{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32422/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32422","id":"gutenberg_32422","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32422","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Slavery -- United States","Slavery and the church -- United States"],"text":"Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was\nproduced from scanned images of public domain material\nfrom the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLiberty or Slavery; the Great National Question.\n\nTHREE PRIZE ESSAYS\n\nON\n\nAMERICAN SLAVERY.\n\n\"THE TRUTH IN LOVE.\"\n\nBOSTON:\n\nCONGREGATIONAL BOARD OF PUBLICATION.\n\n1857.\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by\n\nSEWALL HARDING,\n\nIn the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of\nMassachusetts.\n\nCAMBRIDGE:\n\nALLEN AND FARNHAM, STEREOTYPERS AND PRINTERS.\n\n\n\n\nPREMIUM OFFERED.\n\n\nA benevolent individual, who has numerous friends and acquaintances both\nNorth and South, and who has had peculiar opportunities for learning the\nstate and condition of all sections of the nation, perceiving the danger\nof our national Institutions, and deeply impressed with a sense of the\nimportance, in this time of peril, of harmonizing Christian men through\nthe country, by kind yet faithful exhibitions of truth on the subject\nnow agitating the whole community, offered a premium of $100 for the\nbest Essay on the subject of Slavery, fitted to influence the great body\nof Christians through the land.\n\nThe call was soon responded to by nearly fifty writers, whose\nmanuscripts were examined by the distinguished committee appointed by\nthe Donor, whose award has been made, as their certificate, here\nannexed, will show.\n\n\n\n\nPREMIUM AWARDED.\n\n\nThe undersigned, appointed a Committee to award a premium of one hundred\ndollars, offered by a benevolent individual, for the best Essay on the\nsubject of Slavery, \"adapted to receive the approbation of Evangelical\nChristians generally,\" have had under examination more than forty\ncompeting manuscripts, a large number of them written with much ability.\nThey have decided to award the prize to the author of the Essay\nentitled, \"_The Error and the Duty in regard to Slavery_,\" whom they\nfind, on opening the accompanying envelope, to be the Rev. R. B.\nTHURSTON, of Chicopee Falls, Mass.\n\nThey would also commend to the attention of the public, two of the\nremaining tracts, selected by the individual who offered the prize, and\nfor which he and others interested have given a prize of one hundred\ndollars each. One of these is entitled, \"_Friendly Letters to a\nChristian Slave-holder_,\" by Rev. A. C. BALDWIN, of Durham, Conn.; the\nother, \"_Is American Slavery an Institution which Christianity sanctions\nand will perpetuate?_\" by Rev. TIMOTHY WILLISTON, of Strongsville, Ohio.\n\n    ASA D. SMITH,\n    MARK HOPKINS,\n    THEODORE FRELINGHUYSEN.\n\n_May, 1857._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                        PAGE\n\nI. THE ERROR AND THE DUTY IN REGARD TO SLAVERY,            1\n\nII. FRIENDLY LETTERS TO A CHRISTIAN SLAVE-HOLDER,         39\n\nIII. IS AMERICAN SLAVERY AN INSTITUTION WHICH CHRISTIANITY\nSANCTIONS AND WILL PERPETUATE,                            99\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n\n\nTHE ERROR AND THE DUTY\n\nIN\n\nREGARD TO SLAVERY.\n\nBY\n\nREV. R. B. THURSTON.\n\n\nThe great and agitating question of our country is that concerning\nslavery. Beneath the whole subject there lies of course some simple\ntruth, for all fundamental truth is simple, which will be readily\naccepted by patriotic and Christian minds, when it is clearly perceived\nand discreetly applied. It is the design of these pages to exhibit this\ntruth, and to show that it is a foundation for a union of sentiment and\naction on the part of good men, by which, under the divine blessing, our\nthreatening controversies, North and South, may be happily terminated.\n\nTo avoid misapprehension, let it be noticed that we shall examine the\ncentral claim of slavery, first, as a legal institution; afterwards,\nthe moral relations of individuals connected with it will be\nconsidered. In that examination the term _property, as possessed in\nmen_, will be used in the specific sense which is given to it by the\nslave laws and the practical operation of the system. No other sense is\nrelevant to the discussion. The property of the father in the services\nof the son, of the master in the labor of the apprentice, of the State\nin the forced toil of the convict, is not in question. None of these\nrelations creates slavery as such; and they should not be allowed, as\nhas sometimes been done, to obscure the argument.\n\nThe limits of a brief tract on a great subject compel us to pass\nunnoticed many questions which will occur to a thoughtful mind. It is\nbelieved that they all find their solution in our fundamental positions;\nand that all passages of the Bible relating to the general subject, when\nfaithfully interpreted in their real harmony, sustain these positions.\nIt is admitted that the following argument is unsound if it does not\nprovide for every logical and practical exigency.\n\nThe primary truth which is now to be established may be thus stated:\n_All men are invested by the Creator with a common right to hold\nproperty in inferior things; but they have no such right to hold\nproperty in men._\n\nChristians agree that God as the Creator is the original proprietor of\nall things, and that he has absolute right to dispose of all things\naccording to his pleasure. This right he never relinquishes, but asserts\nin his word and exercises in his providence. The Bible speaks thus: \"The\nearth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, the world and they that\ndwell therein, for he hath founded it. We are his people and the sheep\nof his pasture\"--ourselves, therefore, subject to his possession and\ndisposal as the feeble flock to us. Even irreligious men often testify\nto this truth, confessing the hand of providence in natural events that\ndespoil them of their wealth.\n\nNow, under his own supreme control, God has given to all men equally a\ndependent and limited right of property. _Given_ is the word repeatedly\nchosen by inspiration in this connection. \"The heavens are the Lord's,\nbut the earth hath he _given_ to the children of men.\" In Eden he\nblessed the first human pair, and said to them, in behalf of the race,\n\"Replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of\nthe sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that\nmoveth upon the earth. Behold, I have _given_ you every herb bearing\nseed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the\nwhich is the fruit of a tree yielding seed.\" This, then, is the\noriginal and permanent ground of man's title to property; and the\nimportant fact to be observed is the _specific divine grant_. The right\nof all men equally to own property is the positive institution of the\nCreator. We all alike hold our possessions by his authentic warrant, his\ndeed of conveyance.\n\nLet us be understood here. We are not educing from the Bible a doctrine\nwhich would level society, by giving to all men equal shares of\nproperty; but a doctrine which extends equal divine protection over the\nright of every man to hold that amount of property which he earns by his\nown faculties, in consistency with all divine statutes.\n\nThis right is indeed argued from nature; and justly; for God's\nrevelations in nature and in his word coincide. It is, however, a right\nof so much consequence to the world, that, where nature leaves it, he\nincorporates it, and gives it the force of a law; so that in the sequel\nwe can with propriety speak of it as a law, as well as an institution.\nTo the believer in the Bible, this law is the end of argument.\n\nIt will have weight with some minds to state that this position is\nsupported by the highest legal authority. In his Commentaries on the\nLaws of England, Blackstone quotes the primeval grant of God, and then\nremarks, \"This is the only true and solid foundation of man's dominion\nover external things, whatever airy metaphysical notions may have been\nstarted by fanciful writers upon this subject. The earth, therefore, and\nall things therein, are the general property of all mankind, exclusive\nof other beings, from the immediate gift of the Creator.\"[A]\n\nIt will enhance the force of this argument to remember that this\nuniversal right of property is one of what may be called a sacred\ntrinity of paradisaical institutions. These institutions are the\nSabbath, appointed in regard for our relations to God as moral beings;\nmarriage, ordained for our welfare as members of a successive race; and\nthe right of property, conferred to meet our necessities as dwellers on\nthis material globe. These three are the world's inheritance from lost\nEden. They were received by the first father in behalf of all his\nposterity. They were designed for all men as men. It is demonstrable\nthat they are indispensable, that the world may become Paradise\nRegained. \"Property, marriage, and religion have been called the pillars\nof society;\" and the first is of equal importance with the other two;\nfor all progress in domestic felicity and in religious culture depends\non property, and also on the equitable distribution or possession of\nproperty, as one of its essential conditions. Property lies in the\nfoundation of every happy home, however humble; and property gilds the\npinnacle of every consecrated temple. The wise and impartial Disposer,\ntherefore, makes the endowments of his creatures equal with their\nresponsibilities: to all those on whom he lays the obligations of\nreligion and of the family state, he gives the right of holding the\nproperty on which the dwelling and the sanctuary must be founded. It is\na sacred right, a divine investiture, bearing the date of the creation\nand the seal of the Creator.\n\nThe blessing of this institution, like that of the Sabbath and of the\nfamily, has indeed been shattered by the fall of man; but when God said\nto Noah and his sons, concerning the inferior creatures, \"Into your hand\nare they delivered; even as the green herb have I given you all things,\"\nit was re\u00ebstablished and consecrated anew. The Psalmist repeated the\nassurance to the world when he wrote, \"Thou madest him to have dominion\nover the works of thy hand; thou hast put all things under his feet.\"\n\nWe now advance to the second part of our proposition. Men have no such\nright to hold property in men. Since the right is from God, it follows\nimmediately that they can hold in ownership, by a divine title, only\nwhat he has given. But he has not given to men, as men, a right of\nownership in men. No one will contend for a moment that the universal\ngrant above considered confers upon them mutual dominion, or rightful\nproperty in their species. The idea is not in the terms; it is nowhere\nin the Bible; it is not in nature; it is repugnant to common sense; it\nwould resolve the race into the absurd and terrific relation of\nantagonists, struggling, each one for the mastery of his own estate in\nanother,--I, for the possession of my right in you; and you, for yours\nin me. Nay, the very act of entitling all men to hold property proves\nthe exemption of all, by the divine will, from the condition of\nproperty. The idea that a man can be an article of property and an owner\nof property by the same supreme warrant is contradictory and absurd.\n\nWe now have sure ground for objecting to the system of American slavery,\nas such. It is directly opposed to the original, authoritative\ninstitution of Jehovah. He gives men the right to hold property. Slavery\nstrips them of the divine investiture. He gives men dominion over\ninferior creatures. Slavery makes them share the subjection of the\nbrute. That slavery does this, the laws of the States in which it exists\nabundantly declare. Slaves are \"chattels,\" \"estate personal.\"\nSlave-holders assembled in convention solemnly affirm in view of\nnorthern agitation of the subject, that \"masters have the same right to\ntheir slaves which they have to any other property.\"\n\nThis asserted and exercised right is the vital principle and substance\nof the institution. It is the central delusion and transgression; and\nthe evils of the system to white and black are its legitimate\nconsequences. The legal and the leading idea concerning slaves is that\nthey are property: of course, the idea that they are men, invested with\nthe rights of men, practically sinks; and, from the premise that they\nare property, the conclusion is logical that they may be treated as\nproperty. Why should _property_, contrary to the interests of the\nproprietor, be exempt from sale, receive instruction, give testimony in\ncourt, hold estate, preserve family ties, be loved as the owner loves\nhimself, in fine, enjoy all or any of the \"inalienable rights\" of _man_?\nIt is because they are held as property, that slaves are sold; because\nthey are property, families are torn asunder; because they are\nproperty, instruction is denied them; because they are property, the\nlaw, and the public sentiment that makes the law, crush them as men.\n\nWe do not here call in question the mitigations with which Christian\nmasters temper into mildness the hard working of an evil system. Those\nmitigations do not, however, logically or morally defend slavery. Nay,\nthey condemn it; for they are practical tributes to the fact that the\nlaws of humanity, not of property, are binding in respect to the slaves.\nHence they really show the inherent inconsistency of the idea, and the\nunrighteousness of the system which regards men as property.\n\nNotwithstanding those mitigations, the system itself, like every wrong\nsystem, produces characteristic evils, which can be prevented only by\nremoving their cause, the false doctrine that men can be rightfully held\nin ownership. Fallen as man is, no prophet was needed to foretell at the\nfirst the dreadful facts that have been recorded in the bitter history\nof man's claim of property in man. Such a history must always be a\nscroll written within and without with lamentations and mourning and\nwoe. Man is not a safe depositary of such power. A human institution\nwhich subverts a divine institution, and which carries with it the\nassumption of a divine prerogative in constituting a new species of\nproperty, naturally saps the foundations of every other divine\ninstitution and law which stands in its way. Hence, for example, the\nfall of the domestic institution before that of slavery.\n\nThe inherent wrongfulness of American slavery as a legal and social\ninstitution is therefore clearly demonstrated. It formally abolishes by\nlaw and usage a divine institution. Hence, in its practical operation,\nit sets aside other divine institutions and laws. Consequently it stands\nin the same relations to the divine government with the abolition of the\nSabbath by infidel France, and with the perversion of the family\ninstitution by the Mormon territory of Utah.\n\nHere the fundamental argument from the Bible rests. But slavery\njustifies itself by the Bible. It becomes essential, therefore, to\nexamine the validness of this justification.\n\nThere are but two possible ways of avoiding the conclusion that has been\nreached. To vindicate slavery it must be proved, first, that God has\nabolished the original institution, conferring on men universally the\nright to hold property; or, secondly, it must be proved, that, while he\nhas by special enactments taken away from a portion of mankind the right\nto hold property, he has given to other men the right to hold the\nformer as property. Further, to justify American slavery, it must be\nshown that these special enactments include the African race and the\nAmerican States.\n\nIn regard to the first point we simply remark, it is morally impossible\nthat God should permanently and generally abolish the original\ninstitution concerning property; because, as in the case of its coevals,\nthe Sabbath and marriage, the reason for it is permanent and\nunchangeable, and \"lex stat dum ratio manet,\" the law stands while the\nreason remains. Moreover, there is not a word of such repeal in the\nBible. That institution, therefore, is still a charter of rights for the\nchildren of men. Till it is assailed, more need not be said.\n\nAs to the second point, we believe that careful investigation will prove\nconclusively, that no special enactments are now in force which arrest\nor modify the institutions of Eden, in regard to any state or any\npersons. It will, then, remain demonstrated, that the legal system of\nslavery exists utterly without warrant of the Holy Scriptures, and in\ndefiance of the authority of the Creator. The word of God is throughout\nconsistent.\n\nIt is here freely admitted, that God can arrest the operation of general\nlaws by special statutes. He can take away from men the right to hold\nproperty which he has given, and, if he please, constitute them the\nproperty of other men. It is, in this respect, as it is with life. God\ncan take what he gives. If, then, he has given authority to individuals\nor to nations to hold others as property, they may do so. Nay, more; if\ntheir commission is imperative, they must do so. But such an act of God\ncreates an exception to his own fundamental law, and, like all\n_exceptions_, conveys its own restrictions, and _proves the rule_. It\nimposes no yoke, save upon those appointed to subjugation. It confers no\nauthority, save upon those specifically invested with it. They are bound\nto keep absolutely within the prescribed terms, and no others can\ninnocently seize their delegated dominion. Outside of the excepted\nparties the universal law has sway unimpaired. It is in this instance as\nit is in regard to marriage. God permitted the patriarchs to multiply\ntheir wives; but monogamy is now a sacred institution for the world. So\nthe supreme Disposer can make a slave, or a nation of slaves; and the\nworld shall be even the more solemnly bound by the original institutes\nconcerning property. It follows, without a chasm in the argument, or a\ndoubtful step, that, when persons or States reduce men to the condition\nof chattels, _without divine authorization_, they are guilty of\nsubverting a divine institution; and, since it is the prerogative of God\nto determine what shall be property, they are chargeable with a\npresumptuous usurpation of divine prerogative, in making property, so\nfar as human force and law can do it, of those whom Jehovah has created\nin his own image, and invested with all the original rights of men.\n\nThe soundness of the principle contained in these remarks, both in law\nand in biblical interpretation, will not be questioned. In the light of\nit, let us examine briefly the justifications of slavery as derived from\nthe Bible. Happily the principle itself saves the labor of minute and\nprotracted criticism.\n\nWe first consider the curse pronounced upon Canaan by Noah. Admitting\nall that is necessary to the support of slavery, namely, that that curse\nconstituted the descendants of _Canaan_ the property of some other tribe\nor people, upon whom it conferred the right of holding them as property,\nyet even so this passage does not justify but condemns American slavery;\nfor that curse does not touch the African race: _they are not\ndescendants of Canaan_;[B] and it gives no rights to American States.\nIn later times the Canaanites were devoted to destruction for their\nsins. The Hebrews were the agents appointed by Jehovah to this work of\nretribution. It was not, however, accomplished in their entire\nextermination. In the case of the Gibeonites it was formally commuted to\nservitude, and other nations occupying the promised land were made\ntributary. Thus the curse upon Canaan was fulfilled by _authorized\nexecutioners_ of divine justice.\n\nWhat light does the whole history now throw upon slavery? It is plain\nthe curse was a judicial act of God concerning Canaan. It follows that\nconquest with extermination or servitude was a judgment of God, which he\nappointed his chosen people to execute. It follows further, that those,\nwho, without his commission, reduce to bondage men who are not\ndescendants of Canaan, do inflict a curse on those whom he has not\ncursed; and thus virtually assume his most awful prerogative as the\nJudge of guilty nations.\n\nWe then inquire whether the States of the South have received warrant\nfor enslaving any portion of mankind. Has God _given_ them the African\nrace as property? Where is the commission? The argument fails to justify\nmodern slavery for the same reason identically that it fails to justify\noffensive war and conquest. God has not given the right--has neither\nproclaimed the curse, nor commissioned the agent of the curse. Christian\nStates in America seize it, and lay it upon those whom he has not\ncursed. The passage of his word which has been considered affords them\nno sanction.\n\nWe proceed to another passage. It is supposed by many to be an\nincontrovertible defence of modern slavery, that the Hebrews were\nauthorized to buy bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen round about them.\nLet us candidly examine this defence.\n\nWhy were the Hebrews authorized by God in express terms to buy servants,\nand possess them as their \"money?\" Evidently _because they did not\notherwise have this authority_. Human beings, as we have seen, were not\n\"given\" in the grant of property. They do not, therefore, fall within\nthe scope of the general laws of property. If they had so fallen, the\nspecial statutes, by which the Hebrews purchased them, would have been\nas gratuitous as special enactments for buying animals, trees, and\nminerals. _Of all nations they only have possessed this right; for they\nonly received it by special bestowment._ The rest of mankind have ever\nbeen prohibited from assuming it by fundamental laws. If ever there was\na case in which the exception proves the rule, that case is before us;\nand therefore a chasm yawns between the premise and the conclusion\ndefensive of slavery, which no exegesis and no logic can bridge over.\n\nTo illustrate the strength of this argument, let the fact be observed,\nthat, if it could be set aside, it would follow, by parity of reasoning,\nthat the clergy of our country, regardless of fundamental laws, have\nright to take possession of a tenth part of the estates and incomes of\ntheir fellow-citizens, because the Levites in this manner received their\ninheritance among their brethren. It is plain, however, that, as in\nregard to other interests no less important than liberty or slavery, so\nalso in regard to slavery itself, the special laws of the Old Testament\nare no longer in force; whence it follows that the vital doctrine of the\nsystem, \"masters have the same right to their slaves which they have to\nany other property,\" is totally erroneous. The institution which claims\nsolid foundation here is built on nothing.\n\nWe cannot forbear to adduce an instance of unexceptionable testimony to\nthe validity of this reasoning. In one or two famous articles on slavery\nand abolitionism, the Princeton Repertory adopts it, with another\napplication, and says, \"So far as polygamy and divorce were permitted\nunder the old dispensation they were lawful, and became so by that\npermission; and they ceased to be lawful when that permission was\nwithdrawn, and a new law given. That Christ did give a new law is\nabundantly evident.\" In the same manner, 'so far as' slavery 'was\npermitted under the old dispensation it was lawful, and became so by\nthat permission; and it ceased to be lawful when that permission was\nwithdrawn, and a new law given.' It is true, however, only in a\nqualified sense, that Christ gave \"a new law\" concerning polygamy and\ndivorce. His law restored the original institution of marriage, as in\nEden; and this was \"new\" to the Jews, because there had been departure\nfrom it. In like manner the New Testament, if not the very words of\nChrist, now gives a new law concerning slavery in the same sense; that\nis, as will appear, in the sequel, the Christian precepts restore the\noriginal institution concerning property as well as concerning marriage.\nThe laws which allowed polygamy and slavery, and therefore the right,\npassed away together.\n\nHere we leave the Old Testament. No other passages need examination; for\nall consist with these positions. So far as that sacred volume gives\nlight, the world are bound by the laws and have equal right to the full\nblessings of three divine institutions, whose foundations were laid in\nParadise, and whose complete and glorious proportions will encompass the\nuniversal, millennial felicity.\n\nThe defence of slavery from the New Testament now demands brief notice.\nWe desire to allow it full force, while we ask the reader's candid\njudgment of the conclusion.\n\nOf course, the New Testament sanctions now what it sanctioned in the\ndays of its authors. That must have been _Roman, not Hebrew_, slavery;\nfor they lived and wrote to men under Roman law. Besides, there is\nreason to believe, as Kitto states, that the Jews at that time held no\nslaves. In point of historic truth, it appears that the Mosaic law,\nfinding slavery in existence, practically operated as a system of\ngradual emancipation for its extinction. \"There is no evidence that\nChrist ever came in contact with slavery.\" This sufficiently explains\nwhy he did not give a \"new law\" concerning it in specific terms. The\noccasion did not arise, as it did arise in regard to polygamy and\ndivorce, with which he did come in contact. Furthermore, there was no\nneed of new law, other than was actually given.\n\nThe argument from the New Testament for the rightfulness of slavery is\ntwofold, being built on the instructions given to masters and servants.\nIt fails on both sides.\n\nFor, first, the precepts addressed to servants convey no authority to\nnational rulers or to private individuals to set aside the institution\nof Jehovah by reducing men to the condition of slaves. These precepts\nsimply enjoin the conduct which Christianity required in their actual\nsituation. They do not vindicate the law and usage by which they were\nheld as property. This is abundantly evident in the texts themselves,\nand more emphatically, when they are compared with the parallel cases.\n\nChrist promulgated these rules. \"I say unto you that ye resist not evil;\nbut whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other\nalso. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat,\nlet him have thy cloak also.\" Does this empower States to legalize fraud\nand violence? Does it transmute all the _evil_ which Jesus' disciples\nhave endured into _righteousness_ of those who have inflicted the evil?\nDoes it wash the crimsoned hands of persecutors in innocency? Does it\njustify the wilful smiter? All men know better. No one contends for such\nexposition. Yet it is indispensable to the interpretation which finds a\njustification of slavery in precepts which enjoin obedience on slaves.\nThat obedience is required on other grounds.\n\nAnother example. The New Testament explicitly commands citizens to\nsubmit to the civil power. Does this sanctify the tyranny of a Nero or a\nNicholas? In the enjoined submission of subjects, has the despot, or the\nstate, full license for edicts and acts of oppression and iniquity? Yet\nthey are logically compelled to admit this, and thus, in theory at\nleast, banish freedom from the whole earth, who find in commands\naddressed to servants power conferred on legislators and masters to make\nthem slaves; that is, to hold them as property. Instead of this, the\nrights and obligations of rulers, and of those who claim to be owners of\ntheir fellow men, are defined in a very different class of instructions.\n\nSecondly, the instructions addressed to masters forbid the exercise of\nthe right which is assumed in slavery. To make this clear, we observe,\nprimarily, there is no passage in the New Testament which _institutes_\nthe relation of men held in ownership by men. There is no direct\nreference to the civil laws which constituted this relation. They are\npassed by silently, as are the laws that established idolatry, and\nkindled the fires of persecution. Their existence is tacitly\nacknowledged in the use of the terms which designate masters and\nservants; and that is all. Hence those who find here an apology for\nslavery are obliged to refer to secular history for the facts and\ndefinitions on which their argument rests. Accordingly, no passage in\nthe New Testament would be void of meaning, though slavery should cease.\nIn this respect the Constitution of the United States resembles the\nsacred books; for not one word of that instrument, interpreted on just\nprinciples as the palladium of liberty, needs to be obliterated in the\nabolition of slavery. Furthermore, and this covers our position, the New\nTestament, disregarding the Roman law, refers masters exclusively to the\nlaw of God as their rule for the treatment of servants. A single\ncitation, with which all passages agree, is sufficient to show this.\n\"Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing\nthat ye also have a Master in heaven.\" Now, as none can find in such\nprecepts a right to destroy God's primary institution concerning the\nfamily, no more can they find in them a right to destroy his primary and\nuniversal institution concerning property. Stronger than this, the\nconclusion is inevitable, that the very precepts which are relied upon\nto support American slavery do condemn and destroy it; for the law of\nGod, by which they bind masters, ordaining from Eden what is just and\nequal between men, abolishes the fundamental and central law of the\nsystem.[C]\n\nIt is argued, indeed, that slavery is right, because masters, as well as\nfathers and rulers, may require obedience. The argument fails utterly;\nfor there is at the foundation no analogy in the cases. The family and\nthe State are divine institutions, having sanction in the Bible; but\nslavery subverts a divine institution. Fathers and rulers, _as such_,\nhave duties and rights suitable to the relations they sustain by the\nwill of God. Masters, _as such_, have no _rights_; for their relation,\nas holding property in men, is contrary to his will. Their duty, to\nwhich they are bound by the solemn consideration that he is their\nMaster, is practically to restore to their servants the rights which he\nconfers upon all; for nothing less than this can be just and equal in\nhis sight.\n\nThis view discloses the harmony of the whole Bible concerning slavery;\nand, in the light of the two Testaments, the institution stands as a\nlegalized violation of the positive will of Jehovah.\n\nWe now condense the whole argument into its briefest form, in the\nfollowing syllogisms.\n\nThe entire right of men to hold property is given by the Creator. He\ngives to American States and citizens no right to hold property in men.\nTherefore they have no such right.\n\nAgain. An institution is sinful, which, without divine warrant, holds\nproperty in men, thus assuming a divine prerogative, and subverting a\ndivine institution. American slavery does this. Therefore it is a sinful\ninstitution.\n\nThe purpose of this tract now introduces a new series of topics. The\nargument demands its application; and the exigencies of the times\npresent momentous questions, which it must answer.\n\nHitherto we have spoken of the system of slavery. We come now to persons\nconnected with it. Because the system is sinful, the question\nimmediately occurs, who are chargeable with the sin; for there is no sin\nwithout sinners. The answer is obvious. They are chargeable who founded\nit, and all who wilfully implicate themselves with it. Practically, they\nare always chargeable who adopt it as their own in theory and practice,\nwho support it in the State, consecrate it in the Church, and labor for\nits extension. They are chargeable, for they bring heresy into creeds,\nunrighteousness into legislation, and crime into popular usage. If they\nare masters, they stand in the same moral relations with persecutors and\ntyrannical rulers, guilty for all personal injuries they inflict under\ncolor of unjust laws; and, whether masters or not, they are guilty for\nexerting their influence to sustain laws which set aside the authority\nof God, and withhold the rights he has given. Such men are accountable\nto God and to society for deliberate, organised, aggressive iniquity.\nThe \"organic sin\" of the State is their sin, the sin of each in his own\nmeasure; for they are the individuals who determine the acts and the\ncharacter of the slave-holding State as such.\n\nBut are there no exceptions among slave-holders? We trust there are\nmany. There is a plain distinction between wicked laws and the personal\nacts of men who live under those laws. Some may approve them, and use or\nabuse them to the injury of their fellow men. Others may disapprove\nthem, and refuse, by means of them, to do or justify a wrong. Christians\nmay become in a legal sense owners of slaves, while they heartily\ndeprecate the system of oppression, while they are ready to unite with\ngood men in feasible and wise measures for its removal, and while they\nobey the Christian precepts towards their servants, rendering unto them\nwhat is just and equal to men and brethren in Christ. Such Christians\nand such men do not hold slaves in the sense which God forbids; and they\ncannot be charged with the wickedness of laws by which they, as well as\nthe slaves, are oppressed. On their estates a higher law than that of\nslavery has sway. To them their slaves, though legally property, are\nmorally and actually men. The Bible sustains their position. They are\nthe Philemons to whom Paul gives fellowship, and Onesimus returns, not\nas a slave, but a brother beloved. In the trials of their situation they\nshould receive the cordial sympathy of Christians everywhere. It is,\nindeed, to their sound convictions and their political influence the\nworld must look, in part at least, for the ultimate, peaceful extinction\nof American slavery. Without them, what would the South become? With the\nScriptures in our hand we earnestly say to them, \"Throw the weight of\nyour influence against unrighteous laws, fulfil to servants the law of\nGod, and you shall have the sympathy and confidence of good men\neverywhere. Nay, more; you, with their help, and they with your help,\nwill confine the spreading curse, till, with God's blessing, it shall\ncease; and Christian and civilized man shall have no more communion with\nit.\"\n\nThese discriminations answer certain ecclesiastical questions, which\nhave occasioned much perplexity and discord. When properly applied, they\ntake away whatever support a wicked institution has found by leaning\nupon the Church; at the same time they award to consistent Christians\nwhat is due to them by the religion of Jesus. If it shall be said, there\nwill be practical difficulty in applying these discriminations, it is\nsufficient to answer, it will be less than the difficulty of\ndisregarding them.\n\nThe question now arises, what can be done for the restriction and\nultimate extinction of slavery as it is; for, since it is sinful,\nChristianity and patriotism declare it should be restrained and\nabolished.\n\nFirst. The extension of slavery can and should be prevented by the\nFederal Government. The Scriptures have shown us, that the people in\ntheir sovereignty have not the right to create a slave State or a slave.\nOf course, the legislators and presidents; who receive in trust the\npower which emanates from the people, have no such right. If the\nConstitution assumed to confer this power, it would be the first\nnational duly to amend that instrument in this particular. There is no\npower on earth competent to set aside either of the Creator's original\ninstitutions for man. But, according to the sound and established\nprinciple of strict construction, the Constitution as it is does not\ncreate slavery, or even acknowledge its existence, except by inference.\nHence there is no legal objection to the measure which religion herself\nordains. The religious and the political obligations of all citizens and\nall legislators coincide to protect, under the jurisdiction of Congress,\nthe right of every man to be exempt from the condition of property, and\nto enjoy the property which he honestly earns. Thus the question\nconcerning slavery and the territories is morally settled by divine\nauthority; and to this no real objection can be made, except by that\ngreat interest, whose existence is inherently unrighteous and\nirreligious.\n\nSecondly. In the slave States, legislation should restore to the\nenslaved population the primitive rights which God has given to all men,\nestablishing for them, on humane and Christian principles, such\nrelations as are suitable to their condition of poverty, ignorance, and\ndependence, and are adapted to secure at once their improvement and the\ngeneral welfare.\n\nThis is the logical conclusion to be derived from the premises. As the\ncentral wrong of slavery consists in making men articles of property by\nlaw, the rectification is to lift from them by law the curse of the\nfalse and irreligious doctrine, that they can be rightfully held as\nproperty. Thus the axe is laid to the root of the tree.\n\nThis is also the conclusion to which we are forced by other moral\nprinciples bearing on the case. For men to receive services of men is\nright. Accordingly, the New Testament allows masters to receive services\nof those who are slaves in the sense of human law; but at the same time\nthe sacred book requires masters, with all who employ labor, to make the\nrecompenses which are just and equal towards men; for slavery is not\nright; and legislators, on their responsibility to the Ruler of nations,\nare bound to adjust the laws in harmony with the first principles of\nindividual and moral obligation.\n\nFurthermore, this is the only practical conclusion. By inevitable\nnecessity, the slaves, as a body, must remain on the soil of their\nbondage. Only exceptional cases of removal can occur. They are the\nlaborers of the South; and no State will, or can, or is bound, to remove\nits laborers. It is simply bound to protect and treat them with\nChristian equity and kindness. Banishment of them would be injustice and\ncruelty, violating perhaps no less than restoring divine rights.\nMoreover, no practicable means of removing them have ever been seriously\nproposed; and, till they shall be, the point needs no discussion.\n\nBut the question may be raised, \"Are the slaves to endure their present\nwrongs until the laws shall be thus renewed, or perhaps forever?\" We\nreply, in showing how slave-holders can cease from guilty connection\nwith slavery; we have also shown how the situation of the slaves becomes\none of practical righteousness, before the laws can be readjusted; and\nfor this great obligation of the body politic, sufficient time most be\nallowed. Moral principles do not exact natural impossibilities. The\nelevation of oppressed millions can be accomplished only in harmony with\ngreat natural and social, as well as ethical laws, which the wisdom of\nGod has ordained.\n\nIt remains therefore, that, for a period of which no man can see the\nend, the slaves must, in most cases, dwell within the present\nboundaries; but it is incumbent on the citizens and legislators of the\nSouth to institute _immediate_ measures for restoring to them the\ninviolable rights of men. So long as they continue, by the _necessities_\nof the case, in the relation of servants and laborers, masters should\ndeal with them according to the rules of humane and Christian equity,\npaying to them in suitable ways their just earnings, holding sacred\ntheir family ties, and securing to them the privileges of education and\nreligion. Meanwhile, the legislatures of the several States, by wise\nenactments, should co\u00f6perate with masters in training their servile\npopulation for the position which the Creator designed for men.\n\nWhen these things shall come to pass, a consideration, in which many\ngood men have sought relief in regard to slavery, will have multiplied\nforce. The providential wisdom of God, in bringing millions of the\nchildren of Africa from a land of pagan darkness and violence to a land\nof freedom and Christianity, will shine with new lustre, when they shall\nreceive from American hands, together with true religion, every divine\nright, and shall thus be qualified and enabled to convey to the dark\nhabitations of their fathers the infinite blessings of enlightened\nliberty and of the gospel of eternal salvation.\n\nThese things are practicable. So long as \"righteousness exalteth a\nnation,\" a great, free, and Christian people can do what they should do;\nand thus only can they secure, under the divine blessing, their own\nhighest prosperity and glory. To prove this would be simply to repeat\nthe familiar facts which exhibit the legitimate effects of slavery on\ngeneral intelligence, enterprise, and virtue.\n\nBut what shall produce the true and wide spread public sentiment, which\nis indispensable to usher in so radical a change in the laws and\ninstitutions of proud and powerful States? Truth must accomplish this\ngreat work--THE TRUTH that our Creator does not place those who bear his\nimage in bondage to their fellow men as property, but invests them with\na common and inviolable right of dominion over inferior things. The\nvivid light which this truth sheds on the social relations of men has\nbeen extinguished at the South; and it has been dimmed at the North. In\nevery right way and in every place, therefore, it should be made to\nshine again unobscured. Expounders should bring it forth from the Holy\nOracles; for Jehovah has hallowed it there, and made it equal in\nauthority with the Sabbath. The press should publish it; for it is the\nfunction of the press to convey unceasingly to the public mind whatever\nwill establish and crown the public integrity and welfare. All men\nshould seal it in their hearts; for it is the divine rule and bond of\nbrotherhood in the universal dominion. It surrounds them with protected\nfamilies, and builds their safe firesides and their altars of worship.\n\nThe question arises here, can general agreement be expected in regard to\nthis primary truth, and measures which legitimately proceed from it? It\nis to be supposed there are men in whose hearts there is no fear of God\nor love of their fellow beings. With such men these views may be\npowerless; but for men of Christian principle, we are confident they\nshow a common foundation for united sentiments and efforts.\n\nThere is now a general, practical, vital consent that government and\nsociety should respect the divine institutions of the family and the\nSabbath. Beneath all superficial strifes and irrelevant issues, there is\nthe same sure ground for a living and earnest agreement, that government\nand society should respect the equal and coeval institution of the right\nof property.\n\nChristian and conservative men can unite in the proposed measures and\nthe truth which appoints them; for they desire to preserve only what is\nright. Christian and progressive men can unite in them; for they desire\nto abolish only what is wrong. Politics can approve them; for they are\nconstitutional and patriotic. Philanthropy can be satisfied with them;\nfor they promise all that in the nature of the case can be promised for\nthe early relief of the slaves. Religion sanctions them; for they\nrestore her own institutions. Good men of the South can unite in them\nwith those of the North; for they have equal authority North and South.\nThey proffer only that moral aid which great communities, sharing common\ninterests and responsibilities, should render and receive with intimate\nand cordial confidence. They honor the sovereignty of proud and jealous\nStates; for each of them, exercising the power which springs from its\nown people in its own way, will discharge its political obligations to\nall within its boundaries.\n\nA few years or even months of combined efforts will suffice to convey\nthis truth with vital energy to millions of minds and hearts. In due\ntime it will manifest its efficacy in the public sentiment and public\npolicy. We trust in its power. It is invincible; it will be victorious;\nfor it is from God. Its absence from the popular and legislative mind\nwell explains many of the evils that have been precipitated upon the\nnation. Its future prevalence, under divine mercy, will arrest the\nprogress of events which would be, as we judge, not remedy, but\nretributive destruction, on account of slavery.\n\nThis leads us to the final question. Are the principles and measures\nadvocated in this tract or their equivalents, with the contemplated\nresult, essential to the welfare of our country? We are compelled to\nbelieve so.\n\nWe present, for the consideration of citizens and statesmen, this fact.\nIn harmony with that law of fitness which pervades the Creator's works,\nall men are constituted with a nature corresponding with the dominion\nthey have received. They feel that they have a right to hold property,\nand should not be held as property. Slaves feel this. Masters often show\nthat they feel it. They who make laws for slavery, North and South, show\nthat they feel it. The little property which slaves are often allowed to\npossess, so far from furnishing apology for slavery, is an unwitting\ntribute to the living principle that destroys the system. Here is a\nphilosophical demonstration that slavery cannot stand in perpetuity.\nThis vital element in human nature, to which a divine institution itself\nis but an index, is subterranean fire beneath the pyramid of oppression.\nThough long crushed and silent, it will not always sleep. Do men expect\nto control forever, by law and force, that sense of rights which burns\ninextinguishable in every human breast, which God himself kindled in\nEden? As well pile rocks on volcanoes to suppress earthquakes.\n\n                \"Vital in every part,\n    It can but by annihilating die.\"\n\nIn this light, it is no prediction to say, if slavery survives to\nconsummate its own results it will destroy our country.\n\nThe great political and religious problem of the slave-holding States,\non which their welfare really depends, is not, how shall we extend\nslavery? but, how shall we lay legal foundation for the rights of our\nservile population as men? Unless it shall be anticipated and prevented,\nby restoring to them the dominion which the Creator bestowed, a day is\nas sure to come on natural principles as the sun to rise, when the\nmasses of human property will assert for themselves the indestructible\nrights of their being. Generations may not see it; but woe betides the\nStates implicated in this oppression, when that day shall dawn; and the\nlonger it tarries the greater the woe.\n\nTo our mind, the statesmen are infatuated who do not in their policy\nregard this universal sense of rights. It is this which is now making so\nbitter conflict on the prairies of Kansas. It will always make conflict,\ntill slavery expires.\n\nIn connection with the general welfare, there is another consideration,\nwhich we solemnly urge upon every man who respects the Bible. It is the\ndispleasure of God for slavery. He gave the rights which it denies; and\nhe will assuredly vindicate his own institutions. It would contradict\nhis word and history, which is but the story of his providence, to\nsuppose that he will perpetually allow myriads of men, in this land of\nlight, to hold as property other myriads and even millions of their\nfellow men and fellow Christians, whom he has endowed, as bearing his\nown image, with equal rights. With Jefferson we have reason to tremble\nfor our country, when we behold her support of slavery and remember that\nGod is just. France abolished the Sabbath; and thrones have gone down in\nblood. America may abolish another divine institution; and for this her\nproud States may be convulsed. The previous topic shows, indeed, that\nGod has so constituted the social elements of this world, that a great\nwrong, like slavery, ultimately provides for its own retribution. The\noppressor himself treasures up the vials of wrath for Him who taketh\nvengeance.\n\nIn view of all the considerations which have now passed before our\nminds, is it too much to believe, that the diffusion of kindly and\nscriptural sentiments, with the blessing of heaven producing general\nagreement in principles and measures, must be the means of our country's\nsalvation from the guilt and perils of slavery? If it is not extended,\nmisguided, infatuated men may, indeed, threaten to dissolve the Union.\nStill we fear that extension most; for religion teaches us to fear God\nmore than man. It allows us but this alternative, to keep his\ncommandments, and trust that he will make the wrath of man to praise\nhim. We hold that national righteousness in his sight, \"first pure,\nthen peaceable,\" is better and safer than union and slavery with his\nfrown. Let justice be done, and the heavens will not fall.\n\nWhatever purposes God may conceal in the cloudy future, present duties\nare ours. He seals them in his word. Notwithstanding all the heats and\nperversions of parties and interests, we trust there will yet be a\nsingle voice of our nation's good men. Citizens will speak the truth,\nlegislators will enact the truth, churches will hallow the truth, vital\nto civilization and Christianity, that, by Jehovah's will, man is not\nthe property of man. Then, under the benediction of our Father in\nheaven, all his children in mutual protection and benevolence will enjoy\ntheir property, their homes, and their Sabbath; and he will more richly\nbless the land of the free and the just.\n\n\n\n\nFRIENDLY LETTERS\n\nTO\n\nA CHRISTIAN SLAVEHOLDER.\n\nBY\n\nREV. A. C. BALDWIN.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER I.\n\nINTRODUCTION.--SOUTHERN COURTESY AND HOSPITALITY.--CHARACTERISTICS\nOF THE SOUTH AND NORTH.--NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE AT HEART.--THEY\nSHOULD UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER BETTER.--A FREE INTERCHANGE OF\nSENTIMENT DESIRABLE.--SINCERE PATRIOTISM AND PIETY COMMON TO\nBOTH.--THESE AN EFFECTUAL SAFEGUARD TO OUR UNION AND\nGOOD-FELLOWSHIP.\n\n\nMY DEAR CHRISTIAN BROTHER,--I embrace the first moment at my command\nsince leaving your pleasant home, to express the gratification afforded\nme by my recent visit to the \"Sunny South.\" The kind hospitality and\npolite attentions shown me by yourself and other Christian friends,\nduring my recent interesting sojourn with you, will ever be gratefully\nremembered. I had previously heard \"by the hearing of the ear\" of the\nopen, frank warm-heartedness and generous impulses of southern people,\nbut now I can fully appreciate them. The lessons taught us by\nexperience, whether they be pleasant or painful, are the most\nprofitable, and are most deeply engraven upon the memory. If there are\nany persons who think or speak lightly of the reputed complaisance and\nChristian courtesy of those who live south of \"Mason and Dixon's line,\"\nI have only to say to them,--go and make the acquaintance of those\nfamilies which give the tone and character to society there, and enjoy\nthe hospitalities which they almost force upon you with so much\npoliteness and delicacy as to make you feel that by sharing them you are\nconferring rather than receiving a favor, and your skepticism on this\npoint will be happily and effectually removed.\n\nYou will not understand me, my dear sir, as implying that our southern\nbrethren have really more heart than we at the North, although there\nseems to be \"_prim\u00e2 facie_\" evidence in your favor; at least, so far as\npolite and generous attention to strangers is concerned. In this last\nparticular, you are constantly teaching us important lessons. Still, I\ncontend that the Northerner has as large and generous a soul, when you\nget at it, as anybody. We have hearts which beat warm and true, but our\ncautious habits and constitutional temperament (phlegmatic sometimes)\nconceal them from view; whereas you carry yours throbbing with generous\nemotions in your hands, exposed to the gaze of everybody. The Southron\nis artless and impulsive, as well as noble; the Northerner is no less\nnoble, but having been taught more frequently the doctrine of\n\"expediency\" than his southern brother, he stops and \"calculates\" when,\nand in what circumstances, it is best to exhibit his whole character. In\nboth cases, the pure gold is there; but in the former it lies upon the\nsurface or in the alluvial, while in the latter it is often imbedded\ndeep in the quartz-rock;--it requires some labor to get it out, but the\nultimate yield is most rich and abundant.\n\nIt is very desirable that a greater degree of social intercourse be kept\nup between the North and South. We are brethren of one great family, and\nthere is no good reason why this family should not be a united and happy\none. To a considerable extent it is so. It is true we do not all think\nalike on every subject, and some of these subjects are of vast\nimportance, and intimately connected with our prosperity and happiness.\nWe need to understand each other better, and to this end there should be\nmore intimacy, and a frequent and free interchange of views;--not for\nstrife and debate, but for mutual edification and enlightenment. There\nwas probably never a family of brothers, however strong their love for\neach other, whose views of domestic policy were exactly alike; but\nthere need be no lack of fraternal confidence and harmony for all that.\nThere are certain great fundamental principles which underlie every\nthing else, and form the basis of the family compact. These principles\nare filial reverence, fraternal affection, love for home, and a watchful\njealousy of aught that can in the least interfere with the happiness or\nreputation of their beloved family circle. Falling back upon these\nprinciples to preserve good-will and harmony, they are not in the least\nafraid to discuss those topics on which there is an honest difference of\nopinion; on the contrary, they take pleasure in doing so, for the result\nis a strengthening of the ties which bind them to each other, and a\nmodification and partial blending of opinions that seemed antagonistic.\n\nThus it should be in our great political and religious brotherhood. The\nNorth and South have each their peculiar views of what pertains to their\nown interests, and the interests of the great family of the Republic.\nBut do not let us stand at a distance and look at each other with an eye\nof jealousy because of these differences. Surely we can meet as\nfellow-citizens, and discuss matters of common interest, and the\ninterests of common humanity, without losing our temper or engendering\nany ill feeling or family discord.\n\nIt is affirmed by some, that there are certain subjects, at least one,\nof so peculiar and delicate a nature as to forbid discussion, lest the\nresult should be heart-burnings, alienation, and perhaps disunion in our\nhappy fraternity. I cannot for a moment admit the sentiment. It is an\nungenerous reflection upon the courtesy, Christian candor, piety, and\ngood-sense, both of the North and South. I hold that good citizens and\ngood Christians can, if they will, discuss any subject without giving\nthe least occasion for offence, or endangering that compact which so\nhappily binds us together. As it is in the family circle, there are\ncertain great principles most dear to us all, on which we can fall back,\nand which, if we are true to ourselves and to them, will prove efficient\nsafeguards to our temper and good-fellowship. The first of these is\nPatriotism. We have a common country, and we love it, and we love each\nother for our country's sake. We are children of a common mother, whose\nkind arms have encircled us, and whose bosom has nourished us\nbounteously and with impartiality, and God forbid, that, as wayward,\nungrateful children, we should wring her maternal heart with anguish by\nour unfraternal conduct toward each other. We shall not do it,--either\nat the North or at the South. We are true patriots, and in our very\ndifferences, love of country comes in as an important element to shape\nand modify our opinions; and while we may be adopting different\ntheories, we are conscientiously seeking the same end, namely, the\ngreatest good of our beloved country.\n\nThe second is piety. We love our country well, but we love our Saviour\nmore, and for his sake we will love and treat each other as brethren,\nand not fall out by the way because we may not see through the same\noptic-glasses. We will cheerfully hear what each has to say on whatever\npertains to Christian morals and practice. There are thousands of\nsincere, warm-hearted Christians, whose love to Christ raises them\nimmeasurably above sectionalism and prejudice, and who daily inquire,\n\"what is truth?\" and \"what is duty?\" and they entertain that \"charity\"\nwhich \"suffereth long and is kind; is not easily provoked, thinketh no\nevil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all\nthings, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things;\"\nand \"never faileth.\" When this love is in exercise, Christian brethren\nmay open their hearts freely to each other on any subject, whether it\nbe \"for doctrine, or reproof, or for instruction in righteousness.\"\n\nWhatever may be true of others, I hope that you and I will be able to\ndemonstrate to the world, that, although one of us lives at the North\nand the other at the South, yet we can communicate with each other\nunreservedly on an almost interdicted topic, with mutual kind feelings,\nif not to edification.\n\nRespectfully and fraternally,\n\nYours, &c.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER II.\n\nA DIFFICULT AND DELICATE SUBJECT PROPOSED.--AGITATION OF IT\nUNAVOIDABLE.--CHRISTIANS NORTH AND SOUTH SHOULD GIVE THE DISCUSSION\nOF IT A RIGHT DIRECTION.--WE ARE ALL INTERESTED IN THE\nISSUE.--NORTHERN DISCLAIMERS.\n\n\nMY DEAR CHRISTIAN BROTHER,--In my last I intimated that I hoped you and\nI, by our correspondence, would be able to furnish the world a practical\nillustration of good-nature and kind feeling in the discussion of a\nsubject that has been a fruitful source of trouble and unchristian\ninvective. You have already anticipated my theme--it is DOMESTIC\nSLAVERY. It must be confessed that this is the most difficult and\ndelicate of all topics to be agitated by a Northerner and a Southerner,\nand yet I have the fullest confidence that neither of us will give or\ntake offence. I need offer you no apology for calling your attention to\nthis subject at the present time. Not only is it a theme of vast\nimportance in itself, involving, either directly or indirectly,\ninterests most dear to you and to me, and to every one who has at heart\nthe welfare of his country and his race, but it is a subject that must\nbe discussed,--there is no avoiding it, however much you or I or other\nindividuals may desire it. It has come before the public mind in such a\nmanner as peremptorily to demand the attention of every Christian and\nevery patriot. Whether we approve or deprecate the peculiar causes that\nhave made this topic so prominent in our country, both North and South,\nwe have to take things as they are, and turn them to the best possible\naccount. Politicians and demagogues are all discussing American slavery,\nand will continue to do so for the purpose of forwarding their own\nfavorite schemes; and any attempt to silence them would be as futile as\nan effort to arrest the gulf-stream in its course. It remains only for\nbrethren, both at the South and North, to take up the subject as we find\nit brought to our hands in the inscrutable providence of God, and, under\nthe guidance of his Spirit, given in answer to our prayers, take a truly\nChristian view of some of its leading features, and then inquire, What\nis duty? I think you will not claim, with some of your southern friends,\nthat slavery is a subject with which we at the North \"have nothing to\ndo.\" As patriots, we have something to do with every thing that affects\nthe interests of our common country; and as Christians, we sustain\nresponsibilities which we cannot shake off toward all our brethren of\nthe human family, whether it be at the North or South--whether they be\nbound or free. \"Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created\nus?\" \"We are many members, but one body, and whether one member suffer\nall the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the\nmembers rejoice with it.\"\n\nYour candor will not impute to me any unkind or improper motive in\nentering upon this discussion; and you will permit me, in the outset, to\nenter a few disclaimers, in order that you may be the better able to\nappreciate what I have to say.\n\nIn the first place, it is not my design to throw down the glove for the\npurpose of enlisting you, or any of your friends, in a controversy; this\nwould be an unpleasant and profitless undertaking.\n\nNor is it to advocate the doctrine, that sustaining the legal relation\nof master to a slave for a longer or shorter time is in all possible\ncases sin. I will admit that there may be circumstances in which the\nrelation may subsist without any moral delinquency whatever; as, for\ninstance, persons may become slaveholders in the eye of the law without\ntheir own consent, as by heirship; they sometimes become so voluntarily\nto befriend a fellow-creature in distress, to prevent his being sold\naway from his wife and family; persons sometimes purchase slaves for the\nsole purpose of emancipating them. In these, and other circumstances\nwhich might be mentioned, no reasonable man either North or South would\never think of pronouncing the relation a sinful one.\n\nNor is it my design to question the conscientiousness or piety of all\nslaveholders at the South, both among the laity and clergy. Whoever\nmakes the sweeping assertion, that \"no slaveholder can be a child of\nGod,\" gives fearful evidence that he himself is deficient in that\n\"charity\" which \"hopeth all things.\" There is an obvious distinction\nbetween those who hold slaves for merely selfish purposes and regard\nthem as chattels, and those who repudiate this system, and regard them\nas men having in common with themselves human rights, and would gladly\nemancipate them were there not legal obstacles, and could they do it\nconsistently with their welfare, temporal and eternal.\n\nNor is it my purpose to advocate immediate, universal, unconditional\nemancipation without regard to circumstances. This doctrine is not held\nby the great mass of northern Christians. There are, no doubt, some\ncases where immediate emancipation would inflict sad calamities, both\nupon the slaves themselves and the community. The opinions of northern\nmen have often been misunderstood and misrepresented on this subject.\nThe ground that calm, reflecting opponents of slavery take, is, that\nslaveholders should at once cease in their own minds to regard their\nslaves as chattels to be bought and sold and worked for mere profit, and\nthat they should take immediate measures for the full emancipation of\nevery one, as soon as may be consistent with his greatest good, and that\nof the community in which he lives.\n\nThis, it is true, is virtually immediate emancipation; for it is at once\ngiving up the chattel principle, and no longer regarding servants as\nproperty to be bought and sold. It is to act on the Christian principle\nof impartial love, doing to them and with them, as, in a change of\ncircumstances, we would have them do to and with us. This does\nimmediately abolish, as it should do, the main thing in slavery, and\nbrings those who are now bondmen into the common brotherhood of human\nbeings, to be treated, not as chattels and brutes, but on Christian\nprinciples, according to the exigencies of their condition as ignorant,\ndegraded, and dependent human beings, \"endowed, however, by their\nCreator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty,\nand the pursuit of happiness,\" which rights should be acknowledged, and\nwith the least possible delay be granted.\n\nNor is it my design to reproach my southern brethren as being to blame\nfor the origin of slavery in these United States. Slavery was introduced\ninto this country by our fathers, who have long been sleeping in their\ngraves, and the North, if they did not as extensively, yet did as truly,\nand in many cases did as heartily, participate in it, as the South; so\nthat, in respect to the origin of American slavery, we have not a word\nto say, nor a stone to cast. And besides, our mother country must come\nin and share with our fathers to no small extent in the wrong of\nintroducing domestic slavery to these colonies. Happily, as we think,\nslavery was virtually abolished at the North by our ancestors of a\npreceding generation; but for their act we are entitled to no credit.\nYour ancestors omitted to do this; but for their omission you are\ndeserving of no blame. We would never forget, that slavery was entailed\nupon our southern brethren, and for this entailment they are no more\nresponsible than for the blood that circulates in their veins.\n\nIf you will be so kind as to keep these disclaimers in mind, I think you\nwill better understand and appreciate what I shall hereafter say on the\nsubject. With the kindest wishes for you and yours, I remain, in the\nbest of bonds,\n\nYOUR CHRISTIAN BROTHER.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER III.\n\nTHE REAL SUBJECT.--NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH ANCIENT\nSERVITUDE.--NOR TO BE JUDGED OF BY ISOLATED CASES.--NORTHERN MEN\nCOMPETENT AS OTHERS TO DETERMINE ITS TRUE CHARACTER.--SLAVERY\nIGNORES OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.--IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR\nCONSTITUTION.\n\n\nMY DEAR FRIEND AND BROTHER,--I propose in this and subsequent letters to\ntake a brief, candid view of some of the prominent characteristics of\nAmerican slavery. I speak of servitude, not as it existed in patriarchal\ntimes, for that is essentially a distinct matter. While it had some\nthings in common with American slavery, there was so much that was\ndissimilar in the relation of master and servant, that analogy is in a\ngreat measure destroyed.\n\nNeither do I speak of slavery as I saw it developed on your plantation,\nand on those of your immediate neighbors. When I went to the South, I\nconfess I went with strong prepossessions, (prejudices if you choose so\nto call them,) against the \"peculiar institution.\" I regarded it an\nevil, and only an evil. But while my general views of the legitimate\nworkings of the system remain unchanged, candor compels me to admit,\nthat, if all slaves were as well cared for, as kindly treated, as well\ninstructed, and were they all as contented and happy as yours; and,\nespecially, were there no evils incident to the system greater than I\nsaw with you, I would simply divest slavery of its odious name, and it\nwould virtually be slavery no longer. The plantations at the South would\nthen, perhaps, with some propriety he denominated communities of\nintelligent, happy, Christian peasants. And yet it is slavery, as it\nreally takes away inalienable rights. Would to God that slavery as it\nexists with you were a fair illustration of the system. But alas! it is\nnot. Perhaps you may say that \"it is impossible for a northern man to\nspeak of slavery so as to do the subject justice.\" You may indeed know\nmore and better than we do about the state and condition of the slaves.\nBut in some respects, where great principles are involved, we at the\nNorth are more competent than you, for our judgment is less liable to be\nbiased by self-interest; and in my remarks I shall confine myself\nchiefly to those points on which a northern man is at least as well\nqualified to speak as a slaveholder.\n\nWhat, then, are some of the prominent characteristics of American\nslavery as a system?\n\nFIRST, Slavery ignores and repudiates the foundation-stone on which\nrests our renowned Declaration of Independence. That document, for more\nthan three fourths of a century, has been the boast and glory of\nAmerica. It is the platform on which our noble ancestors planted their\nfeet, with a consciousness that they stood on the eternal principles of\ntruth and justice. To maintain these principles, relying on God for aid,\nthey pledged to each other \"their lives, their fortunes, and their\nsacred honor.\" Our fathers knew that they were right, and, to carry out\nthe principles embodied in this Declaration, many of them cheerfully\npoured out their heart's blood to defend the \"unalienable rights\" of\nhumanity.\n\nNow let us turn our attention to the foundation paragraph of this\nmemorable Declaration;--I do not mean in that general way in which it is\noften read, but minutely and particularly;--let us calmly look at it in\nits full import, and not shrink back and avert our eyes on account of a\nforeboding that we shall be led to conclusions which we would be glad to\navoid.\n\n\"We hold these truths to be self-evident;--that all men are created\nequal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable\nrights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of\nhappiness.\"\n\nThese significant words are inscribed upon the scroll of our nation's\nhistory, and there they will remain till time shall be no longer. They\nneed no glossary or explanation. He who runs may read them, and he who\nreads can understand them. The sentiment they embody it is impossible to\nmistake; it stands out in bold relief, like the sun in the heavens. It\nis, that every man has received, from a higher than earthly power, a\ncharter, which secures to him the unalienable right of life, liberty,\nand the pursuit of happiness. It is impossible for the most ultra\nadvocate of \"human rights\" to paraphrase these words, or give them a\nrendering so as to make them support his dogmas more strongly than they\nnow do. On the contrary, he would only weaken their force by the\nattempt.\n\nNow, my dear brother, I would candidly, seriously ask you--I would ask\nall your southern friends--I would ask everybody, Can the sentiment of\nthat Declaration be consistent with American slavery? Are not slaves\nmen? Do color and degradation change a creature of God from a human\nbeing to a soulless brute? No; our southern brethren would as\nindignantly repudiate this infidel view as we at the North. Now if a\nslave is a man, he has received from his Creator an unalienable right to\nliberty if he chooses to avail himself of it, or else the first\nprinciple laid down in our revered Declaration of Independence, so far\nfrom being \"self evident,\" is in fact untrue, and ought at once to be\ntaken from its honored position in the archives of these United States,\nand consigned to the heaps of rubbish of the dark ages.\n\nBut does the slave enjoy this liberty? or is it within his reach? It\nwill not be pretended. The very name by which his class is designated\nforbids it. The term free slave is a solecism. His liberty consists in\nthe freedom to do as he is told to do, or suffer punishment for his\ndisobedience, and he can pursue happiness only in accordance with the\nwill of his master.\n\nThere is the same incongruity between slavery and that clause in our\nconstitution which stipulates that \"no person shall be deprived of life,\nliberty, or property, without due process of law.\" Now, my brother, does\nit not require considerable ingenuity and special pleading to avoid\nconclusions to which unbiased common sense would arrive in an instant,\nin the application of these declared rights to persons held as slaves? I\nam not going to inflict upon you a dissertation, or a series of\nsyllogisms on this hackneyed subject, but I beg that you and your\nfriends will calmly look again at what, I doubt not, you have seen\nbefore,--the palpable incongruity between the system of holding persons\nperpetually in slavery without their consent, and those declared,\nself-evident, heaven bestowed, unalienable rights professedly secured to\nall men in these United States by our glorious constitution. Said that\ngreat statesman and patriot, Henry Clay: \"We present to the world the\nsorry spectacle of a nation that worships Slavery as a household\ngoddess, after having constituted Liberty the presiding divinity over\nchurch and state.\"\n\nSurely something must be out of joint here. I have looked again and\nagain at this matter, I think with perfect candor, and I have tried to\nthe utmost of my ability to reconcile these apparent inconsistencies,\nbut I cannot do it. Can you?\n\nBelieve me, as ever, your sincere friend and\n\nCHRISTIAN BROTHER.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER IV.\n\nSLAVERY TRANSFORMS MEN TO CHATTELS.--SOUTHERN\nLAWS.--SLAVE-AUCTIONS.--MEN PLACED ON A LEVEL WITH BRUTES.--NO\nREDRESS FOR WRONGS.--IGNORANCE PERPETUATED BY LAW.\n\n\nMY DEAR CHRISTIAN FRIEND,--A second characteristic of American slavery\nis, It regards human beings, declared to be in the \"image of God,\" as\n\"chattels,\"--things or articles of merchandise. \"Slaves,\" say the laws\nof South Carolina and Georgia, \"shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed,\nand adjudged in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners\nand possessors, and their executors, administrators and assigns, to all\nintents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.\"[D] \"A slave,\" says the\ncode of Louisiana, \"is one who is in the power of his master, to whom he\nbelongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry,\nand his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any\nthing, but what must belong to his master.\"[E]\n\nThus, rational, immortal beings, children of our common Father in\nheaven, are taken from the exalted scale in which God placed them, and\ndegraded to that of the brute creation. They are, as you know,\nadvertised, mortgaged, attached, inherited, leased, bought, and sold\nlike horses and cattle. Like them they are brought to the auction block,\nand like them subjected to a rigid examination as to their age, and\nsoundness of wind, chest, and limb. Said a gentleman to me: \"When I was\nat----, I visited the slave mart; and as I saw one and another and\nanother of my fellow-beings brought forward to the block, and rudely\nexposed and minutely examined, in order to ascertain their marketable\nvalue in dollars and cents, and then struck off to the highest bidder,\namid the gibes and jeers of the vulgar, my heart was nigh unto bursting,\nand I was obliged to turn away my eyes and weep, exclaiming, O God! can\nit be! thy children! my brothers and sisters of humanity,--perhaps my\nfellow-heirs of heaven,--precious souls for whom the Saviour died, whose\nnames may be written in the Book of Life, and over whose repentance\nangels may have rejoiced! Can it be?\"\n\nFor myself, I never witnessed any such scenes, and heaven grant I never\nmay. It is enough, and too much for me to know, that they exist. I\nallude to them in this connection, not to awaken and pain your\nsensibilities, but simply to illustrate the fact, that American slavery\nsanctions them, and by its operation brings down the noblest work of God\nto a level of the beasts that perish. As far as it can do so, it\ndehumanizes man, and treats him as a thing without a soul. It may be\nremarked, however, in passing, \"A man's a man, for a' that.\"\n\nI might speak in this connection of the obstacles which are thrown in\nthe way of the slave's obtaining redress for his wrongs should he\nunfortunately get into the hands of a cruel and unreasonable master,\nbeing forbidden to defend himself, and not allowed the testimony of his\nbrethren to be given in his behalf; but there are other features of this\nsystem which more urgently demand our attention.\n\nNeither will I dwell upon the ignorance and mental degradation which are\nan essential part of the system. You need not be informed, that, in ten\nStates, knowledge is kept from the slave by legal enactments,--that\nteaching him to read is regarded a crime, to be severely \"punished by\nthe judges.\" I was happy to find that you and a great many others\ntotally disregard that law, and, in spite of legislators and penal\nstatutes, you teach your slaves to read, and in some cases to write. For\nthis _crime_, I doubt not but heaven, at least, will forgive you. I\nshall allude to this latter topic again in a future letter.\n\nMost truly and affectionately, yours, etc.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER V.\n\nDOMESTIC LIFE.--THE MARRIAGE RELATION.--DOMESTIC HAPPINESS A RELIC\nOF PARADISE.--ITS ENDEARMENTS.--ITS VALUE.--THE BARBARISM OF\nINVADING THE DOMESTIC SANCTUARY.--AN ILLUSTRATION.\n\n\nMY DEAR BROTHER,--I come now, in the third place, to speak of slavery as\nit is related to the endearments and duties of domestic life. On this\nsubject my heart is full. I am almost afraid to speak, lest I say what I\nought not; and yet I cannot keep silence. I can, in a good measure,\nsympathize with Elihu when he said,--\n\n    \"For I am full of words,\n     The spirit within me doth constrain me,\n     Behold I am as wine which hath no vent,\n     I am ready to burst like new bottles,\n     I will speak that I may breathe more freely,\n     I will open my lips and reply.\"[F]\n\nWe now approach a topic more intimately connected with the present and\nfuture happiness of the human race than almost any other. Man was not\ncompletely blest, even in Eden, until God instituted the marriage\nrelation. His Creator gave him a companion to participate in his joys,\nbinding them together by ties which no human power might sunder.\nParadise was lost by sin, but as our first parents were exiled thence,\nGod in infinite kindness permitted them to take one of its purest,\nsweetest sources of joy with them to this world of sorrows.\n\n    \"Domestic happiness! thou only bliss\n     Of Paradise that has survived the fall!\"\n\nYou, my dear brother, are a husband and father, and can appreciate my\nmeaning, when I speak of the richness, the tenderness, the depth, of\nconnubial and paternal love; how it lights up this dark world with\nsmiles,--how it stimulates us to manly exertion,--how it lightens the\nburdens of human life, and enables us cheerfully to sustain its ills,\nwhile it almost restores to us Eden itself. To understand what is meant\nby the term domestic happiness, it is necessary for you and me only to\nlook at the circles around our own firesides, and listen to the musical\naccents of the loved ones who dwell there, as they pronounce the words\nhusband, father, mother, brother, sister, and exchange with them kind\nlooks and the affectionate embrace. What earthly joys can be compared\nwith those of home? What would tempt us to part with them? All the gold\nin California and Australia would be spurned in contempt, if offered in\nexchange. What should we say, and what should we do, were any power on\nearth to interfere with our fireside delights, and attempt to wrest them\nfrom us?\n\nSuppose Providence had cast our lot under a despotic government, which\nwe will suppose to be for the most part kind and paternal, but having\nthis peculiarity,--every now and then, finding its finances embarrassed,\nit should be in the habit of selling some of its subjects to a foreign\npower to strengthen its exchequer, and should arbitrarily select its\nvictims from this family and that;--how should you feel were the doomed\nfamily your own? What would have been your emotions this morning, had\nsome one come to your room and told you that that bright-eyed boy,\n\"Willie,\" who last night sat upon your knee and amused you with his\ninnocent prattle, showed you his toys, examined your pockets, played\nwith your hair and features, and finally clasped his little arms around\nyour neck and impressed the \"good-night\" kiss upon your lips, had been\nseized by an officer, and sold from your sight forever to you know not\nwhom, and to be carried you know not whither? Nay, more;--suppose that\nwhile he was yet speaking, there came also another with the tidings that\nthe same fate had befallen your first-born,--your daughter, just budding\ninto womanhood,--the affectionate, joyous, light-hearted \"Kate,\" whose\nvoice to your ear is sweeter than the music of flowing waters, whose\nfeet are swifter than those of the light gazelle, as with open arms she\nbounds to meet you on your return from a temporary absence, to welcome\nyou home with a tear of joy in her eye and a kiss upon her lips,--that\nshe too had been by the officials of the government clandestinely\nabducted from your dwelling, and sold, literally sold, for a valuation\nput upon her person in dollars and cents, to a hopeless captivity, to\nspend her days in unrequited toil, or, not unlikely, in ministering to\nthe caprices and brutal passions of a stranger?\n\nAnd while he was yet speaking, and as your _wife_, half frantic with\ngrief and terror, was entwining her arms around you, and you were\nstriving to ease your bursting heart, to crown the whole, suppose\nanother official and his posse had entered your apartment, and by force\nof arms had torn her from your embrace, and with thongs upon her hands,\nand a bandage over her mouth, hurried her away to greet your sight no\nmore? What a scene! There go in one direction the children of your body,\n\"bone of your bone, and flesh of your flesh,\" to an unknown but fearful\ndestiny! In another is ruthlessly borne the object dearer to you than\nall the world beside,--one whom you had solemnly sworn to love, cherish,\nand protect until death,--the light of your dwelling,--the mother of\nyour children,--the mutual sharer of all your joys and sorrows,--the\nrichest and most precious treasure heaven ever gave you!--there she goes\nin an agony of wo, to toil under a burning sun, compelled to call\nanother man her husband, or, it may be, to grace her master's seraglio!\nMerciful God! what meaneth this? What horde of barbarians from the dark\ncorners of the earth have found their way hither to lay waste all that\nis beautiful and lovely! What fiend from the pit has been let loose to\nenter this little Paradise to destroy and bear away all the good that\nwas left of the primitive Eden!\n\nNo ruthless band of barbarians from benighted lands have found their way\nto this Christian domestic sanctuary,--no malignant spirit from below\nhas been here to snatch the only type of Heaven that escaped his grasp\nsix thousand years ago. \"Think it not strange,\" brother, \"concerning\nthis fiery trial as though some strange thing had happened to you.\" This\nis only the legitimate working of the patriarchal system of government\nunder which we live. Be calm,--this is all done according to law, and\nwith as much kindness as the circumstances will permit. No stripes are\ninflicted, and no more force is exerted than is absolutely necessary to\nsecure the object, and prevent a useless outcry; no ill-will is\nentertained toward the victims of these outrages,--it is only because\nthe finances of the government are low, and must be replenished, and\nthis is the most convenient, and perhaps at present the only practical,\nway of raising the money!\n\nNow, my brother, what should you and I think of living under a\ngovernment where such things were permitted by the laws? It would not\nreconcile us to the administration to be told, that such proceedings as\nI have supposed are of rare occurrence, and that the general character\nof the government is kind, that it dislikes exceedingly to sell its\nsubjects, and especially that it has a great repugnance to separating\nhusbands and wives, and breaking up of families, and does it only when\nseverely pressed by pecuniary necessity. To your and my mind this would\nbe altogether unsatisfactory; it would not change our opinion of the\nsystem. No matter if the heart-rending scene I have supposed were\nwitnessed only once a year, or once in ten years,--I think we should\nloudly protest against a system which allowed the occurrence of it at\nall.\n\nYou will please, my dear sir, apply the foregoing illustration to the\nliabilities and actual workings of the slave system at the South, just\nso far as it is applicable, and no further. If there are any points in\nwhich the analogy fails, I will thank you to point them out to me in\nyour next.\n\nWith much love and esteem,\n\nI remain yours, most truly.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER VI.\n\nSACREDNESS OF THE MARRIAGE RELATION.--GOD ALONE CAN DISSOLVE\nIT.--THE \"HIGHER LAW.\"--SLAVERY SANCTIONS POLYGAMY AND\nADULTERY.--RELATION OF PARENTS TO THEIR CHILDREN.--FEARFUL\nRESPONSIBILITY ASSUMED.\n\n\nMY DEAR CHRISTIAN BROTHER,--My objections to any system of government\nthat interferes at will with the family relation, and forcibly separates\nhusbands and wives, parents and children, do not arise chiefly from the\npersonal wrongs and bitter woes inflicted upon its victims. A\ncontemplation of these is calculated to affect our sensibilities, and\nexcite the tender sympathies of our nature; but there is a more enlarged\nChristian view which forces itself upon us. If we could by some magic\nprocess allay the anguish of the stricken heart, and heal its wounds\nwhen the strongest ties of nature are rent asunder,--could we even\nobliterate the susceptibilities of the soul, destroy natural affection,\nand render man more callous than the brutes, so that he could be torn\nfrom his home and kindred with less pain than they,--in a _moral_ point\nof view the case would be altered but little. As I have remarked in a\nprevious letter, the _marriage relation_ was instituted by God, and he\nmade it indissoluble. \"What God hath joined together let not man put\nasunder,\" is the language of \"holy writ;\" and whoever, for any cause\nwhich God himself has not specified, breaks up this relation, encroaches\nupon God's prerogative, and goes directly in face of his positive\ncommands. Much has been said of late, seriously, sarcastically, and\ncontemptuously, about a \"higher law;\" but notwithstanding the improper\nuse often made of that term, there is an important sense in which you,\nand I, and every Christian recognize what that term implies. If, on any\nsubject whatever, human enactments do obviously conflict with the\nenactments of God, then God's law is the \"_higher_,\" and must be obeyed.\nTo deny this is worse than infidelity.\n\nNow, brother, does not the system of slavery in the United States\ntolerate, and even authorize, the forcible rending asunder of the\nmarriage tie? Are not husbands, not seldom, but often, sold from their\nwives, and wives from their husbands, and new matrimonial alliances\nformed by them, with consent and encouragement of their masters? Thus\nis flagrant adultery sanctioned in nearly one half of the States of this\nChristian Republic, and in some cases the crime is almost, if not quite,\nforced upon the wretched perpetrators of it. When God's law is\ndisregarded, and an ordinance on which depends all we hold dear in\nsocial and Christian life is trampled in the dust by an institution\nexisting in the midst of us, what shall we say? If slavery were a\nquestion merely of expediency, political economy, or even personal wrong\nand suffering, it would be easier to keep silence; but when God is\ndishonored, and gross sin sanctioned by law, is it not the duty of his\nchildren, North and South, to enter their solemn, earnest, decided\nprotestations? You will agree with me, that no Christian can or ought to\nacquiesce in what, either directly or indirectly, violates a positive\ndivine precept; and against what shall he remonstrate, if not against a\nsystem that encourages polygamy and legalizes adultery?[G]\n\nThere is another view in which the operation of the system of slavery;\nin breaking up families, has affected my mind powerfully and painfully.\nParents sustain most important relations to their children, as well as\nto each other. Who can be so much interested in the temporal and eternal\nwell-being of the child as those by whose instrumentality he had his\nexistence? Who has so much influence over him, or who could direct his\nfeet in the way he should go, so well? God has imposed upon all parents\nmost important duties, which they may not neglect. These duties are as\ntruly incumbent on the slave-parent as on the master who sustains the\nsame relation. It may be, indeed, extensively true that he does not\nunderstand them, and is in a great measure incompetent to discharge\nthem; and that often the child suffers nothing morally or intellectually\nby being removed from his influence. But this results in a great measure\nfrom the hopeless ignorance in which the parent is involved. There are,\nhowever, as you can bear witness, multitudes of exceptions. In how many\ncases are slave-parents truly pious and intelligent, and feel as much\nsolicitude for the eternal interests of their children, as you do for\nyours, and pray with them as frequently and as fervently. With how much\npleasure did you and I listen to your \"Jamie,\" one time when we were\ntaking an evening stroll past his cabin, and overheard his family\nprayer. With what simplicity and earnestness did he pour out his soul to\nGod for the salvation of his \"dear children.\" And do you not remember,\ntoo, how with equal importunity he prayed God to \"bless dear kind Massa\nand Missus, and dere precious children, and also Massa's friend, and dat\nall may meet to praise Jesus togedder in heaven,\" and how we found it\ndifficult to speak for a minute or two, and how the big tear-drops stood\nin our eyes, and we couldn't help it?\n\nYou told me there were a great many \"Jamies\" at the South, and I have no\ndoubt of it; they love their little ones as well, and who so competent\nto train them up for Christ? Who will presume to step in between these\nparents and their children and say, this family altar shall be broken\ndown, and those who have bowed around it shall be separated, to meet no\nmore till they meet at the judgment? Who will peril his own soul by\ntaking those children away from such an influence, and for a pecuniary\nconsideration cast them upon the wide world with none to instruct them,\nand none to care or pray for them, except their heart-broken parents\nwhom they have left behind? I would not do it, neither would you, for\nthe wealth of the world; and yet, is it not often done? In speaking of\nthis subject, one of the most eminent southern divines[H] uses the\nfollowing language: \"Slavery, as it exists among us, sets up between\nparents and their children an authority higher than the impulse of\nnature and the laws of God; breaks up the authority of the father over\nhis own offspring, and at pleasure separates the mother at a returnless\ndistance from her child, thus outraging all decency and justice.\" I\nshall refer to the sentiments of this brother again.\n\nI remain as ever,\n\nAffectionately yours, etc.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER VII.\n\nTHE CROWNING EVIL OF SLAVERY.--PRECIOUSNESS OF THE BIBLE.--OUR\nCHART AND COMPASS ON LIFE'S VOYAGE INDISPENSABLE.--ORAL\nINSTRUCTIONS INSUFFICIENT.--DANGERS.--SHIPWRECK ALMOST\nINEVITABLE.--WITHHELD FROM THE SLAVE.--SHUTS MULTITUDES OUT OF\nHEAVEN.--AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY.--TESTIMONY OF GENERAL\nASSEMBLY.--OF SYNOD OF KENTUCKY.--OF DR. BRECKENRIDGE.\n\n\nMY DEAR BROTHER,--There is one feature of slavery, fourthly, which gives\nme more pain by far than any other, and I may say more than all others\nput together, and that is, it imperils the immortal souls of millions of\nour fellow-beings by keeping from them the Word of God.\n\nNext to the Saviour, and the Holy Spirit, the most precious gift God has\nbestowed on man is the Bible. This volume contains our only perfect rule\nof life, and is our only guide to heaven. It teaches us our character\nand our destiny; it alone raises the curtain between time and eternity,\nand dissipates the darkness that otherwise would forever enshroud the\ngrave; it reveals to us another state of being, in which we shall be\nhappy or miserable, ages without end. On this Book alone do we depend\nfor our knowledge of the way of salvation by Christ. It is here we read\nthe story of the manger and the cross, and the wonderful plan of\nredemption through atoning blood. What could we do without the Bible? It\nis of infinitely greater value than houses and lands, silver and gold,\nand every earthly good beside. To take from us the Bible, would be like\nblotting out the sun in the heavens, and enveloping the universe in the\ngloom and darkness of eternal night. Take from me riches, honors,\npleasures, comforts, and even liberty itself; and give me instead\nthereof poverty, disgrace, pains, affliction, hunger, cold, nakedness,\nand a dungeon; tear me from my friends, bind me with chains, scourge me\nwith the lash, brand my flesh with hot irons, deprive me of every source\nof earthly good, and inflict upon me every kind of bodily and mental\nanguish which the utmost refinement of cruelty can invent;--but give me\nmy Bible--leave me this precious treasure, which is the gift of my\nheavenly Father, to teach me his will and guide me to himself. Torture\nand destroy my body, if you will, but O! give me facilities for saving\nmy soul. Turn me not adrift on life's troubled ocean to seek alone a\nfar distant shore, exposed continually to storms, breakers, hidden\nreefs, whirlpools, and shoals, with nothing but a few verbal\ninstructions to direct my way. If I am to make this fearful voyage, (and\nmake it I must,) take not from me my chart and compass. Your verbal\ndirections I shall be likely to forget when I most need them. The\npolestar, which you tell me may be my guide, is often for a long time\nconcealed by impenetrable clouds. There are fearful maelstroms, near the\nverge of whose deceptive and destructive circles my course lies, and ere\nI am aware of it I shall have passed the fatal line, from which no\nvoyager returns. Between me and my desired haven there is a \"hell-gate,\"\nwhere are sunken rocks and conflicting currents, and amid all these\ncomplicated dangers my frail bark will make shipwreck, without my chart\nand compass. Deprived of these, I cannot keep my reckoning, I cannot\nshape my course, I cannot find my haven.\n\nI need not tell you, my dear brother, that it is a part of the\nslaveholding policy to take from thousands and millions of immortal\nbeings in our nominally Christian land, this precious chart and\ncompass,--the Bible, the only safe guide to heaven. I have often heard\nyou speak of it, and deplore it. Those severe laws which forbid\nteaching the slave to read, do virtually take from him the Bible,--his\ndirectory to the New Jerusalem. You may, indeed, give him oral\ninstruction, and in many instances, no doubt, they are blessed to his\nconversion; but how utterly inadequate are they to his spiritual wants,\nhow imperfect are they at best, and in how many thousands of cases are\neven these entirely wanting. Every enlightened and intelligent Christian\nknows, from his own experience, how hard it is to enter the \"strait\ngate,\" and to keep in the \"narrow way,\" and how needful to him are all\nthe helps within his reach, and then he is but \"scarcely saved.\" What\nhope is there, then, for the poor slave, who is deprived, not only of\nmost of the ordinary and extraordinary means of grace which we enjoy,\nbut is forbidden the printed Word of God? Is not a fearful\nresponsibility incurred by those who, for any reason, stand between God\nand his children, and intercept those messages of grace and mercy which\nare contained in the Holy Scriptures?\n\nThat noble institution, the American Bible Society, is multiplying\ncopies of the sacred Word by thousands and hundreds of thousands, and\nscattering them over the land and the world; it hesitates not to thrust\nthem into the hands of the followers of the false prophet,--the deluded\nfollowers of the man of sin,--the disciples of Confucius and\nZoroaster,--the worshippers of Juggernaut and Vishnoo, and the degraded\ninhabitants of the South Seas and Caffraria;--it benevolently resolves\nto put a copy of the Bible into the dwelling of every white family in\nthese United States; but it is obliged by law to pass by the cabin of\nthe slave, and leave more than three millions of immortal beings to find\nthe road to heaven the best way they can.\n\nMy brother, I cannot think of these things without the deepest grief,\nand I know that you fully sympathize with me; but it is some consolation\nto believe that the great mass of evangelical Christians take the same\nviews of the wrongs inflicted upon the slave that we do, for it is to\nthe Christian sentiment of this country that we must look for the\nremoval of them.\n\nOur brethren of the Presbyterian church have borne their testimony most\nfully and pointedly against the evils of slavery which we have been\nconsidering. You doubtless recollect the action of the General Assembly\non this subject in 1818. A committee was appointed, to whom was referred\ncertain resolutions on the subject of selling a slave,--a member of the\nchurch,--and which was directed to prepare a report to be adopted by\nthe Assembly, expressing their opinion in general on the subject of\nslavery. The report of this committee was unanimously adopted, and\nordered to be published. It is, in part, as follows:--\n\n\"The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, having taken into\nconsideration the subject of slavery, think proper to make known their\nsentiments upon it to the churches.\n\n\"We consider the voluntary enslaving of the one part of the human race\nby another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights\nof human nature; as utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which\nrequires us to love our neighbors as ourselves; and as totally\nirreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ,\nwhich enjoins that all things 'whatsoever ye would that men should do to\nyou, do ye even so to them.' Slavery creates a paradox in the moral\nsystem; it exhibits 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.\n\n\"Such are some of the consequences of slavery,--consequences, not\nimaginary, but which connect themselves with its very existence. The\nevils to which 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 take\nplace, as we rejoice to say that in many instances, through the\ninfluence of the principles of humanity and religion on the minds of\nmasters, they do not, still the slave is deprived of his natural right,\ndegraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the\nhands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships which\ninhumanity and avarice may suggest.\"\n\nAn Address from the Synod of Kentucky, in 1835, to the Presbyterians of\nthat State, is much more specific in its delineations of the evils of\nslavery, and in its denunciations of the system, and adopts language far\nmore severe than many northern Christians would think it expedient to\nuse. It presents a picture of its actual workings which could be drawn\nonly by one who had seen the original. If you have not read this\naddress, I beg that you will do so. It is altogether a southern\ndocument. I have room only for a short extract.\n\nSlavery is characterized as \"a demoralizing and cruel system, which it\nwould be an insult to God to imagine that he does not abhor; a system\nwhich exhibits power without responsibility, toil without recompense,\nlife without liberty, law without justice, wrongs without redress,\ninfamy without crime, punishment without guilt, and families without\nmarriage; a system which will not only make victims of the present\nunhappy generation, inflicting upon them the degradation, the contempt,\nthe lassitude, and the anguish of hopeless oppression; but which even\naims at transmitting this heritage of injury and woe to their children\nand their children's children, down to their latest posterity. Can any\nChristian contemplate, without trembling, his own agency in the\nperpetuation of such a system?\"\n\nCoincident with the judgment of these two most respectable and revered\necclesiastical bodies is the testimony of one of the most prominent and\nhonored sons of the southern church, the Rev. Dr. R. L Breckenridge.\nSays he:--\n\n\"What then is slavery? for the question relates to the action of certain\nprinciples of it, and to its probable and proper results; what is\nslavery as it exists among us? We reply, it is that condition enforced\nby the laws of one half of the States of this confederacy, in which one\nportion of the community, called masters, are allowed such power over\nanother portion called slaves, as----\n\n\"1. To deprive them of the entire earnings of their own labor, except so\nmuch as is necessary to continue labor itself by continuing healthful\nexistence: thus committing clear robbery.\n\n\"2. To reduce them to the necessity of universal concubinage, by denying\nto them the civil rights of marriage, thus breaking up the dearest\nrelations of life, and encouraging universal prostitution.\n\n\"3. To deprive them of the means and opportunities of moral and\nintellectual culture, in many States making it a high penal offence to\nteach them to read, thus perpetuating whatever of evil there is that\nproceeds from ignorance.\n\n\"4. To set up between parents and their children an authority higher\nthan the impulse of nature and the laws of God, which breaks up the\nauthority of the father over his own offspring, and at pleasure\nseparates the mother at a returnless distance from her child, thus\nabrogating the clearest laws of nature, thus outraging all decency and\njustice, and degrading and oppressing thousands upon thousands of\nbeings, created like themselves in the image of the most high God! This\nis slavery as it is daily exhibited in every slave State.\"\n\nYes, such is the nature and character of an institution in this\nenlightened Christian republic, claiming to be the freest nation on\nearth, calling itself \"an asylum for the oppressed,\" inviting the\ndowntrodden subjects of all the despots of the old world to come to this\nhappy land, and place themselves under the protection of the American\neagle, and in this \"eyrie of the free\" taste and enjoy the sweets of\nliberty!\n\nThe views presented in the above extracts may be taken, it is to be\npresumed, as an exponent of the southern Christian sentiment on domestic\nslavery. There are, indeed, exceptions. It is painful to notice that\nwithin a few years some men of reputed piety and worth have been\nattempting to maintain that American slavery is a \"divine and\npatriarchal institution,\" \"sanctioned by the Bible,\"--is \"necessary to\nthe highest state of society,\" and is \"to be perpetuated;\" but I am\nhappy to believe that the number of those who hold such views,\nrepudiating those of the Presbyterian church, and at the same time call\nthemselves disciples of Him who said, \"whatsoever ye would that men\nshould do to you, do ye even so to them,\" is comparatively small.\n\nI close this long letter by subscribing myself, as ever,\n\nYour affectionate\n\nFriend and Brother.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER VIII.\n\nTHREE QUESTIONS SUGGESTED.--1. MUST SLAVERY BE PERPETUAL?--2. DOES\nTHE CHURCH OF CHRIST SUSTAIN ANY RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS MATTER?--3.\nWHAT SHALL WE DO?\n\n\nMY DEAR CHRISTIAN FRIEND,--I fear I shall make myself tedious to you by\ndwelling so long upon this, to me, painful subject,--slavery. I will,\ntherefore, in the present letter, finish what I have to say for the\npresent, hoping that our future correspondence may be on more grateful\nthemes.\n\nThere are a few questions which are suggested to us by the brief view we\nhave taken of this most important subject. The first is, Must slavery,\nwith all its attendant evils, be perpetuated? Must this blot rest upon\nour beloved country, and tarnish its escutcheon forever? I am persuaded\nthat the spontaneous answer from the Christian heart of this nation is,\n_No!_ It was never contemplated by Washington nor Jefferson nor Adams,\nnor by the framers of our Constitution, nor by the great mass of noble\npatriots who perilled their all for the independence of their country,\nthat slavery was to be handed down to posterity. If you will look at the\nwritings of the leading public men of the last century, you will find,\nthat, almost without exception, they looked upon slavery in the United\nStates as a temporary evil, to be removed as soon as circumstances would\npermit. They regarded it not only a wrong inflicted upon the slave, but\nan incubus upon the nation, soon to pass away.\n\nThe great body of Christians in our land have been looking forward to\nthe time, and praying for its arrival, when all the oppressed within our\nborders shall go free. That the time will come when slavery shall cease\nin our land, I as fully believe as I believe that there is a God who\npresides over and directs the destinies of men. You and I may not live\nto see the day; but it will come.\n\nAnother question suggested is, Does the church of Christ in this country\nsustain any responsibility in regard to slavery, and has she any duty to\ndischarge in relation to it? By the church of Christ, I mean the great\nmass of Christians of every name who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity,\nboth North and South.\n\nThis question is easily answered. There are no evils existing in the\nChristian's field of labor--the world--in regard to which he has not\nsome responsibility, and for the removal of which he is not bound to do\nsomething. As a general truth, the nearer the evils come to our own\nfiresides and bosoms, the weightier those responsibilities become. The\nhundreds of millions of heathens in foreign lands lying in sin and\ndegradation appeal to our sympathy and efforts, and that appeal we may\nnot disregard. But the heathen in our own land have on us much stronger\nclaims, and our obligations to put forth efforts in their behalf are\nmore imperious.\n\nSlavery is a great evil and sin, which affects not only individuals, but\nour country; and, both as Christians and patriots, we ought to be\nsensibly alive to every thing that affects our common weal. You who live\nat the South, it may be, have more responsibility in this matter than we\nat the North; but none of us can say, \"because I am not personally\nimplicated in inflicting wrongs upon the slave, therefore I have nothing\nto do for their removal.\" Should this become the universal sentiment of\nthe church, Satan's kingdom in our world would never come to an end, and\nwickedness would prevail forever. The spirit of Christianity, although\npre\u00ebminently mild, gentle, patient, and long-suffering, is nevertheless,\nin an important sense, aggressive. It has ever claimed the right of\ninteresting itself in the welfare of every human creature--to exert its\ninfluence to check the progress of sin in every form--to attack error in\nprinciple and in practice--to \"loose the bands of wickedness,\"--\"undo\nheavy burdens,\"--\"break every yoke,\"--\"deliver the poor and needy,\"--and\nto \"remember them that are in bonds as bound with them.\" This, by some,\nmay be called officiousness, but we cannot help it; it is a part of the\nChristian's legitimate business to volunteer his influence and his\nservices (in every proper way) in opposing wrong, and to stand up and\nplead the cause of those who suffer it the world over. He cannot refrain\nfrom doing so, without proving himself false to his Master and his\nMaster's cause.\n\nAdmitting, then, that all Christians have some kind of responsibility\nand duty devolving on them, a most important question comes up. Thirdly,\nwhat shall they do? There are certainly some things which it is\nperfectly evident we should not do,--though we should rebuke this and\nevery sin, we should not give vent to our hatred of the system in\nebullitions of wrath, invective, and abuse toward slaveholders. Thus did\nnot Christ nor his apostles. This is not in accordance with the\nChristian spirit, and could be productive only of evil.\n\nNeither should we endeavor to exert an influence over the slaves to make\nthem restive and disobedient; none but an enemy to the true interests,\nboth of the slave and his country, would do that, unless under some\nhallucination.\n\nNeither should we interfere politically with slavery beyond the\nboundaries of our own State, in States where it now exists by the laws\nof the land. I might go on indefinitely, and specify what we should not\ndo; but this does not meet the case;--what shall we do? It would be\narrogance in me to attempt a full answer to a question that has engaged\nthe attention of many abler heads and better hearts than mine, but there\nare some things which have already been said by others, that cannot be\ntoo frequently repeated.\n\nIn the first place, we can commit this whole matter to God in humble,\nearnest prayer. Here is something which we can all do, North and South,\nand in which we shall all be agreed. However much we may differ in\nregard to the safety and expediency of other measures to moderate the\ncondition of the slave and bring about his ultimate emancipation, we are\nof one mind in regard to the safety and efficacy of prayer. One effect\nof this will be to unite our own hearts more closely in sympathy and\nlove. There will be no danger of calling each other hard names, bandying\nunchristian epithets, and biting and devouring one another, if we are in\nthe habit of meeting daily at the throne of grace to pray for a cause in\nwhich we take a mutual interest.\n\nBy prayer we may hope to be enlightened more fully in regard to our\nduty. \"If any man lack wisdom,\" and surely we all do on this subject,\n\"let him ask of God.\"\n\nIn answer to prayer, we have reason to hope that God will open the eyes\nto teach the hearts of all slaveholders, and lead them to \"do justly and\nlove mercy,\" and also that he will, in his holy and wise Providence,\nredress the wrongs of his oppressed children, and prepare the way for\ntheir ultimate emancipation.\n\nPrayer is the Christian's first and last resort. Let us, then, my dear\nbrother, pray over this subject continuously, and with an earnestness\ncommensurate with its importance, and then, I doubt not, we shall\nourselves be more enlightened than we now are as to our future course.\n\nA second duty, hardly less obvious than prayer, is to use all the\ninfluence we possess to prevent the extension of the domain of slavery.\nTo this end, we should utter our voices long and loud in remonstrance\nagainst any such measure. If we and our legislators may not politically\ninterfere with slavery in States where it now exists, we may interfere\nto prevent it from exerting its baleful influence over territory now\nfree. We should do many things for the sake of peace and conciliation.\nWe have heretofore made concessions and compromises--perhaps too\nmany--on this subject; but here is where the people of God, North and\nSouth, should make a stand, and declare before heaven and earth, and\nwith an emphasis which cannot be misunderstood, that not another inch of\nour public domain shall be cursed with slavery for any consideration\nwhatever, if our influence can prevent it. In our remonstrances, we will\nbe respectful, but firm. Let our politicians know that all persons who\nare governed by Christian principle, through the length and breadth of\nthe land, have taken their position, and that the mountains shall be\nremoved out of their places, ere they will swerve from it, and there\nwill be but little danger of slave extension.\n\nIn the third place, we should use every endeavor to disseminate the\ngospel of Christ, and bring its principles to bear upon all classes of\npersons, North and South. If we can do this effectually, it is all\nsufficient. The Gospel, if faithfully applied, is a sure remedy for\nevery social and moral evil that ever existed. We at the North should\ndemonstrate to our slave-holding friends whom we wish to influence, that\nwe ourselves are governed by its spirit, and actuated by its principle,\nin all that we do in relation to this subject. It is not ambition, a\nlust for power, sectional jealousy, a spirit of censoriousness or\nill-will, that prompts us to what they have been in the habit of\nregarding as intermeddling with their affairs, in which we have no\nconcern, but a spirit of love,--love not less to them than to their\nslaves. And then, in the temper of Christ, we will bring the Gospel to\nbear on the slaveholder's conscience and sense of justice. We will hold\nup and keep before his mind the great rule of life given by Him who\nspake as never man spake,--\"Whatsoever ye would that men should do to\nyou, do you even so to them.\" Let this rule be once adopted and carried\nout, and it is enough. Human beings would no more be sold as beasts in\nthe market, and driven to unrequited toil; the minds of men would no\nlonger be kept in ignorance; the domestic circle would never again be\ninvaded by the hand of sordid avarice separating husbands and wives,\nparents and children, doing savage violence to the noblest affections\nof our nature; the Bible would be put into the hands of every slave, and\nhe would be taught to read it; common schools and Sabbath schools would\nbe everywhere established and maintained, as well for the slave as for\nthe white child; the master would regard those whom he now holds as\nproperty as his own brethren, going with him to the same judgment, and\ndestined finally to dwell with him as his equals, in the same heaven,\nand to wear as bright crowns and sing as rapturous a song as he. He\nwould immediately set himself about preparing his slaves for\nemancipation, and for the enjoyment of those natural rights, of which\nthey have for so long a time been most unjustly deprived. In short,\nslavery, as the term is now understood, would cease instantly, and a\nkind, parental guardianship would take its place, and every southern\nplantation would be transformed into a moral garden of beauty and\nhappiness, and universal and entire emancipation would follow with the\nleast possible delay. And, finally, we should if possible bring the\nGospel to bear upon the great body politic, upon our presidents, our\ngovernors, our National and State legislators. It would seem that some\nof our lawmakers are much better acquainted with Blackstone and Vattel,\nthan they are with the Lord Jesus Christ, or they would not disgrace\nour statute-books with laws which ignore the \"higher laws\" of God. We\nshould often remind them that this is a Christian, and not a heathen or\ninfidel republic; and that every enactment, not consistent with the\ngospel of Christ and inalienable human rights, does violence to the\nChristian sentiment and Christian conscience of the nation, and must be\nrepealed. If they will not hear us, we have only to appoint more\nfaithful servants, who will do as they are told. We have no idea of\n\"uniting church and state,\" but to infuse as much of the Gospel into the\nstate as possible is both a privilege and duty; and when all our affairs\nand institutions, public, domestic, and private, are administered on\ngospel principles, we shall become a free, prosperous, and happy people,\nand not till then.\n\nAnd now, may God bless you, my dear brother, and guide you, and guide us\nall, to pursue such a course in regard to the three and a half millions\nof slaves in our professedly free republic as will afford us the most\nsatisfaction when we meet them as our equals at the judgment-seat of\nChrist.\n\nWith high esteem and much affection,\n\nI remain your Christian brother,\n\nA. C. BALDWIN.\n\n\n\n\nAN ESSAY,\n\nBY\n\nREV. TIMOTHY WILLISTON.\n\n  IS AMERICAN SLAVERY AN INSTITUTION WHICH CHRISTIANITY\n     SANCTIONS, AND WILL PERPETUATE? AND, IN VIEW\n       OF THIS SUBJECT, WHAT OUGHT AMERICAN\n         CHRISTIANS TO DO, AND REFRAIN\n                  FROM DOING?\n\n    Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto.--TERENCE.\n        Bear ye one another's burdens.--PAUL.\n\n\n\n\nESSAY.\n\n\nA great moral question is, in this nineteenth century, being tried\nbefore the church of Christ, and at the bar of public sentiment. It is,\nWhether the system of servitude known as American slavery be a system\nwhose perpetuity is compatible with pure Christianity? Whether, with the\nBible in her hand, the church may lawfully indorse, participate in, and\nhelp perpetuate, this system? Or whether, on the other hand, the system\nbe, in its origin, nature, and workings, intrinsically evil; a thing\nwhich, if, like concubinage and polygamy, God has indeed tolerated in\nhis church, he never approved of; and which, in the progress of a pure\nChristianity, must inevitably become extinct? I feel assured that the\nlatter of these propositions will, without argument, command the assent\nof the mass of living Christians. But there are those in the church who\narray themselves on the other side. While they would not justify the\nleast inhumanity in the treatment of slaves, they profess to believe\nthat slavery itself has the approbation of Jehovah, and may with\npropriety be perpetuated in the church and the world. At their hands I\nwould respectfully solicit a patient hearing, while I proceed to assign\nseveral reasons for differing with them in opinion.\n\nFirst. Slavery is a condition of society not founded in nature. When\nGod, in his Word, demands that children shall be in subordination to\ntheir parents, and citizens to the constituted civil authorities, we\nneed no why and wherefore to enable us to see the reasonableness of\nthese requirements. We feel that they are no arbitrary enactments, but\nindispensable to the best interests of families and of society, and\ntherefore founded in nature. We are prepared, too, from their obvious\nnecessity and utility, to rank them among the permanent statutes of the\nDivine Legislator. But can as much be said of slavery? Is there such an\nobvious fitness and utility in one man's being, against his will, owned\nand controlled by another, as to prepare us to say that such an\nownership is founded in the very constitution of things? None will\npretend that there is. Not only is slavery not founded in nature, but,\n\nSecond. It is condemned by the very instincts of our moral constitution.\nThese instincts seem to whisper that \"all men are born free and equal;\"\nequal, not in intellect, or in the petty distinctions of parentage,\nproperty, or power; but having, as the creatures of one God, an equal\nright to \"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\" Job's moral\ninstincts taught him, that the fact of all men's having one and the same\nCreator gave his servants a right to contend with him, when wronged; and\nthat, if he \"despised their cause,\" he must answer it to his God and\ntheirs. That men of all races and grades are essentially equal before\nGod; that every man has a right to himself, to the fruits of his toil,\nand to the unmolested pursuit of happiness, in all lawful ways; and\nhence, that slavery, as existing in these States, is a gigantic system\nof evil and wrong,--are truths which the moral sense of men is\neverywhere proclaiming with much emphasis and distinctness. If it be not\nso, what means this note of remonstrance, long and loud, that comes to\nour ears over the Atlantic wave? Why else did a Mohammedan prince,[I]\n(to say nothing of what nearly all Christian governments have done,)\nput an end to slavery in his dominions before he died? And how else\nshall we account for that moral earthquake which has for years been\nrocking this great republic to its very centre? One cannot thoughtfully\nobserve the signs of the times,--no, nor the workings of his own heart,\nmethinks,--without perceiving that slavery is at war with the moral\nsense of mankind. If there be any conscience that approves, it must be a\nconscience perverted by wrong instruction, or by a vicious practice. And\ncan that be a good institution, and worthy of perpetuity, which an\nunperverted conscience instinctively condemns?\n\nThird. The bad character of slavery becomes yet more apparent, if we\nconsider the manner in which it has chiefly originated and been\nsustained. Did God institute the relation of master and slave, as he did\nthe conjugal and parental relations? It is not pretended. In what, then,\ndid slavery have its beginning? Doubtless the first slaves were\ncaptives, taken in war. In primitive ages, the victors in war were\nconsidered as having a right to do what they pleased with their\ncaptives; and so it sometimes happened that they were put to death, and\nsometimes that they were made to serve their captors as bondmen. Thus\nslavery was at first the incidental result of war. But as time rolled\non, the love of power and of gain prompted men to make aggressions on\ntheir weaker neighbors, for the very purpose of enslaving them; and,\neventually, man-stealing and the slave-trade became familiar facts in\nthe world's history. Upon these has slavery, for centuries past,\ndepended mainly for its continuance. And, although these feeders of\nslavery are now by Christian nations branded as piracy and strictly\nvetoed, they are far from being exterminated. Indeed, it seems to be\nwell understood, that, if all commerce in slaves, foreign and domestic,\nceases, slavery itself must soon become extinct.\n\nNow if man-stealing be an act which the Word of God and the moral\ninstincts of men do most pointedly condemn,--and I will attempt no\ndemonstration of this here,--what shall we say of that which is its\nlegitimate offspring and dependant? Far be it from me to affirm, that,\ncircumstanced as our southern brethren are, it is just as criminal for\nthem to hold slaves as it would be to go now to Africa and forcibly\nseize them. But, in the spirit of love, I would ask my slave-holding\nbrother, Can that be a justifiable institution, and deserving to be\nupheld, which has so bad a parentage? \"Do men gather grapes of thorns?\"\n\"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?\"\n\nFourth. There are, in the Scriptures, many clear indications that\nslavery has not the approbation of God, and hence has not the stamp of\nperpetuity upon it. Under this head, let us notice several distinct\nparticulars.\n\n1. Had God regarded servitude as a good thing, he would not, in\nauthoritatively predicting its existence, have said, \"Cursed be Canaan;\na servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.\" What God visits\nmen with as a curse cannot be intrinsically good and beneficial.\n\n2. The judgments with which God visited Egypt and her proud monarch, for\nrefusing to emancipate the Israelites, and for essaying to recapture\nthem, when let go, and the wages which he caused his people, when\nreleased, to receive for their hitherto unrequited tolls, clearly evince\nthat he has no complacency in compulsory, unrewarded servitude.\n\n3. The same thing is indicated by the fact that God has, by statute,\nprovided expressly for the protection and freedom of an escaped slave;\nbut not for the recovery of such a fugitive by his master. \"Thou shalt\nnot deliver unto his master, the servant which is escaped from his\nmaster unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place\nwhich he shall choose.... Thou shalt not oppress him.\" Now be it, if\nyou will, that this statute had reference only to servants who should\nescape into the land of Israel from Gentile masters; does it not\nindicate a strong bias, in the mind of God, to the side of freedom,\nrather than that of slavery? And does it not establish the point, that,\nin God's estimation, one man cannot rightfully be deemed the property of\nanother man? Were it otherwise, would not the Jew have been required to\nrestore a runaway to his pursuing master, just as he was to restore any\nother lost thing which its owner should come in search of? Or, to say\nthe least, would not the Israelites have been allowed to reduce to\nservitude among themselves the escaped slave of a heathen master? But\nhow unlike all this are the actual requirements of the statute. God's\npeople must neither deliver up the fugitive nor enslave him themselves;\nbut allow him to dwell among them as a FREEMAN, just \"where it liketh\nhim best.\" And, in this connection, how significant a fact is it, that\nthe Bible nowhere empowers the master from whom a slave had escaped to\npursue, seize, and drag back to bondage that escaped slave.\n\n4. That which constitutes the grand fountain of slavery,--the forcible,\nstealthy seizure of a man, for the purpose of holding or selling him as\na slave,--was, under the Mosaic dispensation, punishable with death;\nand is, in the New Testament, named in connection with the most heinous\ncrimes. \"He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in\nhis hand, he shall surely be put to death.\" What could more forcibly\nexhibit God's disapprobation of one of the distinctive features of\nslavery,--compulsion? What more impressively show the value that he puts\nupon a man's personal independence,--his right to himself? Now if God\ndoomed that man to die a felon's death who should steal and sell a\nfellow man, can it be that he would hold him guiltless who should buy\nthe stolen man, knowing him to have been stolen? God's people were,\nindeed, allowed to \"buy bondmen and bondmaids\" of the strangers that\ndwelt among them, and of the surrounding heathen. But were they ever\nallowed to buy persons whom they knew to have been unlawfully obtained,\nand offered for sale in manifest opposition to their own wishes? If they\nwere not,--and, from the statute just referred to, it seems certain that\nthey were not,--does American slavery derive countenance from that which\nwas tolerated in the Jewish church and nation? True, the slaves now held\nas such among us were not themselves feloniously seized on a foreign\nsoil, torn away from kindred, homes, and country, and sold into hopeless\nbondage in a strange land; but their sires and grandsires were.\nMan-stealing is confessedly the stock out of which has sprung, and grown\nto its present dimensions, the vast and overshadowing Upas of American\nslavery; and if the Bible brands that stock as pestiferous, must not the\nentire tree partake of the noxious influence? Again: if, as competent\ncritics assert, the popular sense of the word rendered \"men-stealers,\"\nin 1 Tim. i. 10, be \"those who deal in men--literally, slave-traders,\"\nthen trafficking in slaves for mercenary ends is, by Paul, ranked among\nvices the most abominable; and American slavery is, if possible, more\npointedly condemned by that passage than by the statute found in Ex.\nxxi. 16. For who does not know that trading in \"the persons of men\" has\never been, and yet is, a main pillar in the fabric of slavery? Indeed,\nman-stealing and slave-trading are to slave-holding precisely what the\nbusiness of the distiller and of the vendor is to the vice of\nintemperance. There is, in either case, a trio of associated evils; and\nit is difficult to say which member of either trio is the most repulsive\nand harmful.\n\nIf, now, it be objected to this argument from the Bible, that the Mosaic\ninstitutes expressly recognize such a thing as involuntary servitude,\nand prescribe rules for its regulation, I answer: true, but the\nservitude thus recognized and regulated by statute was of a far milder\ntype than that which is legalized in these American States. For, 1. It\nallowed the bondman a large amount of leisure, or time which he need not\ndevote to his master's service; 2. It made it possible for him to\naccumulate a considerable amount of property; 3. It placed him on a\nperfect level with his master, in regard to religious privileges; 4. It\ngave him his freedom whenever he should be so chastised as to result in\npermanent injury to his person: thus operating as a powerful preventive\nof inhumanity in chastising; 5. It respected the sanctity of the\nconjugal and parental relations, when existing among bondmen, and did\nnot authorize a compulsory severing of family ties; 6. It made no\nprovision for the sale of a servant by his Jewish master, nor for any\nsuch domestic commerce in the persons of men as is practised in the\nsouthern States of this Union; 7. It provided for the periodical\nemancipation of all that were in bondage; thus aiming a fatal blow at\nthe very existence of servitude in the Hebrew commonwealth. I may not,\nconsistently with the necessary brevity of a tract designed for popular\nperusal, go into any demonstration of the facts above asserted. For\nproof that they are facts, let my readers studiously examine the Mosaic\nbooks, and the Rev. A. Barnes's \"Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of\nSlavery.\" I see not how any candid and discriminating investigator can\nhelp being convinced that the servitude which was temporarily tolerated\nin the Jewish church, was, in numerous respects, very unlike to that\nwhich exists among us, and far less repulsive.\n\nBut suppose, for argument's sake, it had been just as repulsive a system\nas ours, would the fact of its having been tolerated under the Jewish\neconomy prove it to be intrinsically good, and worthy of being\nperpetuated? Then, by parity of reasoning, the good men of ancient times\nmight safely have concluded that certain other practices were good and\nwould endure, which we know were not good, and were not to last. Had the\nquestion been propounded in Abraham's or in David's day, whether\npolygamy and concubinage were approved of God, and would be perpetuated\nin the church, it is probable that even the saints of those periods\nwould have responded affirmatively. The fact that God had so long\nallowed his people to practise these things unrebuked, might, to them,\nhave seemed sufficient proof that these practices were intrinsically\nproper, and were to rank among the permanent fixtures of human society.\nBut were Abraham and David now on the earth, with what changed feelings\nwould they regard the cast-off system of concubinage and a plurality of\nwives. Again: suppose the conjecture had been hazarded, three thousand\nyears ago, that woman, from being a menial drudge, or a mere medium of\nbestial indulgence, would one day occupy the dignified position to which\nChristianity has actually lifted her, would not incredulity have lurked\nin every heart, and found expression on every tongue? Now there are\nplain indications, not only in the Word, but the providences of God,\nthat he never regarded slavery with complacency, any more than he did\npolygamy, concubinage, or the serfdom of woman; and that he never\ndesigned its perpetuity. Scrutinizing that Word and those providences,\none needs no prophetic ken to enable him to predict with certainty,\nthat, when Christ's millennial reign is ushered in, contraband will be\ninscribed on slavery, as it already has been on some other evils that\nwere once tolerated, not only in society, but in the church of God.\n\nBut I shall be reminded here, that, when the apostles were disseminating\nChristianity in the Roman empire, there prevailed throughout that empire\na system of slavery more odious and oppressive than ours; and yet that\nboth slaveholders and slaves were converted and admitted to the church,\nwithout its affecting the relation of master and slave; that the New\nTestament instructs the parties how to demean themselves in that\nrelation, but nowhere enjoins emancipation on the master, or encourages\nabsconding or non-submission in the slave; in short, that it nowhere\nexpressly condemns slavery, or intimates that its extermination was to\nbe expected or desired. In reply to this, I would say,--\n\n(1.) To infer, because the New Testament enjoins obedience on slaves,\nand makes no direct attack on the institution of slavery, that it\ntherefore sanctions the institution, and would have it perpetuated, is\nas much a _non sequitur_ as to infer, because God enjoins on men\nsubjection to existing civil authorities, whatever may be their\ncharacter, that he as much approves of a despotic as of a constitutional\ngovernment,--of the government of Ferdinand of Naples as of that of\nVictoria of England. Nor is it more difficult to comprehend why God has,\nin the Scriptures, made no direct assault on slavery, than it is to see\nwhy He has not directly assailed governmental despotisms, or expressed\nany preference for one form of government over another. An obvious and\nfar-seeing wisdom is discernible in this, which it behooves us to\nadmire, and not unfrequently to imitate. Had the apostles or the\nScriptures openly denounced all absolutism, whether civil or domestic,\nit would have aroused unnecessary prejudice and opposition, and diverted\nthe attention of men from the grand object aimed at in giving the world\na written and preached gospel. God deemed it wiser to reach these evils\nthrough the slow but sure progress of certain great principles laid down\nin his Word, than through the medium of specific prohibitions.\n\n(2.) The fact that the apostles received into the church converts who\nnot only held slaves, but held them under a slave-system that was\nawfully despotic, was no indorsement on their part of that odious\nsystem, nor even of the slightest inhumanity on the part of a master\ntowards his slaves. It does, indeed, prove that a man may be a\nChristian, without ceasing to be a slaveholder in form; but not that a\nmaster may indulge in all the legal barbarities of the system, and yet\nbe a Christian. Merely to sustain the relation of a Christian master for\nthe good of the slave, or from the necessity of the case, is one thing,\nwhile to advocate and defend this chattel system, and hold in bondage\nfellow human beings for personal and selfish ends, is quite another\nthing. Nowhere do the Scriptures countenance, or even wink at, the least\ndegree of inhumanity or injustice in the treatment of servants. So far\nfrom this, they expressly enjoin it on masters to \"give unto their\nservants that which is just and equal,\" all the law of disinterested\nlove would require; accompanying the injunction with the significant\nhint, that they themselves have a Master, and that with him there is \"no\nrespect of persons.\"\n\n(3.) Though the Scriptures do not directly assail the system of slavery,\nthey indirectly and obviously condemn it, and that very abundantly.\nSlavery is indirectly and yet strongly rebuked in such passages of\nScripture as the following: \"Wo unto him that ... useth his neighbor's\nservice without wages.\" \"Is not this the fast that I have chosen, ... to\nundo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye\nbreak every yoke?\" \"What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do\njustly, and to love mercy?\" ... \"Have we not all one Father? Hath not\none God created us?\" ... \"And hath made of one blood all nations of men,\nfor to dwell on all the face of the earth; ... that they should seek the\nLord.\" ... \"God is no respecter of persons.\" \"The people of the land\nhave used oppression, ... therefore have I poured out mine indignation\nupon them.\" ... \"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\" \"Therefore,\nall things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so\nto them.\" It needs no unusual acuteness to see, that, were the spirit of\nthese and kindred passages (for numerous others of the sort might have\nbeen cited) everywhere acted out, slavery would as readily vanish, as do\nthe icebergs of the North, if perchance they float away into milder\nlatitudes.\n\nFifth. To the four reasons already assigned for thinking that slavery\nhas not God's approbation, and ought not to be perpetuated, I will add\nbut one more,--its baleful effects. (1). As it respects worldly thrift,\nor pecuniary prosperity. It is a fact, that slavery exerts a depressing\ninfluence on the business welfare of any community where it prevails;\nand that, other things being equal, slaveholding States can never\ncompete with free ones in the item of financial prosperity. A necessary\nbrevity forbids my pointing out the causes of this fact; but my readers\nwill, without my aid, readily ascertain what they are. Suffice it to\nsay, it has become a settled maxim of political economy, that there\nexists an antagonism between slavery and the highest business prosperity\nof any people that tolerates it; and the southern States of this Union\nfurnish abundant confirmation of its truth. (2.) I will name but one\nother thing,--its baneful influence on character and morals. That\nslavery tends to debase the character and morals of the slaves will\nscarcely be questioned. Apart from the ignorance naturally resulting\nfrom their condition, that condition powerfully tends to render them\nsensual, indolent, artful, mendacious, stealthful, and revengeful. But\nis the bad moral tendency of the institution limited to the bondmen?\nExerts it no corrupting influence on the hearts, the habits, and morals\nof the masters? Is it not its legitimate tendency to foster in them such\nvices as indolence, effeminacy, licentiousness, covetousness,\ninhumanity, haughtiness, and a supreme regard for self? Of course, I do\nnot affirm that it uniformly produces these sad effects on the character\nof masters. So far from this, there may doubtless be found slaveholders,\nwho, in all that adorns and ennobles human character, will compare\nfavorably with the very best men at the North. I think it will be\nconceded, however, that the legitimate tendency is to evil, and that the\neffects of slavery on the character of its sustainers are, in the main,\ndisastrous; and that the depreciated state of morals prevailing where\nslavery exists is mainly attributable to this as its source. I need not\nhere enter into detail. Facts are too well known to make this\nnecessary.\n\nThus have we contemplated several distinct reasons for believing that\nslavery is no good thing,--has not the sanction of Jehovah,--and cannot\nwith propriety be perpetuated. Its contrariety to nature,--its\nantagonism to the moral sense of mankind,--its disgraceful parentage and\nmanner of support,--its condemnation by the Bible,--and its disastrous\ninfluence on financial prosperity, on character, and on public\nmorals,--all proclaim that slavery, so far from being a good thing, is a\ntremendous curse; yea, more, that it is a stupendous wrong; and hence,\nthat it should be tolerated in the church of Christ no longer than the\nbest interests of all concerned may render necessary for a safe\ntermination.\n\nBut it may be, after all, that I have failed to secure the assent of\nsome of my southern brethren to the justness of the foregoing positions\nand inferences. It may be that they still regard the system of bondage\nprevailing in their midst as in the main beneficial, defensible from the\nBible, and, with some modifications perhaps, worthy of perpetuity. Well,\nbrethren, suppose you do thus regard it; and for argument's sake\nsuppose, too, that you may possibly be right,--that slave-holding may be\nin itself the harmless thing which you deem it; ought you not\ncheerfully to abandon it, in obedience to a great Bible\nprinciple,--that of refraining from things which are in themselves\nlawful, or which your conscience may not condemn, out of regard to the\nconscience of aggrieved Christian brethren, or to the prejudices of\nthose whose salvation you would not obstruct? You are aware, brethren,\nthat this magnanimous principle Paul both inculcated and exemplified.\nYou are also aware that a large majority of the Christians now living\nregard your cherished institution as unjustifiable, and at variance with\nthe spirit of Christianity; and, so regarding it, they long for its\nextinction, and are grieved with you for cleaving to it so tenaciously,\nand refusing to concert measures for its ultimate overthrow. Indeed,\nthey are more than grieved; they are profoundly agitated by the fresh\ndevelopments of the iniquitous system which you are helping to uphold;\nand there seems no prospect, while that system endures, of their\nbecoming tranquillized. A tempest has sprung up and is raging in the\nchurch of Christ,--to say nothing of the civilized world,--which seems\nnot likely to cease till its cause be removed; and slavery is that\ncause. Now I put it to you, brethren, if here be not an opportunity of\nexemplifying, on a broad scale, the self-denying and noble principle\nwhich Paul indicates in the words, \"All things are lawful for me, but\nall things are not expedient;\" \"Eat not for his sake that shewed it, and\nfor conscience' sake: ... conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the\nother;\" \"Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant\nunto all, that I might gain the more.\" Have it, if you will, that the\nbrethren for whose sake you are asked to make this sacrifice are weak\nbrethren, and their consciences weak. Your obligation to make it is none\nthe less on that account; for the principle just adverted to\ncontemplates cases of this very sort. Since the practice which grieves\nthese weak brethren is one that you can probably abandon without\nwounding your own conscience, are you at liberty to undervalue their\nconscience by persisting in that which grieves them?\n\nBut how much weightier does this argument become, when it is remembered\nthat the opposers of slavery, besides being exceedingly numerous, have,\nmany of them, been eminent,--not merely for a conscientious piety, but\nfor talent, for research, for scholarship, for broad and comprehensive\nviews of things;--and that the list embraces distinguished southern, as\nwell as northern men; and men of celebrity in both church and state.\nThere have been found in the anti-slavery ranks, presidents and noble\nmen, jurists and legislators, statesmen and divines, scholars and\nauthors, poets and orators. And, still further to enhance the dignity of\nthe cause, it should be remembered that several General Assemblies of\nthe Presbyterian Church of the United States, together with numerous\nlesser ecclesiastical bodies, have lifted up their voice in opposition\nto slavery, and proclaimed substantially the same views which this\nhumble Essay has aimed to exhibit. Now if, as we have seen, a\ndeferential regard should be had to the conscience of aggrieved\nChristian brethren, even when they are few and feeble-minded, how much\nmore, when the aggrieved ones are counted in hundreds of thousands? when\ntheirs is an intelligent piety and an enlightened conscience? and when,\ntoo, their remonstrance is backed up by a public sentiment that is\nwellnigh unanimous through all christendom?\n\nIf now, in spite of all these considerations, I still have readers that\nsay in their hearts, slavery must be perpetuated, they will pardon me\nfor lingering no longer in the hope of changing their views. I would be\nindulged, however, in one parting interrogation. Has it never occurred\nto you, brethren, that yours is, on some accounts, a very unfavorable\nstand-point from which to form just and disinterested views of slavery;\nand that your very position as slave-holders, and your long familiarity\nwith the system and its evils, may have blinded you to the magnitude of\nthose evils, and to the great desirableness of their being removed? May\nit not be that long use, and self-interest, and the love of power and\nease, have conspired to warp your judgment, blunt your sensibilities,\nand cause you to view slavery through a deceptive medium?\n\nHaving, as I hope, the cordial assent of the great mass of my readers,\nnorthern and southern, to the foregoing argument against slavery and its\nperpetuity, we are now prepared to advance to the last great division of\nour subject, and to inquire: What are the duties, positive and negative,\nwhich this subject imposes on American Christians? What does it demand\nthat we, as Christians, should do, and refrain from doing? This question\nsubdivides itself thus: What ought we northern and professedly\nanti-slavery Christians to do, and not do? And, next, What duties,\npositive and negative, does the question devolve on professing\nChristians in the slave-holding States?\n\nI. We are to consider what we, the northern and avowedly anti-slavery\nsection of the American church, ought, in view of this subject, both to\ndo, and refrain from doing. In reply to the question, What ought we to\ndo? I would say,--\n\n1. It is not only our right, but duty, temperately and with Christian\ncourtesy to continue to discuss this great theme, both orally and with\nthe pen; and especially to endeavor to bring the truth into contact with\nthe mind and heart of our southern brethren,--if, peradventure, we may\nthus persuade them soon to cease their connection with slavery. Freedom\nof discussion is one important safeguard of the public weal; and that\nmust be regarded as a bad, untenable cause which will not bear the test\nof a full and free discussion before the world. Free inquiry, too, has\nnot only preceded all great reformations, but has been an important\ninstrument in bringing them about. That great moral change known as the\ntemperance reformation is but one example among many that might be\nadduced. If slavery is ever to be numbered in history among the things\nthat are past, it will be by having Bible light and truth made to\nconverge upon it, through the lens of free public discussion. Hence,\nbelieving as we do that American slavery is an enormous evil and a\ngigantic wrong,--a thing with which the church should cease to have\nconnection as speedily as may be,--as Christians we may, we must, employ\nour tongues and our pens in behalf of the enslaved, till our world\nshall cease to contain such a class of men.\n\n2. We ought so to exercise the right of suffrage as to resist the\nextension of slavery beyond its present limits. I say nothing here of\nthe political question of State rights, or of interfering with slavery\nin States where it now exists. The question of authorizing by law the\nextension of slavery into new States and Territories, or of admitting\nnew States with pro-slavery constitutions, is another and very different\nthing from that of disturbing the compact in relation to slavery entered\ninto by the founders of this republic. The concessions in relation to\nthe slave interest which our fathers made by no means oblige us to make\nfurther concessions, by consenting that slavery shall overstep her\npresent geographical limits. I know not what others may think; but, for\none, I feel constrained, by a sense of duty to God and my country, so to\nvote as to have my votes tell against the spread of slavery. I must\ncarry my Christian principles of love and humanity to the ballot-box, as\nwell as elsewhere. Though long identified with one of the political\nparties, I have of late felt myself bound, as a voter, to ignore the\nancient party lines, and even to ignore all other questions, compared\nwith the one great and absorbing one, Shall slavery be allowed to have\nmore territory, in which to breed and expand itself? In my deliberate\njudgment, all Christian patriots should, so far as their votes can\nspeak, say to the system of bondage existing in our midst, \"Hitherto\nshalt thou come, but no further, and here shall thy proud waves be\nstayed.\" This becomes now a moral and a religious duty.\n\n3. In our visits to the throne of grace, we ought, with more frequency\nand fervor, \"to remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them.\"\nAssured that all hearts and events are at God's disposal, that he abhors\noppression, and that prayer is the Christian's mode of taking hold of\nGod's strength, we must make full proof of this as a weapon with which\nto effect the subversion of slavery. It may be that importunate,\npersevering prayer will effect more in behalf of the enslaved than all\nother instrumentalities. It is, at least, quite certain that other means\nwill prove inefficacious, if this be not superadded.\n\nBut the question we are considering has a negative as well as positive\nside; and we will next inquire, what we anti-slavery Christians ought to\nrefrain from doing.\n\n1. We must not, in our efforts to subvert slavery, indulge in an\nunchristian spirit, or in language adapted needlessly to anger and\nalienate those whom it should be our aim to win. A cause that is\nintrinsically good may be advocated in a bad spirit, or with improper\nweapons; and such may have sometimes been the case with ours. Would that\nall men had ever borne it in mind, that truth and love are the only\nweapons with which to wage a successful conflict with this or any other\ndeep-seated moral evil.\n\n2. We must not, in our zeal for emancipation, allow mere feeling or\nbenevolent impulses partially to dethrone reason; and thus disqualify\nourselves for taking impartial views of the subject, or for accurately\ndiscriminating between truth and error. There may have been men in the\nanti-slavery ranks, with whom sympathy was every thing, and reason--and\neven the Bible--comparatively nothing. In obeying the injunction to\n\"remember them that are in bonds,\" they may have neglected to remember\nany thing else. Slavery seemed to occupy their entire field of vision.\nHence, not fully informed in regard to the actual condition of things at\nthe South, they have erroneously supposed that the slave codes\nprevailing there were the standard by which to judge of the actual\ncondition of the slaves, and that all the Southern church was actually\npractising the barbarities authorized by those codes. As there was no\njust appreciation of the actual conduct of masters towards their\nservants, so there was no allowance made for the circumstances which\nconspired to render them masters, nor for the obstacles which stand in\nthe way of their ceasing to be masters. It must be admitted, that\ngenerally, where unrighteous laws are suffered to exist, the mass of the\ncommunity will not be better than the laws; but there are\nexceptions,--men who intend to give heed to a higher law. So much for\nallowing an amiable but blind sympathy to usurp that throne which reason\nand revelation were designed conjointly to occupy. It scarcely need be\nadded, that these ultraisms have done much to prejudice the anti-slavery\ncause, and bring it, in the eyes of some, into unmerited contempt. We\nmust wipe away that reproach, by so conducting our warfare with slavery\nas to evince that we are neither men of one idea, nor men whose judgment\nis led captive by their sensibilities.\n\n3. We must not, in opposing slavery, indorse the sentiment, that one\ncannot in any conceivable circumstances give credible evidence of piety,\nand yet continue in form to hold slaves; that being a master is,\nin any and in all circumstances, a disciplinable offence in the\nchurch; or that it should, without exception, constitute a barrier to\nchurch-membership, or to the communion of saints at Christ's sacramental\nboard. While we believe that all the great principles of God's Word go\nto subvert slavery, and while we are constrained to regard the holding\nof slaves as diminishing the evidence of a man's piety, and thus far\nalienating his claims to a good standing in the Christian church, we may\nnevertheless make exceptions, and not keep a man out of the church, or\ndiscipline him when in it, merely because he sustains temporarily the\nrelation of master, not for selfish ends, but, as in rare cases, for\nbenevolent reasons. But if a man defends the system, and takes away from\na fellow man inalienable human rights, then we may and should refuse him\nadmission, or subject him to discipline, as the case may be. But,\nobvious and important as is this distinction, it is one which some\nanti-slavery men may have failed to make; and that failure may have\nprejudiced or retarded the cause of emancipation. A good cause suffers\nby having a single uncandid statement or untenable argument advanced in\nits support; and the friends of the enslaved must afford their opponents\nno room for saying, that their reasonings are illogical or\nanti-scriptural.\n\n4. We must not, in seeking the extinction of American slavery, so\ninsist on its immediate abolition as to repudiate the responsibility\nwhich a master owes to this dependent and depressed class of his fellow\nbeings; but that that end be kept steadily in view, to be accomplished\nas speedily as is consistent with the best good of the parties\nconcerned. The immediate and total extinction of southern slavery, if\nnot obviously impossible, is of questionable expediency. The upas of\nAmerican slavery has struck its roots so deep, and shot its branches so\nfar, and so interlaced itself with all surrounding objects, that, to\nhave it instantaneously and unreservedly uprooted, might prove, in many\ncases, disastrous; and, at all events, is not to be expected. To say\nnothing of other obstacles to the immediate abolition of Southern\nslavery, the highest good of many of the slaves makes it inexpedient.\nSome, probably many of them, need to pass through an educating\nprocess,--a kind of mental and moral apprenticeship,--in order to their\nprofiting largely by the boon of emancipation.[J]\n\nII. We are now to inquire, lastly, what duties, positive and negative,\nthis great question devolves on those Christians among whom American\nslavery has its seat, or who are personally identified with it. Hoping,\nbrethren, that the sentiments thus far advanced are your sentiments, I\nshall have your further assent when I say,\n\n1. That the extinction, at the earliest consistent date, of the system\nof servitude existing among you, is a result at which you ought steadily\nand strenuously to aim. And, as you see, we base this obligation of\nyours, not on the assumption of any sinfulness which you may sustain to\nslavery, but on the acknowledged injustice and woes, past, present, and\nprospective, of the system as a system,--its contrariety, as a system,\nto the fundamental principles of Christianity. Did we regard you as\nnecessarily sinners, if in any sense you hold slaves, then the least we\ncould ask of you would be, that with contrition of heart you should\ninstantaneously cease to indulge in this sin, for all sin should be\nimmediately abandoned. As it is, we only ask, that, just as fast as your\nslaves can be prepared for freedom, and as the providence of God may put\nit in your power to liberate them, you will do so. We are not so unwise\nas to expect that the work of extinction can be accomplished in a day.\nWe know, too, that you are not, in your church capacity, the constituted\narbiters of the question as a question of State policy. And, so long as\nyour legislatures and their constituencies are resolved on maintaining\nthe system, perhaps you will be unable to effect as much as you desire\nin the way of promoting its overthrow. And yet, brethren, there is a way\nin which we think you can, with entire safety and manifest propriety,\ncontribute largely and directly to the extinction of American slavery.\nWould the entire Southern church cease all personal participation in\nslavery, and throw her whole weight and influence into the scale of\nslavery's complete subversion, that \"consummation devoutly to be wished\"\nwould soon ensue. Slave-holding, no longer practised or justified by the\nchurch, but discountenanced, could not long retain its foothold in the\nState. Now if this be so, our slaveholding brethren will confess that\nthey are imperiously bound, by motives of Christian duty, to liberate\ntheir bondmen with all consistent speed. Meantime, and as one important\nmeans of qualifying them for freedom, you ought,\n\n2. To see to it that not only your own, but all the bondmen among\nyou,--your entire slave population,--are furnished with the Bible, and\nqualified to read and comprehend it; and also with stated preaching.\nThey need a written and preached gospel, were it only to fit them to\nexchange, with advantage, a state of vassalage for the dignity of\nfreemen; for all experience proves that the Bible and the pulpit are of\nall instruments the best to qualify men safely to exercise the right of\nself-government. But there is a servitude more dreadful by far than any\ndomestic bondage that men have ever groaned under; and your slaves need\nthe Bible, and the Bible preached, to prove God's instruments of\nbreaking the chains imposed by Satan, and making them Christ's freemen.\nBefore God and in prospect of eternity, the distinctions between the\nmaster and his slave dwindle into insignificance. Having souls that are\nalike impure and alike precious, alike remembered by a dying Saviour and\nalike in need of the regenerating change, they stand alike in need of\nGod's Word, written and preached, as the Spirit's instrument in renewing\nand sanctifying the soul. Hence the Bible and preaching are as much the\nrightful inheritance of the slave as of the master. We rejoice that\nthese truths and the obligations resulting therefrom are, to some\nextent, recognized by southern Christians; and that, in spite of certain\nadverse statutes, so much is being done there for the spiritual\nwell-being of the slaves. Go on, brethren, in the good work of\nevangelizing your slave population; in teaching them the art of reading\nand the rudiments of knowledge; in putting the Bible into their hands,\nand affording them stated opportunities to read it, and to hear it\nexpounded by you and by Christ's ministers. Go on, we say, till there be\nnot one southern slave, who, in point of religious privileges, is not on\na footing of equality with yourselves. Prosecuting this laudable work in\nthe spirit of love, you will probably encounter no serious opposition.\nThe adverse but dead statutes referred to will not, we hope, be\ngalvanized into life, in order to oppose you.\n\nIt only remains that we name a few things, which we trust our Southern\nbrethren will unite with us in saying that they should refrain from\ndoing. (1.) You ought not to, and we trust you will not, betray\nimpatience and irritation, whenever we of the North attempt to press the\nclaims of the enslaved on your attention. Your doing this,--as you\nsometimes have,--seems to indicate, that, in your opinion, we Northern\nChristians have no responsibility in regard to slavery and its evils;\nand that when we discuss this theme we make ourselves \"busybodies in\nother men's matters.\" To the justness of this opinion we cannot\nsubscribe. While we disclaim all right or intention to break our compact\nwith you as States, we feel that American slavery is a question of too\ngreat moment to ourselves and to unborn generations for us to have no\nconcern with or responsibility for; and as patriots, as philanthropists,\nas Christians, we are constrained to do all that we rightfully may for\nthe downfall of this hoary system of wrong and woe. If any of you differ\nwith us in opinion on this theme, we trust you will allow us to discuss\nit to our heart's content; and that you will listen to our reasonings\nwith Christian meekness and candor. Not to do so will be construed as an\nevidence of intrinsic weakness in your cause. (2.) You will freely\nadmit, we presume, that certain practices are authorized by your slave\nlaws, in which you must not indulge even so long as by any necessity\nyou hold slaves. Your slave codes, for example, do not recognize the\nsanctity of family ties and the domestic affections as existing among\nslaves; but, as Christian masters, you must. You doubtless believe, as\ndo we, that the marriage relation, with all its rights and immunities,\nwas as much designed for the negro as for the white man; that he, as\ntruly as the other, is entitled to \"cleave unto his wife,\" unexposed to\nthe danger of man's putting asunder what God hath so closely joined,\nthat \"they are no more twain, but one flesh.\" You believe, too, that God\nunited husband and wife thus indissolubly, not simply that they might be\na help and solace to each other in the toilsome pilgrimage of life, but\nthat the children with which God should bless them might grow up under\ntheir supervision, and by them be qualified for a career of usefulness\nand honor. Thus you believe, and believing thus, you will not, we trust,\ncounteract God's benevolent designs, by countenancing, in your own\npractice, the separation of husbands and wives, or of parents and their\noffspring. We feel assured, that, whatever your laws may allow, or\nnon-professing masters around you may do, you will never ignore the\nconjugal or parental rights of your servants, or indulge in any thing\nadapted to mar their domestic enjoyment. Were you to do so, we confess\nwe could not extend to you \"the right hand of fellowship\" as brethren in\nChrist. Were a church-member of ours to practise thus, we should regard\nhim as amenable to discipline. We should also regard it as disciplinable\nfor a master to overwork, or brutally chastise, or but half feed and\nclothe his servants; or to hold slaves for mere purposes of gain, or to\ntraffic in them. None of these inhumanities could we reconcile with the\nobligations of a Christian profession; and we confidently hope that in\nthese views you will heartily concur, and that with them your practice\nwill correspond.\n\nChristian brethren of the North and the South! The question we have been\nconsidering is one of vast moment. Upon the right disposition of it are\nsuspended, under God, interests of immeasurable value, and which stretch\nfar out into the unseen future of our country and the world. Coming ages\nand unborn generations are to be affected; favorably or otherwise, by\nthe decision of this vexed question; and, brethren, unless I misjudge,\nits right decision is, to a very great extent, lodged in our hands. As\ndecides the American church, so, methinks, will decide the American\npeople. And now,--may I confess it?--I have dared to hope that the\nsentiments of this Essay are not only sound, but in unison with the\nviews of the great mass of American Christians. Are we not agreed in\nthis: that American slavery is a system of deep injustice and wrong, not\nsanctioned by the Word or the providence of God; fraught with\nincalculable mischief to the interests of both masters, and slaves, and\nto the social and religious well-being of our whole country; a blot on\nthe escutcheon both of the nation and of the church; a weapon for\nscepticism to wield, and an obstacle to the introduction of millennial\nglory; and hence, a system which ought speedily to terminate, and which\nall good men should unitedly oppose and seek to subvert? If we are thus\nagreed, let us join hands as well as hearts, and, swerving neither to\nthe extreme of passive indifference on the one hand nor to that of\nerratic fanaticism on the other, in the majesty of principle let us move\ncalmly onward, a phalanx of Christian philanthropists, attempting naught\nbut what they are assured God would have them attempt, and employing\nonly such means as are warranted by an enlightened conscience. Leaning\nprayerfully on Him who hears the sighing of the oppressed, let us push\nvigorously forward, and, though the year of jubilee has not yet fully\ncome, be assured it will come,--that proud day, when not only\n\"throughout all the land,\" but throughout the civilized world, liberty\nshall be proclaimed \"unto all the inhabitants thereof.\" Hasten its\nadvent, \"O Thou that hearest prayer,\" and that \"delightest in mercy!\"\nAmen and Amen.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[A] An extended passage containing the extract may be found conveniently\nin Chambers' Cyclop\u00e6dia of English Literature, vol. 2, p. 246.\n\n[B] Genesis, 10th Chapter. Vide, Kitto's Cyclop\u00e6dia, for views in this\nconnection.\n\n[C] Col. 4:1; \"Ye masters, give unto your servants that which is just\nand equal.\" That is, act towards them on the principles of justice and\nequity. Justice requires that all their rights, as men, as husbands, and\nas parents, should be regarded. And these rights are not to be\ndetermined by the civil law, but by the law of God.... But God concedes\nnothing to the master beyond what the law of love allows. Paul requires\nfor servants not only what is strictly just, but [Greek: t\u00ean isot\u00eata].\nWhat is that? Literally, it is _equality_. This is not only its\nsignification, but its meaning. Servants are to be treated by their\nmasters on the principles of equality. Not that they are to be equal\nwith their masters in authority or station or circumstances; but that\nthey are to be treated as having, as men, as husbands, and as parents,\nequal rights with their masters. It is just as great a sin to deprive a\nservant of the just recompense for his labor, or to keep him in\nignorance, or to take from him his wife or child, as it is to act thus\ntowards a free man. This is the equality which the law of God demands,\nand on this principle the final judgment is to be administered. Christ\nwill punish the master for defrauding the servant as severely as he will\npunish the servant for robbing his master. The same penalty will be\ninflicted for the violation of the conjugal or parental rights of the\none as of the other. For, as the apostle adds, there is no respect of\npersons with him. At his bar the question will be, \"What was done?\" not\n\"Who did it?\" Paul carries this so far as to apply the principle not\nonly to the acts, but to the temper of masters. They are not only to act\ntowards their servants on the principles of justice and equity, but are\nto _avoid threatening_. This includes all manifestation of contempt and\nill temper, or undue severity. All this is enforced by the consideration\nthat masters have a Master in heaven, to whom they are responsible for\ntheir treatment of their servants.... Believers will act in conformity\nwith the Gospel in this. And the result of such obedience, if it could\nbecome general, would be, that first the evils of slavery, and then\nslavery itself, would pass away naturally, and as healthfully as\nchildren cease to be minors.\n\n_Prof. Hodge's Commentary._\n\n[D] See 2 Brevard's Digest, 229; Prince's Digest, 446.\n\n[E] Civil Code, Art. 35.\n\n[F] Job ch. 32, v. 17-20, Barnes's translation.\n\n[G] It is sometimes said that the crime of adultery is neither\nperpetrated nor encouraged by the breaking up of slave-families,\nbecause, generally, the connections formed are not truly marriage, not\nbeing solemnized according to forms of law, and hence the marriage\nobligation _cannot_ be violated.\n\nIt may be replied, if this be so, it presents slavery in a worse light\nstill, for it encourages and perpetuates a state of universal\nconcubinage. But it is _not_ so. When a slave takes a companion, and\nthey consent and engage to live together as husband and wife until\ndeath, and they thus declare their intentions before others, whether any\nlegal form is gone through or not, they are as truly \"no more twain but\none flesh\" as were Adam and Eve. It has been thus decided by our courts\nin regard to white persons.\n\n[H] Rev. R. I. Breckenridge, D. D.\n\n[I] Mehemet Ali.\n\n[J] The publishers understand the writer to mean, that the working of\nthem without wages,--the withholding that which is just and\nequal,--should be immediately and universally abandoned, and that\nemancipation should be granted as speedily as the slaves can be prepared\nto use and enjoy their freedom. The right should be acknowledged, and\nthe needful means for its security immediately used. The writer does not\nsay, that holding men in bondage is not generally sinful, nor that all\nsin should not be immediately repented of and forsaken, but only that\nthere may be exceptions where for a time, and under very peculiar\ncircumstances, it may not be sinful, and cannot consistently with the\ngreatest good be abandoned, without some previous means of preparation.","title":"Three Prize Essays on American Slavery","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":28250}