelings I then had, I\ncould not recall them.'\"\n\n\nSlaveholders know full well that familiarity with slavery produces\nindifference to its cruelties and reconciles the mind to them. The\nlate Judge Tucker, a Virginia slaveholder and professor of law in the\nUniversity of William and Mary, in the appendix to his edition of\nBlackstone's Commentaries, part 2, pp. 56, 57, commenting on the law\nof Virginia previous to 1792, which outlawed fugitive slaves, says:\n\n\"Such are the cruelties to which slavery gives rise, such the horrors\nto which the mind becomes _reconciled_ by its adoption.\"\n\n\nThe following facts from the pen of CHARLES STUART, happily illustrate\nthe same principle:\n\n\"A young lady, the daughter of a Jamaica planter, was sent at an early\nage to school to England, and after completing her education, returned\nto her native country.\n\n\"She is now settled with her husband and family in England. I visited\nher near Bath, early last spring, (1834.) Conversing on the above\nsubject, the paralyzing effects of slaveholding on the heart, she\nsaid:\n\n\"'While at school in England, I often thought with peculiar tenderness\nof the kindness of a slave who had nursed and carried me about. Upon\nreturning to my father's, one of my first inquiries was about him. I\nwas deeply afflicted to find that he was on the point of undergoing a\n\"law flogging for having run away.\" I threw myself at my father's feet\nand implored with tears, his pardon; but my father steadily replied,\nthat it would ruin the discipline of the plantation, and that the\npunishment must take place. I wept in vain, and retired so grieved and\ndisgusted, that for some days after, I could scarcely bear with\npatience, the sight of my own father. But many months had not elapsed\nere _I was as ready as any body_ to seize the domestic whip, _and flog\nmy slaves without hesitation_.'\n\n\"This lady is one of the most Christian and noble minds of my\nacquaintance. She and her husband distinguished themselves several\nyears ago, in Jamaica, by immediately emancipating their slaves.\"\n\n\"A lady, now in the West Indies, was sent in her infancy, to her\nfriends, near Belfast, in Ireland, for education. She remained under\ntheir charge from five to fifteen years of age, and grew up every\nthing which her friends could wish. At fifteen, she returned to the\nWest Indies--was married--and after some years paid her friends near\nBelfast, a second visit. Towards white people, she was the same\nelegant, and interesting woman as before; apparently full of every\nvirtuous and tender feeling; but towards the colored people she was\nlike a tigress. If Wilberforce's name was mentioned, she would say,\n'Oh, I wish we had the wretch in the West Indies, I would be one of\nthe first to help to tear his heart out!'--and then she would tell of\nthe manner in which the West Indian ladies used to treat their slaves.\n'I have often,' she said, 'when my women have displeased me, snatched\ntheir baby from their bosom, and running with it to a well, have tied\nmy shawl round its shoulders and pretended to be drowning it: oh, it\nwas so funny to hear the mother's screams!'--and then she laughed\nalmost convulsively at the recollection.\"\n\n\nMr. JOHN M. NELSON, a native of Virginia, whose testimony is on a\npreceding page, furnishes a striking illustration of the principle in\nhis own case. He says:\n\n\"When I was quite a child, I recollect it grieved me very much to see\none tied up to be whipped, and I used to intercede _with tears in\ntheir behalf_, and _mingle my cries with theirs_, and feel almost\nwilling to take part of the punishment. Yet such is the hardening\nnature of such scenes, that from this kind of commiseration for the\nsuffering slave, I became so blunted that I could not only witness\ntheir stripes with composure, but _myself_ inflict them, and that\nwithout remorse. When I was perhaps fourteen or fifteen years of age,\nI undertook to correct a young fellow named Ned, for some supposed\noffence, I think it was leaving a bridle out of its proper place; he\nbeing larger and stronger than myself took hold of my arms and held\nme, in order to prevent my striking him; this I considered the height\nof insolence, and cried for help, when my father and mother both came\nrunning to my rescue. My father stripped and tied him, and took him\ninto the orchard, where switches were plenty, and directed me to whip\nhim; when one switch wore out he supplied me with others. After I had\nwhipped him a while, he fell on his knees to implore forgiveness, and\nI kicked him in the face; my father said, 'don't kick him but whip\nhim,' this I did until his back was literally covered with _welts_.\"\n\n\nW.C. GILDERSLEEVE, Esq., a native of Georgia, now elder of the\nPresbyterian church, Wilkes-barre, Penn. after describing the flogging\nof a slave, in which his hands were tied together, and the slave\nhoisted by a rope, so that his feet could not touch the ground; in\nwhich condition one hundred lashes were inflicted, says:\n\n\"I stood by and witnessed the whole without feeling the least\ncompassion; so _hardening_ is the influence of slavery that it _very\nmuch destroys feeling for the slave_.\"\n\n\nMrs. CHILD, in her admirable \"Appeal,\" has the following remarks:\n\n\"The ladies who remove from the free States into the slaveholding ones\nalmost invariably write that the sight of slavery was at first\nexceedingly painful; but that they soon become habituated to it; and\nafter a while, they are very apt to vindicate the system, upon the\nground that it is extremely convenient to have such submissive\nservants. This reason was actually given by a lady of my acquaintance,\nwho is considered an unusually fervent Christian. Yet Christianity\nexpressly teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves. This shows how\ndangerous it is, for even the best of us, to become _accustomed_ to\nwhat is wrong.\n\n\"A judicious and benevolent friend lately told me the story of one of\nher relatives, who married a slave owner, and removed to his\nplantation. The lady in question was considered very amiable, and had\na serene, affectionate expression of countenance. After several years\nresidence among her slaves, she visited New England. 'Her history was\nwritten in her face,' said my friend; 'its expression had changed into\nthat of a fiend. She brought but few slaves with her; and those few\nwere of course compelled to perform additional labor. One faithful\nnegro woman nursed the twins of her mistress, and did all the washing,\nironing, and scouring. If, after a sleepless night with the restless\nbabes, (driven from the bosom of their mother,) she performed her\ntoilsome avocations with diminished activity, her mistress, with her\nown lady-like hands, applied the cowskin, and the neighborhood\nresounded with the cries of her victim. The instrument of punishment\nwas actually kept hanging in the entry, to the no small disgust of her\nNew England visitors. 'For my part,' continued my friend, 'I did not\ntry to be polite to her; for I was not hypocrite enough to conceal my\nindignation.'\"\n\nThe fact that the greatest cruelties may be exercised quite\nunconsciously when cruelty has become a habit, and that at the same\ntime, the mind may feel great sympathy and commiseration towards other\npersons and even towards irrational animals, is illustrated in the\ncase of Tameriane the Great. In his Life, written by himself, he\nspeaks with the greatest sincerity and tenderness of his grief at\nhaving accidentally crushed an ant; and yet he ordered melted lead to\nbe poured down the throats of certain persons who drank wine contrary\nto his commands. He was manifestly sincere in thinking himself humane,\nand when speaking of the most atrocious cruelties perpetrated by\nhimself, it does not seem to ruffle in the least the self-complacency\nwith which he regards his own humanity and piety. In one place he\nsays, \"I never undertook anything but I commenced it placing my faith\non God\"--and he adds soon after, \"the people of Shiraz took part with\nShah Mansur, and put my governor to death; I therefore ordered _a\ngeneral massacre of all the inhabitants_.\"\n\nIt is one of the most common caprices of human nature, for the heart\nto become by habit, not only totally insensible to certain forms of\ncruelty, which at first gave it inexpressible pain, but even to find\nits chief amusement in such cruelties, till utterly intoxicated by\ntheir stimulation; while at the same time the mind seems to be pained\nas keenly as ever, at forms of cruelty to which it has not become\naccustomed, thus retaining _apparently_ the same general\nsusceptibilities. Illustrations of this are to be found every where;\none happens to lie before us. Bourgoing, in his history of modern\nSpain, speaking of the bull fights, the barbarous national amusement\nof the Spaniards, says:\n\n\"Young ladies, old men, people of all ages and of all characters are\npresent, and yet the habit of attending these bloody festivals does\nnot correct their weakness or their timidity, nor injure the sweetness\nof their manners. I have moreover known foreigners, distinguished by\nthe gentleness of their manners, who experienced at first seeing a\nbull-fight such very violent emotions as made them turn pale, and they\nbecame ill; but, notwithstanding, this entertainment became afterwards\nan irresistible attraction, without operating any revolution in their\ncharacters.\" Modern State of Spain, by J. F. Bourgoing, Minister\nPlenipotentiary from France to the Court of Madrid, Vol ii., page 342.\n\nIt is the _novelty_ of cruelty, rather than the _degree_, which repels\nmost minds. Cruelty in a _new_ form, however slight, will often pain a\nmind that is totally unmoved by the most horrible cruelties in a form\nto which it is _accustomed_. When Pompey was at the zenith of his\npopularity in Rome, he ordered some elephants to be tortured in the\namphitheatre for the amusement of the populace; this was the first\ntime they had witnessed the torture of those animals, and though for\nyears accustomed to witness in the same place, the torture of lions,\ntigers, leopards, and almost all sorts of wild beasts, as well as that\nof men of all nations, and to shout acclamations over their agonies,\nyet, this _novel form_ of cruelty so shocked the beholders, that the\nmost popular man in Rome was execrated as a cruel monster, and came\nnear falling a victim to the fury of those who just before were ready\nto adore him.\n\nWe will now briefly notice another objection, somewhat akin to the\npreceding, and based mainly upon the same and similar fallacies.\n\n\n\nOBJECTION III.--'SLAVEHOLDERS ARE PROVERBIAL FOR THEIR KINDNESS,\nHOSPITALITY, BENEVOLENCE, AND GENEROSITY.'\n\nMultitudes scout as fictions the cruelties inflicted upon slaves,\nbecause slaveholders are famed for their courtesy and hospitality.\nThey tell us that their generous and kind attentions to their guests,\nand their well-known sympathy for the suffering, sufficiently prove\nthe charges of cruelty brought against them to be calumnies, of which\ntheir uniform character is a triumphant refutation.\n\nNow that slaveholders are proverbially hospitable to their guests, and\nspare neither pains nor expense in ministering to their accommodation\nand pleasure, is freely admitted and easily accounted for. That those\nwho make their inferiors work for them, without pay, should be\ncourteous and hospitable to those of their equals and superiors whose\ngood opinions they desire, is human nature in its every-day dress. The\nobjection consists of a fact and an inference: the fact, that\nslaveholders have a special care to the accommodation of their\n_guests;_ the inference, that therefore they must seek the comfort of\ntheir _slaves_--that as they are bland and obliging to their equals,\nthey must be mild and condescending to their inferiors--that as the\nwrongs of their own grade excite their indignation, and their woes\nmove their sympathies, they must be touched by those of their\nchattels--that as they are full of pains-taking toward those whose\ngood opinions and good offices they seek, they will, of course, show\nspecial attention to those to whose good opinions they are\nindifferent, and whose good offices they can _compel_--that as they\nhonor the literary and scientific, they must treat with high\nconsideration those to whom they deny the alphabet--that as they are\ncourteous to certain _persons_, they must be so to \"property\"--eager\nto anticipate the wishes of visitors, they cannot but gratify those of\ntheir vassals--jealous for the rights of the Texans, quick to feel at\nthe disfranchisement of Canadians and of Irishmen, alive to the\noppressions of the Greeks and the Poles, they must feel keenly for\ntheir _negroes!_ Such conclusions from such premises do not call for\nserious refutation. Even a half-grown boy, who should argue, that\nbecause men have certain feelings toward certain persons in certain\ncircumstances, they must have the same feelings toward all persons in\nall circumstances, or toward persons in opposite circumstances, of\ntotally different grades, habits, and personal peculiarities, might\nfairly be set down as a hopeless simpleton: and yet, men of sense and\nreflection on other subjects, seem bent upon stultifying themselves by\njust such shallow inferences from the fact, that slaveholders are\nhospitable and generous to certain persons in certain grades of\nsociety belonging to their own caste. On the ground of this reasoning,\nall the crimes ever committed may be disproved, by showing, that their\nperpetrators were hospitable and generous to those who sympathized and\nco-operated with them. To prove that a man does not hate one of his\nneighbors, it is only necessary to show that he loves another; to make\nit appear that he does not treat contemptuously the ignorant, he has\nonly to show that he bows respectfully to the learned; to demonstrate\nthat he does not disdain his inferiors, lord it over his dependents,\nand grind the faces of the poor, he need only show that he is polite\nto the rich, pays deference to titles and office, and fawns for favor\nupon those above him! The fact that a man always smiles on his\ncustomers, proves that he never scowls at those who dun him! and since\nhe has always a melodious \"good morning!\" for \"gentlemen of property\nand standing,\" it is certain that he never snarls at beggars. He who\nis quick to make room for a doctor of divinity, will, of course, see\nto it that he never runs against a porter; and he who clears the way\nfor a lady, will be sure never to rub against a market woman, or\njostle an apple-seller's board. If accused of beating down his\nlaundress to the lowest fraction, of making his boot-black call a\ndozen times for his pay, of higgling and screwing a fish boy till he\ntakes off two cents, or of threatening to discharge his seamstress\nunless she will work for a shilling a day, how easy to brand it all as\nslander, by showing that he pays his minister in advance, is generous\nin Christmas presents, gives a splendid new-year's party, expends\nhundreds on elections, and puts his name with a round sum on the\nsubscription paper of the missionary society.\n\nWho can forget the hospitality of King Herod, that model of generosity\n\"beyond all ancient fame,\" who offered half his kingdom to a guest, as\na compensation for an hour's amusement.--Could such a noble spirit\nhave murdered John the Baptist? Incredible! Joab too! how his soft\nheart was pierced at the exile of Absalom! and how his bowels yearned\nto restore him to his home! Of course, it is all fiction about his\nassassinating his nephew, Amasa, and Abner the captain of the host!\nSince David twice spared the life of Saul when he came to murder him,\nwept on the neck of Jonathan, threw himself upon the ground in anguish\nwhen his child sickened, and bewailed, with a broken heart, the loss\nof Absalom--it proves that he did not coolly plot and deliberately\nconsummate the murder of Uriah! As the Government of the United States\ngenerously gave a township of land to General La Fayette, it proves\nthat they have never defrauded the Indians of theirs! So the fact,\nthat the slaveholders of the present Congress are, to a man, favorable\nto recognizing the independence of Texas, with her fifty or sixty\nthousand inhabitants, _before she has achieved it_, and before it is\nrecognized by any other government, proves that these same\nslaveholders do _not oppose_ the recognition of Hayti, with her\nmillion of inhabitants, whose independence was achieved nearly half a\ncentury ago, and which is recognized by the most powerful governments\non earth!\n\nBut, seriously, no man is so slightly versed in human nature as not to\nknow that men habitually exercise the most opposite feelings, and\nindulge in the most opposite practices toward different persons or\ndifferent classes of persons around them. No man has ever lived who\nwas more celebrated for his scrupulous observance of the most exact\njustice, and for the illustration furnished in his life of the noblest\nnatural virtues, than the Roman Cato. His strict adherence to the\nnicest rules of equity--his integrity, honor, and incorruptible\nfaith--his jealous watchfulness over the rights of his fellow\ncitizens, and his generous devotion to their interest, procured for\nhim the sublime appellation of \"The Just.\" Towards _freemen_ his life\nwas a model of every thing just and noble: but to his slaves he was a\nmonster. At his meals, when the dishes were not done to his liking, or\nwhen his slaves were careless or inattentive in serving, he would\nseize a thong and violently beat them, in presence of his\nguests.--When they grew old or diseased, and were no longer\nserviceable, however long and faithfully they might have served him,\nhe either turned them adrift and left them to perish, or starved them\nto death in his own family. No facts in his history are better\nauthenticated than these.\n\nNo people were ever more hospitable and munificent than the Romans,\nand none more touched with the sufferings of others. Their public\ntheatres often rung with loud weeping, thousands sobbing convulsively\nat once over fictitious woes and imaginary sufferers: and yet these\nsame multitudes would shout amidst the groans of a thousand dying\ngladiators, forced by their conquerors to kill each other in the\namphitheatre for the _amusement_ of the public.[22]\n\n[Footnote 22: Dr. Leland, in his \"Necessity of a Divine Revelation,\"\nthus describes the prevalence of these shows among the Romans:--\"They\nwere exhibited at the funerals of great and rich men, and on many\nother occasions, by the Roman consuls, praetors, aediles, senators,\nknights, priests, and almost all that bore great offices in the state,\nas well as by the emperors; and in general, by all that had a mind to\nmake an interest with the people, who were extravagantly fond of those\nkinds of shows. Not only the men, but the women, ran eagerly after\nthem; who were, by the prevalence of custom, so far divested of that\ncompassion and softness which is natural to the sex, that they took a\npleasure in seeing them kill one another, and only desired that they\nshould fall genteelly, and in an agreeable attitude. Such was the\nfrequency of those shows, and so great the number of men that were\nkilled on those occasions, that Lipsius says, no war caused such\nslaughter of mankind, as did these sports of pleasure, throughout the\nseveral provinces of the vast Roman empire.\"--_Leland's Neces. of Div.\nRev._ vol. ii. p. 51.]\n\n\nAlexander, the tyrant of Phaeres, sobbed like a child over the\nmisfortunes of the Trojan queens, when the tragedy of Andromache and\nHecuba was played before him; yet he used to murder his subjects every\nday for no crime, and without even setting up the pretence of any, but\nmerely _to make himself sport_.\n\n\nThe fact that slaveholders may be full of benevolence and kindness\ntoward their equals and toward whites generally, even so much so as to\nattract the esteem and admiration of all, while they treat with the\nmost inhuman neglect their own slaves, is well illustrated by a\ncircumstance mentioned by the Rev. Dr. CHANNING, of Boston, (who once\nlived in Virginia,) is his work on slavery, p. 162, 1st edition:--\n\n\"I cannot,\" says the doctor, \"forget my feelings on visiting a\nhospital belonging to the plantation of a gentleman _highly esteemed\nfor his virtues_, and whose manners and conversation expressed much\n_benevolence_ and _conscientiousness_. When I entered with him the\nhospital, the first object on which my eye fell was a young woman very\nill, probably approaching death. She was stretched on the floor. Her\nhead rested on something like a pillow, but her body and limbs were\nextended on the hard boards. The owner, I doubt not, had, at least, as\nmuch kindness as myself; but he was so used to see the slaves living\nwithout common comforts, that the idea of unkindness in the present\ninstance did not enter his mind.\"\n\n\nMr. GEORGE A. AVERY, an elder of a Presbyterian church in Rochester,\nN.Y. who resided some years in Virginia, says:--\n\n\"On one occasion I was crossing the plantation and approaching the\nhouse of a friend, when I met him, _rifle in hand_, in pursuit of one\nof his negroes, declaring he would shoot him in a moment if he got his\neye upon him. It appeared that the slave had refused to be flogged,\nand ran off to avoid the consequences; _and yet the generous\nhospitality of this man to myself, and white friends generally,\nscarcely knew any bounds._\n\n\"There were amongst my slaveholding friends and acquaintances, persons\nwho were as _humane_ and _conscientious_ as men can be, and persist in\nthe impious claim of _property_ in a fellow being. Still I can\nrecollect but _one instance_ of corporal punishment, whether the\nsubject were male or female, in which the infliction was not on the\n_bare back_ with the _raw hide_, or a similar instrument, the subject\nbeing _tied_ during the operation to a post or tree. The _exception_\nwas under the following circumstances. I had taken a walk with a\nfriend on his plantation, and approaching his gang of slaves, I sat\ndown whilst he proceeded to the spot where they were at work; and\naddressing himself somewhat earnestly to a female who was wielding the\nhoe, in a moment caught up what I supposed a _tobacco stick_, (a stick\nsome three feet in length on which the tobacco, when out, is suspended\nto dry.) about the size of a _man's wrist_, and laid on a number of\nblows furiously over her head. The woman crouched, and seemed stunned\nwith the blows, but presently recommenced the motion of her hoe.\"\n\n\nDr. DAVID NELSON, a native of Tennessee, and late president of Marion\nCollege, Missouri, in a lecture at Northampton, Mass. in January,\n1839, made the following statement:--\n\n\"I remember a young lady who played well on the piano, and was very\nready to weep over any fictitious tale of suffering. I was present\nwhen one of her slaves lay on the floor in a high fever, and we feared\nshe might not recover. I saw that young lady _stamp upon her with her\nfeet;_ and the only remark her mother made was, 'I am afraid Evelina\nis too _much_ prejudiced against poor Mary.'\"\n\n\nGeneral WILLIAM EATON, for some years U.S. Consul at Tunis, and\ncommander of the expedition against Tripoli, in 1895, thus gives vent\nto his feelings at the sight of many hundreds of Sardinians who had\nbeen enslaved by the Tunisians:\n\n\"Many have died of grief, and the others linger out a life less\ntolerable than death. Alas! remorse seizes my whole soul when I\nreflect, that this is indeed but a copy of the very barbarity which\n_my eyes have seen_ in my own native country. _How frequently_, in the\nsouthern states of my own country, have I seen _weeping mothers_\nleading the guiltless infant to the sales with as _deep anguish_ as if\nthey led them to the slaughter; and _yet felt my bosom tranquil_ in\nthe view of these aggressions on defenceless humanity. But when I see\nthe same enormities practised upon beings whose complexions and blood\nclaim kindred with my own, _I curse the perpetrators, and weep over\nthe wretched victims of their rapacity._ Indeed, truth and justice\ndemand from me the confession, that the Christian slaves among the\nbarbarians of Africa are treated with more humanity than the African\nslaves among professing Christians of civilized America; and yet\n_here_ [in Tunis] sensibility _bleeds at every pore_ for the wretches\nwhom fate has doomed to slavery.\"\n\n\nRev. H. LYMAN, late pastor of the free Presbyterian Church, Buffalo,\nN.Y. who spent the winter of 1832-3 at the south, says:--\n\n\"In the interior of Mississippi I was invited to the house of a\nplanter, where I was received with great cordiality, and entertained\nwith marked hospitality.\n\n\"There I saw a master in the midst of his household slaves. The\nevening passed most pleasantly, as indeed it must, where assiduous\nhospitalities are exercised towards the guest.\n\n\"Late in the morning, when I had gained the tardy consent of my host\nto go on my way, as a final act of kindness, he called a slave to show\nme across the fields by a nearer route to the main road. 'David,' said\nhe, 'go and show this gentleman as far as the post-office. Do you know\nthe big bay tree?' 'Yes, sir.' 'Do you know where the cotton mill is?'\n'Yes, sir.' 'Where Squire Malcolm's old field is?' 'Y--e--s, sir,'\nsaid David, (beginning to be bewildered). 'Do you know where Squire\nMalcolm's cotton field is?' 'No, sir.' 'No, sir,' said the enraged\nmaster, _levelling his gun at him_. 'What do you stand here, saying,\nYes, yes, yes, for, when you don't know?' All this was accompanied\nwith _threats_ and _imprecations_, and a manner that contrasted\nstrangely with the _religious conversation and gentle manners_ of the\nprevious evening.\"\n\n\nThe Rev. JAMES H. DICKEY, formerly a slaveholder in South Carolina,\nnow pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Hennepin, Ill. in his \"Review\nof Nevins' Biblical Antiquities,\" after asserting that slaveholding\ntends to beget \"a spirit of cruelty and tyranny, and to destroy every\ngenerous and noble feeling,\" (page 33,) he adds the following as a\nnote:--\n\n\"It may be that this will be considered censorious, and the proverbial\ngenerosity and hospitality of the south will be appealed to as a full\nconfutation of it. The writer thinks he can appreciate southern\nkindness and hospitality. Having been born in Virginia, raised and\neducated in South Carolina and Kentucky, he is altogether southern in\nhis feelings, and habits, and modes of familiar conversation. He can\nsay of the south as Cowper said of England, 'With all thy faults I\nlove thee still, my country.' And nothing but the abominations of\nslavery could have induced him willingly to forsake a land endeared to\nhim by all the associations of childhood and youth.\n\n\"Yet it is candid to admit that it is not all gold that glitters.\nThere is a fictitious kindness and hospitality. The famous Robin Hood\nwas kind and generous--no man more hospitable--he robbed the rich to\nsupply the necessities of the poor. Others rob the poor to bestow\ngifts and lavish kindness and hospitality on their rich friends and\nneighbors. It is an easy matter for a man to appear kind and generous,\nwhen he bestows that which others have earned.\n\n\"I said, there is a fictitious kindness and hospitality. I once knew a\nman who left his wife and children three days, without fire-wood,\nwithout bread-stuff and without shoes, while the ground was covered\nwith snow--that he might indulge in his cups. And when I attempted to\nexpostulate with him, he took the subject out of my hands, and\nexpatiating on the evils of intemperance more eloquently than I could,\nconcluded by warning me, _with tears_, to avoid the snares of the\nlatter. He had tender feelings, yet a hard heart. I once knew a young\nlady of polished manners and accomplished education, who would weep\nwith sympathy over the fictitious woes exhibited in a novel. And\nwaking from her reverie of grief, while her eye was yet wet with\ntears, would call her little waiter, and if she did not appear at the\nfirst call, would rap her head with her thimble till my head ached.\n\n\"I knew a man who was famed for kindly sympathies. He once took off\nhis shirt and gave it to a poor white man. The same man hired a black\nman, and gave him for his _daily task_, through the winter, to feed\nthe beasts, keep fires, and make one hundred rails: and in case of\nfailure the lash was applied so freely, that, in the spring, his back\nwas _one continued sore, from his shoulders to his waist_. Yet this\nman was a professor of religion, and famous for his tender sympathies\nto white men!\"\n\n\n\n\nOBJECTION IV.--'NORTHERN VISITORS AT THE SOUTH TESTIFY THAT THE SLAVES\nARE NOT CRUELLY TREATED.'\n\n\nANSWER:--Their knowledge on this point must have been derived, either\nfrom the slaveholders and overseers themselves, or from the slaves, or\nfrom their own observation. If from the slaveholders, _their_\ntestimony has already been weighed and found wanting; if they derived\nit from the slaves, they can hardly be so simple as to suppose that\nthe _guest, associate and friend of the master_, would be likely to\ndraw from his _slaves_ any other testimony respecting his treatment of\nthem, than such as would please _him_. The great shrewdness and tact\nexhibited by slaves in _keeping themselves out of difficulty_, when\nclose questioned by strangers as to their treatment, cannot fail to\nstrike every accurate observer. The following remarks of CHIEF JUSTICE\nHENDERSON, a North Carolina slaveholder, in his decision (in 1830,) in\nthe case of the State _versus_ Charity, 2 Devereaux's North Carolina\nReports, 513, illustrate the folly of arguing the good treatment of\nslaves from their own declarations, _while in the power of their\nmasters_. In the case above cited, the Chief Justice, in refusing to\npermit a master to give in evidence, declarations made to him by his\nslave, says of masters and slaves generally--\n\n\"The master has an almost _absolute control_ over the body and _mind_\nof his slave. The master's _will_ is the slave's _will_. All his acts,\n_all his sayings_, are made with a view to propitiate his master. His\nconfessions are made, not from a love of truth, not from a sense of\nduty, not to speak a falsehood, but to _please his master_--and it is\nin vain that his master tells him to speak the truth and conceals from\nhim how he wishes the question answered. The slave _will_ ascertain,\nor, which is the same thing, think that he has ascertained _the wishes\nof his master,_ and MOULD HIS ANSWER ACCORDINGLY. We therefore more\noften get the wishes of the master, or the slave's belief of his\nwishes, than the truth.\"\n\n\nThe following extract of a letter from the Hon. SETH M. GATES, member\nelect of the next Congress, furnishes a clue by which to interpret the\nlooks, actions, and protestations of slaves, when in the presence of\ntheir masters' guests, and the pains sometimes taken by slaveholders,\nin teaching their slaves the art of _pretending_ that they are treated\nwell, love their masters, are happy, &c. The letter is dated Leroy,\nJan. 4, 1839.\n\n\"I have sent your letter to Rev. Joseph M. Sadd, Castile, Genesee\ncounty, who resided five years in a slave state, and left, disgusted\nwith slavery. I trust he will give you some facts. I remember one\nfact, which his wife witnessed. A relative, where she boarded,\nreturning to his plantation after a temporary absence, was not met by\nhis servants with such demonstrations of joy as was their wont. He\nordered his horse put out, took down his whip, ordered his servants to\nthe barn, and gave them a most cruel beating, because they did not run\nout to meet him, and pretend great attachment to him. Mrs. Sadd had\noverheard the servants agreeing not to go out, before his return, as\nthey said _they did not love him_--and this led her to watch his\nconduct to them. This man was a professor of religion!\"\n\nIf these northern visitors derived their information that the slaves\nare _not_ cruelly treated from _their own observation_, it amounts to\nthis, _they did not see_ cruelties inflicted on the slaves. To which\nwe reply, that the preceding pages contain testimony from hundreds of\nwitnesses, who testify that they _did see_ the cruelties whereof they\naffirm. Besides this, they contain the solemn declarations of scores\nof slaveholders themselves, in all parts of the slave states, that the\nslaves are cruelly treated. These declarations are moreover fully\ncorroborated, by the laws of slave states, by a multitude of\nadvertisements in their newspapers, describing runaway slaves, by\ntheir scars, brands, gashes, maimings, cropped ears, iron collars,\nchains, &c. &c.\n\nTruly, after the foregoing array of facts and testimony, and after the\nobjectors' forces have one after another filed off before them, now to\nmarch up a phalanx of northern _visitors_, is to beat a retreat.\n'Visitors!' What insight do casual visitors get into the tempers and\ndaily practices of those whom they visit, or of the treatment that\ntheir slaves receive at their hands, especially if these visitors are\nstrangers, and from a region where there are no slaves, and which\nclaims to be opposed to slavery? What opportunity has a stranger, and\na temporary guest, to learn the every-day habits and caprices of his\nhost? Oh, these northern visitors tell us they have visited scores of\nfamilies at the south and never saw a master or mistress whip their\nslaves. Indeed! They have, doubtless, visited hundreds of families at\nthe north--did they ever see, on such occasions, the father or mother\nwhip their children? If so, they must associate with very ill-bred\npersons. Because well-bred parents do not whip their children in the\npresence, or within the hearing of their guests are we to infer that\nthey never do it _out_ of their sight and hearing? But perhaps the\nfact that these visitors do not _remember_ seeing slaveholders strike\ntheir slaves, merely proves, that they had so little feeling for them,\nthat though they might be struck every day in their presence, yet as\nthey were only slaves and 'niggers,' it produced no effect upon them;\nconsequently they have no impressions to recall. These visitors have\nalso doubtless _rode_ with scores of slaveholders. Are they quite\ncertain they ever saw them whip their _horses_? and can they recall\nthe persons, times, places, and circumstances? But even if these\nvisitors regarded the slaves with some kind feelings, when they first\nwent to the south, yet being constantly with their oppressors, seeing\nthem used as articles of property, accustomed to hear them charged\nwith all kinds of misdemeanors, their ears filled with complaints of\ntheir laziness, carelessness, insolence, obstinacy, stupidity, thefts,\nelopements, &c. and at the same time, receiving themselves the most\ngratifying attentions and caresses from the same persons, who, while\nthey make to them these representations of their slaves, are giving\nthem airings in their coaches, making parties for them, taking them on\nexcursions of pleasure, lavishing upon them their choicest\nhospitalities, and urging them to protract indefinitely their\nstay--what more natural than for the flattered guest to admire such\nhospitable people, catch their spirit, and fully sympathize with their\nfeelings toward their slaves, regarding with increased disgust and\naversion those who can habitually tease and worry such loveliness and\ngenerosity[23]. After the visitor had been in contact with the\nslave-holding spirit long enough to have imbibed it, (no very tedious\nprocess,) a cuff, or even a kick administered to a slave, would not be\nlikely to give him such a shock that his memory would long retain the\ntraces of it. But lest we do these visitors injustice, we will suppose\nthat they carried with them to the south humane feelings for the\nslave, and that those feelings remained unblunted; still, what\nopportunity could they have to witness the actual condition of the\nslaves? They come in contact with the house-servants only, and as a\ngeneral thing, with none but the select ones of these, the\n_parlor_-servants; who generally differ as widely in their appearance\nand treatment from the cooks and scullions in the kitchen, as parlor\nfurniture does from the kitchen utensils. Certain servants are\nassigned to the parlor, just as certain articles of furniture are\nselected for it, _to be seen_--and it is no less ridiculous to infer\nthat the kitchen scullions are clothed and treated like those servants\nwho wait at the table, and are in the presence of guests, than to\ninfer that the kitchen is set out with sofas, ottomans, piano-fortes,\nand full-length mirrors, because the parlor is. But the house-slaves\nare only a fraction of the whole number. The _field-hands_ constitute\nthe great mass of the slaves, and these the visitors rarely get a\nglimpse at. They are away at their work by day-break, and do not\nreturn to their huts till dark. Their huts are commonly at some\ndistance from the master's mansion, and the fields in which they\nlabor, generally much farther, and out of sight. If the visitor\ntraverses the plantation, care is taken that he does not go alone; if\nhe expresses a wish to see it, the horses are saddled, and the master\nor his son gallops the rounds with him; if he expresses a desire to\nsee the slaves at work, his conductor will know _where_ to take him,\nand _when_, and _which_ of them to show; the overseer, too, knows\nquite too well the part he has to act on such occasions, to shock the\nuninitiated ears of the visitors with the shrieks of his victims. It\nis manifest that visitors can see only the least repulsive parts of\nslavery, inasmuch as it is wholly at the option of the master, what\nparts to show them; as a matter of necessity, he can see only the\n_outside_--and that, like the outside of doorknobs and andirons is\nfurbished up to be _looked at_. So long as it is human nature to wear\n_the best side out_, so long the northern guests of southern\nslaveholders will see next to nothing of the reality of slavery. Those\nvisitors may still keep up their autumnal migrations to the slave\nstates, and, after a hasty survey of the tinsel hung before the\ncurtain of slavery, without a single glance behind it, and at the\npaint and varnish that _cover up_ dead men's bones, and while those\nwho have hoaxed them with their smooth stories and white-washed\nspecimens of slavery, are tittering at their gullibility, they return\nin the spring on the same fool's-errand with their predecessors,\nretailing their lesson, and mouthing the praises of the masters, and\nthe comforts of the slaves. They now become village umpires in all\ndisputes about the condition of the slaves, and each thence forward\nends all controversies with his oracular, \"I've _seen_, and sure I\nought to know.\"\n\n[Footnote 23: Well saith the Scripture, \"A gift blindeth the eyes.\" The\nslaves understand this, though the guest may not; they know very well\nthat they have no sympathy to expect from their master's guests; that\nthe good cheer of the \"big house,\" and the attentions shown them, will\ngenerally commit them in their master's favor, and against themselves.\nMessrs. Thome and Kimball, in their late work, state the following\nfact, in illustration of this feeling among the negro apprentices in\nJamaica.\n\n\"The governor of one of the islands, shortly after his arrival, dined\nwith one of the wealthiest proprietors. The next day one of the\nnegroes of the estate said to another, \"De new gubner been\n_poison'd_.\" \"What dat you say?\" inquired the other in astonishment,\n\"De gubner been _poison'd_! Dah, now!--How him poisoned?\" \"_Him eat\nmassa's turtle soup last night_,\" said the shrewd negro. The other\ntook his meaning at once; and his sympathy for the governor was\nturned into concern for himself, when he perceived that the\npoison was one from which he was likely to suffer more than his\nexcellency.\"--_Emancipation in the West Indies_, p. 334.]\n\n\n\nBut all northern visitors at the south are not thus easily gulled.\nMany of them, as the preceding pages show, have too much sense to be\ncaught with chaff.\n\nWe may add here, that those classes of visitors whose representations\nof the treatment of slaves are most influential in moulding the\nopinions of the free states, are ministers of the gospel, agents of\nbenevolent societies, and teachers who have traveled and temporarily\nresided in the slave states--classes of persons less likely than any\nothers to witness cruelties, because slaveholders generally take more\npains to keep such visitors in ignorance than others, because their\nvocations would furnish them fewer opportunities for witnessing them,\nand because they come in contact with a class of society in which\nfewer atrocities are committed than in any other, and that too, under\ncircumstances which make it almost impossible for them to witness\nthose which are actually committed.\n\nOf the numerous classes of persons from the north who temporarily\nreside in the slave states, the mechanics who find employment on the\n_plantations_, are the only persons who are in circumstances to look\n\"behind the scenes.\" Merchants, pedlars, venders of patents, drovers,\nspeculators, and almost all descriptions of persons who go from the\nfree states to the south to make money see little of slavery, except\n_upon the road_, at public inns, and in villages and cities.\n\nLet not the reader infer from what has been said, that the\n_parlor_-slaves, chamber-maids, &c. in the slave states are not\ntreated with cruelty--far from it. They often experience terrible\ninflictions; not generally so terrible or so frequent as the\nfield-hands, and very rarely in the presence of guests[24]\nHouse-slaves are for the most part treated far better than\nplantation-slaves, and those under the immediate direction of the\nmaster and mistress, than those under overseers and drivers. It is\nquite worthy of remark, that of the thousands of northern men who have\nvisited the south, and are always lauding the kindness of slaveholders\nand the comfort of the slaves, protesting that they have never seen\ncruelties inflicted on them, &c. each perhaps, without exception, has\nsome story to tell which reveals, better perhaps than the most\nbarbarous butchery could do, a public sentiment toward slaves, showing\nthat the most cruel inflictions must of necessity be the constant\nportion of the slaves.\n\n[Footnote 24: Rev. JOSEPH M. SADD, a Presbyterian clergyman, in\nCastile, Genesee county, N.Y. recently from Missouri, where he has\npreached five years, in the midst of slaveholders, says, in a letter\njust received, speaking of the pains taken by slaveholders to conceal\nfrom the eyes of strangers and visitors, the cruelties which they\ninflict upon their slaves--\n\n\"It is difficult to be an eye-witness of these things; the master and\nmistress, almost invariably punish their slaves only in the presence\nof themselves and other slaves.\"]\n\nThough facts of this kind lie thick in every corner, the reader will,\nwe are sure, tolerate even a needless illustration, if told that it is\nfrom the pen of N.P. Rogers, Esq. of Concord, N.H. who, whatever he\nwrites, though it be, as in this case, a mere hasty letter, always\nfinds readers to the end.\n\n\"At a court session at Guilford, Stafford county, N.H. in August,\n1837, the Hon. Daniel M. Durell, of Dover, formerly Chief Justice\nof the Common Pleas for that state, and a member of Congress,\nwas charging the abolitionists, in presence of several gentlemen\nof the bar, at their boarding house, with exaggerations and\nmisrepresentations of slave treatment at the south. 'One instance\nin particular,' he witnessed, he said, where he 'knew they\nmisrepresented. It was in the Congregational meeting house at Dover.\nHe was passing by, and saw a crowd entering and about the door; and on\ninquiry, found that _abolition was going on in there_. He stood in the\nentry for a moment, and found the Englishman, Thompson, was holding\nforth. The fellow was speaking of the treatment of slaves; and he said\nit was no uncommon thing for masters, when exasperated with the slave,\nto hang him up by the two thumbs, and flog him. I knew the fellow lied\nthere,' said the judge, 'for I had traveled through the south, from\nGeorgia north, and I never saw a single instance of the kind. The\nfellow said it was a common thing.' 'Did you see any _exasperated\nmasters_, Judge,' said I, 'in your journey?' 'No sir,' said he, 'not\nan individual instance.' 'You hardly are able to convict Mr. Thompson\nof falsehood, then, Judge,' said I, 'if I understood you right. He\nspoke, as I understood you, of _exasperated masters_--and you say you\ndid not see any. Mr. Thompson did not say it was common for masters in\ngood humor to hang up their slaves.' The Judge did not perceive the\nmateriality of the distinction. 'Oh, they misrepresent and lie about\nthis treatment of the niggers,' he continued. 'In going through all\nthe states I visited, I do not now remember a single instance of cruel\ntreatment. Indeed, I remember of seeing but one nigger struck, during\nmy whole journey. There was one instance. We were riding in the stage,\npretty early one morning, and we met a black fellow, driving a span of\nhorses, and a load (I think he said) of hay. The fellow turned out\nbefore we got to him, clean down into the ditch, as far as he could\nget. He knew, you see, what to depend on, if he did not give the road.\nOur driver, as we passed the fellow, fetched him a smart crack with\nhis whip across the chops. He did not make any noise, though I guess\nit hurt him some--he grinned.--Oh, no! these fellows exaggerate. The\nniggers, as a general thing, are kindly treated. There may be\nexceptions, but I saw nothing of it.' (By the way, the Judge did not\nknow there were any abolitionists present.) 'What did you _do_ to the\ndriver, Judge,' said I, 'for striking that man?' 'Do,' said he, 'I did\nnothing to him, to be sure.' 'What did you _say_ to him, sir?' said I.\n'Nothing,' he replied: 'I said nothing to him.' 'What did the other\npassengers do?' said I. 'Nothing, sir,' said the Judge. 'The fellow\nturned out the white of his eye, but he did not make any noise.' 'Did\nthe driver say any thing, Judge, when he struck the man?' 'Nothing,'\nsaid the Judge, 'only he _damned him_, and told him he'd learn him to\nkeep out of the reach of his whip.' 'Sir,' said I, 'if George Thompson\nhad told this story, in the warmth of an anti-slavery speech, I should\nscarcely have credited it. I have attended many anti-slavery meetings,\nand I never heard an instance of such _cold-blooded, wanton,\ninsolent_, DIABOLICAL cruelty as this; and, sir, if I live to attend\nanother meeting, I shall relate this, and give Judge Durell's name as\nthe witness of it.' An infliction of the most insolent character,\nentirely unprovoked, on a perfect stranger, who had showed the utmost\ncivility, in giving all the road, and only could not get beyond the\nlong reach of the driver's whip--and he a stage driver, a class\n_generous_ next to the sailor, in the sober hour of morning--and\n_borne in silence_--and _told to show that the colored man of the\nsouth was kindly treated_--all evincing, to an unutterable extent,\nthat the temper of the south toward the slave is merciless, even to\n_diabolism_--and that the north regards him with, if possible, a more\nfiendish indifference still!\"\n\n\nIt seems but an act of simple justice to say, in conclusion, that many\nof the slaveholders from whom our northern visitors derive their\ninformation of the \"good treatment\" of the slave, may not design to\ndeceive them. Such visitors are often, perhaps generally brought in\ncontact with the better class of slaveholders, whose slaves are really\nbetter fed, clothed, lodged, and housed; more moderately worked; more\nseldom whipped, and with less severity, than the slaves generally.\nThose masters in speaking of the good condition of their slaves, and\nasserting that they are treated _well_, use terms that are not\n_absolute_ but _comparative_: and it may be, and doubtless often is\ntrue that their stares are treated well _as slaves_, in comparison\nwith the treatment received by slaves generally. So the overseers of\nsuch slaves, and the slaves themselves, may, without lying or\ndesigning to mislead, honestly give the same testimony. As the great\nbody of slaves within their knowledge _fare worse_, it is not strange\nthat, when speaking of the treatment on their own plantation, they\nshould call it _good_.\n\n\n\nOBJECTION V.--'IT IS FOR THE INTEREST OF THE MASTERS TO TREAT THEIR\nSLAVES WELL.'\n\nSo it is for the interest of the drunkard to quit his cups; for the\nglutton to curb his appetite; for the debauchee to bridle his lust;\nfor the sluggard to be up betimes; for the spendthrift to be\neconomical, and for all sinners to stop sinning. Even if it were for\nthe interest of masters to treat their slaves well, he must be a\nnovice who thinks _that_ a proof that the slaves _are_ well treated.\nThe whole history of man is a record of real interests sacrificed to\npresent gratification. If all men's actions were consistent with their\nbest interests, folly and sin would be words without meaning.\n\nIf the objector means that it is for the pecuniary interests of\nmasters to treat their slaves well, and thence infers their good\ntreatment, we reply, that though the love of money is strong, yet\nappetite and lust, pride, anger and revenge, the love of power and\nhonor, are each an overmatch for it; and when either of them is roused\nby a sudden stimulant, the love of money worsted in the grapple with\nit. Look at the hourly lavish outlays of money to procure a momentary\ngratification for those passions and appetites. As the desire for\nmoney is, in the main, merely a desire for the means of gratifying\n_other_ desires, or rather for one of the means, it must be the\n_servant_ not the sovereign of those desires, to whose gratification\nits only use is to minister. But even if the love of money were the\nstrongest human passion, who is simple enough to believe that it is\nall the time so powerfully excited, that no other passion or appetite\ncan get the mastery over it?  Who does not know that gusts of rage,\nrevenge, jealousy and lust drive it before them as a tempest tosses a\nfeather?\n\nThe objector has forgotten his first lessons; they taught him that it\nis human nature to gratify the _uppermost_ passion: and is _prudence_\nthe uppermost passion with slaveholders, and self-restraint their\ngreat characteristic? The strongest feeling of any moment is the\nsovereign of that moment, and rules. Is a propensity to practice\n_economy_ the predominant feeling with slaveholders? Ridiculous!\nEvery northerner knows that slaveholders are proverbial for lavish\nexpenditures, never higgling about the _price_ of a gratification.\nHuman passions have not, like the tides, regular ebbs and flows, with\ntheir stationary, high and low water marks. They are a dominion\nconvulsed with revolutions; coronations and dethronements in ceasless\nsuccession--each ruler a usurper and a despot. Love of money gets a\nsnatch at the sceptre as well as the rest, not by hereditary right,\nbut because, in the fluctuations of human feelings, a chance wave\nwashes him up to the throne, and the next perhaps washes him off\nwithout time to nominate his successor. Since, then, as a matter of\nfact, a host of appetites and passions do hourly get the better of\nlove of money, what protection does the slave find in his master's\n_interest_, against the sweep of his passions and appetites? Besides,\na master can inflict upon his slave horrible cruelties without\nperceptibly injuring his health, or taking time from his labor, or\nlessening his value as property. Blows with a small stick give more\nacute pain, than with a large one. A club bruises, and benumbs the\nnerves, while a switch, neither breaking nor bruising the flesh,\ninstead of blunting the sense of feeling, wakes up and stings to\ntorture all the susceptibilities of pain. By this kind of infliction,\nmore actual cruelty can be perpetrated in the giving of pain at the\ninstant, than by the most horrible bruisings and lacerations; and\nthat, too, with little comparative hazard to the slave's health, or to\nhis value as property, and without loss of time from labor. Even\ngiving to the objection all the force claimed for it, what protection\nis it to the slave? It _professes_ to shield the slave from such\ntreatment alone, as would either lay him aside from labor, or injure\nhis health, and thus lessen his value as a working animal, making him\na _damaged article_ in the market. Now, is nothing _bad treatment_ of\na human being except that which produces these effects? Does the fact\nthat a man's constitution is not actually shattered, and his life\nshortened by his treatment, prove that he is treated well? Is no\ntreatment cruel except what sprains muscles, or cuts sinews, or bursts\nblood vessels, or breaks bones, and thus lessens a man's value as a\nworking animal?\n\nA slave may get blows and kicks every hour in the day, without having\nhis constitution broken, or without suffering sensibly in his health,\nor flesh, or appetite, or power to labor. Therefore, beaten and kicked\nas he is, he must be treated _well_, according to the objector, since\nthe master's _interest_ does not suffer thereby.\n\nFinally, the objector virtually maintains that all possible privations\nand inflictions suffered by slaves, that do not actually cripple their\npower to labor, and make them 'damaged merchandize,' are to be set\ndown as 'good treatment,' and that nothing is _bad_ treatment except\nwhat produces these effects.\n\nThus we see that even if the slave were effectually shielded from all\nthose inflictions, which, by lessening his value as property, would\ninjure the interests of his master, he would still nave no protection\nagainst numberless and terrible cruelties. But we go further, and\nmaintain that in respect to large classes of slaves, it is for the\n_interest_ of their masters to treat them with barbarous inhumanity.\n\n1. _Old slaves._ It would be for the interest of the masters to\nshorten their days.\n\n2. _Worn out slaves._ Multitudes of slaves by being overworked, have\ntheir constitutions broken in middle life. It would be _economical_\nfor masters to starve or flog such to death.\n\n3. _The incurably diseased and maimed._ In all such cases it would be\n_cheaper_ for masters to buy poison than medicine.\n\n4. _The blind, lunatics, and idiots_. As all such would be a tax on\nhim, it would be for his interest to shorten their days.\n\n5. _The deaf and dumb, and persons greatly deformed._ Such might or\nmight not be serviceable to him; many of them at least would be a\nburden, and few men carry burdens when they can throw them off.\n\n6. _Feeble infants._ As such would require much nursing, the time,\ntrouble and expense necessary to raise them, would generally be more\nthan they would be worth as _working animals_. How many such infants\nwould be likely to be 'raised,' from _disinterested_ benevolence? To\nthis it may be added that in the far south and south west, it is\nnotoriously for the interest of the master not to 'raise' slaves at\nall. To buy slaves when nearly grown, from the northern slave states,\nwould be _cheaper_ than to raise them. This is shown in the fact, that\nmothers with infants sell for less in those states than those without\nthem. And when slave-traders purchase such in the upper country, it is\nnotorious that they not unfrequently either sell their infants, or\ngive them away. Therefore it would be for the _interest_ of the\nmasters, throughout that region, to have all the new-born children\nleft to perish. It would also be for their interest to make such\narrangements as effectually to separate the sexes, or if that were not\ndone, so to overwork the females as to prevent childbearing.\n\n7. _Incorrigible slaves_. On most of the large plantations, there are,\nmore or less, incorrigible slaves,--that is, slaves who _will not_ be\nprofitable to their masters--and from whom torture can extort little\nbut defiance.[25] These are frequently slaves of uncommon minds, who\nfeel so keenly the wrongs of slavery that their proud spirits spurn\ntheir chains and defy their tormentors.\n\n[Footnote 25: Advertisements like the following are not unfrequent in\nthe southern papers.\n\n_From the Elizabeth (N.C.) Phenix, Jan. 5, 1839._ \"The subscriber\noffers for sale his blacksmith NAT, 28 years of age, and _remarkably\nlarge and likely_. The only cause of my selling him is I CANNOT\nCONTROL HIM. _Hertford, Dec.5, 1838._ J. GORDON.\"]\n\n\nThey have commonly great sway over the other slaves, their example is\ncontagious, and their influence subversive of 'plantation discipline.'\nConsequently they must be made a warning to others. It is for the\n_interest_ of the masters (at least they believe it to be) to put upon\nsuch slaves iron collars and chains, to brand and crop them; to\ndisfigure, lacerate, starve and torture them--in a word, to inflict\nupon them such vengeance as shall strike terror into the other slaves.\nTo this class may be added the incorrigibly thievish and indolent; it\nwould be for the interest of the masters to treat them with such\nseverity as would deter others from following their example.\n\n7. _Runaways._ When a slave has once runaway from his master and is\ncaught, he is thenceforward treated with severity. It is for the\ninterest of the master to make an example of him, by the greatest\nprivations and inflictions.\n\n8. _Hired slaves._ It is for the interest of those who hire slaves to\nget as much out of them as they can; the temptation to overwork them\nis powerful. If it be said that the master could, in that case,\nrecover damages, the answer is, that damages would not be recoverable\nin law unless actual injury--enough to impair the power of the slave\nto labor, be _proved._ And this ordinarily would be impossible, unless\nthe slave has been worked so greatly beyond his strength as to produce\nsome fatal derangement of the vital functions. Indeed, as all who are\nfamiliar with such cases in southern courts well know, the proof of\nactual injury to the slave, so as to lessen his value, is exceedingly\ndifficult to make out, and every hirer of slaves can overwork them,\ngive them insufficient food, clothing, and shelter, and inflict upon\nthem nameless cruelties with entire impunity. We repeat then that it\nis for the _interest_ of the hirer to push his slaves to their utmost\nstrength, provided he does not drive them to such an extreme, that\ntheir constitutions actually give way under it, while in his hands.\nThe supreme court of Maryland has decided that, 'There must be _at\nleast a diminution of the faculty of the slave for bodily labor_ to\nwarrant an action by the master.'--_1 Harris and Johnson's Reports,\n4._\n\n9. _Slaves under overseers whose wages are proportioned to the crop\nwhich they raise._ This is an arrangement common in the slave states,\nand in its practical operation is equivalent to a bounty on _hard\ndriving_--a virtual premium offered to overseers to keep the slaves\nwhipped up to the top of their strength. Even where the overseer has a\nfixed salary, irrespective of the value of the crop which he takes\noff, he is strongly tempted to overwork the slaves, as those overseers\nget the highest wages who can draw the largest income from a\nplantation with a given number of slaves; so that we may include in\nthis last class of slaves, the majority of all those who are under\noverseers, whatever the terms on which those overseers are employed.\n\nAnother class of slaves may be mentioned; we refer to the slaves of\nmasters who _bet_ upon their crops. In the cotton and sugar region\nthere is a fearful amount of this desperate gambling, in which, though\nmoney is the ostensible stake and forfeit, human life is the real one.\nThe length to which this rivalry is carried at the south and south\nwest, the multitude of planters who engage in it, and the recklessness\nof human life exhibited in driving the murderous game to its issue,\ncannot well be imagined by one who has not lived in the midst of it.\nDesire of gain is only one of the motives that stimulates them;--the\n_eclat_ of having made the largest crop with a given number of hands,\nis also a powerful stimulant; the southern newspapers, at the crop\nseason, chronicle carefully the \"cotton brag,\" and the \"crack cotton\npicking,\" and \"unparalleled driving,\" &c. Even the editors of\nprofessedly religious papers, cheer on the m\u00e9le\u00e9 and sing the triumphs\nof the victor. Among these we recollect the celebrated Rev. J.N.\nMaffit, recently editor of a religious paper at Natchez, Miss. in\nwhich he took care to assign a prominent place, and capitals to \"THE\nCOTTON BRAG.\" The testimony of Mr. Bliss, page 38, details some of the\nparticulars of this _betting_ upon crops. All the preceding classes of\nslaves are in circumstances which make it \"for the _interest_ of their\nmasters,\" or those who have the management of them, to treat them\ncruelly.\n\nBesides the operation of the causes already specified, which make it\nfor the interest of masters and overseers to treat cruelly _certain\nclasses_ of their slaves, a variety of others exist, which make it for\ntheir interest to treat cruelly _the great body_ of their slaves.\nThese causes are, the nature of certain kinds of products, the kind of\nlabor required in cultivating and preparing them for market, the best\ntimes for such labor, the state of the market, fluctuations in prices,\nfacilities for transportation, the weather, seasons, &c. &c. Some of\nthe causes which operate to produce this are--\n\n1. _The early market_. If the planter can get his crop into market\nearly, he may save thousands which might be lost if it arrived later.\n\n2. _Changes in the market_. A sudden rise in the market with the\nprobability that it will be short, or a gradual fall with a\nprobability that it will be long, is a strong temptation to the master\nto push his slaves to the utmost, that he may in the one case make all\nhe can, by taking the tide at the flood, and in the other lose as\nlittle as may be, by taking it as early as possible in the ebb.\n\n3. _High prices_. Whenever the slave-grown staples bring a high price,\nas is now the case with cotton, every slaveholder is tempted to\noverwork his slaves. By forcing them to do double work for a few weeks\nor months, while the price is up, he can _afford_ to lose a number of\nthem and to lessen the value of all by over-driving. A cotton planter\nwith a hundred vigorous slaves, would have made a profitable\nspeculation, if, during the years '34, 5, and 6, when the average\nprice of cotton was 17 cents a pound, he had so overworked his slaves\nthat half of them died upon his hands in '37, when cotton had fallen\nto six and eight cents. No wonder that the poor slaves pray that cotton\nand sugar may be cheap. The writer has frequently heard it declared by\nplanters in the lower country, that, it is more profitable to drive\nthe slaves to such over exertion as to _use them up_, in seven or\neight years, than to give them only ordinary tasks and protract their\nlives to the ordinary period.[26]\n\n[Footnote 26: The reader is referred to a variety of facts and\ntestimony on this point on the 39th page of this work.]\n\n\n4. _Untimely seasons_. When the winter encroaches on the spring, and\nmakes late seed time, the first favorable weather is a temptation to\noverwork the slaves, too strong to be resisted by those who hold men\nas mere working animals. So when frosts set in early, and a great\namount of work is to be done in a little time, or great loss suffered.\nSo also after a long storm either in seed or crop time, when the\nweather becomes favorable, the same temptation presses, and in all\nthese cases the master would _save money_ by overdriving his slaves.\n\n5. _Periodical pressure of certain kinds of labor._ The manufacture of\nsugar is an illustration. In a work entitled \"Travels in Louisiana in\n1802,\" translated from the French, by John Davis, is the following\ntestimony under this head:--\n\n\"At the rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months,\nthey (the slaves in Louisiana,) work _both night and day_. Abridged of\ntheir sleep, they scarcely retire to rest during the whole period\" See\npage 81.\n\nIn an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, published in the second\nnumber of the \"Western Review,\" is the following:--\"The work is\nadmitted to be severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the\nprocess of making sugar is commenced, TO BE PRESSED NIGHT AND DAY.\"\n\nIt would be for the interest of the sugar planter greatly to overwork\nhis slaves, during the annual process of sugar-making.\n\nThe severity of this periodical pressure, in preparing for market\nother staples of the slave states besides sugar, may be inferred from\nthe following. Mr. Hammond, of South Carolina, in his speech in\nCongress, Feb. 1. 1836, (See National Intelligencer) said, \"In the\nheat of the crop, the loss of one or two days, would inevitably ruin\nit.\"\n\n6. _Times of scarcity_. Drought, long rain, frost, &c. are liable to\ncut off the corn crop, upon which the slaves are fed. If this happens\nwhen the staple which they raise is at a low price, it is for the\ninterest of the master to put the slave on short rations, thus forcing\nhim to suffer from hunger.\n\n7. _The raising of crops for exportation_. In all those states where\ncotton and sugar are raised for exportation, it is, for the most part,\nmore profitable to buy provisions for the slaves than to raise them.\nWhere this is the case the slaveholders believe it to be for their\ninterest to give their slaves less food, than their hunger craves, and\nthey do generally give them insufficient sustenance.[27]\n\n[Footnote 27: Hear the testimony of a slaveholder, on this subject, a\nmember of Congress from Virginia, from 1817 to 1830, Hon. Alexander\nSmyth.\n\nIn the debate on the Missouri question in the U.S. Congress, 1819-20,\nthe admission of Missouri to the Union, as a slave state, was urged,\namong other grounds, as a measure of humanity to the slaves of the\nsouth. Mr. Smyth, of Virginia said, \"The plan of our opponents seems\nto be to confine the slave population to the southern states, to the\ncountries where _sugar, cotton, and tobacco_ are cultivated. But, sir,\nby confining the slaves to a part of the country where crops are\nraised for exportation, and the bread and meat are _purchased, you\ndoom them to scarcity and hunger_. Is it not obvious that the way to\nrender their situation more comfortable, is to allow them to be taken\nwhere there is not the same motive to force the slave to INCESSANT\nTOIL, that there is in the country where cotton, sugar, and tobacco,\nare raised for exportation. It is proposed to hem in the blacks _where\nthey are_ HARD WORKED and ILL FED, that they may be rendered\nunproductive and the race be prevented from increasing. . . . The\nproposed measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the blacks. . . . You\nwould . . . doom them to SCARCITY and HARD LABOR.\"--[Speech of Mr.\nSmyth, Jan. 28, 1820]--See National Intelligencer.\n\nThose states where the crops are raised for exportation, and a large\npart of the provisions purchased, are, Louisiana, Mississippi,\nAlabama, Arkansas, Western Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and, to a\nconsiderable extent, South Carolina. That this is the case in\nLouisiana, is shown by the following. \"Corn, flour, and bread stuffs,\ngenerally are obtained from Kentucky, Ohio;\" &c. See \"Emigrants Guide\nthrough the Valley of the Mississippi,\" Page 275. That it is the case\nwith Alabama, appears from the testimony of W. Jefferson Jones, Esq. a\nlawyer of high standing in Mobile. In a series of articles published\nby him in the Mobile Morning Chronicle, he says; (See that paper for\nAug. 26, 1837.)\n\n\"The people of Alabama _export_ what they raise, and _import_ nearly\nall they consume.\" But it seems quite unnecessary to prove, what all\npersons of much intelligence well know, that the states mentioned\nexport the larger part of what they raise, and import the larger part\nof what they consume. Now more than _one million of slaves_ are held\nin those states, and parts of states, where provisions are mainly\nimported, and consequently they are \"_doomed to scarcity and hunger_.\"]\n\n\nNow let us make some estimate of the proportion which the slaves,\nincluded in the foregoing _nine classes_, sustain to the whole number,\nand then of the proportion affected by the operation of the _seven_\ncauses just enumerated.\n\nIt would be nearly impossible to form an estimate of the proportion of\nthe slaves included in a number of these classes, such as the old, the\nworn out, the incurably diseased, maimed and deformed, idiots, feeble\ninfants, incorrigible slaves, &c. More or less of this description are\nto be found on all the considerable plantations, and often, many on\nthe same plantation; though we have no accurate data for an estimate,\nthe proportion cannot be less than one in twenty-five of the whole\nnumber of slaves, which would give a total of more than _one hundred\nthousand_. Of some of the remaining classes we have data for a pretty\naccurate estimate.\n\n1st. _Lunatics_.--Various estimates have been made, founded upon the\ndata procured by actual investigation, prosecuted under the direction\nof the Legislatures of different States; but the returns have been so\nimperfect and erroneous, that little reliance can be placed upon them.\nThe Legislature of New Hampshire recently ordered investigations to be\nmade in every town in the state, and the number of insane persons to\nbe reported. A committee of the legislature, who had the subject in\ncharge say, in their report--\"From many towns no returns have been\nreceived, from others the accounts are erroneous, there being cases\n_known to the committee_ which escaped the notice of the 'selectmen.'\nThe actual number of insane persons is therefore much larger than\nappears by the documents submitted to the committee.\" The Medical\nSociety of Connecticut appointed a committee of their number, composed\nof some of the most eminent physicians in the state, to ascertain and\nreport the whole number of insane persons in that state. The committee\nsay, in their report, \"The number of towns from which returns have\nbeen received is seventy, and the cases of insanity which have been\nnoticed in them are five hundred and ten.\" The committee add, \"fifty\nmore towns remain to be heard from, and if insanity should be found\nequally prevalent in them, the entire number will scarcely fall short\nof _one thousand_ in the state.\" This investigation was made in 1821,\nwhen the population of the state was less than two hundred and eighty\nthousand. If the estimate of the Medical Society be correct, the\nproportion of the insane to the whole population would be about one in\ntwo hundred and eighty. This strikes us as a large estimate, and yet a\ncommittee of the legislature of that state in 1837, reported seven\nhundred and seven insane persons in the state, who were either wholly\nor in part supported as _town paupers, or by charity_. It can hardly\nbe supposed that more than _two-thirds_ of the insane in Connecticut\nbelong to families _unable to support them_. On this supposition, the\nwhole number would be greater than the estimate of the Medical Society\nsixteen years previous, when the population was perhaps thirty\nthousand less. But to avoid the possibility of an over estimate, let\nus suppose the present number of insane persons in Connecticut to be\nonly seven hundred.\n\nThe population of the state is now probably about three hundred and\ntwenty thousand; according to this estimate, the proportion of the\ninsane to the whole population, would be one to about four hundred and\nsixty. Making this the basis of our calculation, and estimating the\nslaves in the United States at two millions, seven hundred thousand,\ntheir present probable number, and we come to this result, that there\nare about six thousand insane persons among the slaves of the United\nStates. We have no adequate data by which to judge whether the\nproportion of lunatics among slaves is greater or less than among the\nwhites; some considerations favor the supposition that it is less. But\nthe dreadful physical violence to which the slaves are subjected, and\nthe constant sunderings of their tenderest ties, might lead us to\nsuppose that it would be more. The only data in our possession is the\nofficial census of Chatham county, Georgia, for 1838, containing the\nnumber of lunatics among the whites and the slaves.--(See the Savannah\nGeorgian, July 24, 1838.) According to this census, the number of\nlunatics among eight thousand three hundred and seventy three whites\nin the country, is only _two,_ whereas, the number among ten thousand\neight hundred and ninety-one slaves, is _fourteen_.\n\n2d. _The Deaf and Dumb._--The proportion of deaf and dumb persons to\nthe other classes of the community, is about one in two thousand. This\nis the testimony of the directors of the 'American Asylum for the Deaf\nand Dumb,' located at Hartford, Connecticut. Making this the basis of\nour estimate, there would be one thousand six hundred deaf and dumb\npersons among the slaves of the United States.\n\n3d. _The Blind._--We have before us the last United States census,\nfrom which it appears, that in 1830, the number of blind persons in\nNew Hampshire was one hundred and seventeen, out of a population of\ntwo hundred and sixty-nine thousand five hundred and thirty-three.\nAdopting this as our basis, the number of blind slaves in the United\nStates would be nearly one thousand three hundred.\n\n4th. _Runaways._--Of the proportion of the slaves that run away, to\nthose that do not, and of the proportion of the runaways that are\n_taken_ to those that escape entirely, it would be difficult to make a\nprobable estimate. Something, however, can be done towards such an\nestimate. We have before us, in the Grand Gulf (Miss.) Advertiser, for\nAugust 2, 1838, a list of runaways that were then in the jails of the\ntwo counties of Adams and Warren, in that State; the names, ages, &c.\nof each one given; and their owners are called upon to take them away.\nThe number of runaways thus taken up and committed in these _two_\ncounties is FORTY-SIX. The whole number of _counties_ in Mississippi\nis _fifty-six._ Many of them, however, are thinly populated. Now,\nwithout making this the basis of our estimate for the whole slave\npopulation in all the state--which would doubtless make the number\nmuch too large--we are sure no one who has any knowledge of facts as\nthey are in the south, will charge upon us an over-statement when we\nsay, that of the present generation of slaves, probably _one in\nthirty_ is of that class--i.e., has at some time, perhaps often,\nrunaway and been retaken; on that supposition the whole number would\nbe not far from NINETY THOUSAND.\n\n5th. _Hired Slaves._--It is impossible to estimate with accuracy the\nproportion which the hired slaves bear to the whole number. That it is\nvery large all who have resided at the south, or traveled there, with\ntheir eyes open, well know. Some of the largest slaveholders in the\ncountry, instead of purchasing plantations and working their slaves\nthemselves, hire them out to others. This practice is very common.\n\nRev. Horace Moulton, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal church in\nMarlborough, Mass., who lived some years in Georgia, says: \"A _large\nproportion_ of the slave are owned by masters who keep them on purpose\nto hire out.\"\n\nLarge numbers of slaves, especially in Mississippi, Louisiana,\nArkansas, Alabama, and Florida, are owned by _non-residents_;\nthousands of them by northern capitalists, who _hire them out_. These\ncapitalists in many cases own large plantations, which are often\nleased for a term of years with a 'stock' of slaves sufficient to work\nthem.\n\nMultitudes of slaves 'belonging' to _heirs_, are hired out by their\nguardians till such heirs become of age, or by the executors or\ntrustees of persons deceased.\n\nThat the reader may form some idea of the large number of slaves that\nare hired out, we insert below a few advertisements, as a specimen of\nhundreds in the newspapers of the slave states.\n\nFrom the \"Pensacola Gazette,\" May 27.\n\n\"NOTICE TO SLAVEHOLDERS. Wanted upon my contract, on the Alabama,\nFlorida, and Georgia Rail Road, FOUR HUNDRED BLACK LABORERS, _for\nwhich_ a liberal price will be paid.\n\nR. LORING, _Contractor_.\"\n\n\nThe same paper has the following, signed by an officer of the United\nStates.\n\n\"WANTED AT THE NAVY YARD, PENSACOLA, SIXTY LABORERS. The OWNERS to\nsubsist and quarter them beyond the limits of the yard. Persons having\nLaborers to hire, will apply to the Commanding Officer.\n\nW.K. LATIMER.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Richmond (Va.) Enquirer,\" April 10, 1838.\n\n\"LABORERS WANTED.--The James River, and Kenawha Company, are in\nimmediate want of SEVERAL HUNDRED good laborers. Gentlemen wishing to\nsend negroes from the country, are assured that the very best care\nshall be taken of them.\n\nRICHARD REINS, _Agent of the James River, and Kenawha Co_.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Vicksburg (Mis.) Register,\" Dec. 27, 1838.\n\n\"60 NEGROES, males and females, _for hire for the year_ 1839. Apply to\nH. HENDREN.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Georgia Messenger,\" Dec. 27, 1838. \"NEGROES To HIRE. On the\nfirst Tuesday next, Including CARPENTERS, BLACKSMITHS, SHOEMAKERS,\nSEAMSTRESSES, COOKS, &c. &c. For information; Apply to OSSIAN\nGREGORY.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Alexandria (D.C.) Gazette,\" Dec. 30, 1837.\n\n\"THE subscriber wishes to _employ_ by the month or year, ONE HUNDRED\nABLE BODIED MEN, AND THIRTY BOYS. Persons having servants, will do\nwell to give him a call. PHILIP ROACH, near Alexandria.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Columbia (S.C.) Telescope,\" May 19, 1838.\n\n\"WANTED TO HIRE, twelve or fifteen NEGRO GIRLS, from ten to fourteen\nyears of age. They are wanted for the term of two or three years.\n\nE.H. & J. FISHER.\"\n\n\n\"NEGROES WANTED. The Subscriber is desirous of hiring 50 of 60 _first\nrate Negro Men_. WILSON NESBITT.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Norfolk (Va.) Beacon,\" March 21, 1838.\n\n\"LABORERS WANTED. One hundred able bodied men are wanted. The hands\nwill be required to be delivered in Halifax by the _owners_. Apply to\nSHIELD & WALKE.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Lynchburg Virginian,\" Dec. 13, 1838.\n\n\"40 NEGRO MEN. The subscribers wish to hire for the next year 40 NEGRO\nMEN. LANGHORNE, SCRUGGS & COOK.\"\n\n\n\"HIRING of NEGROES. On Saturday, the 29th day of December, 1838, at\nMrs. Tayloe's tavern, in Amherst county, there will be _hired_ thirty\nor forty valuable Negroes.\n\nIn addition to the above, I have for _hire_, 20 men, women, boys, and\ngirls--several of them excellent house servants. MAURICE H. GARLAND.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Savannah Georgian,\" Feb. 5, 1838.\n\n\"WANTED TO HIRE, ONE HUNDRED prime negroes, by the year. J.V.\nREDDEN.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"North Carolina Standard,\" Feb. 31, 1838.\n\n\"NEGROES WANTED.--W. & A. STITH, will give twelve dollars per month\nfor FIFTY strong Negro fellows, to commence work immediately; and for\nFIFTY more on the first day of February, and for FIFTY on the first\nday of March.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Lexington (Ky.) Reporter,\" Dec. 26, 1838.\n\n\"WILL BE HIRED, for one year; on the first day of January, 1839, on\nthe farm of the late Mrs. Meredith, a number of valuable NEGROES.\nR.S. TODD, Sheriff of Fayette Co. And Curator for James and Elizabeth\nBreckenridge.\"\n\n\"NEGROES TO HIRE. On Wednesday, the 26th inst. I will hire to the\nhighest bidder, the NEGROES belonging to Charles and Robert Innes.\nGEO. W. WILLIAMS. _Guardian_.\"\n\nThe following _nine_ advertisements were published in one column of\nthe \"Winchester Virginian,\" Dec. 20, 1838.\n\n\n\"NEGRO HIRINGS.\n\n\"WILL be offered for hire, at Captain Long's Hotel, a number of\nSLAVES--men, women, boys and girls--belonging to the orphans of George\nAsh, deceased. RICHARD W. BARTON.\" _Guardian_.\n\n\"WILL be offered for hire, at my Hotel, a number of SLAVES, consisting\nof men, women, boys and girls. JOSEPH LONG. _Exr. of Edmund\nShackleford, dec'd_.\"\n\n\"WILL be offered for hire, for the ensuing year, at Capt. Long's\nHotel, a number of SLAVES. MOSES R. RICHARDS.\"\n\n\"WILL be offered for hire, the slaves belonging to the estate of James\nBowen, deceased, consisting of men, and women, boys and girls. GILES\nCOOK. _One of the Exrs. of James Bowen dec'd_.\"\n\n\"THE _hiring_ at Millwood will take place on Friday, the 28th day of\nDecember, 1838. BURWELL.\"\n\n\"N.B. We are desired to say that other valuable NEGROES will also be\n_hired_ at Millwood on the same day, besides those offered by Mr. B.\"\n\n\"The SLAVES of the late John Jolliffe, about twenty in number, and of\nall ages and both sexes, will be offered for hire at Cain's Depot.\nDAVID W. BARTON. _Administrator_.\"\n\n\"I WILL hire at public hiring before the tavern door of Dr. Lacy,\nabout 30 NEGROES, consisting of men, and women. JAMES R. RICHARDS.\"\n\n\"WILL be hired, at Carter's Tavern, on 31st of December, a number of\nNEGROES. JOHN J.H. GUNNELL.\"\n\n\"NEGROES FOR HIRE, (PRIVATELY.) About twelve servants, consisting of\nmen, women, boys, and girls, for hire privately. Apply to the\nsubscriber at Col. Smith's in Battletown. JOHN W. OWEN.\"\n\nA volume might easily be filled with advertisements like the\npreceding, showing conclusively that _hired_ slaves must be a large\nproportion of the whole number. The actual proportion has been\nvariously estimated, at 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/2, &c. if we adopt the last\nas our basis, it will make the number of hired slaves, in the United\nStates, FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND!\n\n6th. _Slaves under overseers whose wages are a part of the\ncrop_.--That this is a common usage; appears from the following\ntestimony. The late Hon. John Taylor, of Caroline Co. Virginia, one of\nthe largest slaveholders in the state, President of the State\nAgricultural Society, and three times elected to the Senate of the\nUnited States, says, in his \"Agricultural Essays,\" No. 15. P. 57,\n\n\"This necessary class of men, (overseers,) are bribed by\nagriculturalists, not to improve, but to impoverish their land, _by a\nshare of the crop for one year_.... The _greatest_ annual crop, and\nnot the most judicious culture, advances his interest, and establishes\nhis character; and the fees of these land-doctors, are much higher for\nkilling than for curing.... The most which the land can yield, and\nseldom or never improvement with a view to future profit, is a point\nof common consent, and mutual need between the agriculturist and his\noverseer.... Must the practice of hiring a man for one year, by a\nshare of the crop, to lay out all his skill and industry in killing\nland, and as little as possible in improving it, be kept up to\ncommemorate the pious leaning of man to his primitive state of\nignorance and barbarity? _Unless this is abolished_, the attempt to\nfertilize our lands is needless.\"\n\n\nPhilemon Bliss, Esq, of Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida, in 1834-5,\nsays,\n\n\"It is common for owners of plantations and slaves, to hire overseers\nto take charge of them, while they themselves reside at a distance.\n_Their wages depend principally upon the amount of labor which they\ncan exact from the slave_. The term \"good overseer,\" signifies one who\ncan make the greatest amount of the staple, cotton for instance, from\na given number of hands, besides raising sufficient provisions for\ntheir consumption. He has no interest in the life of the slave. Hence\nthe fact, so notorious at the south, that negroes are driven harder\nand fare worse under overseers than under their owners.\"\n\n\nWilliam Ladd, Esq. of Minot, Maine, formerly a slaveholder in Florida,\nspeaking, in a recent letter of the system of labor adopted there,\nsays; \"The compensation of the overseers _was a certain portion of the\ncrop_.\"\n\n\nRev. Phineas Smith, of Centreville, Allegany Co. N.Y. who has\nrecently returned from a four years' residence, in the Southern slave\nstates and Texas, says,\n\n\"The mode in which _many_ plantations are managed, is calculated and\n_designed_, as an inducement to the slave driver, to lay upon the\nslave the _greatest possible burden, the overseer being entitled by\ncontract, to a certain share of the crop_.\"\n\nWe leave the reader to form his own opinion, as to the proportion of\nslaves under overseers, whose wages are in proportion to the crop,\nraised by them. We have little doubt that we shall escape the charge\nof wishing to make out a \"strong case\" when we put the proportion at\n_one-eighth_ of the whole number of slaves, which would be _three\nhundred and fifty thousand_.\n\nWithout drawing out upon the page a sum in addition for the reader to\n\"run up,\" it is easily seen that the slaves in the preceding classes\namount to more than ELEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND, exclusive of the deaf and\ndumb, and the blind, some of whom, especially the former, might be\nprofitable to their \"owners\";\n\nNow it is plainly for the interest of the \"owners\" of these slaves, or\nof those who have the charge of them, to _treat than cruelly_, to\noverwork, under-feed, half-clothe, half-shelter, poison, or kill\noutright, the aged, the broken down, the incurably diseased, idiots,\nfeeble infants, most of the blind, some deaf and dumb, &c. It is\nbesides a part of the slave-holder's creed, that it is _for his\ninterest_ to treat with terrible severity, all runaways and the\nincorrigibly stubborn, thievish, lazy, &c.; also for those who hire\nslaves, to overwork them; also for overseers to overwork the slaves\nunder them, when their own wages are increased by it.\n\nWe have thus shown that it would be \"_for the interest_,\" of masters\nand overseers to treat with _habitual_ cruelty _more than one million_\nof the slaves in the United States. But this is not all; as we have\nsaid already, it is for the interest of overseers generally, whether\ntheir wages are proportioned to the crop or not, to overwork the\nslaves; we need not repeat the reasons.\n\nNeither is it necessary to re-state the arguments, going to show that\nit is for the interest of slaveholders, who cultivate the great\nsouthern staples, especially cotton, and the sugarcane, to overwork\nperiodically _all_ their slaves, and _habitually_ the majority of\nthem, when the demand for those staples creates high prices, as has\nbeen the case with cotton for many years, with little exception.\nInstead of entering into a labored estimate to get at the proportion\nof the slaves, affected by the operation of these and the other causes\nenumerated, we may say, that they operate _directly_ on the \"field\nhands,\" employed in raising the southern staples, and indirectly upon\nall classes of the slaves.\n\nFinally, the conclude this head by turning the objector's negative\nproposition into an affirmative one, and state formally what has been\nalready proved.\n\n_It is for the interest of shareholders, upon their own principles,\nand by their own showing, TO TREAT CRUELLY the great body of their\nslaves._\n\n\n\nObjection VI.--THE FACT THAT THE SLAVES MULTIPLY SO RAPIDLY PROVES\nTHAT THEY ARE NOT INHUMANELY TREATED, BUT ARE IN A COMFORTABLE\nCONDITION\n\nTo this we reply in brief, 1st. It has been already shown under a\nprevious head, that, in considerable sections of the slave states,\nespecially in the South West, the births among slaves are fewer than\nthe deaths, which would exhibit a fearful decrease of the slave\npopulation in those sections, if the deficiency were not made up by\nthe slave trade from the upper country.\n\n2d. The fact that all children born of slave _mothers_, whether their\nfathers are whites or free colored persons, are included in the census\nwith the slaves, and further that all children born of white mothers,\nwhose fathers are mulattos or blacks, are also included in the census\nwith colored persons and almost invariably with _slaves_, shows that\nit is impossible to ascertain with any accuracy, _what is the actual\nincrease of the slaves alone._\n\n3d. The fact that thousands of slaves, generally in the prime of life,\nare annually smuggled into the United States from Africa, Cuba, and\nelsewhere, makes it manifest that all inferences drawn from the\nincrease of the slave population, which do not make large deductions,\nfor constant importations, must be fallacious. Mr. Middleton of South\nCarolina, in a speech in Congress in 1819, declared that \"THIRTEEN\nTHOUSAND AFRICANS ARE ANNUALLY SMUGGLED INTO THE SOUTHERN STATES.\" Mr.\nMercer of Virginia, in a speech in Congress about the same time\ndeclared that \"_Cargoes_,\" of African slaves were smuggled into the\nSouth to a deplorable extent.\n\nMr. Wright, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, estimated the number\nannually at FIFTEEN THOUSAND. Miss Martineau, in her recent work,\n(Society in America,) informs us that a large slaveholder in\nLouisiana, assured her in 1835, that the annual importation of native\nAfricans was from thirteen to fifteen thousand.\n\nThe President of the United States, in his message to Congress,\nDecember, 1837, says, \"The large force under Commodore Dallas, (on the\nWest India station,) has been most actively and efficiently employed\nin protecting our commerce, IN PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF SLAVES,\"\n&c. &c.\n\nThe New Orleans Courier of 15th February, 1839, has these remarks:\n\n\"It is believed that African negroes have been _repeatedly_ introduced\ninto the United States. The number and the proximity of the Florida\nports to the island of Cuba, make it no difficult matter; nor is our\nextended frontier on the Sabine and Red rivers, at all unfavorable to\nthe smuggler. Human laws have, in all countries and ages, been\nviolated whenever the inducements to do so afforded hopes of great\nprofit.\n\n\"The United States' law against the importation of Africans, _could it\nbe strictly enforced_, might in a few years give the sugar and cotton\nplanters of Texas advantage over those of this state; as it would, we\napprehend, enable the former, under a stable government, to furnish\ncotton and sugar at a lower price than we can do. When giving\npublicity to such reflections as the subject seems to suggest, we\nprotest against being considered advocates for any violation of the\nlaws of our country. Every good citizen must respect those laws,\nnotwithstanding we may deem them likely to be evaded by men less\nscrupulous.\"\n\nThat both the south and north swarm with men 'less scrupulous,' every\none knows.\n\nThe Norfolk (Va.) Beacon, of June 8, 1837, has the following:\n\n\"_Slave Trade.--Eight African negroes_ have been taken into custody,\nat Apalachicola, by the U.S. Deputy Marshal, alleged to have been\nimported from Cuba, on board the schooner Emperor, Captain Cox.\nIndictments for piracy, under the acts for the suppression of the\nslave trade, have been found against Captain Cox, and other parties\nimplicated. The negroes were bought in Cuba by a Frenchman named\nMalherbe, formerly a resident of Tallahassee, who was drowned soon\nafter the arrival of the schooner.\"\n\nThe following testimony of Rev. Horace Moulton, now a minister of the\nMethodist Episcopal Church, in Marlborough, Mass., who resided some\nyears in Georgia, reveals some of the secrets of the slave-smugglers,\nand the connivance of the Georgia authorities at their doings. It is\ncontained in a letter dated February 24, 1839.\n\n\"The foreign slave-trade was carried on to some considerable extent\nwhen I was at the south, notwithstanding a law had been made some ten\nyears previous to this, making this traffic piracy on the high seas. I\nwas somewhat acquainted with the secrets of this traffic, and, I\nsuppose, I might have engaged in it, had I so desired. Were you to\nvisit all the plantations in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and\nMississippi, I think you would be convinced that the horrors of the\ntraffic in human flesh have not yet ceased. I was _surprised to find\nso many that could not speak English among the slaves,_ until the\nmystery was explained. This was done, when I learned that\nslave-cargoes were landed on the coast of Florida, not a thousand\nmiles from St. Augustine. They could, and can still, in my opinion, be\nlanded as safely on this coast as in any port of this continent. You\ncan imagine for yourself how easy it was to carry on the traffic\nbetween this place and the West Indies. When landed on the coast of\nFlorida, it is an easy matter to distribute them throughout the more\nsouthern states. The law which makes it piracy to traffic in the\nforeign slave trade is a dead letter; and I doubt not it has been so\nin the more southern states ever since it was enacted. For you can\nperceive at once, that interested men, who believe the colored man is so\nmuch better off here than he possibly can be in Africa, will not\nhesitate to kidnap the blacks whenever an opportunity presents itself.\nI will notice one fact that came under my own observation, which will\nconvince you that the horrors of the foreign slave-trade have not yet\nceased among our southern gentry. It is as follows. A slave ship,\nwhich I have reason to believe was employed by southern men, came near\nthe port of Savannah with about FIVE HUNDRED SLAVES, from Guinea and\nCongo. It was said that the ship was driven there by contrary winds;\nand the crew, pretending to be short of provisions, run the ship into\na by place, near the shore, between Tybee Light and Darien, to recruit\ntheir stores. Well, as Providence would have it, the revenue cutter,\nat that time taking a trip along the coast, fell in with this slave\nship, took her as a prize, and brought her up into the port of\nSavannah. The cargo of human chattels was unloaded, and the captives\nwere placed in an old barracks, in the fort of Savannah, under the\nprotection of the city authorities, they pretending that they should\nreturn them all to their native country again, as soon as a convenient\nopportunity presented itself. The ship's crew of course were arrested,\nand confined in jail. Now for the sequel of this history. About one\nthird part of the negroes died in a few weeks after they were landed,\nin seasoning, so called, or in becoming acclimated--or, as I should\nthink, a distemper broke out among them, and they died like the\nIsraelites when smitten with the plague. Those who did not die in\nseasoning, must be hired out a little while, to be sure, as the city\nauthorities could not afford to keep them on expense doing nothing. As\nit happened, the man in whose employ I was when the cargo of human\nbeings arrived, hired some twenty or thirty of them, and put them\nunder my care. They continued with me until the sickly season drove me\noff to the north. I soon returned, but could not hear a word about the\ncrew of pirates. They had something like a mock trial, as I should\nthink, for no one, as I ever learned, was condemned, fined, or\ncensured. But where were the poor captives, who were going to be\nreturned to Africa by the city authorities, as soon as they could make\nit convenient? Oh, forsooth, those of whom I spoke, being under my\ncare, were tugging away for the same man; the remainder were scattered\nabout among different planters. When I returned to the north again,\nthe next year, the city authorities had not, down to that time; made\nit convenient to return these poor victims. The fact is, they belonged\nthere; and, in my opinion, they were designed to be landed near by the\nplace where the revenue cutter seized them. Probably those very\nplanters for whom they were originally designed received them; and\nstill there was a pretence kept up that they would be returned to\nAfrica. This must have been done, that the consciences of those might\nbe quieted, who were looking for justice to be administered to these\npoor captives. It is easy for a company of slaveholders, who desire to\ntraffic in human flesh, to fit out a vessel, under Spanish colors, and\nthen go prowling about the African coast for the victims of their\nlusts. If all the facts with relation to the African slave-trade, now\nsecretly carried on at the south, could be disclosed, the people of\nthe free states would be filled with amazement.\"\n\nIt is plain, from the nature of this trade, and the circumstances\nunder which it is carried on, that the number of slaves imported would\nbe likely to be estimated far _below_ the truth. There can be little\ndoubt that the estimate of Mr. Wright, of Maryland, (fifteen thousand\nannually,) is some thousands too small. But even according to his\nestimate, the African slave-trade adds ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND\nSLAVES TO EACH UNITED STATES' CENSUS. These are in the prime of life,\nand their children would swell the slave population many thousands\nannually--thus making a great addition to each census.\n\n4. It is a notorious fact, that large numbers of free colored persons\nare kidnapped every year in the free states, taken to the south, and\nsold as slaves.\n\nHon. GEORGE M. STROUD, Judge of the Criminal Court of Philadelphia, in\nhis sketch of the slave laws, speaking of the kidnapping of free\ncolored persons in the northern states, says--\n\n\"Remote as is the city of Philadelphia from those slaveholding states\nin which the introduction of slaves from places within the territory\nof the United States is freely permitted, and where also the market is\ntempting, _it has been ascertained,_ that MORE THAN THIRTY FREE\nCOLORED PERSONS, MOSTLY CHILDREN, HAVE BEEN KIDNAPPED HERE, AND\nCARRIED AWAY, WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS. Five of these, through the\nkind interposition of several humane gentlemen, have been restored to\ntheir friends, though not without _great expense and difficulty_; the\nothers _are still retained in bondage_, and if rescued at all, it must\nbe by sending white witnesses a journey of more than a thousand miles.\nThe costs attendant upon lawsuits, under such circumstances, will\nprobably fall but little short of the estimated value, as slaves, of\nthe individuals kidnapped.\"\n\nThe following is an extract from Mrs. CHILD's Appeal, pp. 64-6.\n\n\"I know the names of four colored citizens of Massachusetts, who went\nto Georgia on board a vessel, were seized under the laws of that\nstate, and sold as slaves. They have sent the most earnest\nexhortations to their families and friends, to do something for their\nrelief; but the attendant expenses require more money than the friends\nof negroes are apt to have, and the poor fellows, as yet, remain\nunassisted.\n\n\"A New York paper, of November, 1829, contains the following caution.\n\n_\"Beware of Kidnappers!_--It is well understood, that there is at\npresent in this city, a gang of kidnappers, busily engaged in their\nvocation, of stealing colored children for the southern market. It is\nbelieved that three or four have been stolen within as many days.\nThere are suspicions of a foul nature connected with some who serve\nthe police in subordinate capacities. It is hinted that there may be\nthose in some authority, not altogether ignorant of these diabolical\npractices. Let the public be on their guard! It is still fresh in the\nmemories of all, that a cargo, or rather drove of negroes, was made up\nfrom this city and Philadelphia, about the time that the emancipation\nof all the negroes in this state took place, under our present\nconstitution, and were taken through Virginia, the Carolinas, and\nTennessee, and disposed of in the state of Mississippi. Some of those\nwho were taken from Philadelphia were persons of intelligence; and\nafter they had been driven through the country in chains, and disposed\nof by sale on the Mississippi, wrote back to their friends, and were\nrescued from bondage. The persons who were guilty of this abominable\ntransaction are known, and now reside in North Carolina. They may very\nprobably be engaged in similar enterprizes at the present time--at\nleast there is reason to believe, that the system of kidnapping free\npersons of color from the northern cities, has been carried on more\nextensively than the public arc generally aware of.\"\n\nGEORGE BRADBURN, Esq. of Nantucket, Mass. a member of the Legislature\nof that state, at its last session, made a report to that body, March\n6, 1839, 'On the deliverance of citizens liable to be sold as slaves.'\nThat report contains the following facts and testimony.\n\n\"The following facts are a few out of a VAST MULTITUDE, to which the\nattention of the undersigned has been directed.\n\n\"On the 27th of February last, the undersigned had an interview with\nthe Rev. Samuel Snowden, a respectable and intelligent clergyman of\nthe city of Boston. This gentleman stated, and he is now ready to make\noath, that during the last six years, he has himself, by the aid of\nvarious benevolent individuals, procured the deliverance from jail of\nsix citizens of Massachusetts, who had been, arrested and imprisoned\nas runaway slaves, and who, but for his timely interposition, would\nhave been sold into perpetual bondage. The names and the places of\nimprisonment of those persons, as stated by Mr. S. were as follows:\n\n\"James Hight, imprisoned at Mobile; William Adams, at Norfolk; William\nHolmes, also at Norfolk; James Oxford, at Wilmington; James Smith, at\nBaton Rouge; John Tidd, at New Orleans.\n\n\"In 1836, Mary Smith, a native of this state, returning from New\nOrleans, whither she had been in the capacity of a servant, was cast\nupon the shores of North Carolina. She was there seized and sold as a\nslave. Information of the fact reached her friends at Boston. Those\nfriends made an effort to obtain her liberation. They invoked the\nassistance of the Governor of this Commonwealth. A correspondence\nensued between His Excellency and the Governor of North Carolina:\ncopies of which were offered for the inspection of your committee.\nSoon afterwards, by permission of the authorities of North Carolina,\n'Mary Smith' returned to Boston. But it turned out, that this was not\n_the_ Mary Smith, whom our worthy Governor, and other excellent\nindividuals of Boston, had taken so unwearied pains to redeem from\nslavery. It was another woman, of the same name, who was also a native\nof Massachusetts, and had been seized in North Carolina as a runaway\nslave. The Mary Smith has not yet been heard of. If alive, she is now,\nin all probability, wearing the chains of slavery.\n\n\"About a year and a half since, several citizens of different free\nstates were rescued from slavery, at New Orleans, by the direct\npersonal efforts of an acquaintance of the undersigned. The benevolent\nindividual alluded to is Jacob Barker, Esq. a name not unknown to the\ncommercial world. Mr. Barker is a resident of New Orleans. A statement\nof the cases in reference is contained in a letter addressed by him to\nthe Hon. Samuel H. Jenks, of Nantucket.\"\n\nThe letter of Mr. Barker, referred to in this report to the\nLegislature of Massachusetts, bears date August 19, 1837. The\nfollowing are extracts from it.\n\n\"A free man, belonging to Baltimore, by the name of Ephraim Larkin,\nwho came here cook of the William Tell, was arrested and thrown into\nprison a few weeks since, and sent in chains to work on the road. I\nheard of it, and with difficulty found him; and after the most\ndiligent and active exertions, got him released--in effecting which, I\ntraveled in the heat of the day, thermometer ranging in the shade from\n94 to 100, more than twenty times to and from prison, the place of his\nlabor, and the different courts, a distance of near three miles from\nmy residence; and after I had established his freedom, had to pay for\nhis arrest, maintenance, and the advertising him as a runaway slave,\n$29.89, as per copy of bill herewith--the allowance for work not\nequalling the expenses, the amount augments with every day of\nconfinement.\n\n\"In pursuing the cook of the William Tell, I found three other free\nmen, confined in the same prison; one belonged also to Baltimore, by\nthe name of Leaven Dogerty: he was also released, on my paying $28\nexpenses; one was a descendant of the Indians who once inhabited\nNantucket--his name is Eral Lonnon. Lonnon had been six weeks in\nprison; he was released without difficulty, on my paying $20.38\nexpenses--and no one seemed to know why he had been confined or\narrested, as the law does not presume persons of mixed blood to be\nslaves. But for the others, I had great difficulty in procuring what\nwas considered competent witnesses to prove them free. No complaint of\nimproper conduct had been made against either of them. At one time,\nthe Recorder said the witness must be white; at another, that one\nrespectable witness was insufficient; at another, that a person who\nhad been (improperly) confined and released, was not a competent\nwitness, &c. &c. Lonnon has been employed in the South Sea fishery\nfrom Nantucket and New Bedford, nearly all his life; has sailed on\nthose voyages in the ships Eagle, Maryland, Gideon, Triton, and\nSamuel. He was born at Marshpee, Plymouth (Barnstable) county, Mass.\nand prefers to encounter the leviathan of the deep, rather than the\nturnkeys of New Orleans.\n\n\"The other was born in St. Johns, Nova Scotia, and bears the name of\nWilliam Smith, a seaman by profession.\n\n\"Immediately after these men were released, two others were arrested.\nThey attempted to escape, and being pursued, ran for the river, in the\nvain hope of being able to swim across the Mississippi, a distance of\na mile, with a current of four knots. One soon gave out, and made for\na boat which had been despatched for their recovery, and was saved;\nthe other being a better swimmer, continued on until much exhausted,\nthen also made for the boat--it was too late; he sank before the boat\ncould reach him, and was drowned. They claimed to be freemen.\n\n\"On Sunday last I was called to the prison of the Municipality in\nwhich I reside, to serve on an inquest on the body of a drowned man.\nThere I saw one other free man confined, by the name of Henry Tier, a\nyellow man, born in New York, and formerly in my employ. He had been\nconfined as a supposed runaway, near six months, without a particle of\ntestimony; although from his color, the laws of Louisiana presume him\nto be free. I applied immediately for his release, which was promptly\ngranted. At first, expenses similar to those exacted in the third\nMunicipality were required; but on my demonstrating to the recorder\nthat the law imposed no such burden on free men, he was released\nwithout any charge whatever. How free men can obtain satisfaction for\nhaving been thus wrongfully imprisoned, and made to work in chains on\nthe highway, is not for me to decide. I apprehend no satisfaction can\nbe had without more active friends, willing to espouse their cause,\nthan can be found in this quarter. Therefore I repeat, that no person\nof color should come here without a certificate of freedom from the\ngovernor of the state to which he belongs.\n\n\"Very respectfully, your assured friend, Jacob Barker.\"\n\n\n\"N.B.--Since writing the preceding, I have procured the release of\nanother free man from the prison of the third Municipality, on the\npayment of $39.65, as per bill, copy herewith. His name is William\nLockman--he was born in New Jersey, of free parents, and resides at\nPhiladelphia. A greater sum was required which was reduced by the\nallowance of his maintenance (written _labor_,) while at work on the\nroad, which the law requires the Municipality to pay; but it had not\nbefore been so expounded in the third Municipality. I hope to get it\nback in the case of the other three. The allowance for labor, in\naddition to their maintenance, is twenty-five cents per day; but they\nrequire those illiterate men to advance the whole before they can\nleave the prison, and then to take a certificate for their labor, and\ngo for it to another department--to collect which, is ten times more\ntrouble than the money when received is worth. While these free men,\nwithout having committed any fault, were compelled to work in chains,\non the roads, in the burning sun, for 25 cents per day, and pay in\nadvance 18 3-4 cents per day for maintenance, doctor's, and other\nbills, and not able to work half their time, I paid others, working on\nship-board, in sight, two dollars per day. J.B.\"\n\nThe preceding letter of Mr. Barker, furnishes grounds for the belief,\nthat _hundreds_, if not _thousands_ of free colored persons, from the\ndifferent states of this Union, both slave and free from the West\nIndies, South America, Mexico, and the British possessions in North\nAmerica, and from other parts of the world, are reduced to slavery\n_every year_ in our slave states. If a single individual, in the\ncourse of a few days, _accidentally_ discovered _six_ colored free\nmen, working in irons, and soon to be sold as slaves, in a _single_\nsouthern city, is it not fair to infer, that in all the slave states,\nthere must be _multitudes_ of such persons, now in slavery, and that\nthis number is rapidly increasing, by ceaseless accessions?\n\nThe letter of Mr. Barker is valuable, also, as a graphic delineation\nof the 'public opinion' of the south. The great difficulty with which\nthe release of these free men was procured, notwithstanding the\npersonal efforts of Mr. Jacob Barker, who is a gentleman of influence,\nand has, we believe, been an alderman of New Orleans, reveals a\n'public opinion,' insensible as adamant to the liberty of colored men.\n\nIt would be easy to fill scores of pages with details similar to the\npreceding. We have furnished enough, however, to show, that, in all\nprobability, _each_ United States' census of the _slave_ population,\nis increased by the addition to it of _thousands_ of free colored\npersons, kidnapped and sold as slaves.\n\n5th. To argue that the rapid multiplication of any class in the\ncommunity, is proof that such a class is well-clothed, well-housed,\nabundantly fed, and very _comfortable_, is as absurd as to argue that\nthose who have _few children_, must of course, be ill-clothed,\nill-housed, badly lodged, overworked, ill-fed, &c. &c. True,\nprivations and inflictions may be carried to such an extent as to\noccasion a fearful diminishment of population. That was the case\ngenerally with the slave population in the West Indies, and, as has\nbeen shown, is true of certain portions of the southern states. But\nthe fact that such an effect is _not_ produced, does not prove that\nthe slaves do not experience great privations and severe inflictions.\nThey may suffer much hardship, and great cruelties, without\nexperiencing so great a derangement of the vital functions as to\nprevent child-bearing. The Israelites multiplied with astonishing\nrapidity, under the task-masters and burdens of Egypt. Does this\nfalsify the declarations of Scripture, that 'they sighed by reason of\ntheir bondage,' and that the Egyptians 'made them serve _with rigor_,'\nand made 'their lives bitter with _hard bondage_.' 'I have seen,' said\nGod, 'their _afflictions_. I have beard their _groanings_,' &c. The\nhistory of the human race shows, that great _privations and much\nsuffering_ may be experienced, without materially checking the rapid\nincrease of population.\n\nBesides, if we should give to the objection all it claims, it would\nmerely prove, that the female slaves, or rather a portion of them, are\nin a comfortable condition; and that, so far as the absolute\nnecessities of life are concerned, the females of _child-bearing_ age,\nin Delaware, Maryland, northern, western, and middle Virginia, the\nupper parts of Kentucky and Missouri, and among the mountains of east\nTennessee and western North Carolina, are in general tolerably well\nsupplied. The same remark, with some qualifications, may be made of\nthe slaves generally, in those parts of the country where the people\nare slaveholders, mainly, that they may enjoy the privilege and profit\nof being _slave-breeders_.\n\n\n\nOBJECTION VIII.--'PUBLIC OPINION IS A PROTECTION TO THE SLAVE.'\n\nANSWER. It was public opinion that _made him a slave_. In a republican\ngovernment the people make the laws, and those laws are merely public\nopinion _in legal forms_. We repeat it,--public opinion made them\nslaves, and keeps them slaves; in other words, it sunk them from men\nto chattels, and now, forsooth, this same public opinion will see to\nit, that these _chattels_ are treated like _men!_\n\nBy looking a little into this matter, and finding out how this 'public\nopinion' (law) protects the slaves in some particulars, we can judge\nof the amount of its protection in others. 1. It protects the slaves\nfrom _robbery_, by declaring that those who robbed their mothers may\nrob them and their children. \"All negroes, mulattoes, or mestizoes who\nnow are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their\noffspring, are hereby declared to be, and shall remain, forever,\nhereafter, absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the\nmother.\"--Law of South Carolina, 2 Brevard's Digest, 229. Others of\nthe slave states have similar laws.\n\n2. It protects their _persons_, by giving their master a right to\nflog, wound, and beat them when he pleases. See Devereaux's North\nCarolina Reports, 263.--Case of the State vs. Mann, 1829; in which the\nSupreme Court decided, that a master who _shot_ at a female slave and\nwounded her, because she got loose from him when he was flogging her,\nand started to run from him, had violated _no law_, AND COULD NOT BE\nINDICTED. It has been decided by the highest courts of the slave\nstates generally, that assault and battery upon a slave is not\nindictable as a criminal offence.\n\nThe following decision on this point was made by the Supreme Court of\nSouth Carolina in the case of the State vs. Cheetwood, 2 Hill's\nReports, 459.\n\n_Protection of slaves_.--\"The criminal offence of assault and battery\n_cannot, at common law, be committed on the person of a slave_. For,\nnotwithstanding for some purposes a slave is regarded in law as a\nperson, yet generally he is a mere chattel personal, and his right of\npersonal protection belongs to his master, who can maintain an action\nof trespass for the battery of his slave.\n\n\"There can be therefore no offence against the state for a mere\nbeating of a slave, unaccompanied by any circumstances of cruelty, or\nan attempt to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not thereby\nbroken; for a slave is not generally regarded as legally capable of\nbeing within the peace of the state. He is not a citizen, and _is not\nin that character entitled to her protection_.\"\n\nThis 'public opinion' protects the _persons_ of the slaves by\ndepriving them of Jury trial;[28] their _consciences_, by forbidding\nthem to assemble for worship, unless their oppressors are present;[29]\ntheir _characters_, by branding them as liars, in denying them their\noath in law;[30] their _modesty_, by leaving their master to clothe,\nor let them go naked, as he pleases;[31] and their _health_, by\nleaving him to feed or starve them, to work them, wet or dry, with or\nwithout sleep, to lodge them, with or without covering, as the whim\ntakes him;[32] and their _liberty_, marriage relations, parental\nauthority, and filial obligations, by _annihilating_ the whole.[33]\nThis is the protection which 'PUBLIC OPINION,' in the form of _law_,\naffords to the slaves; this is the chivalrous knight, always in\nstirrups, with lance in rest, to champion the cause of the slaves.\n\n[Footnote 28: Law of South Carolina. James' Digest, 392-3. Law of\nLouisiana. Martin's Digest, 42. Law of Virginia. Rev. Code, 429.]\n\n\n[Footnote 29: Miss. Rev. Code, 390. Similar laws exist in the slave\nstates generally.]\n\n\n[Footnote 30: \"A slave cannot be a witness against a white person,\neither in a civil or criminal cause.\" Stroud's Sketch of the Laws of\nSlavery, 65.]\n\n\n[Footnote 31: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, 132.]\n\n\n[Footnote 32: Stroud's Sketch, 26-32.]\n\n\n[Footnote 33: Stroud's Sketch, 22-24.]\n\n\nPublic opinion, protection to the slave! Brazen effrontery, hypocrisy,\nand falsehood! We have, in the laws cited and referred to above, the\nformal testimony of the Legislatures of the slave states, that,\n'public opinion' does pertinaciously _refuse_ to protect the slaves;\nnot only so, but that it does itself persecute and plunder them all:\nthat it originally planned, and now presides over, sanctions, executes\nand perpetuates the whole system of robbery, torture, and outrage\nunder which they groan.\n\nIn all the slave states, this 'public opinion' has taken away from the\nslave his _liberty_; it has robbed him of his right to his own body,\nof his right to improve his mind, of his right to read the Bible, of\nhis right to worship God according to his conscience, of his right to\nreceive and enjoy what he earns, of his right to live with his wife\nand children, of his right to better his condition, of his right to\neat when he is hungry, to rest when he is tired, to sleep when be\nneeds it, and to cover his nakedness with clothing: this 'public\nopinion' makes the slave a prisoner for life on the plantation, except\nwhen his jailor pleases to let him out with a 'pass,' or sells him,\nand transfers him in irons to another jail-yard: this 'public opinion'\ntraverses the country, buying up men, women, children--chaining them\nin coffles, and driving them forever from their nearest friends; it\nsets them on the auction table, to be handled, scrutinized, knocked\noff to the highest bidder; it proclaims that they shall not have their\nliberty; and, if their masters give it them, 'public opinion' seizes\nand throws them back into slavery. This same 'public opinion' has\nformally attached the following legal penalties to the following acts\nof slaves.\n\nIf more than seven slaves are found together in any road, without a\nwhite person, _twenty lashes a piece_; for visiting a plantation\nwithout a written pass, ten lashes; for letting loose a boat from\nwhere it is made fast, _thirty-nine lashes for the first offence_; and\nfor the second, '_shall have cut off from his head one ear_;' for\nkeeping or carrying a _club, thirty-nine lashes_; for having any\narticle for sale, without a ticket from his master, _ten lashes_; for\ntraveling in any other than 'the most usual and accustomed road,' when\ngoing alone to any place, _forty lashes_; for traveling in the night,\nwithout a pass, _forty lashes_; for being found in another person's\nnegro-quarters, _forty lashes_; for hunting with dogs in the woods,\n_thirty lashes_; for being on _horseback_ without the written\npermission of his master, _twenty-five lashes_; for riding or going\nabroad in the night, or riding horses in the day time, without leave,\na slave may be whipped, _cropped_, or _branded in the cheek_ with the\nletter R, or otherwise punished, _not extending to life_, or so as to\nrender him _unfit for labor_. The laws referred to may be found by\nconsulting 2 Brevard's Digest, 228, 213, 216; Haywood's Manual, 78,\nchap. 13, pp. 518, 529; 1 Virginia Revised Code, 722-3; Prince's\nDigest, 454; 2 Missouri Laws, 741; Mississippi Revised Code, 571. Laws\nsimilar to these exist throughout the southern slave code. Extracts\nenough to fill a volume might be made from these laws, showing that\nthe protection which 'public opinion' grants to the slaves, is hunger,\nnakedness, terror, bereavements, robbery, imprisonment, the stocks,\niron collars, hunting and worrying them with dogs and guns, mutilating\ntheir bodies, and murdering them.\n\nA few specimens of the laws and the judicial decisions on them, will\nshow what is the state of 'public opinion' among slaveholders towards\ntheir slaves. Let the following suffice.--'Any person may lawfully\nkill a slave, who has been outlawed for running away and lurking in\nswamps, &c.'--Law of North Carolina; Judge Stroud's Sketch of the\nSlave Laws, 103; Haywood's Manual, 524. 'A slave _endeavoring_ to\nentice another slave to runaway, if provisions, &c. be prepared for\nthe purpose of aiding in such running away, shall be punished with\nDEATH. And a slave who shall aid the slave so endeavoring to entice\nanother slave to run away, shall also suffer DEATH.'--Law of South\nCarolina; Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws, 103-4; 2 Brevard's Digest,\n233, 244. Another law of South Carolina provides that if a slave\nshall, when absent from the plantation, refuse to be examined by '_any\nwhite_ person,' (no matter how crazy or drunk,) 'such white person may\nseize and chastise him; and if the slave shall _strike_ such white\nperson, such slave may be lawfully killed.'--2 Brevard's Digest, 231.\n\nThe following is a law of Georgia.--'If any slave shall presume to\nstrike any white person, such slave shall, upon trial and conviction\nbefore the justice or justices, suffer such punishment for the first\noffence as they shall think fit, not extending to life or limb; and\nfor the second offence, DEATH.'--Prince's Digest, 450. The same law\nexists in South Carolina, with this difference, that death is made the\npunishment for the _third_ offence. In both states, the law contains\nthis remarkable proviso: 'Provided always, that such striking be not\ndone by the command and in the defence of the person or property of\nthe owner, or other person having the government of such slave, in\nwhich case the slave shall be wholly excused!' According to this law,\nif a slave, by the direction of his OVERSEER, strike a white man who\nis beating said overseer's _dog_, 'the slave shall be wholly excused;'\nbut if the white man has rushed upon the slave himself, instead of the\n_dog_, and is furiously beating him, if the slave strike back but a\nsingle blow, the legal penalty is 'ANY _punishment_ not extending to\nlife or limb;' and if the tortured slave has a second onset made upon\nhim, and, after suffering all but death, again strike back in\nself-defence, the law KILLS him for it. So, if a female slave, in\nobedience to her mistress, and in defence of 'her property,' strike a\nwhite man who is kicking her mistress' pet kitten, she 'shall be\nwholly excused,' saith the considerate law: but if the unprotected\ngirl, when beaten and kicked _herself_, raise her hand against her\nbrutal assailant, the law condemns her to 'any punishment, not\nextending to life or limb; and if a wretch assail her again, and\nattempt to violate her chastity, and the trembling girl, in her\nanguish and terror, instinctively raise her hand against him in\nself-defence, she shall, saith the law, 'suffer DEATH.'\n\nReader, this diabolical law is the 'public opinion' of Georgia and\nSouth Carolina toward the slaves. This is the vaunted 'protection'\nafforded them by their 'high-souled chivalry.' To show that the\n'public opinion' of the slave states far more effectually protects the\n_property_ of the master than the _person_ of the slave, the reader is\nreferred to two laws of Louisiana, passed in 1819. The one attaches a\npenalty 'not exceeding one thousand dollars,' and 'imprisonment not\nexceeding two years,' to the crime of 'cutting or breaking any iron\nchain or collar,' which any master of slaves has used to prevent their\nrunning away; the other, a penalty 'not exceeding five hundred\ndollars,' to 'wilfully cutting out the tongue, putting out the eye,\n_cruelly_ burning, or depriving any slave of _any limb_.' Look at\nit--the most horrible dismemberment conceivable cannot be punished by\na fine of _more_ than five hundred dollars. The law expressly fixes\nthat, as the utmost limit, and it _may_ not be half that sum; not a\nsingle moment's imprisonment stays the wretch in his career, and the\nnext hour he may cut out another slave's tongue, or burn his hand off.\nBut let the same man break a chain put upon a slave, to keep him from\nrunning away, and, besides paying double the penalty that could be\nexacted from him for cutting off a slave's leg, the law imprisons him\nnot exceeding two years!\n\nThis law reveals the _heart_ of slaveholders towards their slaves,\ntheir diabolical indifference to the most excruciating and protracted\ntorments inflicted on them by '_any_ person;' it reveals, too, the\n_relative_ protection afforded by 'public opinion' to the _person_ of\nthe slave, in appalling contrast with the vastly surer protection\nwhich it affords to the master's _property_ in the slave. The wretch\nwho cuts out the tongue, tears out the eyes, shoots off the arms, or\nburns off the feet of a slave, over a slow fire, _cannot_ legally be\nfined more than five hundred dollars; but if he should in pity loose a\nchain from his galled neck, placed there by the master to keep him\nfrom escaping, and thus put his property in some jeopardy, he may be\nfined _one thousand dollars_, and thrust into a dungeon for two years!\nand this, be it remembered, not for _stealing_ the slave from the\nmaster, nor for _enticing_, or even advising him to run away, or\ngiving him any information how he can effect his escape; but merely,\nbecause, touched with sympathy for the bleeding victim, as he sees the\nrough iron chafe the torn flesh at every turn, he removes it;--and, as\nescape without this incumbrance would be easier than with it, the\nmaster's property in the slave is put at some risk. For having caused\nthis slight risk, the law provides a punishment--fine not exceeding\none thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding _two years_. We\nsay 'slight risk,' because the slave may not be disposed to encounter\nthe dangers, and hunger, and other sufferings of the woods, and the\ncertainty of terrible inflictions if caught; and if he should attempt\nit, the risk of losing him is small. An advertisement of five lines\nwill set the whole community howling on his track; and the trembling\nand famished fugitive is soon scented out in his retreat, and dragged\nback and delivered over to his tormentors.\n\nThe preceding law is another illustration of the 'protection' afforded\nto the limbs and members of slaves, by 'public opinion' among\nslaveholders.\n\nHere follow two other illustrations of the brutal indifference of\n'public opinion' to the _torments_ of the slave, while it is full of\nzeal to compensate the master, if any one disables his slave so as to\nlessen his market value. The first is a law of South Carolina. It\nprovides, that if a slave, engaged in his owner's service, be attacked\nby a person 'not having sufficient cause for so doing,' and if the\nslave shall be '_maimed or disabled_' by him, so that the owner\nsuffers a loss from his inability to labor, the person maiming him\nshall pay for his 'lost time,' and 'also the charges for the cure of\nthe slave!' This Vandal law does not deign to take the least notice of\nthe anguish of the '_maimed' slave_, made, perhaps, a groaning cripple\nfor life; the horrible wrong and injury done to _him_, is passed over\nin utter silence. It is thus declared to be _not a criminal act_. But\nthe pecuniary interests of the master are not to be thus neglected by\n'public opinion'. Oh no! its tender bowels run over with sympathy at\nthe master's injury in the 'lost _time_' of his slave, and it\ncarefully provides that he shall have pay for the whole of it.--See 2\n_Brevard's Digest_, 231, 2.\n\nA law similar to the above has been passed in Louisiana, which\ncontains an additional provision for the benefit of the\n_master_--ordaining, that 'if the slave' (thus _maimed and disabled_,)\n'be forever rendered unable to work,' the person maiming, shall pay\nthe master the appraised value of the slave before the injury, and\nshall, in addition, _take_ the slave, and maintain him during life.'\nThus 'public opinion' transfers the helpless cripple from the hand of\nhis master, who, as he has always had the benefit of his services,\nmight possibly feel some tenderness for him, and puts him in the sole\npower of the wretch who has disabled him for life--protecting the\nvictim from the fury of his tormentor, by putting him into his hands!\nWhat but butchery by piecemeal can, under such circumstances, be\nexpected from a man brutal enough at first to 'maim' and 'disable'\nhim, and now exasperated by being obliged to pay his full value to the\nmaster, and to have, in addition, the daily care and expense of his\nmaintenance. Since writing the above, we have seen the following\njudicial decision, in the case of Jourdan, vs. Patton--5 Martin's\nLouisiana Reports, 615. A slave of the plaintiff had been deprived of\nhis _only eye_, and thus rendered _useless_, on which account the\ncourt adjudged that the defendant should pay the plaintiff his full\nvalue. The case went up, by appeal, to the Supreme court. Judge\nMathews, in his decision said, that 'when the defendant had paid the\nsum decreed, the slave ought to be placed in his possession,'--adding,\nthat 'the judgment making full compensation to the owner _operates a\nchange of property_. He adds, 'The principle of humanity which would\nlead us to suppose, that the mistress whom he had long served, would\ntreat her miserable blind slave with more kindness than the defendant\nto whom the judgment ought to transfer him, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO\nCONSIDERATION!' The full compensation of the mistress for the loss of\nthe services of the slave, is worthy of all 'consideration,' even to\nthe uttermost farthing; 'public opinion' is omnipotent for _her_\nprotection; but when the food, clothing, shelter, fire and lodging,\nmedicine and nursing, comfort and entire condition and treatment of\nher poor blind slave throughout his dreary pilgrimage, is the\nquestion--ah! that, says the mouthpiece of the law, and the\nrepresentative of 'public opinion,' 'CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO\nCONSIDERATION.' Protection of slaves by 'public opinion' among\nslaveholders!!\n\nThe foregoing illustrations of southern 'public opinion,' from the\nlaws made by it and embodying it, are sufficient to show, that, so far\nfrom being an efficient protection to the slaves, it is their\ndeadliest foe, persecutor and tormentor.\n\nBut here we shall probably be met by the legal lore of some 'Justice\nShallow,' instructing us that the life of the slave is fully protected\nby law, however unprotected he may be in other respects. This\nassertion we meet with a point blank denial. The law does not, in\nreality, protect the life of the slave. But even if the letter of the\nlaw would fully protect the life of the slave, 'public opinion' in the\nslave states would make it a dead letter. The letter of the law would\nhave been all-sufficient for the protection of the lives of the\nmiserable gamblers in Vicksburg, and other places in Mississippi, from\nthe rage of those whose money they had won; but 'gentlemen of property\nand standing 'laughed the law to scorn, rushed to the gamblers' house,\nput ropes round their necks, dragged them through the streets, hanged\nthem in the public square, and thus saved the sum they had not yet\npaid. Thousands witnessed this wholesale murder, yet of the scores of\nlegal officers present, not a soul raised a finger to prevent it, the\nwhole city consented to it, and thus aided and abetted it. How many\nhundreds of them helped to commit the murders, _with their own hands_,\ndoes not appear, but not one of them has been indicted for it, and no\none made the least effort to bring them to trial. Thus, up to the\npresent hour, the blood of those murdered men rests on that whole\ncity, and it will continue to be a CITY OF MURDERERS, so long as its\ncitizens, agree together to shield those felons from punishment; and\nthey do thus agree together so long as they encourage each other in\nrefusing to bring them to justice. Now, the _laws_ of Mississippi were\nnot in fault that those men were murdered; nor are they now in fault,\nthat their murderers are not punished; the laws demand it, but the\npeople of Mississippi, the legal officers, the grand juries and\nlegislature of the state, with one consent agree, that the law _shall\nbe a dead letter_, and thus the whole state assumes the guilt of those\nmurders, and in bravado, flourishes her reeking hands in the face of\nthe world.[34]\n\n[Footnote 34: We have just learned from Mississippi papers, that the\ncitizens of Vicksburg are erecting a public monument in honor of Dr.\nH.S. Bodley, who was the ring-leader of the Lynchers in their attack\nupon the miserable victims. To give the crime the cold encouragement\nof impunity alone, or such slight tokens of favor as a home and a\nsanctuary, is beneath the chivalry and hospitality of Mississippians;\nso they tender it incense, an altar, and a crown of glory. Let the\nmarble rise till it be seen from afar, a beacon marking the spot where\nlaw lies lifeless by the hand of felons; and murderers, with chaplets\non their heads, dance and shout upon its grave, while 'all the people\nsay, amen.']\n\n\nThe letter of the law on the statute book is one thing, the practice\nof the community under that law often a totally different thing. Each\nof the slave states has laws providing that the life of no _white_ man\nshall be taken without his having first been indicted by a grand jury,\nallowed an impartial trial by a petit jury, with the right of counsel,\ncross-examination of witnesses, &c.; but who does not know that if\nARTHUR TAPPAN were pointed out in the streets of New Orleans, Mobile,\nSavannah, Charleston, Natchez, or St. Louis, he would be torn in\npieces by the citizens with one accord, and that if any one should\nattempt to bring his murderers to punishment, he would be torn in\npieces also. The editors of southern newspapers openly vaunt, that\nevery abolitionist who sets foot in their soil, shall, if he be\ndiscovered, be hung at once, without judge or jury. What mockery to\nquote the _letter of the law_ in those states, to show that\nabolitionists would have secured to them the legal protection of an\nimpartial trial!\n\nBefore the objector can make out his case, that the life of the slave\nis protected by the law, he must not only show that the _words of the\nlaw_ grant him such protection, but that such a state of public\nsentiment exists as will carry out the provisions of the law in their\ntrue spirit. Any thing short of this will be set down as mere prating\nby every man of common sense. It has been already abundantly shown in\nthe preceding pages, that the public sentiment of the slaveholding\nstates toward the slaves is diabolical. Now, if there were laws in\nthose states, the _words_ of which granted to the life of the slave\nthe same protection granted to that of the master, what would they\navail? ACTS constitute protection; and is that public sentiment which\nmakes the slave 'property,' and perpetrates hourly robbery and\nbatteries upon him, so penetrated with a sense of the sacredness of\nhis right to life, that it will protect it at all hazards, and drag to\nthe gallows his OWNER, if he take the life of his own _property_? If\nit be asked, why the penalty for killing a slave is not a mere _fine_\nthen, if his life is not really regarded as sacred by public\nsentiment--we answer, that formerly in most, if not in all the slave\nstates, the murder of a slave _was_ punished by a mere fine. This was\nthe case in South Carolina till a few years since. Yes, as late as\n1821, in the state of South Carolina, which boasts of its chivalry and\nhonor, at least as loudly as any state in the Union, a slaveholder\nmight butcher his slave in the most deliberate manner--with the most\nbarbarous and protracted torments, and yet not be subjected to a\nsingle hour's imprisonment--pay his fine, stride out of the court and\nkill another--pay his fine again and butcher another, and so long as\nhe paid to the state, cash down, its own assessment of damages,\nwithout putting it to the trouble of prosecuting for it, he might\nstrut 'a gentleman.'--See 2 _Brevard's Digest_, 241.\n\nThe reason assigned by the legislature for enacting a law which\npunished the wilful murder of a human being by a _fine_, was that\n'CRUELTY _is_ HIGHLY UNBECOMING,' and 'ODIOUS.' It was doubtless the\nsame reason that induced the legislature in 1821, to make a show of\ngiving _more_ protection to the life of the slave. Their fathers, when\nthey gave _some_ protection, did it because the time had come when,\nnot to do it would make them 'ODIOUS,' So the legislature of 1821 made\na show of giving still greater protection, because, not to do it would\nmake them '_odious_.' Fitly did they wear the mantles of their\nascending fathers! In giving to the life of a slave the miserable\nprotection of a fine, their fathers did not even pretend to do it out\nof any regard to the sacredness of his life as a human being, but\nmerely because cruelty is 'unbecoming' and 'odious.' The legislature\nof 1821 _nominally_ increased this protection; not that they cared\nmore for the slave's rights, or for the inviolabity of his life as a\nhuman being, but the civilized world had advanced since the date of\nthe first law. The slave-trade which was then honorable merchandise,\nand plied by lords, governors, judges, and doctors of divinity,\nraising them to immense wealth, had grown 'unbecoming,' and only\nraised its votaries by a rope to the yard arm; besides this, the\nbarbarity of the slave codes throughout the world was fast becoming\n'odious' to civilized nations, and slaveholders found that the only\nconditions on which they could prevent themselves from being thrust\nout of the pale of civilization, was to meliorate the iron rigor of\ntheir slave code, and thus _seem_ to secure to their slaves some\nprotection. Further, the northern states had passed laws for the\nabolition of slavery--all the South American states were acting in the\nmatter; and Colombia and Chili passed acts of abolition that very\nyear. In addition to all this the Missouri question had been for two\nyears previous under discussion in Congress, in State legislatures,\nand in every village and stage coach; and this law of South Carolina\nhad been held up to execration by northern members of Congress, and in\nnewspapers throughout the free states--in a word, the legislature of\nSouth Carolina found that they were becoming 'odious;' and while in\ntheir sense of justice and humanity they did not surpass their\nfathers, they winced with equal sensitiveness under the sting of the\nworld's scorn, and with equal promptitude sued for a truce by\nmodifying the law.\n\nThe legislature of South Carolina modified another law at the same\nsession. Previously, the killing of a slave 'on a sudden heat or\npassion, or by undue correction,' was punished by a fine of three\nhundred and fifty pounds. In 1821 an act was passed diminishing the\nfine to five hundred dollars, but authorizing an imprisonment 'not\nexceeding six months.' Just before the American Revolution, the\nLegislature of North Carolina passed a law making _imprisonment_ the\npenalty for the wilful and malicious murder of a slave. About twenty\nyears after the revolution, the state found itself becoming 'odious,'\nas the spirit of abolition was pervading the nations. The legislature,\nperceiving that Christendom would before long rank them with\nbarbarians if they so cheapened human life, repealed the law, candidly\nassigning in the preamble of the new one the reason for repealing the\nold--that it was 'DISGRACEFUL' and 'DEGRADING! As this preamble\nexpressly recognizes the slave as 'a human creature,' and as it is\ncouched in a phraseology which indicates some sense of justice, we\nwould gladly give the legislature credit for sincerity, and believe\nthem really touched with humane movings towards the slave, were it not\nfor a proviso in the law clearly revealing that the show of humanity\nand regard for their rights, indicated by the words, is nothing more\nthan a hollow pretence--hypocritical flourish to produce an impression\nfavorable to their justice and magnanimity. After declaring that he\nwho is 'guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave, shall\nsuffer the same punishment as if he had killed a freeman;' the act\nconcludes thus: 'Provided, always, this act shall not extend to the\nperson killing a slave outlawed by virtue of any act of Assembly of\nthis state; or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful\noverseer, or master, or to any slave dying under _moderate\ncorrection_.' Reader, look at this proviso. 1. It gives free license\nto all persons to kill _outlawed slaves_. Well, what is an outlawed\nslave? A slave who runs away, lurks in swamps, &c., and kills a _hog_\nor any other domestic animal to keep himself from starving, is subject\nto a proclamation of _outlawry_; (Haywood's Manual, 521,) and then\nwhoever finds him may shoot him, tear him in pieces with dogs, burn\nhim to death over a slow fire, or kill him by any other tortures. 2.\nThe proviso grants full license to a master to kill his slave, if the\nslave _resist_ him. The North Carolina Bench has decided that this law\ncontemplates not only actual resistance to punishment, &c., but also\n_offering_ to resist. (Stroud's Sketch, 37.) If, for example, a slave\nundergoing the process of branding should resist by pushing aside the\nburning stamp; or if wrought up to frenzy by the torture of the lash,\nhe should catch and hold it fast; or if he break loose from his master\nand run, refusing to stop at his command; or if he _refuse_ to be\nflogged; or struggle to keep his clothes on while his master is trying\nto strip him; if, in these, or any one of a hundred other ways he\n_resist_, or offer, or _threaten_ to resist the infliction; or, if the\nmaster attempt the violation of the slave's wife, and the husband\nresist his attempts without the least effort to injure him, but merely\nto shield his wife from his assaults, this law does not merely permit,\nbut it _authorizes_ the master to murder the slave on the spot.\n\nThe brutality of these two provisos brands its authors as barbarians.\nBut the third cause of exemption could not be outdone by the\nlegislation of fiends. 'DYING under MODERATE _correction_!' MODERATE\n_correction_ and DEATH--cause and effect! 'Provided ALWAYS,' says the\nlaw, 'this act shall not extend to any slave dying under _moderate\ncorrection_!' Here is a formal proclamation of impunity to murder--an\nexpress pledge of _acquittal_ to all slaveholders who wish to murder\ntheir slaves, a legal absolution--an indulgence granted before the\ncommission of the crime! Look at the phraseology. Nothing is said of\nmaimings, dismemberments, skull fractures, of severe bruisings, or\nlacerations, or even of floggings; but a word is used the\ncommon-parlance import of which is, _slight chastisement_; it is not\neven _whipping_, but '_correction_' And as if hypocrisy and malignity\nwere on the rack to outwit each other, even that weak word must be\nstill farther diluted; so '_moderate_' is added: and, to crown the\nclimax, compounded of absurdity, hypocrisy, and cold-blooded murder,\nthe _legal definition_ of 'moderate correction' is covertly given;\nwhich is, _any punishment_ that KILLS the victim. All inflictions are\neither _moderate_ or _immoderate_; and the design of this law was\nmanifestly to shield the murderer from conviction, _by carrying on its\nface the rule for its own interpretation_; thus advertising,\nbeforehand, courts and juries, that the fact of any infliction\n_producing death_, was no evidence that it was _immoderate_, and that\nbeating a man to death came within the legal meaning of 'moderate\ncorrection!' The _design_ of the legislature of North Carolina in\nframing this law is manifest; it was to produce the impression upon\nthe world, that they had so high a sense of justice as voluntarily to\ngrant adequate protection to the lives of their slaves. This is\nostentatiously set forth in the preamble, and in the body of the law.\nThat this was the most despicable hypocrisy, and that they had\npredetermined to grant no such protection, notwithstanding the pains\ntaken to get the _credit_ of it, is fully revealed by the _proviso_,\nwhich was framed in such a way as to nullify the law, for the express\naccommodation of slaveholding gentlemen murdering their slaves. All\nsuch find in this proviso a convenient accomplice before the fact, and\na packed jury, with a ready-made verdict of 'not guilty,' both\ngratuitously furnished by the government! The preceding law and\nproviso are to be found in Haywood's Manual, 530; also in Laws of\nTennessee, Act of October 23, 1791; and in Stroud's Sketch, 37.\n\nEnough has been said already to show, that though the laws of the\nslave states profess to grant adequate protection to the life of the\nslave, such professions are mere empty pretence, no such protection\nbeing in reality afforded by them. But there is still another fact,\nshowing that all laws which profess to protect the slaves from injury\nby the whites are a mockery. It is this--that the testimony, neither\nof a slave nor of a free colored person, is _legal_ testimony against\na white. To this rule there is _no exception_ in any of the slave\nstates: and this, were there no other evidence, would be sufficient to\nstamp, as hypocritical, all the provisions of the codes which\n_profess_ to protect the slaves. Professing to grant _protection_,\nwhile, at the same time, it strips them of the only _means_ by which\nthey can make that protection available! Injuries must be legally\n_proved_ before they can be legally _redressed_: to deprive men of the\npower of _proving_ their injuries, is itself the greatest of all\ninjuries; for it not only exposes to all, but invites them, by a\nvirtual guarantee of impunity, and is thus the _author_ of all\ninjuries. It matters not what other laws exist, professing to throw\nsafeguards round the slave--_this_ makes them blank paper. How can a\nslave prove outrages perpetrated upon him by his master or overseer,\nwhen his own testimony and that of all his fellow-slaves, his kindred,\nassociates, and acquaintances, is ruled out of court? and when he is\nentirely in the _power_ of those who injure him, and when the only\ncare necessary, on their part, is, to see that no _white_ witness is\nlooking on. Ordinarily, but _one_ white man, the overseer, is with the\nslaves while they are at labor; indeed, on most plantations, to commit\nan outrage in the _presence_ of a white witness would be more\ndifficult than in their absence. He who wished to commit an illegal\nact upon a slave, instead of being obliged to _take pains_ and watch\nfor an opportunity to do it unobserved by a white, would find it\ndifficult to do it in the presence of a white if he wished to do so.\nThe supreme court of Louisiana, in their decision, in the case of\nCrawford vs. Cherry,(15, _Martin's La. Rep._ 112; also \"_Law of\nSlavery,_\" 249,) where the defendant was sued for the value of a slave\nwhom he had shot and killed, say, \"The act charged here, is one\n_rarely_ committed in the presence of _witnesses_,\" (whites). So in\nthe case of the State vs. Mann, (_Devereux, N.C. Rep._ 263; and _\"Law\nof Slavery,\" _247;) in which the defendant was charged with shooting a\nslave girl 'belonging' to the plaintiff; the Supreme Court of North\nCarolina, in their decision, speaking of the provocations of the\nmaster by the slave, and 'the consequent wrath of the master'\nprompting him to _bloody vengeance_, add, _'a vengeance generally\npractised with impunity, by reason of its privacy.'_\n\nLaws excluding the testimony of slaves and free colored persons, where\na white is concerned, do not exist in all the slave states. One or two\nof them have no legal enactment on the subject; but, in those,\n_'public opinion'_ acts with the force of law, and the courts\n_invariably reject it_. This brings us back to the potency of that\noft-quoted 'public opinion,' so ready, according to our objector, to\ndo battle for the _protection_ of the slave!\n\nAnother proof that 'public opinion,' in the slave states, plunders,\ntortures, and murders the slaves, instead of _protecting_ them, is\nfound in the fact, that the laws of slave states inflict _capital_\npunishment on slaves for a variety of crimes, for which, if their\nmasters commit them, the legal penalty is merely _imprisonment_. Judge\nStroud in his Sketch of the Laws of Slavery, says, that by the laws of\nVirginia, there are 'seventy-one crimes for which slaves are capitally\npunished though in none of these are whites punished in manner more\nsevere than by imprisonment in the penitentiary.' (P. 107, where the\nreader will find all the crimes enumerated.) It should be added,\nhowever, that though the penalty for each of these seventy-one crimes\nis 'death,' yet a majority of them are, in the words of the law,\n'death within clergy;' and in Virginia, _clergyable_ offences, though\n_technically_ capital, are not so in fact. In Mississippi, slaves are\npunished capitally for more than _thirty_ crimes, for which whites are\npunished only by fine or imprisonment, or both. Eight of these are not\n_recognized as crimes_, either by common law or by statute, when\ncommitted by whites. In South Carolina slaves are punished capitally\nfor _nine_ more crimes than the whites--in Georgia, for _six_--and in\nKentucky, for _seven_ more than whites, &c. We surely need not detain\nthe reader by comments on this monstrous inequality with which the\npenal codes of slave states treat slaves and their masters. When we\nconsider that guilt is in proportion to intelligence, and that these\nmasters have by law doomed their slaves to ignorance, and then, as\nthey darkle and grope along their blind way, inflict penalties upon\nthem for a variety of acts regarded as praise worthy in whites;\nkilling them for crimes, when whites are only fined or imprisoned--to\ncall such a 'public opinion' inhuman, savage, murderous, diabolical,\nwould be to use tame words, if the English vocabulary could supply\nothers of more horrible import.\n\nBut slaveholding brutality does not stop here. While punishing the\nslaves for crimes with vastly greater severity than it does their\nmasters for the same crimes, and making a variety of acts _crimes_ in\nlaw, which are right, and often _duties_, it persists in refusing to\nmake known to the slaves that complicated and barbarous penal code\nwhich loads them with such fearful liabilities. The slave is left to\nget a knowledge of these laws as he can, and cases must be of constant\noccurrence at the south, in which slaves get their first knowledge of\nthe existence of a law by suffering its penalty. Indeed, this is\nprobably the way in which they commonly learn what the laws are; for\nhow else can the slave get a knowledge of the laws? He cannot\n_read_--he cannot _learn_ to read; if he try to master the alphabet,\nso that he may spell out the words of the law, and thus avoid its\npenalties, the law shakes its terrors at him; while, at the same time,\nthose who made the laws refuse to make them known to those for whom\nthey are designed. The memory of Caligula will blacken with execration\nwhile time lasts, because be hung up his laws so high that people\ncould not read them, and then punished them because they did not keep\nthem. Our slaveholders aspire to blacker infamy. Caligula was content\nwith hanging up his laws where his subjects could _see_ them; and if\nthey could not read them, they knew where they were, and might get at\nthem, if, in their zeal to learn his will, they had used the same\nmeans to get up to them that those did who hung them there. Even\nCaligula, wretch as he was, would have shuddered at cutting their legs\noff, to prevent their climbing to them; or, if they had got there, at\nboring their eyes out, to prevent their reading them. Our slaveholders\nvirtually do both; for they prohibit their slaves acquiring that\nknowledge of letters which would enable them to read the laws; and if,\nby stealth, they get it in spite of them, they prohibit them books and\npapers, and flog them if they are caught at them. Further--Caligula\nmerely hung his laws so high that they could not be _read_--our\nslaveholders have hung theirs so high above the slave that they cannot\nbe _seen_--they are utterly out of sight, and he finds out that they\nare there only by the falling of the penalties on his head.[35] Thus\nthe \"public opinion\" of slave states protects the defenceless slave by\narming a host of legal penalties and setting them in ambush at every\nthicket along his path, to spring upon him unawares.\n\n[Footnote 35: The following extract from the Alexandria (D.C.) Gazette\nis all illustration. \"CRIMINALS CONDEMNED.--On Monday last the Court\nof the borough of Norfolk, Va. sat on the trial of four negro boys\narraigned for burglary. The first indictment charged them with\nbreaking into the hardware store of Mr. E.P. Tabb, upon which two of\nthem were found guilty by the Court, and condemned to suffer the\npenalty of the law, which, in the case of a slave, is death. The\nsecond Friday in April is appointed for the execution of their awful\nsentence. _Their ages do not exceed sixteen_. The first, a fine active\nboy, belongs to a widow lady in Alexandria; the latter, a house\nservant, is owned by a gentleman in the borough. The value of one was\nfixed at $1000, and the other at $800; which sums are to be\nre-imbursed to their respective owners out of the state treasury.\" In\nall probability these poor boys, who are to be hung for stealing,\nnever dreamed that death was the legal penalty of the crime.\n\nHere is another, from the \"New Orleans Bee\" of ---- 14, 1837--\"The\nslave who STRUCK some citizens in Canal street, some weeks since, has\nbeen tried and found guilty, and is sentenced to be HUNG on the 24th.\"]\n\n\nStroud, in his Sketch of the Laws of Slavery, page 100, thus comments\non this monstrous barbarity.\n\n\"The hardened convict moves their sympathy, and is to be taught the\nlaws before he is expected to obey them;[36] yet the guiltless slave\nis subjected to an extensive system of cruel enactments, of no part of\nwhich, probably, has he ever heard.\"\n\n[Footnote 36: \"It shall be the duty of the keeper [of the penitentiary]\non the receipt of each prisoner, to _read_ to him or her such parts of\nthe penal laws of this state as impose penalties for escape, and to\nmake all the prisoners in the penitentiary acquainted with the same.\nIt shall also be his duty, on the discharge of such prisoner, to read\nto him or her such parts of the laws as impose additional punishments\nfor the repetition of offences.\"--_Rule 12th_, for the internal\ngovernment of the Penitentiary of Georgia. Sec. 26 of the Penitentiary\nAct of 1816.--Prince's Digest, 386.]\n\n\nHaving already drawn so largely on the reader's patience, in\nillustrating southern 'public opinion' by the slave laws, instead of\nadditional illustrations of the same point from another class of those\nlaws, as was our design, we will group together a few particulars,\nwhich the reader can take in at a glance, showing that the \"public\nopinion\" of slaveholders towards their slaves, which exists at the\nsouth, in the form of law, tramples on all those fundamental\nprinciples of right, justice, and equity, which are recognized as\nsacred by all civilized nations, and receive the homage even of\nbarbarians.\n\n1. One of these principles is, that the _benefits_ of law to the\nsubject should overbalance its burdens--its protection more than\ncompensate for its restraints and exactions--and its blessings\naltogether outweigh its inconveniences and evils--the former being\nnumerous, positive, and permanent, the latter few, negative, and\nincidental. Totally the reverse of all this is true in the case of the\nslave. Law is to him all exaction and no protection: instead of\nlightening his _natural_ burdens, it crushes him under a multitude of\nartificial ones; instead of a friend to succor him, it is his\ndeadliest foe, transfixing him at every step from the cradle to the\ngrave. Law has been beautifully defined to be \"benevolence acting by\nrule;\" to the American slave it is malevolence torturing by system. It\nis an old truth, that _responsibility_ increases with _capacity_; but\nthose same laws which make the slave a \"_chattel_,\" require of him\n_more_ than of _men_. The same law which makes him a _thing_ incapable\nof obligation, loads him with obligations superhuman--while sinking\nhim below the level of a brute in dispensing its _benefits_, he lays\nupon him burdens which would break down an angel.\n\n2. _Innocence is entitled to the protection of law._ Slaveholders make\ninnocence free plunder; this is their daily employment; their laws\nassail it, make it their victim, inflict upon it all, and, in some\nrespects, more than all the penalties of the greatest guilt. To other\ninnocent persons, law is a blessing, to the slave it is a curse, only\na curse and that continually.\n\n3. _Deprivation of liberty is one of the highest punishments of\ncrime_; and in proportion to its justice when inflicted on the guilty,\nis its injustice when inflicted on the innocent; this terrible penalty\nis inflicted on two million seven hundred thousand, innocent persons\nin the Southern states.\n\n4. _Self-preservation and self-defence_, are universally regarded as\nthe most sacred of human rights, yet the laws of slave states punish\nthe slave with _death_ for exercising these rights in that way, which\nin others is pronounced worthy of the highest praise.\n\n5. _The safeguards of law are most needed where natural safe-guards\nare weakest._ Every principle of justice and equity requires, that,\nthose who are totally unprotected by birth, station, wealth, friends,\ninfluence, and popular favor, and especially those who are the\ninnocent objects of public contempt and prejudice, should be more\nvigilantly protected by law, than those who are so fortified by\ndefence, that they have far less need of _legal_ protection; yet the\npoor slave who is fortified by _none_ of these _personal_ bulwarks, is\ndenied the protection of law, while the master, surrounded by them\nall, is panoplied in the mail of legal protection, even to the hair of\nhis head; yea, his very shoe-tie and coat-button are legal protegees.\n\n6. The grand object of law is to _protect men's natural rights_, but\ninstead of protecting the natural rights of the slaves, it gives\nslaveholders license to wrest them from the weak by violence, protects\nthem in holding their plunder, and _kills_ the rightful owner if he\nattempt to recover it.\n\nThis is the _protection_ thrown around the rights of American slaves\nby the 'public opinion,' of slaveholders; these the restraints that\nhold back their masters, overseers, and drivers, from inflicting\ninjuries upon them!\n\nIn a Republican government, _law_ is the pulse of its _heart_--as the\nheart beats the pulse beats, except that it often beats _weaker_ than\nthe heart, never stronger--or to drop the figure, laws are never\n_worse_ than those who make them, very often better. If human history\nproves anything, cruelty of practice will always go beyond cruelty of\nlaw.\n\nLaw-making is a formal, deliberate act, performed by persons of mature\nage, embodying the intelligence, wisdom, justice and humanity, of the\ncommunity; performed, too, at leisure, after full opportunity had for\na comprehensive survey of all the relations to be affected, after\ncareful investigation and protracted discussion. Consequently laws\nmust, in the main, be a true index of the permanent feelings, the\nsettled _frame of mind_, cherished by the community upon those\nsubjects, and towards those persons and classes whose condition the\nlaws are designed to establish. If the laws are in a high degree cruel\nand inhuman, towards any class of persons, it proves that the feelings\nhabitually exercised towards that class of persons, by those who make\nand perpetuate those laws, are at least _equally_ cruel and inhuman.\nWe say _at least equally_ so; for if the _habitual_ state of feeling\ntowards that class be unmerciful, it must be unspeakably cruel,\nrelentless and malignant when _provoked_; if its _ordinary_ action is\ninhuman, its contortions and spasms must be tragedies; if the waves\nrun high when there has been no wind, where will they not break when\nthe tempest heaves them!\n\nFurther, when cruelty is the _spirit_ of the law towards a proscribed\nclass, when it _legalizes great outrages_ upon them, it connives at,\nand abets _greater_ outrages, and is virtually an accomplice of all\nwho perpetrate them. Hence, in such cases, though the _degree_ of the\noutrage is illegal, the perpetrator will rarely be convicted, and,\neven if convicted, will be almost sure to escape punishment. This is\nnot _theory_ but _history_. Every judge and lawyer in the slave states\n_knows_, that the legal conviction and _punishment_ of masters and\nmistresses, for illegal outrages upon their slaves, is an event which\nhas rarely, if ever, occurred in the slave states; they know, also,\nthat although _hundreds_ of slaves have been _murdered_ by their\nmasters and mistresses in the slave states, within the last\ntwenty-five years, and though the fact of their having committed those\nmurders has been established beyond a _doubt_ in the minds of the\nsurrounding community, yet that the murderers have not, in a single\ninstance, suffered the penalty of the law.\n\nFinally, since slaveholders have deliberately legalized the\nperpetration of the most cold-blooded atrocities upon their slaves,\nand do pertinaciously refuse to make these atrocities _illegal_, and\nto punish those who perpetrate them, they stand convicted before the\nworld, upon their own testimony, of the most barbarous, brutal, and\nhabitual inhumanity. If this be slander and falsehood, their own lips\nhave uttered it, their own fingers have written it, their own acts\nhave proclaimed it; and however it may be with their _morality_, they\nhave too much human nature to perjure themselves for the sake of\npublishing their own infamy.\n\nHaving dwelt at such length on the legal code of the slave states,\nthat unerring index of the public opinion of slaveholders towards\ntheir slaves; and having shown that it does not protect the slaves\nfrom cruelty, and that even in the few instances in which the letter\nof the law, if _executed_, would afford some protection, it is\nvirtually nullified by the connivance of courts and juries, or by\npopular clamor; we might safely rest the case here, assured that every\nhonest reader would spurn the absurd falsehood, that the 'public\nopinion' of the slave states protects the slaves and restrains the\nmaster. But, as the assertion is made so often by slaveholders, and\nwith so much confidence, notwithstanding its absurdity is fully\nrevealed by their own legal code, we propose to show its falsehood by\napplying other tests.\n\nWe lay it down as a truth that can be made no plainer by reasoning,\nthat the same 'public opinion,' which restrains men from _committing_\noutrages, will restrain them from _publishing_ such outrages, if they\ndo commit them;--in other words, if a man is restrained from certain\nacts through fear of losing his character, should they become known,\nhe will not voluntarily destroy his character by _making them known_,\nshould he be guilty of them. Let us look at this. It is assumed by\nslaveholders, that 'public opinion' at the south so frowns on cruelty\nto the slaves, that _fear of disgrace_ would restrain from the\ninfliction of it, were there no other consideration.\n\nNow, that this is sheer fiction is shown by the fact, that the\nnewspapers in the slaveholding states, teem with advertisements for\nrunaway slaves, in which the masters and _mistresses_ describe their\nmen and women, as having been 'branded with a hot iron,' on their\n'cheeks,' 'jaws,' 'breasts,' 'arms,' 'legs,' and 'thighs;' also as\n'scarred,' 'very much scarred,' 'cut up,' 'marked,' &c. 'with the\nwhip,' also with 'iron collars on,' 'chains,' 'bars of iron,'\n'fetters,' 'bells,' 'horns,' 'shackles,' &c. They, also, describe them\nas having been wounded by 'buck-shot,' 'rifle-balls,' &c. fired at\nthem by their 'owners,' and others when in pursuit; also, as having\n'notches,' cut in their ears, the tops or bottoms of their ears 'cut\noff,' or 'slit,' or 'one ear cut off' or 'both ears cut off' &c. &c.\nThe masters and mistresses who thus advertise their runaway slaves,\ncoolly sign their names to their advertisements, giving the street and\nnumber of their residences, if in cities, their post office address,\n&c. if in the country; thus making public proclamation as widely as\npossible that _they_ 'brand,' 'scar,' 'gash,' 'cut up,' &c. the flesh\nof their slaves; load them with irons, cut off their ears, &c.; they\nspeak of these things with the utmost _sang froid_, not seeming to\nthink it possible, that any one will esteem them at all the less\nbecause of these outrages upon their slaves; further, these\nadvertisements swarm in many of the largest and most widely circulated\npolitical and commercial papers that are published in the slave\nstates. The editors of those papers constitute the main body of the\nliterati of the slave states; they move in the highest circle of\nsociety, are among the 'popular' men in the community, and _as a\nclass_, are more influential than any other; yet these editors publish\nthese advertisements with iron indifference. So far from proclaiming\nto such felons, homicides, and murderers, that they will not be their\nblood-hounds, to hunt down the innocent and mutilated victims who have\nescaped from their torture, they freely furnish them with every\nfacility, become their accomplices and share their spoils; and instead\nof outraging 'public opinion,' by doing it, they are the men after its\nown heart, its organs, its representatives, its _self_.\n\nTo show that the 'public opinion' of the slave states, towards the\nslaves, is absolutely _diabolical_, we will insert a few, out of a\nmultitude, of similar advertisements from a variety of southern papers\nnow before us.\n\nThe North Carolina Standard, of July 18, 1838, contains the\nfollowing:--\n\n\"TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD. Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro woman and\ntwo children; the woman is tall and black, and _a few days before she\nwent off_, I BURNT HER WITH A HOT IRON ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HER FACE; I\nTRIED TO MAKE THE LETTER M, _and she kept a cloth over her head and\nface, and a fly bonnet on her head so as to cover the burn;_ her\nchildren are both boys, the oldest is in his seventh year; he is a\n_mulatto_ and has blue eyes; the youngest is black and is in his fifth\nyear. The woman's name is Betty, commonly called Bet.\"\n\nMICAJAH RICKS.\n\n_Nash County, July 7_, 1838.\n\nHear the wretch tell his story, with as much indifference as if he\nwere describing the cutting of his initials in the bark of a tree.\n\n_\"I burnt her with a hot iron on the left side of her face,\"--\"I tried\nto make the letter M_,\" and this he says in a newspaper, and puts his\nname to it, and the editor of the paper who is, also, its proprietor,\npublishes it for him and pockets his fee. Perhaps the reader will say,\n'Oh, it must have been published in an insignificant sheet printed in\nsome obscure corner of the state; perhaps by a gang of 'squatters,' in\nthe Dismal Swamp, universally regarded as a pest, and edited by some\nscape-gallows, who is detested by the whole community.' To this I reply\nthat the \"North Carolina Standard,\" the paper which contains it, is a\nlarge six columned weekly paper, handsomely printed and ably edited;\nit is the leading Democratic paper in that state, and is published at\nRaleigh, the Capital of the state, Thomas Loring, Esq. Editor and\nProprietor. The motto in capitals under the head of the paper is, \"THE\nCONSTITUTION AND THE UNION OF THE STATES--THEY MUST BE PRESERVED.\" The\nsame Editor and Proprietor, who exhibits such brutality of feeling\ntowards the slaves, by giving the preceding advertisement a\nconspicuous place in his columns, and taking his pay for it, has\napparently a keen sense of the proprieties of life, where _whites_ are\nconcerned, and a high regard for the rights, character and feelings of\nthose whose skin is colored like his own. As proof of this, we copy\nfrom the number of the paper containing the foregoing advertisement,\nthe following _Editorial_ on the pending political canvass.\n\n\"We cannot refrain from expressing the hope that the Gubernatorial\ncanvass will be conducted with a _due regard to the character_, and\n_feelings_ of the distinguished individuals who are candidates for\nthat office; and that the press of North Carolina will _set an\nexample_ in this respect, worthy of _imitation and of praise_.\"\n\nWhat is this but chivalrous and honorable feeling? The good name of\nNorth Carolina is dear to him--on the comfort, 'character and\nfeelings,' of her _white_ citizens he sets a high value; he feels too,\nmost deeply for the _character of the Press_ of North Carolina, sees\nthat it is a city set on a hill, and implores his brethren of the\neditorial corps to 'set an example' of courtesy and magnanimity worthy\nof imitation and praise. Now, reader, put all these things together\nand con them over, and then read again the preceding advertisement\ncontained in the same number of the paper, and you have the true\n\"North Carolina STANDARD,\" by which to measure the protection extended\nto slaves by the 'public opinion' of that state.\n\nJ.P. Ashford advertises as follows in the \"Natchez Courier,\" August\n24, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro girl called Mary, has a small scar over her eye, a\n_good many teeth missing_, the letter A. _is branded on her cheek and\nforehead_.\"\n\nA.B. Metcalf thus advertises a woman in the same paper, June 15,\n1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, Mary, a black woman, has a _scar_ on her back and right arm\nnear the shoulder, _caused by a rifle ball_.\"\n\nJohn Henderson, in the \"Grand Gulf Advertiser,\" August 29, 1838,\nadvertises Betsey.\n\n\"Ranaway, a black woman Betsey, has an _iron bar on her right leg_.\"\n\nRobert Nicoll, whose residence is in Mobile, in Dauphin street,\nbetween Emmanuel and Conception streets, thus advertises a woman in\nthe \"Mobile Commercial Advertiser.\"\n\n\"TEN DOLLARS REWARD will be given for my negro woman Liby. The said\nLiby is about 30 years old and VERY MUCH SCARRED ABOUT THE NECK AND\nEARS, occasioned by whipping, had on a handkerchief tied round her\nears, as she COMMONLY wears it to HIDE THE SCARS.\"\n\nTo show that slaveholding brutality now is the same that it was the\neighth of a century ago, we publish the following advertisement from\nthe \"Charleston (S.C.) Courier,\" of 1825.\n\n\"TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD.--Ranaway from the subscriber, on the 14th\ninstant, a negro girl named Molly.\n\n\"The said girl was sold by Messrs. Wm. Payne & Sons, as the property\nof an estate of a Mr. Gearrall, and purchased by a Mr. Moses, and sold\nby him to a Thomas Prisley, of Edgefield District, of whom I bought\nher on the 17th of April, 1819. She is 16 or 17 years of age, slim\nmade, LATELY BRANDED ON THE LEFT CHEEK, THUS, R, AND A PIECE TAKEN OFF\nOF HER EAR ON THE SAME SIDE; THE SAME LETTER ON THE INSIDE OF BOTH HER\nLEGS.\n\n\"ABNER ROSS, Fairfield District.\"\n\nBut instead of filling pages with similar advertisements, illustrating\nthe horrible brutality of slaveholders towards their slaves, the\nreader is referred to the preceding pages of this work, to the scores\nof advertisements written by slaveholders, printed by slaveholders,\npublished by slaveholders, in newspapers edited by slaveholders and\npatronized by slaveholders; advertisement describing not only men and\nboys, but women aged and middle-aged, matrons and girls of tender\nyears, their necks chafed with iron collars with prongs, their limbs\ngalled with iron rings and chains, and bars of iron, iron hobbles and\nshackles, all parts of their persons scarred with the lash, and\nbranded with hot irons, and torn with rifle bullets, pistol balls and\nbuck shot, and gashed with knives, their eyes out, their ears cut off,\ntheir teeth drawn out, and their bones broken. He is referred also to\nthe cool and shocking indifference with which these slaveholders,\n'gentlemen' and 'ladies,' Reverends, and Honorables, and Excellencies,\nwrite and print, and publish and pay, and take money for, and read and\ncirculate, and sanction, such infernal barbarity. Let the reader\nponder all this, and then lay it to heart, that this is that 'public\nopinion' of the slaveholders which protects their slaves from all\ninjury, and is an effectual guarantee of personal security.\n\nHowever far gone a community may be in brutality, something of\nprotection may yet be hoped for from its 'public opinion,' if _respect\nfor woman_ survive the general wreck; that gone, protection perishes;\npublic opinion becomes universal rapine; outrages, once occasional,\nbecome habitual; the torture, which was before inflicted only by\npassion, becomes the constant product of a _system_, and, instead of\nbeing the index of sudden and fierce impulses, is coolly plied as the\npermanent means to an end. When _women_ are branded with hot irons on\ntheir faces; when iron collars, with prongs, are riveted about their\nnecks; when iron rings are fastened upon their limbs, and they are\nforced to drag after them chains and fetters; when their flesh is torn\nwith whips, and mangled with bullets and shot, and lacerated with\nknives; and when those who do such things, are regarded in the\ncommunity, and associated with as 'gentlemen' and 'ladies;' to say\nthat the 'public opinion' of _such_ a community is a protection to its\nvictims, is to blaspheme God, whose creatures they are, cast in his\nown sacred image, and dear to him as the apple of his eye.\n\nBut we are not yet quite ready to dismiss this protector, 'Public\nOpinion.' To illustrate the hardened brutality with which slaveholders\nregard their slaves, the shameless and apparently unconscious\nindecency with which they speak of their female slaves, examine their\npersons, and describe them, under their own signatures, in newspapers,\nhand-bills, &c. just as they would describe the marks of cattle and\nswine, on all parts of their bodies; we will make a few extracts from\nsouthern papers. Reader, as we proceed to these extracts, remember our\nmotto--'True humanity consists _not_ in a squeamish ear.'\n\nMr. P. ABDIE, of New Orleans, advertises in the New Orleans Bee, of\nJanuary 29, 1838, for one of his female slaves, as follows;\n\n\"Ranaway, the negro wench named Betsey, aged about 22 years,\nhandsome-faced, and good countenance; having the marks of the whip\nbehind her neck, and SEVERAL OTHERS ON HER RUMP. The above reward,\n($10,) will be given to whoever will bring that wench to P. ABDIE.\"\n\nThe New Orleans Bee, in which the advertisement of this Vandal\nappears, is the 'Official Gazette of the State--of the General\nCouncil--and of the first and third Municipalities of New Orleans.' It\nis the largest, and the most influential paper in the south-western\nstates, and perhaps the most ably edited--and has undoubtedly a larger\ncirculation than any other. It is a daily paper, of $12 a year, and\nits circulation being mainly among the larger merchants, planters, and\nprofessional men, it is a fair index of the 'public opinion' of\nLouisiana, so far as represented by those classes of persons.\nAdvertisements equally gross, indecent, and abominable, or nearly so,\ncan be found in almost every number of that paper.\n\nMr. WILLIAM ROBINSON, Georgetown, District of Columbia, advertised for\nhis slave in the National Intelligencer, of Washington City, Oct. 2,\n1837, as follows:\n\n\"Eloped from my residence a young negress, 22 years old, of a\nchestnut, or brown color. She has a very singular mark--this mark, to\nthe best of my RECOLLECTION, covers a part of her _breasts_, _body_,\nand _limbs_; and when her neck and arms are uncovered, is very\nperceptible; she has been frequently seen east and south of the\nCapitol Square, and is harbored by ill-disposed persons, of every\ncomplexion, for her services.\"\n\nMr. JOHN C. BEASLEY, near Huntsville, Alabama, thus advertises a young\ngirl of eighteen, in the Huntsville Democrat, of August 1st, 1837.\n\"Ranaway Maria, about 18 years old, _very far advanced with child._\"\nHe then offers a reward to any one who will commit this young girl, in\nthis condition, _to jail_.\n\nMr. JAMES T. DE JARNETT, Vernon, Autauga co. Alabama, thus advertises\na woman in the Pensacola Gazette, July 14, 1838. \"Celia is a _bright_\ncopper-colored negress, _fine figure_ and _very smart_. On EXAMINING\nHER BACK, you will find marks caused by the whip.\" He closes the\nadvertisement, by offering a reward of _five hundred dollars_ to any\nperson who will lodge her in _jail_, so that he can get her.\n\nA person who lives at 124 Chartres street, New Orleans, advertises in\nthe 'Bee,' of May 31, for \"the negress Patience, about 28 years old,\nhas _large hips_, and is _bow-legged_.\" A Mr. T. CUGGY, in the same\npaper, thus describes \"the negress Caroline.\" \"_She has awkward feet,\nclumsy ankles, turns out her toes greatly in walking, and has a sore\non her left shin_.\"\n\nIn another, of June 22, Mr. P. BAHI advertises \"Maria, with a clear\nwhite complexion, and _double nipple on her right breast_.\"\n\nMr. CHARLES CRAIGE, of Federal Point, New Hanover co. North Carolina,\nin the Wilmington Advertiser, August 11, 1837, offers a reward for his\nslave Jane, and says \"_she is far advanced in pregnancy_.\"\n\nThe New Orleans Bulletin, August 18, 1838, advertises \"the negress\nMary, aged nineteen, has a scar on her face, walks parrot-toed, and is\n_pregnant_.\"\n\nMr. J.G. MUIR, of Grand Gulf, Mississippi, thus advertises a woman in\nthe Vicksburg Register, December 5, 1838. \"Ranaway a negro girl--has a\nnumber of _black lumps on her breasts, and is in a state of\npregnancy_.\"\n\nMr. JACOB BESSON, Donaldsonville, Louisiana, advertises in the New\nOrleans Bee, August 7, 1838, \"the negro woman Victorine--she is\n_advanced in pregnancy_.\"\n\nMr. J.H. LEVERICH & Co. No. 10, Old Levee, New Orleans, advertises in\nthe 'Bulletin,' January 22, 1839, as follows.\n\n\"$50 REWARD.--Ranaway a negro girl named Caroline about 18 years of\nage, is _far advanced in child-bearing_. The above reward will be paid\nfor her delivery at either of the _jails_ of the city.\"\n\nMr. JOHN DUGGAN, thus advertises a woman in the New Orleans Bee, of\nSept. 7.\n\n\"Ranaway from the subscriber a mulatto woman, named Esther, about\nthirty years of age, _large stomach_, wants her upper front teeth, and\nwalks pigeon-toed--supposed to be about the lower fauxbourg.\"\n\nMr. FRANCIS FOSTER, of Troop co. Georgia, advertises in the Columbus\n(Ga.) Enquirer of June 22, 1837--\"My negro woman Patsey, has a stoop\nin her walking, occasioned by a _severe burn on her abdomen_.\"\n\nThe above are a few specimens of the gross details, in describing the\npersons of females, of all ages, and the marks upon all parts of their\nbodies; proving incontestably, that slaveholders are in the habit not\nonly of stripping their female slaves of their clothing, and\ninflicting punishment upon their 'shrinking flesh,' but of subjecting\ntheir naked persons to the most minute and revolting inspection, and\nthen of publishing to the world the results of their examination, as\nwell as the scars left by their own inflictions upon them, their\nlength, size, and exact position on the body; and all this without\nimpairing in the least, the standing in the community of the shameless\nwretches who thus proclaim their own abominations. That such things\nshould not at all affect the standing of such persons in society, is\ncertainly no marvel: how could they affect it, when the same\ncommunities enact laws _requiring_ their own legal officers to inspect\nminutely the persons and bodily marks of all slaves taken up as\nrunaways, and to publish in the newspapers a particular description of\nall such marks and peculiarities of their persons, their size,\nappearance position on the body, &c. Yea, verily, when the 'public\nopinion' of the community, in the solemn form of law, commands\njailors, sheriffs, captains of police, &c. to divest of their clothing\naged matrons and young girls, minutely examine their naked persons,\nand publish the results of their examination--who can marvel, that the\nsame 'public opinion' should tolerate the slaveholders themselves, in\ndoing the same things to their own property, which they have appointed\nlegal officers to do as their proxies.[37]\n\n[Footnote 37: 'As a sample of these laws, we give the following extract\nfrom one of the laws of Maryland, where slaveholding 'public opinion'\nexists in its mildest form.'\n\n\"It shall be the duty of the sheriffs of the several counties of this\nstate, upon any runaway servant or slave being committed to his\ncustody, to cause the same to be advertised, &c. and to make\nparticular and minute descriptions of _the person and bodily marks_,\nof such runaway.\"--_Laws of Maryland of 1802_, Chap. 96, Sec. 1 and 2.\n\nThat the sheriffs, jailors, &c. do not neglect this part of their\nofficial 'duty,' is plain from the minute description which they give\nin the advertisements of marks upon all parts of the persons of\nfemales, as well as males; and also from the occasional declaration,\n'no scars discoverable on any part,' or 'no marks discoverable _about_\nher;' which last is taken from an advertisement in the Milledgeville\n(Geo.) Journal, June 26, 1838, signed 'T.S. Denster, Jailor.']\n\n\nThe zeal with which slaveholding '_public opinion_' protects the lives\nof the slaves, may be illustrated by the following advertisements,\ntaken from a multitude of similar ones in southern papers. To show\nthat slaveholding 'public opinion' is the same _now_, that it was half\na century ago, we will insert, in the first place, an advertisement\npublished in a North Carolina newspaper, Oct. 29, 1785, by W. SKINNER,\nthe Clerk of the County of Perquimons, North Carolina.\n\n\"Ten silver dollars reward will be paid for apprehending and\ndelivering to me my man Moses, who ran away this morning; or I will\ngive five times the sum to any person who will make due proof of his\n_being killed_, and never ask a question to know by whom it was done.\"\n\nW. SKINNER.\n\n_Perquimons County, N.C. Oct. 29, 1785._\n\n\nThe late JOHN PARRISH, of Philadelphia, an eminent minister of the\nreligious society of Friends, who traveled through the slave states\nabout _thirty-five years_ since, on a religious mission, published on\nhis return a pamphlet of forty pages, entitled 'Remarks on the Slavery\nof the Black People.' From this work we extract the following\nillustrations of 'public opinion' in North and South Carolina and\nVirginia at that period.\n\n\"When I was traveling through North Carolina, a black man, who was\noutlawed, being shot by one of his pursuers, and left wounded in the\nwoods, they came to an ordinary where I had stopped to feed my horse,\nin order to procure a cart to bring the poor wretched object in.\nAnother, I was credibly informed, was shot, his head cut off, and\ncarried in a bag by the perpetrators of the murder, who received the\nreward, which was said to be $200, continental currency, and that his\nhead was stuck on a coal house at an iron works in Virginia--and this\nfor going to visit his wife at a distance. Crawford gives an account\nof a man being gibbetted alive in South Carolina, and the buzzards\ncame and picked out his eyes. Another was burnt to death at a stake in\nCharleston, surrounded by a multitude of spectators, some of whom were\npeople of the _first rank_; ... the poor object was heard to cry, as\nlong as he could breathe, 'not guilty--not guilty.'\"\n\nThe following is an illustration of the 'public opinion' of South\nCarolina about fifty years ago. It is taken from Judge Stroud's Sketch\nof the Slave Laws, page 39.\n\n\"I find in the case of 'the State vs. M'Gee,' I Bay's Reports, 164, it\nis said incidentally by Messrs. Pinckney and Ford, counsel for the\nstate (of S.C.), 'that the _frequency_ of the offence (_wilful_ murder\nof a slave) was owing to the _nature of the punishment_', &c.... This\nremark was made in 1791, when the above trial took place. It was made\nin a public place--a courthouse--and by men of great personal\nrespectability. There can be, therefore, no question as to its\n_truth_, and as little of its _notoriety_.\"\n\nIn 1791 the Grand Jury for the district of Cheraw, S.C. made a\n_presentment_, from which the following is an extract.\n\n\"We, the Grand Jurors of and for the district of Cheraw, do present\nthe INEFFICACY of the present punishment for killing negroes, as a\ngreat defect in the legal system of this state: and we do earnestly\nrecommend to the attention of the legislature, that clause of the\nnegro act, which confines the penalty for killing slaves to fine and\nimprisonment only: in full confidence, that they will provide some\nother _more effectual_ measures to prevent the FREQUENCY of crimes of\nthis nature.\"--_Matthew Carey's American Museum, for Feb.\n1791_.--Appendix, p. 10.\n\nThe following is a specimen of the 'public opinion' of Georgia twelve\nyears since. We give it in the strong words of COLONEL STONE, Editor\nof the New York Commercial Advertiser. We take it from that paper of\nJune 8, 1827.\n\n\"HUNTING MEN WITH DOGS.-A negro who had absconded from his master, and\nfor whom a reward of $100 was offered, has been apprehended and\ncommitted to prison in Savannah. The editor, who states the fact,\nadds, with as much coolness as though there were no barbarity in the\nmatter, that he did not surrender till _he was considerably_ MAIMED BY\nTHE DOGS that had been set on him--desperately fighting them--one of\nwhich he badly cut with a sword.\"\n\nTwelve days after the publication of the preceding fact, the following\nhorrible transaction took place in Perry county, Alabama. We extract\nit from the African Observer, a monthly periodical, published in\nPhiladelphia, by the society of Friends. See No. for August, 1827.\n\n\"Tuscaloosa, Ala. June 20, 1827.\n\n\"Some time during the last week a Mr. M'Neilly having lost some\nclothing, or other property of no great value, the slave of a\nneighboring planter was charged with the theft. M'Neilly, in company\nwith his brother, found the negro driving his master's wagon; they\nseized him, and either did, or were about to chastise him, when the\nnegro stabbed M'Neilly, so that he died in an hour afterwards. The\nnegro was taken before a justice of the peace, who _waved his\nauthority_, perhaps through fear, as a crowd of persons had collected\nto the number of seventy or eighty, near Mr. People's (the justice)\nhouse. _He acted as president of the mob,_ and put the vote, when it\nwas decided he should be immediately executed by _being burnt to\ndeath_. The sable culprit was led to a tree, and tied to it, and a\nlarge quantity of pine knots collected and placed around him, and the\nfatal torch applied to the pile, even against the remonstrances of\nseveral gentlemen who were present; and the miserable being was in a\nshort time burned to ashes.\n\n\"This is the SECOND negro who has been THUS put to death, without\njudge or jury, in this county.\"\n\n\nThe following advertisements, testimony, &c. will show that the\nslaveholders of _to-day_ are the _children_ of those who shot, and\nhunted with bloodhounds, and burned over slow fires, the slaves of\nhalf a century ago; the worthy inheritors of their civilization,\nchivalry, and tender mercies.\n\nThe \"Wilmington (North Carolina) Advertiser\" of July 13, 1838,\ncontains the following advertisement.\n\n\"$100 will be paid to any person who may apprehend and safely confine\nin any jail in this state, a certain negro man, named ALFRED. And the\nsame reward will be paid, if satisfactory evidence is given of _having\nbeen_ KILLED. He has one or more scars on one of his hands, caused by\nhis having been shot.\n\n\"THE CITIZENS OF ONSLOW.\n\n\"Richlands, Onslow co. May 16th, 1838.\"\n\n\nIn the same column with the above and directly under it is the\nfollowing:--\n\n\"RANAWAY my negro man RICHARD. A reward of $25 will be paid for his\napprehension DEAD or ALIVE. Satisfactory proof will only be required\nof his being KILLED. He has with him, in all probability, his wife\nELIZA, who ran away from Col. Thompson, now a resident of Alabama,\nabout the time he commenced his journey to that state. DURANT H.\nRHODES.\"\n\n\nIn the \"Mason (Georgia) Telegraph,\" May 28, is the following:\n\n\"About the 1st of March last the negro man RANSOM left me without the\nleast provocation whatever; I will give a reward of twenty dollars for\nsaid negro, if taken DEAD OR ALIVE,--and if killed in any attempt, an\nadvance of five dollars will be paid. BRYANT JOHNSON.\n\n\"_Crawford co. Georgia_\"\n\n\nSee the \"Newbern (N.C.) Spectator,\" Jan. 5, 1838, for the\nfollowing:--\n\n\"RANAWAY, from the subscriber, a negro man named SAMPSON. Fifty\ndollars reward will be given for the delivery of him to me, or his\nconfinement in any jail so that I get him, and should he resist in\nbeing taken, so that violence is necessary to arrest him, I will not\nhold any person liable for damages should the slave be KILLED. ENOCH\nFOY.\n\n\"Jones County, N.C.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Macon (Ga.) Messenger,\" June 14, 1838.\n\n\"TO THE OWNERS OF RUNAWAY NEGROES. A large mulatto Negro man, between\nthirty-five and forty years old, about six feet in height, having a\nhigh forehead, and hair slightly grey, was KILLED, near my plantation,\non the 9th inst. _He would not surrender_ but assaulted Mr. Bowen, who\nkilled him in self-defence. If the owner desires further information\nrelative to the death of his negro, he can obtain it by letter, or by\ncalling on the subscriber ten miles south of Perry, Houston county.\nEDM'D. JAS. McGEHEE.\"\n\nFrom the 'Charleston (S.C.) Courier,' Feb. 20, 1836.\n\n\"$300 REWARD. Ranaway from the subscriber, in November last, his two\nnegro men, named Billy and Pompey.\n\n\"Billy is 25 years old, and is known as the patroon of my boat for\nmany years; in all probability he may resist; in that event 50 dollars\nwill be paid for his HEAD.\"\n\nFrom the 'Newbern (N.C.) Spectator,' Dec 2. 1836.\n\n\"$200 REWARD. Ranaway from the subscriber, about three years ago, a\ncertain negro man named Ben, commonly known by the name of Ben Fox. He\nhad but one eye. Also, one other negro, by the name of Rigdon, who\nranaway on the 8th of this month.\n\n\"I will give the reward of one hundred dollars for each of the above\nnegroes, to be delivered to me or confined in the jail of Lenoir or\nJones county, or FOR THE KILLING OF THEM, SO THAT I CAN SEE THEM. W.D.\nCOBB.\"\n\nIn the same number of the Spectator two Justices of the Peace\nadvertise the same runaways, and give notice that if they do not\nimmediately return to W.D. Cobb, their master, they will be considered\nas outlaws, and any body may kill them. The following is an extract\nfrom the proclamation of the JUSTICES.\n\n\"And we do hereby, by virtue of an act of the assembly of this state,\nconcerning servants and slaves, intimate and declare, if the said\nslaves do not surrender themselves and return home to their master\nimmediately after the publication of these presents, _that any person\nmay kill and destroy said slaves by such means as he or they think\nfit, without accusation or impeachment of any crime or offence for so\ndoing, or without incurring any penalty or forfeiture thereby._\n\n\"Given under our hands and seals, this 12th November, 1836.\n\n\"B. COLEMAN, J.P. [Seal.]\n\n\"JAS. JONES, J.P. [Seal.]\"\n\nOn the 28th, of April 1836, in the city of St Louis, Missouri, a black\nman, named McIntosh who had stabbed an officer, that had arrested him,\nwas seized by the multitude, fastened to a tree _in the midst of the\ncity_, wood piled around him, and in open day and in the presence of\nan immense throng of citizens, he was burned to death. The Alton\n(Ill.) Telegraph, in its account of the scene says;\n\n\"All was silent as death while the executioners were piling wood\naround their victim. He said not a word, until feeling that the flames\nhad seized upon him. He then uttered an awful howl, attempting to sing\nand pray, then hung his head, and suffered in silence, except in the\nfollowing instance:--After the flames had surrounded their prey, his\neyes burnt out of his head, and his mouth seemingly parched to a\ncinder, some one in the crowd, more compassionate than the rest,\nproposed to put an end to his misery by shooting him, when it was\nreplied, 'that would be of no use, since he was already out of pain.'\n'No, no,' said the wretch, 'I am not, I am suffering as much as ever;\nshoot me, shoot me.' 'No, no,' said one of the fiends who was standing\nabout the sacrifice they were roasting, 'he shall not be shot. _I\nwould sooner slacken the fire, if that would increase his misery_;'\nand the man who said this was, as we understand, an OFFICER OF\nJUSTICE!\"\n\n\nThe St. Louis correspondent of a New York paper adds,\n\n\"The shrieks and groans of the victim were loud and piercing, and to\nobserve one limb after another drop into the fire was awful indeed. He\nwas about fifteen minutes in dying. I visited the place this morning,\nand saw his body, or the remains of it, at the place of execution. He\nwas burnt to a crump. His legs and arms were gone, and only a part of\nhis head and body were left.\"\n\nLest this demonstration of 'public opinion' should be regarded as a\nsudden impulse merely, not an index of the settled tone of feeling in\nthat community, it is important to add, that the Hon. Luke E. Lawless,\nJudge of the Circuit Court of Missouri, at a session of that Court in\nthe city of St. Louis, some months after the burning of this man,\ndecided officially that since the burning of McIntosh was the act,\neither directly or by countenance of a _majority_ of the citizens, it\nis 'a case which transcends the jurisdiction,' of the Grand Jury! Thus\nthe state of Missouri has proclaimed to the world, that the wretches\nwho perpetrated that unspeakably diabolical murder, and the thousands\nthat stood by consenting to it, were _her representatives_, and the\nBench sanctifies it with the solemnity of a judicial decision.\n\nThe 'New Orleans Post,' of June 7, 1836, publishes the following;\n\n\"We understand, that a negro man was lately condemned, by the mob, to\nbe BURNED OVER A SLOW FIRE, which was put into execution at Grand\nGulf, Mississippi, for murdering a black woman, and her master.\"\n\nMr. HENRY BRADLEY, of Pennyan, N.Y., has furnished us with an extract\nof a letter written by a gentleman in Mississippi to his brother in\nthat village, detailing the particulars of the preceding transaction.\nThe letter is dated Grand Gulf, Miss. August 15, 1836. The extract is\nas follows:\n\n\"I left Vicksburg and came to Grand Gulf. This is a fine place\nimmediately on the banks of the Mississippi, of something like fifteen\nhundred inhabitants in the winter, and at this time, I suppose, there\nare not over two hundred white inhabitants, but in the town and its\nvicinity there are negroes by thousands. The day I arrived at this\nplace there was a man by the name of G---- murdered by a negro man\nthat belonged to him. G---- was born and brought up in A----, state of\nNew York. His father and mother now live south of A----. He has left a\nproperty here, it is supposed, of forty thousand dollars, and no\nfamily.\n\n\"They took the negro, mounted him on a horse, led the horse under a\ntree, put a rope around his neck, raised him up by throwing the rope\nover a limb; they then got into a quarrel among themselves; some swore\nthat he should be burnt alive; the rope was cut and the negro dropped\nto the ground. He immediately jumped to his feet; they then made him\nwalk a short distance to a tree; he was then tied fast and a fire\nkindled, when another quarrel took place; the fire was pulled away\nfrom him when about half dead, and a committee of twelve appointed to\nsay in what manner he should be disposed of. They brought in that he\nshould then be cut down, his head cut off, his body burned, and his\nhead stuck on a pole at the corner of the road in the edge of the\ntown. That was done and all parties satisfied!\n\n\"G---- _owned the negro's wife, and was in the habit of sleeping with\nher!_ The negro said he had killed him, and he believed he should be\nrewarded in heaven for it.\n\n\"This is but one instance among many of a similar nature.\n\nS.S.\"\n\nWe have received a more detailed account of this transaction from Mr.\nWilliam Armstrong, of Putnam, Ohio, through Maj. Horace Nye, of that\nplace. Mr. A. who has been for some years employed as captain and\nsupercargo of boats descending the river, was at Grand Gulf at the\ntime of the tragedy, and _witnessed_ it. It was on the Sabbath.\nFrom Mr. Armstrong's statement, it appears that the slave was\na man of uncommon intelligence; had the over-sight of a large\nbusiness--superintended the purchase of supplies for his master,\n&c.--that exasperated by the intercourse of his master with his wife,\nhe was upbraiding her one evening, when his master overhearing him,\nwent out to quell him, was attacked by the infuriated man and killed\non the spot. The name of the master was Green; he was a native of\nAuburn, New York, and had been at the south but a few years.\n\nMr. EZEKIEL BIRDSEYE, of Cornwall, Conn., a gentleman well known and\nhighly respected in Litchfield county, who resided a number of years\nin South Carolina, gives the following testimony:--\n\n\"A man by the name of Waters was killed by his slaves, in Newberry\nDistrict. Three of them were tried before the court, and ordered to be\nburnt. I was but a few miles distant at the time, and conversed with\nthose who saw the execution. The slaves were tied to a stake, and\npitch pine wood piled around them, to which the fire was communicated.\nThousands were collected to witness this barbarous transaction. _Other\nexecutions of this kind took place in various parts of the state,\nduring my residence in it, from 1818 to 1824_. About three or four\nyears ago, a young negro was burnt in Abbeville District, for an\nattempt at rape.\"\n\nIn the fall of 1837, there was a rumor of a projected insurrection on\nthe Red River, in Louisiana. The citizens forthwith seized and hanged\nNINE SLAVES, AND THREE FREE COLORED MEN, WITHOUT TRIAL. A few months\nprevious to that transaction, a slave was seized in a similar manner\nand publicly burned to death, in Arkansas. In July, 1835, the citizens\nof Madison county, Mississippi, were alarmed by rumors of an\ninsurrection arrested five slaves and publicly executed them without\ntrial.\n\nThe Missouri Republican, April 30, 1838, gives the particulars of the\ndeliberate murder of a negro man named Tom, a cook on board the\nsteamboat Pawnee, on her passage up from New Orleans to St. Louis.\nSome of the facts stated by the Republican are the following:\n\n\"On Friday night, about 10 o'clock, a deaf and dumb German girl was\nfound in the storeroom with Tom. The door was locked, and at first Tom\ndenied she was there. The girl's father came. Tom unlocked the door,\nand the girl was found secreted in the room behind a barrel. The next\nmorning some four or five of the deck passengers spoke to the captain\nabout it. This was about breakfast time. Immediately after he left the\ndeck, a number of the deck passengers rushed upon the negro, bound his\narms behind his back and carried him forward to the bow of the boat. A\nvoice cried out 'throw him overboard,' and was responded to from every\nquarter of the deck--and in an instant he was plunged into the river.\nThe whole scene of tying him and throwing him overboard scarcely\noccupied _ten minutes_, and was so precipitate that the officers were\nunable to interfere in time to save him.\n\n\"There were between two hundred and fifty and three hundred passengers\non board.\"\n\nThe whole process of seizing Tom, dragging him upon deck, binding his\narms behind his back, forcing him to the bow of the boat, and throwing\nhim overboard, occupied, the editor informs us, about TEN MINUTES, and\nof the two hundred and fifty or three hundred deck passengers, with\nperhaps as many cabin passengers, it does not appear that _a single\nindividual raised a finger to prevent this deliberate murder_; and the\ncry \"throw him overboard,\" was it seems, \"responded to from every\nquarter of the deck!\"\n\nRev. JAMES A. THOME, of Augusta, Ky., son of Arthur Thome, Esq., till\nrecently a slaveholder, published five years since the following\ndescription of a scene witnessed by him in New Orleans:\n\n\"In December of 1833, I landed at New Orleans, in the steamer W----.\nIt was after night, dark and rainy. The passengers were called out of\nthe cabin, from the enjoyment of a fire, which the cold, damp\natmosphere rendered very comfortable, by a sudden shout of, 'catch\nhim--catch him--catch the negro.' The cry was answered by a hundred\nvoices--'Catch him--_kill_ him,' and a rush from every direction\ntoward our boat, indicated that the object of pursuit was near. The\nnext moment we heard a man plunge into the river, a few paces above\nus. A crowd gathered upon the shore, with lamps and stones, and clubs,\nstill crying, 'catch him--kill him--catch him--shoot him.'\n\n\"I soon discovered the poor man. He had taken refuge under the prow of\nanother boat, and was standing in the water up to his waist. The\nangry vociferation of his pursuers, did not intimidate him. He defied\nthem all. 'Don't you _dare_ to come near me, or I will sink you in the\nriver.' He was armed with despair. For a moment the mob was palsied by\nthe energy of his threatenings. They were afraid to go to him with a\nskiff, but a number of them went on to the boat and tried to seize\nhim. They threw a noose rope down repeatedly, _that they might pull\nhim up by the neck_! but he planted his hand firmly against the boat\nand dashed the rope away with his arms. One of them took a long bar of\nwood, and leaning over the prow, endeavored to strike him on the head,\nThe blow must have shattered the skull, but it did not reach low\nenough. The monster raised up the heavy club again and said, 'Come out\nnow, you old rascal, or die.' 'Strike,' said the negro;\n'strike--shiver my brains _now_; I want to die;' and down went the\nclub again, without striking. This was repeated several times. The\nmob, seeing their efforts fruitless, became more enraged and\nthreatened to stone him, if he did not surrender himself into their\nhands. He again defied them, and declared that he would drown himself\nin the river, before they should have him. They then resorted to\npersuasion, and promised they would not hurt him. 'I'll die first;'\nwas his only reply. Even the furious mob was awed, and for a while\nstood dumb.\n\n\"After standing in the cold water for an hour, the miserable being\nbegan to fail. We observed him gradually sinking--his voice grew weak\nand tremulous--yet he continued to _curse_! In the midst of his oaths\nhe uttered broken sentences--'I did'nt steal the meat--I did'nt\nsteal--my master lives--master--master lives up the river--(his voice\nbegan to gurgle in his throat, and he was so chilled that his teeth\nchattered audibly)--I did'nt--steal--I did'nt steal--my--my\nmaster--my--I want to see my master--I didn't--no--my mas--you\nwant--you want to kill me--I didn't steal the'--His last words could\njust be heard as be sunk under the water.\n\n\"During this indescribable scene, _not one of the hundred that stood\naround made any effort to save the man until he was apparently\ndrowned_. He was then dragged out and stretched on the bow of the\nboat, and soon sufficient means were used for his recovery. The brutal\ncaptain ordered him to be taken off his boat--declaring, with an oath,\nthat he would throw him into the river again, if he was not\nimmediately removed. I withdrew, sick and horrified with this\nappalling exhibition of wickedness.\n\n\"Upon inquiry, I learned that the colored man lived some fifty miles\nup the Mississippi; that he had been charged with stealing some\narticle from the wharf; was fired upon with a pistol, and pursued by\nthe mob.\n\n\"In reflecting upon this unmingled cruelty--this insensibility to\nsuffering and disregard of life--I exclaimed,\n\n\n'Is there no flesh in man's obdurate heart?'\n\n\n\"One poor man, chased like a wolf by a hundred blood hounds, yelling,\nhowling, and gnashing their teeth upon him--plunges into the cold\nriver to seek protection! A crowd of spectators witness the scene,\nwith all the composure with which a Roman populace would look upon a\ngladiatorial show. Not a voice heard in the sufferer's behalf. At\nlength the powers of nature give way; the blood flows back to the\nheart--the teeth chatter--the voice trembles and dies, while the\nvictim drops down into his grave.\n\n\"What an atrocious system is that which leaves two millions of souls,\nfriendless and powerless--hunted and chased--afflicted and tortured\nand driven to death, without the means of redress.--Yet such is the\nsystem of slavery.\"\n\nThe 'public opinion' of slaveholders is illustrated by scores of\nannouncements in southern papers, like the following, from the\nRaleigh, (N.C.) Register, August 20, 1838. Joseph Gale and Son,\neditors and proprietors--the father and brother of the editor of the\nNational Intelligence, Washington city, D.C.\n\n\"On Saturday night, Mr. George Holmes, of this county, and some of his\nfriends, were in pursuit of a runaway slave (the property of Mr.\nHolmes) and fell in with him in attempting to make his escape. Mr. H.\ndischarged a gun at his legs, for the purpose of disabling him; but\nunfortunately, the slave stumbled, and the shot struck him near the\nsmall of the back, of which wound he died in a short time. The slave\ncontinued to run some distance after he was shot, until overtaken by\none of the party. We are satisfied, from all that we can learn, that\nMr. H. had no intention of inflicting a mortal wound.\"\n\nOh! the _gentleman_, it seems, only shot at his legs, merely to\n'disable'--and it must be expected that every _gentleman_ will amuse\nhimself in shooting at his own property whenever the notion takes him,\nand if he should happen to hit a little higher and go through the\nsmall of the back instead of the legs, why every body says it is\n'unfortunate,' and the whole of the editorial corps, instead of\nbranding him as a barbarous wretch for shooting at his slave, whatever\npart be aimed at, join with the oldest editor in North Carolina, in\ncomplacently exonerating Mr. Holmes by saying, \"We are satisfied that\nMr. H. had no intention of inflicting a mortal wound.\" And so 'public\nopinion' wraps it up!\n\nThe Franklin (La.) Republican, August 19, 1837, has the following:\n\n\"NEGROES TAKEN.--Four gentlemen of this vicinity, went out yesterday\nfor the purpose of finding the camp of some noted runaways, supposed\nto be near this place; the camp was discovered about 11 o'clock, the\nnegroes four in number, three men and one woman, finding they were\ndiscovered, tried to make their escape through the cane; two of them\nwere fired on, one of which made his escape; the other one fell after\nrunning a short distance, his wounds are not supposed to be dangerous;\nthe other man was taken without any hurt; the woman also made her\nescape.\"\n\nThus terminated the mornings amusement of the '_four gentlemen_,'\nwhose exploits are so complacently chronicled by the editor of the\nFranklin Republican. The three men and one woman were all fired upon,\nit seems, though only one of them was shot down. The half famished\nrunaways made not the least resistance, they merely rushed in panic\namong the canes, at the sight of their pursuers, and the bullets\nwhistled after them and brought to the ground one poor fellow, who was\ncarried back by his captors as a trophy of the 'public opinion' among\nslaveholders.\n\nIn the Macon (Ga.) Telegraph, Nov. 27, 1838, we find the following\naccount of a runaway's den, and of the good luck of a 'Mr. Adams,' in\nrunning down one of them 'with his excellent dogs:'\n\n\"A runaway's den was discovered on Sunday near the Washington Spring,\nin a little patch of woods, where it had been for several months, so\nartfully concealed under ground, that it was detected only by\naccident, though in sight of two or three houses, and near the road\nand fields where there has been constant daily passing. The entrance\nwas concealed by a pile of pine straw, representing a hog bed--which\nbeing removed, discovered a trap door and steps that led to a room\nabout six feet square, comfortably ceiled with plank, containing a\nsmall fire-place the flue of which was ingeniously conducted above\nground and concealed by the straw. The inmates took the alarm and made\ntheir escape; but Mr. Adams and his excellent dogs being put upon the\ntrail, soon run down and secured one of them, which proved to be a\nnegro fellow who had been out about a year. He stated that the other\noccupant was a woman, who had been a runaway a still longer time. In\nthe den was found a quantity of meal, bacon, corn, potatoes, &c., and\nvarious cooking utensils and wearing apparel.\"\n\nYes, Mr. Adams' 'EXCELLENT DOGS' did the work! They were well trained,\nswift, fresh, keen-scented, 'excellent' men-hunters, and though the\npoor fugitive in his frenzied rush for liberty, strained every muscle,\nyet they gained upon him, and after dashing through fens, brier-beds,\nand the tangled undergrowth till faint and torn, he sinks, and the\nblood-hounds are upon him. What blood-vessels the poor struggler burst\nin his desperate push for life--how much he was bruised and lacerated\nin his plunge through the forest, or how much the dogs tore him, the\nMacon editor has not chronicled--they are matters of no moment--but\nhis heart is touched with the merits of Mr. Adams' 'EXCELLENT DOGS,'\nthat 'soon _run down_ and _secured_' a guiltless and trembling human\ncreature!\n\nThe Georgia Constitutionalist, of Jan. 1837, contains the following\nletter from the coroner of Barnwell District, South Carolina, dated\nAiken, S.C. Dec. 20, 1836.\n\n\"_To the Editor of the Constitutionalist:_\n\n\"I have just returned from an inquest I held over the body of a negro\nman, a runaway, that was shot near the South Edisto, in this District,\n(Barnwell,) on Saturday last. He came to his death by his own\nrecklessness. He refused to be taken alive--and said that other\nattempts to take him had been made, and he was determined that he\nwould not be taken. He was at first, (when those in pursuit of him\nfound it absolutely necessary,) shot at with small shot, with the\nintention of merely crippling him. He was shot at several times, and\nat last he was so disabled as to be compelled to surrender. He kept in\nthe run of a creek in a very dense swamp all the time that the\nneighbors were in pursuit of him. As soon as the negro was taken, the\nbest medical aid was procured, but he died on the same evening. One of\nthe witnesses at the Inquisition, stated that the negro boy said he\nwas from Mississippi, and belonged to so many persons, that he did not\nknow who his master was, but again he said his master's name was\nBrown. He said his name was Sam, and when asked by another witness,\nwho his master was, he muttered something like Augusta or Augustine.\nThe boy was apparently above thirty-five or forty years of age, about\nsix feet high, slightly yellow in the face, very long beard or\nwhiskers, and very stout built, and a stern countenance; and appeared\nto have been a runaway for a long time.\n\nWILLIAM H. PRITCHARD,\n_Coroner (Ex-officio,) Barnwell Dist. S.C._\"\n\n\nThe Norfolk (Va.) Herald, of Feb. 1837, has the following:\n\n\"Three negroes in a ship's yawl, came on shore yesterday evening, near\nNew Point Comfort, and were soon after apprehended and lodged in jail.\nTheir story is, that they belonged to a brig from New York bound to\nHavana, which was cast away to the southward of Cape Henry, some day\nlast week; that the brig was called the Maria, Captain Whittemore. I\nhave no doubt they are deserters from some vessel in the bay, as their\nstatements are very confused and inconsistent. One of these fellows is\na mulatto, and calls himself Isaac Turner; the other two are quite\nblack, the one passing by the name of James Jones and the other John\nMurray. They have all their clothing with them, and are dressed in\nsea-faring apparel. They attempted to make their escape, and _it was\nnot till a musket was fired at them, and one of them slightly\nwounded_, that they surrendered. They will be kept in jail till\nsomething further is discovered respecting them.\"\n\nThe 'St. Francisville (La.) Chronicle,' of Feb. 1, 1839. Gives the\nfollowing account of a 'negro hunt,' in that Parish.\n\n\"Two or three days since a gentleman of this parish, in _hunting\nrunaway negroes_, came upon a camp of them in the swamp on Cat Island.\nHe succeeded in arresting two of them, but the third made fight; and\nupon _being shot in the shoulder_, fled to a sluice, where the _dogs\nsucceeded_ in drowning him before assistance could arrive.\"\n\n\"'The dogs _succeeded_ in drowning him'! Poor fellow! He tried hard for\nhis life, plunged into the sluice, and, with a bullet in his shoulder,\nand the blood hounds unfleshing his bones, he bore up for a moment\nwith feeble stroke as best he might, but 'public opinion,'\n'_succeeded_ in drowning him,' and the same 'public opinion,' calls\nthe man who fired and crippled him, and cheered on the dogs, 'a\ngentleman,' and the editor who celebrates the exploit is a 'gentleman'\nalso!\"\n\nA large number of extracts similar to the above, might here be\ninserted from Southern newspapers in our possession, but the foregoing\nare more than sufficient for our purpose, and we bring to a close the\ntestimony on this point, with the following. Extract of a letter, from\nthe Rev. Samuel J. May, of South Scituate, Mass. dated Dec. 20, 1838.\n\n\"You doubtless recollect the narrative given in the Oasis, of a slave\nin Georgia, who having ranaway from his master, (accounted a very\nhospitable and even humane gentleman,) was hunted by his master and\nhis retainers with horses, dogs, and rifles, and having been driven\ninto a tree by the hounds, was shot down by his more cruel pursuers.\nAll the facts there given, and some others equally shocking, connected\nwith the same case, were first communicated to me in 1833, by Mr. W.\nRussell, a highly respectable teacher of youth in Boston. He is\ndoubtless ready to vouch for them. The same gentleman informed me that\nhe was keeping school on or near the plantation of the monster who\nperpetrated the above outrage upon humanity, that he was even invited\nby him to join in the hunt, and when he expressed abhorrence at the\nthought, the planter holding up the rifle which he had in his hand\nsaid with an oath, 'damn that rascal, this is the third time he has\nrunaway, and he shall never run again. I'd rather put a ball into his\nside, than into the best buck in the land.'\"\n\nMr. Russell, in the account given by him of this tragedy in the\n'Oasis,' page 267, thus describes the slaveholder who made the above\nexpression, and was the leader of the 'hunt,' and in whose family he\nresided at the time as an instructor he says of him--he was \"an\nopulent planter, in whose family the evils of slaveholding were\npalliated by every expedient that a humane and generous disposition\ncould suggest. He was a man of noble and elevated character, and\ndistinguished for his generosity, and kindness of heart.\"\n\nIn a letter to Mr. May, dated Feb. 3, 1839, Mr. Russell, speaking of\nthe hunting of runaways with dogs and guns, says: \"Occurrences of a\nnature similar to the one related in the 'Oasis,' were not unfrequent\nin the interior of Georgia and South Carolina twenty years ago.\n_Several_ such fell under my notice within the space of fifteen\nmonths. In two such 'hunts,' I was solicited to join.\"\n\nThe following was written by a sister-in-law of Gerrit Smith, Esq.,\nPeterboro. She is married to the son of a North Carolinian.\n\n\"In North Carolina, some years ago, several slaves were arrested for\ncommitting serious crimes and depredations, in the neighborhood of\nWilmington, among other things, burning houses, and, in one or more\ninstances, murder.\n\n\"It happened that the wife of one of these slaves resided in one of\nthe most respectable families in W. in the capacity of nurse. Mr. J.\n_the first lawyer in the place_, came into the room, where the lady of\nthe house, was sitting, with the nurse, who held a child in her arms,\nand, addressing the nurse, said, Hannah! would you know your husband\nif you should see him?--Oh, yes, sir, she replied--When HE DREW FROM\nBENEATH HIS CLOAK THE HEAD OF THE SLAVE, at the sight of which the\npoor woman immediately fainted. The heads of the others were placed\nupon poles, in some part of the town, afterwards known as 'Negro Head\nPoint.'\"\n\nWe have just received the above testimony, enclosed in a letter from\nMr. Smith, in which he says, \"that the fact stated by my\nsister-in-law, actually occurred, there can be no doubt.\"\n\nThe following extract from the Diary of the Rev. ELIAS CORNELIUS, we\ninsert here, having neglected to do it under a preceding head, to\nwhich it more appropriately belongs.\n\n\"New Orleans, Sabbath, February 15, 1818. Early this morning\naccompanied A.H. Esq. to the _hospital_, with the view of making\narrangements to preach to such of the sick as could understand\nEnglish. The first room we entered presented a scene of human misery,\nsuch as I had never before witnessed. A poor negro man was lying upon\na couch, apparently in great distress; a more miserable object can\nhardly be conceived. His face was much _disfigured_, an IRON COLLAR,\nTWO INCHES WIDE AND HALF AN INCH THICK, WAS CLASPED ABOUT HIS NECK,\nwhile one of his feet and part of the leg were in a state of\nputrefaction. We inquired the cause of his being in this distressing\ncondition, and he answered us in a faltering voice, that he was\nwilling to tell us all the truth.\n\n\"He belonged to Mr. ---- a Frenchman, ran-away, was caught, and\npunished with one hundred lashes! This happened about Christmas; and\nduring the cold weather at that time, he was confined in the\n_Cane-house, with a scanty portion of clothing, and without fire_. In\nthis situation his foot had frozen, and mortified, and having been\nremoved from place to place, he was yesterday brought here by order of\nhis new master, who was an American. I had no time to protract my\nconversation with him then, but resolved to return in a few hours and\npray with him.\n\n\"Having returned home, I again visited the hospital at half past\neleven o'clock, and concluded first of all [he was to preach at 12,]\nto pray with the poor lacerated negro. I entered the apartment in\nwhich he lay, and observed an old man sitting upon a couch; but,\nwithout saying anything went up to the bed-side of the negro, who\nappeared to be asleep. I spoke to him, but he gave no answer. I spoke\nagain, and moved his head, still he said nothing. My apprehensions\nwere immediately excited, and I felt for his pulse, but it was gone.\nSaid I to the old man, 'surely this negro is dead.' 'No,' he answered,\n'he has fallen asleep, for he had a very restless season last night.'\nI again examined and called the old gentleman to the bed, and alas, it\nwas found true, that he was dead. Not an eye had witnessed his last\nstruggle, and I was the first, as it should happen, to discover the\nfact. I called several men into the room, and without ceremony they\nwrapped him in a sheet, and carried him to the _dead-house_ as it is\ncalled.\"--Edwards' Life of Rev. Elias Cornelius, pp. 101, 2, 3.\n\n\nTHE PROTECTION EXTENDED BY 'PUBLIC OPINION,' TO THE HEALTH[38] OF THE\nSLAVES.\n\nThis may be judged of from the fact that it is perfectly notorious\namong slaveholders, both North and South, that of the tens of\nthousands of slaves sold annually in the northern slave states to be\ntransported to the south, large numbers of them die under the severe,\nprocess of acclimation, _all_ suffer more or less, and multitudes\n_much_, in their health and strength, during their first years in the\nfar south and south west. That such is the case is sufficiently proved\nby the care taken by all who advertise for sale or hire in Louisiana,\nMississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, &c. to inform the reader, that their\nslaves are 'Creoles,' 'southern born,' 'country born,' &c. or if they\nare from the north, that they are 'acclimated,' and the importance\nattached to their _acclimation_, is shown in the fact, that it is\ngenerally distinguished from the rest of the advertisements either by\n_italics_ or CAPITALS. Almost every newspaper published in the states\nfar south contains advertisements like the following.\n\n[Footnote 38: See pp. 37-39.]\n\n\nFrom the \"Vicksburg (Mi.) Register,\" Dec. 27, 1838.\n\n\"I OFFER my plantation for sale. Also seventy-five _acclimated\nNegroes_. O.B. COBB.\"\n\nFrom the \"Southerner,\" June 7, 1837.\n\n\"I WILL sell my Old-River plantation near Columbia in Arkansas;--also\nONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY ACCLIMATED SLAVES.\n\nBENJ. HUGHES.\"\n_Port Gibson, Jan. 14, 1837._\n\n\nFrom the \"Planters' (La.) Intelligencer,\" March 22.\n\n\"Probate sale--Will be offered for sale at Public Auction, to the\nhighest bidder, ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY _acclimated_ slaves.\"\n\nG.W. KEETON.\nJudge of the Parish of Concordia\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Arkansas Advocate,\" May 22, 1837.\n\n\"By virtue of a Deed of Trust, executed to me, I will sell at public\nauction at Fisher's Prairie, Arkansas, sixty LIKELY NEGROES,\nconsisting of Men, Women, Boys and Girls, the most of whom are WELL\nACCLIMATED.\n\nGRANDISON D. ROYSTON, _Trustee_.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"New Orleans Bee,\" Feb. 9, 1838.\n\n\"VALUABLE ACCLIMATED NEGROES\"\n\n\"Will be sold on Saturday, 10th inst. at 12 o'clock, at the city\nexchange, St. Louis street.\"\n\nThen follows a description of the slaves, closing with the same\nassertion, which forms the caption of the advertisement \"ALL\nACCLIMATED.\"\n\nGeneral Felix Houston, of Natchez, advertises in the \"Natchez\nCourier,\" April 6, 1838, \"Thirty five very fine _acclimated_ Negroes.\"\n\nWithout inserting more advertisements, suffice it to say, that when\nslaves are advertised for sale or hire, in the lower southern country,\nif they are _natives_, or have lived in that region long enough to\nbecome acclimated, it is _invariably_ stated.\n\nBut we are not left to _conjecture_ the amount of suffering\nexperienced by slaves from the north in undergoing the severe process\nof 'seasoning' to the climate, or '_acclimation_' A writer in the New\nOrleans Argus, September, 1830, in an article on the culture of the\nsugar cane, says; 'The loss by _death_ in bringing slaves from a\nnorthern climate, which our planters are under the necessity of doing,\nis not less than TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT.'\n\nNothwithstanding the immense amount of suffering endured in the\nprocess of acclimation, and the fearful waste of life, and the\n_notoriety_ of this fact, still the 'public opinion' of Virginia,\nMaryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, &c. annually DRIVES to the far\nsouth, thousands of their slaves to undergo these sufferings, and the\n'public opinion,' of the far south buys them, and forces the helpless\nvictims to endure them.\n\n\nTHE 'PROTECTION' VOUCHSAFED BY 'PUBLIC OPINION,' TO LIBERTY.\n\nThis is shown by hundreds of advertisements in southern papers, like\nthe following:\n\nFrom the \"Mobile Register,\" July 21. 1837. \"WILL BE SOLD CHEAP FOR\nCASH, in front of the Court House of Mobile County, on the 22d day of\nJuly next, one mulatto man named HENRY HALL, WHO SAYS HE IS FREE; his\nowner or owners, _if any_, having failed to demand him, he is to be\nsold according to the statute in such cases made and provided, _to pay\nJail fees._\n\nWM. MAGEE, Sh'ff M.C.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Grand Gulf (Miss.) Advertiser,\" Dec. 7, 1838.\n\n\"COMMITTED to the jail of Chickasaw Co. Edmund, Martha, John and\nLouisa; the man 50, the woman 35, John 3 years old, and Louisa 14\nmonths. They say they are FREE and were decoyed to this state.\"\n\n\nThe \"Southern Argus,\" of July 25, 1837, contains the following.\n\n\"RANAWAY from my plantation, a negro boy named William. Said boy was\ntaken up by Thomas Walton, and says _he was free_, and that his\nparents live near Shawneetown, Illinois, and that he was _taken_ from\nthat place in July 1836; says his father's name is William, and his\nmother's Sally Brown, and that they moved from Fredericksburg,\nVirginia. I will give twenty dollars to any person who will deliver\nsaid boy to me or Col. Byrn, Columbus. SAMUEL H. BYRN\"\n\n\nThe first of the following advertisements was a standing one, in the\n\"Vicksburg Register,\" from Dec. 1835 till Aug. 1836. The second\nadvertises the same FREE man for sale.\n\n\"SHERIFF'S SALE\" \"COMMITTED, to the jail of Warren county, as a\nRunaway, on the 23d inst. a Negro man, who calls himself John J.\nRobinson; _says that he is free_, says that he kept a baker's shop in\nColumbus, Miss. and that he peddled through the Chickasaw nation to\nPontotoc, and came to Memphis, where he sold his horse, took water,\nand came to this place. The owner of said boy is requested to come\nforward, prove property, pay charges, and take him away, or he will be\ndealt with as the law directs.\n\nWM. EVERETT, Jailer.\nDec. 24, 1835\"\n\n\"NOTICE is hereby given, that the above described boy, who calls\nhimself John J. Robinson, having been confined in the Jail of Warren\ncounty as a Runaway, for six months--and having been regularly\nadvertised during this period, I shall proceed to sell said Negro boy\nat public auction, to the highest bidder for cash, at the door of the\nCourt House in Vicksburg, on Monday, 1st day of August, 1836, in\npursuance of the statute in such cases made and provided.\n\nE. W. MORRIS, Sheriff.\n_Vicksburg, July 2, 1836._\"\n\n\n\nSee \"Newborn (N.C.) Spectator,\" of Jan. 5, 1838, for the following\nadvertisement.\n\n\"RANAWAY, from the subscriber a negro man known as Frank Pilot. He is\nfive feet eight inches high, dark complexion, and about 50 years old,\n_HAS BEEN FREE SINCE_ 1829--is now my property, as heir at law of his\nlast owner, _Samuel Ralston_, dec. I will give the above reward if he\nis taken and confined in any jail so that I can get him.\n\nSAMUEL RALSTON. Pactolus, Pitt County.\"\n\nFrom the Tuscaloosa (Ala.) \"Flag of the Union,\" June 7.\n\n\"COMMITTED to the jail of Tuscaloosa county, a negro man, who says his\nname is Robert Winfield, and _says he is free_.\n\nR.W. BARBER, _Jailer_.\"\n\nThat \"public opinion,\" in the slave states affords no protection to\nthe liberty of colored persons, even after those persons become\nlegally free, by the operation of their own laws, is declared by\nGovernor Comegys, of Delaware, in his recent address to the\nLegislature of that state, Jan. 1839. The Governor, commenting upon\nthe law of the state which provides that persons convicted of certain\ncrimes shall be sold as servants for a limited time, says,\n\n\"_The case is widely different with the negro(!)_ Although ordered to\nbe disposed of as a servant for a term of years, _perpetual slavery in\nthe south is his inevitable doom_; unless, peradventure, age or\ndisease may have rendered him worthless, or some resident of the\nState, from motives of _benevolence_, will pay for him three or four\ntimes his intrinsic _value_. It matters not for how short a time he is\nordered to be sold, so that he can be carried from the State. Once\nbeyond its limits, _all chance of restored freedom is gone_--for he is\nremoved far from the reach of any testimony to aid him in an effort to\nbe released from bondage, when his _legal_ term of servitude has\nexpired. _Of the many colored convicts sold out of the State, it is\nbelieved none ever return_. Of course they are purchased _with the\nexpress view to their transportation for life_, and bring such\nenormous prices as to prevent all _competition_ on the part of those\nof our citizens who _require_ their services, and _would keep them in\nthe State_.\"\n\nFrom the \"Memphis (Ten.) Enquirer,\" Dec. 28, 1838.\n\n\"$50 REWARD. Ranaway, from the subscriber, on Thursday last, a negro\nman named Isaac, 22 years old, about 5 feet 10 or 11 inches high, dark\ncomplexion, well made, full face, speaks quick, and very correctly for\na negro. _He was originally from New-York_, and no doubt will attempt\nto pass himself as free. I will give the above reward for his\napprehension and delivery, or confinement, so that I obtain him, if\ntaken out of the state, or $30 if taken within the state.\n\nJNO. SIMPSON. _Memphis, Dec. 28._\"\n\nMark, with what shameless hardihood this JNO. SIMPSON, tells the\npublic that _he knew_ Isaac Wright was a free man! 'HE WAS ORIGINALLY\nFROM NEW YORK,' he tells us. And yet he adds with brazen effrontery,\n'_he will attempt to pass himself as free._' This Isaac Wright, was\nshipped by a man named Lewis, of New Bedford, Massachusetts, and sold\nas a slave in New Orleans. After passing through several hands, and\nbeing flogged nearly to death, he made his escape, and five days ago,\n(March 5,) returned to his friends in Philadelphia.\n\nFrom the \"Baltimore Sun,\" Dec. 23, 1838.\n\n\"FREE NEGROES--Merry Ewall, a FREE NEGRO, from Virginia, was committed\nto jail, at Snow Hill, Md. last week, for remaining in the State\nlonger than is allowed by the law of 1831. The fine in his case\namounts to $225. Capril Purnell, a negro from Delaware, is now in jail\nin the same place, for a violation of the same act. His fine amounts\nto FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS, and he WILL BE SOLD IN A SHORT TIME.\"\n\nThe following is the decision of the Supreme Court, of Louisiana, in\nthe case of Gomez _vs_. Bonneval, Martin's La. Reports, 656, and\nWheeler's \"Law of Slavery,\" p. 380-1.\n\n_Marginal remark of the Compiler.--\"A slave does not become free on\nhis being illegally imported into the state.\"_\n\n\"_Per Cur. Derbigny_, J. The petitioner is a negro in actual state of\nslavery; he claims his freedom, and is bound to prove it. In his\nattempt, however, to show that he was free before he was introduced\ninto this country, he has failed, so that his claim rests entirely on\nthe laws prohibiting the introduction of slaves in the United States.\nThat the plaintiff was imported since that prohibition does exist is a\nfact sufficiently established by the evidence. What right he has\nacquired under the laws forbidding such importation is the only\nquestion which we have to examine. Formerly, while the act dividing\nLouisiana into two territories was in force in this country, slaves\nintroduced here in contravention to it, were freed by operation of\nlaw; but that act was merged in the legislative provisions which were\nsubsequently enacted on the subject of importation of slaves into the\nUnited States generally. Under the now existing laws, the individuals\nthus imported acquire _no personal right_, they are mere passive\nbeings, who are disposed of _according to the will_ of the different\nstate legislatures. In this country they are to _remain slaves_, and\nTO BE SOLD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE. The plaintiff, therefore, has\nnothing to claim as a freeman; and as to a mere change of master,\nshould such be his wish, _he cannot be listened to in a court of\njustice_.\"\n\nExtract from a speech of Mr. Thomson of Penn. in Congress, March 1,\n1826, on the prisons in the District of Columbia.\n\n\"I visited the prisons twice that I might myself ascertain the truth.\n* * In one of these cells (but eight feet square,) were confined at\nthat time, seven persons, three women and four children. The children\nwere confined under a strange system of law in this District, by which\na colored person who _alleges_ HE IS FREE, and appeals to the\ntribunals of the country, to have the matter tried, is COMMITTED TO\nPRISON, till the decision takes place. They were almost naked--one of\nthem was sick, lying on the damp brick floor, _without bed, pillow, or\ncovering_. In this abominable cell, seven human beings were confined\nday by day, and night after night, without a bed, chair, or stool, or\nany other of the most common necessaries of life.\"--_Gales'\nCongressional Debates_, v.2, p. 1480.\n\nThe following facts serve to show, that the present generation of\nslaveholders do but follow in the footsteps of their fathers, in their\nzeal for LIBERTY.\n\nExtract from a document submitted by the Committee of the yearly\nmeeting of Friends in Philadelphia, to the Committee of Congress, to\nwhom was referred the memorial of the people called Quakers, in 1797.\n\n\"In the latter part of the year 1776, several of the people called\nQuakers, residing in the counties of Perquimans and Pasquotank, in the\nstate of North Carolina, liberated their negroes, as it was then clear\nthere was no existing law to prevent their so doing; for the law of\n1741 could not at that time be carried into effect; and they were\nsuffered to remain free, until a law passed, in the spring of 1777,\nunder which they were taken up and sold, contrary to the Bill of\nRights, recognized in the constitution of that state, as a part\nthereof, and to which it was annexed.\n\n\"In the spring of 1777, when the General Assembly met for the first\ntime, a law was enacted to prevent slaves from being emancipated,\nexcept for meritorious services, &c. to be judged of by the county\ncourts or the general assembly; and ordering, that if any should be\nmanumitted in any other way, they be taken up, and the county courts\nwithin whose jurisdictions they are apprehended should order them to\nbe sold. Under this law the county courts of Perquimans and\nPasquotank, in the year 1777, ordered A LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO BE\nSOLD, WHO WERE FREE AT THE TIME THE LAW WAS MADE. In the year 1778\nseveral of those cases were, by certiorari, brought before the\nsuperior court for the district of Edentorn, where the decisions of\nthe county courts were reversed, the superior court declaring, that\nsaid county courts, in such their proceedings, have exceeded their\njurisdiction, violated the rights of the subject, and acted in direct\nopposition to the Bill of Rights of this state, considered justly as\npart of the constitution thereof; by giving to a law, not intended to\naffect this case, a retrospective operation, thereby to deprive free\nmen of this state of their liberty, contrary to the laws of the land.\nIn consequence of this decree several of the negroes were again set at\nliberty; but the next General Assembly, early in 1779, passed a law,\nwherein they mention, that doubts have arisen, whether the purchasers\nof such slaves have a good and legal title thereto, and CONFIRM the\nsame; under which they were again taken up by the purchasers and\nreduced to slavery.\"\n\n[The number of persons thus re-enslaved was 134.]\n\nThe following are the decrees of the Courts, ordering the sale of\nthose freemen:--\n\n\"Perquimans County, July term, at Hartford, A.D. 1777.\n\n\"These may certify, that it was then and there ordered, that the\nsheriff of the county, to-morrow morning, at ten o'clock, expose to\nsale, to the highest bidder, for ready money, at the court-house door,\nthe several negroes taken up as free, and in his custody, agreeable to\nlaw.\n\n\"Test. WM. SKINNER, Clerk. \"A true copy, 25th August, 1791. \"Test. J.\nHARVEY, Clerk.\"\n\n\"Pasquotank County, September Court, &c. &c. 1777.\n\n\"Present, the Worshipful Thomas Boyd, Timothy Hickson, John Paelin,\nEdmund Clancey, Joseph Reading, and Thomas Rees, Esqrs. Justices.\n\n\"It was then and there ordered, that Thomas Reading, Esq. take the\nFREE negroes taken up under an act to prevent domestic insurrections\nand other purposes, and expose the same to _the best bidder_, at\npublic vendue, for ready money, and be accountable for the same,\nagreeable to the aforesaid act; and make return to this or the next\nsucceeding court of his proceedings.\n\n\"A copy. ENOCH REESE, C.C.\"\n\n\nTHE PROTECTION OF \"PUBLIC OPINION\" TO DOMESTICS TIES.\n\nThe barbarous indifference with which slaveholders regard the forcible\nsundering of husbands and wives, parents and children, brothers and\nsisters, and the unfeeling brutality indicated by the language in\nwhich they describe the efforts made by the slaves, in their yearnings\nafter those from whom they have been torn away, reveals a 'public\nopinion' towards them as dead to their agony as if they were cattle.\nIt is well nigh impossible to open a southern paper without finding\nevidence of this. Though the truth of this assertion can hardly be\ncalled in question, we subjoin a few illustrations, and could easily\ngive hundreds.\n\n\nFrom the \"Savannah Georgian,\" Jan. 17, 1839. \"$100 reward will be\ngiven for my two fellows, Abram and Frank. Abram has a _wife_ at\nColonel Stewart's, in Liberty county, and a _sister_ in Savannah, at\nCapt. Grovenstine's. Frank has a _wife_ at Mr. Le Cont's, Liberty\ncounty; a _mother_ at Thunderbolt, and a _sister_ in Savannah.\n\nWM. ROBARTS. Wallhourville, 5th Jan. 1839\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Lexington (Ky.) Intelligencer.\" July 7, 1838.\n\n\"$160 Reward.--Ranaway from the subscribers living in this city, on\nSaturday 16th inst. a negro man, named Dick, about 37 years of age. It\nis highly probable said boy will make for New Orleans as _he has a\nwife_ living in that city, and he has been heard to say frequently\nthat _he was determined to go to New Orleans_.\n\n\"DRAKE C. THOMPSON. \"Lexington, June 17, 1838\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Southern Argus,\" Oct. 31, 1837.\n\n\"Runaway--my negro man, Frederick, about 20 years of age. He is no\ndoubt near the plantation of G.W. Corprew, Esq of Noxubbee County,\nMississippi, as _his wife belongs to that gentleman, and he followed\nher from my residence_. The above reward will be paid to any one who\nwill confine him in jail and inform me of it at Athens, Ala. \"Athens,\nAlabama. KERKMAN LEWIS.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Savannah Georgian,\" July 8, 1837.\n\n\"Ran away from the subscriber, his man Joe. He visits the city\noccasionally, where he has been harbored by his _mother_ and _sister_.\nI will give one hundred dollars for proof sufficient to _convict his\nharborers_. R.P.T. MONGIN.\"\n\n\nThe \"Macon (Georgia) Messenger,\" Nov. 23, 1837, has the following:--\n\n\"$25 Reward.--Ran away, a negro man, named Cain. He was brought from\nFlorida, and _has a wife near Mariana_, and probably will attempt to\nmake his way there. H.L. COOK.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Richmond (Va.) Whig,\" July 25, 1837.\n\n\"Absconded from the subscriber, a negro man, by the name of Wilson. He\nwas born in the county of New Kent, and raised by a gentleman named\nRatliffe, and by him sold to a gentleman named Taylor, on whose farm\nhe had a _wife_ and _several children_. Mr. Taylor sold him to a Mr.\nSlater, who, in consequence of removing to Alabama, Wilson left; and\nwhen retaken was sold, and afterwards purchased, by his present owner,\nfrom T. McCargo and Co. of Richmond.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Savannah (Ga. ) Republican,\" Sept. 3, 1838.\n\n\"$20 Reward for my negro man Jim.--Jim is about 50 or 55 years of age.\nIt is probable he will aim for Savannah, as he said _he had children_\nin that vicinity.\n\nJ.G. OWENS.\nBarnwell District, S.C.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Staunton (Va.) Spectator,\" Jan. 3, 1839.\n\n\"Runaway, Jesse.--He has a _wife_, who belongs to Mr. John Ruff, of\nLexington, Rockbridge county, and he may probably be lurking in that\nneighborhood. MOSES McCUE.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle,\" July 10, 1837.\n\n\"$120 Reward for my negro Charlotte. She is about 20 years old. She\nwas purchased some months past from Mr. Thomas. J. Walton, of Augusta,\nby Thomas W. Oliver; and, as her _mother_ and acquaintances live in\nthat city, it is very likely she is _harbored_ by some of them. MARTHA\nOLIVER.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Raleigh (N.C.) Register,\" July 18, 1837.\n\nRanaway from the subscriber, a negro man named Jim, the property of\nMrs. Elizabeth Whitfield. He _has a wife_ at the late Hardy Jones',\nand may probably be lurking in that neighborhood. JOHN O'RORKE.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Richmond (Va.) Compiler,\" Sept. 8, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway from the subscriber, Ben. He ran off without any known cause,\nand _I suppose he is aiming to go to his wife, who was carried from\nthe neighborhood last winter_. JOHN HUNT.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Charleston (S.C.) Mercury,\" Aug. 1, 1837.\n\n\"Absconded from Mr. E.D. Bailey, on Wadmalaw, his negro man, named\nSaby. Said fellow was purchased in January, from Francis Dickinson, of\nSt. Paul's parish, and is probably now in that neighborhood, _where he\nhas a wife_. THOMAS N. GADSDEN.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Portsmouth (Va.) Times,\" August 3, 1838.\n\n\"$50 dollars Reward will be given for the apprehension of my negro man\nIsaac. He _has a wife_ at James M. Riddick's, of Gates county, N.C.\nwhere he may probably be lurking. C. MILLER.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Savannah (Georgia) Republican.\" May 24, 1838.\n\n\"$40 Reward.--Ran away from the subscriber in Savannah, his negro girl\nPatsey. She was purchased among the gang of negroes, known as the\nHargreave's estate. She is no doubt lurking about Liberty county, at\nwhich place _she has relatives_. EDWARD HOUSTOUN, of Florida\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Charleston (S.C.) Courier,\" June 29, 1837.\n\n\"$20 Reward will be paid for the apprehension and delivery, at the\nworkhouse in Charleston, of a mulatto woman, named Ida. It is probable\nshe may have made her way into Georgia, where she has _connections_.\nMATTHEW MUGGRIDGE.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Norfolk (Va.) Beacon,\" March 31, 1838.\n\n\"The subscriber will give $20 for the apprehension of his negro woman,\nMaria, who ran away about twelve months since. She is known to be\nlurking in or about Chuckatuch, in the county of Nansemond, where _she\nhas a husband_, and _formerly belonged_. PETER ONEILL.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Macon (Georgia) Messenger,\" Jan. 16, 1839.\n\n\"Ranaway from the subscriber, two negroes, Davis, a man about 45 years\nold; also Peggy, his wife, near the same age. Said negroes will\nprobably make their way to Columbia county, as _they have children_\nliving in that county. I will liberally reward any person who may\ndeliver them to me. NEHEMIAH KING.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Petersburg (Va.) Constellation,\" June 27, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro man, named Peter. _He has a wife_ at the plantation\nof Mr. C. Haws, near Suffolk, where it is supposed he is still\nlurking. JOHN L. DUNN.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Richmond (Va.) Whig,\" Dec. 7, 1739.\n\n\"Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro man, named John Lewis. It is\nsupposed that he is lurking about in New Kent county, where he\nprofesses to have a _wife_. HILL JONES, Agent for R.F. & P. Railroad Co.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Red River (La.) Whig,\" June 2d, 1838.\n\n\"Ran away from the subscriber, a mulatto woman, named Maria. It is\nprobable she may be found in the neighborhood of Mr. Jesse Bynum's\nplantation, where _she has relations_, &c. THOMAS J. WELLS.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Lexington (Ky.) Observer and Reporter,\" Sept. 28, 1838.\n\n\"$50 Reward.--Ran away from the subscriber, a negro girl, named Maria.\nShe is of a copper color, between 13 and 14 years of age--_bare\nheaded_ and _bare footed_. She is small of her age--very sprightly and\nvery likely. She stated she was _going to see her mother_ at\nMaysville. SANFORD THOMSON.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Jackson (Tenn.) Telegraph,\" Sept. 14, 1838.\n\n\"Committed to the jail of Madison county, a negro woman, who calls her\nname Fanny, and says she belongs to William Miller, of Mobile. She\nformerly belonged to John Givins, of this county, who now owns\n_several of her children_. DAVID SHROPSHIRE, Jailor.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Norfolk (Va.) Beacon,\" July 3d, 1838.\n\n\"Runaway from my plantation below Edenton, my negro man, Nelson. _He\nhas a mother living_ at Mr. James Goodwin's, in Ballahack, Perquimans\ncounty; and _two brothers_, one belonging to Job Parker, and the other\nto Josiah Coffield. WM. D. RASCOE.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Charleston (S.C.) Courier,\" Jan. 12, 1838.\n\n\"$100 Reward.--Run away from the subscriber, his negro fellow, John.\nHe is well known about the city as one of my bread carriers: _has a\nwife_ living at Mrs. Weston's, on Hempstead. John formerly belonged to\nMrs. Moor, near St. Paul's church, where his _mother_ still lives, and\n_has been harbored by her_ before.\n\nJOHN T. MARSHALL.\n60, Tradd street.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Newbern (N.C.) Sentinel,\" March 17, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, Moses, a black fellow, about 40 years of age--has a _wife_\nin Washington.\n\nTHOMAS BRAGG, Sen.\nWarrenton, N.C.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Richmond (Va.) Whig,\" June 30, 1837.\n\n\"Ranaway, my man Peter.--He has a _sister_ and _mother_ in New Kent,\nand a _wife_ about fifteen or eighteen miles above Richmond, at or\nabout Taylorsville. THEO. A. LACY.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"New Orleans Bulletin,\" Feb. 7, 1838.\n\n\"Ranaway, my negro Philip, aged about 40 years.--He may have gone to\nSt. Louis, as _he has a wife there_. W.G. CLARK, 70 New Levee.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Georgian,\" Jan. 29, 1838.\n\n\"A Reward of $5 will be paid for the apprehension of his negro woman,\nDiana. Diana is from 45 to 50 age. She formerly belonged to Mr. Nath.\nLaw, of Liberty county, _where her husband still lives_. She will\nendeavor to go there perhaps. D. O'BYRNE.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Richmond (Va.) Enquirer,\" Feb. 20, 1838.\n\n\"$10 Reward for a negro woman, named Sally, 40 years old. We have just\nreason to believe the said negro to be now lurking on the James River\nCanal, or in the Green Spring neighborhood, where, we are informed,\n_her husband resides_. The above reward will be given to any person\n_securing_ her.\n\nPOLLY C. SHIELDS.\nMount Elba, Feb. 19, 1838.\"\n\n\n\"$50 Reward.--Ran away from the subscriber, his negro man Pauladore,\ncommonly called Paul. I understand GEN. R.Y. HAYNE _has purchased his\nwife and children_ from H.L. PINCKNEY, Esq. and has them now on his\nplantation at Goosecreek, where, no doubt, the fellow is frequently\n_lurking_. T. DAVIS.\"\n\n\n\"$25 Reward.--Ran away from the subscriber, a negro woman, named\nMatilda. It is thought she may be somewhere up James River, as she was\nclaimed as _a wife_ by some boatman in Goochland. J. ALVIS.\"\n\n\n\"Stop the Runaway!!!--$25 Reward. Ranaway from the Eagle Tavern, a\nnegro fellow, named Nat. He is no doubt attempting to _follow his\nwife, who was lately sold to a speculator_ named Redmond. The above\nreward will be paid by Mrs. Lucy M. Downman, of Sussex county, Va.\"\n\n\nMultitudes of advertisements like the above appear annually in the\nsouthern papers. Reader, look at the preceding list--mark the\nunfeeling barbarity with which their masters and _mistresses_ describe\nthe struggles and perils of sundered husbands and wives, parents and\nchildren, in their weary midnight travels through forests and rivers,\nwith torn limbs and breaking hearts, seeking the embraces of each\nother's love. In one instance, a mother torn from all her children and\ntaken to a remote part of another state, presses her way back through\nthe wilderness, hundreds of miles, to clasp once more her children to\nher heart: but, when she has arrived within a few miles of them, in\nthe same county, is discovered, seized, dragged to jail, and her\npurchaser told, through an advertisement, that she awaits his order.\nBut we need not trace out the harrowing details already before the\nreader.\n\nRev. C.S. RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois, who resided some time in\nKentucky, says;--\n\n\"I was told the following fact by a young lady, daughter of a\nslaveholder in Boone county, Kentucky, who lived within half a mile of\nMr. Hughes' farm. Hughes and Neil traded in slaves down the river:\nthey had bought up a part of their stock in the upper counties of\nKentucky, and brought them down to Louisville, where the remainder of\ntheir drove was in jail, waiting their arrival. Just before the\nsteamboat put off for the lower country, two negro women were offered\nfor sale, each of them having a young child at the breast. The traders\nbought them, took their babes from their arms, and offered them to the\nhighest bidder; and they were sold for one dollar apiece, whilst the\nstricken parents were driven on board the boat; and in an hour were on\ntheir way to the New Orleans market. You are aware that a young babe\n_decreases_ the value of a field hand in the lower country, whilst it\nincreases her value in the 'breeding states.'\"\n\nThe following is an extract from an address, published by the\nPresbyterian Synod of Kentucky, to the churches under their care, in\n1835:--\n\n\"Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives, are\n_torn asunder_, and permitted to see each other no more. These acts\nare DAILY occurring in the midst of us. The _shrieks_ and the _agony,\noften_ witnessed on such occasions, proclaim, with a trumpet tongue,\nthe iniquity of our system. _There is not a neighborhood_ where these\nheart-rending scenes are not displayed. _There is not a village or\nroad_ that does not behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts,\nwhose mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by _force_ from\nALL THAT THEIR HEARTS HOLD DEAR.\"--_Address_, p. 12.\n\nProfessor ANDREWS, late of the University of North Carolina, in his\nrecent work on Slavery and the Slave Trade, page 147, in relating a\nconversation with a slave-trader, whom he met near Washington City,\nsays, he inquired,\n\n\"'Do you _often_ buy the wife without the husband?' 'Yes, VERY OFTEN;\nand FREQUENTLY, too, they _sell me the mother while they keep her\nchildren. I have often known them take away the infant from its\nmother's breast, and keep it, while they sold her_.'\"\n\nThe following sale is advertised in the \"Georgia Journal,\" Jan, 2,\n1838.\n\n\"Will be sold, the following PROPERTY, to wit: One ---- CHILD, by the\nname of James, _about eight months old_, levied on as the property of\nGabriel Gunn.\"\n\nThe following is a standing advertisement in the Charleston (S.C.)\npapers:--\n\n\"120 Negroes for Sale--The subscriber has _just arrived from\nPetersburg, Virginia_, with one hundred and twenty _likely young_\nnegroes of both sexes and every description, which he offers for sale\non the most reasonable terms.\n\n\"The lot now on hand consists of plough boys several likely and\nwell-qualified house servants of both sexes, several _women with\nchildren, small girls_ suitable for nurses, and several SMALL BOYS\nWITHOUT THEIR MOTHERS. Planters and traders are earnestly requested to\ngive the subscriber a call previously to making purchases elsewhere,\nas he is enabled and will sell as cheap, or cheaper, than can be sold\nby any other person in the trade. BENJAMIN DAVIS. Hamburg, S.C. Sept.\n28, 1838.\"\n\nExtract Of a letter to a member of Congress from a friend in\nMississippi, published in the \"Washington Globe,\" June, 1837.\n\n\"The times are truly alarming here. Many plantations _are entirely\nstripped of negroes_ (protection!) and horses, by the marshal or\nsheriff.--Suits are multiplying--two thousand five hundred in the\nUnited States Circuit Court, and three thousand in Hinds County\nCourt.\"\n\nTestimony of MR. SILAS STONE, of Hudson, New York. Mr. Stone is a\nmember of the Episcopal Church, has several times been elected an\nAssessor of the city of Hudson, and for three years has filled the\noffice of Treasurer of the County. In the fall of 1807, Mr. Stone\nwitnessed a sale of slaves, in Charleston, South Carolina, which he\nthus describes in a communication recently received from him.\n\n\"I saw droves of the poor fellows driven to the slave markets kept in\ndifferent parts of the city, one of which I visited. The arrangements\nof this place appeared something like our northern horse-markets,\nhaving sheds, or barns, in the rear of a public house, where alcohol\nwas a handy ingredient to stimulate the spirit of jockeying. As the\ntraders appeared, lots of negroes were brought from the stables into\nthe bar room, and by a flourish of the whip were made to assume an\nactive appearance. 'What will you give for these fellows?' 'How old\nare they? 'Are they healthy?' 'Are they quick?' &c. at the same time\nthe owner would give them a cut with a cowhide, and tell them to dance\nand jump, cursing and swearing at them if they did not move quick. In\nfact all the transactions in buying and selling slaves, partakes of\njockey-ship, as much as buying and selling horses. There was as little\nregard paid to the feelings of the former as we witness in the latter.\n\n\"From these scenes I turn to another, which took place in front of the\nnoble 'Exchange Buildings,' in the heart of the city. On the left side\nof the steps, as you leave the main hall, immediately under the\nwindows of that proud building, was a stage built, on which a mother\nwith eight children were placed, and sold at auction. I watched their\nemotions closely, and saw their feelings were in accordance to human\nnature. The sale began with the eldest child, who, being struck off to\nthe highest bidder, was taken from the stage or platform by the\npurchaser, and led to his wagon and stowed away, to be carried into\nthe country; the second, and third were also sold, and so until seven\nof the children were torn from their mother, while her discernment\ntold her they were to be separated probably forever, causing in that\nmother the most agonizing sobs and cries, in which the children seemed\nto share. The scene beggars description; suffice it to say, it was\nsufficient to cause tears from one at least 'whose skin was not\ncolored like their own,' and I was not ashamed to give vent to them.\"\n\n\nTHE \"PROTECTION\" AFFORDED BY \"PUBLIC OPINION\"\nTO CHILDHOOD AND OLD AGE.\n\nIn the \"New Orleans Bee,\" May 31, 1837, MR. P. BAHI, gives notice that\nhe has _committed to_ JAIL as a runaway 'a _little_ negro AGED ABOUT\nSEVEN YEARS.'\n\nIn the \"Mobile Advertiser,\" Sept. 13, 1838, WILLIAM MAGEE, Sheriff,\ngives notice that George Walton, Esq. Mayor of the city has\n_committed_ to JAIL as a runaway slave, Jordan, ABOUT TWELVE YEARS\nOLD, and the Sheriff proceeds to give notice that if no one claims him\nthe boy will be _sold as a slave_ to pay jail fees.\n\nIn the \"Memphis (Tenn.) Gazette,\" May 2, 1837, W.H. MONTGOMERY\nadvertises that he will sell at auction a BOY AGED 14, ANOTHER AGED\n12, AND A GIRL 10, to pay the debts of their deceased master.\n\nB.F. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, Natchitoches (La.) advertises in the\n'Herald,' of May 17, 1837, that he has \"_committed to_ JAIL, as a\nrunaway a negro boy BETWEEN 11 AND 12 YEARS OF AGE.\"\n\nIn the \"Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle,\" Feb. 13, 1838. R.H. JONES, jailor,\nsays, \"Brought to _jail_ a negro _woman_ Sarah, she is about 60 or 65\n_years old_.\"\n\nIn the \"Winchester Virginian,\" August 8, 1837, Mr. R.H. MENIFEE,\noffers ten dollars reward to any one who will catch and lodge in jail,\nAbram and Nelly, _about_ 60 _years old_, so that he can get them\nagain.\n\nJ. SNOWDEN, Jailor, Columbia, S.C. gives notice in the \"Telescope,\"\nNov, 18, 1837, that he has committed to jail as a runaway slave,\n\"_Caroline fifty years of age_.\"\n\nY.S. PICKARD, Jailor, Savannah, Georgia, gives notice in the\n\"Georgian,\" June 22, 1837, that he has taken up for a runaway and\nlodged in jail Charles, 60 _years of age_.\n\nIn the Savannah \"Georgian,\" April 12, 1837, Mr. J. CUYLER, says he\nwill give five dollars, to anyone who will catch and bring back to him\n\"Saman, _an old negro man, and grey, and has only one eye_.\"\n\nIn the \"Macon (Ga.) Telegraph,\" Jan. 15, 1839, MESSRS. T. AND L.\nNAPIER, advertise for sale Nancy, a woman 65 _years of age_, and\nPeggy, a woman 65 _years of age_.\n\nThe following is from the \"Columbian (Ga.) Enquirer,\" March 8, 1838.\n\n\"$25 REWARD.--Ranaway, a Negro Woman named MATILDA, aged about 30 or\n35 years. Also, on the same night, a Negro Fellow of small size, VERY\nAGED, _stoop-shouldered_, who walks VERY DECREPIDLY, is supposed to\nhave gone off. His name is DAVE, and he has claimed Matilda for wife.\nIt may be they have gone off together.\n\n\"I will give twenty-five dollars for the woman, delivered to me in\nMuscogee county, or confined in any jail so that I can get her. MOSES\nBUTT.\"\n\nJ.B. RANDALL, Jailor, Cobb (Co.) Georgia, advertises an old negro man,\nin the \"Milledgeville Recorder,\" Nov. 6, 1838.\n\n\"A NEGRO MAN, has been lodged in the common jail of this county, who\nsays his name is JUPITER. He _has lost all his front teeth above and\nbelow--speaks very indistinctly, is very lame, so that he can hardly\nwalk_.\"\n\nRev. CHARLES STEWART RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois, who spent some time\nin slave states, speaking of his residence in Kentucky, says:--\n\n\"One Sabbath morning, whilst riding to meeting near Burlington, Boone\nCo. Kentucky, in company with Mr. Willis, a teacher of sacred music\nand a member of the Presbyterian Church, I was startled at mingled\nshouts and screams, proceeding from an old log house, some distance\nfrom the road side. As we passed it, some five or six boys from 12 to\n15 years of age, came out, some of them cracking whips, followed by\ntwo colored boys crying. I asked Mr. W. what the scene meant. 'Oh,' he\nreplied, 'those boys have been whipping the niggers; that is the way\nwe bring slaves into subjection in Kentucky--we let the children beat\nthem.' The boys returned again into the house, and again their\nshouting and stamping was heard, but ever and anon a scream of agony\nthat would not be drowned, rose above the uproar; thus they continued\ntill the sounds were lost in the distance.\"\n\nWell did Jefferson say, that the children of slaveholders are 'NURSED,\nEDUCATED, AND DAILY EXERCISED IN TYRANNY.'\n\nThe 'protection' thrown around a mother's yearnings, and the\nhelplessness of childhood by the 'public opinion' of slaveholders, is\nshown by _thousands_ of advertisements of which the following are\nsamples.\n\n\nFrom the \"New Orleans Bulletin,\" June 2.\n\n\"NEGROES FOR SALE.--A negro woman 21 years of age, and has two\nchildren, one eight and the other three years. Said negroes will be\nsold SEPARATELY or together _as desired_. The woman is a good\nseamstress. She will be sold low for cash, or _exchanged_ for\nGROCERIES. For terms apply to MAYHEW BLISS, & CO. 1 Front Levee.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Georgia Journal,\" Nov. 7.\n\n\"TO BE SOLD--One negro girl about 18 _months old_, belonging to the\nestate of William Chambers, dec'd. Sold for the purpose of\n_distribution!!_ JETHRO DEAN, SAMUEL BEALL, Ex'ors.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Natchez Courier,\" April 2, 1838.\n\n\"NOTICE--Is hereby given that the undersigned pursuant to a certain\nDeed of Trust will on Thursday the 12th day of April next, expose to\nsale at the Court House, to the highest bidder for cash, the following\nNegro slaves, to wit; Fanny, aged about 28 years; Mary, aged about 7\nyears; Amanda, aged about 3 months; Wilson, aged about 9 months.\n\nSaid slaves, to be sold for the satisfaction of the debt secured in\nsaid Deed of Trust. W.J. MINOR.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Milledgeville Journal,\" Dec. 26, 1837.\n\n\"EXECUTOR'S SALE.\n\n\"Agreeable to an order of the court of Wilkinson county, will be sold\non the first Tuesday in April next, before the Court-house door in the\ntown of Irwington, ONE NEGRO GIRL _about two years old_, named Rachel,\nbelonging to the estate of William Chambers dec'd. Sold _for the\nbenefit_ of the heirs and creditors of said estate.\n\nSAMUEL BELL, JESSE PEACOCK, Ex'ors.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Alexandria (D.C.) Gazette\" Dec. 19.\n\n\"I will give the highest cash price for likely negroes, _from 10 to 25\nyears of age_.\n\nGEO. KEPHART.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Southern Whig,\" March 2, 1838.--\n\n\"WILL be sold in La Grange, Troup county, one negro girl, by the name\nof Charity, aged about 10 or 12 years; as the property of Littleton L.\nBurk, to satisfy a mortgage fi. fa. from Troup Inferior Court, in\nfavor of Daniel S. Robertson vs. said Burk.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Petersburgh (Va.) Constellation,\" March 18, 1837.\n\n\"50 _Negroes wanted immediately_.--The subscriber will give a good\nmarket price for fifty likely negroes, _from 10 to 30 years of age_.\n\nHENRY DAVIS.\"\n\n\nThe following is an extract of a letter from a gentleman, a native and\nstill a resident of one of the slave states, and _still a\nslaveholder_. He is an elder in the Presbyterian Church, his letter is\nnow before us, and his name is with the Executive Committee of the Am.\nAnti-slavery Society.\n\n\"Permit me to say, that around this very place where I reside, slaves\nare brought almost constantly, and sold to Miss. and Orleans; that _it\nis usual_ to part families forever by such sales--the parents from the\nchildren and the children from the parents, of every size and age. A\nmother was taken not long since, in this town, from a _sucking child_,\nand sold to the lower country. Three young men I saw some time ago\ntaken from this place in chains--while the mother of one of them, old\nand decrepid, _followed with tears and prayers her son, 18 or 20\nmiles, and bid him a final farewell_! O, thou Great Eternal, is this\njustice! is this equity!!--Equal Rights!!\"\n\nWe subjoin a few miscellaneous facts illustrating the INHUMANITY of\nslaveholding 'public opinion.'\n\nThe shocking indifference manifested at the death of slaves as _human\nbeings_, contrasted with the grief at their loss _as property_, is a\ntrue index to the public opinion of slaveholders.\n\nColonel Oliver of Louisville, lost a valuable race-horse by the\nexplosion of the steamer Oronoko, a few months since on the\nMississippi river. Eight human beings whom he held as slaves were also\nkilled by the explosion. They were the riders and grooms of his\nrace-horses. A Louisville paper thus speaks of the occurrence:\n\n\"Colonel Oliver suffered severely by the explosion of the Oronoko. He\nlost _eight_ of his rubbers and riders, and his horse, Joe Kearney,\nwhich he had sold the night before for $3,000.\"\n\nMr. King, of the New York American, makes the following just comment\non the barbarity of the above paragraph:\n\n\"Would any one, in reading this paragraph from an evening paper,\nconjecture that these '_eight_ rubbers and riders,' that together with\na horse, are merely mentioned as a 'loss' to their owner, were human\nbeings--immortal as the writer who thus brutalizes them, and perhaps\ncherishing life as much? In this view, perhaps, the 'eight' lost as\nmuch as Colonel Oliver.\"\n\n\nThe following is from the \"Charleston (S.C.) Patriot,\" Oct. 18.\n\n\"_Loss of Property_!--Since I have been here, (Rice Hope, N. Santee,)\nI have seen much misery, and much of human suffering. The loss of\nPROPERTY has been immense, not only on South Santee, but also on this\nriver. Mr. Shoolbred has lost, (according to the statement of the\nphysician,) forty-six negroes--the majority lost being the _primest\nhands_ he had--bricklayers, carpenters, blacksmiths and Coopers. Mr.\nWm. Mazyck has lost 35 negroes. Col. Thomas Pinkney, in the\nneighborhood of 40, and many other planters, 10 to 20 on each\nplantation. Mrs. Elias Harry, adjoining the plantation of Mr. Lucas,\nhas lost up to date, 32 negroes--the _best part of her primest_\nnegroes on her plantation.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Natchez (Miss.) Daily Free Trader,\" Feb. 12, 1838.\n\n\"_Found_.--A NEGRO'S HEAD WAS PICKED UP ON THE RAIL-ROAD YESTERDAY,\nWHICH THE OWNER CAN HAVE BY CALLING AT THIS OFFICE AND PAYING FOR THE\nADVERTISEMENT.\"\n\n\nThe way in which slaveholding 'public opinion' protects a poor female\nlunatic is illustrated in the following advertisement in the\n\"Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer,\" June 27, 1838:\n\n\"Taken and committed to jail, a negro girl named Nancy, who is\nsupposed to belong to Spencer P. Wright, of the State of Georgia. She\nis about 30 years of age, and is a LUNATIC. The owner is requested to\ncome forward, prove property, pay charges, and take her away, or SHE\nWILL BE SOLD TO PAY HER JAIL FEES.\n\nFRED'K HOME, Jailor.\"\n\nA late PROSPECTUS Of the South Carolina Medical College, located in\nCharleston, contains the following passage:--\n\n\"Some advantages of a _peculiar_ character are connected with this\nInstitution, which it may be proper to point out. No place in the\nUnited States offers as great opportunities for the acquisition of\nanatomical knowledge, SUBJECTS BEING OBTAINED FROM AMONG THE COLORED\nPOPULATION IN SUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR EVERY PURPOSE, AND PROPER\nDISSECTIONS CARRIED ON WITHOUT OFFENDING ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE\nCOMMUNITY!!\"\n\n_Without offending any individuals in the community_! More than half\nthe population of Charleston, we believe, is 'colored;' _their_ graves\nmay be ravaged, their dead may be dug up, dragged into the dissecting\nroom, exposed to the gaze, heartless gibes, and experimenting knives,\nof a crowd of inexperienced operators, who are given to understand in\nthe prospectus, that, if they do not acquire manual dexterity in\ndissection, it will be wholly their own fault, in neglecting to\nimprove the unrivalled advantages afforded by the institution--since\neach can have as many human bodies as he pleases to experiment\nupon--and as to the fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, and\nsisters, of those whom they cut to pieces from day to day, why, they\nare not 'individuals in the community,' but 'property,' and however\n_their_ feelings may be tortured, the 'public opinion' of slaveholders\nis entirely too 'chivalrous' to degrade itself by caring for them!\n\nThe following which has been for some time a standing advertisement of\nthe South Carolina Medical College, in the Charleston papers, is\nanother index of the same 'public opinion' toward slaves. We give an\nextract:--\n\n\"_Surgery of the Medical College of South Carolina, Queen st_.--The\nFaculty inform their professional brethren, and the public that they\nhave established a _Surgery_, at the Old College, Queen street, FOR\nTHE TREATMENT OF NEGROES, which will continue in operation, during the\nsession of the College, say from first November, to the fifteenth of\nMarch ensuing.\n\n\"The _object_ of the Faculty, in opening this Surgery, is to collect\nas _many interesting cases_, as possible, for the _benefit_ and\n_instruction_ of their pupils--at the same time, they indulge the\nhope, that it may not only prove an _accommodation_, but also a matter\nof economy to the public. They would respectfully call the attention\nof planters, living in the vicinity of the city, to this subject;\nparticularly such as may have servants laboring under Surgical\ndiseases. Such _persons of color_ as may not be able to pay for\nMedical advice, will be attended to gratis, at stated hours, as often\nas may be necessary.\n\n\"The Faculty take this opportunity of soliciting the co-operation of\nsuch of their professional brethren, as are favorable to their\nobjects.\"\n\n\"The first thing that strikes the reader of the advertisement is, that\nthis _Surgery_ is established exclusively 'for the treatment of\n_negroes_; and, if he knows little of the hearts of slaveholders\ntowards their slaves, he charitably supposes, that they 'feel the dint\nof pity,' for the poor sufferers and have founded this institution as\na special charity for their relief. But the delusion vanishes as he\nreads on; the professors take special care that no such derogatory\ninference shall be drawn from their advertisement. They give us the\nthree reasons which have induced them to open this 'Surgery for the\ntreatment of negroes.' The first and main one is, 'to collect as many\n_interesting cases_ as possible for the benefit and instruction of\ntheir _pupils_--another is, 'the hope that it may prove an\n_accommodation_,'--and the third, that it may be 'a matter of economy\nto the _public_' Another reason, doubtless, and controlling one,\nthough the professors are silent about it, is that a large collection\nof 'interesting surgical cases,' always on hand, would prove a\npowerful attraction to students, and greatly increase the popularity\nof the institution. In brief, then, the motives of its founders, the\nprofessors, were these, the accommodation of their _students_--the\naccommodation of the _public_ (which means, _the whites_)--and the\naccommodation of slaveholders who have on their hands disabled slaves,\nthat would make 'interesting cases,' for surgical operation in the\npresence of the pupils--to these reasons we may add the accommodation\nof the Medical Institution and the accommodation of _themselves_! Not\na syllable about the _accommodation_ of the hopeless sufferers,\nwrithing with the agony of those gun shot wounds, fractured sculls,\nbroken limbs and ulcerated backs which constitute the 'interesting\ncases' for the professors to 'show off' before their pupils, and, as\npractice makes perfect, for the students themselves to try their hands\nat by way of experiment.\n\nWhy, we ask, was this surgery established 'for the treatment of\n_negroes'_ alone? Why were these 'interesting cases' selected from\nthat class exclusively? No man who knows the feeling of slave holders\ntowards slaves will be at a loss for the reason. 'Public opinion'\nwould tolerate surgical experiments, operations, processes, performed\nupon them, which it would execrate if performed upon their master or\nother whites. As the great object in collecting the disabled negroes\nis to have 'interesting cases' for the students, the professors who\nperform the operations will of course endeavor to make them as\n'interesting' as possible. The _instruction of the student_ is the\nimmediate object, and if the professors can accomplish it best by\n_protracting_ the operation, pausing to explain the different\nprocesses, &c. the subject is only a negro, and what is his protracted\nagony, that it should restrain the professor from making the case as\n'interesting' as possible to the students by so using his knife as\nwill give them the best knowledge of the parts, and the process,\nhowever it may protract or augment the pain of the subject. The _end_\nto be accomplished is the _instruction_ of the student, operations\nupon the negroes are the _means_ to the end; _that_ tells the whole\nstory--and he who knows the hearts of slaveholders and has common\nsense, however short the allowance, can find the way to his\nconclusions without a lantern.\n\nBy an advertisement of the same Medical Institution, dated November\n12, 1838, and published in the Charleston papers, it appears that an\n'infirmary has been opened in connection with the college.' The\nprofessors manifest a great desire that the masters of servants should\nsend in their disabled slaves, and as an inducement to the furnishing\nof such _interesting cases_ say, all medical and surgical aid will be\noffered _without making them liable to any professional charges_.\nDisinterested bounty, pity, sympathy, philanthropy. However difficult\nor numerous the surgical cases of slaves thus put into their hands by\nthe masters, they charge not a cent for their _professional services_.\nTheir yearnings over human distress are so intense, that they beg the\nprivilege of performing all operations, and furnishing all the medical\nattention needed, _gratis_, feeling that the relief of misery is its\nown reward!!! But we have put down our exclamation points too\nsoon--upon reading the whole of the advertisement we find the\nprofessors conclude it with the following paragraph:--\n\n\"The SOLE OBJECT Of the faculty in the establishment of such an\ninstitution being to promote the interest of Medical Education within\ntheir native State and City.\"\n\nIn the \"Charleston (South Carolina) Mercury\" of October 12, 1838, we\nfind an advertisement of half a column, by a Dr. T. Stillman, setting\nforth the merits of another 'Medical Infirmary,' under his own special\nsupervision, at No. 110 Church street, Charleston. The doctor, after\ninveighing loudly against 'men totally ignorant of medical science,'\nwho flood the country with quack nostrums backed up by 'fabricated\nproofs of miraculous cures,' proceeds to enumerate the diseases to\nwhich his 'Infirmary' is open, and to which his practice will be\nmainly confined. Appreciating the importance of 'interesting cases,'\nas a stock in trade, on which to commence his experiments, he copies\nthe example of the medical professors, and advertises for them. But,\neither from a keener sense of justice, or more generosity, or greater\nconfidence in his skill, or for some other reason, he proposes to _buy\nup_ an assortment of _damaged_ negroes, given over, as incurable, by\nothers, and to make such his 'interesting cases,' instead of\nexperimenting on those who are the 'property' of others.\n\nDr. Stillman closes his advertisement with the following notice:--\n\n\"To PLANTERS AND OTHERS.--Wanted _fifty negroes_. Any person having\nsick negroes, considered incurable by their respective physicians, and\nwishing to dispose of them, Dr. S. will pay cash for negroes affected\nwith scrofula or king's evil, confirmed hypocondriasm, apoplexy,\ndiseases of the liver, kidneys, spleen, stomach and intestines,\nbladder and its appendages, diarrhea, dysentery, &c. The highest cash\nprice will be paid on application as above.\"\n\nThe absolute barbarism of a 'public opinion' which not only tolerates,\nbut _produces_ such advertisements as this, was outdone by nothing in\nthe dark ages. If the reader has a heart of flesh, he can feel it\nwithout help, and if he has not, comment will not create it. The total\nindifference of slaveholders to such a cold blooded proposition, their\nutter unconsciousness of the paralysis of heart, and death of\nsympathy, and every feeling of common humanity for the slave, which it\nreveals, is enough, of itself to show that the tendency of the spirit\nof slaveholding is, to kill in the soul whatever it touches. It has no\neyes to see, nor ears to hear, nor mind to understand, nor heart to\nfeel for its victims as _human beings_. To show that the above\nindication of the savage state is not an index of individual feeling,\nbut of 'public opinion,' it is sufficient to say, that it appears to\nbe a standing advertisement in the Charleston Mercury, the leading\npolitical paper of South Carolina, the organ of the Honorables John C.\nCalhoun, Robert Barnwell Rhett, Hugh S. Legare, and others regarded as\nthe elite of her statesmen and literati. Besides, candidates for\npopular favor, like the doctor who advertises for the fifty\n'incurables,' take special care to conciliate, rather than outrage,\n'public opinion.' Is the doctor so ignorant of 'public opinion' in his\nown city, that he has unwittingly committed violence upon it in his\nadvertisement? We trow not. The same 'public opinion' which gave birth\nto the advertisement of doctor Stillman, and to those of the\nprofessors in both the medical institutions, founded the Charleston\n'Work House'--a soft name for a Moloch temple dedicated to torture,\nand reeking with blood, in the midst of the city; to which masters and\nmistresses send their slaves of both sexes to be stripped, tied up,\nand cut with the lash till the blood and mangled flesh flow to their\nfeet, or to be beaten and bruised with the terrible paddle, or forced\nto climb the tread-mill till nature sinks, or to experience other\nnameless torments.\n\nThe \"Vicksburg (Miss.) Register,\" Dec. 27, 1838, contains the\nfollowing item of information: \"ARDOR IN BETTING.--Two gentlemen, at a\ntavern, having summoned the waiter, the poor fellow had scarcely\nentered, when he fell down in a fit of apoplexy. 'He's dead!'\nexclaimed one. 'He'll come to!' replied the other. 'Dead, for five\nhundred!' 'Done!' retorted the second. The noise of the fall, and the\nconfusion which followed, brought up the landlord, who called out to\nfetch a doctor. 'No! no! we must have no interference--there's a bet\ndepending!' 'But, sir, I shall lose a valuable servant!' 'Never mind!\nyou can put him down in the bill!'\"\n\nAbout the time the Vicksburg paper containing the above came to hand,\nwe received a letter from N.P. ROGERS, Esq. of Concord, N.H. the\neditor of the 'Herald of Freedom,' from which the following is an\nextract:\n\n\"Some thirty years ago, I think it was, Col. Thatcher, of Maine, a\nlawyer, was in Virginia, on business, and was there invited to dine at\na public house, with a company of the gentry of the south. _The place_\nI forget--the fact was told me by George Kimball, Esq. now of Alton,\nIllinois who had the story from Col. Thatcher himself. Among the\nservants waiting was a young negro man, whose beautiful person,\nobliging and assiduous temper, and his activity and grace in serving,\nmade him a favorite with the company. The dinner lasted into the\nevening, and the wine passed freely about the table. At length, one of\nthe gentlemen, who was pretty highly excited with wine, became\nunfortunately incensed, either at some trip of the young slave, in\nwaiting, or at some other cause happening when the slave was within\nhis reach. He seized the long-necked wine bottle, and struck the young\nman suddenly in the temple, and felled him dead upon the floor. The\nfall arrested, for a moment, the festivities of the table. 'Devilish\nunlucky,' exclaimed one. 'The gentleman is very unfortunate,' cried\nanother. 'Really a loss,' said a third, &c, &c. The body was dragged\nfrom the dining hall, and the feast went on; and at the close, one of\nthe gentlemen, and the very one, I believe, whose hand had done the\nhomicide, shouted, in bacchanalian bravery, and _southern generosity_,\namid the broken glasses and fragments of chairs, 'LANDLORD! PUT THE\nNIGGER INTO THE BILL!' This was that murdered young man's _requiem and\nfuneral service_.\"\n\nMr. GEORGE A. AVERY, a merchant in Rochester, New York, and an elder\nin the Fourth Presbyterian Church in that city, who resided four years\nin Virginia, gives the following testimony:\n\n\"I knew a young man who had been out hunting, and returning with some\nof his friends, seeing a negro man in the road, at a little distance,\ndeliberately drew up his rifle, and shot him dead. This was done\nwithout the slightest provocation, or a word passing. This young man\npassed through the _form_ of a trial, and, although it was not even\n_pretended_ by his counsel that he was not guilty of the act,\ndeliberately and wantonly perpetrated, _he was acquitted_. It was\nurged by his counsel, that he was a _young_ man, (about 20 years of\nage,) had no _malicious_ intention, his mother was a widow, &c, &c\"\n\nMr. BENJAMIN CLENDENON, of Colerain, Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, a\nmember of the Society of Friends, gives the following testimony:\n\n\"Three years ago the coming month, I took a journey of about\nseventy-five miles from home, through the eastern shore of Maryland,\nand a small part of Delaware. Calling one day, near noon, at\nGeorgetown Cross-Roads, I found myself surrounded in the tavern by\nslaveholders. Among other subjects of conversation, their human cattle\ncame in for a share. One of the company, a middle-aged man, then\nliving with a second wife, acknowledged, that after the death of his\nfirst wife, he lived in a state of concubinage with a female slave;\nbut when the time drew near for the taking of a second wife, he found\nit expedient to remove the slave from the premises. The same person\ngave an account of a female slave he formerly held, who had a\npropensity for some one pursuit, I think the attendance of religious\nmeetings. On a certain occasion, she presented her petition to him,\nasking for this indulgence; he refused--she importuned--and he, with\nsovereign indignation, seized a chair, and with a blow upon the head,\nknocked her senseless upon the floor. The same person, for some act of\ndisobedience, on the part, I think, of the same slave, when employed\nin stacking straw, felled her to the earth with the handle of a pitch\nfork. All these transactions were related with the _utmost composure_,\nin a bar-room within thirty miles of the Pennsylvania line.\"\n\nThe two following advertisements are illustrations of the regard paid\nto the marriage relations by slaveholding judges, governors, senators\nin Congress, and mayors of cities.\n\nFrom the \"Montgomery, (Ala.) Advertiser,\" Sept. 29, 1837.\n\n\"$20 REWARD.--Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro man named Moses. He\nis of common size, about 28 years old. He formerly belonged to Judge\nBenson, of Montgomery, and it is said, has a wife in that county. John\nGayle\"\n\nThe John Gayle who signs this advertisement, is an Ex-Governor of\nAlabama.\n\nFrom the \"Charleston Courier,\" Nov. 28.\n\n\"Ranaway from the subscriber, about twelve months since, his negro man\nPaulladore. His complexion is dark--about 50 years old. I understand\nGen. R.Y. Hayne has purchased his wife and children from H.L.\nPinckney, Esq. and has them now on his plantation, at Goose Creek,\nwhere, no doubt, the fellow is frequently lurking. Thomas Davis.\"\n\nIt is hardly necessary to say, that the GENERAL R.Y. HAYNE, and H.L.\nPINCKNEY, Esq. named in the advertisement, are Ex-Governor Hayne,\nformerly U.S. Senator from South Carolina, and Hon. Henry L.\nPinckney, late member of Congress from Charleston District, and now\nIntendant (mayor) of that city.\n\nIt is no difficult matter to get at the 'public opinion' of a\ncommunity, when _ladies_ 'of property and standing' publish, under\ntheir own names, such advertisements as the following.\n\nMrs. ELIZABETH L. CARTER, of Groveton, Prince William county,\nVirginia, thus advertises her negro man Moses:\n\n\"Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro man named Moses, aged about 40\nyears, about six feet high, well made, and possessing a good address,\nand HAS LOST A PART ON ONE OF HIS EARS.\"\n\nMrs. B. NEWMAN, of the same place, and in the same paper, advertises--\n\n\"Penny, the wife of Moses, aged about 30 years, brown complexion, tall\nand likely, _no particular marks of person recollected._\"\n\nBoth of the above advertisements appear in the National Intelligencer,\n(Washington city,) June 10, 1837.\n\nIn the Mobile Mercantile Advertiser, of Feb. 13, 1838, is an\nadvertisement Signed SARAH WALSH, of which the following is an\nextract:\n\n\"Twenty-five dollars reward will be paid to any one who may apprehend\nand deliver to me, or confine in any jail, so that, I can get him, my\nman Isaac, who ranaway sometime in September last. He is 26 years of\nage, 5 feet 10 inches high, has a _scar on his forehead, caused by a\nblow_, and one on his back, MADE BY A SHOT FROM A PISTOL.\"\n\nIn the \"New Orleans Bee,\" Dec. 21, 1838, Mrs. BURVANT, whose residence\nis at the corner of Chartres and Toulouse streets, advertises a woman\nas follows:\n\n\"Ranaway, a negro woman named Rachel--_has lost all her toes except\nthe large one_.\"\n\nFrom the \"Huntsville (Ala.) Democrat,\" June 16, 1838:\n\n\"TEN DOLLARS REWARD.--Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro woman named\nSally, about 21 years of age, taking along her two children--one three\nyears, and the other seven months old. These negroes were PURCHASED BY\nME at the sale of George Mason's negroes, on the first Monday in May,\nand left _a few days_ thereafter. Any person delivering them to the\njailor in Huntsville, or to me, at my plantation, five miles above\nTriana, on the Tennessee river, shall receive the above reward.\nCHARITY COOPER\"\n\nFrom the \"Mississippian,\" May 13, 1838:\n\n\"TEN DOLLARS REWARD.--Ranaway from the subscriber, a man named Aaron,\nyellow complexion, blue eyes, &c. I have no doubt he is lurking about\nJackson and its vicinity, probably harbored by some of the negroes\nsold as the property of _my late husband_, Harry Long, deceased. Some\nof them are about Richland, in Madison co. I will give the above\nreward when brought to me, about six miles north-west of Jackson, or\nput IN JAIL, _so that I can get him_. LUCY LONG.\"\n\nIf the reader, after perusing the preceding facts, testimony, and\narguments, still insists that the 'public opinion' of the slave states\nprotects the slave from outrages, and alleges, as proof of it, that\n_cruel_ masters are frowned upon and shunned by the community\ngenerally, and regarded as monsters, we reply by presenting the\nfollowing facts and testimony.\n\n\"Col. MEANS, of Manchester, Ohio, says, that when he resided in South\nCarolina, _his neighbor_, a physician, became enraged with his slave,\nand sentenced him to receive two hundred lashes. After having received\none hundred and forty, he fainted. After inflicting the full number of\nlashes, the cords with which he was bound were loosed. When he\nrevived, he staggered to the house, and sat down in the sun. Being\nfaint and thirsty, he _begged_ for some water to drink. The master\nwent to the well, and procured some water but instead of giving him to\ndrink, he threw the whole bucket-full in his face. Nature could not\nstand the shock--he sunk to rise no more. For this crime, the\nphysician was bound over to Court, and tried, and _acquitted_--and THE\nNEXT YEAR HE WAS ELECTED TO THE LEGISLATURE!\"\n\nTestimony of Hon. JOHN RANDOLPH, of Virginia\n\n\"In one of his Congressional speeches, Mr. R. says: Avarice alone can\ndrive, as it does drive, this _infernal_ traffic, and the wretched\nvictims of it, like so many post horses, _whipped to death_ in a mail\ncoach. Ambition has its cover-sluts in the pride, pomp, and\ncircumstance of glorious war; but where are the trophies of avarice?\nThe hand cuff, the manacle, the blood-stained cowhide! WHAT MAN IS\nWORSE RECEIVED IN SOCIETY FOR BEING A HARD MASTER? WHO DENIES THE HAND\nOF A SISTER OR DAUGHTER TO SUCH MONSTERS?\"\n\nMr. GEORGE A. AVERY, of Rochester, New York, who resided four years in\nVirginia, testifies as follows:\n\n\"I know a local Methodist minister, a man of talents, and popular as a\npreacher, who took his negro girl into his barn, in order to whip\nher--and _she was brought out a corpse_! His friends seemed to think\nthis of _so little importance to his ministerial standing_, that\nalthough I lived near him about three years, I do not recollect to\nhave heard them apologize for the deed, though I recollect having\nheard ONE of his neighbors allege this fact as a reason why he did not\nwish to hear him preach.\"\n\nNotwithstanding the mass of testimony which has been presented\nestablishing the fact that in the 'public opinion' of the South the\nslaves find no protection, some may still claim that the 'public\nopinion' exhibited by the preceding facts is not that of the _highest\nclass of society at the South_, and in proof of this assertion, refer\nto the fact, that 'Negro Brokers,' Negro Speculators, Negro\nAuctioneers, and Negro Breeders, &c., are by that class universally\ndespised and avoided, as are all who treat their slaves with cruelty.\n\nTo this we reply, that, if all claimed by the objector were true, it\ncould avail him nothing for 'public opinion' is neither made nor\nunmade by 'the first class of society.' That class produces in it, at\nmost, but slight modifications; those who belong to it have generally\na 'public opinion,' within their own circle which has rarely more,\neither of morality or mercy than the public opinion of the mass, and\nis, at least, equally heartless and more intolerant. As to the\nestimation in which 'speculators,' 'soul drivers,' &c. are held, we\nremark, that, they are not despised because they _trade in slaves_ but\nbecause they are _working_ men, all such are despised by slaveholders.\nWhite drovers who go with droves of swine and cattle from the free\nstates to the slave states, and Yankee pedlars, who traverse the\nsouth, and white day-laborers are, in the main, equally despised, or,\nif negro-traders excite more contempt than drovers, pedlars, and\nday-laborers, it is because, they are, as a class more ignorant and\nvulgar, men from low families and boors in their manners. Ridiculous\nto suppose, that a people, who have, _by law_, made men articles of\ntrade equally with swine, should despise men-drovers and traders, more\nthan hog-drovers and traders. That they are not despised because it is\ntheir business to trade in _human beings_ and bring them to market, is\nplain from the fact that when some 'gentleman of property and\nstanding' and of a 'good family' embarks in a negro speculation, and\nemploys a dozen 'soul drivers' to traverse the upper country, and\ndrive to the south coffles of slaves, expending hundreds of thousands\nin his wholesale purchases, he does not lose caste. It is known in\nAlabama, that Mr. Erwin, son-in-law of the Hon. Henry Clay, and\nbrother of J.P. Erwin, formerly postmaster, and late mayor of the\ncity of Nashville, laid the foundation of a princely fortune in the\nslave-trade, carried on from the Northern Slave States to the Planting\nSouth; that the Hon. H. Hitchcock, brother-in-law of Mr. E., and since\none of the judges of the Supreme Court of Alabama, was interested with\nhim in the traffic; and that a late member of the Kentucky Senate\n(Col. Wall) not only carried on the same business, a few years ago,\nbut accompanied his droves in person down the Mississippi. Not as the\n_driver_, for that would be vulgar drudgery, beneath a gentleman, but\nas a nabob in state, ordering his understrappers.\n\nIt is also well known that President Jackson was a 'soul driver,' and\nthat even so late as the year before the commencement of the last war,\nhe bought up a coffle of slaves and drove them down to Louisiana for\nsale.\n\nThomas N. Gadsden, Esq. the principal slave auctioneer in Charleston,\nS.C. is of one of the first families in the state, and moves in the\nvery highest class of society there. He is a descendant of the\ndistinguished General Gadsden of revolutionary memory, the most\nprominent southern member in the Continental Congress of 1765, and\nafterwards elected lieutenant governor and then governor of the state.\nThe Rev. Dr. Gadsden, rector of St. Phillip's Church, Charleston, and\nthe Rev. Phillip Gadsden, both prominent Episcopal clergymen in South\nCarolina, and Colonel James Gadsden of the United States army, after\nwhom a county in Florida was recently named, are all brothers of this\nThomas N. Gadsden, Esq. the largest slave auctioneer in the state,\nunder whose hammer, men, women and children go off by thousands; its\nstroke probably sunders _daily_, husbands and wives, parents and\nchildren, brothers and sisters, perhaps to see each other's faces no\nmore. Now who supply the auction table of this Thomas N. Gadsden, Esq.\nwith its loads of human merchandize? These same detested 'soul\ndrivers' forsooth! They prowl through the country, buy, catch, and\nfetter them, and drive their chained coffles up to his stand, where\nThomas N. Gadsden, Esq. knocks them off to the highest bidder, to\nEx-Governor Butler perhaps, or to Ex-Governor Hayne, or to Hon. Robert\nBarnwell Rhett, or to his own reverend brother, Dr. Gadsden. Now this\nhigh born, wholesale _soul-seller_ doubtless despises the retail\n'soul-drivers' who give him their custom, and so does the wholesale\ngrocer, the drizzling tapster who sneaks up to his counter for a keg\nof whiskey to dole out under a shanty in two cent glasses; and both\nfor the same reason.\n\nThe plea that the 'public opinion' among the highest classes of\nsociety at the south is mild and considerate towards the slaves, that\n_they_ do not overwork, underfeed, neglect when old and sick, scantily\nclothe, badly lodge, and half shelter their slaves; that _they_ do not\nbarbarously flog, load with irons, imprison in the stocks, brand and\nmaim them; hunt them when runaway with dogs and guns, and sunder by\nforce and forever the nearest kindred--is shown, by almost every page\nof this work, to be an assumption, not only utterly groundless, but\ndirectly opposed to masses of irrefragable evidence. If the reader\nwill be at the pains to review the testimony recorded on the foregoing\npages he will find that a very large proportion of the atrocities\ndetailed were committed, not by the most ignorant and lowest classes\nof society, but by persons 'of property and standing,' by masters and\nmistresses belonging to the 'upper classes,' by persons in the learned\nprofessions, by civil, judicial, and military officers, by the\n_literati_, by the fashionable elite and persons of more than ordinary\n'respectability' and external morality--large numbers of whom are\nprofessors of religion.\n\nIt will be recollected that the testimony of Sarah M. Grimk\u00e9, and\nAngelina G. Weld, was confined exclusively to the details of slavery\nas exhibited in the _highest classes of society_, mainly in\nCharleston, S.C. See their testimony pp. 22-24 and 52-57. The former\nhas furnished us with the following testimony in addition to that\nalready given.\n\n\"Nathaniel Heyward of Combahee, S.C., one of the wealthiest planters\nin the state, stated, in conversation with some other planters who\nwere complaining of the idle and lazy habits of their slaves, and the\ndifficulty of ascertaining whether their sickness was real or\npretended, and the loss they suffered from their frequent absence on\nthis account from their work, said, 'I never lose a day's work: it is\nan _established_ rule on my plantations that the tasks of all the sick\nnegroes _shall be done by those who are well in addition to their\nown_. By this means a vigilant supervision is kept up by the slaves\nover each other, and they take care that nothing but real sickness\nkeeps any one out of the field.' I spent several winters in the\nneighborhood of Nathaniel Heyward's plantations, and well remember his\ncharacter as a severe task master. _I was present when the above\nstatement was made_.\"\n\nThe cool barbarity of such a regulation is hardly surpassed by the\nworst edicts of the Roman Caligula--especially when we consider that\nthe plantations of this man were in the neighborhood of the Combahee\nriver, one of the most unhealthy districts in the low country of South\nCarolina; further, that large numbers of his slaves worked in the\n_rice marshes_, or 'swamps' as they are called in that state--and that\nduring six months of the year, so fatal to health is the malaria of\nthe swamps in that region that the planters and their families\ninvariably abandon their plantations, regarding it as downright\npresumption to spend a single day upon them 'between the frosts' of\nthe early spring and the last of November.\n\nThe reader may infer the high standing of Mr. Heyward in South\nCarolina, from the fact that he was selected with four other\nfreeholders to constitute a Court for the trial of the conspirators in\nthe insurrection plot at Charleston, in 1822. Another of the\nindividuals chosen to constitute that court was Colonel Henry Deas,\nnow president of the Board of Trustees of Charleston College, and a\nfew years since a member of the Senate of South Carolina. From a late\ncorrespondence in the \"Greenvile (S.C.) Mountaineer,\" between Rev.\nWilliam M. Wightman, a professor in Randolph, Macon, College, and a\nnumber of the citizens of Lodi, South Carolina, it appears that the\ncruelty of this Colonel Deas to his slaves, is proverbial in South\nCarolina, so much that Professor Wightman, in the sermon which\noccasioned the correspondence, spoke of the Colonel's inhumanity to\nhis slaves as a matter of perfect notoriety.\n\nAnother South Carolina slaveholder, Hon. Whitmarsh B. Seabrook,\nrecently, we believe, Lieut. Governor of the state, gives the\nfollowing testimony to his own inhumanity, and his certificate of the\n'public opinion' among South Carolina slaveholders 'of high degree.'\n\nIn an essay on the management of slaves, read before the Agricultural\nSociety of St. Johns, S.C. and published by the Society, Charleston,\n1834, Mr. S. remarks:\n\n\"I consider _imprisonment in the stocks at night_, with or without\nhard labor in the day, as a powerful auxiliary in the cause of _good_\ngovernment. To the correctness of this opinion _many_ can bear\ntestimony. EXPERIENCE has convinced ME that there is no punishment to\nwhich the slave looks with more _horror_.\"\n\nThe advertisements of the Professors in the Medical Colleges of South\nCarolina, published with comments--on pp. 169, 170, are additional\nillustrations of the 'public opinion' of the _literati_.\n\nThat the 'public opinion' of _the highest class of society_ in South\nCarolina, regards slaves a mere _cattle_, is shown by the following\nadvertisement, which we copy from the \"Charleston (S.C.) Mercury\" of\nMay 16:\n\n\"NEGROES FOR SALE.--A girl about twenty years of age, (raised in\nVirginia,) and her two female children, one four and the other two\nyear old--is remarkably strong and healthy--never having had a day's\nsickness, with the exception of the small pox, in her life. The\nchildren are fine and healthy. She is VERY PROLIFIC IN HER GENERATING\nQUALITIES, _and affords a rare opportunity to any person who wishes to\nraise a family of strong and healthy servants for their own use._\n\n\"Any person wishing to purchase will please leave their address at the\nMercury office.\"\n\nThe Charleston Mercury, in which this advertisement appears, _is the\nleading political paper in South Carolina_, and is well known to be\nthe political organ of Messrs. Calhoun, Rhett, Pickens, and others of\nthe most prominent politicians in the state. Its editor, John Stewart,\nEsq., is a lawyer of Charleston, and of a highly respectable family.\nHe is a brother-in-law of Hon. Robert Barnwell Rhett, the late\nAttorney-General, now a Member of Congress, and Hon. James Rhett, a\nleading member of the Senate of South Carolina; his wife is a niece of\nthe late Governor Smith, of North Carolina, and of the late Hon. Peter\nSmith, Intendant (Mayor) of the city of Charleston; and a cousin of\nthe late Hon. Thomas S. Grimk\u00e9.\n\nThe circulation of the 'Mercury' among the wealthy, the literary, and\nthe fashionable, is probably much larger than that of any other paper\nin the state.\n\nThese facts in connection with the preceding advertisement, are a\nsufficient exposition of the 'public opinion' towards slaves,\nprevalent in these classes of society.\n\nThe following scrap of 'public opinion' in Florida, is instructive. We\ntake it from the Florida Herald, June 23, 1838:\n\nRanaway from my plantation, on Monday night, the 13th instant, a negro\nfellow named Ben; eighteen years of age, polite when spoken to, and\nspeaks very good English for a negro. As I have traced him out in\nseveral places in town, I am certain he is harbored. This notice is\ngiven that I am determined, that whenever he is taken, _to punish him\ntill he informs me_ who has given him food and protection, and _I\nshall apply the law of Judge Lynch to my own satisfaction_, on those\nconcerned in his concealment.\n\nA. WATSON.\nJune 16, 1838.\"\n\n\nNow, who is this A. Watson, who proclaims through a newspaper, his\ndetermination to _put to the torture_ this youth of eighteen, and to\nLynch to his 'satisfaction' whoever has given a cup of cold water to\nthe panting fugitive. Is he some low miscreant beneath public\ncontempt? Nay, verily, he is a 'gentleman of property and standing,'\none of the wealthiest planters and largest slaveholders in Florida. He\nresides in the vicinity of St. Augustine, and married the daughter of\nthe late Thomas C. Morton, Esq. one of the first merchants in New\nYork.\n\nWe may mention in this connection the well known fact, that many\nwealthy planters make it a _rule never to employ a physician among\ntheir slaves_. Hon. William Smith, Senator in Congress, from South\nCarolina, from 1816 to 1823, and afterwards from 1826 to 1831, is one\nof this number. He owns a number of large plantations in the south\nwestern states. One of these, borders upon the village of Huntsville,\nAlabama. The people of that village can testify that it is a part of\nJudge Smith's _system_ never to employ a physician _even in the most\nextreme cases_. If the medical skill of the overseer, or of the slaves\nthemselves, can contend successfully with the disease, they live, if\nnot, _they die_. At all events, a physician is _not to be called_.\nJudge Smith was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of the United\nStates three years since.\n\nThe reader will recall a similar fact in the testimony of Rev. W.T.\nAllan, son of Rev. Dr. Allan, of Huntsville, (see p. 47,) who says\nthat Colonel Robert H. Watkins, a wealthy planter, in Alabama, and a\nPRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR in 1836, who works on his plantations three\nhundred slaves, 'After employing a physician for some time among his\nnegroes, he ceased to do so, alledging as the reason, that it was\n_cheaper to lose a few negroes every year than to pay a physician_.'\n\nIt is a fact perfectly notorious, that the late General Wade Hampton,\nof South Carolina, who was the largest slaveholder in the United\nStates, and probably the wealthiest man south of the Potomac, was\n_excessively cruel_ in the treatment of his slaves. The anecdote of\nhim related by a clergyman, on page 29, is perfectly characteristic.\n\nFor instances of barbarous inhumanity of various kinds, and manifested\nby persons BELONGING TO THE MOST RESPECTABLE CIRCLES OF SOCIETY, the\nreader can consult the following references:--Testimony of Rev. John\nGraham, p. 25, near the bottom; of Mr. Poe, p. 26, middle; of Rev. J.\nO. Choules, p. 39, middle; of Rev. Dr. Channing, p. 41, top; of Mr.\nGeorge A. Avery, p. 44, bottom; of Rev. W.T. Allan, p. 47; of Mr. John\nM. Nelson, p. 51, bottom; of Dr. J.C. Finley, p. 61, top; of Mr.\nDustin, p. 66, bottom; of Mr. John Clarke, p. 87; of Mr. Nathan Cole,\np. 89, middle; Rev. William Dickey, p. 93; Rev. Francis Hawley, p. 97;\nof Mr. Powell, p. 100, middle; of Rev. P. Smith p. 102.\n\nThe preceding are but a few of a large number of similar cases\ncontained in the foregoing testimonies. The slaveholder mentioned by\nMr. Ladd, p. 86, who knocked down a slave and afterwards piled brush\nupon his body, and consumed it, held the hand of a female slave in the\nfire till it was burned so as to be useless for life, and confessed to\nMr. Ladd, that he had killed _four_ slaves, had been a _member of the\nSenate of Georgia_ and a _clergyman_. The slaveholder who whipped a\nfemale slave to death in St. Louis, in 1837, as stated by Mr. Cole,\np. 69, was a _Major in the United States Army_. One of the physicians\nwho was an abettor of the tragedy on the Brassos, in which a slave was\ntortured to death, and another so that he barely lived, (see Rev. Mr.\nSmith's testimony, p. 102.) was Dr. Anson Jones, a native of\nConnecticut, who was soon after appointed minister plenipotentiary\nfrom Texas to this government, and now resides at Washington city. The\nslave mistress at Lexington, Ky., who, as her husband testifies, has\nkilled six of his slaves, (see testimony of Mr. Clarke, p. 87,) is the\nwife of Hon. Fielding S. Turner, late judge of the criminal court of\nNew Orleans, and one of the wealthiest slaveholders in Kentucky.\nLilburn Lewis, who deliberately chopped in pieces his slave George,\nwith a broad-axe, (see testimony of Rev. Mr. Dickey, p. 93) was a\nwealthy slaveholder, and a nephew of President Jefferson. Rev. Francis\nHawley, who was a general agent of the Baptist State Convention of\nNorth Carolina, confesses (see p. 47,) that while residing in that\nstate he once went out with his hounds and rifle, to hunt fugitive\nslaves. But instead of making further reference to testimony already\nbefore the reader, we will furnish additional instances of the\nbarbarous cruelty which is tolerated and sanctioned by the 'upper\nclasses' of society at the south; we begin with clergymen, and other\nofficers and members of churches.\n\nThat the reader may judge of the degree of 'protection' which slaves\nreceive from 'public opinion,' and among the members and ministers of\nprofessed christian churches, we insert the following illustrations.\n\nExtract from an editorial article in the \"Lowell (Mass.) Observer\" a\nreligious paper edited at the time (1833) by the Rev. DANIEL S.\nSOUTHMAYD, who recently died in Texas.\n\n\"We have been among the slaves at the south. We took pains to make\ndiscoveries in respect to the evils of slavery. We formed our\nsentiments on the subject of the cruelties exercised towards the\nslaves from having witnessed them. We now affirm that we never saw a\nman, who had never been at the south, who thought as much of the\ncruelties practiced on the slaves, as we _know_ to be a fact.\n\n\"A slave whom I loved for his kindness and the amiableness of his\ndisposition, and who belonged to the family where I resided, happened\nto stay out _fifteen minutes longer_ than he had permission to stay.\nIt was a mistake--it was _unintentional_. But what was the penalty? He\nwas sent to the house of correction with the order that he should have\n_thirty lashes upon his naked body with a knotted rope!!!_ He was\nbrought home and laid down in the stoop, in the back of the house, in\n_the sun, upon the floor_. And there he lay, with more the appearance\nof a rotten carcass than a living man, for four days before he could\ndo more than move. And who was this inhuman being calling God's\nproperty his own, and ruing it as he would not have dared to use a\nbeast? You may say he was a tiger--one of the more wicked sort, and\nthat we must not judge others by him. _He was a professor of that\nreligion which will pour upon the willing slaveholder the retribution\ndue to his sin_.\n\n\"We wish to mention another fact, which our own eyes saw and our own\nears heard. We were called to evening prayers. The family assembled\naround the altar of their accustomed devotions. There was one female\n_slave_ present, who belonged to another master, but who had been\nhired for the day and tarried to attend family worship. The precious\nBible was opened, and nearly half a chapter had been read, when the\neye of the master, who was reading, observed that the new female\nservant, instead of being seated like his own slaves, _flat upon the\nfloor_, was standing in a stooping posture upon her feet. He told her\nto sit down on the floor. She said it was not her custom at home. He\nordered her again to do it. She replied that her master did not\nrequire it. Irritated by this answer, he repeatedly _struck her upon\nthe head with the very Bible he held in his hand_. And not content\nwith this, he seized his cane and _caned her down stairs most\nunmercifully_. He then returned to resume his profane work, but we\nneed not say that _all_ the family were not there. Do you ask again,\nwho was this wicked man? _He was a professor of religion!!_\"\n\n\nRev. HUNTINGTON LYMAN, late pastor of the Free Church in Buffalo, New\nYork, says:--\n\n\"Walking one day in New Orleans with a professional gentleman, who was\neducated in Connecticut, we were met by a black man; the gentleman was\ngreatly incensed with the black man for passing so _near_ him, and\nturning upon him _he pushed him with violence off walk into the\nstreet_. This man was a professor of religion.\"\n\n(And _we_ add, a member, and if we mistake not an officer of the\nPresbyterian Church which was established there by Rev. Joel Parker,\nand which was then under his teachings-ED.)\n\n\nMr. EZEKIEL BIRDSEYE, a gentleman of known probity, in Cornwall,\nLitchfield county, Conn. gives the testimony which follows:--\n\n\"A BAPTIST CLERGYMAN in Laurens District, S.C. WHIPPED HIS SLAVE TO\nDEATH, whom he _suspected_ of having stolen about sixty dollars. The\nslave was in the prime of life and was purchased a few weeks before\nfor $800 of a slave trader from Virginia or Maryland. The coroner, Wm.\nIrby, at whose house I was then boarding, _told me_, that on reviewing\nthe dead body, he found it _beat to a jelly from head to foot_. The\nmaster's wife discovered the money a day or two after the death of the\nslave. She had herself removed it from where it was placed, not\nknowing what it was, as it was tied up in a thick envelope. I happened\nto be present when the trial of this man took place, at Laurens Court\nHouse. His daughter testified that her father untied the slave, when\nhe appeared to be failing, and gave him cold water to drink, of which\nhe took freely. His counsel pleaded that his death _might_ have been\ncaused by drinking cold water in a state of excitement. The Judge\ncharged the jury, that it would be their duty to find the defendant\nguilty, if they believed the death was caused by the whipping; but if\nthey were of opinion that drinking cold water caused the death, they\nwould find him not guilty! The jury found him--NOT GUILTY!\"\n\n\nDr. JEREMIAH S. WAUGH, a physician in Somerville, Butler county, Ohio,\ntestifies as follows:--\n\n\"In the year 1825, I boarded with the Rev. John Mushat, a Seceder\nminister, and principal of an academy in Iredel county, N.C. He had\nslaves, and was in the habit of restricting them on the Sabbath. One\nof his slaves, however, ventured to disobey his injunctions. The\noffence was he went away on Sabbath evening, and did not return till\nMonday morning. About the time we were called to breakfast, the Rev.\ngentleman was engaged in chastising him for _breaking the Sabbath_. He\ndetermined not to submit--attempted to escape by flight. The master\nimmediately took down his gun and pursued him--levelled his instrument\nof death, and told him, if he did not stop instantly _he would blow\nhim through_. The poor slave returned to the house and submitted\nhimself to the lash; and the good master, while YET PALE WITH RAGE,\n_sat down to the table, and with a trembling voice_ ASKED GOD'S\nBLESSING!\"\n\n\nThe following letter was sent by Capt. JACOB DUNHAM, of New York city,\nto a slaveholder in Georgetown, D.C. more than twenty years since:\n\n\"Georgetown, June 13, 1815.\n\n\"Dear sir--Passing your house yesterday, I beheld a scene of cruelty\nseldom witnessed--that was the brutal chastisement of your negro girl,\n_lashed to a ladder and beaten in an inhuman manner, too bad to\ndescribe_. My blood chills while I contemplate the subject. This has\nled me to investigate your character from your neighbors; who inform\nme that you have _caused the death_ of one negro man, whom you struck\nwith a sledge for some trivial fault--that you have beaten another\nblack girl with such severity that the _splinters_ remained in her\nback for some weeks after you sold her--and many other acts of\nbarbarity, too lengthy to enumerate. And to my great surprise, I find\nyou are a _professor of the Christian religion!_\n\n\"You will naturally inquire, why I meddle with your family affairs. My\nanswer is, the cause of humanity and a sense of my duty requires\nit.--these hasty remarks I leave you to reflect on the subject; but\nwish you to remember, that there is an all-seeing eye who knows all\nour faults and will reward us according to our deeds.\n\nI remain, sir, yours, &c\n\nJACOB DUNHAM.\nMaster of the brig Cyrus, of N.Y.\"\n\n\nRev. SYLVESTER COWLES, pastor of the Presbyterian church in Fredonia,\nN.Y. says:--\n\n\"A young man, a member of the church in Conewango, went to Alabama\nlast year, to reside as a clerk in an uncle's store. When he had been\nthere about nine months, he wrote his father that he must return home.\nTo see members of the same church sit at the communion table of our\nLord one day, and the next to see one seize any weapon and knock the\nother down, _as he had seen_, he _could not_ live there. His good\nfather forthwith gave him permission to return home.\"\n\nThe following is a specimen of the shameless hardihood with which a\nprofessed minister of the Gospel, and editor of a religious paper,\nassumes the right to hold God's image as a chattel. It is from the\nSouthern Christian Herald:--\n\n\"It is stated in the Georgetown Union, that a negro, supposed to have\ndied of cholera, when that disease prevailed in Charleston, was\ncarried to the public burying ground to be interred; but before\ninterment signs of life appeared, and, by the use of proper means, he\nwas restored to health. And now the man who first perceived the signs\nof life in the slave, and that led to his preservation, claims the\nproperty as his own, and is about bringing suit for its recovery. As\nwell might a man who rescued his neighbor's slave, or his _horse_,\nfrom drowning, or who extinguished the flames that would otherwise\nsoon have burnt down his neighbor's house, claim the _property_ as his\nown.\"\n\nRev. GEORGE BOURNE, of New York city, late Editor of the \"Protestant\nVindicator,\" who was a preacher seven years in Virginia, gives the\nfollowing testimony.[39]\n\n\"Benjamin Lewis, who was an elder in the Presbyterian church, engaged\na carpenter to repair and enlarge his house. After some time had\nelapsed, Kyle, the builder, was awakened very early in the morning by\na most piteous moaning and shrieking. He arose, and following the\nsound, discovered a colored woman nearly naked, tied to a fence, while\nLewis was lacerating her. Kyle instantly commanded the slave driver to\ndesist. Lewis maintained his jurisdiction over his slaves, and\nthreatened Kyle that he would punish him for his interference.\nFinally Kyle obtained the release of the victim.\n\n\"A second and a third scene of the same kind occurred, and on the\nthird occasion the altercation almost produced a battle between the\nelder and the carpenter.\n\n\"Kyle immediately arranged his affairs, packed up his tools and\nprepared to depart. 'Where are you going?' demanded Lewis. 'I am\ngoing home;' said Kyle. 'Then I will pay you nothing for what you\nhave done,' retorted the slave driver, 'unless you complete your\ncontract.'  The carpenter went away with this edifying declaration, 'I\nwill not stay here a day longer; for I expect the fire of God will\ncome down and burn you up altogether, and I do not choose to go to\nhell with you.'  Through hush-money and promises not to whip the women\nany more, I believe Kyle returned and completed his engagement.\n\n\"James Kyle of Harrisonburg, Virginia, frequently narrated that\ncircumstance, and his son, the carpenter, confirmed it with all the\nminute particulars combined with his temporary residence on the\nShenandoah river.\n\n\"John M'Cue of Augusta county, Virginia, a _Presbyterian preacher_,\nfrequently on the Lord's day morning, tied up his slaves and whipped\nthem; and left them bound, while he went to the meeting house and\npreached--and after his return home repeated his scourging. That\nfact, with others more heinous, was known to all persons in his\ncongregation and around the vicinity; and so far from being censured\nfor it, he and his brethren justified it as essential to preserve\ntheir 'domestic institutions.'\n\n\"Mrs. Pence, of Rockingham county, Virginia, used to boast,--'I am the\nbest hand to whip a _wench_ in the whole county.'  She used to pinion\nthe girls to a post in the yard on the Lord's day morning, scourge\nthem, put on the '_negro plaster_,' salt, pepper, and vinegar, leave\nthem tied, and walk away to church as demure as a nun, and after\nservice repeat her flaying, if she felt the whim. I once expostulated\nwith her upon her cruelly. 'Mrs. Pence, how can you whip your girls\nso publicly and disturb your neighbors so on the Lord's day morning.'\nHer answer was memorable. 'If I were to whip them on any other day I\nshould lose a day's work; but by whipping them on Sunday, their backs\nget well enough by Monday morning.'  That woman, if alive, is\ndoubtless a member of the church now, as then.\n\n\"Rev. Dr. Staughton, formerly of Philadelphia, often stated, that when\nhe lived at Georgetown, S.C. he could tell the doings of one of the\nslaveholders of the Baptist church there by his prayers at the prayer\nmeeting. 'If,' said he, 'that man was upon good terms with his\nslaves, his words were cold and heartless as frost; if he had been\nwhipping a man, he would pray with life; but if he had left a woman\nwhom he had been flogging, tied to a post in his cellar, with a\ndetermination to go back and torture her again, O! how he would pray!'\n The Rev. Cyrus P. Grosvenor of Massachusetts can confirm the above\nstatement by Dr. Staughton.\n\n\"William Wilson, a Presbyterian preacher of Augusta county, Virginia,\nhad a young colored girl who was constitutionally unhealthy. As no\nmeans to amend her were availing, he sold her to a member of his\ncongregation, and in the usual style of human flesh dealers, warranted\nher 'sound,' &c. The fraud was instantly discovered; but he would not\nrefund the amount. A suit was commenced, and was long continued, and\nfinally the plaintiff recovered the money out of which he had been\nswindled by slave-trading with his own preacher. No Presbytery\ncensured him, although Judge Brown, the chancellor, severely condemned\nthe imposition.\n\n\"In the year 1811, Johab Graham, a preacher, lived with Alexander\nNelson a Presbyterian elder, near Stanton, Virginia, and he informed\nme that a man had appeared before Nelson, who was a magistrate, and\nswore falsely against his slave,--that the elder ordered him\nthirty-nine lashes. All that wickedness was done as an excuse for his\ndissipated owner to obtain money. A negro trader had offered him a\nconsiderable sum for the 'boy,' and under the pretence of saving him\nfrom the punishment of the law, he was trafficked away from his woman\nand children to another state. The magistrate was aware of the\nperjury, and the whole abomination, but all the truth uttered by every\ncolored person in the southern states would not be of any avail\nagainst the notorious false swearing of the greatest white villain who\never cursed the world. 'How,' said Johab Graham, can I preach\nto-morrow?' I replied, 'Very well; go and thunder the doctrine of\nretribution in their ears, Obadiah 15, till by the divine blessing you\nkill or cure them. My friends, John M. Nelson of Hillsborough, Ohio,\nSamuel Linn, and Robert Herron, and others of the same vicinity, could\n'make both the ears of every one who heareth them tingle' with the\naccounts which they can give of slave-driving by professors of\nreligion in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia.\n\n\"In 1815, near Frederick, in Maryland, a most barbarous planter was\nkilled in a fit of desperation, by four of his slaves _in\nself-defence_. It was declared by those slaves while in prison that,\nbesides his atrocities among their female associates, he had\ndeliberately butchered a number of his slaves. The four men were\nmurdered by law, to appease the popular clamor. I saw them executed on\nthe twenty-eighth day of Jan'y, 1816. The facts I received from the\nRev. Patrick Davidson of Frederick, who constantly visited them during\ntheir imprisonment--and who became an abolitionist in consequence of\nthe disclosures which he heard from those men in the jail. The name of\nthe planter is not distinctly recollected, but it can be known by a\ninspection of the record of the trial in the clerk's office,\nFrederick.\n\n\"A minister of Virginia, still living, and whose name must not be\nmentioned for fear of Nero Preston and his confederate-hanging\nmyrmidons, informed me of this fact in 1815, in his own house. 'A\nmember of my church, said he, lately whipped a colored youth to death.\nWhat shall I do?' I answered, 'I hope you do not mean to continue him\nin your church.' That minister replied, 'How can we help it'\nWe dare not call him to an account. We have no legal testimony.'\nTheir communion season was then approaching. I addressed his\nwife,--'Mrs. ---- do you mean to sit at the Lord's table with that\nmurderer?'--,'Not I,' she answered: 'I would as soon commune with the\ndevil himself.' The slave killer was equally unnoticed by the civil\nand ecclesiastical authority.\n\n\"John Baxter, a Presbyterian elder, the brother of that slaveholding\ndoctor in divinity, George A. Baxter, held as a slave the wife of a\nBaptist colored preacher, familiarly called 'Uncle Jack.' In a late\nperiod of pregnancy he scourged her so that the lives of herself and\nher unborn child were considered in jeopardy. Uncle Jack was advised\nto obtain the liberation of his wife. Baxter finally agreed, I think,\nto sell the woman and her children, three of them, I believe for six\nhundred dollars, and an additional hundred if the unborn child\nsurvived a certain period after its birth. Uncle Jack was to pay one\nhundred dollars per annum for his wife and children for seven years,\nand Baxter held a sort of mortgage upon them for the payment. Uncle\nJack showed me his back in furrows like a ploughed field. His master\nused to whip up the flesh, then beat it downwards, and then apply the\n'negro plaster,' salt, pepper, mustard, and vinegar, until all Jack's\nback was almost as hard and unimpressible as the bones. There is\nslaveholding religion! A Presbyterian elder receiving from a Baptist\npreacher seven hundred dollars for his wife and children. James Kyle\nand uncle Jack used to tell that story with great Christian\nsensibility; and uncle Jack would weep tears of anguish over his\nwife's piteous tale, and tears of ecstasy at the same moment that he\nwas free, and that soon, by the grace of God, his wife and children,\nas he said, 'would be all free together.'\"\n\nRev. JAMES NOURSE, a Presbyterian clergyman of Mifflia co. Penn.,\nwhose father is, we believe, a slaveholder in Washington City, says,--\n\n\"The Rev. Mr. M----, now of the Huntingdon Presbytery, after an absence\nof many months, was about visiting his old friends on what is commonly\ncalled the 'Eastern Shore.' Late in the afternoon, on his journey, he\ncalled at the house of Rev. A.C. of P----town, Md. With this brother\nhe had been long acquainted. Just at that juncture Mr. C. was about\nproceeding to whip a colored female, who was his slave. She was firmly\ntied to a post in FRONT of his dwelling-house. The arrival of a\nclerical visitor at such a time, occasioned a temporary delay in the\nexecution of Mr. C's purpose. But the delay was only temporary; for\nnot even the presence of such a guest could destroy the bloody design.\nThe guest interceded with all the mildness yet earnestness of a\nbrother and new visitor. But all in vain, 'the woman had been saucy\nand must be punished.' The cowhide was accordingly produced, and the\n_Rev. Mr. C_., a large and very stout man, applied it 'manfully' on\n'woman's' bare and 'shrinking flesh.' I say bare, because you know\nthat the slave women generally have but three or four inches of the\narm near the shoulder covered, and the neck is left entirely exposed.\nAs the cowhide moved back and forward, striking right and left, on the\nhead, neck and arms, at every few strokes the sympathizing guest would\nexclaim, 'O, brother C. desist' But brother C. pursued his brutal\nwork, till, after inflicting about sixty lashes, the woman was found\nto be suffused with blood on the hinder part of her neck, and under\nher frock between the shoulders. Yet this Rev. gentleman is well\nesteemed in the church--was, three or four years since, moderator of\nthe synod of Philadelphia, and yet walks abroad, feeling himself\nunrebuked by law or gospel. Ah, sir does not this narration give\nfearful force to the query--_What has the church to do with slavery_?'\nComment on the facts is unnecessary, yet allow me to conclude by\nsaying, that it is my opinion such occurrences _are not rare in the\nsouth_.\n\nJ.N.\"\n\n\nREV. CHARLES STEWART RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois, in a recent letter,\nspeaking of his residence, for a period, in Kentucky, says--\n\n\"In a conversation with Mr. Robert Willis, he told me that his negro\ngirl had run away from him some time previous. He was convinced that\nshe was lurking round, and he watched for her. He soon found the place\nof her concealment, drew her from it, got a rope, and tied her hands\nacross each other, then threw the rope over a beam in the kitchen, and\nhoisted her up by the wrists; 'and,' said he, 'I whipped her there\ntill I made the lint fly, I tell you.' I asked him the meaning of\nmaking 'the lint fly,' and he replied, '_till the blood flew_.' I spoke\nof the iniquity and cruelty of slavery, and of its immediate\nabandonment. He confessed it an evil, but said, 'I am a\n_colonizationist_--I believe in that scheme.' Mr. Willis is a teacher\nof sacred music, and a member of the Presbyterian Church in Lexington,\nKentucky.\"\n\nMr. R. speaking of the PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER and church where he\nresided, says:\n\n\"The minister and all the church members held slaves. Some were\ntreated kindly, others harshly. _There was not a shade of difference_\nbetween their slaves and those of their _infidel_ neighbors, either in\ntheir physical, intellectual, or moral state: in some cases they would\n_suffer_ in the comparison.\n\n\"In the kitchen of the minister of the church, a slave man was living\nin open adultery with a slave woman, who was a member of the church,\nwith an 'assured hope' of heaven--whilst the man's wife was on the\nminister's farm in Fayette county. The minister had to bring a cook\ndown from his farm to the place in which he was preaching. The choice\nwas between the wife of the man and this church member. He _left the\nwife_, and brought the church member to the adulterer's bed.\n\n\"A METHODIST PREACHER last fall took a load of produce down the river.\nAmongst other _things_ he took down five slaves. He sold them at New\nOrleans--he came up to Natchez--bought seven there--and took them down\nand sold them also. Last March he came up to preach the Gospel again.\nA number of persons on board the steamboat (the Tuscarora.) who had\nseen him in the slave-shambles in Natchez and New Orleans, and now,\nfor the first time, found him to be a preacher, had much sport at the\nexpense of 'the fine old preacher who dealt in slaves.'\n\nA non-professor of religion, in Campbell county, Ky. sold a female and\ntwo children to a Methodist professor, with the proviso that they\nshould not leave that region of country. The slave-driver came, and\noffered $5 more for the woman than he had given, and he sold her. She\nis now in the lower country, and _her orphan babes are in Kentucky_.\n\n\"I was much shocked once, to see a Presbyterian elder's wife call a\nlittle slave to her to kiss her feet. At first the boy hesitated--but\nthe command being repeated in tones not to be misunderstood, be\napproached timidly, knelt, and kissed her foot.\"\n\nRev. W.T. ALLAN, of Chatham, Illinois, gives the following in a letter\ndated Feb. 4, 1839:\n\n\"Mr. Peter Vanarsdale, an elder of the Presbyterian church in\nCarrollton, formerly from Kentucky, told me, the other day, that a\nMrs. Burford, in the neighborhood of Harrodsburg, Kentucky, had\n_separated a woman and her children_ from their husband and father,\ntaking them into another state. Mrs. B. was a member of the\n_Presbyterian Church_. The bereaved husband and father was also a\nprofessor of religion.\n\n\"Mr. V. told me of a slave woman who had lost her son, separated from\nher by public sale. In the anguish of her soul, she gave vent to her\nindignation freely, and perhaps harshly. Sometime after, she wished to\nbecome a member of the church. Before they received her, she had to\nmake humble confession for speaking as she had done. _Some of the\nelders that received her, and required the confession, were engaged is\nselling the son from his mother_.\"\n\n\nThe following communication from the Rev. WILLIAM BARDWELL, of\nSandwich, Massachusetts, has just been published in Zion's Watchman,\nNew York city:\n\n_Mr. Editor_:--The following fact was given me last evening, from the\npen of a shipmaster, who has traded in several of the principal ports\nin the south. He is a man of unblemished character, a member of the\nM.E. Church in this place, and familiarly known in this town. The\nfacts were communicated to me last fall in a letter to his wife, with\na request that she would cause them to be published. I give verbatim,\nas they were written from the letter by brother Perry's own hand while\nI was in his house.\n\n\"A Methodist preacher, Wm. Whitby by name, who married in Bucksville,\nS.C., and by marriage came into possession of some slaves, in July,\n1838, was about moving to another station to preach, and wished, also,\nto move his family and slaves to Tennessee, much against the will of\nthe slaves, one of which, to get clear from him, ran into the woods\nafter swimming a brook. The parson took after him with his gun, which,\nhowever, got wet and missed fire, when he ran to a neighbor for\nanother gun, with the intention, as he said, of killing him: he did\nnot, however, catch or kill him; he chained another for fear of his\nrunning away also. The above particulars were related to me by William\nWhitby himself. THOMAS C. PERRY. March 3, 1839.\"\n\n\"I find by examining the minutes of the S.C. Conference, that there is\nsuch a preacher in the Conference, and brother Perry further stated to\nme that he was well acquainted with him, and if this statement was\npublished, and if it could be known where he was since the last\nConference, he wished a paper to be sent him containing the whole\naffair. He also stated to me, verbally, that the young man he\nattempted to shoot was about nineteen years of age, and had been shut\nup in a corn-house, and in the attempt of Mr. Whitby to chain him, he\nbroke down the door and made his escape as above mentioned, and that\nMr. W. was under the necessity of hiring him out for one year, with\nthe risk of his employer's getting him. Brother Perry conversed with\none of the slaves, who was so old that he thought it not profitable to\nremove so far, and had been sold; _he_ informed him of all the above\ncircumstances, and said, with tears, that he thought he had been so\nfaithful as to be entitled to liberty, but instead of making him free,\nhe had sold him to another master, besides parting one husband and\nwife from those ties rendered a thousand times dearer by an infant\nchild which was torn for ever from the husband.\n\nWILLIAM BARDWELL.\n_Sandwich, Mass._, March 4, 1839.\"\n\n\nMr. WILLIAM POE, till recently a slaveholder in Virginia, now an elder\nin the Presbyterian Church at Delhi, Ohio, gives the following\ntestimony:--\n\n\"An elder in the Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg had a most faithful\nservant, whom he flogged severely and sent him to prison, and had him\nconfined as a felon a number of days, for being _saucy_. Another elder\nof the same church, an auctioneer, habitually sold slaves at his\nstand--very frequently _parted families_--would often go into the\ncountry to sell slaves on execution and otherwise; when remonstrated\nwith, he justified himself, saying, 'it was his business;' the church\nalso justified him on the same ground.\n\n\"A Doctor Duval, of Lynchburg, Va. got offended with a very faithful,\nworthy servant, and immediately sold him to a negro trader, to be\ntaken to New Orleans; Duval still keeping the wife of the man as his\nslave. This Duval was a professor of religion.\"\n\nMr. SAMUEL HALL, a teacher in Marietta College, Ohio, says, in a\nrecent letter:--\n\n\"A student in Marietta College, from Mississippi, a professor of\nreligion, and in every way worthy of entire confidence, made to me the\nfollowing statement. [If his name were published it would probably\ncost him his life.]\n\n\"When I was in the family of the Rev. James Martin, of Louisville,\nWinston county, Mississippi, in the spring of 1838, Mrs. Martin became\noffended at a female slave, because she did not move faster. She\ncommanded her to do so; the girl quickened her pace; again she was\nordered to move faster, or, Mrs. M. declared, she would break the\nbroomstick over her head. Again the slave quickened her pace; but not\ncoming up to the _maximum_ desired by Mrs. M. the latter declared she\nwould _see_ whether she (the slave) could move or not: and, going into\nanother apartment, she brought in a raw hide, awaiting the return of\nher husband for its application. In this instance I know not what was\nthe final result, but I have heard the sound of the raw-hide in at\nleast _two_ other instances, applied by this same reverend gentleman\nto the back of his _female_ servant.\"\n\nMr. Hall adds--\"The name of my informant must be suppressed, as\" he\nsays, \"there are those who would cut my throat in a moment, if the\ninformation I give were to be coupled with my name.\" Suffice it to say\nthat he is a professor of religion, a native of Virginia, and a\nstudent of Marietta College, whose character will bear the strictest\nscrutiny. He says:--\n\n\"In 1838, at Charlestown, Va. I conversed with several members of the\nchurch under the care of the Rev. Mr. Brown, of the same place. Taking\noccasion to speak of slavery, and of the sin of slaveholding, to one\nof them who was a lady, she replied, \"I am a slaveholder, and I\n_glory_ in it.\" I had a conversation, a few days after, with the\npastor himself, concerning the state of religion in his church, and\nwho were the most exemplary members in it. The pastor mentioned\nseveral of those who were of that description; the _first_ of whom,\nhowever, was the identical lady who _gloried_ in being a slaveholder!\nThat church numbers nearly two hundred members.\n\n\"Another lady, who was considered as devoted a Christian as any in the\nsame church, but who was in poor health, was accustomed to flog some\nof her female domestics with a raw-hide till she was exhausted, and\nthen go and lie down till her strength was recruited, rising again and\nresuming the flagellation. This she considered as not at all\nderogatory to her Christian character.\"\n\nMr. JOEL S. BINGHAM, of Cornwall, Vermont, lately a student in\nMiddlebury College, and a member of the Congregational Church, spent a\nfew weeks in Kentucky, in the summer of 1838. He relates the following\noccurrence which took place in the neighborhood where he resided, and\nwas a matter of perfect notoriety in the vicinity.\n\n\"Rev. Mr. Lewis, a Baptist minister in the vicinity of Frankfort, Ky.\nhad a slave that ran away, but was retaken and brought back to his\nmaster, who threatened him with punishment for making an attempt to\nescape. Though terrified the slave immediately attempted to run away\nagain. Mr. L. commanded him to stop, but he did not obey. _Mr. L. then\ntook a gun, loaded with small shot and fired at the slave, who fell_;\nbut was not killed, and afterward recovered. Mr. L. did not probably\nintend to kill the slave, as it was his legs which were aimed at and\nreceived the contents of the gun. The master asserted that he was\ndriven to this necessity to maintain his authority. This took place\nabout the first of July, 1838.\"\n\nThe following is given upon the authority of Rev. ORANGE SCOTT, of\nLowell, Mass. for many years a presiding elder in the Methodist\nEpiscopal Church.\n\n\"Rev. Joseph Hough, a Baptist minister, formerly of Springfield, Mass.\nnow of Plainfield, N.H. while traveling in the south, a few years ago,\nput up one night with a Methodist family, and spent the Sabbath with\nthem. While there, one of the female slaves did something which\ndispleased her mistress. She took a chisel and mallet, and very\ndeliberately cut off one of her toes!\"\n\n\nSLAVE BREEDING AN INDEX OF PUBLIC 'OPINION' AMONG THE 'HIGHEST CLASS\nOF SOCIETY' IN VIRGINIA AND OTHER NORTHERN SLAVE STATES.\n\nBut we shall be told, that 'slave-breeders' are regarded with\ncontempt, and the business of slave breeding is looked upon as\ndespicable; and the hot disclaimer of Mr. Stevenson, our Minister\nPlenipotentiary at the Court of St. James, in reply to Mr. O'Connell,\nwho had intimated that he might be a 'slave breeder,' will doubtless\nbe quoted.[40] In reply, we need not say what every body knows, that\nif Mr. Stevenson is not a 'slave breeder,' he is a solitary exception\namong the large slaveholders of Virginia. What! Virginia slaveholders\nnot 'slave-breeders?' the pretence is ridiculous and contemptible; it\nis meanness, hypocrisy, and falsehood, as is abundantly proved by the\ntestimony which follows:--\n\nMr. GHOLSON, of Virginia, in his speech in the Legislature of that\nstate, Jan. 18, 1832, (see Richmond Whig,) says:--\n\n\"It has always (perhaps erroneously) been considered by steady and\nold-fashioned people, that the owner of land had a reasonable right to\nits annual profits; the owner of orchards, to their annual fruits; the\nowner of _brood mares_, to their product; and the owner of _female\nslaves, to their increase_. We have not the fine-spun intelligence,\nnor legal acumen, to discover the technical distinctions drawn by\ngentlemen. The legal maxim of '_Partus sequitur ventrem_' is coeval\nwith the existence of the rights of property itself, and is founded in\nwisdom and justice. It is on the justice and inviolability of this\nmaxim that the master foregoes the service of the female slave; has\nher nursed and attended during the period of her gestation, and raises\nthe helpless and infant offspring. The value of the property justifies\nthe expense; and I do not hesitate to say, that in its _increase\nconsists much of our wealth_.\"\n\nHon. THOMAS MANN RANDOLPH, of Virginia. formerly Governor of that\nstate, in his speech before the legislature in 1832, while speaking of\nthe number of slaves annually sold from Virginia to the more southern\nslave states, said:--\n\n\"The exportation has _averaged_ EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED for the\nlast twenty years. Forty years ago, the whites exceeded the colored\n25,000, the colored now exceed the whites 81,000; and these results\ntoo during an exportation of near 260,000 slaves since the year 1790,\nnow perhaps the fruitful progenitors of half a million in other\nstates. It is a practice and an increasing practice, in parts of\nVirginia, to rear slaves for market. How can an honorable mind, a\npatriot and a lover of his country, bear to see this ancient dominion\nconverted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared for\nmarket, like oxen for the shambles.\"\n\nProfessor DEW, now President of the University of William and Mary,\nVirginia, in his Review of the Debate in the Virginia Legislature,\n1831-2, says, p 49.\n\n\"From all the information we can obtain, we have no hesitation in\nsaying that upwards of six thousand [slaves] are yearly exported [from\nVirginia] to other states.' Again, p. 61: 'The 6000 slaves which\nVirginia annually sends off to the south, are a source of wealth to\nVirginia'--Again, p. 120: 'A full equivalent being thus left in the\nplace of the slave, this emigration becomes an advantage to the state,\nand does not check the black population as much as, at first view, we\nmight imagine--because it furnishes every inducement to the master to\nattend to the negroes, to ENCOURAGE BREEDING, and to cause the\n_greatest number possible to be raised._ &c.\"\n\n_\"Virginia is, in fact, a negro-raising state for other states.\"_\n\nExtract from the speech of MR. FAULKNER, in the Va. House of\nDelegates, 1832. [See Richmond Whig.]\n\n\"But he [Mr. Gholson,] has labored to show that the Abolition of\nSlavery, were it practicable, would be _impolitic_, because as the\ndrift of this portion of his argument runs, your slaves constitute the\nentire wealth of the state, all the _productive capacity_ Virginia\npossesses. And, sir, as things are, _I believe he is correct_. He\nsays, and in this he is sustained by the gentleman from Halifax, Mr.\nBruce, that the slaves constitute the entire available wealth at\npresent, of Eastern Virginia. Is it true that for 200 years the only\nincrease in the wealth and resources of Virginia, has been a remnant\nof the natural _increase_ of this miserable race?--Can it be, that on\nthis _increase_, she places her solo dependence? I had always\nunderstood that indolence and extravagance were the necessary\nconcomitants of slavery; but, until I heard these declarations, I had\nnot fully conceived the horrible extent of this evil. These gentlemen\nstate the fact, which the history and _present aspect of the\nCommowealth but too well sustain_. The gentlemen's facts and argument\nin support of his plea of impolicy, to me, seem rather unhappy. To me,\nsuch a state of things would itself be conclusive at least, that\nsomething, even as a measure of policy, should be done. What, sir,\nhave you lived for two hundred years, without personal effort or\nproductive industry, in extravagance and indolence, sustained alone\n_by the return from sales of the increase of slaves_, and retaining\nmerely such a number as your now impoverished lands can sustain, AS\nSTOCK, _depending, too, upon a most uncertain market_? When that\nmarket is closed, as in the nature of things it must be, what then\nwill become of this gentleman's hundred millions worth of slaves, AND\nTHE ANNUAL PRODUCT?\"\n\nIn the debates in the Virginia Convention, in 1829, Judge Upsher\nsaid--\"The value of slaves as an article of property [and it is in\nthat view only that they are legitimate subjects of taxation] _depends\nmuch on the state of the market abroad_. In this view, it is the value\nof land _abroad_, and not of land here, which furnishes the ratio. It\nis well known to us all, that nothing is more fluctuating than the\nvalue of slaves. A late law of Louisiana reduced their value 25 per\ncent, in two hours after its passage was known. IF IT SHOULD BE OUR\nLOT, AS I TRUST IT WILL BE, TO ACQUIRE THE COUNTRY OF TEXAS, THEIR\nPRICE WILL RISE AGAIN.\"--p. 77.\n\nMr. Goode, Of Virginia, in his speech before the Virginia Legislature,\nin Jan. 1832, [See Richmond Whig, of that date,] said:--\n\n\"The superior usefulness of the slaves in the south, will constitute\nan _effectual demand_, which will remove them from our limits. We\nshall send them from our state, because _it will be our interest to do\nso_. Our planters are already becoming farmers. Many who grew tobacco\nas their only staple, have already introduced, and commingled the\nwheat crop. They are already semi-farmers; and in the natural course\nof events, they must become more and more so.--As the greater quantity\nof rich western lands are appropriated to the production of the staple\nof our planters, that staple will become less profitable.--We shall\ngradually divert our lands from its production, until we shall become\nactual farmers.--Then will the necessity for slave labor diminish;\nthen will the effectual demand diminish, and then will the quantity of\nslaves diminish, until they shall be adapted to the effectual demand.\n\n\"But gentlemen are alarmed _lest the markets of other states be closed\nagainst the introduction of our slaves_. Sir, the demand for slave\nlabor MUST INCREASE through the South and West. It has been heretofore\nlimited by the want of capital; but when emigrants shall be relieved\nfrom their embarrassments, contracted by the purchase of their lands,\nthe annual profits of their estates, will constitute an accumulating\ncapital, which they will _seek to invest in labor_. That the demand\nfor labor must increase in proportion to the increase of capital, is\none of the demonstrations of political economists; and I confess, that\nfor the removal of slavery from Virginia, I look to the efficacy of\nthat principle; together with the circumstance that our southern\nbrethren are constrained to continue planters, by their position, soil\nand climate.\"\n\nThe following is from Niles' Weekly Register, published at Baltimore,\nMd. vol. 35, p. 4.\n\n_\"Dealing in slaves has become a large business_; establishments are\nmade in several places in Maryland and Virginia, at which they are\nsold like cattle; these places of deposit are strongly built, and well\nsupplied with thumb-screws and gags, and ornamented with cow-skins and\nother whips oftentimes bloody.\"\n\n\nR.S. FINLEY, Esq., late General Agent of the American Colonization\nSociety, at a meeting in New York, 27th Feb. 1833, said:\n\n\"In Virginia and other grain-growing slave states, the blacks do not\nsupport themselves, and the only profit their masters derive from them\nis, repulsive as the idea may justly seem, in breeding them, like\nother live stock for the more southern states.\"\n\n\nRev. Dr. GRAHAM, of Fayetteville, N.C. at a Colonization Meeting,\nheld in that place in the fall of 1837 said:\n\n\"He had resided for 15 years in one of the largest slaveholding\ncounties in the state, had long and anxiously considered the subject,\nand still it was dark. There were nearly 7000 slaves offered in New\nOrleans market last winter. From Virginia alone 6000 were annually\nsent to the south; and from Virginia and N.C. there had gone, in the\nsame direction, in the last twenty years, 300,000 slaves. While not\n4000 had gone to Africa. What it portended, he could not predict, but\nhe felt deeply, that _we must awake in these states and consider the\nsubject_.\"\n\n\nHon. PHILIP DODDRIDGE, of Virginia, in his speech in the Virginia\nConvention, in 1829, [Debates p. 89.] said:--\n\n\"The acquisition of Texas will greatly _enhance the value of the\nproperty_, in question, [Virginia slaves.]\"\n\n\nHon C.F. MERCER, in a speech before the same Convention, in 1829,\nsays:\n\n\"The tables of the natural growth of the slave population demonstrate,\nwhen compared with the increase of its numbers in the commonwealth for\ntwenty years past, that an annual revenue of not less than a million\nand a half of dollars is derived from the exportation of a part of\nthis population.\" (Debates, p. 199.)\n\n\nHon. HENRY CLAY, of Ky., in his speech before the Colonization\nSociety, in 1829, says:\n\n\"It is believed that nowhere in the farming portion of the United\nStates, would slave labor be generally employed, if the proprietor\nwere not tempted to RAISE SLAVES BY THE HIGH PRICE OF THE SOUTHERN\nMARKET WHICH KEEPS IT UP IN HIS OWN.\"\n\nThe New Orleans Courier, Feb. 15, 1839, speaking of the prohibition of\nthe African Slave-trade, while the internal slave-trade is plied,\nsays:\n\n\"The United States law may, and probably does, put MILLIONS _into the\npockets of the people living between the Roanoke, and Mason and\nDixon's line_; still we think it would require some casuistry to show\nthat _the present slave-trade from that quarter_ is a whit better than\nthe one from Africa. One thing is certain--that its results are more\nmenacing to the tranquillity of the people in this quarter, as there\ncan be no comparison between the ability and inclination to do\nmischief, possessed by the Virginia negro, and that of the rude and\nignorant African.\"\n\nThat the New Orleans Editor does not exaggerate in saying that the\ninternal slave-trade puts 'millions' into the pockets of the\nslaveholders in Maryland and Virginia, is very clear from the\nfollowing statement, made by the editor of the Virginia Times, an\ninfluential political paper, published at Wheeling, Virginia. Of the\nexact date of the paper we are not quite certain, it was, however,\nsometime in 1836, probably near the middle of the year--the file will\nshow. The editor says:--\n\n\"We have heard intelligent men estimate the number of slaves exported\nfrom Virginia within the last twelve months, at 120,000--each slave\naveraging at least $600, making an aggregate at $72,000,000. Of the\nnumber of slaves exported, not more than _one-third_ have been sold,\n(the others having been carried by their owners, who have removed,)\n_which would leave in the state the_ SUM OF $24,000,000 ARISING FROM\nTHE SALE OF SLAVES.\"\n\nAccording to this estimate about FORTY THOUSAND SLAVES WERE SOLD OUT\nOF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA IN A SINGLE YEAR, and the 'slave-breeders'\nwho hold them, put into their pockets TWENTY-FOUR MILLION OF DOLLARS,\nthe price of the 'souls of men.'\n\nThe New York Journal of Commerce of Oct. 12, 1835, contained a letter\nfrom a Virginian, whom the editor calls 'a very good and sensible\nman,' asserting that TWENTY THOUSAND SLAVES had been driven to the\nsouth from Virginia _during that year_, nearly one-fourth of which was\nthen remaining.\n\nThe Maryville (Tenn.) Intelligencer, some time in the early part of\n1836, (we have not the date,) says, in an article reviewing a\ncommunication of Rev. J.W. Douglass, of Fayetteville, North Carolina:\n\"Sixty thousand slaves passed through a little western town for the\nsouthern market, during the year 1835.\"\n\nThe Natchez (Miss.) Courier, says \"that the states of Louisiana,\nMississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas, imported TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY\nTHOUSAND SLAVES from the more northern slave states in the year 1836.\"\n\nThe Baltimore American gives the following from a Mississippi paper,\nof 1837:\n\n\"The report made by the committee of the citizens Of Mobile, appointed\nat their meeting held on the 1st instant, on the subject of the\nexisting pecuniary pressure, states, among other things: that so large\nhas been the return of slave labor, that purchases by Alabama of that\nspecies of property from other states since 1833, have amounted to\nabout TEN MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY.\"\n\nFURTHER the _inhumanity_ of a slaveholding 'public opinion' toward\nslaves, follows legitimately from the downright ruffianism of the\nslaveholding _spirit_ in the 'highest class of society,' When roused,\nit tramples upon all the proprieties and courtesies, and even common\ndecencies of life, and is held in check by none of those\nconsiderations of time, and place, and relations of station,\ncharacter, law, and national honor, which are usually sufficient, even\nin the absence of conscientious principles, to restrain other men from\noutrages. Our National Legislature is a fit illustration of this.\nSlaveholders have converted the Congress of the United States into a\nvery bear garden. Within the last three years some of the most\nprominent slaveholding members of the House, and among them the late\nspeaker, have struck and kicked, and throttled, and seized each other\nby the hair, and with their fists pummelled each other's faces, on the\nfloor of Congress. We need not publish an account of what every body\nknows, that during the session of the last Congress, Mr. Wise of\nVirginia and Mr. Bynum of North Carolina, after having called each\nother \"liars, villains\" and \"damned rascals\" sprung from their seats\n\"both sufficiently armed for any desperate purpose,\" cursing each\nother as they rushed together, and would doubtless have butchered each\nother on the floor of Congress, if both had not been seized and held\nby their friends.\n\nThe New York Gazette relates the following which occurred at the close\nof the session of 1838.\n\n\"The House could not adjourn without another brutal and bloody row. It\noccurred on Sunday morning immediately at the moment of adjournment,\nbetween Messrs. Campbell and Maury, both of Tennessee. He took offence\nat some remarks made to him by his colleague, Mr. Campbell, and the\nfight followed.\"\n\nThe Huntsville (Ala.) Democrat of June 16, 1838, gives the particulars\nwhich follow:\n\n\"Mr. Maury is said to be badly hurt. He was near losing his life by\nbeing knocked through the window; but his adversary, it is said, saved\nhim by clutching the hair of his head with his left hand, while he\nstruck him with his right.\"\n\nThe same number of the Huntsville Democrat, contains the particulars\nof a fist-fight on the floor of the House of Representatives, between\nMr. Bell, the late Speaker, and his colleague Mr. Turney of Tennessee.\nThe following is an extract:\n\n\"Mr. Turney concluded his remarks in reply to Mr. Bell, in the course\nof which he commented upon that gentleman's course at different\nperiods of his political career with great severity.\n\n\"He did not think his colleague [Mr. Turney,] was actuated by private\nmalice, but was the willing voluntary instrument of others, the tool\nof tools.\n\nMr. Turney. It is false! it is false!\n\nMr. Stanley called Mr. TURNEY to order.\n\nAt the same moment both gentlemen were perceived in personal conflict,\nand blows with the fist were aimed by each at the other. Several\nmembers interfered, and suppressed the personal violence; others\ncalled order, order, and some called for the interference of the\nSpeaker.\n\nThe Speaker hastily took the chair, and insisted upon order; but both\ngentlemen continued struggling, and endeavoring, notwithstanding the\nconstraint of their friends, to strike each other.\"\n\nThe correspondent of the New York Gazette gives the following, which\ntook place about the time of the preceding affrays:\n\n\"The House was much agitated last night, by the passage between Mr.\nBiddle, of Pittsburgh, and Mr. Downing, of Florida. Mr. D. exclaimed\n\"do you impute falsehood to me!\" at the same time catching up some\nmissile and making a demonstration to advance upon Mr. Biddle. Mr.\nBiddle repeated his accusation, and meanwhile, Mr. Downing was\narrested by many members.\"\n\nThe last three fights all occurred, if we mistake not, in the short\nspace of one month. The fisticuffs between Messrs. Bynum and Wise\noccurred at the previous session of Congress. At the same session\nMessrs. Peyton of Tenn. and Wise of Virginia, went armed with pistols\nand dirks to the meeting of a committee of Congress, and threatened to\nshoot a witness while giving his testimony.\n\nWe begin with the first on the list. Who are Messrs. Wise and Bynum?\nBoth slaveholders. Who are Messrs. Campbell and Maury? Both\nslaveholders. Who are Messrs. Bell and Turney? Both slaveholders. Who\nis Mr. Downing, who seized a weapon and rushed upon Mr. Biddle? A\nslaveholder. Who is Mr. Peyton who drew his pistol on a witness before\na committee of Congress? A slaveholder of course. All these bullies\nwere slaveholders, and they magnified their office, and slaveholding\nwas justified of her children. We might fill a volume with similar\nchronicles of slaveholding brutality. But time would fail us. Suffice\nit to say, that since the organization of the government, a majority\nof the most distinguished men in the slaveholding states have gloried\nin strutting over the stage in the character of murderers. Look at the\nmen whom the people delight to honor. President Jackson, Senator\nBenton, the late Gen. Coffee,--it is but a few years since these\nslaveholders shot at, and stabbed, and stamped upon each other in a\ntavern broil. General Jackson had previously killed Mr. Dickenson.\nSenator Clay of Kentucky has immortalized himself by shooting at a\nnear relative of Chief Justice Marshall, and being wounded by him; and\nnot long after by shooting at John Randolph of Virginia. Governor\nM'Duffie of South Carolina has signalized himself also, both by\nshooting and being shot,--so has Governor Poindexter, and Governor\nRowan, and Judge M'Kinley of the U.S. Supreme Court, late senator in\nCongress from Alabama,--but we desist; a full catalogue would fill\npages. We will only add, that a few months since, in the city of\nLondon, Governor Hamilton, of South Carolina, went armed with pistols,\nto the lodgings of Daniel O'Connell, 'to stop his wind' in the\nbullying slang of his own published boast. During the last session of\nCongress Messrs. Dromgoole and Wise[41] of Virginia, W. Cost Johnson\nand Jenifer of Maryland, Pickens and Campbell of South Carolina, and\nwe know not how many more slaveholding members of Congress have been\nengaged, either as principals or seconds, in that species of murder\ndignified with the name of duelling. But enough; we are heart-sick.\nWhat meaneth all this? Are slaveholders worse than other men? No! but\narbitrary power has wrought in them its mystery of iniquity, and\npoisoned their better nature with its infuriating sorcery.\n\nTheir savage ferocity toward each other when their passions are up, is\nthe natural result of their habit of daily plundering and oppressing\nthe slave.\n\nThe North Carolina Standard of August 30, 1837, contains the following\nillustration of this ferocity exhibited by two southern lawyers in\nsettling the preliminaries of a duel.\n\n\"The following conditions were proposed by Alexander K. McClung, of\nRaymond, in the State of Mississippi, to H.C. Stewart, as the laws to\ngovern a duel they were to fight near Vicksburg:\n\n\"Article 1st. The parties shall meet opposite Vicksburg, in the State\nof Louisiana, on Thursday the 29th inst. precisely at 4 o'clock, P.M.\nAgreed to.\n\n\"2d. The weapons to be used by each shall weigh one pound two and a\nhalf ounces, measuring sixteen inches and a half in length, including\nthe handle, and one inch and three-eighths in breadth. Agreed to.\n\n\"3d. Both knives shall be sharp on one edge, and on the back shall be\nsharp only one inch at the point. Agreed to.\n\n\"4th. Each party shall stand at the distance of eight feet from the\nother, until the word is given. Agreed to.\n\n\"5th. The second of each party shall throw up, with a silver dollar, on\nthe ground, for the word, and two best out of three shall win the\nword. Agreed to.\n\n\"6th. After the word is given, either party may take what advantage he\ncan with his knife, but on throwing his knife at the other, shall be\nshot down by the second of his opponent. Agreed to.\n\n\"7th. Each party shall be stripped entirely naked, except one pair of\nlinen pantaloons; one pair of socks, and boots or pumps as the party\nplease. Acceded to.\n\n\"8th. The wrist of the left arm of each party shall be tied tight to\nhis left thigh, and a strong cord shall be fastened around his left\narm at the elbow, and then around his body. Rejected.\n\n\"9th. After the word is given, each party shall be allowed to advance\nor recede as he pleases, over the space of twenty acres of ground,\nuntil death ensues to one of the parties. Agreed to--the parties to be\nplaced in the centre of the space.\n\n\"10th. The word shall be given by the winner of the same, in the\nfollowing manner, viz: \"Gentlemen are you ready?\" Each party shall\nthen answer, \"I am!\" The second giving the word shall then distinctly\ncommand--_strike_. Agreed to.\n\n\"If either party shall violate these rules, upon being notified by the\nsecond of either party, he may be liable to be shot down instantly. As\nestablished usage points out the duty of both parties, therefore\nnotification is considered unnecessary.\"\n\nThe FAVORITE AMUSEMENTS of slaveholders, like the gladiatorial shows\nof Rome and the Bull Fights of Spain, reveal a public feeling\ninsensible to suffering, and a depth of brutality in the highest\ndegree revolting to every truly noble mind. One of their most common\namusements is cock fighting. Mains of cocks, with twenty, thirty, and\nfifty cocks on each side, are fought for hundreds of dollars aside.\nThe fowls are armed with steel spurs or '_gafts_,' about two inches\nlong. These 'gafts' are fastened upon the legs by sawing off the\n_natural_ 'spur,' leaving only enough of it to answer the purpose of a\n_stock_ for the tube of the \"gafts,\" which are so sharp that at a\nstroke the fowls thrust them through each other's necks and heads, and\ntear each other's bodies till one or both dies, then two others are\nbrought forward for the amusement of the multitude assembled, and this\nbarbarous pastime is often kept up for days in succession, hundreds\nand thousands gathering from a distance to witness it. The following\nadvertisements from the Raleigh Register, June 18, 1838, edited by\nMessrs. Gales and Son, the father and brother of Mr. Gales, editor of\nthe National Intelligencer, and late Mayor of Washington City, reveal\nthe public sentiment of North Carolina.\n\n\"CHATHAM AGAINST NASH, or any other county in the State. I am\nauthorized to take a bet of any amount that may be offered, to FIGHT A\nMAIN OF COCKS, at any place that may be agreed upon by the parties--to\nbe fought the ensuing spring. GIDEON ALSTON. Chatham county, June 7,\n1838.\"\n\nTwo weeks after, this challenge was answered as follows:\n\n\"TO MR. GIDEON ALSTON, of Chatham county, N.C.\n\n\"SIR: In looking over the North Carolina Standard of the 20th inst. I\ndiscover a challenge over your signature, headed 'Chatham against\nNash,' in which you state: that you are 'authorized to take a bet of\nany amount that may be offered, to fight a main of cocks, at any place\nthat may be agreed upon by the parties, to be fought the ensuing\nspring' which challenge I ACCEPT: and do propose to meet you at\nRolesville, in Wake county, N.C. on the last Wednesday in May next,\nthe parties to show thirty-one cocks each--fight four days, and be\ngoverned by the rules as laid down in Turner's Cock Laws--which, if\nyou think proper to accede to, you will signify through this or any\nother medium you may select, and then I will name the sum for which we\nshall fight, as that privilege was surrendered by you in your\nchallenge.\n\n\"I am, sir, very respectfully, &c. NICHOLAS W. ARRINGTON, near\nHilliardston, Nash co. North Carolina June 22nd, 1838\"\n\nThe following advertisement in the Richmond Whig, of July 12, 1837,\nexhibits the public sentiment of Virginia.\n\n\"MAIN OF COCKS.--A large 'MAIN OF COCKS,' 21 a side, for $25 'the\nfight', and $500 'the odd,' will be fought between the County of\nDinwiddie on one part, and the Counties of Hanover and Henrico on the\nother.\n\n\"The 'regular' fighting will be continued _three days_, and from the\nlarge number of 'game uns' on both sides and in the adjacent country,\nwill be prolonged no doubt a _fourth_. To prevent confusion and\npromote 'sport,' the Pit will be enclosed and furnished with _seats_;\nso that those having a curiosity to witness a species of diversion\noriginating in a better day (for they had no rag money then,) can have\n_that_ very _natural_ feeling gratified.\n\n\"The Petersburg Constellation is requested to copy.\"\n\n_Horse-racing_ too, as every body knows, is a favorite amusement of\nslaveholders. Every slave state has its race course, and in the older\nstates almost every county has one on a small scale. There is hardly a\nday in the year, the weather permitting, in which crowds do not\nassemble at the south to witness this barbarous sport. Horrible\ncruelty is absolutely inseparable from it. Hardly a race occurs of any\ncelebrity in which some one of the coursers is not lamed, 'broken\ndown,' or in some way seriously injured, often for life, and not\nunfrequently they are killed by the rupture of some vital part in the\nstruggle. When the heats are closely contested, the blood of the\ntortured animal drips from the lash and flies at every leap from the\nstroke of the rowel. From the breaking of girths and other accidents,\ntheir riders (mostly slaves) are often thrown and maimed or killed.\nYet these amusements are attended by thousands in every part of the\nslave states. The wealth and fashion, the gentlemen and _ladies_ of\nthe 'highest circles' at the south, throng the race course.\n\nThat those who can fasten steel spurs upon the legs of dunghill fowls,\nand goad the poor birds to worry and tear each other to death--and\nthose who can crowd by thousands to _witness_ such barbarity--that\nthose who can throng the race-course and with keen relish witness the\nhot pantings of the life-struggle, the lacerations and fitful spasms\nof the muscles, swelling through the crimsoned foam, as the tortured\nsteeds rush in blood-welterings to the goal--that such, should look\nupon the sufferings of their slaves with, indifference is certainly\nsmall wonder.\n\nPerhaps we shall be told that there are thronged race-courses at the\nNorth. True, there are a few, and they are thronged chiefly by\n_Southerners_, and 'Northern men with _Southern_ principles,' and\nsupported mainly by the patronage of slaveholders who summer at the\nNorth. Cock-fighting and horse-racing are \"_Southern_ institutions.\"\nThe idleness, contempt of labor, dissipation, sensuality, brutality,\ncruelty, and meanness, engendered by the habit of making men and women\nwork without pay, and flogging them if they demur at it, constitutes a\ncongenial soil out of which cock-fighting and horse-racing are the\nspontaneous growth.\n\nAgain,--The kind treatment of the slaves is often argued from the\nliberal education and enlarged views of slaveholders. The facts and\nreasonings of the preceding pages have shown, that 'liberal\neducation,' despotic habits and ungoverned passions work together with\nslight friction. And every day's observation shows that the former is\noften a stimulant to the latter.\n\nBut the notion so common at the north that the majority of the\nslaveholders are persons of education, is entirely erroneous. A _very\nfew_ slaveholders in each of the slave states have been men of _ripe_\neducation, to whom our national literature is much indebted. A larger\nnumber may be called _well_ educated--these reside mostly in the\ncities and large villages, but a majority of the slaveholders are\nignorant men, thousands of them notoriously so, _mere boors_ unable to\nwrite their names or to read the alphabet.\n\nNo one of the slave states has probably so much general education as\nVirginia. It is the oldest of them--has furnished one half of the\npresidents of the United States--has expended more upon her university\nthan any state in the Union has done during the same time upon its\ncolleges--sent to Europe nearly twenty years since for her most\nlearned professors, and in fine, has far surpassed every other slave\nstate in her efforts to disseminate education among her citizens, and\nyet, the Governor of Virginia in his message to the legislature (Jan.\n7, 1839) says, that of four thousand six hundred and fourteen adult\nmales in that state, who applied to the county clerks for marriage\nlicenses in the year 1837, 'ONE THOUSAND AND FORTY SEVEN _were unable\nto write their names_.' The governor adds, 'These statements, it will\nbe remembered, are confined to one sex: the education of females it is\nto be feared, is in a condition of _much greater neglect_.'\n\nThe Editor of the Virginia Times, published at Wheeling, in his paper\nof Jan. 23, 1839, says,--\n\n\"We have every reason to suppose that one-fourth of the people of the\nstate cannot write their names, and they have not, of course, any\nother species of education.\"\n\nKentucky is the child of Virginia; her first settlers were some of the\nmost distinguished citizens of the mother state; in the general\ndiffusion of intelligence amongst her citizens Kentucky is probably in\nadvance of all the slave states except Virginia and South Carolina;\nand yet Governor Clark, in his last message to the Kentucky\nLegislature, (Dec 5, 1838) makes the following declaration: \"From the\ncomputation of those most familiar with the subject, it appears that\nAT LEAST ONE THIRD OF THE ADULT POPULATION OF THE STATE ARE UNABLE TO\nWRITE THEIR NAMES.\"\n\nThe following advertisement in the \"Milledgeville (Geo.) Journal,\"\nDec. 26, 1837, is another specimen from one of the 'old thirteen.'\n\n\"NOTICE.--I, Pleasant Webb, of the State of Georgia, Oglethorpe\ncounty, being an _illiterate man, and not able to write my own name_,\nand whereas it hath been represented to me that there is a certain\npromissory note or notes out against me that I know nothing of, and\nfurther that some man in this State holds a bill of sale for _a\ncertain negro woman named Ailsey and her increase, a part of which is\nnow in my possession_, which I also know nothing of. Now do hereby\ncertify and declare, that I have no knowledge whatsoever of any such\npapers existing in my name as above stated and I hereby require all or\nany person or persons whatsoever holding or pretending to hold any\nsuch papers, to produce them to me within thirty days from the date\nhereof, shewing their authority for holding the same, or they will be\nconsidered fictitious and fraudulently obtained or raised, by some\nperson or persons for base purposes after my death.\n\n\"Given under my hand this 2nd day of December, 1837. PLEASANT WEBB.\nhis mark X.\"\n\nFINALLY, THAT SLAVES MUST HABITUALLY SUFFER GREAT CRUELTIES, FOLLOWS\nINEVITABLY FROM THE BRUTAL OUTRAGES WHICH THEIR MASTERS INFLICT ON\nEACH OTHER.\n\nSlaveholders, exercising from childhood irresponsible power over human\nbeings, and in the language of President Jefferson, \"giving loose to\nthe worst of passions\" in the treatment of their slaves, become in a\ngreat measure unfitted for self control in their intercourse with each\nother. Tempers accustomed to riot with loose reins, spurn restraints,\nand passions inflamed by indulgence, take fire on the least friction.\nWe repeat it, the state of society in the slave states, the duels, and\ndaily deadly affrays of slaveholders with each other--the fact that\nthe most deliberate and cold-blooded murders are committed at noon\nday, in the presence of thousands, and the perpetrators eulogized by\nthe community as \"honorable men,\" reveals such a prostration of law,\nas gives impunity to crime--a state of society, an omnipresent public\nsentiment reckless of human life, taking bloody vengeance on the spot\nfor every imaginary affront, glorying in such assassinations as the\nonly true honor and chivalry, successfully defying the civil arm, and\nlaughing its impotency to scorn.\n\nWhen such things are done in the green tree, what will be done in the\ndry? When slaveholders are in the habit of caning, stabbing, and\nshooting _each other_ at every supposed insult, the unspeakable\nenormities perpetrated by such men, with such passions, upon their\ndefenceless slaves, _must_ be beyond computation. To furnish the\nreader with an illustration of slaveholding civilization and morality,\nas exhibited in the unbridled fury, rage, malignant hate, jealousy,\ndiabolical revenge, and all those infernal passions that shoot up rank\nin the hot-bed of arbitrary power, we will insert here a mass of\ntestimony, detailing a large number of affrays, lynchings,\nassassinations, &c., &c., which have taken place in various parts of\nthe slave states within a brief period--and to leave no room for cavil\non the subject, these extracts will be made exclusively from\nnewspapers published in the slave states, and generally in the\nimmediate vicinity of the tragedies described. They will not be made\nsecond hand from _northern_ papers, but from the original _southern_\npapers, which now lie on our table.\n\nBefore proceeding to furnish details of certain classes of crimes in\nthe slave states, we advertise the reader--1st. That _we shall not_\ninclude in the list those crimes which are ordinarily committed in the\nfree, as well as in the slave states. 2d. We shall not include any of\nthe crimes perpetrated by whites upon slaves and free colored persons,\nwho constitute a majority of the population in Mississippi and\nLouisiana, a large majority in South Carolina, and, on an average,\ntwo-fifths in the other slave states. 3d. Fist fights, canings,\nbeatings, biting off noses and ears, gougings, knockings down, &c.,\nunless they result in _death_, will not be included in the list, nor\nwill _ordinary_ murders, unless connected with circumstances that\nserve as a special index of public sentiment. 4th. Neither will\n_ordinary, formal duels_ be included, except in such cases as just\nspecified. 5th. The only crimes which, as the general rule, will be\nspecified, will be deadly affrays with bowie knives, dirks, pistols.\nrifles, guns, or other death weapons, and _lynchings_. 6th. The crimes\nenumerated will, for the most part, be only those perpetrated\n_openly_, without _attempt at concealment_. 7th. We shall not attempt\nto give a full list of the affrays, &c., that took place in the\nrespective states during the period selected, as the only files of\nsouthern papers to which we have access are very imperfect.\n\nThe reader will perceive, from these preliminaries, that only a\n_small_ proportion of the crimes actually perpetrated in the\nrespective slave states during the period selected, will be entered\nupon this list. He will also perceive, that the crimes which will be\npresented are of a class rarely perpetrated in the free states; and if\nperpetrated there at all, they are, with scarcely an exception,\ncommitted either by slaveholders, temporarily resident in them, or by\npersons whose passions have been inflamed by the poison of a southern\ncontact--whose habits and characters have become perverted by living\namong slaveholders, and adopting the code of slaveholding morality.\n\nWe now proceed to the details, commencing with the new state of\nArkansas.\n\n\n\nARKANSAS.\n\nAt the last session of the legislature of that state, Col. John\nWilson, President of the Bank at Little Rock, the capital of the\nstate, was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. He had\nbeen elected to that office for a number of years successively, and\nwas one of the most influential citizens of the state. While presiding\nover the deliberations of the House, he took umbrage at words spoken\nin debate by Major Anthony, a conspicuous member, came down from the\nSpeaker's chair, drew a large bowie knife from his bosom, and attacked\nMajor A., who defended himself for some time, but was at last stabbed\nthrough the heart, and fell dead on the floor. Wilson deliberately\nwiped the blood from his knife, and returned to his seat. The\nfollowing statement of the circumstances of the murder, and the trial\nof the murderer, is abridged from the account published in the\nArkansas Gazette, a few months since--it is here taken from the\nKnoxville (Tennessee) Register, July 4, 1838.\n\n\"On the 14th of December last, Maj. Joseph J. Anthony, a member of the\nLegislature of Arkansas, was murdered, while performing his duty as a\nmember of the House of Representatives, by John Wilson, Speaker of\nthat House.\n\n\"The facts were these: A bill came from the Senate, commonly called the\n_Wolf Bill_. Among the amendments proposed, was one by Maj. Anthony,\nthat the signature of the President of the Real Estate Bank should be\nattached to the certificate of the wolf scalp. Col. Wilson, the\nSpeaker, asked Maj. Anthony whether he intended the remark as\npersonal. Maj. Anthony promptly said, \"_No, I do not_.\" And at that\ninstant of time, a message was delivered from the Senate, which\nsuspended the proceedings of the House for a few minutes. Immediately\nafter the messenger from the Senate had retired, Maj. Anthony rose\nfrom his seat, and said he wished to explain, that he did not intend\nto insult the Speaker or the House; when Wilson, interrupting,\nperemptorily ordered him to take his seat. Maj. Anthony said, as a\nmember, he had a right to the floor, to explain himself. Wilson said,\nin an angry tone, 'Sit down, or you had better;' and thrust his hand\ninto his bosom, and drew out a large bowie knife, 10 or 11 inches in\nlength, and descended from the Speaker's chair to the floor, with the\nknife drawn in a menacing manner. Maj. Anthony, seeing the danger he\nwas placed in, by Wilson's advance on him with a drawn knife, rose\nfrom his chair, set it out of his way, stepped back a pace or two, and\ndrew his knife. Wilson caught up a chair, and struck Anthony with it.\nAnthony, recovering from the blow, caught the chair in his left hand,\nand a fight ensued over the chair. Wilson received two wounds, one on\neach arm, and Anthony lost his knife, either by throwing it at Wilson,\nor it escaped by accident. After Anthony had lost his knife, Wilson\nadvanced on Anthony, who was then retreating, looking over his\nshoulder. Seeing Wilson pursuing him, he threw a chair. Wilson still\npursued, and Anthony raised another chair as high as his breast, with\na view, it is supposed, of keeping Wilson off. Wilson then caught hold\nof the chair with his left hand, raised it up, and with his right hand\ndeliberately thrust the knife, up to the hilt, into Anthony's heart,\nand as deliberately drew it out, and wiping off the blood with his\nthumb and finger, retired near to the Speaker's chair.\n\n\"As the knife was withdrawn from Anthony's heart, he fell a lifeless\ncorpse on the floor, without uttering a word, or scarcely making a\nstruggle; so true did the knife, as deliberately directed, pierce his\nheart.\n\n\"Three days elapsed before the constituted authorities took any notice\nof this horrible deed; and not then, until a relation of the murdered\nAnthony had demanded a warrant for the apprehension of Wilson. Several\ndays then elapsed before he was brought before an examining court. He\nthen, in a carriage and four, came to the place appointed for his\ntrial. Four or five days were employed in the examination of\nwitnesses, and never was a clearer case of murder proved than on that\noccasion. Notwithstanding, the court (Justice Brown dissenting)\nadmitted Wilson to bail, and positively refused that the prosecuting\nattorney for the state should introduce the law, to show that it was\nnot a bailable case, or even to hear an argument from him.\n\n\"At the time appointed for the session of the Circuit Court, Wilson\nappeared agreeably to his recognizance. A motion was made by Wilson's\ncounsel for _change of venue_, founded on the affidavits of Wilson,\nand two other men. The court thereupon removed the case to Saline\ncounty, and ordered the Sheriff to take Wilson into custody, and\ndeliver him over to the Sheriff of Saline county.\n\n\"The Sheriff of Pulaski never confined Wilson one minute, but\npermitted him to go where he pleased, without a guard, or any\nrestraint imposed on him whatever. On his way to Saline, he\nentertained him freely at his own house, and the next day delivered\nhim over to the Sheriff of that county, who conducted the prisoner to\nthe debtor's room in the jail, and gave him the key, so that he and\nevery body else had free egress and ingress at all times. Wilson\ninvited every body to call on him, as he wished to see his friends,\nand his room was crowded with visitors, who called to drink grog, and\nlaugh and talk with him. But this theatre was not sufficiently large\nfor his purpose. He afterwards visited the dram-shops, where he freely\ntreated all that would partake with him, and went fishing and hunting\nwith others at pleasure, and entirely with out restraint. He also ate\nat the same table with the Judge, while on trial.\n\n\"When the court met at Saline, Wilson was put on his trial. Several\ndays were occupied in examining the witnesses in the case. After the\nexamination was closed, while Col. Taylor was engaged in a very able,\nlucid, and argumentative speech, on the part of the prosecution, some\nman collected a parcel of the rabble, and came within a few yards of\nthe court-house door, and bawled in a loud voice, 'part them--part\nthem!' Every body supposed there was an affray, and ran to the doors\nand windows to see; behold, there was nothing more than the man, and\nthe rabble he had collected around him, for the purpose of annoying\nCol. Taylor while speaking. A few minutes afterwards, this same person\nbrought a horse near the court-house door, and commenced crying the\nhorse, as though he was for sale, and continued for ten or fifteen\nminutes to ride before the court-house door, crying the horse, in a\nloud and boisterous tone of voice. The Judge sat as a silent listener\nto the indignity thus offered the court and counsel by this man,\nwithout interposing his authority.\n\n\"To show the depravity of the times, and the people, after the verdict\nhad been delivered by the jury, and the court informed Wilson that he\nwas discharged, there was a rush toward him: some seized him by the\nhand, some by the arm, and there was great and loud rejoicing and\nexultation, directly in the presence of the court: and Wilson told the\nSheriff to take the jury to a grocery, that he might treat them, and\ninvited every body that chose to go. The house was soon filled to\noverflowing. The rejoicing was kept up till near supper time: but to\ncap the climax, soon after supper was over, a majority of the jury,\ntogether with many others, went to the rooms that had been occupied\nseveral days by the friend and relation of the murdered Anthony, and\ncommenced a scene of the most ridiculous dancing, (as it is believed,)\nin triumph for Wilson, and as a triumph over the feelings of the\nrelations of the departed Anthony. The scene did not close here. The\nparty retired to a dram-shop, and continued their rejoicing until\nabout half after 10 o'clock. They then collected a parcel of horns,\ntrumpets, &c., and marched through the streets, blowing them, till\nnear day, when one of the company rode his horse in the porch\nadjoining the room which was occupied by the relations of the\ndeceased.\"\n\nThis case is given to the reader at length, in order fully to show,\nthat in a community where the law sanctions the commission of every\nspecies of outrage upon one class of citizens, it fosters passions\nwhich will paralyze its power to protect the other classes. Look at\nthe facts developed in this case, as exhibiting the state of society\namong slaveholders. 1st. That the members of the legislature are _in\nthe habit_ of wearing bowie knives. Wilson's knife was 10 or 11 inches\nlong.[42] 2d. The murderer, Wilson, was a man of wealth, president of\nthe bank at the capital of the state, a high military officer, and\nhad, for many years, been Speaker of the House of Representatives, as\nappears from a previous statement in the Arkansas Gazette. 3d. The\nmurder was committed in open day, before all the members of the House,\nand many spectators, not one of whom seems to have made the least\nattempt to intercept Wilson, as he advanced upon Anthony with his\nknife drawn, but \"made way for him,\" as is stated in another account.\n4th. Though the murder was committed in the state-house, at the\ncapital of the state, days passed before the civil authorities moved\nin the matter; and they did not finally do it, until the relations of\nthe murdered man demanded a warrant for the apprehension of the\nmurderer. Even then, several days elapsed before he was brought before\nan examining court. When his trial came on, he drove to it in state,\ndrew up before the door with \"his coach and four,\" alighted, and\nstrided into court like a lord among his vassals; and there, though a\nclearer case of deliberate murder never reeked in the face of the sun,\nyet he was admitted to bail, the court absolutely refusing to hear an\nargument from the prosecuting attorney, showing that it was not a\nbailable case. 5th. The sheriff of Pulaski county, who had Wilson in\ncustody, \"never confined him a moment, but permitted him to go at\nlarge wholly unrestrained.\" When transferred to Saline co. for trial,\nthe sheriff of that county gave Wilson the same liberty, and he spent\nhis time in parties of pleasure, fishing, hunting, and at houses of\nentertainment. 6th. Finally, to demonstrate to the world, that justice\namong slaveholders is consistent with itself; that authorizing\nman-stealing and patronising robbery, it will, of course, be the\npatron and associate of murder also, the judge who sat upon the case,\nand the murderer who was on trial for his life before him, were\nboon-companions together, eating and drinking at the same table\nthroughout the trial. Then came the conclusion of the farce--the\nuproar round the court-house during the trial, drowning the voice of\nthe prosecutor while pleading, without the least attempt by the court\nto put it down--then the charge of the judge to the jury, and their\nunanimous verdict of acquittal--then the rush from all quarters around\nthe murderer with congratulations--the whole crowd in the court room\nshouting and cheering--then Wilson leading the way to a tavern,\ninviting the sheriff, and jury, and all present to \"a treat\"--then the\nbacchanalian revelry kept up all night, a majority of the jurors\nparticipating--the dancing, the triumphal procession through the\nstreets with the blowing of horns and trumpets, and the prancing of\nhorses through the porch of the house occupied by the relations of the\nmurdered Anthony, adding insult and mockery to their agony.\n\nA few months before this murder on the floor of the legislature,\nGeorge Scott, Esq., formerly marshall of the state was shot in an\naffray at Van Buren, Crawford co., Arkansas, by a man named Walker;\nand Robert Carothers, in an affray in St. Francis co., shot William\nRachel, just as Rachel was shooting at Carothers' father. (_National\nIntelligencer, May 8, 1837, and Little Rock Gazette, August 30,\n1837._)\n\nWhile Wilson's trial was in progress, Mr. Gabriel Sibley was stabbed\nto the heart at a public dinner, in St. Francis co., Arkansas, by\nJames W. Grant. (_Arkansas Gazette, May 30, 1838._)\n\nHardly a week before this, the following occurred:\n\n\"On the 16th ult., an encounter took place at Little Rock, Ark.,\nbetween David F. Douglass, a young man of 18 or 19, and Dr. Wm. C.\nHowell. A shot was exchanged between them at the distance of 8 or 10\nfeet with double-barrelled guns. The load of Douglass entered the left\nhip of Dr. Howell, and a buckshot from the gun of the latter struck a\nnegro girl, 13 or 14 years of age, just below the pit of the stomach.\nDouglass then fired a second time and hit Howell in the left groin,\npenetrating the abdomen and bladder, and causing his death in four\nhours. The negro girl, at the last dates, was not dead, but no hopes\nwere entertained of her recovery. Douglass was committed to await his\ntrial at the April term of the Circuit Court.\"--_Louisville Journal_.\n\nThe Little Rock Gazette of Oct. 24, says, \"We are again called upon\nto record the cold blooded murder of a valuable citizen. On the 10th\ninstant, Col. John Lasater, of Franklin co., was murdered by John W.\nWhitson, who deliberately shot him with a shot gun, loaded with a\nhandful of rifle balls, six of which entered his body. He lived twelve\nhours after he was shot.\n\n\"Whitson is the son of William Whitson, who was unfortunately killed,\nabout a year since, in a rencontre with Col. Lasater, (who was fully\nexonerated from all blame by a jury,) and, in revenge of his father's\ndeath, committed this bloody deed.\"\n\nThese atrocities were all perpetrated within a few months of the time\nof the deliberate assassination, on the floor of the legislature by\nthe speaker, already described, and are probably but a small portion\nof the outrages committed in that state during the same period. The\nstate of Arkansas contains about forty-five thousand white\ninhabitants, which is, if we mistake not, the present population of\nLitchfield county, Connecticut. And we venture the assertion, that a\npublic affray, with deadly weapons, has not taken place in that county\nfor fifty years, if indeed ever since its settlement a century and a\nhalf ago.\n\n\nMISSOURI.\n\nMissouri became one of the United States in 1821. Its present white\npopulation is about two hundred and fifty thousand. The following are\na few of the affrays that have occurred there during the years 1837\nand '38.\n\nThe \"Salt River Journal\" March 8, 1838, has the following.\n\n\"_Fatal Affray_.--An affray took place during last week, in the town\nof New London, between Dr. Peake and Dr. Bosley, both of that village,\ngrowing out of some trivial matter at a card party. After some words,\nBosley threw a glass at Peake, which was followed up by other acts of\nviolence, and in the quarrel Peake stabbed Bosley, several times with\na dirk, in consequence of which, Bosley died the following morning.\nThe court of inquiry considered Peake justifiable, and discharged him\nfrom arrest.\"\n\nFrom the \"St. Louis Republican,\" of September 29, 1837.\n\n\"We learn that a fight occurred at Bowling-Green, in this state, a few\ndays since, between Dr. Michael Reynolds and Henry Lalor. Lalor\nprocured a gun, and Mr. Dickerson wrested the gun from him; this\nproduced a fight between Lalor and Dickerson, in which the former\nstabbed the latter in the abdomen. Mr. Dickerson died of the wound.\"\n\nThe following was in the same paper about a month previous, August 21,\n1837.\n\n\"_A Horse Thief Shot_.--A thief was caught in the act of stealing a\nhorse on Friday last, on the opposite side of the river, by a company\nof persons out sporting. Mr. Kremer, who was in the company, levelled\nhis rifle and ordered him to stop; which he refused; he then fired and\nlodged the contents in the thief's body, of which he died soon\nafterwards. Mr. K. went before a magistrate, who after hearing the\ncase, REFUSED TO HOLD HIM FOR FURTHER TRIAL!\"\n\nOn the 5th of July, 1838, Alpha P. Buckley murdered William Yaochum in\nan affray in Jackson county, Missouri. (Missouri Republican, July 24,\n1838.)\n\nGeneral Atkinson of the United States Army was waylaid on the 4th of\nSeptember, 1838, by a number of persons, and attacked in his carriage\nnear St. Louis, on the road to Jefferson Barracks, but escaped after\nshooting one of the assailants. The New Orleans True American of\nOctober 29, '38, speaking of this says: \"It will be recollected that a\nfew weeks ago, Judge Dougherty, one of the most respectable citizens\nof St. Louis, was murdered upon the same road.\"\n\nThe same paper contains the following letter from the murderer of\nJudge Dougherty.\n\n\"_Murder of Judge Dougherty_.--The St. Louis Republican received the\nfollowing mysterious letter, unsealed, regarding this brutal\nmurder:\"--\n\n\"NATCHEZ, Miss., Sept. 24.\n\n\"Messrs. Editors:--Revenge is sweet. On the night of the 11th, 12th,\nand 13th, I made preparations, and did, on the 14th July kill a\nrascal, and only regret that I have not the privilege of telling the\ncircumstance. I have so placed it that I can never be identified; and\nfurther, I have no compunctions of conscience for the death of Thomas\nM. Dougherty.\"\n\nBut instead of presenting individual affrays and single atrocities,\nhowever numerous, (and the Missouri papers abound with them,) in order\nto exhibit the true state of society there, we refer to the fact now\nuniversally notorious, that for months during the last fall and\nwinter, some hundreds of inoffensive Mormons, occupying a considerable\ntract of land; and a flourishing village in the interior of the state,\nhave suffered every species of inhuman outrage from the inhabitants of\nthe surrounding counties--that for weeks together, mobs consisting of\nhundreds and thousands, kept them in a state of constant siege, laying\nwaste their lands, destroying their cattle and provisions, tearing\ndown their houses, ravishing the females, seizing and dragging off and\nkilling the men. Not one of the thousands engaged in these horrible\noutrages and butcheries has, so far as we can learn, been indicted.\nThe following extract of a letter from a military officer of one of\nthe brigades ordered out by the Governor of Missouri, to terminate the\nmatter, is taken from the North Alabamian of December 22, 1838.\n\nCorrespondence of the Nashville Whig.\n\n\nTHE MORMON WAR.\n\n\"MILLERSBURG, Mo. November 8.\n\n\"Dear Sir--A lawless mob had organized themselves for the express\npurpose of driving the Mormons from the country, or exterminating\nthem, for no other reason, that I can perceive, than that these poor\ndeluded creatures owned a large and fertile body of land in their\nneighborhood, and would not let them (the Mobocrats) have it for their\nown price. I have just returned from the seat of difficulty, and am\nperfectly conversant with all the facts in relation to it. The mob\nmeeting with resistance altogether unanticipated, called loudly upon\nthe kindred spirits of adjacent counties for help. The Mormons\ndetermined to die in defence of their rights, set about fortifying\ntheir town \"Far West,\" with a resolution and energy that kept the mob\n(who all the time were extending their cries of help to all parts of\nMissouri) at bay. The Governor, from exaggerated accounts of the\nMormon depredations, issued orders for the raising of several thousand\nmounted riflemen, of which this division raised five hundred, and the\nwriter of this was _honored_ with the appointment of ---- to the\nBrigade.\n\n\"On the first day of this month, we marched for the \"seat of war,\" but\nGeneral Clark, Commander-in-chief, having reached Far West on the day\nprevious with a large force, the difficulty was settled when we\narrived, so we escaped the infamy and disgrace of a bloody victory.\nBefore General Clark's arrival, the mob had increased to about four\nthousand, and determined to attack the town. The Mormons upon the\napproach of the mob, sent out a white flag, which being fired on by\nthe mob, Jo Smith and Rigdon, and a few other Mormons of less\ninfluence, gave themselves up to the mob, with a view of so far\nappeasing their wrath as to save their women and children from\nviolence. Vain hope! The prisoners being secured, the mob entered the\ntown and perpetrated every conceivable act of brutality and\noutrage--forcing fifteen or twenty Mormon girls to yield to their\nbrutal passions!!! Of these things I was assured by many persons while\nI was at Far West, in whose veracity I have the utmost confidence. I\nconversed with many of the prisoners, who numbered about eight\nhundred, among whom there were many young and interesting girls, and I\nassure you, a more distracted set of creatures I never saw. I assure\nyou, my dear sir, it was peculiarly heart-rending to see old gray\nheaded fathers and mothers, young ladies and innocent babes, forced at\nthis inclement season, with the thermometer at 8 degrees below zero,\nto abandon their warm houses, and many of them the luxuries and\nelegances of a high degree of civilization and intelligence and take\nup their march for the uncultivated wilds of the Missouri frontier.\n\n\"The better informed here have but one opinion of the result of this\nMormon persecution, and that is, it is a most fearful extension of\nJudge Lynch's jurisdiction.\"\n\nThe present white population of Missouri is but thirty thousand less\nthan that of New Hampshire, and yet the insecurity of human life in\nthe former state to that in the latter, is probably at least twenty to\none.\n\n\n\nALABAMA.\n\nThis state was admitted to the Union in 1819. Its present white\npopulation is not far from three hundred thousand. The security of\nhuman life to Alabama, may be inferred from the facts and testimony\nwhich follow:\n\nThe Mobile Register of Nov. 15, 1837, contains the annual message of\nMr. McVay, the acting Governor of the state, at the opening of the\nLegislature. The message has the following on the frequency of\nhomicides:\n\n\"We hear of homicides in different parts of the state _continually_,\nand yet how few convictions for murder, and still fewer executions?\nHow is this to be accounted for? In regard to 'assault and battery\nwith intent to commit murder,' why is it that this offence continues\nso common--why do we hear of stabbings and shootings _almost daily_ in\nsome part or other of our state?\"\n\nThe \"Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser\" of April 22, 1837, has the\nfollowing from the Mobile Register:\n\n\"Within a few days a man was shot in an affray in the upper part of\nthe town, and has since died. The perpetrator of the violence is at\nlarge. We need hardly speak of another scene which occurred in Royal\nstreet, when a fray occurred between two individuals, a third standing\nby with a cocked pistol to prevent interference. On Saturday night a\nstill more exciting scene of outrage took place in the theatre.\n\n\"An altercation commenced at the porquett entrance between the\ncheck-taker and a young man, which ended in the first being\ndesperately wounded by a stab with a knife. The other also drew a\npistol. If some strange manifestations of public opinion, do not\ncoerce a spirit of deference to law, and the abandonment of the habit\nof carrying secret arms, we shall deserve every reproach we may\nreceive, and have our punishment in the unchecked growth of a spirit\nof lawlessness, reckless deeds, and exasperated feeling, which will\ndestroy our social comfort at home, and respectability abroad.\"\n\nFrom the \"Huntsville Democrat,\" of Nov. 7, 1837.\n\n\"A trifling dispute arose between Silas Randal and Pharaoh Massingale,\nboth of Marshall county. They exchanged but a few words, when the\nformer drew a Bowie knife and stabbed the latter in the abdomen\nfronting the left hip to the depth of several inches; also inflicted\nseveral other dangerous wounds, of which Massengale died\nimmediately.--Randal is yet at large, not having been apprehended.\"\n\nFrom the \"Free Press\" of August 16, 1838.\n\n\"The streets of Gainesville, Alabama, have recently been the scene of\na most tragic affair. Some five weeks since, at a meeting of the\ncitizens, Col. Christopher Scott, a lawyer of good standing, and one\nof the most influential citizens of the place, made a violent attack\non the Tombeckbee Rail Road Company. A Mr. Smith, agent for the T.R.R.\nCompany, took Col. C's remarks as a personal insult, and demanded an\nexplanation. A day or two after, as Mr. Smith was passing Colonel\nScott's door, he was shot down by him, and after lingering a few hours\nexpired.\n\n\"It appears also from an Alabama paper, that Col. Scott's brother,\nL.S. Scott Esq., and L.J. Smith Esq., were accomplices of the Colonel\nin the murder.\"\n\nThe following is from the \"Natchez Free Trader,\" June 14, 1838.\n\n\"An affray, attended with fatal consequences, occurred in the town of\nMoulton, Alabama, on the 12th May. It appears that three young men\nfrom the country, of the name of J. Walton, Geo. Bowling, and\nAlexander Bowling, rode into Moulton on that day for the purpose of\nchastising the bar-keeper at McCord's tavern, whose name is Cowan, for\nan alleged insult offered by him to the father of young Walton. They\nmade a furious attack on Cowan, and drove him into the bar room of the\ntavern. Some time after, a second attack was made upon Cowan in the\nstreet by one of the Bowlings and Walton, when pistols were resorted\nto by both parties. Three rounds were fired, and the third shot, which\nwas said to have been discharged by Walton, struck a young man by the\nname of Neil, who happened to be passing in the street at the time,\nand killed him instantly. The combatants were taken into custody, and\nafter an examination before two magistrates, were bailed.\"\n\nThe following exploits of the \"Alabama Volunteers,\" are recorded in\nthe Florida Herald, Jan. 1, 1838.\n\n\"SAVE US FROM OUR FRIENDS.--On Monday last, a large body of men,\ncalling themselves Alabama Volunteers, arrived in the vicinity of this\ncity. It is reported that their conduct during their march from\nTallahassee to this city has been a series of excesses of every\ndescription. They have committed almost every crime except murder, and\nhave even threatened life.\n\n\"Large numbers of them paraded our streets, grossly insulted our\nfemales, and were otherwise extremely riotous in their conduct. One of\nthe squads, forty or fifty in number, on reaching the bridge, where\nthere was a small guard of three or four men stationed, assaulted the\nguard, overturned the sentry-box into the river, and bodily seized two\nof the guard, and threw them into the river, where the water was deep,\nand they were forced to swim for their lives. At one of the men while\nin the water, they pointed a musket, threatening to kill him; and\npelted with every missile which came to hand.\"\n\n\nThe following Alabama tragedy is published by the \"Columbia (S.C.)\nTelescope,\" Sept. **, 1837, from the Wetumpka Sentinel.\n\n\"Our highly respectable townsman, Mr. Hugh Ware, a merchant of\nWetumpka, was standing in the door of his counting room, between the\nhours of 8 and 9 o'clock at night, in company with a friend, when an\nassassin lurked within a few paces of his position, and discharged his\nmusket, loaded with ten or fifteen buckshot. Mr. Ware instantly fell,\nand expired without a struggle or a groan. A coroner's inquest decided\nthat the deceased came to his death by violence, and that Abner J.\nCody, and his servant John, were the perpetrators. John frankly\nconfessed, that his master, Cody, compelled him to assist, threatening\nhis life if he dared to disobey; that he carried the musket to the\nplace at which it was discharged; that his master then received it\nfrom him, rested it on the fence, fired and killed Mr. Ware.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Southern (Miss.) Mechanic,\" April 17, 1838.\n\n\"HORRID BUTCHERY.--A desperate fight occurred in Montgomery, Alabama,\non the 28th ult. We learn from the Advocate of that city, that the\npersons engaged were Wm. S. Mooney and Kenyon Mooney, his son, Edward\nBell, and Bushrod Bell, Jr. The first received a wound in the abdomen,\nmade by that fatal instrument, the Bowie knife, which caused his death\nin about fifteen hours. The second was shot in the side, and would\ndoubtless have been killed, had not the ball partly lost its force by\nfirst striking his arm. The third received a shot in the neck, and now\nlies without hope of recovery. The fourth escaped unhurt, and, we\nunderstand has fled. This is a brief statement of one of the bloodiest\nfights that we ever heard of.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Virginia Statesman,\" May 6, 1837.\n\n\"Several affrays, wherein pistols, dirks and knives were used, lately\noccurred at Mobile. One took place on the 8th inst., at the theatre,\nin which a Mr. Bellum was so badly stabbed that his life is despaired\nof. On the Wednesday preceding, a man named Johnson shot another named\nSnow dead. No notice was taken of the affair.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Huntsville Advocate,\" June 20, 1837.\n\n\"DESPERATE AFFRAY.--On Sunday the 11th inst., an affray of desparate\nand fatal character occurred near Jeater's Landing, Marshall county,\nAlabama. The dispute which led to it arose out of a contested right to\n_possession_ of a piece of land. A Mr. Steele was the occupant, and\nMr. James McFarlane and some others, claimants. Mr. F. and his friends\nwent to Mr. Steele's house with a view to take possession, whether\npeaceably or by violence, we do not certainly know. As they entered\nthe house a quarrel ensued between the opposite parties, and some\nblows perhaps followed; in a short time, several guns were discharged\nfrom the house at Mr. McFarlane and friends. Mr. M. was killed, a Mr.\nFreamster dangerously wounded, and it is thought will not recover; two\nothers were also wounded, though not so as to endanger life. Mr.\nSteele's brother was wounded by the discharge of a pistol from one of\nMr. M's friends. We have heard some other particulars about the\naffray, but we abstain from giving them, as incidental versions are\noften erroneous, and as the whole matter will be submitted to legal\ninvestigation. Four of Steele's party, his brother, and three whose\nnames are Lenten, Collins and Wills, have been arrested, and are now\nconfined in the gaol in this place.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Norfolk Beacon,\" July 14, 1838.\n\n\"A few days since at Claysville, Marshal co., Alabama, Messrs.\nNathaniel and Graves W. Steele, while riding in a carriage, were shot\ndead, and Alex. Steele and Wm. Collins, also in the carriage, were\nseverely wounded, (the former supposed mortally,) by Messrs. Jesse\nAllen, Alexander and Arthur McFarlane, and Daniel Dickerson. The\nSteeles, it appears, last year killed James McFarlane and another\nperson in a similar manner, which led to this dreadful retaliation.\"\n\n\nFrom the Montgomery (Ala.) Advocate--Washington, Autauga Co., Dec. 28,\n1838.\n\n\"FATAL RENCONTRE.--On Friday last, the 28th ult., a fatal rencontre\ntook place in the town of Washington, Autauga county, between John\nTittle and Thomas J. Tarleton, which resulted in the death of the\nformer. After a patient investigation of the matter, Mr. Tarleton was\nreleased by the investigating tribunal, on the ground that the\nhomicide was clearly justifiable.\"\n\n\nThe \"Columbus (Ga.) Sentinel\" July 6, 1837, quotes the following from\nthe Mobile (Ala.) Examiner.\n\n\"A man by the name of Peter Church was killed on one of the wharves\nnight before last. The person by whom it was done delivered himself to\nthe proper authorities yesterday morning. The deceased and destroyer\nwere friends and the act occurred in consequence of an immaterial\nquarrel.\"\n\n\nThe \"Milledgeville Federal Union\" of July 11, 1837, has the following\n\n\"In Selma, Alabama resided lately messrs. Philips and Dickerson,\nphysicians. Mr. P. is brother to the wife of V. Bleevin Esq., a rich\ncotton planter in that neighborhood; the latter has a very lovely\ndaughter, to whom Dr. D. paid his addresses. A short time since a\ngentleman from Mobile married her. Soon after this, a schoolmaster in\nSelma set a cry afloat to the effect, that he had heard Dr. D. say\nthings about the lady's conduct before marriage which ought not to be\nsaid about any lady. Dr. D. denied having said such things, and the\nother denied having spread the story; but neither denials sufficed to\npacify the enraged parent. He met Dr. D. fired at him two pistols, and\nwounded him. Dr. D. was unarmed, and advanced to Mr. Bleevin, holding\nup his hands imploringly, when Mr. B. drew a Bowie knife, and stabbed\nhim to the heart. The doctor dropped dead on the spot: and Mr. Bleevin\nhas been held to bail.\"\n\n\nThe following is taken from the \"Alabama, Intelligencer,\" Sept. 17,\n1838.\n\n\"On the 5th instant, a deadly rencounter took place in the streets of\nRusselville, (our county town,) between John A. Chambers, Esq., of the\ncity of Mobile, and Thomas L. Jones, of this county. In the\nrencounter, Jones was wounded by several balls which took effect in\nhis chin, mouth, neck, arm, and shoulder, believed to be mortal; he\ndid not fire his gun.\n\n\"Mr. Chambers forthwith surrendered himself to the Sheriff of the\ncounty, and was on the 6th, tried and fully acquitted, by a court of\ninquiry.\"\n\n\nThe \"Maysville (Ky.) Advocate\" of August 14, 1838, gives the following\naffray, which took place in Girard, Alabama, July 10th.\n\n\"Two brothers named Thomas and Hal Lucas, who had been much in the\nhabit of quarrelling, came together under strong excitement, and Tom,\nas was his frequent custom, being about to flog Hal with a stick of\nsome sort, the latter drew a pistol and shot the former, his own\nbrother, through the heart, who almost instantly expired!\"\n\nThe \"New Orleans Bee\" of Oct. 5, 1838, relates an affray in Mobile,\nAlabama, between Benjamin Alexander, an aged man of ninety, with\nThomas Hamilton, his grandson, on the 24th of September, in which the\nformer killed the latter with a dirk.\n\nThe \"Red River Whig\" of July 7, 1838, gives the particulars of a\ntragedy in Western Alabama, in which a planter near Lakeville, left\nhome for some days, but suspecting his wife's fidelity, returned home\nlate at night, and finding his suspicions verified, set fire to his\nhouse and waited with his rifle before the door, till his wife and her\nparamour attempted to rush out, when he shot them both dead.\n\n\nFrom the \"Morgan (Ala.) Observer,\" Dec. 1838.\n\n\"We are informed from private sources, that on last Saturday, a poor\nman who was moving westward with his wife and three little children\nand driving a small drove of sheep, and perhaps a cow or two, which\nwas driven by his family, on arriving in Florence, and while passing\nthrough, met with a citizen of that place, who rode into his flock and\ncaused him some trouble to keep it together, when the mover informed\nthe individual that he must not do so again or he would throw a rock\nat him, upon which some words ensued, and the individual again\ndisturbed the flock, when the mover, as near as we can learn, threw at\nhim upon this the troublesome man got off his horse, went into a\ngrocery, got a gun, and came out and deliberately shot the poor\nstranger in the presence of his wife and little children. The wounded\nman then made an effort to get into some house, when his murderous\nassailant overtook and stabbed him to the heart with a _Bowie knife_.\nThis revolting scene, we are informed, occurred in the presence of\nmany citizens, who, report says, never even lifted their voices in\ndefence of the murdered man.\"\n\nA late number of the \"Flag of the Union,\" published at Tuscalosa, the\nseat of the government of Alabama, states that \"since the commencement\nof the late session of the legislature of that state, no less than\nTHIRTEEN FIGHTS had been had within sight of the capitol.\" _Pistols\nand Bowie knives were used in every case_.\n\nThe present white population of Alabama is about the same with that of\nNew Jersey, yet for the last twenty years there has not been so many\npublic deadly affrays, and of such a horrible character, in New\nJersey, as have taken place in Alabama within the last eight months.\n\n\n\nMISSISSIPPI.\n\nMississippi became one of the United States in 1817. Its present white\npopulation is about one hundred and sixty thousand.\n\nThe following extracts will serve to show that those who combine\ntogether to beat, rob, and manacle innocent men, women and children,\nwill stick at nothing when their passions are up.\n\nThe following murderous affray at Canton, Mississippi, is from the\n\"Alabama Beacon,\" Sept, 13, 1838.\n\n\"A terrible tragedy recently occurred at Canton, Miss., growing out of\nthe late duel between Messrs. Dickins and Drane of that place. A\nKentuckian happening to be in Canton, spoke of the duel, and charged\nMr. Mitchell Calhoun, the second of Drane, with cowardice and\nunfairness. Mr. Calhoun called on the Kentuckian for an explanation,\nand the offensive charge was repeated. _A challenge and fight with\nBowie knives, toe to toe_, were the consequences. Both parties were\ndreadfully and dangerously wounded, though neither was dead at the\nlast advices. Mr. Calhoun is a brother to the Hon. John Calhoun,\nmember of Congress.\"\n\nHere follows the account of the duel referred to above, between\nMessrs. Dickins and Drane.\n\n\"Intelligence has been received in this town of a fatal duel that took\nplace in Canton, Miss., on the 28th ult., between Rufus K. Dickins,\nand a Mr. Westley Drane. They fought with double barrelled guns,\nloaded with buckshot--both were mortally wounded.\"\n\n\nThe \"Louisville Journal\" publishes the following, Nov. 23.\n\n\"On the 7th instant, a fatal affray took place at Gallatin,\nMississippi. The principal parties concerned were, Messrs. John W.\nScott, James G. Scott, and Edmund B. Hatch. The latter was shot down\nand then stabbed twice through the body, by J.G. Scott.\"\n\n\nThe \"Alabama Beacon\" of Sept. 13, 1838, says:\n\n\"An attempt was made in Vicksburg lately, by a gang of Lynchers, to\ninflict summary punishment on three men of the name of Fleckenstein.\nThe assault was made upon the house, about 11 o'clock at night.\nMeeting with some resistance from the three Fleckensteins, a leader of\nthe gang, by the name of Helt, discharged his pistol, and wounded one\nof the brothers severely in the neck and jaws. A volley of four or\nfive shots was almost instantly returned, when Helt fell dead, a piece\nof the top of the skull being torn off, and almost the whole of his\nbrains dashed out. His comrades seeing him fall, suddenly took to\ntheir heels. There were, it is supposed, some _ten or fifteen_\nconcerned in the transaction.\"\n\n\nThe \"Manchester (Miss.) Gazette,\" August 11, 1838, says:\n\n\"It appears that Mr. Asa Hazeltine, who kept a public or boarding\nhouse in Jackson, during the past winter, and Mr. Benjamin Tanner,\ncame here about five or six weeks since, with the intention of opening\na public house. Foiled in the design, in the settlement of their\naffairs some difficulty arose as to a question of veracity between the\nparties. Mr. Tanner, deeply excited, procured a pistol and loaded it\nwith the charge of death, sought and found the object of his hatred in\nthe afternoon, in the yard of Messrs. Kezer & Maynard, and in the\npresence of several persons, after repeated and ineffectual attempts\non the part of Capt. Jackson to baffle his fell spirit, shot the\nunfortunate victim, of which wound Mr. Hazeltine died in a short time.\n\n\"We understand that Mr. Hazeltine was a native of Boston.\"\n\n\nThe \"Columbia (S.C.) Telescope,\" Sept. 16, 1837, gives the details\nbelow:\n\n\"By a letter from Mississippi, we have an account of a rencontre which\ntook place in Rodney, on the 27th July, between Messrs. Thos. J.\nJohnston and G.H. Wilcox, both formerly of this city. In consequence\nof certain publications made by these gentlemen against each other,\nJohnston challenged Wilcox. The latter declining to accept the\nchallenge, Johnston informed his friends at Rodney, that he would be\nthere at the term of the court then not distant, when he would make an\nattack upon him. He repaired thither on the 26th, and on the next\nmorning the following communication was read aloud in the presence of\nWilcox and a large crowd:\n\n\"Rodney, July 27, 1837.\n\n\"Mr. Johnston informs Mr. Wilcox, that at or about 1 o'clock of this\nday, he will be on the common, opposite the Presbyterian Church of\nthis town, waiting and expecting Mr. Wilcox to meet him there.\n\n\"I pledge my honor that Mr. Johnston will not fire at Mr. Wilcox,\nuntil he arrives at a distance of one hundred yards from him, and I\ndesire Mr. Wilcox or any of his friends, to see that distance\naccurately measured.\n\n\"Mr. Johnston will wait there thirty minutes.\n\n\"J. M. DUFFIELD.\n\n\"Mr. Wilcox declined being a party to any such arrangement, and Mr. D.\ntold him to be prepared for an attack. Accordingly, about an hour\nafter this, Johnston proceeded towards Wilcox's office, armed with a\ndouble-barrelled gun, (one of the barrels rifled,) and three pistols\nin his belt. He halted about fifty yards from W's door and leveled his\ngun. W. withdrew before Johnston could fire, and seized a musket,\nreturned to the door and flashed. Johnston fired both barrels without\neffect. Wilcox then seized a double barrel gun, and Johnston a musket,\nand both again fired. Wilcox sent twenty-three buck shot over\nJohnston's head, one of them passing through his hat, and Wilcox was\nslightly wounded on both hands, his thigh and leg.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Alabama Beacon,\" May 27, 1838.\n\n\"An affray of the most barbarous nature was expected to take place in\nArkansas opposite Princeton, on Thursday last. The two original\nparties have been endeavoring for several weeks, to settle their\ndifferences at Natchez. One of the individuals concerned stood\npledged, our informant states, to fight three different antagonists in\none day. The fights, we understand, were to be with pistols; but a\nvariety of other weapons were taken along--among others, the deadly\nBowie knife. These latter instruments, we are told, were whetted and\ndressed up at Grand Gulf, as the parties passed up, avowedly with the\nintention of being used in the field.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Southern (Miss) Argus,\" Nov. 21, 1837.\n\n\"We learn that, at a wood yard above Natchez, on Sunday evening last,\na difficulty arose between Captain Crosly, of the steamboat Galenian,\nand one of his deck passengers. Capt. C. drew a Bowie knife, and made\na pass at the throat of the passenger, which failed to do any harm,\nand the captain then ordered him to leave his boat. The man went on\nboard to get his baggage, and the captain immediately sought the cabin\nfor a pistol. As the passenger was about leaving the boat, the captain\npresented a pistol to his breast, which snapped. Instantly the enraged\nand wronged individual seized Capt. Crosly by the throat, and brought\nhim to the ground, when he drew a dirk and stabbed him eight or nine\ntimes in the breast, each blow driving the weapon into his body up to\nthe hilt. The passenger was arrested, carried to Natchez, tried and\nacquitted.\"\n\nThe \"Planter's Intelligencer\" publishes the following from the\nVicksburg Sentinel of June 19, 1838.\n\n\"About 1 o'clock, we observed two men 'pummeling' one another in the\nstreet, to the infinite amusement of a crowd. Presently a third hero\nmade his appearance in the arena, with Bowie knife in hand, and he\ncried out, \"Let me come at him!\" Upon hearing this threat, one of the\npugilists 'took himself off,' our hero following at full speed.\nFinding his pursuit was vain, our hero returned, when an attack was\ncommenced upon another individual. He was most cruelly beat, and cut\nthrough the skull with a knife; it is feared the wounds will prove\nmortal. The sufferer, we learn, is an inoffensive German.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Mississippian,\" Nov. 9, 1838.\n\n\"On Tuesday evening last, 23d, an affray occurred at the town of\nTallahasse, in this county, between Hugh Roark and Captain Flack,\nwhich resulted in the death of Roark. Roark went to bed, and Flack,\nwho was in the barroom below, observed to some persons there, that he\nbelieved they had set up Roark to whip him; Roark, upon hearing his\nname mentioned, got out of bed and came downstairs. Flack met and\nstabbed him in the lower part of his abdomen with a knife, letting out\nhis bowels. Roark ran to the door, and received another stab in the\nback. He lived until Thursday night, when he expired in great agony.\nFlack was tried before a justice of the peace, and we understand was\nonly held to bail to appear at court in the event Roark should die.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Grand Gulf Advertiser\" Nov. 7, 1838.\n\n\"_Attempt at Riot at Natchez_.--The _Courier_ says, that in\nconsequence of the discharge of certain individuals who had been\narraigned for the murder of a man named _Medill_, a mob of about 200\npersons assembled on the night of the 1st instant, with the avowed\npurpose of _lynching_ them. But fortunately, the objects of their\nvengeance had escaped from town. Foiled in their purpose, the rioters\nrepaired to the shantee where the murder was committed, and\nprecipitated it over the bluff. The military of the city were ordered\nout to keep order.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Natchez Free Trader.\"\n\n\"A violent attack was lately made on Captain Barrett, of the steamboat\nSoutherner, by three persons from Wilkinson co., Miss., whose names\nare Carey, and one of the name of J.S. Towles. The only reason for the\noutrage was, that Captain B. had the assurance to require of the\ngentlemen, who were quarreling on board his boat, to keep order for\nthe peace and comfort of the other passengers. _Towles_ drew a Bowie\nknife upon the Captain; which the latter wrested from him. A pistol,\ndrawn by one of the Careys was also taken, and the assailant was\nknocked overboard. Fortunately for him he was rescued from drowning.\nThe brave band then landed. On her return up the river, the Southerner\nstopped at Fort Adams, and on her leaving that place, an armed party,\namong whom were the Careys and Towles, fired into the boat, but\nhappily the shot missed a crowd of passengers on the hurricane deck.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Mississippian,\" Dec. 18, 1838.\n\n\"Greet Spikes, a citizen of this county, was killed a few days ago,\nbetween this place and Raymond, by a man named Pegram. It seems that\nPegram and Spikes had been carrying weapons for each other for some\ntime past. Pegram had threatened to take Spikes' life on first sight,\nfor the base treatment he had received at his hands.\n\n\"We have heard something of the particulars, but not enough to give\nthem at this time. Pegram had not been seen since.\"\n\n\nThe \"Lynchburg Virginian,\" July 23, 1638, says:\n\n\"A fatal affray occurred a few days ago in Clinton, Mississippi. The\nactors in it were a Mr. Parham, Mr. Shackleford, and a Mr. Henry.\nShackleford was killed on the spot, and Henry was slightly wounded by\na shot gun with which Parham was armed.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Columbus (Ga.) Sentinel,\" Nov. 22, 1838.\n\n\"_Butchery_.--A Bowie knife slaughter took place a few days since in\nHonesville, Miss. A Mr. Hobbs was the victim; Strother the butcher.\"\n\n\nThe \"Vicksburg Sentinel,\" Sept. 28, 1837, says:\n\n\"It is only a few weeks since humanity was shocked by a most atrocious\noutrage, inflicted by the Lynchers, on the person of a Mr. Saunderson\nof Madison, co. in this state. They dragged this respectable planter\nfrom the bosom of his family, and mutilated him in the most brutal\nmanner--maiming him most inhumanly, besides cutting off his nose and\nears and scarifying his body to the very ribs! We believe the subject\nof this foul outrage still drags out a miserable existence--an object\nof horror and of pity. Last week a club of Lynchers, amounting to four\nor five individuals, as we have been credibly informed, broke into the\nhouse of Mr. Scott of Wilkinson co., a respectable member of the bar,\nforced him out, and hung him dead on the next tree. We have heard of\nnumerous minor outrages committed against the peace of society, and\nthe welfare and happiness of the country; but we mention these as the\nmost enormous that we have heard for some months.\n\n\"It now becomes our painful duty, to notice a most disgraceful outrage\ncommitted by the Lynchers of Vicksburg, on last Sunday. The victim was\na Mr. Grace, formerly of the neighborhood of Warrenton, Va., but for\ntwo years a resident of this city. He was detected in giving free\npasses to slaves and brought to trial before Squire Maxey.\nUnfortunately for the wretch, either through the want of law or\nevidence, he could not be punished, and he was set at liberty by the\nmagistrate. The city marshal seeing that a few in the crowd were\ndisposed to lay violent hands on the prisoner in the event of his\nescaping punishment by law, resolved to accompany him to his house.\nThe Lynch mob still followed, and the marshal finding the prisoner\ncould only be protected by hurrying him to jail, endeavored to effect\nthat object. The Lynchers, however, pursued the officer of the law,\ndragged him from his horse, bruised him, and conveyed the prisoner to\nthe most convenient point of the city for carrying their blood-thirsty\ndesigns into execution. We blush while we record the atrocious deed;\nin this city, containing nearly 5,000 souls, in the broad light of\nday, this aged wretch was stripped and flogged, we believe within\nhearing of the lamentations and the shrieks of his afflicted wife and\nchildren.\"\n\n\nIn an affray at Montgomery, Mississippi, July 1, 1838, Mr. A.L.\nHerbert was killed by Dr. J.B. Harrington. See Grand Gulf Advertiser,\nAugust 1, 1838.\n\n\nThe \"Maryland Republican\" of January 30, 1838, has the following:\n\n\"A street rencounter lately took place in Jackson, Miss., between Mr.\nRobert McDonald and Mr. W.H. Lockhart, in which McDonald was shot with\na pistol and immediately expired. Lockhart was committed to prison.\"\n\n\nThe \"Nashville Banner,\" June 22, 1838, has the following:\n\n\"On the 8th inst. Col. James M. Hulet was shot with a rifle without\nany apparent provocation in Gallatin, Miss., by one Richard M. Jones.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Huntsville Democrat,\" Dec. 8, 1838.\n\n\"The Aberdeen (Miss.) Advocate, of Saturday last, states that on the\nmorning of the day previous, (the 9th) a dispute arose between Mr.\nRobert Smith and Mr. Alexander Eanes, both of Aberdeen, which resulted\nin the death of Mr. Smith, who kept a boarding house, and was an\namiable man and a good citizen. In the course of the contradictory\nwords of the disputants, the lie was given by Eanes, upon which Smith\ngathered up a piece of iron and threw it at Eanes, but which missed\nhim and lodged in the walls of the house. At this Eanes drew a large\ndirk knife, and stabbed Smith in the abdomen, the knife penetrating\nthe vitals, and thus causing immediate death. Smith breathed only a\nfew seconds after the fatal thrust.\n\n\"Eanes immediately mounted his horse and rode off, but was pursued by\nMr. Hanes, who arrested and took him back, when he was put under guard\nto await a trial before the proper authorities.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Vicksburg Register,\" Nov. 17, 1838.\n\n\"On the 2d inst. an affray occurred between one Stephen Scarbrough and\nA.W. Higbee of Grand Gulf, in which Scarbrough was stabbed with a\nknife, which occasioned his death in a few hours. Higbee has been\narrested and committed for trial.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Huntsville (Ala.) Democrat\" Nov. 10, 1838.\n\n\"_Life in the Southwest_.--A friend in Louisiana writes, under date of\nthe 31st ult., that a fight took place a few days ago in Madison\nparish, 60 miles below Lake Providence, between a Mr. Nevils and a Mr.\nHarper, which terminated fatally. The police jury had ordered a road\non the right bank of the Mississippi, and the neighboring planters\nwere out with their forces to open it. For some offence, Nevils, the\nsuperintendent of the operations, flogged two of Harper's negroes. The\nnext day the parties met on horseback, when Harper dismounted, and\nproceeded to cowskin Nevils for the chastisement inflicted on the\nnegroes. Nevils immediately drew a pistol and shot his assailant dead\non the spot. Both were gentlemen of the highest respectability.\n\n\"An affray also came off recently, as the same correspondent writes\nus, in Raymond, Hinds co., Miss., which for a serious one, was rather\namusing. The sheriff had a process to serve on a man of the name of\nBright, and, in consequence of some difficulty and intemperate\nlanguage, thought proper to commence the service by the application of\nhis cowskin to the defendant. Bright thereupon floored his adversary,\nand, wresting his cowhide from him, applied it to its owner to the\nextent of at least five hundred lashes, meanwhile threatening to shoot\nthe first bystander who attempted to interfere. The sheriff was\ncarried home in a state of insensibility, and his life has been\ndespaired of. The mayor of the place, however, issued his warrant, and\nstarted three of the sheriff's deputies in pursuit of the delinquent,\nbut the latter, after keeping them at bay till they found it\nimpossible to arrest him, surrendered himself to the magistrate, by\nwhom he was bound over to the next Circuit Court. From the mayor's\noffice, his honor and the parties litigant proceeded to the tavern to\ntake a drink by way of ending hostilities. But the civil functionary\nrefused to sign articles of peace by touching glasses with Bright,\nwhereupon the latter made a furious assault upon him, and then turned\nand flogged 'mine host' within an inch of his life because he\ninterfered. Satisfied with his day's work, Bright retired. Can we show\nany such specimens of chivalry and refinement in Kentucky!\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Grand Gulf (Miss.) Advertiser,\" June 27, 1837.\n\n\"DEATH BY VIOLENCE.--The moral atmosphere in our state appears to be\nin a deleterious and sanguinary condition. _Almost every exchange\npaper which reaches us contains some inhuman and revolting case of\nmurder or death by violence. Not less than fifteen deaths by violence\nhave occurred, to our certain knowledge, within the past three\nmonths._ Such a state of things, in a country professing to be moral\nand christian, is a disgrace to human nature and is well calculated,\nto induce those abroad unacquainted with our general habits and\nfeelings, to regard the morals of our people in no very enviable\nlight; and does more to injure and weaken our political institutions\nthan years of pecuniary distress. The frequency of such events is a\nburning disgrace to the morality, civilization, and refinement of\nfeeling to which we lay claim and so often boast in comparison with\nthe older states. And unless we set about and put an immediate and\neffectual termination to such revolting scenes, we shall be compelled\nto part with what all genuine southerners have ever regarded as their\nrichest inheritance, the proud appellation of the '_brave, high-minded\nand chivalrous sons of the south_.'\n\n\"This done, we should soon discover a change for the better--peace and\ngood order would prevail, and the ends of justice be effectually and\nspeedily attained, and then the people of this wealthy state would be\nin a condition to bid defiance to the disgraceful reproaches which are\nnow daily heaped upon them by the religious and moral of other\nstates.\"\n\n\"The present white population of Mississippi is but little more than\nhalf as great as that of Vermont, and yet more horrible crimes are\nperpetrated by them EVERY MONTH, than have ever been perpetrated in\nVermont since it has been a state, now about half a century. Whoever\ndoubts it, let him get data and make his estimate, and he will find\nthat this is no random guess.\"\n\n\n\nLOUISIANA.\n\nLouisiana became one of the United States in 1811. Its present white\npopulation is about one hundred and fifteen thousand.\n\nThe extracts which follow furnish another illustration of the horrors\nproduced by passions blown up to fury in the furnace of arbitrary\npower. We have just been looking over a broken file of Louisiana\npapers, including the last six months of 1837, and the whole of 1838,\nand find ourselves obliged to abandon our design of publishing even an\nabstract of the scores and _hundreds_ of affrays, murders,\nassassinations, duels, lynchings, assaults, &c. which took place in\nthat state during that period. Those which have taken place in New\nOrleans alone, during the last eighteen months, would, in detail, fill\na volume. Instead of inserting the details of the principal atrocities\nin Louisiana, as in the states already noticed, we will furnish the\nreader with the testimony of various editors of newspapers, and\nothers, residents of the state, which will perhaps as truly set forth\nthe actual state of society there, as could be done by a publication\nof the outrages themselves.\n\n\nFrom the \"New Orleans Bee,\" of May 23, 1838.\n\n\"_Contempt of human life._--In view of the crimes which are _daily_\ncommitted, we are led to inquire whether it is owing to the\ninefficiency of our laws, or to the manner in which those laws are\nadministered, that this _frightful deluge of human blood fowl through\nour streets and our places of public resort_.\n\n\"Whither will such contempt for the life of man lead us? The\nunhealthiness of the climate mows down annually a part of our\npopulation; the murderous steel despatches its proportion; and if\ncrime increases as it has, the latter will soon become _the most\npowerful agent in destroying life_.\n\n\"We cannot but doubt the perfection of our criminal code, when we see\nthat _almost every criminal eludes the law_, either by boldly avowing\nthe crime, or by the tardiness with which legal prosecutions are\ncarried on, or, lastly, by the convenient application of _bail_ in\ncriminal cases.\"\n\n\nThe \"New Orleans Picayune\" of July 30, 1837, says:\n\n\"It is with the most painful feelings that we _daily_ hear of some\n_fatal_ duel. Yesterday we were told of the unhappy end of one of our\nmost influential and highly respectable merchants, who fell yesterday\nmorning at sunrise in a duel. As usual, the circumstances which led to\nthe meeting were trivial.\"\n\n\nThe New Orleans correspondent of the New York Express, in his letter\ndated New Orleans, July 30, 1837, says:\n\n\"THIRTEEN DUELS have been fought in and near the city during the week;\n_five more were to take place this morning_.\"\n\n\nThe \"New Orleans Merchant\" of March 20, 1838, says:\n\n\"Murder has been rife within the two or three weeks last past; and\nwhat is worse, the authorities of those places where they occur are\n_perfectly regardless of the fact_.\"\n\n\nThe \"New Orleans Bee\" of September 8, 1838, says:\n\n\"Not two months since, the miserable BARBA became a victim to one of\nthe most cold-blooded schemes of assassination that ever disgraced a\ncivilized community. Last Sunday evening an individual, Gonzales by\nname, was seen in perfect health, in conversation with his friends. On\nMonday morning his dead body was withdrawn from the Mississippi, near\nthe ferry of the first municipality, in a state of terrible\nmutilation. To cap the climax of horror, on Friday morning, about half\npast six o'clock, the coroner was called to hold an inquest over the\nbody of an individual, between Magazine and Tchoupitoulas streets. The\nhead was entirely severed from the body; the lower extremities had\nlikewise suffered amputation; the right foot was completely\ndismembered from the leg, and the left knee nearly severed from the\nthigh. Several stabs, wounds and bruises, were discovered on various\nparts of the body, which of themselves were sufficient to produce\ndeath.\"\n\n\nThe \"Georgetown (South Carolina) Union\" of May 20, 1837, has the\nfollowing extract from a New Orleans paper.\n\n\"A short time since, two men shot one another down in one of our bar\nrooms, one of whom died instantly. A day or two after, one or two\ninfants were found murdered, there was every reason to believe, by\ntheir own mothers. Last week we had to chronicle a brutal and bloody\nmurder, committed in the heart of our city: the very next day a\nmurder-trial was commenced in our criminal court: the day ensuing\nthis, we published the particulars of Hart's murder. The day after\nthat, Tibbetts was hung for attempting to commit a murder; the next\nday again we had to publish a murder committed by two Spaniards at the\nLake--this was on Friday last. On Sunday we published the account of\nanother murder committed by the Italian, Gregorio. On Monday, another\nmurder was committed, and the murderer lodged in jail. On Tuesday\nmorning another man was stabbed and robbed, and is not likely to\nrecover, but the assassin escaped. The same day Reynolds, who killed\nBarre, shot himself in prison. On Wednesday, another person, Mr.\nNicolet, blew out his brains. Yesterday, the unfortunate George\nClement destroyed himself in his cell; and in addition to this\ndreadful catalogue we have to add that of the death of two, brothers,\nwho destroyed themselves through grief at the death of their mother;\nand truly may we say that 'we know not what to-morrow will bring\nforth.'\"\n\n\nThe \"Louisiana Advertiser,\" as quoted by the Salt River (Mo.) Journal\nof May 25, 1837, says:\n\n\"Within the last ten or twelve days, three suicides, four murders, and\ntwo executions, have occurred in the city!\"\n\nThe \"New Orleans Bee\" of October 25, 1837, says:\n\n\"We remark with regret the frightful list of homicides that are\n_daily_ committed in New Orleans.\"\n\nThe \"Planter's Banner\" of September 30. 1838, published at Franklin,\nLouisiana, after giving an account of an affray between a number of\nplanters, in which three were killed and a fourth mortally wounded,\nsays that \"Davis (one of the murderers) was arrested by the\nby-standers, but a _justice of the peace_ came up and told them, he\ndid not think it right to keep a man 'tied in that manner,' and\n'thought it best to turn him loose.' _It was accordingly so done_.\"\n\nThis occurred in the parish of Harrisonburg. The Banner closes the\naccount by saying:\n\n\"Our informant states that _five white men_ and _one_ negro have been\nmurdered in the parish of Madison, during the months of July and\nAugust.\"\n\nThis _justice of the peace_, who bade the by-standers unloose the\nmurderer, mentioned above, has plenty of birds of his own feather\namong the law officers of Louisiana. Two of the leading officers in\nthe New Orleans police took two witnesses, while undergoing legal\nexamination at Covington, near New Orleans, \"carried them to a\nbye-place, and _lynched_ them, during which inquisitorial operation,\nthey divulged every thing to the officers, Messrs. Foyle and Crossman.\"\nThe preceding fact is published in the Maryland Republican of August\n22, 1837.\n\nJudge Canonge of New Orleans, in his address at the opening of the\ncriminal court, Nov. 4, 1837, published in the \"Bee\" of Nov. 8, in\nremarking upon the prevalence of out-breaking crimes, says:\n\n\"Is it possible in a civilized country such crying abuses are\n_constantly_ encountered? How many individuals have given themselves\nup to such culpable habits! Yet we find magistrates and juries\nhesitating to expose crimes of the blackest dye to eternal contempt\nand infamy, to the vengeance of the law.\n\n\"As a Louisianian parent, _I reflect with terror_ that our beloved\nchildren, reared to become one day honorable and useful citizens, may\nbe the victims of these votaries of vice and licentiousness. Without\nsome powerful and certain remedy, _our streets will become butcheries\noverflowing with the blood of our citizens_.\"\n\nThe Editor of the \"New Orleans Bee,\" in his paper of Oct. 21, 1837,\nhas a long editorial article, in which he argues for the virtual\nlegalizing of LYNCH LAW, as follows:\n\n\"We think then that in the circumstances in which we are placed, the\nLegislature ought to sanction such measures as the situation of the\ncountry render necessary, by giving to justice a _convenient\nlatitude_. There are occasions when the delays inseparable from the\nadministration of justice would be inimical to the public safety, and\nwhen the most fatal consequences would be the result.\n\n\"It appears to us, that there is an urgent necessity to provide\nagainst the inconveniences which result from popular judgment, and to\ncheck the disposition for the speedy execution of justice resulting\nfrom the unconstitutional principle of a pretended Lynch law, by\nauthorizing the parish court to take cognizance without delay, against\nevery free man who shall be convicted of a crime; from the accusations\narising from the mere provocations to the insurrection of the working\nclasses.\n\n\"All judicial sentences ought to be based upon law, and the terrible\nprivilege which the populace now have of punishing with death certain\ncrimes, _ought to be consecrated by law_, powerful interests would not\nsuffice in our view to excuse the interruption of social order, if the\npublic safety was not with us the supreme law.\n\n\"This is the reason that whilst we deplore the imperious necessity\nwhich exists, we entreat the legislative power to give the sanction of\nprinciple to what already exists in fact.\"\n\nThe Editor of the \"New Orleans Bee,\" in his paper, Oct 25, 1837, says:\n\n\"We remark with regret the frightful list of homicides, whether\njustifiable or not, that are daily committed in New Orleans. It is not\nthrough any inherent vice of legal provision that such outrages are\nperpetrated with impunity: it is rather in the neglect of the\n_application of the law_ which exists on this subject.\n\n\"We will confine our observation to the dangerous facilities afforded\nby this code for the escape of the homicide. We are well aware that\nthe laws in question are intended for the distribution of equal\njustice, yet we have too often witnessed the acquittal of delinquents\nwhom we can denominate by no other title than that of homicides, while\nthe simple affirmation of others has been admitted (in default of\ntestimony) who are themselves the authors of the deed, for which they\nstand in judgment. The _indiscriminate system of accepting bail_ is a\nblot on our criminal legislation, and is one great reason why so many\nviolators of the law avoid its penalties. To this doubtless must be\nascribed the non-interference of the Attorney General. The law of\n_habeas corpus_ being subjected to the interpretation of every\nmagistrate, whether versed or not in criminal cases, a degree of\narbitrary and incorrect explanation necessarily results. How\nfrequently does it happen that the Mayor or Recorder decides upon the\ngravest case without putting himself to the smallest trouble to inform\nthe Attorney General, who sometimes only hears of the affair when\ninvestigation is no longer possible, or when the criminal has wisely\ncommuted his punishment into temporary or perpetual exile.\"\n\nThat morality suffers by such practices, is beyond a doubt; yet\nmoderation and mercy are so beautiful in themselves, that we would\nscarcely protest against indulgence, were it not well known that the\nacceptance of bail is the safeguard of every delinquent who, through\nwealth or connections, possesses influence enough to obtain it. Here\narbitrary construction glides amidst the confusion of testimony; there\nit presumes upon the want of evidence, and from one cause or another\nit is extremely rare, that a refusal to bail has delivered the accused\ninto the hands of justice. In criminal cases, the Court and Jury are\nthe proper tribunals to decide upon the reality of the crime, and the\npalliating circumstances; _yet it is not unfrequent_ for the public\nvoice to condemn as an odious assassin, the very individual who by the\nacquittal of the judge, walks at large and scoffs at justice.\n\n\"It is time to restrict within its proper limits this pretended right\nof personal protection; it is time to teach our population to abstain\nfrom mutual murder upon slight provocation.--Duelling, Heaven knows,\nis dreadful enough, and quite a sufficient means of gratifying private\naversion, and avenging insult. Frequent and serious brawls in our\ncafes, streets and houses, every where attest the insufficiency or\nmisapplication of our legal code, or the want of energy in its organs.\nTo say that unbounded license is the insult of liberty is folly.\nLiberty is the consequence of well regulated laws--without these,\nFreedom can exist only in name, and the law which favors the escape of\nthe opulent and aristocratic from the penalties of retribution, but\nconsigns the poor and friendless to the chain-gang or the gallows, is\nin fact the very essence of slavery!!\"\n\n\nThe editor of the same paper says (Nov. 4, 1837.)\n\n\"Perhaps by an equitable, but strict application of that law, (the law\nwhich forbids the wearing of deadly weapons concealed,) the effusion\nof human blood might be stopt _which now defiles our streets and our\ncoffee-houses as if they were shambles_! Reckless disregard of the\nlife of man is rapidly gaining ground among us, and the habit of\nseeing a man whom it is taken for granted was armed, murdered merely\nfor a _gesture_, may influence the opinion of a jury composed of\ncitizens, whom, LONG IMPUNITY TO HOMICIDES OF EVERY KIND has\npersuaded, that the right of self-defence extends even to the taking\nof life for _gestures_, more or less threatening. So many DAILY\ninstances of outbreaking passion which have thrown whole families into\nthe deepest affliction, teach us a terrible lesson.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Columbus (Ga.) Sentinel,\" July 6, 1837.\n\n\"_Wholesale Murders_.--No less than three murders were committed in\nNew Orleans on Monday evening last. The first was that of a man in\nPoydras, near the corner of Tehapitoulas. The murdered individual had\nbeen suspected of a _liason_ with another man's wife in the\nneighbourhood, was caught in the act, followed to the above corner and\nshot.\n\n\"The second was that of a man in Perdido street. Circumstances not\nknown.\n\n\"The third was that of a watchman, on the corner of Custom House and\nBurgundy street, who was found dead yesterday morning, shot through\nthe heart. The deed was evidently committed on the opposite side from\nwhere he was found, as the unfortunate man was tracked by his blood\nacross the street. In addition to being shot through the heart, two\nwounds in his breast, supposed to have been done with a Bowie knife,\nwere discovered. No arrests have been made to our knowledge.\"\n\n\nThe editor of the \"Charleston, (S.C.) Mercury\" of April, 1837, snakes\nthe following remarks.\n\n\"The energy of a Tacon is much needed to vivify the police of New\nOrleans. In a single paper we find an account of the execution of one\nman for robbery and intent to kill, of the arrest of another for\nstabbing a man to death with a carving knife; and of a third found\nmurdered on the Levee on the previous Sunday morning. In the last\ncase, although the murderer was known, _no steps had been taken for\nhis arrest_; and to crown the whole, it is actually stated in so many\nwords, that the City guards are not permitted, according to their\ninstructions, to patrol the Levee after night, for fear of attacks\nfrom persons employed in steamboats!\"\n\nThe present white population of Louisiana is but little more than that\nof Rhode Island, yet more appalling crime is committed in Louisiana\n_every day_, than in Rhode Island during a year, notwithstanding the\ntone of public morals is probably lower in the latter than in any\nother New England state.\n\n\n\nTENNESSEE.\n\n\nTennessee became one of the United States in 1796. Its present white\npopulation is about seven hundred thousand.\n\nThe details which follow, go to confirm the old truth, that the\nexercise of arbitrary power tends to make men monsters. The following,\nfrom the \"Memphis (Tennessee) Enquirer,\" was published in the Virginia\nAdvocate, Jan. 26, 1838.\n\n\"Below will be found a detailed account of one of the most unnatural\nand aggravated murders ever recorded. Col. Ward, the deceased, was a\nman of high standing in the state, and very much esteemed by his\nneighbors, and by all who knew him. The brothers concerned in this\n'murder, most foul and unnatural,' were Lafayette, Chamberlayne,\nCaesar, and Achilles Jones, (the nephews of Col. Ward.)\n\n\"The four brothers, all armed, went to the residence of Mr. A.G. Ward,\nin Shelby co., on the evening of 22d instant. They were conducted into\nthe room in which Col. Ward was sitting, together with some two or\nthree ladies, his intended wife amongst the number. Upon their\nentering the room, Col. Ward rose, and extended his hand to Lafayette.\nHe refused, saying he would shake hands with no such d----d rascal.\nThe rest answered in the same tone. Col. Ward remarked that they were\nnot in a proper place for a difficulty, if they sought one. Col. Ward\nwent from the room to the passage, and was followed by the brothers.\nHe said he was unarmed, but if they would lay down their arms, he\ncould whip the whole of them; or if they would place him on an equal\nfooting, he could whip the whole of them one by one. Caesar told\nChamberlayne to give the Col. one of his pistols, which he did, and\nboth went out into the yard, the other brothers following. While\nstanding a few paces from each other, Lafayette came up, and remarked\nto the Col., 'If you spill my brother's blood, I will spill yours,'\nabout which time Chamberlayne's pistol fired, and immediately\nLafayette bursted a cap at him. The Colonel turned to Lafayette, and\nsaid, 'Lafayette, you intend to kill,' and discharged his pistol at\nhim. The ball struck the pistol of Lafayette, and glanced into his\narm. By this time Albert Ward, being close by, and hearing the fuss,\ncame up to the assistance of the Colonel, when a scuffle amongst all\nhands ensued. The Colonel stumbled and fell down--he received several\nwounds from a large bowie knife; and, after being stabbed,\nChamberlayne jumped upon him, and stamped him several times. After the\nscuffle, Caesar Jones was seen to put up a large bowie knife. Colonel\nWard said he was a dead man. By the assistance of Albert Ward, he\nreached the house, distance about 15 or 20 yards, and in a few minutes\nexpired. On examination by the Coroner, it appeared that he had\nreceived several wounds from pistols and knives. Albert Ward was also\nbadly bruised, not dangerously.\"\n\n\nThe \"New Orleans Bee,\" Sept. 22, 1838, published the following from\nthe \"Nashville (Tennessee) Whig.\"\n\n\"The Nashville Whig, of the 11th ult., says: Pleasant Watson, of De\nKalb county, and a Mr. Carmichael, of Alabama, were the principals in\nan affray at Livingston, Overton county, last week, which terminated\nin the death of the former. Watson made the assault with a dirk, and\nCarmichael defended himself with a pistol, shooting his antagonist\nthrough the body, a few inches below the heart. Watson was living at\nthe last account. The dispute grew out of a horse race.\"\n\n\nThe New Orleans Courier, April 7, 1837, has the following extract from\nthe \"McMinersville (Tennessee) Gazette.\"\n\n\"On Saturday, the 8th instant, Colonel David L. Mitchell, the worthy\nsheriff of White county, was most barbarously murdered by a man named\nJoseph Little. Colonel Mitchell had a civil process against Little. He\nwent to Little's house for the purpose of arresting him. He found\nLittle armed with a rifle, pistols, &c. He commenced a conversation\nwith Little upon the impropriety of his resisting, and stated his\ndetermination to take him, at the same time slowly advancing upon\nLittle, who discharged his rifle at him without effect. Mitchell then\nattempted to jump in, to take hold of him when Little struck him over\nthe head with the barrel of his rifle, and literally mashed his skull\nto pieces; and, as he lay prostrate on the earth, Little deliberately\npulled a large pistol from his belt, and placing the muzzle close to\nMitchell's head, he shot the ball through it. Little has made his\nescape. _There were three men near by when the murder was committed,\nwho made no attempt to arrest the murderer_.\"\n\n\nThe following affray at Athens, Tennessee, from the Mississippian,\nAugust 10, 1838.\n\n\"An unpleasant occurrence transpired at Athens on Monday. Captain\nJames Byrnes was stabbed four times, twice in the arm, and twice in\nthe side by A.R. Livingston. The wounds are said to be very severe,\nand fears are entertained of their proving mortal. The affair\nunderwent an examination before Sylvester Nichols, Esq., by whom\nLivingston was let to bail.\"\n\n\nThe \"West Tennessean,\" Aug. 4, 1837, says--\n\n\"A duel was fought at Calhoun, Tenn., between G.W. Carter and J.C.\nSherley. They used yaugers at the distance of 20 yards. The former was\nslightly wounded, and the latter quite dangerously.\"\n\nJune 23d, 1838, Benjamin Shipley, of Hamilton co., Tennessee, shot\nArchibald McCallie. (_Nashville Banner_, July 16, 1838.)\n\nJune 23d, 1838, Levi Stunston, of Weakly co., Tennessee, killed\nWilliam Price, of said county, in an affray. (_Nashville Banner, July\n6, 1838_.)\n\nOctober 8, 1838, in an affray at Wolf's Ferry, Tennessee, Martin\nFarley, Senior, was killed by John and Solomon Step. (_Georgia\nTelegraph, Nov 6, 1838._.)\n\nFeb. 14, 1838, John Manie was killed by William Doss at Decatur,\nTennessee. (_Memphis Gazette, May 15, 1838_.)\n\n  \"From the Nashville Whig.\"\n\n\"_Fatal Affray in Columbia, Tenn_.--A fatal street encounter occurred\nat that place, on the 3d inst., between Richard H. Hays, attorney at\nlaw, and Wm. Polk, brother to the Hon. Jas. K. Polk. The parties met,\narmed with pistols, and exchanged shots simultaneously. A buck-shot\npierced the brain of Hays, and he died early the next morning. The\nquarrel grew out of a sportive remark of Hays', at dinner, at the\nColumbia Inn, for which he offered an apology, not accepted, it seems,\nas Polk went to Hays' office, the same evening, and chastised him with\na whip. This occurred on Friday, the fatal result took place on\nMonday.\"\n\nIn a fight near Memphis, Tennessee, May 15, 1837, Mr. Jackson, of that\nplace, shot through the heart Mr. W.F. Gholson, son of the late Mr.\nGholson, of Virginia. (_Raleigh Register, June 13, 1837_.)\n\nThe following horrible outrage, committed in West Tennessee, not far\nfrom Randolph, was published by the Georgetown (S.C.) Union, May 26,\n1837, from the Louisville Journal.\n\n\"A feeble bodied man settled a few years ago on the Mississippi, a\nshort distance below Randolph, on the Tennessee side. He succeeded in\namassing property to the value of about $14,000, and, like most of the\nsettlers, made a business of selling wood to the boats. This he sold\nat $2.50 a cord, while his neighbors asked $3. One of them came to\nremonstrate against his underselling, and had a fight with his\nbrother-in-law Clark, in which he was beaten. He then went and\nobtained legal process against Clark, and returned with a deputy\nsheriff, attended by a posse of desperate villains. When they arrived\nat Clark's house, he was seated among his children--they put two or\nthree balls through his body. Clark ran, was overtaken and knocked\ndown; in the midst of his cries for mercy, one of the villains fired a\npistol in his mouth, killing him instantly. They then required the\nsettler to sell his property to them, and leave the country. He,\nfearing that they would otherwise take his life, sold them his\nvaluable property for $300, and departed with his family. _The sheriff\nwas one of the purchasers._\"\n\nThe Baltimore American, Feb. 8, 1838, publishes the following from the\nNashville (Tennessee) Banner:\n\n\"A most atrocious murder was committed a few days ago at Lagrange, in\nthis state, on the body of Mr. John T. Foster, a respectable merchant\nof that town. The perpetrators of this bloody act are E. Moody, Thomas\nMoody, J.E. Douglass, W.R. Harris, and W.C. Harris. The circumstances\nattending this horrible affair, are the following:--On the night\nprevious to the murder, a gang of villains, under pretence of wishing\nto purchase goods, entered Mr. Foster's store, took him by force, and\nrode him through the streets _on a rail_. The next morning, Mr. F. met\none of the party, and gave him a caning. For this just retaliation for\nthe outrage which had been committed on his person, he was pursued by\nthe persons alone named, while taking a walk with a friend, and\nmurdered in the open face of day.\"\n\nThe following presentment of a Tennessee Grand Jury, sufficiently\nexplains and comments on itself:\n\nThe Grand Jurors empanelled to inquire for the county of Shelby, would\nseparate without having discharged their duties, if they were to omit\nto notice public evils which they have found their powers inadequate\nto put in train for punishment. The evils referred to exist more\nparticularly in the town of Memphis.\n\nThe audacity and frequency with which outrages are committed, forbid\nus, in justice to our consciences, to omit to use the powers we\npossess, to bring them to the severe action of the law; and when we\nfind our powers inadequate, to draw upon them public attention, and\nthe rebuke of the good.\n\nAn infamous female publicly and grossly assaults a lady; therefore a\npublic meeting is called, the mayor of the town is placed in the\nchair, resolutions are adopted, providing for the summary and lawless\npunishment of the wretched woman. In the progress of the affair,\n_hundreds of citizens_ assemble at her house, and raze it to the\nground. The unfortunate creature, together with two or three men of\nlike character, are committed, in an open canoe or boat, without oar\nor paddle, to the middle of the Mississippi river.\n\nSuch is a concise outline of the leading incidents of a recent\ntransaction in Memphis. It might be filled up by the detail of\nindividual exploits, which would give vivacity to the description; but\nwe forbear to mention them. We leave it to others to admire the\nmanliness of the transaction, and the courage displayed by a mob of\nhundreds, in the various outrages upon the persons and property of\nthree or four individuals who fell under its vengeance.\n\nThe present white population of Tennessee is about the same with that\nof Massachusetts, and yet more outbreaking crimes are committed in\nTennessee in a _single month_, than in Massachusetts during a whole\nyear; and this, too, notwithstanding the largest town in Tennessee has\nbut six thousand inhabitants; whereas, in Massachusetts, besides one\nof eighty thousand, and two others of nearly twenty thousand each,\nthere are at least a dozen larger than the chief town in Tennessee,\nwhich gives to the latter state an important advantage on the score of\nmorality, the country being so much more favorable to it than large\ntowns.\n\n\n\nKENTUCKY.\n\n\nKentucky has been one of the United States since 1792. Its present\nwhite population is about six hundred thousand.\n\nThe details which follow show still further that those who unite to\nplunder of their rights one class of human beings, regard as _sacred_\nthe rights of no class.\n\n\nThe following affair at Maysville, Kentucky, is extracted from the\nMaryland Republican, January 30, 1838.\n\n\"A fight came on at Maysville, Ky. on the 29th ultimo, in which a Mr.\nCoulster was stabbed in the side and is dead; a Mr. Gibson was well\nhacked with a knife; a Mr. Ferris was dangerously wounded in the head,\nand another of the same name in the hip; a Mr. Shoemaker was severely\nbeaten, and several others seriously hurt in various ways.\"\n\nThe following is extracted from the N.C. Standard.\n\n\"A most bloody and shocking transaction took place in the little town\nof Clinton, Hickman co. Ken. The circumstances are briefly as follows:\nA special canvass for a representative from the county of Hickman, had\nfor some time been in progress. A gentleman by the name of Binford was\na candidate. The State Senator from the district, Judge James, took\nsome exceptions to the reputation of Binford, and intimated that if B.\nshould be elected, he (James) would resign rather than serve with such\na colleague. Hearing this, Binford went to the house of James to\ndemand an explanation. Mrs. James remarked, in a jest as Binford\nthought, that if she was in the place of her husband she would resign\nher seat in the Senate, and not serve with such a character. B. told\nher that she was a woman, and could say what she pleased. She replied\nthat she was not in earnest. James then looked B. in the face and said\nthat, if his wife said so, it was the fact--'he was an infamous\nscoundrel and d----d rascal.' He asked B. if he was armed, and on\nbeing answered in the affirmative, he stepped into an adjoining room\nto arm himself; He was prevented by the family from returning, and\nBinford walked out. J. then told him from his piazza, that he would\nmeet him next day in Clinton.\n\n\"True to their appointment, the enraged parties met on the streets the\nfollowing day. James shot first, his ball passing through his\nantagonist's liver, whose pistol fired immediately afterwards, and\nmissing J., the ball pierced the head of a stranger by the name of\nCollins, who instantly fell and expired. After being shot, Binford\nsprang upon J. with the fury of a wounded tiger, and would have taken\nhis life but for a second shot received through the back from Bartin\nJames, the brother of Thomas. Even after he received the last fatal\nwound he struggled with his antagonist until death relaxed his grasp,\nand he fell with the horrid exclamation, _'I am a dead man!'_\n\n\"Judge James gave himself up to the authorities; and when the\ninformant of the editor left Clinton, Binford, and the unfortunate\nstranger lay shrouded corpses together.\"\n\n\nThe \"N.O. Bee\" thus gives the conclusion of the matter:\n\n\"Judge James was tried and acquitted, the death of Binford being\nregarded as an act of justifiable homicide.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Flemingsburg Kentuckian,\" June 23,'38.\n\nAFFRAY.--Thomas Binford, of Hickman county, Kentucky, recently attacked\na Mr. Gardner of Dresden, with a drawn knife, and cut his face pretty\nbadly. Gardner picked up a piece of iron and gave him a side-wipe\nabove the ear that brought him to terms. The skull was fractured about\ntwo inches. Binford's brother was killed at Clinton, Kentucky, last\nfall by Judge James.\n\n\nThe \"Red River Whig\" of September 15, 1838, says:--\"A ruffian of the\nname of Charles Gibson, attempted to murder a girl named Mary Green,\nof Louisville, Ky. on the 23d ult. He cut her in six different places\nwith a Bowie knife. His object, as stated in a subsequent\ninvestigation before the Police Court, was to cut her throat, which\nshe prevented by throwing up her arms.\"\n\n\nFrom the \"Louisville Advertiser,\" Dec. 17th, 1838:--\"A startling\ntragedy occurred in this city on Saturday evening last, in which A.H.\nMeeks was instantly killed, John Rothwell mortally wounded, William\nHolmes severely wounded, and Henry Oldham slightly, by the use of\nBowie knives, by Judge E.C. Wilkinson, and his brother, B.R.\nWilkinson, of Natchez, and J. Murdough, of Holly Springs, Mississippi.\nIt seems that Judge Wilkinson had ordered a coat at the shop of\nMessrs. Varnum & Redding. The coat was made; the Judge, accompanied by\nhis brother and Mr. Murdough, went to the shop of Varnum & Redding,\ntried on the coat, and was irritated because, as he believed, it did\nnot fit him. Mr. Redding undertook to convince him that he was in\nerror, and ventured to assure the Judge that the coat was well made.\nThe Judge instantly seized an iron poker, and commenced an attack on\nRedding. The blow with the poker was partially warded off--Redding\ngrappled his assailant, when a companion of the Judge drew a Bowie\nknife, and, but for the interposition and interference of the\nunfortunate Meeks, a journeyman tailor, and a gentleman passing by at\nthe moment, Redding might have been assassinated in his own shop.\nShortly afterwards, Redding, Meeks, Rothwell, and Holmes went to the\nGalt House. They sent up stairs for Judge Wilkinson, and he came down\ninto the bar room, when angry words were passed. The Judge went up\nstairs again, and in a short time returned with his companions, all\narmed with knives. Harsh language was again used. Meeks, felt called\non to state what he had seen of the conflict, and did so, and Murdough\ngave him the d--d lie, for which Meeks struck him. On receiving the\nblow with the whip, Murdough instantly plunged his Bowie knife into\nthe abdomen of Meeks, and killed him on the spot.\n\n\"At the same instant B.R. Wilkinson attempted to get at Redding, and\nHolmes and Rothwell interfered, or joined in the affray. Holmes was\nwounded, probably by B.R. Wilkinson; and the Judge, having left the\nroom for an instant, returned, and finding Rothwell contending with\nhis brother, or bending over him, he (the Judge) stabbed Rothwell in\nthe back, and inflicted a mortal wound.\n\n\"Judge Wilkinson, his brother, and J. Murdough, have been recently\ntried and ACQUITTED.\"\n\nFrom the \"New Orleans Bee,\" Sept. 27, 1838.\n\n\"It appears from the statement of the Lexington Intelligencer, that\nthere has been for some time past, an enmity between the drivers of\nthe old and opposition lines of stages running from that city. On the\nevening of the 13th an encounter took place at the Circus between two\nof them, Powell and Cameron, and the latter was so much injured that\nhis life was in imminent danger. About 12 o'clock the same night,\nseveral drivers of the old line rushed into Keizer's Hotel, where\nPowell and other drivers of the opposition-line boarded, and a general\nmelee took place, in the course of which several pistols were\ndischarged, the ball of one of them passing through the head of\nCrabster, an old line driver, and killing him on the spot. Crabster,\nbefore he was shot, had discharged his own pistol which had burst into\nfragments. Two or three drivers of the opposition were wounded with\nbuck shot, but not dangerously.\"\n\nThe \"Mobile Advertiser\" of September 15, 1838, copies the following\nfrom the Louisville (Ky.) Journal.\n\n\"A Mr. Campbell was killed in Henderson county on the 31st ult. by a\nMr. Harrison. It appears, that there was an affray between the parties\nsome months ago, and that Harrison subsequently left home and returned\non the 31st in a trading boat. Campbell met him at the boat with a\nloaded rifle and declared his determination to kill him, at the same\ntime asking him whether he had a rifle and expressing a desire to give\nhim a fair chance. Harrison affected to laugh at the whole matter and\ninvited Campbell into his boat to take a drink with him. Campbell\naccepted the invitation, but, while he was in the act of drinking,\nHarrison seized his rifle, fired it off, and laid Campbell dead by\nstriking him with the barrel of it.\"\n\nThe \"Missouri Republican\" of July 29, 1837 published the details which\nfollow from the Louisville Journal.\n\nMOUNT STERLING, Ky. July 20, 1837.\n\n\"Gentlemen:--A most unfortunate and fatal occurrence transpired in our\ntown last evening, about 6 o'clock. Some of the most prominent friends\nof Judge French had a meeting yesterday at Col. Young's, near this\nplace, and warm words ensued between Mr. Albert Thomas and Belvard\nPeters, Esq., and a few blows were exchanged, and several of the\nfriends of each collected at the spot. Whilst the parties were thus\nengaged. Mr. Wm. White, who was a friend of Mr. Peters, struck Mr.\nThomas, whereupon B.F. Thomas Esq. engaged in the combat on the side\nof his brother and Mr. W. Roberts on the part of Peters--Mr. G.W.\nThomas taking part with his brothers. Albert Thomas had Peters down\nand was taken off by a gentleman present, and whilst held by that\ngentleman, he was struck by White; and B.F. Thomas having made some\nremark White struck him. B.F. Thomas returned the blow, and having a\nlarge knife, stabbed White, who nevertheless continued the contest,\nand, it is said, broke Thomas's arm with a rock of a chair. Thomas\nthen inflicted some other stabs, of which White died in a few minutes.\nRoberts was knocked down twice by Albert Thomas, and, I believe, is\nmuch hurt. G.W. Thomas was somewhat hurt also. White and B.F. Thomas\nhad always been on friendly terms. You are acquainted with the Messrs.\nThomas. Mr. White was a much larger man than either of them, weighing\nnearly 200 pounds, and in the prime of life. As you may very naturally\nsuppose, great excitement prevails here, and Mr. B.F. Thomas regrets\nthe fatal catastrophe as much as any one else, but believes from all\nthe circumstances that he was justifiable in what he did, although he\nwould be as far from doing such an act when cool and deliberate as any\nman whatever.\"\n\n\nThe \"New Orleans Bulletin\" of Aug. 24, 1838, extracts the following\nfrom the Louisville Journal.\n\n\"News has just reached us, that Thomas P. Moore, attacked the Senior\nEditor of this paper in the yard of the Harrodsburg Springs. Mr. Moore\nadvanced upon Mr. Prentice with a drawn pistol and fired at him; Mr.\nPrentice then fired, neither shot taking effect. Mr. Prentice drew a\nsecond pistol, when Mr. Moore quailed and said he had no other arms;\nwhereupon Mr. Prentice from superabundant magnanimity spared the\nmiscreant's life.\"\n\n\nFrom \"The Floridian\" of June 10, 1837. MURDER. Mr. Gillespie, a\nrespectable citizen aged 50, was murdered a few days since by a Mr.\nArnett, near Mumfordsville, Ky., which latter shot his victim twice\nwith a rifle.\n\n\nThe \"Augusta (Ga.) Sentinel,\" May 11, 1838, has the following account\nof murders in Kentucky:\n\n\"At Mill's Point, Kentucky, Dr. Thomas Rivers was shot one day last\nweek, from out of a window, by Lawyer Ferguson, both citizens of that\nplace, and both parties are represented to have stood high in the\nestimation of the community in which they lived. The difficulty we\nunderstand to have grown out of a law suit at issue between them.\"\n\nJust as our paper was going to press, we learn that the brother of Dr.\nRivers, who had been sent for, had arrived, and immediately shot\nLawyer Ferguson. He at first shot him with a shot gun, upon his\nretreat, which did not prove fatal; he then approached him immediately\nwith a pistol, and killed him on the spot.\"\n\nThe Right Rev. B.B. Smith, Bishop of the Episcopal diocese of\nKentucky, published about two years since an article in the Lexington\n(Ky.) Intelligencer, entitled \"Thoughts on the frequency of homicides\nin the state of Kentucky.\" We conclude this head with a brief extract\nfrom the testimony of the Bishop, contained in that article.\n\n\"The writer has never conversed with a traveled and enlightened\nEuropean or eastern man, who has not expressed the most undisguised\nhorror at the frequency of homicide and murder within our bounds, and\nat the _ease with which the homicide escapes from punishment_.\n\n\"As to the frequency of these shocking occurrences, the writer has\nsome opportunity of being correctly impressed, by means of a yearly\ntour through many counties of the State. He has also been particular\nin making inquiries of our most distinguished legal and political\ncharacters, and from some has derived conjectural estimates which were\ntruly alarming. A few have been of the opinion, that on an average one\nmurder a year may be charged to the account of every county in the\nstate, making the frightful aggregate of 850 human lives sacrificed to\nrevenge, or the victims of momentary passion, in the course of every\nten years.\n\n\"Others have placed the estimate much lower, and have thought that\nthirty for the whole state, every year, would be found much nearer the\ntruth. An attempt has been made lately to obtain data more\nsatisfactory than conjecture, and circulars have been addressed to the\nclerks of most of the counties, in order to arrive at as correct an\nestimate as possible of the actual number of homicides during the\nthree years last past. It will be seen, however, that statistics thus\nobtained, even from every county in the state, would necessarily be\nimperfect, inasmuch as the records of the courts _by no means show all\nthe cases_, which occur, some escaping without _any_ of the forms of a\nlegal examination, and there being _many affrays_ which end only in\nwounds, or where the parties are separated.\n\n\"From these returns, it appears that in 27 counties there have been,\nwithin the last three years, of homicides of every grade, 35, but only\n8 convictions in the same period, leaving 27 cases which have passed\nwholly unpunished. During the same period there have been from\neighty-five counties, only eleven commitments to the state prison,\nnine for manslaughter, and two for shooting with intent to kill, _and\nnot an instance of capital punishment in the person of any white\noffender_. Thus an approximation is made to a general average, which\nprobably would not vary much from one in each county every three\nyears, or about 280 in ten years.\n\n\"It is believed that such a register of crime amongst a people\nprofessing the protestant religion and speaking the English language,\nis not to be found, with regard to any three-quarters of a million of\npeople, since the downfall of the feudal system. Compared with the\nrecords of crime in Scotland, or the eastern states, the results are\nABSOLUTELY SHOCKING! _It is believed there are more homicides, on an\naverage of two years, in any of our more populous counties, than in\nthe whole of several of our states, of equal or nearly equal white\npopulation with Kentucky._\n\n\"The victims of these affrays are not always, by any means, the most\nworthless of our population.\n\n\"It too often happens that the enlightened citizen, the devoted\nlawyer, the affectionate husband, and precious father, are thus\ninstantaneously taken from their useful stations on earth, and\nhurried, all unprepared, to their final account!\n\n\"The question, is again asked, what could have brought about, and can\nperpetuate, this shocking state of things?\"\n\n\nAs an illustration of the recklessness of life in Kentucky, and the\nterrible paralysis of public sentiment, the bishop states the\nfollowing fact.\n\n\"A case of shocking homicide is remembered, where the guilty person\nwas acquitted by a sort of acclamation, and the next day was seen in\npublic, with two ladies hanging on his arm!\"\n\n\nNotwithstanding the frightful frequency of deadly affrays in Kentucky,\nas is certified by the above testimony of Bishop Smith, there are\nfewer, in proportion to the white population, than in any of the\nstates which have passed under review, unless Tennessee may be an\nexception. The present white population of Kentucky is perhaps seventy\nthousand more than that of Maine, and yet more public fatal affrays\nhave taken place in the former, within the last six months, than in\nthe latter during its entire existence as a state.\n\nThe seven slave states which we have already passed under review, are\njust one half of the slave states and territories, included in the\nAmerican Union. Before proceeding to consider the condition of society\nin the other slave states, we pause a moment to review the ground\nalready traversed.\n\nThe present entire white population of the states already considered,\nis about two and a quarter millions; just about equal to the present\nwhite population of the state of New York. If the amount of crime\nresulting in loss of life, which is perpetrated by the white\npopulation of those states upon the _whites alone_, be contrasted with\nthe amount perpetrated in the state of New York, by _all_ classes,\nupon _all_, we believe it will be found, that more of such crimes have\nbeen committed in these states within the last 18 months, than have\noccurred in the state of New York for half a century. But perhaps we\nshall be told that in these seven states, there are scores of cities\nand large towns, and that a majority of all these deadly affrays, &c.,\ntake place in _them_; to this we reply, that there are _three times as\nmany_ cities and large towns in the state of New York, as in all those\nstates together, and that nearly all the capital crimes perpetrated in\nthe state take place in these cities and large villages. In the state\nof New York, there are more than _half a million_ of persons who live\nin cities and villages of more than two thousand inhabitants, whereas\nin Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and\nMissouri, there are on the largest computation not more than _one\nhundred thousand_ persons, residing in cities and villages of more\nthan two thousand inhabitants, and the white population of these\nplaces (which alone is included in the estimate of crime, and that too\n_inflicted upon whites only_,) is probably not more than _sixty-five\nthousand_.\n\nBut it will doubtless be pleaded in mitigation, that the cities and\nlarge villages in those states are _new_; that they have not had\nsufficient time thoroughly to organize their police, so as to make it\nan effectual terror to evil doers; and further, that the rapid growth\nof those places has so overloaded the authorities with all sorts of\nresponsibilities, that due attention to the preservation of the public\npeace has been nearly impossible; and besides, they have had no\nofficial experience to draw upon, as in the older cities, the offices\nbeing generally filled by young men, as a necessary consequence of the\nnewness of the country, &c. To this we reply, that New Orleans is more\nthan a century old, and for half that period has been the centre of a\ngreat trade; that St. Louis, Natchez, Mobile, Nashville, Louisville\nand Lexington, are all half a century old, and each had arrived at\nyears of discretion, while yet the sites of Buffalo, Rochester,\nLockport, Canandaigua, Geneva, Auburn, Ithaca, Oswego, Syracuse, and\nother large towns in Western New-York, _were a wilderness_. Further,\nas _a number_ of these places are larger than _either_ of the former,\ntheir growth must have been more _rapid_, and, consequently, they must\nhave encountered still greater obstacles in the organization of an\nefficient police than those south western cities, with this exception,\nTHEY WERE NOT SETTLED BY SLAVEHOLDERS.\n\nThe absurdity of assigning the _newness_ of the country, the\nunrestrained habits of pioneer settlers, the recklessness of life\nengendered by wars with the Indians, &c., as reasons sufficient to\naccount for the frightful amount of crime in the states under review,\nis manifest from the fact, that Vermont is of the same age with\nKentucky; Ohio, ten years younger than Kentucky, and six years younger\nthan Tennessee; Indiana, five years younger than Louisiana; Illinois,\none year younger than Mississippi; Maine, of the same age with\nMissouri, and two years younger than Alabama; and Michigan of the same\nage with Arkansas. Now, let any one contrast the state of society in\nMaine, Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan with that of\nKentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and\nMississippi, and candidly ponder the result. It is impossible\nsatisfactorily to account for the immense disparity in crime, on any\nother supposition than that the latter states were settled and are\ninhabited almost exclusively by those who carried with them the\nviolence, impatience of legal restraint, love of domination, fiery\npassions, idleness, and contempt of laborious industry, which are\nengendered by habits of despotic sway, acquired by residence in\ncommunities where such manners, habits and passions, mould society\ninto their own image.[43] The practical workings of this cause are\npowerfully illustrated in those parts of the slave states where slaves\nabound, when contrasted with those where very few are held. Who does\nnot know that there are fewer deadly affrays in proportion to the\nwhite population--that law has more sway and that human life is less\ninsecure in East Tennessee, where there are very few slaves, than in\nWest Tennessee, where there are large numbers. This is true also of\nnorthern and western Virginia, where few slaves are held, when\ncontrasted with eastern Virginia; where they abound; the same remark\napplies to those parts of Kentucky and Missouri, where large numbers\nof slaves are held, when contrasted with others where there are\ncomparatively few.\n\nWe see the same cause operating to a considerable extent in those\nparts of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, settled mainly by slaveholders\nand others, who were natives of slave states, in contrast with other\nparts of these states settled almost exclusively by persons from free\nstates; that affrays and breaches of the peace are far more frequent\nin the former than in the latter, is well known to all.\n\nWe now proceed to the remaining slave states. Those that have not yet\nbeen considered, are Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South\nCarolina, Georgia, and the territory of Florida. As Delaware has\nhardly two thousand five hundred slaves, arbitrary power over human\nbeings is exercised by so few persons, that the turbulence infused\nthereby into the public mind is but an inconsiderable element, quite\ninsufficient to inflame the passions, much less to cast the character\nof the mass of the people; consequently, the state of society there,\nand the general security of life is but little less than in New Jersey\nand Pennsylvania, upon which states it borders on the north and east.\nThe same causes operate in a considerable measure, though to a much\nless extent to Maryland and in Northern and Western Virginia. But in\nlower Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, the\ngeneral state of society as it respects the successful triumph of\npassion over law, and the consequent and universal insecurity of life\nis, in the main, very similar to that of the states already\nconsidered. In some portions of each of these states, human life has\nprobably as little real protection as in Arkansas, Mississippi and\nLouisiana; but generally throughout the former states and sections,\nthe laws are not so absolutely powerless as in the latter three.\nDeadly affrays, duels, murders, lynchings, &c., are, in proportion to\nthe white population, as frequent and as rarely punished in lower\nVirginia as in Kentucky and Missouri; in North Carolina and South\nCarolina as in Tennessee; and in Georgia and Florida as in Alabama.\n\nTo insert the criminal statistics of the remaining slave states in\ndetail, as those of the states already considered have been presented,\nwould, we find, fill more space than can well be spared. Instead of\nthis, we propose to exhibit the state of society in all the\nslaveholding region bordering on the Atlantic, by the testimony of the\nslaveholders themselves, corroborated by a few plain facts. Leaving\nout of view Florida, where law is the _most_ powerless, and Maryland\nwhere probably it is the _least_ so, we propose to select as a fair\nillustration of the actual state of society in the Atlantic\nslaveholding regions, North Carolina whose border is but 250 miles\nfrom the free states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and Georgia which\nconstitutes its south western boundary.\n\nWe will begin with GEORGIA. This state was settled more than a century\nago by a colony under General Oglethorpe. The colony was memorable for\nits high toned morality. One of its first regulations was an absolute\nprohibition of slavery in every form: but another generation arose,\nthe prohibition was abolished, a multitude of slaves were imported,\nthe exercise of unlimited power over them lashed up passion to the\nspurning of all control, and now the dreadful state of society that\nexists in Georgia, is revealed by the following testimony out of her\nown mouth.\n\nThe editor of the Darien (Georgia) Telegraph, in his paper of November\n6, 1838, published the following.\n\n\"_Murderous Attack_.--Between the hours of three and four o'clock, on\nSaturday last, the editor of this paper was attacked by FOURTEEN armed\nruffians, and knocked down by repeated blows of bludgeons. All his\nassailants were armed with pistols, dirks, and large clubs. Many of\nthem are known to us; but _there is neither law nor justice to be had\nin Darien! We are doomed to death_ by the employers of the assassins\nwho attacked us on Saturday, and no less than our blood will satisfy\nthem. The cause alleged for this unmanly, base, cowardly outrage, is\nsome expressions which occurred in an election squib, printed at this\noffice, and extensively circulated through the county, _before the\nelection_. The names of those who surrounded us, when the attack was\nmade, are, A. Lefils, jr. (son to the representative), Madison Thomas,\nFrancis Harrison, Thomas Hopkins, Alexander Blue, George Wing, James\nEilands, W.I. Perkins, A.J. Raymur: the others we cannot at present\nrecollect. The two first, LEFILS and THOMAS struck us at the same\ntime. Pistols were levelled at us in all directions. We can produce\nthe most respectable testimony of the truth of this statement.\"\n\nThe same number of the \"Darien Telegraph,\" from which the preceding is\ntaken, contains a correspondence between six individuals, settling the\npreliminaries of duels. The correspondence fills, with the exception\nof a dozen lines, _five columns_ of the paper. The parties were Col.\nW. Whig Hazzard, commander of one of the Georgia regiments in the\nrecent Seminole campaign, Dr. T.F. Hazzard, a physician of St.\nSimons, and Thomas Hazzard, Esq. a county magistrate, on the one side,\nand Messrs. J.A. Willey, A.W. Willey, and H.B. Gould, Esqs. of\nDarien, on the other. In their published correspondence the parties\ncall each other \"liar,\" \"mean rascal,\" \"puppy,\" \"villain,\" &c.\n\nThe magistrate, Thomas Hazzard, who accepts the challenge of J.A.\nWilley, says, in one of his letters, \"Being a magistrate, under a\nsolemn oath to do all in my power to keep the peace,\" &c., and yet\nthis personification of Georgia justice superscribes his letter as\nfollows: \"To the Liar, Puppy, Fool, and Poltroon, Mr. John A. Willey\"\nThe magistrate closes his letter thus:\n\n\"Here I am; call upon me for personal satisfaction (in _propria\nforma_); and in the Farm Field, on St. Simon's Island, (_Deo\njuvante_,) I will give you a full front of my body, and do all in my\npower to satisfy your thirst for blood! And more, I will wager you\n$100, to be planked on the scratch! that J.A. Willey will neither\nkill or defeat T.F. Hazzard.\"\n\nThe following extract from the correspondence is a sufficient index of\nslaveholding civilization.\n\n\"ARTICLES OF BATTLE BETWEEN JOHN A. WILLEY AND W. WHIG HAZZARD.\n\n\"Condition 1. The parties to fight on the same day, and at the same\nplace, (St. Simon's beach, near the lighthouse,) where the meeting\nbetween T.F. Hazzard and J.A. Willey will take place.\n\n\"Condition 2. The parties to fight with broad-swords in the right hand,\nand a dirk in the left.\n\n\"Condition 3. On the word \"Charge,\" the parties to advance, and attack\nwith the broadsword, or close with the dirk.\n\n\"Condition 4. THE HEAD OF THE VANQUISHED TO BE CUT OFF BY THE VICTOR,\nAND STUCK UPON A POLE ON THE FARM FIELD DAM, the original cause of\ndispute.\n\n\"Condition 5. Neither party to object to each other's weapons; and if a\nsword breaks, the contest to continue with the dirk.\n\n\"This Col. W. Whig Hazzard is one of the most prominent citizens in the\nsouthern part of Georgia, and previously signalized himself, as we\nlearn from one of the letters in the correspondence, by \"three\ndeliberate rounds in a duel.\"\n\nThe Macon (Georgia) Telegraph of October 9, 1838, contains the\nfollowing notice of two affrays in that place, in each of which an\nindividual was killed, one on Tuesday and the other on Saturday of the\nsame week. In publishing the case, the Macon editor remarks:\n\n\"We are compelled to remark on the inefficiency of our laws in\nbringing to the bar of public justice, persons committing capital\noffences. Under the present mode, a man has nothing more to do than to\nleave the state, or step over to Texas, or some other place not\nfarther off, and he need entertain no fear of being apprehended. So\nlong as such a state of things is permitted to exist, just so long\nwill every man who has an enemy (and there are but few who have not)\n_be in constant danger of being shot down in the streets_.\"\n\nTo these remarks of the Macon editor, who is in the centre of the\nstate, near the capital, the editor of the Darien Telegraph, two\nhundred miles distant, responds as follows, in his paper of October\n30. 1838.\n\n\"The remarks of our contemporary are not without cause. They apply,\nwith peculiar force, to this community. _Murderers and rioters will\nnever stand in need of a sanctuary as long as Darien is what it is_.\"\n\nIt is a coincidence which carries a comment with it, that in less than\na week after this Darien editor made these remarks, he was attacked in\nthe street by \"_fourteen_ gentlemen\" armed with bludgeons, knives,\ndirks, pistols, &c., and would doubtless have been butchered on the\nspot if he had not been rescued.\n\nWe give the following statement at length as the chief perpetrator of\nthe outrages, Col. W.N. Bishop, was at the time a high functionary of\nthe State of Georgia, and, as we learn from the Macon Messenger, still\nholds two public offices in the State, one of them from the direct\nappointment of the governor.\n\nFrom the \"Georgia Messenger\" of August 25, 1837.\n\n\"During the administration of WILSON LUMPKIN, WILLIAM N. BISHOP\nreceived from his Excellency the appointment of Indian Agent, in the\nplace of William Springer. During that year (1834,) the said governor\ngave the command of a company of men, 40 in number, to the said W.N.\nBishop, to be selected by him, and armed with the muskets of the\nState. This band was organized for the special purpose of keeping the\nCherokees in subjection, and although it is a notorious fact that the\nCherokees in the neighborhood of Spring Place were peaceable and by no\nmeans refractory, the said band were kept there, and seldom made any\nexcursion whatever out of the county of Murray. It is also _a\nnotorious fact_, that the said band, from the day of their\norganization, never permitted a citizen of Murray county opposed to\nthe dominant party of Georgia, to exercise the right of suffrage at\nany election whatever. From that period to the last of January\nelection, the said band appeared at the polls with the arms of the\nState, rejecting every vote that \"was not of the true stripe,\" as they\ncalled it. That they frequently seized and dragged to the polls honest\ncitizens, and compelled them to vote contrary to their will.\n\n\"Such acts of arbitrary despotism were tolerated by the\nadministration. Appeals from the citizens of Murray county brought\nthem no relief--and incensed at such outrages, they determined on the\nfirst Monday in January last, to turn out and elect such Judges of the\nInferior Court and county officers, as would be above the control of\nBishop, that he might thereby be prevented from packing such a jury as\nhe chose to try him for his brutal and unconstitutional outrages on\ntheir rights. Accordingly on Sunday evening previous to the election,\nabout twenty citizens who lived a distance from the county site, came\nin unarmed and unprepared for battle, intending to remain in town,\nvote in the morning and return home. They were met by Bishop and his\nState band, and asked by the former 'whether they were for peace or\nwar.' They unanimously responded, \"we are for peace:' At that moment\nBishop ordered a fire, and instantly _every musket of his band was\ndischarged on those citizens_, 5 of whom were wounded, and others\nescaped with bullet holes in their clothes. Not satisfied with the\noutrage, _they dragged an aged man from his wagon and beat him nearly\nto death_.\n\n\"In this way the voters were driven from Spring Place, and before day\nlight the next morning, the polls were opened by order of Bishop, and\nsoon after sun rise they were closed; Bishop having ascertained that\nthe band and Schley men had all voted. A runner was then dispatched to\nMilledgeville, and received from Governor Schley commissions for those\nself-made officers of Bishop's, two of whom have since runaway, and\nthe rest have been called on by the citizens of the county to resign,\nbeing each members of Bishop's band, and doubtless runaways from other\nStates.\n\n\"After these outrages, Bishop apprehending an appeal to the judiciary\non the part of the injured citizens of Murray county, had a jury drawn\nto suit him and appointed one of his band Clerk of the Superior Court.\nFor these acts, the Governor and officers of the Central Bank rewarded\nhim with an office in the Bank of the State, since which his own jury\nfound _eleven true bills_ against him.\"\n\nIn the Milledgeville Federal Union of May 2, 1837, we find the\nfollowing presentment of the Grand Jury of Union County, Georgia,\nwhich as it shows some relics of a moral sense, still lingering in the\nstate we insert.\n\nPresentment of the Grand Jury of Union Co., March term, 1837.\n\n\"We would notice, as a subject of painful interest, the appointment of\nWm. N. Bishop to the high and responsible office of Teller, of the\nCentral Bank of the State of Georgia--an institution of such magnitude\nas to merit and demand the most unslumbering vigilance of the freemen\nof this State; as a portion of whom, we feel bound to express our\n_indignant reprehension_ of the promotion of such a character to one\nof its most responsible posts--and do exceedingly regret the blindness\nor _depravity_ of those who can sanction such a measure.\n\n\"We request that our presentment be published in the Miners' Recorder\nand Federal Union.\n\nJOHN MARTIN, Foreman\"\n\nOn motion of Henry L. Sims, Solicitor General, \"Ordered by the court,\nthat the presentments of the Grand Jury, be published according to\ntheir request.\" THOMAS HENRY, Clerk.\n\nThe same paper, four weeks after publishing the preceding facts,\ncontained the following: we give it in detail as the wretch who\nenacted the tragedy was another public functionary of the state of\nGeorgia and acting in an official capacity.\n\n\"MURDER.--One of the most brutal and inhuman murders it has ever\nfallen to our lot to notice, was lately committed in Cherokee county,\nby Julius Bates, the son of the principal keeper of the Penitentiary,\nupon an Indian.\n\n\"The circumstances as detailed to us by the most respectable men of\nboth parties, are these. At the last Superior Court of Cass county,\nthe unfortunate Indian was sentenced to the Penitentiary. Bates, as\n_one of the Penitentiary guard_, was sent with another to carry him\nand others, from other counties to Milledgeville. He started from\nCassville with the Indian ironed and bare footed; and walked him\nwithin a quarter of a mile of Canton, the C.H. in Cherokee, a distance\nof twenty-eight to thirty miles, over a very rough road in little more\nthan half the day. On arriving at a small creek near town, the Indian\n[who had walked until the _soles of his feet were off and those of his\nheel turned back_,] made signs to get water, Bates refused to let him,\nand ordered him to go on: the Indian stopped and finally set down,\nwhereupon Bates dismounted and gathering a pine knot, commenced and\ncontinued beating him and jirking him by a chain around his neck,\nuntil the citizens of the village were drawn there by the severity of\nthe blows. The unfortunate creature was taken up to town and died in a\nfew hours.\n\n\"An inquest was held, and the jury found a verdict of murder by Bates.\nA warrant was issued, but Bates had departed that morning in charge of\nother prisoners taken from Canton, and the worthy officers of the\ncounty desisted from his pursuit, 'because they apprehended he had\npassed the limits of the county.' We understand that the warrant was\nimmediately sent to the Governor to have him arrested. Will it be\ndone? We shall see.\"\n\nHaving devoted so much space to a revelation of the state of society\namong the slaveholders of Georgia, we will tax the reader's patience\nwith only a single illustration of the public sentiment--the degree of\nactual legal protection enjoyed in the state of North Carolina.\n\nNorth Carolina was settled about two centuries ago; its present white\npopulation is about five hundred thousand.\n\nPassing by the murders, affrays, &c. with which the North Carolina\npapers abound, we insert the following as an illustration of the\npublic sentiment of North Carolina among 'gentlemen of property and\nstanding.'\n\nThe 'North Carolina Literary and Commercial Journal,' of January 20,\n1838, published at Elizabeth City, devotes a column and a half to a\ndescription of the lynching, tarring, feathering, ducking, riding on a\nrail, pumping, &c., of a Mr. Charles Fife, a merchant of that city,\nfor the crime of 'trading with negroes.' The editor informs us that\nthis exploit of vandalism was performed very deliberately, at mid-day,\nand _by a number of the citizens_, 'THE MOST RESPECTABLE IN THE CITY,'\n&c. We proceed to give the reader an abridgement of the editor's\nstatement in his own words.--\n\n\"Such being the case, a number of the citizens, THE MOST RESPECTABLE\nIN THIS CITY, collected, about ten days since, and after putting the\nfellow on a rail, carried him through town with a duck and chicken\ntied to him. He was taken down to the water and his head tarred and\nfeathered; and when they returned he was put under a pump, where for a\nfew minutes he underwent a little cooling. He was then told that he\nmust leave town by the next Saturday--if he did not he would be\nvisited again, and treated more in accordance with the principles of\nthe laws of Judge Lynch.\n\n\"On Saturday last, he was again visited, and as Fife had several of\nhis friends to assist him, some little scuffle ensued, when several\nwere knocked down, but nothing serious occurred. Fife was again\nmounted on a rail and brought into town, but as he promised if they\nwould not trouble him he would leave town in a few days, he was set at\nliberty. Several of our magistrates _took no notice of the affair_,\nand rather seemed to tacitly acquiesce in the proceedings. The whole\nsubject every one supposed was ended, as Fife was to leave in a few\ndays, when WHAT WAS OUR ASTONISHMENT to hear that Mr. Charles R.\nKinney had visited Fife, advised him not to leave, and actually took\nupon himself to examine witnesses, and came before the public as the\ndefender of Fife. The consequence was, that all the rioters were\nsummoned by the Sheriff to appear in the Court House and give bail for\ntheir appearance at our next court. On Monday last the court opened at\n12 o'clock, Judge Bailey presiding. Such an excitement we never\nwitnessed before in our town. A great many witnesses were examined,\nwhich proved the character of Fife beyond a doubt. At one time rather\nserious consequences were apprehended--high words were spoken, and\nluckily a blow which was aimed at Mr. Kinney, was parried off, and we\nare happy to say the court adjourned after ample securities being\ngiven. The next day Fife was taken to jail for trading with negroes,\nbut has since been released on paying $100. The interference of Mr.\nKinney was wholly unnecessary; it was an assumption on his part which\nproperly belonged to our magistrates. Fife had agreed to go away, and\nthe matter would have been amicably settled but for him. We have no\nunfriendly feelings towards Mr. Kinney: no personal animosities to\ngratify: we have always considered him as one of our best lawyers. But\nwhen he comes forth as the supporter of such a fellow as Fife, under\nthe plea that the laws have been violated--when he arraigns the acts\nof thirty of the inhabitants of this place, it is high time for him to\nreflect seriously on the consequences. The Penitentiary system is the\nresult of the refinement of the eighteenth century. As man advances in\nthe sciences, in the arts, in the intercourse of social and civilized\nlife, in the same proportion does crime and vice keep an equal pace,\nand always makes demands on the wisdom of legislators. Now, what is\nthe Lynch law but the Penitentiary system carried out to its full\nextent, with a little more steam power? or more properly, it is simply\nthus: _There are some scoundrels in society on whom the laws take no\neffect; the most expeditious and short way is to let a majority decide\nand give them_ JUSTICE.\"\n\n\nLet the reader notice, 1st, that this outrage was perpetrated with\ngreat deliberation, and after it was over, the victim was commanded to\nleave town by the next week: when that cooling interval had passed,\nthe outrage was again deliberately repeated. 2d. It was perpetrated by\n\"thirty persons,' \"_the most respectable in the city_.\" 3d. That at\nthe second lynching of Fife, several of his neighbors who had gathered\nto defend him, (seeing that all the legal officers in the city had\nrefused to do it, thus violating their oaths of office,) _were knocked\ndown_, to which the editor adds, with the business air of a\nprofessional butcher, \"nothing _serious_ occurred!\" 4th. That not a\nsingle magistrate in the city took the least notice either of the\nbarbarities inflicted upon Fife, or of the assaults upon his friends,\nknocking them down, &c., but, as the editor informs us, all \"seemed to\nacquiesce in the proceedings.\" 5th. That this conduct of the\nmagistrates was well pleasing to the great mass of the citizens, is\nplain, from the remark of the editor that \"every one supposed that the\nwhole subject was ended,\" and from his wondering exclamation, \"WHAT\nWAS OUR ASTONISHMENT to hear that Mr. C.R. Kinney had actually took\nupon him to examine witnesses,\" &c., and also from the editor's\ndeclaration, \"Such an excitement we never before witnessed in our\ntown.\" Excitement at what? Not because the laws had been most\nimpiously trampled down at noon-day by a conspiracy of thirty persons,\n\"the most respectable in the city;\" not because a citizen had been\ntwice seized and publicly tortured for hours, without trial, and in\nutter defiance of all authority; nay, verily! this was all\ncomplacently acquiesced in; but because in this slaveholding Sodom\nthere was found a solitary Lot who dared to uplift his voice for _law_\nand the _right of trial by jury_; this crime stirred up such an uproar\nin that city of \"most respectable\" lynchers as was \"_never witnessed\nbefore_,\" and the noble lawyer who thus put every thing at stake in\ninvoking the majesty of law, would, it seems, have been knocked down,\neven in the presence of the Court, if the blow had not been \"parried.\"\n6th. Mark the murderous threat of the editor--when he arraigns the\n_acts_,\" (no matter how murderous) \"of thirty citizens of this place,\nit is high time for him to reflect seriously _on the consequences_.\"\n7th. The open advocacy of \"Lynch law\" by a set argument, boldly\nsetting it above all codes, with which the editor closes his article,\nreveals a public sentiment in the community which shows, that in North\nCarolina, though society may still rally under the flag of\ncivilization, and insist on wrapping itself in its folds, barbarism is\nnone the less so in a stolen livery, and savages are savages still,\nthough tricked out with the gauze and tinsel of the stars and stripes.\n\nIt may be stated, in conclusion, that the North Carolina \"Literary and\nCommercial Journal,\" from which the article is taken, is a large\nsix-columned paper, edited by F.S. Proctor, Esq., a graduate of a\nUniversity, and of considerable literary note in the South.\n\nHaving drawn out this topic to so great a length, we waive all\ncomments, and only say to the reader, in conclusion, _ponder these\nthings_, and lay it to heart, that slaveholding \"is justified _of her\nchildren_.\" Verily, they have their reward! \"With what measure ye mete\nwithal it shall be measured to you again.\" Those who combine to\ntrample on others, will trample on _each other_. The habit of\ntrampling upon _one_, begets a state of mind that will trample upon\n_all_. Accustomed to wreak their vengeance on their slaves, indulgence\nof passion becomes with slaveholders a second law of nature, and, when\nexcited even by their equals, their hot blood brooks neither restraint\nnor delay; _gratification_ is the _first_ thought--prudence generally\ncomes too late, and the slaves see their masters fall a prey to each\nother, the victims of those very passions which have been engendered\nand infuriated by the practice of arbitrary rule over _them_. Surely\nit need not be added, that those who thus tread down their equals,\nmust trample as in a wine-press their defenceless vassals. If, when in\npassion, they seize those who are _on their own level_, and dash them\nunder their feet, with what a crushing vengeance will they leap upon\nthose who are _always_ under their feet?\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n\n\nFootnote 39: A few years since Mr. Bourne published a work entitled,\n\"Picture of slavery in the United States.\"  In which he describes a\nvariety of horrid atrocities perpetrated upon slaves; such as brutal\nscourging and lacerations with the application of pepper, mustard,\nsalt, vinegar, &c., to the bleeding gashes; also maimings,\ncat-haulings, burnings, and other tortures similar to hundreds\ndescribed on the preceeding pages. These descriptions of Mr. Bourne\nwere, at that time, thought by multitudes _incredible_, and probably,\neven by some abolitionists, who had never given much reflection to the\nsubject. We are happy to furnish the reader with the following\ntestimony of a Virginia slaveholder to the _accuracy_ of Mr. Bourne's\ndelineations. Especially as this slaveholder is a native of one of the\ncounties (Culpepper) near to which the atrocities described by Mr. B.\nwere committed.\n\nTestimony of Mr. WILLIAM HANSBOROUGH, of Culpepper, County, Virginia,\nthe \"owner\" of sixty slaves, to Mr. Bourne's \"Picture or Slavery\" as a\n_true_ delineation.\n\nLindley Coates, of Lancaster Co., Pa., a well known member of the\nSociety of Friends, and a member of the late Pennsylvania Convention\nfor revising, the Constitution of the State, in a letter now before\nus, describing a recent interview between him and Mr. Hansborough, of\nseveral days continuance, says,--\"I handed him Bourne's Picture of\nslavery to read: _after reading it_, he said, that all of the\nsufferings of slaves therein related, were _true delineations, and\nthat he had seen all those modes of torture himself_.\"\n\n\nFootnote 40: The following is Mr. Stevenson's disclaimer: It was\npublished in the 'London Mail,' Oct 30, 1838.\n\n_To the Editor of the Evening Mail:_\n\nSir--I did not see until my return from Scotland the note addressed by\nMr. O'Connell, to the editor of the Chronicle, purporting to give an\nexplanation of the correspondence which has passed between us, and\nwhich I deemed it proper to make public. I do not intend to be drawn\ninto any discussion of the subject of domestic slavery as it exists in\nthe United States, nor to give any explanation of the motives or\ncircumstances under which I have acted.\n\nDisposed to regard Mr. O'Connell as a man of honor. I was induced to\ntake the course I did; whether justifiable or not, the world will now\ndecide. The tone and report of his last note (in which he disavows\nresponsibility for any thing he may say) precludes any further notice\nfrom me, than to say that the charge which he has thought proper again\nto repeat, of my being a breeder of slaves for sale and traffick, is\nwholly destitute of truth; and that I am warranted in believing it has\nbeen made by him without the slightest authority. SUCH, TOO, I VENTURE\nTO SAY, IS THE CASE IN RELATION TO HIS CHARGE OF SLAVE-BREEDING IN\nVIRGINIA.\n\nI make this declaration, not because I admit Mr. O'Connell's right to\ncall for it, but to prevent my silence from being misinterpreted.\n\nA. STEVENSON\n\n_23 Portland Place, Oct. 29_\n\n\nFootnote 41: Mr. WISE said in one of his speeches during the last\nsession of Congress, that he was obliged to go armed for the\nprotection of his life in Washington. It could not have been for fear\nof _Northern_ men.\n\n\nFootnote 42: A correspondent of the \"Frederick Herald,\" writing from\nLittle Rock, says, \"Anthony's knife was about _twenty-eight inches_ in\nlength. They _all_ carry knives here, or pistols. There are several\nkinds of knives in use--a narrow blade, and about twelve inches long,\nis called an 'Arkansas tooth-pick.'\"\n\n\nFootnote 43: Bishop Smith of Kentucky, in his testimony respecting\nhomicides, which is quoted on a preceding pages, thus speaks of the\ninfluence of slave-holding, as an exciting cause.\n\n\"Are not some of the indirect influences of a system, the existence of\nwhich amongst us can never be sufficiently deplored, discoverable in\nthese affrays? Are not our young men more heady, violent and imperious\nin consequence of their early habits of command? And are not our\ntaverns and other public places of resort, much more crowded with an\ninflammable material, than if young men were brought up in the staid\nand frugal habits of those who are constrained to earn their bread by\nthe sweat of their brow? * * * Is not intemperance more social, more\ninflammatory, more pugnacious where a fancied superiority of\ngentlemanly character is felt in consequence of exemption from severe\nmanual labor? Is there ever stabbing where there is not idleness and\nstrong drink?\"\n\nThe Bishop also gives the following as another exciting cause; it is\nhowever only the product of the preceding.\n\n\"Has not a public sentiment which we hear characterized as singularly\nhigh-minded and honorable, and sensitively alive to every affront,\nwhether real or imaginary, but which strangers denominate rough and\nferocious, much to do in provoking these assaults, and then in\napplauding instead of punishing the offender.\"\n\nThe Bishop says of the young men of Kentucky, that they \"grow up\nproud, impetuous, and reckless of all responsibility;\" and adds, that\nthe practice of carrying deadly weapons is with them \"NEARLY\nUNIVERSAL.\"\n\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nINDEX.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n\nTo facilitate the use of the Index, some of the more common topics are\narranged under one general title. Thus all the volumes which are cited\nare classed under the word, BOOKS; and to that head reference must be\nmade. The same plan has been adopted concerning _Female Slave-Drivers,\nLaws, Narratives, Overseers, Runaways, Slaveholders, Slave-Murderers,\nSlave-Plantations, Slaves, Female_ and _Male, Testimony_ and\n_Witnesses_. Therefore, with a few _emphatical_ exceptions only, the\nfacts will be found, by recurring to the prominent person or subject\nwhich any circumstance includes. All other miscellaneous articles will\nbe discovered in alphabetical order.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n\nA.\n\nAbsolute power of slaveholders\nAbsurdity of slaveholding pretexts\nAbuse of power\nAcclimated slaves\nAdrian\nAdultery in a preacher's house\nAdvertisement for slaves\nAdvertisement for slaves to hire\nAdvertisements\nAffray\nAfrican slave-trade\nAged slaves uncommon\nAlabama\nAlexander the tyrant\nAllowance of provisions\nAmalgamation\nAmerican Colonization Society\n\"Amiable and touching charity!\"\nAmusements of slave-drivers\nAnimals and slaves, usage of, contrasted\nAntioch, massacre at\n\"Arbitrary,\"\nArbitrary power, cruelty of\n    \"      \"     pernicious\nArdor in betting\nArius\nArkansas\nAtlantic Slaveholding Region\nAuctioneers of slaves\nAuctions for slaves\nAugustine\nAurelius\nAversion between the oppressor and the slave\n\n\nB.\n\nBabbling of slaveholders\nBacks of slaves carded\n  \"        \"    putrid\n\"Ball and chain\" men\nBaptist preachers\nBattles in Congress\nBeating a woman's face with shoes\nBedaubing of slaves with oil and tar\nBegetting slaves for pay\n\"Bend your backs\"\nBenevolence of slaveholders\nBetting on crops\n    \"      slaves\nBeware of Kidnappers\nBibles searched for\nBlind slaves\nBlocks with sharp pegs and nails\nBlood-bought luxuries\nBodley, H.S.\nBones dislocated\n\n\nBOOKS.\n\n  African Observer\n  American Convention, minutes of\n      \"    Museum\n      \"    State Papers\n  Andrews' Slavery and the Slave Trade\n  Bay's Reports\n  Benezet's Caution to Britain and her Colonies\n  Blackstone's Commentaries, by Tucker\n  Book and Slavery irreconcilable\n  Bourgoing's Spain\n  Bourne's Picture of Slavery\n  Brevard's Digest of the Laws of South Carolina\n  Brewster's Exposition of Slave Treatment\n  Buchanan's Oration\n  Carey's American Museum\n  Carolina, History of\n  Channing on Slavery\n  Charity, \"amiable and touching!\"\n  Childs' Appeal\n  Civil Code of Louisiana\n  Clay's Address to Georgia Presbytery\n  Colonization Society's Reports\n  Cornelius Elias, Life of\n  Davis's Travels in Louisiana\n  Debates in Virginia Convention\n  Devereux's North Carolina Reports\n  Dew's Review of Debates in the Virginia Legislature\n  Edwards' Sermon\n  Emancipation in the West Indies\n  Emigrant's Guide through the Valley of Mississippi\n  Gales' Congressional Debates\n  Harris and Johnson's Reports\n  Haywood's Manual\n  Hill's reports\n  Human Rights\n  James' Digest\n  Jefferson's Notes\n  Josephus' History\n  Justinian, Institutes of\n  Kennet's Roman Antiquities\n  Laponneray's Life of Robespierre\n  Law of Slavery\n  Laws of United States\n  Leland's necessity of Divine Revelation\n  Letters from the South, by J.K. Paulding\n  Life of Elias Cornelius\n  Louisiana, civil code of\n      \"    , sketches of\n  Martineau's Harriet, Society in America\n  Martin's Digest of the laws of Louisiana\n  Maryland laws of\n  Mead's Journal\n  Mississippi Revised Code\n  Missouri Laws\n  Modern state of Spain by J.F. Bourgoing\n  Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws\n  Necessity of Divine Revelation\n  Niles' Baltimore Register\n  North Carolina Reports by Devereaux\n  Oasis\n  Parrish's remarks on slavery\n  Paulding's letters from the South\n  Paxton's letters on slavery\n  Presbyterian Synod, Report of\n  Picture of slavery\n  Prince's Digest\n  Prison Discipline Society, reports of\n  Rankin's Letters\n  Reed and Matheson's visit to Am. churches\n  Review of Nevins' Biblical Antiquities\n  Rice, speech of in Kentucky convention\n  Robespierre, Life of\n  Robin's travels\n  Roman Antiquities\n  Slavery's Journal\n  Slavery and the Slave Trade\n  Society in America\n  Sewall's Diary\n  South Carolina, Laws of\n  South vindicated by Drayton\n  Spirit of Laws\n  Swain's address\n  Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws\n  Taylor's Agricultural Essays\n  Travels in Louisiana\n  Tucker's Blackstone\n  Tucker's Judge, Letter\n  Turner's Sacred History of the world\n  Virginia Legislature, Review of Debates in\n     \"     , Revised Code\n     \"     , Negro-raising state\n  Visit to American churches\n  Western Medical Journal\n  Western Medical Reformer\n  Western Review\n  Wheeler's Law of slavery\n  Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry\n  Woolman John, Life of\n\nBooks of slaves stolen\nBorrowing of slaves\nBourne, George, anecdote of\nBoy killed\nBoys' fight to amuse their drivers\nBowie Knives\nBoys' retort\nBrandings\nBranding with hot iron\nBrasses\n\"Breeders\"\nBreeding of slaves prevented\n\"Breeding wenches\"\n     \"       \"     comparative value of\nBribes for begetting slaves\nBrick-yards\n\"Broken-winded\" slaves\nBrutality to slaves\nBrutes and slaves treated alike\nBurial of slaves\nBurning of McIntosh\nBurning slaves\nBurning with hot iron\nBurning with smoothing irons\nButchery\n\n\nC.\n\nCabins of slaves\nCachexia Africana\nCaligula\nCan't believe\nCapital Crimes\nCaptain in the U.S. navy, tried for murder\nCarding of Slaves\nCat-hauling\nCato the Just\nCauses of the laws punishing cruelty to slaves\nChained slave\nChains\nChanges in the market\nCharacter of Overseers\n    \"        Romans\n    \"        Slave-drivers\nCharleston\n    \"        Infirmary at\n    \"        Jail\n    \"        Slave auctions\n    \"        Surgery at\n    \"        Work-house\nChastity punished\nChild-bearing prevented\nChildbirth of slaves\nChildhood unprotected\nChildren flogged\n    \"    naked\nChoking of slaves\nChopping of slaves piecemeal\nChristian females tortured\n    \"     martyr\n    \"     slave-hunting\n    \"     slave-murderer\nChristian, slave whipped to death\nChristians, persecutions of\n    \"      slavery among\n    \"      treat their slaves like others\nChristian woman kidnapped\nChronic diseases\nChurches, abuse of power in\nChurch members\n\"Citizens sold as slaves\"\nCivilization and morality\nClarkson, Thomas\nClaudius\nClemens\nClothing for slaves\nCock-fighting\nCode of Louisiana\nCollars of iron\nColumbia, district of\n    \"     fatal affray at\nComfort of slaves disregarded\nCommodus\nConcubinage\nCondemned criminals\nCondition of slaves\nConfinement at night\nCongress of the United States\n    \"       a bear garden\nConnecticut, law of, against Quakers\nConstables, character of\nConstantine the Great\nContempt of human life\nContrasts of benevolence\nConversation between C. and H\nConverted slave\nCooking for slaves\nCorrection moderate\nCorrupting influence of slavery\nCotton-picking\nCotton-plantations\nCotton seed mixed with corn for food\nCouncil of Nice\nCourts, decrees of\nCowhides, with shovel and tongs\nCrack of the whip heard afar off\nCrimes of slaves, capital\nCriminals condemned\nCringing of Northern Preachers\nCropping of ears\nCrops for exportation\nCruelties, common\n    \"      inflicted upon slaves\n    \"      of Cortez in Mexico\n    \"         Ovando in Hispaniola\n    \"         Pizarro in Peru\n    \"      of slave-drivers incredible\nCruel treatment of slaves the masters' interest\nCultivation of rice\nCutting of A.T. s throat by a Presbyterian woman\n\n\nD.\n\nD'Almeydra, Donna Sophia\nDamaged negroes bought\nDarlington C.H., South Carolina\nDauphin Island, Mobile Bay\n\"Dead or Alive\"\nDead slave claimed\nDeaf slaves\nDeath at child birth\nDeath-bed, horrors of a slave driver\nDeath by violence,\nDeath of a slave murderer\nDecrees of Courts\nDecisions, judicial\nDeclarations of slaveholders\nDeformed slaves\nDelivery of a dead child from whipping\nDescription of slave drivers, by John Randolph\nDespair of slaves\nDesperate affray\n\"Despot\"\n\"Dimensum\" of Roman slaves\nDiseased slaves\nDislocation of bones\nDistrict of Columbia\n     \"        \"      prisons in\nDitty of slaves\n\"Doe-faces\"--\"Dough-faces\"\nDogs provided for\nDogs to hunt slaves\nDomestic slavery\nDomitian\nDonnell, Rev. Mr.\n\"Dough-faces\"\n\"Drivers\"\nDriving of slaves\nDroves of \"human cattle\"\n   \"    \"    slaves\nDuelling\nDumb slaves\nDwellings of slaves\nDying slave\nDying young women\n\n\nE.\n\nEar-cropping\nEarly market\nEar-notching\nEar-slitting\nEating tobacco worms\nEffects of public opinion concerning slavery\nEmancipation society of North Carolina\nEnglish ladies and gentlemen\nEnormities of slave drivers\nEvenings in the \"Negro quarter\"\nEvidence of slaves vs. white persons null\nEwall, Merry\nExamples pleaded in justification of cruelty to slaves\nExchange of slaves\nExportation of slave from Virginia\nEyes struck out\n\n\nF.\n\nFaith objectors who \"_can't believe_\"\nFatal rencontre\n\"Fault-finding\"\nFavorite amusements of slaveholders\nFear, the only motive of slaves\nFeast for slaves\nFeeding insufficient\nFeeble infants\n_Felonies_ on account of slavery\n      \"         perpetrated with impunity\nFemale hypocrite\nFemale slave deranged\n\n\nFEMALE SLAVE DRIVERS\n\n  Burford, Mrs.\n  Carter, Mrs. Elizabeth L.\n  Charleston\n  Charlestown, Va\n  Galway, Mrs.\n  Harris, Mrs.\n  H., Mrs. throat cutter\n  Laurie, Madame La\n  Mallix, Mrs.\n  Mann, Mrs.\n  Mabtin, Mrs.\n  Maxwell, Mrs.\n  McNeil, Mrs.\n  Morgan, Mrs.\n  Newman, Mrs. B.\n  Pence, Mrs.\n  Phinps, Mrs.\n  Professor of religion\n  Ruffner, Mrs.\n  South Carolina\n  Starky, Mrs.\n  Swan, Mrs.\n  Teacher at Charleston\n  T., Mrs.\n  Trip, Mrs.\n  Truby, Mrs\n  Turner, Mrs.\n  Walsh, Sarah\n\nFemale slave starved to death\n  \"      \"   whipped to death by a Methodist preacher\nFemale stripped by order of her mistress\nFetters\nField-hands\nLighting of boys to amuse their drivers\nFine old preacher who dealt in slaves\nFingers cut off\nFlogging for unfinished tasks\n    \"    of children\n    \"    pregnant women until they miscarry\n    \"    slaves\n    \"    young man\nFloggings\nFlorida\nFood, kinds of\n  \"     of slaves\n  \"     quality of\n  \"     quantity of\nFree citizens stolen\nFree woman\n  \"    \"   kidnapped\nFrequent murders\nFriends, memorial of\nFront-teeth knocked out\nFundamental rights destroyed\n\n\nG.\n\nGadsden Thomas N. Slave Auctioneer\nGagging of slaves\nGalloway flogging Jo.\nGambling on crops\nGambling slaveholder\nGang of slaves\nGenerosity of slaveholders\nGeorgia\nGirls' backs burnt with smoothing irons\nGirls' toe cut off\nGood treatment of slaves\nGovernor of North Carolina\n    \"    \"  Shiraz\nGrand Jury presentment of,\nGuiltiness of Slavery\nGun shot wounds\n\n\nH.\n\nHabits of slave-drivers\nHampton Wade, murderer of slaves\nHandcuffs\n\"Hands tied\"\nHanging of nine slaves\nHarris Benjamin, slave murderer\nHead found\nHead of a runaway slave on a pole\nHealth of slaves\nHeart of slaveholders\nHerding of slaves\nHilton James, slave murderer\nHired slaves\nHiring of slaves\n\"Horrible malady\"\n\"Horrid butchery\"\nHorrors of a slave-driver at death\n   \"    \"  the \"middle passage\"\nHorse-racing\nHorses more cared for than slaves\nHospitality of slaveholders\nHours of rest\n  \"   \"  work\nHospital at New Orleans\nHouse-slaves\nHouses of slaves\n\"House-wench\"\nHovels of slaves\nHuguenots, persecution of\n\"Human cattle\"\nHuman rights against slavery\nHunger of slaves\nHunter of slaves\nHunting men with dogs\nHunting of slaves\nHunt, Rev. Thomas P.\nHusband whipping his wife\nHuts of slaves\nHymn-books searched for\nHypocrisy of vice\n\n\nI.\n\nIdiot slaves\nIgnatius\nIgnorance of northern citizens of slavery\n       \"   \" slaveholders\nImpunity of killing slaves\nInadequate clothing\nIncome from hiring slaves\nIncorrigible slaves\nIncredibility of evidence against slavery\nIncredulity discreditable to consistency\n        \"       \"          \" intelligence\nIndecency of slave-drivers\nIndiana Legislature, resolutions of\nInfant drowned\nInfant slaves\nInfirmary at Charleston\nInfliction of pain\nInspection of naked slaves\nIntercession for slaves\nInterest of slaveholders\nIntroduction\nIron collars\nIron fetters\nIron head-front\nIsraelites in Egypt\n\n\nJ.\n\nJewish law\nJoe flogged\nJones, Anson, Minister from Texas\nJudicial decisions\n\n\nK.\n\nKentucky\n   \"     Sunday morning\nKicking of slaves\nKidnappers\nKidnapping\nKindness of slaveholders\nKinds of food\nKind treatment of slaves.\nKnives, Bowie\nKnocking out of teeth\n\n\nL.\n\nLabor, hours of\nLabor of slaves\nLadies Benevolent Society\nLadies flog with cowhides\nLadies, public opinion known by\nLadies use shovel and tongs\nLaw concerning slavery\nLaw-making\nLaws, Georgia\n  \"   Louisiana\n  \"   Maryland\n  \"   Mississippi\n  \"   North Carolina\n  \"   South Carolina\n  \"   Spirit of\n  \"   Tennessee\n  \"   United States\n  \"   Virginia\nLaw, safeguards of taken from slaves\nLaw suit for a murdered slave,\nLegal restraints\nLicentiousness\n      \"        encouraged by preachers\nLicentiousness of slavedrivers\n\"Lie down\" for whipping,\nLife in the South-west,\nLives of slaves unprotected\nLodging of slaves\nLong, his cruelty\n'Loss of property'\nLouisiana\n    \"     law of\n    \"     sketches of,\nLouis XIV. of France\nLovers severed,\nLunatic slaves\n\"Lynchings\" in the United States\nLynch Law,\n\n\nM.\n\nMaimed slaves\nMaimings\nMalady of slaves\nManacling of slaves\nManiac woman\nMan sold by a Presbyterian elder\nMan-stealing paid for\nMarriage unknown among slaves\nMartyr for Christ\nMaryland Journal\nMaryville Intelligencer\nMassacre at Antioch\n  \"      \"  Thessalonica\n  \"      \"  Vicksburg\nMasters grant no redress to slaves\nMcIntosh, burning of\nMaximin\nMeals number of\n  \"   of slaves\n\"Meat once a year\"\nMediation for slaves\nMedical attendance\n  \"     college of South Carolina\n  \"     Infirmary at Charleston\nMedicine administered to slaves\nMembers of churches\nMemorial of friends\nMenagerie of slaves\nMen and women whipped\nMethodist colored preacher hung,\nMethodist girl whipped for her chastity\nMethodist preacher, a slave dealer\n    \"        \"          \"   driver\n    \"     woman cut off a girl's toe\nMethod of taking meals\n\"Middle passage\"\nMiscarriage of women at the whipping post\nMississippi\nMissouri\nMistresses flog slaves\nMobile\n\"Moderate correction\"\nMoors, repulsion of\nMorgan, William\nMormons\nMothers and babes separated\nMothers of slaves\nMulatto children in all families\nMultiplying of slaves\nMurderers of slaves tried and acquitted\nMurder of slaves by law\n    \"        \"   \"  bad feeling\n    \"        \"   \"  piece-meal\n    \"        \"   every seven years\n    \"        \"   frequent\n    \"        \"   with impunity\nMurders in Alabama\n   \"    \"  Arkansas\n\n\nN.\n\nNaked children\n  \"   \"Dave\"\n  \"   females whipped\n  \"     \"     inspected\n  \"   Men and women at work in a field\nNakedness of slaves\nNantz, edict of\n'National slave-market'\nNatchez\nNat Turner\n'Negro Head Point\n'Negroes for sale\n'Negroes taken\nNero\n'Never lose a day's work'\nNew England, witches of\nNew Orleans\n  \"    \"    Hospital\nNew York, thirteen persons burnt at\nNice, council of\n'Nigger put in the bill'\nNight-confinement\nNight at a slaveholder's house\nNight in slave huts\nNine slaves hanged\nNo marriage among slaves\nNorth Carolina\n   \"      \"     Governor of\n   \"      \"     Legislature of\n   \"      \"     Kidnappers\nNorthern visitors to the slave states\nNothing can disgrace slave-drivers\nNovel torture\nNudity of slaves\nNursing of slave-children\n\n\nO.\n\nObjections considered\nOcra, a slave-driver\nOiling of a slave\nOld age uncommon among slaves\n \"   \"  unprotected\nOld dying slaves\n\"Old settlement\"\n  \"  slaves\nOppressor aversion of to his slave\nOutlawry of slaves\nOutrageous Felonies on account of slavery\n    \"        \"      perpetrated with impunity\nOverseers, character of\n    \"      generally armed\n    \"      no appeal from\n\nOVERSEERS OF SLAVES--\n\n  Alabama\n  Alexander killed\n  Bellemont\n  Bellows\n  Blocken's\n  Bradley\n  Cormick's\n  Cruel to a proverb\n  Farr, James\n  Galloway\n  Gibbs\n  Goochland\n  Methodist preacher\n  Milligan's Bend\n  Nowland's\n  Tune\n  Turner's cousin\n  Walker\n  Overworking of slaves\n  Ownership Of human beings destroys their comfort.\n\n\nP.\n\n\"Paddle\" torture\nPaddle whipping\nPain, the means of slave drivers\n\"Pancake sticks\"\nParents and children separated\nParlor-slaves\nParricide threatened\nPatrol\nPay for begetting mulatto slaves\nPeriodical pressure\nPersecution of Huguenots\nPersecution for religion\nPERSONAL NARRATIVES\nPhilanthropist\nPhilip II. and the Moors\nPhysicians not employed for slaves\nPhysicians of slaves\nPhysician's statement\nPig-sties more comfortable than slave-huts\nPlantations\nPleas for cruelty to slaves\nPloughs and whips equally common\nPliny\nPoles, Russian clemency to\nPolycarp\n\"Poor African slave\"\nPortuguese slaves\nPothinus\nPrayer of slaves\nPraying and slave-whipping in the same room\nPraying slaves whipped\nPreacher claims a dead slave\nPreacher hung\nPreachers, cringing of\nPreacher's \"hands tied\"\nPreachers silenced\nPregnant slaves\n    \"      \"    whipped\nPresbyterian Elders at Lynchburg\nPresbyterian minister killed his slave\nPresbyterian slave-trader\nPresbyterian woman desirious to cut A.T.'s throat\nPresentment of the Grand Jury at Cheraw\nPretexts for slavery absurd\nPrisons in the District of Columbia\nPrison slave\n\nPRIVATIONS OF THE SLAVES--\n  Clothing\n  Dwellings\n  Food\n  Kinds of food\n  Labor\n  Number of meals\n  Quality of food\n  Quantity of food\n  Time of meals.\n\nPromiscuous concubinage\n\"Property\"\n    \"     'loss of'\nProtection of slaves\nProtestants in France\nProvisions, allowance of\nPublic opinion destroys fundamental rights,\n  \"       \"    diabolical\n  \"       \"    protects the slave\nPunishment of slaves\nPunishments\nPurchasing a wife\nPuryer \"the devil\"\nPutrid backs of slaves\n\n\nQ.\n\nQuality of food\nQuantity of food\n\n\nR.\n\nRace of slaves murdered every seven years\nRandolph John will of\n   \"       \"  description of slavedrivers\n   \"       \"             \"Doe faces\"\nRations\nRearing of slaves\nRelaxation, no time for\nReligious persecutions\nRespect for woman lost\nRest, hours of\nRestraints, legal\nRetort of a boy\nRhode Island, kidnappers and pirates of\nRice plantations\nRichmond Whig\nRio Janeiro slavery at\nRiot at Natchez\nRiots in the United States\nRobespierre\nRomans\nRoman slavery\nRunaways\nRUNAWAY SLAVES--\n   Advertisements for\n   Baptist man and woman\n   Buried alive\n   Chilton's\n   Converted\n   \"Dead or alive\"\n   Head on a pole\n   Hung\n   Hunting of\n   Intelligent man\n   Jim Dragon\n   Luke\n   Man buried\n    \"  dragged by a horse\n    \"  maimed\n    \"  murdered\n    \"  severe punishments of\n    \"  shot\n    \"   \"   by Baptist preacher\n    \"  taken from jail\n    \"  tied and driven\n    \"  to his wife\n    \"  whipped to death\n   Many, annually shot I\n  Stallard's man\n  White Peter\n  Young woman\n\n\nS.\n\nSabbath, a nominal holiday\nSafeguards of the law taken from slaves\nSale of a man by a Presbyterian elder\nSale of slaves\nSavannah, Ga.\nSavannah slave-hunter\nSave us from our friends\nScarcity, times of\nScenes of horror\nSearch for Bibles and Hymn books\nSecretary of the Navy\nSeparation of slaves\nShame unknown among naked slaves\nShoes for slaves\nSick, treatment of\n\"Six pound paddle,\"\n\"Slack-jaw,\"\nSlave-breeders\n  \"   breeding\nSlave-drivers acknowledge their enormities\n  \"     \"     character of\nSLAVEHOLDERS--\n  Adams\n  Baptist preachers\n  Barr\n  Baxter, George A\n  Baxter, John\n  Blocker, Colonel\n  Blount\n  Britt, Benjamin W.\n  Burbecker\n  Burvant, Mrs.\n  C.A., Rev.\n  Casey\n  Chilton, Joseph\n  Clay\n  C., Mr.\n  Cooper, Charity\n  Curtis,\n  Davis, Samuel\n  Dras, Henry\n  Delaware\n  Female hypocrite\n  Gautney, Joseph\n  Gayle, Governor\n  Governor of North Carolina\n  Green\n  Hampton, Wade\n  Harney, William S.\n  Harris, Benjamin James\n  Hayne, Governor\n  Hedding\n  Henrico county, Va.\n  Heyward, Nathaniel\n  Hughes, Philip O.\n  Hutchinson\n  Hypocrite woman\n  Indecency of\n  Jones\n  Jones, Henry\n  Lewis, Benjamin\n  Lewis, Isham\n  Lewis, Lilburn\n  Lewis, Rev. Mr.\n  Long, Lucy\n  Long, Reuben\n  L., of Bath, Ky.\n  Maclay, John\n  Martin, Rev. James\n  Matthews' Bend\n  M'Coy\n  M'Cue, John\n  Methodist\n  Methodist Preachers\n  M'Neilly\n  Moresville\n  Morgan\n  Mosely, William\n  Murderer\n  Mushat, Rev. John\n  Nansemond, Va.\n  Natchez planter\n  Nelson, Alexander\n  Nichols, of Connecticut\n  North Carolina\n  Owens, Judge\n  Painter\n  Physician\n  Pinckney, H.L.\n  Presbyterian\n  Presbyterian minister, Huntsville\n         \"       \"       North Carolina\n         \"     preacher\n  Professing Christian\n  Puryar, \"the Devil\"\n  Randolph, John\n  Reiks, Micajah\n  Rodney\n  Ruffner\n  Shepherd, S.C.\n  Sherrod, Ben\n  Slaughter,\n  Smith, Judge\n  Sophistry of\n  South Carolina\n  Sparks, William\n  Stallard, David\n  Starky,\n  Swan, John\n  Teacher at Charleston\n  Thompson\n  Thorpe\n  Tripp, James\n  Truly, James\n  Turner, Fielding S.\n  Turner, uncle of\n  Virginian,\n  Wall\n  Watkins, Billy\n  Watkins, Robert H.\n  Watson, A.\n  W., Colonel\n  Webb, Carroll\n   \"    Pleasant\n  West's uncle\n  Widow and daughter, Savannah river\n  Willis, Robert\n  Wilson, William\n  Woman\n  Woman, professor of religion,\nSlaveholders justify their cruelties by example\n     \"       possess absolute power\n     \"       sophistry of\nSlaveholding amusements\n     \"       brutality\n     \"       indecency\n     \"       murderers\n     \"       religion\nSlave-mothers,\n   \"   plantations second only to hell\nSlavery among Christians\nSLAVERY ILLUSTRATED--\nSlave-auctions\n   \"  blocks with nails\n   \"  boys fight to amuse their drivers,\n   \"  branding\n   \"  breeding\n   \"  burner\n   \"  burning\nSlave-cabins\n   \"    \"    at night\nSlave-children nursed\n   \"  choking\n   \"  clothing\n   \"  collars\n   \"  cookery\nSlave-ditty\n   \"  dogs\n   \"  driver's death\n   \"     \"     licentiousness of\n   \"  driving\n   \"  fetters\n   \"  food\n   \"  gagging\n   \"  gangs\n   \"  handcuffs\n   \"  herding\nSlaveholders, civilization and morality of\n     \"        declarations of\n     \"        habits of\n     \"        heart of\n     \"        hospitality of\n     \"        interest of\n     \"        sophistry of\n     \"        \"treat their slaves well\"\nSlaveholding professor\n\"Slaveholding religion\"\nSlave-hovels\n   \"  hunting\n   \"    \"     by Christians\nSlave imprisoned\n   \"  in chains\n   \"  in the stocks\n   \"  kicking\n   \"  killed, and put in the bill\n   \"  killing with impunity\n   \"  labor\n   \"  manacles\n   \"  martyr\n   \"  meals\n   \"  mothers\n   \"  murderers, tried and acquitted\n   \"  patrol\n   \"  physicians\n   \"  punishments of\nSlave quarters,\nSlavery, code of law respecting\n   \"     among Christians\n   \"     domestic\n   \"     guilt of\n   \"     of whites\n   \"     public opinion and effects of\n   \"     unmixed cruelty\nSlave selling\nSlaves aversion of to their oppressors\n  \"    backs of, putrid\n  \"    blind\n  \"    books of searched for\n  \"    branded\n  \"    brutality to\n  \"    burial of\n  \"    carded\n  \"    cat-hauling of\n  \"    comfort of disregarded\n  \"    deaf\n  \"    dead or alive\n  \"    deformed\n  \"    deprived of every safeguard of the law\n  \"    described\n  \"    diseased\n  \"    dread to be sold for the South\n  \"    dumb\n  \"    dying\n  \"    evidence of against white persons null\n  \"    exchanged\n  \"    reported from Virginia\n  \"    fear their only motive\n  \"    feasted and flogged\n  \"    hired\n  \"    idiots\n  \"    incorrigible\n  \"    infant\n  \"    in the stocks\n  \"    \"  U.S. treatment of\n  \"    lunatics\n  \"    maimed\n  \"    merchandise\n  \"    multiply\n  \"    murdered by cottonseed\n  \"      \"         overwork\n  \"      \"         piece-meal\n  \"      \"         starvation\n  \"      \"      every seven years\n  \"      \"      frequently\n  \"      \"      with impunity\n  \"    naked\n  \"    not treated as human beings\n  \"    outlawed\n  \"    overworked\n  \"    prayers of\n  \"    privations of\n  \"    protection of\n  \"    sale of\n  \"    stock\n  \"    surgeons of\n  \"    taking medicine\n  \"    tantalized\n  \"    starvation of\n  \"    teeth of knocked out\n  \"    tied up all night\n  \"    toe cut off\n  \"    torments of\n  \"    travelling in droves\n  \"    treated worse as they are farther South\n  \"    treatment of by Christians\n  \"    under overseers\n  \"    watching of\n  \"    without redress\n  \"       \"    shelter\n  \"    working animals\n  \"    worn out\n  \"    worse treated than brutes\n  \"    wounded by gun-shot\nSlave testimony excluded\n  \"   torturing hypocrite\n  \"   trade with Africa\n  \"   trading\n  \"      \"    honorable\n  \"   traffic\nSlave Murderers\nSlave plantation\nSlave usage contrasted with that of animals\n  Slave whipping\n  Slave yokes\n  Whipped\n  Whipped and burnt\n  Whipped to death\n  Slaves treatment of\n  Slave trade\nSleeping in clothes\nSlitting of ears\nSmoothing iron on girl's backs\nSophistry of slaveholders\nSouth Carolina laws of\n  \"      \"     medical college\nSouthern dogs and horses\nSpartan slavery\nSpeece, Rev. Conrad opposed to emancipation\nSpirit of laws\nSpringfield, S.C.\nStarvation of a female slave\n    \"       \" slaves\nStatement of a physician\nState, abuse of power in\nStealing of freemen\nStevenson, Andrew, letter by\nSt. Helena, S.C.\nStillman's, Dr. medical infirmary at Charleston\nStocks for slaves\n\"Stock without shelter:\n\"Subject of prayer\"\nSuffering of slaves\n  \"        \"    \"   drives to despair and suicide\nSugar-planters\nSuicide of slaves\nSuit for a dead slave\n  \"   \"  \" murdered slave\nSunday morning in Kentucky\nSurgeon of slaves\nSurgery at Charleston\n\"Susceptibility of pain\"\n\n\nT.\n\nTanner's oil poured on a slave\nTantalising of slaves\nTappan, Arthur\nTarring of slaves\nTaskwork of slaves\nTeeth knocked out\nTender regard of slaveholders for slave\nTennessee\nTESTIMONY.--\n  Allen, Rev. William T.\n  Avery, George A.\n  Caulkins, Nehemiah\n  Channing, Dr.\n  Chapin, Rev. William A.\n  Chapman, Gordon\n  Clergyman\n  Cruelty to slaves\n  Dickey, Rev. William\n  Drayton, Colonel\n  Gildersleeve, William C.\n  Graham, Rev. John\n  Grimk\u00e9, Sarah M.\n  Hawley, Rev. Francis\n  Ide, Joseph\n  Jefferson, Thomas\n  Macy, F.C.\n    \"   Reuben G.\n    \"   Richard\n    \"   T.D.M.\n  Moulton, Rev. Horace\n  Nelson, John M.\n  New Orleans\n  Of slaves excluded\n  Paulding, James K.\n  Poe, William\n  Powel, Eleazar\n  Sapington, Lemuel\n  Scales, Rev. William\n  Secretary of the Navy\n  Smith, Rev. Phineas\n  Summers, Mr.\n  Virginian\n  Westgate, George W.\n  Weld, Angelina Grimk\u00e9\n  White, Hiram\n  Wist, William\nTexas\nTheodosius the Great\nThessalonica, massacre at\nThumb-screws\nTiberius\nTime for relaxation, not allowed\nTimes of scarcity\nTitus\nTobacco worms eaten\nTooth knocked out\nTortures\n   \"     eulogized by a professor of religion\nTrading with negroes\nTraffic in slaves\nTrajan\nTreatment of sick slaves\nTreatment of slaves in the United States by professing Christians,\n    \"     little better than that of brutes\nTrial of women,--\"_white and black_,\"\nTrials for murdering slaves\nTurkish slavery\nTurner, Nat\nTwelve slaves killed by overwork\nTwenty-seven hundred thousands of free-born citizens in the United\n  States\nTying up of slaves at night\n\"Tyrant\"\n\n\"Uncle Jack,\" Baptist preacher\nUnder garments not allowed to slaves\nUnited States, Laws of\nUniversity of Virginia\nUntimely seasons\nUsage of slaves and brutes contrasted\n\nVapid babblings of slaveholders\nVice, hypocrisy of\nVicksburg, massacre of\nVirginia, a slave menagerie\n  \"       exportation of slaves from\n  \"       University of\nVisitors to slave states\nVitellius\n\nWashing for slaves\nWashington slavery\n  \"        the national slave market\nWest Indian slaves\nWhip, cracking of heard at a distance\n\"Whipped to death\"\n\nWHIPPING--\n  Children\n  Every day\n  Females\n  On three plantations heard at one time\n  Pregnant women\n  Slaves\n  Slaves after a feast\n    \"    for praying\n  With paddle\n  Women with prayer\nWhipping-posts\nWhips equally common on plantations as ploughs\n\"White or black;\" trial of\nWhites in slavery\nWhite slave\nWholesale murders\nWife, purchase of a\nWill of John Randolph\nWilmington, N.C.\nWitches of New-England\n\nWITNESSES.\n  Abbot, Jordan\n  Abdie, P.\n  Adams, Mr.\n  African Observer\n  Alexandria Gazette\n  Allan, Rev. William T.\n  Alston, J.A., Heirs of\n  Alton Telegraph\n  Alvis, J.\n  Anderson, Benjamin\n  Andrews, Professor\n  Anthony, Julius C.\n  Antram, Joshua\n  Appleton, John James\n  Arkansas Advocate\n  Armstrong, William\n  Artop, James\n  Ashford, J.P.\n  Augusta Chronicle\n  Avery, George A.\n  Aylethorpe, Thomas\n  Bahi, P.\n  Baker, William\n  Baldwin, J.G.\n  Baldwin, Jonathan F.\n  Ballinger, A.S.\n  Baltimore Sun\n  Baptist Deacon\n  Bardwell, Rev. William\n  Barker, Jacob\n  Barnard, Alonzo\n  Barnes, George W.\n  Barr, James\n   \"    Mrs.\n   \"    Rev. Hugh\n  Barrer, B.G.\n  Barton, David W.\n    \"     Richard W.\n  Bateman, William\n  Baton Rouge, Agricultural Society of\n  Bayli, P.\n  Beall, Samuel\n  Beasley, A.G.A.\n     \"     John C.\n     \"     Robert\n  Beene, Jesse\n  Bell, Abraham\n   \"    Samuel\n  Bennett, D.B.\n  Besson, Jacob\n  Bezon, Mr.\n  Bingham, Joel S.\n  Birdseye, Ezekiel\n  Birney, James G.\n  Bishop, J.\n  Blackwell, Samuel\n  Bland, R.J.\n  Bliss Mayhew and Co\n    \"   Philemon,\n  Bolton, J.L. and W.H.\n  Boudinot, Tobias\n  Bouldin, T.T.\n  Bourgoing, J.F.\n  Bourne, George\n  Bradley, Henry\n  Bragg, Thomas\n  Brasseale, W.H.\n  Brewster, Jarvis\n  Brothers, Menard\n  Brove, A.\n  Brown, J.A.\n    \"    John\n    \"    Rev. Abel\n    \"    William\n  Bruce Mr.\n  Buchanan, Dr.\n  Buckels, William D.\n  Burvant, Madame\n  Burwell\n  Bush, Moses E.\n  Buster, Mr.\n  Butt, Moses\n  Byrn, Samuel H.\n  Calvert, Robert\n  Carney, R.P.\n  Carolina, History of\n  Carter, Mrs. Elizabeth\n  Caulkins, Nehemiah\n  Channing, Dr.\n  Chapin, Rev. William A.\n  Chapman, B.F.\n     \"     Gardon\n  Charleston Courier\n      \"      Mercury\n      \"      Patriot\n  Cherry, John W.\n  Child, David L.\n    \"    Mrs.\n  Choules, Rev. John O.\n  Citizens of Onslow\n  Clark, W.G.\n  Clarke John\n  Clay, Henry,\n    \"  Thomas\n  Clenderson, Benjamin\n  Clergyman\n  Coates Lindley\n  Cobb, W.D.\n  Colborn, J.L.\n  Cole, Nathan\n  Coleman, H.\n  Colonization Society\n  Columbian Inquirer\n  Comegys, Governor\n  Congress, Member of\n  Connecticut, Medical Society of\n  Constant, Dr.\n  Cooke, Owen\n  Cook, Giles\n    \"   H.L.\n  Cooper, Thomas\n  Cornelius, Rev. Elias\n  Corner, Charles\n    \"     L.E.\n  Cotton plantere\n  Cowles, Mrs. Mary\n    \"     Rev. Sylvester\n  Craige, Charles\n  Crane, William\n  Crutchfield, Thomas\n  Cuggy, T.\n  Curtis, Mr.\n     \"    Rev. John H.\n  Cuyler, J.\n  Daniel and Goodman\n  Darien Telegraph\n  Davidson, Rev. Patrick\n  Davis, John\n  Davis, Benjamin\n  Dean, Jethro\n    \"   Thomas\n  Demming, Dr.\n  Denser, T.S.\n  Derbigny, Judge\n  Dew, Philip A.\n   \"   President\n  Dickey, Rev. James H.\n    \"     William\n  Dickinson, Mr.\n  Dillahunty, John H.\n  Doddridge, Philip\n  Dorrah, James\n  Downman, Mrs. Lucy M.\n  Douglas, Rev. J.W.\n  Drake and Thomson\n  Drayton, Colonel\n  Drown, William\n  Dudley, Rev. John\n  Duggan, John\n  Dunn, John L.\n  Dunham, Jacob\n  Durell, Judge\n  Durett, Francis\n  Dustin, W.\n  Dyer, William\n  Eastman, Rev. D.B.\n  Eaton, General William\n  Edmunds, Nicholas\n  Edwards, F.L.C.\n     \"     President\n     \"   Junior \"\n  Ellison, Samuel\n  Ellis, Orren\n  Ellsworth, Elijah\n  Emancipation Society of N.C.\n  English, Walter R.\n  Evans, R.A.\n  Everett, William\n  Faulkner, Mr.\n  Fayetteville Observer\n  Fernandez and Whiting\n  Finley, James C.\n    \"     R.S.\n  Fishers, E.H. and I.\n  Fitzhugh, William H.\n  Ford, John\n  Foster, Francis\n  Fox, John B.\n  Foy, Enoch\n  Francisville Chronicle\n  Franklin Republican\n  Frederick, John\n  Friends, Yearly Meeting of\n  Fuller, Isaac C.\n  Fullerton, G.S.\n  Furman, B.\n  Gadsden, Thomas N.\n  Gaines, Rev. Ludwell, G.\n  Gales, Joseph\n  Garcia, Henrico Y.\n  Garland, Maurice H.\n  Gates, Seth M.\n  Gayle, John\n  Georgetown Union\n  Georgia Constitutionalist\n     \"    Journal\n  Georgian\n  Gholson, Mr.\n  Giddings, Mr.\n  Gilbert, E.W.\n  Gildersterre, William C.\n  Glidden, Mr.\n  Goode, Mr.\n  Gourden and Co.\n  Grace, Byrd M.\n  Graham, Rev. John\n     \"    Rev. Dr.\n  Grand Gulf Advertiser\n  Graham, Jehab\n  Gray, Abraham\n  Greene, R.A.\n  Green, James R.\n  Gregory, Ossian\n  Gridley, H.\n  Grimk\u00e9, Sarah M.\n  Grosvenor. Rev. Cyrus P.\n  Guex, D.F.\n  Gunnell, John J.H.\n  Guthrie, A.A.\n  Guyler, J.\n  Halley, Preston\n  Hall, Samuel\n  Han, E.\n  Hand, John H.\n  Hansborough, William\n  Hanson, Peter\n  Harding, N.H.\n  Harman, Samuel\n  Harrison, General W.H.\n  Hart, F.A.\n   \"    Rev. Mr.\n  Harvey, J.\n  Hawley, David\n    \"     Rev. Francis\n  Hayne, General R.Y.\n  Henderson, John\n     \"       Judge\n  Hendren, H.\n  Herring, D.\n    \"      Dr.\n  Hitchcock, Judge\n  Hite, S.N.\n  Hodges, B.W.\n    \"     Rev. Coleman S.\n  Holcombe, John P.\n  Holmes, George\n  Home, Frederick\n  Honerton, Philip\n  Hopkins, Rev. Henry T.\n  Horsey, Outerbridge\n  Hough, Rev. Joseph\n  Houstoun, Edward\n  Hudnall, Thomas\n  Hughes, Benjamin\n  Hunt, John\n   \"    Rev. Thomas P.\n  Hussey, George P.C.\n  Huston, Felix\n  Hutchings, A.J.\n  Ide, Joseph\n  Indiana, Legislature of\n  Jackson, Stephen M.\n      \"    Telegraph\n  James, Joseph\n  Jarnett, James T. De\n  Jarvett, James T.\n  Jefferson, Thomas\n  Jenkins, John\n  Jett, Marshall\n  Johnson, Bryant\n      \"    Cornelius\n      \"    Isaac\n      \"    Josiah S.\n  Jolley, J.L.\n  Jones, Alexander\n    \"    Anson\n    \"    Hill\n    \"    James\n    \"    R.H.\n    \"    W. Jefferson\n  Jourdan, Green B.\n  Judd, D.\n    \"   Mrs. Nancy\n  Keeton, G.W.\n  Kennedy, John\n  Kentucky, Synod of\n  Kephart, George\n  Kernin, Charles\n  Keyes, Willard\n  Kimball and Thome\n     \"    George\n  Kimborough, James\n  King, Charles\n    \"   John H.\n    \"   Nehemiah\n  Knapp, Henry E.\n    \"    Isaac\n  Kyle, Frederick\n    \"   James\n  Lacy, Theodore A.\n  Ladd, William\n  Lains, O.W.\n  Lambeth, William L.\n  Lambre, Mr.\n  Lancette, R.\n  Langhorne, Scruggs and Cook\n  Larrimer, Thomas\n  Latimer, W.K.\n  Lawless, Judge\n  Lawyer, Zadok\n  Ledwith, Thomas\n  Leftwich, William\n  Lemes, Ferdinand\n  Leverich and Co.\n  Lewis, Kirkman\n  Lexington Intelligencer\n      \"     Observer\n  Little, Mrs. Sophia\n  Loflano, Hazlet\n  Long, Joseph\n  Loomis, Henry H.\n  Loring, R.\n     \"    Thomas\n  Louisville Reporter\n  Lowry, Mrs. Nancy\n  Luminais, A.\n  Lyman, Judge\n     \"   Rev. H.\n  Macoin, J.\n  Macon Messenger\n   \"    Telegraph\n  Macy, F.C.\n   \"    Reuben G.\n   \"    Richard\n   \"    T.D.M.\n  Magee, William\n  Males, Henry\n  Maltby, Stephen E.\n  Manning, P.T.\n  Marietta College, student of\n  Marks, James\n  Marriott, Charles\n  Marshall, John T.\n  Martineau, Harriet\n  Maryland Journal\n  Maryville Intelligencer\n  Mason, Samuel\n  Mathieson, Rev. James\n  May, Rev. Samuel J.\n  McCue, Moses\n  McDonnell, James\n  McGehee, Edward J.\n  McGregor, Henry M.\n  McMurrain, John\n  Mead Whitman\n  Medical College of South Carolina\n  Memphis Gazette\n     \"    Inquirer\n  Menefee, R.H.\n  Menzies, Judge\n  Mercer, Mr.\n  Metcalf, Asa B.\n  Middleton, Mr.\n  Miles, Lemuel\n  Milledgeville Journal\n        \"       Recorder\n  Miller, C.\n  Minister from Texas, A. Jones\n  Minor, W.I.\n  Missouri Republican\n  Mitchell, Dr. Robert\n  Mitchell, Isaac\n  M'Neilly\n  Mobile Advertiser\n    \"    Examiner\n    \"    Register\n  Mongin, R.P.T.\n  Montesquieu\n  Montgomery, W.H.\n  Moore, Mr. Va.\n  Moorhead, John H.\n  Morris, E.W.\n  Moulton, Rev. Horace\n  Moyne Dr. F. Julius Le\n  Muggridge, Matthew\n  Muir J.G.\n  Murat A.\n  Murphy S.B.\n  Napier T. and L.\n  Natchez Courier\n     \" Daily Free Trade\n  National Intelligencer\n  Nelson Dr. David\n     \"   John M.\n  Nesbitt Wilson\n  Newbern Sentinel\n    \"     Spectator\n  New Hampshire, legislature of\n  Newman Mrs. B.\n  New Orleans Argus\n      \"       Bee\n      \"       Bulletin\n      \"       Courier\n      \"       Kidnapping at\n      \"       Mercantile Advertiser\n      \"       Post\n  New York American\n      \"    Sun\n  Neyle S.\n  Nicholas Judge\n  Nicoll Robert\n  Niles Hezekiah\n  Noe James\n  Norfolk Beacon\n     \"    Herald\n  N.C. Literary and Commercial-Standard\n  N.C. Journal\n  Nourse Rev. James\n  Nye Horace\n  O'Byrne\n  O'Connell Daniel\n  Oliver Colonel\n  O'Neill Peter\n  Onslow, Citizens of\n  Orme Moses\n  O'Rorke John\n  Overstreet, Richard\n  Overstreet, William\n  Owen, Captain N.F.\n  Owen, John W.\n  Owens, J.G.\n\n  Parrish, John\n  Parrott, Dr.\n  Patterson, Willie\n  Paulding, James K.\n  Peacock, Jesse\n  Perry, Thomas C.\n  Petersburg Constellation\n  Philanthropist\n  Pickard, J.S.\n  Pinckney, H.L.\n  Pinkney, William\n  Planter's Intelligencer\n  Planters of South Carolina\n  Poe, William\n  Porter, Mr.\n  Portsmouth Times\n  Powell, Eleazar\n  Presbyterian elder\n  President of the United States\n  Pringle, Thomas\n  Pritchard, William H.\n  Probate sale\n  Purdon, James\n\n  Ragland, Samuel\n  Raleigh Register\n  Ralston, Samuel\n  Randall, J.B.\n  Randolph, John\n  Riadolph, Thomas Mann\n  Rankin, Rev. John\n  Rascoe, William D.\n  Rawlins, Samuel\n  Raworth, Egbert A.\n  Redden J.V.\n  Red River Whig\n  Reed, Rev. Andrew\n  Reed, William H.\n  Reese, Enoch\n  Reins, Richard\n  Reeves, W.P.\n  Renshaw Rev. C.S.\n  Rhodes, Durant H.\n  Rice, H.W.\n  Rice, Rev. David\n  Richardson, G.C.\n  Richards, James K.\n  Richards, Moses R.\n  Richards, Stephen M.\n  Richmond Compiler\n  Richmond Inquirer\n  Richmond Whig\n  Ricks, Micajah\n  Riley, W.\n  Ripley, George B.\n  Roach, Philip\n  Robbins, Welcome H.\n  Robarts, William\n  Roberts, J.H.\n  Robin, C.C.\n  Robinson, N.M.C.\n  Robinson, William\n  Roebuck, George\n  Rogers, N.P.\n  Rogers, Thomas\n  Ross, Abner\n  Rowland, John A.\n  Ruffin, Judge\n  Russel, Benjamin\n  Russel, W.\n  Rymes, Littlejohn\n\n  Sadd, Rev. Joseph M.\n  Salvo, Conrad\n  Sapington, Lemuel\n  Saunders, James\n  Savage, Rev. Thomas\n  Savannah Georgian\n  Savannah Republican\n  Savory, William\n  Scales, Rev. William\n  Schmidt, Louis\n  Scott, Rev. Orange\n  Scott, William\n  Scrivener, J.\n  Seabrook, Whitmarsh B.\n  Secretary of the navy\n  Selfer\n  Senator of the United States\n  Sevier, Ambrose H.\n  Sewall, Stephen\n  Shafter, M.M.\n  Sheith, M.J.\n  Shield and Walker\n  Shields, Polly C.\n  Shropshire, David\n  Simmons, B.C.\n  Simpson, John\n  Sizer, R.W.\n  Skinner, W.\n  Slaveholders\n  Smith, Bishop of Kentucky\n  Smith, Gerrit\n  Smith, Professor\n  Smith, Rev. Phineas\n  Smyth, Alexander\n  Snow, Henry H.\n  Snowden, J.\n  Snowden, Rev. Samuel\n  South Carolina, legislature of\n  South Carolina, Medical College of\n  South Carolina, Slaveholder of\n  Southern Argus\n  Southern Christian Herald\n  Southerner\n  Southmayd, Rev. Daniel S.\n  Spillman, Mr.\n  Stansell, William\n  Staughton, Rev. Dr.\n  Staunton Spectator\n  Steams and Co.\n  Stevenson, Andrew\n  Stewart, Samuel\n  Stillmam, Dr.\n  Stith, W. and A.\n  Stone, Asa A.\n  Stone, Silas\n  Stone, William L.\n  Strickland, William\n  Stroud, George M.\n  Stuart, Charles\n  Summers, Mr.\n  Swain, B.\n  Synod of South Carolina and Georgia\n\n  Tart, John\n  Tate, Calvin H.\n  Taylor, James H.\n    \"     John\n    \"     Lawton, and Co.\n  Texan minister, Anson Jones\n  Thatcher, Colonel\n  Thome and Kimball\n  Thome, James A.\n  Thompson, Henry P.\n  Thomson, Mr.\n    \"    , Sandford\n  Todd, R.S.\n  Toler, William\n  Tolin, Cornelius D.\n  Townsend, Ely\n    \"     , Samuel\n  Tucker, Judge\n  Turnbull, Robert\n  Turner, John\n    \"   , John D.\n    \"   , L.\n  Tarton, S.B.\n  Tuscaloosa Flag of the Union\n  Upsher, Judge\n  Ustick, William A.\n  Vance, John\n  Van Buren, Martin\n  Varillat, H.\n  Vicksburg Register\n  Virginia Minister\n  Virginian\n  Walker, John\n  Walton, George\n    \"   , John W.\n  Walsh, Sarah\n  Washington Globe\n  Waugh, Dr. Jeremiah S.\n  Weld, Angelina Grimk\u00e9\n  Wells, Thomas J.\n  West Eli\n  Western Luminary\n    \"     Medical Journal\n    \"        \"    Reformer\n    \"     Review\n  Westgate, George W.\n  Whitbread, Samuel\n  Whitefield, George\n    \"       , Needham\n  Whitehead, C.C.\n    \"      , W.W.\n  White, Hiram\n  Wightman, Rev. William M.\n  Wilberforce, W.\n  Wilkins, C.W.\n  Wilkinson, Alfred\n  Williams, George W.\n  Willis, Robert\n  Willis, William\n  Wilmington Advertiser\n  Wilson, Rev. Joseph G.\n  Winchester Virginian\n  Wirt, William\n  Wisner, F.\n  Witherspoon, Dr.\n  Woodward, Jeremiah\n  Woolman, John\n  Wotton, John\n  Wright, Mr.\n  Yampert, T.J. De\n  Yearly meeting of Friends\nWoman dying\n  \"   flogged because her child died\n  \"   maniac\n  \"   no respect for\nWomen at childbirth\n  \"    \" the same labor with men\n  \"    \" work\n  \"   miscarry under the whip\n  \"   not breeding\n  \"   pregnant whipped\n  \"   severe whippers of slaves\n  \"   slaves\nWorkhouse at Charleston\nWorking hours\n  \"     of slaves\nWorn-out slaves\n\"Worse and worse\"\nWorship of God prohibited\nWounds by gunshot\nWright Isaac\nYokes for slaves\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\nNo. 10.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nSPEECH\n\nof\n\nHON. THOMAS MORRIS,\n\nOF OHIO,\n\nIN REPLY TO THE SPEECH OF\n\nTHE\n\nHON. HENRY CLAY.\n\n\nIN SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1839.\n\n\n\nNEW YORK:\n\nPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\n\nNO. 143 NASSAU STREET:\n\n1839.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nThis No. contains 2-1/2 sheets.--Postage, under 100 miles, 4 cts. over\n  100, 7 cts.\n\n_Please Read and circulate._\n\n\n\nSPEECH\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nMR. PRESIDENT--I rise to present for the consideration of the Senate,\nnumerous petitions signed by, not only citizens of my own State, but\ncitizens of several other States, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan,\nIllinois, and Indiana. These petitioners, amounting in number to\nseveral thousand, have thought proper to make me their organ, in\ncommunicating to Congress their opinions and wishes on subjects which,\nto them, appear of the highest importance. These petitions, sir, are\non the subject of slavery, the slave trade as carried on within and\nfrom this District, the slave trade between the different States of\nthis Confederacy, between this country and Texas, and against the\nadmission of that country into the Union, and also against that of any\nother State, whose constitution and laws recognise or permit slavery.\nI take this opportunity to present all these petitions together,\nhaving detained some of them for a considerable time in my hands, in\norder that as small a portion of the attention of the Senate might be\ntaken up on their account as would be consistent with a strict regard\nto the rights of the petitioners. And I now present them under the\nmost peculiar circumstances that have ever probably transpired in this\nor any other country. I present them on the heel of the petitions\nwhich have been presented by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay]\nsigned by the inhabitants of this District, praying that Congress\nwould not receive petitions on the subject of slavery in the District,\nfrom any body of men or citizens, but themselves. This is something\nnew; it is one of the devices of the slave power, and most\nextraordinary in itself. These petitions I am bound in duty to\npresent--a duty which I cheerfully perform, for I consider it not only\na duty but an honor. The respectable names which these petitions bear,\nand being against a practice which I as deeply deprecate and deplore\nas they can possibly do, yet I well know the fate of these petitions;\nand I also know the time, place, and disadvantage under which I\npresent them. In availing myself of this opportunity to explain my own\nviews on this agitating topic, and to explain and justify the\ncharacter and proceedings of these petitioners, it must be obvious to\nall that I am surrounded with no ordinary discouragements. The strong\nprejudice which is evinced by the petitioners of the District, the\nunwillingness of the Senate to hear, the power which is arrayed\nagainst me on this occasion, as well as in opposition to those whose\nrights I am anxious to maintain; opposed by the very lions of debate\nin this body, who are cheered on by an applauding gallery and\nsurrounding interests, is enough to produce dismay in one far more\nable and eloquent than the _lone_ and humble individual who now\naddresses you.\n\nWhat, sir, can there be to induce me to appear on this public arena,\nopposed by such powerful odds? Nothing, sir, nothing but a strong\nsense of duty, and a deep conviction that the cause I advocate is\njust; that the petitioners whom I represent are honest, upright,\nintelligent and respectable citizens; men who love their country, who\nare anxious to promote its best interests, and who are actuated by the\npurest patriotism, as well as the deepest philanthropy and\nbenevolence. In representing such men, and in such a cause, though by\nthe most feeble means, one would suppose that, on the floor of the\nSenate of the United States, order, and a decent respect to the\nopinions of others, would prevail. From the causes which I have\nmentioned, I can hardly hope for this. I expect to proceed through\nscenes which ill become this hall; but nothing shall deter me from a\nfull and faithful discharge of my duty on this important occasion.\nPermit me, sir, to remind gentlemen that I have been now six years a\nmember of this body. I have seldom, perhaps too seldom, in the opinion\nof many of my constituents, pressed myself upon the notice of the\nSenate, and taken up their time in useless and windy debate. I\nquestion very much if I have occupied the time of the Senate during\nthe six years as some gentlemen have during six weeks, or even six\ndays. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be thought obtrusive, or\ncharged with taking up time with abolition petitions. I hope, Mr.\nPresident, to hear no more about agitating this slave question here.\nWho has began the agitation now? The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay.]\nWho has responded to that agitation, and congratulated the Senate and\nthe country on its results? The Senator from South Carolina, Mr.\n[Calhoun.] And pray, sir, under what circumstances is this agitation\nbegun? Let it be remembered, let us collect the facts from the records\non your table, that when I, as a member of this body, but a few days\nsince offered a resolution as the foundation of proceedings on these\npetitions, gentlemen, as if operated on by an electric shock, sprung\nfrom their seats and objected to its introduction. And when you, sir,\ndecided that it was the right of every member to introduce such motion\nor resolution as he pleased, being responsible to his constituents and\nthis body for the abuse of this right, gentlemen seemed to wonder that\nthe Senate had no power to prevent the action of one of its members in\ncases like this, and the poor privilege of having the resolution\nprinted, by order of the Senate, was denied.\n\nLet the Senator from South Carolina before me remember that, at the\nlast session, when he offered resolutions on the subject of slavery,\nthey were not only received without objection, but printed, voted on,\nand decided; and let the Senator from Kentucky reflect, that the\npetition which he offered against our right, was also received and\nordered to be printed without a single dissenting voice; and I call on\nthe Senate and the country to remember, that the resolutions which I\nhave offered on the same subject have not only been refused the\nprinting, but have been laid on the table without being debated, or\nreferred. Posterity, which shall read the proceedings of this time,\nmay well wonder what power could induce the Senate of the United\nStates to proceed in such a strange and contradictory manner. Permit\nme to tell the country now what this power behind the throne, greater\nthan the throne itself, is. It is the power of SLAVERY. It is a power,\naccording to the calculation of the Senator from Kentucky, which owns\ntwelve hundred millions of dollars in human beings as property; and if\nmoney is power, this power is not to be conceived or calculated; a\npower which claims human property more than double the amount which\nthe whole money of the world could purchase. What can stand before\nthis power? Truth, everlasting truth, will yet overthrow it. This\npower is aiming to govern the country, its constitutions and laws; but\nit is not certain of success, tremendous as it is, without foreign or\nother aid. Let it be borne in mind that the Bank power, some years\nsince, during what has been called the panic session, had influence\nsufficient in this body, and upon this floor, to prevent the reception\nof petitions against the action of the Senate on their resolutions of\ncensure against the President. The country took instant alarm, and the\npolitical complexion of this body was changed as soon as possible. The\nsame power, though double in means and in strength, is now doing the\nsame thing. This is the array of power that even now is attempting\nsuch an unwarrantable course in this country; and the people are also\nnow moving against the slave, as they formerly did against the Bank\npower. It, too, begins to tremble for its safety. What is to be done?\nWhy, petitions are received and ordered to be printed, against the\nright of petitions which are not received, and the whole power of\ndebate is thrown into the scale with the slaveholding power. But all\nwill not do; these two powers must now be united: an amalgamation of\nthe black power of the South with the white power of the North must\ntake place, as either, separately, cannot succeed in the destruction\nof the liberty of speech and the press, and the right of petition. Let\nme tell gentlemen, that both united will never succeed; as I said on a\nformer day, God forbid that they should ever rule this country! I have\nseen this billing and cooing between these different interests for\nsome time past; I informed my private friends of the political party\nwith which I have heretofore acted, during the first week of this\nsession, that these powers were forming a union to overthrow the\npresent administration; and I warned them of the folly and mischief\nthey were doing in their abuse of those who were opposed to slavery.\nAll doubts are now terminated. The display made by the Senator from\nKentucky, [Mr. Clay,] and his denunciations of these petitioners as\nabolitionists, and the hearty response and cordial embrace which his\nefforts met from the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,]\nclearly shows that new moves have taken place on the political\nchessboard, and new coalitions are formed, new compromises and new\nbargains, settling and disposing of the rights of the country for the\nadvantage of political aspirants.\n\nThe gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] seemed, at the\nconclusion of the argument made by the Senator from Kentucky, to be\nfilled not only with delight but with ecstasy. He told us, that about\ntwelve months since HE had offered a resolution which turned the tide\nin favor of the great principle of State rights, and says he is highly\npleased with the course taken by the Kentucky Senator. All is now safe\nby the acts of that Senator. The South is now consolidated as one man;\nit was a great epoch in our history, but we have now passed it; it is\nthe beginning of a moral revolution; slavery, so far from being a\npolitical evil, is a great blessing; both races have been improved by\nit; and that abolition is now DEAD, and will soon be forgotten. So far\nthe Senator from South Carolina, as I understand him. But, sir, is\nthis really the case? Is the South united as one man, and is the\nSenator from Kentucky the great centre of attraction? What a lesson to\nthe friends of the present Administration, who have been throwing\nthemselves into the arms of the southern slave-power for support! The\nblack enchantment I hope is now at an end--the dream dissolved, and we\nawake into open day. No longer is there any uncertainty or any doubt\non this subject. But is the great epoch passed? is it not rather just\nbeginning? Is abolitionism DEAD--or is it just awaking into life? Is\nthe right of petition strangled and forgotten--or is it increasing in\nstrength and force? These are serious questions for the gentleman's\nconsideration, that may damp the ardor of his joy, if examined with an\nimpartial mind, and looked at with an unprejudiced eye. Sir, when\nthese paeans were sung over the death of abolitionists, and, of\ncourse, their right to liberty of speech and the press, at least in\nfancy's eye, we might have seen them lying in heaps upon heaps, like\nthe enemies of the strong man in days of old. But let me bring back\nthe gentleman's mind from this delightful scene of abolition death, to\nsober realities and solemn facts. I have now lying before me the names\nof thousands of living witnesses, that slavery has not entirely\nconquered liberty; that abolitionists (for so are all these\npetitioners called) are not _all dead_. These are my first proofs to\nshow the gentleman his ideas are all fancy. I have also, sir, since\nthe commencement of this debate, received a newspaper, as if sent by\nProvidence to suit the occasion, and by whom I know not. It is the\nCincinnati Republican of the 2d instant, which contains an extract\nfrom the Louisville Advertiser, a paper printed in Kentucky, in\nLouisville, our sister city; and though about one hundred and fifty\nmiles below us, it is but a few hours distant. That paper is the\nleading Administration journal, too, as I am informed, in Kentucky.\nHear what it says on the death of abolition:--\n\n\n\"ABOLITION--CINCINNATI--THE LOUISVILLE ADVERTISER.\n\n\"We copy the following notice of an article which we lately published,\nupon the subject of abolition movements in this quarter, from the\nLouisville Advertiser:--\n\n\"'ABOLITION.--The reader is referred to an interesting article which we\nhave copied from the Cincinnati Republican--a paper which lately\nsupported the principles of Democracy; a paper which has _turned_, but\nnot quite far enough to act with the Adamses and Slades in Congress,\nor the Whig abolitionists of Ohio. It does not, however, give a\ncorrect view of the strength of the abolitionists in Cincinnati. There\nthey are in the ascendant. They control the city elections, regulate\nwhat may be termed the morals of the city, give tone to public\nopinion, and \"rule the roast,\" by virtue of their superior piety and\nintelligence. The Republican tells us, that they are not laboring Loco\nFocos--but \"drones\" and \"consumers\"--the \"rich and well-born,\" of\ncourse; men who have leisure and means, and a disposition to employ\nthe latter, to equalize whites and blacks in the slaveholding States.\nEven now, the absconding slave is perfectly safe in Cincinnati. We\ndoubt whether an instance can be adduced of the recovery of a runaway\nin that place in the last four years. When negroes reach \"the Queen\ncity\" they are protected by its intelligence, its piety, and its\nwealth. They receive the aid of the _elite_ of the Buckeyes; and we\nhave a strong faction in Kentucky, struggling zealously to make her\none of the dependencies of Cincinnati! Let our mutual sons go on. The\nday of mutual retribution is at hand--much nearer than is now\nimagined. The Republican, which still looks with a friendly eye to the\nslaveholding States, warns us of the danger which exists, although its\nnew-born zeal for Whiggery prompts it to insist, indirectly, on the\nright of petitioning Congress to abolish slavery. There are about two\nhundred and fifty abolition societies in Ohio at the present time,\nand, from the circular issued at head quarters, Cincinnati, it appears\nthat agents are to be sent through every county to distribute books\nand pamphlets designed to inflame the public mind, and then organize\nadditional societies--or, rather, form new clans, to aid in the war\nwhich has been commenced on the slaveholding States.'\"\n\n\nI do not, sir, underwrite for the truth of this statement as an entire\nwhole; much of it I repel as an unjust charge on my fellow-citizens of\nCincinnati; but, as it comes from a slaveholding State--from the State\nof the Senator who has so eloquently anathematized abolitionists that\nit is almost a pity they could not die under such sweet sounds--and as\nthe South Carolina Senator pronounces them dead, I produce this from a\nslaveholding State, for the special benefit and consolation of the two\nSenators. It comes from a source to which, I am sure, both gentlemen\nought to give credit. But suppose, sir, that abolitionism is dead, is\nliberty dead also and slavery triumphant? Is liberty of speech, of the\npress, and the right of petition also dead? True, it has been\nstrangled here; but gentlemen will find themselves in great error if\nthey suppose it also strangled in the country; and the very attempt,\nin legislative bodies, to sustain a local and individual interest, to\nthe destruction of our rights, proves that those rights are not dead,\nbut a living principle, which slavery cannot extinguish; and be my lot\nwhat it may, I shall, to the utmost of my abilities, under all\ncircumstances, and at all times, contend for that freedom which is the\ncommon gift of the Creator to all men, and against the power of these\ntwo great interests--the slave power of the South, and banking power\nof the North--which are now uniting to rule this country. The cotton\nbale and the bank note have formed an alliance; the credit system with\nslave labor. These two congenial spirits have at last met and embraced\neach other, both looking to the same object--to live upon the\nunrequited labor of others--and have now erected for themselves a\ncommon platform, as was intimated during the last session, on which\nthey can meet, and bid defiance, as they hope, to free principles and\nfree labor.\n\nWith these introductory remarks, permit me, sir, to say here, and let\nno one pretend to misunderstand or misrepresent me, that I charge\ngentlemen, when they use the word abolitionists, they mean petitioners\nhere such as I now present--men who love liberty, and are opposed to\nslavery--that in behalf of these citizens I speak; and, by whatever\nname they may be called, it is those who are opposed to slavery whose\ncause I advocate. I make no war upon the rights of others. I do no act\nbut what is moral, constitutional, and legal, against the peculiar\ninstitutions of any State; but acts only in defence of my own rights,\nof my fellow citizens, and, above all, of my State, I shall not cease\nwhile the current of life shall continue to flow.\n\nI shall, Mr. President, in the further consideration of this subject,\nendeavor to prove, first, the right of the people to petition; second,\nwhy slavery is wrong, and why I am opposed to it; third, the power of\nslavery in this country, and its dangers; next, answer the question,\nso often asked, what have the free States to do with slavery? Then\nmake some remarks by way of answer to the arguments of the Senator\nfrom Kentucky, [Mr. Clay.]\n\nMr. President, the duty I am requested to perform is one of the\nhighest which a Representative can be called on to discharge. It is to\nmake known to the legislative body the will and the wishes of his\nconstituents and fellow-citizens; and, in the present case, I feel\nhonored by the confidence reposed in me, and proceed to discharge the\nduty. The petitioners have not trusted to my fallible judgment alone,\nbut have declared, in written documents, the most solemn expression of\ntheir will. It is true these petitions have not been sent here by the\nwhole people of the United States, but from a portion of them only;\nyet such is the justice of their claim, and the sure foundation upon\nwhich it rests, that no portion of the American people, until a day or\ntwo past, have thought it either safe or expedient to present counter\npetitions; and even now, when counter petitions have been presented,\nthey dare not justify slavery, and the selling of men and women in\nthis District, but content themselves with objecting to others\nenjoying the rights they practise, and praying Congress not to receive\nor hear petitions from the people of the States--a new device of slave\npower this, never before thought of or practiced in any country. I\nwould have been gratified if the inventors of this system, which\ndenies to others what they practise themselves, had, in their\npetition, attempted to justify slavery and the slave trade in the\nDistrict, if they believe the practice just, that their names might\nhave gone down to posterity. No, sir; very few yet have the moral\ncourage to record their names to such an avowal; and even some of\nthese petitioners are so squeamish on this subject, as to say that\nthey might, from conscientious principles, be prevented from holding\nslaves. Not so, sir, with the petitioners which I have the honor to\nrepresent; they are anxious that their sentiments and their names\nshould be made matter of record; they have no qualms of conscience on\nthis subject; they have deep convictions and a firm belief that\nslavery is an existing evil, incompatible with the principles of\npolitical liberty, at war with our system of government, and extending\na baleful and blasting influence over our country, withering and\nblighting its fairest prospects and brightest hopes. Who has said that\nthese petitions are unjust in principle, and on that ground ought not\nto be granted? Who has said that slavery is not an evil? Who has said\nit does not tarnish the fair fame of our country? Who has said it does\nnot bring dissipation and feebleness to one race, and poverty and\nwretchedness to another, in its train? Who has said, it is not unjust\nto the slave, and injurious to the happiness and best interest of the\nmaster? Who has said it does not break the bonds of human affection,\nby separating the wife from the husband, and children from their\nparents? In fine, who has said it is not a blot upon our country's\nhonor, and a deep and foul stain upon her institutions? Few, very few,\nperhaps none but him who lives upon its labor, regardless of its\nmisery; and even many whose local situations are within its\njurisdiction, acknowledge its injustice, and deprecate its\ncontinuance; while millions of freemen deplore its existence, and look\nforward with strong hope to its final termination. SLAVERY! a word,\nlike a secret idol, thought too obnoxious or sacred to be pronounced\nhere but by those who worship at its shrine--and should one who is not\nsuch worshipper happen to pronounce the word, the most disastrous\nconsequences are immediately predicted, the Union is to be dissolved,\nand the South to take care of itself.\n\nDo not suppose, Mr. President, that I feel as if engaged in a\nforbidden or improvident act. No such thing. I am contending with a\nlocal and \"_peculiar_\" interest, an interest which has already banded\ntogether with a force sufficient to seize upon every avenue by which a\npetition can enter this chamber, and exclude all without its haven. I\nam not now contending for the rights of the negro, rights which his\nCreator gave him and which his fellow-man has usurped or taken away.\nNo, sir! I am contending for the rights of the white person in the\nfree States, and am endeavoring to prevent them from being trodden\ndown and destroyed by that power which claims the black person as\n_property_. I am endeavoring to sound the alarm to my fellow-citizens\nthat this power, tremendous as it is, is endeavoring to unite itself\nwith the monied power of the country, in order to extend its dominion\nand perpetuate its existence. I am endeavoring to drive from the back\nof the _negro slave_ the politician who has seated himself there to\nride into office for the purpose of carrying out the object of this\nunholy combination. The chains of slavery are sufficiently strong,\nwithout being riveted anew by tinkering politicians of the free\nStates. I feel myself compelled into this contest, in defence of the\ninstitutions of my own State, the persons and firesides of her\ncitizens, from the insatiable grasp of the slaveholding power as being\nused and felt in the free States. To say that I am opposed to slavery\nin the abstract, are but cold and unmeaning words, if, however capable\nof any meaning whatever, they may fairly be construed into a love for\nits existence; and such I sincerely believe to be the feeling of many\nin the free States who use the phrase. I, sir, am not only opposed to\nslavery in the abstract, but also in its whole volume, in its theory\nas well as practice. This principle is deeply implanted within me; it\nhas \"grown with my growth and strengthened with my strength.\" In my\ninfant years I learned to hate slavery. Your fathers taught me it was\nwrong in their Declaration of Independence: the doctrines which they\npromulgated to the world, and upon the truth of which they staked the\nissue of the contest that made us a nation. They proclaimed \"that all\nmen are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with\ncertain inalienable rights; that amongst these are life, liberty, and\nthe pursuit of happiness.\" These truths are solemnly declared by them.\nI believed then, and believe now, they are self-evident. Who can\nacknowledge this, and not be opposed to slavery? It is, then, because\nI love the principles which brought your government into existence,\nand which have become the corner stone of the building supporting you,\nsir, in that chair, and giving to myself and other Senators seats in\nthis body--it is because I love all this, that I hate slavery. Is it\nbecause I contend for the right of petition, and am opposed to\nslavery, that I have been denounced by many as an abolitionist? Yes;\nVirginia newspapers have so denounced me, and called upon the\nLegislature of my State to dismiss me from public confidence. Who\ntaught me to hate slavery, and every other oppression? _Jefferson_,\nthe great and the good Jefferson! Yes, _Virginia Senators_, it was\nyour own Jefferson, Virginia's favorite son, a man who did more for\nthe natural liberty of man, and the civil liberty of his country, than\nany man that ever lived in our country; it was him who taught me to\nhate slavery; it was in his school I was brought up. That Mr.\nJefferson was as much opposed to slavery as any man that ever lived in\nour country, there can be no doubt; his life and his writings\nabundantly prove the fact. I hold in my hand a copy, as he penned it,\nof the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, a part of\nwhich was stricken out, as he says, in compliance with the wishes of\nSouth Carolina and Georgia. I will read it. Speaking of the wrongs\ndone us by the British Government, in introducing slaves among us, he\nsays: \"He (the British King) has waged cruel war against human nature\nitself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the\npersons of a distant people, who never offended him, captivating and\ncarrying them into SLAVERY in another hemisphere, or to incur\nmiserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical\nwarfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the\nChristian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market\nwhere MEN should be BOUGHT and SOLD, he has prostituted his\nprerogative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or\nrestrain execrable commerce, and that this assemblage of horrors might\nwant no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very\npeople to rise in arms against us, and purchase that liberty of which\nhe has deprived them by murdering the people on whom he has also\nobtruded them, thus paying off former crimes committed against the\nliberties of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit\nagainst the lives of another.\" Thus far this great statesman and\nphilanthropist. Had his contemporaries been ruled by his opinions, the\ncountry had now been at rest on this exciting topic. What\nabolitionist, sir, has used stronger language against slavery than Mr.\nJefferson has done? \"Cruel war against human nature,\" \"violating its\nmost sacred rights,\" \"piratical warfare,\" \"opprobrium of infidel\npowers,\" \"a market where men should be bought and sold,\" \"execrable\ncommerce,\" \"assemblage of horrors,\" \"crimes committed against the\nliberty of the people,\" are the brands which Mr. Jefferson has burned\ninto the forehead of slavery and the slave trade. When, sir, have I,\nor any other person opposed to slavery, spoken in stronger and more\nopprobrious terms of slavery, than this? You have caused the bust of\nthis great man to be placed in the centre of your Capitol; in that\nconspicuous part where every visitor must see it, with its hand\nresting on the Declaration of Independence, engraved upon marble. Why\nhave you done this? Is it not mockery? Or is it to remind us\ncontinually of the wickedness and danger of slavery? I never pass that\nstatue without new and increased veneration for the man it represents,\nand increased repugnance and sorrow that he did not succeed in driving\nslavery entirely from the country. Sir, if I am an abolitionist,\nJefferson made me so; and I only regret that the disciple should be so\nfar behind the master, both in doctrine and practice. But, sir, other\nreasons and other causes have combined to fix and establish my\nprinciples in this matter, never, I trust, to be shaken. A free State\nwas the place of my birth; a free Territory the theatre of my juvenile\nactions. Ohio is my country, endeared to me by every fond\nrecollection. She gave me political existence, and taught me in her\npolitical school; and I should be worse than an unnatural son did I\nforget or disobey her precepts. In her Constitution it is declared,\n\"That all men are born equally free and independent,\" and \"that there\nshall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the State,\notherwise than for the punishment of crimes.\" Shall I stand up for\nslavery in any case, condemned as it is by such high authority as\nthis? No, never! But this is not all, Indiana, our younger Western\nsister, endeared to us by every social and political tie, a State\nformed in the same country as Ohio, from whose territory slavery was\nforever excluded by the ordinance of July, 1787--she too, has declared\nher abhorrence of slavery in more strong and empathic terms than we\nhave done. In her constitution, after prohibiting slavery, or\ninvoluntary servitude, being introduced into the State, she declares,\n\"But as to the holding any part of the human creation in slavery, or\ninvoluntary servitude, can originate only in _tyranny_ and\n_usurpation_, no alteration of her constitution should ever take\nplace, so as to introduce slavery or involuntary servitude into the\nState, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes whereof the party\nhad been duly convicted.\" Illinois and Michigan also formed their\nconstitutions on the same principles. After such a cloud of witnesses\nagainst slavery, and whose testimony is so clear and explicit, as a\ncitizen of Ohio, I should be recreant to every principle of honor and\nof justice, to be found the apologist or advocate of slavery in any\nState, or in any country whatever. No, I cannot be so inconsistent as\nto say I am opposed to slavery in the _abstract_, in its separation\nfrom a human being, and still lend my aid to build it up, and make it\nperpetual in its operation and effects upon _man_ in this or any other\ncountry. I also, in early life, saw a slave kneel before his master,\nand hold up his hands with as much apparent submission, humility, and\nadoration, as a man would have done before his Maker, while his master\nwith out-stretched rod stood over him. This, I thought, is slavery;\none man subjected to the will and power of another, and the laws\naffording him no protection, and he has to beg pardon of man, because\nhe has offended man, (not the laws,) as if his master were a superior\nand all powerful being. Yes, this is slavery, boasted American\nslavery, without which, it is contended even here, that the union of\nthese States would be dissolved in a day, yes, even in an hour!\nHumiliating thought, that we are bound together as States by the\nchains of slavery! It cannot be--the blood and the tears of slavery\nform no part of the cement of our Union--and it is hoped that by\nfalling on its bands they may never corrode and eat them asunder. We\nwho are opposed to and deplore the existence of slavery in our\ncountry, are frequently asked, both in public and private, what have\nyou to do with slavery? It does not exist in your State; it does not\ndisturb you! Ah, sir, would to God it were so--that we had nothing to\ndo with slavery, nothing to fear from its power, or its action within\nour own borders, that its name and its miseries were unknown to us.\nBut this is not our lot; we live upon its borders, and in hearing of\nits cries; yet we are unwilling to acknowledge, that if we enter its\nterritories and violate its laws, that we should be punished at its\npleasure. We do not complain of this, though it might well be\nconsidered just ground of complaint. It is our firesides, our rights,\nour privileges, the safety of our friends, as well as the sovereignty\nand independence of our State, that we are now called upon to protect\nand defend. The slave interest has at this moment the whole power of\nthe country in its hands. It claims the President as a Northern man\nwith Southern feelings, thus making the Chief Magistrate the head of\nan interest, or a party, and not of the country and the people at\nlarge. It has the cabinet of the President, three members of which are\nfrom the slave States, and one who wrote a book in favor of Southern\nslavery, but which fell dead from the press, a book which I have seen,\nin my own family, thrown musty upon the shelf. Here then is a decided\nmajority in favor of the slave interest. It has five out of nine\njudges of the Supreme Court; here, also, is a majority from the slave\nStates. It has, with the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of\nthe House of Representatives, and the Clerks of both Houses, the army\nand the navy; and the bureaus, have, I am told, about the same\nproportion. One would suppose that, with all this power operating in\nthis Government, it would be content to _permit_--yes I will use the\nword _permit_--it would be content to permit us, who live in the free\nStates, to enjoy our firesides and our homes in quietness; but this is\nnot the case. The slaveholders and slave laws claim that as property,\nwhich the free States know only as persons, a reasoning property,\nwhich, of its own will and mere motion, is frequently found in our\nStates; and upon which THING we sometimes bestow food and raiment, if\nit appear hungry and perishing, believing it to be a human being; this\nperhaps is owing to our want of vision to discover the process by\nwhich a man is converted into a THING. For this act of ours, which is\nnot prohibited by our laws, but prompted by every feeling, Christian\nand humane, the slaveholding power enters our territory, tramples\nunder foot the sovereignty of our State, violates the sanctity of\nprivate residence, seizes our citizens, and disregarding the authority\nof our laws, transports them into its own jurisdiction, casts them\ninto prison, confines them in fetters, and loads them with chains, for\npretended offences against their own laws, found by willing grand\njuries upon the oath (to use the language of the late Governor of\nOhio) of a perjured villain. Is this fancy, or is it fact, sober\nreality, solemn fact? Need I say all this, and much more, as now\nmatter of history in the case of the Rev. John B. Mahan, of Brown\ncounty, Ohio? Yes, it is so; but this is but the beginning--a case of\nequal outrage has lately occurred, if newspapers are to be relied on,\nin the seizure of a citizen of Ohio, without even the forms of law,\nand who was carried into Virginia and shamefully punished by tar and\nfeathers, and other disgraceful means, and rode upon a rail, according\nto the order of Judge Lynch, and this, only because in Ohio he was an\nabolitionist. Would I could stop here--but I cannot. This slave\ninterest or power seizes upon persons of color in our States, carries\nthem into States where men are property, and makes merchandize of\nthem, sometimes under sanction of law, but more properly by its abuse,\nand sometimes by mere personal force, thus disturbing our quiet and\nharassing our citizens. A case of this kind has lately occurred, where\na colored boy was seduced from Ohio into Indiana, taken from thence\ninto Alabama and sold as a slave; and to the honor of the slave\nStates, and gentlemen who administer the laws there, be it said, that\nmany who have thus been taken and sold by the connivance, if not\ndownright corruption, of citizens in the free States, have been\nliberated and adjudged free in the States where they have been sold,\nas was the case of the boy mentioned, who was sold in Alabama.\n\nSlave power is seeking to establish itself in every State, in defiance\nof the constitution and laws of the States within which it is\nprohibited. In order to secure its power beyond the reach of the\nStates, it claims its parentage from the Constitution of the United\nStates. It demands of us total silence as to its proceedings, denies\nto our citizens the liberty of speech and the press, and punishes them\nby mobs and violence for the exercise of these rights. It has sent its\nagents into the free States for the purpose of influencing their\nLegislatures to pass laws for the security of its power within such\nState, and for the enacting new offences and new punishments for their\nown citizens, so as to give additional security to its interest. It\ndemands to be heard in its own person in the hall of our Legislature,\nand mingle in debate there. Sir, in every stage of these oppressions\nand abuses, permit me to say, in the language of the Declaration of\nIndependence--and no language could be more appropriate--we have\npetitioned for redress in the most humble terms, and our repeated\npetitions have been answered by repeated injury. A power, whose\ncharacter is marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit\nto rule over a free people. In our sufferings and our wrongs we have\nbesought our fellow-citizens to aid us in the preservation of our\nconstitutional rights, but, influenced by the love of gain or\narbitrary power, they have sometimes disregarded all the sacred rights\nof man, and answered in violence, burnings, and murder. After all\nthese transactions, which are now of public notoriety and matter of\nrecord, shall we of the free States tauntingly be asked what we have\nto do with slavery? We should rejoice, indeed, if the evils of slavery\nwere removed far from us, that it could be said with truth, that we\nhave nothing to do with slavery. Our citizens have not entered its\nterritories for the purpose of obstructing its laws, nor do we wish to\ndo so, nor would we justify any individual in such act; yet we have\nbeen branded and stigmatized by its friends and advocates, both in the\nfree and slave States, as incendiaries, fanatics, disorganizers,\nenemies to our country, and as wishing to dissolve the Union. We have\nborne all this without complaint or resistance, and only ask to be\nsecure in our persons, by our own firesides, and in the free exercise\nof our thoughts and opinions in speaking, writing, printing and\npublishing on the subject of slavery, that which appears to us to be\njust and right; because we all know the power of truth, and that it\nwill ultimately prevail, in despite of all opposition. But in the\nexercise of all these rights, we acknowledge subjection to the laws of\nthe State in which we are, and our liability for their abuse. We wish\npeace with all men; and that the most amicable relations and free\nintercourse may exist between the citizens of our State and our\nneighboring slaveholding States; we will not enter their States,\neither in our proper persons, or by commissioners, legislative\nresolutions, or otherwise, to interfere with their slave policy or\nslave laws; and we shall expect from them and their citizens a like\nreturn, that they do not enter our territories for the purpose of\nviolating our laws in the punishment of our people for the exercise of\ntheir undoubted rights--the liberty of speech and of the press on the\nsubject of slavery. We ask that no man shall be seized and transported\nbeyond our State, in violation of our own laws, and that we shall not\nbe carried into and imprisoned in another State for acts done in our\nown. We contend that the slaveholding power is properly chargeable\nwith all the riots and disorders which take place on account of\nslavery. We can live in peace with all our sister States; if that\npower will be controlled by law, each can exercise and enjoy the full\nbenefits secured by their own laws; and this is all we ask. If we hold\nup slavery to the view of an impartial public as it is, and if such\nview creates astonishment and indignation, surely we are not to be\ncharged as libellers. A State institution ought to be considered the\npride, not the shame of the State; and if we falsify such\ninstitutions, the disgrace is ours, not theirs. If slavery, however,\nis a blemish, a blot, an eating cancer in the body politic, it is not\nour fault if, by holding it up, others should see in the mirror of\ntruth its deformity, and shrink back from the view. We have not, and\nwe intend not, to use any weapons against slavery, but the moral power\nof truth and the force of public opinion. If we enter the slave\nStates, and tamper with the slave contrary to law, punish us, we\ndeserve it; and if a slaveholder is found in a free State, and is\nguilty of a breach of the law there, he also ought to be punished.\nThese petitioners, as far as I understand them, disclaim all right to\nenter a slave State for the purpose of intercourse with the slave. It\nis the master whom they wish to address; and they ask and ought to\nreceive protection from the laws, as they are willing to be judged by\nthe laws. We invite into the arena of public discussion in our State\nthe slaveholder; we are willing to hear his reasons and facts in favor\nof slavery, or against abolitionists: we do not fear his errors while\nwe are ourselves free to combat them. The angry feelings which in some\ndegree exist between the citizens of the free and slaveholding States,\non account of slavery, are, in many cases, properly chargeable to\nthose who defend and support slavery. Attempts are almost daily making\nto force the execution of slave laws in the free States; at least,\ntheir power and principles: and no term is too reproachful to be\napplied to those who resist such acts, and contend for the rights\nsecured to every man under their own laws. We are often reminded that\nwe ought to take color as evidence of property in a human being. We do\nnot believe in such evidence, nor do we believe that a man can justly\nbe made property by human laws. We acknowledge, however, that a _man_,\nnot a _thing_ may be held to service or labor under the laws of a\nState, and, if he escape into another State, he ought to be delivered\nup on claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due;\nthat this delivery ought to be in pursuance of the laws of the State\nwhere such person is found, and not by virtue of any act of Congress.\n\nThis brings me, Mr. President, to the consideration of the petition\npresented by the Senator from Kentucky, and to an examination of the\nviews he has presented to the Senate on this highly important subject.\nSir, I feel, I sensibly feel my inadequacy in entering into a\ncontroversy with that old and veteran Senator; but nothing high or low\nshall prevent me from an honest discharge of my duty here. If\nimperfectly done, it may be ascribed to the want of ability, not\nintention. If the power of my mind, and the strength of my body, were\nequal to the task, I would arouse every man, yes, every woman and\nchild in the country, to the danger which besets them, if such\ndoctrines and views as are presented by the Senator should ever be\ncarried into effect. His denunciations are against abolitionists, and\nunder that term are classed all those who petition Congress on the\nsubject of slavery. Such I understand to be his argument, and as such\nI shall treat it. I, in the first place, put in a broad denial to all\nhis general facts, charging this portion of my fellow citizens with\nimproper motives or dangerous designs. That their acts are lawful he\ndoes not pretend to deny. I called for proof to sustain his charges.\nNone such has been offered, and none such exists, or can be found. I\nrepel them as calumnies double-distilled in the alembic of slavery. I\ndeny them, also, in the particulars and inferences; and let us see\nupon what ground they rest, or by what process of reasoning they are\nsustained.\n\nThe very first view of these petitioners against our right of petition\nstrikes the mind that more is intended than at first meets the eye.\nWhy was the committee on the District overlooked in this case, and the\nSenator from Kentucky made the organ of communication? Is it\nunderstood that anti-abolitionism is a passport to popular favor, and\nthat the action of this District shall present for that favor to the\npublic a gentleman upon this hobby? Is this petition presented as a\nsubject of fair legislation? Was it solicited by members of Congress,\nfrom citizens here, for political effect? Let the country judge. The\npetitioners state that no persons but themselves are authorized to\ninterfere with slavery in the District; that Congress are their own\nLegislature; and the question of slavery in the District is only\nbetween them and their constituted legislators; and they protest\nagainst all interference of others. But, sir, as if ashamed of this\nopen position in favor of slavery, they, in a very coy manner, say\nthat some of them are not slaveholders, and might be forbidden by\nconscience to hold slaves. There is more dictation, more political\nheresy, more dangerous doctrine contained in this petition, than I\nhave ever before seen couched together in so many words. We! Congress\ntheir OWN Legislature in all that concerns this District! Let those\nwho may put on the city livery, and legislate for them and not for his\nconstituents, do so; for myself, I came here with a different view,\nand for different purposes. I came a free man, to represent the people\nof Ohio; and I intend to leave this as such representative, without\nwearing any other livery. Why talk about executive usurpation and\ninfluence over the members of Congress? I have always viewed this\nDistrict influence as far more dangerous than that of any other power.\nIt has been able to extort, yes, extort from Congress, millions to pay\nDistrict debts, make District improvements, and in support of the\ncivil and criminal jurisprudence of the District. Pray, sir, what\nright has Congress to pay the corporate debts of the cities in the\nDistrict more than the Debts of the corporate cities in your State and\nmine? None, sir. Yet this has been done to a vast amount; and the next\nstep is, that we, who pay all this, shall not be permitted to petition\nCongress on the subject of their institutions, for, if we can be\nprevented in one case, we can in all possible cases. Mark, sir, how\nplain a tale will silence these petitioners. If slavery in the\nDistrict concerns only the inhabitants and Congress, so does all\nmunicipal regulations. Should they extend to granting lottery,\ngaming-houses, tippling-houses, and other places calculated to promote\nand encourage vice--should a representative in Congress be instructed\nby his constituents to use his influence, and vote against such\nestablishments, and the people of the District should instruct him to\nvote for them, which should he obey? To state the question is to\nanswer it; otherwise the boasted right of instruction by the\nconstituent body is \"mere sound,\" signifying nothing. Sir, the\ninhabitants of this district are subject to state legislation and\nstate policy; they cannot complain of this, for their condition is\nvoluntary; and as this city is the focus of power, of influence, and\nconsidered also as that of fashion, if not of folly, and as the\nstreams which flow from here irradiate the whole country, it is right,\nit is proper, that it should be subject to state policy and state\npower, and not used as a leaven to ferment and corrupt the whole body\npolitic.\n\nThe honorable Senator has said the petition, though from a city, is\nthe fair expression of the opinion of the District. As such I treated\nit, am willing to acknowledge the respectability of the petitioners\nand their rights, and I claim for the people of my own state equal\nrespectability and equal rights that the people of the District are\nentitled to: any peculiar rights and advantages I cannot admit.\n\nI agree with the Senator, that the proceedings on abolition petitions,\nheretofore, have not been the most wise and prudent course. They ought\nto have been referred and acted on. Such was my object, a day or two\nsince, when I laid on your table a resolution to refer them to a\ncommittee for inquiry. You did not suffer it, sir, to be printed. The\ncountry and posterity will judge between the people whom I represent\nand those who caused to be printed the petition from the city. It\ncannot be possible that justice can have been done in both cases. The\nexclusive legislation of Congress over the District is as much the act\nof the constituent body, as the general legislation of Congress over\nthe States, and to the operation of this act have the people within\nthe District submitted themselves. I cannot, however, join the Senator\nthat the majority, in refusing to receive and refer petitions, did not\nintend to destroy or impair the right in this particular. They\ncertainly have done so.\n\nThe Senator admits the abolitionists are now formidable; that\nsomething must be done to produce harmony. Yes, sir, do justice, and\nharmony will be restored. Act impartially, that justice may be done:\nhear petitions on both sides, if they are offered, and give righteous\njudgments, and your people will be satisfied. You cannot compromise\nthem out of their rights, nor lull them to sleep with fallacies in the\nshape of reports. You cannot conquer them by rebuke, nor deceive them\nby sophistry. Remember you cannot now turn public opinion, nor can you\noverthrow it. You must, and you will, abandon the high ground you have\ntaken, and receive petitions. The reason of the case, the argument and\nthe judgment of the people, are all against you. One in this cause can\n\"chase a thousand,\" and the voice of justice will be heard whenever\nyou agitate the subject. In Indiana, the right to petition has been\nmost nobly advocated in a protest, by a member, against some puny\nresolutions of the Legislature of that State to whitewash slavery.\nPermit me to read a paragraph, worthy an American freeman:\n\n\"But who would have thought until lately, that any would have doubted\nthe right to petition in a respectful manner to Congress? Who would\nhave believed, that Congress had any authority to refuse to consider\nthe petitions of the people? Such a step would overthrow the autocrat\nof Russia, or cost the Grand Seignior of Constantinople his head. Can\nit be possible, therefore, that it has been reserved for a republican\nGovernment, in a land boasting of its free institutions, to set the\nfirst precedent of this kind? Our city councils, our courts of\njustice, every department of Government are approached by petition,\nhowever unanswerable, or absurd, so that its terms are respectful.\nNone go away unread, or unheard. The life of every individual is a\nperfect illustration of the subject of petitioning. Petition is the\nlanguage of want, of pain, of sorrow, of man in all his sad variety of\nwoes, imploring relief, at the hand of some power superior to himself.\nPetitioning is the foundation of all government, and of all\nadministrations of law. Yet it has been reserved for our Congress,\nseconded indirectly by the vote of this Legislature, to question this\nright, hitherto supposed to be so old, so heaven-deeded, so undoubted,\nthat our fathers did not think it necessary to place a guaranty of it\nin the first draft of the Federal Constitution. Yet this sacred right\nhas been, at one blow, driven, destroyed, and trodden under the feet\nof slavery. The old bulwarks of our Federal and State Constitutions\nseem utterly to have been forgotten, which declare, 'that the freedom\nof speech and the press shall not be abridged, nor the right of the\npeople peaceably to assemble and _petition_ for the redress of their\ngrievances.'\"\n\nThese, sir, are the sentiments which make abolitionists formidable,\nand set at nought all your councils for their overthrow. The honorable\nSenator not only admits that abolitionists are formidable, but that\nthey consist of three classes. The friends of humanity and justice, or\nthose actuated by those principles, compose one class. These form a\nvery numerous class, and the acknowledgment of the Senator proves the\nimmutable principles upon which opposition to slavery rests. Men are\nopposed to it from principles of humanity and justice--men are\nabolitionists, he admits, on that account. We thank the Senator for\nteaching us that word, we intend to improve it. The next class of\nabolitionists, the Senator says, are so, apparently, for the purpose\nof advocating the right of petition. What are we to understand from\nthis? That the right of petition needs advocacy. Who has denied this\nright, or who has attempted to abridge it? The slaveholding power,\nthat power which avoids open discussion, and the free exercise of\nopinion; it is that power alone which renders the advocacy of the\nright of petition necessary, having seized upon all the powers of the\nGovernment. It is fast uniting together those opposed to its iron\nrule, no matter to what political party they have heretofore belonged;\nthey are uniting with the first class, and act from principles of\nhumanity and justice; and if the mists and shades of slavery were not\nthe atmosphere in which gentlemen were enveloped, they would see\nconstant and increasing numbers of our most worthy and intelligent\ncitizens attaching themselves to the two classes mentioned, and\nrallying under the banners of abolitionism. They are compelled to go\nthere, if the gentleman will have it so, in order to defend and\nperpetuate the liberties of the country. The hopes of the oppressed\nspring up afresh from this discussion of the gentleman. The third\nclass, the Senator says, are those who, to accomplish their ends, act\nwithout regard to consequences. To them, all the rights of property,\nof the States, of the Union, the Senator says, are nothing. He says\nthey aim at other objects than those they profess--emancipation in the\nDistrict of Columbia. No, says the Senator, their object is _universal\nemancipation_, not only in the District, but in the Territories and in\nthe States. Their object is to set free three millions of negro\nslaves. Who made the Senator, in his place here, the censor of his\nfellow citizens? Who authorized him to charge them with other objects\nthan those they profess?  How long is it since the Senator himself, on\nthis floor, denounced slavery as an evil? What other inducements or\nobject had he then in view? Suppose universal emancipation to be the\nobject of these petitioners; is it not a noble and praiseworthy\nobject; worthy of the Christian, the philanthropist, the statesman,\nand the citizen? But the Senator says, they (the petitioners) aim to\nexcite one portion of the country against another. I deny, sir, this\ncharge, and call for the proof; it is gratuitous, uncalled for, and\nunjust towards my fellow citizens. This is the language of a stricken\nconscience, seeking for the palliation of its own acts by charging\nguilt upon others. It is the language of those who, failing in\nargument, endeavor to cast suspicion upon the character of their\nopponents, in order to draw public attention from themselves. It is\nthe language of disguise and concealment, and not that of fair and\nhonorable investigation, the object of which is truth. I again put in\na broad denial to this charge, that any portion of these petitioners,\nwhom I represent, seek to excite one portion of the country against\nanother; and without proof I cannot admit that the assertion of the\nhonorable Senator establishes the fact. It is but opinion, and naked\nassertion only. The Senator complains that the means and views of the\nabolitionists are not confined to securing the right of petition only;\nno, they resort to other means, he affirms, to the BALLOT BOX; and if\nthat fail, says the Senator, their next appeal will be to the bayonet.\nSir, no man, who is an American in feeling and in heart, but ought to\nrepel this charge instantly, and without any reservation whatever,\nthat if they fail at the ballot box they will resort to the bayonet.\nIf such a fratricidal course should ever be thought of in our country,\nit will not be by those who seek redress of wrongs, by exercising the\nright of petition, but by those only who deny that right to others,\nand seek to usurp the whole power of the Government. If the ballot box\nfail them, the bayonet may be their resort, as mobs and violence now\nare. Does the Senator believe that any portion of the honest yeomanry\nof the country entertain such thoughts? I hope he does not. If\nthoughts of this kind exist, they are to be found in the hearts of\naspirants to office, and their adherents, and none others. Who, sir,\nis making this question a political affair? Not the petitioners. It\nwas the slaveholding power which first made this move. I have noticed\nfor some time past that many of the public prints in this city, as\nwell as elsewhere, have been filled with essays against abolitionists\nfor exercising the rights of freemen.\n\nBoth political parties, however, have courted them in private and\ndenounced them in public, and both have equally deceived them. And who\nshall dare say that an abolitionist has no right to carry his\nprinciples to the _ballot box? Who fears the ballot box?_ The honest\nin heart, the lover of our country and its institutions? No, sir! It\nis feared by the tyrant; he who usurps power, and seizes upon the\nliberty of others; he, for one, fears the ballot box. Where is the\nslave to party in this country who is so lost to his own dignity, or\nso corrupted by interest or power, that he does not, or will not,\ncarry his principles and his judgment into the ballot box? Such an one\nought to have the mark of Cain in his forehead, and sent to labor\namong the negro slaves of the South. The honorable Senator seems\nanxious to take under his care the ballot box, as he has the slave\nsystem of the country, and direct who shall or who shall not use it\nfor the redress of what they deem a political grievance. Suppose the\npower of the Executive chair should take under its care the right of\nvoting, and who should proscribe any portion of our citizens who\nshould carry with them to the polls of election their own opinions,\ncreeds, and doctrines. This would at once be a deathblow to our\nliberties, and the remedy could only be found in revolution. There can\nbe no excuse or pretext for revolution while the ballot box is free.\nOur Government is not one of force, but of principle; its foundation\nrests on public opinion, and its hope is in the morality of the\nnation. The moral power of that of the ballot box is sufficient to\ncorrect all abuses. Let me, then, proclaim here, from this high arena,\nto the citizens not only of my own State, but to the country, to all\nsects and parties who are entitled to the right of suffrage, To THE\nBALLOT BOX! carry with you honestly your own sentiments respecting the\nwelfare of your country, and make them operate as effectually as you\ncan, through that medium, upon its policy and for its prosperity. Fear\nnot the frowns of power. It trembles while it denounces you. The\nSenator complains that the abolitionists have associated with the\npolitics of the country. So far as I am capable of judging, this\ncharge is not well founded; many politicians of the country have used\nabolitionists as stepping stones to mount into power; and, when there,\nhave turned about and traduced them. He admits that political parties\nare willing to unite with them any class of men, in order to carry\ntheir purposes. Are abolitionists, then, to blame if they pursue the\nsame course? It seems the Senator is willing that his party should\nmake use of even abolitionists; but he is not willing that\nabolitionists should use the same party for their purpose. This seems\nnot to be in accordance with that equality of rights about which we\nheard so much at the last session. Abolitionists have nothing to fear.\nIf public opinion should be for them, politicians will be around and\namongst them as the locusts of Egypt. The Senator seems to admit that,\nif the abolitionists are joined to either party, there is\ndanger--danger of what? That humanity and justice will prevail? that\nthe right of petition will be secured to ALL EQUALLY? and that the\nlong lost and trodden African race will be restored to their natural\nrights? Would the Senator regret to see this accomplished by argument,\npersuasion, and the force of an enlightened public opinion? I hope\nnot; and these petitioners ask the use of no other weapons in this\nwarfare.\n\nThese ultra-abolitionists, says the Senator, invoke the power of this\ngovernment to their aid. And pray, sir, what power should they invoke?\nHave they not the same right to approach this government as other men?\nIs the Senator or this body authorized to deny them any privileges\nsecured to other citizens? If so, let him show me the charter of his\npower and I will be silent. Until he can do this, I shall uphold,\njustify, and sustain them, as I do other citizens. The exercise of\npower by Congress in behalf of the slaves within this District, the\nSenator seems to think, no one without the District has the least\nclaim to ask for. It is because I reside without the District, and am\ncalled within it by the Constitution, that I object to the existence\nof slavery here. I deny the gentleman's position, then, on this point.\nOn this then, we are equal. The Senator, however, is at war with\nhimself. He contends the object of the cession by the States of\nVirginia and Maryland, was to establish a seat of Government _only_,\nand to give Congress whatever power was necessary to render the\nDistrict a valuable and comfortable situation for that purpose, and\nthat Congress have full power to do whatever is necessary for this\nDistrict; and if to abolish slavery be necessary, to attain the\nobject, Congress have power to abolish slavery in the District. I am\nsure I quote the gentleman substantially; and I thank him for this\nprecious confession in his argument; it is what I believe, and I know\nit is all I feel disposed to ask. If we can, then, prove that this\nDistrict is not as comfortable and convenient a place for the\ndeliberations of Congress, and the comfort of our citizens who may\nvisit it, while slavery exists here, as it would be without slavery,\nthen slavery ought to be abolished; and I trust we shall have the\ndistinguished Senator from Kentucky to aid us in this great national\nreformation. I take the Senator at his word. I agree with him that\nthis ought to be such a place as he has described; but I deny that it\nis so. And upon what facts do I rest my denial? We are a Christian\nnation, a moral and religious people. I speak for the free States, at\nleast for my own State; and what a contrast do the very streets of\nyour capital daily present to the Christianity and morality of the\nnation? A race of slaves, or at least colored persons, of every hue\nfrom the jet black African, in regular gradation, up to the almost\npure Anglo-Saxon color. During the short time official duty has called\nme here, I have seen the really red haired, the freckled, and the\nalmost white negro; and I have been astonished at the numbers of the\nmixed race, when compared with those of full color, and I have deeply\ndeplored this stain upon our national morals; and the words of Dr.\nChanning have, thousands of times, been impressed on my mind, that \"a\nslave country reeks with licentiousness.\"  How comes this amalgamation\nof the races? It comes from slavery. It is a disagreeable annoyance to\npersons who come from the free States, especially to their Christian\nand moral feelings. It is a great hindrance to the proper discharge of\ntheir duties while here. Remove slavery from this District, and this\nevil will disappear. We argue this circumstance alone as sufficient\ncause to produce that effect. But slavery presents within the District\nother and still more appalling scenes--scenes well calculated to\nawaken the deepest emotions of the human heart. The slave-trade exists\nhere in all its HORRORS, and unwhipt of all its crimes. In view of the\nvery chair which you now occupy, Mr. President, if the massy walls of\nthis building, did not prevent it, you could see the prison, the\n_pen_, the HELL, where human beings, when purchased for sale, are kept\nuntil a cargo can be procured for transportation to a Southern or\nforeign market, for I have little doubt slaves are carried to Texas\nfor sale, though I do not know the fact.\n\nSir, since Congress have been in session, a mournful group of these\nunhappy beings, some thirty or forty, were marched, as if in derision\nof members of Congress, in view of your Capitol, chained and manacled\ntogether, in open day-light, yes, in the very face of heaven itself,\nto be shipped at Baltimore for a foreign market. I did not witness\nthis cruel transaction, but speak from what I have heard and believe.\nIs this District, then, a fit place for our deliberations, whose\nfeelings are outraged with impunity with transactions like this?\nSuppose, sir, that mournful and degrading spectacle was at this moment\nexhibited under the windows of our chamber, do you think the Senate\ncould deliberate, could continue with that composure and attention\nwhich I see around me? No, sir; all your powers could not preserve\norder for a moment. The feelings of humanity would overcome those of\nregard for the peculiar institutions of the States; and though we\nwould be politically and legally bound not to interfere, we are not\nmorally bound to withhold our sympathy and our execration in\nwitnessing such inhuman traffic. This traffic alone, in this District,\nrenders it an uncomfortable and unfit place for your seat of\nGovernment. Sir, it is but one or two years since I saw standing at\nthe railroad depot, as I passed from my boarding house to this\nchamber, some large wagons and teams, as if waiting for freight; the\ncars had not then arrived. I was inquired of, when I returned to my\nlodgings, by my landlady, if I knew the object of those wagons which I\nsaw in the morning. I replied, I did not; I suppose they came and were\nwaiting for loading. \"Yes, for slaves,\" said she; \"and one of those\nwagons was filled with little boys and little girls, who had been\nbought up through the country, and were to be taken to a southern\nmarket. Ah, sir!\" continued she, \"it made my very heart ache to see\nthem.\" The very recital unnerved and unfitted me for thought or\nreflection on any other subject for some time. It is scenes like this,\nof which ladies of my country and my state complained in their\npetitions, some time since, as rendering this District unpleasant,\nshould they visit the capital of the nation as wives, sisters,\ndaughters, or friends of members of Congress. Yet, sir, these\nrespectable females were treated here with contemptuous sneers; they\nwere compared, on this floor, to the fish-women of Paris, who dipped\ntheir fingers in the blood of revolutionary France. Sir, if the\ntransaction in slaves here, which I have mentioned, could make such an\nimpression on the heart of a lady, a resident of the District, one who\nhad been used to slaves, and was probably an owner, what would be the\nfeelings of ladies from free states on beholding a like transaction? I\nwill leave every gentleman and every lady to answer for themselves. I\nam unable to describe it. Shall the capital of your country longer\nexhibit scenes so revolting to humanity, that the ladies of your\ncountry cannot visit it without disgust? No; wipe off the foul stain,\nand let it become a suitable and comfortable place for the seat of\nGovernment. The Senator, as if conscious that his argument on this\npoint had proved too much, and of course had proven the converse of\nwhat he wished to establish, concluded this part by saying, that if\nslavery is abolished, the act ought to be confined to the city alone.\nWe thank him for this small sprinkling of correct opinion upon this\narid waste of public feeling. Liberty may yet vegetate and grow even\nhere.\n\nThe Senator insists that the States of Virginia and Maryland would\nnever have ceded this District if they had have thought slavery would\never have been abolished in it. This is an old story twice told. It\nwas never, however, thought of, until the slave power imagined it, for\nits own security. Let the States ask a retrocession of the District,\nand I am sure the free States will rejoice to make the grant.\n\nThe Senator condemns the abolitionists for desiring that slavery\nshould not exist in the Territories, even in Florida. He insists that,\nby the treaty, the inhabitants of that country have the right to\nremove their EFFECTS when they please; and that, by this condition,\nthey have the right to retain their slaves as effects, independently\nof the power of Congress. I am no diplomatist, sir, but I venture to\ndeny the conclusion of the Senator's argument. In all our intercourse\nwith foreign nations, in all our treaties in which the words \"goods,\neffects,\" &c. are used, slaves have never been considered as included.\nIn all cases in which slaves are the subject matter of controversy,\nthey are specially named by the word \"slaves; and, if I remember\nrightly, it has been decided in Congress, that slaves are not property\nfor which a compensation shall be made when taken for public use, (or\nrather, slaves cannot be considered as taken for public use,) or as\nproperty by the enemy, when they are in the service of the United\nStates. If I am correct, as I believe I am, in the positions I have\nassumed, the gentleman can say nothing, by this part of his argument,\nagainst abolitionists, for asking that slavery shall not exist in\nFlorida.\"\n\nThe gentleman contends that the power to remove slaves from one State\nto another, for sale, is found in that part of the Constitution which\ngives Congress the power to regulate commerce within the States, &c.\nThis argument is _non sequiter_, unless the honorable Senator can\nfirst prove that slaves are proper articles for commerce. We say that\nCongress have power over slaves only as persons. The United States can\nprotect persons, _but cannot make them property_, and they have full\npower in regulating commerce, and can, in such regulations, prohibit\nfrom its operations every thing but property; property made so by the\nlaws of nature, and not by any municipal regulations. The dominion of\nman over things, as property, was settled by his Creator when man was\nfirst placed upon the earth. He was to subdue the earth, and have\ndominion over the fish of the sea, the fowls of the air, and over\nevery living thing that moveth upon the earth; every herb bearing\nseed, and the fruit of a tree yielding seed, was given for his use.\nThis is the foundation of all right in property of every description.\nIt is for the use of man the grant is made, and of course man cannot\nbe included in the grant. Every municipal regulation, then, of any\nState, or any of its peculiar institutions, which makes man property,\nis a violation of this great law of nature, and is founded in\nusurpation and tyranny, and is accomplished by force, fraud, or an\nabuse of power. It is a violation of the principles of truth and\njustice, in subjecting the weaker to the stronger man. In a Christian\nnation such property can form no just ground for commercial\nregulations, but ought to be strictly prohibited. I therefore believe\nit is the duty of Congress, by virtue of this power, to regulate\ncommerce, to prohibit, at once, slaves being used as articles of\ntrade.\n\nThe gentleman says, the Constitution left the subject of slavery\nentirely to the States. To this position I assent; and, as the States\ncannot regulate their own commerce, but the same being the right of\nCongress, that body cannot make slaves an article of commerce, because\nslavery is left entirely to the States in which it exists; and slaves\nwithin those States, according to the gentleman, are excluded from the\npower of Congress. Can Congress, in regulating commerce among the\nseveral States, authorize the transportation of articles from one\nState, and their sale in another, which they have not power so to\nauthorize in any State? I cannot believe in such doctrine; and I now\nsolemnly protest against the power of Congress to authorize the\ntransportation to, and the sale in, Ohio, of any negro slave whatever,\nor for any possible purpose under the sun. Who is there in Ohio, or\nelsewhere, that will dare deny this position? If Ohio contains such a\nrecreant to her constitution and policy, I hope he may have the\nboldness to stand forth and avow it. If the States in which slavery\nexists love it as a household god, let them keep it there, and not\ncall upon us in the free States to offer incense to their idol. We do\nnot seek to touch it with unhallowed hands, but with pure hands,\nupraised in the cause of truth and suffering humanity.\n\nThe gentleman admits that, at the formation of our Government, it was\nfeared that slavery might eventually divide or distract our country;\nand, as the BALLOT BOX seems continually to haunt his imagination, he\nsays there is real danger of dissolution of the Union if\nabolitionists, as is evident they do, will carry their principles into\nthe BALLOT BOX. If not disunion in fact, at least in feeling, in the\ncountry, which is always the precursor to the clash of arms. And the\ngentleman further says we are taught by holy writ, \"that the race is\nnot to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.\" The moral of the\ngentleman's argument is, that truth and righteousness will prevail,\nthough opposed by power and influence; that abolitionists, though few\nin number, are greatly to be feared; one, as I have said, may chase a\nthousand, and two put ten thousand to flight; and, as their weapons of\nwarfare are not \"carnal, but mighty to the pulling down of strong\nholds,\" even slavery itself; and as the ballot box is the great moral\nlever in political action, the gentleman would exclude abolitionists\nentirely from its use, and for opinion's sake, deny them this high\nprivilege of every American citizen. Permit me, sir, to remind the\ngentleman of another text of holy writ. \"The wicked flee when no man\npursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion.\" The Senator says that\nthose who have slaves, are sometimes supposed to be under too much\nalarm. Does this prove the application of the text I have just quoted:\n\"Conscience sometimes makes cowards of us all.\" The Senator appeals to\nabolitionists, and beseeches them to cease their efforts on the\nsubject of slavery, if they wish, says he, \"to exercise their\nbenevolence.\" What! Abolitionists benevolent! He hopes they will\nselect some object not so terrible. Oh, sir, he is willing they should\npay tithes of \"mint and rue,\" but the weighter matters of the law,\njudgment and mercy, he would have them entirely overlook. I ought to\nthank the Senator for introducing holy writ into this debate, and\ninform him his arguments are not the sentiments of Him, who, when on\nearth, went about doing good.\n\nThe Senator further entreats the clergy to desist from their efforts\nin behalf of abolitionism. Who authorized the Senator, as a\npolitician, to use his influence to point out to the clergy what they\nshould preach, or for what they should pray? Would the Senator dare\nexert his power here to bind the consciences of men? By what rule of\nethics, then, does he undertake to use his influence, from this high\nplace of power, in order to gain the same object, I am at a loss to\ndetermine. Sir, this movement of the Senator is far more censurable\nand dangerous, as an attempt to unite Church and State, than were the\npetitions against Sunday mails, the report in opposition to which\ngained for you, Mr. President, so much applause in the country. I,\nsir, also appeal to the clergy to maintain their rights of conscience;\nand if they believe slavery to be a sin, we ought to honor and respect\nthem for their open denunciation of it, rather than call on them to\ndesist, for between their conscience and their God, we have no power\nto interfere; we do not wish to make them political agents for any\npurpose.\n\nBut the Senator is not content to entreat the clergy alone to desist;\nhe calls on his countrywomen to warn them, also, to cease their\nefforts, and reminds them that the ink shed from the pen held in their\nfair fingers when writing their names to abolition petitions, may be\nthe cause of shedding much human blood! Sir, the language towards this\nclass of petitioners is very much changed of late; they formerly were\npronounced idlers, fanatics, old women and school misses, unworthy of\nrespect from intelligent and respectable men. I warned gentlemen then\nthat they would change their language; the blows they aimed fell\nharmless at the feet of those against whom they were intended to\ninjure. In this movement of my countrywomen I thought was plainly to\nbe discovered the operations of Providence, and a sure sign of the\nfinal triumph of _universal emancipation_. All history, both sacred\nand profane, both ancient and modern, bears testimony to the efficacy\nof female influence and power in the cause of human liberty. From the\ntime of the preservation, by the hands of women, of the great Jewish\nlaw-giver, in his infantile hours, and who was preserved for the\npurpose of freeing his countrymen from Egyptian bondage, has woman\nbeen made a powerful agent in breaking to pieces the rod of the\noppressor. With a pure and uncontaminated mind, her actions spring\nfrom the deepest recesses of the human heart. Denounce her as you\nwill, you cannot deter her from her duty. Pain, sickness, want,\npoverty and even death itself form no obstacles in her onward march.\nEven the tender Virgin would dress, as a martyr for the stake, as for\nher bridal hour, rather than make sacrifice of her purity and duty.\nThe eloquence of the Senate, and clash of arms, are alike powerful\nwhen brought in opposition to the influence of pure and virtuous\nwoman. The liberty of the slave seems now to be committed to her\ncharge, and who can doubt her final triumph? I do not.--You cannot\nfight against her and hope for success; and well does the Senator know\nthis; hence this appeal to her feelings to terrify her from that which\nshe believes to be her duty. It is a vain attempt.\n\nThe Senator says that it was the principles of the Constitution which\ncarried us through the Revolution. Surely it was; and to use the\nlanguage of another Senator from a slave State, on a former occasion,\nthese are the very principles on which the abolitionists plant\nthemselves. It was the principle that all men are born FREE AND EQUAL,\nthat nerved the arm of our fathers in their contest for independence.\nIt was for the natural and inherent rights of _man_ they contended. It\nis a libel upon the Constitution to say that its object was not\nliberty, but slavery, for millions of the human race.\n\nThe Senator, well fearing that all his eloquence and his arguments\nthus far are but chaff, when weighed in the balance against truth and\njustice, seems to find consolation in the idea, and says that which\nopposes the ulterior object of abolitionists, is that the general\ngovernment has no power to act on the subject of slavery, and that the\nConstitution or the Union would not last an hour if the power claimed\nwas exercised by Congress. It is slavery, then, and not liberty, that\nmakes us one people. To dissolve slavery, is to dissolve the Union.\nWhy require of us to support the Constitution by oath, if the\nConstitution itself is subject to the power of slavery, and not the\nmoral power of the country? Change the form of the oath which you\nadminister to Senators on taking seats here, swear them to support\nslavery, and according to the logic of the gentleman, the Constitution\nand the Union will both be safe. We hear almost daily threats of\ndissolving the Union, and from whence do they come? From citizens of\nthe free States? No! From the slave States only. Why wish to dissolve\nit? The reason is plain, that a new government may be formed, by which\nwe, as a nation, may be made a slaveholding people. No impartial\nobserver of passing events, can, in my humble judgment, doubt the\ntruth of this. The Senator thinks the abolitionists in error, if they\nwish the slaveholder to free his slave. He asks, why denounce him? I\ncannot admit the truth of the question; but I might well ask the\ngentleman, and the slaveholders generally, \"why are you angry at me,\nbecause I tell you the truth?\" It is the light of truth which the\nslaveholder cannot endure; a plain unvarnished tale of what slavery\nis, he considers a libel upon himself. The fact is, the slaveholder\nfeels the leprosy of slavery upon him. He is anxious to hide the\nodious disease from the public eye, and the ballot box and the right\nof petition, when used against him, he feels as sharp reproof; and\nbeing unwilling to renounce his errors, he tries to escape from their\nconsequences, by making the world believe that HE is the persecuted,\nand not the persecutor. Slaveholders have said here, during this very\nsession, \"the fact is, slavery will not bear examination.\" It is the\nSenator who denounces abolitionists for the exercise of their most\nunquestionable rights, while abolitionists condemn that only which the\nSenator himself will acknowledge to be wrong at all times and under\nall circumstances. Because he admits that if it was an original\nquestion whether slaves should be introduced among us, but few\ncitizens would be found to agree to it, and none more opposed to it\nthan himself. The argument is, that the evil of slavery is incurable;\nthat the attempt to eradicate it would commence a struggle which would\nexterminate one race or the other. What a lamentable picture of our\ngovernment, so often pronounced the best upon earth! The seeds of\ndisease, which were interwoven into its first existence, have now\nbecome so incorporated into its frame, that they cannot be extracted\nwithout dissolving the whole fabric; that we must endure the evil\nwithout hope and without complaint. Our very natures must be changed\nbefore we can be brought tamely to submit to this doctrine. The evil\nwill be remedied: and to use the language of Jefferson again, \"this\npeople will yet be free.\" The Senator finds consolation, however in\nthe midst of this existing evil, in color and caste. The black race\n(says he) is the strong ground of slavery in our country. Yes, it is\n_color_, not right and justice, that is to continue forever slavery in\nour country. It is prejudice against color, which is the strong ground\nof the slaveholder's hope. Is that prejudice founded in nature, or is\nit the effect of base and sordid interest? Let the mixed race which we\nsee here, from black to almost perfect white, springing from white\nfathers, answer the question. Slavery has no just foundation in color:\nit rests exclusively upon usurpation, tyranny, oppressive fraud, and\nforce. These were its parents in every age and country of the world.\n\nThe Senator says, the next or greatest difficulty to emancipation is,\nthe amount of property it would take from the owners. All ideas of\nright and wrong are confounded in these words: emancipate property,\nemancipate a horse, or an ox, would not only be unmeaning, but a\nludicrous expression. To emancipate is to set free from slavery. To\nemancipate, is to set free a man, not property. The Senator estimates\nthe number of slaves--_men_ now held in bondage--at three millions in\nthe United States. Is this statement made here by the same voice which\nwas heard in this Capitol in favor of the liberties of Greece, and for\nthe emancipation of our South American brethren from political\nthralldom? It is; and has all its fervor in favor of liberty been\nexhausted upon foreign countries, so as not to leave a single whisper\nin favor of three millions of men in our own country, now groaning\nunder the most galling oppression the world ever saw? No, sir. Sordid\ninterest rules the hour. Men are made property, and paper is made\nmoney, and the Senator, no doubt, sees in these two peculiar\ninstitutions a power which, if united, will be able to accomplish all\nhis wishes. He informs us that some have computed the slaves to be\nworth the average amount of five hundred dollars each. He will\nestimate within bounds at four hundred dollars each. Making the amount\ntwelve hundred millions of dollars' worth of slave property. I heard\nthis statement, Mr. President, with emotions of the deepest feeling.\nBy what rule of political or commercial arithmetic does the Senator\ncalculate the amount of property in human beings? Can it be fancy or\nfact, that I hear such calculation, that the people of the United\nStates own twelve hundred millions' (double the amount of all the\nspecie in the world) worth of property in human flesh! And this\nproperty is owned, the gentleman informs us, by all classes of\nsociety, forming part of all our contracts within our own country and\nin Europe. I should have been glad, sir, to have been spared the\nhearing of a declaration of this kind, especially from the high source\nand the place from which it emanated. But the assertion has gone forth\nthat we have twelve hundred millions of slave property at the South;\nand can any man so close his understanding here as not plainly to\nperceive that the power of this vast amount of property at the South\nis now uniting itself to the banking power of the North, in order to\ngovern the destinies of this country. Six hundred millions of banking\ncapital is to be brought into this coalition, and the slave power and\nthe bank power are thus to unite in order to break down the present\nadministration. There can be no mistake, as I believe, in this matter.\nThe aristocracy of the North, who, by the power of a corrupt banking\nsystem, and the aristocracy of the South, by the power of the slave\nsystem, both fattening upon the labor of others, are now about to\nunite in order to make the reign of each perpetual. Is there an\nindependent American to be found, who will become the recreant slave\nto such an unholy combination? Is this another compromise to barter\nthe liberties of the country for personal aggrandisement? \"Resistance\nto tyrants is obedience to God.\"\n\nThe Senator further insists, \"that what the law makes property is\nproperty.\" This is the predicate of the gentleman; he has neither\nfacts nor reason to prove it; yet upon this alone does he rest the\nwhole case that negroes are property. I deny the predicate and the\nargument. Suppose the Legislature of the Senator's own State should\npass a law declaring his wife, his children, his friends, indeed, any\nwhite citizen of Kentucky, _property_, and should they be sold and\ntransferred as such, would the gentleman fold his arms and say, \"Yes,\nthey are property, for the law has made them such?\" No, sir; he would\ndenounce such law with more vehemence than he now denounces\nabolitionists, and would deny the authority of human legislation to\naccomplish an object so clearly beyond its power.\n\nHuman laws, I contend, cannot make human beings property, if human\nforce can do it. If it is competent for our legislatures to make a\nblack man _property_, it is competent for them to make a white man the\nsame; and the same objection exists to the power of the people in an\norganic law for their own government; they cannot make property of\neach other; and, in the language of the Constitution of Indiana, such\nan act \"can only originate in usurpation and tyranny.\" Dreadful,\nindeed, would be the condition of this country, if these principles\nshould not only be carried into the ballot box, but into the\npresidential chair. The idea that abolitionists ought to pay for the\nslaves if they are set free, and that they ought to think of this, is\naddressed to their fears, and not to their judgment. There is no\nprinciple of morality or justice that should require them or our\ncitizens generally to do so. To free a slave is to take from\nusurpation that which it has made property and given to another, and\nbestow it upon the rightful owner. It is not taking property from its\ntrue owner for public use. Men can do with their own as they please,\nto vary their peace if they wish, but cannot be compelled to do so.\n\nThe gentleman repeats the assertion that has been repeated a thousand\nand one times: that abolitionists are retarding the emancipation of\nthe slave, and have thrown it back fifty or a hundred years; that they\nhave increased the rigors of slavery, and caused the master to treat\nhis slave with more severity. Slavery, then, is to cease at some\nperiod; and because the abolitionists have said to the slaveholder,\n\"Now is the accepted time,\" and because he thinks this an improper\ninterference, and not having the abolitionists in his power, he\ninflicts his vengeance on his unoffending slave! The moral of this\nstory is, the slaveholder will exercise more cruelty because he is\ndesired to show mercy. I do not envy the senator the full benefit of\nhis argument. It is no doubt a true picture of the feelings and\nprinciples which slavery engenders in the breast of the master. It is\nin perfect keeping with the threat we almost daily hear; that if\npetitioners do not cease their efforts in the exercise of their\nconstitutional rights, others will dissolve the Union. These, however,\nought to be esteemed idle assertions and idle threats.\n\nThe Senator tells us that the consequences arising from the freedom of\nslaves, would be to reduce the wages of the white laborer. He has\nfurnished us with neither data nor fact upon which this opinion can\nrest. He, however, would draw a line, on one side of which he would\nplace the slave labor, and on the other side free white labor; and\nlooking over the whole, as a general system, both would appear on a\nperfect equality. I have observed, for some years past, that the\nsouthern slaveholder has insisted that his laborers are, in point of\nintegrity, morality, usefulness, and comfort, equal to the laboring\npopulation of the North. Thus endeavoring to raise the slave in public\nestimation, to an equality with the free white laborer of the North;\nwhile, on the other hand, the northern aristocrat has, in the same\nmanner, viz.: by comparison, endeavored to reduce his laborers to the\nmoral and political condition of the slaves of the South. It is for\nthe free white American citizens to determine whether they will permit\nsuch degrading comparisons longer to exist. Already has this spirit\nbroken forth in denunciation of the right of universal suffrage. Will\nfree white laboring citizens take warning before it is too late?\n\nThe last, the great, the crying sin of abolitionists, in the eyes of\nthe Senator, is that they are opposed to colonization, and in favor of\namalgamation. It is not necessary now to enter into any of the\nbenefits and advantages of colonization; the Senator has pronounced it\nthe noblest scheme ever devised by man; he says it is powerful but\nharmless. I have no knowledge of any resulting benefits from the\nscheme to either race. I have not a doubt as to the real object\nintended by its founders; it did not arise from principles of humanity\nand benevolence towards the colored race, but a desire to remove the\nfree of that race beyond the United States, in order to perpetuate and\nmake slavery more secure.\n\nThe Senator further makes the broad charge, that abolitionists wish to\n_enforce_ the unnatural system of amalgamation. We deny the fact, and\ncall on the Senator for proof. The citizens of the free States, the\npetitioners against slavery, the abolitionists of the free States in\nfavor of amalgamation! No, sir! If you want evidence of the fact, and\nreasoning in support of amalgamation, you must look into the slave\nStates; it is there it spreads and flourishes from slave mothers, and\npresents all possible colors and complexions, from the jet black\nAfrican to the scarcely to be distinguished white person. Does any one\nneed proof of this fact? let him take but a few turns through the\nstreets of your capital, and observe those whom he shall meet, and he\nwill be perfectly satisfied. Amalgamation, indeed! The charge is made\nwith a very bad grace on the present occasion. No, sir; it is not the\nnegro _woman_, it is the _slave_ and the contaminating influence of\nslavery that is the mother of amalgamation. Does the gentleman want\nfacts on this subject? let him look at the colored race in the free\nStates; it is a rare occurrence there. A colony of blacks, some three\nor four hundred, were settled, some fifteen or twenty years since, in\nthe county of Brown, a few miles distant from my former residence in\nOhio, and I was told by a person living near them, a country merchant\nwith whom they dealt, when conversing with him on this very subject,\nhe informed me he knew of but one instance of a mulatto child being\nborn amongst them for the last fifteen years; and I venture the\nassertion, had this same colony been settled in a slave State, the\ncases of a like kind would have been far more numerous. I repeat\nagain, in the words of Dr. Channing, it is a slave country that reeks\nwith licentiousness of this kind, and for proof I refer to the\nopinions of Judge Harper, of North Carolina, in his defence of\nsouthern slavery.\n\nThe Senator, as if fearing that he had made his charge too broad, and\nmight fail in proof to sustain it, seems to stop short, and make the\ninquiry, where is the process of amalgamation to begin? He had heard\nof no instance of the kind against abolitionists; they (the\nabolitionists) would begin it with the laboring class; and if I\nunderstand the Senator correctly, that abolitionism, by throwing\ntogether the white and the black laborers, would naturally produce\nthis result. Sir, I regret, I deplore, that such a charge should be\nmade against the laboring class--that class which tills the ground;\nand, in obedience to the decree of their Maker, eat their bread in\nthe sweat of their face--that class, as Mr. Jefferson says, if God has\na chosen people on earth, they are those who thus labor. This charge\nis calculated for effect, to induce the laboring class to believe,\nthat if emancipation takes place, they will be, in the free States,\nreduced to the same condition as the colored laborer. The reverse of\nthat is the truth of the case. It is the slaveholder NOW, he who looks\nupon labor as only fit for a servile race, it is him and his kindred\nspirits who live upon the labor of others, endeavoring to reduce the\nwhite laborer to the condition of the slave. They do not yet claim him\nas property, but they would exclude him from all participation in the\npublic affairs of the country. It is further said, that if the negroes\nwere free, the black would rival the white laborer in the free States.\nI cannot believe it, while so many facts exist to prove the contrary.\nNegroes, like the white race, but with stronger feelings, are attached\nto the place of their birth, and the home of their youth; and the\nclimate of the South is congenial to their natures, more than that of\nthe North. If emancipation should take place at the South--and the\nnegro be freed from the fear of being made merchandize, they would\nremove from the free States of the North and West, immediately return\nto that country, because it is the home of their friends and fathers.\nAlready in Ohio, as far as my knowledge extends, has free white labor,\n(emigrants,) from foreign countries, engrossed almost entirely all\nsituations in which male or female labor is found. But, sir, this plea\nof necessity and convenience is the plea of tyrants. Has not the free\nblack person the same right to the use of his hands as the white\nperson: the same right to contract and labor for what price he\npleases? Would the gentleman extend the power of the government to the\nregulation of the productive industry of the country? This was his\nformer theory, but put down effectually by the public voice. Taking\nadvantage of the prejudice against labor, the attempt is now being\nmade to begin this same system, by first operating on the poor black\nlaborer. For shame! let us cease from attempts of this kind.\n\nThe Senator informs us that the question was asked fifty years ago\nthat is now asked, Can the negro be continued forever in bondage? Yes;\nand it will continue to be asked, in still louder and louder tones.\nBut, says the Senator, we are yet a prosperous and happy nation. Pray,\nsir, in what part of your country do you find this prosperity and\nhappiness? In the slave States? No! no! There all is weakness gloom,\nand despair; while, in the free States, all is light, business, and\nactivity. What has created the astonishing difference between the\ngentleman's State and mine--between Kentucky and Ohio? Slavery, the\nwithering curse of slavery, is upon Kentucky, while Ohio is free.\nKentucky, the garden of the West, almost the land of promise,\npossessing all the natural advantages, and more than is possessed by\nOhio, is vastly behind in population and wealth. Sir, I can see from\nthe windows of my upper chamber, in the city of Cincinnati, lands in\nKentucky, which, I am told, can be purchased from ten to fifty dollars\nper acre; while lands of the same quality, under the same\nimprovements, and the same distance from me in Ohio, would probably\nsell from one to five hundred dollars per acre. I was told by a\nfriend, a few days before I left home, who had formerly resided in the\ncounty of Bourbon, Kentucky--a most excellent county of lands\nadjoining, I believe, the county in which the Senator resides--that\nthe white population of that county was more than four hundred less\nthan it was five years since. Will the Senator contend, after a\nknowledge of these facts, that slavery in this country has been the\ncause of our prosperity and happiness? No, he cannot. It is because\nslavery has been excluded and driven from a large proportion of our\ncountry, that we are a prosperous and happy people. But its late\nattempts to force its influence and power into the free States, and\ndeprive our citizens of their unquestionable rights, has been the\nmoving cause of all the riots, burnings, and murders that have taken\nplace on account of abolitionism; and it has, in some degree, even in\nthe free States, caused mourning, lamentation, and woe. Remove\nslavery, and the country, the whole country, will recover its natural\nvigor, and our peace and future prosperity will be placed on a more\nextensive, safe, and sure foundation. It is a waste of time to answer\nthe allegations that the emancipation of the negro race would induce\nthem to make war on the white race. Every fact in the history of\nemancipation proves the reverse; and he that will not believe those\nfacts, has darkened his own understanding, that the light of reason\ncan make no impression: he appeals to interest, not to truth, for\ninformation on this subject. We do not fear his errors, while we are\nleft free to combat them. The Senator implores us to cease all\ncommotion on this subject. Are we to surrender all our rights and\nprivileges, all the official stations of the country, into the hands\nof the slaveholding power, without a single struggle? Are we to cease\nall exertions for our own safety, and submit in quiet to the rule of\nthis power? Is the calm of despotism to reign over this land, and the\nvoice of freemen to be no more heard! This sacrifice is required of\nus, in order to sustain slavery. _Freemen_, will you make it? Will you\nshut your ears and your sympathies, and withhold from the poor,\nfamished slave, a morsel of bread? Can you thus act, and expect the\nblessings of heaven upon your country? I beseech you to consider for\nyourselves.\n\nMr. President, I have been compelled to enter into this discussion\nfrom the course pursued by the Senate on the resolutions I submitted a\nfew days since. The cry of abolitionist has been raised against me. If\nthose resolutions are abolitionism, then I am an abolitionist from the\nsole of my feet to the crown of my head. If to maintain the rights of\nthe States, the security of the citizen from violence and outrage; if\nto preserve the supremacy of the laws; if insisting on the right of\npetition, a medium through which _every person_ subject to the laws\nhas an undoubted right to approach the constitutional authorities of\nthe country, be the doctrines of abolitionists, it finds a response in\nevery beating pulse in my veins. Neither power, nor favor, nor want,\nnor misery, shall deter me from its support while the vital current\ncontinues to flow.\n\nCondemned at home for my opposition to slavery, alone and singlehanded\nhere, well may I feel tremor and emotion in bearding this lion of\nslavery in his very _den_ and upon his own ground. I should shrink,\nsir, at once, from this fearful and unequal contest, was I not\nthoroughly convinced that I am sustained by the power of truth and the\nbest interests of the country.\n\nI listened to the Senator of Kentucky with undivided attention. I was\ndisappointed, sadly disappointed. I had heard of the Senator's tact in\nmaking compromises and agreements on this floor, and though opposed in\nprinciple to all such proceedings, yet I hoped to hear something upon\nwhich we could hang a hope that peace would be restored to the borders\nof our own States, and all future aggression upon our citizens from\nthe free States be prevented. Now, sir, he offers us nothing but\nunconditional submission to political death; and not political alone,\nbut absolute _death_. We have counted the cost in this matter, and are\ndetermined to live or die free. Let the slaveholder hug his system to\nhis bosom in his own State, we will not go there to disturb him; but,\nsir, within our own borders we claim to enjoy the same privileges.\nEven, sir, here in this District, this ten miles square of common\nproperty and common right, the slave power has the assurance to come\ninto this very Hall, and request that we--yes, Mr. President, that my\nconstituents--be denied the right of petition on the subject of\nslavery in this District. This most extraordinary petition against the\nright of others to petition on the same subject of theirs, is\ngraciously received and ordered to be printed; paeans sung to it by the\nslave power, while the petitions I offer, from as honorable, free,\nhigh-minded and patriotic American citizens as any in this District,\nare spit upon, and turned out of doors as an _unclean thing_! Genius\nof liberty! how long will you sleep under this iron power of\noppression? Not content with ruling over their own slaves, they claim\nthe power to instruct Congress on the question of receiving petitions;\nand yet we are tauntingly and sneeringly told that we have nothing to\ndo with the existence of slavery in the country, a suggestion as\nabsurd as it is ridiculous. We are called upon to make laws in favor\nof slavery in the District, but it is denied that we can make laws\nagainst it; and at last the right of petition on the subject, by the\npeople of the free States, is complained of as an improper\ninterference. I leave it to the Senator to reconcile all these\ndifficulties, absurdities, claims and requests of the people of this\nDistrict, to the country at large; and I venture the opinion that he\nwill find as much difficulty in producing the belief that he is\ncorrect now, that he has found in obtaining the same belief that he\nwas before correct in his views and political course on the subject of\nbanks, internal improvements, protective tariffs, &c., and the\nregulation, by acts of Congress, of the productive industry of the\ncountry, together with all the compromises and coalitions he has\nentered into for the attainment of those objects. I rejoice, however,\nthat the Senator has made the display he has on this occasion. It is a\npowerful shake to awaken the sleeping energies of liberty, and his\nvoice, like a trumpet, will call from their slumbers millions of\nfreemen to defend their rights; and the overthrow of his theory now,\nis as sure and certain, by the force of public opinion, as was the\noverthrow of all his former schemes, by the same mighty power.\n\nI feel, Mr. President, as if I had wearied your patience, while I am\nsure my own bodily powers admonish me to close; but I cannot do so\nwithout again reminding my constituents of the greetings that have\ntaken place on the consummation and ratification of the treaty,\noffensive and defensive, between the slaveholding and bank powers, in\norder to carry on a war against the liberties of our country, and to\nput down the present administration. Yes, there is no voice heard from\nNew England now. Boston and Faneuil Hall are silent as death. The free\nday-laborer is, in prospect, reduced to the political, if not moral\ncondition of the slave; an ideal line is to divide them in their\nlabor; yes, the same principle is to govern on both sides. Even the\nfarmer, too, will soon be brought into the same fold. It will be again\nsaid, with regard to the government of the country, \"The farmer with\nhis huge paws upon the statute book, what can he do?\" I have\nendeavored to warn my fellow-citizens of the present and approaching\ndanger, but the dark cloud of slavery is before their eyes, and\nprevents many of them from seeing the condition of things as they are.\nThat cloud, like the cloud of summer, will soon pass away, and its\nthunders cease to be heard. Slavery will come to an end, and the\nsunshine of prosperity warm, invigorate and bless our whole country.\n\nI do not know, Mr. President, that my voice will ever again be heard\non this floor. I now willingly, yes, gladly, return to my\nconstituents, to the people of my own State. I have spent my life\namongst them, and the greater portion of it in their service, and they\nhave bestowed upon me their confidence in numerous instances. I feel\nperfectly conscious that, in the discharge of every trust which they\nhave committed to me, I have, to the best of my abilities, acted\nsolely with a view to the general good, not suffering myself to be\ninfluenced by any particular or private interest whatever; and I now\nchallenge those who think I have done otherwise, to lay their finger\nupon any public act of mine, and prove to the country its injustice or\nanti-republican tendency. That I have often erred in the selection of\nmeans to accomplish important ends I have no doubt, but my belief in\nthe truth of the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence, the\npolitical creed of President Jefferson, remains unshaken and\nunsubdued. My greatest regret is that I have not been more zealous,\nand done more for the cause of individual and political liberty than I\nhave done. I hope, on returning to my home and my friends, to join\nthem again in rekindling the beacon-fires of liberty upon every hill\nin our State, until their broad glare shall enlighten every valley,\nand the song of triumph will soon be heard, for the hearts of our\npeople are in the hands of a just and holy being, (who can not look\nupon oppression but with abhorrence.) and he can turn them\nwhithersoever he will, as the rivers of water are turned. Though our\nnational sins are many and grievous, yet repentance, like that of\nancient Nineveh, may divert from us that impending danger which seems\nto hang over our heads as by a single hair. That all may be safe, I\nconclude that THE NEGRO WILL YET BE SET FREE.\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.\n\nNo. 11.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nTHE\n\nCONSTITUTION\n\n\nA PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT.\n\n\nOR\n\nSELECTIONS\n\nFROM\n\nTHE MADISON PAPERS, &c.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nNEW YORK:\n\nAMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.\n\n142 NASSAU STREET.\n\n\n1844.\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nIntroduction.\nDebates in the Congress of the Confederation\nDebates in the Federal Convention\nList of Members of the Federal Convention\nSpeech of Luther Martin\n\n  DEBATES IN STATE CONVENTIONS\nMassachusetts\nNew York\nPennsylvania\nVirginia\nNorth Carolina\nSouth Carolina\nExtracts from the Federalist\nDebates in First Congress\nAddress of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society\nLetter from Francis Jackson to Gov. Briggs\nExtract from Mr. Webster's Speech\nExtracts from J.Q. Adams's Address, November, 1844\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nEvery one knows that the \"Madison papers\" contain a Report, from the\npen of James Madison, of the Debates in the Old Congress of the\nConfederation and in the Convention which formed the Constitution of\nthe United States. We have extracted from them, in these pages, all\nthe Debates on those clauses of the Constitution which relate to\nslavery. To these we have added all that is found, on the same topic,\nin the Debates of the several State Conventions which ratified the\nConstitution: together with so much of the Speech of Luther Martin\nbefore the Legislature of Maryland, and of the Federalist, as relate\nto our subject; with some extracts, also, from the Debates of the\nfirst Federal Congress on Slavery. These are all printed without\nalteration, except that, in some instances, we have inserted in\nbrackets, after the name of a speaker, the name of the State from\nwhich he came. The notes and italics are those of the original, but\nthe editor has added one note on page 30th, which is marked as his,\nand we have taken the liberty of printing in capitals one sentiment of\nRufus King's, and two of James Madison's--a distinction which the\nimportance of the statements seemed to demand--otherwise we have\nreprinted exactly from the originals.\n\nThese extracts develope most clearly all the details of that\n\"compromise,\" which was made between freedom and slavery, in 1787;\ngranting to the slaveholder distinct privileges and protection for his\nslave property, in return for certain commercial concessions on his\npart toward the North. They prove also that the Nation at large were\nfully aware of this bargain at the time, and entered into it willingly\nand with open eyes.\n\nWe have added the late \"Address of the American Anti-Slavery Society,\"\nand the letter of Francis Jackson to Governor Briggs, resigning his\ncommission of Justice of the Peace--as bold and honorable protests\nagainst the guilt and infamy of this National bargain, and as proving\nmost clearly the duty of each individual to trample it under his feet.\n\nThe clauses of the Constitution to which we refer as of a pro-slavery\ncharacter are the following:--\n\nArt. 1, Sect. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned\namong the several States, which may be included within this Union,\naccording to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by\nadding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to\nservice for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, _three\nfifths of all other persons_.\n\nArt. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power . . . to suppress\ninsurrections.\n\nArt. 1, Sect. 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any\nof the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be\nprohibited by the Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight\nhundred and eight: but a tax or duty may be imposed on such\nimportation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.\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 of\nthem against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or of\nthe executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against\ndomestic violence_.\n\nThe first of these clauses, relating to representation, confers on a\nslaveholding community additional political power for every slave held\namong them, and thus tempts them to continue to uphold the system: the\nsecond and the last, relating to insurrection and domestic violence,\nperfectly innocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact\ndirectly in view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge\nthe whole national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our\nfathers and resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of\nsustaining slavery: the third, relating to the slave trade, disgraces\nthe nation by a pledge not to abolish that traffic till after twenty\nyears, _without obliging Congress to do so even then_, and thus the\nslave trade may be legalized to-morrow if Congress choose: the fourth\nis a promise on the part of the whole Nation to return fugitive slaves\nto their masters, a deed which God's law expressly condemns and which\nevery noble feeling of our nature repudiates with loathing and\ncontempt.\n\nThese are the articles of the \"Compromise,\" so much talked of, between\nthe North and South.\n\nWe do not produce the extracts which make up these pages to show what\nis the meaning of the clauses above cited. For no man or party, of any\nauthority in such matters, has ever pretended to doubt to what subject\nthey all relate. If indeed they were ambiguous in their terms, a\nresort to the history of those times would set the matter at rest for\never. A few persons, to be sure, of late years, to serve the purposes\nof a party, have tried to prove that the Constitution makes no\ncompromise with slavery. Notwithstanding the clear light of\nhistory;--the unanimous decision of all the courts in the land,\nboth State and Federal;--the action of Congress and the State\nLegislature;--the constant practice of the Executive in all its\nbranches;--and the deliberate acquiescence of the whole people for\nhalf a century, still they contend that the Nation does not know its\nown meaning, and that the Constitution does not tolerate slavery!\nEvery candid mind however must acknowledge that the language of the\nConstitution is clear and explicit.\n\nIts terms are so broad, it is said, that they include many others\nbeside slaves, and hence it is wisely (!) inferred that they cannot\ninclude the slaves themselves! Many persons beside slaves in this\ncountry doubtless are \"held to service and labor under the laws of the\nStates,\" but that does not at all show that slaves are not \"held to\nservice;\" many persons beside the slaves may take part \"in\ninsurrections,\" but that does not prove that when the slaves rise, the\nNational government is not bound to put them down by force. Such a\nthing has been heard of before as one description including a great\nvariety of persons,--and this is the case in the present instance.\n\nBut granting that the terms of the Constitution are ambiguous--that\nthey are susceptible of two meanings, if the unanimous, concurrent,\nunbroken practice of every department of the Government, judicial,\nlegislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the whole people\nfor fifty years do not prove which is the true construction, then how\nand where can such a question ever be settled? If the people and the\nCourts of the land do not know what they themselves mean, who has\nauthority to settle their meaning for them?\n\nIf then the people and the Courts of a country are to be allowed to\ndetermine what their own laws mean, it follows that at this time and\nfor the last half century, the Constitution of the United States, has\nbeen, and still is, a pro-slavery instrument, and that any one who\nswears to support it, swears to do pro-slavery acts, and violates his\nduty both as a man and an abolitionist. What the Constitution may\nbecome a century hence, we know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and\nrepudiate it _as it is_.\n\nBut the purpose, for which we have thrown these pages before the\ncommunity, is this. Some men, finding the nation unanimously deciding\nthat the Constitution tolerates slavery, have tried to prove that this\nfalse construction, as they think it, has been foisted in upon the\ninstrument by the corrupting influence of slavery itself, tainting all\nit touches. They assert that the known anti-slavery spirit of\nrevolutionary times never _could_ have consented to so infamous a\nbargain as the Constitution is represented to be, and has in its\npresent hands become. Now these pages prove the melancholy fact that\nwillingly, with deliberate purpose, our fathers bartered honesty for\ngain and became partners with tyrants that they might share in the\nprofits of their tyranny.\n\nAnd in view of this fact, will it not require a very strong argument\nto make any candid man believe, that the bargain which the fathers\ntell us they meant to incorporate into the Constitution, and which the\nsons have always thought they found there incorporated, does not exist\nthere after all? Forty of the shrewdest men and lawyers in the land\nassemble to make a bargain, among other things, about slaves,--after\nmonths of anxious deliberation they put it into writing and sign their\nnames to the instrument,--fifty years roll away, twenty millions at\nleast of their children pass over the stage of life,--courts sit and\npass judgment,--parties arise and struggle fiercely; still all concur\nin finding in the Instrument just that meaning which the fathers tell\nus they intended to express:--must not he be a desperate man, who,\nafter all this, sets out to prove that the fathers were bunglers and\nthe sons fools, and that slavery is not referred to at all?\n\nBesides, the advocates of this new theory of the Anti-slavery\ncharacter of the Constitution, quote some portions of the Madison\nPapers in support of their views,--and this makes it proper that the\ncommunity should hear all that these Debates have to say on the\nsubject. The further we explore them, the clearer becomes the fact\nthat the Constitution was meant to be, what it has always been\nesteemed, a compromise between slavery and freedom.\n\nIf then the Constitution be, what these Debates show that our fathers\nintended to make it, and what, too, their descendants, this nation,\nsay they did make it and agree to uphold,--then we affirm that it is a\n\"covenant with death and an agreement with hell,\" and ought to be\nimmediately annulled.\n\nBut if, on the contrary, our fathers failed in their purpose, and the\nConstitution is all pure and untouched by slavery,--then, Union itself\nis impossible, without guilt. For it is undeniable that the fifty\nyears passed under this (anti-slavery) Constitution, shew us the\nslaves trebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and\ndictating the policy of the Government;--prostituting the strength and\ninfluence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and\nelsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States and making the\ncourts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous\nalliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years with the best of\nmen and the best of Constitutions, on this supposition, 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. We dare not prolong the experiment, and with double\nearnestness we repeat our demand upon every honest man to join in the\noutcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society,\n\nNO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CONSTITUTION\n\nA PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n_Extracts from Debates in the Congress of Confederation, preserved by\nThomas Jefferson, 1776_.\n\nOn Friday, the twelfth of July, 1776, the committee appointed to draw\nthe articles of Confederation reported them, and on the twenty-second,\nthe House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into\nconsideration. On the thirtieth and thirty-first of that month, and\nthe first of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined\nthe proportion or quota of money which each State should furnish to\nthe common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first\nof these articles was expressed in the original draught in these\nwords:--\n\n\"Article 11. All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be\nincurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by\nthe United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common\ntreasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in\nproportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex and quality,\nexcept Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account of\nwhich, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially\ntaken and transmitted to the assembly of the United States.\"\n\nMr. Chase (of Maryland) moved, that the quotas should be paid, not by\nthe number of inhabitants of every condition but by that of the \"white\ninhabitants.\" He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion\nto property; that this was in theory the true rule, but that from a\nvariety of difficulties it was a rule which could never be adopted in\npractice. The value of the property in every State could never be\nestimated justly and equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the\nState must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would\nbe more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably\ngood criterion of property, and that this might always be obtained. He\ntherefore thought it the best mode we could adopt, with one exception\nonly. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be\ndistinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States\nwhere there are few slaves. That the surplus of profit which a\nNorthern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c.;\nwhereas, a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves. There\nis no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern States on the\nfarmer's head and on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their\nfarmer's heads and the heads of their cattle. That the method proposed\nwould therefore tax the Southern States according to their numbers and\ntheir wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers\nonly: that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the\nState, more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it.\n\nMr. John Adams (of Massachusetts) observed, that the numbers of people\nwere taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the State, and\nnot as subjects of taxation. That as to this matter, it was of no\nconsequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of\nfreemen or of slaves. That in some countries the laboring poor were\ncalled freemen, in others they were called slaves: but that the\ndifference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether\na landlord employing ten laborers on his farm gives them annually as\nmuch money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them\nthose necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth,\nannually to the State, increase its exports as much, in the one case\nas the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits,\nno greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves.\nTherefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen, should\nbe taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose,\nby any extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one half the\nlaborers of a State could in the course of one night be transformed\ninto slaves,--would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to\npay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most\ncountries,--that of the fishermen, particularly, of the Northern\nStates,--is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers\nwhich produces the surplus for taxation; and numbers, therefore,\nindiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use of\nthe word \"property\" here, and its application to some of the people of\nthe State, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern farmer\nprocure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his\nneighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of laborers\nin his country, and proportionably to its profits and abilities to pay\ntaxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it is only a transfer of a\nlaborer from one firm to another, which does not change the annual\nproduce of the State, and therefore should not change its tax; that if\na Northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it is true,\ninvest the surplus of ten men's labor in cattle; but so may the\nSouthern farmer working ten slaves. That a State of one hundred\nthousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred\nthousand slaves; therefore they have no more of that kind of property.\nThat a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly\ncalled the wealth of his master, than the free laborer might be called\nthe wealth of his employer: but as to the State, both were equally its\nwealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.\n\nMr. Harrison (of Virginia) proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves\nshould be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do\nas much work as freemen, and doubted if two affected more than one.\nThat this was proved by the price of labor, the hire of a laborer in\nthe Southern colonies being from \u00a39 to \u00a312, while in the Northern it\nwas generally \u00a324.\n\nMr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said, that if this amendment should take\nplace, the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves,\nwhilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase\nthe profits of a State, which the Southern States mean to take to\nthemselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which\nwould of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern; that slaves\noccupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves,\nand freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every\ndiscouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would\ngive thee _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves. That\nother kinds of property were pretty equally distributed through all\nthe colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, and sheep, in the\nNorth as the South, and South as the North; but not so as to slaves:\nthat experience has shown that those colonies have been always able to\npay most, which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or\nwhite; and the practice of the Southern colonies has always been to\nmake every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, whether they\nbe black or white. He acknowledged indeed that freemen worked the\nmost; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater\nsurplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so\nexpensively as a freeman. Again, white women are exempted from labor\ngenerally, which negro women are not. In this then the Southern States\nhave an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been\nsaid that slavery was necessary, because the commodities they raise\nwould be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is\nsaid that the labor of the slave is the dearest.\n\nMr. Payne (of Massachusetts) urged the original resolution of Congress,\nto proportion the quotas of the States to the number of souls.\n\nMr. Witherspoon (of New-Jersey) was of opinion, that the value of\nlands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and\nthat it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true\nbarometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and\nunequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the\nfood of freemen, and therefore should be taxed. Horses also eat the\nfood of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said\ntoo, that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the State\nis to pay, we do no more than those States themselves do, who always\ntake slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay.\nBut the cases are not parallel. In the Southern Colonies, slaves\npervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent.\nThat as to the original resolution of Congress, it was temporary only,\nand related to the moneys heretofore emitted: whereas we are now\nentering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.\n\nAUGUST 1st. The question being put, the amendment proposed was\nrejected by the votes of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island,\nConnecticut, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, against those of\nDelaware, Maryland, Virginia, North, and South Carolina. Georgia was\ndivided. _Vol. I. pp_. 27-8-9, 30-1-2.\n\n\n\n\n_Extracts from Madison's Report of Debates in the Congress of the\nConfederation._\n\n\nTUESDAY, Feb. 11, 1783.\n\nMr. Wolcott declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be\namended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the\ndifference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by\nincluding in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen\nand sixty years of age. _p_. 331.\n\nTUESDAY, March 27, 1783.\n\nThe eleventh and twelfth paragraphs:\n\nMr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) was strenuous in their favor; said he was\nin Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation\nof land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of\ncompromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States,\nas to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in\nquestion.\n\nMr. Clark (of New Jersey) was in favor of them. He said that he was\nalso in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern\nStates would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of\nland, if half their slaves only should be included; but that the\nEastern States would not concur in that proposition.\n\nIt was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by\nages, as the, report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion\nin absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be\nfilled up, the clause was recommitted. _p._ 421-2.\n\nFRIDAY, March 28, 1783.\n\nThe committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one\nfreeman.\n\nMr. Wolcott (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. Mr.\nCarroll as four to one. Mr. Williamson (of North Carolina) said he was\nprincipled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an incumbrance\nto society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes. Mr.\nHigginson (of Massachusetts) as four to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South\nCarolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate\nslaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would he a\njuster proportion. Mr. Holton as four to three.--Mr. Osgood said he\ndid not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them as\nthree to two, the votes were. New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no;\nRhode Island, divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye;\nPennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North\nCarolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph was then proposed, by\ngeneral consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it;\nbut it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be\nagreed to.\n\nAfter some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity\nof some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into\nview, Mr. Madison (of Virginia) said that, in order to give a proof of\nthe sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that\nslaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South\nCarolina) seconded the motion. Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said he\nwould sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.\n\nMr. Lee was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that\ntwo slaves were not equal to one freeman.\n\nOn the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New\nHampshire, aye; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no;\nConnecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye;\nVirginia, aye; North Carolina, aye: South Carolina, aye.\n\nA motion was then made by Mr. Bland, seconded by Mr. Lee, to strike\nout the clause so amended, and, on the question \"Shall it stand,\" it\npassed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode\nIsland, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye;\nDelaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South\nCarolina, no; so the clause was struck out.\n\nThe arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that\nthe expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that\nincident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those\nof freemen; and that the warm climate within which the States having\nslaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility\nof the others, ought to have greater weight in the case; and that the\nexports of the former States were greater than of the latter. On the\nother side, it was said, that slaves were not put to labor as young as\nthe children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their\nlabor, they did as little as possible and omitted every exertion of\nthought requisite to facilitate and expedite it: that if the exports\nof the States having slaves exceeded those of the others, their\nimports were in proportion, slaves being employed wholly in\nagriculture, not in manufacturers; and that, in fact, the balance of\ntrade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the\nothers.\n\nOn the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode\nIsland, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. Lloyd, aye); New Jersey,\naye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye;\nSouth Carolina, no. _pp._ 423-4-5.\n\nTuesday, April 1, 1783.\n\nCongress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. Hamilton, who had been\nabsent when the last question was taken for substituting numbers in\nplace of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote. He was\nseconded by Mr. Osgood. Those who voted differently from their former\nvotes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity of the\nchange, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate of the\nslaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without opposition.\n_p_. 430.\n\nMonday, May 26.\n\nThe Resolutions on the Journal, instructing the ministers in Europe to\nremonstrate against the carrying off the negroes--also those for\nfurloughing the troops--passed _unanimously_. _p_. 456.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n_Extract from \"Debates in the Federal Convention\" of 1787, for the\nformation of the Constitution of the United States_.\n\nMonday, June 11, 1787.\n\nIt was then moved by Mr. Rutledge, seconded by Mr. Butler, to add to\nthe words, \"equitable ratio of representation,\" at the end of the\nmotion just agreed to, the words, \"according to the quotas of\ncontribution.\" On motion of Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Pinckney, this\nwas postponed, in order to add, after the words, \"equitable rates of\nrepresentation,\" the words following: \"In proportion to the whole\nnumber of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age,\nsex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of\nyears, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the\nforegoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each\nState\"--this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by\neleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and\nrequiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.\n\nMr. Gerry (of Massachusetts) thought property not the rule of\nrepresentation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the\nSouth, be in the rule of representation more than, the cattle and\nhorses of the North?\n\nOn the question,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,\nMaryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9;\nNew jersey, Delaware, no--2. _Vol. II. pp._ 842-3.\n\nSaturday, June 30, 1787.\n\nHe (Mr. Madison) admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any\nclass of citizens, or any description of states, ought to be secured\nas far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack, there ought to\nbe given a constitutional power of defence. But he contended that the\nStates were divided into different interests, not by their difference\nof size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which\nresulted partly from climate, but principally from the effects of\ntheir having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in\nforming the great division of interests in the United States. It did\nnot lie between the large and small States. IT LAY BETWEEN THE\nNORTHERN AND SOUTHERN; and if any defensive power were necessary, it\nought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly\nimpressed with this important truth, that he had been casting about in\nhis mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. The one\nwhich had occurred was, that instead of proportioning the votes of the\nStates in both branches to their respective numbers of inhabitants,\ncomputing the slaves in the ratio of five to three, they should he\nrepresented in one branch according to the number of free inhabitants\nonly; and in the other, according to the whole number, counting the\nslaves us free. By this arrangement the Southern scale would have the\nadvantage in one House, and the Northern in the other. He had been\nrestrained from proposing this expedient by two considerations; one\nwas his unwillingness to urge any diversity of interests on an\noccasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself; the other was,\nthe inequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and\nwhich would destroy the equilibrium of interests. _pp._ 1006-7.\n\nMonday, July 9, 1787.\n\nMr. Patterson considered the proposed estimate for the future\naccording to the combined rules of numbers and wealth, as too vague.\nFor this reason New Jersey was against it. He could regard negro\nslaves in no light but as property. They are no free agents, have no\npersonal liberty, no faculty of acquiring property, but on the\ncontrary are themselves property, and like other property, entirely at\nthe will of the master. Has a man in Virginia a number of votes in\nproportion to the number of his slaves? And if negroes are not\nrepresented in the States to which they belong, why should they be\nrepresented in the General Government. What is the true principle of\nrepresentation? It is an experiment by which an assembly of certain\nindividuals, chosen, by the people, is substituted in place of the\ninconvenient meeting of the people themselves. If such a meeting of\nthe people was actually to take place, would the slaves vote? They\nwould not. Why then should they be represented? He was also against\nsuch an indirect encouragement of the slave trade; observing that\nCongress, in their act relating to the change of the eighth article of\nConfederation, had been assigned to use the term \"slaves,\" and had\nsubstituted a description.\n\nMr. Madison reminded Mr. Patterson that his doctrine of\nrepresentation, which was in its principle the genuine one, must for\never silence the pretensions of the small States to an equality of\nvotes with the large ones. They ought to vote in the same proportion\nin which their citizens would do if the people of all the States were\ncollectively met. He suggested, as a proper ground of compromise, that\nin the first branch the States should be represented according to\ntheir number of free inhabitants; and in the second, which has for one\nof its primary objects, the guardianship of property, according to the\nwhole number, including slaves.\n\nMr. Butler urged warmly the justice and necessity of regarding wealth\nin the apportionment of representation.\n\nMr. King had always expected, that, as the Southern States are the\nrichest, they would not league themselves with the Northern, unless\nsome respect was paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect\nthose preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages\nwhich they will derive from the connexion, they must not expect to\nreceive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of\nthirteen of the States had agreed to consider slaves in the\napportionment of taxation; and taxation and representation ought to go\ntogether. _pp_. 1054-5-6.\n\nTuesday, July 10; 1787.\n\nMr. King remarked that the four Eastern States, having 800,000 souls,\nhave one-third fewer representatives than the four Southern States,\nhaving not more than 700,000 souls, rating the blacks as five for\nthree. The Eastern people will advert to these circumstances, and be\ndissatisfied. He believed them to be very desirous of uniting with\ntheir Southern brethren, but did not think it prudent to rely so far\non that disposition, as to subject them to any gross inequality. He\nwas fully convinced that THE QUESTION CONCERNING A DIFFERENCE OF\nINTERESTS DID NOT LIE WHERE IT HAD HITHERTO BEEN DISCUSSED, BETWEEN\nTHE GREAT AND SMALL STATES: BUT BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN. _p_.\n1057.\n\nWednesday, July 11, 1787.\n\nMr. Butler and General Pinckney insisted that blacks be included in\nrule of representation _equally_ with the whites; and for that purpose\nmoved that the words \"three-fifths\" be struck out.\n\nMr. Gerry thought that three fifths of them was, to say the least, the\nfull proportion that could be admitted.\n\nMr. Gorham. This ratio was fixed by Congress as a rule of taxation.\nThen, it was urged, by the delegates representing the States having\nslaves, that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At\npresent, when the ratio of representation is to be established, we are\nassured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on the former\noccasion had convinced them that three fifths was pretty near the just\nproportion, he should vote according to the same opinion now.\n\nMr. Butler insisted that the labor of a slave in South Carolina was as\nproductive and valuable as that of a freeman in Massachusetts; that as\nwealth was the greatest means of defence and utility to the nation,\nthey were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently\nan equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a government\nwhich was instituted principally, for the protection of property, and\nwas itself to be supported by property.\n\nMr. Mason could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was\nfavorable to Virginia, because he thought it unjust. It was certain\nthat the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of land,\nincreased the exports and imports, and of course the revenue, would\nsupply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might in cases\nof emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these important\nrespects they were useful to the community at large, they ought not to\nbe excluded from the estimate of representation. He could not,\nhowever, regard them as equal to freemen, and could not vote for them\nas such. He added, as worthy of remark, that the Southern States have\nthis peculiar species of property, over and above the other species of\nproperty common to all the States.\n\nMr. Williamson reminded Mr. Gorham, that if the Southern States\ncontended for the inferiority of blacks to whites, when taxation was\nin view, the Eastern States, on the same occasion, contended for their\nequality. He did not, however, either then or now, concur in either\nextreme, but approved of the ratio of three-fifths.\n\nOn Mr. Butler's motion, for considering blacks as equal to whites in\nthe apportionment of representation,--Delaware, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, aye--3; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,\nMaryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no--7. New York not on the floor.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris said he had several objections to the\nproposition of Mr. Williamson. In the first place it fettered the\nLegislature too much. In the second place, it would exclude some\nStates altogether who would not have a sufficient number to entitle\nthem to a single representation. In the third place, it will not\nconsist with the resolution passed on Saturday last, authorizing the\nLegislature to adjust the representation, from time to time on the\nprinciples of population and wealth; nor with the principles of\nequity. If slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth,\nthen the said resolution would not be pursued; if as wealth, then why\nis no other wealth but slaves included? These objections may perhaps\nbe removed by amendments.... Another objection with him, against\nadmitting the blacks into the census, was, that the people of\nPennsylvania would revolt at the idea of being put on a footing with\nslaves. They would reject any plan that was to have such an effect.\npp. 1067-8-9 & 1072.\n\nWEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1787.\n\nThe next clause as to three-fifths of the negroes being considered:\n\nMr. King, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of\nrepresentation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He\nthought the admission of them along with whites at all, would excite\ngreat discontents among the States having no slaves. He had never\nsaid, as to any particular point, that he would in no event acquiesce\nin and support it; but he would say that if in any case such a\ndeclaration was to be made by him, it would be in this.\n\nHe remarked that in the temporary allotment of representatives made by\nthe Committee, the Southern States had received more than the number\nof their white and three-fifths of their black inhabitants entitled\nthem to.\n\nMr. Sherman. South Carolina had not more beyond her proportion than\nNew York and New Hampshire; nor either of them more than was necessary\nin order to avoid fractions, or reducing them below their proportion.\nGeorgia had more; but the rapid growth of that State seemed to justify\nit. In general the allotment might not be just, but considering all\ncircumstances he was satisfied with it.\n\nMr. Gorham was aware that there might be some weight in what had\nfallen from his colleague, as to the umbrage which might be taken by\nthe people of the Eastern States. But he recollected that when the\nproposition of Congress for changing the eighth Article of the\nConfederation was before the Legislature of Massachusetts, the only\ndifficulty then was, to satisfy them that the negroes ought not to\nhave been counted equally with the whites, instead of being counted in\nthe ratio of three-fifths only.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: They were then to have been a rule of taxation only.]\n\n\nMr. Wilson did not well see, on what principle the admission of blacks\nin the proportion of three fifths could be explained. Are they\nadmitted as citizens--then why are they not admitted on an equality\nwith white citizens? Are they admitted as property--then why is not\nother property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties,\nhowever, which he thought must be overruled by the necessity of\ncompromise. He had some apprehensions also, from the tendency of the\nblending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people\nof Pennsylvania, as had been intimated by his colleague (Mr.\nGouverneur Morris.)\n\nMr. Gouvemeur Morris was compelled to declare himself reduced to the\ndilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States, or to human nature;\nand he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to\ngive such encouragement to the slave trade, as would be given by\nallowing them a representation for their negroes; and he did not\nbelieve those States would ever confederate on terms that would\ndeprive them of that trade.\n\nOn the question for agreeing to include three-fifths of the\nblacks,--Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina. Georgia, aye--4;\nMassachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,[2] South\nCarolina, no--6. pp. 1076-7-8.\n\n[Footnote 2: Mr. Carroll said, in explanation of the vote of Maryland,\nthat he wished the _phraseology_ to be altered as to obviate, if\npossible, the danger which had been expressed of giving umbrage to the\nEastern and Middle States.]\n\n\nTHURSDAY, July 12, 1787.\n\nMr. Butler contended that representation should be according to the\nfull number of inhabitants, including all the blacks.\n\nGeneral Pinckney was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [by\nGouverneur Morris,] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed\nat what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. South\nCarolina has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000\u00a3. sterling,\nall which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be\nrepresented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought\nshe then be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be\ninserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from taxing\nexports.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris having so varied his motion by inserting the\nword \"direct,\" it passed, _nem. con._, as follows: \"provided always\nthat direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation.\"\n\nMr. Davie said it was high time now to speak out. He saw that it was\nmeant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of\nrepresentation for their blacks. He was sure that North Carolina would\nnever confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as\nthree-fifths. If the Eastern States meant, therefore, to exclude them\naltogether, the business was at an end.\n\nDr. Johnson thought that wealth and population were the true,\nequitable rules of representation; but he conceived that these two\nprinciples resolved themselves into one, population being the best\nmeasure of wealth. He concluded, therefore, that the number of people\nought to be established as the rule, and that all descriptions,\nincluding blacks _equally_ with the whites, ought to fall within the\ncomputation. As various opinions had been expressed on the subject, he\nwould move that a committee might be appointed to take them into\nconsideration, and report them.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris. It had been said that it is high time to speak\nout. As one member, he would candidly do so. He came here to form a\ncompact for the good of America. He was ready to do so with all the\nStates. He hoped, and believed, that all would enter into such\ncompact. If they would not, he was ready to join with any States that\nwould. But as the compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the\nEastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree\nto. It is equally vain for the latter to require, what the other\nStates can never admit; and he verily believed the people of\nPennsylvania will never agree to a representation of negroes. What can\nbe desired by these States more then has been already proposed--that\nthe legislature shall from time to time regulate representation\naccording to population and wealth?\n\nGeneral Pinckney desired that the rule of wealth should be\nascertained, and not left to the pleasure of the legislature; and that\nproperty in slaves should not be exposed to danger, under a government\ninstituted for the protection of property.\n\nThe first clause in the Report of the first Grand Committee was\npostponed.\n\nMr. Ellsworth, in order to carry into effect the principle\nestablished, moved to add to the last clause adopted by the House, the\nwords following, \"and that the rule of contribution for direct\ntaxation, for the support of the government of the United States,\nshall be the number of white inhabitants, and three-fifths of every\nother description in the several States, until some other use rule\nthat shall more accurately ascertain the wealth of the several States,\ncan be devised and adopted by the Legislature.\"\n\nMr. Butler seconded the motion, in order that it might be committed.\n\nMr. Randolph was not satisfied with the motion. The danger will be\nrevived, that the ingenuity of the Legislature may evade or pervert\nthe rule, so as to perpetuate the power where it shall be lodged in\nthe first instance. He proposed, in lieu of Mr. Ellsworth's motion,\n\"that in order to ascertain the alterations in representation that may\nbe required, from time to time, by changes in the relative\ncircumstances of the States, a census shall be taken within two years\nfrom the first meeting of the General Legislature of the United\nStates, and once within the term of every ---- years afterwards, of\nall the inhabitants, in the manner and according to the ratio\nrecommended by Congress in their Resolution of the eighteenth day of\nApril, 1783, (rating the blacks at three-fifths of their number;) and\nthat the Legislature of the United States shall arrange the\nrepresentation accordingly.\" He urged strenuously that express\nsecurity ought to be provided for including slaves in the ratio of\nrepresentation. He lamented that such a species of property existed.\nBut as it did exist, the holders of it would require this security. It\nwas perceived that the design was entertained by some of excluding\nslaves altogether; the Legislature therefore ought not to be left at\nliberty.\n\nMr. Ellsworth withdraws his motion, and seconds that of Mr. Randolph.\n\nMr. Wilson observed, that less umbrage would perhaps be taken against\nan admission of the slaves into the rule of representation, if it\nshould be so expressed as to make them indirectly only an ingredient\nin the rule, by saying that they should enter into the rule of\ntaxation; and as representation was to be according to taxation, the\nend would be equally attained.\n\nMr. Pinckney moved to amend Mr. Randolph's motion, so as to make\n\"blacks equal to the whites in the ratio of representation.\" This, he\nurged, was nothing more than justice. The blacks are the laborers, the\npeasants, of the Southern States. They are as productive of pecuniary\nresources as those of the northern states. They add equally to the\nwealth, and, considering money as the sinew of war, to the strength,\nof the nation. It will also be politic with regard to the Northern\nStates, as taxation is to keep pace with representation.\n\nOn Mr. Pinckney's (of S. Carolina) motion, for rating blacks as equal\nto whites, instead of as three-fifths,--South Carolina, Georgia, aye\n--2; Massachusetts, Connecticut (Doctor Johnson, aye), New Jersey,\nPennsylvania (three against two), Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North\nCarolina, no--8.\n\nMr. Randolph's (of Virginia) proposition, as varied by Mr. Wilson (of\nPennsylvania) being read for taking the question on the whole,--\n\nMr. Gerry (of Massachusetts) urged that the principle of it could not\nbe carried into execution, as the States were not to be taxed as\nStates. With regard to taxes on imposts, he conceived they would be\nmore productive when there were no slaves, than where there were; the\nconsumption being greater.\n\nMr. Ellsworth (of Connecticut.)  In the case of a poll-tax there would\nbe no difficulty. But there would probably be none. The sum allotted\nto a State may be levied without difficulty, according to the plan\nused by the State in raising its own supplies.\n\nOn the question on the whole proposition, as proportioning\nrepresentation to direct taxation, and both to the white and\nthree-fifths of the black inhabitants, and requiring a census within\nsix years, and within every ten years afterwards,--Connecticut,\nPennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye--6;\nNew-Jersey, Delaware, no--2; Massachusetts, South Carolina, divided.\n_pp._ 1079 to 1087.\n\nFriday, July 13, 1787.\n\nOn the motion of Mr. Randolph (of Virginia), the vote of Monday last,\nauthorizing the Legislature to adjust, from time to time, the\nrepresentation upon the principles of _wealth_ and numbers of\ninhabitants, was reconsidered by common consent, in order to strike\nout _wealth_ and adjust the resolution to that requiring periodical\nrevisions according to the number of whites and three-fifths of the\nblacks.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris (of Pennsylvania) opposed the alteration, as\nleaving still an incoherence. If negroes were to be viewed as\ninhabitants, and the revision was to proceed on the principle of\nnumbers of inhabitants, they ought to be added in their entire number,\nand not in the proportion of three-fifths. If as property, the word\nwealth was right; and striking it out would produce the very\ninconsistency which it was meant to get rid of. The train of\nbusiness, and the late turn which it had taken, had led him, he said,\ninto deep meditation on it, and he would candidly state the result. A\ndistinction has been set up, and urged, between the Northern and\nSouthern States. He had hitherto considered this doctrine as\nheretical. He still thought the distinction groundless. He sees,\nhowever, that it is persisted in; and the Southern gentlemen will not\nbe satisfied unless they see the way open to their gaining a majority\nin the public councils. The consequence of such a transfer of power\nfrom the maritime to the interior and landed interest, will, he\nforesees, be such an oppression to commerce, that he shall be obliged\nto vote for the vicious principle of equality in the second branch, in\norder to provide some defence for the Northern States against it. But\nto come more to the point, either this distinction is fictitious or\nreal; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due\nconfidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend\nincompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each\nother. There can be no end of demands for security, if every\nparticular interest is to be entitled to it. The Eastern States may\nclaim it for their fishery, and for other objects, as the Southern\nStates claim it for their peculiar objects. In this struggle between\nthe two ends of the Union, what part ought the Middle States, in point\nof policy, to take?  To join their Eastern brethren, according to his\nideas. If the Southern States get the power into their hands, and be\njoined, as they will be, with the interior country, they will\ninevitably bring on a war with Spain for the Mississippi. This\nlanguage is already held. The interior country, leaving no property\nnor interest exposed to the sea, will be little affected by such a\nwar. He wished to know what security the Northern and Middle States\nwill have against this danger. It has been said that North Carolina,\nSouth Carolina, and Georgia only, will in a little time have a\nmajority of the people of America. They must in that case include the\ngreat interior country, and every thing was to be apprehended from\ntheir getting the power into their hands.\n\nMr. Butler (of South Carolina). The security the Southern States want\nis, that their negroes may not be taken from them, which some\ngentlemen within or without doors have a very good mind to do. It was\nnot supposed that North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, would\nhave more people than all the other States, but many more relatively\nto the other States, than they now have. The people and strength of\nAmerica are evidently bearing southwardly, and southwestwardly.\n\nOn the question to strike out _wealth_, and to make the change as\nmoved by Mr. Randoph (of Virginia), it passed in the affirmative,--\nMassachusetts, Connecticut, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland,\nVirginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9; Delaware,\ndivided. _pp_. 1090-1-2-3-4.\n\nSATURDAY, July 14, 1787.\n\nMr. Madison (of Virginia). it seemed now pretty well understood, that\nthe real difference of interests lay, not between the large and small,\nbut between the Northern and Southern States. THE INSTITUTION OF\nSLAVERY, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES, FORMED THE LINE OF DISCRIMINATION. _p_.\n1104.\n\nMONDAY, July 23, 1787.\n\nGeneral Pinckney reminded the Convention, that if the Committee should\nfail to insert some security to the Southern States against an\nemancipation of slaves, and taxes on exports, he should be bound by\nduty to his State to vote against their report. _p_. 1187.\n\nTUESDAY, July 24, 1787.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris hoped the Committee would strike out the whole\nof the clause proportioning direct taxation to representation. He had\nonly meant it as a bridge[3] to assist us over a certain gulf; having\npassed the gulf, the bridge may be removed. He thought the principle\nlaid down with so much strictness liable to strong objections. _p_.\n1197.\n\n[Footnote 3: The object was to lessen the eagerness, on one side, for,\nand the opposition, on the other, to the share of representation\nclaimed by the Southern States on account of the negroes.]\n\n\nWEDNESDAY, August 8, 1787.\n\nMr. King wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant\nto have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the admission\nof slaves into the rule of representation. He could not reconcile his\nmind to the Article, if it was to prevent objections to the latter\npart. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his\nmind, and he believed would be so to a great part of the people of\nAmerica. He had not made a strenuous opposition to it heretofore,\nbecause he had hope that this concession would have produced a\nreadiness, which had not been manifested, to strengthen the General\nGovernment, and to mark a full confidence in it. The Report under\nconsideration had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes.\nIn two great points the hands of the Legislature were absolutely tied.\nThe importation of slaves could not be prohibited. Exports could not\nbe taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the\ngeneral system? First, defence against foreign invasion; secondly,\nagainst internal sedition. Shall all the States, then, be bound to\ndefend each, and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness\nwhich will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the United\nStates be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at\nliberty, not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the\ncompensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported, shall not\nthe exports produced by their labor supply a revenue the better to\nenable the General Government to defend their masters? There was so\nmuch inequality and unreasonableness in all this, that the people of\nthe Northern States could never be reconciled to it. No candid man\ncould undertake to justify it to them. He had hoped that some\naccommodation would have taken place on this subject; that at least a\ntime would have been limited for the importation of slaves. He never\ncould agree to let them be imported without limitation, and then be\nrepresented in the National Legislature. Indeed, he could so little\npersuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that he was not\nsure he could assent to it under any circumstances. At all events,\neither slaves should not be represented, or exports should be taxable.\n\nMr. Sherman regarded the slave trade as iniquitous; but the point of\nrepresentation having been settled after much difficulty and\ndeliberation, he did not think himself bound to make opposition;\nespecially as the present Article, as amended, did not preclude any\narrangement whatever on that point, in another place of the report.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris moved to insert \"free\" before the word\n\"inhabitants.\" Much, he said, would depend on this point. He never\nwould concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious\ninstitution. It was the curse of Heaven on the States where it\nprevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich\nand noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the\npeople, with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes\nof Virginia, Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel\nthrough the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually\nvarying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The moment\nyou leave the Eastern States, and enter New-York, the effects of the\ninstitution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys and entering\nPennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the\nchange. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the\ngreat regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the\nincreasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is\nit that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they\nmen? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property?\nWhy, then is no other property included? The houses in this city\n(Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover\nthe rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the\nrepresentation, when fairly explained, comes to this, that the\ninhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina, who goes to the coast of\nAfrica, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears\naway his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections, and damns\nthem to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government\ninstituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen\nof Pennsylvania or New-Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so\nnefarious a practice. He would add, that domestic slavery is the most\nprominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed\nConstitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite\noffspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed compensation to the\nNorthern States, for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every\nimpulse of humanity? They are to bind themselves to march their\nmilitia for the defence of the Southern States, for their defence\nagainst those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply\nvessels and seamen, in case of foreign attack. The Legislature will\nhave indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports;\nboth of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern\ninhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman will pay\nmore tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which\nconsists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag\nthat covers his nakedness. On the other side, the Southern States are\nnot to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched\nAfricans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty\nof defence; nay, they are to be encouraged to it, by an assurance of\nhaving their votes in the National Government increased in proportion;\nand are, at the same time, to have their exports and their slaves\nexempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be\nsaid, that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation.\nIt is idle to suppose that the General Government can stretch its hand\ndirectly into the pockets of the people, scattered over so vast a\ncountry. They can only do it through the medium of exports, imports\nand excises. For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made? He\nwould sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in\nthe United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.\n\nMr. Dayton seconded the motion. He did it, he said, that his\nsentiments on the subject might appear, whatever might be the fate of\nthe amendment.\n\nMr. Sherman did not regard the admission of the negroes into the ratio\nof representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was\nthe freemen of the Southern States who were, in fact, to be\nrepresented according to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are\nonly included in the estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the\nmatter.\n\nMr. Pinckney considered the fisheries, and the western frontier, as\nmore burthensome to the United States than the slaves. He thought this\ncould be demonstrated, if the occasion were a proper one.\n\nMr. Wilson thought the motion premature. An agreement to the clause\nwould be no bar to the object of it.\n\nOn the question, on the motion to insert \"free\" before \"inhabitants,\"\nNew-Jersey, aye--1; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,\nPennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South\nCarolina, Georgia, no--10. pp. 1261-2-3-4-5-6.\n\n\nTUESDAY, August 21, 1787.\n\nMr. L. Martin proposed to vary Article 7, Section 4, so as to allow a\nprohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the first place,\nas five slaves are to be counted as three freemen, in the\napportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an\nencouragement to this traffic. In the second place, slaves weakened\none part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect;\nthe privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. And in the\nthird place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the\nRevolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a\nfeature in the Constitution.\n\nMr. Rutledge did not see how the importation of slaves could be\nencouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections,\nand would readily exempt the other states from the obligation to\nprotect the Southern against them. Religion and humanity had nothing\nto do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle\nwith nations. The true question at present is, whether the Southern\nStates shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern\nStates consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of\nslaves, which will increase the commodities of which they will become\nthe carriers.\n\nMr. Ellsworth was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every State\nimport what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are\nconsiderations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a\npart enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their\nparticular interest. The Old Confederation had not meddled with this\npoint; and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within\nthe policy of the new one.\n\nMr. Pinckney. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it\nprohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers\nof Congress, that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of\nmeddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at\nliberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees, do of\nherself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland already have done.\nAdjourned. _pp_. 1388-9.\n\n\nWEDNESDAY, August 22, 1787.\n\nArticle 7, Section 4, was resumed.\n\nMr. Sherman was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of\nthe slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of the right to\nimport slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from\nthem, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to\nthe proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave the\nmatter as we find it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed\nto be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of the\nseveral States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged on the\nConvention the necessity of despatching its business.\n\nCol. Mason. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British\nmerchants. The British Government constantly checked the attempts of\nVirginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the\nimporting States alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves\nwas experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they\nmight have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous\ninstruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it\ndid by the tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the\nslaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell to\nthe commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants and slaves, in\ncase other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland and\nVirginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves\nexpressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this\nwould be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to\nimport. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for\ntheir new lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can\nbe got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts\nand manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves.\nThey prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and\nstrengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on\nmanners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the\njudgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or\npunished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable\nchain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by\nnational calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren\nhad, from a lust of gain, embarked in the nefarious traffic. As to the\nStates being in possession of the right to import, this was the case\nwith many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it\nessential in every point of view, that the General Government should\nhave power to prevent the increase of slavery.\n\nMr. Ellsworth, as he had never owned a slave, could not judge of the\neffects of slavery on character. He said, however, that if it was to\nbe considered in a moral light, we ought to go further and free those\nalready in the country. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia\nand Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in\nthe sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no\nfurther than is urged, we shall be unjust towards South Carolina and\nGeorgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor\nlaborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery, in\ntime, will not be a speck in our country. Provision is already made in\nConnecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken\nplace in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrections from foreign\ninfluence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.\n\nMr. Pinckney. If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of\nall the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and other ancient\nStates; the sanction given by France, England, Holland and other\nmodern States. In all ages, one half of mankind have been slaves. If\nthe Southern States were let alone, they will probably of themselves\nstop importations. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina,\nvote for it. An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will\nproduce serious objections to the Constitution, which he wished to see\nadopted.\n\nGen. Pinckney declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself and\nall his colleagues were to sign the Constitution and use their\npersonal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the\nassent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do\nwithout slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the\nimportations. Her slaves will rise in value, and she has more than she\nwants. It would be unequal, to require South Carolina and Georgia, to\nconfederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent, before\nthe Revolution, had never been refused to South Carolina, as to\nVirginia. He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the\ninterest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to\nemploy the carrying trade; the more consumption also; and the more of\nthis, the more revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be\nreasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports; but should\nconsider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina\nfrom the Union.\n\nMr. Baldwin had conceived national objects alone to be before the\nConvention; not such as, like the present, were of a local nature.\nGeorgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto\nsupposed a General Government to be the pursuit of the central States,\nwho wished to have a vortex for every thing; that her distance would\npreclude her, from equal advantage; and that she could not prudently\npurchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be\nunderstood, in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of\nher favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a\nstop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of\nthe sect of ----; which he said was a respectable class of people,\nwho carried their ethics beyond the mere _equality of men_, extending\ntheir humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.\n\nMr. Wilson observed that if South Carolina and Georgia were themselves\ndisposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, as\nhad been suggested, they would never refuse to unite because the\nimportation might be prohibited. As the section now stands, all\narticles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in\nfact a bounty on that article.\n\nMr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States\nas to slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.\n\nMr. Dickinson considered it as inadmissible, on every principle of\nhonor and safety, that the importation of slaves should be authorized\nto the States by the Constitution. The true question was, whether the\nnational happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation;\nand this question ought to be left to the National Government, not to\nthe States particularly interested. If England and France permit\nslavery, slaves are, at the same time, excluded from both those\nkingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could\nnot believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate on\nthe account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be\nimmediately exercised by the General Government.\n\nMr. Williamson stated the law of North Carolina on the subject, to\nwit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It\nimposed a duty of \u00a35 on each slave imported from Africa; \u00a310 on each\nfrom elsewhere; and \u00a350 on each from a State licensing manumission. He\nthought the Southern States could not be members of the Union, if the\nclause should be rejected; and that it was wrong to force any thing\ndown not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.\n\nMr. King thought the subject should be considered in a political light\nonly. If two states will not agree to the Constitution, as stated on\none side, he could affirm with equal belief, on the other, that great\nand equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He\nremarked on the exemption of slaves from duty, whilst every other\nimport was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to\nstrike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States.\n\nMr. Langdon was strenuous for giving the power to the General\nGovernment. He could not, with a good conscience, have it with the\nStates, who could then go on with the traffic, without being\nrestrained by the opinions here given, that they will themselves cease\nto import slaves.\n\nGen. Pinckney thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did\nnot think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves, in any\nshort time; but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved\nto commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax\nwith other imports; which he thought right, and which would remove one\ndifficulty that had been started.\n\nMr. Rutledge. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South\nCarolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right\nto import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of\nthose States will never be such fools, as to give up so important an\ninterest. He was strenuous against striking out the section, and\nseconded the motion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris wished the whole subject to be committed\nincluding the clauses relating to taxes on exports and to a navigation\nact. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern\nStates.\n\nMr. Butler declared that he never would agree to the power of taxing\nexports.\n\nMr. Sherman said it was better to let the Southern States import\nslaves, than to part with them, if they made that a _sine qua non_. He\nwas opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse,\nbecause it implied they were _property_. He acknowledged that if the\npower of prohibiting the importation should be given to the General\nGovernment, that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its\nduty to exercise the power.\n\nMr. Read was for the commitment, provided the clause concerning taxes\non experts should also be committed.\n\nMr. Sherman observed that that clause had been agreed to, and\ntherefore could not be committed.\n\nMr. Randolph was for committing, in order that some middle ground\nmight, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause as it\nstands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt on the dilemma\nto which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it\nwould revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the\nStates having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might be lost\nto the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance of a commitment.\n\nOn the question for committing the remaining part of Sections 4 and 5,\nof Article 7,--Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North\nCarolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Hampshire,\nPennsylvania, Delaware, no--3; Massachusetts absent. p. 1390-97.\nFriday, August 24, 1787.\n\n_In Convention_,--Governor Livingston, from the committee of eleven,\nto whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth section,\nand the fifth and sixth sections, of the seventh Article, delivered in\nthe following Report:\n\n\"Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to the\nCommittee, and insert, 'The migration or importation of such persons\nas the several States, now existing, shall think proper to admit,\nshall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1800; but\na tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation, at a\nrate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.'\n\n\"The fifth Section to remain as in the Report.\n\n\"The sixth Section[4] to be stricken out.\" p. 1415.\n\n[Footnote 4: This sixth Section was, \"No Navigation act shall be passed\nwithout the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each\nHouse.\"--EDITOR.]\n\n\nSaturday, August 25, 1787.\n\nThe Report of the Committee of eleven (see Friday, the twenty-fourth)\nbeing taken up,--\n\nGen. Pinckney moved to strike out the words, \"the year eighteen\nhundred,\" as the year limiting the importation of slaves; and to\ninsert the words, \"the year eighteen hundred and eight.\"\n\nMr. Gorham seconded the motion.\n\nMr. Madison. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be\napprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be\nmore dishonorable to the American character, than to say nothing about\nit in the Constitution.\n\nOn the motion, which passed in the affirmative,--New Hampshire,\nMassachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, aye--7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no--4.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris was for making the clause read at once, \"the\nimportation of slaves in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,\nshall not be prohibited, &c.\" This he said, would be most fair, and\nwould avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to\nnaturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated.\nHe wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was\na compliance with those States. If the change of language, however,\nshould be objected to, by the members from those States, he should not\nurge it.\n\nCol. Mason was not against using the term \"slaves,\" but against naming\nNorth Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give\noffence to the people of those States.\n\nMr. Sherman liked a description better than the terms proposed, which\nhad been declined by the old Congress, and were not pleasing to some\npeople.\n\nM. Clymer concurred with Mr. Sherman.\n\nMr. Williamson said, that both in opinion and practice he was against\nslavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all\ncircumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms,\nthan to exclude them from the Union.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris withdrew his motion.\n\nMr. Dickinson wished the clause to be confined to the States which had\nnot themselves prohibited the importation of slaves; and for that\npurpose moved to amend the clause, so as to read: \"The importation of\nslaves into such of the States as shall permit the same, shall not be\nprohibited by the Legislature of the United States, until the year\n1808;\" which was disagreed to, _nem. con._[5]\n\n[Footnote 5: In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and\nGeorgia, voted in the affirmative.]\n\n\nThe first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as follows:\n\"The migration or importation of such persons as the several States\nnow existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by\nthe Legislature prior to the year 1808,\"--\n\nNew Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina,\nSouth Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,\nVirginia, no--4.\n\nMr. Baldwin, in order to restrain and more explicitly define, \"the\naverage duty,\" moved to strike out of the second part the words,\n\"average of the duties and on imports,\" and insert \"common impost on\narticles not enumerated;\" which was agreed to, _nem. con._\n\nMr. Sherman was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be\nproperty, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.\n\nMr. King and Mr. Langdon considered this as the price of the first\npart.\n\nGen. Pinckney admitted that it was so.\n\nCol. Mason. Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on, the\nimportation of slaves.\n\nMr. Gorham thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as\nimplying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the\nimportation of them.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it\nimplies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.\n\nMr. Sherman, in answer to Mr. Gorham, observed, that the smallness of\nthe duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of\nthe importation.\n\nMr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea\nthat there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not\nhold, as slaves are not, like merchandise, consumed, &c.\n\nCol. Mason, in answer to Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The provision as it\nstands, was necessary for the case of convicts; in order to prevent\nthe introduction of them.\n\nIt was finally agreed, _nem. con_., to make the clause read: \"but a\ntax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten\ndollars for each person;\" and then the second part, as amended, was\nagreed to. _pp_. 1427 to 30.\n\nTuesday, August 28, 1787.\n\nArticle 14, was then taken up.\n\nGeneral Pinckney was not satisfied with it. He seemed to wish some\nprovision should be included in favor of property in slaves.\n\nOn the question on Article 14,--\n\nNew Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,\nDelaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, aye--9; South Carolina,\nno--1; Georgia, divided.\n\nArticle 15, being then taken up, the words, \"high misdemeanor,\" were\nstruck out, and the words, \"other crime,\" inserted, in order to\ncomprehend all proper cases; it being doubtful whether \"high\nmisdemeanor\" had not a technical meaning too limited.\n\nMr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require \"fugitive slaves and\nservants to be delivered up like criminals.\"\n\nMr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at\nthe public expense.\n\nMr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and\nsurrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.\n\nMr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular\nprovision might be made, apart from this article.\n\nArticle 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con_. _pp_. 1447-8.\n\nWednesday, August 29, 1787.\n\nGeneral Pinckney said it was the true interest of the Southern States\nto have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on\nthe commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal\nconduct towards the views[6] of South Carolina, and the interest the\nweak Southern States had in being united with the strong Eastern\nStates, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the\npower of making commercial regulations, and that his constituents,\nthough prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled to\nthis liberality. He had, himself, he said, prejudices against the\nEastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had\nfound them as liberal and candid as any men whatever. _p_. 1451.\n\n[Footnote 6: He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding\non the two subjects of _navigation_ and _slavery_, had taken place\nbetween those parts of the Union, which explains the vote on the\nmotion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and\nothers.]\n\n\nMr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, \"If any person bound to\nservice or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into\nanother State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or\nlabor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to\nwhich they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly\nclaiming their service or labor,\"--which was agreed to, _nem. con_.\n_p_. 1456.\n\nMonday, September 10, 1787.\n\nMr. Rutledge said he never could agree to give a power by which the\narticles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not\ninterested in that property, and prejudiced against it. In order to\nobviate this objection, these words were added to the proposition:\n\"provided that no amendments, which may be made prior to the year 1808\nshall in any manner affect the fourth and fifth sections of the\nseventh Article.\" _p_. 1536.\n\nThursday, September 13, 1787.\n\nArticle 1, Section 2. On motion of Mr. Randolph, the word \"servitude\"\nwas struck out, and \"service\" unanimously[7] inserted, the former\nbeing thought to express the condition of slaves, and the latter the\nobligations of free persons.\n\n[Footnote 7: See page 372 of the printed journal.]\n\n\nMr. Dickinson and Mr. Wilson moved to strike out, \"and direct taxes,\"\nfrom Article 1, Section 2, as improperly placed in a clause relating\nmerely to the Constitution of the House of Representatives.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris. The insertion here was in consequence of what\nhad passed on this point; in order to exclude the appearance of\ncounting the negroes in the _representation_. The including of them\nmay now be referred to the object of direct taxes, and incidentally\nonly to that representation.\n\nOn the motion to strike out, \"and direct taxes,\" from this place,--New\nJersey, Delaware, Maryland, aye--3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts,\nConnecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, no--8. _pp_. 1569-70.\n\nSaturday, September 15, 1787.\n\nArticle 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term \"legally\" was\nstruck out; and the words, \"under the laws thereof,\" inserted after\nthe word \"State,\" in compliance with the wish of some who thought the\nterm _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal\nin a moral view. _p_. 1589.\n\nMr. Gerry stated the objections which determined him to withhold his\nname from the Constitution: 1--2--3--4--5--6, that three fifths of\nthe blacks are to be represented, as if they were freemen. _p_. 1595.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nLIST OF MEMBERS\n\nOF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION WHO FORMED THE CONSTITUTION OF\nTHE UNITED STATES.\n\n\n   From                                                 Attended.\nNew Hampshire,    1 John Langdon,                       July 23, 1787.\n                    _John Pickering,_\n                  2 Nicholas Gilman,                       \" 23.\n                    _Benjamin West_.\nMassachusetts,      _Francis Dana_,\n                    Elbridge Gerry,                      May 29.\n                  3 Nath'l Gorham,                        \"  25.\n                  4 Rufus King,                           \"  25.\n                    Caleb Strong,                         \"  28.\nRhode Island,       (No appointment.)\nConnecticut,      5 W.S. Johnson,                        June 2.\n                  6 Roger Sherman,                       May 30.\n                    Oliver Ellsworth,                     \"  29.\nNew York,           Robert Yates,                         \"  25.\n                  7 Alex'r Hamilton,                      \"  25.\n                    John Lansing,                        June 2.\nNew Jersey,       8 Wm. Livingston,                       \"   5.\n                  9 David Brearly,                       May  5.\n                    Wm. C. Houston,                        do.\n                 10 Wm. Patterson,                         do.\n                    _John Nielson_,\n                    _Abraham Clark_.\n                 11 Jonathan Dayton,                    June 21.\nPennsylvania,    12 Benj. Franklin,                      May 28.\n                 13 Thos. Miffin,                          do.\nPennsylvania.    14 Robert Morris,                       May 25.\n                 15 Gen. Clymer,                          \"  28.\n                 16 Thos. Fitzsimmons,                    \"  25.\n                 17 Jared Ingersoll,                      \"  28.\n                 18 James Wilson,                         \"  25.\n                 19 Gouv'r Morris,                        \"  25.\nDelaware,        20 Geo. Reed,                            \"  25.\n                 21 G. Bedford, Jr.                       \"  28.\n                 22 John Dickinson,                       \"  28.\n                 23 Richard Bassett,                      \"  25.\n                 24 Jacob Broom,                          \"  25.\nMaryland,        25 James M'Henry,                        \"  29.\n                 26 Daniel of St. Tho. Jenifer,          June 2.\n                 27 Daniel Carroll,                      July 9.\n                    John F. Mercer,                      Aug. 6.\n                    Luther Martin,                       June 9.\nVirginia,        28 G. Washington,                       May 25.\n                    _Patrick Henry_, (declined.)\n                    Edmund Randolph,                      \"  25.\n                 29 John Blair,                           \"  25.\n                 30 Jas. Madison, Jr.                     \"  25.\n                    George Mason,                         \"  25.\n                    George Wythe,                         \"  25.\n                    James McClurg, (in\n                      room P. Henry)                      \"  25.\nNorth Carolina,     _Rich'd Caswell_ (resigned).\n                    Alex'r Martin,                       May 25.\n                    Wm. R. Davie,                         \"  25.\n                 31 Wm. Blount (in room\n                      of R. Caswell),                   June 20.\n                    _Willie Jones_ (declined).\n                 32 R. D. Spaight,                       May 25.\n                 33 Hugh Williamson, (in\n                      room of W. Jones,)                 May 25.\nSouth Carolina,  34 John Rutledge,                        \"  25.\n                 35 Chas. C. Pinckney,                    \"  25.\n                 36 Chas. Pinckney,                       \"  25.\n                 37 Peirce Butler,                        \"  25.\nGeorgia,         38 William Few,                          \"  25.\n                 39 Abr'm Baldwin,                       June 11.\n                    William Pierce,                      May 31.\n                    _George Walton_.\n                    Wm. Houston,                         June 1.\n                    _Nath'l Pendleton_.\n\nThose with numbers before their names signed the Constitution. 39\nThose in italics never attended.                               10\nMembers who attended, but did not sign the Constitution,       16\n                                                               --\n                                                               65\n\n\nExtract from a Speech of Luther Martin, (delivered before the\nLegislature of Maryland,) one of the delegates from Maryland to the\nConvention that formed the Constitution of the United States.\n\nWith respect to that part of the _second_ section of the _first_\nArticle, which relates to the apportionment of representation and\ndirect taxation, there were considerable objections made to it,\nbesides the great objection of inequality--It was urged, that no\nprinciple could justify taking _slaves_ into computation in\napportioning the number of _representatives_ a state should have in\nthe government--That it involved the absurdity of increasing the power\nof a state in making laws for _free men_ in proportion as that State\nviolated the rights of freedom--That it might be proper to take\nslaves into consideration, when _taxes_ were to be apportioned,\nbecause it had a tendency to _discourage slavery_; but to take them\ninto account in giving representation tended to _encourage_ the _slave\ntrade_, and to make it the _interest_ of the states to _continue_ that\n_infamous traffic_--That slaves could not be taken into account as\n_men_, or _citizens_, because they were not admitted to the _rights of\ncitizens_, in the states which adopted or continued slavery--If they\nwere to be taken into account as _property_, it was asked, what\npeculiar circumstance should render this property (of all others the\nmost odious in its nature) entitled to the high privilege of\nconferring consequence and power in the government to its possessors,\nrather than _any other_ property: and why _slaves_ should, as\nproperty, be taken into account rather than horses, cattle, mules, or\nany other species; and it was observed by an honorable member from\nMassachusetts, that he considered it as dishonorable and humiliating\nto enter into compact with the _slaves_ of the _southern states_, as\nit would with the _horses_ and _mules_ of the _eastern_.\n\nBy the ninth section of this Article, the importation of such persons\nas any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall\nnot be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on\nsuch importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.\n\nThe design of this clause is to prevent the general government from\nprohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which\ncaused them to strike out the word \"national,\" and not admit the word\n\"stamps,\" influenced them here to guard against the word \"_slaves_.\"\nThey anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which\nmight be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing\nto admit into their system those _things_ which the expression\nsignified; and hence it is that the clause is so worded as really to\nauthorize the general government to impose a duty of ten dollars on\nevery foreigner who comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he\ncomes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a servant; although this\nis contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only meant\nto extend to the importation of slaves.\n\nThis clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the\nConvention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the\nprovision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited,\nwithout confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by\neight States--Georgia, South Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina,\nvoting for it.\n\nWe were then told by the delegates of the two first of those states,\nthat their states would never agree to a system, which put it in the\npower of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves,\nand that they, as delegates from those states, must withhold their\nassent from such a system.\n\nA committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot, to\ntake this part of the system under their consideration, and to\nendeavor to agree upon some report, which should reconcile those\nStates. To this committee also was referred the following proposition,\nwhich had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit: \"No\nnavigation act shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the\nmembers present in each house;\" a proposition which the staple and\ncommercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce\nshould be placed too much under the power of the Eastern States; but\nwhich these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of\nwhich also I had the honor to be a member, met and took under their\nconsideration the subjects committed to them. I found the _eastern_\nStates, notwithstanding their _aversion to slavery_, were very willing\nto indulge the southern States, at least with a temporary liberty to\nprosecute the _slave trade_, provided the southern states would in\ntheir turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on navigation acts;\nand after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority,\nagreed on a report, by which the general government was to be\nprohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited\ntime, and the restricted clause relative to navigation acts was to be\nomitted.\n\nThis report was adopted by a majority of the Convention, but not\nwithout considerable opposition.\n\nIt was said, we had just assumed a place among independent nations in\nconsequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to\n_enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation\nof those, rights to which God and nature had entitled us, not in\n_particular_, but in _common_ with all the rest of mankind; that we\nhad appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of\nfreedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the\n_rights_ which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when\nwe had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his mercy and\nprotection in forming our government over a free people, a government\nformed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its\npreservation,--in that government to have a provision not only\nputting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade,\neven encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States the\npower and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and\nwantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to\nbe considered as a solemn mockery of, and an insult to, that God whose\nprotection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in\ndetestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of\nliberty in the world. It was said, it ought to be considered that\nnational crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this\nworld by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave\ntrade, and thus giving it a national sanction, and encouragement,\nought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and\nvengeance of him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal\neye the poor African slave and his American master!\n\nIt 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 rather to prohibit expressly in our\nConstitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize the\ngeneral government, from time to time, to make such regulations as\nshould be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of\nslavery, and the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the\nStates. That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism\nand has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is\nsupported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and\nhabituates us to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged, that,\nby this system of government, every State is to be protected both from\nforeign invasion and from domestic insurrections; from this\nconsideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have a power\nto restrain the importation of slaves, since, in proportion as the\nnumber of slaves are increased in any State, in the same proportion\nthe State is weakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic\ninsurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself\nagainst either, and therefore will by so the much want aid from, and\nbe a burden to, the Union.\n\nIt was further said, that, as in this system we were giving the\ngeneral government a power, under the idea of national character, or\nnational interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have\nprohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing\ninsolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary, that we\nshould prohibit the government from interfering with the slave trade,\nthan which nothing could so materially affect both our national honor\nand interest.\n\nThese reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention,\nmost decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes\npart of the system.\n\nYou will perceive, sir, not only that the general government is\nprohibited from interfering in the slave-trade before the year\neighteen hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the\nConstitution that it shall afterwards be prohibited, nor any security\nthat such prohibition will ever take place; and I think there is great\nreason to believe, that, if the importation of slaves is permitted\nuntil the year eighteen hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited\nafterwards. At this time, we do not generally hold this commerce in so\ngreat abhorrence as we have done. When our liberties were at stake, we\nwarmly felt for the common rights of men. The danger being thought to\nbe past, which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing more\ninsensible to those rights. In those States which have restrained or\nprohibited the importation of slaves, it is only done by legislative\nacts, which may be repealed. When those States find that they must, in\ntheir national character and connexion, suffer in the disgrace, and\nshare in the inconveniences attendant upon that detestable and\niniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the benefits\narising from it; and the odium attending it will be greatly effaced by\nthe sanction which is given to it in the general government.\n\nBy the next paragraph, the general government is to have a power of\nsuspending the _habeas corpus act_, in cases of _rebellion_ or\n_invasion_.\n\nAs the State governments have a power of suspending the habeas corpus\nact in those cases, it was said, there could be no reason for giving\nsuch a power to the general government; since, whenever the State\nwhich is invaded, or in which an insurrection takes place, finds its\nsafety requires it, it will make use of that power. And it was urged,\nthat if we gave this power to the general government, it would be an\nengine of oppression in its hands; since whenever a State should\noppose its views, however arbitrary and unconstitutional, and refuse\nsubmission to them, the general government may declare it to be an act\nof rebellion, and, suspending the habeas corpus act, may seize upon\nthe persons of those advocates of freedom, who have had virtue and\nresolution enough to excite the opposition, and may imprison them\nduring its pleasure in the remotest part of the Union; so that a\ncitizen of Georgia might be _bastiled_ in the furthest part of New\nHampshire; or a citizen of New Hampshire in the furthest extreme of\nthe South, cut off from their family, their friends, and their every\nconnexion. These considerations induced me, sir, to give my negative\nalso to this clause.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION\nOF THE UNITED STATES' CONSTITUTION.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nMASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION.\n\nThe third paragraph of the 2d section being read,\n\nMr. King rose to explain it. There has, says he, been much\nmisconception of this section. It is a principle of this Constitution,\nthat representation and taxation should go hand in hand. This\nparagraph states, that the numbers of free persons 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 not\ntaxed, three-fifths of all other persons. These persons are the\nslaves. By this rule is representation and taxation to be apportioned.\nAnd it was adopted, because it was the language of all America.\n\nMr. Widgery asked, if a boy of six years of age was to be considered\nas a free person?\n\nMr. King in answer said, all persons born free were to be considered\nas freemen; and to make the idea of _taxation by numbers_ more\nintelligible, said that five negro children of South Carolina, are to\npay as much tax as the three Governors of New Hampshire,\nMassachusetts, and Connecticut.\n\nMr. Gorham thought the proposed section much in favor of Massachusetts;\nand if it operated against any state, it was Pennsylvania, because\nthey have more white persons _bound_ than any other.\n\nJudge Dana, in reply to the remark of some gentlemen, that the\nsouthern States were favored in this mode of apportionment, by having\nfive of their negroes set against three persons in the eastern, the\nhonorable judge observed, that the negroes of the southern States work\nno longer than when the eye of the driver is on them. Can, asked he,\nthat land flourish like this, which is cultivated by the hands of\nfreemen? Are not _three_ of these independent freemen of more real\nadvantage to a State, than _five_ of those poor slaves?\n\nMr. Nasson remarked on the statement of the honorable Mr. King, by\nsaying that the honorable gentleman should have gone further, and\nshown us the other side of the question. It is a good rule that works\nboth ways--and the gentlemen should also have told us, that three of\nour infants in the cradle, are to be rated as high as five of the\nworking negroes of Virginia. Mr. N. adverted to a statement of Mr.\nKing, who had said, that five negro children of South Carolina were\nequally rateable as three governors of New England, and wished, he\nsaid, the honorable gentleman had considered this question upon the\nother side--as it would then appear that this State will pay as great\na tax for three children in the cradle, as any of the southern States\nwill for five hearty working negro men. He hoped, he said, while we\nwere making a new government, we should make it better than the old\none: for if we had made a bad bargain before, as had been hinted, it\nwas a reason why we should make a better one now.\n\nMr. Dawes said, he was sorry to hear so many objections raised against\nthe paragraph under consideration. He thought them wholly unfounded;\nthat the black inhabitants of the southern States must be considered\neither as slaves, and as so much property, or in the character of so\nmany freemen; if the former, why should they not be wholly\nrepresented? Our _own_ State laws and Constitution would lead us to\nconsider those blacks as _freemen_, and so indeed would our own ideas\nof natural justice: if, then, they are freemen, they might form an\nequal basis for representation as though they were all white\ninhabitants. In either view, therefore, he could not see that the\nnorthern States would suffer, but directly to the contrary. He\nthought, however, that gentlemen would do well to connect the passage\nin dispute with another article in the Constitution, that permits\nCongress, in the year 1808, wholly to prohibit the importation of\nslaves, and in the mean time to impose a duty of ten dollars a head on\nsuch blacks as should be imported before that period. Besides, by the\nnew Constitution, every particular State is left to its own option\ntotally to prohibit the introduction of slaves into its own\nterritories. What could the convention do more?  The members of the\nsouthern States, like ourselves, have _their_ prejudices. It would\nnot do to abolish slavery, by an act of Congress, in a moment, and so\ndestroy what our southern brethren consider as property. But we may\nsay, that although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet it has\nreceived a mortal wound and will die of a consumption.\n\nMr. Neal (from Kittery,) went over the ground of objection to this\nsection on the idea that the slave trade was allowed to be continued\nfor 20 years. His profession, he said, obliged him to bear witness\nagainst any thing that should favor the making merchandise of the\nbodies of men, and unless his objection was removed, he could not put\nhis hand to the Constitution. Other gentlemen said, in addition to\nthis idea, that there was not even a proposition that the negroes ever\nshall be free, and Gen. Thompson exclaimed:\n\nMr. President, shall it be said, that after we have established our\nown independence and freedom, we make slaves of others?  Oh!\nWashington, what a name has he had!  How he has immortalized himself!\nbut he holds those in slavery who have a good right to be free as he\nhas--he is still for self; and, in my opinion, his character has sunk\n50 per cent.\n\nOn the other side, gentlemen said, that the step taken in this\narticle, towards the abolition of slavery, was one of the beauties of\nthe Constitution. They observed, that in the confederation there was\nno provision whatever for its ever being abolished; but this\nConstitution provides, that Congress may, after 20 years, totally\nannihilate the slave trade; and that, as all the States, except two,\nhave passed laws to this effect, it might reasonably be expected, that\nit would then be done. In the interim, all the States were at liberty\nto prohibit it.\n\nSaturday, January 26.--[The debate on the 9th section still continued\ndesultory--and consisted of similar objections, and answers thereto,\nas had before been used. Both sides deprecated the slave trade in the\nmost pointed terms; on one side it was pathetically lamented, by Mr.\nNason, Major Lusk, Mr. Neal, and others, that this Constitution\nprovided for the continuation of the slave trade for 20 years. On the\nother, the honorable Judge Dana, Mr. Adams and others, rejoiced that a\ndoor was now to be opened for the annihilation of this odious,\nabhorrent practice, in a certain time.]\n\nGen. Heath. Mr. President,--By my indisposition and absence, I have\nlost several important opportunities: I have lost the opportunity of\nexpressing my sentiments with a candid freedom, on some of the\nparagraphs of the system, which have lain heavy on my mind. I have\nlost the opportunity of expressing my warm approbation on some of the\nparagraphs. I have lost the opportunity of hearing those judicious,\nenlightening and convincing arguments, which have been advanced during\nthe investigation of the system. This is my misfortune, and I must\nbear it. The paragraph respecting the migration or importation of such\npersons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,\n&c., is one of those considered during my absence, and I have heard\nnothing on the subject, save what has been mentioned this morning; but\nI think the gentlemen who have spoken, have carried the matter rather\ntoo far on both sides. I apprehend that it is not in our power to do\nany thing for or against those who are in slavery in the southern\nStates. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of slavery\nmore than I do: it is generally detested by the people of this\nCommonwealth; and I ardently hope that the time will soon come, when\nour brethren in the southern States will view it as we do, and put a\nstop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions\nnaturally arise: if we ratify the Constitution, shall we do any thing\nby our act to hold the blacks in slavery--or shall we become the\npartakers of other men's sins? I think neither of them. Each State is\nsovereign and independent to a certain degree, and they have a right,\nand will regulate their own internal affairs, as to themselves appears\nproper; and shall we refuse to eat, or to drink, or to be united, with\nthose who do not think, or act, just as we do? surely not. We are not\nin this case partakers of other men's sins, for in nothing do we\nvoluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellow-men; a restriction is\nlaid on the Federal Government, which could not be avoided, and a\nunion take place. The federal Convention went as far as they could;\nthe migration or importation, &c., is confined to the States, now\n_existing only_, new States cannot claim it. Congress, by their\nordinance for erecting new States, some time since, declared that the\nnew States shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery in\nthem. But whether those in slavery in the southern States will be\nemancipated after the year 1808, I do not pretend to determine: I\nrather doubt it.\n\nMr. Neal rose and said, that as the Constitution at large, was now\nunder consideration, he would just remark, that the article which\nrespected the Africans, was the one which laid on his mind--and,\nunless his objections to that were removed, it must, how much soever\nhe liked the other parts of the Constitution, be a sufficient reason\nfor him to give his negative to it.\n\nMajor Lusk concurred in the idea already thrown out in the debate,\nthat although the insertion of the amendments in the Constitution was\ndevoutly wished, yet he did not see any reason to suppose they ever\nwould be adopted. Turning from the subject of amendments, the Major\nentered largely into the consideration of the 9th section, and in the\nmost pathetic and feeling manner, described the miseries of the poor\nnatives of Africa, who are kidnapped and sold for slaves. With the\nbrightest colors he painted their happiness and ease on their native\nshores, and contrasted them with their wretched, miserable and unhappy\ncondition, in a state of slavery.\n\nRev. Mr. Buckus. Much, sir, has been said about the importation of\nslaves into this country. I believe that, according to my capacity, no\nman abhors that wicked practice more than I do, and would gladly make\nuse of all lawful means towards the abolishing of slavery in all parts\nof the land. But let us consider where we are, and what we are doing.\nIn the articles of confederation, no provision was made to hinder the\nimportation of slaves into any of these States: but a door is now\nopened hereafter to do it; and each State is at liberty now to abolish\nslavery as soon as they please. And let us remember our former\nconnexion with Great Britain, from whom many in our land think we\nought not to have revolted. How did they carry on the slave trade! I\nknow that the Bishop of Gloucester, in an annual sermon in London, in\nFebruary, 1766, endeavored to justify their tyrannical claims of power\nover us, by casting the reproach of the slave trade upon the\nAmericans. But at the close of the war, the Bishop of Chester, in an\nannual sermon, in February, 1783, ingenuously owned, that their nation\nis the most deeply involved in the guilt of that trade, of any nation\nin the world; and also, that they have treated their slaves in the\nWest Indies worse than the French or Spaniards have done theirs. Thus\nslavery grows more and more odious through the world; and, as an\nhonorable gentleman said some days ago, \"Though we cannot say that\nslavery is struck with an apoplexy, yet we may hope it will die with a\nconsumption.\" And a main source, sir, of that iniquity, hath been an\nabuse of the covenant of circumcision, which gave the seed of Abraham\nto destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, and to take their houses,\nvineyards, and all their estates, as their own; and also to buy and\nhold others as servants. And as Christian privileges are greater than\nthose of the Hebrews were, many have imagined that they had a right to\nseize upon the lands of the heathen, and to destroy or enslave them as\nfar as they could extend their power. And from thence the mystery of\niniquity, carried many into the practice of making merchandise of\nslaves and souls of men. But all ought to remember, that when God\npromised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, he let him know\nthat they were not to take possession of that land, until the iniquity\nof the Amorites was full; and then they did it under the immediate\ndirection of Heaven; and they were as real executors of the judgment\nof God upon those heathens, as any person ever was an executor of a\ncriminal justly condemned. And in doing it they were not allowed to\ninvade the lands of the Edomites, who sprang from Esau, who was not\nonly of the seed of Abraham, but was born at the same birth with\nIsrael; and yet they were not of that church. Neither were Israel\nallowed to invade the lands of the Moabites, or of the children of\nAmmon, who were of the seed of Lot. And no officer in Israel had any\nlegislative power, but such as were immediately inspired. Even David,\nthe man after God's own heart, had no legislative power, but only as\nhe was inspired from above: and he is expressly called a _prophet_ in\nthe New Testament. And we are to remember that Abraham and his seed,\nfor four hundred years, had no warrant to admit any strangers into\nthat church, but by buying of him as a servant, with money. And it was\na great privilege to be bought, and adopted into a religious family\nfor seven years, and then to have their freedom. And that covenant was\nexpressly repealed in various parts of the New Testament; and\nparticularly in the first epistle to the Corinthians, wherein it is\nsaid--Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body,\nand in your spirit, which are God's. And again--Circumcision is\nnothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping of the\ncommandments of God. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the\nservants of men. Thus the gospel sets all men upon a level, very\ncontrary to the declaration of an honorable gentleman in this house,\n\"that the Bible was contrived for the advantage of a particular order\nof men.\"\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nNEW YORK CONVENTION.\n\nMr. Smith. He would now proceed to state his objections to the clause\njust read, (section 2, of article 1, clause 3.) His objections were\ncomprised under three heads: 1st, the rule of apportionment is unjust;\n2d, there is no precise number fixed on, below which the house shall\nnot be reduced; 3d, it is inadequate. In the first place, the rule of\napportionment of the representatives is to be according to the whole\nnumber of the white inhabitants, with three-fifths of all others; that\nis, in plain English, each State is to send representatives in\nproportion to the number of freemen, and three-fifths of the slaves it\ncontains. He could not see any rule by which slaves were to be\nincluded in the ratio of representation;--the principle of a\nrepresentation being that every free agent should be concerned in\ngoverning himself, it was absurd to give that power to a man who could\nnot exercise it--slaves have no will of their own: the very operation\nof it was to give certain privileges to those people, who were so\nwicked as to keep slaves. He knew it would be admitted, that this rule\nof apportionment was founded on unjust principles, but that it was the\nresult of accommodation; which, he supposed, we should be under the\nnecessity of admitting, if we meant to be in union with the southern\nStates, though utterly repugnant to his feelings.\n\nMr. Hamilton. In order that the committee may understand clearly the\nprinciples on which the General Convention acted, I think it necessary\nto explain some preliminary circumstances.\n\nSir, the natural situation of this country seems to divide its\ninterests into different classes. There are navigating and\nnon-navigating States--the Northern are properly the navigating\nStates: the Southern appear to possess neither the means; nor the\nspirit of navigation. This difference of situation naturally produces\na dissimilarity of interest and views respecting foreign commerce. It\nwas the interest of the Northern States that there should be no\nrestraints on their navigation, and that they should leave full power,\nby a majority in Congress, to make commercial regulations in favor of\ntheir own, and in restraint of the navigation of foreigners. The\nSouthern States wished to impose a restraint on the Northern, by\nrequiring that two-thirds in Congress should be requisite to pass an\nact in regulation of commerce: they were apprehensive that the\nrestraints of a navigation law would discourage foreigners, and by\nobliging them to employ the shipping of the Northern States would\nprobably enhance their freight. This being the case, they insisted\nstrenuously on having this provision engrafted in the constitution;\nand the Northern States were as anxious in opposing it. On the other\nhand, the small States seeing themselves embraced by the confederation\nupon equal terms, wished to retain the advantages which they already\npossessed: the large States, on the contrary, thought it improper that\nRhode Island and Delaware should enjoy an equal suffrage with\nthemselves: from these sources a delicate and difficult contest arose.\nIt became necessary, therefore, to compromise; or the Convention must\nhave dissolved without effecting any thing. Would it have been wise\nand prudent in that body, in this critical situation, to have deserted\ntheir country? No. Every man who hears me--every wise man in the\nUnited States, would have condemned them. The Convention were obliged\nto appoint a committee for accommodation. In this committee the\narrangement was formed as it now stands; and their report was\naccepted. It was a delicate point; and it was necessary that all\nparties should be indulged. Gentlemen will see, that if there had not\nbeen a unanimity, nothing could have been done: for the Convention had\nno power to establish, but only to recommend a government. Any other\nsystem would have been impracticable. Let a Convention be called\nto-morrow--let them meet twenty times; nay, twenty thousand times;\nthey will have the same difficulties to encounter; the same clashing\ninterests to reconcile.\n\nBut dismissing these reflections, let us consider how far the\narrangement is in itself entitled to the approbation of this body. We\nwill examine it upon its own merits.\n\nThe first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a\nrepresentation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said of\nthe impropriety of representing men, who have no will of their own.\nWhether this be reasoning or declamation, I will not presume to say.\nIt is the unfortunate situation of the southern states, to have a\ngreat part of their population, as well as property, in blacks. The\nregulations complained of was one result of the spirit of\naccommodation, which governed the convention; and without this\nindulgence, no union could possibly have been formed. But, sir,\nconsidering some peculiar advantages which we derived from them, it is\nentirely just that they should be gratified. The southern states\npossess certain staples, tobacco, rice, indigo, &c., which must be\ncapital objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations; and the\nadvantage which they necessarily procure in these treaties will be\nfelt throughout all the states. But the justice of this plan will\nappear in another view. The best writers on government have held that\nrepresentation should be compounded of persons and property. This rule\nhas been adopted, as far as it could be, in the Constitution of\nNew-York. It will, however, by no means, be admitted, that the slaves\nare considered altogether as property. They are men, though degraded\nto the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal\nlaws of the states which they inhabit as well as to the laws of\nnature. But representation and taxation go together--and one uniform\nrule ought to apply to both. Would it be just to compute these slaves\nin the assessment of taxes, and discard them from the estimate in the\napportionment of representatives? Would it be just to impose a\nsingular burthen, without conferring some adequate advantage?\n\nAnother circumstance ought to be considered. The rule we have been\nspeaking of is a general rule, and applies to all the states. Now, you\nhave a great number of people in your state, which are not represented\nat all; and have no voice in your government; these will be included\nin the enumeration--not two-fifths--nor three-fifths, but the whole.\nThis proves that the advantages of the plan are not confined to the\nsouthern states, but extend to other parts of the Union.\n\nMr. M. Smith. I shall make no reply to the arguments offered by the\nhon. gentleman to justify the rule of apportionment fixed by this\nclause: for though I am confident they might be easily refuted, yet I\nam persuaded we must yield this point, in accommodation to the\nsouthern states. The amendment therefore proposes no alteration to\nthe clause in this respect.\n\nMr. Harrison. Among the objections, that, which has been made to the\nmode of apportionment of representatives, has been relinquished. I\nthink this concession does honor to the gentleman who had stated the\nobjection. He has candidly acknowledged, that this apportionment was\nthe result of accommodation; without which no union could have been\nformed.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nPENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION.\n\nMr. Wilson. Much fault has been found with the mode of expression,\nused in the first clause of the ninth section of the first article. I\nbelieve I can assign a reason, why that mode of expression was used,\nand why the term slave was not admitted in this constitution--and as\nto the manner of laying taxes, this is not the first time that the\nsubject has come into the view of the United States, and of the\nlegislatures of the several states. The gentleman, (Mr. Findley) will\nrecollect, that in the present congress, the quota of the federal\ndebt, and general expenses, was to be in proportion to the value of\nland, and other enumerated property, within the states. After trying\nthis for a number of years, it was found on all hands, to be a mode\nthat could not be carried into execution. Congress were satisfied of\nthis, and in the year 1783 recommended, in conformity with the powers\nthey possessed under the articles of confederation, that the quota\nshould be according to the number of free people, including those\nbound to servitude, and excluding Indians not taxed. These were the\nexpressions used in 1783, and the fate of this recommendation was\nsimilar to all their other resolutions. It was not carried into\neffect, but it was adopted by no fewer than eleven, out of thirteen\nstates; and it cannot but be matter of surprise, to hear gentlemen,\nwho agreed to this very mode of expression at that time, come forward\nand state it as an objection on the present occasion. It was natural,\nsir, for the late convention, to adopt the mode after it had been\nagreed to by eleven states, and to use the expression, which they\nfound had been received as unexceptional before. With respect to the\nclause, restricting congress from prohibiting the migration or\nimportation of such persons, as any of the states now existing, shall\nthink proper to admit, prior to the year 1808. The honorable gentleman\nsays, that this cause is not only dark, but intended to grant to\ncongress, for that time, the power to admit the importation of slaves.\nNo such thing was intended; but I will tell you what was done, and it\ngives me high pleasure, that so much was done. Under the present\nconfederation, the states may admit the importation of slaves as long\nas they please; but by this article, after the year 1808 the congress\nwill have power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the\ndisposition of any state to the contrary. I consider this as laying\nthe foundation for banishing slavery out of this country; and though\nthe period is more distant than I could wish, yet it will produce the\nsame kind, gradual change, which was pursued in Pennsylvania. It is\nwith much satisfaction I view this power in the general government,\nwhereby they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade; but an\nimmediate advantage is also obtained, for a tax or duty may be imposed\non such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person; and\nthis, sir, operates as a partial prohibition; it was all that could be\nobtained, I am sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is\nreason to hope, that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited\naltogether; and in the mean time, the new states which are to be\nformed, will be under the control of congress in this particular; and\nslaves will never be introduced amongst them. The gentleman says, that\nit is unfortunate in another point of view; it means to prohibit the\nintroduction of white people from Europe, as this tax may deter them\nfrom coming amongst us; a little impartiality and attention will\ndiscover the care that the convention took in selecting their\nlanguage. The words are the _migration_ or IMPORTATION of such\npersons, &c., shall not be prohibited by congress prior to the year\n1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation; it is\nobservable here, that the term migration is dropped, when a tax or\nduty is mentioned, so that congress have power to impose the tax only\non those imported.\n\nI recollect, on a former day, the honorable gentleman from\nWestmoreland (Mr. Findley) and the honorable gentleman from Cumberland\n(Mr. Whitehill,) took exception against the first clause of the 9th\nsection, art. 1, arguing very unfairly, that because congress might\nimpose a tax or duty of ten dollars on the importation of slaves,\nwithin any of the United States, congress might therefore permit\nslaves to be imported within this state, contrary to its laws. I\nconfess I little thought that this part of the system would be\nexcepted to.\n\nI am sorry that it could be extended no further; but so far as it\noperates, it presents us with the pleasing prospect, that the rights\nof mankind will be acknowledged and established throughout the union.\n\nIf there was no other lovely feature in the constitution but this one,\nit would diffuse a beauty over its whole countenance. Yet the lapse of\na few years! and congress will have power to exterminate slavery from\nwithin our borders.\n\nHow would such a delightful prospect expand the breast of a benevolent\nand philanthropic European? Would he cavil at an expression? catch at\na phrase? No, sir, that is only reserved for the gentleman on the\nother side of your chair to do.\n\nMr. McKean. The arguments against the constitution are, I think,\nchiefly these: ...\n\nThat migration or importation of such persons, as any of the states\nshall admit, shall not be prohibited prior to 1808, nor a tax or duty\nimposed on such importation exceeding ten dollars for each person.\n\nProvision is made that congress shall have power to prohibit the\nimportation of slaves after the year 1808, but the gentlemen in\nopposition, accuse this system of a crime, because it has not\nprohibited them at once. I suspect those gentlemen are not well\nacquainted with the business of the diplomatic body, or they would\nknow that an agreement might be made, that did not perfectly accord\nwith the will and pleasure of any one person. Instead of finding fault\nwith what has been gained, I am happy to see a disposition in the\nUnited States to do so much.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nVIRGINIA CONVENTION.\n\n\nGov Randolph said, we are told in strong language, of dangers to which\nwe will be exposed unless we adopt this Constitution. Among the rest,\ndomestic safety is said to be in danger. This government does not\nattend to our domestic safety. It authorizes the importation of slaves\nfor twenty-odd years, and thus continues upon us that nefarious trade.\nInstead of securing and protecting us, the continuation of this\ndetestable trade adds daily to our weakness. Though this evil is\nincreasing, there is no clause in the Constitution that will prevent\nthe northern and eastern States from meddling with our whole property\nof that kind. There is a clause to prohibit the importation of slaves\nafter twenty years, but there is no provision made for securing to the\nsouthern States those they now possess. It is far from being a\ndesirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and\ninfelicity to be now deprived of them. There ought to be a clause in\nthe Constitution to secure us that property, which we have acquired\nunder our former laws, and the loss of which would bring ruin on a\ngreat many people.\n\nMr. Lee. The honorable gentleman abominates it, because it does not\nprohibit the importation of slaves, and because it does not secure the\ncontinuance of the existing slavery! Is it not obviously inconsistent\nto criminate it for two contradictory reasons? I submit it to the\nconsideration of the gentleman, whether, if it be reprehensible in the\none case, it can be censurable in the other? Mr. Lee then concluded by\nearnestly recommending to the committee to proceed regularly.\n\nMr. Henry. It says, that \"no state shall engage in war, unless\nactually invaded.\" If you give this clause a fair construction, what\nis the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic\ninsurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to\nwar; but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an\ninsurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be\ninvaded.--They cannot therefore suppress it, without the interposition\nof congress.\n\nMr. George Nicholas said, another worthy member says, there is no\npower in the States to quell an insurrection of slaves. Have they it\nnow? If they have, does the Constitution take it away? If it does, it\nmust be in one of the three clauses which have been mentioned by the\nworthy member. The first clause gives the general government power to\ncall them out when necessary. Does this take it away from the States?\nNo. But it gives an additional security: for, besides the power in the\nState governments to use their own militia, it will be the duty of the\ngeneral government to aid them with the strength of the Union when\ncalled for. No part of the Constitution can show that this power is\ntaken away.\n\nMr. George Mason. Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has\ncreated more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the\nimportation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government,\nthis evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts\nwere made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants\nprevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place,\nthan it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our\nseparation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal\nobject of this State, and most of the States in the Union. The\naugmentation of slaves weakens the States; and such a trade is\ndiabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind. Yet, by this\nConstitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value an\nunion of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into\nthe Union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this\ndisgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to\nthe Union. And though this infamous traffic be continued, we have no\nsecurity for the property of that kind which we have already. There is\nno clause in this Constitution to secure it; for they may lay such tax\nas will amount to manumission. And should the government be amended,\nstill this detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till\nafter the expiration of twenty years. For the fifth article, which\nprovides for amendments, expressly excepts this clause. I have ever\nlooked upon this as a most disgraceful thing to America. I cannot\nexpress my detestation of it. Yet they have not secured us the\nproperty of the slaves we have already. So that, \"they have done what\nthey ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to\nhave done.\"\n\nMr. Madison. Mr. Chairman, I should conceive this clause to be\nimpolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded\nwithout encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not have\nentered into the Union of America, without the temporary permission of\nthat trade. And if they were excluded from the Union, the consequences\nmight be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation\nthan before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we may\ncontinue the prohibition. The Union in general is not in a worse\nsituation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued\nforever: but by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty\nyears. There is, therefore, an amelioration of our circumstances. A\ntax may be laid in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise\nCongress might lay such a tax as would amount to a prohibition. From\nthe mode of representation and taxation, Congress cannot lay such a\ntax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another clause secures us\nthat property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to\nany of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by\ntheir laws. For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another\nin this respect. But in this Constitution, \"no person held to service,\nor labor, in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,\nshall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged\nfrom such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the\nparty to whom such service or labor may be due.\"  This clause was\nexpressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is\na better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the\ngeneral government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves\nnow held by the States. The taxation of this State being equal only to\nits representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They\ncannot prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years; but after\nthat period, they can. The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia\nargued in this manner: \"We have now liberty to import this species of\nproperty, and much of the property now possessed, has been purchased,\nor otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the\nassistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of\nhindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and\nwe would be obliged to go to your markets.\" I need not expatiate on\nthis subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the Union would\nbe worse. If those States should disunite from the other States, for\nnot including them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they\nmight solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers.\n\nMr. Tyler warmly enlarged on the impolicy, iniquity, and\ndisgracefulness of this wicked traffic. He thought the reasons urged\nby gentlemen in defence of it were inconclusive, and ill founded. It\nwas one cause of the complaints against British tyranny, that this\ntrade was permitted. The Revolution had put a period to it; but now it\nwas to be revived. He thought nothing could justify it. This temporary\nrestriction on Congress militated, in his opinion, against the\narguments of gentlemen on the other side, that what was not given up,\nwas retained by the States; for that if this restriction had not been\ninserted, Congress could have prohibited the African trade. The power\nof prohibiting it was not expressly delegated to them; yet they would\nhave had it by implication, if this restraint had not been provided.\nThis seemed to him to demonstrate most clearly the necessity of\nrestraining them by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable\nrights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or\nincluded in the Constitution. But he contended for it one way or the\nother. It would be justified by our own example, and that of England.\nHis earnest desire was, that it should be handed down to posterity,\nthat he had opposed this wicked clause.\n\nMr. Madison. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration,\nit was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to\ncongress, namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.\n\nMr. Henry insisted, that the insertion of these restrictions on\nCongress, was a plain demonstration that Congress could exercise\npowers by implication. The gentleman had admitted that Congress could\nhave interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction.\nIf so, the power not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained\nby implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of\nreserved rights? He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from\nassuming any powers but those expressly given. He asked why it was\nmoited to secure us that property in slaves, which we held now? He\nfeared its omission was done with design. They might lay such heavy\ntaxes on slaves, as would amount to emancipation; and then the\nSouthern States would be the only sufferers. His opinion was confirmed\nby the mode of levying money. Congress, he observed, had power to lay\nand collect taxes, imposts, and excises. Imposts (or duties) and\nexcises, were to be uniform. But this uniformity did not extend to\ntaxes. This might compel the Southern States to liberate their\nnegroes. He wished this property therefore to be guarded. He\nconsidered the clause which had been adduced by the gentleman as a\nsecurity for this property, as no security at all. It was no more than\nthis--that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New-York.\nThis could not prevent Congress from interfering with that property by\nlaying a grievous and enormous tax on it, so as to compel owners to\nemancipate their slaves rather than pay the tax. He apprehended it\nwould be productive of much stock-jobbing, and that they would play\ninto one another's hands in such a manner as that this property would\nbe lost to the country.\n\nMr. George Nicholas wondered that gentlemen who were against slavery,\nwould be opposed to this clause; as after that period the slave trade\nwould be done away. He asked, if gentlemen did not see the\ninconsistency of their arguments? They object, says he, to the\nConstitution, because the slave trade is laid open for twenty-odd\nyears; and yet tell you, that by some latent operation of it, the\nslaves who are so now, will be manumitted. At the same moment, it is\nopposed for being promotive and destructive of slavery. He contended\nthat it was advantageous to Virginia, that it should be in the power\nof Congress to prevent the importation of slaves after twenty years,\nas it would then put a period to the evil complained of.\n\nAs the Southern States would not confederate without this clause, he\nasked, if gentlemen would rather dissolve the confederacy than to\nsuffer this temporary inconvenience, admitting it to be such? Virginia\nmight continue the prohibition of such importation during the\nintermediate period, and would be benefitted by it, as a tax of ten\ndollars on each slave might be laid, of which she would receive a\nshare. He endeavored to obviate the objection of gentlemen, that the\nrestriction on Congress was a proof that they would have power not\ngiven them, by remarking, that they would only have had a general\nsuperintendency of trade, if the restriction had not been inserted.\nBut the Southern States insisted on this exception to that general\nsuperintendency for twenty years. It could not therefore have been a\npower by implication, as the restriction was an exception from a\ndelegated power. The taxes could not, as had been suggested, be laid\nso high on negroes as to amount to emancipation; because taxation and\nrepresentation were fixed according to the census established in the\nConstitution. The exception of taxes, from the uniformity annexed to\nduties and excises, could not have the operation contended for by the\ngentleman; because other clauses had clearly and positively fixed the\ncensus. Had taxes been uniform, it would have been universally\nobjected to, for no one object could be selected without involving\ngreat inconveniences and oppressions. But, says Mr. Nicholas, is it\nfrom the general government we are to fear emancipation? Gentlemen\nwill recollect what I said in another house, and what other gentlemen\nhave said that advocated emancipation. Give me leave to say, that that\nclause is a great security for our slave tax. I can tell the\ncommittee, that the people of our country are reduced to beggary by\nthe taxes on negroes. Had this Constitution been adopted, it would not\nhave been the case. The taxes were laid on all our negroes. By this\nsystem two-fifths are exempted. He then added, that he imagined\ngentlemen would not support here what they had opposed in another\nplace.\n\nMr. Henry replied, that though the proportion of each was to be fixed\nby the census, and three-fifths of the slaves only were included in\nthe enumeration, yet the proportion of Virginia being once fixed,\nmight be laid on blacks and blacks only. For the mode of raising the\nproportion of each State being to be directed by Congress, they might\nmake slaves the sole object to raise it. Personalities he wished to\ntake leave of: they had nothing to do with the question, which was\nsolely whether that paper was wrong or not.\n\nMr. Nicholas replied, that negroes must he considered as persons, or\nproperty. If as property, the proportion of taxes to be laid on them\nwas fixed in the Constitution. If he apprehended a poll tax on\nnegroes, the Constitution had prevented it. For, by the census, where\na white man paid ten shillings, a negro paid but six shillings. For\nthe exemption of two-fifths of them reduced it to that proportion.\n\nThe second, third, and fourth clauses, were then read as follows:\n\n\nThe privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,\nunless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may\nrequire it.\n\nNo bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.\n\nNo capitation or other direct tax shall be paid, unless in proportion\nto the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.\n\n\nMr. George Mason said, that gentlemen might think themselves secured\nby the restriction in the fourth clause, capitation or other direct\ntax should he laid but in proportion to the census before directed to\nbe taken. But that when maturely considered it would be found to be no\nsecurity whatsoever. It was nothing but a direct assertion, or mere\nconfirmation of the clause which fixed the ratio of taxes and\nrepresentation. It only meant that the quantum to be raised of each\nState should be in proportion to their numbers in the manner therein\ndirected. But the general government was not precluded from laying the\nproportion of any particular State on any one species of property they\nmight think proper. For instance, if five hundred thousand dollars\nwere to be raised, they might lay the whole of the proportion of\nSouthern States on the blacks, or any one species of property: so that\nby laying taxes too heavily on slaves, they might totally annihilate\nthat kind of property. No real security could arise from the clause\nwhich provides, that persons held to labor in one State, escaping into\nanother, shall be delivered up. This only meant, that runaway slaves\nshould not be protected in other States. As to the exclusion of _ex\npost facto_ laws, it could not be said to create any security in this\ncase. For laying a tax on slaves would not be _ex post facto_.\n\nMr. Madison replied, that even the Southern States, who were most\naffected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision, and dreaded no\ndanger to the property they now hold. It appeared to him, that the\ngeneral government would not intermeddle with that property for twenty\nyears, but to lay a tax on every slave imported, not exceeding ten\ndollars; and that after the expiration of that period they might\nprohibit the traffic altogether. The census in the constitution was\nintended to introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the\ncommunity. No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and\nexcises, uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive to the\nprinciples of equality: for that it was not possible to select any\narticle which would be easy for one State, but what would be heavy for\nanother. That the proportion of each State being ascertained, it would\nbe raised by the general government in the most convenient manner for\nthe people, and not by the selection of any one particular object.\nThat there must be some decree of confidence put in agents, or else we\nmust reject a state of civil society altogether. Another great\nsecurity to this property, which he mentioned, was, that five States\nwere greatly interested in that species of property, and there were\nother States which had some slaves, and had made no attempt, or taken\nany step to take them from the people. There were a few slaves in New\nYork, New Jersey and Connecticut: these States could, probably, oppose\nany attempts to annihilate this species of property. He concluded, by\nobserving, that he would be glad to leave the decision of this to the\ncommittee.\n\nThe second section was then read as follows:\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nNo person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws\nthereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or\nregulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but\nshall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or\nlabor may be due.\n\n\nMr. George Mason.--Mr. Chairman, on some former part of the\ninvestigation of this subject, gentlemen were pleased to make some\nobservations on the security of property coming within this section.\nIt was then said, and I now say, that there is no security, nor have\ngentlemen convinced me of this.\n\nMr. Henry. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume,\nthey may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves\nif they please. And this must and will be done by men, a majority of\nwhom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have\nno feeling for your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that\nthe great object of a national government, was national defence. That\npower which is said to be intended for security and safety, may be\nrendered detestable and oppressive. If you give power to the general\ngovernment to provide for the general defence, the means must be\ncommensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people\nmust be given to the government which is entrusted with the public\ndefence. In this State there are 236,000 blacks, and there are many in\nseveral other States. But there are few or none in the Northern\nStates, and yet if the Northern States shall be of opinion, that our\nnumbers are numberless, they may call forth every national resource.\nMay Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see\na little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed, as to make\nemancipation general. But acts of assembly passed, that every slave\nwho would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute\nto bring this event about--slavery is detested--we feel its fatal\neffects--we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these\nconsiderations, at some future period, press with full force on the\nminds of Congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish\nAmerica, and the necessity of national defence, let all these things\noperate on their minds, they will search that paper, and see if they\nhave power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power\nto provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think\nthat these call for the abolition of slavery? May not they pronounce\nall slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?  There\nis no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to\nthe point. They have the power in clear, unequivocal terms; and will\nclearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I\nsee that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general\ngovernment ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the\nStates have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those\nwhose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority\nof Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South. In this\nsituation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of\nVirginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone away. I\nrepeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul, that every one of\nmy fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to\nadmire that decree of Heaven, which has numbered us among the free, we\nought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow-men in\nbondage. But is it practicable by any human means, to liberate them,\nwithout producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought\nto possess them in the manner we have inherited them from our\nancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of\nthe country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of\ntheir unhappy fate. I know that in a variety of particular instances,\nthe legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their\nemancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add, that\nthis, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in\njeopardy, and put in the hands of those who have no similarity of\nsituation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety\nin subjecting it to Congress.\n\nHave we not a right to say, _hear our propositions_? Why, sir, your\nslaves have a right to make their humble requests.--Those who are in\nthe meanest occupations of human life, have a right to complain.\n\nGov. Randolph said, that honorable gentleman, and some others, have\ninsisted that the abolition of slavery will result from it, and at the\nsame time have complained, that it encourages its continuation. The\ninconsistency proves in some degree, the futility of their arguments.\nBut if it be not conclusive, to satisfy the committee that there is no\ndanger of enfranchisement taking place, I beg leave to refer them to\nthe paper itself. I hope that there is none here, who, considering the\nsubject in the calm light of philosophy, will advance an objection\ndishonorable to Virginia; that at the moment they are securing the\nrights of their citizens, an objection is started that there is a\nspark of hope, that those unfortunate men now held in bondage, may, by\nthe operation of the general government, be made _free_. But if any\ngentleman be terrified by this apprehension, let him read the system.\nI ask, and I will ask again and again, till I be answered (not by\ndeclamation) where is the part that has a tendency to the abolition of\nslavery? Is it the clause which says, that \"the migration or\nimportation of such persons as any of the States now existing, shall\nthink proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to\nthe year 1808?\" This is an exception from the power of regulating\ncommerce, and the restriction is only to continue till 1808. Then\nCongress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future\nimportations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery? Were\nit right here to mention what passed in convention on the occasion, I\nmight tell you that the Southern States, even South Carolina herself,\nconceived this property to be secure by these words. I believe,\nwhatever we may think here, that there was not a member of the\nVirginia delegation who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of\nslavery. Go to their meaning. Point out the clause where this\nformidable power of emancipation is inserted. But another clause of\nthe Constitution proves the absurdity of the supposition. The words of\nthe clause are, \"No person held to service or labor in our 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.\"  Every one knows that slaves are held to\nservice and labor. And when authority is given to owners of slaves to\nvindicate their property, can it be supposed they can be deprived of\nit? If a citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can\ntake his runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought, that\nafter taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?\n\nI observed that the honorable gentleman's proposition comes in a truly\nquestionable shape, and is still more extraordinary and unaccountable\nfor another consideration; that although we went article by article\nthrough the Constitution, and although we did not expect a general\nreview of the subject, (as a most comprehensive view had been taken of\nit before it was regularly debated,) yet we are carried back to the\nclause giving that dreadful power, for the general welfare. Pardon me\nif I remind you of the true state of that business. I appeal to the\ncandor of the honorable gentleman, and if he thinks it an improper\nappeal, I ask the gentlemen here, whether there be a general\nindefinite power of providing for the general welfare? The power is,\n\"to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the\ndebts and provide for the common defence and general welfare.\" So that\nthey can only raise money by these means, in order to provide for the\ngeneral welfare. No man who reads it can say it is general as the\nhonorable gentleman represents it. You must violate every rule of\nconstruction and common sense, if you sever it from the power of\nraising money and annex it to any thing else, in order to make it that\nformidable power which it is represented to be.\n\nMr. George Mason. Mr. Chairman, with respect to commerce and\nnavigation, he has given it as his opinion, that their regulation, as\nit now stands, was a _sine qua non_ of the Union, and that without it,\nthe States in convention would never concur. I differ from him. It\nnever was, nor in my opinion ever will be, a _sine qua non_ of the\nUnion. I will give you, to the best of my recollection, the history of\nthat affair. This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four\nmonths, during which time the subject of commerce and navigation was\noften under consideration; and I assert, that eight States out of\ntwelve, for more than three months, voted for requiring two-thirds of\nthe members present in each house to pass commercial and navigation\nlaws. True it is, that afterwards it was carried by a majority, as it\nstands. If I am right, there was a great majority for requiring\ntwo-thirds of the States in this business, till a compromise took\nplace between the Northern and Southern States; the Northern States\nagreeing to the temporary importation of slaves, and the Southern\nStates conceding, in return, that navigation and commercial laws\nshould be on the footing on which they now stand. If I am mistaken,\nlet me be put right. These are my reasons for saying that this was\nnot a _sine qua non_ of their concurrence. The Newfoundland fisheries\nwill require that kind of security which we are now in want of. The\nEastern States therefore agreed at length, that treaties should\nrequire the consent of two-thirds of the members present in the\nsenate.\n\nMr. Madison said--\n\nI was struck with surprise when I heard him express himself alarmed\nwith respect to the emancipation of slaves. Let me ask, if they should\neven attempt it, if it will not be an usurpation of power? There is no\npower to warrant it, in that paper. If there be, I know it not. But\nwhy should it be done? Says the honorable gentleman, for the general\nwelfare--it will infuse strength into our system. Can any member of\nthis committee suppose, that it will increase our strength? Can any\none believe, that the American councils will come into a measure which\nwill strip them of their property, discourage and alienate the\naffections of five-thirteenths of the Union? Why was nothing of this\nsort aimed at before? I believe such an idea never entered into an\nAmerican breast, nor do I believe it ever will, unless it will enter\ninto the heads of those gentlemen who substitute unsupported\nsuspicious for reasons.\n\nMr. Henry. He asked me where was the power of emancipating slaves? I\nsay it will be implied, unless implication be prohibited. He admits\nthat the power of granting passports will be in the new congress\nwithout the insertion of this restriction--yet he can show me nothing\nlike such a power granted in that constitution. Notwithstanding he\nadmits their right to this power by implication, he says that I am\nunfair and uncandid in my deduction, that they can emancipate our\nslaves, though the word emancipation is not mentioned in it. They can\nexercise power by implication in one instance, as well as in another.\nThus, by the gentleman's own argument, they can exercise the power\nthough it not be delegated.\n\nMr. Z. Johnson. They tell us that they see a progressive danger of\nbringing about emancipation. The principle has begun since the\nrevolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round. Slavery has\nbeen the foundation of that impiety and dissipation, which have been\nso much disseminated among our countrymen. If it were totally\nabolished, it would do much good.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nNORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.\n\nThe first three clauses of the second section read.\n\nMr. Goudy. Mr. Chairman, this clause of taxation will give an\nadvantage to some States over others. It will be oppressive to the\nSouthern States. Taxes are equal to our representation. To augment\nour taxes and increase our burthens, our negroes are to be\nrepresented. If a State has fifty thousand negroes, she is to send one\nrepresentative for them. I wish not to be represented with negroes,\nespecially if it increases my burthens.\n\nMr. Davie. Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to obviate what the\ngentleman last up has said. I wonder to see gentlemen so precipitate\nand hasty on the subject of such awful importance. It ought to be\nconsidered, that _some_ of _us_ are slow of apprehension, not having\nthose quick conceptions, and luminous understandings, of which other\ngentlemen may be possessed. The gentleman \"does not wish to be\nrepresented with negroes.\" This, sir, is an unhappy species of\npopulation, but we cannot at present alter their situation. The\nEastern States had great jealousies on this subject. They insisted\nthat their cows and horses were equally entitled to representation;\nthat the one was property as well as the other. It became our duty on\nthe other hand, to acquire as much weight as possible in the\nlegislation of the Union; and as the Northern States were more\npopulous in whites, this only could be done by insisting that a\ncertain proportion of our slaves should make a part of the computed\npopulation. It was attempted to form a rule of representation from a\ncompound ratio of wealth and population; but, on consideration, it was\nfound impracticable to determine the comparative value of lands, and\nother property, in so extensive a territory, with any degree of\naccuracy; and population alone was adopted as the only practicable\nrule or criterion of representation. It was urged by the deputies of\nthe Eastern States, that a representation of two-fifths would be of\nlittle utility, and that their entire representation would be unequal\nand burthensome. That in a time of war, slaves rendered a country more\nvulnerable, while its defence devolved upon its _free_ inhabitants. On\nthe other hand, we insisted, that in time of peace they contributed by\ntheir labor to the general wealth as well as other members of the\ncommunity. That as rational beings they had a right of representation,\nand in some instances might be highly useful in war. On these\nprinciples, the Eastern States gave the matter up, and consented to\nthe regulation as it has been read. I hope these reasons will appear\nsatisfactory. It is the same rule or principle which was proposed some\nyears ago by Congress, and assented to by twelve of the States. It may\nwound the delicacy of the gentleman from Guilford, [Mr. Goudy,] but I\nhope he will endeavor to accommodate his feelings to the interests and\ncircumstances of his country.\n\nMr. James Galloway said, that he did not object to the representation\nof negroes, so much as he did to the fewness of the number of\nrepresentatives. He was surprised how we came to have but five,\nincluding those intended to represent negroes. That in his humble\nopinion North Carolina was entitled to that number independent of the\nnegroes.\n\nFirst clause of the 9th section read.\n\nMr. J. M'Dowall wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.\n\nMr. Spaight answered that there was a contest between the Northern and\nSouthern States--that the Southern States, whose principal support\ndepended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of\nthe Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely.\nThat South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were\nnow in want of hands to cultivate their lands: That in the course of\ntwenty years they would be fully supplied: That the trade would be\nabolished then, and that in the mean time some tax or duty might be\nlaid on.\n\nMr. M'Dowall replied, that the explanation was just such as he\nexpected, and by no means satisfactory to him and that he looked upon\nit as a very objectionable part of the system.\n\nMr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to\nthose of the gentleman from Craven. For my part, were it practicable\nto put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give\nme the greatest pleasure, for it certainly is a trade utterly\ninconsistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great\ncruelties have been exercised. When the entire abolition of slavery\ntakes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every\ngenerous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for\nthings which are not attainable. It was the wish of a great majority\nof the Convention to put an end to the trade immediately, but the\nStates of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider\nthen what would be the difference between our present situation in\nthis respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will\nbe if we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the\nevil? No, sir, we do not; for if the constitution be not adopted, it\nwill be in the power of every State to continue it forever. They may\nor may not abolish it at their discretion. But if we adopt the\nconstitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if congress\ndeclare so, whether particular States please so or not: surely, then,\nwe gain by it. This was the utmost that could be obtained. I heartily\nwish more could have been done. But as it is, this government is nobly\ndistinguished above others by that very provision. Where is there\nanother country in which such a restriction prevails? We, therefore,\nsir, set an example of humanity by providing for the abolition of this\ninhuman traffic, though at a distant period. I hope, therefore, that\nthis part of the constitution will not be condemned because it has not\nstipulated for what it was impracticable to obtain.\n\nMr. Spaight further explained the clause. That the limitation of this\ntrade to the term of twenty years, was a compromise between the\nEastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia\nwished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on the entire\nabolition of the trade. That the State of North Carolina had not\nthought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation of slaves,\nand therefore its delegation in the convention did not think\nthemselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it.\n\nMr. Iredell added to what he had said before, that the States of\nGeorgia and South Carolina had lost a great many slaves during the\nwar, and that they wished to supply the loss.\n\nMr. Galloway. Mr. Chairman, the explanation given to this clause does\nnot satisfy my mind. I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to.\nBut in case it be thought proper to continue this abominable traffic\nfor twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the tax on the importation\nextended to all persons whatsoever. Our situation is different from\nthe people to the North. We want citizens; they do not. Instead of\nlaying a tax, we ought to give a bounty, to encourage foreigners to\ncome among us. With respect to the abolition of slavery, it requires\nthe utmost consideration. The property of the Southern States consists\nprincipally of slaves. If they mean to do away slavery altogether,\nthis property will be destroyed. I apprehend it means to bring forward\nmanumission. If we must manumit our slaves, what country shall we send\nthem to? It is impossible for us to be happy if, after manumission,\nthey are to stay among us.\n\nMr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, the worthy gentleman, I believe, has\nmisunderstood this clause, which runs in the following words: \"The\nmigration or importation of such persons as any of the States now\nexisting, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the\nCongress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on\n_such importation_, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.\"\n\nNow, sir, observe that the Eastern States, who long ago have abolished\nslavery, did not approve of the expression _slaves_; they therefore\nused another that answered the same purpose. The committee will\nobserve the distinction between the two words migration and\nimportation. The first part of the clause will extend to persons who\ncome into the country as free people, or are brought as slaves, but\nthe last part extends to slaves only. The word _migration_ refers to\nfree persons; but the word _importation_ refers to slaves, because\nfree people cannot be said to be imported. The tax, therefore, is only\nto be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who\nmigrate. I further beg leave to say, that this gentleman is mistaken\nin another thing. He seems to say that this extends to the abolition\nof slavery. Is there anything in this constitution which says that\nCongress shall have it in their power to abolish the slavery of those\nslaves who are now in the country? Is it not the plain meaning of it,\nthat after twenty years they may prevent the future importation of\nslaves? It does not extend to those now in the country. There is\nanother circumstance to be observed. There is no authority vested in\ncongress to restrain the States in the interval of twenty years, from\ndoing what they please. If they wish to inhibit such importation, they\nmay do so. Our next assembly may put an entire end to the importation\nof slaves.\n\nArticle fourth. The first section and two first clauses of the second\nsection read without observation.\n\nThe last clause read--\n\nMr. Iredell begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some\nof the Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any\nof our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they\ncould, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that\ntheir masters could not get them again. This would be extremely\nprejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to prevent\nit, this clause is inserted in the constitution. Though the word slave\nbe not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The Northern delegates,\nowing to their particular scruples on the subject of slavery, did not\nchoose the word _slave_ to be mentioned.\n\nThe rest of the fourth article read without any observation.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nIt is however to be observed, (said Mr. Iredell,) that the first and\nfourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, are\nprotected from any alteration till the year 1808; and in order that no\nconsolidation should take place, it is provided, that no State shall,\nby any amendment or alteration, be ever deprived of an equal suffrage\nin the Senate without its own consent. The two first prohibitions are\nwith respect to the census, according to which direct taxes are\nimposed, and with respect to the importation of slaves. As to the\nfirst, it must be observed, that there is a material difference\nbetween the Northern and Southern States. The Northern States have\nbeen much longer settled, and are much fuller of people than the\nSouthern, but have not land in equal proportion, nor scarcely any\nslaves. The subject of this article was regulated with great\ndifficulty, and by a spirit of concession which it would not be\nprudent to disturb for a good many years. In twenty years there will\nprobably be a great alteration, and then the subject may be considered\nwith less difficulty and greater coolness. In the mean time, the\ncompromise was upon the best footing that could be obtained. A\ncompromise likewise took place with regard to the importation of\nslaves. It is probable that all the members reprobated this inhuman\ntraffic, but those of South Carolina and Georgia would not consent to\nan immediate prohibition of it; one reason of which was, that during\nthe last war they lost a vast number of negroes, which loss they wish\nto supply. In the mean time, it is left to the States to admit or\nprohibit the importation, and Congress may impose a limited duty upon\nit.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nSOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.\n\nHon. Rawlins Lowndes. In the first place, what cause was there for\njealousy of our importing negroes?  Why confine us to twenty years, or\nrather why limit us at all?  For his part he thought this trade could\nbe justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and justice; for\ncertainly to translate a set of human beings from a bad country to a\nbetter, was fulfilling every part of these principles. But they don't\nlike our slaves, because they have none themselves; and therefore want\nto exclude us from this great advantage; why should the Southern\nStates allow of this, without the consent of nine States?\n\nJudge Pendleton observed, that only three States, Georgia, South\nCarolina, and North Carolina, allowed the importation of negroes.\nVirginia had a clause in her constitution for this purpose, and\nMaryland, he believed, even before the war, prohibited them.\n\nMr. Lowndes continued--that we had a law prohibiting the importation\nof negroes for three years, a law he greatly approved of; but there\nwas no reason offered, why the Southern States might not find it\nnecessary to alter their conduct, and open their ports. Without\nnegroes this State would degenerate into one of the most contemptible\nin the Union: and cited an expression that fell from Gen. Pinckney on\na former debate, that whilst there remained one acre of swamp land in\nSouth Carolina he should raise his voice against restricting the\nimportation of negroes. Even in granting the importation for twenty\nyears, care had been taken to make us pay for this indulgence, each\nnegro being liable, on importation, to pay a duty not exceeding ten\ndollars, and, in addition this, were liable to a capitation tax.\nNegroes were our wealth, our only natural resource; yet behold how our\nkind friends in the North were determined soon to tie up our hands,\nand drain us of what we had. The Eastern States drew their means of\nsubsistence, in a great treasure, from their shipping; and on that\nhead, they had been particularly careful not to allow of any burdens:\nthey were not to pay tonnage, or duties; no, not even the form of\nclearing out: all ports were free and open to them! Why, then, call\nthis a reciprocal bargain, which took all from one party, to bestow it\non the other?\n\nMajor Butler observed that they were to pay a five per cent impost.\nThis, Mr. Lowndes proved, must fall upon the consumer. They are to be\nthe carriers: and we, being the consumers, therefore all expenses\nwould fall upon us.\n\nHon. E. Rutledge. The gentleman had complained of the inequality of\nthe taxes between the Northern and Southern States--that ten dollars a\nhead was imposed on the importation of negroes, and that those negroes\nwere afterwards taxed. To this it was answered, that the ten dollars\nper head was an equivalent to the five per cent on imported articles;\nand as to their being afterwards taxed, the advantage is on our side;\nor, at least, not against us.\n\nIn the Northern State, the labor is performed by white people; in the\nSouthern by black. All the free people (and there are few others) in\nthe Northern States, are to be taxed by the new constitution whereas,\nonly the free people, and two-fifths of the slaves in the Southern\nStates are to be rated in the apportioning of taxes.\n\nBut the principal objection is, that no duties are laid on\nshipping--that in fact the carrying trade was to be vested in a great\nmeasure in the Americans; that the ship-building business was\nprincipally carried on in the Northern States. When this subject is\nduly considered, the Southern States, should be the last to object to\nit. Mr. Rutledge then went into a consideration of the subject; after\nwhich the House adjourned.\n\nGen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. We were at a loss for some time for\na rule to ascertain the proportionate wealth of the States, at last we\nthought that the productive labor of the inhabitants was the best rule\nfor ascertaining their wealth; in conformity to this rule, joined to a\nspirit of concession, we determined that representatives should be\napportioned among the several States, by adding to the whole number of\nfree persons three-fifths of the slaves. We thus obtained a\nrepresentation for our property, and I confess I did not expect that\nwe had conceded too much to the Eastern States, when they allowed us a\nrepresentation for a species of property which they have not among\nthem.\n\nThe honorable gentleman alleges, that the Southern States are weak, I\nsincerely agree with him--we are so weak that by ourselves we could\nnot form an union strong enough for the purpose of effectually\nprotecting each other. Without union with the other States, South\nCarolina must soon fall. Is there any one among us so much a Quixotte\nas to suppose that this State could long maintain her independence if\nshe stood alone, or was only connected with the Southern States? I\nscarcely believe there is. Let an invading power send a naval force\ninto the Chesapeake to keep Virginia in alarm, and attack South\nCarolina with such a naval and military force as Sir Henry Clinton\nbrought here in 1780, and though they might not soon conquer us, they\nwould certainly do us an infinite deal of mischief; and if they\nconsiderably increased their numbers, we should probably fall. As,\nfrom the nature of our climate, and the fewness of our inhabitants, we\nare undoubtedly weak, should we not endeavor to form a close union\nwith the Eastern States, who are strong?\n\nFor who have been the greatest sufferers in the Union, by our\nobtaining, our independence? I answer, the Eastern States; they have\nlost every thing but their country, and their freedom. It is notorious\nthat some ports to the Eastward, which used to fit out one hundred and\nfifty sail of vessels, do not now fit out thirty; that their trade of\nship-building, which used to be very considerable, is now annihilated;\nthat their fisheries are trifling, and their mariners in want of\nbread; surely we are called upon by every tie of justice, friendships,\nand humanity, to relieve their distresses; and as by their exertions\nthey have assisted us in establishing our freedom, we should let them,\nin some measure, partake of our prosperity. The General then said he\nwould make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman\nhad thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African\ntrade after the year 1808. On this point your delegates had to contend\nwith the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle\nStates, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia,\nwho was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same\nopinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions that\nthe gentleman has quoted, that while there remained one acre of swamp\nland uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against\nrestricting the importation of negroes. I am as thoroughly convinced\nas that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate, and the flat\nswampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our land with\nnegroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert\nwaste.\n\nYou have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that I need\nnot now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members who\nopposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the weakness\nof any State who admitted them; that they were a dangerous species of\nproperty, which an invading enemy could easily turn against ourselves\nand the neighboring States, and that as we were allowed a\nrepresentation for them in the House of Representatives, our influence\nin government would be increased in proportion as we were less able to\ndefend ourselves. \"Show some period,\" said the members from the\nEastern States, \"when it may be in our power to put a stop, if we\nplease, to the importation of this weakness, and we will endeavor, for\nyour convenience, to restrain the religious and political prejudices\nof our people on this subject.\"\n\nThe Middle States and Virginia made us no such proposition; they were\nfor an immediate and total prohibition. We endeavored to obviate the\nobjections that were made, in the best manner we could, and assigned\nreasons for our insisting on the importation, which there is no\noccasion to repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in the\nHouse: a committee of the States was appointed in order to accommodate\nthis matter, and after a great deal of difficulty, it was settled on\nthe footing recited in the Constitution.\n\nBy this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes\nfor twenty years; nor is it declared that the importation shall be\nthen stopped; it may be continued--we have a security that the general\ngovernment can never emancipate them, for no such authority is\ngranted, and it is admitted on all hands, that the general government\nhas no powers but what are expressly granted by the constitution; and\nthat all rights not expressed were reserved by the several States. We\nhave obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of\nAmerica they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In\nshort, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms, for\nthe security of this species of property, it was in our power to make.\nWe would have made better if we could, but on the whole I do not think\nthem bad.\n\nHon. Robert Barnwell. Mr. Barnwell continued to say, I now come to the\nlast point for consideration, I mean the clause relative to the\nnegroes; and here I am particularly pleased with the Constitution; it\nhas not left this matter of so much importance to us open to immediate\ninvestigation; no, it has declared that the United States shall not,\nat any rate, consider this matter for twenty-one years, and yet\ngentlemen are displeased with it.\n\nCongress has guaranteed this right for that space of time, and at its\nexpiration may continue it as long as they please. This question then\narises, what will their interest lead them to do? The Eastern States,\nas the honorable gentleman says, will become the carriers of America,\nit will, therefore certainly be their interest to encourage\nexportation to as great an extent as possible; and if the quantum of\nour products will be diminished by the prohibition of negroes, I\nappeal to the belief of every man, whether he thinks those very\ncarriers will themselves dam up the resources from whence their profit\nis derived? To think so is so contradictory to the general conduct of\nmankind, that I am of opinion, that without we ourselves put a stop to\nthem, the traffic for negroes will continue forever.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nFEDERALIST, No. 42.\n\nBY JAMES MADISON\n\nIt were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the\nimportation of slaves, had not been postponed until the year 1808, or\nrather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it\nis not difficult to account either for this restriction on the general\ngovernment, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed.\n\nIt ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of\nhumanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate for ever within\nthese States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the\nbarbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a\nconsiderable discouragement from the Federal government, and may be\ntotally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue\nthe unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given\nby so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the\nunfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them, of being\nredeemed from the oppressions of their European brethern! Attempts\nhave been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the\nConstitution, by representing it on one side, as a criminal toleration\nof an illicit practice; and on another, as calculated to prevent\nvoluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention\nthese misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for\nthey deserve none; but as specimens of the manner and spirit, in which\nsome have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed\ngovernment.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nFEDERALIST, No. 54.\n\nBY JAMES MADISON.\n\nAll this is admitted, it will perhaps be said: but does it follow from\nan admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of\nslaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves\nought to be included in the numerical rule of representation?\n\nSlaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought\ntherefore, to be comprehended in estimates of taxation, which are\nfounded on property, and to be excluded from representation, which is\nregulated by a census of persons. This is the objection as I\nunderstand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in\nstating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. We\nsubscribe to the doctrine, might one of our Southern brethern observe,\nthat representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation\nmore immediately to property; and we join in the application of this\ndistinction to the case of our slaves.\n\nBut we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as\nproperty, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the\ncase is, that they partake of both these qualities, being considered\nby our laws, in some respects as persons, and in other respects as\nproperty.\n\nIn being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in\nbeing vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject\nat all times to be restrained in his liberty: and chastised in his\nbody by the capricious will of another; the slave may appear to be\ndegraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational\nanimals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being\nprotected, on the other hand, in his life, and in his limbs, against\nthe violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his\nliberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed\nagainst others; the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as\na member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as\na moral person, not as a mere article of property. The Federal\nconstitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of\nour slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and\nproperty. This is in fact their true character. It is the character\nbestowed on them by the laws under which they live, and it will not be\ndenied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under\nthe pretext, that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects\nof property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of\nnumbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the\nrights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be\nrefused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.\n\nThis question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all\nsides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they\nare the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have\nbeen impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the\nlist of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be\ncalculated; and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of\ncontributions was to be adjusted?\n\nCould it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur\nin a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when\nburdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same\nlight, when advantages were to be conferred?\n\nMight not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the\nSouthern States with the, barbarous policy of considering as property\na part of their human brethern, should themselves contend, that the\ngovernment to which all the States are to be parties, ought to\nconsider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light\nof property, than the very laws of which they complain?\n\nIt may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the\nestimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They\nneither vote themselves, nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon\nwhat principle, then, ought they to be taken into the Federal estimate\nof representation? In rejecting them altogether, the constitution\nwould, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been\nappealed to as the proper guide.\n\nThis objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a\nfundamental principle of the proposed constitution, that as the\naggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is\nto be determined by a Federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of\ninhabitants; so, the right of choosing this allotted number in each\nState, is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants, as the\nState itself may designate. The qualifications of which the right of\nsuffrage depends, are not perhaps the same in any two States. In some\nof the States the difference is very material. In every State, a\ncertain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the\nconstitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which\nthe Federal constitution apportions the representatives. In this point\nof view, the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting,\nthat the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard\nshould be had to the policy of particular States towards their own\ninhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should\nhave been admitted into the census according to their full number, in\nlike manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other\nStates, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous\nadherence, however, to this principle is waived by those who would be\ngainers by it. All that they ask, is that equal moderation be shown on\nthe other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in\ntruth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the\nconstitution be annually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants,\nbut as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants,\nwhich regards the _slave_ as divested of two-fifths of the _man_.\n\n\nDEBATES IN FIRST CONGRESS,\n\nMAY 13, 1789.\n\nMr. Parker (of Va.) moved to insert a clause in the bill, imposing a\nduty on the importation of slaves of ten dollars each person. He was\nsorry that the constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the\nimportation altogether; he thought it a defect in that instrument that\nit allowed of such actions, it was contrary to the revolution\nprinciples, and ought not to be permitted; but as he could not do all\nthe good he desired, he was willing to do what lay in his power. He\nhoped such a duty as he moved for would prevent, in some degree, this\nirrational and inhuman traffic; if so, he should feel happy from the\nsuccess of his motion.\n\nMr. Smith (of South Carolina,) hoped that such an important and\nserious proposition as this would not be hastily adopted; it was a\nvery late moment for the introduction of new subjects. He expected the\ncommittee had got through the business, and would rise without\ndiscussing any thing further; at least, if gentlemen were determined\non considering the present motion, he hoped they would delay for a few\ndays, in order to give time for an examination of the subject. It was\ncertainly a matter big with the most serious consequences to the State\nhe represented; he did not think any one thing that had been discussed\nwas so important to them, and the welfare of the Union, as the\nquestion now brought forward, but he was not prepared to enter on any\nargument, and therefore requested the motion might either be withdrawn\nor laid on the table.\n\nMr. Sherman (of Ct.) approved of the object of the motion, but he did\nnot think this bill was proper to embrace the subject. He could not\nreconcile himself to the insertion of human beings as an article of\nduty, among goods, wares and merchandise. He hoped it would be\nwithdrawn for the present, and taken up hereafter as an independent\nsubject.\n\nMr. Jackson, (of Geo.) observing the quarter from which this motion\ncame, said it did not surprise him, though it might have that effect\non others. He recollected that Virginia was an old settled State, and\nhad her complement of slaves, so she was careless of recruiting her\nnumbers by this means; the natural increase of her imported blacks\nwere sufficient for their purpose; but he thought gentlemen ought to\nlet their neighbors get supplied before they imposed such a burthen\nupon the importation. He knew this business was viewed in an odious\nlight to the Eastward, because the people were capable of doing their\nown work, and had no occasion for slaves; but gentlemen will have some\nfeeling for others; they will not try to throw all the weight upon\nothers, who have assisted in lightening their burdens; they do not\nwish to charge us for every comfort and enjoyment of life, and at the\nsame time take away the means of procuring them; they do not wish to\nbreak us down at once.\n\nHe was convinced, from the inaptitude of the motion, and the want of\ntime to consider it, that the candor of the gentleman would induce him\nto withdraw it for the present; and if ever it came forward again, he\nhoped it would comprehend the white slaves as well as black, who were\nimported from all the goals of Europe; wretches, convicted of the most\nflagrant crimes, were brought in and sold without any duty whatever.\nHe thought that they ought to be taxed equal to the Africans, and had\nno doubt but the constitutionality and propriety of such a measure was\nequally apparent as the one proposed.\n\nMr. Tucker (of S.C.) thought it unfair to bring in such an important\nsubject at the time when debate was almost precluded. The committee\nhad gone through the impost bill, and the whole Union were impatiently\nexpecting the result of their deliberations, the public must be\ndisappointed and much revenue lost, or this question cannot undergo\nthat full discussion which it deserves.\n\nWe have no right, said he, to consider whether the importation of\nslaves is proper or not; the Constitution gives us no power on that\npoint, it is left to the States to judge of that matter as they see\nfit. But if it was a business the gentleman was determined to\ndiscourage, he ought to have brought his motion forward sooner, and\neven then not have introduced it without previous notice. He hoped the\ncommittee would reject the motion, if it was not withdrawn; he was not\nspeaking so much for the State he represented, as for Georgia, because\nthe State of South Carolina had a prohibitory law, which could be\nrenewed when its limitation expired.\n\nMr. Parker (of Va.,) had ventured to introduce the subject after full\ndeliberation, and did not like to withdraw it. Although the gentleman\nfrom Connecticut (Mr. Sherman) had said, that they ought not to be\nenumerated with goods, wares, and merchandise, he believed they were\nlooked upon by the African traders in this light, he knew it was\ndegrading the human species to annex that character to them; but he\nwould rather do this than continue the actual evil of importing slaves\na moment longer. He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their\npower to restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and if\npossible wipe off the stigma which America laboured under. The\ninconsistency in our principles, with which we are justly charged,\nshould be done away; that we may shew by our actions the pure\nbeneficence of the doctrine we held out to the world in our\ndeclaration of independence.\n\nMr. Sherman (of Ct.,) thought the principles of the motion and the\nprinciples of the bill were inconsistent; the principle of the bill\nwas to raise revenue, the principle of the motion to correct a moral\nevil. Now, considering it as an object of revenue, it would be unjust,\nbecause two or three States would bear the whole burthen, while he\nbelieved they bore their full proportion of all the rest. He was\nagainst receiving the motion into this bill, though he had no\nobjection to taking it up by itself, on the principles of humanity and\npolicy; and therefore would vote against it if it was not withdrawn.\n\nMr. Ames (of Mass.,) joined the gentleman last up. No one could\nsuppose him favorable to slavery, he detested it from his soul, but he\nhad some doubts whether imposing a duty on the importation, would not\nhave the appearance of countenancing the practice; it was certainly a\nsubject of some delicacy, and no one appeared to be prepared for the\ndiscussion, he therefore hoped the motion would be withdrawn.\n\nMr. Livermore. Was not against the principle of the motion, but in the\npresent case he conceived it improper. If negroes were goods, wares,\nor merchandise, they came within the title of the bill; if they were\nnot, the bill would be inconsistent: but if they are goods, wares or\nmerchandise, the 5 per cent ad valorum, will embrace the importation;\nand the duty of 5 per cent is nearly equal to 10 dollars per head, so\nthere is no occasion to add it even on the score of revenue.\n\nMr. Jackson (of Ga.,) said it was the fashion of the day, to favor the\nliberty of slaves; he would not go into a discussion of the subject,\nbut he believed it was capable of demonstration that they were better\noff in their present situation, than they would be if they were\nmanumitted; what are they to do if they are discharged? Work for a\nliving? Experience has shewn us they will not. Examine what is become\nof those in Maryland, many of them have been set free in that State;\ndid they turn themselves to industry and useful pursuits? No, they\nturn out common pickpockets, petty larceny villains; and is this\nmercy, forsooth, to turn them into a way in which they must lose their\nlives,--for where they are thrown upon the world, void of property and\nconnections, they cannot get their living but by pilfering. What is to\nbe done for compensation? Will Virginia set all her negroes free? Will\nthey give up the money they cost them, and to whom? When this practice\ncomes to be tried there, the sound of liberty will lose those charms\nwhich make it grateful to the ravished ear.\n\nBut our slaves are not in a worse situation than they were on the\ncoast of Africa; it is not uncommon there for the parents to sell\ntheir children in peace; and in war the whole are taken and made\nslaves together. In these cases it is only a change of one slavery for\nanother; and are they not better here, where they have a master bound\nby the ties of interest and law to provide for their support and\ncomfort in old age, or infirmity, in which, if they were free, they\nwould sink under the pressure of woe for want of assistance.\n\nHe would say nothing of the partiality of such a tax, it was admitted\nby the avowed friends of the measure; Georgia in particular would be\noppressed. On this account it would be the most odious tax Congress\ncould impose.\n\nMr. Schureman (of N.J.) hoped the gentleman would withdraw his motion,\nbecause the present was not the time or place for introducing the\nbusiness; he thought it had better be brought forward in the House, as\na distinct proposition. If the gentleman persisted in having the\nquestion determined, he would move the previous question if he was\nsupported.\n\nMr. Madison, (of Va.) I cannot concur with gentlemen who think the\npresent an improper time or place to enter into a discussion of the\nproposed motion; if it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do the\nsame thing at a greater expense of time. But the gentlemen say that it\nis improper to connect the two objects, because they do not come\nwithin the title of the bill. But this objection may be obviated by\naccommodating the title to the contents; there may be some\ninconsistency in combining the ideas which gentlemen have expressed,\nthat is, considering the human race as a species of property; but the\nevil does not arise from adopting the clause now proposed, it is from\nthe importation to which it relates. Our object in enumerating persons\non paper with merchandise, is to prevent the practice of actually\ntreating them as such, by having them, in future, forming part of the\ncargoes of goods, wares, and merchandise to be imported into the\nUnited States. The motion is calculated to avoid the very evil\nintimated by the gentleman. It has been said that this tax will be\npartial and oppressive; but suppose a fair view is taken of this\nsubject, I think we may form a different conclusion. But if it be\npartial or oppressive, are there not many instances in which we have\nlaid taxes of this nature? Yet are they not thought to be justified by\nnational policy? If any article is warranted on this account, how much\nmore are we authorized to proceed on this occasion? The dictates of\nhumanity, the principles of the people, the national safety and\nhappiness, and prudent policy requires it of us; the constitution has\nparticularly called our attention to it--and of all the articles\ncontained in the bill before us, this is one of the last I should be\nwilling to make a concession upon so far as I was at liberty to go,\naccording to the terms of the constitution or principles of justice--I\nwould not have it understood that my zeal would carry me to disobey\nthe inviolable commands of either.\n\nI understood it had been intimated, that the motion was inconsistent\nor unconstitutional. I believe, sir, my worthy colleague has formed\nthe words with a particular reference to the constitution; any how, so\nfar as the duty is expressed, it perfectly accords with that\ninstrument; if there are any inconsistencies in it, they may be\nrectified; I believe the intention is well understood, but I am far\nfrom supposing the diction improper. If the description of the persons\ndoes not accord with the ideas of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr.\nJackson,) and his idea is a proper one for the committee to adopt, I\nsee no difficulty in changing the phraseology.\n\nI conceive the constitution, in this particular, was formed in order\nthat the government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total\nprohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of\nAmerica, with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose\na tax or duty upon the importation of such persons as any of the\nStates now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was\ngranted, I presume, upon two considerations--the first was, that until\nthe time arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves,\nthey might have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments, on the\npolicy and humanity of such a trade; the other was that they might be\ntaxed in due proportion with other articles imported; for if the\npossessor will consider them as property, of course they are of value\nand ought to be paid for. If gentlemen are apprehensive of oppression\nfrom the weight of the tax, let them make an estimate of its\nproportion, and they will find that it very little exceeds five per\ncent, ad valorem, so that they will gain very little by having them\nthrown into that mass of articles, whilst by selecting them in the\nmanner proposed, we shall fulfil the prevailing expectation of our\nfellow citizens, and perform our duty in executing the purposes of the\nconstitution. It is to be hoped that by expressing a national\ndisapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves\nfrom reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a\ncountry filled with slaves.\n\nI do not wish to say any thing harsh, to the hearing of gentlemen who\nentertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments from\nthose I represent; but if there is any one point in which it is\nclearly the policy of this nation, so far as we constitutionally can,\nto vary the practice obtaining under some of the State governments, it\nis this; but it is certain a majority of the States are opposed to\nthis practice, therefore, upon principle, we ought to discountenance\nit as far as is in our power.\n\nIf I was not afraid of being told that the representatives of the\nseveral States, are the best able to judge of what is proper and\nconducive to their particular prosperity, I should venture to say that\nit is as much the interest of Georgia and South Carolina, as of any in\nthe Union. Every addition they receive to their number of slaves,\ntends to weaken them and renders them less capable of self defence. In\ncase of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of\ninviting attack instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty\nof the general government to protect every part of the empire against\ndanger, as well internal as external; every thing therefore which\ntends to increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet if\nit involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every\npart of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of\nthose charged with the general administration of the government. I\nhope, in making these observations, I shall not be understood to mean\nthat a proper attention ought not to be paid to the local opinions and\ncircumstances of any part of the United States, or that the particular\nrepresentatives are not best able to judge of the sense of their\nimmediate constituents.\n\nIf we examine the proposal measure by the agreement there is between\nit, and the existing State laws, it will show us that it is patronized\nby a very respectable part of the Union. I am informed that South\nCarolina has prohibited the importation of slaves for several years\nyet to come; we have the satisfaction then of reflecting that we do\nnothing more than their own laws do at this moment. This is not the\ncase with one State. I am sorry that her situation is such as to seem\nto require a population of this nature, but it is impossible in the\nnature of things, to consult the national good without doing what we\ndo not wish to do, to some particular part. Perhaps gentlemen contend\nagainst the introduction of the clause, on too slight grounds. If it\ndoes not conform with the title of the bill, alter the latter; if it\ndoes not conform to the precise terms of the constitution, amend it.\nBut if it will tend to delay the whole bill, that perhaps will be the\nbest reason for making it the object of a separate one. If this is the\nsense of the committee I shall submit.\n\nMr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought all duties ought to be laid as equal as\npossible. He had endeavored to enforce this principle yesterday, but\nwithout the success he wished for, he was bound by the principles of\njustice therefore to vote for the proposition; but if the committee\nwere desirous of considering the subject fully by itself, he had no\nobjection, but he thought when gentlemen laid down a principle, they\nought to support it generally.\n\nMr. Burke (of S.C.) said, gentlemen were contending for nothing; that\nthe value of a slave averaged about \u00a380, and the duty on that sum at\nfive per cent, would be ten dollars, as congress could go no farther\nthan that sum, he conceived it made not difference whether they were\nenumerated or left in the common mass.\n\nMr. Madison, (of Va.) If we contend for nothing, the gentlemen who are\nopposed to us do not contend for a great deal; but the question is,\nwhether the five percent ad valorem, on all articles imported, will\nhave any operation at all upon the introduction of slaves, unless we\nmake a particular enumeration on this account; the collector may\nmistake, for he would not presume to apply the term goods, wares, and\nmerchandise to any person whatsoever. But if that general definition\nof goods, wares, and merchandise are supposed to include African\nSlaves, why may we not particularly enumerate them, and lay the duty\npointed out by the Constitution, which, as gentlemen tell us, is no\nmore than five per cent upon their value; this will not increase the\nburden upon any, but it will be that manifestation of our sense,\nexpected by our constituents, and demanded by justice and humanity.\n\nMr. Bland (of Va.) had no doubt of the propriety or good policy of\nthis measure. He had made up his mind upon it, he wished slaves had\nnever been introduced into America; but if it was impossible at this\ntime to cure the evil, he was very willing to join in any measures\nthat would prevent its extending farther. He had some doubts whether\nthe prohibitory laws of the States were not in part repealed. Those\nwho had endeavored to discountenance this trade, by laying a duty on\nthe importation, were prevented by the Constitution from continuing\nsuch regulation, which declares, that no State shall lay any impost or\nduties on imports. If this was the case, and he suspected pretty\nstrongly that it was, the necessity of adopting the proposition of his\ncolleague was not apparent.\n\nMr. Sherman (of Ct.) said, the Constitution does not consider these\npersons as a species of property; it speaks of them as persons, and\nsays, that a tax or duty may be imposed on the importation of them\ninto any State which shall permit the same, but they have no power to\nprohibit such importation for twenty years. But Congress have power to\ndeclare upon what terms persons coming into the United States shall be\nentitled to citizenship; the rule of naturalization must however be\nuniform. He was convinced there were others ought to be regulated in\nthis particular, the importation of whom was of an evil tendency, he\nmeant convicts particularly. He thought that some regulation\nrespecting them was also proper; but it being a different subject, it\nought to be taken up in a different manner.\n\nMr. Madison (of Va.) was led to believe, from the observation that had\nfell from the gentlemen, that it would be best to make this the\nsubject of a distinct bill: he therefore wished his colleague would\nwithdraw his motion, and move in the house for leave to bring in a\nbill on the same principles.\n\nMr. Parker (of Va.) consented to withdraw his motion, under a\nconviction that the house was fully satisfied of its propriety. He\nknew very well that these persons were neither goods, nor wares, but\nthey were treated as articles of merchandise. Although he wished to\nget rid of this part of his property, yet he should not consent to\ndeprive other people of theirs by any act of his without their\nconsent.\n\nThe committee rose, reported progress, and the house adjourned.\n\nFEBRUARY 11th, 1790.\n\nMr. Lawrance (of New York,) presented an address from the society of\nFriends, in the City of New York; in which they set forth their desire\nof co-operating with their Southern brethren.\n\nMr. Hartley (of Penn.) then moved to refer the address of the annual\nassembly of Friends, held at Philadelphia, to a committee; he thought\nit a mark of respect due so numerous and respectable a part of the\ncommunity.\n\nMr. White (of Va.) seconded the motion.\n\nMr. Smith, (of S.C.) However respectable the petitioners may be, I\nhope gentlemen will consider that others equally respectable are\nopposed to the object which is aimed at, and are entitled to an\nopportunity of being heard before the question is determined. I\nflatter myself gentlemen will not press the point of commitment\nto-day, it being contrary to our usual mode of procedure.\n\nMr. Fitzsimons, (of Penn.) If we were now about to determine the final\nquestion, the observation of the gentleman from South Carolina would\napply; but, sir, the present question does not touch upon the merits\nof the case; it is merely to refer the memorial to a committee, to\nconsider what is proper to be done; gentlemen, therefore, who do not\nmean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, may as well agree to it\nto-day, because it will tend to save the time of the house.\n\nMr. Jackson (of Geo.) wished to know why the second reading was to be\ncontended for to-day, when it was diverting the attention of the\nmembers from the great object that was before the committee of the\nwhole? Is it because the feelings of the Friends will be hurt, to have\ntheir affair conducted in the usual course of business? Gentlemen who\nadvocate the second reading to-day, should respect the feelings of the\nmembers who represent that part of the Union which is principally to\nbe affected by the measure. I believe, sir, that the latter class\nconsists of as useful and as good citizens as the petitioners, men\nequally friends to the revolution, and equally susceptible of the\nrefined sensations of humanity and benevolence. Why then should such\nparticular attention be paid to them, for bringing forward a business\nof questionable policy? If Congress are disposed to interfere in the\nimportation of slaves, they can take the subject up without advisers,\nbecause the Constitution expressly mentions all the power they can\nexercise on the subject.\n\nMr. Sherman (of Conn.) suggested the idea of referring it to a\ncommittee, to consist of a member from each State, because several\nStates had already made some regulations on this subject. The sooner\nthe subject was taken up he thought it would be the better.\n\nMr. Parker, (of Va.) I hope, Mr. Speaker, the petition of these\nrespectable people, will be attended to with all the readiness the\nimportance of its object demands: and I cannot help expressing the\npleasure I feel in finding so considerable a part of the community\nattending to matters of such momentous concern to the future\nprosperity and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,\nas a citizen of the Union, to espouse their cause; and it is incumbent\nupon every member of this house to sift the subject well, and\nascertain what can be done to restrain a practice so nefarious. The\nConstitution has authorized as to levy a tax upon the importation of\nsuch persons as the States shall authorize to be admitted. I would\nwillingly go to that extent; and if any thing further can be devised\nto discountenance the trade, consistent with the terms of the\nConstitution, I shall cheerfully give it my assent and support.\n\nMr. Madison, (of Va.) The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.\nFitzsimons) has put this question on its proper ground. If gentlemen\ndo not mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, they may as well\nacquiesce in it to-day; and I apprehend gentlemen need not be alarmed\nat any measure it is likely Congress should take; because they will\nrecollect, that the Constitution secures to the individual States the\nright of admitting, if they think proper, the importation of slaves\ninto their own territory, for eighteen years yet unexpired; subject,\nhowever, to a tax, if Congress are disposed to impose it, of not more\nthan ten dollars on each person.\n\nThe petition, if I mistake not, speaks of artifices used by\nself-interested persons to carry on this trade; and the petition from\nNew York states a case, that may require the consideration of\nCongress. If anything is within the Federal authority to restrain such\nviolation of the rights of nations, and of mankind, as is supposed to\nbe practised in some parts of the United States it will certainly tend\nto the interest and honor of the community to attempt a remedy, and is\na proper subject for our discussion. It may be, that foreigners take\nthe advantage of the liberty afforded them by the American trade, to\nemploy our shipping in the slave trade between Africa and the West\nIndies, when they are restrained from employing their own by\nrestrictive laws of their nation. If this is the case, is there any\nperson of humanity that would not wish to prevent them? Another\nconsideration why we should commit the petition is, that we may give\nno ground of alarm by a serious opposition, as if we were about to\ntake measures that were unconstitutional.\n\nMr. Stone (of Md.) feared that if Congress took any measures,\nindicative of an intention to interfere with the kind of property\nalluded to, it would sink it in value very considerably, and might be\ninjurious to a great number of the citizens, particularly in the\nSouthern States.\n\nHe thought the subject was of general concern, and that the\npetitioners had no more right to interfere with it than any other\nmembers of the community. It was an unfortunate circumstance, that it\nwas the property of sects to imagine they understood the rights of\nhuman nature letter than all the world beside; and that they would, in\nconsequence, be meddling with concerns in which they had nothing to\ndo.\n\nAs the petition relates to a subject of a general nature, it ought to\nlie on the table, as information; he would never consent to refer\npetitions, unless the petitioners were exclusively interested. Suppose\nthere was a petition to come before us from a society, praying us to\nbe honest in our transactions, or that we should administer the\nConstitution according to its intention--what would you do with a\npetition of this kind? Certainly it would remain on your table. He\nwould, nevertheless, not have it supposed, that the people had not a\nright to advise and give their opinion upon public measures; but he\nwould not be influenced by that advice or opinion, to take up a\nsubject sooner than the convenience of other business would admit.\nUnless he changed his sentiments, he would oppose the commitment.\n\nMr. Burke (of S.C.) thought gentlemen were paying attention to what\ndid not deserve it. The men in the gallery had come here to meddle in\na business with which they have nothing to do; they were volunteering\nit in the cause of others, who neither expected nor desired it. He had\na respect for the body of Quakers, but, nevertheless, he did not\nbelieve they had more virtue, or religion, than other people, nor\nperhaps so much, if they were examined to the bottom, notwithstanding\ntheir outward pretences. If their petition is to be noticed, Congress\nought to wait till counter applications were made, and then they might\nhave the subject more fairly before them. The rights of the Southern\nStates ought not to be threatened, and their property endangered, to\nplease people who were to be unaffected by the consequences.\n\nMr. Hartley (of Penn.) thought the memorialists did not deserve to be\naspersed for their conduct, if influenced by motives of benignity,\nthey solicited the Legislature of the Union to repel, as far as in\ntheir power, the increase of a licentious traffic. Nor do they merit\ncensure, because their behavior has the appearance of more morality\nthan other people's. But it is not for Congress to refuse to hear the\napplications of their fellow-citizens, while those applications\ncontain nothing unconstitutional or offensive. What is the object of\nthe address before us? It is intended to bring before this House a\nsubject of great importance to the cause of humanity; there are\ncertain facts to be enquired into, and the memorialists are ready to\ngive all the information in their power; they are waiting, at a great\ndistance from their homes, and wish to return; if, then, it will be\nproper to commit the petition to-morrow, it will be equally proper\nto-day, for it is conformable to our practice, beside, it will tend to\ntheir conveniency.\n\nMr. Lawrance, (of N.Y.) The Gentleman from South Carolina says, the\npetitioners are of a society not known in the laws or Constitution.\nSir, in all our acts, as well as in the Constitution, we have noticed\nthis Society; or why is it that we admit them to affirm, in cases\nwhere others are called upon to swear? If we pay this attention to\nthem, in one instance, what good reason is there for condemning them\nin another? I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone,) carries\nhis apprehensions too far, when he fears that negro-property will fall\nin value, by the suppression of the slave-trade: not that I suppose it\nimmediately in the power of Congress to abolish a traffic which is a\ndisgrace to human nature; but it appears to me, that, if the\nimportation was crushed, the value of a slave would be increased\ninstead of diminished; however, considerations of this kind have\nnothing to do with the present question; gentlemen may acquiesce in\nthe commitment of the memorial, without pledging themselves to support\nits object.\n\nMr. Jackson, (of Ga.) I differ much in opinion with the gentleman last\nup. I apprehend if, through the interference of the general\ngovernment, the slave-trade was abolished, it would evince to the\npeople a disposition toward a total emancipation, and they would hold\ntheir property in jeopardy. Any extraordinary attention of Congress to\nthis petition may have, in some degree, a similar effect. I would beg\nto ask those, then, who are so desirous of freeing the negroes, if\nthey have funds sufficient to pay for them? If they have, they may\ncome forward on that business with some propriety; but, if they have\nnot, they should keep themselves quiet, and not interfere with a\nbusiness in which they are not interested. They may as well come\nforward, and solicit Congress to interdict the West-India trade,\nbecause it is injurious to the morals of mankind; from thence we\nimport rum, which has a debasing influence upon the consumer. But,\nsir, is the whole morality of the United States confined to the\nQuakers? Are they the only people whose feelings are to be consulted\non this occasion? Is it to them we owe our present happiness? Was it\nthey who formed the Constitution? Did they, by their arms, or\ncontributions, establish our independence? I believe they were\ngenerally opposed to that measure. Why, then, on their application,\nshall we injure men, who, at the risk of their lives and fortunes,\nsecured to the community their liberty and property? If Congress pay\nany uncommon degree of attention to their petition, it will furnish\njust ground of alarm to the Southern States. But, why do these men set\nthemselves up, in such a particular manner, against slavery? Do they\nunderstand the rights of mankind, and the disposition of Providence\nbetter than others? If they were to consult that Book which claims our\nregard, they will find that slavery is not only allowed, but\ncommended. Their Saviour, who possessed more benevolence and\ncommiseration than they pretend to, has allowed of it. And if they\nfully examine the subject, they will find that slavery has been no\nnovel doctrine since the days of Cain. But be these things as they\nmay, I hope the house will order the petition to lie on the table, in\norder to prevent alarming our Southern brethren.\n\nMr. Sedgwick, (of Mass.) If it was a serious question, whether the\nMemorial should be committed or not, I would not urge it at this time;\nbut that cannot be a question for a moment, if we consider our\nrelative situation with the people. A number of men,--who are\ncertainly very respectable, and of whom, as a society, it may be said\nwith truth, that they conform their moral conduct to their religious\ntenets, as much as any people in the whole community,--come forward\nand tell you, that you may effect two objects by the exercise of a\nConstitutional authority which will give great satisfaction; on the\none hand you may acquire revenue, and on the other, restrain a\npractice productive of great evil. Now, setting aside the religious\nmotives which influenced their application, have they not a right, as\ncitizens, to give their opinion of public measures? For my part I do\nnot apprehend that any State, or any considerable number of\nindividuals in any State, will be seriously alarmed at the commitment\nof the petition, from a fear that Congress intend to exercise an\nunconstitutional authority, in order to violate their rights; I\nbelieve there is not a wish of the kind entertained by any member of\nthis body. How can gentlemen hesitate then to pay that respect to a\nmemorial which it is entitled to, according to the ordinary mode of\nprocedure in business? Why shall we defer doing that till to-morrow,\nwhich we can do to-day? for the result, I apprehend, will be the same\nin either case.\n\nMr. Smith, (of S.C.) The question, I apprehend, is, whether we will\ntake the petition up for a second reading, and not whether it shall be\ncommitted? Now, I oppose this, because it is contrary to our usual\npractice, and does not allow gentlemen time to consider of the merits\nof the prayer; perhaps some gentlemen may think it improper to commit\nit to so large a committee as has been mentioned; a variety of causes\nmay be supposed to show that such a hasty decision is improper;\nperhaps the prayer of it is improper. If I understood it right, on its\nfirst reading, though, to be sure, I did not comprehend perfectly all\nthat the petition contained, it prays that we should take measures for\nthe abolition of the slave trade; this is desiring an unconstitutional\nact, because the constitution secures that trade to the States,\nindependent of congressional restrictions, for the term of twenty-one\nyears. If, therefore, it prays for a violation of constitutional\nrights, it ought to be rejected, as an attempt upon the virtue and\npatriotism of the house.\n\nMr. Boudinot, (of N.J.) It has been said that the Quakers have no\nright to interfere in this business; I am surprised to hear this\ndoctrine advanced, after it has been so lately contended, and settled,\nthat the people have a right to assemble and petition for redress of\ngrievances; it is not because the petition comes from the society of\nQuakers that I am in favor of the commitment, but because it comes\nfrom citizens of the United States, who are as equally concerned in\nthe welfare and happiness of their country as others. There certainly\nis no foundation for the apprehensions which seem to prevail in\ngentlemen's minds. If the petitioners were so uninformed as to suppose\nthat congress could be guilty of a violation of the constitution, yet,\nI trust we know our duty better than to be led astray by an\napplication from any man, or set of men whatever. I do not consider\nthe merits of the main question to be before us; it will be time\nenough to give our opinions upon that, when the committee have\nreported. If it is in our power, by recommendation, or any other way,\nto put a stop to the slave-trade in America, I do not doubt of its\npolicy; but how far the constitution will authorize us to attempt to\ndepress it, will be a question well worthy of our consideration.\n\nMr. Sherman (of Conn.) observed, that the petitioners from New York,\nstated that they had applied to the legislature of that State, to\nprohibit certain practices which they conceived to be improper, and\nwhich tended to injure the well-being of the community; that the\nlegislature had considered the application, but had applied no remedy,\nbecause they supposed that power was exclusively vested in the general\ngovernment, under the constitution of the United States; it would,\ntherefore, be proper to commit that petition, in order to ascertain\nwhat were the powers of the general government, in the case doubted by\nthe legislature of New York.\n\nMr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought gentlemen were out of order in entering\nupon the merits of the main question at this time, when they were\nconsidering the expediency of committing the petition; he should,\ntherefore, now follow them further in that track than barely to\nobserve, that it was the right of the citizens to apply for redress,\nin every case they conceived themselves aggrieved in; and it was the\nduty of congress to afford redress as far as in their power. That\ntheir Southern brethren had been betrayed into the slave-trade by the\nfirst settlers, was to be lamented; they were not to be reflected on\nfor not viewing this subject in a different light, the prejudice of\neducation is eradicated with difficulty; but he thought nothing would\nexcuse the general government for not exerting itself to prevent, as\nfar as they constitutionally could, the evils resulting from such\nenormities as were alluded to by the petitioners; and the same\nconsiderations induced him highly to commend the part the society of\nFriends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had interested\nthemselves in, and he wished, with them, to see measures pursued by\nevery nation, to wipe off the indelible stain which the slave-trade\nhad brought upon all who were concerned in it.\n\nMr. Madison (of Va.) thought the question before the committee was no\notherwise important than as gentlemen made it so by their serious\nopposition. Did they permit the commitment of the Memorial, as a\nmatter of course, no notice would be taken of it out of doors; it\ncould never be blown up into a decision of the question respecting the\ndiscouragement of the African slave-trade, nor alarm the owners with\nan apprehension that the general government were about to abolish\nslavery in all the States; such things are not contemplated by any\ngentleman; but, to appearance, they decide the question more against\nthemselves than would be the case if it was determined on its real\nmerits, because gentlemen may be disposed to vote for the commitment\nof a petition, without any intention of supporting the prayer of it.\n\nMr. White (of Va.) would not have seconded the motion, if he had\nthought it would have brought on a lengthy debate. He conceived that a\nbusiness of this kind ought to be decided without much discussion; it\nhad constantly been the practice of the house, and he did not suppose\nthere was any reason for a deviation.\n\nMr. Page (of Va.) said, if the memorial had been presented by any\nindividual, instead of the respectable body it was, he should have\nvoted in favor of a commitment, because it was the duty of the\nlegislature to attend to subjects brought before them by their\nconstituents; if, upon inquiry, it was discovered to be improper to\ncomply with the prayer of the petitioners, he would say so, and they\nwould be satisfied.\n\nMr. Stone (of Md.) thought the business ought to be left to take its\nusual course; by the rules of the house, it was expressly declared,\nthat petitions, memorials, and other papers, addressed to the house,\nshould not be debated or decided on the day they were first read.\n\nMr. Baldwin (of Ga.) felt at a loss to account why precipitation was\nused on this occasion, contrary to the customary usage of the house;\nhe had not heard a single reason advanced in favor of it. To be sure\nit was said the petitioners are a respectable body of men--he did not\ndeny it--but, certainly, gentlemen did not suppose they were paying\nrespect to them, or to the house, when they urged such a hasty\nprocedure; anyhow it was contrary to his idea of respect, and the idea\nthe house had always expressed, when they had important subjects under\nconsideration; and, therefore, he should be against the motion. He was\nafraid that there was really a little volunteering in this business,\nas it had been termed by the gentleman from Georgia.\n\nMr. Huntington (of Conn.) considered the petitioners as much\ndisinterested as any person in the United States; he was persuaded\nthey had an aversion to slavery; yet they were not singular in this,\nothers had the same; and he hoped when congress took up the subject,\nthey would go as far as possible to prohibit the evil complained of.\nBut he thought that would better be done by considering it in the\nlight of revenue. When the committee of the whole, on the finance\nbusiness, came to the ways and means, it might properly be taken into\nconsideration, without giving any ground for alarm.\n\nMr. Tucker, (of S.C.) I have no doubt on my mind respecting what ought\nto be done on this occasion; so far from committing the memorial, we\nought to dismiss it without further notice. What is the purport of the\nmemorial? It is plainly this; to reprobate a particular kind of\ncommerce, in a moral view, and to request the interposition of\ncongress to effect its abrogation. But congress have no authority,\nunder the constitution, to do more than lay a duty of ten dollars upon\neach person imported; and this is a political consideration, not\narising from either religion or morality, and is the only principle\nupon which we can proceed to take it up. But what effect do these men\nsuppose will arise from their exertions? Will a duty of ten dollars\ndiminish the importation? Will the treatment be better than usual? I\napprehend it will not, nay, it may be worse. Because an interference\nwith the subject may excite a great degree of restlessness in the\nminds of those it is intended to serve, and that may be a cause for\nthe masters to use more rigor towards them, than they would otherwise\nexert; so that these men seem to overshoot their object. But if they\nwill endeavor to procure the abolition of the slave-trade, let them\nprefer their petitions to the State legislatures, who alone have the\npower of forbidding the importation; I believe their applications\nthere would be improper; but if they are any where proper, it is\nthere. I look upon the address then to be ill-judged, however good the\nintention of the framers.\n\nMr. Smith (of S.C.) claimed it as a right, that the petition should\nlay over till to-morrow.\n\nMr. Boudinor (of N.J.) said it was not unusual to commit petitions on\nthe day they were presented; and the rules of the house admitted the\npractice, by the qualification which followed the positive order, that\npetitions should not be decided on the day they were first read,\n\"unless where the house shall direct otherwise.\"\n\nMr. Smith (of S.C.) declared his intention of calling the yeas and\nnays, if gentlemen persisted in pressing the question.\n\nMr. Clymer (of Penn.) hoped the motion would be withdrawn for the\npresent, and the business taken up in course to-morrow; because,\nthough he respected the memorialists, he also respected order and the\nsituation of the members.\n\nMr. Fitzsimons (of Penn.) did not recollect whether he moved or\nseconded the motion, but if he had, he should not withdraw it on\naccount of the threat of calling the yeas and nays.\n\nMr. Baldwin (of Ga.) hoped the business would be conducted with temper\nand moderation, and that gentlemen would concede and pass the subject\nover a day at least.\n\nMr. Smith (of S.C.) had no idea of holding out a threat to any\ngentleman. If the declaration of an intention to call the yeas and\nnays was viewed by gentlemen in that light, he would withdraw that\ncall.\n\nMr. White (of Va.) hereupon withdrew his motion. And the address was\nordered to lie on the table.\n\n\nFEBRUARY 12th, 1790.\n\nThe following memorial was presented and read:\n\n\"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The\nMemorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of\nslavery, the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage, and\nthe improvement of the condition of the African race, respectfully\nshoweth: That from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an\nassociation was formed several years since in this State, by a number\nof her citizens, of various religious denominations, for promoting the\nabolition of slavery, and for the relief of those unlawfully held in\nbondage. A just and acute conception of the true principles of\nliberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions to their\nnumbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative co-operation\nwith their views, which, by the blessing of Divine Providence, have\nbeen successfully directed to the relieving from bondage a large\nnumber of their fellow creatures of the African race. They have also\nthe satisfaction to observe, that, in consequence of that spirit of\nphilanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally diffusing its\nbeneficial influence, similar institutions are forming at home and\nabroad. That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike\nobjects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of\nhappiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the\npolitical creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. Your\nmemorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the distresses\narising from slavery, believe it their indispensable duty to present\nthis subject to your notice. They have observed with real\nsatisfaction, that many important and salutary powers are vested in\nyou for 'promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty\nto the people of the United States;' and as they conceive, that these\nblessings ought rightfully to be administered, without distinction of\ncolor, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in\nthe pleasing expectation, that nothing which can be done for the\nrelief of the unhappy objects of their care, will be either omitted or\ndelayed. From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the\nportion, and is still the birth-right of all men, and influenced by\nthe strong ties of humanity and the principles of their institution,\nyour memorialists conceived themselves bound to use all justifiable\nendeavors to loosen the bands of slavery, and promote a general\nenjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Under these impressions, they\nearnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery;\nthat you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to\nthose unhappy men, who alone, in this land of freedom, are degraded\ninto perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding\nfreemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise\nmeans for removing this inconsistency from the character of the\nAmerican people; that you will promote mercy and justice towards this\ndistressed race, and that you will step to the very verge of the power\nvested in you, for discouraging every species of traffic in the\npersons of our fellow-men.\n\n\"BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, _President_.\n\n\"PHILADELPHIA, _February_ 3, 1790.\"\n\nMr. Hartley (of Penn.) then called up the memorial presented\nyesterday, from the annual meeting of Friends at Philadelphia, for a\nsecond reading; whereupon the same was read a second time, and moved\nto be committed.\n\nMr. Tucker (of S.C.) was sorry the petition had a second reading as he\nconceived it contained an unconstitutional request, and from that\nconsideration he wished it thrown aside. He feared the commitment of\nit would be a very alarming circumstance to the Southern States; for\nif the object was to engage Congress in an unconstitutional measure,\nit would be considered as an interference with their rights, the\npeople would become very uneasy under the government, and lament that\nthey ever put additional powers into their hands. He was surprised to\nsee another memorial on the same subject and that signed by a man who\nought to have known the constitution better. He thought it a\nmischievous attempt, as it respected the persons in whose favor it was\nintended. It would buoy them up with hopes, without a foundation, and\nas they could not reason on the subject, as more enlightened men\nwould, they might be led to do what they would be punished for, and\nthe owners of them, in their own defence, would be compelled to\nexercise over them a severity they were not accustomed to. Do these\nmen expect a general emancipation of slaves by law? This would never\nbe submitted to by the Southern States without a civil war. Do they\nmean to purchase their freedom? He believed their money would fall\nshort of the price. But how is it they are more concerned in this\nbusiness than others? Are they the only persons who possess religion\nand morality? If the people are not so exemplary, certainly they will\nadmit the clergy are; why then do we not find them uniting in a body,\npraying us to adopt measures for the promotion of religion and piety,\nor any moral object? They know it would be an improper interference;\nand to say the best of this memorial, it is an act of imprudence,\nwhich he hoped would receive no countenance from the house.\n\nMr. Seney (of Md.) denied that there was anything unconstitutional in\nthe memorial, at least, if there was, it had escaped his attention,\nand he should be obliged to the gentleman to point it out. Its only\nobject was, that congress should exercise their constitutional\nauthority, to abate the horrors of slavery, as far as they could:\nIndeed, he considered that all altercation on the subject of\ncommitment was at an end, as the house had impliedly determined\nyesterday that it should be committed.\n\nMr. Burke (of S.C.) saw the disposition of the house, and he feared it\nwould be refered to a committee, maugre all their opposition; but he\nmust insist that it prayed for an unconstitutional measure. Did it not\ndesire congress to interfere and abolish the slave-trade, while the\nconstitution expressly stipulated that congress should exercise no\nsuch power? He was certain the commitment would sound in alarm, and\nblow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States. He was sorry to\nsee the petitioners paid more attention to than the constitution;\nhowever, he would do his duty, and oppose the business totally; and if\nit was referred to a committee, as mentioned yesterday, consisting of\na member from each State, and he was appointed, he would decline\nserving.\n\nMr. Scott, (of Penn.) I can't entertain a doubt but the memorial duty\nparticularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may be\ninclined to take it into consideration. We can, at present, lay our\nhands upon a small duty of ten dollars. I would take this, and if it\nis all we can do, we must be content. But I am sorry that the framers\nof the constitution did not go farther and enable us to interdict it\nfor good and all; for I look upon the slave-trade to be one of the\nmost abominable things on earth; and if there was neither God nor\ndevil, I should oppose it upon the principles of humanity and the law\nof nature. I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person can be said\nto acquire a property in another; is it by virtue of conquest? What\nare the rights of conquest? Some have dared to advance this monstrous\nprinciple, that the conqueror is absolute master of his conquest; that\nhe may dispose of it as his property, and treat it as he pleases; but\nenough of those who reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or\nuse them like beasts of burden; who deliver them up as the property or\npatrimony of another man. Let us argue on principles countenanced by\nreason and becoming humanity; the petitioners view the subject in a\nreligious light, but I do not stand in need of religious motives to\ninduce me to reprobate the traffic in human flesh; other\nconsiderations weigh with me to support the commitment of the\nmemorial, and to support every constitutional measure likely to bring\nabout its total abolition. Perhaps, in our legislative capacity, we\ncan go no further than to impose a duty of ten dollars, but I do not\nknow how far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United\nStates, and those people were to come before me and claim their\nemancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could.\n\nMr. Jackson (of Ga.) differed with the gentleman last up, and supposed\nthe master had a qualified property in his slave; he said the contrary\ndoctrine would go to the destruction of every species of personal\nservice. The gentleman said he did not stand in need of religion to\ninduce him to reprobate slavery, but if he is guided by that evidence,\nwhich the Christian system is founded upon, he will find that religion\nis not against it; he will see, from Genesis to Revelation, the\ncurrent setting strong that way. There never was a government on the\nface of the earth, but what permitted slavery. The purest sons of\nfreedom in the Grecian republics, the citizens of Athens and\nLacedaemon all held slaves. On this principle the nations of Europe\nare associated; it is the basis of the feudal system. But suppose all\nthis to have been wrong, let me ask the gentleman, if it is policy to\nbring forward a business at this moment, likely to light up a flame of\ncivil discord, for the people of the Southern States will resist one\ntyranny as soon as another; the other parts of the continent may bear\nthem down by force of arms, but they will never suffer themselves to\nbe divested of their property without a struggle. The gentleman says,\nif he was a federal judge, he does not know to what length he would go\nin emancipating these people; but, I believe his judgment would be of\nshort duration in Georgia; perhaps even the existence of such a judge\nmight be in danger.\n\nMr. Sherman (of Conn.) could see no difficulty in committing the\nmemorial; because it was probable the committee would understand their\nbusiness, and perhaps they might bring in such a report as would be\nsatisfactory to gentlemen on both sides of the House.\n\nMr. Baldwin (of Ga.) was sorry the subject had ever been brought\nbefore Congress, because it was a delicate nature, as it respected\nsome of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the formation of\nthis Constitution, could not avoid the recollection of the pain and\ndifficulty which the subject caused in that body; the members from the\nSouthern States were so tender upon this point, that they had well\nnigh broken up without coming to any determination; however, from the\nextreme desire of preserving the Union, and obtaining an efficient\ngovernment, they were induced mutually, to concede, and the\nConstitution jealously guarded what they agreed to. If gentlemen look\nover the footsteps of that body, they will find the greatest degree of\ncaution used to imprint them, so as not to be easily eradicated; but\nthe moment we go to jostle on that ground, said he, I fear we shall\nfeel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power to interfere\nwith the importation of slaves, beyond what is given in the 9th\nsection of the first article of the Constitution; every thing else is\ninterdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the\nConstitution, we shall find the expressions, relative to this subject,\ncautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other\npart. \"The migration or importation of such persons, shall not be\nprohibited by Congress.\" But lest this should not have secured the\nobject sufficiently, it is declared in the same section, \"That no\ncapitation or direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the\ncensus;\" this was intended to prevent Congress from laying any special\ntax upon negro slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the\npossessors of them, as to induce a general emancipation. If we go on\nto the 5th article, we shall find the 1st and 5th clauses of the 9th\nsection of the 1st article restrained from being altered before the\nyear 1808.\n\nGentlemen have said, that this petition does not pray for an abolition\nof the slave-trade; I think, sir, it prays for nothing else, and\ntherefore we have no more to do with it, than if it prayed us to\nestablish an order of nobility, or a national religion.\n\nMr. Sylvester of (N.Y.) said that he had always been in the habit of\nrespecting the society called Quakers; he respected them for their\nexertions in the cause of humanity, but he thought the present was not\na time to enter into a consideration of the subject, especially as he\nconceived it to be a business in the province of the State\nlegislature.\n\nMr. Lawrance of (of N.Y.) observed that the subject would undoubtedly\ncome under the consideration of the House; and he thought, that as it\nwas now before them, that the present time was as proper as any; he\nwas therefore for committing the memorial; and when the prayer of it\nhad been properly examined, they could see how far congress may\nconstitutionally interfere; as they knew the limits of their power on\nthis, as well as on every other occasion, there was no just\napprehension to be entertained that they would go beyond them.\n\nMr. Smith (of S.C.) insisted that it was not in the power of the House\nto grant the prayer of the petition, which went to the total\nabolishment of the slave trade, and it was therefore unnecessary to\ncommit it. He observed, that in the Southern States, difficulties had\narisen on adopting the Constitution, inasmuch as it was apprehended,\nthat Congress might take measures under it for abolishing the\nslave-trade.\n\nPerhaps the petitioners, when they applied to this house, did not\nthink their object unconstitutional, but now they are told that it is,\nthey will be satisfied with the answer, and press it no further. If\ntheir object had been for Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars per\nhead on the importation of slaves, they would have said so, but that\ndoes not appear to have been the case; the commitment of the petition,\non that ground, cannot be contended; if they will not be content with\nthat, shall it be committed to investigate facts? The petition speaks\nof none; for what purpose then shall it be committed? If gentlemen can\nassign no good reason for the measure, they will not support it, when\nthey are told that it will create great jealousies and alarm in the\nSouthern States; for I can assure them, that there is no point on\nwhich they are more jealous and suspicious, than on a business with\nwhich they think the government has nothing to do.\n\nWhen we entered into this Confederacy, we did it from political, not\nfrom moral motives, and I do not think my constituents want to learn\nmorals from the petitioners; I do not believe they want improvement in\ntheir moral system; if they do, they can get it at home.\n\nThe gentleman from Georgia, has justly stated the jealousy of the\nSouthern States. On entering into this government, they apprehended\nthat the other States, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the\nSouthern States were under to hold this species of property, would,\nfrom motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general\nemancipation; and had they not seen that the Constitution provided\nagainst the effect of such a disposition, I may be bold to say, they\nnever would have adopted it. And notwithstanding all the calmness with\nwhich some gentlemen have viewed the subject, they will find, that the\ndiscussion alone will create great alarm. We have been told, that if\nthe discussion will create alarm, we ought to have avoided it, by\nsaying nothing; but it was not for that purpose that we were sent\nhere, we look upon this measure as an attack upon the palladium of the\nproperty of our country; it is therefore our duty to oppose it by\nevery means in our power. Gentlemen should consider that when we\nentered into a political connexion with the other States, that this\nproperty was there; it was acquired under a former government,\nconformably to the laws and Constitution; therefore anything that will\ntend to deprive them of that property, must be an _ex post facto_ law,\nand as such is forbid by our political compact.\n\nI said the States would never have entered into the confederation,\nunless their property had been guaranteed to them, for such is the\nstate of agriculture in that country, that without slaves it must be\ndepopulated. Why will these people then make use of arguments to\ninduce the slave to turn his hand against his master? We labor under\ndifficulties enough from the ravages of the late war. A gentleman can\nhardly come from that country, with a servant or two, either to this\nplace or Philadelphia, but what there are persons trying to seduce his\nservants to leave him; and, when they have done this, the poor\nwretches are obliged to rob their master in order to obtain a\nsubsistence; all those, therefore, who are concerned in this\nseduction, are accessaries to the robbery.\n\nThe reproaches which they cast upon the owners of negro property, is\ncharging them with the want of humanity; I believe the proprietors are\npersons of as much humanity as any part of the continent and are as\nconspicuous for their good morals as their neighbors. It was said\nyesterday, that the Quakers were a society known to the laws, and the\nConstitution, but they are no more so than other religious societies;\nthey stand exactly in the same situation; their memorial, therefore,\nrelates to a matter in which they are no more interested than any\nother sect, and can only be considered as a piece of advice; it is\ncustomary to refer a piece of advice to a committee, but if it is\nsupposed to pray for what they think a moral purpose, is that\nsufficient to induce us to commit it? What may appear a moral virtue\nin their eyes, may not be so in reality. I have heard of a sect of\nShaking Quakers, who, I presume, suppose their tenets of a moral\ntendency; I am informed one of them forbids to intermarry, yet in\nconsequence of their shakings and concussions, you may see them with a\nnumerous offspring about them. Now, if these people were to petition\nCongress to pass a law prohibiting matrimony, I ask, would gentlemen\nagree to refer such a petition? I think if they would reject one of\nthat nature, as improper, they ought also to reject this.\n\nMr. Page (of Va.) was in favor of the commitment; he hoped that the\ndesigns of the respectable memorialists would not be stopped at the\nthreshold, in order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the\nmemorial. He observed that gentlemen had founded their arguments upon\na misrepresentation; for the object of the memorial was not declared\nto be the total abolition of the slave trade: but that Congress would\nconsider, whether it be not in reality within their power to exercise\njustice and mercy, which, if adhered to, they cannot doubt must\nproduce the abolition of the slave trade. If then the prayer contained\nnothing unconstitutional, he trusted the meritorious effort would not\nbe frustrated. With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he\nconjectured there was none; but there might be just cause, if the\nmemorial was not taken into consideration. He placed himself in the\ncase of a slave, and said, that, on hearing that Congress had refused\nto listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of the\ncommunity, he should infer, that the general government (from which\nwas expected great good would result to every class of citizens) had\nshut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair\nof any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in\nprospect; if any thing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke\nlike this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if\nhe was told, that application was made in his behalf, and that\nCongress were willing to hear what could be urged in favor of\ndiscouraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would\ntrust in their justice and humanity, and wait the decision patiently.\nHe presumed that these unfortunate people would reason in the same\nway; and he, therefore, conceived the most likely way to prevent\ndanger, was to commit the petition. He lived in a State which had the\nmisfortune of having in her bosom a great number of slaves, he held\nmany of them himself, and was as much interested in the business, he\nbelieved, as any gentleman in South Carolina or Georgia, yet, if he\nwas determined to hold them in eternal bondage, he should feel no\nuneasiness or alarm on account of the present measure, because he\nshould rely upon the virtue of Congress, that they would not exercise\nany unconstitutional authority.\n\nMr. Madison (of Va.) The debate has taken a serious turn, and it will\nbe owing to this alone if an alarm is created; for had the memorial\nbeen treated in the usual way, it would have been considered as a\nmatter of course, and a report might have been made, so as to have\ngiven general satisfaction.\n\nIf there was the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon\nthe constitution, he would object to it; but he did not see upon what\nground such an event was to be apprehended. The petition prayed, in\ngeneral terms, for the interference of congress, so far as they were\nconstitutionally authorized; but even if its prayer was, in some\ndegree, unconstitutional, it might be committed, as was the case on\nMr. Churchman's petition, one part of which was supposed to apply for\nan unconstitutional interference by the general government.\n\nHe admitted that congress was restricted by the constitution from\ntaking measures to abolish the slave-trade; yet there were a variety\nof ways by which they could countenance the abolition, and they might\nmake some regulations respecting the introduction of them into the new\nStates, to be formed out of the Western Territory, different from what\nthey could in the old settled States. He thought the object well\nworthy of consideration.\n\nMr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought the interference of congress fully\ncompatible with the constitution, and could not help lamenting the\nmiseries to which the tribes of Africa were exposed by this inhuman\ncommerce; and said that he never contemplated the subject, without\nreflecting what his own feelings would be, in case himself, his\nchildren, or friends, were placed in the same deplorable\ncircumstances. He then adverted to the flagrant acts of cruelty which\nare committed in carrying on that traffic; and asked whether it can be\nsupposed, that congress has no power to prevent such transactions? He\nthen referred to the constitution, and pointed out the restrictions\nlaid on the general government respecting the importation of slaves.\nIt was not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any gentleman in this\nhouse to violate that part of the constitution; but that we have a\nright to regulate this business, is as clear as that we have any\nrights whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person who has\nspoken on the occasion. Congress can, agreeable to the constitution,\nlay a duty of ten dollars on imported slaves; they may do this\nimmediately. He made a calculation of the value of the slaves in the\nSouthern States, and supposed they might be worth ten millions of\ndollars; congress have a right, if they see proper, to make a proposal\nto the Southern States to purchase the whole of them, and their\nresources in the Western Territory may furnish them with means. He did\nnot intend to suggest a measure of this kind, he only instanced these\nparticulars, to show that congress certainly have a right to\nintermeddle in the business. He thought that no objection had been\noffered, of any force, to prevent the commitment of the memorial.\n\nMr. Boudinot (of N.J.) had carefully examined the petition, and found\nnothing like what was complained of by gentlemen, contained in it; he,\ntherefore, hoped they would withdraw their opposition, and suffer it\nto be committed.\n\nMr. Smith (of S.C.) said, that as the petitioners had particularly\nprayed congress to take measures for the annihilation of the slave\ntrade, and that was admitted on all hands to be beyond their power,\nand as the petitioners would not be gratified by a tax of ten dollars\nper head, which was all that was within their power, there was, of\nconsequence, no occasion for committing it.\n\nMr. Stone (of Md.) thought this memorial a thing of course; for there\nnever was a society, of any considerable extent, which did not\ninterfere with the concerns of other people, and this kind of\ninterference, whenever it has happened, has never failed to deluge the\ncountry in blood: on this principle he was opposed to the commitment.\n\nThe question on the commitment being about to be put, the yeas and\nnays were called for, and are as follows:--\n\nYeas.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Cadwallader, Clymer,\nFitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin,\nGrout, Hartley, Hathorne, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard,\nLivermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Pale, Parker, Partridge,\nRenssellaer, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sinnickson,\nSmith of Maryland, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Wadsworth, White, and\nWynkoop--43.\n\nNoes--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Bourke, Coles, Huger, Jackson, Mathews,\nSylvester, Smith of S.C., Stone, and Tucker--11.\n\nWhereupon it was determined in the affirmative; and on motion, the\npetition of the Society of Friends, at New York, and the memorial from\nthe Pennsylvania Society, for the abolition of slavery, were also\nreferred to a committee.--LLOYD'S DEBATES.\n\n\n\n_Debate on Committee's Report, March_, 1790.\n\nELIOT'S DEBATES.\n\nMr. Tucker moved to modify the first paragraph by striking out all the\nwords after the word opinion, and to insert the following: that the\nseveral memorials proposed to the consideration of this house, a\nsubject on which its interference would be unconstitutional, and even\nits deliberations highly injurious to some of the States in the Union.\n\nMr. Jackson rose and observed, that he had been silent on the subject\nof the reports coming before the committee, because he wished the\nprinciples of the resolutions to be examined fairly, and to be decided\non their true grounds. He was against the propositions generally, and\nwould examine the policy, the justice and the use of them, and he\nhoped, if he could make them appear in the same light to others as\nthey did to him by fair argument, that the gentlemen in opposition\nwere not so determined in their opinions as not to give up their\npresent sentiments.\n\nWith respect to the policy of the measure, the situation of the slaves\nhere, their situation in their native States, and the disposal of them\nin case of emancipation, should be considered. That slavery was an\nevil habit, he did not mean to controvert; but that habit was already\nestablished, and there were peculiar situations in countries which\nrendered that habit necessary. Such situations the States of South\nCarolina and Georgia were in--large tracts of the most fertile lands\non the continent remained uncultivated for the want of population. It\nwas frequently advanced on the floor of Congress, how unhealthy those\nclimates were, and how impossible it was for northern constitutions to\nexist there. What, he asked, is to be done with this uncultivated\nterritory? Is it to remain a waste? Is the rice trade to be banished\nfrom our coasts? Are congress willing to deprive themselves of the\nrevenue arising from that trade, and which is daily increasing, and to\nthrow this great advantage into the hands of other countries?\n\nLet us examine the use or the benefit of the resolutions contained in\nthe report. I call upon gentlemen to give me one single instance in\nwhich they can be of service. They are of no use to congress. The\npowers of that body are already defined, and those powers cannot be\namended, confirmed or diminished by ten thousand resolutions. Is not\nthat the guide and rule of this legislature. A multiplicity of laws is\nreprobated in any society, and tend but to confound and perplex. How\nstrange would a law appear which was to confirm a law; and how much\nmore strange must it appear for this body to pass resolutions to\nconfirm the constitution under which they sit! This is the case with\nothers of the resolutions.\n\nA gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone) very properly observed, that the\nUnion had received the different States with all their ill habits\nabout them. This was one of these habits established long before the\nconstitution, and could not now be remedied. He begged congress to\nreflect on the number on the continent who were opposed to this\nconstitution, and on the number which yet remained in the Southern\nStates. The violation of this compact they would seize on with\navidity; they would make a handle of it to cover their designs against\nthe government, and many good federalists, who would be injured by the\nmeasure, would be induced to join them: his heart was truly federal,\nand it had always been so, and he wished those designs frustrated. He\nbegged congress to beware before they went too far: he called on them\nto attend to the interest of two whole States, as well as to the\nmemorials of a society of quakers, who came forward to blow the\ntrumpet of sedition, and to destroy that constitution which they had\nnot in the least contributed by personal service or supply to\nestablish.\n\nHe seconded Mr. Tucker's motion.\n\nMr. Smith (of S.C.) said, the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.\nGerry,) had declared that it was the opinion of the select committee,\nof which he was a member, that the memorial of the Pennsylvania\nsociety, required congress to violate the constitution. It was not\nless astonishing to see Dr. Franklin taking the lead in a business\nwhich looks so much like a persecution of the Southern inhabitants,\nwhen he recollected the parable he had written some time ago, with a\nview of showing the immorality of one set of men persecuting others\nfor a difference of opinion. The parable was to this effect: an old\ntraveller, hungry and weary, applied to the patriarch Abraham for a\nnight's lodging. In conversation, Abraham discovered that the stranger\ndiffered with him on religious points, and turned him out of doors. In\nthe night God appeared unto Abraham, and said, where is the stranger?\nAbraham answered, I found that he did not worship the true God, and so\nI turned him out of doors. The Almighty thus rebuked the patriarch:\nhave I borne with him three-score and ten years, and couldst thou not\nbear with him one night? Has the Almighty, said Mr. Smith, borne with\nus for more than three-score years and ten: He has even made our\ncountry opulent, and shed the blessings of affluence and prosperity on\nour land, notwithstanding all its slaves, and must we now be ruined\non account of the tender consciences of a few scrupulous individuals\nwho differ from us on this point?\n\nMr. Boudinot agreed with the general doctrines of Mr. S., but could\nnot agree that the clause in the constitution relating to the want of\npower in congress to prohibit the importation of such persons as any\nof the States, _now existing_, shall think proper to admit, prior to\nthe year 1808, and authorizing a tax or duty on such importation not\nexceeding ten dollars for each person, did not extend to negro slaves.\nCandor required that he should acknowledge that this was the express\ndesign of the constitution, and therefore congress could not interfere\nin prohibiting the importation or promoting the emancipation of them,\nprior to that period. Mr. Boudinot observed, that he was well informed\nthat the tax or duty of ten dollars was provided, instead of the five\nper cent. ad valorem, and was so expressly understood by all parties\nin the convention; that therefore it was the interest and duty of\ncongress to impose this tax, or it would not be doing justice to the\nStates, or equalizing the duties throughout the Union. If this was\nnot done, merchants might bring their whole capitals into this branch\nof trade, and save paying any duties whatever. Mr. Boudinot observed,\nthat the gentleman had overlooked the prophecy of St. Peter, where he\nforetells that among other damnable heresies, \"Through covetousness\nshall they with feigned words make merchandize of you.\"\n\n\n[NOTE.--This petition, with others of a similar object, was committed\nto a select committee; that committee made a report; the report was\nreferred to a committee of the whole house, and discussed on four\nsuccessive days; it was then reported to the House with amendments,\nand by the House ordered to be inscribed in its Journals, and then\nlaid on the table.\n\nThat report, as amended in committee, is in the following words: The\ncommittee to whom were referred sundry memorials from the people\ncalled Quakers, and also a memorial from the Pennsylvania Society for\npromoting the abolition of slavery, submit the following report, (as\namended in committee of the whole.)\n\n\"First: That the migration or importation of such persons as any of\nthe States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be\nprohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.\"\n\n\"Secondly: That Congress have no power to interfere in the\nemancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the\nStates; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any\nregulations therein which humanity and true policy may require.\"\n\n\"Thirdly: That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the\nUnited States from carrying on the African Slave trade, for the\npurpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing by\nproper regulations for the humane treatment, during their passage, of\nslaves imported by the said citizens into the states admitting such\nimportations.\"\n\n\"Fourthly: That Congress have also authority to prohibit foreigners\nfrom fitting out vessels in any part of the United States for\ntransporting persons from Africa to any foreign port.\"]\n\n\n\nADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY\nSOCIETY TO THE Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United\nStates.\n\nAt the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held in\nthe city of New York, May 7th, 1844,--after grave deliberation, and a\nlong and earnest discussion,--it was decided, by a vote of nearly\nthree to one of the members present, that fidelity to the cause of\nhuman freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who are held\nin chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to God, require\nthat the existing national compact should be instantly dissolved; that\nsecession from the government is a religious and political duty; that\nthe motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom should be, NO UNION WITH\nSLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for tyrants and the enemies of\ntyranny to coalesce and legislate together for the preservation of\nhuman rights, or the promotion of the interests of Liberty; and that\nrevolutionary ground should be occupied by all those who abhor the\nthought of doing evil that good may come, and who do not mean to\ncompromise the principles of Justice 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 is\ndue 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 _life,_\nLIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.\" It is further maintained by\nthem, that \"all governments derive their just powers from the consent\nof the governed;\" that \"whenever any form of government becomes\ndestructive of human rights, it is the right of the people to alter or\nto abolish it, and institute a new government, laying its foundation\non such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them\nshall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.\" These\ndoctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed with their blood. They would\nnot brook even the menace of oppression. They held that there should\nbe no delay in resisting at whatever cost or peril, the first\nencroachments of power on their liberties. Appealing to the great\nRuler of the universe for the rectitude of their course, they pledged\nto each other \"their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor,\" to\nconquer or perish in their struggle 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 man\nsobriety 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 influence\nof impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are of--whether they\nhave counted the cost of the warfare--what are the principles they\nadvocate--and how they are to achieve their object--is the first duty\nof revolutionists.\n\nBut, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in\nevery great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever they\nrestrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it.\n\nWe charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at the\nexpense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, and\nto 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 favor\na slaveholding oligarchy, and consequently, to make one portion of the\npeople 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, and\nthe 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 see reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was\ntyrannical. It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the\nmeans. It is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its\nperpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and subversive\nof the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our refuge, and\nunder falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape the\noverflowing scourge. \"Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Judgment\nwill I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail\nshall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the\nhiding place.\" Moreover, \"because ye trust in oppression and\nperverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this iniquity shall be to\nyou as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose\nbreaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the\nbreaking of the potter's vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not\nspare.\"\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 be light.\" It assumes that to be practicable, which is\nimpossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union with\ninjustice, and safety with bloodguiltiness. A union of virtue with\npollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership between\nright and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the principles of\nJustice, 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 all\nthat has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was sinful\nat the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a greater\nevil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the same\nreason, 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 are to understand\nthe absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the whole country,\nto the prostration of Northern rights. In the just use of words, the\nAmerican Union is and always has been a sham--an imposture. It is an\ninstrument of oppression unsurpassed in the criminal history of the\nworld. How then can it be innocently sustained? It is not certain, it\nis not even probable, that if it had not been adopted, the mother\ncountry would have reconquered the colonies. The spirit that would\nhave chosen danger in preference to crime,--to perish with justice\nrather than live with dishonor,--to dare and suffer whatever might\nbetide, rather than sacrifice the rights of one human being,--could\nnever have been subjugated by any mortal power. Surely it is paying a\npoor tribute to the valor and devotion of our revolutionary fathers in\nthe cause of liberty, to say that, if they had sternly refused to\nsacrifice their principles, they would have fallen an easy prey to the\ndespotic 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 may\ndetermine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted it\nmeant_--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 use\nof 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 to\ngive 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, TO\nMEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in good\nfaith, 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 they\ncan fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, it is\nallowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially as the\ncause of freedom will thereby be promoted_--we reply, that this is to\nadvocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting parties,\n_whose co-operation was secured only by an express agreement and\nunderstanding between them both, in regard to the clauses alluded to_;\nand that such a construction, if enforced by pains and penalties,\nwould unquestionably lead to a civil war, in which the aggrieved party\nwould justly claim to have been betrayed, and robbed of their\nconstitutional 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 also\ntrue that they are portions of an instrument, the support of which, AS\nA WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, _because\nthey are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE\nIMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the Constitution.\n\nAgain, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the\npeople of the United States, in order to establish justice, to promote\nthe general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves\nand their posterity; and therefore, it is to be so construed as to\nharmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that its language is\n_not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of the contracting\nparties understood_, and which would frustrate every design of their\nalliance--to wit, _union at the expense of the colored population of\nthe country_. Moreover, nothing is more certain than that the preamble\nalluded to never included, in the minds of those who framed it, _those\nwho were then pining in bondage_--for, in that case, a general\nemancipation of the slaves would have instantly been proclaimed\nthroughout the United States. The words, \"secure the blessings of\nliberty to ourselves and our posterity,\" assuredly meant only the\nwhite population. \"To promote the general welfare,\" referred to their\nown welfare exclusively. \"To establish justice,\" was understood to be\nfor their sole benefit as slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of\nslavery. This is demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument,\nand by their own practice under it.\n\nWe would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is as\nreprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_, as\nit is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, it is\nan 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; or\nthat it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to make it\nharmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly might it\nbe argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration of\nIndependence, 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 means\nthey used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated by the\nspirit 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 a\nportion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in the\nmarket, while they were fighting against the oppression of the mother\ncountry, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man. Why,\nthen, concede to them virtues which they did not posses? _Why cling to\nthe falsehood, that they were no respecters of person in the formation\nof 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, in\nits relations to slavery.\n\nIn ARTICLE I, Section 9, it is declared--\"The migration or importation\nof such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper\nto admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year\none thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed\non such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each 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. For\ntwenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the citizens of\nthe United States were to be encouraged and protected in the\nprosecution 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 subjecting\nthe wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated bondage! This\nawful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, since its\ntermination, Congress has declared the foreign slave traffic to be\npiracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American flag, instead of\nbeing the terror of the African slavers, has given them the most ample\nprotection.\n\nThe manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national\nconvention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by the\nHon. Luther Martin,[8] who was a prominent member of that body:\n\n[Footnote 8: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]\n\n\n\"The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!)\nwere _very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with a\ntemporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern\nStates would, in their turn, _gratify_ them by laying no restriction\non navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a\ngreat majority, agreed on a report, _by which the general government\nwas to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves_ for a\nlimited time; and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts\nwas to be omitted.\"\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 not\nadopted \"without considerable opposition.\" Alluding to it, Mr. Martin\nobserves--\n\n\"It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent nations\nin consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to\n_enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation\nof those rights to which God and nature has entitled us, not in\n_particular_, but in _common with all the rest of mankind_; that we\nhad appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of\nfreedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the rights\nwhich he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we had\nscarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his mercy and\nprotection in forming our government over a free people, a government\nformed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its\npreservation,--in that government to have a provision, not only of\nputting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, even\nencouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States the power\nand influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly\nsported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to be\nconsidered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that God whose\nprotection we had thus implored, and could not fail to hold us up in\ndetestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of\nliberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can only be,\nand frequently are, punished in this world by _national punishments_,\nand that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a\nnational character, sanction, and encouragement, ought to be\nconsidered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of\nhim who is equally the Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the\npoor _African slave_ and his _American master!_ [9]\n\n[Footnote 9: How terribly and justly as the guilty nation been\nscourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and the\nslave trade!]\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 exercise\nof that power the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in\nits nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. That, on the\ncontrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our Constitution, the\nfurther importation of slaves, and to authorize the general\ngovernment, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be\nthought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and\nthe emancipation of the slaves already in the States. That slavery is\ninconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to\ndestroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the\nsense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates to tyranny and\noppression. It was further urged that, by this system of government,\nevery State is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from\ndomestic insurrections; and, from this consideration, it was of the\nutmost importance it should have the power to restrain the importation\nof slaves, since in proportion as the number of slaves increased in\nany State, in the same proportion is the State weakened and exposed to\nforeign invasion and domestic insurrection; and by so much less will\nit be able to protect itself against either, and therefore by so much,\nwant aid and be a burden 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 have\nprohibited 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, than\nwhich 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.\" [10]\n\n[Footnote 10: Secret Proceedings, p. 61.]\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 their\nheaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of the\noverruling power of God. \"The Eastern States were very willing to\n_indulge_ the Southern States\" in the unrestricted prosecution of\ntheir piratical traffic, provided in return they could be _gratified_\nby no restriction on being laid on navigation acts!!--Had there been\nno other provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection,\nthis one alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible\nwith the duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It\nwas the poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but\na very 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 bargain\nwas, that the traffic _should cease_ in 1808; but the only thing\nsecured by it was, the _right_ of Congress (not any obligation) to\nprohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not chosen to\nexercise that right, _the traffic might have been prolonged\nindefinitely, under the Constitution_. The right to destroy any\nparticular branch of commerce, implies the right to re-establish it.\nTrue, there is no probability that the African slave trade will ever\nagain be legalized by the national government; but no credit is due\nthe framers of the Constitution on this ground; for, while they threw\naround it all the sanction and protection of the national character\nand power for twenty years, _they set no bounds to its continuance by\nany 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 more\nperfect 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 the 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,\nhas no other choice left than to withdraw from the government, or to\nviolate his conscience by taking on his lips an impious promise. The\nobject of the Constitution is not to define _what is the law of God_,\nbut WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE--which will is not to be frustrated\nby an ingenious moral interpretation, by those whom they have elected\nto serve them.\n\nARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides--\"Representatives and direct taxes shall\nbe apportioned 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 not\ntaxed, _three-fifths of all other persons_.\"\n\nHere, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a form\nof words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic\ngovernment, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and augmentation\nof the slaveholding power--a provision scarcely less atrocious than\nthat which related to the African slave trade, and almost as\nafflictive in its operation--a provision still in force, with no\npossibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the slave\nStates choose to maintain their slave system--a provision which, at\nthe 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 all\nothers, and then puts this power into the hands of their oppressors,\nto be wielded by them for the more perfect security of their tyrannous\nauthority, and the complete subjugation of the non-slaveholding\nStates.\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 of\nthe impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own:\nwhether this is _reasoning_, or _declamation_, (!!) I will not presume\nto say. It is the _unfortunate_ situation of the Southern States to\nhave a great part of their population, as well as _property_, in\nblacks. The regulation complained of was one result of _the spirit of\naccommodation_ which governed the Convention: and without this\n_indulgence_, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED. But, sir,\nconsidering some _peculiar advantages_ which we derive from them, it\nis entirely JUST that they should be _gratified_.--The Southern States\npossess certain staples, tobacco, rice, indigo, &c.--which must be\n_capital_ objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations; and\nthe advantage which they necessarily procure in these treaties will be\nfelt 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 American\nindependence, and in framing the American Constitution?\n\nListen, now, to the questions 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 trustee\nof the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of his\nfoes.'--'It was _one_ of the curses from that Pandora's box, adjusted\nat the time, as usual, by a _compromise_, the whole advantage of which\ninured to the benefit of the South, and to aggravate the burdens of\nthe North.'--'If there be a parallel to it in human history, it can\nonly be that of the Roman Emperors, who, from the days when Julius\nCaesar substituted a military despotism in the place of a republic,\namong the offices which they always concentrated upon themselves, was\nthat of tribune of the people. A Roman Emperor tribune of the people,\nis an exact parallel to that feature in the Constitution of the United\nStates which makes the master the representative of his slave.'--'The\nConstitution of the United States expressly prescribes that no title\nof nobility shall be granted by the United States. The spirit of this\ninterdict is not a rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless\nempty _titles_, but to titles of _nobility_; to the institution of\nprivileged orders of men. But what order of men under the most\nabsolute of monarchies, or the most aristocratic of republics, was\never invested with such an odious and unjust privilege as that of the\nseparate and exclusive representation of less than half a million\nowners of slaves, in the Hall of this House, in the Chair of the\nSenate, and in the Presidential mansion?'--'This investment of power\nin the owners of one species of property concentrated in the highest\nauthorities of the nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the\ntwenty-six States of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men\nin the community, more adverse to the rights of all, and more\npernicious to the interests of the whole, than any order of nobility\never known. To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to\ninsult the understanding of mankind. To call it an aristocracy, is to\ndo injustice to that form of government. Aristocracy is the government\nof _the best_. Its standard qualification for accession to power _is\nmerit_, ascertained by popular election recurring at short intervals\nof time. If even that government is prone to degenerate into tyranny,\nwhat must be the character of that form of polity in which the\nstandard qualification for access to power is wealth in the possession\nof slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of riches and of\nslavery. _There is no name in the language of national jurisprudence\nthat can define it_--no model in the records of ancient history, or in\nthe political theories of Aristotle, with which it can be likened. It\nwas introduced into the Constitution of the United States by an\nequivocation--a representation of property under the name of persons.\nLittle did the members of the Convention from the free States foresee\nwhat a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden under the mask of this\nconcession.'--'The House of Representatives of the United States\nconsists of 223 members--all, by _the letter_ of the Constitution,\nrepresentatives only of _persons_, as 135 of them really are; but the\nother 88, equally representing the _persons_ of their constituents, by\nwhom they are elected, also represent, under the name of _other\npersons_, upwards of two and a half millions of _slaves_, held as the\n_property_ of less than half a million of the white constituents, and\nvalued at twelve hundred millions of dollars. Each of these 88 members\nrepresents in fact the whole of that mass of associated wealth, and\nthe persons and exclusive interests of its owners; all thus knit\ntogether, like the members of a moneyed corporation, with a capital\nnot of thirty-five or forty or fifty, but of twelve hundred millions\nof dollars, exhibiting the most extraordinary exemplification of the\nanti-republican tendencies of associated wealth that the world ever\nsaw.'--'Here is one class of men, consisting of not more than one\nfortieth part of the whole people, not more than one-thirtieth part of\nthe free population, exclusively devoted to their personal interests\nidentified with their own as slaveholders of the same associated\nwealth, and wielding by their votes, upon every question of government\nor of public policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the House. In\nthe Senate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding power is\nyet greater. 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 interest\nas the 88 members elected by them to the House.'--'By this process it\nis that all political power in the States is absorbed and engrossed by\nthe owners of _slaves_, and the overruling policy of the States is\nshaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination. The\nlegislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in their\nhands--the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the black\ncode of slavery--every law of the legislature becomes a link in the\nchain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate;\nevery judicial decision a perversion of the human intellect to the\njustification of _wrong._'--'Its reciprocal 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 American\nCongress, and thereby to make the PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, AND\nPERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL\nGOVERNMENT.'--'The result is seen in the fact that, at this day, the\nPresident of the United States, the President of the Senate, the\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives, and five out of nine of the\nJudges of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the United States, are not\nonly 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 of\nthe customs; the registers and receivers of the land offices, and the\npost-masters throughout the slaveholding States.--The Biennial\nRegister indicates the birth-place of all the officers employed in the\ngovernment of the Union. If it were required to designate the owners\nof this species 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 that\nframed the Constitution, that \"the delegation from the free States, in\ntheir extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendency of the Southern\nslaveholder, 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 Union\nto its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile, foreign,\nand Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential issue of\nwhich will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the unhallowed\nstandard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the North\nAmerican Union--that banner, first unfurled to the breeze, inscribed\nwith the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.\"\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 wage\nwar against human liberty. It is to recognize and honor as republican\nlegislators, _incorrigible men-stealers_, MERCILESS TYRANTS, BLOOD\nTHIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weapons about their\npersons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives, with which they\nthreaten to murder any Northern senator or representative who shall\ndare to stain their _honor_, or interfere with their _rights_! They\nconstitute a banditti more fierce and cruel than any whose atrocities\nare recorded on the pages of history or romance. To mix with them on\nterms of social or religious fellowship, is to indicate a low state of\nvirtue; but to think of administering a free government by their\nco-operation, is nothing short of insanity.\n\nArticle IV., Section 2, declares,--\"no person held to service or labor\non one State, _under the laws thereof_, escaping into another, shall,\nin consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from\nsuch service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party\nto whom such service or labor may be due.\"\n\nHere is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no mention of\nslavery 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 from\nhis master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in\nthat place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh\nhim best: thou shalt not oppress him.\" The warning which the prophet\nIsaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind: \"Take counsel,\nexecute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the midst of the\nnoon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that wandereth. Let mine\noutcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert to them from the face\nof the spoiler.\" The prophet Obadiah brings the following charge\nagainst treacherous Edom, which is precisely applicable to this guilty\nnation:--\"For thy violence against thy brother Jacob, shame shall come\nover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever. In the day that thou\nstoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away\ncaptive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast\nlots upon Jerusalem, _even thou wast as one of them_. But thou\nshouldst not have looked on the day of thy brother, in the day that he\nbecame a stranger; neither shouldst thou have rejoiced over the\nchildren of Judah, in the day of their destruction; neither shouldst\nthou have spoken proudly in the day of distress; neither shouldst thou\nhave _stood in the cross-way, to cut off those of his that did\nescape_; neither shouldst thou have _delivered up those of his that\ndid remain_, in the day of distress.\"\n\nHow exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeachment of\nEdom by the same prophet! \"The pride of thy heart hath deceived thee,\nthou whose habitation is high; that saith in thy heart, Who shall\nbring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle,\nand though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee\ndown, saith the Lord.\" The emblem of American pride and power is the\n_eagle_, and on her banner she has mingled _stars_ with its _stripes_.\nHer vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her self-exaltation, and\nher defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the madness and wickedness\nof Edom. What shall be her punishment? Truly, it may be affirmed of\nthe American people, (who live not under the Levitical but Christian\ncode, and whose guilt, therefore, is the more awful, and their\ncondemnation the greater,) in the language of another prophet--\"They\nall lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.\nThat they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh,\nand the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his\nmischievous desire: _so they wrap it up_.\" Likewise of the colored\ninhabitants of this land it may be said,--\"This is a people robbed and\nspoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in\nprison-houses; they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil,\nand none saith, Restore.\"\n\nBy this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting ground\nof slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with bloodhounds, and\ncapture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber hands\nupon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves are now\nin Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could not find,\nthroughout its vast extent, a single road on which they could dwell in\nsafety, in _consequence of this provision of the Constitution_? How is\nit possible, then, for the advocates of liberty to support a\ngovernment which gives over to destruction one-sixth part of the whole\npopulation?\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\npresent, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free,\n_he becomes emancipated by their laws_; for the laws of the States are\n_uncharitable_ (!) to one another in this respect; but in this\nconstitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under\nthe laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation\ntherein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be\ndelivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may\nbe due.' THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE OWNERS OF\nSLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. _This is a better security than any that now\nexists_. No power is given to the general government to interfere with\nrespect to the property in slaves now held by the 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\nauthority is given to owners of slaves _to vindicate their property_,\ncan it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a citizen of this\nState, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in\nMaryland, can it be seriously thought that, after taking him and\nbringing 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 a\nparadox--the American Constitution is a paradox--the American Union is\na paradox--the American Government is a paradox; and if any one of\nthese is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That it is the\nduty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding authority of them\nall, and to secede from them all, we distinctly affirm. After the\nindependence of this country had been achieved, the voice of God\nexhorted the people, saying, \"Execute true judgment, and show mercy\nand compassion, every man to his brother: and oppress not the widow,\nnor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you\nimagine evil against his brother in your heart. But they refused to\nhearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that\nthey should not hear; yea, they made their hearts as an adamant\nstone.\" \"Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord. Shall not\nmy soul be avenged on such a notion 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 Court\nof 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 caste\nor complexion, whom he may choose to claim as runaway slaves; and if,\nwhen thus surprised and attacked, or on their arrival South, they\ncannot prove by legal witnesses, that they are freemen, their doom is\nsealed! Hence the free colored population of the North are specially\nliable to become the victims of this terrible power, and all the other\ninhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers, because there are\nmultitudes of white as well as black slaves on Southern plantations,\nand slavery is no longer fastidious with regard to the color of its\nprey.\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 I., 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 would\nunquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting these\nclauses:--\n\n\n\"On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be,\nthe militia of the other States are to be called to suppress domestic\ninsurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth their own\nmilitia? No; but it gives them a _supplementary_ security to suppress\ninsurrections and domestic violence.\"\n\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\n\"Have they it now?  If they have, does the constitution take it away?\nIf it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been\nmentioned by the worthy member. The first part gives the general\ngovernment power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it\naway from the States? No! but _it gives an additional security;_ for,\nbeside the power in the State government to use their own militia, it\nwill be _the duty of the general government_ to aid them WITH THE\nSTRENGTH OF THE UNION, when called for.\"\n\n\nThis solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the climax\nof national barbarity, and stains with human blood the garments of all\nthe people. In consequence of it, that system has multiplied its\nvictims from five hundred thousand to nearly three millions--a vast\namount of territory has been purchased, in order to give it extension\nand perpetuity--several new slave States have been admitted into the\nUnion--the slave trade has been made one of the great branches of\nAmerican commerce--the slave population, though over-worked, starved,\nlacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to every form of deprivation\nand every species of torture, have been overawed and crushed,--or,\nwhenever they have attempted to gain their liberty by revolt, they\nhave been shot down and quelled by the strong arm of the national\ngovernment; as, for example, in the case of Nat Turner's insurrection\nin Virginia, when the naval and military forces of the government were\ncalled into active service. Cuban bloodhounds have been purchased with\nthe money of the people, and imported and used to hunt slave fugitives\namong the everglades of Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged\nfor the extermination or expulsion of the Florida Indians, because\nthey gave succor to those poor hunted fugitives--a warfare which has\ncost the nation several thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars.\nBut the catalogue of enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the\npresent 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 God\nand man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be\nimmediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent, we\ncall upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to obey God\nrather than man, to declare themselves peaceful revolutionists, and to\nunite with us under the stainless banner of Liberty, having for its\nmotto--\"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL--NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!\"\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, that\ninstrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every moral\ninstinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue that we\nmay swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because it may be\nnecessary to do so only for the time being, and because there is some\nremote probability that the instrument which requires that we should\nbe robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some future day be\namended in these particulars? Let us not palter with our consciences\nin this manner--let us not deny that the compact was conceived in sin\nand brought forth in iniquity--let us not be so dishonest, even to\npromote a good object, as to interpret the Constitution in a manner\nutterly at variance with the intentions and arrangements of the\ncontracting parties; but, confessing the guilt of the nation,\nacknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond, washing our\nhands in the waters of repentance from all further participation in\nthis criminal alliance, and resolving that we will sustain none other\nthan a free and righteous government, let us glory in the name of\nrevolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion, and consecrate our\ntalents and means to the overthrow of all that is tyrannical in the\nland,--to the establishment of all that is free, just, true and\nholy,--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 make\nit a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free people,\nand was never intended to give any strength or countenance to the\nslave system--the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty replies:--\"What\nthough the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere piece of\nparchment? In itself, though it be written all over with words of\ntruth and freedom--though its provisions be as impartial and just as\nwords can express, or the imagination paint--though it be as pure as\nthe gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven--it is powerless; it\nhas no executive vitality; it is a lifeless corpse, even though\nbeautiful 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\njudgement 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, the\npeople light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with\npollution--if we are living under a frightened despotism, which scoffs\nat all constitutional restrains, and wields the resources of the\nnation to promote its own bloody purposes--tell us not that the forms\nof freedom are still left to us! \"Would such tameness and submission\nhave freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it have\nresisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering wedges\nof tyranny with which the British government sought to rive the\nliberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have rusted on\nits axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to give it\nmotion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties were\ninfringed--\"_Why, what is done cannot be undone_. That is the first\nthought.\" No it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather it\nnever 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    \"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\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 theory\nof the government, if the practice of the government be unjust and\ntyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism incomparably more\ndreadful than that which induced the colonists to take up arms against\nthe mother country; not on account of a three-penny tax on tea, but\nbecause fetters of living iron are fastened on the limbs of millions\nof our countrymen, and our own sacred rights are trampled in the dust.\nAs citizens of the State, we appeal to the State in vain for\nprotection and redress. As citizen of the United States, we are\ntreated as outlaws in one half of the country, and the national\ngovernment consents to our destruction. We are denied the right of\nlocomotion, freedom of speech, the right of petition, the liberty of\nthe press, the right peaceably to assemble together to protest against\noppression and plead for liberty--at least in thirteen States of the\nUnion. If we venture, as avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to\ntravel South of Mason and Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our\nlives. If we would escape torture and death, on visiting any of the\nslave States, we must stifle our conscientious convictions, hear no\ntestimony against cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling\nemotions of humanity, divest ourselves of all letters and papers of an\nantislavery character, and do homage to the slaveholding power--or run\nthe risk of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and undeniable\nfacts.\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! There\nthey lie bleeding--we are prostrate by their side--in their sorrows\nand sufferings we participate--their stripes are inflicted on our\nbodies, their shackles are fastened to our limbs, their cause is ours!\nThe Union which grinds them to the dust rests upon us, and with them\nwe will struggle to overthrow it! The Constitution, which subjects\nthem to hopeless bondage, is one that we cannot swear to support! Our\nmotto is, \"NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS,\" either religious or political.\nThey are the fiercest enemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of\nGod! We separate from them not in anger, not in malice, not for a\nselfish purpose, not to do them an injury, not to cease warning,\nexhorting, reproving them for their crimes, not to leave the perishing\nbondman to his fate--O no! But to clear our skirts of innocent\nblood--to give the oppressor no countenance--to signify our abhorrence\nof injustice and cruelty--to testify against an ungodly compact--to\ncease striking hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers--to\nmake no compromise with tyranny--to walk worthily of our high\nprofession--to increase our moral power over the nation--to obey God\nand vindicate the gospel of His Son--to hasten the downfall of slavery\nin America, and throughout the world!\n\nWe are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully counted the\ncost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences. It\nwill 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, scorned as visionaries, branded\nas disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps punished\nas traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether safety or peril,\nwhether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours, believing\nthat our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that our position\nis sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is rational and\nsteadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious promises on which\nto rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not falter nor be\ndismayed, \"though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be\ncarried into the midst of the sea,\"--though our ranks be thinned to\nthe number of \"three hundred men.\" Freemen! are you ready for the\nconflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that binds you to a\nslaveholding government, and declare your independence? Up, then, with\nthe banner of revolution! Not to shed blood--not to injure the person\nor estate of any oppressor--not by force and arms to resist any\nlaw--not to countenance a servile insurrection--not to wield any\ncarnal weapons! No--ours must be a bloodless strife, excepting _our_\nblood be shed--for we aim, as did Christ our leader, not to destroy\nmen's lives, but to save them--to overcome evil with good--to conquer\nthrough suffering for righteousness' sake--to set the captive free by\nthe potency of truth!\n\nSecede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay it\nno allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices under it.\nSend no senators or representatives to the national or State\nlegislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform yourself, you\ncannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate a declaration\nof DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout the country. Hold mass\nmeetings--assemble in conventions--nail your banners to the 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 the\napostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and confessors do?\nWhat did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What can women and\nchildren do? What has Father Mathew done for teetotalism? What has\nDaniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? \"Stand, having your loins girt\nabout with truth, and having on the breast-plate of righteousness,\" and\narrayed 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 to\nargue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned from\ntheir iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of order and\nobedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty. What is\nnow fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and shine like a\ngem 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, we\nhave the God of justice with us. We know that we have our enslaved\ncountrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts will be with\nus. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will be against us.\n\nIn behalf of the Executive committee of the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety,\n\nWM. LLOYD GARRISON, _President_.\nWENDELL PHILLIPS, MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN   }  _Secretaries_.\n_Boston, May 20, 1844_.\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 found\nit a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to be so,\ncould I consent longer to hold it. But paramount considerations\nforbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission respectfully\nasking 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 with\nthe 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, uphold\nand perpetuate _slavery_. It pledges the country to guard and protect\nthe slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose to retain\nit. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States which enact it.\nStill more, \"it has done that, which, until its adoption, was never\nbefore done for African slavery. It took it out of its former category\nof municipal law and local life, adopted it as a national institution,\nspread around it the broad and sufficient shield of national law, and\nthus gave to slavery a national existence.\" Consequently, the oath to\nsupport the Constitution of the United States is a solemn promise to\ndo that which is morally wrong; that which is a violation of the\nnatural rights of man, and a sin in the sight of God.\n\nI am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I do\nnot say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it. I\nonly say, that _I_ would not now deliberately take it; and that,\nhaving inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie upon\nmy soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back the\ncommission, 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 make\na more specific statement of those _provisions of the Constitution_\nwhich support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of slavery.\n\nThe very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once under\nits legislative protection, as a basis of representation in the\npopular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves under\nthe description \"of all other _persons_\"--as of only three-fifths of\nthe value of free persons; thus to appearance undervaluing them in\ncomparison with freemen. But its dark and involved phraseology seems\nintended to blind us to the consideration, that those underrated\nslaves are merely a _basis_, not the _source_ of representation; that\nby the laws of all the States where they live, they are regarded not\nas _persons_, but as _things_; that they are not the _constituency_ of\nthe representative, but his property; and that the necessary effect of\nthis provision of the Constitution is, to take legislative power out\nof the hands of _men_ as such, and give it to the mere possessors of\ngoods and chattels. Fixing upon thirty thousand persons, as the\nsmallest number that shall send one member into the House of\nRepresentatives, it protects slavery by distributing legislative power\nin a free and in a slave State thus: To a congressional district in\nSouth Carolina, containing fifty thousand slaves, claimed as the\nproperty of five hundred whites, who hold, on an average, one hundred\napiece, it gives one Representative in Congress; to a district in\nMassachusetts containing a population of thirty thousand five hundred,\none Representative is assigned. But inasmuch as a slave is never\npermitted to vote, the fifty thousand persons in a district in\nCarolina form no part of \"the constituency;\" _that_ is found only in\nthe five hundred free persons. Five hundred freemen of Carolina could\nsend one Representative to Congress, while it would take thirty\nthousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts, to do the same thing;\nthat is, one slaveholder in Carolina is clothed by the Constitution\nwith the same political power and influence in the Representatives\nHall at Washington, as sixty Massachusetts men like you and me, who\n\"eat their bread in the sweat of 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 House\nof Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an approximation\nto the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves in the United\nStates are held as property by about two hundred and fifty thousand\npersons--giving an average of ten slaves to each slaveholder, those\ntwenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most, by only ten\nthousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths of that\nnumber, were the representatives, not only of the two hundred and\nfifty thousand persons who chose them; but of _property_ which, five\nyears ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at present, were\nestimated, by the man who is now the most prominent candidate for the\nPresidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a sum, which, by\nthe natural increase of five years, and the enhanced value resulting\nfrom a more prosperous state of the planting interest, cannot now be\nless than fifteen hundred millions of dollars. All this vast amount of\nproperty, as it is \"peculiar,\" is also identical in its character. In\nCongress, as we have seen, it is animated by one spirit, moves in one\nmass, and is wielded with one aim; and when we consider that tyranny\nis always timid, and despotism distrustful, we see that this vast\nmoney power would be false to itself, did it not direct all its eyes\nand hands, and put forth all its ingenuity and energy, to one\nend--self-protection and self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done.\nIn all the vibrations of the political scale, whether in relation to a\nBank or Sub-Treasury, Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has\nmoved, and will continue 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 college_, 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 each\na slaveholder for the chair of State. The candidate of one party\ndeclares, \"I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose, any\nscheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;\" and\nadds, \"It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that either\nof the two great parties of this country has any design or aim at\nabolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true.\"[11]\n\n[Footnote 11: 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 with\neach other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a condition\nprecedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the executive\nchair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the existence of\nour constitutional government, has been occupied by a slaveholder.\n\nThe same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of justice.\nOf the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, five\nare slaveholders and of course, must be faithless to their own\ninterest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them place, or\nmust, so far as _they_ are concerned, give both to law and\nconstitution such a construction as shall justify the language of John\nQuincy Adams, when he says--\"The legislative, executive, and judicial\nauthorities, are all in their hands--for the preservation,\npropagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every law\nof the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave; every\nexecutive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial decision a\nperversion of the human intellect to the justification of wrong.\"\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 whole\npower, and controlling the destiny of the nation.\n\nIf we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair of\nthe 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, issues\nfrom the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, and at\nher bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or march from\nthe Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her interests in\nTexas.\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 on\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 sons\nof Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which guarantees\nprotection against \"_domestic violence_,\" and which pledges to the\nSouth the military force of the country, to protect the masters\nagainst their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our children, to shoot\ndown our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in emulation of our\nrevolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable \"right to life,\n_liberty_ and the pursuit of happiness,\"--this clause of the\nConstitution, I say distinctly, I never will support.\n\nThat part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of\nfugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join in\nno slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for the\npanting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it\nagainst him, may God shut the door of her mercy against me! Under this\nclause 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 in\na free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress does\nnot allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of a\nJudge of a United State' 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 where\nI am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws of the\nUnited 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 support\nit. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law of God,\nor solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break it.\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 the\n_thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance of\nSlavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though they\nsacrificed justice in doing so.\n\nThere is abundant evidence that this clause touching \"persons held to\nservice or labor,\" not only operates practically, under the judicial\nconstruction, for the protection of the slave interest; but that it\nwas _intended_ so to operate by the framers of the Constitution. The\nhighest judicial authorities--Chief Justice Shaw, of the Supreme Court\nof Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and Mr. Justice Story, in the\nSupreme Court of the United States, in the case of _Prigg vs. The\nState of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know not on what evidence, that\nwithout this \"compromise,\" this security for Southern slaveholders,\n\"the Union could not have been formed.\" And there is still higher\nevidence, not only that the framers of the Constitution meant by this\nclause to protect slavery, but that they did this, knowing that\nslavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[12] informs us that the clause in\nquestion, as it came out of the hands of Dr. Johnson, the chairman of\nthe \"committee on style,\" read thus: \"No person legally held to\nservice, or labor, in one State, escaping into another, shall,\" &c.,\nand the word \"legally\" was struck out, and the words \"under the laws\nthereof\" inserted after the word \"State,\" in compliance with the wish\nof some, who thought the term _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea\nthat slavery was legal \"_in a moral view_.\" A conclusive proof that,\nalthough future generations might apply that clause to other kinds of\n\"service or labor,\" when slavery should have died out, or been killed\noff by the young spirit of liberty, which was _then_ awake and at work\nin the land; still, slavery was what they were wrapping up in\n\"equivocal\" words: and wrapping it up for its protection and safe\nkeeping: a conclusive proof that the framers of the Constitution were\nmore careful to protect themselves in the judgement of coming\ngenerations, from the charge of ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive\nproof that they knew that slavery was not \"legal in a moral view,\"\nthat it was a violation of the moral law of God; and yet knowing and\nconfessing its immorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its\nsupport and defence.\n\n[Footnote 12: Madison Papers, p. 1589.]\n\n\nThis language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a part\nof their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the patriots of\nthe revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are bound to _do_\nall the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we _should_ do. But\nthe claims of truth and right are paramount to all other claims.\n\nWith all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must\nadmit,--for they have left on record their own confession of\nit,--that in this part of their work they _intended_ to hold the\nshield of their protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong.\nThey made a \"compromise\" which they had no right to make--a compromise\nof moral 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 wrong\nthat they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy Adams,[13]\nin relation to the article fixing the basis of representation, \"Little\ndid the members of the Convention, from the free States, imagine or\nforesee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden under the mask of this\nconcession.\"\n\n[Footnote 13: 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 prosperity\nof its multiplying millions; yet the _moral_ injury that has been\ndone, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over that\ntremendous sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus breaking down\nin the eyes of the nation the barrier between right and wrong; by so\ntenderly cherishing slavery as, in less than the life of man, to\nmultiply her children from half a million to nearly three millions; by\nexacting oaths from those who occupy prominent stations in society,\nthat they will violate at once the rights of man and the law of God;\nby substituting itself as a rule of right, in place of the moral laws\nof the universe;--thus in effect, dethroning the Almighty in the\nhearts of this people and setting up another sovereign in his\nstead--more than outweighs it all. A melancholy and monitory lesson\nthis, to all time-serving and temporising statesmen! A striking\nillustration of the _impolicy_ of sacrificing _right_ to any\nconsiderations of expediency! Yet, what better than the evil effects\nthat we have seen, could the authors of the Constitution have\nreasonably expected, from the sacrifice of right, in the concessions\nthey made to slavery? Was it reasonable in them to expect that after\nthey had introduced a vicious element into the very Constitution of\nthe body politic which they were calling into life, it would not exert\nits vicious energies? Was it reasonable in them to expect that, after\nslavery had been corrupting the public morals for a whole generation,\ntheir children would have too much virtue to _use_ for the defence of\nslavery, a power which they themselves had not too much virtue to\n_give_? It is dangerous for the sovereign power of a State to license\nimmorality; to hold the shield of its protection over any thing that\nis not \"legal in a moral view.\" Bring into your house a benumbed\nviper, and lay it down upon your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask\nyou into which room it may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the\nsupporting arm, and bask in the fostering smile of the State, and you\nwill soon see, as we now see, both her minions and her victims\nmultiply apace till the politics, the morals, the liberties, even the\nreligion of the nation, are brought completely under her control.\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, is\nso utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, so\nimbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for evil,\nthat I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any longer.\n\nHenceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession of\nallegiance 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 part to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his.\n\nVery respectfully, your friend,\n\nFRANCIS JACKSON.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nFROM\n\nMR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH\n\nAT NIBLO'S GARDENS.\n\n\"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it among\nus; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the full extent\nof these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the\nConstitution. All the stipulations, contained in the Constitution, _in\nfavor of the slaveholding States_ which are already in the Union,\nought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends on me, shall be\nfulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to the exactness of\ntheir letter.\"!!!\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nEXTRACTS FROM\n\nJOHN 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 means\nof discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection and\nencouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the country.\nAll this, however, as is now well ascertained, was insufficient to\npropitiate the rulers of the Southern States to the adoption of the\nConstitution. What they specially wanted was _protection_.--Protection\nfrom the powerful and savage tribes of Indians within their\nborders, and who were harrassing them with the most terrible of\nwars--and protection from their own negroes--protection from their\ninsurrections--protection from their escape--protection even to the\ntrade by which they were brought into the country--protection, shall I\nnot blush to say, protection to the very bondage by which they were\nheld. Yes! it cannot be denied--the slaveholding lords of the South\nprescribed, as a condition of their assent to the Constitution, three\nspecial provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over\ntheir slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of\npreserving the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to\nsurrender fugitive slaves--an engagement positively prohibited by the\nlaws of God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to\nthe principles of popular representation, of a representation for\nslaves--for articles of merchandise, 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. A\nstranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the\nConstitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or a\nslave existed within the borders of our country. There is not word in\nthe Constitution _apparently_ bearing up on the condition of slavery,\nnor is there a provision but would be susceptible of practical\nexecution 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, they\nwould not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the freemen of\nthe North, reduced to the alternative of departing from the vital\nprinciple of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union itself, averted\ntheir faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the bond.\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 December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever more to\nbe introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was still\nlawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to a\nprohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, and\nthey joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death the\nslave-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 already\nformed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing tone\nwhich the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of the\nlord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the internal\nslave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa had been\nallowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the slave\nrepresentation, 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 in\nits nature, held in direct violation of the natural and inalienable\nrights of man, and of the vital principles of Christianity; it was all\naccumulated in one geographical section of the country, and was all\nheld by wealthy men, comparatively small in numbers, not amounting to\na tenth part of the free white population of the States in which it\nwas 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 favored 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, on\nthe contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community, always\nthreatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered in the\nblood of both parties, master and slave, and always depressing the\ncondition of the poor free laborer, by competition with the labor of\nthe slave. The property in horses was the gift of God to man, at the\ncreation of the world; the property in slaves is property acquired and\nheld by crimes, differing in no moral aspect from the pillage of a\nfreebooter, and to which no lapse of time can give a prescriptive\nright. You are told that this is no concern of yours, and that the\nquestion of freedom and slavery is exclusively reserved to the\nconsideration of the separate States. But if it be so, as to the mere\nquestion of right between master and slave, it is of tremendous\nconcern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners should\npossess, besides their own share in the representative hall of the\nnation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of the whole\nnumber of the representatives of the people. This is now your\ncondition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of principle,\nwhich begins by declaring the representation in the popular branch of\nthe legislature a representation of persons, and then provides that\none class of persons shall have neither part nor lot in the choice of\ntheir representative; but their elective franchise shall he\ntransferred to their masters, and the oppressors shall represent the\noppressed. The same perversion of the representative principle\npollutes the composition of the colleges of electors of President and\nVice President of the United States, and every department of the\ngovernment of the Union is thus tainted at its source by the gangrene\nof 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 your\nlegislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation are much\ngreater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. You have\nat least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. Your\ninfluence on the legislation and the administration of the government\nought to be in the proportion of three to two.--But how stands the\nfact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence exercised by the\nslaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, here is an\nintrusive influence in every department, by a representation nominally\nof persons, but really of property, ostensibly of slaves, but\neffectively of their masters, overbalancing your superiority of\nnumbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary power to the two-fifths\nfairly secured to them by the compact, CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE\nWHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to\nthe sordid private interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of\nslaves.\n\nFrom the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United\nStates, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more and\nmore the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as it\nhas 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 in\nthe Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added largely\nto the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of the\nAfrican slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing the\nbenefit of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the ancient\ndominion, has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a community of\nslave-breeders for sale, and converted the land of George Washington,\nPatrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson, into a great\nbarracoon--a cattle-show of human beings, an emporium, of which the\nstaple articles of merchandise are the flesh and blood, the bones and\nsinews of immortal man.\n\nOf the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of men\nat 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 or\na murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no guaranty\nfor the property of the slaveholder--no double representation of him\nin the Federal 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--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 could\npurify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the North gave\nway, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the Constitution\nof freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert the first\nprinciple of Democracy, that the will of the majority of numbers shall\nrule the land. By means of the double representation, the minority\ncommand the whole, and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND\nPRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY. To acquire this superiority of a\nlarge majority of freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly\nall the seats of power and place, is constantly for a long series of\nyears pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the\nChief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by the\nowners of slaves. The Executive departments, the Army and Navy, the\nSupreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all present the\nsame spectacle;--an immense majority of power in the hands of a very\nsmall minority of the people--millions made for a fraction of a few\nthousands.\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 conclusive\nevidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of the right of\npetition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee against slavery,\nby the first article amendatory of the Constitution.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n\n\n\nTHE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.--NO. XI\n\nTHE\n\nCONSTITUTION\n\nA PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT\n\nOR\n\nSELECTIONS\n\nFROM\n\nTHE MADISON PAPERS, &C.\n\nSECOND EDITION, ENLARGED.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nNEW YORK:\n\nAMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\n\n142 NASSAU STREET.\n\n1845.\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nDebates in the Congress of the Confederation.\nDebates in the Federal Convention.\nList of Members of the Federal Convention.\nSpeech of Luther Martin.\n\nDEBATES IN STATE CONVENTIONS.\n\n    Massachusetts,\n    New York,\n    Pennsylvania,\n    Virginia,\n    North Carolina,\n    South Carolina,\n\nExtracts from the Federalist,\nDebates in First Congress,\nAddress of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society,\nLetter from Francis Jackson to Gov. Briggs,\nExtract from Mr. Webster's Speech,\nExtracts from J.Q. Adams's Address, November, 1844.\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nEvery one knows that the \"Madison Papers\" contain a Report, from the\npen of James Madison, of the Debates in the Old Congress of the\nConfederation and in the Convention which formed the Constitution of\nthe United States. We have extracted from them, in these pages, all\nthe Debates on those clauses of the Constitution which relate to\nslavery. To these we have added all that is found, on the same topic,\nin the Debates of the several State Conventions which ratified the\nConstitution: together with so much of the Speech of Luther Martin\nbefore the Legislature of Maryland, and of the Federalist, as relate\nto our subject; with some extracts, also, from the Debates of the\nfirst Federal Congress on Slavery. These are all printed without\nalteration, except that, in some instances, we have inserted in\nbrackets, after the name of a speaker, the name of the State from\nwhich he came. The notes and italics are those of the original, but\nthe editor has added two notes on page 38, which are marked as his,\nand we have taken the liberty of printing in capitals one sentiment of\nRufus King's, and two of James Madison's--a distinction which the\nimportance of the statements seemed to demand--otherwise we have\nreprinted exactly from the originals.\n\nThese extracts develop most clearly all the details of that\n\"compromise,\" which was made between freedom and slavery, in 1787;\ngranting to the slaveholder distinct privileges and protection for his\nslave property, in return for certain commercial concessions on his\npart toward the North. They prove also that the Nation at large were\nfully aware of this bargain at the time, and entered into it willingly\nand with open eyes.\n\nWe have added the late \"Address of the American Anti-Slavery Society,\"\nand the Letter of FRANCIS JACKSON to Governor BRIGGS, resigning his\ncommission of Justice of the Peace--as bold and honorable protests\nagainst the guilt and infamy of this National bargain, and as proving\nmost clearly the duty of each individual to trample it under his feet.\nThe clauses of the Constitution to which we refer as of a pro-slavery\ncharacter are the following :--\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 not\ntaxed, _three-fifths of all other persons_.\n\nART. 1, SECT. 8.--Congress shall have power . . . to suppress\ninsurrections.\n\nART. 1, SECT. 9.--The migration or importation of such persons as any\nof the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be\nprohibited by the Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight\nhundred and eight: but a tax or duty may be imposed on such\nimportation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.\n\nART. 4, SECT. 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 of\nthem against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or of\nthe executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against\ndomestic violence_.\n\nThe first of these clauses, relating to representation, confers on a\nslaveholding community additional political power for every slave held\namong them, and thus tempts them to continue to uphold the system: the\nsecond and the last, relating to insurrection and domestic violence,\nperfectly innocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact\ndirectly in view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge\nthe whole national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our\nfathers and resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of\nsustaining slavery: the third, relating to the slave-trade, disgraces\nthe nation by a pledge not to abolish that traffic till after twenty\nyears, _without obliging Congress to do so even then_, and thus the\nslave-trade may be legalized to-morrow if Congress choose: the fourth\nis a promise on the part of the whole Nation to return fugitive slaves\nto their masters, a deed which God's law expressly condemns and which\nevery noble feeling of our nature repudiates with loathing and\ncontempt.\n\nThese are the articles of the \"Compromise,\" so much talked of, between\nthe North and South.\n\nWe do not produce the extracts which make up these pages to show what\nis the meaning of the clauses above cited. For no man or party, of any\nauthority in such matters, has ever pretended to doubt to what subject\nthey all relate. If indeed they were ambiguous in their terms, a\nresort to the history of those times would set the matter at rest\nforever. A few persons, to be sure, of late years, to serve the\npurposes of a party, have tried to prove that the Constitution makes\nno compromise with slavery. Notwithstanding the clear light of\nhistory;--the unanimous decision of all the courts in the land, both\nState and Federal;--the action of Congress and the State\nLegislature;--the constant practice of the Executive in all its\nbranches;--and the deliberate acquiescence of the whole people for\nhalf a century, still they contend that the Nation does not know its\nown meaning, and that the Constitution does not tolerate slavery!\nEvery candid mind, however, must acknowledge that the language of the\nConstitution is clear and explicit.\n\nIts terms are so broad, it is said, that they include many others\nbeside slaves, and hence it is wisely (!) inferred that they cannot\ninclude the slaves themselves! Many persons besides slaves in this\ncountry doubtless are \"held to service and labor under the laws of the\nStates,\" but that does not at all show that slaves are not \"held to\nservice;\" many persons beside the slaves may take part \"in\ninsurrections,\" but that does not prove that when the slaves rise, the\nNational Government is not bound to put them down by force. Such a\nthing has been heard of before as one description including a great\nvariety of persons,--and this is the case in the present instance.\n\nBut granting that the terms of the Constitution are ambiguous--that\nthey are susceptible of two meanings, if the unanimous, concurrent,\nunbroken practice of every department of the Government, judicial,\nlegislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the whole people\nfor fifty years do not prove which is the true construction, then how\nand where can such a question ever be settled? If the people and the\nCourts of the land do not know what they themselves mean, who has\nauthority to settle their meaning for them?\n\nIf then the people and the Courts of a country are to be allowed to\ndetermine what their own laws mean, it follows that at this time and\nfor the last half century, the Constitution of the United States has\nbeen, and still is, a pro-slavery instrument, and that any one who\nswears to support it, swears to do pro-slavery acts, and violates his\nduty both as a man and an abolitionist. What the Constitution may\nbecome a century hence, we know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and\nrepudiate it _as it is_.\n\nBut the purpose, for which we have thrown these pages before the\ncommunity, is this. Some men, finding the nation unanimously deciding\nthat the Constitution tolerates slavery, have tried to prove that this\nfalse construction, as they think it, has been foisted into the\ninstrument by the corrupting influence of slavery itself, tainting all\nit touches. They assert that the known anti-slavery spirit of\nrevolutionary times never _could_ have consented to so infamous a\nbargain as the Constitution is represented to be, and has in its\npresent hands become. Now these pages prove the melancholy fact, that\nwillingly, with deliberate purpose, our fathers bartered honesty for\ngain, and became partners with tyrants, that they might share in the\nprofits of their tyranny.\n\nAnd in view of this fact, will it not require a very strong argument\nto make any candid man believe, that the bargain which the fathers\ntell us they meant to incorporate into the Constitution, and which the\nsons have always thought they found there incorporated, does not exist\nthere, after all? Forty of the shrewdest men and lawyers in the land\nassemble to make a bargain, among other things, about slaves,--after\nmonths of anxious deliberation they put it into writing and sign their\nnames to the instrument,--fifty years roll away, twenty millions, at\nleast, of their children pass over the stage of life,--courts sit and\npass judgment,--parties arise and struggle fiercely; still all concur\nin finding in the instrument just that meaning which the fathers tell\nus they intended to express:--must not he be a desperate man, who,\nafter all this, sets out to prove that the fathers were bunglers and\nthe sons fools, and that slavery is not referred to at all?\n\nBesides, the advocates of this new theory of the Anti-slavery\ncharacter of the Constitution, quote some portions of the Madison\nPapers in support of their views,--and this makes it proper that the\ncommunity should hear _all_ that these Debates have to say on the\nsubject. The further we explore them, the clearer becomes the fact,\nthat the Constitution was meant to be, what it has always been\nesteemed, a compromise between slavery and freedom.\n\nIf then the Constitution be, what these Debates show that our fathers\nintended to make it, and what, too, their descendants, this nation,\nsay they did make it and agree to uphold,--then we affirm that it is a\n\"covenant with death and an agreement with hell,\" and ought to be\nimmediately annulled. No abolitionist can consistently take office\nunder it, or swear to support it.\n\nBut if, on the contrary, our fathers failed in their purpose, and the\nConstitution is all pure and untouched by slavery,--then, Union itself\nis impossible, without guilt. For it is undeniable that the fifty\nyears passed under this (anti-slavery) Constitution, show us the\nslaves trebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and\ndictating the policy of the Government;--prostituting the strength and\ninfluence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and\nelsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the\ncourts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous\nalliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years with the best of\nmen and the best of Constitutions, on this supposition, 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 sin\nof slavery. We dare not prolong the experiment, and with double\nearnestness we repeat our demand upon every honest man to join in the\noutcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society,--\n\nNO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!\n\n\n\nTHE CONSTITUTION\n\nA PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n_Extracts from Debates in the Congress of Confederation, preserved by\nThomas Jefferson, 1776._\n\nCongress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of\nIndependence, * * *\n\nThe clause too reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa was\nstruck out, in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never\nattempted to restrain the importation of Slaves, and who on the\ncontrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also, I\nbelieve, felt a little tender under those censures; for though their\npeople have very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty\nconsiderable carriers of them to others.--p. 18.\n\nOn Friday, the twelfth of July, 1776, the committee appointed to draw\nthe articles of Confederation reported them, and on the twenty-second,\nthe House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into\nconsideration. On the thirtieth and thirty-first of that month, and\nthe first of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined\nthe proportion or quota of money which each State should furnish to\nthe common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first\nof these articles was expressed in the original draught in these\nwords:--\n\n\"Article 11. All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be\nincurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by\nthe United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common\ntreasury, which shall be supplied by the several Colonies in\nproportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex and duality,\nexcept Indians not paying taxes, in each Colony, a true account of\nwhich, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially\ntaken and transmitted to the Assembly of the United States.\"\n\nMr. CHASE (of Maryland) moved, that the quotas should be paid, not by\nthe number of inhabitants of every condition but by that of the \"white\ninhabitants.\" He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion\nto property; that this was in theory the true rule, but that from a\nvariety of difficulties it was a rule which could never be adopted in\npractice. The value of the property in every State could never be\nestimated justly and equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the\nState must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which\nwould be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a\ntolerably good criterion of property, and that this might always be\nobtained. He therefore thought it the best mode we could adopt, with\none exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such\ncannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those\nStates where there are few slaves. That the surplus of profit which a\nNorthern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c.;\nwhereas, a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves. There\nis no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern States on the\nfarmer's head and on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their\nfarmers' heads and the heads of their cattle. That the method proposed\nwould therefore tax the Southern States according to their numbers and\ntheir wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers\nonly: that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the\nState, more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it.\n\nMr. John Adams (of Massachusetts) observed, that the numbers of people\nwere taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the State and\nnot as subjects of taxation. That as to this matter it was of no\nconsequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of\nfreemen or of slaves. That in some countries the laboring poor were\ncalled freemen, in others they were called slaves: but that the\ndifference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether\na landlord employing ten laborers on his farm gives them annually as\nmuch money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them\nthose necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth\nannually to the State, increase its exports as much, in the one case\nas the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits,\nno greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves.\nTherefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen, should\nbe taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose,\nby any extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one half the\nlaborers of a State could in the course of one night be transformed\ninto slaves,--would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to\npay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most\ncountries,--that of the fishermen, particularly, of the Northern\nStates,--is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers\nwhich produces the surplus for taxation; and numbers, therefore,\nindiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use of\nthe word \"property\" here, and its application to some of the people of\nthe State, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern farmer\nprocure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his\nneighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of laborers\nin his country, and proportionably to its profits and abilities to pay\ntaxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it is only a transfer of a\nlaborer from one farm to another, which does not change the annual\nproduce of the State, and therefore should not change its tax; that if\na Northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it is true,\ninvest the surplus of ten men's labor in cattle; but so may the\nSouthern farmer working ten slaves. That a State of one hundred\nthousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred\nthousand slaves; therefore they have no more of that kind of property.\nThat a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly\ncalled the wealth of his master, than the free laborer might be called\nthe wealth of his employer: but as to the State, both were equally its\nwealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.\n\nMr. HARRISON (of Virginia) proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves\nshould be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do\nas much work as freemen, and doubted if two effected more than one.\nThat this was proved by the price of labor, the hire of a laborer in\nthe Southern colonies being from \u00a38 to \u00a312, while in the Northern it\nwas generally \u00a324.\n\nMr. WILSON (of Pennsylvania) said, that if this amendment should take\nplace, the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves,\nwhilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase\nthe profits of a State, which the Southern States mean to take to\nthemselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which\nwould of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern; that slaves\noccupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves,\nand freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every\ndiscouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would\ngive the _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves. That\nother kinds of property were pretty equally distributed through all\nthe Colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, and sheep, in the\nNorth as the South, and South as the North; but not so as to slaves:\nthat experience has shown that those colonies have been always able to\npay most, which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or\nwhite; and the practice of the Southern colonies has always been to\nmake every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, whether they\nbe black or white. He acknowledged indeed that freemen worked the\nmost; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater\nsurplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so\nexpensively as a freeman. Again, white women are exempted from labor\ngenerally, which negro women are not. In this then the Southern States\nhave an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been\nsaid that slavery was necessary, because the commodities they raise\nwould be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is\nsaid that the labor of the slave is the dearest.\n\nMr. PAYNE (of Massachusetts) urged the original resolution of\nCongress, to proportion the quotas of the States to the number of\nsouls.\n\nDr. WITHERSPOON (of New-Jersey) was of opinion, that the value of\nlands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and\nthat it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true\nbarometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and\nunequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the\nfood of freemen, and therefore should be taxed: horses also eat the\nfood of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said\ntoo, that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the State\nis to pay, we do no more than those States themselves do, who always\ntake slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay.\nBut the cases are not parallel. In the Southern Colonies, slaves\npervade the whole Colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent.\nThat as to the original resolution of Congress, it was temporary only,\nand related to the moneys heretofore emitted: whereas we are now\nentering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.\n\nAUGUST 1st. The question being put, the amendment proposed was\nrejected by the votes of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island,\nConnecticut, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, against those of\nDelaware, Maryland, Virginia, North; and South Carolina. Georgia was\ndivided.--_pp_. 27-8-9, 30-1-2.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n_Extracts from Madison's Report of Debates in the Congress of the\nConfederation._\n\n\nTUESDAY, January 14, 1783.\n\nIf the valuation of land had not been prescribed by the Federal\nArticles, the Committee would certainly have preferred some other rule\nof appointment, particularly that of numbers, under certain\nqualifications as to slaves.--_p_. 260\n\n\nTUESDAY, Feb. 11, 1783.\n\nMr. WOLCOTT declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be\namended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the\ndifference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by\nincluding in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen\nand sixty years of age.--_p_. 331\n\n\nTHURSDAY, March 27, 1783.\n\n(The eleventh and twelfth paragraphs:)\n\nMr. WILSON (of Pennsylvania) was strenuous in their favor; said he was\nin Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation\nof land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of\ncompromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States,\nas to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in\nquestion.\n\nMr. CLARK (of New-Jersey) was in favor of them. He said that he was\nalso in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern\nStates would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of land\nif half their slaves only should be included; but that the Eastern\nStates would not concur in that proposition.\n\nIt was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by\nages, as the report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion\nin absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be\nfilled up, the clause was recommitted. _p_. 421-2.\n\nFRIDAY, March 28, 1783.\n\nThe committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one\nfreeman.\n\nMr. WOLCOTT (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. Mr.\nCARROLL as four to one. Mr. WILLIAMSON (of North Carolina) said he\nwas principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an\nincumbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay\ntaxes. Mr. HIGGINSON (of Massachusetts) as four to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE\n(of South Carolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would agree\nto rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one\nwould be a juster proportion. Mr. HOLTON as four to three.--Mr. OSGOOD\nsaid he did not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them\nas three to two, the votes were, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts,\nno; Rhode Island; divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye;\nPennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North\nCarolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph was then postponed, by\ngeneral consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it;\nbut it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be\nagreed to.\n\nAfter some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity\nof some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into\nview, Mr. MADISON (of Virginia) said that, in order to give a proof of\nthe sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that\nslaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE (of South\nCarolina) seconded the motion. Mr. WILSON (of Pennsylvania) said he\nwould sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.\n\nMr. LEE was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that\ntwo slaves were not equal to one freeman.\n\nOn the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New\nHampshire, aye; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut,\nno; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye;\nNorth Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye.\n\nA motion was then made by Mr. BLAND, seconded by Mr. LEE, to strike\nout the clause so amended, and, on the question \"Shall it stand,\" it\npassed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode\nIsland, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye;\nDelaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South\nCarolina, no; so the clause was struck out.\n\nThe arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that\nthe expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that\nincident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those\nof freemen; and that the warm climate within which the States having\nslaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility\nof the others, ought to have great weight in the case; and that the\nexports of the former States were greater than of the latter. On the\nother side, it was said, that slaves were not put to labor as young as\nthe children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their\nlabor, they did as little as possible, and omitted every exertion of\nthought requisite to facilitate and expedite it; that if the exports\nof the States having slaves exceeded those of the others, their\nimports were in proportion, slaves employed wholly in agriculture, not\nin manufactures; and that, in fact, the balance of trade formerly was\nmuch more against the Southern States than the others.\n\nOn the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode\nIsland, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. FLOYD, aye;) New Jersey,\naye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye;\nSouth Carolina, no.--_pp. 423-4-5_.\n\nTUESDAY, April l, 1783.\n\nCongress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. HAMILTON, who\nhad been absent when the last question was taken for substituting\nnumbers in place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote.\nHe was seconded by Mr. OSGOOD. Those who voted differently from\ntheir former votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity\nof the change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate\nof the slaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without\nopposition.--_p. 430_.\n\nMONDAY, MAY 26, 1783.\n\nThe Resolutions on the Journal instructing the ministers in Europe to\nremonstrate against the carrying off the negroes--also those for\nfurloughing the troops--passed _unanimously.--p. 456._\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n_Letter from Mr. Madison to Edmund Randolph_.\n\nPHILADELPHIA, April 8, 1783.\n\nA change of the valuation of lands for the number of inhabitants,\ndeducting two-fifths of the slaves, has received a tacit sanction,\nand, unless hereafter expunged, will go forth in the general\nrecommendation, as material to future harmony and justice among the\nmembers of the Confederacy. The deduction of two-fifths was a\ncompromise between the wide opinions and demands of the Southern and\nother States.--_p. 523_.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n_Extract from \"Debates in the Federal Convention\" of 1787, for the\nformation of the Constitution of the United States_.\n\nTUESDAY, May 29, 1787.\n\nMr. CHARLES PINCKNEY laid before the House the draft of a Federal\nGovernment. * * * \"The proportion of direct taxation shall be\nregulated by the whole number of inhabitants of every\ndescription\"--_pp_. 735, 741.\n\nWEDNESDAY, May 30, 1787.\n\nThe following Resolution, being the second of those proposed by Mr.\nRANDOLPH, was taken up, viz.\n\n\"_That the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be\nproportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free\ninhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different\ncases_.\"\n\nColonel HAMILTON moved to alter the resolution so as to read, \"that\nthe rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be\nproportioned to the number of free inhabitants.\" Mr. SPAIGHT seconded\nthe motion.--_p_. 750.\n\n\nWEDNESDAY, June 6, 1787.\n\nMr. MADISON. We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the\nmost enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive\ndominion ever exercised by man over man.--_p_. 806.\n\n\nMONDAY, June 11, 1787.\n\nMr. SHERMAN proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first\nbranch should be according to the respective numbers of free\ninhabitants;\n\nMr. RUTLEDGE proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first\nbranch should be according to the quotas of contribution.\n\nMr. KING and Mr. WILSON, in order to bring the question to a point,\nmoved, \"that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the National\nLegislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the\nArticles of Confederation, but according to some equitable ratio of\nrepresentation.\"--_p_. 836.\n\nIt was then moved by Mr. RUTLEDGE, seconded by Mr. BUTLER, to add to\nthe words, \"equitable ratio of representation,\" at the end of the\nmotion just agreed to, the words \"according to the quotas of\ncontribution.\" On motion of Mr. WILSON, seconded by Mr. PINCKNEY, this\nwas postponed; in order to add, after the words, \"equitable ratio of\nrepresentation,\" the words following: \"In proportion to the whole\nnumber of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age,\nsex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of\nyears, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the\nforegoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each\nState\"--this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by\neleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and\nrequiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.\n\nMr. GERRY (of Massachusetts) thought property not the rule of\nrepresentation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the\nSouth, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and\nhorses of the North?\n\nOn the question,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,\nMaryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9;\nNew Jersey, Delaware, no--2.--_pp_. 842-3.\n\n\nTUESDAY, June 19, 1787.\n\nMr. MADISON. Where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still\nmore fallacious.--_p_. 899.\n\n\nSATURDAY, June 30, 1787.\n\nMr. Madison,--admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any\nclass of citizens, or any description of states, ought to be secured\nas far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack, there ought to\nbe given a constitutional power of defence. But he contended that the\nStates were divided into different interests, not by their difference\nof size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which\nresulted partly from climate, but principally from the effects of\ntheir having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in\nforming the great division of interests in the United States. It did\nnot lie between the large and small States. IT LAY BETWEEN THE\nNORTHERN AND SOUTHERN; and if any defensive power were necessary, it\nought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly\nimpressed with this important truth, that he had been casting about in\nhis mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. The one\nwhich had occurred was, that, instead of proportioning the votes of\nthe States in both branches, to the irrespective numbers of\ninhabitants, computing the slaves in the ratio of five to three, they\nshould be represented in one branch according to the number of free\ninhabitants only; and in the other according to the whole number,\ncounting slaves as free. By this arrangement the Southern scale would\nhave the advantage in one House, and the Northern in the other. He had\nbeen restrained from proposing this expedient by two considerations;\none was his unwillingness to urge any diversity of interests on an\noccasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself; the other was the\ninequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and\nwhich would destroy the equilibrium of interests.--_pp_. 1006-7\n\n\nMONDAY, July 2, 1787.\n\nMr. PINCKNEY. There is a real distinction between the Northern and\nSouthern interests. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in\ntheir rice and indigo, had a peculiar interest which might be\nsacrificed.--_p_. 1016.\n\n\nFRIDAY, July 6, 1787.\n\nMr. PINCKNEY--thought the blacks ought to stand on an equality with\nthe whites; but would agree to the ratio settled by Congress.--_p._\n1039.\n\n\nMONDAY, July 9, 1787.\n\nMr. PATTERSON considered the proposed estimate for the future\naccording to the combined rules of numbers and wealth, as too vague.\nFor this reason New Jersey was against it. He could regard negro\nslaves in no light but as property. They are no free agents, have no\npersonal liberty, no faculty of acquiring property, but on the\ncontrary are themselves property, and like other property entirely at\nthe will of the master. Has a man in Virginia a number of votes in\nproportion to the number of his slaves? And if negroes are not\nrepresented in the States to which they belong, why should they be\nrepresented in the General Government. What is the true principle of\nrepresentation? It is an expedient by which an assembly of certain\nindividuals, chosen by the people, is substituted in place of the\ninconvenient meeting of the people themselves. If such a meeting of\nthe people was actually to take place, would the slaves vote? They\nwould not. Why then should they be represented? He was also against\nsuch an indirect encouragement of the slave trade; observing that\nCongress, in their act relating to the change of the eighth article of\nConfederation, had been ashamed to use the term \"slaves,\" and had\nsubstituted a description.\n\nMr. MADISON reminded Mr. PATTERSON that his doctrine of\nrepresentation, which was in its principle the genuine one, must for\never silence the pretensions of the small States to an equality of\nvotes with the large ones. They ought to vote in the same proportion\nin which their citizens would do, if the people of all the States were\ncollectively met. He suggested, as a proper ground of compromise, that\nin the first branch the States should be represented according to\ntheir number of free inhabitants; and in the second, which had for one\nof its primary objects the guardianship of property, according to the\nwhole number, including slaves.\n\nMr. BUTLER urged warmly the justice and necessity of regarding wealth\nin the apportionment of representation.\n\nMr. KING had always expected, that, as the Southern States are the\nrichest, they would not league themselves with the Northern, unless\nsome respect were paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect\nthose preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages\nwhich they will derive from the connexion, they must not expect to\nreceive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of\nthirteen of the States had agreed to consider slaves in the\napportionment of taxation; and taxation and representation ought to go\ntogether.--_pp_. 1054-5-6.\n\n\nTUESDAY, July 10, 1787.\n\n_In Convention_,--Mr. KING reported, from the Committee yesterday\nappointed, \"that the States at the first meeting of the General\nLegislature, should be represented by sixty-five members, in the\nfollowing proportions, to wit:--New Hampshire, by 3; Massachusetts, 8;\nRhode Island, 1; Connecticut, 5; New York, 6; New Jersey, 4;\nPennsylvania, 8; Delaware, 1; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 10; North\nCarolina, 5; South Carolina, 5; Georgia, 3.\"\n\nMr. KING remarked that the four Eastern States, having 800,000 souls,\nhave one-third fewer representatives than the four Southern States,\nhaving not more than 700,000 souls, rating the blacks as five for\nthree. The Eastern people will advert to these circumstances, and be\ndissatisfied. He believed them to be very desirous of uniting with\ntheir Southern brethren, but did not think it prudent to rely so far\non that disposition, as to subject them to any gross inequality. He\nwas fully convinced that THE QUESTION CONCERNING A DIFFERENCE OF\nINTERESTS DID NOT LIE WHERE IT HAD HITHERTO BEEN DISCUSSED, BETWEEN\nTHE GREAT AND SMALL STATES; BUT BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN. For\nthis reason be had been ready to yield something, in the proportion of\nrepresentatives, for the security of the Southern. No principle would\njustify the giving them a majority. They were brought as near an\nequality as was possible. He was not averse to giving them a still\ngreater security, but did not see how it could be done.\n\nGeneral PINCKNEY. The Report before it was committed was more favorable\nto the Southern States than as it now stands. If they are to form so\nconsiderable a minority, and the regulation of trade is to be given to\nthe General Government, they will be nothing more than overseers for\nthe Northern States. He did not expect the Southern States to be\nraised to a majority of representatives; but wished them to have\nsomething like an equality.\n\nMr. WILLIAMSON. The Southern interest must be extremely endangered by\nthe present arrangement. The Northern States are to have a majority in\nthe first instance, and the means of perpetuating it.\n\nGeneral PINCKNEY urged the reduction; dwelt on the superior wealth of\nthe Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the\nGovernment.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS regretted the turn of the debate. The States, he\nfound, had many representatives on the floor. Few, he feared, were to\nbe deemed the representatives of America. He thought the Southern\nStates have, by the Report, more than their share of Representation.\nProperty ought to have its weight, but not all the weight. If the\nSouthern States are to supply money, the Northern States are to spill\ntheir blood. Besides, the probable revenue to be expected from the\nSouthern States has been greatly overrated.--_pp_. 1056-7-8-9.\n\n\nWEDNESDAY, July 11, 1787.\n\nMr. WILLIAMSON moved that Mr. RANDOLPH's propositions be postponed, in\norder to consider the following, \"that in order to ascertain the\nalterations that may happen in the population and wealth of the\nseveral States, a census shall be taken of the free white inhabitants,\nand three-fifths of those of other descriptions on the first year\nafter this government shall have been adopted, and every ---- year\nthereafter; and that the representation be regulated accordingly.\"\n\nMr. BUTLER and General PINCKNEY insisted that blacks be included in the\nrule of representation _equally_ with the whites; and for that purpose\nmoved that the words \"three-fifths\" be struck out.\n\nMr. GERRY thought that three-fifths of them was, to say the least, the\nfull proportion that could be admitted.\n\nMr. GORHAM. This ratio was fixed by Congress as a rule of taxation.\nThen, it was urged, by the Delegates representing the States having\nslaves, that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At\npresent, when the ratio of representation is to be established, we are\nassured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on the former\noccasion had convinced him, that three-fifths was pretty near the just\nproportion, and he should vote according to the same opinion now.\n\nMr. BUTLER insisted that the labor of a slave in South Carolina was as\nproductive and valuable, as that of a freeman in Massachusetts; that\nas wealth was the great means of defence and utility to the nation,\nthey were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently\nan equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a government\nwhich was instituted principally, for the protection of property, and\nwas itself to be supported by property.\n\nMr. MASON could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was\nfavorable to Virginia, because he thought it unjust. It was certain\nthat the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of land,\nincreased the exports and imports, and of course the revenue, would\nsupply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might in cases\nof emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these important\nrespects they were useful to the community at large, they ought not to\nbe excluded from the estimate of representation. He could not,\nhowever, regard them as equal to freemen, and could not vote for them\nas such. He added, as worthy of remark, that the Southern States have\nthis peculiar species of property, over and above the other species of\nproperty common to all the States.\n\nMr. WILLIAMSON reminded Mr. GORHAM that if the Southern States\ncontended for the inferiority of blacks to whites when taxation was in\nview, the Eastern States, on the same occasion, contended for their\nequality. He did not, however, either then or now, concur in either\nextreme, but approved of the ratio of three-fifths.\n\nOn Mr. BUTLER'S motion, for considering blacks as equal to whites in\nthe apportionment of representation,--Delaware, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, aye--3; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,\nMaryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no--7; New York, not on the floor.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS said he had several objections to the\nproposition of Mr. WILLIAMSON. In the first place, it fettered the\nLegislature too much. In the second place, it would exclude some\nStates altogether who would not have a sufficient number to entitle\nthem to a single representation. In the third place, it will not\nconsist with the resolution passed on Saturday last, authorizing the\nLegislature to adjust the representation from time to time on the\nprinciples of population and wealth; nor with the principles of\nequity. If slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth,\nthen the said Resolution would not be pursued; if as wealth, then why\nis no other wealth but slaves included? These objections may perhaps\nbe removed by amendments.\n\nMr. KING thought there was great force in the objections of Mr.\nGOUVERNEUR MORRIS. He would, however, accede to the proposition for\nthe sake of doing something.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Another objection with him, against admitting\nthe blacks into the census, was, that the people of Pennsylvania would\nrevolt at the idea of being put on a footing with slaves. They would\nreject any plan that was to have such an effect.\n\nMr. MADISON. Future contributions, it seemed to be understood on all\nhands, would be principally levied on imports and exports.--pp.\n1066-7-8-9; 1070-2-3.\n\nOn the question on the first clause of Mr. WILLIAMSON's motion, as to\ntaking a census of the _free_ inhabitants, it passed in the\naffirmative,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,\nVirginia, North Carolina, aye--6; Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, no--4.\n\nThe next clause as to three-fifths of the negroes being considered,\n\nMr. KING, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of\nrepresentation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He\nthought the admission of them along with whites at all, would excite\ngreat discontents among the States having no slaves. He had never\nsaid, as to any particular point, that he would in no event acquiesce\nin and support it; but he would say that if in any case such a\ndeclaration was to be made by him, it would be in this.\n\nHe remarked that in the temporary allotment of representatives made by\nthe Committee, the Southern States had received more than the number\nof their white and three-fifths of their black inhabitants entitled\nthem to.\n\nMr. SHERMAN. South Carolina had not more beyond her proportion than\nNew York and New Hampshire; nor either of them more than was necessary\nin order to avoid fractions, or reducing them below their proportion.\nGeorgia had more; but the rapid growth of that State seemed to justify\nit. In general the allotment might not be just, but considering all\ncircumstances he was satisfied with it.\n\nMr. GORHAM was aware that there might be some weight in what had\nfallen from his colleague, as to the umbrage which might be taken by\nthe people of the Eastern States. But he recollected that when the\nproposition of Congress for changing the eighth Article of the\nConfederation was before the Legislature of Massachusetts, the only\ndifficulty then was, to satisfy them that the negroes ought not to\nhave been counted equally with the whites, instead of being counted in\nthe ratio of three-fifths only.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: They were then to have been a rule of taxation only.]\n\n\nMr. WILSON did not well see, on what principle the admission of blacks\nin the proportion of three-fifths could be explained. Are they\nadmitted as citizens--then why are they not admitted on an equality\nwith white citizens? Are they admitted as property--then why is not\nother property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties,\nhowever, which he thought must be overruled by the necessity of\ncompromise. He had some apprehensions also, from the tendency of the\nblending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people\nof Pennsylvania, as had been intimated by his colleague (Mr.\nGOUVERNEUR MORRIS.)\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was compelled to declare himself reduced to the\ndilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States, or to human nature;\nand he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to\ngive such encouragement to the slave trade, as would be given by\nallowing them a representation for their negroes; and he did not\nbelieve those States would ever confederate on terms that would\ndeprive them of that trade.\n\nOn the question for agreeing to include three-fifths of the\nblacks,--Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye--4;\nMassachusetts, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,[2] South\nCarolina, no--6.--_pp_.1076-7-8.\n\n[Footnote 2: Mr. Carroll said, in explanation of the vote of Maryland,\nthat he wished the _phraseology_ to be so altered as to obviate, if\npossible, the danger which had been expressed of giving umbrage to the\nEastern and Middle States.]\n\n\n\nTHURSDAY, July 12, 1787.\n\n_In Convention_,--Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved a proviso, \"that\ntaxation shall be in proportion to representation.\"\n\nMr. BUTLER contended again, that representation should be according to\nthe full number of inhabitants, including all the blacks; admitting\nthe justice of Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS'S motion.\n\nGeneral PINCKNEY was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [by\nGOUVERNEUR MORRIS] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at\nwhat had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. South\nCarolina has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000\u00a3. sterling,\nall which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be\nrepresented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought\nshe then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be\ninserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from taxing\nexports.\n\nMr. WILSON approved the principle, but could not see how it could be\ncarried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS having so varied his motion by inserting the\nword \"direct,\" it passed, _nem. con_., as follows: \"provided always\nthat direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation\"\n\nMr. DAVIE said it was high time now to speak out. He saw that it was\nmeant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of\nrepresentation for their blacks. He was sure that North Carolina would\nnever confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as\nthree-fifths. If the Eastern States meant, therefore, to exclude them\naltogether, the business was at an end.\n\nDr. JOHNSON thought that wealth and population were the true,\nequitable rules of representation; but he conceived that these two\nprinciples resolved themselves into one, population being the best\nmeasure of wealth. He concluded, therefore, that the number of people\nought to be established as the rule, and that all descriptions,\nincluding blacks _equally_ with the whites, ought to fall within the\ncomputation. As various opinions had been expressed on the subject, he\nwould move that a committee might be appointed to take them into\nconsideration, and report them.\n\nMr. GOUVENEUR MORRIS. It had been said that it is high time to speak\nout. As one member, he would candidly do so. He came here to form a\ncompact for the good of America. He was ready to do so with all the\nStates. He hoped, and believed, that all would enter into such\ncompact. If they would not, he was ready to join with any states that\nwould. But as the compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the\nEastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree\nto. It is equally vain for the latter to require, what the other\nStates can never admit; and he verily believed the people of\nPennsylvania will never agree to a representation of negroes. What can\nbe desired by these States more than has been already proposed--that\nthe legislature shall from time to time regulate representation\naccording to population and wealth?\n\nGeneral PINCKNEY desired that the rule of wealth should be\nascertained, and not left to the pleasure of the legislature, and that\nproperty in slaves should not be exposed to danger, under a government\ninstituted for the protection of property.\n\nThe first clause in the Report of the first Grand Committee was\npostponed.\n\nMr. ELLSWORTH, in order to carry into effect the principle\nestablished, moved to add to the last clause adopted by the house the\nwords following, \"and that the rule of contribution by direct\ntaxation, for the support of the Government of the United States,\nshall be the number of white inhabitants, and three-fifths of every\nother description in the several States, until some other rule that\nshall more accurately ascertain the wealth of the several States, can\nbe devised and adopted by the Legislature.\"\n\nMr. BUTLER seconded the motion, in order that it might be committed.\n\nMr. RANDOLPH was not satisfied with the motion. The danger will be\nrevived, that the ingenuity of the Legislature may evade or pervert\nthe rule, so as to perpetuate the power where it shall be lodged in\nthe first instance. He proposed, in lieu of Mr. ELLSWORTH'S motion\n\"that in order to ascertain the alterations in representation that\nstay be required, from time to time, by changes in the relative\ncircumstances of the States, a census shall be taken within two years\nfrom the first meeting of the General Legislature of the United\nStates, and once within the term of every ---- years afterwards, of\nall the inhabitants, in the manner and according to the ratio\nrecommended by Congress in their Resolution of the eighteenth day of\nApril, 1783, (rating the blacks at three-fifths of their number); and\nthat the Legislature of the United States shall arrange the\nrepresentation accordingly.\" He urged strenuously that express\nsecurity ought to be presided for including slaves in the ratio of\nrepresentation. He lamented that such a species of property existed.\nBut as it did exist, the holders of it would require this security.\nIt was perceived that the design was entertained by some of excluding\nslaves altogether; the Legislature therefore ought not to be left at\nliberty.\n\nMr. ELLSWORTH withdraws his motion, and seconds that of Mr. RANDOLPH.\n\nMr. WILSON observed, that less umbrage would perhaps be taken against\nan admission of the slaves into the rule of representation, if it\nshould be so expressed as to make them indirectly only an ingredient\nin the rule, by saying that they should enter into the rule of\ntaxation; and as representation was to be according to taxation, the\nend would be equally attained.\n\nMr. PINCKNEY moved to amend Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion, so as to make\n\"blacks equal to the whites in the ratio of representation.\" This,\nhe urged was nothing more than justice. The blacks are the laborers,\nthe peasants, of the Southern States. They are as productive of\npecuniary resources as those of the Northern States. They add equally\nto the wealth, and, considering money as the sinew of war, to the\nstrength, of the nation. It will also be politic with regard to the\nNorthern States, as taxation is to keep pace with representation.\n\nOn Mr. PINCKNEY'S (of S. Carolina) motion, for rating blacks as equal\nto whites, instead of as three-fifths,--South Carolina, Georgia,\naye--2; Massachusetts, Connecticut (Doctor JOHNSON, aye), New Jersey,\nPennsylvania (three against two), Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North\nCarolina, no--8.\n\nMr. RANDOLPH'S (of Virginia) proposition, as varied by Mr. WILSON (of\nPennsylvania) being read for taking the question on the whole,--\n\nMr. GERRY (of Massachusetts) urged that the principle of it could not\nbe carried into execution, as the States were not to be taxed as\nStates. With regard to taxes on imposts, he conceived they would be\nmore productive where there were no slaves, than where there were; the\nconsumption being greater.\n\nMr. ELLSWORTH (of Connecticut). In the case of a poll-tax there would\nbe no difficulty. But there would probably be none. The sum allotted\nto a State may be levied without difficulty, according to the plan\nused by the State in raising its own supplies.\n\nOn the question on the whole proposition, as proportioning\nrepresentation to direct taxation, and both to the white and\nthree-fifths of the black inhabitants, and requiring a census within\nsix years, and within every ten years afterwards,--Connecticut,\nPennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye--6; New\nJersey, Delaware, no--2; Massachusetts, South Carolina,\ndivided.--pp. 1079 to 1087.\n\nFriday, July 13, 1787. Mr. MADISON said, that having always conceived\nthat the difference of interest in the United States lay not between\nthe large and small, but the Northern and Southern States.-p. 1088.\n\nOn the motion of Mr. RANDOLPH (of Virginia) the vote of Monday last,\nauthorizing the Legislature to adjust, from time to time, the\nrepresentation upon the principles of _wealth_ and numbers of\ninhabitants, was reconsidered by common consent, in order to strike\nout _wealth_ and adjust the resolution to that requiring periodical\nrevisions according to the number of whites and three-fifths of the\nblacks.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS (of Pennsylvania) opposed the alteration, as\nleaving still an incoherence. If negroes were to be viewed as\ninhabitants, and the revision was to proceed on the principle of\nnumbers of inhabitants, they ought to be added in their entire number,\nand not in the proportion of three-fifths. If as property, the word\nwealth was right; and striking it out would produce the very\ninconsistency which it was meant to get rid of. The train of business,\nand the late turn which it had taken, had led him, he said, into deep\nmeditation on it, and he would candidly state the result. A\ndistinction had been set up, and urged, between the Northern and\nSouthern States. He had hitherto considered this doctrine as\nheretical. He still thought the distinction groundless. He sees,\nhowever, that it is persisted in; and the Southern gentlemen will not\nbe satisfied unless they see the way open to their gaining a majority\nin the public councils. The consequence of such a transfer of power\nfrom the maritime to the interior and landed interest, will, he\nforesees, be such an oppression to commerce, that he shall be obliged\nto vote for the vicious principle of equality in the second branch, in\norder to provide some defence for the Northern States against it. But\nto come more to the point, either this distinction is fictitious or\nreal; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due\nconfidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend incompatible\nthings, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can\nbe no end of demands for security, if every particular interest is to\nbe entitled to it. The Eastern States may claim it for their fishery,\nand for other objects, as the Southern States claim it for their\npeculiar objects. In this struggle between the two ends of the Union,\nwhat part ought the Middle States, in point of policy, to take? To\njoin their Eastern brethren, according to his ideas. If the Southern\nStates get the power into their hands, and be joined, as they will be,\nwith the interior country, they will inevitably bring on a war with\nSpain for the Mississippi. This language is already held. The interior\ncountry, having no property nor interest exposed on the sea, will be\nlittle affected by such a war. He wished to know what security the\nNorthern and Middle States will have against this danger. It has been\nsaid that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia only, will in a\nlittle time have a majority of the people of America. They must in\nthat case include the great interior country, and every thing was to\nbe apprehended from their getting the power into their hands.\n\nMr. BUTLER (of South Carolina). The security the Southern States want\nis, that their negroes may not be taken from them, which some\ngentlemen within or without doors have a very good mind to do. It was\nnot supposed that North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, would\nhave more people than all the other States, but many more relatively\nto the other States, than they now have. The people and strength of\nAmerica are evidently bearing southwardly, and southwestwardly.\n\nOn the question to strike out _wealth_, and to make the change\nas moved by Mr. RANDOLPH (of Virginia) it passed in the\naffirmative,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,\nMaryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9;\nDelaware, divided.--_pp_. 1090-1-2-3-4.\n\n\nSATURDAY, July 14, 1787.\n\nMr. MADISON. It seemed now to be pretty well understood, that the real\ndifference of interests lay, not between the large and small, but\nbetween the Northern and Southern, States. THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY,\nAND IT'S CONSEQUENCES, FORMED THE LINE OF DISCRIMINATION.--_p_. 1104.\n\n\nTUESDAY, July 17, 1787.\n\nMr. WILLIAMSON. The largest State will be sure to succeed. This will\nnot be Virginia, however. Her slaves will have no suffrage.--_p_.\n1123.\n\n\nTHURSDAY, July 19, 1787.\n\nMr. MADISON. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the\nNorthern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no\ninfluence in the election, on the score of the negroes.--p. 1148.\n\n\nMONDAY, July 23, 1787.\n\nGeneral PINCKNEY reminded the Convention, that if the Committee should\nfail to insert some security to the Southern States against an\nemancipation of slaves, and taxes on exports, he should be bound by\nduty to his State to vote against their report.--_p_. 1187.\n\n\nTUESDAY, July 24, 1787.\n\nMr. WILLIAMSON. As the Executive is to have a kind of veto on the\nlaws, and there is an essential difference of interests between the\nNorthern and Southern States, particularly in the carrying trade, the\npower will be dangerous, if the Executive is to be taken from part of\nthe Union, to the part from which he is not taken.--_p_. 1189.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS hoped the Committee would strike out the whole\nof the clause proportioning direct taxation to representation. He had\nonly meant it as a bridge[3] to assist us over a certain gulf; having\npassed the gulf, the bridge may be removed. He thought the principle\nlaid down with so much strictness liable to strong objections.--_p_.\n1197.\n\n[Footnote 3: The object was to lessen the eagerness, on one side, for,\nand the opposition, on the other, to the share of representation\nclaimed by the Southern States on account of the negroes.]\n\n\n\nWEDNESDAY, July 25, 1787.\n\nMr. MADISON. Refer the appointment of the National Executive to the\nState Legislatures, and * * *\n\nThe remaining mode was an election by the people, or rather by the\nqualified part of them at large. * * *\n\nThe second difficulty arose from the disproportion of qualified voters\nin the Northern and Southern States, and the disadvantages which this\nmode would throw on the latter. The answer to this objection was--in\nthe first place, that this disproportion would be continually\ndecreasing under the influence of the republican laws introduced in\nthe Southern States, and the more rapid increase of their population;\nin the second place, that local considerations must give way to the\ngeneral interest. As an individual from the Southern States, he was\nwilling to make the sacrifice.--pp. 1200-1.\n\nTHURSDAY, July 26, 1787.\n\nMr. Gouverneur Morris. Revenue will be drawn, it is foreseen, as much\nas possible from trade.--p. 1217.\n\nMONDAY, August 6, 1787.\n\nMr. Rutledge delivered in the Report of the Committee of Detail.\n\n\nARTICLE VII.\n\nSECT. 3. The proportions of direct taxation shall be regulated by the\nwhole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every\nage, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term\nof years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in\nthe foregoing description, (except Indians not paying taxes); which\nnumber shall, within six years after the first meeting of the\nLegislature, and within the term of every ten years afterwards, be\ntaken in such a manner as the said Legislature shall direct.\n\nSECT. 4. No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature on articles\nexported from any State; nor on the migration or importation of such\npersons as the several States shall think proper to admit; nor shall\nsuch migration or importation be prohibited.\n\nSECT. 5. No capitation tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the\ncensus herein before directed to be taken.\n\nSECT. 6. No navigation act shall be passed without the assent of\ntwo-thirds of the members present in each house.--pp. 1226-33-34.\n\nWEDNESDAY, August 8, 1787.\n\nMr. King wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant\nto have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the admission\nof slaves into the rule of representation. He could not reconcile his\nmind to the Article, if it was to prevent objections to the latter\npart. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his\nmind, and he believed would be so to a great part of the people of\nAmerica. He had not made a strenuous opposition to it heretofore,\nbecause he had hoped that this concession would have produced a\nreadiness, which had not been manifested, to strengthen the General\nGovernment, and to mark a full confidence in it. The Report under\nconsideration had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes.\nIn two great points the hands of the Legislature were absolutely tied.\nThe importation of slaves could not be prohibited. Exports could not\nbe taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the\ngeneral system? First, defence against foreign invasion; secondly,\nagainst internal sedition. Shall all the States, then, be bound to\ndefend each, and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness\nwhich will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the United\nStates be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at\nliberty, not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the\ncompensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported, shall not\nthe exports produced by their labor supply a revenue the better to\nenable the General Government to defend their masters? There was so\nmuch inequality and unreasonableness in all this, that the people of\nthe Northern States could never be reconciled to it. No candid man\ncould undertake to justify it to them. He had hoped that some\naccommodation would have taken place on this subject; that at least a\ntime would have been limited for the importation of slaves. He never\ncould agree to let them be imported without limitation, and then be\nrepresented in the National Legislature. Indeed, he could so little\npersuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that he was not\nsure be could assent to it under any circumstances. At all events,\neither slaves should not be represented, or exports should be taxable.\n\nMr. SHERMAN regarded the slave trade as iniquitous; but the point of\nrepresentation having been settled after much difficulty and\ndeliberation, he did not think himself bound to make opposition;\nespecially as the present Article, as amended, did not preclude any\narrangement whatever on that point, in another place of the report.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to insert \"free\" before the word\n\"inhabitants.\" Much, he said, would depend on this point. He never\nwould concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious\ninstitution. It was the curse of Heaven on the States where it\nprevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich\nand noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the\npeople, with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes\nof Virginia, Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel\nthrough the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually\nvarying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The moment\nyou leave the Eastern States, and enter New York, the effects of the\ninstitution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys and entering\nPennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the\nchange. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the\ngreat regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the\nincreasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is\nit that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they\nmen? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property?\nWhy, then, is no other property included? The houses in this city\n(Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover\nthe rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the\nrepresentation, when fairly explained, comes to this, that the\ninhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of\nAfrica, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears\naway his fellow creatures from their dearest connections, and damns\nthem to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government\ninstituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen\nof Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so\nnefarious a practice. He would add, that domestic slavery is the most\nprominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed\nConstitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite\noffspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed compensation to the\nNorthern States, for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every\nimpulse of humanity? They are to bind themselves to march their\nmilitia for the defence of the Southern States, for their defence\nagainst those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply\nvessels and seamen, in case of foreign attack. The Legislature will\nhave indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports;\nboth of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern\ninhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman will pay\nmore tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which\nconsists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag\nthat covers his nakedness. On the other side, the Southern States are\nnot to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched\nAfricans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty\nof defence; nay, they are to be encouraged to it, by an assurance of\nhaving their votes in the National Government increased in proportion;\nand are, at the same time, to have their exports and their slaves\nexempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be\nsaid, that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It\nis idle to suppose that the General Government can stretch its hand\ndirectly into the pockets of the people, scattered over so vast a\ncountry. They can only do it through the medium of exports, imports\nand excises. For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made? He\nwould sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in\nthe United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.\n\nMr. DAYTON seconded the motion. He did it, he said, that his\nsentiments on the subject might appear, whatever might be the fate of\nthe amendment.\n\nMr. SHERMAN did not regard the admission of the negroes into the ratio\nof representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was\nthe freemen of the Southern States who were, in fact, to be\nrepresented according to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are\nonly included in the estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the\nmatter.\n\nMr. PINCKNEY considered the fisheries, and the western frontier, as\nmore burdensome to the United States than the slaves. He thought this\ncould be demonstrated, if the occasion were a proper one.\n\nMr. WILSON thought the motion premature. An agreement to the clause\nwould be no bar to the object of it.\n\nOn the question, on the motion to insert \"free\" before \"inhabitants,\"\nNew-Jersey, aye--1; New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,\nPennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South\nCarolina, Georgia, no--10.--pp. 1261-2-3-4-5-6.\n\nTHURSDAY, August 16, 1787.\n\nMr. MASON urged the necessity of connecting with the powers of levying\ntaxes, duties, &c., the prohibition in Article 6, Sect. 4, \"that no\ntax should be laid on exports.\"\n\nHe hoped the Northern States did not mean to deny the Southern this\nsecurity.\n\nMR. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS considered such a proviso as inadmissible\nanywhere.\n\nMR. MADISON. Fourthly, the Southern States, being most in danger and\nmost needing naval protection, could the less complain, if the burthen\nshould be somewhat heaviest on them. And finally, we are not providing\nfor the present moment only; and time will equalize the situation of\nthe States in this matter. He was, for these reasons, against the\nmotion.\n\nMR. MERCER. It had been said the Southern States had most need of\nnaval protection. The reverse was the case. Were it not for promoting\nthe carrying trade of the Northern States, the Southern States could\nlet the trade go into foreign bottoms, where it would not need our\nprotection.--pp. 1339-40-41-42.\n\n\nTUESDAY, August 21, 1787.\n\nArticles 7, Section 3, was then resumed.\n\nMR. DICKINSON moved to postpone this, in order to reconsider Article\n4, Section 4, and to _limit_ the number of Representatives to be\nallowed to the large States. Unless this were done, the small States\nwould be reduced to entire insignificance, and encouragement given to\nthe importation of slaves.\n\nMR. SHERMAN would agree to such a reconsideration; but did not see the\nnecessity of postponing the section before the House. MR. DICKINSON\nwithdrew his motion.\n\nArticle 7, Section 3, was then agreed to,--ten ayes; Delaware alone,\nno.--p. 1379.\n\nArticle 7, Section 4, was then taken up.\n\nMR. LANGDON. By this section the States are left at liberty to tax\nexports. This could not be admitted. It seems to be feared that the\nNorthern States will oppress the trade of the Southern. This may be\nguarded against, by requiring the concurrence of two-thirds, or\nthree-fourths of the Legislature, in such cases.--p. 1382-3.\n\nMR. MADISON. As to the fear of disproportionate burthens on the more\nexporting States, it might be remarked that it was agreed, on all\nhands, that the revenue would principally be drawn from trade.--p.\n1385.\n\nCOL. MASON--A majority, when interested, will oppress the minority.\n\nIf we compare the States in this point of view, the eight Northern\nStates have an interest different from the five Southern States; and\nhave, in one branch of the Legislature, thirty-six votes, against\ntwenty-nine, and in the other in the proportion of eight against five.\nThe Southern States had therefore ground for their suspicions. The\ncase of exports was not the same with that of imports.--pp. 1386-7.\n\nMR. L. MARTIN proposed to vary Article 7, Section 4, so as to allow a\nprohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the first place,\nas five slaves are to be counted as three freemen, in the\napportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an\nencouragement to this traffic. In the second place, slaves weakened\none part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect;\nthe privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. And in the\nthird place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the\nRevolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a\nfeature in the Constitution.\n\nMr. RUTLEDGE did not see how the importation of slaves could be\nencouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections,\nand would readily exempt the other States from the obligation to\nprotect the Southern against them. Religion and humanity had nothing\nto do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle\nwith nations. The true question at present is, whether the Southern\nStates shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern\nStates consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of\nslaves, which will increase the commodities of which they will become\nthe carriers.\n\nMr. ELLSWORTH was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every State\nimport what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are\nconsiderations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a\npart enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their\nparticular interest. The Old Confederation had not meddled with this\npoint; and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within\nthe policy of the new one.\n\nMr. PINCKNEY. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it\nprohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers\nof Congress, that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of\nmeddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at\nliberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees, do of\nherself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland already have done.\nAdjourned.--_pp_. 1388-9.\n\nWEDNESDAY, August 22, 1787.\n\n_In Convention_,--Article 7, Section 4, was resumed.\n\nMr. SHERMAN was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of\nthe slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of the right to\nimport slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from\nthem, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to\nthe proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave the\nmatter as we find it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed\nto be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of the\nseveral States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged on the\nConvention the necessity of despatching its business.\n\nCol. MASON. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British\nmerchants. The British Government constantly checked the attempts of\nVirginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the\nimporting States alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves\nwas experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they\nmight have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous\ninstruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it\ndid by the tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the\nslaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell to\nthe commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants and slaves, in\ncase other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland and\nVirginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves\nexpressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this\nwould be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to\nimport. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for\ntheir new lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can\nbe got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts\nand manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves.\nThey prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and\nstrengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on\nmanners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the\njudgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or\npunished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable\nchain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by\nnational calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren\nhad, from a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to\nthe States being in possession of the right to import, this was the\ncase with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it\nessential in every point of view, that the General Government should\nhave power to prevent the increase of slavery.\n\nMr. ELLSWORTH, as he had never owned a slave, could not judge of the\neffects of slavery on character. He said, however, that if it was to\nbe considered in a moral light, we ought to go further and free those\nalready in the country. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia\nand Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in\nthe sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no\nfurther than is urged, we shall be unjust towards South Carolina and\nGeorgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor\nlaborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery, in\ntime, will not be a speck in our country. Provision is already made in\nConnecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken\nplace in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrections from foreign\ninfluence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.\n\nMr. PINCKNEY. If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of\nall the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and other ancient\nStates; the sanction given by France, England, Holland and other\nmodern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If\nthe Southern States were let alone, they will probably of themselves\nstop importations. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina,\nvote for it. An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will\nproduce serious objections to the Constitution, which he wished to see\nadopted.\n\nGen. PINCKNEY declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself and\nall his colleagues were to sign the Constitution and use their\npersonal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the\nassent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do\nwithout slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the\nimportations. Her slaves will rise in value, and she has more than she\nwants. It would be unequal, to require South Carolina and Georgia, to\nconfederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent, before\nthe Revolution, had never been refused to South Carolina, as to\nVirginia. He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the\ninterest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to\nemploy the carrying trade; the more consumption also; and the more of\nthis, the more revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be\nreasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports; but should\nconsider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina\nfrom the Union.\n\nMr. BALDWIN had conceived national objects alone to be before the\nConvention; not such as, like the present, were of a local nature.\nGeorgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto\nsupposed a General Government to be the pursuit of the central States,\nwho wished to have a vortex for everything; that her distance would\npreclude her, from equal advantage; and that she could not prudently\npurchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be\nunderstood, in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of\nher favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a\nstop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of\nthe sect of ----; which he said was a respectable class of people, who\ncarried their ethics beyond the mere _equality of men_, extending\ntheir humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.\n\nMr. WILSON observed that if South Carolina and Georgia were themselves\ndisposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, as\nhad been suggested, they would never refuse to unite because the\nimportation might be prohibited. As the section now stands, all\narticles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in\nfact a bounty on that article.\n\nMr. GERRY thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States\nas to slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.\n\nMr. DICKINSON considered it as inadmissible, on every principle of\nhonor and safety, that the importation of slaves should be authorized\nto the States by the Constitution. The true question was, whether the\nnational happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation;\nand this question ought to be left to the National Government, not to\nthe States particularly interested. If England and France permit\nslavery, slaves are, at the same time, excluded from both those\nkingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could\nnot believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate on\nthe account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be\nimmediately exercised by the General Government.\n\nMr. WILLIAMSON stated the law of North Carolina on the subject, to\nwit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It\nimposed a duty of \u00a35 on each slave imported from Africa; \u00a310 on each\nfrom elsewhere; and \u00a350 on each from a State licensing manumission. He\nthought the Southern States could not be members of the Union, if the\nclause should be rejected; and that it was wrong to force any thing\ndown not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.\n\nMr. KING thought the subject should be considered in a political light\nonly. If two States will not agree to the Constitution, as stated on\none side, he could affirm with equal belief, on the other, that great\nand equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He\nremarked on the exemption of slaves from duty, whilst every other\nimport was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to\nstrike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States.\n\nMr. LANGDON was strenuous for giving the power to the General\nGovernment. He could not, with a good conscience, leave it with the\nStates, who could then go on with the traffic, without being\nrestrained by the opinions here given, that they will themselves cease\nto import slaves.\n\nGen. PINCKNEY thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did\nnot think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves, in any\nshort time; but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved\nto commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax\nwith other imports; which he thought right, and which would remove one\ndifficulty that had been started.\n\nMr. RUTLEDGE. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South\nCarolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right\nto import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of\nthose States will never be such fools, as to give up so important an\ninterest. He was strenuous against striking out the section, and\nseconded the motion of Gen. PINCKNEY for a commitment.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS wished the whole subject to be committed,\nincluding the clauses relating to taxes on exports and to a navigation\nact. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern\nStates.\n\nMR. BUTLER declared that he never would agree to the power of taxing\nexports.\n\nMr. SHERMAN said it was better to let the Southern States import\nslaves, than to part with them, if they made that a _sine qua non_. He\nwas opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse,\nbecause it implied they were _property_. He acknowledged that if the\npower of prohibiting the importation should be given to the General\nGovernment, that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its\nduty to exercise the power.\n\nMr. READ was for the commitment, provided the clause concerning taxes\non exports should also be committed.\n\nMr. SHERMAN observed that that clause had been agreed to, and\ntherefore could not be committed.\n\nMr. Randolph was for committing, in order that some middle ground\nmight, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause as it\nstands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt on the dilemma\nto which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it\nwould revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the\nStates having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might be lost\nto the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance of a commitment.\n\nOn the question for committing the remaining part of Sections 4 and 5,\nof Article 7,--Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North\nCarolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Hampshire,\nPennsylvania, Delaware, no--3; Massachusetts absent.\n\nMr. Pinckney and Mr. Langdon moved to commit Section 6, as to a\nnavigation act by two-thirds of each House.\n\nMr. Gorham did not see the propriety of it. Is it meant to require a\ngreater proportion of votes? He desired it to be remembered, that the\nEastern States had no motive to union but a commercial one. They were\nable to protect themselves. They were not afraid of external danger,\nand did not need the aid of the Southern States.\n\nMr. Wilson wished for a commitment, in order to reduce the proportion\nof votes required.\n\nMr. Ellsworth was for taking the plan as it is. This widening of\nopinions had a threatening aspect. If we do not agree on this middle\nand moderate ground, he was afraid we should lose two States, with\nsuch others as may be disposed to stand aloof; should fly into a\nvariety of shapes and directions, and most probably into several\nconfederations,--and not without bloodshed.\n\nOn the question for committing Section 6, as to a navigation act, to a\nmember from each State,--New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,\nDelaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,\naye--9; Connecticut, New Jersey, no--2.\n\nThe Committee appointed were Messrs. Langdon, King, Johnson,\nLivingston, Clymer, Dickinson, L. Martin, Madison, Williamson, C.C.\nPinckney, and Baldwin.\n\nTo this Committee were referred also the two clauses above mentioned\nof the fourth and fifth Sections of Article 7.--pp. 1390 to 1397.\n\nFriday, August 24, 1787\n\n_In Convention_,--Governor Livingston, from the committee of eleven,\nto whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth section,\nand the fifth and sixth sections, of the seventh Article, delivered in\nthe following Report:\n\n\"Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to the\nCommittee, and insert, 'The migration or importation of such persons\nas the several States, now existing, shall think proper to admit,\nshall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1800; but\na tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation, at a\nrate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.\n\n\"The fifth Section to remain as in the Report.\nThe sixth Section to be stricken out.\"--p. 1415.\n\nSATURDAY, August 25, 1787.\n\nThe Report of the Committee of eleven (see Friday, the twenty-fourth),\nbeing taken up,--\n\nGen. PINCKNEY moved to strike out the words, \"the year eighteen\nhundred,\" as the year limiting the importation of slaves; and to\ninsert the words, \"the year eighteen hundred and eight.\"\n\nMr. GORHAM seconded the motion.\n\nMr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be\napprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be\nmore dishonorable to the American character, than to say nothing about\nit in the Constitution.\n\nOn the motion, which passed in the affirmative,--New-Hampshire,\nMassachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, aye--7; New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no--4.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was for making the clause read at once, \"the\nimportation of slaves in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,\nshall not be prohibited, &c.\" This he said, would be most fair, and\nwould avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to\nnaturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated.\nHe wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was\na compliance with those States. If the change of language, however,\nshould be objected to, by the members from those States, he should not\nurge it.\n\nCol. MASON was not against using the term \"slaves,\" but against naming\nNorth Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give\noffence to the people of those States.\n\nMr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which\nhad been declined by the old Congress, and were not pleasing to some\npeople.\n\nMr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. SHERMAN.\n\nMr. WILLIAMSON said, that both in opinion and practice he was against\nslavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all\ncircumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms,\nthan to exclude them from the Union.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS withdrew his motion.\n\nMr. DICKINSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had\nnot themselves prohibited the importation of slaves; and for that\npurpose moved to amend the clause, so as to read: \"The importation of\nslaves into such of the States as shall permit the same, shall not be\nprohibited by the Legislature of the United States, until the year\n1808;\" which was disagreed to, _nem. con_.[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and\nGeorgia, voted in the affirmative.]\n\n\nThe first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as follows:\n\"The migration or importation of such persons as the several States\nnow existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by\nthe Legislature prior to the year 1808,\"--\n\nNew Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina,\nSouth Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,\nVirginia, no--4.\n\nMr. BALDWIN, in order to restrain and more explicitly define, \"the\naverage duty,\" moved to strike out of the second part the words,\n\"average of the duties laid on imports,\" and insert \"common impost on\narticles not enumerated;\" which was agreed to, _nem. con_.\n\nMr. SHERMAN was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be\nproperty, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.\n\nMr. KING and Mr. LANGDON considered this as the price of the first\npart. Gen. PINCKNEY admitted that it was so. Col. MASON. Not to tax,\nwill be equivalent to a bounty on, the importation of slaves.\n\nMr. GORHAM thought that Mr. SHERMAN should consider the duty, not as\nimplying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the\nimportation of them.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it\nimplies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.\n\nMr. SHERMAN, in answer to Mr. GORHAM, observed, that the smallness of\nthe duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of\nthe importation.\n\nMr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea\nthat there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not\nhold, as slaves are not, like merchandize consumed, &c.\n\nCol. MASON, in answer to Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The provision, as it\nstands, was necessary for the case of convicts, in order to prevent\nthe introduction of them.\n\nIt was finally agreed, _nem. con_., to make the clause read: \"but a\ntax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten\ndollars for each person;\" and then the second part, as amended, was\nagreed to.--_pp_. 1427 to 30.\n\n\nTUESDAY, August 28, 1787.\n\nArticle 14, was then taken up.[5]\n\n[Footnote 5: Article 14 was,--The citizens of each State shall be\nentitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several\nStates.--EDITOR.]\n\n\nGeneral PINCKNEY was not satisfied with it. He seemed to wish some\nprovision should be included in favor of property in slaves.\n\nOn the question on Article 14,--New Hampshire, Massachusetts,\nConnecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,\nNorth Carolina, aye--9; South Carolina, no--1; Georgia, divided.\n\nArticle 15,[6] being then taken up, the words, \"high misdemeanor,\"\nwere struck out, and the words, \"other crime,\" inserted, in order to\ncomprehend all proper cases; it being doubtful whether \"high\nmisdemeanor\" had not a technical meaning too limited.\n\n[Footnote 6: Article 15 was,--Any person charged with treason, felony\nor high misdemeanor in any State, who shall flee from justice, and\nshall be found in any other State, shall, on demand of the Executive\npower of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to\nthe State having jurisdiction of the offence.--EDITOR.]\n\n\nMr. BUTLER and Mr. PINCKNEY moved to require \"fugitive slaves and\nservants to be delivered up like criminals.\"\n\nMr. WILSON. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at\nthe public expense.\n\nMr. SHERMAN saw no more propriety in the public seizing and\nsurrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.\n\nMr. BUTLER withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular\nprovision might be made, apart from this article.\n\nArticle 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con_.--_pp_. 1447-8.\n\n\nWEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 1787.\n\nArticle 7, Section 6, by the Committee of Eleven reported to be struck\nout (see the twenty-fourth inst.) being now taken up,--\n\nMr. PINCKNEY moved to postpone the Report, in favor of the following\nproposition: \"That no act of the Legislature for the purpose of\nregulating the Commerce of the United States with foreign powers,\namong the several States, shall be passed without the assent of\ntwo-thirds of the members of each House.\" He remarked that there were\nfive distinct commercial interests.\n\nThe power of regulating commerce was a pure concession on the part of\nthe Southern States. They did not need the protection of the Northern\nStates at present.--_p_. 1450.\n\nGeneral PINCKNEY said it was the true interest of the Southern States\nto have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on\nthe commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal\nconduct towards the views[7] of South Carolina, and the interest the\nweak Southern States had in being united with the strong Eastern\nStates, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the\npower of making commercial regulations, and that his constituents,\nthough prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled to\nthis liberality. He had, himself, he said, prejudices against the\nEastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had\nfound them as liberal and candid as any men whatever.--_p_. 1451.\n\n[Footnote 7: He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding\non the two subjects of _navigation_ and _slavery_, had taken place\nbetween those parts of the Union, which explains the vote of the\nmotion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and\nothers.]\n\n\nMr. PINCKNEY replied, that his enumeration meant the five minute\ninterests. It still left the two great divisions of Northern and\nSouthern interests.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS opposed the object of the motion as highly\ninjurious.--A navy was essential to security, particularly of the\nSouthern States;--\n\nMr. WILLIAMSON. As to the weakness of the Southern States, he was not\nalarmed on that account. The sickliness of their climate for invaders\nwould prevent their being made an object. He acknowledged that he did\nnot think the motion requiring two-thirds necessary in itself; because\nif a majority of the Northern States should push their regulations too\nfar, the Southern States would build ships for themselves; but he knew\nthe Southern people were apprehensive on this subject, and would be\npleased with the precaution.\n\nMr. SPAIGHT was against the motion. The Southern States could at any\ntime save themselves from oppression, by building ships for their own\nuse.--_p_. 1452.\n\nMr. BUTLER differed from those who considered the rejection of the\nmotion as no concession on the part of the Southern States. He\nconsidered the interests of these and of the Eastern States to be as\ndifferent as the interests of Russia and Turkey. Being,\nnotwithstanding, desirous of conciliating the affections of the\nEastern States, he should vote against requiring two-thirds instead of\na majority.--_p_. 1453.\n\nMr. MADISON. He added, that the Southern States would derive an\nessential advantage, in the general security afforded by the increase\nof our maritime strength. He stated the vulnerable situation of them\nall, and of Virginia in particular.\n\nMr. RUTLEDGE was against the motion of his colleague. At the worst, a\nnavigation act could bear hard a little while only on the Southern\nStates. As we are laying the foundation for a great empire, we ought\nto take a permanent view of the subject, and not look at the present\nmoment only.\n\nMr. GORMAN. The Eastern States were not led to strengthen the Union by\nfear for their own safety.\n\nHe deprecated the consequences of disunion; but if it should take\nplace, it was the Southern part of the Continent that had most reason\nto dread them.\n\nOn the question to postpone, in order to take up Mr. PINCKNEY's\nmotion,--\n\nMaryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye--4; New Hampshire,\nMassachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South\nCarolina, no--7. The Report of the Committee for striking out Section\n6, requiring two-thirds of each House to pass a navigation act, was\nthen agreed to, _nem. con_.\n\nMr. BUTLER moved to insert after Article 15, \"If any person bound to\nservice or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into\nanother State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or\nlabor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to\nwhich they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly\nclaiming their service or labor,\"--which was agreed to, _nem.\ncon_.--_p_. 1454-5-6.\n\n\nTHURSDAY, August 30, 1787.\n\nArticle 18, being taken up,\n\nOn a question for striking out \"domestic violence,\" and inserting\n\"insurrections,\" it passed in the negative,--New Jersey, Virginia,\nNorth Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--5; New Hampshire,\nMassachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,\nno--6.--_pp_. 1466-7.\n\nMONDAY, September 10, 1787.\n\nMr. RUTLEDGE said he never could agree to give a power by which the\narticles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not\ninterested in that property, and prejudiced against it. In order to\nobviate this objection, these words were added to the proposition:\n\"provided that no amendments, which may be made prior to the year 1808\nshall in any manner affect the fourth and fifth sections of the\nseventh Article:\"--_p_. 1536.\n\nTUESDAY, September 13, 1787.\n\nArticle 1, Section 2. On motion of Mr. RANDOLPH, the word \"servitude\"\nwas struck out, and \"service\" unanimously[8] inserted, the former\nbeing thought to express the condition of slaves, and the latter the\nobligations of free persons.\n\n[Footnote 8:  See page 372 of the printed journal.]\n\n\nMr. DICKENSON and Mr. WILSON moved to strike out, \"and direct taxes,\"\nfrom Article 1, Section 2, as improperly placed in a clause relating\nmerely to the Constitution of the House of Representatives.\n\nMr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The insertion here was in consequence of what\nhad passed on this point; in order to exclude the appearance of\ncounting the negroes in the _representation_. The including of them\nmay now be referred to the object of direct taxes, and incidentally\nonly to that of representation.\n\nOn the motion to strike out, \"and direct taxes,\" from this place,--\n\nNew Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, aye--3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts,\nConnecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, no--8.--_pp_. 1569-70.\n\nSATURDAY, September 15, 1787.\n\nArticle 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term \"legally\" was\nstruck out; and the words, \"under the laws thereof,\" inserted after\nthe word \"State,\" in compliance with the wish of some who thought the\nterm _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal\nin a moral view.--p. 1589.\n\nMr. GERRY stated the objections which determined him to withhold his\nname from the Constitution: 1-2-3-4-5-6, that three-fifths of the\nblacks are to be represented, as if they were freemen.--p. 1595.\n\n\n\n\n\n                    LIST OF MEMBERS\nOF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION WHO FORMED THE CONSTITUTION OF\n                    THE UNITED STATES.\n\n\n\n_From_                                 _Attended._\nNew Hampshire,     1 John Langdon,           July 23, 1787.\n                    _John Pickering_,\n                   2 Nicholas Gilman,         \"   23.\n                    _Benjamin West_,\nMassachusetts,      _Francis Dana_,\n                     Elbridge Gerry,          May 29.\n                   3 Nath'l Gorham,            \"  28.\n                   4 Rufus King,               \"  25.\n                     Caleb Strong,            May 28.\nRhode Island,       (No appointment.)\nConnecticut,       5 W.S. Johnson,            June 2.\n                   6 Roger Sherman,           May 30.\n                     Oliver Ellsworth,         \"  29.\nNew York,            Robert Yates,             \"  25.\n                   7 Alex'r Hamilton,          \"  25.\n                     John Lansing,            June 2.\nNew Jersey,        8 Wm. Livingston,           \"   5.\n                   9 David Brearly,           May 25.\n                     Wm. C. Houston,          May 25.\n                  10 Wm. Patterson,             do.\n                    _John Nielson_,\n                    _Abraham Clark_.\n                  11 Jonathan Dayton,        June 21.\nPennsylvania,     12 Benj. Franklin,          May 28.\n                  13 Thos. Mifflin,             do.\n                  14 Robert Morris,           May 25.\n                  15 Geo. Clymer,              \"  28.\n                  16 Thos. Fitzsimons,         \"  25.\n                  17 Jared Ingersoll,          \"  28.\n                  18 James Wilson,             \"  25.\n                  19 Gouv'r Morris,            \"  25.\nDelaware,         20 Geo. Reed,                \"  25.\n                  21 G. Bedford, Jr.           \"  28.\n                  22 John Dickenson,           \"  28.\n                  23 Richard Bassett,          \"  25.\n                  24 Jacob Broom,              \"  25.\nMaryland,         25 James M'Henry,            \"  29.\n                  26 Daniel of St. Tho.\n                          Jenifer,            June 2.\n                  27 Daniel Carroll,          July 9.\n                     John F. Mercer,          Aug. 6.\n                     Luther Martin,           June 9.\nVirginia,         28 G. Washington,           May 25.\n                    _Patrick Henry_, (declined.)\n                     Edmund Randolph,          \"  25.\n                  29 John Blair,               \"  25.\n                  30 Jas. Madison, Jr.         \"  25.\n                     George Mason,             \"  25.\n                     George Wythe,             \"  25.\n                     James McClurg, (in\n                          room of P. Henry)    \"  25.\n                  31 Wm. Blount (in room\n                          of R. Caswell),    June 20.\n                  _Willie Jones_, (declined.)\n                  32 R.D. Spaight,            May 25.\n                  33 Hugh Williamson, (in\n                          room of W. Jones,)  May 25.\nSouth Carolina,   34 John Rutledge,            \"  25.\n                  35 Chas. C. Pinckney,        \"  25.\n                  36 Chas. Pinckney,           \"  25.\n                  37 Peirce Butler,            \"  25.\nGeorgia,          38 William Few,             May 25.\n                  39 Abr'm Baldwin,          June 11.\n                     William Pierce,          May 31.\n                    _George Walton._\n                     Wm. Houston,            June  1.\n                    _Nath'l Pendleton._\n\nThose with numbers before their names signed the Constitution.  39\nThose in italics never attended.                                10\nMembers who attended, but did not sign the Constitution,        16\n                                                                --\n                                                                65\n\n\n\nExtracts from a speech of Luther Martin, (delivered before the\nLegislature of Maryland,) one of the delegates from Maryland to the\nConvention that formed the Constitution of the United States.\n\nWith respect to that part of the _second_ section of the _first_\nArticle, which relates to the apportionment of representation and\ndirect taxation, there were considerable objections made to it,\nbesides the great objection of inequality--It was urged, that no\nprinciple could justify taking _slaves_ into computation in\napportioning the number of _representatives_ a State should have in\nthe government--That it involved the absurdity of increasing the power\nof a State in making laws for _free men_ in proportion as that State\nviolated the rights of freedom--That it might be proper to take slaves\ninto consideration, when _taxes_ were to be apportioned, because it\nhad a tendency to _discourage slavery_; but to take them into account\nin giving representation tended to _encourage_ the _slave trade_, and\nto make it the interest of the States to continue that _infamous\ntraffic_--That slaves could not be taken into account as _men_, or\n_citizens_, because they were not admitted to the _rights of\ncitizens_, in the States which adopted or continued slavery--If they\nwere to be taken into account as _property_, it was asked, what\npeculiar circumstance should render this property (of all others the\nmost odious in its nature) entitled to the high privilege of\nconferring consequence and power in the government to its possessors,\nrather than _any other_ property: and why _slaves_ should, as\nproperty, be taken into account rather than horses, cattle, mules, or\nany other species; and it was observed by an honorable member from\nMassachusetts, that he considered it as dishonorable and humiliating\nto enter into compact with the _slaves_ of the _Southern States_, as\nit would with the _horses_ and _mules_ of the _Eastern_.\n\nBy the ninth section of this Article, the importation of such persons\nas any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall\nnot be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on\nsuch importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.\n\nThe design of this clause is to prevent the general government from\nprohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which\ncaused them to strike out the word \"national,\" and not admit the word\n\"stamps,\" influenced them here to guard against the word \"_slaves_.\"\nThey anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which\nmight be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing\nto admit into their system those _things_ which the expressions\nsignified; and hence it is that the clause is so worded as really to\nauthorize the general government to impose a duty of ten dollars on\nevery foreigner who comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he\ncomes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a servant; although this\nis contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only meant\nto extend to the importation of slaves.\n\nThis clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the\nConvention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the\nprovision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited,\nwithout confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by\neight States--Georgia, South Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina,\nvoting for it.\n\nWe were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States,\nthat their States would never agree to a system, which put it in the\npower of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves,\nand that they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their\nassent from such a system.\n\nA committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot, to\ntake this part of the system under their consideration, and to\nendeavor to agree upon some report, which should reconcile those\nStates. To this committee also was referred the following proposition,\nwhich had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit: \"No\nnavigation act shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the\nmembers present in each house;\" a proposition which the staple and\ncommercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce\nshould be placed too much under the power of the Eastern States; but\nwhich these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of\nwhich also I had the honor to be a member, met and took under their\nconsideration the subjects committed to them. I found the _Eastern_\nStates, notwithstanding their _aversion to slavery_, were very willing\nto indulge the Southern States, at least with a temporary liberty to\nprosecute the _slave trade_, provided the Southern States would in\ntheir turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on navigation acts;\nand after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority,\nagreed on a report, by which the general government was to be\nprohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited\ntime, and the restricted clause relative to navigation acts was to be\nomitted.\n\nThis report was adopted by a majority of the Convention, but not\nwithout considerable opposition.\n\nIt was said, we had just assumed a place among independent nations in\nconsequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to\n_enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation\nof those rights to which God and nature had entitled us, not in\n_particular_, but in _common_ with all the rest of mankind; that we\nhad appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of\nfreedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the\n_rights_ which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when\nwe had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his mercy and\nprotection in forming our government over a free people, a government\nformed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its\npreservation,--in that government to have a provision not only putting\nit out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, even\nencouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States the power\nand influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly\nsported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to be\nconsidered as a solemn mockery of, and an insult to, that God whose\nprotection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in\ndetestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of\nliberty in the world. It was said, it ought be considered that\nnational crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this\nworld by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave\ntrade, and thus giving it a national sanction, and encouragement,\nought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and\nvengeance of him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal\neye the poor African slave and his American master!\n\nIt 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 rather to prohibit expressly in our\nConstitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize the\ngeneral government, from time to time, to make such regulations as\nshould be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of\nslavery, and the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the\nStates. That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism,\nand has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is\nsupported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and\nhabituates us to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged, that,\nby this system of government, every State is to be protected both from\nforeign invasion and from domestic insurrections; from this\nconsideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have a power\nto restrain the importation of slaves, since, in proportion as the\nnumber of slaves are increased in any State, in the same proportion\nthe State is weakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic\ninsurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself\nagainst either, and therefore will by so much the more want aid from,\nand be a burden to, the Union.\n\nIt was further said, that, as in this system we were giving the\ngeneral government a power, under the idea of national character, or\nnational interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have\nprohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing\ninsolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary, that we\nshould prohibit the government from interfering with both slave trade,\nthan which nothing could so materially affect both our national honor\nand interest.\n\nThese reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention,\nmost decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes\npart of the system.\n\nYou will perceive, sir, not only that the general government is\nprohibited from interfering in the slave trade before the year\neighteen hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the\nConstitution that it shall afterwards be prohibited, nor any security\nthat such prohibition will ever take place; and I think there is great\nreason to believe, that, if the importation of slaves is permitted\nuntil the year eighteen hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited\nafterwards. At this time, we do not generally hold this commerce in so\ngreat abhorrence as we have done. When our liberties were at stake, we\nwarmly felt for the common rights of men. The danger being thought to\nbe past, which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing more\ninsensible to those rights. In those States which have restrained or\nprohibited the importation of slaves, it is only done by legislative\nacts, which may be repealed. When those States find that they must, in\ntheir national character and connexion, suffer in the disgrace, and\nshare in the inconveniences attendant upon that detestable and\niniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the benefits\narising from it; and the odium attending it will be greatly effaced by\nthe sanction which is given to it in the general government.\n\nBy the next paragraph, the general government is to have a power of\nsuspending the _habeas corpus act_, in cases of _rebellion_ or\n_invasion_.\n\nAs the State governments have a power of suspending the habeas corpus\nact in those cases, it was said, there could be no reason for giving\nsuch a power to the general government; since, whenever the State\nwhich is invaded, or in which an insurrection takes place, finds its\nsafety requires it, it will make use of that power. And it was urged,\nthat if we gave this power to the general government, it would be an\nengine of oppression in its hands; since whenever a State should\noppose its views, however arbitrary and unconstitutional, and refuse\nsubmission to them, the general government may declare it to be an act\nof rebellion, and, suspending the habeas corpus act, may seize upon\nthe persons of those advocates of freedom, who have had virtue and\nresolution enough to excite the opposition, and may imprison them\nduring its pleasure in the remotest part of the Union; so that a\ncitizen of Georgia might be _bastiled_ in the furthest part of New\nHampshire; or a citizen of New Hampshire in the furthest extreme of\nthe South, cut off from their family, their friends, and their every\nconnexion. These considerations induced me, sir, to give my negative\nalso to this clause.\n\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION\nOF THE UNITED STATES' CONSTITUTION.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nMASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION.\n\nThe third paragraph of the 2d section being read,\n\nMr. KING rose to explain it. There has, says he, been much\nmisconception of this section. It is a principle of this Constitution,\nthat representation and taxation should go hand in hand. This\nparagraph states, that the number of free persons shall be determined,\nby adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound\nto service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,\nthree-fifths of all other persons. These persons are the slaves. By\nthis rule is representation and taxation to be apportioned. And it was\nadopted, because it was the language of all America.\n\nMr. WIDGERY asked, if a boy of six years of age was to be considered\nas a free person?\n\nMr. KING in answer said, all persons born free were to be considered\nas freemen; and to make the idea of _taxation by numbers_ more\nintelligible, said that five negro children of South Carolina, are to\npay as much tax as the three Governors of New Hampshire,\nMassachusetts, and Connecticut.\n\nMr. GORHAM thought the proposed section much in favor of\nMassachusetts; and if it operated against any State, it was\nPennsylvania, because they have more white persons _bound_ than any\nother.\n\nJudge DANA, in reply to the remark of some gentlemen, that the\nsouthern States were favored in this mode of apportionment, by having\nfive of their negroes set against three persons in the eastern, the\nhonorable judge observed, that the negroes of the southern States work\nno longer than when the eye of the driver is on them. Can, asked he,\nthat land flourish like this, which is cultivated by the hands of\nfreemen? Are not _three_ of these independent freemen of more real\nadvantage to a State, than _five_ of those poor slaves?\n\nMr. NASSON remarked on the statement of the honorable Mr. KING, by\nsaying that the honorable gentleman should have gone further, and\nshown us the other side of the question. It is a good rule that works\nboth ways--and the gentleman should also have told us, that three of\nour infants in the cradle, are to be rated as high as five of the\nworking negroes of Virginia. Mr. N. adverted to a statement of Mr.\nKING, who had said, that five negro children of South Carolina were\nequally rateable as three governors of New England, and wished, he\nsaid, the honorable gentleman had considered this question upon the\nother side--as it would then appear that this State will pay as great\na tax for three children in the cradle, as any of the southern States\nwill for five hearty working negro men. He hoped, he said, while we\nwere making a new government, we should make it better than the old\none: for if we had made a bad bargain before, as had been hinted, it\nwas a reason why we should make a better one now.\n\nMr. DAWES said, he was sorry to hear so many objections raised against\nthe paragraph under consideration. He though them wholly unfounded;\nthat the black inhabitants of the southern States must be considered\neither as slaves, and as so much property, or in the character of so\nmany freemen; if the former, why should they not be wholly\nrepresented? Our _own_ State laws and Constitution would lead us to\nconsider those blacks as _freemen_, and so indeed would our own ideas\nof natural justice: if, then, they are freemen, they might form an\nequal basis for representation as though they were all white\ninhabitants. In either view, therefore, he could not see that the\nnorthern States would suffer, but directly to the contrary. He\nthought, however, that gentlemen would do well to connect the passage\nin dispute with another article in the Constitution, that permits\nCongress, in the year 1808, wholly to prohibit the importation of\nslaves, and in the mean time to impose a duty of ten dollars a head on\nsuch blacks as should be imported before that period. Besides, by the\nnew Constitution, every particular State is left to its own option\ntotally to prohibit the introduction of slaves into its own\nterritories. What could the convention do more? The members of the\nsouthern States, like ourselves, have _their_ prejudices. It would not\ndo to abolish slavery, by an act of Congress, in a moment, and so\ndestroy what our southern brethren consider as property. But we may\nsay, that although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet it has\nreceived a mortal wound and will die of a consumption.\n\nMr. NEAL (from Kittery,) went over the ground of objection to this\nsection on the idea that the slave trade was allowed to be continued\nfor 20 years. His profession, he said, obliged him to bear witness\nagainst any thing that should favor the making merchandise of the\nbodies of men, and unless his objection was removed, he could not put\nhis hand to the Constitution. Other gentlemen said, in addition to\nthis idea, that there was not even a proposition that the negroes ever\nshall be free, and Gen. THOMPSON exclaimed:\n\nMr. President, shall it be said, that after we have established our\nown independence and freedom, we make slaves of others? Oh!\nWashington, what a name has he had! How he has immortalized himself!\nbut he holds those in slavery who have a good right to be free as he\nhas--he is still for self; and, in my opinion, his character has sunk\n50 per cent.\n\nOn the other side, gentlemen said, that the step taken in this article\ntowards the abolition of slavery, was one of the beauties of the\nConstitution. They observed, that in the confederation there was no\nprovision whatever for its ever being abolished; but this Constitution\nprovides, that Congress may, after 20 years, totally annihilate the\nslave trade; and that, as all the States, except two, have passed laws\nto this effect, it might reasonably be expected, that it would then be\ndone. In the interim, all the States were at liberty to prohibit it.\n\nSATURDAY, January 26.--[The debate on the 9th section still continued\ndesultory--and consisted of similar objections, and answers thereto,\nas had before been used. Both sides deprecated the slave trade in the\nmost pointed terms; on one side it was pathetically lamented, by Mr.\nNASON, Major LUSK, Mr. NEAL, and others, that this Constitution\nprovided for the continuation of the slave trade for 20 years. On the\nother, the honorable Judge DANA, Mr. ADAMS and others, rejoiced that a\ndoor was now to be opened for the annihilation of this odious,\nabhorrent practice, in a certain time.]\n\nGen. HEATH. Mr. President,--By my indisposition and absence, I have\nlost several important opportunities: I have lost the opportunity\nof expressing my sentiments with a candid freedom, on some of the\nparagraphs of the system, which have lain heavy on my mind. I have\nlost the opportunity of expressing my warm approbation on some of the\nparagraphs. I have lost the opportunity of hearing those judicious,\nenlightening and convincing arguments, which have been advanced during\nthe investigation of the system. This is my misfortune, and I must\nbear it. The paragraph respecting the migration or importation of such\npersons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,\n&c., is one of those considered during my absence, and I have heard\nnothing on the subject, save what has been mentioned this morning; but\nI think the gentlemen who have spoken, have carried the matter rather\ntoo far on both sides. I apprehend that it is not in our power to do\nany thing for or against those who are in slavery in the southern\nStates. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of slavery\nmore than I do: it is generally detested by the people of this\nCommonwealth; and I ardently hope that the time will soon come, when\nour brethren in the southern States will view it as we do, and put a\nstop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions\nnaturally arise: if we ratify the Constitution, shall we do any thing\nby our act to hold the blacks in slavery--or shall we become the\npartakers of other men's sins? I think neither of them. Each State is\nsovereign and independent to a certain degree, and they have a right,\nand will regulate their own internal affairs, as to themselves appears\nproper; and shall we refuse to eat, or to drink, or to be united, with\nthose who do not think, or act, just as we do? surely not. We are not\nin this case partakers of other men's sins, for in nothing do we\nvoluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellow-men; a restriction is\nlaid on the Federal Government, which could not be avoided, and a\nunion take place. The Federal Convention went as far as they could;\nthe migration or importation, &c., is confined to the States, now\n_existing only_, new States cannot claim it. Congress, by their\nordinance for erecting new States, some time since, declared that the\nnew States shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery in\nthem. But whether those in slavery in the southern States will be\nemancipated after the year 1808, I do not pretend to determine: I\nrather doubt it.\n\nMr. NEAL rose and said, that as the Constitution at large, was now\nunder consideration, he would just remark, that the article which\nrespected the Africans, was the one which laid on his mind--and,\nunless his objections to that were removed, it must, how much soever\nhe liked the other parts of the Constitution, be a sufficient reason\nfor him to give his negative to it.\n\nMajor LUSK concurred in the idea already thrown out in the debate,\nthat although the insertion of the amendments in the Constitution was\ndevoutly wished, yet he did not see any reason to suppose they ever\nwould be adopted. Turning from the subject of amendments, the Major\nentered largely into the consideration of the 9th section, and in the\nmost pathetic and feeling manner, described the miseries of the poor\nnatives of Africa, who are kidnapped and sold for slaves. With the\nbrightest colors he painted their happiness and ease on their native\nshores, and contrasted them with their wretched, miserable and unhappy\ncondition, in a state of slavery.\n\nRev. Mr. BACKUS. Much, sir, hath been said about the importation of\nslaves into this country. I believe that, according to my capacity, no\nman abhors that wicked practice more than I do, and would gladly make\nuse of all lawful means towards the abolishing of slavery in all parts\nof the land. But let us consider where we are, and what we are doing.\nIn the articles of confederation, no provision was made to hinder the\nimportation of slaves into any of these States: but a door is now\nopened hereafter to do it; and each State is at liberty now to abolish\nslavery as soon as they please. And let us remember our former\nconnexion with Great Britain, from whom many in our land think we\nought not to have revolted. How did they carry on the slave trade! I\nknow that the Bishop of Gloucester, in an annual sermon in London, in\nFebruary, 1766, endeavored to justify their tyrannical claims of power\nover us, by casting the reproach of the slave trade upon the\nAmericans. But at the close of the war, the Bishop of Chester, in an\nannual sermon, in February, 1783, ingenuously owned, that their nation\nis the most deeply involved in the guilt of that trade, of any nation\nin the world; and also, that they have treated their slaves in the\nWest Indies worse than the French or Spaniards have done theirs. Thus\nslavery grows more and more odious through the world; and, as an\nhonorable gentleman said some days ago, \"Though we cannot say that\nslavery is struck with an apoplexy, yet we may hope it will die with a\nconsumption.\" And a main source, sir, of that iniquity, hath been an\nabuse of the covenant of circumcision, which gave the seed of Abraham\nto destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, and to take their houses,\nvineyards, and all their estates, as their own; and also to buy and\nhold others as servants. And as Christian privileges are greater than\nthose of the Hebrews were, many have imagined that they had a right to\nseize upon the lands of the heathen, and to destroy or enslave them as\nfar as they could extend their power. And from thence the mystery of\niniquity, carried many into the practice of making merchandise of\nslaves and souls of men. But all ought to remember, that when God\npromised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, he let him know\nthat they were not to take possession of that land, until the iniquity\nof the Amorites was full; and then they did it under the immediate\ndirection of Heaven; and they were as real executors of the judgment\nof God upon those heathens, as any person ever was an executor of a\ncriminal justly condemned. And in doing it they were not allowed to\ninvade the lands of the Edomites, who sprang from Esau, who was not\nonly of the seed of Abraham, but was born at the same birth with\nIsrael; and yet they were not of that church. Neither were Israel\nallowed to invade the lands of the Moabites, or of the children of\nAmmon, who were of the seed of Lot. And no officer in Israel had any\nlegislative power, but such as were immediately inspired. Even David,\nthe man after God's own heart, had no legislative power, but only as\nhe was inspired from above: and he is expressly called a _prophet_ in\nthe New Testament And we are to remember that Abraham and his seed,\nfor four hundred years, had no warrant to admit any strangers into\nthat church, but by buying of him as a servant, with money. And it was\na great privilege to be bought, and adopted into a religious family\nfor seven years, and then to have their freedom. And that covenant was\nexpressly repealed in various parts of the New Testament; and\nparticularly in the first epistle to the Corinthians, wherein it is\nsaid--Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body,\nand in your spirit, which are God's. And again--Circumcision is\nnothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping of the\ncommandments of God. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the\nservants of men. Thus the gospel sets all men upon a level, very\ncontrary to the declaration of an honorable gentleman in this house,\n\"that the Bible was contrived for the advantage of a particular order\nof men.\"\n\n\nNEW YORK CONVENTION.\n\nMr. M. SMITH. He would now proceed to state his objections to the\nclause just read, (section 2, of article 1, clause 3). His objections\nwere comprised under three heads: 1st, the rule of apportionment is\nunjust; 2d, there is no precise number fixed on, below which the house\nshall not be reduced; 3d, it is inadequate. In the first place, the\nrule of apportionment of the representatives is to be according to the\nwhole number of the white inhabitants, with three-fifths of all\nothers; that is, in plain English, each State is to send\nrepresentatives in proportion to the number of freemen, and\nthree-fifths of the slaves it contains. He could not see any rule by\nwhich slaves were to be included in the ratio of representation;--the\nprinciple of a representation being that every free agent should be\nconcerned in governing himself, it was absurd to give that power to a\nman who could not exercise it--slaves have no will of their own: the\nvery operation of it was to give certain privileges to those people\nwho were so wicked as to keep slaves. He knew it would be admitted,\nthat this rule of apportionment was founded on unjust principles, but\nthat it was the result of accommodation; which, he supposed, we should\nbe under the necessity of admitting, if we meant to be in union with\nthe southern States, though utterly repugnant to his feelings.\n\nMr. HAMILTON. In order that the committee may understand clearly the\nprinciples on which the General Convention acted, I think it necessary\nto explain some preliminary circumstances.\n\nSir, the natural situation of this country seems to divide its\ninterests into different classes. There are navigating and\nnon-navigating States--the Northern are properly the navigating\nStates: the Southern appear to possess neither the means nor the\nspirit of navigation. This difference of situation naturally produces\na dissimilarity of interest and views respecting foreign commerce. It\nwas the interest of the Northern States that there should be no\nrestraints on the navigation, and that they should have full power, by\na majority on Congress, to make commercial regulations. The Southern\nStates wished to impose a restraint on the Northern, by requiring that\ntwo-thirds in Congress should be requisite to pass an act in\nregulation of commerce: they were apprehensive that the restraints of\na navigation law would discourage foreigners, and by obliging them to\nemploy the shipping of the Northern States would probably enhance\ntheir freight. This being the case, they insisted strenuously on\nhaving this provision engrafted in the Constitution; and the Northern\nStates were as anxious in opposing it. On the other hand, the small\nStates seeing themselves embraced by the confederation upon equal\nterms, wished to retain the advantages which they already possessed:\nthe large States, on the contrary, thought it improper that Rhode\nIsland and Delaware should enjoy an equal suffrage with themselves:\nfrom these sources a delicate and difficult contest arose. It became\nnecessary, therefore, to compromise; or the Convention must have\ndissolved without effecting any thing. Would it have been wise and\nprudent in that body, in this critical situation, to have deserted\ntheir country? No. Every man who hears me--every wise man in the\nUnited States, would have condemned them. The Convention were obliged\nto appoint a committee for accommodation. In this committee the\narrangement was formed as it now stands; and their report was\naccepted. It was a delicate point; and it was necessary that all\nparties should be indulged. Gentlemen will see, that if there had not\nbeen a unanimity, nothing could have been done: for the Convention had\nno power to establish, but only to recommend a government. Any other\nsystem would have been impracticable. Let a Convention be called\nto-morrow--let them meet twenty times; nay, twenty thousand times;\nthey will have the same difficulties to encounter; the same clashing\ninterests to reconcile.\n\nBut dismissing these reflections, let us consider how far the\narrangement is in itself entitled to the approbation of this body. We\nwill examine it upon its own merits.\n\nThe first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a\nrepresentation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said of\nthe impropriety of representing men, who have no will of their own.\nWhether this be reasoning or declamation, I will not presume to say.\nIt is the unfortunate situation of the southern States, to have a\ngreat part of their population, as well as property, in blacks. The\nregulations complained of was one result of the spirit of\naccommodation, which governed the Convention; and without this\nindulgence, no union could possibly have been formed. But, sir,\nconsidering some peculiar advantages which we derived from them, it is\nentirely just that they should be gratified. The southern States\npossess certain staples, tobacco, rice, indigo, &c., which must be\ncapital objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations; and the\nadvantage which they necessarily procure in these treaties will be\nfelt throughout all the States. But the justice of this plan will\nappear in another view. The best writers on government have held that\nrepresentation should be compounded of persons and property. This rule\nhas been adopted, as far as it could be, in the Constitution of New\nYork. It will, however, by no means, be admitted, that the slaves are\nconsidered altogether as property. They are men, though degraded to\nthe condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws\nof the States which they inhabit as well as to the laws of nature. But\nrepresentation and taxation go together--and one uniform rule ought to\napply to both. Would it be just to compute these slaves in the\nassessment of taxes, and discard them from the estimate in the\napportionment of representatives? Would it be just to impose a\nsingular burthen, without conferring some adequate advantage?\n\nAnother circumstance ought to be considered. The rule we have been\nspeaking of is a general rule, and applies to all the States. Now, you\nhave a great number of people in your State, which are not represented\nat all; and have no voice in your government: these will be included\nin the enumeration--not two-fifths--nor three-fifths, but the whole.\nThis proves that the advantages of the plan are not confined to the\nsouthern States, but extend to other parts of the Union.\n\nMr. M. SMITH. I shall make no reply to the arguments offered by the\nhonorable gentleman to justify the rule of apportionment fixed by this\nclause: for though I am confident they might be easily refuted, yet I\nam persuaded we must yield this point, in accommodation to the\nsouthern States. The amendment therefore proposes no alteration to the\nclause in this respect.\n\nMr. HARRISON. Among the objections, that, which has been made to the\nmode of apportionment of representatives, has been relinquished. I\nthink this concession does honor to the gentleman who had stated the\nobjection. He has candidly acknowledged, that this apportionment was\nthe result of accommodation; without which no union could have been\nformed.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nPENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION.\n\nMr. WILSON. Much fault has been found with the mode of expression,\nused in the first clause of the ninth section of the first article. I\nbelieve I can assign a reason, why that mode of expression was used,\nand why the term slave was not admitted in this Constitution--and as\nto the manner of laying taxes, this is not the first time that the\nsubject has come into the view of the United States, and of the\nLegislatures of the several States. The gentleman, (Mr. FINDLEY) will\nrecollect, that in the present Congress, the quota of the federal\ndebt, and general expenses, was to be in proportion to the value of\nland, and other enumerated property, within the States. After trying\nthis for a number of years, it was found on all hands, to be a mode\nthat could not be carried into execution. Congress were satisfied of\nthis, and in the year 1783 recommended, in conformity with the powers\nthey possessed under the articles of confederation, that the quota\nshould be according to the number of free people, including those\nbound to servitude, and excluding Indians not taxed. These were the\nexpressions used in 1783, and the fate of this recommendation was\nsimilar to all their other resolutions. It was not carried into\neffect, but it was adopted by no fewer than eleven, out of thirteen\nStates; and it cannot but be matter of surprise, to hear gentlemen,\nwho agreed to this very mode of expression at that time, come forward\nand state it as an objection on the present occasion. It was natural,\nsir, for the late convention, to adopt the mode after it had been\nagreed to by eleven States, and to use the expression, which they\nfound had been received as unexceptionable before. With respect to the\nclause, restricting Congress from prohibiting the migration or\nimportation of such persons, as any of the States now existing, shall\nthink proper to admit, prior to the year 1808. The honorable gentleman\nsays, that this clause is not only dark, but intended to grant to\nCongress, for that time, the power to admit the importation of slaves.\nNo such thing was intended; but I will tell you what was done, and it\ngives me high pleasure, that so much was done. Under the present\nConfederation, the States may admit the importation of slaves as long\nas they please; but by this article, after the year 1808 the Congress\nwill have power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the\ndisposition of any State to the contrary. I consider this as laying\nthe foundation for banishing slavery out of this country; and though\nthe period is more distant than I could wish, yet it will produce the\nsame kind, gradual change, which was pursued in Pennsylvania. It is\nwith much satisfaction I view this power in the general government,\nwhereby they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade; but an\nimmediate advantage is also obtained, for a tax or duty may be imposed\non such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person; and\nthis, sir, operates as a partial prohibition; it was all that could be\nobtained, I am sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is\nreason to hope, that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited\naltogether; and in the mean time, the new States which are to be\nformed, will be under the control of Congress in this particular; and\nslaves will never be introduced amongst them. The gentleman says, that\nit is unfortunate in another point of view; it means to prohibit the\nintroduction of white people from Europe, as this tax may deter them\nfrom coming amongst us; a little impartiality and attention will\ndiscover the care that the Convention took in selecting their\nlanguage. The words are the _migration_ or IMPORTATION of such\npersons, &c., shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year\n1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation; it is\nobservable here, that the term migration is dropped, when a tax or\nduty is mentioned, so that Congress have power to impose the tax only\non those imported.\n\nI recollect, on a former day, the honorable gentlemen from\nWestmoreland (Mr. FINDLEY,) and the honorable gentleman from\nCumberland (Mr. WHITEHILL,) took exception against the first clause of\nthe 9th section, art. 1, arguing very unfairly, that because Congress\nmight impose a tax or duty of ten dollars on the importation of\nslaves, within any of the United States, Congress might therefore\npermit slaves to be imported within this State, contrary to its laws.\nI confess I little thought that this part of the system would be\nexcepted to.\n\nI am sorry that it could be extended no further; but so far as it\noperates, it presents us with the pleasing prospect, that the rights\nof mankind will be acknowledged and established throughout the union.\n\nIf there was no other lovely feature in the Constitution but this one,\nit would diffuse a beauty over its whole countenance. Yet the lapse of\na few years! and Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from\nwithin our borders.\n\nHow would such a delightful prospect expand the breast of a benevolent\nand philanthropic European? Would he cavil at an expression? catch at\na phrase? No, sir, that is only reserved for the gentleman on the\nother side of your chair to do.\n\nMr. McKEAN. The arguments against the Constitution are, I think,\nchiefly these:....\n\nThat migration or importation of such persons, as any of the States\nshall admit, shall not be prohibited prior to 1808, nor a tax or duty\nimposed on such importation exceeding ten dollars for each person.\n\nProvision is made that Congress shall have power to prohibit the\nimportation of slaves after the year 1808, but the gentlemen in\nopposition, accuse this system of a crime, because it has not\nprohibited them at once. I suspect those gentlemen are not well\nacquainted with the business of the diplomatic body, or they would\nknow that an agreement might be made, that did not perfectly accord\nwith the will and pleasure of any one person. Instead of finding fault\nwith what has been gained, I am happy to see a disposition in the\nUnited States to do so much.\n\nVIRGINIA CONVENTION.\n\nGOV. RANDOLPH. This is one point of weakness I wish for the honor of\nmy countrymen that it was the only one. There is another circumstance\nwhich renders us more vulnerable. Are we not weakened by the\npopulation of those whom we hold in slavery?  The day may come when\nthey may make impression upon us. Gentlemen who have been long\naccustomed to the contemplation of the subject, think there is a cause\nof alarm in this case: the number of those people, compared to that of\nthe whites, is in an immense proportion: their number amounts to\n236,000--that of the whites, only to 352,000. * * * * I beseech them\nto consider, whether Virginia and North Carolina, both oppressed with\ndebts and slaves, can defend themselves externally, or make their\npeople happy internally.\n\nGEORGE MASON. We are told in strong language, of dangers to which we\nwill be exposed unless we adopt this Constitution. Among the rest,\ndomestic safety is said to be in danger. This government does not\nattend to our domestic safety. It authorizes the importation of slaves\nfor twenty-odd years, and thus continues upon us that nefarious trade.\nInstead of securing and protecting us, the continuation of this\ndetestable trade adds daily to our weakness. Though this evil is\nincreasing, there is no clause in the Constitution that will prevent\nthe Northern and Eastern States from meddling with our whole property\nof that kind. There is a clause to prohibit the importation of slaves\nafter twenty years, but there is no provision made for securing to the\nSouthern States those they now possess. It is far from being a\ndesirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and\ninfelicity to be now deprived of them. There ought to be a clause in\nthe Constitution to secure us that property, which we have acquired\nunder our former laws, and the loss of which would bring ruin on a\ngreat many people.\n\nMR. LEE. The honorable gentleman abominates it, because it does not\nprohibit the importation of slaves, and because it does not secure the\ncontinuance of the existing slavery! Is it not obviously inconsistent\nto criminate it for two contradictory reasons? I submit it to the\nconsideration of the gentleman, whether, if it be reprehensible in the\none case, it can be censurable in the other? MR. LEE then concluded by\nearnestly recommending to the committee to proceed regularly.\n\nMR. HENRY. It says that \"no state shall engage in war, unless actually\ninvaded.\" If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the\ntrue meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic\ninsurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a State may go to\nwar; but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an\ninsurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be\ninvaded.--They cannot therefore suppress it, without the interposition\nof Congress.\n\nMR. GEORGE NICHOLAS. Another worthy member says, there is no power in\nthe States to quell an insurrection of slaves. Have they it now? If\nthey have, does the Constitution take it away? If it does, it must be\nin one of the three clauses which have been mentioned by the worthy\nmember. The first clause gives the general government power to call\nthem out when necessary. Does this take it away from the States? No.\nBut it gives an additional security: for, besides the power in the\nState governments to use their own militia, it will be the duty of the\ngeneral government to aid them with the strength of the Union when\ncalled for. No part of this Constitution can show that this power is\ntaken away.\n\nMr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has\ncreated more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the\nimportation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government,\nthis evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts\nwere made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants\nprevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place,\nthan it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our\nseparation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal\nobject of this State, and most of the States in the Union. The\naugmentation of slaves weakens the States; and such a trade is\ndiabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind. Yet, by this\nConstitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value an\nunion of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into\nthe Union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this\ndisgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to\nthe Union. And though this infamous traffic be continued, we have no\nsecurity for the property of that kind which we have already. There is\nno clause in this Constitution to secure it; for they may lay such tax\nas will amount to manumission. And should the government be amended,\nstill this detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till\nafter the expiration of twenty years. For the fifth article, which\nprovides for amendments, expressly excepts this clause. I have ever\nlooked upon this as a most disgraceful thing to America. I cannot\nexpress my detestation of it. Yet they have not secured us the\nproperty of the slaves we have already. So that, \"they have done what\nthey ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to\nhave done\"\n\nMr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman, I should conceive this clause to be\nimpolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded\nwithout encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not have\nentered into the union of America, without the temporary permission of\nthat trade. And if they were excluded from the union, the consequences\nmight be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation\nthan before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we may\ncontinue the prohibition. The union in general is not in a worse\nsituation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued\nforever: but by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty\nyears. There is, therefore, an amelioration of our circumstances. A\ntax may be laid in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise\nCongress might lay such a tax as would amount to a prohibition. From\nthe mode of representation and taxation, Congress cannot lay such a\ntax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another clause secures us\nthat property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to\nany of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by\ntheir laws. For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another\nin this respect. But in this Constitution, \"no person held to service,\nor labor, in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,\nshall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged\nfrom such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the\nparty to whom such service or labor may be due.\" This clause was\nexpressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is\na better security than any that now exist. No power is given to the\ngeneral government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves\nnow held by the States. The taxation of this State being equal only to\nits representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They\ncannot prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years: but after\nthat period, they can. The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia\nargued in this manner: \"We have now liberty to import this species of\nproperty, and much of the property now possessed, has been purchased,\nor otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the\nassistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of\nhindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and\nwe would be obliged to go to your markets.\" I need not expatiate on\nthis subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would\nbe worse. If those States should disunite from the other States, for\nnot including them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they\nmight solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers.\n\nMr. TYLER warmly enlarged on the impolicy, iniquity, and\ndisgracefulness of this wicked traffic. He thought the reasons urged\nby gentlemen in defence of it were inconclusive, and ill founded. It\nwas one cause of the complaints against British tyranny, that this\ntrade was permitted. The Revolution had put a period to it; but now it\nwas to be revived. He thought nothing could justify it. This temporary\nrestriction on Congress militated, in his opinion, against the\narguments of gentlemen on the other side, that what was not given up,\nwas retained by the States; for that if this restriction had not been\ninserted, Congress could have prohibited the African trade. The power\nof prohibiting it was not expressly delegated to them; yet they would\nhave had it by implication, if this restraint had not been provided.\nThis seemed to him to demonstrate most clearly the necessity of\nrestraining them by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable\nrights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or\nincluded in the Constitution. But he contended for it one way or the\nother. It would be justified by our own example, and that of England.\nHis earnest desire was, that it should be handed down to posterity,\nthat he had opposed this wicked clause.\n\nMr. MADISON. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration,\nit was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to\nCongress, namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.\n\nMr. HENRY insisted, that the insertion of these restrictions on\nCongress, was a plain demonstration that Congress could exercise\npowers by implication. The gentleman had admitted that Congress could\nhave interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction.\nIf so, the power not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained\nby implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of\nreserved rights? He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from\nassuming any powers but those expressly given. He asked why it was\nmoited to secure us that property in slaves, which we held now? He\nfeared its omission was done with design. They might lay such heavy\ntaxes on slaves, as would amount to emancipation; and then the\nSouthern States would be the only sufferers. His opinion was confirmed\nby the mode of levying money. Congress, he observed, had power to lay\nand collect taxes, imposts, and excises. Imposts (or duties) and\nexcises, were to be uniform. But this uniformity did not extend to\ntaxes. This might compel the Southern States to liberate their\nnegroes. He wished this property therefore to be guarded. He\nconsidered the clause which had been adduced by the gentleman as a\nsecurity for this property, as no security at all. It was no more than\nthis--that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New York.\nThis could not prevent Congress from interfering with that property by\nlaying a grievous and enormous tax on it, so as to compel owners to\nemancipate their slaves rather than pay the tax. He apprehended it\nwould be productive of much stockjobbing, and that they would play\ninto one another's hands in such a manner as that this property would\nbe lost to the country.\n\nMr. GEORGE NICHOLAS wondered that gentlemen who were against slavery\nwould be opposed to this clause; as after that period the slave trade\nwould be done away. He asked if gentlemen did not see the\ninconsistency of their arguments? They object, says he, to the\nConstitution, because the slave trade is laid open for twenty-odd\nyears; and yet tell you, that by some latent operation of it, the\nslaves who are now, will be manumitted. At that same moment, it is\nopposed for being promotive and destructive of slavery. He contended\nthat it was advantageous to Virginia, that it should be in the power\nof Congress to prevent the importation of slaves after twenty years,\nas it would then put a period to the evil complained of.\n\nAs the Southern States would not confederate without this clause, he\nasked, if gentlemen would rather dissolve the confederacy than to\nsuffer this temporary inconvenience, admitting to it to be such?\nVirginia might continue the prohibition of such importation during the\nintermediate period, and would be benefitted by it, as a tax of ten\ndollars on each slave might be laid, of which she would receive a\nshare. He endeavored to obviate the objection of gentlemen, that the\nrestriction on Congress was a proof that they would have power not\ngiven them, by remarking, that they would only have had a general\nsuperintendency of trade, if the restriction had not been inserted.\nBut the Southern States insisted on this exception to that general\nsuperintendency for twenty years. It could not therefore have been a\npower by implication, as the restriction was an exception from a\ndelegated power. The taxes could not, as had been suggested, be laid\nso high on negroes as to amount to emancipation; because taxation and\nrepresentation were fixed according to the census established in the\nConstitution. The exception of taxes, from the uniformity annexed to\nduties and excises, could not have the operation contended for by the\ngentleman; because other clauses had clearly and positively fixed the\ncensus. Had taxes been uniform, it would have been universally\nobjected to, for no one object could be selected without involving\ngreat inconveniences and oppressions. But, says Mr. Nicholas, is it\nfrom the general government we are to fear emancipation? Gentlemen\nwill recollect what I said in another house, and what other gentlemen\nhave said that advocated emancipation. Give me leave to say, that that\nclause is a great security for our slave tax. I can tell the\ncommittee, that the people of our country are reduced to beggary by\nthe taxes on negroes. Had this Constitution been adopted, it would not\nhave been the case. The taxes were laid on all our negroes. By this\nsystem two-fifths are exempted. He then added, that he had imagined\ngentlemen would not support here what they had opposed in another\nplace.\n\nMr. HENRY replied, that though the proportion of each was to be fixed\nby the census, and three-fifths of the slaves only were included in\nthe enumeration, yet the proportion of Virginia being once fixed,\nmight be laid on blacks and blacks only. For the mode of raising the\nproportion of each State being to be directed by Congress, they might\nmake slaves the sole object to raise it. Personalities he wished to\ntake leave of; they had nothing to do with the question, which was\nsolely whether that paper was wrong or not.\n\nMr. NICHOLAS replied, that negroes must be considered as persons, or\nproperty. If as property, the proportion of taxes to be laid on them\nwas fixed in the Constitution. If he apprehended a poll tax on\nnegroes, the Constitution had prevented it. For, by the census, where\na white man paid ten shillings, a negro paid but six shillings. For\nthe exemption of two-fifths of them reduced it to that proportion.\n\nThe second, third, and fourth clauses, were then read as follows:\n\n\nThe privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,\nunless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may\nrequire it.\n\nNo bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.\n\nNo capitation or other direct tax shall be paid, unless in proportion\nto the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.\n\n\nMr. GEORGE MASON said, that gentlemen might think themselves secured\nby the restriction in the fourth clause, that no capitation or other\ndirect tax should be laid but in proportion to the census before\ndirected to be taken. But that when maturely considered it would be\nfound to be no security whatsoever. It was nothing but a direct\nassertion, or mere confirmation of the clause which fixed the ratio of\ntaxes and representation. It only meant that the quantum to be raised\nof each State should be in proportion to their numbers in the manner\ntherein directed. But the general government was not precluded from\nlaying the proportion of any particular State on any one species of\nproperty they might think proper. For instance, if five hundred\nthousand dollars were to be raised, they might lay the whole of the\nproportion of the Southern States on the blacks, or any one species of\nproperty: so that by laying taxes too heavily on slaves, they might\ntotally annihilate that kind of property. No real security could arise\nfrom the clause which provides, that persons held to labor in one\nState, escaping into another, shall be delivered up. This only meant,\nthat runaway slaves should not be protected in other States. As to the\nexclusion of _ex post facto_ laws, it could not be said to create any\nsecurity in this case. For laying a tax on slaves would not be _ex\npost facto_.\n\nMr. MADISON replied, that even the Southern States, who were most\naffected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision, and dreaded no\ndanger to the property they now hold. It appeared to him, that the\ngeneral government would not intermeddle with that property for twenty\nyears, but to lay a tax on every slave imported, not exceeding ten\ndollars; and that after the expiration of that period they might\nprohibit the traffic altogether. The census in the Constitution was\nintended to introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the\ncommunity. No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and\nexcises, uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive to the\nprinciples of equality: for that it was not possible to select any\narticle which would be easy for one State, but what would be heavy for\nanother. That the proportion of each State being ascertained, it would\nbe raised by the general government in the most convenient manner for\nthe people, and not by the selection of any one particular object.\nThat there must be some degree of confidence put in agents, or else we\nmust reject a state of civil society altogether. Another great\nsecurity to this property, which he mentioned, was, that five States\nwere greatly interested in that species of property, and there were\nother States which had some slaves, and had made no attempt, or taken\nany step to take them from the people. There were a few slaves in New\nYork, New Jersey and Connecticut: these States would, probably, oppose\nany attempts to annihilate this species of property. He concluded, by\nobserving, that he would be glad to leave the decision of this to the\ncommittee.\n\nThe second section was then read as follows:     *     *     *\n\nNo person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws\nthereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or\nregulation therein be discharged from such service.\n\nMr. GEORGE MASON.--Mr. Chairman, on some former part of the\ninvestigation of this subject, gentlemen were pleased to make some\nobservations on the security of property coming within this section.\nIt was then said, and I now say, that there is no security, nor have\ngentlemen convinced me of this.\n\nMr. HENRY. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume,\nthey may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves\nif they please. And this must and will be done by men, a majority of\nwhom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have\nno feeling for your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that\nthe great object of a national government, was national defence. That\npower which is said to be intended for security and safety, may be\nrendered detestable and oppressive. If you give power to the general\ngovernment to provide for the general defence, the means must be\ncommensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people\nmust be given to the government which is entrusted with the public\ndefence. In this State there are 236,000 blacks, and there are many in\nseveral other States. But there are few or none in the Northern\nStates, and yet if the Northern States shall be of opinion, that our\nnumbers are numberless, they may call forth every national resource.\nMay Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see\na little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed, as to make\nemancipation general. But acts of assembly passed, that every slave\nwho would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute\nto bring this event about--slavery is detested--we feel its fatal\neffects--we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these\nconsiderations, at some future period, press with full force on the\nminds of Congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish\nAmerica, and the necessity of national defence, let all these things\noperate on their minds, they will search that paper, and see if they\nhave power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power\nto provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think\nthat these call for the abolition of slavery? May not they pronounce\nall slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? There\nis no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to\nthe point. They have the power in clear, unequivocal terms; and will\nclearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I see\nthat prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general\ngovernment ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the\nStates have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those\nwhose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority\nof Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South. In this\nsituation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of\nVirginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone away. I\nrepeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul, that every one of\nmy fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire\nto admire that decree of Heaven, which has numbered us among the free,\nwe ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow-men\nin bondage. But is it practicable by any human means, to liberate\nthem, without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We\nought to possess them in the manner we have inherited them from our\nancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of\nthe country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of\ntheir unhappy fate. I know that in a variety of particular instances,\nthe legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their\nemancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add, that\nthis, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in\njeopardy, and put in the hands of those who have no similarity of\nsituation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety\nin subjecting it to Congress.\n\nHave we not a right to say, _hear our propositions_? Why, sir, your\nslaves have a right to make their humble requests.--Those who are in\nthe meanest occupations of human life, have a right to complain.\n\nGov. RANDOLPH. That honorable gentleman, and some others, have\ninsisted that the abolition of slavery will result from it, and at the\nsame time have complained, that it encourages its continuation. The\ninconsistency proves in some degree, the futility of their arguments.\nBut if it be not conclusive, to satisfy the committee that there is no\ndanger of enfranchisement taking place, I beg leave to refer them to\nthe paper itself. I hope that there is none here, who, considering the\nsubject in the calm light of philosophy, will advance an objection\ndishonorable to Virginia; that at the moment they are securing the\nrights of their citizens, an objection is started that there is a\nspark of hope, that those unfortunate men now held in bondage, may, by\nthe operation of the general government be made _free_. But if any\ngentleman be terrified by this apprehension, let him read the system.\nI ask, and I will ask again and again, till I be answered (not by\ndeclamation) where is the part that has a tendency to the abolition of\nslavery? Is it the clause which says, that \"the migration or\nimportation of such persons as any of the States now existing, shall\nthink proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to\nthe year 1808?\" This is an exception from the power of regulating\ncommerce, and the restriction is only to continue till 1808. Then\nCongress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future\nimportations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery? Were\nit right here to mention what passed in Convention on the occasion, I\nmight tell you that the Southern States, even South Carolina herself;\nconceived this property to be secure by these words. I believe,\nwhatever we may think here, that there was not a member of the\nVirginia delegation who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of\nslavery. Go to their meaning. Point out the clause where this\nformidable power of emancipation is inserted. But another clause of\nthe Constitution proves the absurdity of the supposition. The words of\nthe clause are, \"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.\" Every one knows that slaves are held to\nservice and labor. And when authority is given to owners of slaves to\nvindicate their property, can it be supposed they can be deprived of\nit? If a citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can\ntake his runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought, that\nafter taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?\n\nI observed that the honorable gentleman's proposition comes in a truly\nquestionable shape, and is still more extraordinary and unaccountable\nfor another consideration; that although we went article by article\nthrough the Constitution, and although we did not expect a general\nreview of the subject, (as a most comprehensive view had been taken of\nit before it was regularly debated,) yet we are carried back to the\nclause giving that dreadful power, for the general welfare. Pardon me\nif I remind you of the true state of that business. I appeal to the\ncandor of the honorable gentleman, and if he thinks it an improper\nappeal, I ask the gentlemen here, whether there be a general\nindefinite power of providing for the general welfare? The power is,\n\"to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the\ndebts and provide for the common defence and general welfare.\" So that\nthey can only raise money by these means, in order to provide for the\ngeneral welfare. No man who reads it can say it is general as the\nhonorable gentleman represents it. You must violate every rule of\nconstruction and common sense, if you sever it from the power of\nraising money and annex it to any thing else, in order to make it that\nformidable power which it is represented to be.\n\nMr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, with respect to commerce and\nnavigation, he has given it as his opinion, that their regulation, as\nit now stands, was a _sine qua non_ of the Union, and that without it,\nthe States in Convention would never concur. I differ from him. It\nnever was, nor in my opinion ever will be, a _sine qua non_ of the\nUnion. I will give you, to the best of my recollection, the history of\nthat affair. This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four\nmonths, during which time the subject of commerce and navigation was\noften under consideration; and I assert, that eight States out of\ntwelve, for more than three months, voted for requiring two-thirds of\nthe members present in each house to pass commercial and navigation\nlaws. True it is, that afterwards it was carried by a majority, as it\nstands. If I am right, there was a great majority for requiring\ntwo-thirds of the States in this business, till a compromise took\nplace between the Northern and Southern States; the Northern States\nagreeing to the temporary importation of slaves, and the Southern\nStates conceding, in return, that navigation and commercial laws\nshould be on the footing on which they now stand. If I am mistaken,\nlet me be put right. These are my reasons for saying that this was not\na _sine qua non_ of their concurrence. The Newfoundland fisheries will\nrequire that kind of security which we are now in want of. The Eastern\nStates therefore agreed at length, that treaties should require the\nconsent of two-thirds of the members present in the senate.\n\nMr. Madison. I was struck with surprise when I heard him express\nhimself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. Let me\nask, if they should even attempt it, if it will not be an usurpation\nof power? There is no power to warrant it, in that paper. If there be,\nI know it not. But why should it be done? Says the honorable\ngentleman, for the general welfare--it will infuse strength into our\nsystem. Can any member of this committee suppose, that it will\nincrease our strength? Can any one believe, that the American councils\nwill come into a measure which will strip them of their property,\ndiscourage and alienate the affections of five-thirteenths of the\nUnion? Why was nothing of this sort aimed at before? I believe such an\nidea never entered into an American breast, nor do I believe it ever\nwill, unless it will enter into the heads of those gentlemen who\nsubstitute unsupported suspicions for reasons.\n\nMr. Henry. He asked me where was the power of emancipating slaves? I\nsay it will be implied, unless implication be prohibited. He admits\nthat the power of granting passports will be in the new Congress\nwithout the insertion of this restriction--yet he can shew me nothing\nlike such a power granted in that Constitution. Notwithstanding he\nadmits their right to this power by implication, he says that I am\nunfair and uncandid in my deduction, that they can emancipate our\nslaves, though the word emancipation be not mentioned in it. They can\nexercise power by implication in one instance, as well as in another.\nThus, by the gentleman's own argument, they can exercise the power\nthough it be not delegated.\n\nMr. Z. Johnson. They tell us that they see a progressive danger of\nbringing about emancipation. The principle has begun since the\nrevolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round. Slavery has\nbeen the foundation of that impiety and dissipation, which have been\nso much disseminated among our countrymen. If it were totally\nabolished, it would do much good.\n\n\n\nNORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.\n\nThe first three clauses of the second section read.\n\nMr. GOUDY. Mr. Chairman, this clause of taxation will give an\nadvantage to some States, over the others. It will be oppressive to\nthe Southern States. Taxes are equal to our representation. To augment\nour taxes and increase our burthens, our negroes are to be\nrepresented. If a State has fifty thousand negroes, she is to send one\nrepresentative for them. I wish not to be represented with negroes,\nespecially if it increases my burthens.\n\nMr. Davie. Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to obviate what the gentleman\nlast up has said. I wonder to see gentlemen so precipitate and hasty\non a subject of such awful importance. It ought to be considered, that\n_some_ of _us_ are slow of apprehension, not having those quick\nconceptions, and luminous understandings, of which other gentlemen may\nbe possessed. The gentleman \"does not wish to be represented with\nnegroes.\" This, sir, is an unhappy species of population, but cannot\nat present alter their situation. The Eastern States had great\njealousies on this subject. They insisted that their cows and horses\nwere equally entitled to representation; that the one was property as\nwell as the other. It became our duty on the other hand, to acquire as\nmuch weight as possible in the legislation of the Union; and as the\nNorthern States were more populous in whites, this only could be done\nby insisting that a certain proportion of our slaves should make a\npart of the computed population. It was attempted to form a rule of\nrepresentation from a compound ratio of wealth and population; but, on\nconsideration, it was found impracticable to determine the comparative\nvalue of lands, and other property, in so extensive a territory, with\nany degree of accuracy; and population alone was adopted as the only\npracticable rule or criterion of representation. It was urged by the\ndeputies of the Eastern States, that a representation of two-fifths\nwould of little utility, and that their entire representation would be\nunequal and burthensome. That in a time of war, slaves rendered a\ncountry more vulnerable, while its defence devolved upon its _free_\ninhabitants. On the other hand, we insisted, that in time of peace\nthey contributed by their labor to the general wealth as well as other\nmembers of the community. That as rational beings they had a right of\nrepresentation, and in some instances might be highly useful in war.\nOn these principles, the Eastern States gave the matter up, and\nconsented to the regulation as it has been read. I hope these reasons\nwill appear satisfactory. It is the same rule or principle which was\nproposed some years ago by Congress, and assented to by twelve of the\nStates. It may wound the delicacy of the gentleman from Guilford, (Mr.\nGOUDY,) but I hope he will endeavor to accommodate his feelings to the\ninterests and circumstances of his country.\n\nMr. JAMES GALLOWAY said, that he did not object to the representation\nof negroes, so much as he did to the fewness of the number of\nrepresentatives. He was surprised how we came to have but five,\nincluding those intended to represent negroes. That in his humble\nopinion North Carolina was entitled to that number independent of the\nnegroes.\n\nFirst clause of the 9th section read.\n\nMr. J. M'DOWALL wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.\n\nMr. SPAIGHT answered that there was a contest between the Northern and\nSouthern States--that the Southern States, whose principal support\ndepended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of\nthe Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely.\nThat South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were\nnow in want of hands to cultivate their lands: That in the course of\ntwenty years they would be fully supplied: That the trade would be\nabolished then, and that in the mean time some tax or duty might be\nlaid on.\n\nMr. M'DOWALL replied, that the explanation was just such as he\nexpected, and by no means satisfactory to him, and that he looked upon\nit as a very objectionable part of the system.\n\nMr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to\nthose of the gentleman from Craven. For my part, were it practicable\nto put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give\nme the greatest pleasure, for it certainly is a trade utterly\ninconsistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great\ncruelties have been exercised. When the entire abolition of slavery\ntakes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every\ngenerous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for\nthings which are not attainable. It was the wish of a great majority\nof the Convention to put an end to the trade immediately, but the\nStates of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider\nthen what would be the difference between our present situation in\nthis respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will\nbe if we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the\nevil? No, sir, we do not; for if the Constitution be not adopted, it\nwill be in the power of every State to continue it forever. They may\nor may not abolish it at their discretion. But if we adopt the\nConstitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if Congress\ndeclare so, whether particular States please so or not: surely, then,\nwe gain by it. This was the utmost that could be obtained. I heartily\nwish more could have been done. But as it is, this government is nobly\ndistinguished above others by that very provision. Where is there\nanother country in which such a restriction prevails? We, therefore,\nsir, set an example of humanity by providing for the abolition of this\ninhuman traffic, though at a distant period. I hope, therefore, that\nthis part of the Constitution will not be condemned, because it has\nnot stipulated for what it was impracticable to obtain.\n\nMr. SPAIGHT further explained the clause. That the limitation of this\ntrade to the term of twenty years, was a compromise between the\nEastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia\nwished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on the entire\nabolition of the trade. That the State of North Carolina had not\nthought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation of slaves,\nand therefore its delegation in the convention did not think\nthemselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it.\n\nMr. IREDELL added to what he had said before, that the States of\nGeorgia and South Carolina had lost a great many slaves during the\nwar, and that they wished to supply the loss.\n\nMr. GALLOWAY. Mr. Chairman, the explanation given to this clause does\nnot satisfy my mind. I wish to see this abominable trade put an end\nto. But in case it be thought proper to continue this abominable\ntraffic for twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the tax on the\nimportation extended to all persons whatsoever. Our situation is\ndifferent from the people to the North. We want citizens; they do not.\nInstead of laying a tax, we ought to a give a bounty, to encourage\nforeigners to come among us. With respect to the abolition of slavery,\nit requires the utmost consideration. The property of the Southern\nStates consists principally of slaves. If they mean to do away slavery\naltogether, this property will be destroyed. I apprehend it means to\nbring forward manumission. If we must manumit our slaves, what country\nshall we send them to? It is impossible for us to be happy if, after\nmanumission, they are to stay among us.\n\nMr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, the worthy gentleman, I believe, has\nmisunderstood this clause, which runs in the following words: \"The\nmigration or importation of such persons as any of the States now\nexisting, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the\nCongress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on\n_such importation_, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.\"\n\nNow, sir, observe that the Eastern States, who long ago have abolished\nslavery, did not approve of the expression _slaves_; they therefore\nused another that answered the same purpose. The committee will\nobserve the distinction between the two words migration and\nimportation. The first part of the clause will extend to persons who\ncome into the country as free people, or are brought as slaves, but\nthe last part extends to slaves only. The word _migration_ refers to\nfree persons; but the word _importation_ refers to slaves, because\nfree people cannot be said to be imported. The tax, therefore, is only\nto be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who\nmigrate. I further beg leave to say, that the gentleman is mistaken in\nanother thing. He seems to say that this extends to the abolition of\nslavery. Is there anything in this constitution which says that\nCongress shall have it in their power to abolish the slavery of those\nslaves who are now in the country? Is it not the plain meaning of it,\nthat after twenty years they may prevent the future importation of\nslaves? It does not extend to those now in the country. There is\nanother circumstance to be observed. There is no authority vested in\ncongress to restrain the States in the interval of twenty years, from\ndoing what they please. If they wish to inhibit such importation, they\nmay do so. Our next assembly may put an entire end to the importation\nof slaves.\n\nArticle fourth. The first section and two first clauses of the second\nsection read without observation.\n\nThe last clause read--\n\nMr. IREDELL begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some\nof the Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any\nof our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they\nwould, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that\ntheir masters could not get them again. This would be extremely\nprejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to prevent\nit, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the word\n_slave_ be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The Northern\ndelegates, owing to their particular scruples on the subject of\nslavery, did not choose the word _slave_ to be mentioned.\n\nThe rest of the forth article read without observation.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nMr. IREDELL. It is however to be observed, that the first and forth\nclauses in the ninth section of the first article, are protected from\nany alteration until the year 1808; and in order that no consolidation\nshould take place, it is provided, that no State shall, by any\namendment or alteration, be ever deprived of an equal suffrage in the\nSenate without its own consent. The two first prohibitions are with\nrespect to the census, according to which direct taxes are imposed,\nand with respect to the importation of slaves. As to the first, it\nmust be observed, that there is a material difference between the\nNorthern and Southern States. The Northern States have been much\nlonger settled, and are much fuller of people than the Southern, but\nhave not land in equal proportion, nor scarcely any slaves. The\nsubject of this article was regulated with great difficulty, and by a\nspirit of concession which it would not be prudent to disturb for a\ngood many years. In twenty years there will probably be a great\nalteration, and then the subject may be re-considered with less\ndifficulty and greater coolness. In the mean time, the compromise was\nupon the best footing that could be obtained. A compromise likewise\ntook place in regard to the importation of slaves. It is probable that\nall the members reprobated this inhuman traffic, but those of South\nCarolina and Georgia would not consent to an immediate prohibition of\nit; one reason of which was, that during the last war they lost a vast\nnumber of negroes, which loss they wish to supply. In the mean time,\nit is left to the States to admit or prohibit the importation, and\nCongress may impose a limited duty upon it.\n\n\nSOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.\n\nHon. RAWLINS LOWNDES. In the first place, what cause was there for\njealously of our importing negroes? Why confine us to twenty years, or\nrather why limit us at all? For his part he thought this trade could\nbe justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and justice; for\ncertainly to translate a set of human beings from a bad country to a\nbetter, was fulfilling every part of these principles. But they don't\nlike our slaves, because they have none themselves; and therefore want\nto exclude us from this great advantage; why should the Southern\nStates allow of this, without the consent of nine States?\n\nJudge PENDLETON observed, that only three States, Georgia, South\nCarolina, and North Carolina, allowed the importation of negroes.\nVirginia had a clause in her Constitution for this purpose, and\nMaryland, he believed, even before the war, prohibited them.\n\nMr. LOWNDES continued--that we had a law prohibiting the importation\nof negroes for three years, a law he greatly approved of; but there\nwas no reason offered, why the Southern States might not find it\nnecessary to alter their conduct, and open their ports. Without\nnegroes this State would degenerate into one of the most contemptible\nin the Union; and cited an expression that fell from Gen. PINCKNEY on\na former debate, that whilst there remained one acre of swamp land in\nSouth Carolina he should raise his voice against restricting the\nimportation of negroes. Even in granting the importation for twenty\nyears, care had been taken to make us pay for this indulgence, each\nnegro being liable, on importation, to pay a duty not exceeding ten\ndollars, and, in addition to this, were liable to a capitation tax.\nNegroes were our wealth, our only natural resource; yet behold how our\nkind friends in the North were determined soon to tie up our hands,\nand drain us of what we had. The Eastern States drew their means of\nsubsistence, in a great measure, from their shipping; and on that\nhead, they had been particularly careful not to allow of any burdens;\nthey were not to pay tonnage, or duties; no, not even the form of\nclearing out: all ports were free and open to them! Why, then, call\nthis a reciprocal bargain, which took all from one party, to bestow it\non the other?\n\nMajor BUTLER observed that they were to pay a five per cent impost.\nThis, Mr. LOWNDES proved, must fall upon the consumer. They are to be\nthe carriers; and we, being the consumers, therefore all expenses\nwould fall upon us.\n\nHon. E. RUTLEDGE. The gentleman had complained of the inequality of\nthe taxes between the Northern and Southern States--that ten dollars a\nhead was imposed on the importation of negroes, and that those negroes\nwere afterwards taxed. To this it was answered, that the ten dollars\nper head was an equivalent to the five per cent on imported articles;\nand as to their being afterwards taxed, the advantage is on our side;\nor, at least, not against us.\n\nIn the Northern States, the labor is performed by white people; in the\nSouthern by black. All the free people (and there are few others) in\nthe Northern States, are to be taxed by the new Constitution, whereas,\nonly the free people, and two-fifths of the slaves in the Southern\nStates are to be rated in the apportioning of taxes. But the principle\n objection is, that no duties are laid on shipping--that in fact the\ncarrying trade was to be vested in a great measure in the Americans;\nthat the shipbuilding business was principally carried on in the\nNorthern States. When this subject is duly considered, the Southern\nStates, should be the last to object to it. Mr. RUTLEDGE then went\ninto a consideration of the subject; after which the house adjourned.\n\nGen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY. We were at a loss for some time for\na role to ascertain the proportionate wealth of the States, at last we\nthought that the productive labor of the inhabitants was the best rule\nfor ascertaining their wealth; in conformity to this rule, joined to\na spirit of concession, we determined that representatives should be\napportioned among the several States, by adding to the whole number of\nfree persons three-fifths of the slaves. We thus obtained a\nrepresentation for our property, and I confess I did not expect that\nwe had conceded too much to the Eastern States, when they allowed us a\nrepresentation for a species of property which they have not among\nthem.\n\nThe honorable gentleman alleges, that the Southern States are weak, I\nsincerely agree with him--we are so weak that by ourselves we could\nnot form an union strong enough for the purpose of effectually\nprotecting each other. Without union with the other States, South\nCarolina must soon fall. Is there any one among us so much a Quixotte\nas to suppose that this State could long maintain her independence if\nshe stood alone, or was only connected with the Southern States? I\nscarcely believe there is. Let an invading power send a naval force\ninto the Chesapeake to keep Virginia in alarm, and attack South\nCarolina with such a naval and military force as Sir Henry Clinton\nbrought here in 1780, and though they might not soon conquer us, they\nwould certainly do us an infinite deal of mischief; and if they\nconsiderably increased their numbers, we should probably fall. As,\nfrom the nature of our climate, and the fewness of our inhabitants, we\nare undoubtedly weak, should we not endeavor to form a close union\nwith the Eastern States, who are strong?\n\nFor who have been the greatest sufferers in the Union, by our\nobtaining our independence? I answer, the Eastern States; they have\nlost every thing but their country, and their freedom. It is notorious\nthat some ports to the Eastward, which used to fit out one hundred and\nfifty sail of vessels, do not now fit out thirty; that their trade of\nship-building, which used to be very considerable, is now annihilated;\nthat their fisheries are trifling, and their mariners in want of\nbread; surely we are called upon by every tie of justice, friendship,\nand humanity, to relieve their distresses; and as by their exertions\nthey have assisted us in establishing our freedom, we should let them,\nin some measure, partake of our prosperity. The General then said he\nwould make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman\nhad thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African\ntrade after the year 1808. On this point your delegates had to contend\nwith the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle\nStates, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia,\nwho was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same\nopinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions that\nthe gentleman has quoted, that while there remained one acre of swamp\nland uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against\nrestricting the importation of negroes. I am as thoroughly convinced\nas that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate, and the flat,\nswampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our land with\nnegroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert\nwaste.\n\nYou have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that I need\nnot now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members who\nopposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the weakness\nof any State who admitted them; that they were a dangerous species of\nproperty, which an invading enemy could easily turn against ourselves\nand the neighboring States, and that as we were allowed a\nrepresentation for them in the House of Representatives, our influence\nin government would be increased in proportion as we were less able to\ndefend ourselves. \"Show some period,\" said the members from the\nEastern States, \"when it may be in our power to put a stop, if we\nplease, to the importation of this weakness, and we will endeavor, for\nyour convenience, to restrain the religious and political prejudices\nof our people on this subject.\"\n\nThe Middle States and Virginia made us no such proposition; they were\nfor an immediate and total prohibition. We endeavored to obviate the\nobjections that were made, in the best manner we could, and assigned\nreasons for our insisting on the importation, which there is no\noccasion to repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in the\nhouse: a committee of the States was appointed in order to accommodate\nthis matter, and after a great deal of difficulty, it was settled on\nthe footing recited in the Constitution.\n\nBy this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes\nfor twenty years; nor is it declared that the importation shall be\nthen stopped; it may be continued--we have a security that the general\ngovernment can never emancipate them, for no such authority is\ngranted, and it is admitted on all hands, that the general government\nhas no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution; and\nthat all rights not expressed were reserved by the several States. We\nhave obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of\nAmerica they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In\nshort, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms, for\nthe security of this species of property, it was in our power to make.\nWe would have made better if we could, but on the whole I do not think\nthem bad.\n\nHon. ROBERT BARNWELL. Mr. BARNWELL continued to say, I now come to the\nlast point for consideration, I mean the clause relative to the\nnegroes; and here I am particularly pleased with the Constitution; it\nhas not left this matter of so much importance to us open to immediate\ninvestigation; no, it has declared that the United States shall not,\nat any rate, consider this matter for twenty-one years, and yet\ngentlemen are displeased with it.\n\nCongress has guaranteed this right for that space of time, and at its\nexpiration may continue it as long as they please. This question then\narises, what will their interest lead them to do? The Eastern States,\nas the honorable gentleman says, will become the carriers of America,\nit will, therefore, certainly be their interest to encourage\nexportation to as great an extent as possible; and if the quantum of\nour products will be diminished by the prohibition of negroes, I\nappeal to the belief of every man, whether he thinks those very\ncarriers will themselves dam up the resources from whence their profit\nis derived? To think so is so contradictory to the general conduct of\nmankind, that I am of opinion, that without we ourselves put a stop to\nthem, the traffic for negroes will continue forever.\n\n\nFEDERALIST, No. 42\n\n\nBY JAMES MADISON.\n\nIt were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the\nimportation of slaves, had not been postponed until the year 1808, or\nrather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it\nis not difficult to account either for this restriction on the general\ngovernment, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed.\n\nIt ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of\nhumanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate for ever within\nthese States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the\nbarbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a\nconsiderable discouragement from the Federal government, and may be\ntotally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue\nthe unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given\nby so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the\nunfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them, of being\nredeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren! Attempts\nhave been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the\nConstitution, by representing it on one side, as a criminal toleration\nof an illicit practice; and on another, as calculated to prevent\nvoluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention\nthese misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for\nthey deserve none; but as specimens of the manner and spirit, in which\nsome have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed\ngovernment.\n\n\nFEDERALIST, No. 54.\n\n\nBY JAMES MADISON.\n\nAll this is admitted, it will perhaps be said: but does it follow from\nan admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of\nslaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves\nought to be included in the numerical rule of representation?\n\nSlaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought\ntherefore, to be comprehended in estimates of taxation, which are\nfounded on property, and to be excluded from representation, which is\nregulated by a census of persons. This is the objection as I\nunderstand it; stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in\nstating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. We\nsubscribe to the doctrine, might one of our Southern brethren observe,\nthat representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation\nmore immediately to property; and we join in the application of this\ndistinction to the case of our slaves.\n\nBut we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as\nproperty, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the\ncase is, that they partake of both these qualities, being considered\nby our laws, in some respects as persons, and in other respects as\nproperty.\n\nIn being compelled to labor, not for himself; but for a master; in\nbeing vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject\nat all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body\nby the capricious will of another; the slave may appear to be degraded\nfrom the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which\nfall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on\nthe other hand, in his life, and in his limbs, against the violence of\nall others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being\npunishable himself for all violence committed against others; the\nslave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the\nsociety, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person,\nnot as a mere article of property. The Federal Constitution,\ntherefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves,\nwhen it views them in the mixed character of persons and property.\nThis is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on\nthem by the laws under which they live, and it will not be denied,\nthat these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the\npretext, that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of\nproperty, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers;\nand it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which\nhave been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal\nshare of representation with the other inhabitants.\n\nThis question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all\nsides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they\nare the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have\nbeen impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the\nlist of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be\ncalculated; and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of\ncontributions was to be adjusted?\n\nCould it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur\nin a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when\nburdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same\nlight, when advantages were to be conferred?\n\nMight not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the\nSouthern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a\npart of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the\ngovernment to which all the States are to be parties, ought to\nconsider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light\nof property, than the very laws of which they complain?\n\nIt may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the\nestimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They\nneither vote themselves, nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon\nwhat principle, then, ought they to be taken into the Federal estimate\nof representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution\nwould, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been\nappealed to the proper guide.\n\nThis objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a\nfundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the\naggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is\nto be determined by a Federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of\ninhabitants; so, the right of choosing this allotted number in each\nState, is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants, as the\nState itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of\nsuffrage depends, are not perhaps the same in any two States. In some\nof the States the difference is very material. In every State, a\ncertain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the\nConstitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which\nthe Federal Constitution apportions the representatives. In this point\nof view, the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting,\nthat the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard\nshould be had to the policy of particular States towards their own\ninhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should\nhave been admitted into the census according to their full number, in\nlike manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other\nStates, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous\nadherence, however, to this principle is waived by those who would be\ngainers by it. All that they ask, is that equal moderation be shown on\nthe other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in\ntruth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the\nConstitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants,\nbut as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants,\nwhich regards the _slave_ as divested of two-fifths of the _man_.\n\n\n\n\nDEBATES IN FIRST CONGRESS.\n\n\nLLOYD'S DEBATES.\n\nMay 13, 1789.\n\nMr. PARKER (of Va.) moved to insert a clause in the bill, imposing a\nduty on the importation of slaves of ten dollars each person. He was\nsorry that the Constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the\nimportation altogether; he thought it a defect in that instrument that\nit allowed of such actions, it was contrary to the revolution\nprinciples, and ought not to be permitted; but as he could not do all\nthe good he desired, he was willing to do what lay in his power. He\nhoped such a duty as he moved for would prevent, in some degree, this\nirrational and inhuman traffic; if so, he should feel happy from the\nsuccess of his motion.\n\nMr. SMITH (of South Carolina,) hoped that such an important and\nserious proposition as this would not be hastily adopted; it was a\nvery late moment for the introduction of new subjects. He expected the\ncommittee had got through the business, and would rise without\ndiscussing any thing further; at least, if gentlemen were determined\non considering the present motion, he hoped they would delay for a few\ndays, in order to give time for an examination of the subject. It was\ncertainly a matter big with the most serious consequences to the State\nhe represented; be did not think any one thing that had been discussed\nwas so important to them, and the welfare of the Union, as the\nquestion now brought forward, but he was not prepared to enter on any\nargument, and therefore requested the motion might either be withdrawn\nor laid on the table.\n\nMr. SHERMAN (of Ct.) approved of the object of the motion, but he did\nnot think this bill was proper to embrace the subject. He could not\nreconcile himself to the insertion of human beings as an article of\nduty, among goods, wares and merchandise. He hoped it would be\nwithdrawn for the present, and taken up hereafter as an independent\nsubject.\n\nMr. JACKSON, (of Geo.) observing the quarter from which this motion\ncame, said it did not surprise him, though it might have that effect\non others. He recollected that Virginia was an old settled State, and\nhad her complement of slaves, so she was careless of recruiting her\nnumbers by this means; the natural increase of her imported blacks\nwere sufficient for their purpose; but he thought gentlemen ought to\nlet their neighbors get supplied before they imposed such a burden\nupon the importation. He knew this business was viewed in an odious\nlight to the Eastward, because the people were capable of doing their\nown work, and had no occasion for slaves; but gentlemen will have some\nfeeling for others; they will not try to throw all the weight upon\nothers, who have assisted in lightening their burdens; they do not\nwish to charge us for every comfort and enjoyment of life, and at the\nsame time take away the means of procuring them; they do not wish to\nbreak us down at once.\n\nHe was convinced, from the inaptitude of the motion, and the want of\ntime to consider it, that the candor of the gentleman would induce him\nto withdraw it for the present; and if ever it came forward again, he\nhoped it would comprehend the white slaves as well as black, who were\nimported from all the goals of Europe; wretches, convicted of the most\nflagrant crimes, were brought in and sold without any duty whatever.\nHe thought that they ought to be taxed equal to the Africans, and had\nno doubt but the constitutionality and propriety of such a measure was\nequally apparent as the one proposed.\n\nMr. TUCKER (of S.C.) thought it unfair to bring in such an important\nsubject at a time when debate was almost precluded. The committee had\ngone through the impost bill, and the whole Union were impatiently\nexpecting the result of their deliberations, the public must be\ndisappointed and much revenue lost, or this question cannot undergo\nthat full discussion which it deserves.\n\nWe have no right, said he, to consider whether the importation of\nslaves is proper or not; the Constitution gives us no power on that\npoint, it is left to the States to judge of that matter as they see\nfit. But if it was a business the gentleman was determined to\ndiscourage, he ought to have brought his motion forward sooner, and\neven then not have introduced it without previous notice. He hoped the\ncommittee would reject the motion, if it was not withdrawn; he was not\nspeaking so much for the State he represented, as for Georgia, because\nthe State of South Carolina had a prohibitory law, which could be\nrenewed when its limitation expired.\n\nMr. PARKER (of Va.,) had ventured to introduce the subject after full\ndeliberation, and did not like to withdraw it. Although the gentleman\nfrom Connecticut (Mr. SHERMAN) had said, that they ought not to be\nenumerated with goods, wares, and merchandise, he believed they were\nlooked upon by the African traders in this light; he knew it was\ndegrading the human species to annex that character to them; but he\nwould rather do this than continue the actual evil of importing slaves\na moment longer. He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their\npower to restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and if\npossible wipe off the stigma which America labored under. The\ninconsistency in our principles, with which we are justly charged,\nshould be done away; that we may shew by our actions the pure\nbeneficence of the doctrine we held out to the world in our\ndeclaration of independence.\n\nMr. SHERMAN (of Ct.,) thought the principles of the motion and the\nprinciples of the bill were inconsistent; the principle of the bill\nwas to raise revenue, the principle of the motion to correct a moral\nevil. Now, considering it as an object of revenue, it would be unjust,\nbecause two or three States would bear the whole burden, while he\nbelieved they bore their full proportion of all the rest. He was\nagainst receiving the motion into this bill, though he had no\nobjection to taking it up by itself, on the principles of humanity and\npolicy; and therefore would vote against it if it was not withdrawn.\n\nMr. AMES (of Mass.,) joined the gentleman last up. No one could\nsuppose him favorable to slavery, he detested it from his soul, but he\nhad some doubts whether imposing a duty on the importation, would not\nhave the appearance of countenancing the practice; it was certainly a\nsubject of some delicacy, and no one appeared to be prepared for the\ndiscussion, he therefore hoped the motion would be withdrawn.\n\nMr. LIVERMORE. Was not against the principle of the motion, but in the\npresent case he conceived it improper. If negroes were goods, wares,\nor merchandise, they came within the title of the bill; if they were\nnot, the bill would be inconsistent; but if they are goods, wares or\nmerchandise, the 5 per cent ad valorem, will embrace the importation;\nand the duty of 5 per cent is nearly equal to 10 dollars per head, so\nthere is no occasion to add it even on the score of revenue.\n\nMr. JACKSON (of Ga.,) said it was the fashion of the day, to favor the\nliberty of slaves; he would not go into a discussion of the subject,\nbut he believed it was capable of demonstration that they were better\noff in their present situation, than they would be if they were\nmanumitted; what are they to do if they are discharged? Work for a\nliving? Experience has shewn us they will not. Examine what is become\nof those in Maryland, many of them have been set free in that State;\ndid they turn themselves to industry and useful pursuits? No, they\nturn out common pickpockets, petty larceny villains; and is this\nmercy, forsooth, to turn them into a way in which they must lose their\nlives,--for where they are thrown upon the world, void of property and\nconnections, they cannot get their living but by pilfering. What is to\nbe done for compensation? Will Virginia set all her negroes free? Will\nthey give up the money they cost them, and to whom? When this practice\ncomes to be tried there, the sound of liberty will lose those charms\nwhich make it grateful to the ravished ear.\n\nBut our slaves are not in a worse situation than they were on the\ncoast of Africa; it is not uncommon there for the parents to sell\ntheir children in peace; and in war the whole are taken and made\nslaves together. In these cases it is only a change of one slavery for\nanother; and are they not better here, where they have a master bound\nby the ties of interest and law to provide for their support and\ncomfort in old age, or infirmity, in which, if they were free, they\nwould sink under the pressure of woe for want of assistance.\n\nHe would say nothing of the partiality of such a tax, it was admitted\nby the avowed friends of the measure; Georgia in particular would be\noppressed. On this account it would be the most odious tax Congress\ncould impose.\n\nMr. SCHUREMAN (of N.J.) hoped the gentleman would withdraw his\nmotion, because the present was not the time or place for introducing\nthe business; he thought it had better be brought forward in the\nHouse, as a distinct proposition. If the gentleman persisted in having\nthe question determined, he would move the previous question if he was\nsupported.\n\nMr. MADISON, (of Va.) I cannot concur with gentlemen who think the\npresent an improper time or place to enter into a discussion of the\nproposed motion; if it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do the\nsame thing at a greater expense of time. But the gentlemen say that it\nis improper to connect the two objects, because they do not come\nwithin the title of the bill. But this objection may be obviated by\naccommodating the title to the contents; there may be some\ninconsistency in combining the ideas which gentlemen have expressed,\nthat is, considering the human race as a species of property; but the\nevil does not arise from adopting the clause now proposed, it is from\nthe importation to which it relates. Our object in enumerating persons\non paper with merchandise, is to prevent the practice of actually\ntreating them as such, by having them, in future, forming part of the\ncargoes of goods, wares, and merchandise to be imported into the\nUnited States. The motion is calculated to avoid the very evil\nintimated by the gentleman. It has been said that this tax will be\npartial and oppressive: but suppose a fair view is taken of this\nsubject, I think we may form a different conclusion. But if it be\npartial or oppressive, are there not many instances in which we have\nlaid taxes of this nature? Yet are they not thought to be justified by\nnational policy? If any article is warranted on this account, how much\nmore are we authorized to proceed on this occasion? The dictates of\nhumanity, the principles of the people, the national safety and\nhappiness, and prudent policy requires it of us; the constitution has\nparticularly called our attention to it--and of all the articles\ncontained in the bill before us, this is one of the last I should be\nwilling to make a concession upon so far as I was at liberty to go,\naccording to the terms of the constitution or principles of justice--I\nwould not have it understood that my zeal would carry me to disobey\nthe inviolable commands of either.\n\nI understood it had been intimated, that the motion was inconsistent\nor unconstitutional. I believe, sir, my worthy colleague has formed\nthe words with a particular reference to the Constitution; any how, so\nfar as the duty is expressed, it perfectly accords with that\ninstrument; if there are any inconsistencies in it, they may be\nrectified; I believe the intention is well understood, but I am far\nfrom supposing the diction improper. If the description of the persons\ndoes not accord with the ideas of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr.\nJACKSON,) and his idea is a proper one for the committee to adopt, I\nsee no difficulty in changing the phraseology.\n\nI conceive the Constitution, in this particular, was formed in order\nthat the government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total\nprohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of\nAmerica, with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose\na tax or duty upon the importation of such persons as any of the\nStates now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was\ngranted, I presume, upon two considerations--the first was, that until\nthe time arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves,\nthey might have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments, on the\npolicy and humanity of such a trade; the other was that they might be\ntaxed in due proportion with other articles imported; for if the\npossessor will consider them as property, of course they are of value\nand ought to be paid for. If gentlemen are apprehensive of oppression\nfrom the weight of the tax, let them make an estimate of its\nproportion, and they will find that it very little exceeds five per\ncent ad valorem, so that they will gain very little by having them\nthrown into that mass of articles, whilst by selecting them in the\nmanner proposed, we shall fulfil the prevailing expectation of our\nfellow citizens, and perform our duty in executing the purposes of the\nConstitution. It is to be hoped that by expressing a national\ndisapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves\nfrom reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a\ncountry filled with slaves.\n\nI do not wish to say anything harsh, to the hearing of gentlemen who\nentertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments from\nthose I represent; but if there is any one point in which it is\nclearly the policy of this nation, so far as we constitutionally can,\nto vary the practice of obtaining under some of the State governments,\nit is this; but it is certain a majority of the States are opposed to\nthis practice, therefore, upon principle, we ought to discountenance\nit as far as is in our power.\n\nIf I was not afraid of being told that the representatives of the\nseveral States, are the best able to judge of what is proper and\nconducive to their particular prosperity, I should venture to say that\nit is as much the interest of Georgia and South Carolina, as of any in\nthe Union. Every addition they receive to their number of slaves,\ntends to weaken them and renders them less capable of self defence. In\ncase of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of\ninviting attack instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty\nof the general government to protect every part of the empire against\ndanger, as well internal as external; every thing therefore which\ntends to increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet if\nit involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every\npart of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of\nthose charged with the general administration of the government. I\nhope, in making these observations, I shall not be understood to mean\nthat a proper attention ought not to be paid to the local opinions and\ncircumstances of any part of the United States, or that the particular\nrepresentatives are not best able to judge of the sense of their\nimmediate constituents.\n\nIf we examine the proposed measure by the agreement there is between\nit, and the existing State laws, it will show us that it is patronized\nby a very respectable part of the Union. I am informed that South\nCarolina has prohibited the importation of slaves for several years\nyet to come; we have the satisfaction then of reflecting that we do\nnothing more than their own laws do at this moment. This is not the\ncase with one State. I am sorry that her situation is such as to seem\nto require a population of this nature, but it is impossible in the\nnature of things, to consult the national good without doing what we\ndo not wish to do, to some particular part. Perhaps gentlemen contend\nagainst the introduction of the clause, on too slight grounds. If it\ndoes not conform with the title of the bill, alter the latter; if it\ndoes not conform to the precise terms of the Constitution, amend it.\nBut if it will tend to delay the whole bill, that perhaps will be the\nbest reason for making it the object of a separate one. If this is the\nsense of the committee I shall submit.\n\nMr. GERRY (of Mass.) thought all duties ought to be laid as equal as\npossible. He had endeavored to enforce this principle yesterday, but\nwithout the success he wished for, he was bound by the principles of\njustice therefore to vote for the proposition; but if the committee\nwere desirous of considering the subject fully by itself, he had no\nobjection, but he thought when gentlemen laid down a principle, they\nought to support it generally.\n\nMr. BURKE (of S.C.) said, gentlemen were contending for nothing; that\nthe value of a slave, averaged about \u00a380, and the duty on that sum at\nfive per cent, would be ten dollars, as congress could go no farther\nthan that sum, he conceived it made no difference whether they were\nenumerated or left in the common mass.\n\nMr. MADISON, (of Va.) If we contend for nothing, the gentlemen who are\nopposed to us do not contend for a great deal; but the question is,\nwhether the five per cent ad valorem, on all articles imported, will\nhave any operation at all upon the introduction of slaves, unless we\nmake a particular enumeration on this account; the collector may\nmistake, for he would not presume to apply the term goods, wares, and\nmerchandise to any person whatsoever. But if that general definition\nof goods, wares and merchandise are supposed to include African\nSlaves, why may we not particularly enumerate them, and lay the duty\npointed out by the Constitution, which, as gentlemen tell us, is no\nmore than five per cent upon their value; this will not increase the\nburden upon any, but it will be that manifestation of our sense,\nexpected by our constituents, and demanded by justice and humanity.\n\nMr. BLAND (of Va.) had no doubt of the propriety or good policy of\nthis measure. He had made up his mind upon it, he wished had never\nbeen introduced into America; but if it was impossible at this time to\ncure the evil, he was very willing to join in any measures that would\nprevent its extending farther. He had some doubts whether the\nprohibitory laws of the States were not in part repealed. Those who\nhad endeavored to discountenance this trade, by laying a duty on the\nimportation, were prevented by the Constitution from continuing such\nregulation, which declares, that no State shall lay any impost or\nduties on imports. If this was the case, and he suspected pretty\nstrongly that it was, the necessity of adopting the proposition of his\ncolleague was now apparent.\n\nMr. SHERMAN (of Ct.) said, the Constitution does not consider these\npersons as a species of property; it speaks of them as persons, and\nsays, that a tax or duty may be imposed on the importation of them\ninto any State which shall permit the same, but they have no power to\nprohibit such importation for twenty years. But Congress have power to\ndeclare upon what terms persons coming into the United States shall be\nentitled to citizenship; the rule of naturalization must however be\nuniform. He was convinced there were others ought to be regulated in\nthis particular, the importation of whom was of an evil tendency, he\nmeant convicts particularly. He thought that some regulation\nrespecting them was also proper; but it being a different subject, it\nought to be taken up in a different manner.\n\nMr. MADISON (of Va.) was led to believe, from the observation that had\nfell from the gentlemen, that it would be best to make this the\nsubject of a distinct bill: he therefore wished his colleague would\nwithdraw his motion, and move in the house for leave to bring in a\nbill on the same principles.\n\nMr. PARKER (of Va.) consented to withdraw his motion, under a\nconviction that the house was fully satisfied of its propriety. He\nknew very well that these persons were neither goods, nor wares, but\nthey were treated as articles of merchandise. Although he wished to\nget rid of this part of his property, yet he should not consent to\ndeprive other people of theirs by any act of his without their\nconsent.\n\nThe committee rose, reported progress, and the house adjourned.\n\nFEBRUARY 11th, 1790.\n\nMr. LAWRANCE (of New York,) presented an address from the society of\nFriends, in the City of New York; in which they set forth their desire\nof co-operating with their Southern brethren.\n\nMr. HARTLEY (of Penn.) then moved to refer the address of the annual\nassembly of Friends, held at Philadelphia, to a committee; he thought\nit a mark of respect due so numerous and respectable a part of the\ncommunity.\n\nMr. WHITE (of Va.) seconded the motion.\n\nMr. SMITH, (of S.C.) However respectable the petitioners may be, I\nhope gentlemen will consider that others equally respectable are\nopposed to the object which is aimed at, and are entitled to an\nopportunity of being heard before the question is determined. I\nflatter myself gentlemen will not press the point of commitment\nto-day, it being contrary to our usual mode of procedure.\n\nMr. FITZSIMONS (of Penn.) If we were now about to determine the final\nquestion, the observation of the gentleman from South Carolina would\napply; but, sir, the present question does not touch upon the merits\nof the case; it is merely to refer the memorial to a committee, to\nconsider what is proper to be done; gentlemen, therefore, who do not\nmean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, may as well agree to it\nto-day, because it will tend to save the time of the house.\n\nMr. JACKSON (of Geo.) wished to know why the second reading was to be\ncontended for to-day, when it was diverting the attention of the\nmembers from the great object that was before the committee of the\nwhole? Is it because the feelings of the Friends will be hurt, to have\ntheir affair conducted in the usual course of business? Gentlemen who\nadvocate the second reading to-day, should respect the feelings of the\nmembers who represent that part of the Union which is principally to\nbe affected by the measure. I believe, sir, that the latter class\nconsists of as useful and as good citizens as the petitioners, men\nequally friends to the revolution, and equally susceptible of the\nrefined sensations of humanity and benevolence. Why then should such\nparticular attention be paid to them, for bringing forward a business\nof questionable policy? If Congress are disposed to interfere in the\nimportation of slaves, they can take the subject up without advisers,\nbecause the Constitution expressly mentions all the power they can\nexercise on the subject.\n\nMr. SHERMAN (of Conn.) suggested the idea of referring it to a\ncommittee, to consist of a member from each State, because several\nStates had already made some regulations on this subject. The sooner\nthe subject was taken up he thought it would be the better.\n\nMr. PARKER, (of Va.) I hope, Mr. Speaker, the petition of these\nrespectable people, will be attended to with all the readiness the\nimportance of its object demands; and I cannot help expressing the\npleasure I feel in finding so considerable a part of the community\nattending to matters of such momentous concern to the future\nprosperity and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,\nas a citizen of the Union, to espouse their cause; and it is incumbent\nupon every member of this house to sift the subject well, and\nascertain what can be done to restrain a practice so nefarious. The\nConstitution has authorized us to levy a tax upon the importation of\nsuch persons as the States shall authorize to be admitted. I would\nwillingly go to that extent; and if any thing further can be devised\nto discountenance the trade, consistent with the terms of the\nConstitution, I shall cheerfully give it my assent and support.\n\nMr. MADISON, (of Va.) The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.\nFITZSIMONS) has put this question on its proper ground. If gentlemen\ndo not mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, they may as well\nacquiesce in it to-day; and I apprehend gentlemen need not be alarmed\nat any measure it is likely Congress should take; because they will\nrecollect, that the Constitution secures to the individual States the\nright of admitting, if they think proper, the importation of slaves\ninto their own territory, for eighteen years yet unexpired; subject,\nhowever, to a tax, if Congress are disposed to impose it, of not more\nthan ten dollars on each person.\n\nThe petition, if I mistake not, speaks of artifices used by\nself-interested persons to carry on this trade; and the petition from\nNew York states a case that may require the consideration of Congress.\nIf anything is within the Federal authority to restrain such violation\nof the rights of nations, and of mankind, as is supposed to be\npractised in some parts of the United States, it will certainly tend\nto the interest and honor of the community to attempt a remedy, and is\na proper subject for our discussion. It may be, that foreigners take\nadvantage of the liberty afforded them by the American trade, to\nemploy our slipping in the slave trade between Africa and the West\nIndies, when they are restrained from employing their own by\nrestrictive laws of their nation. If this is the case, is there any\nperson of humanity that would not wish to prevent them? Another\nconsideration why we should commit the petition is, that we may give\nno ground of alarm by a serious opposition, as if we were about to\ntake measures that were unconstitutional.\n\nMr. STONE (of Md.) feared that if Congress took any measures,\nindicative of an intention to interfere with the kind of property\nalluded to, it would sink it in value very considerably, and might be\ninjurious to a great number of the citizens, particularly in the\nSouthern States.\n\nHe thought the subject was of general concern, and that the\npetitioners had no more right to interfere will it than any other\nmembers of the community. It was an unfortunate circumstance, that it\nwas the property of sects to imagine they understood the rights of\nhuman nature better than all the world beside; and that they would, in\nconsequence, be meddling with concerns in which they had nothing to\ndo.\n\nAs the petition relates to a subject of a general nature, it ought to\nlie on the table, as information; he would never consent to refer\npetitions, unless the petitioners were exclusively interested. Suppose\nthere was a petition to come before us from a society, praying us to\nbe honest in our transactions, or that we should administer the\nConstitution according to its intention--what would you do with a\npetition of this kind? Certainly it would remain on your table. He\nwould, nevertheless, not have it supposed, that the people had not a\nright to advise and give their opinion upon public measures; but he\nwould not be influenced by that advice or opinion, to take up a\nsubject sooner than the convenience of other business would admit.\nUnless he changed his sentiments, he would oppose the commitment.\n\nMr. BURKE (of S.C.) thought gentlemen were paying attention to what\ndid not deserve it. The men in the gallery had come here to meddle in\na business with which they had nothing to do; they were volunteering\nit in the cause of others, who neither expected nor desired it. He had\na respect for the body of Quakers, but, nevertheless, he did not\nbelieve they had more virtue, or religion, than other people, nor\nperhaps so much, if they were examined to the bottom, notwithstanding\ntheir outward pretences. If their petition is to be noticed, Congress\nought to wait till counter applications were made, and then they might\nhave the subject more fairly before them. The rights of the Southern\nStates ought not to be threatened, and their property endangered, to\nplease people who were to be unaffected by the consequences.\n\nMr. HARTLEY (of Penn.) thought the memorialists did not deserve to be\naspersed for their conduct, if influenced by motives of benignity,\nthey solicited the Legislature of the Union to repel, as far as in\ntheir power, the increase of a licentious traffic. Nor do they merit\ncensure, because their behavior has the appearance of more morality\nthan other people's. But it is not for Congress to refuse to hear the\napplications of their fellow citizens, while those applications\ncontain nothing unconstitutional or offensive. What is the object of\nthe address before us? It is intended to bring before this House a\nsubject of great importance to the cause of humanity; there are\ncertain facts to be enquired into, and the memorialists are ready to\ngive all the information in their power; they are waiting, at a great\ndistance from their homes, and wish to return; if, then, it will be\nproper to commit the petition to-morrow, it will be equally proper\nto-day, for it is conformable to our practice, beside, it will tend to\ntheir conveniency.\n\nMr. LAWRANCE (of N.Y.) The gentleman from South Carolina says, the\npetitioners are of a society not known in the laws or Constitution.\nSir, in all our acts, as well as in the Constitution, we have noticed\nthis Society; or why is it that we admit them to affirm, in cases\nwhere others are called upon to swear? If we pay this attention to\nthem, in one instance, what good reason is there for contemning them\nin another? I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE,) carries\nhis apprehensions too far, when he fears that negro-property will fall\nin value, by the suppression of the slave-trade; not that I suppose it\nimmediately in the power of Congress to abolish a traffic which is a\ndisgrace to human nature; but it appears to me, that, if the\nimportation was crushed, the value of a slave would be increased\ninstead of diminished; however, considerations of this kind have\nnothing to do with the present question; gentlemen may acquiesce in\nthe commitment of the memorial, without pledging themselves to support\nits object.\n\nMr. JACKSON, (of Ga.) I differ much in opinion with the gentleman last\nup. I apprehend if, through the interference of the general\ngovernment, the slave trade was abolished, it would evince to the\npeople a disposition toward a total emancipation, and they would hold\ntheir property in jeopardy. Any extraordinary attention of Congress to\nthis petition may have, in some degree, a similar effect. I would beg\nto ask those, then, who are so desirous of freeing the negroes, if\nthey have funds sufficient to pay for them? If they have, they may\ncome forward on that business with some propriety; but, if they have\nnot, they should keep themselves quiet, and not interfere with a\nbusiness in which they are not interested. They may as well come\nforward, and solicit Congress to interdict the West India trade,\nbecause it is injurious to the morals of mankind; from thence we\nimport rum, which has a debasing influence upon the consumer. But,\nsir, is the whole morality of the United States confined to the\nQuakers? Are they the only people whose feelings are to be consulted\non this occasion? Is it to them we owe our present happiness? Was it\nthey who formed the Constitution? Did they, by their arms, or\ncontributions, establish our independence? I believe they were\ngenerally opposed to that measure. Why, then, on their application,\nshall we injure men, who, at the risk of their lives and fortunes,\nsecured to the community their liberty and property? If Congress pay\nany uncommon degree of attention to their petition, it will furnish\njust ground of alarm to the Southern States. But, why do these men set\nthemselves up, in such a particular manner, against slavery? Do they\nunderstand the rights of mankind, and the disposition of Providence\nbetter than others? If they were to consult that Book which claims our\nregard, they will find that slavery is not only allowed, but\ncommended. Their Saviour, who possessed more benevolence and\ncommiseration than they pretend to, has allowed of it. And if they\nfully examine the subject, they will find that slavery has been no\nnovel doctrine since the days of Cain. But be these things as they\nmay, I hope the House will order the petition to lie on the table, in\norder to prevent alarming our Southern brethren.\n\nMr. SEDGWICK, (of Mass.) If it was a serious question, whether the\nMemorial should be committed or not, I would not urge it at this time;\nbut that cannot be a question for a moment, if we consider our\nrelative situation with the people. A number of men,--who are\ncertainly very respectable, and of whom, as a society, it may be said\nwith truth, that they conform their moral conduct to their religious\ntenets, as much as any people in the whole community,--come forward\nand tell you, that you may effect two objects by the exercise of a\nConstitutional authority which will give great satisfaction; on the\none hand you may acquire revenue, and on the other, restrain a\npractice productive of great evil. Now, setting aside the religious\nmotives which influenced their application, have they not a right, as\ncitizens, to give their opinion of public measures? For my part I do\nnot apprehend that any State, or any considerable number of\nindividuals in any State, will be seriously alarmed at the commitment\nof the petition, from a fear that Congress intend to exercise an\nunconstitutional authority, in order to violate their rights; I\nbelieve there is not a wish of the kind entertained by any member of\nthis body. How can gentlemen hesitate then to pay that respect to a\nmemorial which it is entitled to, according to the ordinary mode of\nprocedure in business? Why shall we defer doing that till to-morrow,\nwhich we can do to-day? for the result, I apprehend, will be the same\nin either case.\n\nMr. Smith, (of S.C.) The question, I apprehend, is, whether we will\ntake the petition up for a second reading, and not whether it shall be\ncommitted? Now, I oppose this, because it is contrary to our usual\npractice, and does not allow gentlemen time to consider of the merits\nof the prayer; perhaps some gentlemen may think it improper to commit\nit to so large a committee as has been mentioned; a variety of causes\nmay be supposed to show that such a hasty decision is improper;\nperhaps the prayer of it is improper. If I understood it right, on its\nfirst reading, though, to be sure, I did not comprehend perfectly all\nthat the petition contained, it prays that we should take measures for\nthe abolition of the slave trade; this is desiring an unconstitutional\nact, because the constitution secures that trade to the States,\nindependent of congressional restrictions, for the term of twenty-one\nyears. If, therefore, it prays for a violation of constitutional\nrights, it ought to be rejected, as an attempt upon the virtue and\npatriotism of the house.\n\nMr. BOUDINOT, (of N.J.) It has been said that the Quakers have no\nright to interfere in this business; I am surprised to hear this\ndoctrine advanced, after it has been so lately contended, and settled,\nthat the people have a right to assemble and petition for redress of\ngrievances; it is not because the petition comes from the society of\nQuakers that I am in favor of the commitment, but because it comes\nfrom citizens of the United States, who are as equally concerned in\nthe welfare and happiness of their country as others. There certainly\nis no foundation for the apprehensions which seem to prevail in\ngentlemen's minds. If the petitioners were so uninformed: as to\nsuppose that Congress could be guilty of a violation of the\nConstitution, yet, I trust we know our duty better than to be led\nastray by an application from any man, or set of men whatever. I do\nnot consider the merits of the main question to be before us; it will\nbe time enough to give our opinions upon that, when the committee have\nreported. If it is in our power, by recommendation, or any other way,\nto put a stop to the slave trade in America, I do not doubt of its\npolicy; but how far the Constitution will authorize us to attempt to\ndepress it, will be a question well worthy of our consideration.\n\nMr. SHERMAN (of Conn.) observed, that the petitioners from New York,\nstated that they had applied to the legislature of that State, to\nprohibit certain practices which they conceived to be improper, and\nwhich tended to injure the well-being of the community; that the\nlegislature had considered the application, but had applied no remedy,\nbecause they supposed that power was exclusively vested in the general\ngovernment, under the Constitution of the United States; it would,\ntherefore, be proper to commit that petition, in order to ascertain\nwhat were the powers of the general government, in the case doubted by\nthe legislature of New York.\n\nMr. GERRY (of Mass.) thought gentlemen were out of order in entering\nupon the merits of the main question at this time, when they were\nconsidering the expediency of committing the petition; he should,\ntherefore, not follow them further in that track than barely to\nobserve, that it was the right of the citizens to apply for redress,\nin every case they conceived themselves aggrieved in; and it was the\nduty of Congress to afford redress as far as is in their power. That\ntheir Southern brethren had been betrayed into the slave trade by the\nfirst settlers, was to be lamented; they were not to be reflected on\nfor not viewing this subject in a different light, the prejudice of\neducation is eradicated with difficulty; but he thought nothing would\nexcuse the general government for not exerting itself to prevent, as\nfar as they constitutionally could, the evils resulting from such\nenormities as were alluded to by the petitioners; and the same\nconsiderations induced him highly to commend the part the society of\nFriends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had interested\nthemselves in, and he wished, with them, to see measures pursued by\nevery nation, to wipe off the indelible stain which the slave trade\nhad brought upon all who were concerned in it.\n\nMr. MADISON (of Va.) thought the question before the committee was no\notherwise important than as gentlemen made it so by their serious\nopposition. Did they permit the commitment of the Memorial, as a\nmatter of course, no notice would be taken of it out of doors; it\ncould never be blown up into a decision of the question respecting the\ndiscouragement of the African slave trade, nor alarm the owners with\nan apprehension that the general government were about to abolish\nslavery in all the States; such things are not contemplated by any\ngentleman; but, to appearance, they decide the question more against\nthemselves than would be the case if it was determined on its real\nmerits, because gentlemen may be disposed to vote for the commitment\nof a petition, without any intention of supporting the prayer of it.\n\nMr. WHITE (of Va.) would not have seconded the motion, if he had\nthought it would have brought on a lengthy debate. He conceived that a\nbusiness of this kind ought to be decided without much discussion; it\nhad constantly been the practice of the house, and he did not suppose\nthere was any reason for a deviation.\n\nMr. PAGE (of Va.) said, if the memorial had been presented by any\nindividual, instead of the respectable body it was, he should have\nvoted in favor of a commitment, because it was the duty of the\nlegislature to attend to subjects brought before them by their\nconstituents; if, upon inquiry, it was discovered to be improper to\ncomply with the prayer of the petitioners, he would say so, and they\nwould be satisfied.\n\nMr. STONE (of Md.) thought the business ought to be left to take its\nusual course; by the rules of the house, it was expressly declared,\nthat petitions, memorials, and other papers, addressed to the house,\nshould not be debated or decided on the day they were first read.\n\nMr. BALDWIN (of Ga.) felt at a loss to account why precipitation was\nused on this occasion, contrary to the customary usage of the house;\nhe had not heard a single reason advanced in favor of it. To be sure\nit was said the petitioners are a respectable body of men--he did not\ndeny it--but, certainly, gentlemen did not suppose they were paying\nrespect to them, or to the house, when they urged such a hasty\nprocedure; anyhow it was contrary to his idea of respect, and the idea\nthe house had always expressed, when they had important subjects under\nconsideration; and, therefore, he should be against the motion. He was\nafraid that there was really a little volunteering in this business,\nas it had been termed by the gentleman from Georgia.\n\nMr. HUNTINGTON (of Conn.) considered the petitioners as much\ndisinterested as any person in the United States; he was persuaded\nthey had an aversion to slavery; yet they were not singular in this,\nothers had the same; and he hoped when Congress took up the subject,\nthey would go as far as possible to prohibit the evil complained of.\nBut he thought that would better be done by considering it in the\nlight of revenue. When the committee of the whole, on the finance\nbusiness, came to the ways and means, it might properly be taken into\nconsideration, without giving any ground for alarm.\n\nMr. TUCKER, (of S.C.) I have no doubt on my mind respecting what ought\nto be done on this occasion; so far from committing the memorial, we\nought to dismiss it without further notice. What is the purport of the\nmemorial? It is plainly this; to reprobate a particular kind of\ncommerce, in a moral view, and to request the interposition of\nCongress to effect its abrogation. But Congress have no authority,\nunder the constitution, to do more than lay a duty of ten dollars upon\neach person imported; and this is a political consideration, not\narising from either religion or morality, and is the only principle\nupon which we can proceed to take it up. But what effect do these men\nsuppose will arise from their exertions? Will a duty of ten dollars\ndiminish the importation? Will the treatment be better than usual? I\napprehend it will not, nay, it may be worse. Because an interference\nwith the subject may excite a great degree of restlessness in the\nminds of those it is intended to serve, and that may be a cause for\nthe masters to use more rigor towards them, than they would otherwise\nexert; so that these men seem to overshoot their object. But if they\nwill endeavor to procure the abolition of the slave trade, let them\nprefer their petitions to the State legislatures, who alone have the\npower of forbidding the importation; I believe their applications\nthere would be improper; but if they are any where proper, it is\nthere. I look upon the address then to be ill-judged, however good the\nintention of the framers.\n\nMr. SMITH (of S.C.) claimed it as a right, that the petition should\nlay over till to-morrow.\n\nMr. BOUDINOT (of N.J.) said it was not unusual to commit petitions on\nthe day they were presented; and the rules of the house admitted the\npractice, by the qualification which followed the positive order, that\npetitions should not be decided on the day they were first read,\n\"unless where the house shall direct otherwise.\"\n\nMr. SMITH (of S.C.) declared his intention of calling the yeas and\nnays, if gentlemen persisted in pressing the question.\n\nMr. CLYMER (of Penn.) hoped the motion would be withdrawn for the\npresent, and the business taken up in course to-morrow; because,\nthough he respected the memorialists, he also respected order and the\nsituation of the members.\n\nMr. FITZSIMONS (of Penn.) did not recollect whether he moved or\nseconded the motion, but if he had, he should not withdraw it on\naccount of the threat of calling the yeas and nays.\n\nMr. BALDWIN (of Ga.) hoped the business would be conducted with temper\nand moderation, and that gentlemen would concede and pass the subject\nover for a day at least.\n\nMr. SMITH (of S.C.) had no idea of holding out a threat to any\ngentleman. If the declaration of an intention to call the yeas and\nnays was viewed by gentlemen in that light, he would withdraw that\ncall.\n\nMr. WHITE (of Va.) hereupon withdrew his motion. And the address was\nordered to lie on the table.\n\nFEBRUARY 12th, 1790.\n\nThe following memorial was presented and read:\n\n\"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The\nmemorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of\nslavery, the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage, and\nthe improvement of the condition of the African race, respectfully\nshoweth: That from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an\nassociation was formed several years since in this State, by a number\nof her citizens, of various religious denominations, for promoting the\nabolition of slavery, and for the relief of those unlawfully held in\nbondage. A just and acute conception of the true principles of\nliberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions to their\nnumbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative cooperation\nwith their views, which, by the blessing of Divine Providence, have\nbeen successfully directed to the relieving from bondage a large\nnumber of their fellow creatures of the African race. They have also\nthe satisfaction to observe, that, in consequence of that spirit of\nphilanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally diffusing its\nbeneficial influence, similar institutions are forming at home and\nabroad. That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike\nobjects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of\nhappiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the\npolitical creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. Your\nmemorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the distresses\narising from slavery, believe it their indispensable duty to present\nthis subject to your notice. They have observed with real\nsatisfaction, that many important and salutary powers are vested in\nyou for 'promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty\nto the people of the United States;' and as they conceive, that these\nblessings ought rightfully to be administered without distinction of\ncolor, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in\nthe pleasing expectation, that nothing which can be done for the\nrelief of the unhappy objects of their care, will be either omitted or\ndelayed. From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the\nportion, and is still the birth-right of all men, and influenced by\nthe strong ties of humanity and the principles of their institution,\nyour memorialists conceived themselves bound to use all justifiable\nendeavors to loosen the bands of slavery, and promote a general\nenjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Under these impressions, they\nearnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery;\nthat you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to\nthose unhappy men, who alone, in this land of freedom, are degraded\ninto perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding\nfreemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise\nmeans for removing this inconsistency from the character of the\nAmerican people; that you will promote mercy and justice towards this\ndistressed race, and that you will step to the very verge of the power\nvested in you, for discouraging every species of traffic in the\npersons of our fellow-men.\n\n\"BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, _President._\n\n\"PHILADELPHIA, _February 3, 1790.\"_\n\nMr. HARTLEY (of Penn.) then called up the memorial presented\nyesterday, from the annual meeting of Friends at Philadelphia, for a\nsecond reading; whereupon the same was read a second time, and moved\nto be committed.\n\nMr. TUCKER (of S.C.) was sorry the petition had a second reading, as\nhe conceived it contained an unconstitutional request, and from that\nconsideration he wished it thrown aside. He feared the commitment of\nit would be a very alarming circumstance to the Southern States; for\nif the object was to engage Congress in an unconstitutional measure,\nit would be considered as an interference with their rights, the\npeople would become very uneasy under the government, and lament that\nthey ever put additional powers into their hands. He was surprised to\nsee another memorial on the same subject, and that signed by a man who\nought to have known the constitution better. He thought it a\nmischievous attempt, as it respected the persons in whose favor it was\nintended. It would buoy them up with hopes, without a foundation, and\nas they could not reason on the subject, as more enlightened men\nwould, they might be led to do what they would be punished for, and\nthe owners of them, in their own defence, would be compelled to\nexercise over them a severity they were not accustomed to. Do these\nmen expect a general emancipation of slaves by law? This would never\nbe submitted to by the Southern States without a civil war. Do they\nmean to purchase their freedom? He believed their money would fall\nshort of the price. But how is it they are more concerned in this\nbusiness than others? Are they the only persons who possess religion\nand morality? If the people are not so exemplary, certainly they will\nadmit the clergy are; why then do we not find them uniting in a body,\npraying us to adopt measures for the promotion of religion and piety,\nor any moral object? They know it would be an improper interference;\nand to say the best of this memorial, it is an act of imprudence,\nwhich he hoped would receive no countenance from the house.\n\nMr. SENEY (of Md.) denied that there was anything unconstitutional in\nthe memorial, at least, if there was, it had escaped his attention,\nand he should be obliged to the gentleman to point it out. Its only\nobject was, that congress should exercise their constitutional\nauthority, to abate the horrors of slavery, as far as they could:\nIndeed, he considered that all altercation on the subject of\ncommitment was at an end, as the house had impliedly determined\nyesterday that it should be committed.\n\nMr. BURKE (of S.C.) saw the disposition of the house, and he feared\nit would be referred to a committee, maugre all their opposition; but\nhe must insist that it prayed for an unconstitutional measure. Did it\nnot desire congress to interfere and abolish the slave trade, while\nthe constitution expressly stipulated that congress should exercise no\nsuch power? He was certain the commitment would sound an alarm, and\nblow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States. He was sorry to\nsee the petitioners paid more attention to than the constitution;\nhowever, he would do his duty, and oppose the business totally; and if\nit was referred to a committee, as mentioned yesterday, consisting of\na member from each State, and he was appointed, he would decline\nserving.\n\nMr. SCOTT, (of Penn.) I can't entertain a doubt but the memorial is\nstrictly agreeable to the constitution: it respects a part of the duty\nparticularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may, be\ninclined to take it into consideration. We can, at present, lay our\nhands upon a small duty of ten dollars. I would take this, and if it\nis all we can do, we must be content. But I am sorry that the framers\nof the constitution did not go farther and enable us to interdict it\nfor good and all; for I look upon the slave-trade to be one of the\nmost abominable things on earth; and if there was neither God nor\ndevil, I should oppose it upon the principles of humanity and the law\nof nature. I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person can be said\nto acquire a property in another; is it by virtue of conquest? What\nare the rights of conquest? Some have dared to advance this monstrous\nprinciple, that the conqueror is absolute master of his conquest; that\nhe may dispose of it as his property, and treat it as he pleases; but\nenough of those who reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or\nuse them like beasts of burden; who deliver them up as the property or\npatrimony of another man. Let us argue on principles countenanced by\nreason and becoming humanity; the petitioners view the subject in a\nreligious light, but I do not stand in need of religious motives to\ninduce me to reprobate the traffic in human flesh; other\nconsiderations weigh with me to support the commitment of the\nmemorial, and to support every constitutional measure likely to bring\nabout its total abolition. Perhaps, in our legislative capacity, we\ncan go no further than to impose a duty of ten dollars, but I do not\nknow how far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United\nStates, and those people were to come before me and claim their\nemancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could.\n\nMr. JACKSON (of Ga.) differed with the gentleman last up, and supposed\nthe master had a qualified property in his slave; he said the contrary\ndoctrine would go to the destruction of every species of personal\nservice. The gentleman said he did not stand in need of religion to\ninduce him to reprobate slavery, but if he is guided by that evidence,\nwhich the Christian system is founded upon, he will find that religion\nis not against it; he will see, from Genesis to Revelation, the\ncurrent setting strong that way. There never was a government on the\nface of the earth, but what permitted slavery. The purest sons of\nfreedom in the Grecian republics, the citizens of Athens and\nLacedaemon all held slaves. On this principle the nations of Europe\nare associated; it is the basis of the feudal system. But suppose all\nthis to have been wrong, let me ask the gentleman, if it is policy to\nbring forward a business at this moment, likely to light up a flame of\ncivil discord, for the people of the Southern States will resist one\ntyranny as soon as another; the other parts of the continent may bear\nthem down by force of arms, but they will never suffer themselves to\nbe divested of their property without a struggle. The gentleman says,\nif he was a federal judge, he does not know to what length he would go\nin emancipating these people; but, I believe his judgment would be of\nshort duration in Georgia; perhaps even the existence of such a judge\nmight be in danger.\n\nMr. SHERMAN (of Conn.) could see no difficulty in committing the\nmemorial; because it was probable the committee would understand their\nbusiness, and perhaps they might bring in such a report as would be\nsatisfactory to gentlemen on both sides of the House.\n\nMr. BALDWIN (of Ga.) was sorry the subject had ever been brought\nbefore Congress, because it was of a delicate nature, as it respected\nsome of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the formation of\nthis Constitution, could not avoid the recollection of the pain and\ndifficulty which the subject caused in that body; the members from the\nSouthern States were so tender upon this point, that they had well\nnigh broken up without coming to any determination; however, from the\nextreme desire of preserving the Union, and obtaining an efficient\ngovernment, they were induced mutually, to concede, and the\nConstitution jealously guarded what they agreed to. If gentlemen look\nover the footsteps of that body, they will find the greatest degree\nof caution used to imprint them, so as not to be easily eradicated;\nbut the moment we go to jostle on that ground, said he, I fear we\nshall feel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power to\ninterfere with the importation of slaves, beyond what is given in the\n9th section of the first article of the Constitution; every thing else\nis interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the\nConstitution, we shall find the expressions, relative to this subject,\ncautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other\npart. \"The migration or importation of such persons, shall not be\nprohibited by Congress.\" But lest this should not have secured the\nobject sufficiently, it is declared in the same section, \"That no\ncapitation or direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the\ncensus;\" this was intended to prevent Congress from laying any special\ntax upon negro slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the\npossessors of them, as to induce a general emancipation. If we go on\nto the 5th article, we shall find the 1st and 5th clauses of the 9th\nsection of the 1st article restrained from being altered before the\nyear 1808.\n\nGentlemen have said, that this petition does not pray for an abolition\nof the slave-trade; I think, sir, it prays for nothing else, and\ntherefore we have no more to do with it, than if it prayed us to\nestablish an order of nobility, or a national religion.\n\nMr. SYLVESTER (of N.Y.) said that he had always been in the habit of\nrespecting the society called Quakers; he respected them for their\nexertions in the cause of humanity, but he thought the present was not\na time to enter into a consideration of the subject, especially as he\nconceived it to be a business in the province of the State\nlegislatures.\n\nMr. LAWRANCE (of N.Y.) observed that the subject would undoubtedly\ncome under the consideration of the house; and he thought, that as it\nwas now before them, that the present time was as proper as any; he\nwas therefore for committing the memorial; and when the prayer of it\nhad been properly examined, they could see how far Congress may\nconstitutionally interfere; as they knew the limits of their power on\nthis, as well as on every other occasion, there was no just\napprehension to be entertained that they would go beyond them. Mr.\nSmith (of S.C.) insisted that it was not in the power of the House to\nbrunt the prayer of the petition, which event to the total abolishment\nof the slave-trade, and it was therefore unnecessary to commit it. He\nobserved, that in the Southern States, difficulties had arisen on\nadopting the Constitution, inasmuch as it was apprehended, that\nCongress might take measures under it for abolishing the slave-trade.\n\nPerhaps the petitioners, when they applied to this House, did not\nthink their object unconstitutional, but now they are told that if is,\nthey will be satisfied with the answer, and press it no further. If\ntheir object had been for Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars per\nhead on the importation of slaves, they would have said so, but that\ndoes not appear to have been the case; the commitment of the petition,\non that ground, cannot be contended; if they will not be content with\nthat, shall it be committed to investigate facts? The petition speaks\nof none; for what purpose then shall it be committed? If gentlemen can\nassign no good reason for the measure, they will not support it, when\nthey are told that it will create great jealousies and alarm in the\nSouthern States; for I can assure them, that there is no point on\nwhich they are more jealous and suspicious, than on a business with\nwhich they think the government has nothing to do.\n\nWhen we entered into this Confederacy, we did it from political, not\nfrom moral motives, and I do not think my constituents want to learn\nmorals from the petitioners; I do not believe they want improvement in\ntheir moral system; if they do, they can get it at home.\n\nThe gentleman from Georgia, has justly stated the jealousy of the\nSouthern States. On entering into this government, they apprehended\nthat the other States, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the\nSouthern States were under to hold this species of property, would,\nfrom motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general\nemancipation; and had they not seen that the Constitution provided\nagainst the effect of such a disposition, I may be bold to say, they\nnever would have adopted it. And notwithstanding all the calumny's\nwith which some gentlemen have viewed the subject, they will find,\nthat the discussion alone will create great alarm. We have been told,\nthat if the discussion will create alarm, we ought to have avoided it,\nby saying nothing; but it was not for that purpose that we were sent\nhere; we look upon this measure as an attack upon the palladium of the\nproperty of our country; it is therefore our duty to oppose it by\nevery means in our power. Gentlemen should consider that when we\nentered into a political connexion with the other States, that this\nproperty was there; it was acquired under a former government,\nconformably to the laws and Constitution; therefore anything that will\ntend to deprive them of that property, must be an ex post facto law,\nand as such is forbid by our political compact.\n\nI said the States would never have entered into the confederation,\nunless their property had been guaranteed to them, for such is the\nstate of agriculture in that county, that without slaves it must be\ndepopulated. Why will these people then make use of arguments to\ninduce the slave to turn his hand against his master? We labor under\ndifficulties enough from the ravages of the late war. A gentleman can\nhardly come from that country, with a servant or two, either to this\nplace or Philadelphia, but what there are persons trying to seduce his\nservants to leave him; and, when they have done this, the poor\nwretches are obliged to rob their master in order to obtain a\nsubsistence; all those, therefore, who are concerned in this\nseduction, are accessaries to the robbery.\n\nThe reproaches which they cast upon the owners of negro property, is\ncharging them with the want of humanity; I believe the proprietors are\npersons of as much humanity as any part of the continent and are as\nconspicuous for their good morals as their neighbors. It was said\nyesterday, that the Quakers were a society known to the laws, and the\nConstitution, but they are no more so than other religious societies;\nthey stood exactly in the same situation; their memorial, therefore,\nrelates to a matter in which they are no more interested than any\nother sect, and can only be considered as a piece of advice; it is\ncustomary to refer a piece of advice to a committee, but if it is\nsupposed to pray for what they think a moral purpose, is that\nsufficient to induce us to commit it? What may appear a moral virtue\nin their eyes, may not be so in reality. I have heard of a sect of\nShaking Quakers, who, I presume, suppose their tenets of a moral\ntendency; I am informed one of them forbids to intermarry, yet in\nconsequence of their shakings and concussions, you may see them with a\nnumerous offspring about them. Now, if these people were to petition\nCongress to pass a law prohibiting matrimony, I ask, would gentlemen\nagree to refer such a petition? I think if they would reject one of\nthat nature, as improper, they ought also to reject this.\n\nMr. PAGE (of Va.) was in favor of the commitment; he hoped that the\ndesigns of the respectable memorialists would not be stopped at the\nthreshold, in order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the\nmemorial. He observed that gentlemen had founded their arguments upon\na misrepresentation; for the object of the memorial was not declared\nto be the total abolition, of the slave trade; but that Congress would\nconsider, whether it be not in reality within their power to exercise\njustice and mercy, which, if adhered to, they cannot doubt must\nproduce the abolition of the slave trade. If then the prayer contained\nnothing unconstitutional, he trusted the meritorious effort would not\nbe frustrated. With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he\nconjectured there was none; but there might be just cause, if the\nmemorial was not taken into consideration. He placed himself in the\ncase of a slave, and said, that on hearing that Congress had refused\nto listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of the\ncommunity, he should infer, that the general government (from which\nwas expected great good would result to every class of citizens) had\nshut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair\nof any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in\nprospect; if anything could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke\nlike this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if\nhe was told, that application was made in his behalf and that Congress\nwere willing to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the\npractice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their\njustice and humanity, and wait the decision patiently. He presumed\nthat these unfortunate people would reason in the same way; and he,\ntherefore, conceived the most likely way to prevent danger, was to\ncommit the petition. He lived in a State which had the misfortune of\nhaving in her bosom a great number of slaves, he held many of them\nhimself, and was as much interested in the business, he believed, as\nany gentleman in South Carolina or Georgia, yet, if he was determined\nto hold them in eternal bondage, he should feel no uneasiness or alarm\non account of the present measure, because he should rely upon the\nvirtue of Congress, that they would not exercise any unconstitutional\nauthority.\n\nMr. MADISON (of Va.) The debate has taken a serious turn, and it will\nbe owing to this alone if an alarm is created; for had the memorial\nbeen treated in the usual way, it would have been considered as a\nmatter of course, and a report might have been made, so as to have\ngiven general satisfaction.\n\nIf there was the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon\nthe Constitution, he would object to it; but he did not see upon what\nground such an event was to be apprehended. The petition prayed, in\ngeneral terms, for the interference of Congress, so far as they were\nconstitutionally authorized; but even if its prayer was, in some\ndegree, unconstitutional, it might be committed, as was the case on\nMr. Churchman's petition, one part of which was supposed to apply for\nan unconstitutional interference by the general government.\n\nHe admitted that Congress was restricted by the Constitution from\ntaking measures to abolish the slave trade; yet there were a variety\nof ways by which they could countenance the abolition, and they might\nmake some regulations respecting the introduction of them into the new\nStates, to be formed out of the Western Territory, different from what\nthey could in the old settled States. He thought the object well\nworthy of consideration.\n\nMr. GERRY (of Mass.) thought the interference of Congress fully\ncompatible with the Constitution, and could not help lamenting the\nmiseries to which the natives of Africa were exposed by this inhuman\ncommerce; and said that he never contemplated the subject, without\nreflecting what his own feelings would be, in case himself, his\nchildren, or friends, were placed in the same deplorable\ncircumstances. He then adverted to the flagrant acts of cruelty which\nare committed in carrying on that traffic; and asked whether it can be\nsupposed, that Congress has no power to prevent such transactions? He\nthen referred to the Constitution, and pointed out the restrictions\nlaid on the general government respecting the importation of slaves.\nIt was not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any gentleman in this\nhouse to violate that part of the Constitution; but that we have a\nright to regulate this business, is as clear as that we have any\nrights whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person who has\nspoken on the occasion. Congress can, agreeable to the Constitution,\nlay a duty of ten dollars on imported slaves; they may do this\nimmediately. He made a calculation of the value of the slaves in the\nSouthern States, and supposed they might be worth ten millions of\ndollars; Congress have a right, if they see proper, to make a proposal\nto the Southern States to purchase the whole of them, and their\nresources in the Western Territory may furnish them with means. He did\nnot intend to suggest a measure of this kind, he only instanced these\nparticulars, to show that Congress certainly have a right to\nintermeddle in the business. He thought that no objection had been\noffered, of any force, to prevent the commitment of the memorial.\n\nMr. BOUDINOT (of N.J.) had carefully examined the petition, and found\nnothing like what was complained of by gentlemen, contained in it; he,\ntherefore, hoped they would withdraw their opposition, and suffer it\nto be committed.\n\nMr. SMITH (of S.C.) said, that as the petitioners had particularly\nprayed Congress to take measures for the annihilation of the slave\ntrade, and that was admitted on all hands to be beyond their power,\nand as the petitioners would not be gratified by a tax of ten dollars\nper head, which was all that was within their power, there was, of\nconsequence, no occasion for committing it.\n\nMr. STONE (of Md.) thought this memorial a thing of course; for there\nnever was a society, of any considerable extent, which did not\ninterfere with the concerns of other people, and this kind of\ninterference, whenever it has happened, has never failed to deluge the\ncountry in blood: on this principle he was opposed to the commitment.\n\nThe question on the commitment being about to be put, the yeas and\nnays were called for, and are as follows:--\n\nYeas.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Cadwallader, Clymer,\nFitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin,\nGrout, Hartley, Hathorne, Heister, Huntington, Lawrance, Lee, Leonard,\nLivermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Partridge,\nRenssellaer, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sinnickson,\nSmith of Maryland, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Wadsworth, White, and\nWynkoop--93.\n\nNoes.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Bourke, Coles, Huger, Jackson, Mathews,\nSylvester, Smith of S.C., Stone, and Tucker--11.\n\nWhereupon it was determined in the affirmative; and on motion, the\npetition of the Society of Friends, at New York, and the memorial from\nthe Pennsylvania Society, for the abolition of slavery, were also\nreferred to a committee.\n\n\n\n_Debate on Committee's Report, March 1790._\n\nELIOT'S DEBATES.\n\nMr. TUCKER moved to modify the first paragraph by striking out all the\nwords after the word opinion, and to insert the following: that the\nseveral memorials proposed to the consideration of this house, a\nsubject on which its interference would be unconstitutional, and even\nits deliberations highly injurious to some of the States in the Union.\n\nMr. JACKSON rose and observed, that he had been silent on the subject\nof the reports coming before the committee, because he wished the\nprinciples of the resolutions to be examined fairly, and to be decided\non their true grounds. He was against the propositions generally, and\nwould examine the policy, the justice and the use of them, and he\nhoped, if he could make them appear in the same light to others as\nthey did to him by fair argument, that the gentlemen in opposition\nwere not so determined in their opinions as not to give up their\npresent sentiments.\n\nWith respect to the policy of the measure, the situation of the slaves\nhere, their situation in their native States, and the disposal of them\nin case of emancipation, should be considered. That slavery was an\nevil habit, he did not mean to controvert; but that habit was already\nestablished, and there were peculiar situations in countries which\nrendered that habit necessary. Such situations the States of South\nCarolina and Georgia were in--large tracts of the most fertile lands\non the continent remained uncultivated for the want of population. It\nwas frequently advanced on the floor of Congress, how unhealthy those\nclimates were, and how impossible it was for northern constitutions to\nexist there. What, he asked, is to be done with this uncultivated\nterritory? Is it to remain a waste? Is the rice trade to be banished\nfrom our coasts? Are Congress willing to deprive themselves of the\nrevenue arising from that trade, and which is daily increasing, and to\nthrow this great advantage into the hands of other countries?\n\nLet us examine the use or the benefit of the resolutions contained in\nthe report. I call upon gentlemen to give me one single instance in\nwhich they can be of service. They are of no use to Congress. The\npowers of that body are already defined, and those powers cannot be\namended, confirmed or diminished by ten thousand resolutions. Is not\nthe first proposition of the report fully contained in the\nConstitution? Is not that the guide and rule of this legislature. A\nmultiplicity of laws is reprobated in any society, and tend but to\nconfound and perplex. How strange would a law appear which was to\nconfirm a law; and how much more strange must it appear for this body\nto pass resolutions to confirm the Constitution under which they sit!\nThis is the case with others of the resolutions.\n\nA gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE,) very properly observed, that\nthe Union had received the different States with all their ill habits\nabout them. This was one of these habits established long before the\nConstitution, and could not now be remedied. He begged Congress to\nreflect on the number on the continent who were opposed to this\nConstitution, and on the number which yet remained in the Southern\nStates. The violation of this compact they would seize on with\navidity; they would make a handle of it to cover their designs against\nthe government, and many good federalists, who would be injured by the\nmeasure, would be induced to join them: his heart was truly federal,\nand it always had been so, and he wished those designs frustrated. He\nbegged Congress to beware before they went too far: he called on them\nto attend to the interests of two whole States, as well as to the\nmemorials of a society of Quakers, who came forward to blow the\ntrumpet of sedition, and to destroy that Constitution which they had\nnot in the least contributed by personal service or supply to\nestablish.\n\nHe seconded Mr. TUCKER'S motion.\n\nMr. SMITH (of S.C.) said, the gentlemen from Massachusetts, (Mr.\nGERRY,) had declared that it was the opinion of the select committee,\nof which he was a member, that the memorial of the Pennsylvania\nsociety, required Congress to violate the Constitution. It was not\nless astonishing to see Dr. FRANKLIN taking the lead in a business\nwhich looks so much like a persecution of the Southern inhabitants,\nwhen he recollected the parable he had written some time ago, with a\nview of showing the impropriety of one set of men persecuting others\nfor a difference of opinion. The parable was to this effect: an old\ntraveller, hungry and weary, applied to the patriarch Abraham for a\nnight's lodging. In conversation, Abraham discovered that the stranger\ndiffered with him on religious points, and turned him out of doors. In\nthe night God appeared unto Abraham, and said, where is the stranger?\nAbraham answered, I found that he did not worship the true God, and so\nI turned him out of doors. The Almighty thus rebuked the patriarch:\nHave I borne with him three-score and ten years, and couldst thou not\nbear with him one night? Has the Almighty, said Mr. SMITH, borne with\nus for more than three-score years and ten: he has even made our\ncountry opulent, and shed the blessings of affluence and prosperity on\nour land, notwithstanding all its slaves, and must we now be ruined on\naccount of the tender consciences of a few scrupulous individuals who\ndiffer from us on this point?\n\nMr. BOUDINOT agreed with the general doctrines of Mr. S., but could\nnot agree that the clause in the Constitution relating to the want of\npower in Congress to prohibit the importation of such persons as any\nof the States, _now existing_, shall think proper to admit, prior to\nthe year 1808, and authorizing a tax or duty on such importation not\nexceeding ten dollars for each person, did not extend to negro slaves.\nCandor required that he should acknowledge that this was the express\ndesign of the Constitution, and therefore Congress could not interfere\nin prohibiting the importation or promoting the emancipation of them,\nprior to that period. Mr. BOUDINOT observed, that he was well informed\nthat the tax or duty of ten dollars was provided, instead of the five\nper cent ad valorem, and was so expressly understood by all parties in\nthe Convention; that therefore it was the interest and duty of\nCongress to impose this tax, or it would not be doing justice to the\nStates, or equalizing the duties throughout the Union. If this was not\ndone, merchants might bring their whole capitals into this branch of\ntrade, and save paying any duties whatever. Mr. BOUDINOT observed,\nthat the gentleman had overlooked the prophecy of St. Peter, where he\nforetells that among other damnable heresies, \"Through covetousness\nshall they with feigned words make merchandize of you.\"\n\n[NOTE.--This petition, with others of a similar object, was committed\nto a select committee; that committee made a report; the report was\nreferred to a committee of the whole House, and discussed on four\nsuccessive days; it was then reported to the House with amendments,\nand by the House ordered to be inscribed in its Journals, and then\nlaid on the table.\n\nThat report, as amended in committee, is in the following words:\n\nThe committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from the people\ncalled Quakers, and also a memorial from the Pennsylvania Society for\npromoting the abolition of slavery, submit the following report, (as\namended in committee of the whole.)\n\n\"First: That the migration or importation of such persons as any of\nthe States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be\nprohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.\"\n\n\"Secondly: That Congress have no power to interfere in the\nemancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the\nStates; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any\nregulations therein which humanity and true policy may require.\"\n\n\"Thirdly: That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the\nUnited States from carrying on the African Slave trade, for the\npurpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing by\nproper regulations for the humane treatment, during their passage, of\nslaves imported by the said citizens into the States admitting such\nimportations.\"\n\n\"Fourthly: That Congress have also authority to prohibit foreigners\nfrom fitting out vessels in any part of the United States for\ntransporting persons from Africa to any foreign port.\"]\n\n\n\nADDRESS\n\nOF THE\n\nEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE\n\nOF\n\nTHE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY\n\nTO THE\n\nFriends of Freedom and Emancipation in the U. States.\n\n\nAt the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held in\nthe city of New-York, May 7th, 1844,--after grave deliberation, and a\nlong and earnest discussion,--it was decided, by a vote of nearly\nthree to one of the members present, that fidelity to the cause of\nhuman freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who are held\nin chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to God, require\nthat the existing national compact should be instantly dissolved; that\nsecession from the government is a religious and political duty; that\nthe motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom should be, NO UNION WITH\nSLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for tyrants and the enemies of\ntyranny to coalesce and legislate together for the preservation of\nhuman rights, or the promotion of the interests of Liberty; and that\nrevolutionary ground should be occupied by all those who abhor the\nthought of doing evil that good may come, and who do not mean to\ncompromise the principles of Justice 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 American\nSociety, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This is due not\nonly 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 _life_,\nLIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.\" It is further maintained by\nthem, that \"all governments derive their just powers from the consent\nof the governed;\" that \"whenever any form of government becomes\ndestructive of human rights, it is the right of the people to alter or\nto abolish it, and institute a new government, laying its foundation\non such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them\nshall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.\" These\ndoctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed with their blood. They would not\nbrook even the menace of oppression. They held that there should be no\ndelay in resisting, at whatever cost or peril, the first encroachments\nof power on their liberties. Appealing to the great Ruler of the\nuniverse for the rectitude of their course, they pledged to each other\n\"their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor,\" to conquer or\nperish in their struggle 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 man\nsobriety 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 influence\nof impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are of--whether they\nhave counted the cost of the warfare--what are the principles they\nadvocate--and how they are to achieve their object--is the first duty\nof revolutionists.\n\nBut, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in\nevery great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever they\nrestrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it.\n\nWe charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at the\nexpense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, and\nto 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 favor\na slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one portion of\nthe 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\n1. 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, and\nthe 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 subversive\nof the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our refuge, and\nunder falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape the\noverflowing scourge. \"Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Judgment\nwill I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail\nshall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the\nhiding place.\" Moreover, \"because ye trust in oppression and\nperverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this iniquity shall be to\nyou as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose\nbreaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the\nbreaking of the potter's vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not\nspare.\"\n\nThis plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and\nvillainy that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said,\n\"Let there be light.\" It assumes that to be practicable, which is\nimpossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union with\ninjustice, and safety with bloodguiltiness. A union of virtue with\npollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership between\nright and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the principles of\nJustice, 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 all\nthat has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was sinful\nat the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a greater\nevil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the same\nreason, 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 whole\ncountry, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just use of\nwords, the American Union is and always has been a sham--an imposture.\nIt is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the criminal history\nof the world. How then can it be innocently sustained? It is not\ncertain, it is not even probable, that if it had not been adopted, the\nmother country would have reconquered the colonies. The spirit that\nwould have chosen danger in preference to crime,--to perish with\njustice rather than live with dishonor,--to dare and suffer whatever\nmight betide, rather than sacrifice the rights of one human\nbeing,--could never have been subjugated by any mortal power. Surely\nit is paying a poor tribute to the valor and devotion of our\nrevolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say that, if they\nhad sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they would have\nfallen 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 may\ndetermine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted it\nmeant_--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 use\nof 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 to\ngive 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, TO\nMEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in good\nfaith, 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 they\ncan fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, it is\nallowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially as the\ncause of freedom will thereby be promoted_--we reply, that this is to\nadvocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting parties,\n_whose co-operation was secured only by an express agreement and\nunderstanding between them both, in regard to the clauses alluded to_;\nand that such a construction, if enforced by pains and penalties,\nwould unquestionably lead to a civil war, in which the aggrieved party\nwould justly claim to have been betrayed, and robbed of their\nconstitutional 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 also\ntrue that they are portions of an instrument, the support of which, AS\nA WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, _because\nthey are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE\nIMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the Constitution.\n\nAgain, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the\npeople of the United States, in order to establish justice, to promote\nthe general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves\nand their posterity; and therefore, it is to be so construed as to\nharmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that its language is\n_not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of the contracting\nparties understood_, and which would frustrate every design of their\nalliance--to wit, _union at the expense of the colored population of\nthe country_. Moreover, nothing is more certain than that the preamble\nalluded to never included, in the minds of those who framed it, _those\nwho were then pining in bondage_--for, in that case, a general\nemancipation of the slaves would have instantly been proclaimed\nthroughout the United States. The words, \"secure the blessings of\nliberty to ourselves and our posterity,\" assuredly meant only the\nwhite population. \"To promote the general welfare,\" referred to their\nown welfare exclusively. \"To establish justice,\" was understood to be\nfor their sole benefit as slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of\nslavery. This is demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument,\nand by their own practice under it.\n\nWe would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is as\nreprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_, as\nit is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, it is\nan 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; or\nthat it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to make it\nharmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly might it\nbe argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration of\nIndependence, 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 means\nthey used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated by the\nspirit of universal philanthropy; and though in words they recognized\noccasionally the brotherhood of the human race, _in practice_ they\ncontinually denied it. They did not blush to enslave a portion of\ntheir fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in the market,\nwhile they were fighting against the oppression of the mother country,\nand boasting of their regard for the rights of man. Why, then, concede\nto them virtues which they did not possess? _Why cling to the\nfalsehood, that they were no respecters of persons in the formation of\nthe 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, in\nits relations to slavery.\n\nIn ARTICLE 1, Section 9, it is declared--\"The migration or importation\nof such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper\nto admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year\none thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed\non such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each 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 citizens\nof the United States were to be encouraged and protected in the\nprosecution 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 subjecting\nthe wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated bondage!\nThis awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, since its\ntermination, Congress has declared the foreign slave traffic to be\npiracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American flag, instead of\nbeing the terror of the African slavers, has given them the most ample\nprotection.\n\nThe manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national\nconvention that formed the Constitution, is thus frankly avowed by the\nHon. LUTHER MARTIN[9] who was a prominent member of that body:\n\n[Footnote 9: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]\n\n\n\"The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, (!)\nwere _very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with a\ntemporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern\nStates would, in their turn, _gratify_ them by laying no restriction\non navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a\ngreat majority, agreed on a report, _by which the general government\nwas to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves_ for a\nlimited time; and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts\nwas to be omitted.\"\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 not\nadopted \"without considerable opposition.\"  Alluding to it, Mr. MARTIN\nobserves--\n\n\"It was said that we had just assumed a place among 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 the\nrights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we\nscarcely had risen from our knees, from supplicating his aid and\nprotection in forming our government over a free people, a government\nformed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its\npreservation,--in that government to have a provision, not only\nputting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade,\neven encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States\npower and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and\nwantonly sport with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to be\nconsidered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that God whose\nprotection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in\ndetestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of\nliberty in the world. It was said it ought to be considered that\nnational crimes can only be and frequently are, punished in this world\nby _national punishments_, and that the continuance of the slave\ntrade, and thus giving it a national sanction, and encouragement,\nought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and\nvengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal\neye the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_![10]\n\n[Footnote 10: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been\nscourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and the\nslave trade!]\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 exercise\nof that power the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in\nits nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. That, on the\ncontrary, we ought rather to prohibit expressly, in our Constitution,\nthe further importation of slaves, and to authorize the general\ngovernment, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be\nthought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and\nthe emancipation of the slaves which are already in the States. That\nslavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a\ntendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it\nlessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to\ntyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by this system of\ngovernment, every State is to be protected both from foreign invasion\nand from domestic insurrections; that, from this consideration, it was\nof the utmost importance it should have a power to restrain the\nimportation of slaves, since in proportion as the number of slaves\nwere increased in any State, in the same proportion the State is\nweakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic insurrection; and\nby so much less will it be able to protect itself against either, and\ntherefore will by so much the more, want aid from, and be a burden to,\nthe Union.\n\n\"It was further said, that, as in this system, we were giving the\ngeneral government a power, under the idea of national character, or\nnational interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have\nprohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing\ninsolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we\nshould prohibit the government from interfering with the slave trade,\nthan which nothing could so materially affect both our national honor\nand interest.\n\n\"These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention,\nmost decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes\na part of the system.\"[11]\n\n[Footnote 11: 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 chose to do evil that good might\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 their\nheaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of the\noverruling power of God. \"The Eastern States were very willing to\n_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 bargain\nwas, that the traffic _should cease_ in 1808; but the only thing\nsecured by it was, the _right_ of Congress (not any obligation) to\nprohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not chosen to\nexercise that right, _the traffic might have been prolonged\nindefinitely under the Constitution._ The right to destroy any\nparticular branch of commerce, implies the right to re-establish it.\nTrue, there is no probability that the African slave trade will ever\nagain be legalized by the national government; but no credit is due\nthe framers of the Constitution on this ground; for, while they threw\naround it all the sanction and protection of the national character\nand power for twenty years, _they set no bounds to its continuance by\nany positive constitutional prohibition._\n\nAgain, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution\nof it, prove what was meant by the words of the preamble--\"to form\na more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,\nprovide for the common defence, promote the general welfare,\nand secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our\nposterity\"--namely, that the parties to the Constitution regarded only\ntheir own rights and interests, and never intended that its language\nshould be so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to make it\nunlawful for one portion of the people to enslave another, _without an\nexpress alteration in that instrument, in the manner therein set\nforth._ While, therefore, the Constitution remains as it was\noriginally adopted, they who swear to support it are bound to comply\nwith all its provisions, as a matter of allegiance. For it avails\nnothing to say, that some of those provisions are at war with the law\nof God and the rights of man, and therefore are not obligatory.\nWhatever may be their character, they are _constitutionally_\nobligatory; and whoever feels that he cannot execute them, or swear to\nexecute them, without committing sin, has no other choice left than to\nwithdraw from the government, or to violate his conscience by taking\non his lips an impious promise. The object of the Constitution is not\nto define _what is the law of God_, but WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE\nPEOPLE--which will is not to be frustrated by an ingenious moral\ninterpretation, by those whom they have elected to serve them.\n\nARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides--\"Representatives and direct taxes shall\nbe apportioned 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 not\ntaxed, _three-fifths of all other persons_.\"\n\nHere, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a form\nof words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic\ngovernment, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and augmentation\nof the slaveholding power--a provision scarcely less atrocious than\nthat which related to the African slave trade, and almost as\nafflictive in its operation--a provision still in force, with no\npossibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the slave\nStates choose to maintain their slave system--a provision which, at\nthe present time, enables the South to have twenty-five additional\nrepresentatives in Congress on the score of property, while the North\nis not allowed to have one--a provision which concedes to the\noppressed three-fifths of the political power which is granted to all\nothers, and then puts this power into the hands of their oppressors,\nto be wielded by them for the more perfect security of their tyrannous\nauthority, and the complete subjugation of the non-slaveholding\nStates.\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 of\nthe impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own:\nwhether this be _reasoning_ or _declamation_, (!!) I will not presume\nto say. It is the _unfortunate_ situation of the Southern States to\nhave a great part of their population as well as _property_, in\nblacks. The regulation complained of was one result of _the spirit of\naccommodation_ which governed the Convention; and without this\n_indulgence_, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED. But, sir,\nconsidering some _peculiar advantages_ which we derive from them, it\nis entirely JUST that they should be _gratified_.--The Southern States\npossess certain staples, tobacco, rice, indigo, &c.--which must be\n_capital_ objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations; and\nthe advantage which they necessarily procure in these treaties will be\nfelt throughout all the 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 American\nindependence, 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 trustee\nof the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of his\nfoes.'--'It was _one_ of the curses from that Pandora's box, adjusted\nat the time, as usual, by a _compromise_, the whole advantage of which\ninured to the benefit of the South, and to aggravate the burthens of\nthe North.'--'If there be a parallel to it in human history, it can\nonly be that of the Roman Emperors, who, from the days when Julius\nCaesar substituted a military despotism in the place of a republic,\namong the offices which they always concentrated upon themselves, was\nthat of tribune of the people. A Roman Emperor tribune of the people,\nis an exact parallel to that feature in the Constitution of the United\nStates which makes the master the representative of his slave.'--'The\nConstitution of the United States expressly prescribes that no title\nof nobility shall be granted by the United States. The spirit of this\ninterdict is not a rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless\nempty _titles_, but to titles of _nobility_; to the institution of\nprivileged orders of men. But what order of men under the most\nabsolute of monarchies, or the most aristocratic of republics, was\never invested with such an odious and unjust privilege as that of the\nseparate and exclusive representation of less than half a million\nowners of slaves, in the Hall of this House, in the chair of the\nSenate, and in the Presidential mansion?'--'This investment of power\nin the owners of one species of property concentrated in the highest\nauthorities of the nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the\ntwenty-six States of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men\nin the community, more adverse to the rights of all, and more\npernicious to the interests of the whole, than any order of nobility\never known. To call government thus constituted a Democracy, is to\ninsult the understanding of mankind. To call it an Aristocracy, is to\ndo injustice to that form of government. Aristocracy is the government\nof the _best_. Its standard qualification for accession to power is\n_merit_, ascertained by popular election, recurring at short intervals\nof time. If even that government is prone to degenerate into tyranny,\nwhat must be the character of that form of polity in which the\nstandard qualification for access to power is wealth in the possession\nof slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of riches and of\nslavery. _There is no name in the language of national jurisprudence\nthat can define it_--no model in the records of ancient history, or in\nthe political theories of Aristotle, with which it can be likened. It\nwas introduced into the Constitution of the United States by an\nequivocation--a representation of property under the name of persons.\nLittle did the members of the Convention from the free States imagine\nor foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden under the mask of\nthis concession.'--'The House of Representatives of the U. States\nconsists of 223 members--all, by the _letter_ of the Constitution,\nrepresentatives only of _persons_, as 135 of them really are; but the\nother 88, equally representing the _persons_ of their constituents, by\nwhom they are elected, also represent, under the name of _other\npersons_, upwards of two and a half millions of _slaves_, held as the\n_property_ of less than half a million of the white constituents, and\nvalued at twelve hundred millions of dollars. Each of these 88 members\nrepresents in fact the whole of that mass of associated wealth, and\nthe persons and exclusive interests of its owners; all thus knit\ntogether, like the members of a moneyed corporation, with a capital\nnot of thirty-five or forty or fifty, but of twelve hundred millions\nof dollars, exhibiting the most extraordinary exemplification of the\nanti-republican tendencies of associated wealth that the world ever\nsaw.'--'Here is one class of men, consisting of not more than\none-fortieth part of the whole people, not more than one-thirtieth\npart of the free population, exclusively devoted to their personal\ninterests identified with their own as slaveholders of the same\nassociated wealth, and wielding by their votes, upon every question of\ngovernment or of public policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the\nHouse. In the Senate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding\npower is yet greater. By the influence of slavery, in the States where\nthe institution 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 interest\nas the 88 member elected by them to the House.'--'By this process it\nis that all political power in the States is absorbed and engrossed by\nthe owners of _slaves_, and the overruling policy of the States is\nshaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination. The\nlegislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in their\nhands--the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the black\ncode of slavery--every law of the legislature becomes a link in the\nchain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate;\nevery judicial decision a perversion of the human intellect to the\njustification of _wrong_.'--'Its reciprocal 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 American\nCongress, and thereby to make the PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, AND\nPERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL\nGOVERNMENT.'--'The result is seen in the fact that, at this day, the\nPresident of the United States, the President of the Senate, the\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives, and five out of nine of the\nJudges of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the United States, are not\nonly 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 of\nthe customs; the registers and receivers of the land offices, and the\npost-masters throughout the slaveholding States.--The Biennial\nRegister indicates the birth-place of all the officers employed in the\ngovernment of the Union. If it were required to designate the owners\nof this species 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 ascendancy 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 Union\nto its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile, foreign\nand Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential issue of\nwhich will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the unhallowed\nstandard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the North\nAmerican Union--that banner, first unfurled to the breeze, inscribed\nwith the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.\"\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 wage\nwar against human liberty. It is to recognize and honor as republican\nlegislators _incorrigible men-stealers_, MERCILESS TYRANTS, BLOOD\nTHIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weapons about their\npersons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives, with which they\nthreaten to murder any Northern senator or representative who shall\ndare to stain their _honor_, or interfere with their rights! They\nconstitute a banditti more fierce and cruel than any whose atrocities\nare recorded on the pages of history or romance. To mix with them on\nterms of social or religious fellowship, is to indicate a low state of\nvirtue; but to think of administering a free government by their\nco-operation, is nothing short of insanity.\n\nArticle 4, Section 2, declares,--\"No person held to service or labor\nin one State, _under the laws thereof_, escaping into another, shall,\nin consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from\nsuch service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party\nto whom such service or labor may be due.\"\n\nHere is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no mention of\nslavery 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 from\nhis master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in\nthat place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh\nhim best: thou shalt not oppress him.\" The warning which the prophet\nIsaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind: \"Take counsel,\nexecute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the midst of the\nnoon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that wandereth. Let mine\noutcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert to them from the face\nof the spoiler.\" The prophet Obadiah brings the following charge\nagainst treacherous Edom, which is precisely applicable to this guilty\nnation:--\"For thy violence against thy brother Jacob, shame shall come\nover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever. In the day that thou\nstoodst on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away\ncaptive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast\nlots upon Jerusalem, _even thou wast as one of them_. But thou\nshouldst not have looked on the day of thy brother, in the day that he\nbecame a stranger; neither shouldst thou have rejoiced over the\nchildren of Judah, in the day of their destruction; neither shouldst\nthou have spoken proudly in the day of distress; neither shouldst thou\nhave _stood in the cross-way, to cut off those of his that did\nescape_; neither shouldst thou have _delivered up those of his that\ndid remain_, in the day of distress.\"\n\nHow exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeachment of\nEdom by the same prophet! \"The pride of thy heart hath deceived thee,\nthou whose habitation is high; that saith in thy heart, Who shall\nbring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle,\nand though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee\ndown, saith the Lord.\" The emblem of American pride and power is the\n_eagle_, and on her banner she has mingled _stars_ with its _stripes_.\nHer vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her self-exaltation, and\nher defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the madness and wickedness\nof Edom. What shall be her punishment? Truly, it may be affirmed of\nthe American people, (who live not under the Levitical but Christian\ncode, and whose guilt, therefore, is the more awful, and their\ncondemnation the greater,) in the language of another prophet--\"They\nall lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.\nThat they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh,\nand the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his\nmischievous desire: _so they wrap it up_.\" Likewise of the colored\ninhabitants of this land it may be said,--\"This is a people robbed and\nspoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in\nprison-houses; they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil,\nand 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, and\ncapture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber hands\nupon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves are now\nin Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could not find,\nthroughout its vast extent, a single road on which they could dwell in\nsafety, _in consequence of this provision of the Constitution_? How is\nit possible, then, for the advocates of liberty to support a\ngovernment which gives over to destruction one-sixth part of the whole\npopulation?\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\npresent, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are\nfree, _he becomes emancipated by their laws_; for the laws of the\nStates are _uncharitable_ (!) to one another in this respect; but in\nthis constitution, '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.' THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO\nENABLE OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. _This is a better security\nthan any that now exists_. No power is given to the general government\nto interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the\nStates.\"\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\nauthority is given to owners of slaves to _vindicate their property_,\ncan it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a citizen of this\nState, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in\nMaryland, can it be seriously thought that, after taking him and\nbringing 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 a\nparadox--the American Constitution is a paradox--the American Union is\na paradox--the American Government is a paradox; and if any one of\nthese is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That it is the\nduty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding authority of them\nall, and to secede from them all, we distinctly affirm. After the\nindependence of this country had been achieved, the voice of God\nexhorted the people, saying, \"Execute true judgment, and show mercy\nand compassion, every man to his brother: and oppress not the widow,\nnor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you\nimagine evil against his brother in your heart. But they refused to\nhearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that\nthey should not hear; yea, they made their hearts as an adamant\nstone.\" \"Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord. Shall not\nmy 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 Court\nof 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 caste\nor complexion, whom he may choose to claim as runaway slaves; and if,\nwhen thus surprised and attacked, or on their arrival South, they\ncannot prove by legal witnesses, that they are freemen, their doom is\nsealed! Hence the free colored population of the North are specially\nliable to become the victims of this terrible power, and all the other\ninhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers, because there are\nmultitudes of white as well as black slaves on Southern plantations,\nand slavery is no longer fastidious with regard to the color of its\nprey.\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 I., 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 would\nunquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting these\nclauses:--\n\n\"On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be,\nthe militia of the other States are to be called to suppress domestic\ninsurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth their own\nmilitia? No; but it gives them a _supplementary_ security to suppress\ninsurrections 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?\nIf it does, it must be in one of the three clauses which have been\nmentioned by the worthy member. The first clause gives the general\ngovernment power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it\naway from the States? No! but it _gives an additional security_; for,\nbeside the power in the State governments to use their own militia, it\nwill be _the duty of the general government_ to aid them WITH THE\nSTRENGTH OF THE UNION, when called for.\"\n\nThis solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the climax\nof national barbarity, and stains with human blood the garments of all\nthe people. In consequence of it, that system has multiplied its\nvictims from seven hundred thousand to nearly three millions--a vast\namount of territory has been purchased, in order to give it extension\nand perpetuity--several new slave States have been admitted into the\nUnion--the slave trade has been made one of the great branches of\nAmerican commerce--the slave population, though over-worked, starved,\nlacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to every form of deprivation\nand every species of torture, have been overawed and crushed,--or,\nwhenever they have attempted to gain their liberty by revolt, they\nhave been shot down and quelled by the strong arm of the national\ngovernment; as, for example, in the case of Nat Turner's insurrection\nin Virginia, when the naval and military forces of the government were\ncalled into active service. Cuban bloodhounds have been purchased with\nthe money of the people, and imported and used to hunt slave fugitives\namong the everglades of Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged\nfor the extermination or expulsion of the Florida Indians, because\nthey gave succor to these poor hunted fugitives--a warfare which has\ncost the nation several thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars.\nBut the catalogue of enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the\npresent 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 God\nand man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be\nimmediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent, we\ncall upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to obey God\nrather than man, to declare themselves peaceful revolutionists, and to\nunite with us under the stainless banner of Liberty, having for its\nmotto--\"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL--NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!\"\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, that\ninstrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every moral\ninstinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue that we\nmay swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because it may be\nnecessary to do so only for the time being, and because there is some\nremote probability that the instrument which requires that we should\nbe robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some future day be\namended in these particulars? Let us not palter with our consciences\nin this manner--let us not deny that the compact was conceived in sin\nand brought forth in iniquity--let us not be so dishonest, even to\npromote a good object, as to interpret the Constitution in a manner\nutterly at variance with the intentions and arrangements of the\ncontracting parties; but, confessing the guilt of the nation,\nacknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond, washing our\nhands in the waters of repentance from all further participation in\nthis criminal alliance, and resolving that we will sustain none other\nthan a free and righteous government, let us glory in the name of\nrevolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion, and consecrate our\ntalents and means to the overthrow of all that is tyrannical in the\nland,--to the establishment of all that is free, just, true and\nholy,--to the triumph of universal love and peace. If, in utter\ndisregard of the historical facts which have been cited, it is still\nasserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to make it a free\ninstrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free people, and was\nnever intended to give any strength or countenance to the slave\nsystem--the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty replies;--\"What\nthough the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere piece of\nparchment? In itself, though it be written all over with words of\ntruth and freedom--Though its provisions be as impartial and just as\nwords can express, or the imagination paint--though it be as pure as\nthe Gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven--it is powerless; it\nhas no executive vitality: it is a lifeless corpse, even though\nbeautiful 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 equity cannot enter--if the\nprinces of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves, the\npeople 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 forms\nof freedom are still left to us! \"Would such tameness and submission\nhave freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it have\nresisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering wedges\nof tyranny with which the British government sought to rive the\nliberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have rusted on\nits axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to give it\nmotion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties were\ninfringed--\"_Why, what is done cannot be undone_. That is the first\nthought.\" No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather, it\nnever 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  \"Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still Old Plymouth\n  Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill? The debt we owe our\n  fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn, Whose heritage ourselves must\n  make a thing of pride or scorn?\n\n  Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb; And\n  voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come: They call on\n  us to stand our ground--they charge us still to be Not only free from\n  chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!\"\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 theory\nof the government, if the practice of the government be unjust and\ntyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism incomparably more\ndreadful than that which induced the colonists to take up arms against\nthe mother country; not on account of a three-penny tax on tea, but\nbecause fetters of living iron are fastened on the limbs of millions\nof our countrymen, and our most sacred rights are trampled in the\ndust. As citizens of the State, we appeal to the State in vain for\nprotection and redress. As citizens of the United States, we are\ntreated as outlaws in one half of the country, and the national\ngovernment consents to our destruction. We are denied the right of\nlocomotion, freedom of speech, the right of petition, the liberty of\nthe press, the right peaceably to assemble together to protest against\noppression and plead for liberty--at least in thirteen States of the\nUnion. If we venture, as avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to\ntravel South of Mason and Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our\nlives. If we would escape torture and death, on visiting any of the\nslave States, we must stifle our conscientious convictions, bear no\ntestimony against cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling\nemotions of humanity, divest ourselves of all letters and papers\nof an anti-slavery character, and do homage to the slaveholding\npower--or run the risk of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling\nand undeniable facts. Three millions of the American people are\ncrushed under the American Union! They are held as slaves--trafficked\nas merchandise--registered as goods and chattels! The government gives\nthem no protection--the government is their enemy--the government\nkeeps them in chains! There they lie bleeding--we are prostrate by\ntheir side--in their sorrows and sufferings we participate--their\nstripes are inflicted on our bodies, their shackles are fastened on\nour limbs, their cause is ours! The Union which grinds them to the\ndust rests upon us, and with them we will struggle to overthrow it!\nThe Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless bondage, is one that\nwe 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 do\nthem an injury, not to cease warning, exhorting, reproving them for\ntheir crimes, not to leave the perishing bondman to his fate--O no!\nBut to clear our skirts of innocent blood--to give the oppressor no\ncountenance--to signify our abhorrence of injustice and cruelty--to\ntestify against an ungodly compact--to cease striking hands with\nthieves and consenting with adulterers--to make no compromise with\ntyranny--to walk worthily of our high profession--to increase our\nmoral power over the nation--to obey God and vindicate the Gospel of\nhis Son--to hasten the downfall of slavery in America, and throughout\nthe world!\n\nWe are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully counted the\ncost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences. It\nwill 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, scorned as visionaries, branded\nas disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps punished\nas traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether safety or peril,\nwhether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours, believing\nthat our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that our position\nis sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is rational and\nsteadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious promises on which\nto rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not falter nor be\ndismayed, \"though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be\ncarried into the midst of the sea,\"--though our ranks be thinned to\nthe number of \"three hundred men.\" Freemen! are you ready for the\nconflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that binds you to a\nslaveholding government, and declare your independence? Up, then, with\nthe banner of revolution! Not to shed blood--not to injure the person\nor estate of any oppressor--not by force and arms to resist any\nlaw--not to countenance a servile insurrection--not to wield any\ncarnal weapons! No--ours must be a bloodless strife, excepting _our_\nblood be shed--for we aim, as did Christ our leader, not to destroy\nmen's lives, but to save them--to overcome evil with good--to conquer\nthrough suffering for righteousness' sake--to set the captive free by\nthe 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 under\nit. Send no senators or representatives to the National or State\nlegislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform yourself, you\ncannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate a declaration\nof DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout the country. Hold mass\nmeetings--assemble in conventions--nail your banners to the 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 confessors\ndo? What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What can women\nand children do? What has Father Matthew done for teetotalism? What\nhas Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? \"Stand, having your loins\ngirt 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 he a waste of time to\nargue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned from\ntheir iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of order and\nobedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty. What is\nnow fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and shine like a\ngem 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, we\nhave the God of justice with us. We know that we have our enslaved\ncountrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts will be\nwith us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will be\nagainst us.\n\nIn behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety,\n\nWM. LLOYD GARRISON, _President_.\n\nWENDELL PHILLIPS,     }_Secretaries_.\nMARIA WESTON CHAPMAN, }\n\nBoston, May 20, 1844.\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 found\nit a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to be so,\ncould I consent longer to hold it. But paramount considerations\nforbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission, respectfully\nasking 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 with\nthe 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, uphold\nand perpetuate _slavery_. It pledges the country to guard and protect\nthe slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose to retain\nit. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States which enact it.\nStill more, \"it has done that, which, until its adoption, was never\nbefore done for African slavery. It took it out of its former category\nof municipal law and local life; adopted it as a national institution,\nspread around it the broad and sufficient shield of national law, and\nthus gave to slavery a national existence.\" Consequently, the oath to\nsupport the Constitution of the United States is a solemn promise to\ndo that which is morally wrong; that which is a violation of the\nnatural rights of man, and a sin in the sight of God.\n\nI am not in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I do\nnot say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it. I\nonly say, that _I_ would not now deliberately take it; and that,\nhaving inconsiderately taken it; I can no longer suffer it to lie upon\nmy soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to receive back the\ncommission, 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 make\na more specific statement of those _provisions of the Constitution_\nwhich support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of slavery.\n\nThe very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once under\nits legislative protection, as a basis of representation in the\npopular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves under\nthe description \"of all other _persons_\"--as of only three-fifths of\nthe value of free persons; thus to appearance undervaluing them in\ncomparison with freemen. But its dark and involved phraseology seems\nintended to blind us to the consideration, that those underrated\nslaves are merely a _basis_, not the _source_ of representation; that\nby the laws of all the States where they live, they are regarded not\nas _persons_, but as _things_; that they are not the _constituency_ of\nthe representative, but his property; and that the necessary effect of\nthis provision of the Constitution is, to take legislative power out\nof the hands of _men_, as such, and give it to the mere possessors of\ngoods and chattels. Fixing upon thirty thousand persons, as the\nsmallest number that shall send one member into the House of\nRepresentatives, it protects slavery by distributing legislative power\nin a free and in a slave State thus: To a congressional district in\nSouth Carolina, containing fifty thousand slaves, claimed as the\nproperty of five hundred whites, who hold, on an average, one hundred\napiece, it gives one Representative in Congress; to a district in\nMassachusetts containing a population of thirty thousand five hundred,\none Representative is assigned. But inasmuch as a slave is never\npermitted to vote, the fifty thousand persons in a district in\nCarolina form no part of \"the constituency;\" _that_ is found only in\nthe five hundred free persons. Five hundred freemen of Carolina could\nsend one Representative to Congress, while it would take thirty\nthousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts, to do the same thing:\nthat is, one slaveholder in Carolina is clothed by the Constitution\nwith the same political power and influence in the Representatives\nHall at Washington, as sixty Massachusetts men like you and me, who\n\"eat their bread in the sweat of 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 House\nof Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an\napproximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves in\nthe United States are held as property by about two hundred and fifty\nthousand persons--giving an average of ten slaves to each slaveholder,\nthose twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most by only ten\nthousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths of that\nnumber, were the representatives not only of the two hundred and fifty\nthousand persons who chose them, but of property which, five years\nago, when slaves were lower in market, than at present, were\nestimated, by the man who is now the most prominent candidate for the\nPresidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a sum, which, by\nthe natural increase of five years, and the enhanced value resulting\nfrom a more prosperous state of the planting interest, cannot now be\nless than fifteen hundred millions of dollars. All this vast amount of\nproperty, as it is \"peculiar,\" is also identical in its character. In\nCongress, as we have seen, it is animated by one spirit, moves in one\nmass, and is wielded with one aim; and when we consider that tyranny\nis always timid, and despotism distrustful, we see that this vast\nmoney power would be false to itself, did it not direct all its eyes\nand hands, and put forth all its ingenuity and energy, to one\nend--self-protection and self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done.\nIn all the vibrations of the political scale, whether in relation to a\nBank or Sub-Treasury, Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has\nmoved, and will continue 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 each\na slaveholder for the chair of State. The candidate of one party\ndeclares, \"I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose, any\nscheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;\" and\nadds, \"It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that either\nof the two great parties of this country has any design or aim at\nabolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true.\"[12]\n\n[Footnote 12: 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 with\neach other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a condition\nprecedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the executive\nchair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the existence of\nour constitutional government, has been occupied by a slaveholder.\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 John\nQuincy Adams, when he says--\"The legislative, executive, and judicial\nauthorities, are all in their hands--for the preservation,\npropagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every law\nof the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave; every\nexecutive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial decision a\nperversion of the human intellect to the justification of wrong.\"\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 whole\npower, and controlling the destiny of the nation.\n\nIf we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair of\nthe 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, issues\nfrom the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, and at\nher bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or march from\nthe Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her interests in\nTexas.\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 sons\nof Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which guarantees\nprotection against \"_domestic violence_,\" which pledges to the South\nthe military force of the country, to protect the masters against\ntheir insurgent slaves, and binds us, and our children, to shoot down\nour fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in emulation of our revolutionary\nfathers, to vindicate their inalienable \"right to life, _liberty_, and\nthe pursuit of happiness,\"--this clause of the Constitution, I say\ndistinctly, I never will support.\n\nThat part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of\nfugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join in\nno slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for the\npanting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it\nagainst him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! Under this\nclause 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 in\na free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress does\nnot allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of a\nJudge 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 where\nI am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws of the\nUnited 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 support\nit. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law of God,\nor solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break it.\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 the\n_thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance of\nSlavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though they\nsacrificed justice in doing so.\n\nThere is abundant evidence that this clause touching \"persons held to\nservice or labor,\" not only operates practically, under the Judicial\nconstruction, for the protection of the slave interest; but that it\nwas _intended_ so to operate by the farmers of the Constitution. The\nhighest Judicial authorities--Chief Justice SHAW, of the Supreme Court\nof Massachusetts, in the LATIMER case, and Mr. Justice STORY, in the\nSupreme Court of the United States, in the case of _Prigg_ vs. _The\nState of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know not on what evidence, that\nwithout this \"compromise,\" this security for Southern slaveholders,\n\"the Union could not have been formed.\" And there is still higher\nevidence, not only that the framers of the Constitution meant by this\nclause to protect slavery, but that they did this, knowing that\nslavery was wrong. Mr. MADISON[13] informs us that the clause in\nquestion, as it came of the hands of Dr. JOHNSON, the chairman of the\n\"committee on style,\" read thus: \"No person legally held to service,\nor labor, in one State, escaping into another, shall,\" &c. and that\nthe word \"legally\" was struck out, and the words \"under the laws\nthereof\" inserted after the word \"State,\" in compliance with the wish\nof some, who thought the term _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea\nthat slavery was legal \"_in a moral view_.\" A conclusive proof that,\nalthough future generations might apply that clause to other kinds of\n\"service or labor,\" when slavery should have died out, or been killed\noff by the young spirit of liberty, which was _then_ awake and at work\nin the land; still, slavery was what they were wrapping up in\n\"equivocal\" words; and wrapping it up for its protection and safe\nkeeping: a conclusive proof that the framers of the Constitution were\nmore careful to protect themselves in the judgment of coming\ngenerations, from the charge of ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive\nproof that they knew that slavery was _not_ \"legal in a moral view,\"\nthat it was a violation of the moral law of God; and yet knowing and\nconfessing its immorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its\nsupport and defence.\n\n[Footnote 13: Madison Papers, p. 1589.]\n\n\nThis language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a part\nof their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the patriots of\nthe Revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are bound to _do_\nall the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we _should_ do. But\nthe claims of truth and right are paramount to all 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 their\nprotection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They made a\n\"compromise\" which they had no right to make--a compromise of moral\nprinciple for the sake of what they probably regarded as \"political\nexpediency.\" I am sure they did not know--no man could know, or can\nnow measure, the extent, or the consequences of the wrong that they\nwere doing. In the strong language of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,[14] in\nrelation to the article fixing the basis of representation, \"Little\ndid the members of the Convention, from the free States, imagine or\nforesee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden under the mask of this\nconcession.\"\n\n[Footnote 14: 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 prosperity\nof its multiplying millions; yet the moral injury that has been done,\nby the countenance shown to slavery; by holding over that tremendous\nsin the shield of the Constitution, and thus breaking down in the eyes\nof the nation the barrier between right and wrong; by so tenderly\ncherishing slavery as, in less than the life of a man, to multiply her\nchildren from half a million to nearly three millions; by enacting\noaths from those who occupy prominent stations in society, that they\nwill violate at once the rights of man and the law of God; by\nsubstituting itself as a rule of right, in place of the moral laws of\nthe universe;--thus in effect, dethroning the Almighty in the hearts\nof this people and setting up another sovereign in his stead--more\nthan outweighs it all. A melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all\ntime-serving and temporizing statesmen! A striking illustration of the\n_impolicy_ of sacrificing _right_ to any considerations of expediency!\nYet, what better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the\nauthors of the Constitution have reasonably expected, from the\nsacrifice of right, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it\nreasonable in them to expect that, after they had introduced a vicious\nelement into the very Constitution of the body politic which they were\ncalling into life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it\nreasonable in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting\nthe public morals for a whole generation, their children would have\ntoo much virtue to _use_ for the defence of slavery, a power which\nthey themselves 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 anything 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 may\ncrawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask in the\nfostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we now see,\nboth her minions and her victims multiply apace, till the politics,\nthe morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation, are\nbrought completely under her control.\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, is\nso utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, so\nimbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for evil,\nthat I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any longer.\n\nHenceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession of\nallegiance 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\nFROM\n\nMR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH\n\nAT NIBLO'S GARDENS.\n\n\"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it among\nus; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the full extent\nof these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the\nConstitution. All the stipulations, contained in the Constitution, _in\nfavor of the slaveholding States_ which are already in the Union,\nought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends on me, shall be\nfulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to the exactness of\ntheir letter.\" !!!\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nEXTRACTS FROM\n\nJOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS\n\nAT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOVEMBER 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 means\nof discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection and\nencouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the country.\nAll this, however, as is now well ascertained, was insufficient to\npropitiate the rulers of the Southern States to the adoption of the\nConstitution. What they specially wanted was _protection_.--Protection\nfrom the powerful and savage tribes of Indians within their borders,\nand who were harassing them with the most terrible of wars--and\nprotection from their own negroes--protection from their\ninsurrections--protection from their escape--protection even to the\ntrade by which they were brought into the country--protection, shall I\nnot blush to say, protection to the very bondage by which they were\nheld. Yes! it cannot be denied--the slaveholding lords of the South\nprescribed, as a condition of their assent to the Constitution, three\nspecial provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over\ntheir slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of\npreserving the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to\nsurrender fugitive slaves--an engagement positively prohibited by the\nlaws of God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to\nthe principles of popular representation, of a representation for\nslaves--for articles of merchandise, 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 most\ncautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument. A\nstranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the\nConstitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or a\nslave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a word\nin 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, they\nwould not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the freemen of\nthe North, reduced to the alternative of departing from the vital\nprinciple of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union itself, averted\ntheir faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the bond.\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 more\nto be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was still\nlawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to a\nprohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, and\nthey joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death the\nslave-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 already\nformed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing tone\nwhich the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of the\nlord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the internal\nslave-trade having scarcely existed, while that with Africa had been\nallowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the slave\nrepresentation, 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 in\nits nature, held in direct violation of the natural and inalienable\nrights of man, and of the vital principles of Christianity; it was all\naccumulated in one geographical section of the country, and was all\nheld by wealthy men, comparatively small in numbers, not amounting to\na tenth part of the free white population of the States in which it\nwas 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 favored 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, on\nthe contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community, always\nthreatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered in the\nblood of both parties, master and slave, and always depressing the\ncondition of the poor free laborer, by competition with the labor of\nthe slave. The property in horses was the gift of God to man, at the\ncreation of the world; the property in slaves is property acquired and\nheld by crimes, differing in no moral aspect from the pillage of a\nfreebooter, and to which no lapse of time can give a prescriptive\nright. You are told that this is no concern of yours, and that the\nquestion of freedom and slavery is exclusively reserved to the\nconsideration of the separate States. But if it be so, as to the mere\nquestion of right between master and slave, it is of tremendous\nconcern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners should\npossess, besides their own share in the representative hall of the\nnation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of the whole\nnumber of the representatives of the people. This is now your\ncondition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of principle,\nwhich begins by declaring the representation in the popular branch of\nthe legislature a representation of persons, and then provides that\none class of persons shall have neither part nor lot in the choice of\ntheir representatives; but their elective franchise shall be\ntransferred to their masters, and the oppressors shall represent the\noppressed. The same perversion of the representative principle\npollutes the composition of the colleges of electors of President and\nVice President of the United States, and every department of the\ngovernment of the Union is thus tainted at its source by the gangrene\nof 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 your\nlegislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation are much\ngreater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. You have\nat least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. Your\ninfluence on the legislation and the administration of the government\nought to be in the proportion of three to two--But how stands the\nfact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence exercised by the\nslaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, here is an\nintrusive influence in every department, by a representation nominally\nof persons, but really of property, ostensibly of slaves, but\neffectively of their masters, overbalancing your superiority of\nnumbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary power to the two-fifths\nfairly secured to them by the compact, CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE\nWHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to\nthe sordid private interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of\nslaves.\n\nFrom the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United\nStates, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more and\nmore the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as it\nhas been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been\nsinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of slaves\nthemselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown in the\nUnion at the establishment of the Constitution, has added largely to\nthe pecuniary value of the slave. Aud the suppression of the African\nslave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing the benefit of a\nmonopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the ancient dominion, has\nturned her heroic tyrannicides into a community of slave-breeders for\nsale, and converted the land of GEORGE WASHINGTON, PATRICK HENRY,\nRICHARD HENRY LEE, and THOMAS JEFFERSON, into a great barracoon--a\ncattle-show of human beings, an emporium, of which the staple articles\nof merchandise are the flesh and blood, the bones and sinews of\nimmortal man.\n\nOf the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of men\nat 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 or\na murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no guaranty\nfor the property of the slaveholder--no double representation of him\nin the Federal 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 could\npurify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the North gave\nway, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the Constitution\nof freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert the first\nprinciple of Democracy, that the will of the majority of numbers shall\nrule the land. By means of the double representation, the minority\ncommand the whole, and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND\nPRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY. To acquire this superiority of a\nlarge majority of freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly\nall the seats of power and place, is constantly for a long series of\nyears pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the\nChief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by the\nowners of slaves. The Executive department, the Army and Navy, the\nSupreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all present the\nsame spectacle;--an immense majority of power in the hands of a very\nsmall minority of the people--millions made for a fraction of a few\nthousands.\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 slave-holding power.\n\nOf the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and conclusive\nevidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of the right of\npetition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee against slavery,\nby the first article amendatory of the Constitution.\n\n\n\n\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, Omnibus","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":980790}